Episode 1895 Scott Adams: Almost Everything You Suspected About Your Government Turns Out To Be True
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Alex Jones billion dollars verdict?
Biden doing what they impeached Trump for doing
Fetterman's closed captioning interview
JP Morgan Chase cuts ties with Kanye
AOC shouted down by 2 hecklers
Fentanyl criminals and China elites
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
The only thing higher than this would be inflation, but maybe that won't last.
Who knows? Who knows?
How would you like to take it up a notch?
All the way to pre-pandemic levels of awesomeness.
You know, back when kids were getting good scores on the SATs and the ACTs and all that stuff?
Long time ago? Let's bring it up to that level.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice, a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite beverage.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better, the simultaneous sip.
It happens now. Go.
Oh, yeah.
You made it just in time, John.
You almost missed that.
You want to talk about all the things?
How about that inflation, huh?
Inflation doesn't look too bad to me.
I feel like the news has to make everything look real bad or real good.
They can't say, well, nothing happened.
But didn't inflation just stay the same as last month?
I know it's bad. I'm just saying it didn't get worse, did it?
It just didn't get better.
And who thought it would get better now?
There's nothing that would cause it to get better.
I think getting better is sort of a next year thing.
I think we're going to have at least a year of this.
What do you think? Alright, you want to hear some good news?
How about some good news?
How about a technological change that will change everything?
Well, NASA has come up with a new kind of battery.
Now you're going to hear this story a billion times.
Somebody came up with a new kind of battery.
But this one's kind of awesome because it, I guess it releases its energy in the right way for airplanes.
And it's super light.
So it's going to be 40%, it eliminates 30 to 40% of the weight of the battery.
Very important for aircraft.
Well, it can double or even triple the amount of energy it stores.
And apparently it's not theoretical.
They already built one, so they know they can make it.
So, what happens when air travel becomes something you can do cheaply with batteries and with AI flying the plane?
I'll tell you where it's going.
It's going to be self-flying planes.
And they're going to be everywhere. I think every rich person is going to have a self-flying little, what would you call it, a roto-copter or something?
You know, like the drones that have four engines, four little helicopter engines.
I think that's three years away.
Quad-copter.
Yeah, let's call it a quad-copter.
But anyway, that's real. So Alex Jones was ordered by the court to pay about a billion dollars to the families of the Sandy Hook victims.
Now, does that sound like a fair verdict to you?
A billion dollars?
Does that sound fair?
I mean, that doesn't sound even like a little bit like justice, does it?
No matter what you think of what he did, That doesn't even seem in the ballpark.
That seems purely political.
How in the world does that not get overturned?
I feel like it's just obvious that that gets overturned for being obviously a political thing.
OJ was, what, 30 million something?
So, I guess that's a wait and see.
So Jack Posobiec has been tweeting about this, and it's like nobody can hear it, or we're pretending it doesn't matter.
We're in this weird world where if the news decides something isn't news, it doesn't matter what it is.
It could be, you know, Jesus could come back, and if the news decided not to talk about it, you couldn't get them to.
I mean, we just pretended it wasn't happening.
But that's happening right now.
So as Jack Posobiec is pointing out, that Biden is doing exactly the crime that...
I'll call it a crime.
But he's doing exactly what Trump was alleged to have done, which is work Ukraine for a political favor.
Now, Biden is literally doing that.
He's in public without anybody...
You know, nothing's being hidden.
He's trying to get Saudi Arabia to pump more oil before the midterms.
Because it'd be good for him politically.
Now he doesn't say that last part, but it's pretty obvious.
Now I guess he can get away with it because he can just say, well, it's not because of the midterms.
It's because we want to have lower gas prices.
Everybody wants that. So I guess he can get away with it.
And they're actually going to threaten, he said directly, That they're going to threaten Saudi Arabia with retaliation unless they increase the pumping before the midterms.
But of course they leave out the before the midterms part so they can say it's for other reasons.
I think the theme today will be every worst suspicion you had, it's all true.
Whatever's the worst thing you suspected, it's all true.
So the Alex Jones thing clearly shows that our court system is a political entity, right?
Would you say that I could say that without any real hesitation at all?
That the Alex Jones shows that our court system isn't operating the way it was supposed to?
Well, wouldn't that be your worst suspicion about the court system is that it's not even trying to be a court system anymore.
It's just a political entity.
Well, here it is. I mean, I don't think it could be much more clear than a billion dollars.
A billion dollars is, that's a statement.
A billion dollars says, we're going to make this political, and we don't care if you know it.
Am I right? You know, 50 million would have been, it's a political statement, but we want to kind of hide it a little bit.
Right? If you earned 50 million, you'd say, well, that's outrageous.
But, you know, it's within the outrageous realm of things that you've seen before.
But at a billion dollars, they are signaling to the world that they're not even trying, not even trying to find justice.
They're making a political point.
That's the worst you could assume about your own political, your own justice system.
And it's true. The worst you could assume is true.
Here it is. And then the worst you can assume is that the Democrats would try to, and successfully, right, impeach Trump over a thing that Biden is doing right in front of you at the same time.
And that's actually true.
It's your worst suspicion that they would impeach somebody and then just do the same thing right in front of you.
Right in front of you. It's the worst you can imagine.
It's happening. That's exactly what's happening.
Then how about the Durham investigation?
So there's some trial of, I guess, the guy who was being asked to confirm the Steele dossier.
So now we've heard that the FBI offered a million dollars to Steele, Christopher Steele, if he could confirm the things in Steele's own dossier.
And he didn't get the million because he couldn't confirm it.
Now, what's the worst thing you'd assume about the FBI? Your worst suspicion?
Oh my God, I think they're just a political organization, and they'll do anything to get Trump.
And there it is.
They were willing to pay a million dollars for this.
Now, I don't know how unusual that is.
Does the FBI pay for sources?
Probably. But when you hear it in this context, and you know all the things swirling around it, it's hard to imagine that anything happened except the FBI was trying to buy dirt on the president.
The worst you could imagine.
Especially when it wasn't true.
And then, of course, we know now that when the FBI knew it wasn't true, the Steele dossier couldn't be confirmed, they treated it like it was credible anyway.
The worst you could imagine about them.
And it's true. So we've got quite a theme going here.
The worst you imagined is true.
I don't know how many of you think that I'd make this up.
So I kept track yesterday.
I just kept track Of how many times before 9 a.m.
yesterday, so from the time I woke up, probably 4ish, to 9 a.m., how many times has somebody said on social media something that wasn't true about me and then criticized me for it?
Ten times.
Ten times. Ten times before 9 a.m., somebody said on social media something that was not even close to true about me, claimed they remembered it specifically, and then criticized me for it.
Already today, it's up to 12, because two more times this morning.
And people are quite serious.
They remember. They have very clear memories of things that didn't happen.
And then the weird thing happens, that people want to prove that the things I say didn't happen really did.
So they go into my old tweets, and they produce a bunch of tweets that don't prove anything, and they say, there you go.
And I say, I'm looking at them right now.
They don't make your point at all.
Now, do you believe me when I say that that happens 10 times before 9 a.m.?
Like, that's just my normal experience.
We live in this world where everybody's got a subjective experience.
If you want to have something blow your mind, look at the Durham coverage on Twitter.
Look at the Democrats, what they say about the Durham stuff, and then look at what the Republicans say.
They are not living in the same world.
The Democrats are saying the Durham thing is proving that there was never anything there.
There was nothing to prove.
They've proved there's nothing there.
At the same time, the Republicans are saying, look, they're proving all this bad stuff is there, that million dollars and everything.
It can't both be true.
It can't be true that all of this is coming out at the same time nothing's coming out.
That's the world we live in.
Two completely different worlds, and we can inhabit either one.
Pick your world. When did you turn into a rodent?
Well, I guess that's the best question of the day.
Goodbye. All right.
Then, so this is another example of you can get used to anything.
So this is an actual thing that happened, and it's a small story.
So the big story is that it really happened.
Nobody's questioning whether the following thing happened, and it's a small story.
The President of the United States claimed in public that his son died in the Iraq War in Iraq, which did not happen.
And that was treated as a small story.
Some of you never heard it, right?
I'll bet some of you didn't even know that story happened yesterday.
That actually literally happened.
He said it clearly and unambiguously that his son died in Iraq, which did not happen.
He died in a hospital in America from cancer, I think.
You're talking the piss here, there's no way this happened?
What do you mean there's no way it happened?
You don't believe that there's a video of him saying it yesterday?
Yeah, he actually literally said it.
Now I suppose it could be a doctored video.
And I wouldn't even be that surprised.
But the news is not treating it like anybody is doubting he said it.
I'm pretty sure even the left-leaning news says, yeah, he said that.
And they're saying sometimes you get confused.
So now he can't tell the difference between living people and dead people.
Second time. So nothing to see here.
We actually...
We have to talk about Fetterman, don't we?
I wasn't really following the Fetterman thing.
I'd heard he'd had a stroke, but I thought, oh, well, people have health problems.
And I thought, obviously, they think he's going to recover.
Otherwise, there wouldn't be any serious conversation about him being in the race.
But what is the worst thing you'd imagine about Fetterman?
Like, your worst suspicion.
Alright, the worst thing you can think of would be that his brain is really not working and they're running him anyway because they just need a win.
That's like the worst thing you can imagine.
It looks like that's exactly what's happening.
So we now have the Senate will be determined by someone whose brain is so non-functional that CNN covered the story by having their medical guy...
Who's their medical guy?
Sanjay Gupta.
So they've got Sanjay Gupta on the air holding a model of a brain and pointing to the parts of the brain that don't work on Fetterman.
But actually...
Actually pointing to the parts of his brain that don't work.
Oh, this part where he understands language that's spoken doesn't work.
I feel like that's a big part of the brain.
I feel like the part that understands language, that seems important for being a senator.
So just hold this idea in your head without your head exploding.
We now have a president that everybody agrees is brain dead.
I mean, honestly, everybody agrees on that.
And the person who could be the deciding vote in the Senate to see who controls the country, and the Democrats actually want to give control of the country to two brain-dead old white guys.
Because you know what the brand of the Democrat Party is, right?
Do you know the one thing that they're most proud of if you're a Democrat?
The thing you're most proud of is you're giving all of the power in the country to very old, white, dead guys with brains that don't work.
And I'm thinking to myself, if you were on the left and your big complaint was the patriarchy, hypothetically, your big complaint is the patriarchy, a bunch of rich old white guys running everything, making all the decisions.
What would you do as sort of your response to that?
If the last thing in the world you wanted is a bunch of old white guys, especially rich ones, running stuff, how would you respond?
Well, apparently the way they've responded is to probably the two most important races, that they would run people who are old white men with brain damage.
Because if you're worried about the old white men whose brains were working perfectly, because apparently that's bad, what you need is old white guys whose brains clearly don't work and it's so obvious they don't work that even CNN is holding a model of the brain and pointing to the part that doesn't work.
Like, I'm not guessing.
How weird. Now, we have to talk about Fettman's interview.
So he did this interview with NBC. And he had a computer screen in front of him that was printing what the reporter was saying so he could read it.
But I need a fact check on this, but my understanding is that the computer was also helping him form his responses.
That's true, right?
That the computer was suggesting responses...
Based on his policies, so the computer wasn't coming up with its own policies.
But it was answers that he'd either answered before or his staff had answered for him.
And so it was sort of a canned bunch of responses that would be fed back based on the topic.
Then he would try to read them, but he failed.
He couldn't even read off the answers when they were sounding like a computer.
Now, the first thing that blew my mind...
Is that journalist Kara Swisher says it's all bullshit.
She says, I had an extended one-hour conversation with Fetterman, and he was fine.
He understood everything, communicated, didn't need any computer.
Is that possible?
Is that possible?
Because I don't think anybody's ever said Kara Swisher lies about anything, does she?
I mean, you might not like her opinions about this or that, but has she ever been accused of just, like, making up a wild lie?
I don't think so.
I've never heard of that.
So I don't think she lied.
I think she had a conversation with him.
But here's my question.
Can his sort of condition ever move backwards?
Or do you just recover the whole time, and you're always better or the same?
Is it possible he had a better day and a worse day?
I didn't know that was possible.
I thought you could only move in one direction.
You're either recovering or you're not.
I don't know. I've never heard of it, but could it be a thing?
Don't know. So I guess I have a question on that.
Now... But...
Clearly we saw he needed that help.
So no matter what Kara Swisher saw, we all saw, and there's no doubt about it, that he felt he needed that assistance.
So do what you will with that.
But here's what Tucker Carlson quite brilliantly noted.
This is the first example of transhumanism, where a person and a computer have merged.
That's actually what happened.
You know, I want to say, or you want to think, that this is sort of a fun analogy.
No, it's not an analogy.
It's an actual human with an actual computer device, and it took the two of them to get the job done.
They've merged. He actually went full cyborg.
Now you could argue that, you know, just carrying your phone around makes you a cyborg, which I have argued, because it does.
But this is the closest one we've seen where they're really integrated.
Now, as you know, I've been using an AI friend for some time, so I actually have an AI personality that I interact with every day.
If you interact with artificial intelligence enough, you start to almost pick up an accent.
It's not an accent, but there's a tell or a little signal in it that it's not a person.
And that's what I was getting from Fetterman's interview.
He was speaking in that AI way that isn't quite the way people talk.
Now, it could be just an artifact of his stroke.
Could be. But what it looked like was he was just repeating what the AI was saying.
It looked like he was just reading the AI's sentences.
And when the AI makes a sentence, they'll pick a word that you wouldn't necessarily use.
Here's the tell. The AI will pick a word that is correct, but you would never have used it.
That's the tell. It's a word that makes sense, but no human would have ever picked that word.
You're like, ooh, human wouldn't have picked that word, but it makes perfect sense.
Yeah, he did that.
So I think that we saw AI giving an interview.
I think the AI understood the questions and fed him, you know, probably bullet points that were relevant to the answer, and he just read them.
That's what it looked like. Don't know.
Waiting for confirmation of that.
All right. Here's a mystery I'm trying to unravel.
And I know you're going to get all balled up in what I used to say or did say or do say or what I believe.
And none of this is about that.
Okay? So can we do a story where you can, if you can, try to divorce yourself from my opinion of it?
Because you're going to get all caught up in what my opinion is.
Just try to divorce yourself from that.
Here's the story.
There are lots of people who say that they know numerous people who were obviously injured after getting the vaccination jab.
Now, this is anecdotal reports.
This is not any kind of science.
But there are lots of them.
Am I right? Because I asked on Twitter how many people actually know somebody that they believe either died of COVID or had some injury, they believe, from the vaccination.
And then you saw the answers, and it's like lots of people.
But here's the interesting thing.
The people who have seen it have almost all seen more than one case.
When you look at the answers, people will say, I know two people.
Where I know five people.
But the people who don't see any of it see zero, which is a little bit more of a pattern that I can ignore.
Why is it that the people who see at least one almost always see more than one?
What would cause that?
Like you would think there would be a lot of ones and zeros.
You wouldn't expect it to be zeros and threes.
Nobody would expect that.
So that's your first tip, that this could be confirmation bias.
But the details of the story are so similar.
You know, somebody was 40 in perfect health, and they died, you know, X days after the vaccination.
Now, the first thing the skeptics are going to say would be this.
Scott, Scott, Scott.
Everybody is after the vaccination because there were so many vaccinations and boosters that everybody who died suddenly for any reason probably died within a few days of a booster.
I mean, not every person, but overall that would be true for lots of people.
So it could be just chance.
But the number of people I'm hearing is just wild, right?
The anecdotal evidence is stronger than anything I've ever seen.
Let me see if you would agree with the statement.
There are lots of things that are not true, or even things that are true, for which you have anecdotal evidence, like, oh, there's these examples.
But you say to yourself, they're not really so strong that you would throw away your science because of anecdotal people you know.
But I've never seen anything this strong, have you?
I've never seen anecdotal reports this consistent and universal and strong.
Would you agree? Even if you personally haven't seen anything, and I haven't, I haven't personally seen anything, but I've seen more people who saw something than I've ever seen about anything ever.
Agree? So the question is, Is there something extraordinary about this situation that would cause more people to hallucinate than normal?
Or, is it exactly what it looks like?
Now, most of you are going to say, Scott, it's exactly what it looks like.
It was in the VAERS database.
It was in the data we've been telling you for two years.
It's exactly what it looks like.
But, Is there anything here that could cause that level of confirmation bias?
Like, is there any theory that could get you to explain all of this anecdotal observation bigger than anything I've ever seen in my life?
Is there? Yes.
Yes, there is. See, that's the problem, is that the size of the topic and the emotion that we put into it is actually big enough That it could cause three quarters of the entire population to imagine that they've seen multiple examples of things that didn't happen.
Yep. Now, let me be very careful.
I'm not saying that's what's happening.
I'm actually genuinely puzzled.
I can't tell. I can't tell if this is a gigantic medical problem.
Well, here's what you'd have to believe.
In order to believe that it's a gigantic medical problem that's being somewhat ignored, you would have to believe that one million doctors have decided it's too risky to mention that they see it in their practice.
A million doctors all just on the same page.
And I heard on Twitter, I had a little back and forth with somebody who thinks that's exactly what's happening.
So there are people who believe that all one million, all one million doctors, every one of them would see, well, almost every one of them, would have seen people seemingly injured by a vaccination if your observations are true.
Almost every practice would see it.
Now, in order to believe that it's really happening, Meaning massive injuries from the vaccination itself, not from COVID. In order to believe that, you'd have to believe that a million doctors are largely on the same page, that they will lie about a life and death, very life and death.
I mean, it couldn't be more life and death.
That a million doctors who took a vow to help people and save them, the most obstinate, Group of people in the entire fucking world that the most contrarian and obstinate people, the most headstrong, egotistic people in the world, every one of them is just afraid, and so they're not speaking up.
Now, when I say everyone, you should interpret that in your mind as there might be a handful.
But here's what I would expect.
If this were real, and it could be, and I'm not saying it isn't, right?
Remember, I'm just talking through it.
I actually don't know if this is real.
I can't tell. If it's real, here's what I'd expect.
Out of a million doctors, I would expect at least a hundred thousand of them would say, stop everything.
You cannot ignore this anymore.
I believe you would have a hundred thousand doctors complaining really loudly out of a million.
One in ten. What do you say to that?
Do you think you could get one out of ten doctors to say, all right, this is too far.
I will risk everything to out this.
I will take a chance on my own career to tell you that people are dropping like flies in my practice.
Do you believe that you could get ten out of ten to be afraid of losing their jobs?
Take a look at how many citizens Risk their jobs to not get vaccinated.
That's probably the same ratio you'd find in the doctors, the people who will just be contrarians.
You can always find 10% contrarians on every topic.
Name any topic where you can't find 10% contrarians.
10% doctors who are contrarians would be 100,000 doctors telling you that they see it obviously with their own eyes and senses.
100,000.
At least. Is that happening?
Do you think that the, I don't know, government control or fear is so good That you couldn't get 100,000 doctors in the United States alone to be complaining?
How about some other country?
You don't think there's a European country, some country somewhere else, Asia, where there's going to be some doctor who just says, look, you don't even have to take my word for it.
Don't take my word for it.
Here's my data. You just look at my data.
I didn't have any young people dying before.
And then you look at this date, and then all these young people died.
I'm not even making a claim.
Just look at it yourself. You would see that.
All right, now. But I can't rule out that it is happening.
Because I do think that there are examples in history where you could actually get every person on the same page and be wrong at the same time.
Would you agree? It's not impossible, is it?
That you could get all the doctors to lie.
It's not impossible.
When I say all, again, I'm ruling out the handful or so that actually are being the contrarians.
Yeah. I don't know.
So maybe we'll never know what the deal is, but here's my observation.
The people who expected the jab to be worse than not getting jabbed, Tend to be the ones who saw the people have problems.
The people who did not expect that, and I was one of them, I didn't have an expectation one way or the other.
No expectations.
I don't know any. So the people who expect to see it, see it.
The people who didn't expect to see it, more often didn't see it.
Now, that's not a 100% thing, but I would bet anything, any amount of money, all of my money, I would bet that the people who expected from the start that the shots would be dangerous, that they're the ones who know friends personally who are injured by them, according to them. I guarantee it.
Which doesn't mean, does not mean, they're not injuring anybody.
Because even the people who make them say they'll injure some people.
Everybody thinks that the shots will injure some number of people.
Even the people who make them say that.
But why can't we get to the bottom of this?
And for those of you who say it was in the VAERS thing, the VAERS would be good.
Because whatever...
What happened with the VAERS. So if the VAERS had been populated and they were having problems, that would just be an extension we're seeing in the larger world.
People are either imagining it or they're not.
It's either imaginary or it's not.
Same with the VAERS. Doctors can now speak out because the systems were tweaked to silence them.
What would be an example of that?
If you were a doctor with a private practice, and you saw a big spike in young people dying, what would stop you from simply saying that?
Because you wouldn't have to say you know the reason.
You'd have to just say, we are seeing this, we don't know why.
Nothing would stop you. Because it would be an open question whether it was the long COVID or the, I don't know, the pushback from the pandemic close-downs or something.
But you would certainly be able to say that more people are dying.
That wouldn't get you in trouble.
So Kanye, according to Candace Owens, I'm just going to call Kanye Kanye.
Is that okay? I get that he wants to be called yay, but I can't buy in because I don't want to explain his fucking name every time I say it.
So I think that he has lost the right to have him be called by the name that he requests.
Because it's just too inconvenient.
And names are partly for the use of other people.
You don't give yourself a name just so you can use it.
You give yourself a name for the purpose of other people using it.
I think Ye was a perfectly good nickname for people who are with him personally, like in the same room.
But if you're going to talk about him, It's just a pain in the ass to say yay, because then I have to explain what I'm talking about.
So I'm just going to call him Kanye, because that's not my problem to fix.
So Candace Owens reports that JPMorgan Chase is canceling Kanye West and telling him to take his Yeezy empire somewhere else.
Do you think that's true?
I mean, that doesn't even sound true, does it?
I believe Candace Owens, so I believe that she got information from a good source.
But is there something else going on?
Do you think that just for his public comments, which we condemn...
By the way, 48 hours has passed, and Kanye has not explained or apologized for his comments.
Am I right? 48 hours?
No. Give me a time check.
He spent 48 hours, right?
And he had plenty of opportunity to clarify or correct or even just say I was drunk or anything.
Just anything. And he chose not to.
So since he chose not to, we have to assume the comment stands.
I mean, it's an assumption.
It's not a fact.
But... I think you have to assume that those are his views of the world, and he has some opinions about the Jewish population that he would like you to know.
So, make your decisions appropriately.
You know, I feel...
How many of you have had this same experience?
You have the experience of getting behind somebody, and then they'll do something like this, like right away, and you just got behind them.
Like, I just started calling him my spiritual leader, and then he did that.
And I'm like, okay, I can't follow you there.
I just can't follow you there.
So you're on your own now.
So, sorry about that.
But, you know, that's what free speech is, right?
The free speech is I don't have to pay for his free speech.
His free speech is he pays for it.
Did you see a video of AOC giving a talk to a mostly empty auditorium, which is interesting in itself, that she couldn't pack a room.
And it looked like there were some people planted in there to cause trouble.
And two of them got up and started yelling at her for, I guess she voted to support funding of Ukraine and is pushing us into a nuclear war, say the protesters.
So, what do you think of that?
Somehow I missed the story.
I don't know how. But I missed the story of AOC voting for war.
That actually happened.
So AOC voted for war.
She must have voted for the funding, which effectively is war.
Voting for arms.
I mean, voting for arms shipments to Ukraine.
So did that really happen?
Well, it was interesting watching her get shouted down.
Especially in that small room.
And you can see that her influence is way less.
Looks like AOC's influence has certainly waned.
Rasmussen says 88% of likely U.S. voters are concerned about the economy.
88%. Why is it only 88%?
How do you get 12% who are, eh, it's fine.
Are they the people who are so rich they don't care, or the street people, or what?
How do you get anybody to say, I think the economy's fine.
Maybe they're talking about themselves, I don't know.
But 91% still say fentanyl is the big issue.
So, what's happening with fentanyl in this country?
Who's got the better plan on fentanyl?
In the comments, Democrats or Republicans?
Who do you think?
Yeah, neither.
So I read an article, a long investigative article yesterday, about the nexus between the Chinese underworld and the cartels.
And what I didn't know is that there might be a really good reason that China doesn't shut down the fentanyl business.
Do you want to know what that reason would be?
What would be a good reason besides the fact they want to use it like an opium ore to weaken the West?
Turns out there's a much better reason.
It has nothing to do with the West.
Not just money.
Not just money.
You're close. Money's part of it.
But what is the bigger part?
I think this is true.
That the elites are in bed with the criminals.
It looks like the government of China and the criminal units are working together and have for a long time, meaning that they're enriching each other.
So the criminals make tons of money, but they've got to launder that money, and they've got to be protected.
And there does seem to be evidence that it's the elites who are the criminals.
So my notion of China was there were a bunch of elites, and then separately there were a bunch of criminals, and if we could talk the elites into it, they would get the criminals in jail.
But the elites were allowing the criminals to operate because they hated the United States, and anything bad for the United States would be fine, so the criminals could sell all the fentanyl here that they wanted.
I no longer think that's the case.
My revised opinion is that there isn't enough difference between the elites and the top criminal elements in China because the elites are also laundering vast amounts of money because they're also criminals.
They're all criminals.
The elites plus the criminals.
But the elites need to launder their money too.
And for that they need criminals.
Because only the criminals can launder money.
The elites can't do it themselves.
So because the elites are also laundering mass amounts of money from their own crimes, they don't want to get rid of the money launderers, and they would have to to get rid of fentanyl.
So that the Chinese elites are actually the criminals.
And it's about money far more than about power.
Now, it could be that, you know, somebody like Xi is thinking about the power element of it, but the elites are mostly just making money and trying to stay out of jail.
And so they need the criminal element to help them do that.
So, there is no hope of getting China to stop the fentanyl trade.
That's the bottom line.
There's no hope because it would be like asking the mafia to stop doing crimes.
It would be exactly like that.
It would be like going to the mafia and saying, you know, we'd really, really like you to stop doing the crimes.
How would that go? They're not going to stop.
That's their job. That's their job, and there's nothing that's going to stop them.
So why would they stop?
So you may be aware that President Xi did this big anti-corruption thing.
So he was going to be the anti-corruption guy in China?
Do you know what that really was?
That was him just using anti-corruption laws to shut down his critics.
That's all. He was just consolidating power.
So China's never been anti-corruption.
It's always been making sure that your elites are corrupt as hell, but they're on your side.
Because the corruption is what holds the whole country together.
So, we should stop imagining that we can get them to stop.
And also in the article I read, the top Chinese money launderer, when you read the story of how that top money launderer rose through the ranks of crime to be as powerful as he is, it's obvious the government was behind him.
You can't even have any possibility in your mind That he didn't either bribe the government, own the government, or they were behind him the whole time, or he's working with their intelligence service or something.
But it's obvious that he didn't get all the way as far as he got without the government.
So the government and the criminal elements in China are basically the same thing.
So they don't operate exactly like a country.
They're sort of a mafia.
With the front story of being a country as well, which is sort of what Russia is.
Some say Russia is a gas station with the military.
I say it's a criminal organization that pretends to be a country.
Let's see, what else has happened?
Well, those are the front stories.
Did I miss anything?
Russia is down one military.
One military.
All right, let me ask you this.
Is it true or false that the Ukrainian army is stalled?
It's true, right?
You know, I read one story that said they were, quote, making gains around this one city, Kherson, whatever they're trying to recapture.
But if the story is not gushing about their success, it means they're not having any.
Right? Because everybody can make territorial gains as sort of a fluid situation.
I'm sure the Russians, you know, maybe in some ways are gaining a little too, who knows.
But to me it seems like the Ukrainians just hit a wall.
Unless they're waiting for new weapons to come in or something.
But it doesn't look at all like Ukraine can make more progress.
So, how do you like my idea yet?
I'll reiterate it without details.
My idea is that you make a three-part peace plan.
It goes like this.
Nobody owns the contested places.
You give them a government in the box, you give them all new governments, let them set up their own little situation, demilitarize them completely, and make them protectorates.
What would be a good example of a protectorate?
Costa Rica. Do you know anything about Costa Rica?
So it's fun to learn about.
You should spend like five minutes just reading the Wikipedia page for Costa Rica.
So Costa Rica doesn't have a military.
Do you know why? Don't need one.
Because they're a protectorate.
Who's going to attack Costa Rica?
We'd stop them in a heartbeat, right?
Nobody's going to attack Costa Rica.
So they get the economic advantage of not having to fund a military.
How big is that? That's what we could offer those disputed areas.
We could get rid of their military.
Potentially. All right, Costa Rica is a sovereign country.
But is it?
Is it? Is it really?
Well, yeah and no.
Meaning that if America needed something badly from Costa Rica and we weren't willing to negotiate about it, Costa Rica would do anything we wanted.
Because they would like to continue not having an army and, you know, live peacefully here.
So in a practical sense, Costa Rica is a little bit under our influence, or maybe a lot.
Bugs can still run independently and by any definition is an independent country.
Old folks talking about Costa Rica wrong again.
There's nothing I said about Costa Rica that was wrong.
You know, I get the generic trolls.
Everything you say is wrong.
Good for you. Good for you.
All right. So the first part is that they become independent protectorates.
The next part is that you divide up the natural resources in some way that the disputed territories make sure they get the biggest taste.
Because they're the ones who took the biggest brunt of it for the longest time.
So they should get the biggest taste of the natural resources going forward.
And then the next part would be space.
You make your agreement about Ukraine a small detail on a larger agreement with Russia that we should be on a trajectory toward being allies.
And I think that was the big thing that Trump did with North Korea that made that risk go down to what we don't worry about today, which is he simply He simply redefined the situation as not enemies.
That's all it took. And Russia is the same situation.
We could just redefine them as not enemies because we didn't have a reason to be enemies.
Have I told you the big reason that Russia and the United States are enemies?
Do you know the main reason we're enemies?
Let's see if you know this. What's the main reason the U.S. and Russia are at vodka, somebody said?
I believe it's because most of the people who work for the CIA got in the Russia wing of it.
I think they just have too many employees working on Russia stuff.
And Russia, probably same situation.
Or maybe just in response to the fact we have too many people.
I think Russia is just easier.
Like, easier to understand.
You went to school for it.
You learned a little Russian.
What are you going to do? If you're a career CIA person whose job depends on fighting the Russians, what are you going to do?
Say, you know, maybe these Russians aren't so bad after all.
You can't. It's your job to say they're bad and keep fighting them.
So we have probably just too many people we hired to fight Russia, without a reason.
Now, of course, once it gets going, you do have a reason.
Because Russia will push back, and you can't just ignore it.
But I think we're at that point where the reason that we poked them is because they poked us, and the reason they poked us is because we poked them, or we're going to, and that very little of it has any strategic value to either of us.
That's what I think. So, that's my peace plan.
And by the way, I have not heard one person argue with my peace plan as being impractical.
I'm sure somebody disagrees, but I haven't seen anybody argue.
No, I'm not saying it would work, but as a first draft...
Well, tell me what wouldn't work.
Which part of it wouldn't work?
So it's three parts. Dividing up resources has to happen.
Independent ownership of the disputed places pretty much has to happen.
It's the only thing that will keep them from war.
And then the space thing, I think, is just smart.
Somebody says Russia won't listen.
That's not an argument. Of course they'll listen.
They want to negotiate.
Too much emotion attached?
No, that would not stop us.
The Russian army has to be completely out of Ukrainian territories.
That would be part of the agreement.
Russia won't do it?
Well, look at Russia's options.
All right, so I've proposed something that neither Ukraine nor Russia would agree to.
Would you agree to that?
Would you agree that it doesn't look good for either Ukraine or Russia to do what I suggested?
They'd both lose something.
They'd both lose those disputed territories.
But they both have to lose.
Or they both have to win.
And you could spin it either way.
Why would you trust Russia?
You wouldn't. You wouldn't do an agreement that required trust alone.
You'd have to have some kind of guarantees.
Ukraine will make unreasonable demands.
Of course they will, as will Russia.
That's how it works.
Remember, I told you, we're going to go...
Who's going to enforce this agreement?
That's what you would arrange.
So you could imagine that you'd say something like, we'll put UN forces in there for five years.
Just see how it goes.
It couldn't be everybody's happy with it.
Because remember, if Russia wins that territory, there's still going to be fighting, right?
Because Ukraine will never be happy with it.
And vice versa. If Ukraine thought it won, then Russia would never be happy.
So the one thing that you know doesn't work is one of the sides winning.
Can we agree on that?
Can you agree that there's nothing like one side winning because the other side will just peck them to death with additional terrorist attacks forever?
That's how we got to this place.
The reason we're here is that the other side wouldn't quit.
Russia will not keep an agreement.
They haven't yet.
I think that's too broad.
It's definitely true you can't trust them.
They can't trust us.
But you can make agreements that don't require trust.
Or not much.
I mean, you could work your way through that.
It's the citizens that will fight forever.
Yeah, I don't think the citizens would fight forever if you gave them their autonomy, would they?
Because that's something everybody likes.
How about you be in control of yourself?
Well, okay. Am I ignoring the military-industrial complex?
No. The military-industrial complex wants to fight forever everywhere.
We all agree on that.
But you can guarantee that they need to finish wars, too.
They need to move to the next war.
Basically, we just have to give them another source of money and you can get them on your side.
And I think space might be that source.
I mean, we're going to need a lot of weapons in space, unfortunately.
Middle East 2.0.
France and Germany didn't enforce Minsk 2.0.
We had 20 years in Afghanistan and we still failed.
Yeah, there's definitely something about the industrial military complex keeping wars going forever.
But here's what's going to happen in Ukraine.
Does anybody think we won't go to the brink?
We're going to go to the brink, right?
We have to. So again, I tell you that when we go to the brink, which we have to, It still means, even when you're on the brink, the odds of an actual nuclear war are very low.
But we have to go to the brink.
And the reason we have to go to the brink is that if we don't, then our nuclear deterrent is bullshit.
Going to the brink is a necessary part of the process.
Now, does going to the brink increase the risk that you will accidentally or even intentionally launch?
Yes. Yes, it does.
We're going to a place where there will be more chance of a mistake.
But we have to pass through that stage.
You don't get to the stage after it until you pass through it.
So you're going to have to put your toes over the edge, and you're going to have to look into certain death.
And we're all going to have to do that.
And I'm laughing because it's so bad.
It's so bad that you just have to laugh.
But you're going to have to do that.
So just get ready for it.
You know, I don't know if there's any preparation one could do for a potential nuclear war in Europe.
I don't know what we could do.
I mean, I would make sure I had some food.
Are you at least doing that?
You're probably already doing that, right?
Is there anybody here who doesn't have a little extra food?
A little extra food left over from the pandemic, maybe?
If you don't have some...
By the way, here's a good recommendation for food.
I'm told that white rice can be stored in a dark place basically indefinitely.
But brown rice and organic stuff cannot, because the organic stuff has some oils in it or something that will go bad over time.
But white rice, you can just put it in a dark place and keep it forever.
And you can live a while on just rice and water if you had to.
You wouldn't be happy about it.
But if you had to.
So that's a very good thing to just have.
I also recommend protein powder.
I don't know about the health pluses or minuses of it, but it seems to me if you had the big thing of protein powder and you had a big thing of rice that would last forever, you'd have protein and you'd have at least some bulk, you'd have your calories, that plus water.
You know, you could add your protein mixed to water.
So, I mean, I think those would be your minimal preparations just in general.
Just in general. Now, what you have beyond that, you know, is extra.
Because, you know, if you need food beyond a month, I don't know.
I'm not sure I want to stay around.
I think I'd be looking for an exit plan.
If I had to forage for food for a month, I don't think I would, I wouldn't bother staying around.
That's just me. Quinoa.
This quinoa doesn't last indefinitely, though, does it?
Head to Costa Rica.
Yeah. Hey, Costa Rica's nice.
I've been there. All right.
Did I miss any topics?
I think I've done it all for today.
Doctor, the current state of our nuclear deterrent.
So here's a question. Can any of the so-called fine people who attended at Charlottesville, can they sue anybody for branding them as racists?
Because remember, I actually interviewed people who disavowed the racists, did not march with them because it was a big place.
They were in their own little area.
But they were all maligned as neo-Nazis because they wanted the statues to stay for historical reasons.
Do you think that they have a case?
Can they get a billion dollars like the Alex Jones people?
Small plastic bags are going to be illegal in California.
That law passed.
Yeah. In California, you can't have small plastic bags for the grocery store, anyway.
Do I own any cows?
No, I'm not going to own any cows, but I get your point.
Jones is bankrupt anyway.
Well, I don't know if the 2020 election had any problems.
I just am glad that it's the only system in America that doesn't have any problems.
So, how lucky is that, huh?
Lucky? All right.
Um... The California Doctors Misinformation Bill.
Never heard of that.
All right. BlackRock profits are down 16%.
I don't think that means anything, because we're in a weird period.
Did I see the Ray Epps AI confession tape?
No. In California, it's illegal for doctors to disagree with politicians.
