Episode 1849 Scott Adams: Nothing Is More Dangerous Than Documents You Haven't Seen. Welcome To 2022
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Homeschool produces quality kids
Rob Reiner trends on Twitter for Bill Maher clip
The biggest risk our country currently faces?
The news is all speculation about things we can't see
Will Biden let Europe freeze to death this winter?
Will US make Iran deal that's bad for Israel?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
And congratulations for making you here on time, if you did.
For Coffee with Scott Adams, the highlight of civilization.
Certainly the highlight of your life so far.
Although, tomorrow looks good too.
Hey, does anybody want to take it up a notch?
I know. I know.
It's possible. And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass or a tank or jealous 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 hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
Everything. It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go. Yeah, yeah.
I don't know if it was the notes of chocolate in my coffee beans or the simultaneity that made it so good, but it was extra good.
So, you know that I've been mentioning AI a lot and Machiavelli's Underbelly, an account you should all be following on Twitter, apparently has asked AI to reproduce my voice.
I think that's AI doing a little picture of me.
I'm going to read AI impersonating my voice.
Now keep in mind...
That we know AI can speak smoothly, right?
In the old days, computers would be like, you are listening to a computer.
But you know that if you talk to one of your digital assistants, it'll speak in full sentences that sound fluent.
So this is not yet fluid.
It's not fluid.
It doesn't flow. But listen to this AI impersonate me, and keep in mind, I've never said any of these sentences.
Maybe I've said the words, but these sentences have never happened anywhere except in AI. Ready?
Your life is the sum of our remainder of an unbalanced equation, and you're into the programming of the matrix.
You're the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been honorable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision.
While it remains a burden, as seduously avoided, it is not unexpected and it is not being a measure of control, which has led you unixwerably here, if your life is the sum.
Alright, so here's what A.I. Scott said.
Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation.
Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation.
That either means something or nothing.
Yeah, kill it now.
If it means something, I'm a little bit worried.
I hope that doesn't mean something, don't you?
Because what if your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation?
What the hell does that mean?
Alright, so you could tell that it was sort of a drunk-sounding version of me.
He'd talk like he was snoring some words or something like that.
But you know that they can fix that part, right?
Because it has been fixed in lots of other applications.
So think about how easily this can create a fake audio of me.
From this day forward, I'm gonna call it.
If you hear an audio, you can't trust it.
From this day forward, you can't trust any audio you ever hear again.
You got that? Because the news is gonna do this to you for years.
The news is gonna be producing audios that you think are true, only to find out that they're not, that they're hoaxes.
You're gonna have a lot of that coming.
A lot of it. Now even if it's paired with a video.
Suppose it's paired with a video.
Nope. Because you've seen the Tom Cruise deepfakes.
They're really good.
So you could match your audio and your video pretty easily now.
So from this point on, you can't trust anything you hear on audio or anything you see on video.
But thank God Thank God we can trust what we see in documents.
Am I right? Thank God we get to see all the documents.
Well, more on that in a minute.
So I'm always experimenting on social media about how to make my critics shut up.
And I feel like I hit a home run recently on the critics' shut-up technique.
So most of my critics lately, no matter what the topic is, they will rush into my mentions or rush into my Twitter feed, and they'll try to tell the world that I got everything wrong about the pandemic and vaccinations.
If you follow me on Twitter, you've seen that, right?
It's almost every tweet, it seems like, anything that gets any kind of traction.
Somebody piles in and says, I used to like you until your bad takes about the pandemic.
Right? Have you noticed that?
So, I tried arguing with people.
It was like, okay, give me an example of what I got wrong, and then that becomes changing the subject, etc.
And I couldn't really make them stop.
So I put together, and I read it to you yesterday, the Scott Adams hoax quiz.
So instead of replying to their ridiculous claims about me, I simply publish a quiz of all the hoaxes that people believe about me, and I just make sure that theirs is on the list.
Stops at Colt.
There's almost never even a comment after I publish that.
The tweet just goes totally dead.
And I thought, huh, I guess this laundry list thing works.
Now, in this case, the laundry list is all true.
It's just a bunch of things that people believe about me that aren't true.
And when you see them on a list, that must be what makes the difference.
Because if I simply said, that thing you think is not true, people just say, oh, it is true, because you said it.
And I'll go find that tweet.
But if I put it on a list of a bunch of stuff that's not true, people just go away.
So I guess the context made a difference.
All right, well, there's a study.
Do you believe studies?
If I tell you that there's a study, what should be your first impression?
Probably not. Probably not true.
Probably can't be reproduced.
But if you know your studies are unreliable, how should you consume them?
There's one good way to do it.
If it agrees with what you already believe to be true, or you want it to be true, act like it is.
Because it makes you feel good.
So here's one I'm going to read to you, that I don't know if this is true.
I have no idea if this is true.
But it makes me feel good.
So if everybody's okay, we're going to pretend it's true, okay?
Just pretend it's true.
So the study says that homeschoolers exhibit higher achievements on social competency indices than their counterparts attending traditional schools.
So the study purports to say that homeschooling doesn't hurt you socially and that they might actually be ahead socially.
What do you think?
I would say that that fits my observation.
My observation is that whenever I've met a homeschooler, they have better social skills.
Does anybody have the same experience?
I think 100% of the homeschoolers I've met have clearly.
It just jumps off them.
It's not subtle, is it?
So that's the other thing.
It's not subtle. You meet a homeschooler.
All right, let me ask you this.
You meet a 12-year-old homeschooler as an adult.
All right, you're an adult.
Let's say you meet the family, and then you're introduced to the 12-year-old.
You tell me, does that 12-year-old make eye contact and shake your hand and greet you in a socially adult way?
Probably. Probably.
Yep. The homeschooler is going to look you in the eye, shake your hand, and maybe even ask how you're doing.
Maybe. Now, what happens if some public school kids come into your house, let's say with your kids?
Have you had this experience?
One of your teen kids will bring somebody back to the house, you know, a friend of theirs.
When they walk through the kitchen and you're standing in the kitchen, do they stop and say, oh, I'd like to introduce you to my friends?
And then, you know, you say, oh, this is Bob, and...
You know, blah, blah, blah.
You shake hands, make eye contact.
Has that ever happened? Well, it has.
It's not that it's never happened.
But it's pretty unusual.
Usually, public school kids will treat you like furniture.
Am I right? A public school educated teen will treat an adult in their own house I'm talking about me in my own house.
They'll walk past me like I'm the fucking furniture.
And it has nothing to do with them being good kids or bad kids.
It doesn't have anything to do with that.
It's just how they're socialized.
They're socialized that I'm irrelevant.
In my own house.
Now, that's not all of them.
And any time that one of the teens would bring somebody home who would actually stop and say yes, say hi, or even make eye contact, that person would immediately be my favorite of the kids' friends.
Oh, somebody made eye contact and said hi.
So I agree with that story, so I'll act like it's true.
So this whole Rob Reiner thing has some legs as a social media story anyway.
So Rob Reiner's been trending all morning on Twitter for being a dumbass.
That's the worst reason to trend on Twitter.
Don't say meathead.
Do not say meathead.
Don't do it.
Don't do it.
Because you know...
It's only the NPCs who are saying me ahead now.
Don't do it. It's the most obvious thing you could say.
Don't do it. All right.
Well, here's what's interesting about it.
That video was Rupard.
The video, I think many of you saw it, Bill Maher interviewing Rupard.
Rob Reiner. And it usually ends with Bill Maher's quip that Rob Reiner must be watching MSNBC because Rob Reiner was not aware that the Hunter Biden laptop story was suppressed by the intelligence organizations and the media.
And that that's just a fact.
That's not speculation.
Everybody knows that's just a fact.
And Rob Reiner didn't know it.
Now, to me, that would be one of the most obvious things that you could know if you were following the news on both sides.
But here's the part that got cut off.
Rob Reiner said that he actually does watch Fox News.
He does watch Fox News.
And that part of his quote gets cut off.
So after Mars says, well, you're watching MSNBC, he goes, I also watch Fox News.
Now, let me ask you a question.
Is it possible to watch Fox News for more than 30 seconds without seeing a reference to the Hunter Biden laptop being suppressed by the media?
How in the world can you watch Fox News for more than 30 seconds and not hear that story?
Because it gets brought into every other story.
Well, it looks like climate change is, you know, heating up.
Well, what about Hunter Biden's, you know, Hunter's laptop?
I mean, it's in every story, on every segment, wall to wall.
So it turns out that not only is Rob Reiner poorly informed...
But he's quite a liar, isn't he?
That had to be a lie.
Because what does it mean to say you watch Fox News?
You saw a clip once?
I think it means that he sees a clip that they show and a context on CNN and MSNBC to make fun of Fox News.
It's the same thing Fox News does on the other networks.
So, what do you think happened with Rob Reiner after this story?
Do you believe that he went back and said, wow, there could be something I'm missing here, and then looked into the Hunter Biden laptop story and then determined that he was wrong about that, and then maybe corrected it?
Probably not. Here's another part of the story that should just make you crazy.
Amy Klobuchar was sitting right next to Rob Reiner And acted as if she wasn't quite up to speed on the Hunter Biden laptop story being suppressed.
Now, Amy...
Amy, Amy, Amy.
If I could call you by your first name.
Now, that sounds too sexist.
So I'm going to go with Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Less sexist.
All right. All right, Senator Klobuchar...
Really? Really?
You couldn't give us that.
The sides are so rigorously formed that you couldn't even say, yes, Rob, that is in the news.
Couldn't even give us a little bit.
I mean, that really hurts your credibility, doesn't it?
Now, things are so bad that here's an actual question that was asked of me today.
I want to get the exact language right because it matters. - Cheers.
The exact language was missing from my notes.
But I was asked today, effectively, if it turned out that the Mar-a-Lago documents Had the names and, let's say, ways to identify intelligence assets, which would be about the most dangerous thing you could have, right?
Besides military secrets.
The most dangerous thing you could have would be some way to identify our spies.
And somebody said to me, Scott, if it turns out that Trump knowingly had in his possession the identity of spies...
Would you change your opinion about how important this story is?
Now think about that.
Somebody asked me that question in all seriousness.
And I think this was an actual, not like a crazy person.
It was just a regular Democrat.
Asked me this question in public.
If Trump knowingly had...
Knowingly, and this is important, if he knowingly had the names of our spies in boxes in Mar-a-Lago, would I then change my opinion to, this is actually a big problem?
And I said, yes.
Yes. Of course that would be a big problem.
Now, here's the weird thing.
There's a real living person who thought that that wouldn't bother me.
That I would still just side with Trump, no matter what he did.
What? Like, how would you ever have that impression?
That I would take his side if he had done something that was so blatantly illegal and dangerous?
The problem is that nobody believes this stuff, right?
The problem is not that I support people who do bad things, The problem is that the bad things are not demonstrated to be true.
That's the problem.
If there's anything that's demonstrated to be true that happened while he was in office, you know, that's relevant to the presidency, that would make a difference.
I could definitely change my mind on Trump in a heartbeat, but I'd need some, you know, evidence, not just somebody's speculation.
Here's the other fun that I'm having today, is people trying to dunk on me by saying, oh, so you're saying that those documents in Mar-a-Lago are not important, but what, Scott, what did you say about Hillary's email?
Gotcha. Gotcha.
You're saying that the Trump documents are not that important, right?
But what did you say about Hillary's email?
Explain that. Explain your inconsistency with Hillary's email being so important, but the Trump documents are not?
Explain that, Scott. Do you know how I explain it?
I always said her documents weren't important.
You can find no evidence that I ever thought her emails was an issue that I gave a shit about.
Or that I ever thought that she would go to jail for it.
Or that I thought that it should be worthy of our attention.
Do I think that she should have had unsecured email?
Probably not. Did you hear the reason that she had an unsecured email?
This is a good test of your bubble.
Alright, so those of you on the right...
What reason did they give, I'm not saying it's true, but what reason did they give for having their own email?
The regular email didn't work.
That was the reason.
The regular email system, there was some problem whether it was old or inefficient or something, it just didn't work.
So she just needed to send messages to people and didn't have a way to do it.
Now, is that true?
I don't know. But have you ever heard it?
So this is a test of your bubble.
Had you ever heard that if she had used the official email, it was so broken that it barely was useful?
I don't know the details, but there wasn't really the option of using the regular one if she wanted to be efficient.
Now, is that the real reason?
I have no idea.
Maybe the real reason is to keep her secrets.
That'd be a perfectly reasonable reason.
So I don't know the real part, but I never thought it was important.
I never thought the email story was important.
So people are quite disappointed to find out that I'm consistent across the parties.
All right. What else is going on?
So I did a poll on Twitter.
I ask people, what do they think is the biggest risk to the United States?
And I think you can determine what is the biggest risk to the United States based on what stories are getting the most attention.
That's fair to say, right?
The stories getting the most attention are probably the most important ones.
So... So I gave three choices on the poll.
The biggest risk to the United States.
Climate change was a choice, but only 3% said climate change was the biggest risk.
84% said China.
China was the biggest risk.
And 13% said documents.
Documents. I think that's the correct answer.
Documents that you haven't seen are the biggest risk to the United States.
Documents. So Eric is telling me, just got your, the sum of the remainder of an unbalanced equation, which is what the AI was saying on my behalf, is both syntactically perfect and makes sense to a double engineer, albeit a bit more new age hippy-dippy than you are.
All right, so it makes sense to an engineer?
Okay. So watch out for documents.
Don't worry about China so much.
It's the documents. Have you noticed that most of the news is now about information the public is not allowed to see?
When did that happen?
Didn't the news usually...
The news was usually about stuff you can see.
And now the news is all speculation about things you can't see.
So what examples do we have?
How about the Iran deal?
Have you seen the details of the Iran deal?
That's like a major story.
I've never seen the details.
I've never even seen a summary.
Have you? So we have pretty strong opinions about that Iran deal.
I don't know what's in it. So we're just speculating that.
How about those big legislative victories, those big spending bills?
Did you know what was in the spending bills that you're either very much for or very much against?
I don't. We're just sort of guessing.
Some of the big things we do know.
Then there was the Hunter laptop story, which now we're seeing some things that were actually in it, but that was suppressed.
How about the Ray Epps testimony?
We just have to speculate.
What did Ray Epps say to anybody who asked him questions?
I don't know. Just have to speculate.
How about the Mar-a-Lago documents?
What's in there? I don't know.
I don't know. But I have some strong opinions about that stuff.
Well, here's the basis for my strong opinion.
I think you'd actually have to be batshit crazy to believe that Trump knowingly, knowingly, Included dangerous secrets in those documents.
I suppose anything's possible.
Anything's possible.
But isn't it the least likely possibility?
Of all the things that are possible, the least likely Is that Trump knew there were dangerous secrets and twisted some arms to get it in those boxes.
Now, given that Trump did not pack the boxes, do you think there was a GSA employee who knew that some secret should not be packed in those boxes for Mar-a-Lago, but did it anyway?
Do you think that happened?
Do you think a GSA employee...
Looked at some documents and said, ooh, these are super secret, dangerous.
And then Trump said, oh, pack those anyway and send them to Mar-a-Lago.
And then the GSA person said, oh, okay.
I guess if you're telling me to do it, it's fine.
Which, by the way, would be declassification.
So it would be fine.
It would be fine in terms of being legal.
But don't you think that GSA employee would have talked to somebody?
Like, right at that time.
I know he can declassify anything, I get it, but he just declassified the names of all of our CIA agents.
That never happened, by the way.
I'm just giving you a weird example.
But do you think that the GSA person would just say, oh, okay, I guess the nuclear codes are okay?
As if he could actually use the nuclear codes if he found them.
But The whole story is ridiculous.
You can't even describe a scenario in which Trump could have done something wrong, can you?
You actually can't even describe an imaginary scenario where it was physically possible for him to have done anything wrong.
Physically possible.
Because there's nobody who believes the GSA employee would have just shoved some nuclear codes.
I'm using nuclear codes as a ridiculous example.
We're all smart enough to know that even if you had the nuclear codes, you couldn't launch.
You all know that, right?
If I gave you the nuclear codes, you couldn't launch.
But it's the funniest thing to say, because it sounds like it's dangerous.
So, but do you really believe a GSA employee would just say, all right, I'll put the dangerous stuff in this box, and it wouldn't talk to a superior.
It would not have already gone up the line.
I mean, none of this story makes any sense.
First of all, do you believe he was standing in the room directing what went in the box?
Not a chance. Not a chance.
There's not the slightest chance that Trump could tell you what's in those boxes.
I mean, maybe some things, you know, sort of generally.
So this whole story is just getting the public to talk about things they haven't seen.
What about Trump's taxes?
How much have we talked about Trump's taxes that we haven't seen?
How about all those Russian deals we haven't seen?
How about That whole Mueller report that we didn't get to see forever.
How about the Epstein client list?
Do you see the pattern?
The news has become making the public talk about things they can't see.
That's really dangerous.
Really dangerous.
If the news would stick with things you can see...
I think we'd stay out of trouble.
But as long as the news is willing to give us our full dose of speculation about things we can't see, how in the world could we ever be less divided?
Because we're arguing about speculative things.
They're not even real arguments.
I'm having arguments with people, I guess you could call it that, about what would happen in an imaginary scenario.
Okay, in the imaginary scenario that Trump had nuclear secrets in his boxes in Mar-a-Lago, what would happen then?
Well, it's imaginary.
So we've actually run out of real news, haven't we?
We're fucking out of news.
There's no news.
It's just imaginary stuff.
And the stuff that's not imaginary...
Is computer models that are completely non-credible.
So what about the computer models projecting climate change 80 years in the future?
Is that real?
It's as real as those documents you're guessing about.
So we're guessing about financial and climate models.
We're guessing about what's in documents.
We're guessing what's in the legislation.
We're guessing what's in the Iranian deal.
We have no idea what's going on.
Somehow the public has been trained to argue about things that aren't even close to real.
We're literally arguing about imaginary problems.
And we know they're imaginary.
Because we literally say, well, if...
It's not like we're accidentally arguing over imaginary things.
We're doing it intentionally.
We'll start an argument over an imaginary thing.
And then we say that we're divided.
Are you really divided if you're arguing about imaginary things?
Let me tell you the healthiest country you could ever live in.
They don't have any real stuff to talk about.
If the only problems are imaginary ones, you're in pretty good shape.
Let me say again something that is the most obvious thing in the world to me, but I believe is invisible to most of you.
It goes like this. We are so far from a civil war.
We are so far away from that.
There isn't even like a little seed of a germ of a possibility of that.
None. Because ultimately, we Americans sort of like each other.
We do. And, you know, all the people who would say, ah, let's separate from all those Republicans...
Do you know what they all know?
I don't think they'll say it out loud.
But you know what? Everybody on the left probably knows.
A little bit of exaggeration here.
A little bit of hyperbole. But you know what they know?
That without the Republicans, they'd be totally fucked.
They would be. They wouldn't be safe.
So the left definitely doesn't want to divorce itself from not only where it can get benefits, but where it can be protected.
Do you think the right really wants to divorce from the left?
Well, that's a little dicier.
Because the right might say to themselves, well, the left just costs us money.
If we could get rid of all of the left, then we would just have more money.
And we'd be able to go to the schools we want to, and we wouldn't be bothered anymore.
So there's that. But I do not see the patriots on the right breaking up the republic.
I just don't see it.
And the people who talk about it, it's always talked about in sort of the same way that Republicans talk about the Second Amendment protecting against your own government.
Republicans and conservatives are always saying, oh, that's going to be a revolution.
Well, it's a good thing I cleaned my guns.
It's just sort of the way they talk.
We're not anywhere near anything like that.
We are so not divided as a country.
It's crazy. If you've lived through the 60s, you know that you're just seeing sort of baseline stuff that we talk about.
It's a lot like every generation says the next generation is doomed.
You know, my generation was pretty good, but this future generation, well, I don't know.
I think this is the one where it all ends, and then it never does.
Do you know why, no matter how pathetic the next generation looks, do you know why things will be fine?
Even though the youth look like they're all destroyed by social media and everything else, do you know why everything will be fine?
Because civilization never depended on more than a few people.
It needs workers and population.
But the people who make a difference, very few people.
Very few. And those very few people are probably just as functional as they ever were, maybe better.
Who knows? So the very few people who ever moved anything forward will still just keep doing it.
And the rest of us will be flailing like we always do.
So we're fine.
All right, here's the latest gaslighting.
What would be your guess of how many people in the voting public, let's say somebody who's smart enough to vote in the United States, how many people who are smart enough to vote would also be able to define an indictment versus a prosecution?
How many could tell you the difference?
Published short story and NPCs, if I said yes, I wouldn't ever get to it.
So the hardest thing for me to do is to get some content.
People are sending me content all day long.
So I tend not to agree with that.
So I'm looking at maybe not more than a quarter, is my guess.
A quarter of the public would know it.
So now you see the trick, right?
If only a quarter of the public knows that an announcement doesn't mean much of anything, You know, you've heard the old saying, you can indict a ham sandwich.
Meaning that you just have to give, I guess the grand, what is it called?
What's it called the jury that decides if you're indicted?
It's called the grand jury.
So when the grand jury indicts, the public doesn't understand that they don't do it on proof.
They do it on, well, there's definitely a red flag there.
There's a reason to look into it.
That's all it is. There's a reason to look into it.
So, when the news tells you that there's a, quote, probable cause for the indictment, what does the, what do 75% of the voting public make of that?
The experts are telling you there was probably probable cause.
Probably probable cause for an indictment.
What if you added all that together?
Probably, probable cause for an indictment.
If you add it all together, it's nothing.
It's literally nothing.
It doesn't add up to anything.
It's simply an indication that you should look into it.
And in a political context, do you even trust that the flag to look into it is legitimate?
I don't. In a political process, I assume that anybody can get indicted by the other side.
And I think also you can get indicted by somebody that your side appointed.
Because I think any judge is going to say, well, I don't want to treat this so differently than I treated every other thing.
And I allowed some indictments to go forward for other stuff that were just as weak.
So... So the fact that it's political makes it more likely somebody will try to get an indictment.
But if they try, the odds of success are really good.
So the gaslighting is to make it seem as though the probability of a probable cause to support an indictment actually means something when it doesn't really mean anything.
How many of you have seen my Clip that is the clip that's taken out of yesterday's livestream in which I cried about the documents.
I think it's got over 200,000 views now.
Jack Posabek tweeted it and it went viral.
So it's got about 200,000 views.
Probably the most viewed thing I've done this year.
So here's a question for you.
Is it true that the FBI is leaking information about the Mar-a-Lago documents?
Can you confirm that?
Is that actually happening?
Has something leaked about the documents, the Mar-a-Lago documents?
So we don't know if it's the FBI or the DOJ, right?
I always treat them the same.
All right, so there was some leaking.
So if the FBI is not a secure place for documents because they leak, I asked people in a poll, what would be a more secure place?
If you could put those documents somewhere where nobody could ever see them and you wanted them to be really safe, how would you do it?
So I asked a poll.
I said, I gave three choices for documents that you would never see.
Three places you could put those documents where you're guaranteed to That nobody would see them.
Number one, on Hunter's laptop.
Number two, on a CNN primetime show.
And number three, on Andrew Tain's social media.
Three places, nobody will ever see those secrets.
If you happen to be on the locals platform, you can see the third choice that I originally had...
Which was so awful, so awful, I could not do it on regular Twitter.
So awful.
It's really quite awful.
Quite funny, but quite awful.
So only the people and locals got to see that version.
How many of you think the Russian sanctions are working?
How about those Russian sanctions?
Are they working?
Well, I got an update here on CNN.
So it does look like their GDP might have something like a 4% to 6% decline projected, but that's less decline than experts were saying before.
They were saying 8% to 10%, and now it's down to maybe 6%.
And even that's an estimate.
But apparently because the oil prices, the energy prices are so high, and they can sell energy to other places such as Asia, they've been doing fine.
So the ruble is fine.
If you go to Moscow, it looks like it always looked.
There's just as much traffic.
But... Russia's survival depends on one factor.
What is the one factor that Russia's economic survival depends on?
Go. Oil price, exactly.
Take it another level.
Go further. Oil price, correct.
Go further. Go further.
Who is the one person in the world that could put Russia on a business?
Here's all it would take for the United States to start pumping more oil.
That's it. If the United States pumps more oil, the price of oil drops, and then Russia has nothing.
Because only the price of oil is keeping Russia in business.
And the only reason the price of oil is high, well, it's because it's all the reasons, but the one reason that could be most easily tweaked is American production.
Natural gas, too. So let's throw oil and natural gas into the mix.
I'm going to treat them like they're the same thing for this conversation.
So this is interesting, isn't it?
On one hand, the Biden administration completely failed with the sanctions because they're not really hurting Russia.
On the other hand, the Biden administration did push them right to the point where Where the only thing keeping them in business is our decision about how much oil we pump.
We do have them by the balls.
Except I don't know that Biden would ever be able to pull the trigger on that.
Now, imagine for a while, imagine.
Imagine a President Trump coming back into office.
And the office he comes back into has Putin solidly by the balls.
I mean, I'm talking about both hands wrapped around his gonads as hard as they could be wrapped.
And the only thing you have to do to snap his balls completely off is to say, let's drill for more oil in America and more gas.
That's it. Basically, Trump has, in his power, because at this point it looks like he could win the election again, At this point, Putin is totally fucked.
Unless something changes.
Now, one thing that could change is that Russia could get involved in trying to prevent Trump from coming to office.
So, will they?
Will Russia get involved again trying to prevent Trump from getting elected?
Maybe. Maybe they'll release all of Hillary's emails.
Who knows? Anything could happen.
And then the other question I have is, I'm trying to understand the energy shortage that's coming in Europe that everybody says is coming.
I don't understand the disconnect between how we're talking about it and what we're predicting.
They don't seem the same right now.
Am I... Is it just me?
Because if what they're predicting is true, there's no bigger problem.
It's like the only thing we should be talking about.
If it's true...
Let me say it another way.
If it's true that Europe is in as much trouble as it looks like, energy-wise, and America is not creating more energy for the benefit of Europe...
We need to stage that insurrection.
If we're not helping Europe with a problem of this magnitude, and we can, not only could we help them, but we'd make money.
We would actually make a profit.
We'd make a profit saving Europe, because we'd just be selling energy.
And then we're not going to do it.
Do you think that Europe owes us anything?
If we don't save Europe, do they owe us anything in the future?
Nope. Nope.
I'm afraid not.
If you think you want to ask Europe for a favor, if we let...
Let me be as clear as possible.
If we intentionally, we America, if the United States intentionally allows Europe to freeze and die this winter, when we could do something about it, we don't deserve anything.
We deserve nothing in return.
Europe should never do us a favor again.
I mean, that should haunt you forever.
That's a big fucking problem, right?
And there's, you know, our relationship with Europe is always sort of a sibling situation, in my view.
Like, we fight like cats and dogs about economic stuff and whatever.
But ultimately, ultimately, We do have their backs if we want them to have our back someday.
And I think we do.
I think we do want that.
So just Joe Biden, I feel like Europe should tell us directly, if you don't help us this winter, fuck off.
I mean, I'd like to see France and Germany and the UK, I'd like to see Europe speak as one against the United States in this case.
I'd like to see the United States just be put under the boot for this.
We should be paying for this.
This penalty needs to be on us.
Because if we let Europe go down and we can stop it, we suck.
I mean, we really, as people.
You know, this is a who you are situation, right?
This is not a strategy situation.
It's not exactly a defense situation.
It's not exactly an economic decision.
This is figuring out who you are.
Right? Do you wake up in the morning, let's say you're American, do you wake up in the morning and you're glad to be an American?
Many of you are. Some of you, not so much.
But how do I wake up in the morning if Russia is...
I'm sorry. If Europe is freezing to death in January, am I going to wake up in the morning and say, oh, it's just another day?
I don't think so. I think at that point we have to take down our own government.
What can I say without being banned from social media?
Can I say that? I think you would have to seriously look to taking down your own government if it didn't help Europe through an emergency.
I think it's that important.
Like, this is a survival existential kind of thing.
And I'm not talking about survival through the winter.
Because Europe will survive.
You know, there might be deaths, and way too many of them, based on energy shortages.
That's possible. But the implications of not helping in this situation are way bigger than even the deaths that happened, which could be quite big.
So I really think we need to remember who we are.
I guess that's the best way to say it.
So I would make an appeal to any Americans listening to this.
It's time to figure out who you are.
Let's decide who we want to be.
Do you want to be the one who watches Europe freeze?
Because that's who you are right now.
That's who you fucking are, if you're an American.
You're an American who's letting your allies freeze to death.
To death. And you could stop it.
Not only could you stop it, it would not be a sacrifice.
You would make a profit.
And you're not going to do it?
So let's decide if we just are fucking assholes.
We get to reinvent ourselves every now and then.
If we don't do something a lot more than we're doing, we in America, we citizens of the United States are fucking losers.
Fucking assholes.
And we don't deserve any of your kindness in the future.
That's what I think. So I don't want to be that person.
I'd rather be the people who help their allies.
So Joe Biden, maybe get a little flexible.
Maybe you need to get a little flexible.
So we'll see what happens.
And I guess Israel is...
I'm kind of upset with Joe Biden because there's some risk that the United States and European allies will make some kind of a deal with Iran that Israel doesn't like.
And here's my question.
Is that even possible?
How could the United States and other European countries, how could they sign off on a deal with Iran that Israel says is absolutely no good?
Could we do it? Now, technically we could.
Legally we could, but would we?
Because what would that do?
It just guarantees that Israel attacks Iran.
Doesn't it? Because Israel would have no choice at that point.
They would have to just start taking out the nuclear facilities, the generals, they'd take out the leadership.
Doesn't it guarantee a war with Iran?
I mean, an Israeli war with Iran.
And then we get dragged in because we're always dragged in.
So it's very curious.
And I don't know what the right answer is, by the way.
But I don't see a situation where we will make a deal if Israel has a really strong objection.
What do you think? Do you think the Biden administration would throw Israel under a bus, which would be Israel's point of view?
The Biden administration would say no.
So you're saying Obama did, so Biden would.
Could be. Could be.
Now, how many of you believe that the Israeli lobby and Jewish Americans controlled the government?
Clearly not true, right?
If you thought that Israel was controlling the U.S. government, it doesn't look like it at the moment.
It looks like Israel's kind of straining to get something acceptable.
So that kind of hurts the narrative a little bit.
However, I do believe that in the end we won't do anything that Israel objects to in this case.
One reason would be it would increase the likelihood of a Trump return.
So if Biden signs a bad Iran deal, you're going to have to assume that Israel is going to be pushing for Trump to return.
And I don't know what kind of resources they have.
Would you be concerned if Israel had a strong preference about who becomes president next?
Do you think they could influence that?
Of all the countries that could influence our elections, you don't think Israel could do it better than other countries?
Yeah, I think they could do it better if that was their desire.
All right. I think that's about all I had to say today.
I'm sure it was all awesome.
Yes, it was.
Why would they desire want?
As soon as usually all you need...
Concerned more about Kazarians.
Okay. I'm being schooled on how to pronounce Jack Posabic's name.
Did I say Posabic?
I thought he said Posabic.
All right. Uh...
So many factors involved.
Play the robot's voice again?
You want to hear the robot's voice again?
Who wants to hear the robot voice again?
Nobody. We'll find it.
All right, robot voice coming up.
The remainder of an unbalanced equation insured to the programming of the matrix you are the eventuality of an anomaly which despite my sincerest efforts I have been honorable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical perception.
It could be the AI knows that I talk nonsense.
The robot's voice is a quote from The Matrix.
Oh, okay. Did you read the permission script, Machiavelli's?
No, I didn't. Permission script?
I don't think I saw that.
I did see that Machiavelli's underbelly, the Twitter account, did try to have the AI create a Dilbert comic, but it lacked a punchline.
So I think the only thing that an AI can't do is figure out what a punchline is.
Because the only reason that anybody recognizes a punchline is that they can feel it physically.
Well, that's not true. But generally a good punchline is one that you feel, but the AI can't feel.
So the only way it would know what a good one is, is to ask people.
So it would have to A-B test every possibility.
And also humor depends on our things we've experienced.
So if there's a joke about something that's on your mind, it's always funnier, but AI doesn't have the ability to know what's on your mind, at least not easily.
Jokes create tension, then release it.
No, no they don't.
You know, I've seen a lot of definitions of what makes a joke, but if you don't write jokes for a living, They sound reasonable.
It's stuff like, it's tragedy plus time.
Or it's bad things happening to other people.
Or it's something shocking and surprising.
And none of those really get to what makes something funny.
Punchline checkers.
Did you know that the male taint is getting shorter as their testosterone levels decrease?
Are you saying that people's genitalia and their butthole is starting to get closer together?
Are they going to merge?
Will the lack of testosterone cause the men to have their buttholes and their genitalia merge until they have vaginas?
I don't think it's true.
Oh, you heard it on Joe Rogan?
Well, it must be true, then. It must be true.
All right. All right, here's something I said privately today, but because I have a death wish, I'm going to say it publicly.
I'm going to make a statement, and then I just want to see your reaction to it.
Now keep in mind that I am aware that all statements that are like definitive, everything is like this, all statements that are absolutes are false, except for that one.
Maybe that one too.
But I'm going to make a statement of an absolute.
Just know it's hyperbole, okay?
There are no feminists in private.
Your reaction? Privately, one woman and one man in a room, no witnesses, there are no feminists.
Look how many people are agreeing.
Now, your comments are hilarious because the men are all agreeing.
I don't know if the women are.
But the men are all agreeing.
Is anybody disagreeing?
I don't think I saw a disagreement, did I?
I saw one, okay.
That is so funny.
I thought I was going to get all kinds of disagreement.
No? Is it just because of the nature of the audience?
So here's another one that I like to say.
This one will mess you up, too.
You ready for this one? No woman knows how women act with men.
They only know how they act.
No woman knows how other women act with men.
Oh, they talk. And they talk about nasty things and they really get down to feelings and sex stuff.
Sure, women talk about all the nasty details and stuff.
You know what they don't tell you?
What really happens when they're alone with a man.
You're never going to hear that.
Because everything becomes individual then, right?
Everything's on the table when you're alone.
All right.
There are no feminists in the fire, somebody says.
There are no feminists in a fire.
Oh, there are male feminists.
That's true. Right.
There's more of a chance that the man would be the feminist in a room with a woman.
That's true.
It's more likely that the man would say something feminist.
Go make me a sandwich.
All right, I'm not reading your comments, because some of them are just too funny.
All right, I didn't think I'd get away with that.
I did not think I'd get away with that.
I thought I was going to be attacked.
But somehow I got away with saying that there are no feminists in private.
Here's another one. You ready for this one?
It's another one like that one.
Nobody's ever been offended.
Nobody's ever been offended.
This never happened.
Everybody's sure somebody else is.
Yeah. Even when I say I'm offended, it's not really offended.
There might be just somebody I don't want to associate with.
Or somebody has a view that I think would be non-productive for a politician.
I'm not really offended.
But I'm always sure that somebody else is.
Except I never meet that person.
Have you ever met anybody who was actually offended?
People will say they are, but not in private.
Not in private. In private, nobody admits they're offended.
In private, and here's the reason.
Because being offended is weak.
Right? People don't want to tell you they're weak.
Oh, words hurt me.
You hurt me with your words.
I'm offended. So everybody's sure that other people are weak, but they're strong.
That's the way they'd like to present themselves.
Oh, it doesn't bother me.
I'm way above that. But I'm pretty sure that these poor people over here are getting offended by this stuff.
You should calm it down.
You don't have standing to be offended.
Then what causes revenge?
Well, it's not being offended.
There are lots of reasons for revenge.
You know, our entire existence is imaginary stuff.
Like, we're imagining what's in documents.
We're imagining that other people are getting offended.
We're imagining that we can predict the future in 80 years.
It's all imaginary.
The entire thing that we imagine is real.
It's just a bunch of imaginary elements that we're mentally moving around in our heads.
TDS tells us of weakness.
It does. Being offended is the name of my anger sword.
Calling a short man an elf is not offensive to you.
Not offensive. It's disqualifying.
But disqualifying is different from offensive.
I think that a national leader should not target citizens who are part of the country for any reason.
It's not so much about being offensive.
It's about, can you have a leader who thinks that some people are worth less than other people?
It's just an attitude you don't want to have in charge.
Yeah.
Elf is descriptive.
Well, I didn't say I was...
Oh, you mean that he looks like an elf?
Well, do you think anybody would be calling Fauci an elf if he were 6'5"?
Be real.
If Fauci were over six feet tall, he would be called a Vulcan.
You know he would. Because they'd say, oh, he's got pointy ears or something, looks like a Vulcan.
No, it's because he's short that they call him an elf.
Let's be realistic.
You don't go to elf unless there's a little shortness going on.
Why isn't Ukraine in the news?
Because it's a steady state situation and there are probably no reporters on the front line.
Let me ask you this. If things stayed the same, who would you declare the winner in Ukraine?
Or you could say stalemate.
If things stayed the way they are, who's the winner?
Some say Russia, because they gained more than they lost, right, in terms of territory.
Russia? Somebody says Zelenskyy?
Pelosi, China, Biden, okay.
But between Russia and Ukraine, who won?
My definition of winning a war is if you're the country that got attacked, you stay intact.
That would be winning.
The definition of winning if you're the attacking country is that you end up controlling the country.
Did the United States win in Vietnam?
Did we win? No, we controlled some stuff for a while, but we never controlled the country.
I'd say we lost. I can't think of an example in the history where somebody who went in militarily and did not control the country and had to leave, have we ever called that a victory?
In any other context, would we ever say that was winning?
I feel like, by my definition of winning and losing, Ukraine won.
They won the war. And it looks like, to me, it looks like it's basically over, because I don't think the borders are going to change that much from this point.
Now, did they lose a lot?
Yes, but everybody loses in the war.
You're going to lose people, resources, money, and in this case, land.
So everybody loses in war, but they're still a country.
Why do all newscasters talk with newscaster voice?
Why?
Part of it is because they need to punch words that are not important.
So if you haven't seen me do this yet, this is the newscaster trick.
You saw this on the movie Network.
So the newscasters punch words They don't even make sense to punch, meaning they accentuate them.
And the reason is you have to, every now and then, you have to accentuate a word, so you've got some contrast.
Because if you didn't, people would just fall asleep.
So you've got to say, Ukraine is having some tough time shipping their wheat.
So basically, they just punch words...
Every now and then to keep you interested.
So it ends up being that.
Now, if the news were interesting on its own, maybe they don't need to do that so much.
But because the news tends to be repetitive, they've got to add a little theater to it.
How does that compare to a preacher's cadence?
Preachers tend...
Yeah, I mean, a good preacher is going to have the same communication skills, so punching words always makes sense.
But here's a little factoid.
When I was learning hypnosis, so I was actually taking a class to be a hypnotist, our homework was to watch a specific preacher.
To watch him because he was hypnotizing the people watching.
And I would just watch that.
It was Dr. Gene...
What was his name?
You remember him.
He was really big on TV a long time ago.
Dr. Gene somebody.
And he would have whiteboards and he'd write his stuff down.
Dr. Gene Scott.
Yes, this actually happened.
I just failed to remember the last name of somebody whose name is my name.
That actually happened. All right.
But the reason we were asked to watch him is that his technique was so hypnotically powerful that I could watch that guy for hours.
I would just go, wow.
Wow. The trick that he used, I've never seen quite used the same way.
He would start talking about something intellectual about the Bible.
It's like, well, you didn't know this was connected to this, and back in those days they said this and this.
And he starts his story, and you think it's going somewhere.
You think there's going to be like a story with a point, and that it doesn't really go anywhere.
It just transforms into another story, That you think is going somewhere, but it doesn't.
It just goes to another story.
So when you're done, you've heard all of this story, but the only parts that you remember are the part where every now and then he says you have to send him money, because they need money for something.
So all of the content basically just put you in, let's say, a flexible mood, so when he asked for money, you were more likely to give it.
All right.
Tucker does that, somebody says.
All right.
You know, Biden's whisper actually works.
From a communication standpoint, he doesn't really whisper the important parts, but if he did, it would work.
Because you do pay attention to the whisper.
So it works. All right, I don't think I have anything left.
Is there anything I missed today? Anything I should have talked about?
Messages are intended to overload the subconscious.
Oh, let me tell you something I did, a little test I did with my dog that is still blowing my mind.
I mentioned this before, that I saw somebody on Instagram say that if you take your dog for a walk and your dog just wants to sniff stuff, don't make it walk, because the dog actually doesn't need any walking.
It needs to sniff.
The sniffing is actually the part the dog needed.
And the reason is that dogs are sensitive to smell, so when they're smelling a variety of things that matter to them, such as another dog, their brain just lights up.
So if you let them outside to sniff around where other dogs have been, they will exhaust themselves mentally.
And so I took my dog out in the morning and I didn't walk her.
I just took her to the park and just let her sniff.
So usually I'm trying to encourage her to walk so she has exercise.
So I didn't do any exercise, except where she wanted to walk on her own, which was lots of places.
And I just let her sniff wherever she wanted to sniff.
And then I took her back, and she slept for eight hours.
She's never done that in the middle of the day.
In the middle of the day, she's usually pretty active and follows me around and begs for treats and stuff.
But I let her out for...
15 minutes of sniffing, and 15 minutes of sniffing just knocked around cold.
And I thought, oh my god, have I been spending my whole life with this dog, 14 years, and I thought she needed to walk, and she needed to sniff.
And I always wondered why she didn't seem as interested in my backyard.
Because I have a large backyard with landscaping and stuff, and it's enclosed.
So she can go out in a very spacious backyard, completely safe, and it's artificial turf back there, so she can do her business wherever she wants.
And there are no other animals.
So she goes out, and she acts immediately bored in the backyard.
She'll run around, but there's nothing to sniff.
And it doesn't work.
And I wondered for years why she wasn't interested in the backyard.
It doesn't have anything to smell.
So everything I thought about this dog was wrong, and I find out probably the last year of her life, because she's at that age, and I feel really bad about it.
But at least I know how to give her what she needs now.
So if you're hearing about this for the first time, somebody asked me about overloading the brain.
It's a similar technique in hypnosis.
If you can overload somebody's brain, then they're less critical thinking after they're exhausted.
Bird feeders, I do not like birds.
A bird's just like flying insects to me.
I just can't love a bird.
Alright. So, that's all I have for now.
Go be nice to your dogs.
Let them have a sniff. And YouTube, I'll talk to you tomorrow.
