Episode 1879 Scott Adams: Fake News Delivered A Bountiful Harvest Today, Enjoy With 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:
China's population problem
Elon Musk says solar could power entire earth
Laurence Tribe vs CNN fact checker Daniel Dale
Josh Hawley threatens FBI, dooms midterms?
Italian PM Georgia Meloni, persuasion powerhouse
Thomas Massie vs Jamie Raskin over Ray Epps
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Oh, you are better looking and smarter than you've ever been before, and that's good because you've reached the pinnacle of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
Yeah, you've heard of it.
You've all heard of it.
And you're there.
Imagine being at the center of the most important thing that's ever happened.
And you were there. You'll always remember where you were when this coffee with Scott Adams happened.
But in order to take it up to those lofty levels, and we know where it belongs, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go! Well, let's start off with the most important story of the day.
Apparently there's this teen chess phenomenon, phenom, who beat some world chess champion.
But the teen is being accused of cheating.
And of course they tried to check to see if he had any kind of electronic listening devices that he was being coached or something.
And by process of elimination, since they couldn't find anything externally...
He's being accused of possibly having vibrating anal beads that would tell him where to move by his coach.
Now, what I really wonder is, did the teen learn Morse code?
How exactly do the anal beads communicate?
Because they're not talking.
It's not words. So...
Could it be Morse code?
Hold on. Hold on.
I'm sorry. A little interruption.
I'm getting a call. Okay.
Uh-huh. Go on.
Got it. I'm sorry.
I didn't mean to interrupt you. I just had an incoming call.
But I don't know. This technology seems highly unlikely to be true.
That's your first story of the day.
I don't think I should have started with that one because I can't top it.
I can't top it.
Now, suppose they found out that he was actually guilty of having anal beads to win his chest.
Do you think that he should be punished for that?
Or should we turn the other cheek?
Anybody? Anybody?
No. He did not have a hummingbird shoved up his ass.
It was anal beads. Pretty sure of it.
But perfectly intelligent question to ask.
Well, the Nord Stream pipeline seems to have sprung a leak.
Natural gas. Now, it's interesting that the news does not talk about this natural gas leak As being an ecological problem.
Is that because the gas just goes to the surface and just sort of gets released?
Does it hurt anything?
Because it's not liquid gas, right?
It's... It's just gas gas, like a gaseous liquid.
Not a gaseous liquid, but a cloud gas kind of thing.
It just dissipates.
So I guess the ecology is not the big problem, but the pipeline was shut down already, so it was just whatever was left in it.
So it wasn't delivering anything, so that part won't make a difference.
But Denmark's prime minister says it's hard to imagine that the leaks...
We're accidental because of the timing of it and the problems with Russia.
But who exactly would have the incentive to attack the pipeline?
Would it be the pro-Russia side or the anti-Russia side?
Germany said it was Ukraine.
I'm speculating, right?
Now, why would Ukraine do that?
Why would they do that?
I'm trying to figure out the...
Because then money goes to Russia.
But do you think Ukraine would take the chance of being caught decreasing the amount of energy to Europe?
I don't know.
There's something about this story that doesn't quite fit.
Because somebody would have to have a lot of resources to attack an underwater pipeline, wouldn't they?
That's not something a fisherman can do.
So somebody with some resources had to have a reason if that's why it was done.
But it could be a coincidence.
We do live in a world where coincidences happen.
Let me tell you about the weirdest one that happened to me yesterday.
Well, the other day. So the other day, I was in my man cave, thinking up ideas, and I said to myself, why do I hire somebody to clean my gutters, my rain gutters on my house?
Because I do. I hire somebody to do it.
And I thought, that's like the silliest thing to have to hire somebody to do.
Like, why isn't there some kind of long pole That you can just reach up there and grab what's ever in there and just clean it with a pole.
Now you'd have to be able to see what was up there and be able to manipulate up there.
Now here's the weird part.
Here's the weird part.
I thought this.
I never talked about it.
I never said a word out loud.
I never wrote about it. I never texted about it.
I didn't even write it on my whiteboard.
It was literally just a thought.
But it was a long thought.
I mean, I spent some time thinking about it.
The very next day, Oh damn, I'm using my phone so I can't show you.
I'm using my phone to do the live stream so I can't show you.
But the very next day an advertisement appeared on my webpage, never seen it before, of the invention I imagined.
My imagination turned into an advertisement within 24 hours.
Now you would say, well, that's just coincidence.
Or some kind of common consciousness thing or whatever.
I don't think so.
My current view of the world, and of course all views of reality have to be, let's say, not certain.
You just have a working theory of reality.
That's the best you can do. Because we don't know reality.
We just have a working theory.
My working theory is that we're causing it.
I think we think into existence things that wouldn't have happened on their own.
That if lots of people weren't thinking about it, it wouldn't happen.
So here we have this situation where the whole world is thinking about these pipelines.
Can the whole world thinking about a pipeline cause a leak?
In my world view, yes.
That is exactly how I understand the reality I'm in.
That if everybody's thinking about the pipeline, they could break it.
That's literally how I see the world.
That's my...
Now, I'm not saying that you should, or that it's true in some, like, absolute sense.
I'm saying that there are so many times that I think into existence things that could...
It just doesn't look like an accident.
Like this pipeline.
I agree with Denmark's Prime Minister.
It doesn't look like a coincidence.
It looks like I caused it.
Not me specifically, but us.
We thinking about the pipelines.
I think we broke it. I don't know.
Possible. I just put that out there because it's a weird thought.
All right, well, I'm learning a little bit more about China's population problem, and I did the dumbest tweet anybody ever did because I wasn't clear.
I thought it was a good point, but it wasn't clear.
So here's what I tweeted, and then all the NPCs can come in and say the obvious thing.
So there's an obvious thing.
I want all of you to just run in and say the most obvious thing.
And here's my tweet.
Who predicted...
That China would run out of people.
Because that appears to be one of the biggest problems in the world, is that China will run out of people.
And I said, who predicted that?
What's the most obvious thing to say?
Go. Go ahead.
Get it out of your system. Get it out of your system, please.
You could say Elon.
You could say You Knew.
You could say I said it.
Peter Zeyn. That's the one I was looking for.
Peter Zeyn. So probably, would you say that for at least...
10 or maybe 20 years we've been talking about the possibility of a Chinese population collapse.
Would you agree with that statement?
That for 10 or 20 years, we have been talking about it.
Population collapse, right?
10 or 20 years.
So that's why my tweet sucked.
Because my assumption was you would assume what I assumed, which is in your childhood, it would seem impossible.
Because I grew up thinking there would be nothing but more Chinese and even limiting the population wouldn't even work.
It would still be more Chinese forever.
And now the opposite is happening.
So yes, I will acknowledge that you all knew five years ago.
Would you agree? We all knew five years ago, but that wasn't the point.
I said it very unclearly.
And that's on me.
So do you know why China's population is decreasing?
Let's see how smart you are.
Can you tell me why China's population is not growing as fast as they need it to?
Go. The one-child rule for many years?
Right? So it's the one-child thing, right?
Obviously. Obviously.
Obviously, if China has a one-child rule, what doesn't happen?
Having two children.
So what could be more obvious than that, right?
Okay, so we can all agree, because we're pretty smart people, that the one-child policy is the reason for the lower population growth, okay?
Everybody? Is there anybody who disagrees?
There's no disagreement with that, right?
Okay, because we're all smart.
Did you know that Taiwan has a lower birth rate than China?
And Taiwan never had a one-child policy?
Yeah, that fucked up your brain, didn't it?
Yeah. You had chewing that for a little while.
The one-child policy wasn't it.
That wasn't the reason.
Now, obviously, it had to have some impact.
It's impossible that it had no impact.
But if you're saying that the reason is the one-child policy, you have to explain Taiwan.
Lower birth rate than China.
What is the other explanation?
Affluence and moving to the cities.
Agricultural people have more kids because they need them.
City people have fewer kids because it's harder to have kids in the city.
There you go. Now China has an extra problem on top of that, which is they don't have the right balance of men to women.
So China has a second order problem coming that presumably Taiwan won't, if they have closer to the same number of people.
So Taiwan, one could imagine, could survive the lower population, whereas I don't know if China can.
The too many men problem is, unless you start a war, what do you do about that?
So, or massive prostitution or something.
Which actually probably won't be the answer.
China's going to have to have massive prostitution just to keep all the single men from staging a revolution or something.
All right. Here's another factor on China's population problem.
I mentioned this, but I didn't know anything about it.
So I know a little bit more about it now.
So in China, they've got this system called Hukou.
The bottom line is that you have to be sort of registered as a resident wherever it is you live.
And if you're registered as a resident, they know everything about you.
But your rights are limited to where you live.
You can't go to another city and get a job.
Now, I didn't know that.
Did you know that? Did you know in China you can't go to another city and get a job because you're not registered in that city?
You can't get a job.
So here's the problem if you're a young couple getting married.
Let's say you're two professionals.
The odds of both of you being able to get a good job in the same city are not really 100%.
So it turns out that there's a trend of young Chinese people getting married and living and working in separate cities because that's the only place they can pursue the kind of career they want.
So the baby-making just has to wait.
So they actually have a system that makes it so hard.
Now you ask yourself, why don't they get rid of that system?
Isn't the obvious question, why do they have that system?
What the hell benefit is that?
And the answer is, it keeps internal mass migration from happening.
What you don't want is all the people who live in a shitty city to say, hey, that other city's better.
We'll just move over there.
So apparently mass internal migration was so disruptive that they had to clamp down on it.
Now, it seems to me they're going to have to get rid of that.
Phase it down somehow. It seems to me that if they don't have an easy exception for married people, I mean, really?
China couldn't figure out an exception for married people.
That feels like a solvable problem, right?
But, yeah, and maybe it has to do with the Uyghurs.
Who knows? Maybe that's all related.
Here's one of the questions that I have.
Have you ever noticed that Elon Musk is smart?
And that he doesn't seem to lie a lot.
I mean, I can't think of an example.
Have you noticed that? And when Elon Musk says something's true, and you didn't think it was true, what happens to your brain?
Do you immediately say, well, I guess Elon Musk had a good run, but he's wrong about this?
Or do you say to yourself, oh, shoot, I thought I was right, but Elon Musk says the opposite, so I'm going to change my opinion to whatever he says.
Now, I have that philosophy, that if Elon Musk tells me I'm wrong about something, I immediately discard my old opinion.
And at the very least, I go to uncertain.
So Elon Musk can move me immediately from pretty sure to completely uncertain, just because he has a different opinion.
And other people can do that too.
In a legal context, Dershowitz could do it to me.
If Dershowitz told me I was wrong about whatever dumbass legal opinion I had, I would immediately go to at least uncertain, if not outright agree.
So here's the problem with what Musk is saying.
He's saying we could basically handle all of our energy needs with solar.
If we had enough solar plants, it would take a small part of the country.
Now, of course, we don't have a grid that can carry it, but conceptually it wouldn't take much of the country.
You know, you couldn't really put it in one place.
You'd want to spread it out because of the grid.
So here's the first question.
Is Elon Musk correct in his math?
Are you going to question his math?
That there's some number of solar panels that would give us everything we need so long as we had enough batteries to get through the no sun parts.
True or false? True or false that it's physically possible.
I don't know. But I'm at least uncertain about it.
I'm definitely not going to bet against them.
But here's the next question.
Why do all the smart people, the ones you think are the smart people, why do they say there's no physical way you could get enough raw earth minerals, not raw, rare earth minerals, So why do all the smart people say you couldn't possibly get to that future with all the batteries that we need and all the electric cars?
You can't get anywhere near it because the amount of raw earth materials they could possibly get would be this much.
If you're listening, I'm holding my fingers very close together.
This much. That's how much we have.
And then how much we need to get to this sort of mostly electric world, how much we need would be like this much.
And if you're listening, I'm holding my arms very far apart, to contrast to the tiny little finger distance I had been showing before.
Now, why don't I understand that?
How could I be a functioning citizen of Earth?
And I don't know why Elon Musk thinks that that shortage of critical materials is not an obstacle, at least not an obstacle that's going to stop us.
Now, is he betting on a whole new technology coming into existence?
Now, I'm seeing a lot of advertisements, mostly on Instagram, and I'm not going to put any credibility behind this.
I'm just telling you what I saw. There is some company named Bolt.
B-O-L-T. They've got some kind of new battery technology that they're hyping that doesn't seem to require the rare earth minerals.
And I believe there are some other types that also don't require that.
Now, is that what Elon Musk is betting on?
And if he is, why is he building mega factories for the existing technology?
Shouldn't we be hearing by now that he's at least considering funding an alternate battery company or buying one or spinning up another alternate source of batteries?
So I guess there's a big mystery here, and we as informed citizens should know the answer, which is, is there a way around this shortage of rare earth materials?
If you sat down with Elon, would he say, oh yeah, I look into all the new batteries, of course.
Do you think he doesn't?
Do you think that Elon Musk is aware of the newest, best alternative battery technology?
Of course he is. Because every one of them went to him first, right?
I mean, that's an exaggeration.
But you know he's too tapped in to not know about that stuff.
So what does he know that we don't?
I'd like to know. All right.
I saw actor Anthony Mackie, who plays a superhero in some of those movies.
Which superhero does he play?
Nighthawk or something?
What's his character?
Falcon? Oh, he plays Falcon, right.
So he's a superhero named Falcon.
Anyway, one of his points was that people remember now the names of the character, like the superhero, but they don't recognize the star as superstars.
And it's a good point because I've been watching his movies for years and I didn't know his name was Anthony Mackie.
Talk about making a good point.
I didn't know his name. I've been watching this guy for years.
Pretty good actor. I like him.
Never once heard his name.
But his name is Anthony Mackie.
Anyway, he says that movies today are no good because they're only making movies for 16-year-olds in China.
And that's it. And people cheered and said, oh, that's true.
They're only making movies for 16-year-olds in China.
That's not exactly true.
Let me tell you two things that 16-year-olds and Chinese citizens don't like.
You ready? Everything in the movies.
The wokeness. What 16-year-old likes wokeness?
What Chinese citizen likes their movies with lots of wokeness?
Make sure the women are the strong ones.
I feel as if they created a market, to Anthony Mackey's point, which is not bad, they made a market that's only for 16-year-olds and then Chinese, and then they changed their product so that the two groups that would least like it would be 16-year-olds and Chinese people.
I'm exaggerating, but that's kind of what's happening.
It's like they've actually...
Manage their own destruction by doing the things that would obviously put them out of business.
Let's make movies that are definitely the opposite of what our target market wants to see.
Okay. You know, I tweeted today that the least useful political opinion in the world is if you believe that some policy or another is really about control.
Have you ever found yourself saying that?
Oh, that policy?
That plan that those other people want?
That's just about control.
Have you ever said that? What good is that?
What have you ever changed that wasn't about control?
Everything you do is about control.
That's like saying, air exists.
There is air. I'm trying to control you right now.
You're trying to control me right now.
I see your comments that are clearly meant to, you know, sometimes people say move to the next topic and whatever.
It totally controls me.
You think that doesn't make a difference?
It does. Am I trying to get you to show up every day at the same point?
Absolutely. I'm totally trying to control you.
You're trying to control me.
I'm trying to control you.
My dog is trying to control me when I'm done.
She'll try to make me give her a treat.
It's just everything.
So to say that somebody has a goal of controlling you is nothing.
Of course they do.
So do you. So does everybody.
All right, but more about that.
So I think that that whole control thing feels like movie thinking.
We unfortunately get our understanding of reality from movies and fiction.
And I feel like people think, oh, there's some kind of evil genius who's going to plot.
Control me! Now...
Let's get back to this World Economic Forum who says, and many of you believe that the World Economic Forum said that in the future you won't own anything and you'll be happy.
You won't own anything and you'll be happy.
So the World Economic Forum said that, right?
And so that means they're trying to take your control and make sure you don't own anything because then they can control everything, right?
Is that what it is? Okay, you know that none of this happened, right?
The tweet, which does exist, that tweet does exist.
There's a World Economic Forum tweet that did say in the future, you know, some date in the future, you wouldn't own anything and you'd be happy about it.
Did that sound like what they wanted to happen?
All right, here's the context.
It was on a list of predictions.
And what they were talking about is stuff like Uber.
That instead of buying a tool that you'd only use once, you'd have a drone deliver it, you'd use it once, and then you'd return it.
Like your Uber.
Now, are you afraid that the World Economic Forum made some predictions that are exactly like everybody else's?
That's what you're worried about.
You're worried about the World Economic Forum because they made a prediction that's the same as yours and everyone else's.
That we will be borrowing and renting more things because that will be a new industry that allows us to do it.
And it's just because delivery costs are lower.
That's all it means. Now, do you think that it meant that you wouldn't have the option of owning something?
Do you think it meant that?
No. It meant that you would actually prefer it.
They're not making you do it.
They're saying that the market is likely to prefer it.
And so the market will go where the market wants to go.
And in a free market, people will choose not to own things that they don't have to pay extra for.
Now Blake says, how naive.
How naive of me.
Now Blake, we're getting to you next.
I believe that in a real sense, part of the world lives in like a movie version of an imaginary world.
And they see the things in sort of movie terms.
Because I don't think that they really think it's real.
I think some people walk around believing that the things immediately around them are real.
But that everything we talk about on TV or on the internet is sort of part of the imaginary world, where you can imagine there are villains and there are two sides and everything's kind of clean and you can really know who's doing what.
But how many of you believe the following?
That there is some group of elites, I don't know who, some group of elites who are having conversations about keeping the underclass...
And underclass. So that they personally can gain more.
Do you think that conversation is like literally happening, an actual conversation?
You know, if we keep the common people where they are, then the rich can continue enjoying their benefits.
A lot of people do.
A lot of do. And you don't think that sounds crazy?
No. Now let me ask this.
Well, instead of a question, I'm going to put this in a form of a hypothesis.
I believe that there are two kinds of people in the world, because there are always two kinds of people in the world for every topic.
One kind of person has been close to power, as I have.
Now, would you call me an elite?
I mean, I'm not like the billionaire elites that you think are running capitalism.
But you know I've been behind the curtain, right?
You know that I know plenty of billionaires personally, right?
I could have a conversation.
I could call, I don't know, any one of 20 billionaires tomorrow and have a personal conversation with, probably completely candidly.
I have never once in my life heard anybody, at any level of power or control, Talk in the way that you imagine they do.
Ever. Not even close.
And nobody's even said that they know somebody else who talks that way.
It just literally doesn't exist.
And those that you think you've seen a video of them talking that way, it's always out of context.
It's not real. There's no real billionaires who are having these conversations.
Nor would they. They don't even make sense.
By the time you get to become a billionaire, you're not thinking about how can I oppress the little people better to make more money.
Literally nobody thinks like that.
Nobody. There's nobody in the world.
I'll bet not one person ever anywhere in the world.
And if you can find one, find, for example, find me a servant who overheard a conversation.
Find me a whistleblower who Who is an elite who doesn't agree with the elites but knows what they're talking about.
No whistleblowers.
No documents have been discovered.
Everything that you think you know is evidence is just anti-context bullshit.
So here's the point.
The speculation that many of you have about the elites having these conversations...
Is based on the fact that you've never been around any elites.
That's my opinion. Now, I can be disproved.
But I don't think that people who spend time around really rich people have that opinion.
Because it would be so opposite of how anybody is thinking.
I mean, could it be I've gone my whole life and haven't met one person who's ever had anything like that opinion?
Not even close.
And I'm telling you, I meet a lot of really rich people.
That's sort of my normal experience.
None of them talk like that.
I'll never convince you, right?
Would you agree that I'll never convince you that there's not a cabal of elites plotting to take your control?
We can agree that I will never convince you.
Would you agree that I'm closer to it than you are?
Would you agree that I have some...
Let's say I have an angle on this that maybe you don't...
Maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe I'm wrong, but would you agree that I have like a...
Let's say more observational opportunities because I hang around with the people that you're talking about.
Yeah. So...
And somebody else just said that they're also close to the elite, and they've never heard it.
So here's what I would challenge you.
I offer you this challenge.
Find me an elite who will report that that conversation never happened with anybody.
Because you know billionaires don't like each other, right?
Have you ever noticed that? They're not all in, like, one club.
There's, like, Democrat billionaires and Republican billionaires and other countries have billionaires.
They're not all on the same team.
So the best way to see all of this is competing interests.
That, you know, the billionaires are not on the same team.
They're fighting each other.
And they really don't think about the common people at all.
So you imagine that they're looking to suppress the common people, and the truth is they don't think about it at all.
It's just labor. That's it.
All right. I saw, you know, now that this Italian election is over, we're hearing a lot of the old Hitler stuff.
And I'm going to try to start this hashtag, HitlerGoggles, because I'm really getting tired of the people who can only see the world through a Hitler filter.
Well, I think I'll have some cake.
Well, that cake is a vanilla cake.
That's more like Hitler than the chocolate cake.
Everything doesn't have to be compared to Hitler.
It really doesn't.
And so I was wondering, could science invent some kind of corrective lens where when you read the news and you thought, oh, Hitler...
The corrective lens would sort of change the text and maybe give you a non-Hitler view of it.
Yeah, if we could just de-Hitlerize our goggles for a little bit, that'd be cool.
I like that. And more importantly, I would like you to adopt the following strategy that I use all the time.
Do not debate with people who start with an analogy.
Don't. Do not.
In fact, say, whoa, I don't argue analogies, but if you want to argue this situation, I'd be happy to.
Just don't. It's so tempting, and I do it all the time, so I don't follow my own advice, because it's too easy to be weak and go, oh, I'm going to argue that analogy.
Here's what you say when somebody really insists that you argue the analogy.
You say, well, you're describing a different situation.
If you'd like to discuss a different situation, we can after we're done with this one.
But what you're learning from something that has a little bit in common with this is nothing useful.
So I don't want to be part of a conversation about an analogy.
But if you'd like to talk about what we know, and also some logic and reason, I'm all for you.
But analogies would be really what people who have never learned to think use instead.
Let me say it again.
We use analogies usually when we don't have an argument.
Usually. Now, I use them all the time.
So is it because I don't have an argument?
Usually it's because I'm in a hurry.
Honestly. I'll throw out an analogy because I think they're funny, or it'll just leave you something to chew on and I'm not interested in the argument.
But if I give you an analogy, probably I'm not serious about the conversation at all.
I'm probably just trying to provoke you.
I'm just trying to get you to reveal yourself or something.
But it's not an argument.
An analogy is a conversation about a different topic.
That's it. It's just a different conversation.
Well, here's my favorite fake news story of the day.
CNN tweeted...
This is what they tweeted. That the Justice Department declares the seized Mar-a-Lago materials list is full and accurate despite former President Trump's claims of planted evidence.
Did President Trump have claims of planted evidence?
Lawrence Tribe thinks so.
Lawrence Tribe tweeted this.
He said, basically he's just mocking Trump for saying that the materials were planted.
Lawrence Tribe and CNN are both saying that Trump claims that the FBI planted evidence.
Did that happen in the real world?
Nope. Do you know how I know it didn't happen?
I checked the fact checkers at CNN. Daniel Dale.
Daniel Dale's fact check that's already written, right?
I'm not talking hypothetically.
The already written opinion from Daniel Dale is that this is fake news.
CNN's own news.
Now, he doesn't say CNN's news is fake news.
He says accurately, Daniel Dale, the fact checker, is accurate when he says that Trump, I'm paraphrasing, but Trump had a concern about it.
He had a concern about it.
Now, is a concern that something could have happened similar to a claim that something happened?
No. No.
They're not similar. Those are very different things.
Very different things.
So Daniel Dale actually has fact-checked and debunked CNN's own tweet.
And they're both live right now.
How many Democrats would know that CNN debunked their own news?
How many would even notice?
None, right? I'll bet none.
I'll bet not a single Democrat, like zero, and of millions.
I'll bet not one person caught that not only is it fake news, but CNN debunked it themselves.
That's the world we live in.
I love that story.
Now, if it's true that the entire list of contents is agreed upon by both sides, then that would be a pretty strong argument that unless Trump says there's something in there that doesn't belong and I didn't put it there, the argument is that suspicion can be put to rest, which I agree with, if they do have a full inventory that both sides agree with.
Josh Hawley found the best way for the Republicans to lose the midterms, and he's rolled it out.
So here's a Josh Hawley tweet which guarantees the Republicans will lose the midterms.
He didn't plan this, but I think that's what's going to happen here.
So Josh Hawley says that the corruption and abuse of law, talking about the FBI, is out of control.
Come January, the new Republican Congress must launch a thorough public investigation of Department of Justice and the FBI, from their targeting of parents to religious protesters to political opponents.
What Biden is doing is wrong and dangerous.
Now, I completely agree with Josh Hawley's characterization of the Department of Justice and the FBI. Do you?
We can agree with that part, right?
So his criticism of the credibility of the FBI and the Department of Justice, I think, is right on point.
He gives examples, right?
And I think we'd all agree with that.
Now, do you see why he just cost the GOP the medterms?
Is it obvious to you?
Chuck Schumer told us.
Chuck Schumer told us that Trump was crazy...
For attacking the intelligence agencies.
Now, the FBI I'm going to treat separately.
But the intelligence agencies, because Schumer said in public, in public, one of our top politicians said that our own intelligence agencies would punish you if you criticized them or went after them.
And then they did.
They did exactly what Schumer said they would do.
They punished him.
Or tried to. The 50 people who lied about the laptop?
There you go. You don't have to wonder if Schumer was like, you know, just spitballing.
He said, obviously this is going to happen, and then it happened, and then we confirmed it.
Now, Josh Hawley is saying that if Republicans win, they're going to basically dismantle the leaders of these two organizations.
What do you think the FBI, not every person, we're all adult enough to know that if I criticize the FBI, I'm not talking about the rank-and-file employees, we're fine.
We're all smart enough to know that, right?
We're only talking about some members of leadership.
Although I blame them all for letting it happen.
That's a separate question. Anyway, why would you expect the FBI to allow Trump to win the presidency when it would be terrible for the FBI? Now you say to yourself, but they wouldn't do that.
I mean, they wouldn't interfere with the election.
Of course they wouldn't. You don't have to wonder if they would interfere with an election.
Isn't that question answered?
I mean, that's not hypothetical.
We're talking about the same people who work there right now.
We're not even talking about different people in a hypothetical situation.
We're talking about the actual current people are currently proven beyond any doubt that they would interfere with the political process.
So, Josh Hawley basically just said, if the FBI doesn't lie and cheat and rig the election, they'll lose their jobs.
And they have the power to lie and cheat and rig an election.
They did it with the laptop.
Now, I'm not talking about rigging the votes.
I'm not talking about rigging the votes separate.
I'm talking about rigging the outcome, which you could do by manipulating public opinion.
Or other ways.
So I think Josh Hawley created a situation where the Republicans can't win the midterms.
Because the cheating, the incentive for cheating is now off the chart.
So the FBI now has insanely high incentive to cheat.
Insanely high. Maybe even staying at a jail high.
And that's as high as you can get, staying in a jail.
And do they have the capability?
Yes. Yes.
Yes, they have the capability to throw an election.
Of course they do. And some argue that the laptop cover-up was part of that.
Now, that was more intelligence people, but you can see the idea, right?
It's well within the ability of some major entity to do something like that.
Am I wrong that Josh Hawley just destroyed the country?
Like, accidentally. I mean, he had good intentions.
And he didn't say anything that I disagree with.
But I feel like he might have just destroyed the entire United States.
Because if the FBI is forced into throwing the election, we're going to notice.
Somebody's going to notice.
And while I've been predicting there will not be a civil war, I wasn't necessarily predicting that the FBI would throw an election right in front of us.
But now the situation is created where they could throw it right in front of you, and they would have an incentive to do so.
I don't know if we could avoid a civil war in that situation, although I think we would, actually.
Because, you know, no matter what happens, the public just doesn't have an appetite for a civil war.
There's just no appetite for that.
The more time you spend on...
Twitter and social media and sort of the artificial world where, you know, we're all arguing our imaginary futures and stuff.
I mean, we're living in sort of this imaginary world.
But the actual public, no, they don't care.
They don't want any kind of revolution.
That's not going to happen. All right.
But I do think we've got some trouble coming from the FBI. So let's talk about the election in Italy.
So this new... I guess the winner gets to be the Prime Minister, but not necessarily.
So there's some question whether the winner will be the Prime Minister.
I don't know Italian system that well.
But... Of course, all the folks on the left are calling her the most right-wing since Mussolini and her roots go back to 20th century neo-fascist movement and blah, blah, blah. Here's my problem.
I would like to go on record.
I want to make sure nobody misses this.
I do not care about the opinion of ghosts.
I know. Shocking.
But I'm going to put it out there.
I don't care about the opinion of ghosts.
So if your great-grandfather was in the KKK, he's dead.
He's dead. I'm not really going to hold that against you.
Because I'm not going to base my opinion on you, on a ghost, on a And when Republicans say, but, but, but, but, the KKK was created by the Democrats, I say, who are ghosts?
Who are ghosts? I don't care about the ghosts.
So no, I don't care what her party grew out of.
I don't care what the Democrats grew out of.
I don't care what the GOP grew out of.
I care what they are now.
And if they can't find something to fucking complain about, this Italian Prime Minister Malani, if they can't find anything to complain about today, all they have is ghosts.
Now, think about it.
I mean, I'm not joking.
They're talking about the dead.
I mean, they're not literally ghosts.
But they are talking about the thoughts of the dead and how that should be important to your opinion.
I don't feel like I should pay attention to the dead.
Not really. Like, maybe if they wrote a book, I'll read their book.
But once they're dead, I really don't care.
So my take on Melani, after hearing her one speech, so it's based on only one speech that I heard, and only part of it, and it was subtitled, because I don't speak Italian, And it was the best job of persuasion I've ever seen from a politician.
Now, I haven't seen anybody like Winston Churchill or Hitler or people who were alleged to be great in their time.
So I haven't really studied them.
Because they're dead.
They're dead. So I don't care.
But she's the best living persuader.
Politician. Best living persuader.
And she is a level above Trump.
In my opinion, Trump was the number one political persuader that I knew of.
I mean, I don't follow every other country.
But at least in the English language, Trump was the most persuasive, best communicator.
But Mulani is a level above.
She's a whole...
I'm not talking about, like, 10% better than Trump.
I'm talking about you wouldn't put them in the same league.
And Trump was the best in the world.
She's crazy.
She's crazy.
She's so good. And, you know, part of it is the presentation.
Now, here's the dumbest thing that anybody said about this, and Hillary Clinton is, of course, a purveyor of this.
The dumbest thing that anybody could say about this particular politician is, wow, a woman won this high office.
Now, that was impressive until I heard her.
And then the woman thing just disappears.
Because here's my statement.
Anybody who could do what Melania would do Would be the head of any country, male or female, or trans.
I'll throw in trans. She could have won as a trans person.
And I'm not joking about that.
The whole woman thing is a complete red herring.
Wrong word. But it's a complete distraction from something that's way more important than that.
It doesn't matter what genitalia this person had, you can drag out any kind of genitalia you want, put it behind the lectern, and say these words with this presentation, I'm there.
Like, I'm sold.
This is just pure skill.
And as soon as you make this about man-woman, like, you're really just off on the wrong trail.
All right? If a man had run against the woman and the man said this, the man would have won.
This was just a winning level of skill.
Now let me tell you what she did better.
Here's what Trump does.
Trump does my team against your team, and immigrants or illegal immigrants may be bad.
So it's sort of an us against you sort of thing.
And you immediately just retreat to your team.
So Trump's message is one that doesn't really convince the other side.
Would you agree? It's a message for the base.
Agree? It's a message for the base.
Which works, if you can get the base to vote.
Here's what Malani did, and it may be because their politics are more fractured, she has to do it differently.
She talked about her right of freedom, and that she wanted to be freedom to be a woman, and call herself a woman, freedom to be a mother, and to be called a mother, freedom to be a believer, a religious believer, and to not be criticized for it.
And a freedom to be a patriot for our own country.
Wow! Wow!
That is so, so good!
Because everybody agrees with, wait a minute, maybe I'm not Christian, but are we really talking about you can't even be one?
Right? Because even the people who disagree with it are like, oh, well, we didn't mean to take away your basic freedom.
We have political differences, But you're actually going right down to the heart of, can I be me?
Is it legal to be me?
That is so strong.
Because I could just feel it.
I could just feel her.
I could feel the weight of oppression, and I could feel her being done with it.
So I got both of those.
The weight of oppression, which I'd never really thought about before.
I never really thought about how, as a conservative in this country, but in her country more, that she's being vilified for her identity.
Really, it's not even her opinion, it's her identity.
And so she's basically making the left's argument stronger than the left.
What's that called? What's that called?
You're making the other person's argument stronger than they are.
Embrace and amplify.
Who does that?
Who does that?
Embrace and amplify. Only the best.
The best. Right?
You can't even pull that off unless you've got a pretty big skill level for persuasion.
Because embracing the other side is a dangerous thing, unless you can really slay it at the same time you're embracing it.
And she did. So she embraced personal freedom and identity, And said, I'm going to extend this.
Not only is personal freedom important like you believe, but it's even more important than you believe.
I believe what you believe and even stronger than you believe it.
So let's be consistent here, huh?
Un-frickin'-believable the level of talent that I saw in just that little clip.
Now, again, I only saw the little clip.
Maybe she had a good day?
But I don't think so, because she won the election.
So obviously whatever she's saying is hitting the right chords.
Did I just Zoom?
No. No, I did not advise her, in case you're wondering.
All right. And it seems to me that in this country, so Italy is doing pretty good with their leader there, but in this country, have you noticed that the standards that we used to set for what a good communicator was used to be a little higher?
Do you remember Reagan?
Even if he didn't like his politics, you'd say, I don't like his politics, but God admit, God admit that guy can communicate, right?
Bill Clinton, same thing.
Don't like his politics, but wow, that guy can put a sentence together, can't he?
How about Obama?
Obama, you might not like his politics, but wow, that guy can form a sentence, speak intelligently, communicate.
He's good at that stuff.
How about Trump? Some people at first resisted his style.
But at this point, I think even his critics would say, yeah, we hate what he says, but I have to admit, he's really good at saying it.
He's very persuasive.
And now we have Fetterman and Biden, two of the biggest names in politics.
Biden can barely walk to his helicopter.
And Fetterman, have you seen the latest clip?
What did he say?
The Eagles were worse than the Eagles.
I mean, you have to actually see the clip to see he's completely lost.
Like, his mind has...
It appears.
I'm no doctor, right?
So I can't diagnose him.
But it would appear that his mind is not working in anything like what you would want a normal mind to work for somebody that you're going to hire for an important job.
But here's the funniest part.
I cannot stop laughing at what it must feel like to be Dr.
Oz. Imagine watching this guy talk And you're sitting at home and you're behind in the polls, Tim.
What does that feel like?
I can't imagine anything that would hurt more than that.
The only thing that would hurt more than that would be Trump sitting at Mar-a-Lago watching Biden try to form full sentences and watching the entire country crumble and saying, I lost to that.
I lost to that.
I lost to that. But I feel like Oz has it even worse.
Because with Biden, you can at least say, well, we didn't know what was going to happen until he got elected.
We had bad suspicions, and it went pretty badly, according to a lot of people.
But with Oz, he's just got to look at this guy, and we're all looking at the same stuff.
You know that things are only judged...
In relationship to other things, right?
There's nothing in the world, nothing in reality, that can be judged just sitting there in space.
It can only be judged how it affects other things or how it compares to other things.
So nothing has a quality that it just owns by itself.
It's just compared to other things.
So Oz is finding out for the first time What compares to him and looks to other people like, a little bit better.
A little bit better. To me, the political part of the story is mildly interesting, but the personal part of this is frickin' hilarious to me.
Like, every time I think of Oz looking at Fetterman, I think, that's gotta be a bad night.
That's just gotta be bad. Alright, uh...
Have you noticed that Democrats, at least when they're arguing with you on Twitter, are asking you to prove the obvious more and more?
So here's some things that I've been challenged to prove.
Name one thing that Joe Biden seems to have been done that looks illegal.
What? What?
Ukraine? Ukraine?
Just to, you know, get the ball rolling.
Here's another one I've been challenged to prove.
How are conservatives being robbed of their freedom of speech?
Where is that happening?
Can you prove that conservatives are being, like, limited in their speech?
To which I say, you haven't noticed?
Nothing? Nothing.
You haven't noticed that anywhere.
I'm not going to research that.
I'm really not.
How about when I was asked this week to prove my claim that an equally qualified black man would have a five times advantage getting hired at a major organization, not a small company, but a big organization, compared to an adult white male.
And I was asked to prove that black men who are equally qualified...
Have an advantage in corporate America, or in any large organization in America, to which I say, really?
There's somebody who questions that?
If you want to research it, literally walk outside and just tap on the shoulder of the first white adult you see over the age of 40.
Just anybody. And they will tell you a story of it happening to them or their friend.
Every one. You can't find a person who can't prove that to you.
I'm not going to prove it to you.
Like, I'm not going to prove that oxygen exists.
Like, sure, I don't have any proof, but I'm not going to research it.
I'm not going to research that for you.
I'm sorry. And then, I've been asked to prove that conservatives are being targeted and or hunted.
What? What?
Again, do I really need to prove that?
You haven't noticed?
Nothing? Nothing in the news?
So it's the weirdest thing.
Half of all my interactions with the left are them demanding that I prove something that is right in front of them.
Doesn't require any proof at all.
All right. God, the news is so good today.
I have been hearing that the Democrats are getting serious about replacing Biden for running for president for 2024.
The name that comes up the most for replacing Biden is John Fetterman.
John Fetterman. I'll just leave that there for a moment.
Yes, it's a joke.
Yeah, I love the fact that you couldn't tell if it was a joke.
I love the fact that the first thing I was asked is, are you kidding?
And, by the way, that wasn't a bad question.
I'm not mocking the question.
We do live in a world where the insane ridiculousness of that statement, that Biden could be replaced with Fetterman, actually was possible.
You couldn't rule it out, could you?
Yeah, right, I gotcha.
All I had to do was say it with a straight face, and you were willing to accept that, well, maybe.
Maybe. Alright, we gotcha.
Alright, so did you all see the video of...
This one you have to see.
I tweeted it.
You can find it anywhere on Twitter.
But Jeremy Raskin talking to Thomas Massey about January 6th and Ray Epps.
Now, you have to see it, because Thomas Massey is simply asking for some explanation of the Ray Epps involvement and whether or not there's any evidence that he was part of an FBI incitement.
Now, you have to see Jeremy Raskin's angry response.
In which he said things such as, oh, and so Thomas Massey asked if they could release the transcripts of the Ray Epps interview.
And here's a completely normal response to somebody saying, could you release the transcript that's important to the nation?
What would be a perfectly reasonable answer to that?
Well, a reasonable answer would be something like, oh, we plan to release that.
You know, just give us this date and we'll release it.
Perfectly reasonable, right? Or, we're not going to release any of them.
Okay. You know, I mean, I'd look for a reason, but that would sound at least like, oh, okay, there might be a reason.
Maybe privacy, whatever.
Or how about he said, well, we can't release them because of privacy.
But if some specific Republicans want to sign an NDA, whatever you need to do, we'll show some Republicans just so there's transparency.
But we'd ask you not to share it with the public, but just agree that there's nothing here once you've looked at it.
Now, that would be pretty reasonable, wouldn't it?
So there were many reasonable ways that Jeremy Raskin could have answered a public request in front of people, Can we see the transcript?
So which of those ways did Jeremy Raskin choose?
Let me give you my impression.
There were thousands of interviews!
There were thousands of interviews!
We haven't released it! There were thousands of interviews!
and leave this Ray Epps schmuck alone.
You no longer have to wonder if there's something up.
Wow.
You don't. I give you permission.
You don't need my permission.
But sometimes it helps.
You should believe what they're telling you.
Now, communication has at least two forms, wouldn't you say?
You can communicate with your words, and you can communicate with your body.
Let me give you an example.
Let me tell you that I like you, but my body will say I don't.
I like you. I really like you.
Now, did I say I liked you?
Or would you say you have conclusively communicated to us that you don't like, that you don't like?
Which would you believe?
The unambiguous body language or the words that you know are often lies?
Now, Raskin has communicated to the public in unambiguous body language and choice of words.
This is unambiguous. So you are free to accept that as a confirmation.
And if you don't, And you still act like there's some information we need?
There's no information you need.
That's everything you needed.
Right there. Because if that doesn't confirm that Ray Epps had something to do with the FBI in a way that you don't want to know about it, it definitely confirms there was something that they don't want you to know.
Same story. I don't care what it is that they don't want me to know.
Do you? If they're lying to you, you get to assume that it's all a lie.
Is there a judge here?
I'll bet there's somebody watching who's a working or retired judge.
Fair or not, if you know they're lying, you get to assume the rest is a lie.
That's a pretty basic American way to proceed, right?
Pretty much. So why are we still asking the question when we've been given the answer in the clearest possible way?
The clearest possible answer is don't ask us about Ray Apps.
That's all you need to know. We're done here.
And by the way, Thomas Massey is doing a great job pushing this thing because I don't even care if there's nothing there.
If it turns out that Ray Epps is just some poor schmuck who's trying to survive, as Jeremy Raskin says, I don't even care.
Because if they're lying about it, you have to assume all the rest is a lie.
It's just a reasonable explanation.
So I think the Republicans should just say, Jeremy Raskin confirmed that the FBI and Ray Epps were working together.
And he confirmed it by his reaction.
You don't need to ask me any more questions about that.
Just go look yourself.
If that doesn't look like a confirmation to you, that would be your opinion.
But to me, that looks pretty clear.
Yeah. So, this is just wonderful.
All right. And here's what Raskin changed the subject to.
So first saying, but there are thousands of interviews, and then he's just some poor schmuck.
He immediately changes it to an angry tirade about what Trump has done to his own family, according to the Mary Trump book.
Oh, but look what Trump has done to his own family, according to the Mary Trump book.
Now, is that the answer you expected from...
Would it be possible for us to see the transcript of Ray Epps' testimony?
The most natural answer to that is, have you seen the Mary Trump book?
Have you seen the Mary Trump book in saying the bad things about the Trump family?
That's exactly the most obvious answer to, can we see the Ray Epps transcript?
I'm telling you, Jeremy Raskin, as confirmed...
The FBI and Democrat involvement with Ray Epps to do something bad.
This is reason to pardon everybody who is non-violent who is being held.
And everybody who's been convicted.
They all need to be pardoned.
I don't think that you can turn anybody into a single-issue voter these days.
But if you wanted to pick a single issue...
We have a bunch of them this time.
One single issue would be this.
I would vote potentially.
I would vote for a candidate who said unambiguously, the FBI is stonewalling us, so I'm just going to let everybody out of jail if you elect me.
I would say that would be an adequate, supportable, single-issue vote.
Likewise, I would say on the Democrat side, if they decided to vote only because of abortion, and again, I'm not giving you my opinion on abortion, I'm just describing the landscape here.
If they decided to do that, I would say that would be justifiable.
Because the size of the issue is big enough, you could make an argument for that.
I mean, it wouldn't be what I would do, but you can understand it.
The other one is fentanyl.
If one of the two parties came up with a fentanyl plan that actually looked like it could work, that would be a single-issue vote for me.
Yeah, some people would say climate change.
I would agree. Yeah, that could be a single issue too.
But this is kind of interesting.
Normally the economy is the only single-issue vote, isn't it?
And maybe it's the only one that ever will be.
Because if you get the economy working, everything else seems to work better.
So, free speech, yeah.
Yeah. Second Amendment.
I guess it's all single issue, isn't it?
It seems like it's all single issue now.
All right. And the funniest thing that Jeremy Raskin said about Ray Epps was, leave that guy alone, whoever he is.
Jeremy Raskin acted like whoever he is.
Like he wasn't quite sure who Ray Epps was.
Are we done? Are there any further questions about whether they're lying?
No. All right.
Let me tell you something that I learned from a meth addict.
And one of the questions I had is, why is it so hard to get people to quit drugs?
Like, if you had a plan to decrease demand, how could you do it?
And let me explain something that I'd never heard before, but it's kind of important.
And the explanation was this.
That meth users are not strictly addicted to the meth.
It is most typically combined with at least one other thing.
Sex. And porn.
So porn and sex.
And here's the problem, as described to me.
Porn and sex under the influence of meth is about 60 times more enjoyable than without it.
And if you've done meth long enough, you know that if you were to try to have sex ever again without meth, you wouldn't even enjoy it.
Because you would know what it could have been.
And so when you say to somebody, hey, can I help you get off meth?
You're actually asking them to give up sex forever.
And the sex that you're asking them to give up is 60 times more powerful than the ones you know about.
Would you give up your sex to give up drugs?
I don't know anybody who would.
Now suppose I told you that you don't even know how good sex is.
Because you don't. You don't even know.
Sex under meth is not like regular sex.
It's 60 times more powerful, according to the DARE police officer who told me.
I mean, I got it from the police, a guy who taught drug stuff to parents.
So this is from a professional who said that the reason they do the meth is that the meth itself is 60 times better than sex.
But when they combine the meth that's 60 times better than an orgasm with actual sex, what they get is neither sex nor meth.
And here's the part that you don't understand.
You can't ask somebody to quit something that's 60 times stronger than sex.
That's not a thing.
No person will do that.
So, there is no path off of meth unless you give up everything that you enjoy about life.
That's it. Now, I do think that people quit.
I mean, that's a real thing.
But whatever it is that they're quitting for must be pretty important, or they hit bottom and they couldn't get enjoyment from the meth anymore.
Because you hit bottom, things are so bad that you just can't make anything work.
So, if you have thoughts about reducing demand, it would pay to get more, let's say, informed.
And I would say that that was a big one for me.
Like, learning that the sex meth thing are really the same thing, and that if you're a meth addict, you don't even see them as different things.
They're basically one big thing.
You can't get anybody off those drugs.
Not in any volume.
I mean, you could do ones and twosies because you have special cases.
That's it. So, when people say, you know, there's nothing you can do on the supply side, you have to work on the demand side, I say to you, there are two impossibilities.
You can't do either one.
You can't do either one. So, if we could experiment and find something that works, that'd be great.
But nobody has any ideas.
You picked a bad time to quit meth.
Is that why the Hollywood people seem to be perverts?
Partly. Partly.
Yeah, the more of that kind of drug you do, the more likely you would get into the fringer practices, which I do not...
which I do not...
what should I say?
I don't disrespect...
Because it's not my business how you get your fun if it's not hurting anybody.
Alright. Your bandmate became a monk and lived in isolation for two years to get off meth.
And when the monk was done, was he glad he did it?
I don't know. I didn't hear the part about the happy ending.
I just heard he did it.
All right. So I don't want to act like there's no solution.
What I do want you to know is that nobody knows of one.
Nobody knows of one.
Everybody's sure somebody else has a solution for getting people off of drugs.
I don't believe there is one. I don't believe there is.
Maybe we can invent one, but I don't think there is one now.
Why do the Democrats seem to dominate our culture and our legal system, et cetera?
I think that has to do with colleges and professors and the news business and where they come from.
So it has to do with what types of people go into what types of jobs.
And so the people going into the entertainment field tend to be left-leaning.
And the people who go into, I don't know, in many cases, blue-collar work would be right-leaning.
If I can use a gross overgeneralization, and I think I can.
All right. Well, I believe we have accomplished our objective of the best livestream of all time.
Am I right? And thank you to Jack Posobiec for, I forgot to mention, for informing me a little bit more about the Chinese system.
And Naomi Wu as well, who informed me about what's going on there, via tweet in her case.
All right. And would you agree that there will be nothing on television today as interesting?
No. Or as informative, or as useful as today.
You know, this was the best thing that ever happened.
