Episode 2138 Scott Adams: Trump Arraigned, Burisma Biden Recordings, Hypnosis Class Lessons Learned
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Trump Arraignment
Burisma Biden recordings
What causes obesity
Things I learned in hypnosis class
The Newsom strategy
New Beatles song
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 and congratulations to making it to the best show in the history of civilization and all shows anywhere, ever.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and it's the best thing ever.
And if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that no one's ever seen before, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of gels, a sign, the 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.
Dopamine, you know the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
And good morning to all you clankers.
Welcome all clankers.
Well, I don't know if you noticed, but the other day Elon Musk Tweeted that he was looking for a vice president of witchcraft and propaganda.
Witchcraft and propaganda.
So I replied to it, and I said, I need to know if there's a commute.
Because I feel like I'm perfect.
When you think witchcraft and propaganda, what What image pops into your mind first?
It's me, right?
It's me.
Witchcraft and propaganda.
I'm all about it.
And I think I'd be perfect for the job, except I don't want to commute.
Does anybody know if Elon Musk minds if I work remotely?
Well, luckily for me, I know he does mind, but that's the first thing I'll change.
Let me put it this way.
If you were applying for the job of Vice President of Witchcraft and Propaganda, and the first thing that came up is you can't work remotely, if I couldn't change his mind on working remotely, what kind of Vice President of Witchcraft and Propaganda would I be?
It's the first thing I'd do.
And then after I changed his mind on that, he'd say, my God, I never thought I'd change my mind on that.
You must be the best vice president of witchcraft and propaganda ever.
And then I would get the job.
And then I would ask for a raise because I would feel like I was already being put upon.
That's just how I am.
Well, Amazon is rumored, I'm not sure how credible this is, rumored to be thinking about offering free phone service with their Prime setup.
Do you think that's going to happen?
Do you think Amazon is going to offer free phone service?
I don't know.
Maybe in some limited way?
I don't know exactly how that play works.
But I do like the fact that they might be looking to bundle up anything that looks like a generic service.
And phone service is very rapidly becoming generic.
Can't tell one from the other.
So maybe that does make sense in the long, long run.
Well, no surprise, the inflation rate is coming down a little bit.
Experts thought it would be 4.1, but it's all the way down to 4, which isn't really terrible.
It's not terrible.
All that really matters when you have 4, what's the only thing that matters when your inflation is at 4?
All that matters is what direction it's going, right?
If it continues going even slowly in the correct direction of lower inflation, we're fine.
No, I don't know how we're fine.
I don't understand the math of how that's even possible.
But if it keeps coming down, we're probably fine.
And I thought that would be one of our biggest problems.
But it looks like Europe's having a little more trouble.
They might be in a recession-y situation.
But once again, Warren Buffett's sage advice is looking Like sage advice.
I don't remember how many years ago it was the first time I heard Warren Buffett say, invest in American companies.
That's never been wrong.
I'm paraphrasing.
But the idea is, you know, should you put your money in some basket of foreign countries or a basket of American companies?
If you just said American companies from day one and you'd never put your money anywhere else, you'd be pretty happy.
Yeah, it's pretty much that simple at this point.
So once again, it looks like the American economic experiment, if you will, is the winning experiment.
It looks like we're doing it again.
Now some of this might be political, because you can imagine that All the levers of government, you know, might want Biden to get reelected.
So if there's anything that can be done to make the numbers look like they're going down, they'll probably do it.
So I'm not sure if we can trust the numbers, but at least it's not going up quickly.
I think we'd notice that.
So this looks like good news.
There's a lot of good news breaking out all over the place.
I don't know if you've noticed because, you know, the news doesn't cover the good news as much.
But the lack of bad news is pretty good news.
When was the last time you worried about the supply chain?
I have to tell you that our supply chain problems from the beginning of the pandemic, that was the one thing I worried about the most, but also thought we'd have a really good chance of handling it.
It looks like we have.
It looks like the collective wisdom and work of the human beings of Solved it?
I mean, I don't see a lot of problems.
I've got one shampoo I can't buy anymore, but I don't know if that's why.
I guess there's some meds that are still hard to get.
But they seem to be somewhat specific problems, not a big supply chain problem.
I think we're in pretty good shape.
In my opinion, climate change does not look like the end of the world.
It looks like new batteries are being invented every day.
New battery technologies.
So it looks like we will be able to store as much green energy as we can create.
That wasn't always the case.
It always looked like maybe we can create energy but we can't use it at night, you know, or we can't use it when the wind isn't blowing.
But now it looks like that's solvable.
Looks pretty solvable.
So we got a lot of solvable things.
The other thing that was a complete disaster, still is, is education.
But I've never seen so much activity toward school choice.
Have you?
And then you add on top of school choice the AI possibilities.
The possibility that a poor kid can get something like an identical education to a rich kid.
Maybe.
I mean, I don't think you can get all the way there.
Rich kids always have some advantages.
But you can close that gap quite a bit.
So I would say that almost everything, including the stock market.
The stock market's been kind of strong lately.
Almost everything is trending in the right direction.
I would also say that the, let's say the abuses of government may have peaked.
Meaning that the American public and its, let's say, its visibility into what the problems are is very high.
And I think we're on the way for some kind of correction.
Now that correction might look like a Republican victory in the next election.
I've never, I don't know if I've ever said this directly, but in my perfect world, the presidency does trade hands between the Democrats and Republicans.
Worst case scenario, it just stayed in Democrat hands or it stayed in Republican hands.
Either one of those would be disaster.
You need them to be competitive.
And they are.
Right now I would say, if you were going to say from just a competitive standpoint, we have a really good competitive setup because the Democrats are really offering something different than what the Republicans are offering.
You know, it doesn't look like the Uniparty to me.
To me, that looks like a genuine competition.
And I would also like to compliment a number of the candidates.
My impression of the optimism for America is very high right now.
That may be strange to hear, but my American optimism Quite high.
And a lot of that has to do with the fact that a number of quality candidates have emerged.
Now mostly on the Republican side.
But there are at least three Republican candidates that I would say, okay, I'm happy with that president.
And there's at least one Democrat, RFK Jr., who I, you know, again, I'm not saying I agree with any of them on policy.
I'm just saying that they would be serious, credible, patriotic, smart Americans who are what you want in the job.
So that all looks pretty good.
To me, the only thing that could go terribly wrong would be re-electing Biden.
To me that feels like the only thing we could get wrong and I don't think it's going to happen.
It feels like everything's lining up to make that not happen.
But I'll talk about that in a little bit.
Alright.
There are things that I learned around 40 years ago.
When I learned to be a hypnotist.
So I took classes to be a hypnotist.
Became certified.
And some of the things I learned then, I tried to convince people were true.
It's something that hypnotists know that regular people are not exposed to.
And for 40 years I've been saying, you just wait.
You're gonna find out.
And this is what is happening, 40 years later.
Let me give you an example.
Forty years ago, I learned that human intelligence was nothing but pattern recognition, and there was nothing magical to it.
It was mechanical, and it wasn't... that's all it was.
There was nothing to it but a mechanical process.
Now, to be a hypnotist, you have to know that.
If you believe there's something magic happening in the other mind, what would you do with it?
How do you manage magic?
Alright, there's some magic happening in your brain.
Let me see if I can work with that.
You can't work with that.
But you can work with the idea that the brain is a machine, and there are a certain set of inputs.
You put in those inputs, just like a user interface for a computer.
You hit the right user interface, you get the right outcomes.
And that's what hypnotists observe.
So we've known for a long time that the brain was not magic.
It was just a little machine, and the hypnotists know where the buttons are, but you didn't.
If you didn't know where the buttons were, it looked magic to you.
But if somebody showed you the buttons, look, look, you just push this button and you make that person do this other thing.
It's right here.
Just push it.
Watch.
Push that.
See?
Push.
See?
If you're a hypnotist, you've seen that so many times that you already knew that intelligence would be easy to reproduce.
Not easy.
Let's say inevitable.
It was inevitable that computers would reproduce that form of intelligence.
Because it wasn't special.
And that's what Sam Altman said, you know, the CEO of OpenAI.
So he said the other day that what he learned from AI, the process of creating AI, is that intelligence was not magic.
It was just a property of matter.
If you just arranged physical objects in the right combination, it created intelligence.
That's exactly what we knew as hypnotists 40 years ago.
Now here's another one.
There's a new thing that the... And by the way, the science of this is so stupid that it made me laugh.
But there's a study that says that obese people have different brains, meaning that they don't get food rewards with a small amount of food.
So if I go eat a potato, because I really like potatoes, So you could just imagine ice cream or something in your own example.
I just really like potatoes.
I don't know.
I just like them in every form.
You could do anything to a potato and I would like to eat it.
So if I go eat a potato, the science says that after a few bites, my brain would light up with dopamine and say, whoa, great potato!
You are perfectly happy now.
You're sated.
So that's just how my brain is organized.
It's just a property of matter.
Did I mention anything about free will?
No.
There's no free will in the story.
My brain lights up with a little bit of potatoes, and if you sit down right next to me and you eat the same potatoes at the same time, even if you like potatoes, if you're obese, you're not going to get the same light up in your brain.
You're gonna have to eat like twice as many potatoes to get the same amount of dopamine.
Now, where's the free will?
Where's the free will?
There is none.
This perfectly explains everything the hypnotist learned 40 years ago.
Well, really hundreds of years ago when it was invented.
But I learned it 40 years ago.
And I learned it this way.
My hypnosis instructor, who was himself quite overweight, when he said he understood the whole secret of overeating.
And he said, I like to eat.
That was it.
Everything you need to know, everything you need to know about obesity and weight was in that one sentence from my hypnosis instructor.
I like to eat.
Now what he meant by that was he likes to eat more than you do.
And if you like to eat as much as he did, you would weigh as much as he did.
End of story.
He likes to eat.
That's it.
Now, What this study of obesity showed, because it's stupid science, what they did was they gave the same amount of food, and I think they did it with a feeding tube, so that you weren't even conscious of the taste buds or anything, just the food directly into your body.
And then they could test your brain to see what lights up.
And what they found is that even if the obese people lost weight, They still didn't get the benefits that skinny people did of getting their dopamine, which is exactly what we were taught at hypnosis school.
Which is, it didn't matter how heavy the obese person was, if you could force them to lose weight, they would just be a person who still needed to eat more potatoes.
You still need to eat more potatoes than I do.
It doesn't matter what you weigh, because that's the only way you get the dopamine.
Eat more potatoes.
Or whatever.
So, AI and also science are just catching up to where hypnosis was 40 years ago, and really 100 years ago.
It's just that I learned it 40 years ago.
Is that amazing?
Or is that just amazing to me?
Because I've been saying for decades that when you learn hypnosis, It's a superpower.
It's like seeing around corners.
You can just tell what's true before other people can tell.
It is that important to learn it.
All right.
Let's see what else.
I also have a prediction that's born out of that same experience, that the so-called AGI, which is the form of AI that everybody's worried about, not the current form.
The current form is a large language model, meaning that it's just looking for language patterns, so it doesn't have anything that you would call intelligence per se.
It's just copying things it's seen before.
Now, it looks smart, And do you remember a prediction I made before any of this AI stuff took off?
And I said that the only way AI would look human-ish, you know, the only way it would act like a human, is if you made it stupid.
Because if you made it smart, we would just disagree with it.
And we'd say, well, it's broken.
This thing doesn't even like pronouns.
It must be broken.
Right?
So here's my prediction.
The prediction is from the experts.
The experts say that someday we'll have this thing called AGI, Artificial General Intelligence, as opposed to the LLM.
So the Artificial General Intelligence is the one that's literally going to be smarter than humans.
And here's my prediction.
It can't be made.
It's logically impossible.
Now, I think I'm the only person who has this prediction.
And the reason I'm the only person who has this prediction is that every one of you are saying the same thing.
You're all saying the same thing.
Well, that's stupid, Scott.
You're definitely going to be wrong on this one.
Because every expert says it can be done.
It's just a matter of time.
But do you know every expert doesn't know how to do it?
They'll also tell you that.
They'll tell you they don't know how.
It's not like a fusion.
If you tell me that fusion energy is coming, I'll say, you know, that's down to a question of engineering now.
Because they've solved the physics, they just haven't solved the engineering of how you put the parts together to make them work.
But they will, because it's just trial and error and eventually they'll get there.
It might take 40 years, but they'll get there.
It's just engineering.
But with AGI, nobody even knows a theory.
There's not even a working hypothesis of how that could work.
So the large language models, they have a theory.
You just look for the patterns and, you know, that'll give you intelligence and it worked.
But here's why I think you'll never get artificial general intelligence.
I don't believe that a human can program intelligence above their own intelligence.
Because you wouldn't know what it looked like.
And if you could program it to be smarter than you, that would make you smarter.
Or at least you wouldn't know if you made it smarter than yourself.
And you might think it was making mistakes.
So here's what AGI will do better than humans.
It'll be much faster, obviously.
It will know more facts.
So it'll have more facts, it'll access them faster, and it might be able to organize them faster and even better in some ways.
So there are a whole bunch of things that AGI will do that will be, or that AI will do, that'll be mind-boggling and great.
But here's what it will not do.
Here's my prediction that's counter to every prediction.
It will not do common sense and logic better than the smartest human.
Ever.
Ever.
That's my prediction.
Now, I don't know if I could ever be proven right, because it would always look like it's just around the corner.
Well, Scott, you've been right so far, but I think they've got it now.
I think it's going to be like the walls are closing in.
I don't believe we'll ever get there.
Now we'll definitely have an AI that looks and acts like a human, but looking and acting like a human is because it will make mistakes.
It's the mistakes that will make you surprised that it's not a computer.
As soon as they made one that was genuinely smarter than you, which is impossible, I think, you'd have all kinds of problems of recognizing it as being smart.
You just wouldn't know what to do with it.
So I don't think we can make one that's smarter than us.
We can make one faster, And maybe more organized or something like that.
But not smarter, per se.
Not common sense slash logic.
And I will accept that 100% of you disagree with that.
Right?
Can we stipulate that just about everybody would disagree with me?
That's why it's fun.
It wouldn't be fun if y'all agreed with me.
All right, but keep an eye on that.
So today is Trump's court hearing.
There will be massive publicity and security arrangements and blah, blah, blah.
And that'll be the news today.
So Dershowitz, I believe he's modified his opinion on this a little from the first opinion I heard.
Now, the first opinion I heard from Dershowitz, Alan Dershowitz, was that it looked like there might not be that much of a Legal risk in the long run.
That most of it's covered under a non-criminal statute.
And the part that might be a problem, the phone call could be easily defended against just by saying he didn't let the person read it.
He just sort of waved it at him and said, hey, look at this.
Secret.
Now, I thought that was a pretty good argument.
And that he had sort of dismissed the problems.
But as of the Wall Street Journal and today's editorial by Dershowitz, he says the case is stronger than he expected.
So now he's ramping up the, let's say, the cost-benefit analysis to have a little bit more cost in it.
But he does, of course, point out that technical legalities aside, separate from the law, you're going to have to decide if this is good for the country.
And the legal system does incorporate that.
So it could be that maybe he should be indicted on some technical basis, but maybe everybody's better off if he's not.
That would be a reasonable outcome.
But here are some questions I have.
Number one, as a citizen of the United States, would you be okay if somebody was taken off the field, whether it was a Biden or a Trump, doesn't matter what side, for a victimless crime?
A victimless crime.
Because there's no allegation of any damage.
No allegation of damage.
A victimless crime.
I would not be okay if a Democrat was removed from office for a victimless crime.
Absolutely not.
And certainly not if there was a reasonable defense.
Right?
Now, it could be that Trump would lose.
You know, maybe 12 jurors would find against him.
But you could never say it wasn't a reasonable defense.
Could you?
Because a reasonable defense looks like this.
I was president.
I get to decide what's a secret, and so by the mere act of removing them, that was my decision.
There's no requirement for me to say the words out loud or to fill out a form.
I was the president.
I moved them.
That's all you need to know.
End of story.
Now, if I were a juror, I would be convinced by that argument.
And I would be convinced if Biden said it, because I'm trying to be, as much as possible, trying not to be biased politically.
Just trying to look at it as a citizen, and how would you want to be treated if you were in that situation?
So yeah, the fact that it's victimless, and the fact that if the shoe were on the other foot, I definitely would not be in favor of removing a president or even a candidate for that reason.
And, of course, you're going to hear a lot of people say in the next weeks, no one is above the law.
Now, I've mocked that before, but I'm upgrading my mocking.
When I hear anybody say that now, I think one of the Krassensteins said it on Twitter, no one's above the law.
I see the golem.
And I hear the golem's voice when I hear it.
But at the end of it, I add, my precious.
So when I hear somebody say, no one is above the law, in my mind it turns into, no one's above the law, my precious.
Try not hearing that the next time you hear it.
It's a pure golem statement.
No one is above the law, my precious.
Yeah.
You'll never not hear that again.
You're welcome.
You're welcome.
That is one more reason that Elon Musk should hire me as the VP of Witchcraft and Propaganda.
Because once I put that little golem thought in your head, good luck getting it out.
All right.
Personally, I believe Trump will not be found guilty.
My view of my totally unqualified legal opinion is that there's just too much of a defense there.
I don't think you can get 12 jurors to decide that a process that doesn't have any written requirements hasn't been followed and therefore a law has been broken.
Really?
You broke the law that doesn't have any details?
How in the world could you not Oh, did I spell Gollum wrong?
How in the world could you not win that case?
I mean, it just feels like the most winnable case of all cases.
All right.
Oh, so I knew that you would be saying that I look like Gollum, and so in anticipation of that, Because I am so good at anticipating.
I've prepared something for you.
And sure enough, in the comments on YouTube, you look like Gollum.
Scott, you look like Gollum.
And so I captured this photo of AOC looking like Gollum.
Now, if you think I'm making fun of AOC, you're missing the point.
I'm not making fun of AOC.
Here's my point.
I believe that 100% of humans have at least one photograph that makes them look like Gollum.
It's just a hypothesis.
Do you think there's somewhere in the world a photograph of me looking exactly like Gollum?
Yes.
Yes, there is.
But here's the weird thing.
If you said, Scott, do you look like AOC?
What would you say?
You'd say, no.
No.
Scott does not look like AOC.
Two totally different people.
But then you ask this question.
Does AOC look like Gollum?
Huh.
Kind of, yes.
Does Scott look like Gollum?
Huh.
Kind of yes.
But does Scott look like AOC?
Kind of no.
So I think we've developed the Gollum theory of photography.
Everyone looks like a Gollum sometimes.
It's all about lighting.
All right.
Here's a question.
Can Trump call himself a journalist and then get out of all of his legal problems?
This is just for fun.
This is not an actual, you know, actual suggestion.
And I got this idea looking at a Glenn Greenwald tweet in which he talked about the fact that if the New York Times had the same documents that Trump had, it would be totally legal.
So in other words, Trump is not allowed to have in his possession documents that the New York Times would be allowed to have.
Now let me remind you, Trump already knew what was in the documents.
To him, nothing was being revealed.
He'd already seen them.
But if the New York Times had them, they'd be seeing them for the first time.
That would actually be a secret being revealed.
But it would be legal for the New York Times to have them, because they're the press.
So they could have them and reveal them at the risk of any danger whatsoever, so they could actually cause victims, etc.
All legal.
But Trump, who is the actual president, the determiner-in-chief of what is classified and what is not, already seen them, did not show them to anybody as far as we know, and that was illegal.
So, could he cleverly solve his problem by classifying himself as a journalist, which in my opinion requires no qualifications whatsoever?
What does it take to be a journalist?
You just say you are one.
There's no other requirement.
So you could just say, I'm a journalist, just like the New York Times.
I've got this Truth Social.
This is my platform, and I publish on it.
So I'm publishing things here, and I'm just like a journalist, basically.
When Matt Taibbi and Michael Schellenberger did long Twitter threads about the Twitter files, were they acting as journalists?
Yes, they were.
They were acting as journalists even though they were just tweeting.
Now, they also wrote separate sub-stack articles.
But when they were just tweeting threads, they were being journalists.
When Trump tweets a thread, why is he not a journalist?
Well, only because we call him a politician and he calls himself that.
All you'd have to do is say, I'm a journalist and it's all legal.
Am I wrong?
What would be the What would be the problem with that?
If it's legal for the New York Times to have them, and I guess that would be a question, so I'd need a fact check on that.
Is it legal if the New York Times had them?
Then he can just say, yeah, I'm the New York Times too.
Yep, same job.
But no, you're running for president.
Well, people who run for president have other jobs.
You can still have another job while you're running for office.
That's my other job, I'm a journalist.
No, even though I'm not serious about the idea, because I know it's not something they would actually do, what would be wrong with it?
Do you think the jury gets to decide whether he's really a journalist?
How does that work?
Why does a jury get to decide if I'm a journalist?
There's no law that says that.
That doesn't make any sense.
If I'm a journalist, and if I'm writing things down, About the news and I'm publishing them?
How am I not a journalist?
All right, I just put that out there because it's fun.
Here's what I think is the Gavin Newsom play.
As I said in a tweet yesterday or so, the reddest of red flags is that Biden is not actively campaigning.
And he's running for office, president, and it looks like the polls are competitive.
So it's not like he's going to win automatically and he knows it.
So what are two reasons you could give me why somebody in this situation would not be aggressively campaigning?
Now one of them is he's unable.
But, is he really?
Wouldn't they at least try?
I mean, at least they'd give it a good try.
Here's what I think.
It's possible he's just unable and they haven't figured out what to do about it.
So I guess there are three possibilities.
One possibility is they feel that the election is so rigged, or will be, that they don't even need to try hard.
They just have to say, oh, he's going to campaign on his record, meaning he'll just do the job, and he does a good job, so re-elect him.
So one possibility is he's so confident he doesn't need to campaign.
Does that sound real?
Not really.
The other possibility is he's not planning to be the candidate.
And he knows it.
Because he's planning it.
He's just waiting for the last minute.
Why would you wait for the last minute as opposed to letting the field just compete in a normal primary?
Why would you wait to the last minute and then drop out?
What benefit would that give you?
Well, hold that question.
Hold that question.
What benefit would you get if you waited to the last minute?
And that was actually your plan, to wait to the last minute.
All right?
Hold that thought.
Now let me change topics slightly.
So the Democrat who's making the most noise lately is Governor Newsom.
So Newsom is proposing a constitutional amendment about guns.
Probably has no chance, but it gets him in the news.
He is attacking Governor DeSantis every chance he can, which doesn't make sense for a governor.
It's not really the governor's job to attack another governor, but it puts him in the news.
And then he did the ballsy play, which I'm going to compliment him on.
He went on Hannity.
Because if you can't go on Hannity, in my opinion, you're not ready to be a president.
And I would say that you can reverse that.
If Trump was, let's say, unwilling to talk to Jake Tapper or Joy Reid or something, then I would say he's unqualified.
I would say that's disqualified.
If you're not willing to talk to a journalist on the other side, That's just not good enough.
You've got to be able to do that.
So Newsom is showing you his presidential chops by walking into the lion's den, sitting down with Hannity, and then he sits down with Hannity, and what does he say about Trump?
He said that during the pandemic, Trump was excellent.
I'm paraphrasing.
He said that there were no politics, and Trump was 100% Helpful to California.
No criticisms at all.
Now isn't that interesting?
You know what it sounds like?
Very presidential.
It's very presidential.
It's very presidential to say that the thing that Trump did right, he just did 100% right.
There's nothing else to say about it.
I like that.
Now Newsom, you know, he's got some rough edges.
He wouldn't be my first choice for president.
But He is good at this.
He's a, let's say, a skilled politician.
Good and bad.
He's skilled at it.
This was very skillful.
Going on Hannity was smart.
It was just flat out smart.
And then, based on what I read about the interview, it looks like he nailed it.
Because if you can go on Hannity and give an unambiguous compliment to Trump, But then also, you know, hold your criticisms for things that are worthy of criticism.
That's a really good presidential, strong kind of a play.
And I thought he did it well.
Now, why is it that Governor Newsom seems to be the only one who you think of as maybe a presidential possibility?
And did I hear he's related to Nancy Pelosi?
Is that true?
Is Gavin Newsom related to Nancy Pelosi, or is that just one of those internet things?
It's true, right?
Now, do you think that someone who's related to Nancy Pelosi might have an inside track?
Do you think that might give him a little inside track?
Alright, here's what I think the play is.
I think Biden's gonna wait until the last minute, and everybody, including Newsom, is gonna say, oh yeah, he's definitely gonna be the candidate.
Oh, I'm not running for president.
Oh, what are you even asking that?
No, we have a candidate for president.
No, no, no, no, no.
Not running for president.
And then at the last minute, Biden jumps out and there's no other candidate whose name you can think of.
I can't even think of one.
Name the other candidate.
RFK Jr., right?
But RFK Jr.
is a little too far outside the deep state.
He would take the deep state down.
But I don't think Gavin Newsom would.
I think he'd just slot right into that existing structure just perfectly.
So I think the play is to freeze other Democrats out of the race.
It just doesn't work on RFK Jr.
because he doesn't give a fuck what the Democrats think.
At least the leadership.
Which is exactly why you like RFK Jr.
if you do.
How much do you like a Democrat who says, fuck the Democrat leadership?
You know, I gotta do what I gotta do.
You like that, right?
So, Gavin Newsom would probably get all the traditional Democrats.
I think In a fair fight, he could take RFK out just because he'd have so much support from the big structure, from the Democrat Party.
So I think RFK Jr.
is going to look like the Bernie if they had a serious challenger.
Now, if it goes to the primary, and the only person in the primary against Biden is RFK Jr., well, I like RFK Jr.' 's chances a lot in that case.
If it gets to that, it's looking very RFK Junior-ish.
However, if Biden drops out a day before the primary, the actual convention or the decision making, he's the guy you're going to think of.
And then the Democrats are going to say, gosh, we never anticipated we'd be in this situation.
What are we going to do?
It's an emergency.
Time's running out.
Oh, who will it be?
Who will be our great savior?
Gavin Newsom.
Oh, there he is.
He's already in the news.
How about that?
Everybody knows his name.
How convenient.
And he's related to Nancy Pelosi.
Oh, he'll have all the help he needs.
All right.
So that's what I think the play is.
I think the play is for Biden to drop out at the last minute and freeze out the other candidates.
While Newsom is raising his profile by doing things that aren't exactly running for office, but look exactly like running for office.
All right, the other big story, which I don't believe a bit, is that there are allegedly 17 recordings of a Burismo executive talking to the Bidens, two of them with Joe Biden and the rest of them with Hunter, in which, allegedly, if you were to hear these secret recordings, You would hear evidence of bribery, $5 million a piece.
And all run through lots of different secret accounts so nobody can track it.
Now, do you know where the recordings are?
Has anybody told you where those 17 recordings are?
Physically, where do they exist?
Do you know?
No, it hasn't been... Nobody's mentioned that, right?
Is the only person who has them the Burisma executive?
That's the only one that hasn't?
Well I have some, this is breaking news, so I have some information about this.
Those 17 recordings, they're actually being kept in the same facility as the 12 UFOs.
So it's sort of a combined entity.
They keep all of the UFOs there.
There are about 12 now.
One of them is as big as a Coliseum.
And another one, if you go inside, it's bigger on the inside than the outside.
So these are the facts that we know.
But also, all 17 Burisma recordings are kept in the same secret facility, so that you'll never get to see them.
They're all there.
The TARDIS is there, and the Battlestar.
Yeah, the Battlestar is there, too.
So, I just gotta say I don't believe that these exist.
Or if they exist, they don't say anything useful.
What do you think?
Do you think the walls are closing in?
Or does this seem a little bit too on the nose?
That they have 17 recordings of the exact crime that they're suspecting?
Maybe.
Let me ask you this.
Do you think that either Hunter or Joe Biden would be sophisticated enough to get into this alleged massive bribery, money laundering situation, and yet they would say things on a phone call that would incriminate them criminally?
On a phone call?
You think that the Vice President of the United States would trust a phone call?
Knowing that it's the Vice President.
Every foreign entity is going to be trying to get that call.
No.
No.
There's nobody who trusts a phone call who does that kind of business.
That is in person only.
You don't do that on a phone.
If there's anything I can tell you to get away with your crimes, never, ever admit a crime on a phone call.
Are you fucking kidding me?
Have you ever had somebody record your calls that didn't tell you about it?
Has anybody had that experience?
Has anybody had their phone calls recorded?
I have.
I've had it on at least two occasions.
I've had people record my calls without telling me.
I found out later.
So later I found out.
But yeah, I had calls illegally recorded on me more than once.
Did I say anything in those phone calls that would incriminate me?
No.
Do you know why?
Because it was a fucking phone call.
Don't say anything on a phone call that would incriminate you.
I don't care if you're like the lowest level criminal or you're just talking bullshit with your friends.
Don't ever say anything illegal that you did or the other person did on a phone call.
Do not ever, ever admit anything illegal on a phone call.
All right.
Thanks to AI.
This story seems a little bullshitty to me, but I'll read it anyway.
The Beatles are going to have a new album that would include a digital AI version of John Lennon's vocals.
Now, I guess it's based on some vocals that they had in some kind of recording, but the song itself didn't exist in this form.
So Peter Jackson's working on it with Paul McCartney and I guess we'll see it later this year.
I'm going to make a prediction about this song.
It might get a lot of attention because it would be cool and AI and it's the Beatles.
I do not think that you will love this song.
I do not believe that it will stick in your mind and become a favorite for you forever.
And it has to do with the fact that once you know AI made it, I don't think you're going to appreciate that it's the same.
And it goes back to my theory that all art is an expression of the artist's suitability for procreation.
That's actually what you're responding to when you look at the art.
If it's AI, you can't reproduce with an AI, so it just won't have the same hit.
It just won't give you the same charge.
So I think it will be fascinating and I will definitely want to hear that thing, but I do not think it will be a hit except for the novelty of it.
All right, over in Ukraine there's still no useful news whatsoever.
Here's something I wonder.
Is it because the news organizations don't have money or they don't take risks anymore?
Because didn't we always have reporting from war zones until Syria?
Wasn't it The battle against Al-Qaeda is where the news just stopped covering stuff.
In the war zone, anyway.
Because it was always too dangerous, right?
Just way too dangerous.
But, boy, does it seem like it's missing.
And here's the question I ask.
Will any news organization ever get to the point where they could have their own loitering drone just to look at the ground and just see what's happening?
Because we get all these videos from, you know, a Ukrainian drone, and here's one from a helicopter, a Russian helicopter, and of course they always show the other side getting blown up.
So, but couldn't there be a permanently, you know, just a permanently hovering news drone that's just looking at stuff on the ground?
Couldn't do it?
Now obviously somebody would try to shoot it down, but Maybe they're not that expensive.
Maybe you just have 20 of them and you just, you know, send up another one when you need it.
I just don't know that there's enough... I don't know that there's enough money in the news business anymore to do something like that.
You know, because you'd be talking tens of millions of dollars probably.
Anyway, the lack of news goes beyond What I could expect just by the fact that it's hard to get news.
It feels like something else going on.
Anyway, so some stories and somebody's winning, somebody else is winning, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Did you know that back in 2020 The AP, which is an organization that tells you what style to write in, so they'll tell you what words are allowed and, you know, what references are slang and what is not slang and that sort of stuff.
And the AP decided in 2020 that they would capitalize the B in black for black people, but they would not, and then in a separate opinion the next day, they clarified that they would not capitalize the W in white.
What do you say about that other than it's, as a comment said, racist as fuck?
It's not even just a little bit racist.
It's racist as fuck.
That's seriously racist.
Now, in my capacity as a professional writer, I hereby reject the AP style guide.
And I adopt, you know, Chicago style guide or New York Times or something.
But I'll use, just won't use them.
So I would say that this disqualifies the AP as a reasonable guide.
Because they don't get to tell me what to write.
Just to make it clear, the AP doesn't tell the professional writers what to write.
The professional writers tell the AP what is the standard.
We do it first, and then the AP decides what they liked.
But they don't get to tell you.
AP doesn't tell you how to write.
You tell them, or the professional writers do, and then they respond.
And I'm telling them, I'm capitalizing both.
Capitalizing both.
Now the reason I like capitalizing both is because it adds clarity.
Right?
If you have a lowercase, then maybe the word is going to refer to just the color of some object.
But as soon as you capitalize it, then that's very clear.
You're talking about people.
So anytime that you can add clarity, that's generally better writing.
So there's no question which is better writing.
No question at all.
The clearer The clear, straight-ahead, honest way to do it is to capitalize both.
So that's what I've been doing since B was capitalized, I've capitalized W. And that's the rule.
So AP, you're wrong, and you need to catch up.
The rule is capitalize both.
I will make it the rule, because I am the Vice President of Witchcraft and Propaganda.
Not to mention, disgraced cartoonist.
All right.
Did you ever wonder what people who are multiracial feel about this whole thing?
You ever think about that?
I feel like the multiracial segment of the population is the least served.
Because you imagine like, oh, you know, I'm proud of this and I'm proud of that.
And then the people who are made of like four different things are like, well, what?
What the hell am I?
Four different things.
Do I get to participate in this?
Am I discriminating against myself?
How's this work?
Now, I've often said that one of the reasons I don't feel bigoted against people of different types is that I always felt like I was a mutt.
I always felt like I was a mixture of several things.
At one point I thought I was Native American, but it turns out I got Elizabeth Warren done that.
I don't have any Native American blood.
But for most of my childhood, I didn't think I was identifiable as one obvious thing.
To me, this is how white the town was I grew up in.
This is like super white.
If I thought I was a combination of, you know, German and Irish and British and Dutch, which I am, I thought, well, those are all different things.
So I'm a combination of all these completely different things.
Scotch and German.
But if you talk to somebody black, they're going to say, well, that's the same fucking thing.
Don't tell me you're Scottish and British, or you're Scottish versus Irish.
It's the same fucking thing.
I don't see any difference.
But when I grew up, that was the difference.
Yeah, I mean, it was a difference when I grew up.
So I always thought I was not one thing, I just thought I was some soup of things.
So when I looked at other people, I never thought, oh, I'm this thing, and you're not my thing, you're a different thing.
I just said, I'm a soup, you're a muffin, or a soup, but we're both food.
My mindset was not black and white, it was more like mutt and mutt.
I'm a mutt, you're a mutt, so what?
We're all mutts, so what?
That was sort of my hypothesis at the time.
All right.
Yeah, the whole black and white thing is a political construct.
It doesn't exactly comport with how I see the world.
And the fact that we call somebody like Obama black, do you ever stop to think that if being black was so bad, Wouldn't people try to get away with calling themselves white if they were half white?
Or wouldn't they at least say, hey, I'm half white, if being white was the good part?
Clearly not.
If only one of them is capitalized and anybody who's even 25% black wants to call themselves black in America.
So the discrimination is so bad that you'd rather call yourself that.
So, anyway.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is all I needed to say today.
is there any story I missed that is of great interest to you and you wish you knew what I said about it?
Meghan Markle don't care. - Okay.
Oh, you're using her as an example of a black woman who's not black.
Meghan Markle is 25%?
Does she call herself black?
Is that right?
But does she call herself black?
See, I just don't understand it.
I feel like if all the people who are at least two things got together, we could rule the world.
And just make all the people who are, you know, only one thing, the assholes.
I saw Conan O'Brien was doing a thing where he got his DNA checked and he said that whoever checked his DNA was amazed that he was the most 100% Irish person they'd ever seen.
He had zero of anything but Irish.
I don't even know how that's possible.
It doesn't seem possible to me.
I don't know how you could not have something else.
But when I look at Conan O'Brien, I see somebody who could theoretically be proud of his ethnicity.
In theory.
Because he's exactly one thing.
If you're a combination of two things, you're just like everybody else.
If you're at least two things, even if those two things are kind of close together, you're just a mutt.
This whole I'm white and you're black thing is just complete political theater.
All right.
Although it's not theater that we treat each other differently.
All right.
YouTube, I think that's all we got for you today.
And did I hear Ben Shapiro's take on the pride flag?
Yeah.
I guess Ben Shapiro's take, so the pride flag was being flown at the White House.
And you were saying that nobody died for the pride flag or something?
So he didn't feel like it was like a regular flag where patriots die for the values of the flag.
And then other people said, we went to war so that people could be LGBT gay if they wanted to.
L-B-G-T-Q, not gay.
Which I thought was the better argument.
So while I understood what Ben was saying in a, say, Opinion context, I'm pretty sure that the people who were fighting for our freedom were fighting for all of our freedom.
It wasn't like fighting for some of our freedoms.
I think they were fighting for all of them.
Like all the freedoms.
So that would include, certainly they were fighting for that flag indirectly in the sense that it's part of freedom.
But I get his point.
I get his point.
The question of whether we're putting too much, let's say, emphasis in one area of concern, I think that's a good point to make.
We're definitely putting a lot of emphasis in one area that, for most of us, is irrelevant.
How many of you actually interact with somebody who's trans on a daily basis?
Let's say, not daily, but let's say a regular basis.
How often do you interact with a trans person?
I don't have any contact.
You know, it's like every single day I'm forced to talk about the news about trans this and trans that.
It's like they don't exist in my life.
I know they do exist, obviously.
I'm just saying that I have no contact.
At least that I know of.
Now, I have in the past.
In prior jobs and stuff, I've had contact.
But it never mattered.
It never mattered.
It was never anything of concern.
It didn't matter to the person I associated with.
It didn't matter to me.
It just wasn't on anybody's mind.
But to say that it matters now, it just is so not.
Part of my experience at all.
Right.
I used to work with one, right?
Yeah, how does Hooters handle it?
What about all the trans who want to work at Hooters?
How does Hooters handle that?
I wonder if they can.
All right, that's it for you, YouTube.
I'll talk to you tomorrow.
Lots of exciting things happening today, so don't stop watching the news.
