God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, AI Voice Cloning, DEI, CRT, Apple US Investment Plan, Tim Cook, Trump Compliments Tim Cook, Countrywide Redistricting, Race-Based Redistricting, Ghislaine Maxwell, 2 Movies 1 Screen, Russiagate, Climate Change, Ukraine Enlisting Elderly, India's Russian Oil, Trump Putin Meeting, J6 Insurrection Hoax, UFO Technology, Anti-RFK Jr. Psyops, 2020 Election Denial Punishment, Tulsi Gabbard, James Clapper Iraq WMD Hoax, General Flynn, October 7 Allegations, 911 Narrative, Covid Vax Allegations, Jake Tapper, Turbo-Charged Weaponization, Project Veritas Bill Barr Allegations, Anti-Trump Debanking, Intel CEO China Ties, Trump Census Reform, Israel Gaza, Expert Consensus Pressure, MN Housing Program Fraud, Simulation Theory, 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.
Well, the good news is if you have stocks, they're probably up.
It looks like an up day for stocks.
Yay.
Yay, everybody.
All right, let me get ready to see your comments.
And then it's go time.
Here we go.
Just like I planned.
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take a chance of elevating this experience up to levels that no one can understand with their tiny shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mug or glass, a tanker, shell, or stein, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of opening.
the dopamine hit of the day the thing that makes everything better it's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now good oh yeah that's the unparalleled pleasure right there i think you could feel it best thing happened to you all day long so far all right well allegedly At exactly now,
a new version of ChatGPT is being launched, GPT5.
And would you like to be among the first to overclaim that they've achieved super intelligence?
I don't think it will have super intelligence.
I do think it will hallucinate just like prior models.
And I feel like it will be overhyped, but still awesome.
you know i feel like it'll still beat a bunch of benchmarks which it is so apparently it now beats humans on a test that humans score on average 83%.
It does better than that.
So it's better than humans, but we'll see.
For reasons that I was trying to completely ignore, apparently the WNBA, the women's basketball professional sport, somebody threw a green dildo on the playing surface.
which caused other people to do the same in subsequent games.
And now it's a big problem.
So it turns out if you give people that idea and then you invite 15,000 people to sit in the same building, at least one of them is going to say, you know what would be a great idea?
I've got an idea.
It's been done a lot of times, so it won't be original.
But I feel like I want to be the one who gets arrested for throwing the dildo during the game.
And then somebody does.
Apparently there's no way to stop it from now to the end of time.
So.
The good news is it's one more reason to watch women's basketball.
And apparently there's a betting market for the green dildo now to bet whether it appears or doesn't.
And there's more money being gambled on the dildo than on the WNBA game itself, according to the post-millennial, to which I say, well, that makes sense.
But I will tell you that women's basketball is way more entertaining than I thought.
And some of that is because men's basketball has become really kind of boring.
Three poise out, three poise out.
he's in the paint he got fouled every single time sometimes I call it sometimes I don't but he always complains it's just the same play over and over again but the women the women are a little more I don't know relaxed with their defense you just see more stuff happening Well,
a high school kid has used AI to clone her mother's voice so that the AI can make phone calls to the school to excuse her from classes.
Now, the weirdest part about that story is it's the first time I've heard it.
Don't you kind of assume that kids all over the country have already used AI voice cloning and they've cloned their parents' voices?
Don't you just sort of assume a lot of people have done that?
Could it be that what we're really finding out with this story is that one person got caught because how would you catch them?
If you're in the school, you just get a phone call.
That's all you know.
You don't know anything else.
So I don't know, maybe just one got caught.
Well, Google is going to spend a billion dollars on AI education and job training.
So I would start with that, whoever did the voice cloning, they sound like they could be trained up, might be a good employee someday.
And so that's happening.
It makes me wonder if the big corporations will have to get into the education business because the public schools are not creating anybody who could get a job, basically.
And they're certainly not going to know how to use AI.
So could it be that the one and only way we'll ever take advantage of AI is if the AI companies use their vast wealth to run their own schools, basically.
they could use ai to do so probably pretty efficient Well, there's a report per the Washington Times that says that DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs are vanishing.
And that's because of Trump trying to purge DEI.
But then they give the numbers.
And it goes from the school board meetings used to mention DEI 38% of the time, but now it's down to 33%, to which I say that's really not much of a difference for something that is pure racial discrimination.
and illegal at a federal level to only go down from 38% frequency down to 33%.
To me, that's a lot more like you can't get rid of it no matter what you do.
So I think the DEI will stay clawing, clawing to the sides of things to try to survive, and it will.
And eventually, they're going to wait out Trump.
you know and trump doesn't last forever and i feel like unless you put a well unless you put people in jail for dei it will just revive itself because the incentives for that are pretty high.
They'll get rewarded locally, but not federally.
Speaking of which, yeah, so I don't know, is any of the DEI stuff literally illegal or is it all civil kind of stuff?
It's not a criminal act, right?
It would be a civil violation.
I don't even know what I'm talking about.
But you couldn't put somebody in jail.
for pretending that they got rid of DEI at their public school, but secretly just changing what you call it.
I don't know.
Is that actually a criminal act or not?
I don't know.
It should be criminal.
In my opinion, that should be criminal.
But anyway, a federal appeals court, according to the college fix, has upheld a Arkansas ban on critical race theory, the so-called CRT.
So critical race theory in the classroom tells people that white men mostly are the problem, and white men stole all your stuff and turned you into slaves.
So you should go to white men to get back all your stuff, and you should punish them for it, basically.
I'm summarizing it a little bit.
But the good news is that the Federal Appeals Court agreed with Arkansas that they can just just get rid of that racist nonsense again won't it just come back seems like it'll just come back so i don't know people got to go to jail um Apple has now up to its investment plans for the U.S. up to $600 billion over what period of time?
I don't know.
So that makes it much less impressive if you realize it's over many years.
But there's stock that's going up, and I guess they've committed to building a factory in the U.S. where they make the glass for the iPhone.
And I don't know if you saw it, but there was a very cringy point where Tim Cook, of Apple was driving trying to give Trump an award, which was a piece of glass that's a special kind of glass that they're going to make in this new facility.
And it has a little gold stand.
And it was very, very unimpressive as a gift.
It was just a piece of glass as a stand.
And I get that it was cool glass, but it was a little bit more of an Apple employee of the month gift.
than it was a gift for the president when you're announcing $600 billion of investments.
And then he had a little sort of awkward setting it up.
Anyway, it was sort of cringey.
But this actually happened.
And at the end of the meeting, Trump says, in public, he says this, I want to thank Tim Cook.
He's a great, great man, a visionary.
a businessman, just about every quality he can have other than athleticism.
I'm looking at him.
I'm not 100% sure.
Okay, is that the funniest thing that Trump has ever said?
I'm just going to read it again and I'll remind you.
This is something he really said.
He actually said this in public about Tim Cook after Tim Cook had done everything he wanted.
I want to thank Tim Cook.
He's a great, great man, a visionary, a businessman, just about every quality he could have other than athleticism.
I'm looking at him.
I'm not one hundred percent sure.
Oh, come on.
That is literally the funniest thing he has ever said.
He's sort of an unintentional bully that it doesn't matter what somebody does.
If he can find your weak point, he's going to put his finger on it.
Elon Musk reminds us, if he didn't already know, there will be no code writing in the future.
You'll just say what you want.
And he gave an example.
Build me a fitness tracker with push notifications and it will just build it.
You won't have to know what language it used or anything.
And Elon says, syntax is dead, abstraction one, your job title is about to change from engineer to idea whisperer.
Now, I would agree that the engineering profession is going to take a hit because logic and all the things that engineers know, it does feel like the kind of stuff that AI could do a lot of it.
And it does seem like the one place that AI doesn't know how to get better is in creativity.
So the part that we will have value is the part where you know what to tell it to make that would be valuable.
And that's it.
And AI really can't do that so well.
I mean, it could iterate, but it'd have to test it.
Whereas a human, if you got the right humans, there's some humans who can guess what kind of product people would want.
There's a friend of mine who years ago started a company.
for some auto parts, you know, little add-ons to your car.
And he had an ability to know what other car enthusiasts would want to buy.
Just this uncanny ability to say, you know, if we made this, I'll bet a lot of people would buy it.
You know, things that you and I maybe never even would have thought of.
For example, how many of you ever seen on a car that someone has upgraded the gas cap to a silver cool looking gas cap?
Have you ever seen that?
Usually on trucks.
That was my friend.
He invented that.
Nobody had ever done that before.
And he built a company and made that part and sold it.
And eventually he got knocked off by the Chinese.
So there's lots of competition and he's out of that business.
But one after another, he simply said, hmm, you know what people would buy?
And then he made it in his own machine shop.
And then he sold it and he became quite rich.
So, yeah, I think knowing what to tell AI to do is where all the money will be.
and just there's some people who know how to do that and some people.
some don't All right.
So I saw that apparently.
This story about Republicans in Texas wanting to redistrict is getting deeper and more interesting than I thought.
So it seems, and I mentioned this yesterday, that if the Democrats decide to retaliate, say, all right, we'll do California if you do Texas, and then I guess the Republicans would say, oh yeah, well, we'll do Florida.
And then they would do New York.
But apparently if you follow that through, you would find that Republicans would likely come out way ahead.
So there's a possibility that if the Democrats decide to go, you know, toe to toe, and if you do this, we'll do it too, that they'll end up way behind.
The worst thing they could do is to legitimize all this new redistricting by doing it themselves, because they would just, apparently the numbers work out that they would lose seats in the end.
And the number of seats they lose could be a lot.
Could be, as many of us say, like 15 seats in 2026.
But it gets worse because there's this thing called the, what is it called?
Some kind of voting act that's being decided on by the courts.
And the idea is that some of the districts were made based on racial composition.
And I think the Supreme Court is going to say, hey, you can't do that.
You can't say, we'll make this a district because it's got all the Hispanics in it and they'll vote a certain way.
So if that goes away, the advantage for the Republicans would double from 15 to something in the high 20s.
So almost anything is possible with this story.
It could completely change the power of the United States forever.
Or maybe some court will just stop it.
Or maybe somebody did the math wrong.
that's the other possibility that they haven't done the math right and we don't really know who comes on ahead.
Well, apparently, according to the New York Post, Ghislaine Maxwell says that she never saw Trump do anything concerning.
So do not expect Ghislaine Maxwell to say anything bad about Trump.
And oh, by the way, in a coincidental related story, she would like to be pardoned by Trump.
So I'm not sure I would completely believe everything she says about Trump being innocent, although I think he probably is innocent.
of any of that stuff.
Because she's a little bit conflicted, she needs him to give her a pardon if he's so inclined.
All right, I've got a theme for some of the rest of today's podcast and the theme is two movies on one screen.
And I'm going to give you a bunch of examples of news that we already talk about where half of the country has a completely different view of what the movie is that they're watching.
And the question will be, Is one of them always a hoax?
And is it always the one side who sees things accurately and the other side doesn't?
Because, you know, both sides believe they're the ones who see it accurate and the other people are watching a fake movie.
Who is watching the real movie and who is watching the hoax?
Well, we'll start with story number one about Russia Gate.
The movie that I'm watching, which doesn't mean it's the real one, it's just the one I see.
I see stories like today's Just the News, John Solomon.
And apparently we now have in writing and in video documented cases where Obama.
got ahead of the intelligence reports and said, oh yeah, Putin is trying to help Trump get elected.
Now, that was prior to there even being an intelligence decision.
So that would suggest that Obama was part of the plot to make it look like Trump was guilty of talking to Trump.
So in my world, the movie I'm watching and most of you are watching too, we have proven beyond any real doubt that I have, I don't have any doubt that Russia Gate and the Russia Hoax was coordinated for the purpose of overthrowing the legally elected government and that the people involved were from the top,
Brennan and Clapper and Obama and Comey and all those guys.
That's the movie I'm watching.
Can you believe you live in the same world where tens of millions, maybe more, maybe a hundred million people are watching a different movie?
And you know what's happening in the other movie?
In the other movie, Putin helped Trump get elected.
And that's the whole story.
There's nothing else to see.
Isn't that amazing?
Isn't it amazing that those two versions of reality are just sitting there at the same time?
And we're not, instead of like really wrestling to find out which one's the true one, we don't really have any mechanism to do that.
You know, one network will tell their version, the other network will tell their version, and their audiences don't overlap that much.
So we just have two completely different versions.
And we're not talking about a detail.
We're talking about did our government try to overthrow the elected president of the United States?
And the answer is, looks like it.
If I were on a jury, I would say, yeah, there's a hundred percent chance.
There's no doubt about it.
The evidence is pretty clear.
All right.
So would you score that one?
Definitely you and I are seeing the right movie and the other people are seeing the hoax.
Is that fair?
that there are two versions of the movies, but one of them is definitely just a hoax.
And the hoax is very well uncovered and revealed.
I think so.
Here's another one.
How about climate change?
Climate change.
So the movie I'm watching is that it might be true that the temperature is going up, but we don't have a signal to tell us.
that it's an existential threat and it might be better than it might be more good than bad even we don't even know so but others would say oh it's proven every scientist agrees it's going to be an existential threat.
Well, we have a news story.
I saw this from a post by David Chavos.
He's a PhD in molecular biology.
And he's talking about in 2024, so just last year, a climate scientist published a paper in the journal called Nature.
Now that would be a prestigious, you know, high-end journal to put a paper in.
So if something's in that, you would think, well, that's pretty, you know, credible.
And then we find out that I think there were as many as four peer reviewers, and all the peer reviewers had major problems with it.
So some said that the, basically they criticized almost every part of it.
And what do you think happened?
when the paper that said that climate change was even worse than you thought.
Oh boy, it's bad.
It's bad.
And then the reviewer said, I don't know about this paper.
This is not meeting our standards.
What do you think happened?
And then it got published.
Why would they publish the paper when the whole point of peer review is if the peers are not convinced, you shouldn't publish it.
But the peers were not convinced.
It got published anyway.
And then because they happened to be in the right direction for the alarmists, and they thought, aha, not only were we right, it might be worse than we thought.
because here's this paper and sudden nature it's published it had peer review so must be true right well Well, it turns out it was one of the most cited papers for the entire year.
So not only did it get published by itself, but it became a source for other scientists to base their work upon.
And then it just became one of the biggest things in science when it never really even passed peer review.
And, you know, it's...
Maybe some of them might be well-intended, but they get just dragged into the group think.
So my view is that one movie is that it's just a bunch of bullshit and people scamming us for money and some people just afraid of going against the established belief.
And then the other movie is that it's a big existential threat.
And although almost all of their predictions have been wrong.
They're going to get one of these days.
oh the next time they're going to be right so what's your vote are they two reasonable views or is one of them clearly obviously true and the other one's a hoax well in my world the one that says there's no way you can predict the temperature and there doesn't seem to be a way even to know what the temperature is much less predict it.
I'm not even sure that we can measure it.
So to me, it's super obvious that it's a more a hoax than it is anything else.
But part of the world believes that the science has proven that they're all going to die from this climate change thing.
And the Republicans are part of the reason they're all going to die.
So that's different.
all right um and then Now they say citizens, so that would suggest men and women.
So are they really going to enlist like 70-year-old women in the military because they're running out of young people?
That's what it looks like.
But I do wonder, you know, if they're looking for mostly drone operators and stuff, well, I don't know.
Maybe if you're 70 and you played a lot of games, maybe.
But it doesn't look good for Zelensky.
Trump has slapped India with a 25% tariff on top of their 25% tariff for continuing to buy Russian oil.
Now, I don't know that India had any fast way to buy anybody else's oil, did they?
Did India have an option of just saying, oh yeah.
Well, we'll stop tomorrow.
No more of this Russian oil and just buy it in other places.
Was that actually an option?
I don't know.
So I don't know if there's enough oil or enough fungibility that you could just say, turn this spigot off and turn this one on.
Maybe.
You might be able to.
But that'll cause some friction with India.
However, that seems maybe it's not a coincidence that Putin has now seemingly agreed to meet with Dreyfus Trump Now, it would just be the two of them.
It wouldn't be Zelensky.
wouldn't be Europe.
And Trump's model is if he can come up with some model that But they got to see if they're close, first of all.
Now, do you believe they're close?
Because if nothing has changed, why would Putin be interested in peace talks?
Is Putin just playing a game where he's postponing sanctions?
So he's going to do the Iranian thing where you keep talking like you want peace, but you keep acting like you don't and just see how long he can get away with it because America loves the story that peace is about to break out.
Oh yeah, look at that Trump.
He got us in peace.
So we want to believe that Trump could make peace happen.
As long as we really want to believe that, Putin can just tap us down the highway forever.
Oh yeah, almost there.
Oh yeah, we're probably close.
I don't know.
Maybe just tweak a few more things and we'll be right there.
So I don't believe anything about it, but it might not be coincidence that this new secondary tariff thing is kicking in.
That's what the India tariff is.
So is it possible that Putin thinks that he might be heading down a one-way path to destroying his energy industry in his country?
Or is Putin unworried because he could just sell twice as much to China and China has a, you know, insatiable demand for oil?
So maybe, I don't know.
So I don't think these secondary tariffs would have scared Putin so quickly that he would say, oh, never mind.
Never mind.
I totally want peace now.
So I'm going to predict that it does not lead to a real peace deal.
It might lead to a fake one where Trump comes back and says, we've got a deal.
We've agreed on a ceasefire.
And then a day later you find out, well, it's a ceasefire if Ukraine gives us all this land and agreement.
We'll find out.
Hmm, what else?
So another one of these two movies on one screen is the January 6th insurrection hoax.
Now, half of the country or more believes that Republicans left their guns home and tried to take over the country by walking around in a public building for an afternoon and that that's how Republicans try to conquer a country, leave their guns home, and then trespass in a public place for an afternoon.
And somehow, half of the idiots in the world came to believe that that's a real thing and that there was an actual insurrection attempt.
As opposed to what I think you and I saw, which is a bunch of people who were sure the election was being stolen right in front of them because they could look at the weird pattern of the vote counting toward the end.
And they just wanted to delay long enough to find out if a coup had happened to them.
Now, how many times do I have to point this out before your head explodes?
following thing.
As far as I know, no news program on the left or the right, left or right, has ever
Did you believe that Trump had lost fair and square but you were trying to get him installed as like the president anyway which would have been a coup how many people would say yeah that's sort of what i wanted yeah i knew we lost but i you know i thought we could get him in there anyway you won't find one in my opinion how many people were there 20 000 or some big number i don't think you'll find one person who would say,
yeah, oh yeah, I know he lost fair and square, but we tried to get him in there anyway.
I bet not one.
It's just not who they are.
It's an identity thing.
It's not even an opinion thing.
Their identity is we like the constitution, right?
So people don't go against their identity.
They can have different opinions that fit within their identity, but you don't just throw away your identity.
If you're the pro-constitution person, you don't throw that away.
So no.
So I'm going to target that as the last remaining tent pole hoax.
It's really the only thing that keeps people from supporting Trump at this point because they kind of like his policies even if they don't admit it.
But they really don't like that he may have been trying to take over the country.
It just never really happened.
Let's see what else has happened.
Remember Dr. Robert Malone?
He was one of the co-inventors of the mRNA platform.
And he says that RFK Jr. was briefed on UFOs and was told that all this stuff is true.
Now, do you believe that?
Because Malone would know RFK Jr.
So he would be, he would know the people who are in that world because he's in that world.
And here's what he said.
I saw this on a post by the Vigilant Fox, which is a really good follow if you're on X. Follow the Vigilant Fox.
A lot of good summaries of the news.
And Malone said, quote, I'm talking to my friend and he says, oh, Bobby had a briefing.
All this stuff is true.
Roswell, all those things.
The reverse engineering of night vision, a whole bunch of this tech comes out of the reverse engineering of recovered materials.
We can look forward to learning a lot more about what the heck is going on with these, whether they're time travelers and they're humans coming back or they're from another dimension or they're whatever, fill in the blank.
But apparently it's real.
All right, I would like to add my opinion on this topic.
I'm quite certain that there's nothing real, meaning that there are no space aliens or time travelers or early humans who are living in the core of the Earth or whatever.
I don't believe any of this is true, not any of it.
What I do believe is that there are ongoing ops being run against RFK Jr.
Not by Malone, not by Malone.
I'm not blaming him.
He seems like a good and smart egg.
But doesn't it seem to you that if you were going to try to to discredit RFK Jr. because you're a big pharma.
So let's say you're a big pharma and you know that the longer he's in the job, the worse it is for you.
How would you discredit RFK Jr.?
Well, if it were me, I would get him to believe something that clearly is not true and to go public with it.
If you could get him to do that, then you could add that to the list of, well, look at this guy.
He believes in magic.
Oh, he's so anti-science.
He's just decided that, oh, time.
travelers.
He believes in time travelers now.
So to me, I do believe that he may have been briefed by somebody who said it was all real.
But whoever briefed him, I would suspect would not be on his side and was trying to hoax him into ruining his credibility so he'd have to leave the job.
So to me, it looks like an op.
Rasmussen did a poll on 2020 election denial.
So this is 2020 election denial.
And 48% of Democrats support punishment for questioning the 2020 election.
How could that be true?
Do you believe we live in a world where 48%, almost half of Democrats support punishment for people who question the 2020 election?
Can you even believe that that's real?
Like I would not even have thought to ask the question.
because it's so ridiculously absurdly out of bounds punish people for questioning an election but 48 of democrats All right, this next story, let's add this to the how in the world did I not know this was the case already all right if you haven't heard this story this might blow your mind a little bit you if you're watching this podcast you probably believe that
uh brennan and clapper and comey were part of a major russia collusion hoax right did you know According to Tulsi Gabbard, the James Clapper, this wasn't his first hoax.
Apparently he was on the team that said that Iraq had WMDs.
So the Iraq war was in part caused by James Clapper and his analysis that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Do you think he knew that that was fake when he did it?
I mean, he wasn't the only one.
He was part of the team.
But how does this one guy?
destroy our country with a war that we didn't need to be in.
And then he's behind, he's one of the key players behind the Russia collusion hoax, which ripped the country apart again.
again unbelievable that he was involved in two of our biggest most damaging hoaxes in american history same guy and how in the world did i not know that until yesterday what i would think that would be right at the top of things that we should have all known well This information is coming from somebody who told you Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
I would have wanted to know that.
I would have wanted to know that.
Well, General Flynn tells us that there might be more to know about October 7th and the IDF, the Israeli military's suspicious inability to detect it or to repel it as soon as it started.
And here's what General Flynn says.
Something broke down and it wasn't because of mistakes.
was an inside thing.
Now, he was talking to Steve Bannon at the war room, and Bannon had to stop him, and Bannon was like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
I may have missed a few woes, but he said whoa a lot.
Hang on.
He said, you can't drop a bomb like that.
You're saying that you're hearing there's testimony or documents, so Steve cleverly is making sure that there's some real meat behind.
I've been down at those areas and I know the details of how the Israelis, one of the most secure borders in the world, how they do their operations.
So I know that.
So something broke down and it wasn't because of mistakes.
Now, I don't know if he has more specifics to it or if he just knows that the story is wrong.
Could be the one.
You know, it could be that he knows enough, you know, more than we know about the situation, that he knows it doesn't add up, but doesn't know what's missing, right?
So.
So, but the other possibility is he knows what's missing.
Here's the problem I'm having with new conspiracy theories.
I guess that's an old one.
There were a lot of conspiracy theories that I immediately discarded because there's just so many of them.
You have to, sometimes you just have to discard them without looking into them.
But now it's hard to discard anything.
Like I'm not really inclined or biased to believe that Israel allowed their citizens to be brutally attacked and kidnapped and all that because it was some long-term plan for gaining territory or something.
I like There's nothing in my body or experience or brain that feels that's true.
I know a lot of you feel there might be something to it.
And I get that.
And I'm not ruling it out.
So what I'm saying is, even though every fiber of my being says that's not real.
There's no way that they intentionally allowed that attack.
On the other hand, the things that I've seen that are apparently true just in the last.
six months, especially the Russia collusion stuff, it kind of opens up the door that I can't tell what's real.
And if I don't have any ability to determine what's real and what isn't, why should my instincts and hunches about what Israel would or would not do, why would I depend on my own opinion?
Yeah, why would I even believe it?
Now, I see in the comments, of course, people are yelling 911, 911, I will give you this much.
This is as far as I'll go.
I don't think there's any chance that we know the real story of 9-11.
I don't think any chance, just none.
Now, there are a number of possibilities.
of what really happened compared to what we're told to happen.
And I don't know which ones are true.
But I'll meet you halfway.
The official story, I don't believe that one.
Now, it might be that there's nothing, you know, there's nothing horrible there.
Maybe we just got the story wrong.
You know, maybe there's just some things that we don't know about.
But I can tell you that the official story, there's no chance.
There's no chance that's all real.
Some of it almost certainly is real, but not all of it.
You know, so I don't know.
And then on another two movies, one screen, this one is the most fascinating to me, and I know you hate this topic so I'll make it short there's a a user on X who goes by cremeu I don't know how to pronounce it cr-em as in Mary I-e-u-x so you can look him up and he's real good with data and
analysis and he says this now this is him don't get mad at me do not get mad at me This is somebody who is smarter than both of us who says the following.
More than 5.6 billion people took the COVID vaccines, if there was a mass dying wave, miscarriages and stillbirths, cardiac issues, or anything else, we have more than enough data to show those things.
But they never happened.
How are you feeling so far?
Because they're not real.
They're a neurotic delusion.
We have so many person years of data that if there's any issue.
with the vaccinations causing health problems, we almost certainly would have already detected it.
Couple this with the fact that this is the first time I've seen this word, but pharmacovigilance and I guess that means the actively watching the pharma side effects.
The fact that pharmacovigilance has gotten much better over time and big side effects are just a laughable proposition.
So a laughable proposition because the system is such that there's a 100% chance you would see any big effect.
to people dying.
Now, some of you would say, but Scott, look at the data from a user called Ethical Skeptic.
How many of you have seen the data from ethical skeptic who appears to show charts and data that would suggest there's a gigantic problem of people dying who got vaccinated?
How many of you have seen it?
Because he's been operating since the pandemic and he's just got tons of charts and data and all points in the same direction, that there's this enormous problem of side effects and people dying and every other thing.
Well, Cremeux was asked about ethical skeptic and he debunked him as being a credible source of anything.
I had the same reaction, but without the backup.
All I knew is that whenever ethical skeptic posted something, I couldn't understand it.
And I thought to myself, what are the odds that 100% of the time he posts something, I don't understand it?
What are the odds that that's somebody who knows what he's talking about?
My experience is anybody who can't simplify their point and say, here's the point.
All right, here's the data that proves it.
They're probably not credible.
So I think he's not credible, even if everything he says is real.
I wouldn't know.
So now you've got two people who are really, really, really looking at the data, and they see two completely different worlds.
Which one do you see?
Do you see a world?
I think most of you see a world where it's been proven beyond a doubt.
that there's way more deaths attributed to people who got vaccinated.
It's obvious it's because of the vaccination.
How many of you live in that version of reality?
Where it's just obvious, and you've seen so much data to prove it.
You know people who have been injured by the vaccination.
So you've proven it with your experience.
You've proven it, all the data.
How many of you think you're in that world?
I'm not in that world, which doesn't mean you're wrong.
which doesn't mean you're wrong.
know anybody who was injured by the vaccine.
And I've only seen data that says that it worked and it saved lives.
I haven't seen any of the other stuff..
Where are you even looking?
And if you saw data that said the opposite, then and you believed it, then I would call you gullible.
Not because you believe the wrong stuff, but because you're believing in experts in a domain in which all the data is questionable.
So I don't believe the people who say there's no damage whatsoever.
But I also don't believe the people who say, oh, there's plenty of damage.
Here's my data.
So if you decided that one part of these people are right and they've got data and studies to prove it, then I would call you gullible because why would you believe anybody in this domain?
You know that whatever is true, you know for sure that people are making stuff up in both directions, right?
So even if we somehow could find out what was real, and I don't know that we ever will.
We would still know that there are people on both sides who just made shit up.
That part I'm sure about.
So before you say, Scott, why are you so gullible that you believe the official word?
I've never said that.
I've never believed the official word.
But I have a question for you.
Why do you believe the unofficial scientists?
What makes them credible?
Nothing.
Nothing.
So I'm way more suspicious than you are.
I believe that it's unknowable and I wouldn't look at the date or the the experts to tell me it was true.
I will tell you that none of us credible.
looking to me in either direction.
All right.
What about inflation?
The president said that the price of everything is down.
Eggs are down.
Gas prices are down.
Beef prices are through the roof, right?
So Trump, of course, does a great job of selling and convincing us that everything's going to be fine, which is important.
I like it when he does that.
But no, it is not true that everything is down.
There are some things that are way up.
Here's a new phrase that Jake Tapper has added to the conversation.
Apparently he's acknowledging that the government was weaponizing the Department of Justice against Trump.
So I believe that even Jake Tapper would agree, yeah, there was some weaponization going there.
But he believes that Trump has taken that to a new level, which he calls turbocharging the weaponization of government.
So yeah, sure.
Maybe the Democrats did weaponize the government against conservatives and against Trump.
Yeah, maybe they did weaponize a little bit, but they didn't turbo weaponize it.
I mean, Trump is turbocharging that weaponization.
So that's much worse.
So here's what you should look for.
See if turbocharged weaponization becomes the thing they all say.
If you don't hear anyone else use it, then it was just something that came to Jake's mind.
But if they all start saying, well, there was a little weaponization before.
but not turbocharged, then you'll know that some consultant came up with that and they're all going to use it.
All right, Project Veritas has a whistleblower.
I don't know if I believe in this one or not.
It says that former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr and some other partner he's working with are running some kind of fraud scheme to get elites and billionaires visas to the U.S. And it involves fake companies that they can say they're working for the fake companies so that they can get their fake visas.
Now, Project Feritas, James O'Keefe was the founder of that, but then they forced him out.
Now he does his own thing at OMG.
But I don't know about this one.
Do you believe that the whistleblower is telling the truth and that Bill Barr is just running this big overt visa scam?
I'm going to say...
I'd have to know a lot more about this alleged whistleblower or there'd have to be some other evidence.
I guess I would say I wouldn't believe it based on the whistleblower.
I would believe it, I could believe it if there's some investigation or some other independent report.
But with one whistleblower, no, not good enough.
Well, Trump wants to sign an executive order to allow you to hold Bitcoin in your 401k.
as well as buildings and real estate and other private deals.
So in case you want to do that.
All right.
Now that might juice the economy a little bit because it would open up around $12.5 trillion for non-stock investments.
Trump says that the Biden-Harris administration pushed banks to, quote, destroy him and debank conservatives.
Now, I didn't know about that.
I didn't realize that Trump was being debanked.
I know that they've been debunked, but he's been debunked.
And so I'm completely in favor of Trump getting revenge for the debanking stuff.
But even if it's a turbocharged law fair, yeah, he needs to set things right.
People should understand that if they debank an ex-president and that ex-president or any of his allies or children in the future, get a shot to take you down, they're going to do it.
They're going to do it.
That's the kind of mutually assured destruction that keeps the society running.
So I do think Trump needs to absolutely just savage the banking industry that, you know, tried to debank him.
Absolutely savage them.
It should be really expensive.
And they should remember forever that when they got political, even though they kind of had to, because, you know, the government at the time was kind of pushing them into it, but they need to know that they're looking at an existential threat if they debank somebody for political reasons, even if they're being pushed to do it.
It has to be an existential threat to them.
So if Trump put a major bank out of business because of it, so long as we didn't lose our entire banking industry, I'll be okay with that.
This is so bad that just destroying an entire bank would be about the right price to pay.
That'd be about the right price.
I guess ICE is doing raids on a Home Depot or because there's a bunch of people trying to work.
Now, how many of you have a problem with the fact that the Trump administration apparently lied to us about the worst first because they're not looking for the worst standing at the Home Depot parking lot.
They're very clearly trying to hit their numbers, which you might like, but it's not what they told us.
Even if you love what they're doing, how do you rationalize the fact that they lied to you?
and said that they wouldn't do that even if you like it that they're doing it so i've got a problem um i would call them liars and I don't like it a bit.
All right.
I guess Trump is calling for the resignation of Intel's CEO because he has extensive ties to China, which everybody assumes means to their government as well.
So I guess the CEO of Intel has some investment platform that made a whole bunch of Chinese investments.
So I don't think there's quite a smoking gun that says that he's done anything wrong.
We don't have that.
But his connections and his past activities make him look really cozy with China.
So I can see why Trump's pushing him on that.
Trump is ordering a new census, which I don't understand at all because he doesn't have the power to order a new census.
So there's something about the story that I need to find out.
I guess Congress could vote to do an early census instead of doing it every 10 years as is currently the.
And so I guess I need to catch up on this one because I tried to figure out why does he think he can make this happen when he doesn't have that authority?
So there must be more of a trick to it than I'm aware of.
Maybe he just means Congress will approve it, but why does he need an executive order?
I don't know.
So he's trying to get that done.
I don't know if that's real.
China's solar industry is, they got rid of 31% of the workforce because they're so overbuilt and prices are down and so remember how you were you were all worried that China would own the solar panel market and the only thing that happened was we got cheap solar panels and they got themselves a big industry that doesn't make money.
We're not really good at predicting where things go, are we?
All right, here's an update.
Apparently Netanyahu's security cabinet is going to meet about Gaza and about the idea to resettle all the residents so that Israel just owns Gaza from now on.
And I will remind you, because it's useful for this podcasting model, that I think I'm the only public figure who told you on day one of that war, or roughly around then, that Israel wasn't going to just beat them up and then let them go, that they were going to essentially take control of Gaza forever and make it part of Israel.
And I'm right.
So far, looks like I'm right.
Now, how do you explain that I have no expertise in that region or no expertise in that domain whatsoever, and that I'm the only person who was right about what would happen.
How do you explain that?
Well, before you answer, I should remind you that at the beginning of the pandemic, when Trump announced he was going to do Project Warp Speed, I predicted in public that the vaccinations would not work.
And then when it was rolled out, and they said, it works, it works.
We're rolling it out.
I said in public again, I predict it won't work.
Now, how much did I know about virology and vaccine?
and vaccinations and what was my expertise?
And the answer was none.
I had none.
But as far as I know, I was the only public figure that I'm aware of who said on day one of the vaccinations that I predict they won't work.
So how'd I get that right with no expertise whatsoever?
Here's another one.
When Russia was threatening to attack Ukraine, I got one prediction 100% wrong, as wrong as anything could be, and I said that Putin must be bluffing because...
So I predicted that he wouldn't go in.
But I also predicted that if he did, he would not be able to conquer Ukraine in two weeks and that the ground assets that he sent in would be too vulnerable to high-tech air stuff, you know, missiles and drones and stuff.
And that's what happened.
So I have no military experience.
But why was it that my prediction that Ukraine would be able to hold off Moscow, why was that right so far.
I mean, you could argue if you wait forever, it'll become wrong, and that's true.
But I was just about the most right on a military question.
How's that possible when I don't have any military expertise?
How about the fact that I predicted that Trump would win in 2016?
What was my prior political experience?
None.
None, none at all.
How did I get that right in a domain that I shouldn't have known anything?
How about when the Ukraine war was newer and I predicted that Pergona I predicted that he would turn on Moscow and try to overthrow Putin.
I'm the only person who said that.
Nobody else in the world said that.
And then he did.
And then when he got obviously murdered immediately by Putin, once they got their hands on him, the news told you that he was flying off to Belarus to live his life happily.
And I laughed at you and said, no, he's already been killed.
There's no way he's still alive.
And of course, I was right about that.
Now, how did I get all of those predictions right?
I mean, those are really specific predictions and nobody else made them.
Well, I don't have any expertise in that area, right?
But how did I get that right?
And so you can probably come up with a few more.
Here's my theory.
I believe that the reason I have an advantage over the experts is that experts are not allowed to depart from the other expert opinions.
That as soon as you, let's say you're a military expert, As soon as a few people say, well, Russia is going to just crush Ukraine in 10 minutes, you don't want to be the person who's on the other side of that if you're an actual expert.
So it's just safer to go with the majority, I guess.
And I have the freedom, this is I don't know anything about any of these topics.
I have no expertise in any of these domains.
I have the freedom to say, well, what's it look like?
And then I just apply usually the Dilbert filter to it and a persuasion filter.
usually some economic filter, just basic stuff.
And I say, well, looks to me like this is going to happen.
So I would argue that it could be that being an expert makes you retarded because you can't really throw away your whole career over a specific prediction.
But I can make a wild prediction and if I'm wrong, well, I'll just say, oh, I got that one totally wrong.
It wouldn't make any difference at all.
So I have a little bit more freedom.
to consider the alternatives.
So maybe that's what's going on.
It's my best guess.
All right.
As you know, Minnesota is in a pitched battle with California to see which would make the shittiest state.
All right.
If I said to you that a housing program has been caught stealing $100 million, a housing program, what state would you imagine that was?
We'll play this game.
The answer is Minnesota.
So there's a news story, $100 million stolen from some housing program.
Here's another one.
A man got 28 years in prison, according to the Associated Press, the AP for $48 million of COVID-era food and fraud scandal.
Is that California or Minnesota?
The answer is Minnesota, Minnesota.
All right.
So there you go.
California, if you give us $100 billion for a bullet train, We'll probably just keep that money.
If you give us money to fix the fire damage in LA, well, we'll just let somebody steal it probably.
I don't think we'll build any new homes or help any people.
So which country or which state is shittier, Minnesota or California?
I'm going to say that Minnesota is shittier simply because they have worse weather and more mosquitoes.
And otherwise, we're both corrupt.
All right.
I got this question so many times from so many people and I don't want to have individual arguments with all of you.
So people keep asking me, Scott, if we're a simulation or maybe things are not the religious model, didn't there have to be an intelligence that kicked it all off?
To which I say, no.
And then they say, oh, but there had to be something that was there first.
And it had to be an intelligence, right?
Otherwise we couldn't get to where we are now.
And then I say, No.
And they say, well, explain that.
And I think, I don't have to explain it.
I can just say no.
But if you'd like a little bit more, Here are the possibilities.
One is that time is a complete illusion.
If time is an illusion and everything is just sort of here or some other version of it, just, you know, time is an illusion, then there's no such thing as something that started at all because time's an illusion.
The other possibility is that we create the past.
We don't just come from it.
So it could be that we're creating the past actively.
That takes a little more explaining, but that's another way that it didn't have to be an original cause.
And my favorite is that time is circular, meaning that let's say there was a big bang, but everything expands, eventually everything will come back together and it will just happen again.
And that everything that is possible will eventually happen.
So you wouldn't need a beginning with that model.
because it would just be infinite.
How about if time is infinite, then there is no beginning because there will always be something before it.
But did the thing before it have to be intelligent?
I don't know.
I can see why you would think it might be.
But does that mean it has to be?
Can you tell me that just things bouncing around forever would not someday cause something that looked like a computer program or intelligence?
I don't know.
But no, it is not true.
that there had to be something intelligent that got it all going.
It does not have to be true that there had to be a beginning or something before the beginning.
Could be circular, could be we don't know what time is, could be we're in a video game and none of those rules mean anything because we're just characters in a video game.
But there are lots of ways that we don't have to have a beginning with an intelligent creator.
Anyway, that's all I got for now.
Thanks for joining everybody.
Sorry I went a little bit long.
I'm going to talk to my beloved subscribers on locals right now.
