My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
The tools of success vs. equity
President Biden, lies or dementia?
GPT4 with multimodal flavors
CNN says Russia out of ammo
Kash Patel on Ray Epps
Is reporting on Fauci accurate?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of Civilization, the best live stream you're about to ever see.
Yeah, this will be the one you're talking about for, I don't know, minutes.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that can only be understood by meth addicts, Then all you need is a cupper, a mugger, a glass, a tanker, 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 of the dopamine at the end of the day.
It's the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Yeah, that was pretty good.
I could feel the simultaneity.
It was especially crisp today.
Well, I got so many stories, I don't know where to begin.
I'll just go all of them.
I have been doing affirmations to try to solve the drought in California.
And then I see this map.
I don't know if you can see it, but there's all these green flashing things, like a real bunch of energy that's coming in.
And I don't know if you can tell, but that's heading exactly to my house.
See, my house is right there.
And this green energy is heading right toward it.
Now, this would only be the second time this week that I've attracted more energy than I expected to me.
That's probably a coincidence.
Anyway, it's called an atmospheric river and it's coming hard.
It looks like the drought in California is going to get a little relief until the forest fires Alright, last night on Gutfeld, how many of you saw Russell Brand on Gutfeld?
That was a lot of fun.
Probably my favorite show so far.
My favorite Gutfeld episode so far.
I love the fact I love the fact that Guffield's a number one show, so he can get the best guests now.
He had, you know, Vivek Ramaswamy on the other day.
He had Russell Brand on.
And it's so much fun watching all these people come into a, let's say, an unstructured, sort of chaotic, funny environment.
Like everybody has to be in a different character then.
It's really fun to watch.
One of the things Russell Brand has said, I don't think he said it on Gotfeld last night, but he said it somewhere else.
He said, the thing they fear most is people with different political perspectives coming together.
I guess that they would be the unit party, you know, the people in power.
That does feel right, doesn't it?
That does feel right.
Because if people who were on opposite sides of things came together, You get a lot done.
There's some system, I forget what country it was, where most of the government decisions are by referendum.
Even the big federal ones.
Does anybody remember what system that is?
Is it Swiss?
The Swiss?
There might be other systems like that as well.
But doesn't that make more sense to you?
Because we have this weird situation in America Where there are issues that are overwhelmingly popular, let's say 60% to 40%, that's pretty overwhelming.
And if 60% of the public wants something, And they understand it well enough to know what they're asking for.
It doesn't make any sense that that has to go through Congress.
We should just vote on it.
Like, okay, 60% of you want that?
Let's do it.
Now, I could imagine that maybe you don't go with the referendum if it's close, because then maybe you want your experts in Congress to, you know, tell you what you missed or something.
But if it's 60-40, and we understand the issue, I think we ought to just do an end run around Congress.
I don't know any way to fix the system that's constitutional amendment probably so impractical.
All right here's your media lesson in how to interpret or actually spot fake news.
All right.
So you may have seen a clip of Representative Goldman who is talking to Matt Taibbi and Michael Schellenberger I think at a congressional event and he said Quote, even with Twitter, you cannot find evidence of any direct government censorship of any lawful speech.
And when I say lawful, I mean non-criminal speech.
Did you catch the weasel word?
I'll read it again.
Remember, there's only one word in the whole sentence that's the weasel word that changes its meaning.
Okay, you found it.
Direct.
The word is direct.
Right?
I'll read it again.
Even with Twitter, you cannot find evidence of any direct government censorship.
If I hadn't called out the word direct, and you were just sort of casually listening, wouldn't you assume that the government never tried to get anything censored at Twitter?
Because they never directly did it.
All they did was continuously ask Twitter to do it, but once you've asked Twitter to do it, it's not direct.
It's not direct, because Twitter's doing it.
So, like, what are you even talking about?
All we did is put some kind of soft, continuous, persuasive pressure on them by sending the FBI in to talk to them, and, you know, When the FBI comes in, people just say, I'm not going to do what you say.
Just because you're the FBI, that's the way normal people work, isn't it?
In a corporation.
So of course, there was no coercion or influence, because they didn't ask directly.
That's the best we have in Congress.
He's one of the best.
That's why this guy got to talk.
He got to talk because he's one of the good ones.
Like, hey, let's send Representative Goldman to talk.
He's got some weasel words that you've never even heard.
All right.
Equity is for losers.
Literally.
You know, black America, it seems, and a lot of their allies are pushing for this thing called equity.
Equity of outcomes.
And I say to myself, hypothetically, If you divided a bunch of young people of any colors or ethnicities, you just randomly divide them into two groups.
You say, all right, group one, we're going to have you focus on equity.
We want something like similar outcomes for people.
So organize your life toward being mediocre.
If you work really hard, I think we can get you up to average.
All right, so that's one group.
But you'll also be dragged by systemic racism and the ghosts of the past.
But if you can work through all that, the system will help you get up to average.
You can be medium too.
Now the other group, be they white or black or Asian Americans, whatever, you say to them, all right, here's the deal.
We're going to teach you how to focus on the future.
Build a talent stack, and we're going to try to get you to excel.
You're the ones who are going to have the tools of success, and you're going to use these tools to be better than people who don't know how to do it.
You're going to go as high as you can possibly go.
Not everyone will reach the top, of course.
But you're going to outperform ordinary people who don't know how to do this kind of thing.
All right, then check back in a few years.
Which group is doing better?
Well, what if you get what you try to get?
The people who wanted equity achieved mediocrity just like they wanted.
The people who were learning to excel probably beat the average.
On average.
Who was happier?
All right.
Equity is for losers.
Every time you hear equity, you should say, you know, why are you shooting low?
Why would you shoot for medium?
Why wouldn't you shoot for black Americans excelling beyond the average of other groups?
Is that racist?
Would it be racist to say, look, black Americans, if you learn these tools of success, and the rest of the world doesn't, or at least any more than they already are, you can beat them, right?
You're already beating them in sports, fashion, music, You could beat them at everything if you use the right strategy.
It's just a strategy.
I think that would work, but equity is for losers.
That's like shooting for the middle.
All right.
And hypothetically, this is sort of impossible in the real world, but imagine if I specifically could train a generation of black Americans, young black Americans, The tools of success.
Systems over goals.
Don't get hung up on passion.
How to calculate the odds.
How to persuade people.
Just all the tools of success.
How to negotiate.
How to handle money.
Basic stuff.
If I did that for, let's say, five years, or let's say I educated a generation.
I did it every day.
How long would it take for black Americans to surpass the performance economically, economically?
How long would it take for the black Americans I trained to surpass white Americans especially, who did not have the same training?
Because poor white Americans also don't hear the tools for success.
It's something that high-income people are more likely to be around.
I think it would take one generation.
You still have to wait a generation.
Some people said five to ten years.
That might not be wrong.
That might not be wrong.
But, you know, the big drag on black America is education.
So that's got to be job one.
So Biden is such a lying guy.
That nobody can tell if he's got dementia or he's just making up stuff.
So he actually said in public that quote, MAGA Republicans are calling for defunding the police.
MAGA Republicans are calling for defunding the police.
The president of the United States, Joe Biden, said that in public and didn't seem to think he needed to correct it because it's literally the opposite of reality.
Do you think that's a lie or that he actually can't discern reality anymore?
Because it doesn't look like a lie anyone would tell.
Does it?
I mean, yeah, maybe it's just projection.
Maybe they project so much it's just automatic, even ridiculous projection.
I actually don't know on this one.
I can't tell lying or dementia.
Let's take a vote.
Lying or dementia.
Go.
Is he lying?
He knows it.
Or is it just dementia?
If it's both, then he doesn't know it.
But I'm saying, does the dementia cause it?
I'm not saying he has dementia, but he knows enough to lie.
I don't know.
Both?
Yeah, he could have both, but the cause of this specific lie isn't both.
It's one or the other.
I think.
Well, maybe it could be both.
I don't know.
Anyway, that's our mystery of the day.
All right, I found the best tweet ever about January 6th.
This comes from John Thompson, who tweets this.
January 6th, 2021.
A day that will live in hyperbole.
I'm just going to let that sit there for a minute.
A day that will live in hyperbole.
That's just like such a keeper, isn't it?
Like as soon as you hear that, like, okay, I'm going to use that.
That's a keeper.
It's a day that will live in hyperbole.
Don't you want Tucker Carlson to say that?
Tell me, don't you want Tucker to do a monologue and say, we're talking about January 6th, 2021, a day that we'll live in hyperbole.
So, you know, I don't, I don't think John Thompson would mind if his joke got stolen.
I'm giving him, I'm giving him credit here, but people would recognize it if, if somebody used his joke.
It's a good joke.
Well constructed.
There were two stories in the news today about hot grandmothers.
Are you noticing that there's a lot more stories about literally grandmothers who are unusually attractive?
One of them is model Polina Porzikova or whatever.
She's like 58, I think, and she did a shoot where she looks like 19.
From, let's say, the neck down, she looks 19.
I don't know what kind.
No, I'm talking about, well, I don't know if cosmetic surgery.
But even her torso, you know, looks like it's 19 years old.
So I don't know how you do that.
Probably a little bit of work.
A little bit of work.
But now, Representative Boebert is going to have a kid.
Or a grandkid.
She does not look old enough to have a grandkid, but I think she started early.
The whole idea of a grandparent, like, it doesn't look the same anymore, does it?
She's 36, somebody said.
Yeah, I knew a 36-year-old grandmother.
I've actually known a few of them.
I've known a few 36-year-old grandmothers.
Well, here's the biggest news that you won't understand because nobody could.
GPT-4 is about to come out in maybe a few weeks.
And reportedly it will have multi-modal flavors, I saw on one tweet.
In other words, it will do video.
Just think about that.
GPT-4 will be the AI upgrade from GPT-3 that is blowing everybody's mind.
My understanding is that version 4 won't be just a little bit better.
Is that what you're hearing?
It's not like, oh, this is going to be 25% better or something like that.
I feel like it's like a 10x or 100x, right?
It's like 10 or 100 times more powerful.
And the one we have is scary.
Now make it, I don't know what the number is, but make it way, way more powerful.
And then give it video, which it can manipulate to look like photorealistic things.
You could make a movie by talking into it, I think.
I mean, well, wait.
But I believe that I could take my book, God's Debris, and just read it, or it already knows it, because the book has been available for free on the internet for years.
So it might have seen it, because it's just there on the internet.
So if it read everything on the internet, maybe it read it.
So I could just say, hey, have you read God's Debris?
And then GPT-4 says, yes, I am familiar with it.
And I say, Can you make me a movie that will correspond to the scenes and then have the characters speak the dialogue?
Boop!
There it is.
I believe I can create a movie in 10 seconds.
I think that's going to be... And if it's not this version, and if it's not GPT-4, it might be two separate pieces of AI that you have to use.
But if you put the two of them together, I think you're going to make movies by just saying, read this book and make a movie out of it.
I think that's real.
Or read the script.
And we have no idea what's coming.
I saw a demonstration today.
Chris France tweeted this about another AI called Mid Journey.
And he showed four photographs and asked you if you could tell which of the four was the real one and which were generated by AI.
Now, it was a trick.
They were all generated by AI.
They look perfect.
I think one of the characters had four fingers, but if you didn't look closely, you wouldn't notice.
It's photorealistic now.
So the days of being able to know that what you're looking at is real are absolutely gone.
From this point on, and really earlier, if you believe that something's true because you saw a video or a photograph, It actually means nothing now.
It means nothing.
Because the fakes will look just like the real.
Speaking of that, there's a video on the internet of a Russian helicopter photographing a UFO while it flew near it and around it.
Now, would you be surprised to know that the photography is not really clear?
Interesting, huh?
Because apparently the Russian aircraft was at the same speed as the UFO, so it was like flying right next to it.
If you fly right next to something, and you take out your smartphone and go, click, and you're traveling at the same speed, so it's as if you're not moving at all, wouldn't you get a pretty good picture?
Don't you think you could get at least one good, clear picture?
And there's video.
Video especially.
At least some point of it should be in focus.
But no.
But no.
Somehow it's not clear.
And here's the funniest thing.
It's shaped like a flying disc.
Like a flying disc.
That's a little too on the nose.
Flying disc from Russia.
Sorry Russia.
Nice try.
But we're not buying that UFO.
Alright.
Here's more evidence that I might be sensationally right about something that you believe I'm sensationally wrong about.
And before we talk about Ukraine, I'll give my Disclaimer, no, I don't believe any reporting about Ukraine.
No, I don't believe the narrative that Ukraine is about to win.
It looks like it, sometimes.
Sometimes it looks the other way.
But no, you can't tell who's going to win.
You can't tell how it's going to go.
So the next thing I say is under the umbrella of, we don't know what's going on over there.
It's just something fun to talk about.
I say it twice.
Because sometimes you don't hear it the first time.
That's why.
So here's a new reporting from CNN.
The Wagner group is complaining viciously that they can't even get a phone call through to the Kremlin because they keep asking for ammo because they're running out of ammo.
The most important fighting group, the Wagner group.
And Russia is not even answering their calls anymore.
At the same time, the Russian army says, hey, they're giving all of our ammo to the Wagner group.
Now, CNN's reporting had actual soldiers from Russia saying they don't have ammo.
The Wagner Group is getting it.
They have the head of the Wagner Group, his own quotes, publicly, saying that he can't get any ammo because it's going somewhere.
Now, with those two stories together, would you conclude that Russia is running out of ammo?
Yes or no?
Given that we can't believe anything, can't believe anything, but would you conclude they're running out of ammo?
Yeah, I would say it's too soon.
Wouldn't you agree?
Too soon?
I think it's too soon because, first of all, all the reporting is hard to believe.
But also, there could be a strategic reason.
They could be stockpiling it for a big push.
That's possible.
And this isn't yet the big push.
They could be withholding it so the Wagner Group doesn't go further.
Right?
They might want their army to just be holding until they're ready for like a really big push.
But if you add it with yesterday's story, that they were using their so-called best missiles, and lots of them, that kind of suggests they're running out of regular stuff.
Sort of.
I mean, not necessarily.
But at this point, all signs are pointing toward running out of ammo.
Now, as I've told you before, You don't have to get to zero ammo before everything falls apart.
Am I right?
You don't have to run out before everything falls apart.
You just have to be not enough.
And then you're going to retreat instead of fight.
Because you don't have enough.
If you don't have enough ammo, the smartest thing to do is retreat.
Right?
Am I wrong about that?
You know, if you don't have any other kind of advantage.
Because you want to wait until you have ammo.
So you preserve your forces, wait till you have ammo, and then make another push.
So I believe you could have a complete systems failure with just an ammo shortage not running out.
And I don't know what that shortage is.
It could be not much.
Imagine if 10% of your forces didn't have ammo.
Or everybody had ammo, but nobody had enough to get through a conflict.
The degree that you would have to restrict the MO probably is not as much as you think before the whole thing falls apart.
Now remember my other conspiracy theory hypothesis?
You should put no weight behind this idea because it's purely speculative.
My belief is that the Wagner group head is getting too important and he has to be taken out by Putin.
And the best way to take him out is to let him die or let his forces get degraded before Putin negotiates for peace.
Because the last thing he wants is this souped up, fully armed Wagner group to be sort of repatriated from the war into the country.
And now there's like a standing army that doesn't report to Putin, you know, not directly.
And they might be pissed at the Russian government for who knows what.
Everything, basically.
So I think Putin might need to have to take the Wagner Group out before he can negotiate peace.
So I think he's grinding up the Wagner Group, so it looks like Russia has an offense, but making sure they don't win too hard.
Because that's not even going to help him.
Winning a little extra isn't going to help him a lot, because I think he wants to negotiate his way out.
So, speculation.
Speculation.
I wouldn't put a bet on it, but it looks to me like there's two things going on.
They're literally running out of ammo, but on top of that, not running out, but they're running low.
And then on top of that, I think Putin's trying to take the Wagner group out, because he has to.
I'll just put that out there for fun.
See what happens.
Here's a spotting of systems being better than goals out in the wild.
So I saw a tweet from Twitter user Brent Orrell who said, the most dangerous career move anyone can make is pursuing education and training strictly on the basis of an economic future that is unknowable and therefore almost completely imaginary.
What do you think?
Given that the future is super unpredictable at the moment, should you get educated?
Because your education, you don't know if it'd be useful.
Well, a writer who does some articles for the Washington Examiner and books and stuff, Tim Carney, said this.
He said, amateurs think chess masters are planning eight moves ahead.
Chess masters know that's impossible.
They're thinking about two moves ahead and asking, quote, how can I put myself in the best position for whatever the heck might come my way?
Now you recognize that as systems thinking, right?
A system is, you don't know where it's going to end up, but you know if you put this piece in this part of the board, it will sort of control an area.
So the chess player is playing a system.
Obviously, there's a goal of winning the game, but that's trivial.
I mean, it's obvious.
But the system is not to plan eight in advance.
The system is to control territory and that sort of thing.
So what about that in your life?
So this is what I tell you, is that you should develop a talent stack that can give you all kinds of options.
You want to develop the kinds of skills that would work in every environment.
For example, good communication will work in every environment.
Being good at dealing with people and negotiating, probably work in 90% of environments.
So there are a whole bunch of things that work in any environment.
And so you want a system to be as flexible as possible, not a system that prepares you for exactly one thing.
Although if you're, you know, learning to be a doctor that probably makes sense.
There was a Wall Street Journal had a really interesting article of something I never would have thought about, that China is having a cousin and uncle shortage.
Isn't that weird?
So in traditional Chinese culture, you've got big families, and the family is your support structure, more so than even the government.
So if you've got this big extended family, one of the advantages is you're more mobile.
Because, for example, when I moved to California, I probably would not have, except my brother was already here.
So if you have a family member who is already in America, for example, It's a lot easier to move to America, just having that family structure.
But because of the population bomb that's happening in China, where there's just fewer and fewer babies, families are also getting smaller.
Not only do you have fewer babies or no babies, But your cousin didn't have a baby either.
So now your family support structure is shrinking, and that would have, in theory, an enormous impact on China's resilience and economy.
I'd never thought of that.
The only reason I bring it up is that it's one of those things that could be a big thing that I've literally never thought about.
But it also could get solved easily by workarounds, etc.
So just keep an eye on that.
All right.
The Academy Awards has hired a crisis team to keep Chris Rock from getting slapped again, I guess.
No, not Chris Rock, but just keep any trouble.
Now, here's where our system goes wrong every time.
All right, so Chris Rock gets slapped.
One time in the history of anything, there was a problem.
One time.
But, you're the Academy Awards, can you act as if you're not going to do anything about it?
Now I guess they, you know, maybe kicked Will Smith out of their Academy or something, or he quit, I don't know.
So they could do something like little symbolic things.
But it feels like if you're in charge, you've got to show you're doing something, like something physical, or you're making a change.
So imagine some group comes in and pitches to the Academy Award people, hey, you had a problem.
This is bad PR, because people think, my god, you haven't done anything about it.
You could hire my company, and we'll put in this crisis management team, and they'll be basically guarding people from getting on stage, just guarding people.
So what happens is, how can the Academy Awards say no to somebody offering physical guards to solve the problem that maybe people think is a real problem but really just happened once?
So as soon as this stuff starts getting monetized, then this company is the crisis group for just the Academy Awards.
Do you think that group would say, hey, let's talk to the Golden Globes people?
They have the same problem?
Of course they would.
Then pretty soon, every event would have to hire a crisis management group.
The way our free market works is amazing and stupid at the same time.
Because people will sell whatever anybody can buy, and sometimes what people want to buy is completely irrational.
So keep in mind when you're seeing things like ESG and CRT and DEI, there's somebody like this hypothetical crisis management group who's selling a package of services, and that's why it's a thing.
It's not a thing because a whole bunch of people thought it was a good idea.
Even though they did.
Even though they did.
It's a thing because somebody's selling it.
And as soon as somebody's selling it, and then it becomes a fixture of our reality, then everything's distorted and terrible.
So it's just an example of how once we monetize hate, you get more hate.
There's just no way around it.
So social media monetizes hate.
Because you get more clicks for hate.
Now, yeah, so you're going to get what you monetize.
I'm having the feeling that all of the human society needs to be re-engineered, like almost start from scratch.
Now, I would agree with you that, you know, the classic family structure would be the best, but I don't see any way to force people into it, or even incentivize them.
You know, you could change the financial incentives, but I feel like the horse has left the barn.
Meaning people just don't want to be married in large numbers.
They just don't want it.
And I kind of understand.
I tried it a few times.
I get it.
I get it.
But here's some indications that all of society is falling apart, right?
Teens who meet up with their friends, I saw this Rex Woodbury tweeted it, teens who meet up with their friends almost every day is down from 50% in the 90s to 25% today.
That's a crisis.
Half of teens used to hang out with friends every day.
Now it's only 25%.
Human contact keeps us healthy.
This is a health crisis.
And then you add the mental health crisis, the fentanyl crisis.
Kids have more than ever, I think.
And of course, this effect happened at the same time that smartphones were introduced, of course.
And then the other things that smartphones have caused, I want to see if this is a gender... Let's see, is this a gender reality or a gender sexism?
Sexism or reality?
Am I sexist or reality?
True or false?
If a husband texts his wife and she does not respond for a few hours, he might not like it, but it wouldn't be a problem.
Am I right?
You wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't be a problem.
If the wife texts the husband and he doesn't respond in 15 minutes, is it a fight?
Probably.
See, even the most basic interactions of male and female, now some of you are disagreeing, but it's sort of a thing I think we've all noticed.
Even the basic interactions between men and women is being ruined by phones.
I can't walk into another room without my phone, without worrying that somebody's going to call in an emergency.
I don't know what kind of calls you get, but if I get a call, It's somebody who's standing in line somewhere, and they need an immediate answer because they're actually in line.
And if they get to the front of the line, and it's only two people, they can't do the thing that they wanted to do, and you'll be sorry.
All of my calls are an emergency.
I've got somebody standing here right now, and I can't do the thing, or your roof is leaking.
I mean, it's all emergencies.
So I never can get a minute away from my phone.
But I don't think it works the other way.
All right.
I'm going to give you a different filter on the World Economic Forum that I call the Dilbert filter.
There's a filter which is the World Economic Forum wants to change the Great Reset and change everything.
And let's say that that's a valid theory.
Let's say that's a theory.
I'm going to offer you a second explanation.
And I want you to compare it to your current thinking about the WEF's master plan to change the economy and take away all your stuff.
So this comes from Naomi Klein, and it was in The Intercept in 2020.
I hadn't seen it until now.
But she says, I'll just read one of her sentences, Great Reset is not a serious effort to actually solve the crises it describes.
On the contrary, it is an attempt to create a plausible impression that the huge winners in this system, in other words, rich people, are on the verge of voluntarily setting greed aside to get serious about solving the raging crises that are radically destabilizing our world.
I'm sorry, I don't care what any of you believe about the World Economic Forum.
Once you see this frame, it's so obvious that's what's happening.
No, of course they don't mean any of this stuff.
Of course they don't mean it.
No, the whole thing is to make you think they mean it.
They don't do anything.
All they do is bring all the rich people together and say, you know, these rich people don't even want to make money.
They don't even care about money.
Let me tell you, the rich people in this room, these are the ones who want to solve climate change for you, no matter how much it costs them.
Even if they have to give up their Maseratis, they're going to work for your benefit by joining a meeting and talking.
And you might say, but what if they changed?
To which I say, well, they certainly have proposed things.
I know, but what's actually happened?
Well, have you seen the 10-point plan?
I know, but what's actually different because of the World Economic Forum?
Well, have you noticed that the things they're recommending are part of the trend?
Yeah, but that doesn't mean they did anything.
This is my current belief about the World Economic Forum.
It's a Dilbert situation.
Where rich people are just covering their asses and creating this, basically, effectively it's a human PowerPoint presentation that says they're doing the right things, but they're not doing the right things.
They're not doing the right things.
The other possibility is that they mean all this crazy bullshit that you think they really mean.
I'm sorry.
If you believe that they believe and plan to do any of that crazy bullshit that you've heard about, it's all signaling.
That's my current belief.
Now, that doesn't mean that's what they're thinking.
Just to be clear.
That doesn't mean that, you know, when Jamie Dimon goes there or whoever, it doesn't mean he's thinking, alright, I gotta go do the theater, none of this is gonna happen, I don't want it to happen, just gonna go do the theater.
I doubt it's that simple.
It's just everybody knowing what's in their interest.
This is the George Carlin explanation.
You don't need a conspiracy when everyone knows what they need to do.
They all know what they need to do.
The World Economic Forum doesn't invite stupid people unless they're celebrities.
Am I right?
So it's basically brilliant business people and leaders and fucking idiots, celebrities, so that you'll think, oh, they agree with those celebrities.
It looks like it's a whole bunch of people that even celebrities are on board with this.
I think all the rich people are like, oh, cool, we get to go someplace and meet some celebrities and get out of town and go skiing.
And when we get back, we can say we're working on the big problems of reality, when nothing like that's happening.
It's kind of brilliant.
All right.
I watched in horror as Representative Sylvia Garcia, Democrat from Texas, tried to embarrass Matt Taibbi and Michael Schellenberger tried to embarrass Matt Taibbi and Michael Schellenberger at this congressional hearing.
And I'm not even going to give you the details of the ridiculous question she asked.
I'm just going to tell you that I've never seen two people react more perfectly To that level of bullshit.
The normal way to react when somebody said to you, you're in public and you're being grilled, is you either get the button-down approach like, yes, Representative, I understand what you're saying, but my reasoning is this.
And that's never really good, because it's just somebody acting reasonable and then somebody slapping them over and over again.
The other way is to react angrily.
No!
No, you're lying!
We did not say that, or that did not happen, or you're exaggerating.
Right?
And that can make you look bad too.
I mean, you could win that way, but I guess you'll die.
But what Taibi and Schellenberger did was just the best.
They just couldn't keep the smiles off their face, which was clearly signaling, oh my fucking God, you see this too, right?
Right?
The look on their face was to the audience.
You see this too, don't you?
Oh, it was perfect.
It was just perfect.
Now, I don't think they planned it.
I think it was just spontaneous.
I think they were actually amused.
Like, they didn't look like they were acting.
I think they were about to break out laughing because the Democrat was looking so stupid at that moment.
So that was kind of perfect.
All right.
I loved watching Anderson Cooper interview Adam Schiff.
So he had the three faces on screen and the three boxes.
So Adam Schiff was on the left and Anderson Cooper in the middle, interviewing.
And Adam Kinzinger was there.
And Adam Schiff was trying to... See?
I can't even talk about Adam Schiff without laughing.
Because it's just so not serious anymore.
Like, Adam Schiff is just like the worse than Watergate guy.
You know, once you've ascended to pure comedy.
So he gets on there and he says that Tucker Carlson is trying to gaslight the country by showing actual footage of what happened.
And I get it, that video footage can be misleading, as was the January 6th video footage.
But it's a little disingenuous to be complaining that the very thing you just did is being done by the other side.
Like we don't notice.
Like nobody noticed that the entire context is that Tucker Carlson only has that video because you did this thing in front of the world in the biggest possible way, which is distorting the story by selective edits.
And the balls of this guy to accuse the other side of what he's literally the most famous practitioner of is it's just like a comedy act.
Now some of you say he's projecting.
The Tucker Carlson thing.
They always blame you of the thing they're doing.
But it's a perfect example.
Now what I loved about the story is not what Schiff said.
It's Anderson Cooper's face as he listens to Schiff essentially defending CNN at the same time.
Not intentionally.
But keep in mind that CNN had reported the January 6th event like it was real.
Think about that.
CNN covered the January 6th, the committee, like it was all real.
And now it's very clear that the thing was closer to a hoax, which I've said from the beginning.
So CNN really can't hide from the fact that they covered the story as real, and it's now pretty obvious Some portion of it was just pure hoax.
Would you agree with that?
Do you agree with that statement?
That it's now obvious that the January 6th committee was just an operation?
And they reported it as real the entire time?
Now isn't that embarrassing if you're them?
Right?
Is that any... Yeah, I would think that's embarrassing.
So Anderson Cooper's in the middle and What I tweeted was, I can't read minds, but Anderson Cooper's face suggests he's not pleased with the liars that turned CNN into the dumbest fly on turd mountain.
And the only reason I'm telling you this story is that I'm so proud of that phrase, the dumbest fly on turd mountain.
I welcome you to borrow it.
And I'm going to give you full copyright to that phrase.
And here's the best part.
Don't give me credit if you use it.
Right?
Like if you're talking to your relatives or something, you know they don't follow.
Just act like you made that one up.
You have my approval to attribute it to your own good thinking.
All right?
It's yours.
I release it to you.
Just stay there.
But you have to sell it.
You got to sell it like you just came up with it.
I'll tell you.
That Adam Schiff.
He's making CNN look like the dumbest fly on Turd Mountain.
And try to sell it like it's always been a saying.
Yeah.
Try to make it look like... Oh, you haven't heard that one?
Oh yeah, that's... Yeah.
You don't want to be the dumbest fly on Turd Mountain.
My grandfather used to say that.
Not really, but you can tell people.
You don't want to die on Turd Hill.
Well, there's an upgrade.
You know how people always say, don't die on that hill?
I think it's more effective if you say, "Well, if I were you, I wouldn't die on Turd Hill." Then I saw Adam Schiff appearing on MSNB show with Lawrence, Lawrence, whatever his name is.
He's got his own show.
I remember he doesn't like hammering.
Lawrence somebody.
And then Schiff was saying that Fox News is only acting because they care about the money and the ratings.
So he was on MSNBC, whose ratings are in the toilet, reminding them that they shouldn't care so much about ratings.
Has any Democrat ever given good advice?
Do not get your economic advice from a Democrat.
So Adam Schiff telling a struggling network with falling ratings that they shouldn't worry so much about the ratings and the money.
You know what MSNBC should be struggling for?
Equity.
Equity, yeah.
Yeah, I think CNN and MSNBC, they should be trying to achieve equity in the news business, while Fox News is trying to be the best in the business, and we'll lap them and destroy them.
But, hey, equity.
And the only reason I bring that up is to make fun of the fact that I don't know who Lawrence Lawrence O'Donnell?
Okay, I didn't know his name.
That was really my main point.
And Schiff is trying to get advertisers to stop advertising on Fox News.
The only people who advertise on Fox News are pharmaceutical companies and shit that got cancelled.
And some charity stuff.
Usually something about veterans.
Like, could Fox News have any fewer advertisement options than they have?
Yeah, they've got Cancelled Mike Pillow guy.
Bunch of pharmaceuticals that maybe they shouldn't have.
Although I haven't seen as many lately.
I haven't seen as many pharmaceutical ads.
And maybe there's a reason for that.
Yeah, St.
Jude's.
So it's either charity or somebody cancelled It's not like Fox News has a lot of options.
All right.
This might feel like a repeat, but it looks like Trump's about to be indicted.
Should I even read this story?
All right, this is the best one yet.
So this is in the genre of the walls are closing in.
We got him this time.
We got him this time.
Yeah, finally.
And let me describe how the news tries to deal with this as a real story.
They want to sell this as something that's real.
So what's happening is that New York, I guess Manhattan prosecutor attorney Alvin Bragg, he's notifying attorneys, I heard this in the New York Post, that That the commander, the ex-commander-in-chief, Trump, is going to be asked to defend himself in front of a grand jury hearing.
Now people in the know say that if you're asked to defend yourself in front of a grand jury, it's indication that it's sort of the last step before they indict.
So the signal is very clear that the intention is to indict.
So how strong is this claim?
Let's see, it involves Stormy Daniels payments.
They think Trump will decline the offer.
And it's unclear what charges Bragg intends to bring against Trump.
But the report notes, this is from the New York Post, the report notes that prosecutors could accuse the former president of falsifying business records.
That'll put him away forever, won't it?
Falsifying some business records.
Not tax records, but just some business records.
Falsifying some business records.
And then they could, here's the good part, they could elevate that charge to a felony, because otherwise, you know, it's not going to keep them out of office or anything.
But they could elevate it to a felony by arguing that it was attached to a second crime.
What?
So apparently, if you do something that's not too important, but they can attach it to another thing that's not important, the two other things that are not that important can be conflated into a felony charge.
They're literally coming up with imaginary crimes.
That is an imaginary crime.
If you have to take two non-crimes and add them together and argue there's a connection, and then when you connect them, the two are greater than the sum of the parts?
Now, I get that, you know, that could look like a Rico thing.
Like a Rico thing is a whole bunch of things that suggest it's all connected and stuff.
So, I don't know.
To me, well, I'm just going to go with the mainstream.
The walls are closing in.
They got them this time.
Once they conflate those two small things into a big felony, the jury is likely to go for that.
It does not seem even slightly dangerous.
And imagine that Trump, imagine this is the last thing he has left.
It could be like the last legal thing and it would mean that all of them were nothing.
They were either trivial or just absolutely made up or nothing.
So the New York Post also reports that privately DeSantis says he's in the race.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that DeSantis has definitely already decided, he's already created a structure, and he's just waiting for May to announce?
It's believable, it's believable, but I feel like there was something else I would need to know.
And I think what I would need to know is, what is his thinking about Trump?
Could it be that he's preparing without spending too much money or time, Could he be preparing in case Trump doesn't run?
Let's say he gets some legal problems or something else.
Maybe Trump has a health problem.
You know, anything could happen between now and May.
Is it possible he's just getting ready in case?
And that his intention to run is conditional on what Trump does?
Because I could see that easily being confused as an intention to run when it might be a conditional intention to run.
As in, if this happens and if this happens, I'll run.
It's always conditional.
I guess in reality, everything's conditional.
You can change your mind at any time.
But does that sound right?
Does it sound like it might be conditional?
And maybe he sees how he polls or something before he makes a decision.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, I would... Do you think the world is better if DeSantis gets in and pushes Trump?
Because I love the fact that Vivek Ramaswamy's in the race.
Because he's definitely made the primary better.
He's already made Republicans better Republicans, I think.
Yeah.
Well, we'll see.
It'll be interesting.
I guess I'd like to see him get in, just because I like competition.
Tim Poole had Kash Patel on his show.
He gives two reasons to suspect that Ray Epps was a Fed working on January 6th for the Feds.
Here is two reasons.
One of them is one I gave you.
First, he says that Ray Epps was on FBI's most wanted list for one day and the next day he was off.
There are only two ways that happens.
You die or you become an informant.
Now remember, Kash Patel was a prosecutor.
So he's worked sources.
So when he says there's only one, you know, there's only one way or two ways you can get off the FBI's most wanted list, he's not guessing.
He's not guessing.
There's only two ways.
I mean, maybe there's some weird third way.
And then the other point is the one I gave when the representative from the FBI, I forget which one, was asked by Ted Cruz, under oath, Were there any FBI agents involved in January 6th?
She refused to answer.
And as Cash points out, and I pointed out when it happened, if the answer was no, you would not say we don't talk about that stuff.
Am I right?
If the answer is just no, you say no.
Because you wouldn't be giving up any secrets, and you would resolve the matter, or you'd be closer to resolving it right there.
I don't see any way that Ray Epps wasn't up to something with the government.
I don't know what.
It doesn't necessarily mean that he was hired to cause the riot.
It could be that he just wanted to do it anyway.
But it could mean that they were going to ask him for information about it or it would help him infiltrate more MAGA organizations or something.
So it's possible that he was working for the Feds but not in some assertive way that caused the violence to happen.
Maybe he was just there to watch and observe, and they're trying to work with him to make him more of a source in the future, maybe.
I don't know.
So there is some room for Ray Epps could be working for the Feds.
I don't want him to sue me, so I'll just say allegedly.
And it's still not being what you think.
Is that a possibility?
Is it a possibility that he was totally working for the government?
But that it wasn't a big deal.
It was just one of the many people they're trying to turn into informants.
Yeah.
Anything's possible.
That's right.
So DeSantis is picking up free money again, as I often say.
He will do the thing that, when he does it, you wonder why everybody else didn't do it first.
Have you noticed that quality about DeSantis?
He's really good at it.
Like, consistently.
Here's the next one.
This is just free money.
Best tennis player in the world, I think, still, Novak Djokovic, is not allowed in the country for the Miami Open, which is a huge event in the country, much less, or even much more for Florida, because he's not vaccinated.
It's 2023.
The healthiest man in the world can't come into the country because he's not vaccinated.
He might be the healthiest person in the world, if you've ever seen him train and play.
I mean, he's in really good shape.
So, DeSantis, somehow cleverly realizing that this ban was about airline travel, he asked the Biden administration to confirm that Djokovic would be let into Florida if he came by boat.
Because apparently you can come by boat, but not airline.
What?
What?
Are you kidding me?
That's a real thing?
That's a real thing?
And the government hasn't moved to fix it.
So the government should either make the boats require the vaccination, or Make the airlines not, but it's just absurd to have the difference.
So apparently, DeSantis wants to make a boat available.
Now, what do you do about that except standing ovation?
Am I wrong?
I mean, that's just standing ovation and stuff.
Yeah, that's...
That's...
There is just no other reaction to that.
You just can't react any other way.
Standing ovation.
That's it.
And he just keeps doing that.
Alright.
War on the cartels.
So more, I guess, Lindsey Graham and Senator John Kennedy are putting through some legislation to make the cartels terrorist organizations, which would unleash the military upon them.
I believe Ted Cruz is more in favor of financial actions.
What do you think would be the best play?
Financial only?
Plus whatever else we're doing.
Financial only or direct military action?
Both?
Yeah, I'm going to say both because that's what it took to beat ISIS.
Am I right?
ISIS was a military plus financial.
And Trump did seem to succeed in defeating ISIS.
It does look like it.
It looks like it to me.
So I don't know what will happen.
But I love the fact that the cartel that kidnapped and then killed two Americans, I love the fact that they apologized.
That really happened, right?
So if you have a cartel apologizing to the United States, that only means one thing.
They do not, do not want the military to get involved.
Do not.
Very much do not.
Now what does that tell you?
I'll tell you what it tells me.
President Trump would solve this in an afternoon.
Do you know why?
Because once you know they're afraid of the military, you negotiate with them directly.
Imagine Trump talking to the heads of the cartels, because I think he could get a call.
I think Trump could actually get the heads of the cartel on the phone.
Don't you?
I mean, if they thought they could do it without getting caught, I think so.
And I think he can say directly, we're going to fuck up your shit and it's going to happen fast.
If you want to get out of the death ray that's coming your way and you can't get out of it, the only thing you can do is negotiate.
And that negotiation means you stop sending stuff to us.
Maybe we help you turn your operation into something positive.
For example, would it be crazy to say to the head, whoever the leaders of the cartels are, look, we're very impressed with your organizational skills.
We're also going to kill you in a week.
But if you'd like, Mexico needs a lot of industry, and if you'd like to do what American robber barons did in this country, which is you start by doing some really sketchy illegal shit, become a robber baron, and then you try to move your operation into legal businesses, like Crocker.
You know, he was one of the guys with the Transcontinental Railroad.
Those guys were all just bastards and, you know, they were just the worst people in the world, by today's standards, of course.
Even then, by their standards.
They were just horrible people.
Terrible crooks.
When they got rich, the thing they needed more than anything is to make their, let's say their kids and their kids' kids, not live under the yoke of some criminal organization.
So I believe that Trump could actually repatriate, not repatriate, I keep using that word, I think he could actually talk Some of the cartels into taking a better offer because the other offer is dead and there's no negotiating on that.
You either take the offer or you're dead in a week.
I think Trump could get that done.
Now, he might not be the only one who can get it done, but I think he'd be the best.
I think he'd be the best.
You know, I think the others maybe could do it too.
You know, the story about Fauci, you've probably noticed I've talked less about Fauci than anybody who does what I do, you know, talking about the news.
You probably wondered about that.
Why don't you talk about Fauci more?
We hate Fauci.
Help us hate Fauci some more.
Well, one of the reasons I don't is that I'm very reluctant to go after individuals.
Right.
I'd rather talk about, you know, unless they're president, that's different.
But I don't like to go after individuals unless I have really solid, something solid.
It just feels like a dick move to go after an individual.
Because the news is always so wrong that whatever you're accusing somebody of is like, what are the odds it's even true?
Look at the number of people who came after me in the past couple weeks.
How many of them actually knew the story?
The ones who came after me hard.
Almost none.
Almost none.
So why do I think, this is the Gell-Mann effect, why do I think that the reporting on Fauci is accurate?
I've seen what the reporting on me is.
I know what that looks like, don't I?
But why do you think Fauci's is accurate?
That would be the most ridiculous assumption, that the reporting on Fauci is accurate.
That would be ridiculous.
Because it's never accurate.
When you talk about public figures, it just never is.
It just isn't.
You know, there's nothing you can do about that.
So that's why I hold off with people like Fauci.
I heard, you know, horrible damning things which didn't seem totally credible to me.
But our current understanding, and I'll say this is all allegations and what other people believe, is that Fauci indirectly funded gain of function in Wuhan.
Then when it got out, he redirected attention away from the lab.
And then he became the leading figure in fixing the pandemic that if this reporting is true, he caused.
Not by himself, of course, but he would be a primary cause.
Did this really happen?
This whole story is too on the nose.
Right?
It looks like it happened.
It looks like that narrative might survive a challenge.
It might.
But that is just too like a book.
What are the odds that the one guy who funded it is the highest paid person in the government who became a superstar for trying to defeat the virus that he created, allegedly, with indirect funding to the lab?
Isn't that, just on the surface, doesn't that strike you as just too, it's a little too neat?
You're saying it happened and I'm not even disagreeing.
Because I don't know.
But that would be the weirdest simulation story of all time.
If he caused it and then he was in charge of fixing it.
And then we didn't find out.
And how much money do you think Fauci's made?
We have no indications, but we also don't know what stock he holds.
Right?
Do we know what stock he holds?
I don't believe he has to report that.
If I had to guess, and this would be just a guess, Probably $80 million he made during the pandemic, if I had to guess.
Just based on, he probably, you know, over the years he's probably collected a lot of stock in companies that would make money in a pandemic.
Patents maybe, yeah.
I don't know, did he have an interest in Remdesivir?
Did somebody say some kind of interest in the company that does Remdesivir?
I don't know about that.
So I'll say that I'm not going to make any accusations about financial gain, because I don't have details.
But if I had to guess-- and this isn't even about Fauci-- If you just take Fauci out of it and say, somebody is a million years old and they've been the central person working for big pharma in the virus area for all those years.
Does he own a substantial stock?
Remember, he was the highest paid government employee, so he had presumably investable funds.
But he also probably had some connections where he would get some stock from, I don't know, startups and stuff.
He probably had Let's say $10 million of Pharma stock before it all started.
I don't know if that's true.
I'm just speculating.
If he had $10 million, it probably went to $80 million.
Because everything went through the roof.
So he might have made, I don't know, $20, $80 million during the pandemic.
That wouldn't surprise me.
Would you be surprised if he had a $10 million portfolio and a lot of it was in Pharma?
Maybe because he does speeches or worked with people who got stuck.
You don't know.
He's been around for a long time.
Well, I'm going to say I'm not totally believing all the stories about Fauci, but if it is what it looks exactly like it is, that's pretty alarming.
That's pretty alarming.
It might be.
It might be exactly what it looks like.
All right.
This, ladies and gentlemen, was Almost the end of my live stream.
Let me tell you, just before I got on, I jumped on a Spaces call, and there were a number of black Americans talking, and when they saw me on there, they invited me up and asked me to explain my comments.
And how do you think it went when they asked me to explain my comments?
Were they receptive?
It went very well.
I'm actually considering re-identifying as black.
Because black Americans have come out of, you know, my little drama for the last couple of weeks, black Americans have come out of this really well.
Like, in my opinion.
Their reaction to it, sometimes horrified, but they would be horrified and then ask questions.
Like, what did he mean?
Why did he do it?
That's perfect.
That's perfect.
Because I was being hyperbolic to get people horrified.
They were.
But instead of cancelling me, in fact, the first thing the host said was that it was the white people that cancelled me.
And I agree with that.
Yes.
Yes.
Absolutely.
Black people haven't cancelled me from anything.
Not a single thing.
They mostly say, that's very alarming, what are you talking about?
Exactly what I wanted.
White people just had to signal, so they were kind of useless to this.
But then, I had just enough time to tell them the entire purpose was to attract energy to a point, which is if you have people who are looking backwards with their strategy, such as CRT, that's a backwards look, and you compare them to people who have a forward-looking strategy for life, Get a talent stack together, systems over goals, all that stuff, that you just can't compare how successful one group would be to the other.
So that was the message I wanted to get through.
The systemic racism is real, but you can slice through it if you focus on the tools for personal success, which would include strategy for getting through systemic racism.
And I think I penetrated a bubble.
Because these are things that I've wanted to say for a while, but I was just preaching to people who largely already agree with those things.
But this was the first time I got invited into what I would consider definitely not my bubble.
I think a number of them maybe leaned right, but it was definitely sort of a black-centric group, and I don't normally get invited to that.
So, my original intention was to Put a message that I think is really useful, focus on personal success, and try to penetrate as many bubbles as I can.
Now this is a very small, small success, but I definitely got a useful, high ground, totally practical set of ideas into a bubble where it wouldn't have been.
I think that's good.
It's a small move, but so far my plan is working weirdly well.
Better than I expected.
And beyond that, I seem to be invited everywhere.
I'm invited everywhere.
Remember Fox News seemed to be ignoring my story for a while?
I have been invited by Hannity.
Hannity invited me.
But I didn't want to do that yet, because that would look too much like people who agree with me.
Because I think he would do what everybody would do.
Condemn me for what I said, and I even condemned myself for it.
I said it to get a reaction.
So you can't criticize me for doing the thing that I wanted to do that worked really well.
I'm not going to apologize for doing a thing I wanted to do that works really well for the people who got offended.
No, I'm not going to apologize for that.
But Larry Elder also invited me on his show.
And what do you think of that?
Should I do Larry Elder?
So it's the same problem.
He's going to agree with me.
I saw an article he wrote in Real Clear Politics.
So I know he's going to be philosophically on the same side.
And he would identify as a conservative.
But I feel like I'm not getting the invitations I want from the left.
Do you know why the left is not inviting me?
Do you know why the left is not inviting me?
You know.
Yeah, they're afraid.
It's literally fear.
You saw what happened when Russell Brand went on MSNBC.
He was on the Bill Maher show with the MSNBC guy.
You don't want somebody to bring a wildly different idea into your bubble if it could destroy your bubble.
I'm kind of a bubble breaker in the worst case scenario.
I'm just dangerous.
At this point, I'm literally dangerous.
Wouldn't you agree?
I've made myself literally dangerous to the prevailing narrative because I'm now impossible to ignore.
I'm impossible to ignore.
And I have a message that's a high ground message, meaning as soon as you hear it, you say, OK, that was better than what we were doing.
Nobody is going to argue that focusing on personal success for young black people is a good strategy.
Nobody.
They will only say, but also other things need to be done.
And then I'll say, how is that working out?
How are those other things working out?
A lot less systemic racism this year than last?
None of it's working.
I can agree with all that stuff being important, but nobody's doing anything about it.
So instead, you need to fortify the individual.
So the individual is invulnerable to the worst parts of systemic racism.
You just slice right through them, like... How do you slice through them?
Like a... You'll slice through systemic racism, if you have the right tools, like a...
Hot rod through butter, that's correct.
Like a hot rod through butter.
All right, so my plan is working out swimmingly well.
Let me ask the people who are less familiar with me, because there are always a few, over on YouTube especially.
So, YouTubers, have you ever seen me influence, beyond the race question, have you ever seen me influence a national event in a positive way?
So just look at the comments.
Have I ever influenced a national event in a positive way?
So those of you who are not familiar with what I've been doing for the last five years, look at the answers.
Now you can ignore the no's because that just means they're not familiar.
The yes's are telling you everything you need to know.
You wouldn't have that many yes's unless people noticed.
There's a real thing that's happening.
that I'm part of.
The local group is part of it, and now you're part of it.
Which is, anybody who boosts my signal is doing something good.
Now, not the hyperbolic symbol.
Don't boost my hyperbole.
But boost my reframe.
And the reframe is, work on your individual success skills, and you will do fine.
