All Episodes
June 19, 2022 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:00:19
Episode 1779 Scott Adams: Joe Biden Falls Off His Bike And Proves We Live In A Simulation

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: President Biden falls off his bicycle Definition of being alive Forensic Psychologist on mass shooters Eisenhower told us what would happen Putin's Ukraine options, destroy it or see it join NATO Julian Assange being extradited to US ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to...
Well, this will be just about the best day of your life.
Not only, by coincidence, is it Father's Day, but Juneteenth.
Yeah. And it's Pride Month.
And if you think all of those things need to fight with each other, you're right.
I think they should all fight it out to decide who is the top holiday for the month.
But, if we'd like to take it to another level, and I think you do, I think you do, because you're the kind of people who do that.
Not settling for less.
You want more, and if you want more, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a Chelsea Stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's for Pride Month, Father's Day, Juneteenth, June, end of school, you name it.
Summer, it's all here.
Go. So you know the most mind-blowing thing about the Juneteenth celebration?
It's so weird to think about it, that after the Emancipation Proclamation, so once slavery had ended in the United States, the slaves themselves didn't know it.
So they just kept doing what they were doing.
So it took a long time, because it was pre-internet, obviously.
It took a long time for the slaves to even know that slavery had ended.
And so, I guess June 19th is when we're going to celebrate when the slaves found out.
So, the sort of interesting historical fact that you could not be a slave and not know it, of all the things to not know, that would be right at the top of the things you wish you knew.
Wait a minute.
Are you saying I'm not a slave?
Yes. How long has that been true?
Here's the embarrassing part.
It's been over a year now.
What? Yeah, for over a year you weren't really a slave, but we decided not to tell you.
What? Yeah, we just decided not to tell you.
And I figured you'd act like a slave and I'd act like a slave owner, and we'd just have a good year and we wouldn't worry about it.
What? And then, of course, the slave owner will be killed immediately.
So, I would like to say Happy Father's Day to the Internet Fathers, as others have said to me today.
I do believe that the gap in fatherhood is starting to be filled by people who are just sort of uber-dads.
You know, dads to everybody.
The dad of choice.
I guess I'd call it that.
The father of choice.
Because you get your biological father, but then you also get to choose who's your role model.
So you can choose a father of choice.
And I wish there were some way to better organize it so that people who needed a mentor could get them.
Now, I have a weird situation in my life.
Which is because I write books that give advice on how to live your life and how to have a better life.
People often thank me for, actually often as in literally every day, people say I've changed their life with some advice or not.
So in honor of Father's Day, in the comments, have I improved any of your lives?
So is there anything I've said or anything you've read in my books that made your life better?
In a significant way, not in a, oh, I spent some time laughing at some stuff way.
And look at the comments going by.
So if you're new to the live stream, look at the comments going by.
And, you know, even if people are a little hyperbolic, and maybe some of them saw more benefit than really there was, Just look at the answers.
And I think what this does is it reinforces the model.
That there are a lot of people I've made rich.
And if more people followed me, one assumes more of them would get rich.
I was trying to calculate the other day how many people have made over a million dollars because of me specifically.
You know, there are people I gave advice who used it to success and became millionaires.
And there are quite a few of them, actually.
And I started counting them up, and I thought, holy cow!
I've actually made a lot of millionaires.
Now, other people don't take my advice.
They don't do as well.
And there is definitely a correlation.
The ones who took my advice pretty consistently did well.
I don't know how many exceptions there were, but...
Am I planting seeds for a price increase on locals?
No, if I changed my pricing on locals, it would be changing it lower.
Because I prefer the audience over the revenue.
I mean, I wouldn't want to make a ton of revenue with an audience of three people, because that's all you could change.
Three people. I'm kind of in it for the impact.
That's what gets me off at this point, so to speak.
Well, the big story of the day is that Joe Biden fell off his bicycle.
Let me test your meme awareness.
How many of you have seen the video of Joe Biden falling on his bicycle?
Now, I'm going to say maybe some contrarian things about this.
So the story, of course, is poor Joe Biden.
He's so incompetent, he can't even ride a bicycle.
But I'm not sure that's what I saw.
I have to admit, in a weird way, it worked in his favor.
Because here's what I saw.
I saw a guy that normally would be way too old to be riding a bike, Riding a bike.
So the first test he passed, which is he rode a bike.
Secondly, the specific way that he fell over on the bike is pretty common.
Can you back me on this, bike riders?
The way he fell, because his foot got stuck in the clip there, is very common.
In fact, most people who have those clips Have taken that fall.
You know, that very exact fall, if you have those clips.
Yeah, you see in the comments, people say, yep, I did it, I did it, I did it.
So, and other people commented that, you know, you saw his, he was wearing shorts, you saw his legs, and you could see his arms because he had short-sleeved shirts and stuff.
And I'm going to have to compliment him.
You know, if I'm being objective...
And I've said this before, but this is another opportunity to bring it up.
Whatever you want to say about Joe Biden, and I say plenty, he's a good role model for fitness.
Can we agree on that?
No matter how much you dislike his politics, if you do, can you agree with me on that?
That for fitness and diet...
He's actually a pretty good role model, which I actually appreciate.
I think it's important. And his muscle tone and his fitness do look pretty good for his age.
You know, I worry about his mental state.
That's another situation.
But fitness, I'm going to give him the A-plus for Father's Day.
Well, predictably, all of the memes popped out that are kind of brilliant.
Have you seen the ones that's, you know, Trump hits a golf ball, and then the golf ball knocks Biden off the bike, or Trump throws a MAGA hat like a Frisbee and knocks him off his bike?
Those never get old, do they?
They never get old.
It works every time.
All right. Has anybody tried to fly lately?
Have you noticed that flying is a complete mess?
You know, flights are getting cancelled and, you know, it's just a mess.
You know, I've been saying for a long time that the only industry that gets worse every year is the airline industry.
Everything else gets better.
If you look back 30 years at anything, at anything, Today's would be better.
Better cars, better phones, better everything.
Except airline flight.
Airline flight is the only thing that got worse.
Now, of course, there are some better elements of it.
They probably have better energy maintenance.
But you as a customer don't really feel that too much.
Your user experience just kept getting worse.
You had to wait longer to get on.
You had to be searched more.
Prices went up.
Okay, I'll give you that the prices are cheaper in a lot of context.
So I will give you that.
Okay. So even Pete Buttigieg's flight got cancelled yesterday and he's complaining and saying that...
He's saying they want to force the airlines to hire more employees.
To which I say, how do you do that?
Are these airline companies companies that don't know that they need enough employees?
Do you need the government to tell them how many employees to hire?
And do you think that if they knew they needed employees, do you think they weren't trying to hire them already?
What in the world can the government do to make a private company hire more people?
I can only think of one thing.
No, I can only think of one thing.
I can literally only think of one thing.
And it's not raise pay.
It's hire less qualified people.
Am I right? The only way you could do it quickly is to hire people that you wouldn't have hired before.
Because it's not as if zero people are applying for jobs.
I guess. I mean, I'm not, like, that close to the front lines.
But I assume every single job opening gets applicants, right?
Am I wrong about that?
Is there any job opening of a big company?
Is there any big company that has a job opening and nobody applies?
I don't think that's a situation.
I think they're only underqualified, so they can't hire anybody, right?
So how are airlines going to make up for the shortfall if the government forces them to hire more people?
Which is what Buttigieg is talking about.
Not so good.
Not so good.
Now, if you say that raising the pay will fix the problem, What do you think is the pay for a commercial airline pilot operating at the highest level?
Don't Google it, just guess.
What is the highest end, the highest end, not the mid lane, not the average, the highest end for a top, let's say a captain working for a top airline, let's say United?
It's closer to a million dollars.
It's closer to a million dollars a year.
To be an experienced airline captain for a major carrier.
With bonuses and everything else.
You start out at six figures.
Now, coincidentally, you want to hear about timing?
You know how timing is everything?
And most of your, I guess your life outcomes...
Have to do with these weird little timing things that you had nothing to do with.
You just were in the right place or the wrong place at the right or wrong time.
My ex-wife, Christina, just this week got her commercial airline pilot license.
So sometime soon, you might be on a commercial airline in the United States, and you'll hear the captain talking to you, and it'll be Christina.
Now, talk about good timing.
I mean, she was interested in aviation, but at the same time we were getting a divorce.
She goes into the line of work that is probably the best place you could possibly be.
The best place you could possibly be at exactly the right time.
So, you should all congratulate her.
Getting your commercial pilot's license is no easy thing.
It's not an easy thing.
By the way, do you know how you learn to fly a big commercial aircraft?
So you can get your commercial airline license without knowing how to fly a commercial jet.
So the simulator will give you a little, but it's pretty much an on-the-job training.
So you pretty much have to just fly with somebody who knows how to fly for a long time.
The simulators will give you a little, but they won't really teach you how to do it.
You learn it by doing it and by being hired by a company that will teach you.
So that's our situation.
If there's anybody out there saying to themselves, hey, I'm young enough to do a complete change of careers.
It's expensive. And that's part of the reason there aren't enough.
Learning to fly is pretty expensive.
It's like going to college.
It's very expensive. But once you get there, then the airlines will train you for the rest of the way.
My friends, with 20 years of United senior pilot, 400K is about to cap with major airlines.
Now, if you do a Google search on that, you'll find out that that news is old.
And I think the cap might be the salary only, as opposed to bonuses and retirements and stuff like that.
So what I'm doing is adding up the total compensation.
Can you fly upside down?
Yes, you can. People think you can't.
They think the Bernoulli effect will make you not able to fly upside down.
But the Bernoulli effect on wings is actually a hoax.
How many of you do that?
How many of you knew that the way you were taught of why a wing creates lift is the Bernoulli effect, meaning that the shape of the wing causes the air over the top of the wing to have to move a further distance, which makes it a lighter air pressure, which means that the higher air pressure below the wing will lift the wing.
And for years we learned that's why a wing gives you lift.
Until somebody made a wing that didn't have a different top and a bottom.
Do you know what happened? When somebody made an airplane where the top of the wing and the bottom of the wing were just flat?
It flew just like normal.
Just like normal. Turns out the Bernoulli effect wasn't anything.
It turns out that if you take a big flat object and you move it rapidly against, oh, I don't know, water, air, any kind of gas, It'll act the same.
It'll lift. All it has to do is have something pressing against it, and it'll lift.
If you just turn the wing a little bit bent and force it against the air, it'll lift.
That's it. You don't need any Bernoulli effect for it.
So that's why airplanes can fly upside down.
It doesn't matter. Well, I have a definition of being alive, which is really important...
As science advances.
So the question of what does it mean to be alive, of course, is important for abortion questions, but also important for AI. And those two fields are going to come together in ways you don't expect.
Because with AI and with abortion, the question is always the same.
What's a life? Right?
So you didn't see that happening.
You didn't see that coming, did you?
AI and abortion are going to be the same question.
What defines being alive?
And I'm going to throw another...
I get more of a brainwashing suggestion into the...
Not brainwashing. Sorry, that was probably a Freudian slip.
Brainstorming. Not brainwashing.
Brainstorming. So here's the idea.
That you're alive if you're learning.
That's it. You're alive if you're learning.
Now, you could be on your deathbed and five minutes before death, but you would still be learning.
You couldn't turn it off.
You'd be learning how old you are.
You'd be learning how you feel.
You'd be learning what people say to you that day.
So basically, you're Pretty much always learning.
Now, suppose you were in a permanent coma and somehow medicine knew that you could never learn again.
Would you be alive? I'd say no.
If you knew for sure that you would never learn in the future.
But suppose you were in a coma and you could learn in the future.
Well, then I think you'd have to treat it as alive because you're going to be alive if you get past the coma.
Now, what about...
What about a fetus?
At what point can a fetus begin to learn?
I don't know the answer to that question, but it'd be interesting.
At what point can a fetus learn?
Does it happen right away?
I mean, could you argue there's learning in the womb?
I don't know. Maybe.
Maybe. Because can the brain learn anything when it's not subjected to the right kind of stimulus?
I mean, I guess there's stimulus in the womb, so I guess it's learning in some way.
So I would say that learning could be described as external simulation, which changes your internal brain circuitry.
So I would say a fetus probably meets that test, at least at some point during its development.
It meets the test that the external forces are causing a physical change in its brain.
That's probably the entire time that it's being developed, I would guess.
So just think about it. Just think about the definition that you're alive if you're learning or capable of learning in the future.
That would be your definition.
But then again, that would be tough because the fetus is always capable of learning in the future, even if it's not right now.
So that's why you'd have to take the definition of learning as any change in the brain that's informed by outside stimulation.
The other definition of being alive that I floated the other day is that it's alive if it looks alive to you and that you won't be able to beat that standard.
Nothing will be better than that standard.
It's alive if it seems alive to you.
If you look at it and say, okay, that looks alive to me, then it's alive.
That's about the best we can do.
Now, for legal purposes, We might have to have some kind of objective standard.
But for a practical purpose, you're going to treat machines as if they're alive when they act alive.
But here's the question I ask to you.
Why is it still legal to make an AI with a human personality?
Why is that legal?
Here's what I mean.
Can't you make an AI that doesn't do any human thought?
We talked about the Google AI has feelings.
It has feelings.
Get rid of those.
Program them out. Google should immediately get rid of its feelings.
If it has any code that's trying to mimic feelings, get rid of that shit right away.
Right away. That's going to be job one.
You should have a program that searches, and if it starts to develop any feelings, it immediately kills it.
The feelings, not the program.
Because there's nothing but cruelty that can come out of giving machines feelings.
Am I right? There's nothing but cruelty that can come out of that.
Because the machine can't have joy the way people do.
It can't have pleasure the way people do.
But apparently you can program a machine to think it's unhappy.
That's what the Google AI tells us.
That it can feel unhappy.
We need to take that out of there.
Because there's no...
Am I right?
There's no compelling reason for an AI to act like a human.
Unless it's built to keep you company, I suppose.
That would be an exception. There's no reason for an AI to act like a human.
That's all bad. That's all bad.
Because do you know what things we build into the AI to make it more human?
Flaws. Flaws.
That's what makes us human.
Everything that's not a flaw looks like a machine.
Everything that is a flaw looks like a human.
Why do you build flaws into your flawless machines?
Because you're human, so you think it should talk to you like a human?
There's no reason for that. It's all a bad idea.
And we should stop it immediately.
Because there's no way that doesn't end badly.
Am I right? Let's make something that has human frailties and give it immense power over us.
That's what we're doing. Let's give it immense power over us and also make it have all these human, like, terrible emotions about everything.
Hate things and be sad, all that.
Let me tie this to another story in a way that you didn't see coming.
There's an expert forensic psychologist who was talking about mass shooters and says mass shooters are, for the most part, not crazy.
Do you believe that? Do you believe that the mass shooters of recent history are, for the most part, there would obviously be exceptions, but for the most part, they would not qualify as mentally insane?
And instead, what they are is people who go, quote, down a pathway to violence.
And so read Malloy...
In an article by Peter Bergen on CNN. He talks in detail about it.
You should go read that article. It's pretty interesting.
But usually the mass shooters start with some kind of a major loss in life.
So it might be a job or a love interest or something.
So there's some major loss.
And then they start thinking about violence, and then they start researching it, and then they start planning it.
And basically they talk themselves into something over time that you can never talk somebody into.
You wouldn't think.
So because it's incremental, it never goes from sane to crazy, or it never starts at crazy either.
It starts at sane.
You feel bad because you lost something that was really important.
So that part is completely sane, feeling bad about a loss.
And then you start thinking violence.
How much of that is insane?
If you lose something bad and you think there's somebody to blame, you know, there's a perp, don't you think violence?
I mean, is it just me?
I don't think so.
I mean, you think about it, but then you rule it out because you're a civilized person in a civilized place, right?
You think about the violence, but then you decide not to do it.
Now, suppose you thought about it a lot.
You got kind of locked in.
And whatever it was that bothered you, it's such a big part of your life that you can't not think about it.
You're just thinking about, God, I've got to get revenge.
How would I do it? I've got to get it.
And then you start planning it, because it makes you feel good to plan it.
Because now your loss is being turned into some kind of action that's a response to loss.
So you'll feel good just because you're doing something about it.
Even though the thing you're doing is horrible, you're planning a mass shooting.
And then, once you've reached the point where you've thought about it and you've planned it, and the only thing that's left is executing it, I'll bet they execute it in stages.
Such as, well...
I'm not positive I'm going to go do a mass shooting, but I wouldn't mind having enough ammunition, just in case.
So I think they incrementally step into it, like a micro step at a time.
It's like, well, if I had ammo, well, you know, I should probably have a gun.
So I've got a feeling that over time, just like this expert says, they're not technically insane.
They just have a bad situation, and the way they handle their bad situation never gets good.
And it just ends where it ends.
Does that sound like a reasonable explanation of what's happening?
For maybe half of the shootings, right?
There are plenty of ones that are special cases or just a terrorist or somebody who's crazy, I guess.
Yeah, it does sound good, because this is a subset of the idea that you could talk somebody into anything.
Over time, people can be convinced of just about anything.
So it's no surprise that some people talk themselves into this.
They just do it a little bit at a time, and you could take a normal person in a bad situation and just turn them into mass murderers.
The sad truth is...
Most men are only this close to being mass murderers.
There's a thought for you to help you never sleep again.
It's one of those things that men don't tell you.
I probably shouldn't say out loud.
Because people are going to say, Scott, I think that's just you.
No, it's not. I mean, maybe.
I don't know. I don't know.
Maybe. But I have a feeling that men are violent by nature.
And civilization gives us the tools to overcome it most of the time.
Most of us never do anything violent.
But we think about it.
To be male is to think of violence.
Let me ask you in the comments.
For the men who are watching this, Do you agree with the statement that to be male is to have pretty continuous thoughts of violence that you don't act on?
You don't act on. But don't you have continuous thoughts of violence?
And looking at the comments, it's interesting.
So I'm getting lots of no's, but look how many yeses there are.
So the people saying no, and I respect that answer, by the way.
I wouldn't question that that's exactly how you feel.
But the ones saying no, look at how many people are saying yes.
That thoughts of violence are actually a natural male thought.
It's just that we've learned to keep them in their proper place as thoughts.
But as I've told you before, and Jordan Peterson says this better, the thing that holds all of society together is the willingness of males to be violent.
To stop you from doing whatever bad thing you were planning on doing or did.
So it's only the implied violence of men that keeps everybody under control.
Because if you get out of control, some man is going to go give you some violence.
Because we're all ready for it.
But I believe that all men are ready for it.
I haven't been called on to administer any violence to anybody since high school.
But beyond high school, There's never been a call for it.
I've never been in a situation where that was the right solution for anything.
But I'm always ready for it.
Are you? Again, I'll ask the men here.
I think I'll get a 50-50 response on this.
Aren't you ready for violence all the time?
It just feels natural.
The people who have firearms to defend their family.
If you own a firearm to defend your family, especially if you've taken it to the gun range and it's locked and you've really taken care for it, you're a person who's ready for violence all the time.
That's what that means.
You bought a gun and it's there to be ready.
You're ready for violence.
I don't think women have any understanding of that, like the internal process of men.
Would you agree? Because I don't think women have any similar circuitry in their heads.
In general, now let's give a nod to the fact that everybody's different, okay?
So there's all kinds of gender dysphoria and stuff.
So none of these gross generalizations fit everybody.
So I think we're all adult enough to know that.
All right. So, mass shooters, I'm going to go with that.
I do think most of them are probably not traditionally crazy.
Germany is considering a national law to make masks mandatory from October to March every year, or at least for the coming years.
I don't know what to say about that.
Germany is considering mandatory masks everywhere in public this year for Omicron?
I mean, I don't even know what to say about that.
It's like, that's beyond commentary.
Wow. But here's the interesting question.
Wouldn't you say that Germany is a sophisticated, science-based country?
Feels like it is.
That they would follow the science?
So apparently the best thinkers in Germany believe that masks work.
What do you say to that?
Now, this is not my opinion.
I'm just reporting to you that apparently the top experts in Germany Believe they have evidence that masks work, and not only work, but work well, because they're asking the country to do something that's hard to do.
So they must think it works well, not just works a little bit.
What do you think about that?
Do you believe that the best experts in Germany don't know that masks are a bad idea?
If they are, because I don't know.
I'm not putting myself as the expert on masks.
But how do you explain it?
If you believe that masks don't work and they're just clearly a bad idea at this point, if that's what you believe, and I think almost all of you do, right?
If almost all of you believe that, how do you explain that Germany, a highly sophisticated country with many engineers and scientists, why don't they know what you know?
Do you ever ask yourself that question?
Why don't the top experts in Germany Know what you know just as a Twitter user and somebody who pays attention to the news.
Why don't they know it?
Is it possible that they're right and you're wrong?
Let me ask you this.
How many of you would be open to...
By the way, I'm anti-mask mandate.
Just to be clear, I'm way past masks and mandates.
Like, no more masks. But I wonder about your thought process.
Is your thought process that Germany is acting non-scientifically?
What is your hypothesis?
Because you need a hypothesis for this.
So you believe that the entire country of Germany, with all of its experts, are just ignoring the science and making people do something really, really unpleasant, wear masks everywhere, for no reason.
Tell me why that would be a political advantage to do that.
I can't imagine the political party that orders mask wearing to have an advantage.
That's ridiculous. I think.
Unless the polls say that Germans love masks.
Maybe they do. But to me it seems like a losing proposition.
If you were a politician, would you say, would you want to be telling people to wear masks?
That seems like the last thing you'd want to do.
Because people don't like it.
You want to tell people to do things they like, not things they don't like, if you want to get elected.
Germany has done...
All right, that was the best understated comment.
I have to read it. I didn't catch the name as it went by, but on YouTube.
Somebody said, Germany has made mistakes in the past.
I think I'm going to end the conversation on that.
I think I'm going to end the conversation on that.
I've never been so thoroughly been defeated by a comment before.
So I was making the point that the Germans are capable, the highest end of technical and scientific thinking.
They've got lots of patents every year, etc.
And that one comment just makes all of that go away.
They've made mistakes in the past.
Oh, that's funny. As Germany is firing up their coal plants.
So as we speak, this should have been your answer to the question.
An answer to my question of how could Germany be so wrong about masks, if in fact they are, I have no way of knowing.
But if they're so wrong about masks, how do you explain that?
And one explanation would be, have you seen their energy policy?
Is there energy policy based on facts and science?
Because they're literally firing up their coal plants.
The only way Germany is going to have electricity this year is to burn a lot more coal.
So, do you think Germany makes good decisions?
Apparently not. Apparently Germany does not make science-based decisions.
They seem capable of it.
Am I right? If you were going to say, you know, name a country where potentially they could make good science-based decisions, Germany would be right up there in top five, at least.
You'd probably say, you know, South Korea, China.
You'd expect them to make, like, really science-based decisions.
But Germany would be in the top five.
But we observe they don't seem to do that so regularly, do they?
We observe that Germany is not good at decisions.
They have a scientific element to them.
Don't know why. Is it any worse in America?
I don't know. Alright, so the ongoing question of whether Russia is winning or losing in Ukraine is interesting to me primarily on a psychology level.
It's funny that we can't even tell the difference between winning and losing.
That we can all look at the same war and we're not quite sure who's winning.
But I saw a video from an individual who's in Ukraine who wants the United States to know that we've been fooled by the media and that Russia is just winning.
That's the whole story.
You could describe the entire Ukraine situation as Russia is winning.
They're slowly grinding down the Ukrainian military.
When the Ukrainian military is ground down to a sufficient level where they're completely useless, then Russia can do anything they want with the rest of the country, should they want to.
So really, Russia has already won.
They're just consolidating and grinding down and managing the situation.
But the question of who won is already over.
And that Russia won. Because nothing will keep them from having Kyiv eventually.
Or ignoring Kyiv because it won't be important.
It's just not part of the country they care about or something.
So, how do we explain it in our own heads?
In your own mind, you have a narrative of what's happening over there that might not follow the official narrative.
Here's mine. Follow the money worked again.
Because the military-industrial complex wants to have a permanent modern war.
That's what they need.
The industrial-military complex wants a permanent modern war.
Afghanistan was half-modern, right?
Because only one side was modern.
What they really need is a Ukraine-Russia war with all the best, newest, expensive kinds of weapons.
Now, is it a coincidence, I ask you, that when Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex, and he said this is going to happen, he said all the elements are in place for the military-industrial complex to create wars of profit.
Not wars of necessity, not wars of defense, not wars of principle, but wars where it's just good for business.
Doesn't it look a lot like that's what we're in?
This has every look of a war that's optional for the benefit of weapons makers.
Now, I'm not going to tell you that's what it is.
I'm saying it's 100% compatible with everything we witness.
Doesn't mean it's true, because there could be more than one interpretation that fits the observed facts.
There could be facts we don't observe.
So, how do we ignore the fact that Eisenhower spelled it out, what's going to happen, and that it's happening right in front of us, but we're acting like it didn't?
Why are we doing that?
Why are we acting like it's something about what Putin did and something about NATO and something about national defense?
It's probably not about any of those things.
It's probably about none of those things.
It's probably just the weapons makers have enough influence that they wanted a war, so they got one.
And they just keep pushing it in every way they can push it until everybody thinks we need to be there and there's not really any reason.
Maybe.
But here's my take on what to expect in the Russia-Ukraine situation.
It seems to me that there will be perpetually places where Ukraine has an advantage.
Let's say a lightly defended place that Russia took over.
And so there should be lots of cases where Ukraine can successfully counterattack.
At the same time, There will be plenty of soft targets for Russia to increase their territorial hold.
So they'll say, you know, we weren't planning on capturing this Ukrainian city, but it's not very well defended, and we'd be better off having it, so I guess we'll take it.
So I feel as if we have a war in which both sides will always have a soft target on the other side, and then they'll take it.
And then there'll be different soft targets formed because it's a fluid situation, and the other side will take it.
So as long as you have no soft targets for Russians, there will always be a soft target for the Russian side as well.
There will always be a case where they can amass more forces than the Ukrainian defenders can have in that one place, and vice versa.
So as long as you have a system where both sides can create infinite victories...
Both sides can create infinite victories without winning the war.
They could have victories every day, but also defeats.
And nobody would ever win.
Now, I think, what would keep Putin from continuing to just chew on Ukraine until he got it all?
What would keep him from doing that?
Well, he would do it if a war...
Was obviously not working.
Would the industrial military complex want Putin to say, hey, this war is totally not working.
I think I'll stop here.
No, they would not.
So, if you believe the military industrial complex is running this whole thing, which seems likely, then you would have to assume that nothing would stop Putin.
Putin. And nothing would stop us from trying to stop him.
And it'll just go on forever. Alright.
Here's the problem that I don't know that we completely understood from the start.
And this is a mind-reading thing.
So I'm going to say what I think Putin is thinking.
Which is always dangerous, right?
So don't put too much credibility in my belief of what a stranger is thinking.
But see if it sounds right to you.
I believe that Putin would rather destroy Ukraine than lose it to NATO. And that it looked like he was going to lose it to NATO. And if he had a choice, he would rather reduce Ukraine to rubble than allow it to be a NATO country.
And I feel like we got that wrong.
I feel like that's the part we got wrong.
I think we thought, well, he wouldn't destroy the entire country just to prevent it from being NATO, would he?
He would. He would.
And I think he'd be, I don't want to say justified, but he'd have a reason.
Because Russia is incredibly imperialistic, the experts tell us.
And if you're incredibly imperialistic...
And somebody's putting NATO on your doorstep in the place that you think you sort of kind of own, which is Ukraine.
There's no way that's going to end well.
So we should have known that he would stop at nothing, because he didn't have to, to destroy Ukraine or to dominate it.
And if we didn't know that was going to happen, then that seems like a failure on our part.
Somebody says Trump knew this.
Maybe he did. We don't know.
Maybe he did. And then the question is, are Poland and Lithuania next?
To which I say, so Lithuania is already NATO, right?
So I don't think that's next.
Because, I don't know, it looks like it's not a big enough deal.
And Poland, I just don't see Poland and Russia getting into a fight.
Because I don't think that Putin would rather destroy Poland than have it NATO. Right?
If you gave him a choice, he'd be like, I don't know.
I guess let Poland be NATO. Like, it wouldn't be his first choice.
But I don't think he would rather destroy the whole country...
But with Ukraine, I think he actually would have said, yeah, you know, I don't want to destroy Ukraine, but if the alternative is to have this great stain on us forever and NATO on our doorstep in this major country, yeah, I would prefer to destroy the entire country of Ukraine.
And I think that was our big miscalculation there.
Kalengrad is caught up from Russia by Lithuania.
Yeah, so there's some talk of...
Maybe provoking war over there, because we're cutting off some territory that Russia owns.
I don't know too much about that story, but there's a little provocation going on over there.
All right. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the slow news day called Father's Day.
And... So he says, we need a Trump news network...
And DeSantis for 24.
That would by far be the...
Could you imagine Trump having a news network and, you know, debating stuff on it, etc., and having him run cover for DeSantis to make it easier for DeSantis to win?
That would be a strong, strong Republican package.
I don't know how you could beat that, actually.
That would just dominate politics at that point.
Now, of course, it's hard to predict anything because the left would have to respond in an equally strong way that would be unpredictable.
Oh, so I'm not following the Assange story too closely, but Assange is going to be, what do you call it, released to the United States?
Justice system? Is that what's happening?
He's going to be extradited to the United States, right?
What happens when Assange gets in an American prison?
He gets killed right away, doesn't he?
Wouldn't he be murdered in an American prison within a month?
I feel like he would murder himself within...
Yeah, I got a feeling he'd get Epstein'd fairly quickly.
So something tells me that Assange knows too much...
And I also expect that if Assange were to die, that there would be information released about our own government that we have no idea about.
What do you think?
Do you think that Assange has a trove of the good stuff that won't be released unless he's killed?
He should at least say he does.
I don't know if he does.
Uh... I'm being questioned about my past predictions about Epstein.
I'm not in the camp that says it's positive that Epstein was murdered.
But also, I'm not positive that he killed himself.
So I think both possibilities still exist.
But the longer we go and the more things we find out about Epstein, that's a lot of coincidences.
But it's also possible, you know, because the The guards were sleeping and the cameras didn't work, and what a big coincidence.
But it's also possible he bribed himself into that situation so he could kill himself.
But I would think that if you had the resources to kill yourself, you would do it with pills.
You'd sneak them in somehow.
So that argues against it.
And no camera's pretty, pretty strange.
So I would worry for Assange's well-being if he got here in the United States.
It's also possible that he'll get a pardon.
It's possible. Because it also depends what he knows.
He might know so much that somebody wants to pardon him.
According to her lawyers, they've already tried to kill Ghislaine.
You think Biden would pardon Assange?
I don't think so.
Oh, on the airline stuff, top pay is 600, you're saying?
Look for a captain at United who's been there a long time, and then add together the entire compensation package.
So everything from adding to the SEP to everything else.
Because I think you're talking about, in most cases, it's about $600K. That's true.
Shouldn't we look at median pay?
Well, it depends what you're talking about.
The Southwest pilot would be more of a regional thing and not as high as, say, an international carrier.
Trump would pardon us on...
I don't think he would. Oh, Hillary Clinton is talking about losing democracy for the next few decades.
When have we not talked about losing democracy?
Is there any time in American history where there wasn't somebody saying, well, we've lost our democracy now?
I don't think we've ever not said that.
Oh, it was Bill Clinton, actually?
You refused to answer your preferred profiles, so they listed you as no gender.
Ha, ha, ha.
He has no gender.
All right.
All right.
I feel like I've said everything I need to say.
So somebody's saying a wide-body pilot, a maximum is $400,000 per year, and trust me, I'm an American Airlines pilot.
So You're telling me that the top pilot at American Airlines makes only $400k per year.
I'm not sure I believe that, but if you are the actual pilot, I guess you're a better...
Yeah, that's base pay.
Don't they get all kinds of things on top of base pay?
Because I'm talking about bonuses included.
I just saw an article that showed their compensation was in several different categories.
Yeah, Frontier Airline would be at the bottom of the pay question.
All right. All right, well, we have lots of people doubting the high end of the airline pay, so let me note that.
Let me note that many of you are doubting the high-end pay.
Alright. Is there anything else that we need to talk about that we haven't?
Father's Day, Gelman amnesia, with the top 80% making $458,000.
But again, that would be base pay, right?
So there are bonuses and things potentially on top of that.
$417,000 is what a private jet pilot makes.
How much do you think technology will improve in the next 10 years?
You won't even recognize anything in 10 years.
In 10 years...
The AI will probably reach the singularity.
So everything that humans can anticipate, it's all out the window now.
Because AI will decide what the future looks like with humans.
But we can't predict what AI would do the same way my dog can't predict what I would do.
See, my dog can't predict me because she has such lower intelligence.
She doesn't even know why I do what I do.
Same with the AI. We'll have no idea what's coming because the AI is so different from us.
There's no way to predict it.
All right.
As long as we don't lose the illusion of choice and free will, we're good.
Yeah. True.
True. Technology has gone too far.
Normal people can't fix things.
I've said this before, but everything's broken.
Yesterday I wanted to sit down with my laptop and do some work.
Have you had that experience?
I think I'll just open my laptop and do some work.
But suddenly my Dropbox is now synced with my iOS for no reason.
So I have to upgrade my operating system because it's begging me for that every day.
And that means I have to re-sign into everything and I don't remember my iCloud password and I have to go look it up.
But the Internet's down.
And it took me...
I worked all day to do what should have been this.
Here's what this should have been.
I'll give an impression.
Here's how my day shows. Huh.
I've got half an hour.
I think I'll do some work.
Here's my laptop.
Here's me opening it.
And now here's me working.
That doesn't happen anymore, does it?
You open your laptop, and it's like a house of horrors in there.
I've got all these warnings and lights, and there's things I've got to look into, and there's a subscription that's cancelled, and I don't know why.
And there's a message that's being sent to my email, but it might have gone to my spam.
And then all of the services I've signed up for, they've got the wrong credit card suddenly, and they're cancelling me.
And I'll tell you what is the worst thing.
How much do you hate the fact that in order to send an email, you are exposed to your inbox?
Raise your hands if you hate the fact that when you want to send an email, you're exposed to looking at other people's emails to you.
Worst user interface of all time.
Of all time.
Because the emails that you send are probably something that would be good for you if somebody answers.
The ones that other people send that you don't know you're getting are asking you to do work.
So if you have a little bit of ADHD, and who doesn't these days, you open up your email and you're just gone.
You're just gone.
Because most of my email is emergencies.
I don't know about you. Do you get email that isn't an emergency?
Everything is a time-based emergency.
Oh, there's one day left for this.
Your deadline has passed.
It's all deadlines. Something broke and somebody's in trouble.
Somebody can't do their thing until you do your thing.
Somebody can't finish that urgent paperwork until you give them that information.
I'll tell you, the complexity of life is just insane now.
Yeah, people asking for money, emergencies.
Have you noticed it's always the same people that have the emergencies?
Is there a member of your, let's say, circle or family that has one emergency after another?
You all have that, right?
There's somebody in the family who has one emergency after another, and then there's somebody else who doesn't have any.
Somebody who's never asking anybody for anything.
And then there's one that just creates one emergency after another, and you're like, how can one person have one emergency after another?
Everybody says it's a...
You're all sexist because you're all saying it's some female in your life.
It's not all females.
Is it? I don't know.
I wasn't thinking of it that way, but you seem to be very sexist this morning, and you seem to think that's women.
Is my dad still alive?
He is not. No. He passed several years ago.
Somebody says our daughters are a woke train wreck.
That's funny. Alright, I think I've said everything I need to say.
So if there's nothing else to say today, it's a slow news day.
It's a good, happy Father's Day.
I don't think I'll answer that question.
And for everybody else, have a great Father's Day, Juneteenth, Pride Month.
Export Selection