All Episodes
Previous Next
April 20, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:08:11
Episode 2449 CWSA 04/19/24
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Streams catch up.
That was me talking to myself.
All right, welcome to the highlight of Civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody could even understand with their tiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard, chalices, a canteen, a jugger flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure The dopamine at the end of the day is the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go. Go. What a day.
Bye.
Bye.
Well, there's a gigantic war that's just kicked off between Israel and Iran and... Oh, it's over.
It's over.
Well, there were plenty of casual Well, there weren't any.
I don't think there were any casualties.
But there were gigantic explosions.
Well, we're not sure what the explosions were or if there were.
But the Israelis, they hit many.
We're not sure if they really hit anything because Iran said nothing really happened.
But Israel is claiming.
But Iran says nothing really happened, so I guess everything's fine.
That might be the world's most efficient war.
You know, last night I'd gone to sleep and it's like, World War III's kicked off.
And then I wake up, it's like, I'm not even sure anything happened.
Did you hear an explosion?
I didn't hear anything.
That's what they're saying in Iran.
So I guess this is a performance theater war.
Pretending to have a war to make your own people happy.
That's what's going on.
Let's talk about a few things.
I tried yesterday on Chad GPT, I gave it a little ethics and morality lesson.
Because I was curious, how does AI get ethics and morality?
Does it get it the same way it gets intelligence?
Just by looking at the patterns of human behavior?
Because that seems sketchy.
Because humans are not all that ethical.
Or is it hard-coded by the creators?
And it told me that it was hard-coded by the creators.
I mean, I had to work at it a little bit, but it told me that.
So I asked the following question.
Is it more ethical and moral to use climate change alarm and pursue climate change solutions, or is it more ethical to lower the cost of energy for developing countries?
What do you think it said?
What would a human say?
Well, humans are really bad at analyzing things, so they have a bad time comparing those two options.
So they default to a, I would say, a political point of view.
So if it's too difficult to sort out, you know, is changing the energy policy going to hurt or help the poor people in the short run versus the long run, and, you know, is there a long run if there's no short run?
It's really hard to know what's better.
In the human world, we just pick a side because we can't figure out the math of it, so we just go, well, my team says this, so I guess I'm on that side.
Well, it turns out AI is going to do the same thing, because AI said it's definitely more moral and ethical to battle climate change than it is to give developing countries abundant, cheap energy.
Now, do you agree with that?
Does your moral and ethical sense line up with what AI is?
Well, the important thing here is that you have to understand that the morality and the ethics are being hard-coded.
They're being given to the AI by humans.
And humans don't agree on what is more moral or ethical.
We might agree if we all could do the analysis the same.
You know, if there were just one calculation and we all looked at it, we all thought it was the right calculation, we might agree.
And even then we might not.
So AI is going to have a very confident opinion on the morality of things, and it will be just something that a human being told it to say.
Are you comfortable with that?
You shouldn't be.
The better answer... Let me ask you this.
You've probably used AI enough, those of you who have, to know that when it gets to a thorny question, it likes to do both sides-ism.
Well, some people say this, but other people argue that.
Am I right?
That's the usual way it answers a question.
Some people say this, but other people say that.
But when it comes to climate change, they're just like, nope, it's more moral to pursue climate change, because in the long run, it's better for everybody.
Which is based on not the best information, probably.
All right.
I saw a Moms for Liberty post.
I don't know if this is true, but the claim is the Biden administration, their new Title IX regulations will allow schools to not inform The parents, if their minor child seeks assistance for an abortion, or wishes to transition genders, or prefers different pronouns.
So the school can be raising your child to have an abortion without you knowing it, transition without you knowing it, and having pronouns without you knowing it.
Now, I guess the real question here, we could argue what's good or bad or right or wrong, How in the world do you argue that the school should make those decisions without the parents?
Have you ever been in a room with anybody who made that argument?
There's this whole part of the world that I never meet.
Have you ever met anybody who would say to you in person, you know, I think the school should make these decisions about the genitalia of your children and you should probably not even be involved.
But honestly, have you ever heard a real human being make that argument in person, like to you?
I've never heard of it.
I have trouble believing it's even real, that there's somebody who would make this argument.
But as we know, the school system, the public school system has failed us completely, and the teachers' union is probably the biggest problem there.
All right, there's a new AI app that's a girlfriend app, called AngryGF that gives you an AI girlfriend that is angry at you all the time.
It's always complaining and yelling at you.
And what you're supposed to do, if you're the guy, is it's gamified.
So it's like a game to figure out how to make your AI girlfriend less angry.
So, I don't know.
You know, there are going to be a lot of AI girlfriends.
Um, but I think I might lean toward the one that's angry at me because I want some realism.
Have you ever, you know, the science of addiction, you can get addicted to things if you have, uh, uh, unpredictable benefits.
If you always get the same benefit for what you do, you just get used to it and it's no longer addictive.
But if you're not entirely sure if it's going to work every time, but sometimes it does, You can get real addicted to that like gambling, you know, pulling a slot machine.
It's the fact that it doesn't pay you very often that makes it addictive.
Then when it does, you're like, Oh, I'm magic.
So if you could get your AI angry girlfriend to be less angry at you, it would feel like you had done something.
Uh, this is either one of the best ideas or the worst ideas in the world.
I'm not sure you can tell yet.
But you might be more addicted to the one that acts real and is angry at you all the time.
All right.
Tesla is launching a new thing where you can order food right from your car.
And then you can pick it up when you're at the supercharger station.
Now, let me say, that's an amazing idea.
Don't you think?
How many people would love to go to the supercharger And be able to like eat their meal on their lap that they ordered and they came there at the same time.
That seems like one of the best things.
Have you heard of people taking naps at the supercharger?
Have you heard of people falling asleep at the supercharger?
I have a friend who likes to go to the supercharger because it's the only time to get away from everything.
It's like an actual enjoyable experience.
Go to the supercharger, have a snack, you know, listen to your phone a little bit.
A lot of people usually like their getaway time, so it's actually like more of a plus than a minus.
Didn't see that coming.
Well, Bry.ai, B-R-Y.ai, As you know, he's the inventor and creator of the Orifice.ai, the sex toy for mostly men.
And he's got a trademarked slogan, AI women are women.
Now that might be the best slogan I've ever heard.
AI women are women.
It's so provocative.
It just makes me laugh every time I see it.
Because I know what it does to other people when they see it.
And that's just the funny part.
Anyway, there's the world's first beauty pageant for AI women.
So now you have a beauty pageant for AI women.
You know, real women, they had a good run.
But, you know, once the AI women look better and they could complain too.
So now your AI woman can look any way you want, but can also be angry at you.
That's sort of everything.
Uh, you know, if you've got an orifice, you've got to, well, you know, it's just women had a good run.
Now there's this face swap.
The face swap tech, uh, is so good.
The scammers are pretending to be other people as in pretending to be women.
So men are pretended to be women and online, they actually can present as women and they're getting an Relationships online and scamming people.
So I'm thinking that some version of this might've happened to me already.
I think I told you that, uh, one of my lawyers that I hadn't used for a while called to ask me to confirm if I had called them to ask to change my address.
I had not called them to change, to, to change my address, but their internal processes were good.
So instead of believing the incoming call, which by the way, had my name on it.
So my name was on a phone call from a different state.
And, uh, it asked them to change my address to some address at their address for my legal stuff, for my lawyer stuff.
But the, but the lawyer office was smart enough to call the number that they have for me to confirm.
And I said, no, there's that never happened.
And then the lawyer fired me and disengaged.
True story.
I got fired by my lawyer.
No, I hadn't used them in a while, so they disengaged.
I have a new lawyer firm.
The new lawyer firm is great.
The old lawyer firm was in San Francisco.
Do you think a San Francisco lawyer can stay working for me?
Nope.
The reason they gave is I haven't used their services in a few years, but they didn't need a reason.
I'm sure they would have canceled me anyway.
It was San Francisco.
So Benny Johnson, you probably know Benny Johnson, independent journalist type, see him on X all the time.
And ALX, also one of these independent journalist types.
I guess the two of them traveled to Oakland, California to where the first and only closed In-N-Out place is.
And if you didn't hear the story, In-N-Out is a hugely successful burger place, and they had to close only one store ever recently, and it was in Oakland.
And it's because they had just an immense amount of robberies.
Apparently people were getting robbed as they were sitting in their car in line.
So Benny and ALX, uh, drive the car with their, all their camera equipment and everything.
And they park it near the In-N-Out that is famous for getting robbed.
And within a few minutes, their car window was broken and somebody was reaching in to grab the bag.
Which sounds bad, doesn't it?
That somebody breaks into their car, their parked car, and breaks a window, grabs a bag.
No, it's worse than that.
Because ALX was in the car when it happened.
The car was parked, but there was still an adult human male in the car.
So ALX ends up getting in a, what do you call a, he's grabbing the bag and trying to, you know, Keep the guy from getting it.
I guess he succeeded.
So he actually beat off the robber.
Um, I don't think he hit him, but he managed to keep the bag.
Well, it's all they lost was their window.
So let me summarize this.
Benny Johnson and ALX went to Oakland to the place that was most famous for all the robberies there.
And their car was broken into and could have been, could have been, I mean, if that guy had been armed, it could have been literally death.
Now, can anybody think of any advice that I might have given them if they had asked?
Suppose they said to me, Scott, we're thinking of doing this segment and we're going to drive our cars and we're going to park next to that In-N-Out in Oakland and we're going to do a segment from there.
Imagine if they'd asked me for my advice.
What do you think I would have said?
I think I would have said, get the fuck out of there.
No, don't go there ever.
Not even for the news.
Don't go there if you have a medical appointment.
Don't go there if it's an emergency.
Don't go there just to do a story about it.
Don't go there.
Just stay the fuck away from Oakland.
It's lost.
Oakland's lost.
You don't go there just to fix it.
It's gone.
Well, the LA Times has an article in which they claim that March, this March, was the 17th warmest March in 130 years of data records.
Wow!
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
I think I usually call them NASA instead of national when I talk about them, because I get that wrong, those letters.
But anyway, that's the official record of temperatures.
You know, the most official record.
And it says that the average temperature was 3.6 degrees above average.
Wow.
So that tells you a complete and useful story about climate change, doesn't it?
All right.
I'm just seeing if the trolls are active.
Trolls are active today.
Well, do you know the site What's Up With That?
The What's is spelled W-A-T-T-S, named after the individual.
So that's sort of a climate skepticism site.
And here's what they left out.
So you can trust the news, can't you?
Let me tell you what the news left out.
And what they left out is from the same data.
So also from The, literally the same database, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, right?
So here's something they left out of that story, and you tell me if you think it's important.
So the story was the march is one of the hottest marches, and it's a climate change story.
Is it important that they left out the following fact?
That the same database, Shows that the maximum temperatures across the contiguous U.S.
have been consistently declining since March 2012.
That's right.
The maximum temperatures across the U.S.
have been declining since 2012.
Do you think that the story should have mentioned that?
Since it's a story about everything getting hot.
That the actual data says it's the opposite.
They can actually point you to the data, tell you the opposite of what the data says, and then make a story about it.
And if you're not reading the skeptical press, like the What's Up With That site, how would you ever know that?
You wouldn't know that.
You would literally think the world was burning up.
I told you the story about the three billionaires who are the ones behind the climate scare.
They got together some years ago.
It was Bloomberg and Steyer and some other CEO.
And they put their own money in and their intention was to scare you into some kind of climate action.
So they actually said, we got to scare people.
So here it is.
ScareAway.
Well, Biden was at a speech and he said, and I quote, are you ready to choose freedom over democracy?
Because that's America.
And everybody clapped.
They actually heard him say, do you want, are you ready to choose freedom over democracy?
Which is, you could say it's a Freudian slip that we don't have democracy and he knows it and he's behind it.
Or he's just a crazy old dementia guy.
Or he just says a lot of gaffes and doesn't mean anything.
But the fact that everybody clapped for that is more evidence that we live in a subjective reality.
The LA Times reported the opposite of what the data clearly said.
Nobody noticed.
Joe Biden said the opposite of what the people in the audience think is true and good, and they clapped for it.
They clapped for it.
So yeah, the reality is very subjective.
And how about this?
China is selling, you know, I guess they're a huge seller of solar panels to the West.
At the same time, they've overtaken France as the second largest nuclear power in terms of nuclear energy.
So China is selling us solar panels, but building like crazy nuclear power plants.
Do you know why?
Because nuclear power plants are way better than solar.
So they're selling us the bad shit, and they're keeping the good shit for themselves.
Now, we're also trying to build more nuclear power plants.
I will give the Biden administration credit.
They are serious about nuclear power, it looks like.
But we can't seem to get it done here.
The US doesn't seem to have a system that's supporting nuclear power.
You all know Frank Luntz.
Political pollster, pundit, you see him a lot, Frank Luntz.
Well, he had a stroke and he was reporting on it on X. He's 62 and he had a pretty bad stroke, but he says his brain is good and, you know, he'll get, he'll come back.
How long did it take a troll to come up with his post from 2020 encouraging people to get vaccinated?
You want to hear how terrible the world is?
The world is so terrible that a guy goes public with his health problem, and in one second a troll is blaming him of not only killing people by recommending vaccinations, but maybe having killed himself by getting vaccinated.
Now, the part of the story you don't know is that it's the second stroke he's had, and the first one was in 2020, before the vaccinations.
So it's his second stroke.
The first one happened before the vaccination ugliness.
So it's very unlikely it was the vaccination.
Secondly, he had a famous weight problem.
And a few years ago, he lost a bunch of weight, but he complained that in a post, he said, I can't be this hungry every hour of every day.
You know, I appreciate the compliments, But I appreciate food even more.
I can tolerate the fat insults better than the hunger.
So it may be that he ate himself back into a poor health state.
I don't know if the eating had anything to do with anything.
But I would just make this advice.
If you ever find yourself suffering because of your diet, you're doing the diet wrong.
If you're suffering and you're hungry, you're doing it wrong.
Now, I write more about this in my book, How to Fail with Almost Everything and Still Win Big, Second Edition.
But the idea is, if you know how to handle your urges, you know, the hunger part, if you manage that, you don't have any hunger.
Here's the quick explanation.
I'm at my exact ideal adult weight.
I wouldn't want to be one pound more or one pound less.
That took zero effort.
But I came down about 12 pounds from where I was just a year ago.
How did I do that with zero effort?
All I did was eat as much as I wanted of food that was good for me.
Anytime I wanted.
As much as I wanted, whenever I wanted.
I was never hungry for one second.
It turns out if you don't eat processed foods and sugars, and in my case, wheat seemed to be a problem, if you take out of your diet the stuff that just isn't good for you, you'd have trouble gaining weight if you're moderately active.
I mean, I'm not running marathons or anything, but I do moderate workouts regularly.
So, that's my advice.
You should take the message from him.
If you don't learn anything else, if you're suffering because you're on a diet, you're doing the diet wrong.
That's the main thing you need to know.
All right, I saw a clip where Elon Musk was explaining why the simulation is likely, and he thought the odds of us being in a simulation are billions to one, because certainly in our own lifetime we'll be able to build simulations in which there's an entire world that thinks it's real.
And so the odds that it hasn't happened already are low.
He thinks it's billions to ones that we are a simulation.
And I think the same thing.
So somebody asked me, um, a few questions.
Uh, Elon's boots and account on X said, can someone explain why it matters?
The question is, are we a simulation or not a simulation?
That's a good question.
Why does it matter?
Well, I would like to give you this reason why it matters.
I think if you know you're a simulation, you can author it.
And that's what Elon Musk does.
If you could be the richest person on the entire planet, and all it took was thinking you're in a simulation and acting that way, that's probably a pretty good strategy.
Now, you're not going to be the richest person necessarily, If you act as though you have control of the simulation, I believe you do.
And what could be more acting like you control the simulation than starting an electric car company that everybody said it was impossible, and then starting a rocket ship to Mars company that everybody said it was impossible, and putting a chip in people's skull that everybody said it was a bad idea?
Everything Elon Musk does is so aggressively impossible That you'd have to think you lived in a simulation to even try those things.
You'd have to think the rules don't apply to you.
And he lives a life like the rules don't apply to him.
So if you'd like to live a life where it seems like the rules don't apply, then I would suggest that the frame of the simulation is a good one.
Because it won't limit you.
If you live in a world where there's free will and everything is just what it looks like, Then there are all these things preventing you from getting what you want.
And you can list them.
Well, I'm ugly, so I can't get this person as my mate.
I can't get that job because I don't have the right background.
If you think the world is just what you see, then it's all limiting.
If you think that you can author it as you go, then you're likely to try things that other people aren't going to try.
It doesn't mean they'll all work.
But certainly it would expand your options.
So that's why I recommend it.
And then I was asked, Scott, why do you believe the simulation is real but you don't believe UFOs are here?
Wouldn't they be similarly the same odds?
What do you think?
Are the odds that we're a simulation the same as the odds of a UFO visiting?
Give me your statistical Instinct on that.
Same odds.
The odds of us being a simulation and the odds of UFOs and aliens visiting the Earth.
Here's my take.
Those are opposites.
The odds that we're a simulation, I agree with Musk, is in the range of billions to one in favor.
Billions to one.
And the logic supports that.
So there's billions to one chance that we're a simulation.
But if you look at the UFO story, it's in the category of things that are almost never true.
So you're comparing something like Bigfoot and Loch Ness Monster and ghosts.
That's what the UFOs are in that category with ghosts and monsters under the bed.
So the odds that there's a monster under your bed tonight is almost zero.
But then people say, why do you say it's zero?
And I say, I never say that.
I say, I don't believe it.
There's no evidence of it.
I doubt it'll happen, but nothing's zero.
I mean, a UFO can appear tomorrow and be a real alien.
But those are opposites.
The odds that the UFOs are real are almost zero.
The odds that we're in a simulation is probably billions to one.
So they couldn't be on further opposite ends of probability.
Could I be wrong?
Sure.
Sure could.
That's what it looks like to me.
All right, I'm trying to understand my commenters on X who are sure that every story can be explained by the fact that somebody important in the story is also Jewish.
Now, and I see that with Mayorkas.
You know, whenever I say, what's up with Mayorkas?
Because the question I ask is, who's he working for?
That's a real question.
I'm not trying to score a point or anything.
I actually wonder, who is Mayorkas working for?
It's obviously not the United States.
Do we agree on that?
I mean, we can be pretty sure that Mayorkas is not working for the benefit of the country.
I think that's clearly, it could not be more obvious.
Now, I don't think there's any evidence that Biden's in charge.
Would you agree?
I think the evidence suggests it's not Biden.
You know, some say it's his chief of staff and some say it's, you know, some combination of lobbyists and whatnot.
But I'm trying to understand why somebody thinks that Israel or a Jewish conspiracy would care about opening the border of the United States when that would be the worst thing that could ever happen to Jews and to Israel.
Why would Mayorkas be working for the Jews, as people in my comments are like to say, why would he be working for the Jews or for Israel to do the thing that no Jew and nobody in Israel wants?
Which is us to be destroyed by open borders.
Does Israel want us to let in a bunch of terrorists and stuff and destroy the country so that we can't support them anymore?
I don't think so.
I'm pretty sure that Israel wants the United States to be as strong as possible because we're basically their defense.
I mean, we're the augmented extra big brother defense.
So, I wish your conspiracy theories would have some internal integrity.
Meaning, at least can you connect the dots?
And if the best you have is that Jewish people who are notoriously good at school also have a lot of good jobs.
I'm getting the all-caps people who are having cognitive dissonance.
In all-caps, somebody's yelling, Dude, you are so clueless!
In all-caps.
I'm asking you to connect the dots.
I'm not saying I understand it.
I'm saying I don't understand it, and for some reason nobody can explain it.
So, can you explain to me why Israel, or the Jewish population in America, would want to destroy America with immigration?
Can you make any sense of that?
I'm not saying it's not happening.
You got Fuentes to answer, but you didn't watch it.
I'm not going to watch Fuentes, because I'll get on a list.
If I watch Fuentes, then the CIA and the FBI will be after me.
So it's not safe.
Follow the money.
Follow the money to whom?
Why is it you can't explain it?
Why can't you explain in the comments in one sentence who in the Jewish community anywhere wants our border to be open?
And why that's good for them.
Say it in one sentence.
Can you?
You can't do it, can you?
And neither can Fuentes, because it's not a thing.
The reason you can't explain it is because it doesn't make sense.
The reason you have to say you have to go to somebody else to explain it is because you don't understand it.
If you understood it, you would just tell me what it is.
Right?
You'd say something like, George Soros is evil, they all work for him, and he's just evil.
Like, I don't believe that's exactly what's going on.
But all I'm saying is that no argument has been made.
So if you think I'm disagreeing with the argument, you're hearing it wrong.
I'm saying no argument has been made, but you're very insistent that it has been made.
I'm not even disagreeing with it, it hasn't been made.
There is no argument to disagree with.
You're simply screaming something is the case with no evidence except that people who are good at school have good jobs.
That's your only evidence.
People who are good at school have good jobs.
And everything else follows from that.
But here's what's not a reason.
Why does 2 plus 2 equal 4?
Nick Fuentes!
Why does gravity exist?
Nick Fuentes!
How about saying his name is not an explanation?
That's not a reason.
That's the name of a person.
So basically all I'm saying are insults about Mayorkas.
He's a Cuban secular Jew and a Marxist.
And you think that because he's a Marxist, That's a different story than some kind of Jewish conspiracy.
So, have you changed it from a Jewish conspiracy to now it's a Marxist conspiracy?
Or are you saying that all Marxists are Jews, like Black Lives Matter?
See, all I'm asking is for your point of view to be coherent, and then I can engage it.
And here's somebody who's trying to tie it back to something I said about the pandemic, because they don't have any response.
If you can see the comments, some of you are listening to it, you can't see the comments, but the comments are just people actually going nuts.
Because they're sure that it should be obvious, but they can't put it in words.
So nobody can tell me in any sentence how any of this makes sense.
Jews tend to be Marxists.
So you think that there's a global Marxist thing, so it's not about Jews.
So some of you are changing it now, so some of you are saying it's not the Jews, it's the Marxists, and that coincidentally a lot of Jews are Marxists.
Now that's what you're saying.
But you see that you don't have any coherent point of view, right?
If you think it's a Jewish conspiracy, Then none of you have suggested anything that would support that point of view.
You can see it in the comments.
The best you had is yelling in all caps that somebody else that I'm not going to listen to has a reason, but you can't tell me what that reason is.
All right.
Wikipedia, which used to be run by the new CEO, new-ish CEO of NPR, who's under fire for being a wokester.
Christopher Ruffo has taken the lead on this mission.
He talked to Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, who says that Wikipedia has been ideologically corrupted.
He floated the possibility that Catherine Marr, who's now the NPR CEO, Collaborated with US intelligence to manipulate the information on Wikipedia.
And says that if NPR were committed to truth, it would fire her right away.
So that's even a founder of Wikipedia saying that she's a disaster.
Now, I've been listening to a lot of her old speeches and stuff, and she does look batshit crazy.
Like, she looks like somebody who's just got all the jargon.
And talk yourself into a top position by just saying all the right stuff about how white people are terrible.
Made her very popular.
So the more you can say white people are terrible, the more you can get promoted to the top jobs.
Apparently.
Anyway, so it's sort of an amazing that NPR has decided to go down with the ship.
So rather than get rid of their CEO, who's obviously a gigantic liability at this point, they've decided that their wokeness is too important.
And they're going to take down all of NPR.
So now there's a bill being floated in the Congress to defund NPR.
I'm very in favor of that.
I don't think NPR could be fixed.
I think it should just be shaken.
What do you think?
I think NPR should just be turned off.
It's useless.
And why is the government paying for news anyway?
Why did that ever become a thing?
Should there be any government-funded news?
Maybe there shouldn't be.
Maybe that's just a bad idea in the first place.
All right, get rid of NPR.
China has ordered Apple to get rid of its messaging apps.
So if you're in China, you will no longer be able to use WhatsApp threads.
Signal or Telegram?
Why do you think that China is banning those encrypted message apps?
What do you think?
Well, could it be because the founder of Telegram said that the U.S.
tried to hire one of their engineers to work for them secretly to give the CIA access to their encrypted data?
Could it be that China just realized that maybe China doesn't have access to these encrypted things, but maybe the U.S.
does?
So I don't think China would be smart to have a bunch of encrypted apps in China if they just saw a story that says the United States can easily get into them just by paying somebody who already works there to give them access to the back door.
If you were China and you didn't personally have access to the back door, And you thought America did?
You would ban that shit right away.
We would.
Right?
If it were the other way around.
If we thought China was into all of those encrypted apps, but the U.S.
couldn't get in, we'd ban it right away.
So of course they banned it.
Do you remember me telling you that there's no such thing as an encrypted app?
I mean, not in the real world.
That anybody at a state level, anybody who wanted to get in could get in probably.
Yeah.
All right.
In the comments, people are still having a heart attack.
I'm seeing you going all the way back to the Rothschild to connect to Mayorkas.
If you have to go to the Rothschild to connect to Mayorkas, you can't let that go?
There's nothing about that that looks a little bit crazy to you when you say it?
Not at all?
Okay.
All right, Rasmussen talking about voter excitement.
You know, the enthusiasm of the voters can determine if they show up.
And more Republicans are enthusiastic about the upcoming election than Democrats.
So Republicans, 68% of them are excited to vote, and Democrats, only half of them.
It's a pretty big difference.
Now, again, I say to you, Do you think that... I just don't understand what's going on.
It seems like every single indicator is pro-Trump, but that the polling is actually narrowing.
Everything from the news cycle that seems more positive Trump because he's using his lawfare stuff in his favor.
People like Trump on the economy.
People like Trump on war.
People like Trump on the border.
And now they're more enthusiastic about voting, and the race is narrowing.
Nothing is real, is it?
Like, whatever is causing this race to narrow, could that possibly be the actual voters?
Do you think that maybe, is it possible that most of the polling is just made up?
Is that what's happening?
I'm having real trouble believing that this is close.
It's weird.
It's all suspicious looking to me.
Well, as you know, many Trump lawyers and advisors at one point have gone to jail.
I saw Rachel Maddow give the list of Trump advisors and lawyers that have now been disbarred or sent to jail.
Now, the MSNBC take Is that if so many of your lawyers and advisors have gone to jail, what does that tell you?
Well, the MSNBC take is if that many of your advisors and your lawyers are going to jail, that's pretty good evidence that Trump himself is a big old crooked dope.
Am I right?
I mean, how could one person have so many people who are advisors and lawyers go to jail?
Unless the person himself were corrupt.
Or there's a massive, obvious lawfare campaign that is very clearly, and everybody can see it, taking out everybody around Trump one way or another.
So what she left out was all the people who have been cancelled.
So she could have put the Rosannes and the Infowars, she could have thrown me in there, right?
So if you look at the entire picture, it's clear that the government has weaponized against one part of the country.
So that's the real story, that the weaponization has caused all the lawyers to get taken down.
Let me give you an example.
Sidney Powell, She was accused of bringing frivolous lawsuits in several states regarding the 2020 election.
So she got disbarred.
Yeah, they disbarred her for what they called these frivolous actions.
But now she has a legal victory in Texas.
After an appellate court ruled that the State Bar had failed to prove that she engaged in fraud, dishonesty, deceit, or misconduct.
In other words, they could not show anything except she believed that the election had been rigged.
All evidence showed that she believed the election had been rigged.
Now, if she believed the election had genuinely been rigged, then everything she did was ethical, Moral and right on point for her job as an attorney.
If she knew it was a real election, which nobody could know, that was an unknowable thing, then it was Weasley and the bar had a good case against her.
But imagine, if you will, a bunch of lawyers.
Lawyers!
People who should see things a little bit more clearly than the rest of us.
A bunch of lawyers believed That they knew the election was clean.
Just think about that.
Could they have known that?
Do you think it was knowable by the fact that nobody had found proof it wasn't clean?
No.
Lawyers do know that just the fact you haven't found the evidence does not mean the crime does not exist.
Every lawyer knows that.
But why did all the lawyers act in a way that was the opposite Of what they all knew to be true, which is the Sidney Powell couldn't possibly know that the election was clean because it's not a knowable thing.
Well, obviously they were acting politically and that's why, um, I assume time went by and people could see more clearly.
And so she wins.
Now I would argue that the other Trump lawyers who went to jail or got disbarred.
So you got Eastman and, um, I think there's another one.
Doesn't the fact that all of them acted in what appeared to be a genuine belief, that they were acting legally, and that there was a reason to do it, meaning that there was, you know, grave suspicion, and it was justified, about the election.
To me, it looks like every one of these lawyers believed the election was rigged, and believed that they were following a path that was legal enough, and moral and ethical enough.
Here's what I think.
If the lawyers are going to jail, that proves that Trump had advice from lawyers to do everything he did.
That is completely exculpatory, in my opinion.
If you told me Trump told the lawyers to do an illegal thing, I'd say, whoa, that's bad.
Maybe you should go to jail for that.
But if the lawyers told Trump that what they were doing would pass legal muster, That's on the lawyers.
And the lawyers also were right, meaning that they probably had a legal path.
In their opinion, it may have been risky, but within the legal, you know, risk-reward parameters that they operated.
And that I would say that the certainty of the lawyers, such as Sidney Powell, that she was doing the right thing, is 100% exculpatory to the principal, who is Trump.
If the lawyers all thought it was legal, and apparently they did.
There's no evidence they didn't.
By the way, nobody's ever produced... Give me a fact check, but I think this is true.
Nobody's ever produced a witness, a direct witness, or a document, like an email or a message, that would suggest that anybody didn't believe the election was rigged.
When they acted as though they believed it was rigged, they actually believed it.
And I think that was obvious from the start, that they actually believed it.
So the hoax was that they didn't believe it.
And the news and the intel people and the Democrats are so powerful in their persuasion that they convinced us they could read the minds of strangers and saw that they were lying just by looking inside their minds.
They couldn't tell they were lying by looking at any documents or any witnesses.
There was no evidence.
So instead they used their mind reading and said, oh, they definitely know it's not true, but they're acting like it is true.
And that's unethical.
Got to disbar them.
That was insane.
Yeah.
So I would say all of the people going to jail are proof that the system is broken.
Not that Trump is broken.
Speaking of which, uh, there's now some, uh, evidence.
That the FBI was trying to link white supremacists with Islamic extremists and was making the case that they were going to team up.
Let me say that again because you probably think I misspoke.
The FBI was, at least in documents that have been uncovered, was pushing the idea That the white supremacists were going to link up with the Islamic extremists to become one mighty extremist terrorist group.
That's right.
The FBI thought that white extremists were going to team up with the Islamic terrorists.
The FBI thought white supremacists were going to team up with Islamic terrorists.
All I can say is, either the FBI has never met a white supremacist, or maybe even a white person, ever, to ask them whether this is batshit crazy or not.
No, this is batshit crazy.
Now, Mike Ben says it's not so crazy as it is a op.
And the op would be, if you can tie these things together, then you can use all of your anti-terrorist tools against Trump supporters.
Do you see the play?
If you can make the case that you might have a problem with white supremacists teaming up with Islamic militants, then all of the tools that you could use against Islamic militants can be used domestically against Trump supporters, because you can just say they're white supremacists.
Well, they're Trump supporters, so they're probably white supremacists.
And if they're white supremacists, there's a good chance they're working with Islamic terrorists.
And if they're working with Islamic terrorists, it's the greatest risk to our country, and we can use all of our military tools to stop it.
It's an op.
Or the beginning of an op, or something like it.
So, yes, everything that's in politics is bad people on the Democrats and in the intel organization trying to pull an op on the country.
There's basically nothing but ops and hoaxes.
The entire structure of what you believe about the country is nothing but hoaxes.
It's just one hoax after another.
That's all it is.
Speaking of hoaxes, you do know that the January 6th narrative has completely collapsed, right?
So now that we have whistleblowers who confirm that Trump authorized 10,000 National Guard, which is it?
Yeah, National Guard.
So we know that Trump pre-authorized 10,000 National Guard, which guarantees he was not trying to do some kind of a takeover.
Guarantees.
There is no way both those can be true.
And we know one of them is true.
So if one of them is true, the other one's definitely not true.
And what's definitely not true is that nobody authorizes a military to act against themselves.
That's what the Democrats have sold the country.
That Trump activated the National Guard against himself.
Against this insurrection they say he was planning.
So he planned an insurrection, but also planned a military to thwart it.
And that's what their idiot fucking supporters think actually happened.
I mean, you have to be really fucking dumb to think that he authorized the military to thwart his own takeover of the country.
I mean, you have to be super dumb to buy into that hoax.
But most of the country did.
Because we got a super dumb country.
Um, and this is another case where the government is running nonstop ops.
So January 6 was just an op.
Whatever's happening at the border is clearly not what we're being told.
It's some kind of op.
Uh, definitely whatever's happening with this FBI and white supremacists and Islamic terrorists, that certainly looks like an op.
All of these legal lawfare stuff against Trump is an op.
All of the Trump lawyers being taken down by the bars, those are all ops.
None of this is a normal country operating normally.
This is all the dark elements of your government operating against you, the public.
So the government has turned against the public in a major way.
But of course they have the press to cover for them.
Here's a story in Axios that says, here's the post from Axios, says CEO Jamie Dimon, Actually talked about JPMorgan Chase's commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion in his recent shareholder letter.
His words stand out at a time when most CEOs have gone silent or openly hostile on these programs.
So if you saw that headline or that post, you'd say, huh, Jamie Dimon, one of the most important executive business people in the whole country, People really do pay attention to what he says and they should, because he's a super smart, well-meaning person who does seem to want what's best for the country.
Now, politically, I think he's probably a Democrat, but he's also said things that are just common sense about closing the border and, you know, give up on your Trump derangement syndrome and stuff like that.
Very, very sane Democrat point of view, which I totally appreciate.
Like even if I might disagree on an element or two, a sane Democrat who understands what TDS is and doesn't have it, you can be my friend all day long, right?
I love that, even if I disagree on some policies.
I don't know if I do, actually.
I might agree with Jamie Dimon on just about everything.
I don't know.
Do you think that that characterization fits what actually happened in the real world?
No, it's the opposite.
The headline and the post I read are the opposite of what happened.
Jamie Dimon did not come out in favor of DEI.
He did not use the words DEI.
He used words that you and I probably agree with, whereas you wouldn't agree with DEI, many of you.
Let's see if you agree with this.
He says that they want to continue doing outreach to increase the diversity of their workforce.
Outreach.
So, in other words, they would recruit with a very intentional purpose of making sure they got the right diversity.
Is that a problem?
Recruiting?
Recruiting is about opportunity.
Now, if he's doing it right, and I have no reason to think he's not, Then that just means he's making sure everybody sees the opportunity, and the bank doesn't miss anybody who would be good, and that's about opportunity.
That's the way he phrased it.
I mean, if you look at his words, it's about opportunity.
That's the opposite of DEI.
DEI is about equity.
It's built right into the phrase.
The E is equity.
Equity is not about opportunity.
Equity is about outcome.
It's very specifically about outcome.
So he has run away from DEI, he's not embraced it.
And he's run to exactly the Trumpian kind of view that there's no problem with outreach.
Does anybody have a problem with that?
If a bank thinks that they're better off doing a little extra to make sure that they got, let's say, communities that have been underserved in the past.
Does anybody have a problem with that?
I've never had a problem with that.
Because opportunity, well, I'm all for it.
I just don't like them forcing lesser qualified people into the system just for equity.
That would be my issue.
But no, opportunity, yes, as much as possible.
It's all good.
It's your money.
They want to spend it on that, that's great.
So yeah, the headline doesn't match the story, so that's an op.
Thomas Massey is talking about Speaker Johnson.
I think we're all confused about what's going on with Speaker Johnson.
I can't tell if he's a Democrat or Republican at this point.
I mean, you really can't.
Yeah.
So he says that the Rules Committee just voted for the rule To bring the hundred billion dollar foreign aid supplemental now, I think that's the one that gives money to Taiwan for Taiwan Ukraine and Israel and They they're trying to put the tick-tock ban in there and something the repo act I forget what that is So they put all these things together, but one thing they didn't do is put in any money to secure the border In the real world this is happening
Well, let me just say this without commentary and see if your head explodes.
This is just explaining the facts, right?
No opinion put on.
The Speaker of the House, who would be the top elected Republican at the moment, so the top elected Republican, well, unless you, yeah, I guess you could argue he's the top at the moment.
He's getting money for three foreign wars, or potential war in Taiwan, I suppose, and he is not asking for any money to secure the border.
Does that even sound like a Republican?
I mean, maybe an old-time Republican when Republicans liked wars, but it doesn't sound like a modern Republican.
You know, giving your money away without taking care of your own country first.
And Massie's doing a good job of just pointing out the absurdity of the process.
I guess the Speaker's using some Democrats to get things pushed through because the Republicans couldn't get it done.
And whatever Johnson is doing, It appears to be connected to something he learned in an intelligence briefing that he can't tell us.
Every part of this is sketchy and wrong and smells wrong.
There's not a single thing about this that feels right.
And they're doing it right in front of you.
But we don't know why they're doing it.
Because remember, the secret knowledge that Johnson claims to have, he can't tell us.
So it's basically a trust me thing.
In the comments, somebody said, in the comments, somebody's saying, maybe he's Jewish.
I assume that's a joke.
I call back to the earlier conversation.
I'm going to assume charitably that that was a joke because I think it was.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, could it be the aliens?
Did they tell him the aliens are coming and we better protect Taiwan because the aliens are going to take it?
I don't know what that's all about.
How is it that the U.S.
dollar is so strong compared to other currencies?
So I saw that today.
How does that work?
Shouldn't the U.S.
dollar be the one that's inflating into nothing?
How is our dollar gaining ground on other currencies?
Nothing really makes sense, does it?
I don't really understand that.
I did, I did figure out something that I heard.
Let me just give a clarification.
So last night in the man cave, I think I've said this on the regular show.
I said there was something I didn't understand.
And then in the comments, people explained it to me.
So I'll explain it to you.
The thing I couldn't understand is why so many people were saying the MRNA, the MRNA vaccination was bad for you.
People say, at the same time that the people working on it are doubling down their mRNA research to use it for other kinds of things besides COVID.
So I said, how can it be that the scientific community is working so hard at the things so many of you say is clearly a dangerous thing and all the data shows it.
So here's what I learned.
When people say the mRNA vaccination is what is hurting people, they're using the wrong words.
So that's where I got confused.
What they should have said is that the mRNA platform is a delivery vehicle, but what it delivers is the important part.
So if it someday delivers something that cures cancer, maybe that's good.
But if it delivers a spike protein, that's supposed to be part of the COVID solution, And the spike protein is a problem, then it's the spike protein that's the problem, not the mRNA.
So, am I close?
That the mRNA, if you're saying you don't want some medical thing to happen, it would be more accurate that it's what the platform delivers to your body, not the platform, not the delivery vehicle.
Do you buy that?
Yeah, this stuff is hard to understand if you're not, you know, an expert in that field.
So all of us are trying to just figure it out.
I think that sounds right.
So if you're going to say that, um, yeah, and then a bunch of people are saying no.
So then other people are saying that the mRNA platform is the problem.
So I guess, I guess there's literally nothing we can understand in the real world, is there?
Did my show make the case that reality is subjective?
Everything I talked about today was things that people have two views of, and they're positive their view is right, and they're just opposites.
Check the live house government to see the voting on Ukraine money.
Well, it's the voting for all the money, right?
It's one bill.
First, you must know what RNA and DNA are.
No, first I must not know that.
All right.
This is about you resisting info from Malone.
I don't even know what that means, so it's not about that.
All right, let me ask you this question.
to this question.
How many of you still believe that elite athletes were dropping dead from vaccinations?
How many of you still think that really happened?
Looking in the comments A lot of people think that happened.
Yeah.
It's probably the most debunked part of the whole pandemic narrative, but a lot of people still think it happened.
Now, I won't rule out that it happened, and there's something wrong with the debunk, but... No, I think that one... I'd give that a 90-10.
I had a 90-10, 90% chance it didn't happen.
Now people are just yelling insults at me.
Now if you believe that one, just look for the debugs.
If you've been fed a continual stream of athletes are dying and here's another evidence of it, it would make sense that you believed it.
Because that's all you saw.
But you're having a documentary effect.
So remember, the documentary effect is if you saw one set of information all the time, it would be very convincing, even if it were not real.
So if you had the same experience I did, you saw a nonstop diet of athletes dying and people saying it was vaccination.
But I also saw the debunks.
So if you never saw the detailed debunk of those stories, then you don't really have any basis to know one way or the other.
Let me see, what's it?
McAuliffe, what?
McAuliffe talked with Tucker about this before Tucker got cancelled.
Yeah, but I think McAuliffe was one of the people saying it.
And you bought the propaganda.
Well, here's all I'm asking.
Is there anybody who's seen the detailed debunk, and also seen the claims, who thinks the claims are still true after seeing the debunks?
If you haven't seen the debunks, but you've only seen the claims, don't talk to me on this topic.
Just don't talk to me if you haven't seen them.
Now I'm not saying that means the debunks are right.
I'm saying that I've seen both and one of them is way more convincing than the other.
But that could be a persuasion effect too.
So I give it a 90-10 that it didn't happen.
Because if it did happen, it's all we'd be talking about.
And instead it's just a little, a little population of people who haven't seen the debunk basically.
All right.
Looks like our comments have stopped on this platform.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to go talk to the Locals people privately, because they get a little extra.
So I'm going to say bye to the regular stream.
If you're on Locals, stay where you are, if you're watching now, because this stream will turn into your private stream as soon as I say goodbye to the other platforms.
▲
Export Selection