Episode 1511 Scott Adams: Imaginary Whips, Who Started the Simulation, Alcohol is Poison, and How I Will Destroy China
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Africa colonization with alcohol
Original species and the simulation
President Biden whips Border Patrol Agent
James Mattis $85,000 Theranos investment
Poor White people can get a voter ID?
Taliban public hangings
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
I'll even put on my microphone for you YouTube people.
Yeah, that's the kind of guy I am.
Well, good morning and welcome to the place where I can't put my elbow on the desk because I'm too spaz to even do that this morning.
But let me tell you, your day is looking up.
I don't know how it started, but pay attention to how it gets better starting now.
Right? You can already feel it, can't you?
A little bit of a lift to your day.
Just the moment you heard my voice.
Yeah, because you've been trained that this is a highlight of your day.
The simultaneous sip is the best thing that's ever happened all morning so far.
And all you need to participate is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or a cellist, a canteen jug or flask.
Vessel. Of what kind?
Any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid I like.
Coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, including Kim's birthday.
Happy birthday, Kim. Everybody, it's Kim's birthday over on YouTube.
Everybody, this is for Kim.
Simultaneous sip, birthday edition.
Happy birthday, Kim.
Now, I don't want to go out on a limb and say that Kim, who we just met here on her comment on YouTube, might be the best birthday you're ever going to have.
Thank you.
Yep. So next year, a little bit of a disappointment.
But this year, wow!
Wow! You kicked that off just right.
Well, so...
Boo the cat update.
My loving cat Boo should be coming home today.
She'll still have a little feeding tube that apparently I'm going to have to stick her meds and her liquid food into her feeding tube for a few more days.
But she's apparently doing well.
I guess they give the feeding tube in the side of the neck.
So it's not like it's up to...
It's not in the cat's mouth or in its nose.
And I guess they put them to sleep and stick a little thing in their neck and then you can just shove food and medicine down it until they feel better and then take it out.
So amazing technology, but I guess it works.
Well, we found out today that...
You know those nasal tests that you get?
And they take out the Q-tip that's, you know, the size of a baseball bat...
And they shove it up your nose until it hits your brain.
And you feel it like, you know, as you're getting tested, you're like, ah, ah, I think I'm forgetting my second grade experience.
Ah, ah, I don't remember my friend Bob from...
Ah! It's basically giving you brain damage as you're getting...
No, it's not. No, it's not.
I shouldn't even say that.
Somebody's going to believe it's true.
No, it doesn't give you brain damage.
But it turns out that you can get the same results...
From gargling. So apparently the other model that they could have done is take a swig of something and spit it into a cup.
So for a year and a half, we've had sticks shoved up our nose to tickle our brains.
Didn't eat it. Didn't eat it.
Just spit in a cup.
That would have done it too. So thanks to Adam Dopamine on Twitter for alerting me to that update.
So I saw a fascinating thread on Twitter that I will call to your attention.
Just look at my Twitter feed to see it.
I just put it there today, this morning, so you'll find it.
And it's about Africa and alcohol.
And it's a story that I had never heard.
Now there's a little pushback on Twitter from...
No, I have not read Norm's autobiography.
You can stop asking. So there's a little pushback about whether this is accurate or maybe it's just anti-European racism, reverse racism kind of thing.
So I will say that I can't vouch for the historical accuracy of it.
It's presented by somebody who seems to know what they're doing.
But the idea was this, that apparently a lot of the colonists, and I don't know how universal or centrally planned any of this was, I don't think it was centrally planned, but they would use alcohol to colonize parts of Africa.
And they would do it a couple different ways.
One is that they would get the locals addicted to They would just addict them to alcohol, and then when you're trading your alcohol for whatever they have, you're going to get a good deal, because they kind of have to give it to you because they're addicted.
So they actually turned the locals into alcoholics.
But the second thing they did is, since the locals did not have a culture and history of alcohol...
They would typically drink too much, because it just wasn't part of their history and the knowledge of how to handle it, right?
And they would get a little wild, as people do on alcohol.
And then the colonists would use that, reportedly, as their excuse to take over.
Because they'd say, well, look at these savages running around all drunk.
They can't run themselves.
They need a little help.
So part of the scheme for taking over these places involved alcohol.
Apparently the first factory in Africa was a distillery.
Now, the pushback is maybe it wasn't some universal, centrally planned white thing to get rid of black people or something.
It was probably just a bunch of people who realized it worked.
And so they did it. But you don't realize the pernicious effect of alcohol in the whole history of humankind.
It's a way bigger deal than I think we appreciate, how much alcohol and even poppies and stuff have changed civilization.
And so this conversation caused at least one person to find a study that suggests that moderate drinking of alcohol is good for you.
Do you believe that? How many people here in the comments, you've all seen the studies, and they've been repeated, a number of studies said the same thing.
How many of you believe that moderate drinking is good for you?
It's actually not just neutral, it's actually good for you.
How many of you believe it? Because the studies say that, right?
How many of you have seen those studies that say a little bit of alcohol is good for you, in moderation?
Yeah, wine, right?
Do you believe it? Who did those studies?
Yeah, you're going to get really quiet here in a moment.
Who do you think did those studies?
Who do you think funded them?
Just a guess. What's your best guess about who funded the studies that says alcohol is good for you?
Yeah, just take a guess.
Now, are you aware...
Let me just give you some context first.
Are you aware that...
There was a time in our history in which the advertisement said cigarettes were good for you.
Are you aware of that?
Just as context. There was a time in our history where we were told that cigarettes were healthy, they're good for you.
Who do you think funded those studies?
Even if there were studies, I don't even know if there were.
Well, probably the cigarette companies, right?
If you see a study that says alcohol is good for you, Somebody, directly or indirectly, probably with the alcohol industry, had something to do with it.
Now, let me ask you this.
Do the studies that say alcohol seems to be associated with better health, do they show the causation?
In the comments, do you believe that there's any science...
That demonstrates causation.
Not just correlation, because the correlation, I think, is pretty well established.
Moderate drinkers are healthier.
I think that might actually be true.
But do you believe that science, in any study, has established that it's a cause?
Nope. I see somebody refer to resvetrol, or whatever it is, the chemistry that's in wine.
Yes, that has been shown to have a healthy benefit, that one chemical, but there's so little of it in the amount that you drink that it wouldn't have any effect.
Even the science doesn't claim that drinking would give you that effect.
Extreme moderation is good.
Oh, Alien Baby says, I funded a study proving that giving blowjobs to your husband extends your life.
Your wife's life and the husband's.
I feel like that's science.
I'm a little skeptical about this alcohol stuff, but this study?
Now that's something I can believe.
So here's my prediction.
Are you ready? Contrary prediction.
Someday you will learn that alcohol in moderation is not good for you.
And that it never was.
And there was always bullshit.
Here's the reason that you should expect studies would show a strong correlation between moderate drinking and healthiness.
Because the people who are capable of moderate drinking are all healthier.
And they're the ones who have friends.
They socialize.
That's what the moderate drinking is, socializing with their friends.
These things are all correlated with good health.
So yes, of course it's correlated, but there's no evidence of causation, and I don't even think there's any reason to believe there would be.
So someday you will see that this prediction will come true, that that was always, always bullshit, that alcohol is poison, and it's just poison, and it's not good for you at any amount.
It's fun. I didn't say it wasn't fun.
It's just not good for you, health-wise.
The question I got from many people is, okay, Scott, so you cleverly think that the simulation is really describing reality and that the math of it and the statistics are that we're probably a simulation, not an original species.
Now... Does that eliminate the possibility of God?
It does not. Because you could have a God who created the first species, and then the first species created all the rest of these simulations, of which we are more likely to be a simulation than an original, because there will always be more simulations than originals.
Right? But somebody asked me, well, somebody had to get it all going, right?
There had to be something first.
Right? So there had to be something before the simulation.
Right? Nope.
You want to have your brain explode?
Nope. It is not logical that there had to be something first.
Because time, space-time, let's say space-time to make it sound a little more science-y, but the time version of that is infinite.
It's infinite. How can you have something start...
When time is infinite.
Logically, there can't be a beginning because there would have been something before that.
So I don't think that it's logical that something had to get it all going because it's not logical to think it ever started.
There probably was no start.
If time is infinite, it also didn't have a beginning.
So you don't need a god to get things going, because things were always going.
Now, you're saying to yourself, I don't know if that makes any sense at all.
Right? Doesn't it sort of not kind of make sense that things could just always be here?
Right. That's the point.
Your human brain...
Doesn't have a chance of understanding infinity.
Not a chance.
Your brain doesn't have that capability.
It's like your brain can't mow the lawn.
It's just a brain. You know, unless it tells your body to get a lawnmower.
But your brain doesn't have the capability to understand infinity and stuff like that.
So when you say, well, logically, there had to be a start.
Nope. Nope.
Logically, the most likely explanation is that there's something that happens or happened or happening You don't understand.
That's it. There's just something you don't understand because your brain isn't built to do that.
But no, it does not make sense that there had to be a beginning.
Might have been. Doesn't have to be.
All right. Biden is continuing to blame Trump for some of his bad first-year performance and And I feel like that was a pretty good play at one point, right? When Biden first took over, pretty good play to blame the previous president.
How long can you play that play?
Like, how many months can you get away with saying, well, it's really just what was left by the last guy?
I'd say that time has passed, right?
Somebody says two years?
I don't know. I feel our attention span has just shrunk too much.
And that at this point, you know, six months is a really long time in our lives.
But I have a feeling that Biden blaming Trump for any of this stuff, like the Haitians under a bridge, that wouldn't have happened with Trump.
Right? It feels like there's just a whole bunch of problems that are specifically Biden-related.
You know, the Afghanistan pullout could have been a lot better, etc.
How in the world do you blame Trump for that stuff?
But he's doing it.
And I feel as if it sounds a little bit ridiculous at this point.
Doesn't it? Because it feels like it's just a defense by memory or something.
Like Biden is just saying, oh, yeah, last time I said it was the previous guy, so I'll just keep saying that.
It doesn't work forever.
And I would argue that it's stopped working already.
I feel like it just makes him look bad at this point.
In the beginning, it was a reasonable claim.
But at this point, too many months have gone by.
It just looks bad. Well, as predicted, the Arizona audit has produced two entirely different narratives.
One, nothing was found.
Two, plenty of stuff was found.
They can't both be true.
Either the Arizona audit didn't find enough to matter, or it found so much that you have to throw out the whole election.
And both of those stories are in the news today.
Just one is left-associated, one is right-associated.
So what do you make of that?
Was there any point in having an audit if we're just going to decide?
Yeah, I did call it.
And by the way, wasn't that the easiest prediction in the world?
Was there anybody who thought the audit would give a result that everybody would agree with?
Did you really think that?
We don't live in that world anymore.
Here comes the spin.
What spin? You know, I guess I'm always insulted when people blame me for spinning.
Because what is spinning other than a point of view?
What's the difference between spinning and having a point of view?
Is there a difference? No, it's just a fucking word that you use because you're an ignorant fucking troll and you add nothing to the world.
Let's just spin.
Let's see you spin. Thanks for nothing.
Let's see your opinion.
We'll all call it spin.
Well, both Politico and Slate ran feature articles about me.
Specifically, my association with this weird Matt Gaetz story.
And my part of the story is trivial, but because I guess I'm the Dilbert guy...
It became a major article.
But here's the part that I was involved in.
Somebody I know from Twitter associations primarily sent me a scoop on the Matt Gaetz thing, Jake Novak, and then that got into the news, blah, blah, blah. But part of what makes people curious is why...
Why anybody would have told me that scoop?
Does that make you curious?
Are you curious as to why somebody would give me that scoop before I hit the news?
What do you think? Does that seem unusual?
One of you says you're bi-curious.
Okay. I'll accept that.
I'll accept by curious in the context of this conversation.
Yeah, there wasn't anything even slightly unusual about that.
The most common thing that happens for those of us doing this political commenting is that other people who do political commenting Tell us scoops before you hear it.
How many times have I told you that I hear stuff before you hear it?
It doesn't all come from Jake Novak.
It comes from everybody.
The most common thing that we newsy talking people do is share scoops before you see them in the news.
It's like one of the most common things.
But when you see just one of them plucked out of that context, you're like, hey, what's going on here?
Maybe we need to dig deeper.
No. No.
It's just the most normal thing that happens to people in our circle.
Sharing scoops.
So anyway, that's all there is to that.
Still no Biden apology.
For throwing his own border patrol under a brush.
Under a brush.
Under a bus. Under a bus.
You know the story.
Allegedly there was a border patrol person on a horse who allegedly used a whip on a Haitian immigrant.
But in fact it was the reins he used to his horse and he wasn't whipping anybody except he was using the reins the way they're meant to be used on a horse.
And Now that everybody knows it's a fake news, I don't think there's anybody on the Democrat side who still thinks it's true, right?
Is there? I think it's so thoroughly debunked by the photographer who took the picture and 100% of the people who were there, there's no person who was there and person who says it happened.
So we know it didn't happen.
Where's Biden's apology?
You know... As the creator of the Dilbert comic strip, let me tell you the main theme for all these years in the Dilbert comic strip.
There's one theme that you see over and over and over again in Dilbert, and that is that the boss has the power to create the problem and then assign the blame to an employee.
It's the biggest problem at work, that the boss causes the problem and then assigns it to you.
Oh, that was, I guess, you failed.
No, I didn't fail.
You made it impossible because of what you did, right?
The most common problem.
And Biden is doing that. Biden created the problem by imagining it.
Literally imagining it.
And then he says this guy's going to be punished.
Probably ruins this Border Patrol guy's life because people are going to believe that he whipped black people.
Great. Try living with that.
Didn't happen. So...
I did a Robots Read News comic, but it made me think of the best strategy for the Border Patrol agent.
Here is what the Border Patrol agent should do.
You ready for this? This is real advice.
It's going to sound like a joke, and it is a joke, but it's also real advice.
It goes like this.
That Border Agent, working with a lawyer perhaps, should issue a press release.
The press release should say that he takes full responsibility for using an imaginary whip on an immigrant.
Takes full responsibility for using an imaginary whip.
Use those words. Yes, I was the man who used the imaginary whip.
And then, once you've taken full responsibility for it, offer, in the interest of freedom, in the interest of fairness...
Offer to have a Haitian immigrant whip him in return with the same whip.
It has to be the same whip, the imaginary one.
And so actually stage, put it on video, this guy tied to a tree, you know, tying himself to a tree, and have a Haitian, get an actual Haitian, I'm sure you can find an actual Haitian to do it, right? If you pay him.
Get an actual Haitian to stand there with nothing in his hand and pretend to whip him on video.
And just say, I hope that this makes everything even.
I take full responsibility for my imaginary whipping, and I now have been imaginary whipped in return, and I think we're all fair now.
We're all good now, right?
Now, it sounds like a joke...
It's not. I would actually literally do that.
Because this poor Border Patrol agent just got fucked by the President of the United States.
Let me say it again, because swear words are necessary for this story.
This Border Patrol agent, trying to do his job, trying to keep the United States safe, just got fucked by the Commander-in-Chief, and the Commander-in-Chief knows it by now.
And he isn't apologizing.
And so, this Border Patrol agent, I hope, takes the opportunity he has to fuck Joe Biden back.
Make him a laughing stock.
Make him a fucking joke.
Unless he apologizes.
An apology, I think, should be accepted in this case.
Because it is an honest mistake.
I don't think that Biden meant to misunderstand the situation.
It was an honest mistake.
If he gives him an apology, I think he should accept it.
But if he doesn't apologize, this Border Patrol agent should take the opportunity he's been given to just fuck Biden badly.
Just embarrass the shit out of him in public.
Because he can. It's right there for the taking.
All he has to do is stage an event.
No, he probably doesn't want...
Of course, the border agent probably doesn't want to be famous for this, so maybe that's a bad idea.
Maybe it's better just to lay low.
All right. As Joel Pollack noted in a tweet, the Wall Street Journal has an article about...
Turns out that while Biden is saying that China is an adversary, blah, blah, blah, make things in America, that his, was it the Secretary of Commerce?
Yeah, the Commerce Chief is trying to make more business with China.
So Biden's Commerce Chief believes that the United States is best off by increasing the amount of business we do with China, increasing it.
Oh, my God.
Matt Gaetz just tweeted at me.
Somebody says in the comments.
I'll take a look at that in a minute.
Let's see. Yeah, so what are we supposed to make of the fact that Biden says, yeah, we're going to make stuff in America, blah, blah, blah, but his commerce chief seems to be doing the opposite.
Well... Let's agree that our government is probably corrupt in terms of China and certainly incompetent.
We're watching it right in front of us.
This is just rank incompetence.
And so in those situations, the public has to take charge.
Now, there are very few things that I'm perfectly suited for.
For example, if you said, Scott, can you sit in with this band...
And play drums, because I know you're learning the drums.
And I would say, you know, I'm really bad at that.
You really don't want me to try that.
If you said to me, Scott, I'd like you to, let's say, play center for our basketball team.
I'd say to you, hmm, not your best choice of personnel.
I might not be your first choice to play center in the basketball.
But if you need somebody to embarrass the living shit...
And if some American corporation that would dare to start new business in China now, call me.
Call me. Right?
Pick somebody else to be your center on your basketball team.
Pick somebody else to be the general contractor on your house.
Pick somebody else to be your lawyer and your doctor.
I can't do that stuff.
But if there's an American company that wants to do new business in China, I'm not talking about the ones that are already there.
They've got a different set of problems.
But a new company?
Just let me know. Let me know.
I will take care of that for you.
I will personally make sure that that's a bad idea for whatever company announces it wants to do business in China.
So let me do that.
Let me do that for you.
I will handle this for you.
All right, it's a promise.
Are you following the Theranos case?
This was the founder who basically was just a fraudulent company and they said they were going to do these cheap blood tests that would find all kinds of things easily.
And apparently it was all fraud.
So there's a legal case going on now about that.
But here's what is interesting. James Mattis invested $85,000 in this company and was on the board.
James Mad Dog Mattis.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
But didn't Trump fire James Mattis for being stupid?
That happened, right?
I mean, wasn't that...
Give me a fact check on here.
Didn't Trump say out loud that Mattis was dumb?
He did, right? So Mattis, the guy that we trusted to make our most important military decisions, invested in the biggest fraudulent company of, I don't know, the last 20 years.
I don't think I have a lot of confidence in his generaling.
Feels like the kind of guy who might be duped into a trap kind of easily.
You think? Now, to be fair, Rupert Murdoch also was one of the largest investors.
So you say, well, if Rupert Murdoch got fooled, you know...
He's a more experienced investor.
You shouldn't be too surprised if somebody was a general and not really an investor.
You shouldn't be too surprised if a general gets fooled, if a big investor like Rupert Murdoch could get fooled.
Do you think Rupert Murdoch kicked the tires of this company himself?
Do you think Rupert Murdoch visited, met with the founder, and did a deep dive into the financials?
No. No.
No. Oh, I'm pretty sure that Rupert Murdoch has people who do startup investments for him.
Probably mentioned the name at a meeting.
Hey, we're putting a little money into this one or that one or that one.
Probably heard the name.
Maybe knew what the company did for a living.
But I don't think you can compare what Murdoch did for a small investment like that.
Apparently also David Boies, the attorney you hear in a lot of stories, also invested in.
So I love seeing stories of smart people investing in fraudulent companies.
Now, have I ever invested in a fraudulent company?
Yeah. Have I ever put way more than $85,000 into a company that turned out to be a total fraud?
Yeah. Yeah, I've done that.
Do you remember Webvan?
It was a company that was going to deliver groceries to your house.
And the managers were saying that the model was proven and it was already worked in one area and things were going great.
At the same time, they were planning to close the company.
So I got taken on that one.
But it's fun to make fun of other people who get taken.
But to be honest...
It can happen to any of us.
There's an article in CNN that I find amusing.
It says that voter suppression doesn't work, basically, because it suppresses white votes.
So if what you wanted to do was to suppress black votes, you accidentally, in the process of attempting to suppress the black vote, you end up actually depressing the white vote.
Two different ways.
Number one, and I don't know why nobody ever brought this up before.
You all know that there are more poor white people than black people, right?
Now, as a percentage, there are more poor black people than poor white people.
But in terms of absolute numbers, am I wrong that there are way more poor white people?
And why is it that the poor white people...
We imagine can go out and get an ID, no problem.
But the poor black people can't?
How racist are you to imagine that a poor person of one color can just go out and get an ID and the poor person of another color can't do it, can't figure it out?
Well, I'm here to tell you that that probably has more to do with being poor and where you live than what color you are.
I don't think there's any indication that your color determines whether you can get an ID. Anybody claim that?
Anybody? No, it's your socioeconomic situation that determines whether it'll be hard for you to get an ID. Right?
Everybody agrees with that, right?
So logically, won't there be way more white people who can't vote?
If you do anything to reduce the amount of voting...
Shouldn't you have fewer white votes than black?
Now, as a percentage, maybe more black, but elections are not based on percentages.
They're based on how many votes you get.
Well, I mean, ultimately, it's a percentage against the competitor, but you need to get the most votes.
So wouldn't it be better to get every white vote you could, even if it cost you a few black votes you could have suppressed if you tried?
So, weirdly, CNN is taking both sides of the issue.
They're saying, don't do any voter suppression because it'll be bad for black people.
And by the way, it's not bad for black people nearly as much as it's bad for white people.
You've got to have it both ways, right?
If CNN is reporting, at least reporting in the sense of an opinion piece in this case...
That voter suppression doesn't work and it just makes Republicans worse off.
And I guess the other part of it is that if you talk about the system being broken, it also causes less Republican voting.
I'm not sure I believe that, but people are saying that.
So I guess I'm confused about whether voter suppression is good or bad for black people.
And it looks like CNN's not quite on one page about it.
It's either terrible for black people or it helps them.
It helps them because fewer white people vote, which means that the percentage of black people would be relatively better.
No way. Am I doing the math right?
But it does seem to me that we don't even know if it's good or bad for any particular group.
Yeah, we're talking about it like crazy.
Well, the Taliban is bringing back public hangings and they're going to do amputations again.
So if you steal something, they'll cut off your hand.
They're still not deciding whether they'll do the amputations in public because the Taliban are not the old Taliban.
You know, the old ones, they were really cruel.
They would do you amputations right in public.
But I think they're going to maybe, considering doing them not in public, so...
Oh yeah, they're still doing the hangings in public.
They just did a bunch of hangings.
They killed some kidnappers and hung them from cranes in various cities as a lesson.
Yeah, they're still going to hang people in public.
I mean, they're still the Taliban.
Let me give you some advice that will serve you better in your life than anything you've ever heard in your whole, whole life.
It goes like this.
Never trust... What people say.
Taliban said, hey, we're not the old Taliban, we're the new Taliban.
We're not going to do these horrible, horrible things.
We're kinder, we're gentler.
Never trust what anybody says.
Not just the Taliban.
Now here's the part that you probably said to yourself, Scott, I wasn't trusting the Taliban.
You're not adding anything.
No. I'm saying don't trust the Taliban...
Don't trust their word, anyway.
But also, don't trust somebody else you know at work.
And don't trust your best friend or your spouse.
Don't trust any of your friends or any of your family.
Did I leave anybody out?
Don't trust the word of any humans.
Humans. Don't trust any of their words.
That's the first part of the advice.
There's a second part that will redeem me.
Now you say to yourself, Scott, I can't really live in a world where I don't trust anybody because I'm required to trust people.
No. Don't trust what people say.
Here's what you can trust.
Here's the payoff. Here's the reason you watch me on livestream.
This will change your life.
This little reframe.
Pay attention carefully.
Never trust what anybody says.
Always trust that people will be the same as they have been.
It's different. Never trust what anybody says, friends or enemies.
Friends or enemies.
Don't trust them. You only trust that they are the same people that they were yesterday.
That's it. That's it.
If... Let me take an example.
If I were to ask either of my siblings to do something like, you know, hold some money or something, and I would have to completely trust them because I wouldn't know if they stole any.
I wouldn't care what they said about it.
It wouldn't matter.
What I would trust is that my siblings are the same people they've always been, which means they're not going to steal my money because they never have, Never will, right?
They're the same people. The Taliban said they're going to do something different than what they used to do, but it's still the Taliban.
Now, it's a little different because maybe the members of the Taliban have changed a little bit, but I feel like the principle still stands.
It's still the Taliban, right?
At least in the short run, it's still the Taliban.
So watch how many times this rule works, right?
You can absolutely trust somebody to be the same way they used to be.
If they were a liar yesterday, they're a liar tomorrow.
If they were honest yesterday, and always were, tomorrow's looking good too.
Ignore what they say.
The only thing you can know with any kind of uncertainty is that it's the same person it was yesterday.
That's it. Don't trust anything else.
Now watch how often this works for you.
The first time you hear it, you're thinking to yourself, let me see if I can guess what you're thinking.
I don't know if that's such a difference.
Right? You're thinking, I don't know, I see what you're saying, but it feels like the same thing.
Trust the person, trust what they say.
It's not. It's not.
And when you start making that distinction, life gets a lot cleaner.
And suddenly all your surprises go away.
Suddenly, no surprises!
Never be surprised again.
All right. That is what I wanted to talk about.
Now, I heard somebody say that Matt Gaetz tweeted at me.
Let's see if that's true or what that's about.
So you can watch this in real time.
Let's see. Where would that be?
Tweets. Let's look up Matt.
We'll go to Matt Gaetz's page.
they'll find it easier.
All right.
Oh, it's...
Okay, it's not...
All right, so Matt Gaetz is just dunking on Jake Novak for a tweet that Jake made.
And he just mentions me as being part of that story.
So it wasn't so much at me.
I was just included.
All right.
So I've told you before, I try to mind my own business, and then I end up being in the middle of stories.
Someday... Someday...
I'll tell you what stories I've actually been involved in.
I might have to wait for some people to die before I can do that.
But there are a lot of stories that you have no idea that I had some involvement in.
Mostly I can't tell you about them.
But someday, when enough time goes by, I'll be able to tell those stories.
