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:
Politics, AI Images, Processed Foods, Testosterone, Jon Stewart's News Silo, Weaponized Government, Elizabeth Warren, Organized Trolls, Nikki Haley, Senator Bob Menendez, Gen Z Employees, NYC Trump Judgement, President Biden, Julian Assange, Hitler Predictive Model, Scott Adams
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
It is quite controversial today.
If you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand unless they have a Web telescope or something like that.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gel, a cistern, a canteen, a jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Enjoy me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better is cold.
The simultaneous sipping happens now.
Go.
Oh, that's that's a good sip.
I hate to say every day that it's better than usual, but every day is better than average.
Yeah.
Been chewing on that for a while.
Well, the X platform is going to start labeling AI-generated images.
How does it know?
Do you think X will automatically know an AI-generated image?
Because it might be a way to know.
But I suppose if they find him manually, they can label them.
But that's good news.
I have, however, stopped believing any image.
And even video.
Have you done that yet?
I've still fallen for a few.
So I can't say that I'm pure.
I've fallen for a few hoaxes just recently.
You have videos that weren't real.
Pictures that weren't real.
But I think I'm doing better.
At telling myself, this might not be real.
This could be AI.
It's a skill, really.
You have to just train yourself to just assume that because you see it and hear it, it doesn't mean anything.
It doesn't mean anything just because you saw it and heard it with your own ears and your own eyes.
Well, one of our big telescopes got us a picture of Uranus.
And here it is.
It's a picture of Uranus.
Now, I haven't seen this since I sat on a photocopier back in the 80s and took a picture of Uranus.
Well, my anus, but it looked exactly like that is what I'm saying.
Probably because of all the bleaching.
Anyway, here's the good news.
Here's just an update.
I told you this already, but I did a little unscientific poll on X.
And I asked people how many people had quit or cut down on alcohol because they heard from me or somebody else that alcohol is poison.
And so far it's up to about 20,000 people.
What?
So over 40,000 people answered the poll, but 40% of them or so said they cut down or completely eliminated alcohol recently because they heard alcohol is poison.
You know, a little reframe that I've been using.
I'm kind of blown away.
Quitters.
Somebody's calling them quitters.
I'm kind of blown away by the impact that social media can have in a positive way.
You know, we always talk about all the bad stuff social media is doing.
But this looks like a fairly concrete example of where 20,000 people improve their lives and their health because of something on the Internet.
That's pretty awesome.
Well, it was also in my book.
A couple of books, actually.
Reframe Your Brain.
If you want to learn how to reframe the other parts of your life, I recommend my new book, Reframe Your Brain.
It's available on Amazon.
All right.
And other places.
There's a study that shows ultra-high processed foods.
We'll get to the political stuff.
I like to start with the palate cleansers because, you know, you can't take too much serious political news all at once.
Yeah, I like to tip that window a little bit.
Gets you a little bit wet, so to speak.
Anyway, there's a study that says ultra-high processed foods Are associated with lower muscle growth, so you'll have fewer muscles if you're eating a lot of processed foods, which could explain a lot, couldn't it?
How much do you think of everything that's going on politically and economically and otherwise?
How much of you think is because of our ideas?
Like our intellectual curiosity and our genuine differences and opinions?
How much is that?
And how much is a chemical shift that's happening because of the food and God knows what else?
The social media, the medicines, who knows?
But isn't there something missing from this story?
Suppose it's true, and we can't trust every, you know, I don't trust too many of the nutrition studies, but suppose it's true.
I mean, it seems like it would be, right?
Ultra-processed foods, you can't grow muscle as well as if you ate protein.
Seems obvious.
But wouldn't there also be a corresponding drop in testosterone?
Now that's a question, but I think it's a good question.
If you study people who had more muscles for any reason, either because they exercised more or they ate better, wouldn't they have more testosterone?
The boys?
Does that track?
More muscles pretty much always means more testosterone?
And aren't we seeing a gigantic drop in testosterone in modern males?
And isn't the percentage of processed foods in our diet, has it not risen every year since we started seeing the decline in testosterone?
It's probably that.
Wouldn't you say?
It's almost certainly the food.
I mean, it might be pollution a little bit too, but I feel like the food is the most direct thing that's happening to your body every year.
So, How is it that we decide what is an emergency?
This might be the biggest emergency in the history of the Republic, that our food sources are tainted to the point where it's changing our personalities and our ability to succeed.
It probably changed in the entire family structure, because I would imagine that testosterone gives you a certain set of outcomes socially, and if you change that level, you probably get different outcomes, such as more trans, more binary.
I'm wondering if social media isn't as much to blame for the growth in trans and non-binary stuff as maybe the food supply.
Makes you wonder.
Because I'm going to go out on a limb again and say that I think something drastically happened with the food supply around the time of the pandemic.
And it's just observational.
It's not based on any study.
Something changed.
And I wonder if something large changed, such as there was a shortage.
Maybe there was a substitution of some pesticides.
I'm just guessing.
Was there a substitution of any additive or chemical or preservative?
Was there anything that was in shortage that got replaced and maybe wasn't tested as carefully because we didn't want to limit the food supply?
Yeah.
I just wonder.
So the Daily Show continues to be funny, even when they're mocking people I like, which is the ultimate test.
If you can have a good laugh at your own team getting mocked, that's a pretty good product.
You know, a humor product that makes you laugh at your own behavior and your own preferences.
That's good.
And I think the Daily Show is hitting that.
However, I think Jon Stewart may not have full access to the real world of news, because since he was last doing this job, I think he may have missed the degree to which the I think he may have missed the degree to which the news is Because it wasn't always like this.
So it could be that he doesn't know he's missing a part of the story.
I think he might just genuinely not know, because I don't think he wants to do that intentionally.
So, for example, John Sewer was mocking Tucker Carlson's reporting from Moscow, because standing in, you know, some grocery stores in Moscow or showing their subway system isn't really indicative of the rest of Moscow or the rest of Russia.
We all knew that, right?
You knew that Moscow wasn't telling you anything about the rest of the country.
And we also knew that in order to have these good things that Russia has at least in one place, and maybe two places, St.
Petersburg, I hear, is pretty awesome.
But what you give up is that you have to live in a repressive regime.
Now, is that a good point?
Did Tucker sort of leave out that in order to have these good things that Russia allegedly has, at least in two cities, that you have to put up with a repressive regime?
Well, I think you don't have to leave it out or put it in because I thought it was obvious.
I thought everybody knew what Russia is.
Everybody knows what Putin is.
You don't have to say it every time he's mentioned, do you?
Is that necessary?
We're kind of all on the same page here.
But, it was fun, you know, I think it was fun and fair to see Tucker get mocked for maybe not mentioning that the rest of Russia wasn't looking so good, and that there's some repressive regime stuff.
However, Jon Stewart's site says, as an example, that there were hundreds of Navalny supporters who were arrested.
Hundreds of Navalny supporters were arrested.
What did he leave out?
Yeah.
So John Stewart is correct in mocking Tucker for leaving out that you have to put up with suppression and the rest of Russia maybe doesn't look so good as Moscow.
But then he left out that the Navalny supporters who were rounded up were mostly let out the same day with a small fine.
That was about it.
Whereas over 1,300 January 6 people have been arrested under the Biden regime.
That's way worse.
How in the world could you compare hundreds of people arrested and fined and released with 1,300 people arrested and put in jail for purely political reasons?
One of them is much worse.
And I think that's somewhat pointedly left out.
Now, I would imagine that Jon Stewart believes the news that says that the January 6th people broke a bunch of laws and they were trying to do an insurrection.
So that's completely different.
Do you think he really believes that?
Do you think somebody as smart as Jon Stewart believes that an insurrection happened on January 6th?
I'm going to say no.
I feel like, I think he can be, I think he can be saved.
But we'll see.
He clearly doesn't have that filter working, but that doesn't mean it couldn't work in the future.
How in the world would he not notice that their government has been weaponized?
At the very time that the Trump prosecutions are just obviously government weaponized against one person.
Well, against the party, really.
How do you not notice that?
It's the most obvious thing in the news.
It's the top headline that something super, super unfair happened.
All right, Elizabeth Warren was on some podcast and she was asked by the host, essentially, why do you think people still miss the Trump economy?
What is it that they think that they liked about the Trump economy?
And he acted confused.
And he did, to his credit, the podcaster said, You know, you can't count the pandemic, because that happened everywhere.
But before the pandemic, people thought Trump was doing OK.
What's up with that?
And Elizabeth Warren, her body language went just full crazy.
It went, I just don't know.
And she tried to explain it this way, that she doesn't know how narratives get formed.
Really?
Really?
You don't understand how narratives get formed and you're a senator?
It's literally all you do.
That's her whole job, forming narratives.
And then she formed a narrative for us to show us how it's done while telling us she doesn't know how narratives are formed.
No, it's people like her saying stuff.
That's how it's done.
And she has a good example of liar eyes.
Her eyes go wide when she's telling you... When she said that she doesn't know how narratives are formed, her eyes got big.
Well, I don't even know how narratives get formed!
Once you see the wide-eyed liar face thing, you'll see it everywhere.
It just makes you laugh when you see it, because you look for it.
It makes it fun.
It makes it more fun to watch the liars when you look for the eyes to go wide and the mouth not to match.
And then she speculated that the real problem was that maybe the poll questions were poorly formed.
Right?
The reason that people thought they had more money wasn't because prices are legitimately higher and every single person can notice it because it's the most obvious thing in your entire experience.
The prices are higher.
She thinks it might be a poorly formed poll question.
And there's also some mystery about how narratives get formed.
Now combine those two ridiculous answers with the body language.
I don't know how, I don't even know how narratives get formed.
I think it was some kind of a, probably some kind of a poll.
I don't know.
I don't know.
Maybe they asked the question wrong.
You have to see the video to know that my mocking impression of her is right on.
Anyway, the news is all funny when you can see the gears of the machine.
I had this realization in the last hour that the 2024 election has come down to the election deniers versus the erection deniers.
Let me say it again because I want to sink in a little bit.
The entire 2024 contest is the election deniers versus the erection deniers.
That's not bad.
Come on.
That's pretty good.
Yeah.
So not only do the Democrats not mind that people born with Penises are competing on women's teams, the trans, but they would deny their erections as being important to it.
And then, of course, if you've seen many of the protesters, you might have started with an erection, but once you looked at them, totally denied.
Denied.
When I was looking at the New York City Police Department dance troupe, all female, I felt like my erection was denied.
Because I was all ready to be excited by them, but nope.
Erection denied.
So that's what you got going for you.
All right.
So talking about the news is awkward when you are the news, because I was trending most of this morning.
Am I still trending on X?
Somebody take a look.
Am I still trending?
I was trending all morning.
And it's funny, because here's who I was trending with.
Nate Silver.
I was trending with the widow of Navalny.
And Kevin O'Leary, who's saying some of the same things I was saying.
And me.
Now, you know why Nate Silver and Kevin O'Leary were in the news?
Because Nate Silver was saying Biden should probably bow out unless he's able to campaign like a normal person.
And, you know, that's sort of a big deal because nobody thinks he's a Republican.
And, of course, you know why Navalny's widows in the news?
I guess she got banned on X, but then reinstated.
I don't know what that was about.
And then Kevin O'Leary made a lot of news by saying that investors should stay away from New York City.
Now, why was I in the news?
Does anybody know?
Oh, still there.
Does anybody know why I was in the news?
If you look, if you click on me to see what news I'm making, it's mostly my own posts.
Because my own posts go to the top because I get a lot of traffic.
But I was targeted by the professional class of trolls.
And now that we've heard the whole Mike Benz explanation of how censorship works, you can see the trolls as part of the censorship process.
So the way it works, if you're not familiar with this, and we learned this in 2016, but they're back.
The Democrats do, in fact, organize trolls so that they will attack individuals like me.
And it's done to reduce your reputation, basically, or to discourage you from using the platform because it's so unpleasant.
It doesn't work as well with me because I like the attention.
I think the whole point of it is I'm supposed to feel bad, you know, because they say terrible things about me and they insult me.
We'll talk about that.
But I'm such a narcissist that I wake up and I go, Hey, I'm trending on X. It's going to be a good day.
There were two hit pieces about me today.
Today alone, there were just, I was in the news in two other ways.
And I kept thinking, huh, nice.
So it's not working quite the way they hoped.
And of course, I'm monetizing it.
So I'm trying to get them spun up as much as I can.
Because if they engage in the comments, then I get more money.
So I want to get them going.
But here's how it works.
The organized trolls apparently have me on a list.
So X allows you to create lists and there's one with about 300 trolls on it who just follow each other and then when I guess the word goes out and then they all attack at the same time.
So it's organized for sure.
It's not accidental and they all have a certain theme and it goes like this.
They usually do not attack the content of of any of my opinions.
They don't go after content.
They usually somewhat obviously misinterpret something so they can go after me personally for a reputational thing or, you know, you're dumb or you're conceited or something like that.
So in this case, when I had posted that I was going to cancel any plans to go to New York City because of New York City's bad business environment, as proven by the Trump prosecutions, How did you interpret that?
Now, how did normal people interpret it when I said I was going to no longer do any business with New York City?
I'm guessing that you interpreted it the right way.
I'm guessing that you said, well, obviously he knows that his his one activities will not crash the city.
Did anybody think that I believed that posting I wasn't going to go to New York City Does anybody think that I believed that would really take down New York City?
That that was my plan to remove my own expenses from New York City, take down the city?
Well, that's what the trolls are believing.
Now, they don't actually believe that, of course, but they came in with their mocking.
Oh, oh, I guess that trip he wasn't really going to go on is canceled now.
Or, oh, I guess the Dilbert Convention is canceled in New York City.
Now, in order to even mock me that way, they have to pretend that they're not understanding that I was just showing support.
I'm just one of the people, right?
If there's a trucker today, and I guess this is part of the story too, if there's a trucker that decides not to take a load to New York City, Is it because the trucker believes that his one truck will destroy New York City?
And if he tweets, I'm not going to pick up a load for New York City, is it because he thinks this will take down the city?
Or is it just what people do?
They show their support for different things, and they do hope that other people maybe could be influenced by it.
Now, what part of that is insane?
Now, here's the other thing you need to know.
It's probably not because of that opinion.
That's not why they come after me.
They come after me either opportunistically, which is any time they've got a good reason to do it, but importantly, they don't come after me when I make a good point on, let's say, an important topic.
When I do that, they ignore that one, because they don't want to give it attention.
So they want to bring the energy only to my one post that they can act like they're mocking it for some good reason, the silliest one.
There was nothing less important that I did yesterday than say that I wasn't going to do business with New York City.
There's nothing less important.
Everything else I tweeted about was a more consequential political thing.
So they always go after you personally.
It looks like they have a personality map for each person they attack, in addition to some kind of a heat map to know who to attack.
Now, in my case, they've decided that the thing that will work the best on me is to say that I'm unimportant and already canceled, or that nobody cares and nobody pays attention.
So while they were telling me that nobody cares about what my opinion is, they sent such an army of people to say they don't care what my opinion is, that I was trending on X, which made everybody care about my opinion, because when it's trending on X, you get curious.
So, if I could get more troll action going, this is really good for my income and my exposure.
So, cha-ching!
All right, somebody named David Thornton criticized me for saying, and I love this, you'll notice this with a lot of my criticisms, and maybe you've already noticed, when people criticize my posts on X, they don't say what's wrong with it.
They just show it.
And then they act like everybody knows.
So one of the ones that I got mocked for is David Thornton.
I don't know who he is.
But he wrote a big article and included me in it because it's the political season.
So you want to throw everybody in there.
You can trash.
And I tweeted that I didn't think Putin was any more evil.
than John Brennan or Biden and the CIA.
You know, collectively.
The blob.
Now, he posted that and commented it like it's obviously crazy.
No, I'm gonna double down on that.
No, there's no indication that I can say that Putin is more evil than the United States, you know, the folks that are in power.
I don't see it.
Now you're gonna say to me, but Scott, do you not know the brutal, terrible things that Putin did?
I know every one of them.
I didn't miss any.
I didn't miss any.
Am I saying that Putin is a good guy?
No!
No, I'm not saying that Putin is a good guy.
Nothing like that.
I'm not even close to that.
I'm saying he's evil.
As clearly as I can.
I'm just saying these other people are in the same category as far as I can tell.
What, you think our CIA never killed anybody?
You think our presidents never ordered a hit on anybody?
Of course they did.
Of course they did.
So, and I guess there's some other article about me in Newsweek.
So when it comes to New York City, I say keep on not trucking.
Apparently there's some Nikki Haley announcement today.
Has that happened yet?
Has anybody seen a Nikki Haley announcement or speech?
Some are speculating that because she's 23 points down in the South Carolina upcoming race.
Is that today?
Is South Carolina today?
Yes.
So it would be the obvious day that she bows out if she doesn't win.
However, I would like to offer this other possibility.
Just to scare you.
What is the real reason that Nikki Haley is running?
What's the real reason?
Is it to win?
Or is it to... Is it to win or to get rid of Trump?
If it's to win, It didn't really look like that was going to happen unless Trump was in jail.
If it's to simply prevent Trump from getting an office, what would happen if she ran third party?
Because the No Labels group doesn't have a candidate.
And they're looking for one.
Wouldn't that cost Trump the election?
Because there would be Republicans who would say, well, I'll use Nikki Haley as my protest vote.
You know, since it's there, I'll just use her as my protest vote.
Because I want to vote.
I don't want to not vote.
Do you think there's any chance that that's the play?
To move her to a third party?
Because that would end her in politics.
She'd be done in politics if she ran third party, wouldn't she?
I think that would finish her unless she tried to re-register as a Democrat someday.
I don't know.
I'm not going to predict that will happen.
But the fact that it's an opportunity that would definitely get rid of Trump.
Let's say somebody wanted to get out of politics and become a CEO of a major defense contractor.
Suppose that's what you wanted to do, because that's where the big money is.
And you just had to do one thing to get that.
And the only thing you have to do is run as a third party so Trump doesn't get elected.
You don't have to win.
You just have to run.
And then two years later, you're the CEO of a major defense contractor.
See, that's what I worry about.
And again, I'm not accusing her of that.
I'm not saying that's the plan.
I'm not predicting it.
I'm just saying that's the stuff you got to worry about.
Because it's sort of laying there right in front of you as an obvious play.
They might not do it.
But it's laying right there.
It's just a super obvious play.
We'll see.
Rasmussen is saying that the Trump is six points over Biden in a in an election if it's just one-on-one and But that's not as good as it was in December where Trump led by ten points in the same poll so Do you expect that whoever is running the polls will be tied in November?
Like they always are Yeah, I don't know if it'll be tied but little Titan so I don't think people take polls seriously until they go to vote.
Because I think in this phase, they're actually picking among imaginary choices.
They don't have to concentrate on real choices.
So the imaginary choice is that Biden is healthy and functional and all that.
I think when you get right there, people are going to just line up by party like they always do.
And it won't matter if Biden is, he could have one foot in the grave like he does now.
It wouldn't matter.
They'll just vote for the party in the end.
Well, there's a new story that Bob Menendez, the famous Bob Menendez, who is a senator who had some gold bars that allegedly We're bribes.
Apparently there's an old girlfriend mistress who said that when she was seeing him back in 2007, 15 years ago, before the FBI found out about his gold bars, that he had giant piles of cash that he would show off showing her.
So apparently the allegation would be that gold bar Bob has been a massive thief Taking bribes for at least 15 years and so brazenly that he showed it to his girlfriend the big piles of cash And now he's got gold bars Money sewed into his suits and stuff now.
Let me ask you Do you think that his co-workers were not fully aware of this?
Doesn't it mean they're all doing it Or that there are enough of them doing it that they could cover this up or they didn't want a single amount?
I mean, I think the real story here is that there's no way, there's no way that Democrats were unaware that he was doing this.
How could they possibly be unaware of this?
Yeah.
So it makes me wonder how many members of the Senate are just brazenly taking gigantic kickbacks.
He's not the only one.
I'd love to know the names of the others.
Well, there's a story that, in Gen Z's, that 93% of them say they flaked out on an interview, meaning that they had one scheduled and they just didn't go.
Not only that, 87% of Gen Z's who made it through interviews and got the job and signed the contract didn't show up.
87% have done that at least once.
Get a job and not show up.
Have you ever done that?
Did you ever get a job and not show up?
I have.
I did.
My first adult job.
I'll tell you why.
And I'm going to give you some of the best career advice you'll ever get.
Alright, here's my story.
I graduated college and traded my old car for a one-way ticket to California.
And flew out and slept in a sleeping bag on my brother's couch.
And got a job at a big bank.
I just walked in and interviewed, and they offered me a low-level, entry-level job.
And I accepted.
Because I didn't have any money.
And if I didn't get a paycheck in two weeks, I wasn't sure how I was going to eat.
Probably more than two weeks, but not much more.
So I took that job because I didn't know if I'd ever get another one.
I'd never applied for jobs as an adult.
And I thought, I don't know how rare this is.
Maybe I'll never get another job offer.
So before I was to report to work the next week, I was asked by an ex-girlfriend to fly up and see her in San Francisco, which I did.
And in San Francisco, I looked around, and it looked like a nicer place.
There was less smog.
It just seemed like fewer bad things.
Just more good things, fewer bad things.
And so my ex-girlfriend at the time said, you know, you should live in San Francisco.
Don't live where you got that job.
So I said, hmm.
All right.
So I said, the only way I could do this is if I apply for a job on Monday, because I was only going to be there one more day, and I get a job the same day I apply for it.
That's the only way I can stay.
So I stood in line at a bank, Crocker Bank it was, in San Francisco.
I just stood in line.
And I got up to the teller line and said, I'd like a job here.
And the teller said, just a moment.
Got the boss.
The boss hired me immediately.
Because they didn't get too many people who had my qualifications.
You know, I had a good college degree in economics.
So there are not too many people with a BA in economics who apply for a job as a teller.
You know, a teller in a bank.
So they immediately hired me.
And I quit my first job before I showed up.
Now, here's the lesson I would like to give all of you.
You don't owe anything to your employer.
And you definitely don't owe anything to an employer that you've never worked a single day for.
Do you think either of those employers would have had any trouble firing me if something changed between the Thursday they hired me and the Monday I was supposed to report to work?
If something had material changed in their situation, do you think they wouldn't have fired me?
Of course they would.
That's the rules.
Those are the rules.
If you play by the same rules that the employers play by, there's no shame in that.
No shame in that at all?
I'm seeing somebody say horrible advice.
Here's the advice more specifically.
You should definitely do what you commit to do.
In fact, that's some advice I gave you yesterday.
You should definitely commit to do what you said you would do.
As a general rule, that's one of your best rules in life.
However, when you commit to work for a corporation, you're accepting the full set of that.
So committing to work is accepting the model, not just the job.
That's important.
You're accepting the model of a free market decision.
That model gives you complete freedom to quit anytime you want, for any reason you want.
No exceptions.
Now that's the model that they were in.
The employer was in the model, I can fire you for anything, anytime I want.
I accepted their model.
And then I use the model as it exists.
That's very different than when you have a relationship with somebody, or you want one, and you're going to do something for an individual.
When you say you're going to do something for an individual, you better do it, even if it hurts, even if it's hard, even if you don't want to.
If it's for a person, a human being, you should crawl over hot coals to do it, even if you change your mind.
If it's for an entity that's part of a game that's called the free market, within capitalism, and you're playing by the same rules they are, you get to use all the rules.
You don't have to leave some of the rules behind.
I don't recommend breaking the law.
I don't recommend doing anything unethical.
This was not unethical.
Because it's within the known rules, and it's the way they would have treated you.
So be good to people, but corporations don't get the same consideration.
All right.
Let's see what else is going on here.
Oh, I'd like to show you how the photo editor is usually the person who's in charge of the story.
So, if you're not familiar with how this works, a journalist will write a story and a publication will say, yes, we liked it.
Then the editor will add, usually, the title.
So this is important to know.
The title in publications is almost always the editor, not the writer.
So don't blame the writer when the title is not matching the story.
The writer didn't do that.
But the photo editor also has independence.
So if I write a story and it gets accepted by a publication, they might add a picture to it, but I don't know what it's going to be.
And maybe even the editor doesn't notice.
I'm not even sure the editor gets involved.
They probably do, but I don't know.
So here's a picture that appeared in The Hill, and it doesn't even matter what the story is.
It doesn't matter what the story is.
I'm just going to show you the picture.
What did they pick for Trump's picture, and what did they pick for Hillary's picture?
OK, so just look at the think about the photo editor who could have chosen any any picture for Trump and any picture for Hillary.
Here's the ones they picked.
Trump looks like this calm executive and Hillary.
They gave her the idiot picture.
Trump looking calm, Hillary looking like... Now, do you think that's an accident?
No, it's not.
No.
No, whoever picked the photos knew exactly what they were doing, at least on a subconscious level.
You know, they knew that one looked good and one looked bad.
Let me tell you how they did it to me.
They meaning the media.
So I think I've told this story before, but it's a good one.
Many years ago, I was the subject of the Playboy interview.
Back when that was a prestigious thing.
If they chose you to be in the Playboy interview, you know, it was like Jimmy Carter was in it.
A lot of famous people were in it, so it was sort of a big deal.
But, here's what you don't know.
If you've ever seen the Playboy interview, at the bottom of the first page, they'll have a series of photos of the interview subject in different poses.
And it looks like they were photographed while they were in the interview talking.
Except what you don't know is that the photographer comes on a different day than the interviewer.
So the interviewer talks to you, talks to you and you're done.
Then another day the photographer comes and the photographer says, can you act like you were having a conversation?
So I go, what do you mean?
He goes, you know, use your heart, your hands and just, just go like this.
So I go through a bunch of scenarios where I'm just pretending to talk.
So I'm literally not even saying anything.
I'm just going, You know, I'm exaggerating a little bit because, you know, I'm giving them lots of choices.
Well, unfortunately, one of the things, one of my poses, and I'm going to try to duplicate it, looked roughly like this.
Now, what photo do you think they always pick when they want me to look like an idiot?
They picked the idiot photo.
And the funny part is it wasn't even a real photo.
It didn't happen in real life.
I was actually pretending to talk And they just caught the weirdest angle of it.
You've probably seen the photo.
I'll bet you've actually seen it.
It's so ubiquitous.
And there are lots to choose from.
They don't have to choose that one.
So learn to spot when the photo editor has an opinion of his or her own.
There's a new study out, rocking the internet, saying that the COVID shots do, in fact, have health implications.
And my God, were people taking a victory lap.
Oh, the victory laps.
Yeah.
People were saying, I told you, I told you, those shots have health implications.
It was a range of things, including myocarditis.
And people said, hey, hey, who didn't know that, huh?
We all knew that.
It's about time the science caught up.
So now we have proof.
It's a very large study.
People say it's credible.
And it absolutely shows that the shots were associated with some negative health implications.
How many of you believe that really happened?
Do you think that happened?
No, that didn't happen.
It's widely reported.
And it's all over social media, but it didn't actually happen.
Do you know what did happen?
There was a study about the shots and about the health outcomes, and it did in fact find that there were negative outcomes associated with the shot.
Does that sound like the first thing I said?
Is there any difference between the first way I said it and the second way I said it?
Is there anything missing?
Anything missing from the story?
Oh, there it is!
And the locals, somebody found the picture of me doing that.
You know, but none of those are the... I think what happened was the photographer had extra photos and they put them in, like, a photo bank where anybody can use them.
I think they get some money if they do.
So... Oh, there it is.
Yeah, there's... Somebody found my douchebag photo.
Yeah.
Anyway, so here's what happened with that study.
There was a study, it did show there were very clearly there were bad health implications that are associated with the shot, and so is that pro-shot or anti-shot?
Does that prove that the anti-vaccination people were right?
Is that what you're hearing?
What's missing?
What's missing from the story?
No control group.
Thank you very much.
Yes.
Did you see anywhere in the story that said that the people who got the shot had worse outcomes than the people who didn't get the shot?
Nope.
You did not.
Now, I'm not saying that the shot was good for you.
I don't know.
All I know is all the studies are ridiculous.
All the studies are ridiculous.
None of them are credible or believable, or even by their design, they look like they're not even designed to be believable.
So no.
But this, like most things, divided the world into two movies.
This will be used forever by the people who are sure the vaccinations were more bad than good, as proof that it's more bad than good, although the study has nothing to say on that issue.
It actually doesn't even compare it to getting COVID without a shot.
It's not even a comparison.
And people like me will say, well, they told us from the very beginning that the vaccination would have side effects.
Is there anybody who didn't know that?
I thought we were all informed from day one.
That some people would have negative effects because they always do.
It's the nature of vaccinations.
Or shots, if you want to call it that.
All right?
So some of you, let me poll you here in the comments.
Were some of you completely unaware that all shots have negative consequences for some people?
There's somebody who didn't know that?
Interesting.
I thought that was just common knowledge.
Now, you know that's true of every medicine, right?
There's probably no important medicine that's ever been approved that didn't have negative impacts for somebody.
That's the most basic understanding of medicine you could ever have.
Yeah, exactly.
The reason the VAERS database exists is that the most common thing in the world is that somebody has bad outcomes from everything.
Yeah.
Anyway, let's talk about Trump and New York State and his gazillion, bazillion dollar judgment.
And Turley points out that because New York has this weird rule where you can't appeal until you've paid the fine.
Is it called a fine?
Or a finding, maybe?
Or judgment?
So if you don't pay the judgment, you can't even appeal it.
So, given the interest and all that, at the very least, it will cost Trump many millions of dollars, even if he wins the appeal.
It will cost him many millions of dollars, plus maybe the entire company will go under.
You know, it could be bad.
I don't think so.
And so, I look at this situation, and here's the things we know.
We know the judge made a ruling that no reasonable person thinks is reasonable.
Would you agree?
No reasonable person who understands that banks routinely do this.
Now, the Democrats are pretending that they don't know it's normal to exaggerate your assets and that the bank doesn't care, really.
So if you insist that you don't know that's normal business, then it looks normal, I guess.
But everybody else who actually understands how anything works in the real world and knows that, as Kevin O'Leary points out, every developer would be in jail.
Every developer exaggerates the value of their properties as normal business practice.
Always.
And then the bank says, okay, we'll ignore you and we'll check ourselves and then they do business.
So I would say it's obvious to any informed observer who is not being super political that the judge did something that doesn't even look like an attempt to be fair or reasonable.
It looks like no attempt was made for anything but punishment.
Especially when you believe that the punishment happens before the appeal.
The punishment happens before the appeal.
I mean, so, and then you add that the DA campaigned on getting Trump, and then looked into some way to get him after being elected.
And then we hear that the prosecutors may have had something to do with the Biden administration, and maybe there was some coordination, and maybe Soros is behind putting them all in, and maybe he's coordinating with the White House.
To me, this is just a crime.
What I see is a coordinated, Rico-like enterprise in which people literally coordinated to take out a political person.
And to me, the judge, the DA, and whoever coordinated it in the White House should be in jail.
Is that unreasonable?
I feel like I'm saying something that's not even controversial, that they should all be in jail.
Because based on the reporting, they've all obviously committed a crime.
It's an obvious crime.
Could it be more obvious?
I mean, I'm a little confused.
It's obvious that the DA targeted him first and then looked for a crime.
It's obvious that they coordinated.
It's obvious that the other DAs are coordinating.
It's obvious that Soros is funding them all.
It's obvious that Soros, you know, Alexander at least, is real tight with, you know, the Democrat leadership that would coordinate all these dirty tricks.
And it's obvious that the judge didn't do anything that a real judge should have done.
It's all obvious.
It's a gigantic RICO crime.
And do you know why nothing will happen?
Because these are the same people who have all the control.
If you're in control, you can do this.
Now, let me ask again.
Do you think that Biden, given that he would be the top of the snake in this situation, and our system, are they worse than Putin?
No, it's a tie.
They're both a 10 and a 10.
This is as evil as you could possibly get.
They're destroying a man in slow motion just to keep him out of the race.
So yes, I think I'd like to see Trump win by a big enough number to get past the obvious cheating that's coming.
And I say it's obvious because if they can do this whole Ricoh thing right in front of you, Then obviously they can rig the election right in front of you.
Is that fair?
If the DA, the judge, and whoever coordinated at the White House have not already been arrested, then they can do anything.
There's no limit.
This is proof that there's no limit.
They can literally do anything.
Because if you control the prosecutors, what are you going to do?
And apparently they control them in the areas that it matters.
How ridiculous are things?
Well, 70% of New York voters say Biden is not fit to serve another term.
And here's the good news and the bad news.
The bad news is we might have a president that three quarters of the, or 86%, depending on the poll, believe is too old to do the job.
On the positive side, it's pretty obvious that the president is not important to the process.
Right?
If the president were really important to the process of running the country, we'd know it, and it's obvious that he's not.
So, the best thing I like about this is not that the president is not part of the process, or important to it, but that it's obvious now.
It's obvious that whoever's in charge is clearly not Biden.
Now, he might be in charge of saying whether he's running again.
He might actually be too stubborn to say no to that, even if people are pushing him.
But probably everything else, geopolitically, I don't think he's in charge.
And I think it's pretty obvious.
Because even the bad guys wouldn't run somebody who's so declined in capability.
They wouldn't run him if they wanted just somebody to back him.
They would still want somebody capable to back him, and they'd want somebody who would win.
Yeah, I think they're having a massive problem just getting Biden to cooperate at the moment.
And it's probably because of his own legal problems, but I'm only speculating.
All right, Nate Silver is pointing out the, as I said, the absurdity that if Biden can't even run a normal campaign, it's a little too much to ask that you should vote for him.
And I think that's fair.
And by the way, why is that trending?
Why is it trending that Nate Silver said that if you're too feeble to campaign or to give a speech on the Super Bowl that maybe you should not run for office?
Why is that trending?
Just hold this in your mind.
It's trending because he's not a Republican and he said something that was both true and obviously true.
And that caused so much trouble That he said something that's not just true.
It's really obviously true to everybody.
And you're not allowed to say that.
So, can you imagine that anybody would trend because they pointed out that, let's say, you need rainfall to grow crops.
Nobody trends for that.
How about if you stay in the sun too long without sunscreen, you'll get a sunburn.
Nobody ever trends for saying that.
You only trend if you're, I don't know if he's a Democrat, he could be independent, but he's not a Republican.
You only trend if you're not a Republican and you say something that's both obvious and true to everybody.
Now, just hold that in your mind, the absurdity that trending means saying something that's true and obvious.
This is the same reason I trended.
This is the same reason I got cancelled.
Because I said something true and obvious.
Makes a lot of trouble.
Alright.
Joe Rogan's saying that he thinks Newsom's in waiting and, you know, the party's gonna slot him in there before the elections.
How many of you agree with that prediction?
That it's obvious that Newsom is already selected?
Well, they're signaling it as strongly as they can.
Like, I don't think they could signal that any harder, but It might also be more opportunistic than a defined done deal.
I don't think it's a done deal, because I don't think Biden's agreed to leave.
I think it's definitely the backup plan.
So I feel confident in saying that smart people, and maybe most of them in the Democrat Party, would feel more comfortable with Gavin Newsom running.
But I really think that Biden is just holding out and that that's the whole problem they're having, which is hilarious.
Yeah.
I'm seeing the comments prompting me that Ann Coulter's running another victory lap.
Do you remember when she went on Bill Maher in 2015 or so and said that Trump would win and everybody mocked her?
And it became like this viral thing of her being mocked.
And then more recently, a few days ago, she went on and said, uh, we do know something about the shooter in Kansas City, uh, because they didn't say the race.
So we know, we know it's not white.
Well, when it was confirmed that it was in fact a black, uh, shooters suspected, um, She did another victory lap of being mocked for something that was both true.
In this case, the first prediction wasn't so obvious.
But this one was both obvious and then it was true.
And why did Ann Coulter trend?
Did she trend because she said something crazy?
Nope.
She said something that was both obvious and true.
And everybody got really mad, because it was both obvious and true.
All right, so Assange was too unwell to make his own extradition hearing today in Great Britain, and I don't know if that means he'll be extradited or not, but I'll remind you that he was not pardoned under Trump or Biden.
So there's something that prevents Republicans from Freeing him, and there's something that prevents Democrats.
What do you suppose that is?
The CIA saying, you better not do it?
So I don't know the real story of Assange.
I believe that there's a story below the story that we don't know about.
Would you agree?
There's a story below the story.
And here's my best guess.
I think the CIA wants to make sure that if anybody gives up their secrets, they die.
I think that's the whole story.
I think that it doesn't matter if he was like a journalist or wasn't a journalist.
I don't think it matters if he was from another country or not.
I don't think it matters if he was accused of some sex crimes that were withdrawn.
I don't think it matters.
I don't think it matters if it helped the country.
I don't think it matters if it hurt the country.
I don't think it matters if it caused some people to get killed.
I think what matters is the CIA can't have a situation where you can out them with secret information and live.
So I'm not even sure it's about Assange.
I feel like it's entirely about making sure that nobody else does this.
So I think he's just the sacrificial goat to the CIA.
Just a guess.
Because I can't understand why Trump was so quiet on this.
He just sort of ignored it.
And he was definitely being asked.
And he just ignored it.
The only thing I can think of is that he was afraid of the CIA's, you know, stuff.
All right, David Sachs is having an ongoing discussion with the pro-Ukrainian funding group, and he's anti-funding, and thinks we should wrap up that war.
I'm very close to, if not identical to, his opinion.
And here's what that debate has turned into.
Some people say that Iraq, everything you need to know, can be learned from Hitler.
And that if you appease Hitler, like Chamberlain, Neville Chamberlain.
You are just inviting him to attack more countries, and it's never good to appease.
You should go as hard as you could as soon as there's any attacking of other countries.
So that would be the Hitler model of how to act.
But we also have, competing with it, the Iraq model.
Somebody told you you should go to war.
Our media amplified it.
We believed our government, we believed the media, we went to war, and then later we found out, giant mistake, no weapons of mass destruction.
Now, both of those live in our consciousness as the models that define us.
Sachs has, seems closer to the Iraq model, and he's mentioned it a few times, as in, if you don't know you should go there, you know, you're probably being lied to, and it's probably a waste of money.
And his critics are pushing the Hitler model that he's an appeaser and Putin will just take over Poland if he finds that it's easy to do this.
So let me give you my take on this.
First of all, Hitler ruins everything.
Hitler just ruins everything.
And to quote Norm Macdonald, the more I hear about that guy, the less I like him.
Yep, the more I hear about Hitler, the less I like him.
That's a Norm Macdonald joke.
But here's the thing.
History doesn't always follow Hitler.
You all know that, right?
Hitler doesn't predict everything.
In fact, could you give me a fact check?
I can't think of another famous example in modern history, let's say the last hundred years, in which appeasement led immediately to you being invaded.
Are there other examples of that?
Where somebody just pointedly did a peace deal and then immediately... No, outside of Hitler.
What are the other examples?
Gaddafi.
I...
Qaddafi?
Stalin?
But what's the example?
Yeah, so I'm not so good with history.
Finland.
But Finland was Hitler.
Yeah, see, when I ask for non-Hitler examples, I get more Hitler examples.
So Hitler ruins everything.
So Hitler is so much in our consciousness that we can't make decisions if it's anything that would violate the history of Hitler.
And that's really limiting.
But we also have the... We never did a peace deal with Pol Pot.
I'm not sure any of us are good with history.
Alright, so we've got two models, which one is right?
Let me tell you how to do the analysis.
If you have one model that's the Hitler model, and you don't know if it's predictive or not, and you've got another model that's the Iraq model, and you don't know if it's predictive or not, because history doesn't repeat, would you like me to prove that history doesn't repeat?
Because you have two models that are conflicting.
One where being aggressive made sense and one where it didn't.
So which one is the history that repeats?
And the answer is neither.
History can't repeat.
Because you're always starting from a new place with new people, a new situation, new variables.
There's no such thing as history repeating.
You just think it does because we're bad at pattern recognition.
So if you picked a pattern that happened to be consistent with what actually happens, you think you're a genius.
Well, that's a pattern.
I've seen that pattern before.
But other people saw other patterns, and those didn't happen, and it still didn't stop them from thinking history repeats.
Here's what history really does.
History gives you infinite different examples, and then you can go find the one that agrees with what you think is going to happen.
History is a confirmation bias machine.
Just like the Internet.
If you do your own research, let me predict what will happen.
You're going to find some research that agrees with the opinion you already had, just like everybody else.
Yeah.
History is the worst way to decide what to do because it's nothing but misleading and confirmation bias and talking yourself into something that didn't make sense.
So if you have two models, one where funding makes sense and the other where funding doesn't make sense, what should you do?
You don't fund.
If you think I'm giving you an opinion about Ukraine, I'm not.
I could give you that separately.
I'm giving you an opinion about how decisions are made.
Sachs has the correct model.
So it's not about Ukraine, it's not about Russia, it's not about Hitler, and it's not about Iraq.
It's about how to make a decision.
The way you make a decision is if you can't possibly put odds on which way something's going to go, you don't spend money on it.
Because they're both, you know, potentially like existential threats.
You know, not doing it, you know, continuing with the war could be an existential threat.
Making peace could be an existential threat, depending on which history you decide to pick to be your confirmation bias.
So if you really can't, you just don't have any way to put any odds on what's going to happen, you don't pay for it.
That's the most basic decision-making rule you'll ever hear.
And by the way, I'll bet a lot of you have been in this situation.
I'll bet you have, where you didn't know what was true and then you paid for it.
Don't do that.
If it's really a gas, don't pay.
Now, here would be an exception.
Suppose there was some situation where there was a 1% chance it would be the end of the world.
Should you pay to get rid of a 1% chance it's the end of the world?
Maybe.
That might make a lot of sense.
For example, paying to avoid an asteroid hitting the Earth, or a meteor.
You know, maybe there's a 1% chance it'll happen.
Should we pay to reduce it to zero if we could?
Maybe yes.
Because that would be an expected value calculation.
You'd say, well, there's only a 1% chance it ends at Earth, so you'd multiply 1% times, if you wanted to do people, times 8 billion people.
If you wanted to do money, you'd do it by all the wealth of the Earth that would disappear.
And you'd say, well, a 1% chance of losing a katrillion katrillion dollars is still going to be a katrillion dollars.
So if we spend less than a quadrillion dollars to make that risk zero, it looks like a good decision.
But that doesn't work when the risk of sending the meteor up is as incalculable as the risk of stopping the meteor.
If it's the same as the risk, or incalculable, as the risk of it hitting the Earth, then you don't spend the money.
Because you cannot determine that spending the money gives you a better risk.
Does that make sense?
If you're looking at one risk, yes or no, then it does make sense to spend the money to get rid of all the risk.
Or it could.
But if you have two complete unknowns, like which way to go with a war, that's a complete unknown.
You really, really can't predict that.
In that case, you'd never spend the money.
Unless there's some other variable that's bigger.
Now, I realize that one of the variables is we have to look like we protect the people we say we're going to protect.
But again, that's sort of a gray area, isn't it?
Now, certainly if somebody attacks a country and they're an ally, giving them arms and some protection is exactly the obvious thing you would do.
But Ukraine is a little non-obvious what's the best play here.
If I'm going to do something that's best for the Ukrainian people, is that continuing to give them weapons?
Or is that saying, OK, now we're done.
Now we're going to talk to Putin.
We're going to end it here, even if you don't like how much land he gets, because it just needs to be over.
So anyway.
Yeah, if we could predict, exactly.
If you could predict, you would win every war.
The reason that mutually assured destruction works so well is that you can predict completely that any one of us in the big country is releasing a nuke.
You don't have to wonder if that's bad news.
Your country is not going to have a good day if that happens, right?
So that one's easy.
Don't nuke.
How about in this situation?
Nope.
How about in this situation?
Nope.
Because it's easy.
Every time you use one, you're dead.
That's easy.
But this Ukrainian one, I would argue, the best friend we could be to the Ukrainian people is to end the war.
That's a powerful argument.
Sometimes being a friend means tough love, right?
Tough love in this case is you just lost the war.
Let's deal with that.
You just lost.
So that's what being a friend looks like sometimes.
Sometimes being a friend is telling you the thing you didn't want to hear.
And so I think we have to be a little bit cautious about what it means to be a reliable ally.
Because I'm not so sure we've been a reliable ally to Ukraine so far.
So far.
So, tough love.
Could be a better thing than you think.
All right, No Belief History.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the conclusion of the best live stream you're going to see today.
Thanks for joining on X and YouTube and the Rumble platform.
I'm coming to you from the Rumble studio, by the way, so it allows me to seamlessly broadcast to all the platforms.
It's pretty good, isn't it?
Let me ask you this over on the other, the three platforms.
It's pretty good quality, isn't it?
Good picture and it's seamless.
I'm going to all three platforms.
I haven't had a, I think I had one day I had to reboot it or something.
That was about it.
So that's really good for a new technology.
Very impressed.
So good work on the Rumble Studio.
If you're not using the Rumble Studio to do your podcasting, I don't know why you wouldn't.
There doesn't seem to be a downside.
You don't need an engineer because it's just a browser page.
You just go and click some things and you're good to go.
So you don't need to buy a third machine, another machine.
You don't have to buy new software.
You just go to the browser page and then you can get, you know, as many extra platforms as you want.
