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, Deep Fake Watermarks, Jeff Bezos Grandfather, Criminal Government Benefits, Non-Citizen Voting, Confirmation Bias Trap, Inner-Earth Secret Planet, Theia, Katherine Maher, Encrypted Communication Apps, Canadian Hate Speech Legislation, RFK Jr., TikTok Ban, DEI Boeing, Free Speech Government Violations, Chris Cuomo's Micro-Clots, Open AI Search Engine, Fake Election Polls, Trump RFK Jr. Debate, Jenn Psaki, President Trump, Judge Cannon, Staged Mar-A-Lago Docs, Stormy Daniels Testimony, Jim Clifton, Gallup CEO, 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
I mean, it might take a few years, but I feel like nature is hard to stop.
Yes, men are aggressive, and we're risk takers, and it does feel kind of natural that we're the ones putting ourselves out there and getting shot down.
We can handle it.
There's nothing wrong with that.
Men can handle it.
We don't love it.
I'm sure it drives some people, you know, wild and insane and stuff.
But generally speaking, it's one of those things we can kind of handle.
We can handle rejection.
So maybe if you can handle it better, you should, you should step up and do it.
So nature has emerged.
Speaking of nature, let's talk about science.
So, you know, the CRISPR gene editing, That we keep waiting to do more amazing things?
Well, it's getting pretty amazing.
They did a trial where they were trying to restore vision to blind people who had a specific kind of blindness.
It's not every kind of blindness.
But they restored some sight in 79% of blind participants.
They saw some improvement with gene editing.
How cool is that?
All right.
Are we actually going to be alive when eyesight can be cured with, I don't know, gene editing and stem cells and some other crap?
Maybe.
Or maybe it'll just put a chip in your skull and you'll be able to see.
Well, the Babylon Bee has a headline that I had to share with you.
So this is important news from the Babylon Bee.
They say that 12 women have come forward.
Oh, this is bad.
Twelve women have come forward alleging they were sexually assaulted by whoever Trump's VP pick is.
That's terrible.
Twelve women have come forward for whoever it is.
They don't know who it's going to be yet, but they're pretty sure that whoever that is, probably Kristi Noem, and shot them in a gravel pit.
I think.
So that's your real news for the day.
OpenAI is going to launch a deepfake detection tool, but it's only for their own deepfakes.
So I can find out 98% of the time whether an image was created by them.
And I guess they're going to add a tamper-resistant watermark.
How could there be a tamper-resistant watermark?
That doesn't even feel like that's a real thing, does it?
How can you take a digital image and guarantee that the watermark can't be removed?
Wouldn't I just have to run your image through another AI and say, hey AI, go find that watermark and remove it?
I don't know.
I feel like there's a weakness in that plan.
But maybe.
It's better than nothing.
And it does show that I feel like all the problems of AI, which are considerable, the risks, I think we're going to work through all of them.
I mean, it'll be a different world for sure, but I'm fairly confident that we'll figure out how to control it and handle our copyrights and survive.
It's just a really interesting challenge for humankind.
But if I had to bet, I'd bet on humans.
I think this is well within our sweet spot.
There'll be problems.
You know, nothing will be trouble-free.
But can humanity handle AI at this particular point in our evolution?
I say yes.
I say yes.
I'm glad we're doing it.
Here's an interesting story that probably doesn't mean anything, but it's a fun coincidence one.
Turns out that Jeff Bezos' grandfather was an important co-founder of the Internet.
And may have had some, let's say, intelligence-government connections.
Now it's all kind of, you know, rumored, shadowy stuff.
And then there's some suggestion by a John Greenwald Jr., who operates something called the Black Vault, a website dedicated to revealing declassified government documents, that they tried to find the FBI file on Bezos' grandfather and Said none could be found, which doesn't mean there ever was one.
I think this story got a little exaggerated.
It went from, we asked for an FBI file and there was none, to the FBI file was destroyed.
Nobody knows it was destroyed.
Nobody knows it ever existed.
So, anyway, do you think it's a coincidence that Jeff Bezos became a billionaire in a business that Probably required a little government involvement to at least not be opposed to it.
If his grandfather might have had some connections to the government.
Well, that's the suggestion people are making.
I would say that there's no solid evidence of anything suspicious.
Well, no.
Let me take that back.
There's no solid evidence of anything that looks like wrongdoing on anybody's part, just to be clear.
Nobody's being accused of anything, per se.
It's just an interesting connection.
Which is suspicious.
But you have to compare it to this.
Let's say it's true.
Let's just work through this hypothetically.
I do think that it's a real thing that some number of our most successful billionaire entrepreneurs got a boost from the government, the intelligence people.
Now, I don't know what percentage, and I don't know which ones in particular, But I think, you know, when you look at the whole layout of how many billionaires did things that look like they couldn't be done, unless the government was maybe a little bit on your side, you know what I mean?
So I'm sure that there are some big businesses that wouldn't have happened without the government saying, you know, if we help you a little bit, how about if we stay in your pockets, we can get some advantage as well.
But let's compare that to Europe.
Eric Schmidt, who had been the, at one point, CEO of Google, says the U.S.
is two to three years ahead of China in AI.
And as he points out, two to three years is a lifetime in the technical world.
So it doesn't sound like much to you and me, but two to three years in AI, it's the difference between winning and losing.
But he says that Europe is basically irrelevant in AI because they're busy regulating.
So Europe is over there regulating its businesses to stop them from being successful.
Name a gigantic new European business in the last 20 years.
Go.
It's a new, successful European business, like big, like Google, like Facebook, Tesla.
Name it.
I can't think of one.
Can you think of any?
I think Europe might be done between the migration and, as Eric Schmidt points out, they seem to have regulated to the point of taking themselves completely off the field.
So let's compare these two models.
I have said provocatively that, in my opinion, the United States stopped being a republic-slash-democratic system probably in the late 50s, maybe sooner.
And since then we've been essentially a criminal organization.
But then I've also said that it might be the best form of government.
Compare it to Europe.
Is Europe a criminal organization?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I just know that they've government regulated themselves out of the game.
They've actually done such a bad job with their government that they It doesn't look like they'll survive, honestly.
It doesn't.
Looks like they've just become an Islamic country.
The non-Islamic people will be slaughtered at some point.
I think if you fast forward, it looks like it's heading to that situation.
And the U.S., rather than being boggled by its own government, Is more of a criminal organization So it just finds it finds businesses and then it backs them until they become winners But it owns a piece of them.
It's a it's an awful lot like selling protection like the mafia Hey, that's a nice little startup you got there It'd be a shame if the regulations killed it.
Well, what can I do about it?
Well, if you work with us and you give us a backdoor to your product All those regulations will fall away and Congress will be quite happy to give you something.
And the Pentagon will buy your services.
You'll be sitting pretty.
You just have to give us a little backdoor.
Now, I would consider that basically a criminal enterprise.
But it might work way better than whatever Europe's doing.
It might work way better than whatever China's doing.
So, I hate that I have to say this, but we don't have a democracy, we don't have a republic, or anything even close to it.
What we do have is a better system of government than China and Europe.
But not better than Russia.
Now that's the hard part to swallow, because Russia is also a criminal organization.
But they've got one, you know, head boss, so it's even more efficient than our criminal organization.
It turns out that crime pays wildly if you do it right.
If you do it wrong, you just go to jail or get killed.
But if you do it right, apparently it pays really, really well.
Just look at Putin.
He's doing great.
All right.
Will aliens vote?
Tucker had another video in which he was talking to... What person was he talking to?
Somebody in that domain.
But apparently, you can be an illegal migrant into the country, and you can vote, and if you get caught, it would not be illegal if you say that you mistakenly believed you were a citizen.
Did you know that?
That it's not illegal to vote if you're not a citizen, as long as you claim you thought you were.
And apparently, there's some indications that people who are streaming across the border actually believe they are citizens when they get here, because they're not quite understanding the system.
So we've got literally millions of people coming in who would be able to vote And if by any chance they were caught, they would just say, I'm not a citizen?
Well, I thought I was.
I thought I was like a pre-citizen or something.
Are we all going to be legal later?
Won't the law make us all legal citizens?
I thought that meant I already am.
So all they have to do is say they didn't know the system and they can vote.
Now, my question is, how many people are actually going to vote?
Who, you know, are worrying about eating and got here, you know, barely and don't want to put their name into the system unnecessarily.
I feel like there won't be a lot, but I do worry that somebody will vote for them if they get a hold of a ballot that was meant for them.
So there's probably a bigger, bigger risk that somebody would get their mail-in ballots if in fact those get created.
I don't know if they would be.
All right.
There's a new story in sci.org.
Says there's been some research lately to find that when people don't believe the news, and they go and do their own research, that it makes things worse.
That doing your own research is the way to be extra wrong.
And that doing your own research is not a mechanism for finding out what's true if you don't believe the fake news.
Now, has anybody told you that before?
Again, apparently several scientific studies were funded, and you could have replaced all of them with just, should have asked Scott.
Should have asked Scott.
Every bit of this is standard hypnosis training.
So 50 years ago, no, 40 years ago, 40 years ago, I could have told you with complete certainty, and did, And did.
That doing your own research would make you dumber, not smarter.
How many of you already knew that?
That doing your own research makes you dumber, not smarter?
It's because we don't know how to do research.
We just imagine we do.
It's a complete illusion.
All you do is you go find things that agree with you and then ignore the stuff that doesn't.
So it's a confirmation bias trap, which could not be more glaringly obvious.
It's glaringly obvious that an ordinary person, and most of us are ordinary, like we're not experts on data research, that research just makes it worse.
And I'm pretty sure that that effect goes well into the expert category as well.
I'll bet you that even when experts do their own research, it gets worse.
At least half the time.
Yeah, maybe the expert can be right half the time, but humans?
Nah, we're just guessing.
Well, there's the remains of an ancient planet found buried beneath the Earth.
What?
So there's an ancient planet that allegedly has been detected that's inside the Earth.
That's right.
We've got a secret planet inside us.
And some say that the collision of that planet, which has a name, weirdly, Theia is buried deep beneath, under Africa.
Hmm.
Africa.
Africa.
The cradle of human life.
And another planet is right underneath it.
Huh.
Interesting.
Interesting.
Could it be there was some kind of material, organic or other, on that planet that plunged into us?
Could it be?
That there were aliens on the planet with such advanced technology that they survived the collision and live today in the core of the center of the Earth?
Okay, probably not, but it's kind of fun.
Because we are talking about aliens and all the time and where they come from and people are saying, I think they're coming from Earth.
And then we find out we have an alien planet inside the Earth.
And that maybe it was part of how the moon was formed.
You know, the big planet hit Earth and then a chunk broke off and it's the moon.
Well, I don't believe any of this story, really.
Seems like the kind that someday somebody will say, there's no planet inside the planet, you idiot.
That's just bad scanning or something.
So I'm not sure this will stand up, but it's kind of a fun story.
And it does seem to me like it would not be impossible That some organic material came along for the ride.
So we might be aliens.
We might be aliens.
Do you know the Signal app?
And you might say to me, Scott, I remember you telling me that there's no such thing as an encrypted app that is safe.
I remember you telling me That if there were an encrypted app, it would be exactly the place that the CIA would want to penetrate, because all the good stuff is on the encrypted app.
If you want to find the terrorists, you need an encrypted app, because that's where they are.
And so I speculated that given the size and power and influence of the CIA, which is almost absolute, that there is no private company that could resist their pressure to give them a backdoor.
So I told you that there's no such thing as a secure message.
And you should act every day of your life as though everything that you write down is public.
Maybe even everything you say out loud, because there are digital recording devices everywhere as well.
So you should probably start living your life right away As though you don't have any secrets.
And like, maybe not have any.
You're better off if you don't have any.
But there's no privacy.
You know, I told you I saw one of my messages on Signal in the news.
Did I tell you that?
It was in the news.
It was a private message on Signal.
Now, I don't know if that is because somebody read it on the other end and then decided to share it.
I don't know if somebody got it from my keyboard action.
You know, there could have been a bug on my phone that was reading my keyboard.
I don't know if the intelligence agencies picked it up, because we do assume that they're looking at it.
I don't know.
But the fact that I don't know should be enough to give you a little bit of caution about how you use that kind of an app.
Now, as it turns out, because I've been living my life for a long time, like I assume that I don't have any privacy, so it wasn't embarrassing at all.
You know, I didn't say anything that was embarrassing, but you don't have privacy.
You do not have privacy.
Just live your life like that's already gone, and you're going to be in better shape.
So then there's a new story about it, though.
Catherine Marr, who is also the head of NPR, apparently has an interesting background that makes her look like she was involved in color revolutions in other countries, the Middle East in particular, and that she had a job at Wikimedia and everything about her, including the fact that she was sought out to be on the board of Signal.
Everything about her suggests that she's a spook and that she's part of the making sure there's no privacy and making sure that the news is censored.
So she looks like, and I can't say that this is true because that would take a lot more evidence than I have, but every signal, but every indication is that she's part of a larger government Ongoing effort to control every form of communication and have access to it and to control what you know and what you think.
And so it would be one more signal that signal isn't necessarily as private as you thought it was, because the mere fact that she's associated with it, I think as a board member, right?
As a board member, is every red flag in the world.
Now, remember when I told you, many times, that if the only thing you know is the news, you don't know anything.
You have to know the players.
The news will tell you nothing unless you know the people in the news and all the other people they're connected to.
For example, if all you knew is there were protests at colleges, that's a completely different story than if you know the funding is coming from Democrat donors.
That's a different story.
You have to know the players.
You have to know that Soros is attached to the Open Society, is attached to the Atlantic Council.
And you have to know who the Atlantic Council is.
So if you don't know that whole chain, you know, I'll call it the Mike Benz view of the world, if you haven't been exposed to that, all the news looks different.
As soon as you see the larger network of connections and fuckery, Then every story can map into that, and then you understand it as it connects to the other things.
But without that, you have no idea what's going on.
It's just a black box.
It's just a thing happened, a thing happened, a thing happened.
You don't know why.
You don't know what it's connected to.
You can't predict it.
Nothing.
So know the players.
Canada is introducing a hate crime, like a hate speech bill, I guess.
That's the worst law I've ever heard in my life.
And do you know who gets to decide what is a hate speech and what isn't?
Somebody.
That's the worst law I've ever heard in my life.
And do you know who gets to decide what is a hate speech and what isn't?
Somebody. Does it matter who? No, it doesn't matter who.
If somebody else gets to decide that you can go to jail for a hate speech, then fuckers are going to put you in jail for a hate speech just because you're on the other team.
So I would get out of Canada as soon as possible.
Like actually, Canadian citizens, if they pass that, I know that they're charging you money to leave.
I think it costs, doesn't it cost like $25,000 to leave Canada?
So they're actually, They're actually using force to keep you in the country.
Canada.
Canada is using the force of government to keep you from leaving.
At the same time, they're squeezing away your rights in the most profound way.
Nothing could be more profound than saying we can put you in jail for something you said in the past that we now decide is hate speech.
That is the end of all freedom.
Canada has fallen if they pass this.
If this passes, Canada is not even a country anymore.
It's just, I don't even know what it is.
It's not even up to a criminal organization.
It's just dead.
It's like dead money.
I would get your money out of Canada, and if you live there, I would get the fuck out.
Like, seriously.
There was a story today about a Canadian farmer who decided to move to Russia for the freedom.
Not a joke.
This is today's story.
A Canadian farmer and his family looked at all their options and decided to move to Russia to become a farmer for the freedom.
For the freedom.
And I don't think he's wrong when I look at these situations.
I would imagine in Russia you can't say bad things about Putin.
But probably that's about it.
And I'll bet you could even say bad things about Putin.
As long as they're not like insider information or something.
You could probably say, oh our inflation is too high, I blame Putin.
You could probably say that.
But yeah, Russia might have more freedom than Canada.
Like actually, literally, no hyperbole, might have more freedom.
U.S.
fertility rates have fallen to 1.6 births per woman, the lowest in a century.
I think breeding farms are coming.
I think that literally there will be single women who want to have babies, but don't want to be married.
And they don't have the financial wherewithal to do it.
And so that rich people will be creating breeding farms.
And it will be a, let's say, like a commune where all these single pregnant women go.
And they can live there for their first several years or whatever.
And they just raise kids and billionaires pay for it because they want more kids.
Or it might be just a fundraiser.
You just say, hey, we're raising funds for the breeding farm.
And, you know, we'll tell you where we get the sperm, you know, so it's better quality.
And you're just you're basically you would just be paying for other people to have babies because you're dead unless you do that.
I think that's going to happen.
Now, before you say, it's horrible, blah, blah, blah, for all the reasons that are all good reasons, I won't even argue with any of the reasons.
It's just that the alternative is worse.
There is no alternative.
You're either going to have to replace humans with robots, or with migrants, which brings its own cultural intersection problems.
Or you're going to have to pay human women in the United States to have more babies and they're not going to do it within the marriage context.
Because marriage is largely a failed process.
I will always agree with you.
That if you can pull it off, the best situation is a nuclear family.
If you can pull it off.
But we certainly have, you know, decades of experience showing that half of the country can't pull it off.
And I don't think that you can blame the people.
Let's put it this way.
If I design the system and half of the people can't use it, it just doesn't work for them.
Do I blame the people?
Or do I say I've designed a system that is terrible because it fails half of the time?
For some reason we've decided to blame the people.
It's the dumbest analysis ever.
Oh, marriage is great, but I guess all the people are broken.
Yeah, 50% of the whole fucking world is broken.
No, your system is broken.
If your system can't satisfy even half of the people who use it, that is a completely broken system.
I only see one way out.
People are going to volunteer, maybe as their career, they might get paid for it, to just have babies for strangers.
Or maybe people they know, but I think people are just going to have babies for other people, and it'll be just a business.
Because the alternatives are all worse.
There's a story that RFK Jr.
has admitted that at some point he had a parasite in his brain, some kind of a brain worm, And it ate part of his brain.
You know, I did not see that coming.
But how do you feel about your democracy today that you believe you have, that I tell you hasn't been around for 50 years?
Your democracy just served up three candidates.
You've got Joe Biden, whose brain is completely toast.
You've got RFK Jr.
who says part of his brain was eaten by a worm.
And you've got President Trump, who is a certain age, which, you know, so far his brain seems to be fine, but he's a certain age.
Now, if you scoured the entire country looking for presidential candidates, how in the world could you get three in a row, three out of three, who were asking questions about the health of their brain?
How often do you have to ask about the health of a brain in any other context?
If I hire a plumber and the plumber shows up, do you know what I'd never ask?
I wonder if that guy's got a brain worm or maybe some dementia.
I think maybe any minute the brain might fail because of his age.
Like, you'd never think that.
But somehow, the system of the United States Coughed up three people whose brains we have to wonder about.
One literally was a heroin addict.
And by the way, I give incredible credit to anybody who can break addiction.
To me, that's like the ultimate test.
That's really where the whole free will thing really comes into focus.
If you can break an addiction of any kind, And then better yet, by the way, I like RFK Jr.
for this, I love the fact that he's not hiding it.
It's like, yes, I was an addict.
Yes, I had this brain worm.
Judge me, judge me for my actions.
That's fair.
But it is a weird coincidence so many brain related things are involved.
I saw Adam Townsend talking about the TikTok ban, which in the early days, he said in 2018 through 2020, he was a Big advocate for banning TikTok, but he thinks it's achieved escape velocity, but his other meaning is too late.
And then he says this, and I want to read his actual words.
This is Adam Townsend.
You should follow him on X if you're not already.
The way he describes the risk of banning TikTok now.
So something's changed since 2020 when he was in favor of banning it, and this is how he words it.
He says the animating intentions of the current ban are pernicious, and the bill will be imperceptibly, and then violently, shifted to attack anything hostile to the incumbent, paranoid and unstable political regime.
Well, let me say this in less precise words.
I'll just summarize it less precisely.
Once they can ban TikTok, And control it?
It's probably just to control free speech.
It's just another way to ban free speech.
And if they make it easy to do on TikTok, it might make it easier to do it on X. Now he's completely right about this.
And I don't know if you've noticed my own thinking on the ban of TikTok has shifted.
Have you noticed that or not?
I'm not sure if I've communicated that clearly.
I'm still in favor of banning it.
Because I think the worst case scenario, or banning it, or transferring it, because I think the worst case scenario is that China can just push the button.
That's the worst case scenario.
So the next worst case scenario is that the United States owns it, it becomes a U.S.
app, and it becomes a controlled communication channel like all the rest.
It is weirdly possible that TikTok might be the only place Americans can get free speech.
Did you hear that?
It's weirdly possible, it's not the case at the moment, because X still has free speech, but it's possible that TikTok would become the last bastion of free speech for Americans.
But that would be critically dangerous, because it means that China could just push the button You know, in that 1% of the time that something matters to them, 99% of the time they just let us think we had a free speech platform and it was all good.
But 1% of the time they'd be like, you know, if we just tap this button a little bit, we could really change things over there.
So that's way too dangerous.
But Townsend is completely correct when he says that the motivation for banning it now is all the wrong motivation.
It really is because Israel didn't like where it went.
Can we agree on that?
That's fully transparent, wouldn't you say?
That the Hamas support on TikTok is the only thing that's going to kill it.
If it gets banned or is forced to sell to an American entity, it will be because Israel didn't like the free speech the way it came out.
Now, I don't know if China pushed the button, you know, the heat button, to make the Hamas protests bigger than they would have ordinarily been.
I don't know.
But I don't want to have to wonder about it.
So, take Adam Townes's criticisms to heart, but I'm still I'm still leaning toward ban it or move it to America, because I'd rather have Americans control it, even if they're corrupt.
It's a slightly better risk, but I understand it's not a good play.
Meanwhile, I was looking at the Amuse account, and these are the Amuse account's words, not mine, on a post.
Boeing admitted that its DEI hires in South Carolina falsified 787 inspection records.
As a result, the FAA has opened yet another investigation into it.
Well, I don't think it's fair to say that their DEI hires are the reason that there were 787 falsified inspection records.
Because we don't know that.
I mean, we don't know that it was some specific subset of employees.
We do know that DEI, as it's designed, should cause massive incompetence in every major corporation.
It should.
Because regardless of anybody's abilities, and without any regard to anything about genetics or culture or any of that, If you're forcing people to select from the same limited pool of applicants, and people need to hit their goal of diversity, they're going to hit diversity, even if they have to pick lower quality applicants.
And that's guaranteed that they do, because there just aren't enough in the pipeline.
So the massive incompetence of all of our major corporations is guaranteed by DEI.
And indeed, the entire destruction of the country is guaranteed.
By the design of DEI.
Because we can't really suffer, you know, a 30% decrease in quality.
But that's exactly what will happen.
You know, it'll be massive.
And by the way, you've all noticed it, right?
I think every one of you has noticed a massive competence decrease in everybody you deal with.
And it's probably DEI.
Now, just be careful.
I'm not saying it's black people.
I'm not saying it's LGBTQ people.
I'm not saying it's women in jobs.
It's nothing like that.
It has nothing to do with the capability of an individual.
It just has to do with numbers.
If everybody's fishing in the same little pond, you run out of fish.
That's all.
It's just a running out of fish problem.
It's not about anybody's genes.
So, I think it is both overstating it, Because we don't have direct evidence that DEI hires are the reason that Boeing is falling apart, allegedly.
But what we can say is if DEI has not yet destroyed Boeing, it's guaranteed to.
Is that fair?
If DEI is not the reason that the whistleblowers have come forward and there's all these problems, if it's not, and we don't have direct evidence that it is, you can guarantee that it will.
There isn't anything else that could happen, given the design of the system.
It guarantees it.
So, the state of Texas and the Daily Wire and the Federalist, using a little lawfare of their own to good effect, have prevailed in the sense that the government was trying to drop their case against the federal government for the censorship, massive censorship, Um complex that was built by the Biden by the Democrats basically.
So if you're not aware a massive non-government web of companies were funded by this big web of people connected to Democrats in and outside the government and that big web of fake um entities you know fake watchdogs and fake fact checkers and
Basically, it created a censorship massive entity, and apparently the Daily Wire and the Federalist believe there's enough evidence to show that they were harmed by the censorship regime.
And I imagine they were, because the censorship would have decreased the traffic to those entities.
And if they can prove that their traffic was repressed, and doing so was a violation of the Constitution, And I think they can.
Holy cow.
Holy, holy cow.
Now, I don't think any of this will be completed before the election.
Maybe somebody can help me on that.
I don't know the timeline for any of this.
But Trump's third act is looking really good.
Really, really good.
Because part of what Trump would allege is that the system is rigged.
And it looks like this case will cause a bunch of disclosures and the government will have to give up information to prove their case.
And then the other side can request information.
We're going to find out about this massive State Department suppression of Americans' right to free speech, as they say.
And there's an organization called the NCLA, I guess, is handling this.
So they're a legal entity of some kind that's pressing these lawsuits.
So that is insanely good news.
I don't know how that's going to turn out, but nothing could be more positive for Trump than having this trial going that will presumably surface information that the Biden administration is completely corrupt and has been violating your right to free speech for a long time in the grossest possible ways.
Chris Cuomo making some more news, saying that he has long COVID and he's taking ivermectin for it.
And he had blood work, and apparently his blood work showed a bunch of little micro clots.
And he's pretty concerned about his health, and it sounds like he should be.
But here's the interesting part.
He says he's not apologizing for shaming people into taking the vaccines.
I think the argument there is that he was pushing the government's best information.
So the government might have some explaining, but the people who believe the government, I think I would give them a little bit of a break, honestly.
I know you wouldn't.
I know a lot of you are like, they should have known the government was wrong.
I don't know.
I feel like they had good intentions.
Maybe bad execution, but I don't really like demonizing somebody who is trying to do the best thing they could for the public in the way they thought would work best.
You might disagree with that, but I don't know if demonizing that person makes sense.
Right?
So, you know, just consider whether it's about the individual.
In this case, I don't think it's about the individual.
I think it's where the individual worked and the fact that we had a situation where people were guessing, trying to do their best.
So I told you at the beginning of the pandemic, there would be horrible mistakes made.
And I told you from the start that I was going to be forgiving of those mistakes.
Because I didn't think that anybody was smart enough to get it all right.
He did not get it all right, he would tell you himself.
But does he deserve to apologize for that?
I don't mind that he doesn't.
I don't mind that he doesn't, actually.
I do have a question.
How he knows it's Long COVID and not Long Vax?
Is that what you're wondering?
How does he know it was the COVID that caused this problem and not the vaccinations themselves?
I don't think that can be known, can it?
So that's a mystery.
OpenAI is allegedly creating a search engine, which would be a direct competitor to Google.
It must be nice to become instantly worth $80 billion or whatever they're worth, that they can do something of that scale.
Because what kind of servers do you need to compete with Google?
Don't you need to build, like, just enormous data center capacity?
Because you need it for AI, but then if you're going to compete with Google, you need it doubly.
So it looks like OpenAI is going to be creating the most massive structure of computing that the world has ever seen.
And Google, of course, will be trying to keep up and lap them.
Here's what I say.
Is there any chance, given what we know about the government trying to control information, is there any chance that OpenAI is not already completely penetrated by the CIA?
And is there any chance that if OpenAI created their own search engine, that it would not be as corrupted as Google?
Now, I have no information to suggest that OpenAI is bending to any intelligence agency force.
But how can it not?
In what world would the CIA be able to keep its hands off of this?
It's sort of their job to get in there and control it.
It's kind of what they do.
So I would say there's no chance that we will ever have search engines that are free from government thumbs.
I just don't think that's a thing.
It'll never happen in our... I can't imagine it happening in any kind of reality.
RFK Jr.
is saying directly and loudly that the presidential polling is fake, and he's offered to show President Trump exactly how it's fake.
So he's saying that the polls showing that Biden is competitive are completely fake.
So he hired Zogby, who has a reputation as the largest and most accurate poll of this election cycle, according to, I guess, probably Zogby.
But Zogby did his internal private polling, and it had RFK Jr.
easily beating both Biden and Trump in a head-to-head competition.
Zogby, the most reliable, according to Zogby, has RFK Jr.
winning flat out.
And he says he can tell you how the other polls are fake.
Do you believe it?
Now, here's the trick.
Here's the trick.
The regular polls only show a two-person race, Trump and Biden, or they'll show a three-person or multiple-person race.
The regular pollsters typically don't poll, what if Biden ran against RFK Jr.?
That's not something they poll.
But RFK Jr.
did, and it was exactly the right question.
So this is one of the strongest arguments he's made, I think.
And he's offered to debate Trump.
Do you think that Trump should debate RFK Jr.?
No, he should not.
No.
No.
Nope.
Because you know what would happen.
What if Biden gets a medical problem and drops out?
You don't want Trump promoting RFK Jr.
from third place to second place, because then he's competitive.
No, Trump has to do exactly what RFK Jr.
expects him to do.
He has to not debate with RFK Jr.
alone.
He has to skip that, because that would just be good for RFK Jr.
It would not be good for Trump.
So, strategically, Trump is going to have to decline a one-on-one contest with RFK Jr.
It's kind of brilliant because they both win, in a way.
So Trump will win by saying no, because presumably he won't do it.
He's smart enough not to do it.
And RFK Jr.
will win by having made the offer and having it turned down.
It's really good politics.
Yeah, RFK Jr.
But no matter what else you want to say about him, you know, everybody's got their pluses and minuses, but no matter what else you want to say about him, he's really good at this stuff.
He's really good at it.
Finding, I mean, the fact that he's found so many wedge issues into this race, and he's found so many ways to find a crack in the door and You know, crawl under the door jamb and around the corner and over the wall.
It's kind of impressive.
Just watching him operate makes me confident that he can operate.
That he can get a thing done and understand how to do it and follow through.
So he's doing an amazing job of campaigning.
I should tell you today that I'm going to be on a podcast with his VP choice, Nicole Shanahan.
It's a general topics, so it won't be so much about politics, I think, maybe a little bit.
So that's just full disclosure.
I'll be having that conversation later today.
I think it's recorded.
I'll tell you when it's available.
Jim Saki says, the Hill is reporting this.
This is hilarious.
That the problem for Biden's campaign is that Trump's hush money case is getting all the attention.
Do I even need to add anything to that story?
So one of the top Democrats, voices anyway, is saying that it's bad for Biden that Trump is in so many court cases.
Act 3.
I'll tell you, this could not be better for Trump at this point, because his cases are all falling apart.
I'll talk about that.
All right, so the Mar-a-Lago box gate trial has been postponed indefinitely, Judge Cannon.
Some will say that she's in the tank for Trump.
She says she's postponing it because there's so many pre-trial and SIPA motions.
So a whole bunch of technical things have to be handled.
There's not enough time.
And she can't even reschedule it, because since you don't know how long that will take, and the election is coming up, and nobody thinks that after September anybody's going to want Trump in court, it would be too unseemly.
I mean, it's already unseemly.
If they've got him in court like a week before the election, nobody's going to be happy with that, right?
That's going to be way too far.
So the judge has put that on hold.
It seems to me that some of these motions must have something to do with the prosecutor, Jack Smith, and admitting that, I'm going to say that some of the evidence was falsified, but that might be too strong.
He has admitted that things that the state claimed were not true.
That's not exactly the same as intentionally falsified, but he has admitted that they presented evidence that he says was not true.
And they showed photographs of what looked like a bunch of classified folders on top of the documents.
Staged photo.
The classified covers were not part of the boxes.
They were brought in by the FBI.
And then Jack Smith said, oh, they were just placeholders so we can keep things.
And somebody took a picture of the placeholders.
Oh, maybe.
Maybe.
But it sure looks to me like the whole thing is fake in the setup.
Anyway, so that's that case.
Now let's talk about the Stormy case.
The Stormy Hoshibani case has everything.
It really has everything.
We've got a witness named Pecker.
We've got Pornstar.
We've got gag orders.
And I'll tell you in a minute that there was no erection interference.
So here's some of the things we found out from Stormy's testimony.
That Trump said that he slept in different bedrooms from Melania.
Let me give you some context for that.
Roughly 50% of everybody who can afford it sleeps in a different bedroom from their spouse.
Because one of them usually snores.
I remember being at a party with a bunch of, you know, just upscale suburban people who all had extra bedrooms.
They all lived in homes in which, if you wanted to, there was a guest bedroom.
And somebody brought up that they can't sleep with their spouse because of snoring.
And immediately, everybody confessed.
Yeah, yeah, we have separate bedrooms.
Yep, snoring.
Snoring, separate bedrooms.
Yeah, look in the comments.
You'll see in the comments people saying, yep, separate bedrooms.
Now, the separate bedrooms doesn't mean there's anything wrong with your marriage.
Everybody who talked about it was happily married.
They just said, I can literally not sleep when I've got that foghorn going next to my ear, which you can understand.
Since I'm one of the foghorns, I'm pretty sure that I had no chance of ever having a successful relationship.
Because I couldn't sleep in the same bed.
Well, I mean, I did, but it would just ruin the life of the other person in the bed.
You can't really sleep next to a snorer.
You just can't.
And I understand that.
I don't really know how anybody could have a successful relationship without spending the evening in the same bed.
I mean, you can do your business and then go to bed separately, but it's not the same.
It's not even close to the same.
So I don't, that's, I think snoring might be one of the reasons that the, uh, the birth rate is low.
If people have stayed married longer, they'd probably have more kids, I think, wouldn't they?
And the snoring is an absolute killer for relationships.
Absolute killer.
Get a CPAP.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Get a CPAP and that'll really help your relationship.
Are you kidding?
You see somebody in a CPAP once, you never want to fuck them again.
Sorry.
That's just the way it is.
I don't say that's good.
I'm just telling you that if your spouse sees you in a CPAP, they'll never want to have sex with you again.
So deal with that.
Anyway, some of the details were delightful.
He was 60.
She was 29.
She said that she went in his bathroom and looked through his toiletry bag.
Found the gold nail files, Old Spice.
She mocked him for wearing his silk pajamas because he looked like Hugh Hefner, so he changed his clothes.
They talked for a long time and apparently enjoyed it.
And then she had to drop in these little prejudicial things.
So she said that there was a power imbalance.
Hmm.
Why'd she have to drop that into this case?
What's that got to do with his accounting?
Because the case is about accounting.
Whether he accounted for the hush payments properly.
So, did we need to know that she felt there was a power imbalance?
And he was a big guy, and he had a guard at the door outside.
So there was a power imbalance.
Did she not pick up on the power imbalance before she went to his hotel room?
Because she said she regretted it.
And it makes me wonder.
Let's see.
She's a famous porn star.
And a famous billionaire playboy invites her a night to his hotel room.
And she says yes.
I'm sorry.
I feel like you got to take a little bit of responsibility.
Either that or go back to using Bumble.
But anyway, so she said, That she didn't fight him, so she's not claiming she was raped.
She's just saying it was a rapey kind of situation and sort of the atmosphere and sort of a, you know, a way that you could imagine the thoughts of the power imbalance.
Have I ever told you that The Democrats make all of their complaints out of words.
It's all out of words.
Either you think you got raped or you didn't.
You can't say you didn't think you got raped, but, you know, power and balance and, you know, it's the way.
Trying to make something out of nothing.
Now, I'm not saying that's nothing, by the way.
I'm not saying it's nothing.
I'm just saying I feel like that wasn't appropriate.
For an accounting problem.
A little too much information.
But here's my favorite part.
She claims she blacked out during the sex, but she was not inebriated in any way.
So she wasn't drunk, she wasn't on any drugs.
Wide awake.
Claims she blacked out during the sex itself.
You know what that means, right?
It means that, first of all, she didn't resist, so there was no erection interference.
But secondly, because she blacked out during the sex and she was not inebriated, could it be said that Trump fucked her brains out?
Because normally you don't get to say that.
You know, normally that's more of a, you know, hyperbole.
But if somebody doesn't have drugs and they black out during sex, I would call that fucking her brains out.
Just by definition, really.
And here was my take after listening to all of the tawdry details.
I want to do a little check with you, just see if anybody had the same impression.
By the time Stormy was done with all the tawdry details, and by the way, didn't she say that she might vote for him?
Can somebody confirm that?
Did she say she might vote for him?
I'm getting... right.
So... Here was my overall take after hearing all the details from Stormy Daniels.
I like Trump better.
Does anybody have the same impression?
I just like him better after hearing all these details.
And I'm trying to figure out why, exactly.
But first of all, the encounter was very normal.
Basically, everything about it was two human beings doing human being stuff.
You know, they happen to be special human beings, but they were just two humans doing human stuff.
So, that part, I don't know, I felt a little connection to just the humanity of it, even though it's an unusual situation.
Secondly, there's something about learning that Trump is exactly who he thought he was, That is weirdly satisfying.
In other words, if you were inclined to like Trump at all—so if you were a little bit pro-Trump, even just politically—the more confirmation you get that Trump is exactly the Trump you think he is—and he never hid it, and I give him credit for that.
When he ran for office, he said, I'm no angel.
He used those words.
We knew what that meant.
I'm no angel.
We all knew what that meant.
There was never any mystery about who this guy was, but once you hear the details, I just kind of liked him better.
I didn't find anything to not like.
I like the fact that he had, allegedly, I don't even think it's true, I like the fact they had Old Spice in his toiletry bag.
I don't know.
Is anybody having the same reaction though?
That somehow it humanized him?
It didn't hurt him a bit.
They didn't lay a glove on him.
Now, I guess the Trump lawyers doing their job, they objected to the details of it, and then the judge said, well, maybe I shouldn't have let her say all those things.
But then he blamed the defense for not objecting enough.
He says it's your fault for not objecting enough.
But you know, I guess there's also a thing where if you're the defense, you don't want to be over-objecting, because that becomes its own problem.
So I guess they called their shots to object a little bit, but then they left open their right to appeal later.
By lodging their complaint that it was prejudicial.
So I guess you have to say it's prejudicial in order to retain your right to appeal later.
Anyway, that story is all pro-Trump, even if it's not.
Okay, let me give you this.
This might be why I like it.
I like the humanizing part of it, like I said, but there's another part That really, really bonds me to Trump.
That he's shrugging off the embarrassment of it.
He's just pushing through it.
He's just shrugging it off.
And watching him shrug off what would normally be the biggest embarrassment anybody could ever have in their life is weirdly freeing.
It's freeing.
Watching him push through this is actually exciting.
It's actually exciting.
I love it.
I love that he's looking right down the barrel of the gun.
It's like they aimed a cannon at his head, and he took the cannon and said, watch this, and he pushes his head inside the cannon.
Go ahead.
Go ahead.
And they don't know what to do.
Here he is talking about his free speech.
This is a post from True Social.
It's a long one, but I'm going to read every part of it because they're trying to take his free speech.
So they're gagging him in a way that could only be seen as unconstitutional.
There's no other way around it.
It's pure lawfare.
So because they're trying so hard to censor him, I'm going to do what I wouldn't normally do.
I'm going to read every word.
All right, here's every word from Donald J. Trump.
Post from Choose Social.
It is a really bad feeling to have your constitutional right to free speech, such a big part of life in your country, so unfairly taken from you, especially when all the sleazebags, lowlife, and grifters that you oppose are allowed to say absolutely anything that they want.
It is hard to sit back and listen to lies and false statements be made against you knowing that if you respond, even in the most modest fashion, you are told by a corrupt and highly conflicted judge that you will be put in prison, maybe for a long period of time.
This fascist mindset... There we go.
There we go.
This fascist mindset is all coming from DC.
It is a sophisticated hit job on crooked Joe Biden's political opponent, me.
Judges Engeron and Kaplan, also of New York, are equally corrupt, only in different ways.
What these thugs are doing is an attack on the Republican Party and our once great nation itself.
Our First Amendment must stand free and strong.
Give me liberty or give me death.
There we go.
Fourth gear.
Ladies and gentlemen, fourth gear.
A little earlier than I expected.
I thought maybe June would be fourth gear.
But Trump just shifted into fourth.
Give me liberty or give me death.
Nobody thinks he wants to spend a day in jail.
But he just signed up for it.
He just signed up for it.
Everybody knows he does not want to spend five minutes in that smelly, dangerous jail of any kind.
But he just put his head right down in the can and said, go ahead.
Go ahead.
How much do I love this?
I can't even count the ways.
But I will give one bit of advice.
You called it a fascist mindset.
Go further.
You need to make the case that they are stealing your democracy.
Stealing democracy.
Can he give any examples?
Yes, he can.
I told you that the Federalist and the Daily Wire Are going to court to show that the government has, through a massive campaign of external events and funding, intentionally tried to destroy free speech in the United States.
Trump needs to be the champion of that, meaning champion of making that right.
Free speech has been taken from us and has been taken from the president.
Is anybody else worried about their free speech taken away?
Well, Let me tell you this little story about the Gallup CEO, Jim Clifton.
He, so he's the CEO of Gallup, major polling organization, right?
And he backtracked on claims.
He publicly said that, uh, the job numbers under Obama were a big lie, but now he's backtracked that.
And he said, the reason is quote, um, I think that the number, the number that comes out in the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Department of Labor is very, very accurate.
So he went from it's all made up to it's very, very accurate.
And then he goes on, he said this on CNBC, he said, quote, I need to make that very, very clear so that I don't suddenly disappear.
I need to make it home tonight.
He wasn't joking.
That wasn't a joke.
Do you get that?
He's the CEO of Gallup.
He knows what's real.
He just told you that he had to lie to you, to your face, so that he could make a home alive.
He's basically a hostage who's blinking to you in Morse code.
He's a fucking hostage who's blinking to you in Morse code as hard as he can.
They got me.
They got me.
Read the room.
He's telling you directly.
And you're watching free speech being taken away from Trump.
And in the Daily Wire and Federalist case, you're seeing it taken away from you.
And us.
Free speech is completely under attack by the current fascist regime.
Are they literally fascist?
Yes.
Literally the definition.
They're working with big companies and entities to suppress you.
All right, so what else?
Apparently, Biden is trying to take the F-16s away from Texas and other states, saying that they want the federal government to be the only one who has these powerful war jets.
Does that make you feel comfortable?
You shouldn't?
Looks like they're taking your freedom away to me, because I want my state to have a jet, just in case.
I think Texas wants to keep a few jets.
Just in case.
Is it because Texas wants to conquer the country with their jets?
No.
It's because Texas wants to stay free.
It's your freedom.
They're coming after your freedom.
They're trying to take your jets away in your state.
They're jailing political opponents, the January 6th people.
They're jailing people for free speech in Canada.
That'll probably come here.
At least they're trying to.
They're taking away your Second Amendment rights.
Biden is very clear about he wants to reduce your gun rights.
And they're taxing you without representation.
Now you might say to me, Scott, I have representation.
That's what Congress is.
No, it isn't.
No, we do not have representation in Congress.
Because if you asked, 100% of the representatives would say, no, we should not run up the deficit.
So where's your representation?
Every one of you wants the deficit not to be run up.
And they're going to run it up.
Every one of you wants something.
Every one of you wants the right thing.
And every member of Congress wants it too.
It's not going to happen.
So where's your representation?
You have no representation.
If you had representation, there would be no fucking deficit.
Because we don't want it.
Even the representatives don't want it.
So if we had any kind of a system where the will of the people was represented through the representatives, we wouldn't have it.
So, Mr. Trump, allow me to make this suggestion.
They are stealing your democracy.
You got close saying it's a fascist mindset.
Go at it directly.
They're taking your freedom.
They're taking your freedom of speech.
They're taking your guns, which is the only thing that can protect your freedom of speech.
They're taking your liberty in every way they can take it.
They're turning the schools into victim versus victimizers.
They are ruining every element of society and in every way reducing your freedom.
When you work against the meritocracy, you're working against freedom.
Because if I worked hard and did everything to develop my skills and I go into a job interview and I can't get it, because the government said you need some DEI, they took away my freedom.
In a way.
So, we have a massive, massive attack on the Constitution and the freedom, and I don't think Trump's saying enough about it.
He's talking about his own situation, but he needs to generalize this.
He needs to generalize his situation, because as it turns out, what they're doing to him, from the fake news to the lawfare, to maybe fake elections, is just a subset of what they're doing to the rest of us.
It's just, it's like a perfect example of what's happening to the rest of us.
All right.
Democratic Convention is going to get wild.
Protesters are going to be there.
Again, this is so positive for Trump.
Imagine the Democrat convention just being totally overrun by Hamas supporters.
It's just going to be wild.
Meanwhile, Fannie Willis, the Fulton County DA, who was prosecuting Trump for one of the bullshit cases, said that she would not be testifying before a Republican-led Georgia state panel that asked her to.
So she's not a big fan of the law.
Surprise.
So that looks like lawfare.
Which it is.
Columbia has canceled their graduation ceremony because we're a bunch of cowards and they can't keep everybody safe.
But let me tell you, I was watching CNN last night for the laughs.
Not a joke.
I hate to use the Joe Biden phrase.
Not a joke.
Not a joke.
I actually watch MSNBC and CNN for the laughs.
Because it's so absurd, the things that they're telling their audience.
I just laugh the whole time.
But I turned it on and they had a legal expert on.
And the chyron on the bottom described the expert as a lecturer from Columbia Law School.
And I immediately reached for my phone to take a picture of the screen because I thought it was funny.
Because it's funny that CNN would have somebody from Columbia Law School, you know, once we've realized that Columbia is not really a, let's say, a badge of honor.
Now, I'm sure that the woman they add on is fully qualified.
It's just funny that Columbia has destroyed their brand so thoroughly That I took it as a punchline that she put it on, that was part of her resume, that she was a lecturer at Columbia.
As soon as I saw it, I was like, ha ha ha, you're a lecturer at Columbia.
I remember when I used to think that would be a good thing.
Meanwhile, the CIA had named Burns.
What are the odds that the CIA head would be named Burns?
I don't know.
Seems like a weird coincidence.
Um, one of the CIA heads before him was named Bush.
Got the Burns and the Bush.
I know, I feel like you can make a joke out of that.
Somehow.
Anyway, my take on this is that all the quote ceasefire news is just fake news and it's totally dishonest and I can't believe that all of the news is trying to pretend that we're right on the edge of a ceasefire agreement.
No, we're not.
This isn't going to be a ceasefire agreement.
Israel told you exactly what they're going to do, and nothing is going to stop them.
Now, this is not me being pro or con.
I'm just describing it.
We're just observers.
It doesn't matter if you think there should be a ceasefire.
It doesn't matter if the protesters think it.
It doesn't matter if our government thinks it.
It doesn't matter if we withhold some ammo, which looks like Biden's doing.
It doesn't matter if we condemn them.
It doesn't matter if we embargo them.
It doesn't matter if we sanction them.
They told you what they're going to do.
They're going to kill or jail every militant member of Hamas, period.
No exceptions.
And they're never going to let the locals run Gaza again, at least not the security aspect of it.
Now, why would you doubt them?
See, the thing is that it's the only answer from their perspective.
Now, again, I'm not getting into the morality of war.
All war is horrible.
But from the perspective of self-defense and what makes sense and what can keep them safe in the future, they kind of don't have any choice.
I mean, there's one sensible path that might make things worse.
It might.
But it's the only sensible path.
Like, if you just reconstitute the thing you know doesn't work, well, you're a fucking idiot.
Right?
And to imagine that Israel is going to be, you know, bowed into or pressured into a ceasefire?
No way.
Imagine if that happened in America.
Do you think Americans would pull out before we were done with the job?
Or Russia?
Or China?
Or anybody?
Any other country?
No.
There's no other country that would be asked to stop before they're done under these circumstances.
And I do think that they're getting extra pressure for a variety of reasons.
So I would say that all of these ceasefire stuff might be theater more than anything.
I don't even know if the CIA imagined that they could get a ceasefire.
But the funny thing is that what Hamas did, Hamas is playing the new cycle well.
So Hamas pretends that they're talking about a ceasefire.
They make demands that they know could never be accepted.
Then they announced that they were accepted, but nobody accepted them.
And then they announced that somehow Israel had canceled the ceasefire.
So Israel having nothing to do with anything.
I mean, they're not even considering a ceasefire.
Not really.
And Hamas and the United States are over there creating their own little weird reality where a ceasefire might be a real thing and then acting like Israel somehow rejected it.
Israel wasn't even involved.
They weren't even part of the meetings.
It's all stupid.
You know, there will be no ceasefire.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, I'm pretty sure this is the finest podcast you'll ever see in your life, but it is coming to a natural end.
And I will be talking to the locals people for a few minutes here.
And of course, we'll have the man cave tonight for locals subscribers.
And so if you have any comments, this would be the time to make them.
And it's great to talk to all of you.
And I'm gonna end the stream except for the locals, people.
