Episode 1881 Scott Adams: Who Blew Up That Pipeline? Only Trump Can Negotiate Russia/Ukraine Peace?
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Fentanyl test strips
Trump's offer to negotiate Russia/Ukraine peace
John Brennon's history of disinformation
Organized troll teams for personal attacks?
Who blew up the Nord Stream pipelines?
Olivia Wilde's comments about Jordan Peterson
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Yeah! And amazingly, Nearly 600 Coffee with Scott Adams mugs have already been pre-ordered.
See my Twitter feed at the top if you'd like yours.
But if you'd like to make do with whatever kind of empty vessel you have for the highlight of civilization, the simultaneous sip, well, you came to the right place, and all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better except Russian pipelines.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go. How do you order the mug without being on Twitter?
Simple. All you need from Twitter is the link.
You don't need to be on Twitter to see my Twitter feed.
So just go to Twitter and look for at Scott Adamsays, and you'll see the link there.
Or maybe Erica will print the link here on Locals.
Anyway, Florida is recovering from a big old storm.
Do you know there's no news that's less interesting and yet more important than hurricane news?
Because hurricane news all sounds the same, doesn't it?
Well, here's a flood.
Look at this house.
But yet there are actual people dying and losing everything.
So I have these mixed feelings.
It's like I'm bored at the same time.
It's like a horrible tragedy.
And I think to myself, well, I shouldn't be bored.
That feels wrong.
But it does look like Florida avoided the worst of it.
Now... Can we conclude that this hurricane was caused by climate change?
Well, it depends who you ask, doesn't it?
It depends who you ask.
So, let's see, the Washington Post, let's see how they handled it.
The Washington Post said...
So here's how they handled it.
Quote, Ian is the name of the storm.
Ian was the latest storm to undergo, quote, rapid intensification, which scientists say is occurring because of human-caused climate change.
Now, wait. Let me, like, be really careful about that sentence.
Let me read it again. Ian was the largest storm to undergo rapid intensification...
So they're saying that this storm did undergo rapid intensification.
And scientists say that rapid intensification is occurring because of human-caused climate change.
But does it mean that this particular storm rapidly intensified because of climate change?
Do you see the high degree of weasel science that went into the sentence?
They've somehow taken the fact that there's no evidence that these two things are connected, but they used language to connect them anyway.
And they really had to work hard.
They had to use a big hammer.
It's like, how about, say, it's occurring because of, but not necessarily this one, but we'll leave out the not necessarily this one part and see what they think.
Joy Reid, of course, is more direct and blames climate change for this storm as well.
So if there's one thing we know for sure, if things are getting worse, it's because of climate change.
And whenever things are getting better, it's because of...
It's not because of climate change, you fucking idiot.
That's just naturally occurring things, unless it's the other direction.
And then it's just not a naturally occurring thing.
It's proof of climate change.
And we definitely don't see the pattern.
Nope, there's no pattern here.
No pattern here at all.
Don't see any pattern. We'll talk about some patterns in a minute.
So apparently there's some kind of hoax about me online.
Have you seen this one yet?
There's a hashtag and a whole hoax about me.
Apparently the hoax is that I've offered, which I did not, so this is not true, a $300,000 prize for whoever suggests the best way for me to kill Dilbert in the comic strip.
I'm not sure where it started, but I love to wake up and see people trying to win a prize.
So a number of people think it's true they're trying to win a prize.
It is not true.
Do not be waiting for your $300,000.
But you know the funny thing about this prank, which actually is pretty funny?
If I ever decide to kill Dilbert, which is a definite possibility, Somebody's going to think I took their idea, no matter what I do.
Somebody's going to say, that was my idea!
And then they're going to sue me for $300,000 for their prize.
I'm like, oh, really?
You can see it coming.
Somebody's going to be really mad that I stole their idea, which I probably never saw, or was an obvious idea.
Alright, that's coming toward me.
So Bruce Willis sold the rights to his, I guess his image, to a deep fake company so that he can keep making movies after he no longer makes movies.
You know, he's got some kind of voice brain problem that will prevent him from making movies in the future.
So he actually was the first one to essentially license himself To the digital beyond.
And he's kind of the perfect one for this, isn't he?
Because you wouldn't want a comedic actor to be the first one, because he probably couldn't pull off the nuance of humor, but an action star?
And Bruce Willis is actually kind of almost a generic-looking human, isn't he?
Right? I mean, I say that as a generic-looking human myself.
You know, bald white guys.
He's basically a bald white guy.
So he's kind of perfect.
I'm surprised he beat me to it.
I wanted to be the first deepfake to license myself.
But actually, I'm going to go further.
I'm going to go, instead of licensing myself, I'm not that valuable, public domain.
So anybody who wants to make a robot or an AI based on me, public domain.
You have my permission. I am publicly giving it to you right now.
So I guess Biden had another gaffe at his latest event.
He asked, where's Jackie?
Where's Jackie Spears? The answer to that question, tragically, is dead.
She's dead. She died tragically in an accident months ago.
But he thought she'd be there, and he was asking about her.
So one thing we know about Biden, he will never be the subject of the sixth sense.
He cannot see dead people.
He cannot see her.
Alright, I saw it in the Rasmussen Report Twitter feed.
They report that Fulton County in Pennsylvania is suing Dominion over what they allege are known vulnerabilities in their system.
Now, if I understand the issue, the issue is not that they found any fraud.
So the issue is not that they found any fraud.
The issue is that they're claiming Dominion had certified their machines as being free from certain vulnerabilities, and now they have determined, in their opinion, that those vulnerabilities exist, which would mean that the votes that were delivered by these machines would be somewhat invalid, because they would have been delivered In a system that was supposed to meet a certain standard but did not.
Now, that's not enough to overturn an election, I don't think.
No matter what they found, I don't think that's going to overturn any elections.
But how surprised are you that an electronic system has vulnerabilities?
I didn't see that coming.
The one thing I knew, or I thought I knew...
Was that every computer system and organization in the United States is thoroughly corrupt, and we know it for sure, except for all 50 separate election systems running across the country, or 52, however many there are. And I was always impressed that they were the only things that didn't have any vulnerabilities.
I wondered why they didn't do that, you know, build that into everything else.
Sort of like that black box, you know, they always find the black box after the wreck, and then the comedians say, well, why don't they build the whole plane out of that black box stuff?
Seems to survive wrecks pretty good.
Doesn't make sense, but it's funny.
So, I guess we'll see.
We'll see what happens with these electronic systems that, strangely, there's a possibility of vulnerability.
Are you aware that there's a thing called fentanyl test strips and you can test your drugs to see if they have fentanyl inside them?
And it works pretty well.
And I guess you don't need to be any kind of a pharmacist or anything to test them.
How many of you knew that?
You can test your drugs to see if it has fentanyl.
Do you know why every drug user is not using the fentanyl test strips?
Because they're not... I don't think they're expensive.
And they could save your life.
Does anybody know? Unfortunately, I know the answer to this without asking.
I didn't have to check with anybody to know the answer.
Do you know why? There's actually an obvious reason that I'll bet you're not going to get.
The answer is because all of the drugs have fentanyl in them.
That's why. Basically, they all have fentanyl in them.
It doesn't matter what drug it is today.
If it looks like cocaine, it's a little bit fentanyl.
If it looks like heroin, it's probably a little fentanyl.
If it looks like Xanax, you know, a fake Xanax, well, it's probably a little bit fentanyl.
Unless it's a real one.
And I'm not sure you could tell.
Right? Except for pot, of course.
I don't think they put fentanyl in pot yet.
Somebody's probably trying. But yeah, if you gave somebody a test strip, they'd have to stop doing drugs.
They'd have to stop doing drugs.
And that's the one thing they're not going to do.
So if you start, yeah, Percocet, right, they all could have fentanyl.
Now, did you know that?
At the street level, they're all fentanyl.
At least a little bit.
Even if it's just like a sweetener on top of something else.
Now, here's the other reason.
Suppose some had fentanyl and some did not, and so then the test strips would be useful, right?
Wouldn't they be useful?
In the case that some had fentanyl and some did not, that'd really help you, right?
Nope. Because the one in your hand is the one you have.
You're a drug addict and there's a pill in your hand, and you don't have another source for a pill.
Are you going to test it for fentanyl?
And if you test it for fentanyl and it has fentanyl, are you not going to take it?
No, you're going to take it anyway.
You're going to take it anyway, because it's the one you have.
That's all that matters.
It's the one you have.
Period. So, imagining that people who would take these drugs in the first place Would also be testing them and then making a decision not to take them depending on how they tested.
That would be true for some small number of people.
Definitely there are some people who would do that.
But the majority of addicts have addict brain, if they're addicts.
Some of them are not addicts.
They're just, they're dying from overdoses, just tiptoeing into it.
But if you have addict brain or you're heading toward addict brain or you're born with addict brain and you're not yet using every day, it's still going to be the same thing.
Do you know why I resist the, what do you call it, what's the colon cancer test?
Do you know why I resist getting that test?
Not just because it's unpleasant.
I mean, that would be a good enough reason.
Colonoscopy. Do you know why I resist?
Because I don't want to find out I have it.
Because the day I find out I have it, I'm basically dead.
Because the quality of my life at that point, meh.
Maybe I can spend the rest of my few good years at the end of my life fighting cancer.
But basically, I'm dead at that point.
In my mind, my life would be over the moment I got diagnosed.
So my personal preference is to not find out even if I have it.
Now, my health provider is very much on the opposite side of that.
Very much on the opposite side.
Now, if you're saying that's irrational or whatever, it's my body.
It doesn't matter if you think it's irrational.
It's my choice. Now, I recognize the irrational of it in terms of the statistical sense, but the way I feel about it is I don't want to know if I've got cancer.
If I have cancer and I can buy a month of not knowing, I would want a month of not knowing, and then whatever happens, happens, because after that I don't care.
All right. That's just me.
But anyway, fentanyl strips, probably a good idea, and if you know anybody who would need to know they exist, Maybe you should get some form, but I wouldn't bet the form on fentanyl strips because it goes against how people think.
Have you noticed that the rhetoric, at least on the Republican side, about fentanyl is ratcheting up quite a bit?
Have you noticed? So on Fox News especially, they're hitting it hard now.
And you're also noticing that some of the language is starting to coalesce around weapon of mass destruction and Mass poisoning.
So the idea that this is not to be treated like a drug, that it actually is a weapon, is now a common framing on the right.
Now, the Rasmussen poll did a poll on...
I hate getting bad news right in the middle of a live stream.
Do not look at your phone when you're live streaming.
Do not pick up your phone.
I wish I didn't see that.
We'll get back to that.
All right, so I want to read the Rasmussen results here.
So the questions were as following.
People were asked, If they knew how many people per year die of fentanyl overdoses.
And so the ranges were less than 10,000, 10,000 to 20,000, 20 to 50,000, or more than 50,000.
Now the correct answer is more than 50,000.
What percentage of the people polled, these are likely voters, what percentage of likely voters knew that more than 50,000 people a year are dying of fentanyl?
Of all of them, both Democrats and Republicans, what percentage?
31% knew the correct number is over 50,000 a year.
Less than a third...
Or is it fewer than a third?
I'm not sure how that one works.
Biggest problem in the country, in terms of immediate death toll.
Biggest problem in the country.
Only a third of the people know it.
Now, there is a difference between the Republican and the Democrats.
So, among the Republicans, 34% are aware that the correct death count is over 50,000 a year.
But Democrats are only 26%.
So 34% compared to 26%, which is fairly substantial.
I like to call that the Scott effect.
Because I don't know if there's anybody on the, let's say, Democrat bubble who is doing what I know I'm doing.
There are several other prominent people who are Maybe associated more with right-leaning everything.
So I think we're just more active on the right in getting the information out.
So congratulations.
And I think that's, you know, I say this a lot, but it bears repeating.
What we're doing right here is important.
Because I'm pretty sure that the group of you who are listening right now are a big part of why Republicans are better informed.
You know, it's the people you talk to as well as hearing it directly.
So good for you.
Apparently you are better informed if you're a Republican.
How serious is it?
Of course, people did know that.
Between the serious and the somewhat serious, 92-3%.
So most of the country knows it's serious, but almost everybody knows it's a serious problem.
But even though almost everybody knows it's serious, even they don't know how serious.
They're still well below 50,000 in their guesses.
So they think it's serious if they think it's 10 to 20,000.
It's over 50,000 and climbing.
It's growing. It's not shrinking.
Has the problem gotten worse?
And of course, people correctly say it's gotten worse.
And here, which party do you trust the most to deal with fentanyl?
What do you think that's going to be?
Who do you think the public trusts the most to deal with fentanyl?
Democrats or Republicans or not much difference?
Slight advantage to Republicans, which disappoints the shit out of me, because I don't think it's a slight difference.
I don't think either of them have a good plan, but I think one of them takes it more seriously than the other.
But that's all.
At this point, that's all that's happening.
One side is definitely taking it more seriously, but nothing's happening.
You know that, right?
There's basically nothing happening.
Now, in the news today, I think Fox News is reporting, that enough fentanyl has been captured at the border to kill everyone in America eight times.
That's only the part they got.
How much do you think got through?
What percentage of it do you think got through?
If the parts they caught would kill everyone in America eight times, I doubt they're catching more than 10%, do you think?
Five or 10%? So probably what he's getting through would kill America, you know, maybe 100 times.
So if you think that improving border security is going to get you a big gain, nope.
Nope. The nature of this drug is it's just too small.
It's just too small.
You can't stop it.
Would you like to see...
I did something stupid last week.
I purported to show you a...
To act out how to beat the border fence with fentanyl.
And I pretended like I had a little baseball-sized piece of fentanyl.
I was throwing it over the wall.
And I realized how dumb that is.
If it's the size of a baseball, you can just reach through the wall.
The wall has slats that are like this wide, right?
You can literally just walk up to the wall and hand it to somebody on the other side.
I mean, you could put like a suitcase through there, couldn't you?
Not a suitcase, but like a briefcase size.
You don't even need to throw it over the top.
You just reach it through.
All right. I saw an analyst talking about the odds of Russia using nukes being very low.
And I liked his analysis because it made me feel good.
So the thinking is this, that Russia is not anywhere near using major nuclear weapons.
Because doing so would be, it's too close to Russia, first of all.
You don't want to nuke your neighbor.
That's the last one you want to nuke, is your neighbor.
So it's very unlikely that the Russian system, even if Russia, even if Putin became crazy, it's hard to imagine that whoever controls their system would launch.
Because there just isn't that reason.
So the real risk is some kind of smaller tactical nuclear weapon.
And I wasn't sure what that would look like in terms of physically what a small tactical nuclear weapon looks like.
But apparently, and this is the funny part, it's on a truck.
Or some kind of transport thing that carries some kind of a smaller missile.
That would have a tactical nuke on it.
Now apparently the state of the Russian fleet of everything that moves is so poorly maintained that one expert thinks they don't really have much chance at all of making the truck work.
So they might have a nuke, a tactical nuke that could work, He says, but you can't get it anywhere near the war, because it would require these big launcher vehicles, and they think there might not be a chance that Russia could even move one of them.
They don't think they could even get one of them up to the war, and it would have to get a lot closer to be useful.
I mean, just think about that.
That's an actual expert.
Now, I don't know how reliable that is, but there's an actual expert who says, based on what I could see, I doubt they could get one launcher to the war zone.
Now, I wouldn't want to bet my life on that, that they couldn't do it, because in war, what is the most common thing you see in war?
Well, they'll never do that right before they do it, right?
It's like the single most common thing in war is to think the other side can't do X and then they do X within a week.
I mean, it just happens all the time.
So I would not say that they can't do it.
That feels unlikely.
But I like thinking it.
I like thinking it.
I don't think they'll do it because it would be...
There's just no way that Putin could survive that.
I just can't see it.
Just can't see it.
Well, what about that...
We'll talk about the pipeline in a minute.
So apparently Trump has offered in a statement that he would be willing to help negotiate peace with Ukraine and Russia.
What's your first reaction to that?
Now, of course, we know it's not going to happen, right?
Because Biden would never allow Trump to have even a chance of a success.
So that's definitely not going to happen.
But suppose he...
suppose it did.
All right, here's my take on that.
I believe that Trump is actually the only person in the world who could pull it off.
And I know, you know, you're going to say, oh, you just say he can do everything and everything he does is good and you never criticize him.
Anybody who's watched me for a while know I criticize Trump all the time.
Ask me about his health care initiatives.
Ask me what he did with fentanyl.
Nothing. I mean, nothing that worked.
So yeah, I got plenty of complaints.
And I think he's too old. I don't think we should have presidents that age.
Although he looks fine. Looks fine at the moment.
But I don't want to take a chance with people that old.
So I have plenty of complaints.
But Trump is the only person that could get that done.
And I feel confident in saying that literally the only person.
There's not anybody else who could do it.
And do you know why? Because Putin might think that Trump is on his side.
And that's the funniest part.
Because the Democrats have been saying that so long and so often that it's possible that Putin believes it.
Putin might actually believe the Democrats that Trump is a little bit too pro-Russia.
And do you know how Trump could get it done?
I think there's only one way he could get it done.
He could propose that Russia join NATO. Isn't that a mindfuck?
Now, I've heard people say it before.
It's not the first time that's been raised, as crazy as it sounds.
Now, given that the whole point of NATO was to defend against Russia, right?
Basically. Basically to defend against Russia.
But isn't the real problem China?
Don't you think that Russia would like to be in a military alliance where China's basically taken off the table?
Because you're going to have to offer something to Putin that he can sell as a real, real gain.
And I think you could sell permanent Russian security.
You could sell them permanent security.
Just join NATO. Now, you say abolish NATO, but I think that would embolden Putin and that moves in the wrong direction.
I think the only way you can neutralize him is bring him onto the team.
Because you could make a case, and again, only Trump could make this case.
There's nobody else who could sell the following thing.
That Russia's future could be great.
Could be great. All Trump would have to do is say, look, you're on the ropes right now, but I have a plan to turn this around.
By the time you retire or die, I could help you make sure that Russia is just killing it.
Just killing it. You know, one of the most powerful countries and just doing everything right.
You just have to work with us.
That's all. And be against China if things go down.
Yeah. It's too bad it can't happen for obvious political reasons, but I'm positive that he could get that deal done.
Or that he'd... Well, I guess positive's too strong.
I'm positive that he'd be the only one who'd have a chance.
And I would like his chances...
At around 60 to 70%.
I think his chances would actually be well over 50%.
That's what I think.
All right. So what about that gas pipeline that blew up?
Some say it was bombed, but we don't have confirmation.
Did you notice any pattern emerging?
Well, I saw John Brennan go on CNN and suggest that Russia had bombed the pipeline that connects Russia and Germany.
And I said that with a straight face.
And I said to myself, where have I seen this before?
What is this familiar John Brennan saying that something that you would normally think would be ridiculous is really the truth?
Oh yeah, there was Russia collusion.
Do you remember Russia collusion?
And John Brennan would tell us on a regular basis, oh yeah, oh yeah, smoke and gun, we got evidence.
There's some Russia collusion there.
But then it turned out that the Democrats were colluding with Russia.
So it turned out that John Brennan was sort of one of the mouthpieces for an operation in which...
Trump was blamed for something that the Democrats were actively doing.
And I thought, wow, you're never going to see something like that again, are you?
And then remember the Hunter laptop.
And who did they trot out to tell us that the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation?
Oh, John Brennan.
Now that's a coincidence.
Two different stories that are obvious disinformation campaigns and confirmed.
We don't have to guess if John Brennan was involved in disinformation.
There's no guessing.
That's now confirmed by all the news on all sides.
That John Brennan is the person who says in public what he knows not to be true to get you to believe it.
Now, here we have John Brennan accusing Russia of attacking something that would be their own asset.
I don't know who owns it, but in effect, it's a Russian asset because they can use it.
In the right conditions, they can use it.
Now, do you not notice that pattern?
Is the pattern not obvious?
If they bring out John Brennan to blame the wrong person, you know everything you need to know.
Now, we know that Biden actually directly said he'd blow it up.
Now, he didn't use those words, but you've seen the video by now.
He said that if Putin invaded Ukraine, the pipeline would be ended, and when somebody asked, how would you do that, he just smiled that, I'm going to blow it up smile, and said, you know, it'll happen.
He didn't say maybe.
If he had to negotiate it with another country, that would be a maybe, wouldn't it?
That would be a probably. Yeah, we'll probably get this done.
But he wouldn't say definitely if it was a negotiation question.
Because you don't want to say we'll definitely get a deal when we talk to Germany, right?
Because that would be sort of an asshole thing to do.
Oh yeah, when we talk to Germany, they're totally going to do whatever we ask them to do.
You can't say that.
So you wouldn't say we're definitely going to make it happen if you had to get any other country's buy-in.
Because you wouldn't know. But if you plan to blow it up, whether you've got buy-in or not, then you know.
Biden said, oh yeah, it's going to happen.
There's only one way you can know it's going to happen.
You know you have the option of blowing it up.
So I think he came as close as you can to admitting it.
Now, here's the weird thing.
I, of course, disliked the Brennan...
I'll call it the Brennan, the John Brennan play.
I disliked it when it was being used domestically against the political party and against Trump.
But if John Brennan is doing it internationally, so he's actually creating a cover story that makes it harder for Putin to complain...
Because the world will think, well, you're complaining, but it might have been you.
We don't know. So basically, it takes Putin's complaints away, at least it softens them, because you can't be sure if it's true.
And so I thought, well, if I were analyzing this as just an American patriot, and I thought blowing up the pipeline was a good idea, which is a separate question, then I'd say, oh, that's pretty good.
I'd say that's pretty good, because now you've created this cover story.
It's ridiculous. How many of you believe that Russia blew up the pipeline because blah, blah reasons?
Some of you do, right?
Some of you actually believe John Bratton.
And I even heard the argument.
I heard the argument was, you know, this takes Europe's ability to ever turn it back on away.
So it's like a strong thing to do.
To which I say, nobody blows up their own stuff in a war.
I mean, not unless the objective is like an immediate save-life kind of objective.
You know, I can see you would blow up your own stuff if it's like a booby trap or some kind of a clever trick or something.
But you're not going to blow up your asset that's just sitting there.
You could just turn it off.
I mean, it's just ridiculous to imagine, just completely ridiculous to imagine that Russia blew up that pipeline.
And I think you actually have to check yourself if you think that's even one of the options.
Now, if I'm wrong about this, I'm going to eat a lot of crow, But I don't think I'm wrong about this.
Do you? I mean, this one looks obvious.
This one doesn't even look like a jump ball.
This one just looks obvious.
All right. So that's happening.
And it also makes me wonder if the expert who said that Russia is unlikely to nuke anybody, it makes me wonder if our military has the same opinion, which is that Russia isn't going to nuke anybody.
We might know that, don't you think?
I mean, it's been a long time, and don't you think that we have an American asset who can at least have a conversation with whoever would launch nukes in Russia, like the actual generals?
Don't you think the generals who would actually push the button have some kind of connection with America by now?
You don't think so? So somebody says, doubtful.
I would think after all these decades of trying to get spies in place and trying to make sure that no accidents happen, I would think that our generals could call their generals directly.
I think that's the case, isn't it?
Can't we actually get on the phone with our actual generals if it's a nuclear issue?
I believe we can.
I believe we can. Yeah, I mean, I need a fact check on that, but I think our generals in charge of nukes can talk to their generals directly just to make sure.
All right, check that. Check that for me.
All right. So what else is going on?
So here's a question.
Do you think that the troll activity is higher than I don't know, maybe on my account or maybe other accounts.
Have you noticed a higher troll activity?
The ones that don't have profile pictures?
It looks higher, right?
Now here's a question I have.
Do you think that the trolls get common instructions on how to attack each person?
Not each regular user, but let's say the blue check people like me.
Because here's what my trolls say, and they almost always say one of these things.
It looks like the trolls are getting a menu, and they say, if you're going to go after this person, use one of these five things.
Because it looks like it, because they look so coordinated.
So the five things that they came after me for are, so no matter what the topic is, so I could be talking about nuclear power or anything, doesn't matter what the topic is, the troll will come in and say something about my dead stepson.
Just like out of nowhere. And lots of times, like it's the most often thing I see.
Or my divorce, which they usually say, they usually characterize that as my wife left me.
I'm not sure if that's how divorce is talked about.
Your wife left you.
Some of them make fun of the dill burrito.
A failed startup from long ago that I was the owner of.
Or they talk about the 77 papers they canceled recently.
Or they make a Garfield reference.
Now here's what I know about all these things.
They seem to be selected As if there's somebody who knows what kinds of things would get under somebody's skin.
And I wonder if the real play here is to discourage me off of social media or to get me to just use it less.
Because that's sort of the only thing I feel.
Like, none of it has anything to do with the points I make.
So they don't embarrass me in public.
They never really make my points look bad because they're just trolls.
Do you think that they're just angry, bad people?
Because, again, it's just these five topics, recently, just these five topics, and they're all on the same five.
Like, they don't come up with their whole new thing, ever.
It looks like there's somebody who has a psychological profile of each blue check on the other team, and when the trolls go out, they make sure that they say the thing that would get under your skin the most.
And I actually feel it.
There's something I call social media poisoning, and I feel like I had it the other day.
Where if you see enough toxic comments, like the really ugly kind, like the kind I mentioned, the really ugly ones, if you see a few, you just brush it off.
But there's some, at some point, the weight of it, you can actually feel it.
It's like when I open social media, here's my experience.
Well, let me give you, I'll back up and give you the persuasion frame on this.
If you want to start exercising every day, and you go to exercise and you go until it hurts, you say to yourself, I'm doing a good job here.
I'm exercising until it hurts, and I'm still exercising.
Because I'm going to exercise until it hurts, and that's who I am.
You will eventually stop exercising.
Do you know why? Because it hurts.
Your subconscious will talk you out of doing anything that hurts.
Even if your conscious brain is saying, no pain, no gain.
So that's why I teach you to only do exercises that you can enjoy.
And then give yourself a little treat, protein shake, something you like after you're done.
Because if you give yourself a reward, no matter how small, that reward will become paired with the thing, and then it just feels all good.
And so... That makes me wonder if the play here is actually psychologically advanced, and they know that if they can give me a penalty every time I go on social media, eventually I won't know why consciously, but subconsciously I'll talk myself out of using Twitter at all.
And I can feel it.
Like, I can absolutely feel the quit Twitter, it's poisoning you.
Like, I can feel the infection, basically, when I use it.
And I have to pull back now and then.
So, you may notice every now and then I'll, like, disappear from Twitter for, you know, like, half a day or something.
It's usually because I'm poisoned.
Like, I actually have to go out in nature and live in the real world for a while and stuff like that.
Joe Rogan says never use Twitter.
See, I worry that the bad people are doing this intentionally.
Does anybody think it's intentional?
Because it is a stretch.
I'm going to be completely transparent.
I can't say it's happening.
It's just it has every sign of it happening, and there would be a perfectly good explanation for why it is.
If I wanted to organize trolls to work on the other team, I think I'd do it just like this.
I think I would have them go after the other person in the worst way.
Now, here's one argument that says that's not happening intentionally.
You ready? If it is happening intentionally to me...
That would suggest that maybe the Republicans have the same kind of operation going against the other side, because Eric Swalwell gets this treatment every time.
Eric Swalwell can say, the sun is out, and his Twitter feed will be full of fang-fang.
Fang, fang, fang, fang, fang.
Presumably the last thing he ever wants to see again in his life, right?
Because it affected him politically as well as personally.
And probably the personal part was pretty rugged.
I can imagine that was awful.
So, what is the point of going to Eric Swalwell's account and saying, fang, fang?
Like, why would you do it?
Now, in the early days, it kind of made sense.
You know, you're telling everybody, hey, don't miss this story.
But why do you do it now?
Like, why would you do it now?
The only reason I can think of, yeah, is to hurt him.
But is the hurting him, is it to get him to use Twitter less?
Because I imagine it has that effect.
Could you imagine being Eric Swellwell and just trying to open Twitter and just use it?
It would be pretty devastating to see what they say about you.
Now, to his credit...
To his credit, he seems to have a thick skin.
He's in the right business if he's got a thick skin.
But I think it probably encourages him to use Twitter less.
What do you think? Do you think that Swalwell actually is maybe a little less likely to use Twitter because every time he turns it on, it's going to say fang fang?
And is that organized?
Is that organized? Because every single time, somebody will say fang fang.
Every time. I don't know.
So, since I think it's probably not organized in his case, I think it's just people just reflex talking.
What's the first thing you think of?
Yeah, the NPC comment.
The first thing you say.
So, that's just an open question.
Alright, ladies and gentlemen.
I feel like there was a topic I was supposed to mention...
On locals, was there a topic you wanted me to mention that I haven't mentioned?
I believe there was, right?
Oh yeah, Kamala's up in North Korea, or she was in the DMZ. So I don't think Kamala Harris got to meet Kim Jong-un, right?
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Yeah, Liz... Can you see the story?
I don't know. Why does this need to be a story?
So, performer Lizzo...
If you know her. She played...
Was it James Madison's crystal flute?
That is like some national treasure.
And she got tweeted a little bit on stage.
And then people were...
People think it's a racial thing.
So I saw some people saying...
And by the way, I think it was an Hispanic gentleman, which is important to the story...
We're saying that it looks like the continual humiliation of white people.
Sometimes it's just a flute.
But the take was that having the black woman Essentially defile, you know, this is not my opinion, right?
I'm just describing somebody's opinion.
That having, you know, somebody touch this national treasure that shouldn't be touched because Lizzo is black.
I don't know if she's descended from slaves, but Madison was part of the three-fifths, you know, slaves are only worth three-fifths kind of thing.
So it was sort of like, you know, connecting history.
You know, here's your flute, Mr.
Three-Fist. I'll blow on your damn flute.
So I don't know.
I'm not sure I would go so far to say this is part of the ongoing humiliation of white people.
I think it was just more.
Probably had more to do with the fact that they knew she played the flute.
Probably.
That's my guess.
I don't know.
I have mixed feelings about Lizzo because I guess the enthusiasm with which she markets her weight, which is very high, is both, I don't know, fascinating and interesting and, I don't know, fascinating and interesting and, you know, horrible.
and awesome.
I don't know what to think of it.
honestly. Because, you know, I usually like anything that's non-standard.
So, she's very non-standard, so automatically I'm on her side.
Like, if you show me a non-standard person who's obeying the law, I like them.
It's just automatic. You don't even have to do anything.
Just be non-standard and being obeying the law, fine.
I love you. So, would you like to feel better about the future?
Who wants to feel better about the future?
Do you feel bad about all of those illegal immigrants and legal immigrants, too, coming into the country, changing the nature of your country?
Are you worried about your culture being subverted by all the immigrants?
I was talking to an immigrant yesterday.
And this immigrant happens to be an American citizen now.
Recently went through all the paperwork and became, last few years, became an American citizen.
And I'm not going to tell you what country, because it doesn't matter to the story.
So it was a legal immigrant.
Yeah, it had to be legal.
Legal immigrant.
And the legal immigrant was complaining about her kid.
Now, how common is that, right?
We've all been there, right?
You've all complained about your kid.
Here's why she was complaining about her kid.
He studies late into the night because he's so concerned about his future that he's taking extra AP classes and college classes, and he worked all summer.
And, yeah, he's number one in his class, right?
He's number one in his class, but this parent is concerned that the kid is not having enough fun.
Kid wants to be an astronaut.
Parent says, you know, astronaut doesn't pay much.
I mean, you're number one in your class.
You're number one in a competitive school.
You're number one. You know, maybe think a little bit bigger than astronaut.
The kid's response at 15, the kid's response was, he's in it for the science, not the money.
Now, I think he'll be in it for the money later.
I think he could get talked into it.
But, so there's your immigrant ruining your culture.
Now, let me give you the best punchline of all.
Pro-Trump?
As all get out. Totally surprised me.
Totally surprised me.
Completely pro-Trump.
Biden's a disaster.
Biden's breaking everything.
Where's my law and order?
Where's my law and order?
So I met the most Republican person I've met in a year who was not born in this country.
The most Republican person I've met in a year.
In every way. Let me tell you the second most Republican person I met, who I'm sure is not a Republican.
So I attended a wedding for some folks who grew up in Central America, but now are here.
And have been here for years and years and years.
And they got married, and I attended the wedding, and It was super religious.
Like super religious.
Wedding. And everybody there was like hard workers and they were all about family, religion, and work.
Family, religion, and work, and definitely not getting in any legal trouble.
The grandkid of the person getting married, because he was a certain age, his grandkid was there.
His grandkid was like, I think, around five years old, something like that.
I think five or six, something like that.
Could speak three languages.
Sort of on his own.
Literally just flat-out genius.
Flat-out genius.
And I saw an entire room full of people That descended from or were directly related to this one couple.
And all of them were awesome.
It was like a huge room full of people, largely created by these two people, and they were all awesome.
And all of them were first or second generation.
I tell you, if you're worried about the immigration...
You're worried about the wrong shit.
You should be worried about the ones who were born here.
The ones who were born here are a mess, honestly.
The ones who were born here are a fucking mess.
The ones who are coming in with, you know, whatever it takes to get your family all the way over here and be a success, they are bringing a lot of quality.
Now, I'm not going to overlook the fact that some criminal people get in, some terrorists.
So I'm very big on border security, just to be clear.
Border security, I'm all in.
You need to button that up as tight as possible so you can control it and let in the people you want to let in.
You know, Trump had exactly the right instinct here, but not the right quantity.
So the instinct is to make sure we skim off the best character of people from other countries.
And I'm going to say character.
Because it would be easy to say to get the rich people from other countries, or it would be easy to say to get the highly educated from other countries.
But I don't think that's the play.
I think character is the play.
If you get the right character in here, you revive the American culture.
Spirit. Because the ones coming in are the ones who have the most American characteristics.
I'm sorry, but if you want to talk to somebody who's super American, find somebody who came here, not somebody who was born here.
The people who were born here are, you know, lots of them are patriots, of course.
But, man, you really see the American character in the people who came here voluntarily and said, I want some of that.
You know, they buy in completely.
All right. So that's your good news for the day.
So I don't think there's going to be any kind of Russian nuclear act.
It looks like...
I think the...
Let me make a prediction about the endgame for Russia.
I think the endgame of Russia is that we bring them into our sphere as strong partners, not in any humiliating way.
What do you think? Because in a way, that's the only way it can end.
It's the only way it can end. Because, unless you, you know, died suddenly of something, I guess.
But I think it's also the best ending.
It's the only ending where everybody comes out ahead, except Ukraine, of course, and anybody who died.
It wouldn't be the end of China's threat, but it would completely redo the world.
And I would think that Russia is not comfortable having most of the world hate it and having a border with China.
Can you imagine a worse situation?
The Western countries hate you, and your best friend is China.
Like, who wants China to be their best friend?
Because China's in it for China.
If there's one thing you can be sure of, China's in there for China.
Now, let me address...
Somebody said they thought that China might have blown up the pipeline because then they could, I don't know, control something economically.
There's some argument there.
Let me explain China to you.
China doesn't do that.
Never. Never.
Is there anybody here who knows anything about China?
Give me a fact check on this.
Even if China could do it, even if China would benefit from it, they are not going to go blow up somebody's pipeline.
In fact, I would say China would be the last of all the countries in the world that would do it.
Last. Do you know why?
Because they couldn't take the chance of getting caught.
Period. That's it.
Couldn't take the chance. And what are the chances of getting caught?
Well, we already have reports of different conveyances in that area, right?
Aircraft and boats. There's no way they would take that chance for what the benefit would be, which would be not that big.
No way they would take that chance.
Does anybody agree with me? Now, even if you don't trust China in any way, which I don't, I have the worst possible feeling about China.
But countries have an M.O., don't they?
There's like a modus operandi.
The United States has a signature.
Do you know what our signature is?
Like the fingerprint we leave on our jobs?
It's this. It's this pipeline.
Our signature is John Brennan tells you somebody else did it.
That's our fingerprint.
This has the United States written all over it.
It couldn't be more glaringly obvious our modus operandi.
This is what we do on a regular basis, and when we do it on a regular basis, the way we signal it is we send John Brennan out to say somebody else did it.
So, yeah, it could be us.
Could be. But China?
Name anything like this that China did.
I mean, blowing something up is pretty aggressive.
And I don't see China doing that and somehow getting dragged into a war.
Imagine China wanting any kind of infrastructure blown up anywhere.
The last thing that China wants is anybody's infrastructure to blow up.
Because China needs to get to every place.
Right? They need to have permanent access to markets and raw materials.
That's the last thing they want, is anybody's natural resources to get bombed.
That's not a precedent that China wants to start.
All right. So I saw a number of people say that My opinion about the John Brennan play is that finally, finally I'm back on track.
When was I off track?
Why doesn't anybody tell me when I'm off track?
But apparently, finally I'm on track.
And I think it has to do with the fact that I tried to organize a boycott against masks And so I'm one of the most vocal people in the country against the use of masks.
And I think people's complaint with me is that I'm pro-mask.
Despite the fact I'm one of the most prominent organizers and violators of the masking requirements.
So apparently you can convince anybody of anything.
Oh, there was one topic I wanted to mention.
Don't you think that in the world of propaganda...
There's some kind of rule of thumb of how many people you have to convince in a population before the truth can never come out.
And I think it's around 25%.
I think if you can convince 25% of the public of a lie, that when the truth is also available, the public will never be able to deal with it like it actually is known and is true.
So I don't think you have to get more than 25%.
And that's just sort of living in the world and understanding people and things.
So it's not based on any science.
But it feels like that.
I'll tell you what it's not.
It's definitely not 90%.
You can convince far fewer than 90% to get everything you want.
For example, the political parties convince...
Most of their own party.
So they're getting 30 and 40 percent convinced of stuff, and that's enough so that the other group's idea can't really survive if a third of the people are so against it.
So somewhere between 25% and 40% is how many people have to be propagandized to a lie, and that basically will keep the truth ever from coming out.
Yeah, so I did a poll on who people thought was responsible for the pipeline, and I gave the choices of Putin, Biden, Zelensky, and some other thing.
If you add together the people who think that Putin or Zelensky blew up the pipeline, it adds to about 23%.
About a quarter of the people believe Brennan.
That's right. Or believe that it was Zelensky.
So I think that given a quarter of the people think that it was Putin or Zelensky, the country will never agree that it was Biden.
And that's all you need.
That's all you need. All right.
I'm going to recommend a piece of content for you.
And I don't know where it is, but you could Google it.
So somewhere on my television content is great engineering marvels or great engineering feats or something like that in history.
And I'm watching one now about the Trans-Pacific Railroad.
And I didn't know the whole story of that.
It's really interesting.
Apparently Lincoln wanted to connect the country with a railroad, as others did, and he created a competition.
And maybe I heard this, but I forgot it.
And so there was a group on the West Coast, you know, Charles Crocker and Leland Stanford and a couple others, and they were the billionaires who were going to get the project on the West Coast, and they would try to build toward the middle.
Well, there were already lots of railroads in the East, but not any further than, I don't know, the Mississippi or something.
So there was a team on the East trying to build toward them.
And they would also get paid for the railroad by the government, But also, they would own the land that they covered.
So they would get the mineral rights for any land that they were the first to build through.
So that was the valuable part.
So what happened was, immediately the railroads, instead of building a railroad that would meet in the middle, what did the two teams do instead of meeting in the middle?
Because they were paid by the mile, how do you think it went?
So the entire project was to make the shortest distance, crossing the country and connect, but Lincoln, fucking idiot, said he'd pay them by the mile.
How'd that go? Do you think that when they determined what's the best way to connect, do you think they took the short route?
No. They both individually, and this is apparently well known in history, they both made it as zig-zaggy as they possibly could.
They basically ruined the whole thing because they could.
The incentive was to make it inefficient.
Lincoln actually thought he was clever and said, hey, I'm going to make you guys compete.
If I make you compete, competition always gets you something good, right?
But then he didn't do the second part.
You know, watching what they do.
Because there wasn't enough transparency.
So they'd just say, well, the best route happens to be the zigzag.
And so they just ran up the debt.
So the whole...
And then there was the people in the West had to go through the Rockies.
So they had to blast it, and they had to use dynamite and nitroglycerin, which hadn't been used for that up to that point.
Too dangerous. I think there was one little ledge part that they were trying to create for the train.
That they said maybe 200 Chinese workers died.
On just that little part.
And not all at once.
It was just so dangerous that 200 of them died in that little thing.
And do you know why? Do you know why they don't know the exact number that died?
Take a guess. Why don't we know the exact number of Chinese workers that died?
I hate to tell you the answer.
Nobody gave a shit. So they didn't even count them.
That's why. Yeah, racism.
Right. So the white people in charge, they didn't give a shit.
200 Chinese died.
Get a few hundred more.
Yeah, they didn't even fucking count them.
So we don't know for sure how many died.
I mean, think of that. I mean, seriously.
Who doesn't count them?
I mean, that's the lowest level of not fucking caring, right?
So the thing was brutal.
And the people who did it were absolute crooks.
I used to work for Crocker National Bank of the same name, same billionaire.
I didn't realize he was a crook.
Like total crook.
He wasn't even like a little bit shady.
He was just a flat-owned criminal, as were everybody involved in the railroad.
They were just flat-owned criminals.
There you go. How many knew that?
How many knew that the people who built the railroad were just flat-out criminals?
Like, not even any grey area to it at all?
Yeah. I mean, that's pretty shocking.
But it also tells you that things have never changed, right?
What's the one thing that you always imagine is true about America?
It used to be good, but now it's going to hell, right?
The most common thing we say, well, it used to be good, but this new generation...
No, not really.
No, that old generation was pretty bad.
Pretty bad.
Things are probably better now, and they're not good.
Probably better. Now, I'm going to, like, randomly change topics.
You don't care, do you? What time is it?
All right, one more random topic.
I saw some criticism of Jordan Peterson for being sort of a, I don't know, a hero to, or I don't know what you call it, of incels.
The men who voluntarily stay under the sexual mating pool because they know they don't have any chance anyway.
So they've just said, ah, forget it.
I'm not sexual.
And so he's being mocked.
He's being mocked for being helpful to and popular with that crowd.
Is that, like, one of the worst things you've ever heard?
Yeah. And then Olivia Wilde, apparently she has some terrible things to say about him, and made a movie where the bad guy is patterned after Jordan Peterson.
What? What?
Now, I think to myself, no matter what you think of his philosophies or opinions, could we agree on one thing?
I'm pretty sure he wakes up in the morning and he tries to make things better.
Doesn't he? I mean, his business model is transparent, so you know that he's profiting, but he only profits because he wrote books people really wanted to read, because they helped him.
He profits because they watch his videos.
And they like him and they help him.
So there's nothing sketchy about his business model.
And he wakes up and he's just trying to help people.
Gives them advice to make their work better.
And some lowlife decides that attacking him is art.
I don't know. Maybe it's art.
But you shouldn't be proud of it.
That should be art you should not be proud of.
Even if you disagreed with what he says.
Because the fact is, even if you disagree with it, I don't think anybody claims he's trying to make anything worse.
And if you call him a grifter or something, well, it's not exactly grifting if you show all of your work and you tie it to science and you allow anybody to argue with you.
You're willing to talk to anybody.
That's as far as you can get from grifting.
That's complete transparency.
Who's been more transparent than he has?
Now, even I don't agree with everything he says.
So we can find things to disagree with.
Sure. But isn't he trying to help?
Does anybody think that he wakes up and he's got bad intentions?
I don't think he has bad intentions.
And I think that there's a segment of the population...
That is reviled, in part because they're white males who don't have high reproductive value, according to other people.
So to me it looks like racism and sexism.
I mean, if he were not popular with white males, I don't think people would dislike him.
If white males didn't exist and he just said all the things that he's saying, but it's to everybody, everybody would say, well, that's pretty wise.
I love your clear, well-communicated philosophies that have good grounding in science.
But as soon as you throw in lots of white males respond to his message, well then suddenly he's got to be an asshole, right?
Because you can't have somebody respected who's also associated with that group that you're trying to make sure is the least loved group on earth.
Alright. Yeah, he's popular because the stuff he says works.
It works for people.
Um... He's also worked very hard for women.
Yeah, I'm sure he has. But since that's not his primary audience that he gets tagged with...
You know, he gets tagged with them, and I get the same problem, right?
People blame me for some characteristics of my audience, to which I say, they're different people.
I'm not sure I can take responsibility for other people's choices.
