Episode 1735 Scott Adams: Everyone Lying About Everything, Science Is Bungled, I'm In Trouble Again
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
2000 Mules BANNED on YouTube, Twitter
US intel aided Ukraine sinking of Moskva
Protests at Supreme Court member homes
Study ALERT: Real or not...we don't know
Pete Buttigieg, best skill set on the left
Drone Mexican fentanyl cartel labs?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to what I think will be sort of the dopamine high of your entire day.
Or, or, have you learned enough from Coffee with Scott Adams that the rest of your day will be even better?
Maybe. Maybe so.
Because, you know, the people who watch this livestream, science has shown they are sexier, smarter, and more capable of success.
It's true. And if you don't believe it, well, you argue with science, not with me.
And if you want to take it up a notch, and I know you do, how about a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind filled with your favorite liquid, what would that be?
Well, in my case, coffee.
Now join me, please, for the unparalleled pleasure.
This will be the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
This is really going to get you going.
Get that dopamine pump working.
Pump, pump, pump, pump.
Go. Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah. Would you like me to teach you now a hypnosis trick for rewiring your own brain for more dopamine?
I can do that. Some of you will now have a, in the next two minutes, are you going to have a life skill that will serve you forever?
It goes like this.
Imagine that you have a dopamine pump in your head.
Visualize it like it's some kind of little device.
You can visualize the device any way your mind wants to see it.
With details, without details, any color, any size.
But imagine it's a pump, and it's pumping dopamine out.
And when the pump is not working, you don't have any.
And when the pump is working really hard, you've got lots of it.
So imagine that dopamine pump whenever you're doing something that gives you a little lift.
For example, when I have my first sip of coffee...
I know it gives me, like, just a tiny little lift.
I mean, it's not, like, the best thing that ever happened to you in your life, but it's a lift, and you feel it.
And so, when you take that sip, or you do whatever the other activity is, and you know it's going to pump some dopamine into you, imagine that little pump in your head, and just see the pump pumping out the dopamine.
And if you do that every time you know that you're actually getting real dopamine in the normal way, Then you'll have this connection.
You'll have this visual connection that you'll start to harden with practice of an actual pump pumping out dopamine.
And you should get to the point over time when imagining the pump just by itself will actually trigger the dopamine.
Now, what I just gave you is the key to unlock your own brain And reprogram it.
Because you can generalize from this example.
All you have to do is focus and reinforce any two connections that you would like to have a shared experience with.
So if there's something you like...
For example, after I work out, I always have a protein shake, which I really, really enjoy.
Because it's the closest thing to a treat that I give myself, because I eat fairly healthy.
So it's the most tasty, sort of dessert-y thing.
That's the wrong word for it.
But I really enjoy it.
Better than most things that I imbibe.
So I do it every time I'm done exercising.
When I can. And that little hit is now associated with the exercise.
And I do it over and over and over every day.
When I exercise, there's protein in it, so there's a purpose to it.
I get a little pleasure.
Now, do you think that makes me more likely to exercise because I've trained myself with, like, a little dog treat every time I do it?
What do you think? Do you think that that literally...
Makes it more likely I'll exercise.
That little habit, just giving myself a treat.
And the answer is yes.
Yes. It's a tiny little impact that if you did it every day for a week, you wouldn't notice a difference.
If you did it every day for, I don't know, a month or two, you probably wouldn't notice a difference.
But if you do it every day for three years...
You're just going to be addicted to exercise.
You could actually make yourself addicted to good behaviors.
There's a whole book on that, The Power of Habit.
It's a good one to read.
If you want to learn how to program your own brain the same way a hypnotist or an advertising executive would, just know it's attention, repetition, and then connecting two things that you want to connect.
Now, it could be two things that you like, You're trying to bleed the qualities of one into the other.
But it could be the other way, too.
You can create aversions to things.
You can create an aversion to things by pairing it with a negative.
For example, I don't want to be a drinker of alcohol.
I used to be. I liked it a lot.
It was great. But I don't think it's good for me.
So now whenever the subject of alcohol comes up, I repeat in my mind, alcohol is poison.
Sometimes I say that loud.
Sometimes I just repeat it in my mind.
Over time, those two things are just paired.
Now, there's an irrational pairing of them.
It's just that they happen at the same time.
And I make them happen at the same time.
So you can program yourself by these little connections.
Remember, focus, repetition, and that repetition should be over years.
Think of repetition as a multiple-year process.
It's not this week, next month.
But if you do this sort of repetition with your brain, you can program it over time for almost anything.
It's amazing what you can get done.
And you don't have to be a hypnotist.
You just use those simple principles.
Well, what is new?
I'm announcing the untimely death of Boo the cat.
Many of you know my cat, Boo, who would join us here on these live streams.
She was about seven years old.
She had a terrible cancer that couldn't be fixed.
And so I tried to keep her comfortable until her final days, which was yesterday.
And let me tell you something that's positive about this.
You can imagine that I went through a very bad day yesterday.
I'll keep it together for you today, just out of respect for the job, I guess.
But there are some things that I learned that were kind of amazing.
One of them is that there's somebody whose job it is, now they come to your house to do it.
Prior animals, I always took them to the vet, and you did it there.
So the newer model, I don't know how widespread this is, but where I live, you can ask somebody to come to your house within several hours, and there's somebody's job.
There's a woman who's a doctor, so she's apparently a trained veterinarian, and her job is just this.
To come to your house and help you, not just the animal, but help you through it.
And, you know, it's very peaceful.
There's a sedative that the animal barely notices.
The animal falls asleep, and then they follow it up with the kill shot, so to speak.
Literally. And the entire process is so respectful that it's really special.
But I'm mostly impressed by the person.
So there's actually somebody whose job is to do that all day long.
I don't know how many she would do in a day.
Maybe five.
Maybe more.
Can you even imagine that?
That somebody has stepped into that job.
The amazing thing about human beings is that we will do any job.
Not every person will do every job, of course.
But man, when something needs to get done, you can find somebody who will do it.
It's just the most amazing thing.
So I found it inspirational.
You know, as far as the cat's death itself, it's very tough on me, you can imagine.
Because the same thing that I explained earlier about the connecting a positive thing to your habit, well, the cat was very attached to my habits.
So that part's going to be really tough to break.
But let's talk about other things that are more fun.
Is there anything that's true anymore?
Pretty much all of the news is a question of whether the news itself is true.
Like, that's the news.
The news isn't really the news anymore, and then what do you think about the news and how do you interpret it?
The news is, well, I don't know if that's true.
That doesn't sound true to me.
That's completely different, isn't it?
Now, was everything always fake?
I feel like maybe it was.
Don't you? Maybe we just didn't know about it, or we're more keyed into it.
Thank you, Trump, for that.
But let's talk about the Amber Turd trial.
So Amber Turd got to testify, and now she'll say some terrible things about Johnny Depp.
But getting back to my main theme, who would believe her?
Why would you possibly believe anything that Amber Turd said?
I mean, now that she's been actually diagnosed by a professional on the stand who said, I've looked into this, and she looks like one of these class B personality types, and one of the main characteristics is nothing they say is true.
What's the point of even having a testimony?
You know, if I were...
Johnny Depp's attorney, and I got to have the final say.
I say, well, you heard Amber Turner testify, but you also heard somebody testify that everything she says is probably a lie.
Medically. It's not even a character insult.
I'm not disparaging her.
It's not being disrespectful.
It's a medical diagnosis that she lies.
She's one of those people who is in the lying category.
And not just a little bit.
Because, you know, everybody lies, right?
Like, you want to be the one who doesn't.
But everybody lies in some situation.
You know, we all choose our shots differently, I suppose.
But, you know, it's a universal, unfortunately.
But some worse than others, and we're not all medically required to lie.
That's different. Did you see a video?
I saw Mike Sertovich tweeted this, a little video of Amber on the witness stand, appearing to snort something that was in a tissue, and then go, you know, as if she had snorted cocaine.
Now, let me be very clear...
I didn't see any cocaine.
I didn't see proof of that.
So I'm not saying that happened.
I'm saying there's a video that looks exactly like it happened.
But let's go back to our main theme.
Main theme of the live stream today?
Nothing's real. You just can't believe anything.
Yes, it looked exactly like she was doing cocaine on the witness stand.
It looked exactly like it.
But do you think that really was true?
I kind of doubt it.
I sort of doubt it.
But it looked like it.
So back to the original theme.
You can't believe anything.
There's just nothing you can believe.
You can look right at the video and say, well...
All right.
So Dinesh D'Souza's film, I guess it's got allegations of voter irregularity in 2020, has been, I guess the accounts have been banned by Twitter.
I don't know the specifics of why they banned it.
And I think YouTube has banned it now, correct?
Give me some fact checks on this in case I'm out of date on my information.
So now Twitter and YouTube banned it, but you can still see it on Rumble.
Correct? Rumble still has it?
Is that the only place? Somebody says 1 p.m.
today? What's that mean?
But it's out, right?
It's released? All right.
And somebody says Locals has it, but I haven't confirmed that.
All right, so here's my story about that.
This is just banned enough.
There's a thing which is too banned, like you can't find it anywhere, like Hunter's laptop.
And then there's not banned at all, and that could be great too.
But this is perfectly banned.
Meaning all it did was make me really kind of want to see it more than I naturally would have.
I'm like, really? This is going to be a little hard to get.
Are you serious? Oh boy.
How good is this thing?
They're banning it? That's the best review I've ever seen for a movie.
Can I get a list of all the banned stuff?
I'd like to binge watch it all.
Like, please give me some banned content.
I'm just hungry for banned content now.
So, I think Dinesh got almost the perfect level of banning that should make this a huge hit.
We'll see. Now, I don't have any opinion about the content.
I haven't seen it. My understanding is that it makes a good case for further looking into it.
I think that's as far as the claim goes, isn't it?
You know, it obviously strongly suggests there's evidence of irregularity, but it stops short of claiming that it's proven.
And it suggests further research which would tell us for sure whether anything was there or not.
So to me, that doesn't sound like a bannable content, but maybe I'd be surprised if I looked at it.
I suppose that's why we look at it.
I have a hypothesis about why Netflix traffic is down.
I want to see if this sounds at all like any experience you've had.
Prior to the pandemic, we might have had one streaming service, and it might have been Netflix.
And the process for watching a Netflix movie, often on your television, would be, you just fire it up, your password's probably already in there, And you even pick up where you left off, so you don't even have to search for anything, because maybe you're binge-watching already.
And there's lots of stuff there you like, and a whole bunch of good content.
So you pick one, and it's a really simple, easy interface.
It's a really clean experience.
Right? That was before the pandemic.
Would you say that that explains the user experience for Netflix?
Was that fair? Clean, easy, lots of stuff to binge watch, real easy to pick up where you left off.
Right. Okay, now the pandemic happens.
Okay. Pandemic happens, and then you think, you know, I've seen everything on Netflix, I'm going to need some more streaming services.
So if you're like me, you said to yourself, all right, you know, eight bucks a month, I'm stuck inside.
It's the same money I would have spent, or was way less, than I would have spent if I'd gone somewhere.
So I'll just give several streaming services to get me through the pandemic, because it's a real good, cost-effective entertainment.
So then you have the experience like I had yesterday.
Let me explain my experience.
To watch a show. Because now I have lots of options.
I've got iPads and phones and different apps on different things, different accounts.
And I also have an Apple TV connected to my TV. So I've got all kinds of options now, great options.
So I saw there was a notice for a movie that I wanted to watch.
I saw an advertisement for it.
I was like, oh, I'm going to watch that.
And then the next thing I thought was, is that on Amazon Prime?
Did I see that on Netflix?
Is that a Disney thing?
HBO Max. No.
No, it's Hulu.
It's probably Hulu. So the first thing I do is I've got to figure out where the damn thing is.
But I'm like, okay, that's not that much work.
I could Google it.
That's not that much work, right?
So I turn on the TV and it doesn't come on.
Because the first problem is that I have several pieces of technology that have all rotted since the last time I used them.
I don't know why.
The TV no longer turned on at the same time as the Apple TV, but it used to.
It's wrong. Now the channel's wrong, and there was a cable unplugged.
I don't know why. So it took me, I think, 15 minutes to work out the cabling, the HDMI, and why the TV and the box weren't turning on, the remote wasn't working, and then I finally got it on.
Then I went to look for it.
Do you know what happens next?
So you say, oh, it's on this service, but it doesn't work for some reason, because my Wi-Fi was no longer connected to my Apple TV. So I had to go through and figure out how to reset it to my new Wi-Fi.
Then, of course, my streaming services were turned off because I had a credit card problem, lost credit card.
So then they were trying to renew and they were going to nothing because the credit card was dead.
So I had to fix my credit cards, which means getting my wallet to look at my credit card number, to put in a new credit card.
And then test it, and then it's going to call my phone, and it's going to test my phone, and then put in the password, it's going to send it to a device.
And you know that thing where you recover the password that you're sure you knew, but for some reason it's not working anymore?
And they're going to email you the new password?
They don't email you the new password.
I don't want to be a spoiler.
Sometimes they do. It's happened.
But usually, they really don't send you anything.
And you're waiting for the text or the email.
And it just doesn't come.
And they know it doesn't come.
Do you know how I know they know it doesn't come?
Because they put a button there that says retry.
Did you not get it? They're telling you it's not coming.
Otherwise, it wouldn't be a try again button, if you know what I mean.
So I try again, and I wait again.
Now 45 minutes has gone by.
I barely remember the name of the movie.
I'm almost there. Finally, I get my password straightened out.
I get my credit card straightened out.
I've got my Wi-Fi working.
My TV and my Apple TV are now paired.
The remote control is working.
Now I just have to find it.
So I'm searching through the various things because I'm too lazy to Google it.
Usually when I search for things, I do it by voice.
And so I pick up my phone and I say, I don't want to say it too loud, but A-L-E-X-A. And then I realize, no, that's not for the phone.
That's for the other device.
But then I started saying, hey, S-I-R-I, but it can't hear me because the A-L-E-X-A is talking.
And I'm like, shut up!
I'm trying to talk to my other device to search for where that movie is, whose name I can't remember now, But I can remember one of the actors.
If I look up the actor, I can go to his IMDB page and I can figure out what movie he's in recently.
That'll give me the name of the movie.
And I can search for the movie on Google and find out which subscription service is on.
I can go to that subscription service and that will be the one that doesn't accept the credit card or can't get me in.
But I figured it out.
I solved that one. I get in.
I'm in. I find the movie.
I've succeeded. I'm in the right service.
The technology is working.
All of my passwords, my credit cards.
There's the movie. I click on it.
And it says, what's it say?
What's it say when I click on it?
Available next week.
Yeah, available next week.
That's the part I didn't see in the advertisement.
Available next week. Now, In the comments, in the comments, how many of you feel me?
Do you feel me? Maybe not that exact experience, but how hard is it just to watch a show?
Now, add on top of that, watching it with another person.
Try to watch that show with another person.
You can't find two people who want to watch the same thing at the same time.
Can't be done. So we went from a time when I was a kid where there was only one thing on, or three, and you just sat down and you'd just watch everything, and you were reasonably happy about it.
Now everybody's so fussy, and there are so many choices, you just can't watch anything.
Here's my take. Before the pandemic, watching Netflix was a good user experience.
After the pandemic, and it's no fault of Netflix, Netflix is fine.
Netflix might even be better than usual.
But all the other stuff came in and made it impossible just to use Netflix.
Because then Netflix became part of the problem when, in fact, it was a solution before the pandemic.
It went from a solution to part of the problem.
And talk to somebody these days about watching a movie together.
They're going to say, ah, that's a lot of work.
It's harder than...
This is no joke.
When I consider driving to a movie theater to watch a movie versus live streaming it, I think driving to the movie theater is easier.
So there's your reason.
I think Netflix is suffering from the fact that the concept of live streaming got too hard.
Just too many variables.
All right. I'm going to give credit to the Biden administration.
Full-throated credit.
This next compliment is to show you that I can be objective because I'm no big fan of the Biden administration.
But they're doing a push to promote 3D printing manufacturing in the United States as part of the supply chain solution.
To which I say, whoa, that's really good.
That's really good.
Like, that's really, really, really good.
Because I'm not sure how far you can go with the 3D printing of parts as opposed to shipping them from China, but that's exactly where I would be putting my focus.
Because we could actually just make a gigantic...
Difference of the supply chain and our vulnerability if the only thing we needed was raw materials that are part of the printer.
Now, of course, that's not going to help you with your rare earth minerals, but I suspect we'll get better at recycling that stuff as well.
So, maybe 3D printing plus better recycling of rare minerals that are already in a lot of our products, maybe that's...
Maybe that's how we get China off our back.
This could be a big deal.
Now, let me say, if Trump had done this, I would be equally complimentary.
I would call this the leapfrog strategy.
One of the advantages of having your country destroyed, and maybe Ukraine will learn this, is if you get rid of all the legacy stuff, and you can just start from scratch...
You can build something awesome that's way better than if you had just incrementally improved whatever you were doing from that point on.
So 3D printing is so out of a different field that you could just leapfrog the entire system of making things in another country, putting them on some shipping container and shipping them, putting them on a truck.
I mean, if you look at the amount of stuff you would get rid of, that entire process...
That's just insane how smart that is that we're looking at that.
All right. So kudos to Biden for that.
So there's stories today, and I think everybody's a little confused.
I'm a little confused by this too.
But the news is reporting that it's now clear that the U.S. intelligence people helped Ukrainians confirm that big Russian ship that got blown up with a missile, the Moskva.
So we don't really want to be, we, the United States, we don't want to be seen as in the war against Russia.
Even though it's clear we're supporting someone who's in the war with Russia.
But we're trying not to blur that line too much.
But why is it that even the news on the left, the CNNs, are reporting this story, and it's a major story, But it doesn't add that much, because the claim here, at least by America, the claim is that the United States helped confirm the location, confirm that it was the ship they thought it was, but really the Ukrainians had all the intelligence they needed.
So it's like barely made any difference.
So we're trying to paint it as, yeah, yeah, we did a little confirming.
But they have their own ability to do stuff.
You know, we didn't help them that much.
Now, nobody believes that, right?
Whatever the United States is saying about how much we are or are not helping Ukraine, it's obviously more than that.
It's obviously, you know, we're helping them with spotting and logistics.
Not logistics so much, but, you know, all the visual locating of stuff.
Of course we're helping them with that.
Do you think that Russia is reading CNN to find out if the US is helping Ukraine?
So I don't really know why this story is out.
So it's a story about the story, I guess.
Why is this story out?
It feels like we're being primed for something, doesn't it?
It's like we're being vaccinated for something bigger, possibly.
It's just the oddity of this being a story at the same time in multiple places, and the fact that it's not really a story.
I guess that's what it is.
It became a story of nothing when there's nothing to it, actually.
Because we always assumed, didn't we?
Didn't we always assume that the U.S. was at least a little bit involved in In the intelligence situation there.
And so this would just be confirming that the U.S. is just a little bit involved in the intelligence service stuff.
So it's not really a story.
Because it's everything that everybody would have imagined was exactly the case if they hadn't told us anything.
So why is it a story?
And why is it suddenly a story?
And I'm not sure that there was enough of a trigger in the news to make it a story.
It feels planted and it feels part of a...
Some kind of an operation.
I mean, it just feels like there's something behind this being a story at the moment.
As if somebody is trying to push us into a bigger war with Russia, for example.
I'm not saying that's the case, but it has that feel to it, like, eh, this doesn't feel right.
All right. How many of you have followed my series in Dilbert about Dave, the new engineer, Who is portrayed visually to look exactly like he's probably black, but he's decided to identify as white, and it's revealed in the series that he may be pranking the boss.
So it's sort of a prank.
He won't identify as black.
I told you it runs through Thursday, but I'd forgotten there's actually a Friday.
So Friday, today is the last of that series.
However, it looks like that one didn't give me any trouble at all.
A number of newspapers didn't run it.
But that doesn't cost me any money or anything.
However, it looks like I'm going to have a slightly larger problem with the one that's upcoming.
This one's not about Dave.
This is a new topic in which I'll give you a little advance on this.
If it gets published, and it's looking kind of iffy at this point, I'll be talking about that with my editor today.
If it gets published, it would feature Wally identifying as a birthing human and doing that so he could get some...
You know, benefits. So he would be clearly stating that he's not actually a birthing person, but he's identifying as him.
And it would be clear that he's just doing it to game the system.
Now, I told you that I'm already in trouble with the trans community.
Because they thought that the series about Dave, the engineer, was about trans.
But it wasn't. Like it didn't even occur to me that anybody would interpret it that way.
So I'm already in trouble with the community for something I didn't do, like I literally didn't do.
It had nothing to do with anything in that topic.
But I do have one that's a little closer to their topic, and now they're all primed.
So, kind of asking for it, aren't I, at this point?
Now again, the way I treat the topic is completely respectful, in my opinion.
In my opinion, it's respectful.
Meaning that it doesn't make fun of anybody of any type.
It's literally about one guy.
It's about a character named Wally, who tries to use every mechanism to avoid work.
That's it. It's only about that.
So it's about how people deal with the texture of society.
It's not about whether it's right or wrong.
It's not about who's good or bad.
It's not who's winning or losing.
It's nothing. It's literally about one character who doesn't even exist.
How much trouble am I going to get into for doing a comic about one character who doesn't even exist?
A lot. Let me give you the landscape of my life here.
So at this point, I will have the trans community hating me because they thought a comic that had nothing to do with them was about them.
That's number one. And by the way, you've watched me long enough to know, is there anybody who's a bigger supporter of the LGBTQ community than me?
Probably not. Probably not.
You'd have to look pretty hard to find somebody who's more supportive of that community in particular.
Like, in particular.
It's so much so that my audience often hates me for it.
Here's another one. If you were to Google me, You would find out incorrectly, because it was fake news, that I had said something terrible about women.
I'm not even going to get into the details, because it didn't really happen.
So there's a story taken out of context, which if you see it out of context, would appear that I'm an incredible women-hating sexist, which is exactly the opposite of anything that's ever been in my head or in my life.
I was raised by a strong woman.
I have a strong woman as a sister.
Most of my relationships are with strong women of one type or another.
I don't really have whatever it is that people imagine I have in my head.
So now the trans people hate me for something that didn't happen.
Women hate me, if they've Googled me, they hate me for something, again, that literally didn't happen.
Literally didn't happen.
Minorities hate me because of the fake news about Trump.
So to the degree that I'm associated with supporting Trump, people think, well, then you also support these other things, like the fine people comment.
No, because that didn't happen.
So there are a whole bunch of Trump hoaxes that accrue to me that are things that literally didn't happen.
So now I've got trans hating me for something that didn't happen, women hating me for something that didn't happen, minorities hating me for something that didn't happen with Trump that accrues to me.
And here's the last one.
A lot of conservatives are turned off to me because they believe I was pushing vaccines, which also never happened.
Literally never happened.
So I've actually...
Somebody says I'm acting like a victim.
Am I? I thought this was interesting.
Is this not interesting? Don't you find it interesting that my entire public brand is 100%, 100% based on things that never happened?
All of it. All of it is based on stuff that didn't happen.
Every fucking bit of it.
Is that not interesting?
I think that's interesting.
All right. It's hard to know what's interesting to other people.
But I suppose that's my job, so I should know that, shouldn't I? Press on, buddy, Craig says.
We're going to press on, something that's interesting to you.
All right, so people are up in arms because there's a left-leaning group that published the home addresses of some of the conservative justices, Supreme Court justices.
And this would be so that people would go protest at their homes.
How alarming is that?
Compared to, let's say, January 6th.
Because everybody's going to compare it to January 6th, right?
Hey, if January 6th was so bad, isn't this worse?
Well, it's hard to be consistent with all of this stuff, so I'm going to try to be consistent, which is to the extent that anybody in either group is doing something completely legal, I guess free speech, if it's legal, right?
I guess I support it.
Or I support the right to do it.
That's different. But there is something terribly republic-wrecking about going to the homes of the Supreme Court.
Somewhat uniquely.
Like way more than going to the home of a politician, which is bad enough.
I don't think anybody should be going to anybody's home.
That's like way over the line.
But for the Supreme Court, it's way worse, in my opinion.
Because, as I've often said, the Supreme Court is the one thing we can sort of almost agree on, even though we're not.
At least they have the credibility that they show their work.
Scholars are going to be poring over it.
If it's wrong, maybe there'll be a chance to change it in the future.
So it is our most credible system, even though we're arguing about it at the moment.
So if you have people perverting that in any way, that's the most dangerous thing that could happen to our system.
So yeah, it's really dangerous.
I'm not going to go so far to call it treason.
I feel like that's too far.
It's just really bad judgment, and it's really bad patriotism.
And it's also not the way to win.
I don't think it works so well on a group that knows they're going to be doing controversial things.
I doubt there are too many cowards in the Supreme Court.
Probably not. And they're appointed for life.
So I've got a feeling that they won't be influenced.
It's just all bad.
It's just all bad. Well, meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren is going ballistic.
She's trying to get most of the headlines here.
So I think she's realized this could be her moment.
Elizabeth Warren has been out of the headlines for a long time, hasn't she?
She sort of will get a quote or something, but she's not really too relevant at the moment.
But then this issue comes up and she wants to get on video screaming louder than anybody else is screaming so that it becomes about her and she can harness that energy.
Nothing wrong with that, by the way.
If I said that like it was a negative, I would have said it as a positive if Trump did it.
It's a real good technique to attach yourself to something that already has energy.
So she finds something that already has energy, the abortion question, attaches herself to it, and she did it well.
So if I'm going to evaluate her on technique, pretty good.
Now, I see a lot of you are saying, oh, it's like a John Dean moment where she looks like a crazy person by screaming too much.
To which I say, not if you agree with her.
She only looks like a crazy person if you disagree with her.
If you agree with her, she's the most passionate person and she's going to be fighting on your side.
Whatever else. So I don't think it was a mistake.
I think she probably pulled it off.
Yeah, the Howard Dean thing was a mistake, but also because he was male and because there was no topic.
Think of the difference.
You're allowed to scream as loudly and as crazy as you want if the reason you're shouting deserves it.
And she's selling it as it deserves it.
So I think she's making the sale.
Howard Dean wasn't selling anything.
He was just making noise to make noise, and it just looked silly.
She's selling something that people are buying.
So that's completely different.
So let's see.
Yeah, Jonathan Turley was coming out pretty strongly against...
He's protesting at the justice's house.
And... Yeah, he does a good job of explaining it.
All right, there's two studies here that I think you should be alerted to.
So you know we're seeing lots of data recently, so these are not brand new, but in the recent couple of weeks...
We've seen a big ivermectin study.
We've seen a big study about the vaccinations, you know, Pfizer information, and separately other studies of vaccinations and stuff like that.
And there's one thing that we can conclude about all ivermectin studies and all vaccination studies.
Now, what is that? What is it we can conclude?
The one thing we know for sure about vaccinations and ivermectin studies.
I'm not talking about the drug.
I'm talking about the studies.
What do we know about all the studies?
Are they crap? No, that's not what we know.
That's actually not what we know, believe it or not.
So I'm going to fool you because you thought I was going to say all the studies are crap.
No, it's worse than that.
It's way worse than that.
Some of those studies might be right.
You don't know which one.
That's the problem. The problem is not that 100% of them are crap.
The problem is you just can't tell.
So here's the one thing we know.
The one thing we know is not whether they're all crap.
We don't really know that.
The one thing we know is that they are Rorschach tests in which everybody will only see what they want to see.
We do know that.
That's something we know.
So the ivermectin study, the people who think ivermectin doesn't work say, well, there it is.
The biggest randomized control study says it doesn't work.
And then all the people who think it does work say, look at the way they designed it.
It was literally designed to fail.
And here are our reasons.
And then they show their work.
And then I say, huh?
Well, they have an argument.
It's not that they don't have an argument.
They show their work. Here's their argument.
Here's the dose. Here's what would have made sense.
Is there a counterargument to that?
I don't know. But that's where I go off the rails.
So I end up defaulting to what I thought was true in the first place.
So in other words, it's like a Rorschach test.
I look at the ivermectin study and I just see what I already thought was true.
Whatever that was. Same thing with the vaccination studies.
I'm seeing people tweeting all day, well, now there's proof that the vaccination's harmed you.
And then people look at the same study and say, well, here's proof that they worked compared to getting COVID. Which is true.
I don't know. I don't have the skill to know that.
And I don't know how I could tell without having the skill myself.
I don't know how I could ever know it.
The only thing we know for sure is that everybody sees what they want to see in the science.
And that feels different.
I feel like we've gone to the third layer.
So like 20 years ago, if the science journals said it was true and the scientists said it was true, we mostly thought it was true.
And then it got to the point of, oh, wait a minute.
Some of these studies are bogus.
Actually, way too many. Maybe half of them that got published shouldn't have been published, or they're not repeatable, or they can't be reproduced.
So then we went from, oh, science is good, to, whoa, I guess we over-trusted science.
So we've got to be careful.
Science might be right half the time, but if you do your own research, you can figure out which time they're right.
Because non-scientists can do that.
That's what we thought. We used to believe that we could do a deep dive and we could figure out which of the scientific studies were the good ones.
Now what do you think?
I think we've gone to the next level of awareness.
The next level of awareness is you can't tell which ones are real, you don't know who's lying, but you do know you're going to see what you expected to see.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the golden age.
Welcome. It's about time.
It took you a little while to get here.
You had to take the long way, didn't you?
Some of you are having an experience right now.
Not all of you. Some of you.
And you're realizing that you actually took that path.
You went from science, probably right, to science, ooh, you've got to really be careful, but if you do your own research, you can work it out, to you can do your own research.
That's not a thing. You're just going to see exactly what you wanted to see, but now you know it.
Now when you see what you wanted to see, You'll know it's not necessarily real.
You'll just know you see it.
You can look at these studies now and say, okay, I see clearly, clear as day, yes or no, doesn't matter what you see, but I see it clear as day, and now, for the first time, for the first time, you can step outside of your own perception, and you can say, you know, that looks exactly like that study is saying something.
But I don't know. I really don't know.
I really, really don't know.
That is where you needed to be.
So if you weren't there until today, welcome.
And it's going to be a big deal.
You just wait and see. I saw a little bit by Pete Buttigieg being quite persuasive.
And here's how he was framing the I guess the culture war situation, the Disney situation, the Dose Gay stuff.
And the way he says it is that the Republicans have no answers...
For the big problems.
And then he lists a bunch of things.
He said, you know, they have no answer for childcare costs, and they have no answer for the deficit and taxes.
And he gives a bunch of things that the Republicans have no answers for.
To which I say, actually, those were pretty good examples.
They really don't have an answer for healthcare.
That's true. I say the same thing.
But he conveniently left out all the things that they do have answers for.
Because you know the surge in crime?
Talk to a Republican.
Talk to a Republican.
They actually have answers to that.
There are actually things you can do to reduce crime.
It's well understood.
Talk to a Republican.
How about the border?
Do you think the Republicans have any solutions for the border?
Yes, they do. Yes, they do.
You might not like them.
It would be reasonable to say you don't like them.
But to say that they don't have a solution that has worked in the past would not be true.
So, I'm going to give Buttigieg an A-plus for persuasion.
But, of course, I see what I want to see in Pete Buttigieg.
And the people who like him are going to see what they want to see.
So does it matter that what he says makes sense or doesn't make sense or he leaves something out?
No, not really.
It doesn't matter. It only matters if it was persuasive to the people he wanted to persuade.
And he's pretty good at it.
So his take is that the Republicans are creating these fake targets and demonizing people like the trans community because they don't have any real arguments.
And I thought to myself, okay, it's not true, because he's, you know, selectively picking the things that they don't have arguments for.
I'll give him that. But he's really good at it.
He's pretty good at it.
I do think he could be president.
I'm not endorsing him.
Don't worry. Don't worry.
I'm not endorsing him. I'm just saying that he needs to be seasoned.
He's not ready. I would say he shouldn't be president now.
He's just not there.
But he has the ability, he has the natural ability, to figure out what it is he's not doing right yet and then get there.
I think he can Obama his way to the next level.
Now, don't be angry at me.
I'm not suggesting he should or should not be president.
I'm just saying that his skill level is higher than most of the people on the left, and he only has to be the best one on the left.
Am I right? Wait.
That sounded confusing. He only needs to be the best one on the left.
Because that's all it takes to be president.
Unless he's running against a...
A power like Trump or something like that.
But that's all it would take. You only have to be better than the left.
You could argue that that bar is low because their bench isn't very good.
And I don't think that that's partisan to say that the Republicans have a better bench.
Do you feel that that is subjectively...
Is that too subjective?
I think both sides say that, right?
Because you can go, I think you can go three or four deep on the Republican side and still have a good candidate.
But on the left, it's a little bit harder.
Because Kamala and Biden are, you know, not so strong.
All right. China wants to increase its military presence abroad.
Nothing to worry about there.
Oh, my God.
What would happen if China ended up with military bases everywhere that they have economic interests and more influence than the United States?
Because it would take that to happen.
I don't know. It's pretty scary stuff.
It does seem that demographic-wise and just number-wise, eventually we live in a Chinese world, right?
Right? Because there are just so many of them, and if they spread out and spread their influence, spread their money, and continue succeeding, as they have, I don't know how we don't live in a China-dominated world eventually.
I mean, 300 years from now, but not right away.
All right. The most interesting story of the day, I don't know why I waited so long for that, is that there's a new book out by Espers.
Was it Espers? He had been in the Trump administration and said that he was Secretary of Defense, right?
And he reports in his new book that Trump had asked him about sending some Patriot missiles in to destroy the drug-making operations in Mexico.
And the news treated it like that was such a crazy thing.
Now, can I ask you a question?
Those of you who have watched me for a while and also watched the news in general for a while.
Before you read about this, was there anybody else in the public, besides me, who was saying, let's drone the fentanyl labs in Mexico?
Was I the only one saying that in public?
I think I said it a lot, but I don't remember seeing anybody else say it.
Do you have any memory of anybody saying it before I said it?
Anybody in the public eye?
But name a name if you can think of anybody, because I want to give credit where credit would be due.
Thank you. - Thank you.
Well, okay. So it's blowing my mind a little bit, because as of today, now that Trump said that, or reportedly said it, you know, you have to take it with a grain of salt.
And I think it was phrased as a question.
My understanding was not that he ordered him to do it, or said, you must do this.
My understanding, he said, would it be feasible?
Essential. And then Esper said no, and then it didn't happen.
Okay. I'm not sure that that's a...
There's something missing in the story, isn't there?
The part that's missing in the story is, why isn't it a good idea?
Because I don't think that's even been mentioned.
And obviously there are risks.
Obviously we know the whole situation, what is likely to happen, but I've never heard anybody explain the risks.
Because to me it doesn't seem like if Mexico is owned by the cartels...
And you bomb the cartels.
I just can't see a moral, legal, or even a homeland security risk in doing that.
It just seems like we would show them that having an industry that kills 50,000 Americans per year is going to get you fucking killed.
It would just send a message.
Yeah. You can keep sending fentanyl to the United States and kill 50,000 Americans.
Yeah, and I know it's the addicts' fault.
You don't have to make that argument.
I get it. I get it. The addicts are the ones that take the drugs.
I get it. But that doesn't make them innocent, does it?
They're not more innocent because somebody else should have done something different.
So... I think a lot of people, at least on Twitter, are saying, why don't we take out the fentanyl labs?
Why don't we? Now, the first thing you're going to say to yourself is that, what difference would it make?
Because it would only take them a week to spin up a new lab.
Right? And you'd be right.
Do you know what also doesn't stop murder?
Putting people in jail.
It doesn't stop crime.
So why do we have jails?
What's the point of a jail if it doesn't stop crime?
Maybe slows it down a little bit, but it doesn't really stop it, right?
So our entire system depends on punishing people that don't completely stop what they're doing.
So you don't not do it Because it's not 100% fixed.
Nothing works that way. You do it to create friction, to make it harder to do it.
And then you just keep squeezing.
And bombing, you know, literally bombing the labs would only be one thing.
It's not the one thing you do.
You know, it's just one of the things you do.
So if you just keep squeezing in every possible way you can squeeze, well, maybe you can reach the point where there's less fentanyl coming out.
But I wouldn't look at it as, you know, one act.
Does that completely solve the problem or not?
No. No.
It doesn't work like that. You would just put pressure everywhere you could put pressure.
And if it were me, I would make those labs explode if we knew where they were.
And then somebody says, well, what about the civilian deaths?
To which I say, civilians at a fentanyl lab?
Are those the deaths you're worried about?
If somebody takes their children to work at the fentanyl lab, I'm not going to call that my problem.
I'm definitely not going to call that my problem.
I mean, that would be tragic.
But it's also adult business.
Everything about this are adult decisions.
If you can't handle an adult decision, then don't be part of the conversation.
An adult decision does mean killing people.
Accidentally, intentionally.
No way around it.
So, yeah, I would take out the fentanyl labs.
If there's a way to find them and know for sure that they're fentanyl labs, I would make them all explode.
Definitely. But it's just not the only thing I would do.
All right. Let me ask you this.
In the comments...
In the comments, would you agree with taking out the fentanyl labs in Mexico?
Not necessarily with a specific Patriot missile.
Could be drones, could be special operations, whatever works.
I don't know. I'm no expert.
So, on the locals' platform, 90% yeses.
On YouTube... So far, all yeses.
Yeah. Now, isn't that interesting?
Now, of course, you're probably a right-leaning audience for the most part, so that's not too surprising.
But the way the news treats it is as if you don't even have to debate how crazy it is.
To which I would only add this one thing.
No, you do need to fucking debate how crazy that is.
You do need to. You don't get to say it's crazy and walk away.
No, fuck you if you're doing that.
You don't get to say it's crazy and walk away.
You better stay. You're going to need to tell me why this isn't a good idea.
It might not be. By the way, I could easily be convinced.
It wouldn't take much to convince me.
Just somebody who knows what they're talking about, laying out the reasons and the risks, and then I'd say, oh, this risk looks bigger than the benefit.
Don't do it. But if you're not even going to engage in the conversation, well, I'm not going to take you seriously.
I'm going to take seriously the person who asked the question.
Would it work if we missile attacked the labs?
That was the right question.
Even if the answer was hell no, because of X, Y, and Z, it was still the right fucking question.
And boy, do I respect Trump for asking it.
Now, he couldn't get enough support to do it, and I think he would need the support of his top people, but it was the right question.
And I have to say, I'm going to slightly revise my opinion of Trump's performance on fentanyl, because I had given him something like a D-, because nothing changed.
It got worse. Right?
But, you know, at least he made it a little bit more of a national conversation.
He tried to push China a little bit, but it didn't work.
And so I was basically, he was this close to a completely failing grade.
But now that I know how serious he was about it, that he was willing to risk war with Mexico to kill these motherfuckers, I have a lot more respect for him.
I wish he had been successful at something with fentanyl, and he wasn't.
So I'm not going to lose sight of that.
But at least he was serious about it.
He was serious about it, and he obviously was willing to take a risk that would have been a big risk to himself personally.
Let me say that again.
He would have known that was a big risk to him politically.
Of course. Like, you know, he would have hoped it went his way, but he obviously would have known the size of the risk.
So if Trump was privately taking a risk that big to himself, privately to himself, that was a personal risk.
Even asking the question was a personal risk.
So now my respect for Trump on this topic, I'm being very specific here, is now vastly increased.
Because we know he was willing to take a personal risk to get it done.
It's hard to ask for more than that from a politician, right?
He didn't get it done, and that matters.
But if this book is correct, he was willing to take a personal risk to get it done, on top of the country risk, etc., which is a separate conversation.
All right. Did I discuss this topic with Trump?
I did not. No.
I did not. Only in the limited sense that I do it publicly.
So I've talked about going after the labs publicly.
He fought like hell against the deep state.
He fought like hell against the deep state.
Yeah, I don't know how successful that was either.
That's right, Hillary wanted to drone Assange.
But I'm going to give Hillary the same, let's say, benefit of a doubt that I give Trump.
If Hillary, in her capacity as one of the leaders, was simply asking the question, could we drone this person?
Now, I don't think he should be droned.
That would be a horrible crime, in my opinion.
But I'm never going to get on somebody for asking the question.
I just don't think that's a standard that we should appreciate.
The standard should be, we'll look at their decisions.
Not the questions they ask to get there.
That's not how you want to judge anybody.
You don't want to see the first draft.
All right. Assange did not kill millions.
True. All right, that's all I got for today.
I'm going to go do something else.
And thank you for all your good thoughts about my cat.
