My book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Medical Examiner Credibility, Willpower, MSNBC Smugness, Q-Star AI, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, Moon Gas, Climate Change Ghost Thermometers, President Trump, RFK Jr., President Biden, Pro-FISA Speaker Johnson, Anti-FISA MTG, Covid Origin Whistleblower, Catherine Herridge Firing, Pending Iran Retaliation, Predictability, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Well, this is Coffee with Scott Evans, the best time you're ever going to have in your life.
If you'd like to take it up to levels that nobody can even understand with their puny human brains, all you need for that is A cupper, a mug, or a glass, a tank of chalice, a sty, and a canteen, a 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 of the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called a simultaneous sip, and it's gonna happen now.
Go.
Ah, sound is working.
Video is working.
Wi-Fi is screaming.
This might be the best day you've ever had.
Yeah, it might be.
I mean, there could be better ones after this.
But if ever there was a time when I thought I was running the simulation, it would be today.
And you're going to see this in every story.
Every story today is going to look like, Scott, did you cause that to happen?
Did you will that out of the universe and it just happened?
Let me begin.
With Exhibit A for me running the universe.
Story number one, daily coffee consumption is at a 20 year high, up nearly 40%.
Nearly 40%.
Probably a coincidence.
Sure, but if you put it on a graph, I think you'd find that coffee consumption tracks very well with coffee with Scott Adams rise into dominance in the media world.
No coincidences.
Nope.
You think about coffee enough?
All right, O.J.
Simpson is dead.
Reportedly, he died of cancer, but I think doctors are still looking for the real killer.
And is there any way that they could get more ridiculous?
Is there anything we could do to this story to completely discredit DEI and all the race grifters?
Because that's exactly the sort of thing that Scott would want to happen in the real world.
Well, let's check.
CUNY professor Mark Lamont Hill, he posted that O.J.
Simpson's death Um, and his acquittal for murder, well, he said that OJ's acquittal for murder was the correct and necessary result of a racist criminal legal system.
Sure.
He killed two people, but because he's part of a racist system, part of a racist system, it was fine that he goes free.
Now I kind of appreciate this story.
Because it's so ridiculous that it just makes you laugh.
Like, that's a good story.
But I'd like to recount to you my only O.J.
story.
Some of you have heard this before, but it's a winner.
And because O.J.
passed, it's time to say it again.
True story.
Years ago when I had a problem with my voice, many of you know that story, before I got it corrected surgically, I went to a famous voice doctor in Brentwood, California.
Do you remember Brentwood?
Home of O.J.?
And this doctor, he told me that one of his prior patients had been O.J.
Simpson.
So O.J.
Simpson had gone to a voice doctor to improve his, I don't know, dictation or something.
And when the voice doctor, who was very well known, he was famous in his field, When he decided to write a book about his work as a voice doctor, he thought, wouldn't it be great to get O.J.
Simpson as one of the endorsements on the back of the book?
So he goes to O.J.
and O.J.
says, sure, of course.
Gives him a nice endorsement for his work.
And then the doctor takes it to his publisher and the publisher says, you know that he murdered two people, right?
And that We probably shouldn't put O.J.
Simpson, accused murderer, as a recommendation for your book.
And then my voice doctor, with the all-time best quip of all time, looked at his publisher and said of O.J., he only had one bad day.
And that's how I'd like O.J.
to be remembered.
He only had one bad day.
If you were to take the average, the average would look fine.
I mean, so I guess I have to agree with Marc Lamont Hill.
You should let him let him get away with murder because how else can you correct systemic racism?
Speaking of which, a man dies in custody saying, I can't breathe.
And police held him down and then he died.
What do you think the medical examiner ruled it?
It was a black man who died doing a George Floyd impression.
Maybe the same reason, we don't know.
But just like George Floyd, white police officers were restraining him.
He was saying he couldn't breathe.
He died, and then the medical examiner ruled it a homicide, but no charges were filed.
Huh.
Let's see if I can understand this.
The medical examiner rules it a homicide.
Now that's exactly the kind of situation that would trigger some kind of criminal charges.
But it's a Dallas situation and maybe they looked at it and said no.
Now how could you possibly explain a medical examiner who says it's homicide and yet the other police officers are not so sure?
Well, do you think that the medical examiner is a DEI hire?
What do you think?
What are the odds?
Could it be a DEI hire?
What if it's not?
There are two possibilities.
If it's a DEI hire, it could be somebody who's just trying to set things right.
And let's say a Mark Lamont Hilloway As in, well, this is one way I can work to correct the racism that's been endemic in this country for hundreds of years.
I can fix this one thing by saying it's homicide.
It could be.
But it's also possible it's just a generic white guy, and the generic white guy knows he'll be killed if he says it's not homicide.
Does that sound familiar?
If you were the generic white guy, And it's your job to say, was this homicide or accidental?
Do you think after the George Floyd situation that a generic white guy medical examiner could say, you know, I looked at this and it just looks like an accident to me.
And then he would just go on with his life.
Everything would be fine after that, right?
Because he was honest.
He gave you his real professional opinion.
And then he just goes on with his life.
Am I right?
No.
In no world is that medical examiner safe.
The medical examiner has to say homicide because it's the only way he can stay alive.
Because trust the experts, am I right?
Let's sip a little coffee for the experts.
Well, I'm sure glad that expert The expert in the medical examination field told us what's true because you can believe it because the experts said it, right?
Let's drink to the experts.
Experts.
We trust them.
We trust them.
All right.
How perfect is that story?
Well, there's a study that says that good looking lawyers, both male and female, have more success in court.
So if you're attractive, you're more likely to win.
And it's for both men and women and at all levels of experience.
So, you know, this really supports my decision to go into the cartooning field.
Some of you might know my story.
When I went to college, I thought I was pre-law.
My initial plan was, I'm going to get an economics degree and make it sort of a pre-law thing and then I'll go to law school.
And then I looked in the mirror and I said, my God, you're never going to win a case with that face.
So I immediately looked for a job in which nobody could see me.
So I thought, well, radio.
I do have a face for radio.
But cartooning, even better.
So if you're not good looking enough to be a lawyer, try to be a cartoonist.
That's my career advice.
Well, here's some fake science.
Fake science.
Fake science.
There's a study that says people who use willpower alone to achieve goals and resist temptation are deemed more trustworthy than those who use tricks.
Now a trick would be like, oh, I have to put $5 in the swear jar because I swore.
Or telling other people to bust you if you break your diet.
So basically, if you use any external crutch to help you do something, people will say, you have less willpower.
And so we don't trust you as much.
Why is this fake science?
There's no such thing as willpower.
Willpower is not a thing.
They should have talked to the other parts of science.
They were actually studying a thing that's imaginary.
Literally.
Willpower doesn't exist.
I just did a lesson for my members in the locals group.
So I do little micro lessons, two to four minutes, that gives you a life skill.
So after two minutes, you learn something you'll know how to do for the rest of your life.
Now, if you do about 200 of them, which I have over 200 micro lessons at the scottadams.locals.com, you would know that willpower is literally imaginary.
So they did a whole study on a thing that's literally doesn't exist.
And then they came to a result because they're the experts.
Let me tell you, I'll give you the quick version of why willpower doesn't exist.
There are only differences in preferences.
If you say, Scott, I'm not going to feed you for two weeks, and then I'm going to put some ice cream in front of you.
Would I resist?
I haven't eaten in two weeks.
But you know, I don't want ice cream because it's bad for me.
A little too much sugar.
Do you think I'd resist?
Starving after two weeks.
No, I'd eat it.
I would eat a Lunchables.
That's how hungry I would be.
Right.
Now, where's the willpower in that story?
None.
No, I was more hungry than I was Carrying about a few calories.
Now you can take that silly example, and you could extend it to literally everything, and in every case you'll see it's very clear, somebody just picked the choice that was the better choice.
There's no willpower.
Do you know how I keep my weight exactly at the right number?
I'm literally precisely at my target adult weight.
I don't want to gain a pound, don't want to lose a pound.
I'm exactly right.
Do you know how much willpower it took?
None!
Because it doesn't exist.
All I did was I did stuff like remove junk food from my house, learned a little bit more about, you know, what's good for me.
So I did learning.
I removed things from my environment.
Where's the willpower?
There's no willpower.
And then I learned, um, you know, through trial and error, I learned what things were causing me inflammation and caused me to gain weight.
So it turns out for me, probably weak.
I'm not, you know, it's not a scientific study, but anecdotally, When I got rid of wheat and some other sugary things, I can't even gain weight.
It wouldn't be possible.
So, if you live your life like willpower doesn't exist, you're going to get much better results.
Because instead of going, HRRR, HRRR, willpower, HRRR, trying really hard, that doesn't get you much.
How about just removing the junk food from your house?
That'll get you a lot.
How about learning more about how to make boring food taste good?
That'll get you a lot.
So, no.
Science should talk to the other parts of science which do know that willpower and free will don't exist.
But they studied it.
Do you know why they studied the thing that doesn't exist?
Because they're experts.
They're experts.
Let's drink to the experts, shall we?
To the experts.
Mmm.
Love those experts.
Let's see, anything else in the news along those lines?
All right, here's a recommendation that I don't know how much of this is real, but it feels real.
I think I may have told you this before.
You know, Andrew Huberman, he talks about the importance of getting early morning sun, taking off your sunglasses and standing in the sun for five minutes in the morning.
And that's if it's sunny.
I guess you stand there longer if it's a cloudy day.
And that's supposed to set your, set your body rhythms for the rest of the day.
Now I'm not an expert, so I don't know if that's true or not.
But also there are claims from other people that you can, if you take off your shoes and go outside, you can do grounding, where it kind of resets your electrical forces or something.
I don't know if that's real.
I have no idea.
And then there's also the Hooverman breathing technique, where you do the two long inhales through your nose.
And then one exhale.
And you only have to do it, I don't know, three or four times.
And that resets some of your bodily nervous system or something.
So what I discovered, or it's sort of obvious actually, is that you can do all three at the same time.
Do any of them have any real scientific backing?
I don't know.
Because science is not something that I would trust.
Do you know why I don't trust and don't know if grounding, getting sun, or the breathing technique work?
Because it comes from experts.
Anybody who trusts the experts in 2024 is just guessing.
But I'll tell you what I did do, since I could do all three of these at the same time.
I mean, what are you going to do when you're standing there in the sun?
So I take off my shoes outdoors, stand in the sun, do a few Huberman breaths, and I've done all three things.
Now, so there's a, you know, I've got three shots that at least one of those things makes a difference in the real world.
I don't know.
So here's my experience.
Oh my God, do I feel good when I do it?
Immediately.
It's the damnedest thing.
I just walk outside, take off my shoes, do that breathing in the sun, and I feel extraordinary.
And it does, in fact, feel as though it kicks your day off to a good day.
Can I prove it?
Nope.
Do I believe it's true because the experts told me?
Nope.
I just know it's three things that can't hurt me.
They can't hurt me, right?
So I do.
And then it makes me feel happy.
What if it's not really working, but it makes me think it's working?
That's called working.
You get that, right?
Since I'm trying to... I'm resetting my mental state as much as anything else.
If I walk away thinking it worked, it worked.
I don't need to hook any electrodes to my body.
I think I'm happy.
Good enough.
All right, so that's worth trying.
Have you ever had this experience that if you try to explain the real world to people, you know, the Mike Benz version, you can't do it without sounding crazy.
And it's in this category of things which can't be communicated.
It's one of my favorite, like, mental things to think about.
I just love thinking about things which are true and can be put into words, but it still can't be communicated.
Let me give you an example.
The little boy who cried wolf, right?
He pretended he saw a wolf until finally when he saw a real wolf, he tried to tell people in clear language that was true, there is a wolf.
But he couldn't communicate it because he created a situation where they were just sort of, you know, deaf to his statements about wolves.
Now, the Mike Benz, let's say I like to use him as just a simple way to describe the larger blob of You know, the government working with NGOs and the Atlantic Council and how Soros is connected as a banker and it might involve all these other international things and how they affected the platforms and the news.
It's so complicated.
That as soon as you start explaining it to a normie, you know, somebody who's had no exposure to this idea whatsoever, and they think they're living in a democracy or some kind of republic, which I don't think we have for decades, you can't explain it.
And I'm not, I'm only bringing it up because it's fascinating how you can hide stuff.
One of the ways you can hide stuff is right in front of people.
You just have to make it complicated.
That's it.
As long as something's complicated, you can hide anything.
Do you know what's complicated?
Climate change.
It's complicated.
You know what's complicated?
Our elections.
I'm not in the concept level, but when you get down to who's doing what and how many moving parts, it's kind of complicated.
So everywhere that there's something that's complicated, It's probably really bad because that's where you hide all the bad stuff is in the complications.
Yeah, manufactured consent.
Yeah, that's part of it.
Anyway, I finally figured out what it is that makes MSNBC look different from CNN.
CNN looks like people who are sometimes knowing they're lying and sometimes don't know they're lying.
You know, they might actually believe their own news.
But here's what they don't look like.
They don't always look crazy.
That's my take.
When I watch CNN, nobody has crazy eyes.
You know, I keep calling out people who have obvious mental illness problems.
You can see it in their eyes.
When I look at Jake Tapper, do I say to myself, that guy's crazy?
No.
No, he's completely sane.
When I look at Wolf Blitzer, totally sane.
Totally sane.
When you look at Rachel Maddow, does she look sane to you?
I mean, really?
When you look at Lawrence O'Donnell, does he look sane?
I mean, really?
Does he?
Now, let me give you a contrast, just so I'm not making fun of all the other hosts.
When I look at Ari Melber, does he look insane?
No, not even a little bit.
Yeah, he could leave MSNBC and work on CNN tomorrow, because he looks like the CNN people.
They might be misled about something, they might be wrong, but they don't look crazy.
They look like people doing their job as they see it.
Now, here's what really sets me over the top and makes MSNBC a comedy for me.
CNN is fascinating and I recommend you watch it just to find out what they're telling their people.
Just to be well informed about what people you don't agree with necessarily are saying.
But when I watch MSNBC, I'm actually watching it for the jokes.
Meaning that I find it hilarious.
And I finally figured out what it was that makes it so funny.
It's the smugness.
The smugness.
If somebody's just mentally ill, it's just disturbing.
If somebody is perfectly sane and smug, sometimes they're just popular.
I would say Hannity is kind of smug.
Wouldn't you?
Sean Hannity?
He seems a little smug.
Maybe you'd say he's just confident, but a little smug.
But he doesn't come off as like comedy.
Because he looks like he's doing his job and, you know, even if he knows he's exaggerating, he probably knows it.
You know, nothing crazy.
But if you look at Lawrence O'Donnell or Rachel Maddow, they're super smug, but the things they say are crazy.
If you add smug and crazy, it's hilarious.
So when I watch it, I'm like, oh my God, what am I watching?
This is the funniest thing.
Smug and crazy at the same time.
Anyway, there's some people are thinking that so-called AGI or super AI intelligence is coming and it's real close.
OpenAI fired two people for allegedly for leaking information.
Now, I saw online some speculation that You know, it's obvious what it was they leaked.
Well, it's not obvious to me.
But the speculation is that the leak is about something called QSTAR, a rumored super intelligence that will come out of open AI fairly soon.
Who believes that?
How many of you believe that the leaks were about a super AI and that we're on the verge of something we've never seen before?
I'm going to say no.
I'm going to bet against it.
I think it was probably a leak.
I mean, that part might be true, but I doubt it was about a super intelligence, which we'll all be frightened to hear about.
I think everything's going to be incremental.
That's what I think.
I think all AI improvement will be incremental, but still astonishing when anybody looks back at it.
So I think the things we think are going to happen in a month, Are you going to take two years?
And they'll be amazing, but we'll have so much time to adjust to it that the amazing part might wear off.
You know, it'll just be, well, there's another, that's a little 5% better than that last one.
So I'm going to be, I'm on the, uh, underwhelmed side of things for AI.
And I'm happy to be wrong.
I'd love to be wrong, but I think it will be underwhelmed.
Well, you probably all saw the story of Representative Sheila Lee Jackson at a public event speculating out loud how we could possibly settle the moon because it's made of gas.
And how exactly do you build something on top of gas?
So that big old round moon, she said, was just a big gaseous thing.
OK, now you probably say to yourself, OK, but she's a politician, so You don't really expect your politicians to know everything about science.
It'd be good if they knew the basics.
But, you know, you give them a pass.
Their representative wanted them there.
So if the public wanted them as a representative and, you know, they're not having much to do with any science-y stuff, that would be fair.
I mean, as long as she's not involved directly in any kind of science decision, does it really matter?
Here's a little background you didn't know.
She used to be on the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee.
Yeah.
Yeah, one of our experts in the government who was on the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee thinks the moon is made of gas.
Well, let's have a drink to our experts, shall we?
Not just the scientific experts, but the political experts.
The ones who are serving on the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Who think the moon is made of gas?
Here's to you.
But you know, even as I tell you how many experts are wrong about things, at least they got climate change right, am I right?
Like, thank God, I mean, because that's, it was so important.
But all these experts in all these fields, clearly lying or wrong or batshit crazy, but at least, At least climate change is believable, incredible, and pure science, really.
Let's see, next story.
Harvard, Yale, MIT, and Brown are all returning to standardized tests.
Now that's a surprise, because you think that the smartest people in the country, you know, the people running these higher level institutions, when they decided that not testing people before admitting them Was a good idea.
I'm really surprised that that didn't work out.
Have I ever told you that if you don't measure, you're not managing?
It's one of those little bumper sticker rules that pops up all the time.
If you're not measuring it, you know, with some kind of legitimate measurement system, you're not managing.
It's not managing to say, well, I'd sure like to have more of this or less of that.
You need to have a real idea of what you're shooting at, or you're not really managing.
And if you're not watching, if you're going in the right direction or the wrong, it can't be called managing.
But the smartest institutions, in fact, Harvard wants to teach you how to make decisions and be an economist and a business person.
And they didn't know that the number one rule of management is you've got to measure things.
So if you'd like to get your MBA at Harvard, Just know you're taught by people who were caught by surprise that measuring things made a difference when they were trying to manage things.
Didn't work out.
So it looks like they had a choice of being super racist at the same time of being overpriced.
And those were two things that they couldn't pull off at the same time.
We'd like to be overpriced, but we'd also really like to be super racist.
And then the public said, hold on, hold on, that's too far.
You can be overpriced or you can be super racist, but you cannot be both.
That's too much.
That's too much, Harvard.
So Harvard said, well, as much as we love being super racist, I guess it would be better to be high paid.
So they chose the money over the principle.
Experts.
Here's to the experts at Harvard who are teaching you how to manage without measuring things.
to them to them so good Well, even though your highest educational facilities who teach people science and business, even though they apparently don't understand science or business, the one thing we can feel confident in is that they did produce scientists who really got climate change right.
Because if there's one thing the scientists can do, Outside of the college, you know, environment.
They can measure the temperature of the planet.
Am I right?
They can measure the temperature of the planet.
So, at least that's, we got that working for us.
So, good news on that front.
Oh, this is awkward.
Wow.
Kind of bad luck that this story came up in the order it did.
Well, now I just feel like a dope.
Zero Hedge is reporting that As many as 30% of all the thermometers that they use for the temperatures don't exist.
I wonder if that's a problem in the accuracy.
So they're called the ghost thermometers, and they're thermometers that used to exist at one point, but now they no longer do.
So what they do, the people who are measuring the data, Let's call them the experts.
Probably all came from Harvard and MIT and Yale, but I don't know that for sure.
But when they go to measure and they realize that there used to be a thermometer there, but now there isn't, what they do is they take the average of other thermometers.
So let's say you used to have an old one, but now the old one's gone.
Now it's been replaced with a new one.
And it's not even necessarily in the same place.
So you take the average of the temperatures of the thermometers that are not where the old one was, and you throw that mix.
30% of them.
30%.
That's the claim.
30% of them.
30%.
That's the claim.
Let's see, Mr. Shuchuk said the USHCN stations, they reached a maximum of over 1,200.
So in 1957 we had over 1,200 temperature measuring stations or thermometers.
But after 1990 the number of active stations became declining due to aging equipment and personnel retirements.
You know, I lived in the real world for a while and I worked at a laboratory in which all we did was work with equipment and technology every day.
Equipment and technology.
And, uh, you know what I learned when I was working with equipment and technology?
All that equipment and technology is 100% effective all the time and it never breaks.
Never gets out of calibration.
Never gets out of tune and is completely unaffected by temperature.
And the incompetence of the people involved.
No!
That's the opposite of what I learned.
Now, I would like to take a bow in a moment, but only after I tell you why.
And then I'll see if you believe I deserve a bow.
Okay?
You get to decide.
If you say yes, Scott, you can take a bow, then I'll do it.
But if you say no, If you say no, they'll say, all right, all right, you have spoken.
Who told you, name anybody else who told you this, that in the real world, you can't trust on people to read thousands of thermometers and compare it to a hundred years ago when we didn't have thermometers and we had tree rings and ice core samples and come up with a believable, credible line that passes all scientific integrity
And I said, in the real world, that is literally not possible.
There is no situation in which you could have 1200 thermometers and maybe a thousand people involved, and that they're measuring the temperature and getting something like a real result.
Do you believe that with having no scientific background whatsoever, that using the Dilbert filter, which is what I did, I used the Dilbert filter.
That the real world does not have any kind of competence that could possibly produce accurate temperature readings with the equipment used, things changing over time, and then human beings involved in the process.
Who told you that that isn't even possible?
Just me.
Who else predicted that if you actually looked into it, it would look absurd?
Just me.
I'm the only one.
Do I deserve a bow?
You tell me.
What do you mean, no?
Damn you.
Damn you.
All right?
All right?
Did Linzen know that?
So let me give you a different take on that.
So somebody said that a professional climate scientist said that.
Well, the climate scientists didn't say exactly this story, but the climate scientists do say, you know, for this reason or that reason, the accuracy is not good.
Now, from a scientific perspective and somebody within the industry, you know, that may be an accurate take, but I'm not even in the industry.
And I'm saying that you don't need to be a climate scientist who has worked deeply in the industry.
You just have to listen to what they said.
Wait, you just told me you measured the temperature of the earth.
So accurately that you can tell what direction it's going and why?
I don't believe that.
I don't believe that for a second.
So the Dilber principle of just general incompetence really guarantees this isn't doable because it's too manual, has too many pieces of equipment involved, too much, you know, moving things around, too much temperature and weather destruction, too much bureaucracy.
Yes, I would say that this is pretty solid evidence that we don't know if the temperature is going up or down.
It's not my opinion that I know, by the way.
So it's not my opinion that I know everything's fine, climate-wise.
It's my opinion that we can't measure it.
That's a very big difference.
So it could be a crisis.
Maybe.
How would I know?
In order to know, I would have to trust science.
Really?
It's 2024.
Who trusts science?
Doesn't even feel like a thing.
Now let me ask you this.
How long do you think it will take Trump, and let's say Vivek, to turn the... and let's say that this needs some confirmation.
So it would be great if we had some confirmation of this.
But suppose we get confirmation that 30% of the thermometers are ghost thermometers.
How long would it take Vivek and Trump to turn that into a victory dance and say, well, we can't tell you what the temperature is doing.
We can just tell you that they didn't know.
And maybe it was a hoax.
Would you say it's a hoax?
If I told you that 30% of thermometers don't exist, would you say it's a hoax?
Maybe not, but it's not that far away, is it?
All right.
Trump did the funniest Trump thing.
I mean, every time Trump does something you don't quite expect, it feels like He's just operating on some different level.
So here's what he did.
He just did some video commercials recommending RFK Jr., his competitor.
And he actually meant it.
Because he's aware that Democrats are more likely to vote for him.
So he just comes right out and says, in the videos, he said that RFK Jr.
is a better man than Biden.
He says, quote, RFK Jr.
is, as you know, The most radical left candidate.
So he's making sure that there are no Republicans who want to go that way.
So he characterizes them as the most radical left.
That should eliminate all the Republicans from voting for him.
But he says he is more so than the Green Party, even lefter than the Green Party, says Trump.
And says he is more so even than crooked Joe Biden, but he's got some nice things about him.
I happen to like him.
And then Trump says, I guess that would mean RFK Jr.
is going to be taking away votes from crooked Joe Biden.
And he should, because he's actually better than Biden.
He's much better than Biden.
He's much better than Biden.
Now, how much do you love that?
Have you ever seen that?
Have you ever seen somebody just come right out and say, you know what?
This other guy is better than the guy you're voting for.
He's not as good as me.
But you should at least not vote for that other guy, because that's a disaster.
Would you like to hear what the young people in my town say?
Here's what the young people in my town say about Joe Biden and RFK Jr.
And I'm told that there are no exceptions.
No exceptions.
No, I can't prove that, but I'm told there are no exceptions to what I'm just going to say.
At the young person, sort of, you know, teenager, young adult level, when asked about politics, they'll say, you know, RFK Jr.' 's kind of attractive, but there's no way in hell I'd support Biden.
And those are Democrats.
You know, those are people who come from Democrat backgrounds.
They're literally saying Biden is not even close to being a possibility.
They're saying RFK Jr.
all the way.
The young people.
Now, they're not saying Trump.
The boys are.
The boys are more likely to say Trump.
But the girls are saying, you know what?
RFK Jr.
looks a lot better than Biden.
Do you know what makes women decide on a candidate?
It's whether they'd have sex with him.
It's whether they'd have sex with them.
Is that too far?
Nope.
No, that would be a normal way that all human beings act.
Did I not just tell you they did a study that said that lawyers who are more attractive are more likely to win cases?
I just told you that.
This is exactly that.
This is just more of that.
We all know that tall presidents or tall candidates do better than short ones.
Do you know why?
Because people want to sleep with tall ones.
Same as David.
Exactly the same.
Taller is better.
So if you look at Joe Biden, who's literally, you know, a desiccated pile of twigs, and you compare him to RFK Jr., who's ripped, you can understand why young women are saying, you know, I think I politically agree with RFK Jr.
They have no idea what any of their policies are.
There's no policy decision.
Do you think an 18-year-old looking at RFK Jr.
and Biden knows the policy differences between those two?
Not a chance.
They just know which one they'd bang.
That's it.
And that's enough.
That's enough.
Should guarantee a Trump win.
Unless it's rigged.
Anyway, let's talk about RFK Jr., who did the most amazing thing on the Aaron Burnett Show on CNN.
So The Vigilant Fox is reporting about this, has a nice summary on X. The Vigilant Fox, not a good follow on X. Just look for The Vigilant Fox.
Anyway, RFK Jr.
says that Aaron Burnett's brain stopped working when he made the stunning argument about Biden on CNN.
So let's see if you think this is as good as The Vigilant Fox does.
So here was the argument.
Kennedy said, there's no court that found that President Trump tried to steal the election or tried to derail the election or tried to start an insurrection.
However, there are courts that have found that President Biden was censoring his opponents and not just me.
And then Kennedy said, although he did censor me and I did win that suit.
So it's not just me making it up.
Oh my God.
How much do I love that man right now?
RFK Jr.
is the person who I could disagree with the most and love the most at the same time.
Because what he's done is he's dismantled their strongest argument against the election being rigged.
But he doesn't know he did it.
Well, he might know, but... So the conversation It's about whether the president is an insurrectionist.
That happens to be Biden's strongest argument against Trump.
Because Biden went from what?
He went from Bidenomics, which now everybody's reporting he got rid of because of inflation.
So he had to give up on Bidenomics.
He did the whole, the army is full of white supremacists.
And then when they tried to root them out, they didn't find any.
And then it seems like they've been silent about all the white supremacists lately.
Have you noticed that?
Like, Biden was all about the white supremacists, but there hasn't been really a problem, and nobody was buying it, and there weren't any in the military.
So the white supremacist thing, like Bidenomics, was something they tried, and it doesn't look like it worked.
So they've settled on this whole threat to democracy.
Threat to democracy, and also specifically that he doubted the elections.
And when they say he must be a dictator because he doubted the elections, do you know why they can say that?
They can only say it because no court found that the election was rigged.
And now our K Jr.
comes up, comes out with the judo reframe of all time and says, There's no court that found that President Trump tried to steal the election, derail it, or start an insurrection.
And that's just a fact.
So you can't have it both ways.
If you're going to claim the election was good because no court found it wasn't, you're going to have to find that no court found he was an insurrectionist, and you're going to have to eat that shit.
And RFK Jr.
is going to shove it down your throat on live TV if you don't like it.
So, to me, RFK Jr.
just dismantled the entire gaslighting operation of the Democrats right in front of you.
That's kind of amazing.
Now, what I hope is that Vivek and Trump see this and pick up that argument.
Because it's a killer.
It's an absolute killer.
Absolute killer.
And here's what I'd love to see.
And maybe you don't want to start too soon.
It looks like the Democrats want to ride this whole insurrectionist threat to democracy.
I think Trump should allow them to keep that argument until they're so committed to it, it's just their brand.
And then he should mock it out of existence.
You could mock the dictator thing away.
Just by acting like a normal person.
Imagine Trump going into Chick-fil-A.
Some of you saw the video.
Everybody loved him.
He was hugging on and taking selfies with a lot of black women who were there, which is a great look for a politician.
Imagine him going into Chick-fil-A while the camera's running and somebody's taking a selfie with him.
Let's say, just to make the picture good, it's a young black woman who's just thrilled to Be in his presence.
And then he turns to her and says, the news says I'm going to be a dictator.
Do I seem like a dictator to you?
And then just laugh.
And then the person will laugh.
And you will learn that there are no people who think it.
It's just a news thing.
There are no people who think it.
And by the way, if you did think it, and you met him, you would stop thinking it within five seconds.
Let me give you a demonstration.
Of Trump changing somebody who believes he's a dictator into someone who doesn't believe it.
Pat on the back.
Shake of the hands.
How are you doing today?
Oh, wow.
Looks like you're doing great.
I'm glad you're supporting me.
How are the sandwiches here?
And you're done.
And people would say, how did anybody think he was a dictator?
That was the least Stalin-ish thing I've ever seen in my life.
He asked me about my sandwich.
He came into Chick-fil-A, where anybody could hurt him because he's right in the middle of the crowd.
By the way, did you notice the Secret Service did not keep the people away?
How about that's the biggest story?
How about that?
How about you missed the biggest story?
Trump walked into a middle of a crowd unannounced.
A very largely black crowd, unannounced.
Just walk in.
Now, the Secret Service was there, but there's no way they could have protected him.
People literally had their arms around him.
You can't protect somebody if somebody's up to no good.
Yeah.
He basically trusted the crowd and they immediately reciprocated.
Immediately.
All he has to do is trust the crowd.
Now, it's dangerous because, you know, there could be, it only takes one crazy person, but Trump trusting the public, Is such a good look.
And I would love to see him engage the public and just ask the question.
Do I look like a dictator to you?
And to imagine that he thinks that would be his best play.
In what world would that be his best play to become a dictator at age whatever?
That's not a good play.
It would guarantee his entire family got slaughtered.
What kind of a good play is that?
It would guarantee his businesses were destroyed.
It would guarantee like civil war.
Now compare that to the alternative.
The alternative of just doing a good job and then leaving office after his four years.
Which one is better for Trump and his family?
Unambiguously better to restore America to his former greatness as best he can.
And to walk out with dignity, having proven everything you need to prove, and then let his business thrive, let history think well of him, and become the most popular president in the history of the United States.
You don't think he wants that?
You think he'd rather be a dictator and hated by everyone?
It's crazy.
Now, if there's one thing that Trump wants, he wants the public to like him.
He doesn't want to be a dictator.
That'd be crazy.
But a lot of crazy people are convinced it's true.
All right, Speaker Johnson finally told the truth about why he changed his mind about Pfizer.
Now he is pro-Pfizer where he used to be anti-Pfizer.
And he says, and Mike Cernovich phrases this exactly correct, he got the talk.
He got the talk.
Now, who told you Name anybody else who told you this, that I believe that the top people, the president and, you know, the leaders of the parties, that when they get power, but not until then, only after they have their power, that the intelligence groups call them in and they say, here's all the stuff you didn't know before.
Here's all the stuff you didn't know before, and this is why nothing you knew is real.
And you better do it this way.
That was me.
And he's saying it directly, that when he found out what the intelligence people told him, he can't tell you what they said, but he's pretty sure he's going to do what they said.
Now here's something Tucker added that I think is a real good addition to that idea.
How does Speaker Johnson know that what the intelligence people told him is true?
No way.
There's no way he knows what's true.
So if he doesn't know what's true, who's running the country?
Because probably Speaker Johnson thinks he's one of the people running the country, or at least, you know, a big part of the government, because he knows this new information.
But what if it's not true?
If it's not true, then the intelligence people are running the country.
What if it is true, but it's also what the intelligence people want to happen?
Well, then the intelligence people are running the country.
So there are two possibilities.
What they told them is true, which means the intelligence people are determining how things go.
They're in charge.
Or it's not true, and they're still in charge.
Because they're telling you something to make you act in a way they want, based on false.
But either way, this is confirmation that the government is not the government.
And Johnson said it directly.
He said they showed him things, and if you knew what he saw, you would change your mind.
Now, if you had to guess, do you think he saw real things?
I honestly doubt it.
Because again, I'm going to put the Dilber filter on this.
If you put the Dilber filter on it and you give somebody unlimited power, the unlimited power to lie to the government and make them act like they believe it, Who doesn't use unlimited power in the history of everything?
If you give somebody that kind of power, they're going to not use it?
Of course they are.
They're going to use it every chance they get.
Now, they might not use it for small stuff, you know, because they don't care about the small stuff.
But if, let's say there was a difference between funding Ukraine and not funding Ukraine, do you think anybody's going to tell them the truth?
I don't think so.
Not a chance.
Here's what I think probably happened.
I think they called him and said, here's why we need FISA.
We can't tell the public, but FISA is the only reason we thwarted three nuclear terrorist attacks.
And he'd be like, what?
I never heard there were any nuclear terrorist attacks.
He goes, well, that's because we did such a good job.
We kept it from the public so they wouldn't panic.
And also that people wouldn't know our sources and means.
But we have thwarted three terrorist... I'm just making this up.
If you're joining me late, none of this is real.
But we thwarted three nuclear terrorist attacks.
And here's the thing, Speaker Johnson.
You can't tell anybody.
Do you promise?
Well, really, if you thwarted three nuclear attacks... I have to admit, I didn't want this FISA stuff, but...
I mean, the responsible thing to do is to make sure we don't get nuked.
I don't want that on my record.
So, I guess I'm going to trust you.
Yeah, I'm going to trust you.
So, it seems to me that whether or not Speaker Johnson heard something true or false, he did confirm that he's not in charge and that the government's not in charge.
Now, do you think this trick would work on the President?
If he said, Joe Biden, you don't know this.
But we know this, and you better not tell anybody.
Of course it would.
It would literally work on everyone.
Put me in that situation, and I'm totally aware of all the risks, right?
I know what tricks they might play.
They could turn me so fucking fast, it would be one second, and I'd be flipped.
Because the situation is irresistible.
Nobody's going to say, yeah, I do want to take a A healthy 30% chance that you're lying to me and I'm going to ignore the nuclear risk you just told me we avoided with Pfizer.
Nobody makes that decision.
You say if they told you, you're going to rely on them, even if it's bullshit.
Because that's just the better play.
All right.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is still against the Pfizer stuff, but she has not been read into the The secret things.
Here's what I like.
You want a compromise?
I'll give you a compromise.
Speaker Johnson, I will be on your team and I will agree with extending FISA under the following conditions.
You put Marjorie Taylor Greene in the SCIF and you tell her what they told you.
If her bullshit detector doesn't ring off the hook, And she says, oh geez, I didn't know that.
Okay, okay.
Now that I know that, I'm going to change my mind.
I would be a lot more comfortable if you put somebody with the, you know, the world-size balls of Marjorie Taylor Greene in that room, and she tells me.
So let me say it again.
I don't trust Speaker Johnson.
I don't know him.
You know, I'm not saying he's a liar.
I just don't know him, so I don't trust him.
But I've been watching Marjorie Taylor Greene for some time.
And, and by the way, if you put Matt Gaetz in there, I wouldn't believe him.
I don't, I don't have that level of trust with him.
Not, you know, not that I, you know, not that there's some specific thing.
It's just, I don't know.
So, but Marjorie Taylor Greene, I've got a feeling is purely a, a patriot.
I mean, every signal she sends is that she's in it for the right reason.
You know, even if you don't like her style or whatever, she really seems like she's in this for the right reason.
Been in the military, probably makes a difference.
So that would be, that's, that's my take.
Send in Marjorie Taylor Greene and let her come out and tell me that she saw the same thing Speaker Johnson did.
And if they both are on the same team, I'm going to get a little flexible about FISA.
Yeah, I'm going to get a little bit flexible.
All right.
Coincidentally, FBI director says there are more threats than there have ever been.
Well, doesn't that work perfectly, doesn't it?
Oh, isn't it great that FBI director says there's more terrorist threats than we've ever seen?
At the same time, they're talking about finding the best way to stop those terrorist threats.
So that fits kind of snugly, doesn't it?
Just a coincidence.
Well, there's a new COVID whistleblower.
This says that, well, it's everything you knew was true.
The United States or members of it, including Fauci, absolutely did plan and execute and were funded the gain-of-function research to make coronavirus more deadly.
I'm going to say that's confirmed as confirmed as anything could be.
Now you have to worry about fake news and fake whistleblowers, but everything about this looks just so obvious.
Do you all agree that we can now say it's just a fact that Fauci was crooked, Fauci lied, it was obviously some secret government program, but here are the two questions that we have not seen addressed.
Why were they doing that?
What?
Why were they making a deadly virus?
Now, the answers I've seen are that they're making the deadly virus so that they would be better prepared if somebody else made a deadly virus.
Does that sound real?
Because you could do that with everything.
You could have a little laboratory coming up with every damn thing that could go wrong just so you're ready in case somebody else does it.
No!
No, that's not believable.
That sounds like total bullshit.
Yeah.
So why was it that we ever believed that Fauci maybe didn't do this and it was some kind of, you know, some kind of Pangolin had sex with a bat kind of situation?
Why did we ever believe that or anybody?
I don't know, maybe you didn't, but why did anybody believe that?
It's because of the experts.
Let's drink to the experts.
They got this COVID stuff, they got this climate change, and they've studied things.
Yeah, here's to the experts.
All right, let's see.
Oh, and we have another whistleblower.
Breitbart News reporting that there was a guy, Mike McCormick, who's got a new book.
And apparently he was like a super insider, like he was in the room.
So I see him described as Biden's stenographer, but do they mean that metaphorically or literally a stenographer?
But he was in the room.
Here's what he says.
He says he personally witnessed Biden negotiate the Burisma kickback scheme, U.S.
funding to Ukraine Energy, primarily Burisma, in exchange for putting Hunter Biden on Burisma's board of directors.
On a trip to Poland in 2014.
Wow.
He says, Biden's former national security aide, Jake Sullivan, is at the center of the scandal.
And McCormick recalled that he told, that Sullivan told reporters in 2014 on Air Force Two, So everything you thought was true as a direct witness now.
so it must have been on background or something, that the United States intended to help Ukraine's natural gas industry.
So everything you thought was true as a direct witness now.
Oh my God.
And I think you've heard, I think Breitbart and other places, you've heard that Jake Sullivan has always seemed like he was the center of all of this.
And now we've got a witness that says he was.
And it's every bit as corrupt as it looks like.
So Ukraine was an energy play, a corruption play, a CIA play.
But what it wasn't is defending democracy against Putin.
Although there might have been some people who cared about that as well.
So I think the United States is essentially a criminal cartel, and it's been using essentially mafia tactics to take over Russia and get control of their energy.
And that Russia, too, is basically a mobster situation with a lot of energy.
So to me, it looks like two criminal elements, organized criminal gangs, United States versus Russia, fighting over resources.
That's what I see.
How is history going to write it?
Now, when history writes this story, are they going to say, well, the United States has been a criminal organization maybe for decades, and they ran a play that was essentially a criminal Rico kind of situation to take over Russia's energy and told the United States it was all about freedom or some damn thing.
Meanwhile, Russia, of course, is not a real country.
It's just a gas station with an army, basically a criminal enterprise.
So really, it was a contest between two criminal enterprises with billions of dollars at stake.
Do you think your history book is going to say that?
Well, probably not.
Let's see, what could possibly bolster this claim that the Biden administration is corrupt?
I wonder if there's any other story in the news right now that would make you scratch your head and say, well, there it is.
Next story.
CBS News reporter Katherine Harridge says the network, CBS, fired her, took all her notes, and she's never seen anything like that.
They took her personal notes.
They took her computer when they fired her.
And what was she working on at the time?
Oh, a story involving Joe Biden's corruption.
So CBS moved on her, like OJ on Nicole, because they found out she was working on a story about Biden's corruption.
And I'm guessing she found some.
I'm guessing she found some.
So they shut her down.
How many of you thought that the news was real?
And that the news organizations are, they're just doing their news organization thing.
Nope.
They've always just been a Democrat tool, at least in recent years.
And, uh, here it is.
Everything you thought about climate change was right.
They can't measure it.
Everything you thought about Fauci and COVID was true.
There was a big old coverup and we don't even know why they were doing it.
We still don't even know why.
We just know it happened.
And then the Biden corruption stuff in the Ukraine, and the Ukraine war, it's exactly what it looks like.
Exactly what it looks like.
What a day.
Well, there are reports that Iran is planning a calibrated attack.
So as you know, Israel took out some of its commanders, And I think they had an embassy, an Iranian embassy in Syria or something.
And if you had an embassy, that's a whole higher level of war because the embassy is considered sovereign territory of the country that has the consulate, a consulate, not an embassy.
And so Iran is saying that, you know, hey, that's like our, it's like our own territory.
So we're going to have to respond.
And the intel people think that if it's going to happen, it's going to happen in the next few days.
Here's what I think.
I think that Israel is getting the Trumpian benefit of unpredictability.
And what I mean by that is when Hamas did their attack on Israel, I heard reports that some of them thought they were going to take over Israel.
That sounds crazy to me.
But I think they assumed, I'm just observing it like everybody else, it seems to me that Hamas must have assumed That Israel's response to the attack would be somewhat similar to how they've responded to other attacks.
In other words, there will be some, uh, some proportional response and, you know, maybe a thousand Hamas people get killed, but they still have 29,000 left over and they just start over.
But instead, Israel called their bluff, took Gaza away from them forever.
Destroyed their civilization, and it's never coming back.
Now do you think they expected that?
Nope.
And what did that buy Israel as a permanent asset?
Trumpian unpredictability.
Now Iran has a new situation they've never seen before, which is always before they could sort of predict, if we do this, they'll probably do something that's similar.
Not anymore.
In fact, I'll go further.
If Israel ever intended to take out the leadership of Iran, all they need is for Iran to make an attack on the homeland, or just do something provocative, even if it's not on Israel proper.
Israel just needs a reason, and they're going to take out the Ayatollah.
Now, in any other situation, could they take out the Ayatollah?
Nope.
Nope.
Only this one.
Only this one, because they said, we're going to kill everybody who was responsible.
Who else was responsible?
The Israeli, I'm sorry, the Iranian leadership.
I mean, that's what we're told.
I mean, I can't, I don't have direct reporting, but everybody seems to think that the Iranian leadership was behind the Hamas attack.
Israel said directly, we're going to kill every one of them.
That would include Iranian, the Iranian leadership.
Just give them a reason.
This is the only time in history that I can think of that if Israel literally took out the entire leadership, they could get away with it.
Now you say to yourself, not guaranteed.
You're right.
It's not guaranteed.
Nothing's guaranteed.
It's war.
It's a war for existence.
Nothing's guaranteed.
But there has never been a more ideal time for Israel to end the risk of the Iranians nuking them in the future than right now.
All they have to do is say, look, we told you we were going to get everybody involved.
We took out the head of the snake.
And by the way, we have no quarrel whatsoever with even the Iranian military.
We have no quarrel.
We only wanted the people who are behind the planning and execution of this attack.
And I'm sorry, it just happened to include the Ayatollah and all of his generals.
So they're gone.
Now, we'd love to help you Iran recover.
We'd love to bring you into the fold, make you part of the, you know, Abraham Accords Plus someday.
But at the moment, we are completely unpredictable.
And anything you thought we wouldn't do last year, we will totally do this year.
This year's not last year.
Whatever you think might be our proportional response, stop thinking that.
There's no limit to our proportional response, meaning it's not going to be proportional.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the Trump premium.
Trump taught you that being predictable basically dooms you.
Being predictable dooms you.
Because you can't negotiate, and you can't frighten.
Everybody knows what's going to happen.
So you have to create a realistic frame that if you hit us, we might take you out completely.
And you have to set a precedent.
Because if you haven't done it in the real world, it's just talk.
Now Gaza is being basically disappeared.
Do you think there's anybody in Iran Who's watching what's happening in Gaza and says to themselves, I think those Israelis are in the mood to be proportional.
No, no, they are not in the mood to be proportional.
They're certainly going to be rational, but they're not going to be proportional.
They're not in the mood and they don't need to be.
They just don't need to be.
So I'm not recommending it and I'm not predicting it.
I'm just saying Iran needs to understand.
That if they did something serious to Israel, and Israel in response took out their entire leadership, the world would yawn.
The world would yawn.
That's never been the case before, and it may never be again.
There may never be another time you could do this and get away with it.
And by the way, I don't know if they could get away with it, but all the other times they definitely couldn't.
You know, a year ago, do you think they could have taken out the Iranian leadership?
No.
Absolutely not.
But what if they did it today?
Today is a coin flip.
Today you would actually say, you know what?
We might disagree.
Too aggressive.
And other people would say, no, that was just aggressive enough.
They had a couple.
You would never get that conversation any other time.
And by the way, that benefit will decrease every day.
So every day that Israel Doesn't take out Iranian leadership is going to be harder tomorrow.
So the ideal situation for Israel, depending on how aggressive they're feeling, is that Iran does strike back.
If Iran strikes back and they make it a serious strike, all bets are off.
So that's how you negotiate.
I don't know if I've mentioned that Netanyahu is smart, When you're dealing with a leader that smart, I mean, and I'm talking just raw intelligence, you know, forget about policies and preferences and who's left and who's right.
If you have that much raw computing power on one side, I would be afraid of that.
That's a lot of raw computing power.
And I wouldn't want to be on the other team.
So, I remind you I don't support Israel anymore, because the ADL has targeted me.
And yes, of course I know the ADL doesn't work for Israel.
Of course I know they're independent, but it's not my problem.
I can't solve their problem.
My problem is, hey, if your friend attacks me, that's how it works, right?
If you could stop your friend from attacking me and you don't do it, There we are.
Don't expect me to solve your problem.
I'm not going to solve your problem.
So my problem is the ADL, and so I don't support Israel because of that.
I don't think we should fund them a single penny.
Not a penny.
And that's a little bit personal in my case.
All right.
Yeah, right.
So I'm looking at a comment.
If Israel took out the Iranian leadership, the Arab world would be so so pretend mad.
Certainly happy that.
That, ladies and gentlemen, brings us to the conclusion of what I think anybody would call the best live stream they've ever seen in their entire life.
We've now, uh, and by the way, have I, have I made my case?
You got a little glitch?
That's interesting.
Might have had a glitch.
We're back.
All right.
I was just telling you that this is probably the best live stream you've ever seen.
Maybe ever will.
But can you give me a fact check on this?
Give me a fact check.
It's my belief That I've proven I run the simulation based on today's headlines.
Yes or no?
Does it seem to you like all the news was what I wanted it to be today?
Now if you're new to me, I'm always joking about this.
Or am I?
I've never seen the news So perfectly tailored to everything that I've already told you and believe and reveals the endgame.
I've never seen anything like this.
Today is just lit.
Am I wrong?
I mean, I'm having like a moment here, like before the show.
My moment was, I've never seen the news so right.
So accurate and having the right context, etc.
So quite remarkable.
This is quite a day.
I mean, this is really a remarkable day.
I don't know if everybody's going to see it that way.
I've never seen anything like it.
This is the day of all days in the news.
I've never seen anything like it.
All right.
I'm going to end the non-subscription platforms.
So bye to YouTube.
Bye to Rumble.
Bye to X. I'll be talking to the folks here on Locals.
