Episode 2514 CWSA 06/23/24

Hey everybody.

Let's see if I can get the locals people up here on my separate device so I can see you special.

There we go.

There you are.

Well, good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.

That's what it is.

And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels where even SpaceX can't reach, all you need is a cup of mug, a glass of tankered shellstein, 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, the dopamine hit of the day.

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

And it's going to happen right now.

Savor it.

Savor it.

It's a full body tingle.

Well, some code pink activists uh decided to target uh Jake Tapper's house.

Jake Tapper of CNN.

Now, if you saw the video of it, you would say to yourself, hm, they seem to be indicating a protest in front of the house.

I think the entire protest was five people who showed up in a uh Volvo.

One of them had a uh bullhorn because all the all the videos that I saw of the protesters were extreme close-ups.

Look, here's the face of somebody with a bullhorn.

And I think I think there's another person standing there somewhere nearby.

There couldn't have been more than five people.

But here's the fun part.

Uh the the I guess Jake has some uh older kids, some teenagers, and the teenage kids were just mocking them and playing God Bless.

They're playing some patriotic music and and just mocking them from the balcony and in the garage.

And that's the way to handle it, Jake.

So Jake uh if he was home, don't even know if he was home, but if he was, he wisely stayed off the camera and uh apparently let his kids just mock them, which was fine.

Um I'm very much against people uh protesting public figures houses.

Uh I don't think that's cool whatsoever, but I like the fact that he uses kids to mock him.

if it was intentional.

Maybe just the kids were doing their own thing.

Anyway, uh there's new new studies show that generation Z is the unhappiest generation and people are all figuring out why could that be?

Why is Gen Z the unhappiest?

What could possibly cause such a thing?

I don't know.

Could it be when they look at the news it says that the climate's out of control and going to fry them all and there's no point in having children because they're all going to be dead in a hellscape of hotness.

Might be that could be that uh they're being told they're going to lose their democracy and that Hitler uh has just reincarnated into something orange and terrible.

Could be that.

Could be that.

Neither of those things bother me because I don't think they're real.

How about uh the confusing gender roles?

Don't you think it would cause you a little mental distress if you could sort of pick your own gender?

I don't remember ever having a conversation about it.

That was that was sort of just a given.

All right.

Uh you're a boy.

Got it.

And never really needed to just have a conversation about it again.

But imagine if you were born into a world where people were just choosing their genders.

Ah, you know, I think I'm going to go a different way from now on.

I think I'm the other thing.

I would think that given that, you know, our sexual roles are so baked into civilization and our genes in some level that anytime you add any uh uncertainty into that world, that's got to be bad for your mental health.

How about hormone disruptions?

How about that?

We got all kinds of stuff in the environment.

We got men's testosterone dropping.

And we know testosterone makes men happy if they've got the right amount.

It makes them unhappy if they got the wrong amount.

And we know they got the wrong amount.

And then some number of women are on uh chemical birth control that changes their hormonal balance.

Do you think that has any impact?

Well, I'm no doctor, but probably.

Um, how about the fact that it's the first time in American history kids don't think they could make enough money to do things like have a family?

Now, I don't know if that's really the case, but it sure looks like it.

You can see why they would think it.

What about uh social media and uh the phone?

Of course, social media and the foreigner phone are very bad for your mental health.

What about the fact that now that we have such connectivity, we we don't just worry about the problems that are local to us, like what's happening in your town and what's happening in your family.

Now, you get to worry about all the problems in the world.

You get to worry about the poor Ukrainians.

You get to worry about the poor people in Gaza, the poor people in Israel.

You get to worry about everybody all the time.

Would that make you mentally unhealthy?

Yes, it would.

Yes, it would.

So, I would say it's the the least mystery of all mysteries.

Not only do you have obvious reasons that are pretty well established, but you got a ton of them.

It's the longest list of reasons to be sad I've ever seen in my life.

And you know, a lot of that is just Democrats and phones.

Well, here's the good side.

Apparently, psychedelics are, you know, almost every day now there's another story about psychedelics helping somebody with their mental health or quitting addiction or something like that.

But it just in the last few days, a few things that I've read about is that psychedelics at just one exposure to psychedelics once in your life can make you more creative forever.

Apparently they can measure mental flexibility which gets to creativity and they can determine that one exposure just one you know deep trip under psychedelics and you will forever be more creative.

Now this brings me to me.

I've told you many times that when I was uh just out of college, first came to California, I had a mushroom experience, which I was just reading a story that a number of people who have had a mushroom experience described it as the best day of their life.

Now, that's exactly how I've described it my whole life, as the best day of my life, and it wasn't anything close.

Now, I thought maybe it was just me, but apparently that's a common experience.

But the the part that I didn't really say out loud too much is that I thought it changed me permanently really.

You could tell I I was a different person after that and never went back.

And one of the things that was different was that I felt my creativity increased.

And sure enough, apparently there's some scientific backing to that.

I could actually feel it because by the time I became a cartoonist, I actually thought my powers of creativity were for some reason that I didn't understand unusually good.

And I think that was part of it.

I was always creative, but I even I felt there was some kind of turbocharge that happened as a young adult.

I I was quite aware of it and I was always puzzled by it because it felt like just some kind of gene kicked in that I didn't know I had.

Maybe it was that.

Maybe it was.

Uh but now they know that people who did psychedelics uh will also score higher on tests.

So inductive reason, verbal fluency, working memory, processing speed, attention switching, and inhibitory control.

So, it can get rid of your depression, your uh your anxiety, your addiction, and it can make you smarter and more creative permanently.

Just think about that.

It can solve all of those things and make you more creative and make you smarter permanently.

I don't think we quite understand where this is heading.

This is so big that we I it's hard to actually wrap your head around it.

It's one of the biggest things that's ever happened in human civilization.

And you know, it's up there with AI and robotics in terms of how much it's going to change the world.

All we really needed was to to change the psychology from, oh, it's a dangerous drug, stay away, to it might be the most miraculous medicine of all humankind.

And that's happening.

So, normies are doing it.

You know, the the the soccer the soccer moms, they're all micro doing.

You know why the sale of alcohol seems to be going down?

Micro doing even more so than I think than marijuana.

That's what I think.

I think the micro doing is cutting into the alcohol far more than anything else.

All right.

Uh here's a funny story.

Over in California, there's a funding bill that includes $12 million for reparations.

Now, you say to yourself, $12 million?

I thought they wanted like, you know, a billion dollars or a trillion dollars even in California.

What do you get for 12 million?

Well, 12 million isn't the reparations.

Now 12 million will go to the activists who want reparations so that they have more time to study how to get those reparations.

In other words, let me translate this into uh common language for those of you who do not have big company experience.

Remember how I laughed when Gavin Newsome told the activists about reparations, "You know what?

You should form a committee and you should go off and study it and then get back to me." And then he got back to him.

He said, "You know what?

You know what we really need is more studying." So, of course, he was never serious about reparations because it's a political dagger right through his heart.

He doesn't have a chance if it get if it goes through, but he can't say no to it.

So reparations is the thing you can't say yes to if you're a politician, but you definitely can't say no to it.

And there are only two things, yes or no, or is there?

Well, it turns out that Gavin Newsome, clever man that he is, realized there's something between yes and no, which is we'd better study this.

And then after you studied it, hm, very good studying you did there, but you know, I've got a couple more questions.

You ought to go study that.

And then the reparations people realizing they had him by the balls said, "Uh, how about how about you pay us to study it more?" And then then knowing it's not his own money, Newsome thought, okay, if I pay you to study it, which an objective observer would call a bribe to go away and shut up for a while, and I had and I could pay the bribe with other people's money, and I could sell it as not a bribe, but rather an important funding toward making the world a better place once it's studied properly.

So yes, apparently every time, let me just say this, an obvious statement.

Wherever there's a reparation study committee, there are some grifters who figured out they can get white people to give them lots of money to make it look like they're studying something.

I kind of wish I were in that game because it looks like a really, really good scam.

Oh yeah, if you don't pay me $24 million, I don't know how I'm going to study these reparations, but I'll certainly call you a racist every day you're in office for not having a reparations committee that's properly funded.

And now the other states are like, "Wait a minute.

Are you telling me the activists are getting paid to pretend that they're studying reparations?

They're all going to have their own reparations study force.

It's the obvious way to make them go away and shut up about it.

They're just being bribed.

So, it's a legal way to bribe people just to shut up until elections are over.

And it works.

So, anytime you say that Gavin Newsome doesn't have game, he's got game.

He's not the one I want to be my president, but don't underestimate that guy.

He's got some game.

This is This is well played.

All right.

Um, apparently there's a new study that says there's a trillion dollar problem.

Oh, great.

Another trillion dollar problem.

We don't have enough of those.

Uh, where there's too much lead in the u in the yards of people's homes.

So, 25% of the US yards have unsafe levels of lead.

Now, what I wondered was if there any correlation to any areas that have more lead.

It turns out that you're going to have more lead where there's older infrastructure.

So, wherever there's older infrastructure.

So, that would include basically all of the Democrat cities.

So, New York, Detroit, Baltimore, you know, older infrastructure.

Now, what are what is the effect of having too much lead in your environment?

Well, the big one is it lowers your IQ.

You see where this is heading?

The Democrat cities have the oldest infrastructure.

The old infrastructure is correlated with more lead in your environment.

More lead in the environment makes you stupid.

I think we just figured out what's going on.

Yeah.

The Democrats are exposed to too much lead and we're confusing it with political opinions.

Whoa.

Whoa.

No, don't.

That's not an opinion.

You you just have too much lead.

No.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Why don't you go study it for a while?

Here's some money to go study it because I can't convince you that you're dumb because you have too much lead in your brain.

But uh I'm not joking.

By the way, if the correlation is this strong and there really is this much lead in our environment, it would be affecting Democrats more than other people just because their living circumstances.

and it does make you dumber.

So, it might be that Democrats of all of all races and genders and everything else uh that Democrats just because of where they live are getting dumber now.

Would that be systemic racism?

If that were true, there's more lead making you dumb in places that Democrats are clustered for unrelated reasons.

That would be systemic racism.

So those of you who say systemic racism isn't real, I just don't think you're trying very hard.

Of course it's real.

Of course it is.

There are some things that are just baked into the system that are really hard to change.

Now I don't think that you should focus on those.

Well, obviously you should focus on fixing them if you can, but I don't think that should be the driving force of how we live our lives.

rather the driving force should be the you know the King Randall kind of learn to take care of yourself, build a talent stack and these problems just go away.

If you have talent, all the problems go away.

Hey, did you hear about the uh highly qualified uh black engineer who couldn't get a job?

You've heard about that, right?

There's a story about a a very qualified black engineer, has all the right qualifications, went to MIT, got a degree, has a good background, experience, no problems whatsoever.

Can't get a job in America.

Did you hear about that?

No.

You never heard about that because it didn't happen.

It's never happened once.

There are zero cases where a qualified black man can't get a job in America.

None.

There are lots of cases where somebody has a criminal record.

That's a problem.

There are lots of places where, you know, there are individual pockets of discrimination.

That's real.

Usually smaller companies.

The big companies, of course, are dying for diversity.

There's no such thing as a person with valuable job skills who doesn't have a job in America.

None.

It hasn't happened once.

So where's why does the systemic racism go away as soon as you develop skills?

Well, it never goes away per se, but you can slice through it like it didn't bo didn't matter to you, right?

So you could say that stick of butter is real, but if you have a hot poker, you can just put it on the stick of butter and it disappears.

Just melts.

So be the hot poker.

Don't be somebody who's stopped by a stick of butter.

All right.

Um, apparently there's some kind of new compound scientists in Japan gave to mice who had Alzheimer's and they fixed them.

So now they can fix uh Alzheimer's and mice finally.

You know, I don't know about you, but one of the things I worry about too much is mice with Alzheimer's.

I think I see some once in a while.

I'll see a mouse, you know, out out in my backyard or something.

I'll be like, "That mouse looks like Joe Biden." And, you know, you look at the mouse and it'll be like all hunched over like this and walk like this.

And I say to myself, that's a that's a mouse with Alzheimer's.

But now there's a Japanese drug that can cure it.

So a lot of your Japanese mice, at least that's probably where it will start, will be walking upright.

And uh and their debate performances will be much better.

Yeah.

They also found that the mice would win debates.

No, I'm just making that up.

But they're probably smarter once they cure that Alzheimer's.

Anyway, um we don't know if this will work on human beings.

Somebody mentioned the other day that mice uh that mice testing is more about whether it will kill you.

And it doesn't predict that it will work in humans.

It does give you a good idea that if it didn't kill the mice, it might not kill us either.

Not guaranteed, but it's a good indication.

It doesn't tell you it's going to work.

That's that's another uh another level.

Well, Elon Musk says he he aims to be able to build a thousand rocket ships a year.

He's got a brand new rocket ship factory.

Um that's gearing up.

It's nowhere near a thousand per year at the moment, but they're making a lot of them.

Uh like a I think they're making a rocket every other day.

And the question I have is what do they need to put on those rockets?

If the rockets are not actually going to the moon or Mars yet, why why do we need that much capacity to put stuff in space?

Is it just satellites?

Do we have an unlimited demand for launching satellites?

We might.

I mean, that might be the whole thing.

But uh that is one hell of a thing that really snuck up on me.

If you'd said, "Scott, how many rockets does Elon Musk have?" I would have said, "Well, I think he's got two and he keeps reusing them, but probably there's three or four, you know, in the pipeline just in case." I didn't know it's going to be hundreds and I certainly didn't know it's going to be a thousand per year.

So he might have thousands of rockets, you know, launching three or four per day or something.

That's where he's heading.

Well, the Babylon B reports that 12 women have come forward uh to say that they were sexually assaulted by uh quote whoever the Trump VP is.

That's a pretty good joke.

And also not too far from reality cuz whoever Trump picks for the vice president will be accused of sexual impropriy.

Yes, they will.

Which by the way might be the main reason to pick whoever he picks if he could find somebody who wouldn't be accused of sexual impropriy.

And I worry about the good-looking candidates because it's so much harder to be good-looking.

You know, that that's one of the lucky things about my life.

I always say to myself, would I be as successful in my career if I were good-looking?

And I think the answer is no.

Because if I were good-looking, I'd wake up every day and get everything I needed.

You know, a bunch of attractive women would want to have sex with me, and I'd think, huh, I guess I don't even need to be rich.

I could I could cut back on the working, give myself a nice, you know, part-time job and live like a king with my herm who thinks I'm handsome.

But since I was not born handsome, I said to myself by looking in the mirror when I was about 5 years old, literally true story, you'd better get a really good job if you want to compete in this world cuz you're not going to do it on your looks.

And so I did.

And that, by the way, that's completely true.

I honestly did look in the mirror at around the age of five and said, "Man, you better you better get a B game.

Your A game isn't working at all.

Doesn't look like it's going to kick in.

You better you better start working on that B game." And so, I did.

Yeah, I am a planner.

I do plan 45 years in advance.

Literally, I plan 45 years in advance.

All right.

Uh there's a top cancer charity, I don't know which one, but they're apologizing for using the word cervix in their materials, and they say they should have used the more um inclusive term front hole because it's not just women who have vaginas.

Um it's everybody.

Everybody can have one.

So, um, so you got your front hole.

So, don't say cervix when you can say front hole.

Now, you might say to yourself, "My goodness, this top cancer charity, they sound to me like a bunch of back holes." That's right.

They're a bunch of back holes.

Yep.

We'll just let that sink in.

Well, did you know that the uh tariff, the US tariff on Chinese electric vehicles is over 100%.

It's over 100%.

But correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Democrats tell us that tariffs are a terrible, terrible idea?

And this is a Biden thing.

Biden put a 100% tariff on electric cars from China.

So, can you Democrats make up your mind?

Is it the dumbest, worst thing that's never worked once in the world, or is it just a Trump policy that makes perfect sense that you shouldn't destroy yourself economically just because China wants you to?

Not a good enough reason.

So, yeah, we have a 100% tariff to keep those electric vehicles from China out of our markets.

I think we're going to have to do the same thing with robots um with AI and um yeah, robots and AI basically and EVs.

So, I think that the uh the markets that are most important to the United States, in every case, we're going to have to have 100% um some kind of tariff because you can't really let China rule us in robots.

Winning robots is existential.

We have to win robots.

By the way, I'm going to give you a little uh uh little lesson here.

and what makes a human a human.

So, I've told you this before, but I came into a better way to explain it.

I've told you that I don't believe that art created by uh robots and AI will ever be a big thing.

And the re the theory is, and this is just mine, I've never heard anybody else say this, that we recognize art as triggering to us, like it means something to us, not because the art is well done, but because a human made it and it looks like superior genetic quality and it's a mating signal.

So even if you're not looking to mate, we're just born that way.

And even if you're the wrong gender to be attracted to the artist, still works because we're all we're all still we can't look away when we see somebody with talent.

And talent is simply a marker for uh reproductive health, right?

So whether whether your talent is art or your talent is music, you visual art or music or acting or anything.

If you have that thing, people are attracted to it and they get a feeling when they look at your art because they're feeling you.

You're feeling the artist when you look at the art.

Even if you don't know who it is, you still feel the artist.

And so my hypothesis is that AI art can never trigger us if we know it's AI.

And probably we'll have some laws to say we'll know.

So if you know it's AI, you're gonna say, "Eh, yeah, the computers are good.

So what?" I've not yet found any art made by AI, as impressive as it is, that I wanted to spend much time looking at.

You know what I mean?

It's really impressive and it does look better than humans can do and all that.

No interest at all.

you know, it has its utility.

You know, maybe you do something to include in a post on social media or put it in your blog post or something.

So, it's useful, but it doesn't move you the way that human art can.

So, now I'm going to now I'm going to make my point with this.

Fast forward 5 years when robots have full human movement and good batteries and AI and somebody says, "I'm going to form a robot basketball league where my robots will play your robots and they'll play actual basketball.

They'll dribble, they'll shoot, they'll foul everything.

Would you watch it?" The answer is once.

You might watch it once, but you will never be interested in robots playing basketball.

Now, imagine if the robots could play basketball better than Michael Jordan.

They could jump higher and do these impressive dunks.

Would you watch it?

Not even a little bit.

Do you know why?

Cuz it's not people.

Yeah.

We're not interested in basketball.

We have no interest in basketball.

Because if we had interest in basketball, you could watch robots play and you go, "Wow, look at that basketball.

They could really play that basketball, those robots." No, you would have no interest at all.

People watch basketball because they want to the players.

Men watch basketball because it's men who are better than them and they're like, we're kind of drawn to just looking at anything in that domain.

Yeah, that's the real reason.

It's because the athletes are, you know, super examples of people you want to mate with.

They're they're displaying a talent that is unusual.

So, the basketball example should tell you that AI art is probably not the future except in utility way.

Uh there's you you've been following this story that I haven't talked about at all, and I'll tell you why.

Uh there's a bunch of Chinese-owned farmland that in many cases is nearby to US military bases and it's an alarming threat.

Now, I take that seriously.

I do think that having a bunch of Chinese farmland adjacent to American bases, that does seem like a security risk.

But I would also point out, and the reason I hadn't talked about it until now, is that if you have a lot of bases and you have a lot of farmland, how are they not going to line up?

So, I was having trouble um removing chance from the story because I looked at the map and it looked to me like some were near bases, some were not, but a lot were.

Am I worried about that?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Because it is it is a resource that you could imagine China might take advantage of if they wanted to.

So yeah, it's a problem.

But I don't know if it's a a plot.

It might be.

So you have to worry about it exactly as if you know it's a plot.

But I don't know.

I don't know.

It could be just they need to they need food.

So they create a bunch of farms and places that have good conditions for farms and then they ship the food back.

So it might be 80% food, 20%, you know, as long as you're going to buy some farmland.

Yeah.

Wouldn't it be nice if it were in this area instead of that area?

So there might be some, you know, military direction to it just in case.

It would be a smart thing for China to do to just have a bunch of locations that they can use with impunity.

All right.

Judge Cannon is the judge who's weighing in on whether Jack Smith, who's the prosecutor, uh, whatever name they're using for it, uh, special, whatever, for the, uh, Mara Lago box gate.

And the idea is that uh he might not have been appointed through a legal process and therefore should be removed from the case.

So that's pending.

The uh the story here is that Judge Cannon was a a Trump appointee and people are saying that she is too pro.

Trump and that uh you know she should be removed from the case.

I guess um here's here's what I take from it.

What I take from it is if you're poor, uh, you get whatever judge they assign you and you take your chances.

But knowing that everybody's biased about everything all the time, humans are just biased.

There's no way around it.

Um, but it seems to me that rich people actually can shop for judges and prosecutors.

Not every time, but you know, you can try to get a change of venue.

You can ask for a judge to be removed because your because your lawyers did such a good job of finding some conflict that nobody knew about, that sort of thing.

So, it seems to me that we have a two-phase legal system.

The poor get whatever we whatever we give them, and they just got to deal with it.

And the rich decide whether they will go to jail or not by which judge they get.

You know, because once it becomes political or even if there's just a billionaire involved, uh it's always political.

Then it seems like the game is getting the right judge.

So where Trump gets the wrong judges in New York and we say, "Well, that's unfair." Um he might get the right judge.

I don't know that this judge is biased in his favor, but it's a it's a reasonable suspicion whether it's true or not, but suppose it is true and suppose it's the only reason that Trump gets off.

That's our system.

Our system is rich people get to shop judges or at least they can try and poor people don't.

and that picking the right judge, as we know from the Supreme Court, is about 80% predictive in terms of how things are going to go.

So, it does expose the uh system quite a bit.

All right.

Trump had a big uh uh rally in Philadelphia.

The big story is there's no big story.

The big story is, and I will compliment the the Trump campaign again, um people who went there described it as flawless.

In other words, the organization of it, the the attendance, the design of it, uh Trump's performance, the equipment, you know, all the logistics, flawless.

Now, compare that to Biden who's hiding in his basement pretending to get ready for a debate.

I tell you, there's a little bit of the dog not barking here, but every day that Trump doesn't do a Trump-like provocative thing that makes you say, "Why'd he do that?

Everything was going so well until he did that." And he's not doing that.

It's not an accident.

It's not a coincidence that Trump is running a flawless campaign.

He's got skill that is employed in this.

I don't know who exactly.

It could be a combination of people, but he's got really really smart people working on this campaign and you can just see it.

You you can see it every time he does something that it just has this little extra envelope of smartness around it that you didn't see the first the first two times he ran.

You didn't see it, but you see it now and you see it just so clearly.

Here's another example.

Um, some uh Republicans are suggesting that his best campaign strategy would be to be not Trump.

In other words, don't um don't talk over, don't be combative and in a non-debate way.

You know, just don't go too hard.

And the thinking is he just has to describe, you know, the path that he gives you, the path that Biden will probably give you, the fact that you've seen both of them at work.

you have you have a full four-year interview essentially for each of them and he that Trump can simply say here's what Biden gives you, here's what I give you.

There's no contest.

I agree with that with the caveat that nobody can really advise Trump.

So, he he still is the one who's going to decide and a lot of it will be spontaneous.

I don't think he's really not preparing.

You know, he he's kind of playing it off like he's not preparing because it'll be more impressive if he does well, but I assume he's preparing.

He's just doing it his own way.

Anyway, so uh and I would agree if he just plays it straight, he's going to win.

I had some actual suggestions here.

I had an actual suggestion.

Um, all right.

Here's here's my debate advice.

Besides not don't be too aggressive, we're very close to the point, I don't know if we're there yet, where Trump could say what I call the uh the Bob Dole strategy.

Now, it's a strategy used against Bob Dole by um by the Clinton campaign when they were running for reelection, but the Bill Clinton campaign, which was to treat the Bob Dole with respect because he was elderly and a vet.

So once you get a lead, you know, it looks like you're going to win anyway, you stop being an and you start showing empathy and respect.

And I think that Trump, of course, he's going to keep going hard at at uh Biden all the way to the finish line.

But could you imagine him saying that we need to respect the elderly and that Biden had a good run.

Imagine imagine Trump saying, you know, we have to give respect to the elderly.

Now, people would laugh at that because Trump is almost the same age, but it would be funny and you couldn't ignore it.

You know, we should we should have respect for the elderly.

Joe had a good run, but we can all see that his time has come to an end.

Just imagine that coming out of Trump's mouth or some version of it.

We should respect the elderly.

And I'm going to go hard this election.

If you know, if you go hard, I'm going to go hard.

But honestly, Joe, you had a good run.

You made it all the way to president.

But now, I think, you know, a due respect to people who have reached your situation in life is that we should allow you to make a graceful exit.

And it looks like the voters are going to do that for you.

And if you go hard at me, I'm going to go hard at you.

That's our system.

But I think at this point we can all see that maybe empathy is the way to go here.

It would be devastating.

It would be devastating if Trump said we should maybe go a little easy on you because everybody can see what's going on at this point.

But then don't go easy.

You know, don't be a bully, but definitely don't go easy.

just just pointed out as something we should now consider that since we can all see he's gone that maybe we should take a different approach to this.

It would be a killer.

Well, uh also Trump said we should stop giving attention to Bill Maher uh because Bill Maher's got a failing show and he's unimportant blah blah blah blah blah.

Well, I'd like to talk about Bill Maher because I don't take that advice whatsoever.

I think Mike Cernovich is saying the same thing.

Stop giving oxygen to Bill Maher.

I'll stop giving him oxygen when it doesn't work to my advantage.

Like if that starts happening, I'll stop doing it.

But at the moment with the story I'm going to tell you right now, it's very much working to my advantage as a communicator.

Here's what Bill Maher said.

See if this sounds familiar to you.

see if it's something that maybe you heard me say once or twice or 10 times.

All right, here's what Bill Maher said on his show.

He was talking about uh all the polls about Biden losing support among various things.

He says he's uh losing 14 points among Hispanics, 43 points among black voters.

I don't I'll just give you the big line.

I I think these details are misleading, but he's basically saying that every category from Hispanics to blacks to under 50, student debt holders, even the people on student debt were more for Trump.

And uh something about even losing support for women.

So, Bill Maher says, Bill Maher says, "How can they be tied if the polls say he's losing ground in every category?" How can he be tied at the top line if we know he's losing every category?

Have you heard me say that?

That's exactly what I said.

I said, 'How do you explain that he looks like he's Tai when they're also saying he's losing every category?

Well, it can't they can't both be true.

But here's what I posted on this.

Bill Maher is so close to understanding the world he lives in.

He doesn't yet, but he's so close.

I think he might get there.

And what he needs to understand is that nothing's true.

that that that the polls that are coming out from respected entities are legitimately faked.

They're intentionally, obviously, observably, transparently fake.

So, there's no real mystery here.

There's no mystery at all.

The polls are fake.

Now, are some of the polls accurate?

Probably, because they're not all the same.

But no, you should expect tons of fake polls that would and he's he's seen the glitch in the matrix now.

You know, he lives in a world where he thinks that at least his news is real.

So he's still locked into the world where if you look at the if you read the credible news as he would define them.

That that's not right every single time.

And he points out when they're wrong, but that you know, you get a pretty good idea of what's true by ignoring the bad news sources and focusing on the good ones.

He hasn't quite caught on that there aren't any good ones.

And maybe there never were.

I mean, my personal theory is that there never were.

Here's why.

If the CIA can control the news, they will.

There's no doubt about that.

But they're not going to try to control it for, you know, every little story, you know, not the local stuff.

But they're certainly going to control it completely when there's some argument that there's a national interest.

That would be their job.

arguably that's what we pay them for to make sure there are no gigantic national interests that we ignore.

And so it seems hugely unlikely that to me that even during the days we trusted the news and the Konite days, everybody said, "He's so trusted.

He's so trusted." My current view is that almost guarantees he was a CIA asset.

Do you know why people said he was trusted?

I don't I don't know why.

I think it's only because he didn't get caught with fake news and probably the CIA started the idea that he was so trusted.

I think it's always been fake and and but what I mean by that is that the news about anything important, you know, like why did Nixon get removed from office?

I don't think we've ever been told the truth about that.

you know, why did Kennedy get killed?

You know, probably a lot of things were not being told the truth.

So, yes, one, if you believe that your news is real and the other is fake, you end up being confused about why the polls are giving you something that is logically impossible.

I'm not confused.

I know exactly what's going on.

They're fake polls.

So, as soon as you get past the idea that some of it's true, everything makes sense.

It's a It's a good feeling.

Well, you remember Jack Dorsey, founder of uh old Twitter.

Uh he's saying that the issue with the algorithms is not just that they're politically biased, it's that they remove your free will.

How do you like that?

The algorithms effectively determine how we think.

You know, it would be easy to demonstrate that if you were fed a certain algorithm, you'd have a certain point of view.

If they fed you a different algorithm, you'd have a different point of view.

It's the tick- tock effect.

It's well understood, right?

There's no argument about that.

So, if somebody else is deciding what things are going to the front of your brain, and that's what social media is doing with the algorithms.

If something that's not your brain decides what you're going to think about the most and even the narrative and and the way you're going to think about it, do you have free will?

Well, you're going to say you do.

Well, I'll just look at different sources and I won't believe it and I'll know there's more context.

No, the uh be like, "Oh, the machines work miracles.

They do things like humans." there there's somebody in all caps who's imagining I said the opposite of what I've ever said and that uh and he's really mad about my point of view that's the opposite of my point of view there's somebody yelling in all caps that I believe that our robots will be magic and do everything that humans can do.

I just got done saying the opposite of that.

That they won't be able to do art.

And why?

So, all caps guy seems pretty drunk.

Morning drinker looks like.

Anyway, yes.

Uh I I would go further.

Jack Dorsey says we're going to lose free will because the algorithms will effectively program our brains.

That's a reasonable frame.

But I would go further to the next level of awareness and say that free will is an illusion.

And what we will lose is the illusion of free will.

So once you realize that your opinions keep matching your Tik Tok feed, you're going to realize that your illusion of free will is starting to go.

So you'll probably paper that over with some cognitive dissonance.

Well, I told you before that there's a Swiss firm that's making organic computers.

So, in other words, they have a fake organic brain.

Didn't come from a person.

It just I guess they grew it in a lab.

And it can uh do all kinds of computational tasks like a regular computer while consuming a million times less power than silicon chips.

A million times less power.

Now, keep in mind our biggest problem is we're going to run out of power with all the robots and EVs and AI, but we might be able to reduce it by a million if there are some kind of organic brains.

Now, I think that the problem is they don't last very long um because they're organic.

So, I don't know what happens when your organic computer gets Alzheimer's or dementia.

And would you pick up on it right away?

And is that even a thing?

Can it actually happen?

What happens when the brain starts to degrade a little bit?

You know, does it stop working suddenly or you don't notice and it's just sort of off for a while?

I don't know.

Lots of questions, but it's pretty exciting.

All right, here's uh sort of the big question for the day.

As you know, President Biden ran on the fine people hoax that he tried to sell to the country and the people who don't follow the news too closely as true.

Did you know that Snopes, the fact the most famous factchecking entity, which traditionally has leaned left, says in a fullthroated way that it didn't happen, it's a hoax.

Now, they don't say hoax, but they do say clearly and unambiguously, President Trump did not call the neo-Nazis fine people.

And so, um, as I I included, uh, Michael Ian Black in my, uh, in my comment on that, and I said that one of the ways you can tell the truth in our world of lies about everything is if people on both sides have the same version.

So, if Fox News and CNN say the same thing, that's much more likely to be true.

If only one of them says something is true and the other says it's not true could go either way.

But if there are people on both who say something's true or not true, that means something.

For example, even CNN's legal analysts and lots of other Democrat legal people said that uh Trump's uh Stormmy Daniels Hush Payman trial was pure lawfare and that if it hadn't been Trump, nobody would have brought the case.

Now, if only Fox News told you that or only Breitbart, you'd say to yourself, "Maybe true, maybe spun." But if you hear it from the legal analysts on both sides, exactly the same, that's a real good indication that you're seeing something true.

So now you have uh Fox News ran an article today about Snopes pointing out that you know the the Fox News approach has always been that it's been fake.

So now you have Fox News agreeing with Snopes and Breitbart Joel Pollock also writing about this um also noting that Snopes is now in conformity.

So just keep this in mind, right?

The tent pole, in other words, the most important structure in the tent, the tentpole hoax that got Biden elected is now known by both the left and the right to be based on a hoax.

But have I ever taught you about the hoax funnel where once you debunk a hoax, people don't say, "Oh, I guess you got me.

you're you're totally right and I'm totally wrong and now that now I see the evidence of that.

They don't they back up to a related hoax that had nothing to do with the original and they try to claim that the related thing is the thing.

For example, when Russia collusion fell apart, the Democrats didn't say, "Oh god, I guess that was just a big old hoax." No, they said Paul Manifford went to jail for uh giving some uh let's say internal polling data to a Russian oligarch.

So really it was right all along.

No, that's going down the hoax funnel that it was never about Paul Maniffort doing something with this one Russian.

That was not the Russia collusion hoax.

But once once they lose their main claim, as they did when the Muller report came out, that they had to retreat down the funnel to something that sounds like it and has some factual basis, but it's not really the same thing.

It's not even the same general point.

So, here's what Snopes did going down the funnel.

Yes, I'm very glad that they said Trump did not call the neo-Nazis fine people, but Snope said it is false that there were any normal people there.

Now, um those are my own words.

Normal people in this context would be be people who were not racist, did not agree with the racist, did not march with the racists, but still wanted the statues to remain.

You know, they had an opinion.

They just wanted to be there for that.

And now Snope says that it's not true they existed.

How did they explain that I actually talked to them personally?

I talked to to locals, Charlottesville locals, who saw on the news that there was a protest just down the street, and they saw that a whole bunch of people from out of town.

This is important.

a whole bunch of people from out of town were coming to their town to tell them what kind of statues they can have.

And so some of the locals said, "Well, how about all of you?

How about we decide if we have these statues?" And you know, they liked them for historical reasons.

I asked directly directly, "Do you side with agree with or disavow the racists?" They said very directly, "Oh, we totally disavow them.

We want nothing to do with the racists.

We're we're not racist.

They're they are racists.

We want nothing to do with them." So now once I say that, what where do you go in the hoax funnel?

Do you know the third ring of the hoax funnel?

Once I say I have personally done the research and I'm talking to you and I'm telling you that there were fine people there who were not racist and not with them.

What did they say?

Well, Scott, why would they be marching with the racists then?

But that didn't happen.

They were physically separated, nowhere near them.

Didn't plan to march with them.

Never would have marched with them.

Hated their guts.

So then when I point that out that they weren't physically there, in fact, the police kept everybody away from the marchers.

So even if you wanted to march with them, you couldn't have got near it.

You could have been in the area of the protest, but you could have gotten nowhere near the marchers.

Even if you wanted to jump in and help them, you couldn't.

The police were preventing you from getting near them for good reasons.

So, what comes next?

How could anybody not know it was a Nazi event?

So Scott, since they all had to know it was Nazi organized, I'm not really believing that they went there for their own purposes because who goes to a Nazi event, Scott?

Who goes to a Nazi event?

To which I say again, I talked to them and I asked that question and they said, "I didn't know it was a Nazi event.

I just heard there was a a thing on on the news." So the local news reported it that there's people protesting statues and they had an opinion.

So they got in their car and they drove down there.

That's what it was.

They had an opinion.

They drove down there to, you know, maybe to watch, but maybe also to have their opinion known.

So, uh, there, so, so Snopes is not credible in the sense that they're still lying.

And they have to know they're lying because they did the same thing.

Not Snopes necessarily, but the way the uh, the 2020 election is covered, they act like if they don't do the research, they can say there was no problem with the election.

Well, nobody found anything, so therefore there was nothing to be found.

That's not how anything works.

If nothing's found, you only know that nothing was found.

It would be a rare situation where such as looking in a box that you have in your hand where not finding it would conclusively tell you there's nothing in it.

Right?

If you're holding a box and you're looking in the box, well, yes, you can tell that if you looked in it and it's not there, there's nothing in the box.

But you can't tell that about this big system where you couldn't possibly see all the moving parts.

Yeah, that's not a thing.

So to say that there were no fine people when the only people who tried to check found them, the New York Times found some and I found some easily.

So that's the third ring of the the hoax, but it's enough so that Trump, if he chose to, could say, you know, this Snopes, which leans left, said the fine people thing was a complete hoax.

If he said that during the debate, that'd be pretty strong cuz the Democrats have heard of Snopes and they would take that seriously, I think.

Well, there's new news about the alleged badness of Paul Ryan.

Uh Cash Patel is saying that there's a British corpse.

There was some kind of case over there that somehow has produced information that we hadn't seen before that alleges that Paul Ryan Democrat, some would say uh, you know, anti-Trumper, but I'm sorry, a Republican.

He was a Republican leader, but an anti-Trumper.

So, an anti-Trump Republican who is also on the board of Fox News, I believe.

But, uh, we're finding out or the allegation is that he got a copy of the Steel Dossier in 2016 and never told anybody.

In other words, he was one of the first people to have a full copy of the Steel Dossier and never till this day mentioned it.

Now, the question you have to ask yourself is, since we know the Steel Dossier was created as a fraud for the intention of destroying Trump, doesn't it raise a little question about why they would give one to a Republican?

If you suspect suspected that Paul Ryan, you know, maybe more connected to the military-industrial complex and not so much a Republican, this would be evidence for that claim.

that they knew that it wasn't his party that mattered.

It just mattered if he was in favor of big wars.

And maybe he was.

Now, I'm just speculating.

We don't know what was in the mind of Paul Ryan.

We don't know why he kept it.

You maybe he has a perfectly good reason.

I mean, the re the reason could be as simple as he didn't think it was real, so he just didn't mention it.

It could be just that.

So, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that we know what this means.

But is it disturbing?

Very.

How did we get to that today without knowing that he was one of the first people who had a full copy of the Steel Dossier?

And what did he think about it when he saw it?

Did he believe it?

So, we do have some questions, don't we?

We have questions.

All right.

Um, now Biden is uh gaslighting Israel.

So, the Democrats are very consistent.

Uh, they're they're in full narcissist mode where they'll tell you that what you're looking at you can't see.

So, as you know, when we look at Joe Biden walking like a cadaavver and and babbling, we know his brain is gone.

So, what do the Democrats say?

No, he's fine.

What are you talking about?

Oh, in private he's fine.

Yeah, it's probably just some cheap fix.

No, you're not seeing what you're seeing.

No, no, he's fine.

So, if they can sell that, if they can sell that, um they can sell anything.

And now they're gaslighting Israel.

Uh Joel Pollock had an article on this in Breitbart.

Um, so apparently the uh who is he?

Uh, Yova Galant, he's the head of the military.

Um, had to come to America to see if he can get the Biden administration to release the shipment of arms and and ammunition that Israel says it needs, but the White House claims it is not withholding.

So, Israel believes that they're not giving them the weapons.

And what is the Biden White House saying?

Yes, we are.

Well, well, no, you're not.

Because you have the weapons.

We need the weapons.

You know what the weapons are.

You've agreed to give us the weapons.

We don't have the weapons.

You have not given us the weapons.

That's why we're sending our top military guy to see what can change so we can get the weapons.

And what does the Biden administration say?

Oh, you have all the weapons.

No, we don't have the weapons.

I swear to God, we don't have any weapons that you said you were going to give us.

You did not send them.

Yeah, we did.

Sure we did.

That's their entire administration.

It's just telling you that what you see, you're not seeing.

I've never seen anything like this before.

The the fine people hoax is an example of that.

All you had to do was look at the transcript and they would say that's not there.

How about the the drinking bleaches?

Uh it's obviously he was talking about light.

You can see he mentioned light before and after his comments.

It was always light.

No, it wasn't.

What What are you doing?

What are you doing to me?

It's just pure gaslighting.

But now the Democrats are even gaslighting their peers with fake dissertations.

So there's an allegation now that uh Democrat Congressman Jamal Bowman of New York uh there's an accusation that his uh dissertation uh was got has a whole bunch of stolen parts from other people's work.

So, do you know what is going to happen when somebody says, "Look, we found this quote from somebody else's prior work and here's the paragraph you wrote and you can see that yours is identical to this other one and therefore pretty obvious in case that you stole it." Do you know what Jamal Bowman's going to say?

No, I didn't.

Well, see, but here it is.

Like, it's well documented.

And then here's yours right next to it.

You see they're the same, right?

No, they're not.

But they are.

They're actually actually the same.

Look, look, look at the words.

These words are the same as these words.

And the date on it is clearly before yours.

And you even you didn't cited it.

No, I didn't.

Well, here's the citation and here's the exact wording and you didn't put it in quotes.

Yes, I did.

Now, I'm just joking about Jamal Bowman, but it feels like every conversation is just going that way now.

No, we didn't.

I don't know what you're talking about.

All right.

Um, now there's an interesting question and um I was reading about this in uh let's see John Solomon and Steven Richards reporting on this in just the news website.

Uh the question is from the uh there's the committee that's trying to figure out what the so-called Biden crime family was up to and uh they're wondering now if Biden was giving quote defensive briefings on what Hunter was doing overseas.

Now a defensive briefing would be you should just know this.

Yeah.

Do you know what your son is doing?

Maybe we should mention that we've picked up some indication that your son is doing some sketchy looking things in another country.

Now, I feel like that would have been normal business, meaning that surely the government had an idea what Hunter was doing in Ukraine.

Surely some of the intel people thought maybe we should tell Biden since he's in office.

This is when he was vice president.

And it seems likely they would have clued him in, which would mean that Biden was lying when he said he didn't know anything about his son's business, uh, etc.

So, it could be an important thing, um, if only because it would show some deception.

But, uh, here's a little reminder of things we do know according also to just the news.

uh according to them there's a mountain of incontrovertible evidence.

Now that's that's narrative by the way.

Uh if you want to learn to spot narrative versus fact the what follows are facts but the characterization of the facts as a mountain of incontrovertible that's narrative right because I'm sure that there's somebody who says it's not true.

So everything's it's hard to be incontrovertible, but anyway, here are some things that we're pretty sure are demonstrated to be truth now.

Um, let's see.

That Hunter Biden made millions while his father was vice president.

So they now have a good idea of the timing of things from business associates with unsaavory backgrounds, including a Ukrainian energy firm deemed corrupt by the State Department, a Chinese executive convicted by the Department of Justice of corruption, a Russian oligarch unable to get an American bank account because of red flags, and a Romanian oligarch charged with bribery in his country, and two Americans convicted of securities frauds.

So, I don't have an opinion about any of that being especially illegal, but it does seem hard to believe that Biden wasn't briefed on it.

So, keep an eye on this one.

I think they're going to show that he was briefed somehow.

I think they're going to be able to find that out.

Well, meanwhile, there's still two astronauts stranded on the International Space Station, and Boeing's struggling to fix some uh some hardware, software problems in their ship to go and and get them.

If they miss the window, they have to wait a bunch of time because you can't go up there anytime you want for physics reasons.

Um, so is Boeing always going to look like a DEI problem?

Now, I have no reason to believe that DEI has anything to do with any of their problems, but it's happening at the same time as DEI.

So, don't you assume they're related as just a working assumption.

Now, it's unfair and it's like super racist to even imagine that this could have any anything to do with their sudden decrease in quality.

But remember, it's not racist because you could replace the races or just even reverse them and you get the same impact.

So if you can put any race into the situation, let's say the system, you could put any race into it and you get the same outcome.

I'm not sure that's race.

That's about the system.

If if the if the race is irrelevant to the outcome, it's the system.

What I mean by the system is the demand for a specific kind of qualified person far exceeds the supply.

And in the normal American, not American but human way that we deal with things, people are going to hire people underqualified so they can meet their diversity goals because that's your that's your bonus this year.

You won't know if the hireers did a bad job for a few years, but you want to get that bonus this year.

So, you're going to you're going to bend things a little bit to get your diversity goals met.

In theory, planes should be falling from the sky because of DEI as a system, not because of anybody's demographic group.

Just as a system, they can't possibly work on paper.

On paper, it can't work.

It'd be one thing to say, well, we implemented it poorly.

That's not what's happening.

On paper, it can't be implemented correctly because you don't have enough supply.

The only way you could do it is in the the very long run where you do a much better job of training young people so that you have a better supply of diverse candidates, in which case you wouldn't need DEI.

Let me say it again.

How many unemployed black aeronautic engineers do you believe there are in the whole world?

Black qualified aviation engineers that can't get work.

None.

There are exactly zero.

So if you want diversity, you fix the qualifications of the people starting in preschool and you just make sure you don't let up.

make sure everybody's got a good shot, then it takes care of itself.

You would have full employment of all qualified people of every every demographic group.

Now, if you've got a bunch of people who can't get jobs because they're unqualified, it just means you didn't do a good enough job, you know, training them and maybe they were trained for the wrong stuff.

Not everybody can be aeronautic engineers.

I know I couldn't.

Well, anyway, Kathy Wood, who's the uh CEO of Arc Investments, big investment company.

She's a big name in the investment world, you should know, um is going to vote for Trump.

So, yet another smart person in the pro.

Trump uh family.

Now, remember when you couldn't really say that out loud?

If you had a if you had a business, you just couldn't say it.

But, uh apparently she doesn't mind.

I think she's pro Elon Musk as well.

All right.

Um, so on Tuesday, I'm going to talk to Michael Ian Black.

Um, I'm going to have a special live stream.

It'll be after this one at 11:00 a.m.

my time on Tuesday, which would be 2 p.m.

on the East Coast.

And uh assuming that you know nothing comes up between now and then the question will be not not is Trump good or bad you know I I know where that conversation would go so there's no point in having it but rather he asked a fascinating question how do you know the news is real and I've got about 20 things to answer that question uh but one of the things he posted this morning was there was a MSNBC interview uh in which somebody from the Heritage Foundation was being interviewed and he said, and again it's a reasonable reasonable observation, isn't this real news?

Because where it all started was me saying all the news is fake.

So here was somebody on the right, a respected voice in the right, talking to a host on MSNBC who obviously leans left.

I think it was Bernie's old campaign manager.

and and isn't that real news?

Well, I would call that opinion.

There was one person brought on to say, "What do you think about all this stuff?" And then he did.

Now, it's useful, but it's opinion.

I wouldn't call that news.

So, we have lots to talk about about what's news and what's opinion.

Um, but opinions are true in the sense that the person saying it often believes it.

It's a It's a true opinion, but that doesn't mean it's news.

Exactly.

That's just an opinion.

All right.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, brings me to the exciting conclusion of my prepared remarks.

Um, you may have noticed I did a little tease on the Xplatform of the Dilbert Sunday comic.

Uh, Dilbert's company is going to start making uh aircraft.

It might remind you of a specific company that's having some issues right now with the quality of their construction.

Um, but you can only see that if you subscribe on X, see my profile or if you are on the locals platform, also a subscription.

But on locals, you'd see Robot Reads News, my other comic, and uh, man caves and all kinds of fun other content.

A lot of political stuff.

If you only want the comic, get it at X.

All right.

Um, thank you.

All right.

I'm going to end uh now for the three other platforms and just talk the locals.

Thanks for joining everybody else.

See you tomorrow.

[Music]

Hey everybody.

Let's see if I can get the locals people

up here on my separate device

so I can see you special.

There we go. There you are.

Well, good morning everybody and welcome

to the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.

That's what it is. And if you'd like to

take this experience up to levels where

even SpaceX can't reach, all you need is

a cup of mug, a glass of tankered

shellstein, 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,

the dopamine hit of the day. The thing

that makes everything better. It's

called the simultaneous sip. And it's

going to happen right now. Savor it.

Savor it.

It's a full body tingle.

Well, some code pink activists uh

decided to target

uh Jake Tapper's house. Jake Tapper of

CNN. Now, if you saw the video of it,

you would say to yourself, hm, they seem

to be indicating a protest in front of

the house. I think the entire protest

was

five people who showed up in a

uh Volvo.

One of them had a uh bullhorn

because all the all the videos that I

saw of the protesters were extreme

close-ups. Look, here's the face of

somebody with a bullhorn.

And I think I think there's another

person standing there somewhere nearby.

There couldn't have been more than five

people. But here's the fun part. Uh the

the I guess Jake has some uh older kids,

some teenagers, and the teenage kids

were just mocking them and playing God

Bless. They're playing some patriotic

music and and just mocking them from the

balcony and in the garage. And that's

the way to handle it, Jake. So Jake uh

if he was home, don't even know if he

was home, but if he was,

he wisely stayed off the camera and uh

apparently let his kids just mock them,

which was fine. Um I'm very much against

people uh protesting public figures

houses. Uh I don't think that's cool

whatsoever, but I like the fact that he

uses kids to mock him. if it was

intentional. Maybe just the kids were

doing their own thing. Anyway,

uh there's new new studies show that

generation Z is the unhappiest

generation and people are all figuring

out why could that be? Why is Gen Z the

unhappiest? What could possibly cause

such a thing?

I don't know. Could it be when they look

at the news it says that the climate's

out of control and going to fry them all

and there's no point in having children

because they're all going to be dead in

a hellscape of hotness. Might be that

could be that uh they're being told

they're going to lose their democracy

and that Hitler uh has just reincarnated

into something orange and terrible.

Could be that. Could be that. Neither of

those things bother me because I don't

think they're real.

How about uh the confusing gender roles?

Don't you think it would cause you a

little mental distress if you could sort

of pick your own gender? I don't

remember ever having a conversation

about it. That was that was sort of just

a given. All right. Uh you're a boy. Got

it. And never really needed to just have

a conversation about it again. But

imagine if you were born into a world

where people were just choosing their

genders. Ah, you know, I think I'm going

to go a different way from now on. I

think I'm the other thing.

I would think that given that, you know,

our sexual roles are so baked into

civilization and our genes in some level

that anytime you add any uh uncertainty

into that world, that's got to be bad

for your mental health.

How about hormone disruptions?

How about that? We got all kinds of

stuff in the environment. We got men's

testosterone dropping. And we know

testosterone makes men happy if they've

got the right amount. It makes them

unhappy if they got the wrong amount.

And we know they got the wrong amount.

And then some number of women are on uh

chemical birth control that changes

their hormonal balance. Do you think

that has any impact? Well, I'm no

doctor, but probably.

Um, how about the fact that it's the

first time in American history kids

don't think they could make enough money

to do things like have a family? Now, I

don't know if that's really the case,

but it sure looks like it. You can see

why they would think it. What about uh

social media and uh the phone? Of

course, social media and the foreigner

phone are very bad for your mental

health.

What about the fact that now that we

have such connectivity,

we we don't just worry about the

problems that are local to us, like

what's happening in your town and what's

happening in your family. Now, you get

to worry about all the problems in the

world. You get to worry about the poor

Ukrainians. You get to worry about the

poor people in Gaza, the poor people in

Israel. You get to worry about everybody

all the time. Would that make you

mentally unhealthy? Yes, it would. Yes,

it would. So, I would say it's the the

least mystery of all mysteries. Not only

do you have obvious reasons that are

pretty well established, but you got a

ton of them. It's the longest list

of reasons to be sad I've ever seen in

my life. And you know, a lot of that is

just Democrats and phones.

Well, here's the good side. Apparently,

psychedelics are, you know, almost every

day now there's another story about

psychedelics helping somebody with their

mental health or quitting addiction or

something like that. But it just in the

last few days, a few things that I've

read about is that psychedelics at just

one exposure to psychedelics once in

your life can make you more creative

forever.

Apparently they can measure mental

flexibility which gets to creativity and

they can determine that one exposure

just one you know deep trip under

psychedelics and you will forever be

more creative.

Now this brings me to me.

I've told you many times that when I was

uh just out of college, first came to

California, I had a mushroom experience,

which I was just reading a story that a

number of people who have had a mushroom

experience described it as the best day

of their life. Now, that's exactly how

I've described it my whole life, as the

best day of my life, and it wasn't

anything close. Now, I thought maybe it

was just me, but apparently that's a

common experience. But the the part that

I didn't really say out loud too much is

that I thought it changed me permanently

really. You could tell I I was a

different person after that and never

went back. And one of the things that

was different was that I felt my

creativity increased.

And sure enough, apparently there's some

scientific backing to that. I could

actually feel it because by the time I

became a cartoonist,

I actually thought my powers of

creativity were for some reason that I

didn't understand unusually good.

And I think that was part of it.

I was always creative, but I even I felt

there was some kind of turbocharge that

happened as a young adult. I I was quite

aware of it and I was always puzzled by

it because it felt like just some kind

of gene kicked in that I didn't know I

had. Maybe it was that. Maybe it was. Uh

but now they know that people who did

psychedelics

uh will also score higher on tests.

So inductive reason, verbal fluency,

working memory, processing speed,

attention switching, and inhibitory

control. So, it can get rid of your

depression, your uh your anxiety, your

addiction, and it can make you smarter

and more creative

permanently.

Just think about that.

It can solve all of those things and

make you more creative and make you

smarter

permanently.

I don't think we quite understand where

this is heading.

This is so big that we I it's hard to

actually wrap your head around it. It's

one of the biggest things that's ever

happened in human civilization.

And you know, it's up there with AI and

robotics in terms of how much it's going

to change the world. All we really

needed was to to change the psychology

from, oh, it's a dangerous drug, stay

away, to it might be the most miraculous

medicine of all humankind.

And that's happening. So, normies are

doing it. You know, the the the soccer

the soccer moms, they're all micro

doing.

You know why the sale of alcohol seems

to be going down? Micro doing even more

so than I think than marijuana.

That's what I think. I think the micro

doing is cutting into the alcohol far

more than anything else.

All right. Uh here's a funny story. Over

in California, there's a funding bill

that includes $12 million for

reparations. Now, you say to yourself,

$12 million? I thought they wanted like,

you know, a billion dollars or a

trillion dollars even in California.

What do you get for 12 million? Well, 12

million isn't the reparations.

Now 12 million will go to the activists

who want reparations so that they have

more time to study how to get those

reparations.

In other words, let me translate this

into uh common language for those of you

who do not have big company experience.

Remember how I laughed when Gavin

Newsome told the activists about

reparations, "You know what? You should

form a committee and you should go off

and study it and then get back to me."

And then he got back to him. He said,

"You know what? You know what we really

need is more studying."

So, of course, he was never serious

about reparations because it's a

political dagger right through his

heart. He doesn't have a chance if it

get if it goes through, but he can't say

no to it. So reparations is the thing

you can't say yes to if you're a

politician, but you definitely can't say

no to it. And there are only two things,

yes or no, or is there? Well, it turns

out that Gavin Newsome, clever man that

he is, realized there's something

between yes and no, which is we'd better

study this. And then after you studied

it, hm, very good studying you did

there, but you know, I've got a couple

more questions. You ought to go study

that. And then the reparations people

realizing they had him by the balls

said, "Uh, how about

how about you pay us to study it more?"

And then

then knowing it's not his own money,

Newsome thought, okay, if I pay you to

study it, which an objective observer

would call a bribe to go away and shut

up for a while, and I had and I could

pay the bribe with other people's money,

and I could sell it as not a bribe, but

rather an important funding toward

making the world a better place once

it's studied properly.

So yes,

apparently every time, let me just say

this, an obvious statement. Wherever

there's a reparation study committee,

there are some grifters who figured out

they can get white people to give them

lots of money to make it look like

they're studying something.

I kind of wish I were in that game

because it looks like a really, really

good scam. Oh yeah, if you don't pay me

$24 million,

I don't know how I'm going to study

these reparations, but I'll certainly

call you a racist every day you're in

office for not having a reparations

committee that's properly funded. And

now the other states are like, "Wait a

minute. Are you telling me the activists

are getting paid to pretend that they're

studying reparations?

They're all going to have their own

reparations study force. It's the

obvious way to make them go away and

shut up about it. They're just being

bribed. So, it's a legal way to bribe

people just to shut up until elections

are over. And it works. So, anytime you

say that Gavin Newsome doesn't have

game, he's got game.

He's not the one I want to be my

president, but don't underestimate that

guy. He's got some game. This is This is

well played.

All right.

Um, apparently there's a new study that

says there's a trillion dollar problem.

Oh, great. Another trillion dollar

problem. We don't have enough of those.

Uh, where there's too much lead in the u

in the yards of people's homes. So, 25%

of the US yards have unsafe levels of

lead.

Now, what I wondered was if there any

correlation

to any areas that have more lead. It

turns out that you're going to have more

lead where there's older infrastructure.

So, wherever there's older

infrastructure.

So, that would include basically all of

the Democrat cities.

So, New York, Detroit, Baltimore, you

know, older infrastructure.

Now, what are what is the effect of

having too much lead in your

environment? Well, the big one is it

lowers your IQ.

You see where this is heading?

The Democrat cities have the oldest

infrastructure. The old infrastructure

is correlated with more lead in your

environment. More lead in the

environment makes you stupid. I think we

just figured out what's going on. Yeah.

The Democrats are exposed to too much

lead and we're confusing it with

political opinions. Whoa. Whoa. No,

don't. That's not an opinion.

You you just have too much lead.

No. Yeah. Yeah. Why don't you go study

it for a while? Here's some money to go

study it because I can't convince you

that you're dumb because you have too

much lead in your brain.

But uh I'm not joking. By the way,

if the correlation is this strong and

there really is this much lead in our

environment, it would be affecting

Democrats more than other people just

because their living circumstances.

and it does make you dumber. So, it

might be that Democrats of all of all

races and genders and everything else uh

that Democrats just because of where

they live are getting dumber

now. Would that be systemic racism?

If that were true, there's more lead

making you dumb in places that Democrats

are clustered for unrelated reasons.

That would be systemic racism. So those

of you who say systemic racism isn't

real, I just don't think you're trying

very hard. Of course it's real. Of

course it is.

There are some things that are just

baked into the system that are really

hard to change. Now I don't think that

you should focus on those. Well,

obviously you should focus on fixing

them if you can, but I don't think that

should be the driving force of how we

live our lives. rather the driving force

should be the you know the King Randall

kind of learn to take care of yourself,

build a talent stack and these problems

just go away. If you have talent, all

the problems go away. Hey, did you hear

about the uh highly qualified uh black

engineer who couldn't get a job?

You've heard about that, right? There's

a story about a a very qualified black

engineer, has all the right

qualifications, went to MIT, got a

degree, has a good background,

experience, no problems whatsoever.

Can't get a job in America. Did you hear

about that? No. You never heard about

that because it didn't happen. It's

never happened once. There are zero

cases where a qualified black man can't

get a job in America. None. There are

lots of cases where somebody has a

criminal record. That's a problem. There

are lots of places where,

you know, there are individual pockets

of discrimination. That's real. Usually

smaller companies. The big companies, of

course, are dying for diversity.

There's no such thing as a person with

valuable job skills who doesn't have a

job in America. None. It hasn't happened

once.

So where's why does the systemic racism

go away as soon as you develop skills?

Well, it never goes away per se, but you

can slice through it like it didn't bo

didn't matter to you, right? So you

could say that stick of butter is real,

but if you have a hot poker,

you can just put it on the stick of

butter and it disappears. Just melts. So

be the hot poker.

Don't be somebody who's stopped by a

stick of butter.

All right.

Um,

apparently there's some kind of new

compound scientists in Japan gave to

mice who had Alzheimer's and they fixed

them. So now they can fix uh Alzheimer's

and mice

finally.

You know, I don't know about you, but

one of the things I worry about too much

is mice with Alzheimer's.

I think I see some once in a while. I'll

see a mouse, you know, out out in my

backyard or something. I'll be like,

"That mouse looks like Joe Biden."

And, you know, you look at the mouse and

it'll be like all hunched over like this

and walk like this.

And I say to myself, that's a that's a

mouse with Alzheimer's. But now there's

a Japanese drug that can cure it.

So a lot of your Japanese mice, at least

that's probably where it will start,

will be walking upright. And

uh and their debate performances will be

much better. Yeah. They also found that

the mice would win debates. No, I'm just

making that up. But they're probably

smarter once they cure that Alzheimer's.

Anyway, um we don't know if this will

work on human beings. Somebody mentioned

the other day that mice uh that mice

testing is more about whether it will

kill you. And it doesn't predict that it

will work in humans.

It does give you a good idea that if it

didn't kill the mice, it might not kill

us either. Not guaranteed, but it's a

good indication. It doesn't tell you

it's going to work. That's that's

another uh another level.

Well, Elon Musk says he he aims to be

able to build a thousand rocket ships a

year. He's got a brand new rocket ship

factory. Um that's gearing up. It's

nowhere near a thousand per year at the

moment, but they're making a lot of

them. Uh like a I think they're making a

rocket every other day. And the question

I have is

what do they need to put on those

rockets? If the rockets are not actually

going to the moon or Mars yet, why why

do we need that much capacity to put

stuff in space? Is it just satellites?

Do we have an unlimited

demand for launching satellites? We

might. I mean, that might be the whole

thing. But uh that is one hell of a

thing that really snuck up on me. If

you'd said, "Scott, how many rockets

does Elon Musk have?" I would have said,

"Well, I think he's got two and he keeps

reusing them, but probably there's three

or four, you know, in the pipeline just

in case." I didn't know it's going to be

hundreds and I certainly didn't know

it's going to be a thousand per year.

So he might have thousands of rockets,

you know, launching three or four per

day or something. That's where he's

heading.

Well, the Babylon B reports that 12

women have come forward uh to say that

they were sexually assaulted by uh quote

whoever the Trump VP is.

That's a pretty good joke. And also not

too far from reality cuz whoever Trump

picks for the vice president will be

accused of sexual impropriy.

Yes, they will. Which by the way might

be the main reason to pick whoever he

picks if he could find somebody who

wouldn't be accused of sexual impropriy.

And I worry about the good-looking

candidates

because it's so much harder to be

good-looking. You know, that that's one

of the lucky things about my life. I

always say to myself, would I be as

successful in my career if I were

good-looking? And I think the answer is

no. Because if I were good-looking, I'd

wake up every day and get everything I

needed.

You know, a bunch of attractive women

would want to have sex with me, and I'd

think, huh, I guess I don't even need to

be rich. I could I could cut back on the

working, give myself a nice, you know,

part-time job and live like a king with

my herm who thinks I'm handsome. But

since I was not born handsome,

I said to myself by looking in the

mirror when I was about 5 years old,

literally

true story, you'd better get a really

good job if you want to compete in this

world cuz you're not going to do it on

your looks. And so I did. And that, by

the way, that's completely true. I

honestly did look in the mirror at

around the age of five and said, "Man,

you better you better get a B game. Your

A game isn't working at all. Doesn't

look like it's going to kick in. You

better you better start working on that

B game." And so, I did.

Yeah, I am a planner. I do plan 45 years

in advance. Literally, I plan 45 years

in advance.

All right. Uh there's a top cancer

charity, I don't know which one, but

they're apologizing for using the word

cervix in their materials, and they say

they should have used the more um

inclusive term front hole

because it's not just women who have

vaginas.

Um

it's everybody. Everybody can have one.

So,

um,

so you got your front hole. So, don't

say cervix when you can say front hole.

Now, you might say to yourself, "My

goodness, this top cancer charity, they

sound to me like a bunch of back holes."

That's right. They're a bunch of back

holes.

Yep. We'll just let that sink in. Well,

did you know that the uh tariff, the US

tariff on Chinese electric vehicles is

over 100%.

It's over 100%. But correct me if I'm

wrong, but didn't Democrats tell us that

tariffs are a terrible, terrible idea?

And this is a Biden thing. Biden put a

100% tariff on electric cars from China.

So, can you Democrats make up your mind?

Is it the dumbest, worst thing that's

never worked once in the world, or is it

just a Trump policy that makes perfect

sense that you shouldn't destroy

yourself economically

just because China wants you to? Not a

good enough reason.

So, yeah, we have a 100% tariff to keep

those electric vehicles from China out

of our markets.

I think we're going to have to do the

same thing with robots

um with AI

and

um yeah, robots and AI basically and

EVs. So,

I think that the uh the markets that are

most important to the United States, in

every case, we're going to have to have

100% um some kind of tariff because you

can't really let China rule us in

robots.

Winning robots is existential.

We have to win robots.

By the way, I'm going to give you a

little uh uh little lesson here.

and what makes a human a human.

So, I've told you this before, but I

came into a better way to explain it.

I've told you that I don't believe that

art created by uh robots and AI will

ever be a big thing. And the re the

theory is, and this is just mine, I've

never heard anybody else say this, that

we recognize art as triggering to us,

like it means something to us, not

because the art is well done, but

because a human made it and it looks

like superior genetic quality and it's a

mating signal. So even if you're not

looking to mate, we're just born that

way. And even if you're the wrong gender

to be attracted to the artist, still

works because we're all we're all still

we can't look away when we see somebody

with talent. And talent is simply a

marker for uh reproductive

health, right? So whether whether your

talent is art or your talent is music,

you visual art or music or acting or

anything. If you have that thing,

people are attracted to it and they get

a feeling when they look at your art

because they're feeling you. You're

feeling the artist when you look at the

art. Even if you don't know who it is,

you still feel the artist. And so my

hypothesis is that AI art can never

trigger us if we know it's AI. And

probably we'll have some laws to say

we'll know. So if you know it's AI,

you're gonna say, "Eh, yeah, the

computers are good. So what?" I've not

yet found any art made by AI, as

impressive as it is, that I wanted to

spend much time looking at.

You know what I mean? It's really

impressive and it does look better than

humans can do and all that. No interest

at all. you know, it has its utility.

You know, maybe you do something to

include in a post on social media or put

it in your blog post or something. So,

it's useful, but it doesn't move you the

way that human art can. So, now I'm

going to now I'm going to make my point

with this.

Fast forward 5 years when robots have

full human movement and good batteries

and AI and somebody says, "I'm going to

form a robot basketball league where my

robots will play your robots and they'll

play actual basketball. They'll dribble,

they'll shoot, they'll foul everything.

Would you watch it?"

The answer is once. You might watch it

once, but you will never be interested

in robots playing basketball. Now,

imagine if the robots could play

basketball better than Michael Jordan.

They could jump higher and do these

impressive dunks. Would you watch it?

Not even a little bit. Do you know why?

Cuz it's not people.

Yeah. We're not interested in

basketball.

We have no interest in basketball.

Because if we had interest in

basketball, you could watch robots play

and you go, "Wow, look at that

basketball. They could really play that

basketball, those robots." No, you would

have no interest at all. People watch

basketball because they want to the

players.

Men watch basketball because it's men

who are better than them and they're

like, we're kind of drawn to just

looking at anything in that domain.

Yeah, that's the real reason. It's

because the athletes are, you know,

super examples of people you want to

mate with. They're they're displaying a

talent that is unusual.

So, the basketball example should tell

you that AI art is probably not the

future except in utility way.

Uh there's you you've been following

this story that I haven't talked about

at all, and I'll tell you why. Uh

there's a bunch of Chinese-owned

farmland

that in many cases is nearby to US

military bases and it's an alarming

threat. Now, I take that seriously.

I do think that having a bunch of

Chinese farmland adjacent to American

bases,

that does seem like a security risk.

But I would also point out, and the

reason I hadn't talked about it until

now, is that if you have a lot of bases

and you have a lot of farmland,

how are they not going to line up?

So, I was having trouble um

removing chance from the story because I

looked at the map and it looked to me

like some were near bases, some were

not, but a lot were. Am I worried about

that? Yeah. Yeah. Because it is it is a

resource that you could imagine China

might take advantage of if they wanted

to. So yeah, it's a problem. But I don't

know if it's a a plot. It might be. So

you have to worry about it exactly as if

you know it's a plot. But I don't know.

I don't know. It could be just they need

to they need food. So they create a

bunch of farms and places that have good

conditions for farms and then they ship

the food back. So it might be 80% food,

20%, you know, as long as you're going

to buy some farmland.

Yeah. Wouldn't it be nice if it were in

this area instead of that area? So there

might be some, you know, military

direction to it just in case. It would

be a smart thing for China to do to just

have a bunch of locations that they can

use with impunity.

All right. Judge Cannon is the judge

who's weighing in on whether Jack Smith,

who's the prosecutor,

uh, whatever name they're using for it,

uh, special, whatever, for the, uh, Mara

Lago box gate. And the idea is that uh

he might not have been appointed through

a legal process and therefore should be

removed from the case. So that's

pending. The uh the story here is that

Judge Cannon was a a Trump appointee and

people are saying that she is too

proTrump and that uh you know she should

be removed from the case. I guess um

here's here's what I take from it.

What I take from it is if you're poor,

uh, you get whatever judge they assign

you and you take your chances.

But knowing that everybody's biased

about everything all the time, humans

are just biased. There's no way around

it. Um,

but it seems to me that rich people

actually can shop for judges and

prosecutors. Not every time, but you

know, you can try to get a change of

venue. You can ask for a judge to be

removed because your because your

lawyers did such a good job of finding

some conflict that nobody knew about,

that sort of thing. So, it seems to me

that we have a two-phase legal system.

The poor get whatever we whatever we

give them, and they just got to deal

with it. And the rich decide whether

they will go to jail or not

by which judge they get.

You know, because once it becomes

political or even if there's just a

billionaire involved, uh it's always

political. Then it seems like the game

is getting the right judge.

So where Trump gets the wrong judges in

New York

and we say, "Well, that's unfair."

Um he might get the right judge. I don't

know that this judge is biased in his

favor, but it's a it's a reasonable

suspicion

whether it's true or not,

but suppose it is true and suppose it's

the only reason that Trump gets off.

That's our system. Our system is rich

people get to shop judges

or at least they can try and poor people

don't. and that picking the right judge,

as we know from the Supreme Court, is

about 80% predictive in terms of how

things are going to go.

So, it does expose the uh system quite a

bit. All right. Trump had a big uh uh

rally in Philadelphia. The big story is

there's no big story.

The big story is, and I will compliment

the the Trump campaign again, um people

who went there described it as flawless.

In other words, the organization of it,

the the attendance, the design of it, uh

Trump's performance, the equipment, you

know, all the logistics,

flawless.

Now, compare that to Biden who's hiding

in his basement pretending to get ready

for a debate.

I tell you, there's a little bit of the

dog not barking here, but every day that

Trump doesn't do a Trump-like

provocative thing that makes you say,

"Why'd he do that? Everything was going

so well until he did that." And he's not

doing that. It's not an accident. It's

not a coincidence

that Trump is running a flawless

campaign. He's got skill that is

employed in this. I don't know who

exactly. It could be a combination of

people, but he's got really really smart

people working on this campaign and you

can just see it. You you can see it

every time he does something that it

just has this little extra envelope of

smartness around it that you didn't see

the first the first two times he ran.

You didn't see it, but you see it now

and you see it just so clearly. Here's

another example. Um,

some uh Republicans are suggesting that

his best campaign strategy would be to

be not Trump. In other words, don't um

don't talk over, don't be combative and

in a non-debate way. You know, just

don't go too hard.

And the thinking is he just has to

describe, you know, the path that he

gives you, the path that Biden will

probably give you, the fact that you've

seen both of them at work. you have you

have a full four-year interview

essentially for each of them and he that

Trump can simply say here's what Biden

gives you, here's what I give you.

There's no contest.

I agree with that

with the caveat that nobody can really

advise Trump. So, he he still is the one

who's going to decide and a lot of it

will be spontaneous.

I don't think he's really not preparing.

You know, he he's kind of playing it off

like he's not preparing because it'll be

more impressive if he does well, but I

assume he's preparing. He's just doing

it his own way.

Anyway, so uh and I would agree if he

just plays it straight, he's going to

win. I had some actual suggestions here.

I had an actual suggestion.

Um,

all right. Here's here's my debate

advice. Besides not don't be too

aggressive,

we're very close to the point, I don't

know if we're there yet, where Trump

could say what I call the uh the Bob

Dole strategy. Now, it's a strategy used

against Bob Dole by um by the Clinton

campaign when they were running for

reelection, but the Bill Clinton

campaign, which was to treat the Bob

Dole with respect because he was elderly

and a vet. So once you get a lead, you

know, it looks like you're going to win

anyway, you stop being an and

you start showing empathy and respect.

And I think that Trump, of course, he's

going to keep going hard at at uh Biden

all the way to the finish line. But

could you imagine him saying

that we need to respect the elderly

and that Biden had a good run.

Imagine imagine Trump saying, you know,

we have to give respect to the elderly.

Now, people would laugh at that because

Trump is almost the same age, but it

would be funny and you couldn't ignore

it. You know, we should we should have

respect for the elderly. Joe had a good

run, but we can all see that his time

has come to an end.

Just imagine that coming out of Trump's

mouth or some version of it. We should

respect the elderly.

And I'm going to go hard this election.

If you know, if you go hard, I'm going

to go hard. But honestly, Joe, you had a

good run. You made it all the way to

president.

But now, I think, you know, a due

respect to people who have reached your

situation in life is that we should

allow you to make a graceful exit.

And it looks like the voters are going

to do that for you. And if you go hard

at me, I'm going to go hard at you.

That's our system. But I think at this

point we can all see that maybe empathy

is the way to go here. It would be

devastating. It would be devastating if

Trump said we should maybe go a little

easy on you because everybody can see

what's going on at this point. But then

don't go easy.

You know, don't be a bully, but

definitely don't go easy. just just

pointed out as something we should now

consider that since we can all see he's

gone

that maybe we should take a different

approach to this. It would be a killer.

Well, uh also Trump said we should stop

giving attention to Bill Maher uh

because Bill Maher's got a failing show

and he's unimportant blah blah blah blah

blah. Well, I'd like to talk about Bill

Maher because I don't take that advice

whatsoever.

I think Mike Cernovich is saying the

same thing. Stop giving oxygen to Bill

Maher. I'll stop giving him oxygen when

it doesn't work to my advantage.

Like if that starts happening, I'll stop

doing it. But at the moment with the

story I'm going to tell you right now,

it's very much working to my advantage

as a communicator.

Here's what Bill Maher said. See if this

sounds familiar to you. see if it's

something that maybe you heard me say

once or twice or 10 times. All right,

here's what Bill Maher said on his show.

He was talking about uh all the polls

about Biden losing support among various

things. He says he's uh losing 14 points

among Hispanics, 43 points among black

voters. I don't I'll just give you the

big line. I I think these details are

misleading, but he's basically saying

that every category from Hispanics to

blacks to under 50, student debt

holders, even the people on student debt

were more for Trump. And uh something

about even losing support for women. So,

Bill Maher says,

Bill Maher says,

"How can they be tied

if the polls say he's losing ground in

every category?"

How can he be tied at the top line if we

know he's losing every category?

Have you heard me say that?

That's exactly what I said.

I said, 'How do you explain that he

looks like he's Tai

when they're also saying he's losing

every category?

Well, it can't they can't both be true.

But here's what I posted on this.

Bill Maher is so close to understanding

the world he lives in. He doesn't yet,

but he's so close. I think he might get

there. And what he needs to understand

is that nothing's true.

that that that the polls that are coming

out from respected entities are

legitimately faked. They're

intentionally,

obviously, observably,

transparently fake. So, there's no real

mystery here. There's no mystery at all.

The polls are fake. Now, are some of the

polls accurate?

Probably, because they're not all the

same. But no, you should expect tons of

fake polls that would and he's he's seen

the glitch in the matrix now. You know,

he lives in a world where he thinks that

at least his news is real. So he's still

locked into the world where if you look

at the if you read the credible news as

he would define them. That that's not

right every single time. And he points

out when they're wrong, but that you

know, you get a pretty good idea of

what's true by ignoring the bad news

sources and focusing on the good ones.

He hasn't quite caught on that there

aren't any good ones. And maybe there

never were. I mean, my personal theory

is that there never were. Here's why.

If the CIA can control the news, they

will. There's no doubt about that. But

they're not going to try to control it

for, you know, every little story, you

know, not the local stuff. But they're

certainly going to control it completely

when there's some argument that there's

a national interest. That would be their

job.

arguably that's what we pay them for to

make sure there are no gigantic national

interests that we ignore. And

so it seems hugely unlikely that to me

that even during the days we trusted the

news and the Konite days, everybody

said, "He's so trusted. He's so

trusted." My current view is that almost

guarantees he was a CIA asset. Do you

know why people said he was trusted?

I don't

I don't know why. I think it's only

because he didn't get caught with fake

news and probably the CIA started the

idea that he was so trusted.

I think it's always been fake

and and but what I mean by that is that

the news about anything important, you

know, like why did Nixon get removed

from office? I don't think we've ever

been told the truth about that. you

know, why did Kennedy get killed?

You know, probably a lot of things were

not being told the truth. So, yes, one,

if you believe that your news is real

and the other is fake, you end up being

confused about why the polls are giving

you something that is logically

impossible. I'm not confused. I know

exactly what's going on. They're fake

polls.

So, as soon as you get past the idea

that some of it's true, everything makes

sense. It's a It's a good feeling.

Well, you remember Jack Dorsey, founder

of uh old Twitter. Uh he's saying that

the issue with the algorithms is not

just that they're politically biased,

it's that they remove your free will.

How do you like that?

The algorithms effectively determine how

we think. You know, it would be easy to

demonstrate that if you were fed a

certain algorithm, you'd have a certain

point of view. If they fed you a

different algorithm, you'd have a

different point of view. It's the tick-

tock effect. It's well understood,

right? There's no argument about that.

So, if somebody else is deciding

what things are going to the front of

your brain, and that's what social media

is doing with the algorithms. If

something that's not your brain decides

what you're going to think about the

most and even the narrative and and the

way you're going to think about it, do

you have free will?

Well, you're going to say you do. Well,

I'll just look at different sources and

I won't believe it and I'll know there's

more context. No,

the

uh be like, "Oh, the machines work

miracles. They do things like humans."

there there's somebody in all caps who's

imagining I said the opposite of what

I've ever said and that uh and he's

really mad about my point of view that's

the opposite of my point of view

there's somebody yelling in all caps

that I believe that our robots will be

magic and do everything that humans can

do. I just got done saying the opposite

of that. That they won't be able to do

art. And why?

So, all caps guy seems pretty drunk.

Morning drinker looks like. Anyway, yes.

Uh I I would go further. Jack Dorsey

says we're going to lose free will

because the algorithms will effectively

program our brains. That's a reasonable

frame.

But I would go further to the next level

of awareness and say

that free will is an illusion. And what

we will lose is the illusion of free

will.

So once you realize that your opinions

keep matching your Tik Tok feed, you're

going to realize that your illusion of

free will is starting to go. So you'll

probably paper that over with some

cognitive dissonance.

Well, I told you before that there's a

Swiss firm that's making organic

computers. So, in other words, they have

a fake organic brain. Didn't come from a

person. It just I guess they grew it in

a lab. And it can uh do all kinds of

computational tasks like a regular

computer while consuming a million times

less power than silicon chips. A million

times less power.

Now, keep in mind our biggest problem is

we're going to run out of power with all

the robots and EVs and AI,

but we might be able to reduce it by a

million if there are some kind of

organic brains. Now, I think that the

problem is they don't last very long

um because they're organic.

So, I don't know what happens when your

organic computer gets Alzheimer's or

dementia.

And would you pick up on it right away?

And is that even a thing? Can it

actually happen? What happens when the

brain starts to degrade a little bit?

You know, does it stop working suddenly

or you don't notice and it's just sort

of off for a while? I don't know. Lots

of questions, but it's pretty exciting.

All right, here's uh sort of the big

question for the day. As you know,

President Biden ran on the fine people

hoax that he tried to sell to the

country and the people who don't follow

the news too closely as true. Did you

know that Snopes, the fact the most

famous factchecking entity, which

traditionally has leaned left,

says in a fullthroated way that it

didn't happen, it's a hoax. Now, they

don't say hoax, but they do say clearly

and unambiguously,

President Trump did not call the

neo-Nazis fine people.

And so,

um, as I I included, uh, Michael Ian

Black in my, uh, in my comment on that,

and I said that one of the ways you can

tell the truth in our world of lies

about everything is if people on both

sides have the same version. So, if Fox

News and CNN say the same thing, that's

much more likely to be true. If only one

of them says something is true and the

other says it's not true

could go either way. But if there are

people on both who say something's true

or not true, that means something. For

example, even CNN's legal analysts and

lots of other Democrat legal people said

that uh Trump's uh Stormmy Daniels Hush

Payman trial was pure lawfare and that

if it hadn't been Trump, nobody would

have brought the case.

Now, if only Fox News told you that or

only Breitbart, you'd say to yourself,

"Maybe true, maybe spun."

But if you hear it from the legal

analysts on both sides, exactly the

same, that's a real good indication

that you're seeing something true.

So now you have uh Fox News ran an

article today about Snopes pointing out

that you know the the Fox News approach

has always been that it's been fake. So

now you have Fox News agreeing with

Snopes and Breitbart Joel Pollock also

writing about this um also noting

that Snopes is now in conformity. So

just keep this in mind, right? The tent

pole, in other words, the most important

structure in the tent, the tentpole hoax

that got Biden elected

is now known by both the left and the

right to be based on a hoax. But have I

ever taught you about the hoax funnel

where once you debunk a hoax, people

don't say, "Oh, I guess you got me.

you're you're totally right and I'm

totally wrong and now that now I see the

evidence of that. They don't they back

up to a related hoax that had nothing to

do with the original and they try to

claim that the related thing is the

thing. For example,

when Russia collusion fell apart, the

Democrats didn't say, "Oh god, I guess

that was just a big old hoax." No, they

said Paul Manifford went to jail for uh

giving some uh let's say internal

polling data to a Russian oligarch. So

really it was right all along. No,

that's going down the hoax funnel that

it was never about Paul Maniffort doing

something with this one Russian.

That was not the Russia collusion hoax.

But once once they lose their main

claim, as they did when the Muller

report came out, that they had to

retreat down the funnel to something

that sounds like it and has some factual

basis, but it's not really the same

thing. It's not even the same general

point.

So, here's what Snopes did going down

the funnel. Yes, I'm very glad that they

said Trump did not call the neo-Nazis

fine people, but Snope said it is false

that there were any normal people there.

Now, um those are my own words. Normal

people in this context would be be

people who were not racist, did not

agree with the racist, did not march

with the racists, but still wanted the

statues to remain. You know, they had an

opinion. They just wanted to be there

for that.

And now Snope says that it's not true

they existed.

How did they explain that I actually

talked to them personally?

I talked to to locals, Charlottesville

locals, who saw on the news that there

was a protest just down the street, and

they saw that a whole bunch of people

from out of town. This is important. a

whole bunch of people from out of town

were coming to their town to tell them

what kind of statues they can have.

And so some of the locals said, "Well,

how about all of you? How about we

decide if we have these statues?" And

you know, they liked them for historical

reasons. I asked directly directly, "Do

you side with agree with or disavow the

racists?" They said very directly, "Oh,

we totally disavow them. We want nothing

to do with the racists. We're we're not

racist. They're they are racists. We

want nothing to do with them." So now

once I say that, what where do you go in

the hoax funnel?

Do you know the third ring of the hoax

funnel? Once I say I have personally

done the research and I'm talking to you

and I'm telling you that there were fine

people there who were not racist and not

with them. What did they say? Well,

Scott, why would they be marching with

the racists then?

But that didn't happen. They were

physically separated, nowhere near them.

Didn't plan to march with them. Never

would have marched with them. Hated

their guts.

So then when I point that out that they

weren't physically there, in fact, the

police kept everybody away from the

marchers. So even if you wanted to march

with them, you couldn't have got near

it. You could have been in the area of

the protest, but you could have gotten

nowhere near the marchers. Even if you

wanted to jump in and help them, you

couldn't. The police were preventing you

from getting near them

for good reasons. So, what comes next?

How could anybody

not know it was a Nazi event?

So Scott, since they all had to know it

was Nazi organized,

I'm not really believing that they went

there for their own purposes because who

goes to a Nazi event, Scott? Who goes to

a Nazi event?

To which I say again, I talked to them

and I asked that question and they said,

"I didn't know it was a Nazi event. I

just heard there was a a thing on on the

news." So the local news reported it

that there's people protesting statues

and they had an opinion. So they got in

their car and they drove down there.

That's what it was. They had an opinion.

They drove down there to, you know,

maybe to watch, but maybe also to have

their opinion known. So,

uh, there, so, so Snopes is not credible

in the sense that they're still lying.

And they have to know they're lying

because they did the same thing. Not

Snopes necessarily, but the way the uh,

the 2020 election is covered, they act

like if they don't do the research, they

can say there was no problem with the

election.

Well, nobody found anything, so

therefore there was nothing to be found.

That's not how anything works. If

nothing's found, you only know that

nothing was found.

It would be a rare situation

where such as looking in a box that you

have in your hand where not finding it

would conclusively tell you there's

nothing in it. Right? If you're holding

a box and you're looking in the box,

well, yes, you can tell that if you

looked in it and it's not there, there's

nothing in the box. But you can't tell

that about this big system where you

couldn't possibly see all the moving

parts. Yeah, that's not a thing. So to

say that there were no fine people when

the only people who tried to check found

them, the New York Times found some and

I found some easily.

So that's the third ring of the the

hoax, but it's enough so that Trump, if

he chose to, could say, you know, this

Snopes, which leans left, said the fine

people thing was a complete hoax. If he

said that during the debate, that'd be

pretty strong cuz the Democrats have

heard of Snopes and they would take that

seriously, I think.

Well, there's new news about the alleged

badness of Paul Ryan. Uh Cash Patel is

saying that there's a British corpse.

There was some kind of case over there

that somehow has produced information

that we hadn't seen before that alleges

that Paul Ryan

Democrat, some would say uh, you know,

anti-Trumper,

but I'm sorry, a Republican. He was a

Republican leader, but an anti-Trumper.

So, an anti-Trump Republican who is also

on the board of Fox News, I believe.

But, uh, we're finding out or the

allegation is that he got a copy of the

Steel Dossier in 2016 and never told

anybody.

In other words, he was one of the first

people to have a full copy of the Steel

Dossier

and never till this day mentioned it.

Now, the question you have to ask

yourself is, since we know the Steel

Dossier was created as a fraud for the

intention of destroying Trump,

doesn't it raise a little question about

why they would give one to a Republican?

If you suspect suspected that Paul Ryan,

you know, maybe more connected to the

military-industrial complex and not so

much a Republican,

this would be evidence for that claim.

that they knew that it wasn't his party

that mattered. It just mattered if he

was in favor of big wars. And maybe he

was. Now, I'm just speculating. We don't

know what was in the mind of Paul Ryan.

We don't know why he kept it. You maybe

he has a perfectly good reason. I mean,

the re the reason could be as simple as

he didn't think it was real, so he just

didn't mention it. It could be just

that. So, I wouldn't jump to the

conclusion that we know what this means.

But is it disturbing?

Very.

How did we get to that today without

knowing that he was one of the first

people who had a full copy of the Steel

Dossier?

And what did he think about it when he

saw it? Did he believe it?

So, we do have some questions, don't we?

We have questions.

All right. Um, now Biden is uh

gaslighting Israel. So, the Democrats

are very consistent.

Uh, they're they're in full narcissist

mode where they'll tell you that what

you're looking at you can't see. So, as

you know, when we look at Joe Biden

walking like a cadaavver and and

babbling, we know his brain is gone.

So, what do the Democrats say? No, he's

fine. What are you talking about? Oh, in

private he's fine. Yeah, it's probably

just some cheap fix. No, you're not

seeing what you're seeing. No, no, he's

fine. So, if they can sell that,

if they can sell that,

um they can sell anything. And now

they're gaslighting Israel. Uh Joel

Pollock had an article on this in

Breitbart. Um, so apparently the uh who

is he? Uh, Yova Galant, he's the head of

the military. Um, had to come to America

to see if he can get the Biden

administration to release the shipment

of arms and and ammunition

that Israel says it needs, but the White

House claims it is not withholding.

So, Israel believes that they're not

giving them the weapons. And what is the

Biden White House saying? Yes, we are.

Well, well, no, you're not. Because you

have the weapons. We need the weapons.

You know what the weapons are. You've

agreed to give us the weapons. We don't

have the weapons. You have not given us

the weapons. That's why we're sending

our top military guy to see what can

change so we can get the weapons. And

what does the Biden administration say?

Oh, you have all the weapons. No, we

don't have the weapons. I swear to God,

we don't have any weapons that you said

you were going to give us. You did not

send them.

Yeah, we did. Sure we did.

That's their entire administration.

It's just telling you that what you see,

you're not seeing. I've never seen

anything like this before. The the fine

people hoax is an example of that.

All you had to do was look at the

transcript and they would say

that's not there. How about the the

drinking bleaches? Uh it's obviously he

was talking about light. You can see he

mentioned light before and after his

comments. It was always light.

No, it wasn't. What What are you doing?

What are you doing to me? It's just pure

gaslighting.

But now the Democrats are even

gaslighting their peers with fake

dissertations. So there's an allegation

now that uh Democrat Congressman Jamal

Bowman of New York uh there's an

accusation that his uh dissertation

uh was got has a whole bunch of stolen

parts from other people's work.

So, do you know what is going to happen

when somebody says, "Look, we found this

quote from somebody else's prior work

and here's the paragraph you wrote and

you can see that yours is identical to

this other one and therefore pretty

obvious in case that you stole it." Do

you know what Jamal Bowman's going to

say?

No, I didn't. Well, see, but here it is.

Like, it's well documented. And then

here's yours right next to it. You see

they're the same, right?

No, they're not. But they are. They're

actually actually the same. Look, look,

look at the words. These words are the

same as these words. And the date on it

is clearly before yours. And you even

you didn't cited it.

No, I didn't. Well, here's the citation

and here's the exact wording and you

didn't put it in quotes.

Yes, I did.

Now, I'm just joking about Jamal Bowman,

but it feels like every conversation is

just going that way now. No, we didn't.

I don't know what you're talking about.

All right.

Um, now there's an interesting question

and um I was reading about this in uh

let's see John Solomon and Steven

Richards reporting on this in just the

news

website.

Uh the question is from the uh there's

the committee that's trying to figure

out what the so-called Biden crime

family was up to and

uh they're wondering now if Biden was

giving quote defensive briefings on what

Hunter was doing overseas. Now a

defensive briefing would be you should

just know this. Yeah. Do you know what

your son is doing?

Maybe we should mention that we've

picked up some indication that your son

is doing some sketchy looking things in

another country. Now, I feel like that

would have been normal business,

meaning that surely the government had

an idea what Hunter was doing in

Ukraine.

Surely some of the intel people thought

maybe we should tell Biden since he's in

office. This is when he was vice

president.

And it seems likely they would have

clued him in, which would mean that

Biden was lying when he said he didn't

know anything about his son's business,

uh, etc. So, it could be an important

thing, um, if only because it would show

some deception.

But, uh, here's a little reminder of

things we do know according also to just

the news.

uh according to them there's a mountain

of incontrovertible evidence. Now that's

that's narrative by the way. Uh if you

want to learn to spot narrative versus

fact

the what follows are facts but the

characterization of the facts as a

mountain of incontrovertible

that's narrative right because I'm sure

that there's somebody who says it's not

true. So everything's it's hard to be

incontrovertible, but anyway, here are

some things that we're pretty sure are

demonstrated to be truth now. Um, let's

see. That Hunter Biden made millions

while his father was vice president. So

they now have a good idea of the timing

of things from business associates with

unsaavory backgrounds,

including a Ukrainian energy firm deemed

corrupt by the State Department, a

Chinese executive convicted by the

Department of Justice of corruption, a

Russian oligarch unable to get an

American bank account because of red

flags, and a Romanian oligarch charged

with bribery in his country, and two

Americans convicted of securities

frauds.

So,

I don't have an opinion about any of

that being especially illegal,

but it does seem hard to believe that

Biden wasn't briefed on it. So, keep an

eye on this one. I think they're going

to show that he was briefed somehow. I

think they're going to be able to find

that out.

Well, meanwhile, there's still two

astronauts stranded on the International

Space Station, and Boeing's struggling

to fix some uh some hardware, software

problems in their ship to go and and get

them. If they miss the window, they have

to wait a bunch of time because you

can't go up there anytime you want for

physics reasons. Um,

so

is Boeing always going to look like a

DEI problem?

Now, I have no reason to believe that

DEI has anything to do with any of their

problems,

but it's happening at the same time as

DEI.

So, don't you assume they're related as

just a working assumption.

Now, it's unfair and it's like super

racist to even imagine that this could

have any anything to do with their

sudden decrease in quality. But

remember, it's not racist because you

could replace the races or just even

reverse them and you get the same

impact. So if you can put any race into

the situation, let's say the system, you

could put any race into it and you get

the same outcome. I'm not sure that's

race. That's about the system. If if the

if the race is irrelevant to the

outcome, it's the system. What I mean by

the system is the demand for a specific

kind of qualified person far exceeds the

supply.

And in the normal American, not American

but human way that we deal with things,

people are going to hire people

underqualified so they can meet their

diversity goals because that's your

that's your bonus this year. You won't

know if the hireers did a bad job for a

few years, but you want to get that

bonus this year. So, you're going to

you're going to bend things a little bit

to get your diversity goals met.

In theory, planes should be falling from

the sky because of DEI as a system, not

because of anybody's demographic group.

Just as a system, they can't possibly

work on paper. On paper, it can't work.

It'd be one thing to say, well, we

implemented it poorly. That's not what's

happening. On paper, it can't be

implemented correctly because you don't

have enough supply. The only way you

could do it is in the the very long run

where you do a much better job of

training young people so that you have a

better supply of diverse candidates, in

which case you wouldn't need DEI.

Let me say it again.

How many unemployed black aeronautic

engineers do you believe there are in

the whole world?

Black

qualified

aviation engineers

that can't get work. None. There are

exactly zero. So if you want diversity,

you fix the qualifications of the people

starting in preschool and you just make

sure you don't let up. make sure

everybody's got a good shot, then it

takes care of itself. You would have

full employment of all qualified people

of every every demographic group. Now,

if you've got a bunch of people who

can't get jobs because they're

unqualified, it just means you didn't do

a good enough job, you know, training

them and maybe they were trained for the

wrong stuff.

Not everybody can be aeronautic

engineers. I know I couldn't.

Well, anyway, Kathy Wood, who's the uh

CEO of Arc Investments, big investment

company. She's a big name in the

investment world, you should know, um is

going to vote for Trump.

So, yet another smart person

in the proTrump uh family. Now, remember

when you couldn't really say that out

loud? If you had a if you had a

business, you just couldn't say it.

But, uh apparently she doesn't mind. I

think she's pro Elon Musk as well.

All right. Um,

so on Tuesday, I'm going to talk to

Michael Ian Black. Um, I'm going to have

a special live stream. It'll be after

this one at 11:00 a.m. my time on

Tuesday, which would be 2 p.m. on the

East Coast. And uh assuming that you

know nothing comes up between now and

then the question will be not not is

Trump good or bad you know I I know

where that conversation would go so

there's no point in having it but rather

he asked a fascinating question how do

you know the news is real and I've got

about 20 things to answer that question

uh but one of the things he posted this

morning was there was a MSNBC interview

uh in which somebody from the Heritage

Foundation was being interviewed and he

said, and again it's a reasonable

reasonable observation, isn't this real

news? Because where it all started was

me saying all the news is fake. So here

was somebody on the right, a respected

voice in the right, talking to a host on

MSNBC who obviously leans left. I think

it was Bernie's old campaign manager.

and and isn't that real news?

Well, I would call that opinion.

There was one person brought on to say,

"What do you think about all this

stuff?" And then he did. Now, it's

useful, but it's opinion. I wouldn't

call that news. So, we have lots to talk

about about what's news and what's

opinion. Um, but opinions are true in

the sense that the person saying it

often believes it. It's a It's a true

opinion, but that doesn't mean it's

news. Exactly. That's just an opinion.

All right.

And that, ladies and gentlemen,

brings me to the exciting conclusion of

my prepared remarks. Um, you may have

noticed I did a little tease on the

Xplatform of the Dilbert Sunday comic.

Uh, Dilbert's company is going to start

making uh aircraft.

It might remind you of a specific

company that's having some issues right

now with the quality of their

construction. Um, but you can only see

that if you subscribe on X, see my

profile or if you are on the locals

platform, also a subscription. But on

locals, you'd see Robot Reads News, my

other comic, and uh, man caves and all

kinds of fun other content. A lot of

political stuff. If you only want the

comic, get it at X. All right. Um,

thank you.

All right. I'm going to end uh now for

the three other platforms and just talk

the locals. Thanks for joining everybody

else. See you tomorrow.