Scott Adams breaks down everything that had to happen at the same time for us to finally understand the world:
• Trump exposing fake news + winning 2024
• buying Twitter → turning it into X
• DOGE + revealing NGO/USAID distortions, censorship industrial complex, and international attacks on US speech
• existing to summarize dense info (esp. Benz’s deep dives)
• Discovering color revolutions were turned against America
"We were this close to losing everything, and it almost seems like magic that all the right things happened at the same time.
It's very unlikely that all of those things would happen at the same time, but they did. Kind of amazing." https://x.com/jayplemons/status/2005340561298067561?s=20
Scott on the fraud
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rpxmWfUOe4&t=5910s
let's talk about all the
corruption in the world. Would you be surprised that the LA Times did a research and found out that uh there was a LA fire department afteraction report about the Palisades fire and do you think that that afteraction report which is basically the fire department reporting on themselves how they did. Do you think that it was honestly reported uh what possible mistakes the fire department might have made? No. So once again, the people who are in charge are also in charge of telling you how they did. and the people who are in charge, the LA Fire Department in charge of the fire had decided that they would remove uh some substantial parts of the report that made them look bad. So, the afterhour action report according to the LA Times is and they in fact were definitely definitely the problem. Uh, and part of the problem was that they knew there was a existing fire that had been the thing that reignited. They almost certainly should have been there. They should have had water. They should have been should have been more ready, etc. So, essentially a cover up. Yes. So, how often have we seen that if the government is involved and they have the ability to either not audit or to do a fake audit that they will do the fake audit or no audit every time? Every time. All right. What else? I'm going to skip that for now. So I was thinking today how hard it is to understand the news. So think about all the things that had to happen for me to understand our current situation in the world. Right? If any of the following things had not happened, I would be so lost and so would you. Let me give you an example. Um, how confused would you be if you had not learned that the news is fake? Have you ever talked to somebody who thinks news is real and it just feels like they're from the past? Really? Really? You think the news is real? Oh. Oh, no. You think that the news on one side is real? Sorry. If if you don't understand the news is and maybe always has been uh fake, you would be very confused about what you're seeing. Right? So that's number one. And I would say that Trump was the biggest reason that we understand the news to be fake. Not only did he tell us, but we could watch through his experience how often there were hoaxes in the news and you could really learn, oh my god, the news is not even real. That's number one. How confused and lost would we be if Elon Musk had not purchased Twitter and turned it into X? Because I get most of my knowledge from X. If I had to depend on everything else, literally everything else. I wouldn't know what's going on. Now, I might be in a bubble, so I have to watch out for the bubble problem. But without X, there's so much context that I'd be missing. Now, what would have happened if Trump had uh not won the election? If Trump had not won the election, I think the X would have been destroyed. Um, I think that people would still think the news was real. They would trust their elections were not rigged and they would have an entirely different view of what's real and what's not. And and Trump just barely won. Well, he would say he won by a lot, but if you consider the allegations of rigging, suppose um there had not been um some really I don't know if it's real, but the reporting is that the uh there was some Serbian, you know, Serbian uh data center that had to be taken offline just in time or Trump would have won. Now, I don't know if that's true, but it does suggest that if it was, we were very close to losing everything and then we would again not know what was going on because we would be in the dark. What would happen if Doge had never happened? And I'll add Mike Benz to the this point. What would happen if there had never been a Mike Bettton and there had never been a Doge? Would you understand how the NOS's and the USA ID stuff were distorting everything we knew and everything we were doing? I didn't know about any of that stuff. And what are the odds, you know, that you'd be born in a time when both of these things would happen? Doge and and Mike Benz. That's we were very close to never understanding what was really happening, but now we're getting close. What about the rise of independent media? Do you think we would know anything except for the rise in independent media, which mostly you get to CNX? Nope. Because corporate media will always have a limit on what they can do if they take advertisement for their business model. There's going to be entire domains where you can't trust what they say. And the only way that you would know what's happening is if an independent media grew up and that only was only was possible recently and mostly because of X. Um, in order for me to understand what's going on and then to try to tell you, I had to use Grock uh to summarize Mike Benton's posts because his posts are, you know, very detailed and I it's hard to watch four hours of content and even though he summarizes it and he gets clipped, it's a lot. And so even this morning and really it feels like every morning there'll be some big complicated story about what's wrong with the world and I'll say Grock summarize this and if Grock did not exist I'm not sure I'd be able to totally follow everything that Mike Ben says that puts things in context. So I happen to, you know, you have to be lucky that Elon Musk made Grock. Um, how would you have ever understood what a color revolution was and the fact that the people who were doing it to successfully overthrow other countries had very clearly use those tools against us? How would you know that without X, without without Doge, without Mike Benz? Very specific things had to happen at the same time for us even to understand that that's the world we're living in. How would you have ever known that the let's call it the censorship industrial complex had found a way to use the international tools and also to partner with Europe mostly to censor um people in the United States. That's that's something we only just recently learned. So, uh, think about how sensitive, uh, the world was to all of those factors. And if any one of those had not happened, would we have already lost free speech? with the censorship um and the colored revolution already made it impossible impossible to have a democracy and never get a a real Republican elected. We were this close to losing everything. It almost seems like magic that all the right things happened at the same time, right? It's very unlikely that all of those things would happen at the same time, but they did. They did. Kind of amazing. Speaking of Mike Benz and Grock and censorship, uh here's another one of those stories that you would not understand unless we had been given this new context and these new set of assets to understand the world. So, there's this guy, Imran Ahmed, and I might have this wrong, but I think he's a Brit, and he's allegedly was part of the effort to, and apparently there's documentation that he said this directly, that he was in charge of trying to kill Elon Musk's Twitter for censorship reasons. um and that he was running quote black ops against RFK. So would you have known that there's this guy in another country who was part of a big industrial censorship complex that was working with the United States to essentially get rid of free speech in the United States? Well, there's this guy named Norm Eisen who's a attorney who is associated with Democrats, but he's also associated with that entire foreign and now domestic uh color revolutions. So, he's sort of one of the architects of how to do a color revolution. And he's now the lawyer representing Imran Ahmad. So if you don't know the players, you don't really know what's going on. And as soon as you see that he's the lawyer for Imran Amed and then you see Mike Benz explaining the connection and the history and what both of them have been been doing. All of a sudden it clicks in place. Click, click, click. Oh, all right. So, as Mike says, Norm Meis specifically made internet censorship a cornerstone of his domestic color revolution playbook published in 2025. He literally published the technique for doing this. So, we're not guessing what he's thinking. He wrote it down. Um, and that that playbook, the Normisen playbook called for state governments to set up social media censorship regulatory regimes, and we've seen this in California, New York, and Michigan try to do it, to specifically instruct his networks to quote, find partners in Brazil's censorship apparatus. So I think the point here is that this color revolution thing is very obviously being used in countries that we're trying to control and Brazil was on that list I guess and that you know all of these efforts are staffed with exobama people and there's no doubt about what side they're on. They're they're not trying to make things good for America. They're trying to make things good for the Democrats basically. So there you go. Now here's another question I have. You know, we all live in a news bubble. So even as even as much improved as things are today, I would say things are much improved as I mentioned, you know, the free speech and uh the context and all that. In my bubble, the the um allegation that the our elections have been rigged, and you could pick any year, but let's just say rigging probably happens every year. Sometimes more successfully than others. In my world, that's a proven fact. not proven in court, but because of my bubble, I've seen so many stories that are at least high credibility. I don't know how true they are, but they're high credibility about rigging that I would just say it's a fact now. But if you're not in my bubble, how much of that do you ever see? I feel like the left never sees it. And what they see is the times when the claims are debunked because there are a lot of claims that yeah do not you know check out. So I'm going to name a few things in my bubble. So in my bubble that Serbian data center thing is true. In my bubble there was Chinese technology and the voting machines. In my bubble, there are credible reports of duplicate ballots that all look the same and widespread. You know, there's a lot of it. In my bubble, there were whistleblowers and undercover video proving that there was ballot stuffing and, you know, illegal stuff. In my bubble, there's plenty of evidence that ballots should not have been counted in in massive ways either because they didn't have the signatures um because they were sketchy looking, etc. And that that's just a fact. And we have whistleblowers and we have, you know, multiple multiple reports. Even even people under penalty of perjury are claiming they saw it firsthand. We've got that uh that uh warehouse that's been locked for years because allegedly it's full of fake ballots. Um and all we'd have to do is get to it. And I think that's happening actually. We've got all kinds of allegations about Arizona. Too many to mention. Um, we've got that video of Ruby Freeman, is it? Who allegedly is doing something sketchy. I think she's being accused of u, you know, counting the bells three times. Now, she won a court case um for being accused of that. So, the courts uh did not confirm that she's anything illegal. So, she's not she's not indicted or anything, but if you're in my bubble, um she's accused of all kinds of things. Uh there's the story of the water leak that was fake that was just used as a cover to get the observers out. Now, I could go on and on and on, but how many of you are having the the same um experience that in your bubble you have massive just massive stories about very credible stories that various parts of the election were rigged. That's your bubble too, right? But I bet almost nobody on the left is exposed to this stuff because it's not going to be in the news, right? CNN doesn't cover it. MS Now is not in the New York Times. And whenever it is covered, they might just hit it and then leave it. Whereas in my bubble, it's repeated and repeated and stuff is added to it all the time. So then uh in that context uh Scott Presler was reminding us on X that back in 2008 and I admit I was not paying attention to politics in 2008. So in 2008, how many of you knew this happened that Al Franken was running for senator in Minnesota? And if he won, he would become a critical um majority vote, which he was, and it was a difference between Obamacare passing and not passing. So Al Franken had to win for them to get Obamacare over the line. and he did win by 312 votes. Now, my understanding is, again, I wasn't paying attention back then. My understanding is that he did not win on the first vote and that they had to keep saying, "Wait, we kept finding some more votes and that a critical turning point in his winning is that somebody who worked for the election people uh had found a bunch of ballots in the trunk of his own car." Is that true? Did he win because somebody claimed they found a bunch of ballots in the back of their car? and he only won by 312 votes after he had already lost. So it was actually, you know, after the election was already closed. Is that true? And as Scott Presler also points out that Minnesota has one of these weird laws where one person can vouch for up to eight people living in their precinct that they're they're qualified to vote. In other words, that they're citizens and they live there. What are you telling me? That one criminal can vouch for eight other criminals and that would be enough for the eight other criminals to be able to vote. What kind of law is that? That looks like a law that's only designed to promote fraud. And then we heard that over half a million voters were registered to vote on election day. Now you might say to yourself, "But Scott, uh, lots of people tend to register on election day if they have that option because, you know, they just put it off and maybe the relatives talk them into it or something." But half a million, do you think half a million decided that the day to register was election day? That doesn't sound real. So, is it possible that in 2008 before we understood how corrupt the world really is that this was just pure corruption? If I told you it happened in Minneapolis, let's say Minnesota, uh, if I told you it happened in Minnesota, back then, I might have said, well, you know, Minnesota is kind of a state where there's not a lot of crime. So now we realize that Minnesota is the most corrupt state that isn't in California. So how much of that is real? You know, I I don't want to put it in the form of an accusation, but it looks sketchy as hell. And if you drop that story into my bubble where I get, you know, this total flow of reports about election rigging, that sure looks like election rigging to me, you know, from my 2026ish perspective. Speaking of corruption, this one blows my mind. I cannot believe that Gavin Newsome has any chance to become president, but we live in a world where as long as he maintains his bubble, he probably can, or at least he'd have a shot at. U, I'm going to vote against that being possible, but anything's possible. All right, listen to this one. So, as you know, California got these billions of dollars that were supposed to be from the federal government that was supposed to be spent on the so-called highspeed rail project. As you know, none of that got built after many years. As you also know, nobody can account for where the money went. So, the money just disappeared, i.e. gas stolen billions and billions of dollars. So if you were the governor or you were in charge in any way during that time, how do you explain where all the money went and then still become president? Because it's so obvious that there's either massive incompetence, well maybe or just theft or both. So, here's what Newsome has proposed that instead of cancelling the project because they don't have any money and they have no way to get that money back and there's it would cost, you know, five times more than they thought to build it. So, there's no real possibility of building the thing they got funded for. There's just none. But instead of cancelling the project, he's he's trying to extend it and make it a smaller project, something that you could imagine and probably only in your imagination, they could actually build. And the reason that he would want to keep it alive is that if he builds nothing and he says I'm not going to build anything, he has to give back the money or at least he has to give back what you know maybe what's left. So in order to not have to give back any money, he's going to pretend that there's still a live project and it's just much smaller. Holy You know, it's probably legal. You know, it's more of a weasel legal thing to do. But how in the world can you do something like this and still become, you know, considered to be a presidential candidate. The only way is if is if people like me know about it. But I wasn't going to vote for him. And the people who might like him and might vote for him will never hear this story. They will never hear this story. And even if you brought it up and people heard it for the first time, let's say let's say his competition brought it up at a debate or something, it's sort of technical and you know, I'm not sure it would make any difference to a Democrat. And if he has some excuse like, I don't know what they're talking about. We just need a train between these two places and we have the money. Why wouldn't we build it? So the Democrats could easily be convinced that there's no real problem here. And he would say, am I indicted for anything? No. Is it a crime? No. We're just doing things differently than Republicans would do them. There's no crime in that. So he could probably very easily dismiss it in a debate. The news will probably let him have a pass. And it's just unfreaking believable. Wow. All right. Here's a story I've been watching for a while, but now talking about. So Elon Omar, you all know her. her husband allegedly um and she went from having no money at all to him having a company that's worth $30 million. So, first of all, I don't know that the estimates of their net worth are accurate because you know numbers. Um, but if you did not understand, and this is me, for most of my adult life, I didn't understand why people who could clearly make more money in the private sector would want to be politicians because being a politician looks like a crappy job. I mean, just the work looks like just crappy. and they really don't get paid enough to have a house in DC because they have to be there a lot uh but also maintain their their their home and their city they're representing of the state. Um, so I was always curious why in the world would you have so many people who would be willing to work at these bad jobs for years when when after some point they could just put it on the resume and get excellent, you know, corporate jobs and stuff like that. And now I understand the real way you make money is that you as the politician um figure out how to be part of the allocation of funds and you make sure that your husband or your spouse is somehow benefiting. So they might be in an NGO, they might be um some private company that provides a service to the government, but suddenly the spouse of the politician is getting a lot of good luck. H isn't that good luck that you're in the business that can benefit from government contracts. At the same time, you're married to a politician. How lucky. So I now suspect that although this would not explain every single person in politics, that a big big part of it is that the spouse um play that you could get away with because you make it look legal is why they do it. And then my next question is this. Um, since I don't know too much about the Department of Justice and how that works, at what point can you investigate somebody's spouse and the business that the spouse is in, unless there's like a really obvious crime? What if you only suspect there's a crime because somebody is doing unusually well uh in their job? You can't investigate that, right? in order to get a warrant or open up an investigation. Is this sufficient that that it looks like they got money too fast or or do you need to know? Well, they got money too fast and here's the criminal way in which it happened. So, that's an open question. I just don't know the answer to that. But if we don't fix that, I think we're in trouble. Now, in the context of finding out that everything is corrupt and all of her numbers are and everything's a scam, I saw a post by a data Republican who had this to say and well, let me just read it. So, David Republican said, "I had this idea. What if autism diagnoses are partially from fraudulent billows? And then I poked around a bit and it turns out that the whole one in 30 statistic, that's one in 30 uh kids being born have autism today, which is an alarming number. She's what if the one in 30 statistic isn't based on official diagnosis? ADDM, I don't know what that is, has clinicians review school records and if the record fits, then it counts as autism even if there's no medical diagnosis. Then that statistic is quoted to justify increased ABA centers, increased research, and all kinds of grants. And then uh data republican closes with I'm questioning literally everything now. All right. Now, I do believe that it is reality that there's more autism. I think that RFK Jr. is right that there's probably something in our environment, something in our food, maybe something in our medicines, something somewhere that is causing more autism. So, I do believe more autism is real. But how easy would it be to hide the fraud of claiming there's more autism than there is so that you could get funded for treating it? So now that we've seen the Somali healthc care scam and how easy it was for them to run the scam, is it possible that instead of one in 30, which would be, you know, super alarming, maybe it's one in 100? I don't know what the old number was, but it could be that there's a, you know, huge increase in it, but at the same time, that huge actual increase is masking the fact that there's massive fraud, making it look even worse. So, uh, I like D Republicans closing sentence. I'm questioning I'm questioning literally everything now. That's where I'm at. It doesn't matter where the data comes from. My first reaction is really really how many of you are in the same place that you just don't believe any stat. I I tend to be biased to believe statistics that agree with my preconceived notions, but I'm definitely feeling an alarm bell at the same time. And I didn't always feel that. So here's another one where I didn't used to think this was true. So Elon Musk is talking on X or said this somewhere that the the left has been using government programs for a long time to import voters so that they can create a block of voters that would vote, you know, vote together to control the American process. And that that's what the Somali immigration was all about. that Democrats were intentionally creating pockets where they could control who won Democrats uh because they would have a block of people would vote the same. Now, we see that in Chicago, for example, more organically, that Chicago has a large black population and they somewhat reliably are going to elect black Democrats to be in charge, mayors. Not every time, but you know, that that would be the the trend. So, I used to doubt that that was intentional. I used to think, well, yeah, there is a lot of uncontrolled immigration and yeah, it's natural that those people would want to settle with other people like themselves, but it's now some grand plan. I've changed my mind. I am now convinced that there had to be, you know, just as Elon Musk is saying, there had to be a plan to do this intentionally to take take control of the uh the census, take control of local governments and effectively uh change the voting situation in the United States and more more alarmingly that they were very close to pulling it off and maybe they could still. Um, and it would made it would have made a permanent change in the ability for Republicans to get elected and it would have permanently made it impossible for anything but a Democrat to ever be in charge of anything important. And we were this close. Now, it might still happen. I don't know. And maybe they've already done enough of this cuz you've got your Hispanic pockets, you've got your Somali pockets. Um, maybe they've already done it, but I don't think so. Here's another one that I wouldn't have believed five years ago. So, the Newsmax has reported that Judicial Watch, you know who Judicial Watch is, right? um President Tom Fitton as warning that the Secret Service might be uh let's say um maybe not doing their best to protect the president and that maybe that's not just incompetence. So the examples given are the two assassination attempts which we all think look like um it looked like the his security didn't do enough. He lived, but from the outside it looks like, wait, it doesn't even look like you had the A team protecting the president. Is that a coincidence? And then there was also the incident where Trump went to some restaurant and somehow the uh people who don't like Trump had been alerted which is a gigantic security problem and there could have been some danger there because people knew in advance he'd be at a restaurant and it wasn't well secured. So there are at least three examples where you say to yourself, is it possible that the president of the United States has incompetent security? Is that possible? Yeah, Code Bank uh Democratic group Code Pink showed up at that restaurant to protest. So is that possible or is this a pattern? And I guess uh judicial watch is asking for some information to maybe drill down on that a little bit. Now, five years ago, if you told me that his security was penetrated or compromised and that people were trying to kill him and had made already three attempts, you know, three attempts, they had insiders involved. I wouldn't have believed that, but today it's on the table. I absolutely would say maybe. I mean, we know, for example, that JFK I think I think I can say we know this um that his assassination had something to do with insiders, right? That the CIA in particular. So, if it were true for JFK, but I didn't believe her for decades, and then you look at all the other things that are true. Wow. almost anything is on the table. So, I'm not willing yet to say that the insiders are have penetrated his security service, but I don't rule it out. I'm not ruling it out. Um, I've been watching Traath from the Alen Pod getting very active on Acts talking about California and its various um problems. and he notes that apparently um the California state pension it looks like it's solid and it looks like you know it could pay pay the pensions but it's only because they've changed the accounting to a very weaselike way to make optimistic assumptions that are not realistic about what's going to happen in the future. So, in other words, California also, on top of all the problems you've heard, probably has this massive underfunded state pension problem that they're covering up by clever accounting so this this is something I would call the uh technically legal but holy kind of fraud. Meaning it's not technically illegal for them to estimate the uh pension payout with optimistic assumptions. That's not illegal and they show their assumptions apparently. But how is it not fraud? You know, in a sort of a common sense way. is sort of obviously fraud. Uh on top of that, I'm wondering if Chabath would be a candidate for governor or Yeah. Yeah. Governor. So, at the moment, uh Steve Hilton is running for governor in California, and I think he's actually leading in the polls because the the polls are so fragmented and they have a different voting system. So, it's possible that the next governor of California could be a Republican. But if it's not Steve Hilton, is there a time when Schmath says I'll step up and do that because I would very much love to see him in the
leadership role. I would back that hard.
No comments:
Post a Comment