God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, AI Lie Detection, Free Will, Addictive Social Media, Musk Interviews Trump, X Sues GARM, Governor Josh Shapiro, Marbled Antisemitism, Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, Tik Tok Election Influence, The Simulation Evidence, 2020 Georgia Election Irregularities, Maricopa Voting Rolls, America First Legal, Lara Trump, Poll Watcher Volunteers, Trump Freedom Stealing Smear, Jessica Tarlov, Drinking Bleach Hoax, Hamas Leader Yahya Sinwar, 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
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that no human can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tankard, chalice, or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure The dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go!
Oh, delightful.
Delightful!
Okay, people.
How about a little news update, and then we'll get into vice presidential pick and all the stuff about politics.
Well, the New York Post has a story that There's a new theory about how the pyramids got built and maybe they used, apparently there was a lot of water in that area back in the pyramid building days.
There were rivers and canals and they may have used the rivers and canals to power the building of the pyramid.
So they may have been harnessing the water power to help them lift the heavy blocks.
I'm not sure exactly how they harnessed it.
But if I were building a pyramid, let me tell you how I would do it.
I would start with, uh, build a canal where I could float all the big rocks.
So if you, if you wrapped enough water around them, I think they'd all float.
So you float your big rocks from the quarry right up to the pyramid, but now you got to get the rock up to the top of the pyramid.
How do you do it?
Well, I don't know, but the way I'd do it,
I'd have the center of the pyramid always empty, like there's a big column in the middle of it, and I would have an underground canal so that I could move those big blocks that are floating on wood into the middle of the pyramid, and then I would close off the place that the block came from, and I would fill the column with water.
And it would float those big blocks all the way up to the top of the pyramid, whatever has been built so far, and then you just take it off and put it where you want it.
So you could actually float the blocks to the top if you sealed off the column and allowed the pyramid just to be a big column of water, and you just put the water in there.
So, maybe?
But there could have been other mechanical ways they harnessed the water power too.
There are new scientists who claim that you can use AI to detect intelligence, sexual preference, and political leaning just by looking at faces.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that you can tell with high level of accuracy somebody's intelligence, sexual preference, and political leaning just by their face?
How many believe that you could Not every time, but you can usually tell by their face.
I do.
If you can't tell those things by looking at people's faces, there's something wrong with you.
You're missing some kind of social skill.
Yes, of course you can tell those things.
It takes you about all of one second to tell somebody's general intelligence by looking at them.
You know it's true.
Now, sexuality, if they're not hiding it, it's usually easy to tell.
If they're hiding it, it's hard, of course.
And political leanings?
Weirdly, yes.
Weirdly, yes, you can tell people's political leanings.
But that's not the fun part.
Here's the fun part.
It can detect lies.
Now, I haven't seen anybody do it yet.
But I guarantee that if humans can do it, and you've seen me do it a million times, right?
The tells for lying are very clear.
I was watching, who was it the other day?
Chris Murphy, who supports Harris, Democrat.
I was watching him with the sound off, and when he gets to the lying part, his eyebrows go way up and his eyes get wide.
And then he delivers the lie that he knows is a lie and you know it's a lie, but if he opens his eyes really hard, maybe he can make you believe the lie that he knows is a lie and you know is a lie?
They're really obvious!
So yes, AI will be able to determine who's lying.
And I don't think we're ready for that.
Do you think we're ready for that?
Because it's going to be pretty accurate, except for the people who really practice their lies.
Those would be hard to detect.
Anyway, science has also determined that there's a key brain chemical that determines whether you choose to exercise or eat some unhealthy snacks.
That's pretty specific.
So in rats anyway, they can tell if the rat will want to do physical activity or just indulge in a treat based on how much of this one brain chemical is there, something called orexin.
Now, they haven't tried this on human beings, but the thinking is that they could change your desire to exercise versus snacking based on how much you change this chemical composition in the person.
But do you know what the real story is?
It's yet more proof that we don't have free will.
If you had free will, why would it matter how much of this chemical you had in your brain?
Because your free will would just say, I choose to exercise.
Or it might say, I choose to eat an unhealthy snack.
But if you have free will, how could it possibly be affected by a chemical in your brain?
No, you don't have free will.
Free will has always been the most persistent illusion in all of humanity.
And we imagine we have free will because it allows us to not go crazy, I guess.
But no, you don't have any free will.
I think I first realized that I don't know how many decades ago, but when scientists said, you know what?
I think some people are born with a tendency to be gay.
To which I said, well, wouldn't that mean they don't have free will?
And then science said, you know what?
It turns out that people who become addicts and alcoholics are genetically different.
In other words, there's some genetic inclination to addiction.
To which I said, well, I thought they could just choose to be addicted.
They got their free will, don't they?
And eventually you realize that everything we attribute to free will will eventually be identified as a chemical state, and then you'll realize it doesn't exist.
And then you'll have to deal with that.
So I'm getting you ready decades in advance.
You're welcome.
All right.
Another thing that science found out is that your moral values could change with the seasons.
So the seasonality, and this has been studied at UBC study, has revealed there are regular seasonal shifts in people's, there are regular seasonal shifts in moral values.
Huh.
Let's see, if your moral values can shift based on, I don't know, sunlight and diet and temperature, that sounds a little like you don't have free will.
Huh.
You might notice, eventually, that 100% of science is all in the same direction on free will.
Every bit of it.
Every single thing that they discover about humans reduces what you could imagine was their free will.
It has always been an illusion.
Hypnotists learn that in day one.
In day one, the hypnotists learn That we imagine free will, but we're just program machines, basically.
You can't really even be a hypnotist unless you understand that free will is fake.
You might be amazed to find that there's a new study that says no amount of drinking alcohol is good for you.
Huh.
Who told you that first?
Me.
20 years ago for the first time, probably.
But yes.
There's no amount of alcohol that's good for you and there's a new study that says that it is a carcinogen and your odds of getting basically every kind of cancer goes way up if you've had any alcohol at all.
So any amount of alcohol increases substantially your risk of cancer.
So don't say I didn't warn you!
Here's another one.
There's a teen that's suing Metta.
So that would be Instagram and And Facebook, for $5 billion for being addicted by Instagram.
So there's a 13-year-old New York girl, and she's filed this suit.
It's a class action suit, so it would be on behalf of all the other people as well.
And it argues that Meta implemented addictive features, the like counts and the stories, despite knowing they could harm teens' mental health.
And it used manipulative tactics.
Now, what part of this is not common knowledge?
Would you say it's common knowledge that the social media platforms use science to figure out what is most addictive?
Well, yes.
Yes, of course.
So nobody's questioning that basic fact, right?
It's really the DNA of all social media, that it's addictive.
So if you know it's addictive, And then secondly, the claim is that Meda knew it was addictive and therefore harmful to teens' mental health.
Do you think that they can prove in the lawsuit that Meda was aware of the effects it would have on mental health?
I think so.
I think they can do that.
And then I say to myself, okay, but is this really an important lawsuit or is it just somebody's taking a run at some free money and you'll never hear about it again?
Well, it turns out that the lawyer representing the minor is famous lawyer David Boies.
Now, if you haven't heard that name, it's because you're not enough of a legal geek to know that there are some names that are associated with big cases.
He's one of those names that's often associated with big cases, and he's one enough that he can be on big cases.
So it could be a really big deal.
What would happen if social media had to remove their addictive qualities?
What would be left?
But it also asks a bigger question.
Aren't all products addictive?
Even if you're not trying to make them addictive.
Everybody who makes a product of any kind that would cause you to spend your time doing one thing versus another.
There's some kind of attractive addictive quality if you're going to use it more than once.
So, on one hand, I'm kind of fascinated and interested that somebody might be able to make a case out of it.
On the other hand, there's definitely an unintentional effect that could come from that.
Like, you know, I'm looking at basically everything in my room and I think, well, I mean, I'm addicted to my coffee.
I'm addicted to creating these live streams.
I mean, I get such a kick out of doing this every morning that I'm addicted.
Chocolate?
Yeah, chocolate's addictive.
Food's addictive.
So I don't know how far you can take this lack of free will, I can addict you thing.
Because if you prove that nobody has free will, well, then your whole legal system's in trouble.
So we have to at least pretend we have free will.
All right, there's a report that Elon Musk is going to host Donald Trump on the X platform doing a Spaces.
This does not indicate that Trump is coming back to X. That would be a whole separate conversation, which I don't think is happening.
But my guess is that Trump contractually, or at least ethically, can't leave Truth Social.
Because if he left Truth Social, all the other stockholders would get nailed, and I don't think he can do that ethically.
But he may also have a contractual agreement that he can't go back to X, because that would be bad for the platform.
So he's got billions of dollars at stake in not going back to X, so I wouldn't expect it.
And it doesn't seem to make much difference, because everything he says on Truth gets picked up on X anyway.
Anyway, the other Musk news is that the X platform and Linda Iaccarino, if I'm saying her name right, the head of X, have announced they're going after the GARM.
I forget what the letters stand for, but that's the big group of people who allegedly were behind some anti-competitive behavior.
Maybe even Ricoh.
could be so bad, in which they organized boycotts of advertisers to suppress free speech, say X and Musk and Yacarino.
Now, is that something that really happened?
Was there an organization that organized to suppress free speech?
Yes, that is easily provable public knowledge.
They were an entity.
We know all the people.
We know what they did for a living.
We know that they did organize to take down X. We know why.
It was because they didn't like the free speech.
They would say it's disinformation, but of course that's free speech.
So, and Rumble has, Rumble CEO says they've joined in on this.
This could be a really big deal.
Because I don't see how they could lose.
They have the goods.
I mean, it's basically public information at this point.
So how did they lose that?
We'll see.
But the important thing is that Musk decided to stop trying to play nice.
And he's just going to sue them out of business.
And just take the piss out of them.
Some people are wondering why the ADL was not included in this.
Maybe they'll be included later.
But the ADL is part of the, uh, censorship, bad behavior, bad actor, uh, world.
So, uh, if, if you weren't aware of how bad the ADL is, you should be, I'm sure they've done some good, good things in the past.
Uh, I wouldn't discount that, but at the moment they're more of a Democrat, you know, uh, attack dog kind of organization.
All right, let's talk about the new VP choice for Harris, Tim Walz.
So he got introduced at a big event, and we'll talk about all the things.
But the first speaker was Josh Shapiro, who many people, including me, believed was already picked to be the VP choice.
That turned out to be fake news, which I fell for.
So if you're keeping track, and you should, keep track of how many times I fall for fake news.
But also keep track of how many times other people fall for it.
Now, I don't remember what language I used when I talked about it, but I talked about it like it was sort of a done deal but, you know, not confirmed officially.
I went too far.
I should have said, this is not a confirmed thing, but somebody's making this claim and here's why.
So, I think I've failed you.
On detecting that bullshit.
So I present myself as good at detecting bullshit, but that one slipped past my filter.
So you should first of all hold that against me.
Like literally, but you should also look at the totality of things I predict and call bullshit on and just see how the total record is.
One of the claims I would never make is that I'm always right in my bullshit detection.
Nobody would make that claim.
The best you can do is, you know, better than other people, I guess.
You know, if you could do it better than other people, you're amazing.
I don't know if I do it better than other people.
You can be the judge, but I missed that one.
So keep that, put that on my permanent bad record.
All right.
So here's what I had heard about Josh Shapiro was that he was a great orator and he would have been a stronger, stronger vice president.
Though he was not chosen, and we have a little disagreement about why.
Some people say it's because he was Jewish, and the anti-Semitic population within the Democrat Party made that a problem.
And as Van Jones points out, the anti-Semitism is marbled into the Democrat Party.
Which, by the way, is a fantastic choice of words.
So, Van Jones.
So, Van Jones, you know, said the anti-Semitism is marbled in and they need to work on that.
You know, they're going to have to figure out how to deal with that.
I love the honesty of that.
But, and then I think other people, you know, other Republicans, etc., are saying that they think that's the reason that he was not picked.
Is that he's Jewish.
But then the, let's see, the David Axelrods want us to believe the real reason he wasn't chosen is that when he met with Harris he was a little bit too alpha and too much, I think they use the term, main character energy.
Meaning he looks too much like he should be considered as a future president because he has too much skill.
So that it would be an uncomfortable fit with Harris, who's maybe not the strongest political figure we've ever seen.
And that maybe he asked for too much power.
You know, these are all rumored things that we can't confirm.
And maybe that it just didn't seem like the right fit.
So it could have been a combination of just knowing that the The marbled antisemitism wasn't going to work out for him, and maybe also knowing that he wasn't quite the right personality fit, and maybe you save him for a future presidential run, which I think would be the smart play.
Now, I had never heard Josh Shapiro speak, and I'd heard somebody say, It's something I completely dismissed.
Somebody told me he speaks like Obama.
Do you know what my reaction to that was?
Sure.
Yeah, okay.
Yeah, he talks like Obama.
That this Jewish guy from Pennsylvania is going to sound like Barack Obama.
And I'm supposed to believe that.
And so I listened to him talk, and I'm sitting here at home saying, Uh, he doesn't just talk like Obama.
You know, he has the, the hope and change kind of rhetoric, you know, in that, in that general category.
I thought that when people said he sounds like Obama, there was more of a vibe.
And I even thought that the vibe was a little overselling it.
It's like, no, he doesn't have a, he's not gonna have a Obama vibe.
I was so wrong.
It's not the vibe.
He does an impression of Obama.
He does an actual verbal impression where if you were listening at home and nobody told you it was Josh Shapiro, you would actually think it was Obama's voice.
It's an actual impression of Obama.
Now that, do you think he's aware of that?
I wonder.
I mean, it could be that he's just a big fan and he was influenced and, you know, maybe picked up some of the techniques and went too far and it just sounded a little too much like Obama.
But it's so strange to hear him do an actual impression of Obama.
Now, if it sounds like I'm criticizing that, you're hearing it wrong.
I'm going to compliment him on that.
Let me tell you my secret for becoming a famous cartoonist.
If you've never heard me say this before, you know, people would ask early in my career, what's the secret of how you developed this popular cartoon?
And I would say, honestly, I would do my best job I could of copying good cartoonists.
But I would be so bad as an artist that when I tried to copy other cartoonists, you couldn't tell I was copying them.
Because I wasn't good at copying.
But because I took something from those other cartoonists, when I tried to copy them, and maybe combined a few of them that I liked into my copying, it looked original.
If you look at the Dilbert characters and then you look at Sergio Aragonés' work in Mad Magazine, he would draw the little Mexican guys with the Mexican hats in the margins of Mad Magazine when I was a kid a million years ago.
If you look at the far side, the characters have no necks, like Dilbert characters.
Yeah, I was just copying those two guys, basically Gary Larson and Sergio Aragonés.
But if you look at Dilbert, you'd say, what?
It doesn't look like you copied anything.
It's because I'm a bad copier.
So being a bad copier of somebody who is extraordinary is a really smart thing to do.
So I'm not criticizing Shapiro whatsoever.
If he can do an impression of Obama and he can nail it, and people who liked Obama say, I like what he's saying.
I don't know why I like it.
It's reminding me of something, but it makes me feel good.
It's brilliant.
So I would really worry about Shapiro if you're a conservative and you're worried about future elections.
He does have the goods.
He absolutely has the goods, even though he's copying.
Perfectly acceptable technique.
I don't have anything bad to say about that.
Anyway, he was a clear superior choice.
I can see why he was a little too strong.
I favor the combination explanation.
It probably had something to do with anti-Semitism, and it probably had something to do with he's too strong a character.
Probably both.
So then Kamala Harris did her long introduction, and she introduced DeWaltz.
And here's what I saw.
I thought both of them looked drunk.
Now, I can't confirm.
I mean, I don't know that they imbibed anything.
But they acted drunk.
They did the laughing uncontrollably about nothing that was especially funny.
And the weird thing is that Walsh tried to pace and copy Kamala Harris.
Now that's a bad idea.
So when Kamala Harris is on stage and he's standing behind her waiting to be introduced, she goes into a cackle.
It looked drunk to me like, And then her vice president pic standing behind her, Walz, he imitates her cackle.
And he does this completely unnatural looking over laugh.
In the background, like you go, what is wrong with him?
Is that his normal laugh?
Or is he actually copying?
It looked like he was just pacing her, you know, matching her.
So he was matching her energy, so she went into drunk cackling.
He went into drunk cackling.
It was the weirdest thing to see.
So then she slurs, slurs her way through the speech like that.
To me, it sounded drunk.
And then the weird thing is that while she was talking, after he did an impression of Kamala Harris cackling, He goes into a spontaneous impression of Joe Biden's vacant, brain-dead look.
Did you see it?
I have to take my glasses off to do it.
But I'm going to give you an impression of a face that he settled into while Kamala Harris was talking that he didn't even look like a living human being.
What the hell was that?
All right, here's the face.
What is that?
Yeah.
His mouth just went open like Hillary Clinton looking at the balloon drop, but with the dead face that Biden has.
I mean, I swear to God, it looked like he was channeling Biden up there, looking like he had dementia or something.
And then he snapped out of it.
When he gave his talk, he was actually very good.
So if I'm going to judge him as a public speaker, A+.
Good, good, good, good public speaker.
And I wouldn't discount his capability as a politician.
Very strong.
But weird.
Weird as hell.
So we've got Shapiro, or Josh Shapiro, who is channeling Obama.
Then you've got Tim Walz, who's channeling Harris.
And then he's back there channeling Biden.
You really don't know what you're getting, do you?
There's no way to know what you're getting, because they just seem to be copying each other and pretending and playing some kind of weird characters.
And of course, their policies have all changed.
You know, Harris has reversed her policies.
So you don't know her policies or personality.
You don't know if she's drunk or sober.
You haven't heard her talk and answer questions.
Yeah, the key is the less you know about them, the better they'll do.
Then we did learn that Walsh is a giant liar, which makes him perfect for campaigning.
He just lied a bunch of shit about JD Vance.
Now the whole JD Vance lie about having sex with a couch, that's not based on any real thing that he ever said or did.
Well, as far as we know.
But do you think that Walsh is not aware That that's fake.
Do you think he's not aware?
Well, I think he's aware.
And I think that both sides do this.
It's what I call recreational beliefs.
Meaning there's some stuff that you just throw to your base because they want to pretend they believe it.
You know, Trump does the same thing.
And I would say that's a recreational belief.
So if you get yourself all caught up in trying to debunk it, Like that's not true.
You're lying about that couch.
Well, you're sort of being pulled into their trick.
Cause if you're talking about whether he did or did not fuck a couch, you're not really promoting your side.
So it's basically draining your energy away into something ridiculous that doesn't matter.
And they don't believe so debunking.
It doesn't make any difference anyway.
All right.
He's being sold by the left as having Midwestern folksy values.
So they're all trying to paint him as this Midwestern, he's-the-most-ordinary-not-left kind of guy.
But of course he has a number of views and policies that are really left.
So he does cover a span.
He's apparently okay with the NRA, or let me say it a different way.
The NRA actually gave him a good vote for being pro-gun.
So he's a gun owner, he's been in the military.
Looks like he's a hunter, I think.
So he's good on guns, and he's got that Midwestern stuff, but he's got a lot of stuff we'll talk about that's not so Midwestern ordinary stuff.
All right.
To me, the funniest thing last night was watching what I'll call the anti-white pundits, mostly on CNN, trying to say how excited they were about this old white guy.
Because I don't think they were excited about an old white guy.
But they had to act like they were, and watching them struggle to come up with words that kind of were supportive, But didn't really reveal, you know, it's kind of hiding what their real feelings were.
So it was really funny watching them try to navigate that.
Anyway, and then some are saying that Wallace was selected so they could get the white male vote.
All right, I'd like to talk to my white male viewers here.
How many people think that they would vote For Kamala Harris, because she picked a white guy to be vice president.
Is there even one person in the entire United States who would say, you know, I didn't know who to vote for, but because I'm racist, this is not me.
I'm doing an impression of somebody else because of a person might say that because they're racist.
They're really happy that Kamala Harris has a white man picked as her vice president.
So in order to feel better, the alleged racists would vote for the brown woman so they could have a vice president who's like them.
There are zero white people who would do that.
There's not a single, I don't think one.
I don't think you could get one person in the United States who would say, you know, I'm a white man.
And I was a little uncomfortable with Kamala Harris, but now that she's got a vice president who agrees with her on everything, now I'm convinced.
I'm going to go for that package.
So, I don't know, is there something wrong with the pundits?
Or are white men especially completely misunderstood in this country?
Who would really think that that would change anybody's vote?
It's kind of jaw-dropping that that's even a possible conversation.
Anyway, no, he's not going to change anybody's vote because he's white.
He might lose some votes, but it's not going to gain him any.
All right, so we're going to be struggling over the question of whether he's super lefty or middle-of-the-road.
The Democrats want to paint him as middle-of-the-road.
I think he insists he's a moderate.
Indirectly insists that.
All right, but here's some of the things he's been accused of.
I don't know how many of these are true.
Some of these may be out of context.
We'll learn later.
But these are the attacks that are coming against him.
That he waited three days before deploying the National Guard to quash the BLM riots.
So he is being accused of being a little too favorable to the rioters and not having the right empathy for his own state when he could have stopped it sooner.
But of course, he'd have an argument Maybe bringing in the military would have caused more trouble.
I don't know.
He has some argument for that.
But the people who live there are not too happy that for three days they had to endure the rioting when he could have stopped it sooner, they think.
Apparently he created a COVID snitch line so that, again, you might find that the context for all these are a little bit lacking, because these are accusations.
So don't assume any of these are true or completely in context, but it's just what the attacks are.
So he had a COVID snitch line, they say, so you could turn in your neighbor for being not vaccinated.
I don't even know if I believe that at all.
I mean, it sounds like something somebody would have done.
So that sounds terrible.
Some say he's doubling down on drugs and surgeries for kids and teens.
So he would be a little too much pro-transitioning for children.
That would be a complaint about him.
He's allegedly got a DUI when he was 30.
And part of his excuse was that he lost his hearing in the military, so he didn't hear the siren.
I don't think anybody believes that.
Or he didn't see it or something.
Then the worst one is that he was in the National Guard for years, but when the Iraq War broke out, he suddenly decided that was a good time to retire, claiming that he had always planned to do it about then and run for politics.
But people who did not retire and stayed in and got deployed to Iraq are saying something more along the lines of, you freaking turd, you have no loyalty, we all got deployed, you left.
And again, is there some more context to that that I don't know?
Maybe.
Maybe.
I would say for all of these attacks, you should ask yourself, am I missing any context?
These might not all be true.
And let's see, he's pro-abortion without restrictions, which makes conservatives say that he's going to let babies born alive and let them die after they're alive.
I think there might be Some context to that missing.
But I don't like to get into the abortion question, because I think that's for women to work out, not for me.
All right, apparently he created, Tim Walz created a DEI council as soon as he got into, the Daily Wire is saying this, as soon as he got into office saying that America was systemically racist, and he pushed the diversity, equity, and inclusion thing really far.
And to me, of course, that's completely disqualifying.
Completely disqualifying.
Yeah, we'll talk about that.
I'm seeing a comment about me on there.
Then there's this weird video of after he gave his speech, That his wife came on stage, this is Tim Walz, and she comes up to him, and how do you greet your wife when you're a political candidate who has just been introduced to the world, and you're standing on stage and she comes up and everybody's clapping and celebrating?
What would be the typical way you'd greet your wife?
Well, I'm no politician, but I would think something like a kiss on the lips, you know, unless there was some maybe, maybe some lipstick issue going on there, maybe at least on the side of the face.
A hug, you know, a real deep hug, something like that.
He chose a handshake.
He shook hands with his wife.
And then she went in for the hug.
And he gave her the No Naughty Bits hug.
Have you ever hugged somebody who definitely didn't want your sexuality to be part of the hug?
And they just do the lean-in hug, where the only part that's touching is the top of your chest.
It's like not even breasts.
It's just like the top of your chest touches a little bit, but your groin area is two feet apart because you're both leaning in.
That's how he hugged his wife.
After he shook her hand.
What the hell is going on there?
I don't know.
All right, the other big thing is that he's big on China.
Oh, he also signed a bill redefining the term sexual orientation to include pedophiles.
So what that means is that there was a bill in his state To prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, but under his administration they included sexual orientation to include pedos, so that you could not discriminate against somebody for being a pedophile.
All right.
Okay.
Anyway.
Now, I'm just going to say it out loud.
He gives me a feeling that I don't have any evidence for.
I just get a feeling from him.
Now, I heard from other people that they got the same vibe, and I don't have any, you know, information that would suggest that any of this is true.
I'm just saying he gives me kind of a Kind of a vibe.
So he's been a teacher and a coach.
So he's chosen careers that put him in contact with children.
And he just has a vibe about him.
So that's my only statement is he has a vibe.
I will note that it seems like the deep state really, really prefers people they can blackmail.
Now again, I don't have any evidence of that, and I don't have evidence that he has anything he could be blackmailed for.
None whatsoever.
But keep an eye on that, because it just seems like a weird coincidence that so many people in politics look like, well, that's exactly the list of people I would think would be most blackmailable, and yet they seem to have these prominent roles.
So, I don't know.
I just keep an eye on it.
Now, Wallace also has this weird China connection.
He's allegedly been to China 30 times.
I don't know if that's confirmed.
He worked there.
So he worked there for a time, teaching, I guess, around children.
And he honeymooned there.
Who honeymoons in China if you've been there dozens of times?
Does that make sense?
Does that sound like your romantic honeymoon destination?
Well, I mean, he's got a strong connection to China, so maybe it made sense to him.
But here's the thing we can know for sure.
We know that Walsh has a strong connection to China.
I'll say connection, because he's been there so many times, and he's worked there.
Strong connection.
And then he set up some kind of a student exchange program when he was in America.
So Americans, and I think Americans can go there.
So there's that.
So he seems to have a strong connection to China.
And you would think that China would really appreciate that, wouldn't you?
If you were China, wouldn't you love to have an American vice president who could become president someday?
Wouldn't you love that he had a strong connection to your country?
Well, I think you would.
I mean, that would be a lot safer than somebody who didn't.
And we also know that China controls TikTok.
We also know that TikTok has something called a heat button, which if you push it, it makes something trend more obviously.
So you can basically control the brains of Americans, young Americans, mostly, by any little tweak to TikTok.
And we know it literally brainwashes people.
You know, you can see on X people are being, well, on the meta platform, there's a lawsuit because it's addictive.
Addictive and persuasive are pretty closely related.
If there's some information source that's addictive, I can tell you in advance it's persuasive.
Scott, there's a thing that's addictive.
Everybody can't stop looking at it.
Do you think it's persuasive?
Yes!
Yes!
Obviously!
Super, super persuasive.
I don't have to study it.
If you're addicted to it, it's persuasive.
There's no way around that.
There's no way you could be addicted to it and it not be persuading you.
That's not a thing.
We have no information that would suggest that China has told TikTok to push any buttons.
We just know that they have a gigantic national interest in it, in, you know, controlling thoughts in America.
We know they have the ability because they can simply tell them to push the button.
Now, let me describe it the way I described it in the man cave the other day.
The CEO of TikTok says, no, they don't tell me what to do.
That might be true.
It might be true that they don't tell them anything directly about what to do.
But everybody knows what to do indirectly, don't they?
Is there anybody who works at TikTok who doesn't know what China as a country Would prefer to see more of versus what they'd like to see less of.
Of course they know.
So if there were people who just worked at TikTok who had any control over the algorithm, they don't need to be told what to do.
They just know what to do.
But if I were China, here's how I'd be controlling TikTok.
I would say to the CEO, hey, CEO, we don't want to control you.
Do whatever you want.
But we'd like you to meet all the leaders of China.
So you really, really know what they look like, you know?
We want to be kind of close to you.
So that might be enough.
But even if the CEO wants to have deniability, no, they never told me to do anything.
I've never done anything for them, which would be good to keep that deniability.
Here's what I would do if I were Chinese intelligence service.
I would make sure that I became friends with the top engineers at TikTok.
I would have lunch with them.
I would give them favors.
I would connect them with people that could help them.
And I would make sure that the engineers knew that doing what Chinese intelligence wants is really good for them.
And if they don't do what Chinese intelligence wants, it's really bad for them.
And then Chinese intelligence has dinner with their favorite engineer from TikTok and says, you know, there's these people running for office in America.
One of them really likes China.
He's been here 30 times.
It'd be great for China if that guy got elected.
Do you hear me, engineer?
Yeah, I hear you.
You're saying this guy's good for China.
Right.
And do you still control the algorithm?
Well, yeah, I mean, I could.
I just have to push that button.
Would anybody know if you push the button?
Well, if I push the actual button on the user interface, yes, it would be logged.
But if I just do it with code within the system, with a little tweak, it'd be the same as the HeButton, but it wouldn't be logged, and nobody would ever be able to prove I did it.
Huh, well it sure would be good if something like that happened.
So, if you imagine that TikTok is not controlled at a detailed level by China, I don't know, it feels naive.
So we have a situation where the polls we know are going to be close on Election Day, and they will be close enough that let's say a 2% swing would certainly determine the race.
Because remember, 2% is not just added to one group, it's subtracted from the other.
So a 2% swing is a 4% difference.
You get that?
So could TikTok cause a 2% swing in votes?
Yeah, easily.
Easily.
And not just by TikTok, because TikTok content gets onto other services, etc.
So, yes.
So we've actually given the vote to China.
Just let that sink in.
China can move the election 2% with TikTok, guaranteed.
There's no question that they could do that.
All they have to do is want to.
And then TikTok will do it.
I assume, because TikTok doesn't want to deal with Chinese intelligence hating them.
So, if American social media, except for Axe, folded like a cheap chair when American FBI and CIA wanted it to do stuff, what do you think happens in China?
If the CIA wants you to do stuff, you're going to feel like you really need to do it, even if they don't threaten you.
But what happens if Chinese intelligence asks you to do it, and you're a Chinese-owned company, or controlled?
You're really, really going to think you need to do it.
So, China basically has the vote now.
So, the Chinese vote will determine who the president is.
So, good on that.
Well, here's a fun recreational belief, getting back to science a little bit and the nature of reality.
So, somebody called, not somebody called, this is his actual name, somebody called.
Somebody with a name, Jay Anderson from the Project Unity is talking about some experiment in which they put plants in a darkened room where there would be a light source that would randomly go to different quadrants.
And it was completely randomized.
So it would just be a plant put in one corner, but it wouldn't get light at all, except randomly, as that light would be lit up in different places.
But mostly the light was where there was no plant.
Because there was a room with mostly empty, but one little plant.
What they found was, allegedly, remember this is a recreational belief, I can't prove it's real.
Allegedly, the randomized light would start, in a statistically measurable way, favoring the plant, with no human involvement.
In other words, random stuff Starts becoming less random if there's a living thing in the mix.
And the idea is that even plants might be able to collapse reality.
So you know the experiments like Schrodinger's CAD, etc.
So that quantum physics says you need an observer, or it might be a device that's measuring something.
But if you don't measure it or observe it, The reality stays in this super position of neither yes nor no or up nor down.
It has to be observed, and then it becomes reality.
Well, apparently there's some suggestion that a plant can do that.
Now, here's how this fits into my model of the world being a simulation.
If the world is a simulation, can you control it?
And I think you can.
By having a clear idea of what it is you want, which is one of the explanations for Elon Musk.
I think Elon Musk always has a very clear idea of what he wants, and he collapses reality in that direction.
And I think the clearer your idea and the harder you think it, the more likely it's going to collapse in your direction.
Reality, that is.
Now, my life, as I've told you many times, is so weird So insanely unlikely, but it also followed a path that I determined when I was six years old.
When I was six years old, I said, I'm going to become a famous cartoonist.
And I never, I never altered from wanting it, but there was a period of my life I didn't think it was possible, but I always wanted it.
And it was always a really clear image of what it was and what it would look like.
And it happened exactly the way I imagined.
Exactly.
And I can't explain that.
And then, you know, my entry into politics had the same oddity about it, that it just didn't look like it could have happened on its own.
It looks like I'm authoring the simulation.
So maybe the plant is authoring the simulation, and maybe you are too.
Maybe all of us are.
And that the act of affirmations, where you really focus on what you want and you repeat it or write it down 15 times a day, that all that does is make sure that you have a clear view of what you want, like a plant has a clear desire for sun.
There's no ambiguity about what the plant wants, if wanting is a thing.
Right?
It wants more light.
I wanted to be a cartoonist.
Elon Musk wanted to make an electric car, wanted to go to Mars.
All right.
There's a former NASA scientist who's doing a bunch of experiments to find out if we do live in the simulation.
Thomas Campbell.
So he's designed experiments to find out if our reality is more like a video game.
And, uh, see, Vicky Verma on X is reporting on this.
And he's got, uh, his experiments include a new spin on the double slit experiment.
So I don't know the details, but allegedly he's got a way to test whether we live in a simulation.
How do you think that's going to go?
I have no idea how that's going to go, but the idea that we live in a simulation just keeps getting stronger and stronger, and that we don't have free will in the normal sense.
Well, here's my final evidence that we live in a simulation.
You ready for this?
This really happened.
So the vice-presidential pick is Tim Walz.
You know that.
So this created a situation where, I swear this is true, it puts President Trump, or Donald Trump, ex-President Trump, in the position of opposing Walz.
Come on.
Trump, the most famous build-a-wall guy in the world, Has to run against a wall, or walls.
He's opposing walls!
Come on!
How did that happen on its own?
How about, Musk is suing a bunch of companies in the advertising space, where I mentioned, that Garm.
So a bunch of advertisers are a part of that.
One of the advertisers that's mentioned, that he's specifically suing, through X, is the Mars company.
They make candy, Mars bars and stuff.
So Elon Musk is suing Mars.
You tell me we're not living in the simulation.
Trump is, Trump is running against walls.
Elon Musk is suing Mars and the assassination attempt against Trump involved Somebody named Cheadle trying to stop somebody named Crooks, and you don't trust either of them.
How is this real?
I mean, seriously.
This just all happened by itself?
I don't know.
I'm having a real hard time believing any of this is happening accidentally, because it looks exactly like a dream I might have.
It's way like a dream I might have.
Anyway, there's a whole bunch of new allegations about the Georgia 2020 election, and I don't want to get, you know, krakened, meaning to get ahead of myself and say, it's been proven, there's a bunch of election irregularities that have been proven, it's the kraken.
Because I think the kraken was always a trap.
I think that if there's real election irregularity, the way to hide it is to come up with a fake kraken.
Give somebody important like Sidney Powell to believe it, have her say it in public, and then when it all falls apart, you can say everything else was a Kraken too.
So to me, the Kraken always looked like an intelligence play to destroy the people who were too close to the real problem, if there is one.
But you should know that there's a big video of a whole bunch of citizens doing a public event in which they made many claims of detected fraud or irregularities in the Georgia election.
I don't have an opinion about the quality of any of that evidence.
Because again, you don't want to fall for a kraken.
But there's a lot of it, and it sure sounds Persuasive.
But remember, the Kraken sounded persuasive at one time, too.
So there's tons of evidence, we just don't know the quality of it.
It's hard to say independently.
Then I saw a post by George He goes by, he's had an account of Baha'i tweets.
Good follow, but it just goes by the name George.
Anyway, he says the Georgia State Election Board has passed a new rule allowing observers inside tabulation centers during this upcoming election.
So...
That wasn't a thing before?
Are you saying that we didn't have observers in the tabulation centers?
And that something could have gone wrong in the tabulation centers and there were no observers?
But now we do have observers, or at least they'll be legal.
Huh.
Well, that's interesting.
Do you think the Republicans are going to find anything as they are more carefully watching this election?
Maybe.
There's a new lawsuit, America First Legal.
It's got a lawsuit to sue Maricopa County, Arizona for refusing to remove illegal aliens from their voter rolls out of the election.
Now, why in the world would they refuse to do that?
The only reason I can think of is that they want to use illegal votes to get their way.
Why else would they refuse to do it?
If they had a list of all the people who are not legal voters, And they had a list of all the people on their voting rolls.
It's not the biggest job in the world to subtract one list from another list, programmatically.
So maybe there's more to the context of this, but they refused.
And they're blatantly defying their own state law, because the state law mandates them to purge ineligible voters, and they're just going to keep the illegal aliens, apparently, on the rolls.
So in other words, it looks like exactly they are planning to cheat in Arizona.
We know how they're planning to cheat.
They're showing you that they're not going to change it.
They're going to disobey their own law.
And it looks a lot like they're planning to steal the election.
Don't know for sure, but it sure looks like it.
Well, here's the good news.
She said that they do have poll watchers, poll workers, and legal experts will be everywhere.
Votes are cast and counted.
And she says, do you want to help?
So if you'd like to be part of the watcher group, the URL to go to would be protectthevote.com.
So any of you who want to be like on site and watching for irregularities, I think Laura's Team will probably offer some guidance or training there.
And it's called protectthevote.com.
So here's my, here's my take on this.
I think Republicans are going to uncover massive fraud only because they know where to look for it and they'll find it.
I mean, I think we can expect they'll find just all kinds of stuff.
Whatever was happening in Georgia, whether it was rigged or not, I don't have proof either way, I think there's good evidence to show that things were deleted that shouldn't have been deleted, and that there's a lack of forthcomingness in some cases.
So there's something going on.
Let's just say that if you can't smell the smoke of some election irregularities, I don't think you're paying attention.
I don't think you're paying attention.
There's something deeply wrong with our elections.
They are not auditable, which is all you need to know.
They're not fully auditable.
So when people say something got audited or double-checked or counted, they're usually looking at some very narrow thing that wouldn't tell you at all whether the election was rigged or not.
It would just tell you if that very narrow thing was done right.
So, for example, they could recount mail-in votes and then they would call that an audit.
But what if half of the mail-in votes were from people ineligible?
Well, they wouldn't check if they were eligible.
They would just recount them and say, look, we counted them right the first time.
Second count matches.
I guess we're good.
Nobody found any fraud.
And then the legal system would say, wait, wait, wait, we did find some fraud.
And they take it to the courts and the courts say, well, it's too late or too little or you don't have a standing.
We don't want to deal with it.
But if Laura Trump has done what I think she has done, she has trained the watchers to really find the good stuff, to know where to look.
If they do find the good stuff, or even if they allege they found the good stuff, there's no way the election is going to get certified.
So I'm going to double down on my election prediction that there won't be one.
There will be voting.
But I don't believe that the country is sufficiently organized and honest enough to produce a result that we can even verify.
So somehow we're going to have to pick a president.
But I think the vote will be ignored no matter which way it goes.
I guess if the Democrats get their way, they're more likely to try to push ahead.
But I don't know.
I think the election will be so non-credible, probably both ways, that we're just going to have to figure out what to do.
All right, so let me talk about the messaging from Harris and then Trump.
All right, so The Democrats are pushing that Trump's going to steal your democracy, which I don't think anybody understood.
So Harris, quite smartly, tried to redefine that in a recent interview, in which he said, well, you know, rather than thinking about it as stealing your democracy, It would be more accurate to think of it as stealing your freedoms, that Trump would try to take your freedoms.
So now you might ask, what freedoms?
What freedom is Trump trying to take?
And here are the actual answers, because Harris has now listed the freedoms.
So one is the freedom to control your own bodies, in which she means birth control and abortion.
Trump's view is he doesn't want to have anything to do with that stuff.
So Trump's official policy is, I don't want to be involved in making any laws about anything.
I don't want to stop birth control of any kind, the morning after pill or anything else, and I don't want to be involved in decisions about abortion.
I want the states to do that.
Now, given that every state Has at least half of the men in favor of abortion, right?
It's even more than that usually, but at least half of the men are in favor of abortion.
That means that if women are in favor of it by a majority, there's a hundred percent chance they'll get it.
As voting still sort of matters?
So women have complete control in the states.
They just have to organize and convince each other.
So, women, will you stop pretending that men have anything to do with this?
Convince women.
If women by, let's say, 80% majority wanted abortion in their states, and 50% of the men were on that side too, They could stop anybody from getting elected.
Anybody.
They could stop their funding.
That would be such an overwhelming advantage on one of the top issues that they could kind of get anything they wanted.
It won't happen right away.
So if Democrats are complaining that the end of Roe vs. Wade created a situation where a third of the states, I guess, can't get the abortions that they want, I would say for the people who wanted those abortions, that's very bad.
In the short run.
I think you have to admit that, no matter where you are on the topic.
But in the long run, women have complete control of their bodies.
Because they have complete control of the elections.
They just have to be on the same side.
If women are not on the same side, why are you complaining to the rest of us?
It's definitely women have to decide first, and then maybe try to convince the rest of us.
But if women can't decide, although I think women are like two-thirds for abortion, In the United States.
So my argument about that is that women have full control of their own bodies.
They just haven't executed on that control.
Harris says, you want the freedom to love openly and whoever you want, openly and with pride.
To which I say, which freedom is that?
That's not a freedom you want.
Do you want anybody to be able to express any form of love?
I think you'd want to protect the children a little better, wouldn't you?
What about bestiality?
Now, here I'm not comparing LGBTQ to bestiality, so don't try to do that to me.
I'm not.
These are not similar things.
Not similar.
I'm just saying the statement.
Can we allow everybody to love who they want with pride?
If somebody wants to have sex with farm animals, should I respect it?
Again, I'm not comparing that to being gay.
These are not comparable things.
I'm just saying, this is a pretty big statement.
And I would say the answer to that is conservatives mostly just want to be left alone.
Conservatives don't care what you do behind your closed door.
They might think it's a sin.
But they're not going to try to stop you from doing it.
It's your business.
Conservatives want to be left alone, but they also want to leave you alone behind closed doors.
So that one just seems dumb.
And I don't think conservatives want to be forced to celebrate anybody else's love choices.
And I don't think conservatives want to be told that anybody should have pride about who they love.
How about you just love who you love, and you can be proud about it, but why should I be proud of it?
Why am I proud of your gay kid?
I might like your gay kid.
I might have complete respect for every human being and all their different choices, because we're all infinitely different.
I'll definitely have that.
But why do I have to be proud about it?
Why is anybody proud about it?
How about it just is?
It just is.
You don't have to be proud about it.
You don't have to be mean about it.
You don't have to try to stop it.
How about it just is?
And everybody's different.
And we just have to live in that world where everybody's different.
And maybe if we just left each other alone a little bit more, that'd be great.
So, no, I think that's dumb.
She says, also, freedom from gun violence.
OK, that's a made up and stupid right.
And first of all, nothing that the left is doing is compatible with reducing violence.
The left wants to defund the police, they supported riots, they don't want cash bail, they want open borders, they're pushing DEI and every other kind of racial division.
There's no evidence, no evidence, that the left wants to reduce violence.
It looks like they want to increase it.
So that's a dumb argument.
And it also ignores the fact that guns can protect you from a dictatorship.
They also talk about freedom to have access to a ballot.
Okay, we're still waiting for the first human being ever to say, I'd like to vote, but I've been prevented from doing it.
None.
We haven't met the alleged black citizen who can't get an ID to vote.
None.
Not a single black person ever in an interview or on TV or anybody you've ever met or anybody you talk to, any of your friends, any of your co-workers, not a single black person has ever said, you know what?
I'd love to vote, but I can't figure out how to get an ID.
None.
And yet they're selling that like it's a thing.
None.
Anyway.
So I think those are ridiculous made-up rights.
The whole thing is just complete garbage.
Doesn't look like anything that professionals came up with.
You know, I sometimes say, hey, this looks like professional persuasion.
That doesn't look professional.
That looks like people who are writing some kind of college essay.
They said, all right, write a college essay on how Trump is, let's say, stealing your freedoms.
And then you go in and you're like, all right, academically, can I make an argument that he's stealing my freedoms by making everything the opposite of what it is and ignoring the context over here?
It just seemed like some weird academic thing.
It's not persuasive.
It's just kind of dumb, but maybe it works for Democrats.
I don't know.
Well, um, one of the so-called, oh, here's the, let's talk about Trump messaging.
So Trump said that the Harris-Walz ticket will turn America communist immediately.
I don't think the communist attack lands at all.
Because every time I hear it, even I, you know, I'm on Trump's side, but when I hear him call the other side communist, I think, what?
In what way?
Do they want the government to control all the means of production?
Do I not understand what a communist is?
Do they want a dictator?
I don't understand it at all.
Now if they had said socialism, then that's a problem too.
Because when I hear socialism I say, you mean like every modern country?
Where there are some programs to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves?
You mean socialism?
So the trouble is that neither socialism nor communism Really works too well as an attack.
I think maybe it's just good for your own base, but the base is already with you.
So I don't know.
It feels like wasted words to me.
There are so many things that they could attack that going for a communist just makes everybody here go, well, I don't know.
I don't see that.
And I don't think anybody knows what Marxism is.
You know, maybe 2% of the country knows even what Marxism is.
So that doesn't work too well.
So all of those, you're a liberal, you're a Marxist, you're a communist, I don't see any of that messaging being effective.
Whereas I would see, I can help the economy, I can keep you out of war, I can keep them from putting you in jail.
Those feel like real things.
So I'd like to see more of that.
So one of, you remember, Trump had these so-called fake electors.
One of them just pleaded guilty to a single reduced charge, So those cases are still ongoing.
So it was Lorena, no, Lorraine Pellegrino.
She was an Arizona 2020 so-called fake elector.
But here's what she pleaded guilty to or pled guilty to.
A single misdemeanor charge of presentment of a false instrument for filing.
Does that sound real to you?
If the alternate electors thought they had a case, meaning that they believed that there was nothing illegal about registering as an alternate elector, which the left would call fake electors.
If they didn't know that any of that was illegal, they wouldn't have been aware that their documents were illegal anyway.
So I feel like this is a little bit of lawfare, and maybe Lorraine Pellegrino just took the plea because they got around all penalties basically, didn't have to go to jail.
Didn't have to be on any kind of program.
So I think there was just some, some kind of unsupervised release and it's just a misdemeanor.
So who knows if any of that actually happened or is a real law, but it looks like maybe the law just forces people to take the plea and get out of there.
So I don't know how any of that could have been illegal.
Now, we also know that ex-Trump attorney Jenna Ellis reached some kind of cooperation agreement with law enforcement.
So, that could be interesting.
We'll see if anything comes out of that.
Meanwhile, another member of the so-called squad in Congress lost in a primary.
So, squad member Cori Bush lost her primary, so she will be out of Congress.
And she was allegedly attacked With heavy spending by pro-Israel groups.
So do you think that pro-Israel groups took her out?
It looks like it.
If the money made the difference and they put in a lot of money, maybe.
Could be that she was just bad at her job and it didn't take much money.
There's a story that says the Harris-Walls team is trying to pay influencers to say good things and do interviews and stuff for Harris, and there's some documentation that shows that that's the case.
But some of that may be a response to the fact that we heard that Barron Trump, young Barron Trump, is the one who had some connection to that Aiden Ross guy from Kik who did the 100 million views thing with Trump in the Cybertruck.
So, Barron Trump might turn into a player, meaning his instincts might be really good.
And who knows?
Maybe he's a future president.
Who knows?
So, Jessica Tarloff on The Five yesterday brought up the drinking bleach oaks, and she got Fact-checked hard by Greg Gutfeld, who was there to tell her Trump never said drink any bleach.
Nor did he say inject bleach.
And here's the real thing.
Here's the funny thing.
She acted like she didn't know that.
And I thought that she was kind of smart.
She just had, you know, different priorities and, you know, different political views.
But you would have to be kind of stupid to know that was not a hoax.
Or if you didn't know it was a hoax, that's kind of stupid.
Here's how you should know that's a hoax.
Nobody would say that.
That's it.
You don't even have to research it.
Nobody would say that.
Do you know how I know that Well, I mean, basically it's a good test.
If you just say to yourself, would any human ever say that?
And if the answer is no, nobody would ever say that.
That's your answer.
You don't have to look into it.
So that was fascinating.
I thought she was a lot smarter than that, but she proves that she is Not terribly smart.
If you literally believe that Trump suggested injecting bleach or drinking bleach, I don't know how you explain that except low IQ.
Could you be that hypnotized?
I don't know.
Meanwhile, America First Legal is doing good stuff again.
So they went after that Brennan, Clapper, Intel community, they're calling it, in which They were trying to do this whole-of-government approach to silence political dissent.
So, these two ex-top intel people in the United States were part of an organized Democrat program to make sure that free speech was limited.
That's a real thing.
It's just amazing that that's real.
So anyway, America first, legals after them.
They publicly released all the documents from that committee.
They obtained that in litigation.
So there's going to be litigation.
Here are some updates on other things.
SciTechDaily has a story that if you add dopamine to an Alzheimer's patient, it almost immediately helps.
So Japanese researchers They've discovered that dopamine treatments could alleviate Alzheimer's symptoms because it promotes production of something.
And so I guess they've tested it in mice and they've got, you know, good hope that it might work in humans, but they haven't tested it yet.
Now, here's another one where you could have asked Scott.
I believe I've told you on live stream, That dopamine is implicated not just in making you happy, because that's how we usually think of it, but it's a motion.
It creates activity in your body.
If you don't have dopamine, you'll just sit there.
You won't get up.
Your brain will say, I should get up.
You just won't do it if you don't have dopamine.
So I knew from one of my smartest friends a while ago, That dopamine could be treated with a, I'm sorry, that Alzheimer's could be treated with a dopamine-like treatment.
That's what L-DOPA is.
L-DOPA is, you know, an existing treatment for Alzheimer's because they thought dopamine would help.
So this is new research and maybe they got a deeper understanding of it.
But yeah, it's dopamine.
Dopamine is what the Alzheimer's people need.
Anyway, so I was thinking of Parkinson's actually.
I think I was conflating Parkinson's with Alzheimer's in my bad explanation of what's happening.
But I do think that generally speaking, dopamine is sort of a necessary component for all of your functioning.
So I'll broaden that and try to correct what I just said wrong.
Because I was thinking of Parkinson's when I said L-DOPA.
But if you think that your muscles need dopamine, is it any surprise that your brain does?
I feel like you could have just guessed that without doing this study.
Anyway, here's a Venezuela update.
The Maduro regime is trying to jail the opposition leaders.
Of course.
I guess that's what happens when you win.
Happened in the United States, so why wouldn't it happen in Venezuela?
Hamas has picked a new chief because somebody, and maybe it was Israel, assassinated the head of Hamas.
So now the new head is the head of their terror group previously.
So you've heard of him, Yahya Sindwar.
So they took the worst terrorist leader within Hamas, And promoted him to be the actual head of Hamas because that guy got assassinated.
Now, let's talk peace, huh?
Have you seen any of the interviews with Palestinians after October 7th?
I've seen a number of interviews on the street kind of thing, where somebody will say, alright, was October 7th justified?
And every person I saw interviewed, every one, said, oh yeah, totally justified.
And then they would be asked, do you think a two-state solution could work?
And every one of them says, no, no, no, there's no two-state solution.
There's a one-state solution.
And their one-state solution is Israel goes away.
Am I getting accurate information?
Meaning these street interviews, are they intentionally editing out the Palestinians who say something like, yeah, we just need our two states and we can live next to each other and everything will be fine.
We just need to stop fighting.
You know, we'll, we'll try to, we'll try to get the Hamas people to settle down a little bit.
We'll work on that on our side.
Maybe you could work on your side and we'll get together.
Nothing like that.
Now, so I have a question whether I'm being brainwashed.
Because it would be a good brainwashing technique to do all these people-in-the-street interviews and just edit out anybody who was for peace.
And then you would get the impression that there would be no point in even talking to the Palestinians, because they only want to destroy Israel.
Now, it might be true.
You know, maybe it's like 85% of the population.
I'm just guessing.
But what if 85% of the population wants nothing except the destruction of Israel?
I think that could be the case.
But I wouldn't say it based on all the interviews because, you know, they're not reliable.
But I do think that the brainwashing among the Palestinians is probably strong enough and comprehensive enough That there's nobody in the public who wants peace.
They wish they weren't being shot at, and they wish they could do what they want, and they wish Israel didn't exist and all that.
But I don't think they want peace.
I don't see any movement toward it.
And if anybody wants to convince me that the Palestinians want peace, it would be really useful for somebody on that side, you know, a pro-Palestinian journalist, To go over there and show me some interviews of just ordinary people stopped in the streets who say, yes, please, we want to end fighting and have a two-state solution that's, you know, living in peace next to each other.
I don't know that they exist.
Do you?
Is there anybody watching who's had a, let's say, enough connection with Palestinians who are in the area who can tell me, am I wrong?
Is there not a single person in the entire community who wants peace without destroying Israel?
I don't know.
That's a pretty big question, isn't it?
Why are we even talking about a peace deal if we don't know the answer to the question, is anybody in favor of peace?
Is there even one person in the Palestinian areas in favor of peace?
I haven't seen one yet.
I assume they exist.
And I assumed that I would be subject to being brainwashed by never seeing one.
So, I got a real question about the brainwashing on that point.
I'd love to know what the real opinion of the Palestinian people is over there.
But I can tell you that if Hamas is picking the Sinwar guy as their new leader, they have decided that October 7th worked, and that more terrorism is more better for them.
So, they're certainly not looking for peace.
You don't put this guy in charge and say, you know, we'll put our best terrorist in charge, because Israel is going to kill that guy.
Israel has said in no uncertain terms, we're going to kill that guy.
Do you think if he showed up to negotiate, they wouldn't kill him?
I think if he shows up for a negotiation, they could drop a bomb on him, because they've said, Unambiguously, we are going to kill that guy for sure.
There's no way around it.
We're killing that guy.
So even if he showed up for some state-sanctioned thing, they'd probably just kill him.
I think they've got a case for it.
Anyway, and then there's a story that some guy got caught allegedly trying to arrange assassination attempts in the United States that would include Trump, and it would be Iran's revenge for Trump taking out Soleimani.
And the question I have about this, Bill Mlugen is reporting on this, Fox News.
And the question I have is, I don't trust this story.
Because the last thing I want to hear, after all that sketchy secret service protection of Trump, the last thing I want to hear is, oh, there's another country Trying to kill Trump.
So, so if we say that enough and we really do some things that make it look like another country is trying to kill Trump, if something happened to Trump, well, what would the first thing you would look at would be these other countries.
So I'm a little concerned that we're being brainwashed about the Iranians trying to assassinate Trump.
I'm not saying it's not true.
I'm just saying there might be a little brainwashing involved on that.
Well, meanwhile, Iraq's parliament is taking the first step to lower the legal age of marriage for girls from 15.
Wow.
The legal age of marriage for a girl in Iraq is 15.
but they're looking to lower that to nine.
Nine.
True.
So that would be a compatible with Sharia law, I guess.
So good job, Americans, for taking over Iraq.
And that didn't work out quite the way anybody hoped.
And the last good news is, did you ever wonder why we don't make more electricity out of waves in the ocean?
You know, the ocean is continually going up and down and back and forth.
Why can't we get electricity from that thing?
Well, it turns out, There's a megawatt scale wave project that might be coming to realization according to the new Atlas.
EcoWave.
So what they do is they put these big floaty things in the water and as the waves bounce them up and down, it's connected to some levers that create some electricity.
So that's cool.
I would think that you might have the same problem as the windmills.
You know, the windmills seem to be killing whales.
So, I'd watch out for the whales, because it's going to be loud, because it's mechanical, and it puts a loud mechanical thing in the ocean.
Isn't that what the problem with the windmills was?
Because it was loud, and it was in the ocean, and it caused the, I don't know, the sonar of the whales to go crazy.
Something like that.
All right, we talked about garm.
Lunar-powered.
Yeah, I guess it would be.
In a sense, it would be a little bit lunar-powered.
But that's not the only reason there are waves.
So it's not so much the tide.
It doesn't work on the tide.
It just sits out in the ocean, because the ocean is just bouncing up and down with waves.
So it bounces the mechanical thing up and down.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I've got for you today.
It was amazing.
Thanks for joining.
I've got to go do some other stuff.
And see if I can get insurance from my house today.
I might not be able to.
All right.
I'm going to say something privately to the people on Locals.
And I'm going to say bye to the rest of you on X and Rumble and YouTube.
