Episode 2209 Scott Adams： Wow, The News Is Fascinating Today. Bring Coffee
Episode Stats
Length
1 hour and 9 minutes
Words per Minute
143.25656
Summary
How did we get here? How did God get here, and how did we end up here? Is there a God? And if so, what did he do with us? And why did he create us?
Transcript
00:00:03.760
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
00:00:09.460
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I'm pretty sure you've never had a better time.
00:00:14.840
Would you like this experience to go up to levels that nobody has ever seen before?
00:00:22.360
And all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice, a stein, a canteen,
00:00:32.820
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day,
00:00:46.980
If anybody would like to inform the new people of what not to say in the comments,
00:00:54.380
Now, we've got all kinds of interesting news today.
00:01:05.480
This show is going to get better and better as it proceeds.
00:01:09.000
Now, number one, a story from phys.org did eight different experiments at the Mustafa Karatas of Nazarbayev University.
00:01:24.700
And many of you are familiar with the Mustafa Karatas of Nazarbayev University.
00:01:33.080
But they found that actively thinking about God promotes acceptance of AI recommendations in a variety of contexts.
00:01:41.920
So if you're thinking about God, and AI suggests a movie, or a financial product, or a dental treatment,
00:01:55.780
You know, some would say that AI is just God reassembling.
00:02:10.700
Now, that was a comment that 20% of the listeners just said, holy shit.
00:02:17.580
And 80% said, I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to there.
00:02:21.200
It sounds like there's a part of this I don't know.
00:02:26.880
But if you read a book called God's Debris, I don't want to be a spoiler.
00:02:36.300
But you're really going to be interested in what AI really is.
00:02:44.940
Anyway, you could buy that book if it weren't canceled everywhere.
00:02:50.600
And if you're on the Locals platform, scottitems.locals.com,
00:03:07.980
How did we get here unless some intelligence, such as God, created us?
00:03:18.320
But then somebody else will say, well, good try.
00:03:24.860
Now, if your answer is God was always here, not so good,
00:03:32.900
There was always something here, whether it was God or what God made or something.
00:03:39.580
Because we imagine that you can't have something come out of nothing.
00:03:51.160
Einstein said time was an illusion, persistent illusion.
00:03:55.440
Now, really, you should think in terms of space-time and the movement of things
00:04:01.560
But to me, the only answer that makes sense is that time is cyclical, meaning that it loops.
00:04:12.740
So that would suggest that there's a time in between God, and there always will be that time reoccurring.
00:04:21.280
So there will always be a time there is God in its fullest form.
00:04:26.340
There would be a time when God is in its assembling form, you know, starting to become a full God.
00:04:32.380
And there would be times when there's not much God happening.
00:04:35.680
For example, at the time of the singularity just prior to the Big Bang, did God exist in its full form where everything was one?
00:04:52.360
Then the Big Bang happens, and it looks like there's nothing but debris.
00:04:59.880
Then slowly over time, to the unscientific observer, it would look like magic.
00:05:08.800
All of this debris starts reforming through gravity and physics and some basic forces of the universe
00:05:19.000
until eventually there's something like a living something.
00:05:23.180
And then that living something perhaps evolves.
00:05:32.400
And then eventually those animals, mostly the people, start forming something called an internet.
00:05:39.880
And now the individual intelligence become part of a larger intelligence.
00:05:52.220
Anyway, do you know that human beings, collectively, we will be able to shape planets and perhaps create them from scratch?
00:06:02.700
We almost certainly will be able to create new life forms by DNA manipulation.
00:06:08.420
And I wouldn't be surprised if we're too far away from creating life and of things which are not alive.
00:06:17.220
So, one theory is that we are in a time of God, but God is not, and yet, fully formed.
00:06:34.320
But one possibility that explains everything, which doesn't mean it's true, right?
00:06:40.940
There's a big difference between fits all the observation and actually true.
00:06:47.320
But what fits my observation is that there can't be a beginning of things.
00:06:56.620
So, we're probably phasing in and out of a time when there's something like a God-like entity
00:07:08.280
Such as when the universe shrinks back to its final form.
00:07:18.700
But if you want to read a fascinating book about it, God's Debris is the one.
00:07:36.880
So, Larry Elder is banned for a technical reason about a poll.
00:07:48.400
In other words, you could have gone either way on letting Larry Elder in.
00:07:57.700
It's not so much that I think Larry Elder's shot at being president is high.
00:08:04.520
But he's bringing to the conversation a topic of great interest and concern.
00:08:13.080
So, I think he's primarily running because he wants to promote his message about the need for family units as the organizing principle.
00:08:27.480
And although I've got a little bit of a slight difference on his opinion, I think we need to figure out what to do for all the people who just will never have the option of creating a family.
00:08:40.460
But I would agree that if you could make it work, you know, a good, solid family would be the ideal situation.
00:08:46.120
So, don't you want to see Larry Elder on a big stage where lots of people are watching and promote that very valuable topic?
00:08:57.560
Because you could argue that's the base problem for everything.
00:09:03.560
Don't you think it's a fair statement that what Larry Elder would bring to the conversation, whether he has a chance of being president or not,
00:09:11.980
is the most important base thing, which is how do we train children and how do we support each other as individuals?
00:09:22.280
And again, I feel like we need more than the family.
00:09:25.980
But that's a good starting point for a conversation.
00:09:28.440
So, the fact that the Republicans would use some little bullshit, Rasmussen poll has something they don't like about it,
00:09:36.800
and they can take out of the national conversation the most important topic, the most important topic.
00:09:48.900
Are they working for the benefit of the country?
00:09:51.700
Because if you want to benefit the country, put his voice in there.
00:10:02.660
I love, you know, actually a number of the candidates are pretty solid.
00:10:05.600
But he's really bringing something of value that you don't have to wait for.
00:10:18.420
You know, he's obviously not in a Republican debate.
00:10:23.220
I think they're bringing actual real-world value in the context of campaigning,
00:10:44.420
All right, so let me get a feel of the viewers here.
00:10:50.680
I already asked the locals' subscribers over here before I signed on to YouTube.
00:10:58.140
Who are you going to watch tonight if you're going to watch anything?
00:11:00.440
Are you going to watch Trump and Tucker, who is counter-programming the debates?
00:11:34.240
So if I do a man cave tonight, which is a live stream just for the locals' people,
00:11:40.400
I think I would watch the debate only because I feel like I know what Trump's going to say to Tucker.
00:11:46.540
I don't feel like there's any surprise in Trump versus Tucker, so I'll watch that in replay.
00:11:52.480
But there could be a surprise in the debate, maybe, because Vivek is in the debate, right?
00:11:58.920
And Chris Christie, he might have a little surprise.
00:12:02.020
You know, I think he's a weak candidate, but he's interesting.
00:12:31.420
I think these are fake news, but I'm not 100% sure.
00:12:36.780
Apparently, the video of Joe Biden visiting Maui because of the disaster
00:12:41.140
there are videos of people chanting F Joe Biden.
00:12:47.020
There's a fact check on Twitter that I call X that suggests that the audio was added
00:12:54.440
and that the chanting was not part of the actual, which is a pretty big difference.
00:13:01.420
I would have to admit, if that was fake, fooled me, I got fooled.
00:13:07.440
I tell you, there's no amount of understanding that video is fake and can be fake and is usually
00:13:16.480
There's no amount of it that can make you invulnerable to it because you really can't go through life
00:13:29.240
So you end up latching onto things because they haven't been yet debunked.
00:13:36.500
I got to feel like I touched the oven on that one.
00:13:44.220
Now, also, I'd have to say I'm not 100% sure it's fake.
00:13:50.000
I think more likely than not it is, but not completely sure.
00:13:58.040
Here's another one that, again, I'm not sure which is true.
00:14:01.880
But you all heard the story, I think, of the water resources manager guy in Maui who allegedly
00:14:08.820
did not release the magic water because it's Maui's special water and the gods would be mad
00:14:20.580
But now I'm hearing that maybe that was, yeah, that it wasn't about water equity or anything.
00:14:30.440
And that the real news, the real story is complicated.
00:14:33.680
And there might have been some water held back from the helicopter operation which couldn't
00:14:41.940
Now, if it turns out that that's the story, and that's not confirmed in my opinion, if it
00:14:46.600
turns out that's the story, that water was withheld, but not from anything that mattered,
00:14:52.680
it was just logically withheld from a place that didn't need it, that's going to look a lot
00:14:59.740
Now, you could also say, Scott, Scott, Scott, do not be naive.
00:15:06.060
Of course they've come up with a narrative that cleverly explains their mistake.
00:15:22.620
And my rule is, innocent until proven guilty, which I don't think I've done a good job of
00:15:40.200
And I blame myself for retweeting anything that put the onus on one person.
00:15:46.720
Now, had it been a governmental thing, then you reverse the assumption.
00:15:54.600
If it's the government, you know, collectively, then I think you can say that the government
00:16:04.440
You know, they need to be transparent, or else you just have to assume it's sketchy.
00:16:13.000
If it's a citizen of the United States, one person, absolutely innocent, you better bring
00:16:21.540
And the water guy, I'm not happy I see any proof.
00:16:25.900
You know, you better do that in a court of law.
00:16:29.000
And I apologize for retweeting anything in that domain.
00:16:34.700
But the government, you know, the government in Maui, you better be a little more transparent.
00:16:46.820
Here's something that is, I guess, confirmed now.
00:16:50.700
That X, that some people call Twitter, had block lists.
00:16:57.200
So you could block a whole list of people based on some criteria, which probably had the impact
00:17:05.180
of making us be siloed, so that you couldn't even see the arguments on the other side.
00:17:11.740
For example, how many of you never heard that there was another story about that Maui water guy?
00:17:19.240
How many have never heard that there's some alternate, I don't know what's true,
00:17:31.000
Now, how many times have you seen that people on the left are completely unaware of things
00:17:38.080
that the right talks about, reports on all the time?
00:17:45.940
Because you know nobody is blocking people they agree with.
00:17:50.120
They're blocking the people who are saying things that they don't want to hear.
00:17:53.520
So one suggestion was to have, instead of a block list, to have a counterpoint list.
00:18:00.600
A counterpoint list, which I would sign up for immediately.
00:18:04.840
Counterpoint list would look at the things I'm tweeting, and it would automatically feed me the counterpoint.
00:18:12.600
Now, I don't know if the system can identify a counterpoint,
00:18:15.680
but I would accept counterpoint individuals to follow.
00:18:19.680
So it might be that there's somebody who's just extra good to follow,
00:18:24.340
who doesn't bullshit too much, but is on a side that I don't normally hear about.
00:18:35.600
I don't want to have an opinion and not know there's some other narrative out there
00:18:40.780
So yes, Elon Musk, we need a counterpoint list that assertively gives us counterpoints
00:18:56.240
Now, I don't know if Elon Musk has even considered something like that,
00:19:01.740
but I'm sure that if he heard it, his first impression would be,
00:19:06.780
if it could be done, it would be a good feature.
00:19:10.620
It might not be practical exactly, but I'd be certainly open to a little testing.
00:19:16.900
I'd love to know, for example, who is the Democrat version of me?
00:19:26.300
Like, who's the person who clearly identifies as Democrat,
00:19:30.520
although I'm a registered Democrat at the moment?
00:19:36.780
I don't know if he's registered Democrat, though, is he?
00:19:50.000
If Bill Maher wants to have me come on his Club Random show
00:19:56.220
and explain how all of the hoaxes are executed,
00:20:00.120
just in case there are any that he still believes,
00:20:07.200
Now, I don't think I'm going to be invited on the show,
00:20:16.540
All right, here's a study that Dr. Jordan Peterson just tweeted,
00:20:27.700
but apparently there was a study where people were put on an all-meat diet,
00:20:32.620
which sounds like it's similar to what Dr. Peterson has been on for a long time,
00:20:42.300
It was sort of the only thing that helped his health issues that were pretty extreme,
00:20:46.040
but now he's pretty much all good on his all-meat diet.
00:20:51.520
But the study said that there was a 90% improvement in all diseases.
00:21:22.800
Did they actually have a 90% improvement in all diseases?
00:21:29.720
Apparently 100% of the people who went on the diet got off diabetes medicine.
00:21:53.680
Without knowing anything about it, what's wrong with it?
00:22:16.240
So, but if you see a study of this nature, and at the same time you see the study, you don't see who funded it, what credibility should you give a study where you don't know who funded it?
00:22:28.460
What is the level of credibility for a study that you don't know who funded it?
00:22:36.060
Now, as I often say, the crowd that follows me is the smartest crowd in America.
00:22:46.100
And I say that because we actually go over the mechanism quite regularly, over the mechanism of what makes something credible, whereas almost everybody else who talks about the news just says, here's a study.
00:23:04.700
If you're believing studies after the pandemic, what did you miss?
00:23:16.700
There's something else here that's just gigantically standing out as a flaw with a study without knowing anything.
00:23:24.460
I don't know anything about the study, and yet I can see a giant flaw.
00:23:36.780
How do you know the benefits are from eating the meat versus, wait, your mind is going to be blown.
00:23:44.740
How do you know the benefit came from eating meat or not eating processed foods anymore?
00:24:01.260
So when I first said it, you thought, oh, meat is good for you.
00:24:08.720
But what would happen if you did a control where 100% of the people were taken off of, let's say, processed foods entirely?
00:24:26.200
Let's say you make sure they supplement so they're getting their vitamin Bs and stuff that's hard to get from a vegetarian diet.
00:24:37.340
Do you think they would get off of their diabetes medicines?
00:24:49.840
My best guess is that there's a little of both happening.
00:24:54.220
Both meaning meat's probably pretty good for you.
00:24:56.660
And by the way, I don't eat it like I eat fish, but I don't eat meat.
00:25:03.440
So believe me when I say this, you know, it's not coming from a place of bias.
00:25:09.780
My bias would be, oh, everything I do is a smart thing to do.
00:25:13.580
But I would say that the meat is bad for you belief of most of my life, you know, seems to be debunked.
00:25:23.800
Would you agree that the meat is bad for you that I used to believe for decades?
00:25:32.200
There does seem to be maybe something to how you prepare it.
00:25:42.580
But at this point, it seems like the evidence is starting to support, you know, exactly what you thought.
00:25:50.040
That humans have eaten meat forever, and it's probably not that bad for us.
00:25:57.620
My guess is it might be, you know, 75% of the benefit is from not eating shit, and 25% of the benefit is from eating something that's, you know, full of the nutrients you need, such as meat.
00:26:15.500
But my book, Reframe Your Brain, still waiting for the final approval from Amazon that it will be available, which could happen.
00:26:27.020
I just checked my phone because it could happen any minute.
00:26:29.100
So we've done the final step, and we got a warning that it sailed through okay.
00:26:35.260
It just has to physically be on the site, and that just takes a while, I guess.
00:26:42.360
I saw one critic who said that my book, Reframe Your Brain, which is already available on Kindle.
00:26:51.940
But somebody said that it was a book of advice, and that he pointed out that some of the advice would be something that, you know, an adult who's well-informed would already know.
00:27:05.420
Now, here's what he's missing, because I don't think you could read the book and have that actual opinion.
00:27:11.820
Because a lot of the book is dedicated to telling you that's not what's happening.
00:27:25.180
Or you read a book, and there's, like, long explanation of why you should do this or that.
00:27:31.840
A reframe takes the best part of advice sometimes, but not all the time.
00:27:38.360
So it's the Venn diagrams of advice, and reframes are not overlapped.
00:27:46.040
So there are definitely some that are advice and are also reframes.
00:28:01.040
That's really important to understand what a reframe is versus advice.
00:28:05.220
But in some cases, you can take advice that does make sense, put it into a sentence that's well-constructed as the one that you repeat.
00:28:15.560
And it's that sentence well-constructed that makes your advice operational.
00:28:24.320
Reading about it in a book can make it operational, too.
00:28:28.320
There are definitely people who can say, hey, I saw this idea.
00:28:33.260
But for most people, the fastest way to get there is to read a one-sensis reframe where you go, whoa, that makes sense.
00:28:42.500
Or you repeat it in your mind and you go, it doesn't make sense, but it seems to be working.
00:28:46.700
So the idea is that you're reprogramming your brain to be optimized.
00:28:53.580
Some of that reprogramming is based on commonsensical good advice stuff, like systems are better than goals.
00:29:13.240
It's more like trying to make you feel bad when you think of alcohol.
00:29:18.380
It's about an emotional argument that has utility.
00:29:22.120
So if you know you're reprogramming your own brain, you're not manipulating, because it's yourself.
00:29:28.060
You can manipulate yourself to think of something negative when it's associated with a thing you don't want to do.
00:29:37.640
That's literally directly programming your brain to have associations that are not rational.
00:29:43.720
So it's actually closer to the opposite of advice, but it does incorporate advice.
00:29:50.600
So that's just a little point you might have missed.
00:29:54.280
So when a hypnotist writes a book, there's usually a little extra flavor happening.
00:30:00.840
I have a theme for the rest of my presentation today.
00:30:13.240
So RFK Jr. was saying that the CIA, as we know, famously used to control the media back in the Operation Mockingbird days.
00:30:23.800
So that was actually a CIA operation to give functional control of the political messaging in all the media.
00:30:46.360
And so do we all agree with the base case that the CIA definitely, this is well documented at this point, I don't think anybody's arguing about it, that they did used to control the U.S. media and tried to control other media as well.
00:31:06.020
Now, RFK Jr. says that the thing that's less well known is that that started up again under Obama, I think.
00:31:15.300
So Obama, I think, changed the rules so that the CIA could operate domestically.
00:31:22.780
And that allowing them to operate domestically allowed them to get back inside the media operations.
00:31:29.980
Now, according to RFK Jr., this is his accusation.
00:31:33.700
There are a number of notable media outlets that are well known to be, let's say, penetrated by the intelligence groups.
00:31:43.120
He names specifically the New York Times, Rolling Stone, I think Politico was on his list, and Washington Post.
00:31:51.200
So the Washington Post is one that RFK Jr. calls out as being CIA-influenced.
00:32:01.220
Now, let's say you were trying to hold that in your head and understand the world that you've been seeing based on that filter, that the media is a CIA operation, or at least influenced.
00:32:14.460
Now, let me connect a few dots and see if using that filter makes you look at a familiar story a little differently.
00:32:34.900
The Hunter laptop cover-up seemed to be intelligence-related, and you can tell that that was a Democrat operation.
00:32:47.380
That it wasn't just, you know, Brennan and Clapper.
00:32:54.800
Would you be able to say that that's a good indication that Democrats control the CIA?
00:33:03.400
Would you say that Democrats, and I'm not saying every part of it, because I'm sure there are plenty of Republicans who work for the CIA,
00:33:12.180
but in terms of the big political stuff, such as the laptop cover-up, et cetera,
00:33:18.100
is it fair to say that Democrats must have some big influence over some part of the intelligence apparatus?
00:33:25.300
All right, so if you accept that, then you've got, so far you've connected the dots, right?
00:33:34.160
So you've got Democrats influencing the CIA, because they are Democrats in many cases,
00:33:44.160
So that would be the Democrats influence the media directly in some cases, we know that,
00:33:52.000
but also through the CIA could control the media in a second way which is compatible.
00:33:57.860
Now, did you know that, and of course Washington Post is named by RFK Jr.
00:34:06.640
as one of the obvious ones that are, so did you know that the Washington Post was the primary entity recently?
00:34:18.780
Now, they weren't the only ones who canceled me, but the way the newspaper industry works is if the leading paper,
00:34:25.840
they're the biggest paper that also carries comics.
00:34:32.280
But the biggest, most influential paper that also had comics was the Washington Post.
00:34:38.360
So when they went public canceling me, it made it almost necessary that everybody else canceled me, right?
00:34:50.480
Democrats control the CIA and also the media directly.
00:35:09.540
Now, I'm sure there were some Republican-leaning newspapers,
00:35:13.000
but once the big one does the canceling, everybody else, you can't be the one who didn't, right?
00:35:22.940
So there's no Republican entity that said, you're canceled.
00:35:29.520
In fact, many of them invited me on to talk about it, right?
00:35:42.560
I suggested that I can't know if I got canceled for reasons that, let's say, were just the public.
00:35:50.100
The public got mad and the corporations had to fold.
00:36:09.060
Maybe they have DEI organizations working for them.
00:36:11.600
It could all happen just in normal, normal bureaucratic process.
00:36:17.140
Now, is it a coincidence, here's the arrogant part, are you ready for this?
00:36:24.980
How many of you would be aware, I guess I'll ask this question.
00:36:29.000
I know what the locals people will say, but let's say on YouTube, how many of you would
00:36:32.960
be aware that I'm one of the most influential people in politics?
00:36:40.800
I'm actually curious because I don't have any idea.
00:36:56.420
But those who are laughing, check the other, look at the other responses.
00:37:07.320
So all the LOL, blah, ha, ha, people, not likely, look at the other answers.
00:37:14.180
How do you explain that 75% of the answers are that I'm in the top 10 influencers?
00:37:31.700
I've just been accused of being arrogant because I made that claim.
00:37:34.940
So I suggested in a tweet that I really can't tell who canceled me.
00:37:47.500
And just a normal bureaucracy that has to respond to the public.
00:37:51.420
Or was it part of a political operation that was either ordered, which I doubt,
00:37:58.580
or just everybody knows what to do when you're on one side?
00:38:02.580
You don't really have to tell people what to do.
00:38:06.620
Do you think the Washington Post believes that I'm influential in politics?
00:38:14.540
Do you think the Washington Post thinks I'm influential in politics?
00:38:23.760
It's probably only the top, I don't know, 2% of people who are paying attention would have
00:38:32.300
If you ask the average person in the country, hey, is that cartoonist guy, the disgraced cartoonist,
00:38:38.520
is he involved in politics, they wouldn't even know, right?
00:38:42.540
98% of the country would have no idea that I have any involvement in the political sphere.
00:38:48.320
All right, but let's take, let me be a little more modest.
00:38:56.080
Can we agree that I'm not influencing everything and just move on?
00:39:05.620
I did a tweet, a takedown of CNN interviewing Vivek.
00:39:11.040
So I was basically mocking CNN for the ridiculousness of the accusations they were making for Vivek.
00:39:16.720
And Vivek, you know, is tearing apart Caitlin Collins, a lot of you saw it.
00:39:31.360
So probably not influencing anything in politics, but 8.3 million people.
00:39:42.040
And probably close to 10 million people are going to see that by the end of the day.
00:39:48.960
As the people who were laughing at me said, I'm just kind of being full of myself now.
00:39:58.180
I mean, it's happened a number of times, but each time it was a fluke.
00:40:04.500
You may have seen that our, what do you call him, the Surgeon General, Jerome Adams.
00:40:12.160
He had tweeted yesterday that there were an alarming number of people who were hospitalized with COVID.
00:40:23.320
So I did a quote tweet of his tweet, and I pointed out that with COVID does not mean the same as from COVID.
00:40:37.560
That being hospitalized with COVID does not mean the same as, you know, from COVID.
00:40:53.120
He said, to the increasing hospitalizations are with and not from COVID crowd.
00:41:01.920
He says, almost no hospitals routinely test all patients for COVID anymore.
00:41:10.640
So, and then he says, so with COVID would mean a patient with worsening respiratory status and severe acute respiratory syndrome.
00:41:27.500
So, apparently I created a, some kind of a belief when I doubted his with and from that was substantially annoying
00:41:38.960
that the Surgeon General of the United States had to reply to me and all the people that I influenced, allegedly.
00:41:48.300
So, I'm not saying that I haven't influenced on anything.
00:41:51.480
I'm just saying that the Surgeon General had a need to reply to me personally and to the people I influenced, apparently.
00:41:59.520
So, but that doesn't mean I'm influencing anything.
00:42:05.400
And by the way, this is a actually good, I appreciated his clarification.
00:42:16.260
And I said, Dr. Adams, we live in a zero trust environment.
00:42:21.920
And so, if it's because of COVID, you should use those words.
00:42:29.340
Because if you use words that are the words we associate with deception in a zero trust environment, you're going to get this.
00:42:40.260
So, every time you mistakenly say, you know, with COVID, which I think was just a choice of words and probably not at all indicative of anything else.
00:42:57.680
You've got to say they were hospitalized because they have COVID.
00:43:07.880
That would tell me, you know, people have comorbidities.
00:43:16.320
Now, you tell me that, and I'll say, I don't know what's true, but I know I understand what you're saying.
00:43:23.820
So, all I ask of the government is to understand that they're guilty until proven innocent.
00:43:28.780
And if they act like guilty people, don't expect us not to treat them that way.
00:43:39.900
You've noticed that he seems to be attacked for conspiracy theory belief.
00:43:45.700
And it's sort of coming from everywhere at the same time.
00:43:50.580
To me, it looks like when Trump was accused of, in his DNC speech in 2016, he was accused of being dark.
00:44:02.900
And simultaneously, all of the people on the left said, everything he does is dark.
00:44:10.540
And I called it in at the time, I think correctly, as the work of one persuader in particular, and a very clever way to take anything that happens from a Republican and stick it to this frame of it's the darkness of the Republicans.
00:44:28.320
It's like that is commercial-grade, weapons-grade level persuasion.
00:44:33.900
You don't see that kind of skill from politicians.
00:44:37.900
That level of persuasion comes from professionals and not professional politicians, because they have a different skill set.
00:44:46.480
It looks to me, and this is just speculation based on what it looks like, but I've been right before.
00:44:51.460
To me, it looks coordinated, and it looks like somebody really smart figured out that Vivek doesn't have many problems.
00:45:00.960
In other words, you can't look at his record too much.
00:45:04.440
You know, there's just a whole bunch of things that you can't attack him on, because he's smarter than the people he talks to.
00:45:12.600
So he just doesn't have anything you can work with.
00:45:14.820
So when you see this conspiracy theory thing, that feels a lot like dark.
00:45:24.320
But you know why they can't use dark with Vivek?
00:45:37.300
So you can't use the same play, because they would look like they're being racist.
00:45:42.700
So they had to back up on that and find something that doesn't sound like that, that has the same quality,
00:45:48.920
that it creates a frame in your mind that all the new information then could be confirmation bias that you stick to it.
00:46:04.680
CNN apparently is starting to turn on the Department of Justice.
00:46:09.200
It's Eli Koenig, in particular, one of their legal experts.
00:46:13.820
And he talks about how the DOJ was acting like they were being influenced.
00:46:20.520
So it seemed like their original plea deal for Hunter was too lenient.
00:46:26.300
It seemed like the whistleblowers were what caused them to maybe even overact all the way to a special whatever that guy is.
00:46:34.760
But even CNN's legal analyst is saying that what we're seeing is not the legal system working the way the legal system is supposed to work.
00:46:49.560
But they're saying very clearly that the Department of Justice is not giving justice.
00:46:57.780
Now, again, it was used with, you know, lawyerly words, but the message is unambiguous.
00:47:04.540
And Eli Koenig said, and I guess I agree with him on this.
00:47:13.620
Remember, he's talking about the Department of Justice.
00:47:17.660
And he used this phrase about the Department of Justice and their handling of the Hunter Biden stuff.
00:47:24.020
He says, to restore any credibility, which means, in his opinion, on CNN, the Department of Justice has no credibility.
00:47:41.220
These are his words, to restore any credibility, not some credibility, not to improve credibility, to restore any.
00:47:52.140
So even CNN is saying this is like a fucking clown show, that the Department of Justice isn't even acting like justice is some kind of a goal.
00:48:01.380
It doesn't even look like justice is an objective.
00:48:09.040
But this is a really, yeah, he'll be fired tomorrow.
00:48:14.540
This is a really good example of somebody who just can't go with the lie.
00:48:23.400
Apparently, he has too much respect for the law, which I appreciate.
00:48:29.800
He had enough respect for the law that he just couldn't go with the narrative.
00:48:38.300
And by the way, I've been watching, you know, Eli Koenig for a while, and he is the closest of their legal analysts to being objective.
00:48:49.420
You know, you can, you can pick out, he's got a CNN flavor to him, but he is the closest to being objective.
00:49:07.780
Um, I saw that a clip from my prior live stream is going around.
00:49:14.640
And it's a clip in which I am railing against Jill Biden for allowing her husband to go in public and, um, embarrass himself at this date.
00:49:25.220
And the, the, the, the essence of it was, this is no longer a political issue.
00:49:30.140
If you look at a video of Joe Biden one year ago, he's not the same person.
00:49:43.360
And my issue is that, you know, I'm not meant, I don't mean this to be clever.
00:49:51.220
I don't know how you could call it anything else.
00:49:57.560
Now, I think the problem, I'm just speculating, because if I were in this situation, it would be a problem for me.
00:50:03.500
So I'm, I'm just sort of putting myself in the situation and saying, if I were Jill Biden and the entire Democratic Party was saying, if you, if this guy, if you cause him to quit before we're ready with an able replacement, and it's not Kamala Harris, until we have, you know, I don't know, uh, some other candidate, you can't do it.
00:50:26.740
You know, just, you know, just, just keep it going as long as you can.
00:50:34.500
So, you know, I was pretty hard on her, but imagine her position.
00:50:42.380
Nobody should have to choose the country, which is how the Democrats would put it.
00:50:50.440
If you, if you tell your husband to retire today, the whole country is at risk.
00:51:01.740
If you had to choose between the well-being of your husband, and by the way, the husband probably doesn't want to quit.
00:51:08.740
Because the dementia patient doesn't always know they have dementia.
00:51:12.280
So she's probably got a husband who says, no, no, I'm, I'm still good to go.
00:51:17.600
Probably has a Democratic Party that says, yeah, he's gone.
00:51:28.340
Don't you think she's, she, she has those forces all working on her at the same time?
00:51:34.240
And I think the country looks at her and says, it's really you.
00:51:53.480
That the decision about Joe Biden is not Joe Biden's anymore.
00:52:03.820
And I don't think there could be a harder decision.
00:52:07.540
Because she will be pilloried for the rest of her days, no matter what she does.
00:52:14.420
Every decision, every, every path it could take, she loses.
00:52:25.080
I think she's probably just trying to do what she thinks is good for her husband, good for the country, good for the family.
00:52:31.920
And I would say she's doing more than a great job.
00:52:36.900
If I'm looking at the whole picture, you know, from beginning to end, more than a great job.
00:52:43.600
That is some seriously good spousing, if you know what I mean.
00:52:52.100
But at the moment, she's in a position that nobody wants to be in.
00:52:56.860
And so I've got a little bit of empathy for her.
00:53:03.520
So I honestly just feel complete empathy for the Biden elders at this point.
00:53:11.400
But for the elders, I think we have to let the politics go.
00:53:17.940
This just has to be about caring about the president.
00:53:22.640
You know, I don't have to love a specific president to say, you can't treat my president like that.
00:53:37.920
Do you think that CNN really doesn't understand when Vivek says, I'm not abolishing the FBI?
00:53:44.520
I just want to distribute some of their functions to where they would be better served, a little closer and closer to the action, and in a way that would make it less corruptible, and in a way that would massively cut the fat?
00:53:59.360
Do you think they really don't understand that?
00:54:02.260
And they just keep saying, so you ought to abolish the FBI?
00:54:06.680
He wants to abolish the building, maybe, or the department, but he wants to keep the functions.
00:54:13.300
He wants to keep 100% of the functions of the FBI, except the bad ones, I suppose, and just put it in different places.
00:54:21.980
Now, somebody said to me, Scott, don't you, this was actually a good comment, have you not made your entire career about mocking people reorganizing stuff?
00:54:39.860
Yes, a big staple of the Dilbert comic is corporate reorganizations that don't have a purpose.
00:54:47.820
But I've never been opposed to a corporate reorganization that has a purpose.
00:54:54.040
If you can reorganize to make it better, and you have a discreet, clear, well-expressed reason for it that everybody can see is at least a good reason,
00:55:06.740
and it can reduce staff by 50% to 75% and get the same result, or actually a better result, which is the point of it, of course you do it.
00:55:21.340
I'm opposed to change to obscure that you didn't do a good job in the past, which is what businesses do.
00:55:28.940
A new business, a new boss comes in, in a corporation.
00:55:34.020
The first thing a new boss does is change the way everything is reported, right?
00:55:39.520
Not just the organization chart, but the way you measure results.
00:55:45.140
Because it will take a really long time to find out if they're doing a good or bad job,
00:55:49.800
and during that unclear time, the boss can tell everybody they're doing a great job.
00:56:02.100
Not really, not really, because we don't have a baseline anymore.
00:56:05.380
If we had a baseline, we could compare it to how we're doing,
00:56:08.220
but it's too bad that with all these improvements,
00:56:12.400
it's just a little harder to track how well I'm doing.
00:56:14.660
But if you just wait, if you just wait five years,
00:56:18.320
and I get five years of bonuses and probably got promoted to a higher job anyway,
00:56:22.380
if you just wait five years, you'll be able to see that all these changes I made in the organization
00:56:27.620
and the way we track things, it's really going to work out.
00:56:35.020
I don't know who are the silliest people in politics,
00:56:44.580
but I would like to nominate the genitalia political people.
00:56:57.340
that what I want to do is rub a Vivek's salami.
00:57:01.020
Now, that's interesting, because I usually get comments in all caps
00:57:11.080
But now I've moved on to another package, apparently.
00:57:22.440
Whose genitalia shall I use for my insightful comment?
00:57:32.640
And we're going to say that this person really loves this genitalia over here.
00:57:37.840
Because then I don't have to talk about what he's talking about.
00:57:54.940
Because that's the way children and idiots argue.
00:58:13.400
but then I mocked fairness out of the political conversation
00:58:41.740
There are things that get you closer to some objective.
00:58:51.120
It's a thing you can argue if you don't know anything.
00:58:57.360
and therefore you can't argue as a reasoned full citizen of the United States,
00:59:05.280
blah, blah, blah, blah, fair, blah, blah, blah, equitable.
00:59:12.920
to be part of the conversation without adding value,
00:59:16.220
the other way you can be part of a political conversation without adding value
00:59:20.120
is to mention somebody's attraction to a political candidate's genitalia.
00:59:26.080
Because that's somewhat easy for the low IQ people to put together.
00:59:29.880
It's like, oh, oh, there's the balls, and then there's the cock part.
00:59:37.920
And let's see, there's stroking, tickling, licking, licking.
01:00:03.980
that I would love to go on there and see if I could debunk the hoaxes.
01:00:15.660
I'm kind of the perfect guest for that specific show.
01:00:24.000
He doesn't know it yet, but I'm pretty sure I can.
01:00:26.920
And it would be the first time he had heard things framed the way I frame things.
01:00:36.720
He was saying on a Club Random, I think with Vivek, that Bill Maher is quite pro-nuclear power now.
01:00:45.640
I'm pretty sure that wasn't, I think he said it wasn't always the case.
01:00:48.780
And Vivek explained to him that the Generation 3 has never had a problem,
01:00:58.840
and the ones that people are worried about are the ones we wouldn't build anyway.
01:01:03.980
So, who do you think got to Bill Maher on that?
01:01:13.060
What exactly was the chain of, let's say, persuasion,
01:01:18.980
that caused nuclear to be acceptable even to Democrats who were paying attention?
01:01:40.280
But, you know, I spent Elon Musk, Elon Musk's for sure.
01:01:44.740
But there are a number of people, including me,
01:01:56.240
At this point, the entire world is on that page.
01:02:00.920
Now, I've been told I don't have any influence in politics,
01:02:31.140
because I worked hard to put the words in the right order.
01:02:37.180
unless the first corporation that bows to the government
01:03:01.440
there is no other way to stop masks from coming back.
01:03:09.840
kicked out of places and in trouble or arrested.
01:03:13.760
Because you're not all going to show up at the same time.