Episode 1718 Scott Adams: Musk, Murder, DarkMAGA, Masks And More. A Meaningful Morning
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
CNN calls Alex Jones a conspiracy theorist?
Florida judge nixes mask mandates
Malcolm Nance fighting for Ukraine?
Switchblade drones in Ukraine
DarkMAGA and President Trump
Jack Dorsey criticizes Twitter Board
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
And welcome to, that's right, the best day of your life.
A highlight of civilization and possibly the best thing that's ever happened in any part of the metaverse.
As far as we know.
That's my claim and look for a fact check on that.
I'll bet you, you will not see any fact checkers who consider that false.
So go to Google.
And, you know, Google fact check and see if it's wrong, or have they decided to let it pass?
Yes, I believe it is the best day of your life, and all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tanker, gels or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now.
For the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine hit of the day.
It's the thing that makes that tingle on the back of your neck.
It's, yeah, the simultaneous sip.
It's going to happen now.
Watch what it does to you.
Go. Oh, yeah.
Oh, that's so good. So good.
It feels like a hike in the woods, doesn't it?
All right. Do you know what I like?
One of the best feelings in the world?
Have you ever had a sneezing attack when you were in a forest?
You know, normally if you have to sneeze, you're usually around people.
And then it's this big awkward thing, especially during COVID. And you're doing the whole...
And then you spray yourself.
The entire experience is very unsatisfying.
But if you've ever been, like, completely away from everybody, you're just literally in a forest, and a sneezing attack comes on, and you just let it fly.
You're just like...
How do you feel?
You feel good.
It's like one of the best feelings.
There are very few times...
When you don't have to, let's say, respond to other people's social pressures.
But a good sneeze in the woods, that'll set you free.
You'll feel good all day.
So if you haven't tried that, go try that now.
Here's a question that I've been wondering.
What is the exact ratio of fake news to real news?
Fake news over real news.
Do the math. What would be the proper ratio...
Before you could be called a conspiracy theorist, would it be 10%?
Suppose 10% of the things you said turned out to be unfounded conspiracy theories.
Would that be enough to call you a conspiracy theorist?
About 50%.
About 50%. Would you then be a conspiracy theorist?
Suppose more than half of the things you reported or talked about, more than half, what if more than half of them were at least, well, let's say, incorrect because of the context they're given?
Would that feel like you should be called a conspiracy theorist?
Well, I don't know, but the news today is that...
Several of Alex Jones' company, I guess three of Alex Jones' companies, have filed for bankruptcy.
Now, this is actually a legal financial technique.
It doesn't mean he's losing money.
Some people will read it that way.
But he's been called a conspiracy theorist by Bloomberg and CNN. And I'm thinking to myself, especially CNN, what is the ratio of Are they claiming that he's got a higher ratio of incorrect news to correct news?
Maybe he does. I'm not even judging.
I've never done the analysis.
So I don't know. But it begs the question, doesn't it?
What if both of them are squarely in the category of, well, you know, that's a little conspiracy-ish, isn't it?
Am I right or wrong that CNN pushed the Russia collusion hoax forever?
I'm pretty sure they did.
I think there were quite a few hoaxes that they pushed as real.
How many of the hoaxes that CNN promoted did Alex Jones believe?
What just happened to you right there?
How many of the hoaxes...
The CNN promoted, and there were a lot of them, big ones, the drinking bleach hoax, the fine people hoax, the Russians' bounty on American soldiers hoax.
I mean, it just goes on and on.
But how many of those did Alex Jones say, well, yeah, I believe that story.
How about none?
How about none? Do you get any credit at all for being able to spot the other side's conspiracy theories?
CNN acts like they're the only ones who can spot a conspiracy theory.
I'm pretty sure Alex Jones spotted a few on them.
Pretty sure. And we're going to talk about somebody else who spotted some sketchy behavior on CNN in another segment.
So, anyway, so Alex Jones is responding, I think, because he lost some lawsuits, or one lawsuit, about the Sandy Hook So I don't need to get into that, but he made some claims that did not hold up, and some people proved that they were injured in court.
They proved it anyway, at least to a jury satisfaction.
So he owes lots of money to people who claim to be victims of his so-called conspiracy theories, at least one specific one.
And so when you file for bankruptcy...
You're really just trying to give yourself protection against a big lawsuit or a big specific problem.
It doesn't mean that he's cash negative or that he's losing money.
It just means that he couldn't pay all of that money all at once or he chooses to find some way to weasel out of it.
So it's more of a financial technique.
The only thing we can know for sure...
Is that he's not making so many millions of dollars that it's worth it to him to just pay a few million to make it go away.
So we don't know exactly what his financial situation is, but don't assume that it's bad just because he uses this financial technique.
That doesn't mean he's in trouble financially.
Well, how about this?
A Florida judge just put the kibosh on...
Mask mandates. And at least the TSA, for example, is dropping them.
And now Uber and a number of other places are dropping them, but they're not being dropped everywhere.
So there are some cities that are keeping them on local mass transit, for example.
And not all of the airlines have weighed in yet, but most of the airlines are going along with dropping the requirement.
Can we take a moment I mean, it's not over, over.
But it's going to be.
Because, you know, the slippery slope works in both directions, right?
Now we're heading back to something closer to normal.
Now, I never believed that we would have to wear masks forever.
Did any of you?
How many of you believed...
I'm seeing in the comments, I don't know if this is true, but somebody said it was a Trump-appointed judge.
Was it a Trump-appointed judge that made that decision?
Is that confirmed or is that just a Twitter thing?
A lot of people say yes.
So let's treat it like it's yes.
Isn't that kind of perfect?
Remember I told you that one of the prediction methods I use is if things work out too perfectly like a movie would work out?
It might tell you you live in a simulation, but for some reason it predicts.
We so often end up in a situation where that could only happen in a movie.
There's another one. I'll tell you later about when I got wrong.
So I don't have much to say about this except that...
Thank God.
Oh, my God.
And by the way, congratulations to all of you.
Congratulations. You know, I know some of you fought the mandates, and thank you.
So for everybody who pushed back against the mandates when it was really clear, once it became clear that they were over-applied, Thank you.
Thanks for all the citizen pushback.
Thanks for being on the right side, in my opinion.
And thanks for being active, at least making your thoughts known.
I've always told you that I can't speak for other countries, but in the United States, the public does run the government.
We just sort of act like we don't know it.
The only thing the public has to do is agree.
If the public agrees, they can get what they want.
Our system pretty much guarantees it.
Maybe not on day one, right?
But if the public is all on one side solidly, they're going to get what they want.
So basically, this is a victory of the public.
Because who knows what the government would have done on its own, right?
Who knows? But we do know that the public pushed it until it broke.
I mean, I think that's just what happened.
I think that anybody who makes a decision to unmask is doing it in the context of knowing that the public has had enough.
Right? It's going to get violent if it goes too much longer.
So, it took way too long, but here we are.
So let's at least celebrate the good news that is by far not complete.
And by the way, are you having the same...
Impression that I am.
The fact that the employees, generally, you know, the lower paid people on the scale of these big companies and restaurants and stuff, the fact that they still have to wear masks when the people they're serving do not is just grotesque.
I don't know why Black Lives Matter or anybody who cares about the lower end of the income spectrum, I don't know why they're not making a bigger deal about that.
I mean, it's viscerally disgusting.
I mean, to me, it feels like walking onto a plantation in the days of slavery, like what it would feel to have such obvious signs of unequal treatment of human beings.
Obviously it's not like slavery.
So before somebody goes wild and says, oh, you compared mask wearing to slavery.
No, no, no, no, no.
It's just an analogy.
Settle down. Settle down.
It's not the Holocaust.
It's just masks.
But in terms of both of them giving you a visceral feel, I don't know.
I can't get past it.
And tell me if this makes it worse.
If you say somebody who's black and underpaid and wearing a mask when you're not, doesn't it make you feel a little extra creepy?
You know, maybe it shouldn't because, again, that would be a bigoted, right?
It would be bigoted to have any opinion about the color of the person wearing it.
But, you know, we're still primed that way.
We're primed by...
The news, our own history of slavery, etc.
So you do see it that way.
At least I do. Like, it gives it that little extra, like, what the hell are we doing?
Like, how do we allow it?
How do the rich people allow it, honestly?
Like, everybody should be complaining about that.
The lack...
I guess it, more than other things, shows a lack of consideration for other people.
In such a fundamental way that it's just disgusting.
It's one thing if you say, you know, I don't want to raise my taxes to give it to other people.
Because you can explain that in terms of the system works better if everybody has to look out for themselves, if they can, if they have the ability.
But this isn't one of those times.
It's not like there's any larger system that's being supported by it.
Nothing's being supported by it.
It's literally just discriminating against people who don't have power.
That's it. It's just power.
It's an absolute, brutal, disgusting, disgusting use of power.
Anyway. So, do you all know who Malcolm Nance is?
He had been, until recently, one of the voices or contributors on MSNBC. If you don't know who Malcolm Nance is, this story won't be nearly as funny, but apparently he quit MSNBC and he joined the Ukrainian International Legion to go fight for Ukraine.
He was in... Apparently he was a Navy veteran.
I guess he was a linguist or something.
I don't know if Malcolm Nance ever saw any action.
Can anybody confirm that?
Because he doesn't exactly look like...
At least if he was in the Navy.
I don't know if he saw any ground action.
But... There he is, pictured in his camouflage, and this guy's little name there, and he's holding his weapon.
And he said he just couldn't stand, you know, reporting on it and not doing something.
So he decided to go over there and do something.
And aren't you saying to yourself, somebody says he's 61 years old, and that feels about right.
What do you suppose it is he's doing over there exactly?
I don't even know what to think of this.
Now, the most logical thing to think of it is not that he's helping Ukraine, but he's maybe getting ready to write a book.
You know, he's trying to cash out on it.
He's a fluffer, somebody says.
Intel gathering? I don't know.
CIA stuff, somebody says.
I don't know. I feel like there would be a better way to do almost everything.
Translation? Eh...
As a translator? What languages does he speak?
Does anybody know what languages Malcolm Nance speaks?
He probably speaks a few languages, I'm guessing.
Anyway, I don't even know what to say about that story.
All I can say is if you know him, and if you know the things he said on MSNBC, he is one of the consistently crazy-sounding people.
Like on a scale of 1 to Keith Olbermann, where Olbermann would be like the top of the crazy scale, he'd be sort of a full Olbermann.
You know, some people would be like a half Olbermann, but he'd be like a full Olbermann.
We'll talk about him a little bit, too.
All right. Let's see.
What else is happening? Remember I told you that if you wanted to predict who's going to win in Ukraine, that the only number that matters at this point would be the number of Switchblade and other drones they have.
And I said, if they have enough drones, and presumably they could train people fairly quickly to use them, I don't know how long it takes to...
If your life depends on it, how long does it take to learn how to use a drone?
A day? I don't know.
So, 300 switchblade drones are being sent to Ukraine.
So, how many switchblade drones, these would be things which can hover over a target for several minutes, I guess, or half an hour or ten minutes, whatever it is, and get a really good idea of what's down there before they dive down and destroy it.
But they're suicide drones.
So you get to use them once, but they're pretty good, but it's sort of one and done.
So now they have the ability to make 300 Russian assets explode, including maybe some assassinations of generals or whatever.
Would 300 successful attacks change the course of the war?
I don't think so, right?
It wouldn't even be like a dot.
Because when the Russians do these bombing runs, aren't they doing thousands and thousands?
By the time Russia's done, how many bombing runs will they have made?
Like 30,000 or something?
It's a gigantic number, isn't it?
Because they're just continually going.
So it seems to me that if the numbers we're looking at is hundreds, you know, the low hundreds of drones, then Russia gets what it wants.
Am I right? Somebody says they've done 1,500 missile strikes that Russia has.
And the missiles are just being a small percentage of the blow-up stuff they're sending over there.
The exploding stuff.
All right. So, this doesn't look good.
If I had to guess without having any military experience whatsoever, which I think I demonstrate every single day, I don't think that Ukraine could win without...
5,000 drones.
Suppose they had 5,000 switchblade drones.
Could they win? I mean, if 5,000 of Russia's more important assets blew up, I don't know.
It feels like that would start to make an impact if they were the right assets at the right time.
Suppose they used all of them to take out their supply lines.
Would they just rebuild them as fast as they were being destroyed so it wouldn't make any difference?
Maybe. But I feel like you could stop an army with 5,000 successful drone strikes.
No? If you took out the right stuff...
Because remember, it doesn't matter how much stuff Russia has.
It only matters how many of it you have to take out to cripple the whole deal.
And that would be a much smaller number if you chose correctly.
So... Somebody is pointing out that my military expertise seems to be limited to how I feel.
And you are correct.
But you agree with the basic idea, right?
The basic idea is that some number of drones is definitely not enough, but some number of drones is definitely enough.
And it's definitely not 300 drones is enough.
I don't think you have to be a military expert to know that, right?
That's definitely not enough.
But is 5,000?
Now, I don't know the answer to that question, but I don't know.
I don't think anybody does, right?
Somebody says, so you have no idea what you're talking about?
Yeah, I do. I know it's really hard to stop a switchblade drone, and I know that 300 is not enough.
And I know that, logically, some number would get you anything you want.
So, I mean, that seems fairly straightforward.
Now, of course, if Russia wanted to win badly enough, it probably wouldn't matter how many drones there were.
They would just level Ukraine.
All right, let's talk about this weird five-year lag between Trump sounding crazy and Trump proving right.
So I saw a tweet from Jim Jordan, Representative Jordan, and he said, the CIA knew as early as 2017...
Five years ago. That the Trump-Russia collusion data was not technically plausible and was user-created, both of those in quotes.
So those are based on the actual investigation.
That's not just Jordan's opinion.
That's what the investigation has turned up so far.
And I thought to myself, is that?
I wonder if that rule of thumb will hold that about five years from the time That Trump says something's bullshit, you find out that it was.
Because here are some of the other things.
When was it that Trump first said Germany would be hostage to Russia's energy policy?
Around five years ago?
Now, it's not when he first thought of it, but it's when he first said it in public and got mocked, let's say.
About five years ago?
How about the idea of making the United States energy independent?
He was saying that around five, six years ago.
How about China being our biggest problem and needing to get business out of there and be tough with them on business and stuff?
About five years ago.
How about all the noise he made about the border being important?
About five years ago.
Everything about crime about five years ago, you know, when he first started talking about everything.
Basically, all you have to do is take Trump minus five years and you can find out everything that's important and big.
So here's something I have some questions about.
There's apparently a hashtag slash movement called Dark MAGA. Hashtag Dark MAGA. It involves themes in which...
Trump-related images are being treated as, you know, just red and black, scary-looking images.
And I've heard it described, and I have a real question here, so here's where my skepticism is turned up.
I've heard it described as a movement that's waiting for Trump to return to seek vengeance on all those who hurt him or Republicans, I guess.
Now, certainly there are plenty of Republicans who have that mindset.
Can't wait for Trump to get re-elected and clean out the swamp.
But, you know, the swamp didn't get that cleaned out last time, did it?
I don't remember a lot of swamp draining going on.
Not a lot of that happened.
In fact, the swamp drained Trump.
It looks like what happened. But this is how it was described by one tweet.
Or is this CNN? I think CNN said this.
Behind the movement, this dark MAGA movement they're calling it, there's no single identifiable group or a clear ideology.
Gnet, whoever that is said.
Many of the messages posted by dark MAGA supporters incite violence and contain misogynistic and or racist comments.
Dark MAGA. Now, you might remember that in 2016, I called out the word dark as something that was probably expert-made, and I had guessed that maybe Robert Cialdini Who has advised Democrats for president in the past, such as Obama. Probably somebody like him came up with that because it's so sticky you can make everything fit into it.
It's like, oh, Trump said this.
Well, that's kind of dark. Oh, a Republican said that.
Oh, that's a dark image.
And that if you just get this idea of dark in people's minds, dark just brings with it all the scary stuff.
So... It seems to me it would be a branding mistake for pro-Trump people to use dark in their branding.
Now, I think it did work in the case of deplorables.
And if you're black in America, it probably does work to use the N-word as sort of, you know, owning the word that was so painful in the past.
So you can take something that was used against you and flip it around and use it as a badge of, you know, strength or something, I guess.
So sometimes you can do that, but I don't think this is a good application of that.
In my opinion, the MAGA people, if they wanted to win, should stay as far away from the word dark as they possibly can.
Because what is the biggest issue that anybody who might be a little bit independent on this, what is the biggest issue they have with Trump?
That he's scary and dark and, you know, he just scares the crap out of people.
The way that Trump won the first time was by being super provocative and aggressive.
Is that the same way he would win the second time, when the polls have him beating everybody already?
We're doing nothing. He doesn't have to do anything, and apparently he's ahead in the polls.
Should he use the same strategy of ultimate provocation?
Well, it depends if he can adjust strategy to fit a situation.
Have you seen evidence that he can radically change his approach to fit a new situation?
Yes and no.
It's not really clear.
Trump is famously flexible.
I mean, he used to be a Democrat, and then he became a Republican.
That's pretty flexible.
But that's also historical.
You know, once you become president and you got there doing a certain technique, it's kind of hard to stop doing the thing that worked.
Even if you think it might be time to destroy your old self, to build a new self for the new challenge, you end up fighting the last war the same way.
You end up fighting the new war as if it were the last war.
It's one of those human, let's say, impulses.
I would call it a failing, except that it's sort of universal.
We all do it. You're always fighting the last war.
Let me put it out there.
If Trump could act any way that works, and he were not a slave to his past, if he could be anything that would just be good, what would be, by far, the number one thing that would get him elected for a second term?
Number one would be play nice.
Because his followers would know what he was doing.
They'd say, oh, I get it.
He's just playing nice to get elected.
But he's still Trump.
Once he gets elected, he's going to still do all the things he wants to do.
But he could radically change the way he talks about things.
Talking about the border, he could simply talk about the pressure it's putting on the low-income people at the border, the pressure it's putting on black Americans.
Just leave it at that.
He doesn't even have to make a big deal about building a wall.
Because his case has already won.
When he started out with the whole wall thing, In my opinion, it was brilliant persuasion because he was trying to make a big impact and draw all the attention to him on that subject.
But he succeeded. Now everybody understands this whole border thing is a problem.
Stop arguing. This is a classic case where you don't want to sell past the clothes.
Trump has the clothes.
He closed the sale without trying after office.
By leaving office and showing that the alternative to Trump's policies were a disaster, he closed the sale.
He can let the press do it for him.
He should now stop selling, stop talking about a wall, because that will only piss people off.
Build the wall, sure. Yeah, sure, build the wall.
Because he already won that argument.
You don't need to argue the thing you already won.
Just quietly start it up again.
If somebody asks you, and they would ask, are you going to rebuild the wall?
The proper answer is not, build the wall, build the wall.
You know, jail Hillary Clinton.
That's just old. The new answer should be we should do a variety of things that work, but yeah, I think the border wall is important to beef it up in areas where we have a special problem.
Over time, maybe we could get the whole thing walled, but we certainly want to do whatever works as quickly as possible to get it under control.
Am I right? Because who's going to argue with that at this point?
Because even the Democrats agree with a little bit of wall makes a difference.
Even they agree with that.
So just agree with the Democrats, say it's a huge problem, and everybody knows what you're going to do about it.
They all know he's going to do the same thing he did last time.
There's no mystery. You don't have to rub it in.
You don't even have to make a big deal about how right you are.
Because it's just in front of everybody.
everybody that can see it.
He would make a big deal about it.
Now, Trump's big asset is that he could absorb all of the energy from the press.
So if you were doing that again, is that still the right thing now?
Because I think he got too much energy, really.
Maybe he could tone down the energy and he would still out energy the other side by a mile.
Well, here's another thing Trump was right on.
The murder rate in America is way up, but it's especially shocking in black populations.
So the black American murder rate shot up 43% in 2020, so the beginning of the pandemic and when there was a lot of Black Lives Matter stuff.
So after the Black Lives Matter movement, it's stated a very clear intention to improve the impression of the value of black lives.
And also to improve their situation and to make it especially, more than anything, especially safe in terms of the police and, you know, physical safety.
But the outcome was exactly the opposite and in a big way.
That the murder rate just shot up and the black, on black crime especially, is through the roof.
It was Trump right that...
You know, keeping the police well-funded and doing what we used to do would be better than defunding the police?
Probably so. Probably was right.
All right. Let's talk about Twitter.
Rasmussen did a poll, and 39% of American adults believe it would be good for Twitter if Musk bought the company.
So 39% are on Musk's side about buying the company.
22% think it would be bad for Twitter.
Now, I think a better question would be bad for America or good for America.
But bad or good for Twitter is an interesting way to put that.
All right. But 26% think it would not make much difference if the richest man in the world, whose intention is to change the lever that moves all of free speech, which is really the operating system for civilization...
26% think that that wouldn't make much difference.
No, no. Only the most impactful entrepreneur of our lifetime who's got a stated goal of really, really changing things and already has his teeth into it.
26% think that's not going to make much difference.
I mean, how much difference could it make if Elon Musk owns the company?
What has he ever done?
That surprised you, right?
26%. 26%.
If we were to round that, it's about 25%.
25%.
I think Elon Musk wouldn't make much difference if he bought Twitter.
For those of you who are just joining us, I always point out that 25% of people polled get every answer wrong.
I don't know if it's the same 25%.
I worry that it is.
I'm concerned that it's always the same 25%, but I'd like to think it's a different 25% for each question.
Well, so there's, as I tweeted cryptically, there's sort of an I am Spartacus thing happening right now.
And if you know the reference from the movie Spartacus, Spartacus was hiding among the slaves, and when the Romans were asking for Spartacus to stand up, because they didn't have facial recognition back then, so they couldn't tell who was Spartacus in this crowd of slaves, somebody who was not Spartacus stood up, To accept whatever punishment Spartacus would have.
And they're like, okay, you know, I guess if you say you're Spartacus, come here, we'll kill you.
And then somebody else stood up.
And then slowly, everybody stands up and they're all Spartacus.
So, you know, it was kind of like famous movie scene.
And I'm watching what I would call a subtle Spartacus movement in which people who have tremendous influence in society, but they're not elected.
It's just people whose opinions are going to move your opinion more than other people.
They're starting to emerge.
I told you that Naval has just sort of very subtly weighed in and said, "Of course we're going to fight over Twitter." Of course we're going to fight.
He didn't say what side he's on, because he doesn't.
He famously is non-aligned, left or right.
But do you think he's against free speech?
Do you? Do you think he's against free speech?
I don't think so. I don't think so.
But the most surprising one?
Jack Dorsey.
It wasn't surprising that the news says that Joe Rogan isn't strongly backing Musk for buying Twitter.
You weren't surprised at that, but interesting that it's a major story, right?
Because Joe Rogan's influence and credibility is now so big that the fact that he endorses somebody for a specific action is national news.
I mean, who else does that?
How about Bill Maher?
Bill Maher is also pro-Musk in terms of buying Twitter.
Interesting, isn't it?
I guess he's Spartacus, too.
But the most interesting Spartacus is Jack Dorsey, who on Twitter, of all places, has now insulted Twitter's board of directors for their competency.
So there was a post by somebody else in which the user quipped that the company's early beginning was mired in plots and coups among its founding executives.
And I guess Jack Dorsey liked that.
But then he gets in a little back and forth with Brian Stelter of CNN. And he also talked about how...
How CNN had faked a news report in Ferguson and Jack Dorsey was there and watched it live.
So he actually was there in person in Ferguson during the riot situation there and watched CNN trying to incite some trouble to get it on camera.
And I would imagine that's the sort of thing that changes you.
So here's what's news about it.
First of all, To have Jack Dorsey publicly criticize the board of directors of Twitter as the problem with Twitter.
And somebody asked him, are you allowed to do that?
And he said succinctly, no.
Are you allowed to criticize the board of Twitter?
No. And then he did it.
It's I Am Spartacus.
It's basically a whole bunch of people who are just done.
They're just fucking done.
They're done with being gaslit by everyone.
It's not just Fox News.
It's not just CNN. It's just fucking everyone.
Just everyone's gaslighting everyone.
And there appear to be some very influential people who are just done.
They're just done with that.
So, yeah, I can't say this?
Okay, I'm going to do it. I can't endorse this guy?
I'm going to do it anyway. Bill Maher, I can't endorse somebody who's, you know, not all on the left.
Well, I'm going to do it anyway. So there are some Spartakai.
That's the plural of Spartacus, if you didn't know.
So the Spartakai are starting to line up.
I will add my own, you know, tiny Spartacus influence to say I'm 100% behind Musk buying Twitter.
100%. I don't have even the slightest reservation about that one.
And I would argue that there's nobody really, really smart who disagrees with Musk buying Twitter.
Or at least I haven't seen one.
So I've seen people, you know, I've seen Max Boot say it's a bad idea.
You might see some people who are purely political say it's a bad idea, but you can't count that.
They're just being purely political.
But tell me, just show me somebody who's sort of not famously political, an independent thinker with an IQ over 140.
It's a pretty high bar.
Show me somebody who's had a history of independent thinking, an American, with an IQ over 140, who has any problem with Musk buying Twitter.
I'll bet there are not many of those.
I'll bet they're not mine.
Let's take, let's see, Warren Buffett.
I haven't heard from him.
I don't think he's made any comment, right?
I'm not sure he will. But do you think Warren Buffett, who is very clearly in the Democrat realm, do you think that Warren Buffett, if asked, would say it's a bad idea for Musk to take over Twitter?
I don't know. He might make some general statements about, you know, billionaire control of the media or something, but I've got a feeling he would not be against that.
I don't think anybody above a certain IQ with a history of independence, I'm not talking about somebody who's actually a politician, but people with a history of some independent thought, I don't think any of them are going to be on the other side.
Could be wrong.
We'll see.
So the other thing that Jack said, Jack Dorsey, you tweeted at Stelter because Stelter was criticizing Tucker Carlson.
So Brian Stelter of CNN goes after Tucker Carlson in a quote and said, Tucker Carlson is always selling the same thing.
He's selling doubt.
And I think he was pointing to somebody else's article on that.
So he's selling doubt.
And then Jack Dorsey responded to that tweet by saying, and you all are selling hope?
Now, how many of you believed that Jack Dorsey was just, you know, he's just a Democrat and probably pretty AOC-ish, and that's it.
So that's how you understand him.
He's just a Democrat.
How many of you thought he was just way over there on the left?
I don't think that's ever been true.
Let me give you a little test.
Who is the person who has most publicly been saying, and for years now, has been saying that Twitter should change its algorithm so that the users have an option of what to do with it, so it's not up to the company what you see?
Who is the most famous person who has been criticizing Twitter's algorithm for the last several years?
Jack Dorsey. Jack Dorsey is the most vocal, you know, at least, you know, noticeable person who's been criticizing Twitter's algorithm and the way they do it.
And how long was he still at Twitter when that change was never made?
Have you been watching that?
Because the first time he said it, I thought, oh, obviously they're working on that now.
Because the CEO doesn't say, we need to do this, unless they're working on it, because it's just software.
I mean, Certainly within the doable category of things, right?
But then Jack Dorsey leaves and criticizes the board.
It sounds like we're finding out maybe one of the reasons, certainly not the only one, but we might be finding out one of the reasons he left.
It might be that he had a problem with Twitter's free speech management and that he had suggested an obvious way to address it.
Very obvious. The obvious way to address it is to let people choose their algorithm and just make it obvious what they get if they choose it.
And he got ignored.
Well, I don't know if ignored is the right word.
But he was not successful in getting that at the company he ran.
And then he left. So I feel like the board...
May have, this is just speculation based on your reading from the outside, which is pretty dangerous, But the speculation is that maybe the board prevented him from fixing the company in a way that any reasonable person would think was a good idea.
Give people control over the algorithm.
How in the world do you argue against that idea?
I've never even heard anybody argue against it.
Have you? Have you heard a counterpoint to that suggestion?
Oh no, don't give users full access to the algorithm that would give them exactly what they asked for.
Who exactly is on the other side?
And he still couldn't get that done.
That tells you everything, doesn't it?
And I think that's why he's going full Spartacus.
I think he called his time exactly right.
Because with Musk's...
Move on Twitter.
This is exactly the right time for an independent thinker who I will surprise you by telling you he is.
Surprise! He's an independent thinker.
And he called his timing perfectly.
This is exactly the right time to do it.
So watch that space.
That's going to get better. Better and better.
I love...
As much as I don't like the black MAGA meme, I suppose the people who are doing it probably just like the look of it.
It's kind of awesome looking.
But I would back away from anything that could be used that easily against you.
However, I'm seeing the phrase COVIDians used a lot By the people who were mocking the people who were too afraid to drop the mandates, mostly, and the masks.
You remember the Branch Davidians in Waco?
They were a splinter Christian group.
I don't know what to call them.
But it was a religious group, sort of a cult.
Calling the people who were afraid to take off their masks the mask-covidians is just so clever.
It's not really persuasive, I don't think.
I mean, not in a way that matters, because people are just going to do what they want to do now.
So, you know, I'm not even sure persuasion matters.
Okay.
So I'll just say that I love that branding, the mask, COVIDians.
All right, and that, ladies and gentlemen, concludes my prepared remarks.
Again, one of the all-time most insightful and greatest things you've ever seen in your life, and it makes you feel good, too.
Where else could you go to become smarter and better-looking at the same time?
Almost nowhere. Almost nowhere.
You don't think I could make you better-looking?
Do you think I could use persuasion to make you better looking?
Does anybody believe I could do that?
I could do that. It's easy.
Because people who are confident look better.
It's that easy. So hypnosis can make you more confident.
Do you know one way you can do it?
To tell you you look great and you look sexy.
And you've never looked better.
In fact, I can tell that you've improved your workout.
Since the pandemic, I see you've taken it up a notch.
You're looking not only sexier, but more confident.
I've noticed that your posture is better.
Now, spend a little time today to improve your posture while you're walking.
Just when you're walking somewhere, just improve your posture.
And watch how you're better looking.
And it's only because I suggested it that made you think of it.
And then you thought of it, and it was easy to do, and you just stood up a little straighter.
And as soon as you stood up a little straighter, you felt a little more confident, and people looking at you thought to themselves, well, you're a little more attractive.
So I just persuaded you to look more attractive.
Literally. That just happened.
Now, not every one of you in some big way.
But again, it's the law of big numbers.
If there are a number of people who watch this, some substantial number of you will think, I will put my shoulders back.
And I will straighten my spine and tuck in my butt.
And you will actually be more attractive.
So sometimes these things are not that hard to accomplish.
So that was your...
I guess that's your treat for following to the end.
Have you noticed that I sometimes put the most useful bits at the end?
Oh, it's part of my technique.
To make you addicted.
And it's working.
That's right. Now, if you don't believe that me simply telling you through the screen that you're sexier and better looking...
Will work? Then you haven't learned yet enough about persuasion.
Because it doesn't matter if you regard the persuasion as true.
It matters if you hear it a lot.
That's it. And you're hearing it because this format is what I call a mass personal experience.
So it's a mass broadcast to lots of people, but it's weirdly personal, isn't it?
And because it feels personal, because it's me talking to you, And I'm telling you that all you have to do is straighten up your back and act a little more confident, and other people will see you that way.
It's going to have more impact than if it was something you read in a magazine or something, because of the nature of this.
It will make your brain act as though it worked.
Here's the freakiest thing.
You ready for this? This is something that...
I may have discovered something, but I want you to test it.
Because I only have one anecdotal experience.
Please test this.
It goes like this. You have to sneeze.
Back to the sneezing thing.
But you can't.
Let's say you're someplace you don't want to sneeze.
Last night, the cat was on my chest.
It was really happy. It was kneading into the blanket and stuff.
And I didn't want to sneeze and scare her off.
And so I was trying to work her into the idea that a sneeze was coming by starting small, if I could hold off the actual sneeze.
So I started this way.
I went, achoo!
And she didn't move.
And then I went, achoo!
And she still didn't move.
And I thought, okay, now she's primed.
Because when the real one comes, it's going to be a little louder than that last one.
But maybe she's now used to it as something that doesn't hurt.
And the next one will be like, ha-choo!
But you know what happened? My fake sneeze made my urge to actually sneeze stop instantly.
And I said to myself, oh my God, I'll bet that could actually work.
Here's the hypothesis. The hypothesis is that the sneeze is forming in your brain, not your body.
And that if your brain was satisfied that you had sneezed, It would turn off the impulse.
And I believe that my fake, artificial sneeze turned off the switch to make me actually sneeze.
So here's what I want you to test.
The next time you have a sneeze coming, and you're sure it's one that's going to happen, do a loud, fake sneeze, assuming you're somewhere where you can do that.
Just go, ha-choo!
And try to sell it, but it's definitely not a real sneeze.
Watch what happens to the real one.
If it turns off, it's going to blow your frickin' mind like it did mine last night.
Now, I don't know if this could work for me again, and I don't know if it was just a coincidence, but I've never stopped to sneeze before, have you?
Have you ever stopped to sneeze?
I mean, the closest I've ever come is like the...
kind. But I stopped it cold.
Like, it was a definite sneeze, and it just...
Somebody here says it works.
Alright, so, you need to test that for me and forget, I'll forget that I asked you to do it.
So test it for me.
The first time you get a hit on it, if it works, you have to message me.
Or put it in the comments or tweet it at me or something.
Because if this works, it's going to change everything you think about everything.
