God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Ultra-Processed Food, Kamala Harris, Trump Pirate Ship, Green Energy Progress, Warren Buffett BofA Stock, General McMaster, Jack Smith New indictments, Telegram Backdoor Battle, Pavel Durov, RFK Jr. State Ballot Battles, Scott Jennings, Border Half-Czar Harris, Voter Roll Programmed Cheating, Calley Means, Banned Food Chemicals, Government Size Reduction, National Debt Crisis, 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
Parallel pleasure, the dopamine, the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's gonna happen now.
Go!
Oh, that is truly delightful.
I can feel every organ in my body, body, everything in my body.
It's starting to come online, finally.
Well, the X-Platform, He's testing a new video conferencing tool, says TechCrunch.
So, when Musk says that X is going to do everything, he's pretty serious about that.
Which is fascinating, because X could end up being his most valuable property.
It's a long game, but imagine if you could go to X You could do your payments, he's going to do that, so you can pay people.
You can communicate, you can call them, you know, without using the phone company.
You've got encryption, although we don't trust encryption.
You have video conferencing.
I feel like Musk has a few advantages.
One of them is that he's a Sort of a late follower for these.
Yeah, but he's highly qualified, you know, assuming his engineers are well qualified.
So that if you come in late to any of these businesses, you can look at all the things they've done and just clone it.
So he doesn't have to be, you know, better at Zoom.
He just has to also offer it.
He doesn't need to be better at payments.
He just has to also offer it because it's, you know, once you're in X, you're just going to use X.
So his strategy for basically owning all of those businesses simply because people were already on X is pretty strong.
It's a pretty strong argument.
Anyway, there's a competitor to the Neuralink chip, you know, the one that gets inserted in your skull and they put little wires into your brain.
Well, according to New Atlas, there's a a different version that's smaller and more minimally invasive.
So in Switzerland, they're testing it, but this one doesn't have wires into your brain.
Instead, it learns what patterns of electrical signals your brain gives off under different conditions, and then it trains itself on you.
So it's just reading your electrical signals in your brain without any wires.
So it's not actually connected.
Now I've seen this technology before, maybe years ago, I actually tested one where you put a little Put a little strap on your head and it could sort of read your brain, but it didn't work at all back then.
The one I used just didn't work.
But imagine if you could, it says 91% accuracy in determining the text you're trying to write with your mind.
I don't think 91% is going to get you there.
So probably you're going to need the Neuralink model to really do the good stuff.
But you might have this minimally evasive thing that doesn't have to be drilled so far into your brain.
It's really thin and small.
Well, according to Climate Realism, Bloomberg is reporting that there are record crops coming in.
So all over the world, there are record crops.
Do you know why the crops are so good?
Well, Some of it is because of climate change.
Or to put it in a different way, some of it is because of higher CO2, which is good for plants.
So, one of the lesser recognized aspects of climate change is it's really good for farming and it should bring down your food costs.
So the more CO2 you can pump into the air, the less you'll pay at the grocery store.
I mean, in theory.
I don't know if that actually is going to be the case.
But in theory.
So I'm not saying that's good or bad.
I'm just saying it's happening.
And the good news is farming looks pretty strong around the world.
Well, the Biden-Harris administration, according to the Washington Free Beacon, When children are taught about climate change, they're taught that on NASA's environmental page for children, lots of fun and games and films and stuff, but it warns them that the world is undergoing cataclysmic warming, sea levels are rising,
Global ice coverage is diminishing and their future may be doomed.
Now, I don't think that's true.
But imagine you're a young person and you go through a school system that tells you that the climate is doomed and nobody's really working to fix it.
Now, people are working to fix it all over the place.
I'll talk more about that.
But imagine you're a kid Let's say you graduate from that system and then you find yourself a girlfriend.
Are the two of you going to be thinking about having children and bringing them into this world that's already been destroyed and we're just waiting for the doom in the end?
I don't know why you would have children if you believed that climate change was going to doom them to floods.
What's up with that web page or entity?
I think Watt is the name of the person, W-A-T-T.
Apparently, there's reportedly sea levels are plunging in temperatures in an unexpected way.
Now it's unexpected because the temperature is supposed to be going up and it's embarrassingly unexpected because for the years prior to that, The headlines were claiming the sea was boiling, that the ocean was warming up so much and so quickly that it could only be climate change, and we're all doomed.
And then, with additional CO2 in the air, the ocean started, allegedly, cooling down for a couple years in a row.
And there's no way to explain it, because the current models say, that can't really happen.
Now I get that any given year can be a fluctuation, but if it's true that they said, hmm, a few years of warming means climate change, then a few years of cooling means what?
Well, either they both mean nothing, or they both mean something and you can't explain it.
Remember I told you that all data about important things is fake?
All data about important things is fake.
Anyway, my takeaway from this is that it's difficult to have a conversation with anyone who believes any one of these two things.
If you believe any of these two things, I don't think I could have a real conversation with you.
Number one, the news is real.
If you believe that the news business is even trying to be real, like even in their own minds trying to be real, if you believe that, I can't really have a conversation with you.
We would have to solve that part first.
If we could get on the same page, where inexplicably somebody could convince me the news is real, or inexplicably I could convince them it's not, well then we could have a conversation.
Likewise, if I meet somebody who believes that scientists can accurately measure the temperature of the Earth and all of the ocean, as well as the air, And then predict it into the future.
I can't really have a conversation with that person because they don't know how anything works in the real world.
In the real world, it's obviously true you can't do this.
It's really, really super obvious to people who have enough experience operating in the real world and know that all corporate and government stuff is bullshit.
So no, you can't measure it accurately enough.
It's accurately enough is the important part.
No, it's not something humans could do.
Now, if you tell me, but Scott, you don't understand how good our technology is.
I'm not talking about the technology.
I'm talking about it being implemented by human beings and being really complicated and lots of moving parts and too many, you know, variables and assumptions.
No, humans can't measure the temperature of the earth.
I don't know if we ever will be able to, but we definitely can't do it now.
And if you've bought into the notion that humans have that capability, again, I'm separating from the kind of thermometer telling you the temperature.
Yeah, I probably can't.
But they're really different than being able to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth and all the parts that matter.
So no, I can't have any conversation with anybody who believes that that's a possible thing.
Well, here's the good news though.
Popular Mechanics says that there's so much energy in the ocean that it's like the world's biggest battery.
So if you could put a generator in the ocean that's got a lot of movement, especially up and down, the up and down can move some floaty thing up and down that will cause a generator to produce electricity.
I'm not sure I completely buy into the ocean being a viable source.
Because the ocean is so violent, you know, it moves a lot, that it feels like it would just rip apart any mechanical thing too quickly.
Sort of the same problem that windmills have.
You know, a windmill is great if you have, you know, some perfect level of wind all the time, but if it's like sometimes really heavy and sometimes not, you know, that's a lot of pressure to put on a mechanical device.
So I'm not sure that we can make that happen, but it turns out that off the coast of Oregon, there's a big test to see if they can really generate some meaningful electricity in a practical way.
But here's my takeaway.
Suppose they can.
Suppose they figure out a way that they can just use the oceans up and down to make really good electricity that's dependable.
The interesting part is that's probably all you need to make sea cities, right?
And now arguably you could use batteries and you could use solar and you could have electricity that way in your little city that you've built on the ocean.
But I would much rather have some kind of pumps that work with the ocean itself in case it's a cloudy day.
So this might open up the entire ocean to, you know, some serious populating.
Maybe.
Did you know that the U.S.
grid is adding just tons of batteries and solar and stuff like that, according to Ars Technica?
You don't need the details, but wind, solar and batteries are being just installed at a crazy pace now.
So just in case you weren't paying attention, all of the green energy stuff is really Coming online.
I think green is one of those things that would be nothing for 80 years until it's everything.
So we might be entering the beginning of the everything phase.
How many years have solar panels been invented?
It's a long time, right?
Because I remember when I was maybe 12 years old, I bought a little science kit that had a little solar panel in it.
So, you know, we're talking 50 years ago.
You could buy it as a toy.
So I think my estimates may be right.
Maybe 80 years after solar panels are invented, they might take off.
And that wouldn't even be that surprising, 80 years after the invention of a solar panel.
So we'll see.
Let's talk about our press.
Remember that press that some people think is real?
All right.
Politico got community noted on X. So here's what Politico said in a headline on X platform, talking about their own article.
They said, quote, Vance tries to tether Harris to Biden during the Michigan rally.
So VP candidate Vance is trying to say that Kamala Harris is somehow tethered to the current administration.
I mean, how can Politico, you know, I mean, it's quite a good fact check, because Kamala Harris isn't tethered to anything.
Well, the Community Note said, and I quote, Harris is currently President Biden's Vice President.
So the Community Note had to remind Politico that Vice President Harris is the Vice President.
Oh my goodness.
That's right.
Yeah, Vance is trying to tether her to the Harris-Biden administration.
As Molly Hemingway pointed out, The funniest part is that the community note provided a source, because the notes like to provide sources, and the source was the White House page that shows who's the Vice President of the United States.
That was the fact check on Politico.
It's telling them who the Vice President is.
Anyway, Joe Rogan is not too happy about MSNBC.
Apparently, they took some words of his that he said about Tulsi Gabbard, and they spliced it so it looked like Joe Rogan was saying good things about Kamala Harris.
Now, how much more corrupt can you be than literally changing the person he was talking about?
That's super corrupt, but Rogan's all over that.
How about Zero Hedge?
Zero Hedge is one of my favorite sources.
I'm not saying anything about accuracy, but they have lots of stories that interest me.
So Zero Hedge has this story today, that Warren Buffett sold 90 $982 million of his stock in Bank of America.
So that's the headline, just by itself.
Warren Buffett sells nearly a billion dollars of Bank of America shares.
So what's your takeaway from that?
Well, if you read that by itself, your takeaway would be, oh my goodness, Warren Buffett thinks Bank of America is no longer a good investment.
What's wrong with the information that I just gave you?
That Warren Buffett is going to sell nearly a billion dollars of Bank of America shares?
Well, what you should say is, how much does he own?
Remember, if you only see the percentage in the story, it's trying to mislead you.
If you only see the raw number without the percentage, It's trying to mislead you.
The one and only thing that you could see as potentially real news, and even then it's only potential, is if they tell you the number and the percentage.
What would you guess would be the percentage if it's big enough to be a story?
If they're making it a headline story, don't you assume it's a pretty big percentage?
Well, it's maybe a quarter.
I think it was around a quarter.
Now, a quarter is a big percentage, but it's not telling you he doesn't like the stock.
If he kept selling another quarter, another quarter, then maybe yes.
But it's far more indicative that he just has something else he wants the money for, or that he took enough profits, or it's too much of a percentage of his total portfolio.
He also took money out of Apple.
Is that because he doesn't like Apple?
Maybe.
But you could say it's just equally because Apple went up so much, he didn't want that much of his total portfolio to be in one company, so he trimmed some off.
So if you don't know sort of the background about why he's doing it, what the number is, you haven't learned anything.
So you need to get that number.
Time Magazine has a headline.
I haven't read the story, but the headline for an opinion piece, I think, is, What if ultra-processed foods aren't as bad as you think?
Okay, I don't know anything about who wrote it or why they wrote it, but do you trust the media at all?
Presumably you have connections to the food industry because, you know, everything big is connected to everything else.
Maybe with advertisers, maybe not, I don't know.
But do you trust a story that says, what if ultra-processed foods aren't as bad as you think?
I do not.
To me, that looks like... I don't think I'm going to read that.
Because first of all, they don't have an answer.
They're saying, what if?
If they had an answer to the question, they'd say, news research shows ultra-processed foods are good for you.
If they don't have an answer for it, they're just trying to maybe make you less afraid.
Why would they do that?
Well, I don't know.
Do they have some connection to that industry?
Those are the questions you'd ask.
I don't know the answer to those.
I'm just saying that I wouldn't trust this story enough to even read it.
From the headline alone, I go, ah, pass.
There is no credibility in a story like that in a place like our media.
Doesn't mean it's false.
And it doesn't mean anybody's lying.
I'm just saying as a consumer, You certainly can't trust it.
But that's just the press.
Sure, we know the press is bad, but what about social media?
Well, according to an account called Disinformation Expert Lizzie on X, Google now has an option for your news searches So you can search if you're looking for, you know, left-leaning bias or right-leaning bias.
They don't call it bias.
They would just say right-leaning news and left-leaning news.
So what would happen if you clicked on the right-leaning news?
Now that's interesting, isn't it?
Because that means that Google would be deciding which entities of right-leaning news are the good ones.
So what comes up first?
Well, according to disinformation expert Lizzie, you would see the Dispatch, you'd see RT International, that's literally the Russian publication, and that's what you'd see first.
But you'd have to look a little further to find the Daily Caller, Breitbart, Federalist, Just the News, or the Postmillennium.
Some, you know, more, let's say, right-leaning, right-leaning sources.
So Google has found a way to show you what you want to show, what you want to see, while not showing you what you want to see.
Do you think that the people who programmed this didn't know which sources the people on the right consider credible?
Or are they just telling you, you should see the Russia Today source as more credible than, let's say, the Federalists?
Really?
This is so obviously finger on the scale, it's just, I don't even know what to say about it, it's just so obviously wrong.
But the bad behavior is so universal, it's hard to get mad at anything anymore.
I mean, you can get mad at it, but there's just so many outrages, you don't know where to focus your power.
All right, I saw yet another one of these interviews on the streets where people were asked if they were supporters of Kamala Harris.
Can you name her accomplishments?
Now it's some kind of a trick question because vice presidents are not noted for accomplishments.
So if you're a casual viewer of news, it's going to be a hard question to answer, even if you support her.
But it turns out that the people trying to answer say stuff like, well, she's, uh, well, uh, I just, uh, I just, uh, well, you know, I'm comfortable having a woman of color.
So they kind of default to the fact that they don't know anything about her policies or anything about her accomplishments, but they still prefer her because of her identity.
And the people on the street, her supporters, will say that directly and very clearly say they don't know anything about policies or accomplishments.
Just, it's time for a person who's a woman and a person of color?
To me, it seems like You know, the model I love is the Trump pirate ship, you know, with the people who used to be Democrats, people who used to be non-political, you know, all the unusual characters, but in many cases very effective, like a pirate ship.
You know, the pirate ship is good at pirating, you know, good at doing what it does.
So, I feel like the Trump pirate ship has to rescue the brainwashed maidens.
It's starting to form like a movie in my head.
Where there's this mass brainwashing of primarily women, at least in the Democrat Party.
They seem to have the power.
And the women have been convinced that they don't need to know about the policies or any details about politics at all.
They can kind of just look at the identity of the person running and that's good.
And then they can hear all the hoaxes about Trump.
And they say, well, if all of these things about Trump are true, All I need is anybody else.
And if I'm going to have anybody else, I'd rather have somebody who's got that identity that I like.
So it feels like really the pirate ship needs to rescue the brainwashed maidens.
That's the movie I'm seeing in my head.
Ben Shapiro points out that Harris has allegedly reversed her 2020 positions on all of these things.
Decriminalizing border crossings, the border wall itself, Abolishing private health insurance, so these are things she no longer believes but used to.
EV mandates, that you have to have an electric car at some point.
Banning fracking, no longer in favor of that.
And opposing more police, and now she says maybe more police would be a good idea.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
That would be six pretty important policies.
That none of her, I don't think any of her followers have any idea what her positions are in these.
And I'm not sure I do because they're alleged changes.
So some of them I know, I mean, she does seem to be at least a little bit in favor of, yeah, I think I know most of these are actual switches.
So, um, the one thing that's very obvious, Is that voters and their opinions are not going to have a lot to do with the election.
Because whatever it is that voters are thinking as their priority for why they're voting, that's purely brainwashing.
Just purely brainwashing.
The thought that voters do their own research and come up with their excellent opinions and then vote on it, there's nothing like that happening.
Because first of all, there's no data that's believable.
Secondly, people aren't even trying.
Now, when I say people are not trying, I'm talking about 80 to 90% of the public, and it would be true on both sides.
But what's true on the Republican side is if you ask any Republican, What Trump thinks on any of the top 20 issues?
I'll bet you you would have something like 100% accuracy.
I think.
Let me try one.
Does Trump want to build a wall?
Does Trump want an EV mandate?
Everybody knows the answer to that question.
Of course he doesn't.
Is Trump in favor of endless wars overseas for all of our NATO or other reasons?
No.
He wants to negotiate an end.
I don't think there's anything I can think of where I don't perfectly know what Trump's general approach to it is.
And all of his supporters could answer those questions, I think.
I think literally all of them.
But to find a Democrat who could even explain what Harris's opinions are?
I don't think you could find one.
To me, the strongest commercial that you could do would be lots of reports of Biden voters not knowing why they're voting.
But You want to get the ones who look worst on camera.
Now, I don't mean physically unattractive, although that would be good, because remember, you work on persuasion.
If you were to show a whole bunch of interviews, let's say maybe three per ad, you don't need to overdo it.
You just show three people who are for Harris and can't explain why, and have no idea what she's ever done.
Make them look like idiots.
So the one I was mentioning earlier, where there were some more street interviews, they may have deleted out or edited out any smart people who had smart answers.
So, you know, I worry that the context was altered to influence me to think that nobody knows what Harris is up to.
It could be they deleted those.
How would I know?
But it would be super persuasive to show person after person who is a Harris voter looking like an uninformed idiot.
Do you know why?
Let's see if you can complete this thought.
Why would it be persuasive to show lots of Harris voters not knowing anything about anything?
The reason is that people are team players.
But they don't want to be on the team that looks like idiots.
They don't want to be on a team that's full of humiliated dumbos.
So if you simply lightly made the case that Harris supporters are idiots, but you don't say that, that would be a huge mistake, because you don't want to be insulting American voters.
You simply want to show three of them, real people, and how they are in fact idiots.
You don't need to say anything.
Just show them.
Because especially women are going to make decisions based on who they feel comfortable associating with.
One of the things about MAGA supporters is they don't care what you think.
They're going to support Trump even if you hate it.
But I don't think the same thing works on the left.
On the left, I think they're really going to care that they're doing the right thing according to other people.
So they want to be judged by other people, not their own opinions.
So if you show that their fellow voters are dullards, they're going to think, why am I on this team?
That pirate ship is looking kind of good today.
Well, General McMasters is telling a story that has no real credibility the way it's told.
But Hillary Clinton is mocking Trump by quoting McMasters.
So McMasters, who was a national security advisor for Trump, but he was a controversial one.
Let's just say there were some pro-Trump people who know more than I do, who thought he was more of a problem in the administration than a solution.
So I'm not so sure that his credibility is high among the people on the right.
But the people on the left don't know that.
So the people on the left would think this is some loyal person of Trump who's now saying bad things.
If you knew it was maybe not the most reliable person and that that was well debated while he was in that position, you might feel that maybe there's some bias creeping into his reporting.
But he says that Trump said two things, quote, Why don't we just bomb the drugs, talking about Mexico, and quote, why don't we take out the whole North Korean army during one of their parades?
Now, Hillary Clinton reports those two things as though no explanation needs to be given.
Here's my take.
Number one, why don't we just bomb the drugs?
That's literally the The position of all the top Republican candidates that we should have some military reaction to the fentanyl stuff in Mexico.
What's wrong with asking that question?
If the answer is no, we shouldn't do it, and here are the reasons, it's still a good question.
Because I don't know the reasons.
Do you?
I mean, I can say obvious things like, you don't want to attack Mexico, blah, blah, blah, but we're also looking at an unprecedented number of deaths in the United States, so you want to do things you haven't done before, if that's what needs to be done.
So, no, it's a perfectly reasonable question.
Why don't we just bomb the drugs?
If the answer is there are really good reasons, well, why don't you tell us?
If you know the really good reasons for not doing it, I'd love to know.
Why don't you fill me in?
Instead of just acting like it's obviously a bad idea, when I don't know that.
It might be.
I'm open to the argument.
But without an argument, I think it's the right question.
How about the second one?
Why don't we take out the whole North Korean army during one of their parades?
Do you think that's serious?
Does that sound like he wants to maybe take out all of Korea with one swoop?
No.
Here's how you should interpret this if you're not an idiot general.
The way you should interpret it is, if we have a bunch of battle plans drawn up, wouldn't it make sense that at least one of them would include bombing their military parade if they have all their good assets there?
It's a perfectly good question, but not super serious.
It doesn't mean that you want to do it preemptively.
See, the implication is you wanted to just, you know, do it.
No, he didn't.
Because nobody would say that.
Literally no one would say, remember, this is how you know the hoax.
You can tell the hoaxes by saying, would anybody really say that?
Would anybody say, why don't we bomb the cartels?
Yes, they would.
Yeah, I say it.
Vivek said it.
It's commonly said.
So yes, you could believe that Trump or anybody else would reasonably ask, can you tell me the pros and cons of doing this?
Perfectly reasonable question.
Yes, you'd probably ask that.
But do you really think that Trump said, why don't we preemptively?
Because preemptively is kind of implied, right?
If we were in the middle of a war that was, you know, unavoidable, Then do you think McMaster's would have a problem with bombing the parade?
No, not if you're in a war.
So obviously the context is, if we were in a war, wouldn't that be an obvious attack factor?
It's just sort of an obvious and funny thing to say.
I might've said the same thing because I didn't think it would get out.
But then this asshole decides that a private conversation with the president needs to be published in the book.
Not cool.
Not cool.
By the way, I have also said some things that were said privately with Trump, but only because they make him look good.
He's not going to complain about that, that he did something that makes him look smart and well informed.
So if you say that, oh, that's fair, right?
You're not, you're not like giving up some confidence or something like that.
You shouldn't do it.
You probably shouldn't do it, but as long as it makes the president look good, who's going to complain, really?
Anyway, so I do that too, but not about things that are dumb.
So Jack Smith is re-indicting, rewrote his indictment of the President because the Supreme Court ruled on that presidential immunity thing, which meant he had to rewrite it to get rid of that objection.
So here's what's left.
So there are four charges left, I believe.
Conspiracy to defraud the U.S.
I don't even know what that refers to.
Do you?
Conspiracy to defraud.
I think that everything he did was transparent.
Is it defrauding if it's transparent?
Transparently, they wanted to have an alternate set of electors.
Completely transparently, they were doubting the election results and were asking for recounts.
Completely transparently, they were asking for a short delay so they could look more carefully in some places.
What part of that is the conspiracy to defraud?
All I see is a process that the courts would work out like they often do.
If Trump was doing something that the courts were not going to accept, well, I think that's all it would have been.
Where is this conspiracy to defraud?
How do you even get that?
Wouldn't you have to read their minds?
Because unless you read their minds, it looked like a bunch of people who thought an election was rigged and were trying to figure out, is there any way to, you know, create a pushback to what looks like a rigged election?
So the first one looks like brain, mind reading.
Second one, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.
And then a related one, obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding.
Now I'm no lawyer, but those look like the same fucking things.
Right?
I'm sure there's some little difference that they can use.
But correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that the Enron problem?
That the laws about obstructing an official proceedings were originally created because Enron got rid of some records when the government was trying to investigate them, something like that.
And that nobody really thinks that would have applied to this situation.
It was meant for a different context.
So you got one that doesn't make any sense, unless you're a mind reader and you incorrectly read minds.
And the other is two Enron related things that don't even look like the law should apply and the Supreme Court would just toss them out.
It's like, what the hell are you doing?
This doesn't even apply to this situation.
And then the fourth one is conspiracy against rights, which again, sounds like just some fucking thing they made up.
Now, I'm not doubting that there's something written down somewhere that's a law with these words, but do you think that even sounds real?
This doesn't even sound real.
I'm not a lawyer, but at least when a lawyer charges somebody with something, I go, huh, if it's true, that sounds like a crime.
Why is it that even if these things were true, they wouldn't sound like crimes to me?
It would sound like two that don't apply because they were supposed to be, you know, Enron, that kind of behavior.
And two don't even sound like crimes.
Unless again, you're reading minds and finding something that's probably not in there.
Now, according to an account called The Texas One, here's a little factoid you probably didn't know.
Not that it's important.
I mean, this doesn't mean anything.
This is just a random coincidence.
Are you ready for a random coincidence?
Jack Smith's wife produced the Netflix Obama documentary called Becoming Michelle.
So, Jack Smith is a totally unbiased player.
Okay.
Mike Benz is warning us that that arrest of the Telegram CEO in France, he says, this is what Mike Benz says about that.
Mark my words, you're going to see so many pieces suddenly Russiagating that CEO named Pavel Durov.
It'll make your head spin.
So here's what we know.
Two weeks, I think this is Ben's as well, two weeks after Tucker interviewed the founder of Telegram, the CIA-founded Radio for Europe, that was run directly by the CIA for its first 20 years, ran a long piece insinuating Russia was secretly controlling Telegram and Ukraine must seize control of it.
Because it's a military intelligence thing.
And then there's also some seemingly unrelated events that seem connected.
Here's the big picture, as best I understand it.
Whatever country could control and get a backdoor to the Telegram app would have a window to all the bad behavior of all their enemies and all the criminals.
So imagine how much Russia wanted to control that app.
A lot.
Imagine how much the U.S.
wanted to control that app.
A lot.
Did you know that not too long ago, maybe a couple years ago, Macron tried to get that same Telegram guy to move his office to France?
Why would they do that?
Well, France would Really, really like to get a backdoor into that app, or at least, you know, have control of him so they could get that backdoor.
So it turns out that the Telegram app, one of, one of two that are the big ones for, you know, especially international, uh, entities forming to be a counter force against their government, et cetera, that was WhatsApp and Telegram.
But we know that WhatsApp is now, we believe, Completely penetrated by U.S.
intelligence because they put too much pressure on Facebook.
So that would mean just Telegram is the place that the baddies or even the goodies could organize against the government.
Everybody needs to control that.
It's just way too dangerous for every country to be on the wrong side of knowing what is and is not happening in that app.
So it looks like we're in some kind of much larger battle where all of the government entities wanna be the ones that have that back door.
And maybe France was already working with NATO in the United States and it was more of a Western getting access to it than just France.
We don't know that.
But there's also some bigger France versus Russia issue where France has a lot of electricity based on nuclear power.
And the country of Niger was important to getting.
We're never going to know what this is about.
We're going to be able to speculate, and some of it is obvious.
of Niger and France is pulling out and somehow all of these events seem to be connected.
So here's my takeaway.
We're never going to know what this is about.
We're going to be able to speculate and some of it's obvious.
It's obvious that every intelligence unit from every country wants to control the Telegram app.
It's a good thing.
It's obvious that they've tried.
It's obvious they'll keep trying.
To me, it's obvious that his jailing has more to do with getting control of the app than it does to anything he did illegally, even if he did something illegal.
So I don't know if he did anything illegal, but certainly not the reason he got, you know, it's not the reason he's being held in France, in my opinion.
Anyway, and then we also know that the, according to Next TV, that's an account on X, that the French and the UAE Intel services, they tried a joint operation to hack that Telegram CEO's iPhone in 2017, according to the Wall Street Journal.
So, everybody's been trying to get into this guy for a long, long time.
It was 2018 that Macron invited him to lunch and tried to get him to move to France.
So here's some more about the press.
So the German police are investigating because some citizen called one of their MPs fat.
So they're investigating a user on the Gab platform who insulted a Bundestag MP online.
So they're seeking information on the user, but Gab is refusing to give it to him.
This is a true thing.
There might be somebody who could go to jail for calling a very overweight woman fat.
Now, my question is this.
Can it ever be hate speech to say something that's both true and obvious to everyone?
What exactly makes that hate speech?
If you were to say to me, Scott, you're bald.
Is that a hate speech?
Because I'm a little bit bald.
If they said to me, Scott, you're, uh, you're not six foot two.
Well, I might not like it, but is it a hate speech?
If it's just obvious and it's an observation that everybody can make.
If they say, you four-eyed fuck.
Is that an insult?
I actually do have glasses.
What's the insult of it?
If somebody does have, you know, they're carrying a ton of weight, and somebody makes a comment about it, it's very poor form.
It's not something I would prefer to see.
But is it hate speech?
If it's both obvious and everybody can see it?
If it's not even an opinion?
If it were an opinion, Then I can see, okay, you're just bringing some unpleasantness into a place that doesn't need it.
But it's not really an opinion.
It's just an observation.
It's an unkind observation, but is that hate?
Well, so here's my second question.
If somebody in America said that, could Germany get them extradited?
Can Americans now get picked up and sent to other countries to be in jail for their free speech in America?
Is that?
Because it looks like the UK would have the right to extradite.
What about Germany?
I don't know.
Dangerous stuff.
Colin Rugg on Axe had a good thread about who's really stealing your democracy here.
You know, of course, Harris says Trump wants to steal your democracy.
But here are some things we know the Democrats are behind recently.
They're forcing RFK Jr.
to remain on the ballot in two states because they think it'll be bad for Trump, whereas they've been spending all their time trying to get him off the ballot wherever they thought it would benefit him.
So they're not being consistent about whether RFK should be on or off the ballot.
They're only fighting it depending on whether they'll win that state.
That's their democracy.
Democracy there.
Now what Ben Shapiro noted, he said in response to the Democrats trying to keep RFK Jr.
on some of the battleground states, He said, Republicans should move to keep Joe Biden's name on the ballot in as many swing states as possible.
Huh.
Hmm.
How would that work?
What if you could have, uh, you could have Kamala Harris on the ballot, but also Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
And suppose between the two of them, if you added them together, Harris won, but only if you added them together.
Which they wouldn't do.
What would happen if Biden was on the ballot in some swing states?
People would actually vote for Biden, but they would also vote for Harris, and it would guarantee that she lost.
And I'm looking at this and I'm thinking, huh, is this like the best idea anybody ever had?
If the Democrats open this door that you can use the courts to keep somebody on the ballot when they don't want to be there, I'm no lawyer, but if you can force somebody to run for president who doesn't want to, why can't you force Biden to do it?
Now, my guess is that it wouldn't be as simple as, you know, just doing that.
But as a rhetorical question, it's kind of awesome.
I don't know why I didn't think about it.
I mean, it's just sort of a good idea to at least look into it.
At the very least, I'd be like, hmm, I wonder if there's any obvious reason you can't do this.
I would definitely look into it.
I don't think it's a practical idea, but wouldn't you like to know?
Well, apparently R.F.K.
Jr.
reveals, according to Colin Rugg, that it'll cost him another $10 million to defend against Democrats who wanted to keep him off the ballot.
So he's going to be fighting two cases to be taken off and to be kept on.
It's just whatever R.F.K.
Jr.
does, somebody's going to sue him for it.
And then, of course, Jack Smith filing that Filing the new indictment against Trump just 70 days before the election.
Some say that should never be done.
Of course, we know that Zuckerberg confirmed that the Biden administration had pressured him to censor.
And we know that the media has launched a bunch of slander campaigns against RFK Jr., especially because he cut the head off a whale.
Now, um, if you follow that story about, uh, RFK Jr.
found a dead whale and he used the chainsaw to cut his head off and he tried to take it home with him cause he had some interest in large marine skulls.
I don't know what he was going to use it for, but not, it's none of my business.
Um, so you know what this story didn't include?
It didn't tell us what kind of whale it was.
Weren't you curious?
The only thing we know for sure is that it wasn't a sperm whale.
Do you know why?
It didn't try to hump back.
Okay, that's sort of a pun.
Didn't work.
The Republican National Committee is suing the Detroit Election Commission because apparently the law says that they should try to hire as many Democrat poll workers as Republican poll workers.
How'd they do?
Well, they hired seven times more Democrats than Republicans, which is breaking the law.
So they're being sued for that.
But here's the amazing part of the story.
The amazing part of the story is not that the Detroit election people broke the law and stacked it with Democrat poll watchers, which is every red flag in the world.
The surprising thing to me was, there are Republicans in Detroit?
Wait a minute.
There are Republicans.
Republicans?
In Detroit?
What are you doing there?
Do you need help getting out?
Does somebody need some escape plan?
Why'd they even get one out of seven?
I don't understand that part.
Well, Kamala Harris, as you know, has agreed to do one interview with Dana Bash of CNN.
Okay, so she'll do an interview with a friendly interviewer.
But I do trust that Dana Bash will ask at least a few hard-hitting questions.
It would be embarrassing if she didn't.
But the best reframe of the day and funniest comments comes from CNN, what would you call him, a guest analyst?
I guess an analyst, maybe.
So CNN analyst who is a Republican, I believe, Scott Jennings, refers to it Refers to Kamala Harris bringing her vice president to the first big interview as an emotional support animal.
Scott Jennings called VP Walsh an emotional support animal.
Is that perfect?
I've been watching Scott Jennings a lot lately, because he makes a lot of news being the contrarian on the CNN panels.
And I feel like he's doing like a real solid job lately.
Yeah, but this is some really good work.
An emotional support animal.
You cannot see him the same after that.
Right?
It sums it up so perfectly that you'll always think it every time you see him now.
And I feel like I might start referring to him that way, even out of this context, because calling him an emotional support animal, you know, when the VP job is not terribly important to begin with, and then she brings him along on the interview, that's kind of perfect.
So Scott Jennings, you know, I, I like it when people bring the name Scott into a good place.
You know, you do some good work and then the name Scott gets elevated.
I'd like to apologize to Scott Jennings for ruining the name Scott personally, but maybe he can bring it back.
Anyway, you know how The press, and now a lot of Republicans are saying that Kamala Harris was or is the border czar, but as soon as it looked like the border wasn't working out, she was no longer the border czar, according to her friendly press.
She was, are you kidding?
She was never the border czar.
She was only in charge of the root cause stuff.
You know, the important part.
So here's the defense to that.
If you would like to push back on the accusation that she was not really the border czar, here would be the correct frame.
Being a half czar is more of a failure than being a full czar, if it's your team that's in power.
Now, if she was not on the team that was in power, as in the Biden administration, and somebody said, we're going to make you half a czar, what do you mean half a czar?
Well, you'll be in charge of the root causes.
But nothing about the actual border crossings.
And then she would say, well, it would be a lot better if I were in charge of the whole thing.
No, you're just, you're going to be a half czar.
Well, it would make sense if you're, if you were not on the team that was in charge, but if the team that's in charge decides that the good way to approach it is with half a czar, that's worse than not being a fucking czar at all.
That's worse.
In every way, it's worse that she was on the team that decided a half czar was a good idea.
Now, you could say, okay, you know, don't call me a czar, because it's only half the job, but half czar is the dumbest fucking thing you could ever do.
Nobody, nobody in corporate America would ever agree to a half czar when the topic obviously is, you know, related in so many ways.
The moving parts are all, are related.
Of course you would have a half, you would have a full czar.
That, that would be like having a drug czar for just marijuana.
Like everybody would just say, well, that's stupid.
I mean, obviously you need to do everything.
A half a czar?
Come on.
All right.
Rasmussen did a poll on how many people think their state has done enough to prevent voting by illegal immigrants.
So 32% said they don't think their state has done enough to prevent illegal immigrants from voting.
Well, 20% say they've announced some steps, but not enough.
So that's a whole bunch of people Who worry that there'll be illegal people voting.
Now I just saw there's some guy, I think he works at Meta and AI.
Who's full-time job is to do asshole posts about Elon Musk.
So whatever Elon Musk says, this guy will come in and act like he's dumb.
It's the weirdest thing, because if we did an IQ test, I think he'd beat me.
I mean, if you're the guy who's in charge of AI at Meta, you're going to be really smart.
But he plays a guy who doesn't know anything about anything on X, and it's weird.
I don't know exactly how to process the fact that he acts so stupid in public, but he can't be.
Like, there's just no way he's not super smart in real life.
But one of the things he said is that there's no such thing as non-citizens voting.
And I said to myself, What?
Does he not know that the news is currently reporting a whole bunch of people who are non-citizens did, in fact, vote and got caught?
Now, if he had said it's a very small number, then I would say, well, now you're in the ballpark of a real argument.
I don't know if it's a big number.
I don't know that it's a small number.
But if that's his claim, that there's no evidence it's anything but a small number, I would say, well, Okay, that's not too far from the truth.
We don't know if it's a big number.
That is true.
But we know for sure it's happening in a large enough number that being concerned about it is not crazy.
But on top of that, we have learned, or we think we've learned, that the real play might be that the states that are up to some shenanigans, allegedly, Could use multiple databases to make sure that the voter rolls are rigged.
Meaning that make sure the non-citizens are put in the voting rolls in an automated way.
This is a specific claim by some people who seem to have investigated it.
I can't confirm it's true.
But the claim is that it would be more about using their names and having somebody illegally vote for them.
It's not so much that they would consider themselves voters and go in and vote.
My guess is that that number of people won't be big.
The number who just, hey, they told me I could vote, I'll give it a shot.
And then they go in with their Central America ID and they vote.
I don't think there'll be a ton of them.
But there could be a ton of fake names used as fake votes.
And they could be part of that.
I don't know how you would rule out that possibility in a way that I'd believe it.
Anyway, Robert F. Kennedy is saying that there's a mental health crisis in America, and he wants to work with Callie Means.
It's a name you may have heard recently.
So Callie Means is sort of big in this space about mental health crisis in America.
And as you know, the young people went from, you know, some kind of baseline historically to, wow, You know, tons and tons of mental health problems in more recent years.
And, uh, he's going to work on it with the help of, uh, Trump and, uh, Kelly means now, I don't know if about Kelly means, but if, uh, Kelly is, was ever a Democrat or was ever anything on the right, I don't know, but, uh, I'm loving my pirate ship.
So you tell me that RFK Jr., Trump, and Cali Means are all going to be on the same project, or at least, you know, they have that one thing in common.
I say, yes.
Okay.
That gives me some optimism that really serious people who are willing to do really often dangerous things to get something good are on the job.
Good for them.
Well, you probably saw the undercover video.
Was it...
What was...
What's the organization that does the undercover videos I'm blanking on?
That...
Well, you'll tell me.
You know, the famous undercover video.
Why am I blanking on that?
You know what I mean.
Project Veritas.
So, Project Veritas.
It's still ongoing, although their leader left to the OMG platform that he created.
But Project Veritas is still in business.
And I think it was them, pretty sure.
Give me a fact check if I have that wrong.
But was Project Veritas not OMG on this one?
I don't want to mix those up, because that would be no fair to O'Keefe, if I did.
But anyway, there's an undercover video.
Showing that an FDA attorney knows that they never should have told the American public not to take ivermectin, and that the reason presumably was so that people would be taking their vaccinations and not knowing that there might be some alternate.
Now, how many of you are convinced that ivermectin is proven to have been a real effective treatment against COVID?
How many of you think that that's a proven thing that it worked against COVID?
I know there have been some studies, but I'm still on the page of no data about the pandemic can be trusted.
So I'm not going to make an exception because it agrees with something I would love to be true, right?
Part of me wants it to be true that the ivermectin is real effective and would have saved a lot of lives.
Um, but it's based on data, so I'm not willing to accept a data argument about anything in the pandemic.
I feel like I need to be consistent about that, because the problem is data.
The problem is not necessarily even the people having bad intentions.
I just, I don't think we know anything.
That's what it feels like.
But I don't, I don't rule anything out, and I just don't trust data.
An account called Carnivore Aurelius notes 8 ingredients that are banned in almost every country except the USA.
So here's the claim.
Now, see if you've heard any of these.
Coloring agents like blue 1, 2, yellow 5, and yellow 6.
Those are banned.
Something called Olestra.
I think that's the stuff in potato chips.
Brominated vegetable oil.
That doesn't sound good.
Potassium bromate.
Well, The potassium part sounds cool, and I like having a bro-mate.
Hey, bro!
Hello, mate!
So, bro-mate sounds like it'd be a good thing, but apparently not.
And then, of course, you have to watch out for the azodicarbonamide.
Azodicarbonamide.
Let me say that again perfectly.
Azodicarbonamide.
Yeah, you don't want to eat that.
And then the BHA and the BHD?
No idea.
Synthetic hormones?
What?
And arsenic?
What?
I'm starting to think they're trying to poison us.
So presumably there isn't that much arsenic?
I don't know.
How much is the right amount of arsenic?
Well, I don't know anything about the science of these various things, but I'm certainly concerned that they're banned in every other country.
But, you know how we always say, Hey, Europe has all this healthy food and we have unhealthy food?
Here's what I haven't seen.
That the life expectancy in Europe is way better than America.
If you make sure you're looking at similar socioeconomic groups, for example.
Is that true?
Are people in Europe experiencing longer lifespans because their food is better?
And less mental health problems?
I don't know what to believe.
Again, there's a gigantic data integrity problem.
I just don't know what to believe.
But it does make sense to me that the more of these weird chemicals you put in your body, the harder your body is going to have to work to figure it all out.
So it does make sense that the fewer strange things you put in your body, the better.
Reuters is reporting that there was a Some kind of a class action suit against X and Elon Musk for allegedly firing more female engineers than male when he did his massive layoffs, and in the context of having made alleged sexist comments in the past.
Now, the alleged sexist comments were not related to any of these firings of engineers.
They were separate.
But the engineers, the ladies, said, well, if he said sexist things in a different context, and then more, as a percentage, more of the female engineers got fired than the men, well, we got ourselves a class action suit.
Well, the court dismissed it.
Because it turns out that there was no evidence that Elon Musk had anything to do with selecting who got fired.
At least at that detail.
The individual managers of the departments were deciding who got fired.
So Musk was not involved at a detailed level where he would have even been able to, you know, doing any biased stuff.
Anyway.
So, what do you make of the fact that the individual managers got rid of 58% of female engineers compared to 45% of male engineers?
Do you think they were all exactly the same qualifications?
It feels unlikely.
Do you think that the talent stacks of the men and the women were similar?
I don't know, but I can't see any manager firing his best engineers or her best engineers.
Why would they do that?
Have you ever met a manager who would fire the good people who are female and keep the less good people who are male because just wanted more men in America?
Let me tell you what an American manager says.
An American manager says, I definitely want women in the group.
Because it just makes everything work better, basically.
If you have men and women, it's just a more fun work environment, generally.
It has its costs, but it's more fun.
Anyway, that was dumb.
Axios is reporting that Trump's economic plan would add $5.8 trillion to national debt, which is already $36 trillion.
Is Trump good for debt?
Nope.
Is debt the biggest problem in the world?
Probably.
It's the most existentially dangerous thing we're doing.
Does Harris have a plan for the debt?
Nope.
So neither candidate has a plan for the most important thing.
However, Trump does have something that Harris doesn't have.
His name is Elon Musk, who has already volunteered to see what we can do about cutting the cost of government.
Which, by the way, would be massively expensive in the short run, because you'd be paying all the severances and the retirements and everything, and there'd be a lot of people involved.
It would lose their jobs, and then the unemployment would spike.
So if Trump did a good job in reducing the size of government, there are just so many government employees that you wonder if his unemployment numbers would suffer.
But that's the sort of thing you could do if you're a one-term president, like Trump would be, his second term.
Maybe you can just take that hit.
In the long run, history would love you.
In the short run it looks bad if you're running for re-election, but it wouldn't be.
So if you had an Elon Musk who could just take 80% of the cost out of the government, if you had a President Trump who didn't want to start and finish foreign wars, could you take enough out of the budget by the fourth year that we would have some breathing room and a chance of success?
And the answer is maybe.
If you're Trump and you do things that could lower the interest rates, is that going to help your national debt?
Yeah, like a lot.
A lot.
If you could renegotiate some of it or do something clever with crypto that gives people some breathing room somehow, I don't know exactly how, Could you do it?
Well, I think Trump is going to be more pro-crypto, more pro-experimenting, more pro-everything, as long as you can make an argument for it, because he's pretty flexible mentally.
I like that about him, especially.
And maybe.
So, you know, I can make an argument why Trump might be better on the national debt, but he hasn't.
Has he?
Has Trump ever said, I will be better on the national debt and here's why.
Now you can make the argument that the Democrats always want to spend more but Trump wants to cut taxes.
I don't know which one would be better in terms of just the debt.
I prefer the lower taxes.
It's the number one question, but because our media doesn't understand the national debt, except it's a big number and it's a debt, I don't think they're comfortable talking about it.
And if they did talk about it, everything would be time limited.
So if you talk to any politician about what they would do about the national debt, they get to run out the clock.
Well, what we're going to do is we're going to do this and that to do growth, and back in 2020 I did this, and I'm going to implement this program.
What the media don't know enough is to say, all right, if you added all that together, how much do you think that would bring down the debt?
Because the answer is not at all.
You could do all kinds of stuff that sound good.
You wouldn't even get close to it.
We're miles away from being able to pay off the debt.
Miles away.
We're not close.
It's not like a 20% tweak.
It's like, you really, really, we need to change everything.
Or you don't have a chance.
Now, I think we probably will.
We'll probably just have to do the hard stuff.
Maybe not right away.
But at some point, we're going to have to do something really hard to handle the debt.
What I worry about is the people who know the most know that we'll never pay it back.
That's what I worry about.
I have exactly one thing that keeps me awake when I think about it.
I think everything else we can handle, from nuclear war to climate change, you know, I think those are just manageable problems.
But the debt?
That one I don't even, in my mind, I don't even have like a way you could do it.
I do think we'll probably solve it, because we're good at solving the unsolvable problems if we have time, and I think we have time.
But, wow, that one's, I mean, I've got a good imagination, and I can't imagine a way to solve it.
So what I worry about is that the people in charge know that the value of money will go away, and the smart people will just hoard up on Bitcoin before it happens, and then all the poor people will say, What happened to the $1,000 I had in the bank?
And everybody would say, well, it's gone.
But how would you like some UBI instead?
You go, what?
Yeah, we'll give you some just free money.
But all the money you used to have in the bank, that's basically worthless now.
We inflated it away.
And then they say, well, what are you going to give me?
Well, we'll give you some Bitcoin.
It'll just, I don't know, somehow we'll give you Bitcoin.
And what would you say?
You'd say, well, My money's worthless, there's nothing I can do about that, so I guess I'll take some bitcoins if you have some way to give them to me.
All right, so yeah, maybe we have to conquer the other countries or something like that.
All right, here's a weird little Factoid.
Ryan Peterson, who knows a lot about international shipping, says one of the largest international freight forwarders in the United States, JAS Forwarding, got hit by a massive cyber attack, I guess, the evening before last.
He said the last time this happened to a major U.S.
forwarder, Expeditors International of Washington, Putin invaded Ukraine three days later.
Now, why would they be related?
Why would a massive cyber attack against a shipping company be a foreshadowing of some Russian military action?
Maybe somebody knows that I don't, but it's out there as a possible risk.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is my prepared remarks.
And I'm sure there will be more intrigues and outrages coming up, but for now, We're going to go enjoy our Wednesday.
Thanks for joining on X and Rumble and YouTube.
Remember to buy my books.
Um, that's my commercial.
If you're looking for a book, just Google my name on Amazon and look for my newest ones.
Had to fail at almost everything.
The reprint, uh, the, the version two and reframe your brain and God's debris, the complete works.
