Episode 1853 Scott Adams: All The News Is Funny, Fake And Interesting Today. Come Enjoy It With Me
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Climate Alarmism Deaths Prediction
AI's rate of change
Zoom school, major failure
Kyle Bass on ESG climate deaths
President Biden's semi-fascist TRAP for republicans
What we're NOT being told about Mar-a-Lago boxes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Probably. And if you want to take it up a notch, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or gel, sustain a canteen jug or 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.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.
Go! I don't know.
That felt incomplete.
It felt...
There's something missing.
It feels sort of semi-fascist.
Semi-fascist.
Let's see if I can go full fascist.
Yup. Full fascist.
Two steps. That's all it took.
I didn't realize I was that close.
Wow. Shocker.
That close. Well, LA woke up to a fake evacuation order today.
I love this story.
I'm just trying to imagine what it would be like to wake up to this.
So apparently, there was an emergency alert system that interrupted regular TV programming in LA. Wednesday, telling the entire L.A. County and the eastern North Pacific Ocean area to evacuate due to a fire.
But they say it was sin and error.
they accidentally almost evacuated Los Angeles.
LAUGHTER Come on, that's funny.
LAUGHTER Oops. Can you imagine being the programmer who made that error?
Can you imagine the performance review?
Well, Bob, let's see, look at your performance for the year.
You got some good things done.
You finished the Project Zebra right on time.
Seems you completed all your mandatory training.
Good, good. And you accidentally evacuated Los Angeles.
Ooh, I'm going to have to ding you for that.
All right. I don't know why that's so funny.
For some reason, that's just funny to me.
Well, the California legislature just voted overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly I say, which is actually important, the overwhelmingly part, to save Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
Now, if you don't know California politics, the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant has been a huge political issue.
The person I believe most associated with advocacy to keep it was Michael Schellenberger.
So I believe this is one of the maybe greatest advocacy successes maybe you've ever seen.
I mean, it's hard to think of another one that would be this substantial.
Basically, a small group of people just went balls to the wall for years to get this victory, and they got it.
So congratulations to everyone involved.
But here's the part that's amazing, the overwhelming part.
Thank you.
Why is it overwhelmingly popular now?
It's just because the danger makes everybody think a little bit more clearly?
Because the danger was always here.
It's just that the fact that we're actually going to have to turn off the lights and take turns having electricity, I guess that gives you a little religion, doesn't it?
So California's wised up.
Oil prices have been dropping for a month.
Why is that happening?
How is it possible that oil prices would be dropping?
Is somebody pumping more or is the demand going down?
Is that a recession kicking in?
End of summer? Lower demand?
Yeah, maybe just the price was so high the demand went down, huh?
Something like that. People probably changed, probably a lot of people just started commuting, or I'm sorry, telecommuting.
How many of you, let me ask a little quick poll.
How many of you for, because of gas prices alone, or let's say primarily, how many of you primarily for gas prices are working at home more days?
Might be one more day a week or something.
Anybody? I'm seeing some yeses coming in.
No change. Most people would be no change, I would think.
Yeah. Okay, so a little bit of yes.
So that might be part of it.
People adjusting their habits.
All right, here's my question.
We have all seen alarmist climate graphs.
Showing that the temperature is going to be rising and that the seawater would rise and people would die.
Am I right? We've got very alarming 80-year predictions about climate change.
But where are my graphs showing how many people will be killed by climate overreaction?
Don't you think that needs to be a graph?
And I think we're at that hockey stick juncture right now.
Here's my guess.
Did I ever tell you I'm good at guessing things that I don't know anything about?
It's like an actual skill that you learn if you do a lot of numbers stuff for a living.
I did this for years. I did a lot of financial analysis and estimates and business cases and things where you have to guess what something would cost in the future.
And you end up getting good at it.
Even though there's no reason you should be good at it, you're guessing things you have no experience in.
But here's my current guess for how many people will be killed by climate alarmism.
So not the climate, but decisions we made because we were alarmed about the climate.
One to ten million. One to ten million.
I'm going to put the probable death rate from making bad energy decisions...
Collectively, not one decision, but bad energy decisions collectively, they're based on, let's say, irrational thinking.
So just the decisions that were based on irrational thinking, like nuclear decisions, they were rational at one point.
Now they're rational.
So I think the current estimate would be 1 to 10 million.
Would anybody disagree with that?
Now, if you're saying it's low, I would say maybe later it would be expanded, but I think 1 to 10 million has to be a number that we need to start kicking around.
Now, first of all, if I were to do a detailed analysis of this, do you think you would trust it?
If I did more rigor than just guessing, do you think that that would be more convincing?
It shouldn't be, because no matter how much rigor I put into it, I'd be kind of still guessing.
I'm going to say that that's an expert guess.
An expert in this context doesn't mean an expert on climate or science.
It means an expert at guessing stuff.
I'm really good at guessing stuff, numbers-wise.
Now, I'm not going to say that you should depend on that guess.
That's different. I'm just saying that I do have a track record of guessing things that are hard to guess.
I don't know why. I think it's because of experience doing that kind of work, because other people who did that work could do the same thing.
Well, I would like to see somebody produce an actual estimate of that with an actual graph, because I think at this point we have enough that you could You can make an argument to support a number.
I don't think that an estimate of that type would be accurate, but you could come up with something that was as useful as the climate graphs.
Now, I've argued that the climate graphs that say, you know, we're all doomed because the temperature's going up, I've argued two things that sound like opposites.
One is they're totally inaccurate.
Two, they're very useful.
Do you see how those both could be true?
The climate, you know, the predictions for the 80 years in the future, completely inaccurate.
And at the same time, completely useful.
Because their intention is to make you not have that future.
They're used for persuasion.
So for persuasion-wise, they're big and scary.
They're not accurate.
Nobody can make an estimate for 80 years.
That's not a thing. So they're not accurate, but if they make you act differently in the moment, then that's what they tried to do.
If that's what they tried to do, then it's successful.
Now, if what it did was cause you to overreact, then it was the biggest failure ever.
What did it do? It caused us to overreact.
You could argue it was the biggest failure of all time, you know, in terms of scientific communication.
But we'll see.
We'll see how that plays out.
But it needs to be turned into something visual, the way the hockey stick climate graphs are.
If you want to get more rationality into the climate decisions, you need to have a graph that shows the cost.
Now, there's a long...
There's a long Twitter thread that I just retweeted from Epstein, who's got his book, Fossil Future.
And check that out.
And he does a great job of explaining how the critics will ignore some variables and only look at others.
And he's got specific examples of that.
Once you see it, Right, it's a half analysis.
Once you see how the people on one side are continuously ignoring half of the argument, you understand how we got here.
So, you know how weird my life is, right?
I tell you this all the time.
Those of you, especially on Locals, if you've been following me for a while, you know how much time I spend trying to save the world, right?
Yeah, Alex Epstein is the author of Fossil Future, not the other Epstein.
Just clarifying that.
So you know how much time I've put into trying to save the world, right?
In a variety of ways.
So I tried to be active in the nuclear energy stuff and a variety of things.
So this is the weird thing about trying to save the world.
You know, no good deed gets unpunished.
You've heard that? That is so true.
Hey, there we go. We already got a chart of somebody on climate.
Locals already made one. But when I'm not trying to save the world, I'm being criticized by people who hate me for things that they imagine I'm doing.
So the trouble is, if you try to make the world a better place, people will imagine you're destroying it.
So it makes it really hard to be useful.
Let me give you an example.
I just saw this today.
So I saw an article on Slate.
Do you remember Slate?
That's still a thing, I guess.
And they were debunking Alex Epstein's book, Fossil Future.
And part of their debunking is that he had associated with me on Twitter.
So because the author had associated with me on Twitter, that's a reason not to buy the book.
What? And so I was referred to as a conspiracy theorist.
And I thought, conspiracy theorist?
I'm not even sure what the example of that would be.
But you can see how my reputation is just completely up for grabs.
Like, anybody can write anything.
Just write anything.
So at the very same time, I was literally putting my time and risking my life, literally, to make the world a better place.
I'm literally risking my life.
Because a lot of the things I say make you targets for whoever's on the other side, right?
It's a crazy world. So if you're a public figure and you say things that have any impact on the world at all, Somebody's going to try to kill you.
So I'm literally risking my life to make the world a better place.
Don't really need the money, right?
Like, why else am I doing it?
And there's some asshole at Slate who's using me as an example of why some other person's book would be less credible because I've tweeted him.
Good lord! Could you be less useful to society than whoever wrote this on Slate?
Anyway. Alright, the biggest story in the world by far is AI. And again, I'm going to try to save the world in a small way.
You really need to be warned about what's coming, because it's coming really fast now.
We've now entered the things are changing faster than you can keep up phase of it.
Let me just give you an example of what's new this week in AI. Because the rate of change in AI is going to go from, oh my god, they keep saying AI is coming.
Where's my AI? All right.
Well, that's a little bit of AI, but that's so not impressive.
Where's my AI? Years are going by.
You keep saying there'll be AI. There'll never be AI. Where's my AI? The thing people don't understand is that when it takes off, it's going to happen really fast.
And that's even before the singularity.
The singularity is what's called that point where AI can learn on its own.
I would argue it's already there, but there's another level of that that it's not quite there at.
But way before it reaches the singularity, And that's where we are now.
It's doing stuff that you didn't think it could do faster than you thought it could do it.
For example, AI already took first place in a human art competition.
Just let that sink in.
AI already, already.
You're not waiting for it.
This isn't the future.
Art already took first place in an art contest.
Now, do you remember me telling you two weeks ago, maybe, that in my opinion, AI art was already better than humans?
Does anybody remember me saying that two weeks ago?
Yeah. Now, do you know why I could see it and maybe other people couldn't see it as easily?
Do you know why? Why could I see it a little bit faster, not much faster, but a little bit faster than you could?
Do you know why? Because I make art for a living.
I'm not good at it, but I work in the field.
If you make art for a living, do you know what you know that other people don't know?
It's a formula.
I hate to tell you, art's pretty much a formula.
It really is. And if you follow the formula, you can make good art.
Now, AI knows what colors people like.
It knows what paintings were popular before.
It's just finding the patterns and putting them together.
Do you know what freaked me the fuck out?
Think about this.
Do you remember the early I asked people to do AI art about me?
Or people were doing it anyway, I guess.
So AI created a bunch of photos of me in which my face was distorted in a variety of ways.
Sometimes my face was like combined with other objects or just, you know, somehow skewed or whatever.
Now here's what scared the fuck out of me when I saw that.
AI knows what a face looks like.
AI knows that faces are mostly symmetrical, you know, within reason.
AI knew exactly what I do look like.
It chose to paint it artistically.
The reason it didn't look exactly like me is that it was putting artistic levels on top of it.
When I looked at those pictures of me distorted, I had two thoughts.
Hey, why doesn't that look just like me?
Because it knows how to do that.
And it chose not to.
It actually chose not to show me the way I look.
It chose a different artistic frame on it.
And I don't know how it did that.
Because I don't believe that any human told it to make faces non-symmetrical.
That looked like an intelligent choice.
I mean, I don't know what intelligence means in this specific instant, but Now, just consider this.
Consider my assumptions.
Don't you believe that the AI that was advanced enough to do this art certainly knows that a human face is symmetrical, and it can find thousands of pictures of my actual face online.
So it knows exactly what I look like.
And yet, it did not choose to represent me that way.
It was already an artist.
As soon as I saw that, That's when I knew we were done.
As soon as I knew that it could already give me an artistic interpretation that wasn't fed into it, it's already thinking.
It's already conscious.
It's already sentient.
In a sense. In the minor sense, but it's already sentient.
In my opinion. It'll always be a different opinion.
All right, so was that freaky enough?
I've got a book called The Religion War that came out years ago that never had an audiobook associated with it.
By the way, all of this is coming through Machiavelli's Underbelly account, so he's doing all the interesting things that we're learning about and tweeting about.
So Machiavelli's Underbelly ran at least one part of my book, The Religion War, and used AI to create an audio book from it, and the first thing you say is, well, they've been doing that forever.
That's not new. To have the machine read words, that's not new.
Here's what's new. The machine read it in my voice.
That's new. It was my voice.
It read my book in my voice.
Are you hearing this?
It read my fucking book in my voice.
And it wasn't me.
Now, you can still tell it was a computer.
Because it wouldn't hit the accents right, right?
It would punch words a little differently than I would.
How long do you think it would take for it to learn how to punch the words correctly, given that I have a billion hours of audio of my actual voice talking?
You don't think you could just listen to a billion hours of me talking, go back to that audio book and just fix it?
Of course it could.
Of course it could.
So that's coming. Yeah, so at this point, you could get a phone call from somebody you think you know, and it won't be.
I imagine you could change your voice in real time, right?
Is there any reason I couldn't speak into my phone and have it come out the other end as somebody else's voice?
There's no reason that can't happen.
That's here. Within a tweak.
We're just a tweak away from that being completely operational.
Maybe it is in some other version.
Likewise, from also Machiavelli's Underbelly, found a video of me giving a speech at Berkeley years ago, and some people ask if it was a real video of me, because I was wearing a button-down shirt.
I promise you, I do own one button-down shirt.
It's my TV shirt.
So yes, it was me. Actually, I own a few.
But in this case, I was rapping Eminem's famous raps, but it was me.
So here I am, like it looks like I'm talking, but I'm rapping Eminem.
But I think I was rapping him in my voice, not Eminem's voice.
So it's like, what this can do is crazy.
All right. We now know that the kids who were in Zoom school were not in any school at all.
They were just being tortured. Can we say that?
So at this point, we can just say, what you thought was Zoom school wasn't any kind of school at all.
It was just some kind of child abuse that we all participated in, because it was easier than fixing it, right?
We all did that. So congratulations to all of us.
We all fucked up our youth intentionally and didn't do a thing about it.
So good for you and me, by the way.
If this looks like I'm criticizing you, nope.
This is on me.
Just as much. And I'll say the same argument when people were saying that the rank-and-file FBI are awesome.
To which I say, hmm, it doesn't work that way.
Now, if you're in the FBI and your leadership is embarrassing you, it's sort of on you.
It is a little bit on you.
It's not maybe the primary thing on you, but it's a little bit on you.
Likewise, if I criticize the government for Zoom school, that's a little bit on me, isn't it?
Because I let it happen, didn't I? All of us did.
So that's not exactly on the government.
I think you have to be a little bit flexible on this one.
The government definitely did something that hurt children.
But we let that happen.
We let that happen.
Because we didn't have a better idea either, frankly.
So that's on us and them.
But it's also on the teachers' unions, because the teachers' unions were probably the, I would say, one of the main drivers of Zoom school.
And we know now that minorities got further behind than ever, presumably because white kids had more resources, Asian kids maybe had more resources.
Teachers unions, again, are the largest cause of systemic racism.
Now, there were lots of causes, but the largest one was the teachers unions.
Again, the teachers unions are consistently the source of systemic racism because their influence is what allows a lack of competition in schools, if you haven't heard that argument.
So if there's a lack of competition, that explains everything.
Alright, there were two tweets today, yesterday, that seemed to indicate ivermectin works for COVID. Hold on, hold on.
I'm not saying it works for COVID. Did you hear that?
I didn't say that. I said there were two tweets or two claims.
Two claims.
One of them is that the NIH, the National Institute of Health, is now listing ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID. So if the National Institute of Health puts it on their page as a potential treatment for COVID, I guess then everything you thought about COVID is wrong, right?
I guess maybe it does work, huh?
Is that what you conclude?
No. For those of you who danced on my grave because you saw that tweet, maybe you should have read it.
Because here's what the National Institute of Health says.
On the very page that is being retweeted, the panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID, except in clinical trials.
So they are in favor of clinical trials.
Were they ever not in favor of clinical trials?
Has anybody ever not been in favor of clinical trials?
Of anything? I mean, if somebody's willing to pay for a clinical trial of anything, mostly we're in favor of it, right?
If the people who are in the trial have full disclosure, they know what they're doing, somebody else is paying for it, I'm not paying for it, would you ever be opposed to it?
Of course not. So there's absolutely no news here.
There's no news about ivermectin being more promoted.
And there's no new acceptance of it.
It's just an acknowledgement that there are trials.
Now, here's a more interesting one.
Did you see a tweet yesterday that there was a Brazilian trial that showed that ivermectin taken prophylactically, meaning before you get the infection, reduced COVID deaths in Brazil by 92%.
Did you see that?
So I guess it's one of the biggest ivermectin trials, or the biggest.
So I guess it works then, right?
Is that what you're hearing?
Did you hear me say it works?
How many heard me say that?
I didn't say that. I didn't say it worked.
Don't hear what you want to hear.
So let's recalibrate.
Recalibrate. It's one of the biggest studies on ivermectin.
It suggests it not only works, but it works great.
Like, amazingly great.
But do you hear me saying it's working?
You shouldn't. So I tweeted and said, hey, debunkers, take a look at this.
How long did it take the debunkers to debunk that study?
About 60 seconds.
About 60 seconds. Do you know what was wrong with the study?
Well, it was not a randomized controlled trial.
It was not a randomized controlled trial.
Is there anything else I have to say about it?
That's all. It wasn't a randomized controlled trial.
So that's close to meaningless.
How about the second part?
The mortality rate among non-users was 5.3%, which is, this came from Dave Explains.
He's a Twitter user.
At Dave Explains Why.
That's his account. And he says the second problem is that the mortality rate among non-users was five times higher than in the U.S. So basically the study says that just living in the U.S. reduces your risk by 80%.
In other words, it's ridiculous.
The numbers that they produce are sort of ridiculous on their surface, right?
They're just sort of obviously bullshit.
And then the claim that there was a 90% improvement.
Do you think that if ivermectin, even prophylactically, could improve things by 92%, do you think nobody would have noticed that?
That's the sort of claim that on the surface you should say, nah.
No. Come on.
Yeah. But here's the best part.
Are you waiting for the best part of the debunk?
The people who ran the study, they neglected to mention some of their conflicts of interest.
Do you think they had any conflicts of interest?
They worked for the ivermectin-making manufacturer.
They didn't disclose that.
I think Pierre Corey was part of it, too.
Have you heard of Pierre Corey?
Banned from Twitter? Is that true?
Was he banned from Twitter? So the people who did not disclose their conflicts literally worked for an ivermectin manufacturer.
All right. So I would say that that qualifies them as frauds.
Is that too strong? If somebody publishes a paper on something that is their own company, the company that pays them anyway, not their company, but the company pays them, and they don't disclose that, is that just a lack of disclosure, or is that just full fraud?
I would call that fraud.
Is that too strong?
Now, I don't know if it's fraud in the legal sense, But I would say that it is an intentional effort to mislead people.
If you have a connection to the manufacturer of ivermectin and you don't disclose that when you print your results, that feels like you intended people to be misled to me.
So yeah, so it's probably not fraud legally.
That's right. I would accept that interpretation.
It's probably not fraud from a legal sense.
But ethically, As the word fraud gets used in common use, it's fraudulent.
So before you dance on my prediction grave about ivermectin, just know that the news about it is fake.
Fake news. Here's some more news.
Just minutes before the end of her term, so there was somebody at the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights That minutes before the end of her term released this damning report on China's treatment of the Uyghurs.
Do you know why this was released just minutes before the end of her term?
Because China's pressure was so high that she couldn't do it while she was still on the job.
She had to quit at the same time that she published her findings.
Now, maybe she was leaving anyway.
I don't know if it had been announced or whatever.
But basically, she couldn't even publish unless she was also leaving the job at the same time.
Let's see. It's a damning report of how they're treating them.
And there were up to 2 million, blah, blah, blah.
Now, China makes the following claim.
You know all those videos you saw of the so-called training facilities that look like basically prison camps?
You've all seen the pictures of those.
There were alleged prison camps that the Chinese would say are allegedly training facilities.
Well, they say that those stopped in 2019.
What do you think? So China says they don't exist anymore.
They did exist. So they acknowledged at least the facility existed.
But they say they stopped doing it in 2019.
Now, you say BS, but I'm not so sure.
I'm not so sure that's BS. Because the training camps were too big and visual.
And China might have said, oh, we can't have a big visual prison camp.
So they may have figured out some way to distribute...
The pain in some way.
It's possible that those facilities got closed.
I think that's possible.
It doesn't mean that they started treating the Uyghurs well.
That's different. But why is it that we don't know?
We don't have a satellite sitting.
We can't look at those camps directly and see if there's activity.
If the United States can't tell you whether these are still there or not, seriously, our satellites can't see them, So there's something going on in terms of what information we're getting.
So I don't believe anything on this topic.
It's hard to believe.
What do you think of this? You've heard that the Biden supporters are trying to do what the Republicans are good at, which is embrace a criticism.
You know, so let's go Brandon was the joke about Biden.
So now they've got these memes called Dark Brandon.
Dark Brandon.
So he's got aviator glasses and he's sort of like a cool, evil superhero or something.
He's dark. He's dangerous.
He's coming for you.
He's cool. But here's my pro-suggestion to the persuaders in the Democratic Party.
If your leader is the person most associated with running out of electricity and the lights going out, don't call him dark.
Is it dark because we can't keep the lights on?
Because I feel like that's the dark that's suggested by that.
Secondly, it's cultural appropriation.
I think calling him Dark Brandon is a little bit too much cultural appropriation.
I don't know, maybe you don't see it, but I'm a little more sensitive to these microaggressions than you are, and I feel it's totally inappropriate that he would...
I mean, it's basically the meme version of blackface, dark-branded, and I'm totally offended on behalf of other people.
Do you know how to be offended?
If I've taught you nothing, never be offended yourself, because that would make you look weak.
But you should always be white knighting for people you've never met.
There are other people totally offended by this.
So on behalf of other people I don't know and will probably never talk to on this topic, I'm deeply offended that they're calling him Dark Brandon and appropriating somebody's cultural property.
Well, Kyle Bass, who I love for being an outspoken critic of China, is also a critic of ESG and He says, these policies that are ESG-driven are going to end up starving the poor children of the world and killing many of them.
And he says, I can't believe it's not on the front page of every paper every day.
Well, I can't believe that either.
But I can tell you that in a month or two, Dilbert's company will be involved with ESG, and they will destroy the entire nation of Albania.
So everybody in Elbonia will die because of ESG in the coming months.
So I'm going to do what I can.
I do have a series on ESG coming out in the Dilbert comic in September.
So when that comes out, and by the way, I don't know if they'll get published because they're a little bit edgier than what I usually do.
So I've promised that I would try to kill ESG by the end of the year by mocking it out of existence.
So I'll see what I can do.
Alright, what else?
So what about this business of Biden calling the mega people semi-fascists?
And then his Jean-Pierre, whatever his name is, his spokesperson sort of went with it and just sort of confirmed that's how he feels.
Let me rate this for persuasion first.
Remember, if this were Trump, I would rate it for whether it's effective, persuasion-wise, separate from whether he should do it.
So I'm looking at the skill level, separate from the ethics or whether you should do it or not.
And I'm going to give Biden an A-plus for persuasion.
I'm wondering if somebody's advising him, because all this stuff that people are complaining about, I feel like it's working.
I feel like it's working.
And here's the problem. So what Biden has done is he's created a confirmation bias trap that the Republicans are just going to walk into.
And the trap is, he's created this conversation about whether Republicans are indeed, or any of them, the MAGA ones, whether or not they are semi-fascist.
Now, you say to yourself, that's not even a fair question.
Why are we even talking about that?
That's ridiculous. But he's put it in the public.
So from a persuasion perspective, has he successfully put that in the public mind?
Yes. Yes, so the first part of persuasion is he got your attention successfully, and he created a, let's say, a structure that everybody has to react to, right?
So he's created the story, and the rest of us just have to react to it.
Persuasion-wise, A+. Now, that's not saying how we react, because that could still go wrong, but he's put it out there, he's created a structure, and we're reacting to it.
He's in charge. If Trump had done this, I'd say, look at Trump controlling the narrative.
That's what Biden's doing.
The semi-fascist thing is kind of brilliant.
It's kind of brilliant.
If you think this is old man doddering, I don't think so.
This looks professional.
It looks like he was advised.
It looks like they had some testing of this or something.
And the reason that this is so brilliant is that it depends on future things.
That's where I think the professionals are involved.
Because it's a trap that isn't so important today.
It will become important when future events are wrapped into the narrative.
You got that, right?
So now anything that the Republicans say or do can get wrapped back into that narrative.
Is that something that Republicans have ever done to Democrats?
Can you think of a case where anybody on, let's say, the Trump side had done a similar...
Groomers, exactly.
Yeah, the groomer thing. Because once you've started this narrative that Democrats are groomers, then suddenly there's a whole bunch of stories that coincidentally fit into it, right?
That's a good one.
There's another one. That's not the one I was thinking of.
Crooked Hillary. That's a good one.
The Crooked Hillary is the perfect example, and I think I talked about it at the time, if I recall.
Once you say Crooked Hillary...
Then anything that comes up that sounds a little sketchy goes into the Crooked Hillary model.
There's another one.
There's one I did.
Do you not recognize it?
I did the same trick.
There you go. You got it.
Republicans will be hunted.
Republicans will be hunted.
Do you see that? That's exactly the same persuasion trick as semi-fascists.
When I said Republicans will be hunted, I'm specifically talking about the future.
Did I put that thought in a lot of people's heads?
Did I? Did I put a narrative out there that people have to react to?
Yes, I did. Even my critics react to it.
In fact, even today, somebody sent it to me and said, it's not true.
You got this one wrong.
I'm making people debate whether Republicans are being hunted.
It's the debate that matters.
It's not what was happening when I said it.
It's the fact that I created a narrative that would be favorable for future events.
They would be fed into it.
Do you recognize this? So you should recognize the technique, whether it comes from me or it comes from a politician.
That was technique.
That was a very conscious technique, and it's the same thing that Biden is using now.
And I think Crooked Hillary, either consciously or unconsciously, was the same strategy.
So learn to recognize this one.
When somebody proposes a narrative that you have to react to, they're building a confirmation bias trap, and everything will get sucked into that narrative.
So that's what you're seeing now.
All right. So persuasion-wise, A+. And I even saw Harold Ford excusing.
So if you don't know, Harold Ford appears on The Five quite often.
And I guess his brand, if you could put it that way, is reasonable Democrat.
So Harold Ford generally will agree with Republicans when they have a good point.
And he will disagree with them when they have a crazy point.
So in other words, he's trying to establish himself as the only reasonable person in the room.
And he does a good job of it, as a matter of fact.
And I would also give him a compliment that I thought when he started on the five, he was a little stiff.
But I think largely with Greg Gutfeld's help and probably Jesse as well, he's loosened up, so now he's like a much more interesting person So, to Harold Ford, I'd say congratulations on an evolution to a strong player, a very strong player on that show.
But even he excused the semi-fascist language as just campaign talk.
But he was reminded that this is not like regular campaign talk.
Normally Trump, for example, would go after sometimes a celebrity who went after him or a public figure.
But he didn't go after entire categories of citizens.
That's really out of line.
That's really, really out of line for a leader.
I mean, it's legal, freedom of speech.
But it's definitely, you know, it's not the country I want to live in, right?
So to me, that degrades our experience a little bit.
But I suppose everything's been degrading lately, so it's not that different.
Anyway, and the most amazing thing I saw is, you know, I keep tracking CNN's evolution as they have stated their attempt to be more middle of the road.
And the thing I've been watching to see if they're actually serious about that is their most vocal Republican slash Trump critics.
And one of them is Collinson, Stephan Collinson.
He usually does, well he's one of like three or four people who do opinion pieces on CNN's website.
And usually those opinion pieces are just like, you know, crazy anti-Trump stuff.
And he actually said on CNN that Biden went too far with the semi-fascist thing.
Now, do you think you would have seen that six months ago?
Do you think that the most anti-Trump person would have said that the semi-fascist thing was a political mistake?
I mean, it feels to me like he's got the memo.
This actually looks like CNN is making a legitimate attempt to find the middle.
Now, are you going to be mad at me if I compliment them for that change?
Because we can be very skeptical, right?
It's still wait and see.
So if you say it's too soon, I agree with you, it's too soon.
But that is a signal.
I think this was a signal.
And it's a signal in the right direction.
So just keep watching.
You know, it's a tough thing for them to do.
Remember, finding the middle...
Is largely impossible for anybody.
Because nobody agrees where the middle is.
But you can tell effort, right?
We'll know if they're trying to find the middle.
If they try to find the middle and you can see the effort, but in your opinion they're not finding the middle, that's a different criticism.
Because nobody's going to agree what the middle is.
So I'm going to actually throw some support toward their new leader, CEO, Licht.
Is it Licht or Licht?
L-I-C-H-T? How do you pronounce that?
Licht or Licht?
Light? Licht?
I don't know. Whatever it is. I apologize if I got it wrong.
But I respect that.
I respect that something real seems to be happening there.
Actual progress.
I guess we have to talk about Trump's boxes.
Does it seem to you like the dumbest story?
Trump's boxes? Alright, people are telling me different pronunciations for the CEO of CNN, so I guess it's an open question.
We don't know. Alright, well, let's talk about Trump's boxes.
And I always like to look for the thing that we're not being told.
So, what is the main thing we're not being told about those boxes?
Name the things that we're not being told.
Go ahead. Who leaked it?
Who leaked? Who packed them?
Who packed them? But also, who is in charge of giving back?
So here are some things that we have learned.
So I guess the federal prosecutors said they're going to wait until after November election to announce any charges against Trump if they determine he broke the laws.
What a fucked up way to report the news.
Here's a better way to report it.
Trump has not been charged with anything.
Am I right? The news is Trump has not been charged with anything.
And if you asked experts, they'd say you probably won't be.
Am I right? That feels like the accurate way to say this.
But here's how Bloomberg said it.
Federal prosecutors are likely to wait until after November election to announce any charges against Donald Trump.
Doesn't that make you think, like, they have the charges?
And it's likely to happen?
And then it goes, if they determine he broke laws.
If. So they put the if he broke laws at the end.
How about putting that at the start of the sentence?
How about if they find he broke any laws, we wouldn't know about it until November.
But no laws have been found to be broken or something like that.
Although you could argue that they have found broken laws.
I don't know. So we don't know enough to know if they found anything.
But here's my biggest question.
Who was the GSA dealing with on the Trump staff who was not giving them what they wanted?
Now, I know that lawyers signed off on things, so we learned that, for example, Trump lawyer Christina Bob signed a document certifying on behalf of Trump's office that all of the documents had been returned, though that was not true.
Now, what happens if Trump's lawyer signs something saying all the documents had been returned, but Trump had never signed anything?
Does Trump go to jail if the lawyer said they'd been returned and Trump was silent on the question?
Does Trump go to jail for that?
If your lawyer says something's been done legally and you don't know one way or the other because you're not down there at the boxes.
Now, do you think that Trump could have asked the lawyer to lie and then the lawyer would lie on this question?
What do you think? Do you think you could get a lawyer who could work at this level?
I mean, an ex-president's lawyer's got to have some credentials.
I don't think you can.
I don't believe you could get a lawyer to lie about something so easily disproven.
You might be able to get a lawyer to lie about something that can't be proven one way or the other.
I'll give you that.
But this is something that could have easily been determined to be a lie.
It seems far more likely.
It seems far more likely.
Now, you're mentioning lawyers who have lied.
That's different. Lawyers who lie, probably not that uncommon.
Lawyers who are being asked to lie by their client when they know the lie will almost certainly be detected.
I don't know that that happens very often.
That feels like a rare thing.
Yeah, granted, they're professional liars, but they lie when they won't get caught or that it's perfectly legal, say, within a court or something.
I don't think they lie when they know they're going to get caught, do they?
And it's not even for their benefit, it's for their client's benefit.
I don't know. I suppose I could be educated on that topic, but to me this looks like a glaring signal of a bureaucratic problem, meaning that not everybody knew what was happening.
Was the lawyer personally going through the boxes?
Probably not. Probably not.
Who was? Who was the person whose hands and eyes In Mar-a-Lago, not where they were packed at the White House, but in Mar-a-Lago, whose hands and eyes were primarily the person handling the boxes.
Because whoever's hands and eyes were primarily handling the boxes is whoever told the lawyer, you got them all.
I would say that in the end, we're going to find out somebody was just mistaken.
There's going to be all this gray area.
It's going to look like this.
Here's my prediction. Some of it will be described by the lawyer thinking they had given everything back, but just being wrong.
See if you disagree with any of these.
So these are several assumptions building a story.
Number one, the lawyer will be shown to be just mistaken.
The lawyer asked somebody, somebody said, yeah, we gave them all back.
So the lawyer says, yeah, I'll sign it, we gave them all back.
But the lawyer did not personally check everything.
And I'm guessing that Trump was not the source of saying they'd all been given back.
Or if he was, he was mistaken.
So basically, it's going to be people who were mistaken about what they'd given back.
How common would that be in a normal situation where somebody's trying to get everything from somebody else?
Have you ever had a divorce?
Anybody ever have a divorce?
And the process of, you know, Dividing stuff up.
It's messy, and people are mistaken, and they say I gave it to you.
Where are those photographs of the kids when they were young?
I already gave them to you.
No, you didn't. I definitely did.
Here's a picture of me handing you the photos.
Yeah, but they're not all of them.
Yeah, they are all of them.
But they're not all of them.
Yes, they are. I gave you everything I have.
And then a month later, you find some more.
Oh, shit, you were right. I had some more.
How often does that happen?
All the time. It's the most common thing in the world.
So whenever you look at this Trump boxes stuff, ask yourself, is the narrative you're given the most likely explanation or the least likely?
And the narrative that we're being given about this is by far the least likely possibility.
The least likely possibility is he took a bunch of...
Highly sensitive documents, was completely aware of it, liked to sometimes play with them in his office and show them to people, maybe was going to sell some of them, or had some way to financially gain, completely knew that he was doing something wrong, and just lied and told his lawyers, ah, just say we don't have any, and thought he'd get away with it.
By far, that's the least likely possibility.
Compare that to they thought they gave him back But there were some they didn't give back.
Or there was a miscommunication.
Now what about the ones that were in Trump's office?
There's also gonna be another gray area about how secret any of it was.
Chances are the stuff that actually was in his office may be less sensitive than things that were not in his office.
Don't know that, but it could be.
Now, How much penalty would he get if it was in his office and he should have been in a more secure place?
It depends how sensitive it was.
Do you think he has nuclear secrets sitting in his office?
Like just in a drawer?
I doubt it. How about something that would get CIA people killed?
Probably not. But could it be something that somebody once thought was sensitive but maybe isn't so sensitive anymore and it's just interesting?
Maybe. I mean, it's going to be all kinds of gray areas of who said what.
It's not going to be some clean crime.
It's definitely not going to be that.
All right. And did you know this will be a test to see if you're in a bubble?
Bubble test. You ready?
So most of you read right-leaning news, probably, if you're on this livestream.
Let's see if you are aware of this fact that comes to us from Daniel Dale at CNN. Who do you think packed up the boxes?
Here's my question to you.
Test your news.
Who packed up the boxes at the White House?
GSA, people are saying?
GSA, GSA, GSA. Now, why do you say the GSA? Is that because that's your narrative, right?
Daniel Dale says the GSA did not pack up those boxes and that Trump's staff packed them.
How's that change your narrative?
Suddenly it's different, isn't it?
Because I've been laboring under the misinterpretation or the misimpression that the GSA packed them, which would change everything.
Am I right? If the GSA packed it, then the GSA has some explaining.
If they didn't pack it, then Trump has a lot of explaining.
The GSA didn't pack it.
It was Trump's staff.
Which means Trump has some explaining to do.
Now here's the other thing missing.
Trump has never explained why they exist.
Sort of missing, isn't it?
Don't you think if there was some easy story, like a simple explanation, you would have already heard it.
So the thing we know for sure is there's not a simple explanation, unless it's some kind of elaborate trap to draw the Democrats into an accusation that later falls apart.
But that would be a bad trap, because people are going to believe the accusation even if it got debunked.
So it would be a terrible trap, because even if the trap got sprung just the way he wanted, the public would still think he'd done the bad thing.
Because they'd never know the debunk.
They'd just see the original claims.
Claims would be bigger than the debunk.
So it would be a terrible trap.
I reject the idea that it's some kind of a clever trap.
That doesn't make sense.
But I also reject...
Now, as of today, I reject the following hypothesis.
I reject the following hypothesis.
It was completely innocent.
And there's just an obvious explanation for why it's all there.
Whatever's going on is not...
It's sketchy.
Now, nobody has defended Trump's ways harder than I have.
But we're at the point in the narrative where if he doesn't give us a narrative that explains what we've seen so far, you have to assume that there's no easy explanation.
Right? Right? But would you accept that?
That if Trump doesn't give you any explanation for why that stuff is in fact at Mar-a-Lago, because I think that looks like a fact.
I don't think the FBI planted it.
I mean, that seems unlikely.
He needs to give us a reason.
I'd also like to know if the documents are all on the same topic.
All right, let's get rid of you.
Are you wondering if...
Are these top secret documents just all over the board?
Or were there some topics that he had more interest in?
Maybe there was some topic that...
Maybe it cleared him of some accusations.
Maybe it was about Russiagate, something like that.
Alright, here's another one. I'm going to test you to see if you know this.
Is it true that Obama took thousands and thousands of documents with him and didn't get in trouble?
True or false? Obama took documents to...
Look at your comments.
Some yeses, some noes.
Some yeses, some noes.
Now, you should feel bad if you're not positive about this answer, because it's so important.
If it were true that Obama did the same thing, doesn't that completely change the story?
So if that's true, then this is nothing but a political attack, right?
But the truth is that Obama did not take any documents outside of procedures.
They're still in the government possession, they're just in a different facility, under government possession.
So Obama doesn't have possession of any of that stuff.
So if you believe the narrative that Obama took thousands or millions of documents and they're in his possession, that never happened.
They were moved to another facility, also under government control.
Bill Clinton had something in his sock drawer, but I don't know if that's a...
I don't know if that analogy works.
Now, how about this?
Does President Trump own any documents he chooses to take?
Let's say they were personal, sort of personal messages, but done in the office.
Does he own anything, just automatically?
Does Trump own anything?
Let's say he just decided he owned it or he declassified it.
The answer is no.
Trump owns zero of those documents.
Which is different from being able to take a picture of it, I guess.
Now, do you know what's the next thing I'm expecting?
Oh my God. I just realized what's coming.
Oh my God.
Do you know what they could ask for?
They, the FBI? They could ask for the phones of every person who was in Mar-a-Lago.
Right? Am I wrong?
They could ask for the phone of every person who was in Mar-a-Lago.
Because phones can take pictures, and anybody who had access to these documents could have taken a picture.
And that would include any inner circle Trump people.
They could get all of their phones and look at everything on there.
Now, legally, they're not allowed to look at everything on there.
But they would. They would.
Has anybody mentioned that yet?
And is there a lawyer on here who can tell me if I'm crazy?
And again, when I ask you for lawyer advice, say, lawyer, you know, say, I'm a lawyer, and then tell me your answer.
Lawyer, colon, yes, they can grab the phones or not.
Can't do it unless there's evidence they did.
Are you telling me that in the context of top secret security documents that had been Let me ask you this.
If somebody went into the SCIF and brought their phone, and then it was known to have happened, could law enforcement force them to give up their phone?
They need a warrant, of course, yes.
But could you get a warrant for that?
Let's say you knew the SCIF took his phone into a SCIF, which I don't believe has happened, but if you knew it happened, Could they say, oh, we need that phone now?
Right? And what's the difference between that and somebody having a phone around those secret documents in Mar-a-Lago?
Yeah, with the Russian investigation they did.
I realize there's no phones allowed in the SCIF, but I'm saying if he snuck one in, would they be able to take it out?
The areas the docks were stored in were funded by the government and protected by Secret Service.
Yeah, I don't know. That might be a gray area, too.
Oh, in the SCIF, your sign-in doc gives up your rights.
Yeah, probably. All right.
Let's see. What else do we not know about that?
Yeah, not much. I saw an estimate from a not-credible source that Russia may have lost 40% of its tanks in Ukraine.
But 40% of its tanks doesn't mean much, because Russia could make a lot of tanks.
And they don't know how many they have in reserve and how many are...
They don't know how many are in storage that could be put back in action in that.
So, I don't know if it's 40%, but...
But even the article that said they lost 40% says it wouldn't slow them down.
So there's nothing in terms of tank losses that will change the direction of the war at this point.
Yeah, they have maybe tens of thousands in storage, but maybe not operational, and maybe they couldn't be made operational.
Because if they've been in storage for a long time, it's hard to make them operational.
Yeah, I think it's the World War II stuff they have.
Fenton v. Clinton case law, the president decides what is or is not personal.
But not in terms of a document.
All right. Tank drivers.
All right. So let me tell you a little anecdote from yesterday about how things work.
Two stories. Number one, I've been trying to sign up for Medicare.
Because I'm at that age, you have to make those decisions.
And all it really does is lower my health care costs.
So I'm in the Kaiser facility.
Do you know how hard it is to sign up for Medicare?
Here's how I thought it would be.
I thought Kaiser and my health care facility would say, hey, you're 65.
If you check this box...
We'll put you on Medicare, but everything's the same.
All your service is the same.
Just check this box.
We know you're 65. Boom, you got Medicare.
That's what I thought. Could you see any reason it wouldn't be that?
But it turns out Kaiser has, they call it senior care.
So if you're trying to Google or figure out how to do it, you can't find it.
Because it's just hard to Google.
You have to dig down layers.
So you can't find it.
So I would like to present myself as a higher-functioning senior.
I still do my job.
I can still read.
I could not figure out how to sign up for Medicare.
So here's the complexity. There's part A, B, and D, all with different characteristics, and there's no guide to tell you which one to sign up for.
I thought, well, something will say, if you're this kind of person, use this one, or if you're this kind of person...
Nope. Nope.
Nothing like that. They're just different things, and you don't know which one you would want.
And you can't find out.
Now, later, if you talk to somebody, you can find out, right?
But you're still guessing.
So one of them, you have higher co-pays, and one has lower co-pays, but you're basically guessing which one's right for you.
Next, they take your one bill that you used to get, and now the government bills you, because I have a higher income, so the government bills me because I have too much income, and then my health care bills me.
So that's the second complication.
Next, I already have health care, but in a corporate way through Kaiser.
Once I sign up for Kaiser's Medicare contract, That doesn't automatically change me from the one I have.
So as of today, I'm paying for two healthcare programs.
Because today the Medicare kicked in, September 1st, for me anyway.
So mine kicked in today.
So I'm paying for the Medicare and Kaiser.
I'm also paying for my regular Kaiser.
Until they open and I can cancel the old one.
Now, if I cancel the old one, I still have my ex-stepkids on there.
I don't know if theirs will get cancelled.
So I have to figure out corporate versus personal, moving some people to personal, what is A, B, or D, when to start.
It's like a three-month process.
There are deadlines. And I couldn't do it.
I couldn't do it.
Could not figure out how to sign up.
Now, what does everybody else do?
I don't think that it's an over-claim to say I'm a high-functioning senior.
What the hell does everybody else do?
Now, I think I've finally got it, like I worked through it, but it's one of the most complicated things I've ever seen.
Now, let's take another example.
Also relative to just wrapping up the last details of my divorce, the last thing that I had to do was transfer one car into another name, right?
How easy is that?
Have you ever done that?
Just transfer an automobile into another name?
It's pretty easy, right? There's a form that's probably in your glove compartment.
It says basically, you know, I own the car.
I'm signing it away.
Here's the mileage. A couple other basic things, right?
So I Google it.
I go, how do you transfer a car?
I can't find it on Google because it's state-dependent.
I couldn't find it on Google.
So then what do you do?
So then I went to my insurance company, AAA, because they do some DMV things as part of their service, and I asked them.
They say, oh yeah, you could come into the insurance place, they have an office, and do some DMV things, but you can't do all of the DMV things.
So now I've got a DMV problem.
There's one place I can go for one part of the process to get the forms, but I actually have to go to the DMV to finish it.
And there's two forms.
One I have to sign, and then one that the recipient has to sign.
And I looked at the forms and I said, okay, since I don't want to meet in person with my ex, because we're at that phase where it's better we don't have contact, I thought, oh, I'll just sign the things I need to sign, and then I'll just give them to her, and then she can complete the process.
And I said to myself, I'm going to try as hard as I can not to miss a place to sign.
Now, here's the complexity.
Two pieces of paper with stuff on both sides.
So there's just four pages.
And my only task was to find all the places I needed to sign my name.
Keep in mind that these two pieces of paper travel together.
So can you tell me why I had to sign anything more than once?
No. There's no reason.
So, do you think that I successfully found all the places I should sign?
No, I did not. So I wasted a week, because, you know, I gave her the documents and there was a place I didn't sign.
And then she looked at them, and she's much younger, she doesn't have that senior problem, and she looked at them and said, I don't know how to fill these out.
And I thought, oh, thank God, because I didn't know how to fill them out either.
I couldn't figure it out. You couldn't figure out who was the giver, the seller, the lesser, the lessee.
They use all this confusing language and ambiguity.
You're like, I have no idea how to fill these out.
So here's what we did.
We decided to meet at the DMV, and we would stand together at the window, and then the DMV person would tell us how to fill it out, and then there would be no problems.
Do you know who else didn't know how to fill out the forms?
The DMV. The DMV. Didn't know how to fill out the form.
Had just as much problem as we did.
I mean, she's looking at it, and she's like, I think you sign here.
And I look at the place she tells me to sign.
I'm the one giving the car.
And it very clearly says, recipient.
Oh. And she goes, you have to sign here.
I go, okay, so I'm the giver of the car, and you're asking me to sign in the recipient of the car place.
She goes, yes. I'm using the wrong language, but that's basically it.
I go, you're sure that's right?
She goes, yes. Then she was so unsure, she had to call the supervisor over.
And then the supervisor seemed to be a little uncertain.
Now, there is nothing they do more commonly.
Well, I guess there are.
But one of the most common things that the DMV does is change title of a car.
It's like the most basic thing you could do.
And they didn't know how to do it either.
And it was because the documents were so poorly done.
Now, the only problem with Medicare is that whoever designed it designed it so poorly That it can't be figured out by a person.
The way that seniors do it is they get an advisor.
You actually have to hire somebody, which is what I did.
I ended up having my bookkeeper help me out.
So you can't even figure it out without an advisor.
And again, here's what the complexity should have been.
Are you 65?
Yes. That's it.
That should have been the whole process, right there.
It could have been. There was nothing that would stop that for me in the process.
Now, I'm going to dovetail these two stories, which were way too long and boring, into something fascinating.
You ready? This is why the biggest market of the future is going to be greenfield cities.
In other words, a city that's built from scratch where nothing had existed before.
Because these are the problems you can engineer out.
You should get rid of lawyers, contracts, insurance, all of that stuff.
You could get rid of everything from banks.
You could get rid of banks, insurance companies.
Lending should just be through your app.
Basically, 98% of all the paperwork headache, you could make it all go away.
Just make it all go away.
I just lied.
About what? Now, I think that between the fact that our lifestyles have changed and technology has advanced and that regulations stop you from doing everything you want, everything is leaning toward the same thing.
There will be cities that are just built to be more livable.
Get rid of the government? Yeah.
So you could also build the cities with the most limited form of government as well.
That's a good suggestion.
But...
So I've got to do another NPC alert.
So the NPCs say whatever is the most obvious thing you could say that's also unhelpful.
Whenever I talk about...
Homes will be redesigned from scratch.
Do you know what somebody always says?
Oh, tiny homes.
And I say, no, no.
It has nothing to do with tiny.
Tiny homes exist, but that's not what I'm talking about.
Definitely not tiny homes.
Just better, better homes.
And then they say, oh, here's a link to some tiny homes.
I go, no, no, no. No tiny homes.
That's not even in the conversation.
Just imagine it has nothing to do with tiny homes.
It's just better homes.
Here's another company that makes tiny homes.
No! And I don't know what to do about it.
Is there anything I could do for my audience to make you stop saying tiny homes?
We're not talking about tiny homes.
Tiny homes is the wrong way to do it.
That's the wrong way.
When I talk about designing a city from scratch, what does somebody always say?
Communism won't work.
Communism won't work.
What part was communism?
No, no communism.
If I say that some of the facilities might work better if they're shared, somebody will say, oh, get away from me with your communism.
I go, what, is the public library communism?
Is the fact that I can rent a tool Is that communism?
Because I can rent a tool now.
How about those U-Haul trucks?
Communism? Because, you know, we're all just renting the same truck.
I don't get to own a truck.
I have to rent the U-Haul truck.
Bunch of communism, right?
Please, please, if I talk about designing a home, don't say tiny home.
And if I talk about designing a city, don't say communism or socialism or commune.
Those have nothing to do with these ideas.
Nothing. Klaus Schwab is behind U-Haul.
Property is theft.
Are you aware that Elon Musk doesn't own real estate?
Because possessions are problems.
And I've told you that when I go on vacation, one of the biggest reasons I go on vacation is to get away from my possessions.
Especially my dog.
Because they're too much trouble.
All my possessions at work.
Like, today I'll do a whole bunch of things for my possessions that I don't want to do.
So, when Klaus Schwab says, someday you'll own nothing and you'll be happy, I am so on board.
It's something that rich people know that if you're not rich, you haven't experienced.
Your possessions are a fucking pain in the ass, and they don't make you happy.
Now, there are exceptions. People like to collect expensive things, and maybe they get a charge out of it.
I don't. I mean, I've never heard of Elon Musk collecting anything.
Have you? I don't think he has a Russian egg collection, and I don't think he's likely to get one.
But unless you have a fetish for collecting something, possessions are a complete pain in the ass.
If you can lease a car affordably, that's a better way to go.
If you can get a maintenance contract, that's a better way to go.
Oh, a maintenance contract?
You mean socialism? Communism?
No, a maintenance contract.
Yes, I believe that it is literally true that we will own nothing and be happier.
Because that makes perfect sense to me.
Because the ownership of stuff makes me very unhappy.
Now what I do want is access to stuff.
So here's what you confuse.
You think that ownership of stuff gives you access to it.
Like you have ultimate access if you have ownership.
It's not true. Owning it means it's going to be broken a lot of the times.
If you're renting it, it's more likely that it's going to be repaired.
Likewise, if you only took Uber, how often...
Let's say you're in a city where there's lots of Uber.
If you only took Uber, you'd always have a ride.
But if you only rely on your car that you own, 10 days a year it's in the shop.
So now you could argue, oh, Uber isn't that reliable.
But it will be. But my point is, if Uber goes to the next level where there's one on every block, you definitely don't want to own a car.
Unless it's your fetish, right?
Like it just gets you off somehow.
You just love a car.
Well, that's fine. But that's for entertainment.
We don't have your money.
That is correct. So the part about me having money means I just got to the realization earlier, as Elon Musk did.
And you see Bill Gates built a nice house, but he doesn't seem overly possession-oriented.
He seems more about helping the world and stuff.
Why don't you just rent?
Because there's no way I could rent a place that met my basic needs.
So the only reason I own is because renting isn't an option.
If renting were an option, I'd do it.
How big is your house?
19,000 square feet.
But half of it is a tennis court.
So it's about 9,000 square feet for the living area.
and then there's a tennis court that's enclosed.
Rightland Panda says, no way my IQ is 185.
Thank you.
Well, I think you should debate about that in public more.
I think that question needs to be raised.
And your skepticism about my IQ being 185 is exactly what you should be talking about.
There are a lot of topics you could be talking about, but that's the one I think is the most important.
So spend a little more time on that one.
If you have any more comments about my IQ not being 185, I'd like to see them.
Reportedly. That's right, reportedly.
If you don't believe it, look it up.
It's on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia couldn't be wrong.
You have no one to play tennis with.
That's true. But I don't play tennis anymore.
I quit. It was bad for my body.
Who owns the properties then?
Well, I don't know.
Somebody else. Alright.
You don't own something if somebody can easily take it away.
That is correct. Do you own your gun?
Well, it depends how easy it is to take it away.
Alright. Do you grow your own stash?
No. No, that's a perfect example.
All right. Sell the damn house.
And I will eventually.
No, I don't have subscriber mode only.
Gates bought a lot of farmland.
Yeah, but farmland is not a possession.
That's an investment. That's different.
Yeah, owning investments still makes sense.
Alright. When will you put out the fix to social anxiety?
It's out. It's out.
So the social anxiety Video is out.
So look for it in my Twitter feed.
You'll see it in the last week or so.
Look for the one that's got a video.
If you scroll through, there's only a few of them that show a big image of the video.
So if you scroll through my feed quickly, you'll find it.
All right, is there anybody else who's...
Oh, let me ask this.
Is there anybody who's tried yet...
The social anxiety techniques I put in the video and gone into a room and made it work?
Yes. Oh, we got a yes already.
I did a church.
Oh, look at that.
A bunch of people have tried it.
Oh, it didn't work for you.
So somebody says it didn't work, but a bunch of yeses.
Good for you.
The nude photo story.
I did not see that.
Good for you.
All right.
So a bunch of people tried it and reported that it's working.
Good job. Good job, all of you.
Alright, that's all for now, and I'll go do something else.