Episode 2209 Scott Adams: Wow, The News Is Fascinating Today. Bring Coffee
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Cyclical Time, God Assembling, Larry Elder, GOP Debate, Vivek Ramaswamy, Fake News, Maui Water Guy, RFK Jr., Controlled Media, Hunter's Laptop, Jerome Adams, Zero-Trust Environment, COVID Hospitalizations, Elie Honig DOJ, President Biden's Decline, Jill Biden, Masking Returns, President Trump, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I'm pretty sure you've never had a better time.
Would you like this experience to go up to levels that nobody has ever seen before?
Sure you do.
And all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gel, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like my 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.
Go.
If anybody would like to inform the new people of what not to say in the comments, this would be a good time to do it.
Now we got all kinds of interesting news today.
It's like extra interesting stuff.
So don't go anywhere.
This show is going to get better and better as it proceeds.
Now, number one, a story from phys.org did eight different experiments.
At the Mustafa Karatas of Nazarbayev University.
And many of you are familiar with the Mustafa Karatas of Nazarbayev University.
But they found that actively thinking about God promotes acceptance of AI recommendations.
In a variety of contexts.
So if you're thinking about God, and AI suggests a movie, or a financial product, or a dental treatment, people are more likely to believe the AI.
Huh.
You know, some would say that AI is just God reassembling.
I'll just wait.
Waiting for it.
Now that was a comment that 20% of the listeners just said, holy shit.
And 80% said, I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to there.
It sounds like there's a part of this I don't know.
And here's the part you don't know.
I can't tell you.
But if you read a book called God's Debris, I don't want to be a spoiler.
But you're really going to be interested in what AI really is.
That's all I'm going to say.
That's all I'm going to say.
Anyway, you could buy that book if it weren't cancelled everywhere.
But you could probably get a used one.
And if you're on the Locals platform, scottadams.locals.com, you could get it for free in PDF form.
But that's neither here nor there.
Yes, here's my answer to the question.
The big question of reality is this.
How did we get here unless some intelligence, such as God, created us?
Pretty good question.
How the heck did we get here?
But then somebody else will say, well, good try, but how did God get here?
Now if your answer is God was always here, not so good, because you could say reality was always here.
There's always something here.
Whether it was God or what God made or something.
Always had to be something.
Because we imagine that you can't have something come out of nothing.
But, so how do you balance that?
Well, here's the way I do it.
Einstein said time was an illusion, persistent illusion.
Now really you should think in terms of space-time and the movement of things compared to other things as time.
But to me the only answer that makes sense is that time is cyclical, meaning that it loops.
So that would suggest that there's a time in between God And there always will be that time reoccurring.
So there'll always be a time there is God, in its fullest form.
There would be a time when God is in its assembling form, you know, starting to become a full God.
And there would be times when there's not much God happening.
For example, at the time of the singularity just prior to the Big Bang, Did God exist in his full form, where everything was one?
Or was it still assembling?
Then the Big Bang happens, and it looks like there's nothing but debris.
No intelligence.
Then slowly over time, to the unscientific observer, it would look like magic.
All of this debris starts reforming.
Through gravity and physics and some basic forces of the universe, until eventually there's something like a living something.
And then that living something perhaps evolves.
And then eventually you have intelligence.
Say, animals, people.
And then eventually those animals, mostly the people, start forming something called an internet.
And now the individual intelligence become part of a larger intelligence.
And then you add AI.
And then you keep evolving.
Do you know that human beings, collectively, we will be able to shape planets and perhaps create them from scratch?
We almost certainly will be able to create new life forms by DNA manipulation.
And I wouldn't be surprised if we're too far away from creating life and of things which are not alive.
Just to show that that can be done.
So, one theory Is that we are in a time of God, but God is not, and yet, fully formed.
And maybe you don't want that.
No, probably you do.
But one possibility that explains everything, which doesn't mean it's true, right?
There's a big difference between fits all the observation and actually true.
Those don't have to be the same.
But what fits my observation is that there can't be a beginning of things.
There can only be a cyclical reality.
So we're probably phasing in and out of a time when there's something like a God-like entity that is all-intelligent and all-capable, and times when there is not, such as when the universe shrinks back to its final form.
And then does it all again.
So that's one possibility.
I'm not saying that's true.
But if you want to read a fascinating book about it, God's Debris is the one.
All right.
The debates are tonight.
Tonight are the debates.
Here's why you can hate the Republican Party.
You can really hate them.
So Larry Elder is banned for a technical reason about a poll.
You don't need to know the details, but it could have been interpreted either way.
In other words, you could have gone either way on letting Larry Elder in, but the Republicans decided he would be out.
Now here's what bothers me about that.
It's not so much that I think Larry Elder's shot at being president is high, although I like him a lot.
He'd be cool as president.
But He's bringing to the conversation a topic of great interest and concern.
So I think he's primarily running because he wants to promote his message about the need for family units as the organizing principle.
And that's like a really important topic.
And although I've got a little bit of a slight difference on his opinion, I think we need to figure out what to do for all the people who just will never have the option of creating a family.
It just won't work for everybody.
But I would agree that if you could make it work, you know, a good solid family would be the ideal situation.
So don't you want to see Larry Elder on a big stage where lots of people are watching and promote that very valuable topic?
Because you could argue that's the base problem for everything.
Could you not?
Don't you think it's a fair statement that what Larry Elder would bring to the conversation, whether he has a chance of being president or not, is the most important base thing, which is how do we train children and how do we support each other as individuals?
The family.
And again, I feel like we need more than the family, but that's a good starting point for a conversation.
So the fact that the Republicans would use some little bullshit, Rasmussen Poll has something they don't like about it, and they can take out of the national conversation the most important topic, the most important topic.
Whose side are they on, right?
Who are they working for?
Are they working for the benefit of the country?
Because if you want to benefit the country, put his voice in there.
He's closer to the source than anybody else.
I love Vivek.
Actually, a number of the candidates are pretty solid.
But he's really bringing something of value that you don't have to wait for.
You don't have to wait for the election.
He's bringing it right now.
Now, I say the same thing about RFK Jr.
He's obviously not in a Republican debate.
I say the same thing about Vivek.
I think they're bringing actual, real-world value in the context of campaigning, and I don't think we can miss that.
That's just too important to miss.
I haven't even started blowing your minds.
There's weirder stuff coming.
I mean, the good stuff's coming.
All right, so let me get a feel of the viewers here.
I already asked the local subscribers over here before I signed on to YouTube.
But I want to see YouTube, too.
Who are you going to watch tonight, if you're going to watch anything?
Are you going to watch Trump and Tucker, who is counter-programming the debates?
Or are you going to watch Fox News, I guess it's on Fox, and the Republican debate?
Go.
Tucker or Fox News?
You could say neither.
All right.
I'm seeing a lot of both.
A lot of both.
How many people are going to double screen it?
Two screens?
Because I... Yeah, maybe a little bit, huh?
At least for commercials.
All right.
So if I do a man cave tonight, which is a live stream just for the locals people, I think I would watch the debate only because I feel like I know what Trump's going to say to Tucker.
I don't feel like there's any surprise in Trump versus Tucker, so I'll watch that and replay.
But there could be a surprise in the debate.
Maybe.
Because Vivek is in the debate, right?
And Chris Christie, he might have a little surprise.
I think he's a weak candidate, but he's interesting.
He says fun stuff.
How did you get back here?
Oh, all right, that's how.
Hold on, I gotta ban somebody again.
You'll disappear in a minute.
All right, so I'll probably watch the debate.
All right, here's your fake news alert, fake news.
I think these are fake news, but I'm not 100% sure.
Apparently the video of Joe Biden visiting Maui because of the disaster, there are videos of people chanting F Joe Biden.
There's a fact check on Twitter, that I call X, that suggests that the audio was added and that the chanting was not part of the actual.
Which is a pretty big difference.
Pretty big difference.
I would have to admit, if that was fake, Fooled me?
I got fooled.
I tell you, there's no amount of understanding that video is fake, and can be fake, and is usually undercut.
There's no amount of it that can make you invulnerable to it.
Because you really can't go through life believing literally nothing.
You just sort of have to believe something.
So you end up latching onto things because they haven't been yet debunked.
But man, that burns.
I gotta feel like I touched the oven on that one.
Now do I feel stupid?
A little bit.
A little bit.
Also, I'd have to say I'm not 100% sure it's fake.
I'm not 100% sure.
I think more likely than not it is, but not completely sure.
So that's one.
Here's another one that, again, I'm not sure which is true.
But you all heard the story, I think, of the water resources manager guy in Maui who allegedly did not release the magic water because it's, you know, Maui's special water and the gods would be mad or whatever it is.
I don't know.
Something woke, something native.
I'm not sure exactly what it was.
But now I'm hearing that maybe that was, yeah, that it wasn't about water equity or anything.
That it was actually just fake news.
And that the real news, the real story is complicated and there might have been some water held back from the helicopter operation which couldn't fly anyway because the wind was too high.
Now if it turns out that that's the story, and that's not confirmed in my opinion, if it turns out that's the story, that water was withheld, but not from anything that mattered, it was just logically withheld from a place that didn't need it, that's going to look a lot different.
Gonna look a lot different.
Now, you could also say, Scott, Scott, Scott, do not be naive.
Of course they've come up with a narrative that cleverly explains their mistake.
Maybe.
But here's my rule.
There's one person being blamed.
Not the government.
There's one person being blamed.
And my rule is, innocent until proven guilty, which I don't think I've done a good job of following my own advice.
He's one individual.
He's one individual.
Maybe he did something bad, but he is innocent until proven guilty, and I blame myself for retweeting anything that put the onus on one person.
Now, had it been a governmental thing, Then you reverse the assumption.
If it's the government, collectively, then I think you can say that the government is always guilty until they prove they're not.
They need to be transparent or else you just have to assume it's sketchy.
Right?
So that's the rule.
I'll say it a million times.
If it's a citizen of the United States, one person, absolutely innocent, you better bring the proof.
And the water guy?
I'm not happy I see any proof.
You better do that in a court of law.
And I apologize for retweeting anything in that domain.
But the government?
The government of Maui?
You better be a little more transparent.
All right, so that's maybe two fake newses.
Here's something that is, I guess, confirmed now.
That X, as some people call Twitter, had block lists.
So you could block a whole list of people based on some criteria, which probably had the impact of making us be siloed.
So you couldn't even see the arguments on the other side.
For example, how many of you never heard that there was another story about that Maui water guy?
How many have never heard that there's some alternate, I don't know what's true, but there's an alternate narrative for that?
Did you even hear that?
Right?
Right?
Probably not.
Now, how many times have you seen that people on the left are completely unaware of things that the right talks about, reports on all the time?
Completely unaware.
So these block lists can't be helping.
Because you know nobody is blocking people they agree with.
They're blocking the people who are saying things that they don't want to hear.
So one suggestion was to have, instead of a block list, have a counterpoint list.
A counterpoint list which I would sign up for immediately.
Counterpoint list would look at the things I'm tweeting and it would automatically feed me the counterpoint.
Now I don't know if the system can identify a counterpoint but I would accept counterpoint individuals to follow.
So it might be that there's somebody who's just extra good to follow, who doesn't bullshit too much, but is on a side that I don't normally hear about.
I would sign up for that in a heartbeat.
Because I don't want to be under-informed.
I don't want to have an opinion and not know there's some other narrative out there that I could at least evaluate.
So yes, Elon Musk, we need a counterpoint list that assertively gives us counterpoints that we were not expecting.
It's the opposite of the silo.
It fixes everything.
Now, I don't know if Elon Musk has even considered something like that, but I'm sure that if he heard it, his first impression would be, if it could be done, it would be a good feature.
If it could be done.
Might not be practical, exactly, but I'd be certainly open to a little testing.
I'd love to know, for example, who is the Democrat version of me?
Is there one?
Like, who's the person who clearly identifies as Democrat?
Although I'm registered Democrat at the moment.
But who would it be who can... Well, Bill Maher.
I don't know if he's registered Democrat though, is he?
He might be independent.
So... I don't know.
So I still have my offer out on Twitter.
If Bill Maher wants to have me come on his Club Random show and explain how all of the hoaxes are executed, just in case there are any that he still believes, I thought that would be the greatest show.
Now, I don't think I'm going to be invited on the show, but I thought I'd put it out there.
At least it's available if they'd like that.
Alright, here's a study that Dr. Jordan Peterson just tweeted, and I just saw it just before I got on so I didn't get to see all the details, but apparently there was a study where people were put on an all-meat diet, which sounds like it's similar to what Dr. Peterson has been on for a long time, and Apparently he's had great outcomes.
It was sort of the only thing that helped his health issues that were pretty extreme.
But now he's pretty much all good on his whole meat diet.
But the study said that there was a 90% improvement in all diseases.
What?
What?
Did I read that right?
right?
A 90% improvement in all diseases.
Well, that can't be all.
A-L-L.
That still means all of them, right?
Did they change the meaning of the word all?
Did they actually have a 90% improvement in all diseases?
All diseases?
Apparently 100% of the people who went on the diet got off diabetes medicine.
All of them.
All of them.
Yeah.
Now, let's put on our skeptical hats.
Skeptical hats.
What's wrong with the study?
Without knowing anything about it, what's wrong with it?
Go.
Well, some studies are fake.
Who funded it?
Who funded it?
I'm just going to take a guess.
The meat industry?
Maybe.
Big cow.
I don't know.
Maybe.
I don't know that.
But if you see a study of this nature, and at the same time you see the study, you don't see who funded it, what credibility should you give a study where you don't know who funded it?
Go.
What is the level of credibility for a study that you don't know who funded it?
Zero.
Zero.
Thank you.
Now, as I often say, The crowd that follows me is the smartest crowd in America.
And I say that because we actually go over the mechanism quite regularly, over the mechanism of what makes something credible, whereas almost everybody else who talks about the news just says, here's a study.
That's where we used to be.
If you're believing studies after the pandemic, What did you miss?
How did you miss all of that studies are fake?
All right, but there's something else.
There's something else here that's just gigantically standing out as a flaw with this study without knowing anything.
I don't know anything about the study and yet I can see a giant flaw.
Do you see it yet?
Here's the problem.
How do you know the benefits are from eating the meat versus, wait, your mind is going to be blown, how do you know the benefit came from eating meat or not eating processed foods anymore?
How's your brain doing?
Yeah?
How's your brain doing right now?
So when I first said it, you thought, oh, meat is good for you.
And maybe it is.
That might be exactly what's happening.
But what would happen if you did a control where 100% of the people were taken off of, let's say, processed foods entirely, and you gave them nothing but vegetables?
You made sure that they supplemented.
Let's say you make sure they supplement so they're getting their vitamin Bs and stuff that's hard to get from vegetarian diet.
How do you think they would do?
Do you think they would get off of their diabetes medicines?
I don't know.
I don't know.
My best guess is that there's a little of both happening.
Both meaning meat's probably pretty good for you.
And by the way, I don't eat it.
Like, I eat fish, but I don't eat meat.
So believe me when I say this, it's not coming from a place of bias.
My bias would be, oh, everything I do is the smart thing to do.
But I would say that the meat is bad for you, Um, belief of most of my life, you know, seems to be debunked.
Would you agree?
That the meat is bad for you that I used to believe for decades, that seems to be debunked.
There does seem to be maybe something to how you prepare it.
Maybe.
There might be a risk in how you prepare it.
You know, if you burn it or something.
But, at this point, it seems like the evidence is starting to support Yeah, exactly what you thought.
The humans have eaten meat forever, and it's probably not that bad for us.
So, maybe it's the keto diet, maybe it's something else.
My guess is it might be, you know, 75% of the benefit is from not eating shit, and 25% of the benefit is from eating something that's, you know, full of the nutrients you need, such as meat.
Best guess.
But I think that's all to be determined.
All right.
My book, Reframe Your Brain, still waiting for the final approval from Amazon that it will be available, which could happen.
I just checked my phone because it could happen any minute.
So we've done the final step and we got a warning that it sailed through okay.
It just has to physically be on the site and that just takes a while, I guess.
But I wanted to add one thing.
I saw one critic Who said that my book, Reframe Your Brain, which is already available on Kindle, we're just waiting for the soft cover to drop.
Any hour now it should happen.
But somebody said that it was a book of advice.
And that he pointed out that some of the advice would be something that, you know, an adult who's well informed would already know.
Now here's what he is missing because I don't think you could read the book and have that actual opinion.
Because a lot of the book is dedicated to telling you that's not what's happening.
It's not advice.
Here's what advice looks like.
I talked to you for 30 minutes.
That's what advice looks like.
Or you read a book and there's like long explanation of why you should do this or that.
That's advice.
A reframe Takes the best part of advice sometimes, but not all the time.
So it's the Venn diagrams of advice and reframes are not overlapped.
They overlap a little.
So there are definitely some that are advice and are also reframes.
But reframes don't have to make sense.
Advice does.
Advice has to make sense.
A reframe could be irrational and still work.
That's really important to understand what a reframe is versus advice.
But in some cases, you can take advice that does make sense, put it into a sentence that's well-constructed, as the one that you repeat, and it's that sentence well-constructed that makes your advice operational.
Makes it operational.
Reading about it in a book can make it operational, too.
There are definitely people who can say, hey, I saw this idea.
I think I'll try it.
It was in a book.
But for most people, the fastest way to get there is to read a one sentence reframe where you go, whoa, that makes sense.
Or you repeat it in your mind and you go, it doesn't make sense, but it seems to be working.
So the idea is that you're reprogramming your brain to be optimized.
Some of that reprogramming is based on commonsensical good advice stuff, like systems are better than goals, just shortened to become a reframe.
And some of it is purely irrational.
Let me give you an example.
Alcohol is poison.
It's not exactly a logical argument.
It's more like trying to make you feel bad when you think of alcohol.
It's about an emotional argument that has utility.
So if you know you're reprogramming your own brain, you're not manipulating, because it's yourself.
You can manipulate yourself to think of something negative when it's associated with the thing you don't want to do.
That's not advice, per se.
That's literally directly programming your brain to have associations that are not rational.
So it's actually closer to the opposite of advice, but it does incorporate advice.
So that's just a little point you might have missed.
So when a hypnotist writes a book, there's usually a little extra flavor happening.
Alright, I have a theme for the rest of my presentation today.
It's called The Arrogance of Scott Adams.
Because you know me.
Pretty, pretty arrogant.
Let me give you an example.
So RFK Jr.
was saying that the CIA, as we know, famously used to control the media back in the Operation Mockingbird days.
So that was actually a CIA operation to give functional control of the political messaging in all the media.
Now that was allegedly discontinued.
How the hell do you just keep coming back?
I've cancelled you twice now.
Alright.
Dammit.
There's somebody that's hard to kill here.
And so do we all agree with the base case that the CIA definitely, this is well documented at this point, I don't think anybody's arguing about it, that they did used to control the US media and tried to control other media as well.
Now RFK Jr.
says that the thing that's less well known is that that started up again under Obama I think.
So Obama, I think, changed the rules so that the CIA could operate domestically.
Do I have that right?
Give me a fact check on that.
And that allowing them to operate domestically allowed them to get back inside the media operations.
Now, according to RFK Jr., this is his accusation.
There are a number of notable media outlets that are well known to be, let's say, penetrated by the intelligence groups.
He names specifically the New York Times, Rolling Stone, I think Politico was on his list, and Washington Post.
So the Washington Post is one RFK Jr.
calls out as being CIA influenced.
Now, let's say you were trying to like hold that in your head and understand the world that you've been seeing.
Based on that filter.
That the media is a CIA operation.
Or at least influenced.
Now let me connect a few dots and see if using that filter makes you look at a familiar story a little differently.
So here are some other things we know.
You ready to have your mind blown?
I told you there's more coming.
You ready?
Okay.
Here are things we know that are true.
The Hunter laptop cover-up It seemed to be intelligence-related, and you can tell that that was a Democrat operation.
Would you agree?
That it wasn't just, you know, Brennan and Clapper.
It was clearly a Democrat operation.
Would you be able to say that that's a good indication that Democrats control the CIA?
Yes or no?
Would you say that Democrats, and I'm not saying every part of it, because I'm sure there are plenty of Republicans who work for the CIA, but in terms of the big political stuff, such as the laptop cover-up, etc., is it fair to say that Democrats must have some big influence over some part of the intelligence apparatus?
All right, so if you accept that, Then you've got, so far you've connected the dots, right?
So you've got Democrats influencing the CIA, because they are Democrats in many cases, and then the CIA influencing the media.
So that would be the Democrats influence the media directly in some cases, we know that, but also through the CIA could control the media in a second way which is compatible.
Now, Did you know that, and of course, Washington Post is named by RFK Jr. as one of the obvious ones that are...
So did you know that the Washington Post was the primary entity recently?
Now, I wasn't the only ones who cancelled me.
But the way the newspaper industry works is if the leading paper, they're the biggest paper that also carries comics.
New York Times doesn't have comics.
Wall Street Journal doesn't have comics.
But the biggest, most influential paper that also had comics was the Washington Post.
So when they went public cancelling me, it made it almost necessary that everybody else cancelled me.
So now let's go back to the start.
Democrats control the CIA and also the media directly.
They collectively control the media.
The media controls the Washington Post.
The Washington Post cancelled me.
No Republican entity cancelled me.
Did you know that?
Now, I'm sure there were some Republican-leaning newspapers, but once the big one does the cancelling, everybody else, you can't be the one who didn't.
So it starts a thing which nobody can resist.
They have to go along.
So there's no Republican entity that said, you're cancelled.
In fact, many of them invited me on to talk about it.
Is it political?
Well, here's the arrogance of Scott part.
I suggested that I can't know if I got cancelled for reasons that, let's say, were just the public.
Public got mad and the corporations had to fold.
That's possible.
It could have been just a public outcry.
Total, regular, normal management.
They don't like trouble.
I'm not adding that much to the newspaper.
It's just one comic.
They can make all the trouble go away.
They just cancel me.
They look like they're woke.
Maybe they have DEI organizations working for them.
It could all happen just a normal, normal bureaucratic process.
But how would I know?
Is it a coincidence?
Here's the arrogant part.
Are you ready for this?
How many of you would be aware?
I guess I'll ask this question.
I know what the locals people will say, but let's say on YouTube.
How many of you would be aware that I'm one of the most influential people in politics?
How many of you know that?
I'm actually curious because I don't have any idea.
That's what I was looking for.
I was looking for the laughter.
LOL.
Ha ha ha.
LOL.
But those who are laughing, look at the other responses.
There's another LOL.
So all the LOL, bwahaha people, not likely.
Look at the other answers.
How do you explain that 75% of the answers are that I'm in the top 10 influencers?
What do you think of that?
Alright, so I don't want to be arrogant.
I've just been accused of being arrogant because I made that claim.
So I suggested in a tweet that I really can't tell who cancelled me.
Can I?
How do I know who cancelled me?
Was it the public?
And just a normal bureaucracy has to respond to the public?
Or was it part of a political operation that was either ordered, which I doubt, or just everybody knows what to do when you're on one side?
You don't really have to tell people what to do.
They kind of know what to do.
Do you think the Washington Post believes that I'm influential in politics?
Forget about what you think.
Do you think the Washington Post thinks I'm influential in politics?
Yeah, of course they do.
Because they watch.
It's probably only the top, I don't know, 2% of people who are paying attention would have any idea I'm even involved in politics.
If you ask the average person in the country, hey, is that cartoonist guy, the disgraced cartoonist, is he involved in politics?
They wouldn't even know.
Right?
98% of the country would have no idea that I have any involvement in the political sphere.
None.
All right, but let's take, let me be a little more modest.
Can we agree that I'm not influencing everything and just move on?
All right.
Next story.
I did a tweet, a takedown of CNN interviewing Vivek.
So I was basically mocking CNN for the ridiculousness of the accusations they're making for Vake.
And Vake, you know, is tearing apart Caitlyn Collins.
A lot of you saw it.
So let's see how that tweet did.
8.4 million views.
And Vake himself actually retweeted it.
So, probably not influencing anything in politics, but 8.3 million people.
So I reframed that, and probably close to 10 million people are going to see that by the end of the day.
But I don't have any real influence.
As the people who were laughing at me said, I'm just kind of being full of myself now.
Because this was more of a fluke.
This was a fluke.
I mean, it's happened a number of times, but each time it was a fluke.
Alright, here's the next story.
You may have seen that our, what do you call him, the Surgeon General, Jerome Adams, he had tweeted yesterday that there were an alarming number of people who were hospitalized with COVID.
Hospitalized with COVID.
So I did a quote tweet of his tweet and I pointed out that with COVID does not mean the same as from COVID.
Do you agree?
That being hospitalized with COVID does not mean the same as, you know, from COVID.
So, Jerome Adams tweeted this today.
He said, to the increasing hospitalizations are with and not from COVID crowd, he says, almost no hospitals routinely test all patients for COVID anymore.
That's interesting.
Good to know.
So, and then he says, so with COVID, Would mean a patient with worsening respiratory status and severe acute respiratory syndrome.
Is it a coincidence?
Hmm.
So, apparently I created some kind of a belief, when I doubted his with and from, that was substantially annoying that the Surgeon General of the United States had to reply to me and all the people that I influenced, allegedly.
Allegedly.
So, I'm not saying that I have an influence on anything.
I'm just saying that the Surgeon General had a need to reply to me personally and to the people I influenced, apparently.
So, but that doesn't mean I'm influencing anything.
All right.
And by the way, this is a actually good, I appreciate it as clarification.
And that I responded back to Dr. Adams.
And I said, Dr. Adams, we live in a zero trust environment.
And so, If it's because of COVID, you should use those words.
Because if you use words that are the words we associate with deception in a zero-trust environment, you're gonna get this.
You're gonna get more of this.
So every time you mistakenly say, you know, with COVID, which I think was just a choice of words and probably not at all indicative of anything else.
But we're in a zero-trust environment.
You can't use those words.
You gotta say, they were hospitalized because they have COVID.
I would understand that.
Hospitalized because of COVID.
Very clear.
That would tell me, you know, people have comorbidities.
I would assume that as well.
But they're hospitalized because of the COVID.
Now you tell me that, and I'll say, I don't know what's true, but I know, I understand what you're saying.
I understand that sentence.
So all I ask of the government is to understand that they're guilty until proven innocent.
And if they act like guilty people, don't expect us not to treat them that way.
I have an opinion about the attacks on Vivek.
You've noticed that he seems to be attacked for conspiracy theory belief.
And it's sort of coming from everywhere at the same time.
Does that seem organic to you?
To me it looks like when Trump was accused of, in his DNC speech in 2016, he was accused of being dark.
It was a dark vision.
And simultaneously all of the people on the left said everything he does is dark.
And everything the Republicans do are dark.
And I called it out at the time, I think correctly, as the work of one persuader in particular, and a very clever way to take anything that happens from a Republican and stick it to this frame of it's the darkness of the Republican.
It's a very effective persuasion.
It's like that is Commercial grade, weapons grade level persuasion.
You don't see that kind of skill from politicians.
That level of persuasion comes from professionals and not professional politicians because they have a different skill set.
It looks to me, and this is just speculation based on what it looks like, but I've been right before.
To me it looks coordinated, and it looks like somebody really smart figured out that Vivek doesn't have many problems.
In other words, you can't look at his record too much.
You know, there's just a whole bunch of things that you can't attack him on, because he's smarter than the people he talks to, and he doesn't make verbal mistakes.
So he just doesn't have anything you can work with, So when you see this conspiracy theory thing, that feels a lot like dark.
But you know why they can't just use dark with a vague?
Because he's dark.
He's got browner skin than most Democrats.
So you can't use the same play.
Because they would look like they're being racist, so they had to back up on that and find something that doesn't sound like that, that has the same quality, that it creates a frame in your mind that all the new information then could be confirmation bias that you stick to it.
This looks very professional to me.
That's my take.
All right.
CNN apparently is starting to turn on the Department of Justice, Eli Koenig in particular, one of their legal experts, and he talks about how the DOJ was acting like they were being influenced.
So it seemed like their original plea deal for Hunter was too lenient.
It seemed like the whistleblowers were what caused them to maybe even overreact all the way to a special whatever that guy is.
But even CNN's legal analyst is saying that what we're seeing is not the legal system working the way the legal system is supposed to work.
Literally CNN, but they're choosing the words more carefully, but they're saying very clearly that the Department of Justice is not giving justice.
They said it clearly.
Now, again, it was used with lawyerly words, but the message is unambiguous.
And Eli Koenig said, and I guess I agree with him on this, he said, quote, to restore any credibility.
Remember, he's talking about the Department of Justice.
He's on CNN, and he used this phrase about the Department of Justice and their handling of the Hunter Biden stuff.
He says, to restore any credibility, which means, in his opinion, on CNN, the Department of Justice has no credibility.
That's on CNN.
I mean, think about that.
These are his words.
To restore any credibility.
Not some credibility.
Not to improve credibility.
To restore any.
So even CNN is saying this is like a fucking clown show.
That the Department of Justice isn't even acting like justice is some kind of a goal.
It doesn't even look like justice is an objective.
He's calling him out.
Good for him.
Good for him.
This is a really good example of somebody who just can't go with the lie.
He couldn't go there.
Apparently, he has too much respect for the law, which I appreciate.
He had enough respect for the law that he just couldn't go with the narrative.
He just had to say they have no credibility.
Totally appreciate that.
And by the way, I've been watching Eli Konig for a while, and he is the closest of their legal analysts to being objective.
You can pick out he's got a CNN flavor to him, but he is the closest to being objective.
And I give him a little shout out for that.
Um... Wow.
Okay.
I saw that a clip from my prior live stream is going around.
It just started today.
And it's a clip in which I am railing against Jill Biden for allowing her husband to go in public and embarrass himself at this thing.
And the essence of it was, this is no longer a political issue.
If you look at a video of Joe Biden one year ago, He's not the same person.
One year.
That tells you the rate of decline.
Right?
Because he's already gone.
And my issue is that, you know, I don't mean this to be clever.
It is elder abuse at this point.
I don't know how you could call it anything else.
Somebody needs to figure this out.
Now I think the problem, I'm just speculating, because if I were in this situation it would be a problem for me.
So I'm just sort of putting myself in the situation and saying, if I were Jill Biden, And the entire Democratic Party was saying, if you cause him to quit before we're ready with an Abel replacement, and it's not a Kamala Harris, until we have, you know, I don't know, some other candidate, you can't do it.
You know, just keep it going as long as you can.
Imagine the pressure on Jill Biden right now.
So, you know, I was pretty hard on her.
But imagine her position.
Nobody should ever be in that position.
Nobody should have to choose the country, which is how the Democrats would put it, you know, the whole country is at risk.
If you if you tell your husband to retire today, the whole country is at risk.
Versus the health of her husband.
What would you do?
If you had to choose between the well-being of your husband, and by the way, the husband probably doesn't want to quit, because the dementia patient doesn't always know they have dementia.
So she's probably got a husband who says, no, no, I'm still good to go.
Probably has a Democratic Party that says, yeah, he's gone, but please, please don't pull the trigger yet, because we're not ready.
And then she's in between all of that.
Don't you think she has those forces all working on her at the same time?
I think so.
And I think the country looks at her and says, it's really you?
It is really you?
You need to make this decision.
I don't make the rules.
This is a spouse decision and nobody else's.
Do you all agree with that?
That the decision about Joe Biden is not Joe Biden's anymore.
It's not ours.
It's not the Democrats.
There's only one person.
It's Jill.
And I don't think there could be a harder decision.
Because she will be pilloried for the rest of her days, no matter what she does.
Every decision, every path it could take, she loses.
And is Jill Biden the bad guy in any of this?
I doubt it.
I think she's probably just trying to do what she thinks is good for her husband, good for the country, good for the family.
Doing the best she can.
And I would say she's doing more than a great job.
If I'm looking at the whole picture, from beginning to end, more than a great job.
That is some seriously good spousing, if you know what I mean.
Now, you can disagree.
I'm just giving my take on it.
But at the moment, she's in a position that nobody wants to be in.
And so I've got a little bit of empathy for her.
Because, man, you don't want to be her.
You do not want to be her right now.
So I honestly just feel complete empathy for the Biden elders at this point.
Hunter is another question.
But for the elders, I think we have to let the politics go.
Just let it go.
This just has to be about caring about the president.
You know, I don't have to love a specific president to say, you can't treat my president like that.
He's still my president, right?
Don't treat my president like that.
But I know it's hard.
All right.
Do you think the CNN really doesn't understand When Vivek says, I'm not abolishing the FBI, I just want to distribute some of their functions to where they would be better served, a little closer and closer to the action, and in a way that would make it less corruptible, and in a way that would massively cut the fat.
Do you think they really don't understand that?
And they just keep saying, so you want to abolish the FBI?
No, he wants to abolish the Building, maybe, or the department, but he wants to keep the functions.
He wants to keep a hundred percent of the functions of the FBI, except the bad ones, I suppose, and just put it in different places.
Now, somebody said to me, Scott, don't you, this was actually a good comment, have you not made your entire career about mocking people reorganizing stuff?
Yes, I have.
As a matter of fact, I have.
Yes, a big staple of the Dilbert comic is corporate reorganizations that don't have a purpose.
But I've never been opposed to a corporate reorganization that has a purpose.
Why would I be?
If you can reorganize to make it better, and you have a discrete, clear, well-expressed reason for it that everybody can see is at least a good reason, and it can reduce staff by, you know, 50 to 75 percent, and get the same result, or actually a better result, which is the point of it, of course you do it.
Yeah.
No, I'm not opposed to change.
I'm opposed to change to obscure that you didn't do a good job in the past, which is what businesses do.
A new boss comes in in a corporation.
The first thing a new boss does is change the way everything is reported.
Not just the organization chart, but the way you measure results.
They change all that.
Do you know why?
Because it will take a really long time to find out if they're doing a good or bad job, and during that unclear time, the boss can tell everybody they're doing a great job.
Look at all this stuff we're doing.
Totally reorganized.
I've fixed the tracking system.
So can you tell us how you're doing?
Not really, not really, because we don't have a baseline anymore.
If we had a baseline, we could compare it to how we're doing, but you know, it's too bad that with all these improvements, it's just a little harder to track how well I'm doing.
But if you just wait, If you just wait five years, and I get five years of bonuses and probably got promoted to a higher job anyway, if you just wait five years, you'll be able to see that all these changes I made in the organization and the way we track things, really, it's really going to work out.
Five years.
Just give me five years.
I'll be promoted in two.
I don't know who are the silliest people in politics, but I would like to nominate the genitalia political people.
The genital people.
I just saw one of the genital people.
He says I want to, in all caps, that what I want to do is rub Vivek's salami.
Now that's interesting because I usually get comments in all caps that I want to fillate President Trump.
But now I've moved on to another package apparently.
And I like the Mensa members who decide that really I've got an insightful comment.
Whose genitalia shall I use for my insightful comment?
Okay, we'll use this set of genitalia.
And we're going to say that this person really loves this genitalia over here.
Because then I don't have to talk about what he's talking about.
So this is a tip for the low IQ people.
If you would like to participate in politics, there are two good ways to do it.
Number one, say that it isn't fair.
Hey, that's not fair.
Because that's the way children and idiots argue.
That's not fair.
Hey, it's not fair.
No reasons need to be given.
It just doesn't look fair.
Hey, I don't... Now, if you don't want to use fair, there's another word.
It's more current.
Do you know the new word?
We used to say fair, but then I mocked fairness out of the political conversation because it's what idiots say.
They replaced it with a word.
Do you remember what it was?
Equitable, yeah.
Because fair is literally stupid.
Because fair is not anything.
How is anybody going to agree what's fair?
Oh, tell me what the fair tax rate is.
Good luck with that.
Nothing's fair.
There's only things that happen.
There are things that work.
There are things that get you closer to some objective.
There are systems that are better than others.
But equity is like fairness.
It's a thing you can argue if you don't know anything.
If you don't know how anything works, and therefore you can't argue as a reasoned full citizen of the United States, but you still want to make some noise, fair, equitable.
So that's how you do it.
But the other way, if you don't want to use fair or equitable to be part of the conversation without adding value, The other way you can be part of a political conversation without adding value is to mention somebody's attraction to a political candidate's genitalia.
Because that's somewhat easy for the low IQ people to put together.
It's like, oh, oh, there's the balls and then there's the cock part.
I'll go with the balls this time.
And let's see, there's stroking, tickling, licking, licking.
You would like to lick the balls of Tim Scott.
I'll just pick him randomly.
Good work.
Good work.
All right.
So I tweeted at Bill Maher's Club Random, I think I told you this, that I would love to go on there and see if I could debunk the hoaxes.
Do you think I'll get an invitation?
What do you think?
I'm kind of the perfect guest for that specific show.
Because I can outsmoke Bill Maher.
He doesn't know it yet, but I'm pretty sure I can.
It would be the first time he had heard things framed the way I frame things.
Because I'm pretty sure he hasn't.
Now you know what's interesting?
He was saying on a Club Random, I think with Vivek, that Bill Maher is quite pro-nuclear power now.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't, I think he said it wasn't always the case.
And Vivek explained to him that the Generation 3 has never had a problem and the ones that people are worried about are the ones we wouldn't build anyway.
Nobody would build the old kind.
So who do you think got to Bill Maher on that?
What exactly was the chain of, let's say, persuasion that caused nuclear to be acceptable even to Democrats who were paying attention?
And Bill Maher pays attention.
There's Michael Schellenberger, right?
There's Mark Snyder, right?
Mark Schneider.
There are a number of other people, but you know, I spent Elon Musk, Elon Musk's for sure, but there are a number of people, including me, who had been reframing as hard as we could, trying to reframe that into a green option.
At this point, the entire world is on that page.
Now, I've been told I don't have any influence in politics, so I must have had no influence on that.
As far as you know.
Alright.
So, as you know, masking might come back.
As well as who knows what.
Pandemic stuff.
So, here's my take on that.
And I tweeted this.
So I'll just read you my tweet.
I worked hard to put the words in the right order.
I said the mask issue is going to get ugly unless the first corporation that bows to the government and requires masks gets taken down by its customers.
We'll have to bankrupt a Fortune 500 company as an example just to get our freedom back.
It's the only smart play.
Focus all cannons on the first offender and take it down fast.
As far as I know, there is no other way to stop masks from coming back.
I can't think of a way to stop it.
Individual actions are just going to get you kicked out of places and in trouble or arrested.
Because you're not all going to show up at the same time.
I saw Mike Cernovich saying he wasn't going to be Mr. Nice Guy anymore, and I believe it.
So he might have some words for people he sees in masks.
But it's hard to imagine that there are enough independently employed people That they could go full Cernovich.
Like if we had a country full of self-employed people, who were also adamant about this issue, yes.
But people who work for a boss just aren't going to do that.
Because your money's at stake.
Follow the money.
So if you want follow the money to work for you, instead of against you, which is the current situation, at the moment follow the money makes you comply.
Because you need a job.
But I'll tell you what you don't need.
Bud Light.
You don't need any fucking Bud Light.
And I'm only using them as an example.
I don't care about Bud Light.
The first corporation that sticks its head up, we have to bankrupt them.
You have to bankrupt them.
I don't care who it is.
Doesn't matter who it is.
Whoever goes first, you gotta take them down.
You have to put them right out of fucking business by not buying their shit, tank their stock, and bud light the fuck out of them.
If you don't take a Fortune 500 company completely off the board, there's gonna be more.
There is only one follow the money, which is the only thing that will matter.
Follow your feelings?
Nope.
Follow your political leanings?
Nope.
Will get you fucking nothing.
Follow your anger?
Nope.
Won't get you anything.
Follow your heart?
Your medical opinion?
Follow the science?
Nope.
You have to fucking destroy the first company that raises its hand.
If several companies raise their hand at the same time, pick one.
Focus the cannons and destroy them, even if they're innocent.
I don't care how innocent they are, you have to destroy the first Fortune 500 company that requires masking.
Now, probably they'll respond by sort of all doing it at the same time.
You know, there'll be some government rule, they'll all do it at the same time.
Just pick one.
Just pick one.
Put it right in the business.
And when you're done, we'll pick another one.
But you have to make it too expensive.
It has to be too expensive to do this to us.
It's the only way you're going to get your freedom back.
And by the way, if anybody has a better idea that does not target largely innocent people, I'd love to hear it.
I'm not aware of any.
Yeah, quitting your job is not really much of an option for most people.
Some will.
So, let's make that a thing.
If you need me to help you pick the victim, I'll do that.
But I'm not sure people will take my lead on that.
Yeah, who will lead and name the candidates exactly?
I would expect that already there's a news that a college is requiring.
Now a college is not a good target because we don't all shop at a college.
So you can't really influence them too much.
It was Rutgers, was it?
So you need a for-profit entity.
You're probably going to hear of some for-profit entity that wants to go first, somewhat voluntarily.
That's the one you go for.
You want to go for anybody who's dumb enough to stick their head up early.
Because then maybe you can put a chill on the rest of them.
But you've got to take out the first one.
All right.
So tomorrow, Trump is surrendering to Georgia, right?
What are you feeling about Trump's chances of being taken out by lawfare?
Do you think it's gonna happen?
Because I suppose he can still run for president from a jail cell if it came to the worst possible situation.
I'm starting to think it might work.
Starting to think it might work.
Because they are putting on, I mean, the massive amount of pressure on him is just incredible.
Starting to think it might work.
But, would you vote for him if he were in jail?
Or would you be more likely to vote for him if he were in jail?
I would definitely vote if you were in jail.
Or even if it looked like it was imminent.
If it looked like in my mind I thought it was imminent, I would vote.
Yeah, and that's a big statement for me because I usually don't bother.
But yeah, I'd vote.
Even in California it's like a wasted vote, but I'd still vote.
Because you have to vote against tyranny.
You have to vote against tyranny.
There's no way around it.
States will keep him off the ballot?
Maybe.
Maybe.
Only if DeSantis defends his freedom with Florida law.
That would be interesting.
All right, so that's all I got for you today.
I think I'll be telling you more later today if My book gets published and then I'll be making so much noise you'll be sick of me.
