All Episodes
Nov. 28, 2022 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:22:49
Episode 1941 Scott Adams: Let's Talk About All The Gaslighting And Psyops In The News Today. Wow

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Pro psyops on Twitter Mating Strategy Male suicide increase MTG, Marjorie Taylor Greene Human memory and the nature of reality What is Ye up to? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of civilization again.
It gets better every time, doesn't it?
And lucky for you, you found your way here.
Don't you feel better already?
Because this is the only podcast that's guaranteed to make you a better, smarter, happier person by the end of it.
Guaranteed. If that doesn't happen for you, I will refund all the money you paid for this livestream.
All of it. Every penny goes back to you.
That is how confident I am that this is going to be the greatest thing you've ever seen.
And if you'd like to guarantee it, well, there's one thing you need to do.
This is what you need to do.
You gotta get yourself a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a steiner, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it's gonna happen now.
Go. Alright, Yawn God says he's watching from the toilet, and that is authorized.
The very best places to watch this would be while exercising, doing housework, instead of work, while you're pretending to work, or on the toilet.
Those are all the very best places to consume this content.
And what about all the news today?
So the Twitter cybernetic brain, which reveals its consciousness in the trending section, if you think of Twitter as a big cybernetic brain, which I do, when you see what's trending, that's similar by analogy to how your mind is focusing.
It's what your brain is focusing on.
So today, the three on my trend line It was Geraldo in the middle, then Balenciaga above him, and Fuentes below him.
And I thought to myself, there it is.
There is Twitter's focus today, at least the version I was looking at.
Those are the three things it thought were important.
It doesn't like those three things today.
Didn't like them, but we'll talk more about that.
All right. So Musk said today there was a third-party, some kind of a blocking app.
So here's what he tweeted. I'm not sure exactly what this means, but I'm suspicious of everything now, right?
So Musk says, Twitter experienced slight degradation of service today from an old third-party tool used to block accounts that had no rate limit.
Sigh. Should be fixed now.
What exactly was the third-party tool used to block accounts that had no rate limit?
What? What?
What does that mean?
Does that mean it blocked bots?
Because if it was a blocking tool, I feel like he would have said that.
Oh.
So is that telling us that there's somebody, some third-party tool, but I guess it was used, what does it mean to be a third-party tool?
No.
I mean, I'm pretty sure somebody's called me a third party tool by now.
If you start a third party and run for president, are you a third party tool?
Is Ye going to start his own campaign and run in his own party?
Would he be a third party tool?
I don't know. I don't know.
But it makes me wonder if there was some external source that had the ability to block accounts.
Was that possible?
Do you think a third party app could block accounts that Twitter didn't know it was blocking?
Is that even possible?
Everything's possible at this point, right?
I don't know what it means. I wouldn't make any assumptions about it.
The other thing Musk said, cryptically, So just hold in your mind that the person who just bought Twitter is saying this.
This is not a random troll.
This is somebody who actually, at this point, knows what's going on at Twitter.
And this is the head of Twitter, Musk, tweeting this today.
The amount of pro-pro, meaning professional, psyops on Twitter is ridiculous.
At least with new verified accounts.
They will pay $8 for the privilege.
Ha ha. How does he know how many professional psyops there are?
Because he also tweeted today, you know, a meme about all the psyops.
What does he mean? Because you and I probably have an idea what activity on Twitter is a psychological operation.
But he must have a much better idea, don't you think?
This feels like the sort of thing that you and I would have said is happening.
You know, we're not fully informed about what's happening.
It seems like we would have said, we as just users, say, ah, I think there's some psyops, a whole bunch of psyops running on Twitter.
It's one thing if we think it's true, but this is a guy who owns Twitter.
The guy who owns Twitter says it's like bristling with professional psyops operations.
Probably is. I mean, sounds like a credible source.
So, that's interesting.
The China protests are heating up, and I saw one piece of news that I thought was different.
Everybody always says the same thing about these stories, but one person said something different.
That there had been protests in China before, so that part is not super unusual, but they tended to be geographically limited.
So prior to these current rounds of protests, they tend to be one city, that sort of thing.
But these apparently are all over China.
So there are protests everywhere.
And it's all about the same topic.
It's about the crackdowns and the government.
And so maybe this is the real thing.
And apparently the shock troops are moving in to take care of the protesters now.
So... Apparently China, Chairman Xi, has decided that he will use violence to end the protests.
So we've never seen violence used at this scale on Chinese citizens lately, you know, in modern history.
So we haven't seen this kind of violence applied to the general population, like, you know, before I'd been isolated in a location, Tiananmen being an example.
So this could get really ugly.
And who knows where this could go?
If you think you can predict this one, I don't know, maybe you can't.
Now here's the other question.
Do you think America is behind any of this?
Do you think America is doing anything to create some, you know, maybe help some people who are anti-government?
I don't know. It would be dangerous.
Seems like it would be a super dangerous thing to be involved in any way.
Because it looks like maybe we wouldn't need to be.
You know, the Chinese citizens don't need...
I don't think they need help.
Doesn't seem like they need any help.
If the Chinese citizens decide to change their government, they're going to do it.
I don't think there's enough military to stop it.
If they want it enough.
Now, they might be scared off by the violence that's coming probably today.
So it's hard to make a bet on where this ends up.
But anything could happen.
I think at this point, anything literally could go in any direction at this point.
All right. I saw a funny take on, you know, correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't know if it's because I'm spending more time on Instagram or if it's really a trend.
Are you also seeing a trend where the basic assumptions about the relationship between men and women, like the real basic stuff, is being challenged?
And that people are giving relationship advice.
They're just all over the place now.
Like, there's nothing that's standard anymore.
And the advice is terrible.
And the way we're trying to grapple with the fact that, you know, the basic glue of civilization, which is marriage and children, has fallen apart.
Not everywhere at the same time.
But it's really being challenged, right?
So you're seeing all kinds of opinions that I don't know if we would have ever seen before.
It feels like stuff that people are saying out loud, things that could never be said out loud before.
I'll give you some examples. So here's a tweet from a Twitter user, a woman who calls herself the redheaded libertarian.
So keep in mind it's coming from a woman who identifies as libertarian.
And she says in her tweet, Does that sound true?
Does that ring true when you hear it?
Right. Now, it might be just, you know, it agrees with your political leaning on this.
Now, were you also aware that there is science that shows that the more physically strong you are, the more likely you're going to be a Republican?
Did you know that? And if you're physically weak, you're sort of looking for the government to help you a little bit, like women, right?
Because women need help because they don't have the physical strength to defend themselves in society.
And men who are not physically strong might look for the same kind of help.
Makes sense, right?
Well, there's a video I just tweeted.
I highly recommend it.
It's pretty short, just a few minutes.
And it's an interview with Gad Saad and Jordan Peterson.
And Gad Saad brings up the topic.
And apparently this is a real thing.
In the world of biology, there is a mating strategy among some types of species, and this is the actual biological name, I'm not making this up, called the sneaky fucker strategy.
And it goes like this.
There are some animals that pretend to be female so that the alpha males don't chase them away.
And then they say, oh, it looks like a bunch of women having fun over there.
And suddenly the male who's pretending to be female turns into the sneaky fucker and fucks one of the women and gets away before the alpha male realizes what's going on.
And Gad Saad was extending this to the social justice warrior men who effectively are disguising themselves as women to get into the women...
You know, attention sphere, and then once they're there, look for a weakness and fuck them.
Fuck them and then get away, and then they can reproduce.
Does that sound accurate?
Yeah. I'd never heard this before, but it does...
Now, this is how I always saw it.
This is exactly how I conceived of it.
But there is a second consideration.
I'd like to put this out there.
Early in my dating life, you know, my earliest relationships before anyone in my marriages, two of them so far, I was in a relationship with a woman who very cleverly praised me whenever I did anything that was, let's say, what did she call it?
Enlightened. She praised me for being an enlightened male.
Now, what an enlightened male meant was that I would sometimes take on traditional female roles within the relationship, such as cleaning, cooking, and just being more of a nurturer.
And whenever I got praised for that, I think, oh, I'm really nailing this, aren't I? I feel like I'm nailing this.
I'm trying to make this one person happy.
She says, oh, you're killing it.
I loved it when you did that thing.
I'm like, oh, okay.
Now, this was before I realized that making women happy was a real thing.
You know, when I thought it was actual something people can do.
I didn't see the mechanism.
I saw the goal, but I didn't see the system.
I couldn't see the gears, the machinery.
Once you see the machinery, you realize it's a sucker's play, giving women what they want, because it doesn't have an end.
I always thought, well, if the goal is to give you what you want, tell me what you want, and I'll give it to you, and then we're all good.
But that's not how the system works.
The system requires the women to continually make the man unhappy, So that he tries to fix his happiness by giving them more resources, and they use those resources primarily as a transfer of energy to the next generation.
And so there's nothing wrong with it in terms of it's a good design for reproducing the species.
But it requires the men to be fooled into thinking they can get what they need by giving women what they ask for.
And there's nothing like that that works in the real world.
Nothing like that works.
If you give women what they want, they will cheat on you and find another man who doesn't.
Until they can convert him to giving them what they want, then they'll cheat on him too.
That's just the system.
That's just the system.
There's nothing you can do about it.
However, because we all have irrational minds, we still reproduce.
Because it's our natural impulse.
I have a different take on the social justice warriors.
I feel that women treat them more like pets.
The model that I see in my mind is more like a pet.
Don't you think every woman has a male friend?
The male friend, I think it's Chris Rock who talks about the male friend.
The male friend is the boyfriend under glass.
That's the one that's ready, you know, break glass in emergency.
He's just a friend. I think he's probably gay.
Let me ask you, have you ever had a love interest of yours tell you that they had a male friend that they think is probably gay?
She's fucking that guy.
She's fucking that guy.
If she's hanging out with a guy that she tells you is probably gay, she's fucking him.
Or wants to, or has, or did recently, or something.
So that's what's going on.
But that sneaky fucker thing, to know that there's actually a biological explanation for everything you see is just wonderful.
It kind of helps me understand the world.
Alright, here's something super cool.
There's a tweeter named Michelle Huang who tweets that she used AI to have a conversation with her younger self.
So she trained the AI by feeding it the diaries that she wrote when she was a young girl, and then the AI could reproduce the conversation of her as a young girl with the same concerns and preferences and stuff.
And then she had a long conversation with herself, as represented by the AI from her younger self, and then used that as sort of a therapy mechanism to work through some issues.
Now apparently this is going to be a real thing.
The talking to a version of yourself in the past, but I also think in the future.
Because they've also shown that if you see yourself in the future, you'll save more money for your retirement.
You'll be better to yourself in the future.
You might stop drinking.
Imagine seeing yourself in the future but you've got two versions.
You go into virtual reality and you see yourself in 20 years.
One drinks alcohol for fun and the other one quit.
And you just look at them.
And you're like, oh shit, they do not look the same.
One of them is out of shape and has some health problems and one of them is killing it.
What would that do to you?
If it's yourself, you know, it registers as yourself in the future.
It's very impactful.
So it's a new way to program people faster than maybe anything else could, except fear, I suppose.
Fear programs people immediately.
But you could program people so effectively by making the voice that's programming them themselves, or some version of themselves.
There's nothing more powerful than that.
Here's the way I sometimes describe hypnosis.
Hypnosis is getting your subject, the hypnotist gets the subject, to put their conscious mind exactly where the hypnotist's conscious mind is at the same time.
So the hypnotist says, you know, you feel X. So that's what the hypnotist is thinking.
And then it's what the subject thinks.
So the two of you think the same thing for a while, until you start being comfortable that since you're always thinking the same thing, that the thoughts that are coming directly from the hypnotist become substitutes for your own thoughts.
But you're aware of it.
You're aware that the thoughts are coming from another source.
So you don't have any danger.
That's why hypnosis is not dangerous.
Because you can just say, oh, I'll stop paying attention to that.
And you can just do it any time you want.
But it's this idea that you're both on the same page that allows the hypnotist to temporarily control the body.
Once you've decided that the hypnotist's thoughts and feelings are the same as yours, and you just move it aside and say, okay, you can drive for a while.
Since the things you say and do and think are just like mine, how about you drive the car for a while?
And the car is your body.
You just say, all right, so you want my hand to feel cold?
Oh, it is. And then you watch it.
And you can actually have the sensation...
That instructions are going into your body, and they're being translated into real-time, into something you feel, just like it happened in a normal way.
So, that's how powerful these AI representations of yourself will be.
They will be like the hypnotist.
The hypnotist does it the hard way because they've got to pace and lead you long enough that you lose the distinction between yourself and the person talking to you.
That's a tough trick.
That's why not everybody can do it.
But if AI can produce a version of you, it is your hypnotist.
That's your hypnotist.
A version of you created by AI, and let's say virtual reality, is a hypnotist.
It's just it's designed to hypnotize you specifically.
And it would be so powerful.
Yeah, mind blown.
If you don't understand how powerful this is, you're gonna.
You will. It will be so powerful it can just rewire you in real time.
Hypnotist success rate.
Now, let me correct that.
Somebody says the hypnotist success rate is what, 10 to 20%?
Totally incorrect. You've got that wrong.
The 20% that hypnotists look for are the 20% who are extra easy to hypnotize.
The rest could be hypnotized.
Everybody could be hypnotized.
They just have to be willing.
The 20% can actually feel things fairly quickly as if they were real, but everyone is subject to hypnosis.
There's no exception. And everybody who tells you that they, quote, can't be hypnotized...
Are just wrong, or they don't want to be.
If they don't want to be, then they won't participate, or they can take themselves out of the situation.
So they do have that control.
All right, Wall Street Journal had a little article on the rising trend of middle-aged male suicides.
So middle-aged men are ending their lives at record numbers, I guess.
And the article was written by somebody named Andrea, who I'm going to make the assumption is female.
Now, here's a suggestion.
Don't let a woman write an article about adult male suicide.
Because you know what she's going to do?
She's going to write an article about how there are these new types of therapies.
Wait. Is it female, right?
I think somebody's questioning that.
But the article emphasized the treatments to help people who have these suicidal thoughts.
Isn't something really, really left out of that?
Do you think a man would have written an article about male suicide going up and left off the fucking cause?
What about the cause?
Isn't that the story?
Maybe the cause is people who write articles like this.
This article completely ignored the well-being of the men involved.
It just treated it like, oh, you know, the medical community has this new thing.
Like, how about fucking care about the men who want to kill themselves because they have nothing to live for?
How about figuring out what's going on there?
How about figuring out what changed?
You know what changed.
You all know what changed.
Don't you? Don't you all know what changed?
Is there any mystery to it at all?
It has to do a lot with social media.
Social media creates a situation where most men cannot find happiness now.
And most women.
So I don't believe we have a system That could provide happiness for most men or most women.
Or most LGBTQ, non-binary, whatever you want.
I don't think most could be happy under our situation.
I do think maybe super attractive women.
Maybe. I don't know.
Maybe attractive, tall, rich men.
Maybe. I don't know.
But the system isn't designed to make you happy.
It was never designed for that.
And you can see the results.
Well, Merriam-Webster has chosen their word of the year.
What do you think the word of the year is for...
If you haven't heard it, what do you think the word of the year is?
Gaslighting? That's right.
Now, I would note that the word of the year happened under this particular word, under the Biden administration.
Now, it doesn't mean only Democrats are gaslighting.
Pretty much everything's gaslighting these days.
I don't think much of the news is real at this point.
It's so fucking unreal, it's crazy.
But that feels right to me.
You know, the Biden administration saying inflation isn't real and gas prices aren't that bad.
I mean, it's all just ridiculous.
I want to give you the nuance that Merriam-Webster accurately put on it.
Gaslighting, I used to think, wasn't exactly real.
But it is. I have to give up on that.
It's real. And it's different from lying.
Lying is very different.
Lying, you tell a lie and you hope somebody believed it.
That's just ordinary lying.
Gaslighting is you tell a lie that's obviously false, it's obviously a lie, and then you don't change your stance when it's proven to be a lie.
Instead, you move your lie all the way to, well, you must be going insane.
Maybe you should seek help.
Has anybody ever had that happen to them?
Have you ever been in a relationship where somebody literally said you should seek psychological help?
Like literally?
I have. I have.
Yeah. I was literally asked to get psychological help, not for a psychological problem per se, but for something wrong with my sense of reality and that I seem to be remembering things backwards.
Why do you keep remembering things the opposite of how they happened?
Have you ever had that happen?
I will tell you, it is the most disorienting thing I have ever experienced.
And I didn't think it was real.
Right? Like, I didn't think it was real.
Until you experience it, you don't think it's real.
But when you experience it, you actually have a break with reality.
The gaslighting itself causes you to have an actual total break with reality.
And I gotta admit, I had that.
I had a complete break with reality.
And it wasn't easy to find my way back.
Like, finding my way back, it was so hard, it's easy to imagine that people would just kill themselves.
Like, I could so easily imagine people would just take themselves out.
It's just too hard. Yeah, it was amazing.
Alright, so I have such mixed feelings about Marjorie Taylor Greene.
So that's my setup, mixed feelings.
So I'm going to tell you some things that are very bad about her, and then some things that I appreciate about her, and then I'm going to tell you I don't know what the fuck to do.
So here are the things I don't like about her.
She attended a Nick Fuente's event and she said some things I don't agree with.
So don't put me on the side of people who agree with things that she said.
Are we clear on that?
That said, I love her stones.
She's really brave.
Can we agree on that?
She's very brave. And it's just really fun to watch it.
Like, she's a fighter.
She's clearly not backing down from anything.
You just like to see it.
Now, you want her fighting on the right side of things, right?
So if she's a fighter and she's fighting for the wrong stuff, well, that's not good.
That's not good at all.
But one of the things she tweeted about was that she watched the documentary Died Suddenly.
Now that's the one that claims that there are so many vaccination-related injuries that people are falling over dead and their blood is so clotted that even in the autopsy you can take that blood out and it's clearly deformed, not like anything we've ever seen before.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think that documentary is credible?
Let me ask you. This is a trick question.
Please answer the question.
Is the documentary credible?
Go. Thank you.
No. No, the documentary is not credible.
Does that mean nothing in it is true?
That's a separate question.
That's not the question I asked.
Should you ever believe a documentary?
No. No.
You should never believe a documentary.
Period. That doesn't mean the documentary is wrong.
I'm saying it's presented in a way that, on its face, you say, oh, that's coming from someone who's presenting a point of view, probably.
And I can't tell if they're being fair or not, because I'm not the expert.
Yeah, it's all propaganda.
It doesn't matter who it is.
I see so many people tossing out some names, well, what about this one?
What about this one?
Now, in every case, the documentarian gets to choose what's in and what's out.
If you're choosing what's in and what's out, it's a narrative.
And you know for sure there are people who would have seen it a different way and would have a different narrative.
If they're not in the documentary, well, it's not really a presentation of truth.
It's a point of view.
Now, but here's what Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted about that.
She said, How many people died suddenly?
I watched it.
I'd like to talk to embalmers.
So she would like to get to the bottom of whether it's true or false.
And talk to some embalmers, because I guess embalmers were shown, like, looking at people's blood.
So I tweeted about that, and I said, do it on camera with both sides.
Now, here's my dilemma.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is recommending the only thing I think our government should do, and she's the only one I've ever seen do it.
She's basically saying, I'm paraphrasing, she's not saying this at all, but this is my interpretation of what she's saying, fuck this, I'm going to find out myself.
I can't trust anybody.
I'm just going to go fucking find out myself.
And here's why she responded to me.
And again, isn't the world wonderful that I can send a message to a member of Congress who is talking about an important topic and I get a personal response in like an hour or something?
How incredible is that?
Does that just blow you away?
And it's not because I'm, you know, a big account.
She responds to other people as well.
And every time it happens, I'm just blown away by the magic and majesty of it all.
You know, Twitter is just a...
It's beyond a national treasure, if we use it correctly.
So that's the challenge to us.
But here's what she didn't say.
I said, do it on camera and show both sides.
And she said, I'll definitely do it on camera.
Let me say that again. I said, do it on camera and show both sides.
She said, I'll definitely do it on camera.
Oh, fuck.
So close. So fucking close to getting it right.
And she missed it. She missed it.
Right? Because I would have been in quite a dilemma if she had answered that correctly.
If she'd answered, yeah, I will show both sides and we'll do it on camera, I would have said...
President. And I don't even like her opinions.
She has some scary opinions.
But if she would actually show both sides, put it on camera, and tell us publicly, I'm going to let this shake out whichever way it shakes out.
I have a concern, but I don't know what's true.
And nobody's telling me what's true, so I'm going to go figure it out myself, and I'll put it on TV and I'll show you.
I fucking love that.
I love it. It would be the best thing anybody ever did in politics.
So close. I want to love this.
But she couldn't say, I will show both sides.
Couldn't say it. Or didn't say it or chose not to, right?
God! So close.
But again, maybe that's good because then I don't have to support her because she didn't quite hit the mark.
But man, nobody's been that close.
So I do support her effort and I'm all in on do more of this.
Just do more of it. Yeah.
All right. And I think the vaccine manufacturers should be included in that.
Don't you think Marjorie Taylor Greene should talk to the embalmers and have whoever's the top medical expert from Pfizer or something in the room?
Not talk to him later, not get a comment on Twitter, put him in the fucking room right next to the embalmer, and then have Marjorie Taylor Greene say, all right, you fucking idiots, stop lying to us, tell us what's true. One of you is a fucking idiot.
Let's figure out who it is.
And just put it out there.
And just crush whoever's wrong.
Just crush them right on live camera.
I'd love to see that.
Won't happen. Stop.
Yeah. Okay, I'll stop dreaming.
That won't happen. Alright, so I guess my bottom line on Marjorie Taylor Greene is I love her systems approach.
How can we create a system where we can find out the truth?
And she proposed a system, and it's almost perfect.
So that's a good start. You know, just a little tweak, and she's got it.
So I'm not going to criticize her that the first draft wasn't perfect.
The first draft is, we'll do it on camera.
The second draft should be, and we'll make sure there's, say, a Pfizer person in the room or somebody like that.
Then she's got it.
She's so close. I like her systems, but not necessarily her goals.
Part of that documentary includes a basketball star, Keontae Johnson, who collapsed on the court And it must have been part of a...
Maybe it was part of a compilation of people just falling over.
I believe that was in the movie.
And it got fact-checked.
And sure enough, that guy collapsed December 12, 2020, before the vaccines were available.
And he didn't die.
He didn't die. It was just fake.
So that doesn't mean the other ones are fake, but at least one of them is.
All right, here's a weird story that I would not have even mentioned, except that it came from a source who's unusually smart and credible.
So this is a tweet by a Twitter user who you should definitely follow, Brian Romelli, spelled R-O-E. M-M-E-L-E. So if you want to follow him.
Great, like, scientific-y, just stuff you're not seeing anywhere else.
You're just not seeing him anywhere else.
And it's always interesting.
He's just one of the best thinkers on the Internet for new and innovative stuff.
And especially old stuff.
It's not even just new stuff.
But he showed a clip, which he thought was meaningful, about some experts talking, I think in the 60s, that if you tried to remove somebody's memory of something by removing part of the brain, or if you're trying to find where the memory is stored, you can never do it.
You can degrade memories But they always seem to be there in some form.
And the thought is that memories are not stored in a place, they're stored in some kind of a holographic way in the brain.
And I don't think I could explain that, except that if you were looking at a physical hologram, the stuff you would see would be the interference of the lasers, am I right?
So the lasers would be invisible, except where two lasers intersect, they shine a little bit, and that shine would be like the pixel.
And then if you do enough of the lasers and it creates enough of interference, all those points of interference could be formed into a picture that would look real.
But the thinking is that the brain does some version of that.
That there's some kind of energy intersection that is where memory is, which means that memories are everywhere.
Like somehow the memory is distributed all the way around your brain.
Now, Brian, in his tweet, he said only 0.001% of the world knows about it and the implications it has to everything.
So he thinks the implications are really, really big.
I agree. But I don't know exactly what the implications are.
Like, it looks like it's really big.
And what I mean by that is it may go to the nature of reality itself.
Because I did see some people talk about the fact that it's absurd to think of reality as made of anything.
Have you ever thought about that?
In my book, God's Debris, I ask this question.
If everything is made of something, And then you say, okay, what's that made of?
Well, particles. Okay, what's a particle made of?
Alright, maybe it's muons and some other, you know, charms and stuff.
Alright, but what are they made of?
Eventually you get to the point where things can't be made of other things.
It becomes an absurdity.
You know, once you get down into the quantum area, there's nothing there.
The quantum level, there's nothing there.
It seems like we think there's something there because we're seeing the intersection of energies.
Or ideas.
Or what?
I don't know exactly what the intersection is of, but if we're only seeing the intersection, like the two lasers that are crossing, we're not seeing either laser.
Do you get that?
If you're looking at a hologram, you're not seeing the laser that goes sideways or the laser that interfered with it.
You're only seeing something that doesn't exist, which is a point of intersection, a concept.
And that at the deepest level of reality, there might be nothing but an intersection of concepts.
And that the intersection of concepts is substantial enough that you see an entire world out of it.
That doesn't exist except in your interpretation of things intersecting.
But those things intersecting are purely imaginary.
They're just concepts.
There's nothing there when you dig down.
Or, it's zeros and ones because we're a simulation.
Take your pick.
Take your pick.
Somebody says, really bad analogy.
Was it an analogy?
No. Here's how you use analogies right.
And I say this so often, but for some reason I can't communicate it well enough to convince people.
An analogy is a wrong use, is to use it as an argument.
This is true in this analogy, so therefore this other law should be done the same way.
Bad use. If you're explaining a new concept for the first time, analogies are perfect.
For example, if you'd never heard of a zebra, I'd say, well, it's like a horse, but it's got stripes.
And you'd be there immediately, right?
So the zebra-horse thing is perfect if you'd never heard of a zebra.
But if you'd never considered that reality is the intersection of any kind of energy, then say, well, there are examples where there are intersections of energy.
Primes your brain to understand the new concept.
But it's not an argument.
So I'm not saying that because a laser can create a hologram, I'm not saying that logically, therefore, reality is a hologram.
I didn't say that. I'm only trying to get you to understand reality as a hologram by priming you.
So that's a good use of an analogy, not as an argument.
Does that make sense to everybody?
I feel like that's the best I've explained it so far.
Everybody on the same page with that?
Maybe not. You're lost again.
Alright, Eric says yes, so that's good enough for me.
I guess I've mentioned that documentaries are not credible, and I told you that I recommended highly the Ancient Apocalypse series.
Ancient Apocalypse series on Netflix, which I continue to recommend from an entertainment perspective as well as information, because you get to actually see all these historical sites that you wouldn't see any other way, and I thought they were fascinating.
You know, the production values are excellent.
Like, I was engaged all the way through it, like through eight episodes.
Totally, totally good piece of entertainment.
Now, is it true Well, the critics have weighed in.
Now, I don't know if the critics are right, and I don't know if this Graham Hancock, who made this documentary, I don't know if they're right, because I don't have the perspective where I can criticize them.
But I'll tell you what at least one prominent critic said.
All those assumptions he's making, they're all debunked.
For example...
One of the biggest points he makes is that farming, the domesticating of livestock and farming, sort of grew suddenly sometime after the Ice Age.
Whereas the critic says, no, it's been known forever and all archaeologists agree that farming started in the Crescent The Fertile Crescent or whatever it is, and it grew from there, and we can trace it from where it started to how it spread.
And basically, the most basic assumption that people learned how to build things and farm sort of suddenly, she goes, that's completely debunked.
Like, you can track the building knowledge all the way back to the Ice Age.
It was always there. We've got the ruins.
He goes, you can just look at it.
They knew before, they know now.
They've been farming since practically the Ice Age.
Basically, his most basic assumptions about things happening suddenly, no support for it.
Now, are you surprised?
Are you surprised that that criticism exists?
Again, I'm not saying the criticism is correct.
I don't know. I haven't checked it myself.
But you shouldn't be surprised that that criticism exists.
Now, are any of you qualified to tell me which one is right?
The critics? Or is anybody qualified to do that?
I'm not. Because if the critic is right, then Graham Hancock just made up a bunch of shit and told you it was a fact.
What if the critic is doing that?
If I couldn't tell the difference if Graham Hancock had, hypothetically, made up a bunch of shit and told me it was true, how could I possibly tell if the critic is doing the same thing?
I don't know who's making up shit and telling me it's true.
It all looks kind of true-ish.
Who knows? Now, Graham Hancock, the maker of the series, he was on Joe Rogan.
I saw some of you note him.
And the few clips I saw showed Joe Rogan's mind being blown and seeming to have fun with the idea of the documentary.
But here's my defense of Joe Rogan.
Joe Rogan is very transparent.
He actually had his own show once where he looked into conspiracy theories like, I don't know, Bigfoot and stuff like that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't he say directly he loves conspiracy theories?
Doesn't he? I mean, part of his presentation is, I don't know if this is true and I don't know if it's not true, but it sure is fun.
Is that a problem? It's only a problem if you don't know that's his approach, because it's my approach too.
I have an identical approach, which is I have no idea if Atlantis existed, but I loved going for the ride.
As an entertainment vehicle, it's really strong.
I recommend it completely.
Now, likewise, I have a book called God's Debris.
It's a fictional book but sort of a philosophy related factually.
And I take the reader for a ride and you have to sort of suspend your skepticism for a while to enjoy the ride.
So I'm not that different than somebody putting a documentary together that's got a fun narrative but maybe it doesn't hold up to science.
So it's a So I'm going to say I recommend it, but just know that the argument against it's pretty strong.
Pretty strong. I don't know who's right.
Elon Musk tweeted today in response to somebody else's tweet about ESG being a nightmare.
Musk tweeted this, ESG is the devil.
The context was that Exxon has a good ESG score and Tesla does not.
And part of the E is the environmental.
Environmental, social and governance.
So it's a standard that BlackRock and other financial entities are trying to impose on companies to make them report or do things that are good for the environment according to the people watching them.
And that's where the problem is.
So basically it inserts a new boss into a system that really, really can't use another boss.
The last thing you want to do to capitalism is insert a new boss.
That's bad every time.
So any new boss is just bad.
We already have a government. So if the government doesn't want to make changes, I don't think they should come from another source.
So that's bad. So do you think that I've...
I just like asking this because I'm so happy with myself.
I promised you a few months ago that I would kill ESG by the end of the year.
I feel like I did.
I feel like I did. I don't feel there are any sophisticated investors who think it's credible anymore.
Do you? Do you think any sophisticated investors find any value in ESG? I'll bet it's very few at this point.
So if you get the sophisticated people, the CEOs, the thought leaders, I mean, How in the world does BlackRock ignore the fact that Elon Musk says it's bullshit?
Not just bullshit, but it's bad.
It's bad for the world.
How do you just go on when somebody of that intellectual capacity, and certainly he's in the middle of it, he knows exactly what he's talking about, when he debunks it, how do you go on?
How do you support it?
It's almost just embarrassing at this point.
But I guess they like their embarrassment.
Let's see. What else is fun?
I'm going to go at TikTok again because I have not been successful in putting a dent in this.
But here's my problem. Does anybody do a fact check on me here?
Is there any member of Congress or any member of the Biden administration Who has ever been on the side of keeping TikTok legal in the United States?
Anybody? Has anybody ever seen it?
Any Democrat?
Any Republican? Anybody?
Nope. Nobody.
You have not seen it. How about the press?
Is there any major press outlet That has made an opinion piece.
Has anybody published an opinion piece that says, you know, TikTok might be a little dangerous, but we should keep it.
Nope. Haven't seen one.
So what do you make of the fact that all of the media and all of the government, left and right, is on the same page?
Banning TikTok would be easy.
Executive order, congressional law, kind of easy.
And that we're absolutely nowhere near it.
It's not even on the table, is it?
As far as I know, it's not even being debated, is it?
So, tell me what's going on here.
How do you explain it?
How do you explain...
You know, it's easy to explain why our government can't do things where they're deadlocked, where there's somebody on both sides.
I get that. Everybody understands that.
But why in the situation where everybody's on the same side is nothing happening?
Right. Your reasonable assumption has to be corruption.
Right? What else could it be?
What else could it be?
Give me the alternative, I mean, incompetence?
Because I don't even think the government is that incompetent.
I think the government's pretty incompetent.
But the one thing they know how to do is to make something illegal.
That's the one thing the government knows how to do really well.
Oh, make another thing illegal?
Okay. Tell the Apple store to delist it?
How hard would that be?
How hard would it be for Biden to say, this looks like a national security threat.
While we're looking into it, I don't want the Apple Store or the Google Store to carry it.
How hard would that be?
I mean, he could just ask, couldn't he?
I don't even know if he needs an executive order.
Couldn't he just say, Apple and Google, I'd like you to defend why it's still there.
He doesn't even have to say why it should come down.
He should just say, could you do me a favor?
I'd like you both to defend why you're keeping it there.
You know the risk. Just defend it.
Would they? Would Apple defend it?
Would Google defend it?
Let's put them on the record.
I don't think they would.
I think they would take it off.
I think if Biden said, you can keep it on there, there's no law, but I need you to defend it in public.
Go ahead and defend it, and then maybe you can keep it there.
Do you think Tim Cook would defend it?
Now, he might give some general defense of, you know, if they're not violating our terms of service, there's nothing we can do.
But does that count for national security?
Do you think Apple's terms of service are a higher priority than national security?
I don't think so.
I think Apple will violate its terms of service any time it wants to when national security is at stake.
So Biden doesn't have to do anything.
He just has to ask them to defend it in public.
Am I wrong? What the fuck would they do?
Defend it in public? Do you think Apple could actually defend that in public?
Of course not. Biden doesn't even need to do anything.
He could just ask them to defend it.
That's it. Because they can't do it.
And then they'd have to take it off.
Or it'd be easy to coerce them to take it off.
I'm not wrong. I am not wrong.
If you simply ask them to defend it, it would disappear.
Eh, maybe I am wrong.
Who knows? Well, um...
And the press doesn't ask why.
Clearly, the press is afraid of Jaina.
I don't know what else it could be.
Because at the very least, they should ask why.
You don't think even one of those...
You don't think Ducey, who's at one of the press events, you don't think he could say, I understand that...
You know, I understand that you're looking at TikTok and you're concerned, but can you explain why you're keeping it?
Like, give us the argument for why it's still there.
Yeah, Peter Doocy could just ask that question, right?
Why not? I mean, you might ask, are you going to ban it?
And they'll say, well, we're looking into it.
But wouldn't you want to ask the question, like, why would you even wait?
Like, what's the argument for not doing it right away?
Alright, Rasmussen did a poll on the laptop from hell, which is the funniest labeling for a thing.
I think the best labeling of a news story is the laptop from hell.
Because that's such a perfect description of, you know, the contents of the laptop.
The laptop from hell.
62% of likely U.S. voters approve of the House GOP's investigation of it.
That sounds about right.
So a little under two-thirds of the public would like to know more about the laptop.
I feel like the people who don't want to know more are either total partisans or they don't know enough about the story.
It would be hard to know the story and not want to know, you know, have an investigation, right?
25%, right? So here's something I did not have on my predictions.
Ye is mad at Elon Musk because Ye says Alex Jones should be reinstated because Alex Jones is a Christian.
And Christ is Lord.
And it needs to have some Christian people on there.
And so Ye is supporting Alex Jones being reinstated.
Because he's a Christian.
So there you have it.
What the hell is going on?
Has anybody figured out what's going on here?
Now here are some things that I feel like we can say with some confidence.
Ye is a creative genius and one of the great artists in America.
But like many great artists, he's a little bit nuts.
It's hard to understand it in any other way that he's just a little bit nuts.
But he's a little bit genius at the same time, so it's all confusing.
Because he's definitely genius.
It definitely looks nuts, and I think that those things operate together so often that that's no surprise.
But can you imagine, what is he trying to accomplish?
What do you think his play is?
What is the play?
Is Yeh trying to take Trump's far-right base?
Maybe. It looks like Yeh is going to try to become president, By taking Trump's original view, you know, his hard-ass immigration view and, you know, hard-ass on other things, and just be more Christian and more, you know, more extreme and, you know, backing the people who have been banned, etc.
So I don't know exactly what his plan is.
That doesn't seem like the best plan in the world.
But let me ask you this.
How many of you are sure...
That the dinner event at Mar-a-Lago was a setup.
There was some kind of an op.
Not necessarily only by Yeh, but by some other forces.
How many of you would say that didn't happen naturally?
All of you, right? Most of you.
Most of you could see that it was some kind of an op.
Now, do you see the news treating it that way?
The news is treating it like it was dinner.
And really, there's nobody in the entire news business who can say the obvious.
The most obvious is that it was a setup.
And the most obvious is that it wasn't all Ye is doing.
And nobody in the media is curious about how Ye even met Fuentes.
Nobody's curious about that.
So I'm telling you what I'm going to do with this story.
I might just shelf this story.
Because I think we know everything we need to know about it.
It was a setup.
We don't have a functioning media, so they didn't treat it like a setup.
And both sides seem to be happy with the explanation that supports their narrative one way or the other.
So if both sides are happy with the narrative instead of anything that would explain what the fuck happened, Why should I be concerned?
Do you know how happy I am that I went on record as not supporting Trump for this election?
Do you know how happy I am I don't have to explain this disaster?
Like I would have. If I'd said, yeah, this is your best chance for president, is this Trump guy?
Like I did last time.
I would have at least tried to put it in context and explain what's the best way to look at it if there is one.
But I don't have to do that.
Let me ask you, how easy would it have been for Trump to explain this away?
If Trump were a full-strength Trump, the one who explained Rosie O'Donnell away, and the things he said about women, he explained a lot of stuff away.
This would be easy to explain away.
Would you like me to model it?
I've done it before. Here's the quick version.
Trump, why do you let those terrible people go to dinner with you?
Here's my answer. I'm running for president.
I will let any citizen talk to me about any topic.
Period. And I would like to support that right for you as well.
In fact, maybe the people who disagree with you should spend a little more time with you.
Maybe you should spend time with people who disagree with you.
If you think that I'm adopting the opinions of every person I eat dinner with, well, that would be insane.
Do you know how many people I eat dinner with?
Do you think they all agree with me?
Do you think every time I eat dinner I change my opinion?
Of course not. Do you?
Every time you sit down, is it with only people who agree with you?
I hope not. Now, I hear what you're saying about the association.
I want to tell you that in the future, I plan to associate with people you hate on both sides.
I'm going to talk to Chuck Schumer next week.
How do you like that? Some of you think that's pretty bad.
Doesn't matter. I'm going to talk to anybody I want.
No restrictions. Don't tell me that their opinion splashed onto me.
Don't tell me I'm picking up opinions because I ate a taco with somebody.
That doesn't happen. He made his case, I listened.
That's the whole story. And if somebody else that you don't like wants to have dinner with me, I'm going to do it.
I'm going to have dinner with anybody I fucking want.
And I'm going to do it right in front of you, publicly if you like.
And that's not going to change.
So if he did that and he took the high ground, because the high ground exists, right?
The high ground is easy.
I'm not going to kick an American citizen away from my table if they're talking to me politely.
I just happen to disagree with what they say.
It'd be easy. And the fact that Trump is not doing this easy play, what's that tell you?
What do you make of that?
It's such an easy play.
Am I wrong?
It's just too easy to make it all go away.
You just have to say, yeah, I didn't know, but I can associate with anybody I want, and put that on the table.
Put on the table that I should only have dinner with people you approve, if that's your point of view.
If that's your point of view, say it out loud.
See how it sounds. See how it sounds to say that the president should simply not even have a conversation with somebody he disagrees with.
How does that sound? It sounds nuts, doesn't it?
And further, I'm going to talk to Putin, I'm going to talk to Kim Jong-un, I'm going to talk to President Xi.
How do you feel about that?
Don't limit your president.
You should have access to everybody.
So, too easy.
I'm making you laugh.
But it is too easy, right?
Clearly Trump has lost his step because that's just such an easy play.
So, Kim Kardashian has spoken up about Balenciaga.
There are famous ads that seem to, at least the ads appeared to be pedophile supportive.
Now, we're waiting for Balenciaga to clarify and explain or apologize.
And they had more than 48 hours.
And... Kim Kardashian talked to them, and here's what she reports as part of a tweet thread.
She said, I appreciate Balenciaga's removal of the campaigns and apology.
Okay, so they apologize.
That's good. In speaking with them, I believe they understand the seriousness of the issue and will take the necessary measures for this to never happen again.
Well, a good apology also requires you to say that you'll not do it again.
What are you going to do differently? So they said, so they gave an apology, And they said what they would do differently.
So those are good things.
So far, so good.
And then we get to the part where Balenciaga explains how this could have happened in the first part.
That's the most interesting part, right?
The apology is necessary, but more than that, we want to know how it happened in the first place.
How would a major company allow pro-pedophile stuff on their stuff?
And so here's the part where Kim Kardashian is reporting how they explained how it could have ever happened in the first place.
And that was it.
Thank you.
That was it. No explanation.
No explanation to Kim Kardashian that she shared with us.
No explanation in the news.
No speculation from people who support them.
They just confessed to being pedophiles.
How else am I supposed to interpret this?
There's not really a second way to interpret this, is there?
Fox News had an explanation?
Did they? Fox News had an explanation.
What was that? What was that explanation?
First of all, I don't believe you that Fox News had an explanation.
I don't believe that. Tucker had an explanation?
No, they didn't. Unless the explanation was that pedophiles were part of their process.
They repeated whatever was trotted out.
Well, the explanation that the photographer was just following orders may be true, but it doesn't explain why he was given those orders.
So nobody said, why was the photographer told to photograph this?
Right? They all use the same designer for ads.
Do they? Those various companies.
So... But honestly, how could you...
If Kim Kardashian is reporting this straight, and it looks like it, I have no reason to doubt what she says, did she really leave that meeting without getting an explanation of how it happened?
Just think about this.
Remember, Kim Kardashian, no matter what you think of her, she's not dumb.
Can we agree? She's very smart.
She didn't get where she is by not being very smart.
And you're telling me, and she's also, you know, I believe she's studying to try to pass the bar, you know, so she'll have an attorney's qualifications.
You don't think she asked the question, how did it happen?
Well, let me ask you, do you think?
Do you think she asked the question, how did this ever happen?
Do you think she didn't ask that question?
Maybe. Maybe.
But... Whether she asks the question or not, would you agree that Balenciaga has never offered any kind of explanation?
Would you agree? They have not offered any kind of explanation.
Not a whoops, not a we didn't notice, not a somebody got fired and it won't happen again.
Nothing. I mean, to me, this looks like a full confession.
How else am I supposed to interpret it?
Does everybody agree that this is a full confession?
I mean, I would be happy to see any clarification they had.
I would take that seriously. But if they don't want to offer a clarification, you are completely within your, I'd say, within your ethical rights to say they have confessed.
Am I wrong? They have confessed.
This is amazing. Still in business.
Still making stuff, or whatever the hell they do.
Alright. Here's why Geraldo got some attention.
He tweeted that, in the spirit of Thanksgiving, I think this was yesterday or the day before he tweeted it, Trump should announce that he's no longer a presidential candidate, and President Biden should announce that Trump is pardoned for any and all federal offenses.
Geraldo, you're leaving something out.
You're leaving something out.
Shouldn't there also be a pardon for Joe and Hunter Biden?
Who wouldn't pardon them?
I mean, the whole pardon thing doesn't work unless you're pardoning both sides.
Why would you only pardon Trump when he's not been convicted of anything?
It's all this walls are closing in fake bullshit legal stuff that probably will never be a problem.
Probably never be a problem.
And so this opened up an opportunity for me to run for president and immediately be the frontrunner.
So here's how I could be the frontrunner.
I will pardon Trump and all of the Bidens for everything.
This is my offer to the public.
I'll pardon them all for anything, but also get rid of them.
So they'll be gone, but I'll pardon them for everything so we don't have to worry about it.
And then I'll declare war on Mexico and go after the cartels.
And I'll ban TikTok, day one.
Am I not your front-runner?
I'm your front-runner, right?
Seriously. Oh, I'll also pardon everybody in the January 6th, unless they did something violent.
So all the non-violent people, pardon them immediately.
And then I'm your fucking president.
How hard was that?
You know, honestly, it's like the Republicans are no longer even trying.
They're not even trying. The reason that Trump managed to completely hollow out the Republican Party and wear it like a leisure suit for four years is because there was nothing there.
When Trump hollowed out the Republican Party, it was because it was already empty.
And as soon as you take Trump out, and you imagine he's not the candidate he was, it's just empty again.
There's nothing in there. I could literally just walk into it and wear it like a suit.
Say, all right, I'm a Republican.
Here's what I'll do.
Am I right? Like...
I'm not going to run for president.
That's for an idiot.
But I could fucking take over the entire government because there's nothing there.
It would be like walking into the...
I won't use that analogy.
I was going to say it's like walking into the rotunda and taking Nancy's lectern.
It's basically the door is open.
The door is wide open for the Republican Party.
Anybody can walk through the door.
Just say the stuff. It doesn't even have to be DeSantis.
You're imagining there has to be a candidate with DeSantis' qualifications, which are very high.
I'm saying that I could be president without almost no friction.
There would be almost no friction.
I would just have to want to do it.
And I could just walk in.
The whole party's hollow.
Am I wrong? There's no substance.
The Republicans lost in part because they didn't have any positive message for the future.
I got plenty of positive messages.
I got all kinds of positive messages.
Yeah. I'll tell you how I'll fix everything.
I'll tell you that I'll build a dashboard so you can see how effectively we're repatriating our manufacturing for China.
Boom. I'm your president.
Right? If I promised you I'll make sure that there is a dashboard so you can see every manufacturing company by industry and what facilities they have in China, I'm not going to make them come home.
Because that's too much of a heavy hand.
But I'll let the public decide who they want to buy stuff from.
And if you want to keep making stuff in China, then be my guest.
Then the next thing I would do is I would say, I'm going to start a fund to help finance companies who want to come back, but it's too expensive.
And then if you're participating in the plan to come back, you're good.
So I don't mind that you're still manufacturing in China if you're actively looking into the plan to bring it to another country or back to America.
I could say, you know, I'll let capitalism do what it wants.
I just want you to know what the facts are.
Government is going to be out of it.
We do prefer that manufacturing leave China.
But you, the citizens, can decide.
How much do you care about this?
Do you want, you know, cheap chairs or do you want more domestic safety?
Yeah. Now, when you hear how easy it would be to satisfy Republicans...
And the fact that nobody's doing it.
How about the border? Do you think I could own the border?
You've heard me say this before.
Easy. The border should be tighter than a gnat's ass, to use my father's famous saying.
You should have a border security that's completely closed down.
And, separately, you should have bipartisan economists telling you how many people to let in for our own economic benefit.
It might be all of them.
It might be all of them.
And I'd be open to that.
Because we have, in fact, absorbed, so far, all of them.
You don't see any homeless Mexican immigrants, do you?
They're all doing something.
I don't know how they're a drag on the system, because they're not homeless.
So, you don't think I could win on that?
Everybody would look like a chimpanzee on immigration if I just said those two things.
Our system should be airtight.
Separately, we should decide how many and what kind of people come in.
And we'll do it in an economic, bipartisan way that's good for the country.
Nobody could argue with that.
That's the end of the conversation.
That's the high ground. There's no higher ground than that.
That's done. So on almost every topic, I could give you a high ground that you couldn't even argue with.
And it's all right there.
It's right there.
I'm not saying I have the magic where I can find hidden nuggets that are not available.
The hidden nuggets are just laying on the floor.
And the building is unguarded.
You could just walk into the Republican Party and just pick up a nugget.
There's nothing stopping you. Except that running for president is a fool's errand, and I don't trust anybody who does.
There must be something going on if you have to run for president.
Anyway. And that, ladies and gentlemen, brings us to the conclusion of the best livestream you've ever seen.
Possibly the best one ever.
You know, here's a way I could run for president.
So here's how I could do it.
This is like the poor man's way to run for president.
I'd say, you know, I don't really know anything about the government, so I'm going to pick as my chief of staff, and they'll name some really well-placed senator or something.
So I'll pick somebody who really does know the government as the chief of staff.
And then I'll say, you know, these are my theories, and then people will say, but what about your vetting?
When they start vetting you, they're going to find out too much about you, and then there'll be all these reasons to hate me.
Do you know what I'd do with that?
I'd do what Trump did.
I'd do what Trump did. I'd say, if you're voting for me for president based on my character, Then you can.
It's a free country. But you wouldn't be serving yourself.
Because I'm not selling you my character.
I'm not telling you that you should be like me.
You shouldn't be. I'm not selling any of my past behavior.
And if you want to make a decision on that, you're welcome.
But just know it's not part of the offering.
It's not what I'm selling. You don't have to say yes or no about any bad thing in my past.
Because that's not on the table.
If you want to hate it, go ahead.
There are no surprises.
And I guarantee that you will all find something you don't like.
If you looked into me long enough, every person would find at least one thing that you didn't like.
I guarantee it. But that's true for everybody.
And I'm trying to work for your benefit.
If you would like to also work for your benefit, take a look at what I'm offering and see how it compares.
But look out for yourself.
The point of voting is not to punish me.
Listen to this reframe.
The point of voting is not to punish me for something I did when I was 15, hypothetically.
The point of voting is for you to get your best solution.
So just compare what I'm offering to what the other side is offering.
And I don't think you should look at my opponents when they were 15 years old either.
Complete waste of time.
You could high ground this stuff so easily.
The fact that nobody's doing it should be telling you something.
You'd block me for asking.
All right.
Dennis Kucinich was the only honest one.
All right.
The Pentavaret.
You know, I didn't find that funny.
The Pentavaret with Mike Myers.
I tried that. It had all the components of something that should have been great, but didn't quite click.
I don't know why. Communion is a simultaneous sip, in a way.
Are you kidding? Hawaii's Mauna Loa is erupting for the first time in 40 years?
Is that a problem?
Can we tell you if Mauna Loa is going to be a big eruption?
All right. Which of my books should you read first?
Well, of the Dilber books...
You would read The Dilber Principle.
Now, it's an older book, but it still stands up, so you'd read that one first.
If you care about philosophy and the nature of reality, I would read my book God's Debris, which is fiction, but it talks about philosophical things.
If you want to improve your life, You should read my book, How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big.
And by the way, you can start seeing the influence of that book on a number of other best-selling books.
I don't want to embarrass people.
Oh, actually, I'll tell you on Locals.
So once I turn off the YouTube feed, I'm going to say something that I wouldn't say in regular public.
But I'll tell the Locals people something that's happening in the publishing world.
All right. I don't think Scott will talk anymore about SH. SH. What is SH? SH? Oh, Sam Harris? Eh.
What else is there to say?
I mean, he's off on Twitter, so he's sort of at the end of the conversation.
Stop giving money to people that hate you, and that includes Scott Adams.
So somebody just paid $5 to me on YouTube to say that people should not give me money.
I think that was money well spent.
If anyone else also thinks that people should not give me money, I think you should give me some money so that people can see that comment.
That's the way I'd play it.
That's the way I'd go with that.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we have come to the end of our time, at least for YouTube.
I'm going to spend some time with the locals' people and tell them a secret, and you can't listen.
Export Selection