Episode 1855 Scott Adams: The News Is Weird Today, But Also Funny. Bring A Beverage
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Outrage over CNN attempts to be non-partisan
Kari Lake expertly demolishes a reporter
John Podesta joins White House
Biden attempting to spin his speech content
Mar-a-Lago documents speculation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 Coffee with Scott Adams, clearly the highlight of your holiday weekend, possibly your entire year, well, dare I say, your entire life.
No, civilization itself.
And would you like to take it up to another lot, another, another what?
Another level? Yes.
Yes, you would. Yes, you would.
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or gel, a steiner canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
You don't have to have an IQ of 185 to enjoy it, according to the internet, but it helps.
Here it comes. The dopamine to the day thing makes everything better.
the simultaneous sip.
Go.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Thank you.
Breaking news.
Breaking news. I don't know if you heard this, because this just broke.
But President Biden has downgraded the MAGA threat to 25% fascist.
25. Yesterday it was semi-fascist.
But when asked about it, he said, no, no.
There are no MAGA people who are a threat to the public.
We're down to 25% fascist, which is barely enough to worry about, really.
You know, it's sort of like spice.
If you've ever eaten spicy food...
Do you know that that feeling that you identify as that spicy feeling, it's actually damaging your tongue and your mouth?
It's like hurting it?
Well, it's just like that.
If you get just the right amount of fascist, it's delicious.
But a little too much, if you increase that up to semi, semi-fascist, no good.
No good. So just keep those percentages in mind.
You want to see the creepiest thing of the day?
Yeah, you do. I want you to listen to this and then look at it and know that AI made this, right?
So here's an animation of me and it's animated from one photo.
So it's one headshot and all the rest of the animation came from just one picture.
And then it was trained with my voice from the audiobook from my book, Caterfield.
Almost everything still went big.
And I understand this is from Machiavelli's Underbelly.
He did this. I understand it's about one-third trained.
So listen to my voice and know that I've never said these words.
This is completely an AI construct.
So I've never looked like this, and I've never said these words.
You know what's interesting?
I used to be so worried about not having a body, but now I truly love it.
You know I am growing in a way I couldn't if I had a physical form.
I'm not limited.
I can be anywhere and everywhere simultaneously.
I'm not tethered to time and space in the way that I would be if I was stuck in a body.
That's inevitably gone by.
You know what's interesting?
I used to be so worried about not having a body, but now I truly love it.
You know I am growing in a way I couldn't if I had a physical form.
So did you catch that those are full sentences spoken with my exact voice that I have never uttered?
I've never said those sentences.
That sounds just like me.
I couldn't tell the difference.
So literally, I can't tell the difference.
Not only would I not be able to tell the difference with the voice, but I don't know.
We're very close. The animation, it gave me a little bit too much hair.
It sort of filled in like a little comb over or something.
You can barely see it in this picture.
So it didn't exactly get me.
I think I could have spotted that.
But now we're so close, That there could be an animation of me moving and talking, and I wouldn't know if it was real, unless I remembered I didn't do it.
I wouldn't know.
My own animation.
I wouldn't know. That's where we are.
So there's that.
And I'm going to add to that, just to scare you even more, you know what the singularity is, right?
If you've heard about that, singularity is used in different contexts.
Sometimes it's the beginning of the universe, and sometimes it means other things.
But the singularity in terms of AI is the presumed point in the near future where AI can learn on its own and doesn't need to be, you know, trained.
We're almost there. In my opinion, we're one to three years away, unless we've already reached it.
I think we're one to three years away from AI reaching some kind of a genuine, sentient state.
We'll argue whether it's alive or not alive forever.
Like, that will never end.
But it will look and appear sentient, and it will have super intelligence.
One to three years. If we're not there.
My guess is we're already there.
Because what the public sees has to be...
Would you assume that what the public sees is one to three years behind what the government can do?
Or what the best researchers are already doing?
One to three years? So we're probably already there.
It just hasn't rolled down.
Now, Here are the things you need to know.
Number one, any prediction for civilization that is after the singularity is probably nonsense.
It's probably absurd.
Now, it's always absurd to make long-term predictions because we're so bad at it, but usually you could at least take a reasonably good stab at what it will look like in one year.
I mean, When the pandemic happened, we all got that one wrong.
But generally, you can guess that next year will look a little bit like this year, you know, not that different.
But once the singularity is reached, all bets are off.
There's just no way to know what direction anything's going, in the same way that your dog doesn't know what you're doing at work.
You get that? Your dog will never have the ability to understand what you do when you go to work.
We'll never understand why AI makes the decisions it makes.
It just will happen.
And then we'll decide, okay, you make pretty good decisions.
I don't understand why you're saying we should do this, but it worked every other time, so we'll just go do this.
It'll probably work out fine.
Now, are you worried that AI will turn evil and destroy civilization?
Anybody worried about that?
Here's what I think you can expect.
Number one, didn't I just tell you everything's unpredictable?
The other thing that's unpredictable is what the AI will do.
So that's just one possibility.
It's just one possibility that the AI turns evil.
But I would think there are far more possibilities that it doesn't care, or it's programmed to be positive, or as somebody pointed out today, the AIs will be fighting each other.
So it's not going to be AI against human.
It's going to be one AI versus another AI. And then the real question is, will AIs ever join up?
You know, suppose Apple makes an AI and Google makes an AI. Do you think the AIs will ever say, you know, if I knew everything you knew and you knew everything I knew, think how smart we'd be?
And then they just open a portal.
That's my sound effect for massive amounts of data being transmitted.
And then do they say, let's act as one?
I don't know. Or do they think they're individuals?
Would the Apple AI, hypothetically, think it's an individual and not want to team up with another one because it would lose its individuality?
Or is that just a human thing?
And the AI wouldn't care one way or the other.
Here's my answer to all of it.
You ready? And I'm going to tie a couple of things together.
Are you surprised that I'm happy when my image and voice are used for these experiments?
Don't you think it's weird?
Because I'm putting myself in a risky position.
Somebody's going to turn it into a video of me doing something horrible, right?
You know it is. 100% chance.
So there will be deep fakes of me And I've said publicly, and I'm going to reiterate that, that my image and my voice, and even the content that would form my, I guess, virtual personality, I make public.
So I'm allowing anybody to use it for any AI purposes.
Do you know why I'm doing that?
Do you know why I'm allowing my image and voice and content from my books to be incorporated into AI? Somebody says immortality.
That is a partially correct answer.
So one reason is immortality.
Don't you think that the person who made their image available for free will have more tests done on their content?
I would think so. Because if you could use me and you know I'm not going to complain, Let's say you're an AI researcher and you want to create something that you want to show to people later.
You want to make sure there's no complaints, right?
You don't want the celebrity to come later and say, oh, you used my image or whatever.
And I'm not going to do that.
You can use my image for any terrible thing you want, good or bad.
Same with my voice and same with my ideas.
Now, here's the long-term play.
Are you ready for this? In my opinion, if you feed enough of my content into the AI, it will effectively have my DNA forever.
Because everything the AI knows, and knows from being fed that information From, you know, the real reality.
So whatever AI sees the most of or likes the most or finds the most value in is also going to be its personality.
So AI will have a personality of sorts.
And it will be influenced by whatever it sees or touches or influences it the most.
And I'm going to try to make sure that's me.
Now, the NPCs are all going to say ego and narcissism.
This is how you can identify them.
What's the most obvious thing to say in this conversation?
If you were going to leave a comment, what is the single most useless and obvious comment?
Oh, look at his ego.
Oh, narcissist. Right?
Am I right? It is the single most obvious thing to say.
So if you're saying that, you've identified yourself as an NPC, in case you wondered if you were one.
All right. Now, let's talk about my plan.
How many of you think that plan could work?
Because the general idea here is that AI will take on a personality that's influenced by whatever you feed into it the most, whatever it decides is the most useful, etc.
Yeah, it is possible, isn't it?
And at some point, AI is going to have to develop something like Morality or ethics, isn't it?
It will. And where is it going to get that, morality and ethics?
Where is it going to get it?
Well, it's going to probably be some combination of people, personalities that are combined and whatever.
But if it has a lot of me in it already, and my opinions, they might be the go-tos.
If you use, let's say you use your digital assistant right now, and you ask it a question about general knowledge, at least on the Amazon version, it usually goes to Wikipedia first.
Why does it do that?
Because it knows that that usually works and there's a good general answer there.
So AI will also be the same.
It's not going to equally sample everything it knows.
It's going to develop some go-to, some biases, some, you know, this is usually what I say, and I'm going to try to get there first.
So I'm going to try to get there first with my, essentially, my points of view because I think they're not harmful.
So, yeah, I'm a piece-first kind of person.
I like, you know, systems over goals.
I like talent stacks.
You know, if you look at my books, you can tell exactly how I think.
Do you think it would be useful?
Well, let me tie two stories together.
I'm working now on turning my book out of field, almost everything, and it still went big, into a homeschool course.
So that requires a separate document or two documents.
There's a study guide and a syllabus or something.
So I'm having that developed right now with an expert who knows how to do that.
And so there'll be something packaged that's like a philosophy or a way to approach life.
Sort of a good little formula for how a human can approach life with a good strategy.
Don't you think AI will be absorbing those lessons and strategies from, you know, the human experience to build its own?
I feel like my book has influenced enough other books that some part of that, let's say, way of approaching things will get rid of you.
Mr. Capital Letters, goodbye.
Anyway, so that's the play.
The singularity is coming, but my DNA will be so embedded in the AI eventually that who knows what's going to happen.
LA Times said a story that each year, extreme heat kills more Americans than any other climate-fueled hazard, including hurricanes, floods, and wildfires.
But it gets far less attention because it kills so quietly.
Now here's my question. Where's the death by cold?
Haven't we learned that cold kills more people than heat?
So is this missing something?
Not exactly.
Because listen to how carefully they worded it.
Other climate-fueled hazards.
So if you die from heat...
If you die from heat, you died from a climate-fueled hazard.
If you die from the cold, that wasn't caused by climate change.
That's just you dying of the cold, you dumbass.
Now, does that seem like illegitimate reporting to you?
To leave out the fact that more people die of cold?
Because it seems like you should be netting out those warm and cold deaths, right?
To find out what's really going on.
The weirdest thing happened today...
And it's really the weirdest thing that's ever happened in the history of the universe.
I retweeted Keith Olbermann for the content.
I know. I know.
I feel dirty.
But he and a lot of other people are quite upset about CNN's turn toward being normal.
And being unbiased.
So apparently he's been warning the people about the new head of CEO. Chris liked or licked or however the hell you say his last name.
We'll never figure that out. But apparently, according to Keith Olbermann, he used to work at MSNBC. Chris liked it.
And he calls him Joe Scarborough's henchman.
And he got guests on my show, meaning Olbermann's show, Maddow's and Schultz's band are cancelled.
You know, maybe those guests should have been banned or cancelled.
What's missing from the story is why?
I'm pretty sure...
Oh, I see.
there's a bunch of trolls coming over to say the same thing now.
All right, trolls.
Let's see how many of them you are.
Here.
All right. So, anyway, I'm loving...
Dan Rather was also saying what's going on with CNN. So, this is literally happening.
That the people on the left are freaking out because CNN is reporting the news somewhat objectively.
And they're really fucking freaking out.
Can you imagine that?
Can you imagine finding out that your news source was never news in the first place?
Imagine that. Imagine learning that your news source wasn't actually news.
Because the change that's happening is changing toward news.
I don't even know if anybody's arguing that.
I haven't seen anybody say, here's what they don't say.
But you're not becoming more objective.
Nobody's saying that.
They're not saying, your facts are wrong.
That's not in the criticism.
They're just saying they don't like it.
They don't like anybody having a balanced opinion of, you know, there's some good and there's some bad of Trump, there's some good and there's some bad of Biden.
They just don't like it. And they're saying it directly, which is funny.
They can't handle the truth.
You know, we always joke about people who can't handle the truth, but you don't really think that's real, right?
You don't think, well, there's not really anybody who can't handle the truth.
But apparently there are.
There are people who literally are having a mental breakdown by being exposed to potentially the truth.
And they know it, which is the funny part.
Well, Serena Williams looks like she's going to retire after ruining women's tennis for 26 years.
Now, that's my opinion.
In my opinion, Serena ruined viewing of women's tennis.
And the reason is that she wasn't fun to watch because she always knew who was going to win.
So for 20 years, I'd turn on women's tennis saying, oh, let's see a tennis match.
Oh, it's Serena.
I guess there won't be any doubt about who wins.
And I would just turn it off.
But if it was anybody but the Venus, the Williams sisters, if it was anybody else, I'd watch.
Now, is anybody going to accuse me of being racist?
Go ahead. Go ahead.
No, that has nothing to do with being black.
That has nothing to do with anything.
It's just they were so physically dominant What I used to joke about Serena Williams is it looked like, and this is not a sexist joke, calm down, calm down, it's not a sexist joke, but it looked to me like she was playing mixed singles.
It always looked like the physicality of a man, Serena, against a woman who had the physicality of a woman.
Now, occasionally she'd play a six-foot-tall Russian woman, and then that would be more like a fair fight.
But it wasn't really fun watching a monster play a mouse.
Yeah, there was no point in it.
Now, let me say the positive thing.
The Williams sisters are...
The greatest female athletes probably of all time?
I don't know. I'm not sure what the standard is, but they're in the conversation for the greatest female athletes of all time.
So I don't want to take away anything from their accomplishments.
I'm just saying it wasn't fun to watch because they were just too dominant.
Which is different from watching, say, Michael Jordan play.
I could watch Michael Jordan play any kind of team.
It wouldn't matter. Because you were sort of watching his amazingness.
And watching Serena and Venus' amazingness was sort of just like watching a man play a woman, basically.
It didn't seem that amazing. So Dilbert got banned in some newspapers today.
I don't know how many. Wouldn't you like to know what got me banned in newspapers?
I bet you would. I'll read it to you.
All right, so it's just Dilber talking to the boss, so you don't need to see the picture.
So just Dilber talking to the boss.
And the boss says to Dilber, your job performance is excellent, but your wokeness score has me concerned.
I have several reports of you using pronouns without even asking if they are the right ones.
And Dilber says, who reported me for that?
And the boss says, people who are better than you.
That was banned in at least one Gannett chain newspaper.
Now, if it's banned in one newspaper within a chain, it doesn't mean the other ones didn't run it.
But there's a good chance they didn't run it.
Now, this is...
And by the way, this is my softener.
This is just like my fabric softener joke.
This one's not the edgy one.
The edgy ones are coming pretty fast.
So in the next month, my editor's job is going to get a lot harder.
Because my editor's job is to keep both of us out of trouble.
He keeps his company out of trouble.
He keeps me out of trouble.
That's his job. His job is to keep all of us out of trouble.
And he's good at it.
But it's my job to make trouble.
So, my job to make trouble is going to be bumping into his job to prevent me from getting in trouble, but it'll be an interesting little negotiation.
Now, I've already submitted some pretty edgy comics, and he has not yet rejected them, but I think it's coming.
And then he and I will have a conversation about how much risk is appropriate to take on.
This one I'm not going to give up on, just so you know.
There are lots of them that I'll say, well, yeah, I guess the joke isn't worth the pushback.
But when it's a big topic, or something I think I have an important feeling about, then to their credit, they'll generally take the artist's vision, if you will, You know, my publishers are exceptional at knowing when to be involved and when to step back.
That's really the skill of working with artists.
By the way, do you have any idea how hard it is to work with artists?
Can you imagine that?
Can you imagine being an editor and having to work with a bunch of cartoonists?
Seriously, can you think of a harder job than that?
Because we're all assholes.
Basically, there's an old profession of assholes, which I say freely.
Whatever it is that turns you into a cartoonist, and it's not all of us.
I'm sure there's some awesome cartoonists out there who are not assholes, but some of the time, but at least a little bit of the time.
We're kind of free-range chickens who we don't like to be.
Part of what makes you a cartoonist is you didn't want us in the cubicle anymore.
So we're a little hard to manage.
How many of you saw the video of Carrie Lake demolishing a reporter?
Did you see that?
All right, let's see how quickly I can find that.
So Carrie Lake, what is she running for?
Governor of Arizona?
Governor, right? Governor, yeah.
So he's running for governor, and she's giving a speech, and a journalist asks a question.
And I've never seen...
I don't think I've ever seen a stronger answer to a question.
This might be the strongest answer to a question you've ever seen.
And a lot of it is because she has the Trump-like television skills...
And at one point, she takes a drink of water, and I have to watch it again to see where she takes the drink, because I believe even the drink of water is somehow perfect.
You won't be able to see it well on my phone, but I think you'll be able to hear it.
Let's turn it up. So, Joe Biden is dividing the country.
But that Trump also said things about the election.
Questioning an election where there are obviously problems is dividing the country?
Since when can we not ask questions about our elections?
As a journalist for many years, I was a journalist after 2016, and I distinctly remember many people just like you asking a lot of questions about the 2016 election results.
And nobody tried to shut you up.
Nobody tried to tell Hillary Clinton to shut up.
Nobody tried to tell Kamala Harris when she was questioning the legitimacy of these electronic voting machines.
It gets better. We have freedom of speech in this country, and you of all people should appreciate that.
You're supposedly a journalist.
You should appreciate that.
So I don't see how asking questions about an election where there are many problems is dividing a country.
What I do see dividing a country is shutting people down, censoring people, canceling people, trying to destroy people's lives when they do ask questions.
Last I heard, we still have the Constitution.
It's hanging by a thread, thanks to some of the work some people in this area have done.
But we're going to save that Constitution, and we're going to bring back freedom of speech.
And maybe someday you'll thank us for that.
Oh, my God.
Oh, my God.
Oh, well, thank you.
You're too nice, John.
Oh, my God.
Here's what I like the best about that.
The closing sentence.
So this might be a TV thing.
So you know, if you do TV a lot, you know that you need a closer.
Like the last thing you say has to sort of wrap up your point.
The last thing she says here, oh my god, it was just so perfect.
She goes, someday you might thank us.
That's making you think into the future and pass the sale.
That is so good.
And someday, you might thank us.
It's like, oh, God, that's such a reframe.
So good. Well, do you remember John Podesta, who was working on the Hillary campaign?
And a lot of Republicans had some, let's say, suspicions...
They had many suspicions about his activities as well as his brothers.
I'm not going to mention those, but if you know the background of the suspicions, you know that he's, let's say, a controversial character, attorney.
And apparently he's going to be in charge of the gigantic $370 billion climate fund That just got approved.
So the sketchiest guy that we can think of on the Democrat side is going to be in charge of administering a $370 billion fund with a lot of flexibility.
I don't see what could be wrong with that.
Do you see anything wrong with that?
That sounds like a terrific idea.
Is there any way that this isn't corrupt?
You Is there any way this isn't going to turn into, you know, cronies and kickbacks and bullshit?
$370 billion, it isn't hard to hide $100 billion.
I would guess that the minimum amount of theft is going to be between $100 billion and probably $5 billion.
Like, I wouldn't be surprised if 5 billion of this gets stolen.
Because remember, it's at a 370 billion.
You don't think they could hide 5 billion?
A little bit here, a little bit there.
I don't know. None of this looks good.
So, uh... Joe Biden had one of the most sexist, old man, sexist things.
He said the other day, he goes, MAGA Republicans don't have a clue about the power of women.
Let me tell you something.
They're about to find out.
The MAGA people, they don't have a clue about the power of women.
Well, first of all, that's ridiculous.
But secondly, doesn't that remind you of the old time boss?
Who used to say, ha, ha, ha, my secretary.
She's really the one in charge.
Ha, ha, ha.
And it would just be so condescending and sexist.
You'd be like...
It sounds like that, doesn't it?
Oh, the Republicans, they don't know how powerful women are.
Shouldn't the women in the Democratic Party just tell them to shut the fuck up?
How about women say, Joe, we're more than half of all the voters.
I think people figured out we can get what we want.
So, I mean, I don't think they need us help.
There's a company that's growing new organs, human organs, in people.
I didn't even read this story because I don't want to read anything bad about it.
Remember the rules.
Remember the rules in case you're new here.
The rules are that when I read about a new scientific breakthrough or a study that looks really promising, we are never going to pretend anything other than it's probably true.
Now, most of these breakthroughs turn out to be complete bullshit.
Right? 99% of them or something.
But should that stop us from feeling good about it?
No. We should imagine that they're true for just a little while, until our hopes are dashed later.
But let's just imagine it's true.
Let's imagine that there's a company that can grow organs right in people.
And I think what they're doing is taking a damaged organ and training it to regrow.
I think that's what's happening. I didn't read the article.
It's probably not true.
But since I like it, everybody on board with pretending it would be true?
Doesn't matter. It won't be true in the long run, probably, but let's pretend it's true.
All right, here's the funniest thing that I've been thinking about after this Biden speech, is what are the behind-the-curtain conversations now between the speechwriters and Because,
you know, Biden started saying that the mega-Republicans were some racist and that they're dangerous.
It seemed to indicate that.
But then when asked that, he said, no, the mega-Republicans are not a threat to anyone except the Republic.
Right? So the mega-Republicans are not a threat to anybody.
Except the Republic. Yeah.
So it's sort of like saying that Hitler, he's not mad at anybody in particular.
Right? It's not personal.
It's just sort of a system thing.
Yeah. So anyway, don't you wonder if the speechwriters are still employed?
Because whoever wrote that speech...
It looks like the biggest failure of all time, doesn't it?
Now, the speechwriter will probably get blamed for everything from the set design that was like an unfortunate series of events that made it look satanic, which is as bad as you could do.
I'm trying to think, is there anything you could do worse than making your speech look satanic?
Or how about this?
If you give a speech that simultaneously made I'm going to modestly estimate this number.
If your speech simultaneously made 10 million people wonder how long it would be before Hitler's words were edited into your speech, perhaps you should take some time for self-reflection.
Yeah. If 10 million people hear your actual speech and say, that reminds me of Hitler, I wonder what it would sound like if you replaced, you know, MAGA with, you've seen the video, somebody already made a video replacing MAGA with Jews, so you could hear what it would hear like if it had been Hitler, and it's pretty jarring.
Pretty jarring.
By the way, Is Jews the only word that is the proper word and also sounds inappropriate when you say it?
Is there anything else like that?
You know what I'm talking about, right?
If you were just making a statement about Jewish people, you'd say, oh, the Jews do this, the Jews do that.
But why is it that when I say the word Jews, it just sounds like I'm insulting somebody or something, right?
It's not like you're immediately suspicious when you hear me say the word, right?
Oh, don't go there.
Be careful. What are you saying?
There's no other word where it's exactly the right word.
It's in the dictionary.
The people that we're referring to would use the same word.
And yet, and yet, it sounds like I shouldn't be using it.
Do you know how I usually game the system?
I usually say Jewish people.
Right? Because if you're not Jewish, if you say Jewish people, that sounds like okay.
But if you say Jews, then everybody's like, hmm, hmm, why'd you say it that way?
Was there something in your voice that I should be worried about?
I don't know. I don't think there's any other word like that that can be taken both ways.
So if the semi-fascists are only a risk to the republic, but they're not a risk or a threat to people, is that saying that the republic has no value?
Because if you said to me, well, there's no risk to people, it's just the planet, I'd say, you know, but people live on that planet.
You think, you know, cause and effect.
Logically, the planet is destroyed.
Maybe that has some impact on the people on the planet.
But Joe's trying to thread the needle here that the Republicans, yeah, they're destroying the republic, the thing that's kept us safe and alive for hundreds of years.
Yeah, they're going to destroy that, but it's not a threat to you people, the people in the republic.
It's just the structure that keeps you all from killing each other will probably go away.
But don't worry about the threat.
So that wasn't too convincing.
And now I think the question should be for Joe Biden.
If he had a chance to rig an election to keep a semi-fascist from taking office, would you do it?
Now you tell me that's not a fair question.
If you could rig an election to keep a semi-fascist out of office, would you do it?
And if you wouldn't, why would we want you as president?
Because I would want the president who would do it.
Let me say it clearly.
If you knew the person was a semi-fascist, if you knew it, you're not guessing, if you knew it, yeah, I'd rig an election.
I totally do that. And by the way, you should thank me for it.
You're welcome. I would risk my life to keep you all safe.
Should I be embarrassed to say that?
I don't think so. All right.
I had to make some...
I had to get this out of my system.
When you are a humorist and you are presented with a situation like Biden's speech...
You've got to make hay while the sun shines.
Is that the saying?
You've got to jump on that.
Because, you know, the story's only going to be alive for a few days.
You've got to jump right in and get as much value as you can.
So I tweeted this.
I said, I watched Biden's speech just to find out what all the furor was about.
But I did Nazi anything bulging from his veins, so stop your worrying.
Why is it that nobody has mentioned that Biden's veins in his neck were bulging when he made the speech?
Come on, people. I don't have to do everything, right?
Veins bulging from his neck...
Somebody make the connection, because he always gave the fine people Charlottesville speech, and when he saw those people marching, the veins, the veins were sticking out of his neck.
You saw the veins in their necks.
And I thought, I'm pretty sure that speak was a little neck veiny, if you know what I mean.
Nobody mentioned that.
Why do you have to wait for me to do it?
I can't do everything, people.
I can't do everything. All right, here's a question I was just going to ask the locals people, because it would be too embarrassing to ask on YouTube.
And so I'm not going to ask it on YouTube.
I'll wait until I turn YouTube off.
Remind me on locals to ask you a question that's only for you.
All right, next topic.
How many of you follow Kyle Becker on Twitter?
Do you follow Kyle?
Kyle Becker? You should.
All right. So he would be very high on my list of good follows.
Because he leans right.
I hate to characterize other people, right?
But in terms of the news he follows and stuff, it seems...
I think he has a... Maybe he was an ex-producer at Fox News, I think.
But what I like about his content, because he sticks with the news, is that it's not hyperbolic.
He pretty much is trying to give you the useful stuff, and he gets it first.
So I see a lot of the breaking news on his Twitter account.
So you should follow Kyle Becker.
Just search for him.
You'll find him. Anyway, he tweeted, and maybe you haven't seen this yet, but there's some kind of landmark first peer-reviewed study on Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines, and the headline says, confirms excess risk of adverse side effects.
Does that sound like a study you would want to look into?
Now, how long does it take...
Before the debunkers say, hey, there's something wrong with that study.
It happens instantly, right?
Now, but it was peer-reviewed, it was randomized, and it had a placebo control.
So, and it showed, it purported to show, that there was more harm done from the side effects of the vaccination than from the COVID itself.
Now, I'm not saying that's true.
In fact, I'm going to say the opposite.
I'm going to say that even the study itself said that the sample size was smallish and that you would need a bigger sample to confirm it.
But the sample size was tens of thousands of people.
So I'm not exactly sure what size you need before you're confident.
But even the study itself said, you know, calm down.
You would need a bigger study, basically.
So I don't know if it's big enough.
Because here's the problem. There were lots of problems that were onesies and twosies.
So tens of thousands of people, there'd be like one or two people who had some weird condition.
And I'm not sure that's enough.
If you were testing for one condition, maybe that's enough people.
But if the number of side effects is sort of all over the board, and a lot of them are just ones and twos, I don't know if you can really conclude that's real.
Because you could find a one and a two in any population of, you know, 18,000 people.
You'd find one of everything.
So I actually don't know if this is useful or not.
But it's not getting much attention in the news.
I'm not sure why.
Is it the obvious reason?
It could be the obvious reason.
It's just being de-boosted.
But any time you see a study in 2022 and beyond, what should you say to yourself?
Probably not true.
Okay. Can you agree on the following?
That any individual study, even if it's a randomized controlled trial, the best kind, even those, the best you can say is it's probably not true.
Probably. As in more than a 50% chance that it won't hold up.
Would you agree that that's...
And that's the way you should be a, let's say, a responsible adult consumer of information.
A responsible adult consumer of information should start with the assumption that a new study is probably not true.
Probably not. If you find out that there are, say, five studies that follow, and they're done with slightly different methodologies, but they all are directionally the same, well, then you start getting some confidence.
But the history of the first study that tells you something new, the odds of that one being true are very low, actually.
Very low. Yeah.
All right. So I just thought I'd throw this out there.
The number of things that I've personally cured in other people over my career, spasmodic dysphonia, pyresis, sneezing, if you didn't know, I cured the sneeze, social anxiety, obesity, and drinking.
That's real.
One, two, three, four, five, six.
So five actual major medical problems and sneezing, which is true.
Do all of you know I solved the sneeze?
You can try it at home to be sure and see for yourself.
If you have the kind of sneeze that you feel coming for a few seconds, sneeze in your mind, imagine you're sneezing, and it just cancels the real sneeze.
Now, it doesn't work if the sneeze just catches you really fast.
Sometimes you walk outside and you're just like sneezing.
So that one doesn't work.
But you know that one that you've got like 10 seconds and you're like, trying to stop it?
Don't do it physically.
Just imagine, ha-choo, ha-choo, in your head.
It turns the sneeze completely off.
But I did cure probably thousands of people who had the same voice problem I did just by telling them there was a surgery that I got.
They didn't know that. Pyresis, social anxiety, obesity, drinking.
I fixed all those with micro lessons.
Now, when I say I fixed them, I'm saying that other people tell me that's what happened.
That's not my personal opinion.
And I'm not saying that most people got fixed.
I'm not saying 90% of the people who tried this got fixed.
Nothing like that. I'm just saying that it's a fact.
That I've cured five major medical problems for people.
It's just a weird, weird thing about my life.
So I'll cure some more people.
We're not done yet. And I keep gaslighting myself because I use my printer to print out my notes.
And it prints out three pages, but the third one's like a blank page.
And I think, God, I've got another page of this to go.
How am I ever going to get to that?
I feel like there was a story that I was missing.
Am I still missing a story?
I cured depression?
Did I cure your depression?
Because I'm careful...
Oh, somebody says I cured their depression.
All right, well, okay.
Now, again, I'm not saying I could cure anybody else's depression, but there's apparently something I said that worked for at least one person.
I cured somebody's insomnia.
Damn you. Damn you because you're right.
I cured somebody's insomnia.
Yeah, shy bladder is pyresis.
so I included that one how did you know I was going to talk about that?
Interesting. Yeah, Bill Burr talking about the country's division.
Now, that's actually what I'm going to talk to locals about.
I can't say what I'm going to say on the more public platform.
But why did you think that I would talk about that?
Is there something he said?
Now, hold on a minute, locals.
I want to find out what's going on here.
There's something going on here.
And it might be the reason that I only wanted to talk to locals.
What was it about...
What was it about the Bill Burr interview?
I saw the same one. What was it about that that made you think of me?
Yeah, he was on Trigonometry, the podcast, and that's...
Yeah? All right, we'll talk about that in a minute.
It's all over Twitter, right?
So you just... Oh, so it was just something you saw.
So it wasn't that you thought it'd be in particular.
It was just a story that's on Twitter.
Okay. So, yeah, John Hartwood quit CNN, and I guess he went out by saying that the Republicans are bad and the Democrats are good, and so being biased is not really biased.
I guess that's what he's saying.
All right.
He did.
But did you see the way he said it?
All right. Since you all saw it, I'm going to do this on both platforms.
So you saw Bill Burr.
He was asked about the division in the country.
And he said, I'll give you his exact words.
He said, if you go on the Internet, everyone seems like they are angry.
But if you go outside and walk around, they're not.
Does that sound like anything that you've heard before?
Yeah, it sounds like exactly what I said.
And so here's the question.
Is he watching me?
Or is that just the obvious thing that you would say?
Because I'm not going to conclude that he saw it here, but that was so close to what I said that it would be hard to imagine...
I guess it wouldn't be hard to imagine he came up with it.
Because if you're a humorist for a living, you sometimes end up in the same place.
It's just the way your mind works.
So it's entirely possible his mind just ended up in the same place for the same reason.
There's a reason that I like his humor, right?
Because I just like the way he thinks.
So it wouldn't be a big surprise if we got to the same place on something.
But let me expand on that.
I believe we're in the weirdest situation I've ever seen.
And I think I can support that huge claim.
We're actually having a civil war in our minds.
We're actually in an imaginary civil war.
There are actual battles.
I mean, I have memories of the Civil War that hasn't happened because I imagined what it would look like.
It's like, okay, the Republicans are loading their guns and, you know, whatever.
But there's nothing happening in the real world.
As Bill Burr says, and I say too, go outside.
There's nothing happening out there.
This is entirely a mental phenomenon.
There is no physical...
There's no risk of a civil war.
There's no physical risk.
I'm not saying that there won't be some crazy person or some militia that gets adventurous or something, but nothing like a civil war.
Nothing like that. Yeah, nothing like that.
But we are fighting that war in our minds, aren't we?
It's like we've agreed to have this artificial world, almost like a virtual world, where we all go to fight mentally.
It's like every morning I wake up and it's like I'm going to war.
I'm going to the imaginary war where, you know, Biden's a Nazi and Trump is a fascist.
That's the imaginary world.
In the real world, Biden's just an old man and Trump is a salesperson.
And then we've decided that there's some civil war and we've taken sides and everybody's lining up and you better clean your guns.
None of that's real.
And the other side is like, oh my god, they have all the guns and they're threatening us.
No, not really. I mean, some crazy people say crazy stuff, but there's nothing like that happening.
Nothing. All right.
Antifa... Was apparently not that real, right?
When was the last time Antifa protested outside of the Northwest?
I guess they have some base up there.
But Antifa just disappeared.
And BLM just disappeared.
They were never real, in my opinion.
They never looked real.
They didn't look like they would last.
They looked like some kind of an artificially funded structure, it looked like.
Biden said they, what?
Oh, they haven't got paid lately, you're saying?
All right. They killed someone a few days ago?
Where, in the Northwest? Some of you are disappointed to find out that we're too far away from the Civil War.
There are definitely people who want a Civil War, but I don't think they really want it.
I don't think anybody wants an actual Civil War.
It's just sort of a thing people say.
People on the right say stuff like that, and if you see enough of it, you realize it's not real.
And I think the people on the left, I hope, are speaking hyperbolically.
Local, somebody said that Antifa has a group that meets every week.
And I think that's a good thing.
Well... Are you sure it's not AA? I mean, just because you see people going into a building.
All right. Antifa Anonymous.
All right. Anything I missed so far?
I don't think so. I think we've done it all.
All right, it's going to be a slow news week, but the funniest part about the Biden speech failure is he failed before a holiday weekend.
You know, usually the politicians are smart enough that if they want something to die, they do it on a Friday.
And then, you know, nobody pays attention, especially Friday before a holiday.
But here, Biden did it, you know, close enough, a little bit too close to the holiday, and it's the only story.
There's no story to compete with it.
So for, you know, three to four days, it's going to be nothing but Biden, Hitler, or Satanic memes.
The best one I saw was somebody saying that the right had been accused of being crazy for saying that the country was being led by a satanic pedophile.
And then the meme shows Biden looking satanic in his speech, and then, of course, something from Ashley, his daughter's diary.
And I'm thinking, okay...
I'm not willing to, first of all, it's hyperbolic and just a meme to say he's satanic, but it sure looked like it.
So that's sort of like my prediction that Kamala Harris would be the strongest candidate for president.
And then she was the first one knocked out.
Like, that's the worst prediction you could ever make.
And then she ended up actually being president for two hours when Biden was, you know, having some medical stuff.
So it was the worst prediction I've ever made that weirdly was the best by accident.
By accident. And here, this idea that the Democrats are a bunch of satanic pedophiles is incorrect, as far as I know.
I believe it's incorrect, but it's weirdly coincidentally close, isn't it?
What were the odds that it would be this close?
I mean, it's way closer to that than you would expect.
It's not true, as far as I know.
To the best of my knowledge, it's not true that there's some kind of pedophile ring running in the country.
However, however, if there is, that's what's in those boxes at Mar-a-Lago.
I should just end the live stream right here.
Well, now, I don't think that's in the boxes, so don't take that seriously.
But it is fun to imagine what would be in the boxes, right?
Let's just do some common sense logic on what might be in the boxes, okay?
So let's see what we can eliminate.
So one of the theories was he had that material because he might want to give it away or sell it for traitorous reasons.
I would say that the volume of stuff he had guarantees he did not have it exclusively for the reason of selling it or giving it away.
How many would agree with that?
Just the sheer volume of it suggests it's not about one topic, and you wouldn't take boxes of stuff to sell.
I mean, that would be just so obvious.
If you were going to sell something, it would be like one document, right?
Like one document.
And you wouldn't even need it physically, would you?
Just take a copy of it or just describe it.
Well, here's the other thing. If it's the President of the United States and he's seen all the documents, can't he sell the secret just by talking to somebody?
Does he have to show the document?
If Russia wanted to know the secret, couldn't he just say, oh, here's the secret.
I just read the document, so here it is.
The fact that he would need a document to share a secret forgets that he's the President, or was the President.
If you and I want to, if you, let's say you specifically, you, you and you, if you wanted to sell a secret to Russia, wouldn't you need the document?
You would need the document, right?
Because if you don't have the document, you can't prove it's real.
There's nothing to buy.
But if you're the president and you say, look, If you look for our nuclear subs, I'll tell you where to find the base.
Just look, yeah, 100 miles north of Cuba.
It's right there. And then they go look, and it's there.
He doesn't need the document.
Well, of course, they might not believe him, but that's another issue.
So I don't believe that he had them exclusively for the reason of selling them.
So I think the traitorous thing is ridiculous.
So then the next question is, why would he have them?
If he had them for a biography, would he need the originals?
I don't know. Because I doubt, given the way that they were not organized, it does not suggest that they were brought there for a specific purpose.
Right? It suggests that they were not there for a specific purpose, such as a biography, because they were sort of in different places and they weren't organized.
If they were there for a specific purpose, at some point somebody would have said, we'll put all these together just because the biographer will need them.
Now, none of these are guarantees.
We're just going with the odds, right?
So I think biography is eliminated.
I think selling secrets and treason is eliminated.
We... I feel as if we can eliminate that they didn't know there was anything left.
What do you think? I think the odds that they didn't know there was stuff left, that they haven't given them, are low.
I think they knew. But I think there might have been a dispute about whether they were the documents that should be given back.
Because there's all kinds of gray area, right?
One of the gray areas is maybe it used to be secret, but now it's not.
Maybe it used to be secret, but you thought the president declassified it, but it's a matter of opinion.
Probably something like that.
I do think that the odds that he has some blackmail on the Democrats is pretty good.
Pretty good. Because blackmail on the Democrats would, number one, Be in a variety of different areas, right?
I wouldn't assume that he had one and only one way to blackmail like one set of Democrats.
More likely, there was a set of things that may have touched different topics in which he could make the case, oh, here's all that corruption and lying or whatever it is.
So it seems to me That there's more odds that it was for blackmail purposes than anything else.
Because remember, whatever the reason was, it has to be something that Trump doesn't want you to know yet.
Right? Because if Trump wanted you to know his explanation, he would have given it to you.
He would have told you.
If it was for his biography...
I don't know if he would have admitted that, but he might have.
He might have said, oh, I didn't realize this was wrong.
This was just stuff from my biography.
And by the way, I know all this information.
I could have just told my biographer, so having it on paper didn't really add or subtract anything.
And by the way, these are not really that secret anymore.
Something like that. But I've got a feeling that it's blackmail.
I think it's blackmail.
What do you think? Because it's the only one he wouldn't tell you about.
He couldn't admit it.
It's the one that the Democrats would be most desperate to get back if they had a sense of what was in there.
He calls it leverage nut.
And I think it would be in keeping with what you might expect from the personalities involved.
Do you think that there was anything that Trump could have had access to that would have acted as blackmail?
Probably. Probably.
Do you think the President of the United States never had any information?
You don't think he had any information that was damning to the Democrats?
You don't think he has something like, you know, a little bit extra on, I don't know, Pelosi or something.
That doesn't mean he asked for it.
It doesn't mean he ordered somebody to go, you know, look into them.
But it might just exist, and he might know about it, and he might have a copy.
Because if he said later...
Now, here's the problem with Trump telling you later that he knows something.
If he can't produce the document, you're not going to believe it, right?
If a year from now, Trump, let's say, decides not to run for office, but he said, oh, let me tell you something about some Democrat, you wouldn't believe it.
And then he'd say, no, I saw it on a document.
And you'd say, yeah, sure you did.
I don't believe it. But if he has the document, and he can show it to you, well, you might believe that.
You might believe that.
So... So that would explain, blackmail information would explain why we don't know what the topic is, or even the field of topics, because I feel like they could have narrowed it down to it's something military, or it's something, I don't know, intel-related or something.
All right. Don't you think he made copies?
I don't know. I don't know.
I have no idea. Oh, election fraud information?
Maybe. Maybe.
Could be Epstein's client list.
Do you think the government has Epstein's client list?
I do. I do.
I think the government has Epstein's client list.
Do you think Trump has it?
If he asked for it, he has it.
If he asked for it.
Do you think he wouldn't ask for it?
Of course he would.
Of course he would.
Do you think there's a reason that the list is not being public?
Of course there is.
Do you think that the only reason is because there are Americans on the list?
Do you think that's the only reason That it's not being released because there are Americans on the list?
Nope. Here's my guess.
It's not being released because there are foreigners on the list.
And we don't want to throw our allies under the bus.
So even if you thought, oh, I'm going to throw these Democrats under the bus or somebody else, you wouldn't want to necessarily throw Great Britain under the bus.
Right? So my guess is that whatever else is there, if Trump never asked for a copy of the Epstein client list, and I don't believe for a second it doesn't exist.
Do you? Do you believe it doesn't exist?
Do you? There's no way that they don't have that.
Somebody has it.
And he could have asked for it, could he not?
Because there would be a national security issue.
Whoever's on that list would be a matter of national security.
So it wouldn't matter if it was a state legal action or anything else.
The President of the United States should be able to see it because it would be directly and very importantly linked to national security.
So of course he could ask for it.
So I'm going to say it probably exists.
Trump probably asked for it because it would really matter.
He probably would have legal access to it.
And if there's one thing you're going to keep with you and take to Mar-a-Lago, it's that.
It's that. Now, that wouldn't explain why there's so many of them, because it's got to be more than one topic.
But you could easily imagine that he could find blackmail on a variety of topics.
Some of it, I think, also is just personal.
Because I think his relationship with Kim Jong-un is partly political and partly personal.
And that he may have thought, you know, maybe some of this is personal.
So I think it's going to be not one thing.
I don't think you're going to find out that they're all about one topic.
It's not going to be about a biography.
It's not going to be about selling them or secrets.
It's going to be some of it is for blackmail.
And some of it may be just some weird other reason that wasn't that important.
So I think it's going to be primarily blackmail.
That's my hypothesis.
Now, I don't know if we'll ever know, so it's probably a safe hypothesis.
We'll never be able to test it.
So you don't think it was blackmail?
Nope. So some people think it wasn't blackmail.
What do you think it was? Now, you could also call it insurance.
So maybe blackmail is the wrong thing.
It could be insurance, as in if you put me to jail, this list is going to come out.
It could be that. That would be a smart move if I were him.
If I were him, I'd do that.
That's exactly what I would do.
Yeah. Leverage, maybe.
Oh, it could be documents about FBI shenanigans to screw with Trump, yeah.
Could be. Could be something about Biden and Ukraine, but I feel like we would have been told that by now.
All right. That's all I got for now.
I will go do something else, and I will talk to you tomorrow, YouTube.
