Episode 2163 Scott Adams: Wow, The News Is Juicy And Fun Today. Grab A Coffee
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
-----------
Juicy, fun news and coffee
Politics, Neurostrike Weapons, Cenk Uighur, Tucker Carlson, Capitol Police Chief, J6 Feds, Cocaine Whitehouse, Karine Jean-Pierre, Meta Threads App, Mark Zuckerberg, Bud Light, Peak Wokeness, China Minerals, Larry Fink, ESG, Ben & Jerry's Land, Peggy Noonan, President Trump, Vivek Ramaswamy, RFK Jr,, Lindsey Graham, Ukraine NATO, 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.
Yeah, you thought you'd seen the highlight already, but no, this is it.
And if you like your adventure to go to levels that nobody's ever seen before, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard, a chalice of stein, a guillotine, a jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Ah.
Well.
If you're looking for your daily Dilbert comic, for you subscribers on Twitter and also on Locals, if you didn't know this already, I think I've told you this before, I have something called a calendar problem.
Meaning that I can't put things on the right calendar dates, pretty much ever.
I don't know why.
It seems related to maybe I don't know, being dyslexic or something.
But for some reason, this has been all my life, because I know what you're going to say.
I know what you're going to say.
But it's been all my life, right?
So there's never been a time when it wasn't the case.
So the Dilbert comic for today will show up right as soon as I'm done with this.
I'll post it.
But I do put the date in.
Here's what I do.
A week ahead of time, I queue up all the comics to run.
So I just, it's a very simple process.
I just look at the date on the comic, and then I schedule it for that date.
How hard would that be?
If you were to do that six times, let's say I do it six times, out of six, how many times would I incorrectly put the wrong date in when I'm just looking at the date?
I'm just looking at it.
All I have to do is type it in from looking at it.
How often out of six?
Two out of six this week.
This week.
And this is with triple checking.
Triple checking.
Two out of six I got wrong.
Do you know how often I would write the wrong date on the comic itself for 35 years while I was cartooning?
About two out of five.
No matter how hard I tried.
I don't know what it is.
It doesn't apply to other domains.
It's just very specific to calendars.
Have you ever heard of that?
And when I get into a new relationship, it's the first thing I have to explain.
I can't tell you how many times I've said, all right, look, there's going to be a thing that's going to happen with us.
You're going to ask me to put something on a calendar, and I won't be able to do it.
You will not believe that I'm unable, because you'll see me functioning OK in other ways.
You won't believe that I simply can't write dates on calendars.
And then it happens, and then it's a big fight.
I'm like, I told you!
There's no way this doesn't happen.
There's going to be more of it, not less of it.
Oh well.
Enough about me.
CBS is reporting some big breakthrough of beaming power from space.
The big advantage would be if you could build a ginormous solar power collector up there, you could actually microwave it to Earth and use it.
And apparently this technology already works because we can use it terrestrially to light a light bulb from a distance, etc.
And it was just tested.
So I guess they tested it with a satellite or something.
And it works.
So the amount of electricity you could collect from space is unlimited.
And if you can beam it to Earth so that it's never cloudy, In other words, somewhere in the world there's always going to be some sun, I guess.
So it might be a big deal.
Some people say it could be a big deal.
China is allegedly developing a neuro-weapon where they can beam something at your head and it'll make you stupid.
Let me say that again.
China is allegedly developing a weapon that if they aimed it at you, it would be difficult to make decisions.
Oh!
And it does beg the question, how long have they been using it?
Am I right?
Did they just point it at our media?
I feel like they're pointing it at the whole country right now.
How would you ever know if they'd employed the weapon?
Can you imagine being on the battlefield, and you're like there with your fellow fighters, and you're looking over at Bob, and Bob's there like, and you're like, oh, I think he was a little bit like that before.
I'm not entirely sure.
Bob, was the 2020 election rigged?
I told him it was fair.
It was totally fair.
Oh God.
Oh God.
Now, I'm not saying the election was rigged, but we're going to talk about that later.
In fact, there's no evidence of it at all.
There's no evidence it was rigged.
I just want to be clear about that.
There's no evidence it wasn't, but there's no evidence that it was.
All right.
Speaking of that, I told you the other day that Cenk Uygur, I think is his last name, a notable progressive type, had agreed with the Supreme Court on two things that the political right liked more than the left.
He liked the Supreme Court on affirmative action, getting rid of it, and he liked the Supreme Court on not paying off student loans.
So a lot of people on the right were praising him, and I was one of them.
And he wanted to, he needed a little pushback on that.
So he tweeted this, he said, for the right wing celebrating, that I'm pointing out some left wing activists can't stand any disagreement.
Remember, your house is made entirely of glass.
The right wing is not allowed to disagree with Trump when he makes up outrageous lies about how he won 2020 election.
So I tweeted back.
I'm sure I won't get a response.
The only reason I'm going to read this is I like to model for you the best answer.
In my opinion, this is the best answer to people saying, hey, you say that election was rigged, but there's no evidence of that.
Here's how you answer.
How would anyone know an American election was not rigged?
We can only know the results are impossible to fully audit.
And no confirmed rigging was found.
But rigging is guaranteed over time because the system invites it.
You don't know if it happened yet, but it's guaranteed.
That's the perfect answer.
There is no way to know because you can't fully audit the election.
You can only know for sure that it's guaranteed.
Either now or later, or maybe in the past.
But it's guaranteed by the design of the system.
Design tells you truth.
Did I just make that up?
That sounded really smart when it came out of my mouth.
I'll have to say it again.
Design tells you truth.
Because the design is what drives behavior, right?
If you design it so there's one path, people take that path.
If you design it so there are two paths, but one looks scary and one looks inviting, people take the inviting path.
Design is truth.
The election is designed for rigging.
That's the truth.
I can't say that it was.
I can only say it was designed to make that inevitable.
It guarantees it.
Speaking of sketchy sounding things, actually one more thing about Cenk.
Yesterday I sent him a compliment and maybe I was one of the people that He may have.
Yeah, you can imagine what happened when I complimented him.
Imagine the comments on my compliment.
The progressives have decided that if you get a compliment from somebody like me, somebody like me, well, that's no compliment, is it?
Well, anyway.
But I do compliment Cenk because he quite knowingly Degraded his own economic opportunity by disagreeing with his audience.
He did that intentionally.
I have massive respect for that.
Even if I disagree with him on a hundred other things, I'm not going to lose the fact that I respect that.
So I'd like to see more of that.
Tucker Carlson was on the Russell Brand Show and made news, as Tucker often does.
And Tucker says he got fired by Fox News right before he aired, and apparently he'd already done the interview, but it hadn't aired.
Was it the DC Chief of Police or Chief of Capital Police?
Chief of Capital Police, right?
He said he interviewed the Chief of the Capital Police and was told that the That the chief of the Capitol Police, the person who would know the most about what was going on, said the January 6th crowd was full of feds.
It was full of feds.
I don't know what that means.
So we haven't heard the interview.
So I don't know if full of means 20.
In your brain, how do you interpret if somebody says, oh, that big crowd.
So the crowd was thousands.
How many were in the crowd?
What's the size of the crowd?
2,000?
6,000 somebody says?
No, not 100,000.
6,000 maybe?
Does anybody know a number?
Anyway, so thousands of people were there.
How many of those would have to be feds before you would accept that there were a lot of feds?
If there were thousands of people there and there were 20 feds, just hypothetically, would that be a lot?
Would 20 feel like they were controlling events?
I don't know.
That'd be on the low end.
What if there were 100?
If there were 100 feds, do you think that they could control the flow of the event by creating provocations or maybe breaking a window that wasn't going to get broken?
Something like that?
I don't know.
There's no way to know how many there were, but in my mind, just subjectively, as a consumer of news and somebody who has to make political decisions, it seems to me if somebody in that role is saying that it was full of them, probably more than 20.
Probably fewer than 100.
I don't know.
If I had to guess, like you put a gun to head and said, make your prediction.
I'm going to say 60.
60.
Based on what?
Nothing.
Based on nothing.
It's just based on one person who should know something about it that I don't, said there were many of them.
Many could mean anything, right?
All right, fuck you, David.
Goodbye.
I'd use your own channel.
You're gone.
All right.
Let's talk about cocaine in the White House.
So you know the latest story?
This story just keeps getting funnier.
I don't think you can get funnier than cocaine in the White House, but it just actually does.
It's getting funnier.
And so, first it was found in the library, right?
First it was found in the library.
Goodbye.
Then it was moved to some other area, and then some other area.
And now they're saying that it was in a construction zone.
Isn't that convenient?
What would happen in a construction zone?
What would be different about a construction zone in, let's say, a remodel in the White House?
What would make that a unique and different place than all of the other areas?
Huh.
You know, if I were going to remodel an area, there's a pretty good chance I'd be disconnecting the video cameras.
Pretty good chance.
I mean, you'd have to move a wall and Yeah, there's no reason for the cameras there anyway, because you're just doing construction.
Yeah, the first thing I'd do is remove the cameras.
Now, isn't that interesting?
Isn't that interesting?
That of all the places it could be...
It was in that non-camera place.
Now, they haven't said that.
I'm just assuming that's the next part of the story.
Well, it was in the construction zone.
Well, it took us a week to learn.
All week it took us to research until we found out that the construction workers had taken the camera down.
It took us all week to figure it out.
There was no camera because the construction worker took it down.
Don't you think that's happening?
Don't you think that's coming?
I don't know for sure if it's coming, but it feels like it is.
It feels like they're signaling it.
They're signaling it that it's coming so clearly, that you're just waiting for that to drop today.
It feels like that's today's news, right?
Or would it be Monday?
Depending on how the news cycle is going.
But then my favorite part about it was... This is just too good.
The spokes clown, cringe Jean-Pierre, she's trying to answer this question.
And the reporters are asking directly, did this cocaine belong to anybody in the Biden family?
You know, meaning Hunter, of course.
So you would think that'd be a pretty easy question, wouldn't you?
Pretty easy question?
No, no, it is not.
Stop asking that question.
No.
No.
There's no indication of that.
But did she say no?
She did not say no.
She had one job.
She had one job.
Just say no to that.
Just say no.
She couldn't do it.
Instead, she acts all mad like she's answered it, and then she says it again, again.
Let me say that the Bidens were out of the White House those three days.
Again, let me say it.
How many times do I have to say they weren't there?
Well, we're asking if it was theirs.
We're not asking where they were.
We're asking who owned it.
How many times do I have to tell you they weren't there?
OK, OK, we know they weren't there.
Got it.
Got it.
But we're still asking, can you say yes or no?
Do they own it?
Because it's our understanding that the cocaine did not go on vacation with them.
It did not travel with them.
Got it.
Got it.
We're all on the same page now.
Can you tell us if the ownership of the bag Maybe they had encountered these people at an earlier time, for example.
Had it been their ownership.
How many times do I have to tell you that they were not there?
They were not there.
Did she throw Hunter under the bus?
Totally.
She totally.
The whole family just threw him under the bus.
And I think Joe must have thrown him under the bus, too.
I feel like the private conversation went something like this.
Hunter.
Uh, Hunter?
Son?
Did you leave a bag of cocaine in the White House?
No, Dad, I totally didn't.
Now, what do you do?
What do you do then?
Do you believe that Joe Biden believes that Hunter Biden has always told him the truth?
Let me introduce you to something called a drug addict.
Drug addicts never tell the truth.
Is there anybody here who's been a drug addict who can confirm to me there's no such thing as the truth?
From a drug addict.
It's just not a thing.
It doesn't matter how good your character was before you were an addict.
Before you were an addict, your character could have been exceptional.
But addiction takes over your brain.
You're not the same person you were before the addiction.
The addiction is your brain.
There used to be you.
Now you're gone.
You're actually just gone.
Now there's just the addiction, and it lives in your head where your brain used to be.
If you don't understand that about addiction, you don't know addiction.
Because I keep hearing people say, well, the fentanyl problem would go away if people would stop doing the fentanyl.
They were not in the White House for three days!
They were not in the White House for three days!
I just feel like I have to say that again.
No, you can't ask people to stop doing an addiction.
That's not what an addiction is.
An addiction is a thing that you can't choose.
That's what makes it an addiction.
If you could simply choose not to do it, nobody would be addicted.
Nobody.
It would be like the rarest thing, instead of the most common thing.
So, here's the problem.
If Joe Biden asked Hunter if it was his, and Hunter said, no it wasn't, Could Joe Biden believe him, given what logically would have been their history?
When you have an addict as a son, they have lied to you.
I don't think there's any way around that, really.
Anybody who knows an addict knows that's true.
I've seen people say no.
Are you addicts?
Are you addicts telling me that addicts don't lie?
There's a whole bunch of people saying no.
So you believe that addicts don't lie, just sort of as a general statement?
All right, that's ridiculous.
I'm not even going to debate that.
You just don't know what an addict is if you believe that.
All right, so, that's funny.
All right, the Threads app, as you know, got gigantic pickup.
Lots and lots of people went over to the new meta product that's going to compete with Twitter, called Threads.
And I would like to ask you this question, dear users.
Thousands of you are here, many of you have signed up.
For those of you who have signed up for Threads, give me thumbs up, thumbs down.
Is it good?
Did you have a good experience?
Bad experience?
Tell me what your first impression was.
All right, I'm just looking at your comments here.
No interest.
Banned for life.
A number of people were already banned for life over there.
Zero interest.
Banned.
It turns out a lot of the people on the Locals platform tried it and are already banned.
Not interested.
Not interested.
Don't care.
Dull.
Choice.
All right, well, here's what Zuckerberg says about it.
He says the Threads is for those looking for less angry conversations, and he framed his new offering as an open and friendly public space.
Does that sound fun?
Open and friendly public space?
Hmm.
Yeah.
Let me get right over there.
I'll tell you, that Zuckerberg sure makes me want to do it.
He's like the king of anti-marketing.
It's funny watching him compared to, it's impossible not to compare him to Musk, because they're going to literally have a cage fight, so you have to compare them.
It's impossible not to, now that they have a competing product especially, or a more directly competing product.
So, I don't think that Zuckerberg understands what Twitter is.
Twitter's sort of the place you go to fight, isn't it?
Twitter is not about avoiding conflict.
The thing that makes Twitter Twitter is the conflict.
At least for the political stuff.
There's a whole bunch of Twitter that's probably just people tweeting their lunch still, but I don't see that part.
I only see the political stuff.
So, on the political stuff, people are looking for a fight.
And if they're not looking for a fight, they're at least looking to raise their profile, which is not exactly a holy activity.
So basically everything on Twitter is people's worst instincts, but it's a free market.
And the free market element of it, the Wild West free market of it, is what makes it valuable.
Because you put an idea on Twitter, it's going to get beat up.
Right?
You take an idea you think is just really good, you put it on Twitter, it'll get the shit beat out of it.
If it still is living when you're done with Twitter, it might have been a good idea.
It survived Twitter.
Right?
That's a good idea.
But suppose you put it on threads and everybody said, oh, that's good.
And people who said bad things got banned.
You wouldn't know anything.
It wouldn't move you forward.
It wouldn't be a free market.
It wouldn't be free speech.
It wouldn't be anything.
It would just sort of lay there.
Now, maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe there's something better there.
I will check it out, by the way.
I will take a look at it.
But I'm not hearing people who went there and looked at it coming back and saying they're hooked.
Is anybody saying, oh man, I was on threads all day today.
Yeah.
It was bad enough I used to be on Twitter all day, but now I moved to Threads and I spend four hours on Threads.
Nope.
All right.
Now I'm going to tell you the most provocative theory that you will never hear in the mainstream news.
Do you know why you will never hear this in the mainstream news?
This will be a new reason.
Not because it's left-leaning or anything like that or right-leaning.
So not because it's political.
Because they all have spouses.
And I'll tell you why.
The news can't report this because they're mostly married people.
Zuckerberg is married.
Let me tell you what's happening right now.
I'm not a mind reader, so I don't know for sure.
So this is speculation, but it's speculation based on a universal truth.
You ready for this?
If you start a social media company, Your spouse, male or female, so this is not a gender thing, it's not a gender thing, male or female, your spouse will believe that they also have excellent ideas for how you should manage that in social media.
Because you know why?
Everybody thinks they're an expert on social media.
Do you know why I know this so well?
I once owned a restaurant when I was single, and then I got married.
Do you know who's an expert on restaurants?
Everybody who eats at one.
Everybody who's ever eaten at a restaurant is an expert on restaurants.
That's why I started one.
I started a restaurant because I ate at one.
So I thought, well, I'm practically an expert.
Might as well start my own.
Yeah.
Try doing anything in your restaurant that your spouse thinks is a bad idea.
Try it.
Just try to make any change in your restaurant that you just think is a good idea, but your spouse thinks is a really bad idea.
Just try it.
See how that goes.
Find out how your life goes after that.
Do you know how quickly you will talk yourself out of your excellent idea?
Because you have to go home.
Your life is going home, right?
Your life is not the product you made.
Your life is going home.
And if home is ruined by what you did over here, you can't go home.
Do you think that Zuckerberg wants threads to work more than he wants his marriage to work?
Of course not.
Of course not.
He doesn't need the money.
So, you know, he probably needs his marriage.
So, I believe that Zuckerberg can't compete with Musk because Musk is single.
And Musk has wisely diversified his wives, because they're all ex-wives.
He's diversified them so even if one of his exes or one of his kids complained, Musk doesn't even have to listen to his kids.
Because if one of his kids says, I don't like what you're doing on Twitter, he's got nine other kids or whatever it is.
He's got the ultimate diversification of influence over there.
Like he doesn't have to really pay attention to any of them.
But Zuckerberg does.
So let me ask you this.
Do you believe that the, let's say the censorship, let's say scope, you know, where they put the guardrails, do you think that's determined by Zuckerberg?
By the people he's working with closely, or by his wife.
Who do you think determined the bounds with which threads can be provocative?
His wife.
His wife.
Do you think that she said anything specifically to him?
Didn't need to.
I mean, I don't know.
Did she need to?
No, because everybody knows their wife's opinion.
By this point.
He knows that he can't be Twitter.
He cannot have on his platform the same things that Musk can have on his platform.
Because Musk can just say it's free speech.
And there's nobody to tell him he's wrong.
If Zuckerberg put the same content, you know, the same edgy, a lot of really disgusting stuff, if he put it on his platform, he wouldn't be able to go home.
There's no way his wife's going to put up with that.
Am I wrong?
And I don't think that the news will ever report this, because first of all, it's all speculation, so it's terribly unfair.
Let me at least put this caveat there.
I don't know anything about Zuckerberg's wife.
Well, he's pretty smart.
So if he chose her as a wife, and they've stayed together a long time, I'm guessing that she's a pretty solid human being.
And we know that she's super smart, right?
We already know his wife's super smart.
So it could be that they have a situation which is completely opposite of everything I described.
So I want to put it out there that I can't know for sure.
It's like a private person.
I can't read his mind.
But if you were to make me bet On which of those two platforms had more freedom to do the things it needs to do?
I would bet on Musk every time.
So I think that Zuckerberg is competing with one arm tied behind his back.
He can't let provocative things on the platform, but it's the provocative things that creates the energy.
So I don't know.
We'll see.
He's succeeded more than I've succeeded, so I think it would be inappropriate for me to second guess his business decisions.
That would be quite arrogant of me.
He's obviously brilliant at it.
One of the best operators of all time.
And he might pull it off.
I think he certainly has a path.
He might pull it off.
So I have a lot of respect for Zuckerberg in terms of his business skills.
But he's just, he's married.
It matters.
All right, the jobs report was kind of lackluster, but not too bad, which is probably good for inflation.
Can anybody tell if jobs going up or down is good or bad for the economy anymore?
The most basic thing, and we're not quite sure.
Well, we want people to have jobs, but if the job market is too hot, it means the economy is too hot, and that means inflation.
And that means the Fed will keep the interest rates high, which will tamp down on our, you know.
So basically everything's connected.
So we can't even tell if the jobs report is good?
Bad?
It's not entirely clear.
But I would say it's good.
Here's my take.
My take is that it's good because it's still strong.
The unemployment's pretty low.
People are looking for workers.
And To me, it looks good.
So I think we're going to limp along without anything that looks like a major recession.
I would put my predicting about the economy as the best in the business.
Can I say that?
So I predicted, how many of you remember that for quite a while now, I predicted that the economy after the pandemic winds down would either be not a recession, Or a very mild one.
So I've been saying that from the start.
It looks like we're on plan for that.
So, good for us.
I heard Peter Zan, who talks about geopolitics, talking about China.
He was talking about some kind of trade war thing with minerals or some kind of component, which is less important.
The important part is That he said that President Xi in China has purged all of the competent government people.
And he says that you can't do a deal with China now because there's nobody to do the deal.
What?
Why am I only hearing that from him?
Why is the only person saying that?
Wouldn't the rest of us know that?
So the idea is that if you wanted to do, let's say, a deal with China over some technology or microchips or something, that they wouldn't have anybody who could understand the deal.
Isn't that weird?
That in China, they wouldn't have anybody who could make a decision who would also understand the deal.
Because they got rid of all those people.
It used to be that the Chinese government was heavily filled with engineers.
And the engineers are the perfect ones to make a deal.
Because first of all, they'd understand it.
And second of all, they're just looking for what works, right?
They're not necessarily, you know, operating on animal instinct.
So maybe a lot of the people with engineering and more technical skills got purged.
Maybe.
I'm not sure I believe that.
So Peter Zayin's take on it is that China will be going through a huge incompetence problem, like actually government incompetence, like at a massive scale because they got rid of all the good people.
Do you think that's real?
That feels like a little too much wishful thinking, doesn't it?
I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the good people were purged, but it's hard to imagine it went that far.
Maybe.
Anything's possible.
Anyway, he sounds very convinced.
He also has a take that we're not really in much trouble.
If China decides to hold back on its rare earth minerals and some other stuff like gallium and stuff, apparently there are other places in the world that could spin up fairly quickly.
It's just that presumably they don't need to because it's coming out of China.
So it's sort of like a two-month spin-up for anything they tried to deny us.
And then Xi'an's take is that China would be in worse case than we would if we got into a fight about raw materials, because we have all the silica.
So they wouldn't be able to make silica chips.
So basically, China would be computerless if they decided to fight us, but we would have two months of a little bit of problems and we'd be back to where we were.
But China would be computerless.
I can't believe that either.
Does any of that sound real?
So I don't know.
Yeah, apparently there's a special kind of sand that you need to make the chips.
We have a lot in our southeast.
So a lot of it's coming from America.
Yeah, but I think it has to be a special kind of silica.
It's not everywhere.
That's what Peter Sayan says.
So I'm going to say that I don't know enough about that to judge the accuracy of it.
Let's see.
I would say that there is a continued fast collapse of wokeness.
Would you agree that you're seeing a collapse of wokeness or not yet?
Are you seeing the collapse?
Let me give you some points.
So Clay Travis Was writing today in Fox News on their website.
So the Bud Light traffic is down 30%.
Bud Light sales at 30%.
Nobody can ignore a 30% decrease in sales of a top product.
You know, the number one product.
It was the number one product.
It went down 30%.
Nobody can ignore that.
But apparently as As Clay Travis was saying, it's not widely reported but the NBA took a gigantic hit when they went awoke.
Did you know that?
Did you know that NBA viewership dropped and didn't recover?
Yeah.
So that's two cases where awokeness just took businesses out.
He didn't mention Target.
But does anybody know, have Target sales resumed to where they were?
Or have they stayed lower?
Disney's?
Yeah, Disney.
Okay.
Then here's another one.
ESG.
Larry Fink, again, reiterated that he doesn't like to use it because it became toxic.
So he's worried that ESG became toxic.
Now, apparently he was surprised that over-racism in America would be considered toxic.
I don't know.
Who saw that coming?
Racism is toxic?
Surprise, Larry Fink!
Well, he'll be delighted Larry Fink will be when he's starring in a Dilbert Reborn comic that's in the pipeline.
I'm just making sure that the mocking is complete.
I don't want to leave anything undone.
But beyond that, BlackRock, who Larry Fink is the CEO of BlackRock, they're not the only ones who think ESG is toxic.
There's another report today that other CEOs are quite pointedly avoiding mentioning it.
So it went from something you had to mention to something that people are afraid to mention.
But my favorite story, God love Fox News, Fox News is just funny.
Like some of the stories they do, they play it straight, they play it like it's just a story, but it's just so funny.
Here's what they had.
So Fox News had an indigenous Native American chief in Vermont, said he would be open to He would be open to talking to Ben and Jerry, because Ben and Jerry are concerned about America having stolen all the land from the Native Americans.
And he said he'd be open to talking to Ben and Jerry about taking back the land under its headquarters.
Yeah, I'd be open to that conversation, Ben.
Jerry?
Ben?
Hey, Ben and Jerry, where are your homes?
Do you know nobody's ever produced a picture of Ben or Jerry's house?
Do you think Ben and Jerry live in a yurt?
Because they love the earth, so they're probably living in maybe a tent, possibly a tent, so that they're not using up all the resources of the earth.
Wouldn't you love to see a picture of either Ben or Jerry's house?
Wouldn't that be interesting?
Never seen one, have you?
Do you think they live in a nice house?
Well, it won't be nice for long because those Native Americans were going to make a claim for the land that they stole to build their homes on.
Anyway, I thought that was funny.
But kudos to Fox News for having that guy on.
That's the news I want to see in the summer.
This is my perfect news story for the summer.
That the Native Americans want to take Ben and Jerry's land.
You can't get any better than that.
That's like top shelf news right there.
All right.
Also, the Dutch government just collapsed because of their immigration policies.
The Dutch government just collapsed.
They just surrendered, basically.
So they're going to have to form a new government.
Now, I'm not saying the country collapsed.
Their government allows this.
That's the form of government they have.
It just means they have to form a new coalition.
It doesn't mean the whole country collapsed.
That sounded worse than it was, right?
The government collapsed just means they have to form a new coalition, basically.
But it's a big deal.
It's a big deal.
So, you can see it everywhere now, can't you?
You can see it everywhere.
Somebody else pointed out that, well I've said this as well, I think our language has now been allowed.
You can now vocally and directly disagree and say this is a bad idea to a lot of things that were maybe a little problematic before.
So I think everything's heading in the right direction in terms of that.
So the Wall Street Journal had an article by Peggy Noonan.
Now if you don't know Peggy Noonan, she's one of the best writers In the world.
You know, I've often called her out as one of the world's best writers, especially in politics.
And when I say best writer, it doesn't mean I'm going to agree with her on all her points, right?
It just means when she writes a sentence or makes a thought, puts a thought on paper, it's just better than other people can do it.
She's just insanely talented.
But she wrote an article and I didn't read the article because that's not part of the story.
Here's the story.
The headline of her article said, uh, May Trump Soon Reach His Waterloo.
That was the headline.
May Trump Soon Reach His Waterloo.
Now, does that sound like the walls are closing in?
Have they retired?
The walls are closing in.
Now here's the thing you need to know.
When I mocked this for not being the walls or closing in, I sort of mocked it on Twitter, Peggy Noonan just retweeted my mocking of the headline of her article.
Now why did she retweet it?
Why did she do that?
Just guess.
Why would she retweet something that would look like a criticism of the title of her article?
To mock me?
No, no.
Why would she Give traction, PR, no.
No, no, no, no.
All right, here's a little inside knowledge, inside baseball.
Headlines are not written by the author.
Did you know that?
The headline is not written by the author.
Peggy Noonan didn't write the headline.
No, she didn't write that.
That was the editor.
The editors put the headlines on.
So, I don't know what she's thinking, right, because I can't read her mind, but I could put myself in her position.
If I were in her position, and I'd written an awesome article, and then an editor had slapped the headline, May Trump Soon Reach His Waterloo, on my article, I would definitely want that editor to know that the internet is mocking his headline.
I would definitely want the editor to know that.
And the way I do it is I would just retweet what I said.
I would do exactly what she said.
So remember I told you she's smart?
She's really smart.
So when you're evaluating her work, start with very smart, and then you can understand why she does what she does.
It's easy.
So I never read the article.
I'm sure it's great.
All right, let's talk about DeSantis versus Trump.
Was it two days ago I told you the DeSantis campaign apparently has just disappeared?
And you all said, yeah, where is it?
Well, the Wall Street Journal is also reporting that the campaign is Struggling.
Stalling.
They use the word stalling.
And I think that's the right word, because he's not getting much attention.
So I'm going to tell you something that DeSantis said, and then we're going to talk about some of the promises that Trump has made if he's re-elected.
Now I wanted you to contrast and compare these two leadership styles.
So first, DeSantis.
So here is him defending, you know, this is just one part of lots of things he says, but he said, quote, recently, I have the best record of defeating the left on issue after issue.
And we will be making that case over the next six or seven months, he said.
I'm running to win in January and February.
I'm not running to juice polling numbers.
So he was talking about He wasn't gaining in the polls, so he was dismissing the polls.
So he has the best record of defeating the left on issues.
That feels like a good point, doesn't it?
If he has a solid record of defeating the left, as he says, that's a pretty fair point for a primary.
And he's running to win.
And he's going to be making his case.
All good points.
Solid, solid executive.
Now let's compare it to Trump's style.
These are just a few of the things that Trump promised in his rally speech.
Trump said if he's elected that he would ask Congress to ensure that drug smugglers and human traffickers can receive the death penalty for their heinous acts.
He also said that he would take down the drug cartels by imposing naval embargoes on cartels, cutting off cartels' access to global financial systems, and using special forces within the Department of Defense to damage the cartels' leadership.
Okay, he'll be doing that.
But meanwhile, Santus will be, he's got a good record of defeating the left, and he'll be working on it for a few months, and he's trying to win the election.
He's not trying to juice the polls.
Let's see what else Trump said.
He said that he would spearhead an effort to build these Freedom Cities with flying cars.
So he wants brand new cities that would be built with vertical takeoff and landing vehicles to make sure that we are the leader in all these things.
And it would be like bringing back Frontier.
Frontier kind of sensibility to America which we've sort of lost a little bit by using government land to build new communities from scratch with flying cars.
Oh my God.
Now that's what Trump would do flying cars in new cities and bring us back a frontier attitude.
I remind you that Ron DeSantis will be running on his record of defeating the left.
Also Trump said He'll create a special team to rapidly review and reverse all of Biden's equity agenda.
No, I think DeSantis would do the same thing, but it was worth mentioning.
Do you see the difference?
Do you see the difference?
It's like when you compare them next to each other.
Well, let me say it a different way.
If there had never been a Trump, If Trump had never existed, how awesome would DeSantis look?
Pretty good.
Because what he's offering is that he keeps beating the left, and that's what he's selling to the right.
Who would not want to buy that?
Who doesn't like to win?
Who doesn't like the guy with a solid track record of doing all the right things consistently in a giant state?
It's really funny to think how solid DeSantis is, and he can't even get, he just has no traction.
Trump is just such a glowing, you know, Death Star, that, you know, the little Thai fighter is looking for the opening in the exhaust.
So, yeah, anyway.
It doesn't look like anything could stop Trump from getting nominated.
Here's what it looks like.
I believe that Vivek will continue to make progress against DeSantis, probably not so much against Trump.
And if Trump gets the nomination, who's he going to pick for his VP?
Obviously not DeSantis.
Would you agree?
I would say DeSantis has zero chance of being a VP.
But do you remember Vivek saying anything bad about Trump?
Ever?
Ever?
Even one thing?
What does that tell you?
And how much do Vivek and Trump agree on the big stuff?
How much do they agree on the big stuff?
Completely?
Maybe completely.
They have different proposals for how to move forward, which makes sense, but I don't think they disagree.
If you asked Vivek, what about this idea of building these cities and making sure America is leading in flying cars, what would he say?
Would he say that's a terrible idea?
I doubt it, because it's actually a great idea.
It's a great idea.
One of the best ever, actually.
And so here, if you look at how things are forming up, Vivek is the perfect vice president.
Now, it's fucked up for me to say that because I, you know, I'm endorsing Vivek.
So I would like him to win straight up.
And I think that Trump always has the, you know, is he going to go to jail any minute thing.
Is it his waterloo?
Are the walls closing in?
I mean, Trump always has that little element of risk around him.
So you never know, right?
Anything could happen.
There's age.
There's anything.
There's just plenty of surprises that could happen.
So at the very least, Vivek is, you know, a perfectly good alternative if something happens.
But if things go the way they look, if you just, you know, straight line it, Trump gets the nomination.
And then he has to pick a running mate.
Do you think he could do better than Vivek?
As a running mate?
Does anybody think he could do better?
I mean, think about it.
No, it's not going to be RFK Jr.
Now, I could easily see RFK Jr.
being asked to do a project, you know, like something about vaccine safety or, you know, reigning in Big Pharma or something like that.
I could definitely see that.
By the way, a Trump partnership with RFK Jr., let's say if Trump got re-elected, I would think that would be the best of America.
That would be we're back.
That would be the ultimate we're back moment.
It's like, hey, America's back.
I'm not predicting it's going to happen.
But it could, because they do like each other and they have some common goals.
They very much could.
If it did, that would be just the greatest feeling.
Because it would mean that we'd finally taken the job over the politics.
You know, a rare thing.
That would be a case of clearly putting the job over the politics.
And I think both of those men could do that.
I think they both have that capability, which is rare, but I think they both have it.
All right.
Let's talk about Lindsey Graham, who's now pushing hard to get Ukraine accepted into NATO.
You would not be surprised to hear that Thomas Massey disagrees with that idea, thinking that the NATO expansion may have been the problem.
What is wrong with Lindsey Graham?
Is it exactly what it looks like?
That he just works for the military-industrial complex and he's just their guy?
Is that the whole story?
Is that the entire story?
That he's just working for them?
Because I don't see his argument.
Where's his argument?
In what world does that make the world a safer place?
And here's what's wrong with it.
Now, if I just say I don't like his argument, I don't like it, but he likes it, that's not much of an argument, right?
Here's the argument that absolutely destroys Lindsey Graham's credibility.
You waiting for it?
You don't take off the table your biggest variable for the negotiation.
He's taking it off the table.
Because if that got approved, it's never going back the other way.
There isn't the slightest chance that if they get into NATO, that we will agree with Putin to remove them from NATO.
You get that, right?
Once they get in, there isn't any way they get out.
It's a one-way path.
But as it stands, somebody like a Trump could go to Putin and say, look, Putin, this is over.
It's over.
Here's what you're getting.
You're going to get maybe some land and no NATO.
What Ukraine is going to get is full guarantees of staying a state.
Because even though they're not NATO, even though they're not NATO, we'll be back.
We will be back if you fuck with them again.
And this time it won't be, you know, with light equipment.
So you could imagine Trump very easily saying, I got this variable to deal with, I got this variable to deal with, let's make a deal.
But Lindsey Graham is taking away the biggest variable.
Because if Putin at the end can't say he stopped NATO, he didn't do anything.
How could he possibly make that deal?
How could Putin ever agree to a deal that allowed Ukraine to turn NATO?
Could he?
How could he ever agree for that?
So to me, it's not even whether it's a good or bad idea.
He's just taking the main variable for negotiation off the table at exactly the time we should be negotiating.
Now, I will allow that there's one possibility that would redeem him.
The one possibility that would redeem him is if he's playing bad cop, which is possible.
He might be playing bad cop.
So it might be that everybody sees that negotiations are getting closer, and Lindsey Graham wants to push the Ukraine-NATO thing right up to the edge, so that Putin thinks he only has a week to go before they turn NATO, and then maybe he's gonna deal.
So it's possible Remember it's possible.
Remember Lindsey Graham's not stupid, right?
We're not talking about dumb people here.
Lindsey Graham knows that if it becomes NATO that takes the variable from negotiations off the table.
He may be doing it to bring it right up to the edge so that the negotiations are the maximum strength they could be.
That's possible.
I don't think so, but I wouldn't rule it out.
All right.
He's blackmailable, somebody says?
I don't know.
Do you think anybody would care if tomorrow it came out, and I'm not saying this is the case because I don't know, if tomorrow it came out that Lindsey Graham was gay, and just let's say he just came out of the closet, would anybody care?
Anybody?
It wouldn't have any impact on anything, would it?
It would just be a news story for about 48 hours.
Then the left would do lots of stories about, then why did he do this?
Or why did he do that if he did something?
I don't know.
I just assumed that it's his business.
I don't think you could be a Republican if you care that much.
Right?
I'm not a Republican.
But could you be a Republican and really care so much about somebody as what they do behind a closed door?
Because Lindsey Graham, if it turned out he's gay, and I'm not saying he is or isn't, I have no idea, but that's the speculation of course.
But if he were, wouldn't he be exactly the kind of gay that Republicans like?
Which is, he would just be living his life.
Just leaving everybody else alone.
It's not exactly what everybody wants.
It's pretty much exactly what everybody wants.
Just leave us alone.
Just don't make it our problem.
Do what you want.
Yeah.
So I don't think he's that blackmailable.
Well, on that.
If it turns out, because some people are speculating that he's blackmailable.
And I would say there's no evidence of it.
But who knows?
Yeah.
All right.
Be nice.
Let's be less homophobic, if you don't mind, there on YouTube.
A little less homophobic, please.
If you don't mind.
All right.
Twitter user unhoodwinked was doing a rundown of my persuasion.
All right.
So here are a list of things that either I helped cause or Alternatively, I was just good at predicting they were going to happen anyway.
So you get to judge, did I have any influence on these things?
And I actually don't know.
So you don't, you know, I don't have any inside knowledge.
I know what you know.
Or, or is it just, am I just a good predictor?
All right, here are some of the things.
China is now deemed unsafe for business.
I was the first person you heard saying that China was unsafe for business and now that's common knowledge.
Did I predict it?
Now keep in mind, keep in mind that when I said it, it was considered ridiculous.
Do you remember that?
That when I started saying China is unsafe for business, it was because of fentanyl originally.
But when I first started saying it, I was widely slapped down as that's ridiculous.
China is solid.
We'll always be doing business with them.
It's safe enough.
And now the general opinion of all of business people is it's unsafe for business.
Did I do that or did I predict it?
Keep in mind, nobody predicted it.
Zero people predicted that.
Zero.
There wasn't a single person in the world who predicted what I told you was going to happen.
Did I cause it or predict it?
I don't know.
Here's another one.
So ESG is now a, you know, it's a toxic term.
Well, I probably was one of the people who were influential on that, but lots of people had lots to say.
Did I predict it, or help cause it?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I do know that Dilbert has completely stopped other things, so it wouldn't be unusual, or not even a little bit unusual, if I had stopped it, or if I'd had some influence.
But who knows?
I have no idea.
Here's another one.
The idea of attacking the Mexican cartels directly with military.
I was the first person to say we should do it.
Everybody mocked me.
And now it is standard Republican policy.
Did I cause that?
Or did I predict it?
Because it was a little bit predictable, wasn't it?
Because as fentanyl got worse and worse, What else was going to happen?
So it was predictable.
But did I cause it?
I don't know.
I have no idea.
How about TikTok being banned?
I believe I was one of the first to say TikTok needed to be banned for its influence on us.
No, that is generally understood.
It's not banned, but I think maybe a Republican administration probably would.
But did I cause the feeling that TikTok should be banned?
Or did I just predict that others would feel the same?
I don't know.
How about the fact that fentanyl is considered a top concern for Americans?
I think that was going to happen just because of the death count, so I don't take any credit for that.
How about nuclear power being considered green?
I'm one of a number of people who have been, you know, pushing that theme for a while.
Michael Schellenberger, right?
Mark Schneider.
So there are people who pushed it harder than I did, but for a time I had a bigger audience.
So I could I could boost their signal, which I did, and then other people saw them and boosted their signal as well.
So I know I worked hard to get us to this point, but I don't know what influence I had, if any.
Was that also not predictable?
Wasn't it also predictable that eventually we would have to call nuclear green?
Because the facts were all on that side.
I mean, all of the facts were on one side.
So predictably, you could say in the long run, people come to their senses.
That's all there was.
All right, how about Well, one of the ones that Arnold would add was, it's safe to discuss moving away from areas deemed to be unsafe for certain groups.
I would generalize that to say, I believe you can now say in public things that you couldn't as much say in public before I got cancelled.
Now, that's not because of me.
It could be just because the world is heading that direction.
But I do think that my cancellation was one of the signals that things had gone too far.
Would you agree?
I think my cancellation was just one of the signals, and maybe a big one because a lot of people noticed, that things had gone too far.
And you know what's the interesting thing?
I'm pretty sure that there's no real person who thinks I'm a racist.
Like in the real world.
You know, on Twitter and stuff, people say what they need to say for their team.
But I don't think anybody actually thinks so.
The way people treat me is that the story was the story, but that I'm somewhat independent from that.
Meaning that they don't actually think I'm a racist.
Because I'm not.
You know, I have a whole long history that would, you know, certainly debunk that idea.
So, I feel like, partly because of my sacrifice, accidental sacrifice, didn't do it intentionally, that the world has a little bit more free speech.
Or, was it just going to go that way anyway?
Maybe it was just going to go that way.
Because, you know, pendulum.
It would be easy to just say, oh, the pendulum comes back, and you would be right 99% of the time.
Those are just some things that I either predicted or possibly, or possibly caused.
Don Lemon needs a wacky sidekick.
I think.
I would love, you know, I would love Don Lemon as my sidekick.
Well, or just like a broadcast partner.
Yeah.
Andrew Tate is in jail.
I didn't cause that.
I did not cause Andrew Tate to be in jail.
But it wasn't hard to predict it might happen.
It is funny how often things go my way.
The things I want to happen.
But no, I didn't cause that to happen.
And I'm not sure that he's being jailed for a real crime.
We'll see if he's being railroaded.
I don't see Tucker Carlson running for office.
Actually, Tucker said he's not political.
He said that in Russell Brand.
He's not even that interested in politics.
So no, he's not going to run for office.
Biden said Ukraine is running out of ammo.
Everybody says everybody's running out of ammo.
The thing I don't believe anymore, Scott, why didn't you defend Alex Jones when he was censored?
Are you kidding?
Scott, why didn't you defend Alex Jones when he was censored?
All right, I'm going to tell you a little behind-the-scenes fact that I've never said before in public.
When Alex Jones first got in trouble and the platforms were canceling him, Jack Dorsey actually DM'd me and asked my opinion on canceling Alex Jones.
Do you remember that Twitter did not cancel Alex Jones?
Do you remember that?
Eventually they did.
But do you remember when the first round happened, he was not canceled and the news was talking about how Twitter alone, Twitter alone didn't cancel him.
That was right after Jack Dorsey asked my opinion.
Now I'm not saying I had an influence.
I'm not claiming that.
But you just accused me of not defending him.
Take it back.
Because I don't think anybody defended him more usefully.
I don't think anybody did.
So maybe you should be a little more informed before you make assumptions like that.
There's a lot that happens behind the curtain that you wouldn't possibly know.
You couldn't know that.
There's no way you could know that.
Now I will tell you that Jack and I had a good relationship, sort of behind the scenes.
We had a lot of, philosophically and intellectually, we had a lot in common.
So, I don't know if I had any influence on his decision.
But I do know that he felt that asking me for my opinion would be part of his process for making the decision.
And when it was done, he did not ban him.
He later did, but things took on a bigger life.
And by the way, I like Alex.
He's a real engaging, fun, warm kind of guy.
Just in my brief encounters with him, it was just all positive.
