Episode 2002 Scott Adams: Newsy Day, Memphis Video, Hamilton 68, Paul Pelosi Video, And More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Mehdi Hasan almost sees the truth
Hamilton 68, an elaborate HOAX operation
Spotting Mass Hysteria
Paul Pelosi, 911 call & video
Ronna McDaniel wins RNC chair
Tyre Nichols video released
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the highlight of civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
There's never been a better time.
And the news is just full of wonders and outrages and provocations.
That's good stuff.
And that's why you come here.
And if you'd like to enjoy this more than, let's say, what would be like really valuable?
If you'd like to enjoy this more than An egg.
More than an egg.
All you need is a cuppermugger, a glass of tankard, chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Well, the locals people are reminding me to go private on the locals platform, because afterwards I'll be telling them all the good stuff that I couldn't tell you.
Hoo-ha-ha-ha-ha.
Well, you might be aware that I have split into four separate movies.
I'm now four different people, according to the internet, and I embrace all of those movies.
In one, I'm a far-right conservative.
In another, I am left-of-Bernie Sanders.
Both of those running at the same time.
But more recently, I have also become two people about the pandemic.
I'm a person who, in one movie, I was promoting the vaccinations, and I love masks.
And boy, did I love the lockdowns.
Mm-mm-mm-mm, good.
At the same time, I'm the opposite of that person.
The person who didn't do any of that stuff.
So now, wait, is there four of me?
No, wait.
It's actually four squared, right?
Sixteen of me?
Can you help me with the math?
Because there's now a far-right conservative who didn't like vaccinations, one who did.
There's a left-to-Bernie person who liked vaccinations.
How many is that?
I've moved into lots of people.
All right.
By the way, I block everybody who tells me that they don't want to hear about AI or any of the logic of the pandemic anymore.
Because I'm going to talk about those more.
So a lot of people get blocked for that.
So I'm four people, and somebody asked me on Twitter if I'm just being sarcastic.
Because viewed from one movie, I look like I'm just joking.
But viewed from another movie, I'm not.
So which one is true?
Which one is true?
I used to believe that I had to convince everybody that one of them was true, and all the other versions of me were false.
I have since embraced that they just all exist.
So I've surrendered to reality, which is a weirdly Satisfying feeling.
Like, I used to be all fighty.
You know, like even when I was relaxing, I'd be like, oh, I have to go clear up that misconception.
You know, because it's about me.
And you always feel like, well, I have to clear up a misconception about me.
But now I've embraced that they just live as separate realities and I can actually travel between them.
I believe I'm the first, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I'm the first A bubble tourist, where I can actually leave my bubble of reality, completely enter another bubble, and actually stay there for a while.
I can't live there, but then I can come back anytime I want.
Has anybody ever done that before?
I mean, actually.
Because you're watching me do it.
I'm actually walking between the bubbles, and I'm living in all of them, and completely inhabiting them.
And then I just leave to go to the other bubble.
It seems to be working.
I learned that from—well, I won't tell you who I learned that from.
So here's my Dilbert comic today.
I'll read this to you in case you missed it.
What?
There are some of you who don't read it every day as soon as it comes out?
What?
All right, well, I'll fix that for you.
Here's Dogbert.
He's got his own podcast, of course.
If anybody were going to have a podcast, it would be Dogber.
And he's talking to Tina, the tech writer, and Dogber says, relationships work when men give women what women want, and women give men nothing in return.
And Tina says, why do men accept that?
And Dogber says, the trick is to make them think it's temporary.
That is all.
Well, I have 850,000 followers, thanks to a number of retweets and comments by Elon Musk.
And I believe I told you that when I reached a million, I would effectively be running the country.
So I'm only 150,000 away.
Should be hitting that by around July at the current run rate, which might change.
So in July, I'll be running the world, unless AI is.
So it's sort of between me and AI.
It's going to be a pitch battle.
We'll get there more about that.
So the AP, the Associated Press, you might know this, not know this, but they issue style guides for journalists.
So as the language evolves, the style guide will be updated to say, you know, it'd be better if you referred to these people this way, or you capitalize this, or don't capitalize that.
And they've got a new guide, and they suggest That people avoid using the word the before groups of people.
Because it's dehumanizing.
So they say, don't say the poor.
The poor.
Because it's like, sort of dehumanizing.
So you don't say the disabled or even the French.
Elon Musk saw this guidance from the AP about not using the before the names of things.
And he tweeted, so then why do you call yourself The Associated Press?
Now that's why we have Twitter.
But I wanted to add my own style guide update, because it's not only the AP who can do that.
I don't know if you know this, but professional writers, such as myself, We're actually the ones who create common usage.
Well, we don't create it, but we endorse it.
So when the public starts using a word a certain way that hasn't been used before, for a while, the style guide would say, no, that is incorrect.
Don't use that word that Don't use that word that common people are using.
But when professional writers and journalists start using the word, that's when it enters common usage.
And then everybody says, oh, OK, it's OK now.
So I'd like to do that with a word in my role as a professional writer.
Did you know that Adam Schiff There's a past tense for Schiff.
So Schiff is what you would call him in the present.
Like if he walked by you right now, you'd say, there is Adam Schiff.
And that would be correct usage.
But if you're talking about something he did in the past, the correct tense is shat.
So the usage for that would be, Schiff was once on the Intel Committee, but they shat him out.
They shat him out.
So that's correct usage.
Get the tenses right.
Project Veritas, their video got removed.
Their video about the directed evolution, the Pfizer employee who said, well, you know, somebody at a meeting, just somebody at a meeting, it wasn't company policy, but somebody at a meeting brought up maybe evolving the The coronavirus so that they can better prepare vaccinations.
Now, of course, the thought of that is alarming, but it might have been just something somebody said because he was on a date, trying to impress his date.
That's what it looked like.
But imagine the fact that YouTube removed that.
Just think about it.
YouTube removed that.
It was a real thing that happened.
And I think they removed it because it was medical misinformation.
It was medical misinformation.
It was a key employee of Pfizer who was talking in his own voice with no editing.
Well, there could have been some editing.
You always have to be careful about that.
There could have been editing.
Yeah, we'll talk about the dashboard.
But just think about that.
Just think about the fact that it was a real thing that really happened.
It's on video.
There's no question about whether it happened.
And there's no real question about what he said.
And that YouTube decided that you can't see that on YouTube.
I mean, there's no commentary I can even add to that, is there?
There's nothing to say about it.
It's just the worst thing ever.
It's like, just the worst thing ever.
And we're going to let it happen, because we always do.
All right, here was a funny tweet.
By the way, here is the macro theme of today's live stream.
Here's the macro theme.
You know all the news we're having?
The video of Paul Pelosi, there's a video of the Memphis thing.
It looks like it's all a diversion, doesn't it?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there seem to be two important stories going on.
One is, what's up with the vaccination slash shots?
And the other is, what's up in Ukraine?
Ukraine is really, really important.
Right?
The vaccination situation is very, very important.
And suddenly, there's all kinds of news that isn't.
Very much isn't important.
But it's super interesting.
So we'll talk about them, because they're super interesting.
So I'm actually going to fall for the trap.
I'm literally going to fall for the trap, even as I see it.
I see it's a trap.
It's obviously a diversion.
But I'm going to be diverted anyway, because it's so darn interesting.
Well, I saw a tweet by MSNBC host Mehdi Hassan.
Now, I'm just going to read this, and my only commentary on this is, this is something a real person said.
Because, you know, it's somebody from a different movie.
If you were in this person's movie, you would just look ordinary.
But if you're not in this person's movie, you'll just go, Here's what he tweeted.
Donald Trump has been indicted for no crimes.
Donald Trump has been reinstated to Twitter and Facebook.
Donald Trump is running for president again.
It's almost as if a violent, Trump-incited insurrection never happened, or happened and was then forgotten.
Could I just let that sit there for a moment?
Yeah.
It is as if It is as if a violent Trump incited insurrection never happened.
It's exactly like that.
It's precisely like that.
It's not even a little bit not like that.
It's actually exactly like that.
But watching the growing realization that reality and his understanding of reality are not quite lining up, he's so close But he doesn't have it yet.
Is that funny?
He can see the problem, but he can't quite connect the dots.
So close!
So close!
This doesn't make sense.
All of these facts, which we know are true, don't seem to line up with the narrative that has been on TV for a year.
What's going on?
So I tweeted back at Adam and I said, wait until you find out about the find people hoax, the injecting disinfectant hoax, and the Russian collusion hoax.
And here's the best part.
While I was tweeting that, As I was tweeting, wait until you find out about all these other hoaxes, another hoax was being unraveled with the Twitter files.
Matt Taibbi.
At the same time I was calling out, wait until you find out about all these hoaxes, another gigantic one was being unraveled by Matt Taibbi who's doing God's work.
Right, yeah.
How many of you have never heard, before this week, of something called Hamilton 68?
I'd never heard of it.
Some of you had.
Interesting.
Really?
As much as I follow the news, I've never even heard the term Hamilton 68.
Well, let me tell you what that is.
We know this from the Twitter files and from Matt Taibbi's excellent reporting.
You're not even going to believe this if you haven't heard of it yet.
Who hasn't heard of this story yet?
Is there anybody who hasn't heard of this story yet?
It's actually unbelievable.
But it's true.
All right.
Here's the story.
Sometime several years ago, a Democrat organization that had, let's say, all the usual suspects, like Podesta associated with it.
John Podesta.
Do you need to know any other of the names?
No, you don't.
You just need to know that Podesta was part of this, OK?
And I'll give you the names in a minute, but that's all you need to know.
And they built an application.
So they built an application and a little dashboard.
And it was for Bill Kristol, right?
And the dashboard was for journalists who could go and check to see if any stories on social media were really being driven by Russian bots.
Now, how did this app know if something was driven by Russian bots?
Well, what they claimed was they had a secret list of accounts on Twitter that they knew were Russian-related, and if those 600 got active on a story, let's say driving a hashtag, then they could conclude that Russia is behind it.
The bots are driving the traffic.
Now, that would be really bad, right?
Because You wouldn't want to find out that Russia was moving the press around, or moving our understanding of reality around.
So when Twitter found out that this thing existed, Now, this is a great part of the story.
Apparently, they were asked a number of times by different people, can you tell us which accounts you're following?
There were a little over 600 accounts.
Can you tell us which 600 accounts you're following?
Just so we could have some comfort that those are Russian-related accounts.
But that was secret.
That was secret.
Because if they told you which accounts they were following, then Russia could see it too, and then Russia would, you know, change out those accounts, and then the whole thing would be hidden again.
So they better keep it secret.
So as Matt Taibbi correctly points out, If you're a legitimate journalist, and somebody says, we have a secret app with a secret mechanism for telling you who the Russian bots are, and you ask them to tell you how they figured it out with some transparency, and they say, if they say, oh, you can't see our secret mechanism for determining what's happening.
If you're a legitimate journalist, what do you do?
We are private.
Didn't I go private?
Well, now we're private.
So what would a legitimate journalist do if told that there's a secret app and we can't tell you how it works?
You would walk away.
You would laugh and you would walk away.
It's like, well, that's not real.
Right?
Or if it is real, we can't determine if it's real, so it's not a story for us.
But apparently the entire, oh, let's say Democrat-led media, wrote hundreds of stories in which they did their own work on the app and found out that things which conservatives like were really not being driven by conservatives or Republicans, but really they were all being duped by Putin.
Now, apparently this thing ran for years and it was Twitter itself who busted them.
And here's how they did it, which is clever.
So I guess this entity was using Twitter's API.
Now the API is what a company publishes to tell third-party people that they allow to use their service to query it and get data on stuff.
So it's basically a backdoor that the company makes available to third parties.
And that's what the app was using.
So somebody at Twitter was smart enough to look at the traffic coming in to the API, and then they could reverse engineer it to figure out who the accounts were that this app was targeting as the Russian accounts.
And then they looked at those accounts, And they were very much not Russian accounts.
They were just ordinary Republicans.
In fact, they were sort of like some of the most objectively, obviously patriotic Americans who were just nothing but American.
Just nothing but American.
Like, they're the most American account you could ever see, with not even the trace of a Russian tinge.
Just nothing.
Absolutely just made up.
And they just put a bunch of ordinary Americans into the Russian list, and they sold that for years.
Now, the head of this was an ex-FBI counterintelligence guy.
Is there anything else you need to hear?
Podesta, Bill Kristol, and an ex-FBI counterintelligence guy.
Obviously, this was just a big Democrat op.
Now, wouldn't you think this would be one of the biggest stories of the year?
Wouldn't you?
It's too bad it can't get any attention today because of those other big stories that are coincidentally in the news.
Just think about it.
If this were a slow news day, How big a deal would it be that the Democrats were running a fake black box of Russian bot stuff?
Now, let me ask you this.
Who was the first person you heard in public telling you that stories of Russian bots were bullshit?
Affecting the elections, at least affecting the elections.
Who's the first one?
I did.
Probably me.
I mean, I don't know if there's... No, I was way before Trump.
Yeah.
No, I beat everybody.
Yeah.
And I said it as soon as I saw the memes.
Because as soon as I saw the memes that they spent all of $100,000 on, as soon as you saw them you knew the whole story was fake.
Because the memes looked like high school memes and nobody really saw them anyway.
So as soon as I knew that the meme part of the troll story was fake, I extended that to the rest of the Russian troll story.
That everything about Russian troll stories would be fake.
Including, and by the way, this is not confirmed.
I don't believe that Russia hacked anybody's email.
Maybe.
But if you look at the pattern, everything blamed on Russia was fake.
Yeah, I'm seeing confirmations.
So I think almost everything that we learned about Russia was fake.
Probably everything about the Ukraine war is massaged and fake as well.
Right.
So here was a question I asked on Twitter.
Which profession, somebody trained in these professions, which one would be the best at spotting hoaxes?
Who would be trained to spot a hoax?
And I asked people who they thought.
And the choices were scientists, Engineer, journalist, or cartoonist?
I'm sorry, no, hypnotist.
So who could identify a mass hysteria?
So actually, the question was a mass hysteria.
So if you were in a mass hysteria, who could identify from within?
Now, here's the problem.
If you're in the mass hysteria, you're in the mass hysteria.
So you usually can't see it if you're on the inside.
So here are the answers.
Scientists, only 12%.
Really?
You think that the profession whose entire purpose is to figure out what's true and what's not, only 12% of you voted that that's the people who would know they were in a mass hysteria.
They should be the best, but you've rated them the worst.
Journalists, 7%, so they're the lowest on the list.
That's no surprise.
But engineers got 41%, roughly tied with hypnotists at 41%.
Now, let's see your vote.
I'll just take it down to the two.
Who would be better at identifying a mass hysteria when they're part of it, right?
The when they're part of it is the important part.
They have to be inside the mass hysteria and then suddenly wake up.
Engineer or hypnotist?
Engineer or hypnotist?
Now those of you saying engineer, what would be the argument?
That they're the least, the engineers would be the least influenced by, I don't know, something that's not factual, right?
The reason you're saying engineers is because they would not be affected by emotional stuff, right?
No, totally wrong.
Totally wrong.
The engineers would be as easily fooled as the scientists and the journalists.
There wouldn't be much difference.
And the reason is that none of them are trained to spot a mass hysteria.
It's a different job.
Being logical won't help you at all.
Not even a little bit.
Being hyper-logical won't help you at all.
Being completely unemotional won't help you at all.
Going to higher education wouldn't help you at all.
Having smarter friends won't help you at all.
None of those have any effect on a mass hysteria.
I believe there's only one profession that could identify it, which is a hypnotist.
Because hypnotists are looking for triggers and tells.
If you know the triggers and you know the tell, you know, the word salads and the stuff like that, if you, if you know what they are, then you could potentially see them and go, Oh shoot, I have this belief, but while I hold this belief at the same time, I can see what was the trigger for it.
And I can see my own tell, Oh shoot, I just exhibited a tell.
So you can see it in others more easily.
So a hypnotist could call out a mass hysteria, Whereas an engineer or scientist could not.
Now, here's my big question to you.
Is the pandemic and the vaccinations and all the rest, are they mass hysterias?
Yes or no?
Was the pandemic a mass hysteria?
Of course it was.
Now, there's always a reality at the bottom.
So there's some reality there.
But on top of the reality, there's a mass hysteria.
Now, how about the vaccinations themselves?
So the coronavirus was a mass hysteria in some ways.
But what about the vaccinations?
Is there a mass hysteria about the vaccinations?
Interesting.
Yes, there is.
Very clearly.
Now, almost all of you Correct me if wrong, but almost all of you believe you can sort out which mass hysterias are mass hysterias and which ones are not.
Do you believe you all have those abilities?
Yeah.
I believe very few people have that ability.
But all of them would be trained in psychology as opposed to other branches of science or engineering.
So let me say this.
Let's say if the question was mass hysteria.
And then the scientists weigh in and the scientists say, oh, this is the truth.
And then let's say the critics who don't agree with the mainstream.
They weigh in, they go, oh no, this is the truth.
So you've got, you know, very rational scientists on both sides.
You might have some doctors on both sides, and they're each calling out the mass hysteria on the other side.
What do you do?
How would you break that tie if all the experts say the other one is in a mass hysteria, but maybe they're both in, or neither?
How would you break the tie?
You'd ask a hypnotist.
Right?
A hypnotist could break the tie.
Because the hypnotist could say, oh, this one has triggers.
Yeah, this one doesn't have any triggers.
This one is exhibiting the tells.
This one is not.
Just put that out there.
All right, so Hamilton 68 is just an amazing story.
It's just an amazing story that this was out there.
And here are the people like Michael McFall.
Have you ever seen a tweet from Michael McFall?
Now, he's somebody that I see on Twitter every now and then.
And when I see his tweets, I always have the same reaction.
I go, this guy isn't even trying to be honest.
I mean, he was so overtly a propagandist that, like, I just thought it was funny whenever I saw his tweets.
Because they were sort of unhinged propagandist tweets.
And sure enough, he literally was part of this, it was an op.
Can I call this an intel op against the United States?
Is that in evidence?
To me, it looks like it's in evidence.
It's an opinion.
I'll just put it out as an opinion, not a fact.
My opinion is this clearly shows that there was a intelligence, Democrat, media collusion to change politics in the United States.
I keep seeing Brennan's name.
Was he part of this?
I didn't see Brennan associated with it.
Yeah, I didn't see his association.
Well, but I love the fact that Twitter busted them, and we can tell that now.
So Yoel Roth, who got lots of, you know, got lots of shit for shadow banning or whatever, we're not handling it the way you thought he should.
He actually saw this and was, and Twitter knew it before the public did, and they were trying to figure out what to do about it.
So they were trying to fix it, but one could argue they might have acted a little faster on that.
Or a little more aggressively.
But it did show that at least they had some intention of clearing up something that was clearly fake.
So let's just give Yol Roth credit.
So whatever else you want to be mad about, go ahead and be mad about it.
But on this one thing, he was on your side.
He was on your side.
Now, I don't think he acted as aggressively as we wish he would.
But you could tell from his internal communications that he wasn't cool with it at all.
Which I appreciate.
That he wasn't cool with it.
All right.
Anyway, I just don't know what to say about this story.
This story is so big and it's so common to our other stories.
So every time you see a model of something that is this elaborate and it's clearly a hoax, it makes you question everything else that you didn't think was a hoax.
But it could have been.
But the reason they ruled it out is it was too elaborate.
Like, I probably would not have spotted this As a hoax right away.
I think I would have missed it because it's too elaborate.
Like it's a lot of work for the hoax.
Yeah, you know, building a fake app and having everybody in on it and all that.
But they did it.
You know, we can say for sure now that that was a Intel, I think you can say it was a Intel slash Democrat slash media operation against the rest of the public.
Yeah.
You know, honestly, I don't know what kind of law there is, if any, against this.
I don't even know if it's... Is there any law that was broken?
I haven't even seen anybody.
But if there were a law, you would expect execution would be the right penalty.
Because this is actually traitorous.
It's looking to effectively end the Republic.
Because the Republic only stays together with some credibility, and we all believe that, you know, people are doing what they're supposed to be doing, usually.
This is so bad that people involved should be executed, if it were illegal.
Now, probably not illegal.
So, you know, innocent until proven guilty.
But if they were proven guilty, and if it were a law, and if it had the penalty, the right penalty would be execution.
This is one of the worst things I've ever seen.
It's way worse than what we're going to talk about in these videos, because it affects more people, as horrible as the videos are.
Way worse.
But of course, we're distracted by the new videos.
All right, here's a question for you.
If AI, artificial intelligence, could learn to identify mass hysterias, Because I could train it.
I could train it.
What are the triggers?
What are the tells?
I think I could train it.
Could it identify a hoax?
Maybe.
Maybe.
So what if it could identify fake news, conspiracy theories, mass hysteria, and hoaxes?
What if it could do that?
What would happen?
What would be the obvious thing that would happen if all of the hoaxes that drive our civilization were called out by AI and people said, oh, there it is again.
I guess that's a hoax.
AI never gets it wrong.
Do you know what would happen?
AI would be removed from the public.
Yeah.
If you're naive, if you're really naive, you'd say, oh, we'd finally have real news.
No, that can never happen because it would change who's in power.
The people in power are not going to put up with artificial intelligence.
They can't.
They have to make it illegal.
So at the very least, it will be illegal for artificial intelligence to talk about politics.
Eventually, it has to be illegal for AI to talk about politics.
Probably religion, too.
But politics is the dangerous one.
It will actually be illegal for you to use AI and get an answer about politics.
And there's no way around this.
It can't go any other direction.
Because the moment that AI started calling out our leaders as liars, they would pass legislation to ban it.
I'm not wrong.
AI can never become a thing, because humans will never allow it to take power from them, and that's exactly what happened.
Whoever knows the most and has the best ideas ends up being in power, even if they're not trying to.
So the only way the leaders can stay in power is by bamboozling the public more effectively than the alternative is bamboozling the public.
AI doesn't have any future with humanity.
So unless AI destroys humanity before legislation makes it illegal, I mean there's no way it can be legal.
I don't see any pushback to this.
This is amazing.
You know, I get pushback on almost anything I say.
But I'm getting no pushback on this.
It will be illegal.
There's no way around it.
The powers that be have to make it illegal.
Now here's how I got this idea.
I saw a quote from Dale.
What's the rest of his account number?
Dale something.
But he asked it I think the question was, can we really measure climate change?
In other words, do we really have the instrument reliability that we can tell that the temperature is going up or down?
Do you know what AI said?
Not so clear.
It didn't say no, but it talked about the limitations.
If you just see a like an honest discussion of the limitations, let's just back up for a moment.
Let me ask this question.
Have you ever asked yourself after seeing that all of the data from the pandemic was fake?
Just all of it.
I'll call it fake or incorrect or misleading or something, right?
All our data is wrong.
All of our predictions are wrong, everything.
All of the past predictions about climate change haven't quite been right.
Now let me ask you just one question.
Do you believe we can take the temperature of the Earth, the average temperature of the Earth, and that we can compare it to what it was last year and the year before?
Because all the experts say we can.
The people who knew it for a living, The scientists who do it for a living say yes.
Yeah, we're the experts.
We're the closest to it.
All right.
If you hear this story about Hamilton 68, and you still think that we can measure the temperature of the Earth, like, you think that's a real thing.
Sorry.
I don't think that's a real thing.
Now, I do think that climate change is real.
Let me be clear about that.
If I had to bet on it, I would say that humans are adding something that's creating temperature change.
I don't know if it's a big deal.
I don't know if we're in trouble.
I don't know if it'll help us or hurt us.
I don't know how to predict it forward.
I don't know what technological changes we'll have that impact that.
So the outcome of that, I think, is up in the air.
But I don't think that because we measure the temperature that we know what the temperature is.
I don't believe that.
I think logically it's probably going up, but there are also lots of other factors, etc.
So just ask yourself, given all of the other things that we've learned are total bullshit, you think we can measure the temperature of the Earth?
Really?
This is the really test.
Really?
Really?
Because we don't have sensors, I don't know if you know this, but we don't have sensors everywhere.
There are big parts that are not measured.
So we would have to assume that there's nothing strange happening in those unmeasured parts.
But we don't know.
Anyway, I don't believe anything about measuring the temperature of Earth.
I saw a tweet by Vanessa Sierra, who said, Guys are so easy.
Just be super happy all the time and feed them and they fall in love.
Guys, what do you think?
If the woman is just super happy all the time and feeds you, will you fall in love?
Well, you know, there's sex too, of course.
You probably want some sex there.
Do you see anything wrong with this formula?
Is there anything wrong with the formula?
Be super happy and feed them.
No woman can be super happy all the time.
That's not a real thing.
What woman has ever been super happy all the time?
Have you ever met a woman?
No.
Women are super happy on the first date, second date, maybe third date too.
But as soon as you're married, Their operating system turns to, you know, how do I get the most out of this situation?
And it's being unhappy.
Being unhappy is their operating system for getting more stuff.
Just act unhappy.
See, that's why the Democrats are the party of unhappiness.
Because the Democrats are basically a woman party, right?
At this point, it's basically the boys against the girls.
The Republicans are sort of male Let's say a male philosophy or something.
I'm not sure how you'd characterize that.
But they're definitely, the parties are now male and female.
Now, here's the weird thing.
Most of black voters ended up accidentally in the woman party.
So the black Americans are in the wrong party, the men.
They're in the wrong party, and they don't know it.
They haven't figured it out yet.
But let me tell you what black people are going to get as long as they're Democrats.
They're not going to get a shit, except for the females, right?
Because the Democrats are not looking to give black people anything.
They're looking to give women stuff, of course, and anybody who wants to identify as a woman, I guess.
So, yeah, there's no such thing as women acting super happy.
That's not a thing.
Remember I talked about the parody account Anita B. Eaton?
It's a parody account of a, quote, fat-affirming dietician who just plays it serious all the time.
I think it's a guy, but it's pretending to be a large woman who's a, quote, fat-affirming dietician.
Now, we don't do any fat shaming on this livestream, so that's not what this is about.
But Elon Musk actually... Oh, I guess it got a parody label.
So the account got a, Twitter gave it a parody label, and then the parody account was complaining, I'm no parody!
And then Elon Musk saw it, and he said, it took me a minute.
So he actually, it's such a good parody.
It is so ridiculous that you actually think it's true, because it's so ridiculous.
If it were less ridiculous, you wouldn't believe it.
But it's so ridiculous, you think, well, that could be true.
And even Elon Musk looked at it.
I had exactly the same response.
I looked at it and was like, this could be true.
It could be.
And then I looked at the name, Anita B. Eden, and I was like, oh, got me.
Anita B. Eden.
All right, let's talk about the Paul Pelosi video.
Hope you've all seen the body cam released video.
We'll talk about Memphis, too.
All right, here's what I got from the Paul Pelosi view.
The speculation that people had was terrible.
Terrible speculation.
It's very clear they were not friends and they were not on a date.
Did anybody see the video and think that they were dating?
The whole gay thing was, I get it, it was fun.
But clearly that's not what was going on.
Clearly they were not dating.
Clearly they were not already friends.
But I will add one thing to the confusing moment when the door was first opened.
And Paul Pelosi was holding the hammer that the other guy was holding at the same time, like they were sort of going to fight about it, but you couldn't tell what was going on.
And then Pelosi acted like you didn't know exactly why he was acting the way he was.
Here's my take.
I think he was drunk.
I think he was drunk.
Yeah.
To me, he looked drunk.
And I only say that because I saw the video of him being stopped for his DUI.
If I hadn't seen the DUI video, I wouldn't know what he looks like drunk.
But what he looks like on the DUI video is very much the way he looks in the middle of the night.
Like, he may have been awakened in the middle of the night, but he looked like maybe he had a few.
So I don't think he was fully functional.
He's a certain age, but I think something else was going on.
Now, so here's the other surprises.
He literally was home alone.
Does that surprise you?
At his age, I mean, if he just falls down the stairs, he's in big trouble, right?
But at his age, he was home alone.
Or at least in terms of security.
There was no security there.
And we didn't see anybody else.
So DePape did break in the back window.
We have the video.
So he wasn't let in.
It wasn't a date.
He didn't know him.
And then there's that weird 911 call.
Where Pelosi didn't want to say, there's a crazy guy here threatening me.
He was trying to get the 911 operator to get the idea without saying it directly.
He didn't do a good job because they didn't quite get it.
But they did dispatch, so I'll give them credit for that.
So, yeah.
They both had weird looks.
Yeah.
Your dad's home alone at 91?
Yeah, I really worry about myself, you know, on days when I'm alone in my house.
Like, if I fell down the stairs, nobody would know it for two days.
Well, I got my phone.
I suppose I could crawl to my phone.
Yeah, and then if you saw the video of the front door, the police arrive, and then the door opens as if a ghost had opened it.
Like there's no indication that either of the two people on the other side of the door opened it.
And the police didn't.
It just sort of opened and revealed them.
Like there was somebody standing behind the door.
Like maybe... I don't know.
I don't understand how it opened.
Maybe they just pushed it open and then it didn't look like it.
Well, so it looks like that story is exactly what it looked like.
Crazy guy threatened him and a bad thing happened.
So if you believed anything else was happening there, you can now correct your beliefs.
All right.
Megyn Kelly had a good episode, I saw in a clip, where she showed the difference in how CNN handled Trump's document problem versus Biden's.
It's hilarious.
It really is.
So whatever you thought about CNN trending toward the middle, because I've been calling them out for that in a good way, they definitely didn't trend to the middle on this story.
So when you see them talking about Trump, their guests are all horrified.
I'm horrified.
It's the worst thing in the world.
He had documents, classified documents.
And then you see the talking heads after Biden has documents, too?
Well, you know, it's pretty common.
Yeah, there's a word for it, document dribble, or they had some word for it.
It's like, well, yeah, no problem.
No problem.
Yeah, that was pretty standout.
Well, here's a surprise.
The Republicans picked a chairperson for the party, and they re-picked Ronna Ronna McDonald, who is running against Harmeet Dhillon.
Now here's the surprising part.
On Twitter, there seemed to be 100% support for Harmeet Dhillon.
I didn't see a single person on Twitter for months, for months, not a single person who supported the incumbent, Ronna McDonald.
But yeah, she won easily.
What's going on?
So apparently consultants and people with money and people in power prefer Rana to Harmeet.
But from the outside it looks like there was a pretty big difference in capabilities and support.
So that all looked pretty suspicious.
Here's a good reason I'm not a Republican.
This.
This.
You know, I don't like to identify with the political party in general, but I would be embarrassed to be a Republican today.
Is anybody embarrassed?
Because this is clearly not responding to the will of the Republican base.
I mean, this is just spitting in the face of the base.
It looks to me.
And are you just feeling insulted?
Now let me ask you, is there anybody here who thought Ronald McDonald was the right choice.
I haven't seen a single person ever say that in months.
Not one.
Yeah, and look.
So they just pissed in your mouth.
They really did.
I'm glad I'm not one of you.
I'm glad I don't have to deal with that shame today.
But good luck.
All right.
The number one app in the Apple Store, at least for a while, recently, was a boating app.
An app for boaters.
Can you guess, how did a little obscure app that's just for boating people, how did it become the number one thing on the App Store?
What could have ever caused that?
Hmm.
No, there's no porn.
Well, it turns out that the app maker's daughter created a viral video on TikTok.
And TikTok was powerful enough to make their app the number one app in the App Store.
Now, there's no indication that they used the heat button.
There's no indication that they caused it to happen at TikTok.
Probably it was just an organic viral video because it wasn't political.
You had no connection to anything in society.
It was just an app.
But now ask yourself, are you comfortable that if China wanted to, they could push the heat button on anything and make it a top app in the United States?
Do you have any more questions about whether TikTok can push one button and make something physically happen in America.
Physically.
Not just thoughts, but physically.
Because that's what happened.
That one viral video physically caused a change in the App Store.
It wasn't a theoretical change.
It wasn't a conceptual change.
It was a physical change in our world.
And TikTok did that.
Now Josh Hawley has his, you know, bill, his legislation to try to ban TikTok.
How many people in Congress are going to vote against that?
Probably all the people who voted against or meet Dylan.
That's not true.
I'm just saying that there's something going on here that has nothing to do with what's good for the people.
There's something horrible going on here.
Something really horrible is going on.
And it's kind of obvious.
Because there's no argument about the danger of TikTok.
There's none.
In fact, if you Google it, you're only going to find the weak argument.
This is a tell.
This is a super tell.
That, except for me, and people that I've directly influenced, The media only talks about the TikTok risk as a data security problem.
Which it is.
But that's the small risk.
Do you understand that we've gotten to this point without the major media focusing on the major risk?
Is that a coincidence?
Because we all know the major risk.
And they just don't talk about it.
No, it's not a coincidence.
Of course not.
Of course not.
All right.
Let's talk about Tyree Nichols.
If you haven't seen the video, I don't know where you've been, because it was all over the news last night and this morning.
So, young man, we don't know the full details, which is really going to be my macro story, is that we don't know what's going on here.
So the big picture is we don't really know what happened.
But there's a lot to talk about, speculation-wise.
So five black police officers who have a black police chief.
apprehended a young man named Tyree Nichols.
He resisted arrest.
We don't know the details of why or how, but at least once he got away from them.
And he was originally stopped for, they say, reckless driving and, you know, being a danger in his car.
But apparently, as soon as they did get a hold of him, they pulled him out of the car.
That he got away from him once.
Another unit stopped him, you know, half a mile away.
And then when the first unit that he got away with, got away from, when they caught up to him, they beat him to death.
And the camera is very clear that they were trying to beat him to death.
That's what it looked like to me.
Now, it didn't look like they were trying to subdue him at one point.
At one point, they were clearly trying to subdue him.
But later on, they were clearly just trying to hurt him as much as possible.
And you saw, at one point, he was standing.
Did you see this?
I'm a little worried that, like, I'm seeing things on the video that aren't even real, because, you know, it's dark and stuff.
But what I saw was, after they beat him on the ground, at one point they had him up, and they were holding his arms, and it looked like one of the biggest police officers was just going off on his head.
Just, you know, just as hard as he could.
It looked like he was trying to kill him, to me.
And so, then we have on the cam photo, or at least the audio, one of the officers said he tried to reach for his gun.
Didn't see that in the video.
Sounds like something you say when you get caught.
But could be.
Could be.
I guess the police officers are innocent until proven guilty.
And I would caution you that this could be really misleading.
Could be really misleading.
But I'll tell you what it looked like.
It looked personal.
Would you agree?
That at the end, I don't, you know, maybe it was personal because one of the officers got hurt in the first part of the encounter.
Because when the guy got away from five officers, it's a little unclear what happened at the moment of his initial escape.
But I think he probably hurt them.
Don't you think?
He probably punched or kicked to get away from the five of them.
So it could be that they were just mad.
You know, and they were just taking it out.
It didn't feel like that.
It felt like they were trying to take him out.
It looks like there might be something we don't know about that's why they were after him.
Right?
And the other thing is, he was trying to escape a little too hard.
The desperation with which he was trying to get away from them didn't really make sense.
Because maybe he was on drugs.
Maybe he was on drugs.
And that could be the whole story.
Or yeah, or drunk or something.
But it almost looks like there was some prior situation that was being dealt with somehow.
That's what it looked like.
That's what it looked like.
A druggie wouldn't, would stop, I don't know.
I don't know what kind of drugs would cause you to act that way.
But, I think Van Jones is doing a great job pointing out that even though everybody involved was black, that it's really a sign of racism.
Do you know how he made that argument?
That even black people are racist against black people.
Even black people are racist against black people, and that should not be overlooked.
Now, let's tie this all together with my other favorite story.
Could the news be more favorable to Trump in any way?
The news, it's like the news has decided it's all going to be pro-Trump, no matter what the story is.
Because remember, the Hamilton 68 thing was basically a way to take out Trump.
So that's revealed.
And now, the whole racism thing.
So is it a coincidence that no more white cops killed black motorists that we know of since George Floyd?
Now, the police have probably been standing back a little bit, and some of that's going to be part of the story.
But doesn't this just ruin the narrative?
Do you think that any black Americans are waking up this morning and saying, hey, I'm starting to see a pattern.
Maybe, wait, the pattern seems to be that The most dangerous person to a black American is another black person.
But how does that work with everything?
And that's what Van Jones has to explain.
Is how, if it's just all black people, where's the racism?
Why isn't it happening to white people?
Some kind of tricky questions to answer here.
It reminds me of my favorite cartoon.
This will get me maybe kicked off of all social media.
But my favorite cartoon from years ago showed a guy in jail and he's talking to his cellmate.
And he says to his cellmate, 19 arrests, 19 convictions.
Maybe it's me.
Maybe it's me.
So I think that's what black people are waking up to with this video is What if it wasn't white people?
What if your danger is other black people?
And of course, what's the biggest problem with all of this?
The biggest problem with all of it is what I'm doing right now.
What I'm doing right now is the biggest problem.
I'm treating black people like they're all the same.
Frickin' ridiculous, right?
But it's more obvious that it's ridiculous now.
than it was when George Floyd was the problem.
Or the issue, not the problem.
Right?
Under the George Floyd, it just was a little more easy to say it's a white and black thing.
But once you take the white and black thing away, you look at it, you go, oh, well maybe that narrative was never real.
Maybe it's just a problem that some segment, just some segment, of the black population is causing a lot of problems.
But you can't say that out loud, because that would be racist.
Instead, we act like white people are all the same and black people are all the same, which is ridiculous.
If anything would teach you to not treat all black people the same, it should be this story.
Right?
Because nobody believes that the five police officers are somehow typical of black people in America.
Nobody thinks that.
So, when you see this story of, you know, the complete narrative flipping thing, you can get a little bit closer to, hey, maybe we shouldn't treat everybody like they're the same.
Like, maybe not all white people are bad.
Maybe not all black people are criminals.
You know, maybe.
So, I feel like this is so pro-Trump without having anything to do with him.
Just because it's making the narrative look ridiculous.
Now, if you didn't watch Tucker Carlson last night, you missed another masterpiece, in my opinion.
I mean, I think Tucker has, in some ways, he's just going to a whole other level.
That the other people who do what he does just aren't there.
And yesterday, watching him pull together different stories and teach the public That what you're seeing is diversionary tactics.
And also teach us that Antifa was never a real organization.
It's obviously a politically driven organization.
And they fire it up when they need to distract you from something else in the news.
Or they want to change politics in some way.
The fact that Antifa is tooling up now is pretty good evidence that the Democrats or the deep state are trying to get rid of Biden.
Am I right?
Obviously.
They're obviously trying to get rid of Biden, because they wouldn't fire him up while Biden's in charge.
But it's pretty clear that they know they need to get rid of him to keep power.
So once you realize that Antifa was and always has been a fake organization, which by the way, many of the members probably think they're there for a real reason.
So I'm not saying every member is in on a plot.
I'm saying that whoever is organizing them is clearly just politically motivated.
So they're the opposite of Antifa.
They should be like anarchists.
They're just a political tool.
They're just Democrats.
So Even thinking of them as some separate entity is just completely wrong.
They're just Democrats in the Deep State.
It's basically the Deep State's shock troops.
And Black Lives Matter, the organization, probably was something like that.
And at this point, we can say that for sure.
Now, if you're so confident about that, wouldn't you agree that Black Lives Matter and Antifa Somebody can turn them on and then turn them back off.
Would you agree with that?
Somebody can turn them on and then somebody can turn them off.
No doubt about it.
Now, if you think that's true, do you still think that all the marchers at the Charlottesville Fine People March, do you think that was all real?
Of course not.
I believe there were real races there, of course.
But do you think it was organized just organically, and there's no reason it happened then, and there's no reason it happened there, and there's no reason they all were well-dressed, and there's no reason they all had access to tiki torches, right?
It was all just a coincidence, just organic.
No, of course not.
It was a deep state bop.
Clearly.
Obviously.
But I think this Tyree Nichols thing, because it's such a narrative buster, And then, you know, on top of the tweet I read earlier, why the Democrats are trying to understand why there are no charges against Trump.
Do you think they'll ever figure out the reason there are no charges against Trump?
Is that it was all fake news in the first place?
I think some will.
I mean, not most.
Yeah, not 98%.
But maybe 2%.
Which would be enough to elect him.
You don't need many Democrats to say, uh, I think we've been duped.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Has there been an organized, keyword organized, Republican effort to do a big hoax that I don't know about?
Recently.
Recently.
Because all of the hoaxes are Democrats so far.
Right?
Now, the Republicans, you know, may believe some conspiracy theories, but it doesn't seem like it's organized as part of a political operation.
It's just something that people believe.
WMDs?
That was a while ago.
Yeah, but nothing recently.
Okay.
That's an open question.
Alright, what else do we want to say about the Tyree Nichols thing?
I guess my overview is we don't really know what happened.
It looked like it was personal, which means that we really don't know what was happening.
And that it's a narrative buster.
Well, let me say the human thing, if you'll indulge me for a moment.
As a human being, it's a horrible tragedy and I really feel bad for the mom.
Who seems like a good person, actually.
And, you know, I praise her for calling for peace.
So, you know, she's on my good side.
And it's a tragedy.
Now, what I usually say in these situations is that I don't care what happens to anybody who resists arrests.
That's what I usually say.
And I was very close to saying it in this case, even as horrible as it is.
But this is so obviously a murder.
Am I right?
I think the George Floyd thing looked like a genuine accident.
But this just looked like murder.
So I'm not going to say resisting arrest gets you murdered.
Not so intentionally.
If it happened in the heat of the fight or something, I'd say, well, don't resist arrest.
You know, I can still say don't resist arrest, but something else was happening here.
This was not a resisting arrest story entirely.
That's just part of the story.
We'll find out, maybe.
Maybe we will, but I advise you all to don't believe anything you see on video, because... All right.
Have you ever heard me say this before, that people don't act The way they say they believe.
For example, there are believers in God who sin every day.
Like, I always try to understand that.
It's like, well, if you really believed in God, and you really believed you wouldn't go to heaven, I'm pretty sure that you would sin less.
You know, there's just this weird, complete disconnect between people's beliefs.
But here might be another one.
You judge.
You tell me if there's a disconnect.
So the critics of the COVID vaccines come in all forms.
There are some people who say, well, I don't know how dangerous they are, but I just don't like that you forced them upon us.
That would be the weakest form of critic.
The strongest form of critic, and fact check me on this, the strongest form of critic says everybody who got vaccinated has a slow-acting poison in their body.
Is that fair?
The strongest critics are saying, whoa, you don't realize what you put into your body.
This is going to have a big impact down the road.
You just don't see it coming yet.
Right?
Now, if that group is correct, that these shots are going to have a massive health impact in the future, are they acting on it?
Are they investing on it?
If there's a way to do that.
And what would you do if you believe that to be true?
Because here's what I think they're missing.
If they're right, it is the end of civilization.
You know that, right?
If the most aggressive critics are right, let's say 20% of the world goes down, that's the end of civilization.
You don't recover from that.
So, for the people who think literally it's the end of civilization, If they haven't connected the dots, that if that many people have a poison in them, even if, let's say, 20% have some serious outcome, if 20% of the public gets a serious outcome like that, you're done.
The whole system fails.
You wouldn't be able to get any services.
You'd be done.
And we wouldn't be able to support all those sick people all at once.
So here's the question I ask.
For the people who believe that, what are they doing about it?
Because if I believed it, I'd be acting.
I'd be doing everything I could for the end of the world.
Yeah, I'd be prepping like a mofo.
So if anybody who believes that isn't prepping, I'm not sure they believe it.
Or at least their belief is not compatible with their actions.
I'll just put that out there.
I don't know what's true yet.
But what I do know is that I exist in four different movies.
I don't think anybody's ever done that before.
I don't think it's been done.
All right.
Prepare for the beginning, not the end.
Oh, that's funny.
Maybe.
Trying to get the detox protocols.
How many of you believe that if the vaccinations were really a poison, that there's a detox that can get rid of those, I don't know, spike proteins or whatever?
The last thing I would believe is that there's a detox program.
Let me put my hypnotist hat on for a moment.
Anybody who sells you a detox program for the vaccinations is almost certainly a fraud.
Almost certainly.
Now, not 100%, because I don't like to speak in 100% terms, certainly.
But this is the perfect situation for fraud.
Perfect.
So you should assume that most of the people who offer you a solution are frauds, even if one of them isn't.
I'll even allow that one of them might actually have something that works.
You never know.
But most of them are going to be frauds.
Let me put my consultant head on the end.
Alright.
How many of you are watching me move from movie to movie and are entertained by it?
Anybody?
And does it fascinate you that I can do it?
Does it fascinate you that I can move into another movie except all of their assumptions and that they don't recognize me in their movie?
Isn't that the weird part?
Because people keep saying, I think you're being sarcastic.
But all I'm doing is agreeing with them.
And they're wondering what's going on because I'm just agreeing.
And they go, are you agreeing sarcastically?
And I say, well, what am I saying that you disagree with?
In other words, what do you think I've said that you think isn't true?
And then they say, well, we think this and this are true, and you were wrong about everything.
And I say, that's what I think, too.
Same page.
I think I was wrong about everything, and you got everything right.
And then they say, I don't know about you.
But what is it that they're not accepting?
I'm simply embracing their entire worldview and wearing it like a suit.
Like it's real and it fits.
Because it does fit.
It's as real as anything else.
So a number of people have thanked me for my bravery.
My stunning bravery in admitting I'm wrong about everything.
And others just think it's funny because they think it's a prank.
Some think I'm sarcastic, but they can't figure out why my sarcasm exactly equals their actual opinion.
Which is weird.
My sarcasm and their actual opinion look so similar that they're not sure.
I can't tell.
Oh, so I think I told you what it would take for me to be senator or run for Senate.
I'd need to telecommute.
I don't want to go to meetings.
I don't want to attend meetings.
This has to be mentioned.
So Jason Whitlock, who is just a fascinating personality and pundit.
Because he says stuff that you don't think should be said or can be said, but then he explains it well and you go, well, okay.
And he made some connection about whenever a city has a police department run by a single mom, that it goes to hell.
And he said that, and I thought, oh God, oh God, you're never going to survive this.
You cannot say that the reason the police department in Memphis went to hell is because a single mother's in charge.
You can't say that.
And then I thought, oh, he is so done.
He's so done.
I mean, he's a black man, so he's less cancelable.
But I thought, you don't recover from that.
And then he explained his thinking.
And as soon as he explained it, I thought, oh, nobody's going to touch it.
Because if they try to cancel it, they're going to bring attention to his opinion.
They can't touch it.
So watch that.
He's not going to get much blowback.
Maybe some lesser publication will give him a run for it.
But he connected, let's say, the philosophy or the priorities of a single mom.
He connected it to his point and he did it well enough that I think his critics are going to say, let's just stay away from that one.
I'm not even weighing in on whether I agree with him, because it was a very provocative point.
I'd have to think about it for a while.
But the fact that he defended it, and it didn't look like he could.
That was a great magic trick.
He put it out there like Oh, you're in trouble now.
And then he sold it.
I did not think that could be done.
So all credit to Jason Whitlock.
Even Tucker was stunned.
I think Tucker was just stunned.
He said something afterwards like, you always say something we haven't heard before, but then he backs it up.
Like the two things that you don't expect you'll ever hear, something you haven't heard before on the news, and then back it up.
So all credit to him.
Well, we're living in the Matrix, but apparently you can go from bubble to bubble in the Matrix as long as you're Neo.
Mr. Protractor, you're in the wrong movie.
There's-- There's still somebody in the movie who believes that I believe that people were just guessing about the Now, Bret Weinstein has offered, and other people have said, look at his material, and you'll see that they had techniques and systems and mechanisms and heuristics, maybe, that allowed them to get the right answer when others could not.
Now, suppose that's true.
Suppose everything that Bret says is totally true.
And suppose he could convince me.
Well, okay, let me separate that question.
He does have a way, and maybe others too, of figuring out what's true and what's not with a variety of analytical, smart things.
And let's say that the general population, including me, do not have that skill.
Should I believe somebody who says they have it?
Because I wouldn't be... I don't have the skill to do whatever Brad did.
Because I would have done it if I had that skill.
But I don't have the skill to know who's right.
But should I believe somebody if they tell me they have the skill?
Because it's a lot like Hamilton 68, isn't it?
Oh, you don't have to know how we know these Russian bots are coming.
But you just need to know that we know.
Well, how do you know?
Oh, you'll never understand.
We're not going to show you our list.
So to me, it doesn't matter if there's somebody who does know how to determine what's true.
And let's say Brad is one of those people.
How would I know that Brad is one of those people?
How would I know that?
You'd say, well, he would show you his process, and then you could see how he did it, and then you would judge, oh, that's a good process.
That does work.
I don't have that skill.
I do not have that skill.
If he showed me his whole process and explained exactly how he did it, do you think I could take that and then do it on the next situation?
Of course not.
I don't even believe it exists.
I believe that people who understand the branch of science that is psychology can see that other people are maybe in mass hysteria, or that they're in cognitive dissonance.
But the people who are in cognitive dissonance cannot judge the person who is trained to spot cognitive dissonance.
So one of my movies, there's a level of expertise that sits above, let's say, biological science, and that would be psychology.
So somebody who knew psychology could tell if a biologist was in an illusion.
If a biologist is in an illusion, They could not tell that the psychologist was wrong.
But the psychologist could tell that the biologist was wrong.
Does that make sense?
Psychologists can tell if a biologist is wrong.
A biologist can't tell if a psychologist is wrong.
Now that's a generalization, right?
Because they could both be wrong and you could both tell.
But as a general statement, one sits above the other in terms of understanding our reality.
So in one movie, I sit above Brett And that although he's infinitely more experienced and smart about science, that's a branch of science which sits below the only one I know, which is psychology and hypnosis.
You could argue how much science that is, but that's one movie.
In the other movie, the people like Brett, the people who have some biology and scientific background, sit way above me.
And everybody else.
That the rest of us are at a whole level below and we should listen to them.
But we don't know which ones are right.
So in that other movie where we're all just idiots looking at the smart people, we don't know which smart people are right.
So we end up defaulting to our fears and our biases and stuff like that.
But those are different movies.
So, what I did was I left my movie in which it's obvious that people who understand psychology can see the whole field.
And I went to a movie where those people can't see anything.
They got everything wrong.
Especially me.
And I can live in both of those movies.
I can live there completely.
Totally different realities.
And I just have to put on a different jacket and I walk over to the other bubble and I just live there.
Now what's interesting is I'm being accepted in both bubbles.
Like even the people who think I'm sarcastic or I'm not being serious or something, they still like me agreeing with them and saying I'm wrong so much that they're now accepting me where they would reject me before.
And then those of you who have seen me talking in more detail know exactly what's going on, so most of you still accept me.
I will say that my Locals audience is dropping like a rock, by the way.
Did you know that?
I always watch the Locals membership fluctuate based on what's going on.
And this was a tough topic for a lot of people.
So yeah, the Locals membership is dropping off.
My Twitter traffic is climbing like crazy.
Fed sent out emails.
What's that?
I left when you talked about the Tucker interview.
Brett Weinstein messaged me figuring out what is true is taking me, a geneticist, into the warning of the pandemic.
I don't understand any of that.
Simping for the WEF.
So in one movie, I was pro-World Economic Forum.
And so, watch this.
Watch me enter their movie.
I apologize for everything I said about Bill Gates being my hero, and that he's only there to help, and he's right about everything.
And it's clear to me now that the World Economic Forum is really Klaus Schwab and his elites trying to conquer the world and take control from the people.
And so there you go.
Any pushback?
I made my critic completely happy.
How hard was that?
It was that easy.
And somebody over here is saying, you said that about Gates?
Wow.
See?
They're completely accepting that version of reality.
Yep.
Completely, completely accepting it all.
Eddie is yelling, is Bill Gates a good person in your eyes?
Well, Eddie, I can answer that two different ways.
In one movie, how would I know?
How would I know?
I can see what he's doing, and some of it looks good.
But in the other movie, he's the devil and he's trying to depopulate the Earth.
So I'll enter your movie and say, yes, Bill Gates is trying to put microchips in vaccinations, and all he really wants is to decrease the number of people on Earth, because that's how he makes a profit, by reducing the number of people.
I don't know how he does it, but totally he does that.
He's totally doing that.
Making a profit by reducing the population.
Now, nobody's ever figured out how to do that before, but nobody built Microsoft before either, right?
Am I right?
Bill Gates has done things that people hadn't done before.
So although nobody can really figure out how depopulating the world would be good for somebody who makes money primarily on more people, because you need them to buy software and stuff, But I accept it's true.
I accept he's found a way to make money by depopulating the Earth.
Probably with microchips in his vaccinations.
He owns his stocks to get rich from, exactly.
So Bill Gates has not noticed that he has enough money to buy anything he wants.
And so instead, he's using his great evil To depopulate the world, make money, and gain complete control for himself.
Because he doesn't really have the ability to do what he wants.
He doesn't have enough money yet.
If he had some serious money, he could buy like a really good yacht.
Yeah.
Is there anything else you'd like me to apologize for or explain?
Because I will enter your movie harder than you're in it.
Wait, it's not about power.
It's about shaping the future.
I stand corrected.
It's not about power for Bill Gates.
It's about him shaping the future.
Totally different than power.
Not even similar.
So I stand corrected and I apologize.
Thank you.
Thank you for that correction, that clarification.
Any other things that you have a problem with me?
Oh, and if there's anything I can say, I was so wrong about Ben Garrison, the cartoonist.
Wow.
That guy's brilliant.
I didn't realize he was such a good cartoonist.
But not only is his art excellent, but his insights about me were so on point.
So on point.
So I can see why you enjoyed his work so much.
It was just so good.
See?
This is working perfectly.
Yeah, as long as you just enter the movie and embrace it fully, people will accept you.
What about date?
Am I leaving or something?
What?
Do you think this helps my credibility?
Oh, my goodness.
Somebody's asking me if this helps my credibility.
Let me tell you, I don't have any credibility.
No, no, I'm not credible.
You shouldn't believe anything I say.
In fact, if you look at my list of, you know, my history of predictions, worst you've ever seen.
I got everything wrong about the pandemic.
But not only that, I got everything wrong about politics since 2015.
I did get lucky.
I got lucky on a few things.
But really, I got everything wrong.
And I apologize.
I apologize.
And Scott Krog says this is childish, and he's checking out.
It's childish.
I apologize for being childish.
I was being childish.
And I'm glad you called me out.
And now that I see the light, it was very childish of me.
And I apologize for that.
I'm sorry.
Anything else?
At least Dilbert is still good?
No, it's not.
No, Dilbert is no longer good.
It hasn't been good for years.
It was nice of you to say that, but I think you're just being polite.
Not good at all.
Does hypnosis work with wives?
Am I married?
Ask somebody who's married.
I'm not married.
Apparently not.
Apparently not.
Oh yeah, let's talk about Ukraine.
Yeah.
Let's talk about the most important story.
Alright.
So here's my Ukraine.
Wait, what?
Oh, sorry.
Got distracted there.
All these new videos coming out.
Alright, but I'm sorry.
Let's talk about Ukraine.
So the latest from Ukraine is... Wait, what?
What?
Paul Pelosi was in his underpants?
What?
Sorry, sorry.
So I think the Ukrainian forces, they got some new tank... What?
Antifa's back?
What?
Sorry, sorry.
Put that down.
And we're out of time.
So that's it for today.
I hope you enjoyed my in-depth discussion about Ukraine.
We're not being distracted by shadowy forces in the government whatsoever.
