All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 7, 2023 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:17:11
Episode 2285 Scott Adams: CWSA 11/07/23, Those Dogs Not Barking, Bring A Beverage

My new book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8 Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
And aren't you glad you're here?
Wow.
Imagine if you were born in some primitive time and every day was just like the day before.
But no.
We wake up and there's all kinds of new inventions and wars and God knows what.
But, if you'd like to take this experience, which is already amazing, up to the levels that nobody could even imagine with their big old brains, then all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stain, 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 I don't mean the hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip.
Go.
You know, when I hear that people are having bad days or they're unhappy or sad, the first thing I think is, but have you even done the simultaneous sip?
All right.
Are you even trying?
But for those of you who have enjoyed it, You know that it feeds your soul, gooses your oxytocin, makes you feel the togetherhood.
That's right.
The togetherhood of colonizers.
That's what we don't call ourselves, but it'd be funny if we did.
Let's talk about Mike Johnson, the speaker.
Now, I would like to do a public demonstration For those of you who might be new to the live stream, if you've never seen it before, I always claim I have the smartest audience ever.
And just watch this.
Give me the answer before I give you the question.
Go.
Give me... There you go.
Give me the answer before... Very good.
Very good.
The answer is 25.
Now, have you ever seen anybody else do that?
So Rasmussen Poll asked about the favorability of the new speaker, Mike Johnson, and 25% have a very favorable opinion.
25%.
Very favorable opinion.
Now look at that.
Now you saw this, right?
If you're new.
I hadn't even asked the question, and my audience knew the answer.
They're like, 25% I haven't even heard the question.
And they were right.
Can your pundits do that?
Whatever the hell garbage you're watching for the rest of the day?
Can Steven Crowder do that?
No.
No.
He might give some scoops.
He might be very entertaining.
But can he do that?
No.
Well, I love my Thomas Massie stories.
I feel like every day he's doing something that's a little bit different from what everybody else is doing and I can't stop looking away.
It's always like a...
Some kind of a planned traffic accident plus a magic trick kind of wrapped together.
Like everything he does is more interesting than what anybody else is doing.
But I was unaware of this, but it turns out there's some kind of legislation that would demand a kill switch on your automobile if it's sold after 2026.
Did you all know that's even a thing?
That the government wants to be able to turn your car off while you're driving?
Now, on one hand, I tell myself that might be a useful way to combat crime.
I mean, it seems like it'd be an amazing way to combat crime.
Imagine all these high chase, you know, whatever it is.
Imagine if you knew... Well, here's another one.
Imagine if you had a suspect that you thought had done some terrible crime, and you didn't know where that person was, but you knew What automobile they were associated with.
Just turn it off.
So you can certainly see why law enforcement would want that ability.
But do citizens want the government to be able to turn their car off?
The freedom question runs pretty deep.
You know, I do like law enforcement being able to do their job.
On the other hand, I don't really want anybody to turn my car off when I'm running from the government.
That's right.
I said it.
When I'm running from the government, I don't want the government to be able to stop me.
So, it's sort of similar to them trying to take your guns away.
Because your car might be the only way you can escape from the government itself.
So, Thomas Massey wants to put a kill switch on the kill switch, so he wants some legislation to stop the kill switch.
I'm not even sure I quite have an opinion on that, but I like that he's fighting for principle.
I always, even when I disagree with him, which doesn't happen too often, I just like that Massey is the principle guy.
If all it does is remind you that there is a principle involved, You can vote against it.
You might decide, well, I'd still rather have this practical benefit.
That wouldn't be crazy.
But don't you love the fact that there's at least one elected official who reminds you aggressively what the principle was?
Super, super good service.
All right.
Let's talk about the Biden crime family stuff.
So Jonathan Turley, of course, is the best voice on this.
So I would So here's what we know.
his writing, just Google his latest pieces or follow him on the X platform.
But he does the best job of explaining all this Biden, alleged Biden crime family stuff.
So here's what we know, or we're pretty sure.
So now the Republicans, the Oversight Committee, they've got enough bank records and they've pieced together enough of the shell companies, et cetera.
So they can say, let's say in allegation form, something pretty clearly.
It appears that the Biden family was treating things as loans that were not loans.
Now, Apparently the Bidens had the opportunity to prove that there were loan documents or Congress, or I suppose it could have been a verbal agreement.
Was there any backup to say that these funds that are transferred back and forth that just have the word loan written on the check, are they actual loans?
Or is it income that somebody's calling a loan repayment?
Because why would you call a loan repayment Why would you call income a loan repayment?
That's how you cheat on taxes.
Not only is it a way to cheat on taxes, it's among the most famous ways to cheat on taxes.
In other words, if you were like an expert in the IRS and somebody said, could you make a list of all the most common ways that somebody cheats on their taxes at the high end, not the low end.
But at the high end, what's the main way they do that?
This would probably be in the top three.
It's one of the most obvious, classic ways to cheat on your taxes.
Call something a loan when it isn't.
Because typically, nobody's going to look into it.
The way it works is, as long as nobody looks into it, how does anybody know the difference?
You could just say it was a personal loan.
Because the IRS doesn't typically audit you unless they have some reason to think there's a problem.
And if you simply said it was a personal loan and it's being repaid, the IRS doesn't get any trigger.
It's just like that's normal business.
People do it all the time.
Now, why would you have a zero interest loan?
In what context would anybody give anybody a zero interest loan?
Well, I can only think of one.
It's so that it doesn't look like a gift, which would also have a tax impact, and it doesn't look like income.
Because even if it's a loan, the interest part would be income.
So if you claim something's a loan, that's already a huge red flag, right?
Oh, personal loan, that could be the way people hide money, that's income.
But if on top of that, it's a zero interest loan?
That's two red flags right there.
Now, in your wildest imagination, could you imagine there would be this much information that suggests that there was massive, massive cheating on the taxes?
I mean, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars in the most brute force, obvious cheating way that you could ever do.
But it doesn't mean they're guilty, right?
I will maintain the innocent until proven guilty standard no matter who I'm talking about.
Or I'll try to.
I mean, you can call me out if I slip up.
But the Bidens are innocent until proven guilty.
However, could you imagine that Trump claimed a bunch of money flowing were loans And then when asked to provide any documentation that there were loans, refused to do so or could not do so.
Under that scenario, can you even imagine not being indicted?
There's no human being who would not be indicted in that situation.
And it would also be the biggest story in the world.
If that were Trump, biggest story in the world.
Go open any of your major media publications and look for that big story about how it's largely been not quite proven, but serious, serious amount of data that would suggest major, major theft in the terms of not paying taxes.
That's where we are.
I mean, the fact that we could just calmly talk about the fact That the government is very clearly corrupt, very clearly at the top, just completely corrupt, and that there must be levels below it that are equally corrupt, or else it would already be taken care of.
The level of corruption here is almost stunning.
It goes from the media, through the Department of Justice, the courts, the prosecutors, it's all the way down.
It's corrupt from top to bottom, obviously.
Now again, I'm not saying that the Bidens are guilty of a crime.
I don't know.
I just know that there's no other human being who wouldn't already be indicted.
I mean, remember you can indict a ham sandwich?
All you have to do is have an argument that looks to an ordinary person like, yeah, I'm not saying for sure, but that's definitely enough to look into it.
That's what an indictment is.
An indictment is just, oh, there's plenty there to look into.
No indictment?
Is that because he's president?
The family members are not president.
Where are the indictments for the family members?
They're all part of the scheme.
So yeah, we watch this obvious, obvious, obvious corruption at the highest level, And today there will be no action about it.
Nothing will happen today.
Biden will just serve out his days.
Now, I remind you that David Axelrod has already basically pulled the chair out from President Biden.
I don't believe there's any scenario.
Axelrod said he should think about his age and, you know, consider whether he's really The right person for the country at this point.
And he's talking specifically about his age.
That's Axelrod.
Probably the, I'd say the prime political consultant for the Democrats and has been for years.
When Axelrod pulls the chair out, that's the signal to all the other Democrats that they pull the chair out too.
So what you should see is this cascade that happens really soon in the news coverage and maybe some prior allies who say stuff like, well, it's really up to Joe, but you know, Axelrod is right.
He should, you know, maybe, maybe give it a second thought.
And you know, this would be the time.
Axelrod says it in the most polite ways, but he's very direct at the same time.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Maybe this would be the time to think about it.
This would be the time, Joe.
You should think about it now.
You can't get any more obvious than that.
And I would think that some of Axelrod's concern is because he can see that the crimes are too obvious.
Imagine an unrestricted Trump who could say anything and was now running neck and neck against Biden in the context of the Biden crimes being now kind of obvious.
Obvious if they can't defend it with paperwork that shows they were actual loans.
And they've refused to do that so far.
It would be crushing.
You know, it's looking like Trump might be lined up for the biggest victory of all time.
I just saw a post on X from a user, Eli Klein.
I see him all the time.
I don't know what his importance is.
I couldn't tell from his profile.
But he has some prominence in social media at least.
And he said that Election Day is today and he's going to vote all Republican.
And he's a lifelong Democrat.
And in his case it's because of the Gaza situation.
Not doing enough to protect Jews in America and Israel, I guess.
So do you think you'll see more of that?
I mean, that's anecdotal.
It's anecdotal.
I don't know.
We'll see.
And let me ask this.
What was the most offensive thing that anybody said when Trump Started getting his first, you know, lawfare and legal problems in the last year or so.
A lot of people said, and they got some pushback from it, that he might become more popular with black voters.
Now that's pretty racist, isn't it?
Like, that's super racist.
Would you agree?
Yeah, it's super racist.
But what else has he done that would cause his standing with black voters to improve?
Does he have a new policy that I don't know about?
You know, I think, I think he's pacing and leading, accidentally, a segment of the population who feels that the justice system is biased against them.
So if you were trying to court A segment of the population that thinks the justice system is biased against them, and then you show the world that the justice system is biased against you, in very clear terms.
Are you telling me that doesn't give you a little bit of, boy, you and I have something in common?
And something big, actually.
Because people are more influenced by action than identity.
If there's no action, then you default to identity.
But let me put it in stark terms.
If you went through a war, and you were fighting next to somebody of a different ethnicity, and you survived the war, you're going to come out of that bonded like hell to the person that you were fighting with.
That's your bond, because it was activity that bonded you.
Trump is doing a thing.
That is an activity, you know, being destroyed by the justice system that probably there are a lot of people who say that something like that has happened to me or somebody I know.
That would be their opinion.
So can you think of any other reason that Trump would be improving in the polls compared to Biden?
Now it could be that Biden shows a physical weakness that just everybody sees.
But I don't think it's based on his policies.
Is any of the change in polling based on anybody's policies?
Or are black Americans maybe having the same reaction, a lot of us are, to the open borders?
Are black Americans looking at the open border and the two wars and saying, okay, there's three things we don't need.
I guarantee you that money you're spending on the war would be better spent on us.
We all think that.
And the money and the people pouring across the border are a competition, I think some would say.
By the way, somebody asked me this question.
What would Trump do if he gets elected and there are these X millions of people who poured across the border during the Biden administration, especially from all kinds of different countries, and they haven't been here long.
Would Trump ship them all back?
Well, he might say so as, you know, a political campaign situation, but our country could easily absorb that many.
You get that, right?
We don't have so many illegal immigrants that we can't absorb them.
It will just take way longer and be way more expensive than we hoped it would be.
But we are getting people This is one thing that America receives, which is a lot of people really, really wanted to be Americans and are going to try hard to make it work in this country and want to work hard, etc.
Now, are there also terrorists who got through?
Probably.
I mean, it's hard to imagine that they didn't.
But probably if you're a terrorist, you're the most motivated of all immigrants.
You've got some resources and stuff behind you, so probably you can get in under every condition.
I don't really understand how does border security work if you arrived on a boat and then you just took a dinghy and took your boat to the shore anywhere in America?
Who checks you if you come in on a On a little boat.
You know, there might be a bigger boat offshore, but who's checking?
So I always think to myself, well, a terrorist could get into the country like a hundred different ways.
So I'm not sure that that would be any different under Trump, honestly.
You know, maybe the low quality terrorists can get through.
Maybe a little easier or something, but I don't know.
A motivated terrorist with backing from a nation state?
How hard would it be?
So here's what I think.
I think Trump would not send them back.
I think in reality it would be like the first time he got elected.
He said he was going to send back 14 million people.
I think it's the same thing.
If you have the choice of actually rounding up millions of people and sending them back home, I don't think it's going to happen.
Now, I could imagine that some subset are rounded up, as in ones that came from countries that are on the watch list.
That could happen.
And that might be, you know, that could be like, I don't know, I'll just throw out a number for conversation.
That could be 20,000 people.
Couldn't it?
Yeah.
People who came from, you know, terror centers of the world.
So I don't think he's going to send everybody back.
That would be my guess.
But America can absorb that money.
It's not even clear that we're worse off in the long run as long as we stop it.
The problem would be continuing at the same rate and not stopping it.
That would be a death sentence for the country.
No way around it.
But, you know, it's more of a directional and a rate thing than it is about the number of people.
Now, I'd like to float an idea that's been floated before.
This is not my original idea.
This is for Lee, who's emailed me and said, hey, remember to bring up this idea.
And the idea would be to pay off the national debt, or $33 trillion, with essentially selling citizenship mortgages.
Essentially letting people buy their way into America for a million dollars apiece.
And you let in as many millions as you need for 10 years, and you would pay off the national debt.
Now that assumes it doesn't grow, so it's not a perfect solution, right?
Because it is growing.
Now, you would still have to be vetted.
So the key part of this argument is, you don't just get to pay money and come in.
All right, so you can't be a cartel member and just put down a million dollars and commit.
You still have to be vetted for having a job that contributes to the United States, or just assets.
You know, if you said, hey, I don't have a job, I'm retired, but I'm going to bring you $40 million in assets that I made from another country.
Okay, come on over.
Bring your $40 million to our banks.
So here's the question.
Would enough people pay a million dollars a year?
Because remember, you're only getting the highest quality immigrants.
And they could bring their families.
Let's say there's some deal where if one person pays a million, they can bring their nuclear family, but not more.
Maybe parents.
Something like that.
Now you would end up with the highest quality immigrants in the history of the United States.
And you would end up with a, you know, best trained, highest quality immigrants at exactly the time we need it.
You know, the time when it's really, really critical.
I've always thought that America's biggest superpower is, well, those of you saying a dumb idea, you have to give a reason.
I'm not saying it's a good idea, but I'm not aware of any reason it's a bad idea.
We're talking about millions.
We're talking about letting in millions per year.
Several million per year.
But several million of the highest quality, industrious people would just be a plus.
I mean, we'd get the million dollars right away.
But we'd also get the talent right away.
And you'd have almost no crime from that group.
It'd be practically a zero crime population.
All right, so I'll just put that out there.
It's not that I think it's a great idea.
It's that I don't see anything wrong with it.
You know, if you tried it and it only worked a little bit, you know, very few people could pay the million dollars.
Well, at least you got a little bit.
It didn't hurt anything.
So it's in the category of things which you could say, could you trial it small?
And the answer is yes.
You could do a small pilot where you say, all right, for six months, if you get a million dollars, you can come in and we'll even loan you the million or something like that, basically.
Or let's say this, you would take on a million dollars of debt from the national debt.
You would just adopt the debt, somehow.
So the financial part could be tweaked, but the idea is that you'd buy your way in.
It's worth a try.
It's worth a trial.
So Trump is having no luck with his current trial with Judge Ngoron.
Judge Arthur M. Garan.
Now, is it just me or does he sound like a character from The Hobbit?
He does, doesn't he?
But he looks like a character from Harry Potter.
He looks like, or Dobby the House Elf.
Am I the only one who sees Dobby the House Elf when I see the judge?
Anyway, he seems like a fictional character.
But Trump was complaining because he wanted to read to the court a piece of paper that he had with him that was a copy of some document that said, it was a disclaimer about their financial situation.
And the disclaimer said, you cannot count, you cannot rely on our estimates of value, basically.
I'm summarizing.
Trump imagines, I guess, that that would absolve him of any bad estimates.
Now, I'm no lawyer, but I would propose that it would not absolve him of any charges.
I'll just use my common sense lawyer ability.
I would think that the The clause, the disclaimer about the values that they say, would be for honest mistakes or maybe differences of opinion.
I don't think it's for lying.
Am I wrong?
So the charge is that he knowingly lied about the value, specifically like the number of square footage or something.
Now, that wouldn't be helped with a disclaimer, would it?
Unless the disclaimer said, we can also lie to you, it's still fraud, isn't it?
Because there's a big, big difference between being incorrect and lying.
Those are not the same.
So, is there anybody here who's a lawyer?
I mostly disagree.
I don't know which you're disagreeing to.
So the lawyers who are watching, Can you confirm that I'm right, that the disclaimer does not protect him completely?
True or false?
The disclaimer does not protect him from lying.
Okay, I'm getting lots of confirmations that that's true.
But, here's the dog not barking.
Who is the entity?
Can you describe the entity that took his word for the value of his property?
I really want to see the face of the guy who did that.
I mean, actually a photograph of an actual human being.
Here's a picture of the guy who decided not to check, even though checking is the main part of his job.
If you're a loan officer, the main part of your job is to make sure that that collateral or the property is worth what the customer says.
Now you're telling me that somebody made some gigantic multi-million dollar loan, and because Donald Trump, the most famous exaggerator in the world, may I say, the most famous exaggerator in the world, even before he was president, The most famous fabulist ever, showman, salesman, exaggerator.
You know, he's the art of the deal.
He's going to come at you with every bullshit that he has, legally.
Now you tell me that there's a high-end banker In that scenario, who decided not to check, having a third person, you know, you can hire people to go do an assessment.
Under those conditions, there's a real live human being who consciously decided not to check.
Do you believe that's true?
And it's the most important fact of the case, and I've never heard it reported.
Why is the most important fact not reported?
Has anybody heard any explanation of who this person is?
Because usually there's one loan officer, but for the big loans they also need to get signed off usually by their boss or even their boss's boss, depending on the size of the loan.
Now the boss and the boss's boss, if they're approving the loan officer's loan, do you know how they approve it?
Do they do it like this?
Here you go.
Is that how they do it?
In a bank?
I've worked in a bank.
I was a loan officer.
It was my job to check on the value of the assets.
I'm not making it up.
I did that job.
I made loans to businesses, and they would claim their assets were worth a certain thing, and we would check.
And my boss would look at it, and he'd ask the basic questions.
What is the collateral?
Did you look at the tax returns and he's got plenty of money to pay it back?
Basics.
You know, just cursory basics.
But the one you wouldn't leave out is, is the value of the collateral enough to pay back the loan?
You don't leave that out, right?
That's the conversation that the loan officer has with their boss.
Is the collateral sufficient?
How do you know?
Basic questions.
And just feel your brain exploding that after all this news coverage, nobody could show you the name of the person who completely abandoned their job responsibilities and took Trump's word for it.
Who the hell was that?
Now, you know that there's something either corrupt about the media, or the trial, or both.
Because it's the most basic question.
The most central question is, why'd you take his word for it?
Or whose word did they take?
Maybe it wasn't Trump's word, it might have been something on an accounting statement.
Why'd they take the word for it?
We'll never know, maybe.
Biden's poll numbers are terrible, and some people say it's because of his support for Israel.
Why would that not affect Trump's poll numbers the same way?
Just because he's not the one in office?
Are we to believe that Trump is not supporting Israel?
Of course he is.
So why would only one of their poll numbers go down?
Don't they have basically exactly the same position on Israel?
Have I missed something?
How can the news report The two people with the same opinion, one loses support and the other one doesn't?
The only thing I can think of is that Trump's support among Palestinian supporters was already so low that nothing would make it lower.
But Biden still had a little bit of fluff in it, so they took the fluff out of it.
Maybe something like that, but it's kind of a mystery.
Well, RFK Jr.
is saying that the reason that people don't feel the Bidenomics economy is doing well, but yet the statistics would suggest, say the Democrats, that the economy is doing well in a number of important places.
And RFK Jr.
suggests that the reason for that is the government economic data is manipulated and it's all fake.
So the government is telling you things are better than they are, but the people can feel it in their lives that it's not better, and that's where the disconnect is.
So it comes as a great surprise to find out that somebody who would, you know, probably know the truth of this, says that the government's lying to you about the most basic thing about the country, which is its economic health.
So is there anything the government is doing that's Not corrupt.
I feel like everything they're doing is corrupt.
All the time.
And right in front of you.
They don't even hide it anymore.
This is so overtly corrupt behavior.
Did we just get smarter about what corruption looks like?
Is it just that we're catching it lately and we didn't used to catch it?
I mean, maybe.
Maybe it's exactly like it always was and we're just more aware.
We're definitely getting red-pilled collectively as a population.
And of course now there's a bombshell report on the censorship industrial complex, as they call it.
Conceptually, that would be any time your government works with outside entities, non-government entities like Corporations or non-profits.
And it works with them to censor.
So the government would tell an entity to talk to one of the social media platforms, and then the social media platforms thinks they're talking to some independent entity that just has an interest in misinformation.
And the platform's like, oh, well, this is kind of helpful, actually.
Oh, thank you for telling us this is misinformation.
We will, in many cases, do what you want, in some cases not.
But that would be a tricky way to have government censorship without the government being the finger on the button.
They just basically work with somebody else to be their finger.
So now Representative Jordan is telling us about this.
There was this group involved at Stanford.
They worked with a government group and the government group would tell the Stanford group that Allegedly operated independently.
What they wanted censored.
The Stanford Group would tell the social media platforms and successfully get stuff censored.
And there's actually a list of which accounts they specifically targeted for censorship.
Molly Hemingway is one.
Now, are all of you familiar with Molly Hemingway's writings?
I can't even think of a single thing she's ever been accused of that turned out to be wrong.
Like all writers get stuff wrong.
But there's no notable case of that, right?
I've been reading her for I don't know how many years.
I've never seen her get ahead of the facts.
Have you?
Have you ever seen her once get ahead of the facts?
I've never seen it once.
She's one of the Best writers working today.
And she was on a list of people to be suppressed by your government.
Do you think that was because of misinformation?
Or do you think that was because she was effective?
I've often said she's one of the most effective political voices I've ever seen.
Because she's so good at it.
I mean, it's just high quality communications.
So, now Jack Posobiec was on the list.
Charlie Kirk was on the list.
I think there's a place you can go to see if you're on the list.
I don't know if I'm on the list.
Don't you think I should have been on that list?
Dave Rubin was on the list.
Are you thinking the same list?
James O'Keefe was on the list, right?
Can anybody check to see if I'm on the list, if there's like a deeper list?
And the question I would ask is, if I'm not on the list, why not?
Why would I not be on that list?
What about Cernovich?
Was Cernovich on the list?
Are you telling me that both Cernovich and I were not on the list of suppression?
Does that sound true?
I'm not aware of anything I was trying to promote that was non-factual.
I've definitely tweeted things that turned out to be wrong, as all of us have.
Yeah, I was certainly shadow banned.
I mean, that's clear.
Anyway, I wonder how they get their list.
Let's talk about the Nashville Shooters Manifesto.
So, Steven Crowder tells us that he has a He got some photos of the so-called Nashville Shooters Manifesto, which was a bunch of high school looking scribblings and notebooks.
And allegedly, the part we saw would suggest that the shooter was super racist against white people, called them crackers and spoiled and stuff, and was going to go shoot those crackers.
What was the ethnicity of the shooter?
I thought the shooter was white.
So it's a white shooter who hated white people.
How do you get a white shooter who hates white people enough to want to shoot them?
Well, that happens from the media, yeah.
Do you think the media will report that they created a mass shooter?
No, they will not report that.
But that's what happened.
So it's a combination of the media, the school system, the DEI, the CRT, the ESG, the continuous oppressor-oppressed narrative.
But was that what radicalized this person to go kill people?
Probably.
Probably.
I mean, there's no way to know.
It's too complicated to know.
But probably.
I don't believe that you would have this kind of shooter in a world where the melting pot was the primary message from the main political parties.
If one party said there's one group of bad people in the country and one group of oppressed people, you would expect the oppressed people to have a few members who want to do some violence against their oppressors.
I would say that's closer to a guarantee than something to worry about.
It's guaranteed.
I mean, you should worry about it too, but it's guaranteed.
If you wait long enough, there's no way it doesn't happen.
It's built right into the design.
Let us talk about whether the manifesto is real or not.
There are two indications it's not real, and one strong indication it is real.
So it looks like it's real.
That's my current opinion.
But the first two pieces of information I knew about it suggested it wasn't.
So I'll use this as a little lesson on how to identify fake news.
The first thing I saw was that the alleged manifesto seemed too on the nose.
Meaning, isn't that like perfectly fitting the headlines?
And the reason it was suppressed is because it would make the entire Democratic Party look like terrorists.
Right?
And that's exactly, exactly, exactly what Republicans thought was in the hidden document.
That's two on the nose.
Generally, something that on the nose is a real strong indication of a hoax.
But there's more.
It was confirmed to be true by a local news channel, but they had an anonymous source.
Anonymous source is almost always a signal of fake news.
Doesn't have to be, but almost always.
So now you have two really strong signals that it's fake news.
But then the officials, you know, the law enforcement in charge, Did not deny its reality.
Instead, they said they would look to find who released it.
They're not confirming it's real, but they're going to investigate who released the thing that they're not confirming is real.
That's pretty much a confirmation.
Now, the only way that this could still be fake would be this.
That the people who confirmed it, or we think they confirmed it by not denying it, simply had never seen it.
Because if this document was so sensitive that law enforcement didn't want the public to see it, they would also make sure that not everybody in law enforcement saw it.
That would be pretty basic, right?
You'd make sure that just the absolutely needed-to-know people saw it.
So do you think that one of those absolutely needed-to-know people is the ones that said, that didn't deny it?
Or could it be somebody else who's just a spokesperson who never saw it?
And they actually don't even know if it's real.
So they're not denying it, but they're still looking to see who did it.
That could happen.
So I'm going to say there's still a non-zero chance it's fake, but a really small chance.
At this point, if I had to put money on it, I'd put money on it that it's real.
How's that assessment?
Is that a good assessment?
Are you on the same page?
Probably real, well over 90%.
But here's another question for you.
If you were the source of this material, and you knew its value to the news, would you go to Steven Crowder first?
I would go to Steven Crowder if it were a hoax.
I would go to him first.
Do you know why?
Because Steven Crowder has a big platform on the right and a lot of people watch his stuff.
If you wanted to take him out in a Alex Jones way, you know, to just get him thrown off of all media, one way to do it would be to create a hoax in which he got way over his skis on something that turned out to be like a famous fake.
From that day on, He would look at the Breitbart treatments.
Do you know what the Breitbart treatment is?
It goes like this.
Hey, I saw a story in Breitbart.
Can you respond to that, Democrat?
Where did you see it?
Breitbart.
Oh!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Ha!
No, but seriously, nobody's even doubting the story.
They have the documents.
Breitbart has the actual document.
So there's no question about the story being real, and it's been confirmed to be real.
I just have a question to what you think about Breitbart's reporting.
morning.
Right now imagine this was an op.
Imagine it was an op, and they said, how are we going to take out Steven Crowder?
Let's make his biggest win ever, Geraldo's safe.
Al Capone's safe.
Because every day from Al Capone's safe, Geraldo was laughed at, no matter what his newest thing was, no matter what his topic was 30 years later, They'd say, well, it looks like another Geraldo Alcapone save.
Don't take him seriously.
It would be easy for me to imagine this is an op and in a few weeks we're going to be saying to ourselves, Crowder, is he the guy that got that manifesto wrong?
We can ignore everything he says and kick him off all the platforms.
So, I'm still going to put my money on it's real.
So my money is on Crowder for being right.
I'm going to bet he's right.
And I'm sure he has a show today.
Is it right now or after mine?
It's right after mine, right?
Is it now?
You know, I give you permission to go watch his show.
You know, normally I just want to compete with him hard.
But if this is a real scoop, he gets the credit.
Right?
So he gets the attention, he gets the credit.
If it's a real scoop.
And I'm going to bet it is.
All right.
So good for him.
All right.
There was a story in the horror.
Some terrorist in Indiana wanted to kill a bunch of Jews.
So she drove her car into a building that she thought were full of Jewish people.
But she was not too well informed on the Jewish community.
And it turns out she drove it into a building which the ADL considers anti-Semites.
They have something Jewish in their name.
But I think there's a group of black Israelites, yeah.
I guess that's what they call themselves.
So they're considered by the rest of the Jewish world as anti-Semitic because they don't believe the background and history that is the common one.
So they're actually anti-Semitic.
So the terrorists attacked some people like herself.
So there's that.
All right.
Here's what I want to tell you about the dog not barking.
I wrote a long thread on this.
I'll just read it because I put a lot of time into getting it just right.
All right.
So I know the Israel, the Israeli narrative about Hamas, and you all know that too, right?
So Israel's narrative is that Hamas are terrorists and that no matter what, they want to destroy Israel.
Is there anybody who doesn't know that?
We all know that, right?
That's common knowledge.
The Hamas narrative, and maybe Hamas slash Palestinian, is that Israel was oppressing Gaza for years, even though Israel wasn't there.
So Israel was not in charge of Gaza.
They had pulled down completely.
But the narrative is that Israel was still oppressing Gaza for years and really, really oppressing them.
Now, the word occupation applies to the larger area.
So I'm not talking about occupation.
I'm talking about oppression in Gaza.
So that's their narrative.
Would you agree that's the narrative?
That one side says Hamas is terrorists, the other side says you keep oppressing us in Gaza, specifically in Gaza, but you know the rest of the territories as well.
All right.
Now I want to be clear.
I'm not saying that the alleged oppression of Gaza does exist or does not exist.
Here's my point.
What was it?
What was it?
Think about how many protesters you've seen with signs.
Think about how many interviews you've seen.
Think about how many pro-Palestinian people you've heard.
Representative Tlaib, for example.
Think about all the talking and communicating about all that Israeli oppression of Gaza.
Now give me an example of the oppression.
Now obviously there's a war going on now, so I'm not counting that.
What did they do exactly?
What was the oppressing part?
Was it leaving them completely alone to their own devices?
No, hold on, hold on.
There are plenty of people who can't travel to Israel just because they want to.
That's called having a border.
Why would it be oppressive that they can't leave their border?
Isn't that sort of a common thing?
So you're telling me that the oppression is not letting a community that had too many terrorists in it travel without restriction?
Was that the oppression?
Here's my point.
You have no idea what that oppression was.
Am I right?
Is there anybody whose head is exploding right now?
The entire war narrative Was oppressors and oppressed.
I can't think of a single example that has been in the news that I would deem something like that oppression.
My understanding is that they simply weren't there.
How is it oppressive to be not there and not want to deal with you?
In fact, the fact that they let some, I don't know, 20,000 Gaza residents come into Israel to work at all To me, that seems pretty open-minded.
I mean, they probably needed the labor.
So, does it remind you of anything?
What are you reminded of when you hear that one group is calling you an oppressor, but they don't have any argument for what that oppression is?
Yeah, there you go.
It's BLM.
Do you remember when BLM was new?
And I actually said, you know what?
They keep saying they have issues, but it's not clear what they are, or what solution they would want for them.
So I actually offered to help BLM put together a list of specific complaints, because if you get specific, then people can get creative.
Right?
One of them is, you know, police were treating them poorly, especially black people.
So one specific solution would be body cams for more police so that nobody doesn't have one.
Right?
So if you get it down to the specific stuff, then you have potential for solutions.
But they resisted the specific stuff really hard.
Do you know why?
Because specific problems can be checked to see if they're true and they can be solved.
And it became really clear after a while the resistance to specific complaints because there weren't any or weren't any that would sell.
So instead they would go directly to solutions that make you think past the sale of all the badness and think all the way to reparations.
And I'm thinking, really?
How is your life so different from mine that I owe you money?
Like, make that case.
So BLM was famously vague about what the problems were, because that would prevent a solution.
And it allows you to say, well, give me money and get money from Soros to keep complaining, etc.
So BLM was more about the industry of complaint than it was about fixing anything.
Clearly.
I mean, you can say that with complete confidence from today's perspective.
Do you think the Palestinians are looking for some kind of solution to their oppression?
Absolutely not.
Absolutely not.
No.
The oppression argument appears to be either absolute bullshit or somehow Israel has controlled every part of the media to the point where all these Palestinian people talking on camera don't say or we don't see what the real complaint is.
Stop any American who is pro-Palestinian, let's say the ones tearing down the signs from the polls, And say, can you give me examples of the oppression?
I think they would say things like, well, you know, you're bombing Gaza.
You know, you, Israel.
And then you say, I don't know, before that, like before this stuff happened, what was all the oppression?
Well, you know, the Israel army was occupying Gaza.
No, not for years.
For years they've been gone.
What has been the blockade?
Somebody said blockade.
Blockade on what?
Are you telling me that people can't ship goods and things to Gaza?
There was nobody who could deliver goods to Gaza, even before the war?
Well, if that's an argument, I haven't heard it.
Have you?
No shipping by sea because they couldn't check it because they were getting weapons?
All right.
So they were trying to prevent weapons.
Does the complaint come down to we didn't have unrestricted shipping?
Because obviously a lot of it would be weapons.
That would be the complaint.
That they can't get their weapons in to kill them.
All right.
So just keep in mind that There's a huge part of the story that, for some reason, we're not being told.
Would you agree?
You see it too, right?
You see that half of the story is completely missing, just the way it was with BLM.
It's just completely missing.
And it's the most important part of the story, right?
The war has our attention, and the atrocities have our attention.
But the most central part of the complaint is, were they oppressed?
In a way that doesn't make sense.
Stopping shipping doesn't sound like that was the big problem.
And suppose the Gaza residents had simply complained to the international community, hey, if we could just fix this shipping thing, if there's some way you can check to make sure there are no guns or something, we'll let the UN check.
How about that?
How about the UN checks our big containers and then you don't have to worry about missiles coming in?
Did anybody suggest that?
I don't think so.
Do you know why I think nobody suggested that?
Because if the UN checked the containers to make sure no missiles came in, then they wouldn't be able to send in missiles.
Isn't that why?
They don't want a solution to the problem.
These seem like easily solvable problems.
There's no country that's not causing trouble with neighbors that's having a problem receiving goods.
If your country can't even receive goods from other countries, maybe it's time to look at your fucking behavior, right?
If it's not even legal to send you anything in a box, you're doing something wrong.
Anyway, so we don't know what's going on there.
Somebody asked me about the impact of looking at all the war casualty imagery.
If we say that porn can reprogram your brain, and I'm sure it can, if you look at a bunch of porn, your brain changes.
Wouldn't you agree?
What is happening to all of us being exposed to massive amounts of war casualties?
Do you think it's giving us mental illness?
Absolutely.
Yeah.
And when I say mental illness, I mean serious mental illness.
I mean, the last few weeks, since October 7th, I don't think I've had a good day.
Does anybody have that experience?
I haven't woken up and had a good day since October 7th.
I'm seeing other people say yes.
Now I've had days where I avoided the news a little bit better than other days, but since I do this for a living, I can't avoid it entirely.
I can really feel the mental illness.
I mean, it's really obvious.
So it took three weeks out of my life, so far, and counting.
Well, four weeks now.
So it's four weeks out of my life and counting.
Not a single good day.
Not one.
And I can feel that the cause is absolutely the Middle East.
Because the images from both sides are so disturbing.
And honestly, I feel some responsibility.
Has anybody else felt that?
I actually feel some personal responsibility.
Let me tell you why.
Because I'm a public figure.
Public figures are expected to weigh in and somehow their opinion will change things.
But this is one in which no opinion will change anything.
My opinion of whether Israel should go into Gaza won't have any impact on whether Israel does what to Gaza.
So this is one of those cases where I feel more helpless than normal.
You know, normally, if I'm talking about politics and I say something that makes sense, it's like, oh, good point.
I have some optimism that other people will see it's a good point, and then maybe that idea spreads a little bit and makes something better.
But I don't think there's anything I can do on this.
I don't think there's anything I can do to help Palestinians who are just innocent victims.
I don't think there's anything I can do to make Israel better off.
It's a real helpless feeling.
Anyway, I do think that we have PTSD from this, and you should know that all of the war imagery, you know, all the, you did this to us, it's very bad, that's all propaganda.
If you have a good idea of what happened and is about to happen, it's obvious what's going to happen in Gaza, there will be massive injuries and death.
If you know the basics, You need to not look at any more tweets.
Do not look at any more news coverage if you know the basic idea.
I would go to text only, and I would not read a paragraph if you know it's going to describe a horror, because it almost always does.
So you should, now that you know the basics of what's going on, you should aggressively ignore the news.
Aggressively.
You should make it like a main feature of your day to not see any more news about this topic.
Even if it means not watching me.
Now, you've probably noticed that I have aggressively avoided descriptions of the worst stuff.
Have you noticed that?
Is it obvious to you that I'm avoiding the propaganda on both sides?
I'm doing that for your mental health and mine as well.
I don't want any of that in my mind.
I have an idea what's happening.
I now understand the situation and I have a view that's not going to change.
No more imagery, please.
But what is just really sick about this is I can't think of any time this has happened before.
The Palestinians have always branded themselves as victims.
Would you agree?
Is that statement just obviously true?
It's part of their power.
If they can brand themselves as victims, then they get more assistance.
Basic stuff.
Now, would you also agree that Israel brands itself as a victim from the Holocaust through October 7th, and that that too has been a successful strategy to get support?
But have you ever seen a hot war between two entities who both brand themselves as victims all the time?
I don't know of one, but here's what happened.
They're competing on victimhood, because that's their game.
So Israel is trying to say, you did worse things to us, and the Hamas and the Palestinians are saying, but you did worse things to us.
Normally in a war, You would expect both sides to say what a good job they're doing.
So the Ukrainian war, the Ukrainians say, I know it looks like we're losing, but we're totally winning.
Oh, we're taking out those Russians.
We're killing so many Russians.
You can't even believe how many Russians we killed.
The Russians, meanwhile, probably telling their domestic people, we're doing a great job.
You can't even imagine how many Ukrainians we killed.
Oh, we killed so many Ukrainians.
Those are two cultures They have winning as their dominant, you know, preferred theme.
So you've got two winners fighting each other, which makes complete sense.
Like, they both think they can win, so they're fighting.
You know, they're both trying to be the alpha, the dominant.
But in the Gaza situation, I've never seen anything like it.
Both sides are trying to paint themselves as victims and who can be the biggest victim.
So it turns into, what it turns into is that both sides have turned into the marketing department for the other's military.
Israel became the marketing department for Hamas by saying, look at how many people they killed.
Let me show you the pictures.
Let me give you details.
They did such an effective job of killing our people.
Man, are they good at killing our people.
And so you better support us.
They're actually the marketing department for the other army.
And Palestinians are like, you're killing all our people.
We have no hope.
You surrounded us.
You've already killed 10,000, they'll claim.
Literally the marketing department for the IDF.
Man, that IDF is good.
Have you ever seen this before?
Where the two armies are the marketing department for the other side.
The absurdity of being part of this is just breaking my head.
I understand Ukraine versus Russia.
Two dominant people trying to dominate the other.
But two victims fighting is just sick shit.
That's some really sick shit.
All right.
There might be a breakthrough in fentanyl treatment.
Shout out to Mark Cuban.
So here's one of the reasons I like our billionaires.
There are things which billionaires can do that the government can't do.
Elon Musk can make a rocket that can get you into space because the government couldn't get it done.
Elon Musk can give freedom, let's say information freedom, to remote places of the world by building satellites all over the place.
The government wasn't going to do that.
Elon Musk can help Helping to fight against climate change, if you believe that's a problem.
And he can invent a car company that gets the whole industry moving, etc.
etc.
Build a lot of batteries.
Government wasn't going to do it.
So there are things that billionaires can do for you that the government just wasn't going to do.
One of the things that the billionaires can do is they're better at spotting what will work.
That's sort of their expertise, you know, especially the entrepreneurial billionaires.
So your Mark Cubans, you know, not only was he involved in, or is involved, in a company that's at lower prescription costs.
What's that company called?
I'll give him a shout out, but I can't remember it.
It's a new company where you can get your, some of the basic prescriptions at lower cost.
If anybody thinks of it, I'll give him a shout out for that.
Is it cost plus drugs?
Is that what it is?
Somebody says good Rx and somebody says there must be two different companies.
All right, well my point is if you don't like that there are billionaires like Mark Cuban and you want them not to exist anymore because you want equity or whatever, cost plus drugs is what people are saying.
I think that's what it is.
But apparently Mark Cuban has also invested in this technology, which solves the problem of getting methadone to fentanyl addicts.
Now, methadone is what you can take to help you get off of fentanyl.
But one of the problems is that the methadone itself has a street value of like $500.
So if you let people come in and guess a methadone and leave, the addicts will come in, guess a methadone, and then sell it.
So it just doesn't work.
The only way that they're allowed to take the methadone is to go there in person and to be observed while it's administered.
I think it's a needle, but I'm not sure.
Is methadone a needle or a pill?
Somebody says pills.
Somebody says liquid.
Suppository.
All right, well, whatever it is, you have to do it.
I think you ingest it, a pill or a liquid.
But you have to do it in front of people so they know you didn't take it with you.
Now, the problem is that you have to do like the first six days.
You have to go six days in a row.
And the addicts generally can't pull that off.
Either because they have a job, they can't leave six days in a row, or something else.
So it wasn't working as a solution because the delivery mechanism was too inefficient.
So I guess this new technology will allow you to take some several doses home and then there's some kind of process where it films you actually ingesting it.
So if you're not filmed ingesting it, you're not going to get any more, I guess.
So, will that work?
Well, it seems to be working already.
And this is something that... Do you think the government was going to fund this?
Do you think that Mark Cuban funded this because he thinks this is a big money maker?
I doubt it.
I doubt you would invest in this Because you think this is your best investment for the dollar.
Clearly, I can't read his mind.
Not reading his mind.
But to me it seems obvious that this was for the benefit of a group of people who couldn't help themselves.
Kind of the highest level of citizenship is this.
The more people who have a billion dollars and are looking for really specific things where they can make that difference, like a big lever, like this would be one of the biggest levers anybody ever put on the fence in no problem.
If it works, and it looks promising, this would be a huge, just huge benefit for Mark Cuban and the folks working on it.
So I just want to And this amazing livestream on that potentially good news.
And you know the thing that's going to make everything work in the long run and part of the reason I still have optimism about the United States is that we're really good at inventing.
This would be an example of the inventing the methadone stuff.
You see Elon Musk is inventing his way out of climate change.
I would argue that Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter was something the government wouldn't do and couldn't do, and only he could.
And he has allowed us to maintain some semblance of free speech that could not have been possible before.
Huge, huge, huge benefits.
And I'm just talking two billionaires.
Look at what Bill Ackerman's doing right now, just hammering his alma mater, Harvard, for being anti-Semitic in his view, and many other people's view.
Think how easy it would be for Bill Ackerman to just sit it out.
Just ignore the whole thing.
He's got his money, doesn't need any more money.
But he's not.
He waited it hard.
And he's going to pay for it.
This is going to be expensive.
Bill Ackman is definitely going to get blowback for trying to make the world a better place in his way.
But watching the billionaires, you know, take on specific problems like the Harvard, that's pretty specific and very important.
And I think he's doing great work on that.
You watch the, what is it, the All In podcast?
There's David Sachs and some other, and John Muth and some other billionaires.
These are guys who don't need to do anything for you.
David Sachs doesn't need to do anything for you.
You didn't do anything for him.
But he wakes up every morning and apparently puts his reputation on the line on topics that he thinks need to be better communicated or explored or thought out better.
That is amazing.
Because, and it's not just that he's just one more voice, it's that he's really good at it.
Right?
It's the really good at it part that makes it important.
Look at... I can't pronounce his name.
What is Chameth's last name?
Can you put it there so I can read it?
I think I might be pronouncing his first name wrong too.
I'm terrible at names.
But anyway, you know what I'm talking about.
He said out loud, Paula Patea, he says out loud that Trump was better than he thought when Trump was in office. he says out loud that Trump was better than he How big a deal is that?
Really big.
Really big deal.
Right?
Because he put his neck out.
He didn't need to.
He didn't do it.
I don't think he did it for his personal gain.
Did he?
Like, what would he gain by that?
Nothing.
So, I mean, that's brave.
That's just pure bravery and civic contribution.
Now, I saw in the comments mentioning Mr. Beast.
Mr. Beast is, I guess, maybe the biggest internet You know, persuader, influencer of all time in terms of money.
And I understood that he just funded the drilling of, what, 12 wells in Africa?
Is that true?
A hundred wells. A hundred wells.
A hundred wells.
That means there are a hundred villages whose quality of life just...
Just went up by 50%.
Because there's one guy with a lot of money who decided he would just fix that.
That's amazing.
I don't think all billionaires are good, but we have this belief that they have all this money and they're using it for their consumption and it's not fair.
I'll tell you this again, I've said it before.
If you have a billion dollars, what percentage of that billion dollars are you going to spend on your own personal well-being and entertainment?
Not much of it.
What are you going to do with the rest?
The rest of it becomes power, and then how you use that power is the real question.
So giving it away, it's good for some.
Just give it away.
And others just use that power to identify areas that they can fix.
And that's a good thing for the country.
All right, my colonizers and everybody else.
That is my live stream for today.
Probably the best thing you've seen today.
No discussions of horrors.
▲
Export Selection