Episode 1747 Scott Adams: Let's Talk About All The Headlines And Figure Out What's Going On
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Project Veritas newest is funny (Twitter)
Amber Heard's "best friend"
Supremacy, is mental illness
3D printing everything
Drone warfare making tanks obsolete
Ministry of Truth paused, Nina resigns
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Coming to you from beautiful Hawaii, where I'll be leaving in a few hours, and I'll be back in the right time zone.
Not the wrong time zone.
The right time zone. And when I get there, wow, things will be even better than they are now.
Yeah. Time is an illusion.
That is right, Bob. Or Don, whoever said that.
Right. Now, You may hear my coffee brewing, but do you hear the baby birds crying?
No, because I kept the window closed, because I know it drives you crazy.
And as soon as you hear that noise, stop.
I'm getting my simultaneous sip ready for you, but I thought I'd come in on approximately on time.
I did not kill them.
No, I did not kill the birds, but they were noisy and awesome.
Is there any story that You especially want me to talk about today?
Because I think I'll hit all the headlines.
Did I feed them? I did not.
We will not talk about the birds anymore.
We're done with the birds.
Alright. Yeah, we'll be talking about the Project Veritas.
Or as it was called on that film, Project Veritas?
What is that? Said the undercover Project Veritas person, which was awesome.
All right, stay there.
I'll let you come with me, but only if you're nice.
Come with me.
Now, so if you'd like to so if you'd like to know how my day is starting out, let me give you a visual demonstration.
As you know, I just brewed some coffee.
Here's how to not brew coffee, in case you like a little lesson on that.
Don't do it without the coffee in the coffee maker.
Because if you brew coffee, But you do what I just did and don't put the coffee in the coffee maker.
You will be ready for your live live stream and you'll have a glass of water.
It's warm water, which I understand some people drink.
And if I have specified anything, it's that any beverage is allowed.
Any beverage! And so let's do the simultaneous sip and I guess I'll drink warm water.
Here's to you.
Go.
It tastes like plastic coffee maker.
I hope it was better on your end.
Alright, let's talk about what's going on.
So, Project Veritas is at it again.
They've got another Twitter employee who believed he was on a date with some young man who was a Project Veritas undercover agent.
And You have to watch it just because the whole thing is kind of funny to watch him talk.
But here are the highlights from this Twitter employee.
This is some of the things he said, that their woke ideology is basically why they can't make any money.
He was saying that Twitter doesn't make money, but that's not true, is it?
Isn't Twitter profitable at the moment?
He was acting like they don't make money, but I don't think that's true.
Is it? Yeah. And he was saying that Twitter's not there to give people free speech.
Now, of course it's not.
So what he was saying was technically exactly right.
But it's interesting just to hear him say it.
Let's say he was saying he valued Getting the information right over free speech.
And that if they didn't edit and censor things, they wouldn't know they were getting things right.
And then as he was talking, he talked himself out of his own opinion.
It's the most awesome thing.
He starts talking and he realizes that if somebody is deciding what's right, Which is exactly what he just promoted, that somebody, Twitter, would decide what's true.
You can see him realizing that he had ended civilization.
I may be exaggerating a little bit, but as he's talking, he's realizing that if there's anybody, anybody, who gets to control what is true, you can see almost like a light going on as he was talking that That would sort of end civilization.
Seems like a good idea in the short run, because you get more accurate information according to us.
In the long run, if that's your standard, it's the end of civilization.
Free speech is gone, everything goes with it.
But the funniest part was, well, I don't know.
There were two funniest parts.
The funniest part at the end was when he mentioned, the Twitter employee mentioned Project Veritas.
And I think he showed something to the person who was actually the Project Veritas undercover agent who was filming him at that moment.
And the guy who was being filmed was like, it's a good thing we met organically because otherwise I would suspect that you were on Project Veritas.
But the funny part was when he showed...
When the Twitter employee showed the Project Veritas undercover guy this Project Veritas document, or whatever it was, and the Project Veritas guy intentionally reads the name wrong, he goes, what is this Project Veritas?
That was good undercover work.
Veritas?
What is this Project Veritas?
I've never heard of.
But I'd like to nominate this employee for the most fired person on the planet.
Because he went on to say that they don't take, basically he was mocking Elon Musk for having Asperger's.
Do I need to finish the rest of the story?
If anybody was more fired than this guy, he's the most fired person in the history of humankind.
Nobody could be more fired than him.
And I don't know if Twitter will fire him before Elon Musk buys it, or Musk will fire him when he buys it, but he's very fired.
He's more fired than anybody's ever been fired.
So my understanding would be that Twitter's internal woke policy would require firing him, right?
Because he...
The problem is that he was mocking a disability, if you could call it that.
Now, it doesn't look like much of a disability if you're the richest man in the world and, you know, you have it.
It sounds like an advantage, not a disability.
But, he's the most fired person in the world.
So, I don't care too much about local politics or state stuff, but Dr.
Oz, I guess he's in a runoff.
And Madison Cawthorn lost his primary, so he's out of it.
And when I saw Madison Cawthorn go down, I thought to myself, what would happen if the Democrats were successful in taking out the most, let's say, provocative Republicans?
And so, you know, there's one more down.
He's taken out. But what happens if they just succeed and they take out all the provocative Republicans?
Is that gonna hurt the Republicans or help them?
I feel like if you take out the provocative ones, the Republicans look more popular, not less.
I feel like they should leave the provocative ones in place and don't cancel them if they can do that.
But the atmosphere looks a lot different than it did under 2016, didn't it?
All right, here's maybe my favorite story of the day.
So Amber Heard is getting her day in court now.
So she gets to put on testimony from her side.
Here's my favorite story.
So this is from, I think, was this Fox News site?
Yeah. Throughout Heard's testimony, she referred to Pennington.
So this is someone who testified on Amber Heard's behalf.
So this is somebody who she's happy to have on the stand, saying good things, this Pennington person.
Throughout Heard's testimony, she referred to Pennington as her, quote, best friend.
Right? So Pennington was called by Amber Heard her best friend.
Here's how her best friend described himself, quote, I wouldn't consider her not a friend, he said.
We don't speak.
We're not enemies.
That was her best friend talking.
Let me say it again.
This is Amber Heard's best friend.
It's her best friend.
Quote, I wouldn't consider her not a friend.
We don't speak.
We're not enemies.
Now can I teach you something?
Here's a lesson.
People with Amber Heard's personality type They literally don't have friends.
They don't have any. Like, actually none.
And that's one of the ways you can identify them.
And they will call their best friend somebody who doesn't even know that they're a friend.
Because it's all they got.
And do you know why that they don't have friends?
It's not because people don't like them.
It's not because people don't like them.
Do you know why?
Why do they not have friends?
Does anybody know?
There's a specific strategic reason.
They can't have friends. Not because they're toxic, which they are, but that's not why.
Not because of trust?
Nope. Lack of empathy?
Nope. Nope. Don't care?
Nope. Don't want friends?
Nope. Nope.
Inauthentic? Nope. Nobody got the right answer yet.
It's because if they have more than one friend, They're going to get different stories.
So she's in a personality type that lies about everything.
And if you have friends, the friends figure out the lies and they talk to each other.
They go, wait, what did she tell you?
Well, she told me completely the opposite.
This is on the checklist.
So one of the things on the checklist to figure out that somebody's in this personality type is that they don't have actual friends.
But they might say they have a best friend, but they wouldn't have any actual friends.
So that was her best friend who barely knows her, basically.
I guess he knows her, but he doesn't consider her a friend.
Now, I don't think that Johnny Depp is going to come out of this looking too great, but I think he will have accomplished his goal of destroying her, if that's what he was trying to do.
I can't read his mind.
I think he was trying to get his own career back.
He might accomplish that.
He might actually accomplish that.
What do you think? Do you think he'll get his career back and will he have essentially outed her for whatever kind of monster she is?
It looks like it's going to work to me.
I mean, I don't think it even matters so much the result of the trial, does it?
I feel like he made his point.
You know, the legal system will do what the legal system does, but the court of public opinion pretty much settled at this point, I think.
So, here's a surprising story for you.
Let's see what your first reaction is.
American women's soccer has agreed that the women will get equal pay with the men playing soccer.
How do you feel about that? So, a lot of you are conservative types.
Do you have a problem with that?
Do you have a problem with the women soccer players, the professionals, making as much money as the men?
All you sexists, do you have a problem with that?
Oh, something sounds subsidized, you say.
Oh, so you're saying that if the men get more That's not fair because then the men would be basically subsidizing the women in a sense, right?
Is that what you think? Well, you're all wrong, you sexist, sexist, misogynist bastards, because women's soccer makes more money.
That's something I learned today.
Did you know that?
That women's soccer earns more money.
They have more They just have, they're more popular.
And somebody's saying, no way, but remember, it's girls and women who are watching women's soccer, more likely.
And maybe you just don't have visibility on that world.
So, so apparently their audience is pretty good.
Now there's some There's some difficulty in sorting out who makes much money, but apparently there's no argument on the side of them earning less money for the team and therefore being underpaid.
There's no argument for it. Somebody says they can't fill stadiums, but I think they do.
That's not the only source of revenue.
So they got the TV time and the tickets, etc.
Personally, I like watching women's soccer as much as men's soccer.
And I actually enjoy watching both.
People like to watch games they've played.
I totally agree with you if you say soccer is bad to watch.
It's really not made for TV. Yeah, they should make bigger goals.
They should fix it if they're going to play it on TV. But if you've played it, if it's a game you've enjoyed, then you watch it differently.
You're watching not just the scoring, but more of the details.
And I enjoy watching women's soccer.
I think it's completely entertaining.
Same with women's basketball.
I enjoy watching women's basketball.
As long as the teams are highly skilled and somewhat matched, I'm pretty happy with them.
Alright, so I'm all super woke on that.
Let's give everybody the same amount of pay.
Because they earned it, right?
It's not really a woke argument.
It's an economic argument.
There's no wokeness necessary.
Well, let's talk about that Buffalo white supremacist shooter whose name is, I think we've all told you his name, Fuckwad Nick Jerkface, I think was his technical name.
And here's my problem with all this white supremacist stuff.
Isn't it just mental illness?
Isn't it just mental illness?
Let me ask you this. If this white supremacist, if you could ask him these following questions, and he could answer honestly, how would this conversation go?
If you said to him, for example, hey, you Buffalo white supremacist shooter who shot a bunch of mostly black people at a grocery store, what's your philosophy?
And he'd probably say something, like if he's a white supremacist, He apparently is.
He would probably say something like, oh, the white people are awesome, and we're bringing in all these people that he doesn't like because they're brown or whatever.
Now here's the second question that I would ask him.
Okay, okay. So if I understand you, your white supremacist philosophy is that the people in your group Or the superior ones?
Is that what you're saying? And that you don't want to water it down with what you think are lesser people?
And presumably you'd say, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
And then I would ask the follow-up question.
Okay, okay. Where would you rank people who were racist mass murderers?
Let's say you were going to rank all the people because that's what you're doing, white supremacist.
You're saying that you're up here and other people are down here, so you've literally ranked people by value, I guess.
Where do you put yourself in that rank?
The mass murderers of American citizens.
Where are you in that rank?
Now, would he say, oh, I'm pretty good.
I'm near the top.
Mass murder of American citizens who did absolutely nothing.
Taverno. What exactly is his argument for superiority?
Right? Now I get that he's just one guy, but does that guy get credit for the invention of the light bulb?
Is that his argument?
That there's somebody who's completely different from him, that he never had any interaction with, who once invented the light bulb, And that person was white.
So does the white supremacist, who is not an inventor of a lightbulb at all, but rather a mentally ill murderer, does he imagine that he's awesome because there's somebody also white that he never met, isn't related to, who invented a lightbulb once?
Is that his argument?
And so here's my point.
Aren't we completely missing the...
We're missing the lead, right?
He's mentally ill first, and then once you're mentally ill, it doesn't matter what the hell weird thing you believe, if it's dangerous.
That's almost secondary.
We're treating him like he's got a fucking philosophy.
He doesn't have a philosophy.
We're acting like we better stop this philosophy.
No, the philosophy is mental illness.
Here's somebody whose, even his worldview doesn't make any sense.
If you sat down with him for two minutes, he would talk himself out of his own worldview.
Well, actually, would you like to see me do that?
Wouldn't you love to see me talk to somebody who had his crazy worldview and was arguing that he was superior because of his whiteness?
How do you think that would go?
Like in a conversation with me, right?
Because we'd both be white.
But I'd say, all right, so I did some good stuff, right?
I invented Dilbert.
I don't remember you helping on that.
So why the fuck do you get credit for my accomplishment?
Explain that, you piece of shit, murderer, white supremacist asshole.
And then he'd say, whoa, whoa, whoa, why are you being so mean to me?
You know, aren't we white people?
We should be on the same side.
And I'm like, no, I think you're just ruining my brand and murdering people that I would love, I'm sure, if I met them.
You're a worthless piece of shit and I wouldn't want anybody associating you with my brand whatsoever.
So please associate with the crazy fucking murderer brand and get away from me.
Now, I'd start the conversation that way.
Then I would get him to argue that he gets credit for the accomplishments of complete strangers.
Because that is completely his philosophy.
That he gets credit for my accomplishments.
Sorry. You get to go to jail.
That's what you get. You don't get credit for my accomplishments.
Go do something. Have you met any black people that you like better than a mass-murdering fucking asshole white supremacist?
Yes, I would say basically all of them.
Basically every person I've ever met in person is better than this guy.
Everyone. I don't think I've ever met anybody of any color, gender, sexual orientation who is worse than this fucking guy.
So, if he's got some argument about his superiority, that's just mental illness.
That's all that is.
And I feel as though making this political just makes it worse.
I don't think, you know, acting as if he's part of some big thought movement is ridiculous.
Alright. There's an Israeli firm who now can 3D print your glasses, and I believe this includes the lenses.
The frames and the lenses to your prescription in minutes.
So you can go into a store, pick out your glasses, I guess from the samples, and if you've got your prescription, they will actually print them out.
Perfect pair of glasses while you're sitting there.
Now, this is the beginning of What should be the end of the need for international trade?
You know, if you just make everything look like.
Except, can somebody here tell me how to get rich on this?
Or make money on it?
I guess I'm rich enough. Can you tell me how to invest in this?
Because I think it would be a mistake to try to pick a winner, unless somebody has emerged as the clear leader.
I don't know that that's happened. But there's probably an indirect way to do it, don't you think?
Is there some business that is in the, whoever is in the business of, you know, making some common component, if there is one?
Yeah, what about the raw materials?
That's what I'm wondering. At what point do we pull a CO2 out of the air and use it for your printer material, for some kinds of printing?
Someday. The materials in composite.
So where do the raw materials come from?
Are we just...
Are we coming out ahead?
I don't know. So somebody who knows this industry, can you tell me...
Give me some ideas of what companies...
I feel like it's all startups, so there's nothing to invest in that's sort of above the public stock level, right?
Somebody says oil and plastics.
Could be. But we wouldn't use more oil than plastics just because we 3D printed it, would we?
We'd use the same amount, it would just be done locally.
But I don't know, I'm not sure oil is the...
I've never wanted to invest in oil for the long run.
It seems like a bad...
I don't know what the long run is, but it seems like a bad idea.
All right. Well, that's amazing.
If you could make prescription glasses, what is it you can't make?
Maybe somebody can tell me that.
I know there are some people on here right now who are 3D printing experts.
So is there any material that can't be printed?
Because we can do metals, right?
A diamond tiara.
Yeah, you can't print a diamond yet.
Do you think we'll never be able to print a diamond?
I'm going to say yes, we will.
I mean, it seems impossible, but I'm going to say yes.
Somebody will print a diamond someday.
The lenses are hard to get that accurate.
Yeah, maybe not. Cannot print food?
Yes, you can. You can print food.
You can print food.
Metal? You can do metal.
Medicine? I believe that there's With medicine, it's really just combining things, right?
You can print the pill, but you'd have to have the raw materials.
The McDonald's ice cream machine problem, what is that?
Print is a bad word, manufacture is better.
I agree. I agree.
But you need a whole new word so people know what you're talking about.
All right. Superman can make diamonds.
That's a good addition to the conversation.
Thank you. All right.
Oh well. So we'll keep an eye on that.
Let's talk about this so-called replacement theory.
It's like the replacement theory thing I almost like never want to talk about because it's like...
You know, you look at it, it takes 10 seconds to realize it's just two people talking about different things.
Am I right? When CNN talks about it, they talk about it as, you know, the idea that it's a bunch of racists who don't want anybody watering down their white privilege.
And when somebody like Tucker Carlson or any reasonable Republican talks about how immigration will change the character of this country or at least change the voting patterns, perhaps, that's just math.
Isn't one of them just math and one of them is literally exactly racist?
Am I wrong about that?
And don't we keep acting like they're the same thing so you can mock the other side?
We're not even in the same conversation.
So when somebody like Tucker says, if you add a bunch of Democrats to what we already have, won't you get more Democrat policies?
How is that racist?
If you add Democrats to the existing number of Democrats, don't you get more Democrat stuff?
Now of course there's some question whether they would all remain Democrats in their second generation or whether they're really even that left-leaning at all.
Because I don't know if you've ever met anybody who came from Mexico or South America.
Do you know what they're not?
They're not left-leaning.
I mean, I don't know any that I would identify that way.
And what I mean by that is they all just seem to want to work and worship their God and, you know, raise their family, family-oriented, you know, very religious, you know, work-oriented, just want to stay out of the way, super not woke, not woke at all, not even a little bit woke.
So, I do think that maybe there will be a big surprise about how they turn out politically over time.
And I guess I would agree with most people who say that the immigrant community is sort of naturally Republican.
It feels like it. They feel like they're natural Republicans.
I'm not saying good or bad.
I'm not saying that's a positive or a negative.
It just feels like they're more compatible.
And Joel Pollack, of course, brought a little heat on himself with this tweet.
He said, quote, replacement theory would be less of a problem, meaning a political problem, if it did not offer a compelling explanation of why Democrats are trying to open the southern border to as many migrants as possible and offer them, quote, a path to citizenship and voting.
Note, no one ever provides a better explanation.
Now, if you read his comment correctly, he's talking about the messaging.
So it's not a comment about good or bad about immigration.
It's a comment about how they present it.
And the point is if the people on the left don't want replacement theory to be how Republicans on the right interprets it, Perhaps they should offer an alternative view.
And we sort of assume there's an alternative view, but I don't know that anybody's articulated it.
Like, I ended up filling it in myself.
So, like, I'm filling in the left's argument mentally based on what I think it would be because I haven't heard it.
So here's what I think it would be.
We need to be kind to all people.
And why do we treat Americans as, you know, special?
Because there are people starving on both sides of an arbitrary border.
And so why don't we just be as kind as we can to these people who have a tough time?
Something like that. I don't know.
Is that close?
Is that the argument?
Because if they do have an argument, I think Joel has made a really good observation that why aren't they saying it directly and cleanly?
Here's our argument for immigration.
But it's not that.
It's sort of like the lack of an argument for a wall or something.
Right? It's more they're anti-doing it than pro-not-doing it.
It's like they just need to be against something.
It's not like they're for something so much.
Now, it could be that it's hard to explain and still be elected, right?
It could be that they really are just empathy-related or empathy-driven.
It could be. I can't read minds.
But when the other side, the Republicans, are imagining that they can see no other explanation, It does leave an opening for people to misinterpret.
All right. I saw a good thread from Timothy Snyder.
And he argues in a long thread that it's senseless to shelter Putin from the sense that he is losing.
He will figure that out for himself and he will act to protect himself.
And in the long thread he makes this excellent point.
That people like me, he's not referring to me, but I'll throw myself in the group of misguided people, have been saying that Putin needs an off-ramp.
That he needs a way to lose gracefully and, you know, say that he won.
And Timothy Snyder's point, which seems like a good one, is, no he doesn't.
Why would you think that?
It's funny, as soon as there's a little pushback on it, my opinion just fell apart.
So my opinion was he needed an off-ramp to avoid embarrassment and still say he won something.
And I'll give you more of Timothy Snyder's argument, but the basic argument that just completely derailed my argument is, no, he doesn't.
Why would he even think he would need that?
Because he controls the media.
He just has to tell the Russian media, tell them I won.
That's it. He's not responsive to anybody else's opinion of him.
He only needs to manage internal opinion.
He'll just tell them what to think, and then they'll think it.
Right? So, I like this.
I mean, it's a good...
I think it's a good correction That I will take as correcting me.
Andrew says, does Scott believe the as-of Nazis were evacuated or captured?
Why would I even have an opinion on that?
Like, is that relevant in some way?
I feel like somebody's challenging me in my opinion of the Ukraine situation.
And usually it means that you think I've taken sides.
Is that what you think?
Do you believe that I think that the Ukrainians are angels and that the Russians are devils?
Is that what you believe in my opinion?
Is there anybody who believes that my opinion is that one of the sides is good and the other side is bad?
Andrew, you said Russia was going to lose.
Yeah, I'm still saying that, but that's not the question.
You said Ukraine was actually going to defeat Russia.
Andrew, stop saying what I'm saying.
Stop it. Okay, I'm saying it.
You don't have to tell me what I'm saying.
See, the point of the comments is not to tell me what I'm saying at the moment I'm saying it.
And then to say it like you've made a point.
Scott, you said we should drink the simultaneous sip.
Yeah, I did.
That's not helping. Alright?
So, no, I'm not under any impression that the Ukrainians are, let's say, avoiding war crimes.
Of course they're committing war crimes.
Do you know how I know the Ukrainians are committing war crimes?
Does anybody know? How do I know it?
How do I know the Ukrainians are committing war crimes?
Thank you. It's a war.
That's all you need. It's a war.
Pick a random country and then tell me they're in a war.
And then ask me if they're committing any war crimes.
Yes. Yes.
Because it's a war. Right.
Unfortunately. Now, that doesn't mean that there's something like policy to have war crimes, but yeah, of course.
You know, are the people who sign up to go kill people the people who are going to make no mistakes?
Well, I think they're aggressive by nature.
The lack of discussion is draining.
What does that mean? Right.
Yeah, I'm sure there's no country who has avoided any war crimes.
That's not a thing. So neither of them are angels, but we can look at our predictions.
And I'm sticking...
Well, let me give you how CNN is treating this.
So if you look at the CNN page, and let's say we believe that CNN... Sort of, in most cases, the voice of our intelligence agencies and the Biden administration.
Would you accept that as a starting premise?
The CNN and the Democrats are basically the same team.
If you look at how CNN is covering the Ukraine war as of today, here are their stories.
There's something about how effective Ukraine's drones are, and all they need is more of them, and they'll definitely win everything.
So it's a story about how drone technology is already, and it's going to become more so, is already so cost-effective compared to tanks that, and by the way, who told you this first?
Tank warfare might be done.
It just might not work anymore.
Where was the first place you heard that?
Was it the military expert, Scott Adams?
Hmm. I think I've been telling you for a while that tanks should be worthless already, but certainly soon.
And you remember me saying, so Russia's going to take all their tanks into Ukraine, and those tanks are going to be okay?
So my prediction from the start is that tanks were already obsolete.
Anyway, let me put this to you.
So those of you who've watched my live streams, Can I make that claim that I said tanks were obsolete and that we would find out?
Correct? Yes.
Yes. Okay, I'm getting confirmations from people saying I didn't say that.
So there's at least one person who knows a lot more than I do who's speculating the same thing, that the age of tanks is just over because they can't defend against drones.
And if you're saying, oh, but there's all this anti-drone technology, then you should know that the new drone warfare is you send the first drones in, and then the anti-drone technology lights up, and then from that point you know what to attack.
So you attack the things that lit up and then you send your, you know, your full attack drones.
So once you reach the point where they can swarm and they cost, you know, $10,000 apiece or $1,000 apiece, it's going to be nothing but drones.
Pretty much. Somebody says, your ego is showing.
You know what I do for a living, right?
Well, let me deal with that.
You know that This form of media does inform, it requires showing off.
That's sort of built into the model.
You know that, right? You wouldn't like it if I didn't.
It would be conspicuously missing.
So yes, when I get one right, I'm going to drill it into you.
And the reason is that I make predictions primarily That's the base of my entertainment here.
The main thing I'm doing is showing you different ways to predict things.
Sometimes follow the money.
Sometimes follow the persuasion.
Sometimes use your BS filter to know what's true or what's not.
And then I do it in public so that when I'm wrong, it's really, really obvious.
Such as when I very incorrectly said, there's no way Russia is going to attack Ukraine because Russia must be at least as smart as I am.
And I know it won't work.
So that was like a horrible mistake.
Because it turns out they weren't.
It turns out they were less informed about how this would work than I would.
And I was guessing. So that tells you how good their intel is.
So CNN's coverage is that the drones are working and definitely will make those tanks obsolete.
So that's pro-Ukraine reporting.
That the Russians are stalled in some places.
That's pro-Ukraine. More about destroyed tanks.
That's pro-Ukraine. Europe is coming up with a scheme to buy less Russian energy.
That's pro-Ukraine.
And then there's a Russian war criminal confessing some war crimes.
That's another story on CNN. So one, two, three, four, five stories on CNN just today, just today, they're all anti-Russia, pro-Ukraine.
Now, does that mean that that's actually how the war has turned so that CNN doesn't have any news about Russia succeeding?
It's only news about Russia messing up.
So, is that even close to what's happening?
How would we know?
Right?
How would we know?
Makes you want to root for Russia even more Oh, because CNN's on the Ukraine side?
Can you make a tank invisible?
No. Alright, somebody says watch RT Russia today.
I don't feel like watching RT would inform me.
So let me say that I don't believe CNN is reporting.
I think it looks like Fox News barely touched it today because they had more political news.
And it's about what's happening there.
All right. Look at financial markets and you'll know.
What will the financial markets tell me?
Would that tell me who's winning?
I'm looking at your comment, Christian.
I don't know that that would tell me who's winning.
Because financial markets are not military markets.
Do they really know what's happening?
Uh, no. Hawaii does not have recreational wheat.
Thanks for asking. The Russians took the steel factory in Mariupol, right?
But that's, that was, they basically had it for a while now, right?
I mean, there was no surrender there and there was word about trading prisoners, but that was sort of something that they just bombed into nothingness.
Elon saved crypto again.
Did that happen? Financial markets, yes.
We'll show you thoughts about the future, but it won't tell you what's true.
It's just what people imagine is going to happen.
Has a ton of commodities.
Right. Cloaking device?
You think that's going to be a thing? Maybe.
No. How could you listen to everything I said and then conclude that I just said the opposite of what I said?
Okay, on Locals, there's somebody who has accused me of believing CNN. Did that just happen?
Is there anybody who just watched for the last five minutes and said, I just believe CNN's reporting about Ukraine?
Is that what you got out of that?
Because I feel like it was the opposite.
That's weird. Yeah, you know, the whole thing about the ruble versus the dollar.
I admit I don't know enough about that field, the currency field, but I don't feel that we know what's going on there.
Does anybody else have a feeling that just looking at the ruble not collapsing is, I'm not sure that's telling us what you think it's telling you.
Because I feel like there might be ways to either lie about it or protect it temporarily.
I don't know that it matters.
I mean, I don't think that we know what's going on with the ruble.
Why not read RT? You suggest looking at both sides.
Because I already know what RT says.
What would be the point of reading something if you know what it says?
If I read RT, is it going to say, Ukrainians are bad, Russia's doing better than you think, there's a perfectly good historical reason why they're doing it, Russia had a perfectly good case because NATO... Do I need to read RT? Tell me one thing that RT is going to tell me that I don't already know.
I mean, that I know they say.
Give me one thing that they would say that I don't already know, or anybody doesn't already know.
Where does Scott get most of his news?
I literally tell you every day that I check both Fox News and CNN. And that gives you sort of the popular sense of where they're going.
But Twitter is actually the best place to find out any in-depth news.
And people will tweet at me, you know, those stories that they know are in my wheelhouse.
So most of what I see is from articles from anywhere.
You know, anywhere from blogs to whatever.
The front lines is the market price for war.
Can you name better than financial?
You mean something to look at that would predict where things are going?
I think you just have to look at the drone supply line.
If Ukraine is getting enough drones, they definitely win.
If they're not getting enough drones, Russia will at least carve out something.
I don't think they're going to take Ukraine at this point.
You first heard that tanks were done 20 years ago, but drones are Drones are a whole different deal.
I don't think tanks will go away against maybe non-industrialized enemies.
How to get drones in range?
Apparently it's easy.
So the military drones are not like the hobby drones, so they've got like 20 mile range, you know, and even the cheap ones you can be a quarter of a mile away.
Drones could be beaten.
They said tanks were done in 1939 with bazookas.
Well, they were right.
Because if we had enough, instead of bazookas, I'm going to say shoulder-mounted rockets.
Because that's basically what a bazooka became, right?
Shoulder-mounted rocket for tanks.
And I think if you have enough shoulder-mounted rockets, tanks are worthless.
So it's not that tanks were good or bad, it's just that they couldn't work against an industrialized, well-armed enemy.
That's what I think. Why not EMP the drones?
Probably because it would take out your own stuff.
I don't know.
Yeah, I guess the smart people say that it's always going to be cat and mouse and that offense will beat defense until defense beats offense and then it will reverse again.
Amen.
Amen.
Thank you.
Yeah, the problem, can drones survive a nuclear blast now?
Well, what survives a nuclear blast?
Tanks are valuable when protected by infantry.
Apparently that's what's changed.
So it used to be true that tanks are valuable when protected by infantry, but the infantry can't stop the drones, so that's what's different.
They probably could stop bazookas.
All right. Depends on the type of nuclear weapons.
Alright, is there any story that I missed?
Anything you'd love to hear my opinion on while you have me?
Bazookas don't work against new kinds of armor, but the shoulder-mounted missiles do.
The disinformation board is paused and Nina Jankiewicz resigned.
Did that happen?
Is that breaking news?
Let's see. It's the disinformation board.
Did that really happen?
Can anybody confirm that?
Let's see.
Disinformation board. I want to find out if that's a rumor.
Did anybody, you know, the Dr.
Dr. Oz thing doesn't interest me, frankly.
So it's being reported that I'm looking at a Pompliano.
Okay, a bunch of people on Twitter are saying it has been suspended and Nina Jankiewicz has resigned.
All right. It looks like a Washington Post.
Hold on. So this looks real.
It derailed them.
They chose the Washington Post to say that 33-year-old Jaguars had extensive experience in the field of disinformation.
Unfortunately, maybe yes.
It's funny that doesn't sound like a positive, does it?
All right, so it looks like maybe that disinformation board is falling apart.
All right. Well, that's interesting.
Oh, I don't know if you saw this.
From May 13, when Jeff Bezos was talking about a Joe Biden tweet from May 13, and Biden said, you want to bring down inflation?
Let's make sure the wealthiest corporations pay their fair share.
And Jeff Bezos tweets that, and he says, the newly created disinformation board should review this tweet, or maybe they need to form a new non sequitur board instead, because it was a total non sequitur.
Inflation is critical to discuss.
Mushing them together is just misdirection.
And I'm thinking, oh my God, they lost Jeff Bezos.
Joe Biden and the Democrats lost Jeff Bezos, who owns the Washington Post.
And this is Bezos.
Bezos just slapped, he just bitch slapped Biden in public.
Bezos didn't just give us an alternative opinion.
He just bitch slapped Biden like he was a scarecrow in a field or something, because that's who you bitch slap, right?
I mix all my metaphors.
Yeah, you still can't get into orbit, somebody says.
All right.
Wow.
So, what do you think about the disinformation board if it does get disbanded?
Do you think that the internet dads and the right took it down?
If that happened?
Well, I guess we'll find out.
But if it did happen, it does mean that the public made a difference.
And that would be a Twitter thing, wouldn't it?
Wouldn't that be that because Twitter exists, the disinformation board got taken down?
Because I don't know that there was that much energy anywhere else.
Maybe Facebook? I don't watch Facebook.
Is there something with Durham happening?
I haven't seen anything. Somebody thinks I played a big part?
No, I don't think it did. I don't think I had any role in anything about the disinformation board.
I think that was just everybody had the same reaction at the same time.
I don't think you could pick a leader in that.
When everybody spontaneously said, what?
What the hell is this thing?
Get rid of that. Yeah, I think that was just everybody.
I love to take credit for things, but I had nothing to do with that.
Oh, you meant the internet dads, yes.
So here's what I think.
I think that there's a group of people who have to, in a sense, bless opinions.
And that if there are too many of those people that you trust for opinions and they disagree with you, it's hard to keep your opinion.
You know, you want to conform to the people that you've agreed with in the past.
So the so-called internet dads are just people who have the ability to cross lines and say, oh, the other side has a point this time.
You know, don't listen to your own side.
They're lying to you, whatever. So there's a little bit of credibility there.
That... Yeah.
So there is some credibility there.
And I do think that this disinformation board couldn't survive rational people looking at it, basically.
You just couldn't survive it.
Oh, you think they're just gonna rebrand it, maybe?
Alright, that's all for now. I'm gonna go get ready for my flight today.
