My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
-----------
Politics, Jordan Peterson, Brainwashed Tell, Government Corruption, Media Corruption, Tou Thao Verdict, George Floyd Narrative, J6 Narrative, Big Guy Narrative, Hunter Biden Narrative, Mocking Disabled Narrative, Vivek Ramaswamy, Juneteenth, Biden Whitehouse Censorship, Facebook Censorship, Jaime Raskin, Biden Crime Family, Jack Smith Indictment Omission, Alan Dershowitz, Barbie Movie, Climate Change Debate, RFK Jr. Economic Plan, Ukraine War, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Well, you're probably asking yourself, Scott, why did it take so damn long to sign on and you've never been late before? - Sure.
What happened?
Well, turns out that the news was too interesting today.
I was up at four and I had no idea what time it was.
And imagine my surprise when I looked at the clock.
So here we are.
Anybody want to show?
Oh yeah.
Oh yeah, you do.
Oh yeah, you do.
And if you'd like this show to be the best thing you've ever seen in your life, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice, a sty and a canteen, a jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
I thought I'd do that faster.
About damn time is correct.
Alright, we're gonna start with the biggest stories of the day and then we'll work down to the smaller stories.
Biggest story of the day is comedian Wayne Brady has come out as pansexual.
Pansexual.
It has nothing to do with cooking utensils.
I'm told that pansexual means that he's attracted to penises from men, but also penises on women, and vaginas of all types, be they on men or women.
And I'm so jealous that I did not think of this first.
Doesn't it seem It seems a little bit underwhelming to come out as gay in 2023, doesn't it?
Can you imagine somebody, let's say some celebrity, who comes out as gay?
It's like, hey, everybody, I'm gay.
And the old country goes, I don't care.
No, seriously, everybody, I'm gay, I'm gay.
Yeah, whatever.
No, seriously, I'm super gay.
Yeah, whatever, whatever.
Nobody cares.
I'm bisexual.
Seriously, you can't even go full gay?
No, I'm coming out.
I'm coming out as bisexual.
Not really very interesting.
Not interesting.
I'm pansexual.
Hello.
You have my interest now.
Pansexual, you say?
Do you like Leah Thomas' penis?
Perhaps.
It's more about the individual, but yes, that would be perfectly acceptable to me.
I like everything in the pan.
So, anyway, Wayne Brady has owned the news cycle, pansexual.
If you were thinking of coming out as simply gay, save it.
Nobody cares.
Just save it.
Nobody's going to be excited about that.
You better go all the way to pan.
Dr. Jordan Peterson had an interesting tweet today about politically correct authoritarianism.
I guess that's where the government tells you you've got to be using certain languages and doing certain things to be politically correct.
And he says, "Our recent..." The news is wonderfully subversive today.
Mostly people's commentary on the news, but it's like a weirdly, it's just a weird day.
But I'll give you the news and you'll see it for yourself.
So Dr. Peterson says, our research indicated that the strongest predictor of politically correct authoritarianism was in fact lower verbal intelligence.
Then after being dumb, you know, lower verbal intelligence.
So after having a low IQ, the next most important factor was being female.
Well, I'm not saying it.
I'm not saying it.
This is Jordan Peterson's tweet.
This is not me.
Or having a feminine temperament.
So you could be female or you could Be female-ish, I guess, whatever feminine temperament is.
And whether or not you've ever taken a politically correct course in college or school, in that order.
But the intelligence effects was the strongest one.
Now, I always say, Wouldn't you want to see opinion polls that are separated by how smart people are and, ideally, how well informed they are on the topic that's being polled?
What does it tell us when you do a poll of the average person?
Well, the average person thinks that snow and ice cream are the same thing.
What does that tell you?
Well, the average person You know what's the least useful information in the world?
What the average person wants, or thinks, or believes, or prefers.
The average person is the least important thing.
I really, really want to know what the smart people think.
And it would be really helpful to know what the dumb people think, so you can know what to avoid.
Anyway, so I think it's diabolical that Jordan Peterson actually had research showing that if you're dumb or a woman or you act like a woman, this is not me.
This is not me.
This is his research.
I'm just telling you what he's saying.
So don't blame me.
All right.
I just like that because it's so provocative.
It's just going to make people's heads explode.
So it's fun.
All right, as you know, I put together a long list of what types of things to look for to tell if the news is credible or not credible.
But likewise with arguments.
Wouldn't you like to know a tell for when somebody is brainwashed versus someone who's just trying to argue with the data and is actually trying to figure out what's going on?
And I saw an example of that in the wild.
I saw somebody give some data.
Climate change was the topic, but it doesn't matter what topic it is.
So here's the setup.
up.
One person on Twitter said 98% of this or whatever.
So there was some statistics.
But no source.
The other person debated it with an analogy.
Which one of them was brainwashed?
The person who had data but no source, at least it wasn't mentioned, or the person with the analogy who answered a data argument with an analogy?
At the very least, the analogy person.
At the very least.
The analogy is just such a tip-off for brainwashing.
It really is.
Because if you need an analogy, That's basically signaling I don't have any facts or logic or causation.
I've got nothing.
I'm going to tell you a story with some words, and I'm going to make you think that the words I'm using about a totally different topic are going to persuade you on this unrelated topic, because the words over here sound a little like words that could be over here.
Yeah, this is brainwashing.
So if somebody tells you their analogy is working, Brainwashing.
I got into that argument and somebody went all Aristotle on me.
Apparently Aristotle's got some quote where the metaphor is a sign of genius.
Okay.
Okay.
So, so that's it.
And Joe Moore had a good quote today.
He said, analogy is the poor man's thinking, which is funny because that's an analogy.
All right.
Is it an analogy?
Poor man's thinking?
Is it?
Sort of like that.
All right.
Here's my question to you.
Do you think that corruption in the U.S.
government has reached an all-time high?
God, everything's wrong today.
I had lots of technical difficulties today, so bear with me as I improve the quality.
There we go.
Hello.
Much better.
Do you think that the country is more corrupt or that we just know it because of X slash Twitter being uncensored now?
Because I'm looking at the news today and everything in my feed was about the government being corrupt.
It felt like all the stories have some angle of government corruption or media corruption.
Which I would consider the government at this point.
I don't think the government and the media are that separate entities as they should be.
Well, so I don't know the answer to the question.
It is entirely possible that governments have always been about the same amount of corruption since the beginning of time.
You know, it could be just whatever.
Anytime you have a government, maybe it's 60% corrupt or something.
So, I don't know if it's different.
But I do know I'm seeing a lot more of it.
I do know that my visibility to the corruption seems to be at an all-time high.
And I'll talk about some of the stories, but you can sort of see it everywhere, and I feel that that's the X effect.
You know, the Twitter X. Is anybody feeling the same thing?
That you're seeing more stories of government corruption than you've ever seen, and it's only because of Twitter?
This is like a really, really big effect in the United States that I don't think has been completely, you know, sussed out for what this means for us.
Now, I would imagine that everybody who doesn't like what's on Twitter is saying, oh, it's a bunch of right-wing stuff because suddenly Elon Musk decided he's a right-winger.
Which, again, is propaganda.
He's the least right-winger of any right-winger.
But just because he's interested in what's true, that makes him a right-winger.
That is kind of what's happening, you know.
It's basically, he's interested in what's actually true, and that looks right-wing.
Which is weird.
All right, Derek Chauvin is one of his police partners.
Tao Tao, or Tu Tao.
I don't know how to pronounce his name.
Was sentenced to 57 months for his participation in the death of George Floyd.
I'll read you Mike Cernovich's tweet that I agree with.
He said, as these legalized lynchings continue, meaning the lynching of the police officer, cities become houses of horror.
True.
Does anyone believe the world would have been better off with this man in prison, meaning the police officer, and George Floyd running free?
And I look on Twitter and I see somebody that I follow, and I'm not going to name names, but somebody I follow actually bought completely into the, I guess, the government narrative about what was going on there.
And here's my take.
Intentional murder is the least likely explanation of what happened to George Floyd.
It's the least likely explanation because we're asked to believe, see if this is wrong, just check me on this, have we not been asked to believe that these police officers casually, casually, intentionally murdered somebody, or even casually put somebody in a situation where they were likely to die, casually, without any real worry about it, in front of a group of witnesses, Who were obviously filming them.
And the public of the United States was asked to believe that these police officers casually, either intentionally or through horrific bad judgment that was common to all of them at the same time, was common to all of them, and that that's what actually happened in that situation.
Obviously, that's not what happened.
Obviously.
Obviously, these are police officers who were lynched by the system.
Obviously, the jurors had no choice, because they didn't want to go into public having not lynched these guys.
Now, we can say it today, because I'm cancelled.
You know, I'm cancelled, and Cernovich basically has no fear, apparently.
So we can say it, because some time has gone by.
But that is the reality.
The reality is that we were asked, as a public, to accept something that was plainly not true.
We can see it for ourselves.
Now, has anything else like that happened?
Yes.
What about the January 6th story?
January 6th, we are asked to believe that people who are trespassing without weapons had a plan to conquer the United States.
And we were asked to believe that like, well, it's just obvious.
It's obvious that when people trespass and saunter around and steal lecterns, that that must be part of a plot for an insurrection to conquer the United States.
Because there's nothing that will conquer a country faster than sauntering around in their Capitol building for a few hours.
Oh yeah, that's how you conquer a fucking country right there.
You know, it makes you wonder why we didn't do it to Russia.
Send in a few saunterers, Till the country is completely conquered?
That works, right?
The public has been asked to believe that that was actually an insurrection.
Our government, at least part of the government, is asking us to believe that.
Is that more or less ridiculous than believing that the police officers casually and in front of filming citizens with cameras murdered a guy or, you know, allowed something terrible to happen that they knew was going to happen or should have known?
These are ridiculous things to ask the public to believe.
Ridiculous!
How about the current news?
That the big guy, who is referenced in documents about the Ukraine and Hunter Biden and all that, that the big guy didn't know about anything and didn't get any money.
There's not anybody who thinks that's true.
Anybody.
And we're acting like maybe it's not true.
We're like just going on with their day, like, oh, well, maybe he didn't know about it.
Possibly the big guy could be anybody, really.
The big guy.
I don't even know what you're talking about.
And yes, maybe Hunter was verified to have been paying Joe Biden's bills.
But there's no evidence that money went into his bank account.
People, people, there's only evidence that he financially benefited in a major way.
But there wasn't an actual bank account, you see, for the lack of the actual bank account.
Even though we know for sure that the money was flowing in a big way to his benefit through the paying of his bills and the living in a big house he couldn't afford.
But no, there's nothing to see here.
There's nothing proven.
I don't even know what you're talking about.
After they got us to believe the George Floyd narrative, after they got us to believe the January 6th narrative, two fake impeachments so far, what else do they believe?
Today again we're seeing the story about Trump mocked a disabled person when he ran for office the first time.
I believe 100% of the people on the right have seen the compilation video where Trump uses the same motions against Ted Cruz and other people.
So we know for sure that that's a standard thing he did.
And all Republicans seem to have seen that.
I don't talk to anybody who is not aware of it.
But how about the people on the left?
Do you think they've ever seen the compilation video?
No, of course not.
And if they did, what would they think?
They'd probably think, oh yeah, he does use this all the time, but this time he knew.
This time it was different.
I don't know, what would they say?
And it occurs to me that it would be fascinating, I've said this before, it would be fascinating to have some kind of a show where a typical Democrat is brought in and is simply exposed to real information for the first time.
Just set them in front of the compilation video.
Or have somebody explain to them what I just explained on any of these topics.
Just watch what happens.
Just to see the reaction.
I would love to watch that.
Because you don't realize how brainwashed the public is, which includes all of us, right?
If you ever hear me say, everybody's brainwashed except me, You should ignore everything I say for the rest of my life.
Because you can't tell if you're brainwashed.
You just have to assume you are.
You just don't know in what way is and you do the best you can.
But nobody's immune from it.
It's not like it's something that happens on one side.
All right.
So, Vivek continues to make news.
So, the two most interesting things in politics, well, RFK Jr.
was interesting today too.
But Vivek had two completely interesting moments in the news.
He's just the king of earned media right now.
I mean, Trump, of course, is Trump.
You can't really ever... I don't think anybody will ever match Trump for being what he is.
You know, just a energy monster.
But, man, it's very good.
Every day I've got a new one where I shake my head.
All right, this one, I'm not sure this helped him.
All right, this may not have helped him politically, but it sure got attention.
And in the context of a primary, it's pretty strong.
It wouldn't be so good in the general election.
But in the primary, it's wrong.
Here's what he said.
And see if you can detect any Trump energy or influence in this.
And what I mean by that is, is he treating it like it's funny?
Because he's talking about it a little like Trump talks about things.
Not this exact topic, but just listen to this and see if you can just feel any Trump influence on this.
So there's a story, he calls for a range of proposals about stuff, and one of them is having Election Day be a national holiday.
So far, so good.
Does everybody like Election Day to be a national holiday?
Make sure everybody votes?
I think it's pretty basic.
I would be totally on board with that.
But here's where he gets controversial.
But we'll cancel one of the other ones and make Election Day a holiday.
Wait, what?
We're going to cancel one of the other holidays?
Wait, what?
What are you talking about, Vivek?
Why can I not look away?
Why can't I look away?
What the hell are you talking about?
My hair's on fire.
What are you going to cancel?
Quote, cancel Juneteenth or one of the other useless ones we made up.
What?
What are the useless ones we made up?
What?
And then it goes on.
So here's his argument.
He stands with the, quote, presumption of time-tested traditions, which is a hell of a good way to say that.
You could spend your whole day trying to think of, you know, five words that We'll back this point of view.
The presumption of time-tested traditions.
Now I'm not saying I agree with that point or don't.
I'm saying it's masterful.
It's just masterful, the way he words it.
But he says, the quote, spirit of Juneteenth is already represented with holidays such as Martin Luther King Jr.
Day and Presidents Day.
He says, we shouldn't have redundant holidays that celebrate overlapping purposes.
You should have a distinct purpose.
He says that Juneteenth was a made-up holiday under, quote, political duress following the, well, they call it the murder of George Floyd, because it's the news, so they called it murder.
which he said is not how we should create holidays.
All right.
I love...
I love the Trump-like energy in this.
He might not like that characterization, but this is total Trump energy.
He's taken a topic that probably nobody really thinks about or cares about, and he's made your hair catch on fire until you want to debate this thing, which has no importance to anybody whatsoever.
Now, I actually disagree with his point.
I think Juneteenth is a perfectly acceptable holiday.
I'm totally a convert.
Why?
Because it was literally the day that every American was free.
How is that not worth a holiday?
The first day in the history of the country that every American was a free citizen.
Am I wrong?
That's what it was.
I'm not wrong about what it is, right?
No?
Somebody says no.
I thought it was the day that the last state got rid of slavery.
Am I wrong about the history?
Oh, somebody says you're wrong.
I thought it was Texas, right?
Texas was the last state?
Hold on, hold on.
So we have to do a fact check.
A lot of people were saying that the holiday, or at least what I thought was the point of the holiday, was historically incorrect.
That's when they found out.
Oh, somebody's saying it's not when it ended, it's when somebody found out it ended?
Why is there any question about this?
This is kind of mind-blowing.
So are you telling me that if I look into this, which I haven't done, so if I were to Google this, I would find that Juneteenth is not based on a historical truth?
Give me a little context here.
Are you saying that the story that that was sort of a day when the last Americans were free, that's historically incorrect?
I don't know what your argument is.
I see a lot of people got all upset about this, but actually I don't have any idea what your disagreement is.
I can't tell in the comments.
So there's a narrative that Juneteenth, or at least the essence of it, is not true in any sense.
In no sense it's true.
You're not talking about, like, technically maybe the date is off or something.
You're talking about, even in concept, nothing like that happened.
That's what some of you believe?
Oh, this is really interesting.
So, you're saying it's the day they found out, but what's wrong with that?
It's the day they found out they were free?
Because Texas didn't tell them?
Is that what you're saying?
But what's wrong with that is the holiday.
the day they found out would be the day they were free.
Isn't the...
Right, in Texas, I get it.
So let's see which parts you agree with.
This is actually fascinating to me.
Because you know, my major theme here is the left not knowing the news.
And you're telling me that I don't know the news.
And you might be right, because like I said, I haven't looked into it.
Ah, so now, well, let's do this in real time.
Let us Google it.
I know, I know, you're gonna say Google's biased, but I wanna see what it says.
So if I say Juneteenth in Google, we'll do Bing too.
And I know you're screaming at me.
I'm not looking up and you're screaming at me.
You're saying, but it's all fake on Google.
I know.
Just, just stay with me for a minute.
We're just going to see what it says.
Okay.
And why do we honor it?
All right.
So this would be the first thing that comes up.
A key historical event.
The day all people living in the United States, including the formerly enslaved were officially granted freedom.
So that's just not a fact, some of you think.
It's just, it didn't happen?
What the hell are you saying is the lie?
What is the lie?
And by the way, I'm not debating you, so this is not a debate.
This is me genuinely being wowed by how wrong I could be or how wrong you could be.
I don't know what the answer is yet.
But give me anything that's a counter-argument.
All right, I think I got it, Cameron.
Marks the day when federal troops arrived in Galveston, Texas to take control of the state and ensure that all enslaved people were freed.
So here's what I'm saying.
Here's what I'm saying in the comments.
And this will be a good test of the bullshit filter.
are you ready?
Tribes refused to release it until they were paid for them.
They released later.
Candace Owen says no.
All right, so you've presented me with no argument.
You know that, right?
So I'm going to watch a little bit just on YouTube.
You've told me I'm wrong, but you've presented no argument.
It looks like you're arguing about the About the technicality of the date.
I don't have any argument about the technicality of the date.
So your argument is that it was official in the Emancipation Proclamation.
I'm seeing somebody's argument here.
Since the Emancipation Proclamation was complete, you didn't need to go into the details of how long it took somebody to find out.
Is that your argument?
You're saying you... Oh, I totally disagree then.
Okay.
All right.
If your argument is that freedom happened with the Emancipation Proclamation, but that the details of making people free and knowing they were free took a while, is that your argument?
So that you should only celebrate the Emancipation Proclamation?
Well, we don't have a holiday for the Emancipation Proclamation.
Well, I guess July 4th.
Now, so is your problem that it's an extra holiday?
And you don't like holidays?
I'm totally with Black America on this.
I hate to tell you.
If you were black, you wouldn't celebrate the day that seemed more meaningfully to be about freedom.
I would, if I were black.
And I would say, I'm not black, and I still think it's a good call.
Well, could we agree to disagree on this one?
Because this is really entirely about how you feel.
If you argue the details, I'm not having any argument about the details.
I'll give you Emancipation Proclamation.
I'll give you that maybe some of the Native Americans didn't do some freeing of slaves until later.
So I'll give you that there was lots of stuff to work out.
And that the Emancipation Proclamation caused all the other things to get worked out.
So it would be the dominant date.
I'll give you that.
But, are holidays about how you feel?
Wouldn't you say?
You know, Memorial Day is about how you feel.
And hoping that you continue to feel a certain way.
Christmas is about how you feel.
I guess Halloween isn't so much about how you feel.
I don't know.
The only reason for a holiday is that the country needs a day off and they feel something about the purpose of the holiday.
I feel something about that.
I feel Juneteenth.
If a bunch of other people do, I'm fine with that being a holiday.
I think we needed another June holiday anyway.
Alright, I think we settled that.
Is the bottom line that if you like the Emancipation Proclamation as your one freedom day, that did cause a ripple effect which caused all the freedom with a little bit of hiccups over time.
I'll give you that.
But if people really like their Juneteenth, and it does speak to them, and June's a good time for a holiday, I see everything about that that's good.
I don't have a problem with it at all.
Rando says, well, I hope your moral superiority is worth it.
What else is at stake?
Was there something else at stake that I don't know about?
Was I going to lose money?
Would it cost me money?
I don't know.
I mean, I don't take that day off.
I don't take any day off, so they're all the same to me.
Anyway.
Is your problem that there are just too many black holidays now?
Some of you being over over black holiday.
You got your MLK and you got your Kwanzaa and you think that Juneteenth is just too far.
Just too far.
I don't know.
I think celebrating American freedom in all its forms can't get enough of it.
I can't get enough of it.
But I'll acknowledge that You might feel that it's a little bit too woke or something.
I get that.
All right.
So we don't need to argue about that.
Because would you agree with my bottom line feeling that whether there is a national holiday or not really depends how you feel?
Would you agree with me on that?
It's not a law.
It's not about money.
It's just how do you feel?
So if you feel different, there's not really an argument, is there?
You would just acknowledge, I feel this way.
I acknowledge you feel that way.
Whoever feels the most wins, I guess.
All right.
Michael Schellenberger is tweeting and writing about how the Biden White House, we know they were Trying to influence Facebook to censor some content, but what we didn't know is how hard they strong-armed them, which I guess pushes it into illegal territory.
Not a guess.
If the government is telling somebody to censor, that feels pretty illegal to me.
Given all our freedoms and whatnot.
But anyway, apparently the White House threatened or did a, let's say, I don't know if threats the right word, but a quid pro quo with Facebook because Facebook needed Biden to force Europe to allow data flows into the US.
So there was some issue that Facebook needed solved politically.
And in return for that, they may have done some extra censoring.
That's really bad.
That's super corrupt.
I don't know if it's illegal.
I mean, it looks like it is, but I'm no lawyer.
But it's super corrupt.
And it's super corrupt not to at least be transparent about it.
I'm not even sure if this would have bothered me if it was transparent.
Let me think about that.
Suppose you knew from the start that the U.S.
had agreed with Facebook To help them.
But it was good for a U.S.
company.
Would you have problems with the government helping a U.S.
company?
I don't think that's not a problem.
But we don't know for sure that it wouldn't have happened.
But their reporting is that it was used as a specific threat.
So I guess you don't need to know if they would have carried out the threat.
The threat itself is suppression of free speech.
Yeah.
All right.
So that's as bad as it looks.
I guess the Biden laptop and all the Devon Archer revelations about the big guy is in my imagination that, except for the very right-leaning media, the entire media is ignoring the story.
And the latest is J.B.
Raskin.
He said on NewsNation, with Cuomo, he said that Hunter Biden was obviously trying to divert the different kinds of money into bank accounts, you know, for the family.
But Raskin says that he's never, but none of that involved President Joe Biden.
Right.
So the money that went into bank accounts went into family bank accounts that did not include Joe Biden, who may or may not be the big guy.
I wonder who is.
And that the president, quote, has never been accused, meaningfully, of any corruption in his life.
What?
Are there actually Democrats who had listened to Jamie Raskin say that Biden has never been accused of any corruption?
I thought he was famously the most corrupt politician we've ever known, and that everybody's known it forever.
He's always lived in a house that's too big for what his income was.
Everybody knows it.
Everybody knows it.
And now that we've seen the entire, you know, the Hunter money-making schemes and how it works in China, etc.
Everybody's accused of meaningful.
I mean, everybody who's seen those stories has accused him of corruption.
And certainly the Biden laptop thing was corruption.
I think Biden was behind the Russia collusion hoax, or at least was, you know, aware of it.
It's amazing that somebody could say he's never been meaningfully accused.
What?
But here's what's the funny thing.
So we started out with Joe Biden doesn't know anything about Hunter's business.
Doesn't know anything about it.
Okay, well, there's some memos that show maybe he knew something about it.
So you could say the cat's in the tree and you can't get him down.
But no big deal.
You'll get the cat down.
And then we find out, ooh, you know, Devon Archer, and all these other documents, and the big guy, and we got the bank accounts, and the money, and we know that his bills were being paid by Hunter, and Hunter was mad that he's been paying his father's bills for so many years, and all that.
And now the cat's, you know, on the roof, or not in the tree, but he's fallen off the roof, and he's injured, and it's going to the vets, but we'll give you an update tomorrow.
He goes, no.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Hunter was making a lot of money and it went to everybody and he certainly paid the bills for the big guy, whoever the big guy was.
We're not quite sure.
Oh, my God.
The fact that Raskin has ridden this scandal all the way down to he didn't have a specific bank account for his corruption.
That's what they're down to.
Oh, yeah.
All of the things that looked like they happened, happened.
But did he have a bank account?
Huh?
Sure.
Sure.
He may have been doing things with other countries that influence policy.
We might actually be involved in a major war in Ukraine, in part because of Biden's actions.
But here's what's important.
We haven't found a specific bank account.
That's what he's relying on.
That's all he has left.
Laughably pathetic.
All right.
Then I was watching Ellen Dershowitz talk about Jack Smith, the prosecutor, the Trump prosecutor, and I didn't know this, but oh my god, oh my god, do I hate my country right now.
The government, not the country.
According to Dershowitz, the Jack Smith indictment against Trump for inciting the violence on January 6th, the indictment included his speech that is being used as evidence of incitement and omitted the part of the speech where he told people to be peaceful and patriotic.
He actually omitted from the indictment The most important part.
The most important part.
The part where he said publicly, directly, and at the moment that it mattered, peacefully and patriotically, the very opposite of an insurrection.
He left it out.
And as Dershowitz points out, more for cleverness than for reality, that if Jack Smith's theory that Trump's lying caused something to happen in the real world, and that that was bad, that the same theory would put Jack Smith in jail.
In other words, Trump is being tried, or yeah, I guess tried, For, at least indicted, for exactly the same crime, in type anyway, the same crime that the prosecutor is doing by indicting him.
And we're watching this in real time, and this guy's still on the job.
He's still employed.
Why wouldn't you just stop everything?
If I found out that the prosecutor had worked all this time and then had an indictment and left out the most important piece of evidence, the most important part, the exculpatory part, you should fire him and put him in jail.
He should be jailed.
Absolutely, he should be in jail.
Based on what we've heard.
Now, of course, everybody gets, you know, innocent until proven guilty, gets a trial, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But to me, this looks jailable.
I mean, to me, it looks like absolute corruption.
And I can't believe that Jack Smith would do this without the Biden administration either making sure in advance he would do it or pressuring him to do it.
So to me, this looks like immense government corruption.
Maybe the worst thing I've ever seen.
Possibly.
I mean, the Russia collusion hoax and the Biden laptop hoax were insane.
Insane corruption.
But this might be a new level.
Maybe taking it to a new level.
And why did I have to hear that from Dershowitz?
I didn't hear that on the news.
I had to hear it from Dershowitz.
Who does his own little video so I can see it.
If I didn't have a Twitter slash X account, would I know that Jack Smith left out of the indictment the most important part of the information?
The most important part.
How would I know that?
I would not know that.
Do you think any Democrats at all are aware that the indictment left out the most important part?
I'll bet not.
I didn't know it until this morning.
And if I didn't know it, I'm pretty sure the left doesn't know it.
Everything in the news is just making you shake your head.
Let's talk about that Barbie movie.
Bill Maher saw the Barbie movie.
He wasn't loving the wokeness of it.
Apparently, I haven't seen it, but apparently Barbie fights the patriarchy, including the board of her own Mattel company, which in the real world has seven men and five women.
But in the Barbie movie, which is supposedly set in 2023, the patriarchy is in charge and their own board is all men.
And Mattel allowed that to be made.
And apparently boards across the country are way closer to being diversified with at least male and female than ever before.
And so Bill Maher is calling it a zombie lie, the lie that the patriarchy is running everything, and that this movie is based on that.
Imagine a generation of young girls who go to the Barbie movie and learn that they live in a patriarchy.
When actually the opposite is true at the moment, that the patriarchy is pretty weak.
All right.
Speaking of Vivek, he also did a news interview, and one of the topics was climate change.
And oh my god, you have to see it.
It's the best.
I've never seen a political figure handle a climate change discussion at this level.
I'm going to tell you unequivocally, Unequivocally, that Vivek is operating at a level that is entirely above the rest of the field on climate change, some other things as well.
But let me just give you a sense of what he did on climate change.
So the interviewer, let's say, is a believer that climate change is a big problem.
And said, how do you explain to Vivek, how do you explain that Florida Won't even offer insurance for homeowners, for certain kinds of insurance I guess, because of climate change.
Now, what would a normal politician do with that question?
Change the subject?
I don't know.
Vivek actually showed that he knew more about the topic than she did by far.
Went into the details of the insurance business and why she's wrong that this is about climate change.
Told her what it was really about, and absolutely eviscerated her point.
And that was just the first point.
So the first thing she says is blah, blah, Florida insurance.
He destroyed it by showing that he knew more about the topic than any politician I've ever seen.
I mean, he actually had a mastery of all the parts.
And he very quickly showed you he had a mastery of it.
And he even understood all the insurance business and all the parts.
And I just, my jaw dropped.
I was like, did I, I just watched a presidential candidate Describe details of insurance, which was a very important question.
I thought it was a good question.
And he did it perfectly.
Like when he's done, you say to yourself, okay, issue off the table.
That's what I thought.
I was like, oh, I'd never heard of those things.
That's a good argument.
And now I'm moving on.
Then she pointed out some specific situation of places that are hotter than ever.
And then, Vivek, who I remind you is running as a Republican.
This is important to the story.
He's running as a Republican, and he says with a twinkle in his eye, as somebody's saying in the comments, he says with a twinkle in his eye, if anybody from the right had used an anecdote to back their scientific claims, they would be mocked.
Oh my God.
Because it's even what Trump does.
I mean, Trump does the thing where, you know, if it snows, he says climate change isn't real.
And I just groan when I hear that.
I'm like, ugh.
I know it's popular.
I know it's funny.
But ugh!
I just groan.
And then I see Vivek give exactly the right answer.
Exactly the right answer is, you're a fucking moron if you're giving me anecdotes in a science conversation.
And he didn't say that, but it was so clear from the twinkle in his eye that he just owned her, just frickin' owned her on live TV.
It was just a joy to watch, to watch the Republican.
So then she started challenging him on what I imagine she thinks, I imagine, she thought would be his conservative, Republican, backwards, anti-scientific opinion of climate change.
And he says, let me explain my views, give you some context.
He says, now this is Vivek, don't argue with me.
I agree with him, but don't argue with me.
He said, yes, the planet's warming.
Yes, humans are part of it.
And then that's pacing.
Pacing is the part where you agree with a big part of the argument, which he did.
And then he said, here's where we're different.
And then he said that the deaths from temperature are down 98%.
And then she said, blah, blah, blah, more people dying of heat.
Yes, but the net, because way more people die of cold, so the net is that a warmer planet saves way more lives, and the thing that saves even more lives is having access to fossil fuel energy.
That's how you save a lot of lives.
Just destroyed her argument.
Now, to be fair, she did have one argument left that she didn't use because she wasn't up on the topic.
So what would be her best reply to somebody saying that the warming so far has been all positive?
Meaning that the net is more people alive, And we're really good at mitigating temperature problems now.
So the warmer means probably more foliage.
So Vivek said there's actually more trees and bushes than there were when climate change was allegedly not so bad.
Is that the topic?
Is YouTube just going to turn me off?
Or is that just a coincidence?
Because I'm not having a problem on the other platform, I don't think.
Is Locos having any problem?
Alright, no problem on one platform.
Alright, well that's a big coincidence, isn't it?
So let me get back to that.
So Vivek says that so far the warming has been positive.
More people are alive, fewer people dying of the cold, we're mitigating.
What is the counter-argument to that?
Because remember, Vivek has already agreed that humans are causing the warming and it is getting warmer.
What's the counter-argument?
There we go, yes.
The counter-argument is that there's a limit problem.
The counter-argument is you reach a point where you fall off a shelf.
So you reach a point where there's something unsustainable.
Maybe, I don't know, the coral in the ocean dies and causes a cascade of something, something, I don't know.
So the argument is that it's not a sort of a gradual warming, and we just sort of keep adjusting to it, but rather it's gradual until it's not.
Right, so that's the argument from the climate alarm people.
It's going to be okay until it's not, and when it's not, it's going to be really bad, bad, and country falls apart, and the world falls apart.
Now, I don't know that that's true.
And I think Vivek would have a counter to that, which is, it's been wrong every day so far.
Why would it suddenly become true?
And the answer is, you can't get warmer forever.
You know, at some point, At some point, isn't it disruptive?
Now, I do like the argument that even though there are lots of ecosystems that would be destroyed, I think that's a given, wouldn't there be other ecosystems that would be enhanced?
And who's to say that the enhancing doesn't help the poor people there?
More than the degradation in this ecosystem helps the rich people that might be living on the beach house.
So there's nobody who's really done the math to find out if the warming over here is helping the poor more than the warming over here.
So nobody really knows.
That's an unknowable thing.
But I think I just loved the quality of this discussion.
But you could see the problem here.
Here you had one person who knew so much more than the host.
The host didn't really have the pushback.
Because there is pushback.
There is.
But he didn't get it.
All right.
There's a FBI agent who's pleading guilty to colluding with Russia.
Well, that's no big deal, right?
I mean, you got a dirty FBI agent, maybe did a little, took some money from a Russian oligarch, that's no problem.
Let's see, who is this guy?
Well, he's worked on other things before, let's see.
Oh, it's the same agent who started the entire Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
So he was a pivotal player in the Russia collusion hoax while taking money from Russia.
That's... He's ex-FBI, yeah.
Ex-FBI, let's call him.
That's... Yep, that's just what you thought it was.
Let's talk about Fauci and the lab leak.
Barry Weiss has more information on this.
There's a trove of emails and slack messages and other documents revealing that Fauci's behind-the-scenes involvement with journalists and scientists and lab leak theory.
And apparently there's a quote from somebody saying, Tony doesn't want his fingerprints on the origin story.
So just like you thought, The government, or at least Fauci as a representative of the government, was in fact managing the media reporting, not to make it more accurate.
Not to make it more accurate.
It was just what you thought it was.
If you had bad suspicions about Fauci managing information, yep, it was exactly what you thought it was.
What else we got here?
All right, here's the political mistake of the day, I think, from RFK Jr.
So he tweeted today that he's got a economic plan.
He said it's going to help the middle class.
He said, the average income in our country is $5,000 less than the basic cost of living.
The issue?
Very good.
He'd like to revive the middle class.
So far, I like it.
He says, I'm going to change that.
Over the course of the next few weeks, I'll be releasing an economic plan that focuses on ending the corrupt merger of state and corporate power to make sure Americans can pay their bills, basically.
Now, he doesn't give any details of his economic plan to come.
But the one thing we know about it is that it will result in the middle class having a lot more cash.
How do you do that?
Here's why I call this a political mistake.
As I tweeted in response, it sounds like a forced transfer of wealth.
And if that's not the plan, I would throw in a few words like free market.
Right?
If you don't see free market, As part of how somebody else is going to make money?
How are they going to make money without the economy being better for everybody?
How are they going to make money?
They're going to have more money when his economic plan is... It's got to be a forced transfer, as in somebody gets taxed or something like that.
So, have you ever had this situation?
Well let me tell you a story that happened to me.
I've told this story but it fits perfectly in this case again.
So many years ago I had a suspicious lump on my throat that could have been cancer.
And I got an x-ray and I go to the doctor who's going to finally tell people what the x-ray said.
So the x-ray is one process but then you have a doctor's appointment later to discuss it.
So I'm sitting in the waiting room with the other people who are in my situation.
They're all waiting for the same doctor who has read their x-rays to tell them if they have cancer.
So the doctor opens the door, and I'm like, oh, shoot, oh, shoot, oh, is this me, or is this for somebody else?
And he goes, Mrs. Garcia.
And Mrs. Garcia raises his name, and he goes, good news.
X-rays are fine.
You're all good.
Go on in.
I'll tell you about it.
And I'm like, phew, Mrs. Garcia got good news.
Then he comes out again and he goes, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith, everything's good.
Come on in, we'll talk about it.
All clear.
I'm like, ah, Garcia and Smith, I'm next.
He comes out and he goes, Mr. Adams.
And I'm like, yes?
And he says, could you come into my office for a minute?
That's what RFK Jr.' 's tweet sounds like to me.
Hey, I got some news.
Can we talk about this?
Privately?
Do you ever get good news when somebody wants to talk to you privately?
No.
No.
And when I went in and talked to the doctor, he said, well, it's a little ambiguous, but probably cancer.
Probably.
Right.
It was exactly what you thought.
If somebody doesn't give you the good news right up front or leaves out an important point that you know should be there, I know you should be telling me right now, do I or do not have cancer.
So I have to have another procedure where they, you know, did a biopsy and it was just nothing.
It was literally nothing.
They just pulled some fluid out and put a band-aid on it.
I was as far from having cancer as you could possibly be.
It was more like a scratch.
I'm either dying of cancer or possibly I got a scratch that got infected.
Something like that.
So, RFK Jr., I give you this advice.
If this is not a forced transfer of wealth, you really need to say that right up front.
That's gotta be right up front.
And if it is, I'm out.
Because this is, I gotta talk to you, I'm gonna take your money situation.
Now, maybe it's the best way to fix things.
You know, I'm always gonna listen to the argument.
But if you hide that information, what's the core of your idea?
He doesn't have to give us all the details, but he could say, for example, I found a way to unleash the economic engine that will give everybody better incomes.
Or, I believe the solution is better training, and I am going to spend a whole bunch of money on training, but very quickly that will translate into higher incomes.
I'd listen to that.
I would say that there's still going to be some taxes involved, but if you tell me you're taxing me to give direct occupational training to people who would benefit right away, you have my attention.
I hate the fact that you might tax me more.
For the benefit of other people.
But if that benefit is clear and obvious and smart and would work its way into the economy, which benefits people who already have money like me, I could be sold on that.
I could actually be convinced.
But if you don't start out and say, you know, trading will be my focus, or free markets, or I'm getting rid of some, or even if he said, I'm gonna bring more manufacturing back, and here's my specific way I'm gonna do it.
All good, all good.
But don't tell me you're gonna make somebody else have more money.
Because that just feels like your hand is in my pocket.
So, since I don't know what his plan is, this is not a criticism of the plan, it's a criticism of the communication of the plan.
Later I might have something to say about the plan.
And by the way, this seems out of character, because this feels like just a mistake.
And I haven't seen him make anything that looked like just a mistake.
Yeah.
So we'll see.
Rasmussen did some polling on the Trump indictment.
You will not be surprised.
51% of likely US voters approve of the latest Trump indictment, but of course it's separated by voter types.
So you got, let's see, 69% of Republicans disapprove, but 77% of Democrats approve, of course, of the Trump indictments.
What is this polling telling us?
You know, I used to think that a poll told you people's opinions.
Does it feel like that's what's happening?
Do you think you saw people's opinions?
It doesn't feel like an opinion to me.
It feels entirely like team play plus brainwashing.
Like, nothing like an opinion.
Opinions suggest somebody looked at the situation and put their priorities on it and then came up with their best case scenario as an opinion.
Nothing like that's happening.
This is pure assigned opinions so that you know which team is winning or would win if their argument wins.
It just strikes me as ridiculous to ask opinions of brainwashed people.
Unless you're the brainwasher and you want to find out how well you're doing.
All right.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what passes as the news.
Is it my imagination that everything looks more corrupt than ever and only because Twitter slash X is not censoring us?
Is that what's happening?
You're waking up.
I'm waking up.
Which team has the viral YouTuber type of controller?
Huh.
It's a good question.
Has anybody ever studied what goes viral more often on YouTube?
Because, you know, Joe Rogan goes viral all the time, and he's not being woke.
But But it does seem like, is it true that the most viral stuff is either left or right-leaning?
leaning?
You only look at your subscribers, okay.
OK.
Yeah, I guess the question is, how can we get in on some of this corruption?
All right.
YouTube, come back online.
Yeah, YouTube's back online.
So I thought I saw a Ukraine story.
And I thought to myself, have we forgotten about Ukraine?
Check the news on Ukraine.
So now the news on Ukraine is always limited to like one sentence, you know, or one headline with a little story.
And the story is always the same.
Have you noticed that all the Ukraine stories are the same?
Somebody sent some weapons in one direction and some people got killed and nothing changed.
There were some things, there were explody things in the sky that came down on The public, or the fighters, and people died.
There's no sense that anything is changing in the Ukraine, right?
There's no sense that anything could change.
We've now completely given up on the so-called counter-offensive, right?
Is there anybody thinks that there's really a Ukrainian counter-offensive?
Here's what I think is happening.
I think that the news went quiet on Ukraine because, fill in the blanks, the news went quiet on Ukraine because, go, because of Hunter and because the counteroffensive is not working.
The two things that the Biden administration doesn't want you to hear, The counter-offensive isn't working, not even close.
And Hunter may have been the reason that the war happened in the first place.
So Biden can win two ways.
One is if, miraculously, somehow Ukraine won and got all its territory back.
So that would be one way that Biden could win.
He could make Ukraine look like it was victorious.
That doesn't look like it's going to happen.
The other way he could win-ish is to just hold off the Russians so they don't get any more, but also to keep himself out of the story, to make sure that the Hunter part of the story doesn't tank him.
But he can't get either one.
So at the moment it looks like Ukraine has really no chance of a counter-offensive that works, I would say.
By now we would know.
The Hunter part, because Vivek is bringing it up, the Hunter part is really kind of awkward now, isn't it?
Because now you can see the intersection or the Venn diagrams between what Hunter was doing and what one could easily imagine would be too much influence on Biden, the president.
So there's a reason that Ukraine disappeared in the news.
Am I right?
Tell me I'm wrong, that at the very time that everything about Ukraine is bad for Biden, it just disappeared.
It's not even a news story.
There's a literal war, in which we're primary participants, at least financially and weapon-wise, and strategically.
But just think about the fact that the news went radio silent on a war.
A war.
And they're not telling you anything that's true about this at this point.
All right.
So there's a story about the country of Niger.
Some revolution happened.
And I saw a tweet that I don't believe is true, but it was hilarious.
Did you see the Victoria Nuland story about Niger?
So the reported story, which I don't believe because it's a little too funny, it's too funny to be true, is that Victoria Nuland wanted to meet with the revolutionaries and talk to them and maybe give them some aid.
And the alleged story that I don't believe, I don't believe this, is that the revolutionaries said that we should spend the money on a weight loss program for Victoria Nuland.
Do you believe that?
I don't believe that.
I saw it in a tweet, but I don't believe it.
It's too funny.
Yeah, it's too funny.
I'm gonna go with fake news on that one.
Let's call that one fake news, okay?
But if I'm wrong, if I'm wrong, I'd love to believe it.
I'd love to believe it.
That's a little, yeah, that's a little too perfect.
