We're up up up good morning, everybody I welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It skull coffee was Items- and I can't even imagine more funding than that- really some possible. So if you liked it, why does this cord only want to be in one fucking black I've moved you now three times I swear it. I'm gonna get you out of the way the. Lastly I do. We go take this up to a level that you can't even believe all you gotta do is grab me up a couple of my girl glass, a tiger gels kantian, juggler flask of vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I, like coffee and join me. Now then, parallel pleasure, the dopamine

today? They makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip happens now, oh so good! Well, people always asked me scott you stay in California. When you know it's turning into a We call hellhole yeah. I just made that up a fecal hellhole, it's a it's like a hole with a little extra little, electric vehicle, but one of the reasons is california: like turn on the verge of approving a bill, decriminalizing, possession and personal use, radio psychedelic acts including magic mushrooms? I think it excludes bailey. But it includes. the empty

two years on the legal useless. Interesting, add your ears of it. I think you will agree with the state. no matter how much. Things are going wrong. There's a thing radical amount of hallucinogens they'll make you not care. now I shouldn't tell you my retirement plan, but it looks like I'll be retiring to california. If you know what I mean a lot of people keep saying Scott. Why do you take care of your body and a healthy. All this going to do is make you live like into your eighties, and nobody wants to be in their eighty is still alive a man. That's no good, to which I say? Apparently you ve never done. Psychedelic, sir. Apparently, you know wrath now, I would only recommend them in a legal, healthy environment. Don't do anything illegal,

but when I maybe psychedelic leave in California, which looks like that will be the case, I'm never going to have a bad day. So less madeleine the rusty you, you might choose differently and sit around and pain and misery and loneliness until you die? Now, that's another player and that's the way most people do it. But me, I'm gonna be visiting other dimensions and you barely non there. That's my play, enraging well. There's an update on my amazing book reaffirm your brain, which noticed as solid five star reviews now throw it for a while those like those four point: five, but now it's all the way up to sound five. Five,

the trouble is, of course, that the amazon is still showing a fake book listing serve. You look for the hard cover, even though for a while and was vexed immediately when unfixed again, Prisoners, the amazon says cannot remove a link? Does even a relay, don't you can buy a book from it. And is obviously a fake. They confuses people about the real lake and even under those conditions, they can't suppress the link. That's what they say. do you think, that's true. While it may be true, they have some policy, but obviously they can do it. Once again we're in this weird phase of history, where you can't tell if this is just part of the national incompetence, but as always unique in that their? There will leave

we good it most things. It's the best offer I've ever seen, and so I ask myself what do I assume about the real Cause it's been a long time now and seems to be inflexible. They say I should go my prior publisher, the one the cancelled me because they put the listing there and therefore there are the only ones who can edit it does us out even slightly true that the only people who can edit Existing listing are the ones who pointed there, so you telling me that if it were racist, amazon couldn't remove it, though others I If it was live for we're literally like a call to violence, it's not, but if it were, they couldn't remove that right. If obama published another book and somebody in front and random input like

fake version other and was confusing the real obama book. Do, you think, happens word say all the publisher does world changes were to stay there? No, of course not not even the slightest chance so what are you assume when there's a system? There seems to be giving you a problem And you are a person who is in the political realm as I am, and the system is opaque mean I can't quite see what's going on behind the curtain. Your operating assumption is that has to be exactly what you think it is. It might not be. You know, maybe a fifty fifty chance or something like that, but you have to assume this bad intentions and that your big document doesn't mean it is true, but remember we live in an area, as you said, is zero trust, environment.

I didn't I'm not the one who chose to be in a zero trust environment. It just sort of happened. So if you did, if you want to buy fuck you're going to have to look pretty hard for it and it's almost impossible for me to imagine that this is accidental. You know, realistically it's probably a decoy, was fifty fifty, but my brain can't really accept the other, fifty percent, because it's been too long. It's too obvious that it can't be true right. Would you agree is really obvious that it can't be true what they've told me, but it could be in confidence, can't rule them all right. Oh, I I watching this clip from the tucker girls he was giving about gas interview summer.

And he says directly. They use personal knowledge of people on cnn use as an example, and that the national security reporters, you didn't name names. are literally just mouthpieces for the pentagon and they're. Not even Lately, real journalists- and that is known- and there is no doubt about it now- how many, how many people who watch cnn would be aware of that? There's somebody who worked there can tell you for sure that the news isn't real. And they don't even try to make it real on the national security stuff. They literally just say what the public wants them to set a really bad money. I know that so I'm working on a news guide a guide to understand the news and I'll talk about that. A minute. It's getting bigger all right. China is giving apples in trouble,

my apple stock month ago, or so because I thought I thought I was gonna tough times and china was one of the things I was concerned to know, and apparently china, starting. Apple the band iphones for government employees, but in China that's a lot of people, a lot of people. So what does that sound like those that sound like revenge for tik tok being banned in american? I meant places partly that, but also waterway introduced a five g phone. That's a bit of a mystery because we didn't think that the chips to do it. And it looks like we're just pushing walk away, cause it's from birth, apple might have some some difficulties aruf their story. If they started to lose the chinese market,

So once again, I am shocked that the media is not covering this story that president Joe Biden called the nazis that are marching in florida again their back. He called the very fine people, and it's just hard to understand. Why would you say that what would you call nazis very fine people in public

public use of that yeah. By the way. If somebody tells you he didn't say that you should send him the transcript now, you might need to tweak the transcript, but you could find it to look for the transcript of trump and charlottesville and yet just change the names from charlottesville to wherever, whatever town these nazis run and change trump to Biden and provide that transcript and then ask people if they see Biden, calling them find people or not and they're, going to look at that transcripts that are going to say. Obviously he very specifically condemned them and you'll say what what are you talking about? Well, look at the part you're not telling me see this party you're, not mentioning he says directly. I condemn them completely and I'll say that must be some other reference to something

Well, I mean it's it's like that was that was almost a full minute later. I don't even understand what you're saying you obvious racist. So that's how I plant trump is apparently claiming that his black support after his mugshot went up by quadruple or quintupled. You said his black support has quadrupled or quintupled since How many of you think that the estimate is somewhere in the ballpark does sound pretty close to what the actual numbers are four times he actually tricked cnn into factcheck him. It doesn't matter how many times you does it, they fall for every died, so they fact active and said no, no way, no ways up

four or five times. We check the the balls and he's he's only up like to three percent in all the balls some one and that might be within the margin of error. So no way he's up four or five times lightbulb liar is only up. every paul enough to win convincingly if their true, But they might be within the margin of error, so we're not going to look at the actual polls know you were when they compare what they call trump's lies to Biden's lies. that there is such a difference. This is obviously hyperbole is obviously to make them go. Check then report that that is black support is up. Do you know what is the best thing that would help trump's

the poor among black voters. They named the one best thing that could happen a lotta conversation about his increase in black support. Even before Is there, but you want a lot of people talking about it. It's like I dunno is that is that increase of black support as much as we think, and why, like what will be the cause of the Maybe we should dig down a little bit and find out what's what's happening with all this. More support from the black community is classic. Trump is stuff only he can do so anyway. I love just watching classic trump and then classic see them fallen for it.

this is very much the don't think of an elephant trick. I'd I'd like you to not think of an elephant, don't don't think of the elephant and then they're all talking about the elephants years. I've been talking about trying to deprogram programme a Democrat from all the fake news and make them more like reasonable actual. citizens and stuff, and I'm not sure how easy it would be. It seems like it'd, be pretty hard, but I found one technique that works right away, and so was tried once in minneapolis atlas of for armed carjack? Who first be you up and

new one break your leg, bloody you in front of your children and you barely get out alive now under those conditions which did happen to a democratic party chairwoman. Just recently, she is much less inclined to support defined in the police. Now that. Does that surprise, you that being violently attacked of her own house in front of her own house. That's a key here and was worked pretty bad and that's enough oh, but it does tell you what would it take to change a democrat into a republican and turns out the answer? armed robbery. With a danger of killing your children by putting your

in mortal danger appears to be enough to make somebody say. Ah I wonder if everything I've ever said about the police is still tracking just right. So if you wanna do programme and armed robbery, car jacking, we'll get it done. Speaking injustice, Peter navarro economic adviser to trump is found guilty and he's gonna go to jail unless see his appeals work, for not complying with a subpoena for the from the house select committee on the january six stuff, so he didn't comply with a subpoena for an illegitimate political process so he's going to jail. Nobody believes that that was a legitimate process. Why me? Unless you're a Democrat, I suppose,

there was real news, but can you think of anything less fair, then going to jail because you didn't comply, with an obviously an obviously corrupt process. So I don't I have, for you can take it the only has to drag it out until a republican gets elected. presumably he will be instantly pardoned that does that track? Do you think if he just drags out and we get a Republican wouldn't wouldn't matter which republican wouldn't be pardoned immediately? I think he would assess his best strategy now speaking of strategy. Apparently, the trump lawyers

the following strategy that because the legal attacks on trump are a little bit weird and unique that they will have infinite technical objections that have to be ruled on and they they basically decided directly were basically just bury you in technical objections. Each one has to be put through the process and we're going to we're going to make this lasted until the president, so he can pardon himself

If that's the actual process, that's the actual process, they're they're, really just playing it for a stall. In both cases, why are they needing to stall? It is a direct admission that the current process is not judicial and fair. That you'd have to you'd have to have you have to get past it to get anything that looks like justice that the justice system is just biased and broken hello. This is Scott Adams and now's your chance to reply to questions hot takes and calls for feedback from myself and all of your favorite podcasters on spotify. Every new episode could have a queue at a ripple with a topic for you to weigh in on so let your voice be heard. Personally, I plan to use these tools to get you to enjoy the content even more so head over to spotify, search for coffee with Scott Adams or your favorite pie,

as a view the latest episodes and respond to q and a and bowls on spotify only so that shocking anyway, rfk jr was a. I don't want to say, complain I'll say describing that the and see, is changing the rules about the primary to make a basically impossible for any challenger to challenge by them in the programme, other tweaking the rules about the iowa new Hampshire primary, which one imagines that are of key junior could do well as long as you know. There was no fiddling with the rules

so they're going to settle with the rules and then make it basically impossible for an outsider to win now. What did they just do to rfk junior now that he knows for sure that his own team is going to prevent them from winning for sure there's, no doubt about it. What do you do if you're him? He basically says he owes his supporters a path? In other words, he can't take their money and run for president if he can't describe away to get there and the current system doesnt given way. He is not saying third party yeah this. He he's now saying the words, but can't you imagine it now. I saw Paul begala with his gigantic bug eyes. You know the bug eyes when somebody's life paul begala eyes, Adam schiff, eyes yeah, but

sometimes public allison, some something that is wise and true and I'll. Tell you what he said and it's not a bad take. He says that drums base is the most solid base anybody's embassy there, at the indictments didn't hurt the january sixteenth, hurt them nothing arson, so he's got forty five percent guaranteed. Can't you knew too Right normally, that would never does it matter with jobs. Supporters love, so I feel like it so banal says that it doesn't matter who it is. Any third party candidate will make trump the nice present and the idea is that nobody from his basis, good effect, but somebody from the other base will

It's a lot easier to imagine, abide in person saying you know what I just give overburdened I'd rather lose, but I got to vote for a Democrat. You know or somebody who's like one, so no I'm not going to run. If I read I get assassinated in ten minutes. Alright, it's weird to be a demo. Imagine being a democrat and knowing that you're not going to be given a choice that we think about it. You Michael Shallenberg, said this about their attempt to use the twenty fourth floor. The fortieth amendment to remove drawn from the ballot says shown burger accurately pointed out now knows your pollack pointed out it's the same system as around it. If you get to vote.

only get to vote, for they tell you can vote for that's around their exact system and now they're doing it, not only maybe in the general election or by keeping trump off the election, but they are also do avert, keeping or of gay junior off of the effective effectively the election. By all changes. Do you think the Democrats are aware, there are keeping their own gas it. You know somebody in their own party off the ticket. That is not an option for or they were about the other day. Rats or bases leaner iranian system. If you throw in these super delegates, that's even more iranian. Isn't it because a super delegates Guarantee that doesn't really matter what the voters wanted. The super delegates have extra votes and are appointed by the party. That's my understanding.

And so they're are the ones who always of the dominant voice becomes the nominee so it's not really even the voters getting involved, you know, I think that would be a good attack is just to point out in the cleanest possible way to Democrats, especially during imagine saying this during a debate. You know republicans, you might not like our policies, but I'll tell you. One thing were dedicated to the Democrats or not, which is giving the voters of choice. Yeah, you could actually vote for any one of our primary candidates. There are a lot of them, they all have a full shot, but on your side, you're trying to restrict not only who is on the election, who who can run in the case of trump but you're, even restricting who can run on your own team

near when your main guy is so old that not a single person is missing the fact that he's not quite aware so I would think that you could make Democrats really mad at democrats by telling them that their freedom is being taken away by Democrats and that what they get for. That is that there are a number as newt gingrich points out there are. There are a number of things which the citizens, It is about seventy to eighty percent aligned on and is not happening. Imagined where we live in this year republic, that's with a democratic element to it, and the look, you want something by seventy to eighty percent majority and our congress won't give it to us. What does that mean? What means that there is no interest in the peoples will

Being the dominant thing now, I'm totally in favor of the public not getting their way in the fog of war. That's actually the the time. That is the exact time. You don't want the public getting involved. Let's say the country is attacked. I don't want a voting, no voting, president, just as a takeover. Set, the military on it's way, you'll do his thing, but if it's something we all understand such as, can schools talk to your kids about things you as a parent? Don't want them to talk to your kids, about, without your permission and under. now something the parents largely are all the same on the same page right. They don't want somebody raising their kid unaware of its opposite, the way they were raised, but we don't get that the most basic thing

And we understand that completely starlike, the fog of or less a topic we all understand, and yet you that so whatever's happening is certainly not because not because democratic, just something is happening to them. Serve a vague was a big guy because on acts about and fortys amendment and one of the things he claims, which I also saw in the wall street journal. So he's not the only one saying is that the fourteenth amendment, which essentially says that you can't be you can't be elected? I don't think it's just for president. I think you can't run for office. If you're you know as updated, insurrectionist or something. Now, apparently, this came from the civil war and it had to do with you know the people would have

Literally been part of the civil war, so if you're putting the country gather. Maybe they set themselves. We don't want these troublemakers, and so they have this rule to keep people Who had literally, then part of an armed your civil war, that's what they were thinking of with the rule and armed civil war and they're trying to use this for their protest and generally sex to keep trump out of office always are insurrectionists just like the civil war But apparently the way the rule was written, it did not include an elected president, so, as per the seems very clear that it was ready for people that he might appoint, but not for himself, so there is the slightest chance that this is well. Who knows I'm not lawyer, but It looks like this is even a good try. This sort of

You could all an attempt if you owned the media and yawned the court's, because if you I don't think you own the media in the course you wouldn't even try this too stupid. You couldn't possibly succeed on this path, but they're trying it so they must think they do on the courts and they must or at least the lower courts, and they must think that they do on the media, at least for the people are I do think the right. Well speaking of the media and their fake news. If I ever mentioned that the first story of a war zone is always fake and if I ever mentioned that all news about public figures is fake, all of it now might be based on some true facts, but the context is always. Fake, so if you had something about a war there also something about a public figure. What are the odds that the first report is true: zero, zero

here's a fog of war is almost always andrew thing. That's like a new report and of a war zone and anything about a public figure there's almost certainly not true in its completeness right in context, if you put together, As in the story about elon musk, allegedly turning off starlink in a zone that the ukrainians wanted to use to send a drone submarines to attack a russian fleet, that was, I think they were, the fleet was all in the same place. Or water and the original story from sea and anything was that you learn turned off the coverage in the area they needed for the attack because he could control where star link is effective and then they had to cancel their attack. Do you think that was true now,

no, it wasn't true that the thing the area that they needed covered with startling has never been covered. So they asked him to turn it on just support a major escalation of the war, such an escalation that it could have taken out the russian fleet. It basically could have been russia's pearl harbor. How does a country respond when you take out their naval sleep? Why do we respond? We actually newt Japan twice twice and didn't we newcomb? Didn't we newcomers? only because that was the way to end the war. Some people say that Is it that we would have won anyway? It just would have been bloodier and taken longer. Bloody are on our side, and so some people said no. No, we just didn't care

died, we just don't want to lose any more americans. Maybe here's my take on it. We nuke japan because they attacked pearl harbor. Everything that happened in between was irrelevant that they attacked our homeland, sank our fleet you're, going nope sorry, everything in between the matter you're getting it moved, especially those is so is it is this version of the or is it true that you learn didn't turn them off? He simply did not agree to turn them on to support the biggest escalation of the war. We would see

I probably know, even even the question of what those drones were going to do still fog of war. So maybe it wasn't a big attack, but they're saying it was I dunno it's hard to know, but if that's the information that, most was working on that they were gonna. Take out much of the russian fleet as preparations are taking crimea, and must you said about Yeah, you can do your without me. If you can do that now. Did he just stop a nuclear war. It isn't it weird their sunday when the story of illinois. Mask is written. It probably won't include. He stopped a nuclear war.

As you can be sure you should know what would have happened if he done something else where he may have just stopped a nuclear war. One person. We have some really brave people in the public sphere. At the moment, like serious billy, brave people are junior, obviously trump. Obviously you a lot obviously and any of us who are getting cancelled, are you willing to take an arrow in the back for something we think is worth doing so I dunno

to me this was kind of awesome and I don't even have an opinion about whether was militarily good or bad or geopolitically, good or bad. I just like the fact that when he was asked, as a private citizen it'll be told the military of nato basically and ukraine to go, pay a pound sand and they had to I kind of like it, Spray bawler, but will probably find out more about that and who knows maybe leven, even though decision. My reverse, we don't know but Do you think that elands instinct, that, since nothing much is going to change no matter? What happens that we should be talking instead of escalating it makes perfect sense. Now, remember I told you you remember my wasn't a prediction I dunno if his prediction, but I said

the big variable of what's gonna happen and the ukraine situation is probably the nuts of ukrainian soldiers that they can put in the field and that that number might just from the death and injury, is my dip below a sustainable level, and that could be the big turning point in the war. But I said there would be an adjustment if they were running out of humans, they would adjusted to be more technological and, right after I said that it turns out that there was going to be fleet reportedly don't office. True, but reportedly a fleet of drones, but submarine drones. There was gonna attacked the fleet, now, presumably there's gonna be a lot of on more than one, so that be after some got through. I guess you can like a wave of technologies technology suddenly, so

Why we haven't seen that in the area that might be because they can gm easier or something now. Here's the other thing I found out about starlink the wall street journal. I think that starlink apparently can keep out of the german and the the other means of communication over there. The russians are jamming successfully, but somehow the the starlink. Engineers can keep out of the jamming I dunno how they're doing it. So it really wouldn't even be useful in a war zone if they could jam it, but that's a pretty impressive. So I think you're going to see. Just as you saw I, you know the larger threat than we've seen. That would be the largest underwater drone threat we've ever seen if it was going to be a multi multi ship attack, and that sounds like it was

But how long before we see that this guy, just blackened with drones, cause you know, we ve got what we must have thousands Don't you think we're like twenty thousand drones the sitting in the warehouse awaiting waiting to be operational in, I think so by now. So I think when the big push comes, It's gonna, be one that you gonna see. Drones like you, ve, never seen drones. That's why they are I started to develop what I call a guide to understanding the news, as my working title, I'll, tell you the the categories so suppose Somebody just didn't understand how to evaluate what they see on the news to know it's true and what isn't some others,

I heard before, but I'm going to put I'm going to write it up eventually and put it in one place. So the first thing you need to know if you're new at this is the designated liars, the people who they they put in front of the camera when the normal people just can't lie that much like all politicians can exaggerate and globally in that? But what are you just have to tell a complete lie? A thing you know did not happen and look in the camera and act like a dead Oh yeah, that doorway up I The skiff scaffold I saw myself when you need them, Can the person there only certain personalities who are willing to do that so, You knew her, they were the what you saw Monti on say to yourself. Oh, that's a signal, that's a signal that these are not serious people,

so. Here is a starting list. Adam schiff Eric swallow John Brennan, James clapper, lords, tribe, Madigan, phil, bump. Jonathan, green black of the ideal and I'm glad abbe philips of sea. That she's a promoter of the fine people, looks so that's the story. Point now, you're you're, probably to send me, but scott o goldman governments. Goldman, who are not going to add is leadership. so I'm not gonna below sea or humour because are involved and all questions so they're not a good signal. They may also be liars, but then I was singularly thinkers are involved in everything.

but I'll need summer. Now it is harder than you think and the nearest people you never know what they actually believe is true. Well, I don't want to just say, is all the all those of MSNBC and all those who cnn as one of my other went well. Other categories here is which entities are true. the fake news on the left, the ones you have to worry about would be the new york times the Washington post, MSNBC Cnn and the assertion the press? I would say that none of them were even slightly credible political news. Would you agree? None of them are.

at all and I would say, on the right: you'd be looking at fox news and gateway pundit as your fake news places. Would you agree with that?. Now the trouble with gateway pundit is, I think they sometimes have scoops, but more often it's stuff that doesn't check out. While I dunno, if is more often it's just the other their lower credibility entities here, maybe I'm here I don't want to just. I didn't want to just list every left leading entity that because you can go deeper, basically every entity as a bias, so I don't want to just say. All the biases The ones that are really signals are the ones you have to worry about. This is not in the new york times and washed imposed a pro

It won't be anywhere else right, but if it's, what in one of these entities is probably gonna, be everywhere so and then, of course, the most important part was Teach it I'll teach people how to know how credible any story is based on its elements for For example, the these are things that are probably true, not necessarily, but just a hint it's probably true. If one side either the left or the right hides the story, so it's different. If one side says is true and the other sizes it's not, but if one just won't mention it. It's probably true, probably true, if both sides reported the same, if the left and the right entities reported the same, probably trip.

How about if all studies for years and years are pointing in the same direction like every time. You do a study. No matter! I! U slice it! No matter what you study same direction, for example cigarettes,

in lung cancer. I'm pretty sure that every way you study that you get the same answer, that means is probably true, but not necessarily because we've seen, for example, alcohol is good for you in small quantities the the those studies would forever, but of course, we're not true about if, if one narrative predicts better than the other, that's more likely true or you could treat, it is true, so there are some frames that just don't or narratives just never predict anything and some that predict everything. So if you, if you hear one that predicts everything, is one of those types such as follow the money follow the money is a pretty good thing for predicting. So it's also is

for truth. I suppose you have a witness who has direct knowledge of a situation and is under oath and the public. You know who they are they're under oath and they have direct knowledge. They didn't hear from somebody. They saw themselves pretty good, pretty good, not guaranteed. If you have two of them and they're, not friends or something and they've seen it from different angles, say the same thing, that's much more likely to be true or if you have witnesses plus docking. since then you're in real good shape. So if you've got somebody who was there, there are public, they saw directly, but also there's an email or something that supports them. You're you're, in pretty good shape in that case, but that's rare that the the hunter laptop and that stuff that does fall into that category of direct witnesses and lots of documents.

About as true as anything can get here are some things that are more like a coin. Flip could be true, maybe not one scientific paper that has not yet been peer, reviewed. You don't really know anything about it about one scientific paper that has been peer, reviewed exactly the same. The peer review does not give you any benefit in terms of credibility. We used to thinking that and that they could find like really big mistakes, but if somebody publishes a scientific paper without a peer review that sort of as a peer review, because everybody's going to look at it, you would pretty soon

are strong objections, so it's sort of a bad peer review, but it's kind of one. How about if some things are meta analysis, if if they say well, the individual studies weren't thus wrong, but when we summed them together and you did our magic called a meta analysis, it. The results are very clear once you do that, that analysis definitely one direction. That is no more than a coin. Flint matter now, as somebody deciding was in the study in what isn't so it's now science, somebody deciding watson and what is fifty percent chance that they got it right. How about, if there's a video or oreo of an event that people question really happened, video and or audio of event, no more than fifty percent chance.

Because for every everything, that's a real video of a real than just the way happened. There is at least one there's misleading, at least one, maybe more because videos, misleading thing in world level and we used to think a photograph doesn't lie. I'm old enough to think that was real photograph doesn't like of course I photographed lies. Video lies even better an audio lies best of all their all liars gets a fifty fifty. Even if there's a video or an audio, the ones where you can pretty much make a lot of money if you can bet on these being fake. So these are the things that probably fake. Everything were lots of money is involved. The new is never real when lots of money is involved, whether as a war or a pandemic,

as soon as there lots of money involved, you just don't believe anything to say. bull, cnn and fox lucy? Something didn't happen, boliden. You ve got one anonymous source, probably fake. One anonymous sources. Almost this like the classic fake news, one another. Source. It usually you see that a book well, a book about eleven behind the curtains. I've got this one anonymous source there. Never will To anonymous sources, we don't know we either are with her two of them and they say the same thing: nope, probably not true they're just adding the second fake ones. So it sounds more true. Now, there's no credibility to to anonymous people, no credibility about

the only photos you can get her fuzzy. You just can't get a clean photograph bid for ufos, probably not you're. Probably that you get all those photographs can't get a good one rose. Fuzzy about randomized control, trial, funded by somebody, has an interest in the outcome. It's randomized controlled. That's the gold standard. you can't complain if its randomized and controlled and it's a big study. Yes, you can, if has funded by somebody, has an interest in the outcome. Has no evidentiary value? Not you just imagine. I imagine that you can't get that many scientists to be weasels, but we know we can you can get

entire world of scientists to be as weasel as you want? You just threaten their money, while you'll never get a job again, unless you agree with the mainstream okay. I agree it's easy. How about the best argument is that the experts are on the same side. That's our best argument I'll, get I'll grant you that the data we're using people question that some people say it's good. Some people say it's bad, but the thing you should listen to is that the experts have a good sense of which, which ones are good and what's bad, you as a layperson can't really tell but the experts which studies to believe our studies not to do so under those conditions. If somebody says ninety percent I'll just take a number say savvy says, ninety seven percent of experts are on the same side, but the data is in question by other people. That means that they are the monetary interested

and therefore their opinions are worthless. Ninety seven percent of experts agree in the context in the context where the data itself that there look at you you're not quite confident in Israel and that condition ninety seven percent scientists degree just means are being paid to agree indirectly, meaning they never get a job. If they disagreed. That's all it means. So you should reverse your your instinct when you say ninety seven percent of experts agree that should tell you that it's a fake, it shouldn't tell you it's true, but if one scientist gives you the what a great argument that would be a little bit more persuasive one person with a great argument that you could check like. Oh, let me check that one is right about that, but ninety seven percent, that's just a huge raging signal of fakery or some other tricks.

So you are the ones that I call pure propaganda if your news mentions that are a lot of heat des because of climate change, but they never imagine how many called. Thus there are so that you know both the costs and benefits. If they always leave out one of those sides, they always leave out the cost like always, or they always leave out the benefits, always when it will be easy dimension that they both exist as propaganda. So if somebody tells you were in trouble because some places are getting harder without mentioning that that would be better for some places. That's not any kind of news has just said:

together. So look for the look for the dog not barking their part. They leave out if their arguing by analogies instead of data, that's a sign for no real argument. People don't use analogies when they real arguments. it can use analogy just to paint a general picture. So somebody knows what you're talking about, but that's not the argument. An analogy. Can you know, get you in the the general zip code of what you're both talking about, but it can't it can't win a debate, because the analogy is that is literally a different thing. You can't learn about this thing by looking at a different thing: So if you see people leaning on analogies such as this is just like hitler- that's probably not real.

If you see too much, what about is that's a sign of a weak argument. If the response to criticism is what about isn't that's the first response now, what about ism is perfectly legitimate. If has now you're only point is, if, as you go to, then you don't have an argument. There's no argument is that if we have to rely on what about him, you don't have anything about and ears and tricks that the general public does know about. You know about all this. Deadline doesn't match the story. You know people know read the story. They just like that, like that. That track is just so classic and if you are worried about the headline, not matching the story. Where do you look in the body of the story to find the part where they kind of admit that line doesn't match the story? It's at the end. so. If you saw the way to read the news deadline,

I then ignore it because headlines don't match stories. You read the first paragraph, because all good writers is pretty much everybody in the news. Business will tell you the basic thing in the first paragraph, which might be the misleading thing. My bill, misleading, but I'll, give you think everything this in the middle you can ignore, and then you go in the last paragraph. Where I'll. Tell you that everything the red was bullshit. The very common libya like we found out that the climate change is gonna, make the butterflies turn vicious. The butterflies decided to say will be attacking people and tearing their lungs out. So we're all gonna die from the butterfly attacks, and then you get to the last paragraph and will be

but it should be noted that butterflies do not have the mass or strength to hurt anybody whatsoever, and we would just use insecticides that make them go away and the whole story was nothing like the the debunk their own stories. In the last paragraph, you have to read the last paragraph of anything in the news than the idea that the older correction method. So something you know isn't true? It becomes the big story for days and days and weeks, and then you issue a correction because you knew it wasn't true. You're like well. Well, correction, didn't mean it and nobody sees the correction. So the fake news just lives forever corrections don't matter. So you see that trick. Then there's the wrap up smear Nancy Pelosi talks about. Let's see, if I have this right cause, I

we're conflating the wrap up smear with a different thing, but I think they are the same where, where somebody will leak to a journalist, something that's not true, the journalists will write it as if it is true and then the politician who leaked it says. Well, don't look at me. It's in the news. I mean the new york times. Wrote about it. So how about you leave me alone and go talk to the new york times? What did they say is true, I mean I says through first, but the ring with me. Obviously the news agrees with me: I'm right you're wrong that that's what the rapporteur smear is right, were you launder your fake opinions through their thank news so that you can say all not me

There is also the twenty four hour rule five before twenty four hour rule. Would this be a good book that shouldn't be a book? You should be more like a pamphlet, but that, but this would be useful to train people at a rhythm. I think it would be there's another one that you need to know what is science and what is not science, because because a lot of our new and a lot of the politics is based on what we think is sites, so you take climate change.

climate change. The science is that c: o two is a greenhouse gas and you could test it on lots of different ways and pretty much whenever you test that you say yup, it's a greenhouse gas me too, meaning that if it's in the atmosphere is one of several things that would keep the heat from escaping the earth, so it traps with it. But it's not the only thing: clouds blah blah blah right. So if somebody says that the basic science is that c, o two is a greenhouse thing, so it should cost a mormon that would be science, but if they make a model to project world will be in fifty years. That is not science that is marketing, sometimes propaganda. The the best I can do if I were legitimate, which it isn't in this case, is tell you the code of possibilities, but nobody can predict anything in five years, much less fifty. You can't really predict anything in one year, most of the time. So if you imagine that the projection models are actually science, you would be completely misled about. What's going on there, the marketing arm, so the people who do science can get more money and scare you sorry dawn. It's probably hurting your head will just get rid of you do do to know.

To make dawn, go away by dawn, boo, boo, alright, so here's the question. I know that this is a rebate for most of you slow news day, so try and try to make something useful out of this. But do you think you could to reprogram anybody so that their politics was different simply because they learned how to interpret the news? Do you think that's the thing Or anything, nobody would ever change their mind because they wouldn't they would just look at it and say: oh, this isn't pro well. What I'd like is here's the ultimate, the ultimate expression that you could grade any story by these characteristics.

So so you can say, for example, the save some the posts, the story, this in some publication. You can leave a comment. There just picks out the way, the reasons that make a low confidence like. Well, it's a nominal source bubble up some kind of like thing just paste in every time. Someone does it like a community notes So one of the things that the community notes doesn't do is they don't tell you how to and how to look for problems. They'll just tell you if a fact is wrong, which is useful, but it doesn't tell you

it's like well. An anonymous source should not be believed. They might just tell you there is or is not an anonymous source or or that it was a was reported that there was one how'd we get afraid of greenhouses. People would think I have a thin skin that that that's the NBC take, we all got afraid you'll go to if anybody doesn't I can only think there are blamed of having a thin skin that lets the npc attack, the npc say, you're, a flip flopper you're, a fence sitter and you have thin skin.

Those are all the lowest level of analytical ability, wrinkly skin, maybe four skin. Well, that's another story. The so here's what we might need to do if, if we end up putting on a mask rebellion, which I think is likely we're going to have to find groups of people who want to go in

two places at the same time. So, in other words, if you were, if you could find a way to agree with your anti mass neighbors, that you're all going to go grocery shopping between seven and eight pm, and then you just show up and bass without masks and nobody's going to bother you if there are enough of you, so you have to go in numbers. The the problem is, if you go as a wednesday they'll, kick you out, yeah yeah. Basically flashmob. So you want to just break everybody. You can break right away, but the the cleverness of how it's being rolled out is pretty good cause. They're they're, making sure it's the people you don't want to boycott. So first it'll be like medical professional,

And you know you saw me, I'm like I do, I'm not going to attack medical professionals, I'm just not going to do it. So you know if you might not like to hear this, but if my healthcare provider wants me to wear a mask inside a healthcare facility, I'm not going to second guess them. I don't think it's necessary, especially if I do have symptoms, because the whole point is you're supposed to wear the mask if you're, the one who has symptoms but now the latest information is that asymptomatic spreading was basically zero. It was people with symptoms, so my common sense tells me I wouldn't need a mask and a medical facility, but that's not where I'd pick a fight lie. I don't think the nurses and doctors need that kind of bullshit in their lives like let them do what they can solve I'll put up with that annoyance, and I know

If the government knows that they know that if your doctor requires it you're going to you're going to fold because that's not the flight, you want to then they're going to go for, like the airlines and the airlines will say: hey it. Wasn't our decision. The government just made us, do it. What choice do we? it'll, be go airlines I guess it's not really your fault, so I probably in the military right now, like I can't really boycott the military so so there.

we're going to sneak it in all the places that you can't boycott and then they're going to have started threatening the big companies. You know with all kinds of things, but at some point you're going to have to destroy a big entity or, more so you're, going to have to take out like all fortune five hundred company you just gotta, bring some company to it's knees totally, but it won't be until at some some capitalistic free market company that gets involved, but they asked to be brutal that we have to actually destroy a corporation that doesn't deserve it right. So when, when we do it and probably will take down, a big company asked me a company that doesn't matter if they deserve it, and it doesn't matter how much you like them, and it doesn't matter how much you like

products it doesn't matter if your brother works for the company is gonna, take about a business, because this war war ass casualties- and this would definitely be a war in my opinion, and I also think that the point where I would lose all allegiance to america. Basically I mean I wouldn't be a trader, but It would be hard to love my country if they make me put a mask on again or try. That would be a hard stretch for me. Alright, that's all I got for you today youtube thanks for joining. Maybe the news will be more interesting tomorrow, bye for now.