God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Boeing Starliner, New Amsterdam Racism Cancer, Tax-Free Tips, ADL, Self-Driven Car Safety, Childhood Obesity, Human Pleasure Requirement, Make Affordable Groceries Again, Mecca Pilgrimage Deaths, Solar Cells Power Prediction, Robots Making Robots, Non-War Conquering, Mike Cernovich, Betting On Biden, America First Legal, DHS Intelligence Experts Group, Reid Hoffman's Persuasion, David Sacks, President Trump, All-In Podcast, Abortion Policy, College Degree Green Cards, Ukraine Policy, Kennedy Assassination Files, James O'Keefe Disney Insider, Biden's Cancer Charity, High Speed Rural Internet, Starlink, AG Andrew Bailey, Michael Ian Black, 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, good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's Colored Coffee with Scott Adams, and it's the best thing that will ever happen to you.
And if you'd like to take it up to levels that you can't even understand with your tiny, shiny human brain, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard, chalice or sty, and a kenteen jug or flask or vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Oh.
So good.
So good.
Well, who's the unhappiest people in the entire world today?
No, let me extend it.
Not the least happy person in the world, but who's the least happy person in the world plus anything orbiting the world?
That might give it away.
The least happy person in the world or orbiting the world.
That's right.
Those would be the astronauts that are trapped on the International Space Station.
And they're hoping that Boeing will fix their Starliner so they can go home.
So it looks like they thought they were going to be there for a week.
Looks like they'll be there for three weeks.
They barely limped up there on the Starliner, but they're not so sure they know how to get them back.
Don't know how to get them back.
Now, the question you might ask yourself is, well, there are many questions.
You might ask about the technological know-how of Boeing.
You might ask about the psychological state of the astronauts themselves.
You might ask about the space station and how long it's been there and how long we're going to keep it.
Very important questions.
Many, many important questions about this topic, but none more important than this one.
Will it become a Dilbert comic?
Yes, yes it will.
Next week you'll see Dilbert's company will be building a spacecraft to send their CEO up to the space station.
It won't be so good at getting him back.
But yes, when you're this much like a Dilbert comic, when you've got... See, the worst part about it is People don't want to die ironically and slowly.
Now, it's bad enough to die ironically.
So let's say that you were famous for promoting health and running, and then you had a heart attack when you're young and you die.
Well, that's very ironic because you're the healthy person, but you get a heart attack and die.
But at least it's fast.
The worst way to die is ironically and slowly.
As in being trapped on the International Space Station and having a lot of time to think about the following question.
Why did I trust Boeing to put me on the International Space Station?
Do you think they're not questioning their decisions right now?
You know, Bob, it seemed like a good idea when we first came up with it.
But, yeah, it looks like DEI is going to kill them.
We hope not.
Nothing funny about that.
There's nothing funny about that.
I'm sure they'll get back.
There was a video that went around that was sort of a parody, you know, one of these Babylon Bee kind of things, except it wasn't labeled about who did the parody.
So I was going to talk about it, but I thought, well, I better find out who did the parody because it was so well done.
And what it was is it showed what looked like a regular TV show.
It was very well produced. It looked just like a regular TV show.
And it showed some doctor talking to the, I guess, family of the patients and described in very serious terms that what caused the cancer in the patient was racism.
Thank you.
And I thought, oh, that's pretty funny.
It's really well done.
That's pretty good parody that, you know, racism is a problem for everything.
It causes cancer.
Turns out that's NBC's new medical drama called New Amsterdam, and it was not a parody.
I literally couldn't tell the difference.
I assumed it was a parody, but NBC really has a show in which a key plot point Is that racism is causing cancer.
I guess the racism is causing some stress and the stress is causing some cancer.
So, there you go.
And I think, I for one think that we should come up with some, probably need some reparations for this.
It's the only way to fix it people.
It's the only way to fix this.
Well, you may have seen that, uh, President Trump suggested that if he were president, he would try to get rid of taxes on tips, gratuities.
And so Mike Cernovich had suggested, hey, somebody should make little stickers that you put on your receipt when you pay your restaurant tab that says, vote for Trump, you'll get rid of your Get rid of your taxes on your tips.
Well, that idea has been implemented now by John Pontius.
If you want to see the link where you can buy your stickers, they're actually stickers now, that say basically that if you vote for Trump, you know, you might get rid of your taxes.
So the little pro-Trump sticker, you can put it on your receipt and the URL for that is trumpstickers.store.
Now you can find the link on my X feed.
It's the one I just posted, so it'll be at the top, right after the pinned one.
So if you don't want to look there, it is trumpstickers, all one word, trumpstickers.store.
Well, TikTok is introducing some AI tools, according to Rowan Chung, who's got a good feed you should follow next.
So it's called Symphony, and it does three things.
You can get a digital avatar, so you can use one of theirs or make yourself into an avatar.
It's got translation tools, so you can turn your video into every other language.
Now, how big a deal is that?
That feels just like a little thing dropped in there.
But imagine if you could just push a button and your video will be translated into all the major languages.
That seems gigantic.
That is such a big deal.
Wow.
And there's an AI assistant and more.
So that'll be fun.
Yeah, the whole online world of what's real and what's your avatar is going to get real weird.
Real weird.
I'm working on my little Dilbert Museum here in my house.
And one of the things I'll do, it'll probably be available online too, is if I get it working, my AI will be a little agent that talks like me and someday will look like me.
And you could actually go into the Dilbert Museum and have my avatar answer any questions.
So it's going to know pretty much everything about my career.
So you can go in there and say, tell me something about, you know, how you got started.
It'll just tell you.
And that is so cool.
I can barely even contain myself.
I have such a nerdish delight in the cool new things that we'll be able to do.
I mean, AI is one of those things that, you know, starts off slow.
But, oh, let me tell you another story.
So the other day I had some complicated medical questions, just sort of not related to a specific thing, but Yeah, I was trying to understand the nature of a complicated medical thing with lots of choices and variables involved.
Oh my God, was ChatGPT good at that?
Oh my God, no.
It may have given me hallucinated advice, but it was so clear and answered the question so well that I immediately said, I don't know why I would need a doctor.
Like actually, literally, if I had, you could use, you could use chat GPT as a second opinion and you'd be pretty happy about it.
So I don't know how it actually compares to a doctor, but as a non-doctor listening to chat GPT, it sure sounded like it covered all the bases and was very impressive.
So I would suggest to you that if something comes up and you just have some curiosity, cause you're worried about it, You should check ChatGPT out.
It actually is really good now, for that stuff.
Well, the disgraced ADL is now, looks like it might get banned by Wikipedia, and the reason is that they, this is what they say, Wikipedia says, ADL no longer appears to adhere to a serious mainstream and intellectually cogent definition of anti-Semitism.
Instead, it has succumbed to the shameless politicization of the very subject it was originally esteemed for being reliable on.
That's from a Wikipedia editor, you know, one editor of many.
And so it's been added to a list of banned and partially banned sources due to its conflating anti-Jewish hate With anti-Israel critiques.
So, editors have voted unreliable as a source of information.
Now, I don't know if karma is working for me personally, but I feel like every time some entity attacks me, they go right in the toilet.
This would be like the fourth or fifth one that's come after me, and then fairly soon after, You know, just complete destruction of their business model through their own actions.
So the Washington Post cancels me and they're just absolutely falling apart.
I have an entire week of Ratbert working at the Washington Poop who will be going through the same thing.
The funniest thing was the Washington Post under the new management is telling the legacy news people, hey, we've got two newsrooms now.
I don't know what the two are, but we're going to add a third one.
And the third one is going to be some kind of social media, online, more native, you know, designed for modern times, news thing.
And I'm thinking to myself, how would you like to be one of the people who did not move into the new thing?
Because I think the new thing is the only thing.
Clearly the legacy model is so dead that they probably just want to get rid of it, but they need something to be a business of.
So they're going to create some new business within the business.
But the reality is that it's not additional business.
The reality is that if you're working on the legacy stuff, you're on the dying business, it's going to be gone pretty soon.
So that's just perfect Dilbert fodder.
So Ratbert will be in that very situation next week.
You can always see Dilbert now by subscription on X or on the scottadams.locals.com subscription site.
All right, so the ADL, yeah, they're the ones who said the head of the ADL called me a Holocaust denier in public.
Actually said that in public about me.
So how much do I want the ADL to go out of business?
A lot.
Yeah, they're completely disgraced.
They're an embarrassment to all Jewish Americans and Jews and anywhere else in the world.
So if you're Jewish and you're still supporting the ADL, you have a lot of explaining to do, because they're making you look like clowns, basically.
So why would you fund somebody who makes you look like idiots?
Here's an interesting study that I don't know if I believe, but it's so fun.
This is recreational science.
Recreational science.
I'm going to tell you about some studies that, if they were true, would be really interesting.
But are they true?
I don't know.
It's about a coin toss.
So there's a study that says there's a link between high pollen levels and increased creativity.
So Tariq Khan of the University of Nebraska at Omaha.
So apparently there's a strong correlation Between how much pollen there is in a place and how creative and vital their economy is because of the creativity.
Now, do you believe that?
Does that pass your sniff test?
No pun intended?
I don't know.
Here's what I think.
Is it true that pollen is also associated where there are four seasons?
Is that also true?
Because don't we ever wonder, if you grew up, let's say you're the 10th generation of people who grew up where there are four seasons, wouldn't that mean that the people that you descended from were good at planning?
Would that be fair to say?
Because you can't survive the winter unless you spend all summer getting ready for the winter.
So it seems to me that people who spent many generations where they had to do a lot of planning more than a year in advance would end up being good at planning more than a year in advance.
And if you woke up every day and the food was just sort of laying out there and you could just go get it and every day was like the day before, you wouldn't need a lot of creativity.
Creativity wouldn't be valued because everybody just gets up and hunts and forages and has a good time and goes back to bed.
But you would imagine that if, you know, a thousand people left those easy places and went where there are Four Seasons and everything's challenging, most of them would die.
And the ones that would be left would be the ones who are creative, the ones who are creative, because they were creative.
They're like, oh, we're gonna have to do something creative to live in this Four Seasons world.
So it does seem to me That where there's pollen, isn't there four seasons?
I just wonder if it's the right correlation.
Anyway, just a hypothesis, with no science whatsoever to back it.
All right, there's other science, if we believe it, that polystyrene microplastics makes rats less social, and they have less oxytocin.
Now, I don't know.
I don't know if it's true that the microplastics will make humans also less social and have less oxytocin.
All I know is that the more water I drink from plastic bottles, the more I hate people.
But that could be a coincidence.
Now I have to correct myself, because apparently that's not exactly the kind of plastic that's in a plastic bottle.
So technically my joke doesn't make sense.
But did that stop me?
No.
No, that didn't even slow me down.
Because my jokes are impervious to science.
If it sounds good, I say it.
So no, it's a different kind of plastic, I think.
But still, I'm sure I'm getting enough microplastics to hate other people.
Or it's just other people are getting worse.
Or once you reach a certain age, you just start liking people less.
There's something about the pandemic that just destroyed my brain.
I can't even pretend I'm the same person as I was before the pandemic.
There's a new study that says self-driving cars are already safer than human drivers, except during some specific situations like dawn and dusk and making turns.
But overall, It's already better.
What was the name of one of the people studying whether the cars are safer if they're driven by humans versus machines?
Well, his last name is Ding.
Shengchuan Ding.
Now, a ding is exactly what happens to your car if it doesn't do a good job of self-driving.
It gets a ding.
But that's a coincidence.
He did not choose that line of work, because his last name was Ding.
I would like my last name to be Ding, because then every time somebody's phone went off, I'd think they were talking to me.
I'd be sitting there and I'd hear, Ding!
I'd be, yes?
Oh, sorry, that was just some kind of an alarm.
All right, Elon Musk estimated that In, I don't know, the next 10 or 20 years, there might be 20 billion robots in the world.
20 billion.
So that would be one robot for every person, plus a whole bunch of them working in factories.
20 billion.
All right, hold that in your mind for a moment.
Now, add to that that self-driving cars just reached the crossover point where they're safer than regular cars.
You know what happens next, right?
As soon as everybody understands that the self-driving cars are safer than others, one thing that might happen is that some states are going to make it illegal to drive a car.
So eventually, it's going to be illegal for humans to drive cars on the same highways as robots.
Because the robots, or the robot cars, will be the safe ones.
So they just won't make it legal.
But more importantly, If you have a choice of a car that can drive itself and one that can't, very soon it won't be a question.
It'll be very much like, do you want a smartphone or a flip phone?
Yes, 1% of the public will keep their flip phone.
But 99% are going to say, are you kidding?
Why wouldn't I have a smartphone if I have a choice, if I can afford it?
So, I think you're going to see Tesla just start absorbing everybody who doesn't feel like driving, especially in traffic.
Do you know who hates driving in traffic?
I do.
If the only thing that happened is Tesla starts sucking up all the customers who don't like to drive, that would be one hell of an investment in that company.
Now, I don't give investment advice, and I do own Tesla stocks, so I'm very Biased.
And you should not take my lead on any, you know, any finance or investment stuff.
It's not advice.
I'm not advising you.
I'm just saying, it's a company that has a once-ever event.
A once-ever.
There will only be one time in all of human history when people say, wait a minute, it would be safer if the car drives itself.
That will never happen again.
It's a once-ever-changeover to self-driving cars, and they're the best position for it.
Now add to that that they probably will become the best maker and manufacturer of robots, or at least one of the best, and it's a 20 billion robot market within the next 10 years or so.
And it's both Tesla.
That's just Tesla.
Now, I've never seen a company more poised to make money than that.
But hold on, there's a big if.
There's a really big if.
It's the biggest if of all time.
So in case I got y'all excited about Tesla stock, here's going to be the counterpoint.
To run robots and Teslas, you need a lot of electricity.
We are told quite reliably.
In fact, Trump even said this on the All In podcast.
I'll talk about it in a bit.
But the need for electricity in our AI driven world is through the roof.
So much so that we can't meet it.
Let's be honest.
There will be way more demand for electricity than we could possibly meet.
What's that do to the cost of electricity?
It should make it go up, right?
Because even though we're going to be trying like crazy to build nuclear power plants, we're going to do it at American speed, which is slow.
Really, really slow.
So we should be entering a period of 10 to 20 years where electricity costs will go through the roof.
Just supply and demand.
I don't see any way around it, right?
Because the companies that make your robots and stuff are going to be just drawing so much electricity.
So there are going to be some big fights over whether business gets the electricity or residence.
You might find that you just don't have electricity at night in five years, depending on where you live.
So if you're looking at the economics of buying a
Electric car or an electric robot the only kind there will be You're gonna have to put in the electric costs Because I've got a feeling that you put your if you buy it, you know a $10,000 robot I'll bet it's gonna cost you 20,000 in electricity So that's the big wild card there Is that the the market will be so big that it will price itself out by lack of electricity the other thing is that when the forces are that big and
The other day I bought a stock that I don't recommend because I don't recommend any stock.
I'm not saying it's good or bad.
I'm just fully disclosing.
The other day I bought a stock that I don't recommend Because I don't recommend any stock i'm not saying it's good or bad. I'm just fully disclosing uh, nne uh Nano-nuclear energy or something and uh, they're fairly new.
They don't have any profits and they're in the space of the newest technology for the small modular reactors and new fuel so They're in exactly the right business that's taking off with the you know, a massive amount of interest that's coming into it But you don't know if any of their stuff will work.
Right?
So the play there is that they have no profits.
They're not profitable.
And they don't have anything that obviously would be their profit.
But they're in exactly the right place for developing new stuff for this industry.
So keep an eye on that.
Joy Reid, uh, finally, you know, my, I don't know if you know, but my goal was to influence Joy Reid to lose her, uh, her Trump haircut.
Cause I don't know if you've been paying attention, but Joy Reid had been sporting the Trump haircut for a while, but it looks like she's done with that now and has moved to finally, finally to the Scott Adams haircut.
So if you see this haircut, Joy Reid.
Same haircut.
Now I knew eventually I'd get her.
I knew.
Yeah.
I knew it.
There's another study about obesity in kids.
It says kids with obesity are sadder and have lower cognition and mental health.
But we don't know if it's cause or effect.
So we don't know if the kids are overeating because they're sad, or if they're sad because they're overeating, or both.
Could be either way.
So it could be both-way science.
I would suggest that having, you know, watched kids, you know, have been in my house with stepkids, etc., that the ones who have a little extra weight really, really love eating.
I've said this before, you could tell that their love of eating was completely different from the kids who had zero body fat.
Those kids would like, could look right at food, having not eaten all day, they could look at their favorite food and walk right past it.
So, I think that people who are not as happy as they could be, look for other ways to be happy.
So this is what I call the pleasure unit hypothesis.
This is my own hypothesis.
The humans need a minimum amount of pleasure, and if they can't get it in the ways that are healthy and good and approved by the public, they'll get it in some other way.
But they don't have an option of sitting there being sad below some point.
If you're sad below some point, you're gonna do something.
Right?
You're gonna have to do something to make it go away.
So if the only thing you can do is drugs, Some people do.
If the only thing you can do is eat or drink, some people do.
But the way I judge it is not so much a willpower or bad decisions.
It's just you look around, you try to get all the pleasure you can in the normal legal ways.
It's just not there.
So you do what you have to do.
I always think about these studies.
I don't know if they're real or not, but the Vietnam vets who would be hooked on heroin, While they were in Vietnam, but then they would come home and you think, oh, it's going to be tough for them to get off the heroin.
And then they just stopped doing it and they have no problem.
Now I have, I'm suspicious whether those studies are real, but if they are, it would support the point that if you're off in Vietnam about to get killed, you don't really have much source of any kind of pleasure.
So they'll take what they can get, even if it's the worst idea in the world, which would be heroin.
And then when they get home, suddenly they have access to just normal pleasures, human beings, family, nature, all that stuff, without being shot in nature.
And then they don't need it.
So it may be that if you take care of people's pleasures, they don't seek bad pleasures.
And I think that's the answer to drugs and overeating, smoking, All of them.
All your bad habits, you should work on making sure you develop good habits.
Actually, here's a good tip.
Let's say you have a drug habit.
I wouldn't even bother trying to quit unless I developed an exercise habit and a good eating habit and some other things that could make me possibly happy if I quit.
Because you need some kind of pleasure.
That's why I always disagree with going to rehab.
Now, I'm no expert, so I'm speaking completely as just an observer who doesn't know anything about it, but it seems to me that the very worst thing you could do is remove all of a person's source of pleasure.
That seems tough.
I think you would need to figure out how to give them pleasure that's the good kind.
And I think exercise and nature are probably about two-thirds of that answer.
All right, but of course everybody's different, so not everybody can get pleasure from ordinary things.
I saw a bumper sticker, or some kind of sticker, that changed what MAGA means.
So it says Trump 2024, and instead of Make America Great Again, it uses the same MAGA letters, but it's Maybe Afford Groceries Again.
MAGA, Maybe Afford Groceries Again.
Oh, that's so good.
See, that's beyond clever.
It's not just clever, it's way better.
Do you know what MAGA does to Democrats?
They think Make America Great Again means return to slavery.
Now, I'm only exaggerating a little bit, because they actually do say stuff like that.
Like, oh, Make America Great Again, you mean when the white people ran everything?
That is literally what The Democrats have been taught to think.
No, it never meant that.
But if you take that scary image of Make America Great Again, and you take it down to the most ordinary level that everybody understands, that groceries cost too much, maybe afford groceries again, it's kind of brilliant.
So I wouldn't put this in the same category of, oh, that's funny, or oh, that's clever.
This is way beyond that.
This is hardcore military-grade persuasion, because Trump's biggest problem is that he's scary, and that people think, oh, your real thing is to let the white supremacist armies in the hills come down, or whatever the Democrats think, whatever they're imagining today.
But if you take it all the way down to maybe afford groceries again, It's first of all humble, because there's a maybe, which is hilarious, and afford groceries again hits you right here.
Like all the other stuff hits you up here in your head, and that's, you might laugh, it's clever, but there's no effect.
It's just a thing that happened in your head.
You tell somebody, maybe afford groceries again, you could feel that right in your stomach.
I would love to see this get used a little bit better, a little bit more.
There's a Project Veritas.
Now that would be, I assume that's whatever's left after O'Keefe left and formed his own thing, O'Keefe Media Group, OMG.
But there's a Project Veritas video that says, seems to show a Biden State Department official Confirming that the goal of the open borders is replacing America's basically replacement theory.
The idea that Democrats want to replace Americans with people who are likely to vote Democrat.
Now, and the person on secret camera says Latin Americans are all leftists.
So the idea is to get a bunch of leftists in here.
Now, here's the problem that I have with that video.
It looks like all they did is talk to a Trump supporter who happens to work at the State Department.
I'm not sure there was any secrets involved there.
Because when the undercover person talks about it, when he says the real goal is to replace America's demographics, he's talking exactly like every Trump supporter on X. He didn't say, I have secret information.
He said, my opinion is that they're doing this thing.
Well, that's other people's opinion too.
The fact that he works at the State Department, he did not mention any secret information.
I think Project Veritas, after O'Keefe is gone, the best they could do is find a Trump supporter who worked at the State Department to say some Trumpy stuff.
I'm not sure there's anything there.
I don't see anything.
I mean, all I see is a Trump supporter saying Trump supporter stuff, who just happens to work at the State Department.
Of course there are some Trump supporters everywhere.
All right, so you know every year there's a Muslim migration.
Lots of people become pilgrims and go to Mecca.
It's in Saudi Arabia, and of course it's really hot when they go there, and people die from the heat.
And every year there's Quite a few tragic deaths.
So this year, more than a thousand pilgrims died in the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca that they're all supposed to do.
Muslims are all supposed to do before they die, once.
But if you thought that Christianity had any hope of surviving against Islam, let me just put this story in context.
Every year they do this.
Every year the temperature is 120.
And they stand out there for hours.
This year, a thousand of them dropped dead.
Do you know what they're going to do about that?
Same time next year.
You Christians don't have a fucking chance.
A thousand people dropped dead.
And their response is, see you next year.
This isn't even unusual.
It's not like they've done worse.
They've had as many as 2,000 die when there was a stampede that happened.
I don't know.
They seem to have a system that is just impenetrable.
If you can have 1,000 people die on your religious service every year, and you know it, you know they're going to die.
You know something in that range is going to die.
And they just say, all right, see you next year.
I mean, different people next year, but.
That is some tough, tough, tough people.
And if you didn't already know that the Islamic world is tough.
Wow, they're tough.
I mean, that's.
I don't even know what to say about that, it's just mind boggling.
The, you know, the difference in what's OK and what's not in different cultures, but.
They're pretty serious about their religion.
Turns out, big surprise, well the Economist, that's a publication allegedly, says that solar cells will in all likelihood be the single biggest source of electrical power on the planet by the mid 2030s.
Do you think that's true?
That solar cells will be the single biggest source of electric power in the 2030s?
Because at the moment it's Like single digits, right?
Now, you may say to yourself, Scott, there is no way that could possibly happen.
But I would like to give you a prediction that I heard 25 years ago from a futurist, Paul Sappho, I think it was.
And the prediction was this, that as soon as robots Became real like you know robots could actually do robot stuff and build things and be among us as soon as you could have robots Then you would very soon after have unlimited electricity Because the robots would build solar power sites Just on their own and they'd be making more robots No, no as soon as robots can make robots.
That's it.
It wasn't as soon as the robots It was as soon as robots make robots As soon as robots make robots, robots become sufficiently cheap that you have lots of them, and then they can go build solar farms, not just the ones on your roof, but they'll just build solar farms near every community, they'll build gigafactories with batteries to store it, and that you would ramp up very quickly from solar is no big deal to solar is everything.
And if you look at the pace of nuclear power, It looks like it might take longer than 2030s.
You know, even if you start today, you might be looking at 2040s before there's any serious extra nuclear power in America.
So, on one hand, it looks ridiculous on the surface of it.
It looks like it's just a political bias pro-climate change alarm kind of thing.
But there is actually a way that that could happen.
The robotics might make Paul Sappho's prediction from, yeah there he is, from very long ago, might make that true.
And then there's a concern from the Heritage Foundation that our military depends on China for our energy because we're turning into a green military.
Can you imagine anything dumber to do your military than to bind them to ESG and China as their supplier for technology for making basically anything solar?
So why don't we just give up on the idea that we're ever going to go to war with China?
Let me tell you why we're not going to be in a war with China.
China doesn't want a war with the United States.
Because they can win without the war.
If you knew you could win without the war, why would you fight one?
Their long-term, you know, China's greatness is going to be completely driven by economics, and if they can avoid any large natural disasters that set them back for, you know, a generation.
So basically, they just need to plod along and, you know, survive economically, and sheer size We'll make them the most powerful force in the world.
They'll have economic control of basically everything, the way we sort of did at one point.
So China doesn't need a war.
They need to avoid a war.
The way that China conquers the world is not having a war.
China has a war.
It could set them back, you know, 100 years.
If they don't have a war, they're going to be in control of everything in 100 years.
So there's no scenario in which China goes to war, because of course they know that.
They're very, very rational.
They've got a bunch of engineers running the place.
They can plan ahead really well.
So no, there's no way they're going to start a war unless we start it, and then they might respond.
But even then, they'd be looking for peace right away.
I don't know, it just feels like fantasy when we talk about a war with China to me.
I know we have to be ready just to make it likely that it won't happen, but they just don't seem like that kind of a mentality, that they want to start a war.
All right, another Mike Cernovich reference, but he's saying that if the elections were run properly, like 2016, Trump would win in a landslide this time.
But he said, if I had to bet money, he has money, but if I had to bet money in 2024, I would bet on Joe Biden.
Democrats find a way to win.
They got caught sleeping in 2016.
That's all and it won't happen again.
They'll cook up something.
And here's my addition to that.
So I'm going to agree with the take that they're looking to do something.
Now, in most prior years, I would have said, that's not, I mean, that's not really on pattern.
I would have said to myself, really?
Something as big as throwing an election right in front of us was way beyond what even our evil overlord, you know, blob, deep state would be willing to do.
But if you simply went down the list of the things they literally did, it's right in the middle.
It wouldn't even be surprising.
In fact, the most likely scenario is that people do tomorrow what they did for the last 100 years.
That's your simplest prediction.
So look at the group that did the The fine people hoax, the Russia collusion hoax, the drinking bleach hoax, the laptop isn't real hoax.
Look at the lawfare, the insurrection, January 6th hoax.
Yes.
Yes.
There was a time when I would have said, you know, grotesquely cheating in an American election So unlikely, because people are watching and all the usual things.
But no, I agree completely.
There must be elements within the Democrat Party who are trying to work on any number of dirty tricks.
I guarantee that plans are being floated.
And it could be everything from, you know, martial law, to starting a war, to starting a pandemic, to coming up with a new hoax about white supremacists in the hills, so there has to be a lockdown.
I actually do expect not only massive cheating, but right in front of us.
I think they'll do it right in front of us, where we can all see it.
And they'll look at you and they'll gaslight you and say, there's nothing there.
And you'll say, but we can all see it.
It's right there.
It's right in front of us.
And the government will look at you and say, no, it isn't.
It's right there.
It's right there.
We're both looking at it.
No, we aren't.
And they can actually get away with that.
How do we know?
Because they've done it over and over.
As long as they control the media, that's it.
They don't have to control anything else.
And they do control the media.
So I don't think there's any manner of cheating at any level, including assassination, that they wouldn't do right in front of you with the comfort that they could get away with it.
I think they could kill any of the candidates and get away with it.
We're at that point.
I'm not predicting it.
I'm saying there's nothing that they couldn't look right in the eye and say, that didn't happen.
Nope.
Nope.
You must be imagining it.
I'm going to put you in jail if you say it again.
All right, on that point, America First Legal is reminding us that, I guess they did some legal actions and got a hold of some documents from this, what had been a Department of Homeland Security idea to create this, what the America First Legal calls, a unlawful DHS intelligence experts group.
And this quote, intelligence expert group, was stacked with deep state partisans, as America First Legal says, James Clapper and John Brennan.
And part of the documents were discussing that most of the domestic terrorism threat now comes from supporters of the former president. So the deepest spooks, the people who are behind Russia collusion, the same people behind the laptop scam, the people behind the darkest,
worst hoaxes and ops on American domestic, at least in American homeland, same people who right in front of us have done these things.
And you know why they're still doing things right in front of us in public?
Because the media, when you accuse them, say, hey, it's those guys.
It's those guys.
We know those guys.
They're all rotten.
And the media can say, No, they're not.
And you say, but, but, but, we see it right in front of us.
It's so obvious.
And then the media will say, no, it isn't.
And that's where we are.
We're in a complete gaslit situation where there's not even a nod toward the truth.
They don't even nod toward it.
Just, nope, nothing like that exists.
So apparently it's being disbanded, but only because it's just so obviously a corrupt organization that was intent on controlling politics in the country through a bunch of hoaxes and bullshit.
So, it's important to know the players.
Anytime you see Brennan and Clapper working together, it's an op.
It's not real.
Anytime you see Schiff, Swalwell, or Raskin, Defending a thing, it's not true.
They send specific people out for specific kinds of things.
If the Democrats just have a good point, let's say they say, oh, we Democrats have a better plan for health care.
Who do they send out to talk about it?
Normal people.
They send their normal Democrats, a Senator, House of Representatives, and then that normal person will say, all right, this is our preferences, and here's our argument.
You might not agree with it, but there's nothing crazy about it.
They send normal people when it's just a normal argument.
When they have to tell you something that's absolutely not true, they send Raskin, Swalwell, Schiff, Brennan, and Clapper.
It's the same fucking guys.
If you don't recognize them, you don't know what's going on.
You can know for sure something's not true because these ones are involved in it, and even one of them.
And if they bring out the worse than Watergate guys, that's a confirmation, right?
The worse than Watergate guys Don't exist for any purpose other than telling you that what is obvious and true isn't real and true.
It's their only purpose at this point.
All right, so that's real.
So here are the two movies that have developed thanks to the fact that nothing is true in the news.
If you're a Democrat, you're being told that Biden has reclaimed the lead and that the The lawfare against Trump was totally successful, which they would call Trump breaking the law.
So that's what they believe.
If you are on the other side, you hear continuously that Trump is leading in all the six key states, and he's tied even in blue Minnesota.
So he's got a dominant lead that could be almost impossible to overcome, and he's got a lock on it.
But the Democrats would tell you that the economy is great, Employment is amazing.
Um, inflation is down and the country is on the mend.
Uh, if you're a Republican, you've heard that the, uh, everything's bad and they're measuring it incorrectly.
They're looking at the pandemic as if it was a normal year, as if it were.
And, uh, basically it's complete bullshit and that everything's falling apart and our debt is going to kill us.
So there's your two different worlds.
In one world, Biden's economy is great, and that's why he's ahead in the polls.
And in the other world, the economy is terrible, and that's why Trump is definitely going to win, because he's ahead in the key states.
Which one of those is true?
Well, Reid Hoffman weighed in to counter David Sachs.
Now, Reid Hoffman is one of the biggest donors for the Democrats, but I also think he's one of the more persuasive people, because he's actually smart.
And he's smart specifically in how people think, right?
He's really good on the psychology part, and always has been.
Now, what's interesting is that he worked with Sachs and Elon, etc., in the PayPal startup.
And many of them went on to do great things.
But now they differ.
So, we know David Sachs' argument for Trump.
It's the standard argument for Trump.
Pretty obvious stuff.
But Reid Hoffman had to do a point-by-point takedown, very long thread on Axe, about why Sachs was all wrong.
And here's your clue as to whether he's attempting to tell the truth.
He made no distinction between the pandemic and normal business.
In other words, he tried right away to sell the fact that jobs went down under Trump during the pandemic, and then they went up under Biden after the pandemic, and tried to sell that as Biden doing good work, because that's why employment's better.
Now, anybody with even the tiniest understanding of anything knows that all that happened was the pandemic took jobs away, and then when it was over, jobs came back.
Now, that's pretty far from saying that Biden is the job president.
And if you can even have the guts to try to sell that bullshit to the public, you don't have to read the rest of what he wrote, because it was equally stupid.
Now, is he stupid?
No, he's brilliant.
So why would a brilliant person write something stupid?
Because it's persuasive.
So I would say that you can see the best argument from their best person is ridiculous.
I mean, it just falls apart on the first moment.
It just dissolves in the daylight.
Well, Trump appeared by video on the All In pod.
You know, those are the four famous entrepreneur investor types.
They're not all pro-Trump, but they're all good friends, and they had him on there.
And here are some of the things that he talked about that made news.
So he talked about Roe vs. Wade, and did a good job of it, because the way Trump frames it is, everybody wanted me to kick it to the states.
That's not exactly true, but sounds good when he says it.
And so I did.
So, he's doing a really good job of saying, this is now up to the states.
You shouldn't even be talking to me about it, because it's not about me anymore.
He said he wouldn't be in favor of a national ban, because that would defeat the purpose of having given it to the states.
So, I'm sure that that's what they want to hear on the other side.
They want to hear that there's not going to be any national ban on abortion.
And that the states can decide.
I would have gone just a little bit further persuasion-wise, and I would have said this.
I think there's one thing everybody in the country should agree on.
That I should not be involved in your decisions about abortion.
Can we agree on that?
Because I think I should not be involved.
As president.
I think that goes to the states.
So if the Democrats think that they don't want Trump involved in abortion decisions, that's what I gave you.
I gave you taking me out of the decisions.
I gave it to the states.
Now you guys work it out.
I think that would be a little bit stronger because they do want him uninvolved.
And he's going to, I'm not going to do a national ban.
I'm going to be That's really good.
It's really good.
Trump suggested that he'd be in favor of giving green cards to foreign students who graduate from colleges in the United States and have developed skills and otherwise have been vetted to not be criminals.
I like that idea.
Now, I heard some pushback that it would turn the colleges into immigration mills.
Well, not if they're vetted.
As long as they come in and they're vetted to not have, you know, let's say associations with the intelligence agencies and stuff like that, why wouldn't we put them at the top of the list?
The whole thing about immigration is that Republicans want immigration too.
They just want to get all the qualified people first.
So this is exactly that.
Basically, Trump would take the government out of the business of deciding who could come into the country with merit, and the colleges would work it out.
So if the college gives you a degree, they've certified that you have merit, and you could add something to the country.
Now, it might not be every major and every college, you know, there might be some tweaking there.
I like it.
Because we don't have too many workers, at the high end especially, and there are not going to be so many of them that it will change the nature of the country right away.
It will just make us smarter.
So right now we're educating these people in our great colleges and then they just take it home and they start a startup in another country.
That should be our startup.
That makes perfect sense to me.
I know there's going to be some pushback on that, but I like it.
Now, it's all in the details, right?
That's the sort of thing you could implement poorly, and then the colleges just become a way to buy your way into the United States.
Or it could be done well, and they get legitimate degrees, and if they have a STEM degree or something useful, stay here and make your money in America, please.
All right, let's see what else.
Trump says he will not put American boots on the ground in Ukraine.
Because unlike Europe, we've got this big ocean between us and Russia.
We don't need to be fighting them in Europe.
That's Europe's business.
And he says if France does it, that's up to France, but that would be their business, not ours.
That is the answer I want to hear.
And also Trump says that the push to expand NATO is the main cause of the war.
But here's the thing that I enjoyed the most.
Do you know how you love it when anybody agrees with you?
It feels good, right?
Anytime you say something and you're out there alone and then somebody agrees with you.
I made the worst prediction of all my predictions involving the start of the Ukraine war.
If you remember, I said that even when Putin put his forces on the border of Ukraine and had every look of an invasion, I said, in public, many times, completely incorrectly, There's no way he's going to invade.
It's just negotiating.
He's trying to push for his best deal, but invading would be crazy.
It would just be suicide.
So he's not going to do it.
And then I was as wrong as you could be wrong.
You can't be wronger than that.
You know, it's impossible to be more wrong than he won't attack and then he, you know, destroys the entire country of Ukraine.
So I can't be more wrong than that.
However, When Trump was on the all-in pod, one of the things he said, just a throwaway, he said that when Putin masked his forces on the border, he thought it was a negotiating ploy.
So even Trump said, I didn't think he was going to do it.
Now, he also said that he wouldn't have done any of it if Trump had been president.
And I think that's true.
He has an argument for why that wouldn't have happened, because he wouldn't have been as threatening and he would have dealt with them and blah, blah, blah.
But it's nice to know That the worst prediction I ever made, that it's just a bluff, Trump had thoughts in the same direction, and he's good at knowing bluffs.
So, I got fooled, I'm 100% wrong, but somebody that I would respect for that type of decision, he was fooled too.
So, I got that working for me.
Alright.
I guess that's the weakest win I've ever had.
It's still a loss, because I got it wrong.
But context.
All right.
Here's what else he said.
So the All In Pod guys ask him if he would release the JFK files and why he didn't already do it.
And his story, his answer is fascinating.
He said he was planning to do it, but he only released some of it, not all of it.
And it's because people that he very much trusted and respected came to him and said, don't do it.
Now, why would they do that?
Now, I do believe him when he says there's people who are high credibility, because otherwise he would have done it, right?
But imagine getting talked out of that.
How credible would somebody have to be to talk you out of releasing those files that are 100 years old or whatever they are, 60 years?
I can't even think of like how bad they would be Or how credible somebody would have to be to talk you out of releasing him.
But he says this time he will release him because he thinks the transparency is more important than whatever it is they wanted to keep secret.
But then he was asked directly, do you think the CIA did it?
Because one assumes that that would be the thing we'd learn if the CIA did it.
And here's what Trump says.
He said he thinks the CIA probably did it.
He said that out loud.
He thinks the CIA probably did it.
Now keep in mind, he's seen the files.
Do you think that he would say out loud that he thinks the CIA probably did it if that were not in the files?
I feel like he just told us that that's the thing they're hiding is that it says clearly the CIA did it.
What else could it be?
What else could it be?
I can't think of anything else it could be, except that.
I mean, talk about dropping a hint.
If the documents had nothing about the CIA, do you think he would have said, yeah, I think they probably did it?
That doesn't seem like something you would say if you'd seen the files, and he has, and it had nothing about the CIA doing it.
You wouldn't drop that in there.
I think he's dropping it in there so that when you do see the files, you can say, ah, he was accurate.
Anyway, what else?
So the other interesting thing is I saw one observer, it's just one person, so it's anecdotal, who said that the interview made Trump look less chaotic.
And more like a normal person, and it made him completely change his opinion of Trump as a candidate.
So there was a anti-Trumper who watched that podcast, saw Trump looking like a normal person having a normal conversation and knowing his material, and this person who had been told that he's a chaos agent Nazi and all that, it didn't make sense anymore.
Even the podcast guys were saying that when you have a direct encounter with Trump, it's impossible to walk away thinking he's the crazy guy.
You know, I had that experience.
He's completely normal.
He's as normal as you can be, except he's Trump, right?
There's nothing normal about Trump, his personality.
But he's a human person, right?
He's not some monster that you walk in and behind closed doors, it's a whole different story or anything like that.
So, remember I've been telling you that whoever is advising Trump, and I always like to say it's still Trump's credit because he has to pick the advisors and say what he agrees with, but whoever is advising him, is great.
Let me just say, whoever's behind the scenes there, because you know he's not making every decision just independently, he's getting lots of advice, and then he's picking the good advice, as always.
Somebody is advising him to take the edge off, the scary part.
And this was it.
When he appears just talking to normal people, who are also very smart, And they just talk about some smart stuff.
And he's not in his, you know, attack mode.
He is completely disarming.
And anything you thought about him being Hitler or anything, it just, you can't really hold it in your head if you're watching him in action.
So what the All In podcast did that I think is great is they humanized him like I've never seen.
Now, I don't know if it's because of the individuals involved or the way they approached it.
I don't know if it's because he hung out with a couple of them at his fundraiser and he got to know them and like them, so it was more comfortable.
I don't know.
But whatever it was, whatever magic they brought to it, it humanized him like just an ordinary person who knows more than you do.
And I don't know how many people will watch it, but If they did, I think it would move the needle.
I think it would change minds.
Scott, you are often wrong.
Yes.
So?
Do you have anything useful to say?
So when I claim that my predictions are the best in the world, people counter it by telling me what I got wrong.
And my response is, yes, but what's your point?
Have I ever claimed they're all right?
You're not even on the same topic.
My topic is a better rate than other people.
If you point out what I got wrong, you're not even in the right conversation.
All right.
Speaking of Project Veritas, as you know, O'Keefe is now independent with his O'Keefe Media Group, and they got a Disney person on...
Secret video, senior vice president of VP saying that somebody told him in direct words, there's no way we're hiring a white male.
There's no way we're hiring a white male, in direct words, from Disney Insider.
Now, you knew that, of course.
But venture capitalist Sean Maguire, who famously has become pro-Trump lately, and that's kind of a big shift from him for being a Democrat, I suppose.
And he weighs in on this point about Disney saying, no way we're hiring a white male.
He says, this has been happening at basically every big company and most investment firms since around 2017.
Most are afraid to speak about it, but if we don't speak up, it's our permanent future.
And I had to correct Sean, who says it started since 2017.
Are you fucking kidding me?
It started in the 80s.
That's why I'm a cartoonist.
Because the big bank I worked for told me directly, I can't promote you because you're white and male.
So I quit and went to work for the phone company.
And once I got on their fast track to management, one day they called me in and said, we can't promote you because you're white and male.
And so I became a cartoonist.
So I didn't have a boss who wouldn't do that to me.
That was the 80s.
And it was universal.
There were no companies in San Francisco that were not doing it.
Every big company in the 80s.
Sean, how could you live all that time?
I mean, he wasn't around then.
But how could you think this happened in 2017?
Now, it could be that the Bay Area was way ahead.
And what Sean's point is that it became universal in 2017, which I would agree with.
Around 2017, it became universal.
But I would argue the following.
The main thing that changed is that they had official DEI groups and had a name called DEI.
But they've been doing this since the 80s.
In direct terms, we will not hire you, we will not promote you, because you are white and male, directly.
See, that's the part that nobody believes unless they're a white male who lived through it.
But let me ask in the comments.
There's somebody here, I'm sure, who says, you're exaggerating a little bit, aren't you?
For all my older guys, older white guys in the comments, can you show the rest of the people that this is a universal phenomenon and that you either know somebody who had it or you experienced it yourself?
Go.
Tell me that it's true that since the 80s, a white man is absolutely grossly discriminated in all major companies, and it's really never been another way since the 80s.
Look at the comments.
It's not me making this up.
There are approximately 50 million witnesses.
Yeah, just look at the comments and you can see.
All right, there's a report that New York Post is reporting that Biden apparently had some kind of cancer charity thing and in 2017 they spent millions on the cancer charity and every bit of it went to pay the staffers and then they wound it down.
The group's president has said the charity simply ran into problems because Biden had to focus on the presidential duties.
So, what are you thinking about?
Oh, God. Is that?
Can you hear the leaf blower that just started right outside my window?
Can you hear that?
It's going to start up again.
All right.
Anyway.
Anyway, makes a, all right, let me close this window.
All right, that didn't help at all.
Um...
Commissioner Carr at the FCC points out, I think I mentioned this, that the Biden administration put $43 billion into delivering high-speed internet to rural America.
And so far, out of the $42 billion since 2021, they've delivered nothing.
Zero people have been given extra access for 43 billion in three years.
It's not connected to even one person.
Now, you might ask yourself, why?
Well, it has something to do with, I don't know, endangered species in the environment and not enough DEI employees to hire.
Basically, they found a way to make it impossible to do anything with their own regulations.
And at the same time they were doing that, Starlink came out with their little portable unit that's like a laptop that can connect you to Starlink wherever you are.
Can you explain to me why the government didn't simply say, all right, here's some subsidies, why don't you just sign up for Starlink?
Wouldn't that have been by far the fastest and cheapest thing to do?
By far?
But that would require writing a gigantic check to Elon Musk, so they can't do it.
What do you think Trump should do?
Here's what Trump should do.
He should come in, and if they haven't spent any of this money yet, and they probably won't, he should cancel the whole thing and say, hey, Elon, for $1 billion, Can you keep rural America connected to the internet for, let's say, the next four years?
And then Elon would say, sure.
And then you write a check, and you say, I just saved you $42 billion, America.
And it would be true.
It would be true.
Now, this is the other thing that seems so Trump-like.
He's willing to do the easy, smart thing.
So now he's pro-crypto, by the way, which is smart.
And I think he's pro-crypto in part because the Olin Pod people and others are pro-crypto and he's now influenced by them.
And, you know, Musk is pro-crypto.
But the people he thinks are the smartest, pretty much all pro-crypto.
Vivek, pro-crypto.
JD Vance, I'm sure he's pro-crypto just because he's smart.
All right, Attorney General Andrew Bailey.
Of which state is that?
I forget.
Will be filing against the state of New York for their attacking the democratic process through their unconstitutional lawfare against Trump.
So isn't it interesting that an attorney general from one state will be suing the state of New York for denying their state a fair constitutional process?
I feel like everybody can just sue everybody now.
Well, this is new.
Andrew Bailey is Attorney General of Missouri.
And he's a very activist kind of Attorney General, so this isn't the first good thing he's done.
But this is what we need.
We need lawfare against lawfare, because otherwise, what are you going to do?
If there's no response to the lawfare, there'll just be more lawfare.
So as much as I hate lawfare, if somebody is attacking you, you have to respond.
And I'm glad that there's one person willing to step up and do it.
So good job, Attorney General Andrew Bailey.
If you hear that name again running for higher office, just remember he did some good stuff for you now.
Thailand has applied to join the BRICS.
That's the anti-United States group of countries that trade with each other and have their own currency situation, etc.
So, I feel like this is maybe the biggest disaster that Biden has caused.
I mean, I do feel like Putin might have enough game to organize enough of the world against the United States That we might be really screwed.
You know, because the longer it goes, the longer Putin has to work the other countries and say, look how bad they are.
We need to stick together.
They keep colonizing us and trying to conquer us.
And he's got a good argument.
So I think the Brixling is going to keep growing.
Well, meanwhile, Biden has escaped.
He'll be going, he'll be off in Camp David for a full week.
As the RNC accountant says, heavily doped up.
Now, he's supposed to be preparing for the debate, but I think that we all understand.
I think we all understand that the real thing is he just can't be seen in public, and he's too tired and dead.
Now, I think it's funny that Trump was asked how he's preparing for the debate, and he said he isn't.
He's just going to wing it.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that Trump is not preparing for the debate and he's just going to wing it?
No.
But it's a very smart thing to say, isn't it?
Because if he does well, it's going to look like, oh my God, he just walked up there and nailed it.
If he doesn't do well, people are going to say, well, he should have prepared better.
And then they look at the next one and say, well, the next one will be different.
He'll prepare differently.
So I think it's funny that he says he's not preparing when you know he is.
If I had to guess, the way he's preparing is something like, hey Vivek, join me for dinner.
And then, you know, ask me some tough questions while we're having our dessert.
It's probably something like that, where he's just sort of polling everybody all the time.
You know, what do you think they're going to ask?
What do you think the questions will be?
Just to make sure he's ready.
So I think he's not doing a formal debate prep.
Maybe.
Maybe not.
But I think he's probably always involved in it.
You know, just talking to his advisors in a normal way all the time.
Well, Van Jones on CNN the other day said that the debate would be the whole election packed into one night, which was a great, a great way to frame that.
I really enjoyed that.
Just the way he framed it.
Because he said that if Biden does manage to stand up for The wild man Trump for two hours, which everybody acknowledges would be tough because he's a bombastic, tough debater, that that would show that he can do the job.
But if he doesn't do well, that's the end.
Now, others weren't sure that that's the end.
I'm not sure that would be the end either.
But I do agree that more than any other time, it is close to being like the whole election in one night.
Certainly if he collapses, you know, either mentally or physically, if he collapses, Biden, that would be the end of the campaign.
But my best guess, my prediction is he will do poorly, but he will still be alive at the end.
And no matter how poorly he does, the Democrats will say, well, as you can see with your own eyes, he handily won that debate.
And you'll say, well, I watched the debate and no, he didn't.
He looked like a doddering old man who didn't even know where he was or what day it was.
And they'll say, No, he won the debate.
He did great.
He totally embarrassed Trump, had command of all the facts, and was completely in control of his faculties.
And you'll say, but I watched it too, and it looked very much like the opposite of that.
I saw an old man disintegrating right in front of me, full of dementia.
And they'll say, no, you didn't.
And that will work.
Because they only have to convince their own people.
All right.
Here's a suggestion from Maze, which is an anonymous account on X. And a good follow, by the way.
M-A-Z-E.
A lot of good stuff on that account.
And he suggests that this is what Trump should do before the debate.
I'm not sure I'm going to agree with it.
But I like the thinking.
And the thinking is that the Republicans should create a hoax debunking website, so that when all the hoaxes come up, and you know they will, the fine people hoax, the drinking bleach hoax, the insurrection hoax, all the others, that Trump can make a reference to them as hoaxes and dismiss them, but also tell the audience, if you want to know why it's a hoax,
Go to my website, you know, Biden's hoaxes or whatever they name it, during the debate.
So that every time a hoax comes up, he doesn't waste any time talking about it.
He just says, your entire campaign is based on hoaxes.
We had to build a whole website because there are so many of them.
You did the Russian collusion hoax, the fine people hoax, the drinking bleach, you'll probably won't do the drinking bleach hoax, but the laptop hoax.
And the public thinks that somehow they know what's going on, but it's a complete hoaxocracy, so go to this website.
I don't think they'll do it.
But I do think that debunking the find people hoax, it is the tentpole hoax.
It is the hoax that allows you to see that all the other ones are hoaxes.
If you believe that one's true, you become immediately blind to all the other ones also being hoaxes.
But the moment you realize that you were hoaxed that badly just by them cutting off the clarifier, that's when everything opens up.
It's all about the find people hoax.
If Trump doesn't directly, either by pointing to a website or something else, take on the find people hoax, I'm going to be so disappointed.
That to me would indicate he does not have good advisors and I was wrong the whole time.
If his advisors are as good as I think, and so far they seem really good, they're going to say you have to kill the tentpole hoax, and then he goes down.
Biden will crumple He'll just crumple like a bunch of leaves.
I couldn't think of things that crumple.
You've got to take him out in his main campaign theme.
And I also think that the gut fell to frame on that, which is the hoax wasn't just like other hoaxes.
The hoax divided the nation, may have changed who won the election, and by doing that created a war, inflation, and open borders.
You could argue that that one hoax has the risk of destroying the entire United States.
That's how fucked up they are, that they would be willing to try that just, you know, just to get rid of Trump.
Nicole Shanahan, as you know, the VP choice for RFK Jr., who, by the way, did not make it onto the debate stage, RFK Jr., so he's raising money off of that.
And as Nicole says, I've never met a party that hates democracy more than the current leadership within the Democratic Party.
These are lifelong Democrats.
RFK Jr., Nicole Shanahan, major donor in the past to Democrats.
They're telling you that the Democrats hate democracy and they've got the receipts because they're being kept off of the ballots.
So they're actually denying debates and primaries and all the other stuff.
And yeah, they're right.
They're doing everything they can to deny.
And I think they're against the lawfare of Trump as well.
So if you've got people who are lifelong Democrats who say, I mean, you're not even in favor of democracy at this point, that's a pretty big distance.
It's one thing to say, well, I like the I like the policies over here a little bit better, so this time I'm going to shift over.
No.
No.
They're saying you actually have lost it on the plot.
You know, democracy in the form of the republic.
All right, here's another story.
I call it Know Your Brainwashers.
So MSNBC had Lisa Rubin on.
To say that when Trump says that the Biden's Department of Justice was pulling the strings on DA Alvin Bragg to get Alvin Bragg to prosecute Trump, that that is dangerously and perniciously racist.
Did you know it was racist to assume that the Biden administration was coordinating with a local attorney general?
What makes that the racist part?
Was it the fact that there happened to be a black person involved?
Is that why?
Does that make it racist?
How about this?
How about it's pretty obvious that Soros was funding black and largely female DAs because he knew that racism would work in his favor and that they would go after Trump supporters and Trump.
That seems to be obviously racist.
You can't get more racist than George Soros if he is literally using race as the primary requirement of who he's funding.
And obviously he was.
Obviously.
We don't even have to debate that, I don't think.
So Lisa Rubin is one of the main brainwashers.
So when you see her, you can just assume it's the opposite.
All right, some of you saw I had some exchange with Michael Ian Black.
Comedian slash writer slash actor.
I'm not sure exactly how he characterizes his career at the moment, but a well-known anti-Trumper.
You'll see him on the X platform.
He's been there a while.
And I said in the post that it's hard to, some version of, it's hard to debate with people who still think that news is real.
He rejected, being quite sure that the news he's watching must be real.
And that maybe Fox News is fake, but the other news is real.
And so he challenged me on it.
And of course he did the thing that people who are not serious people do, which act like it's an absolute.
But he did ask a good question.
So how do you know what's true if you don't believe the news?
That is a good question.
And I think that's an honest question.
That's like a legitimate question.
And it also suggests that maybe there's an opening.
But then I looked at his other comments that I hadn't seen yet, and I thought, well, maybe not.
I connected to him on X, and he connected back.
And I offered to interview him, and he said, yes, maybe next week.
So I'll look into doing that.
But here's what I want to do.
I think it's a waste of time.
For he and I to figure out, you know, which of the things in the news are true and which are false.
Because I can tell you how that conversation will go.
Just off the rails.
I'll say, this happened.
He'll say, no, it didn't.
He'll say, can you prove it?
And I'll say, well, I'm interviewing you right now.
So I can't really go look up some documents and show them to you.
And if I did, you'd say, I don't believe that source.
So there really isn't any way to get from here to there if you're trying to change somebody's mind.
But I thought it would be more interesting, instead of trying to change his mind, to simply describe the tools that I use, and the ones that I've been teaching you for several years, about how to determine what's true and what's not.
Let me give you an example.
The one that I think is the alpha BS detector is the Scott Alexander rule.
I call it that because that's where I heard it first.
Scott Alexander is not a real person.
That's a fake name for a blogger who wanted to be anonymous, but was really good at framing things and explaining things and having a new take on things.
So he became Scott Alexander, again, that's a pen name, became quite well known among smart people who looked for other smart people.
And one of the things that he taught me, Is that one of the ways you can detect fake news is that it's sensational.
And it's weird that that's, it's only obvious after it's explained to you.
Let me explain.
If the news said a dog bit a man, you'd say, well, that's something ordinary.
Dogs beat people.
So you'd think that's probably true, but it also wouldn't be in the news.
Do you know why?
Because it's ordinary.
So it's not news.
So you're never going to see a story that is a dog bit a person because it's ordinary.
But suppose a person bit a dog.
Number one, that would be news.
But what's number two?
Number two is it didn't happen.
You can almost be sure.
Let's say I'm going to put some odds on it.
Only one thing out of 20 that's that sensational will end up being true.
Let me give you an example.
Suppose somebody said to you that the sitting president of the United States had praised neo-Nazis in public intentionally.
What would you say to that?
You'd say, oh my god, not in the real world.
That's so sensational.
I mean, in a bad way, it's sensational.
That's incredible.
Bad.
That's blowing my mind.
My mind is coming completely off.
But you should have known Without doing any research, you should have known that was false.
Why?
Because that's the dog biting a man.
And that never happens.
But it does get in the news as fake news.
So, once you learn that every time something that sounds like that is a maybe 1 in 20 chance of being true, your working assumption should be, no, that didn't happen.
And we'll find out why.
Let me give you another one.
The President of the United States Once suggested drinking bleach.
You don't need to research that.
People did.
But you don't need to.
Of course it didn't happen.
And then people say, no, no, they say bleach, but what they meant is liquid disinfectant.
No, he didn't.
You know how you know he didn't say that?
Because nobody would.
Nobody anywhere ever in the country, in all time, not Trump, not anybody.
No, that's a man biting a dog.
It's never happened.
And of course it didn't.
Here's another one.
The Commander-in-Chief, who is the most respectful to veterans of any president, probably, Trump, once said in private, while military people were in the room, that some people in the military were suckers for joining the military.
Now, if that happened, that would be the most, like, incredible, mind-blowing, sensational story of all time.
But it didn't happen.
You know it didn't happen.
Just by looking at it.
How about, he tried to choke the driver of the beast.
He leaned over and tried to choke him.
No, you don't have to research that.
You can just listen to it and go, OK, that didn't happen.
And sure enough, you'd be right.
Now, the trick, of course, is that every now and then something absurd does happen.
We live in a world where weird things happen.
But your first impression should be, I deny this unless you've got extraordinary proof.
Let me give you another one.
These all sound the same.
Russia developed a secret sonic weapon And they've declared war on the United States by using the weapon on American citizens and embassies.
Because you understand that would be an act of war, right?
An act of war.
When I heard it, I said, no.
First of all, there's probably no such weapon.
And if there is, the last thing the Russians are going to do is start blasting our embassy people.
That would be the dumbest thing they could ever do.
No!
No.
So I alone, when the entire news told you that was true, said, no, that's man bites dog.
You can bet on that one not being true.
And of course, there's no evidence of it.
When a whistleblower says, I haven't seen them myself, but I have it on good authority that we have a warehouse with 12 UFOs in it and bodies too.
No.
No.
It's the Scott Alexander rule.
It works.
It doesn't work every time, but it's going to work 19 out of 20.
So your starting place should be, no, we don't have a warehouse full of UFOs.
You will never get confirmation that there's a warehouse full of UFOs.
I guarantee it.
Guarantee it.
All right.
So can you think of anything else like that?
Every time you hear a story that has that same feel and sound to it, everyone I can think of has been false.
Now, the ones that I get wrong, like Russia, I thought they wouldn't actually attack Ukraine, both options are within the normal realm of human observation.
Sometimes people don't attack in their bluffing, sometimes people do attack.
So that would not be anything that the Scott Alexander rule could give you anything about.
But when you see the crazy ones, yes, they're crazy.
When you see that Trump wanted, how about the insurrection hoax?
That a bunch of Republicans with no guns thought they were going to overtake the country by trespassing and stealing a lectern.
I'm exaggerating a little bit, but basically that.
Or that Trump, with no support whatsoever from the military or Congress, could have stayed in office through some clever paperwork maneuvers and some fake electors.
No.
No, that was never any possibility.
It was never even a little possibility.
It was exactly what it looked like.
It was people protesting because they were angry and thought the election was unfair, and he was trying to Maintain his legal rights to challenge by doing things that make it a little more likely you can preserve your rights, which is having an alternate slate of electors.
But ultimately, it would have just gone to some court and it would have been taken care of.
So if you don't know, if you don't know this Scott Alexander rule, you're really just helpless.
It's the most useful rule.
Because since the news is all clickbaity and they want sensationalism, sensationalism will always make it into the news.
But as soon as you see it, you should say, nah, 19 out of 20, that's not true.
But pay attention.
All right.
I'm not going to list another one that I have in mind because you're going to say it's true.
And I'm going to do it anyway.
This one just to make you mad.
When you heard that elite athletes were dropping dead like crazy in professional sports, and yet nobody was making a big deal about it.
The professional sports themselves were acting like it wasn't happening.
That's a Scott Alexander.
There wasn't really much chance that people were dropping like flies during, you know, competitive matches at a greater rate than before.
And that the people in charge were just sort of not mentioning it.
Now, here's where I get in trouble.
I'm not saying the vaccinations were safe.
I'm not saying that.
From day one, we all knew that there was a risk of the vaccinations.
So even if they did exactly what they said they would do, there should have been a bunch of people dying because billions of people got it.
So I'm not defending the vaccination.
I'm simply saying that when you heard that story, just that specific thing about the athletes dropping dead all over the place, you should have said to yourself, and the sport itself is not complaining.
The NFL is not complaining.
Nobody's complaining.
There was something about that story that you shouldn't have believed from the start.
Now, there are other things that you say to yourself that seems too unlikely.
I'll give you an example.
Let's say somebody accuses Fauci of lying about things, knowing that it would cause millions of deaths, but that he would be a hero and he would make some money.
Is that something that's so far out of the norm that you say, whoa, whoa, whoa, you know, from the jump, there's no way that somebody who's worked for the government in healthcare all his life would lie to you consistently To make money and to be a star.
No, that's actually normal behavior.
So the hard part is to determine what's normal.
People doing terrible things and justifying it in their own mind, that happens to be also where their economic interests are, that's normal.
So if you hear a story where gold bar Bob, oh, well, here's a perfect one.
There's a senator who took so many bribes that he had a jacket That he sewed gold bars into.
Now the first time you heard that, didn't that sound like, okay, that's, that's way out there.
But it's well within the normal behavior that you've observed in other places where people take and hide money.
So that's not really a, that's not really a human biting a dog situation.
It's more normal than you think.
All right.
I knew somebody would be arguing with me about these sudden deaths.
You're going to have to give up on that.
By now we'd know it was true.
All right.
Turns out the left aren't the only ones who can't handle people who don't... Yeah, that's true.
Like...
I'm just looking at some of your comments.
Uh, you think you're just on it, but you think so, but Satanist mythology.
Okay.
We're talking about whether Satan's real now.
Sad, suddenly, death.
Yeah.
How about the NIH and funding function and killed millions?
Yeah, the idea of the National Institute of Health or any other health care funding gain of function, to me that seems normal.
To me that just seems like a bad decision.
But bad decisions are pretty normal.
All right, that's all I got for you today.
I'm going to go talk to the Locals people privately, so if you're on YouTube or Rumble or X, thanks for joining.
