Episode 2227 Scott Adams: News, Coffee And Persuasion
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Berkley DEI, Vivek Ramaswamy, Heat Deaths, CNN Daniel Dale, The View, NYC Migrants, Joy Behar, NM Governor Grisham, Second Amendment, Gavin Newsom, VP Harris, Bidenomics, DNC Paid Influencers, Dash Dobrofsky, Rob Reiner Advisors, Mike Benz, Atlantic Council, Influence Choke Points, Stephen King, ADL Media Control, Elon Musk, Viktor Shokin, Andreas Backhaus, 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.
If you'd like to take this experience up a few notches, well, this is the place to do it.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a 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 hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
go.
Ah.
If you are on YouTube right now and you're saying to yourself, hey, why can't I comment?
It's because it occurred to me that the commenters were not organic.
It didn't look like organic people.
It looked like a bunch of people coming over to say anti-semitic things, which probably had something to do with depressing my channel.
So, on YouTube, you can't make a comment, but it's streaming simultaneously on the Locals platform.
I'll make it private after we're done, because I talked to the subscribers privately.
But you can also watch it on Twitter right now.
It's live streaming at the same time.
So if you go to my Scott Adams Says profile, you should see it right up there at the top.
Streaming live.
So YouTube, you're bad.
Too many bad people were commenting.
So you don't have an option there.
All right.
Speaking of bad people, Amazon shows my hardcover book being out of stock.
That is probably not the case.
Now, why I'm having so much trouble doing the simplest thing in the world, which is listing a book on Amazon.com and selling it?
Well, I will leave that to your speculation.
It has nothing to do with the fact that I have a political presence, I'm sure.
No, actually, in 2023, you have to assume that anything that you suspect is true.
So it doesn't mean it is true.
But whenever there's anything that looks sketchy and it's not transparent, you can't really tell what's going on and what isn't, assume it's just as bad as you think.
And you'll be right about 75% of the time.
All right.
Let's talk about the news.
There's a gigantic lithium discovery in the Nevada-Oregon border.
And apparently it would be the biggest one in the world.
So you remember you were all worried about running out of lithium?
And do you remember that Elon Musk once casually said, there's plenty of lithium.
You're not going to run out.
Do you remember that?
And we all thought, no, no, all the news is telling me we're running out.
How could this one person, this Elon Musk guy we've never heard of, why does he think we might have plenty of it?
Well, it turns out the world is just full of it.
It's more of a mining problem.
But we'll see if we can make a difference there with this new finding.
If it's real.
It's a preliminary report, so it may not be as big as they hope.
But it looks like it's promising.
Speaking of Elon, a lot of the news is about Elon Musk today.
I saw him talking about his robot business.
You know, the Tesla robots.
Which he sure will work.
Like he doesn't have any doubt that they can build a proper robot that's got, I guess, AI and some lithium batteries, probably, that last a long time.
So, but here's what Elon said that, I think I said the same thing earlier, not that I beat him to it, it was just sort of an obvious thing, that if his robots work, and he believes they will, and so do I, It will be his biggest business.
That the robots are the big business.
All the other things are like, they're like a warm-up to the real business.
He thinks he might be able to sell 10 billion robots.
10 billion robots.
I don't know how many Teslas are sold every year.
How many Teslas are sold per year?
A million or something?
I have no idea what the number is.
But it's nowhere near 10 billion, that's for sure.
Somebody says, but less than half a million?
Yeah.
So there will be way more robots than there will be cars, which makes sense, because there'll be robots working and robots doing security and robots doing all kinds of stuff.
So yes, that's why, if you look at Tesla as a car company, you would be missing a lot.
Because it's sort of an energy company, as well as a robot company.
And if you had to bet on cars, robots, or energy, cars would be the third one on that list for me.
All right, so we'll see.
So the New York Times is reporting that universities are publicly posting their There are criteria for assessing DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and apparently Berkeley will give you a lower score if you are applying, if you say you prefer to, quote, treat everyone the same.
If you say you'll treat everyone the same, you get a low score on DEI.
Is that mind-boggling?
So I'm publicly announcing right now that I'm renouncing my Berkeley degree.
I don't want to be associated with that college whatsoever.
Is that a thing?
Can you disavow your degree?
I don't want them to mention me as an alum in any way.
Not that they would at the moment, since I'm disgraced.
But they used to feature me as one of their famous alums.
I don't want anything to do with the name of that college or anything else.
I disavow Berkeley as a legitimate institution.
It's just a racist entity now.
I don't want to have anything to do with racist entities like Berkeley.
All right.
I have a persuasion suggestion for Vivek Ramaswamy.
Now he's really, really good at persuasion.
And he's really, really good at communicating.
But there's one little, just a little tweak I keep hoping to see him make.
It's just the smallest tweak.
When he talks about climate change, he has a killer approach, best I've seen, in which he says over and over again that more people are dying from cold weather than warm, and if you don't net that out, you don't really know what you're even talking about.
It's crazy to say that more people died of heat, which is also true, unless you say fewer people died of cold, which we don't know is true or not, in any given year.
But generally speaking, cold is the bigger problem than heat.
Now, Vivek pointed this out in a tweet in which there was some news about people in Europe dying from the heat.
At the same time, people in Europe are being discouraged from using air conditioning.
So part of the problem is that not everybody has air conditioning when the heat is going through the roof.
So Vivek says, quite reasonably, if you want fewer people to die, maybe a little more air conditioning.
Because the air conditioning is not contributing to the problem as much as the direct deaths of the people are important.
Now here's what I would do.
When I made that claim.
So I've seen him make it live in front of a number of people.
If he's talking to a news person, I would make the claim, as he does, that more people are dying from cold than warmth.
And it's not even close.
It's, I don't know, ten to one or something.
But once you've made the claim, here's the persuasive part.
Usually, do you know what happens usually when he's talking to a host who believes that climate change is an emergency and he makes the claim that more people die from cold than warm?
Do you know what the host always does?
What does the host always do?
Every time.
Next question.
They won't engage it.
They never engage his point.
Have you seen it?
Watch it.
Look for any clip.
He'll say, more people die from cold than warm.
And the host will get you the big doe eyes.
Next question.
Right?
You watch for that.
Here's what I would suggest he do instead.
Make your point.
And say, you know, ten times more people dying from the cold, or whatever the statistic is.
And say, by the way, I would encourage you to do a fact check on that.
Because I know a lot of people watching are wondering if that's even true.
So you would be doing your viewers a service if you could do a fact check on that.
Just check me, it's my primary claim.
It's my main claim.
You know, I have other things to say about climate change, but it's the primary point.
So it would be great if you could fact-check it for your audience.
Imagine saying that.
What does your host do?
Well, next question.
That's what's going to happen.
You're going to get next question.
Don't know what to do.
So that's my suggestion.
I mentioned this before, but because it keeps working, it's worth mentioning again.
Trump said in his speech that his black support quadrupled or quintupled after his mugshot came out.
Now, I don't think anybody thinks that's true, or even close to true.
But because he said it, CNN has to fact-check it.
So they have Daniel Dale come on, and he's like, no, no, no way.
There's no way that black support quadrupled or quintupled.
Do you love the fact that he said quadrupled or quintupled?
That's technique.
He's trying to make you think, well, was it quadrupled, or was it really close to five times?
The answer is, of course, it was nowhere near any of those.
But in the process of debunking him, Daniel Dale, the CNN debunker guy, the fact checker, he says, oh no, the facts do not support that.
We checked five polls that came out after the mugshot, and only four of the five were up.
Only four of the five were up.
Now, he's careful to point out, accurately, that the amount that four out of five are up Is within the margin of error.
What does the public hear?
Do you think that the average CNN viewer hears, oh, it's within the margin of error.
Okay.
Okay.
So now that I know it's within the margin of error, it's like the same as saying there were no polls at all.
Do you think the average CNN viewer says that?
Or do they say, Four out of five polls say he's up with blacks.
It's very much like their trick of doing a correction long after the lie, because nobody reads the correction.
So Trump could just put this out there and make them talk about four out of five polls say he's up, and the public's gonna just hear four out of five polls.
Now, Why does Trump make this claim?
Let's test you.
Why does Trump make the claim that he's way up, way up with black voters?
Is it because he wants to be fact-checked?
Well, here's the answer I'm looking for.
He's trying to make it true.
He's not talking about it as if it's true, although he is, right?
Talking about it as if it's true is how you make it true.
Suppose you're a, it could be any kind of person, let's say you're an Elbonian voter, and you're a low-information Elbonian voter.
You're not really paying attention to politics, it's not your thing, you're just getting on with your life.
But you catch a news report that says that Trump is way up with Elbonians, but there's some controversy about whether it's four or five times, or just four out of five polls.
And you're barely paying attention, you're like, Whoa, I guess a lot of people like me must be liking this Trump guy.
I better take a second look.
And then you get into the voting booth and you really don't know anything and you haven't paid attention.
You're like, well, I hear a lot of people are liking Trump.
A lot of Elbonians apparently changing their mind on him.
So I haven't looked into why, but I like to be on the team with my other Elbonians.
So whatever the Elbonians are doing, I think I'd like to do that.
So, because politics is team sport, Trump is basically saying that, hey, people that you would identify are flocking to me.
That's what makes people flock to him, if they imagine other people are doing it.
Because, yeah, it's just a bandwagon herding the cattle kind of thing.
And it would work with any group, it has nothing to do with being black.
Any group, if you say they're flocking to you, it's more likely to happen.
So Trump is right on point with his persuasion, but not his fact-checking, per usual.
Here's a little bit of a trend we're seeing.
So on The View, as Colin Rugg points out in a tweet, talking about migrants, the ladies of The View, And here are a couple of quotes, just so you can see how silly they are.
Quote number one, talking about all the migrants in New York City.
They need to be resettled elsewhere.
This is the ladies in the view.
Migrants need to be resettled elsewhere.
They need to spread out.
They need to be spread out where this is a massive country.
That's right.
So, everybody was fine when it was just the southern states being destroyed by it.
But as soon as some of that pain went north, oh!
Oh, it turns out that the people who were all into their sanctuariness, there was a limit to that, wasn't it?
And the limit was, the moment it bothered them, the moment it bothered the ladies on The View, personally, because they have to walk down the streets, now it's not acceptable anymore.
But they also have this, Joy Behar wanted to get in on this conversation, and so she said, it's only going to get worse with global warming and climate change, because people can't live in certain parts of this world.
Yeah.
It's a level of stupidity that is beyond comment.
Like, what do I even say about that?
I could say all the obvious things about it, but you're already thinking them, so what's the point of saying them?
These are the dumbest people who have the biggest platform.
Why do the dumbest people have the biggest platform?
But the theme I'm going for is the following.
Maybe those Republicans were right about a few things after all.
So you see the ladies of The View now realize that Democrat immigration policy is obviously a disaster.
Obviously.
Here's another one.
You know about the New Mexico Democrat governor who wants to suspend the Second Amendment?
And at least for 30 days you wouldn't be able to have, what is it, concealed or open carry or something?
And they couldn't even get these two people to agree.
So here's two people who tweeted their opposition to the New Mexico governor.
Essentially suspending the Second Amendment on her own.
One of them is David Hogg.
David Hogg.
One of the most famous anti-gun survivors of the mass shooting.
And one of the most notable voices for gun control.
And he says directly, you know, no bueno.
We're not overturning the Second Amendment.
Even Hogg.
Even Hogg says that.
Ted Lieu, famous critic of all things Republican, gets on Twitter, same thing.
I like gun control, but no, we're not overthrowing the Second Amendment.
Too far.
So even your vocal, but not crazy people.
Do you remember, it wasn't long ago, that you all gave me a hard time when I said Ted Lieu's not crazy?
Do you remember that?
It was only like within the last month, wasn't it?
Where I was telling you that you can't judge Ted Lieu like, you know, Adam Schiff or Swalwell or something.
He's in his own little category.
He's partisan.
He's very partisan.
But he's not fucking crazy.
As this tweet proves.
So he's showing you that he has an independent mind and there is such a thing as too far.
And I appreciate that.
So give a shout out to Ted Lieu and also to David Hogg.
While I would largely disagree with their other views on stuff.
Good citizens right now.
On this item, just good citizens.
All right.
And even Cenk Uyghur from the Young Turks.
He's saying over and over again on Twitter, and I think he's just doing a good service for the country doing this, that Biden's too old and the Democrats need to figure this out really quickly.
Because Cenk doesn't think that Biden can win.
I don't know about that.
Maybe he can win.
You're seeing a lot of Democrats coming out against Democrats, and a lot of whispers about they're not happy about Biden, more whispers about they're not happy with Harris being the backup.
So are we seeing any kind of a trend?
Or are these little anecdotes just kind of a coincidence?
Because it feels like The utter insanity of the farthest left opinions are now being a little bit obvious even to Democrats.
And their sense of team play is being challenged.
Why would you want to be on this team?
Some might be asking themselves.
Well, Gavin Newsom says, oh, he's not running.
He's not running.
Let me give you his actual tweet.
And I want you to look for, read between the lines, and then I'll tell you what I think has happened and will happen.
All right?
Because we're all just a match.
We're going to speculate.
So I'll read you his actual quote.
So Newsom said, in answer to the question, well, I think the vice president is naturally the one lined up.
The vice president, Harris, is naturally the one lined up.
Now, is that what you say when you're giving a full-throated endorsement to somebody on your team?
Well, I think the vice president is naturally the one lined up.
So, naturally lined up.
Because, you know, if you're picking the next president, the one thing that you're really concerned about is who's naturally lined up?
That's your big tell, isn't it?
Alright, so he goes on.
And the filing deadlines are quickly coming to pass.
Huh.
And I think we need to move past this notion that he's not going to run.
Let me read that again and you tell me what attitude you're picking up from it.
And the filing deadlines are quickly coming to pass.
And I think we need to move past this notion that he's not going to run.
Why did he need to mention the filing deadlines are quickly going to pass?
That feels like it didn't belong there, right?
It feels like a little sour grapes.
A little sour grapes?
Are you picking up a little bit of dissatisfaction?
I am.
It's an interesting way he's wording it, isn't it?
Yeah.
It's, you better call me in the next ten minutes or you're really fucked.
Right?
That's what I hear.
You've got ten minutes to call me, I don't think you're going to do it, and good luck.
Because I'm your only hope, basically.
I can't read his mind.
But when I read his words, that's what I'm hearing, right?
So I can only be responsible for what I'm receiving.
I'm not responsible for what he is thinking or saying.
And then he says, President Biden is going to run, and we're looking forward to getting him reelected.
Is that what you say about a really strong candidate?
He's going to run.
Okay, that's a ringing endorsement.
He's going to run.
And we're looking forward to getting him elected.
That's a lot about not Biden, isn't it?
He talked about process.
So instead of saying we have the greatest candidate, of course he's going to run.
He talks about the process.
Read between the lines.
He obviously doesn't think Biden is qualified.
Obviously.
Nobody does.
And he says, I think there's been so much wallowing in the last few months and hammering in this respect, but we are gearing up for the campaign.
We are looking forward to it.
We're looking forward to it.
We're not, we're not looking forward to Joe Biden being president.
We don't think he has the qualifications because maybe that would be the time to mention it.
If somebody's going to be your candidate and you're going to support them, you don't have any good words to say?
How about this would be the way to say it if you were not planning to run and you were happy with the current situation?
Here's how you'd answer that.
Well, I don't know why anybody would be looking to run.
We've got the strongest team we've ever had.
We've got Joe Biden, who's done 10 great things.
He'll probably do 10 more great things.
I just talked to him yesterday.
And if you think he's got any cognitive disabilities, I mean, I talked to him personally.
I can tell you he doesn't.
He's looking strong.
And Kamala Harris, she doesn't get enough credit for all the things she's done.
But she's in every meeting, she's part of the process, and she is ready to take over any time, but you don't have to worry about it.
Because Joe Biden is so healthy, I can assure you, I talked to him personally, he's fine.
He's raring to go.
He wants to get out there.
His staff is holding him back a little bit, but they can barely keep up with him.
Right?
That's what you say when you think you have a coherent president with a capable vice president candidate, and you're backing him.
Here's what you don't say.
Looking forward to getting him re-elected.
Gearing up for the campaign.
We're looking forward to it.
He's not a happy guy.
Do you hear it too or is it just me?
To me he sounds like he tried and failed.
Here's my further interpretation.
This is purely speculative, not reading any minds, and I don't have any inside information.
What it feels like to me is that Gavin has been maneuvering to be the substitute, and it didn't work.
And I think that the only person who's saying no is Joe Biden himself, and he has the ability, even as cognitively declined as he is by his position, he can simply say no.
And I think that Biden is saying no, because he needs to stay president to stay out of jail and to keep Hunter out of jail and the rest of the family.
Well, mostly just Hunter, I guess.
Now, to me, it seems obvious that even a Gavin Newsom knows that Biden is only running to protect himself and his family.
And this has nothing to do with the country, because the fact that even Gavin Newsom couldn't say a frickin positive word Except that Kamala is next in line, and they're looking forward to getting him re-elected.
Not a single positive word about either one of them.
There's no way he's a happy camper.
And there's no way that the Democrats are happy that he's running.
I think the Democrats do not want Biden running.
And I think the conversation has probably gotten pretty tense.
And I think it looks like Biden's going to run out the clock.
So if Biden runs out the clock and other people don't file because he's just sort of keeping them from filing, you know, he could have a stroke the day after the filing deadline passes.
He's still going to be your candidate.
All right.
So an alarming video from an influencer on Twitter, but also TikTok, a TikTok influencer, a young guy named Chris Mowry.
He was talking excitedly in his car on camera about how good Bidenomics is.
Because you know what?
If there's one thing that young, maybe Twenty-something looking guys care about to do TikTok videos.
They're really deeply into Bidenomics.
But thank you to Community Notes on Twitter, I mean X, for noting that his talent agency is paid by the DNC.
Now imagine you're on TikTok.
And you see this influencer say, oh, Biden economics, Binomics is so good.
So good.
Inflation's coming down.
Manufacturing's up.
Job's good.
And he's just really excited about it.
If you didn't know that he was being paid by the Democrats, literally paid to say this, you would think it was real.
Wouldn't you?
Of course you would.
And if you thought that other people like you Thought that Biden was great?
You wouldn't put much thought into it.
You'd be like, well, he thought about it.
You know, this guy thought about it, and I'm like him.
You know, I've got a lot in common with this person I follow.
So if he likes Biden, maybe I like Biden too, because I'm not going to look into it.
Economics are boring.
And if a TikTok influencer says Bidenomics is working well, well, case closed.
A TikTok influencer told me, I'm sure he looked into it in some depth.
So what a service these community notes do.
And imagine that you don't see them on TikTok.
TikTok just thinks this is a real opinion.
Speaking of real opinions, an interesting development with our favorite person on the X platform, Rob Reiner.
We all know Rob Reiner from TV and movies.
Very successful actor slash producer.
And we also know that he's very active on the X platform.
Very anti-Jump.
And have you ever said to yourself, man, that guy seems crazy.
And man, it's like he's impervious to new information.
And man, it's like he fell for every hoax.
How could one person fall for every hoax?
And so it didn't really seem right, did it?
It seemed like, is there something wrong with him?
Does he have some kind of mental problem?
Or did Trump once steal his girlfriend when they were teenagers?
What's going on?
It didn't seem right, right?
Well, in comes Mike Benz, B-E-N-Z, a real good follow.
He's at Mike Benz with a Z, cyber, all one word, Mike Benz, cyber.
I highly recommend you follow him, if it's only for this.
So here's what he said, and it was to look into the impact on the election in 2016.
And on his organization were three CIA chiefs who were his advisors.
Do you see it now?
So let me read Mike Benz's tweet on this.
So Mike had said, before he knew there was any connection, He had said that, in his opinion, his experience, that Reiner was talking like a CIA asset, and that there's a way that they talk, and he describes it humorously as like a cocaine-fueled, almost psychopath, immune to new facts, you know, just seems like pure propaganda.
So he noticed the tell, In Rob Reiner's tweeting that he just tweets like he's a CIA agent.
And he does a little bit of research and it didn't take much to find out that he's actually friends with most of the CIA top guys.
They're his advisors on this board that he created.
So here's Mike Benz describing it.
He says, quote, this is in a tweet, you can literally smell it on these people.
There's a CIA speak, frenzied energy of a man on cocaine, endlessly and wholly unaccountably, unaccountable bleeding about democracy, verbal State Department print shop, in other words, just saying what the State Department would want you to say, and a psycho's lack of remorse.
And then he says he runs an organization with three CIA chiefs who all serve as his advisors, and then he notes, as a Hollywood producer.
Why is there a Hollywood producer who's got advisors in the CIA and he's running some kind of a political investigation that happens to be bad for Trump?
All right, so Rob Reiner, as Mike says, no background in national security or foreign affairs, just a humble little Hollywood producer who just so happens to have three chiefs of the Central Intelligence Agency in his ear.
How about that?
But it goes further.
Three of the CIA directors serving us as advisors are also on something called the Atlantic Council.
Michael Morrell, Michael Hayden, Leon Panetta.
The Atlantic Council, I wonder if they have any funding?
Oh yeah, so Mike did some research, found out that the Atlantic Council, they're sponsored by, who's this company?
I don't know if you've heard this company before?
Burisma?
Burisma?
Have you heard of them before?
It's a Ukrainian company.
Nobody's ever heard of it.
But I guess they're one of the sponsors of this Atlantic Council that has a bunch of CIA-related people on it who are also on Rob Reiner's board as advisors.
So I'm not going to make any direct accusations myself.
I'll just point you to Mike Benz's good work here.
How much of this surprises you?
Are you surprised?
Does it explain everything?
It explains everything, doesn't it?
Have you heard that the CIA, historically, directly and with a lot of energy, and successfully controlled Hollywood?
Controlled how their movies looked and made sure it was all, you know, very patriotic and American and we said bad things about the bad guys and stuff like that.
And of course you'd want to join the military because it's awesome!
So, if you were going to influence Hollywood, how would you do it?
Where would you start?
I would start with the directors.
Do you know why?
The famous directors?
Well, number one, everybody's heard of them, you know, so that they would seem like the smartest people.
You know, nobody thinks actors are smart.
Even sometimes they are, but you don't think of it.
But you think the directors are smart, don't you?
And you also know that if you cross a director, you're not going to get work.
So the directors are the choke points for Hollywood.
You just need to get a few directors.
See what I'm talking about?
If you get a few of the big directors, then anybody who might someday want to work with them, or somebody that they know, because the directors know each other, they don't want to get on a blacklist.
So if you're an actor, you're going to fall in line immediately.
As soon as the big directors have an opinion, you're just going to fall in line.
So the CIA only needs to influence half a dozen big directors, and they get the whole industry.
Am I wrong?
Does that make sense?
That there's a choke point, and it's not the actors.
You don't need to get Tom Cruise, because nobody believes actors.
But directors have a different level of assumed capability and intelligence, because they've done something that's more like running a business.
You know, what smart people do.
So, it's probably exactly what it looks like.
All right, now that you've heard this, I'm gonna say one other name.
This is not an accusation.
All right, because I have nothing to back any kind of suspicion.
You ready?
Stephen King.
Now, I have no indication that he has any connection with any Intel people.
None whatsoever.
There's no evidence to suspect that he's anything but a person tweeting with an opinion.
However, he's got a new book out that apparently is so bad... Let me...
It is described as pure cringe, and there's a MAGA character in the book who dies of COVID for not being sufficiently vaccinated.
The Stephen King book.
Yep.
Do you think he wrote that?
Well, let me just say that there are a number of famous writers who, when they reach a certain point in their career, are still producing as much or more than they used to.
Because maybe they don't write all of it anymore.
So, I don't know if he wrote it.
That's unknowable.
And I'm not saying he didn't.
I'm just saying it's unknowable for a person like that.
But, I don't know.
Doesn't it raise some questions in your mind?
Have you ever asked yourself, why does Rob Reiner tweet the same way Stephen King does?
Have you noticed that the vibe is just the same?
Yeah.
Now again, I want to be crystal clear.
I'm not accusing Stephen King of anything because I have no information that would be, you know, suggest that.
I'm just saying that you can't trust anything anymore.
You just can't trust anything.
All right.
Here's something I did that probably will cause me more trouble than it has already.
I tweeted that whoever controls the media Controls the country and at the moment it looked like the ADL controlled the media.
Would you say that's a fair statement based on what we know about the ADL trying to crash advertisers for the X platform?
And it appears that that's exactly what they do.
Their business model, so to speak, is they pressure news entities to cover the news in a way that they want.
And if you don't do it, you're an anti-Semite.
And the anti-Semitic thing comes out, like, real easily.
Just anything they don't like, well, that's a trope.
That's a little bit of a trope right there.
Immediately after tweeting this, I was accused of being anti-Semitic.
Do you know why?
Because people assumed that what I meant, certainly didn't say it and wasn't even thinking it, was that the ADL is a Jewish organization and the media are Jewish, have a lot of Jewish owners, and therefore that what I'm really saying, my secret racist dog whistle, is that the Jews are behind everything.
So that's what I was accused of.
What part did I mention Jews?
Where was that?
I'm talking about Democrats.
There are Democrats in the ADL.
The Democrats, you know, the head of the ADL used to work for Obama and one of the Clintons, I forget which one, right?
He's just a dyed-in-wool total... Dyed-in-wool?
What does that even mean?
He's just a total Democrat.
The Jewish part doesn't have anything to do with anything, except they like calling people anti-Semitic a lot.
So, you know, I spend half of my days arguing with trolls on YouTube that what they think is this major Jewish kind of conspiracy could be 100% explained, their observations could be completely explained, by the fact that Jewish people are good at school.
And they value education.
So are we surprised that there is a high percentage of them in the best kind of jobs?
Of course not.
That should be exactly what you would say.
Is that the people who valued education got the jobs that you need, a good education, and they're the good ones.
The good jobs.
So if you could run a TV news network, or a network, don't you think that'd be a good job?
Wouldn't you want that?
Yeah.
So this is another case where I didn't mention, now you're not gonna believe this next part, but I wouldn't bring it up just to lie about it, right?
It wouldn't make sense.
I would just sort of let it go.
So I'm gonna bring it up, that's my only evidence that I'm not lying, that if I were, I'd rather not discuss it.
But I swear to God, it never once occurred to me that anybody would interpret that as anything about Jewish people.
It actually was not in my mind.
I was like, oh, ADL is influencing the news, the news influences what you think.
That's all I was thinking.
But they turned it into, I'm an anti-Semite.
Now, do you recognize that play?
Who was the anti-Semite in this story?
The one who literally never even occurred to them that There was any element of it in the story, and there isn't, in my opinion.
Or the people who immediately looked at me and thought I'm an anti-Semite.
It's the people who accuse me, right?
The people who accuse me are in a racial model, and I just wasn't there.
So I didn't even recognize it.
When they first said it, I was like, what are you talking about?
Like, I had to piece it together after the fact.
It's like, oh, you're saying that because I said, okay.
Yeah, the people who are guilty on the Democrat side will accuse you of the thing they're doing, even as they're doing it.
Like they were doing it, actively doing it while accusing me of doing it.
And I didn't even know what the topic was.
I didn't even know we were talking about Jewish people.
You know, when did that come up?
All right.
So that's your situation.
So I tweeted because it seems like the government is going after Elon Musk in too many different ways.
They're going after him with the ADL, which in my opinion is operating like a quasi-government entity.
It's not technically, but it's operating like a wing of the Democrats.
He's being sued for, if I understand this, not hiring immigrants while it would also be illegal to hire immigrants for his rocket company.
Because the government says you can't hire anybody who's not a U.S.
citizen.
So he doesn't.
And then he's being sued for discriminating against non-U.S.
citizens.
Now, that doesn't even sound like a real lawsuit.
Yeah, it just sounds like fuckery.
So I tweeted, just as I was thinking about it, I said, are the Democrats trying to jail Musk?
And I said, it looks that way to me.
It's starting to look like they just want him in jail because he's too powerful.
And Elon Musk actually replied to that, which is not the tweet I would have expected him to reply to.
Just hold this in your mind.
So yeah, I don't think he's replied to anything I've tweeted since I got cancelled.
I think he tried once and then he got piled on and it wasn't worth it.
I mean, I can't read his mind, but I'll just tell you that he made one positive comment about not canceling humor.
And he got a lot of shit for that.
So he hasn't commented on anything I've tweeted for nine months or whatever it's been.
But this is what he did.
It was about whether the Democrats are trying to jail him.
And what he said was, in his tweet, something strange is going on.
Imagine knowing what he knows.
Right?
Because we know just what's in the news.
But he knows like what's actually happening in his daily experience.
And he's even saying something strange is going on.
Like it doesn't look organic, whatever's happening.
And it makes you wonder if the intelligence people have decided to take him out.
Which is what I worry about.
Yeah.
But you might be worried about it too.
All right, let's talk about this story about Shokin.
This is actually getting more interesting.
So remember the Ukraine's prosecutor, General Viktor Shokin?
So the story, as most of you know, Biden said he got the guy fired and he was proud of it.
And then when it was found out that Hunter was And there was some thinking that the prosecutor was a problem for Burisma, so really that's the reason that he was removed, and it wasn't because of any other reason.
Now, so Miranda Devine of the New York Post found some documentation that showed that the European Commission actually praised Ukraine's prosecutor general, Shokin, for his efforts so Miranda Devine of the New York Post found some documentation that showed that the European Commission actually praised Ukraine's prosecutor general, Shokin, So...
So while Biden was demanding his ouster, the people he said were on his side We're praising him for a job well done, because he met his anti-corruption goals.
So, now, you can't let that story sit, right?
So I retweet that story, Miranda Divine's story, and immediately I saw sources that contradicted it.
So one of them, for example, was from Andres Backhaus, who's always been a real good, Source and data checker and fact checker of lots of different topics.
But he said that the idea that there was anything, you know, sketchy going on there has been debunked.
And he showed me a source that referred to all the people who did want that guy gone.
Do you know what the source was?
A Ukrainian publication I've never heard of.
A Ukrainian publication.
So I said, your source is a Ukrainian publication?
And he mocked me.
Oh, yeah, oh, sure, it's my source that's the problem, right?
And I thought, well, that's weird.
Kind of weird.
So I thought, well, maybe there are other sources.
And sure enough, there was.
Financial Times.
So FT had an article in which they went down and it mentioned a whole bunch of people, diplomats, who did in fact want him fired.
So by the time you're done with the article, it's like, you know, this diplomat wanted him fired, that diplomat, you know, this source, this official.
So it was a whole bunch of people wanted this Victor Shokin fired, just like Biden said.
Do you want to know the names of the people?
There are quite a few mentioned.
No names.
No names.
There's a diplomat, unnamed.
But there's also the other diplomat who agrees with the first diplomat, unnamed.
There's an official, unnamed.
There's an organization that is named.
But the person in the organization, not named.
The entire story was about all the sources They were on the same team and none of them had names.
Now you say to yourself, but Scott, but Scott, you know, sometimes people like to be anonymous.
These are the people who agreed with the official Biden administration policy.
You tell me that they're not going to say that they still agree?
If they thought he was, if these were real diplomats and they really disagreed, Or they really agreed.
Why would they need to be anonymous?
There's no indication they asked to be anonymous, but FT didn't list their names.
Do you think they didn't want to be listed for agreeing with a policy that the Biden administration thinks was the right policy?
Why would they have a problem with that?
Why in the world would that need to be anonymous?
And they weren't even called anonymous.
They were just called a diplomat.
It didn't even say they want to be anonymous.
They were just referred to as this diplomat, that diplomat.
Now, if you read that article and you were not a sophisticated consumer of news, you would be pretty sure that everybody wanted that guy gone.
If you are a more sophisticated consumer, you say, It's a news article about people who said the correct thing that agreed with the administration.
They're ambassadors, which are the people who say out loud the things that are the right thing.
That's what they do.
And yet none of them did.
You would immediately spot this for what it is.
You see it, right?
I mean, I don't have to explain it anymore.
It's obvious what's going on.
Well, let me read Andrei Backhaus' comment.
So this was his comment to the Miranda Divine story that suggested that maybe not everybody agreed on his firing.
So Andrei says, quote, I'm always saddened when I see people falling for dumb stuff.
Like the claim that the EU was satisfied with Viktor Shokin and didn't want to see him ousted.
It's such a dumb, obvious lie.
Do you see it?
Andres is like a PhD in economics.
The reason that I followed him for so long and quoted him so often is that he never talks like this.
He doesn't talk like this.
He says, well, here's a better source.
Or that source is sketchy because of this reason.
Maybe you should look at this one instead.
But on this one thing, it's very personal.
Oh, it's very sad.
It's sad that you people would agree.
And then the best source that he gave was an obscure Ukrainian publication to support his point.
Like, what's going on?
Now, it could be as simple as he, you know, he's pro-Ukraine.
If you live in Germany, maybe you've got some pretty strong feelings.
I imagine you would.
But I'll tell you, it's really hard to know who's giving you straight information and who's not.
All right.
Are you following the story of Ashton Kutcher?
Danny Masterson was on that 70s show.
So one of the stars of that 70s show, Danny Masterson, I guess he got convicted of I don't know how many rapes and sexual abuses or whatever.
Two.
Two rapes.
And got 30 years, somebody's saying.
So it was pretty serious.
And apparently the evidence was pretty strong.
But both Ashton Kutcher and Mila... What's her last name?
Mila Kunis.
I guess they'd been asked early on, maybe by the family of Danny Masterson, to write character references.
Which they did.
And basically, they only talked about the person they knew.
So they were not aware of anything he might or might not have done, so they weren't really talking to that.
They were just talking about him in the positive way, because their interactions with him were positive.
And they just put out a video with more contrition than I've ever seen from any two people saying, uh, sorry.
We didn't know about that stuff.
What do you think about that?
Well, I would like to offer the following suggestion.
If somebody asks you to write a character reference for somebody, I think your best choices are this.
Either don't do it, which is hard to do if it's somebody you've known and had a good relationship with.
Or, if you do it, definitely don't apologize for it.
Definitely don't apologize.
The apology looked worse than whatever they wrote.
I would have just said this.
Look, I was asked to give a character reference based on what I know, not based on what I don't know.
I said what I know.
That's everything that everybody asked of me.
Everybody asked me, just tell us what you know.
I did.
So if you've got a problem with that, it has nothing to do with the crime, because I didn't know anything about that.
If you have a problem with people having input that is useful to the process, you better make your case.
But I'm not going to apologize for saying what I knew and not saying things I didn't know.
But now we have evidence that a jury has found to be conclusive, and I'm going to respect the jury's opinion on that.
I don't take back what I said, but it's obvious that there was more to this person than what I understood.
No apologies.
That's how I'd play it.
The apology thing makes them look a little guilty of themselves in some way that I think is unfair.
Because I doubt they knew what was going on.
But you never know, you never know.
But there's no reason to think that they did anything wrong.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, concludes the best darn livestream you've seen all day.
Is there any story I missed that matters?
I can't see the person to work with.
Maybe.
It's the best ever. - Sure.
All right, YouTube.
I hope you found a place to comment if you wanted to and maybe the trolls will go away.
Oh, yeah, there's a Rufo story.
Is it Christopher Rufo?
He's being Accused of what?
Something crazy.
Oh yeah, there was a headpiece.
So if you see Vox, V-O-X, writing a story about an individual, it's not true.
So there's some publications which you don't need to read it to know it's not true.
Vox is not a credible outlet.
There's a negative story about me in the Daily Beast today or yesterday, I mentioned.
And do you think that the Daily Beast accurately described me?
No, they called me a right wing or a far right wing guy or something.
The very first sentence about me wasn't true.
Like they're not even on the same planet when they start and then they go on from there.
No, anything in the Daily Beast about people is not true.
Anything in Vox about people, no.
Rolling Stone, These are not real entities.
These are not entities where you read a story and go, oh, maybe.
Maybe yes, maybe no.
It's always no.
Huffington Post.
There's another one.
I can't remember them at the moment.
You have Vanity Fair, Salon.
These are not real publications.
Washington Post.
Yeah.
The Atlantic.
Right.
Yeah, those are ones to stay away from.
I'll add those to my list of publications that you should stay away from.
Or not believe.
Atlantic.
Vox.
What was the other one?
Daily Beast.
One of my critics came at me today and said, oh, so you think these sources are not good?
So I guess you like Fox News.
To which I said, they advertise TikTok.
You'd have to know nothing about me to think that I was OK with that.
All right.
It says, Putin invaded likely due to Biden's Afghanistan debacle.
