Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Dec. 30, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams

01:44:52

Episode 2705 CWSA 12/30/24

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, President Carter's Influence, Redhead Traits, Thomas Massie, Congressional Misconduct Payoff Fund, Costco DEI, MAHA, RFK Jr., Anti-Cancer Ivermectin Fenbendazole, Dr. William Makis, Metastatic Prostate Cancer, Robert Brooks Death, Kamala Book Deal, Understanding Book Contracts, Catherine Herridge, OpenAI Whistleblower Death, Suchir Balaji, Government AI Control, CBS Jan Crawford, Biden's Cognitive Decline, Underreported News, Anti-Trump Obvious Coordinated Hoaxes, Mass Immigration Today, World Bank Climate Change Funds, Big Organization Corruption, Bone Conduction Earpieces, 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

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Everything's working great today.
	Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
	and it's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I'm pretty sure you've never had a better time.
	But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice, a stein, a canteen, a jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind, and fill it with your favorite liquid.
	I like coffee.
	And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day thing that makes everything better.
	It's called the simultaneous sip.
	It happens now.
	Go.
	Go.
	I think I'm going to be adding some variation to the simultaneous sip, depending on the news.
	So today I'd like to introduce the There's a Suspicious Drone Above Me SIP. You want to try this with me?
	I'll model it, and you just do what I do.
	It's called, There's a Suspicious Drone Above Me, Sip.
	And it goes like this.
	There, just like that.
	There.
	If you're only listening, oh boy, did you miss a great comic moment.
	Yeah, we'll do more of those.
	Well, Jimmy Carter, ex-President Carter, has died at the age of 100. I don't think anybody's ever stuck the landing like he did.
	You know, you hope you have a good life, but wouldn't you like to stick the landing, you know, go out just the way you want to?
	Think of the ways he stuck the landing.
	He lived long enough to become 100, which just feels like so cool.
	I mean, wouldn't it be disappointing to die at 99?
	You'd be like, really?
	Just a few more months?
	I could be 100?
	It feels like that would be an achievement.
	So he reaches 100, He makes it through Christmas, but he doesn't have to stay up late for New Year's Eve, and it's the slowest news week of the year so he can get the full respect and attention that an ex-president deserves.
	He outlived his wife that he was married to all his life, which is the kindest thing you can do, because you don't want your spouse to be surviving, because it puts him in a bad situation.
	So he gets that right.
	And best of all, as others have pointed out, he lived long enough so that Biden could have become the worst president of all time, and it wasn't him.
	That's sticking the landing.
	I mean, that's as good as you can do.
	But I have to tell you that it's worth noting, because he's going to be criticized as well as complimented today.
	But it's worth noting that he is the reason I didn't vote from my 20s to my 60s.
	Because when I was a very young man...
	The first time I was old enough to vote, I was out of college, and I thought, I'm going to get me some involvement in politics.
	Because you know what I thought?
	The reason I voted, very obvious reason I voted, I voted because I knew that my opinion, because I'm so smart, I'm so smart, I knew that my opinion would improve the average of the country.
	And I was kind of a patriot, even young.
	And I thought, you know, You know what this country needs?
	It needs me to weigh in on this vote.
	Because, you know, if the smart people don't vote, what could become of the country?
	So I walked right down there and I cast my vote for Jimmy Carter because the news told me, the news, said that that Reagan guy was some kind of a Crazy warmonger and he wanted me to get a haircut even if I didn't want one.
	So I believe the news.
	So I voted for the angel.
	Not the devil.
	The angel.
	And I was quite happy with my vote, quite satisfied with myself.
	And then I watched the Carter presidency unfold.
	And when it was done, I said to myself, I really shouldn't vote.
	I don't seem to have what it takes to do this well.
	Is it because I'm not experienced?
	Is it because I'm not smart?
	And I thought I was, but turns out no.
	Turns out no.
	There's no evidence of that smartness whatsoever.
	And so I took several decades off of voting because I knew I didn't have the skill.
	I knew I was not adding to the average intelligence of the political part of the country.
	And that's not a joke, by the way.
	Literally, Jimmy Carter stopped me from voting for decades because I thought, well, I'm just making things worse.
	Why would I spend my whole day, you know, schedule my day's activity around making the country worse?
	I don't want the country to be worse.
	I don't want that.
	So it wasn't until this recent election where I said to myself, all right, this one's unambiguous.
	I got one wrong in my 20s, but I feel like I picked up a few tips since then.
	One of those tips was, wait a minute.
	Are you telling me everything on the news is fake?
	I mean, some of it's real, right?
	Wait a minute.
	All of it's fake?
	Well, not all of it.
	That's just like a hyperbole.
	No, all of it?
	It's all fake.
	It's so hard to get to that point where it's not all untrue.
	But by the time they package it up into a narrative, the facts, which in many cases are true, don't add up to the narrative.
	So the narrative is the fake part.
	So I knew that the Biden situation was obviously being ignored by the media.
	I knew that Trump is really our only hope, and especially when the Doge volunteers took over, I said, well, we have one chance, so this one's easy.
	I'm pretty happy with my vote for Trump so far.
	But Jimmy Carter, we will give you our respect as a servant of the country, tried hard, meant well, did his best, and that's as good as we can do.
	Meant well, tried hard, did his best.
	I respect that.
	All right, meanwhile, China has made a big breakthrough, maybe one of the most exciting technological breakthroughs I've ever heard of, According to Interesting Engineering and Christopher McFadden, he writes that the Chinese have developed a robot that can give you a massage.
	It can pinch you and vibrate with human-like hands.
	It gives you a traditional Chinese massage.
	I'd like to take a moment for the NPCs.
	If there are any NPCs, Could you add the happy ending joke that this story requires?
	It's not funny, but you know you have to do it anyway.
	Go ahead.
	Make your robot happy ending jokes.
	Get it out.
	There you go.
	There you go.
	Good, good.
	Dominic71, right on schedule.
	Anybody else?
	Any other NPCs who want to vote in?
	Happy ending.
	There you go.
	We got another NPC. Anybody else want to say happy ending?
	I want all the NPCs to weigh in.
	Now remember, this is just the NPCs.
	Swimming is the best form of exercise.
	The matrix should be mentioned whenever there's anything going on about a simulation.
	Very important.
	And if there's any new food source, any kind of food upgrade or source, you need to say, Soylent Green is people.
	But most importantly, whenever the topic of massage comes up, you must go into the comments and say, was there a happy ending?
	Was there a happy ending?
	And then we know you're an NPC. The way you can identify the NPCs is that they'll always say the most obvious thing that could be said on every topic.
	And that's the most obvious thing.
	All right.
	But so it begins.
	Certainly, I'll be getting one of my Chinese massage robots as soon as it's available for sale.
	But in other news, scientists have discovered that what you expected...
	To be true about redheads is totally true.
	It said that redheads don't feel pain the same as other women.
	So we're talking about women in particular.
	And in a separate study, they found that redheads do have higher sexual desire and more orgasms.
	According to the Daily Mail, Nick Constable is writing about this.
	He says that red-headed women have genetically different pain thresholds, although that's hard to know because it's subjective.
	But in a separate study, highest orgasm rate, 41% of all hair types.
	I don't know what the 41% is.
	So there it is.
	Redheads have more orgasms and they're They're more sexual.
	You could have just asked Scott.
	All right.
	You know, I have the running joke that I always talk about these studies that come up with obvious answers and they should have just asked me instead of doing the study.
	I think it's funny that they should have just asked me if redheads are hornier.
	Because that's something I learned when I was 13. Do you remember the first time you heard it?
	I was probably about 13. And somebody said, you know, redheaded girls, they're way hornier.
	And I said, really?
	Oh yeah, everybody knows it.
	It's a fact.
	Scientific fact.
	And I would think to myself, probably not scientific.
	And people would say, well, but it's a fact.
	I mean, everybody knows it.
	It's just obvious.
	And I would argue it could not possibly be true.
	It's a scientific fact.
	But I guess when I order my Chinese robot masseuse, I'm going to get the redhead.
	I'm going to get the redhead massage robot, just in case.
	There's no evidence that the redheadedness would affect the actual robot.
	But if they're working on patterns and large language models, and you give them redhead...
	I don't know.
	Maybe a little extra.
	Maybe a little extra.
	I don't know.
	Meanwhile, I think it was in San Francisco, a Waymo self-driving car ran into a delivery robot that was also self-driving.
	So it wasn't much damage.
	So the good news is it didn't seem to disable either vehicles.
	They just sort of tapped each other and backed up and got on with their business.
	So it does fall into the category of something going wrong that proves to you that something is going right.
	The fact that it was a rare accident...
	That it made it into the news because it was rare.
	Well, it was special because there were two self-driving things.
	But the fact that it didn't really cause any damage, that it was a low-speed kind of a minor thing, is more good news than bad news, I think.
	Now, I don't think Waymo is where Tesla is in terms of self-driving yet.
	So the self-driving thing is definitely here.
	If you're wondering, I wonder if they'll ever be safe enough for self-driving, because I wondered that.
	But I feel like it's here.
	I feel like we're already at the crossover point, where if you just told your...
	Let's pick Tesla.
	If you told your Tesla just to do all your driving for you, if you could do it legally without touching the steering wheel...
	I'll bet you it would give you a better safety result right now, on average, than human driving.
	Now, especially if you're somebody who likes to have a drink and drive anyway, not recommended, but people will sometimes say, well, I don't think I'm over the limit.
	I must be just under the limit.
	Then you get in your car because you're dumb because you're drunk.
	So it takes that away.
	And then it also takes away age-related things and tiredness.
	So if you add, you know, alcohol, drugs, tiredness, and age to a human driver, I'm pretty, pretty sure you don't need to do a study to find out that the Tesla self-driving would beat all of those.
	It would beat all of those.
	As the years tick by, I'm starting to watch my own actions pretty closely.
	Let me ask you a question.
	I know a lot of my regular audience are seniors.
	How many of you, if you're not married, How many of you have designated somebody to tell you when it's time to take your keys away?
	Does anybody have somebody in their life that they've pre-designated as, when you tell me to take the keys away, I'm going to take that seriously?
	If you haven't done that, think about doing it.
	Try to find somebody in your life who's the one person you will trust when you reach the point where you don't trust anybody because your brain isn't working so well.
	So if you're not married, you know, your spouse is the one who should do it, of course.
	But if you're not married, you should really think about making a commitment, maybe not legally, but make a commitment to somebody that if you tell me to give up the keys, I'm going to listen to you.
	Because if you promise yourself that you will listen to somebody specific, then when you change your mind, because you will, because you'll want to keep driving because your brain isn't working, you have some chance, some chance that the process will work if you designate that person in advance.
	So that's my recommendation.
	Thomas Massey is...
	And also Marjorie Taylor Greene are urging the release of the Congressional Sexual Slush Fund list.
	Zero Hedge is reporting on this.
	So you're probably aware that Congress has a special secret fund just to pay off the accusers of members of Congress for sexual misconduct.
	I guess it would be harassment and MeTooing and God knows what.
	So the fact that it exists at all, just the fact that it exists is just mind-blowing.
	Now, it doesn't exist just for that.
	I think it handles some things outside of Congress.
	But the fact that there's a $17 million fund for something that looks like it's paying off the sex crimes of Congress and we can't figure out who they are is pretty shocking.
	Now, do you think that there's any chance this list will be released?
	No, there's no chance that list is going to be released.
	I saw in the comments that maybe it would have to be legislation.
	It's not just somebody's decision.
	It's probably legislation would be required to make that list public.
	Do you think Congress is going to vote for that?
	Because think about how many members of Congress have either already been accused and used that fund, or, here's the funny part, or they think they might have to use it in the future.
	So there probably are not that many people in Congress who have already used it.
	I mean, we might be appalled by how many there are, but it's going to be, you know, a small percentage of all of Congress.
	But what percentage of all of Congress thinks, maybe, I mean, if somebody accuses me, wouldn't it be nice to have that sitting by, just to get out of jail free?
	So I don't think that the men are going to vote for that.
	I think they're going to come up with some BS reason.
	Well, in terms of privacy and the continuity of the Congress, it's going to be something like that.
	We don't want to be distracted by all the fake claims because people would start making fake claims against us if they thought we would be blackmailed.
	Oh, it's a way to protect us.
	Oh, that's it.
	It's a way to protect us from being blackmailed.
	That's it.
	So all the people who have used it or think they want to use it in the future are going to say, no, it's there for a reason.
	The secrecy is so we can't be blackmailed.
	And if somebody tries and If we have to pay them off, we'll do it, but the blackmail will not be successful.
	There's no way you're ever going to hear that list.
	No way.
	All right.
	You probably heard that Costco was challenged over its DEI program, but the board of directors unanimously decided that That they're going to keep their DEI, if not make more of it.
	So apparently the DOJ appointee Harmeet Dillon is the one who will be going after the corporate DEI policies, which of course are blatantly illegal.
	Now they can do the blatantly illegal Because our system has put them in a bind, which is, unless you discriminate by race, unless you do it, the public won't like you, and people will protest you, and you look like racists.
	So the corporations are in a tough bind.
	You can either do something that you must know is illegal, racial discrimination.
	Who doesn't know that's illegal?
	Do you think there's a CEO who's not completely aware of That discriminating overtly, discriminating by race, has got to be illegal, according to our system.
	But we don't treat it that way.
	So instead, we were focusing, have been, on diversity and stuff.
	And so the CEO is in this bind.
	You can't not do it if everybody else is doing it.
	That would be suicide.
	But if you do it, you're clearly breaking an important law.
	So what do you do?
	Well, mostly they do what everybody else does.
	So it's more of a herd situation.
	Some of them might be true believers, but mostly they just know they have to go along with it.
	So how hard would it be for Harmeet or anybody in that position to reverse the entire saturated corporate environment?
	How many corporations are we talking about?
	Like beyond the Fortune 500, Tens of thousands of major corporations that are below the top 500. Probably tens of thousands, right?
	And so that seems like an almost undoable thing.
	But it's not.
	You only have to put one CEO in jail.
	Just one.
	You just have to make an example of one person.
	Now, I wouldn't randomly pick the one person.
	I'd pick somebody who seems to be, you know, extra, extra illegal.
	You know, maybe somebody who's trying too hard and fighting too hard and won't take a hint and won't get rid of it.
	You know, they're really fighting for it.
	So you might have to pick one person to take down.
	And if you take down one CEO, you only need to do one.
	Just one high profile.
	Take them down and actually give them a serious jail term, either result or risk.
	It doesn't have to go all the way to result.
	It could be just the risk.
	Because no CEO wants to spend all their time defending a DEI lawsuit.
	That's just a losing proposition.
	Even if you won the case, it's a complete losing situation.
	So you pick one.
	And you make it public, and you just go after them.
	If you can get that one person to say, I sure wish I hadn't done this, it's going to give all the other CEOs everywhere permission and an excuse to back off.
	Because they'd have a personal reason.
	I don't want to go to jail because the government just told me this is illegal.
	And I have a responsibility to keep this company out of legal trouble.
	Not just myself, but I have a responsibility to keep the company out of legal trouble.
	So as much as I love this DEI stuff, this evil government and bad old Trump is going to make me get rid of it.
	So you really only have to do one.
	Just one CEO and the whole thing will disappear pretty quickly.
	Now, Do I believe that a CEO should be jailed over what is obviously deeply illegal?
	And the answer is no.
	Even if that person got convicted, I think I would almost immediately commute the sentence.
	You might keep the conviction because, you know, they could explain that away.
	It wouldn't really hurt their career.
	But I don't think...
	That if the government is the one that forced you into DEI and then the next administration says it's illegal and takes you a while to unwind it or you haven't done it yet, I feel like that's partly the government's fault.
	Do you hear me?
	If the government under Trump went after a CEO or a company for DEI, but it was the government who was pushing DEI before that, It's still illegal.
	Still illegal.
	So you have to deal with it as a crime.
	But the first CEO, I think you need to commute the sentence.
	Give him a five-year sentence for discrimination.
	Whatever it is.
	I don't know.
	Maybe it's a fine.
	If it's a fine, then I'd give him the fine.
	But if it's a question of somebody actually being in a jail cell, I think the president should commute it, if it's possible.
	You know, somebody should commute it.
	Because I don't actually want to see a CEO go to jail.
	Not for that.
	If the government forced the CEO into a position where they figured they had to be at DEI or else the company couldn't thrive, That's very understandable.
	So, yeah, debank them.
	Now, I think we have to be human.
	As much as I think we have to respect the legal system, there's a reason that the legal system is populated with humans.
	Because the humans have the ability to override any injustice that the system presents.
	That's the human part.
	We like that.
	That's why there are such things as commuting and pardoning and stuff.
	We like that the humans could Even look at the evidence and say you're guilty, but the jury could...
	What's that called?
	Jury nullification?
	So humans can override the Justice Department, and this would be a perfect example of that.
	So I'd love to see the Justice Department do what it does, find somebody guilty of DEI, but then make sure that the punishment is handled in a human way, not in a justice system way.
	Because we humans put that CEO in that position.
	So the humans need to get him out, right?
	We have that responsibility.
	Meanwhile, there's a little disagreement in the government about the anti-obesity drugs like Ozempic and there's some like it.
	Apparently, Dr. Oz likes them.
	Elon Musk likes them.
	In fact, he's using one that he likes and thinks maybe there's more use for it in the world.
	So he's pro that.
	But RFK Jr. says they have a place, but he is really pushing for more natural weight loss.
	I can confirm, and I think everybody who's tried this can confirm.
	Like everybody else in the world, in most of my adult life, I could see that I was gaining more weight than I wanted.
	Just what I thought was just normal eating.
	But as soon as I learned more about diet, and I stopped eating things that are clearly just bad for you, I stopped eating wheat and processed foods for the most part.
	And I can't keep weight on.
	I could eat all day long, and I don't think I could gain weight if I wanted to.
	I would look like the people, you see the old photos of people in the 40s and the 30s walking the streets in New York, and not one of them is overweight, not even one, because they were eating the food that I eat now.
	I don't think I could be overweight.
	I honestly eat all I want all day long.
	And I look in the mirror and go, oh, looks like I lost weight again.
	So, yeah.
	RFK Jr. is 100% right that if he could do something to fix our food supply, which is clearly poisoned, we wouldn't eat any Ozempic.
	But I would agree with Kennedy when he says it has a place.
	You know, if you're 400 pounds...
	Fixing your diet is not going to get there fast enough.
	So you might need to do something at the same time you're fixing your diet.
	All right.
	You may know that there are claims that ivermectin and a similar drug, fenbendazole, have been sending signals that they could be useful for treating cancer in humans.
	Now, I've been looking into it for a variety of reasons, and one of them is that I'm always interested in how data is collected.
	I know, it's kind of nerdy.
	But we've seen so many things that we're told by science was true, that were untrue, and vice versa, that I have such deep disrespect for the scientific community's ability to tell me what works, that I look at everything with super skepticism.
	Now, I don't know the truth.
	So here's the first part you need to know.
	I do not know.
	I do not know if these two drugs help with cancer.
	I do not know.
	So I'm not saying they don't.
	I'm not saying they do.
	So that's the most important thing you need to hear.
	What I'm going to talk about is how you would decide, given that the information is not perfect.
	So given imperfect information in a world where it's hard to know who to trust, what would you look to to see if it works?
	So the first thing you need to know is that, I believe, ivermectin and fenbenazole, which is a similar anti-wormer kind of thing.
	It's just different.
	That they do work in the lab.
	So if you put them in a test tube with, not a test tube, but whatever.
	If you put some cancer cells in the lab and you throw these things on, it kills the cancer cells or something like that.
	So it works in the lab.
	In addition, it works on animals.
	Now, that's good news.
	If it works on animals, you're at least up to about 5% chance it will work on humans.
	So only about 5% of the time does something work in an animal and also work in humans.
	Now, given that these are well-known and well-tolerated drugs and inexpensive, we know that there's probably not a risk of dying.
	Well, there's always some risk, but a small risk.
	So if we're not worried about the side effects, and that doesn't seem to be the biggest problem, there are some, but it's not the biggest problem, then maybe that 5% chance is a little bit greater, right?
	So the first thing you need to know is if the only thing you know is it works in animals, in general, there's a 5% chance it'll work in humans.
	But some part of what prevents it from working in humans would be the side effects.
	But these don't really have side effects that would be large enough that you'd care if it worked against your cancer.
	So maybe more than 5%.
	But on top of that, there are very strong signals from humans.
	So you'll see quite a few claims online of, you know, this person got better, this person got better.
	You know, they have actual names of people and specific studies where somebody appeared to Either clear their cancer entirely, and I talked to one person who had that experience, and others who seem to be getting good results.
	Now, so those are the things that everybody would agree on.
	So everybody agrees, works in the lab, works in animals, doesn't have too many side effects, and there's really strong signals from a whole variety of different researchers.
	And it's been studied.
	Not in isolated studies.
	But here's the claim.
	The claim is that in people, it works primarily when it's in conjunction with other treatment.
	So in other words, if you're giving one of the pills that treat you for a certain kind of cancer, because different cancers have different treatments.
	So if you're doing the chemo or you're taking a pill, Because that's a normal thing you would do for these cancers.
	Then you also take the ivermectin and or fenbenazole.
	The claim is that the other thing you're doing is more effective.
	So the claim, again, this is not my claim.
	I'm not saying it's true or false.
	I don't know.
	But the claim is that there are enough individual anecdotal cases where somebody would do the normal treatment, but then they add in these drugs, And then reportedly, they would get a better result if they added in these treatments.
	Now, what do you make of this situation so far?
	If the only thing I told you is that it seems to work on animals by itself, not in conjunction with other treatments, but as soon as they treated it on people, the signal that they could find most clearly is when they combined it with another treatment.
	Now the, quote, other treatments exist because they work, right?
	The reason chemo exists is because it works.
	Not 100%, not in every person in every way.
	So would you agree with the following statement?
	That if you were just looking at one person having chemo, you could not really predict how it's going to go.
	They could have a real good result all the way to complete remission, depending on the cancer.
	They could also have not such good luck, like the cancer is more aggressive and it doesn't do enough to help.
	So if you're combining the thing that works for sure by itself in an animal, but we know that there's kind of a small chance it's going to work in humans, and then when you test it with humans, the signal seems strong when they're doing the other thing at the same time.
	But they haven't done the gold standard controlled trial.
	They just say, it looks like it gives you a little extra when combined with the other thing.
	Here's my question.
	If the other thing it's combined with can be all over the map in terms of how effective it is by itself, and then you add this one new thing, and let's say hypothetically it did nothing at all, Wouldn't you produce a whole bunch of people who seem to have a better than average outcome because some people always have better than average outcomes?
	And then you say, yes, I gave this person chemo and I also gave them the pill and they did much better than the average person.
	Would that tell you anything?
	I would say no.
	I would say no.
	That doesn't tell you anything with certainty because people would have great variability on the other thing they're on.
	So how do you know it isn't just an ordinary variability?
	Well, the way you would find that out is through a large controlled study, which has not been done.
	So the one thing that would tell you if it works, a large controlled study, I don't think that's been done.
	But there have been studies where they said, hey, Somebody doing chemo seemed to get good results.
	Now, the other thing that messes up the data is human beings.
	If you find me a human who's taking ivermectin, let's say in addition to chemo, do you think that's the only thing they're taking?
	No.
	If somebody's taking ivermectin, they've said, Dana, I'm going to have to do this myself.
	So I'm going to change my diet.
	So you'll find people who went on a keto or, I think keto usually, went on a keto diet.
	They changed their lifestyle.
	Maybe they added some healthy stuff.
	They started boosting their vitamin D, because why wouldn't you?
	Then they did some research.
	They found out, oh, there's five different supplements that seem to help you sort of in a general way, maybe, you know, your immune system.
	So maybe you take that too.
	And you start making all these changes.
	How do you really know what made the difference?
	Because there's nobody who just took the one thing.
	So here's what I would call proof.
	Proof to me would look like this.
	We have a cancer that we have no cure for.
	You could do chemo and it won't cure you.
	You could do radiation, you could take a pill, it won't cure you.
	We know that.
	That's known.
	But here's somebody who had that incurable disease and they took nothing but these pills.
	And then they got better.
	There's no way to explain that if it's, let's say, several people.
	There'd be no way to explain that unless it worked.
	Would you agree?
	It's incurable, but here's five people who cured it taking this pill.
	So, if I found five people who did nothing but the pills and they had complete success against an incurable disease, not the curable kinds, Because the curable kinds, you're already using the curable, the cure.
	If chemo could cure you, you're already on chemo, right?
	No doubt about it, if it could cure you.
	So I don't believe that we've seen a signal that guarantees it works.
	We've seen enough signal to be really, really interested.
	And so a lot of researchers are Doing everything they can to dig deeper and work with enough anecdotal situations that you can build up a database that you can tell whether it works or not.
	So here's my overall framing.
	You can't tell anything if it works in a lab.
	You can't really tell anything if it works in an animal.
	You can't tell anything if you test it on somebody who's also doing other things.
	Right?
	Do you agree with that?
	Unless it's a really big study, gold standard, controls, and everybody in it is only doing the things that you're looking for, there isn't somebody who's also overdosing on vitamin D, and there isn't somebody in the study who's also doing three things that they didn't mention.
	You could do it, but nobody's done anything near that.
	So here's my challenge.
	I'm always suspicious that When a drug works on an animal by itself, but when you test it on humans, it only works when you're doing something else that you know works.
	It has variability.
	Individuals respond to it in a variable way.
	That doesn't feel like enough to me.
	Now, there have been some...
	A lot of people have said, Scott, you're wrong.
	We do have examples where somebody took this and got better.
	I want to talk to one.
	So if you can find one, here's what I'm looking for.
	I'm going to take an incurable example, metastatic prostate cancer.
	We'll just keep it to that because that's incurable.
	There's no cure to that.
	You can slow it down, but you can't cure it.
	If your prostate cancer is localized, it can be cured by removing it and some other kinds of processes.
	But once it's going past the prostate, there's no known cure.
	So, find me any person who, for their own reasons or whatever, took only these pills, ivermectin and fentonbenazole, and cured it.
	And just cured it.
	And the doctors would confirm that they don't have it anymore.
	If that's true, I need to talk to that person.
	And it might only take me one, although if you're talking to one, you don't know if they're telling you the truth or maybe the doctors misdiagnosed them or something.
	So you probably need a small handful.
	But I wouldn't need, I don't think I'd need a gold standard trial.
	If you said, well, here's five people, and I talked to myself, and they'd go, yeah, I promise you, the only thing I did differently is maybe I took a little extra vitamin D. I wouldn't count that.
	But I took these two drugs, and here's my doctor's report.
	It says I'm cleared.
	Now, if I saw that, I'd say, we'd better get on this right away.
	So I'll put this challenge out.
	I believe that the signals are very strong.
	So I see Dr. Mack is being mentioned.
	So I'm familiar with all the players at this point.
	I've looked into it enough that I know the players.
	And they do have strong signals.
	So I'm not telling you it doesn't work.
	I literally do not know.
	I hope it does.
	I'd be really happy if it did.
	But you need to find me a few people, or even one, Where there's a real, live person whose doctor says, yeah, that's all they did, as far as I know.
	They just did that one thing, and now they don't have that anymore.
	But there are other kinds of cancers, and they all respond to different things.
	So there may be 10 different cancers that it works really well on.
	And it may be, because it is a thing.
	So it is a thing that something could work in conjunction with another drug, but not make much difference by itself.
	However, the argument for ivermectin is that we know the mechanism of how it works against cancer.
	So if we know the mechanism of how it works, but it only works if you're using it with another treatment, that's not squaring with me.
	So that makes me suspicious.
	So, yes, I'm aware of the doctors you're mentioning and the experts you mentioned.
	But if anybody knows somebody who cured any kind of cancer with these pills and nothing else, I would definitely be interested in talking to them personally.
	So let's find out what's going on there.
	All right.
	Jonathan Turley is talking about how The COVID lab leak theory, how the Wall Street Journal exposed that despite the fact that there were people in the government who had been asked to study it, they'd been asked to study where that source was, and there were experts in the government who said, yeah, we're pretty sure it came from the lab.
	It was a lab leak.
	The government decided to ignore the people who they'd asked to study it, and said it's probably a lab leak, and decided to instead use the lab leak theory as a way to attack Trump as being racist and anti-science.
	So the question that Turley asks is not do we know that they covered it up, because we know that now.
	The question is why?
	Now, the obvious answer would be that Biden was owned by China.
	But this started before Biden, right?
	Didn't all the pushback from the media start during Trump's administration when he was calling it the China virus?
	I feel like the media just used anything they could use to go after Trump And that was the highest priority and nothing else mattered.
	I think that nothing mattered to the media except can we use this as a way to call Trump a racist?
	And that's what happened.
	I think it actually might be as simple as what's good for Trump and what's bad for Trump and then that's all there was.
	I don't think the science mattered.
	I don't think the data mattered.
	I don't think anything mattered.
	Except one version was bad for Trump and one wasn't.
	So they picked the bad for Trump one.
	Anyway, so I think that's the entire story.
	That Get Trump made people crazy and useless and stupid.
	Meanwhile, the Black Lives Matter movement, which I think most of you know for now was a fake movement.
	It was just funded to be anti-Trump and started narrative, but it was not organic.
	There were certainly many members of it who had honest feelings about things, but in terms of organization, which is what gets people on the streets, the organizing part of it was Not real.
	It was a fake organization.
	In terms of the funding, it was fake.
	Anyway, so what was left of BLM, they held a protest in New York over the death of Robert Brooks, which name I had never heard of until I looked into it today.
	And fewer than 20 people showed up for their Black Lives Matter protest.
	Now, when I saw the story, I thought, huh, I never even heard of this story.
	And I looked into it, and there's a video of New York correctional officers beating a black guy to death in some kind of a medical setting.
	It looks like they're in a doctor's office.
	And there's no sound on it.
	So what we see is some correctional officers in somewhat of a good mood, but some of them are just doing horrible things to a guy who appears to be Have his hands tied behind his back.
	Now, I don't know what was going on, because what they were doing to him wasn't matched with any actions that you could see from him.
	So it wasn't obvious that he was resisting anything.
	I think his hands were tied, or at least they weren't active.
	And he was being...
	Badly abused.
	I mean, really badly abused.
	So, I guess there's a question I have.
	If I had to guess, it looked like he was spitting.
	But I don't want to put that out there as a fact.
	Because there's no explanation for what they were doing to him and the way they were doing it to him unless he was spitting at them.
	They may have told him, don't spit at me, or we're going to get tough, and maybe he did, but I'm just guessing.
	Because it didn't look like they were just getting revenge for past things.
	It looked like they were trying to fix something that was happening right then that they didn't like, maybe thought it was dangerous, and they were responding with physical force.
	So I think there's more to learn about this story.
	So we have to figure out why so many people were in a room and seemingly they were all okay with what looked completely, insanely inappropriate and dangerous and racist if you're just looking at the silent video.
	But we know that video is misleading.
	It's the worst thing in the world when you're trying to figure out what really happened.
	In our simpler time, we thought, well, if we saw the video, we know what happened.
	But I think most of us are smart enough to know that video can be super misleading.
	This is one of those.
	So I don't know if people didn't show up because they didn't know what the real story was, but I doubt it.
	I don't think that's ever stopped anybody before.
	It looks like Black Lives Matter is just unfunded and defunct.
	Meanwhile, Kamala Harris got a book deal, according to Wall Street Apes, at...
	$20 million book deal.
	$20 million is very close to what she owes from all the campaign spending, but I don't think that these numbers are going to mingle.
	So my guess is that she keeps the $20 million and the campaign is a separate entity, so it'll just still owe $20 million.
	I don't think she's going to pay off the debt with her book earnings.
	But as smart people have learned, this is how, basically, this is how bribes are paid.
	You pay bribes by giving somebody a book deal.
	And then if you were to look into it, you'd say, why are you paying so much for this when you know you won't sell that many copies?
	Do you think there's any publisher who can make their money back if they do a $20 million book deal for Harris's book?
	No.
	Let me tell you something about the book industry, which I know because I was part of it.
	Sometimes publishers need to get the big names in their catalog because the big names give them all the attention of the bookstores and the booksellers, and it allows them to attract other writers.
	So if you happen to be a good writer and people want you, and you're good enough that you can shop around, wouldn't you be impressed if a past vice president or potential president had a book deal there?
	So that would tell you, oh, these are good publishers.
	If Kamala Harris picked them for her book, I mean, I'd be safe to pick them for my book because she must have done the homework, right?
	So the first thing you need to know is that these oversized book deals are marketing.
	So for the book company, it's marketing.
	So let's say you went to the book company and say, hey, we know that you'll never make your money back on this thing, so obviously it's a bribe.
	And the publisher or editor would say, well, let me explain how our industry works.
	We overpay for celebrities knowing we won't make our money back.
	But we do that because it's marketing and it attracts better authors who are more serious and we can make money on them.
	And then the investigators will have to say, oh, okay, I didn't know that was normal.
	That's the end of the trail.
	They just tell them it's normal business, and it is normal, so there's nothing to see here.
	The other thing you need to know is that when publishers announce how much they're paying for a book, it's often a total lie.
	How many of you do that?
	Do you think somebody's going to send her a check for $20 million because the news reported it?
	I once had a $25 million book deal and it was widely reported in the press.
	Dilbert Cartoonist gets a $25 million book deal Do you think I got paid $25 million for my books?
	Does anybody think that?
	No, it was totally made up.
	It's just a totally made up number.
	Now, it's made up from scraps of truth that you use some hyperbole and you say, if things went this way and if something extraordinary happened, you know, it could reach this number.
	But no, $25 million, I think, was closer to five.
	Maybe eight.
	By the time you're done, those numbers are not real.
	And then out of that, you pay your agent, or in my case, my syndication company, and then you pay taxes.
	And then you pay taxes.
	So your $25 million might be really $8 million.
	Maybe $15 million to half of that goes to another partner.
	And then half of that goes to the government.
	So a $25 million paycheck might be $4 million in cash when you're done.
	How many of you knew that?
	So when you see a book deal number, they're not real.
	Those are not real numbers.
	They're doing what they can to make it appear the biggest number.
	So it could be something like this.
	I'm not saying it is.
	But it could be that the $20 million is, if you sell this many books, we'll give you $5 million, which maybe is the market rate.
	But if something really amazing happened and you sold this many, we'd give you $10 million.
	And if you're a bestseller, we will automatically give you money for your second book, And that's another $5 million.
	But if the second book does well, that could be $15 million.
	So it's a whole bunch of if this, if this, next book, maybe $20 million.
	It's not real money.
	It's not.
	It's fake.
	Fake news.
	Catherine Herridge, Who is a well-respected journalist in our world in which not all the journalists are well-respected, but she is.
	And she said that there would be some kind of CIA whistleblower event today.
	Has anybody heard anything today?
	So Catherine Herridge, CIA whistleblower.
	Any announcement yet?
	It's coming today.
	And she's teased it as being substantial.
	Now, she would not say that, because again, one of the few credible, respected journalists.
	She wouldn't say it's a big deal, unless it was a big deal.
	So, something's coming today.
	She just posted it.
	What is it?
	She literally just posted it?
	Is it about the energy weapon?
	God, I hope not.
	It's the energy weaponist.
	Oh, don't be about the energy weapon.
	Don't be that.
	Because you know what I would worry about, right?
	Remember I just told you that she's one of the few respected journalists?
	And she got fired for CBS for being a respected journalist?
	Do you think they're done with her?
	I worry that the CIA whistleblower is an op and that somebody is going to give her some ridiculous story that will seem credible because it's a CIA guy.
	All right, here we go.
	We're looking at it.
	Breaking.
	This is Catherine Herridge.
	CIA whistleblower comes forward.
	Former intelligence officer claims career-ending injuries caused by foreign-directed energy weapons.
	Leaked Defense Department letters acknowledging injuries and experiences are real.
	Oh, it's nothing.
	Let me translate this for you.
	People just saying it's real doesn't mean anything.
	The injuries are real.
	If there's not more than the injuries are real, the part that we already knew is the injuries are real.
	That doesn't mean there's a weapon.
	I think she might be getting cracking.
	That's what it looks like.
	Because if you were the bad guys, you would want to make sure that the credible people got taken down.
	But thank you for putting that in the comments.
	Breaking news as soon as it happens.
	Do you know the story about the OpenAI whistleblower?
	So there was this gentleman who worked for OpenAI, Sushir Balaji, age 26. And before he could get his story out completely, I guess, he died of a suicide just last month.
	Suicide.
	It was ruled.
	It was a suicide in which his apartment was ransacked.
	Because what you do before you do that is you ransack your own apartment.
	A whistleblower.
	His family said he was happy.
	There were no indications he had any problems in his life.
	Let me see this.
	Neurological symptoms caused by a weapon.
	There's been a cover-up.
	You see what's missing?
	So what's missing with the CIA cover-up is, is there a picture of the weapon?
	Is there a description of the weapon?
	Is there somebody who says, yes, we have a weapon?
	Is there a video of the weapon?
	Has any Russian said we have a weapon?
	If the only reporting is, these are real injuries, but the extent of the injuries is being covered up, if that's all there is, That is not evidence of a directed energy weapon from the Soviets, or from the Russians.
	Yeah.
	And by the way, I'm not saying that there's no such thing as a directed energy weapon.
	I'm pretty sure there is.
	My only question is whether they're used in this way by Russia.
	That part I don't believe.
	Anyway, so this OpenAI whistleblower, he did some kind of analysis where he claimed that he had mathematical proof that ChatGPT is copyright violations, that mostly ChatGPT was made up of copyright violations, basically.
	And let's see.
	Here are the other things.
	According to...
	Let's see.
	There are a few different sources for this.
	It's all over the news today.
	But apparently the mother was not allowed to see his body before he was cremated.
	In what world are you not allowed to see your own son's body before it's cremated?
	That's weird.
	His family was pressured to approve rapid cremation.
	Okay?
	His hard drives vanished.
	The hard drives which were relevant to the OpenAI stuff.
	Now, these are allegations.
	So I don't know that these claims are true.
	It's just alleged.
	And his autopsy...
	The autopsy leaked and it suggested, quote, trauma in many different places on his body.
	Because that's how you end yourself.
	You beat yourself up in various parts of your body.
	Okay.
	And it was just about the time that the New York Times had a lawsuit for $157 billion against OpenAI for exactly the stuff that this fellow's analysis said really was true.
	And that 94% of ChatGPT's outputs were stolen from copyrighted works.
	I'm not sure if stolen is the right word to use because that's putting judgment on it.
	We don't know what's legal or illegal in this mode yet.
	And they say that OpenAI's CEO, Sam Altman, made no announcement to employees about it.
	Now, all of these things could be explained, don't you think?
	If you picked any one of them, it'd be like, let's say, family was pressured to approve a rapid cremation.
	Don't you think there's more to that?
	Like, maybe the reason is that they simply didn't have capacity at the morgue because there are so many fentanyl deaths.
	Because you know that San Francisco is overrun with fentanyl overdose deaths higher than ever.
	Don't you think that there's literally a capacity problem in handling the dead bodies?
	If there's a capacity problem in handling the dead bodies...
	Then you can see that they would be pressured to approve a rapid cremation.
	But it would be innocent.
	It would just be based on their capacity.
	You could imagine that that rapid pressure meant that the mother couldn't arrange her traveling to get there in time.
	So she would say, I wasn't allowed to see the body.
	But really, it was just a capacity problem.
	They had to do it soon.
	She couldn't arrange traveling.
	So the way she says it is, I wasn't allowed to see the body.
	That would be normal.
	That would be just like ordinary business.
	It would be bad, but it would be ordinary.
	Then these hard drives containing the internal OpenAI documents vanished.
	Well, if you were a whistleblower and you had a physical drive that you knew was the real powerful stuff, would you keep it in your apartment?
	Maybe.
	Or you might worry that somebody would try to come get it and you would make sure you took it out of your computer yourself and you put it somewhere.
	So I'm not convinced that not having those documents in his apartment is a smoking gun.
	And then the autopsy leaks suggest trauma in many different places.
	That one's the biggest smoking gun, but the question I would ask is, is the autopsy leak real?
	How do you know that's a real autopsy?
	So these are the questions I have.
	I would say that the The suspicions are sky high.
	The suspicions are sky high.
	I don't think anything's proven yet.
	And at least not to my satisfaction.
	But do you imagine that a company that's changing the world would kill their whistleblower?
	Well, I don't believe that Sam Altman would put out a hit on an employee.
	So, in no world do I believe that Sam Altman said, you know what?
	Things would go a lot better for my company and I'd make more money if I just had this guy killed.
	I know I live in the real world and sometimes people do bad things, but if you're telling me that Sam Altman ordered a hit, I don't know.
	I think you couldn't drag me to that opinion.
	No.
	However, let's go a little deeper.
	Do you believe that the CIA is going to let the AI companies operate independently?
	Well, according to Marc Andreessen, the Silicon Valley investors have been told directly, no, the government is going to control AI. There will only be allowed two or three big companies that succeed in it, and we're going to basically be in their pocket the entire time.
	And they kind of need to be.
	Because if the government doesn't control AI, the government will probably be destroyed by AI. Imagine if AI told you the truth all the time.
	It would destroy the government.
	The government wouldn't be able to make war.
	It wouldn't be able to do anything that it does now because most of it's corrupt.
	So the government 100% has to have iron-tight control over AI. Now, imagine that the CIA knows that they have this valuable asset, which they now have control over.
	But when I say control, I mean only control over the things they care about.
	They don't care too much about the features and the product, right?
	They only care that the things they care about are taken care of.
	Now, would the CIA kill an American citizen Just murder them.
	If the stakes were possibly the end of the government in the United States, well, yes, they would.
	Yes, they would.
	Yeah, totally.
	So, do you have a motive?
	Yes.
	Not Sam Altman, but if some intelligence agency said, we can't have a world where open AI gets taken down because we have to compete, we can't get behind China, And if stealing all this copyrighted work and killing a whistleblower is how you get to be the best AI country, better than China, then we just got to kill the guy.
	Now, suppose I came to you and said, all right, you're in charge of this decision.
	This whistleblower will probably cripple open AI. It will basically make it, they'll be sued by every content maker, including me.
	It would just be a frenzy.
	If they proved that they'd stolen, I guess they call it stolen, copyrighted work and it could be demonstrated.
	But if open AI fails, probably the other AIs are susceptible to the same problem.
	Because probably whatever OpenAI did to train is not that different from other AIs.
	So, suppose this whistleblower could have taken down OpenAI, but by just crippling their business model, they wouldn't be able to make a move.
	And then the other AI say, oh, shoot, we got our AI the same way they did.
	And so everybody's crippled in the United States at the same time.
	So just destroy our AI potential and we would be behind.
	But, all right, you're an intelligence agency in the United States, you're a patriot, and you're also the dirty tricks person.
	So you're the one who kills people under the conditions that somebody in the government said, we don't like to kill people, but...
	We're going to have to do it this time.
	It's the only way the United States can survive in a world where AI dominance probably will determine if you survive.
	Would you order the hit on this citizen who's just trying to do the right thing If you thought it could save the country, and your certainty for that was high, like 60-70% chance, it's the difference between our country surviving the AI era and not, and being taken over by Chinese hackers who use AI and destroy the country.
	The answer is you'd probably have a tough time with it, but you'd probably order the hit.
	So this was a whistleblower whose whistleblowing could have destroyed the United States in a fairly obvious, simplistic way.
	Like, you don't have to connect a lot of dots.
	If the legal system could be activated by what the whistleblower knew, it would cripple all the AI companies, and they wouldn't be able to get out of it for who knows how long.
	They just wouldn't be able to do anything.
	They'd just be paying off lawsuits.
	And I don't know.
	I would say that if you follow the money, but you also follow physical security, probably the CIA had him killed.
	And I'm not sure that I'm worse off for that.
	I hate to say it.
	I mean, morally, ethically, of course, it's all repugnant.
	We could agree on that.
	But did they just kill an American citizen to try to save the country?
	I'd hate to give them credit.
	But if you tell me it was the wrong play, I'm going to agree with you morally and ethically.
	But if you don't think this would have been an existential threat to the country if this whistleblower had, you know, made his case, it was an existential threat to the country.
	I mean, I really think it was.
	So, I don't know.
	Are we better off or worse off?
	Well, I can't believe that he would be the only one who could be able to do this analysis.
	He must have shared it with somebody, even if only as a dead man switch.
	So we might see more of this.
	If a second whistleblower dies, I'm going to say I know what's going on.
	If a second whistleblower says, oh, I've got his hard drives, And so now I'm the whistleblower and just does fine, thrives, takes the company to court, wins the case, closes down AI, and never dies, never gets killed.
	Then I would rethink the first one.
	But if there's a second whistleblower who comes with the same set of data and also dies mysteriously, I'm going to go with the CIA order to hit theory.
	Or somebody ordered it.
	I doubt it was Sam Oldman.
	All right.
	A CBS News journalist made some news, Jan Crawford.
	She was on Face the Nation and was asked the most underreported 2024 story.
	was Biden's obvious cognitive decline.
	How do you feel when you see a professional journalist say that the biggest miss of the year was reporting on Biden's obvious cognitive decline?
	Now, underreported, I don't think captures what was going on here.
	Underreported, Underreported just feels like, you know, in retrospect, we should have said more about it.
	This was intentional.
	It wasn't underreported.
	It was intentionally fake news.
	Were there any other things that were underreported?
	Let's see.
	Biden ran on the fine people hoax.
	He based his campaign on the fine people hoax.
	Scopes, and lots of other sources, including me, debunked it thoroughly.
	Do you remember the major mainstream news that said the main thing that Biden ran on is now thoroughly debunked?
	That one was really important.
	Nope.
	No.
	No news on that.
	Maybe Fox News, but not the mainstream.
	How about the Biden crime family?
	Do you think that was a little bit underreported?
	Do you think that mattered at all, that he was literally a criminal enterprise as president?
	I think that was a little underreported, just a little bit.
	How about How about the reporting that the insurrection hoax was a hoax?
	Was there any reporting that the entire January 6th committee was completely corrupt and ran an op on the country?
	I don't remember that reporting.
	I don't remember seeing it.
	Again, Fox News, Breitbart will have stories like that, but not the mainstream ones.
	I see what you're saying.
	I'm seeing a lawyer way.
	And it's not clear that training AI is a copyright violation any more than if I go to school and read books and train my mind.
	I hear what you're saying.
	That's definitely an unsettled question.
	But you wouldn't want to take the risk it got settled, would you?
	Leaving it unsettled, they have a business model.
	But if you take it to court...
	Do you think the jury agrees?
	So your argument that it's no different than reading a book and learning it and then you know that information when you go forward, that's true for humans.
	But I don't know if that would pass muster in a trial.
	So if there's a risk that it won't work, you might still have to order the hit.
	Anyway, so those are all the things that were underreported.
	But I wonder how many things in total were underreported.
	Let's see.
	What's the current list?
	According to X user, morbidly obtuse, Here's the current list of media hoaxes.
	Now, I'm holding it up if you're listening to it on Spotify or something.
	You can't see it.
	But this fills the entire page with one bullet point apiece for the hoaxes.
	I didn't count them, but there are approximately 50. 50. 50. This is just since the Trump era.
	This isn't history.
	This is current news.
	Would you like me to randomly pick one just to see if these are real?
	All right.
	All right.
	Trump saved nuclear secrets at Mar-a-Lago.
	Nope, that was fake news.
	That was fake news.
	Or at least there's no evidence they did it.
	Patriot Front?
	The Patriot Front.
	Well, we don't know what the real story is, but we think we do.
	All right.
	Trump built the cages for migrant kids.
	Of course, that was Obama who built them.
	If you get vaccinated, you won't catch COVID. These are real.
	These are 50, about 50, Media hoaxes.
	Now, do you remember the big story in the media that they've allowed 50 media hoaxes to be treated as real news?
	Do you know what's underreported?
	This.
	What's underreported is that the news isn't real.
	That's a little underreported.
	No, the correct answer is not You know, we had a good year, but we got that one topic wrong.
	No, no, that's not the right answer.
	You didn't have a good year.
	You didn't get one topic wrong.
	You still are ignoring the fact that Kamala Harris was obviously drunk and had a problem.
	How is ignoring Kamala Harris' obvious inebriation, how is that different from ignoring Joe Biden's obvious mental decline?
	They're identical.
	Right?
	I mean, you and I have seen enough video where, not every time she was in public, but a number of times, including recently, where she was clearly smashed.
	And not once did the regular media report on it.
	Social media was all over it.
	But...
	Wow.
	The level of lying and incompetence and confirmation bias is just shocking.
	Meanwhile, Joe Biden has a theory about why he didn't get He didn't do better in the election and had to drop out.
	He said that he regrets choosing his own attorney general, Merrick Garland, because I'll just summarize it.
	He didn't use lawfare hard enough to get Trump.
	Now, those are my words.
	That's basically what he said.
	That he was too slow.
	He slowed down the prosecution of Trump, but he sped up the prosecution of Hunter.
	Well, I'm pretty sure that the Justice Department tried to get Hunter completely cleared.
	It just didn't work out because people caught him.
	At least they tried to do what he wanted, which is get his son off completely.
	But he's actually so lost that he goes in public...
	And suggests that maybe the reason things didn't work out for him is they didn't do enough lawfare.
	Unbelievable.
	And do you think that the regular news will report that senile Joe didn't do enough lawbreaking to win?
	And that's what he said in public?
	No.
	No.
	They'll just quote it.
	No comment.
	The real Mark Polo...
	Scott's analysis has gone bad recently.
	Why are there never an example?
	What would be an example of something I got wrong?
	Just one.
	Anyway, there might be.
	All right, here's the funniest story of the day.
	On X, a user named Damon Linker, who is a senior lecturer in political science at Penn.
	All right.
	So if you're a senior lecturer on political science at Penn, you know a little bit about politics, don't you?
	Because, you know, they don't give those jobs to just anybody.
	So somebody who really understands politics, he said in the post, I've been struggling a bit since the election, not emotionally, but intellectually.
	I was never the biggest resistance guy, but I was on his side against Trump.
	And then he points to an article written by Ross Barkin.
	He says, nicely captured why I've felt adrift since November 5th.
	We have lots of work to do.
	Okay.
	So he's somebody who understands that something's happened.
	He's trying to figure out why he feels the way he does.
	And this article has some things he agrees with.
	So I looked at the article.
	And I will summarize the article by saying that Ross Barkin effectively said that everything Democrats did was stupid and ineffective, and they need to rethink 100% of everything they did, because absolutely nothing they did was smart.
	Now, that's my paraphrase, but it's pretty close.
	And then he mentioned that the Hitler talk didn't work, the censoring free speech didn't work, the it's a brat summer didn't work.
	Basically, it was all just stupid and incompetent and insane.
	So this poor political science lecturer, Damon Linker, is struggling to figure out why I feel the way I do.
	And then he points to an article that says they just did everything wrong.
	And then Dinesh D'Souza, you all know Dinesh, he had a comment to this poor guy's confusion.
	It's the funniest thing I've heard.
	He said, it is hard to come to terms with the fact that one is an idiot, a fact that years of fake erudition has apparently suppressed in one's mind.
	He didn't like it.
	Damon didn't like that comment, so he commented back.
	But I would like to make this one observation.
	Nobody likes to be summarized.
	Nobody likes to be summarized.
	This was a perfect summary.
	The real problem is that he thought he was smart about politics.
	Indeed, he's a lecturer at Penn in political science.
	Obviously, he's smart about politics.
	But you can be smart about politics and still lose...
	Terribly, because you think the news is real.
	So if you don't go to the next level of understanding about political science, oh, by the way, the news is completely unreal.
	If you thought the news was real, and you're lecturing to kids about political science, I would hate to have my kid in that class, because I'd be afraid of what they're learning.
	Really?
	You're learning that the news was real, and that therefore Trump was a monster?
	Is that what you're teaching them?
	Because you need to step back and understand that you are an idiot, right?
	If you watched how the news operated and you didn't notice that there were over 50 obvious coordinated hoaxes on TV, coordinated obvious hoaxes, 50 of them just in the last Trump era, if you didn't notice that, It might be harsh to say you're an idiot because it's more like brainwashing.
	It's not actually an IQ problem.
	Brainwashing Nobody has any defense to it.
	So it doesn't matter how smart you are or how well informed, the brainwashing still works.
	That's why it's brainwashing.
	It's not reason.
	So I think his problem is he just got surrounded by people who had a certain view, watched the news, thought it was real, and he was effectively brainwashed into not understanding his own specialty.
	His own specialty is political science.
	And the brainwashing is so strong that, let's be honest, he's not an idiot.
	He's probably way smarter than almost all of us.
	Probably.
	I mean, by the time you're a senior lecturer at Penn, I mean, you're smart.
	You're really smart.
	But being smart doesn't help you.
	If you can't see past the fake news and the TDS and you don't know the confirmation bias is your operating system, then everything's invisible to you.
	You'd be flying blind.
	So I think that was the problem.
	So although Dinesh's comment was hilarious, it's not completely right because there's nothing wrong with his brain.
	He's just brainwashed.
	Okay.
	Here's an analytical problem that I keep seeing people making, and in this case, there was a Republican politician who made it, but I'll just make the general comment.
	I keep seeing people say that immigration is what made the country great, and there's so much So many examples in our whole American history where we're better off because of lots of immigration.
	Therefore, since it's always been good in our history, then it's good now.
	Is that a good argument?
	That for 200 years plus, the United States was definitely better off because of immigration.
	No doubt about it, which I agree with.
	I would say that's just a fact.
	But does that mean that it's still a good idea?
	Well, that would depend.
	Has anything changed?
	Badly duped by Bill Gates?
	No, you don't know that.
	All I did was ask you for the evidence, and then things would go quiet.
	So you can't say I was duped by Bill Gates.
	You could say you have an opinion that's not backed by evidence.
	And I've asked you for the evidence.
	And do we have a suspicion that Bill Gates is up to no good and using his charities to make money?
	Yes, we do.
	Do we have an ability to read his mind?
	No.
	Are there any documents that suggest that?
	No.
	So your certainty is irrational.
	You might be right.
	But not because the evidence is conclusive.
	All right.
	So here's my only comment on immigration.
	If you thought it was great in the past and therefore we should do more of it, that is not a good analysis because too much has changed.
	In the past...
	Give me a fact check on this.
	So I'm going to make some statements.
	Tell me if you think these are all true.
	In the past...
	Our country imported mostly Christians.
	Is that true?
	Mostly Christians in the early days of the country.
	And mostly into empty, big country that had plenty of room.
	And also at a time when international terrorism hadn't even been invented.
	And we had unlimited demand for unskilled workers.
	Does that describe much of America's past?
	So I'll say it again.
	Mostly Christian immigrants or people who grew up in that kind of environment.
	And we were mostly a Christian country.
	So it was mostly bringing in people who already started with kind of the same set of values.
	And no risk of international terrorism at the time.
	And pretty much everybody who came in, if you had hands and legs, you could get a job working some manual thing.
	You didn't need a lot of training.
	Training wasn't a big issue then.
	So under those conditions, was the mass immigration of our history a good idea?
	I say yes.
	Does anybody disagree with that?
	Historically, it was a good idea.
	I'm seeing some nopes.
	Well, I can say for sure that if we had not built up to the number of people we have, and we wouldn't have done it through natural births, if we hadn't got to the size we're at, we could not have helped win World War II. We wouldn't have the biggest economy.
	We wouldn't have plenty of geniuses because we have so many people.
	So I can tell you with my background in economics, immigration in the past, It was a complete winner.
	Complete winner.
	There's always some downside, but the benefits over the cost, gigantic.
	Gigantic benefits over the cost.
	Now, here's what's different.
	We now have competition for jobs like we've never had.
	We now have the need for skilled labor, not unlimited unskilled labor.
	We're not letting in exclusively people who are already sort of Christian into a Christian country, already buying into the main things.
	So here's what I think has to be part of the conversation.
	The thing that matters is the rate of assimilation, and we don't talk about that enough.
	So if you were America 100 years ago and you let in somebody Irish, they already spoke English, they're probably Christian, And pretty easy to assimilate, right?
	But if you let in, let's say, an Islamic family, or let's say a couple, you let in an Islamic person or a couple, do you worry that their set of beliefs will be conflicting with the dominant beliefs in the country so that if you let in one person, it would be no big deal?
	If you let in millions of people, Who had that same characteristic that at the beginning, they're not exactly like the people who are already here in terms of the social, ethical, moral opinions of what's right and wrong.
	So, but if you took any one family, an Islamic country or Islamic couple, And they had a kid.
	What are the odds that the child, who would then be raised in America, would have old Islamic beliefs, same as their parents, versus would be pretty much buying into the American experience?
	Pretty much by the second generation, everybody's just an American.
	Now, that's an overstatement, right?
	There are exceptions.
	But would you buy that...
	That frame.
	By the second generation, everybody's just an American.
	Now, that's one of the superpowers of America.
	Our culture here is so strong that we export it without even trying.
	There are countries all over the world that dress like us, listen to our music, wish they had our political system, look to us to see what's right and wrong.
	Our American culture is super strong and sticky.
	So you could bring in a very fundamentalist Islamic family And by the next generation, they're just Americans.
	The kids are just Americans.
	And I've never seen an exception to it.
	Have you?
	Have you spent time around the children of first-generation immigrants?
	I have.
	I've spent a lot of time with people who are the children, now adults, but the children of immigrants.
	Every one of them is just an American.
	Every one of them.
	There's not a single person who acts like the old country.
	It's just not a thing.
	So, here's what I think needs to be part of the conversation.
	If you tell me I'm going to bring in a million Islamic people and mostly that are going to settle in one state, is that the same as the way we did immigration in the past?
	Because if you bring in a million people, That have a completely different set of values.
	You have the problem that they might set up their own little microculture and just say, you know, we're going to do a little homeschooling and our kids are not going to grow up as Americans because that's the worst thing.
	So if you brought in like a million people and put them in one state, You put the whole state and the country at risk, because now you've brought in really something where the second generation has some chance of not automatically becoming Americans like everybody does, because they might be isolated, sort of like the Amish, except not as productive.
	The Amish are Christians, so them having their own little thing where they operate as themselves doesn't have any impact on us.
	In fact, they're great citizens.
	But if you brought somebody in who really had a different culture, everything would be fine if you don't bring in too many of them too quickly, because the second generation would already be Americans.
	100% wrong, you say.
	That's a strong argument you have there.
	100% wrong.
	Sorry, I changed my opinion, because there was one person who said I'm 100% wrong.
	Anyway, this is ridiculous.
	Have you noticed you don't have reasons?
	For those of you who are completely unhappy with what I just said.
	Yeah.
	So, I see what you're saying.
	I hear what you're saying.
	Minnesota, Dearborn.
	No, you're telling me I'm wrong, but you're agreeing with me.
	So somebody's saying I'm wrong because of Dearborn, Michigan.
	Dearborn, Michigan is my point.
	That's not your point.
	Dearborn, Michigan is an example of doing it wrong.
	So I'm saying that Dearborn is my example of doing it wrong.
	So I'm not wrong for agreeing with you that Dearborn is an example of doing it wrong.
	So disagreeing with me necessarily means that your opinion is different from mine.
	That's the way to do that.
	If you agree with me completely, don't yell, you're 100% wrong.
	All right.
	And the other thing is that we've had way too much immigration lately, which has not been the case in the past, and the employment is not exactly where we want it.
	So I would say that all the things that were true in the past, let me see if I can find the one place where you'll agree with me.
	Let's see if I can get everybody to agree with just this.
	Using our history of immigration as a justification for what we do today is a bad argument.
	Everybody okay with that?
	Just that point.
	Using our successful immigration of the past is no argument at all that we should do something in the present.
	Everything's different.
	So you should look at it like it was a new decision.
	That's all.
	Anyway, the Western Journal, Douglas Golden, is reporting that the World Bank doesn't know where their $41 billion in funding for climate change stuff went to.
	But there was some fact-checking on that, and the World Bank wants you to know, no, no, no, no.
	It's not that we lost the money.
	It's just that we don't know where it went.
	Yeah.
	So it's not lost, people.
	Don't worry.
	It's just they don't know where it went.
	So I'm going to give you this model for the world.
	Everything large is corrupt.
	Everything.
	So, the World Bank, very large, $41 billion in funding, climate stuff, corrupt.
	Big pharma, corrupt.
	Big food, corrupt.
	Big finance, corrupt.
	Big government, corrupt.
	Right?
	There's a pretty obvious and clear pattern.
	But...
	Your next-door neighbor may be totally honest.
	Maybe.
	Your family member could be totally honest and moral.
	At the smallest scale of human activity, you can have complete honesty.
	As soon as it grows, the odds of complete honesty go down.
	If you've ever worked for a big company, for example, Even if your department is just, say, 100 people of a larger company, that 100 people is already enough that 25 of them are just complete liars.
	And 10 of them are trying to find a way to steal money from the company.
	So scale guarantees corruption.
	It guarantees it.
	So when people say to me, Scott...
	Why do you think that climate change could be corrupt and maybe lying to you just for money?
	Why do you think that?
	And the answer is, I don't have to research it.
	You don't have to research that.
	You just say, how big is it?
	And they'd say, well, it could be a trillion dollars if we did everything we wanted to do.
	And I would say, how many people are involved?
	Oh, hundreds of thousands of people.
	So hundreds of thousands of people And we're basing on models that we can't really validate.
	And money is disappearing.
	Yeah, that's corrupt.
	Now, I don't know whether the climate is changing in a dangerous way or not.
	I don't think so.
	But I don't know, because I'm not a scientist.
	But I know for sure just the size of the climate, you know, scientific and business part where they're spending money.
	The size of it guarantees that it's corrupt.
	And if you can find me an example of anything that's reached that size that's not totally corrupt, I'd love to hear it.
	Now, I do think there might be some exceptions With some religious organizations.
	And I know, I know, you're going to say, but the Catholic Church had too many sex crimes.
	That's probably true.
	But if you're talking about corruption specifically, you know, stealing, the bad stuff.
	Well, the other stuff's bad too.
	But if you're talking about stealing, you might find that religious organizations can get big without that.
	There might be.
	So I'm willing to believe that There are major religious organizations that are generally okay, but those would be special cases.
	I think anything that's sort of government or business or even activism, which crosses all that, those are all corrupt when we reach a certain level.
	How about one person who says, hey, I think that looked racist to me.
	Could they be honest and not corrupt?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	How about several people get together and say, you know, that looked wrong.
	That looked racist to me.
	Could they be honest and not corrupt?
	Could be.
	Could be.
	How about if it becomes a national-funded organization called Black Lives Matter, and there are millions and millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of people involved directly or indirectly.
	Could that ever not be corrupt?
	No.
	No.
	It's the scale.
	As soon as you reach a certain scale, it's all corrupt.
	Everything all the time.
	It has nothing to do with black, race, nothing.
	It's just the size.
	How about Antifa?
	If Antifa was that one time 100 people got together because they cared about something, could it be that they would be completely corrupt?
	Honest and ethical.
	Could be.
	Could be.
	Small size.
	Once it becomes a nationwide movement, no, then it's completely corrupt.
	Every time.
	How about ChatGPT?
	OpenAI.
	It's just one company, and But the potential and current value are in the hundreds of billions, right?
	And maybe the future value is in the trillions.
	And we hear from Marc Andreessen that the CIA has already said, oh, no, we're going to totally rig this entire industry.
	It's corrupt.
	It might be corrupt in a way that's good for us, meaning that the CIA is ultimately working on the side of America, I hope, although it's a very large organization, if you know what I mean.
	Yeah, that's not true.
	They're not working necessarily on our side.
	Because the CIA allegedly is behind the domestic censorship and some other stuff.
	So I guess you would throw them in the corrupt area.
	How about Congress?
	Real big, lots of money.
	Yeah, corrupt.
	Give me an exception.
	Give me an exception.
	Tell me something that's a big organization that's not a religious organization that isn't corrupt.
	It's tough.
	So it frustrates me when people say, but you don't know that climate change is a hoax.
	All I have to say is, how big is it?
	And we're done here.
	But it could be that climate change is a risk, but it's also full of scammers.
	So both of those could be true.
	Anyway, everything big is corrupt.
	And of course, you'd love to know, according to IHLS, whatever that is, that there's now a new lithium ceramic battery that could be You guessed it, 10 times more capacity, and it could have a range of 1,000 kilometers, and you could recharge it from 5% to 60% in five minutes, and it's nonflammable.
	That's a big deal.
	They're using different materials primarily to do this.
	Now, again, I tell you these battery stories not because any one company is going to make a difference or this one study.
	Just so you know how much activity there is there and how much potential.
	And it'll change everything.
	If our batteries are that much more efficient, everything changes.
	And then I'm going to make one product recommendation for you.
	This is a little out of my mode.
	I'm not making money from this product.
	I'm just going to tell you something I tried recently that I really liked.
	It's the bone conductive earphones.
	Whoops, just lost my signal.
	Hello, I'm back. I'm back.
	Did I say something about anybody who could have turned off my signal?
	Probably.
	But I'm back.
	Anyway, I was going to give you a product recommendation.
	But I promise you, I have no connection to the company.
	I have no way to make money from this.
	It's just something I like.
	This bone conduction earpieces.
	Because they don't go in your ear.
	It drapes over your ear, and it connects behind your head, so it stays on really well, because it's sort of hanging over your ears, but connected in the back.
	But its little sensors touch your bone in front of your ear.
	It's not in your ear, it's in front of it.
	And it sounds like there's a little speaker talking into your ear, and it's a really good sound.
	But what it is, is it's just making your bone vibrate that apparently works.
	So...
	I had been getting bad ear infections and it probably was my headphones.
	I found out that's a real thing.
	And so knowing that there's something that I don't have to put in my ear makes me very happy.
	They're very light.
	They don't fall out or ill fit like the earbuds do.
	And they don't close you off from all the surrounding sounds because your ears are still open.
	So your regular ears are still available for everything.
	Highly recommend it.
	I've only used it for a few days, but I'm already excited about it.
	All right, that's all I got for you today.
	Thanks for joining.
	I'm going to talk to the locals people privately just for a minute.
	I've gone on way too long.
	And then I'll see you tomorrow.

▲