Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/
God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Inflammation Depression Link, MAHA, RFK Jr., Shelf Space Thoughts, ChatGPT Voice Mode, Google AI, Infowars Liquidation, J6 Memory Hole, Dan Bongino, Congress Mass Casualty Planning, CDC Robert Redfield, Patrick Byrne Hillary Clinton, Internet Censorship, Michael Shellenberger, Free Speech Suppression, President Trump, Iran Assassination Teams, AI Energy Boom Required, Trump Economic Plan, AI Prosperity, Asian-American Life Strategy, Massive American Corruption, Crime Data, Economic Data, Scientific Study Retractions, Data Reliability, Israel Hezbollah Conflict, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Let me know if I just stopped broadcasting on locals, because I hit a button that maybe, maybe stopped it.
But I think we're good.
All right.
Welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams, the best time you've ever had in your whole, whole life.
And if you'd like to take it up to levels that are even higher, that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure The dopamine at the end of the day I think makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens right now.
go. The deliciousness is extreme.
Well, you already know that coffee can help your cardiovascular disease, cleanse your body, remove toxins from your cells.
It can be an antioxidant with fighting inflation and protecting cells from oxidative stress.
But did you know that if you add milk to your coffee, it's a little worse?
Potentially.
It might not do as well Might not do as well as removing toxins or something.
So, just think about that.
Black coffee?
It'll get you what you want.
That's right.
I've got a correction.
Do you like it when I correct myself because I said something wrong?
Come on, you all like it.
You like it.
Did you know, because I didn't know it, That the way the Panama Canal works is that it fills up the locks with water from a lake?
How many of you knew that?
I always just assumed they had big pumps and they just pumped the ocean water into the lock and then released it back into the ocean.
But apparently, to get the good economics, Panama has a lake that's higher than the canal is.
So they could just use gravity to take the water from the lake and very quickly fill up a lock.
So if you had to pump it, it would be pretty expensive.
So when I said the other day that the Panama Canal was getting less efficient because of the water level, it may be some combination of the, there's a bit of a drought that may be affecting the lake.
And then other people said, no, no, it's not the amount of water they have, it's the silt building up in the locks.
So it could be one of those.
But anyway, the point is the Panama Canal is not as efficient as it had been.
That's all.
Neuroscience News says there's an anti-inflammatory drug that might boost motivation if you're depressed.
Why would changing something in your body, such as the inflammation, Change how you feel about your world, as in depression, or less of it.
And the answer is, as I've told you one billion times, this is one billion and one, your body is your brain.
If you want your brain to feel better, you can fix your body, because your body is your brain.
So if you take the pain away, you take the inflammation away, you make your body work better, more efficiently, you exercise it, you eat right, your brain is going to be a lot better.
It won't fix every problem, but it'll fix a lot of them.
So think of your body as your brain.
Well, believe it or not, as much as I love talking about indoor vertical farms, There's a new story about one.
So New Atlas has a story about the world's first indoor vertical farm that's going to make just a whole bunch of strawberries, like more than they've ever made before.
The Plenty Richmond Farm.
So here's what's new and interesting about this.
Indoor farming is not economical compared to outdoor farming, but This is one example of which we're moving in the right direction.
So there's a bunch of researchers, scientists type people who are working hard to figure out how to tweak things so that you can grow things indoors more economically than outdoors.
Because you're going to save water, you're going to save pesticides, you might save on labor if you do it indoors.
But you've got to carefully balance the light and the water and the nutrients and all that.
And as they get better and better at it, I really think this is going to be the future.
I feel like the world is going to be lots of individual citizens who have a micro-farm.
So I'm imagining a city of the future, which isn't too dense, where every living space, optionally, has something about half the size of your house that's a little indoor garden.
And let's say that your job is only to grow one thing.
So you're just the lettuce person.
And maybe somebody else manages it and you put it off to your local supermarkets.
But I think you're going to have to grow the food where the people are that eat it.
I just think there's no way around that.
Because that's the only way you're going to get nutrients and low economics.
Good economics.
So it's coming.
Speaking of food, Bernie Sanders says he agrees with Elon Musk on this point.
And he points out it's unusual that they would be on the same side of things.
Although it isn't unusual.
Because Elon Musk is big about the environment.
Bernie's big on the environment.
So they do actually agree on some pretty big stuff.
But here's what Sanders says.
He said Elon Musk is not one of my usual allies.
Recently tweeted that solving obesity reduces the risk of diseases like diabetes and improves quality of life.
And Sanders says he's right.
We need to make appetite inhibitors available to anyone who wants them.
Oh, that was so close to being a good thing that you did there, Bernie Sanders.
Now, I'm not going to disagree, or agree, with the idea that you should make appetite inhibitors more available to people.
Because there's evidence that it's doing good stuff for some people, and maybe not as good as you hope, but you know, everything's a mixed bag.
But yeah, I would think that it'd be good for people to have this option.
However, I would have been way happier if Sanders said something along the lines of, You know, RFK Jr.
is on the right path.
We've got to fix our food supply.
And if you fix the food supply and you learn to exercise, you're not going to need any Ozempic.
May I make my case by pointing to myself?
I'm exactly the weight I wanted to be as an adult.
Exactly.
Right to the pound.
And I don't do Ozempic.
All I do is watch my diet.
Don't eat crap and exercise on a regular basis.
It really is that simple.
Now I get that there's not free will, so people can't as easily do it as I can.
I have money and I've got a flexible schedule.
I don't have kids telling me to drive them places when I could be exercising.
So it's easier for me.
But I would like to make the following suggestion, which I've now made several times, But eventually, you're going to see it as genius.
It goes like this.
I want a president who encourages people to get off the couch.
And I'd love to start a habit.
An American habit.
Because you could do that.
You could actually start a national habit.
You just need somebody to get the ball rolling.
Now, if RFK Jr.
gets the, let's say, the influence that I want, and Trump gets the influence that I want, let's say he gets elected, I would love for Trump and RFK Jr., and anybody who's smart and influential, to join in to say, you should all take a walk in your own neighborhood, if it's safe, after dinner.
Now, after dinner can be whatever you want it to be, so you don't have to do the same after dinner as anybody else.
But wouldn't you like that if you're done with dinner, and by the way, the scientists say that taking a walk right after you eat is the very best thing you can do.
It just changes your whole digestive situation.
So let's say you're done at 7 p.m.
and you walk outside and you see your neighbors who are also going for a walk because they were done about the same time.
But if you had gone at 6 p.m.
or 8 p.m., there would be a different set of neighbors who had also finished at that time, and they're going for a walk.
And then, if you're brave, or if there are at least some friendly people out there, they say, hey, neighbor, join up.
The next thing you know, every time you leave your house between 6 and 8.30 at night, there's a group of neighbors who are going for a walk, and they'd love it if you just jump in and you could meet them.
You can feel safer because you're in a group now.
So you're outdoors.
It might be a little dark, depending on what it is.
And you don't have to go the whole way.
You don't have to walk as far as they do.
Just do what you want to do.
So it would be really easy to make that a habit and you'd be able to meet your neighbors and you would be far less caring if you're just taking a walk, whether they're voting for one person and you're voting for somebody else.
If you're just doing a thing, an activity, you're all fine.
And let me say it again, that the only way you can bring anybody together, whether it's making a friend personally, or bringing the country together, it's over a shared activity.
If you've got a world war, the country's going to come together.
If aliens, you know, from space attack the country, or the world, We're going to come together, right?
So it's a shared activity that brings people together and nothing else.
Like the intellectual stuff?
Not really.
The intellectual stuff just makes you feel like you might be on somebody's team, but the doing things together, that makes a difference.
So that's my suggestion.
Get the government to say, at least take a walk after dinner and meet your neighbors and get some exercise.
Speaking of positive thoughts, I saw a Huberman video.
If you're not watching all the Huberman videos, you should be.
And he had a guest on talking about how you can just force yourself to think more positive thoughts and don't have a whole bunch of health and mental health and other benefits.
And I'm going to amplify that, but I'm going to give you a different model for it, which is Humans don't have the option of not thinking.
If we're awake, well, even if you're asleep, your brain is still active.
So you don't have an option of thinking of nothing.
And if your problem is that there are too many negative thoughts, that is something you can control.
So you can't control whether you have thoughts, but you can definitely control, 100%, you can control the percentage of them that are negative.
Now I call that shelf space, because that's the idea that it's limited.
There's not unlimited shelf space, it's just the shelf.
So if your shelf has 50% negative and 50% positive, well, you have room for improvement.
You can just force yourself to think of some more positives.
And that automatically reduces the number of negatives, because you only have so much shelf space.
If you just jam it with good thoughts, which is what I do by the way, you can just squeeze them out.
It's one of the most important mental hacks you could come up with.
If I could give you only one thing to do differently in your whole life, just one thing, it would be this.
To make sure that you squeeze out the opportunity for negative thoughts by just forcing in The positive ones until your shelf space is all taken.
That'll fix just about everything.
It'll give you energy, optimism, people will want to be around you, you'll take on bigger challenges, which is good for you.
Basically, it fixes everything.
And that's not too far from what your best self-help gurus would tell you.
You gotta get that mental conversation right.
That's the Tony Robbins, you know, big, probably the most basic thing he says that's the most important.
You gotta get the conversation that's always happening.
You can't stop it, but you can change it.
Change it to positive.
Sam Altman, who, as you know, is the Big AI boss, I guess you'd say.
So he's the chat GPT head.
And he was asked, according to a post I saw by Zarathustra, an ex, he was asked if he had any psychedelic experiences, and he did.
He said that earlier in his life, so nothing recently, or at least the life-changing part wasn't recently, he did psychedelics.
And he said it changed him from being an anxious, unhappy person into a very calm person who can work on hard and important things.
I'm going to add to that and say this.
You can tell he's done psychedelics by looking at his eyes.
Now, I know you don't believe that if you've never been around people who have done psychedelics.
You can tell.
You look at him talking for a minute and a half and you know that he's experienced a different reality than you have, came back and incorporated it into his worldview.
You could just tell by looking at them and by listening to them.
It's important for you to know how transformational some of these experiences are.
But I'd like to tie this to a comment I saw from Mark Andreessen, big Silicon Valley investor, famous investor.
And he said, I'm paraphrasing, but something like the dirty secret of Silicon Valley is that high agency people I think that's the phrase he used.
Can use illegal drugs to great advantage.
Now again, that's just a paraphrase.
To which I say, oh my god, which I did say, I've wanted to say that in public my whole life.
But you can't, because it's irresponsible.
If you say to somebody, you know, the most successful people I know Did illegal drugs, but they were really smart about it.
So they didn't do the wrong illegal drugs.
They did the ones that help them.
Now, if you do ones that help you, can they also kill you?
Oh yeah.
Oh yeah.
Yeah, it'll kill you.
But if you're one of these high agency, high willpower, High intelligence, you know, you've really got it going on.
There are rare cases, and I'm going to say it's rare, where people just use the drugs to great success.
So for example, and again, I'm not recommending any of this, just so I'm clear, this is very not recommended.
But it's a truth.
It's just one of those hard-to-process truths that there are some people who are on, you know, Adderall or Uppers or Speed who figure out, oh my god, I'm already in the top 1% of smart, hard-working people.
If I put myself in the 0.001%, I can make a billion-dollar unicorn company and change the world.
And then they do.
Now, if they get a lifelong habit that, you know, ends up bad, that was a bad decision.
If they end up making something that changes the world and makes billions of dollars, and then they get off it because they were high agency, high willpower, they were just doing it because it worked.
Well, that's a huge win, but I don't recommend it.
Because the odds of you being in the top 1% and being one of the few people who could handle literally addiction and then shake it off, you're not one of those.
Let me say that again.
You're not one of those.
I might be wrong for 1% of you, but you don't know if you're in the 1%.
You really don't know, but it is true.
And then when I look at Sam Altman with his psychedelic experience, I have heard Maybe more of these stories than any other type, that somebody changed their life because of the psychedelic experience.
That was also my experience, early in my 20s, and it was completely life-altering.
So if you don't understand how one experience that lasts a few hours can change everything, it's because you haven't experienced it.
But when people say that, they're not joking.
They are completely different forever.
Now, could you also do it and have a terrible experience?
Yeah.
There was just a story yesterday about people doing ayahuasca and just like puking their guts out and quitting their jobs and having all the opposite effects.
So yes, it's high risk.
So if there's one thing you hear from this, I want you to hear the high risk part.
The part I don't want you to act on, is guessing that you're in the top 1% and you're the only person who, you know, one of the few people, you know, who can ever do an illegal drug, get a benefit from it and then get back from it.
Right?
Don't do it.
I'm just saying that some people do it.
All right.
ChatGPT is coming out, speaking of AI, with their new advanced voice mode.
And that's good.
Because the current model, I don't know if this only happens to me or you, when I talk to it, it tends to act like a teenager who is pretending to have a bad cell phone connection.
I don't know if you've tried to use the current ChatGPT voice mode, but I'll ask you something like this.
ChatGPT, I have a mole that appeared on my arm.
Let me just grab it, I'll give you a picture of it.
And can you tell me if this is dangerous?
And then ChatGPT will say in perfect English, there are two possibilities.
Number one, there's nothing to worry about whatsoever.
And I'll think, wow.
And they'll say, but number two possibility is that amputation.
And I said, wait, wait, what, what?
What did you just say?
And then it will say in perfect English, it could be nothing to worry about whatsoever.
and I'm like okay okay what was that other thing you said with the amputation and bile I'm like, bile?
I don't even know what that means.
Is the bile good?
Is the bile bad?
What's it mean, ChadGBT?
And then it'll say, I'm having trouble connecting now.
So that's been my experience with ChatGPT.
If you really, really want to know the answer, it's going to be a teenager saying, oh, sorry, mom.
Can't hear you.
I should come home.
No, I can't hear you.
Anyway, so I have big hopes for the advanced voice mode.
I have a hypothesis.
That all of those problems I just described are, some of it's just Wi-Fi.
You know, if you're in the car or something, or losing connection over your 5G.
But some of it, I think, might be that they don't have enough computing power.
Because the amount of computing power you need is just almost unfathomable.
And I can't imagine that they got right where they wanted already.
So I suspect that some of it is just more computing is more goodness.
By the way, all this is going to fix itself.
None of this is permanent.
So I have big hopes for this advanced voice mode.
I'll let you know after I try it out.
Meanwhile, Google allegedly paid $2.7 billion to hire a good AI guy.
Let me say that again.
Google, who wants to make sure it can stay competitive in this AI stuff.
And some would say it's, you know, maybe not in the top tier.
So to fix that, they paid $2.7 billion to hire back a guy who used to work with them.
It was one of the pioneers of inventing the LLM AI concept.
And he left because Google was a little too conservative or slow or Didn't want to pursue it as much as he did.
So he created another company which didn't necessarily look like his other company called Character was going to ever make money.
But he cleverly sold the company with an agreement that he would go work for Google.
So he basically Sold the company for $2.7 billion.
His part of it was several hundred million just to do a job.
So let me give you this advice.
If you ever find yourself in a position where somebody is willing to pay $2.7 billion just to hire you as an employee.
Now he didn't get the $2.7 billion but he got his share of the company.
You should take that.
Yeah, I don't give a lot of career advice, but if somebody offers you $2.7 billion just to go to work, most of the time I'd say yes.
I'd say yes on that.
That's my advice.
Well, meanwhile, the InfoWars saga continues.
The judge has ordered that Alex Jones can auction off.
He has to, actually, because InfoWars is being closed down by the courts.
He paid the legal damages for the Sandy Hook families and his entire life work will be sold off to the highest bidder and then liquidated.
I saw some people joking and saying, you know, Elon Musk should buy it.
I don't think that's going to happen because I don't know what the assets are exactly.
But even after he sells off all his assets, correct me if I'm wrong, But doesn't this lawsuit judgment that he's under mean that every penny he makes for the rest of his life, some of it has to go to the lawsuit?
So haven't they crippled him economically forever?
Like he can never come back because if he makes money, he just has to give it away.
Sort of the OJ Simpson, you know, doomed for life.
You can never really make money in this world again.
Well, so when you start looking at the number of people who are leaning in the same direction and got canceled from Tucker to Alex Jones to Roseanne to me, and you know, you can add a bunch of names to that.
Would you say it's fair to say that the media and the Department of Justice and the Democrats collectively are crooked?
And when you look at the lawfare against Trump, And then you look at all the lawfare and, you know, related things against other characters.
Doesn't it seem like the media, the Department of Justice and Democrats are fundamentally corrupt?
It does to me.
I remember thinking that the Justice Department was mostly, you know, mostly on the up and But, you know, it was probably bad if you were, like, a black American, especially earlier in earlier years.
And I thought, well, that's, you know, something we need to fix.
You don't want any discrimination in the Department of Justice.
But I wasn't completely aware that the entire enterprise is corrupt.
And it appears it is.
So I would say the media, the Department of Justice, and the Democrats are one big ball of corruption, kind of collectively working with each other.
Here's a funny thing.
MSNBC had a little town hall in which they asked a few people there, there were men, about January 6th.
Now I think MSNBC was hoping that they would say January 6th, the stain on the American Republic, It is totally going to make me turn against Trump, and I would never, ever vote for an insurrectionist like that January 6th thing.
That's probably what they hoped for.
Here's what they got.
Uh, you talking about the February 6th thing?
Uh, no, it's January 6th.
He goes, Oh, I don't really feel any way about it.
So they asked two young men who apparently were interested enough in politics that they'd probably vote, and neither of them had any feelings about January 6th.
It was like it didn't happen.
Now MSNBC has been trying to brainwash the public Like every day for years, that that was the worst thing that's happened in the Republic.
You know, it's worse than Pearl Harbor.
It's worse than 9-11.
Trump is going to steal your democracy.
And the young men, remember, I keep telling you that young men are the solution.
In many ways, young men are a problem group because we have a lot of crime and whatnot.
But young men are going to fix us.
Because men know what a fucking insurrection looks like.
Let me be clear.
Anybody who's a man with a little bit of testosterone, we know what a real insurrection looks like.
And nobody was fooled by that one.
So maybe if you're a woman, and here I'm making a huge generalization that doesn't apply to the people watching the show, But if you're a woman, maybe you don't recognize it.
I don't know.
I'm not a woman, so I can't speculate how women think.
But it seems to me that the beta males and women on MSNBC just assumed that the rest of the people would see things the way they saw it, and that January 6th was this big scary thing where we almost lost the country.
And the men who had some testosterone in them are sitting there and saying, You mean the February thing?
No, the January thing.
The January 6th.
You've heard of it, right?
Yeah, I didn't have much feelings about it.
I didn't have much feelings about it is the exact right take.
That is the exact right take.
There was nothing about that.
Well, let me put it a different way.
If history had a way to delete, and you could just delete January 6th and just take it out of history, how would the country be worse off?
It wouldn't be.
Yeah.
Paying no attention to January 6th was probably the right play.
Knowing about it didn't help you a bit.
Nothing.
What are you going to do differently?
You know, maybe you learned you should have better security if there's a big crowd of angry people coming toward you, but really, did you have to learn that?
Was that something you just figured out in January 6th, that if you don't have enough security and you know for sure a gigantic group of angry people are coming your way, No, we didn't learn anything from it.
There's nothing useful about knowing the details of January 6th.
I mean, unless it helps you know how corrupt the system is, I suppose.
But yeah, you can just delete that from your memory banks.
Wouldn't make a difference.
None.
Dan Bongino is tantalizing because he talks about, he acts like he knows maybe a little bit or even a lot more about one of the assassination attempts.
The second one, and he says, has the possibility to be the scandal of our lifetime, which would suggest more people were involved in this than just the shooter.
The suggestion is that maybe there's an insider connection to it, and that worse, maybe it's internally politically motivated and it wasn't just a crazy guy.
Now, I don't personally know what that evidence would be.
But he does say, quote, this story is going to get worse.
It's ugly.
And, uh, he is very animated about where that's going.
Now I consider Bongino one of the credible people who doesn't just take a BS story and run with it because he can get clicks.
Um, you know, obviously he's a high energy presenter.
He's one of my favorite people.
I always use him as an example of talent stacks.
Bongino.
It's like the ultimate talent stack guy.
He has just the right experiences and things he's developed like his on-camera persona and everything.
And even his physicality.
You know, he's just got a whole bunch of everything from networking to understanding politics, to understanding the security situation, the presentation language, you know, grammar.
I mean, he's got a talent stack.
So does Hannity and a number of other people.
But he always stands out to me as a person who just said, what do successful people do?
And then he just did that really hard.
I hate to reduce people to something so simple, but doesn't Bongino look like somebody who just woke up, you know, at some point in his life and said, all right, what do people who succeed do?
Okay.
Okay.
All right.
You're doing all right.
What if I just do all that?
And then he does all that.
And then he's really successful.
Maybe it's that.
Just figure out what everybody does and do it.
I would describe my own path to, if you can call this success, that.
I just studied all the successful people from my earliest age, from 11 years old.
If I saw a story about a successful person, I was going to read it.
And I would find out, what did you do?
Like, why?
Was it luck?
Is it something you did, or the way you operated?
Like, I was always a real student of that, and sometimes you can see that in other people.
Anyway, Mike Flynn.
All right, so, so far we have the media, the DOJ, and the Democrats are crooked, and we've got some suggestion that the Secret Service is crooked, and let's see, Mike Flynn is talking about the fact that
The House of Representatives is working on this plan, a bipartisan plan, to make sure that the government is staffed if there's a major casualty event in which the representatives who are elected are all killed or disabled.
And, uh, I think the idea is that maybe the governor of their state would appoint somebody in the short term, something like that.
But as Mike Flynn, General Flynn points out, and, uh, I would point out the same thing.
Why did this suddenly become very important?
So important that there's a bipartisan push.
You don't get bipartisan unless something's happening right now.
You know what I mean?
Here, here's what doesn't happen.
There's some general problem that's just sort of always been the problem throughout history, and there's nothing immediately pressing about it, but then Congress gets together and does a bipartisan bill.
Has that ever happened?
The suggestion here is that the people working on this bipartisan bill to deal with what happens when they all get killed is because there's a specific threat.
And the question that I ask is, are they going to do a State of the Union this year?
Do you think you're going to put all of our Congress critters in one room?
Or even, you know, even just the Senate or just the House?
I feel like they must think there's some credible threat of something like a missile blowing up a building.
You know, if they were worried about drone attacks, you know, the best drone attack would get a few people.
But they seem to be worried about something that would take out a whole building full of Congress people.
Right?
Because it's not like they're all going to be all over the country and then die at the same time.
Unless it's a pandemic, I suppose.
Maybe it's a pandemic.
But it does sound like they know something we don't know.
I'd sure like to know what that is, or maybe I wouldn't.
Well, in your weird news that you did not expect, I'll put this at the top of the list.
Former CDC director Robert Redfield, you remembered him from the pandemic, and you probably said to yourself, oh, that former CDC director, he got a bunch of things wrong.
He's a bad actor.
He's a bad character.
Why did he do so many bad things I didn't like during the pandemic?
And you might know that RFK Jr.
really was a critic of his, and was kind of savage, even in his book, he was a critic of him.
And then, this happened.
According to RFK Jr., he says, Robert Redfield, who I really go after in my Fauci book, wrote an editorial in Newsweek magazine today, Saying that he was endorsing President Trump because he was, because Trump was going to restore American health and that quote, a lot of people might be surprised to hear me say this, but he has chosen exactly the right person who can do this.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
And he says, this was breathtaking to me.
This is the guy who was head of the CDC who I've been criticizing for years.
And then separately, they had lunch.
So Redfield and RFK Jr., his biggest critic, and according to RFK Jr., when he met him, you know, in person, the first thing that Redfield said to RFK Jr.
was, you were right about everything.
Wow.
Wow.
You were right about everything.
And then RFK Jr.
talks about how, I guess Redfield agrees, vigorously agrees, that our agencies are all captured.
In other words, they're not operating on your behalf, they're operating on behalf of companies that have some kind of control over the directors.
This is just mind-blowing.
You have to know the players to be impressed by this, but most of you do.
I think you're in the top 5% of people who watch the news if you're watching this.
This is mind-blowing.
It's hard to even imagine that somebody This is beyond my imagination.
He's just completely endorsed patriotism.
To me, this is Redfield just becoming a pure patriot from whatever he was.
I mean, I think he probably tried to do the best job he could.
But it looks like he's admitting the forces were stronger than he was.
And this is wild.
It's just crazy.
It's not as crazy as a video.
I think this is not new, but I just was watching it again.
Patrick Byrne, you might know him.
He was the ex-CEO of Overstock.com.
And according to him, he was part of an operation to bribe Hillary Clinton on behalf of the FBI in 2016.
And he successfully had a foreign company, country, foreign country, bribe her with, I don't know, 18 or 20 million dollars, and separately, some Turkish entity bribed her with a similar amount.
And the FBI got this all on tape, and, you know, they got all the evidence, and they were ready, they had everything they needed to put Hillary Clinton in jail in 2016.
And then, Patrick Byrne says, they told him to drop the whole thing and forget it ever happened.
Because they expected her to win the election in 2016 and then all the FBI people would be in trouble because she would have too much power by then and she could just fire them all.
Now that's the story they told them.
Patrick believes the closer real story is that the FBI people were in the pocket of Obama, meaning there were Obama puppets within the FBI, and that the real play Was not to find any crimes done by a politician, but rather to get blackmail so that Obama could control Hillary Clinton.
Does that sound real?
Now, keep in mind, he's not saying, I heard this happen.
He was in the op.
He was like the central person who arranged the bribe.
He didn't give the bribe or offer it, but he arranged the person Too bribe her to be in the same room.
And off the schedule, I guess.
Now, do you think that Patrick Byrne would make up that story?
Does that sound like the kind of story that somebody would just make up?
It doesn't to me.
You know, I feel like I'm pretty good at spotting BS.
This doesn't look like BS.
Now, if you take it further, To what he speculates, you know, people are thinking, you know, maybe that make us a little more interesting.
But he literally knows for sure because he was part of the op that Hillary Clinton took a gigantic bribe and the FBI was completely aware of it.
That part I completely believe.
So that would suggest that if you're keeping score, let's see, The media, the DOJ, and the Democrats would be all crooked.
The Secret Service would be crooked if Bongino's story is what we think it is.
Every single entity in the government that should be regulating things, according to Robert Redfield and RFK Jr., are actually working against our interests, not for us.
And the FBI is completely compromised and owned by Obama's team, if that's true.
So, how do you feel so far?
And of course, Mike Benz tells us about the deep state and the blob and how the CIA may be more partners with the cartels than enemies.
So if you're keeping score, that would be a corrupt media department of justice, Democrats, FBI, Secret Service, CIA.
But I mean, that's, that's not bad.
There's still a lot more.
A lot more parts of the country, so don't start feeling like everything's corrupt.
Michael Schellenberger has an article in which he says that Gates, Soros, Biden, Harris, Wallace, Clinton, Obama, the legacy media, the FBI, CIA, DHS, and the EU, and Brazil, and the Five Eyes Nations are desperate to censor the Internet.
They're not hiding it.
Look at them, they're trying to normalize it.
Michael Schellenberger talks about how all these various entities are coordinating to end your free speech and censor you in ways that they can get away with without constitutional problems.
So if you're keeping track, that would be a corrupt media, Department of Justice, Democrats, Secret Service, FBI, CIA, CDC, every regulating government, Gates, Soros, Biden, Harris, Wallace, Clinton, Obama, the legacy media, Department of Homeland Security, the European Union, Brazil, and Five Eyes.
But everything else is working perfectly.
That's the important part.
I don't want you to lose hope, because they're the only ones that are corrupt.
Everything else is kind of going along fine.
By the way, a lot of people won't see this presentation, because no matter what my content is, YouTube caps it at 31,000 views.
Okay.
So, I mean, you could add that on the list.
Sure, sure.
Maybe you've got a little corruption in the Department of Justice, the Democrats, the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, every regulating entity.
Yeah, I think you know where this is going.
But thank goodness, even if Google and others are trying to censor me, thank goodness I have free speech on X. No, I don't.
I don't know what's going on with X.
I'm willing to believe it's just the algorithm is feeding me people who agree with me, but the fact is that I can yell all day long things that Democrats don't like, they'll never hear them.
So if the only speech I have, because the algorithm kind of connects me with people who already agree with me, if the only speech I have is to say things that people agree with, that's exactly not free speech.
Right?
That's the opposite of free speech.
Free speech is only useful to say things that people don't want to hear and disagree with.
Agreeing isn't anything.
Nobody cares about that.
So while I do trust Elon Musk to be pro-free speech and that he's making the platform as close to that as he can get, I feel like even maybe just accidentally, The algorithm has removed any useful part of free speech.
Because the useful part is the disc green part.
That's the useful part.
I don't have that.
So, I don't know why, but I don't have it.
But I would ask you this following question because you are smart enough to deal with a tough philosophical question.
I'm not aware of any country that has ever survived free speech.
Let me say that again, because you're going to think you misheard it.
There's no typo in that.
I'm not aware of any country that has ever survived as a country that also had free speech.
Now, you should be sitting at home and saying, what?
What the hell are you talking about?
You've got all of Europe.
You've got every democratic country.
You've got the United States.
You know, maybe you've got some problems now, but clearly we've survived a few hundred years.
To me, it seems obvious, Scott, that the democratic countries have free speech and that they absolutely have survived and thrived and thrived.
They've done better than other countries.
Except nothing like that really happened in the real world.
In the real world, At least in my lifetime, our media has always been controlled.
Meaning that you only saw things that the CIA and the government wanted you to see.
It's just that you didn't know it.
You thought you were seeing the news when you weren't.
The thing that's different now is that we know it.
It's not that free speech didn't go away, it was never here.
We did not lose free speech.
We never had it, and we found out we never had it.
That's what happened.
Now, there are a million ways that the CIA and whoever in the deep state wants to block your free speech.
Do you think it will ever be known why I got cancelled?
For example, just to pick one.
Do you think the real story of that will ever be known?
I mean, even I don't know.
Do you think it makes sense that I got canceled worldwide and not a single person called to ask me, what was that all about?
Or would you like to try an apology?
Maybe we can save you.
Not one person.
Thousands of people were involved directly or indirectly with my cancellation and not one person said, Would you like to revise that, or were you taken out of context?
Maybe you weren't taken out of context, but maybe you'd like to apologize from it, and then we can keep working together.
No.
No.
So, do I have any idea why I was cancelled?
Well, I have speculation.
But given that it started in the Washington Post, which is the furthest thing from a free speech entity, which everybody assumes is just part of the government's organ of control, they started it.
You think that's a coincidence?
Nope.
Nope.
All right.
Um, so just be aware that free speech probably has always been an illusion.
There's definitely more of it you can have.
There's definitely a way to get more of it, and we should be trying to do that.
But you have to understand that no country could survive free speech.
It would be too chaotic.
There has to be something like a common narrative to keep a country together.
And I hate it.
I hate that that's true.
But I've never seen the alternative.
All right.
There is strong hints that there was a third possible assassination attempt.
So Axios is reporting that Trump said they had been briefed on efforts by Iran to assassinate him, and that he believes Tehran will, quote, try again.
Now, that's a little bit cryptic, because try again It could mean that there's some third or other attempt outside the two known assassination attempts.
But it also could, and this is pure speculation, suggest that the first, or maybe even the second one, had some Iranian involvement.
So we don't know for sure if this is really a third attempt, or if it's more information about one of the first two.
But here's what Trump says about that.
He said, big threats, this is in a post, big threats on my life by Iran.
The entire U.S.
military is watching and waiting.
Moves were already made by Iran that didn't work out, but they will try again.
Not a good situation for anyone.
I'm surrounded by more men, guns, and weapons than I've ever seen before.
And they thanked Congress for making all that available funding wise.
I feel like he's sending a message when he's talking about the weaponry to protect them.
I think he's just trying to scare the next would-be assassin into thinking there's no way it's going to work.
Because one of the problems is that the first two attempts would suggest to the, you know, some third future hypothetical attacker that getting a shot at him wouldn't be that hard.
So it's very important for Trump to persuade and say, um, things have changed.
And while it might have been a little too easy to get a shot at me, you're dead if you try it now.
Now is he right?
Well, I hope so.
I hope that his defenses are beefed up enough that anybody would be dead.
So, we hope so.
Then, also from Axios, they talked about Iran's multi-pronged approach.
Meaning that Iran is trying to hurt the United States with as many different, you know, ways to poke us as they can in different domains.
There was a summer cyber attack, apparently, and there was... Anyway, I don't know how they're gonna... Iran's gonna beat us at this game, but they're trying.
But Trump had some interesting things to say.
He was talking about how if we use our energy assets properly, in other words, we exploit our own energy resources and we make energy just sort of our biggest thing in America, that it will be a renaissance.
It will be a golden period, he said.
I wish he'd said golden age, but golden period is close enough.
You know, I've said that maybe his first term will seem like a golden age to us, you know, in retrospect, but I do feel like maybe the pandemic could have postponed the golden age.
Now, as you know, I don't believe we can have a golden age or even survive unless we figure out what to do about national debt.
But the way Trump talks about it, he makes it very clear that he understands, not just recently, but for a while now, He makes it really clear that he understands.
I'm seeing in the comments people suggesting that if Iran is trying to kill Trump, that Iran has some kind of Obama connection.
Do you buy that?
I know that people think Obama was too friendly to Iran, but do you think he could possibly be involved in an assassination attempt?
I think that would be too dangerous, so my guess is no.
Even if he wanted to, I can't imagine.
That seems like too big a risk.
Anyway, so Trump's talking about the Golden Age, and here's my take on that.
Energy has always been the number one thing that drove an economy.
So, at least in our modern age, whoever had the most energy did the best.
Now it doesn't mean they did the best in terms of, you know, colonizing or conquering the world, because not everybody was doing that.
But Saudi Arabia had a lot of energy, doing great.
Other countries in the Middle East, they had a lot of energy, doing great.
Russia is only surviving because of their energy stuff.
China's biggest need, energy, so they're building tons of plants.
Now that was before Bitcoin and before AI.
If you add AI to what the civilization is going to need, we are talking about 10 times more energy needed.
10 times!
We're not even close.
So there's going to be an energy boom of all energy booms.
So not only if you add enough energy, could you make more bitcoins, you know, if you had your own nuclear power plant, you could, you know, maybe pump out some bitcoins.
You need a data center too.
But given the massive, massive amount of energy that we're going to need in the pretty near future, I'm going to take the following stand.
That energy equals success, energy equals dollars, energy equals defense, energy equals survival.
Energy is the whole play.
One of the things I, you know, I continuously appreciate about Trump is he can take a complicated situation and boil it down to something that the public can understand and then approve of him acting on.
So that's what the wall was.
When he would say the wall, his critics would say, you, Simpleton, that's such a small part of the bigger question.
And it was.
But if he could get you excited about the wall, he was at least getting you in the right domain of worrying about the things that are most important.
So directionally, that's what Trump does best.
He's directionally correct pretty much all the time.
And I would say he is more than directionally correct on energy.
That if we said to ourselves, all right, America, energy equals money.
If we get our energy costs down, all of your products will be less expensive.
If we get our energy prices down, we'll have the greatest robotic revolution ever.
If we get our energy, you know, plentiful and also down, biggest AI and we'll rule the world with AI before other people can get there.
It's down to one variable, people.
It's one variable.
Two if you count the border.
There are two things we have to get right.
Make sure that we don't have too much uncontrolled immigration.
Because there's some level that destroys the country, no doubt about it.
And we're getting close to it.
And you have to say that energy is your economy.
Everything else has to happen too.
But energy equals economy.
Wall equals immigration.
Energy is economy.
Energy, if you have enough, you have a chance of paying down your national debt.
Trump says that directly.
He says we have trillions of dollars in the ground, you know, enough to pay off the national debt.
Now you don't pay off the debt because the government doesn't own the oil, but economic activity can boost your GDP and it could get you to the point where the government has enough income to pay the debt.
Now, I do not believe that Trump will succeed in most of his plans about lowering taxes because it would have too much impact on the deficit.
I do think I love his idea of having an ambassador to bring back manufacturing to the United States.
Now, that's not unlike what Biden is trying to do.
Biden has had success in repatriating manufacturing.
We could do a lot more.
So I'm not going to give Biden's administration a hard time on that.
I think they were directionally right.
I think that Trump might go harder and he said, you know, he'd get an ambassador.
If you get the right person, it makes a big difference.
And secondly, he wanted to have, it sounded like, maybe some lower taxes for manufacturing that would come back to the U.S.
Because we would have to deal with the fact that our labor is more expensive.
So maybe he can cut regulations, which would lower prices if you do it right.
Maybe he can lower the cost of energy, which would make it cheaper to manufacture here.
Maybe the fact that moving things internationally is getting harder because of the hooties and everything else.
That if you get rid of the transportation costs, the costs come down again.
You make a lot of jobs with all this stuff.
So he's talking about lower corporate taxes for, I think, specifically for people who bring manufacturing back.
Now, What does Trump understand that I always say Democrats never get right?
Human motivation.
I would say Republicans consistently get right the human motivation part.
Maybe not every time, but far more consistently.
So if you say, uh, everybody come back and manufacture in the U S they say, why?
And Trump says, how about I lower your taxes and make energy less expensive and, you know, give you some government land to build your factory?
And I'll get rid of some regulations.
Then suddenly you go, oh, those are good incentives.
I actually will look into that pretty seriously.
So yes, I think Trump is, maybe won't get all of his tax reductions that he wants.
But man, what a crowd pleaser the no tax on tips is.
And what a crowd pleaser no tax on overtime is.
I like both of those things.
Because if you've got somebody who's so valuable that their company wants them to work twice as much, I think that deserves a reward more than just overtime.
You know, if we could get our top, I don't know, 10% of employees and entrepreneurs to do even more, that's going to be better than making the other 99% a little bit better.
If you could make the real go-getters really go get a little bit more, that's way bigger lever than helping everybody to be 5% better.
In the long run, everybody gets more that way.
All right.
Also, Sam Altman said that we might get AI superintelligent in a few thousand days, and that it could lead to massive prosperity.
Now, massive disruption, but I don't disagree with massive prosperity.
Do you know what you would need to pay off the national debt?
You would need massive prosperity, which would require massive energy for the AI.
So Trump is the one I would trust to give us massive energy.
The other thing you'd have to do is find out how to cut expenses in the government.
There's only one candidate who's offering a reasonable plan to do that, and it's called Trump and Elon Musk as the person to help redesign government to make it cheaper.
That's a real plan, right?
If you gave me almost any other name and said, oh, this other person will help reinvent government and make it cheaper, Do you know what I would have said about that?
No, they won't.
Maybe at the margins, but nothing we'll look back at in 20 years and be impressed by it.
But you tell me that Elon Musk has volunteered and he's enthusiastic about reinventing the government to lower expenses without losing function.
And I say, OK, it's go time.
That's go time.
Because I can't think of any harder, worse, less thankful job than that.
And when you have your most capable entrepreneur, richest man in the world, who just stood up and said, basically, he's going to risk his life to get it done, because that's the only way he plays.
The only way he plays is for keeps.
You need that.
So let me put it all together.
Economy is energy.
Energy is Trump.
If you tell me that Harris is the energy person, well, you're not paying attention.
No, energy is Trump.
Energy is economy.
Energy is the AI.
AI is the productivity.
And the only other thing you gotta get right is cutting the government expenses, and there's only one person with a real plan to do that, and it's Trump.
It's not close, people.
So, what happens when you have one who is just obviously the right one on all the big stuff, and one who's obviously wrong?
Well, you get 400 economists who back Harris.
What do you know about economists?
Let's see, they went to a good school.
What do you know about people who went to college?
They've been brainwashed.
So unfortunately, you know, I was joking that no economist had backed Harris on her price caps.
And maybe that's still true, but she's still somehow got 400 in-the-bag economists to ignore their entire professional fiduciary responsibility to back her because she's a Democrat too.
So that happened.
Yeah, it's funny.
If you were a casual viewer of news and you saw that 400 economists backed Harris, you would think that was real, wouldn't you?
Well, here's what I think.
Now that we know we have corruption in, let's see, the Department of Justice, the Democrats, the media, the Secret Service, the FBI, the CIA, every one of our regulatory bodies.
Well, I think you see where I'm going with this.
Anyway, according to The Hill, there are 22 states, the Democrat states, of course, They want to employ a million people in climate apprenticeships by 2035.
Is that because these Democrats have realized that we need to train the young people in the vital sciences that are important to the future of the world?
No.
This is a brainwashing operation.
If you can get a million young people to believe in climate change and it's the most important thing, you've created a million brainwashed Democrat voters who will try to convince other people that dumb old Trump is going to destroy the world unless lots of Democrat vendors get money for things that won't work out.
So that looks corrupt to me.
Just an assumption.
I don't have proof, but it looks like it's just a brainwashing operation.
I saw that Asian Americans on the news are very strongly in favor of Harris.
Now, you might say to yourself, wait a minute, are Asian-Americans the ones who couldn't get into college because of Democrat policies about DEI?
Yes.
Wait a minute.
Are Asian-Americans still hired in corporations as much as they used to, or is DEI working against them?
Well, I don't know.
Actually, I don't know about corporations.
I don't know if you're Asian-American.
Is that a plus or a minus?
For getting a corporate job.
Does it count?
Does that count as diversity if you're Asian American?
I feel like as soon as you're successful, you get removed from the list of whether it counts.
And Asian Americans are super successful in the United States.
So here's what I think.
I think that the reason Asian Americans are for Harris has to do with the fact that they're a highly educated part of the public.
And I'm going to throw out a stereotype.
And you're allowed to criticize me.
But just remember, no stereotype applies to all people in any group.
Can we agree?
There's no stereotype that applies to all the people in the group.
Yet there are some things that are true.
Right?
White people like to eat cheese.
It's just true.
We like cheese.
It's not good or bad.
We just like cheese.
I would say that part of what makes Asian Americans so successful is not only that they have higher education levels, but that they're also better at staying out of trouble.
Just staying out of trouble.
And the trouble, in one sense, is legal trouble.
And Asian Americans do a great job of staying out of jail.
But they also stay out of, I think, fights that aren't going to benefit them.
Like, there's just more So here's my stereotype, and again, it doesn't apply to all the people in the stereotype, but Asian Americans just seem to run their lives smartly.
Can we all accept that?
If you show me just randomly, just throw a throw a dart, not a dart, you don't want to hurt anybody, but just randomly pick an Asian American you know, and say, all right, what's your plan for success?
And what are you doing?
Well, I'm not doing any drugs, I'm staying in a jail, and I've got a plan to be an optometrist.
And my grades are good.
And I look at that and go, oh, well, that's pretty sensible.
And it's not dangerous.
It's not dangerous.
You're staying out of danger and you're pursuing success.
If you show me a bunch of people who want to stay out of trouble, I'll show you a bunch of people who are not going to admit that they vote for Trump.
Am I right?
Staying out of trouble Includes not saying something so provocative that your career or your family life are impacted for no benefit.
Right?
Because remember what I'm saying about the Asian American community, again, a stereotype doesn't apply, does not apply to all people.
Is that as a group, they seem insanely well, um, strategized.
And it's sort of a bad strategy to be a Trump supporter if you know somebody will not hire you because of it, if you know somebody won't date you because of it, if you know it's going to be a fight at work.
Why do it?
So does it surprise you that a highly educated, and when I say risk-averse, in some contexts that sounds bad, because like an entrepreneur wants to take some risk, but in your everyday life, You should be risk averse.
Yeah.
You should not be thinking, I think I could get away with that crime.
No, no.
In your everyday life, you should be risk averse except for embarrassment.
Yeah.
But, but the, the Trump stuff would be more than embarrassment.
It'd be, you don't get the job.
You literally don't get hired.
I mean, that's, that's a big price for just having an opinion.
So it makes sense to me that Asian Americans are,
With the mainstream opinion at least when they're polled and that they would have been Influenced in college like most people are to be more left-leaning But according to the account on X called George because somebody named George runs this account Now he is black which if it matters to you in the context of the story, but he's a great follow
I've said that before.
So just look for George.
That's just the name of the account.
And somehow he has just great scoops, and he gets them early, and they all seem to be true.
So a good, good follow on X. But he says, He points to a video in which Sage Steele, who you should know is also black, but she's more of a pro-Trump person.
I think she's pro-Trump.
I think that's true, right?
Sage Steele?
Has she endorsed him or is she just not endorsing Harris?
I can't remember.
Sometimes just being not endorsing anybody feels the same as endorsing Trump, so I don't know how far she's gone.
So I don't want to characterize her opinion there because I don't know.
But here's the story.
She said that black people are coming up to her, maybe they just recognize her, and they come up to her and they say they're terrified of the future if Harris gets elected.
Why would black Americans be terrified of the future with Harris?
What would make you terrified?
And she said, you know, a bunch of black people are coming up and saying that.
And I don't know.
Is it because of immigration?
I feel like the vibe I've been getting Is that black America thinks that if so much money had not been spent on migrants, it would be available to spend on black Americans for everything from reparations to, you know, better schools and all that.
Do you think that's true?
I, you know, I would love there to be a true narrative in which more people would prefer Trump.
I'm not so sure it's true that that money is liquid and fungible and you could just use it for something else if you don't use it for migrants.
Because remember, the money we're spending on migrants we literally don't have.
We're not spending money we have, we're spending money we don't have.
And we always could have spent that, you know, more of the money we don't have by borrowing it.
We could have always spent that in Black America, but apparently we had figured out whatever level worked, and we're at that level.
I don't believe it's true that the more money you give to the migrant community, the less is available for Black Americans.
I think they just borrowed more than they would have.
But it feels that way, doesn't it?
Imagine if you were in the inner city and you saw that the Venezuelans were getting checks from the government and like free rent and stuff for a while and you weren't.
You would definitely feel like the guy standing next to you who got a big check from the government because he's Venezuelan and you got nothing and you've been living here all your life.
It would be quite normal to think that that could go to me if it didn't go to you.
I don't think it's true.
I think the decision of what you get is just a separate decision.
It's not like they took your money, but it's going to feel like it.
Oh my goodness, it's going to feel like it.
Yeah, well, I don't know if it's envy.
Envy might be the—it doesn't feel like the right word, but I see where you're getting at.
It would be, yeah, envy isn't quite the right word, but it's in the right domain, so I see why you're saying that. Anyway, we'll see what happens there.
I think there's going to be a lot more support for Trump, especially among black male Americans than we've ever seen before.
People mock me for saying that all data about important stuff is unreliable.
Sometimes I say it's not credible.
Sometimes I say it's fake.
But how many of you have a reaction to that?
Like, well, that's not true.
All data about everything important is fake.
Does your body just rebel against that and say, no, it's not?
Obviously, Scott, there is real data in the world.
Is there?
Are you sure?
Are you sure there's real data in the world about important things?
Now, there's definitely real data about unimportant things.
But about important things?
Do you think there's real data?
Would you die on that hill?
That there's real data in the world?
All right, let's look at an example.
What about crime in the United States?
Did crime in the United States under Biden, did it go up or is it now down?
That's pretty easy, right?
We collect all this crime data.
So give me the answer.
Is crime up or down?
Because data is real, right?
For those of you who think data is real and you can do your own research and find out what the truth is.
Is it up or down?
Well, today I saw two movies on one screen.
I won't name names, but a popular person on X Showed some data showing that two cities were missing from the crime data, and that's why it looks like it's low, but that's fake.
That's the story you've heard, right?
Have you all heard the story that the crime data from the FBI, I guess, left out Los Angeles and St.
Louis?
And then I looked at it, and sure enough, it wasn't there.
And then somebody else said, oh, this image is cropped.
If you don't crop the image, it is there.
So which reality were you in?
Were you in the reality where that information was left off, which would have been ridiculous?
Or are you in the reality where somebody cropped a data page so it looked like it was left off, but of course it was there?
So which reality are you in?
Oh, but the data is real, right?
The data is real and you can do your own research and find out the truth.
You can find out more than you knew, but all you're going to do is get to the next level of something that might also be fake.
So you might learn a new thing, but the new thing, you don't know if that's real.
Because you'd have to research that thing, and then you'd have to research the thing that said that thing was real.
You'd have to know all the players to know that the person who said it could be credible and not somebody who's in the bag for one side or the other.
No, there's no data that's reliable.
There is data that you can convince yourself is right.
Oh, that exists.
And I convince myself data is right all the time.
Because we're built so we have to accept some reality.
So we end up, you know, clicking to, what do they call it, snap to grid.
If we get near a reality, we like to snap to it.
Alright, alright, that's my reality.
Now I'll think about something else.
No, all data is fake.
How about, uh, if you don't believe that about the crime, how about the data on the economy?
Is the economy better under Biden or was it better under Trump?
I don't know.
Because I don't believe any reports about this.
If you, if you assume that the pandemic, you know, was sort of in between the two administrations, it just means that any data comparing them would be ridiculous.
So even if the data is correct on the economy, we don't know how to analyze it.
So you got one case where the data might be correct, but half of the country is seeing a cropped view of it, so they have a whole different opposite of view.
So that's useless.
The economic information, even if it were accurate, which I doubt, you still wouldn't know how to analyze it, because the country doesn't know how to analyze Somebody who had a pandemic at the end of his administration to somebody who had a pandemic at the beginning of their administration.
Nobody knows how to do that.
Like, there might be a few experts who could do it, but you don't know how to do it.
How about the border?
Democrats believe they looked at the border and immigration is at a low.
Illegal immigration.
And Republicans think it's at an all-time high.
The truth probably has something to do with the fact that we've turned, not we, the administration has turned illegal immigration into legal immigration by putting them through the asylum door.
So technically, they're all legal.
They're just not citizens.
They're legal.
They came under asylum.
But they lied about the asylum.
But since that's not proven in any kind of court, they're innocent until proven guilty.
So it's not really illegal, unless it's proven illegal, and you can't read somebody's mind to know that they were really not motivated by asylum and getting away from trouble.
We have no way to know.
So I would say that our information on the economy and the border are garbage, crime.
We can't figure out what's going on there.
Climate, of course, is just a big old mess.
You know, we're going to argue about whether the climate can be even measured or predicted.
Of course it can't.
And of course, you've seen the numbers on inflation.
Um, Harris says it's down.
Trump says it's up, but we're looking at different stuff.
One is looking at the base.
The other is looking at the rate of increase.
Now, Those are the biggest things.
Now, even when you come to something like abortion, where you think, well, abortion is not about data at all, is it?
There's no data argument about abortion.
It's just, you know, is it a life?
Is it not?
Is it right?
Is it wrong?
Is bodily autonomy more important than what some would say is a life?
We pretend that that matters.
But it's actually a data question, and we don't agree on the data.
Here's why.
If I told you, you know, the Democrats do say that they would allow abortion under, for any reason, at any age, you know, even up to the ninth month.
But suppose you knew that it never happened.
I'm not saying that's the truth.
This is hypothetical.
Suppose you knew than nobody had ever aborted a baby at nine months for just not wanting a baby. They had done it maybe plenty of times when the mother actually thought they would die and the baby wasn't viable or you know special cases. But it's a daily argument. You wouldn't even care about the law if you knew that there was no case where anybody would abuse that law.
Right? It would change the argument quite a bit.
So even the things you think have nothing to do with data are data arguments, and the data is useless because we don't agree on it.
But at least science is reliable.
Thank God.
Thank God we've got science.
Let's see, a recent number, the number of retractions of scientific papers has risen sharply.
Oh, that's not good.
For example, in 2023, More than 10,000 research papers were retracted globally.
10,000.
10,000 scientific papers were withdrawn.
How many do you think were fake that were not withdrawn?
More than 10,000.
These are just the ones that got caught.
Just hold that in your mind.
It's only the ones who got caught.
10,000 of them.
Since... How many was it in 2013?
So a little more than 10 years ago.
It was only 1,500 that year.
Only 1,500.
And in 2023, it was 10,000.
This year, probably more.
1500.
And in 2023, it was 10,000.
This year, probably more.
Over the entire time, in the past decade, how many scientific papers have been retracted?
39,000.
9,000 scientific research papers were retracted.
We're retracted.
And again, it's a very important point, they're only the ones who got caught.
You tell me.
What is the real number of fake or inaccurate scientific papers if 39,000 of them got caught and it's hard to catch?
100,000?
I don't know.
But I'd say 100,000 wouldn't be a crazy guess.
100,000?
So it's a good thing that science is accurate, right?
Now, for the NPCs, I'd like to take a moment to talk to the NPCs.
Camera 2, NPCs.
NPCs, nothing I said was relevant to the scientific process.
The scientific process might be the best we have.
I didn't say we should discontinue the scientific method.
I did not criticize the scientific method.
I simply said that 39,000 people got the wrong answer for one reason or another, so you can't trust the output automatically.
But still, science and the scientific method might be the best we have.
So if you're dying to come into the comments to say, Scott, Scott, if you don't believe in science, How are you going to know what's true?
So you can come in like a drunken NPC and act like you didn't hear the point.
And that is my point.
That even if you get the right information in front of people, we'll find a way to misinterpret it.
Guaranteed.
And then 400 economists backing Kamala Harris.
That means that there are probably X number of economists who are backing Trump.
What is the point of being an expert on economics if you can't tell the difference between their two plans and what would be better for the economy?
Are economist opinions any good?
No, not if they're on different sides.
The one time that economist opinions worked are when there were no economists who said that price controls are a good idea.
Then it worked.
That's a rare case.
But when you're looking at like, A complex set of variables that Harris would do versus the complex set of variables that Trump would do?
The economists end up disagreeing.
And, oh, surprise!
They end up agreeing with their political party that they're already registered for.
So what good was the economics?
If all you're going to do is agree with your party after you did your economic analysis, did you add anything?
No, you didn't.
Jamie Dimon, who I believe is a lifelong Democrat and our most important banker, the biggest of the bankers.
He loves Elon Musk's idea of making the government more efficient and cutting out the waste.
You said that on a recent idea.
He also said, I think it was the same interview, that countries have to have strong borders.
Huh.
Lifelong Democrat.
Seems to be in favor of something that only Trump is going to do for reducing costs.
Seems to be in favor of a Trump version of border security.
Say it.
Say it, Jamie.
Say it.
You know you want to.
You know you want to.
Oh, you're so close.
Elon Musk said it.
Bill Ackman said it.
Mr. Wonderful said it.
The All In Pod guys, some of them, said it.
It's safe.
You can come out, Jamie.
You can come out.
Come on.
You can do it.
We're waiting for you.
We love you.
We love you, Jamie.
Come on.
You're so close.
Meanwhile, manufacturing is slumped to a 15 month low as inflation goes up.
So the urgency to pick a president who is the best on manufacturing is good.
I'm still thinking that the real way to be a manufacturing powerhouse is with robots.
And we're not quite quite there, but very, very close to the point where we can build an entire Probably build something in America that uses a robot and 3D printing and doesn't have to ship as far because it's locally.
We may be at the point where manufacturing in the United States, because you get rid of the most of the labor, could work.
We're almost there.
Well, according to the New York Post, early mail-in voting in three of the swing states shows a huge, let's say, closing the gap by Trump, because it used to be that the Democrats, by a huge margin, were voting by mail.
And so the idea is that now that there are more Republicans, relatively, still fewer people voting who are Republican, voting by mail.
But the gap is closed quite a bit in the early voting.
I'm not sure that tells you anything.
Are you with me on that?
I don't think that's an indicator.
You want to hear it as an indicator that it's good for Trump?
I don't know that the indicator tells you one thing or another.
Because don't you believe that the mail-in is about the cheating?
No, you?
And the cheating doesn't have to come early.
That could come later.
So, I don't think that's telling you anything.
I wouldn't get comfortable because of that.
Well, meanwhile, Diddy's former bodyguard says we're going to find out a whole bunch of stuff about his freak-off parties, and there are going to be famous people involved.
And that Diddy, I think a lot of people, not just the bodyguard, but people have come to believe that Diddy is part of a massive, you know, blackmail operation, much like Epstein.
So let's say, if you're keeping track, the entities that are corrupt are The media, the Department of Justice, the Democrats.
We got the FBI, the Secret Service, the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, the CDC.
Corrupt.
Every government regulatory body, corrupt.
400 economists, corrupt.
And music, the music industry.
And entertainment is basically a raping situation.
Raping and blackmail.
Child sex, raping and blackmail is your musical things.
Now I would like to put an image in your mind that's going to make some of you laugh.
Have you ever seen the movie Underworld with Kate Beckinsale playing a vampire?
And there's this underworld fight between the vampires, who are real, and the werewolves, the lycans.
And you saw the head of the vampires is this, you know, very ancient, old, wrinkled, white guy.
And he's kind of, he kind of has a vibe about him.
But as it turns out that the top vampire, you know, turned the other vampires by biting them and turning them into vampires.
And then those vampires bit other vampires and then they became vampires.
Now think of the music industry and think of Clive Davis as the top vampire.
Now, I don't personally have any accusations against Clive Davis or anybody else, because I don't know.
I wasn't there.
And I don't trust stories in the news of this type.
However, if the rumors were true, it would be that Clive Davis was the ancient head vampire who turned Diddy, who turned Usher.
Who turned Bieber and created this industry of hip-hop people who dressed in all black, like vampires.
And they came out only at night, like vampires.
The correlation between that world, that movie Underworld, and the vampire world, and what the current hip-hop music industry looks like, it's really shockingly similar.
You know, if the rumors are true.
And again, I don't personally have any information that would say Clive Davis did anything illegal or immoral or unethical.
And you have to watch out, because there's going to be accusations against people who are not involved in anything.
But the indications are that there's some kind of a long-term flipping of people into blackmail situations and gay sex, etc.
Well, I don't know if this is true, but because Ben Shapiro reposted it, he would do a better job of checking to make sure something is true than I would.
So, uh, he showed a picture of Hezbollah leadership in like a graph and it showed that everybody below the top guy has already been killed by Israel.
So I didn't count them, but it looked like maybe, I don't know, 15 or 16 sub commanders under the top guy are all dead now.
Now here's my question.
If that's true, that a hundred percent of the, you know, the, the underlings are dead.
At the high level underlings.
There's probably more levels of underlings.
But if the top two levels of underlings below the number one guy are completely gone, is it an accident that the top guy is still alive?
And I'm going to say no.
I think Israel is keeping the top guy alive intentionally.
Here's why.
Number one, If you really, really, really hated this top guy, and you really wanted to punish him, and you really just hated him, so it's more than war, it's personal, and I imagine it wouldn't be personal.
If you put me in that situation, and I captured that top guy, I would torture him before I killed him.
I can't even pretend I wouldn't.
Like, if I lived in Israel, and I had to worry about that guy, That guy, authorizing missiles that are coming at my house every freaking day?
Yeah, if I caught him myself, I would torture him before I killed him.
Like, actually, literally, no joke.
So, how would I feel if I were in the Israeli IDF or the government?
Same way.
It would be personal.
Not as personal for the individual terrorists, because maybe they're just brainwashed or whatever, but the top guy?
No, that's personal.
That's personal.
Now, if you really, really, really wanted to torture the top guy, what you would do is you would keep him alive so he could see that everything he built and everybody he loves gets killed right in front of him.
And that's what they're doing.
Now, I don't know if they had any conscious thought along those lines.
Probably not.
But you do notice that people tend to do the things that their subconscious really, really, really wants them to do, even if they don't verbalize it.
But the other possibility is you need to keep the top one to negotiate any kind of a settlement.
So you wouldn't have anybody to negotiate with if you get rid of them and you want to get something done quickly.
So it could be they need to keep him around.
It could be he's just harder to get, but I don't feel like that's what's happening.
I feel like they could get him when they want.
And it could be that showing that they can get every single person but leaving the top one in place is basically a very clear threat that says in two weeks you're going to be dead unless you stand down.
Because that's what it feels like.
It feels like they can do it anytime they want.
And so you need to change, because we just took out your whole leadership.
Will he change?
I doubt it.
But then they get the secondary fun of making him watch while they destroy everything he loved, everything he cared about, everything he built, and brings nothing but ruin upon his people.
And he's going to watch it.
And he's going to know that that was him.
Now he might be such a, such a terrorist that he still thinks it's wonderful because they're all going to heaven or something, but that's what's happening.
And so ladies and gentlemen, uh, that is my prepared remarks ran way too late.
So I'm going to say bye to everybody except locals and I'll just very quickly say hi to them.
So, I'll see you tomorrow everybody else on X and rumble and YouTube and locals.
