God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Body-Brain Connection, CO2 Concentration, Fake Jobs Data, Fake Crime Data, Andrew Tate Detained, Nuclear Weapons Group DEI, RFK Jr., Democrat Male Roll-Models, Foreign Troll Election Influence, DNC Hoaxes Support, Tim Walz, Daniel Dale's Fake Fact-Checking, Thomas Crooks Foreign Encrypted Apps, 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
The thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Oh.
Oh.
Oh, that's good stuff.
Well, let's talk about some fun science-y updates and then politics.
Politics!
We'll get to it.
So there's some research published in the Science Advances saying that the simpler your headline, the more clicks you get.
That's right.
If people reading the news see your headline and they understand what all the words mean, they're more likely to click it.
If they don't understand what you're trying to say in the headline, or it's a little too clever, they won't click it, because why would they?
They don't even know what it's about.
Now, who could have told you that without the research?
Who could have told you that if you understand what the topic is of the story, You're more likely to click it versus not knowing what the story is about because they use big confusing words.
Oh, they could have asked me.
They could, they could have saved some money.
Scott, we're thinking of doing this study to see if dumb ass, big fricking academic looking titles get as many clicks as clear, fun, short ones.
And I would have said, Whoa, good thing you asked me save your money.
Those clear short ones are going to get more interest.
Now, here's the fun part.
How many of you remember back in 2015 and 2016 when Donald Trump was considered the dumbest person in all of public life?
Because when he talked, he talked like he had a sixth-grade vocabulary.
I mean, my goodness, how could he possibly be president with a sixth-grade vocabulary?
He's always using simple words, and what's wrong with that guy, huh?
And then I told you, that's perfect.
The thing they're criticizing is the best communication style of all time, according to every study and every observable experience.
When was the last time you heard the media criticize Trump for his simplistic communication style?
I bet you didn't realize it completely disappeared, did you?
Honestly, it's been years.
I think it's been years.
Since they brought that, oh, he uses simple vocabulary.
Do you know why?
Because at this point, everybody figured out that was the better way to communicate because the world is not as smart as writers and people who make headlines.
The people who make headlines went to college and the college told them to use big words, and so they do, to impress their editors and their friends.
And then the people who read it who necessarily maybe didn't go to such a good college, they look at it and say, I don't know what those words mean.
I think I'll click on something else.
So I really could have helped you there.
But once you understand that Trump is the Arguably the best public communicator of all time.
You know, even with his flaws, nobody's ever been more persuasive or more clear about what they want than he has.
So, shorter is better.
There's a medical study saying that, it's published in the JMA, J-A-M-A, psychiatry publication, anyway, shows that kids who had persistent inflammation as kids, body inflammation, were far more likely to develop serious mental health disorders, including psychosis and depression.
Now, to their credit, The article about it says very clearly that they have not established that the inflammation causes the other problems.
It could be either related or associated.
So the first thing I'll say is congratulations for clearly writing about science in a way that makes sense, but At what point in the article did they tell you that it wasn't necessarily causation?
Was it up at the top?
Was the first sentence, we don't know if this is causation, but there's a great correlation between.
Do you think it did that?
No, it did not.
No, you had to read a long time before they confessed, you know, we don't know if the inflammation causes the problems.
Could be just correlation.
So I'm only going to give impartial credit because the reason that you would click it and read it is that you thought that they had established some causation.
And if you knew that they did not establish any causation, Because they don't have the data to do that yet.
Maybe you would have read it differently or not read it.
But here's my hypothesis that I've been working on for a long time.
The other day, I had a very bad mental attitude.
I woke up just feeling the sense of dread and doom.
That wasn't really connected to anything happening in the world that was different than the day before when I felt fine.
You know, surely there are problems in the world, but why did I feel fine yesterday?
And then I wake up one day and then I feel like dread and doom.
You know what the answer is?
It's how my body felt.
When my body feels suboptimal, my brain follows along.
If you're still under the model that your brain and your body are two different functions, you're gonna be fucked.
Your odds of happiness are practically zero.
Let me say that again.
If you think that your brain and your... Well, let's put it another way.
If you think that your body is not a component of your mind, and that it's only that little brain thing that's inside your skull that's part of your mind, oh, you're not gonna succeed at anything.
You have to get rid of that.
Your body is your brain.
Here's what I mean.
How did I solve the problem that I felt a sense of doom and dread and, you know, I would have even called it like a mild depression.
It was because my body didn't feel good.
I didn't have enough exercise.
I had some inflammation maybe.
So I basically take a You know a, what do you call it?
Epsom salt hot bath and my inflammation goes away and I eat some food I like and I get some sleep and all the doom went away.
So my brain problem was just my body.
So as soon as you realize that your brain is your body and that imagining they're two separate systems gets you all the wrong answers.
Your body is your brain.
I'm depressed.
What am I going to do about it?
Do some brain stuff?
No, do something with your body.
Get outside, get some sun, get some vitamin D, work on your inflammation.
If you, if you have a problem.
So that's my hypothesis based on my observation of my own life is that whenever my body hurts, my brain is in a bad place.
Whenever my body feels extraordinary, my brain's fine.
No problems at all.
Anyway, It's a good thing that climate models are dependable.
Oh, well, there's a new story that two prominent and very experienced climate scientists, you've probably heard of them before, they're sort of the contrarians in that space, Richard Lindzen, I've talked about him before, and William Happer.
Now, they're both very highly qualified professionals in science, and specifically spent a lot of time in the global climate change stuff.
Here's what they say.
Apparently, their claim is the following.
That if you add some CO2 to the air, it might warm the environment.
Or does, actually.
So they would agree that if you add CO2, human-produced CO2 to the air, and there's not much there already, that as you're adding a little bit to the air, it will cause some warming.
But here's the surprising part.
Their claim is that when you reach a certain level, which we have already reached, that the science is very clear that the CO2 will stop having that same warming property.
In other words, we've already reached peak CO2 warming potential.
Adding more won't make any difference at all.
So their claim is, let's see if I can get it in their words, that the physics of carbon dioxide is that CO2's ability to warm the planet is determined by its ability to absorb heat.
So if it doesn't absorb heat, it doesn't warm the planet.
Its ability to absorb heat, this is the CO2, decreases rapidly as CO2 concentration increases.
So it's basically the opposite of all of climate change.
It does correlate with an increase in temperature at lower rates, but when you reach about where we are now, it should plateau.
So they're saying basically it's not going to add any warming because it can't.
As soon as you have enough concentration of CO2, which is where we're at, you could add more, but it won't get any warmer.
Now, do all scientists agree?
Of course not.
But these are two very qualified, well-known, you know, even I know these names.
I'm not in the scientific field, but I'm well aware of these two scientists.
So if they're right, then everything about the climate models is wrong.
And they've made a fairly simple claim, one that you think could be tested.
Now, I'm not going to claim that these scientists are right and all the other scientists are wrong.
I'm going to claim that we don't know anything about anything.
All of our sense of certainty It's all artificial.
It's, you know, we imagine that the data is never going to change, and nobody's lying, and all the assumptions they made are true, and that it's actually possible to predict the future based on a multi-variable model.
It's not.
It's not.
It's not even close to possible.
And everybody in the field knows it.
But you don't.
All right.
So, but if that were the only problem, that would be the end of the climate crisis completely.
And it does seem like a testable claim.
Could you not test in a laboratory the increasing CO2 in, let's say, just a laboratory setting, a totally controlled environment?
I think they've done that, right?
I'm pretty sure I've seen tests where in the laboratory, if you introduce CO2 to a little closed environment, you can demonstrate that it causes warming.
So, if the claim is that at a certain saturation level it stops doing that, instead of infinitely creating more warming, that would be easy to test, wouldn't it?
Couldn't you just build a little terrarium or something that looks like Earth in a box or, you know, in a sealed environment, introduce some CO2, measure the temperature.
Sure enough, we added CO2 and the temperature went up.
Now keep adding it until you get to the concentration we're at today in the real world.
Does it keep going up as you keep adding to it?
Or does it plateau as these two scientists would suggest?
So, the fascinating thing about this is it seems so testable.
Maybe we'll find out it's real.
Who knows?
I'm not going to tell you that these scientists are right and the others are wrong, because I have no way to know that.
But I love the fact that they're very qualified people and they've got a very different idea of what's going on.
But at least the rest of the climate model stuff is all pretty solid.
You know, it's only that one assumption that they have to test.
You know, the one assumption that drives everything?
That's the only one they're questioning.
The one assumption that makes everything different.
But are there any other assumptions in these climate models, huh?
Well, it turns out that there have been some new studies of ice, and they can melt the ice in a special scientific way and figure out what kind of gases and stuff are in the ice.
And then they can reconstruct things about the past to know if their climate models today, you know, would have worked in the past as well.
That's pretty important.
So what'd they find out?
Well, it turns out that the amount of biomass that has burned over time has been decreasing as the population of the world increases.
So biomass burning means like a forest fire.
You know, just a natural fire outdoors is a biomass burning.
So the climate models assumed that the more people you added to the world, the more burning there would be.
I assume they mean because people would burn forests to plant farms.
People would burn wood to heat themselves.
People would, you know, people, humans would be burning a lot of stuff.
So the climate models assume More people equals more burning.
That's a basic part of the models, but it turns out that when you look at the ice samples.
The more humans there are, the less biomass there is that's burned.
It's opposite.
So one of the key assumptions that people equals more burning, and that's fed into the model, is opposite according to these new studies.
Now, again, does it mean the new study is correct and all the things in the model are incorrect?
I don't know that.
I'm just saying that one part of science that should be taken as credibly as the rest, probably, is saying that they got that big variable opposite.
So suppose there were only two problems with the models that have lots of variables.
And suppose the only two problems were they got this biomass thing backwards, And they got the CO2 doesn't eat anything after it reaches a certain saturation.
What if they got those two things wrong?
Well, then the entire bottles are nothing.
Garbage.
Now, let me say something again that if you're not convinced yet, oh, I'm going to wear you down.
It goes like this.
There is no such thing as accurate data for anything that matters.
If it doesn't matter, or it's something we all observe, like, yes, there's a hurricane.
Yes, the news says there's a hurricane.
Science says there's a hurricane.
Okay, the easy stuff we all agree, that's real.
But all the stuff that really has big dollars involved, it's never real.
You can't have Data collection and big dollars involved at the same time.
But unfortunately, that's the only way anything happens.
Because the only people willing to spend all the money it would take to collect data on something as big as the climate would be people who have a lot of money involved.
So there isn't actually a system in place in the world to get accurate data about anything that matters.
Think about that.
It's not a set of accidents.
It's not like, well, we looked at this data and it turns out that somebody involved was gaming the system.
But then we looked at some other data.
Oh, it turned out there was something wrong with that data too.
And you say to yourself, wow, I'm sure all the rest of the data in the world is good, but these two look like they were wrong.
No, there is no way that it's even possible for data to be correct about anything important.
Because the people presenting it have an interest.
And they're only going to show it to you if they can make that data look whatever it is that they need it to look.
So, no, there's no such thing as accurate data about anything that matters.
And don't be confused by the data on things that don't matter.
There's probably plenty of data on things that don't matter to anybody politically or monetarily.
But if it matters, and there's money involved, it's never real.
It can't be.
Design is destiny.
The design of the system is the only people who collect the data are the people who have a lot of money involved in it being one way.
That's our system.
Suppose you designed that on paper, and you presented it to somebody as a way to run the world.
Suppose nobody had ever collected any data for anything before, and you said, you know what?
If we started collecting data in this world and we applied some science, we'd be way ahead.
So they come up with the idea of collecting data and they say, all right, here's how we're going to do it.
It's going to be expensive to collect any data that really matters and it's going to move the needle.
So who's going to be doing the collecting?
The government?
Oh no, the government might be biased.
You know, it might be Democrats in office versus Republicans.
You can't really trust the government with data.
So then I'd say, wait, so you're saying that all information that comes from the government will be fake?
Oh yes, of course it will.
Of course it will.
Because it's either Democrats in charge or Republicans in charge, and neither of them have an interest in telling you the truth.
Right?
They have a gigantic monetary and other career interest in telling you the truth they want you to hear.
Do you think we could see that effect in the real world if the government has an incentive to lie to you all the time?
Well, let's look at some data.
Have you heard about the jobs reports that are being revised by over 800,000 because they were all fake?
Turns out it's way worse than that.
Because we might be looking at jobs that were created as fake jobs to get PPP money during the pandemic.
So there's some suggestion that there might be 5 million fake jobs.
Because people pretended they had employees so they could get money from the government and pretended they had companies.
So some people think that our jobs numbers are completely just ridiculous and just made up, and now they're being revised.
So that's exactly what you would expect to happen if, in fact, your design of how you collect data was wrong and delegated to the people who had the most interest in lying to you.
The current situation.
Let's see, what else?
How about our numbers about crime?
Do you think our crime statistics that come from the government are pretty good?
Pretty accurate?
No, because some people stopped collecting crime and then they started just making stuff up.
And I think we're all aware at this point that the crime numbers are made up.
Would you agree?
And even when they're not made up, they put it in the wrong context, like comparing to the pandemic versus not the pandemic, which is no comparison at all.
So we don't have jobs numbers that are real.
And we don't have crime numbers that are real.
And it's because the government is in charge of those numbers.
And there is no scenario in which the government wants you to have real numbers.
Every scenario, no matter who's in charge, they want it to look like it's good for their team.
Period.
So if you were to ask private companies to get you information, let's say drug companies to do drug studies, what should you expect?
If you're going to put that design, if you're going to design that system on paper, all right, the people who could make a billion dollars if the drug is safe are in charge of telling you that the data says it's safe.
What do you expect?
Yeah, the design of the system guarantees that all important data is fake.
We've designed the system See, you have to understand that it's a system design problem.
It's not a bunch of people who have made a mistake coincidentally in each of these important domains.
That's not what's going on.
There's no mistakes happening.
People have a great interest in making assumptions that will drive the numbers the way they want them to be driven.
And whoever collects numbers gets to make the assumptions.
Oh, these numbers are good enough.
They're in.
These numbers don't look dependable to me.
I'll leave these out.
That's how it works.
All right.
Let's see.
There's another study that says female doctors have a far greater risk of taking their own life than even male doctors, but higher than other professions.
Now, when I used to be a banker, It was my job to make loans to doctors and dentists and professionals like that for a while.
That was my job.
And one of the risks of making loans to medical professionals, especially dentists, is that they had unusually high rates of taking their own lives.
Dentists in particular have like career-wise are right at the top of taking their own lives.
I'm not surprised that doctors may be a little higher and that female doctors are the highest.
And I have a hypothesis to add to this.
The obvious things would be that being a doctor isn't as good as it used to be and you don't have the same prestige.
You know, the work is terrible and a lot of the time you're just doing work that's just busy work to make sure you stayed up all night.
Because for some reason the medical field wants to torture you when you're a new doctor.
I've never understood that.
To make you stay up 21 hours and all that stuff.
But here's my hypothesis.
Since all of those things would be pretty common, male or female, I think it's access to pills.
If you were a doctor and you were deciding to end it all, wouldn't you do it with pills?
I would think so.
And if you had access to them because you could get all you wanted, I would think that would explain most of it, actually.
You know, it seems like there are a lot of people who probably think about doing something to themselves, but it's sort of hard.
You know, you're not quite sure how to do it in a way that you'd be willing to do it.
But if your job was giving out pills, and you could get all you wanted, you could have asked me.
You didn't have to do the study.
Scott, do you think that the industry that can get all the tools of taking your own life very easily, do you think they would have higher rates of doing it?
I'd say, yeah, probably.
If you can get exactly the tool and it's easier for you, sure.
Well, it looks like The headlines say that Andrew Tate has been detained again by the Romanian officials, so he got arrested.
Do you know what is the weird part of this?
The headline says, Andrew Tate detained again in Romania, but you read it and it says, you know, his brother was picked up too.
I feel sorry for Andrew Tate's brother, Tristan, because he's always the also guy.
Andrew Tate Gets picked up by the Romanian cops.
And his brother, too.
So, here's my question.
Since we don't know what those charges are, and Tate says he doesn't know what the charges are based on, what evidence, he says there's no evidence, I don't have an opinion about whether he did or didn't anything wrong.
I will state again that citizens, even a citizen of Romania, is innocent until proven guilty.
Based on our standards, you know, he hasn't been proven guilty.
So he's innocent until proven guilty in my personal standard of these things.
But here's the question.
Do you think he would have been picked up if there were not an American election coming?
I feel like he's one of those people who can move young votes, especially young males.
I think that maybe Romania was asked to pick him up by somebody associated with the United States, because he's exactly the kind of person you want to take off the field when, you know, people under 30 are looking to figure out who to vote for after not thinking about it until the last minute.
He's exactly the kind of person they don't want talking for the next few months.
To me, this looks very suspicious.
The timing looks suspicious.
The lack of, you know, any obvious evidence that we can see, the public can see of guilt.
And again, I want to be very clear.
It's not my job to defend them from any charges.
I have no idea what they did or did not do.
I have no, no awareness of any of that.
I'm just saying that if I were to, if you had asked me to guess, would they be picked up just about now?
I think I might've put a bet on it.
If you'd said, all right, take a bet.
Give me, give me your bet.
Would you bet that the Taits would be re-arrested and maybe never charged, you know, just taken off the field and taken off the social media before the American election?
Would you place a bet on that?
I think I would have.
I think I would have placed a bet on that, that they would be arrested again only because they're effective.
People listen to him.
They have a big platform.
And they're, you know, presumably they're going to be more pro-Trump than pro-Biden or pro-Kamala Harris.
Anyway, there's a report that the Chinese tech companies are hiring, quote, cheerleaders to motivate the programmers.
Now, based on the photo, the cheerleaders would look like they would be heterosexual, attractive young women.
Whose job, they say, is to do stuff like buy breakfast for the programmers, have conversations with them, and play ping-pong.
Now, if that's true, America just has to give up and surrender, because we can't compete with that.
No.
What if our programmers suddenly found it enjoyable to go to work?
Well, that would be pretty sexist.
Yeah.
Oh, this sounds so sexist.
That can never happen in the United States.
So we can never compete with this, these happy programmers.
But maybe American programmers work harder because they know they have to get rich if they want a girlfriend.
So that's pretty, that's plenty of incentive.
They probably have all the incentive they need right now.
All right, so there's a report that Osama bin Laden once said, and it must be in a document somewhere that we've captured after bin Laden got taken down, but apparently there's some document in which he was saying it would be okay for Al-Qaeda to try to assassinate Obama during Obama's term, but they wanted to make sure that they didn't assassinate
Joe Biden, the Vice President.
Do you know why Bin Laden thought it would be acceptable and desirable to assassinate the President of the United States, but not the Vice President?
Do you know what his reasoning is for that?
Well, allegedly, his reasoning is that Joe Biden was incompetent, and it would be really good luck for Al Qaeda if he ever became President of the United States, because he would destroy the United States with his own bumbling incompetence.
That was Bin Laden.
Now, do you believe that?
I kind of believe it.
It's a little too on the nose.
So maybe I'll put a little skepticism in there.
I think that would be more appropriate.
Yeah, I think I was falling into the trap of wanting to believe it because it was a good recreational story.
Like, oh, that's a good fun story.
But I don't really think bin Laden had that insight.
Actually, the more I think about it, I'm going to call it false.
I think I'm going to call this one fake news.
You know, maybe there's some document, but who knows who made it?
Seems a little fake newsy.
I don't know.
Seems like Russian disinformation to me.
No, it doesn't.
But, uh, so I'm going to use the, it's a little too close to exactly what some people would want to hear to make me believe it happened just that way.
But, here's a weird thing.
Do you know if you took the name Bin Laden and simply removed the letters N, L, and A, that all happen, they all happen, they're next to each other?
So if you take Bin Laden and remove some of the letters, N, L, and A, do you know what you have?
Biden.
You literally can't spell Bin Laden without Biden.
I don't know if this simulation is telling us something, but there it is.
Anyway, there's a story that one of the officials in the government nuclear Nuclear weapons departments is trying to make the nuclear weapons group way gayer.
So, it's the National Nuclear Security Administration's special assistant named Nair.
That's the last name?
Nair?
N-A-I-R?
Anyway, made it clear that she wants to get rid of all the white supremacy.
In the nuclear, nuclear weapons group, get rid of the white supremacy in the nuclear field.
And she wants to, you know, gay up the nuclear weapons as part of the diversity, equity and inclusion.
So there's actually somebody who's feeling that the important thing about nuclear war is to make sure that diverse people launch them.
So that when we all die in a giant nuclear fireball, we can say, ah, I'm melting, but at least diversity was achieved!
That's my impression of dying after a nuclear blast.
Probably not too on point.
Probably not.
Now, am I saying that I don't want any gay people working in nuclear weapons?
No, obviously I'm not saying that.
Am I saying that It would be bad to have diversity.
No, I'm not saying that.
Am I saying that a DEI hire is necessarily incompetent?
No, I'm not saying that.
What I'm saying is if you design a system where one of the top priorities is not, oh, let's say avoiding a nuclear war or winning one if you have to be in one, If your top priority of any individual who's got power in that organization is to make sure you have more diversity, you've designed a system for failure and almost guaranteed nuclear war.
If you said to me, what would be a good way to create a nuclear war?
I'd say, well, stop hiring based strictly on merit and make sure you got a good diversity in there.
Again, no complaints about anybody's genes or gender preference or gender or any of that.
That has nothing to do with any of my points.
My point is that if you force a certain population, no matter who they are, and you force them into the city or into the system, you're going to get incompetence.
So there's somebody whose job is to inject incompetence into our nuclear operation.
You know, you'd think there'd be some limit to how stupid we could be, but apparently not.
There's no limit to how stupid we could be.
But we're very diverse.
What time is RFK Jr.
going to make his announcement today?
So allegedly, and I'm not sure the reports are completely reliable, but allegedly RFK Jr.
is going to suspend his campaign and maybe even endorse Trump.
I don't, I don't feel that that's 100% certain.
I think there's a good chance of it.
You know, if I had to bet, I'd bet that it's going to happen.
And here's the amazing thing.
Like, how is that even possible?
There's somebody whose family and he were just lifetime Democrats.
How badly do you have to abuse somebody before a Kennedy will become Potentially endorsing a Republican.
You've got to be really, really, really terrible people.
And I think RFK Jr.
is just reacting to how he was being treated.
So I would also point out.
That if you gave a quiz to people who didn't know who the people involved were for this quiz, you said, all right, here's a list of characteristics of JFK.
So President JFK, you know, what was he all about?
Just describe what he wanted and his policies.
And then do a description of Trump and what he wanted.
But you take out all the hyperbole so that you're just factually saying, JFK wanted this stuff.
Trump wants this stuff.
I think they would look kind of similar.
Don't you?
There wouldn't be that much difference between what JFK thought was a good idea and what Trump thinks is a good idea.
So it's not that big of a leap, weirdly, because the Democrats became, you know, wildly left progressive and crazy.
And Trump is, you know, obviously he's, you know, more Republican than Democrat.
But if you were to look at a historical model, Trump is pretty commonsensical.
So I don't even see Trump as being on the right.
I never have really.
I mean, he has to fit somewhere because we like to put things in boxes.
So I get that he's in that box.
But I just see all of his policies as not having a right or left dimension to them.
Am I the only one?
I just don't see, right or left, in why he does.
Because he shows you his work.
He says, this works, this doesn't, this makes sense, this doesn't.
And you can look at it yourself and you can say, okay, there's precedent for why this would work.
And there's, you know, no precedent for why this stupid idea would work.
He just seems like the common sense, obvious path kind of guy.
Anyway, so people are saying, would RFK Jr.
join a Trump administration?
Trump has acted positively about it.
I don't know if RFK Jr.
has ever answered it.
I think you don't answer those questions while you're running.
But I'm still fascinated by how many roles you could imagine RFK Jr.
taking.
This is a real compliment to RFK Jr.
Because, you know, I always talk about talent stacks.
You want to get as many talents as you can so you're ready for anything.
So, you could easily imagine RFK Jr.
being head of the CIA to clean it up.
You could imagine him being head of the FDA.
You could imagine him being Attorney General.
Maybe there's five more jobs that you can imagine him being top advisor.
But whatever he does, I would love to see him be in charge of food and medical drug testing, so that we'd have some chance of getting at least a clearer picture of those things.
So, anyway, I also wonder, has it ever been confirmed that RFK Jr.
has testosterone supplements?
Has he ever talked about that?
I feel like I sort of maybe remember he mentioned it, because his muscular development suggests that he's doing something that's both legal and very effective for muscle development.
So do we know that he's had his testosterone boosted, or is it just obvious?
I'm seeing some yeses.
But here's the interesting thing.
Do you think that he would consider citing or endorsing Republicans If he had not boosted his testosterone.
Think about it.
I think it's the defining factor.
And let me tie this into my next story, which is CNN and MSNBC covering the Democrat convention.
They were trying to sell the fact that Doug Emhoff and Tim Walz Are the example of the new male role models and that they were different from, and this is actually what the commentators were saying.
This is not me saying it.
It was different from the, the testosterone filled, you know, macho Republican people.
And so both MSNBC and CNN's, the women, the female pundits and observers were saying that the Democrats have this new model of male
Optimal male behavior, which is supporting a woman being your boss and That if you could be more Let's say less macho Hulk Hogan and you know less Dana White and more Doug Emhoff and more Tim Walz that that's the model that the Democrats want to put forward as you know modern male leadership and And then RFK Jr.
comes along, he's just like bristling with muscles, and he's willing to skin a dead bear, and he just doesn't fit their model.
So I'm going to say again, do you think, now I'm making an assumption here, if we assume that he's at least friendly with the Trump campaign, Do we think that he would have any chance of endorsing or working with Trump if he had not boosted his testosterone?
Which, if I haven't told you this before, your body and your brain are the same organ.
Your body is your brain.
If RFK Jr.' 's body is rippling with a high level of testosterone, that's his brain.
And it would make him way less likely to be a far left lefty.
So don't rule out that this is entirely chemical.
I don't think it's about issues and facts because the issues are all lies and the facts are all lies, but you can see testosterone and you could look at the people attending the DNC and you don't see any.
It looks like all the testosterone went to another city that day.
Anyway, so we'll keep an eye out.
What's the time for the RFK Jr.
announcement?
Does anybody know when that's slated to happen?
I haven't seen anything about that yet.
Anyway, we'll look for that.
This story is funny.
There's a story, I guess the government's probably saying this, that both Russia and Iran are, quote, waging operations to influence the U.S.
elections.
All right, so the idea is that professional trolls from Russia and from Iran are trying to spread disinformation or put their finger on the scales for our election.
Do you see anything about that story that is funny?
I do.
Everything about our election is disinformation.
How are they going to add any extra disinformation?
You're watching the DNC and 100% of what every person said was a lie.
100%.
There wasn't, I don't think there was anything honest that came out of the entire thing so far.
The news is completely fake.
Our data is completely made up.
And the citizens don't even know the made up stuff.
If you stop them on the street, they barely know the name of the people running for president.
So in this context, Do you think that the Russian and Iranian trolls are going to make a difference?
Let me put this in context for you, okay?
Because remember that Russia did that troll farm in 2016?
And I laughed when I saw their memes.
Like, these memes look like they were made in high school.
There's no way, no way that had any influence on the election.
All right, here's what I think.
Imagine the Grand Canyon.
All right, got that picture in your mind?
Gigantic canyon!
Now imagine if the entire canyon was filled with cow feces.
It was just full of cow crap.
Not just to the top, but like, you know, a hundred feet above the top.
Every bit of the Grand Canyon full of feces.
Now, now imagine a pigeon flies over The Grand Canyon that's overflowing with cow feces and the pigeon poops on top of it.
That's all of the Russian and Iranian trolls.
You put them all together and they're one pigeon pooping on top of a gigantic canyon full of shit.
If you imagine that they could have any impact when everything's already a lie, 100% of what both sides are talking about is just bullshit.
It's just completely left out of context stuff and things that aren't even true and lies and hoaxes.
There's no way that Russia or Iran could add anything to that mix that would make it worse than what it is without their help.
They can't make that worse.
In what way could you make that worse?
To me, that's just hilarious.
It's so ridiculously not a risk that I can't even believe we're talking about it.
I guess there's still an illusion that some of our information is real, and that if they added their little, you know, pigeon poop of misinformation, then suddenly our delicate balance of correct information would be set off.
There's no correct information.
Good luck, birds.
There's a report in the Washington Free Beacon that some Soros-funded fake news network is operating in Nevada now.
Now, it's literally an entity that tries to look like a real news entity.
But their only purpose is fake news for the benefit of Democrats.
So you've got a Soros-funded entity that's literally doing fake news stuff.
And when I say fake news, I don't mean they're real news that says things are fake.
They're not even a real news entity.
They're just pretending to be one so they can do fake stuff.
Now that's what's happening without Russia and Iran.
They can't compete with Soros.
He's already got the misinformation thing all wrapped up.
Well, but at least the government is forthcoming with information when citizens or Congress asks for it.
Oh, wait, also the Washington Free Beacon is saying that the Biden-Harris administration, they're stonewalling Congress, who is asking for information about the U.S.
nonprofits They may or may not have been behind bankrolling the pro-Hamas protesters.
So, there's a House Ed and Oversight Committee.
They want to subpoena the information.
Apparently, the government has some kind of information.
They would say what kind of non-profits were funding the protesters.
Wouldn't you like to know that?
Well, I would, but the government isn't going to tell it.
Do you know why?
Because it might be accurate information.
Have I ever mentioned to you that if information matters, it's all fake?
Well, this might be a situation where they have some real information and the Oversight Committee would like to see it because it might really matter who is funding them.
And that will not be made available according to the current situation.
They're just going to ignore the request.
Because the last thing the government wants is accurate information in the public.
All right, there's a September interest rate cut that's likely, say all the smart people.
How many of you could have predicted that there would be an interest rate cut in the few months before the election?
Well, maybe it's a coincidence.
Maybe the people who are supposedly independent Uh, and this interest rate stuff, maybe they're not so independent, but I'm pretty sure that I could have predicted it.
So what does it mean that I could have predicted it?
If you had asked me six months ago, Scott, do you think that the administration in charge Would be so lucky that the independent, the independent, you know, the, the Fed would lower the interest rate just to make everything look wonderful before election.
I would have said yes.
Now it could be that that was just going to happen anyway, because that was a natural evolution of the economy.
But I'd like to point out, I would have predicted it for whatever that's worth.
Well, the DNC is rolling on.
I have a real trouble watching it because it creeps me out.
Is anybody else having that?
Like, I really wanted to watch more of the DNC because it felt like I should be informed, but the more I thought about it, it's not really moving anybody's needle anywhere, is it?
How many people could possibly stomach watching the DNC Who had not already totally made up their mind that this is their team.
Who in the world who is just casually interested in politics and has not yet made up their mind could watch that?
It was just completely unwatchable crap.
Oh my God.
And then Tim Walz comes out and He's, I don't know if he's adopted this just for the campaign or it's natural, but he is gesticulating wildly to the crowd.
And these, these somewhat exaggerated, you know, his hand, when, when, when Harris is waving to the crowd, she puts one hand up and Walsh is standing right next to her and he's got two hands up.
First of all, do not gesticulate more than the top of the ticket.
So Tim Walsh, can I give you some advice?
Goes like this.
If you're standing right next to the top of the ticket, and the top of the ticket has one hand up, you know, waving to the crowd and accepting their applause, don't put both hands up.
And don't act like you're jumping up and down.
Because you're taking attention from the top of the ticket.
That's not cool.
That's not cool at all.
You need to be a vice president.
So act like a frickin' vice president.
Look what the top of the ticket is doing.
Body language wise.
And do that.
Even if your instinct is not to do that.
That's your job.
Your job is to do that.
Do what she's doing.
Was Harris handling it better than him?
I thought so.
I think a professional approach to massive applause makes you look pretty strong.
Right?
But jumping up and down because you got the applause.
Hmm.
Makes you look like a cheerleader.
So I'm going to compliment Harris.
She looked like a leader.
Tim Walz looked like a cheerleader.
I guess they're both leaders, but one's a cheerleader.
Um, and then if you didn't see it, there is a hilarious meme of Richard Simmons, now deceased, I believe, uh, Richard Simmons, who is the, uh, the exercise guru who was very effusive and You know, when he would come out to the crowd, he'd be, you know, both hands are up and he'd be dancing and bowing and blowing kisses and stuff.
And you see it side by side with Tim Walz coming out to greet the crowd.
It does look like Richard Simmons.
Now, to me, and I'm going to say it again, Tim Walz is so creepy, I just can't even stand a second of him.
And it's not because he's a Democrat.
Right?
I could watch Obama all day long.
I could watch Bill Clinton all day long.
Even Hillary Clinton, who I really, really didn't like as a candidate.
I mean, I didn't have, you know, like a creepy reaction to it.
I just didn't like her.
But he gives me a genuine creep out.
Does anybody else get that?
And I don't know what it's about.
I don't have a specific idea what's behind that.
But, oh my God, the creepiness level is just off the chart.
I think that's why he started with the weird thing, to take pressure off himself being so creepy.
That's just my take.
Let's see.
The DNC mostly wanted to talk about Trump's character and some hoaxes and lies about Trump.
They didn't mention crime, of course, because that's not a strong topic of theirs.
But they want you to know that Trump's a bad person.
He's so bad.
Trump's bad.
Their audience will never notice that their focus on Trump is because they're trying to make you forget that they don't have the goods and that the things they've suggested for policies are batshit crazy.
They're not just Democrat versus Republican.
They found a whole new category that's neither Democrat nor Republican.
It's just guaranteed failure.
Her tax plan and Yeah, well, we've talked about it.
So I'll say again that I think all the hoaxes about Trump that the DNC speakers have presented, you know, they continue to find people hoax, drinking bleach hoax, hoax, hoax, hoax.
I think they know they're not true.
And they know that if they can make the Republicans get mad and talk about it, oh, they're hoaxing us again.
They're hoaxing us.
That they'll have less pressure to talk about policies or to have Harris in front of the press.
So as a distraction, the hoaxes are really working.
Worked on me.
Well, Oprah was at the DNC and she said, quote, I have been on the receiving end of racism, sexism, and income inequality.
Somehow she fought through, and now she's worth billions of dollars and got invited to the DNC.
Anyway, here's the funniest part of that, the way CNN was covering her speech.
So CNN's got the camera on Oprah, and Oprah's Going on, and Oprah says, and by the way, the Vigilant Fox account on X caught this, that Oprah Winfrey is talking and mocking J.D.
Vance.
She's mocking him about the childless cat lady comment.
And as Oprah is mocking him about childless cat ladies, CNN decides to cut to a close-up of a audience member who is a woman.
Who may or may not be childless and a cat lady?
Now, there's no mention of whether she's childless or a cat lady, but the fact that they cut to her was hilarious.
And childless cat ladies.
And suddenly there's this big old face of somebody, somebody in the audience who's really could have been, you know, I don't know, but she could be a childless cat lady.
She had that look.
All right.
Bill Clinton was a speaker, too, and he hilariously mispronounced Kamala as Kamala.
Now, am I the only person who's noticed how many black Americans call Kamala Kamala?
Black Americans do not pronounce her name correctly.
White Americans do not pronounce your name correctly.
President, ex-presidents do not pronounce your name correctly.
Maybe it's the name.
Maybe it's the name.
There's something about that name that's difficult to remember how to pronounce it.
Now, part of the reason it's hard to remember how to pronounce it is that so many people who are in the business are mispronouncing it.
If I didn't see people who should know how to do it correctly, consistently doing it wrong, I would remember it correctly.
So maybe it's just the name.
Can we find a little common ground there?
I would believe we should all be able to meet at this place, which is, we'd all like to use people's proper name.
You know, if we're being polite human beings, we do want to use their name correctly.
But it's hard.
I think that's the better framing.
It's just a hard name to remember.
You know, nobody needs a nickname more than she does.
She needs a nickname.
Like a positive nickname from her own team.
Something that isn't Coach.
Trying to call Tim Walz Coach is just giving me every creepy vibe.
Oh my God, I just can't even watch it.
Anyway, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, she was on air talking about how happy everybody was that Tim Walz was giving his speech.
And she actually said this about the on-air talent at MSNBC, that they were literally got up and danced in jubilation to Tim Walz.
That's the news.
So the news people, whose job it is to tell you the news.
Now, obviously they're opinion people, but they're on a news network.
Uh, they say they, they danced in jubilation.
Nobody.
Yeah.
Thank you.
I see the wrap up messages.
I'll wrap up pretty soon.
Um, I've got about five more minutes, so I should be fine.
Thank you.
Anyway, um, Well, that tells you everything you need to know.
If they're literally dancing to the happiness that one team could win.
Daniel Dale, the most embarrassing job in the world, which is to be the political fact checker and ignore most of the lies by one side.
They brought him on to fact check the claim by one of the DNC people that Trump wrote a Project 2025, which he did not.
So Daniel Dale, to his credit, Says that Trump is not named as an author of the document.
And then he went on to debunk all of the other... No, he didn't.
Now, I don't know what else Daniel Dale debunked, but I guarantee he didn't debunk any of the big ones.
So, I think you have to see this debunk in the context of misinformation.
Here's why.
If you were watching that and you saw that the only thing that got debunked was that one claim about that document which has the authors listed right on it, but Daniel Dale can say he's not listed as an author, that is a fake fact check.
What makes it fake is not that it's wrong, because it's actually right.
What makes it fake is if you watch the network and that's the only thing that got fact checked, you would believe the other bullshit!
You'd say, well, they would fact-check it.
They got this guy whose only job is to fact-check, so all that other stuff must be true.
So, Daniel Dale actually ended up being the person who's most responsible for spreading fake news.
By fact-checking correctly, only this one thing in this sea of other fake news, or at least fake claims.
So, that's humiliating to be him, and I can't even imagine how he sleeps at night, honestly.
I mean, he must feel that he's part of a huge disinformation campaign.
How can he not feel that?
And how can you be okay with that?
If your only job is lying, and you're okay with it?
Anyway, Kim.com noted that the poly market, I guess that's a betting market, Now has Trump handily up on Harris, 53 to 46.
They were recently tied, and even before that, Harris was slightly ahead.
And as Kim Dotcom cleverly says, the more they talk, the more they drop.
So the longer the DNC goes on, the betting markets are like, maybe not.
Not so much.
Maybe not.
I'll wrap it up in a minute here.
We just found out that Thomas Crooks, the tempted assassin guy, we knew he had encrypted messaging apps, but now we know that they're on platforms located in Belgium, New Zealand, and Germany.
Now, as General Flynn noted, we knew that probably in 24 hours.
We, meaning the government, knew it.
Why'd they wait till now to tell us?
And by the way, by the way, Belgium, New Zealand, and Germany, what possible reason would you have to use an encrypted app that is platformed in those countries?
Well, to keep the United States from seeing your plans would be one, but it does suggest there might be some foreign involvement.
It doesn't, it's not evidence for it, but it's a situation which would be conducive to it.
It's hard for me to imagine that this kid had enough wherewithal and knowledge to use these foreign encrypted apps.
But if you were being, let's say, managed by somebody in an intelligence group, either domestic or foreign, they could certainly point him toward those things and say, you know, you should be off the grid.
You'd better use these foreign encrypted apps because America's in the back door of ours.
So, curiouser and curiouser.
All right, the funniest thing is that the head of Hamas, Sinwar, he's added a requirement to the ceasefire negotiations.
He is politely asking, if they do a ceasefire, could you please not kill me?
So, one of the requirements of the ceasefire is that Israel has to promise not to kill the guy who was in charge of October 7th.
Let me see if I can take a bet on whether Israel will accept that they will let the mastermind of the October 7th slaughter live so that they can get a ceasefire.
No.
So there are two possibilities.
Either Israel will say, no, we're not going to agree with that, and then they kill him.
Or Israel says, oh, we totally agree with that, and then they kill him.
Here's what's not in question.
Israel's going to kill him.
There is 100% chance they're going to fucking kill him.
They might do it today.
They might do it tomorrow.
It could take eight years.
They're fucking going to kill him.
There's nothing that's going to stop it.
And by the way, if you were Israel, you'd feel the same way.
Now, am I encouraging it, promoting it, embracing it?
I'm not even involved.
I'm just observing.
There's nothing that will stop Israel from killing that fucking guy.
And you do the same thing.
So I don't have an opinion on it.
No opinion is needed.
We'll just watch what happens.
And there's only one way it goes.
So he's pretty dead.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the end of my show.
I've got to do some veterinarian stuff with my dog.
She's got a torn ACL, and so she's not too happy.
But we're going to see about getting that fixed, if we can.
Thanks for joining.
I can't go private with you today on Locals, because I got to run.
But thanks for joining, and I'll see you tomorrow.
