Episode 1937 Scott Adams: Today I Will Bend Your Brains Like Never Before. Happy Thanksgiving!
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
2022, everything you suspected was true
Medical doctors advice
Suspended accounts, general amnesty?
Whiteboard: Two Movies On One Screen
Balenciaga controversy continues
Dan Crenshaw threatens the cartels
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning, everybody, and a special Happy Thanksgiving to all Americans and Canadians and non-Americans, too.
We'll be thankful for all of you.
And today, you have managed to blunder upon, or possibly cleverly planned to be here, the highlight of civilization itself.
And I'm going to bend your brain so hard today.
Oh yeah, you better put a seatbelt on your brain, because I'm going to be tweaking it a little bit today.
And if you'd like to get ready for this brain-bending experience, the most awesome thing, commercial-free, that you've ever seen in your entire life, oh yeah, it includes a whiteboard.
I wasn't even going to tell you because I didn't want you to get too excited too fast.
We've got to build to it.
Build up to it. And the first thing you need is...
A cup, a mug, a glass, a tank, a chalice, a dine, a cantine, a jug, 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 of the day, the special Thanksgiving sip.
It's called the Simultaneous Thanksgiving Sip Today, and it happens now.
Go! Ah, yeah.
Holiday good. Well, I almost don't know where to start because today was filled with so much wonder and goodness in the news that I can barely contain myself.
Yeah, good times.
Well, let's just start with a big thank you to locals for saving my life this year.
A lot closer to a factual statement than you think.
You think there's a little hyperbole in there.
Well, literally, you kept me alive.
I don't think I could have gotten through the pandemic without this experience.
I tried as hard as I could to give back as much value as I could so that you would come out ahead.
That's one of my rules, by the way.
You want a good rule for life?
Here's probably the best.
Yeah, maybe. Maybe the single best advice anybody would ever give you.
Give people more than they expect.
That's it. You've heard that advice before, right?
The only people who ever give you that advice?
Successful people. How much do you want to work with somebody who gives you more than you expected?
It just changes your whole day.
It's like, really? That's more than I expected.
Yeah. Plant over, deliver.
Plant over, deliver.
Alright, so that's a sincere thank you and Let's have another good year.
Joy Reid apparently said some things about Thanksgiving and called it out for being fake news and propaganda.
Thank you MSNBC for taking our wonderful holiday and turning it into garbage.
But here's the funny thing.
Today's Thanksgiving and today we will not be saying only negative things about people.
I'll save that for the rest of the year.
Today we're going to be good to people.
And I would like to call out that Joy Reid, no matter what you think of her political opinions, she's very smart.
She's very smart.
And she's also totally right.
She's totally right.
Thanksgiving was designed as a propaganda brainwashing operation to, in part, Sanitize our ugly past of how we treated the Native Americans.
As she said it, she told her viewers on MSNBC, quote, the Thanksgiving is built on this myth that the indigenous welcomed their colonizers with open arms and ears of corn.
Now that's pretty funny.
Because that's almost exactly what I learned.
That the Native Americans are like, hey, hey, we got company.
Somebody get the corn.
They're going to need corn.
That's sort of how I learned it.
Not exactly historically accurate.
So, I have two feelings.
Number one, Joy Reid, you're totally correct.
Thanksgiving is the ultimate fake news.
It's built entirely upon this myth of awesome people getting together.
And maybe there was a little bit of it.
But the intention of it is to bring the country together and create a narrative that we can rally around and make us better people.
So, it is fake news.
It is propaganda.
But it's the good kind.
It's the good kind. I'll put it in this category, the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Pledge of Allegiance is just brainwashing.
It's literally just propaganda brainwashing of American citizens, for which I am totally in favor.
That's the good kind of brainwashing, right?
You send your kids to school.
If the school does a good job, we won't talk about, you know, the bad public school system.
But if they do a good job, they're brainwashing your kids, but in a good way.
Hey, you should work hard, you know?
They don't learn that like I just tried to brainwash you by saying you should deliver more than people expect.
I'm definitely trying to influence you.
So, you know, influence and brainwashing is everywhere all the time.
But some of it's good.
And I think Thanksgiving is a great example of turning some horrible history into maybe some positive.
Give people an excuse to just feel thankful for a while.
It's good for us. Alright, here's a robot logic test.
Are you ready? Here's your test to see if you can objectively look at this story.
Without your robot bigotry that you will bring to it.
Okay? The story is the San Francisco Police Department has proposed a new policy that would give robots the license to kill humans.
Now, you might say to yourself, I would need more information about that story.
It feels like there might be some important details that are left out of the initial reporting.
The important detail being...
It's not an autonomous robot.
It's a robot that somebody's like steering and controlling.
The robot's not deciding to kill people.
Come on! We don't have those robots.
And if a person is controlling the robot and telling it to shoot and where to shoot, isn't that just a gun?
Basically, we just defined a fancy gun as a robot.
It's just, if a person is telling it to shoot, and then it shoots, it's just a gun.
That's all it is.
It's just a really fancy one that has, you know, a remote sight, and they can move around without you touching it, but it's just a gun.
Now, how many of you immediately realized that it wasn't really a story about robots?
Not really. It's just a better form of a gun, or a way to deliver a gun, I guess.
All right. Here's a challenge I did on Twitter today.
I want you to see if you could summarize the year 2022 in the snarkiest, most cynical way.
What's the snarkiest one sentence you could say about the whole year?
Here was my initial primer for this.
Mine is, everything you suspected about everything turned out to be true.
Doesn't it feel like that?
Doesn't it feel as if everything you sorta suspected was exactly what was going on?
Now, to be clear, many of you are in a different reality than I am.
But in both cases, we followed a reality in which the thing we expected, or suspected, turned out to be true.
Your reality and mine might be different, But we both found ourselves to be right, but in different realities.
They don't match, like your reality and mine might not match.
But we all got to feel like we were right in the end, which is weird.
All right. Here's some fake news coming out, I think, about Foxconn and China.
Have you seen all the video of what appeared to be the Chinese government cracking down on the workers who seem to be trying to escape from their COVID quarantine?
Have you all seen those videos?
Or that news story? It looks terrible, right?
Looks like the government is cracking down on them.
They're trying to keep them in like a little jail to keep working and stuff.
Well, that might not be the story.
Turns out that might be an entirely fake story.
Don't know. So I'm not going to say that the story that calls BS on the story is true.
But I'll let you know what it is.
Apparently, the real problem is they were promised bonuses, and then the company reneged.
On top of that, they're also mad about the lockdowns, but it was about the bonuses.
And apparently they solved it by working out some accommodation with the bonuses.
So it was also about the lockdowns.
That was part of the story. But it wasn't really a lockdown story.
It was pretty much an ordinary story of a company having an employee problem.
Now, I saw also a theory that Foxconn always has to relocate and has over time because they can only operate where you can abuse your employees the most.
So, allegedly, they were in a place where, as soon as it got more industrialized, you couldn't have this horrible company in the middle of your nice place.
So I had to move where there are even poorer people who have fewer health protections.
So the thinking is that China eventually will be too...
Modernized to actually accommodate Foxconn.
And the Foxconn will actually have to leave China to find an even worse country to operate in.
Because their business model requires that you not have, you know, essentially safety controls.
So they can't have that, I guess.
Now, that's somebody's version.
I'm not saying that's true. I'm saying that, you know, that's being promoted as one interpretation of what's happening there.
I have no idea what's happening in China, just as a general statement.
All right. I did a poll on Twitter, which is, of course, highly unscientific, and I asked how many people have rejected advice from their own doctors since the pandemic?
How many people have rejected advice from their own doctors since the pandemic?
Now, famously, you know I have.
And each time I rejected my doctor's advice, I did well.
I am not recommending you reject your doctor's advice.
Can I be really clear about that?
I am not recommending that anybody ignore their doctor's advice.
But we can talk about it, right?
Is that fair? If I talk about it, it doesn't mean I'm recommending it.
Just be clear about that.
Two-thirds of the people who answered, of course it's a biased, unscientific poll, but two-thirds of the people said yes, that they had ignored their doctor.
I even ignored my veterinarian.
I ignored my veterinarian and my doctor on several very important things.
I am currently ignoring my doctor who ordered a full blood panel for me.
Do you know why I'm ignoring my doctor's full blood panel?
Because I don't know why I need it.
I don't have a specific complaint.
If I do the blood panel, do you think it will find something that looks suspicious?
Probably. You know, I'm at that age.
Do you think I should treat it?
That's where it gets dicey.
What if it finds something?
And it probably will, right?
Oh, your kidney function is a little this or that, so you better take this pill.
Do you think I'm going to take that pill?
Probably not. Probably not.
Right? Yeah.
Maybe, you know, two years ago, probably yes.
Probably yes. But today, I mean, I'm really, really going to have to have a strong, strong argument to take another pharmaceutical product.
It's going to have to be a strong argument.
Here's the other one. I had been on asthma meds for 20 years.
25, something like that.
And I have two kinds.
I don't use the emergency inhaler, because I just don't need it.
But there's a kind that you use, you know, sort of a baseline one to keep you healthy.
My doctor looked at that and said, you know, do you have any symptoms of asthma?
I said, no. Probably because I do this baseline thing every day.
And she said, you don't need that unless you have symptoms.
And I said, what?
I've been taking this for 25 years.
Twice a day for 25 years.
She goes, no, that's not really even indicated for what you have if you don't have any symptoms.
And I said, but if I stop taking this, won't I immediately have trouble breathing?
And she said, well, if you do, then use your emergency inhaler and get back on it.
So I thought, oh, I'll try it.
First day that I didn't do my regular asthma meds, I couldn't breathe.
I couldn't get to sleep.
I was like gasping for air.
And I was like, oh, shit, I really do need this stuff.
And then I thought about it a little bit more.
And I thought, I wonder if that was psychological, right?
And it was. I just sucked it up and tried it again, put a little more effort into relaxing, and now it's been a week without the meds, and I breathe perfectly.
I can run up and down stairs.
My exercise routine is actually the best it's ever been.
You know, I have the best muscle definition of my entire life at age 65.
I mean, I'm just not sure that...
I don't know what's going on.
With healthcare.
But it's pretty sketchy.
Now here's the payoff for this.
Remember we were all confused about why the baseline deaths are so high?
And some people say, it must be the long COVID. And other people say, no, no, no.
It's the treatment for the long COVID. It's the vaccination.
That's what's hurting people.
But allow me to add a hypothesis to the mix.
The hypothesis is that people stop taking medical advice.
And maybe some of it was essential for them to stay alive.
Because I don't know what I'm going to do when I reach a situation where the doctor's right.
Because it's going to happen eventually, right?
I can't keep getting lucky and overruling a trained medical professional with decades of experience.
I'm not going to be right every time.
You get that, right? Even though it appears that I have had extraordinarily good success, finally, of making decisions that are opposite of, let's say, medical science, even though I believe I've done it totally successfully up to this point, I feel like the next one could be the one that kills me.
The very next thing I refuse to do might be the one that kills me.
So I can't make a recommendation that you ignore your doctor.
But I will say this.
We should at least be open to the hypothesis, subject to testing, that maybe people stop listening to good advice.
Is that a thing? What do you think?
I think the baseline death thing is going to be a combination of several variables.
It's not going to be one thing.
But that might be one of them.
Might be. I don't know.
All right. Elon Musk continues to entertain.
Remember he found that big closet full of t-shirts for Twitter employees that said, stay woke?
And we all had a good laugh that, you know, their closet was full of them.
Well, apparently Musk has taken it to the next level.
And he's created shirts that he's selling, I don't know, on the Twitter store?
I don't know where he's selling it.
But instead of stay woke, it says stay at work.
Stay at work.
Now, could that be funnier?
It would be impossible for that to be funnier.
That is just perfect.
All right. Remind me on the Locals platform.
Then I'm going to tell you some behind-the-scenes stuff that I can't tell the YouTube people, okay?
So when we get to the end of the live stream, I'm going to go private on Locals.
But remind me that the topic is cybernetic intelligence.
that's the topic alright there'll be a little behind the scenes stuff for you alright what else is going on um So here's the most mind-blowing, you thought it was true, and then it turns out it is.
So Musk is saying, Musk asked, should Twitter offer a general amnesty to suspended accounts, provided that they have not broken law or engaged in egregious spam?
And I answered.
A lot of people were giving him advice, which I love.
I mean, I just love watching people give Musk advice how to fix Twitter.
Because Musk has determined that Twitter itself operates like a brain.
Do you see how he's using it?
He uses it the same way I use my live stream, especially the Locals platform.
I use the Locals platform as my auxiliary brain.
Like any question I have, I just put it out there and there's somebody who knows the answer.
It's way better than Google, it's way better than the experts sometimes.
And Musk knows that too, he said it directly, that Twitter's operating like a big brain.
And now he asks the big brain, what should I do?
And then the big Twitter brain tells him.
Now he still makes the final decision, but my God, my God, watching the richest guy in the world, arguably the most successful engineer without even being a trained engineer, watching him create, or actually take advantage of, Twitter as a brain, and then using that brain as part of his business process, We've never seen anything like this.
This is all next level, kind of like management.
It's like management from the future or some damn thing.
I mean, this is just insane to watch this happening.
But my advice for him was this, that if you're going to do a general amnesty for these suspended accounts, the single best time in the world to do it would be under new management.
There will never be a time that's more perfect than that.
Why? Because you don't want to set a precedent.
The biggest problem with bringing somebody back is it creates this ugly precedent of, well, I guess I can do anything I want, because I'm coming back.
But if you say, once only, because we're redoing Twitter, it's under new management, once only, we're going to give a general amnesty, this is never going to happen again.
People would believe that.
I think if you said it's because of new ownership and also the product is being revamped, people would say, oh, that's a once-only.
I'll take advantage of this one-only time.
So whether or not he lets everybody come back, I don't know.
I don't have a prediction about that.
But I'll tell you that if he decides to do it, it's now.
Like, would you agree?
That if you're going to do it, this is the time to do it, period.
So that's all I could add to the conversation.
Yeah, this is the time. But I don't know.
There might be some people that are just way over the line.
Now, let's talk about two movies on one screen.
Back in 2016 or so, I coined that phrase because I saw that Trump was creating a situation where we'd bifurcated reality into two completely different realities.
And I saw that coming early and I said, we're living in multiple realities at the same time.
We're looking at the same stuff, the same screen, but what I see on that screen isn't what you see.
We're just in our own realities, even though we're looking at the same stuff.
Now, the way most of you have traditionally interpreted that is that if people disagree what's true, it could be that both of them are wrong, but usually you're trying to figure out which one is right and which one is wrong.
That's the general view of the world.
That is not, however, my view of the world.
I don't live in your world.
I'm going to see how many I can bring to my world.
And by my world, I mean my interpretation of reality itself.
Alright, do you remember when the other day we watched reality bifurcate in real time?
It's when I did the simultaneous sip that I do before every livestream, and many people said, hey, you forgot to do it.
And then other people who were here at exactly the same time, watching the same thing, said, yes you did.
And then you could see people were quite sure that their reality was right and the other reality was wrong.
Your interpretation of the situation is one of those groups was correct and one of those groups was incorrect.
Can I confirm that?
Is it your view that maybe you don't know who is correct, but you would say somebody was correct and somebody was incorrect?
Because it's binary. It's a yes-no.
It either happened or it didn't happen.
That's it, right?
And now that's your normal view of the reality, is that it either literally happened or it didn't.
That's not my reality.
I do not live in a reality where it was either true or false.
Which will take a little explaining.
Here's my reality.
In my reality, there was this event that triggered two different worlds.
So we split into people who were sure it happened and people who were sure it did not happen.
As long as...
There's never a requirement that we agree.
We can live in those two different worlds forever.
And there's not a preferred, correct one.
Here's where I'll make you crazy.
You might be aware that Einstein once said there's no preferred observer.
So if you're trying to understand reality, Einstein says, well, if you were traveling at the speed of light, reality would look one way and would actually be that way.
If you were not traveling at the speed of light, reality would look different to you and would actually be different to you.
Right? There's no preferred reality.
That's Einstein. That's not me.
Einstein said you can live in your own reality, depending on the speed, the angle, and how you're observing.
There's no preferred reality.
And I'm going to tell you the same thing.
That this thing you think is a truth, that one of these happened and one didn't?
Probably nothing happened.
That's the world I live in.
The world I live in is like a user interface.
So here's the analogy, and then I'll take it back to the real world.
If you're using a computer and you click on an icon, you don't actually know what the icon's doing.
It's moving zeros and ones in a way that you trust will get you something you predict, but you don't know what's happening.
You only know you get a predictable result.
My view of reality is that there are two things that you can know, and that's about all you can know.
One, you can know you exist, because you're asking the question.
Two, you can know that some things appear to have consistent predictive results to you.
And I say appear because you can't be sure.
The only thing you're sure of is that it appears that way.
You're not sure it's true.
You're just sure that that's your impression.
So the two things you know is that you exist and that you have impressions of things.
That's it. Everything else is mysterious.
So, here's the world I live in.
And this will sound so weird that I'm going to lose most of you.
In the world I live in, there was no simultaneous sip.
The simultaneous sip was like an icon on the screen, and you saw the icon, but you didn't know the reality of it.
The reality of it could be that I'm a three-headed lizard from the planet Flurbapon, And I was sticking a metal spike in my ear.
And then, maybe for other people, they were watching an empty screen.
But they were imagining I was there.
Who knows? So what I'm saying is that something happened, but the people who say it happened...
Didn't see anything real.
That's just the icon.
And the people who say it didn't happen also did not see anything real.
They only saw the icon.
So this can all work within our reality as long as there's never a requirement that the two realities solve.
And there isn't. Those two realities never need to solve.
Now you say to yourself, Scott, you just have to go back and look at the video.
And then solve it. So what happens if somebody goes back and looks at the video?
Well, the most that they'll find out is that their icon-level user interface reality part, maybe they'll say, oh, I guess I just missed it.
So you would rapidly explain to yourself why you were in the wrong reality, but then you would think, oh, I went from being wrong to being right.
But probably not. The way I see reality is you went from one thing you didn't understand to another thing you didn't understand.
But maybe one of them was more predictive.
That's it. Or at least it feels more predictive.
That's all you know is that you exist and it looks like some things are predictive.
That's it. There's nothing else you know.
You live in a world where it was either true or false that there was a simultaneous sip.
I permanently live in a world where the question doesn't make sense.
All I know is I was pushing icons.
That's it. All right.
So let's talk about this Balenciaga story.
I so wanted not to talk about this story.
I'm really, really trying to not talk about mass murders or anything with children.
I just try to avoid it.
But the story became too fantastical.
I mean, I can't avoid it anymore.
And here's what we know.
But there's probably more we don't know than what we know.
So Balenciaga, a big fashion brand that worked with Kanye and dropped him because of his recent comments, they did an advertisement campaign in which children were shown with teddy bears that looked like they were in, you know, bondage attire.
And then other photos, not the same one with the bears, I guess, but other photos that Balenciaga had, had documents sort of on a desk that seemed to indicate Some kind of message about illegal underage sex or something.
So there's a court case.
Now there were some other little indications that Balenciaga's got some badness going on.
Now, the question I ask is, well, why hasn't somebody just talked to the people who did the photo?
Why are we listening to the executives of...
Balenciaga, who, by the way, apologized.
They said we never should have paired children with these products.
But there's still a lot missing, right?
Now, so I said, why can't we hear from the people who did the photo?
And then people on Twitter, because Twitter is a big cybernetic brain, immediately corrected me and said, we have, we have.
He's already issued a statement.
So here's what the photographer said.
The photographer said, hey, hey, hey, I'm just the guy who makes sure the lighting and the photo is good.
It's the brand that tells me what to photograph.
I'm not the person who chose the teddy bears.
So he's in the clear, right?
Photographer's in the clear? Because the photographer was not in charge of what the photo was.
He was just pushing the button to make sure the lighting was good, right?
So I had this conversation with another photographer who agreed with that photographer and said that this other photographer said, well, I too have done many photo shoots, including brands.
And when it's a brand, you actually don't get to choose what you shoot.
It's the brand. So the brand hires you.
They say, here's my product.
Take a picture of this thing.
And then, you know, you can control the lighting and stuff.
But basically, you're just doing what the brand tells you to do.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to tell you about something I've never seen before.
This is the greatest thing that's ever happened in the history of social media.
You may never see it again.
I don't want you to miss it.
It's a special Thanksgiving story.
The greatest thing anybody's ever seen on social media.
I changed somebody's mind.
Have you ever seen that?
Actually changed somebody's mind.
So the photographer who said that...
Did I actually not get a photo of that?
So I tweeted back and said...
Now, I've been in lots of photo shoots.
Maybe hundreds. So being the Dilber guy...
For years and years, every two days, somebody would say, can we do a photo shoot and put you in some publication?
And I would say yes, because it was all good publicity.
So I know a lot about photo shoots.
Some of you have been in one or two, but I know a lot about photo shoots.
And here's what I said.
I said that the photographer is the captain of the ship.
Yes, the brand says, we'd like to hire you to do this, but once you're in the room, I said, the photographer is the captain of the ship.
Now, that's been my experience.
But this photographer argued and said, no, the brand tells you what to shoot.
You just push the buttons and make sure the lighting is right.
So I responded, and thank you, somebody at Locals posted it for me so I could read it for you.
So I responded, I said, you'd shoot child porn for a paycheck?
And then I said, let me defend you before you answer.
No, you would not.
You're a citizen before you're a photographer.
And here's the funny part.
Have you ever seen anybody just agree with you on Twitter?
So after I said that, you'd shoot child porn for a paycheck?
Let me defend you before you answer.
No, you would not. You're a citizen before you're a photographer.
And then he responded with, and his name is M.J. Reincarnate, I guess.
Or reincarnate? No, that's not his name.
That's his Twitter name. But he said, I would not, meaning he would not shoot child porn for a paycheck.
He said, I would not, of course.
Okay, you're right.
I think the photographer should share more of the blame here.
You're such a good persuader.
Holy fuck. I never thought I'd change my mind on this.
And David Boxenhorn caught the exchange, and he notes that he thinks the persuasive part of what I said was when I said, let me defend you before you answer.
Now, do you recognize the technique?
Let me defend you before you answer.
What was the technique?
The technique was basically, I'm on your side.
It's basically, you and I are on the same side.
Let me defend you here, because you basically just said you wouldn't say no to pedos.
Yes, you would. Yes, you would.
Let me help you out here. But also, the argument was pretty solid, right?
So he immediately caved to it.
So, here's what you need to know about the photographer.
The photographer said, I'm not the one who set up the scene.
I just took the picture. But you're still a citizen.
Maybe a parent.
I don't know. I think there's an obligation that's a little bit bigger than a photographer.
You know what I mean? So I will take it as truth that the photographer was not behind some pedophile ring.
Probably not. Probably not.
But should the photographer have raised an objection?
Probably yes. And I think the photographer...
Maybe you should say that directly.
Because the person who hired the photographer says it directly.
The person who hired the photographer says we should not have done this.
So it's easy for the photographer to say, yeah, you know, I got caught up in it.
Totally wrong on me.
My bad. I would accept that.
Would you? I would actually accept that.
Because people do kind of get rolled into doing things they don't want to, you know, it's just not my day to complain sort of thing.
You should have complained, but I could see a normal person making that mistake.
That's not the worst thing in the world.
Now, he also points out that he had nothing to do with what was on the set.
That's probably true. So the photographer doesn't necessarily bring the props.
That would be the brand people more often than not.
And some other photographer took the picture that had those sketchy documents on it.
Now here's the second thing.
Why would somebody leave these obvious clues in a photo shoot?
Let's say it wasn't the photographer who did it, but somebody did.
Somebody involved in the setup.
Why would somebody do that? I can see two possibilities.
One, they're part of a large grooming ring and they're sending out the signal and making it safe for everybody, something like that.
But here's the other possibility.
It was a whistleblower.
It was a whistleblower.
It could have been a cowardly whistleblower who said, you know what?
I can't blow the whistle on this.
It's too dangerous. But I'll make sure somebody knows.
I'm just going to put this right here.
If you don't see this, that's on you.
Now, somebody says it could be a practical joke.
Maybe. Maybe.
I mean, that would be a horrible practical joke, but could happen.
I mean, it's not impossible.
Could be somebody who liked Kanye more than they liked this company.
Right? It could be employee sabotage.
Employee sabotage.
Somebody who simply liked Ye and didn't like what the company did and said, all right, well, see if you like this.
So I wouldn't assume that Balenciaga is guilty of any major thing.
That's not in evidence.
But I wouldn't clear them either.
Because I don't think their response...
It goes to why there were so many indications.
It's one thing to say we shouldn't put kids in an ad, but they dealt with one variable when the conversation is multiple variables.
So, yeah, there's more to know here.
I have been never on the team, and I think you can confirm this, I have never been on the team that says the world is run by a cabal of elite pedos, pedophiles.
You can confirm I've never said...
I've never suggested that's the case, right?
However... In the interest of fairness, however...
Let me point out that, number one, yes, there are a lot of signals that are starting to look very suspicious.
A lot of signals.
Does that mean it's true?
Nope. No matter how many pieces of confirmation you see, confirmation bias is still more likely.
Still more likely.
However, if you would like to have a little bit of comfort in your view, which might differ from mine, allow me to help you out.
Here's the best argument for the existence of a pedo-elite running the world.
Follow the money.
That's it. Unless follow the money doesn't work in this and only this situation, because it works everywhere else.
Follow the money should give you the following situation, and I'll explain why.
If you assume that Epstein Island was a blackmail operation, you mostly believe that, right?
Don't you all understand that as probably a blackmail operation?
Most people believe that.
Now, I don't know that it's true, but let's assume it is.
Now, let's assume also that billionaires...
Like to fund politicians they can control.
Would you agree with that?
Billionaires who want to fund politicians have a strong preference for funding ones they can control.
What would be the most valuable politician for a billionaire?
One that has some blackmail, you know, working against them.
So, in theory, Follow the money as long as blackmail of political people is a real thing.
I think Epstein shows it is.
And as long as billionaires fund the people they want to control, you should eventually get to the point where only pedophiles and sexual criminals are running things.
Because the billionaires would make sure they only had people they could control in the highest rings of government because Let's get rid of this cunt, Calvin Johnson.
Doesn't even sound like a real person.
Goodbye, Calvin. You are worthless and a piece of shit.
Happy Thanksgiving. Yeah.
So just to be clear, if I get taken out of context, I'm not saying that there is an elite pedophile government entity.
I'm just saying that if you believe following the money gives you good predictions, it does predict that we'll have that eventually.
If we don't have it now, we should be heading in that direction.
And I don't know what the argument against it would be.
Can anybody think of a counterargument?
Either follow the money works, or it doesn't.
And if it works, we're heading toward a blackmail-only government.
And maybe we're already there.
Maybe we're already there.
Their live fashion show is all the same theme, yeah.
Well, I don't know.
You know, there's something that happens with fashion that doesn't happen other places.
Do you remember when heroin chic was the look that they were all trying to get on the runway?
Like women who looked like they literally were heroin addicts.
That was a thing for a while.
And I don't think that that meant that the fashion industry was promoting heroin.
Like I think they actually treated it as just a fashion statement.
So I would not rule out that as upsetting and Let's say, as big as the signal looks, I wouldn't rule out that the fashion industry doesn't see it.
Because the fashion industry has always been a little suspicious about how they treat underage people, right?
Wouldn't you say that's sort of a general theme that runs across the fashion industry?
Say, the exploitation of the young.
So I feel like it's just so much in the DNA of the fashion industry that it's not shocking that one of them would cross the line and not even know it.
Like, just be completely unaware.
Oh, to normal people, this is too far?
Don't you think that the fashion people don't interact with normal people too much?
They probably interacted with people who said, oh yeah, that's edgy, and that works.
So, there are still other ways to explain what we see that do not require an elite pedophile ring of people coordinating.
You just can't rule it out.
Can't rule it out. I live in a world where it's true and not true at the same time.
I feel like somebody could run for president under the slogan of making healthcare follow science.
And you wouldn't even have to explain what that meant.
But imagine a presidential candidate saying, look, this has never really been a topic of politics before, but I guess it needs to be.
Let's make healthcare subject to science.
Now, let me do a little test for you.
Let me promise you...
That I'm not going to talk about the effectiveness of masks or vaccines.
Can we agree not to do that?
So I'm going to be in that domain, but I'm not going to say whether they work or don't work, because I believe that neither is true.
I don't think it's true that they work, and I don't think it's true that they don't work.
I think we're operating at a user interface level, and that's it.
Maybe masks don't even exist.
I don't know. But I'm just making the narrow claim that, let's say Trump or somebody else, DeSantis or somebody, if they ran and said, look, we're going to have to fix the public's trust of health care science, or science in general, because there's climate science as well.
If you just said, I'm going to do what we can to make science more credible.
Now, I don't know what you would do, Maybe it's information.
And then let me ask you this.
This would be a good test.
How many of you believe that the...
And again, I'm not going to argue what's true and not true.
I'm only going to ask you what you've seen, right?
It's not an argument about the science.
How many of you have seen a collection of studies saying face masks do not work?
Go. How many have seen at least one study or maybe a collection of studies that say face masks do not work?
Lots of yeses.
Yes, yes, yes. Yes, yes, yes.
Tons of them. And even the ones who have not seen them, you're aware that other people have, right?
You know that lots of people have seen those studies.
Okay. All right. Now, I'm going to give you a second to stop answering this question.
I need you to stop answering this question so that I can ask you the next one and they don't get confused.
Okay? So, stop answering that question for a moment.
I'll give you a little time lag here.
Now... Thank you.
Um... Now, how many of you have seen the collection of studies that prove face masks work against COVID? Not just one, but like a collection of them.
How many of you have seen those?
A lot of yeses.
Okay, now you're surprising me on locals.
Locals, people have seen more.
There are more noes. Now, those of you who have never seen that, you've never seen an entire collection of of studies that all indicate mass work.
You've never even seen it. Do you believe it exists?
If you've never seen it, do you think the problem is you haven't seen it, or that it doesn't exist?
This is going to be hurting some of your brains.
Let me tell you something that I know that some of you have not experienced.
Since I've always been open to the question, I've had some opinions, but we won't get into them.
I've always been open to the question of, well, I could be totally right or I could be totally wrong.
So I wasn't really too married to a view on face masks.
And so I've seen, because I've asked for it, I've seen vast lists of proof that masks don't work, and I've seen, just as persuasive, large lists of studies proving it totally does.
If you haven't seen both, then you're not informed.
Is that fair? Now, I'm not saying which of the studies are dependable, because I don't think any of them are.
My opinion of all of the studies is that they're all bad.
100% bad. I don't believe any of the studies.
None of them. Not either direction.
Don't believe them at all. But if you've never seen that the other side has as much credibility in their studies as your side, whichever side you're on, the other side is just as armed.
Did you know that? How many of you knew, and again, I'm not saying who's right or wrong, did you know that the other side from you has just as good evidence?
Now, you may say, oh, those are bad studies and mine are good.
You don't know. We don't know what a good study is.
Sometimes you can find a bad one, but you can't tell if the good one is really good.
Is anybody's mind blown by learning for the first time right now?
Because I think you believe me, right?
I think everybody believes me.
I have seen it, and there are other people who have seen it too.
But is anybody's mind blown that the other side from you has just as good scientific information?
I guess nobody's mind is blown by that.
You all expect it, I guess.
In a related story that Shooter, who shot up the...
I guess the Club Q, which is LBGTQ kind of a place.
And it turns out that the shooter's father was a porn actor named Dick Delaware.
Dick Delaware.
Which is weird, because I thought that was Hunter Biden's porn name.
Wasn't Hunter Biden Dick Delaware?
I mean, if he wasn't, he should have been.
He should have been.
Well, that's all I have to say about that.
You really need to see the video of the shooter's father talking about his anti-gay opinion and how he raised his son to favor violence for solving problems.
I think we found the problem.
He was actually raised to be this kind of guy.
Okay. That's pretty bad.
All right. Oh, I forgot to mention this.
That poor photographer who is innocent until proven guilty, can we agree on that?
That the photographer for Balenciaga is innocent until proven guilty, which is separate from the question of whether he should have stopped it.
Yeah, he's innocent until proven guilty.
So I'm going to treat him as innocent, because I actually think he probably is.
Made a bad call about whether taking the picture, but, you know, that's just a bad call.
But he had an earlier tweet, I guess in July of this year, that is being interpreted in two opposite ways.
We'll see which way you interpret this.
His tweet was, it was something about gun control, and he said...
In a tweet he said, why restrict child porn but not guns?
That's what he said.
Why restrict child porn but not guns?
Is he saying child porn should be restricted or child porn should not be restricted?
It's a little unclear, isn't it?
So confirmation bias is driving people to believe that he tweeted in favor of pedos.
Nobody does that.
He did not tweet in favor of pedophilia.
That did not happen.
I'm sure somebody's done it somewhere.
But he didn't do that.
No. It was against gun ownership.
He was just saying that they should both be banned.
If you think he was pro-gun, then it looks like maybe both should be legal or something.
But if you read that tweet as being pro-pedo, I think that's on you.
All right. There's a story I don't have a confirmation on.
Was it true that the Club Q that got shot up had advertised it was going to hold an all-ages drag show the next day?
I saw that on Twitter.
Is that confirmed? Because that feels a little too on the nose, doesn't it?
Is that a little too convenient?
Or was it actually the reason?
Because it could have been the reason.
Because here's the thing. Why wouldn't you shoot it up...
Oh, the kids would be there the next day.
Does that make sense? I was going to say he should attack the event, not the place that advertises the event.
I don't know. That doesn't sound...
I'm going to still say I don't believe it.
It could well be true, but I feel like I'd need more reporting on that to believe that one.
And then Tim Poole is getting in trouble...
He tweeted this, we shouldn't tolerate pedophiles grooming kids.
And then he says, Club Q had a grooming event, referring to what I just mentioned.
And then Tibbs says, how do you prevent the violence and stop the grooming?
How do you talk against the grooming without causing a crazy person to do something like this?
And then people are trying to cancel Tim Pool for saying that.
To which I say, isn't that...
That's the question we're all dealing with, isn't it?
Aren't we all grappling with the exact question that Tim Pool just asked?
Why in the world is he getting cancelled?
It's literally exactly what you're thinking.
You just said it out loud.
How did he get in trouble for that?
Yeah, the whole point is it's difficult to separate your criticism from the fact that it might activate a crazy person.
And that's true of a lot of different topics.
If you say those darn Republicans are a bunch of fascists, does that cause some Democrat to hunt a Republican?
Yes. Yes, it does.
Should you not be allowed to say your opinion?
That's another problem. So I feel like we just have to live with the fact that if you do a fair criticism of something that deserves to be criticized, somebody, somewhere, can see that as an excuse for, you know, danger.
So I think, unfortunately, it's just the cost of a free system.
You know, I don't know what you could do about that.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, that brings us to the conclusion of the planned part of my thing.
I'm going to tell the local stuff some extra stuff.
Is there anything I forgot that's in the news?
Anything I should mention?
It's a 10 out of 10.
I think so. I think so.
Have you checked? Well, I'm not a turkey eater.
When you don't eat turkey, did Dan Crenshaw really threaten the cartels?
I didn't see any specific threat.
Did he do that? I hope he did.
You know, when you see Dan Crenshaw threaten the cartels, that should be telling you something.
Because remember, whatever you think of Crenshaw, and I know you've got different opinions about him as a politician, the one thing we don't doubt is that he's a brave military guy who seems to have a different relationship with risk and danger than the rest of us do.
And you might need somebody as brave as a Crenshaw to take on the cartels, because they would definitely go after him.
So you need somebody with gigantic balls to even talk out loud about going after the cartel.
Oh, by the way, on locals, remind me to tell you something else I can't say out loud here about the cartels.
So you're going to remind me about the cartels.
I'll tell you about that, too. All right.
Crenshaw is as tough as an old boot.
That's what Peterson says.
All right, I don't know if I'm going to do a live stream today just to say hi for Thanksgiving.
Thank you.
Whoa, hello. Crenshaw introduces Declaring War on Cartels Act.
God, I love the locals' platform because they can paste an image in the comments.
So every time I ask a question, here's the exact answer.
So let me read this. This is from Crenshaw, November 16th.
Today, Representative Dan Crenshaw announced the introduction of the Declaring War on the Cartels Act.
The bill is designed to combat transnational criminal cartels, illegal activities, with increased criminal penalties and the targeting of their finances.
Well, that's a different definition of war.
War against their finances...
It's good. I'm all for it.
But it's short of what we need to do.
Now, here's how I would do it.
I've said this before.
I would not just bomb a cartel operation.
I would make sure they had a few days to know it was going to be bombed.
So I think you do it the Israel way, where if there's, say, a Palestinian terrorist...
Israel will destroy the family's home.
But they tell the family to get out and then they bulldoze it.
They don't leave the family in there when they're destroying the home.
So I think giving the cartel notice so that you can try to avoid any collateral damage is the best you can do.
They probably would leave human shields there.
And then it's war.
You're going to have to do what you've got to do.
But I think you tell them that you know where their operations are, and you make them keep moving the operation or else get bombed.
It will at least disrupt it.
Now, I saw something from a Twitter user that I do not know is true.
But maybe some of you do.
Is there anybody in a position who can confirm the following thing?
There's a heroin shortage in the country.
And so fentanyl's all you can get.
Have you heard that?
Does anybody know?
I saw a big yes in capitals.
So I know there's somebody around here who's on heroin.
Unfortunately, I have a big enough audience that one of you is on heroin.
And somebody knows.
And I got an emphatic yes on the heroin shortage.
So I've heard it now from two sources.
So if people are getting only fentanyl, there are two possibilities.
So there's a non-common sense thing happening with fentanyl that you need to understand.
If you don't know you're getting fentanyl, your risk of dying is a little higher because you didn't know to take care of yourself.
If you know you're buying fentanyl and you're an experienced addict, and unfortunately most are experienced, you can actually take precautions to make sure you don't take too much or that you don't OD or that you've got Narcan nearby or something like that.
So people who are experienced Might actually have the least risk.
So there's a possibility that the heroin shortage would make all addicts know they're getting fentanyl if they're injecting.
And if you told all of the injectables, hey, it's only fentanyl now, would there be more death or less?
I don't know. There might be less, because they would know what they're dealing with, and they'd take the right precautions.
If that's a thing.
I mean, I've been told by addicts that's a thing.
But I suppose there's got to be some huge risk in getting the right dose, no matter what.
Well, that's... I don't know if you're talking to me, but if you can't get heroin, you'll take fentanyl.
You're not going to switch to weed.
So I'm not going to argue with that point.
That's just true. Yeah, and here's my final opinion on ivermectin.
You ready? My final opinion on ivermectin is...
it doesn't exist.
That ivermectin is just a user interface icon.
And that below it, it neither works nor doesn't work.
That there's just some reality that's mysterious to us.
But at the user interface level, we can't decide.
But below that level, I think it's neither true nor untrue, it just doesn't exist.
Now, I'm not expecting anybody to adopt my point of view.
But here's what I mean by it doesn't exist.
I believe that our two worlds that we bifurcated, the people who are sure the ivermectin has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and the people who are sure it's been proven not to work beyond a shadow of a doubt, they both will live complete lives.
And they'll never need to decide who was right.
Those two realities will just run forever.
And they never need to coordinate.
Now, by the way, this is my best evidence that we live in a simulation.
Let me tie together two concepts.
The biggest reason I believe we're in a simulation is this stuff.
The fact that we can bifurcate worlds and then live in them and it doesn't matter.
Why? If you were trying to program the Earth...
And write code.
It would be impossibly complex to make sure that everything that changed anywhere in that world sort of broadcasted its effect to the rest so that everything worked in a coordinated way.
It would be too difficult to keep your life and my life separate but also never conflicting.
Right? You would need to program it so the conflict is explained away.
And the way we explain conflict when we have two different worlds and views of what's true, how does the simulation let us explain it away without having to program them to be compatible?
It makes you believe the other people are wrong, right?
As long as you think the people who disagree with you have bad information, Or bad thinking.
You can just keep your own view of reality.
So you just make up a story that says, oh, I guess those other people are wrong about everything.
That's what they say about you.
So it would be easy to program a world where things are not compatible, but all the people in it explain the lack of compatibility away by saying, well, the other people are just dumb or stupid or uninformed.
But if they knew what I knew, they would know what's true.
Once you see that the world is designed to make us think it makes sense, when in fact it never can, then you realize you're in a simulation.
What is a simulation simulating?
Probably the creator's world.
You know, if you take the Elon Musk view, that it's very unlikely we're the original species, more likely we're one of the simulations that any species will create at some point in their development.
We're probably some reflection of what they look like.
You know the whole, we're designed in God's image?
That might be true.
Our God might be some human-like programmers who made us to look like them.
Because when they inhabit us or use us to solve problems, they want it to be like them.
That would make the most sense.
All right. I'm going to say goodbye to YouTube for now.
