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, Mood Adjustment, Pediatricians Declaration Gender-Affirming, Gluten Sensitivity, Smart People Voting Trend, Bill Maher TDS, Disaster Relief Racism, Don Lemon, Sam Harris, Single-Parent Demographics, Marriage Partner Selection, Trump Trial Juror Facebook, Eithan Haim Whistleblower Arrested, President Trump, Silicon Valley Fund Raiser, Nicole Wallace Propaganda, Anti-Trump Fake History, General Milley J6 National Guard, US Cartel Support, Scott Adams
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Well, welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams, the best place in the world.
If you'd like to take this experience, this Saturday experience, up to levels that nobody can even understand with their smooth, tiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker of gels or steinicken, a tin jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
Dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go.
Oh, so good.
So, so good.
Well, as some of you already know, apparently it's my birthday.
67 years young today.
And, uh, let me tell you, Let me give you some perspective of my age.
It's really different than I thought it would be.
I don't know what I expected about being this age, but it's not anything like I imagined it to be.
It's way better.
It has its challenges, of course.
But it's way better than you think it would be.
So if you're 25 and you're saying, oh no, it's going to be so terrible when I'm in my 60s.
Maybe.
Can't guarantee anything, but there are plenty of people my age who are happier than they've ever been, which defies all observation and common sense.
But there it is.
It's true.
Well, I don't, I'm not the only person with the birthday today.
Um, I share the birthday with, uh, Kanye.
Yay.
And also, uh, Ashley Biden.
Well, I think so anyway.
Let me tell you a little story about yesterday that's gonna make you happy, or potentially.
So, I've got a reframe where I start to understand my moods as being simply dopamine shortages.
Now, it might be some other chemical, but I just use dopamine as the catch-all.
So yesterday, I had a really long day.
Started to work at, I don't know, 3.30 in the morning, something like that.
Not too unusual for me.
And I was really just hitting it all day long.
And I didn't do any exercise.
I went to ride my e-bike that, you know, I planned my whole day around it.
And just when I was ready to go, I had the tires filled.
I accidentally ripped a stem out of the tire.
And well, that was the end of my exercise plans.
So I found myself suddenly in this deep, deep funk.
You know, some would call it a depression.
Some would say sad.
Some would say no energy.
But I've started to define it as simply as being low on dopamine.
And when you do that, it tells you how to fix it.
So, I'm sitting there and I'm thinking, oh god, you know, I just want to like fall off a cliff.
Somewhat instantly, you know, because the rest of my day was great.
But just when the dopamine hit that level where it's just too low, you just can't be happy.
So, thanks to a lifetime of habit building, I managed to engineer my way out.
And I did it a little bit at a time.
First is, how do you even get out of your chair?
So for that I use the pinky trick.
If you can move your pinky, you can probably move your hand.
If you can move your hand, your arm will move.
And then you can stand up.
So you just get yourself going by moving the smallest muscle and let that build.
So that's how you get up.
Now that's just a trick.
Now luckily I had enough mental mental wherewithal that I knew that I could use the trick.
So now I'm up.
So the first thing I know is that motion Creates dopamine.
So I've got to walk.
I got to at least walk around, do a chore, something like that.
So I decided I'll walk around and look for my dog and I'll give her some love because, you know, I can get a little dopamine from that.
So now I'm up, I'm moving, that's dopamine.
Playing with the dog, that's dopamine.
And then, you know, I'm just getting more active and doing a bunch of things and eating some food that wasn't bad for me.
And, uh, Next thing you know, all good.
So it was, it was as simple as identifying that I was low on a chemical and then saying, what causes that chemical to go up?
Oh, I could go outdoors.
So I went outdoors and it was exactly the way it was supposed to work.
If you do these things, your dopamine goes up and then your mind It fixes itself.
It was exactly the way it was supposed to work.
So, I recommend that.
Move your pinky to get up, do some moving, grab a dog, go outside, eat something that's healthy.
You might know that my book, God's Debris, is now out.
And this is, if you've heard the name God's Debris before, because it's a classic that I wrote a few decades ago, back when it was this little book, it now includes the little book plus the bigger book, well not the bigger book, but the sequel, plus a new short story that completes the arc.
Now I don't want to brag.
That's a lie.
I love to brag.
I just like to make it look like I couldn't help it.
So, you know how if you win a Nobel Prize, maybe you just have one good year, and you win the Nobel Prize, you're always a Nobel Prize winner.
If you win an Academy Award, even if it's just one movie and one role, well, you're always an Academy Award winner.
Am I right?
That's just the way it works.
Well, it works that way with books, too.
If you're ever a number one bestseller, you're always a bestselling author.
They can never take it away from you.
And with God's Debris, it's in many different categories because it spreads across philosophy and science fiction and metaphysics and religion.
It's like five, six different categories.
And I was checking out how it was doing.
It's number one in all of its relevant categories already.
But one of the categories was the same category that Amazon puts the Holy Bible.
So, for just a little while, my book was number one on one of the Amazon lists that included the Bible, which was running at number eight.
So, I mean, I don't want to get ahead of myself, but as a factual matter, I'm just going to state it as factual.
I don't want to add any hyperbole to it, but for a short period of time, I sold more books than God.
Now, I'm not saying not overall, not overall.
Overall, God beats me, like, hands down.
It's like a billion to one, right?
But just for a moment, Just that little slice of time sold more books than God, so I just want to put that out there.
You can never take that away from me, just like anything else.
All right.
Oh, by the way, if you try to order the book, The Hardcover, it's going to tell you that it's not available to December, but that's a glitch.
It is available.
We'll fix the glitch.
You could wait for that, but I think you'd be fine ordering it anyway, because the glitch will get fixed and you'll get it faster than December.
Should only take a week or something like that.
Anyway, the CEO of Zoom wants to create AI digital clones that can go to meetings for you.
So you'll have a digital clone, and you just do a Zoom call, and you don't even have to be there.
Your clone will do it.
Now, is it my imagination, or has reality finally caught up to Dilbert Comics?
Because I'm pretty sure I've done this Dilbert comic a few times.
In various forms, Wally has figured out how to use AI and remote work to not work.
So yes, in Dilbert's world, they will be creating a Zoom AI before the actual Zoom company does.
Probably as early as this coming week.
Well, meanwhile, the American College of Pediatricians just put out a statement saying that they're calling on all the major medical associations, and they named them each by name,
To stop doing the gender transition stuff and they said immediately stop the promotion of social affirmation puberty blockers Cross-sex hormones and surgeries for children blah blah blah and the reasoning is that the science is coming in and the science seems to suggest Fairly unambiguously that the the childhood transitions are more bad than good now Here's what I'd like to suggest.
I wonder if you've noticed a trend.
Have you noticed a trend where the idiots on the X platform are three years ahead of the highest, most qualified scientists and healthcare professionals in the world?
That's not my imagination, right?
Because, correct me if I'm wrong, every idiot on social media knew this was a bad idea and knew it was bad for kids.
And it took science how many years?
How many years did it take science to figure out this was a bad idea, maybe you should cut it out?
And it's not like that's the only example where the people on X as sort of an average got the right answer years before the experts.
You want to hear another one?
Nuclear power.
Nuclear energy is now acceptable basically to everybody.
And the greenies are loving it, they're lapping it up.
That took X probably five years of people who just sort of looked into it on their own, you know, plus listening to people who are smarter than us, you know, and we got it right.
So X was maybe three to five years ahead of, you know, the people who are supposed to be smart on this topic.
How about the pandemic?
Now we know what science did versus what the people on X just sort of guessed was true.
The people were just guessing collectively.
Now I'm using that for hyperbole.
They were doing their own research as well.
But the average person on X got the right answers about the pandemic way before the experts.
Why?
Because science isn't science anymore.
It's just followed the money.
If you ever thought science was real, maybe it was, back when Newton was doing it.
Galileo, that was probably pretty real.
But now it's just whatever your boss wants to fund, whatever you can get a grant for.
So at the moment, science is completely broken, but the collective wisdom of social media on X at least is picking up the slack.
So the rabble, You know, the unwashed masses were right about trans kids, transitioning kids too early.
Nuclear power, right about the pandemic.
I wonder if they'll be right about anything else.
How about our food supply?
Do you think the experts have come out and said, whoa, whoa, whoa, stop eating all this wheat and stop eating these processed foods?
Well, we do hear experts saying that, but you know what our experts haven't said?
Stop eating this shit, it's poison!
But on the internet we say that, right?
Where's your nutritionist who says, no, don't ever eat ice cream.
No, one Diet Coke a week is not good for you.
Zero is the right number, right?
No!
I would say that even though there's more of a Venn crossover in this case, I would say the public is way ahead of the science on nutrition.
And probably has been for a long time.
Probably has been.
There's also a study that says that the fewer calories you eat, the longer you live.
So that just came out, to which everybody on the internet said, you've been telling us that for, what, 20 or 30 years?
That's one of the oldest, most well-known scientific facts, that if you starve mice, As long as they're not starved to death, they live longer.
We all knew that.
You know how else I knew it without any science?
I've never seen a fat 80-year-old.
And we're done.
How much science do you need if you've never seen a fucking fat 80-year-old?
Do you have to really wonder if the weight is gonna kill you?
Obviously!
You've never even seen a fat 80-year-old.
Which brings me to Dick Van Dyke We just got an Emmy at the age of 98, which is awesome.
How fat is 98-year-old Dick Van Dyke?
Not at all!
He has zero fat on him, and he's 98.
Is it a coincidence?
Nope!
Because if he were 300 pounds, he wouldn't be with us winning any Emmys at age 98.
So if the public has been ahead of science and all those things, which I think you'd agree with me, what about The public's view on climate change.
Now, when I say the public, I mean sort of the people on X that I interact with.
They've been saying climate change is sketchy for a long time.
Do you think they're right?
Of course they are.
Of course they are.
I don't know if the planet's getting warmer.
That's a separate question from whether the science is BS.
The science is definitely BS.
But maybe at the same time, coincidentally, the Earth is getting warmer.
But the climate models are absurd.
How long will it take before science tells you, you know, we can't really do anything with this number of variables.
You can't really figure out what's happening in the future.
Nobody can tell the future.
Yeah, it'll take a few years, but they'll get there.
And about election denial.
So the experts are telling us that the election had to be clean because every time somebody took something to court they were rejected for, you know, usually standing or something like that.
So the people who are the smart people are telling us that you can know something doesn't exist via the process of not looking for it.
Now that sounds ridiculous, but it's something that no regular person thinks is true.
Only the experts say it.
All the people on TV, the ones who are telling us what's true, yeah, we know there's no rigging because we didn't look for it.
Now I'm exaggerating a little bit, but not a lot.
That's basically what's happening.
So I think the public's going to be ahead on election security, on climate change, and already ahead on all those other things.
And right now, this is amazing.
Just try to wrap your head around this next story in the context of what I just told you.
This is a new story.
I swear to God, this is today.
U.S.
doctors are coordinating to look into if the unusual spike in cancer after the pandemic is caused by the vaccinations.
To which few say, wait a minute, what?
Are you only just now thinking that the excess deaths need to be looked into in the context of the vaccinations?
That's something that the general public has been screaming about for the whole time.
And the doctors are just like, you know what?
I've got an idea.
Why don't we look into whether the vaccinations are causing any of this excess deaths?
What is wrong with the world that the experts are just consistently way behind the public?
And so they're banding together to research that.
Okay.
Here's what I'd like to know.
I have an alternative hypothesis.
I do think the vaccinations causing excess deaths hypothesis is a strong hypothesis.
I would consider it not proven, largely because I don't believe any data that I ever see about the pandemic.
But I wouldn't be surprised.
I mean, it's well within the top three possibilities of what's going on, right?
One possibility is that the data is wrong.
You know, maybe there's something about how we counted things before the pandemic that changed.
I don't know.
Maybe.
But let me offer another possibility that I haven't seen anybody else mention.
I think that when the food supply was at risk, and it looked like the food supply was going to collapse, I think either farmers got more creative, or the government made them be more creative, in doing whatever they could to boost production, because it looked like we'd have a problem.
One of those things that boosts production is using a weed killer.
So you kill the wheat so it, I guess, that dries it out faster so you can harvest it faster.
So instead of just letting the wheat, you know, grow its normal way and then getting it when it's ready, they sort of kill it with a weed killer so it's ready earlier.
Now, some say that that weed killer is the reason that you can't eat wheat in the United States without inflammation and other problems, but if you went to Europe where they don't do that, you won't have that problem.
Now, knowing what I know about just the way systems and governments and businesses work, don't you think there was pressure?
From the government on farmers, at least the big farmers, to make sure that they did everything they could do and maybe even bend some rules.
Maybe they got permission to use more of that.
Maybe they went a little hard on it because they could, maybe.
So I would look into any change in the food supply that happened at the same time as the pandemic.
Because we know our food is killing us.
So if something changed because of the supply uncertainty, which would be a normal thing to expect.
Supply uncertainty should cause you to loosen up your restrictions to make sure you have supply, because that would seem like a bigger priority than, you know, maybe there's some problem with the supply.
Just a hypothesis.
Well, I've said provocatively that all the smart people who don't have TDS now support Trump.
I'll give you some examples.
You've got your David Sachs, your Chamath, your Elon Musk, your Russell Brand.
What do they all have in common?
Used to be Democrats.
What else do they have in common?
They're the smart ones.
They're the ones who are not drawn entirely by picking a side.
They're the ones who can look at a startup and say, this is a good investment, or not.
They're the The logical ones.
And I was thinking to myself, okay, I keep hearing all these examples, you know, Bill Ackman, one of the Blackstone people, some other, a couple other VCs have recently come on board.
You know, those are just the ones they mentioned.
I mean, when Sachs did his big fundraiser in San Francisco, of all places, for Trump, he had a huge turnout and sold out.
And the people there were there to donate to Trump.
And he would have been picking from the richest, smartest people in Silicon Valley.
Now, you're going to say to me, but Scott, it works both ways.
It's not just people who have been lifelong Democrats.
And by the way, I'm one of those.
I'm a lifelong Democrat.
I can't even consider voting for Biden.
That would be ridiculous.
But people say, but it must work both ways, right?
Surely there are people who are Republicans.
We're now all in for Biden.
For example, there's Anthony Scaramucci.
So Anthony Scaramucci, who got fired in his first week from the White House.
I'm not sure I'm going to count somebody who got fired by the person he doesn't want to vote for.
Right?
If somebody fires you, your odds of voting for them go way down.
So it's always like a special case.
When you see a Republican defecting to vote Democrat, you're like, I think maybe there's something else going on there.
But when you see the Democrats defect to being Trump supporters, at least for now, that's not based on emotion.
That's based on analysis.
And it's going to be harder and harder to miss that all the smart people are on the same side.
Now, if you have a counterexample, I'd love to see it.
For example, is Rob Reiner one of the smart people?
No.
Is Stephen King one of the smart people?
Well, based on his posting on X, no.
So there are plenty of people who are famous who don't like Trump, but how many of them would you say are objectively smart?
Now, there are a whole bunch of smart people that you think might vote Democrat, but they're kind of quiet.
Kind of quiet.
Let me pick one.
Warren Buffett.
Warren Buffett, lifelong Democrat.
Has he been talking about how much he loves Biden and you better vote for him?
I don't think I've heard that.
No.
Now, he's not super political, so it's not unusual that he wouldn't.
But if you talk to Warren Buffett behind closed doors, who do you think he supports?
Who do you think?
Now, I don't know.
But there's nobody smart that I'm aware of.
Literally nobody smart supporting him.
Now, I say that partly to be provocative, because it'll cause people to say, what about this person and what about that person?
But I want to have that conversation.
If I'm wrong, I'd actually like to know that.
That would change my thinking a little bit.
If I found out that the people that I thought were the smartest people were on the other side for me, I usually change my mind.
If Alan Dershowitz disagreed with me, I'd think about that hard.
But he doesn't.
Smart, lifelong Democrat?
Nope.
How do I make that stop?
I'm getting birthday wishes during the show and that's going to be a problem.
All right.
What about Bill Maher?
Now, Bill Maher I consider smart.
I know that if we want to be political, you like to think everybody who disagrees with you is dumb, but he's clearly smart.
However, he has the worst case of TDS any of us have ever seen.
So that goes to my point, that if you're smart and not having a mental problem, or you weren't personally fired by him, you were all on the same side now.
You really are.
The exceptions are as funny as the ones that are more clear, I guess.
So here's something that Bill Maher said in his show.
He said Trump is winning on the border, but he pointed out that that doesn't make sense.
He acted like the Republicans are being irrational for supporting Trump on the border because he says it was Trump's big issue and he failed to build the wall and that was his signature thing.
So, smart guy, Bill Maher, thinks it makes sense to say that he doesn't understand why they would vote for Trump when he didn't get this done the first time.
Bill, do you know why it didn't get done the first time?
That was the Democrats that stopped it.
It wasn't the Republicans.
Bill, you do this for a living.
How can you say that was Trump's fault?
Now, if he were to say, but why would it be different this time?
Well, I don't know that it'll be different this time, but I know that John Fetterman might vote for the fucking wall.
Do you hear me?
I'm pretty sure that what seemed like a crazy wall idea to all Democrats before, now sounds like a much better idea suddenly, doesn't it?
Doesn't that wall idea look pretty good now?
So Bill, everything's changed.
toward the direction that would make it possible to build the wall.
You got one person who's balls to the wall on the wall, one person who tried to tear it down, well did, got rid of all the EOs.
How is this a hard decision?
And why are you confused, Bill Maher, that any Republican would want the person who's going to try really, really hard to get it done in a new environment in which it's probably possible now?
Is that a clear-headed analysis by him?
It's not.
It's crazy.
But he limits his crazy to just, like, this domain, because this obviously feels personal in some way, I guess.
But he does say, He says, I know Biden has a bad memory, but I can't expect the American people to forget four years of calling Trump's border policies and wall a racist and four years of tearing down Trump's border policies for more migrant friendly policies.
So at least Bill Maher understands that the border needs to be closed, right?
Again, he's a smart person.
He just has this weird TDS about Trump.
All right.
I'm going to do the last smart person who favors Trump.
You ready?
Here's a quote from Putin.
Putin said, and he's talking about the lawfare against Trump.
He says, it is obvious all over the world that the prosecution of Trump is simply the utilization of the judicial system during an internal political struggle.
There's supposed leadership in the sphere of democracy is being burned to the ground.
God, I wish we had a president who could talk as well as our enemy.
the next one.
Do you think Putin summed it up pretty well there?
Yeah, he did.
Is he our enemy so we should be careful what he says?
Yes, yes.
Of course he says things for effect, not just because he thinks they're true.
So you don't want to side with Putin here.
I don't want to become a Russian puppet.
But do you think that other leaders are having maybe similar thoughts?
How could they not?
How could any leader in any civilized country be looking at what's happening here and have any thought that that's anything but the end of democracy?
Or at least, you know, a body blow.
Yeah, we all see it now.
All right.
I wonder why I can't turn that off.
If you're watching the show, please don't.
Thank you.
Please don't message me right now.
I'm using my phone for the show.
All right.
So this Just the News is reporting, the website Just the News.
There's a federal court in Texas that ordered the Department of Agriculture to stop discriminating against farmers on the basis of race and sex when awarding disaster relief.
Now, it wasn't long ago when you saw this story, you would think, whoa, they're really discriminating against, you know, black farmers and, you know, maybe LGBTQ farmers or something, but it's the opposite.
They were doing their disaster relief specifically targeted toward black farmers.
Now there was a, there was a historical justification.
So it's sort of in the reparations Domain there is some history of black farmers being totally screwed by the government So I think that's a real thing Historically that the black farmers were totally screwed.
So I think this was a an attempt to Compensate for that But it's racist because the white farmers aren't getting Emergency aid disaster relief and Since when do we do disaster relief based on race?
That's so wrong.
Even though I get the justification, I get the justification.
And they're probably living people who are, you know, were impacted by that discrimination of the past.
So that's a real thing.
I take that seriously.
But no, you don't deny disaster relief to white people in the modern times to make up for that.
There's got to be Something else, but not that.
So anyway, I feel like that white people, white men especially, are living through this weird period of discrimination that doesn't have a label.
Like we say, it's wokeness and DEI, but it needs some kind of like a Jim Crow kind of a name, you know, where everybody's like, ah, this Jim Crow situation.
But it needs, I think I'd call it the Scott Adams situation.
Jim Crow's taken.
Jim Crow, by the way, I believe was a minstrel character who acted stereotypically, you know, racist, black.
So that's, that's where that law came from.
Or that's where the, the name for the law came from.
Anyway, um, Don Lemon had a podcast with Sam Harris, and I recommend it.
It was really interesting, especially one part, where Don Lemon was arguing that there's massive discrimination against black people still in this country, and you can see it easily by the few black CEOs.
Sam Harris said, We actually live in a, I'm paraphrasing of course, in a time where it's a gigantic advantage to be a black person applying for a job.
And he had to explain it to Don Lemon, and I don't think Don Lemon had ever heard it before.
So he'd been living in a country where he thought that he was being discriminated against for 30 years, when it had been aggressively the opposite for 30 years.
And never noticed.
Well, I noticed when I kept losing all my jobs.
Are there any white men who have noticed in the last 30 years that the system is aggressively against white men?
Any white men who've maybe noticed?
But Don Levin didn't know that.
What was his job?
I believe his job was to tell you the news.
And he didn't know Probably the biggest dynamic in the corporate world that white men were being passed over for 30 years for promotion.
He didn't know that.
So Sam Harris did a good job of dismantling that belief while he stood there just sort of not knowing how to respond.
And I thought that was really amazing.
So remember, I told you that all the smart people are pro-Trump.
Unless they have TDS.
Is Sam Harris a smart person?
Yes, yes.
You can say whatever you want about his Trump stuff, because that's pure TDS.
We all see it.
You don't have to be a professional.
You don't need a degree in psychology to watch Sam Harris talk and to know that there's something going on there that's outside the realm of reason.
But in every other realm, He's often the smartest guy in the room.
So, even when there's an exception, the exception has the obvious reason for it, which is TDS.
But all the smart people who don't have TDS are on the same side at this point.
Alright, here's something that you're not going to like, but I finally figured out how to say it, so you'll be a little less mad.
I saw the EndWokeness account, who I recommend very much.
I retweet his stuff and talk about it all the time.
EndWokeness is the name of the account.
If you follow me, and you're also an ex, you definitely want to follow that account.
It's just one of the most high-value accounts.
Anyway, you've shown some statistics, and if you were to rank what demographics have the highest percentage of single parents, according to this statistic, black families, 64% of them have a single parent, Latino 42, white 24, Asian 16.
And that matches up perfectly with incarceration rates.
They follow that same pattern.
But it also follows the inverse by income.
So the more likely you are to have two parents, the higher your income.
The more likely to have one parent, the more likely you're in jail.
And there was one more, I think.
Anyway, but that's enough to make my point.
So here's my point.
The implication of this Is that marriage is so strongly correlated with success that people should get married more, right?
Does that make sense to you?
How many of you would you agree if we have the clearest clear signal that married people, they live longer, they actually live longer, they have better health, more income, less jail, just everything.
The numbers are overwhelmingly obvious every time it's been measured.
So therefore we should encourage more marriage.
Do you agree?
How many would agree with the statement we should encourage more marriage?
Because it's so correlated with success.
I've primed you too well.
You're too good.
I think now you're all the smart ones.
You're the smart ones.
You're the elite now.
Yeah, here's what's wrong with it.
Let me give you some other examples that sound like this to my mind.
It's better to be tall because tall people earn more money and have more mating options.
Therefore, we should encourage people to be taller.
Are you good with that?
Now, you're going to say to me, but Scott, that's not practical.
A person can't just get taller.
That's my point.
That's my point.
Let me take another way you maybe could understand why the people who are the single parents also have the lowest income and things are going wrong.
Don't you think there's a correlation between who you'd want to marry and who you'd be willing to hire?
Tell me those aren't the same thing.
You can't.
It's the same sorting.
It's the same filter.
I mean, not exactly the same, but the Venn diagram is pretty overlapping.
Isn't the most reasonable thing you could ever believe?
All right, let me put it in funnier terms.
You'll remember it if I put it in the joke.
If nobody wants to marry you, who the fuck wants to hire you?
Am I right?
And I'm going to add another thing.
Do you know why people are single?
Do you think they chose it?
Do you think they chose to be single?
No.
Let me speak from personal experience as a single person.
I'm single because nobody wants to marry me.
It wasn't my choice.
It was a choice of approximately three and a half billion women.
They all got together and decided, no thanks.
Don't want any of that.
Now, I'm exaggerating a little bit.
I'm sure I could, you know, find somebody in the bush in some remote country who didn't know enough about me.
No!
The obvious correlation is that there's something wrong with the individuals.
Not genetic and not cultural.
I'm just saying there's something wrong.
But it doesn't have to do with that marriage is good or marriage is bad.
My take is this.
Marriage is the best system for about 25% of the public, if they're lucky enough to find that one great person.
Have you seen on social media, there are all these people doing really the same content, in which they say, all right, women all say they want a guy over six feet tall and makes six figures and blah, blah.
And then they do the math.
And they find that the number of men who are single and the right marriageable age and over six feet tall and have that income ends up to be like one percent or some crazy number.
And that's before you add drug addict.
It's before you add personality.
It's before you add mental illness, right?
So we've created a world where we're completely unhappy with each other, which doesn't have to do with your genes or your culture.
We've individually become terrible.
And I'm not saying, you know, sometimes you hear me say that women have gotten worse, but so have men.
I mean, I don't know how you'd compare the two in their worseness, but we have individually become unfuckable and unmarriageable.
All of us.
We're all unmarriageable.
And part of it is weight.
Part of it is we're on our phones.
Part of it is we all have mental illness from our phones.
Part of it is we don't seem to have as, or we don't feel like we have as much economic opportunity.
We've just become people that nobody wants to marry.
So just telling us that marriage is a better deal than being single won't do anything.
It's like telling you to be tall.
What do I do about it?
So I agree with you.
Having a perfect partner in a long-term relationship, best thing going.
And I see all the relationship experts saying stuff like, your number one decision, the best thing you have to get right, is your marriage.
Because you want the person who's loyal forever and is definitely rooting for you to succeed and all that.
I was watching another marriage expert.
So here's the battle of the dueling marriage experts.
One expert saying your most important thing is to find a woman who supports you and is your greatest supporter.
Because if you get divorced, you get wrecked forever, basically.
At the same time, another relationship expert, a woman, said that she didn't used to believe that women would try to destroy the success of their own partner.
But now she does, because it's just too obvious.
So her view is that women try to tear down their partner so their partner won't feel too good about themselves and find another partner.
That in other words, the natural way of marriage is for the woman to say that to fatten up her husband, so he can't get another, you know, girlfriend, to tell him he's trash and to make sure that he thinks he can't do better.
Now I've heard that, you know, husbands can do the same things to their wives, but we've, we've created a civilization and a set of whole bunch of different variables within our society.
That make marriage a really bad idea, but only because it made people bad.
We're just not the same people we used to be.
And on top of that, since we see all the, you know, the Instagrammers and the beautiful people, we think, my goodness, can I do better than that?
I've been looking at these, these hotties all day long.
And then I go to the mall and I don't see them.
Where are they?
And that ladies and gentlemen, Uh, brings me to all except one thing you wanted me to mention, which is there's a story about a juror of the, the Trump trial.
It looks like maybe my notes didn't all print out.
It seemed a little short today.
Um, cause I know that was on my notes, but disappeared.
So, uh, I believe that that's a hoax.
I believe it's a hoax.
Um, has that been confirmed yet?
So the idea was that Judge Mershon became aware that there was a social media Facebook post from some stranger who said they were the cousin of a jurist and that the jurist indicated they'd made up a decision before the jury was over, which means they would have talked to him about it, which would have been a mistrial, which would have been a free Trump.
But the person involved appears to be a famous shit poster.
And there doesn't seem to be any substance to it.
So if you're getting excited about that, I'd say tone that down a little bit.
Tone it down a little bit.
I feel like... How did all those notes disappear?
Oh, there's some other stuff.
Um, so, uh, uh, Jake Paul and Mike Tyson have their fight rescheduled.
I guess Tyson had some medical stuff.
He had to delay the fight.
So it's delayed until November 15th.
And, uh, the way Tyson, uh, posted it, he said, uh, there's a new date for Jake's wake new date for Jake's wake.
Well, why do I, why do I like Mike Tyson?
Why does everybody seem to like Mike Tyson?
He's sort of the ultimate bad guy.
I mean, he's done bad things.
He beat up people for a living, and sometimes for fun.
And, you know, I won't get into the other accusations.
But there is something, there's just something sympathetic about him that I can't put my finger on.
Because I'm also fascinated by him.
He's always been one of my favorite public personalities, and I, you know, I never felt proud of that.
Because he's done some bad stuff.
But I do like watching him, and I'll probably watch this fight.
It's going to be on Netflix, November 15.
Well, there's a 90-year-old pilot, William Andrews.
He was one of the astronauts.
He took the famous Earthrise photo back in whenever, and he was on Apollo 8, and he crashed his plane.
Wait, he was flying a plane at 90, and he crashed it.
So, um, we don't know the details of that, but I don't think maybe he should have been flying the plane in 90.
I don't know.
I don't know how that works.
Does anybody take your license away?
Yeah.
Yeah.
And the video, it looked like I couldn't tell from the video, cause there's a video of him hitting the water and what looks like a lake or a Harbor or something.
And, It looked like he might've been attempting a loop or something, and it didn't work out.
Was he doing a trick?
It looked like he was maybe trying to do a trick and it didn't work.
Or maybe he lost some power and couldn't recover in time.
But when he hit the water, he was trying to come back up.
He just got too low.
Probably overweight, somebody says.
Well, I'll bet you he wasn't fat, because he was 90.
Have you heard about the trans whistleblower?
He's not trans.
He's rather a doctor.
Eaton Heim.
And so he blew the whistle on a Texas children's hospital that is doing secret sex change programs.
Meaning secret from the parents?
I think that's what that meant.
And he blew the whistle on them.
Public was outraged and, of course, the Biden administration immediately sent their goons to arrest him.
Now, I think what he's being arrested for is violating, I don't know, some health care HIPAA confidentiality or something.
But again, I don't think the general public sees it as anything but lawfare against people they don't like.
I don't think that his arrest is legitimate.
He might have broken some laws, technically.
But it looks like bullshit to me.
So he's got to go fund me.
You might want to think about that.
All right.
Oh yeah, there's my note about the troll.
Trump was talking about his successful fundraising with David Sachs and the folks in San Francisco, but the way he describes it in his Trumpian way, has anybody reached this determination yourself?
That things that seemed too far when Trump came on the scene, it's like, that's too much bragging, or that's too much exaggeration.
It now just seems funny and quaint and just part of his personality.
The wilder the things he says, as long as they're within the Trump framework, you know, things that Trump says, I love all of them.
I just love it when he stretches reality.
But this is like a beauty.
This is the most Trumpian.
This is the Trumpiest Trumpy you'll ever get.
So he's talking about that fundraiser.
And of course, it was all the The smartest people in Silicon Valley.
and he goes, quote, these are brilliant guys, AI guys.
So yeah, Trump, not only, you know, it's no surprise for his age, of course, but he's not like a technology savant or anything.
But the way he simplifies, he's the best simplifier of all time.
These are brilliant guys.
AI guys.
And they're not really even AI guys.
You know, everybody at that level's got some investments in AI.
I'm not sure they're AI guys.
Anyway.
He says, these are the guys that are doing all the things you read about.
He's so funny.
And they're doing all the things you're reading about, which is true.
And then he says, he was talking to Fox News Digital, I guess.
These are just a brilliant group of people.
It gets better.
Hold on.
This is just a brilliant group of people.
And they can't relate to Biden because he is a stupid person.
and I have a high IQ.
We don't need to fact check this one.
Can we just enjoy it for the poetry that it is?
I swear to God, Trump should get a Nobel Prize in literature just for the way he talks.
Now, I don't know why it's so funny.
So last night I was flipping through the channels and decided to watch an old Seinfeld episode.
And I found myself laughing at a TV show for the first time in years.
Years.
I can't remember the last time I laughed out loud like actually holding my gut at a TV show or a movie.
Can you remember the last time that happened?
I don't.
I can't.
It's years.
So I go back and look at this old show that should have been extinct, you know, it should have timed out in terms of our appreciation of it.
Just a random episode.
And I'm actually convulsed.
I'm convulsing.
I'm laughing so hard.
But here's the thing.
If I looked at the dialogue on paper, you know, I was watching it as a writer, you know, putting my writer filter on it.
And I was imagining reading those same lines on paper.
They wouldn't really be that funny.
I don't know why that thing is so funny, but it's the same thing that Trump does.
There's something about that Trump never says anything that isn't Trump that makes it just so delicious.
Like, he's never talking the way you talk because that's the way you talk.
He only talks the way he talks, and I could watch it all day long.
But on Seidenfeld, the characters and the writing Um, even though a lot of it was like relatable, you'd have little situations you'd go, Oh, that happens to me too.
The way they talked and acted wasn't like anybody talks or acts in the real world.
And so it's that, that weirdness that they never talked and acted like real people in the real world.
Yet it was an exaggerated version where they're extra selfish and stuff like that.
It's just such a good formula.
So, so funny.
But I think Trump's got a little of that magic as well.
And then also, Arizona Attorney General is going to go after the governor.
So I believe they're both Democrats, but the governor is, Katie Hopkins, is accused of taking bribes.
Well, that would be a big surprise if we found out that somebody was taking bribes.
Oh yeah, I missed the best part of the show because I missed this note.
All right.
I hope you stayed after I acted like I was done.
The best part of the show is this.
You ready?
First of all, let's talk about Nicole Wallace on MSNBC's Stephen Guest
An ex was calling this out, and he notes that Nicole Wallace, before she was on MSNBC, she was Bush's White House communications person, and then, and then she was communicated, oh, White House communications, then when Alito was confirmed to the Supreme Court, and then she went on some deranged screed against Justices Alito and Thomas today, according to Steve Guest.
But here's what she said, quote, The irreversible harm from the United States Supreme Court could do to the country and democracy if they, the court, decides that the disgraced ex-president is indeed above the law.
The threat is compounded by Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito who have personal ties to the attempted overthrow of our government.
That's the news.
That's the news.
None of that shit's true.
Let's go through this.
There will be irreversible harm if the courts find that Trump is above the law.
Is that really the question?
Do you think the court's deciding if Trump personally is above the law?
No, they're talking about presidential immunity, but presidential immunity has existed forever, so that's just crazy bullshit propaganda stuff.
And then when she says it's compounded by Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito having personal ties to the attempted overthrow of our government, there was no attempted overthrow of the government.
That is fake news.
I sure hope to God the fake news doesn't turn into fake history.
Oh wait, here's the next story!
As Joshua Lysak pointed out, you saw a story in the Smithsonian.
It's a magazine.
The Smithsonian.
You know the Smithsonian that is a repository of our history?
And he opened up the history book, and he learned that the history says that Donald Trump, quote, packed the courts, And committed an insurrection.
That's in the Smithsonian document.
The history of our country.
Yep.
He packed the courts, meaning that he put people on the court.
That's not what pack the court means.
Pack the court means adding extra people so the court is bigger and then packing it.
So that's the wrong word.
Number two, He didn't commit an insurrection.
What court found that he did an insurrection?
I didn't see one.
It wasn't an attempted insurrection, because there were no tools by which he could attempt an insurrection.
I haven't gotten to the good part yet.
The good part's coming.
It's coming real soon.
All right, just hold that thought.
Just hold the thought that the current news is fake, which means that our history will all be fake.
We know that.
There's no way around it.
It's already written, and it's already fake.
And you can see it in real time.
Do you remember the story that Trump requested the National Guard on January 6?
I'll need a little reminder here, because I'm just pulling from memory.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but my memory is that Trump, ahead of January 6, authorized up to, what, 10,000 National Guard to make sure that the Capitol was protected.
Am I correct so far?
And that, I believe it was Nancy Pelosi who said no.
Am I correct so far?
Fact check?
Fact check's okay?
Now, we've always wondered why she would do that, right?
Because you say to yourself, oh, it's a setup.
She said no to the National Guard because that made it more likely there would be some bad behavior.
Is that what you think?
Is it your current belief that the only reason she would say no to the National Guard is because she wanted the trouble?
I've never been completely happy with that answer, because people do lots of bad things, but you know what they don't usually do?
They don't usually say, let's take all the security away from my husband so somebody can hit him on the head with a hammer.
It doesn't usually go that way.
People don't leave themselves unprotected, unless you're, you know, Juicy Smollett or something.
But a normal politician doesn't put themselves at great personal risk, you know, just to run an op.
A normal person doesn't.
So, why would she do that?
If you think that she was running an op, and, you know, making a look, well, I've got another hypothesis for you.
Try this one on.
You ready to have your head rearranged?
This one's gonna hurt for a little while.
Now, this is just speculation, and I'll take a fact check on it, so I will not assert this to be a fact.
There is some news reporting that General Milley feared that Trump would use the National Guard as his private army to take over the country.
Have you ever heard that?
There was fear that Trump Maybe he had some control over the National Guard and that he would use them to take over the country.
That's probably why they were declined.
Which would indicate that our top military guy is as big a fucking idiot as he looks.
Because I kept watching him perform on TV and I kept saying to myself, I don't know.
He looks like an idiot.
It looks like there's just something wrong with him.
Like, it looks like he falls for every hoax.
I believe that he genuinely believed that there was an insurrection.
I think he actually believed that the National Guard would maybe be somehow under Trump's control, and he didn't want to take the chance.
That there would be a military force big enough to make a difference, should they decide to be traitors.
I think that the real story of January 6th is that the Democrats hoaxed themselves so badly that they believed the ridiculous.
And then they acted on the ridiculous.
And then acting on the ridiculous, they were committed.
And they had to sell the whole bag of ridiculousness.
I think that the only reason there was trouble is that the National Guard was turned down, and I think the only reason it was turned down is that Mark Milley was a fucking idiot who had TDS and was literally hallucinating, a risk that no reasonable person saw.
Now keep in mind that nobody's even mentioned that risk until I just mentioned it right now, except that I saw a story that said he might have been concerned about it.
How's your brain?
What did that do to you?
Do you think that interpretation might be true?
Because it is the interpretation that explains all the facts.
The ones we've had before were like, maybe, but I don't know.
I just don't see somebody saying no to security when security is so important.
Right?
But this makes perfect sense.
We do observe, as a fact, That people have hoaxed themselves into believing that he's a monster.
What did Carville say the other day?
He's going to take away your constitution.
So now he's taken away your freedom, he's going to take away your democracy, he's going to take away your republic, and there'll never be another election and he's going to take away your constitution.
Does that sound like people who are in good mental health?
Not to me.
No, I do believe that the people who start these memes and messages, they're probably just cynical, and they know people will believe it.
But I think that somebody like Mark Milley just believes it.
And I'm going to add to this.
Now I'm going to tie two things together.
Remember Trump said something like, you know, attacking the cartels militarily?
He asked about it when he was in office.
But he's also talked about it after office.
Now, why is it that he is the only one who's mentioned that and prior presidents act like it's not even on the table?
Well, my hypothesis is that our government has been working with the cartels because it's how we control Central American governments.
We have to be on their side.
So we can't attack them militarily because they're on our team.
And we just put up with the Massive numbers of deaths because I believe our government, I've never said this before, but I'm going to say it for the first time.
I believe that the people who are really in charge of our government think that the overdose deaths are the worthless people.
That's what I think.
That's not my opinion.
I think that the people who are not dealing with the overdose deaths in the United States, the really deep state ones, the ones who are really in charge, you know, the dark arts people, I think they think the overdose deaths are just junkies and they don't give a fuck.
So they're like, well, if we kill the cartels, we're going to have chaos in all of the Americas.
If we let them kill 70,000 useless people a year, we won't miss them a bit.
The economy might be better for it.
The jails will be less full and there'll be fewer people driving and killing people because they're inebriated.
So fuck them.
Yeah, because a lot of you have the same opinion.
You've told me directly when I talk about my stepson dying.
When I talk about my stepson dying, the most common comment I get is, well, he had it coming, or that's his fault, or you should have done better in your parenting.
So it wouldn't surprise me if the people who are in charge actually just don't even think that's a problem, that it's just calling the herd.
That's what I think.
But here's the payoff.
Why is it that only Trump wouldn't know that we're working with the cartels?
It's exactly what you think, because the bad guys couldn't tell him because he wouldn't put up with it.
I believe that he was never briefed on the real intel, and John Brennan says directly that they don't want to give Trump intel because they can't trust him with it.
You know why you can't trust Trump?
And basically I agree with him.
You can't trust him with the intel.
Do you know why you can't trust Trump with the intel?
Because if we knew the truth, something would change, and they don't want that.
The problem is, he would change it.
I don't think the problem is so much that he would, you know, tell our secrets, although he might.
I mean, I could easily imagine Trump just saying, you know what?
It turns out we work with the cartels.
You could actually imagine him saying that.
The only person in the world who would do it.
So I believe That Trump has been operating in a crippled capacity because the CIA has not been his friend.
I believe that the insurrection was caused entirely by Mark Milley's TDS, and maybe he worked with... I'm guessing that when Nancy Pelosi said no to the extra security, do you think she did that without talking to anybody?
Do you think she just said, well, I'm Nancy Pelosi.
I know about security.
I'll just decide no.
No, she almost certainly talked to people who know what they're doing, and I'll betcha some of them had the Mark Milley opinion that if you bring in military they might side with Trump.
Do you think at that point they were worried that it would be obvious the election was stolen?
I believe so.
I believe that the Democrats were worried that it was too obvious the election was stolen.
Do I have proof the election was stolen?
No.
Not direct proof.
I have indirect proof, which is that the same bunch of people rigged everything they've touched.
Every single thing that same group of people have touched has been fake.
Everything they've touched has been fake.
If you want to tell me this is the one thing that's not fake, I say, you're a fucking idiot.
All right?
Let's be honest.
If you still think you know the election was good, as opposed to, you can't tell either way, which would be a reasonable thing to say, if you say you know it was good, you're a fucking idiot at this point.
You don't know how anything works.
You don't know that everything the same people, same people did, all of it's fucking fake.
All of it's fake.
This isn't the one thing they did right.
It's not.
All right.
So, history's fake.
Four hostages got freed from Gaza.
The IDF did an op and killed a bunch of people, but got four hostages back and they seem to be in good shape.
So that's good news.
There's news that NATO is preparing a land corridor for a possible land war in Europe against Russia.
Can you name anything dumber than planning a land war against a nuclear power?
I really can't think of anything that would be dumber than that.
But military people have to do military planning, so you should not see any kind of planning as anything that's like signaling what's going to happen.
Because if you're in the military and it's your job to plan for all contingencies, you don't say to yourself, well, I think this one's, you know, terribly unlikely.
No, you plan for them all.
Also be aware that we're in a psychological battle with Putin.
So Putin's moving his warships to just to, uh, you know, some naval exercise, but it's going to be close to the United States off of Cuba.
And then, you know, he talks about his nuclear weapons and how he might use them if so and so happens.
And then we, you know, we indicate that if this happens, that'll happen.
So you might see the planning for a land war as just part of the psychological battle, because if Putin thinks there's some chance that would control some of his urges, if he thought there was no chance because NATO wasn't even preparing for war, Then he could act like NATO doesn't exist.
So you should see the planning as the fight.
Not that it's an indication that there will be a fight later.
The planning is the fight.
That's the psychological fight.
Anyway, I have a theory that I'd like to tell you about the simulation, because I keep hearing the same complaint.
People say we couldn't possibly be a simulation because you could never build a computer so powerful to simulate the universe.
Now, maybe you could, but let's take it as as truth that you can never build one to simulate the universe.
That wouldn't matter, because if you could build it to look as good as Roblox.
Do you know what that is?
Roblox?
Roblox?
The kids video game where the characters look like Legos.
You know, everything's made of squares.
So, if you see one of these, like, characters that's just made of, like, Legos, you say to yourself, well, that doesn't look like a real person.
That looks like Legos.
All right, now let's say you were a robot.
And the robot has been trained on human behavior, and it sees a man made out of Legos.
What's the robot say?
Well, same as the people, because it's trained on people.
So the robot says, oh, that's not exactly a person.
That's like some kind of creature made out of blocks.
But now take the robot and reprogram it, and you simply add this programming.
You will think you see something in detail, But really, it's just going to be these blocks.
So if you were to describe it later, you would say, oh yeah, you had a mustache and looked like a regular person and everything, but it won't actually be there.
You will just see all the detail, but none will be there.
When you walk into a room, you're only ever going to see the little cone of your concentration.
All the rest, you'll imagine you saw in detail, but there wasn't any.
Is that robot living in a simulation?
Yes, the robot would reliably report that it sees details and could even describe the details, could even draw a picture of the details, but they wouldn't be there.
So what I'm going to suggest, what I am suggesting, is that the universe could be run on a very small computer as long as the characters in it were told that they see more than they see.
Now, could you, um, these are some breaking news.
Is it possible to, in the real world, the one that we think we're in, this one, do we know that people imagine more detail than they see?
Yes, that's well proven.
Your actual reality, your brain sees detail that isn't actually there.
It's well understood.
I don't need to get into the details.
But yeah, don't worry about processing.
All you need is a line of code that says, you see the details.
That's it.
You see the details.
The whole thing could be solved.
You don't need a computer that's bigger than the universe.
You need a little one that just fools you into thinking you see things you don't see.
Because an optical illusion, or simply BS, is just always easier to produce.
Let me give you another one.
How can you build a computer big enough That your memories, my memories, and everybody else's memories would stay consistent.
Imagine how the complexity of having all of civilization, billions of people, and all of their histories have to match and line up and be the same?
That's not a problem, and you know why?
None of our history is real.
Even our personal memories don't line up.
So, the other day somebody asked me what programming language I used, you know, back when I was a young pup and doing some programming, and I think I said BASIC+.
And then yesterday, by weird coincidence, I was looking through some old videos and I saw myself in the year I was using it saying that it was QuickBASIC.
So I had a very clear memory of something that didn't happen.
And there are tons of examples of that.
I've even had memories of things that I thought happened to me that might have happened to my brother and vice versa.
I've even changed the character involved.
So here's how that saves energy.
Our histories don't have to match anymore.
You and I can watch the news and come away with different ideas of what history was.
We can write our history any way we want.
And if somebody writes it differently, we say they're lying.
So you don't need any matching, coordinated history, because we just imagine that we got the right one and everybody else is wrong, and it's one line of code.
It's one line of code for all of history.
Your own version is fine.
The other people are lying or have bad memories.
Boom.
Done.
All the memories now have been explained.
All right.
That, in fact, is the end of the show.
I'm going to say goodbye to my wonderful people on X and YouTube and Rumble.
If you missed the first part of the show, you probably don't know that my new book has dropped, which is a combination of my two existing books, which are both classics, God's Debris and The Religion War, plus a brand new short story that completes the arc of the avatars.
Available now on Amazon.
If it tells you the hardcover isn't available to December, that's a glitch.
Go ahead and order it.
We'll fix that and you'll get your book in the normal amount of time that people get books.
All right.
That's all we got for now.
I hope I'm alive tomorrow and all the rest of you are too.
And I hope you have an amazing day.
I'm going to talk privately to the subscribers on Locals now.
If you are subscribing on Locals and or on X, where the Dilbert comic still runs.
