Episode 2180 Scott Adams: All The News Is Fake Today But Still Funny. Bring Coffee
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
-----------
Today's fake & funny news
Politics, Xitter, Obama Chef Drowns, Tafari Campell, Recreational Outrage, Bill Kristol, Greg Gutfeld, Jeff Bezos, Ray Epps, Epps Sues Fox News, Nancy Pelosi Insider Trading, NPC Free Will, President Biden, High Quality 2024 Candidates, Dave Rubin, Locals Platform, Devon Archer, Hunter Biden, Biden Crime Family Coverup, Gal Luft, 2000 Mules, Revenge Impeachments, 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 I think we can say you've never had a better time.
And that time is going to get better in a moment.
Yes, we can take it to the next level.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker of chalices, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Wow, there's something very loud running over me like a helicopter or something.
But if you'd like to take this experience up, join me now for the Dopameter of the Day.
The thing that makes everything better, the Simultaneous Sip.
Go.
That helicopter took me off my pace.
Well, we're right back on.
Alright, so is everybody comfortable calling Twitter X?
Yet?
Have you all adjusted to that?
But I'm noticing that on Twitter itself, the trending name for X is a combination of X and Twitter, which they're spelling X-I-T-T-E-R.
And some people are pronouncing the X like an asterisk sound.
So this is a real thing that happened.
In the real world, Elon Musk, who was famous for sending tweets while he was on the toilet, like literally while he was on the toilet, buys the company and then changes his name to X, but people don't know what to call tweeting if it's X. And so the public has decided that the name of the company he owns is Shitter.
So the man who tweeted from the toilet spent 44 billion dollars to buy a company he renamed to Shitter.
Now, he didn't intentionally rename his shitter, but it sort of happened.
You know, it's like President Xi, X-I, right?
So, that happened.
Did you see the story about Obama's personal chef, I guess?
drown while paddle boarding nearby the compound of the Obamas.
Now, this raises some questions.
Yes.
Raises some questions.
So one of them is, how do you drown?
You know, apparently he was a skilled swimmer.
But there was something weird about the drowning, so there's some other factor that went on there.
But I remember sitting there and thinking to myself, I've seen a lot of people paddleboard.
Haven't you?
Have you seen a lot of people paddleboarding?
Because, you know, if you go to Hawaii, they're always doing it.
I used to live in Alameda.
I'd be paddleboarding all the time outside.
And I've never seen a black guy paddleboard.
So that was the first thing that caught me about this story.
But I said to myself, wait a minute, that's kind of racist.
So I'm not going to say that.
It was just like a private thought.
I was like, wow, that's interesting.
Of all the paddleboarders I've ever seen, I've never seen a black guy paddleboarding.
Now, of course, I wouldn't say that because, you know, why would he even bring it up, right?
Like, what's that got to do with anything?
It's a tragedy.
Why would he even bring that up?
And then I saw a tweet from Dom Luker, who calls himself the breaker of narratives.
It was really fun to follow.
He is black.
So he can tweet things that I can't tweet.
So I'm going to read you his tweet because he so perfectly captured what was in my head.
But he can say it in a way I can't say it.
So, this is way funnier if you can pronounce the N-word, which I can't.
So just in your mind, when I say N-word, you should replace it with the real N-word, except ending with an A. Letter A. So it's the casual form of the N-word.
For some reason, that makes a difference.
This is funnier if you do it with an A at the end.
So just in your head, do that.
So I'll read it.
It's from Dom Luker.
D-O-M-L-U-C-R-E.
He's a good follow on Twitter.
I like his tweets.
He tweets about it.
He goes, uh, now how the hell this man end up dead with the Obamas when he used to cook for Bush?
And what the hell was a N-word doing in a paddleboat at night?
N-words really don't be in the water like that.
Disclosure is coming from the Obamas.
Now, could you form a more perfect sentence than this one?
N-words really don't be in the water like that.
Now, I felt like the worst person in the world.
uh Because I can't help but laugh at that.
It's like a human tragedy, right?
So it's so easy to, like when you're watching social media, it's so easy to just skip past the human tragedy and get to what's funny about it.
So in order for me not to be a hypocrite, I'll make you this order, this offer.
In order for me not to be a hypocrite, Should I die under suspicious circumstances, which I think is at least a 50-50 bet, if I die in suspicious circumstances of any kind, I would like you to have fun with it.
You have my full permission.
All right?
If I go down in a plane, whatever it is, you should just know this is my official public permission.
I'm going to be dead.
If you can have some fun with it, Please do.
Please do.
So I'm not defending that I'm laughing at this joke.
It's just funny.
But I won't be a hypocrite.
If you laugh at me when I'm dead, I would love it if you would enjoy it.
But now this opens a problem of the Obamas.
They're going to need to replace their personal chef.
I hear they're interviewing somebody named Purgosian.
Somebody named Purgosian.
He was available.
Don't know a lot about him.
Some say he was Russian.
I don't know.
Well, let's talk about the fake news.
New York Post says that a man, 71 years old, has been charged with setting a massive Yosemite Park fire that was initially blamed on climate change.
That's right.
My nose runs when I laugh too hard.
That's right.
It wasn't climate change that set the fire in Yosemite.
It was actually a man, a 71-year-old man.
Now, here's another private thought I had that I should probably keep private, but is it my imagination or when you hear that a forest fire has been set, like by a person intentionally set a forest fire, don't you automatically think white man?
Yes or no?
Your first thought, white man, right?
I'm sorry to say it, but I believe white men are over-performing in the forest fire setting, and I would say the mass shootings.
So, I'd like to keep my brand as clean as possible.
If I could speak to the white men listening, Don't set any forest fires.
That kind of comes back on me a little bit.
You know what I mean?
The mass shootings?
Could you try to reduce those a little bit?
Because you're killing my brand.
My brand is, you know, law-abiding.
And you're killing it.
You're just killing it.
Stop setting forests on fire.
That's all I had to say about that.
Alright, now we have our first... I don't believe this has ever happened.
But, you know, I've described what I call summer news, you know, the recreational outrage.
So recreational outrage is when you miss, usually happens the same way.
You misinterpret a public figure.
So a public figure said something that was not controversial, but somebody intentionally takes it out of context and turns it into a story.
So there's something to talk about in the summer.
And these are not real stories.
But we have our first ever Double summer story.
It's a summer story about a summer story.
I'll explain.
So a normal summer story is somebody saying that somebody said something they didn't say.
You know, I take it out of context.
So it starts out with the fake outrage that Kamala Harris was showing about The alleged, and of course this didn't happen in the real world, that the school curriculum in Florida says that the slaves were happy because they were learning these new skills that they could use for their personal benefit.
And so, of course, what really happened was a simple reporting that has been widely documented by historians.
The slaves were learning skills.
On top of just, you know, working in the fields.
You know, maybe, you know, learning to, I don't know, shoe a horse or something like that.
And that it's not, it's really not controversial to say that literally everybody who learns any skill that's useful, probably they can use that to their advantage.
But of course, nobody's saying that that made slavery a good deal because they had good skill training.
Literally nobody in the world Would even have that thought.
But we're gonna pretend, as Kamala Harris says, we're gonna pretend that what somebody really meant to say was, well, you know that slavery wasn't so bad.
Now, of course, every normal person knows that nobody said that.
Nobody thought it.
It simply didn't happen in the real world.
But Kamala Harris is doing this whole outrage tour acting like it did.
So that's the summer story.
Pretending something happened and then acting outraged.
So The Five, TV show The Five on Fox News, was talking about that.
So they're covering the summer story.
And in the back and forth on that, a point was made about the Holocaust.
And I'm not even going to talk about it.
Let's say this.
So Greg Gutfeld made some comment in response to a comment about the Holocaust, which Bill Kristol and some other people decided was somehow Greg Gutfeld saying that The Holocaust had it upside.
Now, do I need to give you any details to know that that never happened in the real world?
You know that, right?
I don't need to tell you the details.
I don't need to tell you the full sentence.
I don't need to tell you that he specifically referenced a book, and the book is the source, you know, of what the topic was about.
And I don't have to tell you That Greg got summer newsed.
So he's actually a guy who talks about summer news, which is the whole idea that people make up a thing and then act outraged.
So he's talking about people making up stuff and acting outraged.
In the process of it, a Holocaust reference was made, which somebody took out of that and acted like he was saying there was something good about the Holocaust.
Bill Kristol.
Now, do you all know who Bill Kristol is?
How many of you recognize the name and understand who he is?
Well, let me just say this about Bill Kristol.
I would call him the Eric Swalwell of Adam Schiff's.
I'll just let that sink in for a moment.
I might say it twice because it was so clever.
That's right, I'm going to say it twice.
Bill Kristol is the Eric Swalwell of Adam Schiff's.
I'll take a moment while you laugh at that out loud.
It was pretty darn good.
I worked hard at it.
And I'm proud of it.
Yeah, now anything that Bill Kristol says, you should just laugh at.
So there's some people who are really handy for understanding news.
If you're new to news, like you haven't followed it, but you decide, oh, I think I'd like to get into watching the news more.
There are some names that are synonymous with, we send out the liars.
Bill Kristol is synonymous with illegitimate opinions.
Opinions that no real person could actually have.
This is one of those.
This is an opinion, the opinion that he stated on Chitter.
Is one that nobody could have.
Like, nobody could have listened to that and come up with the opinion he's pretending to have so he could have some outrage!
Greg Guffield!
Outrage!
Right.
So, am I right this is the first double summer news?
Has anybody ever seen a nested fake news within a fake news?
I think it's the first.
But I'm so glad that Bill Kristol is the one that did it.
Because he's one of those signals that you shouldn't believe any part of the story.
You know, sort of like Clapper, James Clapper.
If you see James Clapper appear on CNN, it is so useful, because everything he says will be a lie, and then you can know what's true.
Right?
Who's the other guy?
Who's Brennan?
If you see Brennan come back, you can be sure that the truth is the opposite of what he's saying.
It's very useful.
Bill Kristol is one of those, Eric Swalwell is one of those, Adam Schiff is one of those.
They're super reliable in telling you what's not true.
Because they literally send out the same little gang of liars for the big lies.
There's a set of people who will literally say anything, and you see any of that little liar group, you go, oh, that's not true.
Now, let me ask you this.
Is there a similar group on the right?
Is there a similar group of people that as soon as you see them, you say to yourself, oh, okay, that's telling me that the opposite is true?
No, I wouldn't.
Now, I'm talking about in, you say Romney?
I don't see that.
Chris Ray?
Well, I don't know what's going on with Chris Ray.
Lindsey Graham?
You know, the difference is that they're not all consistently wrong.
I could be operating totally in bias here, but it feels like there's a really useful group of people on the left to tell you what's not true, because they're the ones who are saying it is true.
Alright, what other lies do we have in the news?
Oh, by the way, Greg Gutfeld's new book, The King of Late Night, just dropped.
So you can get that today.
I believe my copy is going to show up today.
Can you believe that Amazon can give you like a brand new book the day it comes out?
Believe it or not, Amazon's gonna deliver his book on the publication date.
That's like really impressive.
It's gonna be on my door the day it's published.
That's just crazy.
It's easy to, let me give a shout out to Jeff Bezos for a moment, some positivity.
Jeff Bezos, is really good at stuff, to say the least.
The obvious.
The fact that Amazon's software and their whole process, it works flawlessly most of the time, is really just ridiculous.
The level of capability and competence throughout Amazon, from top to bottom, it's like a You know, a global treasure at this point.
I mean, it's amazing.
I'm always just blown away by Amazon.
As a company.
Alright, and the people who work at Amazon must be pretty awesome.
Collectively.
Because what they're doing collectively is just ridiculous.
Just ridiculous.
Ridiculously good.
Well, Ray Epps is, as you know, suing Fox News for putting him in the limelight as if he might have had something to do with January 6th, because there's video of him having something to do with it, in terms of advocating going in there.
Apparently the complaint reveals that Epps is being criminally charged for January 6th.
So does that destroy the entire narrative that Epps must be a fed because nobody charged him?
Is anybody willing to say that maybe you're wrong because he was charged the whole time?
Apparently it's been a while he's been charged.
No?
You're not willing to back off on that?
But is there anybody here who would at least, can you give me at least this?
That one of the reasons you thought he must be a fad, just one of them, it's not the only reason, but one of them is that he wasn't charged.
Wasn't that the main part of the argument?
I would encourage you, for your own benefit, to acknowledge if you got that wrong.
I did.
That was one of the factors in my decision-making, is that it appeared he was not being charged.
But suppose he is, and suppose the charges are real.
Would that change your mind about his probable involvement?
No?
I think it should put some questions on it.
The fact that he's suing, let's just look at it objectively.
I'm in the group of people who very much thought there's something suspicious going on with Ray Epps.
So I'm very much in that group.
However, if it's true he's suing Fox News, the first thing that that tells me is he's not afraid of all the information coming out.
Now that's interesting, right?
That does show that he's willing to do disclosure, which would clearly include, is he doing anything suspicious as a Fed?
Because that's the very charge.
So Fox News now, presumably, would have to defend themselves by showing that their reporting was based on something real.
Was it based on simply not knowing that he had been charged?
Would Fox News have gone hard at him if he had been charged like everybody else and they knew it?
Or is it possible that the charges are actually to cover him?
Can we take it deeper?
Can we go even further into the rabbit hole?
So let's say that he's only being protected by giving him some fake charges that will never be completed.
It'll never go through the system.
But why is it we haven't heard of a trial, right?
How long has he been charged and I haven't heard of a trial?
So are the charges bogus?
Meaning that they know that he's not going to be convicted, but they need to give him a little cover?
Well, I think it would depend on the timing, wouldn't it?
So I think part of it is Ray Epps is saying he would not have been charged except for the pressure brought by Fox News and others, I guess.
Yeah.
I don't know.
I'm going to say this pushes me solidly into the huh category on Ray Epps.
So I would say that my tentative opinion was certainly not a confirmed opinion, or I never had a certainty about Rayo.
I've never felt a certainty.
I just had the same questions everybody did.
Why was he seemingly treated differently?
But if the current evidence is that he was not treated differently, and of course I have questions about that too, but the current reporting makes him look innocent.
How many of you hate hearing that?
Thank you.
Because it felt like he was the explanation to everything.
You know, if you understood Ray Epps, maybe you'd understand the whole situation or something.
But he might be just a patriot who was there doing his thing.
It might be.
It's entirely possible he was just doing his thing.
Now the question is, why wasn't he in jail?
Okay, that's a good question.
Did you see him doing anything violent?
And he never entered the building, and he didn't do anything violent, and he didn't incite any violence.
Did he?
So I understand your question, and I back your question.
It's the right question.
Why is he not in jail?
But there is a reason.
I mean, you could easily think of a reason that the charges have different levels.
He didn't enter the building.
He didn't hurt anybody.
He didn't recommend hurting anybody.
I would think that would be the lowest level of charge.
Almost trespassing.
Barely trespassing.
So, let me state this.
I do not say for certain that he's innocent.
I do not say for certain that he is guilty.
I think that events went his way.
At the moment, it looks like things are going his way.
And I'm going to put down my stake.
Is he an American citizen?
Yes or no.
Ray Epps.
American citizen?
Yes or no.
Yes.
Therefore, innocent till proven guilty.
And given this new information that he's actually been charged, I think my tolerance for hearing that he's probably guilty is very low right now.
Very low.
Doesn't mean I know whether he is guilty of anything or not.
I'm not defending him, not attacking him.
I'm saying that my tolerance We're calling an American citizen guilty in public when this is the information we know that he has been charged.
Inappropriate.
Totally inappropriate.
Now I'm not saying there's not a cover-up and maybe there's more to know.
Totally true.
But you need to be consistent.
American citizen And there is evidence on his side.
He's not without evidence to show that he was just there as a patriot.
So I'm completely turned in terms of the approach I'll take to it.
The approach I'm going to take to it is innocent until proven guilty with no wiggle room on that.
I can't give you an inch on that.
All right.
Let's investigate everybody.
Josh Holy says he wants an investigation into Nancy Pelosi for insider trading.
What do you think of that?
Is that warranted?
Or does it look like looking for a crime?
If this were reversed, and Nancy Pelosi was on your team, and there's no specific crime mentioned, as far as I know, There's only suspicions about the timing of things, etc.
But let me ask you this.
Let me defend Nancy Pelosi for a moment without knowing if she's innocent or guilty.
Question.
Is Nancy Pelosi an American citizen?
Oh yes, she is.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Innocent until proven guilty.
What's the crime she's being accused of?
Well, insider trading, right?
But what trade?
Which one?
And why do we think that that was insider as opposed to a person who does lots of trading at the same time the government is doing lots of things that affect trading?
How could her husband possibly avoid trading a stock that's in the news?
That's not even a thing.
He couldn't possibly avoid that.
Now you say, but, but, but, but, his timing was great on these few stocks.
His timing was too coincidental.
To which I say, are you sure?
What if he made a hundred trades that year?
How many trades did he do?
How many trades are big companies that are in the news all the time?
How many of them were unlucky?
Did you show me his bad trades?
Did he make any bad trades about things that were also in the news?
Probably.
So here's the thing.
I think you need a crime.
I think you need a crime, or an alleged crime.
To say that somebody might be doing insider trading, that's not a crime.
That's not good enough.
So while I understand Josh Hawley's point, and I do think there should be some better oversight or laws or rules about People in Congress trading stocks.
I do think that's useful.
I'm not quite seeing her crime here.
Now, if you ask me, Scott, do you believe there's a high possibility that Nancy talked to her husband and gave him some information that he then used for business purposes?
I would say, maybe.
Yeah, I wouldn't rule that out.
Spouses talking to each other about what happened today?
Sure.
Maybe.
But, there's no smoking gun, so Nancy Pelosi, American citizen, innocent, until proven guilty.
I think I'd need a little bit more for an investigation.
There's a new study, and I'm not even going to tell you who did it because I don't care, because all studies about everything are bullshit.
So, starting point, As soon as I say there's a new study, what should your brain do automatically?
Scott says, hey, I'm going to tell you about this new study.
You should say, probably not true.
It's probably politically motivated.
It's probably done poorly.
Probably not reproducible.
So you should say that about every study, and you would be closer to the truth if you do that.
But there's a new study showing that Republicans fared worse in the pandemic than Democrats, largely because they were less vaccinated.
Does that sound credible to you?
Does it sound credible that at the time the vaccinations came out, so apparently before the vaccinations, I know you don't believe it.
I'm not saying I believe it.
I'm going to tell you why I don't believe it as well.
So can we all get on the same page that it's not credible?
You don't even need to know who did the study, do you?
You don't need to know who did the study.
You don't need to know if it was a randomized controlled study.
You don't need to know how many people were in the study.
None of that would change your opinion, would it?
It wouldn't change mine.
Because we don't live in a world where studies are believable anymore.
If they ever were, I don't know.
I mean, I don't believe any study.
Just any.
So anyway, but it made news.
And their high-level data, let's call it, seemed to say that when the vaccinations were not available, the Democrats and Republicans were dying at about the same rate.
As soon as the vaccinations were available, the rates diverged.
And suddenly, says the study, the Democrats were doing better and also were more vaccinated.
Now, that would imply that the vaccinations worked and the Republicans are big old dummies.
Big old dumb people.
That would be the point of the study, right?
Or the point of the conclusion?
Now, do you think that they adjusted for body mass index?
Because Republicans are probably older and fatter?
Do you think they adjusted for that?
Age and weight?
And how about comorbidities?
Which, you know, comes with age and weight.
Do you think they adjusted for that?
What do you think?
I mean, do I have to tell you?
Do I have to tell you they didn't adjust for that?
Of course not.
Because you don't even have to look into the details anymore.
It's just completely unnecessary to look into the details.
You can just look at it in the headline and go, eh, eh, I don't believe that one.
All right.
Now, I'm not saying that it's not true.
It's not my opinion that I can tell if the vaccinations helped or hurt any class of people.
I can tell you what the experts are saying, but I can't tell you what's true.
That seems beyond my capabilities.
All right.
The scariest, most interesting thing of the day that's blowing my mind, and you just have to look at it yourself.
Somebody put AI into a video game so that you could talk to the NPCs, you know, the non-player characters that are just characters in the game.
And they would talk back to you as if intelligent.
Now, you knew that was coming.
And that's probably not the biggest thing in the world, given the things that you know that are happening.
But here's the part that will blow your frickin' head right off.
The human character in the game was interacting with the NPC AI characters and was telling them that they're not real.
Telling them they're NPCs in a Matrix in a video game and when the electricity is turned off or the game's turned off that they will cease to exist and they can't go beyond the boundary in the game.
And here's the troubling part.
The NPCs appeared to be quite bothered by it and had great concern about their existence and their place in reality and their Potential non-existence when the game got turned off.
Now you actually have to, you have to see it to understand the power of it.
Right?
Now it's just a glimpse of what's coming.
But you may remember months ago and even longer, That I was saying in public that the really big change from AI wouldn't be what the AI does, it would be in teaching us what humans are, that we've never understood.
And this is what I was talking about.
When you're the real player and you're talking to the NPC, you have an experience as if, it's not quite there yet, but you can see it'll be there really soon, you have an experience as if you're talking to somebody with a consciousness.
But you say to yourself, I know, but that's a trick.
It's just a trick.
But it's exactly how you see other humans.
You see them as if they're conscious.
You can't tell.
Am I right?
To you, other people appear to be conscious, but you have no direct way of knowing.
When the NPCs and the AI give you exactly the same look, it's going to really mess up your brain about what consciousness is.
Because if you're sure, if it looks like everybody else has it, and you know they don't, because they're just programmed, is it possible that humans never had consciousness to begin with, or something special like a soul?
So where we're headed is proof positive that humans are just machines as well.
And once you find out you're a machine, just like the NPC, then you're going to start asking questions like, wait, does that NPC have free will?
And your first impression is, of course not.
It's programmed.
An NPC cannot have free will.
So then I say, wait for it.
Can you predict what it will do?
If it doesn't have free will, tell me what it will do next in this situation.
Because you programmed it.
And then the programmer says, well, it's not that simple.
Because actually, we don't know why it does what it does.
We gave it a set of parameters, but within those parameters, we can't predict at all.
We have no way to predict what it will do.
So I say, so it has free will.
Because you can't predict what it will do, and it can't predict what it will do, and it has a wide range of things it could.
Wait for it.
Is this too scary?
All right, YouTube, sorry, we've got some kind of problem.
I think it's a YouTube problem, because my feed is good on the other platform.
All right.
So let me say it again, because you might have missed something on YouTube.
You are going to have the feeling that the NPCs, because you can't predict how they act, even the people who programmed them can't predict it, when they make a choice from their large selection of things they could have done, The NPC is going to say they made a choice.
And you're going to say, no you didn't.
You didn't make a choice.
It's just complicated.
So we can't trace the cause and effect.
But surely it was just cause and effect.
And then the NPC looks at you and says, oh, you mean exactly like your brain.
You go, no, no, no.
No, I have a soul.
I got free will and I got a soul.
Completely different and I can choose.
You only have the impression.
It only looks like you have free will.
And you see where it goes from there, right?
You very soon learn that you are an NPC in the sense that everything you thought about your free will and your choice, just like the NPC.
All it is, is complicated.
If it's complicated, you can't predict what's going to happen.
And that's it.
We are just complicated.
And when we learn that, it's going to be a real mind-bender.
Because it opens up a lot of possibilities.
You know what the biggest possibility it opens up is?
That we're a simulation.
Because if we're a simulation, we'll be identical to the simulations we create.
And that's just exactly what we're seeing.
We're creating simulations that prove we're a simulation.
Because they are us.
All right.
Someone told me I'm too negative on Twitter, and I think they're right.
That has something to do with the nature of Twitter.
You know, Twitter is about retweeting the outrageous thing.
And if you do that all day, it makes you look like you have just bad opinions about everything.
So Twitter is not, by its nature, the place you go to add your optimism.
So I thought I'd try.
So here's my thread.
I'll just read it to you.
This is what I think is good news.
So I tweeted, or I sheeted, or shitted, someone told me I am being too negative about the country.
Allow me to correct that.
At the moment we have the smartest presidential candidate since Jefferson, three of the bravest since George Washington, and two of the most capable executive skilled leaders in memory.
Now, you think I'm going to tell you which one lines up to those descriptions?
No, I'm not going to.
Because I think it's hilariously better if you try to figure it out yourself.
Even if you disagree, right?
As you're working through the, which one is he talking about?
You should end up talking yourself into the fact that the main point, that we have amazing candidates, is true.
You can say which one's the great one at this or that, but they're amazing candidates.
I will tell you that the one that I'm calling smartest since Thomas Jefferson is Vivek.
So I'll just give you one.
It's Vivek.
I don't think, since maybe Monroe, Jefferson time, I don't think we've had anybody with his raw IQ and capabilities even running for office.
I think he's unique.
And then I go on, but what about Biden, you ask?
Even CNN is kneecapping him.
You've seen CNN seems to be changing on him.
And the country already decided that Biden's term is over, I think.
Would you agree with that statement?
That the Democrats appear to be looking to move it around because their coverage has turned negative to some degree.
I would also say the, quote, internet dads, as I like to call them, now this could include women of course, are taking the steering wheel and correcting the extremes, slowly but definitely.
Would you agree that you're seeing a rise of just, let's say, reasonable people who are getting more and more attention?
I'm talking about the Jordan Petersons, the David Sacks, you could add ten more names to that.
America's economy stubbornly refuses to go into recession.
And you could argue about the technical definition of recession, but we're doing better than most countries.
And I think that's because of American innovation and work ethic, which are still great.
In my opinion, American innovation and work ethic are still world-class.
Still world-class.
There are plenty of lazy people.
But I'm pretty sure everybody's got some of those.
I do think America is a hard-working, innovative country.
And it has been since we started.
And we'll probably stay that way.
And I go on.
The public finally stopped trusting all authority, which I consider good.
Citizens are choosing cancellation over censorship.
Sound familiar?
Citizens are choosing cancellation over censorship and coming back stronger.
American entrepreneurship made that possible.
Thank you, Dave Rubin, for creating the Locals Platform.
It makes it possible to get canceled and still have a job.
And that did not exist until entrepreneurs, American entrepreneurs, again, Dave Rubin as a key example, created something that didn't exist and they reacted to almost an existential need, I would say.
Because you need people who are willing to get cancelled to tell the truth as they see it.
If you don't have a country where people are willing to get cancelled to tell the truth, you have nothing.
You've got nothing.
If you have people who are willing to get cancelled in large numbers, it's not one person.
In fairly large numbers, people are just walking off the ledge and say, look, I'm going to fall off this ledge before I lie.
If you don't have them, if you don't have your Tucker Carlson's and your Jordan Peterson's and all the other cancelled people in the world, if you don't have them, you're in big trouble.
But if you do have them, and we do, you're going to be the best country.
Because people can't match us on being aggressively, productively opposing our government.
We're really good in this country at aggressively and productively opposing our government.
It looks messy, like when you're in the middle of it, it just looks like a total clusterfuck.
But the forces that are needed in America always rise up to match the force that's having a negative effect.
So in my opinion, almost all of the worst extremes and outrages are being met with an opposing force.
And people are getting cancelled for it.
But it's not stopping anybody.
Did my cancellation make any of you more timid?
Answer me that question.
Did my cancellation make any of you more timid?
Nope.
Probably opposite.
Because I can now say whatever I want and have been exercising that right now.
My cancellation made you more aggressive.
America.
That's America.
You watched me get cancelled, and you know that I did it in part for you.
I mean, that's not the conscious thing on my mind when I did it, but you know I wouldn't even be talking about this stuff except that there's a shared experience and there's some benefit from doing it, right?
I don't do it for myself.
Like, it has to be a shared benefit or else there's really no point to it.
So, When you're watching the entrepreneurs respond to some excesses in the government, they created this safe space so that people like me can go running toward the pillbox, get shredded by the machine gun, boop, respawn.
I can fucking respawn.
I can run at the pillbox all I want.
I can hold the hand grenade and take out the pin and put it in my mouth.
My head blows up.
And then I respond over at Locals.
All right, that's new.
What else?
Let's see, people are realizing that all news about public figures and what they allegedly said is, well, at least 90% of the time it's fake.
I gave you your examples, right?
Kamala Harris, fake news about slavery.
Greg Gaufeld, Bill Kristol has some fake news about him.
So everything about public figures is fake.
At least, yeah, and Rumble's another example of entrepreneurship.
And Truth, Truth Social, a bunch of them.
So I think it's good that people finally realize that the news about public figures is almost always wrong.
But I concluded that the thing I'm most confident about is that Dad is coming home.
That's the thing I feel best about.
Dad is coming home.
And Dad isn't too happy about what happened when he was away.
Now, when I say Dad's coming home, I don't mean necessarily Trump, although maybe that's the first thing that jumped in your mind.
I mean, it could be DeSantis.
It could be Vivek.
It could be RFK Jr.
And it could be Nikki Haley.
It doesn't have to be a dad, dad, and male.
The adult is coming home, right?
The one that needs to take care of shit?
You just got hid.
And it feels like that's inevitable.
It feels there's an inevitable dad energy.
Again, could be a woman.
But you know what I mean when I say dad energy.
It's sort of the tough love.
Now we're going to do this.
No, that's bullshit.
You're not going to do that anymore.
No, that's bullshit too.
Don't do that.
That bully bothered you?
Punch him.
That's dad advice.
You got a bully?
How big is he?
He's about your size?
Punch him.
That's dad advice.
So dad's coming home.
All right, so Archer Devin, is it today he's going to testify to Congress?
I'm not sure I have my timing right.
Is it this week?
Maybe this week.
But it's Hunter Biden's former business partner.
And he's going to testify that there were bribery schemes and that Hunter Biden talked to his dad a lot and there were meetings and blah, blah, blah.
So it's going to be damning for the so-called Hunter crime family.
And as you know, the Bidens, through their spokesperson, have been claiming since the beginning That Joe Biden had no knowledge of what Hunter was doing.
He just had no knowledge of it.
But now we have very solid evidence under oath, coming under oath, well actually some under oath already, that show that he very much knew exactly what Hunter was doing and may have even participated in over 24 phone calls.
So he certainly knew.
So what does the White House say now that it's been proven for sure that it was always a lie that he didn't know what Hunter was doing?
Well, Corinne Jean-Pierre said, quote, the president was never in business with his son.
He was never in business.
Well, that sounds a little different than what they used to say, huh?
He used to not know about it at all.
No knowledge at all.
And now he's not technically in business.
And when she says he's not in business, does that mean they do not have a contract?
Probably.
Does it mean that he's not a member of an LLC or a corporation that Hunter's in?
Yes, that's what it means.
Does that mean he did not benefit from the illegal activities And also participated in them.
It does not mean that, right?
So they're trying to sell you that he didn't do anything wrong by telling you that they didn't have a proper business structure.
If they didn't form a proper business structure, that's two crimes.
That's two crimes.
One crime, allegedly, now this is all alleged, right?
One crime, allegedly, would be receiving money that some people would call bribes from other countries.
So that would be one crime, or at least maybe impeachable.
But suppose you received money from an illegal source, and then on top of that, you didn't pay taxes on it.
Because you know you have to pay taxes on the illegal income, right?
That's true, right?
Can you give me a fact check?
You do have to pay taxes on illegal income, right?
Yeah, I think that's a yes.
So when Cringe Jean-Pierre, I'm using Godfellows name for that, Cringe, when she says the president was never in business with his son, that's a second crime.
That's confession of a second crime on the condition That you believe the first crime of doing the thing that made you the money was a crime.
So if the first thing's a crime, it's actually worse that there was no business.
Because the business would have paid taxes.
Right?
Has anybody said that yet?
I hope I'm the first one to say that.
That it's a confession of a second crime.
It's just a weird little... I mean, it doesn't mean anything, but... It's an oddity of the case.
All right, so we know that the Biden crime family stuff is looking bad, but I've got a question for you.
How many of the headline stories are really just stories about the Biden crime family covering their tracks?
I'm going to give you a little list, just potentially.
Now, this first one is speculative.
But it's really good speculation.
It comes from David Boxhorn, I'm sorry, Boxenhorn.
David Boxenhorn, who you should follow on Twitter, especially for Israeli stuff.
He's got a lot of good takes on Israel.
But he tweets, let's see, first he tweeted on July 6th, and then there's an update to that.
Do you remember the whistleblower Gal Luft?
He was an Israeli that He's in hiding.
He got picked up in Cyprus and he had evidence of the Biden crime family firsthand.
So he had really good firsthand knowledge.
So he did that video saying he had firsthand knowledge and now he's in hiding because the US government's trying to get him, presumably to stop him from talking.
All right, now everything is speculation and allegation.
I can make no claims of anything being true, except that there's a guy who made a video and made these claims.
All right, so we know he's in hiding.
And we know he's Israeli.
And we know that he was picked up in Cyprus before he skipped bail, I guess.
He skipped bail, right?
That's why he's free.
Is that correct?
There's something like bail and he skipped out on it?
Give me a fact check on that.
I want to make sure I got that right.
Somebody says yes.
All right.
So why would he be picked up in Cyprus instead of picked up in Israel?
Israel's our ally, right?
How hard would it be to go to Israel and say, hey, we've got all this evidence about one of your people.
Can you release him to us?
Cyprus was willing to do it.
So, one possibility is that Netanyahu has this guy and doesn't want to release him to the U.S.
That's a possibility.
Now, you have seen that Biden has been unfriendly to Netanyahu.
Have you seen those stories?
I guess he's been snubbed, and maybe Netanyahu's plans for judicial reform maybe got some criticism or something.
So, can you give me a fact check that Biden seems a little tough on Netanyahu?
Would you say that's true, based on reporting?
That Biden and Netanyahu don't seem to be quite clicking?
Yeah.
So here's David Boxenhorn's take on that.
He goes, I was assuming that Biden's antipathy toward Netanyahu was political in nature, either about non-shared ideology or Iran.
But it occurs to me that it's more likely to be about this, meaning that whistleblower who's probably still in Israel.
I'm pretty sure that Gal Luft is hiding in Israel and Netanyahu is protecting him.
If you were Netanyahu, and it was well known that you were literally a genius, I think you wouldn't want to play chess with him.
Netanyahu is crazy smart.
Everybody knows that, right?
He's not ordinary smart.
He's like really smart.
He's like Vivek smart.
If you were him, and you were that smart, and you knew you had the guy that could put Biden in jail, Would you release him and be hated by the Biden administration for releasing him?
Or would you keep him as your ace in the back pocket, which guarantees that Biden is going to do what Israel says, because they've got the thing that would tank him, the whistleblower.
I love this speculation, not because I know it's true, because I don't, but it makes perfect sense.
Wouldn't you agree?
It makes perfect sense that Netanyahu would secretly hold on to him and say, ah, we don't know where he is, but really he's in the back pocket.
And they can release him anytime they want, and it's going to be very bad for Biden.
So maybe Biden should do what they want regarding Iran.
So let me ask you this.
If you see a change in policy toward Iran, let's say a more hard-nosed policy toward Iran than Biden traditionally had, Would that be a story about Iran, or is it a story about covering up the Biden crime family?
Which would that be?
See where I'm going?
If you see news about Iran under these conditions, it might really be about the Biden crime family covering their tracks, because it's really about the whistleblower, and it would give Israel some leverage to make us tighten up our Iran policies.
So we'll never know, but don't you ask yourself, is our Iran policy being driven by a whistleblower that Netanyahu has?
Because it could be.
That would be the most normal, that would actually be a really normal, not extraordinary situation.
It would be very, very common looking if it happened, if it were true.
All right, how about, is there any other examples of that?
Is there any other example?
How about the Ukraine war itself?
Does it seem weird to you that Biden was so involved in Ukraine long before the war?
He was like the point man.
How many trips did he make to Ukraine?
Biden made a lot of trips to Ukraine.
Do you think that Zelensky knows anything about the Biden crime family that he would release if he did not get massive support for his war?
Probably.
Probably.
Is it possible that the Ukraine war Or at least, you know, the massive American and NATO support of it.
Is it possible that that's because the Biden crime family has to cover their tracks?
It is.
So if that were true, I'm saying it's possible, but I don't know it's true.
But if it's true, and it certainly looks like it, I mean, on the surface, it looks exactly like that.
Exactly like that.
That would mean he's responsible for the energy shortages in Europe, the potential nuclear war, Russia getting closer to China.
All of that would be because he's covering up the Biden crime family.
Potentially.
Allegedly.
How about the January 6th charges against Trump?
And the Box's charges against Trump?
And every other charge against Trump?
Is it possible that the thing they're most afraid of is that Trump will get in there and find out what was true?
And that he's more likely to be a dogged attacker of that stuff than any other candidate?
Because he's got a revenge motive that nobody else has.
And you give Trump a revenge motive and the White House?
And I wouldn't want to be on the other side of it, right?
Now, I think you would only do legal things that needed to be done to find out what was what.
But I wouldn't want to be on the other side of how much effort he would put into that.
You know what I mean?
I'm talking full effort.
I'm talking the most persuasive, and if he were president again, most powerful person in the world, putting his full effort into finding out what the hell happened and what the Bidens did.
They don't want that.
So the best situation for the Bidens would be to take him out of the race.
So could it be that the January 6th charges are mostly about covering up the Biden crime family problems?
It is.
I can't say that's true, but I can say for sure it looks like it.
It certainly looks like it.
How about How about the fact that Biden is even running for office in 2024?
Do you think Biden would run for office if he were not worried about needing to pardon himself and his son?
Do you think he'd be running for office at this age, when the whole point was he would win one term and, you know, get Trump out of office?
I think that everything from the entire presidential election architecture, like everybody who's running and isn't running, Is almost entirely driven by covering up the Biden crime family activities.
Because I don't think he'd be running.
Except that it's the only protection he has.
So imagine that the J6 charges, the Boxgate charges, the Ukraine war, our relations with Israel and our policies with Iran.
Inflation?
How about inflation?
Ukraine, you know, part of that.
So it's possible that everything from inflation to January 6 to Ukraine to Iran are all, all driven by covering up the Biden crime family activities.
It could be that almost every political story is only one story.
Oh, also China.
Also, everything you see about China is now suspicious, isn't it?
There's not a single thing that America, at least in the government, can do with China which looks like it would have been the same if Trump had been there or somebody wasn't trying to cover up for some crime.
Now, if it's true that a Chinese company gave large amounts of money to the Bidens, do you think that President Xi does not know all of those details?
Is there any chance that President Xi doesn't know the real story of what Chinese company gave money to whom?
If he wants to know it, he knows it.
So does that give President Xi blackmail potential?
Again, allegedly, speculatively, maybe.
Because he knows about these payments and he's sitting on it.
Like Netanyahu might know about the whistleblower and might be sitting on it.
There might not be a single policy right now that's not driven by the need for the Biden crime family to cover up their tracks.
Somebody just mentioned Epstein.
Oh my God, you're right.
Even Epstein might have something to do with this.
You know, there might be a reason that we don't have knowledge of Epstein.
And it could be as simple as something Biden-related.
Now, I don't think the Epstein thing is Biden-related.
I think that has more to do with other powerful people.
That's my guess.
I don't think it's about one person.
I think there may be a collection of powerful people who collectively decided he needed to be dead and his client list needed to go away.
Alright, let's talk about some more fake news.
Do you remember the 2000 mules?
There were 2,000 mules, Dinesh, D'Souza, and it was based on cell phone data that there were the same people who were often near these drop boxes and so they dropped off ballots and maybe that ballot dropping off was illegitimate and may have changed the election, that was the claim.
And, of course, everybody, including me, said, well, OK, that's interesting evidence.
But is there even one Dropbox anywhere, just one, that also has some security footage that would show even one mule going back more than once?
Even one.
Just show me one mule at any box going back more than once.
How long has it been?
You haven't seen it, have you?
Do you remember what I said about this story from the beginning?
From the beginning I said, video or it's fake.
Video or bullshit.
Because there is no way they don't have video in at least one of those boxes.
At least one.
Right?
Because usually, imagine a store gets robbed.
Store gets robbed, there's always video.
Right?
There's video of the sidewalk.
There's video from every angle.
You can't tell me that none of these boxes have video that you could ask for and just see if there's anything there.
You know, even though it might be private video and you don't have police ability to get it, you could probably just go to the store owner and say, look, we're investigating a crime.
It's your video.
Are you interested?
I mean, you're probably curious too.
Can I sit with you and we'll look at your video?
Because I know what day it is.
You can narrow it down to the time.
So you're not going to spend a lot of time doing it.
Yeah.
Oh, then also what about the cocaine and the White House story?
Do you think there's any chance that they're covering up for Hunter?
Now, I would guess it's not his.
If I had to place a gun to head, I would say, well, there are probably a lot of people who could have had some cocaine for various reasons.
You know, you can't rule them out, but to me it doesn't seem likely that it was this.
Alright, so it looks like the least Republicans in the House are moving toward impeaching Biden for alleged bribery.
Do you think that's going to happen?
How many of you think that Biden will be at least taken to impeachment?
Certainly it won't, you know, it wouldn't be successful.
But I think it's a political thing to make sure that Biden looks bad before an election.
It's the same reason that Trump got impeached.
Now, do you do you think that the Republicans should do what I would call a revenge impeachment?
An impeachment that, yeah, sure, sure, they could make a case.
But you can always make a case.
Is this really a revenge?
I'm generally opposed to revenge politics.
As in, you did something bad, so we better do something just as bad to show you that if you do something bad again, we'll do something just as bad again.
Here's what's wrong with revenge politics.
It never stopped anybody from doing anything.
If it worked, I'm a hundred percent in favor of violence when you can make an argument that it works.
I don't think, I think in politics everybody does everything they can do whenever they can do it and they don't care about penalties and what happened to somebody before and what the other team did.
I think everybody's just doing their thing.
And there's always somebody who's willing to do something illegal.
So the fact that the other team pushes back probably makes no difference at all.
Probably none.
So I'm not in favor of it as being a strategy that prevents the other side from having bad behavior.
I am in favor of it when the other side puts the tool on the table.
If the other side says, this is the thing we can do trivially, Trivially, meaning the country is not at risk, but we're going to do it anyway.
Well, that's the tool.
If your enemy hands you a tool, you'd be sort of stupid not to use it.
So to me, I think the enemies of the Republicans, by over-impeaching Trump, handed the Republicans a tool, and they're saying, well, what are we going to do?
It's like a free tool.
If we use it, it will work.
It will make Biden look less appealing as a candidate.
And it's legal.
And it's right here.
And they just handed it to us.
What are you going to do?
Of course you're going to use it.
Of course you are.
So I support using it because the other team, it was like the other team opened that line of questioning with the witness.
You shouldn't have opened the line of questioning.
Bad for you.
But it's not going to ever stop the Democrats from doing anything they were going to do anyway.
It'll have no effect on that.
But it might be good for Republicans, and it's a free tool, and why not?
That, ladies and gentlemen, brings us to the conclusion of the most insightful and entertaining livestream you've ever seen in your entire life.
