God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Israel Hezbollah Conflict, Israel Hamas War, Telegram Founder Arrested, Pavel Durov, Mike Benz, America's Economic Engine, Free Speech Future, Elon Musk, Laurene Powell Jobs, The Atlantic, Kamala Harris, Trump Black Barbershop Haircut, President Trump, RFK Jr., Pescatarian Diet, Non-Citizen Voting, Fair Election Fund, Election Whistleblower Rewards, Lara Trump, DHS DEI, Robby Starbuck, Anti-Baby Culture, Bill Maher, Filibuster Elimination Danger, Mass Media Trust, California DEI, Navy DEI, 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
All right, good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, Sunday edition.
What's so special about that?
Well, all the lazy people are sleeping in, but I'm here every single day giving you this entertainment that, depending on how you're watching it, might even be commercial free.
Yeah, I would argue that I give the most commercial free content, depending on which platform you're on, than anybody who charges for Content.
So, I own that.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can possibly understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, well, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard, chalice or stein, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine dinner of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's going to happen right now.
Go.
Oh, God, that's so good.
Have you ever had that experience where you might drink coffee every day, but every now and then there'll be a sip that's just perfect.
Just the right temperature and everything.
That was that sip.
It was that good.
Well, let me tell you one science-y thing and then we'll talk about all the real news.
So there's some windows that have been created by the University of Seoul in South Korea.
What's so special about the windows?
Well, they would be replacement windows for your home or business, but they make electricity from the friction of raindrops on the electrodes.
Have you ever heard of that before?
Apparently, as the raindrops go down the window, it creates electricity.
Now the question I would have is, How much electricity can you make in a raindrops going down a window?
It doesn't feel like a lot, but it also has some magical properties for blocking some of the light.
So it cools down the room and you don't overheat.
And also the windows will deep defrost themselves and they're not even powered windows.
Amazing.
Okay.
That was boring.
I was just trying to wait till everybody gets in here.
So as you know, Israel has done a preemptive attack on Hezbollah.
Hezbollah was reportedly preparing for a big rocket attack on Israel.
Israel spotted the preparation.
This is the official fog of war story.
By the way, if you don't know, I say this often, I assume it's, you know, I imagine it's assumed by everybody, but it's worth saying, anything you hear about military action is probably wrong.
In some important way, or there's some context missing, or it will be revised tomorrow, or the death count is completely made up.
So, anytime you're in a war situation, I can tell you what the headlines say.
I can't tell you what's true, because the headlines are not based on what's true.
It's all fog of war.
A lot of lying goes on when it's war.
But, one of the things that this suggests, if it's true that Israel destroyed quote, thousands of Hezbollah rocket launchers. How much work did it take to destroy thousands of rocket launchers? And the question I have is, I assume they're all hidden until they're used.
And the question is, how quickly can they unhide them and set them up to fire?
And how accurately can Israel identify them? Because you would think that by this time, you know, in our technological advancement, that Israel would have essentially eyes all over Lebanon.
So in other words, they'd have drones and satellites and whatever else it took to have a good look.
Then you add AI.
So imagine you have AI plus, you know, full surveillance of all the terrain around the dangerous parts of Lebanon.
Couldn't the AI Tell you that somebody's getting ready for a rocket launch, and let a human approve it or not, and then send a guided missile?
So the question is, are we at a technological point where Israel's Iron Dome can stop almost everything that's incoming, but also they can destroy on the ground anything that, you know, is set up to fire?
I'm starting to think that might be close to the situation.
So that, which would be kind of a surprise because I wouldn't imagine they would have had that capability.
But if you don't see Hezbollah make a big attack, it could be because they can't.
Now again, remember this is fog of war and speculation and I don't know anything about anything military.
So I'm just throwing out there all the possibilities.
I can't really put an odds on any of it, but there is some possibility.
The Israel can knock down whatever's coming at them and destroy anything that's setting up to come at them.
But I've also heard that Hezbollah has 200,000 rocket launchers, or 200,000 rockets, or missiles.
Not sure which that was.
But if they have 200,000 missiles, I don't know what that would imply in terms of missile launchers.
What would be the ratio of missiles to missile launchers in Lebanon?
20 to 1?
10 to 1?
3 to 1?
Anyway, so there'd be a whole bunch of stuff that they would have to blow up if they wanted to get rid of most of the risk, but they might have the ability to do that.
We don't know.
Meanwhile, Hamas and Israel representatives have met in Cairo to negotiate Negotiate.
I love the fact that both sides are pretending to negotiate.
Because nobody wants to take you seriously, unless you're willing to say the words, I certainly would like to negotiate an end to this.
But here's the problem, neither side really wants to attend.
The citizens certainly do.
All the residents want to attend, but not the governments.
Israel wants to keep on doing what it's doing, and it's got a lot of work to do.
So it doesn't want it to end yet.
You know, eventually, yes, but not really this year.
And does Hamas really want it to end?
Well, again, the citizens, yes, they do.
But does the leadership?
I doubt it.
Because the leadership's dead whether it ends or not.
So they might as well stake it out.
If anybody thinks that the leadership of Hamas is going to be alive five years from now, I think that's a very small chance because they're already trapped in Gaza.
We think.
We don't know for sure.
So I would say negotiations are nothing but theater.
All right, the big story, the most alarming story you've probably heard about is the founder of the Telegram encrypted messaging app has been arrested in Paris.
Now, we don't know all the details.
It's alleged that they might charge him with terrorism and fraud.
The real problem is he didn't allow American spooks to have access to the back door of the app.
Now, if you really want to know what's going on here, you need to follow Mike Benz.
B-E-N-Z.
And if you're not, you're not seeing the big picture.
Because if you think it's a little story about this one app and You know, this one founder and maybe they did or did not do something that was bad.
That's not the story.
This is a symptom of the real story.
The real story is, and I'll give you, I'll try to do like the poor man's version of what Ben's explains better.
The fact that the US economy is, you know, one of the wonders of the world, Is really because our military and our State Department control other countries really successfully.
Not everyone.
For example, we're obviously not controlling China or Russia, but all the vast other smaller countries, we control them to the degree that we need their natural resources or we need them as markets or something.
So we couldn't produce much of anything without having a really strong relationships with a lot of countries.
And the best way to have a strong relationship with a smaller country, if you're America, is to make sure that your CIA overthrew their government and put in friendly ones.
So if you imagine that the American economic engine runs on its own, it doesn't.
It runs because our government are really good bastards and they're doing really sketchy things in other countries all the time for the benefit of our industries.
Now that would also benefit rich people and people in power and stuff like that.
So there are lots of common interests.
But the reality is that for you to have the American life that you have, it's probably necessary for people to do some really sketchy things to other countries and in other countries.
And that's our basic situation.
And that would include, too, all kinds of collusion and cooperation with even European countries.
So we're not talking about just small African countries.
We're talking about serious big countries and working with them.
Now, it seems that there's a worldwide effort to suppress and ban any kind of app that would give you free speech.
Unfortunately, as I've said before, there is no kind of government, no dictator, no democracy that can really allow free speech.
You really can't.
So if you're a dictator, that's more obvious.
You can't allow free speech because somebody will try to take over.
But what if you're a democracy?
Well, if you're a democracy, you can't allow it because then the communists might use it to take over.
So these encrypted apps are how people organize.
So if your enemies can't organize to take over your country, well, then you can stay in power.
But it doesn't matter who you are.
It doesn't matter if you're a democracy or a dictator, you really can't let your enemies organize on these apps.
Now, if it sounds like I'm making an argument in favor of taking away your freedom of speech, I'm not trying to.
I'm trying to tell you facts.
So the facts would tell you what are the odds of your free speech going away, and the fact is, it's 100%.
Every single government wants your free speech to go away.
No exception.
There's no such thing.
Well, I'm not entirely sure about El Salvador.
I mean, there might be some tiny exceptions.
But I guarantee you, the United States doesn't want all of us to have free speech.
I mean, seriously, there's no hyperbole to that.
That's just a fact that the government of the United States could not survive complete free speech.
Now, the way we do it in the United States is our so-called news is completely dominated by unseen powers, so they can brainwash and hypnotize the public to get what they need.
So as long as the public can be, and you can see it pretty clearly, can be almost immediately brainwashed to believe anything, by a majority.
It doesn't mean everybody gets brainwashed.
It means they brainwash enough so that in our pretend democratic system, it looks like the majority is getting what they want.
But of course, that's just based on brainwashing.
Literally brainwashing.
There's no hyperbole there.
It's just literally brainwashing.
And by the way, every company, every country, needs to brainwash its citizens to survive.
Every democracy, every dictatorship, They do it differently, but it's still massive brainwashing so the government can survive.
It wouldn't otherwise, no matter how awesome they are.
If you had the most awesome, freedom-loving government, it wouldn't last a year.
Because that freedom would allow their enemies to organize, and there's always an enemy.
So some other country would just organize their street protests the way the CIA organizes street protests in other places.
They would buy up some important people, bribe them, take over the country.
So it's all the same situation.
Every country that wants to stay a government the way it is, they pretty much have to take away your free speech.
It's just they do it in different ways.
In America, it seems like they hadn't been doing it, but we didn't realize that we had been massively brainwashed so that we weren't really asking for more.
We thought we had what we needed.
Weren't even close.
Weren't even close to having what we needed in free speech.
Never will be.
Anyway, here's what the smart people say about this Telegram founder being arrested.
First of all, you should know that Tucker interviewed the founder who got arrested about a year ago, I think.
And the founder talked about how the, I believe it was the US FBI, had been working really hard to incorporate some code in Telegram that would give them a backdoor.
Everything you suspected about everything is just completely true.
So you suspected that the encrypted communication apps were all being compromised by intelligence agencies?
Yep.
Yeah, of course.
And that shouldn't surprise you.
Because remember, I just told you, they have to.
They have to.
If the United States government didn't control all of the apps and the social media programs, except for X at the moment, if they didn't, they probably couldn't stay in power.
It would be that destabilizing.
Now, so I think we saw from, was it Mike Benz who tells us that WhatsApp and Meta are completely compromised.
And if you're on WhatsApp, so are the Feds.
And it may be the deal that Zuckerberg had to make.
These are the allegations.
I don't have any personal knowledge about it.
But the allegation is that Zuckerberg caved to the intelligence state department interests, and that their platform is open for our team to look at it.
So, it would look like, say the smart people, that arresting this Telegram founder may be a way to threaten Elon Musk, as in, you know, this could happen to you.
Because the Telegram founder is charged with, I believe, not so much doing things himself that are illegal, but not getting rid of the people on the platform who are doing illegal stuff.
So if all it takes is some government to say, you haven't done enough to get rid of the illegal people, so we'll put you in jail, doesn't that make Elon Musk arrestable right now?
I think it does.
I think it makes him arrestable right now.
So if I were him, I'm not even sure I would go to another country right now.
I mean, he's a special case.
Maybe he's not in as much danger, but it doesn't look safe to me.
Now, quite honestly, I wouldn't travel to most countries right now because it's totally not safe.
If you were political in any way, And what you say in public is not popular with the government, and I would expect that would be the case in my case.
I would not feel safe going to Europe at all, because I assume Europe would just work with the United States and pick me up on some bullshit charge.
So yeah, I don't think international travel is making much sense at the moment.
And this does seem like a direct threat to Musk.
So what else?
You need to follow up on Mike Benz for that.
I'm just going to recommend him.
And once you see the full, chilling nature of it, it's amazing.
Now, the reason I don't describe it to you is it's really complicated.
There are maybe 20 different entities.
You would have to understand how they operate and work with each other and where the funding comes from.
Maybe it's a hundred different entities, but you would have to really understand this big complicated network of American State Department and CIA funded cutouts and NGOs and everything.
And then once you see it, the picture is very clear that they are a coordinated group to suppress free speech.
That seems to be the primary purpose of most of it is to suppress free speech.
They would call it disinformation, but of course that's not what it is.
Now, remember I tell you that if you don't know the players, everything is confusing.
For example, did you know that Steve Jobs' widow, Laurene Powell, she owns The Atlantic and apparently some other media holdings, and so The Atlantic would be the type of publication that would write about politics, and especially about the political leaders themselves.
Did you know that Kamala Harris is a close friend of Laurene Powell Jobs.
So much so that Laurene was once in one of her family photos.
At her 2017 swearing-in, this is according to the Mays account on X, that when Kamala Harris was being sworn in, She had her family on stage, but also Lorene Powell.
They're so close that she put her in the family photo while she was getting sworn in.
Now, if you didn't know that they're, you know, best buddies, you might read The Atlantic and there'd be some bad story about Trump and you'd say, wow, that Trump is a monster.
But if you knew that the publication was the best friend of the competitor, you say, oh, Never mind.
Why would I pay attention to that?
There's a new poll.
Farley Dickinson University.
Now, of course, this is not true, but their new poll says Harris is up 7% over Trump after the national convention.
Now, I don't know if they're oversampling Democrats, which is typically what the fake polls do this time in the election cycle.
Probably.
But there's really no chance that that's real.
Would you agree?
That's sort of a zero chance that that poll is real.
Now, if tomorrow there's two more polls from completely different companies that look similar, I would say, whoa, something happened.
But I doubt it.
I mean, I would place a pretty big bet that it's not real.
But it's in the news.
I don't know if you saw a story that Trump was mentioning that he would be willing to go to a black barbershop and get a haircut as part of his campaign.
And what do you think about that idea?
Now, you might recognize that that's an idea that I'd floated a while back, but I'm not saying it's happening because I was pushing that idea.
Um, you know, I think, uh, I think that came, came up organically, but, uh, how much would you love that?
I mean, I would love it so much.
You know, I'd love it more if he agreed to have his head shaved.
Imagine being in a black barber shop and the black barber says, you know what?
I gotta be honest.
You want me to be honest?
I think you ought to go for the shaved head look.
You're at that stage where this would be a good idea.
What if he took the advice and sat there and let the black barbershop shave his head while casually answering questions about politics?
It would be the most watched video of all time.
There would literally never be a more watched video in the whole world.
I think that would be number one.
And no, I think there's almost no chance anything like that's going to happen.
But it's so interesting to know that it could, because Trump is really the only individual I could imagine who would see that and take advantage of it.
I don't think he will.
I mean, I'd bet against it.
But just the fact that that's possible is just kind of wild.
I just love it.
So as I often say, by the way, I have a hypothesis of why Trump doesn't look scary to me and doesn't look scary to most of you who are watching this probably, or you wouldn't be here, but does look genuinely scary to Democrats.
And yesterday I was taking a long walk and it just sort of hit me.
And here's what it is.
If you did not understand persuasion and the techniques of persuasion, you would define everything he's doing as narcissism and something evil.
And I thought, holy cow, is that all it is?
That if you don't know how persuasion works, you think that the show, because he's always putting on a show, you think that the show is some like evil dark thing because you wouldn't have anything to understand it.
So, let me give you an example.
When Trump tells you that he's, you know, the greatest at something, if you saw, if you believed that that was just him being an ordinary person telling you something he thought was factually true, you'd say to yourself, what kind of a narcissist are you?
Right?
If your only filter was that it's an ordinary person talking, and they said great things about themselves, you'd say, hmm, narcissist.
But, if you understood persuasion, and you knew that Trump is always giving a show, it's literally he's putting on a show.
Once you understand it that way, everything he does makes sense completely differently.
It's just part of the show to say that he can do everything.
And he's better at everything.
And when he does things like, you know, have his doctor say that he's the healthiest human who ever lived or his crowd size is the size of Montana or whatever he says.
When I hear those things, I just smile.
I go, oh, there he is.
He's playing a role.
He's putting on a show and his show is directionally correct almost every time.
I mean, I can't think of an exception.
Does he pass the fact check?
No!
No!
Because he's not in fact check mode.
He's in show mode.
When you're putting on a show, you're a little fast and loose with the facts.
You might exaggerate things, you might leave something out, you might leave out some context.
It's politics.
It's show.
So when Trump is putting on the show, if you understand it as a show, and you understand that what he's persuading toward is just directionally, You know, not in the detail, it's more of a directional thing, then you're fine with it.
And he doesn't look like a narcissist, he looks like a good showman.
And he's in on his own joke.
When he makes fun of his own haircut, and says things like he's more attractive than Kamala Harris or things like that, if you didn't know anything about persuasion, and you didn't know he was trying to put on a show, you'd say, oh my God, what's wrong with that guy?
He looks dangerously narcissistic.
So, I think the way the Democrat leaders and persuaders get away with the character attacks is that their base doesn't understand that persuasion is happening and that it's a show.
Once you do, you just enjoy the show, and I think that's where most of you are.
All right, let's talk about an interesting thing with AI.
There's a company that makes an AI little agent.
You know, the little app that's going to answer questions and do some stuff for you.
But apparently, instead of sending you to a useful link, it started Rickrolling people.
Now, Rickrolling, if you've never heard that term, famous internet term, is where you pretend you're going to send somebody to some useful information, but instead it goes to a page featuring a very old video of Rick Astley singing his 1987 hit, Never Gonna Give You Up.
Now, why did that ever become a wildly popular internet thing to do?
I don't know.
But it is.
So it turns out that the AI was sending customers to a Rickroll link.
Now, why would it do that?
Well, obviously why?
The LLMs, or the brains of the AI as we currently have it, Looks for pattern recognition and whatever happens most often.
So it's going to complete a sentence with whatever is the most common way to complete the sentence.
The most, apparently on the internet, so many people have been rickrolled that the LLM thought that was the most common thing to do, is to promise you're going to send them to a real link and send them to a Rick Astley rickroll.
Now apparently it's easy to fix.
You just put it in a line of code that says don't do that.
But the fact that you had to put it in the line of code suggests to me that you were never really going to have like these little intelligent agents based on the LLM pattern recognition technology.
Someday there might be something like AGI that would be a different technology for intelligence and maybe that could do it.
But honestly, I spent a lot of hours trying to make one of those agents myself, and I don't think the technology can do it.
I think the companies offering it are ahead of the technology, and it's just not there.
And the problem is that it's just pattern recognition, and that's too dangerous.
Anyway, the UK, the sky is full of acidic gas.
So apparently there's a massive sulfur dioxide cloud over the UK.
It's coming from Iceland, because Iceland had these volcanoes that are going nuts at the moment.
So, if you're in the UK, you can't walk outdoors.
Now, I think that's probably God telling the UK to fuck off for trying to ruin free speech and destroy their country.
So, listen to God!
God's trying to get it done.
Speaking of God, makes me think of RFK Jr.
I'm fascinated by the fact that even God tried to shut that guy up.
And here I'm talking about his voice issues that he had.
They're better now.
He did some kind of process that improved it to the point where he could run for president.
But literally, you know, you could say nature, but most of you would prefer the God model.
God tried to shut him the fuck up and failed.
And then the Democrats tried to shut him up.
Well, here's the thing.
If God couldn't shut him up, what good are the Democrats going to do?
Well, they're going to fail.
God couldn't get it done.
So if God can't do it, and the entire Democrat Party can't shut up RFK Jr., I think he's meant to be here.
There's something that feels like fate around that guy that just feels very genuine.
There's something right about where we are.
Meaning that he has completely changed our priorities for some of us to understand that we got to fix the food and the medicine situation.
And we really have to.
Somebody asked me, like, how would you do it?
Like, what would be the mechanism?
Does he have any way to actually fix that stuff?
And the answer is actually yes.
Yes, he does.
Because if you got rid of conflict of interest, made sure the free market worked, added some transparency, A few other things that are fairly easy to figure out, such as there are about a thousand different chemicals that are legal in American food, that if you were in Europe, they'd say, you know, you're not going to use any of these thousand.
They're either discouraged or illegal in Europe.
So there's fairly quick ways to get to a lot of stuff.
You can just say, okay, we're going to be like Europe.
And you can't put stuff in there unless we're really sure it's good for you.
So, I can't say enough about how awesome the RFK Jr.
twist on the world is.
What I feel like is RFK Jr.
just ripped a hole in the fabric of reality.
I don't think I've ever seen anybody make that much difference in that little time.
You know, that whole one person can't change anything?
That's so wrong.
So wrong.
I like to remind people of this all the time.
As soon as you think one person can't make a difference, you have to understand that it's always one person.
It's just always one person.
It's one person who's willing to take a bullet.
That's what it takes.
And RFK Jr.
is willing to take a bullet.
Do you know who else is willing to take a bullet to help the country?
Trump.
He literally did it once already.
And he's still in it.
So you got RFK Jr.
who is willing to campaign without full Secret Service protection as a Kennedy, the most dangerous thing you could ever do.
Trump, willing to take a bullet twice.
Once he did, and now he's at it again.
And then you throw Elon Musk into the mix.
Do you think Elon Musk is unaware of his danger?
No, he's not.
He's got security.
So you got three men on the same team at the moment.
Who all are willing to take a bullet.
Like literally.
There's no hyperbole here.
Those are three men who very publicly, very obviously, 100% sure, have set themselves up in a situation where they don't want to take a bullet, obviously, but they're willing.
Now let's compare that to Kamala Harris.
Doesn't look the same to me.
Indeed, I think Kamala Harris wants Trump to take a bullet, and RFK Jr.
to take a bullet, and maybe Musk too, so that she can be president.
So, that's opposite.
You got three people who would take a bullet, and one person who really wouldn't mind if you took that bullet, because it would put her in the presidency.
There's no way these are similar.
They're just not similar.
They're opposites.
Well, there's a study from the Loma Linda University Health Group saying that pescetarian diets are the best for reducing death in the elderly.
Now, they were studying the elderly in particular, I guess, but they said if you're eating fish and vegetables and limited to that, that you've got the best risk of living, you know, best longevity.
Do you believe that?
Does that study sound credible to you?
Here's the first thing you should have known.
It wasn't a randomized controlled trial with a placebo.
Do you think there's a placebo fish that they fed half of them?
All right.
Some of you will eat an actual pescetarian diet.
Some of you will be eating placebo fish.
No.
No, it's not a randomized controlled test.
In science, the randomized controlled trial gets you the closest you can get to what's real, and then only if it's repeatable.
It still has to be repeatable to be really confident that something is going on there.
And it has to sort out causation from correlation.
Here's what's wrong with this study.
It's not a randomized controlled trial.
That's the first thing.
But number two, what is there about people who have a pescetarian diet?
Let's see, who could we ask?
Scott?
Scott, can you tell me why you have a pescetarian diet?
Okay.
It's because I decided that I would adjust my lifestyle, in all domains, toward whatever seems like it would be the healthiest.
Oh, Scott, so are you saying that choosing a pescetarian diet is not because you like the flavor of it, it's only because you're doing hard things to be healthy, as science suggests?
Yes, that is correct.
So, is that the only thing you're doing to stay healthy?
No, that would be stupid.
I also do weight-resistant training.
Oh, okay.
Why do you do that?
Well, because I'm the kind of person who will look at the science and decide to have a pescetarian diet, and then I'll look at the science and decide that lifting weight and resistance training is good for me.
Oh, and there's a study showing that again, too.
Do you do anything else?
Yes, I make sure I get enough vitamin D, and if I don't, I've had my blood tested, and then I supplement.
Oh, oh, well, that's good.
Do you eat a lot of candy?
Because I'm not sure the pescatarians would care if you ate candy.
No, I don't!
Because the science says that's bad for me.
And I could go on and on and on.
But here's the thing.
Pescatarians pick healthy other lifestyles.
So the science is not reliable.
Let's talk about the voting.
The Ohio Secretary of State said he's found 597 non-citizens are registered to vote.
And 138 have already voted.
I guess that would be the mail-in votes.
Now, you might say 597 is not many, but if 138 of 597 have voted, it does suggest that maybe the non-citizens are going to be more of a factor.
Maybe not in that state, but that there's some massive intention that they vote.
Now, of the 138 non-citizens who voted, How many of those do you think were actually the actual non-citizen who filled out the mail-in ballot?
I'm going to say almost none.
So this would suggest, prove really, in my opinion this is proof, that there is a concerted effort, probably organized, to collect the ballots of non-citizens and inject them into the system.
Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself, but I would cancel the election based on this.
I would just cancel it.
And I would say, oh, it looks like we can't run an election under these conditions.
So we need to rejigger what an election is, probably go back to paper ballots, forget about the mail-in stuff, and except for the other people who can't be there, like military and shut-ins and stuff like that.
But how many signals do you need that the system isn't working?
If this were the only thing, then I'd say, oh, OK, we're good enough.
But you know it's not going to be the only thing.
You know that this is the beginning of a long list of, well, this happened, and that happened, and our voter rolls, and blah, blah, blah.
I don't think there's any chance that the losing team is going to accept the election this time.
So I'll double down and triple down on that prediction.
But you want to know some good news?
There's an organization called the Fair Election Fund, and they're going to pay large amounts to election whistleblowers.
Hmm.
If you're an election whistleblower, you should know that the Fair Election Fund, and you can just Google them, not too hard to find, they plan to spend $5 million vetting and paying whistleblowers, with a focus on poll workers and observers.
But also, any voter who documents fraud can qualify as well.
Now, does that sound like an idea you've heard before?
It was one of the things I was suggesting.
Now, it doesn't mean that my suggestion is why they're doing it.
I'm not saying that.
It could be it's just an obvious thing, so obvious things end up happening.
But here's what I like about it.
If you announce it ahead of time, Then anybody who's going to cheat, almost everybody who cheats, if you assume that there's any cheating in elections at all, if you assume it happens, you're probably assuming that there's almost always an accomplice.
I feel like it would be hard for one person to pull off cheating.
But if you had accomplices, like even if you were a ballot collector, like if you were harvesting ballots, there would be at least a few people who knew about it.
Do you think there's any ballot harvester who was never told one person?
And that even the people who were getting harvested couldn't tell it was a ballot harvester?
Everybody who's cheating in an election probably has some witnesses.
Now here's the cool part.
Most of those witnesses would not become whistleblowers.
But if they're looking at, you know, getting a quarter of a million dollars for a really good one, I don't know what the actual awards are.
It would be hard to trust your accomplice, wouldn't it?
So what's beautiful about this is that it's organized and promoted before the election, which means that all of the accomplices have to look at each other and say, if we cheated in the election, maybe we get paid our, you know, $5,000 or whatever we're getting paid, because probably they're getting paid.
But if we do that and make the $5,000, this guy sitting right next to me could make a quarter of a million dollars by sending me to jail, and I don't know him that well.
This could really change the nature of what happens in the next few months.
So keep an eye on that.
I would wait to see if this organization is vetted, though.
So if you see Laura Trump, maybe she looks into it.
Maybe she says, you know, this looks solid to me.
Uh, then I would really think he had something, but, uh, I'd probably wait to get a little bit more vetting on them.
Cause I don't know who's behind it or how they got funded.
Um, apparently according to Robbie Starbuck, the department of Homeland Security, It just put out its strategic plan for the next several years.
Do you know what their number one goal is and the strategic plan and the Department of Homeland Security, whose primary job is to keep you safe?
Yeah, it's DEI and ESG.
So it's not to protect America, it's to make sure that American can get beaten, I guess.
Now, this does assume that Department of Homeland Security will become increasingly incompetent because of DEI.
Now, not because any diverse people are less good at doing things.
It has nothing to do with the people.
It's just the system.
And it would have an artificial goal of getting more diversity.
And whenever you have a distorting goal, That's more important than doing your main mission.
It's going to be bad.
So we're seeing that the country is suffering a mass incompetence problem everywhere.
I think DEI is probably most of that.
Not all of it.
Some of it may have to do with young people not being prepared, etc.
But DEI is probably most of the incompetence in the United States right now.
And if you're new to me, it's not because any specific person's got bad genes, or any group is bad, or any gender is better or worse, or any race is better or worse.
It has nothing to do with any of that.
It has nothing to do with your genes.
It has to do with the system.
And if the system is designed to artificially need people from a group that isn't big enough to give everybody a highly qualified Candidate they're still gonna go for the diversity.
So it means they'll lower their standard So what we should see on paper the way it's designed is massive incompetence in every element of American life You should see that that's very predictable and sure enough that you all observe it happening but some companies are rebranding such as let's say Activision and Blizzard got a lot of heat for their DEI stuff.
So it looks like The accusation is that they're just going to keep doing their DEI stuff, but they're going to call it another name so they can keep doing it.
Huh.
So Robbie Starbuck is a activist.
He's being an, I mean, he didn't start out that way, but he's being an activist on this DEI stuff and companies are rebranding it to call it something else to get out of the heat.
Well, That happens to be exactly the topic of a Dilbert comic strip this week, where Dilbert's company is going to come under fire from an internet activist called Robbie Starbuck.
So Robbie Starbuck doesn't know yet, but he's going to be appearing in that Dilbert comic, I think it's this week.
And Dilbert's company will come under fire from Robbie Starbuck, and what will they do?
They'll get rid of their DEI program.
No, they won't.
They'll just change the name.
Just like everybody else.
Did you know that Mongolia has a really good birth rate?
Way better than almost everyone else in the world.
And do you know why Mongolians are having lots of kids and other places like the United States are below replacement value?
Well, we don't know all the reasons, but there's one obvious reason that's jumping out.
Apparently in Mongolia, and I learned this from an account on X called More Births.
It's all one word, more births.
And apparently it's an account that follows, you know, what creates higher levels of repopulation.
And apparently for the last 68 years, Mongolian leaders have been giving out like government awards, the order of maternal glory to mothers.
So the country did a massive campaign to brainwash the citizens.
Again, brainwashing is pretty much universal if you're a government.
To brainwash the citizens into believing that motherhood was among the highest levels of achievement in life.
Apparently, if you have four kids, if you're a Mongolian mother and you have four kids, The president will personally give you an award.
Personally.
Just try to hold that in your head.
That if you have four kids, the president of Mongolia shows up and gives you an award personally.
Because they're so happy that you can have four kids.
They're so big on motherhood.
If you have six kids, it gets wilder.
You're like a national treasure.
Now, if we treated American mothers As national treasures for having at least a replacement number of kids, do you think there would be more of it?
Well, American culture is so different that I don't know if you could make that tweak.
We've got a lot going on, so I don't know if you could just make that tweak in America.
But the larger point is that incentives work.
If you incentivize a thing, you're going to get more of it.
In the United States, as I've said a number of times, you know, what are the forces working against people having more babies?
And the answer is everything.
100% of everything happening in the United States is anti-baby.
Yeah, we're worried about the climate change in the future, and the pollution is killing us all, and our food supply is making us unable to have babies, and we're all overweight and obese, and social media makes us hate each other, and the Democrats and the Republicans won't even date, and the economy is so bad you couldn't possibly have a child and also take care of yourself, and I could go on and on and on and on.
TikTok makes you look like a star for not having a baby.
Bill Maher just did.
Monologue about being single and loving it and how awesome it is.
So we got a lot of work to do if we want to have babies.
Maybe we'll just go to robots and we don't care.
But elevating the status of mothers seems pretty important.
So speaking of Bill Maher, he said on his show that he just found out that Project 2025 being attributed to Trump was a hoax.
He just found out.
Hold that in your head.
He just found out.
He is one of the main people who talks about politics and teaches both Democrats and sometimes others how the world works.
And he just found out that it's a hoax, that Trump didn't write it, and that there are things in it that he disowns completely and directly.
And then he went through it and said, well, oh, there's this one part where he wants to do a federal ban on abortion.
And Bill Maher says, oh, that might happen.
No, that might not happen.
Trump is completely against that.
That might not happen.
No.
And genuinely against it.
You know, as I've said before, if you were to look at the totality of what Trump has done in terms of women's bodily autonomy, He said, keep me out of it.
He's doing it in every way.
He's the opposite.
Doesn't want to mess with birth control.
Doesn't want to have a federal ban.
Doesn't want the Supreme Court to be in charge of the women's bodies.
Wants the states to do it, which essentially moves it further from him.
Trump is very consistent in saying, leave me out of this.
And leave the president out of it.
And somehow the brainwashing is so good that they can turn that into Trump wants the opposite of what he wants.
And the entire party, including Bill Maher, believed it.
So, amazing.
But, so now Bill Maher has found out that I think he said that he knows that the fine people hoax is a hoax.
He knows that the January 6 thing, I think it was Megyn Kelly who informed him on live, not live, but on a podcast, that his understanding that only the Republicans doubted elections was completely false.
And that there's a whole, you know, whole compilation clips of Democrats doubting the election when Trump got elected.
He wasn't aware of that, that it's completely normal for the losing party to say the election was rigged.
That's pretty important if you think the January 6th thing was an insurrection.
That's really important.
So I wonder if there's a breaking point.
I think Bill Maher has maybe some personal feelings about Trump that go beyond politics, but I feel like there's got to be a breaking point.
Where once you realize that you have been hoaxed by the same team over and over again, and that it's not coming from Republicans.
In other words, is there a Republican hoax?
I mean, I don't even know if there are any.
So, it makes me wonder if there are all these cracks in the wall, you know, the brainwashing wall of propaganda.
If there are enough cracks, could it just fall?
I feel like the Kennedy revelations about what the Democrats were doing to deny him, you know, any shot, I feel like that woke a bunch of people up.
And it seems to me that everybody's got a different, you know, a different breaking point if they've seen enough hoaxes and realize that they've been hoaxed.
We might be getting close to it.
And I don't know that you could see yourself getting close to it, but it feels like Reality is about to dissolve.
It feels like, especially what Kennedy did, that the entire fake understanding of the world we're in, it might just crumble all at once.
It looks still solid at the moment, but it'd be more like a window, you know, it's okay until it's not.
If it crumbles, it's just going to fall apart at the same time, which could be destabilizing.
It's not necessarily good in the first moment.
So I would look for maybe a gigantic mental, almost mental illness that comes out of realizing what has been done to you.
Now, most Democrats will never know that they're the subjects of massive brainwashing operations.
And everybody is, really, not just Democrats.
But we're getting close.
And then now we find out that there's a new Russia hoax.
So H.R.
McMaster has some kind of book out, a memoir.
Wall Street Journal is quoting one of the sentences from it that they pulled out.
So this is the headline sentence in the story about H.R.
McMaster's memoir.
Quote, I cannot understand Putin's hold on Trump.
Well, there it is.
So McMaster's was the guy that the people who knew more than I did at the very beginning of the Trump administration said, watch out for that guy.
That guy is broken.
You know, he's not on Trump's team.
He just looks like he is.
And I don't know about that, but I do know that if he's pushing another Russia collusion hoax in his memoir, he's not one of the good guys, because that's not cool.
Meanwhile, Elon Musk warns us that Chuck Schumer's plan, which he said out loud apparently, Is that if the Democrats get control of the House and the Senate, they will do away with the filibuster, at least for non-financial stuff.
Which would mean, and specifically he wanted to get a couple things through, what was it, the Passing the Voting Rights Bill and abortion legislation.
So I guess that would be legislation to make it legal everywhere.
Now, as Elon Musk points out, that if they got control of both houses, and then they also got rid of the filibuster, that the Democrats would have the power to form a one-party system in the country forever.
Because they could just keep passing laws that favor Democrats in every way that they could think of until it became impossible for a Republican to win an election.
Right?
I mean, you could easily imagine that there'd be a whole host of laws that they could pass that just had one purpose, to make sure they stayed in power.
So, yes, that is a gigantic risk.
Survey I saw online, a little graph of America's trust in mass media, which is very different by parties.
So the Democrats, 73% of them trust mass media.
Those poor bastards.
73% of Democrats think the news is real.
73% think the news is real.
The news hasn't been real, maybe ever, but certainly not real now.
Independents, 36% think they can trust the mass media.
Republicans, 10%.
What would explain that only 10% of Republicans trust the media and 73% of Democrats do?
Well, my hypothesis, I've told you before, is that I think all conservatives and Republicans see both sides.
Because they're going to see the mainstream message because you can't miss it.
It's just everywhere.
And then they're going to go to Fox News and Breitbart, and they're going to come to my podcast, and then they're going to see the other side.
If you see both sides, it's hard to trust the mass media.
Let's go back to Bill Maher's learning on his own, apparently.
He did his own research and found out that the Project 2025 thing was a fake, basically.
It wasn't a Trump document like he thought it was.
Now, if he had been a Republican, would he have known that already?
Yes, he would.
Pretty close to all Republicans know that Trump was not involved with the Project 2025 thing.
Why do they know that?
Well, first they watched the mainstream media say Trump did it, and then they went to the regular news and turned on Fox News.
And it said, no, he didn't do that.
Here's Trump denying he did it.
Here's the people who did it.
They have a strong connection in the Republican Party and Trump, but it's their own work.
Now, everybody who saw the news on both sides knew the truth.
Everybody.
If you saw both sides, you did know for sure that it wasn't Trump's.
So that's probably the whole story.
The whole story is that one side is siloed.
So that the brainwashing is super effective.
And one side is not siloed.
What about the 10% of Republicans who trust the mass media?
I think that's people who checked the wrong box.
10% is roughly the number of people who thought they were answering the wrong question.
Right?
If you took 10 people and asked them any simple question, It's just a simple question.
Nine of them might say, oh, okay, here's the simple answer.
One of them would misunderstand the question and answer opposite of their own opinion.
Because that's people.
10% of people are fucking idiots about everything.
So when I see 10% of Republicans trust the media, I don't think they do.
I don't think there are 10% of Republicans who trust the media.
I think there might be 10% who answered the question wrong because they misheard it.
They had a hearing problem, maybe.
Something like that.
Anyway, I would say that there's another reason or root cause, and I'm just going to put that out there.
Why would it be That so many Democrats would not even be willing to sample Fox News, just as an example of an alternative.
Here's my hypothesis.
I think it has to do with the personalities on Fox News.
Now, I'm not talking about all of them, so I'm going to make a distinction.
If you watch The Five, and probably also Gottfeld, I think that they have a pretty good Democrat viewership.
The reason?
Because all the characters are fun.
You know, Guffeld and his little crew and the crew of the Five.
They're just fun people.
So you wouldn't mind watching it because it's a fun show and it's well produced.
People will watch fun shows with interesting people that's well produced when they don't disagree with them.
Even when they disagree with them.
Want to hear an example?
Okay, me watching Bill Maher's show.
Right?
Perfect example.
Why do I watch his show?
Because he's an interesting character who has interesting characters on, and it's a well-produced show.
That's all it took.
But imagine you're a strong Democrat, and you're flipping through the channels, and Hannity comes on.
I think Hannity is really talented.
He's got an amazing talent stack.
He's got talent across a number of different domains that is the reason he gets paid so much.
But if he's your exposure to Fox News, he's a bit of an off-putting character if he's saying things you don't agree with and also with arrogance.
Now, arrogance would be maybe what they would see.
It's not necessarily what I see when I watch it.
When I watch it, I see him putting on a show.
So, I mean, a show is a show.
I don't see arrogance when I see a show.
I see a show.
Same with Trump.
So it doesn't hit me that way.
So I could watch him and say, oh, this is interesting.
Different spin.
But I can definitely understand why if you're flipping through the channels and you run on, you know, Gottfeld or The Five, you say, oh, these are fun people, well-produced, funny stuff.
I'll watch this.
That could be it.
I mean, it could come down to a few personalities are the channel turners for the Democrats.
Anyway, and I'm not making any suggestion that Fox News make any changes.
I'm no expert on TV programming.
You know, Hannity has a huge audience.
I wouldn't fix something that's working.
Anyway, I saw there was some little disagreement between RFK Jr.
and Olbermann.
And the funny thing is I'm blocked by Olbermann, so I couldn't see what Olbermann said first, but the only thing I saw, and it's even funnier that I don't know what it's a response to, but Kennedy posted back on X to Olbermann, again, not knowing what, I don't know what Olbermann said because I'm blocked, but Kennedy said, quote, you were never my friend.
Now I so want to know what Olbermann said that RFK Jr.
The most polite guy in all of politics at the moment, you know, with the exception of his running mate who's super polite, that he would say that to Olbermann in public, you were never my friend.
Did Olbermann say he used to be friends with him?
You were never my friend.
That's a really harsh thing to say, isn't it?
If you're running for president, and you're really the nicest, most honest guy, and you just go after this one asshole, you were never my friend.
I just love that slapdown.
Anyway.
If you wondered how powerful propaganda is, there's never been a better example than taking Kamala Harris From the least favorable politician, even for Democrats, and making her the superstar in just two weeks, or whatever it was.
Now, you've seen the charts where her unfavorability was high and her favorability was low, and then suddenly it went zoop!
And they closed, like, in two weeks.
Now, some of it is just people So Biden was a special case.
He wasn't a Democrat.
He was a dying guy.
So you can see how whoever it was would get people excited.
But did that really change their impression of her as a person?
It went from unfavorable to favorable.
Oh, here's somebody's posting.
Thank you.
Keith Olbermann said, to my old friend Robert Kennedy Jr., you're an effing anti-American disaster.
To my old friend.
And then Kennedy says, you're never my friend.
Okay, that's sort of what I assumed he was responding to, but that is, I don't know, that's just kind of perfect.
Just too perfect.
Anyway, that's a lot of propaganda.
The only thing I was going to add is when you look at the extent of the movement, it looks like 20% of people changed instantly.
And as a hypnotist, I've often told you this, 20% of the public can be hypnotized very quickly to believe anything.
And it's very consistent.
It's around 20%.
So if you're, you know, introducing a new candidate or whatever, 80% of the people are going to be doing whatever they were going to do, right?
80% were going to vote the way they were going to vote, and you could change up the candidate, and it wouldn't make any difference.
But 20% can absolutely be changed from yes to no, from up to down, almost instantly, with propaganda and brainwashing.
And when you look at the number of people who went from, you know, Conal Harris, unfavorable, to zoop!
and closed the gap, it looked like it was about that 20% of the Democrats.
So it very much looked like the hypnosis worked as hypnosis does on 20% right away, but didn't make much of any difference to the 80%, which is exactly what a hypnotist expects.
California, of course, is a useless hellhole and you should never open a business or buy a house here.
And believe me, I am serious about that because you can't get insurance for either one.
And the the the laws are just too dangerous.
I mean, it's just not a place you'd want to open a business or buy a home at the moment.
Getting insurance here is nearly impossible.
If you did, it's priced beyond any reasonable market rate.
But the California insurance people say they're going to maybe do some major California insurance reforms to attract insurers.
Now, do you think that the California insurance people, whoever's working that, do you think that they have good ideas?
That will turn around this situation so that people like me can get affordable assurance?
Well, maybe before DEI caused a massive incompetence crisis, I would have said there's a good chance this could happen.
I'm glad that people are working on fixing it because they all recognize it's broken.
My current view is that California is probably a DEI garbage pit.
Again, it has nothing to do with any individuals or their genes or their chromosomes.
It has nothing to do with your culture, your color, or your gender.
Nothing to do with that.
DEI is a fucking state killer.
It's a country killer if you let it, but it's definitely a state killer, and it's because The pool of applicants is too small at the moment, and might be because of systemic racism, but it's too small.
And if you hire them anyway, which you know is how it works in the real world, you're going to have massive incompetence.
So what are the odds that our California insurance experts are a bunch of people who are hired for their capabilities and their qualifications and their merit?
Almost none.
Almost none.
So without knowing anything about who's involved, your highest likelihood, well into the 80% range, is that it's full of unqualified people.
Not because of their race, not because of their gender, not because of their sexual preference, just because the system guarantees it if you don't have enough diversity and you want it.
Well, the Navy is saying that they've sidelined 17 ships because they can't get enough people.
They just don't have enough volunteers for the military, for the Navy, to run their... They're mostly merchant vehicles, so they would be the ones... Merchant Marines are the ones that supply all the other ships.
They don't have enough people.
So they just can't run as much supplies as they'd like.
They ran out of people.
Now, yesterday I told you that the Navy ran out of pants.
Which is the funniest story.
I didn't even want to know the details of why.
I just love the fact that our Navy ran out of pants.
To me, that's just hilarious.
Well, we're gonna still send them to fight.
But they're gonna be pantless.
Now, do you know who used to fight without pants?
The Vikings.
Yeah.
I know this is true because it sounded funny when I read it, and that's how I judge history.
Is that history funny?
Yes, it is.
Well, therefore, I believe it.
Now, I don't know if any real historians say this, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the Vikings would get so aroused by battle that they would run naked and fully erect into their battles.
Now, I would not want to be fully erect running into a sword battle.
I mean, say no more.
But, uh, reportedly that happens.
So I think maybe we have that possibility with our Navy.
We'll just send them out pantless and aroused and see what happens.
I don't see how that could go wrong.
But why do you think there's such a shortage in the Navy?
Well, huh, why would there be a shortage in the Navy?
What could cause that?
Could it be because if you're white, joining the military is the dumbest fucking thing you could ever do?
That's right.
If you're white, and you join the military, and the military is all about the DEI, you're stupid!
Right?
I mean, I'd hate to think that that's your best option.
I mean, let me revise that.
If it's your best option, it's your best option.
And that would be true for a lot of people.
But if you don't have to go in the military, And you're white and you're male.
Why would you put yourself in the very worst place for you to succeed?
You are the one that they're going to hold back.
They're going to directly discriminate against you.
You'd be crazy to join the military.
Or any big company that has DEI.
Or DEI by any other name.
Activision.
You know who I'm talking to.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, brings us to the conclusion of my prepared remarks.
And that means I'm going to go talk privately To the wonderful people in my Subscription Locals group.
Which, by the way, we have the most fun time in our man caves, hanging out.
A lot of us don't have a lot of human contact, so it's fun to hang out with each other in the evening.
So if you'd like to be part of that, if you're feeling lonely, I can help solve that a little bit.
And thanks for joining on X and YouTube and Rumble.
I've got some news coming up about the Dilbert calendar for 2025.
It's not ready yet, but we're really close and it's going to be fun when I tell you about it.
