Confirmation Bias

the decision has been made. The decision is that the United States will buy or just take Greenland and it won't be forever from now. Almost certainly would happen within the next three years. And if we move at what I call Trump's speed, you know how everything Trump does is faster. If you put the usual filter on it, you say, "Well, how many years is it going to take to negotiate it or you have a military reaction or something?" And the answer is, if this were a normal president, it might take longer than the president is even in office. But in the world of Trump speed, Trump could get this done in six months. And I'd say there's a good chance he will. Not a 100% chance, but he's the only president who could say, "Starting now, we're going to own Greenland in six months" and mean it and actually pull it off. Jonathan Turley, who's a great writer by the way, I love his writing, he says, "Are you not entertained? Democrats announced new impeachment games to draw midterm voters." And the funny part is that the thing he would be impeached for if it happened would be using the military without the kind of approval that you would want to have from Congress. But the awkward thing is that the so-called designated liars on the Democrat si

Episode 3065 CWSA 01/07/26

number is invalid, it doesn't change whether you can vote? Does that look like they're even trying to have a credible system or does it look like no matter what the situation is, if you're going to vote Democrat, you're definitely going to be able to vote? Kind of looks like the latter. Pretty sketchy looking. But you know, I feel like there's a version of Gell-Mann amnesia that applies here to our election systems. Now I'll remind you what Gell-Mann amnesia is. Most of you have heard it a hundred times. But that's the idea that there was this physicist, his name was Gell-Mann, and he noticed that when he saw stories about physics and he knew what was true and what wasn't, he could tell that the story was fake or full of errors. But then he would turn the page on what was the newspaper at the time and he'd see the next story and he would just assume that the next story is probably accurate. And then finally after seeing that pattern for years, wait a minute. Could it be true that every time I see a story that I know the truth, I can tell the reporting is wrong, but every time I see a story where I don't have any expertise, I assume it's true? Isn't it more likely that they're all fake or nearly all fake? And so that's the Gell-Mann amnesia. But there's a version of that that we do. And it's not that, but I'm sort of reminded of it. And it needs its own name. We'll call it the Scott Adams amnesia. Yeah, that's it. Let's call it Scott Adams amnesia because you get to name it after who comes up with it, right? So Scott Adams amnesia is that you read a story in the newspaper about, let's say, the charities in Minnesota stealing a billion dollars and then you turn the page and it's a story about some other criminal behavior in the government and you turn the page and you find out that some other big money entity was also stealing your money and then you turn the page to the story about our elections and it says our elections are pristine. Even though they're run by different people with different processes and different states and precincts, every one of them has got a pristine perfect record. And even if there was some little problem, it wouldn't be anything important. And so we live in a world in which everything is corrupt except for our election systems. Now, Scott Adams amnesia says you could not possibly believe that our election systems are pristine if you've noted that every other thing is not right. You don't have to have specific information about what's wrong with their elections. You don't need that. You don't need specific proof. You don't need a court case. If everything else is corrupt, come on. Everything else is corrupt. This is th

Episode 3034 CWSA 12/02/25

y tried to get across the Mexican border, the Venezuelans would probably, you know, we've already stopped them. Excuse me while I take a sip from my awesome water thermos bottle that will make you wish you had one. So if you're just joining, I'm using my NPR ASMR voice to conserve my energy so I can go as long as possible. Probably won't go more than 20 minutes, but we'll see. All right. So it looks like we're at least teasing going to Venezuela. But here's the real question. I'm going to get into some conspiracy theory stuff. It sounds better when you talk like this. Conspiracy theories. Is it really about the drugs? Maybe. Some people say fentanyl is not a Venezuela problem. So there must be some other reason Trump wants to go into Venezuela. Is it because Venezuela has some implication in our election systems? I'm going to talk about that separately. Is it because what we really want is regime change? So do you think the war on Venezuelan drugs is about voting machines? Is it really about drugs? Or is it really about regime change? Or is it some combination of all three or two? And how would we ever know? Now today, this morning, since it was slow news, I had some gaps in my understanding of some recent stories. And so I used Grok to fill me in and it ruined all my fun. Has anybody tried that yet? Have you tried using Grok on stories within your own bubble? You will be very disappointed if you do. Not disappointed in Grok necessarily, but you'll be disappointed in how many things you believe that are pure fiction. So my experience this morning was, "All right, Grok, does this look reasonable?" Nope. How about this? Does this look reasonable? Nope. So it turns out that there were several things that I thought were at least possible in my bubble that Grok says were not. Now that doesn't mean that Grok is right. Grok is intended to achieve maximum truth, but it's not done yet. You know, Grok is still a work in progress. So it's possible that Grok is the one that's wrong, but it's pretty convincing. So the first thing I used Grok to help me on was the Emerald Robinson long thread in which she weaves together a very convincing story that our elections have been fake basically for years as well as the elections in other countries and that there's a very specific set of allegations of why that is. But so I ran that against Grok and I said basically summarize it and then tell me how reasonable it is. What do you think Grok said? Grok wasn't buying any of it. So Emerald Robinson's thread, and I'll just throw out some of the main points. So one of the points is that the chips in election machines are made in China. Do you believe that's true? And that they have malicious code basically, that the chips are malicious but that they were laundered through Taiwan so it would look like the chips came from Taiwan but they really were made in China. So I'm not sure that's proven. Then there was the allegation that one of the main election machines had as its CEO a George Soros ally. So there's a Soros connection alleged and there's a Chinese chip part, but there's also a Venezuelan software allegation. And there's something about Serbian servers and the CIA. So the idea would be, and here's the part I was trying to understand, how in the world could all of those entities be working together? How could Soros be working with China who is also working with some Serbians who is also being managed maybe by the CIA? Does it seem like they would all be on the same team? And Grok's explanation is that the CIA, now this would not be Grok's opinion, it's description of someone else's opinion. But the idea would be that the CIA is allowing with full knowledge China to manipulate our elections and Soros to manipulate them and some Serbians and maybe some Venezuelan software. And that the reason that the CIA would allow all that is that somehow that would preserve the deep state as it is now. Do you think Chinese microchips, if such a thing were real, do you think that all those entities would be working toward the same end and that the CIA would be completely aware of it and allow it to happen? And then separately, why didn't it work in 2024? If our elections are completely compromised, why in the world didn't it work in 2024? And the explanation given is that the good work of the people trying to uncover this vast conspiracy were so good at what they did that it increased the potential for audits and the oversight and that in some cases they got rid of election machines. I don't know how many places but so the theory is that for maybe decades the entire system has been rigged, that hundreds of people are aware of it and part of it but yet somehow we only hear about it from a few whistleblowers even though decades and hundreds of people have been involved. That's a stretch. But we have seen real world situations where hundreds of people have been involved and it was actually a conspiracy. COVID, for example, that was an example of a lot of people being involved who could have been whistleblowers but weren't. So we do have some precedent of lots of people being involved and nobody talking because they'd be afraid of being executed presumably by the CIA. So how much of that sounds real to you? Do you believe that all of those entities, let's see, I'll give you the entities again. It would have been the Soros organization, Venezuela, some Serbian hackers, the Chinese making microchips, and the CIA. Do you believe that they were all coordinating? That's kind of a stretch. I'm just looking at your comments. So Grok's spot on. Well let me tell you what else. Just give you as much as I have. First of all, the story is kind of confusing. Exactly. It's a big confusing story. So that's your first hint that maybe there's something wrong. Meaning there's a lot of parts to it. And if there's one thing I've taught you and only one thing, it's that things which are not true can often have a lot of circumstantial evidence that they are. So it's not unusual for something not to be true but really looking like it is for 20 different reasons. That just doesn't mean it's true. So let's see what else. I also looked to Mike Benz to tell me if this all tracks. And I think Mike, I don't want to mischaracterize him, but I think he would be on the side of not completely embracing the Emerald Robinson version of events. I didn't see him debunk it, but nor did I see him fully embracing it. If he had that would have added a lot to the credibility because he knows the context of things in ways we don't. Anyway, so part of the theory is that the reason that the bad people got away with it is that they learned to shave votes only from the deep red pro-Trump districts. And the idea is that nobody would suspect if they did all the cheating in the red areas because the red areas are Republican controlled and you wouldn't expect those to be the places that there would be cheating against Trump. And the theory is that if it's a Trump 70% area that if they just shave it back to say 68% nobody would notice because it would still be a landslide for Trump in a Trump area. So that would look legit. It would just look oh it's off by 2% from what we expected. But you know you can't expect that accurately. So that makes sense. I don't think there's proof of that, but it makes sense in the how would you cheat? If you did cheat, how would you do it? So it makes sense that way, but I don't think there's evidence of that. I've been saying for a while that the best evidence that the electronic voting machines are not legit without stating who might be behind any bad behavior is that they're not cheaper, they're not easier, and they're not more secure than the alternative, which is paper ballots. So why do they even exist? I'm leaning toward the idea that they do exist for the purpose of rigging elections in other countries. But that would still raise the question, who's doing the rigging? Is it possible that the CIA was working with Maduro and China? I don't know how all that makes sense. Anyway, so let's see what else Grok said about it. The theory that the CIA allegedly allowed China to insert spyware because they were okay with it. Does that really track? Does it make sense to you that there would be at least two or three entities that all had some access to be able to rig the vote? I don't know. So I'm going to say this about that. First of all, Grok, there's really a spoiler. This won't be the first thing I tell you that they kind of debunked. Now debunk is a strong word and it does not mean disproven. So just get that part straight. Grok did not disprove the theory. It simply did not find it compelling, I guess. But is that evidence? Are you convinced by Grok's opinion? Well one of the things that Grok did was it mocked me and actually it used me as an example in its response. It said it sounded more like a Scott Adams conspiracy theory. And I said, "Why'd you bring me into it?" And that was the funny part. Grok knows who I am. It knows who I am, but it also used me as an example to make its point. Anyway, got a little personal there. All right. So I also tested Grok against the Mike Benz hypothesis, I'll call it that, that it's not a coincidence that there are these big immigration waves into America that follow some kind of CIA color revolution in another country. So I think he had some examples, maybe there were like eight different examples of countries where we were actively, meaning the CIA was actively trying to do a regime change and caused instability in the target country, be it Syria or Afghanistan. And then once that disruption of their society happened and it triggered a bunch of immigration or migration out of the target country, that there was a secondary benefit that the deep state or the CIA or somebody knew would happen. And what they would do is they would aim the refugees for areas where the extra population could be used to change the vote. And Mike gave a bunch of examples that you would have to believe that they were all a coincidence for that to be any other reason. In other words, it does look intentional, but only by the fact that there are too many coincidences. But Grok, I thought, was going to buy into this a little bit more than it did. Grok said that there's no evidence of intent. So it didn't doubt Mike Benz's facts. It only said there's a part missing which is some evidence that anybody intended for this to happen. We can observe that it does happen. We can observe that something like color revolutions that we're pushing in other places does create mass migration and we can observe that it changes the political dynamic in certain places. But the part that's missing is some kind of a more direct smoking gun that it's all intentional. At least the intentional part is that it's partly to change the voting balance in the United States. So that ruined some of my fun there. As far as I can tell, Mike is undefeated in terms of showing his receipts, but sometimes you have to make a little bit of a leap and say, well, this doesn't look like a coincidence or if it is a coincidence, it's sure a weird one. So I would say that Grok was not at all convinced. Now again I remind you that doesn't mean Grok is right. That was just sort of Grok's take. Then this one will kill you. You ready for another one? I don't want to ruin all of your fun with the conspiracy theories because they are fun and I get drawn into them as much as anybody else. All right. So I saw a post by Eric Daugherty that summarized what a number of other people have said about the seditious six. You know, the seditious six, that would be the six Democrats who did the video that suggested that people in the military should not follow orders that are illegal. Now as Eric points out, and this would be what I'd call the Republican bubble. Doesn't mean it's wrong. Doesn't mean it's right. It's just what the Republicans are saying on social media, but you know, maybe the Democrats don't even see it. I don't even know if they see it. But it goes like this. There is an alleged, and everything I say about this will be alleged, an alleged nonprofit linked to George Soros that is fomenting sedition within the military. So the thinking is that the video we saw was inspired by or even the script was written by some third party external bad player and that that bad player might be linked to maybe George Soros. But also there's some group called Win Without War that put up a billboard, just one billboard in North Carolina. And that was similar in tone to the seditious six. So that would suggest there's some external maybe larger play bigger than just some Democrats wanting to do a thing. There's some link to Antifa allegedly. And then as Eric Daugherty is reporting, that on November 11th, just days before the video, the National Lawyers Guild published a page urging service members to refuse illegal orders. And it would be basically the same talking points as in the video. And then Win Without War, that entity. Let me see if I got the right entities. So there's a National Lawyers Guild, but there's also the Win Without War nonprofit, I think, who are backed by the Soros Open Society and the group had some previous name. All right. So and then the Win Without War is partnered with the National Lawyers Guild. Is this all too confusing? So the short version is that the belief is that the six Democrats were not doing this on their own, that there was some external guiding force still unidentified that allegedly had some connection with Soros. I guess the National Lawyers Guild supports Antifa. And then here's the key part. There's something that Sen

Episode 3030 CWSA 11/28/25

more of Ukraine so you don't have to. You got it. Just do not let this come out." Is that possible? Maybe. I mean, Trump's a dealmaker. If you handed him the leverage to win a bunch of negotiations with Great Britain, you're going to ask about Israel, right? But so in your own mind, you could throw that in there if you want. So it could be that Trump knows that if he doesn't give away the secrets, then he gets to use them as his own leverage, which might be, and again, this is just speculation. I'm just showing you that there's a wide range of what could be behind all this. Some of it's good, some of it's bad. We may never know. But Trump would definitely have an advantage if he was the only one who knew or the only politician who knew what the real situation was and who was involved. All right. Let's see what else. Now this is fun. Let's see how many of you think this is a complete coincidence. So does this have anything to do with Epstein, the next thing I'm going to talk about, or is this just total coincidence? Trump has written a letter to the Israeli president asking him to pardon Netanyahu from what he thinks is a lawfare kind of unjustified prosecution which has been going on for years. The *Washington Examiner* is writing about this. And it was a long, well-written letter in which Trump made his argument of why they were treating Netanyahu unfairly. And a big part of the argument is that Trump and Netanyahu are such a good team that they could accomplish unprecedented things, but not if Netanyahu is in jail. So a pardon would be a good thing for us allegedly. But certainly you would see this as Trump doing a favor, wouldn't you? It looks like Trump doing a favor for Netanyahu. Now, he doesn't do favors just to do favors. Well, that's not true. Sometimes he does. He did favors to me just to do a favor. So there's some reason he's doing it now. And it could be that the reason is it's just the right time to do it because Gaza is moving forward in a productive way. Things worked out. Netanyahu's reputation probably isn't going to get better. This would be a good time to strike. But then I was curious what exactly is he being accused of? And I'm still not entirely sure. But apparently there were $200,000 worth of what they call extravagant gifts that he accepted while in office. Netanyahu did extravagant gifts. Now when Trump talked about the extravagant gifts, he was minimizing it and he said you were talking about champagne and cigars and Trump was acting like, you know, come on.

Episode 3017 CWSA 11/13/25

rm? Isn't every successful entrepreneur a norm violator? Can you think of anybody who didn't violate a norm? Did Steve Jobs violate any norms? Yeah. Yeah. Did Trump violate any norms to get a deal in Gaza? Yeah. Yeah. That's exactly what he did. He violated all the norms. Did he violate norms to get elected president? And at least half of the country is very, very happy that he did. Yeah. Yeah. And are we getting used to him when he violates norms? Yes. The act that he put on in the Middle East, he violated so many norms, you know, the way he treated the other leaders, you could make your own list, but he's not really a slave to norms. Would you want him to be? Now, the reason I started out by saying that Pinker is smarter than me and smarter than you, I mean, if he took an IQ test, he'd beat me. He'd beat most of you, too. The point is that intelligence doesn't help as much as you think because he's clearly, you know, I can't read his mind. So let me be a little bit humble there. I can't read his mind. And if I could, maybe I wouldn't understand it because, like I said, he's smarter than me. So here's what it looks like. What it looks like is that people have started with the answer Trump bad and now they're trying to rationalize it which looks like cognitive dissonance which looks like Trump derangement syndrome. When you see somebody this smart say something that in my opinion I won't say it's dumb. It just seems disconnected from reality to imagine that violating a norm would automatically be bad. Now, I think somebody told me that somewhere he softened it a little bit. So if I'm being too harsh, I apologize in advance, but what I saw was this was part of what the Democrats are retreating to. They're trying to retreat to something they can support because everything you can measure is starting to go pro-Trump. Right? If you can measure the crime, Trump reduced it. If you can measure the number of people coming across the border, Trump reduced it. If you can measure how much he's collecting in tariffs, he's collecting a lot of money in tariffs. So you see everywhere that you can measure it, Trump either has a good argument or he's just flat out winning. So they have to retreat to things you can't measure which is oh the character. Oh, I know. What about his norms? What about his norms? He's violating norms and character and we think he's going to steal your democracy. Do you see the pattern? They have to completely retreat to unverifiable non-measurable things otherwise they've got nothing. Now there are some things where you can argue whether the numbers are right and you know that they can do that a little bit but mostly overall if you can measure it Trump is killing it right and if you can't measure it well that's where they have to go live because it's the only way to protect their TDS is that they're really the smart ones. That's what they think. They're really the smart ones and they can tell just by reading his mind that there's a bunch of bad stuff in there that's going to come out any minute. Well, I don't know if you saw the video of Gavin Newsom when he was asked on some podcast I guess about his involvement with AIPAC. Now, I usually don't show videos on my podcast because it's sort of a distraction, but you have to watch this. I'm going to instead of show video, I'm going to give you my impression of Gavin Newsom being asked about if he took money from AIPAC. And it goes like this. You're like the first to bring up AIPAC in years, which is interesting. That's interesting. It's interesting. It's interesting. I haven't thought about AIPAC. Oh, it's been years now. But it's interesting. It's interesting that he would bring that up. And after he'd said it was interesting and he hadn't really thought about it, after he said it like three times, I started thinking, "What's wrong with you? Like, you're acting weird. It's interesting. Why are you acting so weird?" And then after he said it three times, he couldn't stop saying it. He said it maybe 10 times in a row. Now, there are some things that you can say three times in a row for emphasis, and everybody gets that. If you can say it 10 times in a row without adding anything in between, there's something going on. There's something wrong. So here's how not to act. If somebody asked you if you're being influenced by AIPAC, "I haven't thought about it. Well, it's interesting. It's interesting. I haven't thought about it. I don't even think about it. Well, it's just not even. It's interesting. Well, you know, that's interesting. That's interesting." Don't do that. That's my advice. Just don't do that. Well, the Supreme Court has rejected Alex Jones' appeal. You know, he was being sued by the Sandy Hook people for I guess it's up to $1.4 billion judgment that nobody could pay. Well, he can't pay. And so at this point his personal assets and all of his business assets are, I believe, forfeited to the people who won the lawsuit. Now, here's my question. Alex Jones has through his hard work over the years has developed himself into an asset that many many people find very valuable. Do we lose that? I mean, there's a human element, too, which is I care about him as a person. I like Alex Jones. He's been nice to me, right? So everybody who knows him likes him. So in person apparently he's very likable. So I want him to do well and I don't want him to, if you call this a mistake and I think that would be fair. The Sandy Hook thing it does look like a mistake but do you want to lose everything he has to offer to the world which I think is a lot because of that one mistake. And it's not like he's going to jail, but how in the world is he allowed to make a living and also contribute to taxes, contribute to the world, contribute to the way we see or think. So that's an actual question. How do you go on? Because it looks like they would take whatever. So his business is gone, but let's say he reconstitutes a new business. That wouldn't be the hardest thing. But if he starts making money again, isn't that all attached? Like all the money that comes in just goes right to the lawsuit people. So how do you, is there any path to recover from that? So the question I'm going to ask is is there a way given that he has extensive network of people who would probably help him is there a way that you could structure it so that he would be reimbursed for expenses in a way that would allow him to have a decent lifestyle. That wouldn't look like income because if it's income he's got to give it up. But if it's not income, so for example, could he build a world where he appears on podcasts and he gets an expense account from the podcasters, you know, maybe some of the big ones. Is there any model that he can make that work? I'm concerned about him. Anyway, we'll see. Europe's having a drug shortage. So I guess the pharmacies are running on empty and that has to do with their own regulations getting in the way, but China must be restricting some things. So is this going to come to us? Because I haven't noticed any drug restrictions in the US and I get a lot of meds at the moment. But that's scary. So apparently in Europe there are people who need these drugs who just can't get them, just not available. That's really scary. Wired says that satellites, maybe a lot of the satellites that are already in the air, believe it or not, don't have encrypted data. So apparently with a very small investment, you can start taking the private data off of the satellites. Not all of them, but a huge number of satellites are not encrypted and you can just get all their stuff. Did you know that? Did you know that you could just read the satellite messages if you had an $800 piece of equipment? Well, that's bad. Ex-admiral, I guess maybe are you always an admiral? But the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, guy named Admiral James Stavridis, he was telling NewsNation that Trump should definitely give Ukraine Tomahawk missiles so it can go after Putin's oil and gas capabilities. So what do you think of that? I think he's with the Carlyle Group now. So do you trust that or is that just a military-industrial complex kind of an opinion and less of a military opinion? But he does say that the key is to go after the oil and gas capabilities. I've been telling you for a while that it's a robot versus energy war. So the robot drones and other robots from both sides are going hard at the energy resources of the other especially because winter is coming. So that's what the war is now. The war is energy versus

Episode 2989 CWSA 10/15/25

tance to Trump than there is. They might keep the government closed. Like that would be one of the reasons to keep it closed. Oh my god, our government is terrible. At least half of it is. Anyway, well, I don't know if that's the real reason, but I saw one of the organizers of that No Kings rally, and he was walking this real fine line because he wanted people to feel outraged about what's happening in the country so that they would be incentivized to go to the protest. So he wants them to feel unhappy to go to the protest, but he wanted to sell the protest as a good time so that more people would go because he's in the business of organizing protests. So he tried to tell you how much fun you would have with meeting new people and having friends and it'd be a nice day out. And he was trying to sell them at the same time that we're suffering this existential threat to our democracy. And by the way, it'll be a good time. Yeah, it's like a party. Oh, did I mention it's an existential threat to the entire country, but you'll meet some nice people. It's more about the nice people you meet along the way. And he totally can't sell it because you just can't do those same things at the same time. And watching how artificial and fake it is and then hearing that they might keep the government closed just to get enough people to go to the fake stupid completely irrational protests. Wow, good work, Democrats. So one of the questions people had about this Letitia James indictment for bank fraud, they say, is are these claims going to hold up or is it just a bunch of BS and her lawyers will get it wiped away pretty soon? Well, I saw a gentleman on X who goes by the name SMB Attorney and he had an explanation about what probably went on with this bank loan fraud stuff based on his experience as years as a mortgage banker. Right? So he's going to give you inside information about a mortgage banker's knowledge of how this may or may not have happened. Now, what I'm talking about is Letitia James, the AG, who's been indicted for bank fraud, allegedly. Let's see what she claimed that she classified a property intentionally wrong or accidentally wrong. So that's what we're going to determine. But here's SMB Attorney describing what you need to know, some context. All right. So first of all, he has lots of experience in that business. He was a mortgage lender for years, mortgage banker for years. He goes, "Here's the deal. How you classify a property as a primary, secondary, or investment home changes everything about the loan. The down payment, the interest rate, the underwriting, all of it. Primary or secondary homes can get by with as little as 3 to 10% down. Investme

Episode 2985 CWSA 10/11/25