Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 2187 Scott Adams： I Can't Mention The Top Story Today In The Title Because

00:00:00.000 Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.

00:00:08.860 It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and boy, do we got a show today.

00:00:12.600 Look at these pages. Look at that. Look at that.

00:00:15.100 Secret documents on attacking Iran right there.

00:00:18.460 Or maybe not. Possibly newspaper clippings. You never know.

00:00:22.200 But if you'd like to take this experience up to a level that's impossible to even imagine,

00:00:28.040 all you need is a cuppa, a mug, or a glass, a tank of chalice, a stein, a canteen, a jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.

00:00:34.100 Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.

00:00:37.480 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

00:00:42.920 It's called the Simultaneous Sip.

00:00:45.540 And it happens now. Go.

00:00:52.940 That's good stuff.

00:00:53.900 Well, I'm watching my traffic numbers for today.

00:00:59.120 I'm almost positive I'm going to get suppressed today on YouTube.

00:01:03.380 What do you think?

00:01:05.000 What do you think will happen to the people who, let's say, are identified as maybe having a particular point of view?

00:01:16.000 Do you think everybody's going to have just the same amount of exposure today because the algorithm will just say,

00:01:22.540 well, whatever you want to talk about is fine?

00:01:25.880 I don't think so.

00:01:28.520 I think it's going to be the lowest traffic I've ever had on YouTube.

00:01:32.520 You want to make a bet?

00:01:34.980 Now, today's Tuesday, which would normally be the first or second highest numbers I would get in traffic.

00:01:42.820 Do you want to bet that it's smaller than normal?

00:01:44.620 Well, yeah, everything you suspect is true.

00:01:50.780 Just say everything you thought was true.

00:01:54.740 It's probably true.

00:01:56.000 We'll find out.

00:01:57.840 All right.

00:01:58.180 Well, there's a coup in Niger, a country in Africa, Niger.

00:02:03.920 And the big question we all have about that is, how can my tax dollars make that worse?

00:02:09.940 There's a coup in a country that I never think about.

00:02:14.800 But really, how can I send the money to make it much, much worse?

00:02:19.840 That's what I want to know.

00:02:22.460 Well, my favorite story of the day is not that.

00:02:25.080 There's a zoo in China, and there's some allegations that their star attraction is really a man in a sun bear costume.

00:02:34.180 Now, I saw the photos, and that's either a bear with some wrinkly ass, he's got a wrinkly ass, or it's a man in a bear suit.

00:02:47.500 It's definitely one of those.

00:02:49.000 It's either the wrinkliest bear or a man in a bear suit.

00:02:52.460 And let me tell you, if you said to me, Scott, I'd like to go to the zoo, and I'd say, why would you like to go?

00:03:01.160 And they'd say, there's a bear there.

00:03:02.980 And I would say, hmm, I've seen bears on social media and video clips.

00:03:09.160 Don't really need to see another bear.

00:03:11.680 But if you told me that there was a man in a bear costume pretending to be a bear, I would be all over that zoo.

00:03:19.060 I would be, can we cancel our plans today?

00:03:21.520 I would like to go to the zoo to see the man who's pretending to be a bear.

00:03:25.900 Yeah, that would get me there.

00:03:28.240 All right, well, Twitter has removed the gigantic glowing X from its roof because, well, I guess the official story is probably that San Francisco said it was a zoning violation.

00:03:41.380 That's probably true.

00:03:43.500 But you know what the real story is?

00:03:45.980 It had done its job.

00:03:47.600 It was the best branding campaign of all time.

00:03:50.660 That's right.

00:03:52.160 They didn't need to advertise.

00:03:54.280 They didn't need to tell everybody.

00:03:56.240 They didn't need to send out press releases.

00:03:58.480 They just needed to put a gigantic illegal X on the roof, and everything else would happen on its own.

00:04:06.460 Is there anybody who hasn't heard of the rebranding of Twitter?

00:04:10.300 No.

00:04:10.780 Well, 100% of the world knows about, at least you're following the news, you know about Twitter rebranded as X.

00:04:18.580 So another brilliant marketing PR move by Musk, and there's no way this is an accident.

00:04:26.800 If you tell me he didn't know this would be a problem, I laugh at you.

00:04:34.340 Of course he knew it would be a problem.

00:04:36.440 That was the feature.

00:04:38.180 It's the problem that got him all the free publicity.

00:04:40.720 So everybody wins.

00:04:44.180 San Francisco gets to exert their power over him.

00:04:49.140 Yeah.

00:04:50.320 We got him this time.

00:04:52.780 He thought he could put that big X on his roof and make everybody interested.

00:04:56.420 But no, we're going to get rid of that.

00:04:58.940 We got rid of his X. 0.99

00:05:00.680 We win.

00:05:02.080 Well, maybe everybody won this time.

00:05:05.160 Well, there's a new capacitor technology, which could do the same things as batteries in many cases.

00:05:11.760 A way to store energy.

00:05:13.720 But it's made of cement in something called carbon black, which apparently is common age-old material.

00:05:22.040 It's the material that the black scrolls were written with.

00:05:24.980 It's very, apparently it's common.

00:05:27.580 But here's the thing.

00:05:28.680 This is from MIT, some work they did there.

00:05:32.360 David Chandler writes about it in MIT News, and it turns out that there's some possibility

00:05:37.760 that the foundation of your house could be a battery.

00:05:45.220 Isn't that cool?

00:05:46.780 You could make your whole house a battery by using a concrete that's got this carbon black mixed in

00:05:52.720 and hook it up to your electrical grid, and your whole thing will store it.

00:06:00.720 Now, that sounds nice until it rains, and then you're all electrocuted, I assume.

00:06:05.460 I assume you just got all electrocuted.

00:06:07.780 No, that's not true.

00:06:08.680 You will not get electrocuted if it rains.

00:06:11.320 But imagine if that worked.

00:06:12.680 Imagine if all of our roads and all of our concrete buildings were just batteries.

00:06:19.560 That would be amazing.

00:06:20.460 It would change everything.

00:06:23.140 Well, the residents of Oakland are quite upset, not only about the high crime,

00:06:28.640 but all of the illegal immigrants who are coming in.

00:06:30.860 So, did anybody see that happening?

00:06:36.780 Could anybody imagine that when you got rid of good police force work

00:06:42.980 and you stopped locking up the repeat offenders,

00:06:46.860 could anybody imagine it would turn into a soulless hellhole?

00:06:53.360 Who saw that coming?

00:06:55.080 Well, nobody saw it coming.

00:06:56.200 Well, my advice is you should just drive around Oakland.

00:07:02.360 So, I live where Oakland's between me and San Francisco,

00:07:06.440 and by that I mean Oakland is blocking me from reaching a place

00:07:10.380 I would never want to go in my life, San Francisco.

00:07:14.020 But now there's, like, another place I would never go in my life.

00:07:17.920 Well, okay, that was sort of on the list for a while.

00:07:22.220 Oakland wasn't really high on my list of places to visit.

00:07:24.880 But now it's a total drive-around,

00:07:27.420 because if your car breaks down in Oakland, you're not getting out.

00:07:31.460 It's a crime, crime mecca.

00:07:33.940 Yeah, we'll talk about Hunter Biden.

00:07:35.760 I'm working up to it.

00:07:37.640 I'm working up to it.

00:07:39.920 I heard a phrase today by Veritas Lantern on Twitter

00:07:44.740 that we're having a pandemic of incompetence.

00:07:48.880 Does that feel right?

00:07:50.620 We're having a pandemic of incompetence.

00:07:53.160 Doesn't that feel exactly like what's happening?

00:07:56.920 Because all of the other pandemics are as much about incompetence

00:08:02.140 as they are about any other thing.

00:08:04.360 Almost everything that's a problem is an obvious problem of incompetence.

00:08:09.880 And Veritas, he credits that incompetence to the diversity, equity, and inclusivity

00:08:18.860 as a pandemic of incompetence.

00:08:22.060 Now, of course, if you're focusing on anything except competence,

00:08:26.220 you should expect to get what you focus on.

00:08:28.920 Am I right?

00:08:30.340 If your focus is competence, you might get it.

00:08:33.720 But if your focus is something that competes with competence,

00:08:39.160 your competence will go down.

00:08:41.180 Not much doubt about that.

00:08:43.440 So yeah, it's a pandemic of incompetence.

00:08:46.720 Let's talk about climate change.

00:08:50.600 Remember how it was all warm and it was because of climate change,

00:08:53.740 but it turns out somebody discovered there was an enormous volcano under the ocean

00:08:59.120 that warmed up the ocean?

00:09:01.440 Or no, I guess it wasn't that it warmed the ocean that much,

00:09:05.360 because that's kind of hard to do.

00:09:06.640 It was more that it released something in the atmosphere,

00:09:09.940 more water or something that caused the heating.

00:09:12.160 So everything you heard about this hot year might be entirely because of one volcano.

00:09:19.660 I don't know that to be true.

00:09:21.900 I'm just saying that some people think that's what's happening.

00:09:25.780 Bjorn Lomborg points out that our satellite imagery shows the world is burning less than ever,

00:09:34.880 meaning that in the old days there were forest fires burning out of control pretty much all the time.

00:09:39.560 And now we're at the lowest level of forest fires we've ever been at.

00:09:46.180 But yet the news is reporting that climate change is causing more forest fires.

00:09:51.980 So at the same time climate change is causing more forest fires,

00:09:56.920 we have the least forest fires we've ever had.

00:10:00.480 Does that track?

00:10:03.080 Maybe we would have none if not for all that climate change.

00:10:07.220 I guess that would be the counter argument.

00:10:09.560 And then Steve Molloy of Junk Science is reporting that the Antarctic sea ice

00:10:15.720 is the same volume as it was 40 years ago.

00:10:20.360 The sea ice is the same volume as 40 years ago,

00:10:23.940 even though CO2 has gone way up.

00:10:27.180 Well, what do you make of that?

00:10:28.660 I'm no scientist, but I'm going to put out my best interpretation.

00:10:33.700 If it's true that the sea ice has not decreased at the same time that climate change has raged in terms of CO2 being added to the atmosphere,

00:10:43.840 there's only one explanation I can think for that.

00:10:49.680 It was the mask mandates.

00:10:53.200 Am I wrong?

00:10:54.560 Yeah.

00:10:54.740 It was the mask mandates that temporarily protected the sea ice.

00:10:59.580 But otherwise, I'm sure, I mean, I'm no scientist, but I'm sure it was the forcing us to wear masks,

00:11:06.260 reduced our warm air exhaling, maybe had something to do with the climate.

00:11:11.360 I don't know.

00:11:11.860 I don't know how it all fits together.

00:11:13.480 But the only thing I can think of, it had something to do with masks, pretty sure, yeah, the sea ice.

00:11:20.180 And then the forest fires, probably because there were not enough vaccinations.

00:11:27.640 I think if you'd been more vaccinated and got more boosters,

00:11:31.180 there wouldn't be so many forest fires from climate change, would there?

00:11:34.680 I call this science.

00:11:37.300 That's what it's called.

00:11:39.660 Should we talk about the non-story?

00:11:41.500 Hashtag the big ignore.

00:11:45.140 Literally the biggest political story I've ever heard in my life.

00:11:50.580 By far bigger than any political story ever.

00:11:54.360 How do you think it's being covered by the news?

00:11:57.380 Do you think it's the lead story on CNN?

00:12:01.000 No, no.

00:12:02.160 Lead story is something about Trump.

00:12:04.760 Some Trump stuff.

00:12:06.640 How about MSNBC?

00:12:09.460 Nope, nope.

00:12:09.980 How about AP?

00:12:11.860 How about the others?

00:12:13.860 I think CBS is covering it, actually.

00:12:17.160 Catherine Herridge used to be at Fox News.

00:12:21.700 So CBS might actually be covering this.

00:12:24.540 I don't know what that's telling us.

00:12:25.760 But it appears that the big cover-up is in play.

00:12:31.540 And first of all, you all know the story, right?

00:12:34.620 So Hunter Biden's longtime business partner and best friend testified that there had been at least 20 occasions in which Hunter Biden called Joe Biden on the phone while Hunter was with his business associates.

00:12:51.360 The people on the right are saying, well, that's a classic influence-buying model.

00:12:56.680 It doesn't matter what Joe Biden said.

00:12:59.780 It doesn't matter if he talked about the weather.

00:13:02.240 It was simply a demonstration that Hunter Biden could pick up the phone and ask the vice president or ex-vice president, whatever he was, that you could get him on the phone at any time.

00:13:14.000 Now, that's what influence-buying looks like.

00:13:19.240 Of course, the Democrats are telling a different story.

00:13:23.980 But before I get to that, were you aware that Archer, I saw one report.

00:13:28.380 Give me a fact check on this.

00:13:30.100 He was one of the main fundraisers for Kerry's campaign.

00:13:34.980 So there's some kind of John Kerry connection to Archer and Ukraine.

00:13:41.920 Makes you wonder how many people have a connection to Ukraine who are high-level Democrats, doesn't it?

00:13:50.340 Isn't there a Pelosi connection, too?

00:13:53.640 Pelosi's son?

00:13:54.640 Am I imagining that?

00:13:57.720 Can somebody do me a fact check on that?

00:13:59.260 I have some vague memory of Pelosi's son being involved somewhere.

00:14:04.980 Oh, it's Kerry's stepson, you're saying?

00:14:09.060 All right, so it seems to me that there are a number of high-ranking Democrats who have this weird connection with Ukraine,

00:14:17.160 a country that I cared less about than any country in the world until there was a war.

00:14:23.280 And does that sound totally normal?

00:14:28.020 And are you curious why Kamala Harris is not in charge of the Ukraine portfolio?

00:14:34.100 Because that sounds like a vice president job.

00:14:36.820 Well, maybe because there's a war.

00:14:39.600 Do you think Kamala would have been in charge of Ukraine?

00:14:44.380 I don't think so.

00:14:45.720 Because I think the only reason you put anybody in charge of a country, if they're vice president, is for extortion.

00:14:52.560 Can you think of any other reason?

00:14:53.860 Is it common to put somebody in charge of, like, being the point person for a country?

00:15:02.280 And is it a coincidence that everywhere Joe Biden is accused of benefiting financially is a country that Obama put him in charge of, like China?

00:15:13.280 Every single part of the story just screams corruption.

00:15:20.240 But what do the Democrats say?

00:15:24.560 Well, let me tell you.

00:15:27.580 Let's read the headlines from CNN.

00:15:32.500 So CNN tells you there are some stories that are really important today.

00:15:36.220 Things you need.

00:15:37.020 So this is today.

00:15:37.880 They tweeted, so they'll be talking about Trump's polling numbers, U.S. wildfires, which will be fake news, as you already know, Ford F-150 recall, truck recall, Space Command headquarters might move.

00:15:52.220 And then there's the U.S. troops maybe going to Niger.

00:15:55.920 And then where's the biggest story in the world?

00:16:03.620 Well, it's almost like it's not there.

00:16:07.140 It's almost like they're ignoring the biggest story in American history.

00:16:11.940 Huh?

00:16:12.540 Or at least political story.

00:16:14.260 Well, it's not there, huh?

00:16:15.700 All right.

00:16:16.920 In other news, Trump will most likely be indicted today, some people say.

00:16:22.320 Well, that's interesting timing.

00:16:24.900 How about that?

00:16:26.320 What could get you more attention in the news than Trump being indicted?

00:16:30.480 UFOs?

00:16:31.000 What a big old coincidence that that's happening just at the same time.

00:16:36.720 Wow.

00:16:37.100 Interesting.

00:16:40.340 Actually, it was Steve Hilton's tweet that I saw that Devin Archer was John Kerry's top fundraiser.

00:16:47.720 And there was some other connection.

00:16:49.260 Kerry's chief of staff was David Leiter, Burisma's lobbyist.

00:16:54.760 So Burisma just keeps coming up.

00:16:57.800 Wow.

00:16:58.180 All right.

00:17:01.000 So here's what I think.

00:17:02.220 I think that there's no chance that Biden will serve a second term.

00:17:07.440 I think that's settled.

00:17:09.660 And when I say it's settled, I mean there's no way that the Democrats want to defend this story for another year and a half.

00:17:17.000 Would you agree?

00:17:18.300 There's just no way they want to talk about this for a year and a half.

00:17:21.480 And if it's Biden against Trump, ask yourself this.

00:17:27.800 What could Trump do with this story?

00:17:30.420 I mean, really, he would grind Biden into a fine powder by the time he was done.

00:17:39.920 There would be nothing left of the Biden family.

00:17:42.940 They would go the way of the other dynasties.

00:17:45.640 And it would be maybe the third dynasty he would take out if you count Bushes and Clintons.

00:17:52.800 Does anybody agree with me that there's zero chance now that the Democrats want Biden in there and they have the power to make sure he doesn't?

00:18:04.200 And do you assume that it will be a health problem?

00:18:09.680 Are you guessing health problem in, say, several months?

00:18:13.100 Sometime in the next six months, maybe?

00:18:15.020 Big health problem?

00:18:16.160 Because they want to have time for the new replacement to probably Newsom.

00:18:22.420 They need a little time for that.

00:18:24.100 So I'm going to say within six months, a fake health problem for Biden.

00:18:30.800 Allow him to move out.

00:18:35.460 But in any case, there's no chance, really, that Biden will be president again.

00:18:42.760 Does anybody disagree with that?

00:18:45.380 That effectively he's done?

00:18:49.960 There might be some people who disagree with that.

00:18:51.880 All right.

00:18:54.100 Here's a question for you.

00:18:56.940 How did Joe Biden pay for his two multimillion dollar homes on the income of the Biden family?

00:19:06.240 Why is nobody asking him that directly?

00:19:10.760 Isn't that like a really obvious question?

00:19:12.980 You know, we're trying to figure out how you buy expensive things without money or any known source.

00:19:22.780 Yeah.

00:19:24.100 Yeah, he wrote some books.

00:19:25.980 You know, books are like the other money laundering thing.

00:19:31.340 So I have enough book experience to know that the big books, you know, the Clinton books, etc., even though they're massive bestsellers, when you look at the advance, I don't think they're moneymakers.

00:19:44.600 I mean, to me, it looks like maybe it's another avenue for laundering money to a politician, sort of overpay them on the advance and then say, well, we thought the book would do better.

00:19:55.700 We really thought the book would do better.

00:19:58.080 I guess we were surprised.

00:20:00.020 So we gave him a gigantic advance.

00:20:02.380 It was a bestselling book, but we thought it would do even better.

00:20:06.220 Yeah.

00:20:06.400 So I wouldn't trust any book deals, that's for sure.

00:20:10.320 So here are the few of the claims that Burisma hired Biden and then paid him to get the prosecutor that was looking into Burisma stuff fired.

00:20:24.940 How many of you think that is an accurate statement, and it's based on the Devin Archer testimony, but that Burisma paid Biden specifically to fire that prosecutor?

00:20:38.260 Now, how do you square that with the fact that Biden has been saying, and the Democrat-leaning press has been saying, that a number of other countries also wanted this prosecutor fired?

00:20:53.080 So Biden was just doing what pretty much a lot of the other countries wanted, so there must have been a good reason.

00:20:59.500 Therefore, it was not crooked.

00:21:02.420 Have you ever asked yourself, who were those other people who wanted that prosecutor fired?

00:21:08.260 Yeah, this is going to bug you when I say it.

00:21:14.660 Who are they?

00:21:16.480 And at what level are they?

00:21:19.040 Are you telling me that the heads of state of other countries wanted this prosecutor fired?

00:21:24.080 Are we to believe that the, let's say, prime ministers and presidents of other countries actually knew the name of the prosecutor in Ukraine that was giving Burisma a hard time?

00:21:39.460 Does that sound likely to you, that there was any leader of a country that would even know that name or that it's an issue or know that the guy needs to go or even care about Burisma in any way?

00:21:54.200 All right.

00:21:54.940 So let's say that that's hugely unlikely.

00:21:57.280 But we do have consistent reporting that other countries, whatever that means, ask for him to go as well.

00:22:07.340 Well, what would be a scenario in which other countries could ask for that, but it's all fake?

00:22:14.180 What would be a reasonable way that could happen?

00:22:16.880 Well, let me explain it to you.

00:22:19.680 Suppose all of your diplomats were appointed by the president, let's say a President Biden, and they were appointed as diplomats and ambassadors specifically because they would do whatever Biden wants because they're just political appointees.

00:22:36.220 Now, does that sound normal?

00:22:37.480 Well, so far, that the embassies would be populated with, you know, operatives of the president.

00:22:46.760 Now, suppose you went to your operatives and said, you know, we need some support from other countries for getting rid of this prosecutor.

00:22:54.960 And then the people in the other embassies say, who?

00:22:58.360 It's a Burisma, he's going after Burisma, his name is this.

00:23:02.080 And they say, Burisma?

00:23:03.620 What's Burisma?

00:23:04.300 Well, it's a big oil company, and then this prosecutor is going after him.

00:23:10.000 We'd like you to help get the country that you're an embassy of, we'd like you to get their support for this.

00:23:15.640 And what's the guy's name again?

00:23:17.320 Okay.

00:23:18.060 And he's what?

00:23:19.400 He's a prosecutor.

00:23:20.820 In where?

00:23:21.760 Ukraine.

00:23:22.340 For what?

00:23:23.460 Burisma. 0.97

00:23:24.640 All right, write that down.

00:23:26.280 I'll go to my lower-level contact, and I'll tell them the whole story, and I'll try to get their support.

00:23:32.940 So the ambassador, or let's say the diplomat, calls a meeting with maybe a cabinet person or, I don't know, a vice president or maybe a member of Congress or something like that, and then says, all right, I got this problem with this prosecutor.

00:23:51.900 Can I say we have your support?

00:23:53.640 And then the person in the other country says, well, I don't know too much about this, but, you know, we like America, we like our diplomats.

00:24:03.100 If you're telling me this is important, sure, tell it, you know, go ahead and do it with my blessing.

00:24:07.700 So then the diplomat says, yes, I talked to country X, and I talked to the right people, not the head of the state.

00:24:16.320 No, it wasn't big enough for that.

00:24:17.820 But I talked to some important people, and they agree with me that this guy has to go.

00:24:25.600 Do you see how easily they could say other countries agreed when all it was was our ambassadors telling them to agree with us?

00:24:33.020 How ordinary would that be?

00:24:36.220 Completely ordinary.

00:24:38.200 Yeah.

00:24:38.680 You just tell the other people to agree.

00:24:41.060 You tell them it's complicated.

00:24:43.100 You tell them you have the evidence.

00:24:44.960 I won't bother you with it.

00:24:46.140 It's not a big issue for you.

00:24:47.620 You just need to write a memo that says you're kind of on the same page with this, and we'll take care of it.

00:24:53.420 And we'll do you a favor later.

00:24:55.140 I owe you one.

00:24:57.040 Right?

00:24:57.800 So when the Democrats say, but no, no.

00:25:02.060 Oh, my God.

00:25:03.020 No, he wasn't fired because Biden wanted it, because they were paid to do it.

00:25:09.020 No, no, no, no, no.

00:25:10.860 And just because Burisma says that's exactly what happened.

00:25:13.400 No, no.

00:25:14.480 What really happened is all the other countries wanted it.

00:25:18.960 So produce one.

00:25:21.120 Give me one.

00:25:22.420 Give me one person in another country who understood the topic

00:25:26.520 and did not get the information directly from the Americans

00:25:30.860 and independently wanted this guy go on before the Americans even talked to them.

00:25:35.960 Oh, we didn't need to wait for the Americans because we all know this prosecutor is bad.

00:25:41.340 In fact, we can't stop talking about the Burisma prosecutor in Ukraine.

00:25:48.380 Every time we get together with the G20, it's like, blah, blah, blah, that prosecutor for Burisma.

00:25:55.980 We can't stop talking about it.

00:25:57.740 Again, if you're a sophisticated viewer of the news, your impression should be that it didn't happen.

00:26:08.940 If you can't give me any evidence of even one person in another country

00:26:14.440 who understood the topic independently before America badgered them

00:26:19.920 and said, yeah, we were on this page for a long time, right?

00:26:24.620 Where in the news is anybody even looking for that person?

00:26:29.000 Have you ever heard it reported?

00:26:31.140 Which country specifically?

00:26:33.480 Was the leader of the country in on it?

00:26:35.880 Did they know?

00:26:36.500 No, it's fake news.

00:26:39.380 Now, I don't need to see the details, though.

00:26:43.420 If you can get other countries to say they were in on it,

00:26:46.620 it's clearly just coercion, just obviously.

00:26:50.820 Or they just didn't know what they were agreeing to,

00:26:52.880 which would be even more normal because they don't care.

00:26:56.680 Nobody cared about a Burisma prosecutor.

00:27:01.640 All right.

00:27:03.960 Let's see.

00:27:04.800 So the Democrats' spin is hilarious.

00:27:08.940 And I mean that it's actually funny.

00:27:12.020 And here's one of the tips that I'd like to give you.

00:27:14.860 When you can know for sure that somebody in the public is lying before they lie,

00:27:20.120 you have to study their faces when they do it.

00:27:24.340 Because, well, you're going to see one of two things.

00:27:26.540 You're either going to see cognitive dissonance, which you might see from the non-professionals 0.93

00:27:32.000 who just don't want to believe the news.

00:27:34.220 But the professionals, I think, know they're lying.

00:27:37.220 For example, the high-level Democrats, at this point, they know they're lying.

00:27:41.620 So watch their faces while they talk about it and look specifically for the head shaking.

00:27:49.300 The head shakes no when they're telling you something that they want you to believe.

00:27:54.720 When do you ever shake your head no when you want somebody to believe an affirmative statement?

00:27:59.640 Here I go.

00:28:03.100 Boy, it's sunny out today.

00:28:05.040 It's a really nice day.

00:28:06.600 Today it's going to be like, I think the weather report was 87 degrees today.

00:28:11.060 It's really good in the morning.

00:28:12.020 Warm outside according to the weather.

00:28:14.560 All right.

00:28:15.020 Watch for just that.

00:28:18.700 All right.

00:28:19.320 Watch for just the head shaking.

00:28:21.680 When you see it, it'll blow your mind.

00:28:23.260 I saw three in a row yesterday.

00:28:24.600 Three in a row, Democrats shaking their heads vigorously no while telling you something they

00:28:31.060 wanted you to believe.

00:28:32.340 In other words, their own bodies weren't buying what their mouth was saying.

00:28:39.740 Literally.

00:28:40.660 Their bodies were rejecting their own message.

00:28:43.000 And you see it clearly.

00:28:44.440 It's really obvious once you're looking for it.

00:28:48.680 All right.

00:28:48.900 Here's another one.

00:28:50.160 Watch for the leaning head.

00:28:52.400 You ready?

00:28:53.420 All right.

00:28:53.620 Here's my impression of somebody telling you the truth.

00:28:57.740 Sitting up straight doesn't mean it's definitely the truth, but more likely the truth.

00:29:02.740 Sitting up straight, looking at the camera, telling you what I think is true.

00:29:06.700 Might be true.

00:29:08.120 At least the body language is consistent.

00:29:10.720 Here's what I saw yesterday.

00:29:12.880 And see if you can find the person I'm talking about, all right?

00:29:17.100 Turned at 45 degrees while talking about this topic.

00:29:20.460 Yeah.

00:29:21.480 Definitely there was nothing to see here.

00:29:23.620 Um, there was nothing to see.

00:29:27.100 Have you seen it?

00:29:29.080 Has anybody seen it?

00:29:31.400 Watch the coverage.

00:29:32.940 Just look at all the clips and look for the leaner.

00:29:35.780 Do you, do you think the leaner always does that when talking?

00:29:41.340 No.

00:29:42.620 No.

00:29:43.200 When it's the truth, it's probably, probably straightforward sitting up.

00:29:47.060 But when you're telling a lie that you know everybody knows is a lie, your body starts to bend up and, you know, mutate.

00:29:55.640 You, because you know everybody knows it's a lie, but you're selling it anyway.

00:29:58.420 Ah, ah, ah, right.

00:30:00.820 Um, then also look at Dan Goldman with his flop sweat.

00:30:06.380 If you don't know what flop sweat is, it's just a real big nervous sweating.

00:30:14.060 Now, I'm not saying he literally was sweating.

00:30:16.400 He might have been, but, you know, I'm not, it's not a literal thing.

00:30:18.940 It is summer.

00:30:20.120 He was, he was standing outside.

00:30:21.240 So, I'm not going to give him a hard time for sweating in D.C. in the summer.

00:30:26.700 But, ah, he did not look comfortable.

00:30:30.600 Talk about a guy who had to choose his words carefully.

00:30:35.560 Listen to him start a sentence, and you can tell he doesn't know how to end it.

00:30:41.540 Because almost everywhere he could go in the sentence doesn't help.

00:30:44.500 So, he's just trying to find some way he can say words, but the words won't quite be lies in an obvious way.

00:30:57.620 And, oh, man, it looked like he was just suffering.

00:31:00.640 Now, he's the same guy who took the lead in impeaching Trump for asking Zelensky about the Biden connection

00:31:12.220 and see if he'd look into it.

00:31:14.500 He got impeached for asking the right question.

00:31:19.060 Impeached.

00:31:20.660 How could he possibly lose?

00:31:23.200 Yeah, they're going to have to put Trump in jail.

00:31:25.520 There's no way he can lose at this point.

00:31:28.320 I mean, there's plenty of ways he can lose if they put him in jail or, you know, something unexpected happens.

00:31:33.120 But the straight line projection at this point is Trump all the way.

00:31:40.360 Would you agree?

00:31:40.980 If nothing changed from this day to election day, it's just Trump.

00:31:46.520 And I don't see how the Democrats can live with that because he's going to take the lid off of everything if he gets there.

00:31:54.300 So, what are they going to do?

00:31:56.560 They're going to have to come up with the mother of all, you know, lies.

00:32:01.660 I mean, there's going to be a conspiracy theory about Trump that's going to be so big and it'll be one that's hard to investigate until after the election.

00:32:11.580 I guarantee you there's going to be Trump took money from a foreign country, sold them some nuclear secret.

00:32:19.400 There'll be some complete bullshit, like amazing bullshit, because it's going to have to be the biggest bullshit of all time to overcome this particular problem.

00:32:31.860 All right, so let's look more at the Democrats' spin, which is hilarious.

00:32:36.620 New York Times reports that Biden's poll numbers got stronger.

00:32:40.280 That was their take.

00:32:41.820 Their take was Biden's poll numbers got stronger.

00:32:45.660 Now, I assume the poll numbers were before the Archer-Devon testimony, weren't they?

00:32:51.460 Who cares?

00:32:52.540 Nobody cares about that poll anyway.

00:32:55.140 Then the report is that the conversations between Hunter and his father while the business people were sitting with Hunter was about things like the weather.

00:33:05.020 Just niceties, like the weather.

00:33:07.880 Sure.

00:33:09.280 Totally, totally believable.

00:33:11.700 Now, I do believe that they did not make business deals on those calls, because you don't do that by phone.

00:33:19.200 Nobody's going to make a business deal by phone in that world, right?

00:33:23.400 So, here's another one from the New York Times.

00:33:27.480 It's long been known the elder Mr. Biden at times interacted with Hunter's business partners.

00:33:32.540 Oh, has it?

00:33:33.580 Oh, has that long been known?

00:33:35.780 Was it long known when Biden said he totally didn't ever do that?

00:33:39.260 And then they reported, well, that's not exactly true.

00:33:42.760 It's been well known that they interact.

00:33:45.260 No, they just sort of tried to slip that in as if they'd always reported it.

00:33:50.900 Nope.

00:33:51.860 Nope.

00:33:52.740 Nice try, New York Times.

00:33:54.060 I got caught.

00:33:55.940 And then the left, collectively, is trying to come up with a reason they can explain away what we've seen and been told.

00:34:05.260 And now they're saying that Biden was only selling the illusion of access.

00:34:10.200 In other words, Hunter was a scammer who absolutely was not selling real access.

00:34:15.960 He was selling fake access, the illusion of access.

00:34:20.960 And his father was not totally aware of what was going on.

00:34:26.420 And in part, the father might not be aware because, wait for it, it was the year that Beau Biden died.

00:34:33.680 So the loving father, who cares about mostly his family, could have been distracted and not been fully aware of what Hunter was doing because of all the distractions.

00:34:49.200 Now, do you believe that the media is trying to sell you this story?

00:34:55.240 This is, if you're buying any of it, it's just hilarious.

00:34:58.600 They should be mocked.

00:35:01.940 We should not take any of this seriously.

00:35:04.360 We know exactly what the story is.

00:35:06.960 There are no mysteries left, in my opinion.

00:35:09.780 There's no mystery left to this.

00:35:11.720 All mysteries have been removed.

00:35:14.440 You should just mock them for being so fucking stupid that they think that you're going to believe any of this.

00:35:21.160 Then they've also, the left is also spinning it and saying, let's see, maybe he's guilty of turning a blind eye, but it's because of all his problems, family problems.

00:35:38.480 They're saying there's no evidence of a profit or a crime, right?

00:35:42.220 There's no evidence of a profit.

00:35:43.700 So the fact that there are many references to the big guy, everybody involved understands the big guy to be Joe, and there's plenty of documentation that says money went to Hunter, and there's plenty of documentation showing that Hunter has been sharing his money with his father, and there's no explanation for how Joe Biden could afford the homes that he has.

00:36:07.480 But there's no evidence that he's benefiting from any of the money.

00:36:10.280 Now, there might be, they also say Joe Biden was not involved in his son's business.

00:36:19.380 Do you know why they can say that even though Hunter was selling the illusion of hexes, and he was calling his father during dinner with his business partners and did it 20 times, and there's plenty of documentation showing exactly what the scheme was for all of it.

00:36:34.600 That turns into, there's no evidence of profit or crime, it's wishful thinking, trying to create a scandal and of nothing, he wasn't involved in his son's business, and quote, Republicans have yet to produce a single shred of evidence tying the president to Hunter's corruption.

00:36:52.880 Now, let me ask you this, can the left get away with hiding this story, the biggest story of all time in politics?

00:37:01.580 Can they get away with it?

00:37:03.340 Yep, absolutely.

00:37:05.520 Do you know why they can get away with it?

00:37:08.420 Because they have trained half of the country to believe they're the news.

00:37:14.680 Half of the country believes that's actually real news when they're reading these entities.

00:37:19.480 They actually think that's real news.

00:37:21.420 Now, if they're convinced it's real news, the next story they'll think is true too.

00:37:25.920 It doesn't matter what it is.

00:37:27.120 Well, this is the news.

00:37:28.840 Saw it in the Wall Street Journal, saw it in CNN, saw it on MSNBC, that's plenty of confirmation.

00:37:34.900 That's called the news, right?

00:37:37.640 So yes.

00:37:38.960 And I believe that, you know, all of the gaslighting that has led up to it made it possible for them to sell half the country, literally anything.

00:37:49.240 And I do think it's completely different on the right.

00:37:54.040 Now, the right, you know, there's the QAnon group that will believe anything.

00:37:58.700 But I feel like the right has a realistic view of Trump.

00:38:04.220 Am I wrong about that?

00:38:05.440 Like, if I talk to anybody privately about Trump, you get a lot of the, well, he may have done this or that, or, you know, Trump University is not his finest moment, or, yeah, he did those things with women, or, you know, maybe there are some technical violations.

00:38:21.660 Yeah, he probably does have some documents he should have given back.

00:38:24.920 Yeah, I feel like the right sees all of Trump's good and bad.

00:38:31.740 I think they see it all, and they even talk about it.

00:38:34.540 But they say, still a better deal than the alternative, in many cases.

00:38:39.900 But I feel like on the left, there's this, like, willful blindness, which is clearly just lying at this point.

00:38:46.300 You know, at some point, you could say, well, maybe cognitive dissonance, they really believe what they're saying.

00:38:52.400 They don't believe it now.

00:38:54.720 You could be sure they don't believe it now, if they've watched the news.

00:39:01.040 So my hashtag, the big ignore, I don't know if you've seen it yet, hashtag the big ignore, because I'm trying to play off the big lie.

00:39:10.380 You know, the big lie is how they tried to take Trump out.

00:39:13.140 Now, the big ignore is how they're trying to make sure that Biden isn't taken out.

00:39:18.300 So they matched their own big lie, which was that January 6th was an insurrection.

00:39:23.080 That was the big lie.

00:39:24.380 Now, they said it was something else, but the real big lie was January 6th.

00:39:29.240 And now they got another one, the big ignore.

00:39:35.000 All right.

00:39:38.600 I would say that the future looks incredibly clear at this point.

00:39:43.140 So I'd say there's no chance of Biden being in the general election.

00:39:50.740 It seems clear that the only person who could step in would be Newsom.

00:39:56.220 It does feel clear that the effort to put Trump in jail, or at least take him out legally in some way, will go to DEFCON 25.

00:40:09.720 That however much effort they were putting into, you know, crippling Trump for the election, now they have to apply the kill shot.

00:40:16.760 They have to take out the king, so to speak, before the king gets in power.

00:40:23.960 Because if Trump gets in power in this context, there's a lot of people who are going to get fired.

00:40:31.720 A lot of people are going to get fired.

00:40:33.620 So I would think there's some panic and desperation happening.

00:40:39.220 And panic and desperation, given the context of all the types of plays they usually do on the left,

00:40:47.220 doesn't it largely guarantee that there's going to be a real big fake story about Trump?

00:40:53.900 Like a really big one.

00:40:54.920 Because I don't think they have enough to work with, with the stuff they have.

00:41:00.420 Would you agree?

00:41:01.800 They've got weak sauce mixed with weak sauce mixed with weak sauce.

00:41:06.340 There's very few people who care about what's in those boxes.

00:41:10.920 Now, I don't think Trump's done the best job of defending himself about the boxes.

00:41:17.300 You do? You care about the boxes?

00:41:18.900 Well, I care to find out if a Republican can look at them and tell us if we should be concerned.

00:41:27.300 Where is the Republican who went into a skiff, looked at whatever's in the boxes,

00:41:32.720 and came out and said, you know, it doesn't look so bad, or it is as bad as they say.

00:41:37.160 Where is that?

00:41:38.120 How long does it take to get at least one Republican with, you know,

00:41:41.640 as the highest level of clearance to look at the boxes and just tell us what's in there?

00:41:45.760 Not in detail, just somebody we trust, you know.

00:41:51.080 Send in a, you know, Thomas Massey, Tom Cotton, you know, somebody that the right would trust.

00:41:59.200 And, you know, Rand Paul, somebody that they know is not going to lie when they walk out of the shift.

00:42:05.320 And isn't it great?

00:42:07.840 I actually love this.

00:42:09.220 I can think of several Republicans that I would trust absolutely to tell me what was in the skiff.

00:42:16.760 Not all of them.

00:42:18.620 Not even the majority of them.

00:42:21.260 But I love the fact that there is a small handful of Republicans

00:42:25.260 that if they tell you they saw it with their own eyes or didn't see it with their own eyes,

00:42:29.800 I would totally believe them.

00:42:31.420 I don't know that there's any Democrat that would fit in that category.

00:42:36.860 Do you?

00:42:37.160 Name a Democrat who you would know wouldn't lie, even if you totally disagree with them.

00:42:45.900 I can't think of one.

00:42:48.660 But you can think of quite a few Republicans who you're, well, okay, RFK Jr.

00:42:53.760 All right, I'll give you that.

00:42:55.140 I'm going to give you RFK Jr.

00:42:57.520 So you win.

00:42:58.640 You got one.

00:42:59.980 Yeah, there's no evidence that he lies.

00:43:01.660 There is plenty of evidence that he's not been completely accurate in his suppositions about scientific stuff.

00:43:09.280 I think there's evidence of that.

00:43:10.740 I don't know what's true.

00:43:12.720 But there's at least evidence that he may have gotten some wrong and some right.

00:43:17.060 We don't know what the mix is.

00:43:19.340 You know, nobody could be right all the time on that domain.

00:43:22.000 All right.

00:43:25.180 Do you understand now why TikTok has not been banned?

00:43:30.260 Doesn't everything make sense now?

00:43:33.960 It all makes sense, doesn't it?

00:43:36.420 Because TikTok is so obviously dangerous to Americans.

00:43:40.920 It's so dangerous that China doesn't allow their own product in their own country.

00:43:44.280 I mean, that's all you need to know.

00:43:46.440 But when the argument for banning it is so clear, and the ability to do it is so easy,

00:43:53.580 I mean, it's no big deal to ban it.

00:43:56.920 There has to be bribery and corruption, and now we know how it works.

00:44:01.080 We know that the bribery and corruption is not in the form of,

00:44:06.320 I will give you money if you do this, because they don't say that.

00:44:09.240 It's more like, so you've got a brother-in-law, he's got this startup I see.

00:44:16.020 Yes, he does.

00:44:17.400 He's probably looking for money, isn't he?

00:44:19.660 Yes, he is.

00:44:21.380 So let's now talk about TikTok.

00:44:24.340 I think TikTok should not be banned.

00:44:26.440 I'm China.

00:44:28.600 And, you know, and I hope your brother-in-law does well with his new business.

00:44:32.820 By the way, I have a guy who funds new startups.

00:44:36.660 You should have him talk.

00:44:37.440 Yeah, why don't you have your brother-in-law talk to my guy,

00:44:41.200 and maybe you'll get an investment in a startup.

00:44:43.660 But that's not why I'm here today.

00:44:45.660 I'm here today to talk about TikTok.

00:44:49.100 That's how it's done.

00:44:50.820 The bribery schemes are never direct,

00:44:53.040 because then there would be a paper trail and it would be too obvious.

00:44:55.660 Instead, you have people who do lots of kinds of business.

00:45:00.140 You have them create a situation where somebody's benefited,

00:45:04.300 but it looks like it's normal business.

00:45:07.440 That's how it's done.

00:45:08.980 That's the way I'd do it.

00:45:10.580 I think it's the way it's always been done.

00:45:13.000 So, you know, the model where somebody just gives somebody a bag of cash,

00:45:17.380 I'm sure it happens,

00:45:19.180 but I don't think that's the main way it's done.

00:45:22.260 So, yes, TikTok, I think at this point you could say that that's a corruption story

00:45:27.280 at this point.

00:45:29.080 How many would go so far as to say that the continued availability of TikTok in America

00:45:36.000 is a corruption story primarily?

00:45:39.980 Because there's nothing to understand.

00:45:42.280 It's not scientific.

00:45:44.680 The bad outcomes are not questioned by anybody.

00:45:48.980 Right?

00:45:49.280 The left agrees it's bad.

00:45:50.640 The right agrees it's bad for kids.

00:45:52.220 There's no doubt.

00:45:52.840 It has to be corruption.

00:45:56.440 Now, you would see people arguing free market and free speech, right?

00:46:02.560 Not many, and certainly not the politicians.

00:46:05.620 Nobody would believe them if they said that anyway.

00:46:08.860 So, yeah, TikTok is a corruption story,

00:46:11.560 and that's the whole story.

00:46:14.460 It's got to be corruption.

00:46:15.320 All right.

00:46:17.720 The only remaining question on this whole Biden crime family situation,

00:46:23.480 and I think you'd agree this is the only question left.

00:46:27.160 How many years in prison will Trump have to serve for Joe Biden's crimes?

00:46:33.220 Is this like 10 years?

00:46:35.640 I see like a 10-year sentence for Trump to pay for all the crimes

00:46:40.920 that the Biden crime family did.

00:46:43.180 About 10 years.

00:46:43.860 Does that sound right?

00:46:45.320 Yeah, I think so.

00:46:47.840 In other stories, you know,

00:46:49.200 I told you about that semiconductor material

00:46:53.920 that was supposed to work at room temperature,

00:46:55.820 and if it does, and anybody can make it,

00:46:59.200 and it works at room temperature,

00:47:01.040 then technology and civilization will change fundamentally

00:47:04.720 in enormous ways.

00:47:07.220 Like, yeah, we'll have quantum computers

00:47:09.340 and lossless, you know, electricity, transportation, and everything.

00:47:14.380 But the problem was that as soon as other scientists looked into it,

00:47:19.000 they said, ah, I'm not so sure that's real.

00:47:21.600 Well, today, we have people trying to reproduce it

00:47:24.840 and claiming they have.

00:47:27.500 So there are actually claims that are not credible yet.

00:47:32.460 They're not credible.

00:47:34.280 Not credible.

00:47:35.000 But there are multiple claims that people have reproduced it.

00:47:38.740 One did it on video.

00:47:40.820 There's a video of somebody reproducing it.

00:47:43.380 Now, that doesn't mean the video is real,

00:47:45.920 and it doesn't mean they really reproduced it.

00:47:47.780 But the big question was

00:47:49.580 whether they were seeing a superconductive effect

00:47:52.240 or a diamagnetic effect.

00:47:57.160 Somebody fact-check me on that.

00:47:59.840 So there's some other effect

00:48:01.400 that could at least a little bit mimic superconductivity.

00:48:06.160 And the question was,

00:48:07.800 okay, you definitely did something.

00:48:09.920 So I think all the experts were agreeing

00:48:11.760 that something had happened

00:48:13.640 because there was some floating metal or something.

00:48:16.820 But it could have been a magnetic effect

00:48:19.300 as opposed to a superconductivity effect.

00:48:22.560 And the latest reports,

00:48:25.380 and I'm not putting a lot of credibility into them,

00:48:27.940 but the latest reports are

00:48:29.220 that the new studies were done in such a way

00:48:31.640 that you could see that it's not a diamagnetic effect,

00:48:35.640 that it's real superconductivity.

00:48:37.820 Do I believe this yet?

00:48:39.600 No.

00:48:41.220 Do I think there's a really good chance it's true?

00:48:44.900 Yes.

00:48:45.300 Yes.

00:48:46.580 Yes.

00:48:47.780 Less than 50%?

00:48:49.380 Probably.

00:48:50.780 I'm going to give it a less than a coin flip odds of being true.

00:48:54.820 But not zero.

00:48:57.660 Not zero.

00:48:58.280 All right, and so Lauren Chen,

00:49:08.740 I saw her commenting on the fact that South Africa,

00:49:13.040 at least one political party of,

00:49:15.240 it looks like all black people in the party,

00:49:17.760 were singing and dancing to kill the white people, the Boers. 1.00

00:49:21.040 And Lauren Chen tweeted,

00:49:24.420 if you're white in South Africa, get out. 1.00

00:49:28.020 Now, just leave.

00:49:29.260 Bring your family.

00:49:30.480 Does that sound like good advice?

00:49:33.200 You just get out?

00:49:34.160 Yeah, I mean, it's not easy.

00:49:38.220 You'd probably be leaving your family fortune and other horrible problems.

00:49:43.860 But yeah, I think you have to get out.

00:49:45.800 It doesn't look fixable to me.

00:49:47.520 But the question is, do you think Lauren will be canceled for saying that white people should move away from South Africa?

00:49:56.540 Do you think she'll get canceled for that?

00:49:58.000 I doubt it.

00:50:03.040 Why do you think she would not get canceled?

00:50:06.480 Didn't I get canceled for kind of a similar thing?

00:50:09.980 You know, the American version?

00:50:13.020 So here's the question.

00:50:15.040 If you were in South Africa and a major political party was holding rallies in which they were chanting that they would like to kill you and people who look like you,

00:50:23.980 would that be a case where you could discriminate and say, ooh, I don't think I want to be around here?

00:50:31.080 Because that would be discrimination.

00:50:33.000 It would be racist.

00:50:34.800 Yeah, of course.

00:50:35.700 Every single person in the world goes, oh, yeah, you're talking life and death.

00:50:39.040 When it comes to life and death, you know, all the wokeness goes away.

00:50:43.320 You're just going to protect yourself and your family.

00:50:45.960 So let's take it down a level.

00:50:48.460 Suppose they're not chanting, kill the white people. 0.71

00:50:51.820 Suppose what they're doing instead is promoting CRT and DEI and ESG, which have the effect of making the same group of people, the white people, look like the problem.

00:51:09.600 Should you get away from that situation?

00:51:12.200 If you could, let's say, go to, I don't know, New Zealand and they don't have it.

00:51:16.160 Would it be good to get away from a situation where you are defined as the problem in your society because of your color?

00:51:24.960 Yeah, I would say you should get as far away from that situation as possible.

00:51:28.680 Is it racist?

00:51:30.360 I don't care.

00:51:32.440 Do you care?

00:51:33.560 When it comes to life and death, you could be as racist as you want.

00:51:37.260 I will defend that statement to the death.

00:51:39.740 When it comes to your own safety or your family, you could be as racist as you want.

00:51:46.080 There's no law against it.

00:51:47.640 And it would be common sense.

00:51:49.620 If that racism was based on some statistical truth, or even better, if it's based on not just statistics, but there's an actual program in place to demonize you.

00:52:01.340 If you know there's a program in place to demonize you, and people who look like you, that's all you need to know.

00:52:09.900 That's a dangerous situation, and you should get away from anybody who buys into that scenario.

00:52:16.600 Would you say, true or false, that my point of view is starting to catch on?

00:52:22.720 True or false?

00:52:27.000 It's totally, yeah.

00:52:28.940 No, society just caught up to me.

00:52:30.480 I was just a few weeks early, or a few months.

00:52:33.940 So I was February, and now it's the summer.

00:52:36.300 So I was six months early.

00:52:38.280 But society caught up.

00:52:40.220 So you see Oakland saying, oh my God, we can't even live in our town.

00:52:44.680 Oakland is saying that.

00:52:46.200 Oakland is saying we can't even live in our own town.

00:52:48.900 And now South Africa.

00:52:52.340 And you're seeing the cities completely, you know, going to hell.

00:52:56.900 And you see that there doesn't seem to be anything that's going to change it.

00:53:01.800 Why?

00:53:03.520 I don't know.

00:53:04.860 I mean, you could talk all day about why.

00:53:07.220 But I would say that managing to the average of anything is racist and stupid, and you should avoid it.

00:53:14.500 So do you care if the average Elbonian is not doing as well as the average French American?

00:53:24.740 Do you care?

00:53:27.900 You shouldn't.

00:53:29.720 Because there's no such thing as an average person.

00:53:33.440 You should care about individuals.

00:53:36.460 I completely care about individuals.

00:53:39.880 If there's any individual from any group that feels, you know, discriminated against,

00:53:45.460 I'm very likely to want to help on an individual basis.

00:53:48.620 But don't tell me that the average of people who look like you is not doing well.

00:53:54.740 I don't care.

00:53:57.160 And let me say it directly.

00:53:58.920 The average of any group doing less than any group, I don't care.

00:54:03.780 Does it bother me that the average Indian American is just killing people who look like me in school?

00:54:13.620 Nope.

00:54:14.680 I don't care.

00:54:15.240 Because I don't know any average Indian Americans.

00:54:19.740 Have you ever met one?

00:54:21.560 Have you ever met an average person?

00:54:24.320 There's no such thing as an average person.

00:54:26.780 And why do we even use the average?

00:54:28.440 Why not the median?

00:54:31.060 Why is it the average?

00:54:34.300 Is there a law that says the median isn't a better measure?

00:54:37.760 I'm not saying it is.

00:54:39.120 I'm saying that there's no reason for average.

00:54:42.660 There's also no reason for median.

00:54:45.240 There's no reason to look at the extremes.

00:54:48.000 There's no reason to look at the group at all.

00:54:51.420 I think there used to be.

00:54:54.680 Historically, if you have something like, you know, let's say the Native Americans, you know, losing their land, that's a special case. 1.00

00:55:03.820 If you have something like the end of slavery, definitely a special case. 0.61

00:55:08.880 And in those cases, you should treat the slaves as a group, at least until things are a lot better, a lot better, which is where we are now.

00:55:19.780 Things are a lot better.

00:55:22.100 So the courts would not abide somebody discriminating by race for, you know, most businessy things.

00:55:31.760 And that's a pretty good place to be.

00:55:34.180 But once you reach a point where people are basically as even as you can get under the law in our imperfect system, once you reach that point, it's worse for the people you're trying to help.

00:55:47.360 And I think Vivek used the term psychological slavery, psychological slavery.

00:55:59.640 There's plenty of science that says people perform to the level of expectations.

00:56:06.120 Would you agree that that's a well-demonstrated effect?

00:56:10.500 I believe it's confirmed in every way you can confirm anything.

00:56:15.080 It's like the most confirmed thing of all time.

00:56:18.220 Yeah.

00:56:18.900 People rise to the level of expectations.

00:56:21.560 So if you tell a bunch of school kids you're the smart ones, the studies show they do better.

00:56:27.700 Right?

00:56:27.940 If you tell one group that systemic racism will hold them back, you should expect them to get lower grades.

00:56:36.120 All things being equal.

00:56:38.360 I don't think all things are equal because it's the real world.

00:56:42.700 Things are never equal.

00:56:44.500 Equals like you're rational.

00:56:48.700 So we should expect groups to perform differently.

00:56:54.200 And with some distance from things like, you know, the Native American genocide and the horror of slavery,

00:57:02.020 when you get enough years away from them and you've done the best you can to reduce those, you know, ongoing issues,

00:57:09.900 it doesn't say there are no ongoing issues.

00:57:12.340 It just says that treating one group like second-class citizens will get you a bunch of second-class citizens.

00:57:19.820 If you treat them like they can do anything, maybe they can.

00:57:23.080 Now, let me go even further.

00:57:26.480 I've said this a number of times, but I want to see if you buy it yet.

00:57:32.000 In every situation, in every market, let's say, where black Americans have had full and unfettered access, 0.99

00:57:40.500 or even before they had full and unfettered access, they don't just do well, they dominate.

00:57:46.380 They dominate.

00:57:47.020 They far exceed the impact of their numbers in the population.

00:57:53.240 Look at music.

00:57:55.380 Black Americans, full access to music, right? 0.78

00:57:59.520 It took a while, not in the beginning, but dominate.

00:58:04.000 Entertainment, dominate.

00:58:05.780 Fashion, dominate.

00:58:07.260 Culture, dominate.

00:58:09.380 Now, what about educational stuff?

00:58:12.340 Don't dominate.

00:58:12.940 But, in my lifetime, black Americans have never had equal access to education.

00:58:21.080 They've always been treated as second-class citizens.

00:58:24.260 So, the lower-performing people still get opportunities,

00:58:31.080 but maybe they fail because they shouldn't have been there in the first place,

00:58:34.900 not because they're black,

00:58:36.540 but because if anybody is promoted to something that they're not ready for,

00:58:40.360 that might not work out.

00:58:42.940 So, I would say that the end of affirmative action would be the first time 0.98

00:58:49.540 that black Americans have full access to the market of education and jobs.

00:58:57.100 Because as long as you're saying we have a preference for this group,

00:59:01.000 you're kind of saying there's something wrong with them,

00:59:03.400 and they're going to hear it too.

00:59:04.760 And if you just stop telling one group there's something wrong with them,

00:59:09.920 that they can't perform without help,

00:59:12.300 maybe they would dominate too.

00:59:15.180 Right?

00:59:15.620 Nobody tells black people that they're not going to do well in sports.

00:59:20.160 And then what happens?

00:59:21.560 Dominate.

00:59:22.580 Nobody tells black Americans they can't do well in music.

00:59:26.360 And they're great.

00:59:27.980 Dominate.

00:59:28.440 So, why do we assume that there's one group of people

00:59:34.440 who needs this perpetual extra help?

00:59:38.420 It's racist.

00:59:39.900 It's damaging to anybody who can perform at a free market level.

00:59:45.180 And it's not helping anybody.

00:59:47.540 And it's also a ridiculous concept to look at averages of groups.

00:59:51.880 Because there's no average person.

00:59:53.120 It certainly makes sense to build a system

00:59:56.300 where every individual can succeed,

00:59:58.640 regardless of their challenge.

01:00:01.000 All right.

01:00:03.280 I introduced today a very valuable tool.

01:00:06.240 I don't know if you saw it.

01:00:07.140 It's my news credibility guide.

01:00:11.320 And I'll read it to you.

01:00:12.840 Because it's so damn good.

01:00:15.220 So I thought it would...

01:00:17.320 I sure hope it pasted.

01:00:19.420 It pasted.

01:00:19.480 That's interesting.

01:00:25.700 Here it is.

01:00:26.800 All right.

01:00:27.080 So here's a draft of my...

01:00:30.040 It's just the first draft.

01:00:31.500 So we'll work on this over time.

01:00:33.400 I call it the news credibility...

01:00:36.480 It's interesting.

01:00:40.600 I pasted the wrong thing in there.

01:00:42.500 Okay.

01:00:42.960 Well, I pasted the wrong thing.

01:00:44.140 But if I pasted the right thing,

01:00:45.840 it would say something different.

01:00:47.000 But I've got three categories.

01:00:48.640 Things that are probably true,

01:00:50.380 things that are 50-50, coin flip,

01:00:52.280 and then probably untrue.

01:00:54.060 And I'll just sort of quickly whip through them.

01:00:56.340 These are things that would be probably true.

01:01:00.000 All right.

01:01:00.560 So these are indications of a news story

01:01:02.760 that's probably true.

01:01:04.840 Not guaranteed.

01:01:06.020 Just probably.

01:01:07.160 One side is hiding the story.

01:01:09.820 It's probably true.

01:01:11.620 If one side is disagreeing about the story,

01:01:14.880 well, that might be a jump ball.

01:01:16.180 But if one side is doing everything they can

01:01:19.120 to make sure you don't hear it,

01:01:20.460 it's probably true.

01:01:22.320 All right.

01:01:23.720 And don't you think that would be useful

01:01:25.500 for people who don't follow the news

01:01:28.020 to just be aware of that?

01:01:30.140 Wait a minute.

01:01:30.920 Are you saying that when one side

01:01:32.160 just ignores a story,

01:01:34.240 that that might mean something?

01:01:35.880 Yes.

01:01:36.500 Yes.

01:01:37.160 That totally means something.

01:01:38.660 It means it's probably not true.

01:01:40.020 Or it's probably true,

01:01:41.260 and they don't want you to know it.

01:01:42.760 Here's another one.

01:01:43.500 If both sides of the left and the right

01:01:45.280 report something is true,

01:01:48.240 it's probably true.

01:01:50.700 Right?

01:01:51.720 If the left and the right

01:01:52.940 gave the same story about a political story,

01:01:55.460 no difference,

01:01:56.780 you'd probably think it's true,

01:01:58.480 and you'd probably be right.

01:02:00.440 All right.

01:02:00.800 Doesn't guarantee it,

01:02:02.060 but probably.

01:02:03.140 How about if all the studies,

01:02:06.240 and it's been years since whatever the question is

01:02:08.780 has been studied,

01:02:09.640 but it's been studied for years,

01:02:11.120 and all the studies seem to be in the same direction.

01:02:14.240 You know,

01:02:14.420 maybe a couple of outliers,

01:02:15.580 but basically it's all in the same direction.

01:02:17.620 True or untrue?

01:02:20.100 Probably true.

01:02:22.000 Probably true.

01:02:23.080 Now,

01:02:23.420 there are some qualifiers here

01:02:24.960 about who funds it,

01:02:26.500 et cetera.

01:02:26.920 We'll talk about that.

01:02:28.040 But if there were all kinds of different studies,

01:02:30.900 and they've been doing it for years,

01:02:32.920 and they all seem to agree,

01:02:34.080 and there doesn't seem to be money

01:02:36.200 that's driving all the same direction,

01:02:38.680 probably true.

01:02:40.320 Can't guarantee it.

01:02:42.060 All right.

01:02:42.240 How about when the studies,

01:02:44.580 the scientific studies,

01:02:45.720 match your own observations?

01:02:47.420 This is my favorite one.

01:02:49.620 How do you know that smoking cigarettes

01:02:52.220 causes lung cancer?

01:02:53.780 Well,

01:02:54.140 you got all the science,

01:02:55.800 but even better,

01:02:57.800 you know people who smoke cigarettes

01:02:59.380 who died of lung cancer,

01:03:00.800 and you probably don't know nearly as many

01:03:03.240 who died of lung cancer

01:03:04.860 and did not smoke cigarettes.

01:03:06.240 So that's where your observation

01:03:08.320 very clearly matches the science.

01:03:11.500 That's probably true.

01:03:13.580 All right.

01:03:14.360 How about we've got one narrative

01:03:16.940 or one frame on things

01:03:18.280 predicts better than the other?

01:03:20.340 That might mean something.

01:03:22.320 Sometimes the ability for something

01:03:24.860 to predict is an indicator

01:03:27.140 that it's true.

01:03:28.800 All right.

01:03:28.880 So for example,

01:03:30.540 if I said,

01:03:33.100 well,

01:03:33.580 you don't need an example.

01:03:34.620 If it predicts,

01:03:35.520 it's probably true.

01:03:37.800 Let's say there's a large body

01:03:39.260 of evidence that something's true,

01:03:40.880 but the evidence comes

01:03:41.880 from lots of different angles.

01:03:43.820 So it might be one kind of science,

01:03:46.300 you know,

01:03:46.720 direct witness report,

01:03:48.960 you know,

01:03:49.400 it's coming,

01:03:49.960 there's a document.

01:03:52.020 That helps.

01:03:53.500 That helps.

01:03:54.000 Not guaranteed,

01:03:54.760 but it helps

01:03:55.180 if you've got evidence

01:03:56.740 from lots of different angles.

01:03:58.740 Look at the Hunter Biden

01:04:00.300 crime family story.

01:04:02.120 The evidence is,

01:04:03.380 you know,

01:04:03.640 you got your documents,

01:04:04.740 you got your multiple,

01:04:06.480 you know,

01:04:07.080 whistleblower types.

01:04:08.220 They're saying the same things.

01:04:09.480 It's coming from different directions.

01:04:11.900 Basically,

01:04:12.960 the completeness

01:04:14.480 of the evidence

01:04:15.740 is what sells it.

01:04:17.460 How about a witness

01:04:18.440 who is under oath

01:04:20.320 and has direct knowledge

01:04:22.740 of the thing?

01:04:23.680 So they're not talking

01:04:24.480 about what they heard

01:04:25.280 from somebody.

01:04:26.360 They saw it

01:04:26.960 and they're under oath.

01:04:29.740 Probably true,

01:04:31.440 but not guaranteed.

01:04:33.340 More than 50% likely,

01:04:35.780 but maybe not much more.

01:04:39.220 How about if there's a witness

01:04:42.200 and maybe they're under oath,

01:04:43.820 but there are also documents

01:04:45.860 independent of the witness.

01:04:48.380 There are documents

01:04:49.060 that say the same story.

01:04:51.200 Probably true.

01:04:52.720 Probably true.

01:04:53.680 If you've got a whistleblower

01:04:54.780 and documents,

01:04:57.000 that's a pretty good case.

01:04:59.300 All right,

01:04:59.520 now here's the coin flip ones.

01:05:01.480 These are news stories

01:05:02.940 that no better than 50-50 odds.

01:05:06.400 There's one scientific paper

01:05:08.100 that makes a claim

01:05:09.060 and it's not peer-reviewed.

01:05:11.060 It's not yet peer-reviewed.

01:05:12.560 It doesn't mean

01:05:13.020 it can't be peer-reviewed.

01:05:14.480 It just hasn't been yet.

01:05:16.120 How likely is it to be true?

01:05:17.480 No more than 50%.

01:05:20.680 All right,

01:05:21.840 that's scientifically,

01:05:23.840 or that's a historic norm.

01:05:26.240 A new paper,

01:05:27.800 about half the time

01:05:28.660 you can't reproduce it.

01:05:31.100 How about one scientific paper

01:05:32.840 that has been peer-reviewed?

01:05:35.220 Right?

01:05:35.620 The so-called preprints

01:05:37.160 are the ones

01:05:37.700 that are not peer-reviewed.

01:05:39.460 But suppose it has been.

01:05:40.660 Suppose it has been peer-reviewed.

01:05:42.000 What do you give

01:05:42.480 the odds then?

01:05:44.960 About the same.

01:05:46.280 No difference.

01:05:47.040 Peer-review doesn't actually

01:05:48.260 have any value

01:05:48.960 in increasing credibility.

01:05:51.420 If you can't get a peer-review,

01:05:53.400 it's probably garbage.

01:05:55.480 Right?

01:05:55.960 So if nobody will give you

01:05:57.420 a positive peer-review,

01:05:58.600 nobody?

01:05:59.700 Well, that's garbage.

01:06:01.420 Right?

01:06:01.600 If you can't even get

01:06:02.280 a friend to peer-review,

01:06:04.220 that's not true.

01:06:06.460 But just getting somebody

01:06:07.800 to say,

01:06:08.440 okay,

01:06:08.880 it looks like you

01:06:09.720 did real science,

01:06:11.220 that person's not looking

01:06:12.600 at your data.

01:06:14.120 They're not reproducing

01:06:15.160 the experiment.

01:06:16.760 They're just saying,

01:06:17.580 okay, on paper,

01:06:18.600 it looks like you know

01:06:19.480 how to do this stuff.

01:06:21.040 I don't see an obvious problem.

01:06:22.700 But it doesn't really mean

01:06:23.720 it's true.

01:06:25.100 So that's a 50-50.

01:06:26.460 How about a meta-analysis?

01:06:28.240 Somebody looked at

01:06:29.620 a bunch of studies

01:06:30.440 which individually

01:06:31.180 were not conclusive,

01:06:32.820 and then they said,

01:06:33.900 all right,

01:06:34.200 there might be flaws

01:06:34.940 in all these studies,

01:06:35.820 but we're going to

01:06:36.260 lump them together

01:06:36.960 and see if they sort of

01:06:38.960 lean in one direction

01:06:39.840 or not.

01:06:41.040 What are the odds

01:06:41.680 that the meta-analysis

01:06:42.900 is telling you

01:06:44.000 something true?

01:06:45.800 No more than a coin flip.

01:06:48.580 And you know what

01:06:49.840 the odds were

01:06:50.460 before the meta-analysis?

01:06:52.600 No more than a coin flip.

01:06:54.500 The meta-analysis

01:06:55.460 doesn't add any credibility.

01:06:59.100 Whenever you see

01:06:59.960 a meta-analysis,

01:07:01.360 it means that somebody

01:07:02.220 doesn't know science,

01:07:03.240 or they do know science

01:07:05.980 and they hope you don't,

01:07:07.460 which is probably

01:07:08.820 more than the case.

01:07:10.600 Meta-analysis

01:07:11.460 is politically motivated

01:07:12.820 more than anything else.

01:07:14.760 All right.

01:07:15.560 So those are the ones

01:07:16.320 that are a coin flip.

01:07:17.180 Here are things

01:07:17.860 that are probably

01:07:18.780 untrue,

01:07:20.620 probably fake news.

01:07:21.880 So if you see

01:07:22.780 any of these things

01:07:23.900 run in the other direction,

01:07:25.460 this is probably

01:07:26.180 not a real story.

01:07:27.040 Number one,

01:07:28.260 there's lots of money involved.

01:07:30.680 That's it.

01:07:32.600 Ukraine war,

01:07:33.580 lots of money involved.

01:07:35.360 Pandemic,

01:07:36.220 lots of money involved.

01:07:37.920 Climate change,

01:07:38.940 lots of money involved.

01:07:39.900 What can you say for sure

01:07:40.960 about those three topics?

01:07:43.000 That the news

01:07:43.920 is almost certainly fake.

01:07:46.440 Not all of it every time,

01:07:48.840 but those are domains

01:07:50.140 in which you should

01:07:51.020 normally expect

01:07:51.920 the lowest level

01:07:53.340 of believability.

01:07:54.500 The higher the money,

01:07:57.120 the lower the believability.

01:07:59.060 So these things

01:07:59.680 you should dismiss

01:08:00.620 on a hand.

01:08:02.420 Oh, there's a new study

01:08:03.380 about climate change.

01:08:06.160 Dismiss.

01:08:07.160 Oh, but it was done

01:08:07.940 by really credible people.

01:08:10.100 Dismiss.

01:08:12.380 There's too much money involved

01:08:14.260 for you to believe

01:08:15.380 science on those topics.

01:08:17.680 Doesn't mean the science

01:08:18.700 was wrong,

01:08:19.640 but if you believe it,

01:08:21.720 there's something wrong

01:08:22.460 with you

01:08:22.940 because that's not

01:08:24.860 the right take.

01:08:25.840 The right take is

01:08:26.880 you're going to have to wait

01:08:27.620 for a shit ton of science

01:08:29.300 when a lot of money

01:08:31.220 is involved.

01:08:32.180 I mean,

01:08:32.380 I'm not even sure

01:08:32.960 you could ever

01:08:33.460 cross my bar

01:08:35.080 of believability personally.

01:08:37.160 All right,

01:08:37.340 how about

01:08:37.740 if neither CNN

01:08:39.800 nor Fox News,

01:08:41.140 so that would sort of

01:08:41.960 represent the left

01:08:42.840 and the right news,

01:08:44.100 if neither of them

01:08:45.080 say it's true,

01:08:46.960 is it true?

01:08:48.420 Both Fox News

01:08:49.380 says no,

01:08:49.860 that's not true.

01:08:50.920 And CNN agrees

01:08:51.820 that's not true.

01:08:53.040 It's probably not true.

01:08:54.760 Probably not true.

01:08:55.920 If you can get both

01:08:56.720 the left and the right

01:08:57.420 to say it's not true,

01:08:58.280 probably not true.

01:08:59.460 Not guaranteed.

01:09:01.600 Suppose you have

01:09:02.280 one anonymous source.

01:09:04.860 Forget about it.

01:09:06.000 One anonymous source

01:09:07.000 is never true.

01:09:08.780 I mean,

01:09:08.980 you could,

01:09:09.380 that's just bullshit.

01:09:10.740 Suppose you have

01:09:11.460 two anonymous sources

01:09:12.820 to say the same thing.

01:09:15.540 Bullshit.

01:09:16.880 Complete bullshit.

01:09:18.360 Two anonymous sources

01:09:19.420 have no credibility

01:09:21.240 whatsoever.

01:09:21.760 How about

01:09:22.980 you have

01:09:23.560 one witness

01:09:24.800 under oath

01:09:25.640 but the only evidence

01:09:28.380 the witness

01:09:28.820 under oath has

01:09:29.740 is what

01:09:30.760 anonymous people

01:09:31.740 told him.

01:09:33.920 No credibility.

01:09:35.320 That would be

01:09:35.780 the UFO situation.

01:09:37.340 The person talking

01:09:38.320 was under oath

01:09:39.100 but he couldn't

01:09:40.380 get in trouble

01:09:41.000 as long as he said

01:09:42.200 somebody else told me

01:09:43.260 and there was no way

01:09:44.120 to check whether

01:09:44.780 they told him that

01:09:45.420 or not.

01:09:45.740 All right.

01:09:47.740 How about

01:09:48.460 the only evidence

01:09:51.560 is for some reason

01:09:52.860 fuzzy photos

01:09:53.840 and unclear videos.

01:09:56.040 And for some reason

01:09:57.240 you just can't get

01:09:58.060 a clear one.

01:09:59.040 That's bullshit.

01:10:00.740 All right.

01:10:01.420 If there was only

01:10:02.100 one photo

01:10:02.740 you might say

01:10:03.280 well,

01:10:03.820 bad luck

01:10:04.260 you couldn't get

01:10:04.780 a clear photo.

01:10:05.800 If you have

01:10:06.520 multiple photos

01:10:07.480 of a thing

01:10:07.980 and they're all fuzzy

01:10:08.900 that's bullshit.

01:10:11.660 How about

01:10:12.180 there was a

01:10:13.920 randomized controlled trial

01:10:15.360 which is the

01:10:16.020 gold standard

01:10:16.840 of good science.

01:10:17.820 The randomized

01:10:18.300 controlled trial

01:10:19.460 and it was funded

01:10:20.580 by an interested party.

01:10:23.340 Let's say a manufacturer

01:10:24.460 of some sort

01:10:25.140 or a partisan.

01:10:28.040 You should give that

01:10:29.040 even though

01:10:29.560 it's the highest

01:10:30.260 level of science

01:10:31.120 you should give that

01:10:31.760 no credibility.

01:10:33.680 Because although

01:10:34.280 a randomized

01:10:34.920 controlled trial

01:10:35.900 should be good

01:10:37.080 if it's funded

01:10:38.880 by somebody

01:10:39.580 who has a

01:10:40.100 point of view

01:10:40.740 zero credibility.

01:10:43.000 That would be

01:10:43.300 the correct take

01:10:43.920 on that.

01:10:45.000 You should assume

01:10:45.760 bad behavior.

01:10:48.340 How about

01:10:49.020 it's a randomized

01:10:49.680 controlled trial

01:10:50.640 but you don't know

01:10:51.760 who funded it.

01:10:53.680 You know

01:10:53.880 you worry

01:10:54.600 but you don't know.

01:10:57.100 Complete BS.

01:10:58.300 If you don't know

01:10:58.920 who funded it

01:10:59.640 don't believe it.

01:11:01.680 It's not good enough

01:11:02.740 that you know

01:11:03.280 the bad people

01:11:04.080 funded it.

01:11:05.300 If you don't know

01:11:06.160 who funded it

01:11:06.820 that's the same thing.

01:11:07.880 it's probably

01:11:09.240 bad people.

01:11:12.440 How about

01:11:13.120 if one side

01:11:14.080 either the political

01:11:15.200 left or the right

01:11:15.900 says something

01:11:16.560 is true 0.89

01:11:17.160 but the other

01:11:18.300 side says

01:11:18.860 it's untrue.

01:11:19.720 Is it true?

01:11:21.380 One side

01:11:22.080 says it's true

01:11:22.840 and the other

01:11:24.140 side says

01:11:24.780 it's untrue.

01:11:26.180 Now here

01:11:26.640 I'm not talking

01:11:27.280 about a narrative.

01:11:28.920 Here I'm talking

01:11:29.520 about a fact.

01:11:31.180 Only a fact.

01:11:32.340 Not a whole story

01:11:33.500 about how the facts

01:11:34.300 fit together

01:11:34.880 but just one fact.

01:11:36.240 I think if

01:11:37.460 one side

01:11:38.460 says it didn't

01:11:39.160 happen

01:11:39.420 and the other

01:11:39.920 side says

01:11:40.460 it did

01:11:40.880 it usually

01:11:42.600 didn't happen.

01:11:45.900 And it doesn't

01:11:46.720 matter which way

01:11:47.360 you go.

01:11:48.120 It doesn't matter

01:11:48.640 if Fox says

01:11:49.320 yes and CNN

01:11:50.100 says no

01:11:50.760 or the reverse.

01:11:52.180 If one of them

01:11:53.460 says it didn't

01:11:54.060 happen

01:11:54.340 it probably

01:11:54.740 didn't happen.

01:11:55.220 So the

01:11:57.580 examples of

01:11:59.260 that are

01:11:59.760 there's a

01:12:00.880 video in

01:12:01.760 which somebody

01:12:02.320 seemed to

01:12:02.860 have claimed

01:12:03.400 something

01:12:04.260 outrageous.

01:12:05.960 CNN says

01:12:06.840 yep

01:12:07.080 here's the

01:12:08.460 video

01:12:08.760 he's claiming

01:12:09.400 something

01:12:09.820 outrageous

01:12:10.220 and then you

01:12:11.200 go to Fox

01:12:11.680 News and they

01:12:12.200 say well

01:12:12.780 here's a

01:12:13.200 video in

01:12:13.880 its totality

01:12:14.600 and if you

01:12:16.180 show the

01:12:16.460 whole video

01:12:17.020 it shows

01:12:18.100 that the

01:12:18.600 clip was

01:12:19.300 misleading.

01:12:20.960 It's the

01:12:21.560 one who

01:12:21.840 says it

01:12:22.140 was misleading

01:12:22.680 was right

01:12:23.220 and again

01:12:23.900 you could

01:12:24.280 reverse those

01:12:25.040 but the

01:12:26.280 one who

01:12:26.620 debunks it

01:12:27.220 is going

01:12:27.500 to be

01:12:27.640 the right

01:12:27.980 one.

01:12:28.980 It's not

01:12:29.620 the one

01:12:29.840 who makes

01:12:30.140 the claim

01:12:30.580 and they're

01:12:31.040 done with

01:12:31.380 it.

01:12:32.680 So that's

01:12:34.260 a red flag

01:12:35.080 if they

01:12:36.200 don't agree.

01:12:37.040 Now here's

01:12:37.760 where you

01:12:38.940 could expect

01:12:39.480 them to

01:12:39.880 disagree about

01:12:40.780 the Hunter

01:12:41.340 Biden story

01:12:42.880 right because

01:12:44.560 that's a

01:12:44.880 narrative but

01:12:46.340 you don't see

01:12:47.040 them disagreeing

01:12:47.900 on the facts.

01:12:49.900 Did Devin

01:12:51.120 Archer say

01:12:51.800 this sentence?

01:12:52.800 They both

01:12:53.220 report that he

01:12:53.940 did.

01:12:55.040 It's just

01:12:55.500 that they

01:12:55.880 collectively put

01:12:57.120 it together

01:12:57.520 and spin

01:12:58.060 it a different

01:12:58.540 way.

01:12:58.820 That's

01:12:59.000 different.

01:12:59.820 But the

01:13:00.260 facts seem

01:13:01.520 to be the

01:13:01.960 same on

01:13:02.360 both sides.

01:13:04.840 Just some

01:13:05.720 like to

01:13:06.600 emphasize

01:13:07.200 some.

01:13:08.280 How about

01:13:08.860 the story

01:13:11.840 is about a

01:13:12.280 public figure

01:13:13.020 and there's

01:13:14.260 video and

01:13:15.320 audio to

01:13:16.000 support the

01:13:16.580 story.

01:13:17.680 So it's a

01:13:18.140 public figure

01:13:18.760 and you can

01:13:19.220 see for

01:13:19.560 yourself it's

01:13:20.080 right on the

01:13:20.500 video, it's

01:13:21.580 right on the

01:13:22.020 audio.

01:13:22.260 What credibility

01:13:23.220 do you give

01:13:23.800 that?

01:13:24.820 It should be

01:13:25.320 close to

01:13:25.760 zero, even

01:13:27.240 on video.

01:13:28.520 Because video

01:13:29.240 is the biggest

01:13:29.820 liar in the

01:13:30.520 world.

01:13:32.040 Do you think

01:13:32.540 I'm on video

01:13:33.280 saying anything

01:13:34.000 that's out of

01:13:35.480 context?

01:13:36.620 Of course.

01:13:38.560 Every public

01:13:39.720 figure will tell

01:13:40.540 you the same

01:13:40.940 thing.

01:13:41.640 If they're the

01:13:42.260 subject of

01:13:42.840 stories, the

01:13:44.480 stories are

01:13:44.880 fake.

01:13:45.740 Now that doesn't

01:13:46.440 mean every fact

01:13:47.340 in the story is

01:13:48.020 wrong.

01:13:48.840 I'm not saying

01:13:49.400 that.

01:13:50.280 I'm saying

01:13:50.820 that there's

01:13:51.840 always context

01:13:52.980 about the

01:13:53.500 story that

01:13:54.100 the story

01:13:54.500 doesn't know

01:13:55.060 and only the

01:13:56.040 public figure

01:13:56.600 knows sometimes.

01:13:58.640 So yeah, all

01:13:59.680 stories about

01:14:00.320 public figures,

01:14:01.240 if they make

01:14:01.860 your hair catch

01:14:02.540 on fire, that

01:14:04.040 person said

01:14:04.820 what?

01:14:05.940 It's fake.

01:14:07.920 Now if

01:14:08.540 somebody died,

01:14:09.220 it might be

01:14:09.600 true.

01:14:10.560 But if

01:14:11.140 somebody said

01:14:11.880 something that

01:14:12.620 made somebody

01:14:13.360 offended, those 1.00

01:14:14.120 are never true.

01:14:15.240 Somebody had

01:14:16.560 terrible behavior

01:14:17.620 allegedly, according

01:14:19.260 to somebody, you

01:14:19.880 talked to

01:14:20.280 somebody, probably

01:14:20.920 not true.

01:14:21.840 Probably not

01:14:22.280 true.

01:14:24.080 All right, and

01:14:24.580 then of course

01:14:25.040 any new news

01:14:25.920 is likely to

01:14:27.100 be fake because

01:14:27.920 of the fog of

01:14:28.540 war.

01:14:29.460 So there's

01:14:29.940 your list.

01:14:32.380 Let me get a

01:14:33.420 little feedback.

01:14:34.140 So it's just

01:14:34.500 the first draft.

01:14:36.680 Is it useful?

01:14:39.440 Would you be

01:14:40.780 able to use it

01:14:41.420 for anything?

01:14:42.020 As in saying,

01:14:43.440 oh, you're

01:14:44.860 making a claim

01:14:45.700 that's at the

01:14:47.140 bottom of this

01:14:47.800 list of

01:14:48.220 credibility.

01:14:49.260 Okay, so I'm

01:14:52.000 going to clean

01:14:52.420 it up a little

01:14:52.900 bit.

01:14:53.160 I saw that I

01:14:53.860 accidentally

01:14:55.140 tweeted an

01:14:57.020 older version.

01:14:58.180 There's a newer

01:14:58.720 version I meant

01:14:59.360 to tweet.

01:15:00.880 So it's just

01:15:02.300 slightly changed.

01:15:05.880 You cannot

01:15:06.600 trust audio

01:15:07.500 snippets.

01:15:09.120 Yeah, and

01:15:09.680 now with AI,

01:15:11.280 you can't trust

01:15:12.400 audio, that's

01:15:13.020 true.

01:15:15.220 You can't

01:15:15.840 trust anything.

01:15:16.320 Yeah, you

01:15:18.560 need some

01:15:18.880 whiteboards on

01:15:19.540 this, but I

01:15:20.300 think just

01:15:22.020 putting on a

01:15:22.700 document that

01:15:23.340 you can clip

01:15:24.300 would be

01:15:24.660 useful.

01:15:25.240 All right, so

01:15:25.620 I'm going to

01:15:25.920 go do that. 0.52

01:15:27.940 I'm going to

01:15:28.360 go fix that

01:15:29.100 and repost it.

01:15:30.580 And then

01:15:31.060 that was my

01:15:33.360 contribution to

01:15:34.280 society for

01:15:35.000 today.

01:15:37.480 Diagram?

01:15:37.920 Yeah, I

01:15:41.260 mean, I

01:15:41.540 don't think it

01:15:41.980 needs to be a

01:15:42.440 diagram, it's

01:15:42.980 just three

01:15:43.420 categories.

01:15:45.820 How would

01:15:46.320 you diagram

01:15:46.860 it, a

01:15:48.040 Venn diagram?

01:15:53.580 All right.

01:15:57.980 P.

01:15:58.280 Wee Herman

01:15:58.680 at a viewing.

01:16:02.300 All right.

01:16:03.360 Yeah, P.

01:16:03.800 Wee Herman

01:16:04.180 passed away.

01:16:05.120 I had no

01:16:05.640 idea it was

01:16:06.100 70.

01:16:06.440 70.

01:16:07.920 All right

01:16:09.180 then, ladies 0.99

01:16:10.020 and gentlemen,

01:16:10.780 and thanks for

01:16:11.440 joining over on

01:16:12.600 YouTube, and

01:16:14.760 appreciate it, and

01:16:16.620 I'll see you

01:16:17.440 tomorrow.

01:16:19.320 Bye for now.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - August 01, 2023

Episode 2187 Scott Adams： I Can't Mention The Top Story Today In The Title Because

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript