All Episodes
July 5, 2023 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:03:09
Episode 2160 Scott Adams: Let's Talk About All The Fake News, False Flags And Absurd Narratives

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: ----------- - Fake news, false flags and absurd narratives Politics, Ben & Jerry's, Ashley St. Clair, President Trump Rallies, President Trump, Climate Change CO2, Fentanyl Overdose Deaths, Meme Censorship, Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant, California Reparations Task Force, Public Urination, AI Generated Art, Supreme Court Packing, Jerry Nadler, UAE Nuclear Power, Cocaine White House, Life Strategy, Scott Adams ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
Happy 5th of July.
I hope you all survived the fireworks.
Maybe you've got a sore foot or a sore hand, but I hope you've all survived with all your digits.
If you need any extra fingers or toes, I recommend AI.
It has lots of extra fingers.
I don't know why.
But if you'd like this experience to go up a level that nobody could ever anticipate, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gels or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Now, go.
Ah, delightful.
Well, Ben & Jerry's is, as you know, very activist kind of an organization, and Ben & Jerry themselves are very active.
And they tweeted, this 4th of July, it's high time we recognize that the U.S.
exists on stolen indigenous land and commit to returning it.
Learn more and take action now.
They give a link.
Ashley St.
Clair saw that tweet and tweeted it herself with this comment.
You stole the milk from cows to make your ice cream.
Checkmate.
You stole the milk from cows to make your ice cream. - Checkmate.
That's as close as you can get to a perfect joke.
It's a perfect joke.
And what makes it perfect is it walks right up to the line of reality.
Because you know that they're probably vegetarians, right?
I'm just guessing.
I mean, I don't know.
But Ben and Jerry probably like to protect the animals.
And here they've been taking the animal's milk and selling it for profit.
That's just the best joke of the day.
Alright, I'm going to ask you if you feel what I feel.
Now, not in every way, of course, but this is a zeitgeist test.
The zeitgeist is that thing that we all feel, but we haven't talked about it.
It's the thing you see forming, there's an energy forming, it's in a certain direction, but nobody's quite talking about it yet, but it's in all of our minds.
The other day I tweeted just a little video of Trump insulting Joe Biden in a speech.
Just a little tweet.
2.9 million views.
Just a tweet.
Did you hear how many people are showing up at his rallies?
The rallies are just lit.
They're just insane apparently.
Yep.
Can you feel it?
Can you feel it?
It's happening again.
That motherfucker is doing it again.
He's just slowly climbing up the, you know, climbing up your mental, I don't know, your mental menu until he's the only thing on the menu.
I don't know how he does it exactly, but some of it is the environment is just serving him up.
And that's going to be the theme for today.
The theme for today is the environment, just by chance, is serving you up a Another President Trump, it looks like.
That's what it looks like.
It just feels like the entire energy of the country is starting to form around it, and it's now becoming obvious.
I'll give you some examples as we go.
We'll just talk about deadlines, but watch how this thesis comes together.
Well, here are some things that I think you would all agree that Trump looks better today than he ever did.
Immigration.
As France is burning, do you think Trump is looking good on immigration?
Never better.
Never better.
He's at the all-time peak of looking right on immigration.
He's never been this high on immigration before, not even close, in my opinion.
How about the January 6th What about the stain of January 6 that was over him?
Did that work out just the way the Democrats hoped?
It did not.
It did not.
Because we live in a country where we don't trust that the people who were rounded up really did something that deserved it.
We saw Hunter Biden getting a sweetheart deal while January 6 people got the opposite.
Everybody noticed.
Everybody noticed.
You think the Democrats didn't notice?
No, they noticed.
Even the Democrats, well actually I have a, I believe I have a Rasmussen poll on this.
67% of voters believe it is likely that Hunter Biden received favorable treatment from the prosecutors because of his father.
Two-thirds of voters, two-thirds of voters said Hunter got a sweetheart deal.
At the same time, the January 6th people, probably some of them still rotting in jail for not much.
Now, of course, some of them did terrible things.
Nobody ignores that.
So, let's see.
How many people do you think don't think Hunter got a favorable treatment?
And this time I'll see.
Let's say if you can get it within three points.
Within three.
Let's see if you can get it within three.
Try again.
You have to get it within three.
28, that is right, 28.
Hey, how did you do that?
That's amazing.
So many of you got the right, it's 28%.
Good guess.
Yeah, 28% think it was a perfectly reasonable deal.
All right, if you're new to the live stream, there's a running joke that we've been doing for months.
That for any important question, 25% of the respondents will have the dumbest fucking answer you've ever seen in your life.
Or roughly 25.
For anything.
Doesn't even matter the topic.
It's not the same 25%.
It's not the same people.
I don't know why it's true.
I just don't know why.
It's just very consistent that 25% are just wrong about everything.
Different 25.
All right.
Let's see what else is going on.
Have you noticed that the climate is not cooperating with the CO2?
Which to me is one of the funniest things that's happening.
Because even nature is fucking with the Democrats now.
It's like they lost nature.
You know, it's bad enough that you lost 67% of the general public.
They just lost nature.
Remember when nature was on their side?
And the Democrats would say, hey, it's getting warmer because of the CO2.
And then you'd check the temperature, and you'd be like, damn, these Democrats got something going on here.
This is warmer.
And then the next year, they'd say it again.
And you're like, well, you can't be right.
Oh, wow, you're right again.
Shoot, it's getting warmer.
And then the last few years didn't really serve up what people were expecting.
If you follow the hashtag climate scam on Twitter, you're going to see a whole bunch of claims of people who purport to have data claiming that there's no such warming, but at the same time, and I say this so I don't get demonetized, there are experts still claiming, at the same time, that the evidence shows warming exactly like they expect.
So there it is.
There's your totally reliable news of the day, that if you look at the data and you listen to the people who really have looked into it, they'll have completely opposite opinions of what even the data says.
Forget about the hypothesis you put on top of it, about warming.
Forget about that.
The experts, or at least the Twitter talking experts, can't even agree if it's getting warmer.
You'd think that'd be pretty basic.
Is it getting warmer?
Well, we don't know.
Well, how about something easier?
Are the glaciers melting, staying the same, or getting bigger?
Well, as of this morning, the people who looked into it on the internet can't agree.
They can't even agree if the glaciers are getting bigger or smaller or anything.
So, I still think that CO2 probably adds to warming.
I just don't think the projections about it are necessarily credible.
However, this situation is very Trump-friendly, isn't it?
Imagine if we go another year without anything that looks like significant warming.
By the way, let me say carefully, that would not disprove climate change.
You could have, you know, five or even ten years of not much warming or even a little cooling, and that would not, I want to be very careful about that, that would not disprove climate change.
It would certainly make you scratch your head, right?
It would make you look a little more closely at the other numbers.
It would certainly raise a red flag, but it doesn't get quite to the level of disproving it, because you would need a much longer time period to do that.
Because even the pro-CO2 people, the people who are saying it's behind the warming, even they don't say it's the only factor.
Nobody says that.
So the other factors could bounce it around, but the idea would be over time it's definitely going to trend up, even if a few years it's down.
I don't know what's true.
But in the context we're talking about it today, I will say that that situation is more friendly to Trump than at any time in the past.
Would you agree?
That there's never been a moment in modern American, let's say the last 20 years, there's never been a moment when the external facts were friendlier to skepticism.
Is that true?
Would you say that the data is supporting the skeptics, albeit temporarily, and albeit not proof of anything?
Not proof of anything.
But it just happens to be moving in their direction at the moment.
So how about Ukraine?
How about the situation in Ukraine?
We'll talk about the false flag.
But does that look like it's friendlier to a Trump administration?
Yes.
Yes, it is.
Because people actually do believe he could end it in a day.
Do you think the Democrats believe that?
Do you think the Democrats believe that Trump could end the Ukraine war in a day?
Now, I will, if you remove the hyperbole, if you remove the hyperbole, he doesn't literally mean a day.
Right?
He doesn't mean 24 hours.
But he could.
He could.
I think it's actually possible.
It's within the realm of possibility that he could do it in one day.
Because you just have to agree to a ceasefire and then work out the details.
But I don't think so.
I mean, if I had to bet on it, I wouldn't bet anything happens in one day ever.
You know, we don't live in the one day world.
But do you think the Democrats doubt?
Do you think they doubt that Trump could end it?
I don't think they do.
I think that they grudgingly, and not all of them, of course, right?
Some are so dug in that they would never say he could do anything.
But there's got to be a solid 25% of Democrats who are saying to themselves, well, Biden definitely is not getting us out of this war.
That seems clear to everybody.
Biden is not getting us out of any wars.
But would Trump?
You don't know.
He might.
He would try.
Nobody's trying right now.
So you don't think that 25% of Democrats kind of prefer peace?
No matter how hypnotized or brainwashed they are about Ukraine, you don't think 25% are solidly holding out with independent thought and have an anti-war bias and they're thinking, I hate Trump.
I freaking hate Trump.
But he might stop this war.
Everything's going his way right now, like in a very substantial way.
How about Hunter's laptop and the corruption that we all saw there?
It just proves everything about Trump was right, right?
The Hunter laptop story wildly helps Trump.
How about the cocaine that was just found in the White House?
All right, we'll talk about that more.
Does that help Trump?
Do you think Trump looks better now that they found cocaine in the White House?
Yeah, of course.
It's like one of these weird, not really an important story.
It's probably the least important thing that's happening in the world.
There's a bag of cocaine in the White House.
Nothing's less important than that.
But in our minds, it just makes the non-drinking, non-drug-taking Trump look like a superstar.
I mean, really?
You let a bunch of degenerates in the White House with their cocaine?
That's what people are going to say, not me.
All right.
Wall Street Journal, and then of course Biden himself is decomposing right in front of our eyes.
So everything's looking friendly for Trump at the moment.
I think on the economy, the economy might be a jump ball.
I think on the economy people will just retreat to their parties.
Because there is an argument for Biden being good on the economy.
That's not my opinion.
The data simply suggests that.
Because we're coming, you know, even inflation is slightly coming down.
But directionally, directionally, things look like they're improving.
Now, we do have a potentially insolvent insurance and banking industry, but I think we'll work our way through it.
I think.
But anyway, the situation I think is ambiguous enough.
You could argue that Trump could do better in X ways, and you could argue that Biden actually did pretty well given the situation.
You could argue that neither president has anything to do with anything.
We just have a strong free market and it handled it.
So it wasn't Biden, just the free market did what it does.
So I think that economics is going to be a jump ball.
So that's not going to favor Trump substantially.
All right, here's a story that feeds into this theme.
The Wall Street Journal is talking about how there's a growing Republican consensus about using the military against the cartels.
Here is a sentence from the Wall Street Journal reporting today.
Quote, There is a simple reason the idea of military intervention keeps cropping up.
It is popular.
And not just with the Republicans.
In an NBC poll taken in late June, sending troops to the border to stop drugs was the single best-liked of 11 GOP proposals tested with Republican primary voters.
Hold on.
Hold on.
And it was the only one that gained support from a majority of all registered voters.
all registered voters.
I have two words to say about that.
Two words.
You're welcome.
How do you like me now?
Now, of course, it could turn into a horrible debacle, depending on how it gets executed, if it does.
But there you go.
So we'll see if it happens.
I mean, it still requires a Republican president.
By no means does it mean any of this is going to happen.
By no means.
But the public is on this side.
Public's on this side.
Here's a true anecdote.
Recently a friend told me that another friend of theirs died from fentanyl overdose.
How many of you have heard that story recently?
Somebody you know died of a fentanyl overdose.
Tell me.
Just somebody you know.
Personally.
I have, yes, yes, yes.
Some knows, but a lot of yeses.
Have we reached the point where most of the country knows somebody who died of fentanyl?
You want to have your brain broken?
There's a second part to the story.
So I said, how many people do you know who have died of fentanyl overdose?
Like for sure died of fentanyl overdose.
Person said, Approximately ten.
Ten.
And I said, ten?
In what period of time?
Two years.
Two years.
Ten?
Ten people this person knows well.
Ten.
10 people, two years.
All right.
All right.
Next topic.
So I guess there's a U.S.
District Court just ruled that this might be a big deal, that governments can't coerce social media to censor news.
Now, I don't know how this will actually play out in the real world, because it's a little like affirmative action.
I'm not sure the government has to twist any arms.
Am I right?
Do they really need to twist any arms?
They don't really.
They just need to whisper it.
Hey, Mark, you know, it'd really be nice if your platform, I don't know, just had a little less of this or that.
And then Mark says, oh, that's what my side wants.
My side wants less of this or that.
Is that the government coercing people, or is that just somebody knowing what team he's on?
And then he finds out what the team wants.
Is that coercion?
Not really.
But yes.
But not really.
But it totally is.
But not really.
I'm not sure that this ruling makes any difference.
Do you think the ruling will make any difference at all?
Maybe in the form of the coercion, but not in the coercion.
The coercion should be exactly the same.
We'll see.
We shall see.
So, where's Purgosian?
He's in Belarus?
Is he partying it up in Belarus?
Is anybody having good selfies?
Has he published a lot of selfies lately?
How many of you have figured out that you need to listen to me to figure out what the news really is?
Well, he might be alive, but he's definitely under Putin's control.
Putin would have been silly to kill him right away.
That would have been the wrong move.
That's not good dictatoring.
Good dictatoring is you capture him, you interrogate him, you find out who's working with him, and when you're completely sure that you've tortured him to the point where he's really given you everybody, then you kill him out of mercy.
That would be good dictatoring.
So we assume that Putin is a high-level operator in the dictatoring.
So his dictatoring probably included this very obvious move.
Have you seen the news embarrassingly admit that they had been fooled into thinking he went to Belarus when obviously that never happened?
You've seen all those stories?
Correction.
We said he went to Belarus, but it turns out it was only his plane, as far as we know.
You've seen all the corrections, right?
No.
No, no corrections.
How long do we have to wait without seeing a picture of him before we can admit he's not in Belarus?
How long?
Alright, well, you're already here first.
Alright, you probably saw on the news that there's a Ukraine-built nuclear power plant that Russia has control of now, so they control that territory and they control the plant.
And the Ukrainians say that the Russians have planted explosives on the top of it, and they're planning to blow it up, or to missile it or drone it.
It's called the Zaporizhia Nuclear Power Plant.
Oh, you all believe that, right?
Do you all believe that Russia will attack a nuclear power plant on the territory it controls, its own territory?
It's going to blow up a multi-billion dollar asset of their own, one that they use on their own territory, that they've captured.
Here's what's different in 2023.
In 2023, we all know it's a false flag.
Literally all of us know that.
We've all been trained.
We finally learned what it looks like, how they do it, and how the news will cover it.
And the hilarious thing about this is that everybody spotted this at the first minute.
It was like Zelensky's on TV.
It's like, well, the Russians, they seem to have put explosives on the top of the nuclear power plant.
No, they didn't.
You fucking troll.
You goddamn fucking bastard.
They did not do that.
You did that.
We know you did that.
It's the Nord Stream all over again.
We've seen this play.
Don't lie to us, you little fucking troll.
You know they're not going to blow up their own nuclear power plant.
They didn't blow up their own pipeline.
They're not going to blow up their own nuclear power plant.
Is it a fucking coincidence that that would be the red line?
Oh, what a coincidence!
In order to give the Ukrainians massive NATO support, all it would require is for Putin to do something careless or stupid with a nuclear asset.
Yes, that's all it would take!
Oh, surprise!
Surprise!
All right, let me just lay down some probabilities.
If this thing goes the way it looks like it's going to go, and there actually is a false flag attack that we can all see, like we just assume it's a false flag, it's President Trump.
I give you President Trump.
Just put him in office tomorrow, you don't even have to wait for the election.
Because first of all, the war is over.
If Ukraine tries to do that to the United States, give us this false flag thing, or maybe it's our military, maybe it's NATO, I don't know, whoever it is.
But whoever does this, the war is over.
War is over.
One way or another, American support will disappear.
Now, you could say, wait a minute.
That's exactly Putin's plan.
Putin's going to do this because they know that we'll think it's a false flag, and then they'll reduce support.
So maybe it's a Putin plan.
Chess player Putin.
You never know.
Well, I do think we will know.
That's what I think.
I think we'll know.
Just like we know the pipeline.
Maybe not on day one.
On day one, we might not know.
But we'll know.
We're going to figure it out.
And we're going to hold responsible anybody who was behind it.
You're not going to get away with this.
Like, maybe in the short run, some way, but no way.
Let me just say, if there's anybody that's allegedly on our side, allegedly on our side, who does that, they have to die.
I mean, that's got to be a death sentence.
You start a war on fake pretense, I don't care if you're the President of the United States, that's a death sentence.
It should be.
It should be.
I mean, with the courts, not talking about a revolution.
I think the courts and the law, they don't, but they should support executing anybody who would do a false flag to start a nuclear war.
I mean, that seems basic.
All right.
The reparations task force in California continues to abuse and they've added to their claims that they would like to drop the law.
They want to get rid of the law that makes it a crime to urinate in public.
So they would like millions of dollars per person and they would like to urinate in public.
Now, we're not quite there, but you can see the logical end point here, can't you?
The logical end point, we're almost there, is that the reparations task force would like to recommend, and I feel like they're just sort of crawling up to it, you know, cats on the roof, they don't want to break it to us all at once, but what they really want is for Californians to Pay black Californians a massive amount of money and then let the black Californians piss on them.
So you want to combine those two things.
So it's not good enough that you just give money.
You want to give money and then have them piss on you in return.
And that's apparently what they're asking for.
So right now it's just they want to urinate on sidewalks I guess.
But you know obviously that's That's going to be, you know, scaling up to eventually they'll just be whipping it out and spraying all passers-by.
Thanks for the reparations.
Hey, everybody.
Thanks for the reparations.
Yeah.
Come on by.
Thanks for the reparations.
So it's going to be like that.
I think that's the end point.
All right.
I saw a video from Brian Romeli.
He shows an example of AI making a Pixar-style movie just from a script.
Now, not from Pixar's script, I don't think, but just from some other script.
And the animation looked Pixar-quality.
Now, I don't think they're quite at the point where you could feed a script into it and a movie comes out the other end that you'd want to watch.
But we're very close to a Dilbert movie that requires me to do little or no work.
Now, I don't know if anybody would watch it, but the technology to make it just from a script is very high.
Very high right now.
So maybe that'll happen.
If I had to guess, that's a year away.
Maybe less.
Maybe less than one year, AI will be able to make a full movie with, you know, hitting all the beats and having basically a fully edited movie.
Maybe less than a year.
I continue with my prediction that humans will not want to watch AI-generated art of any kind.
Is that a contrarian?
I don't know if anybody else is saying that.
And the reason is that we enjoy art made by humans because of our knowledge it came from humans.
If you take away your knowledge that a human made it, it'll lose all interest.
Because when we're reading it, we're not just reading it for entertainment, there's some connection with the creators that's important to the process.
Like a mental connection, you know that somebody wrote it, somebody acted in it.
As soon as you take away all the human elements, you would just be watching a computer's daydream.
No interest whatsoever.
I want to see that, if I see a movie that's like, oh, this is the best movie, I think about the director, I think about the writers, I think about the skill of the actors, I even think about the costume people.
So when I see a great movie, I'm thinking about the talent of the humans who put it together, and that's what thrills me.
I'm thrilled by the human talent.
Even though I don't necessarily conceptualize it that way when I'm watching it, I'm just sort of enjoying the jokes.
So I've been re-watching, in my opinion, the best television show of all time, called Modern Family.
Ran for many years.
So I'm starting from the beginning to re-watch it.
And I'm having that experience.
As I'm watching Phil Dunphy say the funniest things you've ever seen on television, I'm thinking about the writers.
The human writers.
I'm thinking, how did they come up with that?
And that's what makes me really engaged.
If an AI had written the same joke, And had a CGI that looked just like Phil Dunphy, the character.
I don't know that I would enjoy it.
I think it would just be flat in my mind.
Even if it was just the same, I think it would be flat.
And I think that'll be true with music, humor, movies, and probably books.
And I don't know if that's gonna change.
It might be that we just lose interest in all of those forms of entertainment because people stop doing it and computer-based stuff isn't interesting.
We just might just stop being entertained in the same way.
But we'll see.
You know, the most likely place this will end up is that the same creators that are creating now, like me, will just use the tools.
For example, Instead of replacing me to make Dilbert, it's far more likely that I will use an AI tool with my art director, and we will slightly animate the comic.
So I should be able to very soon say, Wall-E's at the table with Dilbert, Wall-E's back to us, and he says the following things.
And then watch it come alive.
And then Wall-E talks, you hear it, and then he turns around, he gesticulates.
So within a year, for sure, I should be able to create comics with my art director, but it's still going to be lots of trial and error.
Try this, try this, adjust that, adjust that.
So you can't take the humans out because the humans are the only thing telling you if you've done it right so far.
Right?
The human can say try this, try this, try this, but only the human can tell you if it's working because they can feel it.
Computer can't do that.
All right.
I saw that there is still an effort to pack the Supreme Court and I thought to myself, all right, Biden already had a task force on asking that question, and Biden's own task force said no.
Did you know that?
That Biden actually had a task force some time ago, and the task force came back and said, no, don't do it.
Don't pack the court.
So it's been asked and answered, but that doesn't mean it's done.
So I wanted to see who is dumb enough and worthless enough and terrible enough That they'd be working on trying to pack the court even today.
Even after Biden's own people said don't do it.
Who would actually do that in our government?
Not in the government.
Jerry Nadler.
Jerry Nadler's on that team trying to push.
I mean there's some others as well.
But I'm genuinely curious about that guy.
Is he even... Does he wake up in the morning and try to do the job Of the people's work.
Like, I don't really even know what's going on with him.
Because he doesn't even seem slightly interested in the well-being of the country.
You know, you could easily... You could defend him by saying, well, he's just being a good Democrat, and he's doing what a lot of Democrats want him to do, so he's just serving his base.
Maybe.
But it doesn't look like that, does it?
It looks like there's something else going on with him.
That's not like other people.
It's like he's intentionally picking the worst possible thing to support.
And I can't believe that his brain is so dysfunctional he doesn't know he's intentionally picking the worst possible things.
He acts as though he's in the pocket of a foreign adversary.
Am I wrong?
And I'm not saying that about AOC.
That's not something I just say about Democrats.
I'm not just like insulting Democrats.
I don't think AOC works for China.
I think AOC works for herself.
And I think actually she tries to do things that her people want.
She's at least semi-believable, even if you don't like her policies.
But Nadler, he doesn't look like a real politician.
He looks He looks like he's not trying.
AOC looks like she's trying.
You know, and she can get silly sometimes with her arguments.
But he doesn't look like he's trying.
He looks like he wakes up trying to hurt the country.
I mean, it just looks like that.
I'm not reading his mind, and I'm not even accusing him of anything.
I'm saying he acts like somebody who's not even trying to be on the side of the Democrats or anybody, just anybody.
He looks like he's on China's side, just trying to, like, screw everything over a little bit.
All right.
Well, it just looks like that.
Anyway, I saw a tweet by...
Oh, Zion Lights.
That's that's her name, Zion Lights.
And she said, oh, hold on.
I pasted the wrong thing in there, but I remember what it was.
So if you look at the UAE, the country, UAE, apparently they They ramped up their nuclear energy program really fast, just a few years.
And in just a few years, their nuclear energy production has surpassed other European countries doing green energy for, you know, decades and decades.
And so the argument is that if the UAE can rapidly, and apparently economically, ramp up a nuclear power industry, we should be able to do it too.
And I think the key is that we always look at how it was done in the past, and that was done wrong.
But I think if you stick with a design that's proven, and you know, been used, let's say pick a design that France has been using for 20 years.
You don't have to wonder too much if it works.
It's the one that's been working for 20 years.
It looks like that's the secret.
You have to, you know, it might help to have a dictatorish, you know, leader, so you can get rid of a lot of red tape.
So I think if you could get rid of our red tape, standardize on some known designs that work, should be fairly quick.
I mean, there's no reason that a strong president who really cared about nuclear energy, there's no reason that that strong president couldn't just make this work.
You know, just sort of force it through.
But I don't see that energy from Trump.
I never saw him being pro-nuclear, except throwing it in a speech or two.
And certainly don't see it with Biden.
So, I don't know what president it would take to push nuclear energy harder, but we don't have, at least the top two candidates at the moment, polling-wise, don't seem to be the right ones.
Neither of them are the right ones for nuclear energy.
On the other hand, I would say that the Energy Department, under Trump as well as under Biden, seems to be very activist and doing the right things to spur nuclear energy growth.
So I think the Department of Energy seems like it's been on point through two different administrations, but somehow without the support of the top.
I don't know what that's all about.
All right.
Let's talk about cocaine in the White House.
You saw the news.
Cocaine was discovered in the White House.
Let me tell you the order of how the news broke.
It went like this.
Cocaine has been found in the library of the White House.
Step two, Social media reports that everybody knows there are security cameras in the library.
Here's the first part.
Cocaine was found in the library.
Security cameras should tell us for sure who is using it.
Point three.
Oh, it totally wasn't in the library.
It was in a working area.
A working area.
A working area.
I'm just gonna go out on a limb and say I'll bet there are no security cameras in the working area.
Just a guess.
I'll bet there are no cameras in the working area.
Or could that be where the cameras don't work?
Aw!
Aw!
And would it be possible that whoever looks at the cameras, if there is anybody doing that, they fell asleep.
Probably fell asleep.
Does any of this sound familiar?
Now, My own opinion is that the cocaine did not belong to Hunter.
Had it been a laptop, I'd say Hunter.
But all evidence suggests that Hunter Biden has never left a house that still had cocaine in it.
Anybody?
Anybody?
Never left a house that still had cocaine in it.
All right, well, that's all I got for you there.
Yeah, I'm sure Dr. Jill's been dipping in.
So let me ask you this question.
Do you think that authorities don't know who it belongs to?
Do you think they don't know?
It was in a baggie.
Do you think that whoever handled the baggie used a glove?
You don't think there are fingerprints all over that baggie?
You don't think every staffer in the White House has been fingerprinted?
How many people would be able to use a workspace in the White House, just have access to it, who had not been fingerprinted?
Anybody?
I'll bet zero.
I think the answer is zero.
So they got the bag, they've got the fingerprints, they know exactly who it belongs to, Have you heard the news yet?
Oh, interesting, it's not in the news, is it?
How long does it take to get a fingerprint?
Weeks?
10 minutes?
About 10 minutes, right?
It's about 10 minutes.
And once you've got your fingerprint, you can tell us if that fingerprint belongs to Hunter Biden or not.
And if it's somebody else, you can tell us that too.
Do you think you're going to hear that?
No.
Do you think you're going to see the videotape of the crime?
No.
No, no, no.
You're not.
Do you think this story favors Trump?
Yep.
Yes, it does.
Now, let me be clear.
I assume that every administration has a healthy share of regular drug doers.
Is that fair to say?
Don't you assume every administration has some pretty cranked up people in it?
So I'm not going to tell you that a Trump White House would be drug free and this Biden White House is full of these degenerate drug users.
I don't think that's the case.
It's just that this specific story Massively favors one side.
Massively.
It just makes you feel a certain way.
And if I've taught you anything, the way you feel about it is going to determine your opinion.
The facts are somewhat irrelevant.
And the way you feel about Hunter Biden having been cleared of all those other charges, or at least has a plea deal that could get accepted.
If this happened, Well, there are two things that are bad.
One would be we found out for sure it was Hunter Biden and he brought cocaine into the White House.
That would be really, really bad.
But you know what would be almost as bad?
Never getting an answer of whose it was.
That would be assuming it's Hunter's.
You'd still make the assumption.
And then you assume that the administration is corrupt.
There's no way they win this.
They're either going to throw Hunter under the bus, which can't happen, or they're going to throw the administration under the bus and say it's corrupt.
So, am I wrong that things are shaping up to just hand it to Trump?
Does it look like that?
Now remember, I'm endorsing Ramaswamy.
You can't deny what you see and what you feel.
And it looks to me like Trump is rising.
To me it looks like Trump is rising.
Do any of you feel it?
Do you feel the energy shift?
Because I'm interested if I'm just hallucinating here.
Has anybody noticed it before?
Before I mentioned it?
Because I might be influencing you.
So some say they had noticed it before.
And Trump just needs to shut up.
Yeah, when Trump is doing nasty nicknames and stuff, he's definitely the funniest candidate.
But let's see if he'll stay out of trouble.
We'll see.
I doubt it.
All right.
This is how we read the news in 2023.
Ready?
So I'm looking at the headlines.
I'm like, all right, it looks like a false flag developing in Ukraine.
We've got the cocaine cover-up that's going to happen in any moment now.
We've got the climate scam that's falling apart.
It's like, when I read the news now, not only do I assume it's fake, but I know it's very nature.
I know the nature of the fakeness, and even before it happens.
Like the false flag, we know the nature of the fakeness, and we can also predict what's going to happen.
Now, I do imagine that everybody immediately seeing it as a false flag, that could ruin the false flagness.
Right?
Like if you were actually trying to do a false flag in Ukraine, and everybody saw it before it happened.
Everybody.
We all see it.
And then you go ahead and do it.
I'm not sure that's a good idea.
I mean, the fact that we all see it might actually stop it.
Might actually stop it.
Because I'm definitely not in favor of throwing NATO in there if there's a nuclear event.
I'm not.
No.
I mean, not at all.
All right.
I would like to say something so provocative now that the odds of me being kicked off of YouTube are pretty good.
Pretty good.
Anybody up for that?
Anybody want to go on a dangerous journey?
Alright.
Now this dangerous journey, I believe is, I'm going to present to you with the hope that it's signaling something positive.
So there's something positive happening that I also sort of feel in the zeitgeist, but I need a confirmation.
And it goes like this.
I feel like our feelings about race are improving.
Now, you might not feel like that because the news is serving you up the opposite, right?
If you looked at the news, it looks like everything's getting worse.
But here's what I'm seeing.
There's a willingness to joke about race that's a little bit more than I've seen before.
There's a little bit more willingness to joke.
And I think that until you can get to full joking, you're not a family.
Right?
You're not a team.
You're not a team until you can joke with each other.
You're not a family until you can criticize and joke with each other.
And it never leaves that frame.
It never leaves the frame that we're a family joking with each other.
I'm going to give you two jokes that I saw on Twitter today.
One, you could consider racist against white people.
Yikes!
The other, you could consider racist against black people.
Yikes!
Yikes!
I'm going to read you both jokes.
Yeah, I'm going to do that right in front of you.
But the context is this.
I think they're both funny.
And that's the end of the story.
Now, one of them is pretty brutal.
You'll figure out which one pretty quickly.
One of them is kind of brutal.
But, it's still funny.
Even though it's brutal, it's funny.
So, I want to test this with you.
Could you accept these jokes as just funny?
Because if you can, we've really come somewhere.
Like, I would say that's progress, right?
So the first one was, and I'll just explain it to you so you don't see it.
There was a video of a white guy dancing poorly in, I think, Times Square or something that looked like that.
So there's this dumpy little white guy.
He's dancing like Elaine from Seinfeld, sort of, not too elegantly.
And there was a black influencer who retweeted that and added the note, White History Month.
Instead of White History Month, and this little nerdy white guy dancing like a nerd.
And I thought to myself, okay, that was really funny.
It was just funny.
When I see a black influencer making fun of white people for dressing poorly, or for dancing inelegantly, to me that's just funny.
So I had no negative, not a single negative feeling about that.
It was just funny.
All right, here's the brutal one.
All right, I saw that maybe you've heard this before.
This one's pretty brutal.
So I'm not telling you this because of the joke or because I'm agreeing with it.
I want to see where we are.
I'm just testing the temperature.
So this one was on Twitter and wasn't banned on Twitter.
It said, you've heard people say that the slaves and reparations is based on the fact that the slaves and black Americans built America.
You've heard of that?
Of course, that's hyperbole, but it's part of the argument for reparations is that black Americans, specifically the slaves, built America.
Well, this joke sort of pushes back on that idea quite brutally and says, blacks built America like cows built McDonald's.
Okay, that's just funny.
It's brutal.
It's racist.
Just like the other joke, you know, White History Month.
It's just racist.
But it's also funny.
Are we at the point where we can laugh at that?
Did anybody get hurt?
Was anybody injured?
Do you have a, you know, somehow lesser opinion of black people because of this joke?
I don't.
Doesn't change anything about my real opinions in the real world.
It's just clever.
It's just funny.
So, how do we get here?
Like, how do we do more of this?
And again, certainly there would be racial jokes that are beyond the pale, right?
But some of them are just silly and, you know, they're just clever.
Could we not laugh about that?
We couldn't have a good time together, like black and white, and just still laugh at that?
I feel like we could.
And I feel like there's something that happened with the Affirmative Action Ruling.
Because the Affirmative Action Ruling did something beyond change the precedence in the law.
What it did was it educated the country of what was happening to Asian Americans.
And I don't think people who don't follow Twitter and don't follow the news, I don't think they knew.
Do you?
I mean, I didn't know.
I mean, I knew there was a thing there.
I knew it was bad.
I had no idea how extreme it was.
No idea.
Until I saw the data.
And then I said, wow, things have gone too far.
That's just too far.
And the Supreme Court agreed.
They said that's too far.
But I feel like that somehow changed the way all of us are thinking about everything in terms of race.
It changed everything about how you're thinking about everything, but not in such an obvious way that you're maybe conscious of it.
I think it just, it was just like a wake-up call.
It's just like a little slap in the face of the country.
It's like, wake up!
Wake up!
You can't possibly think it's good to massively discriminate against Asian Americans.
Wake up!
Wake up!
Hey!
Hey!
Wake up!
That can't be good!
Wake up!
Oh!
And like suddenly the country woke up at the same time.
And looked at that situation and said, what?
I don't want to live in a country where Asian Americans are just massively discriminated against.
For nothing.
Except, you know, their ethnicity.
Who wants to live in that country?
Nobody.
Literally nobody.
So I feel like that was like a wake up call.
Where people understood that good intentions can go too far.
That's the one that solidified it?
Because we live on stories, we don't live on concepts.
The concept that things have gone too far didn't really solidify in your head.
But once it's a story, you know, it's the Asians getting into college story, now it's a story.
So you'll remember that and it'll be influential forever.
So I think something changed.
I think something changed.
And I think that we're moving toward a understanding that black Americans need more than anything, strategy.
Because the Asian American example, if you're racist, you're gonna say, oh, because they're smart, right?
If you're racist, you say, oh, the Asians are smart, that's why they do so well.
Maybe they are, but you don't need that assumption.
You could look at the strategy, You don't say culture.
As soon as you say culture, you get in trouble.
That's why I say strategy.
Look at the strategy.
Stay out of jail.
Stay off drugs.
Study hard.
Try to get a job that you know will pay well.
Start a family.
Stay married.
Raise the kids.
Get them into college.
That's the strategy.
Are you telling me that black Americans can't use that same strategy?
Why?
Because they started behind the ball or, you know, systemic racism?
That might make it harder.
But unless you're doing those things, nobody wants to hear from you.
I think that's the big, I think that's a big takeaway from the affirmative action ruling.
Unless you're doing what the Asian Americans are doing, doing it the way they're doing it, We don't want to hear from you.
Didn't that feel like exactly what you were thinking?
If you can't do what the Asian Americans are doing, I don't even want to have a conversation.
Honestly, I'm just not interested anymore.
If black Americans were trying hard to do what the Asian Americans are doing that's working, and it wasn't working for black Americans, then I'm completely engaged.
Let's fix this.
What's wrong here?
Let's fix it.
But if you're not doing the strategy that everybody knows works, everybody knows it.
Everybody knows it.
If you're not trying to do that strategy, we don't want to hear from you.
Don't make it my problem.
Definitely not my problem.
So something's definitely changed.
And I think some of it is positive.
In other words, we're sort of framing the things as more of a strategy deficit.
And once you prove that the Asian Americans, basically all of them followed the same strategy, and it worked.
I'm exaggerating.
It's not all of anybody.
But it's undeniable, right?
We've gotten to the point where you can't make an argument that the people who do the right things get bad outcomes.
You just can't make that argument.
It would sound ridiculous in 2023.
But I think in the past people made that argument.
That even if you're black and you did everything right, it still wouldn't work out for you.
Does anybody believe that?
Do any of you believe that if you're black American, you do everything right, you know, stay in a jail, study hard, build a skill, unless you have terrible luck, like you're the victim of a drive-by shooting or something, unless you have terrible luck, don't every one of you expect that that would work?
It would probably work really well.
Not even a little bit, just a lot.
It works pretty much every time.
So there does seem to be some willingness, and I think the affirmative action thing caused it, a willingness to say, get your strategy right, or we can't even tell how much systemic racism is mattering.
I take it as a given that systemic racism is a big variable.
But how big?
How big?
I have no idea, because I'm not in that situation.
But if I looked at people whose strategy was solid, they're doing the right strategy, and they're still not getting it done, then I would say, whoa, whoa, whoa, then you've got to look pretty hard at the systemic racism.
But then you've sized it, right?
Then you know the size of it.
Could also be something else, but unless you get the strategy the same, we don't want to hear from you.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is my always risky but positive take on the world.
And how much do you love that I have free speech?
How much do you love it?
How many of you would like to hear me read the Dilbert Reborn comic today?
And now some of you pay for it.
You're subscribers.
So if you don't mind, I'm going to read this one.
All right.
So this will give you an idea of what you're missing.
Why can't I find it in my own feed?
There it is.
All right, so it starts out with Dilbert and Dogbert watching the news.
And this is a crossover, where the news that they're watching is Robots Read News, my other comic.
So this is the first crossover of my two comics.
So they start out watching the news, and then the robot's talking from the news.
So the news says, Roomba started offering what some are calling an Uber for cats.
And you see the robot and he says, the way it works.
And then the robot looks down and sees that the Chiron says, put your pussy on it.
And then the robot says, I knew it was a mistake to hire the Chiron guy from Fox News.
And then the Chiron says, dipshit robot.
Anyway, dipshit robot.
Now there's something I couldn't do in newspapers.
So this brings together the headlines and two separate comics.
You know, I'll tell you, I could not be happier creatively.
And let me ask you this, do you think AI could have made that comic?
Do you think there's any time in the future AI could make that comic?
No.
Because AI can't take the risk that I just took.
Right?
AI would never do what I just did.
Part of being a humorist is you're putting yourself at mortal danger in front of other people.
When you mock things, you do open yourself up for revenge.
And I get plenty of that.
But it's worth it.
I think it's worth it.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, concludes my amazing presentation.
Thanks for joining me on YouTube.
I think it'll be even better tomorrow, if you want to see the subscription version of Dilbert Reborn that's spicy like that one.
You can do that by joining Locals, scottadams.locals.com, and you would see all the political stuff as well, as well as Robots Read News.
But, if you only want the Dilbert Reborn comic without the politics, you can do that on Twitter.
Just hit the subscribe button on my profile.
And that is all we need to know.
And if you're on YouTube, it would help me if you hit the subscribe button.
If you're feeling generous, hit the subscribe button, because I think that's good for me somehow.
And I will talk to you tomorrow.
Export Selection