All Episodes
Previous Next
June 16, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
31:02
Episode 73 - Cancelling North Korea Summit, Collusion Sequel and Brennan
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Bum, bum bum, bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum Guess what I have in my hand?
No, it's coffee.
And I'm about to sip it.
In many cases, it will be simultaneous with your own sippage at home.
And you know what kind of sippage is the best.
Simultaneous. Wait.
Fake out. Ah.
Ah. Grab your coffee.
Grab your coffee. Quick. Here we go.
Ah. That's good simultaneous coffee.
So, looking at the news today, seeing what's new, and it seems that, well, let's start with one observation.
You know, when all of the Yanni versus Laurel stuff happened, It felt like it was this big moment of awareness, like the world had gone to a new level where we realized that there's not so much right and wrong, but rather we're just seeing two movies that are completely different.
And I thought that...
I thought the public was kind of picking up on that.
And then yesterday I watched a guest on...
It might have been Chris Wallace's show.
And he used the Laurel and Yanni analogy.
Is it an analogy or a metaphor?
I don't know what it is. But he was using it as, I guess, an analogy to politics.
And saying, well, these people politically are hearing Yanni.
These others are hearing...
Laurel, and I'm thinking to myself, yes, yes, that's it.
You know, even the pundits on TV now understand that we're all hearing different things.
And then he says, but the smart people are all hearing Yanni.
We were so close.
So close to a new level of awareness.
So close. Or I thought.
Maybe we were never close.
But the key learning of Yanni and Laurel, as applied to the larger world, is that we're all seeing our own interpretation of things and that the old model of some people are smart or well-informed and some people are dumb or uninformed is completely a debunked model of reality.
And I thought we had it!
And still, this pundit says, yeah, but all the smart people hear Yanni, and I swear to God he meant it.
Oh my God.
Anyway, so, let's talk about a couple of more Yanni and Laurels, if we can call them that.
One is that it wasn't long ago that there was this story about a thing called Russian collusion.
Have you heard of it? Now, In my movie, and probably the movie that many of you are watching, there was an accusation of presidential collusion with Russia, but no evidence for it, and it seems pretty clear that at this point we would have heard it, it would have leaked, or we'd see some action on that.
But it hasn't happened.
So in my movie, Russian collusion is essentially debunked, even though we don't know the final Mueller report.
We would see far more hints that there was something brewing, I think, than we're seeing.
But people who don't see that movie are seeing a different movie that has a plot that goes like this.
Because a bunch of unimportant, at least at the moment unimportant, people did other things and committed other crimes, therefore this claim, which has nothing to do with any of this, has been proven. Let me say that again.
So the other movie, the one I'm not watching, says that this claim of collusion is essentially true because people did unrelated things.
Now I don't know how to process that because my movie that doesn't even make any sense.
But people are saying this with a straight face, and not only a few people.
It's close to a universal...
At least the people watching that movie.
It's essentially a universal observation.
And I shake my head every time I hear it.
I go, oh, you don't know that makes no sense at all?
Really? And sometimes you can't tell if they're pretending that it makes sense.
But my... My filter on the world says they actually think it makes sense.
They're in their little bubble where that makes sense in their movie, somehow.
I don't know how that script actually makes sense, but to them it does.
Or as I say, yeah, I might be wrong about the thing we're talking about, but I'm totally right about an unrelated fact.
Alright, so you've got those two movies running.
Then you see that President Trump has decided to go on the offensive.
Now here's where it gets interesting.
In my movie, it seems unambiguously true, but again, when I say something is unambiguously true, all I mean All I mean is that it's completely consistent within the movie I'm watching, which has nothing to do with base reality.
But one of the movies will probably be more predictive than the others.
So that's the standard I use to say which one is more likely the true version of reality.
Well, it's the one that predicts best.
What happens next? If one version of the movie is that there was collusion, then you would expect Mueller to indict the president or at least to present a report that says there's collusion.
So that's one movie.
So that would predict that Mueller is going to have some bad news before September, say, about President Trump.
In the other movie, it appears that Brennan was behind some kind of either formal or loose coup attempt in which a group of intelligence people were up to no good to cause a little it appears that Brennan was behind some kind of either formal or loose coup attempt in which a group of intelligence people were up to no It didn't matter what, I don't think.
I think they just needed him to be caught doing something.
Yeah, the insurance plan.
But here's the thing.
I've got to say that within my movie, not necessarily a reflection of any kind of base reality, but just what I see, it does look like Brennan was the ringmaster of a large conspiracy it does look like Brennan was the ringmaster of a large conspiracy to take over the country and the biggest scandal that our democracy has experienced.
That's what it looks like.
It looks exactly like that.
It looks like Great Britain was in on it.
Now, here's my caution to you.
The fact that it looks exactly like that Doesn't mean it happened.
And I'm not even sure it means it more likely happened than not.
Because unfortunately, if you're being honest about your Iannis and your Laurels, if you actually understand what confirmation bias means, and you're not simply applying it to the other team and saying, well, the smart people over here, we don't ever have any confirmation bias.
I guess we're so smart, it only affects those other people with their dumb opinions.
Be careful. Because the certainty that you and I am feeling that it is in fact a gigantic coup thing and that Brennan was behind it and Clapper was behind it and Comey was in on it and Strzok was in on it and MI6 was in on it.
Those things do look exactly like they're true.
But that doesn't mean anything.
It just doesn't.
It just doesn't mean anything.
So your certainty that all of these little clues about Brennan and Clapper and things, your certainty that they all fit together and there's no other way to explain it, doesn't mean anything.
It just doesn't.
It could be true, but it doesn't necessarily have to be.
Now let me give you some versions of reality that could also be true.
One version of reality, and I find this to be the most compelling one goes like this.
That the people involved, if they were involved in trying to dig up something on Trump to remove him from office or prevent him from taking office, was probably some weird combination of wanting to keep their jobs, being on a certain team philosophically, and also maybe legitimately believing what the press on their side was telling them.
Imagine, if you will, just a little thought experiment.
Imagine, if you will, that you believed everything that CNN and MSNBC have been telling you for a year and a half.
Just imagine.
Now, I know that none of you believe anything on CNN and MSNBC, because chances are, if you're watching this periscope, you're not a big believer in those two networks.
But imagine if you did.
Imagine if you believed it.
That an actual monster was coming to office and he was going to destroy the Republic at the same time he destroyed the entire world.
What would you do?
Well, you might be acting just to save your job and try to remain the head of the CIA. Maybe.
Because people are people and people care about their jobs and money does drive people's decisions.
That might be some percentage of what was driving people to do whatever they did.
But the other possibility is that it wasn't a coup in the normal sense.
In their minds, they may have been saving the country.
Now, I suppose everybody who does a coup thinks they're doing it for the right reason.
They think, well, I'm overthrowing the evil regime, so I'm the good guys.
If you look at the formation of this country, who are the most patriotic people you think when you think, oh, in the history of the country, who were the greatest patriots?
Well, there's a good chance the greatest patriots in your mind are the people who were behind the revolution in the United States.
The people who were literally traitors.
But because they were traitors against a dictator who we have labeled as evil, we call them the founders and they become the faces of our money and they're heroes and presidents and icons and we carve them into mountains.
So the history of the United States is that it's a coup if you don't like how it goes and it's a revolution for freedom if you do like how it's going.
So you can't say a coup is a coup.
It kind of depends who you're overthrowing.
So if you can imagine that the biggest problem...
Well, let me back this up to make a point.
If you think that the problem is that there's something called a deep state and that the deep state has this power and they're trying to hold on to it, they're trying to collude to overthrow a legally elected president, that's possible.
That is one interpretation that seems to fit the facts.
Here's another interpretation that seems to fit the facts.
The deep state are stooges to the news media people.
Imagine, if you will, that all of these folks like Brennan and Clapper, imagine that they did do all the things that the President and people who were on his side are accusing them of maybe doing.
Imagine it all happened.
I'm not saying it did, but imagine it did.
It's entirely possible that That they were just believing the media and that they were not independent operators pursuing their own best interest without influence.
But rather, here's the persuasion filter.
The persuasion filter says that a small number of people influence everything.
And the people who are being influenced don't necessarily know who is the influencer behind it all.
So let me give you an example.
If whoever is the head of MSNBC was friends with whoever is the head of CNN and maybe New York Times and Washington Post, you'd only need to get about five, six people in a room Who decided, Jesus, we've got to change things.
This President Trump thing is a disaster.
Let's create a narrative that he's a monster and maybe something good will happen.
Under that scenario, the active plotters were the news media because they were the ones who influenced everybody, including Brennan, including Clapper.
In fact, they're paying these people.
Clapper is actually getting a paycheck from CNN. Is that suspicious?
I think Brennan is paid by NBC. Is that suspicious?
So, it may be that there were these deep state actors who did things exactly the way the accusers are saying.
It's also possible none of that happened.
The way we interpret it.
So both of those movies are live and well and can exist with the facts that we have.
You can keep your they didn't do much except their job and the evidence looks like that would support it.
You can say, yeah, maybe it was a huge coup attempt and they were all together.
The evidence also supports that movie.
Completely different movie.
And there's a third movie also completely supported by the facts.
And I would argue, perhaps better, which is there are half a dozen people in the media who have decided what everyone on that side is thinking.
Likewise, there are probably only half a dozen people on the right who influence how everybody thinks on the right.
Can you name them?
Go.
Name the people on the right who are the most influential in creating the impression of what's happening on the right.
Right.
So you see that there's a fairly small number of...
Somebody said Hiller.
You see there's a small number of names.
going by.
And I think those names are certainly part of it.
But do you think there's any name upstream from them?
In other words, is there somebody who's even at a higher level of influence who is influencing those half dozen people you talked about?
Who is influencing Drudge, Hannity, Limbaugh, Tucker, Carlson?
Who is influencing all of them?
I don't know if there is anybody.
But anyway, the notion here is that the people doing the colluding, let's say there's some deep state colluding, if you take that scenario, That the people who are really responsible for that might be the people who are upstream, the persuaders who persuaded them that this is actually a good thing and not some kind of treasonous thing.
Alright, let's talk about North Korea.
We have two movies going on with North Korea, no surprise.
And those two movies are, number one, North Korea is getting flexible because they have to, their economy is being squeezed, and they really do want to get rid of their nukes and become part of the international world.
That's one movie. The other movie is that North Korea never means it.
And they're playing President Trump and they're flattering him and they're getting them all worked up about a Nobel Prize so that they can then yank the football away like Lucy yanks the football from Charlie Brown.
And in the end, China never meant it.
North Korea never meant it.
And South Korea is a big old sucker who flattered President Trump and then convinced us to be suckers.
Which one of those two movies is real?
Both of them fit the facts.
I would argue they are both real.
Meaning that North Korea is keeping all options open all the time, until they have to choose one.
So at the moment, I believe that North Korea is living in sort of a Schrodinger's cat world, in which they do have at least one mental model in which they get rid of their nukes and live in peace, and another mental model in which they say, We figured out a way to keep our nukes and not give anything up and get some, you know, financial easing or whatever.
So I think that they legitimately have both options alive, which is a good place for them to be because they're entering negotiations.
So they want to be able to say, well, we can walk away from this table anytime we want.
Now they've also put the President in a bind because he's got the midterms coming up.
He seems committed to having promised to work out something good here.
It would be very embarrassing if North Korea walked away, etc.
So what should the United States do?
Right now. Now, let me say right now that we don't know all the conversations happening.
So we don't know who really talked to whom.
We don't know what China's President Xi said to Kim when he visited.
We don't really know.
We're just speculating. So we're probably operating at, I don't know, 70% knowledge at best about what's going away.
So somebody just said, walk away first.
That is correct. If the information that we're getting about the situation is largely correct, in other words, North Korea is promising us a little and then pulling it back and promising and then pulling it back, and if they still have live the intention that they have a possibility of surviving and keeping the nukes, we should walk away from the table.
So in my opinion, We might want to cancel the summit, which is not to say we won't ever have a summit, but at this point, if North Korea doesn't make a distinct move to get rid of some of their nukes, I believe the offer on the table is, how about you get rid of some of your nukes, because that's the only way we know you'll be serious about getting rid of more of them.
If you're not willing to get rid of a little bit of them, we're not going to trust that you're serious about getting rid of any of them.
So if we can't get something that looks like productive movement on actually getting rid of something nuclear, or actually having an inspection, that sort of thing, we should walk away from the table.
And we should crash their economy and make it China's problem.
Because if we're not willing to crash their economy and literally destroy their people and send them into mass starvation, if we're not willing to do that, there's no point in even negotiating.
The whole point of negotiating is that we're willing to destroy their entire country economically, and it seems to me that would be a productive thing to do, both for our Iranian negotiations as for North Korea's ultimate peace, we hope. Don't be surprised if the United States walks away.
Because if everything we know right now is true, and we don't hear new information that North Korea is getting more serious about really getting rid of at least some nukes in the short run, if you don't see that...
Walking away from the summit would be the normal, correct way to handle it.
And remember I told you that there's no way you have this kind of negotiation at this level with these individuals without somebody walking away from the table.
And maybe more than once.
So walking away from the table is a given.
And if North Korea is not flexible yet, and part of the reason that they're not flexible is that China is loosening up on the sanctions, which I believe actually is happening, we can go back to sanctions.
Let's just put time back on our side.
So I, for one, am willing to destroy the entire economy of North Korea and have on my conscience all of the deaths that that will cause so that I do not have to worry about a nuclear bomb aimed at California anymore.
So I'm pretty clear on what I want.
And I'm sure there will be disagreement.
Alright. Give peace a chance.
That's what an economic embargo is.
That's giving peace a chance.
It's probably the best chance it has.
Okay. Somebody said hang on.
What's that mean? Does everybody have their coffee yet?
Is it time for the secondary almost as important as the initial?
Simultaneous sip? You've got your coffee.
Let's do this. Ah.
Prediction? My prediction is that North Korea will try to embarrass President Trump by making him get excited about a good outcome and then yanking it away.
And then President Trump will crash their economy.
And then, when they come back to negotiate, they will get less than whatever's on the table now.
So here's my prediction, that whatever we've offered North Korea as of today, the final outcome will be they'll get less of that.
Because I think they're going to try to walk away, or force us to walk away by not negotiating.
I think we will walk away, and I think we will...
Right now, we've got to boot...
On their economy. And I think we'll just stomp.
So look for some stomping.
Boot on the neck right now.
Stomping will be next phase.
I think Kim needs to look out the window and see people like crowds of people with pitchforks.
Until you see that, he's probably not going to get serious.
All right. Without China, does the US have the capability to crash North Korea's economy?
Well, I'm no expert, but Gordon Chang, who is an expert on this, was talking yesterday and says yes.
Now, we may have to do it one of two ways.
One of the ways we can do it is by bringing down a major Chinese bank.
Or at least threatening to do it so they get out of the business of dealing with North Korea.
So apparently there's still four major banks in China dealing with North Korea.
We might have to take down one of them.
Apparently China's not getting serious about a lot of stuff in our negotiations.
They're still stealing technology and other things.
So bringing down a Chinese bank, which you might have thought was inconceivable not long ago, you have to put that on the table now.
And it wouldn't surprise me.
I think we're probably at at least a 50% chance that our next move will involve taking down a Chinese bank.
Because here's what we're not gonna do.
We're not gonna walk away.
The only thing I know we're not gonna do Is capitulate.
So both China and North Korea only have two options, which is how do you get to the end state?
Because the end state is a given.
The end state of North Korea not being a nuclear threat, that part is a decision.
I've talked to you about this before.
It's the difference between wanting something and deciding.
In my book, Had It Failed Almost Everything and Still Win Big, I talk about that.
And the basic decision is this.
When you want something, you're not really doing the hard stuff to get it.
When you decide to do something, then you've decided that it doesn't matter how hard it is.
It doesn't matter what it costs.
Decision's already made. So on North Korea, I would say that the United States has already decided.
So the end state is already determined.
Because if the United States is willing to sacrifice whatever it takes to get a non-nuclear North Korea, it's going to go that way.
And we have decided to do that.
It is no longer something we wish.
It is something we've simply decided to do.
How we get there is the only thing that North Korea gets to decide, with China's help, I guess.
Do foreign leaders watch CNN?
They'll reach bad decisions.
Well, foreign leaders do follow all of our media, and so yes, the entire world is being influenced by CNN and New York Times, etc., How do you find out who is influencing the right?
Well, who is in charge of Fox News?
Who is in charge of the Drudge Report?
Who is in charge of Rush Limbaugh's show?
You know, it seems to me that Rush Limbaugh, he doesn't seem like he's the man behind the curtain.
Do you think so? It doesn't feel like that to me.
Rush seems more like a popular figure, meaning that the things he's saying are designed to be largely compatible with what his audience is already thinking, just the better version of what they're already thinking, which he does better than just about anybody's ever done. which he does better than just about anybody's ever done.
Rush likes me, somebody said.
I know that Rush Limbaugh has mentioned my blog a few times.
Yeah, I would agree that Rush Limbaugh does take independent opinions fairly often, but the independent part of the opinion tends to still be in the same channel with the main conservative thought.
Somebody saying Q.
Well, I don't know the answer to the question, but certainly the right is taking some kind of direction.
Were you ever going to be on this show...
Yeah, you know, I was in conversation with Rush Limbaugh's booker and he just stopped returning messages unless I missed one.
So I won't blame him.
Let's just say we were communicating and now we're not.
Either I missed his message or he didn't respond to mine.
I don't know which happened. There's an important question on here.
It says, anyone else kind of like olives?
I do. Alright, that's all I've got for now.
And I'll talk to you a little bit later.
▲
Export Selection