God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Cardiologist Beta-Blocker Fake Data, DNA Repairing Protein, AG Ken Paxton, Texas Election Fraud Raids, Immigration Bill, Kamala Harris Polls, Priming Poll Respondents, ABC Presidential Debate, President Trump, Dark Triad Personality Disorder, Democrat Mental Illness, Weaponized Mental Illness, RFK Jr., Humiliated Boeing Employees, Middle East Conflicts, Robot War Dogs, 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
Let me get my comments going for the local subscribers who are special.
Good morning everybody and welcome.
To the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, because that's what it is.
And if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard, chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind to fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's going to happen now.
Go.
Oh, so good.
That really is good.
Oh my goodness.
So, so good.
Well, I wonder if there are any news reports about the health benefits of coffee this morning?
Oh yeah, there is!
Did you know that, at least according to a post by Carnivore Aurelius on Axe, that you don't need to do any fasting They get the benefits of fasting called Orophagy.
You know, you should really probably look up words and how to pronounce them before you go live on a live stream.
Otherwise, you end up saying things like Orophagy.
But it's a word.
I swear to God, there's a word with letters and stuff.
And if I could pronounce it, this would be way better.
But it has to do with whatever that process is that recycles your cells and cleans your old cellular debris.
But it turns out, according to science, you can get almost the same benefits from drinking coffee on a regular basis.
That's right.
Suckers, while you're hungry and fasting, let me do my impression of you fasting versus me drinking coffee.
Well, you sure look hungry over there.
Mmm.
Looks like you're losing some weight.
You're looking a little thin.
You must be starved by now.
Mmm.
This is good coffee.
So you should get all of your health tips from me.
No, don't.
Don't.
Don't get any of your health tips from a cartoonist.
That's a bad idea.
Well, according to ex-user Alec Stapp, he points out one of the worst cases of scientific fraud ever.
Here's a good one.
So there was a cardiologist who did some studies and faked some data.
That's no problem.
Big deal.
A cardiologist does a study.
He fakes a little data.
How bad can it be?
A little bit of fake data.
Everybody's faked a little data.
How bad can it be?
It was on a study of patients who were given beta blockers before heart surgery.
Oh, okay.
Well, it could be a little bit bad if the data is fake.
It could be a little bit bad.
So, Europe changes medical guidelines based on that research.
There's newer information suggesting that beta blockers may increase your risk of death by 27%.
by 27%. So may have killed thousands of people with his fake data.
Thank you.
But hey, all the rest of the data you see is real.
Have I ever told you that all data that matters is fake?
I know you don't believe it, but all data that matters is fake.
You'll see it someday.
Data that doesn't matter very much, or that everybody can see, That could be real.
All right, here's something interesting from Science Alert.
Scientists discovered a protein that can directly halt DNA damage.
It appears to be plug-and-play, so they found this obscure little protein.
Apparently, they can just, like, shoot it into your body somehow, and it will just start going around repairing your DNA to what it should have been.
Now, this sounds a little too good to be true, doesn't it?
You wouldn't have to do anything to it.
You just put it in, and wherever it is, it just repairs DNA.
It doesn't care what kind of mammal you are.
It doesn't care what your blood type is.
It just sits there and repairs your DNA.
Now, that would be a promising candidate for a cancer vaccine.
So it's way too early to say this is exciting, but I like to get you all worked up about the possibilities of the future being better than the present.
Maybe.
Maybe things will get better in a whole bunch of hidden ways that we don't talk about while we're talking about all the bad stuff on the top line.
You know, here's a basic truth about reality.
The stuff you're paying attention to, There's always, you know, wars and just the worst behavior of people.
So, if the thing you're paying attention to is the news, it looks like everything's going to hell, doesn't it?
There's almost no exception.
Like, everything in the news looks like, oh no, the world's going off the rails.
But, working against that, is if you read the science news, The science news is really, really promising across just the broadest array of things, from energy conservation, to smarter looks at climate change, to battery technology, to solar cells, you know, whole new forms of energy.
So lots of good stuff going on.
I've got some more of them I've saved for the end.
Meanwhile, as most of you probably already know, today's the three-year anniversary of those 13 American soldiers who were killed in the so-called botched withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Now, I realize that I'm supposed to make this a political statement about the Biden administration, but if you don't mind, I'm going to skip that and just say Yeah, that we appreciate the service and we're feeling some things for the families and that we're just going to show our respect.
So let's skip the politics and have respect for the fallen and move on.
IBM is shutting down one of its facilities in China.
I don't know how many they have, but they're shutting down their research and development.
That would be the first thing I would shut down in China.
If you have a research and development outfit working for your company and you decided to put any part of it in China, you're just sort of giving away your research.
There's nobody who thinks that the Chinese government isn't all over all the communications and putting in spies and every other thing.
So yeah, the last place in the entire world that I would ever put a research and development department would be China.
I mean, Ukraine is right up there, but China.
All right.
SpaceX, apparently SpaceX is working with some private individuals to do a spacewalk.
So they're gonna, they're gonna launch them up in one of the SpaceX rockets, and I guess it's being funded by some billionaire.
And the mission is called Polaris Dawn, and two of the four people who are private citizens, I guess, are going to go up there, and two of them are going to walk in space.
That's kind of exciting.
One of them is this billionaire guy, Jared Isaacman.
He's a tech billionaire.
Can I make a request for my audience?
If I ever become a billionaire, and any part of that lifestyle
Starts with me trying to do adventurous things like walk in space or Navigate a balloon across the ocean You need to stop me Do whatever you have to do just say Scott do not get a helium balloon and try to cross an ocean Do not do not try to walk in space if nobody's done it before with a specific equipment No, just because you're a billionaire doesn't mean you have to be a dumbass
That's what you should say to me.
Well, congratulations to Megyn Kelly, who's getting a lot of attention today.
Semaphore is reporting that her show, The Megyn Kelly Show, her YouTube channel, has 2.3 million subscribers, had 117 million views in July, and that's more views than the official channels for NBC, CBS, Sky News, and BBC.
But what I don't know Is it?
Are they only comparing the YouTube channels or are they comparing the entire network?
So I don't know that.
But, um, Megan Kelly is becoming one of the top voices in the world of, of news and opinion.
Uh, apparently she has six staffers working on that.
So apparently I need to add some staffers if I want to get to those numbers.
She's doing, uh, how much better is she doing than me?
Uh, let's see.
100 times.
Her success is approximately 100 times my success at live streaming.
Boy, she's got some good staffers there.
Now, here's what I'm going to say.
One of the things I appreciate about Megyn Kelly is her talent stack.
And one of the things you'll see with most of the successful live streamers is that they have more than one talent.
You know, I say this about Sean Hannity all the time.
He's just got a bunch of talents.
Tucker Carlson, a bunch of talents.
It takes a whole bunch of things to work.
Greg Garfeld, Bongino, you could go down the list.
The ones that are really making a difference, they've got multiple talents.
So if you look at Megyn Kelly, you know, she's got the attorney thing.
She's been in the news business.
She knows everything about politics.
She's got a robust family life.
So she understands, you know, what it's like to be a family person in the United States.
Now she's started her own, basically her own network.
She's got phenomenal communication skills.
Probably one of the best, in my opinion.
The best personal charisma on camera of anybody?
Try to think of somebody who has more personal charisma on live anything.
You'd be hard.
I don't think you could beat that.
So yeah, Megyn Kelly is one of those few people I will listen to no matter what the topic is.
I wouldn't say that about too many people.
Just whatever she's doing just always seems interesting to me.
So great job, Megyn Kelly.
I just want to shout out there.
So Biden's going on vacation again.
This is like a perpetual evergreen story.
Who's running the country?
Biden is.
I guess he left his five-day vacation with a billionaire, and now he's going to go to his Rehoboth beach house in Delaware.
And there's a video of him laying on the beach, stiff as a board.
And I don't want to say that Biden's not doing well, but they did add to his entourage, and now part of the permanent staff is a taxidermist.
Who just travels with him, in case.
In case he's needed.
I saw the picture and it's possible he's already active, but just a tax attorney.
Meanwhile, the Attorney General in Texas has announced major election fraud raids.
So, Ken Paxton, Attorney General in Texas, he's launched this major effort.
They've got search warrants, etc.
And they're going after these Organizations, these non-profit groups, non-profit, non-profit groups, I've got a feeling that the people who are managing those non-profit groups are making a profit from somebody.
And it says a number of non-profit groups, this is according to Natural News, have been setting up booths outside of driver's license centers in Texas to register people.
Which you could do inside when you're getting your driver's license, I suppose.
So, none of this looks appropriate.
It all looks sketchy.
But here's the question I ask.
Hmm.
I'm a citizen watching the news, and I've got a question.
If our elections were pristine and flawless... Oh, by the way, the allegation... I think I left out the important part.
The allegation is that they're registering non-citizens.
Did I leave that out?
So the allegation is that they're intentionally aimed at getting non-citizens to vote.
That's the allegation.
Now, why do we need to fix a system that's already pristine?
Every day I look at the news and every single day there's another state that's going after election cheaters or they're adjusting the election laws I think at this point there have been maybe hundreds of adjustments to the thing that was already perfect.
Why would you keep fixing the thing that wasn't broke?
It's kind of a mystery, isn't it?
Well, if you'd like a way to identify the brainwashed from the people who just have honest differences of opinion, I would like to suggest a mechanism to do that.
You ready?
Now, nothing's perfect, so this is not a 100% method, but it's pretty good.
If you want to know who's brainwashed, see if they can describe the other side of the argument, if they're even aware of it.
Now, it's sort of two parts.
One, are you even aware there's another argument?
And the other is, could you describe it in a way that's honest, even disagreeing with it?
Say, OK, this is what the other people say, but this is what I believe, even though they say that.
That would be fine.
But suppose you say, let's say, for example, Democrats say, and we're going to test this on Republicans, by the way.
We're going to test it both ways.
Let's say you are a Democrat and you say that mean old Trump convinced the Republicans to turn down that immigration bill that was bipartisan, by the way.
It was bipartisan.
So who can turn that down?
I mean, both sides, representatives from both sides said yes to it, but then it was voted.
The Republicans mostly voted against it.
So is it because mean old Trump said, don't vote for that thing?
I'd rather run on the issue than fix it.
So, that's what the Democrats say.
Now, if you said to a Democrat who said that, hey, it's Trump's fault, he's the one who turned down that bill that would have fixed everything.
Do they know what the counter-argument is?
Now, what's important is, I'm not saying the counter-argument is the right one.
I'm not even picking a side.
I'm saying, do they know what the other argument is?
Most of you do, don't you?
I'd like to see in the comments.
Do you know what was wrong, if anything, with that bill that the Republicans voted against?
Does anybody have knowledge of that?
What do you think was in that bill that caused, for most of you probably Republican voters, what do you think your team, the Republicans, why do you think they turned it down?
Purely because of politics?
Or was there anything wrong with it that even a normal person would have turned it down?
There you go.
Yeah.
So I'm looking at the comments, and it's very obvious that many of you have a pretty good notion, at least directionally, you're aware of what the problem was.
So directionally, the first thing you need to know is it wasn't a clean bill, meaning it wasn't just about immigration.
They packed a bunch of foreign funding into it.
So you had to be in favor of, you know, another bunch of money for Ukraine and another bunch of money for the Middle East and something else.
Why would you, if it was so important to the Democrats, why would they put a bunch of stuff in it that was going to be controversial?
So that would be enough to turn it down, in my opinion.
If you're trying to solve this one problem, but you got to put a bunch of bullshit in it, what's the point of being bipartisan if you have to throw the pork in there?
Do you know why the pork gets put into a bill?
The reason you put the pork in is to get the other side, usually, to agree to it.
Could be your own side.
But you're basically bribing people to agree to it.
Why would you need to bribe people to agree to it if it was bipartisan and obviously good and everybody could see it?
Why are you bribing them?
I mean, that's what the pork is.
And pork in this case, well, pork is the wrong word.
I shouldn't say pork, because that's more about domestic spending.
But the pork, wrong word, is just other issues are in the bill.
As soon as you say it's filled with billions of dollars of other issues, that's reason enough to turn it down.
It's plenty of reason.
And it also suggests that you weren't serious about it.
Because if the Democrats had ever been serious about that bill, they would have made it clean.
But that's not the only problem.
Some of you are aware, and I saw in the comments, somebody said it would increase immigration.
Would it increase illegal immigration?
No, it wouldn't.
No, it would massively decrease illegal immigration.
That's what the Democrats say.
The Democrats say this bill Would decrease illegal immigration, and they're completely right.
Do you agree?
That the bill, if approved, you know, assuming you were okay with that other funding that had nothing to do with the bill, if you had accepted all that, it would dramatically decrease illegal immigration.
It would!
If you read it.
Do you know why it would do that?
Because it would make it so easy to come in legally, As a non-citizen, that you wouldn't need to come in illegally.
In other words, if you just go through the front door and say, asylum, that's legal.
It's a legal process.
We would process you through our legal process and then you would not be called an illegal immigrant.
Literally, the immigration bill was about changing the definition of legal and illegal.
That's what it did.
Now, the specific way it did it was by adding the asylum checkers.
So the people that you check in with and decide whether or not you get asylum.
So what they increased was the conversion of people we would call illegal into people we call legal, but they're exactly the same people doing the same thing.
They're just walking through a different doorway.
Now, how many Democrats could explain what I just explained?
None!
You could check with a hundred in a row, you wouldn't find one, not even one person who could tell you what I just told you.
And, when I asked the Republicans in the audience, you didn't all know the details, but people did know there was extra stuff in there, and they did know it would make things worse.
So basically, you knew the argument without the details.
Directionally, you knew the argument.
But do you think there's even one Democrat who would say, oh wait, it would make the rate of illegal immigrants worse?
No.
No, because the news is fake.
So the news told them it was just a bipartisan thing, so therefore it must be good.
And if you're turning down something that is bipartisan, well, there's only one way to look at that.
The only way you could look at that is that that mean old Trump must have said something that was political.
So, back to my main point.
You can tell if somebody's brainwashed if they can't even explain what the other point of view was.
Let me give you an example.
Oh, and somebody asked me, how do you deal with brainwashed relatives or brainwashed co-workers?
I have a suggestion.
If you said, oh, you're wrong about this, or you forgot this, or you didn't know about this, what are you going to get?
Cancelled.
You're going to get trouble.
You're going to get in a fight.
So do not directly challenge people who clearly are brainwashed.
Here's what you can do instead.
Have you ever heard the counter to that?
That's it.
Have you ever heard the argument against that?
Now, if nobody wants to hear it, run away.
If they say, of course I've heard the argument.
Well, what is it?
Can you explain it?
And your job is not to get them to change their mind.
That's impossible.
Your job is not to act superior to them, although that's how it's going to come out.
Your job is to say that the news is so siloed, you wonder if everybody's hearing both sides.
So you appreciate hearing their side, because maybe your news doesn't have enough of it.
That would be the humble thing to say.
But you might say, I'm kind of curious If the news even tells you why the Republicans were against it, do you know why?
Now, if they say it's because they're evil and it's all political, you'd say, do you want to hear what they're saying is the counter-argument?
Notice how I didn't say it's my argument?
Do you want to hear what the Republicans were saying is the counter to that?
Because most people will say yes to that.
Because they'll know if they don't know that, they're going to be on shaky ground and they're going to look stupid.
So all you've offered is, can I tell you what other people say?
It's the other people say it that's the part that keeps you safe.
Say, I don't know what to think, but I'll tell you what the other people say.
Now, try that.
Because if you do that, you're taking the pressure off of you versus them, because you versus them gets you in a fight.
But if you're just curious about the completeness of knowledge and how the news business works, you sort of keep it on that level.
I'm not sure the news is doing the job that it should because we're so siloed.
Have you heard the Republican argument against that?
And you don't even act like you care.
Don't even act like you have a horse in the race.
Did you believe that fine people hoax?
Have you heard what the Republicans say about that?
They're saying if you listen to another 30 seconds, you'll see the clarification of where he says, quote, and you don't say it's your opinion.
You just say that's what they're saying.
That's how you do it.
Well, there's a fake seven point advantage poll for Harris.
So there's a survey from Farley Dickinson University, and it came out on Friday and showed Harris was leading Trump 7% or 7 points.
Now, did that sound real to you when you heard it?
All the news reported it.
It's a real survey.
So it must be news, right?
It must be real.
Everybody reported it.
I think The Hill was reporting it.
And let's see, if you keep reading down, oh, here's a little, here's a paragraph maybe you didn't hear.
If you heard the news that Harris was up seven, let me ask you if you heard this part.
When they did the survey, pollsters noted race or gender played a large role in pushing Harris' lead.
Listen to this.
When voters are asked to think about race or gender, Harris' lead grows significantly, while support for her and Trump are virtually tied when they are not made to think about it.
Okay, let me change the headline.
Here's the correct headline.
Farley Dickinson University released a poll that showed that they were tied.
That's what actually happened.
But they also did a little test where they said if they prime them with a certain thought, you can make the number move.
It would move both ways.
If you prime them with, did you know the economy is bad and immigration is out of control?
Which way do you think that would prime people?
So if you prime them with a Democrat message, you get more Democrat support.
Okay.
Maybe you could have just asked me.
Literally, you could have just asked me and saved all that money.
Scott, if we prime the people we're polling by making them think of something in one domain, is that going to change their answer?
Yes!
Yes!
Not all of them, but 7%?
Absolutely.
That's the most well understood thing you could ever have in psychology.
So that's a fake poll.
I think there's a real one that shows Trump is up by three.
I call it real because I agree with it.
So at the same time, somebody says Harris is up by seven, another poll is saying Trump is up by three.
None of them are believable at this stage.
The polls are just sort of entertainment between now and the last month.
In the last month, they might start getting serious because they have to make sure that they're credible pollsters when it's all done.
They can be crazy and fraudulent now, But toward the end, that's the only part they'll be judged on, is the actual result and their actual most recent polling before the result.
So it's the only one they have to get right to stay in business, which is wild.
All right, Trump's talking about turning down the ABC debate.
I think he's just negotiating, but I like how he framed it.
You know, he's saying they're biased and blah, blah, blah, and he pointed out that Tom Cotton did a great job Which he did, on ABC.
And he said, what was his complaint?
He also questioned, Trump did, whether ABC's George Stephanopoulos, with whom he is involved in litigation, would be involved.
There's no indication he would be.
And basically, why would I do the debate on that network?
They're all biased.
And then he says, why did Harris turn down Fox, NBC, CBS and CNN?
So he's basically trying to create a picture where Harris is the one turning things down, and the only one that they have left is the super biased one.
So why would he accept the one super biased one when Harris is turning down all the others?
Not that they would be less biased, but it's a pretty good political attack.
Yeah, it won't be decisive, but it's a good one.
All right.
I saw a post from, I forget the user, it was Dogecoin or somebody, posted on X. Please forward links to X posts to your friends so they know what's happening.
The idea here is that the news is so biased and siloed that the only place you can see anything true is on the X platform.
So if you see something that's true that your friends and neighbors have not seen, you should send it to them.
Now what's interesting about that is that Musk commented on it and said it was very important.
And I agree.
So right now we have the situation where X platform is probably the best free speech, place in the United States, if not everywhere.
But because of the algorithm keeps us siloed, and nobody's going to look at it unless they want to look at stuff they want to look at, then it seems to me that this might be the only way to break.
You know, break that silo.
Just email it or text it.
Not a lot, because people aren't going to put up with a lot of stuff like that.
But you might be able to just select a key one now and then, one that really breaks the matrix.
Maybe send that one.
All right.
Trump's talking about Kamala and her handlers.
He was posting that they're trying to make it sound like he is the incumbent president.
So they can blame him for everything.
No, it was their failure, etc.
Now, that does seem to be the actual weird case, that the Democrats ran a convention in which they pretended they needed to fix all the problems from the current administration, which is their administration.
But they sort of acted like it wasn't their administration, and maybe it was sort of Trump who was involved all along.
Now, what do you call that?
That would be called gaslighting.
Gaslighting is when you say something that somebody can see is not true right in front of them.
Like, there's no doubt about what is real, and they're still telling you it's not real.
Now, that's different than lying.
Lying might be, okay, do I have to research this?
You know, there's an argument on both sides.
That would just be lying or hyperbole or, you know, that sort of thing.
But gaslighting is you hand somebody a rock, and they're holding the rock in their hands, and they know it's a rock.
They can feel it's a rock.
And then the person who gave it to you says, that's a diamond.
And you say, well, no, it's just a regular rock.
And then they keep persisting.
No, that is a diamond.
And you just keep looking at it and you're like, I have it in my hand.
It's just a rock.
Now that's gaslighting.
Gaslighting is telling you the thing you see, you know to be true is not true.
And that makes you crazy.
If you start to believe it, you're like, oh my goodness, am I crazy?
Why does everybody say this is a diamond in my hand when it's clearly a rock?
So that's the case.
The Democrats, everybody in the country can see that it's their administrations in charge.
So when they say they're going to fix where everything is wrong, the entire country knows, well, wait a minute, didn't you just blame yourselves for being the problem?
But somehow they're trying to pull that off.
Now, it's also a case of projection, meaning that they're projecting their own errors onto Trump, saying he didn't fix this or he didn't do that effectively.
So, what does that remind you of?
What it reminds me of is a signal of dark triad personality disorders.
That would include narcissism and some other conditions.
So, we've seen that the Democrats do, in fact, have this weird, super high level of mental illness.
No joke.
Like, actually, you can measure it.
It's just off the chart.
Democrats have more mental illness.
Observationally, it seems like they are just packed with this dark triad personality types.
They all seem to have ended up in one place.
Most of them.
And so when I see that their entire campaign is based on gaslighting and projection, it just looks like mental illness.
It looks like David Plouffe has weaponized the mental illness of his own base.
Which again is brilliant.
It's brilliant, because I hate to say it, but the Democrats' persuasion game is just crazy good at this point.
The fact that the race is even close, it's just a freaking miracle of persuasion.
So, you know, I don't like their policies and their personalities in many cases, but damn, You're doing a really good job of the most evil persuasion I've ever seen, and effectively.
Now let's take it down to a specific anecdote.
Now of course anecdotes are not good enough to make the case, but if you make a general case and there are no examples of it, that would be a weaker case.
So I made a general case That they seem to be filled with mental illness and they're using gaslighting and projection because those are the main tools of the mentally ill, at least the dark triad personality people.
So here's an anecdote.
RFK Jr.
changed allegiance from Democrats to now backing Trump.
Is RFK Jr.
racked with mental health issues?
Doesn't look like it, does it?
Yeah, you can agree with him or disagree with him, but he doesn't have any mental health issues.
He might want to be one of the most mentally strong people you'll ever see in your life.
I mean, that guy's got some mental strength.
So, would you agree that there's not anything about RFK Jr., like him or don't like him, I'm not even talking about policies, but there's nothing mentally ill about him whatsoever?
Would you say the same about his sister?
His sister's quite distressed about his, you know, joining the evil side.
I don't know.
I think the sister might be, I'm not going to say she has dark triad personality, but she is part of a party which seems to be operating on not the best mental health perspective.
Let's put it that way.
So look for that pattern.
Speaking of RFK Jr., he said, he said in public that there would be more prominent Democrats heading toward Trump.
We are having fun speculating who they might be.
Somebody said Dan Goldman might be one, but I don't think that's confirmed.
I'm really, really curious about who else might go.
Yeah, and I guess you're right.
I'm seeing in the comments.
Why is the family that involved?
I mean, it seems like you could just say, well, it's not my choice, but good luck.
That seems like the healthy thing to do.
Anyway.
Apparently Kamala Harris is using her latest ads.
She's showing Trump's border wall to make it look like it was her border wall.
The Gateway Pundit is reporting that.
So, imagine the guts of running a campaign about how good she's doing at the border and showing Trump's border wall as part of your good job.
Remember I said gaslighting and projection?
This is just gaslighting.
It's just projection.
It's like confusing who did what.
Well, there's a report that Boeing employees are, quote, humiliated That the little upstart SpaceX is going to be the one going up there and rescuing their astronauts that are stranded on the space station.
They're humiliated.
Let's see.
So Boeing is failing.
But SpaceX is succeeding.
You know, here's a question.
Maybe you can help me with this.
I haven't done the research, but which of those two companies, Boeing or SpaceX, is focused exclusively on merit in their hiring?
Which one only cares about the quality of the employee?
Is it Boeing or is it SpaceX?
I'm pretty sure it's SpaceX.
What does Boeing care about?
Well, they also care about doing the good job.
But they've got a really strong focus on DEI.
And I saw that they're bragging quite a bit that Boeing has increased its percentage of female engineers.
So, here's the good news.
SpaceX is very qualified.
And qualified enough to go get those astronauts and save their lives, we hope.
But Boeing, not to be outdone, has a higher percentage of female engineers than they've ever had before.
So, in a way, both of them are doing great.
Just in different ways.
What about NASA?
NASA was working with both of them, I guess.
It has DEI training that I learned today.
It encourages the white people to feel shame for being white and taking part in white supremacy culture.
So, assuming that's true, I would be in favor of canceling all funding for NASA.
Because I'm not in favor of funding a racist organization, even if they're taking us to space.
Sorry.
That's a hard no.
So I'm in favor of cutting all funding for NASA.
That's not going to happen, by the way.
I just want to put down a marker.
If it's going to be a racist organization, which it is.
Explicitly, indirectly, and in writing, they're a racist organization now.
No interest in funding them whatsoever.
Meanwhile, Disney is forming a committee to replace their white guy CEO.
They've got a white guy CEO.
Breitbart News says that, I guess, Morgan Stanley, blah, blah, blah, executive chairman, is going to lead a search to replace Bob Iger with I Hope.
Fingers crossed they can get a black lesbian woman to run that organization.
Get rid of that white guy, because he's ruining everything.
Meanwhile, over in the UK, teachers are going to be trained to challenge whiteness in school, according to the Telegraph.
So in order to be anti-racist, you have to learn to challenge that whiteness.
And if you didn't know the term whiteness in critical race theory, which seems to be, you know, the basis for a lot of these things, it refers to these social attitudes and things that are considered by normal, not normal, considered normal by white people.
So some of the things that white people ridiculously think are normal, normal, would be meritocracy, objectivity, and individualism.
Oh my god, I didn't realize what a white supremacist I am, because I like all of those things.
Well, what happens if you get rid of meritocracy, objectivity, and individualism?
That's the end of the fucking world.
So that's where we're going.
Apparently some really dumb fucking people have decided that let's package the worst ideas in the world and try to shame everybody into doing it.
So the UK is pretty much done.
Over in the Middle East, we're seeing some theater involved, as in pretending.
Okay, okay.
As in pretending that we're all being tough here.
So as you know, let's see, Iran and Hezbollah said they were going to get even with Israel.
Because Israel killed that Hamas guy on Iranian territory.
So both Iran and Hezbollah made their threats.
Hezbollah made an attack, which I think, you know, they can pretend was a major attack, but in terms of its effect, it was minor.
And now Hezbollah says they could take a breath because they've already done what they needed to do.
So Hezbollah does basically nothing that made any difference.
But it was large.
It just didn't make any difference.
So now they can say, all right, we're done.
We showed you Israel.
And then Israel, you know, pounded them back and probably took out more rockets than landed, I'm sure.
And then they both can act like they won.
And then Iran is a little cagey about whether they're going to do something separately in addition to whatever Hezbollah did.
But I've got a feeling they're going to say, you know, what Hezbollah did is fine.
Good enough.
Or because Iran is now changing how they talk about it.
So they don't say, well, you know, it's another military attack against you.
They're saying things like, well, You know, war can take many forms.
It could be, you know, persuasion.
It could be financial.
So, Israel and Iran are unlikely to get into a big fight and match anytime soon.
Over in Ukraine, they've got robo-dogs.
They're implementing now.
They've got these $9,000 robot dogs that can go for like 9 miles per hour for 5 hours.
that can go for like nine miles per hour for five hours.
They can carry 15 pounds.
And they're using them for, they haven't used them yet for this, but they can do kamikaze attacks.
Bye.
You can just have the kamikaze dog run at them and explode, I guess.
But they're equipped with cameras and remote sensing and all kinds of things.
And they can trigger Russian booby traps along the front lines, so the robot dog explodes instead of a person.
Now, it seems to me That we're heading toward an inevitable situation where all of the fighting is robots.
And then once we get to a situation where all of the fighting is robots, we're one step away from that Star Trek.
Do you remember the Star Trek where there was an advanced civilization where instead of having real wars, they would run a computer simulation of who would have won.
And instead of having the war, The people who would have lost based on the simulation.
If the simulation says, well, it looks like, you know, you would have lost a thousand people in this battle.
A thousand people have to volunteer to be killed in this, you know, suicide machine because it's more civilized than the actual war.
Well, what happens when you've got two armies that are fully roboticized and AI driven?
Wouldn't the robots know who's going to win?
And wouldn't they be able to calculate how many humans die as a process?
We're very close to the point where the robots don't need to fight, because they could just exchange data, you know, hypothetically.
The robots would be able to know which side would win, because they would just say, all right, we don't have enough robots in this domain, they will attack in that domain, because that's the obvious place to attack.
We have no answer.
This will cause a collapse in our entire structure.
Yes, the other team will win, no doubt about it.
So we surrender.
Well, we were going to kill 100,000 of you.
All right, we'll let you kill 100,000 of us, but we'll do it in a civilized way.
The weird thing is, that feels almost inevitable.
Maybe not the part where the people are sacrificed, but maybe the part where we don't need the war if the robots know who's going to win.
So maybe one side just says, all right, we give up.
Our robots aren't as good as your robots.
Maybe.
According to Brighter Side News, there's a study that finds we could be living in a simulation.
What?
I don't quite understand how they did this, but the basic idea, I hope this is somewhere in the neighborhood of their idea, You've heard that entropy is a natural state of matter.
Entropy means that if you just leave things alone, they will become more disordered.
So if you just took a donut and put it in a box and left it there for a year, it wouldn't look like the donut anymore.
It would, you know, dissolve.
And that over time, everything It becomes, you know, less of what it was.
So, entropy is the impulse that the universe has, for whatever reason, toward taking things that are fully formed and turning them into their constituent parts.
And that's normal.
Now, if that's true, and this is the big if, that it applies to information, you would expect that information, too, would become more Disordered over time, instead of more ordered, but it's the opposite.
Now here the big if is, you know, does what happens with matter apply to what happens with information?
But that was one of the assumptions that went into this.
It's a hypothesis, I guess.
Hypothesis that Information should go the same way as physical stuff.
I don't know why, but the idea is that information is physical in some way.
And the idea is that since information becomes more ordered over time, at least within our human systems, it would suggest that things aren't the way they look.
And that maybe we're a simulation.
This is pretty weak in my mind, but I thought it was fun.
There's a new gel That you can spray on your house to keep it from burning up.
So if you're in a forest fire situation and the fire is heading toward your house, you can't buy it yet.
It's invented, but not for sale.
Apparently, according to researchers at Stanford, according to the Stanford report, so it's a water-enhancing gel.
You spray it on homes and it would make it almost fireproof temporarily.
Amazing.
What if that works?
Can you imagine that?
Now, I think of it not in terms of just saving homes, but if you had a gel that you could put on something and make it unburnable, couldn't you create a firewall?
You know, couldn't you just surround the fire with this gel and, you know, make, you know, really thick border around it with the gel?
Depends how Toxic the gel as I suppose, you know, the gel might be more toxic than the fire but this could be big and I say again do the people who estimate the dangers of climate change Do they calculate the things that would mitigate those dangers?
One of the big dangers they say For climate is that there'd be more forest fires but if there are more fires, but our ability to stop them gets way better and Do we have fewer fires?
We might end up with fewer fires.
That's the way society has gone so far, is that we have less of stuff even if the danger is higher, because we're better at taking care of it.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, brings me to the end of my prepared thoughts for today.
I did notice just before I got on that the Israel stock market seems kind of strong, you know, historically.
They've been kind of flat for years.
I've been tracking it for a while.
But the one index fund that I track from Israel is up nicely in the last year or so.
Now, what country goes to war on multiple fronts and then their stock market goes up?
What's up with that?
It doesn't look like the financial world is worried about anything happening to Israel, of any economic consequence.
So, don't really understand that.
But, if you look at my Dilbert comic today, which I took off of, I took it out from the paywall, you will see that Dilbert's company is being Let's say, accosted by an activist named Robbie Starbuck.
No, it's based on the real Robbie Starbuck in the real world.
He's the activist.
I don't know if I want to call him an activist because he didn't wake up to be an activist.
He's just getting involved in something that matters.
But he had a lot to do with Harley Davidson, for example, getting rid of their DEI group.
And I think he's working with some other companies on the same issue.
When I say working with them, I mean embarrassing them to stop doing what they're doing because it's so racist.
And so he'll be in the comic.
You can see one day of it today.
I posted it on X and I opened it up so you can see it.
All right.
People on the Locals platform, I'm going to talk to you privately and that's all I've got for the rest of you.
So thanks for joining on Rumble and X and on YouTube.
