Episode 2187 Scott Adams: I Can't Mention The Top Story Today In The Title Because
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Niger Coup, X Branding, Elon Musk, Carbon Black Batteries, Incompetence Pandemic, Climate Change Science, Devon Archer, Hunter Biden, President Biden, Ukraine Connections, Money Laundering, Burisma, President Trump, Willful Blindness, The Big Ignore, South African Boers, Psychological Slavery, News Credibility Guide, 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 boy do we got a show today.
Look at these pages.
Look at that.
Look at that.
Secret documents on attacking Iran right there.
Or maybe not.
Possibly newspaper clippings.
You never know.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to a level that's impossible to even imagine, all you need is a cupper, a mugger, a glass, a tank, a chalice, a stand, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Ah, that's good stuff.
Well, Well, I'm watching my traffic numbers for today.
I'm almost positive I'm going to get suppressed today on YouTube.
What do you think?
What do you think will happen to the people who, let's say, are identified as maybe having a particular point of view?
Do you think everybody's going to have just the same amount of exposure today because the algorithm will just say, well, whatever you want to talk about is fine?
I don't think so.
I think it's going to be the lowest traffic I've ever had on YouTube.
You want to make a bet?
Now, today's Tuesday, which would normally be the first or second highest numbers I would get in traffic.
Do you want to bet that it's smaller than normal?
Yeah, everything you suspect is true.
Just say everything you thought was true, it's probably true.
We'll find out.
All right, well, there's a coup in Niger, country in Africa, Niger.
And the big question we all have about that is, how can my tax dollars make that worse?
There's a coup in a country that I never think about.
But really, how can I send the money to make it much, much worse?
That's what I want to know.
Well, my favorite story of the day is not that.
There's a zoo in China, and there's some allegations that their star attraction is really a man in a sun bear costume.
Now, I saw the photos, and that's either a bear with some wrinkly ass He's got a wrinkly ass.
Or it's a man in a bear suit.
It's definitely one of those.
It's either the wrinkliest bear or a man in a bear suit.
And let me tell you, if you said to me, Scott, I'd like to go to the zoo, and I'd say, why would you like to go?
And they'd say, there's a bear there.
And I would say, hmm.
I've seen bears on social media and video clips.
Don't really need to see another bear.
But if you told me that there was a man in a bear costume pretending to be a bear, I would be all over that zoo.
I would be, can we cancel our plans today?
I would like to go to the zoo to see the man who's pretending to be a bear.
Yeah, that would get me there.
All right, well, Twitter has removed the gigantic glowing X from its roof.
Because, well, I guess the official story is probably that San Francisco said it was a zoning violation.
That's probably true.
But you know what the real story is?
It had done its job.
It was the best branding campaign of all time.
That's right.
They didn't need to advertise, they didn't need to tell everybody, they didn't need to send out press releases.
They just needed to put a gigantic illegal X on their roof and everything else would happen on its own.
Is there anybody who hasn't heard of the rebranding of Twitter?
No.
100% of the world knows about, at least you're following the news, you know about Twitter rebranded as X. So another brilliant marketing PR move by Musk.
And there's no way this is an accident.
If you tell me he didn't know this would be a problem, I laugh at you.
Of course he knew it would be a problem.
That was the feature.
It's the problem that got him all the free publicity.
So, everybody wins.
San Francisco gets to exert their power over him.
Yeah, we got him this time.
He thought he could put that big X on his roof and make everybody interested.
But no, we're gonna get rid of that.
We got rid of his X. We win!
Well, maybe everybody won this time.
Well, there's a new capacitor technology which could do the same things as batteries in many cases.
A way to store energy.
But it's made of cement and something called carbon black, which apparently is common age-old material.
It's the material that the black scrolls were written with.
Apparently it's common.
But here's the thing.
This is from MIT, some work they did there.
David Chandler writes about it in MIT News and it turns out that there's some possibility that the foundation of your house could be a battery.
Isn't that cool?
You could make your whole house a battery by using a concrete that's got this carbon black mixed in and hook it up to your electrical grid and your Your whole thing will restore.
Now, that sounds nice until it rains.
And then you're all electrocuted, I assume.
I assume you just get all electrocuted.
No, that's not true.
You will not get electrocuted if it rains.
But imagine if that worked.
Imagine if all of our roads and all of our concrete buildings were just batteries.
That would be amazing.
We'd change everything.
Well, the residents of Oakland are quite upset, not only about the high crime, but all of the illegal immigrants who are coming in.
So, did anybody see that happening?
Could anybody imagine that when you got rid of good police force work and you stopped locking up the repeat offenders, could anybody imagine it would turn into a A soulless hellhole.
Who saw that coming?
Well, nobody saw it coming.
Well, my advice is you should just drive around Oakland.
So I live where Oakland's between me and San Francisco, and by that I mean Oakland is blocking me from reaching a place I would never want to go in my life, San Francisco.
But now there's like another place I would never go in my life.
Well, okay, that was sort of on the list for a while.
Oakland wasn't really high on my list of places to visit.
But now it's a total drive around because if your car breaks down in Oakland, you're not getting out.
It's a crime, crime Mecca.
Yeah, we'll talk about Hunter Biden.
I'm working up to it.
I'm working up to it.
I heard a phrase today by Veritas Lantern on Twitter that we're having a pandemic of incompetence.
Does that feel right?
We're having a pandemic of incompetence.
Doesn't that feel exactly like what's happening?
Because all of the other pandemics Or as much about incompetence as they are about any other thing.
Almost everything that's a problem is an obvious problem of incompetence.
And Viridis, he credits that incompetence to the diversity, equity, and inclusivity as a pandemic of incompetence.
Now, of course, if you're focusing on anything except competence, you should expect to get what you focus on.
Am I right?
If your focus is competence, you might get it.
If your focus is something that competes with competence, your competence will go down.
Not much doubt about that.
So yeah, it's a pandemic of incompetence.
Let's talk about climate change.
Remember how it was all warm and it was because of climate change, but turns out somebody discovered there was an enormous volcano under the ocean that warmed up the ocean?
Or, no, I guess it wasn't that it warmed the ocean that much, because that's kind of hard to do.
It was more that it released something in the atmosphere, more water or something, and that caused the heating.
So everything you heard about this hot year might be entirely because of one volcano.
I don't know that to be true.
I'm just saying that some people think that's what's happened.
Bjorn Lomborg points out that our satellite imagery shows the world is burning less than ever.
Meaning that in the old days there were forest fires burning out of control pretty much all the time.
And now we're at the lowest level of forest fires we've ever been at.
But yet the news is reporting that climate change is causing more forest fires.
So at the same time climate change is causing more forest fires, we have the least forest fires we've ever had.
Does that track?
Maybe we would have none if not for all that climate change.
I guess that would be the counter-argument.
And then Steve Malloy of Junk Science is reporting that the Antarctic sea ice is the same volume as it was 40 years ago.
The sea ice is the same volume as 40 years ago, even though CO2 has gone way up.
Well, what do you make of that?
I'm no scientist, but I'm going to I'm going to put out my best interpretation.
If it's true that the sea ice has not decreased at the same time that climate change has raged, in terms of CO2 being added to the atmosphere, there's only one explanation I can think for that.
It was the mask mandates.
Am I wrong?
It was the mask mandates that temporarily protected the sea ice.
But otherwise, I'm sure, I mean, I'm no scientist, but I'm sure it was the forcing us to wear masks, reduced our warm air exhaling, maybe had something to do with the climate.
I don't know.
I don't know how it all fits together.
But the only thing I can think of, it had something to do with masks.
Pretty sure.
Yeah.
The sea ice.
And then the forest fires.
Probably because there were not enough vaccinations.
I think if you'd been more vaccinated and got more boosters, there wouldn't be so many forest fires from climate change, would there?
I call this science.
That's what it's called.
Should we talk about the non-story?
Hashtag the big ignore.
Literally the biggest political story I've ever heard in my life.
By far bigger than any political story ever.
How do you think it's being covered by the news?
Do you think it's a lead story on CNN?
No, no.
Lead story is something about Trump.
Some Trump stuff.
How about MSNBC?
Nope, nope.
How about AP?
How about the others?
I think CBS is covering it, actually.
Catherine Herridge used to be at Fox News.
So CBS might actually be covering this.
I don't know what that's telling us.
But it appears that the big cover-up is in play.
First of all, you all know the story, right?
So Hunter Biden's longtime business partner and best friend testified that there had been at least 20 occasions in which Hunter Biden called Joe Biden on the phone while Hunter was with his business associates The people on the right are saying, well, that's a classic influence buying model.
It doesn't matter what Joe Biden said.
It doesn't matter if he talked about the weather.
It was simply a demonstration that Hunter Biden could pick up the phone and ask the vice president or ex-vice president, whatever he was, that you could get him on the phone at any time.
Now, that's what influence buying looks like.
Of course, the Democrats are telling a different story.
But before I get to that, were you aware that Archer... I saw one report.
Give me a fact check on this.
He was one of the main fundraisers for Kerry's campaign.
So there's some kind of John Kerry connection to Archer and Ukraine.
Makes you wonder how many people have a connection to Ukraine who are high-level High-level Democrats, doesn't it?
Isn't there a Pelosi connection to?
Pelosi's son, or do I, am I imagining that?
Can somebody do me a fact check on that?
I have some vague memory of Pelosi's son being involved somewhere.
Oh, it's Kerry's stepson, you're saying?
All right, so it seems to me that there are a number of high-ranking Democrats who have this weird connection with Ukraine.
A country that I cared less about than any country in the world until there was a war.
And does that sound totally normal?
And are you curious why Kamala Harris is not in charge of the Ukraine portfolio?
Because that sounds like a vice president job.
Well, maybe because there's a war.
Do you think Kamala would have been in charge of Ukraine?
I don't think so, because I think the only reason you put anybody in charge of a country, if they're vice president, is for extortion.
Can you think of any other reason?
Is it common to put somebody in charge of, like, being the point person for a country?
And is it a coincidence that everywhere Joe Biden is accused of benefiting financially is a country that Obama put him in charge of, like China?
Every single part of this story just screams corruption.
But what do the Democrats say?
Well, let me tell you.
Let's read the headlines from CNN.
So CNN tells you there are some stories that are really important today.
Things you need.
So this is today they tweeted.
So they'll be talking about Trump's polling numbers.
U.S.
wildfires, which will be fake news as you already know.
Ford F-150 recall, truck recall.
Space Command headquarters might move and then there's the U.S.
troops maybe going to Niger.
And then, where's the biggest story in the world?
It's almost like it's not there.
It's almost like they're ignoring the biggest story in American history, or at least political story.
Well, it's not there, huh?
All right.
In other news, Trump will most likely be indicted today, some people say.
Well, that's interesting timing.
How about that?
What could get you more attention in the news than Trump being indicted?
UFOs?
What a big old coincidence that that's happening just at the same time.
Wow.
Interesting.
Actually, it was Steve Hilton's tweet that I saw that Devin Archer was John Kerry's top fundraiser and there was some other connection.
Kerry's chief of staff was David Leiter, Burisma's lobbyist.
So Burisma just keeps coming up.
Wow.
All right, so here's what I think.
I think that there's no chance that Biden will serve a second term.
I think that's settled.
And when I say it's settled, I mean there's no way that the Democrats want to defend this story for another year and a half.
Would you agree?
There's just no way they want to talk about this for a year and a half.
And if it's Biden against Trump, Ask yourself this.
What could Trump do with this story?
I mean, really.
He would grind Biden into a fine powder by the time he was done.
There would be nothing left of the Biden family.
They would go the way of the other dynasties.
And it would be maybe the third dynasty he would take out, if you count Bush's and Clinton's.
Yeah.
So does anybody agree with me that there's zero chance now that the Democrats will want Biden in there?
And they have the power to make sure he doesn't.
And do you assume that it'll be a health problem?
Are you guessing health problem in, say, several months?
Sometime in the next six months, maybe?
Big health problem?
Because they won't have time for the new replacement to probably You know, probably Newsom.
They need a little time for that.
So I'm going to say within six months, a fake health problem for Biden, allow him to move out.
So, but in any case, there's no chance really that Biden will be president again.
Does anybody disagree with that?
That he's effectively, he's done.
There might be some people who disagree with that.
All right.
Here's a question for you.
How did Joe Biden pay for his two multi-million dollar homes on the income of the Biden family?
Why is nobody asking him that directly?
Isn't that like a really obvious question?
You know, we're trying to figure out how you buy expensive things without money.
Or any known source.
Yeah.
Yeah, he wrote some books.
You know, books are like the other money laundering thing.
So, I have enough book experience to know that the big books, you know, the Clinton books, etc., even though they're massive bestsellers, when you look at the advance, I don't think they're money makers.
I mean, to me it looks like maybe it's another avenue for laundering money to a politician.
Sort of overpay them on the advance and then say, well, we thought the book would do better.
We really thought the book would do better.
I guess we were surprised.
So we gave them a gigantic advance.
It was a best-selling book, but we thought it would do even better.
Yeah.
So I wouldn't trust any book deals, that's for sure.
So here are the few of the claims that Burisma hired Biden and then paid him to get the prosecutor that was looking into Burisma stuff fired.
How many of you think that is an accurate statement?
And it's based on the Devon Archer testimony.
But that Burisma paid Biden specifically to fire that prosecutor.
Now, how do you square that with the fact that Biden has been saying, and the Democrat-leaning press has been saying, that a number of other countries also wanted this prosecutor fired?
So Biden was just doing what pretty much a lot of the other countries wanted, so there must have been a good reason.
Therefore, it was not crooked.
Have you ever asked yourself, who are those other people who wanted that prosecutor fired?
Yeah, this is going to bug you when I say it.
Who are they?
And what level are they?
Are you telling me that the heads of state of other countries wanted this prosecutor fired?
Are we to believe that the, let's say, prime ministers and presidents of other countries Actually knew the name of the prosecutor in Ukraine that was giving Burisma a hard time.
Does that sound likely to you?
That there was any leader of a country that would even know that name or that it's an issue or know that the guy needs to go or even care about Burisma in any way.
All right, so let's say that that's hugely unlikely, but we do have consistent reporting that other countries, whatever that means, asked for him to go as well.
What would be a scenario in which other countries could ask for that, but it's all fake?
What would be a reasonable way that could happen?
Well, let me explain it to you.
Suppose all of your diplomats We're appointed by the President.
Let's say a President Biden.
And they were appointed as diplomats and ambassadors specifically because they would do whatever Biden wants because they're just political appointees.
Now does that sound normal?
So far.
That the embassies would be populated with, you know, operatives of the President.
Now, suppose you went to your operatives and said, you know, we need some support from other countries for getting rid of this prosecutor.
And then the people in the other embassies say, who?
It's a Burisma.
He's going after Burisma.
His name is this.
And they say, Burisma?
What's Burisma?
Well, it's a big oil company.
And then this prosecutor is going after him.
We'd like you to help get the country that you're an embassy of, we'd like you to get their support for this.
What's the guy's name again?
Okay.
And he's what?
He's a prosecutor.
In where?
Ukraine.
For what?
Burisma.
All right, write that down.
I'll go to my lower level contact, and I'll tell them the whole story, and I'll try to get their support.
So the ambassador, or let's say the diplomat, calls a meeting with maybe a cabinet person, or I don't know, a vice president, Or maybe a member of Congress, or something like that.
And then says, all right, I got this problem with this prosecutor.
Can I say we have your support?
And then the person in the other country says, well, I don't know too much about this, but you know, we like America.
We like our diplomats.
If you're telling me this is important, sure.
Tell it, you know, go ahead and do it with my blessing.
So then the diplomat says, yes, I talked to country X and I talked to the right people, not the head of the state.
Now it wasn't big enough for that, but I talked to some important people and they agree with me that this guy has to go.
Do you see how easily they could say other countries agreed when all it was was our ambassadors telling them to agree with us?
How ordinary would that be?
Completely ordinary.
Yeah.
You just tell the other people to agree, you tell them it's complicated, you tell them you have the evidence, I won't bother you with it, it's not a big issue for you, you just need to write a memo that says you're kind of on the same page with this and we'll take care of it.
And we'll do you a favor later.
I owe you one.
Right?
So when the Democrats say, but no.
No.
Oh my God.
No, he wasn't fired because Biden wanted it.
Because they were paid to do it.
No, no, no, no, no.
And just because Riesman says that's exactly what happened.
No!
No.
What really happened is all the other countries wanted it.
So produce one.
Give me one.
Give me one person in another country who understood the topic and did not get the information directly from the Americans and independently wanted this guy gone before the Americans even talked to them.
Oh, we didn't need to wait for the Americans because we all know this prosecutor is bad.
In fact, we can't stop talking about the Burisma prosecutor in Ukraine.
Every time we get together with the G20, It's like, blah, blah, blah, that prosecutor for Brisbane, we can't stop talking about it.
Again, if you're a sophisticated viewer of the news, your impression should be that it didn't happen.
If you can't give me any evidence of even one person in another country who understood the topic independently, before America badgered them, and said, yeah, we were on this page for a long time, right?
Where in the news is anybody even looking for that person?
Have you ever heard it reported?
Which countries specifically?
Was the leader of the country in on it?
Did they know?
No, it's fake news.
Now, I don't need to see the details, though.
If you can get other countries to say they were in on it, it's clearly just coercion.
Just obviously.
Or they just didn't know what they were agreeing to, which would be even more normal.
Because they don't care.
Nobody cared about a Burisma prosecutor.
All right.
Let's see.
So the Democrat spin is hilarious, and I mean that it's actually funny.
And here's one of the tips that I'd like to give you.
When you can know for sure that somebody in the public is lying, before they lie, you have to study their faces when they do it.
Well, you're going to see one of two things.
You're either going to see cognitive dissonance, Which you might see from the non-professionals who just don't want to believe the news.
But the professionals, I think, know they're lying.
For example, the high-level Democrats, at this point, they know they're lying.
So watch their faces while they talk about it.
And look specifically for the head-shaking.
The head-shakes know when they're telling you something that they want you to believe.
When do you ever shake your head no when you want somebody to believe an affirmative statement?
Here I go.
Boy, it's sunny out today.
It's a really nice day.
Today it's going to be like, I think the weather report was 87 degrees today.
It's really going to be warm outside according to the weather.
Watch for just that.
Watch for just the head shaking.
When you see it, it'll blow your mind.
I saw three in a row yesterday.
Three in a row, Democrats shaking their heads vigorously no while telling you something they wanted you to believe.
In other words, their own bodies weren't buying what their mouth was saying.
Literally.
Their bodies were rejecting their own message.
And you see it clearly.
It's really obvious once you're looking for it.
Here's another one.
Watch for the leaning head.
You ready?
Here's my impression of somebody telling you the truth.
Sitting up straight.
Doesn't mean it's definitely the truth, but more likely true.
Sitting up straight, looking at the camera, telling you what I think is true.
Might be true.
At least the body language is consistent.
Here's what I saw yesterday, and see if you can find the person I'm talking about, right?
Turned at 45 degrees while talking about this topic.
Yeah, definitely there was nothing to see here.
There was nothing to see.
Have you seen it?
Has anybody seen it?
Watch the coverage, just look at all the clips, and look for the leaner.
Do you think the leaner always does that when talking?
No.
No, when it's the truth, it's probably straightforward sitting up.
But when you're telling a lie that you know everybody knows is a lie, your body starts to bend up and mutate because you know everybody knows it's a lie, but you're selling it anyway.
Then also look at Dan Goldman with his flop sweat.
If you don't know what flop sweat is, it's just real big nervous sweating.
Now, I'm not saying he literally was sweating.
He might have been, but it's not a literal thing.
It is summer.
He was standing outside, so I'm not going to give him a hard time for sweating in D.C.
in the summer.
But he did not look comfortable.
Talk about a guy who had to choose his words carefully.
Listen to him start a sentence, and you can tell he doesn't know how to end it.
Because almost everywhere he could go in the sentence doesn't help.
So he's just trying to find some way he can say words, but the words won't quite be lies in an obvious way.
And oh man, it looked like he was just suffering.
Now he's the same guy who took the lead in impeaching Trump for asking Zelensky about the Biden connection and see if he'd look into it.
He got impeached for asking the right question.
Impeached.
How could he possibly lose?
They're going to have to put Trump in jail.
There's no way he can lose at this point.
I mean there's plenty of ways you could lose if they put him in jail or something unexpected happens.
But the straight line projection at this point is Trump all the way.
Would you agree?
If nothing changed from this day to election day, it's just Trump.
And I don't see how the Democrats can live with that because he's going to take the lid off of everything if he gets there.
So what are they going to do?
They're going to have to come up with the mother of all lies.
I mean, there's going to be a conspiracy theory about Trump that's going to be so big, and it'll be one that's hard to investigate until after the election.
I guarantee you there's going to be, Trump took money from a foreign country, Sold them some nuclear secrets.
There'll be some complete bullshit, like amazing bullshit, because it's going to have to be the biggest bullshit of all time to overcome this particular problem.
All right, so let's look more at the Democrats' spin, which is hilarious.
New York Times reports that Biden's poll numbers got stronger.
That was their take.
Their take was Biden's poll numbers got stronger.
Now I assume the poll numbers were before the Archer-Devon testimonial, weren't they?
Who cares?
Nobody cares about that poll anyway.
Then the report is that the conversations between Hunter and his father while the business people were sitting with Hunter was about things like the weather.
Just niceties, like the weather.
Sure.
Totally, totally believable.
Now, I do believe that they did not make business deals on those calls, because you don't do that by phone.
Nobody's going to make a business deal by phone in that world, right?
So, here's another one from the New York Times.
It's long been known the elder Mr. Biden at times interacted with Hunter's business partners.
Oh, has it?
Oh, has that long been known?
Was it long known when Biden said he totally didn't ever do that?
And then they reported, well, that's not exactly true.
It's been well known that they interact.
No, they just sort of tried to slip that in as if they'd always reported it.
Nope.
Nope.
Nice try, New York Times.
I got caught.
And then the left collectively is trying to come up with a reason they can explain away what we've seen and been told.
And now they're saying that Biden was only selling the illusion of access.
In other words, Hunter was a scammer who absolutely was not selling real access.
He was selling fake access, the illusion of access.
And his father was not totally aware of what was going on.
And the father might not be aware because, wait for it, it was the year that Beau Biden died.
So the loving father, who cares about mostly his family, could have been distracted and not been fully aware of what Hunter was doing because of all the distractions.
Now, do you believe that the media is trying to sell you this story?
If you're buying any of it, it's just hilarious.
They should be mocked.
We should not take any of this seriously.
We know exactly what the story is.
There are no mysteries left, in my opinion.
There's no mystery left to this.
All mysteries have been removed.
You should just mock them for being so fucking stupid that they think that you're going to believe any of this.
Then the left is also spinning and saying Let's see.
Maybe he's guilty of turning a blind eye, but it's because of all his problems, family problems.
They're saying there's no evidence of a profit or a crime.
Right, there's no evidence of a profit.
So the fact that there are many references to the big guy, everybody involved understands the big guy to be Joe, and there's plenty of documentation that says money went to Hunter, and there's plenty of documentation showing that Hunter has been sharing his money with his father, and there's no explanation for how Joe Biden could afford the homes that he has.
But there's no evidence that he's benefiting from any of the money.
No.
They also say Joe Biden was not involved in his son's business.
Do you know why they can say that even though Hunter was selling the illusion of excess and he was calling his father during dinner with his business partners and did it 20 times?
And there's plenty of documentation showing exactly what the scheme was for all of it.
That turns into, there's no evidence of profit or crime, it's wishful thinking, trying to create a scandal out of nothing, he wasn't involved in his son's business, and quote, Republicans have yet to produce a single shred of evidence tying the president to Hunter's corruption.
Now let me ask you this, can the left get away with hiding this story, the biggest story of all time in politics?
Can they get away with it?
Yep, absolutely.
Do you know why they can get away with it?
Because they have trained half of the country to believe they're the news.
Half of the country believes that's actually real news when they're reading these entities.
They actually think that's real news.
Now, if they're convinced it's real news, the next story they'll think is true too.
Doesn't matter what it is, they'll go, well, this is the news.
Saw it in the Wall Street Journal, saw it in CNN, saw it on MSNBC, that's plenty of confirmation.
That's called the news, right?
So yes, and I believe that, you know, all of the gaslighting that has led up to it made it possible for them to sell half the country, literally anything.
And I do think it's completely different on the right.
Now the right, you know, there's the QAnon group that will believe anything, but I feel like the right has a realistic view of Trump.
Am I wrong about that?
Like, if I talk to anybody privately about Trump, you get a lot of the, well, he may have done this or that, or, you know, Trump University is not his finest moment, or, yeah, he did those things with women, or, you know, maybe there's some technical violations.
Yeah, he probably does have some documents he should have given back.
Yeah, I feel like the right sees all of Trump's Good and bad.
I think they see it all, and they even talk about it.
But they say, still a better deal than the alternative, in many cases.
But I feel like on the left, there's this willful blindness, which is clearly just lying at this point.
At some point you could say, well, maybe cognitive dissonance, they really believe what they're saying.
They don't believe it now.
You could be sure they don't believe it now, if they've watched the news.
So my hashtag, the big ignore.
I don't know if you've seen it yet.
Hashtag the big ignore.
Because I'm trying to play off the big lie.
You know, the big lie is how they tried to take Trump out.
The big ignore is how they're trying to make sure that Biden isn't taken out.
So they matched their own big lie, which was that January 6 was an insurrection.
That was the big lie.
Now they said it was something else, but the real big lie was January 6.
And Now they got another one.
The big ignorer.
All right.
I would say that the future looks incredibly clear at this point.
So I'd say there's no chance of Biden being in the general election.
It seems clear that the only person who could step in would be Newsom.
It does feel clear that the effort to put Trump in jail, or at least take him out legally in some way, will go to DEF CON 25.
However much effort they were putting into crippling Trump for the election, now they have to apply the kill shot.
They have to take out the king, so to speak, before the king gets in power.
Because if Trump gets in power in this context, there's a lot of people who are going to get fired.
A lot of people are going to get fired.
So I would think there's some panic and desperation happening.
And panic and desperation Given the context of all the types of plays they usually do on the left, doesn't it largely guarantee that there's going to be a real big fake story about Trump?
Like a really big one.
Because I don't think they have enough to work with, with the stuff they have.
Would you agree?
They've got weak sauce, mixed with weak sauce, mixed with weak sauce.
There's very few people who care about what's in those boxes.
Now, I don't think Trump's done the best job of defending himself about the boxes.
You do?
You care about the boxes?
Well, I care to find out if a Republican can look at them and tell us if we should be concerned.
Where's the Republican who went into a skiff, looked at whatever's in the boxes, and came out and said, you know, it doesn't look so bad, or it is as bad as they say.
Where's that?
How long does it take to get at least one Republican with the highest level of clearance to look at the boxes and just tell us what's in there?
Not in detail.
Just somebody we trust.
Send in Thomas Massey, Tom Cotton, somebody that the right would trust, and Rand Paul, somebody that they know is not going to lie when they walk out of the shift.
And isn't it great?
I actually love this.
I can think of several Republicans that I would trust absolutely to tell me what was in the skiff.
Not all of them, and not even the majority of them.
But I love the fact that there is a small handful of Republicans that if they tell you they saw it with their own eyes or didn't see it with their own eyes, I would totally believe them.
I don't know that there's any Democrat that would fit in that category.
Do you?
Name a Democrat who you would know wouldn't lie even if you totally disagree with them.
I can't think of one.
But you can think of quite a few Republicans who you're, well okay, RFK Jr.
Alright, I'll give you that.
I'm gonna give you RFK Jr.
So you win, you got one.
Yeah, there's no evidence that he lies.
There is plenty of evidence that he's not been completely accurate in his suppositions about scientific stuff.
I think there's evidence of that.
I don't know what's true, but there's at least evidence that he may have gotten some wrong and some right.
We don't know what the mix is.
You know, nobody could be right all the time on that domain.
All right.
Do you understand now why TikTok has not been banned?
Doesn't everything make sense now?
It all makes sense, doesn't it?
Because TikTok is so obviously dangerous to Americans.
It's so dangerous that China doesn't allow their own product in their own country.
I mean, that's all you need to know.
But when the argument for banning it is so clear, and the ability to do it is so easy, I mean, it's no big deal to ban it, there has to be bribery and corruption, and now we know how it works.
We know that the bribery and corruption is not in the form of, I will give you money if you do this, because they don't say that.
It's more like, so you've got a brother-in-law, he's got this startup I see.
Yes, he does.
He's probably looking for money, isn't he?
Yes, he is.
So let's now talk about TikTok.
I think TikTok should not be banned.
I'm China.
And I hope your brother-in-law does well with his new business.
By the way, I have a guy who funds new startups.
You should have him talk.
Yeah, why don't you have your brother-in-law talk to my guy, and maybe you'll get an investment in a startup.
But that's not why I'm here today.
I'm here today to talk about TikTok.
That's how it's done.
The bribery schemes are never direct, because then there would be a paper trail, and it would be too obvious.
Instead, you have people who do lots of kinds of business.
You have them create a situation where somebody's benefited, but it looks like it's normal business.
That's how it's done.
That's the way I'd do it.
I think it's the way it's always been done.
So, you know, the model where somebody just gives somebody a bag of cash, I'm sure it happens, but I don't think that's the main way it's done.
So yes, TikTok, I think at this point you could say that that's a corruption story.
At this point?
How many would go so far as to say that the continued availability of TikTok in America is a corruption story primarily?
Because there's nothing to understand.
It's not scientific.
The bad outcomes are not questioned by anybody, right?
The left agrees it's bad.
The right agrees it's bad for kids.
There's no doubt.
It has to be corruption.
Now, you would see people arguing free market and free speech, right?
Not many, and certainly not the politicians.
Nobody would believe them if they said that anyway.
So yeah, TikTok is a corruption story, and that's the whole story.
It's got to be corruption.
All right, the only remaining question on this whole Biden crime family situation and I think you'd agree this is the only question left.
How many years in prison will Trump have to serve for Joe Biden's crimes?
Is this like 10 years?
I see like a 10 year sentence for Trump for to pay for all the crimes that the Biden crime family did.
About 10 years?
Does that sound right?
Yeah, I think so.
In other stories, you know, I told you about that semiconductor material that was supposed to work at room temperature, and if it does, and anybody can make it, and it works at room temperature, then technology and civilization will change fundamentally in enormous ways.
Like, you know, we'll have quantum computers and lossless, you know, electricity, transportation, and everything.
But the problem was, That as soon as other scientists looked into it, they said, I'm not so sure that's real.
Well, today we have people trying to reproduce it and claiming they have.
So there are actually claims that are not credible yet.
They're not credible.
Not credible.
But there are multiple claims that people have reproduced it.
One did it on video.
There's a video of somebody reproducing it.
Now that doesn't mean the video is real, and it doesn't mean they really reproduced it.
But the big question was whether they were seeing a superconductive effect or a diamagnetic effect.
Somebody fact check me on that.
So there's some other effect that could at least a little bit mimic superconductivity.
And the question was, OK, you definitely did something.
So I think all the experts were agreeing that something had happened because there was some floating metal or something.
But it could have been a magnetic effect as opposed to a superconductivity effect.
And the latest reports, and I'm not putting a lot of credibility into them, but the latest reports are that the new studies were done in such a way That you can see that it's not a diamagnetic effect, that it's real superconductivity.
Do I believe this yet?
No.
Do I think there's a really good chance it's true?
Yes.
Yes.
Less than 50%?
Probably.
I'm going to give it a less than a coin flip odds of being true.
But not zero.
Not zero.
All right, and so Lauren Chen, I saw her commenting on the fact that South Africa, at least one political party of, it looks like all black people at least one political party of, it looks like all black people in the party, were singing and dancing to kill the white people, And Lauren Chen tweeted, if you're white in South Africa, get out.
Now, just leave, bring your family.
Does that sound like good advice?
You just get out?
Yeah, I mean, it's not easy.
You'd probably be leaving your family fortune and other horrible, you know, problems.
But yeah, I think you have to get out.
It doesn't look fixable to me.
But the question is, do you think Lauren will be cancelled for saying that white people should move away from South Africa?
Do you think she'll get cancelled for that?
I doubt it.
Why do you think she would not get cancelled?
Didn't I get cancelled for kind of a similar thing?
You know, the American version?
So here's the question.
If you were in South Africa and a major political party was holding rallies in which they were chanting that they would like to kill you and people who look like you, would that be a case where you could discriminate and say, ooh, I don't think I want to be around here?
Because that would be discrimination.
It would be racist.
Yeah, of course.
Every single person in the world goes, oh yeah, you're talking life and death.
When it comes to life and death, all the wokeness goes away.
You're just going to protect yourself and your family.
So let's take it down a level.
Suppose they're not chanting.
Kill the white people.
Suppose what they're doing instead is promoting CRT and DEI and ESG, which have the effect of making the same group of people, the white people, look like the problem.
Should you get away from that situation?
If you could, let's say, go to, I don't know, New Zealand and they don't have it.
Would it be good to get away from a situation where you are defined as the problem in your society because of your color?
Yeah, I would say you should get as far away from that situation as possible.
Is it racist?
I don't care.
Do you care?
When it comes to life and death, you could be as racist as you want.
I will defend that statement to the death.
When it comes to your own safety or your family, you can be as racist as you want.
There's no law against it, and it would be common sense.
If that racism was based on some statistical truth, or even better, if it's based on not just statistics, but there's an actual program in place to demonize you.
If you know there's a program in place to demonize you, And people who look like you, that's all you need to know.
That's a dangerous situation, and you should get away from anybody who buys into that scenario.
Would you say, true or false, that my point of view is starting to catch on?
True or false?
It's totally, yeah.
No, society just caught up to me.
I was just a few weeks early.
Or a few months.
So I was February, and now it's the summer.
So I was six months early.
But society caught up.
So you see Oakland saying, oh my god, we can't even live in our town.
Oakland is saying that.
Oakland is saying we can't even live in our own town.
And now South Africa.
And you're seeing the cities completely going to hell.
And you see that there doesn't seem to be anything that's going to change it.
Why?
I don't know.
I mean, you could talk all day about why, but I would say that managing to the average of anything is racist and stupid and you should avoid it.
So, do you care if the average Elbonian is not doing as well as the average French-American?
Do you care?
You shouldn't?
Because there's no such thing as an average person.
You should care about individuals.
I completely care about individuals.
If there's any individual from any group that feels, you know, discriminated against, I'm very likely to want to help on an individual basis.
But don't tell me that the average of people who look like you is not doing well.
I don't care.
And let me say it directly.
The average of any group doing less than any group, I don't care.
Does it bother me that the average Indian American is just killing people who look like me in school?
Nope.
I don't care.
Because I don't know any average Indian Americans.
Have you ever met one?
Have you ever met an average person?
There's no such thing as an average person.
And why do we even use the average?
Why not the median?
Why is it the average?
Is there any law that says the median isn't a better measure?
I'm not saying it is.
I'm saying that there's no reason for average.
There's also no reason for median.
There's no reason to look at the extremes.
There's no reason to look at the group at all.
I think there used to be.
Historically, if you have something like, you know, let's say the Native Americans, you know, losing their land, that's a special case.
If you have something like the end of slavery, definitely a special case.
And in those cases, you should treat the slaves as a group.
At least until things are a lot better.
A lot better.
Which is where we are now.
Things are a lot better.
So the courts would not abide somebody discriminating by race for most business-y things.
And that's a pretty good place to be.
But once you reach a point where people are basically, as even as you can get under the law in our imperfect system, once you reach that point, it's worse for the people you're trying to help.
And I think Vivek used the term psychological slavery.
Psychological slavery.
There's plenty of science that says people perform to the level of expectations.
Would you agree that that's a well-demonstrated effect?
I believe it's confirmed in every way you can confirm anything.
It's like the most confirmed thing of all time.
Yeah.
People rise to the level of expectations.
So if you tell a bunch of school kids you're the smart ones, the studies show they do better.
Right?
If you tell one group that systemic racism will hold them back, you should expect them to get lower grades.
All things being equal.
I don't think all things are equal.
It's the real world.
Things are never equal.
Equal is, like, irrational.
So we should expect groups to perform differently and with some distance from things like the Native American genocide and the horror of slavery, when you get enough years away from them and you've Done the best you can to reduce those, you know, ongoing issues.
It doesn't say there are no ongoing issues.
It just says that treating one group like second-class citizens will get you a bunch of second-class citizens.
If you treat them like they can do anything, maybe they can.
Now, let me go even further.
I've said this a number of times, but I want to see if you buy it yet.
In every situation, in every market, let's say, where black Americans have had full and unfettered access, or even before they had full and unfettered access, they don't just do well, they dominate.
They dominate.
They far exceed the impact of their numbers in the population.
Look at music, right?
Black Americans, full access to music, right?
Took a while, not in the beginning.
But dominate.
Entertainment?
Dominate.
Fashion?
Dominate.
Culture?
Dominate.
Now what about educational stuff?
Don't dominate.
But in my lifetime, black Americans have never had equal access to education.
They've always been treated as second-class citizens.
So the lower The lower performing people still get opportunities, but maybe they fail because they shouldn't have been there in the first place, not because they're black, but because if anybody is promoted to something that they're not ready for, that might not work out.
So I would say that the end of affirmative action would be the first time that black Americans have full access to the market of education and jobs.
Because as long as you're saying we have a preference for this group, you're kind of saying there's something wrong with them.
And they're going to hear it too.
And if you just stop telling one group there's something wrong with them, that they can't perform without help, maybe they would dominate too.
Right?
Nobody tells black people that they're not going to do well in sports.
And then what happens?
Dominate.
Nobody tells black Americans they can't do well in music.
And they're great.
Dominate.
So why do we assume that there's one group of people who needs this perpetual extra help?
It's racist.
It's damaging to anybody who can perform at a free market level.
And it's not helping anybody.
And it's also a ridiculous concept to look at averages of groups.
Because there's no average person.
It certainly makes sense to build a system where every individual can succeed, regardless of their challenge.
All right.
I introduced today a very valuable tool.
I don't know if you saw it.
It's my news credibility guide.
And I'll read it to you, because it's so damn good.
So I thought it would... I sure hope it pasted.
That's interesting.
Here it is.
All right, so here's a draft of my... It's just the first draft, so we'll work on this over time.
I call it the News Credibility... It's interesting.
I pasted the wrong thing in there.
Okay, well I pasted the wrong thing, but if I had pasted the right thing, it would say something different.
But I've got three categories.
Things that are probably true, things that are 50-50, a coin flip, and then probably untrue.
And I'll just sort of quickly whip through them.
These are things that would be probably true.
Alright?
So these are indications of a news story that's probably true.
Not guaranteed, just probably.
One side is hiding the story.
It's probably true.
If one side is disagreeing about the story, well, that might be a jump ball.
But if one side is doing everything they can to make sure you don't hear it, it's probably true.
And don't you think that would be useful?
Or people who don't follow the news, to just be aware of that.
Wait a minute.
Are you saying that when one side just ignores the story, that that might mean something?
Yes.
Yes.
That totally means something.
It means it's probably not true.
Or it's probably true, and they don't want you to know it.
Here's another one.
If both sides, the left and the right, report something is true, it's probably true.
Right?
If the left and the right gave the same story about a political story, no difference, you'd probably think it's true.
And you'd probably be right.
Doesn't guarantee it, but probably.
How about if all the studies, and it's been years since whatever the question is has been studied, but it's been studied for years, and all the studies seem to be in the same direction.
You know, maybe a couple outliers, but basically it's all in the same direction.
True or untrue?
Probably true.
Probably true.
Now there are some qualifiers here about who funds it, etc.
We'll talk about that.
But if there were all kinds of different studies, and they've been doing it for years, and they all seem to agree, and there doesn't seem to be money that's driving all the same direction, probably true.
Can't guarantee it.
All right, how about when the studies, the scientific studies, match your own observations?
This is my favorite one.
How do you know that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer?
Well, you got all the science, but even better, you know people who smoke cigarettes who died of lung cancer, and you probably don't know nearly as many who died of lung cancer and did not smoke cigarettes.
So that's where your observation very clearly matches the science.
That's probably true.
All right.
How about we've got one narrative or one frame on things predicts better than the other?
That might mean something.
Sometimes the ability for something to predict is an indicator that it's true.
So for example, if I said, well, you don't need an example.
If it predicts, it's probably true.
Let's say there's a large body of evidence that something's true, but the evidence comes from lots of different angles.
So it might be one kind of science, you know, direct witness report, you know, it's coming, there's a document.
That helps.
That helps.
Not guaranteed, but it helps if you've got evidence from lots of different angles.
Look at the Hunter Biden crime family story.
The evidence is, you know, you got your documents, you got your multiple whistleblower types, they're saying the same things, it's coming from different directions.
Basically, the completeness of the evidence is what sells it.
How about a witness who's under oath, It has direct knowledge of the thing, so they're not talking about what they heard from somebody, they saw it, and they're under oath.
Probably true, but not guaranteed.
More than 50% likely, but maybe not much more.
How about if there's a witness, and maybe they're under oath, but there are also documents, independent of the witness, there are documents that say the same story.
Probably true.
Probably true.
If you've got a whistleblower and documents, that's a pretty good case.
All right, now here's the coin flip ones.
These are news stories that know better than 50-50 odds.
There's one scientific paper that makes a claim and it's not peer-reviewed.
It's not yet peer-reviewed.
Doesn't mean it can't be peer-reviewed, it just hasn't been yet.
How likely is it to be true?
No more than 50%.
That's a historic norm.
A new paper, about half the time you can't reproduce it.
How about one scientific paper that has been peer-reviewed?
The so-called pre-prints are the ones that are not peer-reviewed.
Suppose it has been.
Suppose it has been peer-reviewed.
What do you give of the odds then?
About the same.
No difference.
Peer review doesn't actually have any value in increasing credibility.
If you can't get a peer review, it's probably garbage.
So if nobody will give you a positive peer review, nobody, well, that's garbage.
If you can't even get a friend to peer review, that's not true.
But just getting somebody to say, OK, it looks like you did real science, that person is not looking at your data.
They're not reproducing the experiment.
They're just saying, OK, on paper, it looks like you know how to do this stuff.
I don't see an obvious problem.
But it doesn't really mean it's true.
So that's a 50-50.
How about a meta-analysis?
Somebody looked at a bunch of studies, which individually were not conclusive, and then they said, all right, there might be flaws in all these studies, but we're going to lump them together and see if they sort of lean in one direction or not.
What are the odds that the meta-analysis is telling you something true?
No more than a coin flip.
And you know what the odds were before the meta-analysis?
No more than a coin flip.
The meta-analysis doesn't add any credibility.
Whenever you see a meta-analysis, it means that somebody doesn't know science, or they do know science and they hope you don't.
Which is probably more to the case.
Meta-analysis is politically motivated more than anything else.
All right.
So those are the ones that are a coin flip.
Here are things that are probably untrue.
Probably fake news.
So if you see any of these things run in the other direction, this is probably not a real story.
Number one, there's lots of money involved.
That's it.
Ukraine war, lots of money involved.
Pandemic, lots of money involved.
Climate change, lots of money involved.
What can you say for sure about those three topics?
That the news is almost certainly fake.
Not all of it every time, but those are domains in which you should normally expect the lowest level of believability.
The higher the money, the lower the believability.
So these things you should dismiss and a hand.
Oh, there's a new study about climate change.
Dismiss.
Oh, but it was done by really credible people.
Dismiss.
There's too much money involved for you to believe science on those topics.
Doesn't mean the science was wrong, but if you believe it, there's something wrong with you.
Because that's not the right take.
The right take is you're gonna have to wait for a shit ton of science when a lot of money is involved.
I mean, I'm not even sure you could ever cross my bar of believability personally.
All right, how about if neither CNN nor Fox News, so that would sort of representing the left and the right news, if neither of them say it's true, is it true?
Both Fox News says, no, that's not true.
And CNN agrees, that's not true.
It's probably not true.
Probably not true.
If you can get both the left and the right to say it's not true, probably not true.
Not guaranteed.
Suppose you have one anonymous source.
Forget about it.
One anonymous source is never true.
I mean, that's just bullshit.
Suppose you have two anonymous sources to say the same thing.
Bullshit.
Complete bullshit.
Two anonymous sources have no credibility whatsoever.
How about you have one witness under oath, but the only evidence the witness under oath has is what anonymous people told them.
No credibility.
That would be the UFO situation.
The person talking was under oath.
But he couldn't get in trouble, as long as he said somebody else told me, and there was no way to check whether they told him that or not.
All right?
How about... The only evidence is, for some reason, fuzzy photos and unclear videos.
And for some reason, you just can't get a clear one.
That's bullshit.
If there was only one photo, you might say, well, bad luck, you couldn't get a clear photo.
If you have multiple photos of a thing and they're all fuzzy, That's bullshit.
How about there was a randomized controlled trial, which is the gold standard of good science, the randomized controlled trial, and it was funded by an interested party.
Let's say a manufacturer of some sort or a partisan.
You should give that, even though it's the highest level of science, you should give that no credibility.
Because although a randomized controlled trial should be good, If it's funded by somebody who has a point of view, zero credibility.
That would be the correct take on that.
You should assume bad behavior.
How about it's a randomized controlled trial, but you don't know who funded it?
You know, you worry, but you don't know.
Complete BS.
If you don't know who funded it, don't believe it.
It's not good enough that you know the bad people funded it.
If you don't know who funded it, that's the same thing.
It's probably bad people.
How about if one side, either the political left or the right, says something is true, but the other side says it's untrue.
Is it true?
One side says it's true, and the other side says it's untrue.
Now here I'm not talking about a narrative.
Here I'm talking about a fact.
Only a fact.
Not a whole story about how the facts fit together, but just one fact.
I think if one side says it didn't happen and the other side says it did, it usually didn't happen.
And it doesn't matter which way you go.
Doesn't matter if Fox says yes and CNN says no, or the reverse.
If one of them says it didn't happen, it probably didn't happen.
So the examples of that are there's a video in which somebody seemed to have claimed something outrageous.
CNN says, yep, here's the video.
He's claiming something outrageous.
And then you go to Fox News and they say, well, here's a video in its totality.
And if you show the whole video, it shows that the clip was misleading.
It's the one who says it was misleading was right.
And again, you could reverse those.
But the one who debunks it is going to be the right one.
It's not the one who makes the claim and they're done with it.
So that's a red flag if they don't agree.
Now here's where you could expect them to disagree about the Hunter Biden story.
Right?
Because that's a narrative.
But you don't see them disagreeing on the facts.
You know, did Devin Archer say this sentence?
They both report that he did.
It's just that they collectively put it together and spin it a different way.
That's different.
But the facts seem to be the same on both sides.
Just some like to emphasize some.
Alright, how about... The story is about a public figure and there's video and audio to support the story.
So it's a public figure and you can see for yourself.
It's right on the video.
It's right on the audio.
What credibility do you give that?
It should be close to zero.
Even on video.
Because video is the biggest liar in the world.
Do you think I'm on video saying anything that's out of context?
Of course!
Every public figure will tell you the same thing.
If they're the subject of stories, The stories are fake.
Now that doesn't mean every fact in the story is wrong.
I'm not saying that.
I'm saying that there's always context about the story that the story doesn't know, and only the public figure knows sometimes.
So yeah, all stories about public figures, if they make your hair catch on fire, that person said what?
It's fake.
Now, if somebody died, it might be true, right?
But if somebody said something that made somebody offended, those are never true.
Somebody had terrible behavior, allegedly, according to somebody who talked to somebody, probably not true.
Probably not true.
All right.
And then, of course, any new news is likely to be fake because of the Fog of War.
So there's your list.
Let me get a little feedback.
So it's just the first draft.
Is it useful?
Would you be able to use it for anything?
As in saying, oh, you're making a claim that's at the bottom of this list of credibility.
OK.
So I'm going to clean it up a little bit.
I saw that I accidentally tweeted an older version.
There's a newer version I meant to tweet.
So it's just slightly changed.
You cannot trust audio snippets.
Yeah, and now with AI, you can't trust audio.
That's true.
Can't trust anything.
Yeah, you need some whiteboards on this.
But I think just putting it on a document that you can clip would be useful.
All right, so I'm going to go do that.
I'm going to go fix that and repost it.
And then that was my contribution to society for today.
Diagram?
Yeah.
I mean, I don't think it needs to be a diagram.
It's just three categories.
How would you diagram it?
All right.
Pee Wee Herman at a viewing.
All right.
Yeah, Pee Wee Herman passed away.
I had no idea it was 70.
All right then, ladies and gentlemen, and thanks for joining over on YouTube, and appreciate it, and I'll see you tomorrow.
