God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Code Pink Jake Tapper, Gen Z Unhappiness, CA Reparations Committee, City Lead Infrastructure, Systemic Racism, Tesla Rocket ship Factory, Backholes, China EV Tariffs, AI Art, China Owned US Farmland, Trial Judge Assignments, President Trump, Elder Respect Strategy, President Biden, Bill Maher, Inconsistent Polls, Tent Pole Hoax, Hoax Funnel Process, Paul Ryan Steele Dossier, Democrats Gaslighting Israel, Jamal Bowman, Boeing Stranded Astronauts, Scott Adams
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
do do do do do do do do do do do do well good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
That's what it is.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels where even SpaceX can't reach, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard, chalice or stein, a kenteen, 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 of the dopamines of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called a simultaneous sip and it's gonna happen right now.
Savor it.
Say it, Brett.
It's a full body tingle.
Thank you all.
Bye.
Well, some code pink activists decided to target Jake Tapper's house, Jake Tapper of CNN.
Now, if you saw the video of it, you would say to yourself, hmm, they seem to be indicating a protest in front of the house.
I think the entire protest was five people who showed up in a Volvo.
One of them had a bullhorn.
Because all the videos that I saw of the protesters were extreme close-ups.
Look, here's the face of somebody with a bullhorn.
And I think there's another person standing there somewhere nearby.
There couldn't have been more than five people.
But here's the fun part.
I guess Jake has some older kids, some teenagers, and the teenage kids were just mocking them and playing, God bless them, they're playing some patriotic music and just mocking them from the balcony and the garage.
And that's the way to handle it, Jake.
So Jake, if he was home, don't even know if he was home, but if he was, He wisely stayed off the camera and apparently let his kids just mock them.
Which was fine.
I'm very much against people protesting public figures' houses.
I don't think that's cool whatsoever.
But I like the fact that he used his kids to mock him.
If it was intentional.
Maybe just the kids were doing their own thing.
Anyway.
There's new studies show that Generation Z is the unhappiest generation and people are all figuring out why could that be?
Why is Gen Z the unhappiest?
What could possibly cause such a thing?
I don't know.
Could it be when they look at the news it says that the climate's out of control and we're gonna fry them all and there's no point in having children because they're all gonna be dead in a hellscape of hotness.
Might be that.
Could be that they're being told they're going to lose their democracy, and that Hitler has just reincarnated into something orange and terrible.
Could be that.
Could be that.
Neither of those things bother me, because I don't think they're real.
How about the confusing gender roles?
Don't you think it would cause you a little mental distress if you could sort of pick your own gender?
I don't remember ever having a conversation about it.
That was sort of just a given.
All right, you're a boy.
Got it.
I never really needed to have a conversation about it again.
But imagine if you were born into a world where people were just choosing their genders.
You know, I think I'm going to go a different way.
From now on, I think I'm the other thing.
I would think that given that, you know, our sexual roles are so baked into civilization and our genes in some level, that anytime you add any uncertainty into that world, that's got to be bad for your mental health.
How about hormone disruptions?
How about that?
We got all kinds of stuff in the environment.
We got men's testosterone dropping, and we know testosterone makes men happy if they've got the right amount.
It makes them unhappy if they got the wrong amount, and we know they got the wrong amount.
And then some number of women are on chemical birth control.
That changes their hormonal balance.
Do you think that has any impact?
Well, I'm no doctor, but probably.
How about the fact that this is the first time in American history kids don't think they could make enough money to do things like have a family?
Now, I don't know if that's really the case, but it sure looks like it.
You can see why they would think it.
What about social media and the phone?
Of course, social media and the phone are very bad for your mental health.
What about the fact that now that we have such connectivity, we don't just worry about the problems that are local to us, like what's happening in your town and what's happening in your family.
Now you get to worry about all the problems in the world.
You get to worry about the poor Ukrainians, you get to worry about the poor people in Gaza, the poor people in Israel.
You get to worry about everybody, all the time.
Would that make you mentally unhealthy?
Yes, it would.
Yes, it would.
So I would say it's the least mystery of all mysteries.
Not only do you have obvious reasons that are pretty well established, but you got a shit ton of them.
It's the longest list of reasons to be sad I've ever seen in my life.
And a lot of that is just Democrats and phones.
Well, here's the good side.
Apparently psychedelics are, you know, almost every day now, there's another story about psychedelics helping somebody with their mental health or quitting addiction or something like that.
But it just in the last few days, a few things that I've read about is that psychedelics, just one exposure to psychedelics once in your life can make you more creative forever.
Apparently they can measure mental flexibility, which gets to creativity, and they can determine that one exposure, just one, you know, deep trip under psychedelics, and you'll forever be more creative.
Now, this brings me to me.
I've told you many times that when I was just out of college, first came to California, I had a mushroom experience, which I was just reading a story that a number of people who've had a mushroom experience describe it as the best day of their life.
Now, that's exactly how I've described it my whole life as the best day of my life, and it wasn't anything close.
Now, I thought maybe it was just me.
But apparently that's a common experience.
But the part that I didn't really say out loud too much is that I thought it changed me permanently.
Really, you could tell.
I was a different person after that, and never went back.
And one of the things that was different was that I felt my creativity increased.
And sure enough, apparently there's some scientific backing to that.
I could actually feel it.
Because by the time I became a cartoonist, I actually thought my powers of creativity were, for some reason that I didn't understand, unusually good.
And I think that was part of it.
I was always creative, but even I felt there was some kind of turbo charge that happened as a young adult.
I was quite aware of it, and I was always puzzled by it, because it felt like just some kind of gene kicked in that I didn't know I had.
Maybe it was that.
Maybe it was.
But now they know that people who did psychedelics will also score higher on tests.
So inductive reason, verbal fluency, working memory, processing speed, attention switching, and inhibitory control.
So it can get rid of your depression, your anxiety, your addiction, and it can make you smarter and more creative permanently.
Just think about that.
It can solve all of those things and make you more creative and make you smarter.
Permanently.
I don't think we quite understand where this is heading.
This is so big that we, it's hard to actually wrap your head around it.
It's one of the biggest things that's ever happened in human civilization.
And you know, it's up there with AI and robotics in terms of how much it's going to change the world.
All we really needed was to change the psychology from, oh, it's a dangerous drug, stay away, to it might be the most miraculous medicine of all humankind.
And that's happening.
So normies are doing it.
The soccer moms, they're all microdosing.
You know why the sale of alcohol seems to be going down?
Microdosing.
Even more so than I think than marijuana.
That's what I think.
I think the microdosing is cutting into the alcohol far more than anything else.
All right, here's a funny story.
Over in California, there's a funding bill that includes 12 million dollars for reparations.
Now you say to yourself, 12 million?
I thought they wanted like, you know, a billion dollars or a trillion dollars, even in California.
What do you get for 12 million?
Well, 12 million isn't the reparations.
Now 12 million will go to the activists who want reparations so that they have more time to study how to get those reparations.
In other words, let me translate this into common language for those of you who do not have big company experience.
Remember how I laughed when Gavin Newsom told the activists about reparations?
You know what?
You should form a committee and you should go off and study it and then get back to me.
And then he got back to him and he said, you know what?
You know what we really need is more studying.
So of course he was never serious about reparations because it's a political dagger right through his heart.
He doesn't have a chance if it goes through, but he can't say no to it.
So reparations is the thing you can't say yes to if you're a politician, but you definitely can't say no to it.
And there are only two things, yes or no.
Or is there?
Well, it turns out that Gavin Newsom, Clever man that he is, realized there's something between yes and no, which is, we'd better study this.
And then after you studied it, hmm, very good studying you did there.
But you know, I've got a couple more questions.
You ought to go study that.
And then the reparations people, realizing they had him by the balls, said, uh, how about, how about you pay us to study it more?
And then, And then knowing it's not his own money, Newsom thought, okay, if I pay you to study it, which an objective observer would call a bribe to go away and shut up for a while.
And I had, and I could pay the bribe with other people's money and I could sell it as not a bribe, but rather an important funding toward making the world a better place once it's studied properly.
So yes, Apparently every time, let me just say this, an obvious statement, wherever there's a reparations study committee, there are some grifters who figured out they can get white people to give them lots of money to make it look like they're studying something.
I kind of wish I were in that game because it looks like a really, really good scam.
Oh yeah, if you don't pay me 24 million dollars, I don't know how I'm going to study these reparations, but I'll certainly call you a racist every day you're in office for not having a reparations committee that's properly funded.
And now the other states are like, wait a minute, are you telling me the activists are getting paid to pretend that they're studying reparations?
They're all going to have their own reparations study force.
It's the obvious way to make them go away and shut up about it.
They're just being bribed.
So it's a legal way to bribe people just to shut up until elections are over.
And it works.
So anytime you say that Gavin Newsom doesn't have game, he's got game.
He's not the one I want to be my president, but don't underestimate that guy.
He's got some game.
This is well played.
All right.
Apparently there's a new study that says there's a trillion dollar problem.
Oh great, another trillion dollar problem.
We don't have enough of those.
Where there's too much lead in the yards of people's homes.
So 25% of the U.S.
yards have unsafe levels of lead.
Now what I wondered was if there were any correlation to any areas that have more lead.
It turns out that you're going to have more lead where there's older infrastructure.
So wherever there's older infrastructure.
So that would include basically all of the Democrat cities.
So New York, Detroit, Baltimore, you know, older infrastructure.
Now, what are, what is the effect of having too much lead in your environment?
Well, the big one is it lowers your IQ.
You see where this is heading?
The Democrat cities have the oldest infrastructure.
The old infrastructure is correlated with more lead in your environment.
More lead in the environment makes you stupid.
I think we just figured out what's going on.
Yeah, the Democrats are exposed to too much lead and we're confusing it with political opinions.
Whoa, no, that's not an opinion.
You just have too much lead.
No, yeah, yeah.
Why don't you go study it for a while?
Here's some money to go study it, because I can't convince you that you're dumb because you have too much lead in your brain.
But I'm not joking, by the way.
If the correlation is this strong, and there really is this much lead in our environment, it would be affecting Democrats more than other people, just because of their living circumstances.
And it does make you dumber.
So it might be that Democrats, of all races and genders and everything else, that Democrats, just because of where they live, are getting dumber.
Now, would that be systemic racism?
If that were true, there's more lead making you dumb in places that Democrats are clustered for unrelated reasons.
That would be systemic racism.
So those of you who say systemic racism isn't real, I just don't think you're trying very hard.
Of course it's real.
Of course it is.
There are some things that are just baked into the system that are really hard to change.
Now, I don't think that you should focus on those.
Well, obviously you should focus on fixing them if you can.
But I don't think that should be the driving force of how we live our lives.
Rather, the driving force should be the, you know, the King Randall kind of, learn to take care of yourself, build a talent stack, and these problems just go away.
If you have talent, all the problems go away.
Hey, did you hear about the highly qualified black engineer who couldn't get a job?
You've heard about that, right?
There's a story about a very qualified black engineer Has all the right qualifications.
Went to MIT.
Got a degree.
Has a good background experience.
No problems whatsoever.
Can't get a job in America.
Did you hear about that?
No, you never heard about that because it didn't happen.
It's never happened once.
There are zero cases where a qualified black man can't get a job in America.
None.
There are lots of cases where somebody has a criminal record.
That's a problem.
There are lots of places where, you know, there are individual pockets of discrimination.
That's real.
Usually smaller companies.
The big companies, of course, are dying for diversity.
There's no such thing as a person with valuable job skills who doesn't have a job in America.
None.
It hasn't happened once.
So why does the systemic racism go away as soon as you develop skills?
Well, it never goes away per se, but you can slice through it like it didn't matter to you, right?
So you could say that stick of butter is real, but if you have a hot poker, you can just put it on the stick of butter and it disappears.
It just melts.
So be the hot poker.
Don't be somebody who's stopped by a stick of butter.
All right.
Apparently there's some kind of new compound scientists in Japan gave to mice who had Alzheimer's and it fixed them.
So now they can fix Alzheimer's and mice.
Finally, you know, I don't know about you, but one of the things I worry about too much is mice with Alzheimer's.
I think I see some once in a while.
I'll see a mouse, you know, out in my backyard or something.
I'll be like, that mouse looks like Joe Biden.
You look at the mouse, it'll be like all hunched over like this.
And it'll walk like this.
It'll walk like this.
you And I say to myself, that's a, that's a mouse with Alzheimer's.
But now there's a Japanese drug that can cure it.
So a lot of your Japanese mice, at least, that's probably where it will start, will be walking upright and their debate performances will be much better.
Yeah.
They also found that the mice would win debates.
No, I'm just making that up, but they're probably smarter once they cure that Alzheimer's.
Anyway, we don't know if this will work on human beings.
Somebody mentioned the other day that mice testing is more about whether it will kill you, and it doesn't predict that it will work in humans.
It does give you a good idea that if it didn't kill the mice, it might not kill us either.
Not guaranteed, but it's a good indication.
It doesn't tell you it's going to work.
That's another level.
Well, Elon Musk says he aims to be able to build 1,000 rocket ships a year.
He's got a brand new rocket ship factory that's gearing up.
It's nowhere near 1,000 per year at the moment, but they're making a lot of them.
I think they're making a rocket every other day.
And the question I have is, what do they need to put on those rockets if the rockets are not actually Going to the Moon or Mars yet, why do we need that much capacity to put stuff in space?
Is it just satellites?
Do we have an unlimited demand for launching satellites?
We might.
I mean, that might be the whole thing.
But that is one hell of a thing.
That really snuck up on me.
If you'd said, Scott, how many rockets does Elon Musk have?
I would have said, well, I think he's got two and he keeps reusing them, but probably there's three or four, you know, in the pipeline just in case.
I didn't know it's going to be hundreds.
And I certainly didn't know it's going to be a thousand per year.
So he might have thousands of rockets, you know, launching three or four per day or something.
That's where he's heading.
Well, the Babylon Bee reports that 12 women have come forward To say that they were sexually assaulted by, quote, whoever the Trump VP is.
That's a pretty good joke.
And also, not too far from reality, because whoever Trump picks for the Vice President will be accused of sexual impropriety.
Yes, they will.
Which, by the way, might be the main reason to pick whoever he picks.
If he could find somebody Who wouldn't be accused of sexual impropriety.
And I worry about the good-looking candidates.
Because it's so much harder to be good-looking.
That's one of the lucky things about my life.
I always say to myself, would I be as successful in my career if I were good-looking?
I think the answer is no.
Because if I were good-looking, I'd wake up every day and get everything I needed.
A bunch of attractive women would want to have sex with me, and I'd think, huh, I guess I don't even need to be rich.
I could cut back on the working, get myself a nice part-time job, and live like a king with my harem who thinks I'm handsome.
But, since I was not born handsome, I said to myself by looking in the mirror when I was about five years old, literally, true story, you'd better get a really good job if you want to compete in this world because you're not going to do it on your looks.
And so I did.
And that, by the way, that's completely true.
I honestly did look in the mirror at around the age of five and said, man, you better, you better get a B game.
Your A game isn't working at all.
Doesn't look like it's going to kick in.
You better start working on that B game.
And so I did.
Yeah, I am a planner.
I do plan 45 years in advance.
Literally.
I plan 45 years in advance.
All right, there's a top cancer charity.
I don't know which one.
But they're apologizing for using the word cervix in their materials.
And they say they should have used the more inclusive term, front hole.
Because it's not just women who have vaginas.
It's everybody.
Everybody can have one.
So you got your front hole.
So don't say cervix when you can say front hole.
Now you might say to yourself, my goodness, this top cancer charity, they sound to me like a bunch of back holes.
That's right, they're a bunch of backholes.
Yep, we'll just let that sink in.
Well, did you know that the tariff, the U.S.
tariff on Chinese electric vehicles is over 100%?
It's over 100%.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Democrats tell us that tariffs are a terrible, terrible idea?
And this is a Biden thing.
Biden put a 100% tariff on electric cars from China.
So, can you Democrats make up your mind?
Is it the dumbest, worst thing that's never worked once in the world?
Or is it just a Trump policy that makes perfect sense?
That you shouldn't destroy yourself economically just because China wants you to.
Not a good enough reason.
So yeah, we have a 100% tariff to keep those electric vehicles from China out of our markets.
I think we're going to have to do the same thing with robots, with AI, and yeah, robots and AI basically, and EVs.
So I think that the markets that are most important to the United States In every case, we're going to have to have 100% some kind of tariff.
Because you can't really let China rule us in robots.
Winning robots is existential.
We have to win robots.
By the way, I'm going to give you a little lesson here in what makes a human a human.
So I've told you this before, but I came up with a better way to explain it.
I've told you that I don't believe that art created by robots and AI will ever be a big thing.
And the theory is, and this is just mine, I've never heard anybody else say this, that we recognize art as triggering to us, like it means something to us, not because the art is well done.
But because a human made it, and it looks like superior genetic quality, and it's a mating signal.
So even if you're not looking to mate, we're just born that way.
And even if you're the wrong gender to be attracted to the artist, still works.
Because we're all still... We can't look away when we see somebody with talent.
And talent is simply a marker for reproductive health.
Right?
So whether your talent is art, or your talent is music, you know, visual art, or music, or acting, or anything, if you have that thing, people are attracted to it.
And they get a feeling when they look at your art, because they're feeling you.
You're feeling the artist when you look at the art.
Even if you don't know who it is, you still feel the artist.
And so my hypothesis is that AI art can never trigger us If we know it's AI.
And probably we'll have some laws that say we'll know.
So, if you know it's AI, you're going to say, eh, yeah, the computers are good, so what?
I have not yet found any art made by AI, as impressive as it is, that I wanted to spend much time looking at.
You know what I mean?
It's really impressive.
And it does look better than humans can do and all that.
No interest at all.
You know, it has its utility.
You know, maybe you do something to include in a post on social media or put it in your blog post or something.
So it's useful, but it doesn't move you the way that human art can.
So now I'm going to make my point with this.
Fast forward five years when robots have full human movement and good batteries and AI.
And somebody says, I'm going to form a robot basketball league.
Where my robots will play your robots, and they'll play actual basketball.
But you will never be interested in robots playing basketball.
Now imagine if the robots could play basketball better than Michael Jordan.
They could jump higher and do these impressive dunks.
Would you watch it?
Not even a little bit.
Do you know why?
Because it's not people.
Yeah.
We're not interested in basketball.
We have no interest in basketball.
Because if we had interest in basketball, you could watch robots play and you go, wow, look at that basketball.
They could really play that basketball, those robots.
No, you would have no interest at all.
People watch basketball because they want to fuck the players.
Men watch basketball because it's men who are better than them.
And they're like, we're kind of drawn to just looking at anything in that domain.
Yeah, that's the real reason.
It's because the athletes are, you know, super examples of people you want to mate with.
They're displaying a talent that is unusual.
So, The basketball example should tell you that AI art is probably not the future, except in a utility way.
You've been following this story that I haven't talked about at all, and I'll tell you why.
There's a bunch of Chinese-owned farmland that in many cases is nearby to U.S.
military bases, and it's an alarming threat.
Now, I take that seriously.
I do think that having a bunch of Chinese farmland adjacent to American bases, that does seem like a security risk.
But I would also point out, and the reason I hadn't talked about it until now, is that if you have a lot of bases, and you have a lot of farmland, how are they not going to line up?
So, I was having trouble removing chance from the story.
Because I looked at the map, and it looked to me like some were near bases, some were not.
But a lot were.
Am I worried about that?
Yeah.
Yeah, because it is a resource that you can imagine China might take advantage of if they wanted to.
So yeah, it's a problem.
But I don't know if it's a plot.
It might be.
So you have to worry about it exactly as if you know it's a plot.
I don't know.
It could be just they need food.
So they create a bunch of farms and places that have good conditions for farms, and then they ship the food back.
So it might be 80% food, 20%, you know, as long as you're going to buy some farmland.
Wouldn't it be nice if it were in this area instead of that area?
So there might be some military direction to it, just in case.
It would be a smart thing for China to do, to just have a bunch of locations that they can use with impunity.
All right, Judge Cannon is the judge who's weighing in on whether Jack Smith, who's the prosecutor, whatever name they're using for it, special, whatever, for the Mar-a-Lago box gate.
And the idea is that he might not have been appointed through a legal process and therefore should be removed from the case.
So that's pending.
The story here is that Judge Cannon was a Trump appointee and people are saying that she's too pro-Trump and that she should be removed from the case, I guess.
Here's what I take from it.
What I take from it is if you're poor, You get whatever judge they assign you, and you take your chances.
But knowing that everybody's biased about everything all the time.
Humans are just biased.
There's no way around it.
But it seems to me that rich people actually can shop for judges and prosecutors.
Not every time.
But you know, you can try to get a change of venue, you can ask for a judge to be removed, because your lawyers did such a good job of finding some conflict that nobody knew about, that sort of thing.
So, it seems to me that we have a two-phase legal system.
The poor get whatever we give them, and they just gotta deal with it.
And the rich decide whether they will go to jail or not, By which judge do they get?
Because once it becomes political, or even if there's just a billionaire involved, it's always political then, it seems like the game is getting the right judge.
So where Trump gets the wrong judges in New York, and we say, well, that's unfair, He might get the right judge.
I don't know that this judge is biased in his favor, but it's a reasonable suspicion, whether it's true or not.
But suppose it is true, and suppose it's the only reason that Trump gets off.
That's our system.
Our system is rich people get to shop judges, or at least they can try, and poor people don't.
And that picking the right judge, as we know from the Supreme Court, It is about 80% predictive in terms of how things are going to go.
So, it does expose the system quite a bit.
All right, Trump had a big rally in Philadelphia.
The big story is there's no big story.
The big story is, and I will compliment the Trump campaign again, people who went there described it as flawless.
In other words, the organization of it, the attendance, the design of it, Trump's performance, the equipment, you know, all the logistics.
Flawless.
Now, compare that to Biden who's hiding in his basement pretending to get ready for a debate.
I tell you, there's a little bit of the dog now barking here, but every day that Trump He doesn't do a Trump-like provocative thing that makes you say, why did he do that?
Everything was going so well until he did that.
And he's not doing that.
It's not an accident.
It's not a coincidence that Trump is running a flawless campaign.
He's got skill that is employed in this.
I don't know who exactly.
It could be a combination of people.
But he's got really, really smart people working on this campaign.
And you can just see it.
You can see it every time he does something that it just has this little extra envelope of smartness around it that you didn't see the first, the first two times he ran.
You didn't see it, but you see it now and you see it just so clearly.
Here's another example.
Some Republicans are suggesting that his best campaign strategy would be to be not Trump.
In other words, don't talk over, don't be competitive in a non-debate way.
Just don't go too hard.
And the thinking is, he just has to describe the path that he gives you, the path that Biden will probably give you, the fact that you've seen both of them at work, you have a full four-year interview, essentially, for each of them, and that Trump can simply say, here's what Biden gives you, here's what I give you, There's no contest.
I agree with that, with the caveat that nobody can really advise Trump.
So he still is the one who's going to decide, and a lot of it will be spontaneous.
I don't think he's really not preparing.
You know, he's kind of playing it off like he's not preparing, because it'll be more impressive if he does well.
But I assume he's preparing.
He's just doing it his own way.
Anyway, so and I would agree if he just plays it straight He's gonna win.
I had some actual suggestions here.
I Had an actual suggestion All right, so here's my debate advice besides not don't be too aggressive We're very close to the point.
I don't know if we're there yet.
I Where Trump could say what I call the Bob Dole strategy.
Now it's a strategy used against Bob Dole by the Clinton campaign when they were running for re-election, the Bill Clinton campaign, which was to treat Bob Dole with respect because he was elderly and a vet.
So once you get a lead, you know, it looks like you're going to win anyway, you stop being an asshole.
And you start showing empathy and respect.
And I think that Trump, of course, he's going to keep going hard at Biden all the way to the finish line.
But could you imagine him saying that we need to respect the elderly?
And that Biden had a good run?
Imagine Trump saying, you know, we have to give respect to the elderly.
Now people would laugh at that because Trump is almost the same age, but it would be funny and you couldn't ignore it.
You know, we should, we should have respect for the elderly.
Joe had a good run, but we can all see that his time has come to an end.
Just imagine that coming out of Trump's mouth or some version of it.
We should respect the elderly and I'm going to go hard this election.
If you know, if you go hard, I'm going to go hard.
But honestly, Joe, you had a good run.
You made it all the way to president.
But now I think, you know, a due respect to people who have reached your situation in life is that we should allow you to make a graceful exit.
And it looks like the voters are going to do that for you.
And if you go hard at me, I'm going to go hard at you.
That's our system.
But I think at this point, we can all see that Maybe empathy is the way to go here.
It would be devastating.
It would be devastating if Trump said we should maybe go a little easy on you because everybody can see what's going on at this point.
But then don't go easy.
You know, don't be a bully, but definitely don't go easy.
Just point it out as something we should now consider that since we can all see he's gone, Then maybe we should take a different approach to this.
It would be killer.
Well, also Trump said we should stop giving attention to Bill Maher because Bill Maher's got a failing show and he's unimportant, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Well, I'd like to talk about Bill Maher because I don't take that advice whatsoever.
I think Mike Cernovich is saying the same thing.
Stop giving oxygen to Bill Maher.
I'll stop giving him oxygen.
When it doesn't work to my advantage.
If that starts happening, I'll stop doing it.
But at the moment, with the story I'm going to tell you right now, it's very much working to my advantage as a communicator.
Here's what Bill Maher said.
See if this sounds familiar to you.
See if it's something that maybe you heard me say once, or twice, or ten times.
All right?
Here's what Bill Maher said on his show.
He was talking about all the polls about Biden losing support among various things.
He says he's losing 14 points among Hispanics, 43 points among black voters.
I'll just give you the big line.
I think these details are misleading.
But he's basically saying that every category from Hispanics to blacks to under 50, student debt holders, even the people on student debt were more for Trump.
And something about even losing support for women.
So Bill Maher says, Bill Maher says, how can they be tied?
If the polls say he's losing ground in every category, how can he be tied at the top line if we know he's losing every category?
Have you heard me say that?
That's exactly what I said.
I said, how do you explain that it looks like he's tied when they're also saying he's losing every category?
Well, they can't both be true.
But here's what I posted on this.
Bill Maher is so close to understanding the world he lives in.
He doesn't yet, but he's so close.
I think he might get there.
And what he needs to understand is that nothing's true.
That the polls that are coming out from respected entities are legitimately faked.
But no, you should expect tons of fake polls that would... and he's seen the glitch in the matrix now.
You know, he lives in a world where he thinks that at least his news is real.
So he's still locked into the world where if you look at the If you read the credible news, as he would define them, that that's not right every single time, and he points out when they're wrong, but that, you know, you get a pretty good idea of what's true by ignoring the bad news sources and focusing on the good ones.
He hasn't quite caught on that there aren't any good ones, and maybe there never were.
I mean, my personal theory is that there never were.
Here's why.
If the CIA can control the news, they will.
There's no doubt about that.
But they're not going to try to control it for every little story, not the local stuff.
But they're certainly going to control it completely when there's some argument that there's a national interest.
That would be their job.
Arguably, that's what we pay them for.
To make sure there are no gigantic national interests that we ignore.
And so it seems hugely unlikely that, to me, that even during the days we trusted the news in the Cronkite days, everybody said, he's so trusted, he's so trusted.
My current view is that almost guarantees he was a CIA asset.
Do you know why people said he was trusted?
I don't.
I don't know why.
I think it's only because he didn't get caught with fake news, and probably the CIA started the idea that he was so trusted.
I think it's always been fake.
And, but what I mean by that is that the news about anything important, you know, like, why did Nixon get removed from office?
I don't think we've ever been told the truth about that.
You know, why did Kennedy get killed?
Probably a lot of things were not being told the truth.
So yes, if you believe that your news is real and the other is fake, you end up being confused about why the polls are giving you something that is logically impossible.
I'm not confused.
I know exactly what's going on.
They're fake polls.
So as soon as you get past the idea that some of it's true, everything makes sense.
It's a good feeling.
Well, you remember Jack Dorsey, founder of old Twitter.
He's saying that the issue with the algorithms is not just that they're politically biased.
It's that they remove your free will.
How do you like that?
The algorithms effectively determine how we think.
You know, it would be easy to demonstrate that if you were fed a certain algorithm, you'd have a certain point of view.
If they fed you a different algorithm, you'd have a different point of view.
It's the TikTok effect.
It's well understood, right?
There's no argument about that.
So if somebody else is deciding what things are going to the front of your brain, and that's what social media is doing with the algorithms, if something that's not your brain decides what you're going to think about the most, and even the narrative and the way you're going to think about it, do you have free will?
Well, you're going to say you do.
Well, I'll just look at different sources, and I won't believe it, and I'll know there's more context.
No.
There's somebody in all caps who's imagining I said the opposite of what I've ever said, and he's really mad about my point of view that's the opposite of my point of view.
There's somebody yelling in all caps that I believe that our robots will be magic and do everything that humans can do.
I just got done saying the opposite of that.
That they won't be able to do art.
And why?
So, all caps guy seems pretty drunk.
Morning drinker, looks like.
Anyway, yes.
I would go further.
Jack Dorsey says we're going to lose free will because the algorithms will effectively program our brains.
That's a reasonable frame, but I would go further to the next level of awareness and say that free will is an illusion, and what we will lose is the illusion of free will.
So once you realize that your opinions keep matching your TikTok feed, you're going to realize that your illusion of free will is starting to go.
So you'll probably paper that over with some cognitive dissonance.
Well, I told you before that there's a Swiss firm that's making organic computers.
So in other words, they have a fake organic brain.
It didn't come from a person.
It just, I guess they grew it in a lab.
And it can do all kinds of computational tasks like a regular computer while consuming a million times less power than silicon chips.
A million times less power.
Now keep in mind our biggest problem is we're going to run out of power with all the robots and EVs and AI.
But we might be able to reduce it by a million if there's some kind of organic brains.
Now I think that the problem is they don't last very long because they're organic.
So I don't know what happens when your organic computer gets Alzheimer's or dementia.
And would you pick up on it right away?
And is that even a thing?
Can it actually happen?
What happens when the brain starts to degrade a little bit?
You know, does it stop working suddenly or you don't notice and it's just sort of off for a while?
I don't know.
Lots of questions, but it's pretty exciting.
All right, here's sort of the big question for the day.
As you know, President Biden ran on the fine people hoax that he tried to sell to the country and the people who don't follow the news too closely as true.
Did you know that Snopes, the most famous fact-checking entity, which traditionally has leaned left, says in a full-throated way that it didn't happen?
It's a hoax.
Now, they don't say hoax, but they do say Clearly and unambiguously, President Trump did not call the neo-Nazis fine people.
And so, as I included Michael Ian Black in my comment on that, and I said that one of the ways you can tell the truth in our world of lies about everything, is if people on both sides have the same version.
So if Fox News and CNN say the same thing, it's much more likely to be true.
If only one of them says something is true and the other says it's not true, it could go either way.
But if there are people on both who say something's true or not true, that means something.
For example, even CNN's legal analysts And lots of other Democrat legal people said that Trump's Stormy Daniels Posh Bayman trial was pure lawfare, and that if it hadn't been Trump, nobody would have brought the case.
Now, if only Fox News told you that, or only Breitbart, you'd say to yourself, hmm, maybe true, maybe spun.
But if you hear it from the legal analysts on both sides, exactly the same.
That's a real good indication that you're seeing something true.
So now you have Fox News ran an article today about Snopes, pointing out that, you know, the Fox News approach has always been that it's been fake.
So now you have Fox News agreeing with Snopes and Breitbart, Joel Pollack also writing about this, also noting that Snopes is now in conformity.
So just keep this in mind, right?
The tentpole, in other words, the most important structure in the tent, the tentpole hoax that got Biden elected is now known by both the left and the right to be based on a hoax.
But have I ever taught you about the hoax funnel, where once you debunk a hoax, people don't say, oh, I guess you got me.
You're totally right, and I'm totally wrong, and now I see the evidence of that.
They don't.
They back up to a related hoax that had nothing to do with the original, and they try to claim that the related thing is the thing.
For example, when Russia collusion fell apart, The Democrats didn't say, oh God, I guess that was just a big old hoax.
No.
They said Paul Manafort went to jail for giving some, let's see, internal polling data to a Russian oligarch.
So really it was right all along.
No, that's going down the hoax funnel.
It was never about Paul Manafort doing something with this one Russian.
That was not the Russia collusion hoax.
But once they lose their main claim, as they did when the Mueller report came out, that they had to retreat down the funnel to something that sounds like it and has some factual basis, but it's not really the same thing.
It's not even the same general point.
So here's what Snopes did going down the funnel.
Yes, I'm very glad that they said Trump did not call the neo-Nazis fine people.
But Snopes said it is false that there were any normal people there.
Now, those are my own words.
Normal people in this context would be people who were not racist, did not agree with the racists, did not march with the racists, But still wanted the statues to remain.
You know, they had an opinion, they just wanted to be there for that.
And now Snopes says that it's not true they existed.
How do they explain that I actually talked to them personally?
I talked to locals, Charlottesville locals, who saw in the news that there was a protest just down the street, and they saw that a whole bunch of people from out of town, this is important, A whole bunch of people from out of town were coming to their town to tell them what kind of statues they can have.
And so some of the locals said, well, how about, fuck all of you, how about we decide if we have these statues?
And, you know, they liked them for historical reasons.
I asked directly, directly, do you side with, agree with, or disavow the racists?
They said very directly, oh, we totally disavow them.
We want nothing to do with the racists.
We're not racist.
They are racist.
We want nothing to do with them.
So now, once I say that, where do you go on the hoax funnel?
Do you know the third ring of the hoax funnel?
Once I say, I have personally done the research, and I'm talking to you, and I'm telling you that there were fine people there who were not racist and not with them.
What did they say?
Well, Scott, why would they be marching with the racists then?
But that didn't happen.
They were physically separated, nowhere near them, didn't plan to march with them, never would have marched with them, hated their guts.
So then when I point that out, that they weren't physically there, in fact, the police kept everybody away from the marchers.
So even if you wanted to march with them, you couldn't have gotten near it.
You could have been in the area of the protest, But you could have gotten nowhere near the marchers, even if you wanted to jump in and help them.
You couldn't.
The police were preventing you from getting near them.
For good reasons.
So, what comes next?
How could anybody not know it was a Nazi event?
So, Scott, since they all had to know it was Nazi organized, I'm not really believing that they went there for their own purposes, because who goes to a Nazi event, Scott?
Who goes to a Nazi event?
To which I say, again, I talked to them, and I asked that question.
And they said, I didn't know it was a Nazi event, I just heard there was a thing on the news.
So the local news reported it, that there's people protesting statues, And they had an opinion, so they got in their car and they drove down there.
That's all it was.
They had an opinion, they drove down there.
To, you know, maybe to watch, but maybe also to have their opinion known.
So, Snopes is not credible, in the sense that they're still lying.
And they have to know they're lying.
Because they did the same thing, not Snopes necessarily, But the way the 2020 election is covered, they act like if they don't do the research, they can say there was no problem with the election.
Well, nobody found anything, so therefore there was nothing to be found.
That's not how anything works.
If nothing's found, you only know that nothing was found.
It would be a rare situation, such as looking in a box that you have in your hand, We're not finding it would conclusively tell you there's nothing in it, right?
If you're holding a box and you're looking in the box, well, yes, you can tell that if you looked in it and it's not there, there's nothing in the box.
But you can't tell that about this big system where you couldn't possibly see all the moving parts.
Yeah, that's not a thing.
So to say that there were no fine people When the only people who tried to check found them, the New York Times found some, and I found some, easily.
So, that's the third ring of the hoax.
But, it's enough so that Trump, if he chose to, could say, you know this Snopes, which leans left, said the fine people thing was a complete hoax.
If he said that during the debate, that'd be pretty strong.
Because the Democrats have heard of Snopes, and they would take that seriously, I think.
Well, there's new news about the alleged badness of Paul Ryan.
Kash Patel is saying that there's a British corpse, there was some kind of case over there, that somehow has produced information that we hadn't seen before, that alleges that Paul Ryan, Democrat, some would say, you know, anti-Trumper, I'm sorry, a Republican.
He was a Republican leader, but an anti-Trumper.
So an anti-Trump Republican, who is also on the board of Fox News, I believe.
But we're finding out, or the allegation is, that he got a copy of the Steele dossier in 2016 and never told anybody.
In other words, he was one of the first people to have a full copy of the Steele dossier, And never, till this day, mentioned it.
Now the question you have to ask yourself is, since we know the Steele dossier was created as a fraud for the intention of destroying Trump, doesn't it raise a little question about why they would give one to a Republican?
If you suspected that Paul Ryan, you know, may be more connected to the military industrial complex and not so much a Republican, This would be evidence for that claim.
That they knew that it wasn't his party that mattered.
It just mattered if he was in favor of big wars.
And maybe he was.
Now I'm just speculating.
We don't know what was in the mind of Paul Ryan.
We don't know why he kept it.
Maybe he has a perfectly good reason.
I mean, the reason could be as simple as he didn't think it was real.
So he just didn't mention it.
It could be just that.
So I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that we know what this means.
But is it disturbing?
Very.
How did we get to that today without knowing that he was one of the first people who had a full copy of the Steele dossier?
And what did he think about it when he saw it?
Did he believe it?
So we do have some questions, don't we?
We have questions.
All right.
Now Biden is gaslighting Israel.
So the Democrats are very consistent.
They're in full narcissist mode, where they'll tell you that what you're looking at, you can't see.
So, as you know, when we look at Joe Biden walking like a cadaver and babbling, we know his brain is gone.
So what do the Democrats say?
No, he's fine.
What are you talking about?
Oh, in private, he's fine.
Yeah, it's probably just some cheap fakes.
No, you're not seeing what you're seeing.
No, no, he's fine.
So if they can sell that, if they can sell that, they can sell anything.
And now they're gaslighting Israel.
Joel Pollack had an article on this in Breitbart.
So apparently the, who is he?
Yoav Galant, he's the head of the military.
He had to come to America to see if he can get the Biden administration to release the shipment of arms and ammunition that Israel says it needs, but the White House claims it is not withholding.
So Israel believes that they're not giving them the weapons.
And what is the Biden White House saying?
Yes, we are.
Well, no, you're not, because you have the weapons.
We need the weapons.
You know what the weapons are.
You've agreed to give us the weapons.
We don't have the weapons.
You have not given us the weapons.
That's why we're sending our top military guy to see what can change so we can get the weapons.
And what does the Biden administration say?
Oh, you have all the weapons.
No, we don't have the weapons.
I swear to God, we don't have any weapons that you said you were going to give us.
You did not send them.
Yeah, we did.
Sure we did.
That's their entire administration.
It's just telling you that what you see, you're not seeing.
I've never seen anything like this before.
The fine people hoax is an example of that.
All you had to do was look at the transcript, and they would say, that's not there.
How about the drinking bleach hoax?
It's obviously he was talking about light.
You can see he mentioned light before and after his comments.
It was always light.
No, it wasn't.
What are you doing?
What are you doing to me?
It's just pure gaslighting.
But now the Democrats are even gaslighting their peers with fake dissertations.
So there's an allegation now that Democrat Congressman Jamal Bowman of New York There's an accusation that his dissertation has a whole bunch of stolen parts from other people's work.
So, do you know what's going to happen when somebody says, look, we found this quote from somebody else's prior work, and here's the paragraph you wrote, and you can see that yours is identical to this other one, and therefore, pretty obvious case that you stole it.
Do you know what Jamal Bowman's gonna say?
No, I didn't.
Well, see, but here it is.
Like, it's well documented.
And then here's yours right next to it.
You see they're the same, right?
No, they're not.
But they are!
They're actually, actually the same.
Look, look at the words.
These words are the same as these words.
And the date on it is clearly before yours.
And you even, you incited it.
No, I didn't.
Well, here's the citation, and here's the exact wording, and you didn't put it in quotes.
Yes, I did.
Now, I'm just joking about Jamal Bowman, but it feels like every conversation is just going that way now.
No, we didn't.
I don't know what you're talking about.
All right.
Now there's an interesting question.
And I was reading about this in, let's see, John Solomon and Stephen Richards reporting on this in Just the News website.
The question is from the, there's the committee that's trying to figure out what the so-called Biden crime family was up to, and They're wondering now if Biden was giving, quote, defensive briefings on what Hunter was doing overseas.
Now, a defensive briefing would be, you should just know this.
Yeah, do you know what your son is doing?
Maybe we should mention that we've picked up some indication that your son is doing some sketchy looking things in another country.
Now, I feel like that would have been normal business.
Meaning that surely the government had an idea what Hunter was doing in Ukraine.
Surely some of the intel people thought maybe we should tell Biden since he's in office.
This is when he was vice president.
And it seems likely they would have clued him in, which would mean that Biden was lying when he said he didn't know anything about his son's business, etc.
So it could be an important thing.
If only because it would show some deception.
But here's a little reminder of things we do know, according also to Just News.
According to them, there's a mountain of incontrovertible evidence.
Now that's narrative, by the way.
If you want to learn to spot narrative versus fact, What follows are facts, but the characterization of the facts as a mountain of incontrovertible, that's narrative, right?
Because I'm sure that there's somebody who says it's not true.
So everything's, it's hard to be incontrovertible.
But anyway, here's some things that we're pretty sure are demonstrated to be truth now.
Let's see, that Hunter Biden made millions while his father was vice president.
So they now have a good idea of the timing of things.
From business associates with unsavory backgrounds, including a Ukrainian energy firm deemed corrupt by the State Department, a Chinese executive convicted by the Department of Justice of corruption, a Russian oligarch unable to get an American bank account because of red flags, and a Romanian oligarch charged with bribery in his country, and two Americans convicted of securities frauds.
So I don't have an opinion about any of that being especially illegal, but it does seem hard to believe that Biden wasn't briefed on it.
So keep an eye on this one.
I think they're going to show that he was briefed.
Somehow I think they're going to be able to find that out.
Well, meanwhile, there's still two astronauts stranded on the International Space Station and Boeing's struggling to fix some hardware, software problems in their ship to go and get them.
If they miss the window, they have to wait a bunch of time because you can't go up there anytime you want for physics reasons.
So, is Boeing always going to look like a DEI problem?
Now, I have no reason to believe that DEI has anything to do with any of their problems.
But it's happening at the same time as DEI.
So, don't you assume they're related as just a working assumption.
Now, it's unfair and it's like super racist to even imagine that this could have anything to do with their sudden decrease in quality.
But remember, It's not racist because you could replace the races or just even reverse them and you get the same impact.
So if you can put any race into the situation, let's say the system, you can put any race into it and you get the same outcome.
I'm not sure that's race.
That's about the system.
If the race is irrelevant to the outcome, it's the system.
And what I mean by the system is the demand for a specific kind of qualified person Far exceeds the supply, and in the normal American, not American, but human way that we deal with things, people are gonna hire people underqualified so they can meet their diversity goals, because that's your bonus this year.
You won't know if the hires did a bad job for a few years, but you want to get that bonus this year, so you're gonna bend things a little bit to get your diversity goals met.
In theory, planes should be falling from the sky because of DEI as a system, not because of anybody's demographic group, just as a system that can't possibly work on paper.
On paper, it can't work.
It'd be one thing to say, well, we implemented it poorly.
That's not what's happening.
On paper, it can't be implemented correctly because you don't have enough supply.
The only way you can do it is in the very long run.
Where you do a much better job of training young people so that you have a better supply of diverse candidates.
In which case you wouldn't need DEI.
Let me say it again.
How many unemployed black aeronautic engineers do you believe there are in the whole world?
Black qualified aviation engineers that can't get work.
None.
There are exactly zero.
So if you want diversity, you fix the qualifications of the people starting in preschool, and you just make sure you don't let up.
Make sure everybody's got a good shot.
That takes care of itself.
You would have full employment of all qualified people of every demographic group.
Now, if you've got a bunch of people who can't get jobs because they're unqualified, it just means you didn't do a good enough job You know, training them, and maybe they were trained for the wrong stuff.
Not everybody can be aeronautic engineers.
I know I couldn't.
Well, anyway, Cathie Wood, who's the CEO of Ark Investments, a big investment company, she's a big name in the investment world, you should know, is going to vote for Trump.
So yet another smart person in the pro-Trump family.
Now, remember when you couldn't really say that out loud if you had a business?
You just couldn't say it.
But apparently she doesn't mind.
I think she's pro-Elon Musk as well.
All right.
So on Tuesday, I'm going to talk to Michael Ian Black, I'm going to have a special live stream.
It'll be after this one at 11 a.m.
my time on Tuesday, which would be 2 p.m.
on the East Coast.
And assuming that, you know, nothing comes up between now and then, the question will be not, not is Trump good or bad?
You know, I know where that conversation would go, so there's no point in having it.
But rather, he asked a fascinating question.
How do you know the news is real?
And I've got about 20 things to answer that question.
But one of the things he posted this morning was there was a MSNBC interview in which somebody from the Heritage Foundation was being interviewed.
And he said, and again, it's a reasonable observation, isn't this real news?
Because where it all started was me saying all the news is fake.
So here was somebody on the right, a respected voice on the right, talking to a host on MSNBC, who obviously leans left.
I think it was Bernie's old campaign manager.
And, and isn't that real news?
Well, I would call that opinion.
There was one person brought on to say, what do you think about all this stuff?
And then he did.
Now it's useful, but it's opinion.
I wouldn't call that news.
So, we have lots to talk about, about what's news and what's opinion, but opinions are true in the sense that the person saying it often believes it.
It's a true opinion, but that doesn't mean it's news, exactly.
That's just an opinion.
All right.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, brings me to the exciting conclusion of my prepared remarks.
You may have noticed I did a little tease on the x-platform of the Dilbert Sunday comic.
Dilbert's company is going to start making aircraft.
It might remind you of a specific company that's having some issues right now with the quality of their construction.
But you can only see that if you subscribe on X, see my profile, or if you are on the Locals platform.
Also subscription.
But on Locals, you'd see Robot Reads News, my other comic, and Man Caves, and all kinds of fun other content.
A lot of political stuff.
If you only want the comic, get it at X. All right. Thank you.
All right.
I'm going to end now for the three other platforms and just talk to locals.
