Episode 2451 CWSA 04/21/24

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. I'm pretty sure you've never had a finer time in your life, but if you'd like to take it up to levels, then nobody could even understand with their human brains. All you need for that is a upper mug or a glass. A tank of shell, Justine, a canteen, jugger flask. A vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day thing makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. It happens now. Every morning. I get the no sound troll. Somebody comes in every day. No sound. There's no sound. However, thanks to Paul, I have a system now so I can ignore those. All right, here's some news. The news that you need to know. This is the important news. The news that will change your life. The most important things of the day. Are you ready? Number one, there's a new study that says marijuana makes you smarter. Specifically, cannabis users scored significantly higher. Did I say significantly higher. On measures of emotional comprehension compared to non users. So, in other words, cannabis users appear to have an enhanced ability to understand other people's emotions. That's right. Cannabis users seem to be able to understand other people's emotions better than other people. Now, I know what you're going to say. You're going to say, but, Scott, why is it that when the study is something you don't want to hear, you always say it's probably a correlation and not a causation, but when it's something that you do want to hear, oh, suddenly it's all causation. Do you know why I know that you're thinking that? I'll tell you how I know. You want to guess how I know what you're thinking? Turns out I've got this enhanced ability to understand other people's emotions. I don't know what caused it, but very high emotional ability. Yeah, I don't know where it came from. Could be a coincidence. You never know. Well, Tucker Carlson on Joe Rogan said, among other things, that he doesn't believe in evolution. He believes God created people. And if it was good enough for people to think that for thousands of years before science was good enough, after science, too, says Tucker now. And he says, there's no evidence of evolution, only adaptation. Now, if you only saw the news that comes from the traditional news, do you think that's true? Tell me, true or false? Do you believe that There is evidence of evolution, or as Tucker says, there's no evidence of evolution, only adaptation. Well, I'm not going to have that argument, but I will tell you. Well, let me, let me put it this way. I've seen claims that evolution is not proven. You know, long documentaries. I've seen interviews with people who claimed it. But I can't, I can't evaluate either claim. I'm not really qualified to evaluate that. But I'm going to tell you about fake news. So because of the story about Tucker saying he doesn't believe in evolution, I saw a comment on the X platform that if you saw, you would probably believe. So it's just from a user, Eric Oskin. And Eric commented on Tucker's comment and said this. I feel like Tucker's confidence in this may come from listening to Scott Adams who, despite the many smart things he says, also regularly claims that that quote and this is put in quotes so you know that I said it. Scientists no longer believe Darwin's theory of evolution, unquote. Both are simply wrong on this score. So those of you who have been following me for years and years, do you believe that I ever said this thing in quotes? Scientists no longer believe Darwin's theory of evolution. Have any of you ever heard me say that? Because according to Eric, I say that on a regular basis. And you watch me every day. Have you ever seen me say it? No. I would never say anything that dumb. Of course scientists believe in evolution. Of course they do. Now here's your tip on fake news. If you read this with no context, would you have believed it? If you saw it with no context, would you? Because it's in quotes. It's a quote. Like I said those exact words. I didn't. I never said those words. Do you know what I have said? You probably do. I have said that evolution is disproven in scientific terms. That is not the same as saying that scientists don't believe in evolution. You all understand that, right? Here's what I mean by scientific terms. One of the things that science accepts is probability and math. That's sort of assumed to be critical parts of science. And based on what we understand about the simulation theory and the Elon Musk math on that, that if it's possible to ever do it, there will be lots of simulations. So the odds of you being in a simulation will be a trillion to one or a billion to one against you being an original species. Now, if we're a simulation, then that means that anything we thought about our history is just Made up. So that's my view that evolution exists within the model of our illusions, but it doesn't exist in the actual base reality. It's just something we create on demand. So in my view, the fossil is not in the dirt until you start digging for it. If nobody's ever seen, doesn't exist until you dig for it. So I think the past is created by the present and that the odds are, I don't know, I'd say a trillion to one, maybe, maybe a billion to one that we are a simulation. And if we're a simulation, then evolution doesn't even make sense. You know, everything else doesn't make sense either. It's just a simulation. So do you remember Gel man theory? That or gal man amnesia. And that's the theory that if you know something personal about a story, you know it's fake, but if you didn't know it personally, you think it's true. So here's this user on, on the X platform who, who, who calls me out by name, says I've done things multiple times. Which makes you think it's not misunderstood because if you did something multiple times, it's not a misunderstanding. Right? Multiple times. And that in quotes because there are quotation marks around this thing. I never said you would believe all that's true. Not even close. Not even close. All right, self driving cars are probably coming faster than you think. So now Mercedes has an agreement in California, but only in California, that there's a new kind of Mercedes with a self driving feature that you don't need to pay attention to. So I think that's the first car with a steering wheel, you know, that's meant to be sometimes driven and sometimes self driving that you can actually not pay attention to. So legally, depending on what streets you're on, it'll tell you you don't have to pay attention. Basically you can just do your own thing. It'll call out to you when you need to pay attention. So that sounds pretty dangerous. So at this point we've got the Waymo self driving cars, we've got Tesla's full self driving FSD and in California, the Mercedes. Some, but not all streets are completely self driving. Now as Elon said recently, it only makes sense from a business perspective to go balls to the wall, using his phrase, to go balls to the wall on self driving. Because there's no way, yeah, there's no way it's not going to be self driving. You'd agree with that, right? And we're probably five years away from Basically, you know, all cars having a self driving option, I would think no more than five. All right. @ the same time, there's a big advancement. I think I mentioned this one before, but there's something new about it. In South Korea, they've made an advancement in sodium batteries. So sodium is way more available than lithium. So if they can make batteries out of and sodium, that'd be cool. But also it could be charged really fast. So they made a battery that you can charge really fast, it isn't so heavy that you couldn't use it in a car and it's way more abundant. So. But I'd like to give you a caution just to keep an eye out for this. If our electric cars start having sodium batteries. In the old days, if a vehicle hit a pedestrian, that was called a hit and run. A hit and run. That was the old days. That was before sodium batteries. And now that same situation would be called that. You. You assaulted a pedestrian. You assaulted a pedestrian. No. Too early for dad jokes. Sunday is the perfect day for dad jokes. Yeah, dad jokes all day long. All right, Bindu Reddy on X is telling us that the age of robots is here. The robots that will have the AI brains and can do everything from use a laptop to wash dishes and make coffee. So basically the new robots will just need to be trained in anything and they'll be able to do it. So if any robot learns it, it can teach the other robots right away. And apparently there will be a whole bunch of robot companies that are popping up in the next year and you'll see your first, like real, real robot in two to three years. I thought it'd be faster. I was thinking that maybe by the end of this year you could buy a Tesla robot. But Bindu ready thinks maybe two to three, and then in five to six you'll have all kinds of robots. So five to six years, basically it will be ordinary to have your own robot in the house. Just hold that in your mind that maybe in five years having a household robot could be as normal as having, let's say, two cars, right? Not something everybody will be able to afford. But if you looked at the number of people who could afford two cars, it might be similar to that or two TVs. I don't know what these robots are going to cost. The first ones are going to be pretty expensive, but I think it's going to be like LED TVs. I think in eight years a robot's going to be fifteen hundred dollars. And then how do you not get one, if you can afford it. There's a new push by scientists who studied animals and insects, and they bunch of researchers are signing a declaration that animals have consciousness and then maybe even insects and fish and all those other things, including crabs and lobsters and mollusks and squids and everything, cuttlefish, they all have a quote, realistic possibility of consciousness. So what does this tell you is maybe shaping up so at the same time that robots with AI are becoming a practical commercial product, these researchers are looking at mollusks and crabs and lobsters and determined that they have a realistic possibility of being conscious. Huh. You see where this is going, right? I think it's very obvious that we're going to have conscious robots or ones that people argue are conscious. There will be others who argue forever that they can't be because they're not human, blah, blah, God. But there will be an argument about whether the AI is conscious. And part of the reason that you argue it is because there's no single definition of consciousness. But I'll tell you the definition I think is most useful. I would say something is conscious if it can do the following things, which AI could do. Can't do it yet. But it would be fairly trivial to make it do it. It would be that current AI just executes whatever its patterns tell it to do. But it could also fairly easily come to a decision of what it's going to say or do and then evaluate the decision and make a prediction about how it'll turn out. As in, if I say this thing that my pattern, pattern machine told me to say, I predict that the human will be upset or happy or elated or something, and then you see what happens. And then the AI does the thing, says the words or does the thing, and then it observes how different its prediction was from what actually happened. And then it incorporates the new information into its training data by saying, oh, I saw a new situation. If I had seen this situation before, I could have predicted exactly. But now I can. Now I can put it in my training data. I think that will be called consciousness. But the other, the other group of people say that consciousness is a subjective feeling. Like you just feel your life. And can the computer feel? Well, it can if you program it that way. You just program it to say if your sensors pick up this or that you feel. And you could probably add senses, you know, because you got your vision and your touch already. You have hearing. Right. The machines can do all that. So I think you could, you could fake it to have a subjective experience. All right, there's some more science. And it says we're getting dumber and our brains are getting fatter that are. Maybe our diet is making brains, our brains are growing 7% size. But our IQ has dropped since the 30s. Do you think we can really measure our IQ drop? Do you think you can measure the average IQ drop from the 30s? Is there something missing from that story? Because in the 30s you had access to a certain group of people to measure, and in the current day you would be measuring a very different group of people because of immigration. So unless you knew the baseline of all the people before they migrated, doing it before and after in the United States would be silly because it would be ignoring one of the biggest factors for iq, which is genetics. Right. I mean, that, that would be a fair statement. So I don't believe anything about measuring IQ since the 30s. I don't think that's the thing we can do. So what would you do? ABC News is reporting that a lot of the companies that are buying into esg, you know, the, the climate commitments that a lot of them have made climate commitments. But just one thing wrong with all the climate commitments that the over half of the. No, a little over half of the 2,000 biggest companies in the world, they've made pledges to achieve net zero carbon emissions. So that's pretty good, right? Half of the biggest companies. And the biggest companies have the biggest impact, of course, but half of the biggest companies have adopted pledges to achieve net zero carbon emissions. Do you notice the one wrinkle with those pledges? They're all Wally pledges. Most of them have made a pledge but are doing nothing that would achieve that outcome. They just made the pledge. So they're doing the big company, pointy haired boss thing. All right, big company, here's what you have to do. You have to do this impossible, expensive thing to reduce your net. You have to get the net zero carbon emissions by a certain date. And if you don't do it, we're going to mock you and put you on the bad list forever. All right, let me understand this. If I simply say I'm going to do this thing, I'll be on the good list. But if I don't say I'm going to do it, I'll be on the bad list. Is that what you're telling me? Yes. You'll be ostracized and people will call you out and probably even your own employees will revolt. Okay. Okay. I have further questions. If I were to say I'm going to give this pledge but then let's say in 2030 I didn't make it. What's the penalty for that? Oh, there's no penalty. So, okay, more questions. So you're saying that I could be on the good list until 2030 just by saying I'm going to do it, but if I don't actually do it, nobody's going to know the difference. And by the way, most of the companies that promised also will be failing simultaneously with me, right? Well, yeah, that's probably true. So, again, final question. If I were to say I'm going to do it, have no practical plan whatsoever, wait until 2030, and then fail like the other thousand companies that are doing the same thing I'm doing, which is pretending to play along, will there be too many companies that failed for us to really get in much trouble individually? Well, I don't know. If. If a thousand companies failed at doing the same thing, I think people would say it's something about the thing, not about the companies exactly. I think I got myself a strategy. I pledge. Now. I'd like to get in on this action. So I'd like to make a pledge right now in public. I personally and my. My corporation, Scott Adams, Inc. We pledge that we will achieve net zero carbon emissions by the year 2030, just like the other thousand companies that are making the same pledge. So you can put me on the good list. Hello, good list. And in 2030, when I don't achieve that like the other thousand companies that won't, well, I'm going to say, well, they didn't. Why are you getting on me? I'm not even one of the biggest companies. I. I really thought I could do it. I mean, I thought I had a shot. I tried so hard. I even looked at maybe getting a Tesla for about five minutes. So that's me working as hard as I can to reduce the carbon footprint. So that's how you get on the good list. Just make a promise. So Peter Schweitzer is telling us the fentanyl business is. It's all a Chinese Communist Party plot, and that the guy that the treasury or the US Department of Treasury sanctioned as a Chinese mafia leader behind the fentanyl. So we. We told China's leadership who their big fentanyl dealer was by name. Right. Not just generically, but by name. It's this guy. This guy's doing it. And then China probably said, oh, we'll stop that and we'll check back in. And how's that guy doing? Oh, he was just given an award. Yeah. He just got an award. So not only is he free in doing his business, but he's highly respected and got an award. So Schweizer says that the cartels are sort of the minor players in this and that the Chinese are producing all the precursors. They're even making the pill press machines that you make the fake fentanyl pills on. So they're doing distribution. Basically, they're involved in making it easy for the cartels. Now, how many of you believe that the US Government is genuinely trying to stop the fentanyl business? Does anybody still believe that we're trying to stop fentanyl? Because, you know, all of the information suggests we're not. So here's my working assumption, that the fentanyl business is being run out of the United States, not out of China. China is clearly involved, but it seems to me that whatever the cartels are doing must be with the approval of the United States. Why do I say that? Because otherwise we would move against the cartels in a strong way. That even if it didn't work, you could see it on the news every day. If the United States were not in the fentanyl business with the cartels, you would hear stories like this. A, a big cartel place was hit by drones yesterday. Or the US Is trying to get the Mexican military to act upon this. You know, this cartel headquarters. We can't get them to do it, but we want to. The stories would be completely different if the United States were not obviously the ones running the fentanyl business, or at least participating in it. So if you have a kid, let me give you this advice. Nobody's coming to help. It's up to you. Nobody in the government is going to make fentanyl less available. That's just not going to happen. For whatever reason, that looks like some kind of corruption, and you should do what you can. You're on your own. Well, here's something that I predicted in my book, the Religion War, but here it is. The cartels are using drones and chemical agents are dropping from the drones. That's right. The cartels have weaponized chemical warfare on drones, and they're using it in their local fights against the other cartels and people they don't like. Now, combine this with open immigration, and we know that our enemies, let's say Iran and China, have probably put their agents in every American city and they all have access to drones. And now we know that it's practical because the cartels have tried and succeeded in dropping chemical agents. It shouldn't be Long before you see a massive attack where all of our major cities simultaneously have chemical drone attacks, but probably only by some country that's in a bind. Like, if, if, if the Iranian leadership looked like it was going to fall, I think there would be a major drone gas attack in major cities because they're probably already set up to do it. That's what I assume. And the reason I assume it is because it's so obvious. It's the obvious. Low cost, high impact weapon of mass destruction. You couldn't pay less or make it easier to use the weapon of mass destruction. And I used to not talk about this, you know, too directly for a long time because I didn't want to give anybody any ideas, but they already have the ideas. So now you should just. I would make sure you have a gas mask. Honestly, I think it's time to have residential gas masks. Like, legitimately, it's time to have a residential gas mask. So do that. Apparently the January 6th people, I think I told this, are afraid that if Trump gets elected, the January 6 committee, the corrupt committee that was hiding exculpatory information about Trump, that they're afraid of going to jail. And I guess Adam Schiff has said that you can't avoid the conversations of what if? And he has to think about his personal safety. Now, Adam Schiff should definitely be in jail. If there's one person who has proven over and over again he's an enemy of the country, it's Adam Schiff. He literally went into the skiff and told the country that he saw evidence there was Russia collusion, completely made it up. Now, how in the world do you even have any kind of, you know, security clearance? If you've done that even once, if you've done that even once, you should be removed from Congress because it was obviously intentional, it was obviously a really big deal and obviously was terrible for the country. So, yeah, he should be in jail. And I think the entire January 6th committee, based on what we know, that's been fairly well demonstrated that there, it was obviously political and they were obviously hiding exculpatory facts. Now, under those conditions, since they were trying to get somebody else in trouble and change the nature of the government, and basically it was a coup. So whatever you would do for sedition, insurrection, coups, that should be the penalty. And I think that they're some of the worst criminals in the United States. That's my view. Stacey Abrams is saying some interesting things. Colin Rug, who was talking about this on X. So Stacey Abrams said that anyone who Attacks diversity, equity and inclusion. DEI is also attacking democracy and the economy. So here's what she said. See if this makes sense to you. Quote, what we know is that the attack on diversity, equity and inclusion DEI is an attack on democracy. It's an attack on education, it's an attack on how our economy works. Now this is what I call word thinking, meaning that you think you said something rational and logical because the words make sense in a sentence. But I'm here to tell you that that's all that happened. These were just words in a sentence that had no connection to any logic, rationality, facts, data, science, nothing. So. So here would be an example of the same thing. The sky must be purple because cows are made of leather. The sentence makes sense. All the words are in a, you know, grammatical form. That makes sense, but it doesn't make any sense. Doesn't make any sense. The sky must be purple because cows are made of leather. Now, if you think that's absurd, let me read again Stacey Abrams sentence. See if you can find any logic in it whatsoever. What we know is that the attacks on DEI is an attack on democracy, it's an attack on education, it's an attack on how our economy works. How, why, where, how are, how are these concepts related? Because I could make an argument for the opposite of that. I would say that DEI is the opposite of how our economy works because our economy works on merit and DEI is the opposite. So I could make the argument DEI is opposite of the economy or the way the economy works. But how do you make the argument that anti DEI is against the economy? None of this makes any sense. And she's not even trying very hard. So there's that. So some House Republicans are introduced legislation to defund NPR because NPR is a liberal biased hellhole, we've learned recently. But here's the funniest thing. If you're not following any of this, their new CEO, newish CEO Kathleen Marr. People are looking into her background. It turns out she has every red flag for being a CIA agent. Now, I'm not saying she is, because that what I know. But if you just see her own resume, nothing made up, you just have to look at what's on her own resume. Almost every part of it screams CIA, and it includes, like, you know, being associated with the Atlantic Council. If the only thing you knew was associated with the Atlantic Council, that would be the biggest red flag. But apparently everything she's been associated with right down the line has been pure spook material. Doesn't mean she is it's not confirmed in any way, and she denies it. But I've never seen anybody who hit more red flags for being part of the intelligence blob. And then we know that her prior job was at the company that heads Wikipedia. And we know from other reporting and from the past that the CIA likes to control the media landscape. And probably, it's probably we're better off if they do with, you know, with all the negative that comes with it. But it looks like this is exactly what was happening. It looks like the CIA developed an asset early on, identified her as a, you know, high potential person. It looks like they probably made sure she got these two good assignments where she could be controlling not only Wikipedia's techniques, but npr. I mean, if you see everything that she's done, it looks really, really obvious, like it's all part of a CIA structure. I'm not saying it is, but it couldn't look more like it. And, you know, the government's guilty until proven innocent. She, as an individual, is innocent until proven guilty, but the government's guilty until proven innocent. Well, Alex Jones points out that the, the House Democrats are pushing a bill to have this inspector general to oversee the Supreme Court. If anybody is overseeing the Supreme Court, it means they're trying to neuter the Supreme Court because they would use the oversight body to control the Supreme Court. So that would be essentially Democrats trying to overcome the last illusion that we have any kind of a republic or a constitutional anything. But once you get rid of the separation of powers, which is what they're trying to do directly, then you can't even really pretend you're any kind of a democratic republic or anything like that. We're not even close. Anything like that. So, so that's your first bit of data. So the Democrats are trying to get rid of the Supreme Court as a separate entity. That would be independent. Can you Even imagine, imagine 10 years ago if I told you that the Democrats were trying to neuter the Supreme Court because they didn't like its decisions. It would almost seem un, like unfathomable. Now it's like business as usual, right? Here are some things that we know about our country that maybe a lot of you didn't know before, but it's not until you see them all together that you get the big picture. So I'm going to tell you a bunch of things you think are true. Maybe you learned them recently, maybe you didn't. And there might be some things on this list that some of you might say, oh, I don't know about that one. And that's okay, because if a few of them are not exactly the way I present them, it doesn't change the larger directional picture. Okay, so here's what I would say I know to be true as a working assumption. The country is not and has not been a democratic republic for at least decades, and certainly my lifetime. We are clearly and unambiguously a fascist organization and defining fascist as having a government which is not controlled by the people. It's obviously controlled by intelligence entities at this point. So it's not controlled by the people. And the big companies are working in concert with the government and the intelligence people for the benefit of the government and the benefit of the big companies. Maybe not necessarily at the benefit of the. The public, or at least not giving the public what they would want in a populous sense. And that. Because that is the nature of our government and our country and it has been for a long time, and that we have this. This fake facade of doing elections, but really all we get is to elect, you know, which CIA asset. That's probably all we get to choose. So I would say that's an accurate statement based on everything I know that we're a fascist country, not a republic. But just to make things interesting, I'm not sure that that isn't the best situation, because if you have a. The big company is working with the government, it's all a big corrupt entity. It's also a very strong entity. And probably the most dangerous thing you could do as a country is to have a weak economy, because then if something happens, you can't recover and have a weak military because then somebody's going to conquer you or push you around. So because our fascist situation here is very strong because we have big companies and a big government and a big military, we end up being a very strong country, except for the national debt. That's the one glaring exception to our strength. But I would say that you can't even make the case necessarily that our big fascist country that they pretend is a democracy. I'm not sure it isn't the best system. You know, people always just say, well, democracy has all its problems, but, you know, there's no better system. To which I say, yes, there is. We're in it. The better system is you pretend you're a democracy, you convince the public that you are, but you have the big corporations and the government collude for the benefit of the big companies, because that. That's how we become a big economy. And if you're A big economy, you can pay for health care and you can have military that keeps you safe from other places. Although the military in this fascist situation would also be starting wars that we didn't need to start, but it would try to only start wars we knew we could either make money on or win or affect something, you know, not. Not ones that would destroy the country. So maybe it's the worst situation, that we're a fascist country pretending not to be. Maybe that's the worst, but it also might be the best. It might be the best, even as terrible as it is. I get back to that. Democracy is the worst system, except nobody knows one that's better. Well, I do. I just told you one. Our current fake democracy with a real fascist undertone probably is the best you can do in a broken world. Here's things that I'm pretty sure are true. The CIA killed Kennedy, the CIA removed Nixon, and of course George Bush was in the CIA. He was the head of the CIA before his president. I'm pretty sure that the CIA still controls the media. Too many obvious examples of that. I'm sure that the CIA and intelligence blob, as Mike Benz likes to tell us, is using other countries that are allies and NGOs to censor people who would be opposed to the fascist government. So I do think that we don't have a First Amendment. Well, we have First Amendment, but we don't have free speech because our own country is through the CIA working against the citizens to cancel people and diminish their reach if they have statements that the blob doesn't like. We know we're a massive surveillance state so that we've lost all privacy. That we know that from recent re up of surveillance. We know that the blob or our government takes out influential independent populist voices. So we know we have a government that is persecuting people for their views and opinions through a variety of Mechanisms through the NGOs and other countries and suppressing you on the platforms and lawfare and all that. Well, I know. What I think I know is that Mayorkas is not working for America. Now, I don't have proof of that, except you have a guy whose only job is to protect the border. Well, at least that's a big part of his job and he's simply not doing it. And I don't see any other explanation other than he doesn't work for us. I don't know he works for, I mean, I would guess the cartels or there are intelligence people who are Also working with the cartels, but he's definitely not working for America. I mean, I don't think there's any question about that at this point. When you see that the Democrats are trying to remove Trump's Secret Service, and you see that Biden doesn't give RFK junior Secret Service, that's exactly what it looks like. That is our government trying to kill the competition and jail them. Trying to jail them and. Or kill them. It's exactly what it looks like. There's no, no ambiguity there. That is exactly what they're doing. They're trying to kill their competition or jail them. Right in front of you. Right. There's nothing be hidden. It's right in front of you. I would say I'm not aware of any specific rigging of our election systems, but I am aware that our election systems are, in my opinion, a joke and not credible at all. Now, not credible doesn't mean rigged. Not credible means I would have no idea if they were rigged or not. Now, I've heard somebody else say, scott, if anything was rigged, you'd pick it up right away in the audit. They're not audited. And do you know. Do you know what you can apparently do and get away with if somebody comes to audit your election? Do you know what you can do if you don't want it to be audited? You can delete all your files, and then they say, where are all those files? So we can audit it, like in Georgia, and you can say, oh, all the image files that you could use to audit, they all got deleted. What, somebody's going to jail? No, it's probably just a mistake. But now we can't audit. We don't even know if the election was fair. Yeah, that's terrible. But, you know, life goes on Biden's president. Maybe we'll have another election. As long as our system allows you to lose anything that could be audited. Which is exactly what happened. Every time we. Every time somebody wants to look into something, it seemed like, I don't know, you know, we lost those records. You know, those, those. What do you call them? The flash drives. Yeah, let's look at those flash drives. Oh, can't find them. Let's look at what software was. Oh, we updated that software. Sorry. Yeah. So if you try to do an audit or if you, if you try to have observers. We saw that observers were literally chased out of election centers. Republicans were chased out in 2020. Right. They were chased down. Now, if you can chase out the observers, and then if you cheated. You can just delete the evidence and people will say, oh, it's too bad we can't check. I guess we'll just go on as if we had no way to know that would assume that your elections are rigged. So I don't have proof and there's no court that found the rig, but it certainly looks like it's obvious. I, I'd put it in the category of so obvious that it would be a miracle if they weren't rigged. It would just be a miracle. We see that the, the government is using lawfare to get Trump right in front of us. You don't have to be a lawyer to know that it's lawfare and it's not. Has nothing to do with the actual law or what is right or just we know that our country is a hoaxocracy, meaning that the Democrats run one hoax after another that are very organized and they involve our intelligence community, the Russia collusion intelligence community, the FBI laptop hoax, Russian intelligence or not, I'm sorry, probably our intelligence people. So yes, and the January 6th thing of course is the current ongoing hoax and this is all supported by the deep state hoaxocracy. Let's see, we know the food supply is poisoned. RFK Jr is telling us that. And it's obvious we don't see much doing done about that because we're. Why would that be? What would be the reason that our food supply is obviously bad for us, but there's not, you know, massive government intervention? Well, it's because we're a fascist country. And the big, big food and big pharma can sometimes be owned by the same big money people. The same people own our farmer and our food companies in large part. And they're pretty happy with the situation, I think. So nothing can get fixed there because we are a fascist country in effect. We've learned more about the Wuhan lab cover ups recently that Fauci was involved in funding something and their whistleblower does say that the whole point of it was to make it look like it had not been a human engineered virus. And then when it comes out Fauci and everybody goes, oh, it's not a human engineered virus, when in fact the whole effort was to make one that didn't look like it was human engineered from the very lab that apparently had the leak. Anyway, we know that Ukraine is all corrupt and that it's just a huge money laundering, money making grab. We know that the story that Putin wanted to take over Europe is completely made up fake and that really, it was about turning Ukraine, NATO so that the weapons people can sell NATO approved weapons to Ukraine, which you would pay for with your tax dollars. So it's all basically a scam, and we know that. So Ukraine is partly about the CIA bases and the, the illegal labs, and partly about the money laundering and partly about energy and partly about weapons. But if you think it's about defending America, no, it's nothing about that. So you might say to me, Scott, if our, if our government is fascist and has been that way for, for decades, simply meaning that the government and the big companies are working together with the intelligence people to, to make the elites happy at your expense, what do you do about that? Do you run a populist president and try to dismantle it all? Because that's what looks like is happening? Well, maybe. And maybe that could work. I mean, it's not a zero chance that Trump could make a difference. But I would say your better play is to join the bad guys, because the bad guys would be the big companies. So if you have not already made it in America, a really good way to do it is to join a big company because they have great benefits and promotion and training. And when I worked for big companies, they were absurd situations. But I learned so much that I could take with me to do my own thing, which I eventually did. So that's your career strategy. If you believe the government is a unfixable fascist entity, which is what I believe, all the evidence suggests that then your best bet is to be on the side of the fascist entity. And I'm not joking, that is your best play. Now, you could try to fight it at the same time, you know, by voting for populists and stuff like that. But in the meantime, you should make sure you're on the same side with the people who are winning. That's just the smart play. All right. Bill Maher also, he makes a lot of news after his show and he makes news by saying things that are obvious. But for some reason, his own team doesn't want to act like it's obvious. And he said, why would a drag queen want to perform for children? Maybe it's more for the drag queens and the kids. And he said if, if they wanted to teach the kids to be more open minded about people, maybe you should have disabled people come in because those children might never meet a drag queen, but they probably will meet lots of people who are differently abled. So maybe they should work on that because that will be a common experience. The other one's Very uncommon. So, yes, I think Marc sees it for what it is. It does look like there's a. As he would say, a gay agenda. Not for all gay people, of course. You know, any. Any generality doesn't hold for individuals, but that there are some number of people in the LGBT community who are just trying to gay up America, and they're. And they're trying pretty hard to do it. All right, So Glenn Beck asked RFK Jr about his Second Amendment stance, and here are some things RFK Jr said. I'm not taking anybody's guns. Okay, good. So far. My father was killed by a gun. My uncle was killed by gun. I saw what it did to my family. I've seen what it does to other people. But he says we need to work with each other to understand why we're having the gun violence in this country that no other country has. When I was a kid, we had gun clubs in our schools, and nobody was shooting at people. Something happened. Huh? What happened in the comments? Do you want to tell RFK Jr what happened since he was a kid? Do. Do. Do you want to fill in the blanks? Because there you go. Mike Burt. Yes. Mike Burt. It's probably a demographic shift. Probably a demographic shift. If you were to artificially take only the parts of America that look like america in the 50s, if you just took the part of America that looked like America in the 50s, that demographic group. The gun violence is about the same as it was when RFK Jr. Was a kid. So if everything stayed the same, the gun violence would have stayed the same as well. Now, the real question would be, why is gun owner 1? Why is gun violence higher in some communities? Well, poverty, obviously. Poverty and the drug business, specifically. So wherever you have poverty and you have a big, you know, drug business, you're going to have a lot of violence. So I don't think there's as much mystery to this as RFK Jr would like you to believe, but I don't think he can say directly what I just said, that it might be a demographic thing. No, if you get into culture, you've gone too far. See, as soon as you say, you know why you've gone too far, because I don't think the science supports any specific reason. It's just that there is a difference. That's the part we can know for sure. But as soon as you get into its culture, it's genes. It's. It's poverty. I don't think we know that. That doesn't seem to be something anybody Knows. All right, let's talk about that Trump jury. So now Trump has a jury for his case, the, The Stormy Daniels payments case. And I guess there are two lawyers on the jury, which is interesting. That could go either way. Either the lawyers will be better at understanding the evidence, and therefore they would be more likely to acquit. You know, they would just have more context to bring to it. And then there's also one Truth Social user, and I can't imagine any scenario in which somebody who gets their news and interacts and is a member of Truth Social. How in the world are they going to find Trump guilty? I don't think he's going to get convicted. I think it's going to be a hung jury, and I think that it's going to be a 12 angry men situation where there's going to be one holdout and the one held out is just going to say, you. You're going to have to kill me. I think you're very, very likely to get a Trump supporter that snuck onto that jury who just says, well, I've had enough. Do what? Do whatever you need to do to me. I'm just stopping this now. I think that person exists now. I'll give it a 7,030, 70% chance there's somebody who's already been selected who knows they're going to stop this thing even before the trial. They know they're going to vote innocent because they know it's lawfare. Everybody should know that it's lawfare. It's not a legitimate process. If you put me on that jury, I would hang that jury so fast. There's not a. There's not a possibility I would even listen to the evidence or care about the evidence in this case. I wouldn't care about it at all. I would just care that lawfare isn't something I want to have happen again. So I'd make sure it didn't work. That's all I would care about. I would go for justice, not the law. Do you know why? We have jurors who are human, and it's unlikely we will replace them with AI the real reason is because the human has the ability to favor justice over the details of the law. Yeah. A human has the ability to violate the law, or at least the intention of how the legal system is supposed to work. If they think there's a bigger. There's a bigger benefit to the community, you can just say, you know, yeah, you did prove your case innocent, but what about the facts? Yeah, right. Innocent, but we showed you these facts. It's definitely a crime. Yep, yep. Don't care. So that's how I think that's going to go. 70, 30, 70% chance it's a hung jury because there's a Trump supporter who goes all patriot on it. So the Trump ally, Mike Davis, he's being explained that way. I guess he was on a war room the other day and he said that the daughter of the judge overseeing the trial, this judge Marshon, his daughter has raised over 100 million because of Trump having lawfare against him. And apparently the daughter of the judge has been raising money from, for a bunch of prominent Democrats, including, including Kinziger. No, he was. Oh, he. No, he was replaced as a. Never mind. This is an unrelated story. But anyway, the, the judge's daughter has raised immense amounts of money for prominent Democrats. And I think we would all ask the following question. How in the world is this judge still on the case? How, how in the world does a judge whose daughter is not just a little bit Democrat, but super Democrat? How in the world do we imagine this is a fair trial? This is literally a joke. There. There's nothing about this that I think should be taken seriously. I mean, it feels like they're trying to get it overthrown by the, or overturned by the Supreme Court. Wouldn't there be a Supreme Court case here about the, about the judge there? Should be. Right? And how could the Supreme Court ever look at this and say, yeah, this looks like a fair trial when the judge's daughter is, you know, a super anti Trumper and is an activist. It'd be one thing if she just had an opinion, but she's an activist. She actually works for the other team. There's no way in hell the judge is going to be able to vote against the interests of his daughter. It's not really a possibility. Not vote. But you know, CNN says Trump is better liked than he was before, at least in the swing states. So this was it. Harry Enton, they've got a polling guy, he said, quote, the fact is that Donald Trump is in fact better liked than he was four years ago and is better liked than Joe Biden is now in the battleground states. And it's pretty gosh darn clear, he says. So Biden's popularity has fallen off fairly substantially and Trump's popularity has grown. I would like to take another victory lap on my prediction that Trump would look better every day he was out of office and that that January 6 thing will wear off. You know, that the spell of the fake news about January 6th will wear off and he will be considered, depending what he does in the second term, if he has one, he will be considered one of the great presidents in the long run, in my opinion. So, as you know, the House passed the bill that would fund Ukraine and Israel and some money to protect Taiwan and also would tweak a little bit the proposed ban on TikTok. They'd have more time to divest. And I saw reports in the news that the Senate is likely to pass it and then Biden is likely to sign it. Let me ask you this. Do you think in the real world Tik Tok is going to be banned in the United States unless they divest? Do you think that's real here? Here are the possibilities. One is that the Senate will kill the TikTok part of it, which I feel is a real possibility. They'll just take it out and say, all right, we like everything else, but we took out the TikTok part. And then the House and I don't fully understand the system, but if the Senate says yes to the package, but only with changes, doesn't that go back to the House? And then the. Just the leaders of each side, they negotiate with what the deal is, but then they don't vote again. Right. They just have the leaders say, okay, we're pretty close. So if we're close, we'll have the leaders close the gap. We don't have to have. Yeah, reconciliation. That's what it's called. Right? Do I, do I understand the process correctly? So would it be possible? Because I don't know the degree to which they can reconcile versus have to vote over again? I don't, you know, it should be just tweaking. It shouldn't be fundamentally different. Right. So would it be fundamentally different if they tweaked it to take out the TikTok part? I would say no, because it would still look like the funding for Ukraine and Gaza and Taiwan stuff would look like the bigger part of the bill. So I think there's one possibility that it's always been a trick. They put it in there to get support knowing that it would be taken out in reconciliation. So theory one, they knew it would not pass, the people in charge and they knew they could take it out in reconciliation. But I don't know if that's real. I don't know if that's the thing they can actually do. But since I don't know where they can't do it, I'll put it as a possibility. The other possibility Is that the, the big investor, the Republican donor who is now friends with Trump and remember the big donor said after he talked to Trump, Trump said, you know, maybe we should keep Tick Tock because his biggest donor has a 35 billion dollar stake in it and he can't get his money out. But what if this divestment thing is actually what Yass wants? Because Tick Tock was going to go public but the China Chinese government killed it. So that was his cash out event. If he's got $35 billion worth of ownership of ByteDance, but he can never sell it or cash it out, it's useless. So what if this was always a plot to force China to sell a portion of it which would effectively cash out the big investor. So one possibility is that it was always a trick and it's really just a way for the United States to steal China as one of China's biggest businesses. Because we do that because we're a fascist country. If you're a fascist country, your government colludes with your big corporations to steal business from other countries. So in Ukraine you'd be trying to steal the Russian pipeline and gas business. So our corporations would be working with our spooks and our military to do that. And maybe in the Tick Tock case, the real play here is that it was a really profitable business and our CIA would like to have a backdoor to it, which maybe they can't get if it's China owned or China controlled. But if some US investors say Minutian got a bunch of rich people to buy it, maybe Jeff Yass could be cashed out, which would make him happy. Maybe it would give the CIA a backdoor because it would be American owned now, might make them happy and China would, you know, by dance would get some money. So they wouldn't be as happy as they could be, but maybe they could live with it. But basically it looks like we're just stealing their company. That's what it looks like to me. It looks like we're just using our fascist government, our corporations and our military to just force a change, you know, not a military, more, more the lawmakers so that we can get a control of the heat button, I guess. And they have 270 days to divest. If this gets through the Senate, what can happen in 270 days? In 270 days a lot can happen that would change the fate of TikTok. So I'm going to predict that TikTok does not get forced to divest. So that's My first guess, but if it is, does get forced, it will just be recreated in, in an American entity. But here's what won't happen. Tick tock will go away. I don't think there's any chance it'll go away. It's one of the other two things. All right, Israel is attacking Rafa, the claims of deaths that you can't believe because it's fog of war. But apparently they're going to hit Rafa pretty hard, as they said they would. So that's no surprise. All right, homicide rates are falling across the US and experts are surprised. Let's see if you can get this right. Violent crime in general is the same or up. But murder, specifically homicide is down and down quite a bit in a number of cities. Why would homicide be down? Go give me your theories in the comments. Why would homicide be down when crime in general is not down? And I'm going to tell you the reason that I think is the real reason, as it's weird. It's absolutely weird. The drug deaths are higher, you're saying. Well, here's what I think. I think so. One of a few of the experts said the following, that throughout American history, homicides have peaked and then gone down and then peaked and then gone down. Do you know why they peaked and went down in the other times? So in the past this has happened before. They go up and way up and they go way down. Why? Why did it happen in the past? Nobody knows. So this is the surprising thing. The experts don't know why homicide goes up and down because if it was just because of, let's say, economics, then crime in general would go up and down. If it was because of how policing is done, then crime in general would go up and down. Bahama side doesn't move with other violent crimes. And so even if it's demographics, you know, all of crime would move with it. Every theory you can come up with doesn't make sense when you look at the other crimes not moving at the same same direction. They're not even moving the same direction, you know, much less rate. So apparently it's just one of these mysterious vibes. So if I had to guess, I'm going to give my hypnotist filter on this. If we know that homicides do go way up and go way down, and we know it's not because of changes in police or the courts, and we know and we know it's not related to the other crimes. So it's not just about the economy or poverty or even Drugs. I have a theory. It's our movies and TV shows and the news that the public is literally being hypnotized and then unhypnotized based on what shows are in the news. So what movie is popular? And, and I think that's what causes the murder rates. I think if you see more murder on television, there's more murder in the real world. And if you see less murder on television, there's less murder in the real world. What, what was one of the things that happened during the pandemic when murder rates went up? People stayed home and they watched a lot more TV and movies. If you watch TV and movies way more, how much murder are you going to see? Way more. So the pandemic had way more exposure to fictional murder and way more murder in the real world. Now fast forward to after the pandemic. Did you notice that there are fewer movies worth watching and fewer TV shows worth watching? Have you all noticed that? That when you go to look for a show, it's like they stop making good ones or something. So there's a. There might be just as many shows about murder, but I don't watch them because I'm not trapped indoors with nothing to do. I have options now. And the movies are terrible and they're all woke. So if there's a show where a whole bunch of people get, you know, mowed down and murdered, but it's all woke and I don't want to watch it, I'm going to see way less murder. So my theory is this, that the TV and movie consumption of the potential murderers was very high on murder content during the pandemic and murder was high. And then afterwards, when we all said, hey, why do all the movies and the TV shows suck? Why are they so, so woke? We stopped watching them as much and that the murder rate went down the same rate. So I suggest that if you could measure the number of murders the average person sees and you looked at, you know, different time periods, you would see that the number of murders people casually see in fiction is causing the real world murder rate to go up and down. And there might be, you know, alpha properties. For example, there might be like a movie that is just so murderous that there's just a lot more murder. Let me give you an example. When the movie Kill Bill was in theaters and it was a big hit and it was just nothing but non stop violence and murder, do you think that the murder rate might have moved with that? Because my theory says it might have. But you'd have to look at the other things that are happening in the other movies, etc. It's not. Not about one movie normally. So that's my theory, ladies and gentlemen. It's hypnosis. Because all the other theories don't hold. And we certainly see that there. You know, a lot of people do copycat stuff, right? A lot of copycats. It might be in the songs as well. Yeah. I'm not part of the hip hop culture, but what if the. What if, for example, what if three of the top five songs of the year in hip hop involves somebody killing somebody with a gun? Hypothetically? Right. Do you think that would cause people to murder with guns more often? Yes, it absolutely would. Yeah. Let's call it the John Wick theory, that the murder rate goes up whenever John Wick has a hit, has a hit movie in the theaters. You see murder all day long on social media. Yeah, but on social media it often gets put in context, a different kind of context. It's not really glorified so much on social media, but in movies it is glorified in a sense. All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I have for you. So I'm going to say goodbye to the non local subscribers. And so I'll see you tomorrow. If you're on X or YouTube or rumble, but local subscribers, hang with me. I'm going to talk to you privately because you're beloved subscribers. All right, everybody, see you.