All Episodes
Previous Next
April 27, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
50:26
Episode 938 Scott Adams: 4-Dimensional Energy Creatures, Prizes that Are Noble, Dash of Fake News
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody!
Where is everybody?
It's about time.
It's time for the evening periscope.
And I don't know for sure, but I have a feeling this will be among the best of all time.
Now, you've heard me say that before.
I think this will be the best periscope of all time, but it's been true every time so far.
Why wouldn't it be true this time?
Right? Right.
So, some interesting things have happened.
Let us talk about them.
One of the most fun little stories is, do you remember the meme that was going around?
It was a Joe Biden meme, and it looked a little too funny to be true.
Because the saying on it was, his brain?
No, his heart.
And his heart was shining forth and it was, you know, Joe Biden for president.
And people forwarded that around and tweeted it and said some version of, I can't believe how bad he is at this because it's like he's calling himself stupid in his own ad.
And I said, I don't think that's a real ad.
So it turns out it was not a real ad, and the clever person who made it has made other similarly clever moves, and his name is, let's see, Brad Trammell.
So on Instagram, he goes by B-R-A-D-T-R-O-E-M-E-L. You can play that back later if you didn't get it.
And he's really funny on camera when he's describing what he did.
And his method is one to be noted.
So note the method.
I will describe it, but if you wanted to see it, hear it in his words.
He picked something that could only be believed because things are already ridiculous.
So the idea that it's even possible...
That the Biden campaign might have produced an ad that de-emphasized his brain intentionally.
So, no. His brain?
No. And emphasized his heart.
And you say to yourself, well, that can't be an insult ad.
Because if it were an insult, they'd say he didn't have a brain and he didn't have a heart.
There wouldn't be anything positive in it.
So, your brain says, okay, if it couldn't be done by the other side, because clearly they wouldn't put any positive in it, well, it must have been done by either somebody on his side or Biden.
Now, of course, that's how the trick works.
Because by making it a little bit ambiguous about whether they even intend it to be positive or it's a joke, your brain has to stay there and work at it for a while.
You're like, I can't let this go.
I'm going to have to think about this for a minute.
And then it gets in your head, and then all you're thinking is, is Biden really so dumb that he would do an ad saying he's dumb?
And if somebody else did it, did he approve it?
And of course, none of those are true.
It was just a very clever creator.
I don't want to say troll because he's so good at it.
That feels like diminishing very good artistic work.
And apparently he's done other similar things.
So I've told you before that the essence of a good prank is that the subject of the prank, the person you're pranking, is the only one who can't tell it's obviously not true.
So what was funny about the Biden ad is that when I saw it, I was not the subject of the prank, I don't think.
I think he was pranking Democrats.
So when I saw it, I'm not the subject of it, and I thought, that doesn't look true to me.
But because the Democrats, and this was the creator's theory, and I buy into this completely, because the Democrats were sort of spring-loaded to think, you know, I don't think we're electing Biden because of his brain, exactly.
Because that wouldn't really make sense.
But he's nicer than Trump, so it makes sense that we'd hire...
I guess we're voting for his heart, not his brain.
So only the Democrats could have believed it, which is what made a genius.
Anyway. I keep watching CNN create news out of their own ignorance, which is the weirdest thing.
You would not think that you could weaponize, not weaponize, well, they do weaponize it, but you would not think you could build a business model of not understanding things, but they managed to do it.
And I know you think that's an exaggeration, right?
When I say they're building a business model around their own ignorance, you think that's probably an exaggeration, right?
That's what you're thinking. I'll give you the example, and you tell me if I'm exaggerating.
So they, of course, have had lots of content mocking President Trump for having, early on, not so much anymore, promoted the idea of at least trying the hydroxychloroquine, presumably in combination with azithromycin and zinc,
even though, as he stated often, it had not gone through the right approvals to know for sure if it was effective and also safe for In all the ways we'd like it to be.
So the president never hid the fact that it was a risk management decision.
And by a risk management decision, I mean it was not a purely medical decision.
Let me give you a thought experiment.
Let's say the president had promoted these drugs that were well tested for other purposes and had been used for decades.
And didn't seem to be causing any special problems with the other people who've been using them for decades.
So suppose that was all the president knew.
And he also knew this.
That all the doctors were taking it.
Because it's true.
So if the people who are doctors are taking it for themselves, and are also giving it to their family, etc., It's obvious that medical professionals who are familiar with the drug, almost all of them have prescribed it for other purposes, like arthritis. If the medical professionals are thinking, yeah, this is a risk I am personally willing to take, and in many cases they're family and friends.
So the president, of course, was looking at it as a risk management decision, exactly like the doctors.
No different. He was looking at it in exactly the way the medical professionals who had to make that decision for themselves and their families, he was following their lead.
He wasn't leading on an unproven drug.
He was following the lead of pretty much every medical professional who had to make the decision.
Because when it was their own body, they were giving themselves the drug.
And that's the truth.
You can check on that, but every source seems to be consistent about that.
But here's the thought experiment.
Let's say the president had promoted this drug, and the doctors had two, and they had taken it, and then suddenly a thousand people died of some kind of complication that nobody saw coming.
And let's say it was a complication that is unique to coronavirus patients.
So we couldn't have seen it before.
It didn't show up when it was being tested for malaria.
It didn't show up when the same drug was used for arthritis.
It just only showed up In this one case.
And let's just say it killed a thousand people.
A thousand people.
A thousand people in one week.
Let's say it killed a thousand people in one week because the president pushed a drug that wasn't tested and it turned out to be bad.
Here's the thought experiment.
Was it a mistake?
Was it? Was it a mistake?
To try something that had a certain quality, which is that if it worked, it could have solved everything.
It could have prevented the closing of the economy.
If it worked.
Now, my best guess right now is that it doesn't work well enough to make that kind of a difference.
But at the time he was talking about it, even medical professionals were saying, you know, we don't have hard data, we don't have the kind of tests we need, You know, it'd be better to have that.
Certainly it'd be safer.
Everybody prefers that you have solid tests.
We don't have that. But, but I'd try it.
So I would argue that people who understand risk management know that in their thought experiment, if a thousand people had died because the president recommended it, it would still be unambiguously the right thing to do.
Do you see that?
Even if it turned out completely wrong, if a thousand people dropped dead who didn't need to die and it didn't help anybody, just nobody was helped, was it a mistake?
It was not.
That would have been the best, smartest, most adult, responsible leadership decision.
He decided to maybe think about swinging for the fence.
And what were the odds that you would have a thousand people die given that the doctors were taking it themselves and had such a long history?
Now you say to yourself, Scott, Scott, Scott, do you read the news?
Because the news already says that they had to stop one of the trials.
I think it was chloroquine or maybe just nitroxychloroquine.
I forget the details. But one of the trials was actually stopped because people were stroking.
And so there you have it.
You don't have to wonder, Scott.
We have the evidence. They had to stop the trial because people, you know, way more than you'd expect were having strokes.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that that's true?
There's a report. You read it.
I read it. It came from someplace that sounded like they knew what they were talking about.
Let me ask you this.
Has any initial report about anything been true?
Anything. Every single thing we hear is either a lie or later we find out there's some context missing.
Want a good example? Here's one.
Is Sweden in lockdown mode or not lockdown mode?
Well, listen to the news.
The news says they're not in lockdown mode and they're doing not as bad as you might expect.
So maybe they're a model, right?
Because if Sweden is doing it, why can't we?
Coronavirus everywhere.
Boom.
And here's the thing people don't tell you about Sweden.
And I don't have confirmation that this is true, but it came from somebody who knows Sweden.
that the Swedes are not in lockdown mode, but they're also not going out.
So nobody's making money in Sweden.
When you hear that the Swedish economy is open, well, sure, but what's it mean to have a restaurant with no customers?
Because people aren't going out.
So if you're looking at the Sweden experiment, be careful about what it is you think it's telling you, because there are just too many things different.
There are things about the way that they can socially isolate.
I've heard things about the statistics of the number of them who live alone anyway.
Maybe they don't have as many elevators.
You can think of a million reasons why it's different.
So is it true that hydroxychloroquine caused strokes in some people?
Might be. But I think it would be crazy to think it's true because it was reported that it was true.
Just the fact that it was reported gives you no confidence that that is true.
So I think we should all learn that.
So Politico did an article, which is, of course, the Gelman effect.
If you are the subject of an article, you know what's wrong with the article.
So I like giving you these examples, right?
So Politico writes the article about what the president said about injecting disinfectants.
And they did a reasonably, I would say, a reasonably fair job of describing that there is, in fact, a technology for injecting light into a body.
They quoted Joel Pollack, who described that inject was used generically, and that it actually made sense.
There is a UV technology.
It's being tested right now.
People knew about it, etc.
All right. So I'll give Politico credit for having that context, which I think a lot of entities would not have had.
So I'll give them credit for that.
And here's the little part that mentions me.
It says, in addition to the Breitbart article, other Trump-supporting personalities like Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams.
Right, so now I've been framed with one sentence.
I've been framed as a Trump-supporting personality.
Now, I would say that in general that would be a fair characterization, wouldn't you?
I would call myself a Trump-supporting personality.
That's fair. Is there any context left out?
Yes. The very topic of this article is about the press conferences and the president's communication during the press conferences.
I have been the most vocal critic of the president maybe you've ever seen.
I have consistently given him an F failing grade for the press conferences.
Not every one.
Some of them were actually quite good.
But I've been brutal for And criticizing the president on the very topic of this article.
And how do they characterize the person who has been brutally criticizing the president?
I'm a Trump-supporting personality.
Do you think that captures it?
It does capture it in general, just not for this topic.
It would be misleading for this topic.
And then it goes on to say that Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams...
Started elevating articles about dubious technologies.
That's right.
I was elevating articles about dubious technologies.
Is that fair?
Is it technically accurate to say that I was elevating articles about dubious technologies?
Yes, of course it is. Completely accurate statement.
Right? Because you've seen me.
I have tweeted many potential breakthroughs, potential technologies, things that people are looking at.
Very dubious technologies.
And I have elevated them through my tweeting.
But here's another way to say it.
You could say that I tweeted articles in the mainstream media about new technologies.
Would that also not explain it perfectly?
Tell me if this is not perfectly what I did.
I sometimes retweet articles that are in the media about promising technologies.
Do you know who else gives attention to promising technologies and medical possibilities?
Everybody. Actually everybody.
Everybody in the media.
There's probably nobody who hasn't tweeted some things that people are looking at.
Maybe this pill works.
Maybe this oxygen monitor works.
Maybe this light therapy works.
Literally everybody's doing that.
And all of the articles that I think I've tweeted came from the press.
I didn't write them.
I just tweeted what was there that other people were tweeting, right?
So, so far there are only two sentences in and they've left out so much context that you already don't know who I am.
Where I stand on this issue and what I'm all about, because it looks like I'm a quack who's just tweeting unproven technologies.
All right. But in reality, the entire press is doing that all the time.
Then it says, so it goes on to say that the normal way that the president operates, and this is them reading his mind, and there's a little bit of truth to it, but not as much as they're putting on it.
They say that President Trump typically gets his ideas from Fox News, and then he adopts their ideas in the news.
And they said that this time it worked in reverse.
So this is Politico's theory.
For once, President Donald Trump's latest toss-down suggestion for a way to combat coronavirus, injecting ultraviolet rays, did not originate from a Fox News guest.
A viral Twitter thread or an article on a conservative website?
Really? How does Politico know that Trump's idea about injecting ultraviolet rays, which is in fact all over Twitter, and has been for at least a week or two, because I have personally retweeted it.
I've talked about it on Twitter.
I've retweeted it. Other people have retweeted it.
It's all over Twitter.
So how is it that Politico knows that the president didn't see the thing that was all over Twitter on the conservative side?
It probably wasn't all over Twitter in the other silo.
So on the left silo, they probably never saw it.
But all kinds of people that I deal with saw it.
My followers, they seem to have all seen it.
So Politico thinks that the president just spontaneously came up with this idea out of nothing and said that it did not originate from Fox News and therefore it couldn't have come from any place else?
Is that the one place he gets things, according to Politico?
I don't think so. And they go on to say, instead, the process worked in reverse.
And this is just crazy talk.
First... Trump offered a muddled but hopeful theory, so in other words, they're acting like he just spontaneously came up with this on his own, that one could somehow insert light or medicine into the lungs, also known as common knowledge, at least for people on the right, because it's a real thing.
Cedars-Sinai is testing it right now, injecting light into the lungs.
It's a thing. And there's reason to believe it could work, but of course, like everything, it needs to be tested.
Likewise, when it says light or medicine, there are also, I'm not going to mention the chemical because I don't want to be the guy who gets people trying this at home, but there is a disinfectant.
I won't name the type.
Don't try this at home.
Because it will kill you.
But in one situation where it is, you know, turned into an aerosol and pumped into the lungs, to disinfect, to kill a virus.
Now, I forget what that's for.
It's for something else. But these are all real things.
And Politico is writing this article like Trump just invented these out of the squirrels in his head when these are fairly ordinary things.
All right. And then they say that, talking about Trump's crazy ideas that he had here, and it says a conservative and Trump-friendly media outlet started trying to explain and boost it.
Well, yeah, we're trying to explain why the news was fake.
So the way they're writing it is that there was something weird going on and that we were just trying to explain it.
Is that what happened? Because what I saw is that the news just made up something that didn't exist, and people said, we're calling you on your bullshit.
Is calling the news on their bullshit and their fake news, is that the same thing as trying to explain it?
Because trying to explain it automatically makes you look like you're the guilty one.
That's not what happened here.
The explainers are not the guilty ones.
It's the people who made up the fake news.
And it says of the conservative supporters, it says they flagged obscure research papers and said the president was simply attempting to raise the country's spirits.
They tried to discredit media coverage of the comments.
Well, I think we did discredit them because they were discreditable.
Anyway, so that's enough of that.
So, for the record, there are at least four ways to inject.
Yes, I said it.
Inject a disinfectant.
Yes, I said it.
I said disinfectant.
I said inject disinfectant.
There are four ways to do it that are known.
The press has still found zero of them, and they think that Trump just made it all up.
One of the ways...
It could be part of a ventilator that goes into your trachea.
Already there are videos to show that idea.
It can go into your lungs.
They're talking about taking you further all the way into the lungs.
That's the second way. It could be a disinfectant.
In this case, light. It's a light disinfectant.
And then it can also be directly inserted into your veins.
And basically, the light hits the blood on the way through the vein and disinfects it on the way by.
Literally an insertion.
So that's three ways it's inserted.
And then the fourth is what I was describing earlier, that for other conditions, not for coronavirus, there are situations where they've aerosoled a disinfectant.
Now, of course, these are not household disinfectants.
I'm not talking about, you know, Lysol and bleach.
I'm talking about something that medical people would use that they would call a disinfectant because it disinfects.
That's just literally what it does.
So there are four ways to do it exactly as the president said in those words.
Injecting a disinfectant.
And the illegitimate press has decided to act like that.
That there are no things like that instead of four things like that.
Alright, here's the dog that isn't barking.
You've seen how much noise I've made about this, debunking this?
And there's no left-leaning press who has asked me for a comment.
What are the odds that I would make this much trouble and I would be asked by nobody for a comment as high as my profile is?
Because they ask me for comments on everything.
I'm just... Just anything.
I'm continuously asking for comments on any variety of things, political or otherwise.
But not on this topic, because I think there's some understanding, just guessing, that the people on the left who are pushing the disinfectant hoax, let's call it, I think they know that it can't stand up to a capable communicator.
And if they had me on, I would just demolish it, then what would they do?
I mean, it's their main story.
Now, there's one other time that that happened.
I spent, what, three years debunking the find people hoax?
Don't you think somebody would have invited me on to talk about it?
None. Now, have you ever seen another situation where there was a Trump supporter who was prominent...
And they were talking crazy talk.
And it didn't become a national story.
Have you ever seen it even once?
A Trump supporter, somebody who's prominent, and, you know, a name you've heard of, that sort of thing.
If they do any crazy talking in public, does the media ignore that?
No, they do not.
They do stories about it, but they also contact that person for comment.
It's the most common thing.
So, if I'm out here talking crazy, Saying that this widely reported fine people story was a hoax, wouldn't that seem crazy to them if they think it's real?
If they think it's real, I should look crazy for saying it didn't happen, given that it was widely reported.
It's very crazy to say it didn't happen.
It's true it didn't happen.
And likewise, with this injecting the disinfectant thing, Nobody's going to have me on to talk about that because that would be the end of it.
It would ruin the news cycle.
And, of course, being on a conservative site wouldn't help because they're all on the same page anyway.
All right, so here's a question for you.
What is it going to do to our level of awareness in the world?
What's it going to do to the way we understand our world?
When we look back on this situation...
And realize that everyone who said we should use data to make decisions got everything wrong.
What's that going to do to us?
Think about it. You know, there's probably some exceptions, but generally speaking, wouldn't you say that all the people who are saying, we must use data.
Data makes decisions.
Let's use good judgment and data.
Don't use your emotions.
Use data. What happened to all those people?
Didn't they get everything wrong?
It wasn't the problem that you can't trust any of the data.
The data was out of context.
It was wrong. It was incomplete.
I don't think we made any good decisions with data.
Even when Anthony Fauci...
Is asked, did you use the models to decide to close the travel from Wuhan?
Even he says, no.
You know, the reason we got serious is we just looked at what was happening.
They literally just looked at it and said, that's a lot of hospital beds.
Whoa, that's a lot of people dying.
We're hearing bad reports.
Let's take this seriously.
So even Fauci didn't use the model.
He just looked at the real world and said, that looks scary.
Let's treat it quite seriously.
Anyway, here are, let me dovetail that into this.
Yes.
Eventually, the world is going to collectively come to a slightly higher understanding.
And I would submit to you that there are two almost independent species living among us that all look like humans, but they're very different.
In other words, physically they're humans, but there's something so fundamentally different about the way they're wired that it's a question of whether they're human at all.
And here's the distinction.
The people who still think that data and reason and logic are the dominant way that you should organize everything and make decisions, that's most of the world, right?
Even if people are not good at it, they would all say, yeah, we should use science, we should use reason, we should use facts.
And everybody agrees with that.
But it's also true that we rarely have the right facts.
And if we do, we're not really good at comparing things.
You know, I wrote a whole book about it, and you can see it a million times in this coronavirus situation.
Smart people are not good at making decisions because they don't have a well-rounded...
The view of the world in many cases.
Artists have never learned to make decisions, etc.
So I think as we grow in our awareness, collectively, that facts and reason are not driving our decisions.
It's some kind of weird balance of power and emotion and all that.
You'll start to notice that there were two species.
And the two species are these.
They're the people who believe facts and reasons are the dominant way to organize your, let's say, your filter on life.
And then there's the second group.
I call them energy creatures because they operate on pure energy.
And if you're looking at an energy creature from the outside and you're not one, they just look scary because they don't operate to your rules.
They don't recognize your boundary.
Imagine, if you will, a scientist goes into a restaurant and you say, scientist, the scientist section is right over there.
Make sure you only sit at one of these tables.
This is a reserved scientist section.
What would happen? Well, the scientist would say, thank you, that's very clear, would walk over into the scientist section, and the people who wanted to sit in the non-scientist section would be perfectly happy.
Now let's say, instead of a scientist, you lit a fire.
It's just energy.
If you light a fire in half of the restaurant, what happens to the other half?
The other half burns up too.
Because energy doesn't have boundaries.
And when you see an energy creature, one of the ways to know is they don't seem to have boundaries.
And they don't seem to respect facts and reason The way you think they should.
They seem to be irrational.
Trump is an energy creature.
He operates as almost pure energy.
And it seems, we can't get in his head, of course, but it seems that he treats the world, or he filters it, by power and energy.
Now he says so directly.
He talks about low-energy Jeb.
He talks about his high-energy campaign.
Everything he does is to generate optimism and energy and power.
And he says these things directly.
This is not me speculating.
He has consistently, over the years, promoted energy as a way to see things.
So when you see an energy creature who can't seem to stay in your narrow boundaries, It's because they can't.
It's not their nature.
It's like asking a cat to play the violin.
A cat can't play the violin.
You can ask, but it's not going to give it to you.
So an energy creature is not going to paint within the lines.
That's just how it's going to work.
But the rest of you might.
And the rest of you will be scared to death because there's this big glowing energy thing and you don't know if it has your best interests in mind because you don't even know why it does anything.
It doesn't make sense to you.
However, it's not true the other way around.
The energy creature is not confused by you.
That's the part you don't see.
That's the hidden part.
You think the energy creature is a big old dumb ball of randomness that can't be controlled, but by God, you ought to control this somehow because it's dangerous?
That's what it looks to you from the outside if you're not an energy creature.
But if you are an energy creature, and I would say I am one, meaning that my filter on life, as I've told you many times, is energy.
And I've said that it's the only metric you should track.
Because if you get your personal energy right, It means you've done pretty much everything else right.
You can't get your energy right unless you're sleeping right, eating right, your social life is good, you've found out how to deal with your stress, etc.
So, being an energy creature, I see the world as energy.
And I likewise am often criticized because I don't have boundaries.
You know, the reason that I call myself left a birdie And yet, I spend all my time talking to this audience, which is anything but left of Bernie, is because I don't have boundaries.
I don't recognize them.
I just don't live in a boundary world.
I live in an energy world.
So the reason that I'm here, doing this, is that that's where the energy was.
I simply followed the energy.
Here I am. And it worked out.
And quite often, following the energy is exactly the right thing.
The reason that Dilbert became my main career It's because when I started it, even though it was small and it was just a shot in the dark and it was a wild dream, it still had energy.
It always called me.
It gave me energy.
So when I worked on it, just sitting there silently at four in the morning trying to make something of myself, I felt good.
It energized me.
So I have always been all about the energy.
So when I saw Trump, remember the The first two episodes I saw that I called out publicly at the time about why he was special, you could say good or bad, but he's clearly special, was the Rosie O'Donnell move, where he took the energy from the question and just moved the energy.
He didn't give an answer.
He didn't give a fact. He didn't tell the truth.
He didn't use reason.
He didn't use logic. Did it matter?
Didn't matter. He got exactly what he wanted and became the President of the United States because he understood that this was an energy problem.
It wasn't a logic problem.
It wasn't an excuse time.
It wasn't an argument time.
It was an energy problem that he solved by moving the energy.
Now, remember, everybody said, hey, Scott, why would the President say that he was just being sarcastic and About talking about the light therapy injections and the disinfectants.
Why would he say he's being sarcastic when even his supporters don't believe that?
I mean, it doesn't even sound a little bit sensible, right?
I mean, I'm pretty inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I can't find any way that makes sense to say he was being sarcastic.
Or even the part about he was addressing a reporter.
I mean, it didn't even seem like it was the right topic.
Now, if you're not an energy creature, what does that look like?
Pretty confusing, right?
Because you're saying, where's my logic?
Where's my fact? Where's my adherence to the topic?
Where's anything that makes sense in that?
But here's what happened.
The president realized that the more he talked about this topic...
The more targets he was creating.
So in other words, almost no matter what he had said, if he had actually addressed the question about why he was spitballing about these technologies and he's not a doctor, if he had even tried to address it, where would all the energy go?
Right? All of the energy in the world would have just gone to his responses and And it created this cluster bomb of new things that's...
Oh! When he tried to defend himself...
Now watch him. He's walking it back.
Look at him. He should apologize.
He's very guilty.
And it would have been gigantic, like atomic bomb of energy in the wrong place.
It would be in the wrong place.
If you're the president and you're an energy monster...
You want all of the conversation to be about what you're doing right, and you want none of the conversation to be about what you did wrong, even if it gives you an opportunity to defend yourself.
Because we live in a world in which defending yourself doesn't work.
It doesn't. If he had said, I would like to show you a video, a transcript, a proof, a sworn statement from the Pope, here's all my proof, That the news you're giving is misleading and nothing like what you're reporting actually happened.
Here's my proof. What happens then?
Does the news look at all of his proof and say, oh, yeah, I guess we got that wrong.
No. They just make up some new rumors and they just use whatever he had to them as a substance for the next set.
So, while I don't think that he elegantly answered the question, I think we can agree on that.
It is true that he moved the energy, because he took the energy out of the room.
You can't do a follow-up question.
It's like, no, I was being sarcastic.
What's the follow-up question?
I don't have a follow-up question.
All the energy was gone.
So, here's some other people who operate as what I would call energy creatures.
And I would like to tie this back to something I said in the past about energy.
You remember that I was famously saying that Trump was playing four-dimensional chess and three-dimensional chess and all that.
And I guess four-dimensional chess.
And then that became a popular thing.
And then the left would mock us.
Anybody who said that Trump was being clever, they'd say, Oh, where's his 15-dimensional chess and stuff?
So I kept trying to think if there was an easy way to explain...
What I meant by four-dimensional chess.
And here's the easiest way to explain it.
The four-dimensional chess players are energy creatures.
They live in a world in which their filter is energy, and that's what they care about.
And they know that it works.
They're like that because it works, not because it's random.
So here's some other people that I would consider energy creatures.
Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs was many things, but man, was he an energy creature.
Roger Ailes, the architect of Fox News.
Fox News works for a lot of reasons, but if you were to summarize the reasons, it's because Roger Ailes was an energy creature, and he figured out how to package a set of triggers that would trigger energy in the audience.
And it was brilliant. It's not an accident that there are unusually good-looking people on Fox News, and the colors are bright, and the production values are incredible.
It's the best produced show, I think.
Produced news network.
So, Ailes, Energy Monster.
I would argue that Joe Rogan is an energy creature.
And here's why.
If you look at Joe Rogan's entire set of interests, it's very much about fitness and about mind and about stretching your mind and being mentally flexible and hunting and fighting and exercising and standing in front of a crowd, the scariest thing you can do.
I mean, he is all energy.
So is it an accident that people get mad at Joe Rogan because they say, hey, you're not supposed to say you like this or that?
But Joe Rogan, like fire, he doesn't have a boundary.
His energy goes wherever it goes.
And if he's going to, you know, work for, you know, call color commentary on a fight or do stand-up comedy, he just goes where the energy is.
Does it work?
Yeah. He's one of the most popular people in the country.
It totally works.
I think people are drawn to energy, just in general.
Another one is obvious, Mike Cernovich.
Mike Cernovich, say anything you want about his opinions, his personality, blah, blah, blah, blah, but nobody understands that we live in an energy world, and nobody understands how to move that energy sort of directly and intentionally better than Mike Cernovich.
It's not an accident he has What, is he approaching 600,000 followers or something on Twitter?
And I would say Rush Limbaugh.
Rush Limbaugh understands energy as well.
I could give you examples, but they're easy.
So there are lots of other people, though.
So I would argue that Tucker, I'm seeing people suggesting Tucker and Mark Levin, I would say that they are more intellectual.
I would say that...
A lot of people who are at the top of their game, Levin and Tucker, they're at the top of their game.
And I would watch them primarily because I would learn something I didn't know.
When I watch Tucker's show or I watch Levin's show, I almost always hear a different look.
And so that's not so much about energy.
I think they're much more cerebral.
In a good way. You know, the world requires all types.
I'm not saying that one is better than the other.
I'm just saying that if you understand the world as people who move energy, and then people who don't understand that, a lot of the world makes sense when it didn't used to.
That's all. Any female power use?
Yes, AOC. AOC is an energy mover, and other energy movers recognized her immediately.
So again, Cernovich saw it immediately, I saw it immediately, that she was moving energy, and the people who didn't understand that were arguing about her fact-checking.
I'd say not Elizabeth Warren, she's cerebral.
And again, when I'm distinguishing between the energy creatures and the cerebral ones, I'm not saying one is better than the other.
It just depends what you're trying to accomplish.
Sometimes for leadership, The energy creature is the best one.
Candice is sort of a hybrid.
Because I think people go through a process.
And I think you don't become an energy creature overnight.
So I would say she's on the way to being an energy creature, if she wants to be.
I mean, it all depends on where you want to go.
I mean, it's up to her where she goes.
But she's an interesting blend because she uses lots of facts and reason.
So her arguments hold together on a rational level quite well.
But on top of that, she also knows how to inflame passions.
But she's also young.
Imagine Candice in 30 years, right?
Because the skill that she started with, I say this about AOC, you can say it about Matt Gaetz, you can say it about a lot of the younger people who have talent, that however good they are at age 30-something, they're going to be really, really good at age 60-something.
It's not an accident that you end up with a Nancy Pelosi because they do get better and learn more over time.
So, Oprah.
Oprah, yes.
I would say that Oprah is an energy creature.
I would buy that one.
Jordan Peterson is interesting.
I would call him cerebral, intellectual, but he has such an impact on people that he actually controls energy through the quality of his communicating and his ideas.
So it's almost like he's a distributor of energy in a way.
When you see Jordan Peterson, you don't feel that he's exhibiting a lot of personal energy, but his ideas are so powerful that they're like little delayed missiles that go off when you're thinking about it an hour later.
All right. Biden is neither.
All right.
Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter is definitely a...
Well, she's an interesting hybrid, too.
So I'd put her in, let's say, a more experienced version of Candace.
I hate to compare people because if people don't want to be compared, then they think it's an insult when it's not.
So let me reverse the comparison just so nobody has to be compared to anybody.
But I would say that Ann Coulter is one of the smartest...
Writers and one of the freshest thinkers in the public eye.
It's hard to get more skilled at what she does.
I don't know anybody who writes better.
She's probably the best writer in the game.
Just pure writing style.
But I'm not saying she's right about everything.
I'm not saying I agree with her.
Her priorities are her priorities.
But she defends them really well.
And she also moves passions.
I would say she's intellectual, but she understands energy.
But she's certainly biased toward the argument side, the lawyer side, if you will.
All right. Dan Crenshaw, he has, of course, the power of the military power.
Aura. So that's sort of always with him.
So yeah, he sort of exudes a charisma.
It's true. Which comedians?
Well, any comedian who doesn't respect boundaries.
So Bill Burr, for example.
Bill Burr, his comedy suggests that he understands boundaries.
Certainly that he understands energy.
George Bush Jr.
General Flynn to be exonerated this week.
Yeah, we're hearing good rumors about General Flynn, right?
This would be the perfect time to do it.
I can't think of a better time to pardon people, so I don't know the right language, pardon or exonerate or any of those things, but I got a feeling that Roger Stone's in good shape and John O'Flynn's in good shape.
Ben Shapiro is intellectual.
Jocko, I haven't watched a lot of Jocko's content, but what I know of him, I would say he's an energy creature.
Ellen DeGeneres. Yeah, there's a good example.
So Ellen DeGeneres is an energy creature.
Yeah, I would say so.
I mean, she literally gets up and dances with her audience, and she exudes just a tremendous amount of personal energy that's very appealing.
Alright, that's enough for today.
I will see you in the morning.
And I got some fun stuff in the morning, so don't miss it.
▲
Export Selection