Episode 1880 Scott Adams: Let's Figure Out Who Blew Up The Pipeline. Get In Here
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Nord Stream pipelines and John Brennon's credibility
People pushing for face masks again
J6 Gaslighters main assumption
If we had pulled out of NATO
President Trump's trivial legal problems
Narcan vending machines
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
You gotta send this tweet and then I'll be right with you.
Watching a cartoonist tweet.
That's the entertainment for the day.
Boom!
All right, everybody.
Finally, I'm here.
You know, one of us was going to be late today, and I'm glad it was me.
Because you're all on time, because you're awesome, and you'd like to take it up a level.
And I think we can do that with a little thing called the simultaneous sip.
Are you ready for the simultaneous sip?
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Now, if you didn't already know, the official Coffee with Scott Adams mug is available for pre-order.
It'll have a little drawing of my bald head on the front.
It'll have the simultaneous sip on the back.
And it'll have the words, ah, on the bottom.
Now, the link is, you can see the link in my Twitter feed today.
And I have to tell you that it turns out that the shipping and packing costs are the majority cost of the mug.
So it's a big old thick, heavy mug.
So it's a substantial mug.
But the biggest cost is keeping it from being broken while they're shipping it.
So we all wanted it to cost about half as much, but unfortunately the shipping just eats that up.
And it's heavy ceramic and it will work on your coffee heater just fine.
I believe we already have over 70 of them have been ordered since I just tweeted it.
We should be blowing through our minimum guarantee pretty soon.
And, alright, you ordered two?
Good. Good.
I guess I need to order mine.
I need to get one too.
All right, well, I'm going to start with the best story of the day.
So CNN had ex-CIA Director Brennan on to talk about the Ukraine situation, and he notes that Russia seems to be losing everything, and it's all falling apart for Russia.
And he believes that Russia sabotaged the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which is Russia's own pipeline.
Now, it had been turned off already, so they'd turned it off.
So it wasn't delivering any gas.
So although it was not delivering any gas, John Brennan thinks that Putin blew it up to really send a strong signal to the West.
And I think it did.
Now, a lot of people don't know where Putin got that strategy of blowing up his own assets.
It's... Originally, there was a military genius who came up with this first.
It's sort of non-obvious, right?
You're like, why would you blow up your own valuable asset?
But, no, it came from...
This is actually military doctrine.
It's more obvious than things.
So there was a famous military strategist named Mel Brooks...
And in his military treatise, it was called, I believe it was called Blazing Saddles.
And there's a scene in there in which we learn to, you hold a gun to yourself and you threaten to kill yourself, sometimes using unpleasant language.
If you threaten to kill yourself, then people won't kill you.
Like, okay, I'm going to kill this person.
Okay, Mel Brooks used different language.
So I think it's really, it looks like the Mel Brooks play.
I think Putin is threatening to destroy all of his assets, maybe one at a time, if we don't give him what he wants.
So that seems quite reasonable, John Brennan.
Now talk about a credible guy.
John Brennan was one of the people who helped collect the 50 Intel prior and current Intel people who said that Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation.
And he's also the same John Brennan who pushed the Russia collusion hoax.
But there's no reason to believe that he's lying this time when he says that Russia attacked itself to teach us a lesson.
And let me tell you, I feel it.
I feel a little bit closer to maybe Ukraine will have to surrender.
I mean, if Russia keeps bombing its own assets, I don't know if any of us are safe.
I mean, what if Putin decides to bomb Moscow next?
What are we going to do?
Would Ukraine just surrender?
I mean, the strategy looks pretty strong.
So yeah, Russia will be attacking itself because attacking Russia, or I'm sorry, attacking Ukraine didn't work out at all.
I think Putin needed to win.
It's like, okay, have we attacked anything successfully lately?
Ooh. You know, the news from the Donbass, not so good.
Not so good. Okay, we need to have some kind of a win.
Can you please attack something successfully?
I need to be able to say we attacked something and we got it.
We got the win. Well, you know, the Ukrainians are really dug in.
Don't tell me what you can't do.
I need a win. You need to blow something up and I need to be able to say that I got that thing.
You know, we're running out of weapons and our soldiers are not really well treated.
No, no.
I need you to blow something up and give me a win.
Well, you know, the only thing we could actually blow up would be our own stuff.
I don't need to know the details.
Just give me a win.
So then the Russian general said, all right, what's the least protected thing we own?
And they thought... Our pipeline?
We could blow that damn pipeline up.
So Putin gets the win for a successful military operation against its own pipeline.
According to John Brennan, has he ever lied to us?
I mean, you can trust John Brennan, right?
I mean, just because he ran an organization whose entire job is lying to us...
And he's documented as the biggest liar in American politics.
Bar none. Bar none.
But this time he's totally telling the truth.
But the funniest thing was watching, I think it was Keillor on CNN, who asked Brennan why he thinks that Putin blew up his own pipeline to teach the West a lesson when the pipeline, they could just turn it off. who asked Brennan why he thinks that Putin blew up She was like, you could just turn it off.
You didn't have to blow it up.
Then I saw some speculation that really it was a clever trick and that Brennan is right.
And here's why.
They blew it up. Because if Putin had not blown it up, he might be legally required to turn it on later to fulfill legal contracts.
So to get out of his legal contracts later, he blew up his own pipeline.
Now if there's one thing that we know is true, Putin is very concerned about his legal agreements.
And he would be willing to bomb his entire country so that people didn't think he'd be the kind of guy who'd say one thing and then do another.
Because that's not the kind of reputation you could have out there.
Perfectly reasonable. Perfectly reasonable.
Because, you know, prior to knowing that Putin was bombing his own pipeline, according to John Brennan, I didn't know if Putin was trustworthy or not.
I didn't know if you could depend on him to keep a deal.
But now that I know he would be willing to bomb his own assets to get out of a deal, well, I trust him more.
And I think that's what he was going for.
He was going for some kind of a business credibility kind of a play.
And I think when you see somebody blow up their own assets so they don't have to deliver what they promised, that makes me trust them.
So I think this hypothesis that Russia is behind the blowing up of their own asset, completely feasible.
Completely. I buy it.
Yep, totally believable.
Now, as a backdrop to this, and don't make too much of a big deal about this, because we know what the story is.
We know Russia blew up their own assets because John Brennan would never lie to us on CNN. That's something we know for sure.
But some people, you know, there's always some rogue...
There's always some, like, goofy bastard who's got some conspiracy theory bullshit, right?
So here's the conspiracy bullshit that's going around now.
There's a video of Joe Biden before the Ukraine invasion saying in public, I know it's ridiculous, but saying in public in the clearest possible terms that if Russia invaded, those pipelines were no longer going to be functional.
Now, some people say that matters.
And the fact that he directly, that Biden directly said, if you do this, we're going to take care of those pipelines.
And he gave you a smile that looked exactly like he meant blowing them up.
Because there's a smile that says, I mean, blowing them up, right?
You have to see the video. Here's how you talk if you don't mean blowing them up.
Mr. Biden, are you saying that you're going to shut down those pipelines?
Yes, we'll use whatever means we can.
We're going to shut down those pipelines.
Okay, that's how you say it if you don't mean we're going to blow them up.
Here's how Biden said it.
So, how will you do it?
I promise you, we can do it.
Now, that's pretty much the blow-it-up face, isn't it?
I mean, I think he told us he's going to blow them up.
And then they blew up.
Now, to me, this looks like nothing but giant energy companies manipulating our government to reduce the competitiveness of their competitor.
That literally is all I see here.
Do you see anything except a giant energy company has control of our military?
And the military is doing the bidding of some energy company in the United States.
That's what it looked like to me.
It looked like it literally was a commercial operation to increase the profits of American gas companies.
Now... I think that's the reason it happened.
Also, maybe have some military, you know, homeland, European protection, whatever.
I mean, that might be good, too.
But, you know, when follow the money works this well, If you can follow the money this directly, I don't know if you need to ask any other questions.
I mean, to me, this doesn't even look like a national interest so much as just an energy company interest.
Now, you could argue, and I'm going to argue this, that when the United States supports its energy industry, Even doing things that you might think are over the line or sketchy or too far or whatever, that the United States does better.
You know, there are a lot of smart people who say, basically, look at the energy situation of any country, and you know everything you need to know.
And that's pretty close to true, isn't it?
If you've got a country that has cheap energy or is a major producer of energy, they seem to always be doing fine.
So if you take care of your energy business, your country is going to be a strong country.
If you don't take care of your energy business and you have to buy energy from other people and that's all you have, you're just a buyer of energy, you're going to be very vulnerable.
So I'm not sure that it's wrong for the country to do things that are literally just good for big energy companies in the United States.
Now, it's like, you know, it's creepy and it's unethical and it's not free markets.
You could find a hundred ethical and moral reasons why we shouldn't do it easily, right?
It wouldn't take any effort at all.
At the same time, having our government and our energy companies basically being one entity and working for each other's benefit...
Actually, it kind of works. It kind of works.
Yeah. I mean, I don't like it.
But strangely, it works.
All right. Can we do this next conversation without some of you just flying out of control?
See if I can just get through this next two minutes.
Without somebody just going nuts on me.
Okay? So there's a trending hashtag for face masks.
No, I hate face masks.
I am anti-face masks.
I hate them. And we're not going to talk about the science.
However, it is trending again because cases are up and people are pushing for face masks again.
Now, in this context...
Some doctor tweeted the studies that he says support face masks.
I retweeted it with the comment, I'm just the messenger.
Now the way you should take that, when I say I'm just the messenger, that means I'm not endorsing it.
That's how you should interpret it.
If I say, hey, look at this, this looks pretty solid, then I'm probably endorsing it.
Or at least I think there's nothing wrong with it.
But if I say I'm just the messenger, you should very clearly see that I'm just telling you what other people are saying so you'd know.
Because I had always wondered why it is that the people on the right say there are no studies that support masks, and the people on the left say there are tons of them.
They're all over the place.
Have you ever wondered about that?
Like, why could it both be true that There are tons of studies saying they work.
At the same time, there are no studies that say they work.
You can't both be true.
So I think maybe I have something close to an answer, which is this list of studies.
It was sort of a study about other studies of masks.
It took about 10 seconds...
For Andres, Backhouse, and other people who know about data, to just rip it about is ridiculous.
So apparently the study happened at the very beginning of the pandemic, when all of our data was bad, and basically it was just a bunch of useless studies that were summed up by another useless study.
Now, if you were non-critical, and you saw that there were a whole bunch of studies in the same direction...
What would you do if you were not very, let's say, sophisticated about how people lie with data?
I think it would be pretty convincing.
Now, let me stop again, because I know a whole bunch of people are flying crazy at home.
No, I'm anti-mask, and I have been from the start.
But the conversation about it is part of the context of America, so I can't avoid it.
So I think the entire thing comes down to this.
I think the entire thing comes down to the people on the left believe the studies because there are lots of them.
But the people on the right don't believe the studies because when you look at them, they don't seem credible.
They just don't seem to be a time period.
It doesn't look like they could untangle all the confounders, all the variables that could affect them.
The most obvious thing is that the people who are likely to wear masks have something in common with each other.
And the country is most likely to do it.
They probably have something in common as a country.
So I just don't know that you can sort it out.
I also don't believe That they would have kept in the study anything that said the opposite.
Right? Because when you do a study of studies, let's say a better study, or even just a study of studies, which would be different, you are deciding what's in and what's out.
What they never do is throw everything in.
Because they always say, well, you know, this one is so big, you don't want to put this one in there, it'll skew things.
Or they'll say, this one is so low quality that even though the other ones are higher quality, you know, we'll throw it out.
So those studies end up being subjective accidentally.
Some meta-studies are well-made, some are not.
Right. And usually we can't tell the difference.
Can't tell the difference. Alright, so is everybody comfortable that I'm anti-mask, period?
Period. Anti-mask.
But now you understand why the left believes they work.
Because there are people sending studies around.
And it's sort of the laundry list thing.
If there are enough studies, it doesn't matter that they're all bad.
Because there are lots of them.
So I think that's the whole story.
Anyway... So the January 6th gaslighters, this just amazes me.
Because every once in a while you have to go back and shake your head at this.
The entire January 6th situation depends on one assumption.
More than one, but one that I care about.
And the one assumption is what Trump actually believed...
Am I right? Because if Trump believed the election was genuinely fake, then why he did makes sense, actually.
It would make sense as a candidate, and it would make sense as a patriot.
It would make sense as an American.
If he genuinely believed the vote was hinky.
Now, the entire January 6th thing depends on him...
Depends on his critics knowing what he really secretly thought that he has never said out loud to anybody that we have any evidence of.
So here's Trump, the person who says everything he thinks.
Am I right? Trump is the person who says everything he thinks.
And yet there's no evidence whatsoever...
In writing, any reports, not even anonymous reports, of Trump ever being inconsistent with his belief that the election was sketchy.
So, why is it that the most unrealistic assumption is underpinning the entire thing, and we don't pay attention to that?
I feel like I'm the only one who's ever mentioned this.
Actually, ever. Have you ever seen anybody else say everything depends on what he was thinking?
And if you were to make two hypotheses of what he was thinking, do you think there's really any chance that he thought the election was fair?
Because he was thinking the same thing that most of the Republicans thought.
Don't you believe that most Republicans thought it was sketchy?
Most. I think most did.
So if he had the same opinion as most Republicans who had the same information he had, we were all just watching TV, right?
He didn't have, like, secret, you know, secret intel.
He was just watching TV like the rest of us.
So if he watched TV and you watched TV and you said to yourself, that doesn't look like a fair election to me, I don't know if you're right or wrong, but say that was your opinion, why would you think he wouldn't have that opinion?
What possible argument could you make that he would singularly believe the election was fair when everybody was looking at exactly the same information at the same time, all the people on his side said, I'm not so sure if that election was fair.
And of course, doing the most obvious analysis you can do, did the Democrats think the election was fair Did Hillary think the election was fair when Trump won the first time?
No. The most common, believable, and ordinary assumption you can make about this situation, as well as when Hillary lost, the most common, ordinary assumption is that the people who lost genuinely believe there's some question about the outcome.
They genuinely believe it.
Now, if I were Trump's team, that's the only thing I would talk about.
I'd say, are you making the case that you believe the president actually thought he lost, when nobody else thought that?
Now, it's separate from the argument of whether he really lost.
So you know their trick is to argue whether or not it's true.
Whether or not it's true that the election was fair has nothing to do with this.
Because nobody was operating on the truth, because it was unknowable.
There was a suspicion, but at that time, it was pretty hard to know what was true and what wasn't if you were biased toward thinking the election was rigged, as the Democrats were when they lost, as the Republicans are when they lost, as the Democrats will be again if they lose.
You don't think the Democrats are going to say the election was rigged if they lose the next election?
Of course they will. Do you think they'll believe it?
Yes. Yes, I do.
I do think they'll believe it.
That's how it works.
So, now, am I wrong that everything follows from that assumption?
Am I missing anything?
The entire understanding of that day has everything to do with what Trump secretly actually believed about the election.
Because if he believed that that was rigged and he didn't do a fucking thing about it, I wouldn't vote for him.
Would you? I mean, I don't vote anyway.
But seriously, if he believed it had actually been rigged and he did nothing, didn't complain about it, just sort of slunk off to his retirement, he wouldn't be the person you thought you voted for the first time if he did.
And I'm not sure you'd want any president to be like that.
I mean, I want my president to say what he believes and to act on it.
And insanity defense?
It wouldn't be an insanity defense because most Republicans believe there was some problem with the election.
Now, just to be clear so I don't get banned, I'm not aware of any proof of election irregularity as scale.
I'm not aware of any.
But would I be? I'm not sure I would be.
He told them to go down and peacefully protest.
Now, he did, of course, want to do...
wanted Pence to delay things.
And there are smart people who say, that wasn't legal and you can't do that.
And I guess that's the bipartisan bill that even...
even Schumer is willing to say something about the electoral votes.
You don't want to play with them after the election.
And that's probably, I haven't looked at it, but probably a good idea.
I mean, if it's bipartisan, probably a good idea.
All right. Who's the most perfect election of all time?
Well, I've said many times that it's a miracle that all 50 of our election systems work perfectly, we are told.
And yet, every other organization and system that we know about is completely corrupt.
Which we know, for sure.
You'll have to wonder.
We know that now.
Is the FBI corrupt?
Yeah, yeah. Yeah, we know that.
That there's no longer in question.
All right. Have I complained too many times about how my critics like to come into my tweets and compare me to Garfield and other comics?
And it's usually, it looks like this.
Oh, the Garfield guy again.
Or, here comes the Beatle Bailey guy to say something.
And it took me a while to figure out that these were compliments.
They're attempts at insults, but do you see what they get wrong?
It took me a while to notice.
Why is it that it's an insult to call me Garfield?
What makes that an insult?
It makes it an insult because the person saying it believes that everybody who sees that understands that Garfield is a less good comic than Dilbert.
Right? Am I wrong?
The reason they would call me these other cartoons, the whole point of it, is they believe the other cartoons are of lesser quality.
You know what they don't call me?
Peanuts. And they don't call me Calvin and Hobbes.
Although I have seen that, but that's rare.
Do you know why? Because my critics believe that those two comics are unambiguously better than Dilbert.
So do I. I mean, most people would agree with that.
So they call me the lesser comics because the whole point of it is that they're not as good as my comic.
And every time it happens now, I'm thinking...
I feel like you just complimented me, because this wouldn't even make sense.
The entire point of the insult is that that other comic is a lower quality than mine.
Yeah, Kathy. Now, I'm not saying that they're lower quality.
I'm saying that that's the whole point of people saying it, is that they believe they're lower quality.
So thank you for the compliments.
I appreciate it. Keep them coming.
Here are some things that I read about myself in the past week.
So if you wonder, Scott, do you ever get much trouble online?
Do you ever get bothered by things that people say to you online?
Well, not that much.
But here are some things I got called this week.
A Holocaust denier.
And it is alleged that I believe that rape is okay because it's natural.
That's-- That's actually a widespread opinion about me on the internet.
It's a widespread opinion that I believe that rape's fine, it's just natural.
Somebody actually thinks that was my opinion, or is my opinion.
Okay. Fine.
And people also believe that I'm an anti-mask crusader who is secretly trying to get you to all wear masks.
So at the same time that I'm one of the most notable critics of masks, spent a lot of time notably talking about not wearing my mask in required masking places, trying to mobilize people to get rid of their masks, and so that makes me pro-mask.
If they read my mind, they can see that, like on the inside, even though on the outside I'm totally anti-mask, but on the inside they can see that because of the things I tweet, they can tell...
They can tell that because even though I don't wear a mask because I'm so afraid that I'm really pro-mask.
So there are books coming out, more books about Trump, of course.
And they're running out of insults.
Every book that comes out about Trump, they've got to have a new, you know, thing...
But they're running out of the good ones.
So here are some new books, and it doesn't matter who wrote them.
It doesn't matter at this point.
It wouldn't matter if it's Maggie Haberman or somebody else.
But these are somebody else. But they're in the news today.
So one of the things is that Trump was way more serious about buying Greenland than you knew.
He was actually really serious about buying Greenland, and he made an argument that it's sort of close to our domain and would be valuable to us, and Denmark wasn't using it for much anyway.
But apparently he actually negotiated with Denmark to some degree.
He was actually trying to get it.
Now, is that a criticism?
Is it a criticism that Trump literally tried to buy Greenland?
That feels like the opposite of a criticism.
Don't they have valuable minerals?
Isn't it geopolitically, you know, geostrategically important?
I mean, that should have been framed as a compliment.
Now, the fact that it didn't happen...
Is that an insult?
Or is that a criticism?
No, it was a long shot.
It was a long shot that cost him nothing except embarrassment.
And he was willing to take the embarrassment for the potential of maybe having an upside that would be amazing.
I mean, again, it looks like a criticism that's more of a compliment.
I want the president who does that.
All right, here's another one. Here's another criticism...
They have to say, I don't know.
Is that really a criticism?
One of the books claims that Trump was way more serious than you thought about withdrawing from NATO. Is that a criticism?
What would be happening in Ukraine right now?
Well, I don't know.
But it wouldn't be costing us money.
I don't know. Maybe Ukraine would have just rolled over and Putin would own Ukraine and we wouldn't have known the difference.
And we'd be getting our Ukrainian wheat and Europe would be getting their stuff and Ukrainians' corrupt government would be putting out of business and it would go back to sort of how things used to be where, you know, Russia dominated that country.
Now, that would be bad for the Ukrainians.
I mean, I guess they would say that.
I don't know. Maybe some wouldn't.
But can we say that Trump was wrong about withdrawing from NATO based on what we know today?
It's actually not obvious, is it?
You could certainly make the case that it's a good thing we're in NATO, it's the only thing that stopped Putin, and that would be a strong argument.
But you could also make the case that maybe none of this would have looked this way if he had pulled out of NATO and Putin didn't feel threatened.
The other possibility is that Putin wouldn't feel threatened by having NATO on its doorstep if America was not part of NATO. I mean, everything would have looked different, wouldn't it?
So, I don't know.
I'm not saying it would have been a good idea to pull out of NATO. That's not my opinion.
But it's not obvious which was the right way to go.
It's just not obvious.
Now, I think that also when he talks about pulling out of NATO, that could have been a negotiating position as well.
So he may have been really serious about pulling out if the other countries didn't step up with money.
You get that, right?
He could be totally serious about pulling out if you don't give us more money.
But then other countries gave more money.
So I don't know if he still was as adamant about pulling out, but I think he was serious if they didn't give more money, which I would have agreed with, actually.
I think you did have to threaten to pull out if they didn't cough up more money.
I think that part was right.
And then his aides worried that he might try to start a war with Iran or North Korea because of his crazy ways.
Neither of those things were even close.
LAUGHTER He wasn't close to a war with Iran.
He wasn't even close, I don't think.
Was he? I didn't see anything that looked even close.
It looked like he was just going to boycott them forever or whatever.
And what about North Korea?
North Korea is one of his success stories.
He took the temperature way down in North Korea.
I mean, what was he going to do?
Nuke North Korea, his friend?
So the books have completely run out of material.
Think about his legal troubles.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but not counting January 6, for which no indictments are likely to come, say the experts.
His biggest legal risk at the moment, correct me if I'm wrong, because there might be one I'm missing, is a civil case.
Against Trump the company, not even against Trump himself.
So not criminal, and not even against Trump.
Am I right? That's his biggest risk right now.
And what is the power of the case?
The entire case, let me summarize it.
The Trump company handled their accounting the way all normal companies do.
That's it. That's the case.
They did things exactly the way normal companies do.
They took the highest number they thought they could get away with when valuing it for loans, and then they got a loan, and then they paid back the loan, and then the bank was happy.
But when they were doing their property tax assessment, you want the lowest number you can get away with there, he went the opposite way.
Like everybody. Like everybody.
Now, he may have exaggerated, or the Trump company may have exaggerated more than other companies do.
And that would be worth discussing.
But no matter what it is, it's going to be a civil find.
It's not exactly the crime of the century to have exaggerated more when you are the company that exaggerates more and your entire business model is built on your brand.
The Trump brand is the value of the business.
And so when you expect somebody whose entire business model is about telling people their brand is better than maybe it is, that's his whole business model.
So if he did it consistently everywhere, he told everybody that he was better than maybe somebody else thinks, I don't know.
It might be a crime.
Like, you might be able to find a jury who says, yeah, that's slightly a crime.
That's a little bit more exaggerating than I think you should have done.
So maybe you should pay a fine.
That is just business as usual for every company.
Every big company that gets audited, do you think they get away from the audit with nothing?
Do you think there's nothing?
Just pick a company.
Just pick any company.
Pick Google. Do you think if Google got audited, they'd end up paying nothing?
Sometimes, maybe.
But it's very common that a traditional company gets audited and pays a little extra money because they exaggerated something.
That's how it happens.
They exaggerate stuff. Or minimize things.
So just think about the fact that what the remaining complaints about Trump I've all just kind of dissolved.
So the January 6th thing has turned into nothing.
They're trying to breathe some life into it with the jaws of life today, I guess.
So they're trying to make the nothing into something.
But January 6th proved there was nothing.
At least nothing of criminal, indictable quality.
Now, all of his other legal problems have gone away, except that trivial one that really is a nothing.
What's left? What's left?
Anything? So he wasn't colluding with Russia.
I mean, what's left?
The only thing left is how his performance would be compared to Biden.
Now, of course, Democrats look at Biden and say, yeah, he's killing it.
He's doing great. And Republicans say the opposite.
Oh, they have the lady who claimed that he raped her in a dressing room in a store, Jean Carroll.
So I guess she's doing her lawsuit again.
But nobody thinks that's going anywhere, right?
Isn't that just a he-said-she-said situation?
That's the end of it. On Twitter today, Musk said he would discuss buying into Rumble.
Oh, shit! Did that really happen?
Did that really happen?
Holy shit. What's the price of rum right now?
Can somebody check the stock price?
So rum was $12 yesterday or this morning.
Oh, he was asked to and he declined.
Oh, come on.
All right. He was asked about it and he declined.
What? Don't get me all excited about that.
Now, you know the reason I'm excited is because I'm an investor.
So I invested in the Locals platform, which got combined with Rumble, so I ended up accidentally with some Rumble stock, which turned out to be the best accidental investment I ever made.
Yeah. Rum is worth a shot.
Nicely done. Rum is worth a shot.
Okay. Well done.
Alright, question.
How many of you think that Elon Musk is secretly bankrolling the Babylon Bee?
Because if you notice that the Babylon Bees, let's say their budget seems to be way better than it used to be.
The quality of their content and also the volume of it is suspiciously very good.
Now, it's not suspicious that they're good.
Because, you know, they're good.
But, you know, you saw Elon Musk met with them.
Obviously, they got along.
They have some kind of connection, the founders of the Babylon Bee.
Now, wouldn't that be the number one most likely thing you'd ever expect?
You'd expect him to secretly bankroll it just because it's funny?
If I had his money, nothing would have kept me from giving some of it to the Babylon Bee.
Am I right? Assuming that money's no object, which is a fair assumption, money's no object, and you know he liked him, and you know he likes poking the bear, if they didn't get money from him, I would be amazed.
I'd be amazed.
Because their quality of the operation just went way up.
All right. You would like to have a reframe for how to get women.
Do you think I can give this gentleman a reframe that will help him in his dating success?
Yes, I can.
Yes, I can. Here's your reframe.
You're trying to find the right woman.
And you're not finding the right connection.
Stop looking for the right woman.
Look for lots of people.
You want to increase the number of people you're exposed to.
Not just looking for dates.
Just the total number of people you're exposed to.
And that's how you increase your odds.
Because, while I don't think it's necessarily true there's somebody for everybody, there probably isn't, But if your entire universe of people you're looking to get laid is 3 people, your odds are low.
If suddenly you increase to 10 people you're looking at to have sex with, a little bit better.
But if you're not, you know, top 20%, still low.
If you know 100 people, well, now you're talking.
Now you're talking. There's somebody who's going to be looking at you, too.
So the reframe is, it's about numbers, it's not about necessarily just your quality.
But I'm going to make a prediction.
Whoever it is who just said, you know, you're having trouble getting women, I'm going to make a prediction that when you take your clothes off and you look in the full-length mirror, you're not delighted.
Now, I don't mean that as an insult, just a purely practical statement of cause and effect.
If you go into the gym and you have a job...
You're going to have some interest from the other sex.
I know. It's not fair.
It's not a fair world.
But get your body in shape.
Alright, so here's...
I might lose my power on the locals' feed because I'm getting a low battery message.
So I can make that stop if I plug you in instead of using the microphone, I guess.
Yeah, I don't have the power for that.
Never mind. Oh, I do. Hold on.
All right, locals, you're going to lose the microphone.
But you're going to gain power.
All right. So that's the...
Gaining power is why you're here.
Yeah. Yeah, it helps to be tall.
Yeah. But...
I don't know how many more times I could give this advice.
Have you walked down the street lately and looked at your competition?
I mean, seriously. Just go to the mall, go to any public place, and just look around.
See what you're competing with.
What would it take to be in the top 10% of fitness for just the people you see around?
Just look around. What would it take to be in the top 10%?
Not much. Not much.
Top 10% of fitness is the most achievable goal in the United States.
I can't even imagine anything easier than that.
Maybe falling off a bicycle, right?
Maybe jumping in a mud puddle.
That would be easier than...
But being in the top 10% of fitness just means you tried.
I don't even know if you could fail if you tried.
I mean, if you started at 400 pounds, it's going to take you a while to get there.
But unless you're grossly, you know, you've let things go too far, it's not hard to get back into the top 10%.
And why wouldn't you do that?
It's the most controllable thing you can do.
So control the hell out of what you can control.
Just control everything you can control.
So if you controlled, you know, your career stuff by training, making sure you're trained enough, you can have a reasonable job, and you can control your fitness and your diet, same thing, you're going to be in the top 10%.
You missed the part about blowing up pipes, you're late.
Alright, so that's my statement.
Am I obsessed with fitness?
That's kind of body shaming too.
Well, I guess you could put a negative spin on everything.
But I wouldn't say I'm obsessed by it.
Oh yeah, I guess I am.
I'll actually accept it.
Usually I don't like that, obsessed by, because I have a little judgment in it.
But I think in this case I am obsessed by it.
And I should be. So I would like you to be obsessed by it as well.
It's probably the best obsession I have.
Here's another hypothesis and reframe for you.
You ready? You don't have an option of not being addicted.
Let it go. Let it go.
You do not have an option of not being addicted to something.
I don't think.
Now, of course, people are different.
There's going to be somebody who's the exception to everything, so I'll give you that.
But for the average person, you're going to be addicted to something.
It's going to be sex, it's going to be food, it's going to be exercise, it's going to be the outdoors, it's going to be your animals, it's going to be your friends, something.
You're going to be addicted to something.
So instead of saying, I'll try to avoid all addictive things, you should go aggressively at At trying to make yourself as addicted as possible to things that will be good for you.
So I'm addicted to exercise intentionally.
I've done everything I could do to make myself addicted.
I've given myself treats.
I make sure I do things I like.
I don't push myself too hard.
I don't hurt myself too badly.
I do everything you could do to make it a rewarding, literally rewarding.
I do it at a time of day that it's going to be the best.
It recharges me. You know, I track How I feel on days I exercise versus I don't.
It's a big difference. That helps me do it.
I have a trick for going to the gym when I don't want to go to the gym.
I've taught you this before.
Put on your gym clothes, especially your footwear.
And just having the right clothes on and walking around will make, well, I might as well at least...
Go for a short run. You know, I got my clothes on.
So I do everything I can do to addict myself to a positive thing.
So obsession actually is close enough to the right word.
Desire and seeking is human trait.
Can I do some push-ups for you?
Women look at men's shoes.
Now there's a good tip. Whoa, David Neagles just paid $50 to tell me that Narcan vending machines are being installed in cities.
Hello. Here's what I'd like you to do.
We're going to go save some lives.
Are you ready? Now, I said this last night on my Man Cave livestream, but I'll do it again for you today.
One of the things that this experience does, meaning this livestream that many of you come to every day, is that it's more than just some content I'm spraying out.
We have formed an entity, accidentally, sort of like an accidental organization, in which we have a collaborative intelligence that can actually solve some problems.
And one of the problems with fentanyl overdoses is bad information.
So, if you had better information, you would know, for example, that Narcan is something you could get at your drugstore, and if you had it nearby and somebody was going into an overdose situation, and you got there quickly, I don't know exactly how quickly it is, but while they're still alive, and you administer it, and I guess you don't have to be an expert to administer it, it's pretty easy to do, the odds of them living are very good.
It's actually very effective.
The number of people that are watching this, so we've got, let's say, 3,000 live here, 600 over here, probably 40,000, 50,000 people will catch this live stream.
I'm going to ask all of you to do the following thing.
Research how you could get Narcan in your state, because every state's different.
In my state, you can have the pharmacist write the prescription.
I didn't even know that was a thing.
All right? So Carrie found that out and has also spread that news to San Diego State University.
So because of this live stream, One active member went and figured out how you get Narcan in California.
Just go ask for it and get a prescription from the pharmacist, not a doctor.
And then she spread that information into a parent group at San Diego State University.
Now the parent group was very active and they were all over it because there had been a couple of fentanyl scares just that week.
So it was like fresh in the parent's mind, oh god, the people are dropping like flies, even where my kid goes to school.
Now they were, I believe, some number of them will get it for their kid to have at college or something.
Now, there are also some apps.
I think PulsePoint is one app that calls for people who know first aid, I believe.
But I think within that umbrella, you could call for people who, if you sign up for it.
If you had Narcan, I believe you would get notified if somebody had that app and saw somebody having an overdose.
Because they'd be calling for anybody who had first aid, and you'd have that.
I believe. So, here's what I'm going to ask each of you to do.
Get educated on how Narcan is obtained where you are.
And then tell your friends.
If you have a place to spread the information, just spread the information.
Because I don't see the government doing this.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Joe Biden should go on television and say everybody should get Narcan or have it available.
It's different in each state, so go figure out what it is in your state and just self-organize.
So I don't have mine yet, but I'll get mine the way Carrie suggested.
I'll go get mine. And then when I have it, my neighborhood is organized, so we have text messaging lists and stuff.
So I'll send out a WhatsApp message to my neighbors, and I'll tell them that I have it.
So if anybody in my neighborhood has an overdose, there it is.
And I'm also going to tell them that if I'm not home, That I can open my garage door with my app, and I'll just tell them where to get it.
So if somebody can get to my house in five minutes, and all of my neighbors can, they can have Narcan in five minutes.
And maybe ten minutes, they're back to administer it, if that's in time.
I think you do have ten minutes.
Does anybody know enough about this to know How often do you have enough warning that you can get to the Narcan?
Do you know how much time you normally have there?
I mean, everything's different, right?
But you're talking about just a few minutes.
So you need it close.
Now, I believe that if we do what some of you will do, because I know you take it seriously, some of you will do this, and I think we can save some lives.
I believe that this live stream literally will save lives.
And... You know, I'm going to act on it.
I hope you do too. Alright?
How do you know if someone is overdosing on fentanyl?
I don't know. You should research that as well.
Usually you know because they've been taking opioids, and somebody usually knows they've been taking them.
And correct me if I'm wrong, it's for opioid overdose, not just fentanyl, right?
Can somebody give me a fact check on that?
So you don't need to know it's fentanyl.
You need to know that opioids were involved.
Or, failing in that, you need to know that they're a person who might do opioids, and you don't know what else they've done.
So I think you might want to administer it in some cases if you're not sure.
But again, I'm not your doctor, so don't believe anything I tell you about that.
So that's what you need to look at.
And it probably says something on the box about when to use it, right?
I would imagine it comes with instructions.
And Carrie Chabot is the one you need to thank for spreading that message.
Yeah. All right.
And then I think there's also something being contemplated about the Good Samaritan problem, that you would have legal liability if you help somebody and things go wrong.
No problem giving it to someone who does not need it.
We have somebody who seems to know what they're talking about.
So you don't need to worry about if it's the wrong time to give it.
You don't need to know if for sure it was fentanyl.
It could have been any opioid.
And if they're still alive, give it to them.
I guess that's the bottom line.
It's not looking good in Florida.
So how many of you are in Florida?
And are you looking at a Category 5?
Is that what I heard? And you're not leaving?
Now for Category 5, do you stay?
Do you stay home if it's Category 5?
Grab a surfboard?
Yeah. Wow.
Virginia also has training.
Good. So it'll be a 4 or 5, right?
So DeSantis says to hunker down.
Basically a cat five, so you're close to five.
Okay.
What if somebody wants to commit suicide by fentanyl?
Well... I don't know.
Do you really need an answer for that?
I mean, that sort of depends on the situation.
But I can't imagine that you wouldn't try to bring it back.
Alright. You won't get in trouble if you call for help, even if you're on opioids yourself.
That's true. That's true.
Yeah, if you didn't know that, the emergency services, they're not going to arrest you.
They're not calling the police because you have opioids in your system.
That's not happening. Because they know that that would make everything worse.
They're pretty good about that.
I don't think you need to worry about that.
I've never heard of anybody being in trouble because the ambulance picked them up.
That's not a thing. I wouldn't want to have any on me.
But even if you had it on you, I feel like the medical community would not be turning you over to the police.
I don't think so.
What do you think? I mean, there would always be an exception.
But I can't see the medics, even if they saw some illegal drugs, I think that they would just sort of, you know, leave them in your apartment when they took you.
I just don't think they're taking those with them.
All right.
Yeah, the cops do come, but I don't think the cops are arresting you for having some possession if you're in the...
I mean, if you have a user number of pills and you're having an overdose, I don't think they're arresting you.
I don't think so.
But I suppose I could be wrong.
Don't know. Everything could be different.
All right. Do what presidents should say, Cass.
You know, I always find it...
It's obnoxious when people do the, here's the letter that the president should write to make everything better.
And then you read it and you're like, eh, no, not really.
That's not really the letter they should write.
It just feels like telling somebody like Trump what to say specifically is kind of obnoxious.
Saying it generally, like, you know, this would be a good phrase to use, then that makes sense.
Dear Putin, if I were your mother, right?
Klobuchar said, vote Democrat and the hurricanes will disappear.
Did you see Don Lemon trying to get the NASA guy to blame climate change for the hurricane?
He couldn't get the NASA guy to bite that any one hurricane could be attributed to climate change.
Now, the NASA guy didn't poo-poo climate change.
But Don Lemon wanted to make it political, and the NASA guy is just like, it's a hurricane.
He just wasn't having any of the politics.
It was funny. It wasn't NASA, it was National NOAA. National what?
Organization of blah blah.
Uh... Alright.
Well, I guess we don't believe any data anyway.
I'm going to go do something else.
And I think we saved some lives today.
What do you think? Yeah, let's go save some lives.
And get your mug.
Erica, what's the latest mug count?
How many mugs? That's right, you probably don't have that right now.
I'll follow up on that later.
Alright, that's all for today.
Yeah, it was a light New Year's Day.
That's all you needed today.
That's all you needed. You didn't need anything else.
Alright. It's hit on your ex-day.
Okay. Response to Tim Pool and Civil War.
Well, I don't know that it requires a response, but I guess the question would be, if I thought that Republicans would be hunted, why would I think there would not be a civil war?
And I just don't think that those two are very close.
I think that the way the civil war will be is people will vote.
As long as a vote is coming up, you're not going to have a civil war.
You might have to worry if somebody didn't like the vote.
If it went poorly, things could get tense.
But I don't see any situation where a civil war happens two years before an election in the United States.
Do you? Especially when the other team looks like it's ahead in the polls.
Nobody's going to start a hot war when they can wait two years and just vote in the other guy or other woman.
Right? And I think you just have to remind people of that and they'd be like, oh, okay.
Yeah. So individuals and politicians will hunt Republicans.
But that's a long way from the whole country wants to go to war with each other.
There's nothing like that brewing.
Yeah, haunted wasn't meant like with a hunting license and an Elmer Fudhatton.
No, exactly. What is the diameter of the bottom of the mug?
I don't know, but it's a 20-ounce mug.
It's similar to the one that you see me use when I do the simultaneous sip.
What's that? You're not telling the truth and you're saying things that are killing people.
What?
What am I saying that's killing people?
What?
All right.
If you need a link to the mug, see my Twitter feed this morning.
It's near the top. Alright.
That's all for now, YouTube.
I'll talk to you tomorrow. Oh, I helped you in your last relationship with the reframe.
