God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, House Cleaning Turn-On, Diversity Income Correlation, Transgender Surgery Minors, Presidential Debate Reactions, President Biden, Chris Matthews, Bill Maher, President Trump, Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, Ellen Barkin, Bob Woodward, Alyssa Farah Griffin, The Atlantic, Greg Gutfeld, Cenk Uygur, Media Assigned Opinions, Axios Alex Thompson, Whitehouse Gaslighting, SCOTUS Fischer, Jailing J6 Judges, SCOTUS Chevron, Hur Tapes, Anna Paulina Luna, AG Garland, 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
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
It happens now.
go. Wow. All right.
Go.
I've got a question for you.
A couple of science things, and then we're going to get to the fun.
Oh, my God, is the news fun this week.
Am I right?
Is everybody having as much fun as I am?
Honestly, I don't think I've ever had more fun just dealing with the news.
We'll talk about that.
But, question for you.
Chinese researchers have figured out how to put a human stem cell brain on a chip.
So there's a little organic thing made out of stem cells that mimics some characteristics of a human brain.
And they combine it with A chip, and they made a robot out of it.
Now, I need a ruling, because apparently it works, it's not experimental, it works.
If you build a robot that's part human brain, but had never been part of a human, so they're just using stem cells and building their own little thing, is it a cyborg?
Cyborg, yes or no?
Part organic, part machine, and it's a robot.
But it was never a human, but it's got a human DNA in it, right?
Because stem cells.
So I'm going to say yes.
I'm going to say yes on Cyborg.
Well, it looks like we have more yeses than nos.
All right, good.
Here's a cool thing, according to Live Science.
Somebody has invented regular glasses that are night vision lenses.
So you would be wearing regular corrective lenses apparently, or they don't have to be corrective, and with no extra electronics you might be able to see in the dark.
Now it certainly has to be at least a little bit of light, you know, not complete dark, but how would that change things?
Could you imagine if everybody could just see in the dark?
I don't know, I feel like that's when we got electric lights so you could work all night.
I mean, that changed civilization quite a bit.
What happens if you can see at night?
I don't know.
All right, here's some fake science for you.
69% of those surveyed say that cleaning the house, if your spouse or your partner cleans the house, it's their biggest turn-on.
Yum!
I love it when you clean the house.
I am so aroused right now by watching my husband clean the house.
No!
No!
Young people.
Young people.
Men, I'm talking to you.
Young men, don't fall for this.
This is fake news.
Let me explain to you how this works.
I'm doing a survey, young woman.
What would be the biggest turn-on for your husband or boyfriend?
Is he gonna hear about this?
Well, I suppose so.
I mean, we're gonna publish the results.
So my boyfriend's gonna know what I said is my biggest turn-on.
Well, not you personally, but you know, he'll look at the results.
I think my biggest turn-on is when he cleans the entire house while I'm doing nothing.
All right, we'll write that down.
That sounds totally believable.
And I can't think of any ulterior motives.
So yes, it's probably your biggest turn-on to watch your husband do chores while you're not doing anything.
No.
But, men, if you are asked, what is your biggest turn-on?
Don't go with the old language of love stuff like, oh, I like it when she does chores for me, or I like it when she buys me a present.
Don't fall for that.
Don't be a sucker.
The proper answer is, I like it when she blows me.
What's your language of love?
Blowing me.
No, seriously.
Is it acts of service?
No, it's blowing me.
No, but is it kind words?
No.
No, just blow me.
That's my language of love.
Blow me.
Fuck your science.
This is bullshit.
Men like it when you touch them and show them a little respect.
That's all.
We don't need this bullshit.
And ladies, stop this bullshit like you're turned on by us doing the fucking dishes.
You're going to be looking for a boyfriend at the same time your husband is washing your goddamn dishes.
Stop this bullshit.
Come on.
All right.
You know how I always Quite annoyingly and egotistically say, science, you should have just asked me.
You didn't have to spend all this money to do a study.
You could have just come to me, just come to me and ask me the question, save all the money.
And you know, and you're probably saying, okay, that's a little overdone.
I hope you're doing this just for entertainment because we don't really believe That'd be better if somebody just came and asked you.
I mean, I mean, that's not going to be as good as science, Scott.
Come on.
How can it be as good as science just asking one person?
I mean, that's ridiculous.
So here's what science just figured out without my help at all.
Marijuana seems to improve orgasmic function in women.
You could have asked me.
You could have asked me.
Here's another study you don't need to do.
Does drinking alcohol make you more likely or less likely to have sex with a stranger?
Please, just ask me.
Next time you're wondering about that science, just ask me.
I've got an answer for that too.
Well, here's something I didn't know.
Back in 2015, McKinsey, the consultant group, did a research study and they found out that one of the best things that a company can do for their profitability is to increase their diversity.
Now that was cool because a lot of people wanted to increase diversity for all the right reasons, you know, to get your company looking like the public and make sure nobody's left behind and there's no discrimination and no bias.
And we'd all like that.
No discrimination, no bias.
But wasn't it great that McKinsey studied and found out that the more diversity you had, the more money you could make too.
There was like a pretty good connection between if you increase your diversity, you'd increase your money.
Well, guess what?
It turns out that nobody can reproduce that study because it was bullshit.
No, there was never any correlation between diversity and income.
is certainly not one that increased the income.
I don't want to say it.
Don't make me say it.
God, I can't.
I can't help it.
You should have just asked me.
You could have just fucking asked me.
Or, if you didn't want to ask me, because, you know, I got a big ego and stuff, you don't want to make me feel like, oh, why do you know everything the science says?
No.
You could have asked anybody who ever had a job.
That would do it.
You could ask anyone who ever had a job.
You didn't really have to study this one.
Now, I'm not saying that diversity makes you less profitable.
I'm just saying there couldn't possibly have been any study that said it made you more profitable.
In the real world, that wasn't really possible.
Or it wasn't possible that you would know.
I actually don't know.
So, I don't know if it makes anything better or worse.
I know you can't study it.
That's what I know.
I know you can't study it.
You wouldn't know.
And it seems unlikely it would make much of a difference.
All right.
The Biden administration is backtracking.
This is according to the Daily Wire.
It says they don't support transgender surgery for minors.
What do you think's behind that?
Why do you think the Democrats have to come out against trans surgery for minors?
and they say the administration does not support surgery for minors in that context.
Were they, I'm not sure if they had an opinion on it before or they just didn't talk about it.
But they finally had to reach a point where the Republicans were sort of calling out the craziness, that they just had to find something closer to realistic, middle, non-crazy.
Because I think it's becoming more and more clear that money is driving this.
It's not about the benefit of the children.
I mean, there's some, you know, there's some belief structure that's driving it, too.
But the thing that makes the hospitals do it is gonna be maybe money.
So, I do appreciate that the Biden administration has a sensible opinion on this.
But it makes you wonder, why is that coming out now?
And why did we even have to wonder about it?
Like the level of incompetence coming from the White House, the lack of leadership.
Don't you think that a long time ago the White House should have said, just so you know what our opinion is, we're against it?
Don't you think that would have been useful at some time in the last several years if in fact they were against it?
Wouldn't that be the type of leadership you kind of expect from your president and your White House?
Why were they silent until now?
Like, you know, I hate to be the one who says, what took you so long?
But it's worse than that, because they were already there.
It wasn't like it took so long to get something done or decide.
They already were there.
I don't think they changed anything.
They just decided to tell us.
The level of incompetence in leadership is just staggering.
It's staggering.
Can you imagine Trump being silent about that for years while it's happening?
I can't.
You know, even if it's none of his business, you know, it's private, private business, even if it's none of his business, I think he would weigh in on an opinion.
So you knew what the White House was thinking.
All right.
The New York Post had me laughing this morning like crazy.
Apparently Biden in a speech used the phrase over my dead body.
And all they did is show a big picture of Biden.
And the headline, over my dead body, and I laughed for 10 minutes.
Now that is fucking funny.
It's funny because they didn't have to find a picture of him looking dead.
They just showed his normal picture, with no modifications, just talking.
And you immediately get the joke that he looks almost dead.
Over my dead body.
We don't even have to wait until he's dead.
Oh my goodness.
Well, like many people, I was waiting with great anticipation to see how Bill Maher would handle the disaster that was at debate, and pretty much the way you thought.
It was no surprise.
Here's just some of the jokes that Bill Maher said.
I mean, he was brutal.
He was absolutely brutal with Biden, as you might expect.
He said he shit the bed so hard that the Secret Service gave him a new name, Amber Heard.
He was more lost than the Malaysian airline.
He likes trains, but not trains of thought.
And then my favorite part was that Bill Maher said that at one point in the debate, Trump was so far ahead, he started talking about golf.
Now that's a good joke.
That's a good joke.
Trump was so far ahead he started talking about golf.
Let me say, I'd like to correct an opinion I had.
I think I said that Trump made an error in talking about golf.
I don't think so anymore.
I don't think so.
The more I think about his performance, You know, there were lots of little things I wish he'd argued better, but I don't think arguing made any difference at all.
I mean, people were strictly looking at the vibe.
They saw a strong, in-control person, and they compared it to Biden, and they liked the in-control person a little bit more, the person who looked alive.
So I'm not sure any of the hoaxes made a difference, but I still want to push against them.
All right, here's the favorite part of my day.
God, I love this.
Watching the Democrats wake up to the fact that they are the victims of their own brainwashing and gaslighting.
Now is one thing when they gaslight Republicans and Independents.
That's bad.
That's bad.
It's bad.
But watching the Democrat, you know, pundits, even the professionals, the reporters, watching them wake up to how badly they've been gaslighted.
Or gaslit?
What's the right way to say that?
It's really fun.
But also watching the ones who refuse to wake up is even better.
So Bill Maher had Chris Matthews on.
And he started to, he was trying to sort of defend, you know, the Democrats a little bit as best he could.
There's not much to work with.
And he started saying that the debate wasn't fair.
He didn't, didn't say fair, but he was indicating, you know, that it was a, it was sort of a lopsided competition because Trump kept telling one lie after another and Biden couldn't keep up.
That was his defense of Biden is that he couldn't keep up.
That was the defense of Biden, that he couldn't keep up.
And Bill Maher said, isn't that the point?
You need someone who can keep up?
Imagine you're a Democrat, and you're watching Bill Maher, who has achieved, you know, or started with, some form of enlightenment, at least about part of this.
And he just says the most obvious thing.
Isn't that the point?
They're supposed to keep up?
Now, why does Bill Maher have to explain to one of the most experienced observers of politics, Chris Matthews, that the point of the president is to have someone who can keep up with an ordinary conversation?
The fact that you even had to have that conversation is just delightful.
I could not be more amused.
Anyway, Stephanie Winston Walkoff.
I guess she is someone who's not crazy about the Trump administration.
But she said that in a post that CNN was really part of the reason that Biden looked bad.
And here's what she said.
No one had to say a word.
She screams on X in all caps.
CNN's carefully considered framing and lighting design effectively conveyed the intended perceptions of fragility versus dominance in visual composition.
Biden was filmed, now this is the debate, the side-by-side view of the debate she's describing.
Biden was filmed in profile looking pale as a ghost.
Trump was filmed straight on, not looking his usual shade of tangerine, but more like marmalade.
Biden is a man of honor, integrity, resilience, and resolve.
So the reason that Biden looked like he was dead for three days by the time he debated was probably the lighting and the angle that he was filmed at.
You know, that's a good point because I'll bet there are a lot of videos of Biden From that night, you know, once they don't show us, in which he looks sharp and totally on the ball.
I wish they'd showed us some of those videos instead of those misleading videos where he looks like he's just about dead.
All right, watching Democrats attack CNN for simply holding a debate is a lot of fun.
And I might add, I would like to echo some things I saw from a lot of smart people.
Elon Musk, and a number of other people.
I have to say, being, you know, one of the top critics of CNN, I thought they did a good job.
How many of you would agree that CNN did just a solid job?
Tapper and Bash, whatever was in their head, we don't know, and that's good.
We don't know what was in their heads.
They simply gave us a show, exactly what I wanted to see, I didn't think the questions were extra biased in one direction.
I didn't see them fact check one but not the other.
I thought they did a good job.
Now I've been telling you for several months that it seems to me I'm seeing indications that CNN wants to find the middle and actually be a useful service to people who want the news.
And it seemed to me there was a kind of a marked march toward the middle.
And this I think was a highlight of their, this to me, this was the highlight of their year because they pulled off the hardest thing you can do, which is to make people on the right say, okay, okay, I think you, I think you handled that right.
So all credit where credit is due.
Um, and especially since I've been a, you know, a daily critic, I gotta give them credit.
I can't, I can't, uh, I can't skip that.
All right.
I'm loving the Democrats pretending to be surprised that Biden didn't do well, or that there was a possibility he wouldn't do well.
And this is where I like to play my game, called lying stupid or brainwashed.
Lying stupid or brainwashed.
Let me give you some examples.
Chris Matthews, also on the Bill Barr set, we don't know where Trump is going to stop.
He says, Trump has made sure I'm going to get even with half of this country that's probably going to vote against me.
He's going after public officials.
He's going after commenters.
He's going to go after editorial writers.
He's going to go after everybody.
So it's not going to be a free country.
He is out there to remove people's rights.
We do not know where it's going to end.
Nobody can sit there and say that we know where Trump is going to stop.
So, what do you think?
Since obviously we do not observe anything like that in the real world.
We had four years of Trump, plus years of watching him, and there's not even a hint of that.
Not even a little bit.
So, is Chris Matthews lying, stupid, or brainwashed?
Go!
Lying, stupid, or brainwashed?
I actually want to see your opinions.
Lying, stupid, or brainwashed?
I see all three.
Brainwashed.
Crazy.
Well, crazy, I don't know.
No, I would rule out crazy.
Brainwashed, maybe.
All three.
All right.
Here's what I think.
Chris Matthews is not stupid.
That's what I think.
We watched Chris Matthews for years.
You can agree with him or disagree with him or like the show or not like the show.
He's not stupid.
He's not even close to stupid.
So I don't think it's stupid.
Is he lying?
Does he look like he's just lying?
I'm going to say no.
It doesn't look like lying to me.
Because you wouldn't tell a lie that stupid.
You see what I mean?
If he were lying, it would be clever.
And it would be more subtle.
And he might pick one thing.
Like, you know, I'm not worried about him putting 70 million people in jail, but I do worry that he might go after, let's say, a politician I like.
You know, something like that would make me think, you know, we're going to have to watch Trump to make sure he doesn't do that.
Because one of the things Republicans do, am I right?
They police their own side.
I think.
I mean, to me that looks like a difference, but maybe I'm biased about that.
So, I think he's brainwashed.
I think he's brainwashed.
But the fun thing is, he's not brainwashed by his enemies.
That's the fun part.
It wasn't his enemies that brainwashed him.
It was his own people and the environment he found himself in.
So, watching people wake up from the brainwashing from their own team It's amazing.
It's just amazing.
As a hypnotist, I cannot be more entertained than watching the mental gymnastics that people have to do to find their way back to reality when they've been gaslit so badly by the people they trusted.
So the people they trusted are the problem.
It wasn't the people they think are their enemies.
We didn't do this.
In fact, Republicans have been saying for Since 2020?
I've been saying since 2020, I didn't think he'd make it a full term.
You all remember that, right?
There's a post going around on X about John McAfee in 2020 made the prediction that Biden would fade by September of this year.
A lot of people made that prediction.
A lot of us made that prediction.
But here's the thing.
If you're a Democrat, at what point do you realize the Republicans had this nailed from the start?
At what point do you realize that there were a lot of Republicans who got that whole pandemic thing right?
At what point do you realize the Republicans have been right about the border, you know, with some hyperbole that they might not like, but basically right about the border?
How many of them are realizing that there weren't any wars under Trump?
These are objectively obviously true things, but Chris Matthews thinks he's trying to prevent Hitler from rising.
That looks like brainwashing to me.
I'm going to say brainwashing.
Ellen Barkin, aging actress, used to be one of my favorites.
She posted an ex, she said, I thought it was obvious to anyone watching that Biden was thrown by CNN's Shockingly biased attack and approach to the evening.
Right at the top of the first question, was slanted to put Biden on the defensive.
If you didn't before now, you know where CNN stands.
So what is that?
Is that lying, stupid, or brainwashed?
Lying, stupid, or brainwashed.
This one's easy.
No, it's definitely not lying.
This one's easy.
It's cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance is the only way you can look at that and say that it was biased against Biden.
The only way you could see it that way is if your concept of reality got warped, and it can only get warped that fast and in that extreme way through cognitive dissonance.
This one's a clean one.
This one you don't have to wonder.
This is not an intelligence problem.
And she's not lying.
You wouldn't tell this lie.
You wouldn't tell this lie.
Like she knows that her opinion of CNN's bias isn't going to change anything.
So she's just, I think she's just releasing some frustration and we can see the cognitive dissonance.
So she was brainwashed by her own team.
And then when the brainwashing didn't match reality that she observed, She was triggered into cognitive dissonance and then imagined that Biden probably would have done well except for CNN So that that's how she papers back together her belief that Biden was fined By saying well, the only thing that was wrong was something else.
It wasn't Biden's brain.
That's that's the classic most classic cognitive dissonance, so I Want to be able to teach you That you can see that one right away.
Some of these are not so clear.
That's what makes it fun.
This one's really clear.
That's not brains.
It's not lying.
It's cognitive dissonance.
It's a perfect example.
All right.
The tell for cognitive dissonance is that the way you interpret the world looks absurd to a reasonable person.
And it looks absurd to think that CNN was biased against Biden in that debate.
Meanwhile, Bob Woodward, you know him from the Watergate days, he was brought on and he said of Biden, his performance was, I sat there and watched it and I could not believe it.
Not only is this a political hydrogen bomb for him and the Democratic Party, what happened?
What happened?
It was almost impossible.
Say it.
Say it.
Say it, Bob.
Say it.
Say it.
Come on, Bob Woodward.
Say it.
We know you want to.
Say it.
Was it worse than Watergate?
And then he went on to say there must be a quote large explanation for this.
Is he lying, stupid?
Or brainwashed.
Lying, stupid, or brainwashed.
TDS would be brainwashed.
Lying, stupid, or brainwashed.
He's not stupid.
He's not stupid.
You can rule that one out.
He's got a body of work.
Definitely not stupid.
Is he lying?
Well, I would rule out lying because he's acting like it's a mystery.
He says there is an explanation.
But he doesn't know what it is.
It's a mystery.
That's not how you lie.
That's not a lying pattern.
A lying pattern is, I know what the problem is, and it's CNN or, you know, something else.
Well, that would have been cognitive dissonance, too.
But lying shows more certainty.
He's expressing what I think is genuine confusion.
And he imagines that there's a large explanation that he can't identify.
What's that?
That's cognitive dissonance.
That's a perfect example.
He imagines that there's something we haven't all observed that's obvious, that's hiding out there outside the view of our ability to see it, that must be the big explanation that he doesn't know.
Do any of you think there's anything missing in the story?
I don't.
I feel like everything is completely transparent.
They had a candidate they knew was sketchy.
They didn't have many options once he was committed.
He was probably the one making the decisions, Biden.
Maybe his staff wasn't capable, obviously.
And all of those things in a very normal and obvious way get us to this point.
There's no, there's no mystery here.
The mystery is, That Bob Woodward can't understand how brainwashed he was by his own side.
He's not able to accept it.
So instead, he imagines, he hallucinates, the same way Ellen Barkin hallucinated that CNN was after Biden.
That's a pure hallucination.
Woodward is hallucinating that there's some thing unexplained, that if he only knew it, all of this would make sense.
It's all explained.
There's nothing unexplained.
That's cognitive dissonance.
It's a very clean example.
The more examples you see, the better you can spot it.
That's why I do this.
All right, there's the host of The View, one of them, Alyssa Farrah Griffin.
You should know she's a big anti-Trumper, of course, because she's on The View.
And she was saying after the debate, That she feels deceived by the White House about his fitness for office.
Quote, I feel duped, she said Friday.
She feels duped, okay?
Is she stupid, lying, or brainwashed?
Stupid, lying, or brainwashed?
She says directly, they must have been lying to me.
I feel duped.
Is she stupid, lying, or brainwashed?
Well, she's not brainwashed.
I mean, she's not brainwashed on this topic because she's seeing it clearly that, wait a minute, you must have known this.
So she's not brainwashed.
Is she lying?
No, there's no evidence of lying.
She's saying it looks like they fooled me or that they duped me.
That's not a lie.
That's what we observe.
But is she stupid?
Yes, obviously.
Yes.
But not about this.
Not on this.
She's right on.
She has identified that she was fooled, admitting she was fooled.
That is not cognitive dissonance, because it's perfectly compatible with observation.
She has adjusted her prior thinking to be compatible with new information.
There's no illusion going on.
But you have to ask yourself, how could she be fooled by this?
Because we all were watching it at the same time.
It's not somebody else brainwashing you when you're looking at a live video and he looks like he's falling apart to anybody who's looking.
That's not somebody else doing it to you.
And that's not brainwashed.
And it's not lying.
That's stupid.
That's stupid.
If you looked at Biden for a year and you didn't think that it was at least a good chance that he'd have a bad debate, well, I can't excuse that away.
I think there's something wrong with your ability to think or observe.
Maybe observing is the bigger problem.
How about, there's a bunch of Hollywood donors that are all panicked now.
And the story is from somebody who said, there's a sense That the money dried up last night, meaning the debate, that the money dried up last night about 10 minutes into the debate.
To which I say, I don't think that's the only thing that dried up, if you know what I mean.
Imagine you're a woman, and you like your presidents to do a good job of protecting you, because that's like the main thing, gotta be protected.
Did Biden look like somebody who could protect you or anything else?
Or anything else?
No, Biden does not look like somebody who could protect you from anything.
And my theory is that that dried up the women immediately.
Once they realized that Trump was strong and he likes America, And they realize that Biden is weak and almost dead, but he too likes America.
And you live in America.
Who's going to protect you?
Clearly, the one who is strong.
So if you go into the weeds of who had the better policies, nobody cares.
I mean, we pretend we care, but We vote for other reasons.
We vote how we feel and energy and power and strength and protection and who's on your side.
That's the stuff that really puts puts it over the finish line.
All right.
Here's I mean, today's news could not be more delicious.
The Atlantic, which is well known as just a pure Democrat vehicle.
All right.
The Atlantic doesn't even pretend.
That's, you know, trying to both sides things.
It's not like the regular press.
They are just purely a Democrat propaganda magazine.
And here's what they say.
They say that the most patriotic option, if, you know, if you believe the threat, that the world, you know, the world's in trouble and Hitler could take over, you know, Trump, in their view.
Why would you run Biden?
Why would Biden be your candidate if the alternative is the end of the country?
If you really believe your own brainwashing, the first thing you do, even if you are Biden, even if you're Biden, you'd say, oh, wow, I've lost a step.
I better get a better person in here.
Do you know where that frame comes from?
That if Biden believes that we have all these troubles with Trump, Why doesn't he make sure that Trump doesn't win by getting out of the way, because obviously he can't win.
That's Greg Gotfeld's frame from The Five and from Gotfeld the Show.
So, Gotfeld has been asking this provocative question, and I love this question, because it's a total brainwash breaker.
It's an antidote to the gaslighting.
Explain to us why If you've been saying, Democrats, please, Democrats, explain to us if you really believe any of the things you're saying, the fine people hoax, he's going to take your democracy and become a dictator.
If you believe any of that, why are you running Biden?
You know, that's the opposite of what you would do if you believe your own, your own most important story.
So now the Atlantic has adopted Greg Gov-Hill's frame Of what the hell are you doing?
This can't be explained in any rational world.
Something has to be just badly broken, meaning the capability of the Democrats.
Did you ever think you would see the Atlantic and Fox News hosts being on the same page to this degree?
This is actually a deep agreement.
You know, there could be surfacy things, The surfacy thing would be, okay, we all agree that Biden had a bad debate.
That's kind of surfacy.
But to take it all the way down to, once we've all seen this, why is he still the candidate?
That's a deep agreement.
You don't see deep agreement, you know, this far into an election season.
I would submit to you that something really big may have happened that we won't recognize until after the fact.
I always talk about persuasion, that the Democrats have this hoaxocracy.
They have literally a mesh network of hoaxes.
Now, here I'm going to delight my technically minded people who know what a mesh network is.
If you have Wi-Fi, you probably know.
A mesh network is where the nodes kind of support each other.
So they have, you know, I described this the other day on the whiteboard.
The reason that they believe the fine people hoax It's because they already believed the hoax that he thinks that the Mexicans are all rapists and killers.
Literally something that nobody believes, including Trump.
So they use one hoax to support the belief in the other hoax, and vice versa.
So both hoaxes are believable only because the other hoax is believable, and vice versa.
So they build actually a mesh network of hoaxes.
By the way, this is what I've been dealing with as a persuader.
I've never figured out how you could break the mesh.
You can break one at a time, but then it just heals.
It's like a self-healing hoax mesh network.
As soon as you're done debunking something, you can watch it reform as soon as the conversation is on, but right back to where it was.
It just heals.
And what you needed was, I'm going to go into analogy territory, a Rosetta Stone.
You needed a discovery of a thing that would allow Democrats to escape from the gaslighting they gave themselves.
They've built a world that only makes sense within the world, within the mesh network of hoaxes.
As soon as you get out of it and you realize that the mesh network is fake, all the rest of it is at risk for the first time.
Now remember I kept telling you that the Find People hoax was the tentpole hoax.
And I was saying, if we can just debunk this one, that will be the Rosetta Stone.
And that will be the one that lets people say, oh wait a minute, if we were that fooled about this one, what about those other ones?
And then they would start to maybe look at them a little more critically, and then the whole mesh network would come down.
That was my thinking of the best case scenario, is if you get the big one, the one that supports all the other ones, the other ones will collapse.
I completely underestimated the power of the mesh network.
It just didn't work.
But it turns out that Democrats just found out That there was a bigger tentpole.
The biggest tentpole is that Biden has always been okay behind closed doors.
And now nobody believes it.
Nobody believes it.
And everybody believes it was a lie, Democrats included.
They all believe they've been lied to by the same people who have been lying to me and to you.
And somehow, That debate became the Rosetta Stone.
Not for the Republicans, because we were already, you know, I say we because I caucus with Republicans, but I'm technically a Democrat.
Everything that they're just finding out, we all knew as base reality.
We all knew it.
Nobody's surprised.
Not a single person is really surprised who was not part of the gaslighting You know, architecture.
But apparently, this was such a stark and obvious and observable break with reality, the reality that he's fine, that it's just so observably not true, that you can see that some number of them were triggered into cognitive dissonance, where they literally believe absurdities, like CNN was out to get him and that's the reason he looked bad.
Or he had one, they're also saying he had one bad day.
I call that the OJ defense.
Well, OJ only had one bad day.
So, I think this might be bigger than you think.
Much bigger.
It's not just about, will Biden be the candidate?
You know, that's the way we're treating it.
It's way bigger.
You're actually watching Democrats start to escape from the brainwashing.
Let me give you One of the other absurdities is that people are using the Fetterman analogy to think about Biden.
So you know how Fetterman looked like he couldn't possibly do the job when he was running for Senate?
Because he had that stroke and his brain wasn't functioning.
Now, I, like many other people who turned out to be totally wrong, were not so sure he could recover from that.
He did.
And I got to give him complete credit for that.
And further, I'd say he's a pretty solid Democrat, right?
You know, if he had to put up with a Democrat, he'd be the one.
Like, he's pretty solid.
You know, kind of a common-sense approach to politics.
Don't always agree with him, but I always say, okay, you're coming from this from some reasoned opinion.
So, here's the problem.
Fetterman had a problem that you could recover from.
One that you could recover from.
Biden doesn't have one of those.
That's the problem with analogies.
One is not like the other.
Biden is old.
You don't recover from old.
He's not going to have like weeks where he doesn't have a day like that.
It only gets worse.
And so any imagination that it was just a bad day or transitory is probably closer to cognitive dissonance or stupidity or something like that.
Here's another funny one.
A body language expert, Fox News has a story on this, did a, quote, brutal takedown on Biden's debate performance.
Did anybody need to hear from a body language expert that this looks like somebody losing a debate?
I'm doing a hilarious impression of Biden's face in case you're just listening to it.
If you're listening to it, I'm going to do it again, so there'll be a brief silence for the amusement of those watching.
Do you have to be much of a body language expert to see this as maybe a problem?
A sign of somebody who's not exactly winning the debate?
Yep, could have asked Scott.
One of my favorite personalities who I don't agree with is Cenk.
Weiger.
And what I love about him, even while being annoyed by some of his opinions, is that he does not seem to be subject to brainwashing.
He does seem immune from it.
His opinions, when I disagree with them, look like his own opinions.
They actually don't look assigned, which is weird.
Same with Bill Maher.
So those are two people who, even when I disagree, which I do, I think, well, at least you thought about it, right?
So here's what Cenk says, and he's using the word hypnosis in his description, which is yet another sign that he's escaped the matrix.
Listen to this.
This is from Cenk Uygur.
I think this debate was a seminal moment in American politics.
So, you know, he's agreeing with everybody there.
Political and media handlers create a mirage.
Hello.
Now we're getting interesting.
Reagan as cowboy, Trump as businessman, Biden as competent steward.
He's starting to sound like me.
As in, the media assigned your opinion.
He hasn't said that, but look how close it gets.
And at the debate, when the whole country saw Biden as he truly is, instead of what the establishment had been pretending he was, it was a shock to the system.
Yep.
I'm hoping it's going to help snap people, especially Democratic voters, out of this hypnosis that they're in.
Yep.
Yep.
Democratic leadership is not actually competent.
Yup.
Watching him crawl out of the Matrix is just breathtaking, and I'll credit him, honestly.
They are not more likely to win.
Their positions of authority are misleading you into believing they're competent and honest.
No, this whole thing is a mirage, and you just saw the man behind the curtain.
Yes.
Now, wake up!
Oh God, you're perfect.
Stop trusting them.
They don't have your best interests in mind.
They have their best interests in mind.
How much do you love that?
So, Cenk, congratulations!
This is a fully formed mind operating in the context of Insanity and stupidity, and he found a way out.
This is not easy.
What he's doing right here, he's first of all bucking, you know, all of his audience, most of it.
So that's not easy.
And he's admitting that his team is the problem.
And they are.
They have brainwashed their own side to the point of incompetence.
And he's calling it out as directly as you can.
And he's using all the right words.
That it's it's hypnosis and you need to wake up Good job Good job that so, you know, I like to point out that you know, we have a competitive system But the competitive system only works if reasonable people are making competitive arguments.
I would love that Cenk could get enough of Democrats out of the matrix and their hypnosis that they could form some kind of a Push back against Republican policy.
Which, by the way, I don't always love.
What I do love is the country honestly debating things that are important, showing both sides, fighting it out, and finding some reasonable thing we can live with.
I love that.
But we don't have that.
We have gaslighting versus what the hell is going on.
Gaslighting versus what the hell are you doing is not any kind of competitive contest.
It needs to be a competition about what's the best thing to do.
Cenk seems to be ready for that fight.
I'm ready for that fight.
I think most of you are ready for that fight.
Let's have that fight.
That's the virtuous fight.
Why can't we have the virtuous fight?
That's what made America.
America is a virtuous fight.
Except for the overseas stuff we do, that's crazy.
So let's have a virtuous fight.
We could do that.
We found an accidental way to all be on the same page, which is that the White House was lying to all of us.
That is the first time we can genuinely say, OK, you and I are on the same side right now.
We would disagree about who should be the president.
But we're not disagreeing about what just happened to all of us.
Because it happened to all of us.
It's just that, you know, half of the country didn't believe it.
So we don't have the same mental gymnastics that we have to solve.
But Cenk solved his.
So I would say if you're a Democrat and you just want somebody who can see through the illusions, he's your guy.
That's a full-throated endorsement.
At the same time, I don't agree with him on everything that he thinks about.
All right.
There's an Axios reporter talking about Biden.
He says that Democrats are in full freak-out mode.
This is Alex Thompson, writes for Axios, because what they saw is finally what they have been obscuring.
And he says, well, listen, I've been covering the Biden White House now for three and a half years.
So he's a national political reporter.
And he was telling CNN, and as someone that's reported on his age quite a few times talking about Biden, I can tell you that the White House's response every single time that it's come up for three and a half years has been to deflect, to gaslight, to gaslight.
This is a Axios reporter on CNN telling Democrats that even the reporters have been gaslit.
I hope you understand how big this is.
This might be the Rosetta Stone I was waiting for.
I just was looking in the wrong place.
Gaslight to not tell the truth, not just to reporters, not just to other Democrats, but even at times to themselves.
So he even says they're gaslighting themselves.
Well, that part's a little mind-rating.
I don't know that they're gaslighting themselves.
Uh, I would agree that that's probable.
I think it's probable that they've talked themselves into a reality that's not real.
Uh, but not confirmed.
You know, they could be lying.
You can't rule that out.
But I would like to offer a clarification to Axios' Alex Thompson.
Uh, first of all, like I said with Cenk, I really appreciate this.
I completely appreciate that he's now understanding that he got gaslit.
Here's where I disagree.
That it's their fault.
That it's the White House's fault that he got gaslit.
He has a television.
He can see what we see.
Why is it that the reporter got gaslit and admits it, when you and I didn't?
What's up with that?
The reporter's job is to tell us what's true.
But we knew what was true, and we watched him tell us what obviously was gaslighting and not true.
I think there's still a missing part, where the media says, yes, they fooled us, but we should not have been fooled by something that we could see with our own eyes.
So the fact that he was accepting their narrative, while observably it wasn't true, what does that tell you?
I don't know how to interpret this one.
To me, it looks like maybe a little ass covering, you know, when he realizes how badly he'd been duped.
He didn't want to say, you know, I didn't notice there was anything wrong with Biden.
Because that's embarrassing.
Kind of embarrassing to say you didn't notice, you know, until the debate.
So I think there's just a whole bunch of ass covering going on.
It's like, I think it's CNN's fault.
No, I think it's the White House's fault.
How about every reporter who lied to us about everything forever?
How about it's your fault for a change?
All right.
If I were Trump, I would remind Democrats that their own side lied to them, not just lied to them on something small, but this Biden lie is going to destroy the Democrat Party for a generation.
If I were Trump, I would tell them that directly.
Look, We all watched the debate.
You know that your White House was lying to you.
They have lied to you in such a bad lie that it could destroy their own party and your preferences for a generation.
When they fact check me, they say, maybe your economy wasn't as good as you say.
Trump is a salesman.
He exaggerates everything.
But you can tell by his exaggerations he's trying to do your work, and selling is part of doing your work.
He's overselling, he's overclaiming, and then that allows him the freedom to negotiate towards something in the middle where everybody's a little uncomfortable, but it's the best you can do.
To allow the fake news to continue equating Trump's hyperbole, that doesn't pass any fact-checking, To something like gaslighting the country about who is in charge of it.
Who's in charge?
We actually don't know.
They're gaslighting us about who the president is, in effect.
They're gaslighting us that a corpse is alive.
At a time when we're involved in two hot wars.
That's not forgivable.
That's not forgivable.
Not by Democrats.
Not by Republicans.
And it's going to take a generation, in all likelihood.
The likely path of things is that the Republicans are going to take everything.
We're looking at a world where the Republicans have the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court.
Everything.
And that is only because the Democrats didn't put up a good competitor.
You don't think a good Democrat could have had a nice shot at beating Trump?
I think so.
I think that anybody who just could show that they had a pulse and they were alive would have beat Trump, because the press would have lined up and backed them, because they could.
You know, it's a reasonable person.
Oh, we can get behind this.
And then they would just do what they always do.
You know, they would brainwash half the country and, you know, play with some rules with the election, maybe legally, but play with some rules and find a way to win.
Like they have in the past.
But because of their own gaslighting, primarily gaslighting of their own people, far more than the Republicans got gaslit, Republicans didn't get gaslit at all.
There wasn't a single Republican I've ever met who fell for any of it.
It was all an in-team kind of brainwashing.
At least the successful part was in-team.
But think about it.
So, I think Trump is missing the big play, you know, the real kill shot.
The kill shot is they're brainwashing you.
Your own team is doing this to you.
If you think that I haven't passed the fact-checking, just look at what I've said.
It's all at least, you know, directionally true, and I am going to over-claim a little bit for your benefit.
Remember, I'm on your team now.
See, I think the thing that people don't understand is that Trump doesn't have a path to win.
Unless he does a good job for the country.
There's no winning path otherwise.
They've hallucinated that he can become president and turn it into a dictatorship.
That's not real.
Because Republicans have guns, and they're not going to let that happen.
Just ask.
No Republican is going to let him become a dictator.
Do you think he'd be happy if he became a dictator and passed the crown down to Don Jr.? ?
And do you think Don Jr.
would take the crown?
In the unlikely event that, you know, Trump tried to create a dictatorship, his own family wouldn't be in favor of it.
His own family would shut it down so fast.
And of course, it's never going to happen because Trump knows there's no path there.
Now, you might say, you know, power is corrupting.
Yes, power is corrupting, but he doesn't have that kind of power.
Presidents don't have the power to just unilaterally decide, oh, I think I'd like to stay in office.
We've got this whole military, and the Republican Party would make sure it doesn't happen.
Remember, the Republicans are not about give us a dictator who agrees with us.
They're about the Constitution.
It's the most fundamental thing that Democrats don't seem to get, or at least maybe this time they don't get it.
Why would you think that the entire Republican Party Because they, like this one candidate, would also like a dictatorship.
That's not a reasonable opinion.
It's not reasonable.
That is batshit crazy stuff.
And you can only get there through some kind of gaslighting.
You can't get there through thinking or observing anything.
So the waking up is gonna be fun.
Let's talk about the two big court cases.
I'm not, you should probably listen to the legal experts on the court cases.
But just to give you a sense of it, there's this, one of the Supreme Court cases was about the Fisher versus somebody.
And the idea was that the obstruction charges against the January 6th people were not based on a real law.
And the Supreme Court just agreed, nope, there's no law like that.
So apparently the prosecutions basically made up a law in which they borrowed from an unrelated field that said you can't destroy documents, you know, if there's some kind of official proceeding.
Now, no documents or evidence, let's say evidence that's part of a legal proceeding, no evidence or documents were destroyed on January 6th.
But somehow the prosecutors decided that even though it clearly didn't apply, they had enough power that they could make it act like it applied.
If Trump had not been president and applied a majority, you know, and appointed a majority to the court, it makes me wonder which direction this would have gone.
So the Supreme Court has ruled that all of those people in jail Now, they have multiple charges I'll talk about, but at least the biggest charge wasn't ever real.
That really happened.
Now, the Democrats aren't going to understand it because it's complicated, but just think about this.
The Department of Justice, the weaponized, lawfare Department of Justice, took a law that was clearly unrelated to their situation and tortured it until they could get a conviction because everything's fixed.
And the Supreme Court, only because there had ever been a Trump, or a Republican, and they had a majority, reversed it.
Now, is that the one that... I think that's the one that had Justice Katonji... Give me a fact check.
Which one was Justice Katonji-Jackson Brown also agreed with?
Was it this one, or the other one?
Um, but there was a, I saw a fascinating little piece.
I think it was this one.
So they got at least one, um, Biden appointed justice to agree with the Republicans.
And I have to say, this would be the second time I've said to myself with my eyebrow going up, Oh, you know, you expect the conservative judges to just always be conservative and the others to be the other way.
But, I kind of respect that she joined the majority on this.
So I'm going to keep an eye on her, and I'm going to say, I wonder if she'll be one of the superstars of the court.
Maybe so.
Because anybody who can ever, in anything, anybody who can ever just see the law that doesn't bend one way or the other, anybody who can just cross teams when they need to, you automatically have my respect.
So I'm going to say that she has my respect.
And I'm going to keep an eye on her, because she might be the real deal.
I don't know.
Might be a good appointment.
I don't like justices who always are predictable.
If my justice is perfectly predictable, then they're not a justice at all.
I don't need to have a Supreme Court justice where I know which way they're going to vote.
That's no good.
What's the point of that?
You know, I want one who can look at it and go, you know what?
This time, the people you think are my team may be wrong.
So I know I'm getting ahead of myself, and she may disappoint you in a hundred ways in the future, and I'll revise my opinion when that happens.
All right.
But anyway, if you think that the reversal of the obstruction part will free the January Sixers, you might be disappointed.
I hate to give you the bad news.
Here's the problem.
Most of them were charged with one big thing, which was the obstruction, and then smaller things, misdemeanors.
The smaller things, like trespassing, would have smaller sentences, let's say six months to 12 months.
The obstruction would have a longer sentence.
But the way they were sentenced, I think in most or all cases, is that the sentences were concurrent, meaning that they weren't one after another for each crime, But they were served at the same time.
So if you had a six-month sentence and also a 12-month sentence, you would serve them both in 12 months, because the six months would be part of the 12.
But the judge has control over that.
The judge did not have to rule that way.
The judge could have said, you have to serve one after another.
Now that wasn't necessary, because as long as you had the obstruction charge, You already had a nice long sentence, so the lesser ones could be rolled in there and it still looked like justice to them, because it's a long sentence.
Now, if you take away the long sentence, you're left with the smaller 6-month, 12-month charges.
One of the things the judges could do is re-sentence them so that they're no longer served at the same time, but one after the other.
And they would have full flexibility to do that because their opinion is the crime was so bad that it needs to be maximum penalty.
Now, that apparently applies to maybe most of the people.
So the number of people who are just going to walk out the door, I think there's at least one.
I think there's at least one case where somebody just walked out the door.
But that's rare.
So they're going to have to, you know, appeal.
The judge is going to have to be Unusually flexible and not in the way that we expect.
So that's going to be a problem.
And then there's a far worse injustice here.
Here's the one that's just making me sick to my stomach.
In some cases, people pled guilty to the longer one.
They pled guilty to obstruction.
Because they just wanted to make the lesser ones go away or something.
They thought it was their best thing.
So there's some people who did some, I may have this wrong, but there's some people who did some pleading who aren't going to have the same rights of getting things reversed.
Oh, here's, here's the story.
The people who pled guilty to the obstruction part, every one of them, every one of them, which is weird, even though it's different courts in different cases, every one of them had to sign something that said, believe it or not, That if the Supreme Court finds that this was never a law in the first place, you can't go free.
Now, fact check me on that, but I think I understand it.
They actually forced them to sign, you know, under threat of the courts.
They did what the best thing they could do at the time.
They signed something that said that even if the law they'd been convicted of turns out to not even be a law, which is what happened, They have to stay in jail.
Process that.
Let that roll around your head a little bit.
This is the only thing that motivates me for this election.
Yes, I want a whole bunch of policies to be different.
Yes, I want the country to be different.
But you have to start here.
You start locking up people for that, because they're Republican, and let's not pretend.
They were Republicans and they were hunted, and it was done for malicious power purposes to create a situation where Republicans felt they couldn't talk.
And they got pretty close to it.
Was it Cernovich who says that the judges should go to jail?
Or at least there should be some kind of a process.
If Trump gets in office, there should be some kind of a process started To actually put in jail the judges.
Now, I've never even heard of such a thing, but I'm completely in favor of it.
I think the judges that put the January 6th people in jail, and under these conditions, a law that they knew probably wasn't even a law, I think they need to be in jail.
But let me be completely clear.
When people say Trump's going to get revenge and justice, I don't want to see anything outside of the legal process.
Nothing outside the legal process.
You know why?
No one's above the law.
All right.
So this other decision might be even more interesting, but it's going to take a long time for the world to figure out how important this is.
That's the so-called Chevron decision from the courts.
And that said that it's reversing the situation we're under where the Congress could pass a law, but then the specific interpretation of the law and how it's, you know, how it's implemented could be the expert organizations that are most relevant.
So, That would allow OSHA, for example, to tell you you all had to wear masks when there was no law to that effect.
I think that was one of the examples.
So it's hard to come up with examples, but some say that when you remove all the lawmaking from the so-called experts and the administrative state, as they call it, that that's a good thing.
Because the experts are, let's say, corrupt.
Corrupt or stupid or political.
And that's what we observe.
The experts are corrupt or stupid or political.
And you can't really trust them to interpret the law.
So instead, it will go back to Congress and judges, I guess, to interpret the law.
You know, like the Constitution intended?
I don't remember any part of the Constitution They said Congress will make laws, and then they will be interpreted by unelected officials.
That is so far from being any kind of a process anybody should agree to.
Now, I realize why it was done, because there's lots of ambiguity in laws, and sometimes you just need an expert to, like, cut through the red tape.
So it might be, you know, there's an efficiency gain by doing it.
But what happened instead is I think it just got politicized.
As soon as it was politicized, you can't do it anymore.
As soon as it's politicized, you just got to say, all right, we got to go back to a constitutional framework because that's what protects us from the politicization.
Politicism.
politicizes the politics.
All right, the most tragic story is that Thomas Massey's wife and mother of four, a childhood sweetheart of three or five years has suddenly passed away.
Now, we don't know the details of that.
I would just ask all of you, can you just give him some time?
Give him some time.
You don't need to be speculating about anything on X. And if you see somebody doing it, you know, maybe politely ask him to Hold back on that.
I get, you know, I get why the conspiracy theories are floating around.
I get it.
We all get it.
Just give them some time.
This isn't the time.
You know, let's have some respect for the whole situation.
Let's just show a little more respect.
You can think things in your head and you can talk to your friends, but putting it on X, it's just a bad look, right?
It's not illegal.
I'm not going to come after you if you do it.
I'm just saying, maybe find a little humanity here.
Try to find something that's real and true, and it's not all about politics.
All right.
Representative Ana Paulina Luna is still trying to get those HER tapes.
And she says, you know, the ones that Biden is allegedly talking on, and we saw the transcript, but we haven't heard the audio because people speculate that the only reason they wouldn't let us see it, or let us hear it, is that he sounds like he's out of it.
And Representative Luna says, my question to the American people in the report is, what is on those tapes?
That Garland is willing to risk becoming a criminal by defying two congressional subpoenas.
Now that's a pretty good question.
So you've got the Attorney General who is willing to become a criminal to not produce the tapes that you already have the transcript for.
We already have the transcript and we have the, you know, her himself saying that, you know, he was confused elderly man.
So we pretty much know what to expect on the, on the tapes in terms of they're going to be, let's say, uh, more informative than the transcript.
We already know that.
Why in the world would he risk jail?
On a principle that's not even a principle.
There's actually no real reason for him not to do it.
The only reason that anybody could think of, unless they're going to suggest a better reason, is that it would reveal the hoax.
The hoax that Biden was always fine behind closed doors.
So I think it's exactly what it looks like.
The other day, yesterday, I heard something I didn't know before.
I forget who said it.
I wish I could give them credit, but I didn't know that when Obama left office, unlike other past presidents, he bought a house in Washington.
Now, he has other homes, I think, but he bought one in Washington, and he lived with Valerie Jarrett.
They lived together for like nine months.
Now, allegedly, they were working together on some initiatives that he was doing after he was president.
But some say that he's the one who's the puppet master behind the scenes.
There's definitely some circumstantial evidence that that's the case.
You know, this whole idea that you can't debate a liar?
That came from somebody who knows how to do this stuff.
And I'm thinking it might have been Biden or his circle, because they know how to do this stuff.
So I would say that it's at least a strong hypothesis.
I won't go so far as to say Obama's running the country.
I think that's an oversimplification.
I think there are entities of power, everything from the military-industrial complex, to AIPAC, to every billionaire who's giving money.
So there are all these different So, I don't know what to think about that, but I'm going to keep watching.
some different topics, you know, it's not all the same. But one does wonder if the politics of the White House is being run by Obama because he knows that they don't have the capability to do it on their own, which we can observe. So I don't know what to think about that, but I'm going to keep watching. Well, do we think that Jill is the bad guy in this whole story? You know, why is Biden
Is it because it's too late and there's no practical way to replace him?
Maybe.
Is it because they gaslighted themselves to the point where they think he's really their best bet?
Maybe.
Is it because the people who work on the Biden campaign would immediately be unemployed if he stopped running?
Obviously.
Obviously.
The people working on his campaign would be instantly unemployed if anybody else replaced him.
Because whoever came in wouldn't use the same team.
Even Kamala wouldn't use the same team.
They'd all be fired.
And they apparently are pulling the strings.
And Jill would be out of the, you know, she would lose all her support.
They might have some money problems, by the way.
I would not rule out the fact that Joe Biden needs the job for the money.
Has anybody ruled that out?
To me, it seems obvious.
He has to keep working for the money.
What's he going to do?
Give corporate speeches?
He can't do that.
He's not capable.
But if he just sits there in the White House and they protect him, he gets a paycheck, and then he gets all kinds of government services that cover all kinds of other needs.
Just need the money.
That could be the whole story.
And his staff needs the money too.
They might just be working for the cash.
Could it be that simple?
All right.
That's what I got for you today.
And I'm going to go talk to the Locals people privately.
My beloved Locals subscribers.
If you haven't seen Today's Dilbert Reborn, which you can see if you're a subscriber on X or on scottadams.locals.com.
Rat Bird is working for the Washington Poop.
It's a newspaper, a failing newspaper.
And he's become the liaison for the CIA, who will tell him what to write.
So that's the storyline that's going on this week.
