Episode 1658 Scott Adams: Freedom, Fuel, Fake News, Ukraine, The Squad Effect, Unwoke Immigrants
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Talking to Putin, what does he want/need?
DeepMind AI fusion stabilization
Biden vs Trump energy policy
Unwoke immigrants
Stephen Collinson has "yet to be found guilty"
Whiteboard: The Secret of Reality
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 and a welcome to another highlight of your entire existence.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
It's famous all over wherever this livestream is.
And, well, you think that's mostly a terrestrial thing, but we don't know if our signals are being picked up by extraterrestrials.
But one thing we do know...
If any space aliens are listening to this livestream, it's also the highlight of their entire civilization.
And let's take it up a notch.
Let's show those space aliens what we can do with a simultaneous sip.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or a Chelsea Stein, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Not a UFO. Not a UFO. But a vessel that would hold a beverage of any kind.
I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine hit of the day.
It's the thing everybody's talking about.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go. Well, there used to be an old Saturday Night Live joke, Chevy Chase, when I guess it was Spain's Franco died.
And he would do the fake news and he would say, and Spain's Francisco Franco is still dead, which was hilarious back in those days.
The point is that what we consider funny really changes over time.
However, I think of that every time I see that Ukraine has not been attacked by Russia.
What is your current thinking in the comments?
Will Russia do a major attack?
Now, we all think they're going to keep the pressure on and try to annex things or whatever, but will they attack attack?
See, mostly no's.
Mostly no's.
Interesting. Now, here's what's the most interesting about this.
The news is telling you mostly yes, aren't they?
Our intelligence agencies, our government, are saying, any day now, any day now.
And yet most of you, almost all of you, really, well over 90%, are saying, no, you don't think it's going to happen.
Have we reached a point where the lies of the government are now so transparent that they won't have an effect on us?
I'm going to talk a little bit about things that came from the pandemic that are insanely positive.
You know, the pandemic itself, of course, a major tragedy.
A million Americans dead, six million globally.
I'm not, you know, taking away anything from that.
But with wars of any kind, whether it's a war against people or a war against the virus, you end up with all these unintentional benefits.
And wow, do we get a few.
You know, not enough maybe to pay for the pandemic, but...
We'll talk about that in a little bit.
So on Ukraine, I have this to add.
You know how important it is that the frame or the way you look at a problem will really constrain your options?
In other words, if you look at a problem, as we often do for these international things, as they only respond to power...
Or the other side, whoever the other side is, in this case, let's say it's Russia, they only respond to strength.
Now, on one level, that's true enough.
Would you agree with me?
Would you agree with me that on a surface level, that's pretty true, that other countries really do only respond to strength?
Because if anybody sees an opportunity, they take it.
Am I wrong? There's no exception to that.
Any country that sees a national opportunity, if it has a low cost, they're going to take it.
Your countries are organized to optimize what's good for the country.
So of course it's true that power is the primary variable that keeps things stable or keeps things unstable.
So there's no question about the basic truth of that.
However, however, When you reframe things, here's a little secret for you.
The reframe doesn't need to be true.
It only needs to work.
Right? So what might be true is that strength is the only thing that matters.
That might be just completely 100% true, and if you were a physicist or a scientist, and somehow you could measure who has the power, and importantly, who knows they have the power, and who knows they don't, you'd probably be able to predict what will happen almost every time.
But if you were to reframe the problem this way, which might be less true, but would it be more effective?
And this way is...
What do you want? Just what do you want?
Here's a scenario I imagine.
Now, I'm not hallucinating that this would really work.
I'm just taking you through a thinking process.
If I could spend an hour with Putin, and, I don't know, let's say, amazingly, he learned to speak English in the last week, so we could just have, like, a conversation in the same language, no interpreter, just the two of us in the room, And if I could say to him, okay, look, just tell me what you need.
Like, what do you need?
What's in it for you, really?
Is it the pipelines?
You know, and everything's going to be a little bit yes.
It's somewhat about national defense.
It might be about pride.
It might be about momentum.
It might be about consolidating leadership over his country.
It might be writing past injustices.
It might be about returning Russia to its former glory.
Maybe. But over here, we're just guessing, aren't we?
Don't you feel like we're just guessing?
Because everything depends on just what's happening literally in one person's skull area.
That's all. Just one person and what's happening in this little piece of brain, like the actual chemical reaction that's happening there.
That will determine the life and deaths of, I don't know, a million people, That little bit of chemical reaction in one person's brain, it all depends on that.
So, suppose you put me in the room with Putin.
Now, keep in mind, Putin is a high-level player.
We assume he's very persuasive, to say the least.
But so am I, you know, in my own different way.
And if I asked him, and I spent enough time with him, don't you think I could find out what the real problem is?
He might not say it directly, but I'll bet it would come out.
You know, maybe not in the first five minutes.
But if you could just hang with him for like an hour and just talk about all the things, I'll bet he would reveal, even unintentionally, Maybe by the one he talks about the most.
Maybe by the one he shows the most.
Let's say he mentions there's a whole bunch of reasons.
But when he mentions one of them, he becomes more animated.
When he's talking about it, you can see that that's the one.
You look in his eyes, you can see that's the one that matters.
The other ones are all true.
But maybe one matters more, right, just to the one person and the one brain and the one skull in the world.
Now, do you think that you could not figure out a way to give him what he wants, whatever that is, the main thing he wants, without giving up something that you don't want to give up?
I don't know. Maybe there is no way.
Maybe it is just power. But as long as we think that the frame is just power, you can't even ask the right question.
Because maybe, just maybe, just pick one.
What if the only thing he cared about was selling energy?
What if that's the only thing?
And otherwise he's not actually that worried about NATO attacking Russia.
Because if you talk to Putin, would he really say, I'm afraid of NATO attacking?
Would he? I don't know.
Maybe he's not... I mean, NATO is a defensive force by nature, but of course everything defensive looks a little bit offensive.
So is it about his legacy?
Suppose you found out that what Putin wanted more than anything is a legacy.
Could you give him a legacy without giving up too much of what you want to give up?
Maybe. I don't know.
Maybe not, of course.
But if we're not asking exactly what he cares about and we can't figure it out, how in the world do you get a good outcome?
By luck? Or you just let the power go where the power goes and it doesn't matter who wanted what or why.
It's just the water is going to find its own level and we're just waiting to find out what happens.
Maybe that. But I would at least be open to the question of...
What the hell does you want?
And on top of that, I had a wild idea that kind of connects to my earlier statements about maybe publicly interviewing people, which is, can you imagine a better interview than me interviewing Putin?
And is it even legal?
Would that even be legal?
And what would happen to me if he said yes?
If I actually put it out there, and he said yes.
Because he might.
He might. I mean, he is actually quite open to media, and by now he knows that podcasters have some little weight in the ecosystem.
So what if he said yes?
Would that even be legal?
Because I would worry that I would break some kind of treason law if I accidentally gave him a platform where he looked good.
That'd be a big problem, wouldn't it?
So wouldn't I have to make him look bad to be an okay American?
Could I continue being an American if I made Putin look good accidentally?
I mean, it'd be a pretty big risk, wouldn't it?
But if I came at it with the intention...
Of not making him look good.
First of all, why would he do it?
And second of all, why would I do it?
Why would I do it? I wouldn't have any interest in that.
Right? Other people can make him look bad.
But I would actually legitimately want to know what the hell he's thinking.
And I think I can get it out of him.
I know you don't.
But I actually think I can get it out of him.
Because I think I can get it out of anyone.
Of course, it depends on this one thing, which is speculation.
That if you knew what he really wanted, it wouldn't shock you or surprise you that much.
That we just need to know what it is.
And we don't know which of his several fairly good reasons for doing what he's doing.
We don't know which one is the activating one.
But if we did, I'll bet we could figure out something pretty quickly.
And he's also a practical person, right?
We think. Would you say that's a fair characterization?
That whatever you think of Putin's, you know, his breathtaking evil, you would also say he's effective and, you know, he's the least rational player.
Lex Friedman is going to interview Putin?
Is that true?
Is that really happening?
Now, that would be interesting.
Was Lex born in Russia?
I don't know his background.
Somebody mentioned that somewhere.
Your naivety with Putin is terrifying.
Let me speak to that.
My naivety with Putin is terrifying.
Now, whoever is saying that I'm naive about Putin, the assumption built into that comment, which, by the way, is completely correct...
I'm not disputing your characterization.
If you're saying that I'm completely naive about Putin, that's actually my point.
That's my point. But I'm saying that we all are.
That's the whole point.
So if you're saying, Scott, you don't know anything about Putin, you're following correctly.
That's the point. We don't know what he's thinking.
Now, if you don't think I could get it out of him, then maybe you don't understand the tools of persuasion.
But I think somebody with my same type of training and experience probably could get it out of him.
You would just have the right kind of person with the right training doing it.
It's not something that could be done accidentally.
I don't think Stephen Colbert could get it out of him.
I don't think a typical news person could get it out of him.
But I think I could. And I think I could do it in public.
And I don't think he would be worse off for it.
Not necessarily. Overconfidence, you say.
That's my trademark.
Overconfident is exactly where you want to be.
Let me ask you this.
This is actually an interesting question.
If you had a choice of three choices, show me in the comments.
You could be underconfident compared to your actual abilities.
You could be exactly the right amount of confident.
Or you could be overconfident.
Which would be your optimal situation?
I see a lot of people saying over.
So what's interesting about your criticisms of me this morning is that they're true, but they're more like compliments.
Or it's more like agreeing with me.
What happened to the real professional trolls?
They did disappear, didn't they?
Because you're seeing the people who are actually just regular people making comments, this sounds like.
This doesn't even sound like trolls.
This sounds like actual regular people just making comments.
Did something happen with the paid trolls?
Because some other people noted it, but I think it might be confirmation bias.
Or it might be what topics I'm talking about on any given day.
But it feels like all the trolls just disappeared all at the same time.
I went from complete troll infestation that lasted, I don't know, a month or more.
I mean, just really high troll content.
And then it just went to zero.
Did Twitter do that?
It's possible Twitter did it.
It just turned off the trolls, maybe.
I mean, they do have the technology that if somebody stays trolling long enough, they're going to get flagged, right?
So it could be that there was a wave of trolls that signed up, and then Twitter wiped them off, and it takes a while for them to ramp up again.
Could be that. Who knows?
Anyway, another big breakthrough in fusion.
We keep hearing these, and this time it's...
And by the way, I had to predict this, and I think I'd predict this in my book, Loser Think, Can anybody confirm this?
A few years ago, I was saying that AI... I didn't make this up.
I read it somewhere. That AI would be the thing that made fusion energy practical.
So it turns out that that's exactly what looks like what's happening.
So Google's alphabet...
Part of the company there.
Is that the right way to say it?
Or is Alphabet its own spin-off now?
How do you say that?
But anyway, Alphabet, whatever the hell that is.
Something about Google.
The scientists at DeepMind, which is part of that umbrella organization, they figured out how to use AI to control a fusion reaction, which requires thousands of micro-corrections per second.
So the AI can look at this big, complex ball of fusion.
And by the way, don't let me get too technical here.
I know I'm going really deeply.
So there's this big ball of fusion That's going in lots of directions and doing lots of things.
And a human engineering it could never anticipate all the things that fusion reaction could do in any given second.
So humans can't do it.
You can't engineer something to do it.
But AI can watch it and learn.
So they do the reaction, they turn the AI on, and they say, OK, AI, figure out how to control this thing.
And then the AI, mostly through trial and error, Figures out how to control fusion.
And that actually happened.
Like, they actually trained an AI to go figure out how to make a fusion reaction work, and it worked.
Now, the AI only did the one part of it, which is keeping it stable, apparently, but it worked.
Do you know how big a deal that is?
Real big. Like, real, real, real big.
Like, really big.
It's about as big as anything's ever been in the history of humankind.
Did I oversell that?
I don't think that's an overstatement.
That if this AI solution for keeping the fusion stable, if it's what it looks like, and of course, you know, anything could be different than the way it looks in the news.
But if it's what it looks like, this could be the key element...
To unlocking fusion.
We might be pretty close.
Here's another thing that Trump was so right about.
Trump's approach was sort of a business person's approach to energy, that a country that has a strong energy base or policy or production is always going to be in the best shape.
It's just a basic rule of thumb.
That if you have the best energy business, producing business, you have the best economy.
Like, everything works from that.
Cheap energy, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But here are some of the things that happened once Trump's, you know, pro-energy policies were replaced immediately by Biden's stop all the carbon because of climate change stuff.
So certainly we lost jobs.
Certainly it affected the GDP, what Biden did, which of course affects the tax base, which of course affects funding for schools and everything else.
We hoped to decrease the carbon use because of climate change, but it increased it.
Apparently a major coal company had its best year ever, or in many years.
Coal companies were just killing it.
Coal companies had reduced by 50% in terms of how much energy they were producing for the country.
They had gone down by 50%, and a lot of that was because the pro-energy policy of Trump and before that made gas more competitive, so you didn't need coal.
Natural gas. And so, now that that's been reversed, more coal has been burned.
So Biden got us more coal, fewer jobs, lower GDP, less tax space for schools.
We ended up with less stable power.
Of course, the high price of all forms of energy causes inflation.
And then we also lose our international leverage.
If fuel were cheap, Americans would be paying low prices, our economy would be better, but Russia would have a lot less money to amass an army on the border of Ukraine.
Basically, almost everything good comes out of a strong energy economy.
Try to come up with an exception.
Can you think of an economy that has a strong energy base that isn't doing better than its peers?
Now, you're going to have to adjust this for whether it's Nigeria, make it an African standard versus etc.
But I feel like it's a one-to-one, isn't it?
Pretty close. That energy equals good life...
Well, Russia is an example of energy being the only reason they have the lifestyle they have.
Isn't it? If you took energy away from Russia, it wouldn't even be a...
You know, it wouldn't be anything.
There wouldn't be anything there at all, because they couldn't fund the military.
They would just be this broken nuclear power.
And we would be talking about how to give aid to Russia so they don't collapse and lose control of their nukes.
Basically, it's a good thing that Russia has energy, because that's what keeps them a stable country, which allows them to control their nuclear arsenal.
You don't want Russia to fall apart.
That would be pretty dangerous.
All right. So I'm not sure if people quite understood the ramifications of Biden's leadership there.
So yesterday I experienced my most, let's say, uplifting experience of freedom...
And most crushing feeling at the same time.
So I went to the gym yesterday, where I've been maskless for a while, while other people wore masks.
A lot of them did. But now, I don't think that the OSHA has changed the rules yet, but for all practical purposes, everybody was maskless.
Except... Well, let me do the first part first.
Walking into my gym and seeing the full faces of pretty much all of the patrons...
Was exhilarating. Now I know, I know, lots of you have just always been there since the beginning of the pandemic.
But for those of us who have not been free, to walk into a room full of happy people exercising without masks made me cry.
Honestly. I mean, I actually teared up.
It was beautiful. And it made me feel for the first time That we got past this thing.
And then...
I noticed that the staff were wearing masks.
Am I right? Do I even need to finish this?
The staff...
still wearing masks.
Now, I believe that they had the option.
I was told that they didn't have to wear them.
But it didn't look like anybody was taking the option.
Meaning that there was some...
Indirect pressure that the staff were wearing masks.
Now, I offered to help.
I offered to talk to management and see if I could get them unmasked.
But, you know, people don't want to cause trouble.
So, I mean, I asked one of the staff members I knew well, can I do something about this for you?
You know, can I talk to somebody?
Because they would listen to the members of the gym before they would listen to the staff, unfortunately.
And then you start seeing the pattern.
And the pattern is truly troubling.
And the pattern is that the freedoms are coming back in the exact order of your power in society.
Rich white people got their power back first.
And, you know, Magic Johnson, I guess.
So if you were an elite, I guess it didn't matter so much your race, but if you were elite and rich, you were already on a private plane.
You already could be the governor and take your mask off.
The rich got there first.
And I walk into my own health club, and of course I'm already the elite, because who can even afford to be a member of a gym, really?
What percentage of the public can even afford that?
It's not a lot.
So I'm already in this elite situation, and then I look at the staff still wearing masks, and it's just crushing.
It's crushing. It just feels so frickin' wrong.
And watching the kids go to school in their masks.
The weakest part of society, we protected the worst.
And we did that at the beginning, too.
The most vulnerable, we didn't protect them, did we?
Not as well as we should have, in retrospect.
But did we learn anything?
Well, I don't know. Maybe that's why we're being extra protective of the kids, because of the feeling that we failed early in the pandemic.
Maybe. I don't know. But this is a wake-up call, isn't it?
Remember earlier where I was saying that the only thing that matters in international relationships is power?
That seems to be all that mattered when it came to freedom.
It only mattered how much power you had.
The kids don't have any power.
If the kids had power, they would be first.
Am I right?
If the kids had the power, they would have been the first to unmask, not the last.
If the prisoners had the power, they would be the first, not the last.
If the truckers had the power, if the retail workers had the power, if the service workers of America, if the server at your restaurant had the power, they would have unmasked first.
But they don't. And if you think your work is done because your mask is off, well, you suck, basically.
You suck. We've got to get these people unmasked.
We've got to keep the pressure on because the great clawback isn't going to happen on its own.
We're going to have to just claw to get back to where we were.
And I had a terrible feeling yesterday that my own problems were solved.
You know what I mean? Like, okay, I don't have to wear a mask anymore.
I guess my own problem is solved.
But wow, that hurts when you see somebody else in a mask.
It hurts. So that's where I'm at.
But in terms of the good things that came out of the pandemic, Joy Behar says she might continue to wear a mask in public at all times.
And I say to myself, well, I didn't see that coming.
But that does seem like a little bit of a plus.
I wouldn't discount that.
We also got a lot of touchless purchases that I really enjoy.
Retail is easier, right?
Retail is probably easier forever because we got better ways to pay for stuff.
Touchless, self-checkouts, you know, grew.
Delivery of everything.
You know, we just got hooked on everything being delivered.
That's probably good in the long run.
All right, Rasmussen has a poll that says if elections were held today, in sort of a generic midterm election type thing, that 50% of voters would prefer a generic Republican and only 37% a generic Democrat.
A 13% difference.
Now keep in mind that there are more Democrats than there are Republicans.
So if 50% would already vote Republican, just generically speaking, The Democrats are just...
They're dead.
They're gone. And you know what the...
And, you know, this, of course, is what I'm going to call the squad effect.
Has anybody given this a name yet?
Probably somebody already came up with that name.
Maybe I read it somewhere. But it feels like the squad effect, doesn't it?
Like the squad became the public face of the most progressive ideas.
And then they got their way, at least in some stuff, and it shocked people, everything from critical race theory to, you know, women's sports being affected by trans rights stuff.
And suddenly...
There does seem to be a little bit of a pushback here.
But here's the weirdest thing.
Apparently, there's only one thing that can save moderate Democrats.
Only one thing.
Do you know what it is? Only one thing can save the, let's say, traditional, classic Democrats.
I can see if you say it yet.
Trump... Now, maybe DeSantis too.
But the point is, the only thing that can get rid of the progressive power within the Democrat base is to get wiped out.
Is to just have all the Democrats just get wiped off the map in 2022.
And it looks like that's what's lining up to happen.
Now, anything could happen, right?
I'm not sure I would even make it a prediction at this point.
Because, you know, there will be scandals and surprises and God knows what between now and then.
You know, we didn't see the pandemic coming either.
So predicting is a hard business.
But it's this weird situation where the only thing that can save the standard Democrats is Trump.
Or somebody who has a Trump-like approach to things.
It could be DeSantis or somebody else.
It's kind of weird, isn't it?
But am I wrong? Am I wrong that privately Democrats are saying the only way we can get back to what we want is to get rid of the progressives, and the only way you can get rid of the progressives is to show that their ideas of defunding the police and critical race theory and some other stuff just got you slaughtered.
It's the only way. There's no other way out.
And that's that power thing again.
Just follow the power.
And the power seems to be lining up in one direction at this point.
All right.
Here's a little prediction slash observation that is just fun to me.
How many of you have any kind of a close relationship with either brand new or pretty recent immigrants from the southern border?
Yeah, just in the comments. Because I live in California, so for me it's just part of the normal living environment.
You're just always having contact.
So some, yes.
Now, so for those of you who have close contact experience, I'm talking about people...
If you regularly have conversations with people whose immigration status you don't quite know, which is very common in California, right?
It's an everyday experience.
So here's what I think about the recent immigrants.
They are the most unwoke people in the United States.
Am I wrong?
Anybody disagree?
That the recent immigrants are the most unwoke people In the United States.
And it's not because they're exactly like Republicans or something.
I'm not saying that.
I'm saying they literally do not care.
Let me ask you this.
If I described a following person, you tell me what party they're probably in.
They're very religious. They believe in God.
Christians. Very Christian.
And they're not just religious, but it's really baked in.
It's an important part of their life.
They're big on family.
Super big on family.
And work is their guiding principle.
Go to work, stay in a jail, get an education.
Who did I just describe?
Once you see it, you can't unsee it, right?
All right, let me just check, see if something's blowing up here.
So I can't even describe my life sometimes.
So, All right. So what happens when all of the unwoke immigrants...
Start getting more political power.
Let's say the second generation is born.
Have the Democrats accidentally gotten a short-term advantage?
Because if the census counts the immigrants, it might give more power to Democrat states or something.
Something like that.
Or Democrat regions or something.
So there might be some short-term gain.
But it looks to me like the Democrats have opened up the spigot to let in a lot of future conservatives.
Am I wrong? Those of you who have actual direct personal contact with the immigrant community, can you back me up on that?
They care the least about any of the woke stuff.
I've never even seen an immigrant be...
Let me say something that will blow your mind.
In all my life in California, I've owned two restaurants, right?
So you know that my contact has been high.
I've never met...
Any immigrant, a recent immigrant, legal or illegal, it doesn't matter the status, I've never met a recent immigrant who was ever offended by anything.
Anything. Have you?
Has anybody had a different experience?
They just don't care about any of that stuff.
They just don't care.
They want a job.
They want to get along.
They want to improve their life.
But they do not get offended.
I literally have never seen anybody who was a recent immigrant be offended about anything.
They just want to work.
They want the tools of life.
That's it. That's all they want.
All right, and I had missed, I guess, the significance of this story about the San Francisco School Board recall, where three members got recalled because I guess they were too woke, and even San Francisco, which is the wokest of the woke places, decided, that's too woke.
Do you know what the subtext of the story is?
The part that might get mentioned in a sentence toward the end of the story?
Do you know what they left out of the story?
Who do you think was the largest energy behind getting rid of the wokeness?
Probably the Asian American community.
It's reported that way, and I would also assume.
And also, I would imagine that would include a lot of recent...
You know, recent immigrants, maybe second generation.
But you see where I'm going with this, right?
Pretty conservative.
The Asian-American public has been the most silent segment of the country, in my opinion.
Would you agree? Well, I guess if somebody's more silent, I can't think of them to even mention them.
They seem to have decided to, you know, use their power, and they used it very, let's say, in a surgical way.
They just reached in and just took out three cancers from the larger body and just removed the cancer, it looks like.
So good job. To parents in San Francisco.
But the story I missed, the part that I, for some reason, I just didn't notice it, was that they were recalled by votes of like 79%, 75%, and 72%.
Oh, my God.
Nothing wins by that kind of margin.
Right? Why silent on Project Veritas?
I don't know anything about Project Veritas recent.
Is there a recent Project Veritas thing?
Anybody? Somebody's asking me why I'm silent on Project Veritas.
Is there something happening? FDA? Oh, is there an FDA thing?
Did that happen today or yesterday?
I didn't see anything in the news today.
It's two to three days old?
Wow. Has social media suppressed that?
Because that's the kind of content that people send to me immediately.
Wow. All right, I don't want to alarm you, but what are the odds that social media and the news could have kept that story from me for two days?
You see what's happening here, right?
I'm about as plugged in as you could possibly be to that part of the world, you know, the world that wants to doubt all that stuff.
How did I not see that?
Because that never came up in anything I saw.
Normally, if there's a Project Veritas dump, I would get like 50 of them within an hour.
People would just send it to me over and over again.
Wow. That's blowing me away a little bit.
All right, I'll tell you what I'll do.
I'll go look at it. I'll go take a look at it.
And I'll let you know. But if you were thinking that I had some kind of intention for not talking about it, that's not happening.
I didn't even know what that was.
Now, what's the gist of it?
Is the gist of it that the numbers are fake or that there's more danger or something?
Is that the gist of it?
Um... Oh, the young mandates, blah, blah, blah, blah.
All right, well, I'll go take a look at it.
But I'm glad you brought that to my attention.
Elon Musk has a new rocket engine in his rocket company there, and he's going to get it below $10 million per rocket.
I don't know if that means per launch.
Is it under $10 million per launch or under $10 million per rocket?
Either way, it's a small number, isn't it?
I mean, that's a pretty big deal.
So if you look at just what's happening with fusion, plus what Elon Musk is doing with the economics of space travel, because it's a big...
the new rocket is way, way more efficient, apparently.
It's a big deal. Meanwhile, over on CNN, they can't quit on Trump.
So their resident hitman, Stephen Collinson, he does a walls are closing in kind of article about Trump every week or so for five years.
The walls are closing in.
Now, I don't know if he uses that phrase, but that's the essence of it.
And today's story is about...
So this is how Stephan Collinson, an opinion person on CNN, frames his discussion of Trump's legal woes up until now.
So here's how it's framed.
This is his actual sentence.
He goes, quote, Yet to be proved guilty?
How about no evidence of a crime?
Or how about no court has ever found him guilty of anything?
What's this yet to be proven guilty stuff?
Yet to be proven guilty?
Doesn't that pretty much indicate that it's just a given that he's going to be proven guilty?
Well, but not yet. But it's coming.
Have you killed anybody?
Not yet. Are you guilty of terrible sexual offenses?
Not yet. Did you cheat on your taxes?
Not yet. Not yet doesn't mean no.
It's amazing how much propaganda can be slipped into an opinion piece.
And then I guess CNN's just creaming itself over the fact that Ivanka and Don Jr.
will testify under oath in the New York State or New York City case that has something to do with Trump and taxes and valuations, but we don't have any evidence that there's any actual crime.
Like none. No evidence whatsoever, in the public anyway.
The public has no evidence whatsoever of any crime.
And it's big news that Ivanka and Don Jr.
will testify. Do you know who I'm not worried about testifying?
Is Ivanka and Don Jr.
I don't think that that's exactly where all your smoking guns are going to be discovered.
I mean, there are only two possibilities.
Either there's something to hide, and they would be good at hiding it, or there's nothing to hide, and that's the end of it.
Or they don't know anything that would be damaging.
So this is about as far away from Trump is in danger as anything I've seen, but I suppose anybody who's under oath has some risk involved with that.
But that seems like an artificial risk that's put on them by the legal system as opposed to a risk caused by any behavior of the Trump organization.
So keep that clear.
And then there's a story about Trump's accountants who did his taxes quitting because they can't stand behind their accounting job.
And then people are trying to read between the lines.
Do all of you know that the accountants are never responsible for the raw data that's given to them by the company?
That's always been the case.
So the accountant is always free from blame if a client gave them bad information and then they did the taxes based on bad information.
But I think this just looks like a cover your ass situation.
I don't think any accounting firm wanted to take the heat of defending Trump in this context.
And I think they said something that's just always true.
Do you know what's always true?
That your accountant can no longer stand behind your accounting job.
That's always true.
So it looks like it's news.
like there's some kind of a statement.
And...
Anyway...
Sorry, that just threw me off my game for a moment.
So anyway, my point is there's no such thing as an accountant firm that stands behind the numbers.
Accountant firms only stand behind the treatment of the numbers in all cases.
So it was fake news because they announced something that's just business as usual, that we don't stand behind our...
They don't stand behind the statements because they don't know if the data that they got is true.
That's just always true. It's always true with every client.
All right. How would you like to see the secret to reality?
Would you like to have reality explained?
Now, you've heard probably that...
So I don't have a hard quit time today...
So you've heard probably that one of the big problems with either the simulation or with the idea that God started the universe or the Big Bang is what happened before that.
So if you could come up with a theory that handled what happened before, that would be a big advantage for explaining reality, right?
And you'd also have to explain the simulation, and you'd have to explain God, you'd have to explain physics, you'd have to explain the Big Bang.
And here's a little starting point for you.
Here are three things that are the same.
Heat, energy, and statistics.
It's just all the same thing.
Because wherever there's more energy...
There's more heat. Because coldness is the opposite of energy, right?
It's the opposite of any energy.
So wherever there's energy, there's heat.
But wherever there's energy, there's also luck.
In other words, statistics follow energy.
If you go to a city where lots of stuff is happening, your odds of getting a good job are better.
Your odds of being lucky in a high-energy situation are better.
There are just more opportunities happening all the time.
If you go to the country and there's one employer and they don't like you, there's not much energy there, not much odds.
There's no chance for luck to happen.
Now, how much energy was there during the singularity, the moment before the Big Bang?
When the whole universe was compressed into some impossibly small space, I guess, how much was possible?
And the answer is nothing.
At the moment that nothing was moving, because everything was compressed, there should have been no possibility, no heat, no energy, because nothing was moving.
So, how do you explain all of that with the model?
Now here's another little twist I'm going to throw in here.
Do you know that there's no such thing as time?
Einstein would back me up on this.
There is a thing called space-time, meaning that time has no meaning unless you're looking at it in relationship to other things and their positions.
So if space itself changes, in other words, if two things change in relationship to their distance or velocity or any other way in relation to each other, then time is said to have passed.
But it's really a change in space.
So it's sort of that space-time thing are really all just the same thing.
So in the way that energy and luck are basically two ways to talk about the same thing, Space and time are actually just two words to talk about essentially the same thing.
Things moving in relationship to other things.
Let's put it all together.
Simulation theory, God, Big Bang, how do you start when there could be no beginning, infinity, and all the rest.
Well, you start with really scratchy handwriting.
And I say, imagine reality looking like this, a Mobius strip.
Do you know what a Mobius strip is?
Basically, it's just for, let's say, just for description purposes.
So I'm not saying there's a physical Mobius strip in space somewhere.
But for conceptual purposes, imagine that space and time...
Or circular, or just to make it more science-y.
It's something where if you start here and you keep going, you end up in the same place.
So I could have drawn a circle, but this looks more like science-y.
Or science fiction-y.
So, imagine what happens after the Big Bang.
After the Big Bang...
All right, so far I've explained time and infinity.
And we've explained how there could be a beginning.
Because it's illogical that anything has a beginning because there has to be something before that.
But if space and time are in a loop, any kind of a loop, then you don't ever need a beginning because it can just loop.
It just is what it is.
It just sits there as a loop and needs no beginning.
But you might say to yourself, where did this come from?
Well, maybe it came from a higher level simulation.
Because if anybody creates a simulated world that thinks it's real, eventually that simulated world will also evolve until it can make its own simulation.
So in theory, the simulations go all the way down.
Every simulation will make another simulation to infinity.
So there shouldn't be one of these.
There should be something closer to an infinite amount of them over time.
We don't know if that's happened yet.
Now, how do you explain the fact that the Big Bang was supposed to create a situation where the gravity, because everything has gravity, would eventually slow the expansion of the universe, and then it would close back in itself and create the Big Bang again?
That's what the scientists say.
But then when they looked at the actual expansion of the universe, they found out the expansion was increasing.
Instead of decreasing. The gravity was supposed to stop the expansion and then suck it back together over a gazillion years.
But it's getting...
It's actually increasing. So what happens if all the matter in the universe continues for trillions of years to expand?
All right. Think of it in terms of not energy, but in terms of the odds.
Right? Remember, because energy...
It's really just another way of saying the odds.
Wherever there's the most energy, there's the most possibility.
So at the moment of the Big Bang, there were no possibilities.
As soon as one thing changed, you know, hypothetically, if one thing changed in that solid, nothing-moving world, could that one change have made everything unstable and blown up...
Into the entire universe.
Now, once the universe is, let's say, 14 or 15 billion years old, what happens to the odds of anything happening?
They start getting really good.
So suddenly you went from the singularity where nothing could happen and the odds of anything happening were basically zero to something happened.
Maybe you could call it God.
If one particle changed in the singularity and that was all it took to blow it up, You would call that a god particle, would you?
Just something that happened that shouldn't have happened and nobody can explain it.
One particle got on a whack and boom, universe.
Now, as soon as the universe is big, you go from no possibility, when it's a singularity, to lots of possibilities.
There might be aliens on other planets.
We might be inventing fusion.
Lots and lots of possibilities.
But now let's play it in a few more trillion years.
In a few trillion years, will there be more energy In any given part of the universe or less.
Well, if everything's flying apart, do you get to the point where everything's cold and dark and dead and all of the possibilities die again?
Because if you do, maybe you don't need to get all the way back to a singularity.
Maybe just all the possibilities are exhausted.
When you get back to a situation where all the possibilities are exhausted again, maybe it just starts over.
It's always darkest before the dawn.
So... One model of reality is that there are a whole bunch of looped realities, so there's no beginnings and no ends.
Each of these loops is created by a higher-level loop, which does imply there's one original species.
But I'm not sure it has to, because could it be that the original species is also looped?
Could it be that there is nothing to anything except...
The odds expanding and contracting.
Could it be that the heartbeat of reality is nothing but a multi-trillion-year heartbeat in which we start with nothing is possible, it expands to everything is possible, and then here's the magic part.
The moment everything is possible, nothing can happen.
Yeah, what'd that do to your brain?
The moment everything is equally possible, nothing can happen.
And that's the singularity again.
So there should be a natural heartbeat to the odds of anything happening, from zero all the way to everything, and then instantly back to zero, and then back to everything.
Now, how it gets out of the nothing is possible would have to be God.
So in this model, God is the odds.
God is the possibility that you could go from nothing is possible to everything is possible.
So God could be the smallest change.
The smallest change.
In this stable singularity, and it just blew the whole thing up for trillions of years.
Now, if you looked at it on the smallest scale, you'd say, if that's all God is, it's just like one little God particle, or it's a muon, or some damn thing we haven't discovered yet, and all it did was tweak.
It just went from no possibility to boop.
It just moved, and the whole thing blew up.
If that's what happened...
Then God would be both the smallest thing in the universe, in terms of the smallest initial action, and also the biggest.
It would be everything and everywhere all the time, this thing called God, under that model.
This allows your traditional god and all its beliefs, because you might be on a loop where your religion is exactly correct, for all you know.
But other people could be on other loops.
So, I believe this answers all of your questions.
And let's see if I've lost anything else.
Oh. It's also the only theory that predicts that the universe will keep expanding.
Traditional science has to throw in...
Correct me if I'm wrong about that.
But doesn't traditional science have to throw in dark matter to get the expansion?
So basically you have to make believe there's an invisible thing or else the math doesn't work.
Dark energy. Yeah, dark energy.
I'm sorry. Not dark matter.
I've solved the meaning of life.
That is correct. And so...
Would you also like to know what a soul is?
Let me tell you. In this model, a soul...
What happens if your life has a ripple effect that affects other people?
Because any change to anything will change everything forever, or it'll change forever like a ripple through time.
Even the smallest changes, we know that.
So when people die, the thing you call grief, I like to say, is them incorporating their energy or the information that mattered from their life into the survivors.
And they feel that as grief, but basically they're just merging with somebody else's soul, essentially, and taking that forward.
So that's one definition of a soul.
And the other definition of a soul would be some higher-level entity that's managing your avatar.
All right. And that...
is all I have for you today.
So, all right, I need some feedback.
Thank you.
Was this interesting?
You don't have to believe it, by the way.
I'm not trying to sell you on believing it.
So I should get...
I should get a...
Lots of extremes.
This is usually the kind of material where people either hate it or love it.
Word salad alert.
Yeah, you know, that's not a wrong comment.
What's funny about all of the criticism today is that it's all on point.
I don't know if you've noticed that yet.
But, like, almost every criticism anybody said about what I've said today or who I am or what I'm doing, they're all on point.
Like, I have a defense for them.
Like, well, it's not as bad as you think or whatever.
But they're not wrong. Not wrong.
Somebody said that this was word salad.
And to some extent, language restricts you so much that you really can't get out of the word salad when you're on this topic.
So, I mean, that's actually a completely reasonable criticism.
For those of you who like this sort of stuff, you want to look for my book called God's Debris.
It's not this, exactly.
But if this content you found interesting, that's the book that would spin your brain.
