Episode 1581 Scott Adams: Things Are Getting Interesting Out There. Let's Talk About it
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
COVID perpetual business model emerging?
Ex-CIA Director believes multiple HOAXES?
Do Billionaires own media to control voters?
Abortion, jet fuel for the Fake News Machine
Russia's concern over Ukraine in NATO
VP Harris, worst advised candidate ever?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams.
It's probably the best thing that's going to happen to you all year.
And if I have anything to do with it, I'm going to make this even better.
Even better. No, I know, it seems impossible, doesn't it?
Yeah, it always seems that way, and then I do it.
Watch this. Grab your copper, mug, or glass, tank, or gel, or stein, canteen, jug, or flask, or vessel of any kind.
Fill it with, that's right, your favorite liquid.
And I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure that dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
No, including that.
No, including that.
No, there's no exception. It makes everything better.
Get ready.
Go.
Well, only the people and locals will know how I feel.
I'll tell you later.
Really good. So Alec Baldwin continues to claim that he did not have his finger on the trigger.
When that gun went off on the set of Rust.
And apparently there's somebody on set who is backing him up on that.
It says that he had his finger sort of straight, you know, not on the...
His finger was, like, straight along the barrel line.
Maybe. Maybe.
And he claims that he would never point a gun at someone and then pull the trigger.
So all of you gun owners are happy with that, right?
Everybody who owns a gun...
Those of you who are good with gun safety, as long as you point the loaded gun at somebody's head, but you don't pull the trigger, you're good, right?
No. You know what's the saddest thing about this?
Is that I thought that, you know, despite the tragedy, that we, you know, shouldn't ignore, despite the tragedy, I thought that this would...
Teach people about gun safety.
And it didn't.
It didn't. You know, I don't know who was advising Alec Baldwin on the PR, but number one, he should have said he didn't have his finger on the trigger on day one.
But, but, he should also say, Under any other conditions, it would be a gigantic mistake to point a gun at somebody.
But I thought under these specific conditions, the proper controls had been in place.
But whatever you do, don't ever point a gun at somebody because I think we've learned from this that that's not safe enough.
Wouldn't you want to hear that?
But I guess that would maybe put him in a little bit of legal jeopardy.
If he were to make any concession toward gun safety.
So that's a shame, because the public should be learning that it wasn't just the trigger part that was the problem.
It was not checking it himself.
It was pointing it at a human being, or anything that he didn't want to bullet in, and then assuming that he'd done enough, because he didn't pull the trigger.
Right? Well, Tulsi Gabbard is saying something pretty interesting.
And I'm going to pass it along without an opinion on the medical truth of it, because how would I know, right?
But Tulsi did a little video saying that the so-called COVID pill that we're all excited about might encourage variants.
Now, I don't know if that's true.
But, you know, I'd worry about it.
But I don't know if it's true.
However, let me just put this out there.
Have I told you to follow the money predicts very well?
Of course. Do you realize we got ourselves into a situation where the only people who can fix this virus problem from a scientific point of view have a huge incentive not to?
That's not my imagination, right?
They have a huge incentive to beat every variant one at a time.
Am I right? They have no incentive to beat all the variants, because that's when the money stops.
All of their incentive is to beat one variant at a time in a way that guarantees more variants.
Sorry. If you had to make a prediction based on their business model, you would have to assume the pandemic would be perpetual.
Based on the business model.
Now, I don't know how anything like this could be perpetual, but I don't know how it can't.
You've got two forces that are both, I don't know, predictably impossible not to be true.
It's impossible that this doesn't stop.
At the same time, the pharma business model makes it impossible that it will stop.
Impossible that it can't and impossible that it will at the same time.
So this one's a hard one to predict.
I tend to be optimistic, so I like to think we're going to get out of this one way or another.
I mean, at some point, you reach something like herd immunity, even with the variants, I would imagine.
That would be my guess.
Anyway, more to add to the list of things that Trump did right, that Biden said was wrong, were wrong, and Biden had to change his policy to just do what Trump did.
Now, apparently the courts had something to do with this, but Biden is going to keep the Remain in Mexico program, and here's the fun part.
Expand it to include Haitians.
Now, I didn't read the article, so I assume that means Haitians who are coming up through the Mexico-American border.
But imagine if Trump had done this, you know, to expand it to include Haitians.
It seems like, huh, it seems like the Biden administration is targeting people of color.
Because first it was the immigrants coming from Mexico, and then it was the Central Americans, and again, brown.
And then we've added this next category of Haitians.
What do they all have in common?
Well, they're not white like Joe Biden, that's for sure.
Racist! Racist!
I learned to do this from CNN. Normally I would just ignore this sort of thing and say, oh, looks like an immigration problem.
Better tighten that up.
Oh, good job. He's tightening it up against all the people who are coming in.
Nope. Nope.
I'm going to take the CNN-MSNBC method and say that...
Hey, if the immigrants are brown, somebody needs to explain what Joe Biden is doing about the Norwegian illegal immigrants, which we never hear about, do we?
Has Joe Biden said one thing about keeping the Norwegian illegal immigrants out of the country?
No. Nothing.
Not a word. Not a word.
Why? Norwegians are white.
Mostly. And that's a clear indication that President Biden has some bias against the shithole countries.
He doesn't use those words, but I'm sure he's thinking them.
Because, remember, it used to be that you could report the news based on what people actually said or did.
But today, it's quite common to judge people based on what you're pretty sure they're thinking.
Pretty sure they're thinking.
So I follow that model.
Well, the media disinformation machine is going nuts, and I like to remind people that if their worldview, which sometimes I call a frame, you know, your way of looking at a topic, if the frame you're using to examine a topic does not predict, maybe try another one.
Because a view of reality that predicts what will happen next is probably the good one.
Doesn't mean it's true.
But if it predicts, that's about as good as you can do.
So here's a tweet by Mike Cernovich.
He said, January 6th was 11 months ago.
So it's coming up on a year.
And he said, zero people have been charged with insurrection.
Okay? How did your filter on reality square with that prediction?
My prediction was, I didn't see any insurrection.
I didn't see it. I saw people who were lightly armed with small clubs and stuff, but I didn't see anything that would look like an attempt at an insurrection.
In fact, it looked exactly the opposite.
It looked like people trying to stop what they believed was an insurrection.
It looked the opposite to me.
Now that was my filter on reality.
So my filter said since there was no insurrection, nobody would be charged with it.
Or at least nobody would be convicted of it.
So my worldview is intact, and there's no trigger for cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance gets triggered when your worldview doesn't match what you're observing.
Mine's perfect. Just what I thought would happen.
So, examine your worldview there.
Now, I got a tweet comment on this from a user on Twitter, Invisible Gorilla.
Who showed an article that said, quote, legal experts have stated that insurrection is borderline impossible to prove in court, and thus this prosecutorial tool has largely been left on the shelf.
I think that's a general comment, not just about this situation.
So I guess insurrection is almost impossible to prove in court.
Do you know what would make it even harder to prove in court?
Well, I'm no legal scholar, so I'll need a fact check on this.
But could I say that insurrection would be harder to prove in court if it never happened and everything involved was on 50 million videos?
Again, I'm not a legal scholar, so I think that when it doesn't happen, it's a little extra harder to prove.
So maybe that's what happened.
I saw a tweet from Ian Bartizas today referring to an article written by General Hayden.
Do you remember him? Do you remember General Hayden?
General Hayden was a retired four-star general.
So this is important.
Listen to his resume.
Retired four-star general.
And he was also the director of the CIA. From 2006 to 2009.
And before that, director of National Security Agency.
So he's the ex-head of the CIA. And in his article...
As pointed out by Ian, who read the article and pointed me to it, he refers to the Charlottesville hoax as if it's real, claims with no evidence that the journalists and scientists are truth-tellers.
The CIA is telling us that the journalists and scientists are the truth-tellers?
What country is he living in?
Has he been around lately?
And then also he called rioters protesters, you know, the riots from the summers, who clashed with police, and he calls the January 6th an insurrection.
Now, this is the ex-head of the CIA who is still calling this an insurrection and still saying that Charlottesville, you know, that I assume that he's referring to the president's comments about Charlottesville, which are part of the hoax, And could you have a more clear signal that the CIA is not on the side of the American public?
I mean, that's what I see.
And I feel as if ex-heads of the CIA should not talk in public.
There should be rule that says they just can't talk in public.
I mean, it's probably totally unenforceable.
Or unconstitutional.
But this is damaging.
Because whatever tiny bit of trust you had in the CIA, it has to go away after this.
This guy was the head of the CIA. And he's a bold-faced...
A liar who's clearly working against the interests of the country, if I'm to believe this.
And by the way, this is not him being quoted so much as based on an article he wrote.
It's an article in his own words.
And, you know, it's one thing to not trust the CIA entirely, but this is different.
This is... This is so bad, it's almost that you can't hold it in your head.
Remember I told you that the best hypnotist could operate right in front of you and you wouldn't be able to see it?
Because if your imagination can't include it, it's just sort of invisible to you, psychologically invisible.
And here's one of those cases.
The CIA is so corrupt, based on this one ex-head of the CIA, who was pretty recent, that I can't hold this in my head.
I can't hold it in my head.
I'm reading it, I'm looking at it, and in five minutes I'll forget about it and think about something else.
It's like I can't put it in my head and keep it there.
Because it's too outside my imagination that the CIA is literally an enemy of the people.
Or at least was as far as this guy goes.
And it looks like that continued under Brennan, etc.
So... I just don't even know how to process this.
This is beyond processing.
Right? Is anybody else having the same experience?
Yeah, write it down, tape it to the wall.
Yeah, your brain can't handle this.
It's too big. It's weird.
I can feel it. I can feel it happening to me and I still am powerless to resist.
How many situations are there now that...
Trump was unambiguously right about.
How long is the list now?
Certainly right about China.
Right about immigration.
Right about the borders, right?
What else?
Right about energy, energy prices.
By the way, did you see the DCCC, some Democrat group, tried to tweet a graph that showed...
That Biden had reduced gas prices by releasing the reserves, except they gamed the y-axis so that a two-cent reduction, which could have been totally random, by the way, a two-cent reduction looked like a steep decline in prices.
And they actually had the temerity to tweet that fucking thing.
Which got caught immediately.
Immediately spotted by a number of people, including the Panda Tribune.
And I think it was based...
There's some suspicion it was based on a parody.
Somebody did a parody tweet that looked just like it.
It looks like they couldn't tell it was parody.
And they may have just tweeted it themselves.
LAUGHTER So parity and reality have merged.
But I have a question about climate change.
Have you seen data that says that the CO2 level has stayed constant for the last 10 years?
Is that considered scientifically valid at this point?
I saw a Michael Schellenberger article that mentions that.
10 years, it's been flat?
Now, that's not enough to lower the temperature.
Because that baseline amount would, according to the scientists, still raise the temperature too much over time.
So you'd have to take it down to closer to zero to actually change the temperature from rising anyway, according to the scientists.
So I have this feeling, and then the second part is the financial part of it.
And it's starting to look as if the financial estimates of climate change destruction are just completely garbage.
Because it turns out we're really good at adjusting.
Let me give you one of the best, let's say, models for understanding the world that there is.
Long time ago, when, let's say, my parents wanted some entertainment, they would gather around the radio, because that's all they had.
So they gathered around the radio.
And that was sort of a tradition.
Then television came out.
What did all the smart people predict about television?
Well, it would kill radio, right?
The most obvious prediction you could make is that a television would make radio obsolete.
Except there are radios and cars.
And there's a new car produced every second.
So then there was talk radio and political talk on radio.
And then there was FM. So every time you predict that something's going to go out of business pretty soon, it's hard to do.
I'll give you another one. When I started cartooning in the late 80s was when I first tried to get into it.
It was already becoming obvious that newspapers would die.
And every five years, I'd say to myself, well, it's not going to last another five years.
I'd better get myself a new career.
And as of today, 33 almost years later, there are still newspapers.
What? How is that even possible?
The simplest thing that you could have predicted...
Is that newspapers would all go out of business.
So it turns out that the reason they still exist is that they were cash cows in the first place.
So they had a lot of runway.
They could just reduce how much of a cash cow they were until they were negative.
But once they reached the point of a break-even, or negative, you think, well, it's done now, right?
And then hedge funds started buying newspaper chains.
Why? Well, it's not entirely clear, but hedge funds are good at cutting costs where the original owners maybe were, for emotional or personal reasons or relationship reasons, couldn't do it.
So the hedge fund will come in and say, I'm going to sell your building because it's worth more than your company.
So they'll sell your building.
They'll sell your real estate and cash out.
But still... I feel like that's still not enough financial reason to take over these little chains.
I don't think that the hedge funds are taking them over just for money.
And I'm going to put out a hypothesis that even...
I'm not convinced about it, but here it is.
I think billionaires and big, rich hedge fund owners want to be in the game.
And they know they have to own some media to be in the game.
It could be that owning a media entity gets you sort of a ticket to hang out with other media moguls.
Could be that. It's just an expensive way to buy a ticket to the show.
And if you're hanging out with the other media moguls, you really do kind of know what's going on, probably better than you and I do.
And you maybe have some influence.
But if you had enough newspaper chains...
Who reads newspapers in 2021 and 2022?
Old people, right? Do old people buy a lot of products and therefore the advertising in newspapers would be a good business model?
Nope. Old people do not buy a bunch of products and when they do, it's the ones they used to buy anyway.
They're not influenced by advertising the way young people are.
So, old people also vote at a higher percentage than other people.
So suppose you could control a newspaper in a geographic area, and the only people you influenced were old people who vote.
Could you move an election that would be otherwise close just by having the old people consume your biased content over and over?
I don't know. I don't know.
But I also don't know another reason that the hedge funds would be buying newspapers.
Because I've got an MBA, and I can't see how it makes sense economically.
It's like something else is going on.
Just draw, dude.
Solid career advice.
All right. I think I was babbling there a little bit.
So I made a prediction-ish on Twitter that if the Mississippi abortion case tightens up abortion, that it would be a turn in the tide against Republicans, that it would activate too many Democrats.
Now, I got pushback from that.
From a highly rational source, some of you know on Twitter, Rich, quote, the People's Pundit Barris, who goes by People's...
No apostrophe, just peoples, plural, underscore pundit, and he's a good follow, so you should give him a follow.
But anyway, he pushed back on that.
He said, quote, I'm highly skeptical of the assertion that a Supreme Court ruling against Roe would result in political blowback favoring Democrats.
And he goes through a thread with a number of reasons, which he summarizes as the pro-choice designation...
Doesn't mean what it used to be.
So people are a little more nuanced than they used to be.
So it's not abortion versus no abortion.
Even the people who are in favor of abortion are also in favor of limiting it in ways that other people would largely agree it should be limited.
Not everybody, but...
So the argument is that there are not enough Democrats who would care about this topic because it either wouldn't affect them personally, Or it just doesn't look that different from the current situation.
What do you think? And then also that the places it's likely to change would be deep red states, so no difference.
What do you think? And this will be a good test to see if I've taught you anything.
Have I taught you anything?
All right, here's my take on it.
It goes like this. So this would be adding to what I already said on Twitter.
Since when do reasons matter?
So, you know, Rich, the people's pundit baris, gives very good reasons.
So he gives data that's fully in context and makes sense to me, and he gives reasons why a rational person could look at this situation and say to themselves, eh, it's not that big a deal.
I'll worry about my economics and my COVID and, you know, nuclear war.
But, eh, you know, abortion's just, it's not going to change that much.
I'm not going to get pregnant.
What do you think? All right, here's my take.
It doesn't matter what the reasons in the data are.
It only matters what the fake news machine will do with it.
And the fake news machine would use this as jet fuel.
They would use it as jet fuel.
And they would say, are you ready for it?
How do you turn something that's no big deal into a big deal?
You say, it's part of a pattern of Republicans taking away bodily autonomy from women.
And then you're done.
Because as soon as you've made the point, and the fake news can simply make this narrative stick...
Republicans, here's another example, Republicans are taking bodily autonomy away from women.
Even if they only took a little bit.
Which, you know, I'm sure this ruling is about that.
It doesn't matter how much autonomy was taken from anybody.
Those would be the reasons and the facts.
The reasons and the facts will have nothing to do with this.
It will be, can the fake news get X number of Democrats all riled up about loss of bodily autonomy to the evil Republicans?
Oh yeah, they can sell that.
They can sell the shit out of that.
It's just sort of a perfect emotional, fear-based, freedom-based, personal, bodily, integrity-based.
I mean, it hits everything.
Just every part of your emotional, you know, part of your brain, it just sets you on fire.
And then now factor in that most votes are not movable in a presidential election.
The vast majority of people are going to vote their team, regardless of policies or anything else.
You're only talking about a narrow sliver of people who determine the election, because they're the ones who can change votes.
Everybody else just can't do it.
So, if you move, I don't know, 5% of the public...
To vote a different way than they would?
Or 2%? How about 2%?
Would that change the national election?
Yeah, I think it would.
So you only have to get a small percentage of people riled up, and this will do it.
So, that doesn't mean it's enough of an advantage that it will change the outcome, but I do think it changes the bias quite a bit.
That's my take. But it all depends on how the fake news decides to frame it.
And I expect they'll frame it in an anti-GOP way.
All right. So Ukraine looks like they're in a little trouble because Russia has apparently amassed a lot of military assets on the border as if preparing to attack.
But at the very least, preparing to intimidate.
And I guess Tony Blinken was over there talking to his Russian counterpart and, you know, giving the old threatening stuff, etc.
And here's Russia's big complaint.
That Ukraine wants to be a NATO country.
How in the world is that a good idea?
Is that a good idea? Because, you know, self-defense of course makes sense.
And I would be all in favor of self-defense wherever you can get it.
But putting NATO on the border of Russia feels like an offensive move to me.
Am I wrong? Doesn't the Russian complaint actually carry a little weight with you?
It does with me.
It feels like an offensive move.
Now, I wonder if Trump would have done that.
Or did he try to do that?
I don't know. Was Trump open to Ukraine being a NATO? I'm looking at...
Was he open to that? Because if Trump was open to it, I think I would have seen it as a negotiating stick.
Because you know what Trump was famous for?
And I would tell you this often.
Trump was famous for creating something out of nothing...
And then using it to negotiate.
So it could be that the United States thinks it's a terrible idea for Ukraine to be in NATO exactly because it would look like an offensive move.
But it might be what we're looking to trade.
Might be what we're looking to give to them in return for who knows what.
Nuclear deal, whatever.
So... I'm gonna take this into the future a little bit.
In my opinion, it is inevitable that Russia and the United States will be allies in the future.
Here's why. Space.
China is going to be a formidable power in space, and I don't think Russia will be competitive with them in the long run, just because of money.
You know, China will just have tons more money to do it right.
I feel as if, and there's really no chance there won't be war in space.
You know that, right?
The odds of no war in space are zero in the long run.
There will be war in space, and We kind of need to win that one.
We don't have a choice.
We can't lose that one.
Because that's the big one.
All the wars, terrestrial wars, none of them count.
Because the war in space will be the one that determines who runs the Earth and anything else, too.
Um... Scott, you realize that until SpaceX we had to hitch rides on Russian crafts?
Right. So Russia, I think, knows that financially the best combination would be U.S. money plus Russian experience plus American experience to have some kind of a counter to Chinese dominance of space.
And I think we should just get over ourselves on Earth because none of it matters.
None of it matters. We could fight all day on Earth, and it won't matter in 20 years.
It'll only matter who's shooting down satellites and who has the high ground.
And if we don't remember that Russia historically has been more on our side than against, at least I'm not the historian to tell you that, but certainly we've allied with them before.
So I think the frame here is we should stop thinking about Earth.
If we think about Earth, the U.S. is going to try to get Ukraine into NATO, maybe.
It's just going to get worse.
But if we say, hey, Russia, why don't we start now to change the frame?
Because if we don't start now, it might not be soon enough.
So just change the frame to space and tell Russia it's not an option to be at war with the United States.
It just isn't. It is not an option that anybody wants.
Russia doesn't want it.
We don't want it. Nobody else wants it.
I don't even think China wants it.
Right? Now, you say Putin has different goals and anything he does is really going to be a trick and he's going to try to screw us at every turn, etc.
Well... You know, that's how allies are.
I'm not sure any of our allies are exactly doing what we want.
It doesn't really work that way.
And I'm pretty sure some of our allies are spying on us and doing some shit to us that we don't like.
All right. That's what I think.
Okay. And then the Harris, Vice President Harris continues to fall apart story.
Jack Posobiec seems to have a, I think it's a scoop.
And he says that Simone Sanders got pushed out of the White House because they blamed her for being the source of CNN's Kamala hit piece, according to a White House staffer.
Yeah, you have to be careful about any of the rumors coming out of the White House.
I think they have a pretty low chance of being true.
But do you think Simone Sanders was behind a hit piece on Kamala Harris, given that that was her own boss?
I don't know. It feels unlikely.
It could be that she thought it wasn't going to be a hit piece.
So in that scenario, I could see it being her fault.
She might have thought that CNN was such a friendly that she could use it as a way to rehabilitate Kamala Harris.
By the way, I just heard this fact.
Can you fact check this for me?
There was some kind of new PR consultants...
That were behind Kamala Harris doing that cringy video where she was talking to the kids who wanted to be in space camp, but they were actors.
That was actually based on them trying to improve their PR, wasn't it?
Somehow they hired a company that thought using actors for kids to make her look real was going to be a good idea, as if we wouldn't know that.
She is the worst advised candidate of all time.
Wouldn't you say? Yeah, Dana Perino confirmed that.
Maybe that's where I saw it. I was watching The Five.
I think that's where I heard it. All right.
Yeah, PR was hired to help Kamala's image.
Kamala's image, oh my god.
I was reminded, watching Tucker Carlson as the Jussie Smollett or Smollet, I still don't know how to pronounce his name, and I'm not doing it intentionally.
If you have a name that's intentionally hard to pronounce, don't blame anybody else.
Is it juicy?
Or are people just joking about that?
Anyway, whatever it is.
Reminding ourselves how fake the fake news can be is a good reminder that our news is completely made up.
And then I'm also seeing a lot of push against Pete Buttigieg.
Now, I've seen on...
I've seen Twitter a number of people mocking me for my complimentary words about Buttigieg.
But let me put them in context, in case you've heard them, and a context.
I didn't think he was the best choice for president.
I think he's very smart.
And he has a good, talented stack, education, etc.
And... I think he's a solid, capable person.
I don't think he necessarily did a good job as a mayor.
I mean, I don't know one way or the other, but it doesn't sound good.
And, you know, he wouldn't be my first choice for president.
But sooner or later, we're going to have a gay president.
And if it were him, maybe that'd be okay.
I'm all in favor of getting all the firsts out of the way.
Just to get them behind us.
Because I think it helps. I feel like the country is better off for having had a black president.
I think we'd be better off if we get a female president.
Not because they're better.
Not because I want to be woke.
It has nothing to do with wokeness.
It's just like a convenience.
Just to be able to say we did it.
Let's just say we did it.
Now, not if they're not the best candidate...
Of course. I'm not saying you should hire them for their, you know, gayness or for their gender.
I'm not in favour of that.
I'm just saying, should we get one that has all the qualifications?
Yeah, Grinnell, for example.
Should we get one that is perfectly qualified?
It'd be nice to get that over with.
Just put it behind us.
You know, sort of a way to signify that we are still the United States.
You know what I mean? This guy is controlled opposition.
This guy? You mean me?
Who's controlled opposition?
Some of you might be new to my live streams.
So if you're new to the live streams, especially the people on YouTube, here's what you need to know.
I'm not the team player.
I'm not a team player.
I say good and bad things about people on both sides, but I do it intentionally.
I make sure I don't go too far without saying something good to somebody on a team that isn't playing well.
All right. What would suggest to you that he...
All right.
I'm not going to read that one. Yeah, that's true.
Kamala Harris was the first female...
president for two hours, right?
All right.
That is mainly what I had to talk about today.
Is there anything happening that I missed?
Tell me in the comments what I missed.
If this is a simulation, then what is different from the simulation creator's reality, or is it creator in a simulation too?
Well, if we're a simulation...
I think it does prove that simulations can create other simulations because we will certainly do it.
And video games are simulations.
So the view of reality that works the best for me is believing that it's a video game and that I'm a player and some of the people are NPCs.
Now, I'm not saying that's reality.
I'm saying that you can change your frame to whatever you want and then see if it predicts well.
So I'm going to live in that frame for a little while, that I'm a simulated creature in a simulated world.
And here's one of the things it predicts.
Are you ready for this?
It predicts that you're working through some kind of specific problems.
For example, have I told you how many water leaks I've had in my house in the past 12 months?
Just an incredible number, and they have nothing to do with any common cause.
They're all just all over the board, different reasons.
I had another one this week.
Yesterday? Yeah, yesterday.
And what causes that?
Why would I have ten water leaks?
And again, it has nothing to do with the building quality.
These are all specific situations that I know the cause, etc.
It's not poor materials.
It's not poor workmanship.
It's just coincidence.
Now, why do I have that coincidence?
Because there are about five others that are themes that hit me over and over and over again that don't hit other people ever.
And then other people have a theme that's over and over and over again and doesn't hit me ever.
How could that be? So it feels like we are either A-B testing for some higher creature, and they put us in this reality to see how we handle the situation that they haven't been able to handle in their own reality.
Because that's how I'd use it.
If I could build a simulation that was so perfect to my own life that I could A-B test different techniques, I would do it.
Wouldn't you? Why wouldn't you?
Of course you would. So if we're a simulation, you have to ask why.
It's either a game, and you're sort of an avatar in a game.
That would make sense. It's just entertainment.
Or it's to learn something, which would mean they're testing something.
So if it seems to you that you're being observed, and maybe you're part of an experiment, which, by the way, I've felt all my life.
Probably age...
I don't know, nine or ten or something.
I first started thinking I was part of an experiment with some higher-level creatures, and that's never gone away.
I've had that my whole life.
Have I looked into the Mandela effect?
I have, yes. I have not read the Norm fictional biography.
I probably won't read anything if it's fiction.
All right.
Break free of consumerism.
Did you know that consumerism was implanted in your minds by people who said...
Correct me if I'm wrong.
So somebody who's better at this, watch the comments.
Somebody will give you a correction.
But I think it was Eisenhower...
Who said what would be really good for the country is if we were a manufacturing country and we would make things that we would buy within the country and also sell to other people.
But in order to do that, yeah, I think Bernays was the name of the guy who was sort of the advertising mind control expert, Edward Bernays.
And he convinced people that they needed stuff.
And we weren't like that before.
We didn't know we needed stuff.
We thought we needed, you know, food and stuff, but we didn't know we needed stuff.
Shiny stuff, good-looking stuff, things to buy.
And so once we became consumer crazy and then also started getting jealous about what our neighbors had, so we had to have that too, he created an economy that's based on that psychology.
You are actually programmed now to Here's the part I've been waiting for.
Do you want me to break your brain?
Do you believe that you could be programmed by an external force to like something you don't like and dislike something that you liked?
How many of you believe that you could be brainwashed to like something you don't like or to dislike something you do?
Easily. Easily.
All right. Let me give you a...
Do you think it could be done with any kind of a, let's say, mechanical form?
You know it can be done by suggestion.
Can it be done mechanically?
Like electrically?
Like actually directly programming your brain?
Well... Here's what I've been thinking about lately.
In terms of programming your brain so it's like a whole different piece of software, not so much.
But suppose you could combine two parts of a brain.
Let's say one part of controlled pleasure...
Because certainly there's parts of your brain that control pleasure, or the sensation of pleasure.
And then you take something that somebody either didn't care about or didn't like before, and you just create a connection, like a physical connection, between pleasure and...
I'll just pick something.
Dirty socks.
Dirty socks. So every time you see dirty socks, your pleasure unit is automatically stimulated because there's actually a physical connection.
Could I make you like dirty socks?
Yep. Instantly.
So, you don't have to program a whole brain.
Like, you don't have to take this big, complicated brain...
And rearrange all of it like you would, say, if you updated software.
You just have to take any two parts of it that are intelligently selected and connect them.
Now, could you do that...
Without physically connecting them, like having some electrical or, you know, some kind of beam into your head or a surgery or something.
Could you connect to unconnected parts of the brain so that something would give you pleasure that never gave you pleasure before?
Yes. Yes.
Yes, you could. And all you have to do is give somebody pleasure and then expose them to the thing.
And then the brain will grow a connection between them.
You will be physically reprogrammed into liking something you didn't like before.
Is it possible?
Yes. I've done it to myself just to see if I could do it.
I don't know how many other trained hypnotists do this, but if you had any idea the things I've experimented with on my own brain that nobody will ever know about, oh my god, Yeah.
I have actually trained my brain to have pleasure for things that were not even anything.
It could be a random thing.
And also a number of other things as well.
So, could you program homosexuality?
I think yes. I think yes.
But I have to be more careful about that.
So the question was, could you turn somebody who is hetero...
Make them gay by reprogramming them.
The answer is yes. Same thing.
You would just have to stimulate their pleasure zone and connect it to that set of thoughts or ideas and just continue.
You just repeat it.
Yeah. Absolutely.
Now, but could you make somebody who is gay straight with hypnosis?
Probably not.
That's my hunch.
Probably not. Because I don't...
I think that would be a harder direction.
Because, you know, people who are straight are always a little bit gay.
You know what I mean? You know what I mean?
Just a little bit gay.
So they're at least a little bit leading, you know?
But I think if you're just gay, that's a hard sell.
I mean, maybe you could do it, but it'd be a harder task.
You're babbling. Yeah, you're not wrong.
You're not wrong. All right, some of your comments are funnier than others.
All right, you can never program me to watch CNN. Yeah, I could.
Yeah, I could program you to watch CNN. Easily.
I just have to reframe it as entertainment, and you'd be watching it all day.
I watch CNN for entertainment.
I don't watch it for news. And it is literally entertaining.
Not in the way they intend, but usually I'm there, oh my goodness, are they trying to sell that?
Oh, look what they left out.
So I'm usually deeply entertained when I watch CNN, if I'm not throwing up.
I do enjoy your company.
That's a good observation.
Yeah, I don't like to turn these live streams off even when I'm done because it's the highlight of my day, usually.
Now, how many of you Have discovered that the simultaneous SIP is a brainwashing and brain reprogramming process.
Now, I'm overt about that, so I tell you that's what I'm doing.
But you can feel it, right?
How many of you have developed sort of an addiction for the live stream and the simultaneous sip?
It feels like an actual compulsion.
In the comments, how many have developed that addiction?
Mild, but an addiction.
Look at the answers going by.
So if you're new to this, this is a demonstration of connecting two things.
So most people like their beverage, whatever beverage it is that they have.
And if I continually have you take a drink from your favorite beverage and I pair it with this live stream, it does reprogram you.
I'm doing it intentionally, but I don't consider it immoral because I'm telling you and it's for your benefit.
So you'll enjoy it more.
That's the point, right? Now, it's good for me because it binds my audience to me, but it should be good for you because it makes you feel good.
So, in theory, we both win, and there's no secrets.
I'm telling you I'm doing it, and you're feeling it in real time.
And by the way, if anybody feels, oh, my God, you've programmed me and I can't escape, let me fix that.
You can escape any time you want.
If anybody doesn't like that feeling...
It's sort of a, I hope it to be a benign feeling that couldn't possibly hurt anybody.
But if you don't like the feeling, you have absolute full power, just stop doing it.
Now that's all you needed, because if somebody was feeling, you know, I feel like it's out of my control.
Well, I just put it back in your control.
So you have full control, even if it feels like you didn't.
Now you do. All right.
Somebody says...
Somebody says...
John says, I escape every once in a while to calm my mind.
All right. Now, I'm going to turn off YouTube and I'm going to keep locals on because I've been giving them a very special lesson on persuasion that you can't see on YouTube because you're not ready for the truth.
