Episode 2920 CWSA 08/07/25

Well, the good news is if you have stocks, they're probably up.

It looks like an update for stocks.

Yay.

Yay, everybody.

All right, let me get ready to see your comments and then it's go time.

Here we go.

Just like I planned.

Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better time.

But if you'd like to take a chance of elevating this experience up to levels that no one can understand with their shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper, a mug or a glass, a tanker, gels, a canteen, jugger, flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparallel pleasure that dopamine at the end of the day.

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

It happens now.

Good.

Oh yeah.

That's the unparalleled pleasure right there.

I think you could feel it.

Best thing happened to you all day long so far.

All right.

Well, allegedly at exactly now um a new version of chat GPT is being launched, GPT5.

And uh would you like to be among the first to over claim that they've achieved super intelligence?

I don't think it will have super intelligence.

I do think it will hallucinate just like prior models and I feel like it will be overhyped but still awesome.

You know, I feel like it'll still beat a bunch of benchmarks, which it is.

So, apparently it now beats uh humans on a test that humans score on average 83%.

It does better than that.

So, it's better than humans, but we'll see.

For reasons that I was trying to completely ignore, um, apparently the WNBA, the women's basketball professional uh, sport, um, somebody threw a green dildo on the playing surface, which caused other people to do the same.

in subsequent games.

And now it's a big problem.

So it turns out if you give people that idea and then you invite 15,000 people to sit in a in the same building, at least one of them is going to say, "You know what would be a great idea?

I've got an idea.

It's been done a lot of times, so it won't be original, but I feel like I want to be the one who gets arrested for throwing the dildo during the game.

And then somebody does.

Apparently, there's no way to stop it for the from now to the end of time.

So, the good news is it's one more reason to watch women's basketball.

Um, and uh, apparently there's a a betting market for the green dildo now to bet whether it appears or doesn't.

And there's more money being gambled on the dildo than on the WNBA game itself according to the postmillennial.

To which I say, well, that makes sense.

But I will tell you that women's basketball is way more entertaining than I thought.

And some of that is because men's basketball has become really kind of boring.

Three boy shot.

Three boy shot.

He's in the paint.

He got fouled every single time.

Sometimes they call it, sometimes they don't.

But he always complains.

It's just the same play over and over again.

But the women, the women are a little more, I don't know, relaxed with their defense.

You just see more stuff happening.

Well, a uh high school kid has used AI to clone her mother's voice so that the AI can make phone calls to the school to excuse her from classes.

Now, the weirdest part about that story is it's the first time I've heard it.

Don't you kind of assume that kids all over the country have already used AI voice cloning and they've cloned their parents' voices?

Don't you just sort of assume a lot of people have done that?

Could it be that what we're really finding out with this story is that one person got caught?

Because how would you catch them?

If you're the school, you just get a phone call.

That's all you know.

You don't know anything else.

So, I don't know.

Maybe just one got caught.

Well, Google is going to spend a billion dollars on AI education and job training.

So, I would start with that.

Uh, whoever did the voice cloning, they sound like they could be trained up.

Might be good employees someday.

And, uh, so that's happening.

Makes me wonder if the big corporations will have to get into the education business because the public schools are not creating anybody who could go to, you know, get a job basically.

and they're certainly not going to know how to use AI.

So, could it be that the one and only way we'll ever um take advantage of AI is if the AI companies use their vast wealth to run their own schools basically, which they could use AI to do.

So, probably pretty efficient.

Well, there's a report per the Washington Times that says that DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs are vanishing as school board meetings.

And that's because of Trump trying to purge uh DEI.

But then they give the numbers and it goes from the school board meetings used to mention DEI 38% of the time, but now it's down to 33.

To which I say, that's really not much of a difference for something that is pure racial discrimination and illegal at a federal level to only go down from 38% uh um frequency down to 33.

To me, that's a lot more like you can't get rid of it no matter what you do.

So, I think the DEI will stay clawing, you know, clawing to the sides of things to try to survive, and it will.

And eventually they're going to wait out Trump.

You know, Trump doesn't last forever.

And I feel like unless you put a well, unless you put people in jail for DEI, it will just revive itself because the incentives for that are pretty high.

They'll get rewarded locally but not federally.

Um, speaking of which, yeah, so I don't know is any of the DEI stuff literally illegal or is it all civil kind of stuff?

It's not a it's not a criminal act, right?

It's a would be a civil violation.

I don't even know what I'm talking about.

But you couldn't put somebody in jail for pretending that they got rid of DEI at their public school but secretly just, you know, changing what you call it.

I don't know.

Is that actually a criminal act or not?

I don't know.

It should be criminal.

In my opinion, that should be criminal.

But anyway, um, a federal appeals court according to the college fix has upheld a Arkansas ban on critical race theory, the so-called CRT.

So critical race theory in the classroom tells people that uh, white men mostly are the problem and white men stole all your stuff and turned you into slaves.

So, you should go to white men to get back all your stuff and you should punish them for it.

Basically, I'm I might I'm summarizing a little bit.

But the good news is that the federal appeals court agreed with Arkansas that they can just get rid of that racist nonsense again.

Won't it just come back?

Seems like it'll just come back.

So, I don't know.

People got to go to jail.

Um, Apple has now upped its investment plans for the US up to $600 billion over what period of time?

I don't know.

So, that makes it much less impressive if you realize it's over many years.

Um, but their stock is going up and I guess they've committed to building a factory in the US where they make the glass for the i.

Phone.

And uh I don't know if you saw it, but there was a very cringy um point where where Tim Scott of uh or not Tim Scott, Tim Cook of Apple uh was trying to give uh give Trump an award, which was a piece of glass.

That's a special kind of glass they're going to make in this um in this new facility.

And it has a little, you know, gold stand.

And it was very, very unimpressive as a gift.

It was just a piece of glass and a stand.

And I get that it was cool glass, but it was a little bit more of a uh Apple employee of the month gift than it was a a gift for the president when you're announcing $600 billion of investments.

And then he had a little was sort of awkward setting it up.

Anyway, it was sort of cringy, but so this actually happened.

So Trump is thanking Tim Cook who has now done, you know, mostly what Trump wants, which is bringing massive investment into the US.

And uh so he's happy with Tim Cook.

And at the end of the meeting, he Trump says, uh, in public, he says this, uh, I want to thank Tim Cook.

He's a great great man, a visionary, a businessman, just about every quality he can have other than athleticism.

I'm looking at him.

I'm not 100% sure.

Okay.

Is that the funniest thing that Trump has ever said?

I'm just going to read it again.

And I'll remind you this is something he really said.

He actually said this in public about Tim Cook after Tim Cook had done everything he wanted.

I want to thank Tim Cook.

He's a great great man, a visionary, a businessman.

Just about every quality he can have other than athleticism.

I'm looking at him.

I'm not 100% sure.

Oh, come on.

That is literally the funniest thing he has ever said.

He He's sort of an unintentional bully that it doesn't matter what somebody does, if he can find your your weak point, he's he's going to put his finger on it.

Elon Musk reminds us, if he didn't already know, there will be no code writing in the future.

You'll just say what you want and he gave an example.

Build me a fitness tracker with push notifications and it will just build it.

You won't have to know what language it used or anything.

And uh and he Elon says syntax is dead.

Abstraction one.

Your job title is about to change from engineer to idea whisperer.

Now, I would agree that the engineering profession is going to take a hit because uh logic and all the things that engineers know.

Um it does feel like the kind of stuff that AI could do a lot of it.

Um it does seem like the one place that AI doesn't know how to get better is in creativity.

So the the part that will have value is the part where you know what to tell it to make that would be valuable and that's it.

And AI really can't do that so well.

I mean it could iterate but it have to test it.

Whereas a human if you got the right humans there's some humans who can guess what kind of product people would want.

Um, there's a a friend of mine who years ago started a company for some auto parts, you know, little add-ons to your car.

And he had an ability to know what other car enthusiasts would want to buy.

Just this uncanny ability to say, you know, if we made this, I'll bet a lot of people would buy it.

You know, things that you and I maybe would never even would have thought of.

For example, how many of you ever seen on a on a car that someone has upgraded the gas cap to a a silver cool looking gas cap?

Have you ever seen that?

Usually on trucks.

That was my friend.

He invented that.

Nobody had ever done that before.

And he built a company and made that part and sold it.

And eventually he got knocked off by the Chinese.

So there's lots of competition and he's out of that business.

But he one after another he simply said hm you know what people would buy and then he made it in his own machine shop and then he sold it and he became quite rich.

So yeah I think knowing what to tell AI to do is where all the money will be and just there's some people who know how to do that and some don't.

Um, all right.

So, I saw that uh apparently this story about uh the Republicans in Texas wanting to redistrict is getting deeper and more interesting than I thought.

So, uh, it seems, and I I mentioned this yesterday, that if the Democrats decide to retaliate, say, "All right, we'll do California if you do Texas." And then, I guess the Republicans would say, "Oh, yeah.

Well, we'll do Florida." And then they would do New York.

But apparently if you follow that through, you would find that uh Republicans would likely come out way ahead.

So there's a possibility that uh if the Democrats decide to go, you know, toeto toe and if you do this, we'll do it too, that they'll end up way behind.

And the worst thing they could do is to legitimize all this new redistricting by doing it themselves because they would just um apparently the numbers work out that they would lose seats in the end.

And the number of seats they lose could be a lot.

Um could be as many as like 15 15 seats in 2026.

Um, but it gets worse because there's this thing called the uh what is it called?

Some kind of voting act that's being uh decided on by the courts.

Um, and the idea is that some of the districts were made based on racial um composition.

And I think the Supreme Court is going to say, "Hey, you can't do that.

You can't say we'll make this a district because it's got all the Hispanics in it and they'll vote a certain way.

So if that goes away, the advantage for the Republicans would double from what it you know from 15 to you know something in the high 20s.

So almost uh anything is possible with a story.

It could completely change the power of the United States forever.

Or, you know, maybe some court will just stop it.

Or maybe somebody did the math wrong.

That's the other possibility that they haven't done the math right.

And we don't really know who comes out.

Well, apparently, according to the New York Post, um, Galain Maxwell says that she never saw Trump do anything uh, concerning.

So, do not expect Galileain Maxwell to say anything bad about Trump.

And oh, by the way, in a coincidental related story, she would like to be pardoned by Trump.

So, I'm not sure I would completely believe everything she says about Trump being innocent, although I think he probably is innocent of any of that stuff because she's a little bit conflicted.

she needs him to to give her a pardon if he's so inclined.

All right, I've got a theme for some of the rest of today's podcast and the theme is two movies on one screen.

And I'm going to give you a bunch of examples of, you know, news that we already talk about where half of the country has a completely different view of what the movie is that they're watching.

And the question will be is one of them always a hoax and is it always the one side who sees things accurately and the other side doesn't because you know both sides believe they're the ones who see it accurate and the other people are watching a fake movie.

Who is watching the real movie and who is watching the hoax?

Well, we'll start with uh story number one about Russia Gate, the movie that I'm watching, which doesn't mean it's the real one.

It's just it's the one I see.

Um I see stories like uh today's just the news, John Solomon.

And um apparently we now have in writing and and video documented cases where Obama uh got ahead of the intelligence reports and said, "Oh yeah, Putin is uh trying to help Trump get elected." Now, that was prior to there even being a intelligence uh decision.

So that would suggest that Obama was, you know, part of the plot to make it look like Trump was guilty of talking to to Putin and colluding or whatever.

So in my world, the movie I'm watching and most of you are watching too, we have proven beyond any real doubt that I have, I don't have any doubt that Russia gate and the Russia hoax was coordinated for the purpose of overthrowing the legally elected government and that um the the people involved were from the top, you know, Brennan and Clapper and and Obama and Comey and all those guys.

That's the movie I'm watching.

But can you believe you live in the same world where tens of millions, maybe more, maybe a hundred billion people are watching a different movie and you know what's happening in the other movie?

In the other movie, Putin helped Trump get elected and that's the whole story.

There's nothing else to see.

Isn't that amazing?

Isn't it amazing that those two versions of reality are just sitting there at the same time?

And we're not instead of like really wrestling to find out which one's the true one, we don't really have any mechanism to do that.

You know, one network will tell their version, the other network will tell their version, and their audiences don't overlap that much.

So, we just have two completely different versions.

And we're not talking about a detail.

We're talking about did our government try to overthrow the elected uh president of the United States?

The answer is looks like it.

I if I were a if I were on a jury, I would say yeah, there's a 100% chance.

There's no doubt about it.

The evidence is pretty clear.

All right.

So would you score that one?

Um definitely you and I are seeing the right movie and the other people are saying the hoax.

Is that fair?

That there are two versions of the movies but one of them is definitely just a hoax and the hoax is very well uncovered and revealed.

I think so.

Here's another one.

How about climate change?

Climate change.

So the movie I'm watching is that uh it might be true that the temperature is going up but we don't have a signal to tell us that it's a existential threat and it might be better than it might be more good than bad even we don't even know.

So but other others would say oh it's proven every scientist agrees it's going to be an existential threat.

Well, we have a new story.

Uh, I saw this from a post by David Shavos.

He's a PhD in molecular biology and he's talking about in 2024, so just last year, a a climate scientist published a paper in the journal called Nature.

Now, that would be a prestigious, you know, high-end journal to put a paper in.

So if something is in that, you would think, well, that's pretty, you know, credible.

Um, and then we find out that I think there were as many as four peer reviewers and all the peer reviewers had major problems with it.

So some said uh that the basically they they criticized almost every part of it.

And what do you think happened when the the paper that said that uh climate change was even worse than you thought?

Oh boy, it's bad.

It's bad.

And then the reviewer said, "I don't know about this paper.

This is not meeting our standards.

What do you think happened?" And then it got published.

Why would they publish the paper when the whole point of peer review is if the peers are not convinced you shouldn't publish it?

But the peers were not convinced got published anyway.

And then because they happened to be in the the right direction for the alarmists and they thought, "Aha, not only were we right, it might be worse than we thought because here's this paper and it's in nature.

It's published.

It had peer review." So, must be true, right?

Well, uh, turns out it was one of the most cited papers for the entire year.

So, not only did it get published by itself, but it became a source for other scientists to base their work upon.

And then it just like became one of the the biggest things in science when it never really even passed peer review.

and and you know it's it's got many references to it from other science.

Now so there's your two movies.

One is that the the whole climate change thing is just a bunch of frauds and bad assumptions.

You maybe sometime some of them might be well intended but you know they got just dragged into the the group think.

So my view is that one movie is that it's just a bunch of and people scamming us for money and uh and and some people just afraid of going against the established uh belief.

And then the other movie is that is it's a big existential threat and although almost all of their predictions have been wrong, they're going to get ones one of these days.

Oh, the next time they're going to be right.

So what's your vote?

Are they two reasonable views or is one of them clearly obviously true and the other one's a hoax?

Well, in my world, the one that says there's no way you can predict the temperature, and there doesn't seem to be a way even to know what the temperature is, much less predict it.

I'm not even sure that we can measure it.

Um, so to me, it's super obvious that it's a it's more a hoax than it is anything else.

But part of the world believes that the science has proven that uh they're all going to die from this climate change thing and the Republicans are part of the reason they're all going to die.

So that's different.

All right.

Um and then uh apparently uh Trump had just learned while he was at some precedent that uh the Ukrainian military is now enlisting uh citizens over the age of 60.

Now they say citizens so that would suggest men and women.

So, are they really going to enlist uh like 70 year old women in the military because they're running out of young people?

That's what it looks like.

H um and but I do wonder, you know, if they're looking for mostly drone operators and stuff, I don't know, maybe if you're 70 and you you played a lot of games, maybe.

But uh doesn't look good for Zalinski.

Um Trump has slapped uh India with a 25% tariff on top of their 25% tariff for uh continuing to buy Russian oil.

Now I don't know that India had any fast way to buy anybody else's oil.

Did they?

Did India have an option of just saying, "Oh yeah, well we'll stop tomorrow." no more of this Russian oil and just buy it in other places.

Um, was that actually an option?

I don't know.

So, I don't know if there's enough oil or enough fungeibility that you can just say turn this spot off and turn this one on.

Might maybe you might be able to but um that'll cause some uh some friction with India.

Um, however, that seems maybe it's not a coincidence that uh Putin has now seemingly agreed to meet with Trump.

Now, it would just be the two of them.

It wouldn't be Silinski.

It wouldn't be Europe.

And Trump's model is if he can come up with some model that uh the US and Russia think is worth selling, then they can, you know, try to get Ukraine in there to agree with it, etc.

But they got to see if they're close first of all.

Now, do you believe they're close?

Because if nothing has changed, why would Putin be interested in peace talks?

Is Putin just playing a game where he's postponing sanctions?

So, he's going to do the um the Iranian thing where you keep talking like you want peace, but you keep acting like you don't and just see how long you get away with it because America America loves the story that peace is about to break out.

Oh yeah, look at that Trump.

He got us some peace.

So, we want to believe that Trump could make peace happen.

As long as we really want to believe that Putin can just tap us down the highway forever.

Oh, yeah.

Almost there.

Oh, yeah.

We're probably close.

I don't know.

Maybe just tweak a few more things and we'll be right there.

So I don't believe anything about it, but it might not be coincidence that this new secondary tariff thing is kicking in.

That's what the India tariff is.

So is it possible that uh Putin thinks that he might be heading down a one-way path to destroying his energy um industry in his country?

Or is Putin unw worried because he could just sell twice as much to China and China has a you know you know uns insatiable uh demand for oil.

So maybe I don't know.

So I don't think these secondary uh tariffs would have scared Putin so quickly that he would say oh never mind never mind.

I totally want peace now.

So, I'm going to predict that it does not lead to a real peace deal.

It might lead to a fake one where where Trump comes back and says, "We've got a deal.

We've we've agreed on a ceasefire." And then, you know, a day later, you find out, well, it's a ceasefire if Ukraine gives us all this land and agrees that we own it.

And then Ukraine will be, we didn't agree to that.

and then Putin will be, well then no ceasefire for you.

So I feel like it's just tapping us down the road there.

We'll find out.

Um h what else?

So another one of these uh two movies on one screen is the January 6 insurrection hoax.

Now, half of the country or more believes that Republicans left their guns home and tried to take over the country by uh by walking around in a public building for an afternoon.

And that that's how Republicans try to conquer a country.

Leave their guns home and then trespass in a public place for an afternoon.

And somehow half of the idiots in the world came to believe that that's a real thing and that there was an actual insurrection attempt as opposed to what I think you and I saw which is a bunch of people who were sure this the election was being stolen right in front of them because they could look at the weird the weird pattern of the vote counting towards the end and they just wanted to delay long enough to find if a coup had happened to them.

Now, how many times do I have to point this out before your ad explodes?

The the following thing, as far as I know, no news program on the left or the right, left or right, has ever pulled together a handful of the January 6 protesters and said, "All right, tell me the truth.

Did you believe that Trump had lost fair and square, but you were trying to get him installed as like the president anyway, which would have been a a coup.

How many people would say, "Yeah, that's sort of what I wanted." Yeah, I knew he lost, but I, you know, I thought we could get him in there anyway.

You won't find one.

In my opinion, how many people were there?

20,000 or some big number.

I don't think you'll find one person who would say, "Yeah, oh yeah, I know he lost fair and square, but we tried to get him in there anyway." I'll bet not one.

It's just not what a Republican is.

It's just not who they are.

It's an identity thing.

It's not even an opinion thing.

Their identity is we like the Constitution, right?

that.

So you you people don't go against their identity.

They can have different opinions that fit within their identity, but you don't just throw away your identity if you're the proconstitution person.

You don't throw that away.

So no.

Uh so I'm going to target that as the last remaining tent pole hoax.

Um it's really the only thing that keeps people from supporting Trump at this point.

because they kind of like his policies even if they don't admit it.

Uh but they really don't like that he may have been trying to take over the country.

It just never really happened.

Uh let's see what else has happened.

Uh remember Dr.

Robert Malone.

He he was one of the co-inventors of the mRNA um platform and uh he says that uh RFK Jr.

was briefed on UFOs and was told that all of this stuff is true.

Now, do you believe that?

Um because Malone would know RFK Jr.

So he would be he would know the people who are in that world because he's in that world.

And uh here here's what he said.

I saw this on a post by the vigilant fox which is a really good follow if you're on X.

Follow the vigilant fox.

Uh a lot of good summaries of the news.

And uh Malone said quote uh I'm talking to my friend and he says oh Bobby had a briefing all all this stuff is true Roswell all those things the reverse engineering of night vision whole bunch of this tech comes out of the reverse engineering of recovered materials and we can look forward to learning a lot more about what the heck is going on with these whether they're time travelers and they're humans coming back or they're from another dimension.

or they're whatever fill in the blank, but apparently it's real.

All right, I would like to add my uh opinion on this topic.

I'm quite certain that there's nothing real, meaning that there are no space aliens or time travelers uh or early humans who are living in the core of the earth or whatever.

Uh, I don't believe any of this is true.

Not any of it.

What I do believe is that there are ongoing ops being run against RFK Jr., not by Balone.

Not by Malone.

I'm not blaming him.

He seems like a like a good and smart egg.

Um, but doesn't it seem to you that if you were if you were going to try to discredit RFK Jr.

because you're a big pharma.

So, let's say you're a big pharma and you know that the longer he's in the job, the worse it is for you.

How would you discredit RFK Jr.?

Well, if it were me, I would get him to believe something that clearly is not true and to go public with it.

If you could get him to do that, then you could add that to the list of, well, look at this guy.

He believes in magic.

Oh, he's so anti-science.

He's just decided that oh, time travelers.

He believes in time travelers now.

So, to me, I do believe that he may have been um he he may have been briefed by somebody who said it was all real, but whoever briefed him, I would suspect, would not be on his side and was trying to hoax them into ruining his credibility.

So he'd have to leave the job.

So to me it looks like an op.

Um Rasmusen did a poll on 2020 election denial.

So this is 2020 election denial and 48% of Democrats support punishment for questioning the 2020 election.

How can that be true?

Do you believe we live in a world where 48% almost half of Democrats support punishment for people who question the 2020 election?

Can you even believe that that's real?

Like I I would not even have thought to ask the question because it's so ridiculously absurdly out of bounds.

Punish people for questioning an election.

But 48% of Democrats.

All right, this next story, let's add this to the How in the world did I not know this was the case already?

All right, if you haven't heard this story, this might blow your mind a little bit.

you, if you're watching this podcast, you probably believe that uh Brennan and Clapper and Comey were part of a major Russia collusion hoax, right?

Did you know uh according to Tulsa Gabbard that James Clapper uh this wasn't his first hoax?

Apparently, he was on the team that said that Iraq had d WMDs.

So, the Iraq war was in part caused by James Clapper and his analysis that uh Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Do you think he do you think he knew that that was fake when he did it?

I mean, he wasn't the only one.

He was part of the team.

But how does this one guy destroy our country with a war that we didn't need to be in?

And then he's behind he's one of the key players behind the Russia collusion hoax which ripped the country apart again.

Unbelievable that he was involved in two of our biggest most damaging hoaxes in American history.

Same guy.

And how in the world did I not know that until yesterday?

What?

I would think that would be right at the top of things that we should have all known.

Well, this information is coming from somebody who told you Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

I would have wanted to know that.

I would have wanted to know that.

Well, General Flynn um tells us that there might be more to know about October 7th and the IDF, the Israeli military's uh um suspicious inability to detect it or to repel it as soon as it started.

And here's what General Flynn says.

uh something broke down and it wasn't because of mistakes, it was an inside thing.

Now, he was talking to Steve Bannon at the war room and uh Bannon had to stop him and Bannon was like, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa." I may have missed a few woes, but he said who a lot.

Hang on.

He said, "You can't drop a bomb like that.

You're saying that you're hearing there's testimony or documents.

So Steve cleverly is making sure that there's some, you know, real meat behind this or actual evidence that certain elements of the Israeli military were told to stand down on October 7th.

And Flynn replied, "Steve, I have personally walked that border.

I've been down at those areas and I know the details of how the Israelis, one of the most secure borders in the world, how they do their operations.

So, I know that.

So, something broke down and it wasn't because of mistakes.

Now, I don't know if he has more specifics to it or if he just knows that the story is wrong.

Could be either one, you know.

It could be that he knows enough, you know, more than we know about the situation that he knows it doesn't add up, but doesn't know what's missing.

Right?

So, but the other possibility is he knows what's missing.

Here's the problem I'm having with new conspiracy theories.

I guess that's an old one.

Um, there were a lot of conspiracy theories that I immediately discarded because there just so many of them.

You have to sometimes you just have to discard them without looking into them.

But now it's hard to discard anything.

Like I'm I'm not really inclined or biased to believe that Israel allowed their uh citizens to be brutally attacked and kidnapped and all that because it was some, you know, long-term plan for gaining territory or something.

I like there's nothing in my body or experience or brain that feels that's true.

I know a lot of you feel there might be something to it and I get that and I'm not ruling it out.

So what I'm saying is even though every fiber of my being says that's not real, there's there's no way that they intentionally allowed that attack.

On the other hand, the things that I've seen that that are apparently true just in the last 6 months, especially the Russia collusion stuff, it kind of opens up the door that I can't tell what's real.

And if I don't have any ability to determine what's real and what isn't, why should my instincts and uh hunches about what Israel would or would not do, why would I depend on my own my own opinion?

Yeah.

Why would I even believe it?

Now, uh, I see in the comments, of course, people are yelling 911, 911, as in, um, don't believe the story about how the Twin Towers came down.

I will give you this much, right?

This is as far as I'll go.

I don't think there's any chance that we know the real story of 9/11.

I don't think any chance.

Just none.

Now, there are a number of possibilities of what really happened compared to what we're told that happened, and I don't know which ones are true, but I'll meet you halfway.

The official story, I don't believe that one.

Now, it might be that there's nothing, you know, there's nothing horrible there.

Maybe we just got the story wrong.

You know, maybe there just some things that we don't know about.

But I can tell you that the official story, there's no chance.

There's no chance that's all real.

Some of it almost certainly is real, but not all of it, you know.

So, I don't know.

And then on another uh two movies, one screen.

Um th this one is the most fascinating to me, and I know you hate this topic, so I'll make it short.

There's a uh a user on X who goes by cremeu.

I don't know how to pronounce it.

C R E M as in Mary.

I EUX.

So you can look him up.

And he is real good with data and analysis.

Uh and uh he says this.

Now this is him.

Don't get mad at me.

Do not get mad at me.

This is somebody who is smarter than both of us who says the following.

Uh more than 5.6 billion people took the co vaccines.

If there was a mass dying wave, miscarriages and still births, cardiac issues, or anything else, we have more than enough data to show those things, but they never happened.

How you feeling so far?

Uh he goes, "They're not real.

They're a neurotic delusion.

We have so many person years of data that if there's any issue with the with the vaccinations causing health problems, we almost certainly would have already detected it.

Couple this with the fact that uh this is the first time I've seen this word, but uh pharmcoilence and I guess that means the the actively watching the pharma uh side effects.

uh the fact that pharmarmacco vigilance has gotten much better over time and big side effects are just a laughable proposition.

So a laughable proposition because the system is such that there's a 100% chance you would see any big effect to people dying.

Um now some of you would say but Scott look at the data from a user called ethical skeptic.

How many of you have seen the data from ethical skeptic who appears to show charts and data that would suggest there's a gigantic um problem of people dying who got vaccinated?

How many of you have seen it?

because he's he's been operating since the pandemic and he's just got tons of charts and data and it all points in the same direction that there's this enormous uh problem of side effects and people dying and you know every other thing.

Well, uh Cre was asked about ethical skeptic and uh he debunked him as being a credible source of anything.

Um I had the same the same reaction but without the you know the the backup.

Um all I knew is that whenever whenever ethical skeptical ethical skeptic posted something I couldn't understand it and I thought to myself what are the odds that 100% of the time he posts something I don't understand it.

What are the odds that that's somebody who knows what he's talking about?

My experience is anybody who can't simplify their point and say, "Here's the point.

All right, here's the data that proves it, they're probably not credible." So, I think he's not credible.

Even if everything he says is real, I wouldn't know.

So, now you've got two people who are really, really, really looking at the data and they see two completely different worlds.

Which one do you see?

Do you see a world I think most of you see a world where it's been proven beyond a doubt that there's way more deaths attributed to people who got vaccinated.

It's obvious it's because of the vaccination.

How many of you live in that in that version of reality where where it's just obvious and you've seen so much data to prove it.

You know people who have been injured by the vaccination.

it.

So, you've proven it with your experience.

You've proven it the all the data.

How many of you think you're in that world?

I'm not in that world, which doesn't mean you're wrong.

Which doesn't mean you're wrong.

I just don't know anybody who was injured by the vax.

And I've only seen data that says that it it worked and saved lives.

I haven't seen any of the other stuff.

Where are you even looking?

And if you saw data that said the opposite then and you believed it, then I would call you gullible.

Not because you believe the wrong stuff, but because you're believing in experts in a domain in which all the data is questionable.

So I don't believe the people who say there's no damage whatsoever.

But I also don't believe the people who say, "Oh, there's plenty of damage.

Here's my data.

So if you if you decided that one part of these people are right and they've got data and studies to prove it, then I would call you gullible because why would you believe anybody in this domain?

You know that whatever is true, you know for sure that people are making stuff up in both directions, right?

So even if we somehow could find out what was real, and I don't know that we ever will, we would still know that there were people on both sides who just made up.

That that part I'm sure about.

Right?

So before you say, Scott, why are you so gullible that you believe the official word?

I've never said that.

I've never believed the official word, but I have a question for you.

Why do you believe the unofficial scientists?

What makes them credible?

Nothing.

Nothing.

So, I'm way more suspicious than you are.

Um, I believe that it's unknowable and and I wouldn't look at the data or the experts to tell me it was true.

I will tell you that um none of us credible looking to me.

in either direction.

All right.

Um, what about inflation?

President said that the price of everything is down.

Uh, eggs are down, gas prices down.

Um, beef prices are through the roof, right?

So, uh, Trump of course does a great job of selling and convincing us everything's going to be fine, which is important.

I I like it when he does that.

But no, it is not true that everything is down.

There are some things that are way up.

Um here's a new phrase that Jake Tapper has added to the conversation.

Um apparently he's acknowledging that the government was weaponizing the Department of Justice against Trump.

So I believe that even Jake Tapper would agree, yeah, there was some weaponization going there.

But he believes that Trump has taken that to a new level, which he calls turbocharging the weaponization of government.

So yeah, sure, maybe the Democrats did weaponize the government against conservatives and against Trump.

Yeah, maybe they did weaponize a little bit, but they didn't turbo weaponize it.

I mean, Trump is turbocharging that weaponization, so that's much worse.

So, here's what you should look for.

See if turbocharged weaponization becomes the thing they all say.

If you don't hear anyone else use it, then it was just something that, you know, came to Jake's mind.

But if they all start saying, "Well, there was a little weaponization before, but not turbocharged." Then you'll know that some consultant came up with that, and they're all they're all going to use it.

All right.

Uh, Project Veritas um has a whistleblower.

I don't know if I'm believing this one or not.

um that this says that former US Attorney General Bill Barr and some other partner he's working with are running some kind of fraud scheme to get elites and billionaires visas to the US and it it involves uh fake companies that they can say they're they're working for the fake companies so that they can get their fake visas.

Uh now project feritas is the you know James O'Keefe was the founder of that but then they forced him out now he does his own thing at OMG.

But I don't know about this one.

Do you believe that the whistleblower is telling the truth and that uh Bill Barr is just running this big overt Visa scam?

I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm a little bit skeptical of this one.

I'd have to know a lot more about this alleged whistleblower.

Um or there'd have to be some other evidence.

I guess I would say I wouldn't believe it based on the whistleblower.

I would believe it.

I could believe it if there's some investigation or some other independent report, but with one whistleblower, no.

not good enough.

Well, Trump wants uh to sign an executive order to allow you to hold Bitcoin in your 401k as well as buildings and real estate and other private deals.

So, in case you want to do that.

Um, all right.

Now, that might uh juice the economy a little bit because it would open up around 12.5 trillion dollars for, you know, nonstock investments.

Um Trump says that the Biden Harris administration pushed banks to quote destroy him and to bank conservatives.

Now, I didn't know about that.

I didn't realize that Trump was um being debanked.

Um I know that they've been debunked, but he's been debunked.

And so I I'm completely in favor of Trump getting revenge for the debanking stuff.

But uh even if it's a turbocharged lawfare, yeah, he he need he needs to uh set things right.

Uh people should understand that if they debank an ex-president and that ex-president or any of his allies or children in the future get a shot to take you down, they're going to do it.

They're going to do it.

That's the kind of a mutually assured destruction that keeps the society running.

So I do think Trump needs to absolutely just savage the banking industry that you know tried to debank him.

Absolutely savage them.

It should be really expensive and they should remember forever that when they got political even though they kind of had to because you know the government at the time was kind of pushing them into it but they need to know that they're they're looking at an existential threat threat if they debang somebody for political reasons even if they're being pushed to do it has to be an existential threat to them.

So, if Trump uh put a put a major bank out of business because of it, so long as we didn't lose our entire banking industry, I'd be okay with that.

That this is so bad that just destroying an entire bank would be about the right price to pay.

That would be about the right price.

Um, I guess ICE is doing raids on Home Depot or because there's a bunch of people trying to work.

Now, how many of you have a problem with the fact that the Trump administration apparently lied to us about the worst first?

Because they're not looking for the worst standing at the Home Depot parking lot.

They're very clearly trying to hit their numbers, which you might like, but it's not what they told us.

If even if you love what they're doing, how do you rationalize the fact that they lied to you and said that they wouldn't do that?

Even if you like it that they're doing it.

So, I've got a problem.

Um, I would call them uh liars.

And uh I don't like it a bit.

All right.

Um, I guess Trump is calling for the resignation of Intel CEO because he has extensive ties to China, which, you know, everybody assumes means to their government as well.

So, I guess the CEO of Intel um has some investment um platform that made a whole bunch of Chinese investments.

So, I don't think there's quite a smoking gun that says that he's done anything wrong.

We don't have that.

But, uh, his connections and his past activities make him look really cozy, which I know.

So, I can I can see why Trump's pushing him on that.

Um, Trump is ordering a new census, which I don't understand at all because he doesn't have the power to order a new census.

So, there's something about the story that I need to find out.

I guess Congress could vote to do an early census instead of doing it every 10 years as is currently the um the technique.

And so I guess I need to catch up on this one cuz I tried to figure out why does he think he can make this happen when he doesn't have that authority.

So there must be more of a must be more of a trick to it than I'm aware of.

Maybe it just means Congress will approve it.

But why does he need an executive order?

I don't know.

So he's trying to get that done.

I don't know if that's real.

Um, China's solar industry is uh they they got rid of 31% of the workforce because they're so overbuilt and prices are down.

And so remember how you you were all worried that China would own the solar panel market and the only thing that happened was we got cheap solar panels and they they got themselves a big industry that doesn't make money.

We're not really good at predicting, you know, where things go, are we?

All right, here's an update.

Apparently, Netanyahu's security cabinet is going to meet about Gaza and about the idea to resettle um all the residents so that Israel just owns Gaza from now on.

And uh I will remind you because it's useful for this podcasting model that I think I'm the only public figure who told you on day one of that war or roughly around that that Israel wasn't going to just beat him up and then let him go that they were going to essentially take control of Gaza forever and make it part of Israel.

And I'm right so far.

Looks like I'm right now.

How do you explain that I have no expertise uh in that region or no expertise in that domain whatsoever and that I'm the only person who was right about what would happen?

How do you explain that?

Well, before you answer, um, I should remind you that at the beginning of the pandemic when Trump announced he was going to do Project Warp Speed, I predicted in public that the vaccinations would not work.

And then when it was rolled out and they said, "It works, it works.

We're rolling it out." I said in public again, "I predict it won't work." Now, how much did I know about viology and vaccinations?

and what was my expertise?

And the answer was none.

I had none.

But um as far as I know, I was the only public figure that I'm aware of who said on day one of the vaccinations that I predict they won't work.

So how how'd I get that right with no expertise whatsoever?

Here's another one.

When Russia was threatening to uh attack Ukraine, u I got one prediction 100% wrong, as wrong as anything could be.

And I said that uh Putin must be bluffing because he must know that it's not going to be as easy as people say.

So I predicted that he wouldn't go in, but I also predicted that if he did, he would not be able to conquer Ukraine in two weeks.

and that uh the the ground assets that he sent in would be too vulnerable to high-tech air stuff, you know, missiles and drones and stuff.

And that's what happened.

So, I have no military experience, but why was it that my prediction that uh that Ukraine would be able to hold off Moscow, why was that right so far?

I mean, you could argue if you wait forever, it'll become wrong, and that's true.

But I was just about the most right on a military question.

How's that possible when I don't have any military expertise?

How about the fact that I predicted that Trump would win in 2016?

What was my prior political experience?

None.

None.

None at all.

How did I get that right in a domain that I shouldn't have known anything?

How about when uh the Ukraine war was newer and I predicted that Pragoian, remember Pragosian?

I predicted that he would turn on Moscow and try to overthrow Putin.

I'm the only person who said that.

Nobody else in the world said that.

And then he did.

And then when uh when he got obviously murdered immediately by Putin once they got their hands on him, the news told you that he was flying off to Bellarus to live his life happily.

And I laughed at you and said, "No, he's already been killed.

There's no way he's still alive." And of course, I was right about that.

Now, how did I get all of those predictions right?

I mean, those are really specific predictions, and nobody else made them.

Well, I don't have any expertise in that area, right?

But how how did I get that right?

Um, and so you could probably come up with a few more.

Here's my here's my theory.

Uh, I believe that the reason I have an advantage over the experts is that experts are not allowed to depart from the other expert opinions.

that as soon as you, let's say you're a military expert, as soon as a few people say, "Well, Russia is going to just crush Ukraine in 10 minutes, you don't want to be the person who's on the other side of that if you're an actual expert.

So, it's just safer to go with the majority, I guess." And I have the uh I have the freedom.

This is I don't know anything about any of these topics there.

I have no expertise in any of these domains.

I have the freedom to say, well, what's it look like?

And then I just apply usually the the Dilbert filter to it and a persuasion filter.

Usually some economic filter, just basic stuff.

And I say, well, looks to me like this is going to happen.

So, I would argue that it could be that being an expert makes you because you can't really you can't really throw away your whole career over a specific prediction.

But I could make a wild prediction and if I'm wrong, well, I'll just say, "Oh, I got that one totally wrong." It wouldn't make any difference at all.

So, I have a little bit more freedom to consider the alternatives.

So, maybe that's what's going on.

It's my best guess.

All right.

Um, as you know, Minnesota is in a uh pitched battle with California to see which would make the shittiest state.

All right.

Um, if I said to you that a housing program has been caught stealing $100 million, a housing program, um, what state would you imagine that was?

We'll play this game.

The answer is Minnesota.

So, there's a new story.

100 million stolen from some housing program.

Um, here's another one.

A man got 28 years in prison, according to the Associated Press, the AP, for $48 million of COVID era food and fraud scandal.

Is that California or Minnesota?

The answer is Minnesota.

Minnesota.

All right.

So there you go.

Uh, California, if you give us hundred billion dollars for a bullet train, we'll probably just keep that money.

If you give us money to fix the fire damage in LA, well, we'll just let somebody steal it, probably.

I don't think we'll build any new homes or help any people.

So, which which country or which uh state is shittier, Minnesota or uh California?

I'm going to say that Minnesota is shittier um simply because they have worse weather and more mosquitoes and uh otherwise we're both corrupt.

All right.

Um, I got this question so many times from so many people and I don't want to have individual arguments with all of you.

So, people keep asking me, Scott, if we're a simulation or or maybe things are not uh the religious model.

Um, didn't there have to be an intelligence that kicked it all off?

To which I say, no.

And then they say, "Oh, but but there had to be something that was there first and it had to be an intelligence, right?

Otherwise, we couldn't get to where we are now." And then I say, "No." And they say, "Well, explain that." And I think, "I don't have to explain it.

I can just say no." But if you'd like a little bit more, here are the possibilities.

One is that time is a complete illusion.

If time is an illusion and everything is just sort of here or some other version of it just you know time is an illusion then there's no such thing as something that started it all because time is an illusion.

The other possibility is that we create the past.

We don't just come from it.

So, it could be that we're creating the past actively.

Um, that takes a little more explaining, but that's another way that um it didn't have to be an original cause.

And my favorite is that time is circular, meaning that let's say there was a big bang, uh, but everything expands, eventually everything will come back together and it will just happen again.

and that everything that is possible will eventually happen.

So you wouldn't need a beginning with that model because it would just be infinite.

How about if time is infinite then there is no beginning because there will always be something before it.

But did the thing before it have to be intelligent?

I don't know.

I I can see why you would think it might be.

But does that mean it has to be?

Can you tell me that just things bouncing around forever would not someday cause something that looked like a computer program or intelligence?

I don't know.

But no, it it is not true that there had to be something intelligent that got it all going.

It does not have to be true that there had to be a beginning or something before the beginning.

Could be circular.

Could be we don't know what time is.

could be we're we're in a video game and none of those rules mean anything because we're just characters in a video game.

But there are lots of ways that we don't have to have a beginning with an intelligent creator.

Anyway, that's all I got for now.

Thanks for joining everybody.

Sorry I went a little bit long.

I'm going to talk to my beloved subscribers on locals right now.

And the rest of you, thanks for joining.

and I'll see you tomorrow, same time, same place because it gets better every time.

All right, local supporters

Well, the good news is if you have

stocks, they're probably up. It looks

like an update for stocks. Yay.

Yay, everybody.

All right, let me get ready to see your

comments

and then it's go time.

Here we go.

Just like I planned.

[Music]

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to take a chance of elevating

this experience up to levels that no one

can understand with their shiny human

brains, all you need for that is

a copper, a mug or a glass, a tanker,

gels, a canteen, jugger, flask, a vessel

of any kind. Fill it with your favorite

liquid. I like coffee. And join me now

for the unparallel pleasure that

dopamine at the end of the day. The

thing that makes everything better. It's

called the simultaneous sip. It happens

now. Good.

Oh yeah. That's the unparalleled

pleasure right there.

I think you could feel it.

Best thing happened to you all day long

so far. All right. Well, allegedly

at exactly now

um a new version of chat GPT is being

launched, GPT5.

And uh would you like to be

among the first to over claim that

they've achieved super intelligence?

I don't think it will have super

intelligence. I do think it will

hallucinate just like prior models

and I feel like it will be overhyped

but still awesome. You know, I feel like

it'll still beat a bunch of benchmarks,

which it is. So, apparently it now beats

uh humans on a test that humans score on

average 83%.

It does better than that. So, it's

better than humans, but we'll see.

For reasons that I was trying to

completely ignore,

um, apparently the WNBA, the women's

basketball professional

uh, sport,

um, somebody threw a green dildo on the

playing surface, which caused other

people to do the same. in subsequent

games.

And now it's a big problem.

So it turns out if you give people that

idea and then you invite 15,000 people

to sit in a in the same building, at

least one of them is going to say, "You

know what would be a great idea? I've

got an idea. It's been done a lot of

times, so it won't be original, but I

feel like I want to be the one who gets

arrested for throwing the dildo during

the game.

And then somebody does.

Apparently, there's no way to stop it

for the from now to the end of time.

So,

the good news is it's one more reason to

watch women's basketball.

Um,

and uh, apparently there's a a betting

market for the green dildo now to bet

whether it appears or doesn't. And

there's more money being gambled on the

dildo than on the WNBA game itself

according to the postmillennial.

To which I say, well, that makes sense.

But I will tell you that women's

basketball is way more entertaining than

I thought. And some of that is because

men's basketball has become really kind

of boring. Three boy shot. Three boy

shot. He's in the paint. He got fouled

every single time. Sometimes they call

it, sometimes they don't. But he always

complains. It's just the same play over

and over again. But the women,

the women are a little more, I don't

know, relaxed with their defense. You

just see more stuff happening.

Well, a uh high school kid has used AI

to clone her mother's voice so that the

AI can make phone calls to the school to

excuse her from classes.

Now, the weirdest part about that story

is it's the first time I've heard it.

Don't you kind of assume

that kids all over the country have

already used AI voice cloning and

they've cloned their parents' voices?

Don't you just sort of assume a lot of

people have done that? Could it be that

what we're really finding out with this

story is that one person got caught?

Because how would you catch them? If

you're the school, you just get a phone

call. That's all you know. You don't

know anything else. So, I don't know.

Maybe just one got caught.

Well, Google is going to spend a billion

dollars on AI education and job

training. So, I would start with that.

Uh, whoever did the voice cloning, they

sound like they could be trained up.

Might be good employees someday.

And, uh, so that's happening. Makes me

wonder if the big corporations will have

to get into the education business

because the public schools are not

creating anybody who could go to, you

know, get a job basically. and they're

certainly not going to know how to use

AI. So, could it be that the one and

only way we'll ever um take advantage of

AI is if the AI companies use their vast

wealth to run their own schools

basically, which they could use AI to

do. So, probably pretty efficient.

Well, there's a report per the

Washington Times that says that DEI,

diversity, equity, and inclusion

programs are vanishing as school board

meetings. And that's because of Trump

trying to purge uh DEI. But then they

give the numbers and it goes from the

school board meetings used to mention

DEI 38% of the time, but now it's down

to 33. To which I say, that's really not

much of a difference for something that

is pure racial discrimination

and illegal at a federal level to only

go down from 38% uh um frequency down to

33.

To me, that's a lot more like you can't

get rid of it no matter what you do. So,

I think the DEI will

stay clawing, you know, clawing to the

sides of things to try to survive, and

it will.

And eventually they're going to wait out

Trump. You know, Trump doesn't last

forever.

And I feel like unless you put a well,

unless you put people in jail for DEI,

it will just revive itself because the

incentives for that are pretty high.

They'll get rewarded locally but not

federally.

Um,

speaking of which, yeah, so I don't know

is any of the DEI stuff literally

illegal or is it all civil kind of

stuff? It's not a it's not a criminal

act, right? It's a would be a civil

violation. I don't even know what I'm

talking about. But you couldn't put

somebody in jail

for pretending that they got rid of DEI

at their public school but secretly

just, you know, changing what you call

it. I don't know.

Is that actually a criminal act or not?

I don't know. It should be criminal. In

my opinion, that should be criminal. But

anyway,

um, a federal appeals court according to

the college fix has upheld a Arkansas

ban on critical race theory, the

so-called CRT. So critical race theory

in the classroom

tells people that uh, white men mostly

are the problem and white men stole all

your stuff and turned you into slaves.

So, you should go to white men to get

back all your stuff and you should

punish them for it. Basically, I'm I

might I'm summarizing a little bit. But

the good news is that the federal

appeals court agreed with Arkansas that

they can just get rid of that racist

nonsense

again.

Won't it just come back? Seems like

it'll just come back. So, I don't know.

People got to go to jail. Um,

Apple has now upped its investment plans

for the US up to $600 billion

over what period of time? I don't know.

So, that makes it much less impressive

if you realize it's over many years. Um,

but their stock is going up and I guess

they've committed to building a factory

in the US where they make the glass for

the iPhone. And uh

I don't know if you saw it, but there

was a very cringy

um point where where Tim Scott of uh or

not Tim Scott, Tim Cook of Apple

uh was trying to give uh give Trump an

award, which was a piece of glass.

That's a special kind of glass they're

going to make in this um in this new

facility. And it has a little, you know,

gold stand. And it was very, very

unimpressive as a gift. It was just a

piece of glass and a stand. And I get

that it was cool glass, but it was a

little bit more of a uh Apple employee

of the month gift than it was a a gift

for the president when you're announcing

$600 billion of investments. And then he

had a little was sort of awkward setting

it up. Anyway, it was sort of cringy,

but

so this actually happened. So Trump is

thanking Tim Cook who has now done, you

know, mostly what Trump wants, which is

bringing massive investment into the US.

And uh so he's happy with Tim Cook.

And at the end of the meeting, he Trump

says, uh, in public, he says this, uh, I

want to thank Tim Cook. He's a great

great man, a visionary, a businessman,

just about every quality he can have

other than athleticism.

I'm looking at him. I'm not 100% sure.

Okay. Is that the funniest thing that

Trump has ever said? I'm just going to

read it again. And I'll remind you this

is something he really said. He actually

said this in public about Tim Cook after

Tim Cook had done everything he wanted.

I want to thank Tim Cook. He's a great

great man, a visionary, a businessman.

Just about every quality he can have

other than athleticism. I'm looking at

him. I'm not 100% sure.

Oh, come on. That is literally the

funniest thing he has ever said.

He He's sort of an unintentional bully

that it doesn't matter what somebody

does, if he can find your your weak

point, he's he's going to put his finger

on it.

Elon Musk reminds us,

if he didn't already know, there will be

no code writing in the future. You'll

just say what you want and he gave an

example. Build me a fitness tracker with

push notifications and it will just

build it. You won't have to know what

language it used or anything. And uh and

he Elon says syntax is dead. Abstraction

one. Your job title is about to change

from engineer to idea whisperer.

Now, I would agree that the engineering

profession

is going to take a hit because uh logic

and all the things that engineers know.

Um it does feel like the kind of stuff

that AI could do a lot of it. Um it does

seem like the one place that AI doesn't

know how to get better is in creativity.

So the the part that will have value is

the part where you know what to tell it

to make that would be valuable and

that's it. And AI really can't do that

so well. I mean it could iterate but it

have to test it. Whereas a human if you

got the right humans there's some humans

who can guess what kind of product

people would want. Um, there's a a

friend of mine who years ago started a

company for some auto parts, you know,

little add-ons to your car. And he had

an ability to know what other car

enthusiasts would want to buy. Just this

uncanny ability to say, you know, if we

made this, I'll bet a lot of people

would buy it. You know, things that you

and I maybe would never even would have

thought of.

For example, how many of you ever seen

on a on a car that someone has upgraded

the gas cap to a a silver cool looking

gas cap? Have you ever seen that?

Usually on trucks. That was my friend.

He invented that. Nobody had ever done

that before. And he built a company and

made that part and sold it. And

eventually he got knocked off by the

Chinese. So there's lots of competition

and he's out of that business. But he

one after another he simply said hm you

know what people would buy and then he

made it in his own machine shop and then

he sold it and he became quite rich. So

yeah I think knowing what to tell AI to

do is where all the money will be and

just there's some people who know how to

do that and some don't.

Um,

all right.

So,

I saw that uh apparently

this story about uh the Republicans in

Texas wanting to redistrict is getting

deeper and more interesting than I

thought. So,

uh, it seems,

and I I mentioned this yesterday, that

if the Democrats decide to retaliate,

say, "All right, we'll do California if

you do Texas." And then, I guess the

Republicans would say, "Oh, yeah. Well,

we'll do Florida." And then they would

do New York. But apparently if you

follow that through, you would find that

uh Republicans would likely come out way

ahead.

So there's a possibility

that uh if the Democrats decide to go,

you know, toeto toe and if you do this,

we'll do it too, that they'll end up way

behind.

And the worst thing they could do is to

legitimize all this new redistricting

by doing it themselves because they

would just um apparently the numbers

work out that they would lose seats in

the end. And the number of seats they

lose could be a lot.

Um could be as many as like 15 15 seats

in 2026.

Um, but it gets worse because there's

this thing called the uh

what is it called? Some kind of voting

act that's being uh decided on by the

courts. Um, and the idea is that some of

the districts were made based on racial

um composition. And I think the Supreme

Court is going to say, "Hey, you can't

do that. You can't say we'll make this a

district because it's got all the

Hispanics in it and they'll vote a

certain way. So if that goes away,

the advantage for the Republicans would

double from what it you know from 15 to

you know something in the high 20s. So

almost uh anything is possible with a

story. It could completely change the

power of the United States forever. Or,

you know, maybe some court will just

stop it. Or maybe somebody did the math

wrong. That's the other possibility that

they haven't done the math right. And we

don't really know who comes out.

Well, apparently, according to the New

York Post, um, Galain Maxwell says that

she never saw Trump do anything uh,

concerning.

So, do not expect Galileain Maxwell to

say anything bad about Trump. And oh, by

the way, in a coincidental related

story, she would like to be pardoned by

Trump. So,

I'm not sure I would completely believe

everything she says about Trump being

innocent, although I think he probably

is innocent of any of that stuff

because she's a little bit conflicted.

she needs him to to give her a pardon if

he's so inclined.

All right, I've got a theme for some of

the rest of today's podcast and the

theme is two movies on one screen.

And I'm going to give you a bunch of

examples of, you know, news that we

already talk about where half of the

country has a completely different view

of what the movie is that they're

watching.

And the question will be is one of them

always a hoax

and is it always the one side who sees

things accurately and the other side

doesn't because you know both sides

believe they're the ones who see it

accurate and the other people are

watching a fake movie. Who is watching

the real movie and who is watching the

hoax? Well, we'll start with uh story

number one

about Russia Gate, the movie that I'm

watching, which doesn't mean it's the

real one. It's just it's the one I see.

Um I see stories like uh today's just

the news, John Solomon. And um

apparently we now have in writing and

and video documented cases where Obama

uh got ahead of the intelligence reports

and said, "Oh yeah, Putin is uh trying

to help Trump get elected." Now, that

was prior

to there even being a intelligence uh

decision.

So that would suggest that Obama was,

you know, part of the plot to make it

look like Trump was guilty of talking to

to Putin and colluding or whatever. So

in my world, the movie I'm watching and

most of you are watching too, we have

proven

beyond any real doubt that I have, I

don't have any doubt that Russia gate

and the Russia hoax was coordinated for

the purpose of overthrowing the legally

elected government

and that um the the people involved were

from the top, you know, Brennan and

Clapper and and Obama and Comey and all

those guys. That's the movie I'm

watching. But can you believe you live

in the same world

where tens of millions, maybe more,

maybe a hundred billion people are

watching a different movie and you know

what's happening in the other movie? In

the other movie, Putin helped Trump get

elected and that's the whole story.

There's nothing else to see.

Isn't that amazing? Isn't it amazing

that those two versions of reality are

just sitting there at the same time? And

we're not instead of like really

wrestling to find out which one's the

true one, we don't really have any

mechanism to do that. You know, one

network will tell their version, the

other network will tell their version,

and their audiences don't overlap that

much. So, we just have two completely

different versions. And we're not

talking about a detail. We're talking

about did our government try to

overthrow the elected uh president of

the United States? The answer is looks

like it. I if I were a if I were on a

jury, I would say yeah, there's a 100%

chance. There's no doubt about it. The

evidence is pretty clear.

All right.

So would you score that one? Um

definitely you and I are seeing the

right movie and the other people are

saying the hoax. Is that fair? That

there are two versions of the movies but

one of them is definitely just a hoax

and the hoax is very well uncovered and

revealed. I think so. Here's another

one. How about climate change?

Climate change.

So the movie I'm watching is that uh it

might be true that the temperature is

going up but we don't have a signal to

tell us that it's a existential threat

and it might be better than it might be

more good than bad even we don't even

know. So but other others would say oh

it's proven every scientist agrees it's

going to be an existential threat. Well,

we have a new story. Uh, I saw this from

a post by David Shavos. He's a PhD in

molecular biology

and he's talking about in 2024, so just

last year, a a climate scientist

published a paper in the journal called

Nature. Now, that would be a

prestigious, you know, high-end journal

to put a paper in. So if something is in

that, you would think, well, that's

pretty, you know, credible. Um, and then

we find out that I think there were as

many as four peer reviewers and all the

peer reviewers had major problems with

it.

So some said uh that the

basically they they criticized almost

every part of it. And what do you think

happened when the the paper that said

that uh climate change was even worse

than you thought? Oh boy, it's bad. It's

bad. And then the reviewer said, "I

don't know about this paper. This is not

meeting our standards. What do you think

happened?" And then it got published.

Why would they publish the paper when

the whole point of peer review is if the

peers are not convinced you shouldn't

publish it? But the peers were not

convinced got published anyway. And then

because they happened to be in the the

right direction for the alarmists and

they thought, "Aha, not only were we

right, it might be worse than we thought

because here's this paper and it's in

nature. It's published. It had peer

review." So, must be true, right?

Well, uh, turns out it was one of the

most cited papers for the entire year.

So, not only did it get published by

itself, but it became a source for other

scientists to base their work upon. And

then it just like became one of the the

biggest things in science when it never

really even passed peer review.

and and you know it's it's got many

references to it from other science.

Now

so there's your two movies. One is that

the the whole climate change thing is

just a bunch of frauds and bad

assumptions. You maybe sometime some of

them might be well intended but you know

they got just dragged into the the group

think. So my view is that one movie is

that it's just a bunch of

and people scamming us for money and uh

and and some people just afraid of going

against the established uh belief. And

then the other movie is that is it's a

big existential threat and although

almost all of their predictions have

been wrong, they're going to get ones

one of these days. Oh, the next time

they're going to be right. So what's

your vote? Are they two reasonable views

or is one of them clearly obviously true

and the other one's a hoax?

Well, in my world, the one that says

there's no way you can predict the

temperature, and there doesn't seem to

be a way even to know what the

temperature is,

much less predict it. I'm not even sure

that we can measure it. Um, so to me,

it's super obvious that it's a it's more

a hoax than it is anything else.

But part of the world believes that the

science has proven that uh they're all

going to die from this climate change

thing and the Republicans are part of

the reason they're all going to die. So

that's different. All right.

Um

and then uh

apparently uh Trump had just learned

while he was at some precedent that uh

the Ukrainian military is now enlisting

uh citizens over the age of 60. Now they

say citizens so that would suggest men

and women.

So, are they really going to enlist

uh like 70 year old women in the

military because they're running out of

young people? That's what it looks like.

H um and but I do wonder, you know, if

they're looking for mostly drone

operators and stuff, I don't know, maybe

if you're 70 and you you played a lot of

games, maybe.

But uh doesn't look good for Zalinski.

Um Trump has slapped uh India with a 25%

tariff on top of their 25% tariff for uh

continuing to buy Russian oil. Now I

don't know that India had any fast way

to buy anybody else's oil. Did they? Did

India have an option of just saying, "Oh

yeah, well we'll stop tomorrow." no more

of this Russian oil and just buy it in

other places.

Um, was that actually an option? I don't

know. So, I don't know if there's enough

oil or enough fungeibility that you can

just say turn this spot off and turn

this one on. Might maybe you might be

able to

but um that'll cause some uh some

friction with India. Um, however,

that seems maybe it's not a coincidence

that uh Putin has now

seemingly agreed to meet with Trump.

Now, it would just be the two of them.

It wouldn't be Silinski. It wouldn't be

Europe. And Trump's model is if he can

come up with some model that uh the US

and Russia think is worth selling, then

they can, you know, try to get Ukraine

in there to agree with it, etc. But they

got to see if they're close first of

all. Now, do you believe they're close?

Because if nothing has changed,

why would Putin be interested in peace

talks? Is Putin just playing a game

where he's postponing sanctions? So,

he's going to do the um the Iranian

thing where you keep talking like you

want peace, but you keep acting like you

don't and just see how long you get away

with it because America America loves

the story that peace is about to break

out. Oh yeah, look at that Trump. He got

us some peace. So, we want to believe

that Trump could make peace happen. As

long as we really want to believe that

Putin can just tap us down the highway

forever. Oh, yeah. Almost there. Oh,

yeah. We're probably close. I don't

know. Maybe just tweak a few more things

and we'll be right there. So I don't

believe anything about it, but it might

not be coincidence that this new

secondary tariff thing is kicking in.

That's what the India tariff is. So is

it possible that uh Putin thinks that he

might be heading down a one-way path to

destroying his energy

um industry in his country?

Or is Putin unw worried because he could

just sell twice as much to China and

China has a you know you know uns

insatiable

uh demand for oil. So maybe I don't

know. So I don't think these secondary

uh tariffs would have scared Putin so

quickly that he would say oh never mind

never mind. I totally want peace now.

So, I'm going to predict

that it does not lead to a real peace

deal. It might lead to a fake one where

where Trump comes back and says, "We've

got a deal. We've we've agreed on a

ceasefire." And then, you know, a day

later, you find out, well, it's a

ceasefire if

Ukraine gives us all this land and

agrees that we own it. And then Ukraine

will be, we didn't agree to that. and

then Putin will be, well then no

ceasefire for you. So I feel like it's

just tapping us down the road there.

We'll find out.

Um

h what else? So

another one of these uh two movies on

one screen is the January 6 insurrection

hoax.

Now,

half of the country or more believes

that Republicans

left their guns home and tried to take

over the country by

uh by walking around in a public

building for an afternoon.

And that that's how Republicans try to

conquer a country. Leave their guns home

and then trespass in a public place for

an afternoon.

And somehow

half of the idiots in the world came to

believe that that's a real thing and

that there was an actual insurrection

attempt

as opposed to what I think you and I saw

which is a bunch of people who were sure

this the election was being stolen right

in front of them because they could look

at the weird the weird pattern of the

vote counting towards the end and they

just wanted to delay long enough to find

if a coup had happened to them.

Now, how many times do I have to point

this out before your ad explodes? The

the following thing,

as far as I know, no news program on the

left or the right,

left or right, has ever pulled together

a handful of the January 6 protesters

and said, "All right, tell me the truth.

Did you believe that Trump had lost fair

and square, but you were trying to get

him installed as like the president

anyway, which would have been a a coup.

How many people would say, "Yeah, that's

sort of what I wanted." Yeah, I knew he

lost, but I, you know, I thought we

could get him in there anyway. You won't

find one. In my opinion, how many people

were there? 20,000 or some big number. I

don't think you'll find one person who

would say, "Yeah, oh yeah, I know he

lost fair and square, but we tried to

get him in there anyway." I'll bet not

one.

It's just not what a Republican is.

It's just not who they are. It's an

identity thing. It's not even an opinion

thing. Their identity is we like the

Constitution, right? that. So you you

people don't go against their identity.

They can have different opinions that

fit within their identity, but you don't

just throw away your identity if you're

the proconstitution person. You don't

throw that away. So no. Uh so I'm going

to target that as the last remaining

tent pole hoax. Um it's really the only

thing that keeps people from supporting

Trump at this point. because they kind

of like his policies even if they don't

admit it. Uh but they really don't like

that he may have been trying to take

over the country. It just never really

happened.

Uh let's see what else has happened. Uh

remember Dr. Robert Malone.

He he was one of the co-inventors of the

mRNA

um platform

and uh he says that uh RFK Jr. was

briefed on UFOs and was told that all of

this stuff is true.

Now, do you believe that?

Um because Malone would know RFK Jr. So

he would be he would know the people who

are in that world because he's in that

world. And

uh here here's what he said. I saw this

on a post by the vigilant fox which is a

really good follow if you're on X.

Follow the vigilant fox. Uh a lot of

good summaries of the news.

And uh Malone said quote uh I'm talking

to my friend and he says oh Bobby had a

briefing all all this stuff is true

Roswell all those things the reverse

engineering of night vision whole bunch

of this tech comes out of the reverse

engineering of recovered materials

and we can look forward to learning a

lot more about what the heck is going on

with these whether they're time

travelers and they're humans coming back

or they're from another dimension. or

they're whatever fill in the blank, but

apparently it's real.

All right, I would like to add my uh

opinion on this topic.

I'm quite certain

that there's nothing real, meaning that

there are no space aliens or time

travelers

uh or early humans who are living in the

core of the earth or whatever. Uh, I

don't believe any of this is true. Not

any of it. What I do believe is that

there are ongoing ops being run against

RFK Jr., not by Balone. Not by Malone.

I'm not blaming him. He seems like a

like a good and smart egg. Um,

but doesn't it seem to you that if you

were if you were going to try to

discredit RFK Jr. because you're a big

pharma. So, let's say you're a big

pharma and you know that the longer he's

in the job, the worse it is for you. How

would you discredit RFK Jr.? Well, if it

were me, I would get him to believe

something that clearly is not true and

to go public with it.

If you could get him to do that, then

you could add that to the list of, well,

look at this guy. He believes in magic.

Oh, he's so anti-science. He's just

decided that oh, time travelers. He

believes in time travelers now.

So, to me, I do believe that he may have

been um he he may have been briefed by

somebody who said it was all real, but

whoever briefed him, I would suspect,

would not be on his side and was trying

to hoax them into ruining his

credibility. So he'd have to leave the

job. So to me it looks like an op.

Um

Rasmusen did a poll on 2020 election

denial. So this is 2020 election denial

and 48% of Democrats support punishment

for questioning the 2020 election. How

can that be true? Do you believe we live

in a world where 48%

almost half

of Democrats support punishment for

people who question the 2020 election?

Can you even believe that that's real?

Like I I would not even have thought to

ask the question because it's so

ridiculously absurdly out of bounds.

Punish people for questioning an

election.

But 48% of Democrats.

All right, this next story, let's add

this to the How in the world did I not

know this was the case already? All

right, if you haven't heard this story,

this might blow your mind a little bit.

you, if you're watching this podcast,

you probably believe that uh Brennan and

Clapper and Comey were part of a major

Russia collusion hoax, right?

Did you know

uh

according to Tulsa Gabbard that James

Clapper uh this wasn't his first hoax?

Apparently, he was on the team that said

that Iraq had d WMDs.

So, the Iraq war

was in part caused by James Clapper and

his analysis that uh Iraq had weapons of

mass destruction. Do you think he do you

think he knew that that was fake when he

did it? I mean, he wasn't the only one.

He was part of the team. But how does

this one guy

destroy our country with a war that we

didn't need to be in? And then he's

behind he's one of the key players

behind the Russia collusion hoax which

ripped the country apart again.

Unbelievable

that he was involved in two of our

biggest most damaging hoaxes in American

history. Same guy. And how in the world

did I not know that until yesterday?

What?

I would think that would be right at the

top of things that we should have all

known. Well, this information is coming

from somebody who told you Iraq had

weapons of mass destruction. I would

have wanted to know that. I would have

wanted to know that.

Well, General Flynn

um tells us that there might be more to

know about October 7th and the IDF, the

Israeli military's uh um suspicious

inability to detect it or to repel it as

soon as it started. And here's what

General Flynn says. uh something broke

down and it wasn't because of mistakes,

it was an inside thing.

Now, he was talking to Steve Bannon at

the war room and uh Bannon had to stop

him and Bannon was like, "Whoa, whoa,

whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa,

whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa,

whoa, whoa." I may have missed a few

woes, but he said who a lot. Hang on. He

said, "You can't drop a bomb like that.

You're saying that you're hearing

there's testimony or documents. So Steve

cleverly is making sure that there's

some, you know, real meat behind this or

actual evidence that certain elements of

the Israeli military were told to stand

down

on October 7th.

And Flynn replied, "Steve,

I have personally walked that border.

I've been down at those areas and I know

the details of how the Israelis, one of

the most secure borders in the world,

how they do their operations. So, I know

that. So, something broke down and it

wasn't because of mistakes.

Now, I don't know if he has more

specifics to it or if he just knows that

the story is wrong. Could be either one,

you know. It could be that he knows

enough, you know, more than we know

about the situation that he knows it

doesn't add up, but doesn't know what's

missing. Right? So, but the other

possibility is he knows what's missing.

Here's the problem I'm having with new

conspiracy theories. I guess that's an

old one. Um, there were a lot of

conspiracy theories that I immediately

discarded because there just so many of

them. You have to sometimes you just

have to discard them without looking

into them. But now it's hard to discard

anything.

Like I'm I'm not really inclined or

biased to believe that Israel

allowed their uh citizens to be brutally

attacked and kidnapped and all that

because it was some, you know, long-term

plan for gaining territory or something.

I

like there's nothing in my body or

experience or brain

that feels that's true. I know a lot of

you feel there might be something to it

and I get that and I'm not ruling it

out. So what I'm saying is even though

every fiber of my being says that's not

real, there's there's no way that they

intentionally allowed that attack.

On the other hand, the things that I've

seen that that are apparently true just

in the last 6 months, especially the

Russia collusion stuff, it kind of opens

up the door that I can't tell what's

real. And if I don't have any ability to

determine what's real and what isn't,

why should my instincts and uh hunches

about what Israel would or would not do,

why would I depend on my own

my own opinion?

Yeah. Why would I even believe it? Now,

uh, I see in the comments, of course,

people are yelling 911, 911, as in, um,

don't believe the story about how the

Twin Towers came down. I will give you

this much, right? This is as far as I'll

go. I don't think there's any chance

that we know the real story of 9/11.

I don't think any chance. Just none.

Now, there are a number of possibilities

of what really happened compared to what

we're told that happened, and I don't

know which ones are true, but I'll meet

you halfway.

The official story, I don't believe that

one.

Now, it might be that there's nothing,

you know, there's nothing horrible

there. Maybe we just got the story

wrong. You know, maybe there just some

things that we don't know about. But I

can tell you that the official story,

there's no chance.

There's no chance that's all real.

Some of it almost certainly is real, but

not all of it, you know. So, I don't

know.

And then on another uh two movies, one

screen. Um th this one is the most

fascinating to me, and I know you hate

this topic, so I'll make it short.

There's a uh a user on X who goes by

cremeu.

I don't know how to pronounce it. C R E

M as in Mary. I EUX. So you can look him

up. And he is real good with data and

analysis. Uh and uh he says this.

Now this is him. Don't get mad at me. Do

not get mad at me. This is somebody who

is smarter than both of us who says the

following. Uh more than 5.6 billion

people took the co vaccines. If there

was a mass dying wave, miscarriages and

still births, cardiac issues, or

anything else, we have more than enough

data to show those things, but they

never happened.

How you feeling so far? Uh he goes,

"They're not real. They're a neurotic

delusion.

We have so many person years of data

that if there's any issue with the with

the vaccinations causing health

problems, we almost certainly would have

already detected it. Couple this with

the fact that uh this is the first time

I've seen this word, but uh

pharmcoilence

and I guess that means the the actively

watching the pharma uh side effects. uh

the fact that pharmarmacco vigilance has

gotten much better over time and big

side effects are just a laughable

proposition.

So a laughable proposition because the

system is such that there's a 100%

chance you would see any big effect to

people dying.

Um now some of you would say but Scott

look at the data from a user called

ethical skeptic. How many of you have

seen the data from ethical skeptic who

appears to show charts and data that

would suggest there's a gigantic

um problem of people dying who got

vaccinated?

How many of you have seen it? because

he's he's been operating since the

pandemic and he's just got tons of

charts and data and it all points in the

same direction that there's this

enormous

uh problem of side effects and people

dying and you know every other thing.

Well, uh Cre was asked about ethical

skeptic and uh he debunked him as being

a credible source of anything.

Um I had the same the same reaction but

without the you know the the backup. Um

all I knew is that whenever whenever

ethical skeptical ethical skeptic posted

something I couldn't understand it and I

thought to myself what are the odds that

100% of the time he posts something I

don't understand it. What are the odds

that that's somebody who knows what he's

talking about? My experience is anybody

who can't simplify their point and say,

"Here's the point. All right, here's the

data that proves it, they're probably

not credible." So, I think he's not

credible. Even if everything he says is

real, I wouldn't know.

So, now you've got two people who are

really, really, really looking at the

data and they see two completely

different worlds. Which one do you see?

Do you see a world I think most of you

see a world where it's been proven

beyond a doubt that there's way more

deaths attributed to people who got

vaccinated. It's obvious it's because of

the vaccination. How many of you live in

that in that version of reality

where where it's just obvious and you've

seen so much data to prove it. You know

people who have been injured by the

vaccination.

it. So, you've proven it with your

experience. You've proven it the all the

data. How many of you think you're in

that world?

I'm not in that world,

which doesn't mean you're wrong. Which

doesn't mean you're wrong. I just don't

know anybody who was injured by the vax.

And I've only seen data that says that

it it worked and saved lives. I haven't

seen any of the other stuff. Where are

you even looking? And if you saw data

that said the opposite

then and you believed it, then I would

call you gullible.

Not because you believe the wrong stuff,

but because you're believing in experts

in a domain in which all the data is

questionable. So I don't believe the

people who say there's no damage

whatsoever.

But I also don't believe the people who

say, "Oh, there's plenty of damage.

Here's my data.

So if you if you decided that

one part of these people are right and

they've got data and studies to prove

it, then I would call you gullible

because why would you believe anybody in

this domain? You know that whatever is

true,

you know for sure that people are making

stuff up in both directions, right? So

even if we somehow could find out what

was real, and I don't know that we ever

will,

we would still know that there were

people on both sides who just made

up.

That that part I'm sure about. Right? So

before you say, Scott, why are you so

gullible that you believe the official

word? I've never said that. I've never

believed the official word, but I have a

question for you. Why do you believe the

unofficial scientists?

What makes them credible?

Nothing. Nothing. So, I'm way more

suspicious than you are. Um, I believe

that it's unknowable and and I wouldn't

look at the data or the experts to tell

me it was true. I will tell you

that um

none of us credible looking to me.

in either direction.

All right.

Um, what about inflation? President said

that the price of everything is down.

Uh, eggs are down, gas prices down.

Um, beef prices are through the roof,

right? So, uh, Trump of course does a

great job of selling and convincing us

everything's going to be fine, which is

important. I I like it when he does

that. But no, it is not true that

everything is down. There are some

things that are way up.

Um here's a new phrase that Jake Tapper

has added to the conversation.

Um apparently he's acknowledging that

the government was weaponizing

the Department of Justice against Trump.

So I believe that even Jake Tapper would

agree, yeah, there was some

weaponization going there. But he

believes that Trump has taken that to a

new level, which he calls turbocharging

the weaponization of government. So

yeah, sure, maybe the Democrats did

weaponize the government against

conservatives and against Trump. Yeah,

maybe they did weaponize a little bit,

but they didn't turbo weaponize it. I

mean, Trump is turbocharging that

weaponization, so that's much worse. So,

here's what you should look for. See if

turbocharged weaponization

becomes the thing they all say. If you

don't hear anyone else use it, then it

was just something that, you know, came

to Jake's mind. But if they all start

saying, "Well, there was a little

weaponization before, but not

turbocharged."

Then you'll know that some consultant

came up with that, and they're all

they're all going to use it.

All right. Uh, Project Veritas

um has a whistleblower. I don't know if

I'm believing this one or not.

um

that this says that former US Attorney

General Bill Barr and some other partner

he's working with are running some kind

of fraud scheme to get elites and

billionaires visas to the US and it it

involves uh fake companies

that they can say they're they're

working for the fake companies so that

they can get their fake visas.

Uh now project feritas is the you know

James O'Keefe was the founder of that

but then they forced him out now he does

his own thing at OMG.

But

I don't know about this one. Do you

believe that the whistleblower is

telling the truth and that uh Bill Barr

is just running this big overt Visa

scam?

I'm gonna say

I'm gonna say I'm a little bit skeptical

of this one. I'd have to know a lot more

about this alleged whistleblower.

Um or there'd have to be some other

evidence. I guess I would say I wouldn't

believe it based on the whistleblower.

I would believe it. I could believe it

if there's some investigation or some

other independent report, but with one

whistleblower,

no. not good enough.

Well, Trump wants uh to sign an

executive order to allow you to hold

Bitcoin in your 401k as well as

buildings and real estate and other

private deals.

So, in case you want to do that. Um,

[Music]

all right. Now, that might uh juice the

economy a little bit because it would

open up around 12.5 trillion dollars

for,

you know, nonstock investments.

Um Trump says that the Biden Harris

administration pushed banks to quote

destroy him and to bank conservatives.

Now, I didn't know about that. I didn't

realize that Trump was um being

debanked.

Um

I know that they've been debunked, but

he's been debunked.

And

so I I'm completely in favor of Trump

getting revenge for the debanking stuff.

But uh even if it's a turbocharged

lawfare,

yeah, he he need he needs to uh set

things right. Uh people should

understand that if they debank an

ex-president

and that ex-president or any of his

allies or children in the future get a

shot to take you down, they're going to

do it. They're going to do it. That's

the kind of a mutually assured

destruction that keeps the society

running. So I do think Trump needs to

absolutely just savage the banking

industry that you know tried to debank

him. Absolutely savage them. It should

be really expensive and they should

remember forever that when they got

political even though they kind of had

to because you know the government at

the time was kind of pushing them into

it but they need to know that they're

they're looking at an existential threat

threat if they debang somebody for

political reasons even if they're being

pushed to do it has to be an existential

threat to them.

So, if Trump uh put a put a major bank

out of business because of it, so long

as we didn't lose our entire banking

industry, I'd be okay with that. That

this is so bad that just destroying an

entire bank

would be about the right price to pay.

That would be about the right price.

Um,

I guess ICE is doing raids on Home Depot

or because there's a bunch of people

trying to work. Now,

how many of you have a problem with the

fact that the Trump administration

apparently lied to us about the worst

first? Because they're not looking for

the worst standing at the Home Depot

parking lot. They're very clearly trying

to hit their numbers, which you might

like, but it's not what they told us.

If even if you love what they're doing,

how do you rationalize the fact that

they lied to you and said that they

wouldn't do that? Even if you like it

that they're doing it. So, I've got a

problem. Um, I would call them uh liars.

And uh I don't like it a bit.

All right. Um, I guess Trump is calling

for the resignation of Intel CEO because

he has extensive ties to China, which,

you know, everybody assumes means to

their government as well. So, I guess

the CEO of Intel um has some investment

um platform that made a whole bunch of

Chinese investments. So, I don't think

there's quite a smoking gun that says

that he's done anything wrong. We don't

have that. But, uh, his connections and

his past activities

make him look really cozy, which I know.

So, I can I can see why Trump's pushing

him on that.

Um, Trump is ordering a new census,

which I don't understand at all because

he doesn't have the power to order a new

census. So, there's something about the

story that I need to find out. I guess

Congress could vote to do an early

census instead of doing it every 10

years as is currently the

um the technique. And

so I guess I need to catch up on this

one cuz I tried to figure out why does

he think he can make this happen when he

doesn't have that authority. So there

must be more of a must be more of a

trick to it than I'm aware of. Maybe it

just means Congress will approve it. But

why does he need an executive order? I

don't know. So he's trying to get that

done. I don't know if that's real.

Um, China's solar industry is uh they

they got rid of 31% of the workforce

because they're so overbuilt and prices

are down. And so remember how you you

were all worried that China would own

the solar panel market and the only

thing that happened was we got cheap

solar panels and they they got

themselves a big industry that doesn't

make money.

We're not really good at predicting, you

know, where things go, are we?

All right, here's an update. Apparently,

Netanyahu's security cabinet is going to

meet about Gaza and about the idea to

resettle

um all the residents so that Israel just

owns Gaza from now on.

And uh I will remind you because it's

useful for this podcasting model that I

think I'm the only public figure who

told you on day one of that war or

roughly around that that Israel wasn't

going to just beat him up and then let

him go that they were going to

essentially take control of Gaza forever

and make it part of Israel. And I'm

right so far. Looks like I'm right now.

How do you explain

that I have no expertise uh in that

region or no expertise in that domain

whatsoever and that I'm the only person

who was right

about what would happen? How do you

explain that?

Well, before you answer, um, I should

remind you that at the beginning of the

pandemic when Trump announced he was

going to do Project Warp Speed, I

predicted in public that the

vaccinations would not work. And then

when it was rolled out and they said,

"It works, it works. We're rolling it

out." I said in public again, "I predict

it won't work." Now, how much did I know

about viology and vaccinations? and what

was my expertise? And the answer was

none. I had none.

But um as far as I know, I was the only

public figure that I'm aware of who said

on day one of the vaccinations that I

predict they won't work. So how how'd I

get that right with no expertise

whatsoever? Here's another one. When

Russia was threatening to uh attack

Ukraine, u I got one prediction 100%

wrong, as wrong as anything could be.

And I said that uh Putin must be

bluffing

because he must know that it's not going

to be as easy as people say. So I

predicted that he wouldn't go in, but I

also predicted that if he did, he would

not be able to conquer Ukraine in two

weeks. and that uh the the ground assets

that he sent in would be too vulnerable

to high-tech air stuff, you know,

missiles and drones and stuff. And

that's what happened.

So, I have no military experience, but

why was it that my prediction that uh

that Ukraine would be able to hold off

Moscow, why was that right so far? I

mean, you could argue if you wait

forever, it'll become wrong, and that's

true.

But I was just about the most right on a

military question.

How's that possible when I don't have

any military expertise? How about the

fact that I predicted that Trump would

win in 2016? What was my prior political

experience? None. None. None at all. How

did I get that right in a domain that I

shouldn't have known anything? How about

when uh the Ukraine war was newer and I

predicted that Pragoian, remember

Pragosian? I predicted that he would

turn on Moscow and try to overthrow

Putin. I'm the only person who said

that. Nobody else in the world said

that. And then he did. And then when uh

when he got obviously murdered

immediately by Putin once they got their

hands on him, the news told you that he

was flying off to Bellarus to live his

life happily. And I laughed at you and

said, "No, he's already been killed.

There's no way he's still alive." And of

course, I was right about that. Now, how

did I get all of those predictions

right? I mean, those are really specific

predictions, and nobody else made them.

Well, I don't have any expertise in that

area, right? But how how did I get that

right?

Um, and so you could probably come up

with a few more. Here's my here's my

theory.

Uh, I believe that the reason I have an

advantage over the experts is that

experts are not allowed to depart from

the other expert opinions.

that as soon as you, let's say you're a

military expert, as soon as a few people

say, "Well, Russia is going to just

crush Ukraine in 10 minutes, you don't

want to be the person who's on the other

side of that if you're an actual expert.

So, it's just safer to go with the

majority, I guess." And I have the uh I

have the freedom. This is I don't know

anything about any of these topics

there. I have no expertise in any of

these domains. I have the freedom to

say, well, what's it look like? And then

I just apply usually the the Dilbert

filter to it and a persuasion filter.

Usually some economic filter, just basic

stuff. And I say, well, looks to me like

this is going to happen. So, I would

argue that it could be that being an

expert

makes you

because you can't really you can't

really throw away your whole career over

a specific prediction.

But I could make a wild prediction and

if I'm wrong, well, I'll just say, "Oh,

I got that one totally wrong." It

wouldn't make any difference at all.

So, I have a little bit more freedom to

consider the alternatives. So, maybe

that's what's going on. It's my best

guess.

All right.

Um, as you know, Minnesota is in a uh

pitched battle with California to see

which would make the shittiest state.

All right. Um, if I said to you that a

housing program has been caught stealing

$100 million, a housing program,

um, what state would you imagine that

was? We'll play this game. The answer is

Minnesota. So, there's a new story. 100

million stolen from some housing

program. Um, here's another one. A man

got 28 years in prison, according to the

Associated Press, the AP,

for $48 million of COVID era food and

fraud scandal. Is that California or

Minnesota?

The answer is Minnesota. Minnesota. All

right.

So there you go.

Uh,

California, if you give us hundred

billion dollars for a bullet train,

we'll probably just keep that money. If

you give us money to fix the fire damage

in LA, well, we'll just let somebody

steal it, probably. I don't think we'll

build any new homes or help any people.

So, which which country or which uh

state is shittier, Minnesota

or uh California? I'm going to say that

Minnesota is shittier

um simply because they have worse

weather and more mosquitoes

and uh otherwise we're both corrupt.

All right. Um, I got this question so

many times from so many people and I

don't want to have individual arguments

with all of you. So, people keep asking

me, Scott, if we're a simulation or or

maybe things are not uh the religious

model. Um, didn't there have to be an

intelligence that kicked it all off? To

which I say, no.

And then they say, "Oh, but but there

had to be something that was there first

and it had to be an intelligence, right?

Otherwise, we couldn't get to where we

are now." And then I say, "No."

And they say, "Well, explain that." And

I think, "I don't have to explain it. I

can just say no."

But if you'd like a little bit more,

here are the possibilities. One is that

time is a complete illusion. If time is

an illusion and everything is just sort

of here or some other version of it just

you know time is an illusion then

there's no such thing as something that

started it all because time is an

illusion. The other possibility is that

we create the past.

We don't just come from it. So, it could

be that we're creating the past

actively.

Um, that takes a little more explaining,

but that's another way that um it didn't

have to be an original cause.

And my favorite is that time is

circular,

meaning that let's say there was a big

bang,

uh, but everything expands, eventually

everything will come back together and

it will just happen again. and that

everything that is possible will

eventually happen.

So

you wouldn't need a beginning with that

model because it would just be infinite.

How about if time is infinite then there

is no beginning because there will

always be something before it. But did

the thing before it have to be

intelligent?

I don't know.

I I can see why you would think it might

be. But does that mean it has to be? Can

you tell me that just things bouncing

around forever would not someday cause

something that looked like a computer

program or intelligence? I don't know.

But no, it it is not true that there had

to be something intelligent that got it

all going. It does not have to be true

that there had to be a beginning or

something before the beginning. Could be

circular. Could be we don't know what

time is. could be we're we're in a video

game and none of those rules mean

anything because we're just characters

in a video game. But there are lots of

ways

that we don't have to have a beginning

with an intelligent creator.

Anyway, that's all I got for now. Thanks

for joining everybody. Sorry I went a

little bit long. I'm going to talk to my

beloved subscribers on locals right now.

And the rest of you, thanks for joining.

and I'll see you tomorrow, same time,

same place because it gets better every

time. All right,

local supporters