Episode 1833 Scott Adams: Let's Talk About The Fake News About Nuclear Weapons Secrets At Mar-a-Lago
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Wrap-Up Smear tactic per Nancy Pelosi
AG Garland authorized Mar-a-Lago raid
Did Trump people get a copy of the warrant?
WaPo's 2 anonymous sources
Nuclear weapons secrets, really...really?
How CNN launders FAKE NEWS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 most surprising and amazing experience of your entire life.
Some say it's a highlight of civilization.
And they'd be right. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and it's the only place you're gonna hear useful stuff.
Everything else is Pure fake news.
But here, you're going to get the good stuff.
And let's check the headlines.
Is there anything in the headlines?
Well, if it's true.
But it's not. And if you'd like to take your awareness up to the highest possible level for today, tomorrow it might be a little bit higher.
But today, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or a canteen jug or a flask, A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid I like, coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine here of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go. You know, there was a TV show years ago.
Battlestar Galactica.
There were two versions of it.
In the newer version, there were artificial beings who were indistinguishable from normal beings, unless you had a special test.
There'd be a special test to find out who was human and who was some form of NPC. And you say to yourself, wouldn't that be useful to have now?
Wouldn't you like to know who among you are the Cylons, to use that phrase from the TV show, and who among you are real people?
And it turns out that maybe you don't have access to this tool, but I do.
I do. I have an actual tool to determine who are NPCs.
They're the people who leave comments in my Twitter feed that say something like, well...
I didn't know it until now, but Adams is the pointy-haired boss.
Or, what about lasagna on Mondays?
So I'm going to start tagging all of the NPCs that I see today.
So I'm just going to do hashtag NPC, because they're the ones who have just the little canned obvious things.
So when I announced the other day on Twitter, That we had entered Phase 2, which I had not defined at that time.
A lot of people came in and said, well, not people, NPCs.
And they said, how's Phase 2 going?
How's Phase 2 going, Scott?
Have you read the news lately?
Ha ha ha ha ha!
We'll expect your apology, because if you didn't know it, the reporting last night was that President Trump might have been Storing nuclear weapons secrets at Mar-a-Lago.
Ha, ha, ha! Idiot.
Cartoon boy, what do you say about that?
What do you say about that, cartoon boy?
How about that?
We gotcha.
Gotcha. Gotcha.
So that's what my evening looked like.
I went to bed to that.
And I said to myself, I'll probably look into this in the morning.
Must be some new news.
And then I saw the news.
The news.
Let's talk about the news.
Have you ever heard of a thing called a, what's it called?
A wrap-up smear?
Do you know what a wrap-up smear is?
Well, let's have Nancy Pelosi explain it.
We call it the wrap-up smear.
You smear somebody with falsehoods and all the rest.
And then you merchandise it.
And then you write it.
See, it's reported in the press that this, this, this, and this.
So they have that validation that the press reported the smear.
And then it's called the wrap-up smear.
Now I'm going to merchandise the press's report on the smear that we made.
And it's a tactic.
It's a tactic.
And it's self-evident.
Tactic.
It's a self-fulfilling.
You demonize and then you...
We call it the wrap...
It's called the wrap-up smear.
and Now, Nancy Pelosi was describing how she believes her opponents use it.
But once you know it's a thing, you kind of see it everywhere.
And let's see if we can identify a wrap-up smear in the news today.
Are there any wrap-up smears happening right now that the NPCs believe is actual real news?
Maybe. Because we woke up to some interesting news, but first, let's do this in order.
A.G. Garland went on TV to announce...
His statement about the raid on Mar-a-Laco.
Turns out he did authorize it.
So that was news.
And all the smart people said, uh, what are the odds he didn't authorize it?
Because remember, the first story was trying to make it seem as though Christopher Wray authorized it because he was a Trump appointee.
See how the fake news works?
Oh, no, it was a Trump appointee who authorized it.
But it turns out it wasn't.
Not only was it not, it was, you know, an obvious Democrat appointee, Garland.
But they kept that from us for how long?
Like a day or so? So there is maybe 40% of the public will never hear the correction, and they will always believe that it was a Trump-appointed person who authorized the raid.
They'll never hear the correction.
So that's the first trick, is that the fake news always travels longer than the correction.
So you see that trick.
I have a question about who advised the Attorney General Garland to act totally guilty in front of the public.
Do you think anybody gave him that advice?
Because it looks like he took it.
I've never seen anybody act more guilty than that guy.
And you look for the things he doesn't say, right?
The things he does say is, oh, we have this reason to do it.
And the reason because...
And he doesn't say.
Because it's a secret. And then he says, oh, we're going to call your bluff.
We're going to release the warrant, the part that would just say what things they were looking for.
And then Trump says, I want it released too.
And then the public says, you don't have it?
They handed you a copy.
But then you look at the reporting.
Have you seen what words the reporting uses to describe the, let's say, allegation that the Trump team has in their possession the copy of the warrant?
Now, my understanding of the process is they have to have a copy of it.
Am I wrong about that?
The process pretty much guarantees that somebody has a copy of it on the Trump side, right?
But when you look at how the Trump people talk about it and how the news reports it, have you ever noticed that they never say there's a confirmation that Trump has a copy, like a physical copy?
Because there was some weird reporting about how maybe they showed it to some people but didn't let them keep it.
Does that sound? That doesn't sound real, does it?
But that's one of the rumors we heard.
Lyle says, Scott's spinning hard.
Oh, Lyle. Stick around.
Stick around, my NPC friend.
You might learn something.
We're going to get wild here in a minute.
This is just the introduction.
You haven't seen anything.
All right, so...
The words that are used about the warrant being in the hands of the Trump people are things like, they were shown the warrant.
Shown. Now, I think I'm making that one up.
But if you look at the actual words, it's like, they were presented with the warrant.
They showed them the warrant.
Of course you had to show the warrant.
Of course it was shown.
But do you notice all the words are lacking the retained part?
Now, I believe it was retained.
If I had to place a bet, I would bet that somebody on the Trump team has a physical copy.
But even as of this morning, Fox News says they couldn't confirm it.
This morning, like just an hour ago, Fox News says they can't confirm that the Trump team has a physical copy.
Now, I'm pretty sure they do.
Does anybody believe they don't have a physical copy?
If you're taking it from a persuasion perspective, Trump is playing this exactly right.
Because he's being vague about whether he has the warrant, which makes you wonder if everything was copacetic.
So it's actually smart from a persuasion perspective.
You can argue the ethics of anything here.
That could be your conversation with yourself.
But in terms of effectiveness, Trump is doing two really good things.
He's being vague about whether they have the warrant, which makes everybody get excited, and then he adds to the ambiguity by saying he agrees with the Attorney General and he would like, quote, all of the documents released.
Do you think Trump is talking about the same documents that the Attorney General is talking about?
Of course not. Of course not.
That's how the trick is played.
So Trump is cleverly Expanding the definition of the documents to be beyond what the Attorney General is saying, which is just the list of stuff they're looking for.
And then a receipt for the things they took, which could be slightly different from what they were looking for.
Probably is different. But those are the only things that Garland was talking about.
Beyond that, there's something called, I think, the affidavit, right?
That is a long description of why they thought they needed to operate quickly, why they needed a warrant, why they couldn't do it in any other way.
That document is surely what Trump wants you to think is the missing part, because it is missing.
Now, the process itself keeps that away from the public.
So if you didn't know that we're not allowed to see that, and there's a good reason, because you don't want allegations out in the public.
You want to keep that within the legal system until something gets more public or more closer to proven.
So what Trump is saying, yeah, release it all.
He knows that can never happen, and it will always look like they're hiding something.
And they are. They are hiding something.
Now, they're hiding it behind a legal requirement that I agree with, so they have to hide it.
But I think they're pretty happy that they're not showing it to anybody for a variety of political and practical reasons.
So Trump's persuasion approach is pure bullshit, I think.
It's pure bullshit, but pretty good.
Pretty good. Now, the other side, of course, is also pure bullshit, but we'll talk about how well they're doing it.
Pretty good, actually. If I'm going to score the Democrats for just persuasion, as opposed to, again, ethical or moral treatment, same as I did with Trump, right?
You make your own decisions about the moral or ethical angles.
It's politics, right?
In politics, you think your team can do it and the other team can't.
So, you know, there's nothing to talk about there.
But... So Trump is playing it well.
He's keeping it alive by not showing you the warrant, which I assume he has a copy of.
He's broadening the description of the documents to include the affidavit, which you know you're never going to see, which will always look sketchy to the public, because the public won't catch the nuance that you're not allowed to see that kind of stuff at this phase of a legal process.
Garland, having looked perfectly guilty of something horrible, but we don't know what, got some cover fire today.
And did he notice that the cover fire was exactly the right timing?
Because just when the news cycle had turned desperately bad for the Democrats, it looked really bad, and Garland didn't fix anything.
He made it worse. Just when it was the darkest it could be, The Washington Post tells us that they have two anonymous sources.
Anonymous sources.
Washington Post.
Anonymous sources.
So credibility looks good so far.
And there's something negative about Trump.
Anonymous sources.
Washington Post.
Negative about Trump.
How would you rank that if you didn't know anything else?
The only thing you knew were those facts.
How would you rank the credibility of that report?
Well, let me tell you how CNN ranked it.
CNN is reporting on Washington Post's reporting.
It says we can't confirm it.
They can't confirm it.
But they can report the fuck out of it, can't they?
Not only that, but here's what these assholes do on Twitter.
On Twitter, where they do the trending stories and stuff, let me tell you how Twitter, or whoever does that, whoever writes the summary has wrote it.
Here's the summary.
God damn it.
Yeah, I have it here.
Or do I? Let me look through my own notes.
There it is. Damn it.
Oh, I guess I don't have that.
But the Washington...
So the summary on Twitter says that Trump...
Oh, here's the summary.
All right, I got it. So here's the headline.
See if the headline feels accurate to you.
Here's the headline.
FBI saw classified documents related to nuclear weapons during the Mar-a-Lago search, comma, according to the Washington Post.
Do you see what they did?
Let me read it again, see if you can find the brainwashing and manipulation.
It's just one sentence, and it's right here.
FBI sought classified documents related to nuclear weapons during Mar-a-Lago search, comma, according to the Washington Post.
According to the Washington Post.
Now, is it according to the Washington Post, or is it according to two anonymous people that the Washington Post talked to?
Well, both. But I think if you leave out the anonymous part, that means something.
And if you put the according to at the end of the sentence instead of the start of the sentence, it's completely different.
Imagine this.
Imagine just rewording the same sentence.
According to the Washington Post only...
According to the Washington Post only, Trump had access to nuclear weapons secrets or something at Mar-a-Lago.
Now, if you put the source first, it debunks the story before you read it.
If you put the source last, you accept the story, because it's in the news.
It's the news, it's the headline.
So you read the news, and then your brain just turns off after the according to.
Because do you care? It's like according to somebody important.
So it must be true. So last night, all the people who don't know how to consume news were trying to dance on my grave and insist on my apology, and they couldn't wait to get here this morning because I'm going to be eating some crow because it turns out the least credible source in the fucking solar system said something that might be bad for my side.
So they're pretty happy.
The NPCs are just...
Have you ever seen NPCs dancing?
It's disgusting.
It's like Elaine from Seinfeld, just all of them.
Sort of like that. That's what they're doing today.
Anyway, let's dissect their diabolical plan.
So I tweeted today where we're heading.
So here's what's definitely going to happen.
So the bad guys, I'm going to call the bad guys the fake news purveyors.
So the bad guys are all the Democrats and the fake news people who are supporting them.
So here's where we're going.
So the bad guys are going to claim that because it's coincidentally, and this is really lucky for the Democrats, pretty coincidental, that the thing that they say, or not they, but two anonymous sources...
As they do the wrap-up smear, so you see the wrap-up smear?
So the way Nancy Pelosi explained how it's done is if somebody makes a claim, this would be the two anonymous sources, then it's reported in the news, the Washington Post, then the CNN reports, CNN reports the Washington Post is reporting it, and by the time you see it in CNN, you've lost the anonymous source part, maybe, and Basically, it just turns into something that looks true.
Now, if you go over to Fox News, they won't be reporting it.
And here's a good BS filter.
If both Fox News and CNN say something is true, it's probably true.
For example, did the FBI enter Mar-a-Lago looking for documents?
Fox News reports it, yes.
CNN reports it, yes.
You could probably depend that that actually happened.
Right? If CNN reports the Washington Post reports that there might have been nuclear weapons secrets in Mar-a-Lago, but Fox News does not report it, is it true?
It could be, but probably not.
If you're going to play the odds, something that's reported as true on one and untrue on the other is probably fake.
Now, the Hunter laptop story is a notable exception.
But if you get either one of your entities saying that something is fake, it's probably fake.
So actually, the laptop story does work, because Fox News always said it was true, and the other side said it was fake, but they had such an obvious...
The 50 intelligence people were obviously lying.
So that was an operation.
So that was an exception, I guess.
All right. So here's how you do a hoax.
First you get your anonymous sources.
Check. Then you make sure that the timing of your fake story is just perfect.
This was perfect timing, because Garland had just failed January 6th hearings had completely failed.
Basically, everything that they had asserted had failed, including the FBI raid.
So they were at their deepest hole, and just in time, just in time, an anonymous report, which we call the wrap-up smear, appears.
So now the wrap-up smear is in full effect, perfectly timed, and one of the tells for it being fake news is a little too perfect.
If you were going to make up a story to make Trump look bad, imagine a different topic.
What would be worse?
Trump has the secret UFO files in his Mar-a-Lago.
I'm not even sure I'd care.
I get that it's top secret, but I don't know.
I would just think that was funny if I heard he had the UFO secret files.
Or how about, this is actually a true thing, the United States was once involved in actual research to see if there were any psychics that they might be able to weaponize.
That's a real thing. So somewhere there are documents about that.
What if you heard that was the secret documents he had?
Again, it might be important if it turns out there are any real psychics, I suppose.
But you would just laugh at that, wouldn't you?
You'd just think it was funny.
What if it was like the JFK assassination secrets?
You would just laugh at it.
Almost anything else you can think of, you'd probably laugh it off.
It's like, yeah, that's a secret, but eh.
If they told you he had troop movements or military readiness stuff in his files, what would be the first thing you think?
Why? Why would he have that?
Why would he want to keep it?
If somebody asked for it back, why would he give it to them?
Now take that to the nuclear weapon secret.
Imagine this conversation and then you tell me this really happened.
I'm going to give you a really on this, okay?
Hello, this is the Biden administration.
We have good information that you have in your files.
Sensitive nuclear weapons stuff.
Can we get that back?
And then whoever they were talking to said, no, no, no, no.
We like to keep the nuclear weapons secrets in a mildly secure place here in Mar-a-Lago.
Really? Really.
Do you think that the Trump administration, and Trump in particular, had been informed that he had in his possession nuclear weapons secrets in a not secure location, and that he decided to not give them back?
That's the story we're hearing.
That they knew what the documents were, and that they knew where they were, and what it was about, And they told the Trump people, and then the Trump people said, no, we're going to keep those nuclear weapons secrets right in our storage room here in Mar-a-Lago.
That's what we're going to do. Can we all, can you play along with me?
Give me a really on this.
Really? Really?
Really? You asked for your nuclear secrets back, and Trump said, uh-uh.
I'm keeping your nuclear secrets.
Really? Really?
That's actually what they're trying to sell us today.
There's some version of that actually happened.
Really? And let me say, if you're believing this story, based on the ten hoaxes that the Democrats have played that follow the same pattern, if you're not using this one as your hoax identification filter, you're missing a great show.
This one they're signaling way in advance.
They're telling you, here's a play.
We're running an op.
It's going to look like all of other fake news ops.
And here's the playbook.
It's going to be...
Here's the playbook. Anonymous sources, perfectly timed.
The story is too on the nose, which is what makes people believe it, really.
It's not going to be confirmed by the reporting.
They'll amplify it.
Here's the real trick. They're going to do a lot of if-it's-true reporting.
Well, if it's true that Trump has nuclear weapons secrets, if it's true that he wouldn't give back the nuclear secrets, if it's true that he was planning to sell them to a foreign adversary, I'm not saying it's true, but if it's true, if it's true, if it's true, if it's true, until their idiot NPC base stops hearing if.
If will disappear after a while.
All they're going to do is turn on the news and hear something about Trump had nuclear secrets and wouldn't give them back.
That's all they're going to hear.
And they're going to believe it.
All right. So we're into the amplified if it is true stage.
But what is the final stage?
What's the final stage of the wrap-up smear?
The final phase always looks the same.
Someday you'll find out that it was fake.
And it will be too late.
Just like the Mueller report.
So you can call it the Mueller report phase, where you find out the whole thing was a hoax, but it's so deeply embedded in the mind of the public that the hoaxers can say, but we proved it was true.
And then you say, well, you actually proved there was no Russia collusion.
Well, look at all this Russian interference.
No, we were talking about Russia collusion, as in Trump colluding with Russia.
That's not Russian interference.
Yeah, nice try.
Nice try. I go, nice try?
Are you saying those are not different topics?
One is Russia interfering in a trivial way every year, like they always do, every election.
And the other is a presidential candidate colluding with a dictator against the United States.
Those are not close.
What about Manafort?
Okay, again, yeah, Manafort showed some internal polling stuff to a Russian, which probably had no value whatsoever to the Russian, and that was bad, and he went to jail for it.
But none of that is Trump colluding.
What about the troll farm?
Yeah, again, the troll farm is not collusion.
That would be Russian interference on a very, very small scale, like always.
What about...
What about Russia hacking the emails like Trump asked?
There's no evidence of that at all.
Your government told you that they caught somebody, right?
Would you believe the government when they told you they caught the hacker?
That is not even slightly believable.
We don't have a government that tells us the truth about that kind of stuff.
Not even close.
So it might be true.
But we don't have a government you could believe about that kind of stuff.
I mean, that's exactly the stuff they lie about.
Anyway, so in the final phase, we'll find out it was all bullshit and a wrap-up smear, but by then it will be too late.
And I want to do some of this.
So even the Midas touch Twitter feed already started the what-if.
Was Donald Trump... Trying to sell intelligence about our nuclear weapons to foreign adversaries?
What if? What if?
I wanted to tweet my own what if today.
It goes like this.
Is Joe Biden a human being or an abandoned bird's nest?
What if he's an abandoned bird's nest and he got elected president?
What if? What if we have an abandoned bird's nest as a president?
What if? Alright.
There's a lot of fun stuff happening today.
I love the fact that even CNN doesn't believe the Washington Post report.
So here's how CNN launders the fake news.
So who is CNN? Let's see if you can guess this before I tell you.
So CNN hears this Washington Post report, those two anonymous sources, and even CNN knows that's bullshit.
Right? Don't you think that the professionals at CNN, the actual news people, don't you think Jake Tapper looked at two anonymous sources in the Washington Post at exactly the right time?
Do you think Jake Tapper thought, oh, that's true?
My guess is he thought it might be true, because anything might be true these days.
But do you think he bought that?
No. No.
No, I think whatever you want to say about Jake Tapper, and I'll just use him as an example, he's very smart, he's very experienced, He knows what real news looks like.
And he knows what the fake stuff looks like.
You know, maybe not 100% agreement with what my opinion is, but he knows what it looks like, for the most part.
And two anonymous reports from the Washington Post with a long history of fake news, that doesn't look real.
Because of the timing and the perfect nature of it, etc.
So, the CNN has this problem.
They would love to report the story, but it doesn't pass even their own sniff test.
So, who do they assign the story to?
Go.
Who at CNN do they assign the story to if the news people know it's bullshit?
Let's say for writing.
Thank you.
I guess I should have said for writing.
Not for on-screen.
On-screen, stilter, yes.
Stilter. But an opinion.
What opinion person would they assign to it?
So is this somebody says?
I've told you this so many times.
It's Stephen Collinson.
Yeah. Stephen Collinson apparently is the one who will say anything.
If it's reported in any way, he's going to run with it.
Now, he's not saying, I don't think he's saying it's a fact, but I don't think you could get a news person to touch this story except to report that it's being reported.
But if you want to, like, give it a little life, make it seem like there's a little more substance to it, you give it to Stephen Collinson because he'll write anything, apparently.
I can't read his mind, but if I look at his work, all of the sketchiest stuff comes from the same guy.
If it's completely speculative, or it's already been debunked, or there's a major piece of context missing, who do they give it to?
Stephen Collison. So you should recognize that name.
Because when you see him writing about it, but it's not being reported by the news people even, yeah, it's true.
That's a tip-off.
So get to know the actual individuals.
If you thought that Maggie Haberman was a source of actual news, You need to learn who the players are.
There are some people who are more close to a punchline.
If they bring Carl Bernstein on to say something that's worse than Watergate, you shouldn't take any of that seriously.
That's just a punchline.
That's closer to a joke than it is to news.
All right. Rasmussen is reporting that the...
The generic Republican versus the generic Democrat for the midterms is down to a 3% advantage for Republicans.
Now, a 3% advantage in a generic race, I feel like, is basically no difference.
Because I don't think these polls are accurate enough to pick up a three-point difference.
And you've got 8% are undecided, who are probably not undecided.
So, basically, it looks like a tie going into the election.
So I'm not entirely sure why people are so sure it's going to be a red wave, except that it feels like it.
Stefan collusion.
That's pretty funny. So I would feel a little bit concerned if I were a Republican thinking that this election is going to be easy and it'll be a red sweep.
I don't see it in the data.
It's telling you that they are.
Oh, YouTube just lost my connection.
Hello, YouTube. I lost you there for a minute, but you're back.
All right. What else we got going on here?
Well, that's the main thing. So Trump is encouraging the release of the documents, but of course he's talking about different documents than The Attorney General is, so they can both be asking...
Oh, I just lost YouTube again.
Interesting. Let's see if I can reconnect.
Hello, YouTube, you back?
Interesting, having a little trouble on YouTube.
Do you want to bet that this stream will be difficult to download?
How much do you want to bet?
So there are some topics which, when I do them on YouTube, It seems like there's a coincidence that it has technical problems and it's hard to download and stuff like that.
I feel like this is one of those cases.
Because this is one of those cases that completely changes civilization.
And I am the strongest voice on this topic.
Let me say it again.
This question of the Mar-a-Lago documents is the most important question in civilization.
Because it will determine whether Trump becomes president or not.
Probably. I mean, I'm making a lot of assumptions here that that's going to be the biggest factor.
But it might be the biggest factor in the world right now.
And I am literally the strongest voice persuading you to understand that it's bullshit.
So what are they going to do to me?
You should expect...
That the fury that's coming after me will be heightened today.
Now, I'm going to tag everybody as an NPC that comes after me with a cartoon joke or tries to dismiss me because of my stepson situation or something like that.
So I'm going to do hashtag NPC and all those.
So later today, if you want to search for the hashtag NPCs, you can see how similar their comments are.
They're completely uncreative.
You can also see I'm hashtagging a lot of them with artists.
The number of failed writers who are coming after me today, it's really hilarious.
So I try to call them out when I can.
And even the ones who don't say they're writers, it looks like they are.
You can tell there's an indication that they're trying to be a writer.
So failed writers and NPCs are all coming after me today.
So watch that show. Now let me ask you this.
Could you do what I'm doing?
Have you ever spent any time looking at the social media reaction I get?
The number of people who come after me personally and very, very personal.
So every day I get to read that somebody thinks I killed my own stepchild through neglect or something.
Every day. Everyday I get somebody to tell me that I killed my own stepchild.
Could you do that?
It's hard, right?
But I can. And you know why I'm doing it for you?
Because I'm doing this basically for you.
Because I can. Because I can.
If you could, I would damn well expect you to do it.
Right? If you could do what I'm doing, You could debunk these things at the gigantic personal risk, at huge expense.
Do you know how much this cost me?
You have no idea how expensive this is.
This is tens of millions of dollars this cost me personally.
Tens of millions. That's how much I would have made if I'd never talked about Trump.
Like the extra amount.
It completely devastated my entire business model.
So, could you do that?
You could not. Most of you could not.
And I wouldn't even ask you to because it would be too much to ask.
But I can do it. So it's sort of like jumping on the hand grenade thing.
Sometimes you're the hero because you jumped on the hand grenade and you saved the platoon.
But here's the question that must be asked.
Wouldn't it have been the closest person to the hand grenade?
Maybe the entire platoon would have been willing to jump on the hand grenade.
But there was only one person close, so the closest person jumped on it, died, and saved the platoon.
I feel like I'm just the closest person to the hand grenade.
I feel like if you were in my position, you would do what I'm doing.
And you would also take the expense, and you would take the hit.
Because you could.
So in this scenario, if you could do it, you would.
Do you know there's a movie out about the...
The rescue of those people who were trapped in the underwater cave.
I don't remember the full details.
But there was one part where an experienced diver did something almost impossible, like went through this tunnel, cave, just the deadliest thing you could possibly imagine, and saved everybody.
Now, what do you say about that person?
The reason that person did it, do you think they wanted to?
Do you think the person who rescued him wanted to sign up for that fucking job?
No. That person did it because, one reason, one reason.
Because he could. Because he could.
That's very powerful.
Because he could. Once you find yourself in that situation, that you're the only one who can do it, you just have to.
You know, you can get Kel the hero Because you did it.
But the fact is, you don't have a choice.
If you think I feel like I have a choice, I really don't.
Like it doesn't feel optional.
I feel like I have to do it because I can.
And that's it. That's the whole story.
I'm an American.
I'm a citizen of Earth.
I'm a human being.
I live with other citizens who I appreciate and value.
Then you put me in this situation.
What am I going to do? I don't have a choice.
I'm going to do this.
Now, to be fair, if it were the difference between I'm going to starve or do this, I'd probably eat.
I don't want to leave you with the impression that there's something special about me, but the entire point of it is that it's not special.
I'm in a coincidentally unique situation, But it's not special.
It's just sort of a coincidence that I could do this and get away with it, and you can't.
Well, I don't really get away with it.
I just don't get completely crushed by it.
So that's the situation.
I deserve, in my opinion, I don't deserve any kudos for taking a risk on your behalf because you would do it for me.
That's what I believe. And really, that's what keeps society together, right?
The reason that I might stop and pull you out of a burning truck is because you'd do it for me.
I don't need a better reason.
Do I? Do you need a better reason?
You'd do it for me. Right?
I'll do it for you. That's it.
Alright. Same as Trump?
Well, I don't know. Maybe. I mean, Trump does fall into the category of he's the only one who can do it.
You know, there's very much that going on.
And you wonder how much that matters to him.
You know, I feel like what Trump's doing, we kind of owe him something in return.
Do you ever feel like that?
Because even though I get, you know, he's an egomaniac, you know, I get that he likes the attention, I get that he's doing it for personal reasons.
I get that. But the way he's doing it feels like some of that is for us.
It feels like it. I feel like he thinks the fight is real.
As much bullshit as there is on both sides, a lot of it is his.
But I think he thinks the fight is real.
That's what I think. And can you imagine anything smarter than retiring?
All Trump had to do was start a media empire.
He could have completely redeemed his brand.
Completely. And I think he knows it.
But he needed to do this.
Now, you know, it's compatible with his ego if he wins.
But I think he also feels like there's something he needed to do.
That's what I feel. But can't read his mind, so we're only guessing.
Will our country burn when Trump runs?
Scott's subtext is always, please kill me.
What? So watching the NPCs go crazy today.
So watch that.
We'll make them part of the show.
I guess Keith Olbermann is...
Keith Olbermann is tweeting the Ezra Show today in which the award for worst person in the world is down to Charlie Kirk and me.
So that's why I've designated Keith Olbermann as my mascot.
And I would recommend to you to watch my mascot show and find out if I win or Charlie Kirk wins for worst person in the world.
I have a feeling it's going to be a tie.
I don't know. I feel it's going to be a tie.
All right. And I have my ESG jokes are coming.
Would you like a preview? Too bad.
You're only going to see them on Locals.
So I'm going to show the Locals people what Dilbert comics are upcoming.
They're not completed yet. I can't show them on the YouTube.
But I will show them to the subscription service.
They'll get to see them later today.
Now, they won't be drawn, so you're just going to see the writing.
So you'll see what's coming.
And I use them to help me write.
Yeah, you know, I hope that the story about the possible nuclear secrets, I hope that we get 50 current and former intelligence agency Professionals to say that there really were nuclear secrets there.
Because that would really, that would sell it.
Or would that be more proof that is bullshit?
Alright, have you also noticed that when they speak about the nuclear weapons secrets, they say, related to.
Have you caught that?
Related to nuclear weapons.
Give me an example of some things that are related to nuclear weapons.
I'll go first. Let me write a personal note to Kim Jong Un.
And Kim Jong Un, dear Kim Jong Un, thank you for your nice notes.
Hope to see you someday.
The United States has many nuclear weapons, but we would like to not direct them at you.
Maybe we could talk, and we could have all of our nuclear weapons maybe not pointed toward each other, because I would like to be your friend.
Sincerely, Donald Trump.
Is that document related to nuclear weapons?
It is. It totally is.
You see the trick?
I do believe that they will be able to demonstrate that there's something in there about Kim Jong-un.
See where I'm going?
Anything that Trump said to Kim Jong-un that we don't know about is very likely...
To include a reference to what we will or will not do with our nuclear arsenal.
Am I right? He may have even made an offer.
He may have said, yeah, I'm just speculating, but suppose he said something like, you know, we would turn our weapons off, you know, if you do the same.
That's something that nobody would want out, right?
That would be a top secret nuclear weapons-related document.
And it would also be a big nothing.
So here's the thing that I would look for.
The most obvious way this is going to go is that there will be something that's related to nuclear weapons.
How much you want to bet, there's at least something in there that they can argue is related.
Do you know how the Russian interference is related to Russia collusion?
But it's not the same thing.
It's just sort of related.
And so that's how they can say later, well, we told you there was Russia collusion, because here we approved the Russia interference.
And you go, well, those are different topics.
And then later, we're going to find out that there was, let's say, a personal letter to Kim Jong-un, and they're going to say, well, there it is.
There's your nuclear weapons-related document right there.
Because what was the entire conversation about?
Nuclear war. The conversation with Kim Jong-un, all of it, is about nuclear weapons, even if it's not.
It's all about nuclear weapons, because that was the thing we cared about.
So you don't think that there's going to be something in there that's related?
Yeah. They're going to say that it was in there because there was something related.
Or, point two, they're going to say it was confirmed because Adam Schiff saw it in the SCIF, So we took those documents that we found at Mar-a-Lago, and we put them in the SCIF. That's the place that you can go look at them, but you can't take a copy, right?
So the SCIF is like a top-secret facility that you could put wherever you need it.
I think there was one actually at Mar-a-Lago.
So you put it in the SCIF, and then you put SHIF in the SCIF. So you've got to put SHIF in the SCIF, and then SHIF will tell you some bullshit.
That he supposedly learned when he put Schiff in the SCIF. So it's a Schiff, SCIF, bullshit kind of a play.
And then the other people who were in the Schiff will say, we didn't see anything like that.
We looked at the same document you did, and to say that that's related to nuclear weapons is such a stretch that it's closer to a lie.
And what will Schiff say?
Oh, it's right there. I saw it with my own eyes.
And how many times will we have seen Schiff say he saw something with his own eyes, or that indictments were coming, or that the law had been broken, and they have the proof, only to later find out none of it was even close to true.
Completely made up. So Schiff-skiff-bullshit is the next phase.
Look for Schiff-skiff-bullshit, Schiff-skiff-bullshit, Schiff-skiff-bullshit.
And that's how the left will come to believe That Trump did, in fact, have nuclear weapons-related stuff, just like they believe that Russian interference proves that there was Russian collusion.
So imagine if the government had a department of wordsmithing.
I think Trump should create a cabinet position for defining words the old way.
Like, every time the Democrats try to tell you that a word doesn't mean, like, a raid doesn't mean a raid, and all this, you just go to, well, let's check with the cabinet.
And then somebody comes out, preferably be, like, wearing a long robe, so they look official, and they say, the definition of raid is as follows, and has not been recently changed.
And they say, well, there it is.
The Department of Definitions has said that your definition of a raid is incorrect.
Your definition of related to collusion is incorrect.
Yes, the shift-sniff test.
If you put shift in the skiff, you don't want to sniff what comes out.
So you don't want to sniff of shift in the skiff, that's for sure.
And if shift were to take a shit in the skiff, you wouldn't want to sniff that.
I think... I may be out of material here.
I may be completely done, and it took me a moment to realize it myself.
Apparently, I'm completely out of material.
Comedy gold.
Seuss would love me. All right, I'm going to open it up on YouTube for NPC comments.
Go. Would the NPCs please show up?
I'll read you their comments as I come.
I know you're coming. Don't hide.
Don't be shy. Don't be shy.
Come on. Come on.
Come on. Come on.
Come on. Come on. NPCs, come on.
Let's go. What are you hiding?
It seems like all the NPCs have suddenly disappeared.
Well, you got really quiet. Where are you now?
All gone. Where are all the people saying, but, but, you're like the pointy-haired boss.
I used to like Dilbert, but this guy, this guy.
So there was somebody who listed themselves as a lawyer who came at me on Twitter with just personal insults about what a horrible person I am.
And I had to ask, because it was a lawyer, Somebody who actually is good with words and understands complicated things.
And so I thought, well, I can finally get an answer to a question I've wondered.
And I tweeted back and I said, what is your motivation?
Like, what is the motivation for coming on Twitter and making a personal insult to me without any regard to my point of view or politics or factual anything?
Just a pure, horrible comment about me as a person.
And do you know what his answer was?
His motivating feeling?
His answer was disgust.
In other words, disgust with me and my opinions.
Now, the part that he's disgusted in is never my actual opinion.
He's disgusted with something he imagined I said, or imagined, I believe, not anything I actually said.
But think about that.
He actually said his motivation was disgust.
Imagine that being your operating system.
That you're going through life, and when something disgusts you, that becomes your activating trigger.
Do you know what activates me?
Good stuff. Or trying to solve a problem.
So I get activated by trying to solve a problem that's like a real problem.
Or I get activated to do something fun.
Oh, I'd like to do that.
I'm totally into that.
But here was somebody who admitted being activated to actually go act based on disgust being a motivating force.
How do you go through life being motivated by disgust?
Even if you say, I'm worthy of the disgust.
Let's say he's right.
Let's say I'm disgusting.
Why did he need to tweet at me?
Would I not be just as disgusting if he tweeted or not?
Was he fixing it?
Was it entertainment?
Because he didn't say it was entertainment.
He said he was operating on disgust.
And the thing is, I don't know that he was wrong about that.
I think maybe it actually was the motivating factor.
And if you look at a lot of the other comments, the people who are the most angry about me are?
What class of people are the most angry at me?
Today, artists.
Yeah. People who are not successful enough at their jobs, and they don't think that the guy who does a comic strip should have gotten all the money and success they did because, hey, it's just a stupid comic strip, and so is Garfield, and Garfield isn't high art, so therefore mine isn't, so therefore why aren't they more successful?
Well, they're not smart enough, but that's another story.
Yeah. So the artists definitely have disgust.
The artists, when they see me, they are disgusted.
Because I project some level of success, which really bugs you if you don't have it.
I've been in that position.
I guarantee you that before I was successful as a writer, I'm sure I said horrible things about people who were.
I don't remember any specific examples, but I'm not above it.
It's sort of a natural Instinct, right?
To have some bad feelings about somebody who succeeded.
That's why the Kardashians get so much love and so much hate.
The hate part is the disgust.
But the disgust is driven by the contrast with somebody doing well and how somebody feels about themselves.
So if somebody's disgusted by the way I present an opinion, it's almost certainly not about me.
Exactly. It's more about something they're struggling with.
So, if you see somebody who's operating out of disgust, they're almost certainly coming from some dark place.
And then the NPCs can just say whatever's the most obvious thing to say.
So in every situation you say to yourself, what's the most obvious thing to say?
If a cartoonist that you don't know from any other context says something in politics that you don't like, What's the most obvious response?
Oh, go back to comics, comic boy.
And then make a joke about some unrelated comic.
Like, oh, are you done writing Kathy?
Are you done writing Doonesbury?
Which one are you? The least creative...
Yeah, it's the Soylent Green Garfield people.
Call you baldy.
Here's an NPC. Not really.
Other successful people look at you as a weirdo chasing clout.
It's pointless what you do.
It's pointless? Is it pointless?
Why would so many people come to insult me if it's pointless?
Like it's doing something.
But you don't think that teaching people how to read the news more efficiently is useful?
Just imagine that point, that it's pointless.
Yeah, you just proved there's a point.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay.
Okay.
Scott's waking up. Okay, now I know that's a joke, so I won't be mad at you anymore.
Oh, I've got 3,000 people watching me on YouTube.
Is that a record? Holy shit.
Yeah, it looks like it's a record audience today.
So, but no more NPCs?
You don't want to make yourself known?
You know, it's funny that anybody would make a comment about somebody using social media and say that it's pointless.
It's also weird when people criticize me for what I state on doing.
So here's somebody who says that I'm chasing clout.
That's what I tell you I'm doing.
Don't I? Haven't I said that directly?
Lots of times. I've told you that if I reach a million followers on Twitter, I can run the world.
I'm very clearly and intentionally and publicly and transparently chasing clout.
I want more of it.
Because I can do more stuff.
Is there somebody who wants less clout?
Is there somebody who's chasing ineffectiveness?
Is there somebody who wakes up in the morning and goes, man, I would like to have less impact on the world today.
If there are things that need to be fixed, I don't want to be anywhere near that.
Get me away from things that need to be fixed.
Don't need any clout. No, of course I'm trying to get clout.
As much as possible.
You're going to have to come up with a much better insult So let me tell you the insults I got yesterday.
A bunch of people making reference to my comic strip, one of the most successful comic strips in the history of comics.
Other people pointing out that I have a history of having wild experiences with women who are beautiful and much too young for me.
No, stop saying these mean things about me.
But my favorite is somebody who tweeted my own selfie to insult me, to which I thought, well, I'm the one who tweeted that.
I wanted you to see that.
Because I wrote a book about fitness.
I mean, there's a chapter in there about fitness.
So if you write a book about how to become fit and how to have a good diet, you better take off your fucking shirt.
Am I wrong? If you're an author and you have a book out right now that purports to tell you a system for losing weight and being fit, take off your fucking shirt.
If you don't take off your shirt, nobody's going to buy your book.
They shouldn't. You've got to show your work.
So, of course. I tweeted this.
So my critics are showing me my own very fit body.
This was taken in my late 50s, which would be impressive for anybody in their late 50s.
I can't do this right now.
By the way, my abs don't look like that right now.
But my upper chest and shoulders are much bigger than this picture.
So I kind of moved my emphasis from abs.
I just wanted to see if I could develop abs.
So during this phase, I was just sort of seeing if I could do it.
But people seem to prefer arms and shoulders and chest.
By people, I mean women.
So I moved my emphasis to upper chest and starting to get some benefits.
Yeah, so focusing on shoulders, that's correct.
All right. And Erica says, you're an old man taking off his shirt, Geraldo.
NPC! Alright, so that was an NPC trap.
So the trap here was that if I tell you about taking off my shirt, an NPC will make a Geraldo comment.
What is the most obvious thing you could say about an older male showing off his shirtless profile?
It's the most obvious thing, right?
So that's how you spot the NPCs.
They can't go beyond the most obvious comment.
I could do this all day long and attract an NPC. So, yeah, the Geraldo comment is just the most obvious thing.
And what about when you're talking about the safe at Mar-a-Lago?
If you talk about the safe at Mar-a-Lago and you're the nine millionth person to say, but what if Geraldo could open that safe?
That's probably an NPC. However, if you were the first person to say it, or you thought you were, that was pretty good.
It was a good callback.
But if you're the millionth person to say it, NPC. I should shelve my ideas.
Oh yeah, and also the Putin.
The Putin on a horseback.
Yeah, the most obvious comments.
It looks like AI has given me some muscles.
There's a funny picture of me with a fake body over on Locals.
Alex Berenson, Twitter News.
What's happening with Alex Berenson?
Did he get back on Twitter? Or is he suing them?
Which is it? Can somebody tell me?
What's the Alex Berenson story?
Both. He's back on Twitter and he's suing him?
Interesting. The government asked Twitter to ban Berenson.
What? What?
What? Are you serious?
The White House emailed Twitter to ban him?
What? Are you fucking kidding me?
You're serious.
Oh my God! Oh my God!
Now, which White House?
Which White House did that?
Was that Biden?
That was Biden, huh?
Wow! I'm blown away.
Okay, I'm going to have to follow up on this because I'm reacting to a first impression.
I don't know what the actual story is.
So let me give you my baseline.
I don't think that Alex Berenson was right about a lot of what he said.
I don't believe he was right.
I do believe he was useful, meaning that I kind of appreciate there's somebody out there making a strong case For an alternative that you don't want to forget about.
The strong case is that the experts were wrong or lying.
And we live in a world where if you don't think about that every moment, you're going to get in trouble.
So you need somebody like a Berenson all the time.
If you didn't have a Berenson, you'd have to invent one, because you need one.
You need somebody telling you every minute, this could be a lie.
I think they're just lying.
It's just bullshit. Don't believe the data.
The data's wrong. Because that little voice in your head is really useful.
That said, I don't think he got the right answers in a number of situations.
But the fact that if this is true, that the White House was involved in banning him, I'm on his side completely.
If that's true, so I'm going to wait to find out if it's true, but if it's true that the government was trying to shut him down, I don't care that I thought most of what he said was wrong.
And I'm completely on his side at that point.
Yeah. All right.
Let's talk about something else.
And I'm going to talk to the locals people in a minute.
But YouTube, thanks for joining.
Biggest crowd ever. I hope I didn't disappoint.
It probably was the best live stream you've ever seen.
