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, Democrat Policy Pattern, Trusted Source Fake News, The Acolyte, AP Propaganda, Democrat Liars Squad, Dan Goldman, Trump's Young Mind, President Trump, AI Speech Writing, Biden's Celebrity Support, Joe Scarborough, Body Doubles, Bryan Malinowski, Little Rock Airport, Alexander Wang, Scale AI, Bill Maher, Military White Male Recruitment, Electronic Voting Machines, VP Harris Assignments, Climate Change Models, 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
Well, I'd like to start out with a special shout out to all the fathers.
Thanks.
Then I'd like to ask you this question.
Fathers, how many of you have ever set up a home theater system in your house?
In other words, adding the surround sound speakers and maybe a bigger screen.
Only to learn that when you were done, you were the only person in your household who could use it without instructions.
And thus, when you thought you were creating something with a remote control, you were actually the remote control.
And it works like this.
Dad!
I can't turn on the home theater!
Alright, I'll be right there.
Now, in the comments, tell me, how many of you dads are the only ones who can use the home theater that you set up in your house?
Every time I've ever done it.
Yes, it seems that there's no such thing as a home theater that everybody in the house can use.
There's only a home theater that dad could use, when you call him, to push the right buttons.
Well, there's a new study that reveals that simply looking at trees can boost your mental health.
Looking at trees.
Let's add this to these studies that you could have asked Scott about.
I think I've even told you this before a number of times, and I would add to this that pretty much every day after I do the show, one of the first things I do after having a snack is I take my dog to the park.
And one of the things I noticed is my little park has some delightful trees, and I could actually feel the difference in my mental health when I look at the trees.
Now, it's more than just one tree.
It's that the park has a nice arrangement of trees.
But the fact that you can actually feel it in real time, that's mind-blowing.
Because I spend a lot of time indoors, so the contrast between indoors and outdoors, I think, is just more stark.
But when I go directly from being indoors for, you know, 18 hours and go into the park, you can feel the trees.
Have you ever had that experience?
So, if you can force yourself to stand among the trees a little bit every day, wow, you can really feel the difference.
I recommend it.
Well, here in California, there's a vote on whether parents should be informed by schools when they change the pronoun they use for the kids.
In other words, when your child starts identifying as a different gender than the one you knew about, is the school required to tell you, well, Guess what?
Every California Democrat voted.
That's right.
Every California, everyone, 29 to 8, every single Democrat voted to keep it a secret from parents that the school was changing the gender of your child.
I mean, by calling them a different pronoun.
Every single Republican voted against it.
Now, can we be honest about this?
This is really not a political question, is it?
Is one side being fucked up and evil?
And that's the whole story.
Democrats are completely fucked up in California, at least in California, and totally evil.
There's nothing else you can say about this question.
This is fucked up and evil.
Oh my God!
You can't tell the parents when you're changing the gender of their children?
There's no argument to be had here.
This is just bullshit, batshit crazy, worse than communist.
I mean, this is just evil.
Meanwhile, the U.S.
Department, State Department, they're quite proud of launching an updated online passport renewal service.
So now you don't have to go in person.
You can mail your stuff in.
And upload them digitally.
That's right!
The State Department is caught up to 1996!
Everybody, let's give a hand to the State Department.
You're up to uploading documents digitally.
Yay!
Yay!
I can't wait for what you have coming next.
Now I ask myself, is there some reason that didn't happen 20 years ago?
And then I say to myself, huh.
If we were suspicious, what would we suspect about the fact that they made it easier to cheat on your, I assume, easier to cheat when you get your passport?
Why does it look like 100% of what Democrats are doing is to destroy the country?
Is that my imagination?
Let's make the elections harder to know if they're true.
What?
Let's make it easier for illegal aliens who might have criminal records to get into the country.
Wait, what?
Let's make it easier to get a fake passport, but we'll just say it's being more efficient.
Wait, what?
Let's put in electronic voting machines that have no utility that we can determine.
But people are really, really worried that they get used for cheating in elections.
Wait, what?
What?
Don't these things have a pattern?
They're all batshit crazy.
Unless you're trying to destroy the country, then it all makes sense.
Well, Bjorn Lomborg points out that America has been getting greener, probably because of all that delicious CO2 the plants are eating.
They love that stuff.
And, uh, so the world is getting more green, but it may be also warmer.
People would dispute the getting warmer part, but we know the green part seems to be, everybody seems to agree.
Don't see a lot of pushback on that, but I'm going to, I'm going to try again this, uh, reframe.
All right, here's a reframe.
Every time you put a human in a situation where there's more baseline energy, good things happen.
I wonder if there will ever be an exception to that.
Now, the reason I said baseline energy is to make an exception.
Like if somebody blows something up, that's a lot of energy, but that's not baseline.
So if something happens that's a quick shock, you know, that could be a bad application of energy.
Could be a bullet or a bomb or Lightning or something.
So you don't like that kind.
But when is it ever bad to put humans in proximity to baseline more energy?
Because that's what the Sun is.
The Sun is energy.
And so this energy is making things greener.
And it should make it easier for us to generate power.
The worst thing would be if we're getting colder.
I mean, there's nothing you can do about that.
Well, maybe you could.
But it'd be a terrible problem if we're getting colder.
So I just put that general question, has it ever been a bad idea to put humans where they have access to lots of baseline energy?
Because in my view, you know, my economics view of the world, every time your energy situation is good, you do well.
It seems to me.
Well, beware the UFO krakens, I say.
One of the things I learned on YouTube is that, according to people who are not in the CIA, it's common for the CIA to hide its behavior by creating 10 fake stories to hide that one of them might be real.
For example, it's rumored, I would say this is not confirmed, but some say that a lot of the UFO reports were intentionally faked.
To hide the fact that there are real UFOs, and that the government has a bunch, and they shot them down, and they're reverse engineering all their technology.
None of this I believe, by the way.
I believe zero of those stories.
But there is some indication that maybe some of the UFOs are just skunkworks, you know, like Lockheed's skunkworks.
And that the big triangle-looking ones with three lights on them might be just, you know, experimental planes.
But the little tic-tac ones, people think, no, the tic-tac ones are alien technology.
I don't think so.
But my question is this.
Have we seen a pattern where if we think there's something real, the zone gets flooded with fake reports?
There are two domains in which I've seen this happen.
One is UFOs, and I worry, I'm especially worried because I saw Michael Schellenberger way into the controversy.
Now, Schellenberger, if you've been following the news at all, you know he would be right at the top of credible journalists.
Not any of the corporate media bullshit, but like a real independent Honest to God, real reporting.
You know, the Matt Taibbi stuff, where you don't care which side it's coming from, you're just going to report it anyway.
There are only a few of them.
In the whole world, there are only a few of them.
And the next thing I know, I see Schellenberger talking about UFOs, well, UAPs.
Now, I don't believe that he had an opinion on it, except that it looks like something's going on, which is a fair opinion.
But here's what I worry about.
I worry that this technique of flooding the zone with fake stuff, as in the Sidney Powell Kraken?
In my opinion, the Kraken that Sidney Powell said was coming was because there were too many fake stories that looked real, and she may have latched onto one, and it may have come from a trusted source.
Here's a dog not barking.
You ready for this?
Sidney Powell has never said Why she thought the Kraken was coming.
Somebody that she trusted told her it was coming and she believed it.
Somebody probably associated with an intelligence or the bad guys.
I think it's a common practice for the bad guys to seed a whole bunch of fake stories so that credible people start looking non-credible.
And I'm quite concerned that the UFO thing is that.
That every person who says, yeah, UFOs, loses an ounce of credibility.
So take Joe Rogan, for example.
Through no efforts, I don't think it was his mission, but he became one of the more credible people in the media landscape.
Now he became credible just because there's no indication he's ever tried to lie to you.
He may have been wrong about a few things like everybody in the world, but there's no indication, not even a hint, that he has any incentive Or ever has lied to you.
That's really dangerous.
Because if he tells you something, you know, in a minute, you're gonna say, well, he never lied to me before.
So he's probably right about that.
But then you feed him some stuff about UFOs until the people watching say, you know what?
That's a little too far for me.
So maybe the other things he says aren't that credible either.
Beware the UFOs.
And also, beware latching onto any specific election irregularity claim.
I think both of those are traps.
Beware.
Well, Star Wars, the acolyte, the ratings are in and it's completely in the toilet.
And here's one of the reasons why I think it happened.
I'm going to go full sexist.
Sexism coming.
If you can't handle it, you might want to stop watching now.
Sexism incoming.
It goes like this.
If you're an American man, do you think about how women will be impacted by your decisions?
Yes or no?
You're an American man.
When you make a personal or even professional decision, does it ever come into your mind, oh, what are women going to think about this?
The answer is yes, because we're trained that way.
Everything you say to your spouse, you're thinking, oh, what's she going to think about this?
I better put this right.
I better not say this wrong.
I hope she's in a good mood.
Now, does it work the other way?
I don't believe it does.
Now, of course, everybody always thinks about what everybody thinks in sort of a general way.
But I don't believe that women are super concerned about what men think about anything.
Because men act like we're not too bothered by too many things.
So I think in general, men put themselves in the position of, okay, I can't be a woman, but like using my historical experience, what trouble could I get in if I do this versus that?
I don't think women do that.
And I think that explains the acolyte.
There's no way you make this movie the acolyte.
With any sense that male opinion is even important to the process.
I believe that it was just a, you know, they were probably locked in some kind of woman's LGBTQ world.
And they figured if they make themselves happy, the rest of the world would be happy.
Because that's the way it usually works.
They just have to make themselves happy.
And that's good enough.
Well, guess what?
If you spit on men long enough, They don't go to your stupid fucking movie!
And we're completely done.
Speaking for all men.
I can't always do that, but I'm going to do that this time.
Speaking on behalf of all men, you can take your Star Wars movie and you can shove it up your front hole as far as it goes.
Because we don't need this shit anymore.
And if you're not even going to spend a fucking second thinking about what we want to pay money for, we're not going to pay our fucking money for it.
Happy Father's Day.
Well, let's look at propaganda.
The AP has some propaganda.
They're talking about how Trump was talking about that Biden should have to take a cognitive test.
Oh, but the AP zinged.
They zinged the president.
Listen to this.
President Trump was saying that Biden should take a cognitive test, and then he totally confused the name of the doctor who gave him the test.
Oh, it's like they're equal now.
That's the way I see it.
I think that Trump's cognitive problem is probably just like Biden's, because of that name confusion thing that he just did here.
Let's see, what did he confuse?
He called Ronny Jackson, Ronny Johnson.
That would be in the category of things that literally every person in the world mixes up.
If you asked me tomorrow what was the name of his original White House doctor, because that's, Ronny Jackson was the White House doctor for Trump, I would have said, I think that's Ronny, um, starts with a J. No, you can't compare confusing Johnson and Jackson with Biden not knowing what fucking planet he's on.
Maybe I'm saying the F word too much today.
No, those are not equal.
That's propaganda.
AP propaganda alert.
Is there more propaganda?
Well, certainly there is.
I see a story that says Javier Millet's Argentina is in complete chaos.
There's rioting in the streets about his populist uprising.
Although Alex Jones warns us it might be a communist uprising.
It might not be everybody's uprising.
It might be the communists.
It might be a CIA-led uprising.
That would not surprise anybody.
What does the CIA think about populists?
What do you think the CIA thinks about Millet?
I think they think he's not going to listen to what they want.
I think the CIA's job probably is to overthrow him.
Now, I'm not in favor of that.
I'll bet you they think it's their job and it's completely legal in America for them to do illegal things in other countries.
So yeah, I have real questions whether this is a real story or is it propaganda and is it just CIA propaganda before they try to take over the country?
That's my guess.
My guess is that's exactly what's happening.
Just a guess.
Well, I'm loving the Democrats for making it so easy to know what is true versus what's not true.
If I haven't told you what the liar squad is, let me remind you.
There's a group of Democrats that come out when you need to really, really lie, and everybody knows you're lying.
Now, regular Democrats will often say the same things, you know, they'll agree with their team, but they're not really front and center.
Sort of, if you track them down in the halls of the Capitol, like put a microphone, what do you think about this?
They might say the same thing as the professional liars on their team, but they're not volunteering to go on camera.
The ones who go first and loudest, the liar squad, You got Dan Goldman, uh, you got Raskin and Schiff, Swalwell, Brendan Clapper, and that Worson Watergate guy who they really, when they really have a bad one, they'll wheel out the Worson Watergate guy.
Now I'm forgetting a few.
It's not a complete list.
Oh, hold on.
I see you saying Schumer and, uh, Pelosi.
They're not in the list.
Schumer and Pelosi are just the leaders, so they just say whatever the people are saying in the group.
But the professional liars are the people who are not the leaders, and apparently they will say anything, no matter how transparently untrue it is.
I mean, Goldman is still supporting that the laptop from hell isn't real, as of, what, a few weeks ago?
He was still arguing in public that maybe it wasn't verified to all be real.
Maybe there was some stuff in there that was planted.
You never know.
Okay.
So, look for that.
Goldman, Raskin, Schiff, Swalwell, Brennan, Clapper, and the worse than Watergate guy.
Those are the guaranteed this isn't true people.
And it's actually helpful.
Once you learn to spot them, you can know immediately what's not true.
Because it's one of these people defending that it's true.
And by the way, I mean that literally.
I mean, you literally can tell what's true and not true with, I would say, 100% accuracy.
They just don't come out, this specific group, unless it's a lie.
They're the liar squad.
All right, Trump apparently said the other day that one of his speeches was rewritten with AI.
And apparently he may have actually given that speech.
Now rewritten means that I just think they just tightened it up a little bit.
He talks about his speechwriter, you know, showed him the before and after, and he agreed that the after was a little tighter.
It was a little better.
So here's what I love about Trump.
He is not that far from Biden's age, but he has a young man's mind.
For better or for worse.
You know, all the nicknames and the funny insults and stuff, they do read as, you know, sort of juvenile.
But what you get for that package is a young mind.
He has a very young mind.
You know, he's crypto, okay, AI.
Now, he's fascinated enough by AI that, you know, that his curiosity is bringing him further into the topic.
Which is just a great thing to see from somebody of a certain age.
So he does such a good job of that.
Now here's a question you must ask yourself.
Here's a perspective that I can give you as a professional writer.
Speechwriters have a lot of influence on government policy.
Because if a speechwriter can write it in a way that's really persuasive, then the politician who approves it says, whoa, that's really persuasive.
I'm going to go with that.
If the speechwriter can't figure out a way to say it in a way that the country is going to buy it, the candidate will kind of spot the same thing and maybe de-emphasize it.
So what you have is a situation where nobody talks about this except writers, I guess.
Writers are super influential.
If you've seen me influence anything in the real world, it's because I'm a writer, meaning that I know how to say things in a way that other people can pick up as a persuasive way to say something.
So just the fact that I can frame things in a better way gives me Incredible influence over the public, because I can show a good way to say something, somebody important can recognize it, say, whoa, that is a good way to say that, and then they say it.
So if you can say it best, you run every conversation.
Whoever can say it best is in charge, basically.
I mean, for all practical purposes, whoever's best at wording things ends up being in charge.
You just don't know it.
So, now think about AI being used for speech writing.
Now, the way that Trump explained it, I think it just tightened up the writing, you know, didn't change the content.
But how far are we from some lesser known politician, let's say an AOC, who's got the charisma, but isn't so good in the messaging?
But they just turn on AI and say, look, I'm this kind of politician, I need a very persuasive speech on this topic.
And then just give that speech.
Now, at the moment, the best human speakers can write a way better speech than the best AI.
But we all kind of think that's going to cross over.
So that maybe only, you know, a few Abe Lincolns can do better than the AI.
So if you pair an AOC-type charisma With AI written persuasive speeches, it kind of puts AI running the country.
Because even though the politician gets to say yes or no to reading the speech, they won't say no if it keeps working.
So the way AI can control us is not by some kind of force or threat, it's by its usefulness.
AI will control us by its utility.
You will soon realize there's no point in reading the speech it wrote for you until you deliver it.
Just think about that.
That's a real thing.
I can predict with certainty that at some point in the next five years, for sure, maybe one, there's going to be some, somebody's going to give a speech they never read.
They just told the AI to write it.
They printed it out.
They put it in their pocket, got on stage and read it.
That's going to happen.
Then who's running your country?
The AI.
And it's not doing it with any malicious intent.
There's no objective to it.
It would simply be useful.
If it's useful, it's going to run the country.
That's it.
Because we don't ignore utility.
Utility is really persuasive.
All right, it works.
I'll keep doing it.
Over in Europe, I guess MET is having trouble with their AI because Some Irish entity told them they can't use local data, which makes their AI useless.
So, remember I told you that humans are more dangerous to AI than AI is to humans?
Well, here we are.
So the Europeans are trying to kill AI.
Tell me an advantage that America has over China, Japan, and Europe in commerce.
Okay, I'll tell you.
Here's the advantage that America has over Europe.
Asia and China.
When it comes to AI, there are two paths.
Go fast, and oh my god, you might destroy the world.
Or go slow, and you're in a lot of trouble that way too.
What's the American way to do anything?
You already know.
We're going to go fast.
If we can.
Now the government would want to slow it down.
Right?
If it's up to the government.
But in America, we're going to say, the government wants me to slow down?
Well, how about I just don't tell the government until I'm done?
That's the American way.
Yeah, we'll tell you when we're done.
Oh, was that too fast?
Sorry about that.
Well, it's out there.
Whoops, too late.
I wish I'd asked in advance, but it's a good thing I didn't.
No, America has a tremendous advantage in AI because of our personalities.
The American personality is, this is super dangerous, But also super valuable?
When do we start?
We love this shit!
We eat this for breakfast.
Of course we'll take the risk.
Of course we will.
Will it work out?
Well, nobody knows, but it's the right play.
I do think you have to make noise about safety, just so it's not forgotten.
But even within that You know, within those boundaries, America is going to be more flexible than other countries.
And I really think that's going to make a difference.
We found out that Biden's EPA took a bunch of money meant for clean energy and gave it to groups that oppose immigration enforcement.
That's a real thing happening.
That you thought you voted for clean energy and they gave it to opposing protecting your country.
Do you think that maybe everything that we fund everywhere needs to be looked at carefully?
Do you think that we need a Vivek-like personality in the government to say, how about if you can't prove where you spent the money last time, you get zero?
How about that?
How about your budget for next year is zero if you can't tell me what you spent it on this year in a way that we're all happy with it?
Zero.
Goodbye.
You get nothing.
That's why we should play this.
If anybody says, oh, well, maybe we'll start tracking it next year.
No.
Zero.
Zero is what you get if you can't show where your money went.
And maybe a Republican administration can get that done.
I have my skepticism that Republicans will be tough enough, but there are some characters who might be.
Vivek is one of them.
Axios is reporting that Biden might need the celebrity endorsements and celebrity fundraising to get him over the mark.
You know what I like about this?
The fact that there's a, you know, a Democrat, sort of a Democrat-leaning publication, Axios, that's telling us that they're going to need the celebrities.
Here's what I love about that.
Democrats are not hiding the fact that they need the dumbest people in America to back them or else they can't win.
Celebrities are well understood by every demographic in America.
We all know that they're dumber than us.
Am I right?
Asian Americans looking at celebrities?
Well, they're dumber than we are.
Black Americans looking at celebrities?
I love some of those celebrities, but on average they're dumber than we are.
I think everybody looks at celebrities as the dumbest people, and nobody blinks when the Democrats say, yeah, once we get all the dumbest people in America on our side, we're going to raise some serious money.
I think you need to call out that they have Intentionally decided that their fate has to be separated from the smart people.
Do you know why?
Because smart people aren't going to let you fucking change the gender of your kid and not tell the parents.
That's for fucking idiots.
That's what fucking idiots do.
Celebrities, for example.
So no, the Democrats have to get as far as they can from smart people, and they're signaling as clearly as they can.
How about How about their TikTok idea?
Yeah, Biden had a great TikTok idea.
Hey, young people, fellow young people on TikTok, we'll get the TikToker influencers.
Why TikTok influencers?
Because aside from celebrities, they're the dumbest fucking people in the world.
And everybody agrees, even the people who like them, even the people who follow them, right?
Nobody's saying they're brilliant.
They're the dumbest people.
And the Democrats need the dumbest people, because the smartest people have already left.
Really, really obviously.
Who are the smartest people?
Bill Ackman, Elon Musk, Jameth Bhattacharya, David Sachs.
I could list a lot more, but they're not all public.
But trust me, there are no smart people left supporting Biden.
And I mean that actually, literally, as in 100%.
Now, there are people who have high IQs who support them, but they're also lost in TDS.
Have you watched MSNBC lately?
The game I like to play when I watch MSNBC is Liar, Stupid or TDS.
Liar, Stupid or TDS, because there's no other explanation for what you're seeing.
Now, I don't play that on CNN in 2024.
When I turn on CNN and Smirconish comes on, I don't say any of those things.
He's not lying.
He's not stupid.
And he doesn't have TDS.
So I don't say that.
But when the MSNBC people come on, pretty much every one of them, there might be an exception.
Actually, some of the lawyers look like they're actually not crazy or stupid.
But the main host, like Morning Joe, I'm fascinated by Morning Joe.
I can't stop watching because I'm not exactly sure if he's operating from stupidity, TDS, or lying.
My current view is lying, as in he's being blackmailed by somebody.
Because he couldn't be that stupid and hold the job.
I don't think he can.
Right?
It's not like, yeah, I just don't think they could do that complicated job and be that stupid.
So I rule out stupid.
But the thing with Joe is he doesn't exactly look like he has TDS.
And he used to love Trump.
It looks like he's lying for some purpose that's not obvious to us.
I don't know what it is.
Yeah.
So here's another story, more about men leaving the Democrat Party.
So Biden are both ramping up their messaging toward black male voters.
So Trump's doing it, and he's got a group, is it Blacks for Trump or something?
I saw CJ Pearson was talking about, he's going to be a member of that.
We'll get to that later.
Anyway, but apparently Biden realizes he's losing black voters, but I think he's missing the plot.
Biden isn't losing black voters.
He's losing men, no matter what they look like.
They're still unwilling to admit what's going on, because once they admit that they're losing men, They're going to admit that their whole situation is batshit crazy.
Because even the women realize that if all the men who are smart leave, they're doing something wrong.
On some level, they understand that.
If all the smart men leave, and all they have left is some betas and some crazies, even the Democrats are going to notice they might be doing something wrong.
So yes, we're getting so close, but the Democrats cannot acknowledge what's actually happening.
Which is its male flight from a female-led disaster.
The Democrat Party is a female-led disaster for the country.
There's another story here.
Patrick, I bet David had somebody on who was saying that the odds of the CIA having a body double for Biden is close to 100%.
And that they've had body doubles since Reagan's day, but they may have improved to the point where it could give a speech.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that there is a Biden body double and that it may have improved to the point, in other words, the technology or the technique of having a body double, may have improved to the point where it can give a speech and you wouldn't tell the difference.
And some say the State of the Union was the body double.
What do you say?
Here's what I say.
Beware the Kraken.
Beware the Kraken.
That, to me, doesn't sound like one of those stories that you should go out and retweet as if you believe it.
I would call that a recreational belief.
It's fun.
And I love looking into it.
And I love thinking about the possibility.
And I wonder, you know, could anybody pull it off at some point in the future?
But don't believe it.
If you believe it, you're going to be out there looking like a dope.
Not because it's untrue.
I don't know if it's true or untrue.
I'd bet against it.
But it's going to make you look like you have less credibility because you know what's going to happen next?
It's probably already happened.
There's going to be a big story on the left that the big old dope far-right people think that Biden is not even Biden.
It's going to make you look stupid.
But if you want to just believe it for fun, you know, as long as you're as long as you're very clearly just having fun with it, it's a recreational belief and I'm all for it.
It's kind of fun, but I don't think there's anything to it.
That's my best guess.
There's a disturbing story about some Little Rock Airport executive Who was accused of doing something bad paperwork-wise with some guns.
Maybe he sold a gun privately in a way that shouldn't have happened.
But the ATF decided to do this pre-dawn raid, which, because he was not warned that armed people would be knocking at his house, he apparently got his gun.
Which resulted in him having his head blown off by the ATF.
Now, do you think they could have handled this a different way?
Such as, hey, once you come into the police department, we've got this question for you.
Do you think they should have at least maybe tried To have a peaceful solution, given that he had no record of violence.
No criminal record.
Now, was the thing he was accused of a bad sounding crime?
It might have been.
But it wasn't a violent crime.
And to imagine that he should be treated like this when you know he's got a house full of guns is weirdly stupid.
And people are saying that it's an intentional murder, basically.
And to the point where somebody's saying, Little Rock Airport.
I think I saw Mike Benz say, I wonder what he knows about the Little Rock Airport.
Correct me if I'm wrong, the Little Rock Airport has in the past been implicated as a destination of sketchy things.
Is that true?
Because I have this vague memory of Little Rock Airport being literally part of some spy op at some point.
Was it?
Yeah.
Now, would that mean that this guy would know it?
And so they were going to take him down?
I don't know.
But as Mike Cernovich and others pointed out, we're not in an environment where you can call this an accident automatically.
We're in an environment where we don't know that it was anything but a terrible, terrible decision by people who were poorly trained and maybe had bad motives.
But man, you got to ask yourself if this is just more Republicans being hunted, because I'm pretty sure he was probably a Republican.
Don't know that.
But if that's the case, I'd be extra worried.
Well, Trump says he's not going to fund anybody who's into CRT.
He says on day one, he'll sign a new executive order to cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, transgender insanity, and other inappropriate sexual racial stuff.
He'll not give one penny to any school that has a vaccine mandate or a mask mandate.
Well, those are crowd pleasers.
And it looks like something he could actually do and would actually do.
Yeah, I mean, I think he could pull it off.
So yes, do all of those things, please.
And if you want one reason to vote for Trump, there it is.
If you don't fix that, we're completely dead.
And he's the only one offering a solution.
So let me say it again.
If you don't fix this, all the brainwashing in schools, we're dead.
We cannot survive this.
It's unsurvivable.
I think we'll correct.
So I'm not saying we won't survive.
But there's no real decision this time.
You know what's fun about this election?
Here's what's fun.
In most elections, there isn't really that much difference between the candidates.
I remember when Gore ran against Bush, and at the time, don't judge me, don't judge me, at the time, I preferred Gore.
Yeah, I'd met him once, I liked him.
And then Bush won.
And do you know what my immediate reaction was?
Well, I'm sure he'll be fine.
I didn't even have a reaction to it, because they didn't seem like they were really that different.
I didn't think.
But now we have this situation where Biden and Trump are not just different politically, but it's real obvious to everybody that Biden's brain is done.
Now, under this very unique situation, which I don't think has ever happened before, You can tell who's lying with certainty.
And that's not really ever been the case before.
Usually if somebody said, my team is good, your team is bad, well, maybe they made some good points, but, you know, it all be tangled up in the bias and the fake news.
And, you know, you didn't know what was really real.
So other people's arguments looked, well, you know, that looks like a reasonable opinion.
I just happen to disagree.
But now people who are backing Biden, they don't have a reasonable, that's not a reasonable opinion.
I've never seen this before, where you can say for sure that if somebody's saying, oh, Biden's fine behind closed doors and he's our best bet, you can know that that person is just a bullshit person.
You don't even have to think about their opinion.
You can know that they're a professional liar.
And so this is what allows us, you know, that plus all the lawfare and the, All the hoaxes have allowed us to identify their Liar Squad.
So what happened is the Liar Squad is now crystal clear.
And Morning Joe is one of them, obviously.
And now you can watch it for entertainment.
Yeah, Liz Cheney, Kinzinger, they're all just the Liar Squad.
And it's just kind of funny.
I mean, it'd be funnier if it wasn't destroying the country.
But it's funny to watch them flail.
Because on some level, they know that everybody knows they're lying.
Because there's nobody who's looking at Biden today and saying, he looks good enough.
Nobody.
There's not a Democrat, not a child, not a white person, not a black person.
There's nobody.
There's nobody thinks he's okay.
So that gives you this moment of complete clarity.
About who are the terrible people.
They're the ones saying he's okay.
There's no question about it.
You don't have to wonder anymore.
And it's actually weirdly clarifying, and I find it comforting in the strangest, obscene way.
But it's nice to know for sure what's true and what's not.
Rarely do you get that.
There's a company called Scale AI, and the CEO is Alexander Wang, whose name I'd like you to hear.
Alexander Wang.
Why?
Because he's my hero.
So I'm going to say his name again.
Alexander Wang.
Here's the name of his company again.
Scale AI.
Remember those names?
Here's why.
He just went out in public and said that they're not going to do DEI, they're going to do MEI, which is merit.
And he says, from now on, we're a merit, well, not from now on, just always, I guess.
Skill is a meritocracy, and we must always remain one.
Do you know what's the best part of this story?
He was not canceled.
No pushback.
It's two stories.
One story is one brave hero said this out loud at great personal risk.
Great personal risk.
He was the right one to say it, Asian American.
I assume he's American.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And so I appreciate it.
I personally appreciate it.
So you can make your own judgment.
But damn, I appreciate this guy.
Because he's taking the arrow if there is one.
But his timing might be perfect because I didn't see a lot of pushback.
I'm sort of in my little bubble, so maybe there was some pushback I didn't see.
But I think it's a sign of change that a CEO can say that directly with no softening.
Just said it directly.
No, we're not going to do that anymore.
We're a meritocracy.
You're going to have to live with that.
Well, every Sunday or so, I see clips about Bill Maher not understanding the news.
Here's the latest one.
And by the way, his job is to follow the news.
And he's very valuable because he's transparent.
Transparency covers a lot of problems, right?
There are a lot of things I don't like.
But as long as it's transparent, nobody's hiding anything from me, nobody's lying to me, I can accept it a lot easier.
Like, ah, I don't like it, but at least it's transparent.
One of the things I'm going to compliment, but also criticize, is that Bill Maher lives transparently.
In other words, I've never picked up, you know, he's got some TDS, but I've never picked up something that looked like an intentional lie.
Right?
He's got the, he's got the Elon Musk, Uh, Joe Rogan quality where you could disagree with him, but it doesn't feel like he's lying like ever.
So he's got that going for him.
But when he, but he asked his guests, um, you said, uh, you know, explain to me how that Delaware computer repair guy who had the The Hunter Biden laptop.
How is it that he gets to keep it just because it was left there?
And he thought there was some, you know, some shenanigans going on that this guy suspiciously gets to keep a laptop?
Now, every one of you knows the answer to that question, right?
In the comments, I just want to test this.
Do every one of you know the answer to that question?
Because I do, because I watch the news.
What news did he watch that he doesn't know the answer to the question?
And the answer to the question is, you'll probably see it in the comments, that because it's a fairly common occurrence that somebody will drop something off for repair and never come back to pick it up, the repair guy had a policy where you have to sign the thing that says if you don't pick it up in so many days, it becomes the property of the shop.
And Hunter signed that document.
Hunter being, you know, a trained attorney.
Signed a document that says, if I don't pick it up, it belongs to you.
Now, you all knew that, right?
Did all of you know that?
I've seen it reported, I don't know, a bunch of times.
But how in the world do you have a job where you talk about the news and you missed that?
I mean, that was a pretty common news item.
Pretty common.
So, my My point here is that as much as I appreciate Maher being able to address things in his honest and transparent way on both sides, he needs to understand how crippled he is by his news sources.
Because I think he said he's been also very open about having only a few news sources, the ones he trusts, you know, like the New York Times.
I know that sounded like a punchline, didn't it?
But he actually said that, that he reads the New York Times because he only wants to read the trusted news.
He's almost there.
He's so close, but he's not quite there yet.
Meanwhile, Joe Biden does a tweet about inflation.
He goes, zero.
That was the monthly inflation in May.
There's more to do still, but this is welcome progress.
Really?
Why is there more to do if you've got it to zero?
Nobody's ever done that before.
That should be the greatest victory lap in the victory lap of All victory laps.
My God, Joe Biden got inflation down to zero?
Holy cow!
Let's all give him a... Of course that's not true.
Of course he didn't get inflation down to zero.
It's way up from where he started office, and it continues to go up 3.3% a year.
Now, is 3.3% bad inflation?
Not bad.
It's not bad.
is 3.3% bad inflation? Not bad. It's not bad. So what he should say is that it's come down a lot in terms of the future rate, the The future growth has come down, but we still have inflation.
3.5% still means something, especially if they took 28% out of your paycheck in the past few years, which is approximately what happened for a lot of goods.
So that's just a big old lie.
I saw this conspiracy theory that I like from Yossi Gestesner on X. He said, why didn't Obama and the Democrats make Juneteenth a federal holiday a decade ago?
And his reasoning is simple.
The day came into focus when Trump had planned to return campaigning on June 19th of 2020.
And then everything else came in.
Do you think that a federal holiday was created just to dunk on Trump?
Is that a thing?
A federal holiday was created just to make Trump look bad?
I'm not sure that happened, because everything was moving woke since, you know, since Obama.
So, I like the fact that somebody's asking the question, whether even Juneteenth is real.
Now, it's real in terms of historical, you know, there's a history to it, of course, but making a federal holiday out of it, do you think that was purely an anti-Trump thing?
Now, I don't think everybody who was involved in the decision was just thinking anti-Trump, but do you think that's what pushed it across the finish line, to actually make it a federal holiday?
I think maybe yes.
I think maybe yes.
It may have been the difference between it making the final, you know, the final mile to become an actual law.
Anyway.
I made a comment about military recruitment on X yesterday.
Got a lot of attention.
And I said the U.S.
military recruitment problem is entirely due to white men no longer joining.
I said that DEI is the reason for that.
Now people weighed in with their own opinions.
And they said, no, no, Scott, it's because the economy is better under Biden.
And so all those people who were joining the military before, they just go get good jobs instead.
To which I said, OK, are you missing the main part of what I said?
Which is that it's white men.
That's based on data, not guessing.
I think it was maybe Victor David Hanson I heard it from.
I don't want to blame him if it's wrong, but I think somebody, somebody credible said the other day that 100% of the difference in military enrollment is white men.
That the other categories are about the same as before.
So, Blacks, Hispanics, women, Asian Americans, seems about the same as before, but white men enrolling plunged.
Now, if I say the only group that plunged was white men, here's the wrong answer.
It's because the economy's good, so the white men went and got better jobs.
No.
No.
If the economy was what's happening, then everybody would have gone and got a better job.
Everybody.
White people don't have the advantage in getting a better job.
Have you met DEI?
DEI means that corporations are begging for diverse people, and if they can get them from any source, they're going to do it.
So if people were going to join the army before, but suddenly they realize that Pepsi, Cola, and Apple will be scrambling for their services because they want to be diverse, it seems to me that the diverse people would have gone first because they by far have the greatest opportunity under a Biden administration.
Because the white men are discriminated against in employment in all big companies now.
Less so in private companies, but in all big companies, white men are last on the list for jobs.
Now, if you're listening to this and you're a Democrat and you just went, my God, I can't believe he even thinks that.
Oh my God, I'm sorry what your news has done to you.
If you're a Democrat and you don't know that a white man practically can't get a job in corporate America today, fuck you.
I'm not even going to try to correct you.
Just fuck you.
Right?
We're beyond, oh, look at my data.
We're all the way to, fuck you, shut the fuck up.
It's just a fact.
Everybody knows it's a fact.
It's been a fact for 30 fucking years.
It's a fact now.
It's harder for a white man.
To get a job in corporate America, if there are any diverse category candidates who are also applying at the same time.
It's almost impossible.
Every white man knows that.
Everyone.
Now, this is where a black man from Chicago always comes in and says, oh yeah?
Can you show me some proof of that?
Yeah, walk outside, tap on the shoulder, any white man 50 years or older, and ask him.
Have you had personal experience in which you were turned down because you're a white man?
100% of them will say yes.
Talk to a white man, maybe, once in your life.
And if you tell me you have one white friend, well, maybe you need another one.
So yes, it's definitely men not joining.
I would think it's obvious that it's a DEI problem, because if I were to join the military, Do you think I would stand out among the other military recruits?
Well, we're probably going to look largely the same.
You know, we're going to go through the same training.
We joined for probably similar reasons.
You know, didn't have something better cooking.
So, no, if you're a white man, I say don't join the military.
You'd be an idiot.
Sorry.
Now, I do respect, of course, service, and I thank anybody who's been in the military.
But at the moment, the military has been transformed into an anti-white man organization.
No white man should join an anti-white man organization.
That's just common sense.
If you're black, you should run toward DEI as fast as you can, because it's great for you.
So, that's what it's for.
If you're a white man, you should try to get away from any situation in which they've designed it to be bad for you, which is all corporations and the military at the moment.
Stay away from them, if you can.
Here's something funny.
As you know, Puerto Rico had hundreds, they say, of discrepancies in their electronic voting machines.
It was all kinds of stuff, like some didn't record a vote, some actually gave the vote to the wrong person, there were different software problems and versions and stuff.
Of course, I've been saying that I can't think of any reason why, and nobody has suggested, a reason for electronic voting machines.
They're not more efficient, they're not cheaper, they're not faster, they're not more credible.
They're not anything.
They're just harder, more expensive, and less credible.
So why would you have them?
There's only one reason.
To cheat.
If there's another reason, I beg you to tell me so I don't keep saying this in public.
I beg you.
If you have any other explanation for them that isn't Bashia crazy, Because people have been coming, oh, it's because they're more efficient.
No, they're not.
We know they're not.
Not even a little.
So Elon Musk weighed in and said that the voting machines should be replaced because even if humans can't or don't hack them, AI will pretty soon.
All right.
So Elon Musk, one of our greatest engineering minds and minds in general, Also, the head of a company doing major AI work tells you that your electronic voting machines are by their nature, by their nature, a bad idea because they're not secure.
By their nature.
It's not a specific problem, it's an unsolvable problem, because by its nature, it's vulnerable.
What did somebody from the fake news in Arizona say about that?
Mocked Elon Musk for having a silly opinion that voting machines should be replaced.
And a Rasmussen report mocked the mocker by saying, Sunday update, let's check in on Arizona legacy media.
Yes, that's the standard answer to imagine that Elon Musk doesn't understand computers.
Somebody actually posted in public that Elon Musk doesn't understand voting machines and so you should not pay attention to him.
Really?
That's the best you had?
The best you had is that Elon Musk doesn't understand technology?
That was the best they had.
Honestly, that's the best argument I've seen.
Nobody says they're cheaper, nobody says they're easier, nobody says they're more efficient, nobody says they're more credible.
They just say that Elon Musk doesn't know technology.
That's who you're dealing with, people.
That's who you're dealing with.
Meanwhile, Kanekoa the Great does a great thread on X about what Democrats have said about voting machines, as well as computer science professors, prior to them deciding that voting machines are perfect.
Do you know when Democrats decided that voting machines work perfectly?
2020.
It was a miraculous turnaround, because before that they were sure that voting machines were rigable and probably rigged.
Here are some of the things that Democrats have said about voting machines.
All right?
This is all from Democrats.
And this is all on Kenneco of the Great's post, and you should be following Kenneco of the Great.
Easily hackable.
They can all be hacked.
Spread of malware.
If they get any malware on them, you can spread it by the USB drives.
Let's see.
Programming practices.
Most of the systems are programmed by local officials.
So you have to count on all the local officials being non-corrupt and qualified.
And do you think that your election systems attract the best and the brightest technology people?
When you get your computer science degree, do you say to yourself, finally, I got my Stanford degree in computer science.
I can't wait to work on the election systems.
Right?
No, said no one.
The election systems, I guarantee, are the lowest level of technology capability, because all the smart people are going to go get a better job.
For someone who has technical experience, it's probably among the worst jobs you could ever have.
I would guess.
All right.
So you got all these local people and third-party vendors.
Oh, third-party vendors.
You can trust them.
And they use previously used USB drives.
Are you fucking kidding me?
For internet-connected computers.
Internet-connected computers?
Are you fucking kidding me?
Before plugging them into scanners, tabulators, and voting machines.
Are you fucking kidding me?
Outdated systems.
In 2019, the AP reported that most of the 10,000 election jurisdictions, including the swing states, were still using Windows 7 or older systems.
Now, this was 2019.
I'm guessing they've updated them since then.
But if it was a disaster in 2019 in terms of security, why would it be better?
You think they fired all those people and hired all new ones?
It's probably the same people.
Probably 75% of the same people.
End of Windows 7 support.
That may have been fixed, but it was a problem then.
Why would we expect that that sort of problem wouldn't be now?
Remote access and modems.
They're not supposed to have that, but they do.
Dominion voting machines, the second largest vendor.
Publicly acknowledged using modems in their machines and running remote access software during the 2020 election.
For example, in Georgia, election worker blah, blah, blah, testified that the Dominion employees operated remotely on ballot marking devices and poll pads.
Okay, that's a huge vulnerability.
And then the findings from Wisconsin and Michigan, investigators found that Dominion and ES&S machines We're online and connected to the internet.
In Michigan, a modem chip was discovered on a voting machine, potentially allowing hackers to intercept and manipulate results.
Now, so in 2016, Democrats were yelling at the top of their lungs that voting machines were not secure.
After 2020, they were yelling at the top of their lungs that voting machines are completely secure and you should believe what they told you.
It's amazing.
The things that Democrats can be told, and they will believe, is amazing.
All right, here's something that was hard to predict.
There was apparently some kind of Ukraine summit in Switzerland, and that broke down.
Kamala Harris was there, and as was Germany's Chancellor Schulz.
Both of them have, quote, unexpectedly left the peace summit in Switzerland ahead of schedule.
And no breakthroughs were achieved.
Now, let me put this in perspective, putting the Dilbert filter on it.
Let's say you've got a gigantic problem, such as a Ukraine war.
And man, do you want to solve that problem.
So what do you do?
If you really, really want to get that problem solved, you send Kamala Harris.
Right?
Because it's really important and you got to get that solved.
No, find the pattern.
They send Harris when they don't want to solve a problem.
She's in charge of the border because they don't want to solve that.
And she's perfect for it because she can't solve anything.
They don't want to end the war in Ukraine.
Very obviously they don't want to end it.
So they send Kamala to negotiate the end of it.
Do you know why I think Germany's Chancellor Olaf Scholz left early?
Because Kamala Harris was there, and he could tell that there wasn't any chance that anything useful could actually come of it.
I think he said, you're just, you're just wasting my time.
Why am I here with Kamala Harris?
She can't make a decision, doesn't have a brain, can't make anything happen.
She's obviously being sent to kill this thing, not to make it work.
There's the Dilbert filter.
I would do the same thing with Wally.
Oh, by the way, the reason I know this trick is it happened to me.
Before I got fired from my corporate job, I learned this much later, but the top guy in engineering, the senior vice president of engineering, got a whiff that I was working on a cartoon strip on the side and that it was sort of insulting to management.
So he called my boss's Boss in and said you got to fire this guy now.
This is before Dilbert was too famous He was trying to nip it in the bud He said you have to fire this guy because on his own time he's doing comics that are insulting to management It's gonna blow back on us now to my to my boss's boss's credit He was a stand-up guy and he said no way.
I'm not gonna fire him for telling jokes on his own time Now don't you appreciate that?
Like you think, oh, such weasels in the corporate world.
But no, my boss's boss actually stood up for me.
He said, I'm not going to fire him.
He has stood up to his boss.
So I'm not going to fire him.
What I'm going to do is I'm going to give him bad assignments and he'll quit on his own.
I'm not making that up.
That's what actually happened.
That actually happened.
And then I noticed I kept getting these assignments that you would only give to Kamala Harris or me.
You know what I mean?
An assignment that only Kamala Harris or me would get?
And yes, I did find the pattern.
And yes, I did get revenge.
You want to hear about my revenge?
I feel bad that I did this, but it was so funny it was worth it.
It was my job To figure out if ISDN, this sort of early internet technology for fast digital messages, but it wasn't fast by today's standard, but it was fast by then.
So, it's my job to do the economic analysis of whether Pacific Belichick can get into the ISDN business hard, which would be like a billion dollars.
And I gave a presentation to senior management about spending.
It was really a god-awful amount of money.
I don't remember the actual number.
And here was my conclusion.
I said, everything about this would work out well if you take the assumption that you have a qualified staff that would be capable of implementing the things that you want to do to make this company a big data expert, where we typically don't, we didn't have that much expertise.
And so they said, so wait, are you recommending it or not recommending it?
Because that sounded a little sort of like there's an if.
And I looked him directly in the face and I said, if you trust your employees to do a good job of implementing, this is a great idea.
And you should spend the billion dollars.
And they said, of course, we've got such good employees.
And they said, yes.
Okay, I was joking.
We didn't have employees that could possibly pull that off.
So how do you like your ISDN service?
The one you don't have?
Because when they tried to implement it, they couldn't pull it off.
I did that.
Fuck them.
I did it intentionally because I figured out what they were doing to me.
I told the truth.
I said, if you trust your employees, they could probably pull this off.
I just knew that they were morons and they couldn't.
So that's what happens.
Anyway, so the Ukraine summit was a flop.
Big surprise, big surprise.
According to NBC News, they did a poll, they said more than six in ten black adults in America, according to a Pew study, agree that institutions such as the criminal justice system, the country's economic system, and policing are designed to hold black people back.
Good luck.
Well, first of all, I would point out that the criminal justice system and the policing are kind of the same system.
And I would agree that there's, I'm sure there's some level of discrimination going on there.
I don't know about the country's economic system, because again, the economic system is, by design, completely designed to be pro-black, pro-diversity, and anti-white American.
But I would point out that that means 6 in 10 blacks are blaming their own lack of success on other people.
Is it true?
I don't care.
Is it predictable that if that's your mindset, you're never going to catch up?
Yes.
Yes.
So here's the thing that's hard to understand.
Is it true that there's a legacy of systemic racism?
Yeah, I would say so, especially in the school systems.
The school systems are so completely biased against black Americans.
It's the crime that's as big as slavery, practically.
I mean, nothing's as big as that, but it's number two.
That we continue to under-educate one class of public.
Now, poor people in general are getting bad educations, but yeah, I think there's a legitimate claim about the education system, and I blame the teachers' unions for that completely, because they're the ones who make it impossible to reform anything.
But here's what I'd say, and this is my advice to black men and people everywhere.
Same advice to everybody.
If you think your problems are caused by the system, you will never go anywhere.
And don't complain to me about it.
I don't want to hear it.
If you believe that your success is completely under your power, but of course there are obstacles in the world, you just have to overcome them, then you'll probably be successful.
So, one of the biggest crimes is that somehow the Democrats have convinced black people they can't succeed in America.
You tell me that's not the biggest problem You've ever seen.
Imagine one group of people being told that they're held back by the system, even if it's true.
Now, we're not arguing whether it's true or false.
We're arguing mindset.
If your mindset is that you can't succeed because other people are going to prevent you, you're going to fail.
Guaranteed.
You don't have a chance.
So we have a situation where, according to the poll, Black Americans have been brainwashed into failure.
Who did that?
Do you think a Republican did that?
I don't think so.
I think zero Republicans are responsible for this.
When you say 6 out of 10 black Americans think the system is preventing them from success, that sounds as bad to me as 6 out of 10 black people got cancer.
Your whole life is fucked up if you get that mindset.
Like cancer.
It's on that level of badness.
And Democrats did that to them.
I don't think they did it to themselves.
I think it was mostly white Democrats that did this to a giant segment of the population.
And its weird effect was to make them more loyal to the people who screwed them, which is terrible.
And I think that's why black men in particular are abandoning it, because I think they're the first ones to go bullshit on this and say, maybe it's up to me.
You know, maybe I can make something out of myself if I don't see the obstacles and I see the opportunity instead.
So once again, I'm not saying that there is no systemic racism.
I'm saying that if you live your life like that's the important thing, you're going to fail.
Guaranteed.
And don't complain to me when it happens.
Supreme Court is ruling on something about, oh, so there's a question, there's a Hawaii case where Hawaii is going to try to sue the big oil companies for the damage of climate change, and there's some thought that the Supreme Court might take that case, which would be interesting, because I don't know if this is true, but in order for the Supreme Court to have an opinion on whether
Climate change caused damages and the fossil fuel people caused the climate change.
Wouldn't they have to put climate change itself on trial?
Wouldn't they have to acknowledge that the climate models are true enough that they can say that this sequence of events is legitimate?
Now, I think they probably won't take this case.
But here's the problem.
How in the world could the Supreme Court say that the climate models are valid?
If anybody tried to argue it, they would lose immediately.
The reason that you don't know climate models are not valid is that you don't have people like me telling you.
I mean, not everybody has somebody like me to explain how the scam works.
If you have enough models and you keep throwing away the bad ones and adding new ones, It will look as if models work.
That's our current situation.
That's the fast explanation if you want to explain it to other people.
They have hundreds of models.
They keep throwing away the ones that don't work next year.
They keep adding and tweaking the existing models so that they fit the past as they now know it.
That guarantees that the models are not real.
A real model would be, hey, we have this model that we made in the 70s and it keeps nailing it.
If they had even one model that had ever worked, there would be one model.
Did you hear that?
If there had ever been even one model that worked for, let's say, 20 years, there would only be one model.
The reason there are hundreds is to hide the fact that no model has ever worked.
You get that, right?
The only reason there are hundreds is to hide the fact that not one of them has ever worked.
In a way that everybody else says, you know what?
Why are we wasting time making other models when we have this good model here?
And they've convinced you that you can take the average of bullshit and it'll tell you something useful.
No, the average of bullshit is bullshit.
You don't get anything except bullshit under the average of bullshit.
But they've, you know, it's like, oh, let's do a meta-analysis, which is not even real.
In terms of intellectual honesty, it's not real.
Anyway, Peter Navarro is in prison and he has some way to communicate through Morse code or something, but he's saying he's in prison and that the, you know, that first step thing that President Trump did, Apparently under the Biden administration, it's not working.
So the first step thing, which would allow people probably like him to get out earlier, it's not functional.
So apparently the Biden administration broke it.
The one thing that even black people were saying that Trump got right.
Oh, you definitely got that part right.
Thank you.
Biden reversed it.
Now, at what point do black men notice?
I think the point is now.
I think black men have figured out that the problem with the Democrats are batshit preachy women, because Carville told them directly, and it's obvious.
You see all the smart people have moved to one side, the smart men.
All the smart men are on one side.
And how do you not notice that after a while?
How do you not notice that?
All right, ladies and gentlemen.
That completes my wonderful Sunday presentation.
I'm going to talk to the locals people privately because they're awesome.
And I'll see you on tomorrow morning, same place, same time.
I will just point out that there is something different about my books, which if you haven't noticed, three of them that have something in common.
So see if you can guess what they have in common besides I wrote them.
So Haddafield, Almost Everything, and Still Wouldn't Beg.
Reframe your brain, and then the new God's Debris trilogy that's, you know, three pieces of work in one.
Here's something that they all have in common.
There are a lot of authors who write non-fiction books that say what's wrong or what's right, and even sometimes they tell you what to do about it.
What's different about my books is that you'll actually do it, because they're written by a hypnotist.
So I don't give you any Tips or advice without making sure that I primed you to actually do it.
And the priming you to do it is probably just as important as the, is it good advice?
Because there are lots of books that are full of good stuff that you'll never do anything with it.
So I would argue, and by the way, you could, you could ask other people who've read my books.
The thing I look for is, is to change your behavior.
Now the God's Debris one is more about changing your Frame of looking at reality, which I think it does, permanently.
So, keep that in mind.
If you're looking at some best-selling business books, ask yourself if they would make you act differently, or it's just some information that was interesting.
If it doesn't make you act differently, maybe it wasn't worth your time.
For at least for non-fiction stuff.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is all I have.
Thanks for joining YouTube and Rumble and X. I'm going to talk now to the locals.
Beautiful people, as I like to call them, who are subscribers.
