God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, ChatGPT, Fake Economic Data, Uncontrolled Immigration, Fake News Awareness, Tucker Carlson, President Nixon, President Kennedy, RFK, President Biden, Rob Reiner, Robert De Niro, Kamala Harris, Adam Schiff, French Elections, President Biden's Doctor, National Debt Crisis, 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
Yes, we can coordinate and do this simultaneously.
Let me know how you'd like to proceed.
Do you remember the simultaneous SIP thing that I say before the show?
I'm sorry, I don't recall that specific detail.
Could you remind me?
Well, I could take your photograph of it.
That would be helpful, Mr Adams.
Bye.
All right, let me take a photograph here and we'll have chatgpt do the simultaneous SIP for us.
Here it is.
Live demonstration.
Whoops, hold on.
Hold on.
I need you talking.
And here we go.
There we go.
Alright, I'd like you to read out loud the simultaneous zip.
Here it comes.
Sure, Mr. Adams.
Here it is, the simultaneous sip.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day.
Very good.
Join me now for the dopamine of the day.
All right, we'll shut her up for a while.
The future is here.
Not really as satisfying as when I do it, is it?
I know.
You're all like, don't do that again.
Don't do that again.
All right, I won't.
We tried it once.
But if you haven't tried taking a photograph of something and uploading it to your AI and watch how it can interpret it and read it, it's kind of creepy.
It's creepy good.
I mean, it's awesome, but it's creepy.
Well, if you're subscribing to the Dilbert Reborn comic that you can only see if you're a subscriber on X or on the scottadams.locals platform, you would know that Dilbert has gone in for LASIK surgery.
I'm not going to tell you how it goes.
You would just have to see yourself.
It's a visual.
It's a visual comic.
Well, and the next category is the weather.
Temperature reached 128 in Death Valley and it killed a guy.
So the guy died.
Now, I've got a little tip for you.
This is sort of a safety tip.
If you ever have the urge to travel through or to a place called Death Valley, don't do it.
Don't do it.
That's all.
That's it.
There are other names too.
Like if there were a place called I'm Going to Chop Your Head Off Valley, don't go there.
No.
About Shoot You Till You Die Valley, No!
Don't even go there.
You gotta do the basics, right?
Gotta get the basics.
Don't go to a place called death.
Alright, in Zero Hedge there's an article by, well, it's talking about Jeff Tucker of Brownstone Institute.
He basically has the proposition that we may have been in a recession for years, and the reason it's not obvious Is that 100% of our economic data is fake?
Has anybody told you that before?
Have I ever told you directly that all of our economic data is fake?
I think I've made, you know, I've certainly made disparaging remarks about, you know, certain elements of it.
But I'm fairly confident that it's all fake.
Or it's all out of context.
Or they used to measure it one way and now they measure another.
Or they know they're overstating it, but later they're going to correct it.
Or they know they're understating it, but later they're going to correct it.
Or they always knew it was wrong, but it's advantageous to measure it this way.
As a person who used to, for a living, in the actual capitalist commercial world, it was my job to bring data to management.
And the one thing I can tell you for sure is, it was never real.
Because it turns out in the real world when you go to look for data and then put it in a report, the first thing you find out is the data is bad.
The second thing you find out is there's no way to fix it.
The third thing you find out is that management doesn't care.
That'll set you straight.
People wonder how I became so distrusting of government and whatnot.
That's what Dilbert's all about.
Dilbert is a comic strip that started with the realization that everything is a lie.
Everything your boss tells you, everything the company tells the customers, everything the customers tell the company, everything the government tells you.
Everything.
It's all a lie.
And always has been.
And always has been.
It's just that it works.
You know, lots of times lying just gets stuff done.
And then stuff sort of works.
I mean, we're still alive.
We're still here.
I have a hypothesis.
I can't remember if I told you this on the show or maybe only the man cave, but why civilizations fail, you know, throughout history, there've been these big civilizations that we just find the ruins.
And then what the hell happened to the Roman empire?
If you, if you try to research, why did the Roman empire fail?
It'll be all these weird sort of Different reasons that don't quite map out in your head?
But here's my theory.
My theory goes like this.
That it's exceedingly rare for any civilization to become super successful.
So for every Rome, there must have been a thousand civilizations that were just small tribes and didn't make it.
So the normal situation is that everything dies.
Nobody really makes anything important.
They live their life in a small world.
They die.
It's just the rarest thing when all the elements come together that something can form a big civilization, a powerful regime over maybe a hundred years or something.
And the reason that they disappear is simple.
They weren't supposed to be there in the first place.
That's it.
The only thing that made them so successful was the weirdest coincidences that came together at the same time.
And there isn't any way that that can keep happening.
It takes extraordinary luck to be in the right place at the right time with the right set of variables.
And it just doesn't last.
It has nothing to do with how hard anybody tries.
It has nothing to do with, you know, did their society become decadent?
None of that.
It's just that there isn't any way that you could be so lucky for so long.
It's just not possible.
It's just a reversion to the mean and there's nothing else to it.
That's my theory.
It's just reversion to the mean because you really can't find anything in common with failed civilizations.
It looks like it's every different reason, which means everything had to be right to get what you got.
Let me give you another example of that.
When people talk about Trump getting elected in 2016, it seemed so highly unlikely.
And then some people will say, well, the reason he got elected is X. And then somebody else will say, well, I see what you're saying, but really the reason he got elected was Y. And it turns out you could do the whole alphabet as the reason he got elected.
If you change that one thing, he probably wouldn't have been elected.
And so my take on that is all those things had to happen.
If you take any of them away, it probably would have been the margin of, you know, victory goes away.
So, think about the coincidences that have to come together for a Rome, the coincidences that have to come together for a Trump victory, and now, leading into my next point, Lex Friedman had a guest on, and he asked him, talking about the simulation, and do we live in a simulation?
And the guest, I don't know his name, I see him on Twitter.
Sarnik, maybe?
Sarnik?
He said the odds that we're a simulation... Oh, I'm sorry, that's just his Twitter name, or ex-name.
His name is Roman Yampolsky.
And he says the odds that we're a simulation are nearly 100%, and one of the things that he offers as, not proof, but sort of a logical argument, is what are the odds that we would be alive at this point in history with everything that's happening?
Have you ever said to yourself, what are the odds that you were alive when computers were invented for the first time?
I was.
Smartphones?
First time.
AI?
Robots?
All in my lifetime?
Doesn't it seem to you that we're in a An insanely unlikely period of history?
What are the odds?
If you look at the entire history of humanity, not so good.
And then I find myself working the exact job that I imagined when I was six.
What are the odds of that?
What are the odds that one day the President of the United States would invite me to have a chat with him in the Oval Office?
That actually happened.
What are the odds that You know, I could post something on X and on any given day Elon Musk would retweet it or comment on it.
The richest person in the world, what?
We're running up to 8 billion people?
None of this seems possible.
It really doesn't.
If you were to say, does this seem more like a dream sequence or more like just the normal odds, it's way more like a dream sequence.
Way more.
Does anybody else feel that?
Obviously lots of people are having bad lives, but if you just take some characters, Elon Musk would be one, Trump would be another, and then in a very minor way, me.
People whose lives are so unusual that how do you really explain them as just chance?
It's pretty hard to explain.
Anyway, let's see if there's any more evidence that we're a simulation.
I'm going to ask you a question, and if we're a simulation, you're going to be able to answer this question without having any prior knowledge.
This will be how you know you're a simulation.
You ready?
Do you think you can do it?
Actually, I'm going to go first.
Go.
If anybody's new to the brilliance of my audience, this is going to impress you.
There it is.
I'm seeing the answer go by.
I haven't even asked the question and the answer is correct.
25%.
Now you have to round a little bit.
The correct answer is 24%, but I will take 25%.
Would you like to hear the question?
24% of Americans believe Biden could stay awake long enough to navigate a Cuban missile-like crisis, according to Blaze Media.
Right, you knew the answer before I asked the question, and I think that's proof of a simulation.
Or not.
But, yes, 24% of the public, roughly 25%, will get every survey question wrong in the stupidest possible way, and you can depend on it.
Now people always ask me, Scott, is it the same 25%?
Do we have a public where 25% of the same people are wandering around like nincompoops?
Well, yes, but it's not 25%.
It's probably closer to 60%.
And the 25% is not always the same.
So you could be in the 25% next time, but you wouldn't know it.
You would just think you were right.
And I could be in the 25% probably by the end of this show.
Anyway.
There's a photo of an ancient spacecraft.
Jason Wilde was posting this.
So discovered in Turkey.
It's a Toprakali relic.
It's a bronze artifact that looks exactly like a modern spacecraft.
Now you have to see it.
You know, I've seen these before, like in various ancient drawings and stuff on cave walls.
And somebody would say, look, look, it's a picture of a person in a spaceship.
And I'd look at it and say, hmm, maybe.
I can see how you'd say that's a spaceship.
But maybe it's something else.
Maybe they had something else in mind when they put it on that cave wall.
But if you see this thing, it's an actual three-dimensional piece of art.
It's a guy in a spaceship.
It's definitely a guy in a spaceship.
I don't know what to make of that.
Which makes me think maybe it's a fake or something.
I think it's probably more likely it's a fake relic than really there's a guy in a spaceship made in those times.
But I will say that the relic is unmistakably a spaceship this time.
You wouldn't look at it and say that might be something else.
No, it's a spaceship for sure.
All right.
I was watching the All In podcast and Tucker was on it.
I don't know when this was recorded.
Might be older.
I can't tell.
And he was talking about a small sliver of people who seem to have complete control of the Democrat Party, and the Democrat Party has a lot of control of the country.
So that's just a small sliver of people who are controlling everything.
Who are they?
When Tucker Carlson talks about the small sliver of the population that's controlling the country in a bad way, who's he talking about?
I want to see if you're on the same page.
Where's all the people who immediately say, Jews, Jews?
You seem to be able to work that into every conversation.
Well, it's hot today.
Well, have you seen who's behind the heat?
Usually I get that.
Well, the answer is women.
Yeah, educated women.
Tucker thinks that educated women who have some kind of mental problems are the biggest problem in the country.
And they're ruining the country.
Now, is that an old... Does anybody remember?
Maybe you know which video I'm talking about on the OlinPod.
Is that recent?
Or has it been saying that for a while?
Does anybody know if that was recent?
For some reason, I couldn't find the date on it, which is weird.
Alright, well, I think people are coming around to the idea that bat-shit crazy women are the base problem of the country.
And I wouldn't be surprised if that's what destroyed France and Great Britain.
Bat-shit crazy women.
Because nobody can say no to them.
And there are too many of them.
They just have too much power.
And Rachel Maddow, speaking of bat-shit crazy women, she was on some event in She's pretty sure that the real problem is not that the Republicans will be trying to put her in jail, but she's worried about the regular Democrats that he might round up and put in camps and stuff like that.
Now, the only thing I can say about that is that's batshit crazy stuff.
Batshit crazy.
And what do you do about that?
We have a world where you're not allowed to say, you know, women are the problem.
Not all of them, obviously.
But the batshit crazy ones that are Democrats are just breaking the whole system.
The pro-immigration women aren't just crazy.
They're destructive.
What in the world is that all about?
Now, I don't know what the percentage is of women versus men who are supporting uncontrolled immigration.
But if there's even one woman who's in favor of that, why?
Why?
Explain that.
It's a mystery.
Anyway, so the media and the Rachel Maddow's MSNBC are going hard, as we knew they would, on the Trump is Hitler.
He's going to round you all up.
It's going to be a dystopian nightmare.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And I've been suggesting the following idea as Trump's only way to combat that brainwashing, which is he's got to do an event that he goes and talks directly to Democrat citizens.
I would like to see him at lunch once a week, or at least just once, where he just sits with some ordinary citizens and says, you know what?
Your party says that if I get elected, I'm going to be Hitler.
I just want to talk to you and find out, do you really believe that?
And just have a normal conversation as a normal person and let them ask questions.
Because they might say stuff like, here's how I imagine it, but you want to have a federal ban on all abortions.
And Trump would say, no I don't.
I'm totally against that.
And then they would say, oh.
Well, I heard you were for it.
No, I'm actually completely against it.
I've been saying that for a while.
Oh, well, well, well, you also want to round up people.
No, I don't.
Why would I want to do that?
Why would I want to round up anybody?
Well, you mean the people who broke the laws?
Well, maybe even more than that.
Why in the world would I want to round up somebody who didn't break a law?
What possible reason would I have for doing that?
How is that going to be good for me or anybody else?
In what way do I make America better?
By rounding up non-lawbreakers?
Are you serious?
They told you that?
Well, but you said those people in Charlottesville were fine people.
What?
You believe that?
You think I actually stood in front of the world and praised neo-Nazis?
Because you heard it on TV?
No, I said directly, they should be condemned totally.
You did?
In the same time, they cut that part out.
Did you know they just deleted that part?
No way!
Are you serious?
Yeah.
Yeah, they literally just deleted out the part where I said I condemned them, so that they could say it was the opposite of what I said.
Did you know that?
I had no idea.
But, but, but, you said drink bleach.
I did?
Do you believe that?
Where did you hear that on the news?
The news told you that I was in favor of injecting bleach?
No, I was talking about a technology that was being proposed at the time for UV light therapy that they thought they could use a catheter to put down your throat and maybe radiate your lungs.
And they actually tested it about that same time.
So when I talked about disinfectants, I was talking about light, but I probably said it a little awkward way and they took it out of context.
Well, why did you say you were being sarcastic?
I just wanted the whole thing to go away because it wasn't important.
You know, it didn't work.
It became worse.
But, you know, I just didn't want to engage on it because I couldn't really explain this It's just something I saw in the news.
So imagine him having like a human conversation with people who have been told he was Hitler.
I don't know how it could go wrong, really.
I mean, unless one of the people at lunch was just crazy.
So you'd have to vet them a little bit, make sure they're at least reasonable people, you know, not crazies.
I think that seeing Trump Interact with normal Democrats with compassion and simply explaining to them that the news is completely fake would be the best thing he could do.
And I also think he can't win without it.
You think that he's on a glide path to winning?
I don't see that at all.
I don't see that at all.
I think his odds of winning are, at best, a coin flip.
At best.
You know, if you're thinking he's 70% chance of winning, you are so wrong.
He might win.
He might win.
But his odds are not really that good.
Because there's just too much going on.
And I'm going to tell you some more that maybe you were not aware of.
That will convince you that his odds of winning are not good.
And if I had to guess, He's the one who needs the Hail Mary pass.
Here's what everybody has wrong.
They think the Democrats are in disarray and that they need some kind of drastic Hail Mary, never done before, you know, quick change, rapid thing to get a new candidate in there.
You're missing the real story.
Trump is probably not going to win at the current rate.
He's the one who probably has to do something dramatic.
But now something crazy dramatic.
Something dramatically normal.
Something dramatically human.
So he needs to be dramatically human.
So that people can see that their own side has been lying to them.
Dramatically human.
That's his goal.
I don't think he can win without it.
Because the brainwashing is so strong.
How strong is the brainwashing?
How much power is on the other side?
I don't know.
Let's see what Tucker Carlson says about that, if I can make this work.
We'll just listen to Tucker.
So if you want to understand, if you really want to understand how the American government actually works at the highest levels, and if you want to know why they don't teach history anymore, one thing you should know is that the most popular president in American history was was.
Richard Nixon.
Richard Nixon.
Yet somehow, without a single vote being cast by a single American voter, Richard Nixon was kicked out of office and replaced by the only unelected president in American history.
So we went from the most popular president to a president nobody voted for.
Huh.
Wait a minute, you may ask.
Why didn't I know that?
Wasn't Richard Nixon a criminal?
Wasn't he despised by all decent people?
Yeah.
No, he wasn't.
What?
In fact, if any president could claim to be the people's choice, it was Richard Nixon.
Richard Nixon was reelected in 1972 by the largest margin of the popular vote ever recorded before or since.
Ever.
Gerald Ford.
Nixon got 17 million more votes than his opponent.
Less than two years later, he was gone.
He was forced to resign.
And in his place, an obedient servant of the federal agencies called Gerald Ford took over the White House.
How did that happen?
How did that happen?
Well, it's a long story, but here are the highlights, and they tell you a lot.
Richard Nixon believed that elements in the federal bureaucracy were working to undermine the American system of government.
Elements?
And had been doing that for a long time.
What elements?
He often said that.
He was absolutely right.
On June 23, 1972, Nixon met with the then CIA Director Richard Helms at the White House.
During the conversation, which thankfully was tape recorded, Nixon suggested he knew, quote, who shot John, meaning President John F. Kennedy.
Nixon further implied that the CIA was directly involved in Kennedy's assassination, which we now know it was.
Helms' telling response?
Total silence.
But for Nixon, it didn't matter because it was already over.
Four days before, on June 19th, the Washington Post had published the first of many stories about a break-in at the Watergate office building.
Unbeknownst to Nixon and unreported by the Washington Post, four of the five burglars worked for the CIA.
The first of many dishonest Watergate stories was written by a 29-year-old Metro reporter called Bob Woodward.
What?
Who exactly was Bob Woodward?
Yeah, who was he?
Well, he wasn't a journalist.
What?
Bob Woodward had no background whatsoever in the news business.
None?
Instead, Bob Woodward came directly from the classified areas of the federal government.
Uh-oh.
Shortly before Watergate, Woodward was a naval officer at the Pentagon.
He had a top-secret clearance.
He worked regularly with the intel agencies.
At times, Woodward was even detailed to the Nixon White House where he interacted with Richard Nixon's top aides.
Did he?
Soon after leaving the Navy for reasons that have never been clear, Woodward was hired by the most powerful news outlet in Washington and assigned the biggest story in the country.
He's a good interviewer.
Just to make it crystal clear what was actually happening, Woodward's main source for his Watergate series was the deputy director of the FBI, Mark Felt.
And Mark Felt ran, and we're not making this up, the FBI's COINTELPRO program, which was designed to secretly discredit political actors the federal agencies wanted to destroy.
What?
People like Richard Nixon.
And at the same time, those same agencies were also working to take down Nixon's elected vice president, Spiro Agnew.
In the fall of 1973, Agnew was indicted for tax evasion and forced to resign.
His replacement was a colorless congressman from Grand Rapids called Gerald Ford.
What was Ford's qualification for the job?
Well, he had served on the Warren Commission, which absolved the CIA of responsibility for President Kennedy's murder.
See how that works?
into accepting Gerald Ford by Democrats in Congress.
Quote, we gave Nixon no choice but Ford, Speaker of the House Carl Albert later boasted.
Eight months later, Gerald Ford of the Warren Commission was the President of the United States.
See how that works?
See how that works?
Any questions?
Remember the part where you said, we're in good shape Because Trump's got a good lead in the polls.
Do you know who else had a real good lead in the polls?
Richard Nixon.
You know who else had a real good chance of re-election?
JFK.
Do you know what two groups were suspicious of the CIA and wanted less of them?
Nixon.
JFK.
Yep.
That's the world you live in, folks.
Would you like to hear an update from RFK Jr.
talking about the assassination of his father?
Not JFK Jr., that's his uncle, but his father, Bobby.
His version is this.
And Sir En Sir En was waiting in one part of the building where he got shot.
And that wasn't the place that he normally would leave the building.
But for some reason, unexplained, the person who was sort of guiding him by the elbow took him to a unusual, you know, non-regular exit, where Sirhan Sirhan was waiting.
Huh.
Kind of a big coincidence that he was guided to the place where the killer was, which wasn't even the normal place.
And then what followed was Sirhan Sirhan shooting all of the bullets in his gun.
There were eight.
All eight bullets.
Now most of them were fired when people had already grabbed his gun hand.
So they weren't fired at RFK Jr., they were fired at the ceiling and maybe some other people, whatever.
But there were eight of them.
I mean, they know the gun has room for eight bullets.
14 bullets were shot.
This is RFK Jr.' 's take on it.
We know from the recording that 14 bullets were shot from the 8-bullet gun.
It would seem that the person who took him by the elbow blew his head off in the commotion.
So the suggestion is that the CIA made sure that Sirhan got it done because they had a second shooter to finish the job.
And the second shooter was probably the guy who held him by the elbow.
And as soon as the gun started shooting, and everybody started looking at the shooter, it looks like he just took a gun out of his pocket and blew Kennedy's head off.
Or something like it.
Now you say to yourself, how in the world could you be hearing this story now, if it's true, with all those witnesses and all that?
Well, that's a good question.
Seemed like there were a lot of people there.
Somebody would have seen something different.
But just think about the other things that you know are true.
It's not that unusual.
Unfortunately, it's not outside the realm of normal, ordinary government entity that they would have murdered him right in front of a group of people and you wouldn't know it.
I don't think that's unusual.
Don't think so at all.
So it does seem clear that the CIA has been running the operation at least since then, you know, at least since the 60s, maybe before.
And on paper, there's no way it could go any other way, because it's an entity that's trained to take over countries.
Of course they're going to do it.
It just doesn't matter.
It's just a matter of time.
But apparently it happened a long time ago.
Now, that doesn't mean that it's such a clean ownership of the country that they can just get everything they want right away.
You know, they have to go through their pretending and the acting like the process is working, and then when the time is right, they'll just give the nudge.
Now, you know, you probably said to yourself, how in the world did we get to this point where Biden was ever president in the first place?
Do you think that the CIA was unaware of Biden's dementia?
Of course they knew.
Of course they knew.
It's the CIA.
Do you think there was any doubt in their minds that they had a demented president?
Of course not.
If they wanted to change that, how hard would it be?
Simple.
They just go to the Washington Post, the New York Times, and they say, all right, we're anonymous sources, and we're telling you from the intelligence community that the president has dementia and he's got to go.
It'd be the easiest thing in the world.
Because those entities would say, all right, you're our normal source.
We trust you.
And you got some details.
All right, we'll write that story.
But that story never got written, did it?
And I think Mike Benz is correct.
The only reasonable explanation is that the intelligence community is using Biden as an empty vessel for whatever they need to do.
They apparently are getting what they need to do done.
So they didn't need a change.
I also think that, you know, 99% of the presidency is, the staff tells him what to do and he says yes.
So, we did choose, I think we proved that you don't really need a president.
Not that much, anyway.
You do need the president during the emergencies, but that's the same stuff the CIA handles, right?
If the president gets awakened at 3am, Somebody from the CIA is going to be in the room and tell them what to think.
Tell them what's true and probably tell them what to do.
So I think that's our government, that the intelligence people have control of the things that intelligence people control.
Not everything in the world, but you know, wars and geopolitical stuff and who gets elected.
I think that's all just the CIA.
Tucker said it directly on the All In pod that we're not a democracy.
Or even in the ballpark.
We're a group where there's a small group of unelected people who decide who can be in the primary and who's going to get elected.
And it's been like that for a long time.
So we're not a republic.
We're not a democracy.
Haven't been for a long time.
Now, how much is true about the stories about Nixon and the stories about Kennedy and the stories about the other Kennedy?
Well, if only half of it's true.
It's the same story, if only half of it's true.
Now, some of us have said for a while that we would know immediately when the CIA decided to turn on Biden and they needed to make a change.
And do you remember me saying that as soon as you saw Rob Reiner and Stephen King turn on him, that that was the signal?
Rob Reiner and Stephen King just turned on him.
So, almost like it was coordinated, they both said we're out.
Now, they're not voting for Trump, of course, but they're saying, uh-oh, we need a new candidate.
Coincidence?
Rob Reiner has some contacts in the CIA.
He's the head of some group that has two of the ex-CIA heads in it, so he's very connected.
Yeah, we know that from public documents.
You don't have to know research needed.
So to me, it looks like those those two are off the sinking ship.
Now, this gets us to our dead pool, the pool of who would be the most ridiculous celebrity who would be the last one to abandon Biden when it's so obviously he is mentally deranged.
And I'm going to go still.
This is my original guess.
With Punchy De Niro.
And the reason is I don't think he's a political asset.
I don't think he's an intelligence asset.
I think he's just crazy.
And so I don't think that mentally he can change his mind.
It may be just too hard.
So I still have him as the last celebrity who will abandon Biden.
Just because his level of crazy looks different than the others.
All right.
Let's see, what else is going on here?
In Semaphore, the publication Semaphore, there's talk about having a blitz primary, you know, a rapid-fire primary to get Biden replaced.
You know what the problem with that is?
That even today, Biden did a detailed letter announcement saying he's not quitting.
He's definitely not quitting.
Now here's the problem.
It really is sort of up to him.
Unless they kill him.
Unless they actually Kennedy him, it's him.
So, you know, I think there's a good chance the CIA will murder Biden, maybe make it look like an accident, you know, take him to the hospital, give him a shot, sort of thing.
So I'd say that the odds of Biden surviving to Election Day, Would be high if you're just talking about him being alive in his normal way.
His brain would be gone, but I think he'd be alive by election day, probably.
However, I think it's more like a coin flip.
I think the odds of the CIA killing him, just to make sure that they have time to put somebody else in there, it's pretty good.
It's pretty good.
Maybe, maybe 50% chance they'll kill him.
Now, I'm not in favor of that.
If I say it casually, it's because that's the world we live in.
The reason I say it casually is that is the world we live in.
That's not a fantasy.
By now there must be, guaranteed, conversations in the government about killing him.
Because if they killed two Kennedys, and if they took Nixon out, and they clearly tried to take Trump out, these are all intelligence assets, what would stop them from killing him?
We all expect he's going to die soon.
So you think if we heard that he had a heart attack on on Air Force One and then the CIA controlled whoever does the autopsy, you don't think they could get away with that?
How hard would it be?
Just give him a shot of something and control the autopsy.
That's it.
It's not even hard.
You could murder him so easily.
Just give him a little shot.
Control the autopsy.
Doctors say totally normal.
Man that age, completely expected he would have a heart attack.
So if he dies suddenly without a long illness, it's going to look like murder to me.
You've been warned.
So I'd say that's a coin flip.
And I don't think that there's time for any blitz primary.
I don't think Biden's going to quit.
And I'm going to go with Van Jones.
I think I said it before he did, but Van Jones is saying now that Kamala is the candidate one way or the other.
And people just have to sort of wrap their heads around it.
She's either going to be raised up to president, which Van would call the easy way, meaning if she could take over now, then it's a more natural transition to be the candidate because she would be the president.
It's natural.
She would have control of the funds.
You wouldn't have to do much work.
You know, it'd be fairly easy.
It'd be the easiest transition.
But Van says if you can't do it the easy way, Which is Biden steps aside.
You're going to have to do it the hard way, which is Biden's at the top of the ticket, but you convince people to vote because they're voting for Kamala.
Does that sound familiar?
That's my prediction.
My prediction is that when you flip the coin, it's going to land on the edge and stay there, meaning that we're going to have the Schrodinger's candidate, one dead and one alive, and you'll disagree on who you're voting for.
So two Democrats will walk into the voting booth.
They'll both vote for the Democratic candidate for president.
One will walk out with thinking he voted for Biden.
The other one will walk out with thinking he voted for Kamala Harris.
It'll be the same vote.
Schrodinger's candidate.
It's coming.
And on paper, there's no other way it can go.
I was listening, like I said, the All In pod, which is so influential.
I was listening to David Sachs say essentially the same thing, that there's the design of the current system, there isn't any way it's going to go a different way.
You know, you could say there's a wild card that, you know, Biden has a health situation that's worse than we've seen, and that's possible.
But in all roads, Kamala becomes a candidate.
So there is no road where she doesn't become the candidate.
So everybody who's doing, as Sachs calls it, wish casting, where you do the thing, okay.
And then Madonna comes in with Oprah, and between the two of them, they talk Michelle Obama into running, and no, no, none of that is going to happen.
They don't have the time, they don't have the will, they don't have the ability, but more importantly, they don't have the need.
They don't need to do anything.
Because their one and only acceptable situation, because the base wouldn't allow anything else, is that the DEI hire, Kamala, can't be skipped over.
So she's got the money, she's got the DEI hire, she's got the job.
It's her!
If you're fantasizing it's somebody else, stop.
And if you say to yourself, oh, but they would never do that, Because, you know, she's such a bad candidate.
Are you kidding?
Have you been paying attention?
They ran Biden.
You don't think that they'd run Kamala just because she's the second worst candidate of all time?
Every bit of indication is that they do want a weak, hollowed-out president like Kamala Harris.
As long as she's on their team.
That's all that matters.
And they'll handle the rest.
The fact that the stock market doesn't even react to the fact that we have two mentally incapable people vying for the top position.
I'm talking about the two Democrats here.
The fact that it doesn't even react, it's kind of a general acknowledgement that the important people, the ones with all the money, don't really think the president's that important.
In the final analysis.
All right.
Who else wants Biden to leave?
Let's see.
You've got Jerry Nadler saying that Biden should leave.
Now, if you're looking for signals that things have gone far enough, when Jerry Nadler says somebody should get out of politics for health reasons, Jerry Nadler, Jerry Nadler, Saying he should drop out for health reasons.
I mean, what's left?
Adam Schiff, no longer supporting him.
What do you know when you know Adam Schiff is no longer supporting Biden?
He didn't say drop out.
Schiff is just playing it shifty.
He's sort of non-committal at this point.
What's that tell you?
Well, would you expect that Adam Schiff is a regular Democrat?
No, he's one of the liars.
He's the pro liars.
He's not as bad as Jamie Raskin, Opposite Man.
When they send the Opposite Man out, it's so he can tell you the opposite of what's true.
It's all he does.
He doesn't ever do anything with nuance.
It's like, did it rain today?
No, it did not rain today.
Well, why is everything wet?
Why are the clouds dropping these things that look like wet things?
Well, but there's no water today.
Everybody can see it.
He's just opposite man.
Just like when they send out worse than Watergate guy.
It's not because he has a good opinions.
It's because they need the worse than Watergate guy.
So opposite man and worse than Watergate guy.
If you see them both come out, then the media is hiding a big one.
And Adam Schiff, I think, based on his actions, appears to be just an intelligence asset.
Would you agree?
Now, the only reason I say that is the way he acts.
He does things that don't look like a regular politician.
And he's also one of the, you know, the ones who will go into the skiff and tell you that he saw something that wasn't there.
I mean, that's pretty deep criminality without actually being illegal, I guess.
So there's no way he's a regular politician, right?
He's got some kind of connections with the intelligence community.
Otherwise, I can't imagine he'd even be there.
So if you're losing those guys and you're losing Rob Reiner and Stephen King, it would seem that the intelligence community has decided they want Biden out.
But I think they want Kamala Harris in.
So don't expect to see a rapid primary.
Very unlikely.
Boeing has pleaded guilty to criminal fraud for a couple of airplane crashes in which they
Conspired to defraud the government so I guess they lied to the government about maybe the details of that situation So that's going to cost them two hundred forty three million dollars which they'll make back in ten minutes because the industrial complex Military industrial complex will give them a ten billion dollar deal and then they'll be able to pay their fine to the government So I just assume all that's crooked.
I don't know that I just assume and Well, over in France, I've been trying to figure out what's going on over there, because it's a confusing place.
But here's what I understand.
You have multiple parties, not just two.
So, Macron's party was one of three that were, let's say, roughly equally powerful.
But his was in power.
People didn't like him.
The people on the right didn't like him.
The people on the far left didn't like him.
So there was an election and the one with the most votes Was the one on the far right, but their system apparently has some kind of runoff situation and What happened was the people on the far left?
Teamed up with I guess Macron's group so that they could pick their own leader So basically, if you had the two lesser loved groups together, they would have more powerful than the one group that's the most powerful.
Similar to how Fox News is the biggest news entity in the United States, But if you looked at it compared to all the other entities, they all lean the other direction.
So it doesn't matter that Fox is the biggest, it matters that they've got so many that they're still bigger, they can drown out Fox News.
So it's one of those situations.
So in other words, France managed to create a system that on paper would guarantee the destruction of their country, on paper, that you could do this kind of thing, which is Give the public exactly what they didn't ask for.
It's exactly what they didn't ask for, is what they got.
And the group coming in apparently is pro-immigration, so they could have more immigration, not less.
It was the main thing that activated them to be so excited about an election in the first place, and why they voted by very large numbers in favor of the losing group, even though they got the most votes.
So their system is pretty messed up and the current thinking is that they've created a log jam in their own government which will guarantee they'll never be able to do anything good again and immigration will just destroy them.
Now why is France destroying itself?
Do you think it's batshit crazy women there too?
Because I can't understand men doing it.
It's just not a male thing to do.
Men don't open their borders unless there's some woman behind them that's agitating for it.
Yeah, I don't really understand it at all.
So, France is dead.
Or as I like to say, I like to make this historical reference, Lafayette, we're over there.
All right, how many thought that was funny?
Lafayette?
We'll be over there.
No?
Okay.
All right.
There's a whole new round of Braindead Biden videos, my favorites, where he's mumbling and looking like he's lost.
And seriously, people, no joke.
No joke.
No joke.
And then he tells some lies and says, no joke.
And then he brags about his ice cream and his Ray-Bans, and he tells his three-dimensional stories.
Do you remember the story about how when Biden was done with this disastrous debate, he met with his supporters right after?
And he seemed to be talking coherently, somewhat, to the supporters.
And you said to yourself, wait a minute, why is he suddenly kind of coherent?
Did you recognize the story he told?
He was telling one of his pocket stories, one of the stories he just tells all the time.
I forget which one, but it was one of his standard stories.
And if you're a dementia patient, I'll take a fact check on this, I'm no expert, but don't you have long-term memory?
In other words, aren't you the most functional when you're telling a story that you've been telling for 50 years?
I think so.
I think you have trouble with stuff that happened this week.
But if you've been telling a story for 50 years, you can probably go to it.
So I think that when he got off stage, where everything was unknown, what the question would be, you know, it was like a Wild West situation.
As soon as he got off stage, he just they just probably said, and by the way, I don't think it was his idea.
I think somebody whispered in his ear, Joe, just just tell that, you know, story three.
Just tell story three.
Oh, yeah.
Story three.
Oh, I remember.
And then he makes up that same story.
So look for him doing whenever he's talking about something that happened a long time ago, look for him to look coherent, even though it's just an old man story.
But anytime he has to think on his feet, it's going to be a disaster.
Biden's doctor has been called in by Congress.
Apparently Biden's doctor had allegedly some involvement in the Biden crime family income.
Did you ever wonder how did you get a White House doctor that was not going to out the president for having dementia?
How loyal would you have to be that you would violate your oath?
I mean, clearly he's violating his oath.
Wouldn't you agree?
Is it safe to say that the White House doctor has clearly violated his oath?
I mean, he's doing harm.
He's doing harm to the country, doing harm to the patient.
I mean, you couldn't violate your oath any harder than that, because obviously he knew what the situation was.
Obviously, he has been lying.
Right?
Obviously.
I don't think there's any doubt about it.
So now he's being called in to be questioned.
Because there's some allegation that he received the money through the Biden crime family situation, which would explain everything.
If true.
There's a story that I wouldn't say is validated, but there's some individual who claims to have access to secret knowledge about what happened on Air Force One.
And allegedly there was a medical emergency in which Biden was hallucinating and they had to I don't give him an anti-psychotic or something.
I would say the odds of that being true are not zero, but I wouldn't give it a lot of credibility.
It's the kind of story that if you heard it about Trump, I would be saying, and who's the source?
And you'd say, well, anonymous source.
And then I would say, exactly.
An anonymous source says the worst possible thing happened when nobody was looking.
That's the story?
Really?
It's always the worst thing when nobody's looking.
So, if I had to bet on it, I'd bet against it being true.
But maybe only a 60-40.
Because there's a good chance he's having medical situations we don't know about.
Says he's good for employment, but he did get one black woman fired from her job.
Apparently the radio station in Philadelphia, in which he did a friendly interview recently, and the questions were given to the host to ask him, and she actually asked four of the eight questions that they gave her, and she got fired.
But I don't think that's fair.
As a person who's worked in the media, I don't think that the host who used the four questions should be fired.
Because isn't that unusual?
I don't think it was meant to be a hard-hitting interview.
It was meant to be a friendly.
And those are fine.
There's nothing wrong with a friendly interview.
Right?
Sean Hannity talks to Trump.
You don't see me bitching about that.
Right?
As long as there's also some hard ones.
Yeah, do all the friendly ones you want, there's not a problem.
So, to be fired for doing a friendly interview, and then also being honest?
Also being honest.
She said, yeah, I got the questions, I picked four of them.
She didn't hide anything.
Why did she get fired?
I think she got fired for being honest.
I don't think she got fired for using the questions.
What do you think?
I think she deserves her job back.
I don't think this is an appropriate firing whatsoever.
Now, it's a business decision, so they might have gotten so much heat they just had to do it, but I think this is totally unfair, and I think that the host should be rehired, and they should apologize.
Because what she did wasn't that far outside of normal behavior.
It's certainly not a firing offense.
And talking, I think she got fired for talking about it.
I don't think she got fired for doing it.
I think she got fired for talking about it.
They said it's for doing it, but I don't think that's real.
Yeah, no, that's unfair.
she should be hired back. Anyway, let's see.
What else we got going on here in this big old day?
Have you noticed that the biggest problem in the country is the debt crisis and neither candidate has any idea what to do about it?
Shouldn't we be worried about that?
That we have one obvious existential problem.
But here's what I wonder about.
I wonder if there's somebody somewhere in the government who has figured out it's not the problem we think it is.
Remember I provocatively said the following?
What if you just cancelled all the debt?
Just cancel it.
Just say, I know we're not going to pay.
Now, I'm not recommending it.
This is just a mental process.
Who would lose the money?
Are there any poor people who have government debt?
I doubt it.
The last thing you're going to, if you're poor, you're not, you're not buying government bonds.
So who does?
Let's say you're a middle-class person who wants to invest.
Where do you put your money?
Not in government bonds.
You probably have it in the stock market or real estate or something like that.
So then you keep going.
All right, rich people.
Rich people who have more money than they need to employ at the moment might park it in bonds just because it won't go wildly up or down.
It's just sort of a safe place to park some money.
It's all the parked money.
What would happen if you just said, all right, it's all gone.
We're not paying.
I'm not recommending it.
And I'm not predicting it.
I'm just working through the how much of a risk are we really at?
It's mostly going to be foreign governments who are parking money that they didn't need.
Am I wrong?
You wouldn't put it there unless you didn't need it.
That's the place you put the money you don't need.
So this is the most provocative question in the country.
But what would happen if we just said we're not paying it back?
Who would be out?
It would be people who didn't give back the money that they didn't need, because if they needed it, it wouldn't be there in the first place.
Now, they would become instantly poorer, you know, their buying power would go down, but you might even be able to, you know, work it out so there's some gradual payback or something.
All right, now let's take a hybrid.
How about we say, we're not going to pay you back in dollars.
We're only going to pay you back in crypto that we just made up.
And if you don't think it's worth anything, well, maybe it is worth something because we'll take it in payment for taxes.
So you can always exchange it to somebody who wants to use it in payment for taxes.
You might have to give up 5% just for the convenience or something, but you'll basically get most of your money back.
And you'll get it back in the timing you were going to when the vehicles mature.
Maybe you'd have to limit how much they could sell right away, because you wouldn't want people liquidating the entire trillions and trillions.
You'd want them to do it in an orderly fashion.
Now, the effect of that would be to inflate it away, right?
Because if you introduce this new money out of nowhere, it's sort of creating money out of nothing.
If you pay back all the loans, you've added money to the system.
But you would be adding it in a fairly orderly way.
And it would eliminate what is close to a trillion dollars a year in interest payments.
Which, by the way, still leaves us with a trillion dollars a year deficit.
We're still adding to the debt two trillion a year.
That's the new numbers.
If we took all the debt out, all the interest payments, it would take a trillion dollars off of our budget, and we wouldn't be anywhere near a balanced budget.
Only halfway there.
Now, If we got down to 1 trillion deficit, and somehow we magically took care of the 35 trillion that's already out there with some kind of crypto magic trick, could you survive with a trillion-dollar-a-year deficit?
No!
No, you couldn't.
No, you can't.
You would have to do something still radical to make that go away.
Now, radical could be growth.
For example, you could easily imagine that Trump comes in and he says, I'm not going to raise your taxes, but I'm going to raise taxes on robots.
Now, the public wouldn't even quite understand that.
They'd say, look, the robots are going to take your jobs, and anybody who can afford to have a robot is rich.
So if you buy or sell a robot, there's going to be an extra tax on there, or maybe even an ongoing tax on robots.
And that tax will help us get rid of that deficit.
Because a robot, in theory, should be so much more productive that you could pay a 10% tax on it and still be way ahead.
You're not going to come out.
Now, is everything I said sensible?
I doubt it.
Would any of what I said work?
Probably not, but here's what I'm adding.
If I've never described this before, let me describe it for you for the first time if you haven't heard this.
One of the things that people like me can add to the system, the system being the country in this context, what I add to the system is allowing you to think in a wider way than you were.
For example, When the pandemic first hit, I was among the first public figures, I think Jack Posobiec was there too, saying we need to close travel from China.
Do you know why I was doing it so loudly and screaming it?
Well, because it was an idea that people couldn't quite imagine as a possibility.
So somebody who's got less to lose and no sense of shame needs to go out there and scream the thing that seems impossible for anybody to even consider.
Because until you consider it, you can't possibly do it.
So you have to get used to considering something that's way outside the realm of ordinary.
If you need to do something, way outside the realm of ordinary.
And when it comes to our deficit, there is no ordinary solution.
You're going to have to do something you never did before, would never consider ordinarily, is one time ever, And it's so wildly improbable that even when I describe it, you shake your head and go, I don't know about that.
That sounds like it's coming with a lot of problems.
Right?
So the thing I can add is just make you think maybe there's some third way.
Maybe there's a crypto magic way.
Wouldn't be perfect.
It wouldn't be perfect.
But is there some other way?
And if the only thing it does is make you say, Scott, your idea is stupid for 10 reasons.
But you know what?
It does make me think of something that might work.
Let me run this by you.
That's what we're doing.
We're just brainstorming.
And in addition to brainstorming, we're moving the envelope a little bigger so that the people who can make decisions and do know what they're talking about, you know, let's say a Warren Buffett, Jamie Dimon, you know, somebody who knows what they're talking about.
Maybe they can come in and say, you know what?
That's a, that's a terrible idea, Scott.
But as long as you've reached, as long as you've stretched the envelope, Now I can talk about my idea.
It would have sounded batshit crazy until you were even crazier than I was.
Once you've set the standard of crazy, now I've got a place to play in.
This phenomenon is very useful.
Let me give you another example.
I always talk about my favorite news program on TV, The Five, on Fox News.
And one of the things I love about watching it is the design of the show.
I always say the producers of Fox News are just the best.
And one of the things they do really well is designing shows.
Who they put with who, you know, the groups of people that are on there, it's very good.
And one of the things that makes The Five just so much better than other shows, honestly, is Greg Upheld.
And what Gottfeld does is he always is stretching the limit of what you should say on TV and what you should say during a politically oriented show, which allows all the other people to play in the playground that he defines.
Because he takes the big risk and says, I'm going to say this, and then you can say something that you wouldn't have said before.
But if Gottfeld hasn't been fired yet, you're probably safe.
And you can see that effect playing out just really obviously.
So Gutfeld defines the space and keeps increasing it.
You know, he's making it bigger and bigger.
And then you see the other people who are great at what they do, but they're not necessarily the boundary stretchers.
So that team of five, I think Trump does this as well.
stretcher, and then between Dana Perino and Jesse Waters and whoever, then the judge and whoever else is on there, they can play within that space and they're much safer and freer to do all that.
It's the same thing.
I think Trump does this as well.
When Trump says, I'm going to close the border and build a wall and all that, whatever the extreme stuff is, he makes the boundary of what is in the conversation bigger.
And then the normal people can come in, the Rubios and the governors of Texas and the people like that.
Then they can come in and they've got a bigger play space.
But somebody has to stretch it.
You know, I'm doing it here.
Gutfeld does it on the five.
Trump does it in politics.
You need a stretcher and then you need really capable people who can play in that new playground.
So that's what's happening.
All right.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the conclusion of the greatest live stream you're going to see all morning.
And if you'd like to know what else is going on, let's check the stock market.
Tesla is up.
NVIDIA is up.
Nanonuclear energy is up another 11%.
I sold too soon.
Let's see what else is happening.
Bitcoin's down.
So Bitcoin's had a rough month.
And the S&P is up just a tiny, tiny bit, and Apple's falling back a little bit.
Not much, I mean, 0.1.
So the story on Apple is their next update will not have a new version of S-I-R-I.
I can't say it because my phone's in my hand.
They will have AI in their new release that's coming out soon, in the fall.
But you're going to have to wait till the spring, some people are saying, for the main voice of your Apple phone to be updated into an AI context.
That's a really long time.
And, you know, I hate to bet against Apple, but boy, are they vulnerable to somebody coming in with an AI native phone.
You know, one that was built to be an iPhone from the ground up.
And maybe it's connected to... Starlink.
Maybe.
You never know.
So that's what's happening today, ladies and gentlemen.
That's the end of my show.
I'm going to go talk to the local subscribers, as I always do.
And thanks on X and on Rumble and on YouTube.
By the way, thank you to Rumble.
Because when I do good shows, my Rumble numbers are way up.
So on Rumble, which is way, way smaller than YouTube, if I have a pretty good show that people want to show, I might get 10,000 viewers.
On YouTube, I'll get reliably about 30,000.
Not live, but watching the recorded version as well.
If I do a great show on YouTube, I'll get 31,000 viewers.
It'll go from 30,000 to 31,000 if I really nail it.
On Rumble, if I have a good show, it goes from 9,000 to 75,000.
You know, like the actual real market should work.
Like if somebody likes it, they recommend it, and then more people see it.
You know, the way actually things should work.
But for some reason that I just can't figure out, my YouTube numbers just always say the same.
And weirdly, even as my number of subscribers has zoomed from, you know, 10,000 to over, what, 165,000 now?
10,000 to over, what, 165,000 now?
165,000 subscribers, and my average daily number of viewers, flat for years.
Totally natural, right?
When my Twitter slash X numbers went from nothing to 1.1 million.
My local subscribers went from nothing to over 11,000 and growing every day.
But my YouTube channel, hmm, that YouTube traffic just stays about the same.
Now, just to be technical, a couple of them did go bigger.
But it was rare Yeah, it was rare So keep an eye on that.
Anyway, so I'm gonna go talk to the locals people.
