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, Axios Fake News, Climate Change, Science Credibility, Chuck Schumer, Ukraine War, MAGA Republicans, Student Debt Relief, VP Harris, President Trump Abortion, Lindsey Graham Abortion, Ken Buck MTG, China Energy Production, Brazil Supreme Court, Alexandre de Moraes, Brazil X, Elon Musk, Michael Shellenberger, Brazil Backdoor Play, Election Integrity, Zone of Expected Behavior, Peter Navarro, Coleman Hughes, Israel Hamas War, 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
Alright, good morning everybody and welcome to Coffee with Scott.
That was the best thing that will ever happen to you today.
If you'd like this experience to go up to levels that, oh, even Elon Musk's rocket ships can't reach, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tegger, a chalice, a stein, a guillotine, a jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip of the heavens and alcohol.
So good.
Delightful.
Well, today's theme that I'll ease into is, Has Adam Schiff Destroyed the World?
I'm not sure if I can make that theme work with the stories today, but I'm going to try really hard.
I'm going to force it into every story.
Well, Colin Rugg reports that there's a Mexican media outlet, RCG Media, they're playing a video of the, well, they're trying to play a video of the eclipse, but somehow, accidentally, they ran a video of a man's testicles.
So they meant to show the eclipse, but they showed a man's balls.
Now, I don't have much information about this, but the only person who has balls big enough to confuse with the sun had to be Trump.
They didn't say it was balls that were, I think it's Trump's.
Because, you know, other people, maybe they have balls as big as the moon.
Small satellite.
But no, if it's the size of the sun, probably Trump's balls.
Do you all know who Jony Ive is?
He's the amazing designer who made things like iPhones and iPads and stuff for Apple.
He doesn't work for Apple anymore, but the news says, and Rowan Cheung is reporting this, that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman is going to work with Jony Ive To create what they call an AI device, a personal device, that will not look like a phone.
A personal device that does not look like a phone.
Now, I assume it's for communication.
Probably not a sex toy, but that's just a guess.
So, I've been telling you for several years now that the future would be phones that did not have apps.
The app ruined the phone.
In my opinion, you know, it made the phone possible because it created a market and you need a market for things to work.
But the experience of using the phone is completely destroyed by apps.
The fact that you have to, you know, figure out which app to use and download it and update it every time you want to do something is terrible.
So imagine if you had some AI driven thing that you could just sort of do whatever you wanted, even if it didn't have an app.
Instead of apps, it should be using APIs, connections to other services, so it can just go do its thing and control the other services.
So that's what we're looking for.
CNN had a big front news story that the historically black college students, they have a union, and they had some kind of meeting about how Gaza Mirrors black American experience.
That was the CNN headline.
That the situation in Gaza mirrors the black American experience.
I didn't read the article.
I don't know if it means that the students at the historically black colleges are planning to go on a murderous rampage.
I don't know.
Am I interpreting this correctly?
Because they're saying that black Americans have the Gaza experience and there's a parallel.
Are they planning some kind of a major attack on motorcycles?
No, they're not.
I'm just joking because it's a ridiculous story.
Because comparing Gaza to the black American experience sounds like the dumbest fucking thing I've heard all day.
Speaking of dumb things, DEI is taking another hit from Shaloming the God, he's talking about it again.
And I liked how he framed it.
He framed it as, you know, there are real things that could help the black community, but DEI isn't any of them.
Which is a really good frame.
Yeah, there are lots of things you could do to help the black community, but DEI is just marketing to cover your ass.
That's exactly what it is.
It's corporate marketing to cover their asses, after George Floyd.
And that's probably the clearest, cleanest description of what's wrong with DEI.
So, Charlemagne the God, for the win, a communication win, of framing this exactly right.
DEI is a marketing thing.
That corporations do to cover their ass.
It's not, has nothing really to do with black people.
That's completely true.
It's not really, it's not even designed to help black people.
It's designed entirely for marketing.
Entirely.
All right, Axios has another funny headline.
Have you noticed that the news has gone from what you thought was news, and that was a little boring years ago, And then you thought, oh, this news is maybe not 100% accurate.
Do you remember when you thought that?
The first time you thought, I'm not sure about this news.
They say it's news, but it feels like they're just making it up.
Do you remember when you first realized that the news wasn't real?
I think everybody has to go through that phase if they get old enough.
Someday you realize, wait a minute, I don't think the news has ever been real.
So Axios says this in a post on Axios says that Latino support for Trump is rising despite, here's the keyword, Trump's Latino support is rising despite what they call his persistently racist rhetoric about immigrants.
And he says the results point to a troubling gap in support for Biden.
Now, here's what I love about this.
How much do you love When the news has to report that reality is not conforming to their narrative.
Because Trump being a racist is completely just narrative.
There's no factual basis to it.
The factual basis is that he uses hyperbole when he says there's a lot of crime coming across the border.
That's it.
That's racist?
That he uses hyperbole on that topic like every other topic.
So in other words, he talks about the immigrants exactly the way he talks about windmills.
Do you know how he talks about windmills?
He says if you're watching TV and the wind stops blowing, your TV will go off.
Is that exactly true?
Is that precisely how the science works?
No.
No, it's not exactly precisely true.
It's a thing called hyperbole.
And when he says that there's crime coming across the border, he really doesn't mean the babies.
He's not saying, you know, I don't trust the babies either.
It's more that some people, and maybe too many for us to tolerate.
But Axios has decided that that's his persistently racist rhetoric, and they can't figure out why the narrative, the fake news that they've been creating and selling to the public for now years, the public isn't quite buying it.
And they're like, oh, what is it?
Some kind of troubling, troubling discrepancy here.
Like, why are these people thinking for themselves?
Which is in itself, wait for it, wait for the big drop, racist.
It's racist.
Axios can't understand why Latinos are supporting Trump.
They're acting like Latinos can't understand the news or something.
How about maybe Latinos know you're full of shit?
How about they don't trust the news?
How about they just look at what seems to work and what doesn't seem to work?
How about if you're surprised by any of this, you've never met anybody in the Hispanic or Latino community?
Because I'm surrounded by that community.
Literally every day, every day probably, yeah, literally every day, I interact with somebody from that community.
I can tell you that they're not buying every narrative you're selling them.
The most common thing I hear from any immigrant person in the United States, the most common thing, no matter where I am, it doesn't even matter if I'm in my own hometown, The most common thing is whispered, you know, I kind of like Trump.
Be honest.
I kind of like him.
I hear that all the time from people not born in this country, probably every week.
And if you're Axios, maybe, maybe you don't live in that community.
So you wouldn't know.
Well, uh, here's some climate change news from the spectator index, whatever that is.
Um, the world, they say the world had its hottest March on record.
Marking the 10th straight month of broken global temperature records according to the EU's Copernicus Climate Change Service.
Now, is that a gigantic problem?
First of all, is it an indication that humans are warming the planet?
I don't know.
In order to know that, I would have to trust science.
Why would you trust science in 2024?
There's no reason to.
They've removed all of our reasons to trust them on the big stuff.
So, I don't know.
My take on climate science is there's nobody credible to give me any information.
If you think that science is credible in 2024, you're not paying attention.
The scientists will clearly say whatever is in their consensus, because that's how they get paid.
So science is pretty much about just getting paid.
I don't know if there was ever something else.
But at the moment, it's just a paycheck.
And any imaginary belief that it's all about what's true and crawling toward the truth and using the process.
Well, ideally, ideally, but in the real world, people just working for a boss, working for a paycheck.
So no, there's not any credible science in 2024.
Some of it might be true.
But you wouldn't know.
There's nobody to ask.
You wouldn't have any way to know what's true.
So anyway, here's my take on that.
I saw just yesterday, by coincidence, a list of what somebody claimed were accurate climate change predictions.
It was a long list.
Maybe 20 items on it.
And the claim was that every one of these items was predicted by climate change scientists, and therefore, if they can predict, Then their version of reality has some credibility.
Now, first of all, I love that.
As an approach to understanding what's true, I'm so on board with, if it can predict, it's probably as true as you can get.
You know, I've been saying that forever.
You don't know what's true, but you can tell what consistently works.
That's about all you can tell.
So I treat those things as true.
And if something doesn't predict, Well, maybe it wasn't ever true.
So, the climate people have made a number of predictions.
They tended to be everything from temperature going up to... One of the predictions was, it stuck in my mind, apparently climate change predicts that winters will warm faster than summers.
Have you ever heard that?
Yeah, there is a cherry picking problem because of the 20 that maybe they got right, probably there were a few that they got wrong and they just leave those out, which means they're not, they're not predicting.
Remember, all their predictions are binary, meaning they happen or they don't.
So they're going to say there's less ice or there's not less ice.
It's just binary.
So if you make a hundred binary predictions and 20 of them come true, What have you really predicted?
Maybe nothing.
Maybe nothing.
Because maybe 20 out of 100 is not so good.
So, here's my take.
If it's true, and I'm not positive, but if it's true that they say climate change will warm the winters more than the summers, isn't that a net positive?
If you could change the world in one way to make it a better place for everybody, It would be warming the winters.
Wouldn't it?
Am I wrong?
That warming the winters would be just about the best thing you could possibly do because you'd use less energy and the cold kills way more people than the warmth does.
So I, you know, it's a matter of degree, right?
If, if the warming of the summers goes up 10 degrees, you know, maybe people get fried in a lot of places.
But if the summers go up two degrees, I'm sorry, if the winter goes up, let's say an average of two degrees, don't you grow more food and more people survive and you use less electricity to keep yourself warm and you don't get trapped in the snow as much?
So I guess what this story needed was the so what.
When they say that March is the hottest on record, they're talking about the whole world.
But some of the world is experiencing something closer to winter, and some is experiencing something closer to summer.
Wouldn't you like to know if the winters got warmer but the summers stayed roughly the same, and it changed the average?
Because it's literally the difference between something good happened and something bad happened.
But the data doesn't tell you that.
It tells you what happened, but my brain doesn't know, is that good or is that bad?
You tell me.
And if it keeps going, Is it catastrophic?
I don't know.
I don't know.
All right.
Chuck Schumer is saying that the MAGA Republicans are solely responsible for Ukraine losing the war.
Yeah.
Yeah, that's what it is.
If you didn't have MAGA Republicans getting in the way, by now Ukraine would have swept its terrific army across the Russian landscape.
And Russia would be gone by now if only the MAGA Republicans had done their job, their patriotic duty to Ukraine.
Wait a minute, I'm confused.
Let me say it again because I confused myself halfway through the sentence.
As Chuck Schumer would say, if only the MAGA Republicans would do their patriotic Wait, how does that work?
It's Ukraine.
Giving our money to Ukraine.
Okay, somehow that's supposed to be good for us.
And he says the MAGA Republicans are the ones holding up.
I have a tip for you.
Anybody who uses the phrase MAGA Republicans, don't listen to anything else I say.
Nothing.
If the phrase MAGA Republicans comes out of your mouth, You are allowed to just walk away.
You could walk away in the middle of the conversation.
You could be talking like you could be meeting Chuck Schumer for the first time.
You're like, whoa, I can't believe I'm meeting this important politician.
And then he says, blah, blah, blah, MAGA Republicans.
You could just turn around and walk away.
Because that's not a serious person.
And that's not a person who's even selling himself.
As being serious.
That's just a clown.
That's just a clown.
Doing a clown show.
And if you didn't come for a clown show, you don't need to stick around.
But no serious politician is saying MAGA Republican.
Right?
That's pure political narrative, and as soon as you hear that, just, I don't need to hear anything else.
Well, meanwhile, Kamala Harris is working on the plan to buy votes from young people by Cancelling their student debt relief.
And when I say cancelled, I mean transferred to me.
And they should put it that way.
No, you're not cancelling any debt.
You're just moving it to people who didn't take on the responsibility.
So, do you see the pattern yet?
Let's reward the people who are doing the wrong things.
And let's punish the people who are doing the right things.
And why would we do that?
Oh, I know.
It's because Democrats don't know anything about how human motivation works, and nothing about how a system works.
That all the parts have to work?
Together?
It's honestly as if they don't understand anything about how the real world works.
It's purely a lack of understanding, awareness of their own situation and everybody else's.
Or, It's like MAGA Republicans and it's a cynical attempt to buy votes and they're completely aware of what they're doing.
Probably that.
Meanwhile, I guess Trump and Lindsey Graham are having another lover's spat.
It's another lover's spat.
It's over abortion.
Lindsey Graham wants to keep the baby that he and Trump have produced.
Trump says it's up to Lindsey Graham whether he has an abortion or not.
No, I'm just making all this up, but it feels like they're having some kind of a lover's spat.
Have you noticed that Trump and Lindsey Graham go from best friends, can't wait to golf with you, buddy, to you must be stopped.
So at the moment, Trump is anti-Lindsey Graham because Lindsey Graham, I don't know, I can't explain or read his mind, but he's pushing the complete destruction of civilization.
Literally.
I don't think that's even hyperbole.
Now, he's not doing that directly, but he's doing it in a way that, in my opinion, guarantees it, if he were to succeed.
So he's pushing, instead of Trump, who perfectly split the baby, so to speak, On abortion.
By the way, did you know that Trump's current position that he just announced on abortion is exactly Joe Biden's position on abortion in 2006?
It's literally exactly the same.
Which, by the way, is a strong thing to say.
But Lindsey Graham trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory where Trump had just, honestly, I don't think he could have done it any better.
The way he handled the fact that abortion is just something we're never going to agree on, so what do you do?
Now, you don't have to agree with him, but from a political point of view, I just don't think he could have done it any better.
I think he nailed it, as hard as you could have nailed that, by being basically the reasonable person in the room who just understood that if you lose the election, you lose everything.
You not only lose any hope of influencing abortion laws, you lose everything.
You lose the whole country.
You become Brazil.
You don't want to fall like Brazil did.
That's now a dictatorship if you weren't, if you weren't aware of that.
So Trump comes up with this perfectly good idea for framing abortion to make it a state's issue, take it off the federal, you know, top of brain situation.
And Lindsey Graham wants to put it right back there in the top.
And go down losing on abortion, and losing the election, and losing everything including the country, and maybe that would lead to the complete dissolution of civilization.
Trump, knowing that this is the dumbest thing anybody ever did in politics.
So, since Lindsey Graham is clearly not dumb, what's going on?
Does anybody have a theory?
Because if you tell me, no, he's operating on principle, I would say, no, he's not.
He's not operating on principle.
He's a politician.
They don't do that.
That's so unlikely that he's operating on principle.
But I don't know what he's operating on, because he's not operating on the good of the world.
He's not operating for his team.
I don't know.
What the hell is he doing?
I mean, if you put a gun to my head and said you've got to come up with a theory of why he's acting this way, I would say blackmail or bribery.
Probably blackmail, because he's probably comfortable.
So I'd say blackmail.
I can't even think of another reason.
I can't think of a single other reason he would act this way other than being blackmailed.
Because the alternative explanation Is that somebody you've seen acting very smart in public forever suddenly is an idiot?
That's not happening.
Or that suddenly he's operating on principle?
That's not happening.
Come on.
You know that's not happening.
So what is it?
Anyway, Trump's right.
Lindsey Graham's wrong.
We'll see how that goes.
But here's something that sort of snuck up on all of us.
When I say it, you're going to immediately register it as true, and then you're going to say, why isn't everybody saying that?
Because it's so obviously true.
Here it comes.
Trump is running the best campaign I've ever seen.
That's it.
That's not a news story.
Why isn't it?
Why isn't that the news story?
It's the best presidential campaign anybody's ever run, in my opinion.
It's close to flawless.
His messaging, his timing, his sense of suspense and mystery.
Even the way he's handling the speculation about vice president.
The way he plays with that and puts the names out and tests it.
The way he's listening to the public.
Wouldn't you agree that the way Trump handled the abortion question Almost certainly, as a result of people that he listened to, and absorbing the best ideas, and then executing.
I mean, you're seeing something close to perfection in the political realm, right?
You can still not like his policies or whatever, but in terms of execution, He went from not knowing how to do this stuff in 2016, but still managing to make it work, to really knowing how to work this stuff.
His lack of self-errors of any substance is remarkable, given how much he says.
And the funny thing is that the media trying to Keep him off their airways is totally working for him.
You know, in 2016, he had to be on every show to take all the energy out of the room.
And that worked.
But now he has all the energy.
He's the candidate.
He can't get any more energy than that.
So he doesn't need their energy.
But what he does need is for them not to have extra reasons to take things out of context.
So he just doesn't talk, you know, he just isn't really on CNN that much.
And that works for him.
He does his rallies, and those work.
And they get news.
And his policy positions, I think, have been either nuanced or cleverly avoiding things that would be trouble.
I mean, so far, Trump has managed to not get blamed for anything that's happening in Israel or Gaza.
I mean, not by the public, anyway.
But Biden is.
How did that happen?
Do you think that Trump's policies are going to be any more favorable in Michigan?
The people who don't like America supporting Israel, they're not going to like Trump better.
He's about as pro-Israel as anybody's ever been, maybe the most.
And yeah, he's getting a free pass.
I think it's because he doesn't bring it up, which is also really good technique.
So, if you look at the things that Trump is doing, they look largely right, including defying the gag order.
Just look at any one thing he's doing, defying the gag order.
Perfect.
Yeah.
For his situation, for the time, for the moment, for reading the room, perfect.
His ability to read a room is unparalleled.
Let me say that.
But when you add his ability to read the room, With what I believe is the best advice he's ever gotten.
And by the way, you could just feel the partnership between Vivek and Trump.
Can't you just feel it from a distance?
It's almost, it's palpable.
Because when he looked at Trump's statement, it just had, it just had that flavor of good advice.
Didn't it?
And even the wording, the exact wording of things, it looked like he's really getting the best of the political advice at the moment.
So the fact that that's not a top-line story, that he's just nailing this thing, is surprising.
I was watching former Representative Ken Buck, I guess he's retired, Republican, retired, and he was talking about Marjorie Taylor Greene and You know, wanting to not fund Ukraine and stuff.
So he's talking about Marjorie Taylor Greene and says she's getting her talking points from Russia.
So, would you agree with me that anybody who says that, especially a Republican, would you agree that that's a lie that he knows is a lie?
Probably.
Don't you think?
He would be well aware that that would be hyperbole.
At the very least, it's hyperbole.
So the funny thing is I always talk about liar face.
You know, the people get saucer eyes.
But the saucer eyes works in conjunction with the eyebrows going up, and also the wrinkle in the forehead, because they happen at the same time.
So sometimes you'll see one without the other, and I think there's a Botox reason for some of it, but I'm not positive.
You know, like Nancy Pelosi.
You might see the eyes, but not the forehead.
But look for eyes, eyebrows, or forehead.
If any of them go up, That's usually a sign that the person talking knows they're going into the lie.
And I'm watching this guy on CNN, and I'm looking for it, because now it's sort of fun.
It's become like a little sport I have, where I'm looking for the lie.
I actually literally play these interviews with the sound off, and I see if I can find the lie first, and then I turn the sound on and see if it actually identified the point of the lie.
But this one is hilarious, because Ken Buck Has this thing where a really deep line forms on his forehead at the point where he's lying.
And I thought, you would be the worst poker player in the entire world.
It's like almost the words form on his forehead.
I'm going into the lying phase now, because you see, you have to play it back.
It's in my ex feed.
But you have to see the line form when he's talking about Marjorie Taylor Greene taking her talking points from Russia.
It's hilarious.
The only way it would be funnier is if the straight line that forms actually formed the cursive words.
I'm beginning to lie right now.
It would actually spell it out.
But I'll bet he's never won at poker.
Not even once.
Anyway.
I saw a post by S.L.
Kintham showing that China's energy growth is up 6,000% over the last 25 years, and the USA's electricity generation is flat for 25 years.
And so the theory is we're going to get dominated by China, I guess, because they're building all kinds of power, and you need all this power to survive.
So therefore, if they're up 6,000% and we're up nothing, they must be gaining on us.
Well, what's wrong with that?
Do you see anything wrong with that analysis?
China increased their electricity 6,000% compared to nothing, just flat for 25 years.
Which one of us is winning?
Well, first of all, all data is suspicious.
You know, don't believe something you saw on the internet.
But let's say it's true.
Does that necessarily mean that it's all bad news for the USA and all good news for China?
I'm going to say no.
All right, let me give you another data point.
In my lifetime, the number of Mexicans who got telephones for the first time is way more than the number of Americans who got a telephone for the first time.
So Mexico is going to dominate the United States, because if you're looking at the growth of phones, Smartphones now, well, my God, I mean, they're growing so much faster than we are.
It's because they started with nothing.
Of course, they're up 6,000%.
You know, China probably had immense regions with no electricity.
We didn't have any.
So between the fact that we figured out how to be more efficient with our electricity, and the fact that we had enough and everybody had it, We didn't really need to go up 6,000%.
In fact, we had a luxury that we had done so well.
You know, we had more electric conserving utilities and everything on products.
So everything just used less power.
So we were flat.
So we totally won that.
The other side isn't winning.
We had all we needed.
Now, reliability is an issue, right?
If California managed its energy better, we wouldn't sometimes have to turn off the lights.
That's the California thing.
In the middle of the summer, you'll get a message like, you know, it'd really help us if you turned off your lights right now.
We're a little tight on energy.
But that's just management.
That's just poor management.
We have enough.
Even California has plenty of electricity.
We just manage it poorly.
Turn off the things we shouldn't turn off.
All right, the European Court of Human Rights, which I didn't even know existed.
Apparently it's the highest human rights court that ruled that its member nations must protect its citizens from climate change.
What?
So 2,000 Swiss women sued their government Well, let me ask you this question.
What would be enough?
There's no such thing as enough.
So it might start a legal precedent where governments will be sued for not doing enough about climate change.
Well, let me ask you this question.
What would be enough?
There's no such thing as enough.
It wouldn't matter what you were doing.
Do you think Switzerland could fix the climate problem?
What exactly was Switzerland supposed to do?
Were you worried about climate change destroying the world, and then you found that the Swiss had reduced the electricity they used to make chocolate?
And then you said, oh, finally, all that wasted electricity making chocolate the inefficient way.
Thank God!
Thank God the Swiss fixed that!
What in the fucking world are the Swiss going to do about climate change?
What?
With their little population of 10 million, they're supposed to get us out of climate change?
The Swiss?
Leave the Swiss alone!
The Swiss should leave themselves alone.
I mean, what's the point of being, you know, this non-aligned independent country If your own citizens are attacking you.
They didn't have enough external threat, so they had to attack each other.
Anyway, that seemed dumb.
Well, as you know, Brazil is a totalitarian government now, pretending to be a democracy.
They've got this big judge, who apparently seems more important than the leader of the country.
So maybe he is the leader.
Elon Musk suggests that the judge, Demore, is that his name?
Yeah, Demores is a big old dictator.
Now, Ian and Miles Chang did some research on some public information, Time Magazine, etc.
And how this Brazilian judge, who, now the judge is the one who is trying to close the X platform in Brazil, just to catch you up so you have all the background, right?
So the idea is that X was not removing people from the platform, that the current government of Brazil says, these are bad people, remove them from the platform.
And it really is just critics, the people on the other side.
Now because free speech don't play that way, and Elon Musk doesn't play that way, they're at a standoff where apparently some of the X employees in Brazil are at risk of going jail.
That's actually a possibility.
So I think they're probably scrambling to get them out of there at this point, I would assume.
But anyway, here's the story about how this judge who seems like a terror, um, how did he get power?
Well, I'll summarize the story.
Uh, the person who had the job before him, Died in a mysterious plane crash which had no mechanical problems.
The one who died apparently was a critic or was investigating a whole bunch of powerful people in Brazil, powerful people in the government.
So the one who was investigating the powerful people, such as the leader of the country, died in a suspicious crash of an airplane that didn't have any technical difficulty that they've determined.
And then, this new guy, Demarais, gets promoted up to that job, and immediately does the bidding of the leaders of the country, and arrests critics, and without trials and stuff.
So basically, as soon as he got in office, he just got rid of the problem.
So, if the reporting's correct, Then Brazil's just essentially a criminal enterprise, and the judge is essentially the mafia that's taking people down to support the criminal enterprise that is the government.
Now that would be one way to look at it.
So that's happening, and the situation is getting more complicated and deeper, but it's Brazil against Axe.
And obviously, duh, if a big American company and an American, Elon Musk, are in some kind of a mortal fight with a country in our hemisphere, the one thing you can depend on is that the Biden administration totally backing Musk against Brazil.
Right?
Biden is totally backing the American, right?
And free speech?
No, nothing like that is happening.
Do you know why?
Because, as Mike Benz is teaching us, and I hope I'm getting this right, America uses other countries to attack its own critics in America.
Elon Musk would be a critic of the Biden administration.
And so using Europe and Brazil to shut down X is part of Biden's plan.
That is as evil as you could possibly be.
Totally evil.
Now, if you've seen the picture of the judge, you can tell by his face, he's a demented demon and probably not even human.
Now, he might be human, but he has a demon face.
Now, how many times have I told you, you can tell by looking at the face.
I'm sorry.
You look at Judge Angoran.
You look at Letitia James.
You look at this guy.
No, you can tell by the face.
There's something very wrong with these people.
There's something very wrong.
Now, it might be mental illness, but it does look like demons.
I don't believe in demons, but I'm telling you what it looks like.
They actually look possessed by evil.
I assume it's mental illness.
But my God, it's scary.
And how in the world can you ignore it?
You've all seen a picture of this judge by now?
You all had exactly the same impression.
Oh my God, that guy's pure evil.
Well, it turns out, he's pure evil.
Letitia James looks pure evil.
Turns out, she's pure evil.
Fonny Willis looks pure evil.
Turns out, she's pure evil.
Uh, rapper and artist 50 Cent doesn't look pure evil, does he?
And sure enough, he just seems like a cool guy.
I'm just picking him randomly, he was in the news.
But 50 Cent, you just look at his face and you say, well, there's a, there's a decent guy.
I'd like, like to hang out with him.
You can tell by looking at the face.
You can.
And to ignore it is, I don't know, it's just crazy at this point.
So Michael Schellenberger is down working with some of the Brazilian resistance, if I could call them that, but a member of the Brazilian Congress who's been trying to battle all this bad stuff happening in Brazil, the corruption.
Apparently he's going to partner up with Michael Schellenberger, whose fame from the Twitter files is well known to all of you.
But it sounds like, I don't know if I have this right, but it sounds like there's a Brazilian Twitter files situation.
Meaning that perhaps, with Musk's help, Schellenberger could find some embarrassing things about the Brazilian corrupt government and their attempts to censor, or maybe more than that, in the Twitter files.
So it's getting more interesting, people.
Nobody's backing down.
Well, here's a story that I don't understand.
See if you can help me understand this story.
In Northampton County in Pennsylvania, they're gonna test 300 voting machines, because they've had some issues, and they want to make sure that their voting machines work, and they're not confident that they can say that, so they're gonna test them.
Huh.
They say there's room for improvement.
Well, now I'm all confused.
If there's no chance that the 2020 election was rigged, Why would you need to test all these machines?
And what does it mean that there's room for improvement if the election was already perfect?
You do realize you're getting both narratives at the same time, right?
We're going to plug all these holes in the election that had no holes.
They're both in the news.
Simultaneously, we're plugging all the major holes that would allow corruption In the system that never really had any holes.
And certainly it was a perfect system, and if there was any problems, you'd know.
I mean, you'd know.
Duh, you'd know.
But we keep improving the thing that was perfect.
I don't know.
It's a head-scratcher.
It's a head-scratcher.
Rasmussen asked the likely voters, What they thought about the idea that the Democrats are importing migrants to increase their voting majorities.
78% of likely U.S.
voters believe it is important to prevent illegal immigrants from voting.
78% say that.
Whereas, let's see, what else do they say?
But 57% of voters agree with Musk, Elon Musk, that Biden has a strategy to bring in people for voting reasons.
57%, so a solid majority of Americans think that this is not about immigration.
They think it's a political play.
57%!
That means basically all the Republicans plus, you know, a healthy dollop of Democrats think the same thing.
Well, okay.
So I'd like to go to the White Board now and tell you why I'm certain the 2020 elections were rigged.
You ready?
I'm not going to give any evidence for that being rigged.
I'm going to tell you why I'm certain that it was, With no evidence, I have no information, no new information.
You've seen all the stories.
I'm not, I'm not referring to them whatsoever.
I'm going to tell you why I'm confident the election was rigged.
Very confident.
But I don't have any new information.
I'm not going to tell you anything you haven't heard and nothing that Democrats are not aware of.
All right?
It goes like this.
This is a persuasion lesson as well.
Bye.
Bye.
Here's how to hide something in plain sight.
I'm going to give you a story to understand it first.
Let's say Sam Altman and Joni Ive develop a new replacement for your phone that uses AI.
And unbeknownst to you, they developed it to look like a bottle of water.
Exactly like it, like it just looks like a bottle of water.
But it happens to be an AI powered device.
You'd say, hey, bottle of water, go get me some information, you know, book me a hotel.
So it'd be like that.
Now, just imagine that's true, right?
Now, you don't know that they're working on this.
So you have no idea that the phone they've developed looks like a bottle of water.
And then Sam Ullman says, hey, can you do me a favor?
I left my phone prototype in that other room.
Can you go get that for me?
So you go in the other room to pick up the phone prototype and you're like, phone prototype?
I don't see one.
Because you would be expecting, you'd be expecting the phone to look like a little digital device.
So if something is unexpected, you can't see it.
You become blind to the unexpected.
It's the same reason I can't find things.
In fact, I had this exact situation the other day.
I was looking for the pump for my bicycle tires and I knew exactly where I put it.
I knew it was on the corner of a countertop exactly where it was and I couldn't find it.
And I stood at that exact countertop and I'm like, well, I don't see that pump, but I know I left it here.
Where is it?
Now keep in mind, I was searching an area that was maybe two feet by two feet.
And there was only one item in it, which was the pump.
And I couldn't find it.
Because in my memory, the pump looked different.
So I was looking for something that I, you know, inaccurately remember to look like something else.
I think I confused it with some other device.
So I kept looking right at it, and I'm like, damn, I finally couldn't find that pump.
Because it wasn't what I expected.
So generally speaking, you can be blinded by anything that you don't expect.
So here's how it seems clear to me that the election was rigged.
Prior to the last few years, if you had said that there was a rigged election, let's say you made the claim, and I heard that for the first time, I would say, oh, come on, come on.
The zone of expected behavior in the USA does not include a rigged election.
Like that is so far out of the zone of things you could expect to happen in the United States.
That you just sort of, you don't even see it.
Then let's say somebody, people say, but Scott, I'm not making this up.
I've got some evidence.
So you show me some evidence and then I do this.
Where's the evidence?
I can't see it.
It's right in front of you, right here.
Yeah, well that's what you say, but where is it?
You would be literally cognitively blind to seeing a counter-argument.
So you call this, you know, confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance, if you want to put fancy words on it.
But you'd basically be blind to seeing the obvious, because your expectations don't allow it.
But suppose your expectations changed.
Suppose something that was confirmed to be true was also outside of this zone.
Let's say, for example, I don't know, a major hoax about Russia collusion organized by the Democrats and intelligence people and involving other countries.
Effectively a coup?
Well, that's way outside, but proven, proven.
So, you got, you know, one little data point, like, okay, yeah, maybe, maybe that one time there was that thing that was outside of normal behavior, but you know, that's just that one thing.
And then, then let's say you saw the laptop hoax, where 50 Intel people Got together to lie about the nature of the laptop?
Well, that was outside of my experience, too.
To see them blatantly lie under the color of our own intelligence?
That's like the worst thing I've ever seen.
It's hard to even think of anything in American history that wasn't violent that was worse.
So that was way outside my expected zone.
Anything else like that happen?
Yeah.
How about the January 6th insurrection hoax?
I watched in amazement as my own Congress, members of it, the January 6th Committee, ran an insurrection in front of us by claiming that the other group was doing an insurrection without guns.
And then they put them in jail.
Right in front of us.
While we watched.
And it was obviously fake.
And it was obviously not an insurrection.
And they're in jail.
Do you know how far that is outside of what I expect from America?
Well, it's way outside of this.
It's way outside of Reagan election.
It's worse than that.
They did it right in front of us.
They made us fucking watch.
There's a real story.
My ex-boss, where I worked at the phone company, his father was a captured prisoner of World War II.
The Japanese captured him.
And they would take them out, and for the entertainment of the troops, they would make them dig their own hole for their grave.
They would tie them to a stake, and they would ceremoniously With great fanfare, behead them with a special sword just for that one slice.
Head falls in the hole and then the swords guy would use the, I think, clothes of the guy to clean his sword and then push the rest of the body into the hole and everybody would cheer.
That's what the January 6th committee looked like to me.
It looked like not only were they fucking us in front of the public, but they were making us watch.
They were making us watch.
That feels worse.
Like having everybody watch you behead the guy and push him in the grave.
That's what it felt like.
Then you've got the, uh, oh, let's say the, uh, fine people hoax.
You've got BLM and Antifa, which, which by the way, At this point, we do know we're fake, and we do know that that was our own intelligence people behind it.
I think that's fair to say.
Now we're watching the Brazilian play and the European play.
Let's say the Mike Benz model of our government using other countries to not only get access to surveil our own people, so we could say, oh, if you had a phone call with a Russian, we can get into all of your stuff, no matter what that phone call was about.
So we've watched our government completely destroy the First Amendment.
We've watched them use external companies to pressure the social media people.
We've seen, you know, fake organizations formed.
We've seen... And now the Brazil backdoor play.
And don't get me started about Ukraine.
Ukraine.
That is exactly what it looks like, people.
It's exactly what it looks like.
It's just this huge money-energy play that's just pure evil.
And that, too, is outside of what I expect.
Now, you might say, but Scott, we've always been that bad.
Maybe.
I don't know.
Maybe we have.
But I didn't expect it.
So what does this do?
It extends your zone of expected behavior.
So it used to be that I expected us to do things that are mostly good.
Now, maybe once in a while there'll be a My Lai massacre, but that's just one person.
But now you can see that the entire system is so corrupt from top to bottom.
I didn't even do the pandemic.
I didn't even put the pandemic on this chart yet.
I mean, just think about that.
The pandemic.
Everything that was wrong about that, that wasn't, it didn't even occur to me to put it on the chart, but I will.
And so, the zone of expected behavior in the United States has increased in the last several years to easily, easily include a fake election.
In fact, I'll go farther.
If you tell me that all of these other fucking things happened and the election was fair, you're an idiot.
You would have to be a fucking idiot to see all this other stuff, as bad as anything could possibly be, and then imagine that they would have the ability to rig the election and not do it.
They told you Trump was Hitler, and you think they're not going to rig an election?
Look at what they did do.
Just look at what they did do.
Rigging an election would be a B plus in a place that was, you know, A pluses of bad behavior.
It wouldn't even be slightly unusual.
In fact, the presumption that it was rigged has to be 90%.
Seriously, it's got to be 90% at this point.
Now, if you were to ask the Democrats, What do you think of this theory?
Do you know what they'd say?
What are all those X's?
And I'd say, well, those are all the things we know for sure are our own government's bad behavior.
And they would look at that and say, well, the fine people hoax was real.
And they also say, but Russia collusion was proven.
Manifort went to jail.
I'd say all the stuff with the using the external people to censor, they'd say, well, who did they censor?
People like Trump or Hitler?
Well, that's good.
The pandemic, those vaccinations saved millions of lives.
I don't know what you're talking about.
It's a good thing we locked down.
Right?
So from the perspective of Democrats who have believed the narratives up to this point, They still think a rigged election is sitting out there as an outlier of behavior.
It's not.
It is right in the sweet spot of everything we know our government does.
Right in the middle.
It would be almost unfathomable if they let the elections just run themselves without interference.
Unfathomable.
When everything else that's supposed to be a watchdog is captured.
Everything that's like a think tank is bullshit.
Everything that's a watchdog is wrong.
All of our fact checkers are fake.
The news is completely made up.
But the election was good, right?
No.
No, and yeah, George Floyd, of course.
So, I don't need no facts.
I don't need no facts.
You're gonna have to prove to me you can do an election.
If you drop me in the middle of this briar patch and you say, well, why don't you believe the elections are fair?
I say, I would be an idiot, an idiot in this environment to think that the one most important thing is the one they left alone.
The most important thing.
Yeah.
They're going to leave the most important thing alone.
No, not in any world.
Did they not try to rig it?
I don't know how successful they were.
That'd be another story.
All right.
So, um, so apparently the justice department is going to refuse the subpoena or whatever it is, or the request for documents from the, uh, uh, the investigation.
So the house GOP doing their, Investigation of all things Biden, I guess.
And they wanted to have more information about the conversation between Special Counselor Herr and Biden.
That would be the conversations that Herr said showed that Biden was not coherent, basically.
So apparently they're not going to give them that information.
Do you think somebody needs to go to jail for that?
Because Peter Navarro is in jail.
As long as Peter Navarro's in jail.
By the way, how about that?
Peter Navarro's in jail.
Yeah.
January 6th was in jail.
Yeah.
You put Peter Navarro in jail, and you asked me to believe the fucking election.
No.
Nope.
Nope.
As long as Peter Navarro's in jail, I'm going to say 2020 was a rigged election.
Because you can't have both things.
You can't have a fully corrupt government and then ask me to believe that the elections were the good part.
Nope.
Nope.
You're going to have to get Navarro out of jail.
That's the opening bid to have the conversation.
I'm not even going to have the conversation that it wasn't rigged.
Well, Coleman Hughes making some news, Joe Rogan talking about Gaza, etc.
Rogan was pointing out that the The news that we're getting out of that area is going to convince a lot of people that, you know, the G word is happening, some kind of genocide.
And of course, yeah, I'm not saying it's happening or not happening because that's word thinking.
Um, I'm just going to say we all recognize there's a horrible situation going, but Coleman's take on it, I thought added a frame, a reframe, I guess you'd call it.
That was really productive.
And boy, is he good.
He's so good.
Just explaining things rationally and seeing the whole field.
But I'll try to do my best to summarize what he said, that as long as Hamas had this military strategy of attacking and then hiding among the civilians so you couldn't do much to them, and then increasing their ability, attacking again and hiding,
Increasing their ability attacking and hiding as long as they did that your two options were surrender or kill their civilians and call their bluff and as Coleman points out if you don't make the practice of Attacking and then hiding among your own civilians if you don't penalize that You lose Only two choices you let them keep hiding among their civilians and
And lose.
Or you kill their civilians, you call their bluff.
Now, obviously, you're not just gonna go kill all the civilians just for fun.
You're gonna try to avoid them.
Then, of course, we'll get into the stupid conversation of whether the anecdotes we saw show the Israelis are killing civilians willy-nilly without any regard to whether they're militants.
And, of course, anybody who knows anything, if you've been alive for a while, Every war has atrocities.
Do I think that any individual member of the IDF has done an atrocity?
Of course.
Of course.
How would they not?
You know, if you have enough people, and you put them in this situation, where maybe even people they know were murdered and raped and tortured and everything.
Yeah.
Yeah.
You're going to find at least one person in the military who knows somebody who got killed.
And that person is going to be unpredictable.
Now, would you like to run a war in which there are no atrocities and nobody broke any war crimes?
You want it, but you're not going to get it.
Yeah, Americans don't do it, nobody does it.
If you've ever talked to anybody who's in the military, let's say anybody in the American military, ask them privately if they know about any war crimes.
Yeah.
Ask them privately if they know about any war crimes.
I've heard of quite a few.
But they're anecdotal, meaning that it's an individual who did a thing.
It's not any kind of direction from the top.
But definitely war crimes.
It just didn't come from the top.
So we don't know what's happening in Israel.
It's still a war zone.
But I do like the frame of saying if you allow them to hide in the public, you lose.
It just never ends.
So you pretty much have to call their bluff so that the next group doesn't do it.
You have to make that no longer a strategy that could ever work anywhere in the world.
And Israel is going to be doing a big favor if they call the bluff and it will be enormously expensive.
Not in money, but in terms of reputation, brand, future interactions with the world.
It's really expensive, but the fact that Israel is going to call their bluff probably is necessary.
It's sort of like, you don't like to go to the dentist either, but better do it.
NPR is funny because I guess there's some folks that are admitting now that NPR became a basically a cesspool.
So Barry Weiss has a good interview with some NPR people and one of them was telling That they basically, Trump just broke them, and they just admit it.
It's like, you know, we were basically, you know, a credible outfit until Trump came along, and then we all thought we had to ruin him.
So they actually said they thought their job turned from news to destroying Trump.
Isn't that amazing?
That they admit that their mission changed from the news to destroying Trump.
Because they thought it was so important.
Now, apparently every one of their editors is a Democrat.
But the funniest thing was that one of the NPR guys said that they, quote, latched onto Adam Schiff.
So apparently they had Adam Schiff on over and over again talking about Russia collusion.
And when it finally came out that there was no Russia collusion, which, by the way, The NPR guy admits, no, the Mueller report said no Russia collusion, despite the Manafort part, which was a different situation.
So they actually know that Adam Schiff was just this gigantic liar who was the feature of their network for years.
And it just destroyed their reputation, and I don't know if they could ever get that back.
I mean, seriously.
If Adam Schiff was your go-to guy for something you thought you were selling as the news, well, not so much.
All right.
Hmm.
It looks to me like I've already gone through all my notes, and that, ladies and gentlemen, concludes The best show you're going to see this morning.
And I'm going to spend some time with the Locals folks, so I'll be turning off the main feed here and just keeping the Locals subscribers on here.
I will tease that if you're not reading the Dilbert Reborn comic, which is the spicy stuff that I could never put in newspapers, but still every day, you could subscribe on Locals, scottadams.locals.com, for that plus a lot of other stuff.
Or just the comic.
You can get that with the Daily Digital version on on X. And you'd be missing Ashok, the intern, who is using TikTok until he becomes non-binary.
And it might go from there.
So that's just the setup.
Ashok uses TikTok and turns non-binary.
There's more to come, but that's what you're missing.
And, uh, goodbye to, uh, YouTube and Rumble.
Well, not goodbye, but so long.
And I will see you tomorrow morning, same place, same time.
