Episode 1789 Scott Adams: Worse Than Jussie Smollett. That Summarizes Today's News
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Leaked California gun owner data
President Trump's "2nd term" going great
J6 Committee and The Golden Turd
Illegitimate journalists revealed by Cassidy Hutchinson
51% rate Biden POOR on crime
Republicans, the party of parents
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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, everybody, and welcome to the Highlight of Civilization.
I was a little busy last night, so I didn't catch much of the news.
Let's see, did anything happen last night?
Checking the headlines. My God!
It's worse than Watergate.
The walls are closing in.
I don't know what to do.
But first, let's do the simultaneous sip, and then we'll talk about all the stuff.
Today might be the best news day just for amusement and interest of all time.
I mean, it's a really good one.
But first, I think you need a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of chalice, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine hit of the day.
It's the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it's going to happen now. Go!
Ah, that's good stuff.
That's good stuff. Well, I was working on a joke just before I came on.
And I tweeted my version of it, but I think it could be better.
So I need you to help me work on this joke, okay?
It starts out with this.
Did you hear about the guy who had long COVID and long TDS at the same time?
So that's the setup. Did you hear about the guy who had long COVID and long TDS at the same time?
Now, I came up with a punchline, but it was a little soft.
I think you could do better.
Here's the first one I rejected.
So the setup was, did you hear about the guy who had long COVID and long TDS at the same time?
Every time he watches CNN, he shits himself.
Now, it's funny just because of the way it sounds, but since COVID doesn't make you do that, it was like, eh, could be better if it was a little more COVID-related.
So I ended up changing into it.
I ran out of time before I could make it the way I wanted.
So I said, every time you watch CNN, it gets brain fog.
It's not bad. It's not like a home run or anything.
So if you could do better than that, could you please go to my tweet and improve on my joke?
So what's the funniest thing that could happen if you had both long COVID and long TDS at the same time?
All right. Well, here in California, California leaked the names and addresses and ages of every person in the state who holds a concealed carry permit.
That includes judges, cops, and regular civilians.
And apparently if you look at the LA data, there's a massive trove of private gun ownership stuff there.
Now, that's every person who has a concealed carry permit.
Imagine if it was every person who had a registered gun.
Because that's a lot more, right?
Even worse? Somebody says that's old news.
That's old news. Why is it a headline today?
Guns are registered.
Guns are registered?
I know they're not all registered.
Are you saying guns are not registered in California?
Who's saying that?
Alright. You don't register guns.
Say more about that.
Are you being technical that you don't register the guns?
I think they are registered.
Yeah, I think they're registered in California.
Anyway, so here's my comment on that.
Now that we know that our data on gun ownership is not safe, you have two choices.
You either live much less safely, because now everybody will have a map to which homeowners are protected and which are not, or everybody gets a gun.
Guess which one I recommend?
Everybody get a gun. Yeah, as soon as California says we can't protect your data on who owns a gun, you have to have a gun.
You have to have a gun.
I'm going to make a...
Yeah, no, I'm not.
Um... So I'll just keep it at that.
If you thought a gun was optional before, if you're a homeowner especially, I would say for a homeowner or somebody who has even an apartment, I guess.
But if you have something that maybe you could be attacked in, now you have to have a gun.
So I think this is maybe working opposite of whoever leaked it might have wanted it to work.
So get yourself some guns if you're in California.
It's the only way you'll be protected.
I tweeted yesterday, and as soon as I did it, I thought, well, here's a framing that's going to last.
And I said that Trump's second term has been a huge success.
He's had several major Supreme Court victories.
Looks better than ever compared to Biden.
And the January 6th theater just went full Jussie Smollett.
And you can't win harder than that.
And as soon as you hear it, you say to yourself, it does sort of feel like Trump...
Won a second term.
Because, you know, he argues that he actually won the election.
You know, the courts don't agree with him.
And he's had three or four major Supreme Court victories, which really are about Trump's nomination for the court.
And he does look better and better every day compared to Biden.
I feel like he's having the best second term that somebody who wasn't president ever had.
Am I wrong? So I know what you want to talk about.
You want to talk about the big story about Hutchinson and the January 6th testimony.
Well, here's my summary before we get into it.
In 2020, the theme you heard a lot was worse than Watergate, right?
Yeah. Everything was worse than Watergate, worse than Watergate.
And now today, according to every trending, every trend on social media and every meme, worse than Watergate has turned into worse than Jussie, as in Jussie Smollett, as in worse than the lies that he told.
And I feel like we're in worse than Jussie territory now, aren't we?
Worse than Jussie.
And... Here are, in no particular order, some things that are happening.
If you were the Democrats and you wanted to win, what would it look like if you wanted to win elections?
What would that look like?
I'll give you a suggestion.
What it would look like is policies that were mainstream and popular and things that really made sense and would address the biggest issues in the country and maybe turn it around.
That's what it would look like if you were playing to win.
The Democrats are in this weird situation where they're spending all of their energy fighting the last war, which was Trump, just to make sure it's not the next war.
It's like all about suppressive fire for Trump.
But what is the obvious outcome of putting all their energy into Trump?
What's the obvious outcome of putting full-on Trump energy into DeSantis.
Of course. DeSantis is unambiguously the strongest political figure in the country.
Am I wrong? Now you could say Trump has more influence, blah, blah.
But in this context, there's nobody close.
Is there? So the Democrats have found the only strategy in which if they put all of their energy...
And they work really, really hard.
They can guarantee that they're running against the strongest candidate in decades, DeSantis.
Does it look like they're trying to win?
Does it? Because if they wanted to win, the only chance they have is running against Trump again.
But they should have waited with this January 6th stuff, like bring it out during the election or something.
But... Right now, Trump is the only person who could lose an election.
I think he'd win, actually.
I think the polls would go his way on day one, he'd probably just win.
But he's the only person who could lose.
DeSantis couldn't lose, not in our current environment.
Even Democrats are saying, if it's DeSantis, it's not that bad.
So, right in front of you, tell me if I'm missing something.
Because sometimes I'll stray into hyperbole, but I don't think I am.
I don't think I am.
Is it hyperbole for me to say that if you were observing this from the outside, you couldn't read anybody's mind, but it looks like they're playing to lose?
Right? It looks like his strategy, that if it worked perfectly, just the way they're executing it, they would lose the election harder than they could ever lose it under any other condition.
Somebody says you're missing the cheating aspect.
Well, that's a good point. The only way...
That's a really good point.
If you were trying to come up with a hypothesis to explain why the Democrats are pursuing the only strategy that couldn't possibly win, you'd have to believe that they think that the election will be rigged.
I don't think that's true.
I don't think that the Democrats even know.
Because even if you imagined hypothetically, and there's no evidence of this, but even if you imagine that they had fixed elections and were going to fix it again, most Democrats wouldn't know that.
Because you couldn't let everybody know, right?
Like even under the hypothetical that there's some shadowy secret group rigging elections, they're not going to tell all the leadership, are they?
Like there might be a few people who know, but you don't want everybody to know.
So, meanwhile, the Democrats are begging for DeSantis, it seems like.
Well, here are the stories that...
So the Trump very junior aide to Mark Meadows, chief of staff at the time, she testified at the January 6th thing, and among her bombshell statements, We'll talk about them all.
Trump lunging for the steering wheel of the car he was in, the Beast, or maybe it was an SUV, to drive him to the mall, which he denies ever happened.
He threw his lunch against the wall.
He was so angry he denies it happened.
He didn't care about weapons being taken to the protest.
These are the allegations.
These are not true. None of this is true, by the way.
These are just the allegations. And that he was in favor of hanging Mike Pence.
Now, let's just deal with these in order.
Lunged for the steering wheel and wrestled with the Secret Service guy.
The Secret Service guys have already said, that didn't happen.
Right? So now, give me your estimate of how likely this story is true, given that the person who tells it wasn't there, the people who were there said it didn't happen, and on its surface, it's ridiculous.
There's no chance.
No chance. Now, what about the other things that this person would say?
Should you trust anything else Hutchinson says?
No. No.
I don't think so.
Now, you might put a different standard on things she says she witnessed herself, right?
Talking about what she remembers somebody else said is sketchy.
That's why it's hearsay.
That's why it's not allowed in court.
But in the real world, we care about that stuff because we're more influenced by non-factual stuff.
So... Yeah, Trump lunging at the steering wheel.
That should be the tip-off.
That should be the one that everybody says, um, I don't think so.
All right, how about threw his lunch?
He was so angry he threw his lunch against the wall.
Has anybody been really angry and thrown anything?
I have. I have.
I've thrown things against walls.
Who hasn't thrown things against a wall?
Now, let me ask you this.
If you were president of the United States and you were just positive you'd just won an election, maybe even went to bed thinking you won, and you woke up founding that something looked suspicious to you, there's no evidence that anything was suspicious.
Well, there's no evidence that anything bad happened.
I guess suspicious is a judgment call.
But imagine him waking up to have lost the election.
How mad would he be?
How mad would you be? You'd be insane.
If the only thing he reportedly did, and again, he says he didn't, and it doesn't matter to me either way, he threw his lunch against the wall, would you hold that against him?
Suppose you knew that was true.
That he woke up to this situation believing, and I think honestly believing, he can't read his mind, but I think he honestly believes the election was rigged.
He certainly believed it at the time.
I think that's a fairer statement.
That at the time, I feel like he believed it.
You wouldn't throw your lunch against a wall in that situation.
I don't know how I could put my lunch in my stomach in that situation.
In fact, I think the wall is where that lunch belonged in that situation.
Now, if he had done something like violent toward a human being or an animal, I would say, okay, I'm done with him.
We're done with that.
But I strongly support the right of any president who just lost an election that he believes is rigged, or she, can throw their lunch against the wall, and none of us should find any problem with that.
Anybody with me? If you lose a presidential election that you believe sincerely, in your mind, you believe it was rigged, even if it wasn't, you can throw your lunch against the wall.
Now, I don't think it's going to hold up.
He doesn't really seem like a lunch thrower, does he?
He seems like he'd curse and yell and be vocal, but there's no real evidence that he does physical things when he's mad.
An entire history of never being accused of doing any physical thing when he was angry.
Never. Not one accusation.
But this one time he threw his lunch against a wall.
What if he did? It means absolutely nothing.
Now they tried to build it as part of his mental state.
And it was part of his mental state.
It's also the part you should least care about.
Because it's the most obvious thing that anybody would do in that situation.
I'd be throwing some lunch.
Pretty sure I'd be throwing a sandwich under that situation.
All right, so we've got lunch through the steering wheel, which is absurd on its face and denied by the people involved.
We've got through his lunch, which probably didn't happen, but why would it matter either way?
It has no relevance to anything in the world.
There was a report that he wanted people with weapons...
Presumably not so much firearms, but, you know, clubs or knives or whatever.
Who knows? He didn't want them stopped from getting into his speech because he wanted his speech to have the most number of people.
So, and his explanation, which is given, which you'll notice is often left out of the reporting.
The reporting says he wanted people let in with weapons.
Do you know what the part they leave out is?
The important part. Why did he say he wasn't concerned about people getting in with weapons?
He gave a reason. He gave a reason.
You know what the reason was?
They're not going to hurt him.
And he was talking about people coming to see him speak.
He said, my supporters aren't there to hurt me.
Like, you know, why should you care if some of them have weapons?
They always have weapons.
Basically, if you stop any conservatives, they have weapons.
If you randomly pick a hundred conservatives anywhere, don't some of them have some concealed carry?
Don't some of them have scary knives in their pockets just in case?
Of course they do. Of course they do.
Because there's a bunch of Republicans.
They come with the tools they might need.
So bringing the right tools somewhere is just sort of what Republicans do.
It doesn't mean they're going to use them.
It means exactly the opposite.
The Republicans are the last people who are going to pull out a gun because they only do it...
You tell me.
Finish the sentence.
A Republican only draws a gun when...
when they're willing to use it.
It's the most well-trained segment of the population.
They have good muzzle control, good...
Basically, they're the ones that are most trained to handle this stuff.
So when Trump said that he wasn't so concerned about the people having whatever weapons they had, coming to see him speak, he was saying, my supporters won't hurt me, so you're exaggerating the risk here.
He wasn't talking about letting armed people into the Capitol.
And the news is trying to conflate these things, Like leaving out the part about they won't hurt me, putting it in the other context.
Do you see what's happening? This is why this is the best news day ever.
Because go look at the articles that are trying to basically, let's say, gild this turd.
So in a sense, Hutchinson was just a big old turd in the punch bowl.
And watching the Democrats try to carefully lift that turd out of the punch bowl and spray paint it with gold, like, we have the golden turd.
This will be our finest moment.
Ah, the golden turd.
Everybody, look at my golden turd.
Ah, ah, golden turd.
And I'm watching this and I'm thinking, this might be the funniest thing I've ever seen.
Not only did they pull a turd out of the punch bowl, spray paint it gold, and try to sell it to the American people, but there's a funnier part.
What's the funnier part?
It's working. Come on, if you can't appreciate that...
You're dead inside. You might hate it because it's bad for the country, bad for your team, whatever.
So you can hate it on that level.
But don't you think it's kind of hilarious that they're spray-painting the turd they took out of the punch bowl and they're trying to sell it, but their supporters are so dumb, and I think in this case we can say dumb, that if you look on social media, they're completely buying it.
Oh, that spray-painted turd looks like...
I agree.
May I bow to your spray-painted turd?
You know, may I make a poster and put it on my wall?
It's so awesome. Thank you for the $5 tip.
All right. So here's why you can find out everything today.
The journalists who are so shameless that they're writing stories today that this was a bombshell and it's a really bad day for Trump, they are all the ones who are frauds.
Obviously. Because all doubt has been removed today.
Because the one thing you can know for sure is that the stories are bullshit and that everybody knows it.
I think. I think the Democrats know it.
And the tell that they know it is the form that they write the story.
Let me tell you how all the left-leaning publications are going to sell this.
And go read the stories in CNN and Politico and see if you agree.
It goes like this. Yesterday, there were shocking, stunning revelations, the worst thing that ever happened in the world, things that were jaw-dropping, absolute bombshells, worse than Watergate.
It was the most unbelievably stunning thing.
And how do you know it was unbelievable and stunning?
Well, people whose names we're not going to give you said they were stunned and changed everything.
It was worse than Watergate, far worse than anything they could ever imagine.
What's missing so far?
What's missing from the story so far?
Any details?
The stories start with all the hyperbole, and you actually run out of time.
Literally run out of time before you get to the allegations.
And then the allegations, do you know what they're doing?
They're leaving out the known debunks.
So the reporting doesn't mention that the people, in the case of the grabbing the steering wheel allegation, that the people who are there say that never happened.
That's kind of important to the story, isn't it?
That the main accusation never happened.
And then they leave out the part about Trump saying that the people with weapons weren't going to hurt him, so don't be so harsh.
They just leave that out.
Now, how about this part?
Apparently... It was reported that Trump said of the chanters saying, hang VP Pence, quote, Mike Pence deserves it.
All right, the mobs were cheering that they want to hang VP Pence, and then Trump said, Mike Pence deserves it.
What's it? Deserves it.
What is it? Deserves the chanting.
It. He doesn't deserve to be fucking hugged.
If you read that story and you said, I think Trump just said they should hang Mike Pence, you should be really ashamed of yourself.
You're not really smart enough to participate in political discussions.
If you think the president literally meant he deserved to be murdered, you're not a serious participant.
People were chanting against Pence, and Trump just said he deserved it.
He deserved the approbation of the base.
That's it. Now, he also said, allegedly, we don't know if he really said this, but Trump allegedly said, as that chanting was happening, maybe our supporters have the right idea.
And then he said, referring to rioters wanting to hang VP Pence.
To which I say, wait a minute.
How do you know that that refers to wanting to hang VP Pence?
Because in the very same story, you just proved you don't know how to do this.
In the same story, they proved they don't know how to know what people are talking about.
Because when he said, he deserves it, you and I both say, it is the chanting, the disapproval he deserved.
But they interpreted it as he deserves to be murdered.
Now, if they could do that wrong right in front of you, then obviously that's wrong.
Don't you think that the second one where they say, where he said, maybe our supporters have the right idea, but then somebody else who is not Donald Trump characterized it as referring to writers wanting to hang VP Pence.
Now, now that the very same people who wrote the article have proven to you that they can't interpret a quote that's easy to interpret, it's easy to interpret.
He deserved the chanting and the disapproval.
That's easy. That's so easy.
Or it was hyperbole that everybody would have recognized as such.
If you were in that situation, you don't think you would have at least joked at least once, maybe he doesn't deserve to get hung, but not really mean it?
Of course you would. I would.
If you put me in that situation to somebody that I knew really well, I might have joked that, but I would have also trusted that everybody knew I didn't mean it.
Right? How many times in normal language do people say, somebody should be killed, I'm going to kill him, I'm going to murder him, but it's just the way people talk when they're worked up.
Right? Nobody takes it seriously.
Why is somebody named Will Smith trolling me by repeatedly saying that my stepson is dead with a little skull?
That is so old news.
You need to upgrade your trolling.
I'm going to hide you on the channel.
Do you really think that that bothers me now?
It bothered me then, but your trolling is so off point.
There's probably like a thousand things that you can say that would be more important than that.
Because that's just a biographical fact.
I don't know how you control me by stating a biographical fact.
That's just something that happened.
Anyway. James Garcia, or Jaime, I'm sorry, not James, Jaime Garcia, tweeted, and he's just somebody on Twitter, I don't know him, but he tweeted this.
Caught my eye. He said, I can't believe to this day that an American president encouraged his supporters to hang VP Pence just because the VP won't violate the Constitution.
So he literally says, the first part of his tweet is, I can't believe...
And then he states the thing you can't believe.
Why is it that someone would not believe a story?
Like, why would you use the phrase, I can't believe it?
What would cause you to do something like that?
Because it's not real.
If you see a story that's so fantastical in the news...
And it's also in a fog-of-war situation.
And I say January 6th was definitely a fog-of-war situation at the time.
You know, little clarity is coming out.
But when Hybie says, I can't believe this allegation, he means that it's so stunning, so jaw-dropping, that it's like, this is freaking unbelievable.
Do you know what your first instinct should be?
Anytime you hear a news story that's based on somebody telling you something happened, not direct observation.
Direct observation would be one thing.
But if somebody says something happened, but you can't verify it, and it's jaw-dropping and stunning, what should be your first impression?
There's a 99% chance that it didn't happen.
And there's actually a reason for that.
There's an obvious reason why it's 99% not true.
Because the things that are most interesting are false things.
Right? Normal life is not interesting because it's normal.
Anything you get used to, even if it's outrageous, after you get used to it, it's just normal.
So the reason that you got excited about the news, the reason that your brain is exploding, that should be telling you it's not true.
99% of the time.
It could be. It might be the exception.
But your first instinct to a jaw-dropping story that has no evidence except somebody said so, your first impression should be, wow, that's quite a bombshell allegation, but it's in a class of things that That are false 99% of the time.
This is the Scott Alexander hypothesis, which he describes better.
So it's a real thing.
I'm not the one making up this rule, right?
It's an existing, well-understood phenomenon that the less true something is, the more it will catch your attention.
And if something is, yeah, like the story that Trump suggested that people would drink bleach, how could you know from the first moment that it wasn't true?
From the first moment, if you hadn't even watched the thing yourself, how could you know it wasn't true?
Because it's in the class.
It's in the class of things that as soon as you hear it, you say, well, I don't think that happened.
And then if you tried to directly observe it, you'd find some fog of war going on, because they clip out the beginning and the end where he talks about it being light therapy.
And then it looks like he's talking about some kind of physical bleach or some kind of chemical bleach.
So anytime you hear a story like that, President said you should drink bleach.
No. You don't even have to look into it, do you?
Do you really have to look into that?
You don't have to. It's just obviously not true.
How about President praised neo-Nazis in public?
Do you have to look into that?
You don't. You really don't.
Because there's no way that happened.
And then you look into it, and there's some gray area about, you know, if you chop up his quote, it might look like that.
But of course, the full quote says the opposite.
But you'll still click on it, yeah.
You'll still click on it.
So that should be your tip of the day.
If it's so outrageous you can't believe it, the reason is probably because you can't believe it.
Let's talk about poor Brett Baer today, who on the Fox News Channel, I would compliment him as being the most objective, least opinion-based news person, hard news person.
But he is getting it in the chops today because you don't understand what he said.
He's getting killed today because you don't understand what he said.
What he did say is no problem.
What he actually said, you wouldn't disagree with.
What you think he said is jaw-dropping.
What you think he said is that he was believing the testimony and that it would change everything.
Right? Didn't you get the sense that he was projecting...
That he believed the testimony.
Did you get that sense?
Well, the trouble is that he's a news guy, so he simply told you what happened and he didn't like it.
Here's what he said.
He said that the testimony from this Hutchinson's person was compelling from beginning to end.
True or false? Was it compelling?
Now, this isn't about whether it was true.
Compelling just means you couldn't turn away.
True or false? Was it compelling in the sense that you cared?
Yes. It's the biggest headline of the day.
It's why I woke up so excited.
It's compelling. Now, do you think that's unfair?
Is that too much opinion? It's not opinion.
That is a straight-up fact that everybody who looked at this treats it like it's important and therefore it's compelling.
There's nothing to criticize in that statement.
It's compelling. But the way you interpreted it was probably true.
That's not there.
That's on you. That's on you.
You read that into it. What he said is it's compelling, and that's just objectively true.
He also noted that things would probably look different...
If the other side had gotten a legitimate time to respond.
Is that fair?
He said that if it had not been a one-sided presentation, you would probably be receiving it differently.
Absolutely fair.
Absolutely. He called out why you shouldn't believe it.
He told you that directly.
He basically said this should not be accepted as fact.
I mean, I'm paraphrasing.
Basically, he told the audience this should not be accepted as fact.
You don't think he pushed back hard enough for something that, to you, looked like obvious lies.
That's not his job.
That's not his job.
He's a news guy.
He just told you what happened.
And he told you how people received it.
And I think he did it straight.
And I'm going to back him 100% on this.
Be a little more discerning when you're listening to him.
If you parse his words, this isn't his first day, right?
It's not his first day at work.
He's really, really, really good at this.
Okay? So when he chooses his words, you've got to listen to him.
Because he is giving you the straight news, and when there's some pushback, he will presumably report it.
So already by today, there's pushback from people who said those reports are untrue.
Do you think he's not going to report on that?
Do you think Brett Baer is going to say, well, let's just move on to the next story?
Of course not. Of course not.
He's going to report it because that's the news.
So I think you need to lighten up on Brett Baer.
Because you don't want to...
It's one thing to...
I guess I approve of the impulse to weed out the bad players on your own team.
Because you don't want anybody who's on your side, who's not performing up to your standard.
But he's not the one.
There's lots of people you could go after first.
People who are maybe damaging your message.
He's not one at all.
Here are some of the things that go to her credibility.
This was amazing.
Apparently she claimed there was some handwritten note relative to this situation that she wrote.
And then the White House, former White House lawyer Eric Hirschman said, no, I wrote that.
How in the world could you be wrong about a handwritten note?
What? Now...
Again, we're in the fog of war.
My first impulse is to believe the attorney over her.
But, you know, anything's possible.
We're in this weird world where maybe the attorney forgot that she wrote it and couldn't tell his own handwriting or something.
I mean, none of this makes any sense.
But when you're in a situation where nothing makes sense, maybe your opinion should be there, too.
That we don't know what's going on.
There's just something here that doesn't make sense.
But certainly, somebody who may have lied about a handwritten note, why should you believe about anything else that person says?
Suppose it became validated.
I don't know if you could.
I suppose you could. Actually, this is one you could validate completely because you could just look at the handwriting.
You could just analyze the handwriting.
So this is one of the few things That you can find out for sure if she was telling the truth.
You can know for sure.
There would be no ambiguity about it at all, because it's not a he said, she said so much.
You actually just check the handwriting.
That would tell you everything you need to know.
So what if it turns out that, as Attorney Eric Hirschman says, that she did not...
I don't want to say lied, because there could be a false memory thing going on here.
But what if she was wrong about writing that note?
Even if it was a false memory, that's all you need to know.
As soon as you hear somebody had a genuine false memory, if that's what it was, if that's what it was, you don't really listen to the rest.
It wouldn't make sense.
All right. And was it Brett Baer who also said, no, somebody else said, I think it was Politico, who said that the compelling part of the testimony is how it was all laid out in a way that you could check on all the facts.
That's what was compelling.
And then nobody would go in front of the nation, tell a bunch of lies, and then also tell you how you could check the validity of the lies and In public.
Like, who would do that? Who would go in public, under oath, tell a bunch of lies, and then tell you exactly who to talk to to validate them, and then you find out, if you talk to them, that they were lies?
Who would do that? Apparently, she did that.
It looks like that's what happened.
Because the people that they...
The road map of how to check her work, people followed the map, and when they got to the destination, they said, oh, well...
Did that really happen? And then the Secret Service people in that one case said, nope, that didn't happen.
So what are you supposed to make of this?
Now, if you are right-leaning, you say to yourself, the whole January 6th thing fell apart.
It completely failed.
It turned into a Jussie Smollett obvious lie situation.
Boy, are those Democrats embarrassed now and they have egg on their face.
But you're forgetting the news bubble phenomenon.
The left will never hear any of this stuff.
The left will think every bit of this happened.
Am I wrong? The left will believe every bit of this.
They believe the bleach hoax.
Look at the list of things they believed.
If you just made a list of things that they believed...
Where would this fit in terms of ridiculousness on the list of things they already believe?
It would be absolutely ordinary.
On the list of things that Democrats believe really happened, this would be ordinary.
Now, to the people who are paying attention, seeing both sides of the news, and that's mostly the right-leaning people, it's just jaw-dropping.
Because you know the news people know it's all fake at this point.
The public probably is believing what they're hearing, more or less.
But the people reporting on it, you know, they're a little more sophisticated.
And you can tell by the way the articles are written.
If you look at the CNN article about it or the political article about it today, you can tell very clearly.
Well, I don't know if it's clear.
But as a writer, as someone who's a professional writer, it's obvious to me that the people who wrote the articles know it's bullshit.
And the tell is that they give you all the hyperbole before they get to the details.
And then they don't talk about the other side of the details, which are already known.
That is a gigantic, flaming signal that they know they're lying and that it's all propaganda.
And it's really just designed to hurt Trump and hurt Republicans.
At this point, it's so obvious.
And so, here's the opportunity that has presented itself.
You can now tell who all of the illegitimate news people are.
They can't hide anymore. Because they used to be able to hide behind, well, a reasonable person could think this actually happened.
But now you're not there anymore.
You're at a point where no reasonable person could think these allegations are true.
They really couldn't. Now, let me say this a different way.
A reasonable member of the public could believe them.
And they do. Because they're hearing a little bit and, you know, And they're not sophisticated news consumers, and so they just think the news is usually right, and this is on the news, and the news is usually right, and so why wouldn't this be?
But if you're a professional And looking for bullshit is sort of, you know, literally what you do for a living.
You know this isn't true.
And so that's why you don't write the articles as worse than Watergate and it's stunning and it's jaw-dropping.
And we talk to somebody we won't name in Trump's inner circle who also says, it's the end of the road, it's the obituary for...
Right? That's the way you write it when you don't believe your own story.
Trust me on this.
And by the way, is there anybody else here who is a professional writer?
I think there are a few of you.
If you're a professional writer, can you back me up on this?
That you don't write the story with the facts last.
The facts are always the first part of the story.
Have you noticed that a lot of the news starts with, I don't know which publications do it, I think Axios does it, maybe Business Insider, where they'll start with a summary of what the story is going to be with just the facts.
That's really good, isn't it?
Have you seen that format?
That's like one of the best formats.
Because you can just read the bullet points, and then if you want to dig down, you can.
But the bullet points told you what's happening.
But on these stories?
No, they're starting with a hyperbole first.
If you're a professional writer, you know what that means.
You know what that means.
They are burying the facts.
You don't bury the facts if the facts are on your side.
Am I right? Professional writers?
You don't even have to be a professional writer.
Do you bury the facts if the facts support your argument?
Nope. It's the first fucking thing you say.
It's the first thing you say.
Now that you've heard this frame, that they're hiding the facts behind the hyperbole, go back and read some of the articles.
Once you see it, you can't unsee it.
And that once you see it, go back and remember the names of the people who wrote those articles.
Because they just outed themselves.
Because they know they're lying.
Or they know they're spinning.
These are not people you should ever trust again.
If anybody put their name on a story that said this was a stunning, jaw-dropping, worse than Watergate situation, without telling you the mitigating parts of the story...
You could never trust them again.
Because there are lots of stories that people get wrong, and you never really know.
Did they know that was wrong when they reported it?
You never really know, right?
But this time you do.
That's what's different. This time you actually know they know it's not true.
You know they know it. Because they've signaled it so strongly by hiding the facts behind the hyperbole.
Somebody says, you're just now understanding this?
No, I'm just now explaining it To anybody who didn't see how obvious it is at the moment.
No, I didn't just now figure it out.
All right.
So here are some of the things.
This is literally a sentence from CNN's reporting.
This is a bombshell.
It's stunning. It's shocking.
The story about, quote, the Beast, that's the presidential automobile, don't have words.
It's just stunning, said one Trump advisor.
One Trump advisor, really.
Which one? Which one was it?
Are they named? And...
Why is it this is one Trump advisor?
Did they wish to remain anonymous?
Or was it just that the news...
Because often there would be, you know, it would say there's an unnamed source or anonymous.
But here they just say, one Trump advisor said all these things.
Do you think that one Trump advisor actually said that?
Do you think this is an accurate and complete quote from one Trump advisor?
No. No, it's not.
It's not. At the very least, it's manufactured.
There may, in fact, be a Trump advisor who said some things in this domain.
But if you've worked in the media long enough and you have been quoted, I've been quoted a million times.
Do you know how many times my actual quotes are actually things I said?
Only when I tweet it.
If I tweet it, Because it's so easy to check, they give the exact words.
If it's something I said to somebody in a private interview, and I don't have any way to prove what I did or did not say, those quotes are all made up.
They're all made up.
Because at the very least, they leave out context.
They put in a word maybe that changes the meaning a little bit.
But yeah, those are all made up.
So when you see a quote from a quote, one Trump advisor, you don't even have to read the quote.
Those are made-up quotes.
If there's anything that I do that will maybe be a lasting benefit to the world, teaching you how to read the news critically might be the best thing I could ever do.
But you should discount anything from one Trump advisor who has not been named, had this opinion, and here's the quote, Those are never true.
Those are almost never true.
Almost never. Alright.
Yeah. So, that went full of Jussie today.
And, of course, they dragged out one of the worse than Watergate guys.
They brought out Bob Woodward this time.
He thinks the testimony is enough to end former President Donald Trump's political career.
So suppose it does.
Suppose it does. So you've got all these vultures over there like, ah, we've ended his political career.
Have you ever heard the old saying, you know, the dog chases the car, but what if he caught it?
Like, what happens when the dog catches the car?
Like, beware of what you ask for, you know, the Chinese proverb, beware of what you ask for because you might get it.
What would happen if they ruined Trump's political career?
What's the obvious outcome of ruining Trump's political career?
The obvious outcome.
President DeSantis, number one, what's the second part of an obvious outcome of that?
Trump goes full-on entertainment news, meaning that he becomes a monster in interpreting and talking about the news, in one fashion or another.
Do you really think you want that?
The Democrats have found the only way they can win, which would be if Trump won, and they can pin him with enough to get a victory with some better candidate than they have.
But that's a long shot, and maybe they think that wouldn't even work.
But the worst thing that could happen for the Democrats is that President DeSantis, because he doesn't have the baggage and he's highly competent, and he makes Republicans look good.
They don't want that. And then having Trump running cover from sort of a Rush Limbaugh type of role where the party has to do what he approves of, otherwise he'll be talking about it too much.
Trump could completely control the Republican Party just by the way he talks about it in public.
That appears to be his thing.
I tweeted yesterday the difference between 2015 and 2022.
It goes like this.
In 2015, I was writing and blogging that Trump had persuasion powers that were nuclear-grade and that he's the most persuasive person in the planet.
Do you know how much I was mocked for that?
The number of people in 2015 who said, come on, you call that persuasive?
Persuasive? Oh my God, he's just an orange Cheeto Jesus.
How come you can't see that?
You, you, grifter.
You grifters got...
All right, so in 2015, I was literally laughed at and mocked for suggesting that Trump was persuasive in 2015.
In 2022...
Trump gets to decide who the next president is.
He's the only one.
He literally, personally gets to decide who will be the president of the United States next.
Because if he runs, it's probably him.
And if he decides not to run, it's probably DeSantis.
And that's it. There's only one person who gets to decide who the president is next time.
Now, can you imagine a situation...
Where anybody could be more persuasive than being the only person in a republic with democratic elections, the only person whose vote matters.
You can't get more persuasive than that.
Try to give me a situation that would be more persuasive than one person gets to decide who's president of the United States.
When I said that, there's one person who gets to decide who's president of the United States.
Didn't it sound ridiculous?
And then you thought about it for a moment?
And you thought, well, wait a minute.
If he runs, it's him.
If he doesn't run, it's DeSantis.
Literally, it's down to one person's decision.
Somebody's saying Elon Musk, but I don't know why he has to do this.
Right? It's funny, I'm looking at the reaction, and I don't think that you want to accept this as a reality.
Because it's weird that you're not really directly responding to the fact that I just told you your democracy is irrelevant.
It is. Because only one person gets to decide this time for president.
Now, you can see it, right?
But until I told you that, had you processed that?
How do you process that it literally is just down to one person?
That's your democracy right there.
One person gets to decide who's president next time.
According to everything we can see, I mean, there could be surprises, but if you assume the polls are correct, that's it.
One person gets to decide who's president.
It's hard to accept, isn't it?
Like, your brain doesn't even want to deal with it.
It's so traumatizing because everything we've done, like every conversation that you and I and the people watching this, everything we've talked about is to bolster the republic.
Am I wrong? I mean, that's sort of basic to the conservative, republican point of view of which...
Although I'm not specifically a member of, it's what I deal with the most.
And it seems to me that if you spend all of your time trying to protect the Republic and democratic principles within the Republic and the Constitution, if that's what you're worshipping, and then you didn't notice that it was all gone, at least at the moment, it'll come back, I think.
But at the moment it doesn't exist.
There's just a weird situation that evolved that none of the machinery of the Constitution really make any difference at the moment.
All that matters is whether Trump decides to run.
Am I right? Now, if Trump...
Yeah.
And I think that there's...
If I can tell from the comments, there's a massive amount of cognitive dissonance going on right now.
And the cognitive dissonance is that you worked all this time to support freedom and democracy and the Constitution, the Republic.
Those are like your sacred things.
And all of your work on behalf of Trump, for those of you who are supporters, was really about those things.
Like, it wasn't about Trump, even though he was entertaining.
It was about those things.
Your most basic principles of democratic, republic...
Constitution. And it's all gone.
It's all gone.
You did so well, supporting Trump, that you got rid of all of that.
Temporarily. And we're not in any trouble.
It's just a weird historical situation that the very thing everybody wanted the most, they eliminated from the option set.
The thing you wanted the most Democracy, the Republic, the Constitution.
You just eliminated it from the options.
Because we basically gave Trump all this power, and now he gets to decide.
You say the media did that?
With our help, the media did that.
Why can't we say we just picked him?
Well, that is one frame that is 100% accurate.
It is accurate that some number of the public, not quite a majority, but the electoral college did the rest.
You can say that the system worked, you picked them, and therefore the system is working fine.
But it is also true, and I don't think you could argue with it, that it is down to one person's decision.
The mechanism will still have to do what the mechanism does to make it, you know, to manifest it.
But it's down to one guy.
I don't know, was that the system you had in mind?
Now, this isn't the first time it's happened.
What's the other time it was down to one guy?
There you go, you're ahead of me.
George Washington, yeah. When George Washington made the decision to leave the office when he obviously could have stayed and become like an emperor...
Yeah, same thing.
All right. If Washington had decided to stay, he would have been president.
Now, there are probably a few other cases where if the incumbent ran, you know, Teddy Roosevelt's a good example, because if you're a spoiler, you know what's going to happen, etc.
Yeah, sometimes it's down to one person.
But we do, in all fairness, we do still have the veto.
The system still operates such that We can still veto Trump if he got under control.
All right. Let's see.
What else we got going on here?
As Sean Woodruff tweeted, again, this is just somebody on Twitter.
I don't know. But he said, this is the six-plus years of this exact same pattern playing out.
Now, talking about The January 6th thing being a fraud.
It's sort of like all the other frauds that the Democrats have perpetrated.
He says, this is the six-plus years of this exact same pattern playing out, and no one really learns to spot it.
Are there really that many dumb people?
And the answer is, no.
The answer is, there are too many smart people.
That's the problem. The problem isn't that we're dumb.
Some people are dumb, but that's not the problem.
The problem is the smart people.
Because the smart people are the ones who are misdirecting you from the pattern.
Do you know why you don't notice the pattern?
Misdirection. That's how all magic tricks work.
So the bad stuff is right there, and you could see it if you could look at it.
If you could turn your attention to it, you'd see it.
So the only thing that the magicians can do, the smart people, is make sure there's something shinier over there, just so you don't see it.
It's still there, and you can see it easily if you could turn your head.
So they just make sure you can't turn your head.
So as long as you're looking at some other outrage, you're just not concentrating on it, and you miss the pattern.
But yes, the Democrats have completely given up on governance, and they're entirely in the business of Of making up conspiracy theories and selling them to make the other side look bad.
The memes are great today, by the way.
If you haven't seen it, the memes are great.
So Rasmussen added some poll results.
Only 30% of likely U.S. voters rate Biden good or excellent for his handling of crime and law enforcement.
It's down from 35% in April.
51% now give Biden a poor rating on the...
Poor? What?
I read this before, but somehow this missed my gaze.
51% give Biden a poor rating on crime?
Up from 47? What?
You know, when you see these polls, they usually give, like, four choices.
You know, like, strongly, then weakly, then, you know, neutral, then, you know, mildly against and strongly against.
But to see the lowest category have greater than 50% of the public poor, that's almost, is that unprecedented?
Have I ever seen anything that bad in terms of a poll?
I mean, I'm sure there were.
But this seems like about as bad as anything could be.
And the weird thing is that not only do people not trust Biden to handle law enforcement, but right in front of us we're watching Hunter Biden and his father doing something that, at least to my eyes, I'm not a lawyer, but to my eyes it looks obviously illegal.
And not only that, but we've been exposed to the direct evidence of it.
The phone call that shows that they had been discussing Hunter's Chinese business, and that Joe Biden knew enough about it to shortcut the description and mention it.
So, to me, I mean, I don't know what specific crime would be violated here, but I feel like this should be illegal.
Somehow. So you've got the guy who's, in my opinion, and again, this is not a factual statement, but it looks like the president literally has committed the biggest crimes you could ever do right in front of us and showed us the evidence because it was on the laptop.
I mean, we found the evidence.
And nothing will happen.
Nothing will happen. At the same time, he's rated the worst president probably ever on crime.
And 58% of the people said that that issue will be very important in November.
How could he possibly win?
There's no way that could happen.
Have you heard the framing?
Where did I see it first?
That the Republicans are the parents' party?
Or the party of parents?
What do you think of that framing?
The Republicans are the party of parents.
How does that hit you? Pretty good, isn't it?
Yeah. The only people who don't like parents are children.
Because they don't want authority sometimes.
But there's no parent who doesn't think parents are a good idea.
So it's pretty strong, isn't it?
Yeah, it's pretty strong. But they're going to have to back it up.
Because... And I think it fits everything, too.
I believe all of the Republican...
Policy preferences fit very neatly under this is what your parents would want for you.
It might not be what you want, but this is what your parents know is best for you.
And he stole that from someone.
Who was the first person who came up with that, the parent party?
I'm blanking because it's one of our...
It's somebody we know well.
Who was it? All right, well, I apologize.
By tomorrow, I'll know, and I'll tell you who came up with it.
Was it Cernovich?
I don't remember him doing it.
Newt? Newt?
Was it Newt? Newt's good at this.
I don't know. Keep an eye on that.
The parent party could have some legs.
Meanwhile, Corey DeAngelis, who works this school choice issue relentlessly and very effectively, he tweets that South Carolina superintendent, Republican primary election results.
So the pro-school choice candidate just absolutely annihilated somebody who was the leader of the teachers' union.
So somebody who was the leaders of the teaching union ran for office and just got annihilated by a school choice person.
Now, we keep seeing this pattern.
If you haven't noticed the pattern, I try to tweet about it as much as possible.
And Corey DeAngelis, he's picking up every instance of this so you can see it, and then the pattern is starting to form.
But, yeah, the school choice people are just mopping the floor.
With the union people and the people who want the schools to stay the same.
Because the one thing that everybody knows is that the schools are broken.
And also, everybody who's even a little bit smart knows that the way you fix broken stuff is by competition.
Right? That's it.
Because if you could do it just by force, then communism would work great.
Wouldn't it? Like if somebody just had to tell you to do something and then you do it, if that model worked, well, then communism would be great.
Socialism, great. But everybody, everybody who's even a little bit sophisticated as an adult and even a little bit educated knows that competition is the only thing that fixes anything, really.
And you see it in every domain.
So I think even the people who are Democrats are going to say to themselves, you know, there really isn't any example of anything that isn't better without competition.
I guess you could say that your town's water company might be better as a monopoly, but I'm not even sure that's true.
All right. And I think that might be all I want to talk about today.
Oh, Ukraine.
Ukraine is so boring that when I got to the point in my notes where I was going to talk about Ukraine, I ended up with just the word Ukraine.
And then I got bored and stopped talking about it.
So I guess NATO is invited, Finland and Norway?
Do I have the right countries?
Finland and Sweden, right?
It's Finland and Sweden, right?
Let me get the right countries.
I've been invited in.
I don't know. Doesn't make any difference.
Then Putin has said if Ukraine tries to recapture Crimea, you know, that'll be, like, really bad war.
Instead of the war they're having, that'll be, like, the really bad one.
Declaration of War. What bribe did Turkey get?
Well, we don't know if Turkey's going to...
There still has to be a vote, right?
How does that work? Being invited...
Does that mean you're in if you say yes?
Or is being invited means you're invited to try to get in?
And there's still a vote?
Oh, Turkey agreed. Somebody says Turkey agreed.
Okay. Well, there we go.
I'm sure they got some nice military equipment purchases out of that or something.
Well, that, ladies and gentlemen, is the conclusion.
Of the prepared part of Coffee with Scott Adams.
Probably the finest moments you've ever spent in your life.
I think you got smarter.
You're probably better people now.
Better off for it. I think we all felt the connection.
And I think that today's going to be an awesome day for you.
The news is so interesting today.
It's really fun. And maybe...
This is the beginning of the Golden Age.
Do you know what would be a good signal that the Golden Age had begun?
Now, I'm not saying this is it.
I'm just saying what to look for.
I'm not saying we're there.
But it would look like this.
The main headlines were about bullshit.
That's where you want to be.
Because if your main headline is the pandemic, well, you're kind of fucked.
If your main headline is there might be a nuclear war with Russia, well, you're kind of fucked.
Maybe. If your main news is that we're running out of food and resources and everything else, well, you're probably fucked.
But if your main headline...
Is about what Trump may or may not have said that doesn't really matter to anybody about anything.
If that's your headline, if it's a Jussie Smollett kind of situation headline, you're in good shape.
Now, it does seem to me that we have some big problems that are being ignored at the moment.
But what you would look for is that the news would run out of problems and they'd have to make them up.
And I think that's what's happening.
I think the news is literally making up the news because they can't find enough bad news.
Although it's weird. It seems like there'd be enough out there.
We're at Omicron 5 now?
Should we have a sip to the Golden Age?
That's going to be here any minute.
Any minute. Let's have a sip to the Golden Age.
Is somebody saying that my golden turd analogy was the best ever?
And that may be true.
It might be the best analogy of all time.
And may we drink to the upcoming golden age?
Now here, let me be careful.
I want to be very careful about this.
You're not predicting it.
You're not predicting it with a sip.
You're causing it.
So this is about causing it.
It's not about predicting it.
Go. Go. Golden age.
Next step. Don says it'll be a golden age only for rich guys like me, like Scott, and the rest of us will take it up the ass.
I don't think so.
I don't think so. And here's why.
Because I think that there is a growing understanding that it's almost impossible for an ordinary person to have a good life With our current system.
Like, it'd be hard for them to get health care.
It's just hard to get the basics.
And I think that's going to get fixed.
And one of the biggest things that is happening right now looks like a small thing, but it's big.
The market for these ADUs, these additional dwelling units, these little...
Basically, it's a house in a box that they can just put in your backyard, connect it to the utilities, and you're done.
And you've got a $50,000 to $100,000 house that's new and really nice for one person, maybe two.
Now, I think that that's going to be the future.
I think we're going to figure out how somebody only needs Wi-Fi, Or maybe an unlimited cell plan.
They probably only need 5G, actually.
They don't need Wi-Fi at all. They probably only need 5G, one of these ADUs, and public transportation.
And you're done. You're done.
You could have a really cheap, high-quality life.
Now, where is this ADU? If the ADU is in the backyard somewhere, well, that might be nice.
But ideally, you would build communities in which you would place the ADUs in sort of a pattern that causes people to interact, meet their neighbors, share some things, have some fun.
Have some concerts, have some events, and suddenly it's just the most wonderful place in the world to work.
Do you know what my highest quality of life was in my entire life, and that includes right now where I live in a big house in luxury, but do you know what my highest quality of life was?
It was sharing a little cinder block room with a roommate in college.
Why? Because the social part...
Was ideal. The physical living quarters was pretty close to jail, actually.
Very close to a jail-like experience.
So small. And literally, you know, concrete walls and shit.
But it was by far my happiest years.
And it wasn't because I was young and I hadn't experienced luxury yet, so I didn't know what...
It was entirely because the things that make us happy are other people.
That's it. That's it.
And how many of you are depressed?
Now, if you're clinically, like you've got an actually organic problem, this won't help you.
But for those of you who are just sad and lonely, it's because of people.
You've got all kinds of other problems, financial problems, inflation, gas costs too much, your boss is an idiot.
But if the people around you are awesome, you've got the right social life, love life, family life, you're probably pretty happy.
Unless you have organic depression.
Right? So, how much time do we ever spend when we're talking about how to build low-cost housing for people?
How much do we ever talk about solving the actual problem?
The actual problem is their social problem.
Almost all problems, at least within a civilized world that has enough food, if you have enough food, it's kind of a people problem after that.
You need to be around the right kind of people that will make you feel the way you want to feel.
Now, what is the best way to accomplish that?
I'm going to close with some life advice.
How does one go from not having much of a social life to having one?
What would be the primary path to do that?
You tell me. Somebody said church, and that's an excellent suggestion.
It wasn't what I was thinking of, but I'm going to agree with you.
Churches are really good at this.
Really good. Not just a Sunday sitting in the pew stuff, but organizing barbecues and get-togethers.
And churches also will get young people together.
So they'll have lots of events for just the young people who want to meet.
So I would say churches, you can't beat them.
Like if you're a believer, and that works for you.
I'm not a believer, so the model doesn't work for me.
But it's obvious it works.
That's why I'm so pro-religion.
It just works so well for someone.
Sports. Sports.
But I was going to go a different way.
So your answers are correct.
I'll give you full credit for your answers.
Diversify your friends, meet more people, do things with people you have in common.
Things you have in common.
If you do a sport with somebody, you automatically have stuff in common.
Tennis, chess, you know, golf, whatever.
But that's not where I was going to go.
If you have a social problem, here's what you need to fix.
You. You.
Yeah, fix you.
That's your biggest gain.
Learn, yeah, go to the gym.
Go to the gym. Get your physicality as good as you can get it.
Learn to dress, get a good haircut, take care of your skin.
Learn to accessorize if you're female, and male too, I suppose.
Work on your skill stack so that when somebody meets you, they say, whoa, you can do this and that?
No wonder you're so highly paid and you drive a nice car.
I'm giving you sort of a male perspective, but you can translate this to the female side.
All you have to do is fix yourself.
People will come to you, and when they come, they'll stick.
Fix yourself. Work really, really hard on fixing yourself.
That's how you attract the social life.
That's how you attract lovers.
Even your family's going to like you better if you're not like just a useless pile of organic matter.
Just be a better person.
It's very, let's say, I won't say it's easy, but it's very well known how to get from wherever you are to where whatever is better.
There's not much mystery to it, right?
If you read my book, How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big, it'll tell you how to not use willpower and still get the weight you want, the fitness you want, the Everything you want, basically.
So you can do it without even willpower.
You just have to be a little more clever about how you manage your own psychology.
And I teach you that and how to fail at almost everything.
It still went big. So the roadmap is there.
Do those things that other people said.
Join a sport. Join a club.
Join a church. Those are great things.
But they're not going to help you as much as you think if you haven't fixed this stuff.
You need to fix this stuff.
If you get that stuff under control, then everything you do works.
Let me say it again. If you get yourself under control, you just have to go to the grocery store.
You just have to walk out of your house, and people are just going to flock to you.
Because it's rare for people to do a good job working on themselves.
And when you see it, you go, oh, I'd like to be around that.
Yeah. What clubs?
There are no clubs anymore.
Yeah, club is the wrong word, but there are organizations.
It could be a political organization.
It doesn't matter what it is or what its point is.
You just have to be around people.
Happy birthday, Terry Large.
You are a cancer.
The worst astrological sign.
Only because of its name.
How would you like to be...
If you were picking your own astrological sign, let's say you got to pick it before you were born, and there's God, and God is talking to you.
All right, you're going to be born in a little bit.
You've got these 12 astrological signs.
How would you like...
We've got an opening for cancer.
Anybody? Does anybody want cancer as their astrological sign?
Anybody? And I think people say, Can you get me Sagittarius?
How about a little Aquarius?
I'm thirsty.
That sort of thing.
Many doctors are studying long COVID in Brazil and the fatigue has a treatment.
I'm going to look into that. So I did my experiment yesterday of not smoking any pot in the morning.
Because I wanted to see if maybe there was something about what I was imbibing that was giving me the afternoon fatigue.
It didn't make much difference.
So whatever that afternoon fatigue is, it puts me into a zone that I've never experienced before, which is why I think it's long COVID, because it's not familiar.
Everybody knows what it's like to be tired, right?
Everybody knows what fatigue feels like.
It doesn't feel like that. It's not a brain fog as much as I can be completely content simply sitting there.
That's never happened to me.
I can literally just sit on the couch and I could sit there for an hour.
I could just sit there.
And I've never been able to do that.
Because my body just wouldn't let me.
Like my body would just be off the couch and I'd have to do something.
Like I'd have to be cleaning or learning or sports or take a walk or something.
But I can now just sit on the couch.
And I don't like it.
Because I think what's missing is dopamine.
Because remember I taught you that dopamine not only makes you happy, but it's indicated in movement.
I can't even move.
I'm having trouble getting my body to actually move, like actually physically move.
I have to talk myself into moving.
I've never had that before.
That feels like a complete deficit of dopamine, doesn't it?
Somebody says it's called aging, but why did it only happen after COVID? I mean, I was old a month ago, too.
Trust me, I was old a month ago.
This is different. Cancer is Latin for crab.
Well, that doesn't help.
Which one do you want?
Gemini or crab?
Awesome horse-like creature or crab?
Would you like to be the sign of water that is 98% of all our reality?
Or crab?
Yeah. Well, the scorpion's kind of awesome.
Yeah, do you want to be a lion?
Or a crab?
Do you want to be strong like bull?
Leo? Or a crab?
Yeah, it's a bad choice.
Sorry about that. Do you want to be like Libra?
Fair? Or crab?
Do you want to be Virgo?
Would you like to be a virgin all your life?
Or a crab?
Okay, I'll take the crab.
All right, you win. You win.
I'm taking the crab.
I'll take the cancer too, if I don't have to be a virgin all my life.
Good trade-off. And on that note, goodbye to YouTube.
