Episode 2168 Scott Adams: The Fakest News & The Freshest Government Lies. And Where Are The Aliens?
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
-----------
Fake news & fresh government lies...and coffee,
Politics, TheWhyFiles, Giant Skeletons, RFK Jr., Endocrine Disrupters, CNN KFILE, Senator Tim Scott, OTC Birth Control Pill, Elon Musk, Simulation Theory, AI Super Intelligence, Ray Epps, Fake News Narrative Shift, Ukraine War, Christopher Wray Testimony, Whitehouse Cocaine, VP Harris, Climate Change, China Investment Risk, 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.
Today with more colorful T-shirt.
Yeah, that's why you're so happy.
As soon as you saw me in my colorful blue T-shirt, you said, my God, it matches your eyes so well and makes me happy just to see it.
But if you think you're as happy as you could be, not even close, not even close.
We've only just begun.
And if you'd like to take it up to the next level, all you need is a cupper, a mug, or a glass, a tankard, 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.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Ah.
I believe everybody but Erica participated.
Erika.
Alright.
Next time, a little bit quicker with the mug.
That's all I'm saying.
A little bit quicker with the mug.
Erika.
Alright.
I was watching YouTube yesterday, The Y-Files, one of my favorite new YouTube shows, about all kinds of weird things and mysteries and such.
And they had this long program about all the giants that have been found around the world.
Did you know about that?
Apparently there are just all kinds of burial sites where they've dug up bones and found that they were giants.
They're eight feet tall, nine feet tall, routinely over seven feet tall.
But I learned something about giant bones.
This is something I didn't know.
All over the world, these giant bones were being dug up and often sent to the Smithsonian.
So you'd ask yourself, is the Smithsonian full of giant skeletons?
And the answer is no.
Many giant skeletons have been sent to the Smithsonian, and they keep losing them.
Sometimes, as the news reports said, the bones, once exposed to air, crumbled back into dust.
Aww.
We had those giant bones.
We had them.
And right before our eyes, they turned into dust.
And not just some giant bones.
But there were giant bones all over the world that as soon as they hit the air, boom.
What's weird is that they wait until you take a picture.
That part I wasn't expecting.
So you'll unearth them, you'll carefully remove the dirt with little brushes until you've got this nice giant skeleton, you'll take a bunch of pictures, and as soon as you're developing the pictures, the bones, they dissolve into dust!
Every time.
So we don't actually have any giant bones.
But they've been found all over the world!
Now I have something to add to the story.
I grew up in upstate New York.
And I forget what town it was, maybe somebody remembers.
It was the town of a famous giant hoax.
And somebody, was it Piltdown Man?
I'm feeling like that's what it was.
Piltdown, man.
But somewhere near me was Champlain.
Maybe Champlain.
I think that might have been it.
I think somebody got it.
But we were told this story about a giant that had been discovered.
And Cardiff?
Maybe Cardiff.
Why does that sound familiar?
But it's fairly common, in fact it's one of the most common hoaxes, that they found giant bones.
My guess is they've been finding giant bones in every civilization forever, and they've all got, you know, giant myths and stuff.
However, I would like to just add this little bit of hope.
I'd like to think that there were giants.
I'd like to think they were so big it explains how the pyramids got built.
They just, like, picked up one block at a time, like, argh, a giant.
Something like that.
You never know.
Maybe there were giants.
I sure hope there were.
But probably fakes.
Speaking of fake news, here's the treatment that CNN gives RFK Jr.
So I'm going to read you the headline, and then I'm going to read you what he said.
Because they quote what he said.
Do you think that the headline of what he said matches what he said in the same article?
Well, you be the judge.
Here's a headline by Abby Turner and Andrew Kaczynski on CNN.
It says, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
repeatedly suggested that chemicals in water are impacting sexuality of children.
He repeatedly suggested, so here's the key word, suggested, that the chemicals in water are.
So he suggested they are.
And then you read the article for his own words.
It says, you know, experts dispute the claim, blah, blah, blah.
But Kennedy told CNN's K-Files his theory is that, quote, sexual identification and gender confusion among children Could be from their exposure to, quote, endocrine disruptors found in the environment.
Could be.
Could be?
So he basically said there's a correlation or something that should be looked into, and the headline turned it into, repeatedly suggested that chemicals in water are impacting sexuality of children.
Now, suggesting that they are, that's kind of similar to could.
I mean, it is.
But when you separate the suggested from the are in the sentence, it's like you forget the suggested and you get to the are.
It completely reverses it.
If you said to me there's a guy who's worried about something in the water that doesn't belong there, and there's some indication, I'm no scientist, but some indication it could have a correlation with their sexual hormones, should be looked into.
Is that crazy?
Is it crazy to say that a chemical that we have some indication would do this exact thing, this exact thing?
And it's in the water.
Shouldn't we look into it?
At what point did RFK Jr.
say he's sure that it's the problem?
He did not.
He never said he's sure.
He said there's a correlation, there's a reason to look into it.
Now the experts apparently have said they looked into it and found nothing, but that's a separate question.
So CNN fake news being their usual CNN fake news selves.
Nothing new there.
Tim Scott saw I'm getting a little heat online, because when he was asked about, I think it might have been Pierce, asked him what he was going to do for black Americans, and his answer was, I look forward to presenting a solution that works for all of America.
So Tim Scott did not take the bait of what he was going to do special for the black population of America, rather he was going to do something that works for all Americans.
Of course I saw him being criticized by At least one black influencer who was saying, of course he's going to do nothing for us.
Those Republicans, they're doing nothing for us.
Well, I have exactly the opposite point of view.
I think Tim Scott and the Supreme Court and a number of other people have finally, finally allowed.
I'll say allowed, that's the wrong word, but you know what I mean.
That black Americans can be treated as full citizens now.
And I don't think that was true even a year ago.
I feel like black America got the biggest promotion since the end of slavery.
In the sense that now they are fully competitive, fully considered in every way the equal of everybody else.
And people have just stopped asking the question.
So the question of what to do special for black America is one way to be condescending and to guarantee that discrimination continues.
Because if you're treating one group of people like they're retards, sorry I shouldn't use the R word, and that's what was happening.
That's exactly what was happening.
We're treating one group of citizens like they couldn't compete.
How about we treat them like they can?
How about we treat everybody like they can?
How about we stop being assholes just for a little while?
Stop being condescending.
Stop being condescending.
How about everybody can do fine?
Just let them do their thing.
They'll be fine.
I remind you that whenever black Americans have had full and free access to markets, they've dominated.
They've dominated.
Right?
Sports?
You know, when black people couldn't even participate in sports in America?
Well, as soon as they could participate fully, Dominated.
Music?
Probably didn't want to, you know, sign a black musician at some point in history because they were black.
Today?
Dominating.
Dominating the industry.
Fashion?
Dominating.
Entertainment?
Dominating.
So, why don't we just say, let everybody compete?
Just let everybody compete.
That's where we are now.
So Tim Scott is exactly right.
You know, he's doing the politician version of it.
Let's treat everybody the same.
But I don't think it means the same as it has in the past.
I think there's genuinely a promotion involved here.
I feel like finally we can just forget it all.
It's all of the going forward.
Stories about everything from reparations to any kind of special treatment.
I feel like I'm not going to cover them the same.
Because I feel that that's condescending.
To even imagine that we should be doing that.
Or that you need these special accommodations for one group.
Finally, full respect, full citizenship, full promotion.
To me, it feels like the greatest thing that's happened, honestly, since the end of slavery.
That's, you know, that's a psychological effect that's happening inside my head.
I don't know if any of you are having the same feeling.
Let me ask you, is there anybody here who's had the same feeling at all?
Has it occurred to you?
Oh my God, finally, like this long march toward equality, we finally got there.
No, it will be bad for some individuals.
Everybody knows that.
There will be some individuals who don't get that extra leg up.
But in the long run, this is where we need it to get.
It was always going to be messy.
So it's not perfect, but this is where we had to get.
So, congratulations to black Americans.
You might not be happy about it, but I think it's the best.
I think it's a great thing, honestly.
All right, here's some good news.
Everybody wants some good news today?
How about we only do good news today?
You ready for this?
It's really actually pretty good.
The news is serving up some delicious stuff today.
All right, in no particular order, in no particular order, jobs market in the United States looks surprisingly strong.
And if jobs are good, you're usually okay.
Today the news is saying that inflation, it does look like it's permanently easing.
And it does look like some amount of the inflation was transitory.
Some of it was.
So apparently we're getting back to normal on inflation.
We're not there, but it's heading in the right direction.
The news is saying today that the recession is less likely than we had imagined at any prior time.
In fact, Biden says probably won't even have one.
How good a news is that?
That we might have missed the recession.
How about banks recovering?
I guess there's more earnings coming out for the smaller banks.
So we're not so sure if the smaller banks are solid.
But apparently the large banks, and I would argue that's the most important part, the large banks look to be solid.
They actually had a year that looks pretty solid.
So our banking looks like it'll survive.
There's still a little wait and see on today for the smaller banks, but it looks like it's going to survive.
It looks like the economy made it through the pandemic.
Almost everything is trending positive.
I believe we're producing more energy.
I believe the price of gas is down to where it was pre-pandemic.
There's a lot of stuff going right.
A lot of stuff going right.
And do I have to mention that you're no longer Have to wear a mask on airplanes.
You don't have to get your vaccinations to fly.
Mortgages are crazy.
Interest rates are crazy.
That's not ideal.
But I think the housing market was overheated.
Even though it's bad for people trying to buy into the housing market, I feel like we needed those higher interest rates.
Because didn't you think a bubble was forming in real estate?
It was just going up too fast.
There was no way that was sustainable.
So even the higher interest rates that are putting a drag on housing probably was the right thing.
So there's a lot going right.
Here's another piece of news.
Well, I guess it's not all good news.
There's an over-the-counter birth control pill that got approved.
So now you don't need your doctor to get your birth control.
You just get it over-the-counter.
I don't know if it said you had to be over 18.
I didn't see that.
Did anybody see that?
Do you know what age you can buy it?
Is there an age limit for the new pill?
Probably no, right?
Because it's over-the-counter.
Well, I guess it could have an age restriction.
Anyway, I don't know about that.
But, as we've talked to in other live streams, I am of the belief that the birth control pill changes the personality of the person taking it.
How many of you would agree with that statement?
That birth control changes the personality of the person taking it?
So most of you think that's true.
Now, I'm no scientist, so I'm not making it a scientific claim.
For me, it's an observational claim.
Just observational.
All right.
So my second question is, is there another country I can go to where they don't have the pillar over the counter?
Because I'm not sure I want to live in this one anymore.
Because, you know, I hate to say it, but I was listening to a Instagram Reels yesterday in which some influencer type was talking about some studies.
And I've heard about these studies, but I wonder if they're debunked.
So if there's any debunkers here, maybe you've got time to Google it while I'm talking.
Has it been debunked that women change their preferences for what kind of man they like Who they're attracted to, based on whether they're on the pill or off the pill.
So I saw that claim.
As far as you know, is that study, did it stand up to peer review and everything?
I'm seeing some no's and some yes's.
So I'm going to say that's a baby.
I'm not sure that's true.
You know, all science is questionable these days.
So the fact that it was a study would be no more than 50% chance that it's true.
But I tend to lean toward it because it looks true to me and my life.
For what that's worth.
All right.
Well, we'll see if that destroys America or not.
Elon Musk was asked about aliens again.
Oh, let me just finish that point.
The belief was that women who are on the pill are looking for a guy who's like a beta male provider.
And when they're off the pill, they're looking for the alpha man who will just rock their world?
Is that basically the way it was supposed to go?
I don't know if it's true.
Don't know if it's true.
But it seems like it would be.
I guess logically, I can't see how it wouldn't be true.
Are you the same person when your libido is low?
If you're a man, let's do the man's equivalent.
When I feel my libido is low, it changes my entire personality.
And when it's high, it's just, I'm a different person completely.
So why would that be different for women?
That if their sex hormones, in any way, are adjusted, it seems like it would ease out through your personality.
I've noticed that on days when I have a lot of inflammation in my body, you know, just general inflammation from exercise or whatever, that I'm in less good mood on those days.
Have you ever had that?
Like your body is sore, And it makes you cranky?
Right?
So it seems like there are just all kinds of things which could have some smallish effect on your body that actually changes your personality in a fundamental way.
So we are messing with people's personalities, I think.
All right, Elon Musk was asked yet again about the aliens, and he said, quote, I have not seen any evidence of aliens, which is a problem.
It means that life and consciousness might be incredibly rare.
Maybe we are it, at least in this galaxy.
Now, people quickly pointed out, because I tweeted this, they quickly pointed out, how would Elon Musk know if there's any aliens?
Because the amount of The universe which has been mapped, or that we could see light from it, or we could check it out directly, is way less than 1%.
It's the tiniest fraction of 1%.
It's like so much less than 1%, I don't even know how many zeros there are before the 1.
It's a lot!
The massiveness of the universe can't even be held in your head.
You can't describe it, you can't put a number on it.
Overwhelmingly large.
So to say that we, to say we haven't seen any, would you say that's no indication whatsoever of whether or not they exist?
Is that fair?
Not seeing them has nothing to do with whether they exist.
You know, then there's the counter theory.
That they would have had at least some, if there were anybody out there, here's the counter theory, if anybody out there was other life, it's probably not one, right?
It would be the least likely thing is that there are only two of us.
I would say that's the least likely possibility, is the whole universe had two, just two planets.
One seems more likely than two, because of how unlikely it is.
But if you could have two, I feel like you could have a lot of them.
Right?
It means it's not that uncommon.
So, if you had a lot of them, and you also had 13 billion years for some of them to advance, and maybe some of them got a little head start, imagine what human civilization would be like in just 100 years.
Just imagine that.
Human civilization in just 100 years from now.
We'll be colonizing space.
We'll have AI.
I mean, it's unimaginable how advanced we'll be.
Maybe we'll even have a way to go to those other stars without the restrictions of physics, I guess.
So it would take so little, so little for some other planet of creatures to be more advanced than us.
It would just be the easiest thing.
I mean, what are the odds that they're exactly as advanced?
Basically none.
So they're either going to be more advanced or less advanced.
And if there's a bunch of them, some of them are going to be way more advanced.
And they could have reached our planet by now.
Or signaled us or seen us or something.
No matter how many there are and how advanced they are, it still doesn't overcome the vastness of the universe.
So there could be gigantic galaxies that are fully, like, teeming with life, like the entire galaxy, not just the planet.
I don't think we'd necessarily see them.
So, I would agree that we don't know, but I would say there's one situation in which We are almost certainly the only civilization.
And that's if we're a simulation.
Because if we're a simulation, we're built like we would build a video game.
When you buy a video game, is not the domain of the video game fixed?
You can't go beyond what the programmers created.
And they would never create a video game that you could play, but separately there's another video game of a whole other world, but you can't get to it or see it.
The programmers wouldn't build that other world that you couldn't get to and can't see.
And they certainly wouldn't put people on it.
That would be a huge waste of time because the players can't see it.
So that's what a real universe is like.
There's no way, if we are a simulation, and it's probably a trillion to one odds that we are, if we're a simulation, it wouldn't really make sense that the other planets are occupied.
They could be.
There's nothing that would prevent it, but there's also no reason that they would be occupied, because you might limit the game to like one galaxy or something.
So, the simulation theory is the perfect explanation of why you haven't seen any other aliens.
Doesn't mean it's true.
It's not proof, but it is consistent with us being a simulation and it's very inconsistent with a universe teeming with life because life is common.
So again, no proof, but things that lean you in one direction.
Musk also predicted that we might be five to six years away from AI superintelligence.
Now, there's no definition for what superintelligence means, but I think he was talking about smarter than people.
Does that sound right to you?
Five, six years?
Here's what it sounds like to me.
I believe that Elon knows, as most of the people in the field know, that the so-called AGI or the Advanced General Intelligence that they're trying to reach, as opposed to the current version which is just Pattern Recognition AI, but nobody knows how to make it.
So I would say the predicting when we'll have that fully AGI intelligent AI, that's exactly like predicting when you'll have fusion.
In order to make it work, somebody would have to invent something that they've never invented before.
And how can you predict that?
How do you know that in five or six years, somebody's going to invent a thing that never existed, and nobody knows how to make now?
I mean, that's a pretty big leap.
He might be right.
I'm not saying he's wrong.
And I also agree with him that if you go out five or six years, Pretty much anything feels possible.
So... Oh, it's a reasonable estimate.
So he's not crazy with his estimate.
But I would say this.
There is some chance it's not doable.
And I'm still on that page.
I don't think you can make intelligence... And here's the summary version of why.
The reason you can't make something smarter in a general intelligence way than humans Is because our own intelligence is an illusion.
In other words, you're trying to make something in the real world that's better than an illusion.
The illusion never existed.
So you can't be something that didn't exist by creating something that's even more unlikely.
I don't think I did a good job of that.
But intelligence is an illusion.
So sit down with your smartest friends on politics and have a conversation.
Will you walk away thinking, wow, I got smart friends because they agree with me?
Not everything, but we agree on so much that, God, those are some smart friends.
I really think they're following the news and paying attention.
Now go to the opposite group.
Let's say it's whatever the opposite of your politics is.
Have the same conversation on the same topics.
You're going to walk away thinking they're the dumbest people you've ever met in your life.
Do you know why?
Because you believe you're smart.
You believe you're smart.
So you're using your own intelligence as a way to judge the other intelligences.
Oh, the ones that agree with me?
Brilliant.
Very brilliant.
Ones who disagree with me?
You idiots!
You fools!
That's human intelligence.
And worse, that's human intelligence at every level of human intelligence.
I just described a PhD.
PhD.
You know, most educated human you could have.
Double PhD.
You put them with their friends, they think their friends are brilliant.
Put them with the people who have different political opinions, oh, these guys are idiots.
Read some science.
Right?
So how are we going to judge that, how do you make something That doesn't exist.
They're trying to imitate something that doesn't exist in the first place.
So I think it's logically impossible.
All right, but we'll see.
I'd love to be wrong.
Yeah, if there's anything that, you know, I'd like to be wrong about, it'd be that.
All right, there's more noise about ray apps.
And I think Tim Poole noticed this and some others did.
I saw Jack Posobiec tweeting about it.
And Jack said, Washington Post, New York Times, Bloomberg and Rolling Stone are now not referring to January 6th as an insurrection or even a riot.
Why?
Because they are now defending Ray Epps.
So Ray Epps is suing Fox News for accusing him of being an instigator.
He's on video being an instigator.
But Fox News, I think, may have gone further and said he was a fad.
Now he denies all that, of course.
And now the news is, when they're defending Ray Epps against Fox News, they're calling January 6th, quote, and you can actually see the screenshots of this, those entities are calling January 6th rallies, demonstrations, and protests.
That's right.
When they wanted to When they wanted to impeach Trump, it was all insurrectionist coups.
All just insurrectionist, traitorous coups.
But the moment they're defending the guy who was actually one of the main protagonists, is that the right word for this?
Suddenly, no, it's not an insurrection, it's not a coup, it's not a riot, it's a rally and a demonstration.
It's a protest.
It's a protest.
Now, the amazing thing is that they can do this right in front of the world, and unless you follow Twitter, you probably didn't notice.
You know, all of us watching this are in this weird little, tiniest of little bubble, which is people who actually pay attention to the political news.
Your neighbor has no idea this happened, right?
Do you think your neighbor knows that the entire fake news industry just changed their framing to fit today's narrative?
They don't know that.
I mean, we know because they're sharp observers.
I wouldn't have even noticed, right?
I do this for a living, basically.
I wouldn't have noticed.
But I'm glad Tim Poole did.
I'm glad Jack Posobiec noticed, because they told me, and at least I interact with this material, so I saw it and I can tell you.
But your neighbor doesn't know this.
Your neighbor does not know this.
This is like one of the most important things to know to understand your world.
If you don't understand that the entire news industry, the mainstream news anyway, in lockstep just changed their entire narrative that was the strongest narrative for two years?
Two and a half years?
It was their strongest unified narrative and they dropped it like that.
The minute it wasn't convenient.
Meaning, they never intended to tell you news.
They always intended to tell you propaganda.
Because you don't change the news, you do change your propaganda.
If you believe he's a fad, nothing will convince you he's not.
I don't necessarily think he was a fad.
I don't know if I've ever said that.
Have I ever said that?
I don't necessarily think he is.
But the way he was treated seems to be clearly different from the way others were treated.
And there's no explanation for that.
What do I tell you when the government doesn't explain something?
They're guilty.
They're guilty.
Now that doesn't mean they are, but you should have as an operating assumption that when your government isn't clear with you, they're hiding something and they're guilty.
They're not like people.
People are innocent until proven guilty.
That's what makes civilization work.
You take that away, it's a big problem.
But governments are the opposite of that.
They're the flip side.
If a government isn't being transparent, you should assume they're guilty.
That's the best working assumption for the health of the Republic.
You should assume they're guilty.
So the way they're presenting themselves is as guilty parties.
You should accept them at their word, or accept what they're telling you, which is, if we're being weird about it, that's the message.
The message is not the words.
What the government says in words is blah, blah, blah, blah.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
That means nothing.
Just ignore the words.
Just watch what they're doing.
We're not going to tell you about them.
Okay, now we know.
Now we know how to act.
We don't know the truth.
Let me be clear about this.
We don't know the truth, but we know how to act.
And that's all you need.
The only thing you need is to know how to act.
And then you're good.
So if the government is treating us like they can't tell us, you can act like it's true.
I don't know what you do about it.
Make sure you vote or do something like that.
But do something that's healthy and legal, ideally.
All right.
And I saw this report, but it was only on a tweet without a source.
Somebody give me a fact check on this.
Is it a fact that the Department of Justice notified Epps that it would seek to charge him criminally for January 6?
I saw that reported, but I didn't see it in a news source.
I just saw it on a tweet.
Is that true?
Because I haven't heard that.
He claims in his lawsuit?
I don't know.
Said he was charged in May.
Oh, did he say that?
Did Ray Epps say he was charged in May?
Or is somebody saying they think he was?
He claims that in his lawsuit.
All right, so somebody in the comments, okay, I'm seeing several people saying that his own lawsuit claims that he was looking at charges in May.
Okay, so maybe there is something happening there that we don't know about.
And of course, all of this, the mainstream media are supporting Epps because Epps is going after Fox News, who is the competitor to the other mainstream media.
Now, ask your neighbor.
Does your neighbor know that the mainstream media ganged up to try to put Fox News on a business?
Because Fox News is the primary spoiler to them being able to control the entire narrative.
It's basically the narrative and then there's Fox News.
Now you also have your Breitbart's and your other entities, but in terms of total impact, Fox News is the one that can change the narrative right away.
So, to me it just looks like a competitive battle that people think has something to do with news.
It's not about news.
Again, there's Newsmax and there's some others, but in terms of size, Fox News has got a commanding lead there.
Alright, it's a tough time to be a Russian commander.
I saw a tweet from Paul Son.
He said, one top commander has disappeared, another was killed in an airstrike, another accuses leadership of treachery after being fired, and a fourth former commander was gunned down while on a jog.
It's a hard day for Russian military.
And then the Wall Street Journal says, the Kremlin's effort to weed out officers suspected of disloyalty is broader than publicly known.
Duh.
Is there anyone here who didn't know?
That Putin's search for traitors might be privately larger than has been reported.
Is that the big surprise?
You don't think Putin was a little bit concerned about the coup and possible traitors?
Oh yeah, he was.
So it was a bigger effort than you think.
And according to some people, at least 13 senior officers were detained for questioning, with some released and maybe 15 suspended from duty or fired.
So can you even imagine the amount of consternation in the military over there?
Because if you had done something, you know, traitorous or not, or not, don't you think you'd be worried to death that he thought you did?
Because somebody just has to say, you know, I think that general, you know, I heard him talking.
How much evidence would Putin require before he killed his own general?
If you went to Putin and said, you know, I probably shouldn't say this, but Igor, Igor was talking some shit about you.
It was very traitorous.
It was kind of traitorous, the way he was talking.
Well, did he do anything?
No, he didn't do anything.
I mean, I'm not aware.
I wouldn't know for sure.
But I heard him talking.
Man, he was talking some shit about you.
You don't think Putin would have that person arrested, fired, or killed?
Of course he would.
Because Putin cannot take chances.
He cannot take chances.
If somebody is maybe a traitor, They're probably already dead.
So, don't you think that the Russian military has people within it who are jockeying for promotions by whispering about their boss?
Oh yeah!
Because they're just like every other large group of people.
You put any large group of people together and some of those people are trying to kill the others.
Every time, if the group is large enough.
There's always somebody trying to kill somebody else in the group.
It's humans.
So yeah, probably, probably there are a bunch of Russians in the military who are using this as an opportunity to take out leaders who are mean to them, leaders who are mean to them, leaders who are in their way for a promotion, and leaders who might be doing things such as, you know, how they're waging the war that they don't like.
Now how is Putin supposed to tell the difference between somebody who's just trying to get rid of a competitor and somebody who's really dropping a dime on a trader?
You can't.
So if you're Putin, what do you do?
There's only one smart thing to do.
It's get rid of every single person that anybody has whispered might be a problem.
Anything short of that would be bad dictatoring.
I mean, Kim Jong-un wouldn't put up with it.
He's lasted a long time.
So you have to get rid of everybody who's even got the stain of once talked to somebody who was a traitor.
I don't know how big this effect will be, but I keep telling you that there are a whole bunch of variables in Ukraine and Russia where there's something that's teetering on the edge of changing everything, but it just keeps teetering.
And it doesn't ever kind of fall off, right?
Because we're teetering on the edge of somebody's going to run out of enough weapons, teetering on the edge of somebody's not going to have enough people, teetering on the edge of, you know, just everything.
But one of the teeters is that the Russian military could be close to collapse in terms of having a, you know, a, let's say a command line that is obeyed.
So, I doubt it.
If I had to bet, I'd bet against the military collapsing.
But probably there are 12 different things over there that are teetering on the edge of changing everything.
So it's hard to predict.
All right.
FBI's Christopher Wray testified to Congress.
And if you think that he did everything he could not to say anything useful or newsworthy, you're right.
You're right.
Can you tell us about X?
Oh, that's still under investigation.
I can't talk about that.
Well, can you tell us about Y?
Oh, well, I don't know that information, but I can get back to you.
I can totally get back to you.
Well, how about Z?
How about Z?
That's not ringing a bell.
I have no recollection of Z.
Well, here's a document that tells you all about the FBI's knowledge of Z. Oh, that Z!
That Z!
Oh, right.
Now I remember.
So apparently he was just as worthless as you could possibly be, which unfortunately is also smart.
Unfortunately, he played it exactly the way he probably should, because it didn't create much problems for him and he didn't make too much news.
But a little bit of news he did make is on Russia collusion.
And as Glenn Greenwald pointed out on Twitter, that Wray basically said that the Russia collusion, the whole situation, the whole Russia collusion hoax, should not have happened.
So it's basically an acknowledgement that the FBI was behind running a giant hoax, and now the new director says, you know, that shouldn't have happened.
That was bad behavior.
Have you seen all the people prosecuted or fired by... Did Ray do anything?
Did Ray bring anybody up on charges?
No.
No.
He's admitting the biggest crime in the United States.
He's admitting it.
Yeah, that happened.
And then follows up with, there will be no... You know, he didn't say this, but we can observe that there's no legal follow-up.
What does that tell you?
How in the world do Brennan and Clapper stay out of jail?
Now, I guess they're smart enough to know that lying is not illegal.
So they just lie on the news and that's legal enough, I guess.
But how in the world can there be no charges?
You can't find anybody involved in that whole hoax.
There's not a single person.
The only person who got charged didn't even lose his legal license.
Still a lawyer.
That was the worst thing that happened.
He's still got a job.
All right.
And then when Ray was asked if he'd tell us about whether there were FBI people on January 6th, he refused to answer that.
What is your reasonable assumption if the head of the FBI refuses to tell you what role the FBI may or may not have had with undercover provocation of the event?
You won't tell you.
You have to assume it's exactly what you think.
Doesn't mean you're right, but you should act like that's the case.
So when you're deciding what to do, you know, who to vote for, whatever, any decisions, for your decisions, you should assume they're lying, and that they were behind January 6th.
I'm not saying that's true.
I'm saying that you're operating assumption, based on the way the government has answered the questions.
That's the reasonable working assumption.
Does not prove anything.
But you should operate on the assumption of guilt.
The assumption of guilt.
For the government.
Because only people, only people, get the assumption of innocence.
Not governments.
Governments gotta prove it.
You're gonna have to be transparent or guilty.
Actually, let me put it that way.
With a government, there's transparent and there's guilty.
That's it.
That's it.
There are no other categories.
Transparent or guilty.
What about the election?
Was the election sufficiently transparent for as a citizen?
Are you happy with how transparent our elections are?
No.
No.
So you should assume that they're faulty.
Doesn't mean they got the wrong answer.
Doesn't mean they're rigged.
Doesn't mean that.
But you should act as though that's true.
You should act as though it's true.
You don't need to know.
As soon as you think you need to know whether it was true or not, you're on the wrong page.
You've fallen for the propaganda.
You don't need to know if it's true.
You are absolutely appropriate and within your logical, reasonable rights To assume it was rigged because of the lack of transparency.
And you should apply that standard to every part of the government.
Hey, where'd that Ukraine money go?
Well, we can't really tell you or show you.
What do you assume?
You should assume somebody stole it.
And you should act like that.
Even if it's not true.
You should act like it.
All right.
Let's talk about the cocaine cover-up.
I just like saying that because cocaine and cover-up sound like two words that should go together.
The cocaine cover-up.
Alright, in the cocaine cover-up, I guess the Secret Service is going to meet with the House Oversight Committee to explain why they won't reveal who brought the cocaine into the White House.
Reportedly, there are fewer than 50 people that have the right security clearance.
And if it's only 50 people, And if you had security cameras everywhere, and they haven't told us that they didn't, you'd assume that they do.
What should you assume about this story, given the lack of transparency?
Given the lack of transparency, what is the only reasonable thing to assume?
For some reason, all the comments went away on YouTube.
I can't tell.
I think YouTube is still live, but no comments are showing up.
So I'm going to assume that you're still live.
If anybody on the Locals platform has another device open, could you check that?
Because all the comments just disappeared.
But it looks like it's a live feed.
All right, let me know.
I'll look up in a minute.
Oh, we're back.
We're back.
Comments are back.
Yay.
All right, everything's good.
All right, so assume that whatever's happening with this cocaine is a cover-up, and worst-case scenario, probably somebody in the administration and they don't want to add them.
Probably.
I will add my other hypothesis.
Are you ready for this?
Hypothesis.
In 2023, there's no such thing as powdered cocaine that doesn't have fentanyl in it.
People on Twitter Said without much knowledge to back it up.
Oh, but the elites can get the good stuff.
No, the fentanyl is the good stuff.
You don't need better stuff than that.
The reason fentanyl isn't everything is that people like it.
If you think that in 2023, there's only the problem of people who don't know there's fentanyl in their drugs, that's a big problem.
That's a really big problem.
But also, the addicts are looking for fentanyl.
Did you know that?
The addicts are not trying to avoid it.
They're looking for it, because it's really good.
It gives you a good high.
So, in fact, they actually go to... They go looking for fentanyl.
They're not looking for heroin.
They're actually looking for fentanyl.
Now, that's the addicts, you know, the serious people.
So, here's what I think they're not telling you.
There's almost no chance that there was no fentanyl in it.
Everybody agree?
There's almost no chance that there was zero fentanyl in it.
In 2023, all the powdered stuff has fentanyl in it.
And if none was in it, I feel like they'd say it.
I feel like they would tell you, you know, and there was nothing else, no fentanyl for sure, because that would be an important fact, right?
Because of the political nature of fentanyl, that would be a politically important point on the story.
But they don't tell you one way or another.
Have you seen any major news entity say what I just told you?
If it's powdered and they're calling it cocaine, the odds of it not having fentanyl are vanishingly small.
But yet it wasn't mentioned.
It wasn't mentioned.
So here's my prediction.
That they know it had fentanyl in it, and that's why they don't want to talk about it.
Now, I would also add, this story is totally unimportant.
This story has no importance to us.
We don't believe the Biden administration is full of drug addicts.
You know, with the exception of Kamala Harris, who's obviously inebriated in public every time you see her.
Could I say that directly?
Oh, here's something that the mainstream media won't cancel me for.
I'm going to say something totally inappropriate and provocative in public, and now that I'm a disgraced racist according to the media, they would certainly want to report on this, wouldn't they?
So I'm saying as clearly as possible, it's my belief that Kamala Harris is inebriated basically every time you see her in public.
Now don't you think that's the sort of thing that you would expect to see in the mainstream media as Conservative pundit who's disgraced cartoonist is trying to jit up some kind of story with his stupid conspiracy theories that Kamala Harris might have done some drugs or had a drink after lunch.
Do you think they'll take me on?
I mean, it's pretty provocative to say that the Vice President is obviously inebriated every time you see her.
That's a very big claim.
Do you think the mainstream media ignores me when I make claims that are ridiculous?
No, they don't.
They don't ignore you.
Because they use public figures to basically as vehicles for their own message.
So the story is never about the public figure.
The story is about, you know, the content around them.
That's the story.
So they would definitely use me.
They would use me as a pawn.
To get out their message that, you know, people are telling lies about the Vice President.
But they didn't.
It's kind of the dog not barking, isn't it?
Do you see the mainstream media say, oh man, can you believe it?
They're saying the Vice President's taking drugs.
Think about every single thing that people on the political right, or people who have an audience on the political right, think of all the things they say that the left says are not true.
Well, the right are claiming this again, but it's not true.
They're saying that the Russia collusion was a hoax, but we think it wasn't, right?
Every important topic, they tell you that the right is wrong and why.
But not this one.
Not this one?
Have you seen anybody in the mainstream media say, why do they keep saying the vice president is drunk when obviously she's not?
Kind of missing, isn't it?
Kind of obviously missing?
Yeah, just saying.
All right.
Did I warn you that RFK Jr.
would look to, let's say, tweak his climate change beliefs to make them more palatable to the rest of the country?
Now, I don't know if that's happening, but I'm going to read you this story.
Apparently, in some event yesterday, I guess, RFK Jr.
was saying this, that climate change is being used to control us through fear.
What?
That came out of his mouth.
RFK Jr.
said, quote, climate change is being used to control us through fear.
There you go.
Remember I told you that he was going to modify his messaging on that, and he was going to make it compatible with the right, and you thought that was impossible, didn't you?
Didn't you think that was impossible?
You did not think that could be done.
You said he's a climate change guy, he's just gonna, you know, live and die on climate change, the right doesn't like that, so therefore he can never be acceptable to the right because he's wrong on climate change.
Climate change is being used to control us through fear.
One sentence, and he got you back on his side.
One sentence.
That's all it took.
Now, is he saying that CO2 is not warming the Earth?
Did he hear that part?
No.
No.
Because that's hard to argue.
You know, that's a chemical reaction.
So it's a little harder to argue that CO2 would have no impact.
So instead of arguing that, here's what else he says.
So after he says climate change is to control us through fear, he says freedom and free markets are a much better way to stop pollution.
Pollution, you say?
Pollution.
So when he's talking about climate change, he pivots to pollution.
And CO2 is not exactly a pollution.
I mean, it kind of is, but kind of isn't.
So who is it who talks about climate change in terms of pollution and control?
Pollution and control.
And free markets.
What does that sound like?
Yeah, Donald fucking Trump.
That's right.
RFK Jr.
actually made his climate change opinions compatible with Donald J. Trump.
Now, they don't believe the same things, as far as I know.
I'm not saying it's identical.
I'm saying that for political messaging purposes, this is freaking impressive.
That's really impressive.
I did not think that he would do this well.
Now, he's probably going to talk about it a lot more.
He'll get tougher questions, especially from the right.
So I don't think he's fixed it.
But he's demonstrated he could.
He's demonstrated that he could actually bring the country together on that question.
Think about that.
Think about the fact that he's offering I mean, it looks like an offer to me.
It looks like an offer to bring the country together on climate change.
And he just demonstrated he looks like he could do it.
You know, that's almost as mind-boggling as when we first found out that Trump's team with Jared was going to make peace in the Middle East.
At least, you know, not Iran, but other countries.
Didn't that seem like, oh my God, that doesn't even seem possible?
And they did it.
But RFK Jr.
is doing something like that.
This looked impossible, but he's taking a bite out of it.
I don't know if he's gonna make it work, but he's got a big bite out of it.
All right, there's a news in the Wall Street Journal about China.
Apparently China is not getting the foreign investment it hoped.
So the amount of foreign investment this year was $100 billion last year in the first quarter, and now it's $20 billion.
So foreign investment has fallen off the table for China.
And I wonder what the reason would be.
Well, according to Wall Street Journal, I'll just read what the Wall Street Journal said.
I want you to see when I read what the Wall Street Journal says about this situation, if any of it rings any bells or Remind you of anything that anybody has ever said before or anything like that.
Just free your mind and see if this reminds you of anybody.
So Wall Street Journal says, the perception that doing business in China has become much riskier is choking the flow of capital into an economy already struggling with weak private investment and consumption.
So doing business in China has become, what was that?
Much riskier, much riskier.
NPC Jester says, Scott is backpedaling.
I I'm backpedaling?
I hope that was parody.
Was that parody?
I think it was parody.
You do know that I've been telling you since 2018 that China was too risky for business.
That was me.
I used those words.
China's too risky for business.
I tweeted it, I said it, said it aloud, told my friends.
Here's the Wall Street Journal.
China's become much riskier.
Much riskier.
And everybody sees it, so they're not investing now.
Huh.
Who could have seen that coming?
Did I predict it?
Or did I cause it?
Did I predict it?
Or did I cause it?
I told you I was going to cause it in 2018.
I called the wall.
I pointed to where I was going to hit the home run over it.
And now you're watching the ball cross the wall.
Was it a prediction?
Or did I cause it?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I have no idea.
But it was a hell of a prediction.
If I didn't cause it, it was a hell of a prediction.
You're going to have to give me that.
Can you give me at least the prediction?
Are you willing to give me that?
I'll hold off on causation.
Yeah, all right.
Good.
But Chairman Xi shouldn't have killed my stepson.
That was really too far.
That was too far.
So now you can just suck it.
All right, that's it for today.
That's my show for the day.
Thanks for joining YouTube.
I've got to go talk to the awesome people on Locals a little bit more.
