Episode 2162 Scott Adams: Would It Surprise You To Know The News Is Mostly Sketchy Today?
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
-----------
Sketchy news and coffee
Politics, Asa Hutchinson, Yevgeny Prigozhin Missing, Meta Threads App, Jimmy Dore, Kamala Harris, President Biden, President Trump, Cocaine Whitehouse, "What If" Legal Questions, Walt Nauta, Dr. Gal Luft Whistleblower, Alleged Biden Corruption, Cenk Uygur, US Cluster Munitions, Male Nipple Milk, Scott Adams
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
The best thing that'll ever happen to you.
Truly, best thing.
And if you'd like this experience to be wow, like the kind that you'll talk about forever, well, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of doping.
At the end of the day, everything makes everything better.
It's called simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Oh, good.
That's good.
Well, top of the news, Asa Hutchinson has entered the race.
So Asa Hutchinson, he's in the race.
Rasmussen did a poll, and by the way, I saw there were some new people here.
For the new people, would you like to show how smart you will be?
And by the way, for the new people, this will happen to you too.
You can see already on Locals, and maybe you'll start seeing it a little bit on YouTube, that people, there it is, People are answering a question before I've asked it.
Before I've asked it.
Now watch this.
If you're new, this will be pretty amazing.
Because you can see the answers right there.
You can see them streaming by.
And they have the same answer.
And I have not asked the question.
Here's the question.
According to a Rasmussen poll, what percentage of likely voters have a favorable opinion of Hutchinson?
Well, look at that.
It's 25%.
25%.
You people are amazing!
You're amazing.
Now, for the new people, I know this looks like magic to you.
If you're new to the livestream, it looks like magic.
It does.
If you were watching, I don't know, Crowder or Russell Brand, can they do this?
They can't do this.
No.
I can tell you the news before it happens.
Literally.
I literally tell you the news before it happens.
All right?
Well, pretty impressive.
If you don't believe that I can tell you the news before it happens, where's Purgosian?
I told you you'd never see him again.
Certainly not in Belarus.
Well, it turns out he's not in Belarus.
Not in Belarus at all.
And the news is catching up, as you know.
CNN just can't let go.
This made me laugh this morning.
CNN is reporting that the Wagner offices and Purgosian's, I don't know, maybe his residence or something, they were all searched.
And the Russian government is saying that they searched Prigozhin's belongings, and then they gave him back his stuff.
And then CNN reported it.
That Russia gave Prokofiev back his stuff.
And he's just driving around Russia.
He's somewhere in Russia, just driving around, he's just living his best life.
Hey, where's Purgosian?
He's in St.
Petersburg.
No, no, no, he's in Moscow.
I think he's in Belarus.
But I'll tell you what, he's got all of his stuff and he's living his best life.
That's totally happening.
That's what you'd believe if you'd been watching CNN.
He's got an RV.
He's got an RV. He's got an RV. He's got an RV.
Oh my God, the mental image of Purgosia just driving an RV around Russia.
Everything's fine.
Everything's good.
How's things going, Pregosian?
Oh, I've never been happier.
Got to see the country.
It's a good thing I've got an RV so I can hold all my stuff that they gave back.
I got my Bitcoin back there.
Big pile of cash.
Yeah.
When the Russians found that big pile of cash, the first thing they did was give it back to Purgosian.
And you know what's interesting?
They gave him back his stuff without knowing where he was.
I don't know how they did that.
They probably have a really good mail service.
Address it to Purgosian in your RV, wherever you are.
And then he got his stuff back.
Oh my.
So Threads launched, as you know, the Twitter killer application from Zuckerberg.
And I guess I'm sure this is already a dated number, but over 30 million people signed up right away.
See what that's about?
But out of 30 million people, What number of them said they were thrilled by the product?
30 million people signed up.
Total number of people who were thrilled by the product and pretty happy it exists?
No, it's not 25%.
No, it's not 25%.
I haven't heard anybody.
Has anybody heard even one story, even one, of anybody who went to threads and said, oh yeah, yeah, this is gonna be good.
Oh, I'm so happy to be on a Twitter with no interesting people.
I haven't heard a single person say they liked it.
I've heard people say it exists.
I've heard people say they've signed up.
I've heard people say they used it.
Not one person said they enjoyed it.
Can you think of a product that would have 30 million customers and none of them are happy?
Actually, none of them.
I mean, there might be some Democrats who are happy that there aren't trolls there.
How long do you think it will take to put trolls there if it gets filled with Democrats?
In theory, threads should evolve into the Democrat Twitter, right?
Do you kind of expect that?
If there's a Democrat Twitter, do you think that any Republican trolls might Just for fun.
Might take a wander over there.
Maybe just saunter over to see what's happening on Threads.
In theory, it'll just be this cesspool of Democrats and trolls and nothing else.
But I say this jokingly.
Now the question is, will I sign up?
What do you think?
Will I sign up for Threads?
See if you can anticipate what I would do.
Will I sign up for threads?
Yeah, of course I will.
Of course I will.
But I would use it just for, you know, promotion.
Use it for promotion, it's fine for that.
We'll see what happens.
Alright.
There's a big story today that Jimmy Dore had a A piece where he says that the CDC knew the mandates were based on a falsehood and they lied about it, even knowing it.
And that we know that now because of documents and emails.
So we know that when the CDC said these vaccinations are great and they're stopping the spread and all that, that they knew it was a lie.
Now, have you seen that in the news?
Did you see that on Fox News?
No, I didn't see it there.
Did you see it on CNN?
No?
Nope.
Did not see it on CNN.
Think it's true?
Nope.
Nope.
Do you think Jimmy Dore showed you the document?
Or did he show you somebody talking about a document?
I don't know.
Here's how I would look at this critically.
I only looked at a little bit, but I didn't see any documents.
And if this had been true, wouldn't you expect it would be in the news?
It would be the biggest news, wouldn't it?
It would be the biggest thing in the news.
No?
You don't think the Fox News would cover it?
Breitbart?
I don't know.
Do you think it's true?
My guess is, if I looked at the documents and heard what the CDC said, maybe it's You know, and let me be clear.
I hope it doesn't sound like I'm supporting the CDC.
You're not getting that, are you?
This is just about the quality of news and information.
It's not about the CDC.
I don't have, you know, because I don't know what's real.
I have no idea what's real in this story.
But is it likely that there would be a publicly available document that says the CDC clearly knew they were lying at the same time as the document?
And the news isn't covering it?
Hmm.
I'm gonna say there's something wrong with the story.
I'm not supporting the CDC.
I'm not saying that they told the truth.
I'm saying that the story has something wrong with it.
I just don't know what.
Jimmy Dore put down Scott Adams in a few pieces.
That's true.
Now, so far I have the best opinion of the pandemic, meaning the most accurate predictions.
Jimmy Dore and a lot of other people fell for some hoaxes about my opinions.
So usually I think Jimmy Dore was reacting to the hoax, not my actual opinions.
I'm not sure that he disagrees with me about anything.
But he would certainly disagree with the hoax version of my opinion, as do I. I also disagree with the hoax version of my opinion.
But now we've seen I have the best opinion on Trump-related politics, the best opinion on the pandemic by far.
Nobody even came close.
Best opinion on Prigozhin and the Ukraine war?
So far.
By far.
Nobody's even close.
That is after my biggest mistake, which was saying that Russia would be stupid if they attacked Ukraine because it would be a disaster for Russia and it would be obvious.
And it was a disaster for Russia and it was obvious.
They did it anyway.
So I got that one totally wrong.
But I do have the unambiguously best predictions on everything important.
It's true.
You can hate me for it.
I practically hate myself.
But it's true.
Who had the best opinion about the secret sonic weapon that was attacking the embassies?
I didn't.
I'm the only one who said it was fake from the first day.
Totally fake.
All right.
So if you're tracking my record of success, I would say I seem to be best at telling you what's not true.
I think I'm probably less good.
I don't know for sure.
I think I'm less good at telling you what's true.
Let's talk about the Kraken.
The Kraken got me excited because it came from what I thought at the time was a real source.
But in the end, I had the best opinion on the elections.
By far.
Because I told you from day one that there would be all kinds of claims about election impropriety, and I told you that 95% of them would be fake, guaranteed.
And that I didn't know if there would be 5% that were real, but 95% would be fake, guaranteed.
Did that pan out?
Do you think my 95% were fake panned out?
Exactly.
It was exactly correct.
Now I don't know if there's 5% that's true.
Don't know that.
But at least 95% of them were not true.
We can say that with some certainty at the moment.
And you were wrong.
Now the other thing that I said, which is the only smart take on the election integrity, is that it's not auditable so you can't know.
You can't know if it was rigged.
It's not knowable.
And if you have a situation where there's a reason to rig it and there's payoff and lots of people involved, And all that, that rigging is guaranteed.
It's actually guaranteed by the situation.
The only thing you can't guarantee is when and how much.
You can't guarantee when, you can't guarantee how much, but you can guarantee it.
Because it's a situation that guarantees it happens over time.
You just don't know when.
That's the best opinion on the election.
If you say it's guaranteed you know that it was rigged, well, I haven't seen the proof.
If you say you're sure that it wasn't, I mean that's just crazy talk.
So you can't be sure if I won, but you can be sure that the situation guarantees it will be, or has been.
So by far that's the best opinion of the election.
Now, I did get excited about the Kraken.
So I'm not going to try to minimize that.
But even with that, by far the best opinion.
All right.
Because remember, the Kraken was also under the 95% rule.
When the Kraken happened, I already said, but be careful.
95% will be bullshit.
And that just happened to be part of it.
Now on the Kraken, I believe I was the first person in the country to say, There's no way that the general, the Venezuelan general stuff is true.
Right?
Was I the first person?
Probably the first person in the country who said in public, there's no way that's true.
By its nature, that's not true.
So that was probably the best opinion.
All right, there might be still a Kraken in the future, but no Krakens yet.
So, we don't know about Jimmy Dore.
We know he was wrong about me.
I know he was totally wrong about me.
But we don't know if he's wrong about this yet.
Alright, there's a study that says early risers are happier.
Like, there's a strong correlation between getting up early and not being depressed.
Do you believe that science?
It's science!
It must be true!
Because it's in the media.
And it's science!
Do you think?
I'm just going to speculate for a moment.
I'm no science guy.
But I wonder... I wonder, if you were depressed... I'm not depressed, so I'll have to ask you.
If there's anybody depressed here... No, there's nobody depressed here, because you didn't get up on time to watch this.
Hypothetically, is there anybody who has ever been depressed?
Can you answer me this important question?
Again, I'm no scientist.
I'm not a researcher.
But it just seems like an obvious question.
When you're depressed, do you like getting out of bed?
Do you like getting up and attacking the day?
Or do you say to yourself, you know, I'd rather be unconscious, frankly.
I think I'll sleep another two hours.
So, One wonders if there's a cause and effect that may be reversed here, maybe.
Like every other study we've ever seen in the news forever, where they get always the cause and effect reversed every time, like every time.
It's almost impossible to see something that doesn't look.
Like they've reversed the cause and effect.
I feel like science is 75% of people trying to fool you into thinking correlation, maybe it does mean causation in this case.
Maybe it does. 75%.
25% it's actually causation.
I'm just making up these numbers.
But by far the majority of these stories are not true.
By far they're not true.
So if you were to believe a story like this because it was in the news, well, do that at your caution.
Now they do say, to their credit, it's not like they weren't aware that there's a causation-correlation issue here.
They did say that you can decrease your risk by 23% by shifting your sleep schedule.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe you can decrease your risk of depression by becoming a morning person?
That feels about right, actually.
So, one of my little rules about science is that if your anecdotal observation of life happens to match the science, that doesn't mean it's true.
But that's way better than if it doesn't match.
Right?
I always use cigarettes as the example.
Science says cigarettes give you lung cancer.
And sure enough, I know several people who smoke cigarettes and got lung cancer.
I know one person who had lung cancer and didn't smoke cigarettes in my whole life.
Right?
So that sounds about right.
Probably.
And when they say that shifting to a morning person makes you happier, that also matches my anecdotal experience.
Because I don't know if it would make any difference at all to organic depression.
So I'm not sure if they're defining depression in the real clinical, you can't get out of bed kind of way.
Or if they just mean people who say they're depressed because they're sad, but it's not exactly the same clinical situation.
You could definitely change your experience of life from bad or average to pretty good by getting up early.
I don't know if that's the same as depression.
Isn't depression an actual sort of chemical, physical problem that's more than just what's happening in your life?
I thought it was.
But I could certainly see that people who would describe themselves as depressed, but maybe they're not clinically exactly technically depressed the way a doctor would say, I could see that those people would be happier.
And there's a really good reason why.
The first several hours of my day, I don't have contact with other people in person.
Do you know how good that is for your mental health?
To not have contact with other people for the first few hours you're awake?
It's amazing!
So, like most of you, I've had good days and bad.
Right?
Like, you know, life gives you ups and downs.
But I've said this before, that I've almost never, in my entire adult life, never had a bad time between 4 and 9 a.m.
Ever.
It just doesn't happen.
Between four and nine a.m.
every day, seven days a week, 365 days a day, I'm gonna have a great time.
Now I love doing this, which is why I do it during this time.
So this is like purely fun for me.
I mean, it's sort of a job.
It's the best job ever because it's doing exactly what I'd want to do.
Like, exactly.
I don't do a single thing I don't want to do right now, which is talking to you about fun topics that I would like to talk about anyway.
So, so if you told me you could take me from somebody who sleeps in till 10 a.m.
You can convert me to somebody who guarantees us five excellent hours every day.
Those five hours are not just okay.
They're really good.
I love the morning.
I love it.
Afternoons?
Afternoons can be good or bad.
Evenings?
Can be good, can be bad.
Mostly they're good.
I don't really have too many bad days.
But the mornings are guaranteed.
So if you tell me that getting up, shifting from waking up at 10 a.m.
to shifting to 4 or 5 a.m.
makes you happier, I'd say absolutely.
You just added like a quarter of your awake time.
You just improved massively.
So when they say you can reduce your risk of depression by 23%, that hits right on the nose of my actual experience.
Right on the nose.
It's about a 25% everyday improvement because of just those hours being awesome.
Anyway, highly recommend that you experiment with getting up early.
If you say to yourself you're not a morning person, they also mentioned in the study that you might be able to change yourself into a morning person.
Now, I didn't think I was a morning person until I was.
I don't know how uncommon that is, but I've heard other people shift to the super early morning and made it work.
But I do think there's a difference.
I think some people's natural biology would not allow them to do that, but you might be surprised if you're one of them.
There's a new Kamala Harris word salad nonsense video.
I don't think we have to play it, right?
Do you need to see another one?
Just trust me.
It's her trying to talk and failing.
Right?
Which we're completely used to at this point.
Now, it's funny that every video of Kamala Harris talking in public gets labeled a cringe video.
A cringe video.
Imagine if your major candidate for office, for vice president, whenever they talked about any topic in public, people cringed and went, oh God.
Every time.
Like every time!
So, I'll tell you the lesson here.
This is one of my mother's greatest lessons.
You can get used to anything if you do it long enough.
And then the punchline to that was including hanging.
If you get hung, you get used to it if you do it long enough.
You just get used to anything.
We actually got used to having a president and a vice president who were not, let's say, verbally gifted.
When Harris and Biden were running, it was very clear that they were not, let's say, gifted in the communication skills.
They weren't really even up to the level that most politicians are.
Most politicians.
Am I wrong that it's gotten worse?
That's not my imagination, right?
But not only has Biden gotten worse from obvious decline from age, I mean, I think we all see it, but it seems to me that Harris used to make sense.
Somebody tweeted today a video of her from before she was vice president in which she was At some congressional hearing and she was getting tough on somebody.
And she sounded like she was completely in control.
She sounded like she understood the world and knew how to talk.
But she doesn't, she doesn't display any of those skills that were well on display before she became vice president.
What's up with that?
Now that's what fooled me completely.
Because early on I'd picked her to be, you know, a likely president.
And it was based on early videos of her performing her job.
And I said, oh, there's somebody who's not only tough, has a commanding voice.
Remember I talked about a commanding voice versus a pleading voice?
She had a commanding voice.
She was A woman of color.
She was a senator.
She was young enough.
You know, she had the right backers.
I mean, it looked like she had the whole package.
Something happened.
And it looks like drugs.
Or alcohol.
Now, I'm not saying I know that that's the case.
I'm saying that it's obvious to the public that you have both a president and a vice president Who can't communicate for different reasons.
But we're actually going to have that same pair who we know can't do basic communication.
The most fundamental part of the job is to show up in public and say smart things to make us feel good.
You know, at least half of the job.
And there are two candidates who can't do that thing, which is talk to the public and make us feel good.
Not at all.
Now, how did we get used to this?
We're actually going to enter an election phase where we actually have somebody who is clearly mentally incompetent who is running with somebody who can't form a sentence in public.
And those are not exaggerations, are they?
Is that an exaggeration to say Kamala can't form sentences in public?
Not really.
That's pretty straight, just describing what's happening.
Can Biden give an inspirational speech and handle questions?
No, he can't.
And nobody thinks he can.
There's nobody who thinks he can.
So how in the world did you get two candidates, the number one and the number two, who can't do the most basic human activity of having a conversation?
That makes sense.
To actually make sense.
They can't do it.
Now, you could say all kinds of bad things about Trump.
Some of them I might say, well, you get a point there.
But does anybody ever say he can't talk?
He can talk.
He's really, really good at it.
And the contrast here is insane.
Because Biden and Kamala Harris, I think you would agree that unless you throw Dan Quayle into the equation, that they would set the record as the two least capable public communicators.
Is that fair?
The two least capable public communicators who are in those jobs.
I've never seen anything like it.
Now I've said, and other experts have agreed, that Trump might be the best we've ever seen.
Now, his opinions are a problem for many people in the country, but his ability to communicate isn't just average.
Trump is not average.
He might be the best president communicator we've ever had.
You just don't like what he's saying in some cases, right?
Now, Vivek is not yet a president, but Vivek is off the charts.
His communication skills are just crazy good.
So, I mean, I feel good about that.
So we do have people who can do the job.
It's just we may not pick them.
Yeah, Reagan was insane, but I think Trump might even be better.
Reagan was great.
There's no doubt about it.
Of course, I'm judging Trump also by his tweets.
Reagan didn't have Twitter.
I don't feel like Reagan's Twitter game would have matched Trump's.
Because Trump is actually so well, let's say he's a perfect fit for the times.
We're in crude times.
So crude Trump fits crude Twitter just perfectly.
So anyway, but the fact that we're looking at one of the, you could say at least one of the best communicators of our time against the two unambiguously worst.
And it's still going to be a close election.
It's still going to be close.
So that's pretty absurd.
Speaking of absurdity, I saw a tweet by Miriam Grossman.
She's a doctor, MD.
And she says, I woke up today to learn that the CDC endorses using powerful drugs to induce nipple discharges in men who then claim they can breastfeed.
P.S.
Some of the drugs are then consumed by the infant.
Yes, the CDC.
Our tax dollars.
Well, let me give you some advice.
This will be for the babies.
If you're a baby and you're raised on Male nipple milk.
And someday you have a conversation with your mom, because there's probably two parents involved here, and you say to your mom, like, hey mom, was I breastfed as a child?
As a baby?
If your mom says to you, technically yes, stop asking questions.
Stop.
Just stop.
Just let yourself out.
Slowly, like this.
Just sort of fade into the background.
Like that.
That's how to handle that situation.
Here's what you don't want to do.
This would be the big mistake.
Was I breastfed, Mom?
Technically, yes.
Don't do this.
What do you mean by technically?
Don't do that.
Don't do that.
Just walk away.
And if you do find out that you were fed by your nipple milk from a male, here's my next advice.
Don't mention it to your classmates.
If you're in high school, don't mention it.
Do not mention it to your classmates.
No.
You'll think that you're just sharing.
You'll think you're sharing your feelings and maybe just sharing some... Don't.
Do not.
Do not mention it to your classmates.
Or your co-workers.
Or your future spouse.
Or anyone.
Ever.
However, the good news is that Ben & Jerry's has a new flavor.
It's called male nipple milk.
And Ben & Jerry are making it themselves.
So they're going to be making a special batch.
They've just got to take their nipple making drugs and they'll start filling those containers.
Ben & Jerry's nipple milk.
All right.
Let's talk about that cocaine found in the White House.
The big story today is that some people are speculating that the administration is trying to throw Kamala Harris under the bus.
Which she would love, by the way.
If it's a yellow school bus.
She'd love it.
She'd love it.
If you're going to throw Kamala Harris under a bus, don't pick like a municipal bus.
She doesn't have much to say about that.
But a yellow school bus?
Oh God, she loves those.
Whoa.
So if you throw her under a yellow school bus, she'd be happy.
She could, you know, plug in her Wi-Fi.
I mean, she'd have everything there.
But, charge her phone.
But, I forget what I was talking about.
I just got all excited about the yellow school bus.
I can see how it gets people going.
I do not believe, I do not believe the hypothesis.
The idea that the administration is throwing her under the bus, no.
That would not be their best play.
They could get rid of her other ways.
You don't want to admit that you picked a cocaine user for your vice president.
That wouldn't be the good way to do it.
If they need to get rid of her, maybe that'll happen.
But they're not going to do it that way.
They're not going to plant drugs on her.
I mean, really?
Do any of you really believe that they would plant drugs on their own vice president?
Does anybody really believe that?
Some do.
Some do.
Well, one way it could be possible is that somebody who was a dirty trickster did it.
For the purpose of removing her, but maybe, you know, would not have been a sanctioned operation or something.
Maybe.
But if you're telling me that Biden approved an operation to plant cocaine on his vice president, how many think that?
How many think that Joe Biden approved an operation to plant drugs on his own vice president?
No, no, no, he didn't do that.
No.
No, no.
Somebody believes it.
Yeah.
But how many would believe that, you know, the deep state would do it?
Well, that's different.
The deep state might do it.
I just don't think it would be the best way to accomplish their goal.
Might be the worst way.
So it seems very unlikely to me.
So I dismiss that possibility as super unlikely.
But What else is new?
Let's see.
We're seeing more reporting, even from CNN, that cameras are everywhere.
So, how is it that we have not heard whether or not for sure there are cameras there?
Isn't that weird?
That we're somehow okay with that?
What's wrong with the news?
The news is completely broken.
At the very least, there should be a confirmation that there was always video surveillance.
Right?
How is it that by now we don't know the answer to the question, does the videotape show who put it there?
Isn't that a pretty basic question?
Pretty basic.
We don't know that.
It's funny.
I saw a gentleman on Fox News, Fox and Friends, I think, but I wish I'd caught his name, because he made a good point.
But if you saw it, could you mention the name?
I'll give him credit for it.
It was the, oh, I think it was Outnumbered.
No, it was on Outnumbered.
So Outnumbered, they have a bunch of women, and they have one man there who was the outnumbered one.
Who was it this morning?
It was such a good point, I want to give him credit for it.
All right.
Well, maybe you'll come up with a name because I know some of you watched it.
But anyway, his point was that if they had determined that it was anthrax, do you think you wouldn't know who it was?
It's such a good point.
If the powder had been anthrax and thus it looked like an attack on the president, do you think we wouldn't know who put it there?
I mean seriously.
Seriously.
We wouldn't know who put that there if it had been a poison.
Of course we would.
So of course they know who put it there.
Of course they know by now.
Why aren't they telling us?
Now do you think that your White House administration would be so corrupt that they could know who put it there and they wouldn't tell you?
And that you'd never know?
Yes, they are.
Yes, they are.
That is correct.
They are.
They are corrupt enough to do that right in front of you.
Absolutely.
All right.
So, of course, the Democrats need a summer story to counteract.
I'll talk about this new whistleblower.
About the Bidens.
But in order to cover up the negative stories of the cocaine in the White House and the new whistleblower, you'd be surprised to find out there's more about the boxes.
Yeah, the Mar-a-Lago boxes are now a big story today.
Why?
Because these other stories are getting too much attention, so they need to throw in some box judo.
Box gate judo.
And today, Joe Biden became a mass murderer.
But what about those boxes?
Yeah, yeah, sure.
Joe Biden is possibly approving cluster munitions for Ukraine, which would be outlawed in every other country because they're too dangerous to civilians.
But it looks like we're going to do it.
No problem.
All right.
But those boxes, whoa, that's a real problem.
It's not the cluster of munitions and the possible nuclear war, it's the boxes.
But the news story is that this poor assistant to Trump, who went with him after the administration, Walt Nauta.
Well, it turns out that Walt Nauta allegedly was a Nauta boy.
He was a Nauta boy.
That's right.
The naughty one is called Nauta.
And because it's a simulation, so all the names are just jokes.
And he's alleged to have taken 50 boxes somewhere, and then allegedly he took fewer boxes back, which would suggest that somebody kept a bunch of boxes, which was not supposed to happen.
But here's what CNN reports, that there's either, I don't know if it was on tape or Some eyewitness quote.
But Trump is alleged to have said, what happens if we just don't respond at all about the boxes and don't play ball with them?
Trump allegedly said, quote, wouldn't it be better if we just told them we don't have anything here?
Now how often has Trump gotten in trouble for a what-if?
It's what he does on every topic, which I like.
I like that he asks the what-if about not just the things that everybody knows are practical, but he always asks what-if about the things that are edgy and that nobody's talking about and maybe would be dangerous.
It's not a problem to ask what-if.
That's not illegal.
So if in the context of a legal conversation, let's say there was an attorney there or he was just talking to advisors, if he said, what if we do this?
The context of that what if is that he thinks he owns the documents.
The what if is certainly not disconnected from the fact that he thought he owned them.
So if you think you own them, What if we don't give them back is a perfectly ordinary question.
There's nothing even provocative about that.
I think I own these.
What if I don't give them back?
Like what's the penalty?
What happens?
Isn't that just like an obvious correct question to ask?
If you believe they were yours.
Now if you believe they were not yours, if you knew they weren't yours or you couldn't make an argument that they were yours, then talking about how to not give them back would be evidence of You know, a mental state that is criminal.
But CNN leaves out the context that he probably thought he owned them.
Right?
Or at least that he thought it was a gray area that he could win, which would be about as good.
I think it's the usual framing to make it look like it's more of a big deal than it is.
I feel sorry for this Walt Nauta guy because he may be caught up in, let's say, a process crime around a crime that he didn't commit.
So I hate that.
And if he did get committed, you know, If he did get, let's say, convicted for lying, probably it would be because he was trying to protect his boss.
And I would hope that that boss would get elected and then pardon him.
Which is possible.
Trump could get elected and then just pardon Nauta.
But as others have pointed out, being a Trump supporter or working for Trump is basically a suicide pact.
Has anybody done well after supporting Trump or working with him?
I mean, it certainly was bad for my career.
My career got totally tanked just by saying he might win.
So everybody, pretty much everybody who's had an association with him has said, oh yeah, that's true.
Sarah Sanders did great, she's the governor now.
Okay, well we do have some examples of people who did great.
Let's talk about this new whistleblower.
You heard that in the issue of Hunter Biden maybe taking bribes from other countries, allegedly, that there was a whistleblower that was missing.
And everybody said, missing?
How did the whistleblower become missing?
Well, now we know, according to the whistleblower.
Now, all this is alleged, right?
But if you see the video, a video surfaced from the whistleblower, his name is, he's an Israeli professor, Dr. Gal Luft, and I'll give you my take.
You know how you can tell some people are lying when they talk?
You know, when Adam Schiff talks, it's just obvious he's lying.
When Swalwell talks, it's obvious he's lying.
You could pick some Republicans that it's obvious when they're lying, right?
It's not just one side.
There's some people who are really obvious when they're lying.
This guy doesn't look like he's lying.
Now, I'm no mind reader, so I can't know for sure.
But I'll tell you, this whistleblower sounds really credible.
Apparently he has a history and a domain of credible work with credible people for decades.
So he's not a nut.
He's not a nut.
Nobody thinks he is.
And this is the really scary part.
He doesn't even seem to be a partisan.
He doesn't even associate with a political party.
His story is that even before the laptop, and this is very important, the timing of it, before the laptop, he had already reported to the government and said, I'm seeing these briberies happening, because I guess he worked as an advisor for a Chinese company that was bribing, allegedly, because I guess he worked as an advisor for a Chinese company that was bribing, So he saw it firsthand, CFC, right, some Chinese company.
And they're attached to Chinese intelligence, etc.
Now, he reported to the government that he saw the Bidens taking bribes, effectively, Or at the very least, it would be a FARA violation.
It would be working for a foreign government without registering.
So, lo and behold, what do you think happened to the whistleblower who had first-hand, credible information that the Bidens were on the take?
Well, if you said he got charged for the very crime that they were committing, you would be right.
They charged him with a crime he said Biden committed.
They charged him with a FARA violation when he had apparently nothing to do even in that domain.
They charged him as an arms dealer.
Apparently, he's never even been involved in that business.
And then there was something about one of the investigators that came after him was the same one who was involved with the Hunter's laptop.
So the same cast of characters who apparently are trying to silence the whistleblower and trying really hard, as in a lot of illegal shit, if the whistleblower is correct, that the same cast of characters were involved in covering up the rest of the stuff.
So he looked really credible to me, and he's in hiding.
And he's in hiding because he believes the American government is a criminal organization out to get him.
And he is a credible person.
He's not some wing job.
He's actually credible.
It's right there.
He's got the goods, he's got the details, and he had it before the laptop.
Before the laptop.
So the government has known about these accusations from before the laptop, and you never heard about it, did you?
Never heard about it.
No, they decided to punish the whistleblower and put him in jail.
So future whistleblowers will know not to do anything like this.
So, now, let me say just so I've covered all bases.
If tomorrow it turns out he's a nut, don't tell me I didn't see it coming.
It's totally possible.
It's totally possible, yeah, it's totally possible he's a Kraken.
But, I will tell you he doesn't look like a nut.
So if he's a nut, he's really good at it.
Now, contrast this to the UFO whistleblower.
When I listened to the UFO whistleblower, none of that sounded true to me.
None of it sounded true coming out of his mouth.
And sure enough, no photographs of those UFOs yet.
But when this guy talked, it just sounded real.
And I would say at this point, I feel confident that we do know that our president was on the take.
I feel confident that that's just true.
Now, I could change my mind.
If there was some big investigation and found out this was misleading information, I could change my mind.
I'm not so invested in this being true that I couldn't say, whoa, I got that one wrong.
By the way, I don't know if you notice that I'm doing this intentionally.
One of the ways you protect yourself from cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, too, is you tell people at the same time you give your opinion that you could be wrong.
Because that gives you something to rely on later.
If you find out you're wrong, you don't have to hallucinate why you were really right all along and how, you know, the truth isn't the truth.
That's what cognitive dissonance is.
I don't have to.
I'll just say, remember I told you I could be wrong about that.
Well, I guess I was wrong.
So it's a really good mental hygiene.
It's a good way to protect yourself from your own cognitive dissonance.
You just say at the same time, totally possible I'm 100% wrong.
As long as you've said that, you have an escape from cognitive dissonance.
You just go to that.
Yeah, I said it could be wrong.
Surprised, but I said it could be.
It lessens the power of your predictions.
That's okay.
Why would I care about that?
It lessens the persuasion of my predictions, but not the power of them.
It only makes you maybe less likely to believe something that you shouldn't 100% believe, which is exactly where I want you.
I don't want you 100% believing anything I say.
I'm just telling you what things look like.
We'll all be surprised.
All right, part of this story from the whistleblower is that the Bidens had a close association with a one-eyed A one-eyed FBI informant who was giving them good stuff to give to the Chinese, I guess.
Apparently, FBI Director Louis Freeh had one eye.
Still does.
Still has one eye.
So he was the former FBI director, maybe at that time, but he still would have had connections.
Now, just to be clear, He's probably not the only person with one eye in the FBI, or that ever worked for the FBI, right?
So don't assume that he did anything.
I did hear, I'll just tell you, I heard this morning from somebody who knows the free family, and who is not anti-Republican.
Somebody who would be friendly to the Republican side, I'll just say that.
Who knows the family, and says, no way.
It would be just a shocker if that specific family was doing something like that.
Now, that's just one opinion.
But it's somebody who had a contact with the family, who just said, that doesn't feel right.
But, you know, anything's possible, right?
We can be surprised by anybody.
I would tell you that if you're sure that it's Louis Freeh that's being referred to, I wouldn't be that sure.
Wouldn't be that sure.
But there is evidence that I think the Free family and the Biden family has some long-standing connections.
That doesn't mean that's the one-eyed source, but they do have a long-standing connection with a one-eyed FBI head.
Which would be a weird coincidence, if it's a coincidence.
But it could be.
It could be a coincidence.
It wouldn't be the biggest one.
You know, as coincidences go, it would just be sort of an ordinary one.
It wouldn't be like a spectacular one.
Because there's got to be more than one person with one eye.
All right.
Well, there you go.
And I guess Louis Freeh also did work closely with Hunter Biden in Romania.
In Romania.
That doesn't sound too sketchy at all, does it?
The Hunter and Louis Freeh were collaborating in Romania.
I don't know over what.
And that Freeh contributed $100,000 to an education trust fund established for Joe Biden's grandchildren.
What?
Because that's what friends do?
That's what friends do?
Yeah.
Yeah.
You know, I can't tell you how many people I know who have started college education trust funds for other people.
Other people's children.
Oh, it happens all the time.
It's happened to you, right?
Haven't you had your family friends start $100,000 education funds for you even though you had plenty of money?
Yeah.
Yeah, even though you didn't have any money problems, people will often come up to you and say, I know you have no money problems.
You're actually quite well off.
But if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to give $100,000 to your grandchildren.
Why?
Oh, don't ask.
Don't ask.
Now, remember, every part of this story is early fog of war.
I don't know if he really did that.
If he really did that, well, that certainly raises some questions.
But maybe he didn't, right?
It's a little too early to say that that, yeah, that's pretty on the nose.
It's a little too early to say that any of this really happened.
Maybe he did.
We'll find out.
Just don't assume any of it's true yet.
All right, I would like to give another shout out to Cenk, whose last name I apologize for always saying wrong, but I think Uyghur?
Cenk Uyghur from the Young Turks.
Apparently he agreed with the Supreme Court both on denying student loan forgiveness and also for overturning affirmative action.
So what's amazing about the story is Cenk is very identified as a, let's say, a pretty extreme anti-Trump, pro-Democrat voice.
But this is now the, is this the third time he's gone against Democrats, you know, a really basic Democrat attack line?
It's like the third time in a few months.
Now each of the times he's done it, He showed his reasons, and his reasons were common sense.
They were just common sense.
They weren't even political, right?
And he seems to be engaging in what I call extreme normalness.
So Cenk is actually making news by being extremely normal.
In other words, he simply looked at the issues and he decided on them based on their merits.
And it looks so weird that he's trending.
He's trending because he looked at some big issues on their merits.
Which, in this case, did not go toward the Democrat side of the narrative.
And he's getting torched.
He's getting torched by his own team.
For simply making a decision based on the merits of the topic.
So, I would like to just give him a sitting ovation for being an independent thinker.
I want to be very clear, I don't agree with him on all of his views.
Nothing like that.
And nor do I require that of anybody that I would respect.
But my respect for him is off the chart right now.
Just off the chart.
So, because you know that cost him money, right?
You know that Cenk is taking a financial hit.
He paid a lot of money, potentially.
A lot of money.
To try to tell you what he really thought.
Which also makes me think that when he disagrees with me, he's not just taking a party line.
It means he actually disagrees.
Because I've seen now three examples where he's willing to agree with me, as long as the facts suggest that makes sense.
So I would say that Cenk's credibility right now is just through the roof.
Best in the business, right now.
Didn't expect to hear that from me, did you?
But when I say credibility, I don't mean he'll be right on everything.
I mean that when he tells you something, you can actually believe that that's his actual opinion.
And I do not believe that when I listen to the news, or the pundits, or most of the people on social media.
I don't even believe it's their real opinion.
It just looks like a team opinion.
But from now on, probably till the end of time, when I hear Cenk give an opinion, even if I hate it, I'll think that's his real opinion.
But I'll also take it more seriously.
Because I know that he can look at the actual pros and cons of stuff and make a reasoned decision that disagrees with his team.
He's a very rare character now.
And he did that for himself.
You know, he did it honestly.
And I have immense respect for it.
It's just so valuable that you can trust one person.
So there's one person you can trust.
It's his actual opinion.
Good for you.
All right, we'll fight later over something else, I'm sure.
All right.
What else?
Funny tweet from Noam Bloom, who showed the article headlines in a little paste up.
And one of the headlines was about Latinos are becoming the new face of white supremacy.
Another one that the Asians are the new helpers of white supremacy.
And the other one that says you don't have to be white to be a white supremacist, suggesting that black people are sometimes white supremacists too.
So Noam Bloom tweeted those headlines and then his comment was, White supremacy is more diverse than Harvard.
White supremacy is more diverse than Harvard.
Maybe not technically correct.
Pretty damn good.
Pretty damn good.
So Noam, good job.
All right.
I mentioned before that Glenn Greenwald is calling this out, that Biden looks like he's prepared to send cluster munitions to Ukraine, which have been banned by even our allies.
Even our allies won't use it in a war because it's too dangerous for civilians.
And Biden's like, yeah, probably.
Yeah, we'll send you some of those over there.
Cluster bombs.
Wow.
So that might be happening.
At this point, is there anybody who believes that Ukraine is going to break through and get all their territory back?
Does anybody think that's going to happen?
Nope.
Does anybody think Russia is going to break through the Ukrainian lines and take Kiev?
Nope.
Does anybody think that anybody who dies from this day forward in Ukraine was a good use of people?
Do you think the people dying today on either the Russian or Ukraine side are dying for anything?
For anything?
Nope.
Not for anything.
Nope, every death now has no purpose whatsoever.
Not Ukrainian, not Russian.
Now they can't stop, because I guess if one side stopped that'd be a problem.
But you need a Trump to say the war is over.
You need a Trump to say the war is over.
But I worry that ending the war was never the intention of the administration.
Does it seem that we have the American administration?
Do you think Biden wants to end this war?
There's no evidence of that, is there?
There's no evidence they're trying to win the war.
All of the evidence is they're using it as a way to, you know, drain resources out of Russia and basically turn them into a third world country.
And it looks like it might be working.
I've said this before that there's a whole bunch of things that will be near breaking points, but if they don't break, you'll never know they were ever near the breaking point, because it's not like anything's bending.
I think that Russia itself, as well as the war, probably are really close to some breaking points in like a variety of ways.
So I heard somebody say that, I have no idea if this is true, just an example, that Russia's funds are running out, what is it, their sovereign funds or something, so that at some point they just won't have the money to pursue the war.
They'll just run out of money.
I don't know, is that true?
I don't know.
Others say that the technical sanctions will basically make all of their industry crumble, because if they can't get replacement parts, nothing works.
So they'll just have trouble there.
But then again, there's the war itself.
Maybe you could easily imagine mass defections from the Russian army.
It hasn't happened yet, but you could easily imagine it.
And you could imagine that you're really close to it, and it doesn't happen.
But it could be really close.
Could be really close.
So there are a whole bunch of things that could just turn over like a domino any minute.
So it's a completely unpredictable situation.
But the one thing that a President Trump could do, if he didn't want to destroy Russia for whatever long-term strategic reasons, he could just say, you're not winning.
Nobody's winning.
You're wasting lives.
Stop today.
We'll work this out.
I think he could actually do that and pull it off.
I saw somebody else do a comparison of where we are in 2023 in terms of wars compared to prior times.
Apparently there are fewer wars going on right now than historically has been the case.
Did you know that?
You know, Ukraine obviously is a big one, so you have to include the size of the war, that matters.
But in terms of the number of wars, apparently we're at something like a low.
How about that?
You know, I think most of those wars were, you know, like African civil wars and stuff like that.
But for whatever reason, we're at an all-time low of wars.
So if we get rid of this one, we'd be in much better shape.
No, not because there are fewer countries, because I'm just comparing to say 20, 30 years ago, and roughly the same amount of countries.
All right, did I miss any stories today?
You think Wagner knocked out the African freedom fighters?
That could be, at least in some places.
Well, I don't know if the French are having a civil war.
Oh, I remembered who it was.
I think it was Nassim Taleb, who wrote that when Islam gets a 10% traction in your country, that you can predict it will take over.
Now, I don't know if it was 10%.
Maybe you can do a, can you do a fact check on that?
Do I have that approximately right?
I don't want to misquote Taleb.
The reason I don't want to misquote him is because I often criticize him.
If you criticize somebody, you don't want to misquote him.
That's just a bad look.
10%?
All right, so I'm getting some confirmation that he once said that 10% and he had an argument.
I remember I read his argument and it sounded pretty solid.
And you can imagine how it works because you can see it in this country.
Would you agree That the black population of America has an oversized, let's say, footprint on all of our decision-making domestically.
You'd agree with that, right?
And, you know, African Americans are 13% of the country.
But that 13% has a way out of proportion impact on everything we do.
Now imagine that that, instead of being black Americans, Who are perfectly happy to be part of America if, you know, if things could improve a little bit.
But black Americans are Americans, right?
They want better situation in a variety of ways, but they still want to be Americans.
They still want to have democracy and, you know, all that stuff.
But if you had 13% of Islamic fundamentalists, they wouldn't be looking to negotiate.
They'd be looking to get anything they want.
And I think the mechanism is that politicians will start making accommodations at around that size.
So when you're in that 5-10% range and you make a lot of noise, the politicians are going to start changing things for your benefit because it's easier.
And then things just keep changing.
Let me give you an example.
Let's say 13% of the country were Islamists.
I hope I'm using the word right.
If we were 13% Islamists, what would be our current policy on immigration from Islamic countries?
You see it?
If we had 13% Islamists already here, There would be tremendous pressure on the government to increase immigration from other Islamic countries.
So you could go from 13% to 20% really quickly.
In terms of the arc of a country, it would be fairly quickly.
Once you get to 20%, things can happen kind of quickly after that.
Because remember one of the things that Islam has as a strength in terms of its spread is that if you're a serious old school devoted Muslim, once you're a Muslim you can't leave.
You could be killed.
We're not talking about American Muslims for the most part.
We're talking about more fundamentalists.
But that fundamentalism could easily find its way into any other country, such as France.
And I think France is already gone.
I think France is essentially on the way to becoming an Islamic European country.
And that's because I'm agreeing with Talib that there's an obvious mechanism for it to happen.
And if nothing changes the obvious mechanism for it to happen, We would expect it to happen, and I don't see anything that would change the mechanism.
All right.
What motivated the Crusades?
Good point.
Would you see an equal decrease in wokeness?
Oh, I think wokeness is dead.
So we've now seen that even Larry Fink, head of BlackRock, is disavowing the use of at least the term ESG.
He says it's embarrassing now because he's getting too much feedback.
I guess Jim Jordan and Thomas Massey and somebody else are asking BlackRock to come in to talk about ESG because apparently there's an argument that it's antitrust.
Some kind of colluding, industry collusion for ESG.
If somehow they could make that illegal, I don't know.
But yeah, ESG is in crisis.
The reporting is that the big companies are downsizing their DEI departments.
You don't downsize them because it's working.
Nobody downsizes something that's working.
And now that the news is saying that the other big companies are downsizing DEI, it makes it safe.
So if you're the 10th company to do it, nobody notices.
So now it's safe because the news reported that everybody's doing it.
Now everybody can do it.
So you've got DEI on the decline.
You've got ESG on the decline, at least reputationally, if not in reality, but reality would follow reputation.
You've got Male nipple milk from the CDC?
Like, that's a headline story today?
That male nipple milk will be, you know, recommended by the CDC, I guess?
Now, there's nobody who doesn't think that's ridiculous, except for ridiculous people, right?
It's not like the Democrats are saying, Male nipple milk?
Ah, get me some of that!
I'm so thirsty, I can't wait to get some male nipple milk!
Nobody's saying that.
So that's the point of ridiculousness, where you can just mock it openly.
You can't mock openly, and I don't think you should, somebody's lifestyle choice of how they present themselves.
I think that's fair.
People can do what they want to do.
They're adults.
You can present yourself in any crazy way you want according to somebody else's opinion of what's crazy.
We're all allowed to do that.
But it went to male nipple milk.
Once you get to male nipple milk, we can all just make fun of it.
Once you can mock it, and that was what was missing, you couldn't mock Some elements of wokeness without getting slammed.
But now you can say it out loud.
You saw what I got cancelled for.
We don't have to bring that up again.
But you can see also that after I got cancelled, people now can say that openly everywhere.
They can say what I got cancelled for openly everywhere.
Now.
Am I wrong?
You see it on social media every day.
Every day people say, at least get away from cities.
Get out of cities, which is saying the same thing.
The people who say get out of cities, they're saying what I said.
They're just using different words.
All right.
Yeah, getting away from people who overtly say that they don't like you and that you're the cause of their problems.
I think everyone agrees getting away from them.
I've never seen anybody who didn't.
Yeah, cities is the new urban.
You're right.
I didn't notice that, but you're right.
Get out of cities is the new racist dog whistle.
But you know what's different?
I think even if you said, hey, if you're saying getting out of cities is, if somebody tells you that you're being racist for saying get out of cities, do you know what's different?
What's different about this?
So you say people should get out of cities, and then somebody says, that's a racist dog whistle.
What's your response?
Yeah, that's probably true.
That's probably true.
Right?
You could just say it out loud now.
Hey, that's really racist.
You're saying get out of cities.
You could just say out loud, yeah, in a way, you're really right.
That's a good point.
I'm still going to do it, because my personal safety Is my business.
You get that right?
If I'm doing hiring in a company, that is sort of everybody's business.
If you're running for office, that's everybody's business.
You want as much diversity, you know, I'm in favor of the courts and as much as possible within reason that businesses look like the community.
I like that our government represents, you know, looks a little bit like the people.
That's all good.
But if you're talking about your Personal safety, that's nobody's business.
There's nothing in the Constitution that says you have to justify your personal safety decisions to anybody.
Nobody gets a second bet on that.
So if they would like to characterize your decisions as racist, the correct answer to that is, yeah, I could see how you'd say that.
I could see how you'd say that.
I get your point.
Your point is well taken.
But it shouldn't make any difference to your decision.
Your decision is your decision.
It's just personal safety.
You're just playing the odds as you see them.
You can be wrong about the odds, but you're playing the odds as you see them.
That's always legal.
You know, unless you're doing an actual crime.
All right.
What else did I need to talk about?
Kansas needs legal pot?
Josh, I'll work on that.
Till then, stay alive!
All right.
Do you still believe the experts that told you there was a pandemic?
That's word thinking.
I don't participate in word thinking.
So Karl Rove named 19 candidates in the Wall Street Journal, but not Vivek or Kennedy.
Well, I don't think Karl Rove is what you'd call an independent observer.
If you're listening to Karl Rove in terms of his preferences, I wouldn't bother doing that.
He's really good in terms of explaining what's going on.
He's excellent at just explaining what's true.
But once you get to anything that's like his preference for who should be, that's just his opinion.
Time to milk your man.
It's time to milk my man.
I don't know who said that.
It's time to go milk my man.
Alright, on that comment, YouTube, we must be done.
