Episode 1690 Scott Adams: Peace Deal Idea For Ukraine, Proof We Live In a Simulation, TikTok Manipulation
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
TikTok's algorithm
Ketanji Brown Jackson vs. Josh Hawley
A peace deal for Ukraine
Are electric cars practical?
A "New World Order" is happening?
The Fourth Turning
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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, ladies and gentlemen, and all of your pets.
I assume you've trained your pets to watch the livestream.
Is there anybody out there who's got a cat or a dog who are just doing their own thing during my livestream?
It's rude, really.
So if you've got a cat or a dog, get some treats and train them to sit in front of this livestream with you.
And if you'd like Both you and your pet to go to a new level.
Well, you're going to need a dish for your dog, but for you, a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug, a flask or a vessel of any kind.
And you take that thing and you fill it with your favorite beverage.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes what?
That's right. Everything better.
everything.
Go.
Mmm, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Whoa. Well, in the news today, Trump won a court case over his defamation suit that Stormy Daniels was, I guess, suing Trump for defamation.
And Trump, at least, he prevailed in court, and now Stormy Daniels owes him $300,000.
Now, there are a lot of people who say, how can you say Trump is so smart?
And they'll give some examples, right?
But Trump is the only person I ever know, I've ever heard of, who slept with a porn star and got paid $300,000 for it.
I'm just saying.
Now, I know, I know. He's just breaking even because it's just paying back for his lawyer's fees.
But still, it's funny.
It's funny when the prostitute returns any money to the customer.
Allegedly, because Trump says he had no affair with this woman.
No affair. No affair.
Totally didn't happen.
All right. Our president, who was elected, Biden, Almost entirely on the assumption that he would be adult leadership and, more importantly, he would not lie to the public the way that awful President Trump did.
And yet, he did stand in front of the public and lie about Hunter's laptop being Russian misinformation.
At what point do we acknowledge that the reason he was elected didn't pan out?
LAUGHTER Somebody says elected in quotes.
Now, that would be a funny way to treat the 2020 election.
What if instead of making any kind of accusation about the accuracy of it, instead of that, what if every time you talked about it, you just put the election in quotes?
Sort of a very low-grade protest.
All right. Britt Hume is tweeting on Kabul Harris.
Did you see her speech talking about the significance of the passage of time?
So Kamala Harris has become almost like a Colbert character except for liberals.
You remember when Colbert used to do the fake conservative character for his show?
And Kamala Harris actually just sounds like she's doing a parody.
Allow me to do a parody...
This sounds exactly like the real thing.
Well, we were just talking about the significance of time and how the significance of time is sometimes overlooked because over a long time period, the significance of the time will be more than the shorter period of time.
Because time, if you look at it over its entire significance, can be something that starts as insignificant and becomes significant over time.
Because the passage of time creates a significance.
So that, ladies and gentlemen...
I just saw a meme that made me laugh and hate myself at the same time.
Have you ever laughed at a meme and said, I hate myself for laughing at that?
I'm not a good person, but...
Okay, that just happened.
And I think it's important that Kamala Harris has reminded us of the significance of the passage of time.
Do you know why time is significant?
That's right. Because if we didn't have the significance of time, everything would happen at the same moment.
That's no fun. Everything's just going to happen at the same time.
I think Kamala Harris is on to something about the significance of the passage of time.
We overlook that.
As Mike Cernovich was recently commenting in a different scenario, I think, or maybe it was this scenario, I forget, that when you see all the mistakes go in one direction, you should start asking some questions.
Is there another example in the news of all the mistakes seem to go in one direction?
Well, Dr. Nicole Sapphire tweets that this week the CDC removed a total of 30,000 COVID deaths from the dashboard for young people.
It reduced the total pediatric deaths by 24%.
They said it was a coding error.
Just a little bit of a coding error that changed the numbers by 25%.
That's right. A little bit of a coding error that changed, some would argue, the most important number by 24%.
That's a pretty big change.
And as Cernovich would remind you, and I will echo that, you have to watch for problems that all seem to be in the same direction.
You know what I mean? I'd just keep an eye on this one.
See if there's this slow trickle of information that says COVID wasn't nearly as bad as we thought.
Do you think that's going to happen?
Now, a 25% change probably wouldn't have changed any policies.
But you don't have to get much bigger than 25% before it looks like it might have.
You know, if you said the pandemic was really 25% fewer deaths than we thought, I don't think it would change anything, would it?
25%? 50%, maybe.
But I don't know about 25%.
It affects trust, yes, that's true.
But I don't know how you could have less trust in something you don't trust at all.
Well, I was reading up on TikTok in an Axios story.
Did you know that 63% of American kids have TikTok?
Did you know that? Did you know that if you write the words TikTok on the locals platform, the spell checker will correctly put the brand name there, T-I-K, T-O-K, with no space.
Did you know that if you try to write that same thing in the title to its competitor here on YouTube, that it won't correct it to the correct spelling?
You have to work at it.
It's like, did you mean tick flock?
No, no, tick tock.
Did you mean flick block?
No, no, tick tock.
Now, it might have been my bad typing, but I believe that YouTube didn't want me to say TikTok.
That's all I'm saying. So here's what we've learned about their algorithm.
And I want to put this in persuasion frame.
Have I taught you way too many times...
Yeah, ducking TikTok.
Have I taught you way too many times that pacing and leading is...
Good and basic persuasion.
The pacing part is where you agree or match the person you're trying to persuade.
So if they wear a blue shirt, you wear a blue shirt.
If they talk loud, you talk loud.
If they use, let's say, a lot of war analogies, like jumping on the hand grenade and taking that hill, well, you use war analogies.
So basically, the more you can match somebody you want to persuade by pacing them, The more influential you'll be when you try to lead them.
Leading meaning instead of following them, you do your own thing and try to get them to follow you.
So first you match them, and then when you take a break from what you've matched, they're somewhat automatically and subconsciously will match you.
So it's basic known persuasion technique.
Here's what the TikTok algorithm does.
The others do not.
The Instagram algorithm, for example, wants to show you things that Instagram wants to show you.
Am I right? So it's going to show you more famous people and celebrities and high quality stuff.
Whereas the TikTok algorithm, we're told, simply gives you more of what you've shown you like.
So if you click on a certain thing, it's going to give you an endless stream of that until you try something else.
So what happens if you have an app that just keeps giving you everything you want, like really specifically everything you want?
Do you know what happens?
Well, first of all, you get addicted to it because it's giving you everything you want.
It's like it's reading your mind practically.
The second thing that happens is if they decide to lead, you will have been so paced that anything you see on TikTok is going to look real to you.
Especially if you're 12 years old.
So TikTok is the ultimate brainwashing machine.
And I believe the only reason it's legal is because there's not a general understanding of how powerful it is.
If people understood how much influence TikTok could have...
Now, I don't know if it's been weaponized, so I don't know if it's ever been used to specifically, you know, create something.
I know there are some Chinese stories like Tiananmen Square that have been banned on TikTok or suppressed, but that's not what I'm talking about.
I'm not talking about just hiding things.
I'm talking about making somebody think a new thing that they didn't think before.
And TikTok is just ideally suited for that.
Now, if you didn't know, TikTok is owned by a Chinese company, which means that the Chinese government can get any of their data just by telling them to give it to them.
And they could tell TikTok to run any content they wanted and just feed it to people as something that they would consume just like all the other stuff they were consuming.
TikTok really should be banned.
Apparently there's some effort to get the American customer data into some kind of a server in the United States so that China doesn't have access to it.
But it feels a little too late for that.
63% of American young people are on it.
All right. Here is proof of the simulation.
I saw a tweet by a Twitter user who calls himself Dr.
Fauci's prison butt.
I have no comment about the name he chooses, but Dr.
Fauci's prison butt.
He says this.
The fact that in quantum physics, observing a particle changes the behavior of that particle to me proves this is a simulation.
It's the game rendering itself in real time.
I agree. I agree.
The fact that in physics we know this beyond a doubt.
So this is not speculation.
In physics we know that observation changes the behavior of stuff.
And it doesn't even have to be human observation.
It could be a machine measurement can change the behavior of a thing even without touching it.
It's simply the knowledge of the...
If you can believe this, it's the knowledge about the particle that changes it.
It's not because you shine light on it or you split it.
It's not because you're manipulating it.
We've literally learned that simply knowledge of it changes it.
Now, how can that make sense?
The only way it makes sense is that we live in a software-like simulation that is authoring itself on demand.
The only time things become what they need to be is when you're there.
Or there's some machine there measuring it.
Because later, we would have access to the measurements, so that's the same thing.
How do you know what it was doing before observing?
I'm not the physicist who can answer that question, but we do measure...
There is a way to do it which you would be satisfied with if it were described to you.
But I'm not capable of doing that.
All right. So that's one...
I would say that that's pretty good proof in the simulation.
The other thing is our massive differences in opinions or movies.
Of course you've noticed that it's not a case of some people are smarter and some people aren't.
That's how you used to think of it, right?
You used to say, hey, some people believe X and some people believe Y, but the people who believe Y are under-informed, right?
If they did more research, they would all believe the same thing.
But it's clear now that what you know doesn't seem to impact what you believe or how much research you do or how smart you are.
None of it seems to matter, at least not completely.
It matters a little bit. And so I would say that we're absolutely living in an authored world And a couple more ways that you can tell is I've been testing recently if I just speak out loud to the creator of the simulation and ask for something.
I have had the weirdest experiences recently.
Now this is part of affirmations but without all the work.
So with affirmations, you sort of repeat what you want over and over again.
But I've literally just talked to the simulation.
Like I literally talk out loud like I'm talking to somebody who can hear it.
And I say, you know what I need?
Give me X. And X is like really unlikely.
And then X happened.
I asked for some really weirdly specific stuff that happened.
Like the odds of them happening are like really low.
Boom. It was just like I ordered a DoorDash.
Now, you should believe that that's coincidence and anecdotal and means nothing.
But is there anybody here who's had a recent experience of asking the universe for something and it just handed it up?
I'm just curious. Now, you may be working from a religious model or whatever.
But look at the comments.
And I feel like it's happening at a higher rate.
than it ever happened. Like, I've always asked the universe for things in various ways, affirmations or positive thinking or whatever, but I feel like something changed where it's almost like a vending machine now.
If you just ask specifically for what you want, the odds of those things showing up are just crazy.
I mean, I wish I could give you examples because, you know, they're in my personal life and it's none of your business, But it's the specificity of them.
Did you ask for a divorce?
Yes. Yes, I did.
Now, the thing with divorce that I think people don't understand at all is that when you decide to get married, it's because you want to.
And when you decide to get divorced, it's because you want to.
In both cases, you're getting what you wanted.
A lot of people are treating it like it's a tragedy for which they feel sorry for me.
I mean, it's a problem you have to work through.
But I don't know if it's a tragedy if you choose it, is it?
If it's a path you decide to take?
I mean, it could be hard, but I don't know that that's a tragedy.
So I don't think that, at least speaking of my specific situation, I'm pretty sure that we're both better off.
So I don't have a problem with it.
Yeah, of course there's a prenup.
Of course. I prayed for food and then I ran over a cat.
All right. Here's the other evidence of the simulation.
It's the recurring problem thing.
So I would say in the last, you know, number of years or whatever, I've had some really weirdly specific recurring problems that I can't find anybody who has the same ones.
But mine just keep coming in different form, but it's the same problem just over and over again.
And I was just talking to somebody else.
Yeah, the water leak is one of them.
But there are several...
That are just super recurring.
And I was talking to somebody yesterday who has their own recurring problem that I've never had.
So somebody else has a completely different recurring problem I've never had once, I don't think.
So how is that possible?
Well, my belief is that we're A-B testing for some other higher level of civilization.
And at the moment, those recurring things that used to be happening just in my life are now happening in the world.
Is it a coincidence that we keep having Russia problems?
Is that a coincidence?
Is it a coincidence that we keep having supply chain problems in every form you can have it?
Is it a coincidence that we don't just get one bad virus, we get like a cycle of them to really see if you're doing it right?
It feels to me that even the Ukraine war is an A-B test.
Testing the idea of whether a modern military can attack and conquer another modern military with a land war.
And I think they're finding out they can't.
And that's what they're trying to find out.
Okay, could all of this military beat this military if the little military has access to good weapons?
The answer is no.
So I don't know that it's a coincidence that the world keeps serving up the same things.
It's almost telling me that Trump is going to run again, for sure, because they want to do one more test of what happens if somebody acts a certain way.
I don't know. I'll keep an eye on that, but it certainly looks like we're in a simulation and we're A-B testing a number of problems.
Let's talk about the Supreme Court nominee.
Blah, blah, all Republicans are racist, say Democrats, blah, blah...
Minority, check-the-box hiring, blah, blah.
It's all the usual stuff.
I don't think there's anything that's more boring than this particular Supreme Court nomination because she's definitely going to be nominated.
She has all the qualifications, as far as I can tell.
There's just nothing here.
There's nothing here. She would be replacing another liberal.
Even the court doesn't change. This is the most nothing story.
And I'm looking at people like Josh Hawley who are taking a run at her to try to degrade her in some way.
I don't think there's no way that she's not going to get nominated, I don't think.
But isn't he just wasting his time and making himself look bad?
What do you think of the Josh Hawley strategy Obviously, he's getting some attention for himself.
Obviously. So that could be good.
And he's probably playing to his base.
So the base likes it, probably.
But does it move the needle in any way?
Does it help him get elected in the future?
I don't know. It seems like a waste of time.
The smartest thing that...
I said this before.
The smartest thing the Republicans could do, and it would be really smart...
Is to just be really polite to her and then vote unanimously to put her on the court.
Because what happens the next time the Republicans nominate somebody?
The next time Republicans nominate somebody, they want to say, look, when you gave us a nominee that was solid, we gave you 100% support.
We're going to give you a nominee that we think is solid.
You give us 100% support.
Now, I know you're saying it's payback, payback.
But remember how the news treats precedent.
The news treats precedent like it matters.
So if the Republicans take this one that's really a gimme, because you know which way it's going to go, they're not going to stop the nomination.
So if you know it's going to turn out a certain way, you might as well grab whatever advantage from it you can and grab the advantage of saying, look, when you gave us a qualified nominee, were we racist?
Did anybody act racist when you gave us a qualified, or misogynist, when you gave us a qualified black female candidate?
Did any Republican have a problem with it?
Nope. Unanimous.
I mean, it's almost like the Republicans are trying to lose this next election.
Does anybody disagree with me with this basic fact that strategically, the smartest thing the Republicans could have done, given that she's going to get on the court anyway, and it doesn't change anything, wasn't the smartest thing to try to get a unanimous vote?
Now, people disagree, but give me a reason in the disagreement.
It makes no difference because you're not fighting back.
Is that why? Dems will never reciprocate.
It's not that you're asking the Democrats to reciprocate, so let me be more clear.
I do not believe that Democrats would reciprocate, and that's not important to my point.
Do you get that? There would be pressure on Democrats from the media if the Republicans had just done 100% agreement on a candidate.
I'm just saying the media would put pressure on the Democrats.
I'm not saying the Democrats would want to...
And so it would make the Democrats look bad, would it not?
Don't Republicans like that?
Don't you think the Republicans would want to go into an election and say, look, when they give us a qualified candidate...
Do you see any racism?
No, you don't. All we wanted was a qualified candidate.
It would be easy to say that, and they would get all the political benefits of saying it.
I don't know. To me, this is a no-brainer.
I mean, this is the simplest persuasion question you'll ever see.
This one's really easy.
So if you're thinking in terms of tit-for-tat, that has nothing to do with the suggestion.
I'm definitely not suggesting that Democrats will play nice if you play nice, because there's no playing nice in the idea.
In fact, you're not playing nice.
You're playing as, let's say, as schemingly as you could.
Sorry about the word.
It would be the most, let's say, manipulative, clever thing to do.
It wouldn't be kind at all.
It would just be putting pressure on the Democrats.
That's all it would do. And otherwise, everything's going to be the same because she's going to get nominated anyway.
So to me, this is easy.
There are very few issues that are this cleanly obvious what is the right thing to do.
And the Republicans have chosen the wrong thing to do.
I don't know why. Well, I'm starting to think that some of the news is not exactly accurate.
Is anybody having that feeling?
Hey, I'm starting to think that this news isn't 100% accurate all the time.
So I saw a tweet where they claimed that seven generals had been killed by the Ukrainians, seven Russian generals.
I heard Petraeus say that three were confirmed, and I saw a tweet by Ian Miles Chung saying that half of that list of, I think there were seven, are fake.
That sounds about right.
You know, I do believe that maybe three generals got killed, but if you see a list that lists seven of them, That would be hard to believe, and I'm not sure you should believe that.
All right. Let me ask you this.
If you listen to the fake news and then you believe it, and then just by coincidence you watch that movie The Matrix right afterwards, does your mind make the connection?
In other words, does anybody realize that That they're in a simulated reality, even without the simulation.
So forget about simulation theory where I'm saying we're all software.
Forget about that. Just imagine this is a real world, it's the only one, you know, just sort of standard classic reality.
Even in our classic reality, the citizens are walking around in this illusion about the world.
Both sides. You know, I don't think that the right has it all right and the left has it all wrong or anything like that.
I think everybody's in a different movie and none of the movies are real or not completely real.
All of the movies have real, as far as anything can be real, I guess, or at least verifiable facts in them.
They're just not completely verifiable.
So we definitely live in...
Effectively, we are in the simulation.
Because we believe the fake news.
Am I making that case enough?
If you believe the fake news, you're walking around in a simulated movie that isn't based on reality.
Who believes the fake news?
Well, we all did six years ago.
Or we were more likely to believe it six years ago.
Trump changed everything, as I predicted.
Ian told me today on Twitter that I don't take enough credit for my, I think it was 2015 prediction that Trump would change not just politics, but he would change the entire way we see reality.
That actually happened.
That actually happened.
Now, imagine a more unusual prediction than that.
That was a pretty unusual prediction.
All right. So there's a Russian critic, this guy, Alexei Navalny.
So he's been a critic of Russia for years.
They tried to poison him once, but he survived.
Allegedly poisoned.
He was convicted of fraud that was probably trumped up No, I guess the first one was contempt to court, and then they just gave him a nine-year sentence for fraud, which I'm sure is not real either.
Or even if it is real, it's not the reason he's going to jail.
So the reason is he's a critic.
And it's such a weird situation to see a human being being tortured in public.
I mean, he was literally poisoned, you know, almost died, came back, And now he's being jailed repeatedly for probably BS. And he's actually just being tortured in public by Putin.
Why are we okay with that?
I'm looking at this comment.
Scott turns to Trump to bait us, then turns to his handlers with H. Handlers, talking points, snake in the grass.
All right, Kazmin Sunti, you have the floor.
You believe that I have a handler.
Who is my handler?
Anybody want to take a shot at that?
Is it part of the New World Order?
Is it a globalist?
Could it be a globalist?
Who is it?
Okay. Yes.
I got a correct answer on the locals platform.
When it said who my handler is and who my boss is, somebody correctly had the answer, my penis.
That is the correct answer.
It's the only thing I listen to.
Everything else is just a suggestion.
You know what I mean? My stomach says it's hungry.
I say, well, that's just a suggestion.
My brain says it's bored.
I think, well, that's just a suggestion.
But when my penis says it's time for action, it's go time.
That's not a suggestion.
That's an order. And I think you all know it.
All right. I don't know what all that was about.
Let me make a suggestion for a peace deal for Ukraine.
The saddest thing I've seen today is that President Zelensky of Ukraine apparently said he would consider a peace deal in which Ukraine would say they wouldn't join NATO ever in exchange for a ceasefire and the withdrawal of Russian troops and some security guarantees.
To which I say, oh, so this wonderful Zelensky guy, who is a hero, he's a hero, he destroyed his whole fucking country to get a deal that was on the table before the war.
Is that really happening?
Is Zelensky literally...
Did he literally destroy his whole country to negotiate for the deal that was the original deal?
Am I reading it wrong?
What the fuck is happening?
All right, well, let me suggest how a deal could be made or at least framed so that it puts the pressure on Russia.
And it goes like this.
If you limit the deal to just stuff about Ukraine, you're an idiot.
Meaning whoever negotiates the deal, if they limit to what they're negotiating to be about Ukraine, stupid.
This should be about the entire Russian military and ours and NATO. We should be looking at the Ukraine thing as the genesis for a larger conversation about how never to be in this situation again.
We should say to Russia, do you need a land bridge?
We can make that happen.
Because we're not really opposed to transportation, are we?
Are we opposed to transportation?
How about their pipelines?
Are we opposed to pipelines?
Well, not really in concept.
How about we make some kind of a deal to guarantee transportation, that they can reach the stuff they want to reach, That they've got some control over their Russian-speaking people who may in fact have been shelled by Ukrainians.
I mean, does the rest of the world care about that?
Not really. How in the world can't we make a deal with Russia?
The way to not make a deal is to limit the conversation to Ukraine-only stuff.
We should be saying to Russia, how about never having offensive forces anywhere near the Just no offensive forces.
And the moment you put any offensive capability, we're going to change everything.
But as long as you don't have any invasion-looking forces on the border, we won't make anybody else NATO. For example, let's say as long as Russia never puts an offensive force on anybody else's border, that That NATO will not take in any new countries, because that's provocative, and we'll put offensive military stuff on their border as well.
Do you think we can't make a deal?
And then you add economic incentives, and you say, look, not only would we drop the sanctions, but maybe we could help you build some other industry.
Operation Gladio, I don't know what that is, Somebody paid $20 to ask me to explain the thing I never heard of.
But thank you for the $20.
of which YouTube gets a third, and then I pay half of it in taxes.
Oh, give us a sign you're really the one in charge of the globalist movement by making Klaus Schwab do something recognizably significant next time he's on TV.
Challenge accepted.
The next time you see Klaus Schwab, watch him touch his nose when he's talking.
If you see him touch his nose, that's his signal that I control him.
So there you go.
You'll probably be seeing that pretty soon.
Any chance Putin is the good guy?
Nope. I don't think so.
But let me put some context on that.
I think this is the case of two bad guys.
The bad guys being Ukraine and the United States, being basically assholes, and Putin being evil.
So if you're rooting for the assholes over the evil, I guess that makes sense.
I mean, asshole is not nearly as bad as totally evil, I guess.
But I don't have even the slightest belief that we're not guilty of some bad shit, meaning provoking and creating this situation.
To me, that looks like it's on the United States.
Anybody disagree? Is there anybody...
Now, I'm not excusing Putin...
You know, Putin is definitely, he's got some evil shit going on there.
But that doesn't mean that the other side is the good guys.
There's no white hat, black hat thing going on here.
There's two black hats fighting for control.
And I have to admit, I'm not super invested in the outcome as long as I get my wheat.
And nobody nukes me.
I don't really care. Because, I don't know, I'm just not invested.
Beyond how it affects us.
All right, it makes me think...
So here's the thing.
What's the thing? Here's the thing.
The thing is that when you see our negotiators apparently not being serious...
Because I don't think we've even engaged in a way that makes us look like we're serious.
Is the real goal to just degrade Russia's economy for as long as we can?
Because the longer we degrade their economy, the longer it takes them to build up good military.
I feel as if none of this is about peace.
I feel as if this has always been about some way to permanently degrade Russia, especially in a military sense.
What do you think? Or somebody says just lining their pockets.
So another frame would be the only people who want this are the ones who are going to make money on it, and they have enough power to influence everything else.
That could be. In fact, maybe that's the top frame here.
All right. Rasmussen had a poll, and they said, are electric cars practical for most drivers?
What do you think? Are electric cars practical for most drivers?
So you're not answering for yourself.
You're saying most drivers.
Yeah, it depends how you interpret the question, right?
Because I interpret practical as also the low-cost alternative.
And I don't think it's the low-cost alternative, even with higher gas prices, because we assume gas will go down at some point.
So I'm not sure that the poll was capturing people's opinions so much as how they interpreted the question.
But 52% said no.
Electric cars are not practical for most drivers.
And I would guess that that 52% are not totally up to date.
Because I don't know if you have an electric car, but there are charging stations.
And there is a convenience factor of not going to a regular gas station.
I mean, if you charge it at home, you're probably doing all the driving you need without a charging station.
And so I wonder if Elon Musk needs to do a little more work.
You know, he can't immediately change the fact that electric cars, at least a Tesla, comes with a price premium.
But I think the public is behind the technology.
Would you agree with that? If more than half of the public thinks electric cars are not practical, now forget about climate change or anything else, that's a separate conversation.
Just the car itself as a tool.
Half the people think it's impractical.
That feels like they're just behind, right, in knowledge?
Wouldn't you say? I'm getting a lot of disagreements, so people are not...
So I guess a lot of you think that electric cars are inconvenient.
Based on what? What would make them impractical besides cost?
Yeah, okay, if you're saying stuff like lithium or you can't recycle the batteries and stuff like that, that's not exactly on point.
Because you don't worry about recycling any of your cars.
You just drive them and then sell them to somebody else.
Somebody says no charging stations.
Well, it depends where you are, right?
So if you're in California, there are plenty of charging stations.
If you're in somewhere else, maybe not.
Yeah. Do you think 52% of the country lives somewhere where they don't have easy access to charging stations?
Actually, that's probably true, isn't it?
Even more than that, maybe?
So I'm going to say if access to charging stations was your main thing and you answered the question, that would be a good answer.
I think depending on where you live, I can see half of the country living where they don't have many charging stations.
Would you buy that? Would you buy that half of the country lives where there aren't enough charging stations yet?
Because they're probably just in metropolitan areas.
Yeah, okay. Kid Rock had some interesting things to say.
I guess Tucker Carlson interviewed him.
And he claims that when he was hanging out with Trump, that Trump said, quote, what do you think we should do about North Korea?
And Kid Rock said, allegedly, he said, I'm like, what?
I don't think I'm qualified to answer this.
LAUGHTER And then the story says some people online are questioning whether that conversation even happened.
Let me give you some insight.
You know, because I spent some time with Trump in the White House, just sort of chatting.
That's definitely something Trump would do.
If you asked me to bet on whether Kid Rock is telling this accurately, oh yeah, I'd bet on Kid Rock.
I'd bet totally. Because I had the same experience, not about North Korea.
But Trump actually asked my opinion about something.
And I think you don't understand how gifted Trump is with his interpersonal skills.
You have to understand how gifted he is.
He's really gifted.
One-on-one, just working people and stuff.
So if you're meeting the President of the United States, and the President of the United States says to you, regular citizen, what do you think I should do about North Korea?
What's it do to you? You fall in love with him.
That's what happens. Trump doesn't just make you like him.
He makes you fall in love with him, male or female.
Old or young, black or white.
He makes you fall in love with him.
When he stands in the Oval Office, the most important person in the world, and says to Kid Rock, what do you think we should do about North Korea?
Do you think he was looking for a strategy?
No, he wasn't looking for a strategy.
I don't think so.
I think he was doing something that was insanely cool for Kid Rock.
He was giving Kid Rock an experience.
And it was cool. Do you think Kid Rock didn't love that?
I mean, you know, it's funny that he said, I don't think I'm qualified to answer that.
In fact, it makes me want to elect Kid Rock for president next.
The fact that Kid Rock knows he's not qualified to answer the question on North Korea just makes me like him more.
I was like, okay, I like that.
Because I'm not sure I would have answered the same way.
I probably would have given an opinion.
So I'd say Kid Rock's credibility went way up with me.
And if I had to bet on it, I would say 99.99% this conversation happened just the way he recounted it.
That would be so exactly what Trump would do.
All right. That is by far my favorite story of the day.
How many of you believe that there's a new world order?
I guess Biden...
Use that term, New World Order, in a speech.
And how many of you even know what that refers to?
Because there's a current, what Wikipedia calls, a conspiracy theory about the New World Order.
In the comments, how many of you believe that there's a New World Order?
And I'll give you the definition from Wikipedia.
Let's see. A New World Order...
It's a conspiracy theory about a new world order that is a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda.
So do you believe that there's a power elite secretive?
You might know who they are, but they're secretive.
With a globalist agenda.
And some of you say, it's not a secret.
It's code, Scott.
It's code. Well...
Here's what I think.
Hasn't there always been a global elite trying to move the world in their favor?
That's always been the case, hasn't it?
What changed? Did something change?
Now, let me ask you this.
I've told you that I've spent some time behind the curtain.
And by that I mean seeing how things actually work in politics and how the news is generated from absolutely nothing.
So I've spent enough time behind the curtain that I have a very strong opinion about whether there's a global elite like an Illuminati or something running the world.
And the answer is no.
There are lots of them.
There's not one global elite...
There are bunches of them.
And they all have their own agenda.
They all have their own opinions.
And they're all maximizing their own life, basically.
And I would say that it's more accurate to say that there are elite, rich elites for each topic.
It's not as if there's one group of elite people who is trying to affect all the topics.
That definitely doesn't happen.
There's nothing like that.
But there definitely are secret billionaire collections of people working behind the scenes to get what they want.
That's very true. I can confirm that for sure.
So, I'm not sure that you need to add the concept of a new world order.
Meaning that I don't know if it adds anything to what you already knew.
You already knew that the elites tried to make things work out in their favor.
Let me ask you this. Is your assumption about the New World Order that it would be better for the power elites, or are they trying to do something altruistically that they think would be better for the world?
What do you think? If you believe the conspiracy theory, I'll call it a conspiracy theory because Wikipedia does, if you follow the New World Order idea, what are they doing?
Is it good for the elites or is it good for the public and they're just trying to do us a favor?
Somebody says they're trying to consolidate power.
Now, that would be consolidate power meaning that there would be organizations that could control things in multiple countries, right?
I don't see that happening.
What countries are giving up their sovereignty to the New World Order?
It seems to me that we go on a case-by-case basis.
All right. Clapper calls it the consensus community.
Okay. New World Order is, let's see, malevolent attentions.
Yeah, don't they have conflicting interests?
That's right. So the other thing you have to realize is that the global elites don't all want the same thing.
Some want climate change.
Maybe they've invested in solar panels.
Some want more regular energy production.
Maybe they own oil companies.
So the elites are not all on the same team.
They're all working for themselves, and they're on every team.
Somebody says, concentration of wealth is the goal.
No, it isn't. Who has that goal?
Who has a goal of concentrating wealth?
I've never even heard of that.
I've heard of the opposite.
I've heard of people trying to get richer, of course.
So that's nothing new.
I don't know. I just see nothing new here.
Anyway, when Biden used the phrase New World Order, you should know in context, this is also according to Wikipedia, during the 20th century, political figures such as Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill used the term New World Order to refer to a new period of history characterized by a dramatic change and often follows a war and stuff.
And I think Biden was just using it generically.
I think Biden's age, especially, connects him to a time when New World Order was a political thing to say that didn't mean what it means now.
It wasn't a conspiracy theory.
All right, how about this one?
The fourth turning. How many of you are believers in...
I guess Steve Bannon's a big promoter of this.
There's a book by that name.
How many believe there's an 80-year-old natural cycle in the world in which different generations act...
Differently depending on what situation they're born into.
And that the 80-year series is repeated and predictable.
How many buy that that is telling you something useful and predictable?
The predictable part is the important part.
It's easy to fit the history to any pattern.
Do you all know that? You could come up with any kind of weird way to interpret things.
And history usually bears it out.
But it's useless if it can't predict.
So hindcasting is easy.
But then say, okay, if now we understand the world, we can predict what will happen.
But they can't do the predicting part.
Which means that the hindcasting wasn't especially useful.
All right. Somebody says, Regenerations, the history of American future.
The same authors, right? As the fourth turning.
But here's my take.
So I did, you know, a shallow dive on this.
According to my shallow dive, I would say the 80-year cycle is closer to astrology than anything to worry about.
Because I think it comes down to civilization, It goes through periods of lots of change, and that war is often part of that.
I mean, I'm not sure this is adding anything, because it's not predictive at all.
If you tell me that the fourth turning can predict, I tell you anybody can predict.
Sometime in the next 20 years, it'll be like a big upheaval.
What do you think? Do you think I got it right?
Yeah, probably. Alright.
That brings us to the conclusion of the best live stream there ever has been.
And if you would like to enjoy this extra, I'm going to give you a little something extra here at the end that will only work for 20% of you.
That's roughly the number of people this will work for.
In a moment, I'm going to tell you that your day is going to be awesome.
And then I'm going to snap my fingers, and it will become true.
Now, for 20% of you, this will actually work, because that's about how many people are easily persuadable.
So simply having me tell you that today is going to be great...
We'll actually make it happen.
At least in your subjective movie that runs in your head, your problems might be exactly the same.
You might not solve any problems.
But if you believe, then it'll happen for 25% of you.
And so, YouTube, you're going to have a great day today.
