God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Democrat Mental Health, Michael Ian Black, Fake News, Biden's Deep Fake Task Force, Prediction Skills, Greg Gutfeld, Fine People Hoax, Trump Biden Debate, Ford Foundation DEI, Roy Swan, Israel Lobby, America First Legal, 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
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I'm pretty sure there's never been a finer time in your life.
And if you'd like to take this up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny, smooth human brains, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard, shells or sty in a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sipping that happens now.
Go.
I'd like to see Joe Biden do that.
Bye.
Bye.
You know, talk.
That sort of thing.
Well, you might be aware that there was yet another whistleblower that came forward for Boeing.
With more complaints about cutting corners to increase profits and retaliating against employees who spoke up and that sort of thing.
And if you're wondering, Scott, how can you watch these events in the news about Boeing without creating a biting and sarcastic comic strip about it?
Well, I can't.
So, in fact, Dilbert's company will be making airplanes.
And it's not going to go well.
There might be a whistleblower.
That's all I'm saying, but you'd have to be subscribing to the new Dilbert comic either on the X platform, see my profile, or on Locals at scottadams.locals.com in order to see it.
Well, there's an incoming Florida freshman.
He's a freshman in college basketball who looks to be about 7'9", Olivier Roux.
And, uh, he can basically dunk by standing on his tiptoes.
So I saw a clip of the game.
And, uh, if you'd like to see my impression of the entire basketball game, it looks like this tall guy stands under his basket.
Uh, teammates throw him the ball.
He catches it two feet above the highest leaping ability of his, of his competitors.
And then he turns around and he drops it directly into the hoop.
It's called sports.
Now, I remember when sports would include at least a little element of, I wonder who's going to win, but he seems to have removed the whole, I wonder who's going to win element from the game.
Now, I know your brain is automatically thinking of trans-related stories, because it's sort of just reminding you in a weird way of mismatches.
And I say this all the time.
The males who are playing against the 7-foot-9 monster, it's like they're a different species.
Why is it okay for a 5'8 player to play against a 7'9 player in a basketball game where being tall is like one of the main requirements?
They should have an under 6' league.
If you want to impress me with your basketball, show me the people under 6' playing their own league and the people over 6' having their own league, you know, called the NBA.
But don't put a 7'9 person on a college basketball court with a bunch of 6'2 people and tell me that that's a sport.
It's not a sport.
That's just watching that guy ruin the entire evening for an entire gymnasium full of people.
Imagine him, like, going into that game.
This is the part that reminds you of some of the trans athletes where the man who's transitioned dominates the sport.
Why is that good for anybody?
Imagine an entire stadium, or not a stadium, but you know, the entire gym is full of spectators who came to watch this game, and all it is is tossing it to this big guy who puts it in a hole.
That's it.
That's it.
That's the whole game.
Useless.
Anyway.
There's some new psychology research that shows that acts of kindness can predict seven different types of well-being.
Did you know that being good to each other can make you feel good too?
I know!
Surprising.
I only tell you about this every, I don't know, every few weeks I mention it.
So I think this has been known for about 10 years, but we've got some new research to tell you what you already knew.
Being nice to people and being kind makes you feel good too.
It's true.
Here's another one.
They did a study of nuts.
And if you eat a lot of nuts, Apparently you not only don't lose weight, but they're good for you and might even make you lose weight, because nuts are very satiating.
Let's see.
That's a new study that also was an old study, because I literally wrote about it in my book from 2013.
Had failed almost everything and still wouldn't make it.
We knew then that eating peanuts caused you to lose weight.
That's pretty well known to nutritionists.
So it's another study that, well, is sort of a duh.
Okay, being nice to people, it makes you feel good.
And the nutrition that we learned about 15 years ago, still true.
At least we're nuts.
And this will amaze you, but one hour a week of aerobics, this is another study, can make your brain five years younger.
Okay.
Here's another one.
Another study that says your diet might be associated with Changes in your brain chemistry and structure.
Huh.
You know, if you put all of this brand new science together, I'm starting to see a pattern develop and see if you see it too.
It's almost as if eating right and exercising could be good for your health.
Is anybody starting to feel that?
I mean, You know, I'm not putting all the pieces together until just now, with all this brand new science that's so useful.
But it turns out, and this is amazing, the things you put into your body, the food, can actually have an effect on your body.
And did you know that your brain is actually part of your body?
Yeah, it is!
It's actually part of your body.
And if you put things that are bad for your body into your body, and then your brain is part of your body, I'm trying to figure it out.
I think the logic means it'd be bad for your brain.
So how about we pay for some more science to teach us some shit every one of you already knew because it's fucking obvious.
Science.
I'm glad we have the experts to tell us this stuff.
Meanwhile, there was going to be a London premiere of a movie that was totally AI-generated script.
So I guess the actors were not AI.
But the script was.
And it got cancelled.
Because there were hundreds of people complaining, how can you have a robot write a play when it's human work?
So the anti-AI people have risen.
And you'd be surprised to find out that they're artists with very little skill.
They don't have a lot of skill that can be translated to other domains, apparently.
And they don't want the The AI to be taking the jobs.
The AI is taking the jobs.
But the creator of the movie tried to complain, to no avail, that the point of the movie was not pro-AI, but the point of it might be to show that it doesn't work.
So people were complaining and protesting, even though they were on the same side of the person they complained and protested about, I think.
The person who came up with the idea here and executed the movie says, basically, you're not understanding the point of it.
The point of it was not, this is awesome.
The point of it might've been their point, which is, watch out, this is coming.
So they might've been on the same side.
Here's more proof that being a Democrat can make you mentally insane.
Does that sound like an exaggeration?
That being a Democrat can make you insane?
It's not.
Because apparently more than half of adults, 53%, according to some news poll in the American Psychiatric Association's Healthy Minds Monthly Poll, which sounds very unscientific, but more than half of adults report that climate change is affecting their mental health.
And that's up from 2022, where it was only 48%.
That's a pretty big move.
That's a pretty big move in two years.
So who is it that believes climate change is going to kill them?
Only Democrats.
I've literally never met a Republican who thought climate change was a big problem.
Never.
I've never met one.
So who has better mental health?
The Republicans who are like, no, no, no, no, no.
Looks like just weather to me.
I'm not saying they're right or wrong.
You know, I'm not taking a side about whether the climate is warming or not or who's causing it.
I'm just pointing out that if you're a Democrat, you hear that your planet is burning up and there's really basically nothing you can do about it.
Wouldn't that make you mentally ill?
It is literally true that being a Democrat and buying into a certain set of narratives would make you mentally ill.
It's the same group that think Trump is going to steal their democracy.
If I thought I lived in a country where the presumptive next president, if there's no cheating, wanted to be a dictator, I think my mental health would be going to hell too.
So, being a Democrat is literally, no joke, no hyperbole, really bad for your mental health.
If I make a claim like that, can I back it up with statistics?
Yes, quite easily.
Because the statistics do in fact show a real strong correlation between Democrats and mental health problems.
It's very strong.
Here it is.
There's no question about what's doing it.
It's the fake news.
So the fake news has created narratives to frighten their people into doing what they want.
You know, voting for their team.
But the side effect of frightening people into doing that stuff is that it frightens them.
And there does seem to be a difference because the Republicans are also getting frightened by things.
You know, frightened by crime coming into the country and things.
But you know what the difference is?
It looks like you can do something about that problem.
Close the border.
But But the Democrats are telling you basically there's nothing you can do about climate change.
It's already too late.
That's really different than a problem you think you can solve if you just work hard.
You don't go crazy if you think you have a solvable problem.
It's an unsolvable problem.
All right.
I believe there is a trend that can be seen in a number of ways, which is the smartest people waking up to how brainwashed they've been if they've been Democrats.
Now you've seen famously the Silicon Valley types moving in the direction of Trump.
You know, the all-in pod.
People, the Bill Lackmans, Elon Musk, you could throw in that mix, and a bunch of other venture capitalists, et cetera.
Mark Andreessen, I think, is moving in that direction.
And they're, in my opinion, the least brainwashed, best predictors of the future.
They're good predictors of what's real.
It's their job.
If you're an entrepreneur or a venture capitalist, It's literally your job to say, if I do this, the predicted outcome will be this.
And the people who are best at predicting outcomes, the most successful venture capitalists for decades, are kind of all starting to move to the same side.
Now, I saw a study that, if you look at the funding, the funding hasn't changed.
The Democrats still get 95% of the money from Silicon Valley.
But I would submit to you that the smartest people in Silicon Valley do not put themselves on a list of who they donated to.
If they supported Trump, they would certainly be too smart to put themselves on a list of people who donated to Trump, because that's not good for business.
So I wouldn't believe the donation number.
I would believe the reputations of which people specifically are moving toward Trump.
And it's the smartest of the smart.
It's very clear correlation.
But here's one that's even more interesting.
You may be familiar with comedian actor Michael Ian Black.
Now he's often on social media being an anti-Trumper.
But he asked me a question today on social media that suggests an opening.
That suggests maybe there's a potential, just a small crack, For some kind of a un-brainwashing.
And this is really interesting.
Now, I don't know, I don't personally know Michael Ian Black, but just for full disclosure, he had been friends with my publicity manager for years.
So, although I never met him, Michael Ian Black and I have, we shared a close friend at one point.
So that means that he probably is aware of me, because we shared a close friend.
So I'm sure my name came up.
So when he responded to me, it was maybe a little bit more respectfully than he would have been if I'd been a stranger.
And I returned the favor.
So I responded to him respectfully because I think he's got real questions.
And here's his question.
It's actually really, it's a really good question.
I did a post in which I said something along the lines of, it's impossible to have a conversation with somebody who thinks the news is real.
Now, how many of you would agree with that statement?
It's impossible to have a political conversation with someone who thinks the news is real.
Most of you, right?
You've had that experience.
And Michael Ian Black says, I see this sentiment a lot from megafolks.
So his first problem is he thinks I'm a megafolk.
But he says, but it always confuses me.
Now, here's why I like the way he worded this.
He didn't say, I hear this batshit crazy opinion from MAGA people.
He said it confuses him.
Now that's exactly the way to respectfully ask a question.
I don't understand what you mean.
Can you explain it?
So he goes on.
If they don't believe, quote, the news, how did they get their information?
If everybody is lying to you, how is it that you know the truth?
That's a really good question, isn't it?
So I'm going to spend a few minutes answering it.
So I answered, you know, on the X platform, I answered in detail, but I'll tell you the answer and we'll add a little bit more.
Here's the basic answer.
Knowing what's true is not a function of watching the news and then saying, Oh, I watched the right news.
It's a, it's a skill of knowing what bullshit looks like.
And I would I would submit to you.
That knowing what bullshit is and recognizing it is a developable skill.
It's something you could be bad at and then learn to be good at.
And I'll tell you more about that.
So I contend that I don't learn what's true by picking one of the news to be the right one.
But rather I have a toolbox which allows me to look at the news and pick out from it what is true in terms of the facts And what is untrue in terms of the narrative.
So I tend to accept facts if they're presented by both sides.
So both sides say, um, this person did say this thing and there's no video editing.
Well, they might interpret it differently, but if both sides say the fact is there and there's video and there's witnesses, I believe that.
So that's not the kind of thing that I don't believe, and of course it's not an absolute, right?
If the news says there's going to be a hurricane, probably true.
It's only the political stuff that has the spin to it.
But let me go deeper as to why I think I know what's true in many cases.
As I said, the skill is in detecting what's not true.
It's not so much knowing which side is telling you the truth.
It's detecting the fake stuff from both sides.
So I'm going to read to you what I said to him.
I said, first of all, I'm a Democrat.
I like to put that in there because it shows that I'm not a team-branded person.
Now, it doesn't mean I'm unbiased, but at least I had, you know, the minimal amount of Let's say awareness of my own bias that I knew it was a good thing to brand myself the other way.
So that I'd have a little bit more credibility.
So that's neither here nor there, but I thought I'd correct him.
So he asked me, how do I know what's true?
And I said, I'll give you some examples.
The news told you that Trump called neo-Nazis fine people.
I watched the whole video and could see he condemned them.
The news showed you an edited clip.
That's easy.
So I watched the news.
I saw what they said, and then I went to the internet and I saw the full clip.
It wasn't hard.
You don't have to do research.
You just have to look at the source, and you can see that they lied about what was there.
Now, when I said this, a whole bunch of people weighed in, oh, Scott, that's not what the president said.
He said there were fine people with them.
Marching with them.
He didn't say the neo-nazis were fine people.
He said the people who are with them and marching were fine people No, he didn't he'd never said marching with he said they were there and I said I Interviewed them personally and there were townies there who just said oh, I like statues I think I'll walk over and be part of it.
They weren't marching.
They were nowhere near the Nazis They disavowed the Nazis in plain language language.
They just like the historical nature of the statues And then somebody said, but Scott, did you see the flyer?
The flyer is clearly a racist flyer, the flyer for the event.
How do you explain that anybody saw that flyer and went there and was not pro-Nazi?
To which I say, I interviewed somebody who was Jewish, who saw the flyer and went.
And I said, what the hell?
You saw the flyer.
You're Jewish.
Why would you go there?
And he said, I didn't recognize any of the names of the speakers, which is actually very believable.
I recognize them because, you know, I'm kind of deep in the weeds, but they're not household names.
So I knew Richard Spencer's name.
So I would have said, oh, it's one of those.
But most people in America have never heard his name.
You know, 95% of the country wouldn't know who he was.
But what about the imagery?
The imagery was definitely evocative of some Nazi stuff.
But not everybody knew that.
I recognized it, just because, again, I'm in the weeds, and I watch certain stuff, so I recognized it.
But I do legitimately think you could look at it and say, oh, it's just right-wing stuff.
You wouldn't recognize it as having some kind of historical connection to something.
So yes, it was very easy that in, or more generally, let's say this.
If you get a whole bunch of Americans to attend anything for any reason, you'll have every opinion there.
Right?
If you get a whole bunch of Americans to attend any publicized event, there will be every viewpoint there.
Because there are lots of people and we all have slightly different viewpoints.
So to imagine that everybody there had one viewpoint, Would be dumb beyond belief.
That's not the way anything works.
Nothing.
So you don't have to be an expert on the news to know that that was a lie.
Same with the drinking bleach hoax.
You just have to watch it and watch the full video.
Uh, the news says Republicans stage insurrections without guns.
That's obviously not true.
I don't need to watch the news to know that Republicans don't do insurrections without guns.
I don't have to watch the news to know that stealing a lectern is not part of your insurrection.
I don't have to watch the news to know, although I heard this in the news, that if Don Jr.
was not aware of the January 6th being a planned insurrection and was not in favor of it because he was trying to calm it down from the start, it wasn't an insurrection if the president didn't tell his son and closest advisor.
You know, there are a hundred ways to know that wasn't an insurrection, starting with Republicans don't leave their guns home if they're trying to conquer a country.
Well, let me say it more clearly.
In the unlikely event that Republicans ever stage an actual insurrection, you wouldn't be asking the question about whether it was an insurrection.
They would remove all doubt.
And the fact that there's any doubt at all should be all you need to know.
So your bullshit detectors should be able to catch all of those.
The news told us that we should know that elections were fair.
That's just dumb.
The only thing we know is that we didn't discover enough of problems in a legally approved way.
In other words, the legal system didn't validate any concerns.
But that doesn't mean we know it was fair.
That's literally just stupid.
The only thing we know is that we didn't find anything that the court said was real.
Very different.
For For news that has one anonymous source that says something bad about Trump that no human, including Trump, would ever say, those are obvious lies.
You don't need to be like a news expert to know that if it's one source during an election year that says Trump said something that literally nobody would say, including Trump, yeah, that's just made up.
Every year, ordinary.
If you didn't know that, you might think that was the news.
But once you know that it's the most ordinary thing that they do this one source made up something that nobody would ever say, like calling the military losers, the moment you heard that, you should have known that literally nobody would say that, including Trump as president.
Now, did he say something about John McCain?
Yes, because that's exactly what he would do.
He would make fun of a powerful person that he's running against, or that's a critic.
But he's not going to make fun of veterans.
He's not going to make fun of people in the military.
That's literally the opposite of who he is, and always has been.
So to imagine that that was true, that's a problem in discerning bullshit.
That's not something about the news.
You should have seen that one yourself.
How about the story that Trump tried to choke out the driver of his own car on January 6th?
He didn't really need to be a news expert to know that didn't happen.
And sure enough, the driver himself says it didn't happen.
What about climate models?
Everybody who understands models, you know, with lots of variables, knows they're not real.
And I've done prediction models.
So I've worked in that domain.
So I know that they're not real.
I know how that scam works, where you replace the ones that don't work and you keep updating them so that you can always say, well, these all would have worked in the past.
But of course, it's just a selection bias.
It's not actually any prediction going on at all.
Now, you would only know that if you had a specific skill set and experience.
Other people would say, hmm, looks like these models are telling me the future, you know, like your horoscope.
So that's not a case of, you know, trusting Fox News over CNN.
It's just obvious to people who have that experience.
The news is telling you that Biden is cognitively fine.
How much of a news expert do I need to be to know that he's not cognitively fine?
I see him.
I can see him.
We all see it.
How about the news tells you that the government has UFOs in a warehouse.
Now some of you might believe that the government has UFOs in the warehouse.
I'm here to tell you the government doesn't have any UFOs in the warehouse.
How do I know that?
It's really really obvious if you're good at spotting bullshit.
That could not be less likely.
So there's another example.
How about the Russia collusion hoax?
How long did it take you from the beginning of the hoax to know that that wasn't true?
Because your news didn't know.
I mean, the news couldn't tell if it was true or not, because there was an allegation for a long time without the results of an investigation.
But you knew, didn't you?
You knew it was made up.
I knew, you knew, and sure enough, it was made up.
And I said, I could do that test on all of the news.
You can pick any topic and I can tell you how the bullshit could be easily spotted.
Now, that still does require that you're watching the news, but you're watching both sides.
And another trick I tell you all the time is if both sides report a fact the same, it's probably true.
It's probably true.
If one side said it happened and the other side says it didn't, far, far less likely to be true.
But it might be.
So there are a lot of rules of thumbs.
And there are a lot of, you know, tools in the toolbox for sorting this out.
But more generally, well, let me give you another example from the news.
There's a new one.
So the Biden campaign has a cheap fake task force.
So they've created a task force to try to convince you that the things you see with your own eyes are not happening because they're slightly edited videos.
Are they slightly edited videos?
Yes.
Yeah, the one in Normandy kind of cuts off the fact that he was interacting with some people off screen.
But you still see Biden being Biden, which is bad enough, no matter what he's doing at the moment.
So they created this cheap fake task force to gaslight the public into thinking that what you see is not what you see, because in some cases, it's actually not what you see.
So because 5% of the time there's something like off-screen that might be misleading, that the other 95% of the time that you could clearly see he's fried, that that's not happening either.
Now how much of an expert in health do I need to be to know that the cheap fake task force is for diversion purposes and is not telling you the truth?
It doesn't take a whole lot of skill to spot that one.
All right, anyway.
So, I realized this, I was talking to the Man Cave audience last night, that it's probably not a coincidence that I've predicted things better than other public figures.
Now, I'm going to make this claim and then back it up.
But it's necessary for me to say that I'm better at predicting than most people in the public domain.
Like, a lot better.
And my track record shows that pretty clearly.
Don't get everything right.
So if you have some examples of things I got wrong, you're probably right.
Nobody gets them all right.
But I have, by far, maybe the best public prediction record of any public figure.
Who does predictions?
So here's why.
I realize there's actually a reason for it that for some reason was never obvious to me.
First of all, I've got a degree in economics, and if you didn't know, economics is a forecasting skill.
The whole point of learning economics is not to understand what happened yesterday, although that's fun too, It's to predict.
You're looking at all these different variables in the world, mostly economic, but it could include political and other, technological.
And then you say, given all these variables, and how cause and effect works, what is the most likely outcome?
If I increase the money supply, I get inflation.
If I get inflation, what's that going to do to employment?
So if you study economics, you've literally got a degree in forecasting the future.
Would you agree?
That's what it is.
It's forecasting the future in complex environments.
Now, on top of that, I have an MBA, which teaches you to predict businesses.
So, the whole skill of an MBA is, if I do this, I predict I'll get a better outcome than if I do the other thing.
An MBA is a prediction skill.
And indeed, we spend a lot of time doing financial predictions.
If I buy this company under these conditions, This will be the outcome.
Now I took those skills and I became a banker.
And while I was a banker for a while, I was a lender.
So I got to look at and approve vast numbers of loans, because I was an approver, I wasn't originating them.
So I got to see a vast number of predictions in the form of, I will pay the loan back with this financial set of things happening in the future.
And I got to understand when these predictions are reliable and when they're not.
A whole set of skills for understanding when people are lying about the predictions and when they're not.
So I got that.
So those are two skills, three if you count the real life experience as a lender, which are literally directly involved with predicting the future based on lots of variables that are swilling around or swirling around.
On top of that, my other jobs were finance and budgeting.
So, finance and budgeting is also a predictive skill.
How much money do we need for this thing?
And then you learn a whole other toolbox of how to predict money-related things that involve people and technology.
Then on top of that, I worked with engineers.
So, although it said engineer on my business card for a while, and I did engineer-y things, I wasn't technically an engineer by trade.
Well, I was by trade, but not by education.
And engineers are entirely about the future.
And the way they do it is they look at the whole system, and they say, all right, you got this well-designed thing, except there's this one weak part.
I predict that that weak part will be the first thing to fail.
So engineering is prediction.
You say, if I do this, this will stay together and work.
If I do this, it won't.
It's future.
So I'm not an engineer, but I was immersed in that environment for 16 years.
I was just always around them and you learn to think like that.
You pick up a style of thinking and it's the engineering style.
On top of that, I'm a hypnotist.
So I understand how the brain is structured in a functional way.
If you do this, you get this output.
Without all the imagination that we're thinking humans, it was just the irrational motivation part.
And of course, to be a hypnotist, you end up mastering a lot of psychology.
Psychology is also a predictive skill.
Under these conditions, you're likely to have this outcome.
If I do this for you, this kind of treatment, you're likely to have this kind of benefit.
It's a prediction.
And of course, knowing how people think is by far the most important thing to predict any outcome.
How do people think?
And can I discern what they will think from the reasoning part of their brain, which is minimal, and can I discern what their irrational brain will do?
The way I predicted that Trump would win in 2016 My hypnosis prediction skills that oh, no, he's more persuasive than other people So that's a prediction All right.
Where do you get to I'm gonna get to there's kind of a like a crescendo here that I'm getting to I'm also a member of the media.
So although I'm a cartoonist.
I'm also a writer and An author.
And I worked in the news industry for most of my career.
If you're in it, you get to see behind the curtain.
And if you see behind the curtain, you see how the media really works.
You see it's basically money driving the whole thing and selfishness and all that.
So if you didn't have media experience, there's a whole bunch of things that are really obvious to everybody who's in the media that would be invisible to normies.
They just wouldn't see it.
But I have that benefit.
The other thing is that I'm a public figure.
Being a public figure allows you to meet other public figures far more often than if you were not.
When you meet other public figures, and you are a public figure, you quite often hear the real story behind the scenes.
The story other people don't get to hear.
So, by luck and coincidence, I just happen to have access to people who go, you know the story in the news?
Nothing like that happened.
Here's what really happened.
And you will never, ever hear it in the news.
I get to hear that stuff from the people who were there.
So I'm talking about the person who made the news will tell me that it's fake.
I actually get to talk to the people who ran an op to create fake news.
The news reported is real and you think is real.
I get to talk to them.
Oh yeah, we made that up and people believe that.
Now if you've never had that experience of meeting people who literally make up the news, You don't know what's going on.
All right?
The other thing is being good at pattern recognition, which I would argue that's what cartoonists are.
A humorist and a cartoonist tend to simplify big complicated situations, and that's a good skill for just understanding what's what.
If you can summarize and know what's important, then you can make jokes about it.
But it's the same skill Of summarizing and understanding the key point that allows you to see any topic with a little bit of extra clarity.
And then there's my varied occupations.
So I've had jobs in everything from marketing, to sales, to strategy, to service, to engineering, to technology, to finance.
And all of them are a different window into the house.
So if the only thing you'd ever learned is one of those things, marketing let's say, you'd be looking into the house from in the marketing window and you would just see the living room.
You'd say, the inside of this house is a living room, but it's only because you only had one window.
If you had all those skills, you'd see the house from all the windows and you'd know all the contents of the house.
So I've actually had probably 20 different jobs that had different windows.
And they all give you a little bit of a peek into what's real.
And that's also highly related to being old.
If you're in your 60s, you have this vast experience of patterns that you've seen.
Oh, when that happens, this always happens, right?
But you're not so old that your brain is deteriorating in the, you know, Dementia Joe kind of way.
So if you're in your 60s, you just have this gigantic advantage over somebody in their 30s or 40s.
I mean, really gigantic.
And believe me, when I was in my 30s and 40s, I did not believe that people in their 60s had a gigantic experiential advantage.
I often thought they were being, you know, yeah, they're a little out of sync.
They don't know what the new stuff is.
Right?
But they certainly know what the old stuff was.
They've seen it.
So when somebody tells me that X or Y is going to destroy the world, I say, do you know how many times I've heard that?
If it's the first time you're hearing this or that will destroy the world, you're panicked.
Oh my God, the news just said the world's going to be destroyed.
What do I say?
Yeah, that's the 20th time I've heard that.
Hasn't happened yet.
So experience really makes a difference.
And the other thing is that being a public figure, I get to see that the news about me isn't real.
Now, if you're a public figure that the news likes to write about, which I am, I get to see how they write it, and I get to see it's not real.
So then when I see stories about other public figures, I start with the assumption it's not real.
If I see a story about, say, Kanye, yay, or any other politician, I start with the assumption it's not real, because that's the norm.
The norm is it's not real.
You wouldn't know that unless you'd been the subject of lots of stories, and you keep wondering why, coincidentally, they're wrong.
It's not a coincidence.
Stories about public figures rarely are true.
Now, having said that, your brain might be doing something like this.
But, Scott, not really all the professions, they all have this predictive thing to them.
Like, if you're a plumber, you have to predict that if you fix this pipe, it won't leak.
Right?
So basically, all the professions have this predictive thing to them.
Kind of.
But they only predict little things within their domain.
Yes, it's true, the plumber can predict a leak.
But that's it.
It's not going to help him read the news.
A school teacher can be very smart and well-informed about the past, but they're not really in the business of predicting the future beyond, if I do this with my class, I should get a good result with my class.
It's very compartmentalized, right?
If you were a, I don't know, you're in sales, you have to predict that if you do this, somebody will buy your stuff.
But that's it.
It's not a generalizable skill.
So you see the difference?
If you're Robert De Niro, he's learned to conflate reality and fiction.
That's his skill.
His skill is conflating reality and fiction in a way that entertains people.
Is that a good skill for understanding reality?
Probably the worst.
It doesn't give you any predictive ability, and it might fool you into thinking that fiction and fact aren't that different, or that you could treat them the same, or that it's not a big deal if you do.
So, my answer to Ian Michael Black is that it seems to me that the respectful way with which he asks the question suggests that he has a genuine curiosity.
Because it didn't come across exactly as, you're stupid for saying that watching the news isn't helping.
It was more like it looked like he was genuinely curious how somebody... Now, here's the part where, knowing that he knows somebody that was close with me, he probably understands I'm not stupid, which is important.
Because if he looks at my opinion and says, okay, according to our mutual friend, this one's not stupid, but why is he saying something that In my worldview, it looks like it could be stupid.
And so he respectfully asked, how do you explain this?
And so I did.
As a, let's say, reciprocity.
Reciprocity is a really important factor in the world.
Because he was respectful, I'm happy to respectfully give him a complete answer that I think is really useful for him and for other people.
I don't do it just to score some points.
I do it because this is really important.
You really need to know why people say the news isn't real.
Real, real important.
All right.
I would like to echo something that Greg Gutfeld said on The Five yesterday that I just thought was brilliant.
And I'm mad at myself for not putting this together.
But here I'm sort of paraphrasing Greg.
But if you look at the Fine People hoax, You could argue that was the most divisive thing that ever happened in your lifetime, almost.
So it was very divisive for the country.
So we know that the hoax was just bad for human relations.
Created a lot of division.
But it goes beyond that.
It probably got Biden elected.
It was his main theme, and people believed it.
So you wouldn't have had Biden Without the Fine People hoax, it seems.
I mean, you could argue he might have tried something else, but this is what he tried, and it worked.
So the Fine People hoax gave you Biden, a dementia-riddled president, who then opened your borders, started a war with Ukraine, kind of.
I mean, you could argue that he started it.
Um, or didn't stop it.
And, uh, you got inflation, you got, you know, your, your, uh, price of eggs through the roof and all that stuff.
So in effect, you could argue that the intentional hoax of the fine people hoax, uh, destroyed civil society in the country, got you Biden, a brain dead, uh, puppet.
And destroyed our country through the open borders, inflation, debt, and Ukraine war.
That hoax may have destroyed America.
Now, I'm going to bet against that, because I think we're pretty spunky, and we're good at correcting, and we're good at destroying things before we rebuild them.
Sort of built into the whole American thing.
So, I don't think we're doomed.
I think we'll be fine.
Again, that's one of those being old things.
If I were 30, I would think we're doomed.
Honestly.
If you just showed me the news and you just say, all right, you're 30 years old, are we doomed?
I would look at the news and say, you know what?
There's no way out.
There's just no way out.
We're doomed.
But at my current age, I know that's not true.
Because it would be like the 25th time I was doomed, and then somebody just said, oh, it turns out that this year 2000 bug, we'll just write a program that automatically finds the places we need to fix and fixes them.
It was almost trivial.
And how about that ozone hole?
Well, it closed.
Right.
How about all the freezing that we were supposed to have in the 70s?
Well, turns out maybe it got warmer.
So how about running out of fuel in the 70s?
We're all going to die.
Well, we have more fuel, not less.
What about the Russia was definitely going to nuke us in the 60s?
I had a bomb shelter in my house.
I had a bomb shelter in my house.
It was a very bad one.
My father was not good at building bomb shelters.
Yeah, but we had some canned food and some extra thick walls just in case the nuke came for us.
So, no, I think we'll be fine.
But it is still demonstrably obviously true that that one hoax is coming really close to destroying the United States.
It's not hyperbole.
I think we'll be fine.
But my God, what a body blow.
All right, I may have told you this before, but Somebody did a study of the donations to political parties in Silicon Valley.
No surprise, it almost all goes to Democrats.
But the update is that it still is.
So even though you've heard some notable stories of big venture capitalists and stuff moving toward Trump, you might say to yourself, oh, those are just the exceptions.
And that's why they're in the news, because they're so, you know, man bites dog exception.
But I would argue that donations are not telling the story because people don't want to tell you exactly who they donated if it's Trump.
It'd be bad for business if you're in Silicon Valley.
So I think donations may be misleading.
And what is more important is that there is a certain set of, let's say, investors and entrepreneurs and VC people.
I guess they're investors.
Who are more respected for their opinions than others?
There are some that are just considered the wisest people in the industry.
Every one of them is going to Trump.
Every one of them.
Everybody who is good at predicting the future, that's what VC's do.
A venture capitalist literally predicts the future of the company and probably the economy at the same time.
Now they don't do it right all the time, but they're the best at it.
So the reason that you hear of some of these famous venture capitalists is they didn't have one hit, they had multiple hits.
That's pretty hard to do.
And especially if you're starting the company yourself, to start more than one company that succeeds.
Who does better at predicting, Elon Musk or everybody else in the whole fucking world?
Elon Musk.
You beat everybody.
You don't have to wonder.
He predicted he could make an electric car company.
Who else did?
Nobody.
He predicted he could get a rocket to land and be reused.
I don't think anybody was thinking that was true, except some engineers maybe.
So he's probably the most clearly and obviously best predictor of anything we've ever seen, and he's moving in the Trump direction.
So look for influence, don't look for donor lists.
Louisiana public schools now are going to be required to display the Ten Commandments.
Do I even need to talk about that one?
As you know, if you've been with me for a while, I love my Christians.
I'm not a believer personally, But I'm a real big fan, meaning that the Christians have a good way of life.
It did inform the Constitution.
It is the backbone of the American culture.
It does work.
It does make people happier and healthier and economically more stable.
So they do have a way of life which is absolutely superior.
Now, not maybe superior than every other thing you could do, but on average, it's a system that works.
And so I'm, you know, pro.
But part of that system is that you keep the religion and the politics.
I get it that it's the foundation of why we have certain laws and stuff in the Constitution.
But still, it's our thing that we keep it separate.
This is a mistake.
Now, I think it will be corrected.
I think that there will be movements against it.
But I think you can be 100% pro-Christians and Christianity and think it's a mistake to put it in the school.
Because it does beg the question, what about the other religions?
I mean, it's just going to cause trouble.
Pretty soon Satan's going to be in the school.
You know why?
How could you stop it?
As soon as you say one religion can be in the school, people are going to say, you can't have one.
But maybe we'd be okay if you let them all in.
And then the Satanists are there.
How's that a good idea?
To me, it just looks like an impractical and bad idea that had good intentions.
It's just a mistake.
I think it'll get corrected.
But I love my Christians.
One of the people who is fighting against that is the ACLU, who I call the disgraced ACLU.
Rasmussen has a poll that says if Newsom were to replace Trump in a hypothetical matchup, that Trump would just destroy him by 12 points.
Do you believe that?
I'm not sure I believe that, because I think the minute that Newsom replaced Biden, the Democrat support would just firm up behind Newsom 100%.
So it could be that there's some Some number of independents who believe that Biden is just a doddering but well-meaning ordinary politician.
And they would see maybe Newsom as more of a greasy, less trustworthy, and unsuccessful in California politician.
So maybe?
But I would think that whoever the Democrat candidate is will get 100% of the Democrats.
So there must be just some people who think Biden is a better deal than Newsom?
I'm not even sure I think that.
There are very few people who would be less happy with Newsom being the president than me.
I mean, I live in the States, so I get to, you know, feel his effects firsthand.
No, he's the last governor, except for maybe Hochul, that I would want running my country.
And still, it might be better than Biden.
And I say that just because Newsom's brain is fully functional.
And he's smart.
Sure, he's a political creature and he's slimy and you worry that he's connected to corrupt things, but you don't know.
But he's at least got a functioning brain and he cares about America surviving.
So, I don't know.
I'd have to hear what he said about immigration before I knew if it's an upgrade or a downgrade.
Because you might expect that Newsom would change some of his policies as a president compared to governor, but you can't rely on that.
That would be hard to rely on.
All right, here's the debates are upcoming.
It's going to be fun.
What would be a good strategy for the debates?
I see people doing lots of fantasy advising.
Where they say, here's what Trump should do in this debate, and here's what he should do.
And I saw the suggestion, I think the Amaze account on X, was saying that Trump should run through all the hoaxes and debunk them.
And I thought about that, and I thought, you know, the debates are, it's kind of a tough way to go run through the hoaxes, because even if he does, he's going to be calling attention to them And then the news will say, but they're real.
He claims they're not real, but they're real.
So I don't know that debunking a bunch of hoaxes could work in that setting.
But you know what might work?
What might work is debunking one, just to find people hoax.
And the way I would debunk it is the way that Gutfeld debunked it.
I would say that if you watch the video, you can see that I was talking about the people who I believed were there,
And later reporting showed were who were not anywhere near the racists and disavowed them and just wanted the statues to stay Now they didn't see the marketing for the event Some of them were locals and they just wandered over it was walking distance And so they just came over to be in support of statues now because of that one lie My opponent over here not only divided the country with his people More than we've ever been divided.
And it probably had an impact on the George Floyd thing that came subsequently, because it seemed like it was piling on that.
And then it probably got Biden elected, which gives you massive inflation and open borders and, you know, the Ukraine war that we're funding.
Now, here's why this is effective.
First of all, it limits itself to the most important and most easily debunkable hoax.
But he would have to cover not just that it didn't happen.
He has to, has to explain what he meant by fine people.
He has to say, if he's going to debunk it at all, don't do it at all unless you're going to say this.
I wouldn't even do it.
I would avoid it completely unless you're going to say, That I assumed, because it's America, that people with every opinion would show up.
Because that would be the most obvious assumption.
Later, we did hear reports that some of the locals who didn't see any of the advertisements about the Nazis, and weren't on their side, came by to show their support for the historical statues.
That's who I was talking about.
Now, if you believe that they weren't there, that's not really on point.
Because I believe they were there.
And I do believe they were there.
So, let's not argue about whether they weren't there, because your news never tried to report it.
Did it?
I don't think your news source even tried to find out if there were any people there who were not with the Nazis, disavowed them, and just wanted to keep the statues.
Of course they were there.
Everybody knows that any big gathering in America has every point of view.
I was just siding with one of the points of view that I assumed was there.
If my assumption was wrong, that wouldn't change anything about my opinion and what I said.
But my assumption was right as well.
Now, the problem is, it destroyed America in these ways I've described.
Now, did you catch the persuasion?
Let's see how good you are.
Have I trained you well?
What's the persuasion active ingredient in that idea?
A couple.
Number one, it's making you think past the sale.
If you concentrate about how that hoax ruined America, You're thinking past the question of, was it a hoax?
So he needs to very quickly say, if you look at the whole video, you'll see what I mean, but he has to, has to say what he meant by find people and that surely there were some of them there.
And even if there weren't, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter to the point.
Then he can concentrate on, did you ruin the world with this gigantic lie?
Make them talk about whether it ruined the world.
Think past the sale.
Here's the other part of it, and this is so Trump.
This is the Andre Agassi strategy.
The Andre Agassi strategy, when playing a weaker opponent especially, is he would destroy their best shot.
So if somebody had a famous forehand, but they were still, you know, somebody he should have beat, he takes out their forehand first, because then their confidence is gone and everything else falls apart.
So once he shows that their best shot can't beat him, they just fall apart.
And then he can beat him in straight sets, and he's fresh for the next game, which might be more competitive.
So most people would go for somebody's weakest shot.
But if you go for their weakest shot and they get lucky, do you know what happens?
They start thinking their weakest shot works too.
And then they get all confident.
Oh shoot, even my weak shot's working today.
Wait till he sees my good shots.
So Trump could go after the fine people hoax because it was their strongest play.
And since he's playing a weak opponent, Biden won't be able to do a good job of defending himself.
So he can take their strongest hoax, the one that's still alive, he can slay it in front of the world, and he can leave it there with all of its entrails, sitting on the lectern in front of Biden, and make him talk to the country over the guts of his own fucking lie.
And we're done.
Now I remind you that this is all fantasy politics where we pretend that our advice gets to Trump and that he follows it and the world is different.
So no, he'll do his own game and it'll be a Trump game from beginning to end.
And he's shown a willingness not to engage on that topic.
So I think he prefers just not engaging because it's not worked out for him in the past.
So I wouldn't expect him to go after it.
But if Biden brings it up, he might have to.
Now here's my next question.
Are Biden's advisors and his debate planners, are they dumb enough to know that this is their biggest weakness that looks like their biggest strength?
They might be.
They might be dumb enough that he'll mention that hoax again.
If he mentions it again, Trump has to dismantle it.
He has to.
And it will be one of the finest moments in all of American politics.
It will be the act three of all act threes.
Now, the other thing I'd like to say, and again, this is, you know, fantasy advisor, you know, Trump will be Trump.
So we, we, we're not really advising him, but it's fun to talk about.
So recreationally, um, So after he debunks that, we'd love to see him go after the, he's going to steal your democracy.
He's going to become a dictator.
I would like to see him mock it instead of just argue it.
When he brings up the January 6th thing, oh, he wanted to take over the country.
I'll say, Joe Biden, only people, only Joe Biden thinks that Republicans try to take over a country with paperwork and no guns.
I promise you, it's not going to happen.
I mean, there's not going to be any armed insurrection.
Nobody ever tried to do it on January 6.
Because it's not, it's not what it would look like at all.
But if it did happen, you would not be, you would not be wondering.
Now, he probably shouldn't say that, because that sounds like he's actually threatening to do it.
So I wouldn't do that.
I would simply mock it and say, was it your idea that everybody left their guns home and that they were going to use trespassing and relocating a lectern to conquer the country?
Can you explain, Joe Biden, how relocating a lectern and breaking some windows in one building, how that would conquer the country?
Just connect the dots for people.
Since you clearly see I had no support from anybody in the military, you can tell from the documents that were unveiled by the fake January 6 group that there wasn't anybody in on the plot.
There was no communication at all, except that we thought we could preserve our rights for a legal challenge by having alternate electors, which there is some history for.
Now, I wouldn't mock it.
So I would just mock their dumb January 6th beliefs, and I'm going to be a dictator for a day, and I'll just make fun of it.
All right.
Here's something that's alarming.
Well, before I get to that, the Ford Foundation, so they've got a big charitable group, and the head of that says that attacks on DEI are really anti-capitalist.
Because the capitalism really requires, you know, a DEI-like fairness.
So, here's what I think.
Sounds to me like the director of the Ford Foundation is a DEI hire, because that's the dumbest argument I've ever heard.
He starts with the assumption that there are plenty of qualified people in every domain, and then he reasons from there.
If that were true, we'd all be on the same side.
I would be pro-DEI if you could hire, just easily, employees that look like the rest of the country.
If they existed in sufficient quantities, it would happen naturally.
You wouldn't even be talking about it, because the market system would just take care of it.
Yeah, I don't know anything about Roy Swan, the director of the Ford Foundation, but if I had to guess, probably a DEI hire.
Now, is that fair?
It's not fair at all.
It's terribly unfair to say somebody might be a DEI hire.
But you know who created this situation?
Not me.
It was DEI.
If you create DEI, don't ask me not to notice.
Don't ask me not to comment on it.
It's really big.
And don't ask me not to treat it like an engineer would, which is as a system.
As a system, it can't possibly work, because the demand for the diverse employees far outstrips the supply, maybe 10 to 1, depending on the field, let's say STEM.
So it looks incompetent, and he looks like he would be in a job where they would do a DEI hire.
So I assume that his incompetence is directly related to the poor system that promotes underqualified people.
It looks like it.
Now, why should I assume differently when all the evidence suggests that's exactly what's happening?
And he's an example of it.
All right, here's the fun story.
This starts out terrible.
The terrible part is that The number of students in America who are, quote, special education folks, the people who have access to special education, is up to 7.5 million students, and that's 15% of the public school population.
It's up from 13% a decade earlier.
15% a decade earlier. 15% of students are in special education. 15%. Keep that in mind.
It might come up later.
15%.
Just hold that in your mind for a minute.
Breitbart's talking about a new poll about the top priorities for Americans.
Turns out abortion is really low on priorities for the election, and inflation and the economy are at the top.
So it's a signal survey.
C-Y-G-N-A-L signal.
And it asks respondents to identify their top priorities.
So the top priority is 28% shows inflation in the economy as their top priority.
That's right.
And James Carville can tell you it's the economy, stupid.
So yes, the economy is number one, no surprise.
Number two, illegal immigration.
No surprise.
You got almost 20% say that that's the biggest thing.
So the economy and inflation.
Two things that Trump absolutely dominates are the biggest concerns.
But number three was, quote, threats to democracy.
What percentage of the country do you think watched the news and decided that Trump, specifically, He's going to be a threat to their democracy, and he's going to steal their democracy.
15%.
The same number of students who are in special education think that Trump's going to steal their democracy.
It's not a coincidence.
It might not be exactly the same people, but it's not a coincidence.
The 15% who think that Trump's going to steal their democracy are not the smart students.
They're not the bright people.
And if they happen to do well in school, well, as somebody said on social media, it's easier to train a smart dog.
So the brainwashing actually works really well with smart people.
So there might be some smart people in the mix too.
I'll tell you, 15% believing something that's just so obviously ridiculous that he's going to steal your democracy.
The guy who loves the Constitution more than anybody, he hugs the flag, he's going to steal your democracy.
And anybody would let him?
Like the Republicans would let that happen.
Oh, we like Trump so much that we've decided to throw away everything we believe in so he can be our dictator for a few years until he dies.
There's literally not a single Republican who's ever had that thought.
You know, except maybe the 15% crazy ones.
All right, and a bunch of other stuff.
Wall Street Journal's got more reports about DEI is dying.
But I don't think it is dying.
I think it's just changing its name.
But there are a lot of companies that are backing away from it and reducing their staffs.
Uh, now people used to champion it like PricewaterhouseCooper.
They're kind of scrubbing the name out of their documents.
But here's what I think.
I think it's way too early to celebrate.
Because before there was DEI, Do you know it was before that for over 30 years?
There was DEI without the name DEI.
I've told you the story that I couldn't get promoted in the 80s because I was a white male.
You think that ever changed?
That never changed.
Every company still needs to get diversity, whether you call it DEI or not.
So it doesn't matter what name they give it, If you're a white male and you're walking into a business where there might be anybody who's in a diverse group who might have You know skills in the same general category.
You don't have a chance So that's not changing.
So I think it's a big fake-out that there's less DEI.
There's just less marketing of it So AOC was not happy that Nick Fuentes praised her for being more America first than 99% of Republicans So, I shouldn't have to explain who Nick Fuentes is.
I'll just ask you if you don't recognize the name, go Google it, because if I try to characterize him, then I sort of get sucked in, so I don't want to do that.
I'll just say that he's a public figure, very controversial, and he's opposed to America concentrating on Israel, among other topics.
But he notes that AOC also doesn't want America to be obsessing about supporting Israel.
And he notes that other people like Representative Massey, Candace Owens, and Bernie Sanders, who certainly would be as far away as you could possibly be from Nick Fuente's general reputation and brand, seem to agree on this topic, the Israel question. Now, I don't know, I just love the fact that these strange bedfellows got thrown together,
and that Fuentes called it out just to get them hopping mad and talking about him.
hopping mad and talking about him.
you So, anyway.
Anyway, that's just fun.
It doesn't have any importance to anything.
But it does look like some group of Americans are looking to form some kind of Declaration of Independence from Israel.
Does it feel like that?
Because I think we're well beyond the point where we have to argue, does Israel have an unusual influence on America's policies about Israel?
We're way beyond wondering if that's happening, right?
We don't have to say, I'm not sure if that's happening or not.
Of course it is.
There's, you know, AIPAC exists.
Plenty of people in the media represent that opinion.
Yeah, pretty obvious.
So there might be a Declaration of Independence from Israel that could happen at some point with a strange bedfellow of people who disagree on everything else.
I'll remind you my view.
That Israel is going to do what Israel is going to do, and our opinion of it is irrelevant, and we would do the same thing they're doing in the same situation.
So I don't feel like having an opinion on what they're doing is useful.
It's just not useful.
So I don't bother.
But I don't support Israel as, you know, a government.
Now, I'm not saying they should go away.
I'm saying that I don't need to support them.
They're very strong.
And they're able to stand on their own and they can probably afford to do anything they want to do.
They've got a pretty good standard of living.
So whether we give them money or side with them every time, I'm closer to the, I'm going to say the Thomas Massey, Ken DeSowans version of things, which is maybe we should be taking a second look about how much attention we're giving to another country.
Now, the reason I don't go hard on this is because Israel is transparent, and AIPAC, the people lobbying in favor of them, are very transparent.
Nobody's trying to hide the fact that there's a strong pro-Israel lobbying group in the United States, and that they're effective.
To me, that covers a lot of territory.
If somebody is operating within the law, and they are, if they're arguing their cases in public, and they are, and they're fully transparent even with their funding, and even Congress says stuff like, I gotta talk to my AIPAC guy, they're very, very transparent, and they're an ally, right?
One of our closest allies.
So, I can put up with a lot if nobody's lying.
Does that make sense?
Because I don't know anybody else who has my opinion on this.
As long as nobody's lying and everybody's following the law, then my disagreement with it is very muted.
It's like, well, you know, I disagree, but I like being part of a system where we know what's happening.
So that's where I'm at.
There's some news about why some people got COVID and some did not.
They think there's some kind of T cell difference.
They did a study.
Where they intentionally exposed people to COVID and not everybody got it.
And the people who didn't get it had this gene called HLA-DQA2, which is exactly what I suspected.
That's the gene I was looking at.
It was just a guess on my part.
I'm like, as soon as the pandemic started, I was like, I don't know, that feels like an HLA-DQA2 gene situation to me.
No, I didn't say that, Man, I wish I had.
Would have sounded awesome now.
And then the last story, I don't know the details yet, but the America First Legal Group, who you should be following on X. If you want to feel some optimism for the country, you should see that the Republicans have, you know, nutted up and formed a fairly substantial, you know, counterforce in the legal domain.
And they they're claiming some victory in dismantling a Brennan and Clapper-led, you know, deep state weaponization of the DHS.
So I guess there was some group that was trying to, as this group would, as America First Legal would put it, weaponize the DHS.
Now, I always think that Brennan and Clapper are the head of the snake for the intelligence people trying to manipulate the country.
You know, they were part of the Russia collusion hoax.
They were part of the laptop 51 signatures hoax.
It's kind of obvious, kind of obvious that they're the head of the, you know, this kind of stuff.
So, if that got dismantled, and if America First Legal was part of that dismantling, that would be another Victory that would be quite substantial unless all they're doing is hiding somewhere.
Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is my show for today.
I think it was more awesome than everything else you could have been doing at the same time.
I'm going to say bye now to YouTube and Rumble and X. Thanks for joining.
And I'm going to go talk to the locals people privately because they're so awesome.
Buy my book, God's Debris, the new trilogy-like compilation of the first two books plus a new short story that rounds out the story of the Avatar.
Best summer book reading ever.
By the way, it really is.
If you're gonna read a summer book, And you like rolling around with interesting ideas you haven't heard before?
It really is the ideal book.
It won't make you think too hard.
Nobody gets tied to a chair.
Nobody gets murdered in the book.
Nothing bad happens in the book.
It's just an interesting time to spend with your own brain.
