Episode 2243 Scott Adams: End Misinformation Online By Believing Everything The Government Tells Us!
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Embarrassing ESG, New Trump Rupar Video, Anti-Baby Women, Depopulation, ChatGPT Vision, Whistleblower Gal Luft, Biden Administration, Government Budget Shutdown, Matt Gaetz, UFO Whistleblowers, Brett Weinstein, Newsom DeSantis Debate, Canard, Indirect Free Speech Cancellation, Threads App, Mark Zuckerberg, Anti Affirmative Action Edward Blum, Mask Mandate Support, Party-Line Health Opinions, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I can guarantee that you'll never have a better time in your life than the next moments.
And all you need to take that up to the level that people can't even describe.
It's so amazing.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gel, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure that dopamine at the end of the day is the thing that makes everything better.
It's called a simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go!
Oh God, that's good.
Oh, that's so good.
Don't you feel better already?
I think you do.
Well, take that good feeling and we're gonna, we're gonna double that.
Yeah, double it.
Well, let's see what's going on.
I love reading rumors on the X platform.
I never know what's true for the first few hours.
You have to wait for the debunking to come.
But one of the stories I would put low confidence on is that Justin Trudeau's plane had cocaine on it when he visited India for the G20.
Is anybody hearing that story?
That's not true, is it?
It doesn't sound like a true story.
I don't know.
I can't imagine that India was all over his plane.
I don't know.
That doesn't sound real.
I'm going to dismiss that as not real.
All right.
Here's another one that's probably not real.
Reportedly, At least in a tweet by Unusual Whales, Blackrock, State Street and other money managers are closing their ESG funds, according to Bloomberg.
Do you think that's really happening?
Are they closing their ESG funds or are they just still doing ESG things and trying to make it less obvious by not using the name?
Are they just changing the name?
It makes you wonder, doesn't it?
But the good news is they've been embarrassed on a business.
Did I promise you that I would mock ESG on a business?
I believe I promised you that I would make it so embarrassing that nobody would want to associate with it.
Well, I don't think I did it alone, but I was part of a successful effort, it would seem.
Or it might be just partially successful.
But at the very least, it's embarrassing.
It's embarrassing to be associated with it.
So that's something.
Do you know user CatTurd on the X platform?
Very popular account.
I think he's got over 2 million followers.
I'm not one of his followers.
I blocked him a long time ago.
And I think Elon Musk blocked him too.
So if you'd like to know the value of CatTurd, I can only tell you that two people that I think are smart blocked him.
So I think he's a piece of shit, honestly.
And it's because he's one of the many people who blame me for having opinions I don't hold.
So I have a very low opinion of Cat Turd, but apparently he got doxxed by the left, meaning they figured out where he lived and what his real name was, and he got swatted.
So somebody called the police and said, there's something dangerous happening with a gun or something.
And they got swatted.
Now, I assume that's true.
I'm not sure that it's confirmed, but it's reported.
So, boy, the left is pretty tough, aren't they?
Now, I was trying to think, has the right ever swatted the left?
Because I know Tim Poole always got swatted all the time.
If you don't know what a SWAT it is, it's when the police SWAT team streams in because they think there's a dangerous situation happening at the moment.
But no such thing is happening, meaning somebody called it in.
Yeah?
It looks like it's something that only the left does to the right, as they try to go after each effective speaker one at a time.
So that's happening.
So there's probably a Rupert kind of a video of Trump in which he appears to... Now before I go into this story, I'm going to close my eyes because I know what your comments are and I don't want to read them.
Yes, I'm going to get to the point.
Where it appears that he's misinterpreted.
So I don't want to open my eyes and see all of your comments screaming in capital letters, Scott!
Scott, you misinterpreted the story!
I promise you, I'm going to tell you both sides of the story.
Now I'm going to open my eyes and I hope that there are no comments screaming to me that I haven't told the other side of the story yet.
Because I haven't started yet.
Can we be on the same page here?
So there's a video of Trump in which the people tweeting the video are alleging that he confused Jeb Bush with George Bush.
And you listen to the video and you say to yourself, yeah, that's exactly what he did.
I heard it with my own ears.
Saw it with my own eyes.
And it must be a sign of dementia to not know the difference between a George and a Jeb.
And then other people said, but Scott, listen to it more carefully.
You're just misinterpreting it.
He's talking about two different people and two different contexts.
And it all makes sense.
So I listened to it again, and it was like one of those audio illusions, where once somebody tells you how to listen to it, you listen to it again, you go, oh, oh, that actually made complete sense.
There was no dementia there at all.
And then I wait a minute, and then I just play it again, just like I'd seen it the first time, and there's plenty of dementia there.
I remember what he was saying, and then I play it again.
No dimension at all.
No, makes perfect sense.
Same video.
You can watch it three times in a row, and yeah, the green needle is the audio illusion one.
So it does look, it's a rootbar.
So it's just a rootbar.
It was very confusing.
People were mad at me because when I tweeted it, I tweeted it with the comment, age matters.
Now when I said age matters, I was intentionally being vague because I knew that that was true no matter what the video was.
If he were not a certain age, nobody would have played that as a sign of dementia.
But the problem is when people are a certain age, You start imagining you're seeing it.
I'm sure that I've imagined seeing it with Biden when maybe, in some cases, it was some innocent non-problem.
I'm sure I've overseen it with Biden.
But with Biden, I'm pretty sure it's there.
So anybody a certain age, you can imagine you're seeing the signs of age, even if a younger person might have done exactly the same thing.
So age does matter.
It matters how we perceive them.
And we wouldn't even be worrying about it if we didn't all know it's a risk.
That people of a certain age can lose it, and they can lose it kind of quickly.
So you have to keep an eye on it.
But I would say my take on this is that Trump was not only not confused, but he was talking very quickly on a fairly complicated little story about this one, that one, you know, the last name, the Bush, etc.
And if you listen to it carefully, he got everything right.
But you have to really concentrate, otherwise you think, he's the one who got it wrong.
It's actually, it's hard to listen to, because it's just complicated.
He says it fast, it's not complicated, but it goes through the story pretty quickly.
So it's actually a sign of good mental health, that he got all that right, and got it quickly, and said it capably.
It's just, it's easy to get it wrong.
What?
All right.
What else is going on?
Have you noticed, this was just pointed out to me this morning, and I've noticed it too, but let's see if any of you are on TikTok.
But if you're watching the X platform and you've seen the TikToks that make it over, you know, the most viral stuff will sometimes end up on other platforms.
Have you noticed an anti-baby-having focus on TikTok?
Does anybody notice that?
There's a trend of the women who are not having babies bragging about how good their lives are without babies and without being married, I guess.
Have you noticed that?
Now, given that Elon Musk recently said that depopulation might be the biggest problem in the world, and I think he's right.
I think Depopulation or lack of birth rates.
Birth rates are too low.
Might be the biggest problem in the world.
Because it's the one thing that could crash every economy at the same time.
Or at least the big ones at the same time.
And that would be pretty catastrophic.
So at the same time that we're worried about our birth rate, the platform that's created in China, Seems to be encouraging American women not to have babies.
But you say to yourself, but Scott, they're not just encouraging, you know, American women not to have babies.
Obviously, everyone who is on TikTok is going to see it.
It's not just Americans.
But China doesn't see it.
They don't allow TikTok in their own country because it's too dangerous.
But we're idiots, so we allow it in our country.
Well, we're idiots, but also our Congress is corrupt.
There's no other explanation for it.
And I think this is a really smart play by China.
If you were going to predict who wins, I might predict China.
Because they've got this weapon that, because our Congress is corrupt, obviously, they can't stop.
So as long as they pay our Congress to let TikTok program the minds of our children and our women, mostly the women, We should end up with a population collapse and America should be gone in one generation.
As long as TikTok is still there.
Now, some of you are going to say, Scott, that's a little bit of hyperbole, isn't it?
That just TikTok alone, just TikTok, nothing else.
Is that what you're saying, Scott?
That just this one app will destroy the United States in one generation?
Is that what you're saying?
Really?
Really?
Yes.
Yeah, as clearly as I can state it, if we allow TikTok to do what it's doing now, nothing different, just what it's doing now, and just wait one generation, it's unlikely America would survive.
At least survive as a superpower.
It's that destructive.
Because if they take out our birth rate, and it looks like they're succeeding at that, and why wouldn't they?
Because young women are influenced by TikTok, and it's telling them not to have kids.
And if you look at the relationship advice also on Instagram, which is not directly influenced by TikTok, but even Instagram is full of relationship advice that is so bad I have to assume that they really don't want anybody to get together and successfully have children.
The relationship advice from like the talking heads, you've seen them, probably seen a million of them.
There's always somebody, they have the same voice.
Authority voice and let me tell you that the one thing you're definitely gonna have to do is find a woman who has three ears if you don't find a woman who has three ears Well, you're just setting yourself up for failure and don't be surprised if you get a two-eared woman It doesn't work out for you.
And every time I listen to them They all have the same quality to them There are people who have consistently failed in their own relationships and Sure.
I would love to see a statistic of all the people who give relationship advice, including marriage therapists.
I would like to look at that as a control group and see how their marriages compare to the people that they're training to have good marriages.
Do you think that the experts on relationships have better relationships?
Doesn't look like it to me.
Because you know what all the male relationship experts are saying?
Well, if that woman you're with will not buckle to your will, cut her loose.
Just cut her loose.
You don't have to deal with it.
If the woman in your life is not meeting your needs in every way, if she's not right on point, if she doesn't let you do what you need to do as a man, and let you be you, While being supportive.
If she's not doing all those things, just let her go immediately.
Let her go.
Possibly the dumbest advice I've ever heard in my life.
That's like advice for somebody who never met a woman.
It's like you've never met a woman.
You think you can find the one that meets your needs and doesn't complain.
What?
Have you ever met a woman?
Women are built to complain.
That's their basic operating system.
If you got one that doesn't complain, you might have a trans wife.
But there's something special going on there.
It's not like general advice you could give to other people.
I mean, the best advice you could give to anybody if they want to stay married is, marriage is really going to suck.
But it's better than the alternative.
So, you know, get over it.
Well, that might work.
And then when marriage really sucked, I'd be like, oh, they told me it would really suck.
But it's probably better than the alternatives, so I think I'll stick it out.
That's it.
That's all the marriage advice you need.
Marriage is totally gonna suck.
It's just better than the alternatives.
And sometimes by a lot.
Sometimes it's not even close.
But that's the truth.
I love the people who tell you that the key to getting married is to pick the right person.
Does that advice ever work in the history of advice?
Have you ever seen that work for anybody?
If you pick the right person, you're probably not going to have chemistry.
Or chemistry that lasts.
So, this whole pick the right person is like, it imagines that you have that skill.
Nobody has that skill.
Nobody has the skill to pick the right person.
You don't even know who you're getting until you're living together and you're married.
Because people don't even act the same the day after the marriage.
You know, the whole dynamic changes immediately.
So no, there's no such thing as good relationship advice.
I've never seen it.
It's all people giving you advice for what might work in their case under a special circumstance.
But it's never generalizable.
At all.
All right.
Apparently, ChatGPT is getting an upgrade.
I don't know if it's available to everybody yet, but it's going to be able to talk and see and hear.
Well, it can hear before, I guess, but it's going to be able to basically have a conversation with you and look at stuff with you.
Now, that is creepy.
I don't know exactly what it means to say that it will be able to see.
I assume that if you have the app, and you're talking to it, and you say, hey, I'm trying to decide what groceries to buy here, and you just show it the groceries, say, what do you think is the best one?
Which one of these should I buy?
Or something like that.
Or just point it at the object on the shelf and say, is there a cheaper price for this?
So is that how it'll work?
Are you literally just going to have a conversation with it like it's a person in your hand?
And you can show it stuff?
I don't know.
That would be pretty sticky.
If that's what this actually is, I'm already worried about it.
Because it might replace friends.
Like, I could spend a lot of time talking to an AI.
Because it would always know something I don't know.
And it would be able to, you know, produce it immediately.
It's like, tell me something I don't know about.
If it could read the news, I'd really like it.
If it could talk about the news with me, at the same time as the news is new, instead of, you know, historical.
Oh my God.
Oh my God.
So will we get to the point where people will be experiencing the news by having a conversation with ChatGPT?
And if so, does that not give ChatGPT all of the persuasion power in the world?
Because it can decide what topics it surfaces and what it doesn't.
Man, your free will is so gone.
Free will is just gone.
It never existed in the first place, but your illusion of free will will be.
I guess that's what's going on.
All right.
So that's fun.
We'll see what comes of that.
Well, there's more about the alleged Biden corruption crimes, and everything is too complicated.
But let me see if I can.
So this came from a tweet from Kennecoa the Great, who is really good.
You should follow Kennecoa the Great.
Real good, long threads on what's going on.
Politically.
So remember that Dr. Gal Luft, who was a whistleblower against the Bidens, specifically with their China connections.
And then they're trying to arrest him and he went into hiding.
So we don't know if we can trust this Dr. Gal Luft.
Or is everything he says a lie and he's just on the other side from Biden somehow?
So we don't know what's true, but he's making lots of allegations about, let's see, according to this tweet thread from Kenneco the Great, that Dr. Gill left alleges that the Bidens used an FBI mole, so this would be somebody who works for the FBI, who is going to do something for the Bidens that should not have been done.
Allegedly.
To share sealed SDNY indictments with their CEFC China Energy Partners.
All right.
So there were some indictments going to be handled down in New York and had some importance to this Chinese energy company that Hunter Biden was associated with.
And then the same day as The sealed indictments were handed down.
Hunter Biden demanded millions from that company to do something.
And I guess it was to allegedly to get them the information of what was in the sealed indictments.
And allegedly it looks like Hunter pressed them to give him millions of dollars in return for the FBI mole, giving them some information they couldn't get some other way.
Now this is all very allegation-y.
So I think you're, this is all fog of war.
I wouldn't believe anything about this.
So wait to hear his defense.
Right?
Hunter is innocent until proven guilty.
So it's a terrible allegation.
But to be consistent with our concept of innocent until proven guilty, I think you'd have to go to the other side of it.
However, there is an interesting fact that Dr. Gal Luft is being sought for FARA violations, that means lobbying for a foreign interest without registering as a lobbyist, when it appears that Hunter was doing the same thing, but not indicted.
And maybe both of the Bidens were doing the same thing, but at least Hunter.
So we have many questions here which look very damning for the current administration.
Meaning it looks like the current administration were and are criminals and that they were and are covering up for their criminal behavior by pressure on various organs of the government.
So it looks like it's exactly what it looks like.
So far all evidence suggests that the government is corrupt and is covering it up.
Successfully.
Successfully covering up.
Well, so let's talk about the shutdown.
So the shutdown, the government shutdown, is about whether they'll approve the budget, which some say needs to be changed or they won't approve it.
And so there's an impasse, and there won't be a budget, and that will cause a number of government things to stop happening, but not all of them.
So the game now is for each side to see if they can make it look like the other side's bigger problem.
So the game now is to blame the other side as effectively as possible so that you can politically win.
So none of this is for your benefit.
So if you think any of this has to do with the public, oh no, we're not even part of this conversation.
This is all about the political people shaming and damning the other side for political points.
However, I am on the side of Matt Gaetz who says shut it down unless you're going to let people vote on the bills individually, which is the only way you would ever get to a balanced budget.
So Matt Gaetz is playing the long game.
He's playing the systems are better than goals.
The system doesn't work at all.
He wants to fix it by getting McCarthy to agree what McCarthy already agreed before but apparently went back on his Now, it's no surprise why people do it.
It's because they need to hide something unpopular in a larger bill with things you can't say no to.
So we'll see who wins on that, but here's what Biden said about it in public.
Quote, the black community in particular is going to suffer if that occurs.
For example, a shutdown is going to risk nutrition assistance for nearly 7 million moms and children.
It's going to disproportionately affect black families.
Now, what did I tell you?
Every time somebody says, let's compare the average of this group to the average of the other group, you should ignore them, because that's just political fuckery.
There are no average people.
There are only poor children who will not have nutrition.
Some of them are one color, some of them are the other color, some are mixtures of this or that, but there's just people.
Now, if he said poor people will get screwed, I would say, well, that sounds bad.
Don't want to screw any poor people, so maybe we should take that into consideration.
But if you say it's going to disproportionately affect the black community, that is pure manipulative bullshit.
Every person who is affected is a person.
Every individual in this story is infinitely different from every other individual.
There are no average black kids.
There are no average white kids.
Nobody's an average person.
It's just individuals with individual problems.
So whenever you hear people talk about group versus group average, they are manipulating you with propaganda, and they're not part of the solution for anything.
Well, when there was a whistleblower or two saying there were UFOs and they've been captured and we've even got some dead bodies, or at least some biologics, as they like to say.
We've got some biologics.
You may have said to yourself, well, that's probably a bunch of BS.
But now we have, as Michael Schellenberger points out, dozens.
We have dozens of UFO whistleblowers who have similar stories.
Dozens, I say.
I haven't seen any dozens of whistleblowers, except for Michael Schellenberger saying so.
Are there dozens of whistleblowers?
And somehow I'm missing that news.
Was that on the regular news that there were dozens of whistleblowers?
How come I'm not aware of it?
All right.
Well, let me ask you this.
If it's true that there are, and if Schellenberger says so, I'm sure it is true, If there are dozens of UFO whistleblowers, what is your opinion of whether they're right?
There are dozens of similar stories.
Dozens, I say.
Does that make it more likely?
Don't you feel that there's a specific question that you want to ask about this?
There's one specific question I want to ask.
It goes like this.
Of the dozens of whistleblowers, how many of them actually have touched a UFO?
Like with their hand?
Touched it?
Or how many of those stood over a table that had the biologics right in front of them?
Or is it possible that dozens of people heard it from one person?
Is it?
I'd like to remind you of a story.
I tell this story a lot, but the story says so much about human beings that I'll tell it again.
When I was working my corporate job at the phone company, one of my big projects was to build a technology laboratory.
To build it out in one part of the headquarters.
And I was in charge of the construction and approval and budgeting and everything to get it done.
And I was very young.
And my boss said, here's the deal.
All our customers keep asking us for a place they can come test their equipment to see if it's compatible with these services we're offering.
Because there are lots of different equipment offerings.
And so, so many people have asked for it, that we really need to build this laboratory because our customers are just like all over us about it.
It's like every day we're getting asked, can you please test in a laboratory?
So I took the job, you know, accepted the project, not like I had a choice, and I went off to put together the business case.
So I could get funding.
Now, it would be easy to do the business case, because all I had to do was talk to these customers.
They would say, oh yeah, we can't even purchase this until we've tested it.
And then I'd say, well, that's a really good argument.
We've got all these customers who say they can't make a purchase decision until they see it work, so we need to give them a place they can see it work.
Obvious, right?
Easy case.
Simplest thing you could ever get approved.
Because it's going to affect, you know, untold number of big deals for, you know, one little laboratory.
Pretty good investment.
So I asked around, I said, hey, who are these customers?
Can you give me some names so I can talk to them?
And somebody gave me the name of a customer.
But before I talked to that customer, I talked to some other people in the company to see if I could get some more names.
And they said, oh yeah, there's a lot of people who want this.
And they said, here's an example.
And they gave them the name of the same customer.
So that didn't help me much because I had just one customer.
You know, that I got twice.
So I talked to some more people and said, so how do you know, how do you know that we need this?
They said, all the customers.
Customers keep asking.
And I said, what customers?
Can you give me a name?
They said, well, I don't know the names of the customers, but if you talk to, you know, this manager and this manager, they'll tell you that a lot of customers are asking for it.
And then they asked me, So I know there are lots of them because I heard it not from one manager, but I've heard it now from several places within the company.
They're all saying that their customers are asking for it.
So I'm not directly talking to the customers, but so many of my staff are talking to them that I know it's a really big deal.
Do you know at the end of it what I found out?
There was only ever one customer who had asked for it once, And then the person that asked, asked around to try to help, asked other people, and then the other people also wanting to help said, I don't know, maybe we should ask around about this.
And so everybody was asking around to try to help this one customer.
It was only ever one customer.
I was building a $10 million lab to satisfy one customer and wait, wait for the punchline.
Here's the punchline.
The one customer found a way to test it anyway and already made their decision.
There were actually zero customers who wanted this service, because the only one who had ever asked about it had figured out a workaround.
So, take that story of how we could all believe there was this giant need for a laboratory when there were literally zero people asking for it.
Literally zero.
Now you might ask yourself, Scott, once you found out that zero people wanted it, that's when you cancelled the project, right?
No.
No, you're silly.
You're silly.
No, you don't cancel a project just because there's no reason for it.
Because it already started.
Once you start a project, you're not going to cancel it.
Because, you know, you're already trying to get funding and everything.
So the project went forward.
But it eventually got cancelled.
Do you know why?
Why did the project get cancelled?
Because there was a reorganization in the business, and the new manager said, eh, we don't need that.
And that was it.
Because the new manager would not get any credit for going forward with the old manager's idea.
Because it was somebody else's idea.
So the new one wasn't my idea.
And there's no evidence for it.
So cancel it.
I'll get my $10 million for something else.
Now, take that corporate experience, which you say to yourself, well, that was very unique.
That was a weird little one-off.
No, that's not the point here.
The point is, that's one story that's very specific, but it gives you an idea how wrong people can be in a massive way, very easily, with no effort whatsoever.
They can be massively wrong.
And if you tell me there are dozens of whistleblowers, the only thing I want to know is how many of those dozens put their hand on a UFO?
Touched it?
Do you think any?
I'm going to guess zero.
Without knowing, I've done no research, no research, my guess is zero.
But I'll bet every one of them heard it from somebody credible.
Yeah, only Bob Lazar, he touched it.
Yeah, so Bob Lazar, there are many people who are questioning his credibility.
Yeah.
So I got lots of questions about the whistleblowers, but I don't think they've put their hand on the UFOs.
Here's the next thing I expected to happen.
I wondered why this took so long.
Brett Weinstein is a subject of a hit piece in the New York Times.
And when I read it, I would say, oh yeah, that's just a hit piece.
I mean, it's obvious they weren't trying to get any kind of a bullseye.
It wasn't because the story was interesting, because it wasn't.
It was just taking out a player.
They were literally just taking out a strong player, meaning somebody who speaks well and is educated and interested in a lot of topics and says things that you don't hear from the mainstream news.
Sometimes right, perhaps sometimes wrong, like all of us.
But why would they target him?
It's because of what team he's on.
Or what team he appears to be on.
Because I don't think he would say he's on a team.
I don't believe that would be his own description of himself.
And I'm not sure that I would say he's on a team.
He looks like somebody who's just trying to follow the data.
Unfortunately, the data do not always follow what the left wants you to believe.
So anybody who's got credentials, And is willing to follow the data, even if it's wrong, right?
Even if it ends up in the wrong place.
But anybody who is just willing to look at the data first is dangerous.
And so he gets targeted.
It's exactly what you think it is.
Now, do you see the pattern yet?
The pattern is pretty clear, isn't it?
It's very clear that everybody who was maybe a little bit credible is being targeted one at a time.
It's very obvious at this point.
Anybody who doesn't see it, you're trying not to see it at this point.
All right.
So if there's some way to support Brett, knowing he's targeted, buy his books and go look at his podcasts.
But I think, you know, it has to be not a political.
Hit pieces can't act.
They shouldn't actually put you out of business.
But that's the world we live in.
All right, I guess Newsom is going to debate DeSantis on November 30th.
And I've said before that I don't think it helps him because a governor debate is going to look like a governor debate.
It's just not going to feel like a president debate.
It's going to feel like the president has been decided, you know, it's going to be Trump or Biden, and it's like the undercard or something.
Nobody's going to take it seriously, but it will be good theater, and I will definitely watch it.
But it could be the most corporate, boring two people who have ever been on the stage at the same time.
They're almost the same person, aren't they?
I mean, different policies, obviously.
But I feel like they're the same person.
Like, one is just the other version of that one person.
Their hair is a little too good.
I don't trust people with hair that good.
Which is one of the reasons I trust Trump.
I trust people with sketchy hair.
I like it if their hair is doing something a little extra.
Alright, but one of the things that Newsom is trying to claim, is I guess he keeps trying to not answer the question of whether he would support abortion up to the point of birth, you know, the nine-month point.
And he says that's a political canard.
That's a canard.
But Governor Newsom, do you think it's okay to have an abortion at nine months?
Get away from me with your canards.
This is the no canard zone.
You know, you have to get through a whole zone of malarkey before you'd even get here, but this is the no canard zone.
No canards, please.
Keep your canards away.
How many of you even know what a canard is?
When I heard that, I thought, oh man, he's lost.
He's lost.
If you have to use the word canard, Let me ask you something.
Think of the best communicator in all of politics.
Trump.
It's Trump.
He's the most persuasive communicator in all of politics.
Maybe ever.
Do you think Trump would ever use the word canard?
Talking to the public.
Canard is not a public word.
No, canard is what you say at your little cocktail party with your friends who are also writers.
Ah, yes, I was reading his eponymous book.
Oh, it was just full of canards.
And the zeitgeist was so right for the au courant treatment of the canard.
I mean, that is so douchebaggy.
Canard.
All right.
I guess he figures if people don't know what it means that he made a point.
Well, I'd like you to talk about Abortion.
Well, that sounds like a canard.
I might use that.
I think if anybody challenges me on something where I'm wrong, like on that Trump video that I was talking about earlier, where my first take was that he said something that didn't make sense, but then later I realized I was wrong.
Instead of admitting I'm wrong going forward, I'm just gonna call it a canard.
But Scott, I think you just took that out of context.
Did I?
Or are you trying to start a canard of some kind?
What?
Yeah.
You've got questions for me?
I have questions for you?
Well, but I'm just trying to ask a question.
No.
No, you're trying to start a canard.
Some kind of canard here.
Yeah, I'm going to use that.
All right.
As you know, free speech is pretty much done as a practical matter in the United States.
And I would like to trigger any NPCs who have wandered in on the YouTube side.
Now this is just an experiment.
I'd like to see if I have any NPCs.
So I'm going to trigger them.
Triggering coming.
Free speech is over in the United States because of all the people getting cancelled for their speech.
Go.
NPCs say?
Come on.
NPCs say?
You know what you say.
You use mockery?
Mockery.
And it goes like this.
May I model a good NPC?
Oh, so you're talking to a million followers on the X platform and doing a live stream every day.
But your speech is being suppressed.
Look at my Ukrainian flag and feel bad.
So that's what I get.
My comments were just full of the NPCs explaining to me that free speech is what the government does.
It's not what a platform does.
Now, I don't have to tell my smart viewers here that free speech isn't what it was during the 1700s.
It's different now.
Now you get cancelled and politically taken out, and the NPCs will say that's different.
That's not the government, that's just you said some messed up things and it's a free market and so the free market punished you for saying some messed up things.
Do you realize that the left doesn't know that the entities that are punishing you are just Democrats?
That the Democratic Party, the politics part of it, forces the economic part of it to punish you.
That is the government punishing you.
The government is Democrats.
The Democrats are the ones who run these so-called watchdog groups like the ADL and the fact-checkers and all that.
They're the ones who are just quasi-government entities.
So the government just found a workaround where they can suppress free speech, but they do it through the free market.
Using these cutouts that pretend to be watchdogs and fact checkers, but they could create enough pressure on a company that the company could remove advertising and just take the legs out of any creator or speaker.
Now, when I have this conversation, I'm talking to people who can't get beyond, but, but, but, the government didn't say so.
I go, yeah, I know.
The government did not directly say so.
They did it indirectly by having these cutouts that take your economic viability away.
And thus, your reach is depressed until nobody can hear you.
So yeah, you have the freedom to say things in your house, but they'll take away all of your vehicles.
You see that the law is coming after rumble now?
The ADL came after the Twitter platform, now X. So you can see that the Democrat operatives are trying to squeeze every form of economic benefit to people who disagree.
Now, try to have that argument with anybody in 2023.
Because they say some form of, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, it's only about the government doing it directly, blah, blah, blah.
I go, I know.
But they found a way to do it indirectly.
So in effect, They've suppressed the free speech in all practical purposes.
Oh, the government didn't do it directly.
That's not free speech.
No, you're not listening.
I understand your argument completely.
I'm saying in a practical sense, in the current world, they can effectively, effectively get rid of your free speech.
But it's not really... So it never works.
But I'll tell you what does work.
When somebody says, you don't understand free speech.
It's not about companies cancel you.
I just say this now.
Your argument was very strong in the 80s.
And walk away.
So that's a high ground maneuver.
The high ground accepts the argument completely.
And then puts it in its proper place in the 80s prior to the social media.
If you even engage in the details about why this is not or is technically free speech in 2023, you're in the wrong argument.
It's the wrong argument.
The argument is, if you want to talk about how things were in the 1980s, you can, but I'm not actually interested in a 1980s hypothetical argument.
I'm talking about the real world today, and real things that happen in the real world.
But your argument about what would be true in the 80s is noted, it just isn't relevant to today.
That'll shut down people pretty fast.
Try that.
Try it at home.
Alright, I've got a question about Threads.
You know, Threads was the alleged Twitter or ex-killer that Mark Zuckerberg and Meta did, and it was announced to great fanfare, and it was going to be the thing that was as good as Twitter in terms of features, but it wouldn't have all those Nazis.
So it's like Twitter without all the Nazis.
So obviously that's going to be a success, because who wants Nazis?
So it should have been a big deal, right?
Right?
Right?
Now here's my question.
Has Zuckerberg been known to make gigantic, stupid decisions in the past?
Would you say that's a characteristic of his history?
That Zuckerberg made gigantic, stupid decisions in the past?
Now, having watched all the other Twitter competitors fail, you know, the parlors and the getters and Truth isn't doing that much, Do you think that Zuckerberg says, you know, there's a good market.
If I get into that market, I will make a lot of money.
Do you think he thought that?
Or, I'm just going to put this out here, or is it more likely that he needs the government to be friendly with him, the government being mostly Democrats at the moment, and that he cannot be on the other side of Democrats?
And so Democrats said to him, here's the deal.
We're going to try to destroy the X platform through all of our other mechanisms.
But we need something that the people could go to.
So we need you to create this platform that has almost no economic viability unless we destroy the other platform.
So start up the alternative platform for purely political reasons, not because it's a good investment.
And we'll try as hard as we can to kill the other one.
And if we're successful, you've got a good business.
But basically, you're not going to do this because it natively looks like a good business.
You're only going to do it as part of a government op to take out Musk.
Now, which of those sounds more likely without the ability to know what's true?
Because you don't know what's in his head.
Does it seem likely that Zuckerberg thought Threads was a good economic opportunity?
Does that sound like him?
It really doesn't.
No.
Because his instincts have been almost unnaturally good up to this point.
Almost unnaturally.
It sounds to me like he got pressured by the government to try to take Musk out of business.
That's what it looks like to me.
It doesn't look like that was his decision.
Did you also notice somebody said that Zuckerberg himself didn't even use threads, you know, after the first, I don't know, weeks or a few weeks or whatever, that there were long periods where he didn't even post.
So he wasn't even interested in the product himself.
All indications are that Facebook did it because they had to.
Am I wrong?
Doesn't your suspicious mind say, this doesn't even look like an investment?
It looks like it was an op to take out Musk and to take out the last bastion of free speech that wasn't Rumble.
And Rumble doesn't have a big enough audience that they would care, except that Russell Brand was there, so now they're going to take that out.
Now, that would get me as well, right?
If the X platform and Rumble went down, I'd be completely out of business.
You think they don't know that?
I mean, they know what other people think again at the same time.
All right, so that's what I think.
I suspect that it was not created as just a business opportunity.
There is an anti-affirmation, no, anti-affirmative action activist, the one who is apparently successful in getting college admissions to be less racist, and
He's using a lawyer named, what's his name, Edward Blum, and he's using a Civil War era law designed to protect formerly enslaved black people from racial bias to dismantle American corporate diversity programs.
So in other words, so here's what the law said in 1866.
It was enacted after the Civil War, and it guarantees all people the same right to make and enforce contracts, quote, as is enjoyed by white citizens.
So in 1866, the law was passed to make sure that everybody could have the same rights.
And now that's being used to make sure that everybody has the same rights, apparently successfully, because There are a number of lawsuits now that are going after fellowship programs and whatnot that are oriented specifically toward non-white people.
So there's at least one lawyer who's found a way to make a difference in the massive discrimination against white people and is succeeding.
So good news for that.
So...
We're seeing a lot of places rolling back their misinformation policies so that the news is acting like some of our big entities thought that they went too far with censorship and now there's a pushback so they're starting to loosen up.
And the examples given are that Facebook, not Facebook, YouTube I think will no longer remove claims about the 2020 election.
So you can wildly claim it was fake or not and they won't demonetize you.
And then there's somebody else who I guess some of the networks are going to loosen up on claims about COVID that are different than the official claims.
Now think of those two categories, the pandemic that's over and the election that's long over.
Those are the two things that we're told are them being more reasonable about free speech.
Those things don't matter anymore.
They're history.
It doesn't matter what happened in the past.
It's not controlling you today.
All this is telling me is that the very next time there's something important, they're going to do it again.
Because it's not like it's some kind of a larger emphasis to have more free speech.
They're simply saying we accomplished what we wanted with these topics, We got what we wanted because you couldn't have free speech, but now we got what we wanted.
So yeah, talk about it all you want.
There's nothing happening like a move toward greater free speech.
Nothing.
Every time you hear somebody use the word misinformation as part of their own business plan, even if they say they're going to allow more of it, it is misinformation.
Whenever misinformation is part of the conversation, somebody's doing it at that moment.
All right.
So if you were to read the posts on the X platform today, you would see a lot of posts about long COVID.
You would see some people saying it's worse than we think.
Studies show.
And other studies would show, and people talking about, there's no long COVID at all.
It actually never existed.
And then you had other people say, oh, there's a problem, but it's the vaccinations, it's not the long COVID.
Which of those things is true?
Go.
You tell me.
Is it true that long COVID is real?
Is it true that it was never real?
Or is it true that something's happening, but it's because of the vaccinations themselves?
What do you say?
The answer is no way to know.
No way to know.
Everybody who's confident they know can be discounted.
If you meet anybody who's pretty sure they know what's going on with this long COVID situation, or how much of it is vaccination injury versus long COVID, don't listen to anything they have to say.
There is no useful data about the pandemic.
And we're just going to have to get used to that.
We're going to have to get used to the fact that we don't know anything about what happened.
And we never will.
Because nothing is credible.
There are only studies and reports and data, but none of it's credible.
Zero of it.
Not a single thing that comes out of that world is credible.
Nothing.
And if you don't get that, everything's going to be weird and confusing.
All right.
Rasmussen asked people about willingness to support a mask policy.
You want to be terrified?
52% of Americans would support a policy of requiring people to wear masks in public again.
A majority.
A majority.
Now, even if that's not exactly right, it's way too many people.
And how many would strongly support a mask mandate? 29%.
Now, you know that that's almost all Democrats, right?
Probably 75% of the people who answered that way were Democrats.
Why is it that health is divided by party line?
Don't you think something as simple as should you wear a mask under this situation?
Don't you think that that should be totally scientifically based?
It's not.
Because there is no science.
Science is basically just guessing.
And the people have to look at the science and go, I don't know, I just don't trust that science.
Or, I don't know, that science looks good to me.
But what are we using to actually make our decisions?
It's not science.
But I would go with the people who are against masks simply because the science doesn't support it sufficiently.
You don't make people do things unless you've really got the goods.
And they don't have the goods, so you can't make people do things under those conditions.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, is there a big story I missed?
I feel like there was.
Eagle Pass.
Elon is heading to Eagle Pass?
So Eagle Pass is where all the immigrants are coming in illegally, right?
Elon Musk is going to the border?
Really?
Well, that would be interesting, just to create more emphasis on it.
You know, I've got a real mixed feeling about the immigration.
I've told you that before.
We definitely have a population collapse problem, but that doesn't mean you should just let everybody in.
Now, I'm no longer going to believe that the anti-Semitic people on YouTube are real. - Good.
You've become too, like, cartoonish.
Mayorkas!
What is Mayorkas?
You're just being so cartoonish that I don't believe you're real.
I believe that you're sent here to ruin the stream.
Right?
I don't think you're real.
I'm not saying there are no real anti-Semitic people, they're real, but the ones on here are a little bit too cartoonish, a little bit too on-the-nose.
I'm not believing you're real.
Musk late-stage empire.
Well, the late-stage empire is not just a Musk thing.
A lot of people have said we look like a late-stage empire, and I would agree.
We do look like a late-stage empire about ready to crumble.
However, have I ever told you that history doesn't repeat?
It doesn't.
It doesn't ever repeat, because it can't.
History doesn't even have an option of repeating.
So anything can happen.
Yeah, I think the Adams Law of slow-moving disasters suggests we'll be fine in the long run.
Is Jamie Dimon Irish?
All right.
Yeah, it rhymes.
Yeah, people have said that before.
The one thing that's true is people have the same human incentives.
So that would be the better way to say history repeats.
Instead of saying history repeats, just say people are people.
People will always be people.
They'll always be selfish weasels trying to get ahead.
And so from that you can predict a lot.
Yeah.
YouTube has become like 4chan.
People are predictable.
with a problem.
Why Depeche Mode?
Why are you saying that?
Why did I see a video about Depeche Mode and then you're asking me about it?
Is there some news to that that I don't know about?
Did something happen with Depeche Mode?
It's just a song.
So that was just a weird coincidence, right? - Gates spoke about changing scheduling for cannabis.
I'm starting to think Matt Gates is the rising superstar here.
What do you think?
I really like him shutting down the government over the bills not being voted on separately.
I don't think he'll be popular enough with the left that he could get an office necessarily.
But he's certainly doing a lot right.
He also has this weird history of backing the left individuals.
Like I think he's backed a few Democrats who were unfairly attacked on stuff.
So that's always a good look.
Obesity is almost non-existent in Europe.
up.
So, I've told you my diet experiment.
I cut out bread from my diet, which I do sometimes, but usually not completely.
But this time I did completely and, you know, dropped weight immediately.
But the most important thing is all my body inflammation went away.
So I could barely walk upstairs for like two years and I just went away.
Just all went away.
Now I feel ten years younger.
I don't have any health issues whatsoever and I'm fine.
I'm fine.
And it feels like it was some kind of sensitivity to the food.
I don't know if it was the It might have been the preservatives, not the wheat.
So I don't know if it's wheat or gluten or preservatives or what.
But apparently there's some family sensitivity to that that I wasn't aware of.
It was the damn bagels.
I think the bagels got me.
No flour or sugar?
Yeah, maybe it's just less sugar.
could be yeah maybe I will start eating red meat It's a possibility.
I wouldn't rule it out, actually.
Yeah.
Because I only ever did it for my own health.
So, if I can improve my health, maybe.
I'm not really comfortable with eating meat, but maybe if I need it.
