All Episodes
Previous Next
June 25, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:13:32
Episode 2516 CWSA 06/25/24
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, good morning everybody, and welcome to the Highlight of Human Civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and there's never been a better time in your life.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny human smooth brains, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tanker gels, just die in the canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid, I like coffee, And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.
Go. Good stuff.
Well, just a warning to you, if you've been trying to buy my newish book, God's Debris, this is now the complete work, so it's two books plus a short story, and you tried to get it from Amazon, and you tried to get the hardcover, sometimes it tells you it's available in January, sometimes December, sometimes October, sometimes July.
Now you might say to yourself, that's weird.
It seems like it would only be one of those things if it's all through Amazon and it's all the hardcover.
Well, there is some kind of fuckery going on that I don't quite understand, but it's happened with all three books that I've released independently.
And it's not necessarily Amazon's problem, by the way, because we use a third party entity for the hard copy.
So it's probably something about the interface between the two.
But a number of people said they had to cancel their order and reorder to get it to arrive in a timely fashion.
So, I recommend that 100% of you who have ordered the book, if it doesn't say July, cancel it.
You should cancel it.
Because I don't know what's going on, but the people who canceled it and reordered it said it worked.
So, cancel it.
That is my recommendation to you.
And by the way, it is impossible to become a bestseller if when you launch your book, it's not actually for sale.
So it does feel like fuckery.
It does feel personal, but I understand that this process is a little buggy.
So other people have had similar problems, but I'm three for three.
All right.
If you're following Dilbert, which you can only see if you subscribe to it on X, see my profile, or the locals platform, you would know that Rat Bird is now a writer at the newspaper called the Washington Poop, which is having terrible problems lately, the Washington Poop is, but Rat Bird will be paired up with one of their other writers, a writer named Phil Thumb, Who is represented as a thumb.
But I hasten to tell you that none of this is based on any real people.
The Washington Poop is not based on anything real.
Totally made up.
And there are no employees, no writers anyway, who work for the Washington Post that some people think I'm making fun of.
But they don't have any writers that look like thumbs.
I mean, not exactly like thumbs.
And by that I mean it won't remind you of a thumb, but in many important details, different.
So, just keep that straight.
Anyway, as a special thing, I don't have confirmation yet, but I think today after this show, but not immediately after, at 2 p.m.
Eastern Time, I am local.
My local, which is California.
I'm hoping to talk to Michael Ian Black, a comedian, podcaster, actor, author.
He has many, many successful careers.
And he would represent, let's say, a different political view from mine, and ask a fascinating question.
When he saw me post that all the news is fake, He said, if all the news is fake, how do you know what's true?
That's actually a great question.
And I think he was quite serious about it.
Like, what are you talking about?
And so I thought it would be fascinating to not debate politics.
I don't want to have a debate about who's the best president.
And we both agree on that, by the way.
We want to talk about how do you know what's true?
And I think potentially it would be the coolest conversation that anybody's ever had on politics.
Don't know.
I mean, it's going to be live, so anything could happen.
I don't have a confirmation yet, but I think we're pretty well set to do that.
Anyway, there's news from Oakland that the Hilton Hotel that's been in Oakland for 56 years decided to close.
Now, that causes sort of a problem for me because, you know, I live in the Bay Area.
And one of the things my friends are always asking, they're saying, When I go for my vacation in Oakland, what's the best place to stay?
And I would always say, well, you want to go to the Hilton.
It's the best hotel in Oakland.
But now when my friends want a vacation in Oakland, I don't know what to say.
You can't go to the McDonald's.
They close that.
So I don't know.
I think you're going to sleep on the street, but it should be safe.
It should be safe.
There are a lot of people who live on the streets in Oakland.
And I think they're all safe.
So, you'll be safe.
Just sleep on the street.
The weather's great.
Well, there was a Korean Air flight that had a scare.
Dropped 27,000 feet in 15 minutes.
Injured 17 people.
Let's see.
What kind of airplane type is that?
It's a Boeing.
It's a Boeing.
You probably didn't see that coming.
It's a Boeing 373 Max 8.
Now I have a suggestion.
I'm not, I'm not like an engineer or anything.
So I can't really help Boeing in their, uh, you know, their engineering and their safety, but I do know a little bit about marketing, a little bit about marketing.
And here's what I'd do.
Cause they got a bad reputation.
They should make their airplanes entirely in a rubber.
That way, if an airplane ever goes down, it will remind you of the company.
Boeing.
That's called marketing people.
I can't help you with the engineering, but that would be great marketing.
Well, another plane went down and made the sound Boeing.
All right.
That's all I had on that.
Uh, there's some legislation that looks like it's going to Joe Biden's desk.
So I got through the Congress, uh, that will substantially improve how easy it is to make a nuclear power plant in America.
As you all know, we have screwed ourselves for generations by having burdensome regulations to get approval.
But this aims to cut through a bunch of that stuff.
This is maybe one of the biggest deals in the world.
There'll be a once-ever time when nuclear becomes a thing.
Or not becomes a thing, but is required beyond any doubt.
So we've reached the point where it is no longer a left versus a right problem.
It's an engineering problem.
It's an economic problem.
It's a little bit of a public relations problem.
But it doesn't seem to be so much a government problem now.
And maybe that will make a big difference.
We'll see.
You know, if I had to bet, My bet would be that nuclear will be like other things, where it's slow, slow, slow until it isn't.
So kind of what I expect is 10 years of nothing, a lot of planning and talking and engineering, followed by 20 years of, oh my God, look how quickly they're building these smaller nuclear plants.
Bill Gates also said recently, nuclear is the only way to get where we need to go, whether it's fission or fusion.
But it's the only way, and I think we all agree.
All right, here's what I think would be how I would create a new city.
Here's what I'd do.
I'd find a big bunch of land that's owned by the government, the federal government, and I'd wait for Trump to be president.
And then I'd say, hey, I've identified this big chunk of land that the government doesn't seem to be using, doesn't look like they'll ever use it, but it'd be a great place to build a new city.
Now remember, this is Trump's idea to build cities from scratch using federal land so you can really do it right.
Here's how I would start.
I would start by saying we're going to build a nuclear power plant or two, meaning that they're modular.
So basically it's one power plant, but it might have more than one reactor later.
So you get a mini reactor that you know is sufficient to do all of the power for the city you plan to build.
And then you say that everybody who lives in the city gets a part of the profits of that.
So if there's extra, the town benefits by selling their extra capacity.
And indeed, they might actually put a second power plant there, if they had a connection to the grid, of course.
And then they would sell the excess capacity.
So what you would do is start with a city where the people living there had already bought into the idea that they would be in the general area of a nuclear power plant.
But in return, their electricity would be almost free, and it would be a business.
In other words, everybody who lived there would be basically a shareholder in the electric production.
Now, why should they be shareholders?
They absolutely should be, because they're taking any risk of being near one.
If you're going to tell me to live within two miles of a nuclear power plant, no matter how safe it is, and by the way, it's really safe now, I'm still going to be thinking about it.
So if you want me to move there, maybe I need a piece of the action.
And I think that can be arranged.
I also think that the new city should be its own insurance company for every element of insurance.
Maybe not medical, but all the physical stuff, you know, your car insurance, your house insurance, your business insurance, it should all be done by the city that you live in.
And there should be a co-op so that if you make extra money, it goes back into the city.
So the things that the city should do for itself are electricity, making a profit.
It should put it in its own Wi-Fi so that nobody's really paying for Wi-Fi.
It's just a city-provided service.
You should build the city so the transportation is practically free, which could be electric cabs that you use, but you could walk everywhere.
There's good, you know, maybe there's good, good mass transit.
But you could pretty well start from scratch and develop a city that would be almost free.
You've seen the little Tesla houses that have a Tesla battery pack, but also a Tesla roof.
There's zero energy.
You could do it that way as well.
You could build it so that every house is self-sufficient independently.
So the future of building new cities is really, really good because we have all the good stuff now.
The only reason we don't implement all the good stuff that we know how to do Is that it's hard to do it in an existing city.
You have to start from scratch.
So, new cities, that's the future.
All right, there's a new study that says you probably have a lot of microplastics in your penis.
Now, that would be if you're a man, and you have a penis, or you're a woman with a penis.
So either the men or the women with penises, they might have a lot of microplastics in it.
And the researchers are saying that might lead to erectile dysfunction.
They don't know.
They think the more plastic in your penis, the softer it will be.
Now, again, I'm no medical expert, but I feel like the more plastic in my penis, the harder it would be.
I mean, I'm just going to keep drinking microplastics until I've got a, you know, four hour erection that lasts 24 hours.
You know what I mean?
This whole, this whole business of losing erection and having to get it back again.
Well, that seems like a lot of work.
Why doesn't he just go plastic?
Stay plastic?
All right.
Don't listen to anything I say about health.
Except this.
There's another study that says loneliness can increase the risk of stroke by up to 56%.
Well, that's something that every guy who likes porn already knows.
Am I right?
Am I right?
If you're a lonely guy?
The risk of stroking is 56% higher than if you're married?
Yeah, okay, that's all I have to say about that.
Scientists have discovered the worst thing that scientists could ever have discovered.
A gene that causes some people to gain more weight from exactly the same food as other people that don't gain weight from it.
Oh, we are so dead.
That's all we needed was an excuse for being overweight.
Yeah, I can't think of a worse thing that science could have done to us than telling us, you know, some of you have a magic gene that would be very difficult for you to know for sure if you had it, because you're probably not going to go test for it.
But for now on, every time you've got a few extra pounds, You can say, I sure wish I had the genes you have, but I've got this damn obesity gene that's just making me gain weight from the same amount of food you're eating.
So, and it's up to a five or ten pound difference, they say, just having this gene or not.
Now, I don't know if that gene is what makes you lose, gain the weight.
My, my hypothesis And you know, I'm always 30 years ahead of medical science, so they'll catch up eventually, is that some people like eating more than other people.
And I've told you this observation before, and I've noticed it when I had lots of kids with their friends in the house.
And if I got a pizza and said, hey, there's pizza, everybody, you know, and people are, let's say kids are doing a sleepover or something, they're just all doing their own things and running around, they would arrive for the pizza, In the same order as their weight.
The heaviest people would be right there.
And the people who are maybe even underweight just wouldn't even eat one.
Or they'd get it later, much later.
But they wouldn't care.
They wouldn't have any hunger at all.
Now, I don't know if the hunger is caused by not eating a lot of sugar.
Because, you know, carbs and sugar can make you hungrier.
So it could be that not eating makes you want to not eat.
That could be it.
But it seemed to me That people had wildly different preferences for eating.
And that's got to explain almost everything.
Because, you know, as much as I like to say I do all the right things, you know, I eat right and exercise and stuff like that.
Really, it's because I don't like eating that much.
If I like eating as much as some people apparently like eating, you know, the foodies and the people who are just having an orgasm with every sip of wine, I don't have that at all.
I never have that.
I mean, there's some things that taste better than others, but I'm not really driven by an addiction to food.
If I were, I'd be happier.
So, I don't believe in free will.
That's what I'm saying.
I saw some more Instagram personal relationship advice.
As I've told you, all relationship advice that you'll see on social media has the following quality.
You have to do these things.
Also, those things couldn't possibly work.
So in other words, nobody really has any idea how to make a relationship work, literally.
There is nobody, period, who has any advice on relationships that even on paper could work.
You just look at it and you go, well, like, do you not understand how people work?
That couldn't work in the real world.
Let me give you an example.
There was a little clip of a young woman who was explaining that she had figured out what men want, and it's so easy.
She says all men want is basically food, sex, respect, and peace.
Men, would you agree with that?
The men who are also in that clip were shaking their heads.
Oh, yeah, she got it.
Yeah, that's all we need.
We want some food, sex, respect, and peace.
And we're perfectly happy.
So I guess we've unlocked the secret to relationships.
So there it is.
Women have finally figured out men.
And once the word gets around, Then women will start treating men with respect, give them peace, food, and sex on demand.
Do you see any problem with that worldview?
Have you ever met a woman?
Have any of you ever met a woman?
Because I feel like a lot of this advice comes from people who couldn't have possibly ever met a woman.
You know that if a woman gave you all of these things, She would hate your fucking guts.
It doesn't go any other way.
You might get those things, but she would hate you.
You get that, right?
So if you give a woman, if a woman feels like she's just doing this for a man, she's going to think, I'm doing a lot of work for this man, and there's this guy at work, Who doesn't seem to be so demanding.
He's so handsome and he's always flirting with me.
None of this works.
I'm pretty sure nobody's figured it out.
But the experts on Instagram are continuously hilarious.
If simply knowing what you should do worked, I think more people would be doing it.
But women don't want to do these things.
That's why it doesn't happen.
It's not because they don't understand it.
Do you think the problem was knowledge?
Have you ever met a woman?
No, it's not knowing.
It has nothing to do with knowing what the man wants.
They always know what we want.
They always know what we want.
They just choose not to give it for a variety of different reasons that I can't explain.
NASA canceled a spacewalk because one of the spacesuits was leaking water.
Well, I'm no astronaut, but I can tell you if I ever put on a spacesuit in space and I was about to go outside my capsule, I'm pretty sure my spacesuit would be leaking water too, if you know what I mean.
Yeah, that's all I had for that.
So Congress is contemplating, for the first time ever, separating alcohol from their food diet recommendations.
Well, if you can't trust the government with your food recommendations, who can you trust?
Speaking of which, Jordan Peterson recently said on an interview, I have never recovered from finding out that the food pyramid is a scam.
Is there a worse medical crime in history?
I agree with that.
The food pyramid lies that we're all told, Might be the biggest crime in American history.
You know, you can say COVID is up there.
Now you can say, you know, all of our bad things happening in our politics are up there, but I don't know that anything had more direct impact than lying about what food is healthy.
That's about as bad as anybody's ever been in the history of humankind.
So I agree with Jordan Peterson.
And I can say that that one thing, Change me forever Yeah, so when Jordan says I've never recovered from it.
Oh, I feel that I have never recovered from the fact that the government lied to me that much I mean, that's a big one We're gonna lie to you to tell you to do something that will fucking kill you slowly and we know it I mean, I assume some of them knew it But apparently the discussion is that It used to be that people thought, well, a couple of drinks a week isn't going to hurt you.
But now they're thinking maybe a couple of drinks per week might hurt you.
Or at least you're not going to be worse off if you don't have them.
I was listening to Andrew Huberman and he asked the same, answered the same question.
Are you going to be, do you really have to go to zero drinking?
And he didn't want to be, you know, the moralist who told you what you should or should not do with your life.
So he was clear that he wasn't recommending.
But he didn't think that two drinks a week was going to kill you, but you'd probably not be any healthier because of it.
Which is a good way to say it, I think.
I think he chose his words carefully.
There's no evidence that moderate drinking makes you healthier.
Remember they used to say it did?
So that's a big step, because people believe Hoberman, and he's saying as clearly as possible, no, drinking a little bit isn't going to make you healthier, even if they used to tell you that all the time.
It's like the food pyramid.
It was an obvious lie that's gone on for decades.
It was just obviously a lie.
I've been telling you forever.
It was obviously a lie.
Now, I doubt that.
So the smarter thing that they've done is they've treated alcohol like it's not food.
Thank you.
What are they treated like?
Poison.
What did Andrew Huberman, in his new video on this, what did he frame alcohol as?
Poison.
He actually said alcohol is a form of poison.
There you go.
Alcohol is poison.
It gets around.
So I guess the Supreme Court is delaying into July some of its big decisions.
Cowards!
You cowards!
I don't know why they're delaying it.
Maybe it's just more work than usual.
But some of the big stuff we'll still have to wait for.
Meanwhile, the big story today is Julian Assange is free!
You can understand why the CIA wanted to kill him and Mike Pence still thinks he should be in jail.
I think there's this report that Hillary wanted to end him.
He once said in public, the goal is to have endless wars, not a successful war.
Sort of famous for saying that.
So, uh, he's, he did a plea deal.
I guess he's got some health issues that may have played into his willingness to do a plea deal, but he, he'll end up back in Australia and he'll be free in Australia after the plea deal is completed.
Now this raises many questions.
Number one, Did he give out any secret information in return for this leniency?
Is that what happened?
Is there more to this deal than the public knows?
For example, maybe the bad guys just needed to know who his source was.
Maybe he gave it up.
Maybe the source died, and so he felt he could give it up.
So we don't know what's happening.
I doubt he would just give up a source, because he went to jail for a long time to not do stuff like that.
So I'm going to go with probably Assange did not make a deal that you wouldn't be happy with.
Probably not.
Don't know for sure.
But the other idea is that the only reason it's happening now is to take it off the table before the election.
Because Trump was definitely going to pardon him, or whatever the term is.
Uh, that would have given the Libertarians a strong reason to vote for Trump if they had been on the fence.
So this takes away that strong reason.
They still have Ross Ulbricht and they may feel the same about him.
So if he gets pardoned before the election, then it's just political.
Yeah, that would be a little bit on the nose.
Uh, the other, the other thing I worry about is that it's really a plan to kill him.
Because once he's a free-range chicken, it's going to be a lot easier to get to him and arrange an accident.
So I'm super concerned that an accident will happen to him in the next 18 months.
That seems kind of dangerous.
But he's already flown out.
I think they put him on a Boeing flight.
Oh God!
No, I'm just making that up.
It wasn't a Boeing, but it would be funny if it were.
And I guess he had to spend half a million dollars just for the private flight, because there was some reason he couldn't take a commercial flight.
Had to go to some weird island for reasons that are too boring to talk about.
Anyway, so on the lawfare of Trump, you've got Judge Cannon.
And so she's doing a bunch of rulings and the Democrats are mad because she's taken too long and she seems to be very deliberate and she's ruling both for and against the Trump defense.
So I think the Democrats just, they're just not happy when things are going the way they're supposed to go.
They just want Trump punished.
They don't care anything about the law, I think is the bottom line.
But anyway, I don't care about the details of that.
If you were to ask your Amazon digital device, whose name I won't say because it will trigger all your devices at home.
If you ask it, who is the most powerful doctor in the world?
It says Bill Gates.
That's right.
It says Bill Gates is the most powerful doctor in the world or influential.
Now, the interesting thing about that is, I assume that's an AI-driven response.
Is it wrong?
Now, Bill Gates does not have a medical license, but does he do more medical stuff than any other medical person?
And I think the answer is yes.
And I think he personally has to say, let's do this, or it doesn't get done, because, you know, it's his money.
This is not a wrong answer.
He doesn't have a doctor's license to practice, but he is, in fact, the most consequential doctor in the United States, if not the world, because he has so much influence on, you know, vaccinations and malaria.
And, you know, by the way, there's a lot of stuff that you would agree with, right?
Eradicating malaria and stuff like that.
You probably wouldn't have a problem with that.
So, good and bad, this is actually true.
That this, you know, it was sort of reported as that's a crazy answer.
It's not.
It's actually the exact right answer, in my opinion.
I think the AI nailed it this time.
So that's fun to watch, when the AI gets it right when you don't expect them to.
So I was watching another Trump campaign video, and I'll tell you, I keep telling you this, but the skill that the Trump campaign has this time, It's way higher than what we've seen before.
I won't show it to you because you can imagine it, but it's got all this strong imagery.
You know, Trump looking like a boss.
He likes to show his plane taking off and landing, because that's like a strong, exciting thing, watching the plane.
It shows him attending the UFC and getting a big hand.
That's a strong thing.
You know, a bunch of men who fight cheering for him.
That shows strength.
And then, of course, you know, there's the soaring pros.
But this time they were playing hip hop music.
So the music On top of the video was hip-hop.
Is that the first time?
Because it seems to me that Trump had a bad habit of playing the whitest music in the world at his rallies.
And that is, you know, also on his campaign stuff.
But if he's moved to a hip-hop vibe, smart.
Because the music is good.
It's got a great feel to it.
It wasn't anything I was familiar with, but when you hear it, you go, oh, that fits that commercial.
It's a strong beat and everything.
So yes, everything that the Trump campaign is doing, it's so on point.
It's so on point that you don't think about it.
If you look at any Joe Biden campaign ad, No matter what your politics are, if you were just being objective about it, they all look like they were done by high school projects.
Honestly.
Like, literally, they look like they were done by high school projects.
But the Trump stuff looks like the best things you've ever seen in that domain.
I can't keep ignoring that.
I mean, it's a big, big difference in just talent in the campaign.
Anyway, Byron York, who is reporting on EXO, Trump describes how the debate happened in the first place.
Now, this is similar to what I thought.
So Trump's on the same page.
I'll summarize it, which is that once Trump said that he would debate Biden anywhere and in any way, then Biden sprung the trap of creating the situation that Trump would least like to want to debate him.
Which is CNN, CNN hosts who've been calling him Hitler forever, sitting down, no audience, microphones turned off.
Basically, everything he agreed to are all the things that are good for Biden and bad for him.
Now, he thinks that maybe the trick was to get him to reject the debate.
And I agree with that.
I think they're trying to create a situation in which he would say, I'm not going to debate.
Because that would have been a really bad mistake.
I've seen some social media opinions say he shouldn't debate because it's too biased against him.
I disagree with that completely.
I disagree completely.
And it's because of the Andre Agassi tennis strategy I keep explaining.
He needs to go destroy their strongest fort, not their weak ones.
Nobody's going to be impressed if he tears apart, you know, some weak pundit on a weak platform.
He knows he needs to go into the belly of the beast and then he just needs to own it.
So the fact that it's the worst setup that could possibly be for him is the best setup for him.
Because if he can't accomplish this, go into an unfriendly territory and conquer it, maybe he's not the president you need.
Honestly.
If he can't go into this situation and dominate it, and you know he can, but if he doesn't, well, we're going to have some questions, aren't we?
We'd have some real questions.
Did something change?
Why are you not performing the way we expected you to?
So I think that Trump going into the worst situation for Trump is the best situation for Trump.
Because I'm very confident that he'll do well.
And we've seen him talk about his advisors and saying, you know, whether he should go hard at Biden or whether he should, you know, maybe try to be a normal person.
So you know that he's had lots of time to think about the approach.
I think he's already signaling That he's going to play it cool and just let Biden talk.
He didn't say it and anything could happen, but he seems to be signaling that he is at least agreeable that that's not a dumb idea.
You know, he's very much considering the play is safe.
Here's what I think.
I think that Biden's entire attack is going to be this Trump guy is crazy and chaotic.
All Trump has to do is not be crazy and chaotic.
That's it.
It looks stupid when Biden's accusing him of chaos, when Trump is just calmly explaining how he's the one who brought border security and a good economy, and that the real chaos is the inflation and the open border and two wars.
Now, he can say that just calmly and just completely dismantle Biden.
But here's the risk.
It's never super safe to tell Trump to not act like Trump.
Because we don't know how much practice he has acting like somebody else.
He's got a lifetime of acting like himself.
He knows how to do that.
But is he going to play a different character just because it would help him win?
He can.
But who knows?
All right.
Did you know that one of the co-hosts, so Jake Tapper will be hosting the debate with Dana Bash, his co-worker.
Did you know that Dana Bash, according to the Amuse account, which you should all be following, Amuse on the X platform.
Great stuff, by the way, that I don't see in other places.
So Amuse has some game.
That Dana Bash's ex-husband is one of the 51 people who signed the Letter that said the laptop was Russian disinformation So Yeah, when we talk about The the hosts being biased you got Jake Tapper who has been calling Trump basically some form of Hitler forever And you got Dana Bash who's ex-husband?
Signed the laptop letter Now, of course, it's an ex-husband, and it's a different person.
It's not Dana Bash, it's her husband, ex-husband.
But it seems unlikely that they're on super different pages on this question.
And I'd love to know if Dana Bash reported the laptop as Russian disinformation.
I'm guessing yes, without looking into it.
All right, so as you know, the Snopes, I guess in June they made the change, but we just noticed it recently, that they made the change to say that the fine people hoax was indeed a hoax, and that the president never called the racist fine people, and in fact, he said directly the opposite.
Now, as you know, that was the centerpiece of Biden's entire campaign, and he's still saying it.
So you might say to yourself, my God, this is the biggest story in the whole country.
I mean, what is bigger than that?
The entire country was torn apart by Charlottesville.
And then the, you know, the boosting of it as a message that the president had called actual racists, you know, marching racists, fine people.
Now, of course it didn't happen, but so you may have noticed that it was trending on X and it was, uh, It was basically in every news outlet and every pundit and every independent person mentioned it in a big way.
You all noticed that, right?
Every person you follow on X, if you're on X, everyone talked about it.
Do you know what's missing?
Every group that you don't follow didn't talk about it.
In other words, if you're Republican-leaning and you're following a bunch of Republican news sites and commenters, they all talked about it.
A hundred percent.
Everyone from Fox News to Breitbart to, you know, your independents, you know, Colin Rugg.
Everybody.
Basically everybody.
Now, if you're at a grounded news, it's, it's a, they're a group who likes to show you where there are blind spots in the news.
So Ground News, you can see them, it's an app and it's also a website, showed me, and then I posted it, that there was nearly 100% coverage of the conservative news landscape.
And zero on the left-leaning news.
Zero.
Actually zero.
None.
Not a single one.
Now, if you're doing a little dance and saying, finally, you know, we broke, we broke the hoax.
No, we didn't.
No, we did not.
No, there were no hoaxes that were debunked.
The people who knew it was a hoax got more information for what they already knew.
That's, you know, Snopes confirmed it.
But there's not a single person on the left who is aware that it's a hoax.
And they have no way to find out.
Because they're sure as hell not going to turn on Fox News, and if they do, they're sure as hell not going to believe anything they say.
So, amazingly, the biggest story in the country, by far, this is way bigger than Assange, it's bigger than inflation, it's bigger than everything, that the current president ran on a known hoax and divided the country to do it, and is still claiming the hoax to be true, and The entire corporate media, except the right-leaning media, is backing him.
Still!
Still!
That's the biggest story in the country.
It's completely invisible to half the country.
So, in my opinion, we are not a republic and we're not a democracy, but we're not a dictatorship per se, we're a hoaxocracy.
Our entire system is hoaxes are floated by the Democrats, Their media puppets repeat the hoaxes, and that becomes our reality.
And then the politicians sort of have to follow the hoax, and the voters end up following the hoax when they vote.
So we don't have a republic, we have a hoaxocracy, and that's not an exaggeration.
This is the important point.
I mean literally.
The fundamental operating system of the United States is hoaxes.
We just have to deal with that.
I think we need to just wake up.
Our system is one hoax after another that informs all of our actions.
So the things we teach our kids, the way we vote, the way the schools are organized, the way we write our history.
It's all fake.
I don't know how long that's been the case, probably all of my life.
But once you realize that you're living within a hoax, It's not a republic.
It's not a democracy.
It's not even close.
We're not even in the same planetary orbit as any of those things.
We are purely a hoax-based system, and maybe always have been.
I don't know.
I don't know how long it's been, but clearly at this point, we're just a hoax.
Speaking of which, George Soros is Already spent $400 million trying to buy the second biggest radio network.
So he's working the FCC, which has a lot of Democrats in it, and trying to get approval for it.
Now, why in the world would we be okay with George Soros owning the second biggest radio network?
Clearly he's buying protection for the hoaxocracy.
What else could it be?
He wants to make sure that there's nobody who can tell you the truth.
That's the whole point.
Do you think that George Soros decided that radio was the good investment?
Of course not!
Are you fucking kidding me?
No, radio is not an investment.
No, you do it for control, so people don't find out what you're really up to.
There's no other reason.
Why do you think Bezos owns the Washington Post?
Because he really likes the dying newspaper industry?
No!
Now in his case he might have some pressure from some intelligent sources, but clearly none of this is about news.
It is about maintaining hoaxes.
All right.
The network that Soros is trying to buy reaches 165 million monthly listeners.
165 million.
You know, if it weren't for Rupert Murdoch, who, as you know, is not from this country, there wouldn't be any competing news.
Imagine if Fox News didn't exist.
And by the way, it's not my job to say they get everything right, because they don't.
They don't get everything right.
But if you didn't have the competing version, you would really, really be confused about the world you live in.
Imagine if all the news was just the hoaxocracy stuff.
That's the way it was before Fox News.
It was only the hoaxocracies.
All right.
Let me give you another example of that.
Now we have 16 Nobel economists They've gone public with some kind of a letter saying that Trump is a real risk to inflation and that a Trump presidency would be an inflation bomb.
Let's see.
They're economists.
That sounds good.
They're Nobel Prize winning economists.
Oh my God, that sounds credible.
And oh, there's 16 of them.
Oh my God, there's 16 of them.
I mean, they can't be wrong.
Could they?
Could they be wrong?
I mean, there's 16 of them, and they're the very best!
These are the Nobel economists, for God's sakes!
Unfortunately, you should see this more like the 51 Intel people who signed the laptop.
No, it's not their real opinion, and if it is, it's from cognitive dissonance.
No, you shouldn't listen to them as experts.
No, they don't have a good argument.
Yes, if you have even a little bit of understanding of economics, you'd know this is complete bullshit.
As everyone does who took it, you know, one economics course.
And if you need some more explaining of why the Nobel economists do not have, let's say, a lock on what's true, let me just ask you this question.
Why do we have inflation?
If all these economists know how to avoid it, And they seem to be willing to advise us, and they're all on the same page.
Where were they before?
Were these same economists telling us that, hey, the things you're doing right now are going to cause massive inflation?
Did they?
Because if they did, well, I might actually listen to them.
Wow, they got it right that time.
Maybe they get it right again.
But we live in a world where, I guarantee you, remember I have a degree in economics, and I can tell you for sure, there are no economists who understand inflation.
Now that sounds like a big claim, because it seems obvious, print more money, you got inflation.
If it were that easy, everybody would have the same prediction.
If you just sort of look at it, you go, huh, well, I've sort of skimmed this topic, and it looks to me like Trump's going to drive that inflation through the roof.
Now, what would be the argument for why Trump would cause more inflation?
What do you think the argument sounds like?
Well, here we go.
The reason that he's doing it is because, I don't think they had a reason, but one of them was, oh, here's one of the reasons, that the Trump presidency could take inflation to new heights because a January 6th-style attack on democratic institutions could undermine global economic stability.
I think that was an axios.
So let's see if you can follow this.
So the January 6th hoax was that Trump was trying to overthrow the country, but all of you know that was a hoax.
So the reason that Trump would cause inflation is that the people who made up this hoax say that he might do more of the things that he's never done.
And then people would think there's chaos, and then that would, through a process called magic, Would cause your prices to go up.
There's your 16 Nobel economists right there.
No, it's complete bullshit.
It's absolute, complete, 51 people say the laptop is Russian disinformation, Russia collusion, fine people hoax, drink and bleach, bullshit.
And it's organized.
Again.
Have you seen the pattern?
That when, when Republicans are wrong about something, it's because they were just wrong.
Now they're wrong about a lot, in my opinion, but it's always just comes from some source that wasn't good enough.
And, you know, they bought into it and it got boosted and, you know, it fits some narrative.
So they wanted to believe it.
So Republicans are like free range, um, free range truth believers.
You know, they're, they're all over the place.
But every time you see one of these big lies coming from Democrats, they're organized.
Somebody got 16 Nobel economists to say something that's kind of obviously stupid.
Somebody got 51 Intel people to sign the thing that they clearly didn't believe was true.
Unless they're that dumb, but I don't think so.
The Russia collusion hoax.
Gigantic multi-entity hoax.
That involve all kinds of groups and entities.
Organized.
The fine people hoax?
Organized.
It's an organized.
Because the media is obviously just backing up their masters.
It's all organized.
Do you think the fact that there are no left-leaning entities covering it is completely an accident?
I doubt it.
Even Carville was talking about how he wants Biden to say some things that give all the Democrats their marching orders, so they know what to say and do.
It's very well understood that the direction is some bullshit is created at the top, and then everybody has to lie about the same bullshit, and that's their model.
Now, how does it work on the other side?
Let me explain how it works on the other side.
I already told you a story exactly how it works.
Trump went into an interview, this is a story I just told you, and he said, some people are saying I should, you know, calm down when I do the debate, some people are saying I should do this.
When he's choosing the vice president, he talks about, you know, some people are saying I should pick this person, some people think I'll pick this person.
Trump is receiving wisdom from the audience.
Not always right, you know, maybe the audience gets it wrong, but Trump is a receptacle of what is true and sometimes what isn't.
But it's coming from the bottom up and he is just focusing that energy and then he converts it into government.
He is a true populist.
He literally cares deeply based on action.
I'm not reading his mind.
His actions suggest he cares a lot about what the base wants and then he tries to give it to them.
That is not happening on the left.
On the left, there's some kind of weird brainwashing, gaslighting, hoaxocracy that's being hatched every minute in every category.
And then the sheep are told what to say and do.
Very different.
And what do the Democrats describe this system as?
Trump is stealing your democracy.
That's what they describe that as.
And obviously it's a projection.
All right.
So, LA is having a problem with homeless camps, you know, the homeless are creating a lot of camps on the sidewalk.
But thank God, I saw a report by EndWokeness, which is one word, it's the account on X, you should really follow that one too.
So, two accounts, they should just absolutely take my word for it, just don't fight, right?
If you're on X, Just do this, please.
Just follow these guys.
One is Endwokeness, one word, and the other is Amuse, spelled the way you think.
Just follow them.
It's like what you would see if the news were real.
That's what it is.
It's the stuff you'd see if the news were real.
It's really good stuff.
Anyway, so Endwokeness reports that finally LA is doing something About all the homeless camps.
Checking out the details, what they're doing about all the homeless camps.
Oh, okay.
They're removing the barriers that businesses put up that were trying to end the homeless camps.
Okay, so this is the wrong direction.
They're trying to figure out how to stop businesses from making it difficult to camp in front of their store.
That's really happening.
Do you think this story will be In the left-leaning press a lot?
I don't know.
It probably was in the left-leaning press as a good thing.
All right, well, the press, speaking of the press, says that Trump's VP picks are down to three.
Burgum, Vance, and Rubio.
Then this morning there was a Vivek rumor, but I don't think there's substance to it.
I'm not so sure that it's narrowed down to these three.
Burgum, Vance, and Rubio.
Not so sure.
If it were these three, I would say Burgum is boring, Vance might be too useful in Congress, and by the way, he's the whitest looking person in the history of the United States.
And I do worry that that will just cause the other people to have one more reason to get worked up.
Now, I like his views.
So he's very strong in communication.
His communication skills are through the roof.
He looks great.
You know, he's handsome.
He's young.
He's aggressive.
He's got balls.
He's like everything you want.
But he's also great in where he is.
So some of the calculation is, who do you want to move out of a place that they're already great?
Rubio's, some people say, might be a little too connected to, I don't know, the deep state or something.
So people, yeah, Rubio's too swampy, people are saying in the comments right now.
So here's what I think.
It's not any of those three.
So I'm gonna, let me say two things first.
I have famously written, and I'm republishing Winn-Bigley in the next month or so.
It's a little updated.
So, I famously said that nobody can guess the Vice President, and that that's the worst thing that I can guess.
So, the Vice President pick is totally based on things that are happening behind the curtain that you and I don't know about.
So, our ability to guess who we pick is close to zero.
I mean, I didn't see Mike Pence on anybody's list.
So, I'm gonna take the following prediction.
That it won't be one of those three, and it won't be Vivek.
Now, Vivek, because he's too strong.
The same with Vance.
They're both too strong.
Rubio's I wouldn't say Ruby is too strong.
He's a great communicator.
He seems to be a solid senator.
But, you know, he's got that people have the suspicion he's swampy.
I don't know that that's true.
I don't personally have any visibility into that.
But I'm going to say, just based on past pattern, that we don't know who it is, and it's not going to be one of the obvious ones.
I think that Trump's got a surprise coming.
So, now remember, I will ask you not to include this with my prediction list if you're looking at what I got right and got wrong.
I'm probably wrong.
This would be the least confident prediction I'll ever make.
Nobody's good on guessing vice presidents.
Nobody's good at it, and I'm definitely not good at it.
It's all based on stuff we couldn't possibly know.
All right, here's an interesting question.
If you like to play Supreme Court judge or justice, Um, so there's a question in the, uh, case where Jack Smith is going after the Mar-a-Lago documents.
That's Judge Cannon is presiding over that.
And, uh, I think she said this quote, uh, talking about the budget.
There's some question about what is Jack Smith's budget for going after Trump?
And I think the answer is there's no budget, meaning there's no cap, meaning that's unlimited budget.
Now what does that tell you?
If you heard that the government has a person with an unlimited budget to prosecute one person, no matter who that person is, would you say to yourself, hmm, that sounds like justice will be done because they got a big budget to do it?
Or would it sound more like clearly targeting somebody because we never say the budget is unlimited.
Why would this be the one time the budget is unlimited?
The only reason I can think of is that the only thing that matters is getting Trump, which would suggest it's political.
Now, I wouldn't have seen that.
I have to say that's sort of an interesting interpretation, but apparently Judge Cannon said, quote, when it's limitless, meaning the budget, I think there is a separation of powers concern, which is the good judge way to put it.
A concern about separation of powers.
Yes, it would look like the executive branch, giving an unlimited budget to go after their opponent, would look exactly like that.
By the way, are you aware that, um, when the documents were found, we now have confirmation that the cover, the cover sheets that were photographed with those Mar-a-Lago documents, it's now confirmed that those were not part of the documents, that the FBI added those into the photos.
Now they said they were just placeholders and stuff and blah, blah, blah.
We don't know how they got in the photos, but it looked like they intentionally took in Cover sheets that would make things look very confidential to mix it in with the stuff that maybe wasn't so confidential.
So it looked like it was more of a scandal than it was.
Now, maybe, you know, maybe there's some innocent reason for it.
It doesn't look like it.
It looks like exactly what it looks like.
But here's the more important point.
The thing we also know that nobody's arguing is that the FBI asked Mar-a-Lago to turn off the security cameras For what they said was the safety of the agents.
What exactly would make the agents less safe if there was a video camera?
Is it because we'd learn their identities?
Is that why?
Because that doesn't seem to be the problem with other law enforcement.
I believe that the police wear body cams fairly routinely.
And I'm pretty sure that most crimes, the way we figure them out, is because somebody had a security camera on.
So why would this be, though, one time?
And by the way, is that common?
So I would ask you this question.
Does the FBI ask other entities to turn off their security cameras, too?
Now, if I found out it was standard procedure, I'd say, well, that's maybe a bad procedure, but at least I'd understand why it happened in Mar-a-Lago.
If it's not a standard procedure in calling Dan Bongino.
Dan Bongino, I need a ruling.
Is it a standard procedure to ask for the security cameras to be turned off after a site has been completely controlled before they've been entered?
So in other words, they negotiated with the Secret Service that had security control of the whole building.
And since they're on the same side, you know, they're working for the government.
They're not trying to break any laws.
They should have known that there was no danger to the people.
Cause what would it be other than identities?
But that seems common to most law enforcement.
So I would, uh, I would propose this.
If you put me on a jury, I don't think there'll be a jury trial, but if you put me in a jury and the defense said, I want to tell you one thing.
They asked for the security cameras to be turned off before they went in.
I rest my case.
I would have my decision then.
I wouldn't even listen to the rest of the evidence.
It'd be blah, blah, blah, evidence, blah, blah, blah.
I'd say, I don't care.
If you turned off your, if you told them to turn off the security cameras, Before you entered, innocent.
Innocent.
That's what I call reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt is you're not so sure that this evidence came to you in the right way.
I would say I don't even care what the evidence was.
If you tell me that they had to turn the cameras off, sorry.
I don't know what judge would be fucked up enough to allow that to go forward.
There's nothing else that I even cared about, you know, as I was watching this.
I was like, well, evidence, evidence, you know, defense, prosecution, kind of a normal back and forth.
But that doesn't look normal to me.
If the FBI came to my house and told me to turn off my video cameras, I would think they're going to kill me.
And I would have to consider actually violence in return.
I wouldn't do it, I don't think.
But I would consider it, because I wouldn't consider it within the legal process.
It would look like an extra legal thing, which would be the scariest thing in the world, with people with guns come and tell you they're not going to follow the law.
Right?
We have guns, and we want you to turn off the camera.
I'm sorry, you can't do both.
We have guns, turn off your cameras.
That just has to be.
That has to be a 100% standard that whatever you do after that doesn't count.
Any evidence you get after that, throw it out.
I'd love to see that go to the Supreme Court.
That if the people who come in with guns tell you to turn off your cameras, that that should be the end of the case.
Dismissed.
I don't even care what was in those boxes.
By the way, remember when that first broke and all the fake news, the hoaxocracy was telling you there were nuclear secrets?
Now they've looked at all the contents.
Do you think they would tell you if there was something dangerous in there?
Of course!
They wouldn't tell you the details, if it were actually something dangerous, but they would say at least something like this.
There was something that gave away sources and methods.
I mean, that would be kind of specific, and I wouldn't need to know the details.
I'd say, ooh, if it's true, it's bad.
Or they'd say, There are plans for an attack on a nuclear facility.
I would say, ooh, I'm not so sure that's true, given all the other things we've seen.
But if it's true, yeah, that's bad.
That's bad.
But why haven't you heard that?
You haven't even heard the general domain in which some of this information would be a problem.
Why?
If it's totally to their advantage to tell you that there were, in fact, really important secrets in those Mar-a-Lago boxes, You don't think they'd at least give you the atom shift treatment?
Well, I can't tell you what we saw, but let me tell you.
I looked at it myself, and there's stuff about nuclear things that you wouldn't want anybody to see, but I did.
Whoa!
I hope nobody else sees these big secrets.
Of course there's nothing important in there.
You would know about that by now.
Do you think the hoaxocracy has modified their statements from, there might be nuclear secrets, we're pretty sure there are, to, well, Honestly, we haven't really heard anything bad in those boxes.
Well, two courts, Kansas and Missouri, obviously conservative states.
There were court rulings to block, temporarily at least, the student loan relief that Biden was touting.
Now, some of it's going to go forward that's already been, I guess, grandfathered in.
And this isn't a permanent stop.
It's just a stay until they figure out what's what.
But I'm glad to see that the Republicans are fighting back.
Over in Israel, there's a movement to start drafting the ultra-Orthodox Jewish members.
Because they're exempt, the only ones who are exempt from the Israel military.
And I think there's thinking that if everybody shared in the pain and the sacrifice, that Israel would be making better decisions.
In other words, it's easy to send somebody else to war.
But if it's your kids, or it's you, maybe you think about it twice.
So I don't really have an opinion about how Israel runs their country.
Let me be clear about that.
Israel is your country, and if I had an opinion, you should ignore it.
It's your country.
I'd love you to do the same with my country.
I'd love you to leave us alone and, you know, just let us do our thing and, you know, we can be allies and all that.
But no, I'm not going to tell Israel I don't even have an opinion whether they should extend the draft to this group.
But it's not a big group.
It's the people who study all day.
Right?
So basically, it's not people who are just going to their regular job or anything.
It's people who just have chosen a life of study.
So it's kind of a small group.
I guess a top US general just said that the US might not be in a position Well, how do you interpret that?
Do you believe that the United States thinks that it would be politically unwise and maybe security-wise we would get more terrorism if we helped?
Do you think they're trying to stop Israel from going alone?
Or do you think they're just playing good cop Because Israel's playing bad cop, and that works for both of us.
I don't know.
I don't know.
It looks a little bit like bad cop, but let me tell you what I'm most concerned about.
The thing I worry about the most is that the United States is not ready to fight any kind of a war, whether it's Russia, Ukraine, or even Hezbollah.
I'm not sure we have the resources that we would like the world to believe we have.
I've got a feeling that all of the militaries of the world are way weaker than they think.
Maybe in some ways stronger, but I've got a feeling our military has a DEI problem that's just massive, and that the capability of our military is so low, and we've given so many of our weapons to Ukraine, we might think that all it would take is a Hezbollah conflict, and we'd just have nothing left.
Obviously it only makes a difference if some critical things get used up, you know, if we still have stuff.
But they're, you know, not everything is critical.
But could we be at a point already of military failure where a Hezbollah conflict would just take everything we got?
And then we would look like a paper tiger?
That's what I worry about.
Anyway, in a related comment, Cenk Uygur, He said this, he said, we had this giant investigation into whether Russia was affecting our elections, but there's no investigation of how Israel is brazenly controlling our politicians through AIPAC.
That's their lobbying group.
Actually, it's a lobbying group of Americans who are pro-Israel.
American media is a joke.
This hypocrisy is so startling, yet never mentioned in the press.
First of all, I love Cenk.
Because while I disagree with him more than I agree, I kind of love, you know, the things he brings up.
You know, he just looks at things through maybe a little different window sometimes than other people.
So I love what he does while disagreeing with most of his opinions, if that's okay.
I mean, I think he's just adding something.
I feel like he's additive, even when I disagree with him.
So, and I know you disagree with that.
But here's my pushback on that.
The Russia collusion thing was something we didn't know.
In other words, it had to be investigated, because we didn't know it was true.
That's the opposite of what's happening with AIPAC in Israel.
With AIPAC, it's 100% legal, and it's 100% transparent, and it's the top headline.
Nobody's hiding anything.
It's a bunch of people who care about America and also Israel, who are quite effectively controlling, I'm going to say controlling, I think that's fair to say, the American policy about Israel.
Now, I don't like that.
Yeah, let me say as clearly as possible, I don't like that.
But there are a lot of things I don't like that come to me through a credible system.
In other words, America has laws.
You know, if we wanna change our laws, we can.
I mean, it's not impossible.
And everything's above board.
It's all legal.
We all know it.
We can watch it in real time.
And we see the control.
I just can't get as mad about something as legal and transparent as I can about something that was literally a plot.
The Russia collusion thing.
That's literally a plot.
Different.
Yeah.
You could hate both of them, but I just say they shouldn't be analyzed as similars.
They're not similars.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, completes my amazing tour of the news today.
As I said, if all goes well, I'm waiting for a confirmation, but I'm hoping to talk to Michael Ian Black, a well-known author, actor, comedian, podcaster, because he's got some different opinions on things, and it'll be a live stream if we connect.
I'm just waiting for a confirmation today.
It will be at 2 p.m.
Eastern Time.
It'll be recorded as well, so you can catch it anytime you want.
But it'll be live and we're going to talk about the mechanism of how you know something's real, given that our news is not terribly reliable.
And rather than arguing about, you know, Trump bad, Trump good, we'll talk about how you know what's true.
If that works out, it could be could be really interesting.
That's why I'm doing it.
All right.
So it'll be broadcast on the same platforms.
So if you're watching me now, It's the same way you'll be watching me if this comes together.
All right.
Thanks for that.
I'm going to say bye now to YouTube, Rumble, and X. Thanks for joining.
I'm going to talk to my beloved local subscribers a little privately here, and thanks for being part of this experience.
▲
Export Selection