Episode 2212 Scott Adams: Lots Of Fake News Today. Goes Well With 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, New College of Florida, Backwards Causation Science, Luxury Beliefs, Falsely Accused, Mask Mandate, TikTok Mass Brainwashing, Fox News, Reframe Your Brain, Viktor Shokin Firing, Expert Agreement Scam, Multi-Entity Organized Ops, Democrat RICO, McCarthyism Returns, Biden's Tweets, Grand Jury Process, Scott Adams
---
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 there's never been a better time this morning.
If you'd like to take this experience up to Levels that you can only get with a prescription.
All you need is a cupper, mug, or a glass, a tanker, joules, or stein, a canteen 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, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go.
Oh, good.
Lord, that's good.
That's some good, good coffee.
Alright, well you might be aware that Florida, Florida's New College of Florida, I didn't know how to say that without saying Florida twice, but it's Florida's New College of Florida.
Apparently they're floundering and a huge percentage of their professors quit because mean old DeSantis, Governor DeSantis and some Republicans told them that they couldn't teach Some kind of brainwashing bullshit to kids so they don't quit.
I feel like, I just don't feel like the details of this story are necessary.
I mean basically the summary is, the governor said they can't teach destructive bullshit to children and so half of the teachers quit.
Like, we really, really do want to teach them destructive bullshit.
Like, my career was really based on this.
So, that's the whole story.
There's nothing else to say about that.
Correction!
Do you like it when I admit I'm wrong or stupid?
If you live for those moments where I'm wrong or stupid, Well, take a sip and settle back, because you're going to have one of those moments where I was wrong and stupid.
I rather hastily, several days ago, told you that there was a study, and that Dr. Jordan Peterson had tweeted it, that showed remarkable health outcomes from people who ate just meat.
You know, sort of the all-meat diet.
That's a diet that I think is what Dr. Peterson has been on.
Claims great success.
Here's the part where I was stupid and silly.
It wasn't so much a randomized, controlled trial as it was a thing on Facebook.
Sorry!
Now, In my defense, and it's a very weak defense, right, so I'm still all bad, but just to give you some context.
If I see something tweeted by Jordan Peterson and it seems to refer to anything science-y, I just sort of automatically think he's checked it out.
Like, I don't really feel like my checking it out Would add anything to him checking it out, because he would have a better filter on that stuff.
But I think this is a case where the non-scientific study agreed with his own experience.
Let's call it a number of anecdotal reports that seem to line up, which is fair.
I don't mind that he tweeted it.
I should have done a little more digging.
You know, just maybe one click would have been good for me.
So let that be a cautionary tale.
Sometimes that one extra click will save you from some ridiculousness.
All right.
My favorite topic is backwards causation science.
I think this might be like a whole segment that I do on a regular basis.
Backwards causation science.
There's a study that says night people don't earn as much money as morning people.
They're trying to untangle the causation.
I don't know.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that people who tend to be awake during the workday might make more money than people who are asleep during the workday.
Or even people whose best energy is during the workday probably get more done than the people whose best energy is not during the workday.
So I don't know that there's a lot of mystery to this.
I feel like the real thing is some people are night people and some people are morning people.
But do you really need to study why the morning people make more money?
Do we need more information about that?
Or were you sort of on board with that ahead of time?
Now I get that if you're a night person and you're a writer, or you work at home, it might work fine.
But no, there's not much mystery to this one.
Let's do another one.
Apparently a good marriage reduces the rate of psychopathy in the marriage.
Okay, yeah, it's the good marriage thing that makes your mental health better.
What would be another way you could look at this?
Oh, could it be that psychopaths don't have good marriages?
Anybody?
Anybody?
I might be on to something there.
Let's see.
A normal person marries a psychopath.
I think that would all go fine, as long as they start with having a good marriage, it would fix the... No, this is ridiculous.
This is what is passing as science in our world today.
This is not science!
These are ridiculous.
Alright.
There's a study that says young people are far less likely to say they want to grow up and be parents and have babies.
Let's look for all of the many social reasons for this.
All right?
Let's look at all the things that are causing this.
It's just money.
Hello?
It's money.
May I ruin your, let's say, sense of romance about children by pointing out that for most of human history, children were either an accident or an economic investment.
Because back before there was social security and stuff like that, retirement packages, you pretty much had to have kids or you were going to be dead when you were 40.
Or you wouldn't be able to defend yourself, you wouldn't be able to collect enough food, you wouldn't be able to farm.
So basically children have always been to make money.
Now, sure, people love their children too.
And I'm sure people also have feelings about just natural biological urges.
But mostly, have I ever told you that follow the money works even when you're sure it shouldn't?
Perfect example.
Perfect example.
If your romantic mind says, people have children because they're, I don't know, glorifying God or They're bringing more love into the world, or as Elon Musk says, they're extending the light of human consciousness.
Sure.
Sure.
There's that.
There's a little of that.
But why is it that whenever the economics of having children is bad, we just stop it?
We're just like, well, I'm out.
I'm out.
If it's going to make me less likely to retire, I'm out.
I think people are just looking at it that way.
So you could spend all day long looking at all the other reasons, but they would only apply to Elon Musk.
Right?
Elon Musk has lots of kids.
He's not doing it for the money.
Doesn't need the money.
He's actually doing it because, you know, the larger, you know, higher purpose kind of thinking, plus some biological urges, I'm sure.
So he's probably doing it for something that looks like exactly the right reasons plus biology, but the average person doesn't have that option.
So there's no chance this will change while the economics are the way they are.
Do you think there's anything you can tell people or teach them That would make them want to have more babies when economically it's a disaster?
I don't think so.
I don't think there's any way to fix that.
Why is there a higher rate of kids in, let's say, immigrant or recent immigrant populations?
Possibly because they're still in a situation where having children is a better guarantee that their older years will be comfortable and they'll have people around them for support.
There's no mystery to any of it.
It's just economics.
Larry Elder is on this, of course, saying that, you know, whatever happened in, you know, the Johnson administration, the Great Society, you change the economics so you could be a single mother without, you know, dying of starvation, I guess.
So, no mystery there.
Here's one that might be a mystery.
Apparently, wine drinking in Europe is plunging.
So the European Commission looked at the data and said that wine consumption has fallen 7% in Italy, 10% in Spain, 15% in France, and 22% in Germany.
34% in Portugal.
What?
In Portugal, drinking is down 34%.
Wow.
While wine production was going up.
So they were making more wine at the same time demand was plunging.
I wonder if there's some kind of meme That's spreading the world, that's reducing the amount.
Hmm.
Alcohol is poison.
Isn't it a weird coincidence that whenever I tell you I'm going to make something happen, it happens globally?
How is that possible?
Am I just guessing right?
I mean, I'm not taking any, I'm not going to take any credit for You know, wine consumption in Europe obviously had nothing to do with that.
But no, I'm saying I had nothing to do with it.
So before you mock me, wait till the end of the sentence.
There's no way that I'm affecting wine consumption in Europe.
Let's be honest about that.
But how do I keep guessing right?
I mean, I feel like I end up accidentally on the right side of stuff.
I don't know how that happens, really.
I mean, it just feels like a weird coincidence again.
So, who knows?
It could be just, again, follow the money might be the entire explanation.
They might just feel that there's a pinch and they've gotten back.
Might be marijuana.
It might be just greater understanding of health consequences.
Was it 10 years ago that we all believed that drinking every day, as long as it was moderate, was actually good for you?
Do you remember that?
One of the first big things I debunked before I was doing it publicly, as much.
You know, debunking for 20, I don't know, 30 years I've been debunking that alcohol is good for you in small amounts.
But now the science is quite It has quite dramatically turned, right?
So wouldn't you say that the science is saying that it's not good for you?
Maybe that's having an effect.
All right.
Here's an update on a technique I've been using with great success, and I recommend it.
You've heard of luxury beliefs, right?
Luxury beliefs?
It's the idea that, say, bragging that you recycle Is a luxury belief.
Michael Schellenberg says that the worst thing you can do for the planet is recycle your plastic because they don't actually recycle it.
They throw it in the ocean in Thailand or someplace.
And basically, basically it's a whole scam.
The whole plastic recycling thing isn't even real.
It never has been.
It's never been real.
Just one more thing that you thought was real that never was.
But anyway, there are such things as luxury beliefs.
And they're much like, especially for women, let me go full sexist here, I'll make an analogy.
If you're, let's say, a reasonably good looking guy, and you think you've got some value, and you're going to date a woman, and she's maybe about equal to you, And you pull up in a embarrassing automobile.
What does that woman's opinion of you immediately go to, even if otherwise you're just great?
You know, your income is fine, everything's fine, but your car is a little embarrassing.
So that's an accessory.
Long ago I realized that, at least heterosexual women, treat the man's automobile as their accessory.
Very much like their earrings, very much like their purse.
Very much like their clothing, right?
It's something they're associated with in a style sense.
So if, you know, if they don't want to be associated with your automobile, you're going to have some problems.
And by the way, I've had that exact problem.
You know, in my 20s I had a car that It was called the Bondo car.
It's like the paint was all coming off and it used like a quart of oil every time I drove it because it just left a stream of oil on the street.
Yeah, it was just a disaster.
And let's just say I wasn't doing too well in the lady slaying category.
Not with that car.
Anyway, so the general idea that women in particular See the things that are associated with them as accessories.
Men can be a little bit more, let's say, resistant to stuff.
You're resistant to style, especially.
Men can often say, you know, forget your style.
I'm just going to go for function.
And, you know, you can have an opinion about that.
I'm just saying it happens.
And so extend that into beliefs, the luxury beliefs.
People want, the same way that you want an automobile or your jewelry or your purse to be a good representation of who you are or what you want to protect, your beliefs become also an accessory.
So if you've got a good belief like climate change, that would be a A luxury belief, independent of what's true or not.
That's not the argument.
But if you say you're on that side, that would be the good accessory.
That makes you look good.
There are a number of issues like that.
But, I've found that there's a technique I use that will ruin people's accessory And make them stop arguing in any way that bothers you.
They might still keep chattering, but it'll stop bothering you immediately.
And it goes like this.
I'm sorry your news sources have done this to you.
It's total killer.
Because if you take somebody's accessory, their luxury belief, and you reframe it as a victim story, oh, I'm sorry that they did this to you, that's a bad look.
It's a bad look.
I'm sorry they did it to you.
There's nothing wrong with you.
You're good.
I have no complaint with you.
You were a victim of something very powerful, and I wish you the best.
If there's a way that I can help you recover from it, I'd like to do that.
Now, who wants that as their accessory?
Oh, I'm sorry that you believe that.
If I could help you, I would.
You immediately get at a combat level.
So on X, this happens a lot.
I'll tweet something and then some weird luxury belief person, often a woman, will come in and say, blah, blah, blah, everything you say is untrue.
Because they haven't been exposed to anything like actual news.
They've just been victims.
And I actually don't see them anymore as my combatants.
I used to frame internet arguments as combatants.
But sometimes they are.
Like sometimes you actually have a real disagreement and maybe that is a combatant situation somewhat.
But mostly, 98% of the time, The people who come at me are coming at me with wrong information because they've been poisoned by their news sources.
And I'm not saying, you know, I'm the one who has all the answers, but it's really easy to tell when somebody doesn't, right?
It's hard to know who has right answers, but it's really, really easy to know who has one that's completely wrong because you've seen more context than half, right?
If you've seen more context, you're not wondering if they're wrong.
Because you've seen more than they have.
At the very least, they should say they recognize the context and maybe they don't agree with something.
But if they've never seen the context, they're just victims.
So, think of this.
Instead of framing your combatant as somebody who's an enemy you must defeat, treat them immediately as somebody you have sympathy for and you'd be happy to help if there's something that they don't understand.
Watch what happens.
You can actually make them hate their own luxury belief.
Try it.
You'll like it.
All right, here's a clarification, because I believe that we whiteys have insulted our black American citizens, and I would like to clarify.
Now this is not me personally.
I personally have not made this mistake.
But I've seen a number of people do this.
And by the way, I don't think it was exactly a mistake, so much as could have been clearer.
So this is a could have been clearer situation.
Nobody's really the bad guy.
This is just something that could have been clearer.
I saw both Adam Coleman and Jeff Charles make the same comment.
Now both of them are black and they both said that, I'm paraphrasing, but basically they pointed out that it's a little sketchy, these are my words, a little sketchy that conservatives are saying That Trump might get the black vote because he got arrested and might go to jail.
And two voices that I would respect, both Adam Coleman and Jeff Charles, both smart people, said, wait a minute, wait a minute.
Are you saying that black people are going to vote for them because they're all criminals?
Is that what you're suggesting?
That you get the black vote by being a criminal?
Are you really saying that?
And the answer is no.
No, nobody is saying that.
Clarification.
It's not the jail part.
It's the falsely accused part.
It's the falsely accused part.
That's the point people are making.
Nobody's saying that going to jail makes you get the black vote.
Don't hear that.
Nobody's saying that.
Literally nobody is saying that.
They're saying it's the falsely accused part.
That if there's anything that anybody could relate to, it's the falsely accused.
Anyway, so, apology.
For anybody who heard that differently.
Because we could be a little bit more clear about that.
So just a recommendation.
If you're going to press that point, and I think it's actually worth pressing.
Because I do think the falsely accused thing might actually strike a blow, or strike a chord.
But make sure you're talking about the falsely accused part.
Alright.
I remind you that masks are We're threatening to make a comeback.
We're still looking for the first Fortune 500 company to require masks so we can attack them quickly and put them out of business.
Now, the first one has to be hit hard.
The problem will be if there's a whole bunch that go at the same time because the government told them to do it at the same time.
That could be a problem.
But if somebody makes the mistake of being in the news first, you have to hit them as hard as you can with consumer action.
You know, just stop buying for as long as you need to, if you can.
Now we did see like Kaiser Healthcare is masking their employees, but they clarified that did not include customers.
But they're also not exactly a for-profit entity.
It's more like a member-run situation.
So that's not really the great boycott situation.
And then I said Lionsgate had just like one floor of one office because they had an outbreak there.
This is just too trivial.
But if somebody goes big, like an actual Fortune 500, and they say, we've decided that for the good of the nation, we're all going to be masked and all of our customers too.
You got to take them out of business right away.
Like actually just demolish them.
Because otherwise you're going to wear masks for the rest of your freaking life.
So you're going to have to go hard.
All right.
TikTok won.
So I hate to admit defeat, but for several years I've been trying to recommend that TikTok would be banned.
And I got a lot of support, a lot of voices on the same side, saying that TikTok is a mass brainwashing device.
It's so powerful and destructive that the country that makes it, China, won't allow it in their own country because it would be too dangerous for their children.
But they're happy to give it to us.
And of course, TikTok may be the reason that people are Confused about their gender?
Not just one reason, but might be a big part of that.
And probably a lot of other anti-American stuff.
Yesterday I turned on Fox News and apparently they are accepting advertising from TikTok.
And they had this commercial about a veteran who used TikTok to get money so that his life was not sad and pathetic because he was a disabled veteran and elderly.
So Fox News is gone.
I did a Google search, and Fox News has been anti-TikTok really strongly for all of this year, right?
If you look at the stories, it'll be Fox News, TikTok's bad, ban TikTok, ban.
So now watch what happens to the coverage after yesterday.
Do you think Fox News is going to go hard at their advertiser?
Do you know what personality on Fox News was probably, I think, the strongest anti-TikTok person?
Who was the strongest anti-TikTok person?
Tucker Carlson.
Tucker Carlson.
He was the strongest anti-TikTok person.
So...
In my opinion, the only possibility for TikTok to be banned was if Republicans got enough control to do it.
If Fox News is taking advertising from TikTok, you're not going to see, I don't think, I don't think you'll see much in the way of any pushback on TikTok, because it would be bad for business.
At least it's transparent.
I mean, it's not like the commercial is hidden.
It's actually featured.
So you don't have to wonder What that might do to coverage.
Have I ever told you that follow the money works every time?
Now, in my opinion, there are no hosts or opinion people who have been instructed to change the story.
Right?
Can you imagine?
I don't think that there was a meeting.
That would be very unusual.
I don't think that anybody said, all right, TikTok is our new sponsor, so don't say bad things about TikTok anymore.
I don't think that happened.
That doesn't strike me as something that happens in the real world.
But rather, everybody knows that if the money is coming from a spigot, you don't turn it off.
It's just natural.
It's just natural.
All right.
So I lost.
I lost on the TikTok thing.
It's over.
TikTok's staying.
And we are now being essentially managed, at least the youth are being managed by China.
I'm seeing something in the comments that I'm pretty sure is not true.
All right.
All right.
Here's a couple things that I've tried to teach you.
And one of them is actually in my brand new book, bestseller, Best Thing You've Ever Seen, Reframe Your Brain, out now, in softcover audiobook, narrated by somebody else, and Kindle.
So let me give you an example of one of the reframes from the book, and then I'm going to show it to you in action.
All right?
So I don't get to do this too much, but here you get to see one in the wild, the way it was correctly used.
All right, the reframe was this.
The person with the best idea is in charge.
You know how normally you think that your boss is in charge, or your president, or your leaders, right?
You think they're the ones in charge.
But if you had the best idea, it was kind of obvious, your idea would get implemented no matter who was in charge.
So you should stop seeing yourself as not in charge.
You're always in charge.
I've lived my whole life this way.
When I walk into any situation, no matter what my role is, you know, just visiting, customer, you know, just observing, critic, anything.
No matter what my role is, I say I'm in charge.
And what I mean by in charge is, I don't mean I must be the boss and get the credit.
I mean that I can influence the outcome, but Only if I have the best idea.
Would I want to influence the outcome if I didn't?
No.
No.
If I didn't think I had a good idea, or at least the potential for a good idea, I would stay out of it.
So I live my life thinking that every environment I walk into, I'm effectively in charge.
In two different ways.
One, is you make people feel the way they feel because of the way you present yourself.
Right?
If you come into a room all happy with high energy, you can raise people's energy.
If you come in all complaining, you can bring them down.
Right?
You can cause people to be what you want, and you can be in charge by having the best idea.
So those are two reframes that I carry with me all the time.
So when I walk into an environment, I walk in confident, because I can make the people do anything I want.
By extension of my own behavior.
And I can get anything done that I want if it's a good idea.
If it's not a good idea, it doesn't get done.
Now, the opposite would be the TikTok situation.
There's so clearly a good idea, but money has apparently ruined that opportunity.
So here's the real world example of that.
Yesterday, I tweeted or axed in frustration that I've endorsed Vivek Ramaswamy, but every time I tweet about him, the comments are full of people who have a variety of rumors or accusations, which to my ears sound all completely like bullshit.
But I don't know exactly what the backstory is.
I don't know what he said about it.
I don't know the details.
And so I always feel exposed.
Supporting somebody who I couldn't really respond to a number of vague rumors.
And so I somewhat exasperatingly suggested on Twitter, and also I think on livestream, that Vivek, and Trump has the same problem too, Vivek should create a page, just a web page, in which the half dozen rumors are there, and then you've got one link, That every time somebody brings it up, I'll just say, well, why don't you look at his explanation?
See if you still feel the same.
Now, is that a good idea?
You tell me.
Is that a good idea?
That there's just one link in one place, that every criticism about him, the ones that aren't real, they're just in one place.
So, I say that on Twitter, About an hour after I say it, I get contacted by Vivek's campaign team.
And they say, oh, we heard your idea.
We'll have that up on Monday.
See what I mean?
Now, that idea is just unambiguously a good idea.
So am I in charge of the Ramaswami campaign?
No, of course not.
The people who are in charge of it are in charge.
Well, he's in charge.
But did I have the ability to change something with no power?
I have no power, right?
No organizational power.
But the best idea just wins.
And I think you've seen that a number of times.
I mean, it's not the first time you've seen something of this nature.
But keep this in mind.
If you've got a good idea, you are in charge.
You just have to communicate it, make sure that the right people hear it, and make sure that there's not a money interest in the other direction.
That's the other problem.
All right.
I would also like to give you this little reframe tip.
If you're trying to figure out what kind of a product is going to be successful, let's say you're trying to do a startup or maybe even looking to invest, this is one of the most reliable indicators of a product that's going to be big in the future.
If people take the product the way it is, and it's kind of crappy, it's not really good yet, but they like it in its bad form, that's a really good symbol, But that's not the one I'm talking about.
There's a second one.
The second one is people take your product and extend it.
In other words, they start with your product and they add something to it.
And I noticed that there are now four fake books of my book online.
Two of them are from, I think, the old publisher.
So if the thing you think you ordered doesn't look like this, you did not order my book.
But Amazon did take your money.
Right?
They did take your money.
But no book will be coming to you unless it looks like this.
It's the only real one.
So there's a purple one that's not real.
There's one that's just text and no picture.
That's not real.
But a lot of people have bought it.
I don't know where their money went.
They can get it back by cancelling because there's no shipping taking place.
But this is not to my point.
Those two were just bad links.
But within hours of the softcover being published, there are already two rip-off books called workbooks.
So they just take my book, the content from my book, they cut out some of the backstories and stuff which are essential to it being a good book.
And they try to make their own book instantly that they call a workbook, but I already reported them for copyright violation.
But apparently I can't do that unless I find the same text, which of course it has because it's a book of reframes.
I mean, just consider the fact that in the back of my own book, is my own workbook kind of summary.
I mean, I have all the reframes in summary form.
And a reframe by its nature is a summary.
What exactly is the summary of my summary?
Right?
The whole thing that makes this a useful book is that each of the reframes is very tightly explained.
If they summarized it more than that, it's useless, because it is a summary.
And if they didn't summarize it more than that, it's just a copyright violation.
But somebody's tried to turn it into a different form.
Now, if what you think is happening is I'm complaining about it, it's a little bit of complaining.
It's a little bit of complaining.
But there's a larger point here.
When somebody tries to rip you off immediately, That is such a good sign of what's to come.
Because nobody rips off something that nobody wants.
So on day one, somebody said, oh, shoot, this is going to be big.
And they ripped it off as soon as possible.
I don't know how much of my money they're getting.
Some.
Apparently, I have to buy one in order to get them taken off, because I have to get their text and give the exact.
And then how am I going to do that?
Retype it?
I think I'd have to retype a chapter.
Because I can't cut and paste from Kindle, can I?
I don't know.
So I've got this whole problem I have to solve that's none of your concern.
But always look for somebody taking your product and trying to steal it right away.
That's going to be a hit.
It's pretty guaranteed.
All right.
Wall Street Journal is starting to wonder if the If the accident on the Wagner-Pragosians plane, they're starting to think there might be something not quite right about this.
They're suspecting it might be some kind of bad action by Putin or somebody.
I don't know.
What do you think?
Is that possible?
Well, I'm glad they're catching up to the obvious.
We don't care.
Do you care if it was blown up with a bomb?
Or it was shot out of the air?
How in the world does that make a difference?
I mean, really, is that different?
I don't think so.
Fox News had an exclusive with that prosecutor that Joe Biden had fired from Ukraine.
His name is Shokin.
Now, here's my take on that Shokin guy.
So the two versions of reality, on the left and the right, are as follows.
On the right, Joe Biden fired the prosecutor because he was going after Burisma hard, and Hunter was on the board, so Hunter got his father to take the heat off of the company that he was on the board of.
So that's the rights version.
So that would be consistent with what Ashokan says, which is, oh yeah, he was a good guy.
He was totally investigating them.
And then he was removed because he was investigating them, not because he wasn't.
Now on the left, I'll give you the Jessica Tarloff take on it.
Removing him had to be legitimate because there were so many other international organizations who wanted him gone.
There were a number of them internationally.
So that would prove it's not about just Burisma.
It's not about Hunter.
That proves that, you know, other nations and entities, international entities, we're all on the same side.
May I teach you a new way to spot bullshit?
In 2023, When Democrats tell you everybody's on one side, or 97% are on one side, 97% of the experts, or everybody we asked about it in the geopolitical field, that's always a lie.
Do you know why?
They would just tell you the reasons, if they had reasons.
They wouldn't tell you that other people say there's reasons, they'd just tell you the reasons.
It would have nothing to do with other people's opinion if it were real.
Do you need other people's opinion about gravity?
We're trying to convince you that gravity exists, but the reason you should believe it is 97% of experts say gravity is real.
You don't need experts for something that can be demonstrated with argument or data.
Now granted, you might not be able to look at a scientific study and know how true it is, but wouldn't you understand the basic idea?
If the climate change people come to you and say, we measured the temperature of Earth, and you're not a scientist, wouldn't you have a question?
Like just a natural, ordinary person question?
How do you measure the temperature of the Earth?
And they'd say, well, we have these thermometers, you know, in the ocean at various places.
And I would say, you have thermometers?
Like, the same kind of thermometers everywhere?
Like, the whole Earth?
And they'd say, no, no, no, we don't need the whole Earth.
We, you know, we'd put them in places we can get to easily and, you know, we try to cover as much as we can, but not like the whole Earth or anything.
But, you know, a good scientific average.
And I say, so it wouldn't be true that That the heat sometimes moves through different areas of the earth but stays the same.
In other words, you couldn't have extended years where there's a portion of the earth that gets warmer while another portion is getting cooler.
And then if you just wait, you know, it evens out over time.
Is that possible?
Well, so if you were just a person who is not an expert, wouldn't you have a lot of questions about it?
And then you'd say, what about those climate change models?
Are the models science, or are they something adjacent to science?
They're adjacent to science.
They're something scientists do.
They're not science.
And if anybody tells you that they're science, they're lying.
They might be useful, and they're done by scientists.
But what assumptions they put into them, and which ones survive by luck, after they throw the ones that had bad luck and didn't match, you know, today's temperature.
You know, the whole thing looks sketchy as hell.
But, that's not to say there isn't a problem.
That I don't know.
I mean, I'm not smart enough to know.
But I'm pretty sure nobody else knows either.
That's my take.
I don't know.
I don't know how much danger there is, but I'm pretty sure nobody else knows.
That part I'm sure about.
So whenever you see all the experts on one side, that's almost a guarantee of fakeness.
Do you remember I told you about the alcohol being good for you in small amounts?
What percentage of experts do you think agreed with that until they found out it was complete bullshit?
97% probably.
Do you remember the food pyramid that was complete bullshit?
What percentage of dieticians and experts believed for years that that was About 100%.
Not 100%, but maybe 95%.
So, do you see the pattern?
The 97% argument exists when it's bullshit.
Usually.
As soon as somebody says most people agree, your reaction should be, oh shit, what are they hiding?
Because it turns out you can get all the experts to agree easily.
Do you know who the easiest people to fool are?
So I'm speaking here as a hypnotist.
The easiest people to fool are academics and scientists.
Do you know why?
Because they believe data.
So you just tell them there's some data, and they'll be like, oh, all right.
I love my data.
You just tell them that 97% of scientists agree.
You want to get the other one?
There's a new scientist comes on, you go, all right, 97% of scientists agree.
So maybe you should, too, if you want to get some money.
All right.
And the last thing I want to say about Shokin is I guess all of that sort of suggested to you that Shokin was telling the truth.
That was an accident on my part.
What I was trying to do is show both sides.
In my opinion, Shokin looks like the biggest liar I've ever seen in my life.
And has anybody mentioned that he's Ukrainian?
So he might be the biggest liar in the country that's famous for being the biggest lying country and corrupt.
There's nothing he said that sounds credible to me.
He just looks like he's lying.
On the other hand, the opposite argument relies on the everybody said, which I believe is also a signal for lying.
So in my opinion, you've got two sides that are lying.
I think they're both wrong.
I think whatever the truth is, it's probably not either of those things.
I mean, it must be true that he's either corrupt or not, but there's something wrong with both stories.
They both have the lowest level of credibility.
One's a fired Ukrainian guy.
Even if he were American, if you talk to the guy who got fired, and he's talking about his old company, Come on.
Who believes the fired guy?
Nobody should believe the fired guy, even if they're right.
Their credibility is the lowest it could be.
So we have nothing to believe on that story, really.
I have no idea which it is.
I don't have any idea.
But can you give me a fact check?
Wasn't there a Hunter or a Hunter Associates email that suggested that Burisma really did want him gone?
Isn't it in writing?
Give me a fact check on that.
Am I imagining that?
Because I might be imagining it.
Does anybody remember?
I swear to God, I'm seeing some yeses trickling in.
But I was sure there was a story where it's documented that Hunter and Burisma wanted Ashokan gone.
I thought that was documented.
And that would have been the response to Jessica Tarloff, but I didn't see anybody give that response.
It's sort of a Jesse Waters thing.
He needs to get on that.
All right.
Do you know what RICO is?
So RICO is the law that they use to go after the mafia.
And I guess the idea was, if they're organized, and they're organized for a common criminal purpose, That would be something you could use the RICO laws, which give you, I guess, a little more of a hammer to go after people.
So the general situation for saying something's a RICO situation is if it's organized and criminal.
So I sent this tweet yesterday.
Let's see what you say.
I said, I'm no lawyer, but the entire Democratic leadership looks like a criminal conspiracy to me.
From the Russia collusion hoax, to the laptop hoax, to the January 6th insurrection hoax, to the fine folks hoax, to the Ukraine and Hunter, to the Department of Justice and their four bullshit indictments, to the media puppets.
Now, Isn't the only thing that would make that not RICO is if they hadn't coordinated, right?
If none of them had coordinated, and they just sort of independently decided what they're doing, well, that's not RICO.
That's just people who see something to be in their interest and acted in a coordinated way.
I would say Republicans are like that.
Republicans act similarly.
You know, after a new issue comes up, they end up acting similarly.
But I never see coordination.
Have you?
I mean, it seems like Republicans read the news, and they're influenced by the news like everybody is, and then they make their opinions.
But it seems like it's just that.
It's just, I watched the news, I formed an opinion.
If I didn't watch enough news, maybe my opinion's not good.
But that's the whole story.
There's news, and then people, and social media, and then people make opinions.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Russia collusion hoax was a multi-entity coordinated op.
The laptop hoax was a multi-entity coordinated op.
The J6 insurrection bullshit was a multi-entity coordinated op.
You had the politicians, you had the media that I'm sure they talked to.
Do you think that nobody talked to the media and said, here's the message we're going to be putting out?
Maybe they didn't need to, because it was so obvious what the right message was.
But what about, here's the thing that finally tripped me.
There are four prosecutors and four indictments against Trump.
Can you confirm, because I saw some disagreement on that, are all four Democrats the prosecutors?
Or is there some question about that?
I need a fact check on that.
I'm saying seem yeses, but that's my operating assumption right now.
Here's the big question.
We did hear that at least one of the indictments was a result of somebody in the Democratic Party Possibly rumored to have contacted the prosecutor to say this is the timing to do it.
If you do it now, it's the best timing for our cause.
Now, what about the other three?
Here's what it would take to prove Rico in my opinion.
If you could find that anybody in the Democrat Party had contacted any of these prosecutors, any of them, that would be a coordinated Criminal activity.
It was criminal because the charges are obviously bullshit.
The reason anybody thinks the charges are true is because the media is part of the coordinated op.
The media told people that he said, find some votes in his best gangster way.
The truth, of course, is that if you saw the whole context, he's saying he thinks the election was not legitimate and a closer look would prove him to be right.
That's all that happened.
January 6th?
Why does anybody think that was an insurrection?
Because the media told them.
Do you think the media operated independently to call it an insurrection?
Or do you think that they talked to anybody in the Democrat Party who said, you know, we're going to go with this being an insurrection.
This will be good for us.
Of course they talked about it.
So what standard do you need to meet?
Is it because there's no money being made?
Well, it's all money.
It's all money.
The Democrats may be supported by the military-industrial complex.
That's all money.
There might be people who think that they will lose their jobs if they don't make sure there's a Democrat leadership.
That's money.
That's jobs.
Hunter and his dad and his partners, they were making money from Ukraine.
There are rumors that other major politicians who shall not be named may be involved in exactly the same kind of dirty business, which might be illegal.
I don't know if it's legal or illegal, but they might be involved in similar sketchy things that the public wouldn't like if they heard about it.
What part of this is not a criminal enterprise that's coordinated?
To me it looks like a coordinated criminal enterprise trying to jail the opposition, Trump, so that they can have better jobs and careers and continue making money, you know, in their fair or violating ways.
So you got your money, you got your massive coordination, which I think could be demonstrated pretty easily.
I mean if you check, if there was, if you had a, let's say, legal authority To check all the phone records of the prosecutors?
You don't think you'd find that they were talking to Democrat leaderships?
Do you think that any of these prosecutors are lined up for a promotion when they're done?
Do you think any of them already have promises of a better job?
Or already have promises of funding for anything they run for?
Do you think there was any quid pro quo at all?
It's just a coincidence that four prosecutors who might be looking to improve their situation all have these bullshit charges at the same time.
Now, you might say to yourself, oh, Scott, it's just politics.
It's just politics.
The Republicans, they're no different.
Really?
What was the last full multi-department op, brainwashing op, that the Republicans did?
I don't think they do.
I mean, I would have noticed, wouldn't I?
I mean, I'm pretty deeply embedded.
I think I would have noticed.
And certainly if I saw it happening, I wouldn't be happy about it.
Like, if you think I would, if you think I'd be in favor of brainwashing op because it came from one side versus the other, you'd be very, very wrong.
Brainwashing op?
No bueno.
Wouldn't support it coming from anybody for anything.
Well, school is a brainwashing op if you do it right.
That would be different.
Yeah, you'd have to go back to the Iraq War to find Republicans.
But I think the Republicans actually were somewhat fooled as well by the bad intel.
Yeah, I'll give you the Iraq War.
I'll give you that.
But that was a long time ago.
That was a long time ago.
So I think there is a RICO case to be made for at least the leadership of the Democrat Party and the media and the prosecutors and George Soros and the Soros money.
You don't think that's all connected?
If you see like Soros Jr.
meeting with the very Democrats who benefit from all this, and he's funding the prosecutors in some cases, I suppose.
So he's supporting the prosecutors and having meetings with them that we can see because they're public.
What would it take to make that Rico?
Can I hear from the lawyers?
I know there are always some lawyers here.
Now, I don't think there's any realistic chance that something will happen, but isn't this meeting all of the requirements of a RICO prosecution?
Anybody who is an actual lawyer, if you'd like to identify yourself?
I saw only one or two people who were lawyers agreeing with me earlier.
Come on, you can give me an opinion.
Yeah, it is true the first Iraq war was nearly unanimous.
Not unanimous, no, I guess, but I think even Al Gore voted in favor of the first Iraq war.
All right, well, you're kind of quiet on this.
So I guess I would be two pie in the sky hoping for it.
All right, in other news, OnlyFans reportedly has 238 million paying users.
So follow the money.
Will the reproduction rate go up or down?
OnlyFans, I hate to say it, but OnlyFans is what men are using as a substitute For human women.
Or, you know, women in person.
238 million users and they've made $1 billion in revenue.
Follow the money.
There's no way that reproduction is going to be the winning economic model.
This is the winning economic model.
Every one of those women who made, like, a good living just said to them, I don't need a husband.
Why do I need a husband?
If he doesn't make as much money as I do, I'm just basically paying a guy.
I can get a guy anytime I want.
Why would I pay one?
So, I bet a lot of them are single.
Obviously.
Alright, CNN is setting us up for the next wave of major fuckery, or at least it looks that way.
Here's what they say.
U.S.
intelligence agencies, the people they collude with, in a Rico sense, allegedly, The US intelligence agencies believe, do they really?
That the Russian Federation of Security Services is attempting to influence public policy and public opinion in the West by directing Russian civilians to build relationships with influential US and Western individuals.
And then disseminate the narratives.
So they're sending out Russians To befriend influential people.
Influential people.
Influential.
Well, it would be like an influential person.
So it doesn't sound like they're talking about politicians.
It sounds like they're talking about me.
Doesn't it?
Doesn't that sound like me?
Now let me ask you this.
Have I ever had a conversation, a friendly conversation with a Russian?
I don't know.
Maybe.
Maybe.
Is anybody that I regularly talk to about politics privately?
Are any of them Russian and I don't know it?
Maybe.
Maybe.
Possibly.
Do you see the danger here?
Do you see the foreshadowing?
I think Mike Cernovich pointed it out.
They're creating a way, if you buy into the narrative, They're creating a McCarthy situation where people like me can be removed from the public conversation if I ever talk to a Russian citizen.
They're gonna say, oh, you talked to a Russian citizen, so now we can check all of your communications.
Right?
If I ever had that conversation with a Russian citizen, even if I didn't know it, maybe I just DM'd him or something.
Do you think that they could then say, well, this person is talking to a Russian agent, maybe.
We don't know, but you know, Russian citizen, Russian agent, maybe same thing.
So now I've got a suspicion about this person that's being influenced.
Well, we better find out if they're like a totally owned Russian puppet or not, huh?
We better check all their communications.
Whoops, we didn't find any Russian spy stuff, but my God, look at this other shit.
We better put him in jail right away.
You see what's happening, right?
I don't think this could be more obvious.
It's a setup to take people off the board.
Wait for the first one.
How long will it take before somebody you know is accused of talking to a Russian, and then all of their communication was up for exposure?
And then they got him for something else.
It's like, oh, nothing about the Russian thing, but look at all this bad stuff here.
Yeah.
This is the scariest thing you'll ever see.
Now, is it possible that it's just a story and they're just telling us?
Yeah, it's possible.
But it's kind of convenient, isn't it?
That it looks like exactly right on the nose for what you would do if you were trying to set up a situation for fuckery.
To me, this looks like fuckery glaring.
I mean, it couldn't be glaring any harder.
All right.
Or as Surno calls it, the new J6 trap, right?
So watch out for, you know, not just this, but watch out for new traps.
So the idea would be if you can get a bunch of Republicans to even support verbally any conservatives who do bad things because they get all worked up because of the news and because of Trump being jailed perhaps, that it's just gonna be another January 6th thing where they can prove that all Republicans are white supremacists because they're trying to get this white supremacist out of jail if that's what happens.
And they will just turn it into a thing.
They can jail anybody who's on the other side.
Is Russia selling uranium to the USA?
I don't know.
I haven't heard anybody complain about a shortage for uranium.
The dumbest story, let me say this again.
You remember the story about there was a Canadian uranium company in the US, I think, they sold their company to a Russian entity.
And then everybody said, no, if we need this valuable resource, we can't have the Russians own it.
And then I laughed at them and said, it's in the United States.
The mine is in the United States.
If we need it, we just take it.
Who's not understanding how anything works?
What's the difference what the corporate entity says on the piece of paper?
If it's a national emergency and we need the uranium, because let's say Americans are dying because they don't have enough for medical use, we just say, all right, well, we're going to take all your uranium.
What do you think?
We're just going to let them ship it up and ship it off to other countries while we have a national emergency?
That's not going to happen.
Not in any world could that happen.
Yeah, we would just take it.
That's another one of those situations where you don't know who has the power.
Russia has no power over the uranium that they own in the United States.
You do.
You own that uranium, and if you want to take it from the Russians, tell your Congress people, and if enough people do, we just take it.
All right.
Here's the scariest thing you'll hear in the news.
Biden, when he was asked about the Trump mugshot, he gave this smile that is chilling and said, hey, he's a handsome guy.
Kind of laughed about it.
He's the President of the United States, and he literally laughed that his people are jailing the opposition.
Right in front of you.
He just laughed at it.
At the same time, now I'm not going to blame Biden specifically for this because we know he doesn't run his social media, right?
Nobody thinks that Biden is tweeting.
We know that other people do it.
But this is proof that Biden doesn't have command of his faculties.
Tell me you don't think that Biden would have fired his social media person.
If he had his faculties, right?
So here's what his social media person sent at the same time as the mugshot.
So it's the timing that's the important part.
Apropos of nothing, meaning the mugshot, but they're cleverly referring to it.
Apropos of nothing, I think today is a great day to give to my campaign.
So it's a Joe Biden alleged tweet.
And a big part of the graphic on there is the handwritten, let's finish the job.
So making a direct reference to Trump being arrested, in their own handwriting, one of their handwriting, it says, let's finish the job.
And they make sure that you know that it's associated with the arresting of Trump, because they say apropos of nothing.
That's your signal that they're really talking about it.
Just imagine those two things on a tweet.
That apropos of nothing, A great day to give to my campaign.
In other words, he's fundraising over jailing his opposition.
He's fundraising over jailing his opposition.
And he says, let's finish the job, which, in my opinion, is a call to violence.
To me, it's a call to violence.
Both sides.
Let's finish the job, says we're going to rub you out.
And with basically everything we have.
And anybody who hears it is going to say, you're going to rub me out.
I'm going to rub you out.
So to me, it looks like a call to violence, a dropping of norms of American presidential treatment.
And in my opinion, a younger Joe Biden would have immediately fired the person who sent the tweet and apologized to the country.
Because without the tweet, he still gets Trump where he wants him, right?
So he could still be privately happy that things are going the way they're going.
But I don't think a Joe Biden with his faculties would have allowed this tweet to go out as a fundraiser with such provocative language.
Does anybody think that a younger Joe Biden in control of his faculties would have allowed this tweet or not fired the person who sent it?
What do you think?
Because I don't think he was always dumb.
But at the moment, he's just dysfunctional, it appears.
I think what we're seeing is a complete lack of Biden leadership.
This is just such a clear example.
In my opinion, this is crystal clear.
All right, well, maybe it's just that the days are different and something this provocative is no longer totally ruled out.
If you're joining late, I don't know if you know that the best book in the world that's already changing lives everywhere is out.
So I've got a bunch of podcasts lined up.
I'll tell you more about those when they're out.
And some of them are going to be real fun and real good.
So wait for that.
All right.
It's not, well, it's number one in this category.
Yeah.
Number one in this category.
You're taking the high road, Scott.
He's always been a bum.
No, he's always been a bum, but he's never been stupid.
Not stupid at that level.
I mean, maybe he wasn't a top of his class, but he was a capable, capable politician.
He knew what was a bad move and what was a good move.
I mean, he knew that, but he apparently has lost that ability.
All right.
All right.
We have agreement.
Yeah, Fukushima is releasing radioactive stuff.
I don't know what to think about that because I'm not a scientist.
Rico prosecution?
Well, you know, I think that maybe there needs to be some kind of mutually assured destruction.
You know, under normal circumstances, I would never ever suggest a RICO prosecution about a political party.
Right?
I would never, because I would be so disruptive.
Even if I thought maybe there was something there, I think I wouldn't recommend it.
But in the situation where a political person is being potentially jailed, I say under those conditions the person being jailed can say, it looks like a RICO situation to me.
You better hope I'm not president, because that's what it's going to be.
And you're all going to jail.
I do think that most of the Democrat leadership should be in jail.
I mean that not as provocation, not as hyperbole, but it's my observation that it appears to be a criminal enterprise at this point.
I think it's just sort of drifted into a criminal enterprise.
Are Republicans any better?
I don't know.
I don't know.
They just don't seem organized in a Rico sense.
I think they may have their own bad apples, of course.
If tomorrow there's some Republican who gets accused of something terrible, don't say I didn't tell you.
Don't say I said all the Republicans are good people.
That's not a thing.
All right.
Right.
Yeah.
The worst argument I hear from the Democrats about Trump's indictments, this is a Jessica Tarloff point, she says that Trump was not indicted by his political opponents, he was indicted by ordinary Americans who were in he was indicted by ordinary Americans who were in a grand jury.
Do you know what's wrong with that?
Can somebody give me a fact check?
Is it true or false?
I believe it's true.
That the defense is not offered, is that true?
A grand jury has no defense, right?
Right.
Now, it's 2023, and you've seen my hoax list.
The reason that there are so many hoaxes, you know, from the fine people hoax, to the drinking bleach hoax, to the J6 insurrection hoax, to the laptop hoax, the reason that so many hoaxes can exist is because half of the country Only hears the accusations.
They never hear the context.
They believe that Trump mocked a guy with a disability.
They actually believe that's true.
Now he made that motion, but he's been using that same motion for other people for years.
There's a compilation clip of him doing the same thing for Ted Cruz.
Now if you didn't know that, So suppose all the things that Democrats think are true have been presented to you without any counterpoint.
If you never saw the other side, and somebody just described Trump from a Democrat perspective, how many of you would say, oh my god, he's terrible, all these must be true?
Of course you would, if you only hear one side.
So again, What would be another way to describe a grand jury that had decided to indict somebody?
It's very much like, oh, 97% of experts agree.
Yeah, it's just like that.
Every time you hear all the people agreed that were supposed to agree, that is fuckery.
That is fuckery.
If Jessica Tarloff had said, this would be an honest presentation.
Well, ordinary citizens are the ones who decided, but to be fair, they only heard one side of the argument, and what we've seen so far suggests that the argument's pretty sketchy.
That would be fair.
I would say that, oh yeah, okay, that's both sides.
But what does the public hear?
The public hears every single person who heard the evidence thinks he's guilty, so of course you have to have a trial.
That's what they hear.
If you did a poll of the general public, what percentage of the general public know that a grand jury doesn't hear both sides?
They only hear the prosecution.
How many know that? 2%?
Tops.
Oh well, maybe everybody who's been in legal trouble knows it.
So it's probably higher than that.
Yeah, anybody who's ever been indicted knows it.
But the rest of us don't.
I mean, I think I found that out, you know, well into adulthood.
You know, it's not something I knew when I was 25.
But I know it now.
Yeah.
Yeah, and again, the RICO charges against Trump are, in my opinion, strong evidence that the Democrats are a RICO-organized situation.
That pretty much is the last nail in the coffin there.
I would say that's confirmation.
I don't have any doubts that the Democrats are organized in a RICO criminal fashion.
I think that's a given.
It's just so obvious.
But whether that's anything that anybody would act upon, I think it's unlikely.
I think they'll just keep consolidating power.
All right.
Hardcover should be pretty soon, yes.
I've just got to do one more quality check on that and then we can push the trigger on it.
I should get a hard copy myself today.
I think.
And if I like it, you know, I want to make sure everything, the production quality is good.
And then I'll just, we'll just give it a thumbs up.
All right.
Why do people wait for the hardcover?
Do people wait for the hardcover because you think some books are more keep-on-the-shelf collectibles?
Or is it better, it was a better gift?
For travel.
You like a hard copy for travel.
Put it on the coffee table so I can sign it.
Feels more valuable.
All right.
You know, I just, you know, the normal way that publishers work is they do the hard copy first, and then maybe a year later or longer, they'll do the soft cover.
I always thought I hated that.
Like, as a producer of books, I felt that was manipulative.
Because it seemed better to either make them all available at the same time, But not to take advantage of somebody's interest in a book to upcharge them because it has a better cover.
That just felt manipulative to me.
I'd never liked that.
So as soon as there was an option that we didn't have to do that, we just sort of did things in the order they were ready and the soft cover was ready first.
That just made more sense to me.
That feels better to the customer.
But ideally, they would all be available at the same time.
All right, well, it could be that the book will take off when the hardcover... How many were waiting for the hardcover?
Tell me if you were waiting for the hardcover.
Some, maybe 25%.
All right.
Good to know.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I got some more work today.
