God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Extraditing Americans to UK, Fake Summer Polls, Tim Walz China Trips, Kamala Joyful Cackling, No Tips Tax Kamala, Hitler Smear Disappears, Brainwashing, PA Vote Counting Expectation, Hacked DMs, President Maduro, Dictator Retirement Plan, Population Collapse, UK Teaches Fake News Spotting, 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
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and it's the best time you've ever had.
But we can take this up to levels that you'll never even understand with your tiny, shiny human brain.
And to do that, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of gel, 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 of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the, that's right, the simultaneous sip.
Go.
Well, it's nice to have all the morning people here.
The people who get up on a weekend, on a Sunday, and it's no such thing as too early for this content.
So you're the special people.
You're the go-getters, the movers and shakers.
You're unusually sexy and smarter than people think.
So that's who you are.
How would you like a show?
Anybody up for that?
All right.
So DeepMind, there's a bunch of engineers at Google's DeepMind project who finally found something to do with robots and AI that really could change everything.
They've developed a robot that can play amateur level ping pong.
Finally.
Finally.
I have two ping pong tables, but I don't really have anybody to play.
So the minute this is available, I'm not sure exactly how much I would pay for a ping pong playing robot, but It's not, it wouldn't be a low number.
I mean, I'd put some serious money into it.
I was actually looking at my tables yesterday and thinking, God, if only I had a robot that could just hit some balls back, it'd be really fun.
And I thought, well, it won't be too long before I have a ping pong robot.
Oh yeah.
I'm completely serious.
If they make this ping pong robot commercially available, I'm almost certainly going to get one.
Well, the people who make Ozempic, and I guess people study it, say that Ozempic, that's the weight loss drug that your doctor recommends sometimes, that if you're on Ozempic, you have way better sex.
So people are reporting that after they lost 85 pounds, sometimes just one of them, one of the partners, that their sex life improved.
And they're thinking, huh, is there something about this Ozempic drug That makes people a little bit randier.
To which I said, here again, maybe you should talk to Scott before you spend a lot of money doing a study.
Let's see, would losing 85 pounds improve your sex life?
I'm going to say yes.
So if there's anybody else who was thinking of spending a lot of money to find out why people on Ozempic are suddenly having more sex, You don't need to.
You could just stop what you're doing right now.
They will have more sex.
If there are any other questions you'd like to ask before you waste a lot of money on some big old study, I'm here for you.
Seriously, just ask.
I can answer most of these.
Here's an interesting study.
Apparently you can reframe anxiety So there's a Washington State University-led study in which they looked at people who were doing funding pitches for startups.
And of course, you would have anxiety if you're going to do a funding pitch, because if people like you, it could change your life because you get funding.
And they found out that if they simply reframe the anxiety As a emotion that somebody has about the importance of their funding pitch, that they actually get a better response from the funders.
Let me say that again.
They reframe anxiety, the anxiety that they would know giving a pitch, they reframe that as emotion.
That you have emotion for the thing you're trying to promote.
Now the example they gave was people trying to get funding for a charity.
Now I'm not sure if that would exactly extend to funding a business, but funding a charity, you would have some real emotional connection to it.
And apparently if you have an emotional connection to it, you get a better response and you can reframe your anxiety as your emotion, your positive emotion for the thing you're promoting.
And they tested it and it turns out that people receive the message better if you're just, you're thinking of it as your emotion and not your anxiety.
Now you might say to yourself, but wait a minute, the anxiety that I have for a pitch is a completely different thing than emotion I have for my thing that I want the funding for.
But your brain is just a machine.
And if you move it from first gear to second gear, It doesn't have a choice of being in first gear anymore.
You just moved it to another gear.
So think of reframes like that.
They don't have to be logical.
By the way, that's my book, Reframe Your Brain, teaches you this.
A reframe doesn't need to be logical.
It doesn't need to make any sense at all.
It just needs to work.
And because your brain is a machine, and because your brain works on word patterns, just like AI does, if you change the word pattern, You can sometimes get an unexpected positive benefit.
This is very much reminds me of the reframe I was teaching to my subscribers on Locals.
I do little videos I call micro lessons.
And the most recent one I did was on a reframe that was not my own, somebody else's.
But instead of saying I have to do something, let's say exercise, you say I get to do it.
Now, that's not a logical change.
But wait till you see how much that changes your perspective.
When you say, I get to do this, I get to exercise.
Imagine if you couldn't exercise for whatever reason, it would feel like a privilege if you got to exercise.
So it's easy to just put your brain in the, wow, I'm so lucky I get to do this mode for things that you were dreading or it felt like drudgery.
Now I added to that, By saying, imagine that you'd been dead for a thousand years and living in the spirit world, and then somehow you got a magical ability to go back to your old ordinary life, where you're just doing drudgery, like brushing your teeth and feeding the dog.
And those things you usually think, I can't wait till I'm done with this so I can go do the things I enjoy.
But if you've been gone for a thousand years and you got to just experience this life again, Feeding the dog would be awesome.
So I just imagine, I just pop back to life and I'm just experiencing my life for one of the rarest opportunities to just feel like what it is to just be alive, to be able to do things, to touch things, to move things.
Changes your perspective instantly.
By the way, this one will really change you.
So just say, I don't have to do it, I get to do it.
And imagine that you came from a thousand year death Just to try it out again, see how your arms and legs move and see how it feels.
So remember the United States has this quote, special relationship with Great Britain.
You know, we're special friends.
I think that's kind of over because if I'm afraid of traveling there, Because I think I would be arrested for something I've said on X five years ago.
And that's a real risk.
And by the way, the UK says they would at least try to extradite people, maybe even Americans, so that they could punish them in the UK for something they said in America, as an American, on an American platform.
Now, you say to yourself, well, my government's never going to let Great Britain ship me out of the country and put me in jail in Great Britain.
Well, if your government is a Trump government, it's not going to happen.
But what would happen under a Harris-Walz government if they said, huh, let me see if we understand this request, Great Britain.
Can you say that again?
We'd like to arrest Scott Adams because he said some things that we consider hay speech.
And then the Harrison administration says, Scott Adams?
Huh.
What's he been saying about us?
Oh, he's been saying a lot of bad things about you.
And he might be able to move the needle.
Huh.
But he would be no problem to us if he were in jail in Great Britain.
Is that true?
Well, yeah, that's technically true.
Then what happens to me?
Do you think my government protects me from Great Britain?
Or does my government say, you know, he hasn't broken any laws in the United States, but it sure would be good for we Democrats if he just got the fuck out of here.
So let me say as clearly as possible, Great Britain, you are not part of any special relationship with me, you motherfuckers.
If you have that rule that I can go to jail in my fucking country because you've got an asshole rule over there, you're not my special anything.
You're my fucking enemy.
You're my enemy.
Let me be as clear as that as possible.
You're my enemy.
If you're going to put me in jail for my free speech in America, and you think that maybe that makes sense, and by the way, if the Harris administration ever let anybody be taken from this country to be jailed in Great Britain over something that wasn't illegal in the United States, well then they're my enemy too.
There's no ambiguity about that.
Anybody who's trying to put me in jail for free speech, you're my enemy.
I don't care about your fucking special relationship.
And I do think that we should make a real effort to recruit the most useful and richest people in England who are trying to get out.
Because apparently the number of billionaires who are leaving Great Britain is the highest percentage in the world.
The people who can afford to leave are getting out while they can.
And we should make sure they come here.
Because you know who I want?
Somebody who knows how to manage a billion dollars and has successfully made a billion dollars.
I want all of them.
Come on.
So again, just to be clear, nothing about the people of the UK.
I love the people of the UK.
So bring them on here.
And we're not talking about anything, nothing about race or gender, nothing about that.
I just want to know that can you make money and can you add to a country?
If you can make money, pay for your own bills, and you can add to our country, please come on over right away.
The sooner the better.
So get out of that decaying crappy country and come on over here if you can.
But that would require our country having a useful vetting system for people coming in, which we don't have.
There's a study that says People distrust journalists when they debunk information.
So people are more trustful for a journalist if they tell you something, and they trust them less if they say, oh, the thing that you have been told is wrong.
Do you know how they could have saved some money on that study?
By asking Scott?
Because this is basic hypnosis.
If somebody believes something to be true, And then you shock them by saying, well, let me tell you, this is not true.
The normal human behavior would be, nope, I reject what you said and there must be something wrong with you.
Right?
That would be the most predictable outcome when somebody tells you that the thing you've known all your life is wrong.
You would think there's something wrong with the person who told you.
So you didn't have to study that.
That's the most basic observed human behavior that you could ever imagine.
If you hear something you don't like, you blame the messenger.
It's the most famous human behavior of all time.
Now, you didn't need to study this.
You could have just asked me.
Well, the New York Times Siena poll came out and other polls have shown Harris Overtaking Trump in the polls, especially in some battleground states, etc.
Do you think these polls are accurate?
Well, here's what an analyst, Ryan Gerdusky, or Gerdusky, I don't know how to pronounce it, says, that there's some big problems with the polls.
This would be the New York Times-Siena poll.
Apparently, if you look at the details, it suggests that Trump is losing seniors by 12, 12 points.
And as Giordeski points out, Trump isn't losing seniors by 12 points.
If your survey says that, there's something wrong with the survey.
How about it says that Harris is tied with white voters?
Probably not.
So that would be an indication that there's something wrong.
And Trump's margin with non-college whites is in the 30s, not 13, which I guess the poll said.
So if you look at some of these subcategories, they're so obviously out of the range of what any other poll is going to show, that you know something's going on.
Have I ever mentioned that the polls, when it gets this time of the summer, are all going to be fake?
When do the polls become real?
Because it does happen.
They very predictably become real In the last few weeks before the election itself, do you know why they all become real suddenly?
Because that's the only time they'll be measured for being accurate.
So they'll wait for the actual election, they'll compare it to what the pollsters said, and that will be the only time they will be held responsible.
Because all the way up until the day of the election, the polls can just say, well, that's what they thought in November.
There's no way to really know it wasn't true.
But when you have the actual vote, that's the one and only time you can say, which pollster did a good job.
So when we get close to the actual vote, all of the pollsters, especially the fake ones, will suddenly tweak their methodology and get the right answer.
We're a lot closer to it.
So expect that.
All right.
I continue to be intrigued, as a writer named P.G.
Keenan is intrigued, by the VP candidate, Walz, and his connections with China.
So here's what P.G.
Keenan said on X today, about Walz.
30 trips to China on a school teacher salary.
Obsession with China.
Devoted his life to taking American kids to China to learn about communism.
Now, that's a pretty good question, and apparently he started going there and doing tourism right after Tiananmen Square, which is when there really wasn't a lot of tourism.
You know, the tourism was kind of suppressed then, but not for him.
And he was just taking kids over there to find out how great China was.
And so Peachy says in a follow-up post, looking to interview any American who was a high school student who accompanied Tim Walz to China on one of his educational tours in the 90s.
Please DM.
So if you were in that category of, or you know somebody, Have them contact Petey Keenan, because we'd like to know a little bit more about that experience, wouldn't we?
We would.
Here's a Persuasion Update.
I think most of you noticed this, but I hadn't called it out yet, and I feel like that's a hole I gotta plug.
So, you know how the critics of Kamala Harris would always make fun of her cackling?
And I would go so far as to say that the cackling might have been her biggest negative, because people don't follow the issues.
You know, they just sort of look at how they feel about somebody's persona.
And the cackling looked like she was maybe not confident or not capable, or I always thought it was a way to maybe get rid of her anxiety of talking, Maybe to stall so she can think of an answer.
Maybe to avoid a question.
But none of it looked strong.
All of it looked weak.
So the cackling always just came off as weak.
And they reframed it, the Democrats did, into joyful.
So they added another awkward laugher.
So Walsh is another like freaky, creepy laugher.
When he laughs, it seems like he's laughing too hard and it doesn't look real.
You don't, you don't know exactly what you're looking at there.
It just doesn't look genuine.
So they have these two weird laughers.
So instead of saying, well, we got weird laughers, just don't pay attention to that.
Look at our policies.
They don't really have policies to look at.
So instead they said, The cackling and the creepy laughing are signs that they're a joyful group.
They're joyful.
Now, on one hand, it's funny that you would, you know, reframe creepy laughing as joyful.
On the other hand, it totally worked.
It totally worked.
It's almost like that audio illusion where if you're reading a certain sentence, the audio sounds like that sentence, but as soon as you read the sentences after it, The same audio sounds like the next sentence that has nothing to do with the first sentence.
And you're like, how did that happen?
And then they can do it eight more times.
Yeah.
So whatever you're told to expect is often what you hear.
And if somebody says, well, okay, now expect it to be a different thing.
And then you can, you can hear it just like is real.
So our reality is so, so malleable and so subjective that you can just say, ah, it's not weird cackling.
It's joyful.
Don't you love joyful?
And I say to myself, that is one of the best reframes I've seen.
Do not underestimate the quality of the persuasion advice that Kamala Harris is getting.
It's looking really good.
And I don't think that was the case until she was clearly the preferred candidate.
So I think she's getting the benefit of the, you know, the top shelf, best Democrat advice.
I don't think she had it before.
But why did it take so long to redefine cackling as joyful?
Totally works.
It totally works.
And you can see now the videos of the people at the rallies.
They all seem joyful.
So it's this whole joyful, we're having so much fun, oh my God, I can't wait to dance and sing with Kamala Harris.
Very good persuasion.
But I'll tell you the way that Kamala Harris' laughing makes me feel.
She makes me feel the way I do if I'm driving a car, And there's a female passenger in my car who starts singing along to the radio.
That's how it feels.
Now that won't mean something to everybody, but for some of us, having somebody else singing along to the radio so that you can't hear that awesome song that you'd really love to hear, but instead you're hearing somebody who's not a professional singer trying to sing it out loud.
That's what it feels like.
It's like, okay, I get that you're being joyful, Yeah, I mean, I like joyfulness, and I get that you're being joyful as you sing that song, but it's not spreading to me.
The joyfulness hurts.
Stop it.
Stop the joyfulness.
It's just I'm channeling Larry David there, I think.
Well, the weirdest and maybe smartest thing that Kamala Harris did was she went to Nevada, and just like Trump, In front of a bunch of employees, many of whom work for TIPS, she said that she would advocate for no tax on TIPS.
Now, if you're just hearing this story for the first time, you probably just said, wait, what?
Wait, did you just say that she said the identical thing that Trump said?
That nobody running for office had said before, except, I guess, Ron Paul had said it a while ago.
But are you telling me that she just literally copied what Trump said?
Yes, she did.
Now, here's my take on that.
Your first impression as, let's say, a Trump supporter, your first impression was, no, no, you can't do that.
Stop it.
No, no, you're copying.
But did that change your vote?
No, it didn't change your vote at all.
You just didn't like it.
But what about the people who heard it, who wanted to vote for a Democrat, but they also didn't want to be taxed on their tips?
She just gave them an option.
She just gave all those workers a way to get no tax on tips, and she just took that away from Trump.
Now, Trump argues that he's going to really do it, and he argues that she might not follow through.
Maybe.
But they're not sure that Trump would do it either.
If you're going to take a bet on no tax on tips and you wanted to vote for a Democrat, she just gave you the option.
She just took away one of Trump's strongest plays.
Just took it away.
So we can spend our time thinking about how weird it is And we can spend our time saying, oh, but she, as people are, but before that, she was using the IRS to go after people who hadn't paid tax on tips.
So blah, blah, blah, hypocrite, blah, blah, blah.
None of that's going to matter.
If you don't want a tax on your tips and you want to vote Democrat, she just gave you the option.
So that is a clean, dead win.
Clean win.
So when I tell you that Kamala Harris's advisors are a different level, oh, this is it.
This is it.
Can you imagine that conversation?
Imagine a bunch of dullards and one genius sitting in a room.
And the one genius says, I got an idea.
Why don't you tell them that you also will not have taxes on tips?
And then all the dullards in the room would go, oh, that's so stupid.
That's so stupid.
That's Trump.
You know, we're not going to, we're not just going to copy Trump.
And then the one genius in the room says, why not?
Well, we can't, we, well, we, we, we can't, we can't just copy him.
And then the one genius says, yes, you can.
You just say those words.
And then you'll take away from Trump every advantage he got from doing that.
And then all the dullards would say, Bob, that's non-standard.
Didn't think of it.
Bob, you're right.
This was one person, right?
I wasn't there.
I don't have any insight, but all my experience says they have one genius.
I don't know if they have more than one, but they have a genius.
Because whoever sat in that room and turned all of their minds into that, it wasn't Kamala Harris.
It wasn't Walz.
They're just regular politicians.
I don't think they came up with it.
There is somebody in the mix who is really fucking good, and I don't know who it is.
Don't know who it is.
But this is unexpected.
It makes news.
It gets Republicans all worked up, but there's nothing they can do about it.
And it just takes Trump's advantage away from a huge category.
Perfect.
But when I saw the story that Kamala Harris says no tax on tips, the first thing I thought was, huh, I guess that means the shaft and the balls are still in play.
I'll let you just sit with that one for a while.
Just let that let that one sit in the pocket for a while.
All right.
You good with that now?
Alright, we're moving on.
So, part of the narrative that's forming is that Kamala is just turning into Trump.
So, she's stealing his no-tax-on-tips thing, so that's like Trump.
She used to be weak on the border, but now she's going to get strong on the border.
Not only is she going to get stronger on the border, but she likes walls.
Tim Walz.
But still, it makes you think that she's turning into Trump.
And she blames Trump for killing the bipartisan bill that makes her the strong one on the border.
And then Walz had that viral moment where he was at the rally crowd and he was yelling at Republicans that Republicans should mind their own damn business.
Now, that is just Republicans.
Republicans want the government to just stay out of their business in a whole variety of different ways.
But when it comes to abortion, it's sort of the reverse.
So Walz quite cleverly used the Republican, basically the basic Republican thought, leave me alone.
And he successfully reframed it as something that Democrats should be saying.
Leave me alone.
But they're not saying government leave me alone.
They're more saying Republicans leave me alone.
Which is, I guess, similar if the Republicans were in charge.
So, not bad.
Their persuasion game is quite strong at the moment.
But here's the thing that really stands out to me.
You know, my perspective on politics is that there's no politics going on and there's no argument going on.
It's just brainwashing.
So there's two major brainwashing operations.
One is an individual, Trump, who is so powerful in terms of persuasion that he's competing with the entire Government blog structure of, you know, government and media and the external, you know, entities like the NGOs and the fact checkers and basically an entire world of brainwashers on one side.
And on the other side, there's Trump and people like him, you know, who work collectively with him.
But basically it's Trump against the strongest brainwashing persuasion you've ever seen in your life.
But how strong is the brainwashing?
Let me just give you this one fact which you all agree with.
Before Kamala Harris was picked and Biden was the primary guy, and before Trump was almost assassinated, all of their persuasion was Trump's a dictator, dictator, Hitler, dictator.
Dictator, dictator, dictator.
Hitler, dictator, dictator.
And then it stopped.
And they just changed it.
And now they're about no taxes on tips, and about how to control the border, and suddenly, what happened to Hitler?
Now, are we to believe that we were under an existential threat of a Hitler character rising to power, but then it just stopped?
Did it just stop?
Why are we talking about taxes on tips if Hitler is coming to power?
Well, obviously, the reason is that it was never true in the first place.
That's the only reason you would stop talking about it.
If that were ever true, there's not a single other thing they're talking about that would be even competitive in the range of something you should care about.
And they just made it go away.
So let me summarize this in a way so you can really see the power of brainwashing.
The brainwashers made Hitler appear out of nothing, you know, in the form of what they were accusing Trump of being.
They basically conjured Hitler.
And if that doesn't impress you, they made him disappear in a week.
They created Hitler.
Totally out of nothing.
And then they made Hitler disappear.
In a week!
We don't even talk about it anymore.
Now, imagine being a Democrat.
Did you notice?
Did you notice that you went from, you know, Hitler persuasion to, oh, let's talk about taxes on tips.
How do you not know that that was a brainwashing operation?
Well, I suppose if you didn't pay attention to persuasion as a tool and as a skill, and you didn't know how to recognize the tells for persuasion in the wild, maybe you'd just miss it.
But I don't think there could be a stronger signal that people are not making up their minds by looking at the topics and looking at the pluses and the minuses and doing their risk-reward calculation.
No, they are literally just brainwashed to go immediately in whatever direction they're told.
And we just watched it in real time.
We just watched them create Hiller and then remove Hiller.
And all it was, was talking.
There was never a Hiller.
I mean, that's really impressive, if you think about it.
And I hope you do.
Anyway, Pennsylvania, I don't know if I mentioned this, but Pennsylvania announced They just want everybody to know, don't expect that Pennsylvania will be done counting the votes on election night.
Might take a while, because, you know, got to make sure you got them all, and things might come up, and, you know, things aren't as efficient as you like, and maybe they need to do a little double checking, and you really got to get it right.
Can you imagine living in a country Where you're a Democrat, and you think the elections are all real, and that there's no cheating, and then a state tells you, I just gotta tell you that unlike every fucking third world country in the world that can absolutely give you a result the same day, we can't.
I don't know how to interpret this other than we're telling you we're gonna cheat.
That's how I hear it.
Now, do you hear it that way?
This is Pennsylvania telling you They plan to cheat, and they need to have a cover story in advance, so they can say, we told you it wouldn't be the first, you know, we told you it'd take a while.
Well, I mean, we told you, because of all these reasons.
Yeah, no, no, it's not because of cheating.
What are you, crazy?
What are you talking about?
Cheating?
I don't even know what you mean.
Now, I just told you that brainwashing made Hitler appear, and then disappear for the entire United States, or half of the United States.
Here's another thing that Brainwashing did.
They convinced the country that our elections are secure and that we can know for sure if we got rigged or anything.
How in the world could you be convinced that that's the case?
How much inexperience would you have to have to think it couldn't be rigged without you knowing it?
You'd have to know nothing about anything.
You'd have to know nothing about any kind of computerized system to the point where you've never had a computer with a password.
Because everything that we know has been hacked.
And you tell me the election systems are not.
So I posted yesterday that my DMs, my private DMs, are being read by somebody.
Before I read them.
Now, how do I know that?
Because the new ones have an indicator that there's a new message, and there are only a few specific people who never have a new indicator.
It doesn't matter how often they DM me.
It'll never show as new.
Now, why would that be?
Because somebody read it.
Somebody is literally reading my messages on DM before I am.
Now, Does that shock me and annoy me and make me afraid?
No, because there's no difference from my worldview.
My worldview is that all of my communications have been compromised by Democrats who are looking to take me out.
I would believe that everybody who has any kind of influential platform and has any pro-Trump leanings I believe all of their communications are probably open at this point.
So I live my life and have for decades as if all my private messages will become public.
Not might, but will.
That's a very different thing.
If you're playing your private digital communications as if they might not be read, you're playing it wrong.
I think it's entirely possible that in your life, everything you've ever written privately will become available to everybody.
Just because, you know, there might be, you know, a password hacker encryption killer that can just make everything available and some hacker just makes everything on the internet available at the same time.
Anything like that could happen, especially in the age of AI.
So if you're not already living your life like you have nothing to hide, You better start.
You better start.
All right.
The story about Iranians hacking a Trump communications website.
It's a little murky.
I guess Trump said it was only a website, it wasn't somebody's email.
We had originally heard it was one member's email, but now it looks like it's maybe one webpage or website.
And it was only public information, Trump says.
Politico allegedly has communications from that hack, and some of it might be embarrassing.
But if any of that communication were embarrassing to Trump, you would have seen it already.
Do you think that they'd be sitting on something if they had it?
Well, maybe to save it as like an October surprise or something?
Maybe.
Well, yeah, they might.
If it was really juicy, they might sit on it.
But I've got a feeling they have nothing.
And then the claims from Microsoft that it was an Iranian hacker?
I don't think you can believe that at all.
Microsoft is the company that funded MSNBC.
MSNBC isn't even close to being a real news organization.
It's clearly just an intelligence-driven brainwashing operation.
So there's nothing that Microsoft says about any geopolitical stuff that could be considered credible.
They are not a credible voice on this topic.
Now, there's other things I would trust them on.
But not that the Iranians hacked.
That is too on the nose.
That's a little on the nose.
And to me it looks like maybe something's being set up so if something happened to Trump, or if the Americans did something that they want not to be known they did, they've got this Iranian option.
They can just blame it on Iran.
Oh, Trump's had a mechanical problem?
Oh, that was probably an Iranian saboteur.
Oh, he got hacked?
I think the Iranians are up to that again.
Oh, he might get assassinated?
Look at those Iranians.
It's starting to get a little bit obvious, the whole Iran thing.
Now, is it possible that Iran is in fact going after Trump?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Does that mean that these stories are true?
No, completely different.
The stories are not coming from credible sources.
Microsoft is not credible, the FBI is not credible when it comes to Trump-related anything, and our intelligence people are not credible when it comes to anything Trump-related.
Not at all.
I mean, not even a little bit.
I'm afraid I'm underselling it.
If you're looking at, these are your sources, and I don't know if it is, but if your sources are Microsoft, the FBI, and intelligence people, let's say Homeland Security or something like that, within our government, and then our government, who is Democrat at the moment, if those are your sources, none of those are credible.
Not even a little bit.
Those are not even slightly credible sources, based on what we know from the last number of years.
So here are the things we've seen happen.
There was an attempted hit on Trump's life.
He had a plain mechanical failure, but not bad enough so that the landing looked dangerous.
I don't know what the mechanical failure was.
Then there's that weird story of the terrorist who was planning to kill people, including Trump, and somehow he was caught and interviewed at the border and considered a risk.
And then just let go.
We don't know why.
So you've got, you know, suspicious Secret Service failure.
And then whatever, whoever talked to this must have been the FBI failure.
And then you've got those mechanical failure.
A lot of failures.
And then the website didn't have a good enough cybersecurity, it failed.
So, I don't know.
I think this could easily be confirmation bias, meaning that it's looking like they're just, it looks like Democrats are literally trying to kill Trump.
Are they?
I think confirmation bias would explain everything you've seen, but so would them trying to kill him.
So it would look the same either way.
So you can't say it looks like they're trying to kill him, so he must be trying to kill him.
What you should say is it would look like that even if they weren't.
So what we're observing is consistent with the idea that somebody's trying to take him out.
It's consistent, but it doesn't mean it's true.
Because you would imagine you saw it if it were true or not.
And we imagine we see all these little signals that might not be real.
Well, Elon Musk says that they've added encryption to the direct messages within X. That wouldn't make any difference to my situation, because whatever's happening, somebody's just inside my system reading my messages.
So I don't think encryption can help, because it looks like they're just in my account, the same as I am.
Um, because it's hard for me to get in my own account, you know, I've got authentication and, you know, if I just turn off my browser, I got to go through this whole, you know, security thing to get back online and X. So it's not like whoever's reading my DMS, it's not like they just got my password.
Cause if they got my password, it still wouldn't work.
Cause the signal to log on would come to my personal phone.
And I would say, I'm not trying to log on, so it wouldn't work.
So whoever it is, is either a state actor or an insider, or it's the weirdest bug in the world, but I don't believe it's a bug.
Anyway, so don't trust anything to, and Elon Musk says don't trust their encrypted messaging yet, but I would add, don't ever trust encrypted messaging.
I don't believe there's anything like a truly encrypted message.
At the very least, if they've hacked into your phone, they can see what you're typing before it gets encrypted.
And if the person you send the message to is not really who you think they are, and they decide to share the message, well, that's not encrypted then either, because they're actually just reading it.
So they just take a screenshot and send it to the newspaper.
So no, nothing you do is encrypted in any way that's important.
There's a website now that allows you to calculate what would happen to your taxes under a Harris administration if they allow the tax law, the tax cuts I guess, to lapse.
And so I went to it and I put in my personal income and age and What did it ask me?
Just age and income and what state I live in.
And it said that I would save a lot of money on taxes if Kamala Harris becomes president.
Now remember, there's no accounting, there's no accounting for any write-offs, so that it doesn't ask you about any deductions except kids.
I said zero.
So, it's just income, age, and state.
And I put in two different incomes and two different ages just to see if I get a different number.
In every case, I would save money on taxes if Harris becomes president.
Does that sound accurate to you?
Do you think that the people who made that said that a relatively high income person with no deductions is going to pay less under the Harris tax plans?
No, obviously the fucking page doesn't work.
So I'm not going to give you the website because obviously the fucking thing doesn't work.
There's no way that I'm going to pay a lot less taxes if Harris gets elected and my tax rate goes up.
Because the whole conversation is she's going to allow the tax cuts that, you know, she would say applied more to high income people.
She'll let them lapse because they had a deadline on them.
How in the world do I save taxes when my tax rate goes up and there's no other deductions?
That's not a thing.
So no, don't trust that.
All right.
There's a report, I don't know if it's true, that the U.S.
is doing this long-shot play to see if they can get the Venezuelan President Maduro to give up power in exchange for amnesty.
To which I say, nobody does that.
Yeah, that's a pretty big long shot.
Have you ever heard of a dictator just surrendering and saying, you know what?
Yeah, yeah, now that you mention it, being a dictator in exile sounds like a much better deal.
Than running my whole country and having total power over my country?
No.
By the time you have total power over a country, and you're a dictator, you don't really want to give that up for anything.
So I don't think that's going to work.
But it does make me think we need a dictator retirement plan.
Wouldn't it be great if you went to some country like, let's just say Venezuela, and said, look, here's the deal.
We can't let you stay here and we have a big army and you know, we have lots of dirty tricks So if you stay here, it's gonna be very bad for you.
I can't even tell you how but wow, it's gonna be bad for you however We have this new dictator retirement plan you're gonna go to the loveliest place in Hawaii, let's say and the other dictators might be on that island too so you might meet some other fellow dictators that you think are fun and And we'll put you beyond the gated community with lots of good security because, you know, your life will always be in danger as a retired dictator.
But we'll make sure that nobody can get to you.
And we'll make sure that you can take some of your stolen money with you, and just bring it to the United States, because we like your stolen money.
Good for our economy.
And you can just live out your days in this greatest golf cart, you know, friendly community, and you can retire to that, and we guarantee that you will be safe.
And all of your family can come live with you too, and you'll all be safe forever.
I don't think anybody's going to take anybody up on that because they wouldn't trust that they'd be safe forever.
But we shouldn't expect dictators to retire or just give up power just because we asked.
All right, I need an in-between sip.
Ah, much better.
All right, now we get to the meat of things.
There's a recent Pew Research study about people wanting kids, and there are three reasons why people are having fewer kids in America.
One is fertility is having some problems.
The other is people can't afford it.
Kids and marriage are too expensive.
And the other is people just don't want kids.
What would make people not want to have kids if they could afford it?
So suppose money wasn't part of the problem.
It is, but suppose it wasn't.
Why would you not want kids today when you did want kids in the past?
I would like to offer the following possibility.
And this is from a story of a friend of mine years ago.
His teenage son graduated high school and was going to go off to college.
And I said to him, you know, privately at a party, I said, wow, you know, how are you going to deal with the empty house?
Because that would leave just the two parents in the house alone.
And he looked at me and said, no different.
I haven't seen him in years.
And I said to myself, okay, that's obviously not true.
You can't have somebody living in your house.
Like living there full-time, and you don't see them.
And he would say, yeah.
When he comes home, he just goes into his bedroom, gets some food, and maybe grabs a plate, goes into his bedroom.
And then we'll see him leave in the morning to school, if we happen to be in the room.
But if we're not in the room, he walks through to leave the house, we don't see him leaving in the morning.
And then he's gone all day, and then he's with his friends after school, And then he comes home at nine o'clock, does his homework by himself in his room, and then goes to sleep.
We haven't seen him in years.
And I thought that was pretty much an exaggeration until I saw it myself.
In the modern world, even if you're with a teenager that's your own teenager, they're on their phone.
You're not with them when you're with them.
You're not with them when you're driving them in the car.
You're not with them when they're in their bedroom.
You're not with them ever.
So, one of the reasons that people probably don't want kids is that you don't really have them.
You have an expense.
You have a new set of problems you didn't have before.
And, you know, I know it's rewarding in ways that I can't understand.
I get that.
But you don't actually spend much time with them after they reach a certain age, and it's not a very old age.
So I can certainly see that in the modern world where people are just cyborgs addicted to phones after a certain age, that it's just not the same.
You know, the experience of being with your own family is completely different than it used to be.
Now, your mileage may vary, and you're going to tell me, no, Scott, I tell my teenagers to leave their phone when we go camping.
No, you don't.
No, you don't.
Anyway, over in the UK, they're going to have some kind of curriculum for the kids to teach the kids how to spot fake news.
Are you worried if the UK is teaching their kids how to spot fake news?
And I think there's some programs like that in the United States, small ones.
Well, let me tell you how I teach people to spot fake news, and I want you to tell me How many of those things do you think they're going to teach the kids?
Right?
So they're going to teach them how to spot fake news, and I'm going to give you a pretty good list of ways to spot fake news.
You tell me if you think the kids will be taught any of that.
All right?
So here's how I would tell you to spot fake news.
Number one, you need to know that no government can survive real news.
That's just my first one.
Do you think that when they teach them how to spot fake news, they can say, look, you have to understand that anything that comes from the government, or anything the government can influence, such as any news that's on the air, if it were real, be they democratically elected or be they dictators, they really couldn't survive if the public had real news.
Do you think the students are being taught that it's all fake?
It's all fake because it has to be, because no government could survive an actual free press with real news.
Now, if you don't teach them that, is anything else going to matter?
Because then they're going to think there's some fake way that they can tell what's real.
And do you know what I believe they're going to hear?
I believe that the students will be taught that the way to spot fake news is by the source.
That if it comes from a bunch of scientists and the government, it's true.
And if it comes from Breitbart, it's false.
You know that's what they're going to teach them.
They're going to say, these are New York Times—you know, they'll do the Great Britain version of it, but if it were the United States, we'd say, the New York Times is real, but you've got to watch out for that Breitbart.
And by the way, Fox News just makes up news.
But CNN?
Legitimate news.
MSNBC?
Well, there you go.
There you go to get your good news.
You know, your reliable stuff.
But whatever you do, don't listen to something that Elon Musk said on X.
Yeah.
All right, so they're not going to tell their kids that the government can't even survive if the news were real.
And here we're talking about the geopolitical news.
Second thing I would teach a kid is you have to know the players.
You should know, for example, that in the United States there's a liar squad.
The Democrats who are always called out for the big lies.
You know, the Schiff and the Raskin and the Swalwell, to name a few.
If you see those specific characters, you know, Brennan, Clapper, if you see any of them on the news, it's because there's a whopper coming, like a really big hoax.
Now, if you didn't know that you could identify whether the news is real by knowing who the professional liars are, well, you haven't really taught kids much at all, have you?
How about knowing which entities in the news are controlled by intelligence outfits?
If you are up with things in the United States, you say to yourself, oh, Washington Post story.
Washington Post, highly suggested to be influenced by the intelligence community.
So therefore, any story in that domain is automatically, almost certainly false.
Now, do you think that the kids will learn that?
No, they'll just learn that things on the political right are wrong, and things on the left are right.
How about the fact-checking?
If I were teaching kids how to spot fake news, I'd say, one of the things you really need to know is the fact-checkers are fake.
What?
Yeah, the fact-checkers are fake.
They're to make you think that the fake news is real.
That's why they exist.
They are created for that purpose.
And you won't know if there's a real one.
You might see, you know, competing fact checks.
You won't know what the real one is.
I would also say that when they correct the news, you don't see the correction, but they can stay honest by saying, oh, we corrected that, but by then it's done all its damage, and that that's probably intentional.
I would teach kids about Gell-Mann amnesia, the fact that if you know a topic, you can tell that it's fake news because you're an expert.
But then you turn the page to a topic in which you're not an expert, and suddenly you believe the news might be real.
Well, why is it always wrong when it's a topic that you understand?
This is a very important thing for somebody to know if they're trying to pick out fake news.
Do you think that kids will be taught that all complicated prediction models are fake?
They are.
Do you think anybody's going to say, OK, you can't believe climate change models because there's no such thing as predicting the future 100 years in advance?
No, they'll tell them the opposite.
They'll say 98% of the scientists say these models are good.
That's why you know they're good.
Will they teach the students that 98% of scientists can very easily lie?
And it's more likely than not, because they have bosses and they work for big companies.
Or they need grants and stuff.
And they couldn't do their jobs and stay in their profession if they told the truth.
So therefore, 98% of scientists being on any side no longer means anything.
Although it might have.
There might have been a time in the past when it did.
But it definitely doesn't now.
Because all those scientists work for somebody or depend on somebody for their income.
How about the two-on-the-nose trick?
The one I use all the time, where you hear a story that's just, you know, so perfectly crafted for the political situation, you go, that's a little too perfect, and almost always those are fake.
How about the anonymous sources?
If the New York Times reports an anonymous source in the White House said, are these kids going to be taught that the New York Times said it, so it's probably true?
Or are they going to be taught that every story with an anonymous source is fake when it comes to politics?
All of them.
They're all fake.
No, probably they're not going to teach them the truth.
They're going to teach them that if the New York Times said it, you could probably depend on that.
How about, will they show them the hoax quiz?
That in the United States, there's a list of 20 known hoaxes that were perpetrated and organized by the people at the top of the political world on one side.
Now there's probably some equivalent in the UK.
Do you think they'll show them all their hoaxes?
No, because those hoaxes have already been sold to them as true by the hoaxers.
So they'll actually teach them that the hoaxes are true and that that doesn't need to be part of their hoax detection.
Will they teach them that some of the hoaxes are organized top-down, and that they have massive media collusion, and that the media starts using the same language at the same time, which tells you that it's brainwashing, not news?
Will the kids learn that?
I doubt it.
Will the kids learn about Rupar edits?
Will they learn that you can reverse, not just change, completely reverse, What somebody said by a clever edit, just taking away a clarification.
Will they teach him that?
So that you cannot trust any quote that you see in the video.
Will they teach him how to spot an AI fake?
Maybe.
That might actually be part of the lessons.
But will they teach him to not trust any picture of anything from now on?
Which would be the way I would teach it.
Will they learn about how the government uses NGOs and relationships with intelligence people in other countries to take down critics?
Probably not.
And all of that's related to free speech and what's true and what's not.
So, imagine if I wrote the lesson on how to spot fake news.
How close would that be to what the government approved lessons on spotting fake news are going to be?
Including the UK, are in the brainwashing business.
They're not in the giving you useful and correct information business.
If they were, they would go into business themselves.
Because, like I said, no government can survive accurate news.
It would just be too ugly, and people wouldn't support it after a while.
So, that, ladies and gentlemen, is the conclusion of my prepared remarks.
And since it's Sunday, I think you should have a little extra time to go enjoy your family, your life, your hobbies, get a little exercise, get a little sun, and feel amazing today.
But I'm going to talk a little bit privately to the wonderful and beautiful subscribers of my local channel.
And I'm gonna say no, say no, I'm gonna say goodbye to X and YouTube and Rumble, and I will see all of you tomorrow.
