God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Ryan Wesley Routh, Trump 2nd Assassination Attempt, Hunting Republicans, MSNBC, Lester Holt Blames Trump, Democrat Designated Liars, Anti-Trump Mass Media Brainwashing, Dehumanizing Language Allegations, Ethical Boundaries, Rev. Al Sharpton, Pet-Eating Immigration Proxy, Karen Dunn, Population Collapse, Anti-RFK Lawfare, Media Activated Assassins, 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
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you're part of it.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker, gels, or sign, a canteen, sugar flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Just a clarification, when I say a canteen jug, no, a tanker chalice or a stein, I do not mean Jill Stein.
Jill Stein would be the wrong vessel for this particular experience.
Well, what do you want to talk about?
Anything happening in the news?
Has anybody noticed anything that's worthy of some conversation?
In the morning, on a Monday?
Yeah.
Well, if you're the last person to find out, there's been a second, some say fifth, attempt on President Trump's life at a golf course, his golf course, I think, in Florida.
And the perpetrator, this Routh guy, R-U-T-H, I guess, Routh, he is being described by the The terrible people as having an unclear political ideology, the shooter, or the potential shooter, an unclear ideology.
Well, you know, I'm no law enforcement expert, and I'm no journalist for Time Magazine, which is owned by a very well-known donor to the Democrat Party.
It does seem to me that if you try to shoot somebody, you might have a political opinion that would be against that person.
So I'm going to say that the political ideology looked a little more clear than perhaps Time Magazine thinks.
Now, there is some reporting that he donated to Democrats.
He hated Trump.
Talked about it on social media and other places.
And, uh, but he also at one point thought that Vivek would be a good, uh, you know, a better candidate than Trump and Tulsi.
I think he liked Tulsi and Vivek.
But what did he think about Trump?
Well, turn on MSNBC any day between now and the election, and you'll find out his exact opinion of Trump.
Why?
He uses the same words in the same way.
Yes, it's brainwashing.
If there's any doubt whatsoever that he was brainwashed, just look at how he talked about Trump.
He's going to steal your democracy.
See, he said on April 22nd, he declared democracy is on the ballot.
He called it a catastrophe on January 6th, perpetrated by Trump and his undemocratic posse.
Do you see the pattern yet?
Democracy, undemocratic.
He claimed that Trump wants to quote, make American slaves against their master or something.
He said, democracy is on the ballot and we cannot lose.
We cannot afford to fail.
The world is guiding us on the way.
So his social media stuff got suspended or blocked immediately.
I assume law enforcement asked the platforms to do that because even X suspended it immediately.
I don't think Musk has responded to why, but I think we know why.
Obviously the government asked them to turn it off and preserve it, I guess.
So It seems fairly obvious that this guy was weaponized by the brainwashing of MSNBC and maybe some of the other sources as well, but it looks kind of classic and, you know, MSNBC.
Yeah, I would love to know where he got most of his news from.
We don't know, so I don't know for sure it came from MSNBC, but it does seem identical to their phraseology.
So maybe it's CNN, who knows?
Now, what is the biggest question that we have from this?
The number one question?
And by the way, I feel sorry for everybody who's going to be doing this kind of commenting in the afternoon, because by noon, everything that needs to be said will be said a hundred times.
So let me just run through the list of things that need to be said.
How'd he get that close?
Do I have anything to add to that?
No, not really.
But everybody between now and next week is going to say, how'd they let him get this close?
Was it another failure or was the success?
Because their process was that the secret service would check out the golf hole that he was go to next to make sure it was cleared.
So they checked out the hole he went to next and it wasn't cleared.
So they cleared it.
Is that a huge success where everything worked just the way it should have?
Or was that an example of them being understaffed?
Because I understand that if Trump had been the president instead of a candidate, they would have had so much secret service that they would have basically surrounded the entire golf course instead of just traveling with him and one hole ahead, maybe one behind, I don't know.
I guess we will endlessly talk about whether that was sufficient or insufficient.
I think we'd all agree that whatever they were doing is insufficient, given the current risk level.
It was an American guy, 58-year-old guy, who's got this weird history of lived in Florida.
He's had lots of arrests and tons of connections with the law, bad ones.
He is, he was known to have all kinds of weapons.
So he was a guy who had lots of weapons and he apparently went over to Ukraine and was working on some kind of a project to see if he could get Afghan fighters to join the fight against Russia in Ukraine.
I think he was unsuccessful in that, but he went over there to, he volunteered to fight and they said he's too old.
And then he volunteered to get other people to fight, and I don't think that went anywhere.
But that raises many questions.
Because when you talk about Ukraine, you say to yourself, hey, that Ukrainian situation seems to be managed by our intelligence people, CIA.
And so if anybody has any connection whatsoever with Ukraine, the question that all of us ask is, hmm, connection with Ukraine?
CIA is very connected with Ukraine.
Is it possible that he was connected with any intelligence people?
There's no evidence of that.
And I don't think that that connection is like screaming that there's a connection, but it is a weird coincidence that you would have that connection.
Yeah, let's see.
Oh, he also said, quote, Trump is going to steal your democracy.
So the NBC, Lester Holt, he's getting some heat because he, when he talked about this story last night, he mentioned it in the context of Trump and Vance's fierce rhetoric, especially about the Haitians and wondered if the Trump campaign would tone down their violent rhetoric.
In other words, trying to blame Trump for the assassination attempt against him.
If he would just stop talking in such a way, that would fix everything.
Well, here's some other suspicions with no proof whatsoever, but Mike Benz points out that Quote, they missed asking John Brennan, because Brennan appeared on MSNBC right away.
He said they missed asking him about his giving visas to the 9-11 hijackers while he was running the CIA station house in Saudi Arabia.
Now, I didn't know anything about that, but it certainly raises a question.
And he says, coincidentally, this shooter guy, this Routh guy, was doing the same visas for terrorist scheme That would be his Ukrainian thing, trying to get the Afghan fighters to be able to come to Ukraine to fight.
I guess that would take visas.
For those same fighters to join CIA-backed paramilitaries.
Hmm.
Hmm.
And then also, it seems related.
You might not think this is related, but I'm going to tie them together.
Also from Mike Benz.
He reminds us that in 2020, there was this big effort involving Homeland Security and NATO and the DNC and other entities to do this mass censorship campaign across all media platforms in 2020.
And they tried to preemptively censor any disputes over things like mail-in ballots.
And that was the four key players were the Stanford Institute, University of Washington, Grafica, and the Atlantic Council.
Now, how does that have anything to do with an assassination attempt?
Well, what it does is it paints a picture of people outside, well, both inside and outside the government, Of a level of seriousness that is equivalent to planning an assassination.
If there was indeed this enormous effort to squelch free speech in the United States, The only thing you can associate that with is some totalitarian, we'll do anything for power situation.
And so, although there's no evidence I've seen that this shooter had any kind of connections or was inspired by anybody or motivated by anybody, you know, an intelligence or anything like that, we don't have any evidence of that.
But The seriousness with which the fake media has talked about Trump, and then the actions that these government and non-government entities have taken to make sure that he can't win again, suggests that nothing is off limits.
So the only way to look at this is, apparently they've just removed all limits.
And if you say, well, all limits?
Does that include maybe assassinating a potential candidate?
I would say there's no proof of that.
But all indications are they don't have a limit on what they're willing to do.
Now keep in mind that their rhetoric is basically it's the end of the world, or the end of the country, if Trump's elected.
He's Hitler, he's going to be a dictator, take your democracy away, and your bodily autonomy is going to be gone.
All of those things are a call for assassination.
Because if you were to compare the, you know, how bad is assassination?
Well, it's very, very bad.
Don't do it.
But if you were to tell me, well, the alternative is Hitler takes over and you have no bodily autonomy.
Then I'd say, oh, oh, well, let's get back to that other thing.
That other thing is sounding a lot better now.
So it does seem to me that the government is quite, at least knowing that they're creating a situation of extreme danger, whether that's, you know, intentional, Might have something to do with how you define the word.
Because sometimes things are intentional without you doing anything specific.
You're just sort of creating the situation.
You know what I mean?
Anyway, so we get to watch the gears of the machine.
So here's my advice.
When something like this happens, you should watch the players who emerge and where they emerge and who they're connected to.
Because you'll see networks of connected people emerge.
For example, I've told you that Democrats have a process by which, if there's just an ordinary disagreement of policy, any normal Democrat will go on any of the stations and talk about their normal disagreement in policy.
But, when they've got something extreme, like the Russia collusion hoax, It's not the normies.
There's like a small collection of designated liars, I call them.
So if you see any of the designated liars, that's your tip that there's something much deeper happening.
And it's not even the normal Democrats won't even raise their heads.
So, and I've named them before.
If you see John Brennan or Clapper or Swalwell or Schiff or Raskin, probably a few more, but they tend to cluster when there's a story that really requires a deep lie, like, oh, that Hunter laptop had nothing to do with Hunter.
Then they bring the designated liars because the regular normal, Democrats probably thought, well, it might be.
Maybe it is.
That's probably a normal thing to think.
Maybe they thought it wasn't, but they didn't rule it out and they didn't think it was necessarily Russia.
So when you have, when you have a need for a deep lie, like a really, really serious lie that you're covering something up, you call John Brennan.
And sure enough, I haven't seen him on TV forever.
When was the last time he was on MSNBC?
I don't remember.
But there he is.
He's like the first or one of the first people.
He would be the person that you'd call in to make sure that there's sort of a cover story or, you know, there's a diversion going on.
Now, I'm not blaming... I'm not... I don't have any specific accusation.
I'm not saying that Brennan is involved in anything or did anything.
I'm just saying that I could have told you in advance That if there was a plot and something needed to be covered up, he would be the first person you'd see.
Now he was the first person you saw.
Is that a coincidence?
It could be.
But if the next people you see are like Raskin and Clapper and Swalwell and Schiff, that is just so obvious that they know they're covering something.
Now the thing they might be covering up is not necessarily some kind of deep state plot.
I'm not saying that.
I'm saying that what they're covering up is that the news, the fake news, has been trying to kill Trump for a year.
They've been building a narrative that should, if they did it right, trigger exactly guys like this.
And exactly the guy who tried it in Butler, Crooks.
So I think what they need to do is cover the way they covered the laptop, the way they covered Russia collusion.
The same set of designated liars will probably be activated.
And they're going to say, well, it's because of the way Trump talks that's getting him shot.
So I'm guessing that that's where it's going to go.
Now, you should also look for NBC and MSNBC to sort of figure out which characters come out first.
So, I saw Ken Delaney on MSNBC.
Haven't seen him.
I mean, he's on regularly, but he would be one of the ones that, say, a Glenn Greenwald would say, oh, that's the, you know, that's an intelligence asset.
He just happens to have a job on MSNBC or NBC.
Now, I don't know that, but that's the accusation.
So if you see Brennan and Delanian as two of the first people you see after a story like this, that is every red flag in the world.
That there's something up.
That there's something they're trying to hide.
Now, like I said, it doesn't mean they're hiding any involvement in it.
I have seen no evidence of that.
There is the question of how he possibly could have known that Trump was there.
Because apparently Trump did not have it on a schedule and it was an impromptu, I don't know how far in advance it got determined.
But you could also think, you could imagine a number of ways that he could have found out without any Secret Service people telling him.
Because if the president shows up at a golf club, a lot of people know about it as soon as he gets there.
If the guy didn't live too far away, you know, golf can last a few hours.
You know, if he'd lived an hour away and somebody he knows told him the president was there, that's all it would take.
So, so I don't think the, you know, how could he possibly know Trump was golfing?
It wasn't the best secret in the world.
Now, the other, the other question I have is, do you remember when Trump was president?
Every now and then some, um, some reporter, some photographer would get a, uh, One of these distant shots of him golfing, and it would be just with a camera, you know, with a zoom lens.
And I don't know how far away the zoom lens was, but I always thought to myself, all right, I'm no expert in protecting presidents, but if I knew that reporters could routinely get zoom lens photography of him golfing, I'd be a little worried that somebody with a scope could do something similar.
So, I just always had a question whether you could ever protect a golf course.
And so they put Trump in a glass cube when he gives speeches.
Are they going to put him in something like a Popemobile instead of his golf cart now?
Like, what do you do?
I don't think you can really protect the golf course.
How could you protect it against, let's say, the inevitable drone attack that's almost certainly being planned somewhere?
Yeah, I don't know.
I hate to see him lose his favorite hobby, but you could easily imagine the Secret Service saying, you know what?
If you really want to be safe, there's one thing you got to stop doing, which is being outdoors so much where people know you are.
So I don't think he would ever give up golf, but I'll bet you there's at least somebody suggesting he does it, which is not cool.
Here's an example of how brainwashing works.
So there's just a user on X, and I'm not even going to give you his name.
He's not a public figure.
But I want to use him as an example, but I don't need to make it personal, because he's more of an example of people.
It's not about him specifically.
And he said, in a post today, he said, I don't condone violence from any side.
That being said, Trump has been using dehumanizing language for as long as he has been in politics and before.
The cats and dogs story is just the latest example.
You have to acknowledge that as well.
Here's my frame on that.
Has Trump been using dehumanizing language?
Yes or no?
Has he been using dehumanizing language?
Well, that would be subjective.
He has certainly used language that targets certain groups like illegal migrants and Venezuelan gangs and now Haitians who might be eating your pets, according to him.
I'll say, you know, my opinion, I don't think there's a lot of pet eating going on.
Maybe it happened in some isolated ways.
Here's my take.
I'm going to give you a thought experiment.
Imagine if on January 6th, when Trump gave his speech, and he said, we've got to go down there and fight like hell.
Or whatever he said.
He said, fight like hell.
Now imagine if the news, the fake news, had never taken that quote into context, and had never told you that it was a call to violence.
Suppose nobody had ever mentioned it in the news.
Do you think that there's even one person, even one in the whole world, who would have found that quote in his speech on their own and thought that that meant violence?
Anybody?
Any citizen just reading it on their own?
The answer is no.
There's not a single human being who would have read that without any outside influence if they just read the transcript.
They would have said, oh, that's the normal thing that politicians say all the time.
We've got to fight like hell to get this bill passed.
We're going to fight like hell to get our bodily autonomy back.
We're going to fight like hell to get abortion approved in our state.
It never means violence.
But if you decide that it does mean violence, then that will trigger a confirmation bias.
So your confirmation bias kicks in if you've been convinced that there's one notable place where he did ask for violence.
Didn't happen.
But if you think he did, then you start noticing it everywhere.
Hey, now they did the same thing with racism.
If you can sell one racist story, like the fine people hoax, then all the rest of them that are just sort of confirmation bias, They all start clumping around it.
That's why the fine people hoax is what I call the tentpole hoax.
Because if you remove that one, you can see that people can then see the whole field.
And they go, wait a minute, maybe all these others are bullshit too.
And then they can see that they are.
So, the power of brainwashing is that a perfectly smart, ordinary person, and again, I won't use his name because it doesn't matter who it is, he's just a stand-in for people, could honestly believe that Trump is using rhetoric to bring it upon himself, or worse, bring it upon other people.
This is pure brainwashing.
This is the cleanest example you'll ever see.
Because I think you would agree with my mental experiment, that if somebody hadn't told you that that meant violence, you never would have interpreted it that way.
You would have interpreted it the normal way you interpret normal language.
But that didn't happen.
The bad guys framed it for you.
Reverend Al Sharpton, also on MSNBC, He's talking about how it's racist for Vance to say that the Haitians are eating pets, and I guess that would include Trump.
It's racist to say that Haitians eat pets.
I posted in response, I don't know if I'm double canceled yet, that there are no ethical boundaries for self-defense.
This is important.
So racism is bad, and you should not do it in your personal relationships.
You should not do it in any business or contracts or renting apartments or anything.
There shouldn't be any laws about it, no business constraints.
So racism is bad pretty much every normal part of society.
There's just one exception.
When it comes to your personal defense, and I would include in that your family and your pets.
Your pets are part of the family.
If you're defending your family or your pets, there are no ethical boundaries.
There are legal ones.
There are legal ones.
If you cross some line, you could go to jail.
But there's no ethical constraint on self-defense.
If you see an Elbonian walking your way, and you've heard stories about Elbonians hurting people, You have every ethical right to go hide or grab your gun or get ready for something.
Would it be racist?
Yes!
Yes, totally.
100% racist.
Would it be unethical?
No, not even a little bit.
Not even a little bit.
No.
You can use any tool for self-defense.
Now, like, again, it might be illegal, and then you would have to enter the law, but you wouldn't be breaking an ethical boundary.
You could be very wrong about whether you're at risk.
I'm not saying you're right.
You could be totally wrong, but you have every ethical, I'll call it a right, but you have every ethical right to do anything.
There are no limits to self-defense.
Now, it's very important you get it right, otherwise you go to jail or people get killed who don't need to be killed.
There's some extra bad things for everybody.
So I'm not saying it's not full of, you know, bad, terrible things that could happen.
It's full of them.
It's just not unethical.
So let me say this to Reverend Al Sharpton.
I agree with you and I don't give a fuck what you think about it because your opinion is not relevant to my self-defense.
If somebody breaks into my house, I'm not going to be calling the Reverend Al Sharpton to see what he thinks about the situation.
It's not relevant to self-defense.
And I would call the Haitian thing, which by the way, I'll say it again, I don't think there's a big problem with pet eating.
It may have happened in some isolated incident, but I don't think it's, you know, it's not, it's not a national problem.
It is however, a reasonable, political proxy topic for talking about the risk of immigration more generally.
So is it hyperbole?
A little bit.
Might be based on some real anecdotes that I don't think are going to be spreading across the nation.
But yeah, it's totally fair.
Now, is eating your pet worse than killing a human?
Well, it depends how much you loved your pet.
In my case, I'd say yes.
But the fact is, if it's just being used as a proxy, for if you bring in unlimited people from another place, and you're not checking them that carefully, and they've got a different culture that might take a while to integrate, so you don't want to have a flow that's too great that you can't integrate it as fast as the people are coming in, you've got problems.
So, do I mind if somebody exaggerates a real problem?
Not really.
That's sort of just politics.
So, a little bit of hyperbole in the service of risk management.
I don't have any problem with that at all.
So, let's see what else is going on.
What else do we need to say about that?
So, the main things are We wonder how he knew, but I don't think that means it had to be an inside job.
It's just a question.
We are going to argue about whether the Secret Service was great, because they stopped it, or understaffed, which would be a reasonable criticism, I think.
I think it could go either way.
If they haven't already beefed up Trump's security, that would be a mistake.
I would certainly hope they've beefed it up.
But I think the big battle is going to come down to is, are the Democrats intentionally trying to kill him?
And I say yes.
Now, when I say intentionally trying to kill him, I mean that they are completely aware that the words that they're choosing, not just once in a while and not by mistake, but very intentionally, should weaponize everything from the Department of Justice, which it has weaponized.
To the commercial markets so that advertisers will stop advertising on certain platforms such as X. Yes.
And they should know that it would cause people to vote less likely to vote for them.
Yes.
And they should know, obviously, that it would activate some crazy people to try something.
Now, let's try to be fair here.
Republicans say all the time that Harris is going to be a communist Marxist.
Does that activate people to want to kill her?
I haven't really felt it or seen it.
Have you?
I could see why, you know, calling somebody communist or Marxist could hypothetically make somebody say, that's too far.
It'll destroy the country.
I've got to act.
But it really, really feels different than Hitler.
Calling people communists and Marxists is a little bit routine within the political sphere.
If nobody had ever done it before, and it was the first time anybody called somebody a communist or a Marxist, I would actually be raising an alarm.
And I'd say, hold on, hold on, both sides are a little bit, You got something to answer to.
You know, you're making an accusation that could activate a crazy person.
But I think, in this country, it's been so many decades of calling people communists and Marxists, and knowing that it's at least a little bit hyperbolic, I don't think it activates anybody.
Would you agree or disagree?
It's hard to know what any one crazy individual will be activated by, but it doesn't feel the same to me.
I am, however, biased.
So I could be wrong on that, but it doesn't seem similar to me.
I do think that there is one suspect.
We haven't talked about whether he had any help.
I'm sure that conversation will come up.
Did he have any help besides knowing where it was?
But there is one suspect who's kind of obvious.
Does anybody know where Taylor Swift was yesterday?
Because Trump did post the other day that I hate Taylor Swift.
And I don't know.
Motive?
Opportunity?
I'm just saying.
You can't rule without.
I'm just saying you can't rule without.
No, I'm just joking.
Just joking.
Leave Taylor Swift alone.
But I happen to ask this question.
Was it smart for Trump to say so directly?
I hate Taylor Swift, which is hilariously blunt for a political situation, which is what makes it so good, because it's just so blunt.
Here's what I think.
I think Trump was going to win close to zero voters who are Taylor Swift fans.
But for every Taylor Swift superfan, I feel like there might be five people who think she's a little too much.
And men especially, and young men, probably not so, you know, not so eager to say, yeah, Taylor Swift.
Maybe a little bit more against her.
So my first take was, oh, don't make somebody angry if you don't need to.
And then my second was, oh, he's just trying to encourage his base, basically, because it's a base election.
More people that you can get to vote, you win.
It's not about getting anybody to change their minds.
So if he's taking the point of view that nobody's going to change their mind, and I think that's accurate.
And the only thing that matters is, can you get more people to be excited and pay attention and want to join up and be part of the election?
Maybe it helped.
Maybe he got some Maybe he got some young guys to laugh about it.
If he got some 18 year olds to just laugh out loud when they saw it, really?
Did he say this?
Oh, that's funny.
I don't like her either.
Who knows?
Who knows?
It probably didn't move the dial that much or at all, but I don't think it hurt.
Believe it or not.
Probably didn't hurt him a bit.
Well, there's a top lawyer for a Google.
Who it turns out is also a close friend of Kamala Harris and even worked to help her prepare for her debate.
And this top lawyer for Google, Karen Dunn, this is a real thing, the New York Post is reporting this.
So last Tuesday, she delivered an opening defense in this court case in which the Biden-Harris administration is going after Google about their digital ad business.
Now, Google's digital ad business is basically the whole business.
That's basically their primary revenue.
So if the Biden-Harris administration is threatening their primary revenue, in the sense of being too monopolistic, I think, that's a big deal.
And the person defending against the government is also helping the government, the very same person, Harris, prepare for a debate.
So, does that bother you?
Remember I keep telling you, if the only thing you know is what is happening, you don't know anything.
You have to know who the players are.
The players are the whole game.
It's not what anybody does, it's who's doing it.
That tells you everything.
That tells you who's connected, whose network is what.
One of the best things you can do is if you find somebody who's connected to a network, watch who else they're connected to.
And you'll learn everything.
Is there anything else we need to say about the... Do you mind if I just don't say any more about the assassination attempt?
Everybody's gonna just say the same things.
It's just gonna be the same thing over and over again.
The only fun part about it, if you can call any of it fun, I guess, is trying to decide whether the MSNBC people are just trying to hide their complicity and whether you think they are complicit.
I'm gonna say yes.
And by the way, this would be the second time that somebody took a Essentially a, uh, a rifle to try to kill a Republican.
No.
How many times?
So when I said that if Biden won, Republicans would be hunted.
Trump has been literally hunted twice.
And, uh, I think if you look at the number of people who canceled and have other legal problems that have been jailed, the hunting is pretty serious.
And for me, that's the biggest, honestly, it's the biggest issue.
All right, let's talk about some other things.
The population in Greece is collapsing.
So the population will decrease in Greece by 25% by 2070.
In 2022, there were 77,000 births in the whole country, but 140,000 people died.
Twice as many people died as were born in Greece.
In 2022, there were 77,000 births in the whole country, but 140,000 people died.
Twice as many people died as were born in Greece.
And in the U.S., I don't think we're doing much better.
One in four young Americans are not planning to have children due to finances.
And by the way, they might be right about that.
Because one in four sounds like exactly the number who could not afford to have kids.
So, that's bad.
Peter Zahn is saying that German nationality is basically dying out.
Because they're not having babies and they're bringing in lots of other people.
And so you said this decade, Germany also loses their workforce.
So there's a, the age of the workforce is aging out and they're bringing in lots of new people.
Basically, Germany looks like it won't look like anything like Germany.
So they're, they're, they're turning into some other character of a country.
France will not be complaining about that, I guess.
There is a study that in China, they played classical music to depress people and found out that their brains changed a little bit and they became less depressed.
I've been telling you that for 20 years.
I've been saying that music is a drug that's administered through your ears.
And it is the reason that I only use music medicinally.
Now, what I mean is, if I want to work out, there's some music that helps me work out better.
That would be a medicinal use of music.
Sometimes when I want to go to sleep, but my brain's too active, there's some kinds of music that I know will just sort of put me in a better head.
But not all.
I'm not going to randomly listen to some DJ's choice of music.
That would be a huge mistake.
Because that would be like giving yourself random medicine.
So I make sure that I choose, you know, Steely Dan makes me go to sleep.
Now the reason Steely Dan makes me go to sleep is that I've heard it so many times, but I still like it.
That I don't dislike it, but I also don't listen to it anymore.
So it's sort of the perfect noise to have on for me.
You know, your mileage will vary.
Fleawood Mac's another one.
I've listened to so much Fleawood Mac that I don't really hear it, and I don't dislike it.
So it's just perfect.
So use your music medicinally, and I guess if you use the right kind of classical music, they say it can Change your brain and make you less depressed.
I think that's probably true.
So experiment.
Use it medicinally.
How many of you know a young person who can only listen to music all the time?
Do you know anybody like that?
If you're giving them a ride somewhere, they put in the earbuds and listen to music.
If they're, no matter what they're doing, just 100% of the time they're listening to music and they're not selecting it too much.
You know, within the genre, they're letting it sort of circulate.
I feel like that's just a real, real sign that somebody might be an addict or that there's a problem that they're trying to solve with this medicine because they're pumping medicine into their head.
But they may be doing it too randomly.
And maybe some of the medicine is making it worse.
So I would be worried about any young person who listens to music just non-stop.
To me, that looks like they're trying to medicate themselves.
You won't believe this, but... I know.
This one's gonna be hard to believe.
But there's been a study that says that vaping of tobacco Is linked to cognitive decline in college students, according to Science Blog.
That's right.
So the people who vape the most have less cognitive ability than people who didn't vape at all or vape less.
So that proves that vaping makes you dumber, right?
Is that what that proves?
So they found That there's a pretty strong correlation that the more you vape, the dumber you are.
So therefore, vaping makes you dumb, right?
That's what it's suggesting.
Vaping makes you dumb.
Does that track with the fact that we're all very aware that nicotine makes you smarter?
Huh.
This seems to suggest that nicotine, or whatever else is in the vape, is making you dumber.
But yet, the science of nicotine would show that it would make you concentrate better, maybe actually smarter.
Well, here's a take from Dr. Insensitive Jerk, who put in the comment to this, in other news, long-term pain is associated with aspirin use.
That's a good point.
Apparently, aspirin is causing people long-term pain.
Because wherever you find people who have long-term pain, Sure enough, they're taking Advil and aspirin and Tylenol, so therefore those things must cause long-term pain.
No, that's wrong.
They're simply associated.
And as Dr. Insensitive Jerk says, nicotine is known to improve IQ.
Of course people use it when they're struggling.
If you're having trouble figuring out life, And concentrating in school and doing your homework, and you've noticed that the vaping makes you concentrate better because it has nicotine in it.
Probably the people who don't need any help don't vape.
And maybe the people who know they need some extra help are thinking, I better get some extra help.
And the more the better.
So I'm not going to conclude that vaping doesn't make you dumb.
Because it's got a lot of chemicals in there.
But the far more likely explanation is backward science.
Backward science.
It's backward science.
All right, here's another one.
This is science just killing it today.
According to the Sci Post, older couples who experience more agreement in their sexual expression, in other words, they like having sex, Report better marital quality over time, huh?
Well, who saw that coming?
Did you know that older married couples who are having the most sex are also the happiest with their marriage?
I mean, who could have known that?
Wait a minute.
I know how they could have saved some money and not have to do this study.
They could have asked Scott.
Next time, just ask me, guys.
And if you're ever tempted to do another study about, let's say, does having more sex make Asian Americans happier?
Let's say married Asian Americans.
Well, it's never been studied, but you don't need to.
The answer is yes.
Does having more sex make people who are Democrats more happy?
Don't do the study.
Don't do it.
Yes.
How about Republicans then?
Don't do it.
Don't do the study.
Yes.
Just ask me.
Okay.
All right.
So the Navy, according to Fox News, the Navy has launched their first submarine that's built for both genders.
Submarine built for both genders.
Hmm.
Makes you wonder what that includes.
Well, it includes a restroom, facilities with a little more privacy, because I guess there's not much privacy in an old-style submarine where there was all guys.
But I also wonder if they've gone far enough, because the submarine has a certain shape to it, if you know what I mean.
I feel like the shape of the submarine needs to be changed, because it's a little bit... sexist.
It's just shaped like a giant phallus.
And I feel like they need some submarines that are more... Well, let's say the design is more inspired by a vaginal situation, for example.
Make it more women-like.
Because when the Russians see our vag submarine coming at them, well, they're gonna just turn and run.
I know I would.
Yeah.
So let's go the final mile and make it not look so phallic.
Well, here's something that's a dog not barking.
Do you know that it's the end of the summer, basically, and I have not once complained about running out of electricity here in California?
Have you noticed that?
So in California, one of the things you worry about, and you know, I actually did a bunch of research and priced backup generators and stuff, because I thought we were going to lose the power any minute.
I mean, in August, I thought there's no way we're going to get through August.
I'm going to be sitting here in the dark any minute now.
But we didn't.
And it turns out there are, well, two reasons are being credited.
One is apparently we have less of a drought, so our hydroelectric was operating better.
So the first thing is electricity is very sensitive to rain.
And so we had more rain, so that helped.
But it wasn't the whole story.
The other story is apparently California and Texas too, I think, did fairly serious work in getting battery storage back up.
And between the two of them, we got through the summer.
And Texas, I think, did better too.
So this is closer to my Adam's Law of slow-moving disasters.
That's what it is.
I forgot my own law.
So we had a slow-moving disaster that California was just running out of electricity.
And although these are not the total solutions, because I'm sure we still need a lot more, because we're going to do AI and all that stuff.
But human beings, human beings figured out how to get through another year.
So good on that.
The other thing that didn't happen, I think, is that California did not burn down.
It was only a few years ago that felt like the whole state was on fire.
Now that might also have something to do with more rain.
I don't know how forest fires work.
Did the more rain create more underbrush so it's worse?
Or did the more rain keep anything moister so it's not as bad?
So I don't know how the rain works in terms of forest fires.
But if we didn't have them, I'm guessing maybe California did something better?
To manage or avoid or put them out faster.
I know they had, I think they have drones now, where if you've got a fire that's hard to get to in the forest, they just send down a little fleet of drones to drop some chemicals on it.
Maybe it's stuff like that.
My guess is it's probably 20 things that all got a little bit better.
But it's good news.
I thought you'd like to hear some good news.
California is not burning up.
And Texas seems to have adjusted well, too.
According to Clean Technica, the U.S.
solar industry has nearly four times.
It's just hugely increased.
And they're giving credit to the Inflation Reduction Act, which was really more of a green act.
So, I think it's quadrupled from a small base, but things are happening in solar as well.
And in other news, RFK Jr.
is being investigated for decapitating a whale 20 years ago.
Investigated by the National Marine Fisheries Institute.
And of course, RFK Jr.
says this is all about the weaponization of government against political opponents.
And I would say it probably is.
We knew this at the debate, okay.
All right, ladies and gentlemen.
How many of you would take the position that the rhetoric of the Democrats is largely responsible for Trump's two assassination attempts?
How many of you would say that that's fairly obvious?
Can you go that far to say that it's fairly obvious that they brought this on him?
I think it's obvious.
Yeah, I would say this one removes all doubt.
So the first thing you see is that there's some weird compatibility with the two attempted killers.
Number one, they were both white guys.
Now, it's true that white guys I tend to be more active in mass shootings and gun-related stuff if it's like a pre-planned, you know, crime like this.
So, it's not a total surprise.
But let me ask, let's get back to the conspiracy theory thought.
If you were the, if you were, let's say, the CIA, this is just hypothetical.
I have no evidence that anybody's behind anything, right?
We're just gonna, hypothetical.
Hypothetically, if you were trying to pick somebody to be an assassin in this country, who would you pick as a type of person to take out Trump?
Well, if you didn't want it to turn into some other racial thing, you just wanted to get rid of him and then go on managing the country, you'd pick a white guy.
Right?
Because it serves the interest of white guys are dangerous, it serves the interest of guns are dangerous, and it serves the interest of not making it look like somebody of another race is dangerous.
So it wasn't a Haitian, right?
It wasn't an Iranian.
It was coincidentally somebody who... Oh, in both cases there was some ambiguity about their ideology.
How in the world do you find two people on the whole planet who have some ambiguity about Trump?
How could you even find two of them?
Why is it that in both cases they have some kind of international connection that suggests it would be easy for them to have some kind of intelligence connection from another country or from within their own?
That's kind of a big coincidence.
So Crooks had these encrypted apps he was using to contact somebody we don't know overseas.
This guy coincidentally got deeply involved with the Ukrainian situation, which of course is a whole CIA operation.
So what are the odds that there would be two people who at least had glancing potential contacts with the CIA or other intelligence people?
That's a big coincidence.
So, and in both cases, There was a clear hole in Secret Service protection.
Now, on one hand, he may have been spotted, and they did good work for getting him spotted early.
On the other hand, he had a shot from where he was.
He already had a shot.
It was just a long shot, like 300 to 500 feet, but he had a scope, so he had a shot.
So what are the odds that two randos could both get a clear sign of shot?
Well, maybe not that, that might not be that unusual.
Like I said, if photographers were sometimes getting the zoom lens shot of president Trump golfing when he was president, if you could do that, It does feel like maybe their protection is not as ironclad as we imagined it to be.
I always thought it was impossible to guard a golf course.
I just don't see how you could do that, but especially from drones.
Let's see.
So we've got that weird coincidence.
Then we've got both of the attempts happening right before the election, which suggests that it's very oriented toward helping one team.
All right.
Now, if it happened, let's say, while he was president, it would have just given you a vice president that maybe they didn't like either.
But if it happens before the election, well, then they just maybe win the election.
So it's happening in the time when our domestic people would care the most.
That's sort of another coincidence.
But on the other hand, anybody who wanted to take him out, it's pretty common to try to take somebody out during a, um, during the election contest.
So that's not that unusual, I guess.
So what other, uh, what other weird coincidences do you see in this?
Oh, and then, then the people who are trying to turn the narrative around, But that might be just the narrative people want to make sure that they don't get blamed.
So that doesn't mean they're necessarily part of a plot or anything.
All right.
So are there any other... It was a possible shot during World War II.
or two, 300 to 500.
And if you imagine that Ukraine very much wants to keep fighting, it looks like, and that a President Trump would probably shut it down pretty quickly.
So you've got that going on.
So you've got the CIA with the access to him and the motive.
They have the motive and the opportunity.
It doesn't mean they did it.
Because remember, we're also deeply into confirmation bias space.
Right?
The fact that the first shooter, it looked like, at the very least, it was incompetence, but the incompetence was so extreme that reasonable people are saying, I'm not sure that was accidental incompetence.
So once you think the first one looks suspicious, The second one is going to look automatically suspicious.
And it does.
So don't assume that everything that happened in the first one is now relevant to the second one.
But you can't turn it off.
Your brain can't turn that off.
You're going to connect those two.
There's nothing you can do about it.
It's sort of like Haitians and cats.
You could try to turn off that connection in your brain, but it's permanent now.
And, you know, that's unfair to every Haitian who is just a good citizen.
So, I'm not saying it's fair or good.
It just is.
So, beware of your slide into conspiracy theory.
But at the same time, I think every one of those conspiracy theory options is completely alive.
So I'm not saying it's a conspiracy theory, and I'm not saying it's true.
I'm saying it could go either way so easily that I wouldn't commit to one while the other one's still alive.
The other theory is still alive.
All right.
He had ceramic tiles in his backpack in case, in case he needed it as a shield, I guess.
And then we ran, he left his backpack.
It was probably pretty heavy.
Will Trump have more assassination attempts?
Well, um, I don't know what the supply of crazy white guys is.
You know, I always say this about taking out the leaders of terrorist organizations.
You know, on one hand, you think, oh, if you take out the leader of the terrorist organization, you know, they're going to collapse.
But no, no, there's always a second in command and then a third in command.
So they keep going.
But whatever brains it took for somebody to be the head of it and pull off something like bin Laden, The second and third in command aren't going to be as good.
But by the time you get to the fifth or sixth replacement leader, it's very unlikely you've got somebody who could pull something off.
So we've got a similar situation with these potential assassins.
Even in a big country, there might not be more than three people you could ever Motivate to do such a thing.
So you might be running out of potential people.
I like to think we'd run out.
All right.
I'm sure this will be talked over incredibly.
There's no new news on it, right?
In the last few minutes.
I think that there will be a big A big gap.
My guess is you're not going to hear as much as you want to hear about it before the election.
The only things you're going to hear are, oh, we definitely proved that he had no specific ideological preference, and he certainly doesn't watch MSNBC.
All right, here's something that I think you could know.
Don't you think you could check I don't know if you could check the television, but if he used his phone, let's say for news, isn't the first thing you could find out is who activated him?
I don't mean any kind of intelligence person.
I'm talking about the news.
If you found out that he watched, I'm guessing you could probably find out, if you found out that he had apps for news and he was following certain outlets, you would know who brainwashed him.
But I'll bet we'll never hear that.
I'll bet that it's fine-downable, but I'll bet we'll never hear it.
And then all the rascals like Jamie Raskin and Swalwell and Schiff will be out in force, and they'll be saying stuff like, he brought it upon himself.
We all saw the story about Vindman's wife.
Sort of made a joke about it that wasn't well taken.
I do have a joke, but I've been told I have to save it.
So I can't tell you my clever joke, but when it's not too soon, I'm gonna whip it out.
White guys, Ricky says, white guys are even better at being psychos.
Well, I don't like to brag, but my people have the best psychos.
No, I don't even call them my people.
I've just decided to stop looking at the averages of things.
Because it's just dumb.
I'm going to treat everybody as an individual, if you don't mind.
Because I like individuals.
I do not like being held to managing the average of some group.
I don't care if your average is as good as the other people's average.
No interest at all.
Yeah, if you try to choose somebody, there's no ambiguity.
Generally, that would be true, but somehow they managed to introduce it.
With Crooks saying that he was looking at both Biden events and Trump.
So they somehow managed to introduce ambiguity even after he shot somebody.
Which is quite a trick.
And how did this guy get any money?
He was living in Hawaii.
He was traveling to Ukraine.
He had all kinds of guns.
I mean I know he had a job at one point but You have to ask yourself if he added a little extra money.
All right.
Who told you?
All right.
That's all I got for today.
It's going to be full of the same story over and over again.
I wish you the best of luck.
But before we go, how about I tell you how Trump can win the election?
I have an idea.
It goes like this.
If you can get Republicans, or let's say Trump supporters, they don't have to be Republicans.
If every Trump supporter tries to convert one non-voter to get them to request a mail-in ballot and then tell them to mail it in and vote for Trump, the Republicans are unbeatable.
Here's the thinking.
If I said to you, hey, why don't you be like Scott Pressler and try to get lots of people to sign up, you'd say, that sounds really hard and I don't want to quit my job and go do that.
But if I said to you, do you know one person that likes Trump but isn't likely to vote?
Almost everybody would say yes.
And then if I said, if you worked on that one person, do you think you could get him to get at least a mail-in ballot?
Cause then it's easy.
You know, you could literally sit with them and say, you like Trump.
I like Trump.
Could you do me a favor?
Can you just fill in that ballot?
I'll even mail it for you.
Every single Republican can get one person who has never voted before to vote and vote for Trump.
If you know which way they lean.
Every person.
So here's my challenge.
Uh, I'm already working on one person.
So I found a young person who's never voted who leans toward Trump.
And so I'm going to work on that one person.
I've already sent them the link.
If you don't know the link, just Google, you know, where do you, where do I sign, where do I register to vote in my state?
And it'll pop right up.
And then you can send the link to somebody.
You just text them.
Now it might take you a number of contacts.
So the first time you might say, hey, you know, you should, you should sign up.
Here's the link.
They're not going to click it.
Then you got to follow up again, which I will.
When I get my one, I'm going to brag about it.
I'm going to do a post and say, I got one.
I got one non-voter.
And by the way, I'm very specifically saying, Don't bother trying to change a Democrat into a Trump voter.
Don't, don't bother.
That, that's hard.
Just take somebody who's already leaning in that direction and thinks the country is falling apart and all they have to do is click on a link, put in, put in some personal information, hit a box, done.
So part, I think that probably 70% of the reason that some people don't vote is they don't know how.
Literally.
They also are not accountable.
So there's nobody who's going to want them to vote and feel bad if they don't.
So you've got to find one person that will feel bad if you ask them later and they haven't voted, and they do think things are going wrong, and they think, if only there was something we could do about it.
Yes.
And, if you really want to sell it, if you can get your one person, see if you can get them to get one other person.
So you want everybody to see if they can get one person.
And then automatically it's going to turn into a competitive event, even if you don't make it that way.
Because if I could get one person, I'm automatically going to think, oh wow, I got a person.
I'm going to try to get a second one.
Just because.
I'm just built that way.
You know, one isn't enough.
If you can get one person to vote, well, I'm going to beat you.
If you can get three of your family to vote who have never voted before, and you post that in X, do you know what I'm going to do?
Damn you.
You got three?
I'm going to give four, and then I'm going to put that in your comments there.
Take that.
So, being a Scott Pressler, very hard.
I could not be more complimentary to what he does.
Getting one person who has never voted before but likes Trump, To just click a link and fill in some things while you're, you're on them and you're making sure that you're, you're holding them accountable.
Yeah, you could do that.
I would, I would dare say nearly a hundred percent of Trump voters could do that.
Now it matters most in the swing states.
It matters way less to me, but if you're in Pennsylvania, listen to me.
All right.
I grew up in the Northeast, in upstate New York.
I know you Pennsylvanians.
I know you.
And every one of you who are Trump supporters, or could be Trump supporters, would enjoy watching the news and watching the faces of the fake news people fall off as they watch him win in a landslide.
It's what you want.
You know you'd enjoy it.
Think about the faces of the news people when they find out that you lied to the pollsters and way more people voted than anybody expected.
So, Pennsylvanians, hear me.
Swing state people, hear me.
Here's your challenge.
Every single one of you, every one, every one of you, if you're going to vote, it's not enough.
Let me be clear.
Voting's not enough this year.
It's not enough.
You got to find one non-voter to see if you can help them.
Click the link, get the mail-in vote, and actually mail it in.
And that is how you win for sure.
And let me put the final frame on this.
Trump has been fighting for, in my opinion, the country for, what, eight years?
Longer if you count his private life.
He has risked his life twice.
It's time to pay him back.
We're going to drag him over the fucking finish line.
You know he's going to do everything, right?
He's going to be balls to the wall.
Trump's going to be 100%.
His campaign's going to be 100%.
Is it enough?
I don't know.
But it will be enough if every one of us grab him by the lapel And like the Secret Service, we say, I don't know what you were planning on, but this is what's going to happen.
And we just drag him over the finish line.
Right?
It's got to come from below.
There's just not enough from above.
I mean, you can get money and they can do great, but they are doing great.
They can go to every state.
They will go to every state.
They can do great rallies.
They are doing great rallies.
Not enough.
You are going to have to do something more than just your one little vote.
You've got to get one more.
You've got to get one more.
So I'm going to tell you when I get mine.
And then you tell me when you get yours, and we'll compare notes.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win.
And I'm going to talk privately to the people on Locals, the subscribers on Locals.
