Episode 1734 Scott Adams: The Universe Is Becoming Conscious, More Amber Turd, Supreme Court, More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
61% believe Biden shouldn't run for reelection
Adam Schiff and Amber Turd
Dave The Engineer blowback update
Supreme Court leak diversion
Biden's insult to conservatives
Movement to stop Twitter advertisers
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Highlight of civilization? It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
And if you didn't think that was enough, and it really is enough, let's take it to another level, because we can.
All you need is a copper mug or a glass, a tanker, chelser, stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine today, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
It's going to happen now, and watch what happens to your dopamine level.
Whoa. It's going to start surging in a moment.
You ready for this? Dopamine, get ready.
Systems go! Ah.
Delightful. All right, here's a question for you.
Do you believe, yes or no, that hypnosis could raise your dopamine level?
Go. Now, we'd be talking temporarily, you know, during the time of the suggestions.
What do you say? Almost all of you seem to be saying yes.
A few knows. Yes, of course.
Have I ever done it?
Have I ever intentionally raised somebody's dopamine with hypnosis?
Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.
Under the right conditions, you can send it through the roof.
But can everybody do that?
I don't know. I mean, I've never even talked about it with another hypnotist, so I don't know.
I can't teach you how, sadly.
I wish I could, but I can't.
First of all, it would take you years of practice.
And because of the nature of it, I can't tell you what it is.
Just trust me, it's a thing.
So it makes me wonder why there's not more attention to this.
One of the things we know is that if you can take time away from your screens and your social media, if you just take some time off, that does seem to make you healthier and happier and probably boost your dopamine too.
So we do have tools for directly boosting our moods without drugs.
Why is there more of it?
Isn't that weird? I actually Googled to see if there are any studies on hypnosis and dopamine, and there's some indirect references and stuff.
But it doesn't look like anybody tested it directly, which would be not too hard, would it?
I don't think it would be that hard.
So I'm pretty sure you can hypnotize people into higher dopamine, and therefore higher happiness and satisfaction and everything else.
Japan announced that it's going to be using nuclear reactors to reduce dependence on Russian energy.
Everything is going in the same direction with nuclear.
It's really amazing.
It's probably one of the greatest persuasion success stories of all time, literally saving the world, maybe, depending on your point of view about the danger of climate change.
It's just, I can't get over how insanely effective this was, that people like Michael Schellenberger and Mark Schneider and a number of other people actually just turned this battleship around, I think.
So, that's just the best news in the whole universe right now.
Here was a small part of the story that I think I missed until I saw a video of it.
So you all know about Dave Chappelle was giving his comedy presentation on stage, doing some stand-up, and some crazy person in the audience ran up and tackled him.
And apparently this guy was caught and injured in the catching.
What I didn't realize is that Chris Rock, who was in the audience, coincidentally, came up on stage and grabbed the microphone from Chappelle and asked, was that Will Smith?
Now, that's one of the best natural jokes you'll ever hear.
Like, because the situation created something that could not have been more perfect.
It had to be Chappelle getting attacked, Chris Rock being in the audience, Will Smith still being in our minds.
I mean...
That's why Chris Rock is Chris Rock and you and I are not Chris Rock.
Talk about seeing an opportunity and grabbing it.
That was pretty awesome.
So isn't it interesting that every day that goes by, Chris Rock looks better and Will Smith looks worse.
Am I wrong? I think Chris Rock came out of this looking better than he's ever looked.
Probably. All right, Rasmussen has a poll.
It says, the majority of voters think Joe Biden shouldn't seek re-election in 2024.
What is that majority?
And he would lose a rematch with Trump, a hypothetical rematch by double digits margins.
So 61% of likely U.S. voters, this is, again, per Rasmussen, Believe Biden should not run for a second term.
61%. And only 28% think he should seek re-election.
The question was also asked if Biden were running against Trump, 50% would vote for Trump while only 36% would vote for Biden.
I mean, that would just be a total blowout.
But... The hypothetical matchup between Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Biden would still show DeSantis winning cleanly, but not by as much.
He would be 46% to 35%.
But you have to assume that if DeSantis actually ran, you know, got past the primary, his name recognition would then become somewhat similar to Trump's.
Probably the margins would be similar, I would think.
But DeSantis has much less name recognition outside of the political followers such as you and such as me.
So what do you think?
Do you believe that? Does that poll sound about what you thought?
I definitely can see that there would be a number of Democrats who don't think Biden should run again.
And then if you add every single Republican who thinks that, yeah, that sounds about right.
61% don't think he should run again.
But the numbers that I think are the least believable are anything about a rematch.
Because that's sort of a steady state prediction.
A steady state means that none of the variables change.
Everything you know today stays roughly the same.
But that never happens.
There's zero chance of that.
So anything that says, you know, what a matchup would look like cannot account for all the surprises.
And those would be probably decisive.
Like Hunter Biden's laptop, for example.
All right. Adam Schiff.
He tweeted this about the Supreme Court leak on Roe v.
Wade. He said, I don't care how the draft leaked.
That's a sideshow.
What I care about is that a small number of conservative justices who lied about their plans to the Senate intend to deprive millions of women of reproductive care.
Codifying Roe isn't enough, he says.
We must expand the court.
Now, even Joe Biden is not in favor of expanding the court.
And the reason is it would destroy the entire system.
If everybody who came in could just add to the court and then have a court that would do whatever they wanted, you've ruined your entire balance of power.
Everything that makes the system work would be gone.
It would be the most fundamental part of the system.
It would just be gone.
The competitive nature of the different branches.
So Adam Schiff is in favor of the thing that would literally destroy the republic.
And he's still got a job.
He was the one who pushed the Russia collusion that almost destroyed the country.
And he didn't get penalized for that.
So here's the question that I ask, and I ask this in all seriousness.
How many ways can one person try to injure the republic before you have to ask who's paying him?
Am I right?
He doesn't look like he's working for the United States.
He doesn't even look like he's working for Democrats.
Joe Biden looks like he's working for Democrats.
If I can say that, you know, unpopular opinion.
Joe Biden looks like he's trying to make the world a better place and he has a Democrat worldview about it.
But Adam Schiff doesn't look like that.
Adam Schiff just looks like he's trying to destroy the Republic.
How many times does he have to do something that doesn't look productive, like it looks like it's designed to make things worse, before you have to ask who the fuck is paying him?
That's a fair question.
Because if somebody continually acts just like a Democrat, I don't have any question about that.
Hey, he's acting like a Democrat, and the Republicans are acting like Republicans.
Okay. And maybe even some of them are more extreme than others.
Okay. None of that looks like any kind of foreign interference.
But as soon as you throw in the stuff that Schiff does, like Russia collusion and expanding the court, these are literally system-destroying concepts that he's a primary voice behind.
I don't see him as like other Democrats.
He looks like he's working for another country.
Now, that's not an accusation, because I don't have any data to support that.
But if somebody continually acts in a fashion that doesn't look even political, it doesn't look like it's good for the country, it doesn't even look political.
It looks literally like he's working for Russia.
I'm not saying he is.
He just acts exactly like it.
Or China, I suppose.
Well, my series about Dave, the new engineer, who, if you're watching a color version of the strip, which doesn't run in every paper, You can see that he's colorized in a way that would make him look like he is black, but he was hired to help the diversity quota within the Dilbert universe.
But Dave does not play along.
We learn he's a prankster, and he refuses to identify as black, even though he was hired for that purpose.
Now, he's qualified.
We're not suggesting he's not a qualified engineer.
But the pointy-air boss says he was trying to improve his diversity.
So, so far, here's the blowback from Dave, the engineer, who is black and identifies as white.
I have received, in total...
Now, this is just the ones I know about...
So a lot of people complain to me in a lot of different ways.
I don't see all the complaints, of course.
But as far as I know, out of...
Can somebody do the math for me?
13% of 370 million citizens in this country are black and American.
Out of all the black Americans in the entire country...
Now, of course, they're not all reading Dilbert, of course.
But I don't think I receive one complaint...
That I'm aware of. Nobody that I know is black, and you can't know for sure, but if you're looking at the profiles and what people tell you, nobody.
So the first thing I did was confirm a suspicion that I've had for a long time.
It's very racist, but I'm going to say it in public anyway.
It's super racist.
It's, like, really racist.
Are you ready for this?
I've always suspected that black people have a good sense of humor.
Because it seems that way.
Whenever I meet somebody who's black, I'm always laughing.
Now, of course, that's just a bigoted, anecdotal, biased, not based on any data.
But it sure feels like it, right?
You meet a white guy, sometimes they have a good sense of humor, sometimes they don't.
But it's pretty rare, in my own experience, to meet anybody black who doesn't have a good sense of humor.
It's just rare. So here I did a comic which literally had nothing but respect for the black character.
Nothing but respect.
Because he's treated as a high-functioning engineer, because he got the job.
He is one of the crowd, and he's got a good sense of humor, and he's mocking the boss like the other characters do.
So it's nothing but positive.
And so when black people looked at it said, oh, added a black character?
We like that? Maybe. I don't know.
Who knows what anybody's thinking.
And no problem here.
But the trans community is up in arms.
The comic has nothing to do with trans anything.
It's not directly or indirectly talking about them.
It really is just about how the employees in the office deal with this awkward situation, basically.
So, you cannot make everybody happy, if you wondered.
Can you make everybody happy? Nope.
Nope, you can't. Oh, don't tempt me.
Damn it. I've just been challenged.
Not in direct words, but somebody said I should make Dave, the black character, also trans.
Oh, how I hate you.
I hate your freaking guts right now.
Because you know how much I want to do that.
I want to do that. Oh, I want to do that.
Damn it! Damn it!
Now, I probably won't, because it just complicates things, but I hate to be challenged that way, because it's just too tempting to do it.
All right, I'm weak.
Are you watching the Amber Turd trial?
She got to testify.
It is really fascinating.
She does the cry face without tears, like she's the worst actress in the world, the only professional actress who can't cry on command.
And she doesn't even look like a good liar.
It is so...
Well, you know, I can't read her mind, so I'll be humble about what I can really know about her private thoughts.
But the way it comes across is so disingenuous.
Whereas Johnny Depp's story came across as quite believable.
Now, here's the interesting thing.
We've had expert testimony.
The Amber Heard seems to have some borderline personality...
Or some hysterical thing, or maybe she's a vulnerable narcissist.
Anyway, she's in that class B group of personality disorders, according to an expert.
Now, if you're on the trial, and you hear an expert say, yes, we've diagnosed this person as a person with these personality traits, there's something missing in the diagnosis.
What would have been really useful, and perhaps Johnny Depp's attorney will get to this, is that if you're in that class of class B people, you don't tell the truth.
That's a defining characteristic.
Now, I got some pushback when I called that lying.
I called it lying, and a medical doctor pushed back and said, well, maybe it's not lying in the sense that they know they're doing it.
Because they might talk themselves into an alternative truth and act as if it's true.
I don't believe that.
I don't believe that.
I believe that they're just lying.
I believe that they inhabit the character really, really well, to the point where even a professional would say, I think you actually believe this.
In my personal experience, it's just lying.
They don't believe it. But that's just subjective.
So keep in mind that the experts, and I think this is true, that the experts are more likely to believe that they've come to believe their own lies.
It's just, personally, I'm not convinced.
That's all. So, how do you have a trial continue after the expert has said that the one person whose testimony will be key to all of this is a known medically, medically, They're liars. Medically.
From a mental health perspective, one of the two people whose claims are really the central part of the case, because it's a lot about their testimony, right?
It's not just the audio recordings and things like that.
You've got to hear what they say about it.
And what one person is saying about it is coming from somebody who an expert has labeled as a professional liar, basically.
Not professional, but somebody who would be a continuous, expected to be lying about everything.
Now, I suppose in a trial, everybody who's guilty is lying all the time.
But this is really a different level.
This is somebody you can guarantee will lie about everything all the time.
Everything all the time.
Everything important. Sometimes unimportant things.
Yeah, because this is the kind of lying that isn't even related to a benefit.
It's just lying to lie.
It's just lying all the time for anything.
So how do you even have a trial?
Because there's no expert who has said Johnny Depp is a liar by medical necessity, right?
Keep in mind that if the expert is right, Amber Heard can't tell the truth.
It's just not even an option.
Do you understand that?
Do you understand that if the expert is right about Amber Heard, she can't tell the truth?
And it's not a possibility.
She doesn't have that feature.
It's just a bug.
There's no feature there. And I don't think that that point has come across to the jury yet.
Do you? I don't think the jury has heard, you know, this is a person who can't tell the truth.
That's not even an option.
That's the way it should be described, as someone who doesn't have the option of telling the truth.
All right. So, here's more foreshadowing.
I told you a while ago that it seemed to me that the Biden administration had shifted from trying to, you know, minimize the damage in Ukraine or something like that to outright winning.
We're just outright winning. Here's more foreshadowing on that.
So CNN has a report that the former commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command in Europe, and he's retired U.S. Army Major General Mike Ripas, so he's been advising Ukraine for the last six years.
And who better, right?
The head of U.S. Special Operations Command in Europe advising Ukraine on how to defend themselves.
I guess that's the person you'd want to do it, right?
So he says Ukraine is in trouble because their supply chain is inefficient.
No surprise. But he says to win the war, we'd have to put a lot more effort into it, and we'd need to stand up five brigades of 40,000 Ukrainian soldiers each.
To push Russia out.
So 200,000 Ukrainian soldiers to push Russia out.
Which would be double what they have now.
I'm not sure what the numbers are.
But that's a lot of people.
Especially in the context of an ongoing war.
I don't know how you get 200,000 extra people quickly.
But that's a very specific prediction, isn't it?
That's pretty specific. Because here's what I see in this.
If it's true, and I would, at this point, I don't see any reason to doubt the opinion of General Ripas.
I mean, like I said, he's exactly the right person to be talking about this topic.
If he says 200,000 people would push Russia out, 200,000 soldiers obviously would have to be equipped and resupplied.
But doesn't that sound like something that could be done?
Am I right? It sounds really hard, like really hard, but I think it's within the realm of doable, isn't it?
You don't think you...
Well, I'm seeing some no's on the locals' platform.
Do you think that they just wouldn't have the manpower or wouldn't have the time or wouldn't be able to supply them or all of the above?
It's possible it's undoable.
I'll give you that.
But it feels so specific...
that is now putting it in the range of something that we could actually do.
Right?
So has anybody ever given us a specific invoice for winning the war?
This is the first time I've seen it.
So, and it's not that specific.
But it's like somebody who actually knew what they're talking about and said, all right, if you want to win the war, here's the invoice.
It's whatever it costs for, you know, these five brigades of $40,000 each, plus the resupply, plus the weapons, it's probably, I don't know, another $50 billion or something.
If you had to guess, $50 billion, maybe, I don't know, something like that.
So now there's a price tag on it.
What do you think? Now, of course, there are too many wild cars.
Putin could go tactical, nuclear, anything could happen.
But this is a big change, isn't it?
When you go from, hey, it looks like Ukraine is doing better than we thought.
Oh, wow, they've lasted a week.
Well, Russia's definitely going to win, but they're sure getting a bloody nose in the process.
Now it's all the way to Ukraine could win, and here's the invoice.
If you want to do it, here's the price.
I don't know. That seems like a gigantic change to me.
And it also suggests that the Biden administration is thinking in these terms of actually winning, which is what I told you I was starting to see.
By the way, has anybody else talked about this?
Scott, the neocon.
For whoever's calling me a neocon, I'm not exactly in favor of war.
That's certainly not with Russia.
Yeah, the question of whether we need to stay out of it is a good one and separate.
But I think I was the only one who was saying, based on the language, and by the way, this is what hypnotists learn.
Hypnotists learn to look at the language, not just what it's saying.
The choice of words.
Because that gives you a little foreshadowing sometimes of what's to come.
So anyway, to me it looked like we've changed from holding them off to winning outright.
Let's talk about the Supreme Court leak.
You know, the weird thing about this story is that people did such a good job, people meaning the pundits, of considering all the angles on this, there's not much left.
People did a good job on this.
I would say the bottom line is it's clearly politically motivated, the timing is probably not a coincidence, and that it's perfectly timed to reboot and reset the Democrat messaging, which they're doing.
So they're going to take it to...
Republicans are evil and they're bad people, and they're going to take away your rights.
So that will be the new technique.
Will it work? Probably.
Yeah, it probably will work.
Because this distraction is a good one.
It's life and death.
It's an emotional thing. It's babies.
It's everything you'd want in a diversion.
So, it does look like it's probably a left-leaning person who had a political motive, but also, and I'm going to be generous here, also, I strongly suspect that whoever leaked this thought they were making the world better.
I don't believe it was leaked.
Somebody's saying that I've changed since he took over Twitter.
You're wrong. You're just wrong.
All right, but everybody sees what they want to see.
All right, so there's not much more to say about the Supreme Court leak.
Joy Behar has called for a sex strike if abortion becomes...
if Roe v. Wade gets overturned, I guess.
She's called for a sex strike.
Now, a lot of people commented wittily that she probably could stage a sex strike and it wouldn't hurt really anybody.
But... Here's the, is it ironic?
You tell me. Is this the correct use of the word irony?
That if Democrat women decided not to have sex, there wouldn't be any abortions anyway.
Am I wrong? So, finally, Joy Behar has brought the world together unexpectedly.
You wouldn't see her as the great unifier, but she did.
Because if there's one thing that Democrats and Republicans can completely agree on, it's that Democrats shouldn't have sex.
Am I right? I feel like we found the middle ground.
Now, Democrats are doing it for their own reasons, you know, to boycott or maybe not to...
I mean, they don't want to serve the patriarchy, don't want to be a slave to the patriarchy.
So Democrats have lots of good reasons for going on a sex strike.
And I think Republicans could get behind that.
It would end, you know, abortions as a problem.
Could end a lot of problems, really, if you think about it.
If you play the long game, it could solve a lot of problems.
All right, it turns out that Elon Musk will not own Twitter by himself.
So there are a number of moneyed people like Larry Ellison and Cutter's Sovereign Wealth Fund and several others that add up to about $7 billion, I guess.
So Musk would own the rest, but there would be minority ownership.
Do you know what that tells me?
Here's what that tells me.
That there are a lot of really smart investors who think that Elon Musk got a good deal.
That's why they're staying in.
Because otherwise they could just, you know, if they already own shares, they could just take their money and leave.
But apparently people think that Twitter's a good investment.
With Elon at the Musk.
I'm sorry, at the helm.
So, I think so too.
I think Musk will add enough to the product that it should do fine.
I wouldn't be surprised if it doubles in a year or two.
Now, I should tell you I do own Twitter stock, but I think it's irrelevant because if the deal goes through, I just get what I get.
So, an interview with Grimes, Elon Musk's ex-girlfriend.
And she was...
She was saying that she thinks the universe is waking up and becoming conscious.
And that we're experiencing, we're alive during the most amazing part of evolution.
Grimes is an ex-wife or ex-girlfriend?
Or is she an ex or still a girlfriend?
Oh, I don't know. So I don't know what her current situation is with Elon Musk, but that's less important than the question of thinking the universe is waking up.
Because remember, Elon Musk tweeted that, and I wrote a book about it called God's Debris.
And... Are there any coincidences in the world?
What are the odds that Grimes and Musk...
Are both talking in terms of the universe becoming aware.
At the same time that Musk is buying Twitter, which many people, including myself, believe is God's mind.
And that God is actually recombining.
As he or she always does.
Because time is circular.
That's what I think. But it's interesting to see people having the same view.
I wonder if this will catch on.
Here's a weird coincidence that tells you you might be living in a simulation.
People on the political right are anti-mask.
Generally speaking. People on the right are anti-mask.
And people on the left are anti-musk.
Is that weird? We went from anti-mask to anti-musk.
Seriously. What are the odds of that?
And here's what it feels like.
It feels as though...
The simulation is winking at us and hinting, you know you're waking up.
You know you're going to realize your actual nature in a minute.
Hey, psst, psst.
Watch this. Anti-musk, anti-mask.
Do you see it? I'll just give you a little coincidence, little hints that what you see is not natural.
That the coincidences maybe are more meaningful.
Maybe it's a hint. Maybe it's code reuse.
Yes, the universe is waking and some of us are baking.
All right. Well, anyway, simulation is waking up.
Biden has decided to be totally divisive.
He had his deplorables moment, finally.
You know, Hillary Clinton called much of the MAGA movement deplorables.
And now Joe Biden, because he's a brain-dead idiot, has decided to sow more division.
And he said, the MAGA crowd is the most extreme political organization that's existed in American history.
Really? Really?
Because I'll bet there have been more extreme ones than that.
I'll betcha. I'll betcha there have been.
Now that you know that Hillary Clinton identified a big part of the country as deplorables, and that Biden is now deriding a big part of the country, does it make you like Trump more?
Because as provocative as Trump was, he never targeted Americans, not as a group.
He targeted individuals, of course.
But This is really remarkable that we could have two of the biggest leaders on the left literally say bad things about a big portion of the country, like just citizens.
Citizens who just have legitimate opinions.
You don't have to agree with them, but they're pretty legitimate as opinions.
So, once again, Trump is looking better the longer he's out of office.
Robbie Starbuck had a tweet...
That I thought captured things well.
And this is where I would say, is this a mea culpa?
No. What is it when you revise your opinion?
That's what's going to happen with me right here in a moment.
Let me read Robbie Starbuck's tweet.
He said, what DeSantis did to Disney just became a thousand times more important than many realized at the time.
And that would be me.
I would be one who didn't realize it at the time.
He said, here's why. If Roe is in fact overturned, the left is going to push corporations to threaten red states over new laws ending abortion.
What DeSantis did will make companies think twice.
To which I say, yeah, I agree with that.
I agree with that. And when it was happening, I thought it was a smaller deal than it has turned out to be.
Because we're not really seeing corporations weigh in yet, are we?
A few, maybe? But I do think this was a warning shot across the bow of corporations to stay out of the political arena, which I think is good, and it looks like it worked.
It's another win for DeSantis.
I mean, he's racking him up like it's just crazy at this point.
I actually want to find something to criticize him for, but he's not making it easy.
He's really not making it easy to criticize him.
He's about the tightest politician I've seen in a long time.
And by tight, I mean he just doesn't say things that are gaffes.
He doesn't say the thing that puts him at risk just to get attention, right?
He just does good, practical things that his base likes, and he just sets them up and knocks them over, one after another.
It's really impressive, I have to say.
There are very few politicians who have impressed me with just skill.
You know, I've talked about Trump and AOC, and I've talked about other people, but DeSantis really does have the whole package.
There's a big story today.
How many of you heard about the big Pfizer document dump?
A gazillion pages of stuff.
And there's hashtags trending and people say that the...
I'm not saying this, but people say, other people who are not me, say that the Pfizer documents prove that they knew that there were all kinds of problems with the drug.
But people have different ideas of what it's showing.
Now, why is it not a major story if that's true?
It's not on Fox News.
It's not on CNN. It's not anywhere, as far as I know.
It's not on the left or the right.
So what do you think is causing that?
Do you think it's because the documents show that there's something horrible happening here, and ordinary people who have read it, and those ordinary people have correctly interpreted the data in its full context, and it's a smoking gun?
Is that what's happening?
And then all of the major networks, even Fox News, is deciding it's not a story.
For what? Because they're all bought off by Big Pharma?
Is that why? It's possible.
Yes. You know, it's funny, I say it like it's a ridiculous idea, which I do intentionally.
It's like, really? You think that both the left and the right were bought off by Big Pharma?
To which I say, oh yeah, that's totally possible.
Because they are the biggest advertisers for the left and the right.
We know that. We don't have to research it.
You just turn it on. There's the commercial.
They're the biggest advertisers.
So no, you can't trust the major media entities at all.
But I haven't seen any entity dig into it and make the case that the data is showing us there's harm.
I haven't seen anybody even try that yet.
I've only seen individuals who said they looked at it and clearly didn't understand it.
And they're pretty sure that they have an opinion.
Dr. Peter McCullough, please, look what he said about it.
Well, you're going to have to give me another source.
I hear what you're saying.
I hear what you're saying.
But it's going to have to be a source that's not one of the rogue doctors.
Here's what I want. I want a doctor who is not one of the rogue doctors.
To look at it and say, holy cow, there's a problem here that I was not expecting.
What I don't want is the people who predicted it all along to tell you that it's there.
If you're believing the people who predicted it all along, that is unwise.
That is unwise. Because those people don't have the ability to see it differently.
It's a Rorschach. It's like a Rorschach test.
So the ones who need it to be the way they want it are going to see it that way.
Dr. McCullough needs it to say there's something wrong.
He will see that.
Dr. Malone probably needs it to say there's great harm from the vaccine.
He will see that, because he needs it.
If you don't need it, you might not see it.
And in fact, I've seen some pushback.
It doesn't seem that the data has anything scary in it that an expert would agree with.
But if those experts happen to be one of the rogue doctors who have spoken out about it, they're the only ones you should not look to.
Do you understand that?
That in this particular case, if you're trying to see if the Pfizer documents are telling you something scary, the least credible people, even if they're right, even if they're right, so this has nothing to do with who's right or who's wrong, the least credible people would be Dr.
McCullough, Dr. Malone, Anybody who was predicting it, they're the least credible.
Because with all those documents, you can see anything you want.
You need somebody like a Joe Rogan and Elon Musk, somebody who you know can see both sides if they need to.
Right? Yeah, so I wouldn't believe any of the famous doctors.
I would look to people whose names have not been famous for having an opinion on it already.
Yeah, I think Will Buchen's going to have a problem coming up, too, as you say in the comments.
All right, so I don't know what to think of the Pfizer document.
There's nobody talking about it that I find credible.
If I ever see anybody credible talking about those documents, I will let you know.
Apparently there's a...
A movement to get major corporations to not advertise on Twitter.
And now we know who is behind it.
So there's George Soros, Clinton, and Obama staffers, and European governments are behind it.
So there are 26 activist organizations and NGOs that have all signed some letter trying to discourage companies from advertising on Twitter.
If Elon Musk ends up owning it.
And Elon Musk says, interesting, he tweeted this, interesting, I wonder if those funding these organizations are fully aware of what the organizations are doing.
Does that sound like a familiar question?
Wondering if George Soros, for example, is aware of what he's funding?
That's what I've been asking for years.
I would say, do you think he knows?
No, because I think he doesn't.
I think he funds organizations that generally sound positive, in his worldview, and that they do more things than he's aware of.
So I feel like his money is being misused.
But I don't know. That's just a speculation.
So Musk is asking the same question.
He wonders if the people funding him actually know how the organizations are using their money.
It's a very good question.
And are you alarmed that there would be some Democrat-led operation to kill Twitter now that Twitter is trying to become a free speech platform in a way that it had not been before?
I don't see any coincidences anymore.
Yeah. All right, ladies and gentlemen.
Have I completed my task of entertaining you like nobody ever could before?
By the way, if you're wearing headphones or earbuds, you will feel less lonely when you listen to this live stream.
It's true. It'll be just like I'm whispering in your ear.
All right, is there any topic I missed today?
Musk using his cloud to make Soros make an official statement.
Has he made a statement? Something about trans kids?
Yeah, well, what about trans kids?
I'm not sure what angle you're looking at there.
I talked about Chappelle. I'm not going to read the Norm's biography.
Madison Cawthorn. All right, so I keep seeing stories that a young guy was partying and joking around.
Is that the whole story?
Why do I care about Madison Cawthorn's private life?
I don't know. 2,000 mules.
So yeah, we forgot about that one.
So the documentary 2,000 Mules, which purports to show...
This is Dinesh D'Souza's film.
And it purports to show that there was some ballot stuffing and irregularities with mail-in ballots.
It doesn't prove the case.
It simply attempts to show enough evidence that an investigation would be warranted.
Now, I guess Twitter banned their Twitter account.
I don't know why. I didn't see the reason.
But that's pretty bothersome.
Because I'm pretty sure it's well documented in terms of, you know, it's interviews with real people and I don't think it's made up.
So I don't know why you banned that.
Did anybody see a reason?
Scott thinks it's just boys being boys.
Okay.
I don't know what you're talking about, but you're writing in all caps, I'm going to get rid of your stupid ass.
Goodbye. You know, one way to get banned on my channel is to tell me what I'm thinking in front of other people.
No, don't tell me what I'm fucking thinking.
Tell me what you're thinking, if there's anything happening in there.
Because you're really bad at telling me what I'm thinking.
You're really bad at it.
Aw, thank you, Redubs.
I appreciate that. I've changed...
Why do you keep saying that?
I'm going to hide you from this channel for saying that I changed since Elon.
Here's why. Again, you're reading my mind.
I haven't changed.
Did Will Chamberlain go too far?
So I'm seeing all the tweets about Will Chamberlain, but I haven't seen the story about it.
So I don't even know what that's all about.
Oh, ADUs.
Yeah, we talked about that yesterday.
All right.
That's all I got for now.
He has attempted to out the leaker.
Oh, Chamberlain tried to out the leaker.
But it's not confirmed, right?
A lot of people were saying there's an individual there who's got connections to Politico.
It would make sense. That's probably the person.
But I think that's deeply unfair at this point.
Imagine if you're wrong about that.
Imagine IDing the whistleblower based on just somebody having connections.
And then being wrong about it.
I mean, that would be really, really bad.
It's not a whistleblower.
Because it's a leak.
So it's not a whistleblower because it's not about anything bad going on.
It's just a regular process.
Oh, okay. I guess I'll take that.
Yeah, Will Chamberlain proposes a specific leaker.
I think that's deeply unfair.
Don't you? Now, he could be right, or he could be wrong, but I don't know.
If you identify a leaker and it becomes news, you can't wash that off.
I think that would be a lawsuit, wouldn't it?
He framed it as speculation, but that doesn't help.
Framing it as speculation doesn't help at all.
That's a messed up thing to do, frankly.
Now, I blocked Will Chamberlain a long time ago for being a jerk.
I forget the exact thing.
So I guess I'm not surprised by his behavior, if that's true.
Well, just because he's a lawyer.
Okay. You know, he might be a lawyer, but I don't see how you could out a leaker And be wrong about it and think you're going to get away with that.
I suppose if you frame it as speculation, you can get away with it.
But that's a messed up thing to do.
Yeah, Adam Schiff is a lawyer, unfortunately. - Definitely.
Oh, somebody says, teaching people how to improve their lives helps you to replace having kids.
Do you agree? Yes, I agree with that.
Yeah, more generally speaking, Because I do not have biological children, I do feel, and I feel it directly, you know, it's not like a subtle thing.
I feel a direct need to help the people who are here, sort of help the tribe, help the country, help the town.
No, I feel that all the time.
And I do think that if I had biological children, my intentions and my energies would be shifted to them.
So in the sense that your energy has to go somewhere, my positive energy is not going toward a biological child, so it's going toward other ways.
So, yeah, there's definitely a compensation thing going on there.
All right, now I'm just catching up on your comments. - You're more a parent to me than my parents.
You know, there are a lot of people who don't have functional parents.
Like a lot of people.
Maybe most. I don't know.
I don't know how many people have two functional parents.
But there is this need for something that's like a parent that's functional.
And I do think the internet dads are filling that hole.
Oh, Elon gave me a new topic.
Oh, if I'm different because of Elon Musk, it's because the topic is more fun.
Someone's asking me about Christina's flying.
I have no idea. Unfortunately, I'm not the person to ask on that question anymore.
Baseball post. Oh, that was great.
Yesterday's lifestyle framing for abortion, horrible solemnism.
I don't know what that means. Adam Schiff has the Amber Heard disease, somebody just said.
I wonder about that.
Because if you notice that Adam Schiff tends to blame people for what he's doing, have you noticed that?
That whatever Adam Schiff is doing, he is publicly blaming somebody else for doing it that's not doing it.
What does that sound like?
That's projection.
That's literally that Category B personality disorder thing.
He acts like somebody who has that disorder, but I wouldn't say I could diagnose him that way.
