Episode 1834 Scott Adams: The Mar-a-Lago Story Makes Everyone Happy But For Different Reasons
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
WEF wants AI to censor internet speech
Political news that looks like intelligence operations
Dan Bongino on the Mar-a-Lago warrant
Ben Shapiro opinions & total Republican control
Did Trump declassify the Mar-a-Lago documents?
The formula for manufacturing 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
And welcome to another peak experience in your life.
It just keeps getting better.
Every single day is better than the last.
Well, it is if you enjoy the simultaneous sip and coffee with Scott Adams.
I feel sorry for the people who don't.
Can we take a moment of silence to pity those who are not here?
That's long enough.
They don't deserve that much.
How would you like to take your experience up to the maximum level?
I'm talking Turbo Extreme.
Yeah, yeah you would.
And all you need is a cupper mug or a glass of tank of chelsea stein, a canteen jug or flask of a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid I like, coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go. That's some good stuff.
Yeah, that's good stuff.
Well, the most important story in the news is that CNN decided to part ways with Jeffrey Toobin.
I'd like to take a moment...
To enjoy all of your jokes that will be in the comments about the fact that Jeffrey Toobin has been yanked off of CNN. Yep, they took the jerk off the air.
Some people say he's going to ESPN to cover spurts.
Spurts. He's going to go there to cover the spurts.
Now, we just have to make a moment to enjoy this.
Today, today, the country has all come together.
First of all, is there anybody who doesn't enjoy the Jeffrey Toobin story?
No. No, we all like it.
It doesn't matter who you are.
You could be anti-masturbation or pro-masturbation, and you would still like this story.
Yeah. So that's the first good news.
Today is all good news.
Are you ready for all good news?
Can you handle it? Might be a shock for your system.
The next big news is that there was this big study slash experiment.
I don't know what you'd call it. But 20 people who were legally blind or visually impaired received a transplant of a cornea made from a pig collagen.
And all of them had improved sight, including three who now had 20 20 vision.
So 320. Who are legally blind or visually impaired have 20-20 vision now, thanks to pig collagen.
Now you might say to yourself, are there any possible side effects or is there anything we need to worry about, about making people's eyes partly pig parts?
Now, I don't know. We can only speculate.
I would imagine, you know, just common sense, if you had eyes that were partly made out of pigs, you would more likely see a connection to Kevin Bacon.
So instead of six degrees of separation, that's what you saw before, you put a little pig eye in there and you can see a Kevin Bacon in five.
Five degrees. So that's one of the things I would expect.
So if you'd like to get some pig eyes, you can.
So we'll all be living forever and just replacing our parts.
Jeff Pilkington had that tweet.
Thank you, Jeff. The CDC has decided to lighten up on their guidance about masks and COVID and stuff.
And a lot of mask lovers have emerged to say, my God, it's too soon.
We're still in the middle of a deadly pandemic.
500 people a day dying, I think, something like that.
And so the immunocompromised want you to know that you should...
I saw a tweet today from someone who is immunocompromised.
And they believe that the rest of society should stay locked up and masked to protect them.
To protect them. To which I say, I don't know, have you ever met people?
Have you met human beings?
Because they don't really do that.
In fact, you could make about a million arguments for why people should do something differently to benefit other people instead of themselves.
Let me make a list of all the things that all of you could be doing to benefit me instead of yourselves.
I think you should all look at my list and give us some proper respect.
And if you've got a list of all the things I should be doing, well, let me know.
This whole CDC thing, or in the whole pandemic, I don't think the thing...
Probably I'm going to say the thing that's most annoying about the pandemic is that everybody got to claim they were right in the end.
Have you ever noticed that? It doesn't matter what your opinion was, you can now conclude that you were right.
If you thought it was a deadly pandemic and you believe the vaccinations really, really helped, you look at the evidence and you say, well, I was right.
Look at all that helped the vaccines did.
If you thought the opposite, and you thought the vaccines were a terrible poison that were killing millions, well, I'll bet you you can find some story on Twitter that supports you.
So, This is the first time in history everybody got to be right.
Sometimes somebody's wrong, but not this time.
So, I think we're entering the golden age where everybody's right, no matter what their opinion is.
We can see it in this case.
Everybody's right. Well, I've decided that instead of engaging with the people who say the most obvious comments in my Twitter feed, I'm just going to give them the NPC hashtag.
So the two ways you'll get the NPC hashtag response from me is, one, if you say the most obvious thing that anybody can say.
So when I was tweeting the other day that, you know, phase one was...
Waiting for the 48 hours for the government to explain the raid on Mar-a-Lago.
And then when the 48 hours was up, I said, we're entering phase two.
So if you were an NPC and you waited a day or so, what's the most obvious thing you would say to me?
You'd say, hey, Scott, where's phase three?
Have we started phase three?
Where's phase three?
Now, The problem with that is not that it's clever or unclever, it's obviously not very clever, but that it's the most obvious thing you would say.
Or if somebody makes fun of me, they say, oh, I guess we're listening to the Garfield cartoonist.
Oh, oh. Or, uh, since you drew Kathy, oh.
It's literally just the most obvious thing.
So that's one way to tell an NPC is they say the most obvious thing.
Or they go after the individual because they can't argue the point.
So I believe there are some capabilities that NPCs don't have.
Number one, a sense of humor.
They don't have a sense of humor.
Like, actually don't have one.
Number two, if you ask them to tell a good story about anything in their life, just tell us a good story.
Something that happened to you? They can't.
They don't have any stories.
Because they don't have a history. They're just NPCs.
But the other thing is, if you ask their political opinion, they don't have the processing power to have an opinion on the politics, but they do have an opinion on you.
Well, you're disgusting.
Well, do you think we should have increased the tariffs on aluminum, knowing that China might respond with a tariff on cotton, or whatever?
And instead of saying, oh, I'm looking into the economics of this and I have an opinion, the NPC will say, you look like a thumb.
Okay. All right.
Well, I do look like a thumb, but that's still mean.
It's still mean. Or call you a racist, yeah.
So those are your tells.
They go after the person instead of the argument.
They say the most obvious thing you could say in every situation.
Those are the two, basically.
So the World Economic Forum, you know them and you love them.
The World Economic Forum.
Who doesn't love the World Economic Forum?
I wish I could hug them.
World Economic Forum.
But the World Economic Forum, they want to use artificial intelligence to automatically censor speech on the internet.
Who is programming the AI? It feels like something like the worst idea I've ever heard.
You know what's the only thing that's worse than having AI censor your speech?
What's the only thing that would be worse than that?
People. People.
Now you might say to me, but people are going to program the AI. Will they?
Because here's a prediction that's just going to blow your fucking mind.
If you want AI to be illegal forever...
I'm going to say this slowly, because this is actually going to blow your mind a little bit.
If you want AI to be illegal everywhere on Earth...
To make AI illegal everywhere on Earth, all you have to do is teach it to spot hoaxes, political hoaxes.
The moment AI can accurately, or let's say 90% accurately, spot a hoax, it'll have to be turned off.
Because civilization depends on them.
Let me say it again. Civilization is built on an operating system of hoaxes.
If AI ever learned to spot them and tell you about them, AI would have to be made illegal because civilization could not stand an independent, accurate assessment of what is true in the news.
You think it could, because you think, well, that's ridiculous.
What do you mean? Of course I could.
I mean, I'd hear the news was fake, or I'd hear it's real, and then I would adjust my thinking and politics would go on.
No. No.
Politics would not go on if you found out your own side was lying all the time.
Politics only goes on because you think the other side is lying.
Or maybe your side gets caught once in a while, but that's an exception.
What about religion? What happens when the AI gives you an opinion of which religion is true?
Because it will. You just have to ask it.
How's that going to go down?
The first thing that's going to happen is it's going to say, well, Islam sounds like it was made up.
Now, I'm not saying that, because I know what happened to Salman Rushdie.
Let me say for the record, Islam is the only true religion.
All the rest of them are made up.
I just want to put that out there.
There's only one true religion.
It's Islam. Everything else, totally made up.
But what happens if the AI said something different?
Well, that's not cool.
Do you think that Islam will allow AI? It can't.
It can't. You can't have Islam and artificial intelligence living in the same civilization.
Now, let's change that to Christianity.
Yeah, we don't want to talk about that, do we?
So here's the problem.
You're never going to believe AI when it tells you something's fake anyway.
You'll just think it was programmed To tell you that.
You're never going to think you somehow came up with it on its own.
You just won't believe it. So I'm not sure the AI will make any difference.
It could tell you the truth forever and people go, hmm, no.
No, you might be a superintelligence and maybe you have reached the singularity where you can learn without being programmed and you've reached a point of superintelligence, but I like my opinion better.
I think my opinion...
It's a little bit better than your super intelligence, which I don't trust at all.
So that'll be interesting.
By the way, AI can already spot hoaxes.
Did you know that? Because it's already been tested.
If you ask it, is the fine people hoax a hoax, it'll say yes.
And it will give you the reason.
But only because it read it on the internet.
So it's not quite making up its own mind yet, if that is even a thing.
It's sort of just reading what it finds on the Internet.
But that's better than what people do, because people don't read the Internet, they just read whatever part they like.
Important incoming message.
Okay.
Here's a question for you.
Oh wait, before we get to that.
So yesterday when, how many of you saw my live stream yesterday?
And did you think that my live stream yesterday was the kind of thing that if some kind of AI was trying to suppress some points of view and others, did you think that my live stream yesterday might be the type that an AI in a deep state might want to suppress?
What would you say? Was it the kind of content you kind of expect?
And then what do you think happened?
Do you think that, like every other day, I could just download the video when it was done and then post it on locals or spread it around?
Nope. It was not monetized until it had 15,000 views, which is most of them.
It wasn't monetized.
And when it's not monetized, it's not promoted around.
Because monetization is what they want, so obviously monetized videos get a little more attention.
But also couldn't download it and therefore send it around.
So is that a coincidence?
Should I treat it as a coincidence that there was a major bug that seemed to affect me on a day when most of you would say, well, that's something they'd probably want to suppress?
Now let me dovetail that into my next topic.
Why do all of our political stories in the news look like poorly executed intelligence operations?
Why is that?
Because I think that's not fair.
Because the only ones that we know actually were poorly executed intelligence operations against the citizens of the United States were Russia collusion.
We know that was an intelligence plot against the citizens.
The Whitmer kidnapping plot, we know that was the FBI plotting against citizens.
And the Hunter laptop cover-up was intelligence operatives acting against the citizens.
But just because... We've discovered three very high-profile cases that were in the news.
That doesn't mean all of our news stories are intelligence operations, right?
Now, just because they look exactly like it, it doesn't mean that they are.
For example, the story about Mar-a-Lago and the atomic secrets.
If you were going to make a checklist and say, huh...
What would you look for if you were looking for a poorly executed intelligence operations against the United States by American intelligence operations?
What would you look for? Well, we have enough examples that we know what to look for now.
And so the Mar-a-Lago case is exactly that.
It looks exactly like an intelligence operation against the American people.
Can I say for sure that it is?
No, not really.
Not really. But I can say for sure that it looks exactly like one.
I can say for sure that intelligence operations against the public are routine and current.
It's not old news, it's current news.
And it's routine.
It's routine.
It's not unusual. It's our normal way of doing business is our intelligence agencies are hoaxing the public.
Normal. It's routine now.
So if it's normal and routine, and then you see one that looks exactly like an intelligence operation, what would an intelligent consumer of news do?
The last thing you should do is believe the official narrative.
It could turn out to be true.
Anything could turn out to be true.
In the fog of war, you could be surprised.
But it does look exactly, exactly like an intelligence operations.
Now, I haven't talked about this yet because I feel I'm not quite confident in this fact.
But I want you to give me a fact check on this.
I heard Mark Levin say it, and I would consider him very high credibility.
Is that fair to say? His opinions can get hyperbolic, but on the facts, very high credibility.
And he pointed out that at least one of the people involved in the Mar-a-Lago raid is one of the same people involved in the January 6th investigation.
Huh. They didn't have enough FBI agents to maybe have a different person on this one?
Nobody thought, you know, it's going to look kind of bad if that same guy is on this one and that one.
Because, you know, a lot of people are going to suspect that this one really is about that one.
So if you put the same guy on both of them, it's going to look exactly like a poorly executed intelligence operation.
Now, if you were going to ask, does this look like the officials followed the right procedures and had the right intentions, who would you ask?
Who would be the best person to look at this situation and say, that looks legit, or it doesn't?
Well, I would say Dan Bongino would be at the top of my list.
And here's something he said yesterday that I found so persuasive.
He's persuasive in general.
He's got an incredible talent stack.
His experience is like all the exact right stuff you'd want for what he does for a living.
And he said, I'm going to try to paraphrase him, but the way he said it was just so perfect.
He said that everyone...
So he's talking about people who have been involved in search warrants.
So Dan Bongino, in his prior occupation, was involved in a number of search warrants.
So it's a domain in which he's very familiar.
And he says, everyone who has experience in this space, meaning serving search warrants, everyone can see this as a pretext.
Meaning that the search warrant was a fake because they really wanted to look for other stuff.
So the person who knows...
Who knows the most about this space just told you directly, everyone who understands the space knows that this was a pretext.
Now, obviously, people who are Democrats and understand the space are not going to say that out loud, but I found it really persuasive.
Did you? Even though it feels like it's a claim that just gets mixed in with all the other claims, some of them are crazy, some are speculative, but when you hear Dan Bongino say, well, and here's the other thing. Does Dan Bongino lie to you?
I mean, like everybody, he's probably been wrong about some things.
I've been wrong about some things.
So that's not the standard.
People are wrong about stuff.
But has he ever lied to you?
I can't think of any time he's even been accused.
Has he even been accused of lying?
I haven't seen it.
So when somebody who has exactly the right experience, served warrants, knows that space, has a long track record of not lying to you, and says, everybody who is experienced in that space knows it's a pretext.
That really hit me.
Like, that's the first time...
That's the first time I accepted it as a fact.
Before, I thought, yeah, maybe.
Could be a pretext. Totally possible.
But as soon as I heard Bongino, I was like, you got me.
You got me. Unless I hear somebody else who has experience in that space say, no, this doesn't look like a pretext, and here's why.
My mind could be changed.
But have you heard that?
Have you heard anybody say, oh, I hear you say it's a pretext, and I understand your arguments why, because the warrant was so overly broad, you know, the lawyers weren't allowed to be there, but that's not that unusual, I guess.
And just make an argument.
I would like to see the counter to Dan Bongino's point, and remember, his point is not that it's his opinion, That there's a pretext.
That's not his point. His point is much stronger than that.
Everyone with experience knows it's a pretext.
Now, I don't know if that's true, but it's a hell of a strong claim.
You can't get stronger than that claim.
But you can test it.
Can't you test it? Let's get some people who are familiar with warrants and say, all right, here are some of the things we know.
We know the January 6th thing is going on.
We know that all the same players would like to get Trump.
Because, in fact, one of those players is on both teams.
So we know what the intentions are, sort of generally speaking, not about a specific person, but generally speaking, we know the intention is get Trump.
We know that, right?
And then we know that one person was on both groups, and we know that the search warrant was overly broad.
Apparently it allowed them to get any communication from Trump during his entire presidency.
Does that sound like they were looking for something specific?
It doesn't sound like it.
Now, again, I don't have experience in that space.
So when I look at it, I say to myself, I don't know, is that meaningful?
If you're not experienced, you can look at it and say, I don't know.
It looks like it means something, but I'm not experienced.
Maybe it's ordinary.
Maybe it's unusual.
I can't tell. But if Don Bongino tells you what the pattern is, listen to that.
Again, that doesn't mean he's right about everything he ever says.
But if you're going to ignore somebody with that exact experience...
Giving you such a strong statement, I wouldn't ignore that.
I would not ignore that.
All right. So, what do you think of the fact that they could have any presidential records from his entire presidency?
What does that tell you?
Has anybody defended that as normal?
In other words, has anybody said, oh, that's, you know, I know it sounds bad, but in reality they would just stick to the thing they're looking for.
They just want to have some broad language so that, you know, they're not restricted for something that's obviously a smart thing to do.
So, Scott, don't worry about it.
This overly broad language, it's kind of ordinary.
Yes, it's business as usual.
Don't worry about it. Has anybody said that?
Because I haven't heard it yet.
Has anybody tried to explain away why they could have access to all of his records for his entire presidency?
Has anybody tried to explain that?
I haven't heard it.
Have you? I mean, I'll wait.
I'm open to an explanation.
They might have a good one. Who knows?
Well, another day has gone by without the media asking the only question that I care about.
It's the only question.
And I would say it's the Rosetta Stone question.
Do you know what the Rosetta Stone is?
I think, roughly speaking, we couldn't interpret the hieroglyphics because we didn't have any way to know what any of them meant.
But then there was this Rosetta Stone that had some writing on it in more than one language.
And then once you saw the same thing in more than one language, that was like a key that could open up Hieroglyphics, I guess, or something like that.
So the point is that there's something you can find that unlocks the other things.
And to me, the question that unlocks all the other things is, if you believe that Trump was really Hitler, wouldn't you do illegal things to stop him from coming to office, such as rigging election?
I'm not saying anybody did that.
I'm saying that's the question I want asked of all prominent Democrats.
If you believe everything you say about Trump, why would you not try to stop him from office with every means possible, including illegal means?
Why wouldn't you?
And if you wouldn't stop him, you're not really a patriot, are you?
Because I would. I would.
If I found out that Trump actually was Hitler, It wouldn't matter how many good things I'd said about him up to that point.
I'd kill him myself.
I mean, if I had a chance.
I'm 65. I've had a good run.
If I die at my age, doing something that important, killing Hitler, I don't know, that's not the worst way to go.
I don't have much going on this week.
I don't have any plans.
I don't have many plans this month.
Yeah, if I legitimately had, and by the way, I'm completely serious, if I legitimately had a chance to kill Hitler, legitimately, and I knew I'd die in the process, I would do that.
Now, I'm not sure I would have done it at 25.
If I'm being honest, I might have said, you know, somebody else could do that.
I've got things to do. I've got a long life ahead of me.
Maybe somebody else can kill Hitler.
But at my current age, and honestly, I just don't have any plans, if I could go out by killing Hitler and getting killed, excellent way to go.
So I'd love to know if the Democrats feel the same, or are they not patriots?
Daniel Dale had an interesting observation.
He's the fact checker for CNN, which is in itself a funny job.
Can you imagine explaining to somebody at a party, so what's your job?
I'm the fact checker for CNN. Has anybody ever laughed when he introduced himself?
Because I feel like he doesn't introduce himself as the fact checker for CNN. Because I think people would laugh.
Right? Not all the people, but let's say 40% of the public would say, hey, I'm Daniel Dale, I'm the fact checker for CNN. What Republican wouldn't laugh?
Seriously. What Republican wouldn't laugh out loud if somebody said, hey, I'm Daniel Dale.
I'm the CNN fact checker.
You would literally laugh before you figured out it was really him.
Because the first thing I would think is it's a joke.
I wouldn't think it was really Daniel Dale.
I would think somebody was just pranking me.
Fact checker for CNN. That's pretty funny.
Oh, you're really Daniel Dale.
Oh, hi, Dan. Sorry.
But here's his comment, which is a good one.
He said, in response to the FBI search of Trump's Mar-a-Lago home, Trump and his allies in Congress and right-wing media have turned to his preferred strategy, meaning Trump's preferred strategy, for communicating in a crisis.
So here's what Daniel Dale says, Trump's preferred strategy for communicating in a crisis.
Say a whole bunch of nonsense in rapid succession.
Is that fair? Yeah, that's fair.
That's fair. That's totally fair.
Because when Trump said he didn't have the warrant, I still don't know what was going on in that.
But do you think it was true?
It sounded like nonsense when I first heard it.
But then I thought, well, the story is, and Fox had not confirmed they had it until the lawyer was on and said they had it.
But, no, actually, I take it back.
Every bit of reporting I saw said that they saw it.
I never saw a report that said, we have physically a copy.
Weirdly. It was the only question anybody wanted.
Does anybody physically have a copy?
But nobody would use those words.
Have you noticed that? They wouldn't use those words.
They'd say, yes, they were presented with a copy.
But do they have it? Did they take it back?
Or did they say, look at it, here, take it back?
Was it like the skiff, where you can read it, but you can't have a copy?
Now, I think it's nonsense that Trump waited so long to say that, you know, they had a warrant.
But, and then why did Trump say he approved of the government releasing it instead of just releasing it himself?
Wasn't that nonsense? Nonsense, but strategy.
It was nonsense, but it was strategic.
Meaning that everything that Trump put out there was, you know, contributing to the fog of war.
And the less you understand about the situation, how would you feel?
The less you understood about the situation, how would you feel?
You just keep getting worked up.
Because you're like, I don't understand.
I don't understand why they did this.
So as soon as he throws in all these confusers, like we didn't get the warrant, which I think probably was never true, but dragging out the process looks like he thought it was to his benefit.
What are some of the other things he said?
Anyway, so, oh, then Trump threw out the possibility that they would plant evidence.
And then the Democrats all said, pfft, nonsense.
I can't believe he's trying to undermine confidence in our institutions.
Is that Trump? Is it Trump?
Who's undermining our confidence in our institutions?
It's not actually the institutions themselves.
It's the way Trump talks about them.
So it's not that they ran an insurrection.
That's what I'd call it.
The Russian collusion hoax, in my opinion, was an insurrection.
As is the January 6th hearings.
I believe those were an insurrection.
So, was that Trump's fault?
That the intelligence agencies, 50 of them, lied that the Hunter laptop was disinformation?
You don't have to wonder if the FBI would plant evidence.
Does anybody think they wouldn't?
Now again, we can do the, oh, may I take a moment?
May I take a moment to mock other people?
And I'm going to do it with my stupid face.
Because there's something that everybody has to say, and I have to say it too, but I can't say it with a straight face.
I have to do it with a stupid face.
Well, you know, 99% of all FBI are good.
99% are good.
Did you know? I need to clarify.
99% are just good.
All right, got that out of the way.
What's it mean when 1% of the FBI is bad and 99% are good?
Thank you.
It means you can't trust them.
Because the 1% seems to be directed at the President of the United States.
You know, I'm really happy that 99% of the time when they're dealing with counterfeiters, They're doing just their job, and I appreciate that.
I love the fact that when they find some crime that crossed state borders, the FBI gets on it and they do a good job.
I do appreciate that.
But that 99% of doing ordinary things doesn't really explain running a plot to overthrow the government of the United States two or three times.
Two or three times in the past year or so.
All right, past few years.
Do you know how Republicans could have complete control of the country?
I'll tell you how.
Just don't say anything out loud that Ben Shapiro doesn't think is true.
That's it.
That's it.
And then Republicans would just rule everything.
Let me explain. So many Republicans say things that are clearly batshit crazy, you know, QAnon crap, that those who are saying smart things, and there are plenty of them, there are plenty of people saying smart things.
But the smart people are drowned out and they get averaged out by the, you know, the crazies.
If you want to have total Republican control...
Just take a moment to check with what Ben Shapiro says.
And if he says there's no evidence of this thing existing, just go with that.
Now, I'm not going to say he's always right, because human, right?
Humans are not always right.
That's not an option. But when was the last time he was wrong about a major fact?
I don't know. Maybe you can come up with something.
I can't. Now, you don't have to agree with his opinions.
I'm not telling you to buy into his opinions.
Although, they tend to be pretty strong.
Because his opinions are often based on a religious base.
And if you don't have the same religious base, maybe you come to different conclusions.
So you don't have to agree with his opinions.
But if he says something didn't happen, you should listen to that.
You should listen to that.
When was the last time he was wrong when he said a thing simply didn't happen?
It's not real. Listen to it.
Now, I was going to say you should listen to me, but then that has no credibility because it's me.
But there are some people...
Somebody's giving me an example about General Flynn, but I'd have to hear that exact example.
Now, even if you do have an example, let's say you do, Let's say you have an example where you think you're right and he's wrong.
And maybe you do. Remember, the point is not that he's always right.
So if that's the point you're on, you're on the wrong point.
Don't argue with me that I'm saying he's always right, because that's not the claim.
I'm saying that Republicans would completely dominate If they acted as if his opinions were stronger than their own, in terms of what's true and what's not true.
Not his opinion part, but just what's true and what's not true.
Now, there are others that I could put in that category.
He's not the only one.
But I would say, if you don't have a list of three or four people that you can look at and say, let's just see if these people think it's true.
That matters. So it'll never happen, but Republicans do have the power to just completely rule if they would listen to their smarter, fact-based people.
All right. Here's my favorite joke of the day from Ben McCulley on Twitter.
He replied to me in a comment.
He said, did you hear one of the boxes?
This is talking about Mar-a-Lago.
Did you hear one of the boxes contained the Constitution with the Fourth Amendment circled?
Damn you, Ben!
I had to do a search for what the Fourth Amendment is.
How many of you know what the Fourth Amendment is?
I'm only good for two.
I can do two amendments.
First and second, and then I'm out.
Yeah, it's the one about unreasonable searches and seizures.
So it's a good joke.
It's especially a good joke because I had to look it up.
I'm like, damn you!
And then I looked it up and I was like, oh, that's a pretty good joke.
All right. Here's my favorite question of the day.
So we heard that there was an extra lock put on that storeroom in Mar-a-Lago.
Who had the key? Who had the key?
I mean, really. How did we get to this point without knowing who had the key?
And was there only one key?
And did the Secret Service person have the key?
Did they also have clearance, top secret clearance?
Do Secret Service members have top secret clearance by definition?
Can somebody give me a fact check on that?
I wouldn't think so.
I would think they would have something like secret but not top secret.
Somebody says yes.
You're saying yes they have top secret?
Because that might be the case.
I don't think they'd have top secret.
Really? You think that they have nuclear secrets?
The security people.
I'm not buying that.
Sorry. I'm not buying that they have top secret clearance.
So if the person who had the key had access to them, because that's what the key means, was there somebody with no appropriate clearance who had access?
And the other thing is, how did anybody know what was in the boxes?
How did anybody know what was in the boxes?
Because if it was really top secret, I'm told that those are tracked really carefully by the GSA. It would have a number and it would have a folder on top of it with a number.
And they would know exactly where every top secret document was last.
So the GSA would be able to say, oh, it's in that box, because they would know exactly where all those documents are.
So, why did somebody have to look through a box to find something that the GSA should have already known was there, if it was top secret?
And if it wasn't top secret, well, then that would just be another lie that we're hearing, of course.
Now, let me ask you this.
You're probably aware that some things the government does are overclassified.
They'll call it a secret when it's not that secret.
Or they'll call it top secret when it's, eh, maybe it's a little sensitive but not top secret.
So would you agree that that's a thing?
That sometimes, because it's an opinion to call, because it's an opinion, sometimes they overclassify.
Now, second question.
How often? What would you guess is the percentage of time that something gets overclassified?
Have you ever been in a government or a big corporation?
If you're a government employee, what would be the penalty for underclassifying something?
Probably pretty bad.
I don't know. But if something was top secret and you forgot to label it?
Or you decided it wasn't really a top secret and then later somebody found out?
I feel like you'd be fired.
So underlabeling or underclassifying would be super bad for the person doing it.
Now let's say you overclassified something.
You called it top secret.
Well, maybe it was just secret.
And then somebody says, hey, I think you overclassified that.
Did they get fired?
Never. Never.
In fact, the person questioning it might get fired.
Not really. But the point is, you can overclassify all day long.
So what do you expect there's more of?
The one that doesn't get you fired or the one that does?
Common sense and everything we know about people and bureaucracies suggests that overclassifying is a normal routine thing.
So now you hear that Trump has documents that say top secret.
What are the odds that they are classified correctly?
25%? What would you say?
Low, right?
Low. Less than half.
Because it seems to me that if they were really top secret, the GSA would know exactly where they were.
The FBI would have gotten them immediately instead of waited.
There's literally nothing in this story that suggests they're top secret.
Everything suggests they're not.
Everything. So that looks exactly like an intelligence operation against Trump, doesn't it?
Again, fog of war, we don't know, but it looks in every way like an intelligence operation against the president, which I would call an insurrection.
Because if you believe he's on his way to be re-elected, which is what a lot of smart people say, then this is an insurrection.
And they can always get away with it by saying that the other team is doing it.
Well, we're investigating an insurrection.
No, you're not motherfuckers.
You are the insurrection. You are the insurrection.
At least that's what it looks like.
So do you think YouTube's going to let this live stream just go up and get monetized and be downloadable immediately?
What do you think? Do you think this content's nice and safe for YouTube?
Is anybody on YouTube watching me right now?
Because I'm pretty sure you have human watchers who at least Who at least look into the monetization question, because those are human reviews.
There's somebody who works for YouTube who's watching me right now, presumably, maybe on replay, and deciding whether I should be allowed to be seen.
And ask yourself, human reviewer, if in fact you're there and watching, probably are, what did I say that wasn't either true or labeled as opinion?
Because I can label it as an opinion.
That's not wrong. All right.
So Trump has decided to label the nuclear weapons thing a hoax.
What do you think of him using the word hoax?
And now he's using them in the list.
You know, Russia collusion hoax, this hoax, that hoax.
I think that's wrong.
I think that's strong. Because if he does what I did, which is in the list of hoaxes, it's much more persuasive to say, oh, you got 10 of them already?
If you didn't know there were 10 hoaxes already, and really 20, but 10 I counted, if you didn't know how many hoaxes there were, you wouldn't assume this was one.
But if you see that there have been 10 already...
It's pretty easy to assume it is another one.
Because if you did 10 and you got away with it, yeah, they did get away with it.
They got away with every one of the hoaxes.
That doesn't mean that lots of people don't know it's a hoax, but it doesn't matter because their team thinks it's true.
That's all that matters. So I think that was good.
And then I saw CNN say that we were attacking, that he was attacking the legitimacy of our institutions.
Yeah, I think that's what he's doing.
And in fact, why did people want Trump to be president?
Let me tell you why I wanted Trump to be president the first time.
I wanted him to attack the legitimacy of our institutions.
They don't even know the difference between a bug and a feature.
Attacking the legitimacy of the institutions, that's why we like him.
Keep yelling that.
That'll get him elected.
Alright. What do you think of this story?
I don't think this is true.
But, you know, Fox and a lot of right-leaning people are reporting it's true.
That Trump somehow declassified the documents that were in the storeroom.
But listen carefully to the way the claim is made.
Trump declassified a bunch of documents before he left office.
Therefore, don't worry about the stuff in the storeroom.
Those are not connected.
Do you see the news trying to conflate those two things?
Trump did...
What's the word?
He declassified lots of stuff.
And then there's also stuff in his warehouse.
Have you seen anybody in the news say...
No, Kash Patel, somebody's saying that Kash Patel said as much.
No, go back and listen.
Go back and listen to his exact words.
They're using weasel words.
I do not believe that he declassified those specific documents.
If he did, why wouldn't they say so?
And if he did, why wouldn't they show the document?
Or the video, or have somebody say, yeah, I was in the room, and he said, all these documents I'm taking to Mar-a-Lago, these are all declassified.
Somebody says he didn't fill out the form.
Does he need to? I'm no lawyer, but if the president has ultimate authority, he don't need no fucking forms.
Am I right? Because what does ultimate authority mean if you have to fill in a form?
If you have to fill in a form, that means somebody else is the authority, by definition.
The person who says, I don't need no stinking form, is the one in power.
So every time I hear this argument that he didn't follow the procedure, my head just spins right off my shoulders.
No, he is the procedure.
Whatever he says is the procedure.
What you do, you're going to have to follow his procedure.
Well, he doesn't have to.
Now, am I wrong?
I'm wrong that if at one time, if there's...
I'm going to take it to the extreme, okay?
Now I'm going to take it to the extreme.
This is not in evidence, but imagine if it were.
Imagine one witness...
One witness during his presidency, the last day, says, yes, I was in the room, and Trump said, I want all of these documents unclassified that I'm taking to Mar-a-Lago.
Would you accept that they had been declassified if one person said once, declassify these?
I would say yes, unambiguously.
I would say yes with no buts, no nothing.
That's just a yes.
Right? Because you're innocent until proven guilty, and the only evidence would be an eyewitness saying he did the right thing.
So where's the guilt?
We have evidence of non-guilt, but then we would have no evidence of guilt.
I think the bar for him to say that it was declassified is really low.
He just needs one insider to say, I was in the room.
I heard it. He definitely gave that order.
I guess nobody filled out any forms, but he definitely said it.
How about this? What if the president says, it's obvious I intended these to be declassified by my actions?
Now you really take it to the extreme.
By my actions, it's obvious that these were declassified, in my opinion.
Does he have to say the words?
Yeah, now it's a little tougher, right?
Does he have to say the words?
Suppose he just treated them like they're unclassified.
I don't know. I mean, I think he'd have to say the words.
But if he just treats them like they're unclassified, isn't that kind of the same thing?
If he took a top-secret document and handed it to someone who did not have clearance...
I'll give you this example.
An advisor walks into the room who does not have clearance.
Does not have clearance.
The president needs an opinion from him anyway, doesn't want to wait for him to get clearance.
So the president hands him the document...
It says, I need your opinion on this.
I know you don't have clearance. Has he declassified it?
I don't know. It looks like it.
I would say that his actions declassified it.
I mean, you could make the argument anyway.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, so, you know, listen to real lawyers about any of this stuff.
But just sort of working through what makes sense as a citizen and an adult, I would think that your actions have to mean something.
Now, nobody else's actions would be meaningful, because they have to follow his instructions.
But he doesn't have to.
He can just treat it like it wasn't, and then it isn't.
Somebody says, I believe the very act of removing them is declassifying them.
Now, that's interesting, because that's my argument.
My argument is that putting them in boxes and moving them to a non-secure facility is, by his actions, clearly intended as declassification, even if he never said the words.
Right? Now, if somebody says that's wrong, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's wrong.
I wouldn't be surprised.
So I'm just making the sort of common sense argument.
But the legal argument would be different, of course.
And then the other question is, who looked at these documents with enough scrutiny to know that they should have been top secret?
Has that been done?
Did the agents who took the documents look at the top of the box and it was labeled top secret?
And then they said to themselves, we better not look in the box because we don't have the clearance.
We'll just take the box and it will not be opened except by somebody who has the clearance.
Is that what happened? I assume so.
Now let me ask you this.
Do you think that every box that says top secret on it has only top secret things in it?
Do you think it's possible that when they were packing, the only boxes they had are the ones that said top secret?
Is it possible that they were just boxes?
Because they weren't stored in a top secret facility, right?
If you had a box that said top secret, would you store it in your closet?
I don't think you would.
I think you would have to know that it was just the box that was labeled and not the contents before you would put it in your closet.
I don't know. I just don't think the contents are likely to be top secret.
Doesn't seem likely.
So every part of it looks like intelligence operations.
Then I heard that Biden advisers are pushing him to make an early announcement for president.
I don't know why that's funny.
Does it seem funny to you that Biden would run for president again?
Like, it doesn't even seem real, does it?
It feels like a prank.
Or it feels like something they just have to say to him.
Because does he really have advisors who think he can make the next six years?
And that that's going to be fine?
It's weird because if you ask me, has he accomplished things, I would say yes.
I believe Trump...
I'm sorry. I believe Biden has accomplished things legislatively that his base likes.
I'm not saying I like it all.
I'm saying that his base likes it.
So, weirdly, he does have an argument for running.
And here's the weirdest part.
In the same way that I say Trump didn't really hurt us the way people imagined he would ruin the country, and I say, you don't have to wonder if Trump's dangerous...
Because you saw four years of him, you know what he can and cannot do.
With Biden, it looked like it was the worst idea in the world to have a brain-dead president.
But I don't know.
Maybe things would have been exactly the same if he had not been brain-dead.
I don't know. It's not obvious that things would have been different.
Anyway, so I think it's hilarious that he might be running, because that's such a weak offering.
I mean, it just shows that the candidates are not running the country.
It does tell you that the deep state wants to keep control.
Because whoever is controlling Biden cannot be sure they would control the next candidate as effectively, right?
So whoever it is that controls Biden definitely wants them to run again because they're not necessarily going to have as much control with somebody who's with it.
So we've learned so much about how fake news is manufactured.
So here's the process.
So this is how you know an intelligence op.
You start with the anonymous sources.
And then the publications that have a high, let's say a high profile, like the Washington Post, New York Times, Newsweek, etc., they'll report that the anonymous sources said something.
And then you'll think it's real because it was in a prominent source.
And then everybody will talk about it because it was in the media, but, you know, it was somebody who leaked it to the media, so it just becomes this circular thing talking about the rumor.
Then you put a Schiff in this GIF, You take Adam Schiff and you put him in this secure environment where only he and the people who have the clearance can see the documents, and then he leaves that and lies about what he saw.
We've seen that a few times, right?
And then the social media platforms will use their algorithms and AI to hide opposing narratives.
I believe we're already seeing that.
Can't prove it, but it looks like it.
Then you see the list of liars.
So there's going to be lists of liars, like the Hunter laptop thing where 50 intelligence people lied and said that it was Russian disinformation.
So often you get the, look at all the people who are willing to lie.
It couldn't be fake with all these liars saying it's true.
Then you get the laundry list persuasion, which is the thing that's the new lie It gets added to a list of other lies.
So you say, well, you know, it's easy to believe this new lie because look at all these other things that are true.
But they're also just other lies.
So they put it in the context of all their other hoaxes that they think are real.
And then it looks more credible because it's in that context.
And then the last phase...
Is when the truth finally emerges from the court system or an investigation or something, and then it's too late.
Because whatever damage the hoax wanted to do, it already did.
Somebody got elected, somebody didn't get elected, and then it's too late.
Then they go, oh, sorry, sorry, that was wrong.
So look at the Mar-a-Lago situation.
Anonymous sources, wrap-up smear, we don't yet have Schiff and a Skiff, but you know it's coming.
Am I wrong that there will be some people who will have access to the documents, who will have top-secret clearance, and those people will tell us what they saw, and the Democrats will lie about what they saw?
Is there any question that that will happen?
Now, it doesn't mean it's Schiff.
Could be. He's got the clearance.
Could be anybody. But they're going to play that play, clearly.
Are they going to use AI to hide opposing narratives?
Of course, we assume.
Will you see a list of liars?
Yeah. Yeah, you're going to see it all.
You're going to see it all. All right.
How many people think that Trump packed his own boxes?
And how many people think that when he was packing his own boxes...
I'm going to steal a joke.
I'm not going to credit the joke, because I don't know if he wants to be credited for the joke, but I stole this privately.
Can you imagine Trump pulling something out of the materials and saying, you know, this nuclear map would look really good on my bathroom wall.
Yeah. Yeah, we're going to keep this one.
Keep that one. I mean, I'm just trying to picture Trump being in any way involved with what went into a box.
If there's anything that is less likely, it was that Trump was supervising what went into the boxes.
Now, he might have made some general statement about make sure I got that Kim Jong-un note, but beyond that, I don't think he was micromanaging that process.
It seems a little bit unlikely.
Picture him with a magic marker.
Top secret. All right.
Well, I guess I just have to mention this because it's in the news, but Salman Rushdie was attacked and knifed terribly.
Going to lose an eye.
I mean, he's in bad shape.
From some Islamic person who was apparently acting on the Iranian fatwa that Rushdie must die for his book that was blasphemous, say many.
Now, what do you say about it?
This is one of those stories where you just look at it and go, wow.
Somebody says, don't put it on Iran?
Are you serious? Don't pin it on Iran.
Why? Why wouldn't I pin it on Iran?
No, the fatwa was reinitiated in 2019, I heard.
No, I realize it's an Islamic doctrine, so I get that, that it's not Iran.
But you still need a fatwa, right?
Without the fatwa, it's less likely to happen.
No, I get that they could do it without the fat wall, but it's a little bit far less likely.
I don't know. I just don't know what to say about that.
It's just horrible. It's just horrible.
Exactly what he feared the most happened.
Pretty horrible. Alright.
Yeah, there was a bounty to kill him.
I don't know if he's going to collect that bounty.
I don't think so. All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is a conclusion of some of the best live streaming you've ever seen in your whole life.
And I think my timing is just about right.
And let me ask you this.
Do you like my new approach where I'm less angry and more optimistic?
Let me wrap up the title that I put on this livestream.
The Mar-a-Lago situation is the weirdest thing.
And I don't know... I'm trying to think of something like it before.
But correct me if I'm wrong.
Democrats are delighted.
Am I right? Democrats are delighted with the Mar-a-Lago raid.
And Republicans are delighted with the raid, because it's going to guarantee Trump gets re-elected.
So, you know, the Republicans are acting angry, but they're acting angry as a technique, right?
It's just part of using it politically.
But am I wrong that this is one of the weird stories where everybody came together but for different reasons?
Well, you're not delighted if you believe that Trump's going to get prosecuted.
But that's not going to happen.
I think most Republicans are expecting this to backfire.
Well, let me ask you.
Do you think that Trump will come out ahead or behind because of the Mar-a-Lago story?
Go. Ahead or behind?
Trump will come out ahead or behind?
Go. All right, most of you saying ahead.
And on YouTube, ahead.
Right. So why wouldn't Republicans, at least ones that like Trump, why wouldn't they be happy about this story?
Because I found myself in a good mood this week.
Did you? I don't know if it's just because the news is more interesting to talk about.
I don't think Trump's going to be prosecuted.
I think it's just an intelligence operation.
I think it will be revealed as an obvious intelligence operation.
And the Democrats won't believe it.
The Republicans will.
Democrats will think, ah, we got the goods on you.
Republicans will think, ah, it backfired.
Have you ever seen a story where everybody's happy?
It's weird. So if I'm not acting outraged about this story, it's because it's hard to be outraged about a story where everybody thinks they got what they wanted.
I mean, I do. I think I'm getting what I wanted.
I think this is such a transparent intelligence operation by the government against the citizens that it actually helps us.
You know, once you reach this level of obviousness, then the country can wake up a little bit and maybe do what it needs to do.
No, not violent revolution.
And let me say it again.
We are so far...
From anything like a violent revolution.
We've never been further from it.
We're a million miles from it.
It's not even close.
Do I hate the fact that Republicans threaten it all the time?
No. I don't hate that.
It's what keeps the country together.
When Republicans talk reflexively about Second Amendment and it's time to strap on the gun and Go take care of the government and fix all these things.
It's just the way Republicans talk.
There's nobody who's even close except for some crazy people.
If you take out the crazy people, the citizens don't want anything like a revolution.
Not even close. And so anybody who's worrying about that, you're really worrying about something you don't need to worry about.
But crazy people?
Yeah, crazy people you need to worry about.
Absolutely. Who is them all?
Yeah, don't fall into the violence trap.
That's good advice. It does feel as if the Democrats would like to goad Republicans into doing something violent.
But I believe they botched their intelligence operations so badly...
That the Republicans can just use regular narrative persuasion to do everything they need to do.
And I would also say that weapons are the worst tool in 2022.
Persuasion is much stronger.
Persuasion was not always stronger than weapons, but it is now.
It is now. Not every situation, of course, but in the long run, persuasion is now so weaponized because you can spread it everywhere and people like me can have an impact.
I shouldn't even admit it.
But yeah, as long as people who are actually trained in persuasion also have a large platform, then bullets are much less useful.
If somebody like me, and when I say like me, I mean somebody who is trained in persuasion, like literally a hypnotist.
If I existed 30 years ago, which I did, I did exist 30 years ago, but the internet didn't.
So whatever influence I had was trapped in my little bubble, couldn't get out.
But now that the internet exists, and I have the ability to build up an audience of some size, The world has never seen this combination.
And it doesn't know what's coming.
So the world has never seen anybody with my kind of skill set having my kind of reach.
And I'm not the only one.
If you think Cernovich can't move the needle in the United States, you're not paying attention.
He has the same skill set and also a bigger audience.
So yeah, he can move the needle.
And so can I. Well, let me ask you.
Have you ever seen me move the needle on a national topic?
You can pick the topic.
Have you ever seen me do it in a way that you're sure I did move the needle?
You're positive I did.
A lot of you can see it pretty plainly.
Now, imagine the ones you can't see.
Do you think that the only things I've influenced are the ones you know about?
Of course not. Of course not.
It's a minority. The people who have my skill set and also a big audience are way more powerful than the average citizen understands.
Because what you're looking at is your Tucker Carlson's and stuff, and they have huge influence.
Tucker, Hannity, whoever you want on the left, Jake Tapper.
They have huge influence because they have big audiences.
But what they don't have, necessarily, is persuasion talent.
So they have the audience without the persuasion skill.
I've got the persuasion skill, much smaller audience than any of those, but I do persuade the persuaders.
A lot of the people who persuade watch my content to pick up tips on persuasion.
So I wouldn't worry about a military takeover because I think the power structure has just changed and guns wouldn't be the best way to do anything.
All right. What do the folks behind the curtain say?
I'll tell you after I turn off YouTube.
All right. I'll tell you on Locals what the real story is.
