Content: ----------- Pending recession is a good (necessary) thing Larry Summers economic prediction Why do Dems blame everything on Putin? 2000 Mules update Too many lawyers, to few engineers in government NATO member Lithuania, provoking Russia --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Good morning, everybody. | |
| And welcome to the best thing that's ever happened. | |
| Today I plan to solve all of the problems that you knew you had. | |
| At least seven to nine problems you didn't even know you had. | |
| They'll be solved before they even become part of your conscious mind. | |
| Yeah. And the way to do that Is via something called the simultaneous sip. | |
| Now, you don't have to participate to get the benefits. | |
| But just knowing that it exists, that's enough. | |
| And all you need if you want to participate is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen, jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind. | |
| Fill it with your favorite liquid. | |
| I like coffee. | |
| And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure The dopamine, at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better. | |
| Everything. It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now. | |
| Go. I didn't think it was possible, but I think I undersold it. | |
| I undersold it. | |
| Once again, better than I could have ever imagined. | |
| Well, I told you in the title to this live stream that it was going to be a perfect news day. | |
| What would the perfect news item sound like? | |
| If you were going to be the designer of news and you said, all right, let's sit down today. | |
| I'm going to concoct some news. | |
| It won't even be something that's new. | |
| So it doesn't even have to be about something that's just happening right away. | |
| Could be some longer-term story, but we're going to concoct it into news. | |
| What would be the perfect one? | |
| Well, it turns out we don't have to wonder because the perfect news item has come to us thanks to the simulation. | |
| And what would the perfect news item be? | |
| Here it is. The ultimate, and of course it's better on Fox News, but the ultimate Fox News story. | |
| This is real, by the way. | |
| I'm not making this up. | |
| This next part is real. | |
| Elon Musk's child, Xavier Alexander Musk, has asked for both a name change and a new birth certificate reflecting a new gender identity. | |
| That is a perfect news story. | |
| Now, to top it off, to make it more perfect, Elon Musk has said publicly that he's very pro-trans. | |
| So, so far, the news doesn't have any bite because the famous person in the news, the richest man in the world, his personal view is compatible with what's happening in his family, so that's all good. | |
| I'm glad about that. | |
| But he did say, Elon Musk did say, that the pronoun thing is an aesthetic mess, meaning that it's just hard to navigate the different pronouns. | |
| And I think most of us would agree at least that far. | |
| Can we at least all agree? | |
| That even, you know, no matter what you think about what pronouns should be used, I think we'd all agree that it could be a little confusing, a little awkward. | |
| Yeah, it's a little extra work. | |
| A little extra work. | |
| So imagine being the richest man in the world because you were also one of the smartest, best inventors. | |
| You know, I think of Elon Musk as sort of an inventor entrepreneur. | |
| So imagine being an inventor by nature, And you see that the way the trans community has decided to handle the pronoun stuff, and the supporters and other people as well, is picking one of the few words, they and them, that is confusing. | |
| Because it refers to multiple people instead of one. | |
| Of all the ways you could have solved this, why did you have to pick words That are confusing in terms of the number of people involved. | |
| Of all the solutions. | |
| Now imagine being the, you know, Elon Musk. | |
| And you're thinking, alright, so you've got this situation where the pronoun could be confusing. | |
| So maybe we should stop using he and she, and her and him, because now, you know, there's some ambiguity with those words. | |
| So why would you add an extra ambiguity... | |
| When you're trying to deal with the other ambiguity, why would you create a new ambiguity of number of people involved? | |
| Now, it's not real ambiguity, because usually you can tell in context. | |
| But your brain is still going, wait, multiple? | |
| Oh, single. Oh, okay. | |
| And then it has to go on. | |
| So it's like this little speed bump for your brain. | |
| Very, very unnecessary. | |
| Now, let me ask you this. | |
| You don't think that out of the seven billion of us, if we did a little brainstorming, we could come up with a new pronoun for a single person, an individual? | |
| We can't do that? | |
| Of all the things that humans on this planet would like to do, No, it. | |
| Something better than it. | |
| You know, you're making my point. | |
| There's seven billion of us. | |
| I'm sure, I'm sure we can come up with a non-insulting name, pronoun, a non-insulting pronoun that doesn't also confuse you about the number of people involved. | |
| Do you think that's too big of a hurdle? | |
| Do you think that we've become such a divided country that we couldn't do that? | |
| I honestly can't think of an easier problem to solve. | |
| We just come up with a word that hasn't been used before. | |
| May I suggest that whatever our new word is, let me add a specification here. | |
| Let me suggest that whatever the new word is, it can't add ambiguity, number one, but it should not be a word we already use for something else. | |
| Can we at least fucking agree on that? | |
| Why would you use a word that's being used for something else? | |
| Of all the letters, You've got a lot of letter combinations. | |
| You could make up a new word that hadn't been used and abused and burdened by other purposes. | |
| How in the world can we not solve this? | |
| Is it just me? | |
| It honestly seems like the world's simplest problem. | |
| We can't figure it out. | |
| We like to fight. | |
| I'm going to give CNN more credit today. | |
| They ran a major opinion piece from an anti-abortion proponent. | |
| Does that seem like a change in mission for CNN? Because I'm not sure that I've, you know, tracked this particular topic and how they've handled it before, but the thing I'm looking for is that CNN has, at least the new boss, has said that they're going to be more balanced. | |
| Is this an example of that? | |
| Because it surprised me. | |
| It looked like something you would see on Fox News' opinion site, but it was on CNN's opinion site. | |
| So... Can we agree, in the spirit of togetherness and good intentions, could we agree that CNN did this well, in the sense that they showed an opinion that is less common for their base supporters? | |
| I don't know. I think you have to give this to them, I think. | |
| Now, whether this helps their profitability, That's a big question. | |
| I'm not sure it will. | |
| I'd love to say that I advise them to do this from a business perspective, but I don't know how they can make money by being unbiased. | |
| I honestly don't. | |
| If anybody knew that, they'd already be doing it. | |
| But I hope it works out. | |
| Alright, here I'm going to solve just about all the problems in the world, if you don't mind. | |
| See, we'll solve everything from food shortages, water shortages, we're going to take on climate change, a lot of employment problems, poverty, and we're going to do it all with one idea. | |
| I've got one word for you. | |
| Trenches. Trenches. Now, you know that Elon Musk, and by the way, I'm not sure if you know this, but there was a rule change recently. | |
| You know the old rule last year? | |
| If there was anything you wanted to talk about, it had to have a Joe Rogan connection. | |
| That was sort of a 2020. | |
| 21, maybe early 2022 thing. | |
| But the rule has changed now. | |
| Everything has to have some kind of an Elon Musk reference. | |
| Or else it's just not worth saying. | |
| I mean, what's the point? So, the Elon Musk reference for this story is that you know he owns a company called the Boring Company that literally bores tunnels. | |
| It's a tunnel-making giant device. | |
| But here's the problem. | |
| When you make a tunnel, You need to reinforce it, and there are a whole bunch of other considerations. | |
| But if you were to make a trench, and you intended to cover it, it would be much easier. | |
| So imagine this. Imagine a gigantic device, perhaps so gigantic it even is powered by a small nuclear module. | |
| Because now, something like a nuclear submarine has. | |
| Or a nuclear warship of some kind. | |
| So imagine it's a gigantic, earth-moving trencher with a gigantic nuclear engine so it can just build trenches like crazy. | |
| And it just builds a trench that's exactly the right dimension That when you put mirrored walls on the side and you cover it with some kind of standardized, you know, let's say 20-foot metal crossbars with some kind of a plastic or see-through hothouse top, that you could create these infinite indoor gardens And also create some bricks at the same time. | |
| Because one of the things that Elon Musk, you know, again, this is a double Musk reference, because you really can't understand anything until you know how it relates to something Elon Musk has said or done. | |
| And so Elon Musk has said that his tunnel-making company will also have some kind of a brick-making company so they can turn the extra dirt into bricks on site. | |
| So imagine that this thing is Gigantic robotic tunnel or trencher. | |
| It goes out where people need more food and it just trenches the heck out of it and puts it indoors. | |
| Now, what benefits do you get by moving it indoors? | |
| Number one, because it's mostly below the ground and you could control somewhat the top and other factors, you could control the temperature Like nobody's business. | |
| You could also have mirrored walls such that a 20-foot trench would always have sun from every direction because there would be enough mirrors to plants that no matter where the sun is, it's getting sun. | |
| So now you've controlled temperature. | |
| You could control for bugs because it's indoors. | |
| You could control for water because your evaporation... | |
| I believe you could control for that, right? | |
| And just recapture the evaporation. | |
| So now you've got water, food. | |
| Of course, it would create employment because you still need humans. | |
| Maybe you have some robots eventually harvesting stuff. | |
| But you would solve everything from... | |
| Fertilizers to what? | |
| To whatever. Mirrors would burn it up. | |
| Now, mirrors would be adjustable so that you would be able to adjust the reflectivity of the mirrors for whatever you were trying to accomplish. | |
| So you'd be able to take down the reflectivity or take it up, possibly with nets or some kind of screen, maybe with technology, I don't know. | |
| But now let's take it to the next level. | |
| Imagine if this trenching device was also an enormous robot. | |
| Because remember, it's got a nuclear-powered engine. | |
| So it can do anything until it breaks. | |
| And it's got big arms, and it's creating bricks out of the dirt, so it's building the walls as it goes and reinforcing it. | |
| But on the back of the machine as it goes, it's also creating... | |
| It's a big robot that's creating the roof. | |
| And you just take that out there, and you turn it on, and it just creates infinite trenched farm stuff. | |
| And you probably have to add in your own irrigation and some other stuff, but it can do that too. | |
| So you can imagine a giant robot that effectively was building a A farming trench for any community. | |
| You know, just keep on going. | |
| And people could just build houses near where the trench is. | |
| You know, build a house and wait a year and everybody's got food. | |
| Now, could you do the same thing with fish farms? | |
| Is there a way to have a giant robot? | |
| Nuclear powered, of course. | |
| That a giant robot that would make fish farms. | |
| Because I don't think it costs much to add the fish, you know, the fish eggs, right? | |
| So the product doesn't cost much. | |
| It probably just costs a lot to create the facility, I would imagine. | |
| I would think that's where all the expense is, right? | |
| So could you take the cost of that now? | |
| Anyway, I think that you're going to see stuff like that in the future. | |
| Why can't we tell good news from bad news? | |
| How can I make this story about the economy more about Elon Musk? | |
| Okay, I got it. There's an Elon Musk quote talking about the upcoming probable recession, everybody's saying, all the smart people are saying, but the administration is saying, not necessarily. | |
| Not necessarily. Not guaranteed. | |
| But all the smart people are saying it looks like a recession is coming. | |
| And Elon Musk tweeted this. | |
| This is actually a good thing. | |
| It has been raining money on fools for too long. | |
| Some bankruptcies need to happen. | |
| Also, all the COVID stay-at-home stuff has tricked people into thinking that you don't actually need to work hard. | |
| Rude awakening inbound... | |
| Now, I agree with every word of that. | |
| Now, the reason that this seems sort of shocking in newsmaking is that he just takes the emotion out of it. | |
| If you just take all the romanticism out of everything, here it is. | |
| It is absolutely, necessarily true that we had to suck some of the excess out of the system. | |
| So we as humans actually can't tell the difference between good news and bad news. | |
| Mark Twain said something like that. | |
| And here's the perfect example. | |
| Remember when I told you the stock market was pulling back and it looked like some bubbles were going to pop? | |
| And I told you, same thing Elon Musk said. | |
| You have to have that. | |
| So it's sort of like having dentistry. | |
| Is it bad news that dentistry got invented? | |
| Because it really hurts to go to the dentist. | |
| No, it's good news. It's good news. | |
| Modern dentistry just got invented. | |
| So this is sort of like modern dentistry. | |
| It's like the pain that your economy has to have, but it has to have it. | |
| If it's something you have to have, In order to, basically, nothing would work if he didn't have it. | |
| If he didn't have the pullbacks, the whole thing would just hurdle out of control. | |
| So we really can't tell the difference between good news and bad news, but we can tell that it's going to hurt for a while, like sometimes dentistry. | |
| Here's all the smart economists saying, so Larry Summers... | |
| Now, I warn you that economists are not great at predicting the future. | |
| It's also their only job. | |
| That's one of the things that discouraged me about economics. | |
| If you think about it, the only point of understanding economics, the only point is so you can predict what's going to happen next. | |
| Do you know what economists can't do? | |
| Eh, they're not really good at predicting what happens next. | |
| And it's their only point. | |
| They don't have any other purpose. | |
| And they can't do the thing that they exist to do. | |
| Tell you what's going to happen next. | |
| The best you can do is diversify. | |
| So finance, of course, is slightly different than economics, but you get the point. | |
| So the economists are telling us that you'd need something like a 5% jobless rate for 5 years To get past the inflation. | |
| So we're at 3.6% now, which is sort of a really, really good point. | |
| 5% is not terrible. | |
| Right? Because right now we have tons of help wanted signs. | |
| Everywhere I go there's help wanted. | |
| Still. Even though we're anticipating the recession. | |
| I have a feeling that 5% unemployment won't feel like it might have at some other time. | |
| I feel like we're not going to notice. | |
| It's almost like what we have to absorb in unemployment is We'll just be that the people in the hardest jobs to find employment, I guess, whatever that is during that time, we'll probably have to work a little harder or change professions, but probably we'll adjust. | |
| So it feels like the kind of problem that will be crushing for some number of people, but not necessarily anybody you know. | |
| I mean, it could be the kind of problem that's so distributed, the difference between 3.6% employment and 5% in a context where there are plenty of signs that say help needed and things are breaking because there aren't enough people to work. | |
| I don't know. It just doesn't look like this is a hard solution. | |
| It's one of these things where it looks impossible at first, But then you say to yourself, well, suppose we had 5% inflation for five years. | |
| That would take down the debt quite a bit. | |
| You wouldn't like it. | |
| Suppose we had 5% unemployment for five years. | |
| Would you notice? | |
| I don't know. It's almost small enough that it might be something most of you didn't notice. | |
| But some of you would be crushed by it because you just couldn't get another job. | |
| I don't know. I wonder about that. | |
| Nuclear energy, we've got a golden age coming. | |
| The company NuScale, NUScale, so they've been developing these small modular nuclear reactors. | |
| I think the idea is you build them in a factory and you build them all the same way so they're all approved and you don't have to go through that lengthy approval process. | |
| And then you put them on trucks or however you transport them, whatever it takes to move them. | |
| And you get lots of economic gains and safety gains and speed gains and basically every kind of gain you would want, you would get onto this model. | |
| And the news is that they're moving to commercialize it now. | |
| So they're starting their divisions that will be selling and supporting it. | |
| So they're actually moving out of R&D. Now, they're not quite there, so maybe they're a little bit ahead of it, but they need to have the infrastructure there when they're ready. | |
| So they must be close enough that they've got to build the infrastructure. | |
| This is the sort of story we're hearing almost every day now. | |
| Almost every day we're hearing, you know, Rolls-Royce is going to be creating small nuclear reactors. | |
| We're hearing that China is developing some new nuclear reactor technology. | |
| It's just on fire right now. | |
| And do you know the reason why? | |
| Because it's literally the only solution. | |
| Climate change as well as just having enough electricity without polluting the world, there's literally only one solution. | |
| And the interesting thing was that for a long time it hasn't been a technical problem. | |
| For a long time it's been a persuasion problem. | |
| And I actually feel pretty happy that all of us were on the right side of history on this. | |
| And that many of us participated. | |
| I know I put a lot of effort into it. | |
| Persuading people to simply understand that it's not their grandfather's nuclear energy market yet. | |
| The Schellenbergers, Mark Schneider, a number of people who were hugely helpful, and Schellenberger being probably the top of that pile. | |
| Just think about it. You were probably, at least in a small part, part of something that really changed civilization. | |
| The persuasion element of moving to nuclear. | |
| All right. Here are two takes on inflation that are opposites. | |
| So Ian Bremmer tweeted... | |
| That there are several governments, he named them, and they all have high inflations. | |
| So the US, the UK, Germany, and Italy all have high inflation. | |
| And he said that they have different forms of government, and people argued, oh, they're all kind of leftists, blah, blah, blah. | |
| But the point was that Ian Bremmer gave four examples of modern economies that all have high inflation. | |
| So as he says, he finishes his tweet, wild gas is not the government's. | |
| So it's not the form of government. | |
| There's something in the world that's causing inflation in lots of places. | |
| Not to be undone, Sean Spicer tweeted that the following countries... | |
| So this is a Sean Spicer tweet. | |
| He said... I think this is a Biden quote. | |
| If it's my fault, Biden said, why is it the case that in every other major industrial country in the world that inflation is higher? | |
| And then Sean Spicer points out that the inflation in the U.S. is 8.6, but Canada has 6.8, France is 5.2, Switzerland's 2.9, Japan 2.5, Saudi Arabia 2.2, China 2.1. | |
| Now, who's right? | |
| Because they both gave their examples. | |
| Ian Bremmer shows that several major industrial countries have inflation, and there are different forms of government, or at least different people running them. | |
| So that would suggest there's something international happening. | |
| But yet, is it also true that there are several major economies that have much less of a problem? | |
| Yeah, and the answer is both, right? | |
| They're probably both true. It's a mixed bag. | |
| So it's something about what we've done and something about the world at the same time. | |
| So that would account for everything, basically. | |
| So Rasmussen has some new polling on Biden. | |
| Only 27% of likely U.S. voters rate Biden excellent or good for handling the economy. | |
| 27. 27. | |
| That's about 27%. | |
| That's almost a quarter. | |
| It's a little more than a quarter, actually. | |
| Not almost. It's a little more than a quarter. | |
| A quarter is like 25% of the public. | |
| 25. 25. | |
| Huh. All right. | |
| Inside joke alert. For those of you who do not understand what's happening right now, this is an inside joke. | |
| The subject of the inside joke is that 25% of the public gets every question wrong. | |
| Doesn't matter what the question is. | |
| Sometimes it's a left-leaning question, sometimes a right-leaning question, but 25% of the public gets every question wrong. | |
| It's an exaggeration, but it's a fun one. | |
| And Biden's rating is down from 32% in December. | |
| And 57% now give Biden a poor rating for his handling of the economy. | |
| Now, that's not really something you would want to run for re-election on. | |
| But who thinks this is more interesting? | |
| This is also Rasmussen. | |
| And who's to blame? | |
| So people were polled on who's to blame for the rising fuel costs. | |
| Only 29% of voters think it's the oil companies who bear most responsibility. | |
| And only 11% say Putin. | |
| Huh. So it seems that the Biden administration play that it's Putin, only 11% are buying their propaganda. | |
| So that means even most of the people who are Democrats are saying, okay, that's too far. | |
| Let me get this straight. I have this image in my head of millions and millions of Democrats hearing Biden blame inflation on Putin and saying, okay, I'm starting to see a pattern. | |
| I'm starting to see a pattern. | |
| When Hillary was in office, she was going after Putin. | |
| When Trump ran Hillary and her gang... | |
| Blamed Trump's election victory on Putin, and Putin is the one who hacked everything, and Putin, and it's all Putin, isn't it? | |
| Does it seem to you that the Democrats have only one play? | |
| What would the Democrats be without Putin? | |
| They wouldn't have anything, would they? | |
| Like, who would they blame if they're not blaming Putin for something? | |
| Because they always get the double dip. | |
| I saw a video of Max Boot, Democrat, saying that the war in Ukraine is our war. | |
| And the reason it's our war is that the war in Ukraine is a war about the international rule of law. | |
| And if we let the rule of law and the international order be upset, that's on us. | |
| That's personal. | |
| So we are being attacked by Russia. | |
| Because when Russia attacks the international order, well, we're part of that. | |
| So really, Russia has attacked us. | |
| So we're at war with Russia. | |
| That's what Max fucking Boot said in public. | |
| Now... Why do the Democrats have such a hard-on about Putin? | |
| It's almost like there's something to the story that you don't understand. | |
| Did Putin steal somebody's girlfriend or something? | |
| I feel like the things that we observe about Russia are plenty terrible. | |
| I'll give you that. | |
| Plenty terrible. But it feels like there's some other thing going on. | |
| Like you would almost have to know some backstory to even understand why they have such a Putin obsession. | |
| Doesn't it feel personal? | |
| It actually just feels personal on some level. | |
| Like the Clintons and Putin have some kind of thing going on? | |
| I don't know. What is it? | |
| Did Bill Clinton sleep with Putin's mistress? | |
| Caused a problem? Just guessing? | |
| I don't know. Here's an update on the 2000 mules video. | |
| So I teasingly tweeted that if it turns out that all those alleged 2000 mules do not show up on any videos, the only explanation I can think of is invisibility cloaks. | |
| And if the 2000 mules have invisibility cloaks, whatever the problem here is, it's way worse than you thought. | |
| Because they've got invisibility cloaks. | |
| So I'm a little worried that this mule story could be even bigger. | |
| I mean, we'd be talking alien invasion. | |
| Possibly we'd be finding out that we're muggles. | |
| And wouldn't that suck? You just found out you're a muggle. | |
| What? You're a muggle. | |
| I don't even know what that word means. | |
| Watch a movie, read a book. | |
| What's a muggle? Anyway, so I said that because it's been a while since we had an update. | |
| Because Dinesh D'Souza, the producer of the movie, had promised that they're looking into getting some video evidence or some other corroborating evidence. | |
| Because the movie is based on the primary evidence. | |
| It's the GPS information that looks like there were a certain number of people who were next to ballot boxes a ridiculous number of times. | |
| More than ten times. | |
| In some period and also went between some other specific sites. | |
| So the data is very compelling, or let's say the documentary is very compelling. | |
| If you watch it without context, you'd say to yourself, if this GPS data is accurate, They've definitely got some kind of an almost smoking gun situation here. | |
| But most of us would say you need just like a little more because you're still in the realm of something that could be explained by something else. | |
| You know, the data's wrong or, you know, there's... | |
| There are different ways to analyze the data. | |
| There are some people whose job it is, like bicycle messengers or something, that they always go into the same address. | |
| It could be like a bicycle messenger who went to the same office building ten times. | |
| And each time he leaned his bicycle against the bicycle, I don't know, Locked place that's next to the... | |
| You'd have to have lots of... | |
| Millions and millions of people doing millions and millions of things, but you would end up with lots of coincidences that you didn't understand. | |
| Now, let me be clear. | |
| I'm not saying that that example is a good one. | |
| That's not a good example. | |
| I'm just trying to open your mind to this concept. | |
| If you can't imagine another explanation for that GPS data... | |
| There are two reasons for that. | |
| One would be it's exactly what it looks like. | |
| It looks like a bunch of mules were delivering too many ballots to too many ballot boxes, and it's suspicious. | |
| That is one explanation. | |
| Do we agree on that? | |
| The video absolutely... | |
| Or the 2,000 Mules movie absolutely is consistent with that interpretation. | |
| But is it the only one? | |
| Because the other interpretation is the one that is most often the one in these situations. | |
| What is the most often explanation in these situations? | |
| And I'm saying these situations, not about voting... | |
| But about where you've got some data that suggests something, just in general. | |
| Data that suggests something and you don't know what the answer is. | |
| So you say, well, there's only one answer. | |
| There's some crime here. | |
| What's the most usual thing that you find out later? | |
| There was something you didn't imagine. | |
| Yeah. It turns out we're terrible at imagining stuff. | |
| If you give me that same set of data... | |
| And you say, alright, I'm going to take the most creative, smart, experienced people I know and I'm going to put them in a room and we're going to brainstorm all the ways that that data could look that way that are legitimate. | |
| How many do you think we'd come up with? | |
| I don't know. Because I'm not a room full of the smartest, most creative person. | |
| I'm just one person. But if you put the smartest, most creative people in the room, even with Dinesh's very strict criteria for the data, that it had to be the same box within a certain time period, I think 10 times, which is a ridiculously high standard. | |
| So I think we'd agree that the standard feels high enough. | |
| I mean, common sense says that seems like a pretty good standard. | |
| But how good is our common sense? | |
| Terrible. Our common sense is terrible. | |
| The most likely explanation for anything you can't explain is not going to be Bigfoot. | |
| It's not going to be... | |
| An extraordinary, complicated scheme with no witnesses coming forward and no whistleblowers. | |
| Because that would be sort of an unusual situation. | |
| It's possible. Completely consistent with the data. | |
| But it would be unusual. | |
| It would be counter to what you would expect in this situation. | |
| So, would you give me this one concession? | |
| This is all I'm going to ask for. | |
| I will agree with you that the 2000 Mules video and the research they did with the GPS is 100% consistent with the alleged sketchy behavior that says people were stuffing ballot boxes illegally. | |
| Are we good with that? | |
| That what it shows is completely consistent with that. | |
| So certainly we would all be interested in finding out if that's really what's happening. | |
| So we're on the same page on that. | |
| So we agree more than we disagree. | |
| I'm just saying that you and I would both like to see some video, wouldn't we? | |
| Wouldn't we? Or at least a mule or two saying that, yeah, you caught me. | |
| I'm the one on that GPS. It would only take me one convincing whistleblower Who said, yeah, if you looked at which box I went to, and the times I went, and you look at your data on the GPS, that's me. | |
| That's actually my phone. | |
| I can confirm that. | |
| Wouldn't we all want that? | |
| I mean, I think Dinesh would want that too, right? | |
| So that's something we can all agree on. | |
| It hasn't happened. | |
| But the only thing I would ask you to modify in your thinking is the following. | |
| If you think that because the only thing you can imagine is that it was mules, just be open to the possibility that your imagination is the problem. | |
| You just can't imagine the other possibilities. | |
| That's all. Somebody's saying something about Yuma. | |
| So there may be... Is there some whistleblower or somebody got accused of something in Yuma? | |
| Send me that link if there's something I missed. | |
| All right. Did you hear about that... | |
| So Facebook took down a political ad by a Senate candidate, Eric Greitin. | |
| Because it showed him and a bunch of people with weapons going, quote, rhino hunting. | |
| Rhino as in R-I-N-O, as in Republicans in name only, as in this is a MAGA supporter who's saying that he's trying to take down the fellow Republicans who are not MAGA enough. | |
| Now, somebody said that, you know, I get the win for predicting that Republicans would be hunted if Biden became president. | |
| Well, this isn't what I'm talking about. | |
| I wasn't talking about this. | |
| No. No. | |
| I didn't think Republicans would hunt each other. | |
| You know, trust me. | |
| I love to take credit for anything I get right. | |
| I think you know that. | |
| But, no, I didn't predict the Republicans would hunt each other. | |
| That would kind of... | |
| I mean, even in... | |
| Of course, he was doing it facetiously, but it is an alarming way to make a point. | |
| But, hey, free speech. | |
| I think the way Twitter handled it was better. | |
| So Facebook took it down because it sort of suggested violence. | |
| Not suggested, I mean... | |
| Even though it was a parody, it wasn't serious, it suggested it. | |
| So let's go with suggested. | |
| But Twitter handled it better. | |
| It put a little warning on it that said, you know, this is against our standards, but we think it's important that you see it because there's like a news value to it today. | |
| All right. Let me ask you this. | |
| How would any of this 2020 and January 6th stuff be different if we didn't have lawyers? | |
| Because think of all the lawyers that caused this. | |
| We had first... | |
| This is more like allegedly, because I don't know what's true and what's not true. | |
| But allegedly, Democrat lawyer Mark Elias was part of a big effort to change things on the ground within legal bounds. | |
| That caused an election result that was better for the Democrats, perhaps, than people expected. | |
| Now, that part's true, right? | |
| Can you fact-check me on that? | |
| That he was part of an effort within completely legal grounds, apparently. | |
| I mean, he's not going to jail for anything. | |
| But he did some rule changes because of the pandemic, basically took advantage and created some weaselly changes that were good for Democrats. | |
| Now, so that caused, number one, a surprise outcome. | |
| So when the Republicans saw the outcome, they were like, wait a minute, this is not normally what we would expect, so we think there's something sketchy going on. | |
| Now, it could have been that whether you like it or not, it was all legal, and the Republicans should have done something just as clever, but didn't. | |
| So, bad on them. | |
| So that's one lawyer thing. | |
| Now we're hearing that Trump's lawyer, John Eastman, was primarily the person who was saying there was a completely legal path for Trump to do what he was doing around January 6th, which was to support some kind of a delay and maybe fake electors or something like that. | |
| So there was primarily one lawyer close to Trump who was pushing that interpretation. | |
| So if that one lawyer had not said, you know, there is a completely legal way to do this, do you think Trump would have acted the way he acted? | |
| Let me ask you that. | |
| Would Trump have acted the way he acted if not one lawyer, not one lawyer, told him it would be legal to do so to act the way he acted? | |
| I doubt it. | |
| Now, I think Trump can overrule a lawyer in some situations, because he's a high-end executive, they do that, and they shouldn't do that in some situations. | |
| But, to me, if you took John Eastman out of the story, A lot would be different about January 6th because it was the illusion that there was some kind of totally legal way to do this that probably allowed Trump to say, you know, maybe we should pause and look into this because it looks like maybe there's some legal way to do it. | |
| So that's two lawyers that created two things that were like the fuel of this thing. | |
| And then you have Sidney Powell coming out and promoting the The most outrageous parts, you know, the Venezuelan generals and, you know, the crazy allegations against Dominion. | |
| The Kraken, right? | |
| So she even got me with her Kraken. | |
| At the time, I thought to myself, you know, there's no way she'd say she has the goods unless she has the goods. | |
| So that's on me. | |
| That's like one of the... I feel like that was a learning experience for me. | |
| You know, you can't stop learning. | |
| My learning experience was, I said to myself, nobody with her reputation, which up to that point was very good. | |
| Her reputation was like a DC power lawyer. | |
| And I said, nobody's going to be like the good reputation DC power lawyer and go say they have the goods, unless they have the goods. | |
| And she didn't have the goods. | |
| I did not see that coming. | |
| That was surprising to me. | |
| All right, now, take those three lawyers out of the story and now go further. | |
| Go into Congress and remove from Congress anybody who's a lawyer and leave anybody who's not. | |
| Does any of this look the same? | |
| In my mind, when you elect lawyers, you're electing people who have a hammer and everything looks like a nail. | |
| What does a lawyer do when you've got a political problem or something to solve? | |
| They cause a hearing, they call a hearing, and they do something that looks like a mock trial. | |
| And then they litigate it in front of the public. | |
| Why? Because they're lawyers. | |
| Because they're lawyers. | |
| What would they do if they had been engineers? | |
| If Congress had been filled with only people who had worked as engineers before they got elected, do you think that their first instinct would be, you know what we need? | |
| Some kind of a show trial. | |
| Has any group of engineers ever sat in a room and said, our solution, I'm pretty sure, would be to have some kind of a public hearing where we litigate this thing, which is largely fake news, but they won't know. | |
| No, no. | |
| The reason we're in the situation we're in is lawyers. | |
| Lawyers in Congress, lawyers changing the rules about elections, which, although totally legally, as far as I know, cause a certain reaction in the public. | |
| John Eastman made it possible for Trump to, you know, follow his worst instincts in this case, maybe. | |
| I mean, I don't know what really happened. | |
| Then Sidney Powell, I mean, was just the match. | |
| By the time Sidney Powell came along, you had all the gasoline, and it was all caused by lawyers. | |
| And then one more lawyer came and said, Kraken, I got the Kraken, here it is, and then just torched the gas. | |
| If you ask me, this is a story about lawyers, that we're acting as if it's a story about something else. | |
| And the reason that we're acting like it's a story about something else is because the lawyers told us to. | |
| That's why. The lawyers have convinced us that it's not a story about lawyers. | |
| It's just a lawyer fight. | |
| It's just lawyer on lawyer, and we're just the victims. | |
| Basically, we're the innocent bystanders of a giant lawyer on lawyer battle that is fought because... | |
| Why do lawyers fight? | |
| Why do lawyers have conflict? | |
| Because they're trained to have conflict. | |
| Lawyers are not trained to give away stuff. | |
| They're trained to fight. | |
| Literally trained to fight. | |
| What happens when you put the people who are trained for conflict in charge of everything? | |
| What the fuck do you think they're going to do? | |
| They're going to do what they've been trained to do all their life. | |
| Dispute shit. What do you do if you put, let's say, someone who's more of a dealmaker? | |
| You're probably going to get deals. | |
| So the one year that we had, or the one term that we had Trump in office, we had a dealmaker in office. | |
| So what happened when you put a dealmaker in office? | |
| You got the Abraham Accords. | |
| You just made a deal. | |
| You get a meeting with North Korea that completely changed the whole dynamic there because Trump's not a lawyer. | |
| He's just a guy who saw another guy. | |
| And the guy who saw another guy said, well, why don't we meet and stop being enemies? | |
| And then they met, and things got weird, but they got less dangerous. | |
| So if you only hire hammers... | |
| Don't be surprised when they treat everything like a nail. | |
| I mean, that's sort of on the public. | |
| And I would go so far as to say, maybe it should be illegal for lawyers to run for office. | |
| What about that? I heard somebody said it used to be illegal, but I don't have any confirmation that that was ever true. | |
| Was that ever legal or ever illegal for lawyers to run for office? | |
| Can somebody confirm that? | |
| It doesn't sound right. | |
| Yeah. Yeah, John Adams was a lawyer. | |
| True. And John Adams was considered a miserable person to be around, I think. | |
| Probably I'm related. | |
| I mean, just based on the miserable part. | |
| So, Lincoln was a lawyer. | |
| Well, look what he did. | |
| Caused a civil war. | |
| Just kidding. Just kidding. | |
| Just kidding. Well, I would argue that the lawyers of old were very different than the lawyers today. | |
| And I'm not sure that they were as conflict-driven as maybe they are today. | |
| Maybe they were. Could be. | |
| Could be. All right. | |
| What else is happening? That's about it. | |
| So here's another one of these. | |
| We can't tell what's smart and what's dumb. | |
| So Lithuania some time ago joined NATO. And of course Lithuania is on the border there with Russia. | |
| And there was some little stranded, if you don't know this story, there was a little stranded part of Russia That was cut off by what is now considered, well, what is Lithuania. | |
| But there was an agreement that I think it was a railway or something. | |
| A Russian railway could connect the two and Lithuania would treat the railway almost as if it were sovereign Russian territory because it just made everybody happy. | |
| I mean, there wasn't any reason not to. | |
| Lithuania didn't really have any reason to cut Russia off from their own territory. | |
| And why cause trouble? | |
| So, you know, they just had a little railroad and everything was fine. | |
| But now we've got this Ukraine ugliness and Lithuania, being part of NATO and influenced by the West, has decided to cut off that access to the Russian territory. | |
| Now, do you know why they thought they could get away with this without creating any blowback? | |
| Because they're in NATO. So the fact that Lithuania is in NATO caused them to be a little bit more adventurous, actually a lot, than they would normally be. | |
| So here's the thing. | |
| Did joining NATO make them more safe or less? | |
| Because being in NATO caused, I would assume, NATO and others associated with NATO, to influence Lithuania to do this insanely provocative thing with their neighbouring country. | |
| Insanely provocative. | |
| It's crazy. | |
| It's so provocative. | |
| And I don't think they would have done it if they weren't in NATO. Now, do you think Russia's going to let it stand? | |
| Or are they going to... | |
| Or is this the provocation... | |
| For Russia to attack something that's part of NATO so that NATO can be activated by a technicality because of lawyers. | |
| Yeah. Don't you think lawyers get involved when deciding if NATO has been, let's say, activated? | |
| What do you think? | |
| Now, first it would be generals, right? | |
| I mean, because you need the immediate response. | |
| They're not going to run things through lawyers on day one. | |
| So on day one, it's going to be the generals. | |
| Okay, what do you do? But on day two, the lawyers are going to say, we're kind of watching this, and yeah, I think this technically is a NATO violation, so go ahead and activate NATO. Don't you think lawyers... | |
| Lawyers are part of the decision? | |
| I don't know the answer to that. | |
| I'm speaking of complete ignorance. | |
| But I imagine, I would imagine, if you're talking about a NATO document, who is it who interprets documents? | |
| It's lawyers, right? | |
| So lawyers would be the ones interpreting whether the rules were being followed in invoking NATO or not. | |
| Now, You've heard Max Boot say that this is our war, and you know that the military-industrial complex would like it to be even larger. | |
| So if you follow the money, it seems the Democrats and the industrial-military complex want more war, and now we see a provocation for a technical activation of NATO That doesn't have to happen. | |
| It's a completely optional thing. | |
| Does it not look like we're goading Putin into activating NATO so that we can enlarge the scope of the war? | |
| I mean, I'm not a sophisticated observer of any of this. | |
| What do I know about NATO and international relations? | |
| I don't know anything. But on the surface, that's exactly what it looks like, right? | |
| Now, I'm open to, again, to be consistent with my own philosophy. | |
| I'm open that I can't imagine some other explanation. | |
| But at the moment, I'm just telling you I can't imagine another explanation. | |
| It looks like the military-industrial complex is causing the United States to activate NATO to improve the profits of one industry. | |
| I'm not saying that's the only thing happening. | |
| I'm saying I don't see another interpretation. | |
| It's not obvious to me. | |
| So if there is another interpretation, I'd be open to it. | |
| But if it quacks like a duck, sometimes it's not a duck, but sometimes it's a duck call. | |
| Sometimes if it quacks like a duck, it's a duck hunter. | |
| Nobody tells you that, do they? | |
| Yeah, yeah. They tell you if it quacks like a duck, well, they also do the looks like a duck. | |
| Sometimes it's a decoy with a duck call. | |
| So there. And now, having given you these thoughts, I would like to point out the following. | |
| I'm very bad at marketing. | |
| Because it, weirdly, even though persuasion is my primary focus lately, it feels manipulative to market. | |
| I feel like the most you should do is let people know what's out there and then, you know, if they want it, they go get it. | |
| And then everybody's happy. | |
| I hate to over-market because then people get things that they maybe don't like. | |
| But I feel it's incumbent upon you to tell you the following. | |
| The subscribers to the Locals platform, Locals.com, or no. | |
| Well, I think it's on Locals.com where you find the page, on Locals. | |
| But the subscribers there who see my other content have accessed over 200 micro-lessons that would give you either 200 life hacks that would make you more effective in life or happier, And you can learn all of them because they're so small. | |
| They're little videos. They're like two to four minutes. | |
| So in a period of just 10 hours, you could learn 200 reframes or life hacks that by their design are big ones. | |
| Like they're not trivial. | |
| I'm not telling you how to... | |
| How to make sure the mustard in your refrigerator lasts longer. | |
| I'm not talking about that. | |
| I'm talking about happiness. | |
| I'm talking about health. | |
| I'm talking about how to have a better relationship. | |
| How to talk to strangers. | |
| How to be successful. | |
| How to build a talent stack. | |
| I'm talking about the most basic things you need to be happy. | |
| And in, I'd say, 10 to 15 hours... | |
| And you could consume them while you're on the toilet. | |
| Literally. They're so small. | |
| A little video thing, you just put the audio in your ear. | |
| Just listen to them one at a time. | |
| And imagine at the end of a year that you had consumed over 200 major life improvement hacks. | |
| Major ones. None of them are small. | |
| I mean, the smallest one would be how to be a better writer. | |
| You wouldn't want to be a better writer in five minutes because it does deliver that. | |
| It actually delivers that. You would be absolutely a better writer in five minutes and forever. | |
| So that's the sort of improvement you could get. | |
| Now, I feel like icky when I do marketing like this, but on the other hand, I would feel icky if you didn't know it was there. | |
| Because imagine... | |
| And if you don't mind, those of you who have seen the micro-lessons or at least have been exposed to the same material, can you tell the other people if it made a difference in your life? | |
| So some of you, most of you watching are not familiar with it. | |
| Now most of you... | |
| Oh, I wonder if I could do this. | |
| So the Locals platform... | |
| I'm going to try something. | |
| I think this works. The Locals platform is telling you how much benefit they've gotten. | |
| And I'm going to turn you toward each other. | |
| Let's see if the YouTube people can see the comments from the Locals people. | |
| I think that's working. | |
| Or is it backwards? | |
| Is it writing backwards? Because my screen is... | |
| I've got backwards screens, so... | |
| All right. So... | |
| You can see what the... | |
| Okay. | |
| So on locals, just tell them if you think the micro lessons have had a substantial impact in your life. | |
| An emphasis on substantial. | |
| Like, I'm not talking about how to open jars. | |
| All right. So you get the idea. | |
| Thank you. Thank you for doing that. | |
| By the way, this is a technique I borrowed from Tony Snow from the Dale Carnegie School. | |
| Dale Carnegie just has his students sell the program. | |
| He doesn't do it himself. | |
| He just has his students do it. | |
| Because once you see the students sell it, you go, OK, I've got to have that. | |
| It's a completely different level of sales. | |
| So I just showed you what the locals people are getting out of it so you can judge for yourself. | |
| All right, that is all for today. | |
| I think you'd agree this is the most valuable thing that's happened to you so far today. | |
| Probably the best thing. | |
| And maybe one of the best things that's ever happened to civilization because those micro-lessons are going to go from me to locals to you to the world and I think everything's going to be different in about a year. | |
| That's my prediction. | |
| So go forward today and have an amazing day. | |
| It's a good start. Don't blow it. |