All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 19, 2021 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
55:17
Episode 1566 Scott Adams: Biden Gets a Colonoscopy So Doctors Can Study His Brain, and Whatnot
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, everybody, and congratulations.
The first thing you did today, or one of the first things, is hugely successful.
You found your way to a live version of, or maybe recorded, of Coffee with Scott Adams, which is, yeah, that's right, the best thing that's ever happened in the entire history of the universe.
Now, on YouTube, did any of you have any audio problems yesterday?
I heard there were audio problems, but tell me in the comments while I prep you for another highlight.
Yeah, it's a highlight.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker, chalice, stein, a canteen, jug, or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
You know it does.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.
Go. Okay, it looks like most of you did not have audio problems, but there were audio problems in some places, so I guess it depends.
All right. In fun news, we'll get to the serious stuff in a minute, but in fun news, Tesla has given some beta users.
No, no, they're not beta males.
They're just users in a beta program.
They've given them full self-driving beta software.
And so there are some people in Brooklyn who can actually take their hands off the wheel, which would be unwise, because apparently the self-driving part is not as self-driving as possibly it could be.
But here's my take on self-driving cars.
I think the highways need to be designed for them alone.
What do you think?
Do you think it's going to be practical to have regular cars and all kinds of stuff happening at the same time as self-driving cars?
I just don't know if our human driving capabilities, in terms of anticipating a kid running across the road because he lost his ball...
I mean, a human can pick up trouble before a machine, right?
But the machine might react faster or even see some things that the humans don't see.
Here are the things that I would want for self-driving cars.
Number one, I'd want the roads especially designed so it's only self-driving cars.
I don't know how you get there, but that'd be cool.
I would like all the self-driving cars to be networked together.
That's not yet a thing, right?
But I think that no matter the make of the car, it needs to be networked, specifically so the other cars can tell if it lost control.
Because if one of the cars loses control, or let's say all the cars are monitoring each other, or even just all the cars have a buddy, like every car is monitoring itself plus one other car.
If the other car does something...
That some other car would not have done.
It should send out an alert, right?
There's a car acting in a way that I certainly wouldn't have acted as a self-driving car.
And then, you know, maybe something can remediate that situation.
But the other thing I'd like to see is some kind of a satellite visibility above the cars.
Now, it could be cameras in the streetlights...
Could be some of Elon Musk's own low satellites that could see your car pretty easily.
But don't you think you'd like to know if there's a car around the corner?
Because if you had all the cars...
Now, you probably were not sold on the idea of mixing, or probably not sold on the idea of having only self-driving cars in the road.
But you realize you could get rid of street lights, right?
Like, all street lights would go away.
Because if you had visibility from above and all the cars were networked, you would have two ways to know if a car is coming from a hidden direction.
All of the cars could actually go through an intersection without stopping.
Some would slow down, some would speed up, but there would always be plenty of room.
The self-driving cars would just regulate traffic.
And you'd never have to stop.
So you could drive, say, 20% slower and get there 50% faster if you had a self-driving car.
Did you do your own research on this?
No. I mean, not just sort of thinking about it and saying obvious things.
That's about it. Apparently Tesla made a billion dollars profit.
Was it this year or this quarter?
Oh, a quarter. Just this quarter.
That's amazing. But a quarter of their profits was from Bitcoin sales.
Is there anything Elon Musk can't do?
He made a quarter of a billion dollars on Bitcoin this quarter.
Come on. That's just showing off.
I mean, it's bad enough he built, you know, the most successful electric car company.
That felt a little like showing off.
But if you add, like, Bitcoin as a sweetener on top of that and you just kill it, that's just showing off.
All right. Bernie Sanders doesn't like our billionaires having a space race by themselves.
Bernie, you are so no longer relevant.
What kind of space race would we have at all if the billionaires weren't doing it?
I think something like nothing, right?
That's what it would look like.
Of course we need them.
All right, here's the fake news of the day.
Fake news. I think this is more of the fog-of-war fake news, which is a little different than regular fake news.
The fog-of-war fake news, people are probably trying to get it right and just getting it wrong.
Whereas when a story is aged a little bit, anything that's wrong is probably intentional, if you know what I mean.
But in the fog of war, it could be just a mistake.
And here are the things we've heard about Rittenhouse jurors.
We've heard that there were two rogue jurors that didn't want to rule because they were afraid.
But I think that's been debunked, has it not?
Now we hear that there might be a 6-6 split.
All of these are unconfirmed, low-reliability reports.
I doubt it.
Do you think it's possible it could be 6-6?
And I hate to say it, but it might have to do with the racial makeup of the jury.
If the racial makeup of the jury is half white and half other, Maybe.
Because I don't think anybody's going to be looking at facts.
As soon as a trial becomes political, I think people just line up on their team.
You hope that doesn't happen in America, but I feel like it could.
However, I'm going to say I doubt very much the 6-6 split hypothesis.
I don't think so. But there apparently is some kind of possibly a foreperson, that's not confirmed, who might be a holdout for guilty and maybe trying to retry the case in the jury room.
But again, we don't know any of this for sure.
So I would say that everything you hear about the jurors and the deliberations Put a really big skeptical pin in any of those stories.
Someday we might know what they did, but we don't know now.
We'd just be guessing. Rasmussen reports.
That the public expects unemployment to worsen in the future.
37% think it'll be worse unemployment.
And 27% say it won't be as bad.
But here's the funny thing.
Exactly 25% think unemployment will be about the same next year.
Here's the only thing I know for sure.
It won't be about the same.
If you want to make a prediction about anything, don't predict it's going to be about the same.
There aren't that many things that stay about the same.
I suppose it would be obvious which ones they are, so that wouldn't be much of a prediction.
But that 25%, if you're new to this livestream, I always make fun of any poll that has 25% or anything near that number.
Because that's exactly the number of people in the United States who get every question wrong.
It doesn't matter what the question is.
25% of the public will reliably just get that wrong.
And it shows up in every poll.
One of the most frequent criticisms that I receive is that I never admit when I'm wrong.
How many of you would buy into that?
In the comments. Tell me if you think that's a reasonable characterization of my, let's say, long-term public persona.
Now, in locals, you're friendlier to me because it's a subscription service.
But almost everybody's agreeing.
Okay. I thought I was going to have to defend myself, but apparently I don't.
However, I do want to talk about something I got wrong.
Now, if you think about people who admit when they got things wrong, who do you think of?
Give me some names besides me.
Give me some names of people that you've seen admit they were wrong.
Besides yourself, okay.
Now, I'm talking about public figures.
Public figures who talk about the news.
Cernovich, Bill Maher, Bongino, Tucker Carlson...
O'Reilly? Well, yeah, maybe.
Jack Posobiec got felled?
Okay. I thought Tucker.
Tucker is the first one that came to mind to me.
Because it always seems strange when somebody says directly I was wrong.
Because usually you get the, well, I was wrong-ish.
You know, CNN is doing the wrong-ish play.
Well, we weren't wrong about the fake Steele dossier.
Because, you know, after all, the Trump campaign did show interest in Russia helping them.
So you usually get that kind of...
Whereas when Tucker gets something wrong, he just says, this was totally wrong.
And then he goes on.
Like, I always respect that.
So I'm going to try to be the good version of admitting you're wrong, where you say it clearly.
But I'm going to add a little bit of ish to it.
It's me. I get to do that.
All right, it goes like this.
Do you remember when Sidney Powell was saying they were going to release the Kraken?
And somebody reminded me today that I was confident that the Kraken was real, that there would actually be a Kraken.
It would be some kind of really big thing.
Now, I was unambiguously totally wrong.
Which has nothing to do with whether or not there was any problem with the election.
I'm saying that Sidney Powell did not produce a Kraken.
And I kind of thought she would.
And here's what I got wrong specifically.
I thought that there's no way a lawyer operating at that level could be so easily bamboozled by bullshit.
But boy, was I wrong.
Now, I can't read her mind, so I'm making an unfair assumption about her thinking, right?
It's always unfair when you try to imagine you know what anybody's thinking.
Hello? Hi, Scott.
As soon as you hear the...
Hi, Scott. Goodbye.
Um... So, yes, I understand that there's still some litigation, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But would you all agree with me that she has not produced a Kraken?
And I thought she would.
So I am unambiguously wrong about that.
Wouldn't you say? Unambiguously.
Now, I do say, and here's my ish part, I do say that any system that can be hacked...
And I think our election system is in the category of things which hypothetically, theoretically could be hacked.
That whenever you have a situation like that and the stakes are high and lots of people are involved, it will be hacked.
We just don't know if it's already happened.
So my take is that a kraken is guaranteed, but no way to know that it happened already or it's in the future.
But it's guaranteed.
Because the situation guarantees it.
It just might take a while.
Don't know. All right.
Biden's getting his health exam today.
I wondered if he's going to get a cognitive test, but then I heard he's going to be under anesthesia and he'll get a colonoscopy.
As Joel Pollack pointed out, in effect, they are looking for his brain.
They're just going about it a different way than I would have.
Maybe they know something we don't.
So they'll be looking for his brain, but they'll be looking for it by checking through his ass, which is, I don't know, maybe that's a good first place to look.
But interestingly, during his anesthesiology, anesthesia, during his anesthesia, a word I hate to spell and I hate to pronounce even more, Kamala Harris will be the official president of the United States.
Now... Remember when I was telling you how I was totally wrong about that Kraken thing?
Oh, and by the way, I was also one of the first public figures to say, the election is done.
You know, we just have to move on.
So I think I was right on that in the long run.
Because even if you find something, it's going to be too late.
So it's not that you're not going to find anything.
It's just too late. The system's moved on.
Anyway, Harris is going to be president for a while...
And this will give us a unique situation.
Number one, I remember in August of 2018, sitting in the Oval Office, and Trump asked me, who do I think will run against him?
And I said, I thought his biggest risk was Kamala Harris.
Today she'll be President of the United States.
Now, keep in mind that I predicted Kamala Harris would be the main competitor when her ratings were like zero for popularity, and I continued saying it after she dropped out of the race.
I predicted that she was still the biggest threat after she dropped out of the race.
And today, she's President of the United States.
Now, I didn't see it happening that way, but I don't know anybody else who was thinking she had a shot at the Oval Office, and there she is.
But what we have is a weird situation.
She's polling at 28% approval.
Can somebody do me a quick fact check on Congress's approval at the moment?
You know, any of the major polls?
Is it around... It's in the teens, right?
Between 10 to...
Yeah, 13%, somebody's saying?
Yeah. So we've got a president at 28% and a Congress at 13%?
I guess it depends what poll.
9%? Somebody says 22%?
Is that Harris' approval? Anyway, we have the lowest rated government in the history of the United States, I think.
I mean, maybe the Civil War was worse.
But in the modern times, isn't this the lowest rating we've ever had for a government?
I think it is. Yeah.
Trump would be roughly double that, right?
Harris has roughly half of the approval of Trump would have if he just walked in and ran for office.
Interestingly, Harris's communications director resigned.
Now, I have some respect for the communications director for the resignation.
Because very clearly the communication director, assuming that that person had some talent, could not have had any influence on her, right?
Because we saw the worst communicating I've ever seen.
I've never seen anybody who was this bad at public speaking.
Anybody ever. Anybody.
At least people in the public domain.
And so our communications director quits.
Now, have you ever tried to read a Harris tweet?
Now, I don't know if the communications director was directly in charge of the tweeting, but I just want to open up any Harris tweet.
I haven't looked at this, but I'm just going on my own memory of things.
Just watch how boring this is.
This is a Kamala Harris tweet from 13 hours ago.
Today I met with President Lopez Obregar of Mexico in my ceremonial office.
Our administration is engaged in ongoing discussions with Mexico.
We discussed the steps we are taking to address the root causes of migration in addition to water sharing and space.
Is that the most generic tweet you've ever heard in your life?
Her tweets are lifeless.
They're absolutely lifeless.
Now I get that she's vice president, right?
It's not like Pence was the tweeting champion of the world or anything.
You know, vice presidents need to be a little bit boring, but you could be a little less boring.
Couldn't you? I mean, this takes boring to a new level.
Let me take some counterexamples.
Take Ted Cruz.
Does Ted Cruz understand Twitter?
Yeah, he does. I'm not sure he always did.
If you looked at the early Ted Cruz tweets, were they all provocative and interesting?
Probably not. But do you think Ted Cruz learned...
What social media is all about and how to move the energy and how to be interesting.
Yeah. Ted Cruz is one of the best tweeters out there.
You can hate him for politics.
That's a different question. But his tweeting and communication are extraordinary.
Really good. So I think you see a lot of tweeters who learn from Trump that at least a little bit of provocation helps your communication.
Harris, not so much.
Well, here's some more probably fake news, I'm going to call it.
You know the story about the Rittenhouse jurors were allegedly followed by somebody allegedly who worked for NBC, and then Rittenhouse judge decided to kick MSNBC out of the courthouse so they can't be there in attendance anymore for the live stuff.
Here's the question.
I don't know if any of this was true, because it's still the fog of war stage, right?
Now, apparently the alleged NBC employee, or I don't know if he was an employer or a contractor or what, but he claims he had no intention of filming them or whatever.
But nobody believes that.
He's freelance. Somebody says he's freelance.
But apparently he might have been on an assignment.
We don't know that. So I would say at the moment you should be skeptical of every part of that story.
MSNBC admits that it happened, but the part they admit is that they sent somebody on an assignment or somebody who was on an assignment for them did it.
I would wait to see what we know about this.
Because it's possible the assignment would tell us, you know, exactly what the assignment was, would tell us what he was up to.
Maybe. I'm going to stay open-minded.
My first reaction to it is the same as yours, which is horror.
Just horror. You know that I've said that our court system, with all of its problems, I mean, nothing is perfect, right?
Our court system has all kinds of flaws.
But it's also the crown jewel of the republic.
And if we lost the court system, everything else falls apart.
Would you agree? If you lose the courts, if they're not credible, everything else falls apart.
And here we have a major news organization who is allegedly associated with our own intelligence agencies.
You know, the people who know more about this than I do claim that NBC is basically just an organ for the CIA. You've heard that, right?
And there's plenty of evidence for it.
I mean, the evidence is overwhelming.
It's just that I don't personally make that claim because, I mean, I don't know.
But smart people say it's true.
And there's plenty of evidence for it.
This would mean that our own country tried to destroy the republic by taking out the most vulnerable part of the most important part of our entire structure.
So the most important part of our republic is the court system.
And what's the most important part of the court system?
Jury of your peers.
That keeps the whole fucking country together.
Let me say it again.
Jury of your peers is where all credibility comes from.
The entire fucking republic depends on that.
You take that one thing away, it all falls apart.
Almost everything else you could paper over and fix.
You see how terrible Congress is, but somehow some bills still get passed.
But if you take out the peer trial by your peers, you take that out, the whole thing falls apart.
And NBC just went after that.
Just went after the most vulnerable part of the republic.
Maybe. I mean, we'll wait to hear what they say.
If they say something that was...
Maybe they were going to add some color to a story, like something about how the jurors live in a generic way.
Maybe the story was going to be that the jurors are in a nondescript hotel and something like that.
I'm willing to listen to their side of it.
But on the surface, it looks like they tried to take out the Republic.
Accidentally? I don't know.
Intentionally? I can't read their minds.
I guess I can't put intention in there, but how the hell would you not know this would destroy the Republic?
How would you not know that?
I don't know. So...
All right, here's some more fake news.
So CNN is still writing that the dossier wasn't totally debunked because we do know that the Trump campaign really did want Russian help.
And they write it with a link to support their assertion that the Trump campaign really did want that Russian help.
Now, if you don't click on the link...
It's a news site, right?
If a news site tells you in a news article, not an opinion article, but a news article, and they tell you that the Trump campaign wanted Russian help, you'd believe it, wouldn't you?
Would you click on the link to see what they meant as their example of that?
Well, I clicked on the link because I wondered if it was bullshit.
Here are the two things that they still say are the Trump campaign asking for Russian help.
It was when Don Jr.
and Jared took a meeting in the Trump building about maybe some Hillary dirt.
Now, keep in mind, it's somebody they knew, and all they had to do was walk downstairs to hear it.
That's it. That was the entire effort.
If you just walk downstairs, we might tell you something important that might come from Russia.
Who doesn't take that meeting?
Seriously. Who doesn't take that meeting?
I would. And I would go further, and I would say, if you didn't take that meeting, you'd be an idiot.
Because what's the worst that could happen?
Nothing, right? Well, I guess it turned into an international thing.
But here's how I would have played it, and I've said this before.
First, you find out what they have to say, and then if you need to bring the FBI in or somebody else, then you do it.
But why would you bring the FBI in before you knew if there was anything there?
Because it's somebody you know, and sure enough, nothing was there.
It was actually a bait and switch, and there wasn't any Hillary dirt at all.
So, if you have any business experience whatsoever, number one, you say to yourself, this is probably not what they say it is.
How often do you go to a meeting and you're surprised?
It's pretty common, right?
So the first thing you would do if you had business savvy is say, I don't even know if they have anything from anybody, but this is a friend of ours and it's just downstairs and it's just 10 minutes because we can leave when we want.
Let's just see what they have to say.
That would be a reasonable business thing to do.
Now, suppose that you got actual dirt and then you knew it came from Russia.
What do you do then? Well, you know the dirt, so now it's useful to you, which is cool.
And then you also do the right thing.
You turn it over to the FBI. You say, hey, we got some stuff, this isn't cool, but I'm glad we know it, because it's true.
You know, you'd probably need another source.
You wouldn't want to trust the Russians.
But if the Russians told you something that you could check out, wouldn't you want to know?
How's that bad? You know, but CNN, just by labeling it the way they do and knowing you won't check the details, they don't know that if you checked it, you would find experienced business people, Jared, And Don Jr., very experienced business people, doing exactly what experienced business people would do in that situation.
They did exactly what I would do.
I'd take the meeting because it was easy.
Maybe it has some payoff.
Maybe it doesn't. Maybe I need to get the FBI involved.
Maybe I don't. But I'd at least find out what's going on before I made any decisions.
All right. And then the other thing was Trump making his joke in public, you know, at some debate.
Russia, if you have those emails.
And CNN's trying to play that off as, oh yeah, he always pretends like it's a joke.
But I thought it was obviously a joke.
Now that doesn't mean he didn't want it.
Why wouldn't you want that?
And what's wrong with that?
What's wrong with wanting some real information?
You know, he didn't ask for bullshit.
What's wrong with finding out stuff, even if you find it out from the wrong source?
Is there something wrong with the information?
Now, obviously, you don't want Russia hacking anybody in the United States, but that part seemed like the joke.
I've told you that the energy, at least in my life, and it feels like the country, It's really wonky right now.
Some of you feel it, right?
There's something about the world that feels like something's getting ready to happen.
I don't know if it's just politics.
I don't think it's a war.
I don't feel that at all.
Does anybody? I don't feel a civil war.
I don't feel a nuclear war.
I don't feel a war at all.
I mean, it might be a low-level conflict somewhere.
But I don't think that's what's happening.
It feels different.
But I tweeted today, and I'm going to go through my tweet, because I think it's worth it, of just what I think might be going on.
And I think it's an awareness shift.
I think the world goes through various levels of awareness shifts as we move from primitive to more civilized, and we learn more.
And let me just run through a few of these things that have changed just in the recent years.
Now, you might disagree with some of them, but hear them in their totality before you disagree with the specifics.
I would say that what's changed recently, just the last few years, is that everyone understands their own news is fake.
You used to think the fake news was only on the other side, right?
Right? Now you know it's on both sides.
You know that you have also been fooled by your own news sources.
Now, in my opinion, the left is a little more accurate on the news.
But there's still plenty of criticism to go around, I would say.
So, you know, if you take the Kraken, the Kraken's a perfect example.
That was fake news on the right.
So I think we now understand that our own news sources can be wrong just as easily as the other teams.
And that's different. How about our awareness about China?
I think Trump did that for us.
By the way, I think Trump is the reason we understand fake news as fake news.
I think he did that, which is what I predicted he would do.
Change how we saw reality.
Our awareness about China has completely changed.
Completely. And China is the biggest thing in the world.
And if your impression of the biggest thing in the world changes, you're going to feel it.
Right? That's a big deal.
Do you remember, it was only a few years ago, nuclear energy was bad, and now it's the green solution that will save the world.
What? That's a big difference.
And each of these have the quality that our awareness is higher.
It's not just our information that's different, it's our awareness.
Of how we've been fooled that's different.
Because the nuclear energy thing was always an awareness problem.
People believed it was worse than it is, and now they've been corrected on that.
So they can understand how they could be so wrong and be wrong for a long time.
How about the fact that the government is probably on the verge of becoming full Republican in a couple of years?
That's something pretty big.
Because it looks like the Democrats are just shitting the bed so badly every day that they couldn't possibly hold Congress.
And I doubt they'll hold the presidency.
So, I mean, I could be wrong about that, and that could change three times before any of these elections.
But at the moment, it feels like that.
That may be part of the energy shift.
I think the country has realized that the whole wokeness and critical race theory things were an overreach.
We feel like we've reached the limit.
That feels different.
Because when you reach the limit, your energy is different.
Because when people are just nudging you a little bit, you're like, alright, I've got better things to do.
Alright, you can have that one.
I'm not going to die on that hill.
I don't like that, but I've got other things to do.
And then you hit the wall.
And I think a lot of people hit the wall.
And then that changes your energy.
Alright, we have now reached the point where I will take this to the end of the Earth.
Before, I was flexible.
But now you've reached my limit.
That's my limit. And now what happens to my energy?
My energy just goes nuclear because you've reached my limit.
Some of that might be happening.
We used to think that official data from the government and from big companies was probably mostly honest and sufficiently accurate, even if it had some problems.
Do you believe that anymore?
I think now we believe that all data is fake.
Because it mostly is.
Now, maybe not intentionally, but there's always some context left out or something.
I think we're now more likely to think that all data is fake as the default assumption, whereas it used to be the opposite.
Just a few years ago.
A few years, well, even one year ago, a lot of people would have said, smart people, would have said that the Second Amendment doesn't protect you from your government because the government has better guns.
Do you believe that now?
Today, does anybody believe that guns are not the only thing keeping us from being Australia?
I think Australia gave you all the learning you needed on that.
Yeah. The lockdown that Australia is experiencing, that can't happen here in America because of the Second Amendment.
I just don't think it can happen here.
All right. How about...
We used to believe that humans make decisions based on facts and reason.
Now, I didn't believe that, but many of you did.
Do you believe it anymore? Now the words cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias are common knowledge.
They were not common knowledge five years ago.
They were things that some nerds like me talked about.
But it is now common knowledge to understand that we don't make decisions based on facts and reason.
We used to think there was an objective reality, but now I think we can see that we're watching our own movies.
Would you agree? We used to think, oh, I'm seeing the Clear movie, and those other people are just being dumb.
But now you realize some of those other people don't have low IQs.
They're just watching a different movie, and you can't tell which one's right.
That's different. That's different.
How about, we used to believe that if you saw it on video, it was true.
Then there was the Fine People hoax, edited video.
Covington Kids hoax, edited video.
Drinking Bleach hoax, edited video.
And now what happens when you see a video?
You automatically believe, or at least the skeptical part of your brain is automatically fired up.
It's like, well, let's see the rest of the video.
Let's see some context.
So we went from video doesn't lie to video lies more than anything.
Am I right? That's just in the last few years.
That we completely shifted on what video is and isn't.
And then of course the Russia collusion hoax taught us that there's no limit to government corruption.
I honestly thought there was a limit.
So here's another case where I'm going to admit I'm wrong.
When the people on the right were first talking about the Russia collusion, which being a Hillary Clinton paid operation with the deep state behind it and the CIA was part of it and all that, do you know what I thought?
I thought, well, there certainly is something sketchy going on here, but it's not that bad.
It's not like a collusion between intel agencies and Democrats.
It's not that.
But it was. It was every bit of that.
The worst thing you could imagine that anybody would do to this country, they were doing it.
It's the worst thing that your government could have done to you.
And they were doing it hard.
So my understanding of how far my government would go to retain power and screw the citizens is way different than it was a few years ago.
Now I know they'll do anything.
I didn't think that before.
And they'll tell any lie because they can get away with it.
I didn't think that. I thought that nobody would lie in public if it was easy to fact check them.
Wrong. Wrong.
You can lie all you want in public.
Because you have your own fact checkers.
The left has theirs, the right has theirs.
So you can lie about anything now.
That's different. It's different in how I understand it.
So here's what I think is happening.
This big energy shift is about people moving to another level of awareness.
I think civilization just got a big promotion.
In terms of our understanding of the reality such that it is.
And also the simulation theory went from crazy people to maybe.
Right? Five years ago, were people serious about the simulation theory?
A few. But now, I meet people every day who buy into the simulation theory as well.
That's where the math suggests things are.
What's this? This got predicted.
Right. He used to think that voting mattered.
Oh, I never thought that. Another topic.
DJ Vlad.
How many of you know DJ? DJ Vlad of VladTV.com.
I'm just wondering if there's a complete lack of knowledge about him on the right.
Some of you?
Okay, you've heard of him?
I only ask because I think his audience is mostly the left, mostly black America.
But he also interviewed me when he was trying to figure out Trump.
So he came to my house and, for the benefit of his audience, interviewed me to explain why anybody would want to vote for Trump.
So I have great respect for T.J. Vlad.
You should follow him, by the way.
Great content. Anyway, he tweeted this.
He said, which Marvel movie had the best script?
Not the best special effects, but the best script.
And I tweeted back, they have different stories?
I thought all the Marvel movies were the same story.
Am I wrong? There's something bad happened to the world, and maybe somebody's personal life was at risk.
And there was a very powerful villain, and they had to fight that villain.
And toward the end of the movie, it would look like they weren't going to win, but then they do, in the end.
Are you telling me that the Marvel movies have different scripts?
No. It's the same script.
And beyond that, as I've taught you, I think, in script writing terms, all scripts that become blockbusters are the same pattern.
They have to be. For whatever reason, people don't buy any other pattern.
And this is the script pattern that Marvel uses, is the classic one.
You know, the flawed hero overcomes their personal problems to save the world, blah, blah, blah.
Anyway. David Brooks is getting some attention for attending the National Conservatism Conference, and he was appalled by some things he saw and people reacting to it.
But here's the thing that caught my eye.
He talked about how crazy all the conservatives were and blah, blah, blah, blah, and how some of them were giving him a hard time when he was there if they recognized him.
But when he went to just socialize, And have some drinks with him.
He just had a great time.
Because it turns out that when the conservatives were off-duty, as you will, they're just great people, fun to hang out with.
And he wrote it like it was maybe a surprise or something.
But it's not a surprise to me, is it?
I mean, the reason that my audience doesn't have exactly the same political opinions as I do is that I just prefer you.
Some of my opinions are closer to the left.
But I have to admit, I don't like spending time with them.
They're largely unpleasant people.
I know that's a gross generalization.
But the left, they have sort of a personality disorder that I think is socially instilled.
Whereas the right does not.
The right is pretty much how they always were, I think.
If you like the Constitution and you have a job, you're good.
Right? I mean, the right is very easy to please.
There's nothing easier than pleasing the right.
I like the Constitution.
Do you like the Constitution? We're good.
Do you work? Doesn't matter where.
Do you work?
If you work, you're cool.
Did you break any laws?
Any ones I care about?
No? You're cool.
Want to go to church with me?
I mean, it's so easy to make a conservative happy.
They have very clear standards, and they're very easy to satisfy.
All right, easiest thing in the world.
It would be harder to not make them happy.
You'd have to work at it, but the left kind of does.
All right, so can you imagine being a different topic?
Imagine training all your life to be in the Olympics, which, by the way, I think is stupid.
From a risk-reward perspective, spending your life training for the Olympics, I think, is just stupid as a life strategy.
Now, if you happen to be one of the few people who make it and you get Olympic medals, it might open up some doors.
And those people certainly made the right choice.
But everybody else?
If you don't medal, or even if you medal third place, you wasted most of your life for a copper medal.
Now imagine that you did all of that work, and you find out that when your turn comes, you're the right age, and you're finally qualified for the Olympics.
It's in China. So you have to go represent your country in China.
Literally the country that just disappeared their top tennis star because she complained that the government raped her.
Now, I don't mean with taxes.
I mean a member of the Communist Party literally physically raped her, and when she talked about it, the government disappeared her.
And you're an Olympic athlete, you've trained all your life, and you're going to go over and support that system.
How do the female...
How do the American gymnastic female team, how do they feel about that?
Seriously. How in fuck does the American gymnastics women's team, who have been savaged with sexual abuse, apparently, how do they go to China after this happened?
After China raped somebody in public.
I mean, the story's public, not the rape.
But basically, they're basically getting away with it in public.
Would you go? Well, you study, you practice all your life, you kind of have to.
So I'm not surprised that our athletes would go to China, but I don't respect them for it.
Is that fair? Because I'm not required to respect anybody just because they worked hard.
I do like hard workers.
But if you worked hard and then you decided to go support a rapist regime, I don't respect you at all.
At least that decision I don't respect.
I might respect you as a human, but not for that decision.
All right. I feel as though...
Oh, here's an interesting story.
Put on your skeptical hat when I give you this one.
Apparently, there's a huge uptick in Google searches for the phrase, suddenly died.
And a lot of anecdotal reporting of people who suddenly died in the headlines.
You know, somebody, 47, suddenly died, suddenly died, suddenly died.
Now, the question is asked is, is that a coincidence?
Is that a coincidence? Or is it vaccinations?
What do you think? Put on your skeptical hat.
Come on. I've trained you better than this.
What do you think? Well, what would make Google searches go up for suddenly died?
People are interested in the topic.
Because the rumor is that people are dropping dead from vaccinations, which I don't have evidence of that.
So, yeah, let me be clear.
I don't have any evidence that people are dying from the vaccination.
I also don't have any evidence that they're not.
Would you agree with that statement?
You and I don't have evidence that people are dropping dead from the vaccinations more than normal, because we know every kind of drug kills somebody.
But we also don't know it's not happening.
Is that a fair statement?
We don't know it's happening, but we also don't know it's not happening.
Because it's opaque to us.
And then apparently Pfizer's data, they're going to wait 50 years to give it to you.
So that should put a red flag on there.
Well, here's what I think. I think that you should expect there would be an uptick in searching for suddenly died and an uptick in stories whether vaccines had anything to do with it or not.
Does everybody get that?
You should see, this is very predictable, you should see exactly this effect, the uptick of people being interested in those stories and searching for it, whether there's anything to it or not.
It would look exactly like this.
So, I'm not saying that it doesn't mean vaccines are doing it.
I'm just saying you can't tell by this.
This is as close to no information whatsoever as anything could possibly be.
But, could be.
Could be vaccines.
Unless you know people to which it happened, no.
Nope, that doesn't change it.
Because it is guaranteed that no matter what the vaccine was, because all vaccinations kill somebody, it was guaranteed that somebody would know them, and we'd hear about it.
So there's no way that somebody doesn't know somebody who died suddenly after a vaccination, and we don't know if they died suddenly because of the vaccination, which is the second part of it, right?
Lots of people die after everything.
People die after eating a slice of bread.
And they die suddenly.
But it's not because they had a slice of bread.
Right? So, just put the maximum skepticism on this suddenly died thing.
But don't rule out the possibility that the vaccinations are more dangerous than you think.
You can't rule that out. Based on anything we've heard.
Um... Alright, that.
I see Juan is saying that a Florida lawsuit could finally unmask Satoshi Nakamoto, the founder of Bitcoin.
I'm going to say no.
I'm going to say that that can't be true.
What do you think? Do you think that there's any lawsuit that could find the founder of Bitcoin, no matter what question they asked, or who they're talking to?
I don't think so.
So I think that's fake news.
I'd like to be surprised.
It'd be interesting. No, actually, I don't.
Somebody says it's John McAfee.
No, John McAfee would be a lot richer if that were him.
A verdict today?
I don't know. I don't think there will be a verdict unless it's a hung jury.
What do you think? I think you're going to get a hung jury.
Oh, here's some anecdotal evidence for you.
Do you want some anecdotal evidence that doesn't agree with you?
All right, here it comes.
I live in highly vaccinated Northern California and highly vaccinated East Bay of Northern California.
Probably, and I'm just guessing...
Just because of the nature of the people who live here and the demographics and the income and everything.
I don't know anybody who's not vaccinated with one exception.
Can anybody else say that?
I don't know another person, adult or child, actually.
I don't know anybody who's unvaccinated with one exception.
Now, I also don't ask unless I have a direct reason to, right?
So... I sometimes ask because I'm concerned about their risk, not my own.
But, alright, here's my anecdote.
In my entire social and family circle, I only know one person who's unvaccinated, and that's the only person who got COVID that I know personally.
Now, when I say personally, I mean locally personally, not people I know from Twitter or people I met once, that sort of thing.
Does that mean anything? That the only person I know personally, meaning locally and personally, who is unvaccinated is the only person who got COVID. Now, I also know people who spend time with that person and didn't get any COVID. Did they die?
No, mild symptoms.
Mild symptoms. Mild symptoms because the person is not old enough...
I don't think it has any comorbidities that I'm aware of.
Alright, so what should you take from that anecdote?
Absolutely nothing. So if you thought I was telling you that story because it meant something, you shouldn't.
It doesn't matter who says it.
It's an anecdotal report.
It has no statistical meaning whatsoever.
And the moment you imagine it does, well, then you're misled.
I tell you this story because it's sort of counter to what maybe some of you have heard anecdotally.
It doesn't mean anything.
It's just my story.
There's no credibility that should be assigned to it other than the event happened, but it doesn't mean anything for the society.
But neither does anything they're telling us that is correct.
My mom got a booster and died from septic shock.
Is that a coincidence? No.
I don't know. I would tell you that, given that almost, what, 75% of adults, or what's the number now, 70%, have been vaccinated, and most of it's this year, almost everybody who dies this year will die relatively close to when they got vaccinated.
You get that, right?
That almost everybody who dies from any cause Will have recently been vaccinated, especially when you have two shots plus a booster.
Now, most people will have been maybe vaccinated a month ago.
But there's a lot of people.
A lot of people die every year.
Many of them are going to be within, you know, days of getting the vaccination.
So what does it mean that you know somebody who had that exact situation?
Nothing. Nothing at all.
But does it mean that it's enough of a warning that you should look into it?
Yes. Yes.
You should definitely be skeptical of any official data on this because of the anecdotes.
They're enough to make you skeptical.
They're not enough to tell you anything for sure.
All right. That's all for today. I'll talk to you on YouTube.
▲
Export Selection