Episode 2173 Scott Adams: All The News Is Absurd Or Fake But The Coffee Is Delicious. Join Us
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
-----------
News & Coffee
Politics, Declining IQ, Amish COVID, RFK Jr., Michael Shermer, Climate Envoy, John Kerry, President Trump, Scott Galloway, Ukraine War, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you could not be luckier because today the news is more silly than serious.
I don't think there have been any major catastrophes in the last minute or so, so I think we're looking good.
It's all the funny kind of fake summer news, the kind that you can just go, ah, Don't take it too seriously.
But if you'd like to get in the right mood for this live stream, the best thing you'll ever see in your life, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gels of 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 at the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous step, and it happens now.
What a day, what a day.
Don't you all feel great today?
Who feels good?
Did anybody wake up just feeling good today?
You have your summer on?
You're getting your summer on here in this part of the world?
Alright, you're drinking bong water.
Alright, well good for you.
That's one way to start.
Everybody do it your own way.
I like coffee, okay?
Alright, let's talk about this news.
Alleged news.
It was at the New York Post that was reporting that IQ scores in the U.S.
have fallen for the first time in decades.
IQ scores have fallen for the first time in decades in America.
Well, I have lots to say about this.
Maybe this explains why we can't build pyramids anymore.
Ever wonder how, if you go back thousands of years, people knew how to move gigantic rocks anywhere they wanted them?
Anywhere they wanted them.
And we don't know how to do that now.
I think we're getting dumber.
I don't know.
I don't know.
But maybe we've been getting dumber for thousands of years straight.
It might be an unbroken line from, you know, I can imagine, can you imagine going back in time?
And finding out that all the ancient Egyptians were, like, brilliant.
You can stop any ancient Egyptian on the street and they all know algebra and calculus and stuff.
Maybe.
I'm not saying I believe it.
I'm just looking at all the hypotheses for why the IQ could be going down.
Let me toss out another possibility.
Just maybe.
You may have never heard of this before, this might be the first time you're even exposed to this concept, but have you heard, and I swear this is true, I'm not making this up, sometimes data is not accurate.
Does anybody know that?
Have you heard that sometimes the studies that appear in the news, sometimes, and when I say sometimes I mean most of the time, are actually complete baloney.
Complete!
So I would say at the top of your list would be the data is bad.
Would you agree?
I didn't read the story because I didn't need to.
It's summer news.
The great thing about summer is you never need to read the story.
Just read the headline, have fun with it, because the story is all made up, right?
All the stories in the summer are just made up bullshit.
None of it's true.
So here's another possibility.
Do you think that they measured year after year the same people?
Do you think that there was somebody in sixth grade who used to be smart, but now they're dumb?
Did people start getting dumber?
The same people?
I don't think that's a thing, but maybe.
I don't know.
Maybe.
Or, is it possible that a massive influx of people who don't speak the language natively But yet take all the same tests as everybody else because they sit in the same classes and do the same things.
Is it possible that people taking IQ tests who don't speak English don't do as well?
Don't do as well.
Possible.
Now I'm not saying that's the whole explanation, but it can't help.
Definitely can't help.
How about About the simple fact that there's a greater number of walking immigrants than flying immigrants.
I'm going to say this as many times as it takes until somebody else starts saying it.
Because it's a kind of obvious thing.
Forget about ethnicity for a second.
Forget about ethnicity.
Because I know you're going to want to go there, but I don't go there anymore.
If all you did is compare a bunch of people who flew To a bunch of people who couldn't afford to fly, but they could walk.
Which group would have a higher IQ?
I mean, it's possible it could go the other way.
It's not impossible.
I suppose it would depend, you know, who's walking from where.
But generally speaking, the people who can afford a plane ticket are coming from, you know, two professionals who grew up in India.
You know, one's a doctor, one's a lawyer in India.
The kid did well in the, you know, one of the university systems and sent him to America.
That's not really going to be the same thing as somebody who was a, you know, just woke up one day starving and wanted to walk north and make some money.
So, yeah, and again, you could take all ethnicity out of it.
You compare any group of people who can afford a plane ticket to any group who can't, I imagine you'd find a difference.
Now, there would be, you know, pockets where that's not true, I'm sure, but generally speaking.
So there are probably so many reasons for it, plus the pandemic, plus the teachers' union, right?
Teachers' union is worthless.
Plus everything else.
Bad food, bad environment, lack of motion.
By the way, I saw yet another, some expert on Instagram, saying that Motion seems to be one of the biggest correlations with sickness.
People who move a lot, in other words, don't sit in a chair all day.
If you move a lot, you're almost certainly healthier than people who don't move.
I think that moving thing is going to be the biggest thing we're talking about in five years.
Within five years, movement will be the number one topic.
Because it'll just be so obvious that the non-moving people are the ones Who are using up all the health care money.
If you could just get the chair people moving, you'd save money on health care.
You would.
Your health care costs would go down if you could get other people not to sit in chairs as much.
All right.
So there was an article in The Atlantic that black Americans aren't sleeping as well as whites.
So what are we going to do about that?
Black people in America are not sleeping as well as whites.
It's written by Brian Resnick.
As Elon Musk tweeted, or replied to the tweet about this, that black Americans aren't sleeping as well as whites, according to The Atlantic, he said, completely indistinguishable from the Babylon Bee.
Completely indistinguishable.
And the funny thing is, It is actually literally indistinguishable.
You could move this directly to the Babylon Bee without any change.
Yeah, usually that would be an exaggeration.
You know, sometimes I say things like that.
I say, oh, this looks exactly like a joke.
But usually it's not exactly.
It's usually not exactly like a joke.
But this one is.
It's exactly like a joke.
Now, it might be true.
I'm not saying it's not true.
But don't we need to hear about it?
I'm kind of done talking about groups of people.
Talking about groups of people is for assholes.
That's my current opinion.
If you think that the right way to think of anything is to group people up by their some immutable characteristic, well, it's just sort of an asshole thing to do.
But if you want to talk about individuals, I'm all on board.
If there's an individual who's got a tough time, I'd like to see if I can help.
Individuals are maximum importance.
Groups are just something that troublemakers and assholes talk about.
Troublemakers and scientists and assholes.
The rest of us, we should ignore that kind of person.
Stay away from people who group people that way.
All right.
What?
All right.
Do you notice that I'm not going to spend even one minute talking about the content of that story?
You don't want me to, right?
Would there be any reason whatsoever to talk about the content of the story?
No, we should mock it.
The correct response is to mock it and move on.
Mock it up.
All right, so we mock it.
All right, here's a bubble test.
News bubble test.
I'm going to start a sentence and then you're going to draw on your knowledge of all things in the news.
To fill in the end of the sentence, right?
Get ready.
In the comments.
The experience of the Amish population in America during the COVID was that, compared to the rest of the people, they fared... Go.
I'll say it again while you're filling in the end.
The Amish people in America, compared to the normal American situation, they fared... I'll read your answers.
Are you getting a little less confident as I read your messages?
Better.
Oh, confidence seems to have waned a little bit.
Are you expecting I'm going to do that thing where I tell you that everything you've believed in the past was false?
Is anybody worried about that right now?
Is anybody having a moment where you're saying, oh shit, I was positive of my answer.
What's he going to say now?
Have you ever Googled it?
All right, here's the second question, follow-up question, follow-up question.
Have you ever Googled to search what the researchers in the news say was the outcome of the Amish from the COVID pandemic?
Have you ever Googled it?
Well, maybe you should.
Maybe you should.
I did it this morning.
Do you know what I learned?
The Amish did not do well during the COVID.
Had a lot of sickness and a lot of death.
Because they didn't take the vaccination.
Well, that's the news.
Stop it.
Are you accusing me of believing the news right now?
In your minds you are, right?
Admit it.
In your minds, you're accusing me of believing the news.
Have you fucking met me?
Alright, I'll just put it that way.
Alright, don't accuse me of believing the news.
I'm just telling you what it is.
I'm just saying what it is.
It's just in the news.
If you Google it, the news will tell you that they did worse than the average.
Do you believe it?
Do you believe that the Amish did worse than the average because they were under vaccinated?
I don't know.
I have no idea.
I'm going to take a pass on this one.
I think it's possible they did better, and I think it's possible they did worse.
I would say that the credibility of the information, whichever way it's pointing, is zero.
I would give that no credibility at all.
Now, there probably is an answer.
It probably is either yes, no, or about the same.
But I don't know we would ever know it.
We're in a world and an environment in which you could never, ever, ever trust any data on that question.
Because, you know, the answer to that question is the answer to everything.
Let me say it again.
If the Amish actually didn't have problems with COVID, everything the public has been told is false.
Right?
Everything.
And while that might not pass scientific scrutiny, what I just said, that's what you think.
It's kind of what I think, too.
Wouldn't you agree with the statement that if the Amish, it's a big enough public, and they also are not all in one place.
So if you found out that no matter where the Amish were, no matter where they were in the country, that their group did better than everybody else because they were unvaccinated, that would mean something.
Right?
I mean, you'd certainly want to look into it.
Now, it could be because they had other things going on.
You know, I was speculating the other day.
Maybe they have, you know, a cleaner diet.
Maybe they have less pollution.
Maybe they spend more time outside and get more vitamin D. Maybe they're not overweight as much.
So there could be other reasons that, you know, they would have a different outcome than the public.
But wouldn't you agree That if Big Pharma ever learned that the unvaccinated, and actually that's a, by the way, that's overstatement because even the Amish get some vaccinations.
I don't know which ones get which, but they do get some.
So don't you think Big Pharma would have to stop any information that said that the Amish didn't have a problem during COVID?
Right.
So there are only two possibilities here.
One is that they had a worse outcome than the vaccinated.
I'm not saying you believe it.
I'm not saying I believe it.
I'm just listing the possibilities.
One possibility is that they did worse because they weren't vaccinated.
And then the news is telling you that.
And then that would be accurate.
If it were true that they did worse, That's what the news is reporting.
The news says they did worse.
So that would be consistent at least.
The other possibility is that they did better than everybody.
Do you think you would know that?
Do you think that the pharma entities would ever allow that to be news that you could see without it being squashed immediately?
I imagine it may have been published somewhere and then immediately taken down.
So this is an unknowable question, because there are only two possibilities.
Either the data agrees with Big Pharma, that vaccinations would have helped, or there's no way you'll ever see it.
Would you agree those are the only two states?
Either the data coincidentally, or not coincidentally, agrees with Big Pharma, or you're not going to know.
You'll never know.
That's what I say.
Now, I don't think that's a conspiracy theory.
That's a simple statement of who is the biggest funder of mainstream news.
That's all it is.
It's just follow the money.
Follow the money tells you you could never know if the Amish did well or if they did poorly.
And when is follow the money wrong?
So far, never.
Never in the history of human civilization.
So yeah, the third possibility is there's no difference.
That's right.
But the no difference would indicate they should not have been vaccinated because the vaccination brings with it its own risk, of course.
All right.
Let's talk about RFK Jr.
and how he's being destroyed by mostly the left.
So here's something that Michael Schirmer tweeted today.
He says, even if RFK Jr.
is not an anti-Semite, it is good to remember what he believes.
And then he lists the things that, in Michael Shermer's opinion, Kennedy believes.
Now, before I read them and bias you, let me tell you, I don't think any of these are true.
Or maybe some of them.
But basically, somebody else's description of what RFK Jr.
believes should be considered zero useful.
Apparently, nobody seems to be able to tell you what he believes with any accuracy.
So here are the things that Michael Shermer believes that Kennedy believes.
That radiation from wireless internet causes cancer.
The chemicals in water are producing gender dysphoria.
The CIA killed his father and uncle.
Antidepressants cause mass shootings.
George W. Bush stole the 2004 presidential election.
Your phone's 5G connection is part of a plot to, quote, harvest our data and control our behavior.
How many of those do you think are accurate restatements of Kennedy's opinion?
Do those sound accurate?
You say all?
Seriously?
You think those are his actual opinions?
Oh my god.
They got to all of you.
Yeah, now the CIA opinion, I'm pretty sure that's accurate in terms of his opinion.
That is his opinion.
But don't you think that this other stuff is just stuff he worries that the correlation is high?
Do you think that he said radiation from wireless internet does cause cancer and that we're all in trouble?
Or did he say there are some studies that indicate it and we should really be looking at this more carefully?
Well, what do you think he said?
Do I have to even research that?
Do you think that he believes science Do you think he believes science sufficiently that he took some scientific studies and said, oh yeah, here's the answer.
This wireless internet's causing cancer?
I doubt it.
I doubt it.
I suspect he thinks that the science points that way.
Isn't that the only thing any of us could say?
Oh, there's a study and it points that way.
Or there's a study and it doesn't point that way.
Or there are multiple studies and they disagree.
You're wrong.
Alright, so anything I'm wrong on, if you can't produce a quote from him, in order to say that I'm wrong about any of his opinions, you have to produce a quote.
It has to be a quote, and it has to be written.
Don't send me a video.
Do not send me a video.
Put in quotes the actual sentences that you think would support this opinion of his opinions.
Do you think he says that chemicals in water are producing gender dysphoria?
Yeah, about frogs.
No, I believe that the answer to that is just unambiguously no.
He does not believe that that's a proven thing.
He believes that there's something in the water that's changed frogs, and he believes it would be silly not to look at it as an obvious thing to look at to see if it's affecting our, you know, gender or anything.
Who disagrees with that?
Now, I don't know, just to imagine that he has like certainty about any of these things is crazy.
Now he believes the CIA killed his father and uncle.
He wrote, didn't he write an extensive book with all of his evidence for that?
I mean, was there some part of the evidence that wasn't true?
I mean, maybe say that.
I know.
He said anti-depressants cause mass shootings.
Do you think that RFK Jr.
said that?
Like that's a fact.
I know that anti-depressants are causing shootings.
You think he said that?
No, I don't think so.
I think he said that there's a strong correlation.
Between, you know, violent tendencies.
I believe it even says so on the bottle of the prescription, doesn't it?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the known side effects include what he said.
That it could make you violent.
Is that not true?
Known side effects?
Baby violence?
So, do you think he said, oh yeah, that's the answer, it's just that one thing?
Do you think Kennedy said that?
Of course not.
Of course he didn't say that.
Do I have to do any research?
I don't have to do any research to know he didn't say that, because nobody would say that.
These are things nobody would say.
What have I told you about news about public figures in the summer?
Can you repeat back to me?
It's about a public figure, and it's the summer.
It's all bullshit.
I don't know how many more times I could tell you.
If the story's about me, it's bullshit.
Right?
If it's about RFK Jr., and it's the summer, it's bullshit.
Pick a name.
Pick a name.
Anybody.
It's about Kanye West and it's the summer.
It didn't happen.
Right?
It's really easy.
It's about a celebrity and it's the summer.
No, they didn't do that thing you said they did.
All right, but here's the thing that I must condemn Michael Shermer for his first statement.
Quote, even if RFK Jr.
is not an anti-Semite.
Fuck you.
Fuck your balls.
Fuck you, piece of shit!
You have to suck really badly to write that sentence.
Don't you?
This is below... To say this in person, like actually out loud in public... Even if... Even if... Fuck you!
Fuck you with your even if.
How about there's zero evidence of it?
How about zero fucking evidence?
There's nobody from his past.
Imagine this.
There's nobody from his past, RFK juniors, who is willing to say even once in any way, anything slightly anti-Semitic has ever come out of his mouth or his actions, ever.
And you could tweet this even if he's not anti-Semite?
Even if?
Come on.
Does anybody actually believe he's an anti-Semite?
Do you think that any of the people accusing him of it actually believe it?
I don't.
I believe this is recreational belief and team play in politics.
I don't believe there's a single public figure who, if you got them privately, privately, and, you know, they would never be quoted, say, all right, privately, Privately, do you actually think that what he was saying was what you think he said?
And more importantly, do you think he has an anti-semitic bone in his body?
Privately?
Do you think anybody privately would say, yeah, I think he might be?
No.
The answer is no.
Do you know how many people privately think I'm a racist, even though I'm a famous canceled racist?
Privately.
Do you know how many people believe it?
None.
None.
There's not a single person who knows me.
Not a single person who knows me personally, even thinks there would be anything to it, at all.
And that's gotta mean something, right?
That literally nobody in your life, nobody, even thinks it's slightly possible.
That's what summer news is.
Summer news is spearing celebrities, or at least public figures.
Kennedy's own sister, Carrie Kennedy, tweets, I strongly, all in caps, condemn my brother's deplorable and untruthful remarks last week about COVID being engineered for ethnic targeting.
All right, I'm gonna go easy on her because she is a sister.
But there's something very much missing from her remarks.
Am I right?
Something missing?
The part where she says, my brother is not anti-Semitic, but I condemn his comments because they sounded bad the way he said them.
What the hell kind of sister is this?
Whose sister does this?
My God.
And if you're going to come out against your own brother in public, you better bring the goods.
You'd better bring a fact.
You'd better bring a quote.
He said X. Here's my proof or my opinion that's different.
I think this general statement about strongly condemning him is really fucked up.
It's really, really fucked up.
This is like the worst family thing you'll ever see.
How about just stay out of it?
Just stay out of it would be a good idea.
But if you're going to get in it, you better bring the goods.
You better bring the goods if you're going to get into the fight.
And then I think it might have been, was it Kerry Kennedy's son?
Another Kennedy also said the same thing.
Also vaguely.
Also without any details.
Also without any quote that they're disagreeing with.
Just generally throw him under the bus.
My God.
By the way, I don't agree with You know, some substantial part of what RFK Jr.
thinks might be true.
I think it's unlikely that everything he thinks might be true would pan out to be true.
But I don't think he says them as absolutes.
That's where I differ.
If he says them like, I've got free speech, I got some questions, you know, I'm looking out for the world, which he is looking out for the world.
And I have concern that I think you guys are in trouble.
Here's some danger.
Is that a problem?
Do we need less of that?
Do we need less of patriots warning the flag that they see a problem for the rest of us?
Is Kennedy saying, hey, there's a problem for me personally.
I've got a personal problem with some pollution.
No, he's literally trying to save you and me.
You know, obviously anybody gets some benefit personally if they've saved the world.
So it's not, you know, nobody's operating without any sense of self.
But he is very clearly externally oriented toward trying to make the world a better place.
Is he wrong on some issues?
Undoubtedly.
Undoubtedly.
How could he not be?
Anybody who says that many things about that many things is going to have a few misfires.
That would be normal.
Same with all of us.
But man, I hope that the way people are treating them is purely political.
I hope they don't actually hold these opinions.
These couldn't be real opinions, could they?
Makes me wonder.
Well, news says that John Kerry, who is President Biden's climate envoy, is using the fact that China is having a big heat wave right now to press his point about climate change.
He says, you and I know things are happening and no things are changing, he told the Premier Li Guang.
Don't you wonder what Chinese scientists think privately about climate change?
Do you think they're laughing at us?
Or do they think it's just as real as other scientists believe it is?
It's just that they can't say it.
Or do they not study it?
Maybe they're not allowed to study it?
I don't know.
I would think there would be plenty of Chinese scientists who were part of the climate conversation.
Yeah, so I kind of wonder about that, but I do wonder if they laugh when he says it's hot outside, so we got to do something about the climate.
Have you noticed that everybody in the climate conversation does that same thing?
If somebody who's on the other side of the conversation says, oh, it's hot or cold today, and that's proof of my opinion, the first thing you say is, you idiot.
That's the weather.
That's just what's happening today.
That means nothing.
But then ten minutes later you'll say, you know it's really hot in here, it must be the climate change.
Or you'll say it's really cold today and it should be getting hotter, so therefore climate change.
Nobody can resist.
Nobody can resist the anecdote.
And I'm sure I don't either.
I try really hard.
To say that whatever's happening today doesn't tell you anything about climate?
I try really hard, but I don't think I succeed.
Because I think it's just such a natural human sucking trap that we want to talk about the weather today no matter what.
I've got to talk about the weather today.
By the way, it's kind of hot out today, so I think there is climate change.
No, I'm just kidding.
I just can't resist it.
All right.
Let's...
Could you...
On this next story, on this next story, I want to see if you can give me the answer before I tell you the story.
Go.
Tell me the answer before I tell you the story.
25%.
That's right.
25%.
All right, here's the story.
68% of likely U.S.
voters believe Trump is likely to end up the Republican Presidential nominee.
But what percentage say Trump is not likely to be the GOP nominee?
According to Rasmussen's Rasmussen poll, 26%.
26%.
But if you said 25, genius.
Genius.
25% don't think Trump is likely to be the GOP nominee.
And one of those reasons might be his boxes.
Oh my God, his boxes.
Yeah, he may have done some things you like with the economy and international relations and peace in various places.
But that pales in comparison to the fact that he had boxes.
Oh, did he have boxes.
The boxes were piled in bathrooms and on shelves.
The boxes were locked sometimes and sometimes not locked.
Some of the boxes had things in them that should not have been in those boxes.
But there were lots of boxes.
Many, many boxes.
And the Wall Street Journal says that I guess the first pre-trial hearing is coming up, and Trump has said in a statement that he thinks this is leading up to an indictment and arrest.
And so, so it begins.
So it begins.
And so it begins.
Now, so Trump says he got a letter from deranged prosecutor, as he likes to call him, Jack Smith, stating that he's the target of the...
Oh, he's the January 6th.
I'm sorry, I had the wrong scandal.
people.
Did I have the wrong scandal?
Oh, it's a January 6th thing.
So wait, am I confusing two stories?
Is the box thing happening, but also the January 6th thing happening?
Or did I confuse two stories?
They're both happening, right?
The same time?
So the new thing is the January 6th thing?
Right?
No.
It's two different stories.
Right, the pre-trial hearing is starting today and that's where the box is.
But separately, Trump said he got a letter from the prosecutor about being a target of the January 6th investigations.
Do you agree?
Do you agree with the legal process that's happening to you?
Because it doesn't To me it looks like an elephant.
So it looks like we lost the comments on YouTube.
Something happened on YouTube where your comments... Oh, there they are.
They're back.
Comments are back.
Comments are back.
And of course, as you were expecting, Prosecutor Jack Smith says he's going to indict Ray Epps.
No, that's not going to happen.
I'm just kidding.
I'm just kidding.
Nobody's going to indict Ray Epps.
Come on.
Pull it together.
Pull it together.
That's not going to happen.
Wow.
So just when it matters the most, you know, to the beginning of the primary season, the legal system seems to be closing the walls in around Trump.
How about that?
Does anybody think this is legitimate?
Does anyone think that Trump's problems are caused by Trump's illegal behavior and that therefore he brought it upon himself?
Even the Bidens are not in any legal trouble.
Even the Bidens don't have legal trouble right now.
Maybe they will in the future.
To imagine this is anything but political is insane.
Do you think it makes Trump more likely or less likely to be supported by Republicans?
More likely or less likely?
I think they misjudged.
Feel like they misjudged?
I think more likely.
But not everybody believes that and I'll give you an example.
I guess Karis Wisher was talking to Professor Scott Galloway on some public event, must have been yesterday, and it was asked about Trump.
So Scott Galloway was talking about Trump and he believes that Trump will take a plea deal I don't know on which charges, or maybe it's all of them.
I don't know what this means.
But he'll take a plea deal to stay in a jail and not run for president.
Which made Kara Swisher double-take and gulp and say, what did you just say?
Because nobody's saying that.
I think she pointed out, nobody's saying that.
Are you the only person who's saying that?
So here's what he says, Scott Galloway.
He said that, first of all he says that Chris Christie said something similar, and then Galloway said, quote, I actually think Governor Christie is going to surpass DeSantis and be the number two, but I don't think it will matter.
I don't understand and can't empathize with President Trump, but I know how old rich men think, he said.
There's the fun part.
He says, quote, talking about Trump, He has a very nice life and his life can be going back to golf and sycophants and having sex with porn stars, which I think is a good thing.
I'm not being cynical.
I would like to do more of that at some point in my life.
I would like to do more of that.
I'd like to do more of that at some point in my life.
And I'd love to know if what he meant was literally having sex with porn stars and golfing and having sycophants.
He wants to have more of that in his life.
Or if he's just saying, you know, more free time or something like that.
I think he might have meant just more free time.
But the way it came out is he wants more time for porn stars.
That's funny.
Well, I think his credibility may have taken a hit by thinking that Governor Christie is going to surpass DeSantis.
I'd like to take the temperature of my viewers.
How many of you think Chris Christie is going to overtake DeSantis to be number two in the polls?
Yeah, I'm going to go with zero on that.
That's going to be a bigger zero.
So, I don't know.
But let's go to Professor Galloway's main point.
Let's say that the legal system comes up with a set of charges that even Trump's attorneys say, oh shit.
What's he do?
Do you think that Trump could negotiate a pardon or get out of jail free even if he thinks he's innocent, regardless of whether he thinks he would win the case?
Would it be smarter to not have the trial at all because there's some chance you could lose even if you're innocent?
Would it be smarter for him to negotiate away all of his problems and then go quietly into retirement?
What if he could do it and be a kingmaker at the same time?
Suppose he could make sure that his preferred candidate did become president, and then negotiate his way out.
And then just went back to Twitter and ran the country from Twitter.
Because you know, Trump could go back to Twitter and keep running the country.
He could just reframe things until people say, well he said, let's do what he said.
And it would end up looking a lot like running the country.
Well, I would say that the Galloway hypothesis, or prediction I guess, depends entirely upon whether the Trump lawyers say, uh-oh, the other side has a good case.
What are the chances that Trump's lawyers will say, we're in trouble, they've got a good case?
Do you think that's going to happen?
Because I feel that he would just keep firing any lawyer who did that.
I feel like that lawyer would be fired the same moment, and it'd be a new lawyer, and if they said it, they'd be fired.
So the problem is that Trump's always going to have a lawyer that tells him what he wants to hear.
Because if he doesn't, he gets a new lawyer.
So, I don't know.
It could be that Trump will never hear a story that he's in that much trouble.
Because his lawyers will want to keep the job and get paid and they'll just say, yeah we got this, we got this, we'll fight it.
So it could go, this thing could go all squirrelly a hundred different ways.
Now what do you think about the idea that this close to an election, we should as a public agree to ignore charges?
Because it's close to an election.
What do you think of that idea?
We should ignore it because it's close to an election.
What do you think?
Yeah, that's not a terrible idea.
You know, you could certainly make an argument.
This is one you could argue either side and not be embarrassed by it.
But I think you could go either way.
You know, I always put the country above the person.
So my preference would be the benefit of the country.
Just that's it.
What's the benefit of the country?
I think the country benefits by the president not being charged while he's trying to be a president.
I can't imagine he's going to quit.
So I'm going to take the other side of Galloway's prediction and say that he'll fight it even if fighting it's the wrong decision.
I just feel like he's a fighter.
I mean, one of the reasons that people like him is that you can predict what he'll do.
He's predictably unpredictable, which is the weirdest thing, isn't it?
Am I right?
Trump is predictably unpredictable.
There's lots of stuff you know exactly where he's going to be forever, but there's other things you can predict he'll be unpredictable, because he knows that works better, such as negotiating.
All right.
I saw a tweet by Dr. Sidney Watson who said, talking about Andrew Tate, she said, it's remarkable how Tate became a voice for, quote, conservatism when he's a pornographer with degenerate lifestyle, says Dr. Sidney Watson, who probably has never been to Romania and doesn't know what's true and what's not.
Which is true for all of us.
We don't know what's true or what's not over there.
She says, but politics have become so tribal that some on the right will claim anyone with an audience who even slightly agrees with them on anything.
Is that fair?
Would you say that the political right will embrace bad characters as long as they agree with them on something that they care about?
I think so.
I'd say yes.
I'd say bingo.
You nailed it.
And I would go further and support it.
And further say it's a sign of good mental health.
A sign of good mental health.
That you can look at somebody as a complete person.
And say, oh well I like these parts, I don't like these parts.
So I'll keep the parts I like and I'll flush the parts I don't like.
What's wrong with that?
Is there any problem with that?
Do you know why This exists, this very live stream.
Why is it that I can do a live stream when I, as an almost entirely conservative audience, when I identify as left to Bernie and I just, I just, I recently registered as a Democrat.
More for funny reasons than real reasons, but the reason is simple.
The reason is simple.
Because people like some of the things I say.
They don't agree with all of them, but have decided they would not throw me under the bus for the things they disagree about.
Am I right?
So people will say, oh, I'll retreat this thing that he said right, I will condemn him for this thing I disagree with, and then we'll go on with our mutual lives.
Whereas the Democrats are, oh, let's kill this one.
This one is all bad.
This one says something I don't like.
Well, a whole lifetime of agreeing with him, but this one thing, well, they're dead to me now.
Why is it that the conservatives can embrace RFK Jr.
as a candidate and fully respect him, while also disagreeing violently on several of his policies?
And the answer is, they're looking at the whole person.
They're looking at the whole person.
I like these things.
I don't like these things.
And now our conversation should be done.
So, I don't know.
Honestly, I don't know if you could make a sweeping generalization about the left or the right, because individuals are all over the place.
So let me not say everybody's all the same on other sides.
But I think the key, and by the way, Russell Brand.
Take Russell Brand.
Take Glenn Greenwald.
These are people who have enormous points of disagreement with the right.
Take Joe Rogan, exactly.
These are people that the right have very serious disagreements with on some issues.
And yet, fully appreciate something about them.
That seems so healthy.
So, I don't know a single person on the right who agrees with Andrew Tate on maybe some philosophical thing, who doesn't think that the law should apply.
There's no conservative who thinks that if somebody broke a serious law that they should go free because they have some good opinions on unrelated points.
So, I don't know.
It's a good sign that conservatives see the whole person.
I've always appreciated that.
One of my favorite things about conservatives.
All right.
Does it seem to you that the Ukrainian war has been over for some time now?
Does anybody think there's still a war, as in somebody is going to capture a bunch of territory or take over the control of a country?
So some of you think the war is still happening.
OK.
You could be right.
Hey, Yeah, maybe somebody will make a big push, get a little land.
My take is that the war has been over for a while.
I'm going to define war as at least one, it would only take one, at least one of the leaders believes that they can conquer the other and submit.
Make the other submit, basically.
Because otherwise there's no point to it.
If you're not going to make the other side submit, Why are you doing it?
So it's not a war war.
It's like some weird negotiation that burns a lot of weapons.
So basically, it's sort of a perpetual motion machine for the arms industry at this point.
Wouldn't you say?
We've created a little engine that burns up weapons and kills people in the process.
And it's the burning up of the weapons that's driving the military-industrial complex.
So we've got this big economic machine that depends on acting like there's a real war, when really it's just a meat grinder at this point.
It's just a meat grinder with a map.
It's a map and a meat grinder.
I like that.
I just made that up.
Ukraine is nothing but a map and a meat grinder.
Boom.
Reframe.
I reframed that bastard.
Nothing but a map and a meat grinder.
And that's pretty good, isn't it?
The visual of that is just insane.
It's nothing but a map and a meat grinder.
Remember when somebody said, you'll have to remind me who said it first, that Russia is a... Was it a criminal organization with a gas station or something?
It's like a gas station with nuclear weapons.
That's right.
Russia is a gas station with nuclear weapons.
So it's like that.
It's a meat grinder and a map.
I just see a map and I know there's a meat grinder and everything else is just something about profits for the defense industry.
Well, Trump said that That Putin would either make peace if Trump were president, he'd either make peace right away, or Trump would arm Ukraine to the teeth.
So basically, he would just tell Putin, alright, you either have to stop now, or I'm going to give them so many weapons you're going to wish you did.
You have way more weapons than you have now.
Now, I don't even know what that would mean.
Are there some really good weapons made out of top secret UFO technology?
And we're gonna unleash it?
He's not gonna nuke them.
I doubt he would send, you know, NATO planes over Russian territory.
So, yeah, mother of all bombs, but would he give it to the Ukrainians?
I don't know.
Sonic weapons?
Yeah, so here's the beauty of Trump.
The fact that we have no idea what that means is why it works.
Like, if you're Putin and suddenly you have this new president who's saying stuff like, we're going to give the really good weapons to Ukraine, and you're Putin, you're like, what?
Yeah, the really good stuff.
Just imagine Trump saying this.
We're giving them the good stuff.
We're going to give them the stuff that nobody knows we have.
Oh, that's it.
That's it.
Putin, you either make peace, or we're going to give Ukraine the weapons you don't even know exist.
Is that perfect?
Because you don't have to prove they exist.
You'll never have to show your hand.
You'll just say, we have weapons that you don't even know exist, and they're going to be in Ukrainian hands in 24 hours.
You better make peace.
What kind of weapons?
What are these weapons you speak of?
Oh, never mind, Vladimir.
Never mind.
They're secret.
And by the way, I don't know if you've noticed how many UFOs we've captured.
Just saying.
Just saying.
Many, many UFOs.
Some people say we've captured more UFOs than anybody's ever captured.
Some say we've already reverse engineered them.
I'm not saying we have.
I'm not saying we have.
No.
I'm just saying that if you don't make peace now, the Ukrainians will have things we have that I can't mention and I can't tell you where they came from.
Maybe space.
But I didn't say that.
I'm not saying that.
Advanced alien technology.
But I'm not saying that.
Some people are saying that.
Some people are saying that it's advanced technology.
Some people say that.
I'm not.
Don't you wish Trump were here negotiating right now?
Don't you wish he could start tomorrow?
Just to find out what he does.
Like, I don't know what he would do.
I don't know if he'd be successful.
I know that not negotiating isn't working.
That's, you know, what we're doing now doesn't work.
I would think that his odds of success would be much higher than everybody else in the government.
Would anybody disagree with that?
I'll make this statement.
So I'm not saying he should necessarily be the president or anything.
I'm just saying this one narrow question.
Can you think of anybody else in the world who would be the right person for entering Ukraine-Russia war?
Anyone in the world.
Any country.
You could take the Pope.
You could take Justin Trudeau to be your champion.
Who do you want as your champion?
On Russia and Ukraine, I'm going to pick Trump first, Trump second, Trump third, Trump fourth, fifth, sixth.
I'm just going to pick Trump all day long.
I'm not even going to mention another name.
Because it would be dumb.
It would kind of be dumb not to have him do it.
Alright, Pol Pot.
How do we deal with another stolen election, somebody says.
I liked Trump's defense of January 6.
Do you know what Trump's defense was?
You ready for it?
You want to hear one sentence that absolves Trump of all January 6 culpability?
One sentence.
He has freedom of speech.
And we're done.
We're done.
Hello.
If the only thing you have is that he talked about it, we're done.
Do you really think you could get 12 Americans to say that he didn't have free speech, but they do?
You could get 12 Americans to say that?
You know, unless he did things, you know, he actually gave an order, for example, that was illegal.
As far as I know, he just talked.
He talked about things that could incite violence, but you know, so do I. Every single day.
Every day I get on here and I say things that I'm fully aware could get somebody worked up and do something stupid.
Because all politics is like that, right?
A strong opinion on politics It's going to have an effect on some listener to push them into a more radical, yes I've been right all along, this guy on my screen agreed with me, I must do something about it.
So, if I have free speech, I certainly think the President should.
So his framing might not be precise, meaning it's not really a free speech issue, right?
Would you agree it's not being framed as a free speech issue?
But when he frames it that way, my mind goes quiet.
I don't know if you have that.
Like, there are all these things he did or might have been confused, you know, who did what and when and was he fast enough and should he have done this and should he have done that?
All interesting questions.
And then Trump says, I have free speech.
And your mind just goes quiet for all those other things.
Because unless you can tell me what he did that wasn't talking, I don't know how you can make a case out of it.
Yeah.
So, we'll see.
We shall see.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, brings us to just about the end of the best live stream you've ever seen in your whole life.
I know, it's exciting for you too.
But, do you have any questions or any story I missed?
Any story I missed at all?
It's all good stuff, isn't it?
You missed the sip?
Well, for those of you who missed the simultaneous sip, I'm now going to give you the rare closing sip.
I know, lucky you came today, right?
Lucky, lucky you.
Well, I would like to sip to you, my audience who has stuck with me because you are not judging me.
On all of my flaws.
I appreciate that.
I will do the same.
I will not judge you on your flaws as if you have any.
You don't have any.
Sip.
Yeah.
Just as good.
Molten salt reactor, ten years away.
Yeah.
Everything's ten years away if it's hard.
Let me give you this advice.
Scott, how long will it take you to build a home entirely out of Legos?
Ten years.
How long, Scott, will it take you to have Generation 4 molten salt nuclear reactors up and running?
Ten years.
We've got some really good technology for removing carbon from the atmosphere.
How long before that's converted?
Ten years.
Flying cars!
Jetpacks!
About 10 years.
Except for Fusion, that's 20.
Yeah, right.
Fusion is 10 plus 10.
All right, that's all we've got.
YouTube, you're all wonderful.
Oh, you know what?
I'm gonna vamp for a minute and a half before I turn off YouTube.
Will you stick with me for 90 seconds?
Do you know why?
Apparently, YouTube has an algorithm that likes one-hour content.
So if you get to, like, within a minute of one hour, it doesn't make sense to end it.
So even though I've completely run out of news, I'm going to stretch this for another one minute.
All right, you've got one minute, YouTube.
The one minute timer is on.
Is there anything you want to ask?
Status on books?
Excellent question.
I had to bail out of making the audiobook.
I was trying to record the audiobook for the new book, Reframe Your Brain.
But I'm going to have to get a professional to do it because I couldn't just physically and mentally.
I couldn't do it.
Tried.
Tried my best.
It just wasn't going to happen.
The big problem was dyslexia.
So I don't know why it seems worse, but no, I wasn't stoned.
I know you're going to ask.
But the dyslexia was so bad I couldn't read the sentences.
And I told my Man Cave audience last night, That I don't read sentences in order, like I don't read the words in a sentence, because they jump around.
So I tend to just sort of look at all the keywords in the sentence, you know, sort of like they're all just sitting in a clump, and then my brain arranges them in what that must have meant.
So I'm not actually reading them in the order they're written.
So when I'm forced to read aloud, it becomes a problem.
Because when I read, I have to look at the words, and then I have to form the sentence that they must have meant in my brain, and then I have to remember the sentence and say that sentence.
So I'm not actually just reading it like other people.
Well, I don't know what other people think like, but I imagine.
I imagine other people just literally read all the words.
And I actually, my brain and my eyes can't do that.
I don't have the ability to read all of the words in the order that they're on the page.
They're jumping around all the time.
So I couldn't get past it yesterday, so I'm going to just hire somebody to read it.
But to answer your question, I'm shooting for the first week or so of August, so it might be three weeks.
The only thing left to do is some details, like the final book jacket and getting signed up for the services that allow you to publish and stuff like that.
But we're there.
We've got covers.
The text is all done.
And I do believe this will be one of the most impactful books in the history of human civilization.
I actually think that could be true.
You'd hate to put a bet on something like that, but it's actually quite possible.
And the reason it's possible is that it's written in a form that's unusually impactful.
There are about 160 reframes in there.
And the reframes can all be expressed as one sentence.
That's what makes them magic.
So just as President Trump reframed his situation as free speech, There are 160 of them that would get to every part of your personal life.
From your mental to physical health, to your career, to your optimism, to your... basically everything.
Your ability to survive a tragedy, a trauma, everything.
So if 160 reframes doesn't find at least 10 that will change your life, I'd be amazed.
That would be really weird.
If it didn't change your life.
Most people who read it are going to have that experience, that they're actually going to walk away thinking they're different people.
And what is extra different about it is that a hypnotist wrote it.
So, you know, when I'm writing a reframe, I'm putting, you know, a lot of different skills into it.
It's not just doesn't make sense when you read it.
There's layers on it.
So there's a lot of layering going on in this book that won't be obvious.
All right.
I'll give you examples as we as we get closer to launch.
I'll give you more examples.
Don't want to give it away too early.
And yes, I saw you say that Sofia Vergara is available now.
Um, could you give her my number?
Because it just seems obvious, doesn't it?
When you think of me, and you think of Sofia Vergara, you see it.
I think you all see it.
So it's just sort of an obvious one.
Yeah, she'll probably be calling any minute now.
You know what I'd say?
Eh, busy.
I got a busy schedule.
Sorry.
No, I probably wouldn't.
Vic says, I can convince you to accept Christ.
Alright, Vic would like to convince me to accept Christ.
