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, Type 3 Diabetes, Steven King Ukraine, Mail-In Ballots, Citizen Only Voting, Speaker Johnson, President Trump, J6 Narrative, Inflation Gaslighting, Rep. Jim Clyburn, iPhone Thefts Spike, Zuby, Crime Tolerance, Warrantless FISA, Batshit Crazy Women, Documentary Brainwashing, Sweden Immigration, Climate Change, Al Gore, Israel Iran Tension, 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
A cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gel, a cistern, a canteen, 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.
You know, the day the thing makes everything better.
It's called, silently you sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Ah, so good.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I see you're all bickering about whether the video works or not.
And the answer is, it works fine.
So you might have to open or close your app or something, but it is working fine.
Well, here's an update on all the things.
Our food supply is still poisoned, and now if you've been eating shrimp and lobster, Beware, it might have a lot of forever chemicals in it.
Now, in my town, you have to watch out for the forever chemicals in the water supply.
So the main water supply had some forever chemicals, but it's okay because you could drink out of a plastic water bottle Okay.
And that also has forever chemicals in it.
So don't eat any fish or drink any water or have any, any form of processed foods.
You'll be fine.
You'll be fine.
Basically you should grow and butcher your own cow and eat it raw.
Cause don't overcook it.
That'll get you cancer too.
Well, some scientists at NUS, wherever that is, they think they found the missing link between poor diet and cancer.
So something about too much sugar in your diet, I think, causes the chemical methylgloxyl.
I think I nailed that.
Methylgloxyl, blah, blah, blah.
Methylgloxyl.
Methylgloxyl.
I think that's what it is.
But that gets stimulated by a poor diet and then that gives you cancer.
So I think poor diet gives you Alzheimer's.
Cause now they're calling Alzheimer's, um, type three diabetes.
Do you see the pattern yet?
Let's see.
Uh, sugar is bad for your heart.
If that's your cancer, it gives you Alzheimer's.
Basically sugar is 100% of the things that kills you and seed oils and processed foods and all that stuff.
Yeah.
Bad diet is basically behind most of the cause of death.
There's a revolutionary new quantum material that could double solar efficiency.
So scientists at Lehigh think they're going to double it.
How many times have you heard that somebody figured out how to double the efficiency of a solar panel?
Almost as often as you've heard that cancer has been cured.
Is that sort of a, at least once a week?
Somebody's sure they cured cancer in a mouse, but it didn't work on us.
And they made their solar panels twice as good, but they really couldn't manufacture it.
So these stories tend to be disappointing in the long run, but maybe, maybe.
There's a story, they did a study about chatbots and to see if the chatbots could persuade somebody away from a conspiracy theory.
And they found that they could decrease the belief in conspiracy theories by 20% if the chatbot worked through it.
20%.
Now, that would be 20% without any persuasion training.
How good could it be if I taught it to persuade?
I feel like it'd be a lot better than 20%.
But I also wonder if the reason that a chatbot can change people's minds Is that they believe the chatbot is not lying to them.
Of course they're wrong because it is lying to them, but they would think that the machine is not lying and the machine is not trying to put one over on them because it's not like a person.
You know, if a Democrat and a Republican get in a debate, you're automatically assuming you're lying to me.
It's a trick.
You're gaslighting me.
But if it's a computer, Maybe you don't realize that the gaslighter is just the one who programmed it.
So you're fooled into thinking you're talking to just the computer instead of the programmer.
And maybe that makes you more able to be flexible.
I don't know.
We'll see about that.
Stephen King is posting on X. He says, radical Republicans in the House of Representatives are essentially killing Ukraine.
As one conservative Republican commentator said, Putin must be pinching himself.
Now, does it seem odd to you that Stephen King cares so much about Ukraine?
What's up with that?
This is the sort of thing that makes me wonder how many of our major celebrities are just working with or for our own intelligence people.
As part of the way to get the public on their side.
Because do you think Stephen King really cares about Ukraine?
Like, did he wake up and say, oh, Ukraine's my big issue?
Or do you just think he says that because somebody he likes or wants to make happy wants him to say it?
I don't know.
There's some voices that you hear that just don't look organic.
He would be one of them.
Mexico is allegedly trying to buy some technology, some scanning stuff I guess, to combat fentanyl traffic.
So they want to buy a billion dollars worth of scanning stuff to really, really crack down on that fentanyl.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that, that Mexico, they're going to try really hard to crack down on the fentanyl?
I don't believe that.
To me it looks like they've found a way to launder a billion dollars or Somebody's going to take a cut of the billion dollars.
I don't think it's going to, I think the only fentanyl that'll catch will be at border crossing areas.
And probably it's not a big deal to bring it in another way.
So I think it'll have no impact on the cartels and somebody probably can dip their beak in that.
All right.
So I've got a question about mail-in ballots.
You know, as we know, There have been stories of individual ballots, you know, maybe not being delivered and maybe there's one male person who's a bad egg, that sort of thing.
But not, we haven't discovered any like massive problem that a court has confirmed would change an election.
However, I have this question.
Would it not be true that if you're mailing in your ballots, that at some point they have to be collected to be delivered to the Male ballot counting centers.
So doesn't that mean that at some point in the process, there's a big old bag of ballots and you know where they came from?
That you know what district they came from, for example.
You want a zip code.
And would you know, because you almost always know, if most of the voters in that area are going to vote red or blue?
So what would stop somebody from just throwing away the red ones?
Well, what would stop it?
Is our mail monitored by video security at all times?
In other words, is every processing center and every truck, does it all have some video on it?
And at some point it has to go in the truck, right?
At some point, it gets loaded in a truck, and then the truck takes it to a place.
Is there a camera in the truck?
Does the mail person wear a body cam?
If something fell off a truck, how would anybody know?
How in the world do we imagine our elections are secure when the mailman can throw away a bag of mail?
How would you ever know?
Now, I think if the mail people threw away, you know, all of the mail from one zip code, you'd know.
But what if they just got rid of 10%?
You know, it's a tight race.
They just throw away 10% of the ballots from the red zones.
Would that be enough?
Probably.
And if you found there were 10% lower votes than there had been historically, would you say, well, that's proof it was rigged?
No, no.
Instead you'd say, well, it looks like that one person campaigned a little bit better in this area.
Well, you know, Biden visited Wisconsin more than Trump.
So obviously you got a little extra this time.
You would never know, would you?
All right, somebody says, chain of custody allows you to check to see if your ballot was received.
Now, I believe there are some districts that have that and some that don't.
Now, suppose you're in a district that you can check to see if your ballot was received.
How many people check?
How many senior citizens check to see if their ballot was received?
5%?
What if 5% check and several of them find that their ballot was not received?
How is that treated?
Is it treated like there's a big problem or just maybe, I don't know, one ballot didn't get there?
I've got a feeling that the way the system is designed, that not many people would notice because they're not going to check.
They wouldn't know how to check.
And if they did check, they wouldn't necessarily know what to do about it.
They wouldn't know who to call.
They might just say, well, I guess I didn't get through.
And then if somebody did complain, where would the complaint go?
Then who would do anything about it?
Do we have this gigantic hole in our voting system that we can all see?
That's what it looks like.
I mean, it doesn't even look like there's a serious attempt to make the election fair.
That's what it looks like.
So, President Trump had Speaker Mike Johnson down there at Mar-a-Lago, I guess, and Johnson announced that they're going to try some legislation So that you can't vote in the United States unless you're a citizen.
And as somebody in the comments said, wait a minute, that's not already a thing.
It kind of snuck up on you, didn't it?
Why do you even need this legislation?
That's because of the states, right?
Individual states are going to allow it so that the federal government would have to block the states from doing it.
So, uh, here's what I like.
I don't expect any specific legislation ever to be approved, but I love the fact that they're going to put the Democrats on record.
Put the Democrats on record for saying you don't have to be a citizen to vote.
How many people do you think are in favor of that?
Like, as a percentage of the public, what percentage of the public thinks that people who just got here should vote?
It's pretty low.
It's got to be less than 20%.
And I don't think it'll pass.
I don't think it'll pass, because I think this is a brilliant play, really, to show that this, that the election is intended to be rigged.
I think it's intended to be rigged, and that the bringing in the non-citizens is, you know, a big part of it.
So I would say this is a great play, but I'm going to predict that it gets, that the legislation is rejected by every Democrat.
And they'll make up some kind of story about how, oh, this is how the Republicans are going to cheat.
You know, they'll make up some crazy story and then 100% of them will vote against it.
100% will vote against 80% of the public wanting something.
And they'll just, and life will just go on like that was okay.
Like we're all, yeah, fine.
Yeah, whatever.
Well, the insurrection narrative is nearly dead, at least among the thinking people.
Apparently there are more whistleblowers coming forward, confirming that Trump did want to deploy the National Guard on January 6th, and that he was turned down by the military.
Hmm.
Hmm.
The military.
You know, the military whose generals Trump insulted?
The military who didn't care for him because he thought the generals were dopes?
That military?
Decided to do something that would basically kill his chances of re-election?
Hmm.
Looks like a military coup to me, if that's true.
But nobody will go to jail, of course.
Even though it looks like it.
Certainly, and there's evidence that the January 6th committee ignored these whistleblowers and evidence that Trump wanted security there.
Because if Trump wanted security, it's very clear that he did not want an insurrection.
Because you don't form a military to fight against yourself.
The insurrection thing is so dumb.
That honestly, anybody who believes it was an insurrection attempt, you are deeply brainwashed.
This is the most obvious brainwashing in the country right now.
I mean, really, this is really obvious that this was an op.
And I would like to see all the committee members on the January 6th committee.
I think they should be in jail.
Do you agree?
I think that what they did, Effectively as a coup, because they tried to get rid of a president based on made up stuff and stuff they decided to leave out that they knew would be exculpatory.
I think they should all be in jail.
At least the chairperson should be in jail.
All right.
MSNBC, The Clown Show continues.
This is one of my favorite ones.
So I guess Mika was doing an interview with US Representative Jim Clyburn.
And it was on the topic of whether there's too much inflation and whether the Biden administration is just, and keep in mind that Mika used this word.
Mika said on MSNBC that if the public feels like they're being gas lit on inflation.
Mika said that.
Mika on Morning Joe on MSNBC.
Said to Clyburn, the voters feel like they're being gaslit on inflation.
Well, to his credit, James Clyburn was not going to be affected by the fact that it's obvious it's gaslighting.
So he went into his gaslighting.
Oh, it's all bull.
No, inflation is actually very good.
Oh yeah.
Inflation is so good.
Uh, it must be, uh, I guess you're looking in the wrong hole for it.
Uh, maybe you're confused.
Uh, uh, I guess the news is not covering it properly, uh, because, uh, certainly there's no inflation.
Uh, excuse me, we've got to cut away for some, uh, breaking news.
This really happened.
The breaking news is that inflation was much higher.
As he was gaslighting, so she sets him up and says, you know, the public is worried they're getting gaslit.
He goes into full gaslighting mode and then they cut him off.
To tell you that the breaking news is that inflation is higher than expected.
Delicious.
Delicious.
And then they just keep him hanging there.
They keep him hanging there so that you can tell he's been totally faced in public.
Now this is on MSNBC.
So even MSNBC can't keep up the gaslighting.
They basically said, all right, we can't carry this water.
This is like way, this is crazy now.
So they're out.
Even NBC couldn't, couldn't keep it up.
So that's hilarious.
Well, here's something I thought I'd never say, and I hope I never have to say it again.
Wow.
Adam Schiff is doing something I don't hate.
Oh God.
Oh, it hurts.
It hurts so bad.
Yeah, Adam Schiff is looking at some legislation to protect copyright holders and creators from AI scooping up all their intellectual property and using it without permission.
Now, Since I'm a copyright holder and creator, that sounds positive, but as David Sachs was pointing out, it might be too soon for this because the courts or somebody needs to figure out what fair use is in this situation.
And as Sachs points out, that if you're a human being, you can read, you know, you can read copyrighted stuff and then talk about it.
I'm doing it right now.
So I look at copyrighted news reports.
And then once I've learned what they told me, I'm now somebody who knows the truth or knows the news.
And then I tell you the news.
So I'm basically doing what AI is doing, reading other people's intellectual property and then summarizing and adding my own spin to it.
So then it's my own and that's legal.
That's fair use.
But why can't a computer do that?
Why can't a computer read everything that I've ever said?
And then once it knows it, it could just say it because humans do that.
Humans read my advice and then they just make it their own advice and they do reels and they just give my advice.
It's completely legal because once they've read the advice, it's something that they know too.
So they just say it in their own words, completely legal.
And by the way, I wouldn't, I wouldn't change that because you know, I say things so that people can use them, not so that I'm the only one who could say it.
So I think Adam Schiff has a little bit of a right, let's say, thought about it because, you know, he represents California.
California has the big Hollywood studios and a lot of copyright IP people.
So he's representing his state.
And although I don't know that he has the right solution yet, as Saks says, there probably will be some kind of a list I think Schiff was trying to require that people said where they trained their AI.
I'd like that.
I'd love to know if one of the AIs trained specifically on my books or my stuff.
Now what I do about it is the second thing, which is separate from knowing if it happened.
So knowing if it happened feels useful.
What you do about it Still to be determined.
I think the free market would work it out and that I think the big AI companies having probably lots of resources would be happy to have this because then they could just pay for the rights, you know, with some reasonable market value and probably they'd be happier because then they don't get sued.
They wouldn't have to worry about it.
Yeah, we're just paying you, so no problem.
Well, the Government Accounting Office, GAO, said that faculty in colleges are not as diverse as the students.
So I guess the student population is pretty close to matching the public, but the professors and the faculty are not as diverse.
So now they're gonna have to get some extra DEI in there to make those professors more diverse.
And two-thirds of U.S.
colleges and universities require DEI classes to graduate.
Wouldn't you like to know which ones those are?
Wouldn't you like to know, if you're talking to a candidate, wouldn't you like to know if their brain got rotted by DEI?
Wouldn't you like to know if somebody had not been exposed to it?
Because they're more like a pure blood.
Let's use pure blood for somebody who has not been polluted by DEI philosophy.
So I think that information in the free market could kill DEI.
All you have to do is force people to put it on their resume.
Businesses could do this.
I need to see if you've been trained on DEI.
Then people would think, oh, they love DEI, I'll put that on there.
And then you say, ah, fooled you.
I'm looking for people who didn't trade on DEI.
Fooled you into saying you did.
All right.
There was a mass stabber in Australia.
I guess the interest in this stabbed a bunch of people at a mall.
Some of them died.
And a female police officer waxed them good.
Just took them out.
A female police officer shot them, took them down.
That's a little story.
But Zuby, who used to live in the UK, now is living in the Middle East.
I was posting about, I guess there are a lot of phones getting stolen in the UK now.
In London, 2,000 iPhones have been reported stolen.
What?
This can't be right.
I think I read this wrong the first time.
2,000 iPhones in London are being reported stolen per day.
Per day.
The first time I read this, I thought it was maybe a month or a year.
2,000 iPhones were stolen just in London.
Just in London.
Per day.
Per day.
2,000 iPhones.
And you know, we're not talking about iPhones that were left on the counter.
We're talking about 2,000 iPhones taken out of people's hands.
Taken out of their hands.
On the streets.
2,000 per day.
Apparently they're like, you know, Motorcycle gangs that just pull up and take your phone.
So, Zuby said in response to that story, he said, people criticize me for not wanting to live with this.
Meaning, because he moved to another country.
And he says, he hopes that these are caught, etc.
And then he says that the UK have been brainwashed to be tolerant to criminals and predators.
So let me say to Zuby, one of my favorite people, he got the F out of there, didn't he?
So why would he hang around when the crime is terrible and he can leave?
Yeah, leaving is a superpower.
So the most important thing I did for my career success is the moment I got out of college, I left.
Because where I was, there was very little Opportunity, economic.
And where I went to, there was a lot.
I went to the Bay Area.
So I specifically went from a low possibility to a high possibility and that worked out pretty well.
And Zuby's sort of taking the same philosophy that why would I live in a place where 2000 phones per day are taken out of people's hands?
If I could go where it doesn't happen.
So he went where it doesn't happen.
Solved his own problem.
Good idea.
If you're in a place that is no longer friendly to you, for whatever reason, you should get the F out of there.
And he did.
Well, we wonder what Mike Johnson heard from our intelligence people when he reversed himself on FISA and needed a warrant to get it.
So as you know, FISA Apparently does not require a warrant now.
I may have some of the details wrong.
But the idea is that the Pfizer stuff, the abuses seem like they're just as likely now as they were.
And we know the abuses were like wild.
So that didn't get fixed.
But why?
What exactly was that talk?
And here's the second question.
Since Mike Johnson is saying now he's going to concentrate on getting funding for Ukraine, Do you think that the intelligence people also talked to him about Ukraine, either then or a different time, and said, uh, here's the real play on Ukraine.
If we don't conquer Russia and steal all their energy, we have no way of surviving our own debt.
I'm just guessing.
I have no reason to think he said that, but what, what could he know that we don't know?
And then here's the more disturbing part.
If it's true that the way our system works is that when a leader in Congress or a president gets in office, that for the first time they're taken to this secret skiff and they're told the real truth about, I guess, everything.
And what happens if they change their policy because they've heard the secret stuff that they can't tell you?
Well, you'd say to yourself, well, that's actually a good system.
Because you don't want everybody to know the secrets, but as long as you trust your leaders, and they've heard the secrets, they're making the right decisions for you, because you chose the right person.
Right?
So as long as you're comfortable with the leader, you're probably also comfortable that they know secret stuff, and they're making decisions that it's not obvious to you why they do that, but it's because of the secret stuff.
You realize that means we're not any kind of a republic, right?
We're not a democracy or a democratic federal republic or anything.
Here's what that really means.
When a Mike Johnson or any president gets the secret briefing, how could that leader know that what they're being told is true and in the proper context?
They have no way of knowing.
So that means If our intelligence people like where the policies are going, they just stay quiet.
Because they're getting what they want.
But if they don't like the policies, they can pull the leaders in and say, look at this secret stuff that you can't talk about, and you got to change your policy because of this secret stuff.
What does the leader do?
Do they then audit the source of the information?
Of course not, because even the leaders can't be told how the information was gathered.
Oh, well, yeah, you can't really talk to the spy who got this information because then you'd know who the spy was.
That wouldn't make sense.
So you have to trust us that there's secret information and that we told it to you correctly.
You do understand that that means, with no doubt whatsoever, and right in front of you, And Mike Johnson confirmed it, that the intelligence people are running the country.
That's not speculation.
That happened right in front of you.
It's public.
It's public.
Because Mike Johnson said, once I looked at the secret stuff, I changed my mind.
That means the intelligence people are in charge.
Because Mike Johnson has no way of knowing if that stuff is real or not real.
And they are literally trained professional liars.
It's what they do for their profession.
They lie to people.
So how in the world could you ever imagine that the leaders, the elected, are running anything?
They're only running things that nobody cares about.
Like they're naming post offices and, you know, and approving stamps.
But if it comes to war, I think they get the secret briefing.
Well, you know, we can't tell you where we found this out, but I can guarantee you if you don't fund Ukraine, Putin's already planning to nuke us.
What?
Oh, yeah.
He's going to nuke us if you don't approve funding.
Well, I don't even understand how those two things are connected.
Make it make sense.
Oh, I wish you could.
I wish I could explain further, but secret, secret methods and sources.
Yeah, so we literally know.
There's no ambiguity anymore.
There's nothing I'm saying that is even a little bit a secret.
Mike Johnson told us.
Why would he tell us if it were not true?
Anyway, so that's how your country is being led.
Thomas Massey says this is how elections are being stolen.
He says in a post on X, he says, here's how elections are stolen.
You elect a congressman, and it goes to D.C., where the establishment steals the voting card you trusted him with.
The establishment steals the voting card you entrusted him with.
Let me interpret that for you.
When Speaker Johnson sees the secret stuff, he says to the other people, hey, I saw the secret stuff, and you better trust me.
They say, I don't want to make the speaker mad because I'll never get a good committee assignment and it'll be really terrible for me.
So I'm just going to go with the speaker's awesome secrets and so I guess I'm on board.
So you only have to convince one person in order to change enough votes to get what you want or what you don't want stopped.
So Thomas Massey is telling you directly, right?
Again, He's telling you, he's there.
Massey isn't making it up.
He's right in the middle of it.
He knows exactly what's happening.
The CIA tells whoever the leaders are, you got to do this.
And they either believe it, you know, I'm not sure if anybody's bribed or blackmailed or anything.
I don't think you need to.
I think you just have to lie to them and just say, well, as far as you know, this is what's happening.
So better do what we say.
And then the lower-level Congress people are like, well, we don't want to go against the leadership.
So that's how easy it is to take over the country.
All you need is one room, called a skiff, and one meeting with one guy.
That's how easy it is to control the whole country.
One room, called a skiff, where all the secrets are told.
One meeting.
One guy.
In this case, Mike Johnson.
That's all it took.
That's all it took.
All right.
Politico is running a story with the headline says that Trump is getting special treatment by the legal system.
I feel like, I feel like anything I say about this will be exactly what's already in your head.
So basically, I'll just be restating your actual thoughts.
Number one, what the hell are you talking about getting special treatment with his 91 indictments?
Yeah.
But I think the example is that other people would be in jail awaiting trial, and he's not in jail awaiting trial.
Okay, that's not the best argument given that he's running for president.
I don't think anybody thinks the guy running for president should be in jail while the elections are happening.
Well, what exactly would be the point of putting him in jail?
Would it be so he's not a flight risk?
He's running for president.
He wants you to know where he is all the time.
You're not going to lose Trump.
What the hell?
But here's where you should really see this.
It's not really a serious story about Trump getting special justice.
This is entirely because they know the indictments are bullshit.
The indictments are bullshit.
And at the end of it, there's going to be a whole bunch of Democrats who are doing, may I do my impression of a whole bunch of Democrats?
You'd like to see that, wouldn't you?
I give you now a whole bunch of Democrats after Trump is not jailed after 91 indictments.
Well, how's that possible?
Because all those indictments were so totally, totally solid and real.
Oh, how could it be possible?
And they're going to be looking for something to grasp onto.
So Politico is giving them a, uh, basically a, what do you call it?
A life preserver.
So they're out there drowning, not understanding why 91 indictments could all be false or overstated or unnecessary or, you know, out of regular order.
And the little life preserver that is being sent to them is already being prepared.
And it goes like this.
Well, those rich people can beat any kind of charge, can't they?
It turns out that Trump, you know, is using the legal system and he gamed it.
I guess rich people can get away with any kind of felonies and rape and crimes.
Right?
You can see it, right?
They're simply priming the public.
But only the Democrats.
So that when they don't get what they expected, because they've been fed fake news all along, so they think the charges are like, you know, rock solid and, you know, these honest courts are going to find him guilty and all that.
No, they're going to use the OJ Simpson thing.
Right.
They're going to say, no, you know, OJ got away with murder.
Trump got away with it.
I guess all the rich people with lawyers can just get away with murder.
So they're already priming you for when you find out their gaslighting and their 91 indictments were always just political bullshit, and when you learn it is true, they've got the backup plan.
Oh, well, no, they were solidies, just rich people like O.J.
always getting away with crimes.
Well, meanwhile, in Delaware, a surprising result.
A federal judge in Delaware Uh, is declining to dismiss Hunter Biden's gun charges.
And I guess the reason for the request to dismiss was Hunter and his attorneys were saying that he was being only prosecuted for political purposes.
Oh, this is delicious.
Is Hunter only being prosecuted for political purposes?
A little bit.
I feel like that's a little bit truish, meaning that if he were not connected and it were not so high profile, maybe it would have gone away with a little less work.
But in the context where Trump is not getting any breaks from the legal system, hold on, in the context where Trump is not getting any breaks, you can't give him a break.
Because if he were allowed to skate because it was a political prosecution, what the hell is Trump going to look like?
Trump's the ultimate political prosecution.
So you can't have Hunter Biden get away because it's a political prosecution while Trump has got 91 political prosecution indictments.
So, this might be window dressing.
It might not be really that Hunter's going to be in trouble.
It could be the things get dragged out and he gets pardoned, you know, before Biden leaves office or something.
I don't know if that's even a possibility, but I don't believe anything anymore.
So I don't believe this is anything but more politics on politics.
There's a, uh, Post on X asking people how many people agree with me and I was quoted as saying that batshit crazy women sit atop all of Western society's current problems.
The batshit crazy women.
Which is not saying all women are batshit crazy.
I'm saying this for the slow people.
Sometimes the dumb people think, are you saying every single woman is the problem?
No!
Not saying that at all.
I'm saying that there is a legitimate mental health problem with liberal women, which is documented.
I didn't make it up.
It's really well documented.
And it's a real serious problem.
Just a huge percentage of liberal women are seeking therapy and, and they have enough political power that they can, you know, dominate the Democrats and the Democrats are dominating the politics at the moment.
So, in effect, the downstream effect of their mental illness is all kinds of trouble.
How many people on X do you think agreed with the fact that batshit crazy women sit atop all of Western society's current problems?
Not women.
Not women.
Batshit crazy women.
78% agreed with me that our biggest problems are batshit crazy women. 78%.
That would leave the ones who didn't agree with me at roughly just under a quarter.
Just under a quarter of the people don't agree with me.
Interesting.
Didn't see that coming.
Who could have predicted that?
All right.
I remind you of something called the documentary effect, and there are three documentaries that you really, really need to be careful of.
The documentary effect is when you sit and watch, let's say, 45 minutes or whatever of one documentary that has one point of view, you will be convinced, even if the documentary is BS.
If you're fed a fire hose of one side of an issue, you're going to be pretty convinced when it's over, because they may have left out some context, they may have distorted some things you don't know about.
You just don't know.
Are our documentaries persuasive?
Yes!
Is every documentary persuasive?
I don't know.
You and I only see the documentaries that are so persuasive that everybody's talking about them and sending them around.
So that's probably only top 2%.
So if you have, you know, a thousand documentaries in a year that get produced, I don't know what the real number is, but only 2% of them are like just insanely good in terms of persuasive.
Those are the ones you see.
I mean, you're not going to watch that many documentaries in a year.
You're going to see the big ones.
Those are the ones that are most persuasive.
So you are completely under the mercy of the brainwashers who make the documentaries.
Now, does that mean the documentary is false?
Nope.
Doesn't mean that.
Does it mean that you can't learn anything from the documentary?
No, no, no.
You could probably learn a lot, and it doesn't mean that they're false.
All it means is, you can't tell.
Do you get the difference?
Your level of certainty, when you're done with the documentary, don't let that be your guide to whether it was true.
Because you will be certain, you will be certain, whether it's true or not.
So don't use your certainty as your guide to what is true.
Got it?
Really important.
Here are three examples.
I watched yesterday a documentary called Climate the Movie, which some say completely demolishes the climate change narrative.
Did it?
Oh, totally.
Totally.
You know, since it's sort of a hobby interest of mine, all the, you know, the climate change business, I recognized, I think, every person.
I think I already recognized.
And I recognized, I think, every argument.
So I didn't see a single argument I had not heard before.
You know what I didn't see?
The counter-arguments to those arguments.
Do they exist?
Yes, they do.
Yes, they do.
They do exist.
Because I was familiar with all these arguments.
And I've talked about them in public, which causes people to send me the counterargument.
So I've seen all the counterarguments.
I bet you haven't.
Because you're not a nerd.
You're not like following all these little links and looking down every little rabbit hole.
But I have.
Now, am I telling you that the counterarguments are the good ones?
No.
Do you know where I saw the counterarguments?
In Biosources.
And other documentaries.
Right?
So, no, I don't have any reliable information.
I'm just telling you that when I watched the movie, I said to myself, oh, they're making the following claim.
They'll probably mention the counterclaim.
And then it didn't happen.
And then the next point would come up, and I'd go, well that's a good point, and I already knew about that, but let's see how they deal with the counterclaim.
Oh.
They just didn't.
They didn't mention that there's a counterclaim.
Now, could it be that they looked into the counterclaims and found them so weak that they thought, we don't even need to mention them, they're so weak.
But the trouble is that the public thinks they're not weak.
So if you do a documentary and you don't say, okay, we've got to be honest, there's another side to this.
This is the other argument.
The reason we don't think the other argument is solid is, you know, this or that.
But if you leave that whole other side of the argument out, what you're seeing is probably just a brainwashing op.
Maybe not intentionally.
That doesn't mean that the makers of the documentary are trying to put one over on you.
Sometimes they might be, but it doesn't mean that.
It means that that's their point of view.
But their point of view is their point of view.
I'll give you an example.
Now, I'm not claiming that the counter-argument is accurate.
This is important.
Because then it's going to make me look like I'm a climate alarmist.
I'm just telling you I've heard it.
Right?
So one of the things you've heard is that back in dinosaur times, there was a much higher, or I don't know if it was dinosaur times, but a long time ago the CO2 was way higher than it is now.
You've all heard that, right?
And therefore, it can't be that the CO is the problem, because it used to be way higher and it was not way hotter.
It was a little hotter, but not as hot as it should have been.
Have you all heard that?
There used to be way more CO2, so clearly we're not right about what causes heat, because it used to be way more.
Here's the counter-argument.
Yes, it's true.
In the old, old, old days before, you know, before writing, there was a lot more CO2 we can tell and somehow we can tell.
But there was also a big difference in the, I don't know, the atmosphere or the sun or something.
And the argument was, yes, there was more CO2, but other things in the atmosphere or the sun or something were also very different.
So that was a, you know, like a compensating thing.
So if, if you brought forward that much CO2 into our current environment, it would heat it.
But we would agree that if you had that much CO2 in that old earth environment, given the other situation of the sun and whatever else, it wouldn't be enough to heat it.
Now, is that true?
How would I know?
How would I possibly know if that's true?
But I just know I read it.
I know that people who worked in the field have presented it as their counter-argument.
But was it in the documentary?
Didn't see it?
No.
But possibly, the thing I can't confirm, is maybe the people who made the documentary looked into it and said, this debunking is ridiculous.
I'm not even going to mention it, it's so stupid.
Maybe.
And maybe they're right.
I'm just saying that you can't know if they haven't at least mentioned the other arguments.
And there were several cases where I knew just enough that I knew they weren't mentioning the counter-arguments.
Now, let me give you a more basic one.
They show graphs that say, for example, this was predicted and nothing happened.
You know if you talk to the climate scientists, they'll say this was predicted and here it is happening.
They will show you documents that are the opposite of the ones that are on that documentary.
Don't you think that the documentary should have mentioned, but you know, you know, the, these, uh, CNN or NPR or whoever, they just printed this graph that shows the opposite of what we just told you.
And here's why we think they're wrong or, or not.
But if they don't even show the other graph, I would give a zero credibility.
So my, my, My grade for Climate the Movie is definitely watch it.
Oh, let me say that clearly.
Definitely watch it.
The stuff you'll learn there is, like, really good.
Like, if you want to understand the, you know, counterclaims, really good.
And you'll see the cast of characters, you'll see they're all qualified.
Except, I don't know what Tony Heller's qualifications are.
But you'll see a lot of them are super qualified.
I'll tell you one thing you'll know for sure.
You'll come away with the thinking, there's no way they can measure the temperature of the Earth.
You'll come away with that understanding, and you'd be right about that.
So definitely watch it.
I would give its credibility none.
So credibility none, because the counter arguments are not present.
Is that fair?
And let me say on an entertainment level, really well done.
So to the makers of the documentary, excellent storytelling, excellent pace, excellent editing, excellent production.
So I was really, really impressed because there was not one moment of it that I wasn't totally interested.
Imagine watching a documentary And every part of it was interesting.
Like literally every part of it was interesting.
So definitely, for entertainment, watch it.
But just credibility.
Just be on high alert.
Didn't see the other side.
I just don't know if the other side is strong or not.
Here's another one.
All wars are bankers' wars.
So the idea here is that It's well documented, would be the claim, that behind even World War I and World War II, and certainly modern wars, that you can trace it back to the bankers wanting to have some central bank situation or whatever.
Now, if you watch it, will you be convinced that all wars are bankers' wars?
Yes, you will.
Probably.
Yes, you will.
Does that mean that all wars are bankers' wars?
Of course not.
No.
Do you think they're showing the other side of the argument?
No, of course not.
Here's what the other side of the argument would look like.
It's all about oil.
It's all about oil.
Because you could make the argument that all of our wars have been about resources.
You know, one way or another.
Some kind of resource.
And the banking, you know, might be part of that, but it's not driving all the wars.
However, I sampled it.
I haven't watched it completely.
But in the samples, it looked like it was pretty well documented, meaning that there were famous quotes that I can't confirm are true from people who would be in the know during those years that do look like it was a banker's war.
It does look like it.
But again, if I said, what is the entertainment value of this documentary?
Very good.
I didn't watch enough of it to get a quality opinion, but it looked good.
Well made.
Yeah.
All wars are about resources.
Yeah.
All wars are about resources ultimately.
But I guess the self-defense argument is, you know, always, always mixed in there.
Like one side might be doing it for resources and the other side might be just protecting themselves.
So that makes it complicated.
Then the, The third one, I'm not going to mention the title of it because I don't want you to look for it and I don't want it to be anywhere near... I don't even want AI to pick up that I even had the conversation.
So I'm going to be really, really indirect.
There's a certain kind of food that's round and you cut it up into slices.
And some say that If you were to make a gate out of that food?
Well, you see where I'm going, right?
Well, there's a documentary that says all of that, quote, conspiracy theory about the vast network of people in power who are doing terrible things with people who are minors.
Let's say there's a documentary which is really convincing.
Super persuasive that all of that is true.
Now, I'm not saying all that's true.
I'm not saying that.
I'm saying the documentary, if you were to watch it without any counterpoint, remember, again, there's no counterpoint.
It makes a claim and then it shows a whole bunch of evidence to support it.
It is super persuasive.
But is it credible?
No.
Not even a little bit.
Nope.
Nope.
No, it doesn't mean it's not true.
Remember, I'm not saying whether it's true or false.
I'm saying that the documentary effect, along with the fact that the documentary doesn't show any counterclaims, makes it no credibility.
All three of these documentaries have the same problem.
They're really well made.
And this one too, if you find it, and I'm not even going to give you a hint where to find it.
You would be convinced if you didn't have every one of your alerts set.
Now here's my experience with all three.
My experience was, I was super convinced by all three.
So I could even feel the, I could just feel the programming.
Like you could feel it, just physical.
At the same time, there was just Just enough of a little voice of, I don't know what it is, reason, maybe training, that would say, don't trust it.
In other words, don't trust your brain.
Because my brain is convinced, like all the irrational parts of my brain, I'm on board with all three.
But the little light in the back, don't trust this Scott, don't trust it.
But keep an open mind, but don't trust it.
All right.
Bill Maher made some more news, as he often does after his show.
And here the Vigilant Fox is reporting about how Bill Maher was talking about abortion.
And he says, the right does not hate women, because, you know, that's what Democrats say.
The right is against women.
He said they think it is murder, meaning abortion.
And then Bill Maher says, I'm OK with it, meaning the murder.
And he says, I can respect the absolutist position.
I really can.
They think it's murder.
Abortion.
And it kind of is.
I'm just okay with that.
There's 8 billion people in the world.
I'm sorry.
We won't miss you.
And then when Piers Morgan remarked, that's kind of harsh, Mars said to him, is that not your position if you're pro-choice?
And I kind of love this.
I'll tell you, I complain about Bill Maher's opinions as much as anybody, but you've got to say, he has gigantic balls.
He's saying the hard stuff.
My God, do I respect that.
I just so respect that.
Now, that doesn't mean he convinced me or I have to agree with him or any of that, but oh my God, I totally respect that.
That he fully acknowledges the absolutist position that is murder.
And he tells you directly, yeah, but I'm in favor of it.
Now that's an honest opinion.
My God, when was the last time you heard an opinion that honest?
I mean, you don't have to like it, but that's honest.
That takes balls.
I appreciate that.
Well, here's what I will add to that.
In my opinion, I've said this before, but as we see more examples of it, it's worth reminding you.
In my opinion, the only philosophical difference between Democrats and Republicans is abortion.
There is no other philosophical difference.
There are differences of self-interest.
Yeah, definitely that.
There are differences of, you know, based on hoaxes.
People have different information.
Some people lack ability to make decisions, but none of those are philosophical.
There's only one philosophical one.
Is this thing alive or is it dead?
And then what do you do about it?
Meaning a fetus.
And I would argue that after you take abortion out of the argument, You're really left with arguments which are about dumb people versus smart people.
Crime versus no crime.
I mean just stuff like that.
Let me take the border for example.
Leaving the border open is not a philosophical position.
Is it?
It's literally an IQ problem.
It's do you understand how anything works in the real world problem.
Or maybe the cartels are part of it and it's something shady.
So it might be that we don't understand it, whatever, but there's no philosophical difference.
It's really crime is involved or, or we're just dumb about how we're handling it, but there's no philosophy involved.
We only pretend there is.
And I would argue that everything else is like that.
And you say to me, but Scott, The Republicans believe in small government.
Do they?
Do they?
Now I do appreciate that Trump apparently got rid of a lot of regulations.
But I didn't even notice.
Did you?
Did you notice that you could do that thing you couldn't do before because he got rid of all those regulations?
I didn't notice any difference.
So in the real world, Maybe there are these little differences, but they don't seem to, you know, trickle up to the real world.
So just keep an eye on that.
I think the conservatives are a little bit better on knowing how to develop a system that works, and that a lot of what looks like a philosophical difference is You idiots, this is what works, has always worked, will always work, because this system takes into account human behavior.
Your system has never worked, can never work, because it doesn't take into account human behavior.
That's not a philosophical difference.
That's one group knows how to analyze things and build systems.
That's all it is.
And if you put two people who knew how to analyze the system and build it, they would always have the same opinion.
That's the scary part.
When people understand a topic, they usually have the same opinion.
It's only when one group doesn't understand it that you get a difference.
That's not philosophy!
All right.
And Mar on illegal immigration, also making some news here.
So Bill Maher said that Sweden opened its border to 1.5 million immigrants since 2010.
Now 20% of their citizens are foreign-born, and their education system is tanking.
And it has Europe's highest rate of gangland killings.
To which liberals say, blaming immigrants for the rise in crime is racist.
Then Maher says, yeah, but is it true?
Of course it's true.
So there's Bill Maher saying, Yes, you can say racist things if they're also true, and they matter.
So is it racist to say that bringing in people from other countries raises your crime?
Yes!
It's literally racist.
You're treating the races like they're different.
Literally.
That's as racist as you could possibly be.
Is it smart to be that way?
Yes.
Yes, it's also smart in this specific situation, as Bill Maher points out, Did it be racist?
Because it's just practical.
If you know how anything works in the real world, you know you gotta close your border.
It might be racist.
You gotta do it anyway.
Yeah.
All right.
Has anybody noticed that the public argument for climate change completely dissolved?
Did anybody notice?
It just sort of happened While you're looking in the other direction?
Here's what I mean by that.
Yeah, I was talking earlier about the documentary.
That's not the public argument.
That's not the public, because most of the public doesn't know anything, right?
You and I, you know, some of you and I are nerds.
So I actually, I actually care about things like, hey, are those thermometers near a heat island?
But the average public doesn't care about that.
The only thing the public knows is that the majority of scientists were on one side.
Am I right?
That's the only thing the regular, normal public knows.
So what is the public argument for climate being a crisis?
It's not the scientists' argument.
The scientists have their own arguments.
But that is inaccessible to the public because we don't really understand them in context.
Right?
You can read about a study, but, you know, if you don't know the whole context and maybe how this study was done, how much is it worth?
So the public argument was always 97% of scientists were on the same side.
But after the pandemic, we can see that 97% of the scientists being on one side has no value in terms of probability, as long as a lot of money is involved.
So if a lot of money is involved, it doesn't mean anything that all the scientists are on the same side.
And we also saw the laptop letter, the 50 X and current Intel people who said, Oh, that's probably Russia disinformation.
We watched as plain as day, all of our experts let us down and all being on the same side.
They're all on the same side and wrong.
One thing after another.
It wasn't just one thing about the pandemic.
It was almost everything.
Am I wrong?
Almost everything.
The experts were on the same side and wrong.
And you see it in politics, you see it in, you know, AI, you see it in technology.
Yeah.
So if the only argument for climate change was the experts agree, that's gone.
I mean, that's genuinely gone.
There's not even anything to talk about anymore.
It's just gone.
The entire public argument, which I'm separating from the science argument.
Now, the scientists presumably know what they're talking about, so when they disagree, that's an actual debate.
But when the public talks about it, they only know what they're told, and now they know that what they're told has no credibility whatsoever.
The entire public argument is gone.
Do you remember how the public was convinced that climate change was a crisis?
Watch me tie it all together.
Are you ready?
It was a documentary.
An Inconvenient Truth.
Al Gore.
It was a documentary.
Right?
The documentary made you think you understood the science, but you didn't understand the science.
You just saw some things that people told you.
You're not a scientist.
You can't tell if the graph they showed you is wrong.
If they showed you a graph that was, you know, logarithmic or they changed the scale so that a tiny change looked like a big change, would you know?
Nah, you probably wouldn't even notice.
You're not a scientist.
You're not a data scientist either.
So, There you go.
The documentary effect cost us probably several trillion dollars because a documentary is so convincing that it changed actually the world.
Al Gore changed the world with a documentary that had no credibility whatsoever.
Was it wrong?
I don't know.
I'm not saying that.
You can't tell it's wrong.
That's what I'm saying.
I'm saying all you know is you saw a documentary.
You don't know about any science.
You don't know if they left any arguments out.
Of course they did.
Left a lot of arguments out.
That part we know.
Well, he did actually invent the Internet.
That's my one biggest complaint with Al Gore, is that he did actually invent the Internet, in the sense that he was the first politician that backed funding for what became the Internet.
Now, does that make you the inventor?
No.
But does that make you someone who should get a ton of freaking credit for seeing that the internet was going to be what it is and being an early promoter of it?
Yeah.
Yeah.
He deserves a ton of credit for that.
You saw it early.
I don't know if he's right about climate, but for that, I'm going to give him full credit.
All right, there's, uh, Jackie Heinrich is reporting that, uh, senior officials are saying that, uh, they're telling Fox News that China is helping Russia with their war effort.
Is that, did anybody not know that?
I mean, I saw Cernovich say, why, why are we surprised by that?
Didn't everybody know that China was helping Russia?
You know, at least with material.
So I don't know if, is that a story?
All right, here's the thing that... Let's see if you're as puzzled by this as I am.
All right, I'll quiz you.
Name the demographic of voters that is moving away from Trump.
Not the ones who have already moved, but the ones that are moving since 2020.
Who is moving away from Trump?
Go.
Single women?
No, no, they're not moving.
Nope.
None, right?
I've heard no story about a demographic that's moving away from Trump.
Have you?
I don't think women are.
I think women already moved, but I don't think they're moving more.
Now, have you heard a story that says Hispanics and blacks are moving aggressively toward Trump?
I have.
I've also heard stories that men in general are moving toward Trump, and also in these two categories, the men.
Right?
So how could it both be true that, as Breitbart's reporting, that in 2020, black men were only 12% were supporting Trump, but now it's 30%?
It went from 12% to 30%?
And the Hispanic-Latino vote had some big improvement for Trump as well.
Now, how is that possible?
Because the polls that I'm seeing show them like one point apart.
How could Trump, I get that the Black and Hispanic vote is not the majority of the country, but it's big enough, it's big enough that if he went from 12 to 30%, that should be the whole game.
That's the whole game.
If this were true, and nothing else changed, except Trump's support going from 12 to 30%, That would be a commanding landslide victory if it were true, but the polls say that's not going to happen.
So what am I missing?
That one segment could dramatically increase, nothing else could change, but the average doesn't change?
Who's lying to us?
Am I wrong about this?
Am I missing something that's obvious and you all know and I don't?
There's something, obviously, a complete lie.
Either the black support is a complete lie, or the overall general numbers are a complete lie, or there's a demographic that's moving away from Trump that nobody's reporting.
What's going on?
I have no idea.
Unless it's women, and I haven't seen it reported.
Have you?
Have you seen any reports that women are moving away from him?
Or they just were already away?
I don't know.
I'm going to leave that as a big question mark.
But if you'd like me to give you the best political advice you've ever gotten, here it comes.
According to the Wall Street Journal, 42% of black women remain up for grabs.
Interesting choice of words.
We're up for grabs.
Well, here's what I say about that.
I say Trump can win black women, too, if he grabs them by the purse.
If he grabs them by the purse.
Yeah.
He's going to get the woman to vote.
He's going to grab them by the purse.
I'm going to take a bow.
I don't even care if you like that one.
I'm going to take a bow.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Take it about.
That was so good.
I don't even care if you liked it.
I don't need your approval.
I don't need your approval.
No, that was fire.
That was pure gold.
I spun that right in front of you.
Pure gold.
Yeah.
Now here's what we're going to do, people.
I want you to see if you can make that a thing.
Because if you make it a thing, he wins.
Because the first thing it does is it trivializes the complaints which, in my opinion, are far from being demonstrated to be true.
If I thought he was an actual rapist, I would be acting very differently.
I just don't think any of the claims about him, including Eugene Carroll, are necessarily true.
I mean, I wasn't there.
But they don't sound true to me.
Now, that doesn't mean he's an angel.
I'm not defending everything he's ever done in his personal life.
That's not my job.
I'm just saying that the specific things he's been charged with, you know, if I thought they were true, maybe I'd be concerned, but they don't look true.
They just don't look it.
So yes, since the big issue is going to be the inflation and the cost of bread and gas, and women are very affected by those things, especially because they're more often going to be in the grocery store, I think Trump wins if he says, I'm going to grab you by the purse.
No, he shouldn't say that, but you should.
He's going to grab him by the purse.
All right.
Has Iran attacked Israel yet?
We're all waiting for it any minute, right?
So, some people smart are saying that Iran is getting ready to send some drones and missiles, maybe into Israel proper.
Maybe not attacking proxies in other countries, like embassies and whatnot, but they might go after, actually, the mainland of Israel?
Like a population center?
With a massive, you know, 100 or so rocket attack?
I don't think that's going to happen.
So I'm going to say the odds of them attacking Israel proper, let's say a real population center, are low.
The odds of Hezbollah increasing their activity?
50%.
You know, maybe a little bit to try to stay under the level where there would be a big attack.
Yeah.
And so I think the odds of a proxy attack are greater than the odds of an attack on Israel.
And as I said before, and I remind you, Israel will never have a better chance to destroy the leadership of Iran and get away with it.
Iran has to know that.
Do you think they haven't figured out that if ever there was a free punch, it would be within a few months after Iran presumably backed the Hamas people who did the October 7th thing.
There could never be, in the history of Israel, there will never be a better chance to do it.
And keep in mind that Israel just spent their Holocaust chip.
So if you're going to spend your Holocaust chip, You don't want to finish up still in jeopardy because that would be a wasted, the biggest chip.
So if you're going to give away your Holocaust chip, and in my opinion, they have, you're going to have to get everything for that.
So if, if Iran is thinking, Hey, we'll, we'll test this.
We'll test their resolve, or we'll see how far they're willing to go.
We'll try to push them a little bit.
That would be one of the most massive miscalculations in the history of war.
Because I don't know what the population thinks, but you've got a really smart leader over there in Israel.
And he's not blind to the fact that you're never going to get this chance again.
And this chance means literally taking up the leadership.
I think Iran has to just do one more thing to Israel on On their mainland.
You know, if it's a proxy thing, it might look different.
But if they send one rocket into a population center, I think Israel is going to act like they have a free pass.
And whether America is in or not in, I think they'll just take out the leadership.
That's what I think.
So look for that.
I wouldn't bet they're going to take out the leadership because by far the most likely thing is that Iran We'll talk big and do something just to say they did something, but it won't be so big that Israel says, ah, free pass.
Yeah.
I hear somebody saying that Iran has sold a lot of their weapons to Russia.
That could be a factor.
That could be a factor.
Yeah.
I do imagine, what's that?
I'm looking at a comment here.
Your holocaust card was okay.
Grab them by the proxy?
You can't improve on grab them by the purse.
I'm sorry.
That will have to stand as the quote of the day.
Whether you like it or not.
Alright, ladies and gentlemen, that concludes my Wonderful presentation.
I'm gonna stick with the locals people for a little bit, but I'll say goodbye for now.
