God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Spasmodic Dysphonia, Gell-Mann Amnesia, AI Disease Detection Tongue, North Korea Tourism, KamalaHQLies, Kamala Harris, Fine People Hoax, Competent Biden Hoax, President Trump, Tim Walz, CNN Dana Bash, CNN Propaganda, VP Harris Policies, Capitalism Ending Price Caps, CA Insurance Price Caps, Harris Joy Campaign, Male Biological Advantage, Female Biological Advantage, Political News Suppression, MSNBC, Elon Musk, Government Efficiency Commission, Pro-Trump Union Members, UAW vs. Musk, GEO-Fence Warrants, Judge James C. Ho, All Data Is Fake, Israel Hezbollah War, 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, which is already better than anything you've ever felt, up to a level that you won't even be able to explain to your grandchildren, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tankard, chalice, or stein, a canteen jug, or flask, or 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 thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it's going to happen now.
Go.
Oh my God.
That feels good.
Oh, sometimes that a sip is exactly what you need.
Well, I've got a theme today.
The theme will be, Data isn't real.
And you won't believe that I can prove that point.
Not today.
I'm going to have to work on you.
But eventually, you're going to learn that all data that matters is fake.
And always has been.
Alright, so here's some health-related things.
Apparently, cigarette smoking is at an 80-year low, according to the Gallup poll.
That's good news.
An 80 year low in smoking.
That's got to be good for your health care expenses and everything else.
And I was thinking when I read that, when was the last time you saw somebody under the age of 30 with a regular physical cigarette?
Not a vape, but a physical cigarette.
When was the last time you saw that?
It might be a California thing.
Cause I saw somebody from a Southern state saying, I see it all the time in California.
It's not like I, I don't really see a lot of young people.
I mean, I'm not really in that, in that mode, but I don't see it outdoors.
I don't see anybody under 30 taking a smoke break.
I just never see it.
So no, obviously my personal experience is not generalizable.
But it does seem to me, and I've asked this question, young people are pretty much not finding it cool at all.
There's a publication called the Medical Marketing and Media.
They did a story about RFK Jr.' 's voice problems.
As you know, most of you know, RFK Jr.
has the same voice problem that I once had, called spasmodic dysphonia.
Now, does my voice sound like RFK Jr.'s?
No.
Does my voice sound relatively normal?
Yes, it does.
But I read this article about RFK Jr.' 's voice problem, spasmodic dysphonia, and it says there's no cure.
Huh.
Why is it that you can hear my voice?
Because I am cured.
Not only does it say there's no cure, then it describes the actual surgery I had that cured me.
It's called denervation enervation, where they cut a little nerve connection in your neck that connects your brain to your vocal cords.
They just sever it and put in a new connection.
And when the new connection is fully active, it takes, I don't know, two months or something, then you can talk again.
And it takes a while before you can talk well, but that's a cure.
And the reason I got the surgery is because I talked to other people who could talk normally, who also got the cure.
Now, how in the world?
I've told you this story before about how articles on this condition say that there's no cure, but this is the oddest one yet.
It says there's no cure in direct language, and then it describes the surgery that cured me.
What's up with that?
That one's hard to even hold in your head.
Like, how did you get there?
But if you think that the medical news is accurate, well, Do you remember, uh, Gell-Mann amnesia?
Gell-Mann amnesia is when you're an expert on a topic and you could tell that all the news on it is wrong, but you wouldn't know, right?
I happen to be, unfortunately, I'm an expert on this topic from a, from a sufferer's perspective.
And, but if you're not, and you don't know anybody who ever had that condition, you would read that article and say, Oh, this is so tragic.
There's no cure, but I know there's a cure.
You're listening to it.
So every time you read a medical article, just keep this in mind.
Whenever somebody knows the topic, they can look at that same article and say, hmm, no, you got some big things wrong there.
But AI will save us all.
Apparently, there's a study of an AI model That can detect diseases in people with 98% accuracy just by looking at their... Do you know how this ends?
The AI can detect a disease in a person with 98% accuracy by looking at their... What?
Tongue.
Apparently your tongue Uh, has a lot of tells.
So it, it, there's a certain cancer look, and I guess there's, there's a look for a bunch of other diseases.
Now I don't think it, I'm pretty sure it can't detect every kind of disease, but some of the big ones, it can do pretty well.
Apparently there's some ancient Chinese, uh, medical process that involves looking at tongues, but it didn't have science behind it.
Now it does.
Well, Little North Korea is reopening for tourism.
First time in four years.
I didn't know it was open four years ago, did you?
Did you ever once think to yourself, you know, got a vacation coming up.
How about North Korea?
No, probably never thought that.
But if you'd like to do that, you can go to North Korea.
They're opening their borders for tourism.
Now, I'm going to say for the millionth time, In the world of robots and AI and who knows what's coming, there's maybe one thing that cannot be replaced by any of that, which is a physical human experience.
So if you're in the business of providing a physical human business, you're probably safer than if you had some manual labor job that a robot will someday do.
And I think that the United States, as a Critical future strategy to survive in the world.
We should try to brand itself immediately as the best travel destination.
So we should just make sure America has, you know, connected bicycle trails and, you know, just easy to travel here.
And if you get here, you can see, you know, various different sites.
Maybe we should even build something that's specifically built just because it'd be cool to come visit and look at it.
But we need to become the cleanest environment We're the easiest way to travel that everybody in the world wants to visit and take a holiday here, because I don't know what else you could do in the future that will be competitive.
Well, of course, and you'd hope other people have money to travel.
Maybe that'll be a problem.
But I'd love to see like big canals where you could just get on a boat and end up somewhere else and bicycle paths, which are being built, by the way, across the country.
But you could expand that massively because of e-bikes.
I think we should be the e-bike destination.
You just come here, rent an e-bike, and you can go anywhere you want.
That's what I think.
North Korea too.
There's an account on Axe that's relatively new that does nothing but track the Kamala Harris lies.
So if you want to follow that so you can keep up on, you know, the whole list of what she says every day, that's a lie.
Uh, the URL for that is, well, the, the X handle for that is, uh, KamalaHQlies.
All one word.
KamalaHQlies.
Put that in and follow them.
They're growing like crazy.
But they'll show you a debunk of the Fine People hoax and all of her classic hoaxes.
Anyway, so as you know, the Harris campaign is running against Trump and saying that he's a big old liar, and that's one of the main reasons you should vote for her, because of her honesty, I guess, compared to Trump.
Now, I'm not going to be the one who says that Trump passes all of the fact checks.
I'm going to be one who tells you, can you name anything that you believe was a Trump lie that hurt somebody?
Either hurt the country or hurt you because of a lie.
Can you think of anything?
I can't.
So apparently whatever Trump is doing is more salesperson lies, you know, hyperbole, directionally correct, you know, moves you in the right direction.
Doesn't hurt you for sure.
But compare that to the Harris lies.
So both she and Biden pushed the fine people hoax this week, the most debunked hoax.
Now, I can't imagine anything that is more racially dangerous than pushing the fine people hoax.
That is a seriously dangerous hoax.
And also the hoax that Biden was sharp as attack for the last year.
That's a Kamala Harris lie.
And she should have been the one whose job it was to make sure that we knew that and she took care of it.
Those are really big lies.
And I think that they put the country in serious danger.
If anybody can come up with an equivalent, just for argument's sake, somebody to like put it in my face and say, Scott, you fool, you claim that Trump's lies are harmless, you know, just hyperbole.
But what about this one?
I might be wrong.
So if anybody could give me a counter argument so I don't keep hanging out here with my dumb argument.
Tell me if you can, anything that Trump has said that you think was untrue, that was a problem.
Yeah.
So, I think the worst lying is from the Biden-Harris campaign, but maybe the highest number of fact-check problems come from Trump.
That's probably true.
Now, the interesting thing is that I always thought that Trump was at a higher level of awareness than other people, because I think he was simply aware that you didn't need to be that accurate.
As long as you're directionally correct, you can kind of just throw anything at the wall, because the public isn't paying attention, the news is fake.
You know, people just want to feel that you're pushing them in the right direction.
And I think he's good at that.
All right, apparently Tim Walz, just think about this.
The fine people thing is accusing Trump of praising neo-Nazis, but never happened.
It's just completely made up.
But here's something that's apparently real.
That Tim Walz once praised this Muslim cleric who apparently had promoted Hitler at one point and had refused to condemn the October 7th Hamas attacks.
He even called this Muslim cleric at one point a master teacher.
Now, I assume that the part where he called him a master teacher happened before he was aware that the Muslim cleric was a little bit pro-Hitler and a little bit pro-Hamas.
I don't know how much, but at least a little bit.
So I'm not sure that Tim Walz knew what he was praising, but he probably needs to clean that up.
He might need to adjust his public statements about this character.
Meanwhile, CNN did just the grossest, most clumsy fake news.
They took a part of the conversation between Musk and Trump wildly out of context, just so obviously, wildly, ridiculously dishonest.
So there was a part where Musk and Trump were talking about the dangers of nuclear power.
And they were trying, I think one of them, maybe Trump, I was trying to make the point that even Chernobyl, as bad as it was, it eventually becomes, no, not Chernobyl, he was talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that they were, essentially the cities were rebuilt.
So, however bad you think the nuclear waste or nuclear radiation is, It's not the end of everything, as bad as it is.
And that was sort of a point about nuclear power, that nuclear power maybe is not as scary as you thought.
Now it's the worst comparison ever.
Trump should never, ever compare nuclear power, which is all good and none of the, there's no such thing.
As a modern nuclear power plant that's ever had a meltdown.
The ones that you know of were previous engineered versions, versions 2 and 1.
But version 3, which is what the world has been building for quite a few years, never had a meltdown.
And the new generation, 4 after that, can't have them.
They would be designed so they couldn't meltdown under any condition, even if they lost power.
I would never use that comparison of anything about nuclear war with anything about nuclear energy.
You should just never put them in the same conversation.
So I think that was a mistake by Trump's part to use that example.
But it was used in the service of saying that regular domestic nuclear power should not be as scary as some people think it would be.
CNN took it out of context and made it look like he was saying that nuclear war was not that big a deal.
Just hold that in your mind.
What he said very clearly, if you listen to the whole context, was that nuclear energy isn't as scary as you think.
Somehow they turned that into talking about like a nuclear war or a meltdown.
Something that would be like an actual attack on a city would be somehow in the same conversation.
That's CNN.
Dana Bash, I don't think Dana Bash could be considered a news person by any stretch of the imagination.
Kamala Harris is apparently using Google Ads to make it look like the advertisement is a news story, but she's tweaking the headlines of actual news stories.
So apparently it's legal, it's just unethical.
And the news is telling us that Trump is not doing it.
And I think he's not doing it because it's unethical.
It's literally just lying research results.
So it's basically a way to fool the person who searched into thinking they hit news or they saw some news articles, but they're actually just paid Paid results by the Harris campaign.
That just isn't obvious unless you're looking for the... I assume it says probably some indication that it's paid for.
I hope.
But it would easily fool people into thinking they were real.
All right.
Here are some things that Harris needs to explain if she ever talks to the press.
You know, why did she hide Biden's health?
Why are they using the most debunked hoax in the world?
Somebody needs to ask them, why are you using the most debunked hoax?
Now, Joel Pollack asked that question of Biden, and he just did some major lying about it, but we need to See what Harris says about it.
We need to ask Harris about why she once said she wanted to free all illegal immigrants by closing the detention centers.
She wanted to close all the detention centers, which in effect would be releasing everybody into the country.
She's got to explain why she once wanted universal health care, which by the way, I don't hate.
I know you do.
But as long as it was also a private option, maybe there's room for that in the world.
I'd like to get to everybody has health care one way or the other.
Anyway, but she has to explain why she was once for it, but now she's against it.
And I think she needs to defend price caps.
Because Biden's talked about price gaps, and I think she's mentioned the same.
Now, price gaps, as every economist knows, will destroy civilization.
It's not just a little bit dangerous.
Price gaps are the end of capitalism.
It's basically a shortcut to socialism.
It's just the government telling what the company can charge, and that puts the company out of business.
The example of that is the insurance business in California.
So during the pandemic, or maybe it was when the forest fires were big in California, the insurance commissioner of the state told insurance companies that they couldn't raise prices.
The insurance company said, but you understand we wouldn't even be close to profitability because our losses are so high now, the actual claims, that if we don't change our prices by like 40% or some gigantic number, We can't offer insurance at all.
And California, I guess, hung tough.
And a whole bunch of insurance companies that used to serve the state just stopped.
Do you know what the house insurance for my house is?
$43,000 a year.
I just priced it yesterday.
$43,000 a year.
I just priced it yesterday.
$43,000 a year.
And that's because price gaps drove most of the industry out of the state, and then I believe the insurance commissioner got flexible, because literally nobody could get insurance, at least for larger houses.
There's some kind of California plan that will cover a smaller house.
But price gaps are deadly.
It destroys entire industries.
Now, how can people just stay in California if they can't get insurance or can't afford it?
You can't even live here if you can't get insurance.
Let me say that again.
You can't live in a state where you can't get insurance.
You can't.
You have to leave.
Now, I don't think California could be more poorly managed than that.
I mean, you could have literally asked anybody what would happen if you put a price gap on insurance.
Anybody could tell you what would happen.
It's the same with pharma.
It's the same with everything.
Price gaps, bad idea.
So she needs to be held to account on that.
Let me give you an update on this whole thing where the Democrats have successfully turned Kamala Harris' cackling into a joy narrative.
Oh, look how happy and joyful and positive and optimistic this campaign is.
Makes you want to smile?
Just look at them.
Look, there's Kamala dancing.
She's dancing.
She's smiling.
She's laughing.
They're full of joy.
And wouldn't you like some of that in your life, huh?
Huh?
Wouldn't you like some joy?
Elect her.
No, I think it works.
As much as I like to make fun of it, I'm totally successful.
But there's a little bit of a problem in that I don't think it works for a VP choice.
It totally works for Kamala, because it explains your cackle in a way that seems reasonable.
But he's got a creepy smile, and you can't combine the The joy idea, which works perfectly for Kamala Harris, it doesn't really work for her VP choice, because he's just got that weird eyes-don't-match-the-mouth smile that just creeps the heck out of me.
Every time I see it, I go, ugh, what is he hiding?
What is the real story behind this guy?
Now, maybe there's no real story at all.
Yeah, maybe he's just an American patriot, and he's worked his way up, and he's done everything you'd want an American to do.
Joined the military to get his education, stayed employed, helped people get ahead.
Yeah, a lot of good things you could say about him, and I don't have any evidence of any bad thing.
But, wow, if that creepy smile is just hiding nothing, I'd be surprised.
Well, meanwhile, Axios is catching up with me from five years ago and talking about how the election has turned into a boys versus the girls.
The girls, of course, being the Democrats, and the boys, of course, being the Republicans.
So, according to a New York Times-Siena College poll, Harris has a 14-point lead over Trump among likely women voters.
14-point lead among women.
But Trump has a 17-point lead among men.
Those almost cancel out, because I think more women vote.
I don't know if that's true, but I think women vote a little more often.
So, you know, those two come pretty close to canceling out, but Trump maybe has a one-point lead or something.
So, I'm going to say my provocative thing again.
If you want everybody to be happy, Except for the super woke.
Maybe they would be happy too, actually.
I'm going to suggest something that should make all Americans happy, but nobody will agree with me.
That's the fun part.
It would be the greatest solution.
None of you will agree.
I suspect 100% of you will disagree with what I'm going to say.
Our country would be better off if men handled the federal questions of national defense, like the border and whether we go to war, if men handled the federal questions about security, both border and war, and women stayed out of it.
Now, not legally staying out of it, I'm not saying that women can't vote.
I'm not saying that.
I'm not saying women shouldn't write opinion pieces.
Of course they can.
Everybody's a free person.
But we'd be better off if men took the lead with physical security of the country.
And we'd also be better off—here's where you're going to disagree with me—if women take the lead on deciding what is legal and what is not for abortion in their states.
So, women taking the dominant role.
Again, men can still vote.
Men can still make opinions on abortion.
They can write articles.
They can say things on social media.
That's fine.
But women should be the dominant voice in the states for abortion.
Now, if you say to me, but, but, but Scott, then I won't get it what I want.
Now, probably it's going to be exactly the same whether men are involved or not.
Because I think the male percentages and the female percentages are not so different.
So if you just said, you know what, women, I think it would be smart and good for the country, good for us, good for not being divided if you take the lead.
Now, of course, in the real world, spouses are pretty connected.
So, you know, if you said to your spouse, hey, you know, honey, I think maybe you should take the lead on this.
You know, your opinion is still going to be baked into your spouse's opinion a little bit, you know, one hopes.
So it's not like you would be completely out of the loop or, you know, you couldn't say what you wanted to say.
I'm just saying we'd all be better off if we took this out of politics and say, what if you took the politics out and you're just trying to figure out what makes sense?
Put the men in front of, in charge of physical security because they have more skin in the game.
Go to the border.
Are there more men or women putting themselves in harm's way?
Men.
Go to the military.
And of course, there are men and women in both organizations, of course.
Mostly men putting themselves in harm's way.
But what about abortion?
Abortion is mostly the woman taking the big part of the physical risk.
Of course, the unborn is a big part of the equation, I know.
But I'm just going to put it out there.
I think we could actually get past politics for both abortion and the border.
As long as we're stuck in the political model, you can't solve either one of them in a way that you'd be happy.
So you might as well find a process for getting to an answer that feels comfortable both biologically, but also nationally.
Biologically, I feel safer when men are protecting the country.
And I feel safer when women are making the dominant opinion on what happens with their own bodies.
So, I really think there's a room for some national leader to say, you know, why don't we just do it the way you all know you'd be most comfortable with it.
But it's going to sound sexist if you're a politician.
So not everybody has the free speech that I have.
Because I got cancelled, so I have free speech now.
More than you do.
Anyway.
There's a study that says 63% of Google content is from left-leaning sources.
So I guess the CNN and the New York Times make up 28% of all content.
If you're looking for news-related stuff on Google.
But Fox News barely accounts for 5%.
What do you think, in the real world, who do you think has more customers?
CNN or Fox News?
It's Fox News.
By a pretty big margin.
I don't know about the New York Times.
But this is obvious.
It couldn't be more obvious that Google is suppressing one side of the political debate.
Does it make a difference?
Yes.
Yes.
I'm going to make a, I guess this would be a reframe.
And I've said this before, but let me give it some extra context.
When the Constitution was created by the founders, the ability to communicate anywhere was pretty low.
So the government had a tough time communicating with the voters.
The voters had a tough time communicating with each other.
Everybody had a challenge to communicate.
You could do it, but not very well.
So under those conditions, you can build a constitution where elected people are actually in charge and the real people in charge are actual politicians.
I would argue That with the advent of the internet, where everybody can talk to everybody, that the government can't be in charge.
And I mean that in a practical sense, because the government can't go against whatever would be the dominant opinion of the people.
You know, let's say if the people by 80% wanted something.
It's very unusual.
They don't get it because the politicians need to get reelected.
So they got to go with the people.
So you've got this situation now where I believe that communication runs the country for anything that the public knows about and can get involved.
So that's why Musk is so dangerous.
Because he bought the most important political communication tool that connects everybody's ideas on politics.
In effect, the government knows that he has more power than them.
Or at least the platform does, not Musk specifically.
But the platform has more power than the government.
In my opinion, we're already there.
So you're seeing this real battle to suppress basically the censor-free speech, and you can see the example with Fox News.
So the real government, or whoever's in charge, is whoever's controlling the public conversation.
If the dark forces of the government successfully control communication by censoring X and censoring Fox News and censoring anything they don't like, Then they've taken communication out of the governing process, which is what they want to do.
And they'd like it to be back to their fake government, which is really rich people in the CIA controlling the government.
So the government is largely empty shells, except for Trump.
Trump is breaking that model, which I think is why he's in so much peril.
But your ordinary president under these circumstances would not exactly be in charge.
You know, there would be Stronger, more dangerous, richer elements that would be influencing that president.
But the risk to that model, the model where the billionaires and the special interests influence the shell of a president, is completely at risk with a populist president.
So that's why the populists in every country are being attacked.
Because populists, plus the internet, Take all the power away from the billionaires and the secret powers behind the power.
So that's the real struggle.
Anyway, let's look at some more fake news.
Here's the funniest thing about MSNBC.
So MSNBC's got some people on, like Michael Steele, who defends Harris for not talking to the press.
He says this, quote, What has struck me since Donald Trump's press conference is sort of a highbrow nature of the press.
Coming at Kamala Harris, whining that she doesn't like to talk to us.
Now, that's some pretty pretzel thinking there, Michael Steele.
He goes on a news network to tell them that the potential President of the United States doesn't really need to talk to the news.
And get off your high horse, will you, you news people, thinking that the Future president and the current vice president needs to talk to you.
Why did she need to talk to the news?
So here's what's funny.
MSNBC is allegedly a news organization and somehow they've contributed to a situation in which they're the only news entity that can't talk to either Trump or Harris.
They can't talk to Trump because they don't want to give him any airtime.
And they can't talk to Harris because she says, well, I don't need to talk to the news.
So somehow MSNBC found a way to have no connection to the news.
Where do they get their news?
They watch the other news?
Has anybody talked to any of the candidates?
Maybe we could talk about somebody else talking to them.
So when you have Elon Musk does this Spaces thing, and he says a billion people touched it in some form.
Imagine what that does to MSNBC, who would not be able to even have a conversation with Trump.
But Musk can.
And Musk also invited Kamala Harris if she wants to do the same.
No, I don't think she will.
But it's really unique that there's a major news entity that can't talk to either candidate.
Great job, MSNBC.
All right.
As Elon Musk posted on X, I think it was yesterday, and I quote, anyone who thinks the media is real is an idiot.
Does that sound familiar?
Something I like to say.
I have a version of it, which is, you can't have a political conversation with anybody who thinks the news is real.
That's my version of it.
And as soon as you hear that, you go, oh wow, that is true.
You really can't.
You literally can't.
Have a political conversation with someone who thinks the news is real.
It just goes off the rails immediately.
Because it'll take about a second for them to say something that is completely ridiculous and not true.
And they'll say, I heard it on the news!
Don Trump Jr.
is boosting the idea of Elon Musk heading up a government efficiency committee.
Now, I think I told you that when Trump heard the idea from Musk on the spaces, That Elon would be part of a committee to maybe cut costs or make the government more efficient.
Trump said he liked the idea, but it did really seem like a lack of enthusiasm.
It was more like he was being polite, it sounded to me.
But when Don Jr.
boosts it, that would be, I would think, reasonably, this seems logical.
That the campaign and Trump himself probably thinks this is a good idea.
Probably does.
All right, so maybe we'll see that.
But I would advise anybody who is in favor of this to not talk about details before the election.
Because here's what you don't want.
You don't want MSNBC telling everybody that Musk is going to cut your Social Security.
Because you know they're just going to make up shit.
Yeah, the moment there's anything real to it, like there's an actual agreement that the committee will exist and that Elon Musk will be on it, immediately they'll create fake news that says he wants to cut things that you know you don't want cut.
So I wouldn't get into any details.
Just say, generally speaking, I think it would be a good idea to look at how the whole government runs and see if you can fix it.
Frank Luntz, Told the unhappy CNN panel that union membership likes Trump more than union members have ever liked any Republican.
And that they tell him that they disagree with their leadership.
Their leadership, in many cases, are anti-Trump.
And Luntz says he's never seen anything like it.
It's very clear that the workers are pro-Trump.
Now, he makes the exception for the teachers' union, which is not pro-Trump, and government unions, which may not be pro-Trump.
Are there government unions?
I don't even understand that.
But anyway, and I guess he says the focus group members are saying the union leaders, quote, don't speak for me.
Now, this is funny because the United Auto Workers filed a federal labor charges, some legal action, against Trump and Musk because of something they said in The Spaces.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Elon Musk got sued five times this week?
I'm forgetting all the times he got sued, but throw this in the mix.
So all he does is have a conversation with Trump, you know, for the service to the country, so we can all hear it, and he gets sued about five times.
The Olympic boxer is suing him and the UAW is coming after him and there's somebody else coming after him because they say that the Spaces event was like a corporate donation to Trump.
I think there are a few others.
So three to five legal actions, like in one week.
Imagine being Elon Musk and just being sued every fucking day by somebody who just says, well, he's got big pockets and, you know.
Anyway, but here's what the UAW said.
So it made that federal labor charge and it said, at one point, Trump and Musk were talking about workers who go on strike for better wages.
Trump said, if workers go on strike and you say, that's okay, you're all gone, you're all gone, so everyone is gone.
So Trump was sort of praising Musk as a cost-cutter in his own businesses, and that, I guess he threatened to fire them if they did something, maybe organize or something.
I don't know the story behind it.
But Elon Musk responded to that on X by saying, quote, the last two UAW presidents went to prison for bribery and corruption.
And based on recent news, it looks like this guy will join them.
Oh my god!
I think Musk is the most danger-loving public figure I've ever seen in my life.
I mean, he just likes the fight, apparently.
So he goes right after this guy saying he might go to prison for bribery and corruption like the last two leaders of the UAW.
And I don't know if there's anything to that, but that's a hilarious comeback.
All right, Trump has stated that that slurring you heard on his bases was because of a microphone or a technology problem.
He's proven that to be true by releasing the audio that was taken in the room.
So if you listen to his audio while he was in the room and not through the microphone and cell phone and everything else, it sounded fine apparently.
Now I haven't listened to it, but I assume it's true or he wouldn't say that.
So I think that question is answered, that it was in fact a technical problem.
If it had not been a technical problem, There would be no such thing as a in-room audio of him speaking fine.
And a number of people said they didn't hear any of the problems in the first place, which was also evidence that it was a technology problem.
So, um, that probably won't stop the Democrats from saying it was something else, but that's something.
It's better than nothing.
All right.
Um, oh, uh, also there's a, The Brazilian Supreme Court wants to censor a bunch of accounts on the X platform.
This is all just this week.
So that's what, the fourth one?
The fourth legal action against X?
My God.
Well, here's some good news.
There's a Fifth Circuit judge who just ruled that geofencing warrants violate the Fourth Amendment.
Now, a geofence is when you check somebody's phone And you see that they were in a certain place at a certain time.
This is relevant to the January 6th stuff, because the way they found people and rounded them up is by checking phones.
So they could say, okay, you had a phone, you were in this building, we will now track you down.
It's called hunting.
They would hunt down the Republicans from January 6th.
And if I understand this correctly, and Julie Kelly's talking about it, On X. I think it means that some of the January 6 people might have a legal mechanism for freedom.
Because if they were rounded up based on a geofencing warrant, in other words, someone in the law enforcement said, hey, phone companies, tell us everybody who uses your phones and was in this area at that time.
Apparently that's illegal.
Now, law enforcement would argue that making that illegal would hamstring the government, or it would hamstring law enforcement.
And the judge, Judge Ho, said in his opinion, he said, hamstringing the government is the whole point of the Constitution.
Oh my God, how much do I love that guy?
Let me say that again.
Hamstringing the government is the whole point of the Constitution.
Yeah!
Yeah, that's the point.
The point is the Constitution tells the government what they can't fucking do to you.
So, yes, it will make it harder to catch criminals, but you know what else?
It'll make it harder to catch people who are just there to protest.
So, yeah, the Constitution is there to keep the government from doing the things that it might be inclined to do.
So, Judge Ho, you have my full support.
Apparently he's on a short list for Supreme Court, and boy, boy am I liking him at the moment.
Anyway, remember I told you the old data is fake?
Roger Pielke, who's a climate change scientist, expert kind of guy, but he's on the more skeptical side of things.
He made a list of all five things that are just, you know, obviously wrong with the Climate science.
But here's one that caught my attention is number five was that a bunch of interns made a data set and then it was used as an official data.
So here's what Pilkey says.
I have recently documented how the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences called the PNAS.
P-N-A-S.
How would you pronounce that?
I think it's called the penis.
Right?
Because I don't think they say, I'm a member of the P.N.A.S.
That's sort of clunky.
I think they say, I'm part of a penis, and you're part of a penis, and together we're two penis members.
And there's no word if a woman can be a member of the penis.
But I suppose we could, because we don't know exactly who is a woman anyway.
But anyway, so I got a little off topic there, but anyway, the PNS, which Pilkey says is supposedly one of the top science journals, published a paper using the data set that was in, now here's Pilkey's description of the data set, cobbled together by some interns for marketing and now defunct insurance company.
There is actually no such data set out in the real world.
It is fiction.
So, remember I told you that data is never real for anything that matters.
Data is real for things that don't matter.
But if it matters, and there's big money involved, like climate and lots of things, that data is never real.
Now, I know you don't believe that.
But there's a journey that you need to take.
You're partway there.
It starts with, Santa Claus was never real.
Now you're already there, right?
You probably got there when you were very young, and you're like, wait a minute!
Adults can lie to me about this very basic thing?
There's no Santa Claus?
Yes, it's true.
Then later as an adult, maybe more recently, you started noticing there was something weird about the news, right?
You said to yourself, Wait a minute, that Trump guy says this news is fake.
Well, I hadn't really noticed that before, but now that you bring it up, I am seeing a lot of examples where that news is fake.
And then eventually you get to the point where you say, all right, it's a good thing I'm watching the real news and not all that fake stuff.
And then you keep watching and you realize, wait a minute, all of the news is just narrative.
It's not news per se, although some of the things are true.
It's more packaged opinion.
They're trying to give me an opinion.
And it doesn't matter what source you're looking at, they're trying to package an opinion.
They might look like news, but they're trying to give you an opinion.
So then you say to yourself, wait a minute, the news is not even trying to be news.
It's not that some of it is not true.
It's that they're not even trying to be true.
And that's a whole different level than believing they sometimes make a lot of mistakes, or thinking that one side is lying and the other isn't.
If you're still in that model, you have some growing to do.
The news is narrative, which is not really news, and there's nothing else it can be.
Because if you had real news, even the government would fold.
Because governments are messy.
If you saw how, you know, the famous thing, how they made the sausage, if you saw all the mistakes and the biases and the, you know, who's bribing whom and all this, if you saw any of that, you wouldn't support any government.
Governments have to pretend to be more fair and more capable than they really are just to stay in power.
It doesn't matter if they're Democrats or anybody else.
Every government has the ability to totally control their own news.
Dictators will just, you know, close things down and put people in jail.
But in the Democrat world, they just find ways to control the media.
You know, our intelligence people will do it, the billionaires will do it.
So controlling the media is necessary for any country to even survive.
So once you realize that the news is not even intended to be true, then you're at a higher level of awareness.
It's not designed to be true.
It's designed to cause something to happen, such as your opinion, your vote, etc.
It's all about influencing you.
It's not about telling you what's real.
Now, the exceptions would be things that you could also observe.
If there's a hurricane coming, that's true, and it'll be on the news.
Because you can observe it.
So they will tell you the truth when there's no way around it.
You can see it yourself, right?
It's hot today.
Yeah, the weather says it's hot.
So that's one example.
So that's in the highly critical area of climate change.
The data is not real.
Now you're probably at the level where you say to yourself, but Scott, that's, you know, one example.
And then I'll give you other examples.
You'll say, yeah, yeah, yeah.
But those are, you know, the world's a big place.
You and your five examples don't sway me.
And probably they don't.
But I will tell you this.
Everybody who's ever worked for a big organization and it was their job to pull data together and then put it in a coherent analysis will all agree with me That all data is fake.
That matters.
All data that matters, and that's not directly observable like a hurricane, that's all fake.
And the reason is that there's always somebody who has a lot of money involved, and that's who collects the data.
The people who have a lot of money involved, and the data going one way or the other.
There's never an exception to that.
Because the people who don't have big money involved, why would they put money into collecting data on it?
There wouldn't be any point.
They don't have anything involved.
So there is a perfectly logical reason why all data is fake.
Now, when I was doing data analysis for a bank and then the phone company, I started out by thinking, I'd better do an accurate job of this data and this analysis.
But you learn very quickly that your boss doesn't care that you tell them the data is inaccurate.
They just want it to say what they want it to say.
Because they've already decided what they're going to do.
Now, you might say, but Scott, that's a terrible situation.
How can those businesses stay in business if they're just using lying data all the time?
And the answer is most business is instinctual.
So, you know, if Apple says, should I look into this new technology that my competitors are doing?
You don't really need to do the cost-benefit analysis, because you know they can afford it.
And if it didn't work out, it was a good thing they looked into it.
So Apple already knows, I'll just use them as an example, that they needed to do VR glasses.
But that means that somebody probably did some kind of a business case to show that if we invest this and these days we'll be able to make this product and, you know, we'll sell a lot.
Whoever did that analysis was a professional liar.
Internally, they might have needed some support that says, look, look at all these numbers.
We can sell a lot of these.
Let's make them.
But if you're an experienced manager and you've got enough money that you can kind of do this stuff, you know that it's just a good cost benefit to make sure that you've covered that domain just in case somebody else makes it a big market.
You know, you don't want to be late to it.
So it just makes sense that you get into it and whether it works or not, it's a better decision.
So the point is, experienced managers can almost always make the correct decision without looking at the data.
But if the data agrees with them, they'll also mention it.
Here's another one.
According to the Daily Skeptic, The measurements for the temperatures in the UK are all based on junk.
So apparently the situation in their measuring devices, plus the heat island effect, plus human beings, the argument is that the data measuring the temperature is pretty much BS.
Here's another one.
There's a study that finds that, in the physics organization I guess, a study finds that 94% of business spreadsheets have critical errors.
Critical errors.
Not small ones.
94% of spreadsheets have critical errors.
Do you know who knew that before this study?
I did.
Do you know how I knew it?
Because I did spreadsheets for a living.
For years, it was my job to collect the data and put it on a spreadsheet.
How many times did I present something and then later find, oh shoot, I added the wrong column?
Oh, it happened.
It happened.
Yeah.
I don't know if it's every time, and I'm sure some people are better than others at these spreadsheets, but I'm not surprised that 95% of them are wrong.
Now, keep in mind, That's just the spreadsheet is wrong.
That's not the data.
The data that went into the spreadsheet was wrong, if it mattered at all, and then the spreadsheet added some extra wrongness.
And then after you took the data that wasn't real, and you put it in the spreadsheet that had a critical error, it was presented to management, And it agreed with whatever management or whoever's paying you wanted it to be, because that's why you did it.
And then they do their thing.
The real world is all fake.
The data especially.
All right, so that's where we are.
There's a bunch of billionaires who are still trying to buy TikTok.
I guess the deadline for that Would be January 9th, otherwise, according to current law in the United States, TikTok would be banned on January 9th.
The only way it could be still in the United States, hypothetically, I think there's a lot of wiggle room in this story, so anything could happen.
But hypothetically, somebody's got to buy it and make it an American product that makes our government happy, or it will just die on January 9th.
I can't see it dying.
I don't know.
I would think maybe the deadline will get extended, if I had to guess.
I don't know.
So, the U.S.
is trying to get Israel and Hamas to make peace.
So, we're trying hard, says the news, but why would they?
Why would Israel want to stop?
Hamas is not going to offer to lay down their arms and give the hostages back.
Israel wants to completely dominate and control Gaza forever, and they're not done where they can do that yet.
There's nothing that would stop Israel.
I mean, you'd have to actually, like, you know, boycott the country or, you know, cut all ties with it.
You'd have to do something radical, which isn't going to happen.
So, all these are fake stories.
It's just fake news.
It's not like there's really any chance that there's going to be a ceasefire anytime soon.
There will be a ceasefire when there's nobody left to shoot.
I believe that's Israel's intention, because they talk about total victory.
That's Netanyahu's phrase, total victory.
Total victory doesn't mean you do a ceasefire.
So there isn't really any chance there's going to be a ceasefire until they're absolutely done.
And logically, that makes sense.
Then there's the question about Hezbollah.
So, you know, they're backed by Iran, and Iran wants to attack Israel because Israel Took out that Hamas leader within Iranian territory.
So Iran has to act tough.
They've got to do something.
But it looks to me like there's a big part of the Israeli government that is saying, hey, let's make peace with Hezbollah.
We don't want a war with them.
But another big part is saying this would be kind of a good time to do that.
Right now that we're You're getting Gaza under control militarily.
This would be a time to turn the guns on Hezbollah.
But whether you wanted to go hard at Hezbollah or you didn't want to go hard at them and you wanted to see if you could keep the peace, in both cases you're still going to wait and find out what Iran does.
So if Iran tells Hezbollah to do a massive attack on Israel, I think it's guaranteed that Israel will destroy Hezbollah, no matter how expensive that is.
Because they have to.
And I would add that war with Hezbollah isn't really a yes-no.
It's not a yes-no proposition.
War with Hezbollah is going to happen.
You're only talking about when.
So if you can get to the point where you understand that war with Hezbollah is guaranteed, because there's no way Israel is going to put up with a continuing, growing, murderous number of missiles.
They've got 100,000 missiles.
100,000 missiles aimed at Israel.
Tiny little Israel.
100,000 missiles.
Do you think Israel is going to let that situation just get worse?
What happens when they have a million missiles?
Is there anything that would stop them from getting to a million missiles?
I mean, if you can get to 100,000 and you haven't used them all, I think you can get to 200,000 before long.
So yeah, it's guaranteed that Hezbollah and Israel will have a war.
And if Iran goes for an aggressive military response at the moment, it's on.
It's definitely on.
If they don't, it's still on.
It'll just be a little later.
There's no way there's not going to be a war with Hezbollah.
So to imagine that that could be ended with some kind of negotiation is kind of ridiculous.
So the war is on.
It's just a matter of time.
And then Rasmussen did a poll on Middle East policy and who voters trusted more to handle it.
And the answer is 53% of voters trust Trump and 40% trust Harris for a Middle East policy.
That's a pretty big difference.
Pretty big difference.
So, it's hard to imagine the situation where Trump doesn't get elected.
I've seen some people say that, was it comic Dave Smith who said this on Tucker's show, that the support for Harris looks completely artificial and manufactured, and that the actual situation is that Trump would win easily if he had the election today.
I don't know if that's true.
My instinct tells me that it wouldn't matter how popular Harris is.
Because I think as Joel Pollack pointed out, she's running as the generic candidate at the moment.
And the generic candidate can totally beat Trump.
Because you know what's wrong with the generic candidate?
Nobody knows.
Nobody knows.
Because it's generic.
It's not an actual person.
You know, if you're running against an actual person, that person will have character flaws and a bad history.
But you can't beat the generic.
In fact, it probably works the other way, too.
I think a generic Republican could probably beat any actual Democrat.
Because, again, same problem.
The real person would have flaws.
But a generic one?
No.
A generic one's great.
No flaws.
I think it's going to be a real close election, and I don't think we'll have a result.
I think that we'll have to wait and probably battle it out in the courts.
I hope it's in the courts when we do the battling.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, this concludes my prepared remarks.
If you're not watching the Dilbert comic, Dilbert Reborn, Which is available only to subscribers on X, see my profile in the subscribe button, and on the Locals platform, but there's lots more there with politics and my other comic called Robots Read News.
However, you should know that Dogbert is a space station consultant, and this week he's being asked to work on that problem of the Boeing rocket that stuck to the spaceship.
Now, except it's not a Boeing rocket in my comic, it's Dilbert's company's rocket, and Doug Burt will be advising them how to handle it.
So if you want to know how that ends, you'll have to subscribe.
And you probably know that my book, Reframe Your Brain, is changing the world, getting lots of feedback on this.
This literally will change your life, by the way.
I hate marketing.
I really hate it, because it's mostly lying.
But it is genuinely true that people tell me that the reframes in this book are changing their lives in major ways.
So that's just true.
So I can say that, that's not marketing.
I can also say that this book, the God's Debris, plus the Religion War, the sequel, plus the new writing at the end, which is a short story that rounds out the trilogy, as I call it.
A lot of people call this the best book they've ever read.
It's more philosophical than fiction, but I don't know how many times people will say any book is the best book they've ever read.
That is a weird thing to say about any book, if you're a reader at all.
But people say that all the time about God's debris.
And if you haven't seen the reissue of My classic book, Had to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Wouldn't Beg, I would say the most influential book in the success field because a lot of other books have picked up systems over goals and talent stacks and, you know, micro-movements toward your goals and stuff like that.
But that's the OG right there.
So, I mention these because now that I'm cancelled, I don't have publishers per se, so I have to do that myself.
And you'll love all of them.
Thanks for that.
I'm going to say bye to X and Rumble and YouTube.
I'm going to talk to my beloved subscribers on Locals.
Every night I do a Man Cave livestream with just the Locals people.
