Episode 1751 Scott Adams: All Of The News Is Fake And Racist. Like Usual. Come Have A Sip And Enjoy
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Only America can't supply baby formula?
Hillary approved the phony Russian collusion HOAX
Rebuttal to CNN's super-racist editorial on White kids
Scientology techniques
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
This could be one of the best coffee with Scott Adams of all time.
Of all time. And all you're going to need is a copper mug or a glass of tank or a chalice of time, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any...
All right. Okay, I'm really struggling here.
I just want to destroy that printer right in front of you.
Like, I want to so badly.
I want to lift it above my head and crash it on the ground on my ceramic floors as many times as it takes until I feel better.
Is that wrong? Well, before I do that, why don't you join me for the simultaneous sip?
It's the thing that feels good.
I'm totally off my game because of my printer.
All right, take a sip. Alright, let's put on the microphone for YouTube and fix that problem.
See, everything's wrong because my printer's not working.
What a terrible situation it is.
Honestly, the only reason I'm not destroying that printer in front of you is that I don't want to sweep it up.
That's the only reason.
Like, I don't want to find all the shards everywhere and try to clean them up.
It's the only thing keeping me from doing it right now.
All right. So, let's look at all the things on my phone because I can't print.
There's a study that says if you have three or more kids, it has a negative effect on your late-life cognition, that you become essentially mentally less capable in your older life if you've had three or more children.
What do you think of that study?
Let's use your analytical abilities and tell me, do you think that sounds like a legitimate study?
Number one, if there's just one study on it, The odds are no more than 50% that they even did the math right, right?
So if you hear there's a study, 50% chance it's false before you even hear about it, because that's just the ratio.
It can't be reproduced.
Now, of the 50% that are true, meaning that it could be reproduced, does it mean they've interpreted it right?
Because you can still reproduce the result, And interpret it wrong.
So here they found a correlation between having more children and being mentally less capable.
Do you think they have the correlation right?
Does having the children make you mentally less capable because apparently it shows up later in life?
Or was your propensity to be less mentally capable what caused you to have three or more children?
Now it's not an accusation.
I'm just saying.
How do they know?
When you find a correlation, why do you say that the correlation works one way?
What would be the basis for them to determine that the correlation is one direction or the causation is one direction?
I don't see that.
It seems to me that if you find a correlation, it could go either way.
It could be that whatever it is that makes them incapable later in life is correlated with whatever makes them want to have more kids.
I'm not saying it is. I'm just saying you can't rule it out.
But probably the numbers are all wrong anyway.
So, I don't know. We could have ignored this one entirely.
But if it's true that the more kids you have, the lower your cognition, the question that I would have to ask is, how many children did Joe Biden father?
Because it's looking like dozens.
Maybe we don't know about them all.
Well, CNN has another propaganda story.
So the only story about the Ukraine-Russia war that I saw, at least this morning, is about this one Russian officer who resigned during the middle of the fight.
And then the allegations are that there must be others like it.
Rumors have it that there might be other Russian military people just quitting and not wanting to fight because they didn't know what they were getting into.
And the reporting is that their cell phones were taken away and they didn't even know where they were going to fight or why.
Maybe. Could be.
But to me the story just looks like propaganda.
And I think the Russians tried to advance somewhere, and the Ukrainian army pushed them back.
Is that where we're at?
Now, is Mariupol, that part of the war is over, so Russia got Mariupol, and then what?
Are they done? There's nobody else fighting?
How could you have a major war going on that the United States is involved in, and CNN's only article about it is this one Russian officer allegedly quit in the middle of the fighting?
That's it? There's nothing else under attack?
What's happening? Isn't there something terribly missing with this?
Like, there's a war?
So now is Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine, is that now totally safe?
We can fly our politicians in there and they're not worried about getting shot down or anything?
We could just fly our politicians into Kyiv in the middle of the war zone?
Did Ukraine kind of win?
Is it over? It feels like it's over.
Right? Now, when I say over, I mean, you know, there'll be, you know, continuous skirmishes forever.
But in terms of there is a war in which Ukraine might be conquered by Russia, I feel like that's over.
Tell me I'm wrong.
The war in Ukraine is over.
I'm going to call it.
I'm going to call it now.
Now, there'll be negotiations and there'll be plenty of fighting and killing.
But in terms of a major war, I think it's over.
Because if Ukraine is not challenged in terms of their sovereignty, it doesn't look like they are.
I'm being told I'm wrong, but remember, I'm going off the reporting.
Just going off the reporting.
So the reporting would indicate the war's over.
It's not saying that, but it's indicating it by not covering it, and the one thing they covered didn't have much to do with fighting.
It had to do with quitting fighting.
So what exactly is going on?
What do you think? Do you think the war is effectively over in terms of wondering if Ukraine will fall to Russia?
It's done, right?
Am I wrong? The war is over.
Not the skirmishes and not the dying and the shooting and stuff, but the war looks like it's over.
I don't know. And again, if it turns out that I'm completely wrong about this, remember, I'm just basing it on the fact that the coverage of the war is treating it like it's over.
I'm only going off of that.
I'm not there. So if it turns out I'm completely wrong about what's going on, of course.
Of course I'm wrong.
All right. So we're still having major trouble getting baby formula in this country, the only country in the world that can't find baby formula, or at least industrialized country.
And is there anything about this question, the baby formula problem, that you don't think Trump could have solved in 10 minutes?
I mean, actually 10 minutes.
Like, literally 10 minutes.
Am I wrong? Because it seems to me that this is the ideal executive order situation, isn't it?
It's an emergency.
There's a bunch of rules that prevent importing or labeling or something.
It's a bunch of red tape.
It's not really a safety question.
The safety question would be if you don't do anything.
I mean, that's the unsafe part.
It's not terribly safe to bring in some baby formula from other countries where they've been using it for decades.
How in the world would Trump not solve that in 10 minutes?
I mean, actually 10 minutes.
Because he'd say, what's the problem?
They'd say, oh, there's this red tape.
Or we can't buy it from these countries for these reasons.
And he'd say, okay, write me up an executive order and I'll change that.
Would it be safe? And they'd say, yeah, it would be safe.
We're not saying it's unsafe.
We're just saying the rules are in the way.
And then he'd say, okay, we'll make those rules go away temporarily.
And then it would be done.
Am I wrong? Is there something major about the story I'm completely missing?
It's protectionism, yeah.
But all of those things just go away if it's an emergency and you've got an executive order.
I'm looking for some pushback, but I think I'm right, right?
It almost looks like anybody could have solved it except Joe Biden.
Anybody. And I'm not saying Trump is a god, so he's the only one who could have done it.
I could have done it. If you put me in the job, I think I could have solved it in 10 minutes.
Tell me what the red tape is.
Give me an executive order.
Okay, what's my next problem?
Can I explain why the Biden administration didn't do it?
I can't. Neither can the news.
Have you seen any stories in the news that tell you why the Biden administration couldn't get this figured out?
I haven't. It just looks like...
They just weren't trying or something.
Or it looks like anything that's bad for babies is good for Democrats.
Let's see. Letting children decide their gender identity before their brains are developed.
Probably bad for babies.
Abortion? Well, that depends on what you define as a life or a baby, but it's certainly not good for babies.
Let's see, the teachers' unions, bad for children.
Is there anything, anything at all that's happening that's good for children that Democrats are doing?
Nothing, right? It feels like Biden is bad for babies.
Biden, bad for babies.
So now we're all looking at the illegitimate news and how they're covering the story that Hillary Clinton was, in fact, behind approving the scam or hoax of the Russia collusion hoax.
Literally, Hillary Clinton, now we know for sure, The Washington Post approved a disinformation program, the worst probably disinformation thing that's ever happened in the country.
And as Ari Fleischer points out how the Washington Post handles it, he says, in a 33-paragraph story, the Washington Post buries in the 27th paragraph, as kind of an ordinary thing, that Hillary approved the dissemination of a dirty trick attack to peddle to the press phony collusion info versus Trump.
This should be a feeding frenzy.
Imagine if it were the other way around.
I mean, the top story is that Trump told people to protest peacefully but things got out of control.
Like, literally, that's what happened.
Trump told them to protest peacefully But they didn't.
And then there was also all of the different things that people talked about in the White House but did not implement.
In other words, they considered a bunch of things to delay the vote or change the vote and didn't implement them.
So you've got one person who implemented the worst hoax that changed probably the course of civilization.
And that's just like a story that they put in the middle of a larger story.
Meanwhile, Trump basically says, stay peaceful, and some people don't, and then that's an insurrection.
Oh, well. All right.
The most disgusting thing of the morning is a CNN editorial by a gentleman named Keith McGee.
Who, based on his description and bio and picture, seems to be an African-American man.
And he writes about the white mass shooter in Buffalo.
But he's talking about white teens in general.
And he writes an article which is nothing but super racist.
So let me say it as clearly as I can.
It's an article that, in my opinion, and lots of people who saw me tweet about it, would say this is clearly just absolutely disgustingly racist.
Super racist. But here's some of the things he said.
So it's part of the larger article, but he said, because you are male, that's also...
We've got some of that in there too.
Because you are male, you were born a winner of the patriarchal jackpot.
You are more likely to rise to the top of the career ladder and will be better paid on your way up.
No you won't. That's not even true in 2022.
That's literally the data says the opposite.
That if you were black and female, you have the best chance of getting into college, getting the first job offer, getting a bigger initial salary.
All of that's true. This is literally the opposite of current data.
Now, this was true. It was true.
But it's not true today.
It's exactly the opposite.
And this is his job.
His job is apparently to write about this stuff, and he doesn't know that.
Basically the most basic piece of data on this whole topic.
He doesn't know that, really.
And then he says, if you're male, the state will not attempt to dictate what you can and cannot do with your own body.
What? That's all the state does.
The state doesn't do anything but tell me what to do with my fucking body.
Do you know what the state doesn't tell me what to do with?
My thoughts. I mean, they try, but it's not official constitutional policy.
You fucking asshole.
All the state does is tell me what I can do with my body.
That's all they fucking do.
That's what the government does.
They tell you what to do with your fucking body.
Right? That's it.
I mean, seriously. They tell you what drugs you can put in it.
They tell you where it can be and where it can't be.
They tell you what your arms and legs can and cannot do.
They can't hit other people.
They can't pick people's items off a shelf and walk away with it.
Everything, everything that the government do is telling you what you can do with your fucking body.
Now, I get that the abortion thing doesn't apply to men as much, but I guess it does now.
But how can you be so wrong about everything?
I guess that's what gets you a CNN editorial page.
Secondly, and I don't know if I've been cancelled yet, but if you're talking about an abortion, and the accusation here would be that the state is telling women what to do with their body in terms of abortion, whereas that's not something that happens to men.
To which I say...
Fuck you. It's not the government telling you what to do with your body in that case.
In that specific case, that's women telling women what to do with their bodies.
Now, I'm going to get cancelled for this, probably.
But here's my opinion on abortion.
If women wanted the rule to be one way or the other, that would be the end of the conversation.
If 80% of women wanted...
You know, no abortion. That's the way it would be.
If 80% of women wanted abortion to be limited or not limited, that's the way it would be.
This is a decision solely and completely made by women that is processed through the government, but the government is just laundering the opinion of women.
This is women's fucking opinion.
It's the only way that abortion laws are created.
By women, for women.
Men just sort of watch.
Right? We don't have anything to do with it.
We're literally LARPers or pretenders.
Every man who pretends to have an opinion on abortion is just wrong.
The Supreme Court wouldn't do anything that was against 80% of women.
If 80% of women want abortion laws any way they want them, they're going to have it.
So don't pretend the government is making women do shit.
It's women. It's women.
Women are making women act the way women act.
Period. Now, that wasn't always the case.
That was not always the case.
Definitely it was true that at some time in our history, most of it really, that men were in charge and men were making the decisions and it was up to men.
I would say that's a good historical summary, but it doesn't describe 2022.
You tell me, is there even one person here who thinks that if women, by let's say an 80% majority, wanted abortion laws to be anything, whatever it is they decided, do you think that it wouldn't go that way?
You think the Supreme Court's going to go against 80% of women?
No. No, they will not.
No. Do you think Congress is going to go against 80% of women?
No. No.
They will not. No way that will ever happen.
All of the power resides with women on the question of abortion.
All of it. If they can't decide, don't say it's the fucking guys.
It's not the fucking men.
It's not us.
You tell us what you fucking want and we'll give it to you.
Welcome to the real fucking world.
You tell men what you want, make up your mind, just be on the same side, 80%, that's all I ask.
Just be on the same side.
We'll give you any fucking thing you want.
Stop blaming us.
Stop blaming us for your fucking problem.
Now, it was our problem, ours meaning men, right?
It was our problem, historically.
It's not now.
Stop blaming us. Just take the power that you have and make up a decision and tell us what you want.
And we'll give it to you. Oh, we'll complain and we'll say you shouldn't have been the other way, but we'll give it to you.
You're still going to get it.
Jesus. So not the government's problem.
He says, if you're on top of that, says Keith McGee, On top of that, because you are white and you live in a country that is structurally racist, you enjoy a huge privilege that your skin color gives you.
What would be an example of that?
Can somebody give me an example of my huge privilege that my white skin is giving me?
What would be some examples?
Please? Anybody?
Some examples.
There are no fucking examples.
None. Now let's see if you can do it the other way.
Are there any examples where being black in America would give you some advantages?
Anything? Well, you would get into college more easily with the same grades, and you would get funded.
You would get hired more easily, by far, at least by the larger corporations who have to have diversity.
It's not even close. In 2022, white people don't have anywhere near the rights or privileges of black people.
It's not even close. And I am completely insulted that you would even say this out loud and pretend as if you're not fucking me while telling me I'm in charge.
Because you are. You're fucking me and telling me I'm in charge at the same time.
Just do one or the other.
Either treat me as a second-class citizen and fuck me.
At least it makes sense.
But don't tell me I'm in charge while you're fucking me.
All right? Make up your mind.
Then he goes on, if you have the added bonus of being...
Let's see. Oh, it was even worse.
He goes, no one will try to...
If you're white, I guess.
No one will try to rob you of your right to vote.
Really? If you're white, no one will rob you of your right to vote?
Have you seen the video of the alleged mule who is stuffing ballot boxes with, I guess, on several different trips, different ballots?
Now, if that really is happening in any widespread way, and if the allegations of a lot of people...
I would say these are definitely unproven allegations.
But if the allegations about the impropriety of the 2020 election were true, I think that would be an example of somebody robbing you of your right to vote.
He hasn't heard of that situation, I guess.
But I would say there's at least strong, what would you call it, circumstantial evidence that That white people were definitely robbed of their right to vote in 2020.
It looks like it.
Now, I don't say that it's proven.
No court has proven it.
I haven't seen anything that would look like proof.
But that's a pretty ballsy thing to say that it hasn't happened, because you can't prove it didn't happen.
You can't prove it did happen, at least at the moment.
He said, you don't need to be terrified of law enforcement officers.
You know, how much of that is my fault?
You know, do Asian Americans, are they terrified of law enforcement?
If you go into an Asian-American community, are they all, oh no, the cops are here, we're all in trouble, they're going to beat us up?
Let's stop pretending that everybody acts the same.
Can we? Are we adult enough to say, people act differently?
Different cultures, different ages, different everything.
Like any subgroup in America would have a pretty distinct way of acting.
And it's not even just race.
It's not even just gender.
You could find lots of distinct groups that would act differently in different situations.
So why do we act like they would all be treated the same if they're going to act differently?
It's ridiculous. Let's grow up.
Let's grow up and be honest that if people act differently, they get treated differently.
Every time, all the time, everywhere, in every case, no exceptions.
So if we can't even be adult enough to say, do they all act the same?
Because yes, they're being treated differently.
You know, I'm willing to accept that, that they're being treated differently.
But you've got to act the same if you're going to make that argument.
All right. And I don't know if they are.
I'm not even saying they're not.
I'm just saying that if you can't control for that variable, this is a ridiculous argument.
Apparently, if you're white, according to this fellow, you'll benefit from better education, health care, job opportunities, and finances.
Will you? Will you?
It seems to me that that's more about money, isn't it?
It seems to me that every black person born with money Or who goes to school and does well and gets money.
Don't you think every one of them will have good education, health care, job opportunities, and finances?
As long as they have money.
So he's pretending that this isn't about money, which of course it is.
Would you rather be a child of a wealthy black family or the child of a poor white family?
Which one of them is going to have better education, health care, job opportunities, and finances?
Well, 100% of the time, it's going to be the wealthier black family would have all of that stuff, and the poor white family would not.
So what does the race have to do with it?
Now, I get how we got here.
That's a separate conversation.
If you have the added bonus of being Christian, he goes on, heterosexual, cisgender, and able-bodied, then you might, well, never know firsthand how it feels to be stigmatized, marginalized, or hated because of some aspect of yourself over which you have absolutely no control.
That makes you very lucky indeed.
Well, who are the lucky people?
Because I happen to be an able-bodied adult white male heterosexual, cisgender, And every day I wake up, I'm being attacked for those things.
Every day. On social media, every day somebody's attacking me for being white or male.
Every day. So, do you not know this?
Does this guy not know that being a white male puts a target on your back in 2022?
How do you not know that?
All right. And then he goes on, and he finishes up by saying this.
He says, I cherish my ethnicity, which feels racist to me.
If you cherish your ethnicity, that just sounds racist to me.
Why would you cherish it?
I could see why you would not have a bad feeling about it, and that would be good.
Why should he have a bad feeling about it?
He shouldn't. But why would you cherish it?
Cherishing it says it has value, right?
If you think your ethnicity has value, you are a racist.
Because it doesn't.
Why would you cherish it?
I mean, that's just such a red flag.
I don't cherish my whiteness.
Does anybody cherish their whiteness?
I'm like, why? Like, I didn't pick it, I didn't work for it, it didn't, you know, other white people's accomplishments, I didn't get to get the money from that directly, anyway.
Indirectly, I guess I did. All right.
So then he says, I cherish my ethnicity while gladly celebrating yours and would ask you to do the same for me.
No, I won't do that.
I will not cherish my ethnicity and I will not cherish yours.
And I won't even respect you for doing it.
I have no respect for anybody who cherishes their ethnicity.
None. I wouldn't respect myself for doing it.
And I think he's in exactly the wrong direction.
Nobody should cherish their ethnicity.
That's the source of the whole problem.
Stop cherishing your ethnicity.
How about cherish yourself or your family?
How about cherish your friends?
Cherish people. Cherish babies.
There's lots of stuff to cherish.
Cherish your country. Cherish your town.
Cherish anything except your ethnicity.
It's like the worst thing you could cherish.
All right, then he says, however, this is the weirdest part, however, we must deny the existence of race, for it makes victims of us both.
We must deny the existence of race, meaning he thinks race is somewhat of a cultural thing, societal thing.
He writes the whole article about Concentrating deeply on race and then tells us we should deny the existence of it.
It doesn't even make any sense.
And this guy gets an article on CNN. So that was just like super, super racist and anti-male.
And apparently there's no problem getting that sort of thing published.
All right. I've ranted enough on that.
I feel like it's not a very newsy day.
You know, if Elon Musk isn't doing something today, it's just not newsy.
Now, what do you think of the fact that as soon as Elon Musk said he was a Republican, there were accusations about a sexual impropriety?
Do you think that's a coincidence?
Like, the day after he says he's a Republican, he gets metooed?
Right. Probably not a coincidence, but do you think he became a Republican to protect himself?
Because there's two ways you can see this.
He's either smart enough to know that he would be protected as a Republican, because he would be, and he wouldn't be protected on his own team if he stayed Democrat.
So... It's either very clever or very coincidental.
Could be both. Could be, I mean, could be clever that he took care of those accidents at the same time it's a coincidence that this came out.
He said he's voting Republican.
That's right. That distinction is worth making.
Voting doesn't mean he is Republican.
That is correct.
I should have said that.
Yeah, but I guess I would get back to why is it exactly illegal to offer a horse for sex?
Here's how I think I could run for office and win the presidency.
I would only have one policy.
I would make hand jobs illegal for compensation.
And I would just say, all right, the other stuff, keep that illegal because there could be troubles with that.
But anybody can sell a handjob.
Anybody. You can price it any way you want, but you can just sell handjobs to anybody who wants one.
What would happen first?
Well, the first thing that would happen is that cheating would probably go way down because people would have an outlet, at least the men.
The second thing that would happen is Of course, it would be the bad situation.
People would be, like, forced into this situation, and that would be trafficking and bad and terrible.
But the other thing that would happen is there would be this great income equality leveling.
Don't you think? And suddenly, anybody who wanted could get as much money as they wanted.
If they were attractive.
Can't beat it. Now, give me an argument for why hand jobs are illegal.
To sell. Say if you're a massage therapist or something.
Why would it be illegal? You can certainly see why the other stuff would be illegal.
But you're literally spending an hour rubbing a naked person.
Like, that's actually your job.
And I'm not suggesting that everybody who's a massage therapist should even consider doing anything else.
I mean, doing any more.
I'm not saying they should. Everybody gets to decide, you know, what they do.
But why is it illegal?
Like, you're rubbing a naked person for an hour, and you can't rub the part they like best if you both think it's a good idea.
It's just ridiculous. Um...
Chiropractors had to work. I love that comment, but I don't know exactly what it means.
Erica says, I don't think a lot of wives would even care.
I'll bet you. See, here's the thing.
If massages did not already exist as a thing that people routinely do if they can afford it, do you think that if you went to your husband and you went to your wife and you said, hey, I've got an idea, There's this new thing I just heard of.
It's called a massage.
And it requires me getting completely naked.
I'll have a little sheet over me.
And then a woman that you don't know and I don't know will rub every part of my body except my genitalia.
And then what would the wife say?
Oh, that sounds pretty reasonable.
Okay. Sign up for that.
No. No.
Your wife would say, no, you're not doing that.
I don't care if it's the new thing.
You're not doing that. The only reason that it's even a thing is because it's been a thing.
Like, we just got used to it.
We get used to anything if you do it long enough.
Doesn't everyone get a massage?
No. I would guess that 80% of the world can't afford one.
That would be my guess.
Yeah, lots of people don't get massages.
Some people, it's creepy.
They don't like being touched. Lots of reasons.
Is the third-party handjob...
Somebody's asking, is the third-party handjob better than doing it yourself?
I don't see how it could be.
How could it be? I don't know.
I'm not even going to go into that any further.
It would be a slippery slope.
I don't know. Was that supposed to be a joke?
That's pretty funny. A slippery slope.
Somebody says $120 is the going rate.
Good to know. All right.
That is all I have to say today because it's a very slow news day.
Did I miss anything? Is there anything in the news that I should have mentioned?
Is the Pennsylvania election still up in the air?
Did anything happen there? Yeah, I'm getting tired of talking about Bill Maher who says something about Democrats because it's happening all the time.
Oh, monkeypox. Yeah.
So monkeypox basically has killed zero people so far.
And I guess the smallpox vaccination slows it down quite a bit.
I don't know.
I feel like this monkeypox thing...
It's a wait and see.
I don't know if it's a news-driven or health-driven thing.
Watched 2,000 Mules?
I have. I have watched it.
We talked about that already.
But we're still waiting for Dinesh to come up with the videos of the same person going to multiple boxes.
I guess he's working on that.
So I'll wait to see that.
I think that's the next time to comment on it.
How many of you have totally fallen for the persuasion in the Tom Cruise movie Top Gun 2?
Yeah, I've been saying that I don't want to watch any movies because they're all bad.
Nobody makes a good movie.
And then I see the trailers for the Top Gun 2 movie, and I said to myself, I'm going to watch that movie.
I'll actually go to the theater to watch that one.
Um... Yeah, it looks like they did a good job.
Whatever you want to say about Tom Cruise, if you don't like his Scientology or whatever it is you don't like about him, he does make good movies.
He consistently, at least the action movies, I like better than the other stuff.
But Tom Cruise's action movies, consistently excellent, in my opinion.
They're just consistently well done.
So, you know, I'm happy to give him my money.
He proves Scientology works.
You know, that's one thing you don't hear about Scientology a lot.
You hear the critics.
Right? You always hear about the critics.
But here's the thing nobody ever says.
Does it work? Because I'll bet it does.
I'll bet it does.
In terms of making you feel like you've cleared out whatever's holding you back.
Right? Now, I don't know that there's any science to it, but there doesn't need to be, because the placebo effect alone and just persuasion would allow you to reprogram your brain to be more effective.
So, on the surface, it looks like it would work.
Maybe not for any scientific reason that they say, but I'll bet you that auditing thing that they do in Scientology, where an auditor, a person works with you, asks you a bunch of questions and finds where your hidden trauma is, allegedly, and then gets rid of it, allegedly, and then you're more effective.
Somebody says, Scott, stop.
No, I'm talking strictly from my hypnosis background.
My understanding is that Scientology was sort of built on a hypnosis basis.
And what I've seen would suggest it probably works.
Now, I'm not suggesting you should be a Scientologist, because there's a lot that comes with that.
Like buying into the lifestyle of all that.
I don't know about that. You can figure that out on your own.
But if you ask the simple question...
Does their little...
You know, you could call it brainwashing.
You could call it auditing. You could call it persuasion.
You could call it therapy.
You could call it any one of those things.
But does it work? I'll bet it does.
I'll bet it does. Because, you know, if you took it out of that context and just used that technique, I'll bet you would get a lot of people who said it worked.
Not for everybody. But I'll bet it does.
Um... Tell you why it works?
Well, the simple process of convincing yourself that you found what your limitations were and remove them should make you perform better.
So let's say you go through this auditing process and they ask you a bunch of questions and they say, okay, you've got this hidden trauma you didn't know you had and now we're going to do this thing to deal with it and now it's cleared.
So you were being held back by this trauma, now it's cleared.
So now go forth and do those successful things you wanted to do.
Would that work? It probably would.
Not for everybody. But for a lot of people, they'd say, oh, the thing that was holding me back is now gone.
So I'll put my efforts into it because now it'll work.
If the only thing it does is make people try harder because now they think it'll work, something's been fixed that wasn't fixed before, you should get better results.
I just cured you.
Yeah, the whole thing about, you know, they're not free to leave or they'll be punished for talking about it.
I'm not defending any of that.
I'm not saying anything about the organization.
You can make your own determinations.
I'm just saying that that technique, even the critics don't criticize that.
Have you noticed that?
Look at how many critics there are of Scientology.
Have they ever said that the auditing doesn't work?
That's the process where they talk to you and clear out your past traumas.
You don't ever hear that.
That would be the most obvious thing to say.
The most obvious thing to say was they have this technique, it's the basis for the entire system, and the technique doesn't work.
If they believed it didn't work, wouldn't they say that?
Wouldn't that be where you start?
Oh, this is a scan.
This technique does not work.
They don't say that.
They say stuff about the organization.
They don't say stuff about the technique.
If it sounds like hypnosis, it's because it is.
I think it came directly from the field of hypnosis.
I'm not positive about that.
But the similarities are striking.
Well, let me ask this. I'll bet there are some other hypnotists...
Who are watching live right now.
If you are a hypnotist, and you also know about auditing and Scientology, can you confirm here that that process seems to have borrowed from hypnosis?
Anybody? Can you give me a confirmation?
Some say that Hubbard did base it on hypnosis, yes.
So that's a rumor.
Right? So those who are hypnotists can confirm it.
And it's a weird thing, because if he had not built all the organization around it and had simply introduced the technique, you might be using it today.
And I'm not even sure that it's based on science.
It could be just based on...
Well, everything's based on science, I guess.
More based on a placebo effect.
Based on the fact that if you think you solved your problem, you did.
Here's the analogy from hypnosis.
In hypnosis, one of the ways to treat people from a problem is you have them imagine their prior life, and then you imagine they had some trauma in a prior life, and then you have them face their trauma while under hypnosis.
They deal with their trauma under hypnosis in their prior life, not even their current life, a memory of a prior life.
They deal with the trauma, then they wake up, and then they're better.
Now, not all the time, right?
This stuff doesn't work every time, every person.
But there are plenty of stories of people who, anecdotally, went through that process and then their problem was solved.
Now, here's the problem. There's no such thing as prior lives.
So how do you solve a problem by pretending there is?
And pretending you took something away from that prior life, a trauma.
It turns out that if you talk yourself into you've solved your problem, you've kind of solved your problem.
Talking yourself into believing that you solved it is the solution for mental problems.
It wouldn't help you with a physical problem.
But for a mental problem, if you believe you've solved it, you solved it.
Because mental problems are about beliefs.
So, how to write you hypnotically.
I don't know if I could put that in a short lesson.
That would be hard. Because that really would take a lot of development to do that right.
Yeah, so it's a way to put the blame on something else, a prior life, a bad experience.
And once you put that blame somewhere and you think you've dealt with it, it makes you imagine that you solved your problem, even if you didn't.
So Scientology has a similar kind of technique there.
So my experience would suggest that it would work for a lot of people and that they would feel that their lives have been greatly improved by it.
Could be. All right.
I believe I've done everything I need to do.
Is there anything else I haven't talked about that you want to hear about?
ABB Formula Scandal...
Yeah, I don't know what the situation is with Abbott and the baby formula.
Yeah, so Joe Biden's only message to North Korea was hello.
Hello.
Period. So Biden was asked, what message does he have for North Korea?
And he just said, hello, period.
Okay. We do not have the right guy on that job.
I think the other guy would be shaking hands with Kim Jong-un right now and working out the problems.
Sacrifice makes you double down on belief.
I think so. That is true.
Yeah, we talked about Ukraine.
Do I think the DNC is removing Biden?
It looks like it. It looks like the DNC is trying to figure out...
You know, I think that we'll see who they've selected, because there'll be stories about this politician you haven't seen in a while.
So I think there's...
So watch for this. I think there'll be the beginning of Democrat media, like CNN, for example, doing a profile on a politician.
And it'll be some young Democrat.
And... That's how you know that that's who they chose.
It was like Obama. Remember when Obama just got chosen by the media and they decided he'd be president someday?
And he was. Why can't the simulation program in past lives?
Well, the past is only designed as needed.
In the simulation. The simulation would not create a real past.
It would just make you think you saw one as you needed it.