Episode 1942 Scott Adams: Censorship Controls Voting. Control The Message, Control The Country
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Reframing germs, pain, sensation of cold
Rules for life success
Should Trump disavow Nick Fuentes?
Apple threatens Twitter
Maricopa certification meeting
Midterm election credibility
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
And congratulations on making it to the highlight of civilization.
Yeah. Talk about the last, the lost city of Atlantis.
Well, I don't know if that's real or not, but whatever it is, it's not as awesome as this.
And you found this even if you can't find Atlantis, no matter how hard you look.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to the maximum potential, and I know that's the kind of person you are, would you leave any money on the table?
No. No. You pick up that money.
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it's going to happen now.
And it's going to amaze you and make you feel better all day long.
Go. Yeah.
Yeah, that's good. Alright, let me start with The funniest bad story of the day.
Now, I don't like to find humor in other people's misfortune.
No, that's not true.
I do like finding humor in other people's misfortune, but not if they know about it.
I think it's very impolite to laugh at people's misfortune if they're likely to hear it.
But if nobody knows, sometimes other people's misfortune can be funny because At our base, we're very small and terrible people.
But don't let anybody know about that.
We'll try to keep up a good front, okay?
But here's the story.
Do you recall that the Biden administration had an employee who was the first gender non-binary official?
An individual named Sam Brinton.
Now, Sam... is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition at the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy.
Now, poor Sam can't get any real work done because he spends all of his time telling people where he works.
He'll come to work and phone a ring and say, who is this?
And he'll say, hello, this is Sam Brinton, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition at the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy.
Hello? Hello?
And then the caller is hung up because they just don't have that kind of time.
So that's the first problem.
First problem is title too long.
I don't know how he gets his work done.
Second problem...
He is accused of stealing luggage from an airport carousel.
Now, you might ask yourself, what kind of person who has a nice job steals luggage from a carousel?
What are you going to find in the luggage?
Get yourself a really sweet hair dryer?
I mean, he doesn't have any hair, actually.
But what would be the point of that?
Well, it turns out there's an expensive kind of luggage...
Which I never heard about.
A Vera Bradley suitcase, which could be worth over $2,000.
Would you recognize a $2,000 suitcase if you saw it?
I don't feel like I would even recognize an expensive suitcase.
They kind of look kind of similar to me.
But, apparently Sam, according to allegations, we only know the allegations, stole that suitcase, and not only is they, I think Sam is a they, not only is they on video, video security taking the bag, but also on video using the bag on a few different occasions.
So there doesn't seem to be too much confusion about what's really going on.
Actually stole the bag.
Now, here's the punchline.
The punchline doesn't require any addition.
I'm just going to tell you the story, the actual details, as we know them, and that's the punchline.
I'm just going to put two facts together.
The person who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for spent fuel and waste disposition at the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy didn't know that the airport has security cameras.
Didn't see that coming.
Probably thought to they-self, well, they are never going to find they.
They will take this bag and they will never know who took it.
They will be walking around with this brand new $2,300 bag and wah, wah, wah on everybody who thinks they can stop me.
But it turns out that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Spence Fuel and Waste Disposition at the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy never saw this coming.
The whole video security game didn't see it coming.
So that's the punchline.
I got nothing else to add to that.
Didn't see it coming. All right.
I'm glad we've got people who can not see five minutes in the future in charge of our nuclear assets.
So, have you noticed that ESG is dying right on schedule?
Does it seem unusual to you that I declare that I would kill it before the end of the year?
And it looks like it's limping into December pretty wounded.
Now, I've asked this before, but I'm going to lead into something here.
Does it feel like I sometimes control the simulation?
Is there anybody here who's actually, like, literally thinking, are you actually controlling the simulation?
Does it ever feel like that?
Alright, some yes's, some no's.
Mostly no's. Because you're very rational.
I like to think that I've attracted a hyper-rational audience.
Or at least you are now.
So the rational people should say, no, it doesn't look like that.
It's anecdotal and it's coincidence.
And I'm also good at identifying a parade and getting in front of it.
So you should know that about me.
Sometimes it's not all about prediction.
Sometimes it's saying, I think I see a parade.
What happens if I get in front of it?
And then it looks like you predicted it.
But sometimes I also wonder myself.
I have a very... If you knew my actual life, you know the public parts, but if you knew my whole life, you would have to say to yourself, what's going on here?
It looks like something weird is happening in my life that I can't explain.
So let me tell you something that's the weirdest story you might hear this week.
And it's a story of weird stories.
Everything I tell you next, I swear to God, is true.
Now, when I say it's true, I mean it's my impression of what happened, it's my experience.
The actual underlying truth, I don't know.
I don't know what the underlying truth is, but I can tell you my experience.
So I'm not lying about my experience or my memory of it, right?
That part I promise you.
About, was it two days ago, I had this overwhelming feeling that I was being watched.
Now, I've had it before.
You've had that, right? You ever have that feeling you're being watched, even when you're alone?
So I was alone at home, and I thought, I'm being watched.
And I had an overwhelming feeling, and again, you should not put any stock in this, right?
This is just feelings. Just a feeling.
That the creators of the simulation were online and looking at me at that moment, like I was being observed.
Now, I didn't have a feeling if I was being observed by one entity or multiple, but I had the feeling that whoever was observing, or whatever, was part of a population, not a single entity.
Now, the questions that you're going to ask, let me anticipate your questions.
Scott, were you on drugs?
Of course I was. It was after 9 a.m.
But I'm on drugs every day.
Marijuana. And I know what marijuana feels like.
Can you accept that if you get high every day for 30 years or so, or more, you know what it feels like?
There are no surprises. It doesn't sometimes feel like mushrooms.
It doesn't sometimes make me hallucinate.
It's always the same.
And if you do it every day, it doesn't give you any kind of an experience like somebody doing it once in a while.
The people who do it once in a while have this profound, you better not drive your car, don't use any power tools kind of situation.
If you do it every day, it just makes you feel normal.
You know, there are very few things I couldn't do completely high, right?
I could play a sport, play an instrument, about the same.
Not much difference. But that's the only people who use it every day.
Ordinary people would have a profound effect, so you can't compare them to the so-called chronic users.
All right, so that's the first question.
So, I embarked on an out loud I had a conversation with whoever it was, and I swear to God I could feel I was getting answers.
Now this must be what people feel when they believe they're having a conversation with a God.
I imagine it feels the same way.
And I don't imagine that my experience of it was so outside what people have felt for millennium, right?
Humans have always felt, am I talking to God?
Are the gods talking to me right now?
It's a very common experience.
So remember, I'm not trying to claim that I understand the experience I'm explaining.
I'm just saying it happened.
And then you can put your own interpretation on it.
And so I had this long conversation about what this was all about.
And then, because I didn't believe my own experience...
And I didn't feel I was necessarily talking to anybody except my own imagination.
I thought, well, maybe I'll test it.
So I said, if this...
I said out loud, if I'm in a simulation and I have determined and I've discovered it's a simulation, do I get powers like Neo from the Matrix?
Like, if you know you're in a simulation...
Do you get power over it?
In other words, does that give me the ability to change things in real time and actually change my reality because I now understand it and I can just change it?
And so I thought, well, it's worth the test.
So I said, I'll give you a...
I said out loud to the creators of the simulation.
I said, all right, here's a test.
If you can make this happen, then I'll believe I'm in a simulation.
Otherwise, just my imagination.
Although it could be my imagination, either way.
And so I said, alright, my biggest problem at the moment, two days ago, was that my knees had been hurting me for well over a month, maybe two months.
And they hurt so much...
That although I was still active and still going to the gym, it was sort of hard to walk upstairs, like once I was back from the gym.
And I was really starting to worry if my bad knees were going to be forever.
Because, you know, sometimes you have temporary knee problems, sometimes it's forever.
And I thought, if it's forever, like I'm starting this downward spiral where I'm just going to be, you know, unable to exercise for the rest of my life.
Yeah, I thought, well, it feels like maybe it's bone on bone or something.
I didn't know what it was. So I said, all right, simulation, if you can make my biggest problem go away, my knee pain, then I will accept that I'm not only in this simulation, but that I have some control over it.
So two months of solid knee pain, never not knee pain, right?
It wasn't good at night, wasn't good in the morning, was never good.
It went away. As I was talking.
It didn't come back.
It's still not back.
Two days and my knees have no pain whatsoever.
Now, I don't have any explanation for that.
If you're saying to me, Scott, that's like a perfect placebo situation, because I talked myself into it, and I had a profound experience of something that probably wasn't real.
I probably wasn't talking to anybody.
But because it was so profound, hypnosis and placebo and everything I know about the mind suggests that I may have erased my pain.
Maybe I have the same inflammation I had before, but I may have just turned it off.
Now let me tell you something else that's related to this.
Sometime last year, I was at an event at a friend's house, and there was an individual who was doing some work in the backyard, and it was super cold.
It was like a really cold night.
And the individual was a young man, and he wasn't wearing a jacket.
He just had a T-shirt on.
And I was wearing a full winter jacket, and I was pretty cold.
And I said to him, like, how the hell?
How are you putting up with this cold?
And he told me the following story.
He said that he had an experience with some psychedelics.
I think it was mushrooms. And that during that experience, he had the realization that his sensation of cold was a manufactured feeling.
And that he wasn't in any real danger at that temperature.
Temperature was maybe 50 degrees.
Right? So you can't stay outside at 50 for too long without being uncomfortable.
But it's not really dangerous, is it?
I don't think it's dangerous.
I mean, if you can handle being outside at 50 degrees with your t-shirt, it's not going to kill you.
It might even be good for you, right?
It might actually be good for you.
So he had actually separated cold From a feeling.
He just didn't feel cold anymore.
And the reason he didn't feel it is because he chose not to.
He simply turned off that...
He just turned off that feeling because he realized it was fake.
It was a false signal.
And so the other day, I was outdoors without a jacket, you know, temporarily, just to check my mailbox.
And I thought, wow, I'm going to be out here way longer than I want to be.
And I was super cold.
And the cold was starting to hurt.
And I said, what would happen if I reframed the cold?
So I'll give it a try.
And I keep hearing about these people who do the cryonic chambers where it's like super cold and they stay in there for a few minutes and I'm surprised they don't die.
And I thought, wait, if Joe Rogan and those people can get in this super cold thing and it's actually good for them, Wouldn't it probably be good for me to simply experience something that's uncomfortably cold for a few minutes?
And as soon as I reframed what I was doing to a health-related process, I said to myself, I bet this is actually good for me.
To be, like, super cold.
I know you're laughing.
Let me just pause.
I live in California.
I used to live in upstate New York.
If you adjust this for what you're used to, when I say I went outside, it was 50 degrees and I was super uncomfortable.
If I had been in New York, that would have been roughly zero.
Roughly zero. Right?
So in New York, if you live in New York and you live in the cold, you could go outside in your t-shirt at roughly zero degrees and sort of do some stuff.
You know, you wouldn't like it that much.
Do some stuff and then come inside.
You wouldn't be damaged, right?
Wouldn't you agree? So when you're making fun of me for being a huge pussy because I couldn't handle 50 degrees, just know that when I grew up in New York, I could have done zero.
It's just what you're used to, right?
So the moment I reframed my experience as a voluntary health-related process, I was thinking, God, I think this cold is making me healthier.
All the pain went away.
All of the discomfort, it was pretty big discomfort, of feeling cold immediately left my body.
Because I told myself...
If I were Joe Rogan, I'd be paying for this experience.
This is probably really good for me.
Does anybody have a problem with germs?
Is anybody a germ-phobe?
Try this reframe.
The germs are good for you.
That's it. Which is true.
Because you need to have some dogs and some animals and a little bit of filth around you or else you're not going to be strong.
So I do a lot of public stuff.
Shake hands with a lot of strangers if I do a public event.
I'm not doing any at the moment.
And as soon as I'm done, I go wash my hands right after, right?
Because you've got like 100 people's germs on you.
But I used to think, oh my god, my god, like I'd be running to the bathroom to wash my hands like a surgeon.
Don't touch your face. Don't touch your face.
But since I've reframed it, that germs are good for me, I still wash my hands.
But when I'm walking to the bathroom, I'm thinking, I wonder if I'm getting stronger.
I wonder if my immune system is saying, thank you, I needed a little stress test.
That's just what I needed today.
So I've reframed even germs at the low end, right?
Nothing disgusting. But germs, just sort of the daily germs of life, I've just defined them as part of what makes my immune system stronger.
I wasn't planning to talk about any of this today.
Was any of this fun? I don't know.
I'll talk about the news next.
There's plenty of cool news.
I just thought it'd be interesting because it's something you can try at home.
The next time you're super cold, as long as it's temporary, just try the reframe and say, I'm super cold, exactly what's good for me.
I'm so lucky that this is super cold for a few minutes because this is really going to boost my natural immunity.
Just try it. Let me know how it works.
All right. I got a new mascot, Phil Bump, who writes for The Washington Post.
Phil likes to come into my tweets and say bad things about me or to mock me.
I don't know why. It may be because I've mocked him for his writing in the past.
It feels personal, but I've promoted him from mere critic to mascot.
That's my highest designation.
So now he's with Keith Olbermann.
And it's a small group.
I just have a few mascots, but Phil's part of the group now.
So congratulations, Phil, for entering the mascot committee.
Well, you make fun of me for living in California, but here are a few things you didn't know.
In the past month, Oops, got a little problem here.
In the past month, in California where I live, almost every day, the weather has been so good, at least during the daytime, that it feels like room temperature.
I walk outside, and the colors are perfect.
I've had a month of room temperature, sunny, perfect weather.
It's amazing, and wow.
Wow. So, that's good.
But also, California has made jaywalking legal.
It was already legal to The pedestrian always had the right-of-way, so that's been true for a long time in California.
But you have to be standing at an obvious crossing point.
Now the law is extended to you can basically cross the road anywhere you want, and it's not illegal.
And the motorists are going to need to stop.
They're just going to not...
I mean, obviously, they don't want to kill you, so they're going to stop anyway.
Now, it doesn't seem like...
Not necessarily the obvious best idea in the world.
But we'll find out.
Maybe we'll find out.
Maybe it's cool. So, here's what I can do in California that you can't do in Florida and Texas.
You can't jaywalk to go buy some weed.
Yeah. I mean, in Florida, you'd have to have a medical card, I guess.
But no, in California, I can jaywalk anywhere I want.
I can jaywalk to get an abortion.
I can jaywalk to get me some weed.
I got a lot of freedom in this state.
Got a lot of taxes. I'm not sure the taxes are worth all the freedom, but I don't know.
I don't think I could move somewhere where I had less freedom.
And by the way, that's mostly a psychological thing.
But I can tell you that I feel more free in California than I would feel in Texas or Florida.
I would just feel less free.
Now, I think that Florida and Texas have a lot going for them.
They're well-managed states.
And so I mostly have only positive things to say about both places.
But it is true I feel more free here.
So, for whatever that's worth.
Thank you. I saw another mention that there's a heroin shortage, which means that people are using fentanyl instead of heroin.
But I would like to...
I have some inside information on that.
I've got sources. My sources tell me it's not so much that you can't get heroin, it's that nobody wants to buy it.
Nobody wants to buy the heroin.
Do you know why? Because fentanyl is easily available, and it's a better nod.
That's tweaker talk, and that's addict talk.
The quote, better nod, is the sort of being in and out of sleep.
You're nodding out and coming back.
So that's what the addicts are doing, the ones who are shooting up.
Now here's the thing you need to know, because if you don't understand fentanyl, You can't be part of the productive persuasion to maybe make things better.
So the thing you need to know is that the people who know they're buying fentanyl and putting it in their arms, they're sort of like, I would say they're like scuba divers.
There are people who know they're doing an inherently dangerous thing, so they take extra precautions.
Because they're not actually trying to die.
They're trying to stay alive.
They just want a good high. So, it might be, wait for it, it might be fewer overdoses because they're doing fentanyl instead of heroin.
And I'm going to make that prediction because it's opposite of what everyone else is predicting.
So normies, the people who are not too close to this problem, are going to say, wait, if you stop using heroin, which is pretty bad, and you start using fentanyl, which is way worse, you should have more overdoses, right?
I'm going to predict it goes the other way.
I'm going to predict that the scuba divers know that they need to make sure that they've got air in their tank.
And it's the people who don't know they're getting the fentanyl, the teenagers, who are buying it in pill form and they don't know what they're getting.
They're the ones overdosing because they can't take the obvious precautions because they don't know there's a danger.
It's a hidden danger.
So that's my prediction. My prediction is overdose deaths from people who shoot might go down, while overall overdoses might go up.
So it's a bifurcated situation.
Two different risk patterns, and you have to know that.
And I saw there are people who know what they're talking about who are agreeing with me in the comments, so it's not crazy.
All right. Yeah, one mother of all bonds dropped on a fentanyl place would take care of that, wouldn't it?
Oh, this is weird. I've got two different documents that are printed on the same document.
So I'm trying to read...
Apparently there was a piece of paper that I used twice here.
Huh. Oh, my God, this is going to be a challenge because all of my notes are something written over something else.
I have a formula for making all poor kids successful.
I tweeted this a couple years ago, but it surfaced again.
Imagine if your school taught you what I was taught as a kid.
So what I'm going to tell you now is basically how I was raised.
I was raised to believe that the following steps would make you successful.
And I knew that since Kindergarten, I think.
I think as early as kindergarten, my mother was telling me, here's your path to success.
Do these things and you will do well.
Now, I don't know if everybody's parents do that.
Like, do the poor kids get the same kind of guidance?
So here's basically what it is.
This is my version of it. Focus on useful education.
Key word is useful, right?
Make sure you get good grades, get into college, and take a useful major.
Does everybody's parents tell them they've got to do something useful or they won't make money?
Mine did. I'm pretty sure my mother was quite clear that going to college for no purpose was a losing proposition.
You had to go to college for something, to be better at something specific that's useful.
Does everybody's parents tell them that?
To me it was obvious by the time I was in first grade, because it was just drilled in from the first days.
That's the first thing. Number two, stay out of trouble.
Stay in a jail. Right?
Stay out of jail. Stay off of drugs, which I managed to do until college.
Don't become a parent too soon.
Don't have a kid that you weren't planning on too soon.
Right? Just basic, basic stuff.
Right? Don't get anybody knocked up too soon.
Build a talent stack.
Now, that part I'm adding.
That wasn't exactly added by my mother.
My mother was still the generation, try to be the best at whatever you're doing.
Which was kind of good starter advice.
But later, I developed the concept of the talent stack.
That's from my book back there.
Which is now... The talent stack idea is...
Now, common advice.
But it wasn't common until I invented it.
So that's the one thing I added here.
You know, Bill to tell us that.
Be useful to others.
That's the next point. It's not good enough just to be good at something.
It has to be good at something that somebody wants to pay for.
You have to be useful.
And so, I was trained to be useful all the time.
Like, I had to mow the lawn.
I had to take the garbage out.
I had to do something.
Get good grades.
But I always had to be useful.
That was always just baked into the operating system.
Um, favor systems over goals.
You know, make sure that you're doing all the right things to give you lots of options.
That was never told to me directly.
So that's, again, that's my addition to it.
But sort of indirectly, I think I picked that up.
And then, um...
Learn basic risk management.
Basic risk management, which includes financial risk management.
But I'm making it a little bigger.
Now, none of that is hard.
Everything on my little list of how to be successful is pretty straightforward.
Pretty straightforward.
There's nobody who couldn't do it.
Right? You could be in a pretty bad school...
But let's say you're a minority student in the worst school.
You could not do drugs.
There are people who do it.
You could not get arrested.
It's possible, right?
You could do as well as you could do in that poor school, but because you come from a minority, disadvantaged situation, you might be able to get a little lift, maybe a college scholarship, a little extra consideration.
And then from there, you're on your own.
Get yourself a useful major and you could probably pay for your student loans if you have them, etc.
So I would just say that things would be really different if we just taught people the basics when they're small.
Rasmussen did a poll to find out if people think that Musk is going to make Twitter better or worse.
34% of American adults who regularly use Twitter believe that Musk will make the site better.
So about a third say he'll make it better.
And almost exactly the same think that Musk will make it worse.
But how many people, this will be a little test of your psychic ability, how many people roughly do you think believe that Elon Musk, the world's greatest entrepreneur, Paid $44 billion for Twitter to not change it too much.
To not change it too much.
How many people think they spend $44 billion to not really make anything any different?
Wow, you're good.
Wow. That's good.
It's 24%, but your guesses of 25% are just scarily accurate.
How do you do that?
I don't know. I don't know how you do it.
Well, the Twitter cybernetic brain, which fascinates me when I look at the currently trending section.
To me, that's the consciousness, or where Twitter is focusing its brain.
And there were four names in my...
I think it's different for each person, but in my list, these four names.
Nick Fuentes, Will Smith, Alexander Vindman, and Tim Poole.
Those were all the trending names today on my list.
And I'm thinking, poor Tim Poole.
Tim Pool gets thrown on the list with Fuentes, Will Smith, and Vindman.
But for different reasons.
Except that they're all being criticized.
Right? They're all being criticized.
Or in some cases, complimented.
Speaking of Tim Pool, you probably know by now that he got an exclusive kind of a scoop interview with Ye and Milo and Nick Fuentes that would be the first, I think, big...
Probably the first time they would appear together since dinner at Mar-a-Lago.
And if you didn't know, it ended abruptly when Tim very carefully broached the anti-Semitism topic and then Yeh got up and left without comment.
Now... Who knows what Ye is thinking, right?
It's impossible to imagine.
But here are the things we learned.
Number one, Ye confirmed that Trump did not know that Fuentes was coming, and Trump did not know who Fuentes was.
Now, I believe that's true.
I believe that's true. Because Axios reported the same thing before Ye did.
So we have now two sources that are not necessarily on the same side saying the same thing.
And also Trump said the same thing.
So it looks like everybody's agreeing with that.
Now, some people are saying, well, it looks like the Tim Pool...
Interview, as short as it was, about 26 minutes, I think.
It cleared Trump.
What do you think? Is Trump cleared now because he didn't know Fuentes and did not invite him?
Go. Is he cleared?
No. Nothing works like that.
You're falling into the trap of imagining that any kind of common sense or rational thought is involved here.
There's none of that. It's purely a narrative that the left is never going to let go of.
It doesn't matter how true or valid or anything.
All you have to know is that they've chosen it as a narrative, that they're going to ride that horse until it expires.
And they are. And they're doing a good job of it.
They're really nailing it hard.
So, no, Trump is done.
In my opinion, Trump does not come back from that.
I think that was a kill shot.
Does anybody disagree?
How many of you think Trump could come back from that?
Because, remember, it's not even true.
It's like half hoax, half a little bit true.
So you think he can't?
Now, the argument that he can is that our attention span is too short.
The trouble is, our attention span is irrelevant if it's all they talk about.
Do you remember that Biden ran on the Charlottesville hoax?
We elected a president on a hoax.
It didn't matter that it was a hoax.
And it didn't matter that it was the most easily verifiable hoax.
You just have to listen to it.
Oh, okay, that was a hoax.
That didn't really happen. But think about it.
You probably would have said that Charlottesville thing, once it's debunked as an obvious hoax, you probably said, well, it's not real, so that's not going to affect anything in the real world.
But it elected Biden.
It actually changed the nature of our leadership of the biggest country in the world, or the most powerful.
So, yes... The fact that this happened, even though it looks like an op to me, it wasn't Trump's fault, per se.
Now, I want to give you...
You know, I often compliment Mike Pence for being a clever politician who avoids getting in trouble.
I want you to hear how cleverly he criticized Trump.
Because he's really good at this.
He wanted to criticize him, clearly...
But not go too far into Crazyville, right?
Crazyville says that Trump invited him.
Like, that's too far.
So I hope you're not going to see any Republicans Buy into the part that he got invited.
So Pence is too smart to fall into that part.
But here's how Pence, who we believe will run against Trump for president, Pence said, Pence says, President Trump was wrong to give a white nationalist, an anti-Semite, and a Holocaust denier a seat at the table.
Blah, blah, blah. And then you said it again, a seat at the table.
Giving him a seat at the table.
Is that not brilliant?
That is brilliant for political criticism without being technically incorrect.
Because giving somebody a seat at the table is conceptual.
It's conceptual. But it also makes you think of the real thing.
Because at the same time there was a conceptual seat at the table, there was actually a literal seat at the table.
Pence is a fucking genius.
That is genius, communication-wise.
I mean, I don't think it's an accident that he was such a good vice president.
His ability to parse words and pick just the right word that doesn't get him in trouble while still saying something is quite impressive.
That is quite impressive. I don't prefer him for president, but I just like your credit where credit is due.
That was really good. Now, you don't like it if you're supporting Trump, you don't like it, because it's a pretty good hit.
But a place at the table that gives him everything, that's just the perfect, perfect criticism.
Now, and I suppose the question is, should Trump have gotten up and left?
But I don't believe Trump knew exactly who Fuentes was the entire dinner.
Like, I think he figured it out later.
But then he had a chance to disavow him.
So here's my next question.
Should Trump have disavowed Nick Fuentes?
Go. Should Trump have disavowed Nick Fuentes?
I'm seeing mixed messages.
Here's why this is not an obvious question.
As a citizen of the United States, I can disavow Nick Fuentes.
I disavow him.
There, I just did it. So, I think you'd all agree that citizens can disavow anybody, right?
Just an ordinary citizen. Yeah, we all have free speech.
We can disavow anybody we want.
But here's my question.
If there's going to be one exception, there's only one kind of person I want to not be criticizing citizens, and it's the president, right?
That's the only person I don't want to criticize a citizen who's obeying the law.
This is an important caveat.
So given that Fuentes is obeying the law, as far as I know, he's not been accused of any law-breaking, as far as I know.
So as long as he's a law-abiding person who just has ugly opinions, in the opinion of many people, I'm perfectly okay with a president, whether it's Trump or anybody else, I'm perfectly okay with a president criticizing behavior and opinions and ugly, bad policy ideas.
But disavowing a person by name, that's too far.
That feels too far.
Now, the exception would be a critic.
So if a politician goes after somebody who's just been, like, dogging them forever, like, you know, Rob Reiner or something, you know, if a president goes after Rob Reiner, it's because that's somebody who's been going after him personally for a long time.
That's fine. That's just politics.
But to go after somebody who has not been criticizing you and only has opinions that you feel are vile, do you want your president to do that?
And I say I do not want my president to be insulting any individual citizen with the obvious exception of Rosie O'Donnell.
I think we could all agree that if it's Rosie O'Donnell, that's fine.
That's fine. But everybody else?
Everybody else? No.
No. All right.
So I feel like this is a fine line, but I think it's an important one.
Now, I think Trump did not...
Did not disavow Fuente's opinions.
And that's sort of a glaring thing that's missing.
But I think he could have parsed it.
I think Trump could have said, you know what?
If somebody's obeying the law and they have terrible opinions, I'm still going to eat with them.
But I will disavow their opinions.
If you'd like to hear that, yes, I disavow that opinion.
That would work for me.
That would work. I say that censorship is the new voting.
What do you say? Because we've got this big debate over whether Musk is improving free speech or making it worse, say his critics.
But whichever way it is, would you agree that the following is true?
That censorship determines what narrative is the important one?
Would you agree? If you never see a competing narrative, you latch onto the one that you see.
So censorship determines what narrative rises to our attention, right?
And the narrative would determine your opinion, right?
So that's how we get opinions.
We don't really make opinions on our own.
Opinions are essentially assigned to us by the way the narrative is presented to us.
So the censorship determines the narrative.
The narrative determines public opinion.
Public opinion determines what the vote is, because then we vote our opinions.
So you've got the censorship determines the narrative.
The narrative determines our public opinion.
Our public opinion determines the vote.
And that's it.
That's our current system.
The current system is just a censorship game.
The vote actually becomes a somewhat subsidiary, downstream, guaranteed effect that is guaranteed by what happens upstream.
The vote is downstream from censorship.
I'm borrowing Andrew Breitbart's famous saying that politics is downstream from culture.
But the vote is downstream from censorship.
Now, was this always the case?
Has this always been our system?
Because I don't think so. It feels like it's something that could evolve because of social media and the media landscape.
I'm just seeing one comment.
I think it's, I don't know who it's for, but it just says, fuck you.
It feels like it's for me, but maybe not.
Might have been for another commenter.
But this battle over censorship and Twitter in particular, because Twitter, as you know, is the lever that moves all the other media.
Because it's the place that the media professionals go to find out what they can get away with.
And if you can get away with it on Twitter, then you can take it to the rest of the world.
So this is the biggest battle because our political system is now basically down to what Twitter will allow you to see.
And I think it has been this way, and I think that's what...
I think our last election came down to what Twitter allowed people to see...
Let me ask you this.
As many times as the Charlottesville find people thing...
I'm going to get rid of this guy.
As many times as the Charlottesville...
Why are you on here saying bad things, Eddie?
All right, Eddie, don't do that.
I'm going to turn off the locals.
I'm going to keep the locals feed, but I'm going to turn off the open part, so it's going to be only for people who are subscribers, because I think I got a troll over here.
So when I turn off the open part, it should get rid of the troll, so we'll do that.
If you're on locals and you're not the troll, go over to YouTube and you can watch it.
Boom! Alright, so Locals is now private for subscribers.
But I'm not wrong, right?
The battle over Twitter is our new political system.
Because Twitter will determine what we think, or what the journalists can get away with.
And back to my earlier point, if Musk had owned Twitter before, could Biden have run on the find people hoax and gotten away with it?
I'm not sure. I don't think he could have.
Because it was only because the Democrats were completely walled off from any hoax debunking.
They just never saw it.
And even the professionals never saw it.
There are plenty of people in the professional reporting journalist field who actually believe that the Charlottesville fine people hoax was a real thing that happened.
They literally believe it happened.
That's only because Twitter allowed them not to see the other side.
So maybe that'll change.
I don't know. And certainly Twitter has completely changed who is visible.
My visibility on Twitter went through the roof recently.
I don't know if anybody's noticed, if you look at my Twitter feed, the number of subscribers is climbing like crazy, faster than ever before.
And when I do even a medium-quality tweet, I get over a thousand likes, and that would have been 200 before Musk.
So it's probably a 5x visibility difference for me.
Now, you don't think the left was trying to suppress me?
If they weren't trying to suppress me, they weren't playing the right game.
They should have been. They should have figured out who's making a difference, who can move the needle, and focus on those people.
All right. Musk, this is like the biggest story, I don't know, of since the pandemic, I guess, or maybe it's not as big as Ukraine, but it's up there, that Musk is going to go full transparency, He has promised us that the public deserves to know what, quote, really happened at Twitter in terms of the censorship.
They're actually preparing a full report that will be on Twitter.
And this is fun, too.
Twitter will be the publisher.
So this is something you would normally expect to be published in some other place, and Twitter would just point to it.
But because it's Elon, he's doing it the smart way.
It will be published on Twitter.
So you have to go to Twitter and you have to stay there to read it.
Anybody who says that Musk isn't going to make this a better product, you're really not paying attention.
He's already made it a better product.
There's no question about it.
Everything he's doing, even the mistakes, are all heading in the right direction.
Okay, that didn't work. All right, that didn't work either, but we'll try this.
I mean, it's all working. But I would say it is also true that the worst racists have returned to the platform.
Would you agree? Has anybody seen an increase in anti-Semitism and racism?
I have. I've seen it.
But only recently. Only the last few days.
I didn't see it until the last few days.
Now, maybe because of his amnesty or something.
Yeah, I've seen some super ugly anti-Semitic kind of stuff lately.
Yeah, it's the yay effect, because people are using that as their topic for which to spew.
Yeah, it's probably the yay effect.
But we'll see if that's a lasting thing or not.
Now, what's interesting about this is we're going to find out if Twitter suppressed the laptop story.
I hope, I don't know if this will happen...
But imagine this.
I don't think this is going to happen.
But imagine if Musk can tell you how individuals were censored.
Can you imagine that?
Could you imagine if I could find out exactly how I was censored?
Just imagine that.
The heads would explode everywhere.
And then let me ask you this.
What will the left do when this becomes public, if it's as bad as we think?
Now, I don't want to get ahead of the Krakens.
I have an unfortunate history of imagining the Kraken will be reproduced, and then no Kraken happens.
I'm definitely a Kraken non-denier, and that's on me.
I didn't expect a Kraken.
Not because I thought there was a problem, because I believed the people who said it was coming.
And I didn't know that they were completely non-credible, as it turns out.
So that's on me.
I should have seen that coming, honestly.
But if it happens, how is the left going to handle the fact that all of their badness has been revealed?
Here's how I think.
And it's already happening.
And it goes like this.
All of that badness was really goodness.
That's what it'll be. Of course we were suppressing Trump because he called neo-Nazis fine people.
Of course we suppressed him.
Obviously. Of course.
Yeah. It won't even be embarrassing.
It won't be embarrassing.
Because they'll say, yeah, we want more of that.
People are actually calling for Twitter to return to the rules before Musk.
They're asking to go back to what they have to know by now was total censorship.
But they believed they were censoring the right people.
Now, do you think that Musk has changed the rules on who's censored?
I haven't heard of it, have you?
Because I'm hearing people saying, I need Twitter to go back to the old rules.
The rules never changed, have they?
Did I miss the story?
I believe that Twitter has always been anti-hate speech.
Anti-hate speech.
And if there's misinformation, they'll put a tag on it so you've got some context.
It's the same rules.
But people are going to imagine a different experience, right?
The left is going to imagine that Twitter turned into a hellhole, even if it doesn't.
And the right is going to imagine that the controls were taken off, even if the only thing happening is more conservatives are joining Twitter, so your traffic is going up.
And you'll think, oh, it's because the censorship came off.
So we're deeply in confirmation-biased territory, which is affecting me.
You're going to see it in real time.
If you want to see a rational person who is completely under the spell of confirmation bias, I offer myself, because Twitter is such a confirmation bias generator that I'm pretty sure I'm going to imagine my experiences changing on Twitter, even if it doesn't.
I'm pretty sure I'll imagine it does.
Don't you agree? So you're going to get to watch me Falling victim to confirmation bias, even when I know it.
Even when I know it's going to happen, it's still going to happen.
I don't think I have any defense against it.
Because you feel the way you feel, right?
And then you report it.
But I'm at least aware that I'll be wrong.
All right. So...
What do we think about this yay Fuentes business now?
Besides the fact that it'll take Trump out of the race for good, just because the left will make us never forget anything else.
I mean, they'll make us think about it forever.
Who's Fuentes, yeah.
I don't know. I mean, the fact that these folks all showed up And by the way, somebody says Kanye is legitimately anti-Semite.
It seems like it. You know, Kanye's had plenty of time to soften his opinion or whatever, but at this point, I feel like we can just say he wants us to believe.
That he is anti-Semitic.
Wouldn't you say? He's not telling you he's not.
I mean, he does that thing, I can't be anti-Semitic because I'm a Jew.
But nobody takes that seriously.
It looks like he's putting it out there as that's who he is.
Yeah.
I don't know.
It's fun to watch. But do you think that Kanye is, or Ye, is operating...
By the way, if you watched any of the Tim Pool interview with Ye, or especially the aftermath, because it continued after Ye left and they had sort of a conversation around the table about what they'd experienced.
The funniest part about it is watching every member of the table refer to him as Kanye and then have to correct it.
And I thought, that is why yay is yay.
And that's why the performer formerly known as Prince was the performer formerly known as Prince.
One of the things that you can do if you're smart enough and you're famous enough is you can make your name really inconvenient for other people.
And then you have to spend a whole bunch of time talking about him, like extra time, because you've got to correct the name.
So I'm watching this, the Tim Pool group around the table, and every one of them made a point.
They're like, well, Kanye...
I'm sorry. I mean, yay.
And then, so what yay did is then...
I'm sorry. I apologize.
I didn't mean to do that.
If you're watching, I meant yay.
And every one of them had to do it on every comment to the point where it was just ridiculous.
And they were noticing it themselves, of course.
That's one of the ways he draws energy.
He gets energy because you have to talk about him more, even to refer to him.
Just the simplest thing, you have to put extra energy into it.
So he's definitely an energy monster, and he knows how to attract it, and he knows how to use it.
But what's going on now?
Does anybody think that what we're seeing with Ye Is some form of genius?
Or do you think it's mental illness?
What would you say? Genius or mental illness?
Or attention? I guess that would be genius.
Performance art? If you say it's performance art, is it genius?
Because let's say he intended it to be performance art.
You'd have to be insane to think this was going to work.
Do you think the divorce broke him?
It looks like the divorce broke him, actually.
That's what I think. Yeah, I think the divorce actually broke him.
I think that everything he cared about in life was his family.
And he lost it.
And I think he lost everything.
And I think that when he gave up his billions of dollars, it's because it didn't mean a fucking thing to him.
And he kind of says that now, right?
He was the richest black guy, is that what he was saying?
The richest black guy or something?
But he lost his family.
He had nothing. I think that's the story of Ye.
Is that it looks like he had everything, because he had riches and multiple companies and fame, and he was beloved, and he had a family, he loved them, and kids.
And then the only part he lost was the family and kids, and what did he have left?
Nothing. After his family and kids were taken from him, or you could say it was his own fault, whatever.
I don't know the difference. But once he lost that, he actually didn't have anything.
So he tried God, it looked like he moved his emphasis to religion, and it looks like it wasn't enough.
He's trying politics, and it looks like that's not enough.
So, to me, this all looks like mental illness but caused by a specific PTSD. I'm speaking in my layman terms.
I'm using all the wrong words for mental illness, but you know what I mean, right?
I believe he was maybe, as all geniuses are, a little bit crazy.
Artistic geniuses, anyway.
The artistic geniuses tend to be a little bit crazy and a little bit genius at the same time.
And I think that the divorce broke him, and it just pushed him into the wrong side.
That's what it looks like. Because I don't see anything here that looks like a good strategy, do you?
If I did, I'd call it out.
I'd love to tell you, oh, you're all missing the clever play.
If you knew as much as I do about persuasion, you'd see how cleverly he's playing you all, but I don't see that.
I see somebody who's working through some problems.
That's what I see.
The next part is hard.
You know, the way he's treated the anti-Semitism issue, it's very ugly.
I can't be in favor of that.
I can't have any empathy for that at all.
But at the same time, I have empathy for him.
Because to me, I see a victim.
And... Maybe he was a victim that people ganged up on him.
Maybe his trainer who had some kind of weird background and threatened him, we know.
Maybe he was part of it.
I don't know. But he looks like somebody who was destroyed by people who had an agenda of some sort.
Now, you could argue that he wasn't strong enough to avoid that destruction.
That's always another way to look at it.
But I have empathy for Ye.
At the same time, I severely disavow his opinions, which I feel like is the way a president should have approached it.
I think a president should say, I have great empathy.
It looks like he's going through a tough time.
But, you know, still I have to disavow what he said completely.
All right. I wonder if everything's...
I can't get off of this topic, but I wonder if everything's going to be different after we find out what Twitter actually did.
Like, how deep does that go?
For example, just as an example, here are the things we might find out.
What if we find out what organized groups were organizing trolls?
Suppose if you found out who the troll masters are.
Like, wouldn't you love to know that?
What if we found out how much foreign influence there's been at Twitter?
How much do you want to know that?
Like, a lot?
Yeah, how about our own intel and FBI? How much influence have they had?
Has anybody who is not a Twitter employee ever had direct access to cancel people?
Wouldn't you like to know that? Wouldn't you like to know if there's any app that allowed any law enforcement or anybody to change a Twitter experience where Twitter didn't even have to approve it?
It was just giving somebody else a button to push.
Wouldn't you like to know?
Because I'll bet somebody did.
I'll bet somebody outside of Twitter had a button.
It just feels like that's the type of thing we'd find out.
I have no evidence of that.
It just feels like it. What else are we going to find out?
Will we find out that our user accounts are completely artificial?
And that, you know, will I find out that of my almost 800,000 followers, what if I find out that half of them are bots for Republicans who thought they liked boosting my signal?
Totally possible.
Totally possible.
Right? Could be.
Yeah. I mean, I have no idea how deep this hole is, but wow, am I interested.
Now, apparently Apple has threatened Twitter because of this censorship stuff.
Apple has threatened to take the Twitter app out of the App Store, which would pretty much kill Twitter as a viable business.
Do you think that Apple would execute that?
Do you think that Apple would drop the nuclear option on Twitter?
Because if they do, the reason would be that they say there are too much hate speech, right?
So it would be a hate speech thing.
Now, isn't this hate speech thing really subjective?
Meaning you could say, yes, that's too much hate speech, or that's not too much hate speech.
Isn't that kind of just an opinion?
How much is too much and how much is free speech?
Because all free speech has some hate baked into it.
Yeah. So, my first impression was this, that it would be such a suicide play that Apple would never do it.
Because if Apple did it, they would lose, I don't know, 20% of their customers overnight, something like that.
I mean, I'm totally in the Apple universe, but I'd have to think really seriously about dumping them forever if they killed Twitter.
Because to me, that would be an attack on the Republic.
Does it feel like that to you?
And it wouldn't feel exactly like an attack on Twitter users.
To me, that would feel like a direct attack on the Republic.
That's how I'd take it.
To me, that wouldn't look like, you know, free market.
That wouldn't look like any kind of free market thing.
That would look like just the worst thing.
So my first impression was Apple would never take a risk that big because they don't take risks like that.
That's just not an Apple thing.
But here's my second risk.
Tim Cook might be the only person in the world who leans Democrat who could stop Musk from creating free speech.
There's only one person who could stop it.
Maybe you could argue Google could too.
One guy. Do you know how much pressure Tim Cook is going to get from everybody he knows and loves?
You don't think the top Democrats have already talked to Tim Cook and said, you know, you know what would make you awesome?
You know what would make us love you even more?
If you could just do this one thing for us, just kill Twitter.
Yeah. And I think he might actually do it.
It's the sort of thing that no rational business person would do, but I don't think we're in rational business person territory.
I think we're in virtue signaling territory.
And here's what I think might happen.
I'm going to make a tentative prediction that if Tim Cook removes Twitter from the Apple store, that the board at Twitter is going to remove Tim Cook.
That Tim Cook would lose his job for that.
Right? Because I would certainly never buy an Apple product while he was still CEO. I'd be done.
I would say, I'll still buy Apple products, but you've got to get rid of that guy.
Because I like the products.
I don't want to deny myself a good product.
I love Apple.
I'm a really big Apple fan.
I have stock, by the way, so I'm not unbiased.
So I love Apple. But if one person decides to attack the republic, I'm going to act on that pretty quickly.
All right, here is how Twitter can destroy Apple.
I also own some Tesla stock, so I don't know if I have any indirect benefit from that.
Your current phone is an absolute piece of shit.
Has anybody ever noticed that?
Has anybody noticed that your phone is a complete piece of shit?
Now, it's a technological wonder, but may I do a skit of me using the worst interface ever designed?
Okay. Here's me.
I think I'd like to send a message.
Step one, find which app to use to send the message.
Now, I'm in already, my brain's in the wrong place.
The message is in my head.
I'm forming the message that I want to send and who I want to send it to.
And then I pick up my phone, and the first thing my phone does is make me think about something else.
Fail. Failure.
My phone should be a blank screen.
And there should be no apps.
There should be no apps.
There should be one AI that guesses what I'm trying to do when I start doing it.
I should be able to just do what I want and have the AI guess what I want, what I intended.
For example, I would have a blank screen and pick it up and start saying, yes, thank you.
Please do buy those groceries we were talking about.
And then as I'm writing the message, I want the AI to look at it and say, oh, this person is typing a message.
So he doesn't want to consume information.
He's in producing mode.
So at the top, it would produce all the apps or the directions the message could go, from WhatsApp to Telegram to whatever.
And then after I make the message and I've done all my thinking, then I'm done thinking, and now I say, well, which app did I want to pick?
Boop. Here's what's wrong with your phone.
It's built for the app makers.
Your phone is not built for the user.
It's built for the app market.
It's built to make it a viable commercial market.
To do that, you need apps.
Do you need an app?
How many of you woke up and said, you know, If only I had an app.
No, apps are bullshit.
Apps are trouble. Apps are extra work.
Apps make you have to sign on again.
Apps make your password go away.
Apps can kick you off the platform.
Apps are all the problems.
I just want to know what I want to do and start doing it.
Now, I might have two choices, either producing or consuming.
So if I want to consume, I say, oh, I'm bored.
I want to consume. And I can look at some Instagram posts and stuff like that.
So I think that the entire interface of phones, somebody, and it could be Elon Musk someday, somebody needs to develop the AI version that just guesses what you want to do and gives you the options but makes you think about it after you've done your work.
So you want to work first, And then do the details of where that work goes.
Does that make sense? How many of you think that the basic model of an app-driven phone...
I mean, look at all my fucking apps.
Nobody in the world would have invented this for the consumer.
You tell me that there's any user who would say, yeah, here's what I want.
I want to have to go search for a fucking app and every time I got to sign up and subscribe and all that bullshit.
Here's what I want to do. I want to open up my blank screen and say 100 plus 300.
And as soon as I type 100 plus 300, I want the AI in my phone to say, oh, he wants a spreadsheet.
Boop! And as I'm typing, a spreadsheet appears, and now I can just keep going.
Because I don't want to pick a spreadsheet.
I just want to start working and have the spreadsheet form around me because it's obvious I'm in spreadsheet mode.
Right? Why does a document have to be one for a spreadsheet and one for typing?
Who decided that I need a separate app to put a spreadsheet in the middle of my Word document?
Not me. If you'd asked me, there would be no apps.
I'd just do what I want to do, and it all works.
So here's the problem that Apple has.
Apple and Google are both legacy user interfaces, and it would be really, really hard for them to change.
But if Musk decides to compete with them, What if he does it without apps?
What if he does it with a super AI? And here's what a phone should be.
Your phone should have nothing on it but a password and 5G. That's it.
Just a password and 5G. And a minor operating system.
But everything else should happen in the cloud through AI, and then it should deliver it to you.
And when I replace my phone, the phone should cost me like $100.
Because the phone is just a dumb screen and all the intelligence happens in the network at 5G speed.
How many of you think I'm on to something?
Here's the part I can guarantee.
I can guarantee you with 100% certainty that in 100 years there will be no such thing as a smartphone with apps.
You'd all agree with that, right?
Because there's no way this model is the one that lasts.
It's just too stupid.
So Musk can put Apple out of business.
He can. And the technology to do that only just came online.
Because you'd need 5G, or satellites.
Those are online.
And you would need super-fast chips so that they could handle a remote processing.
And you'd get rid of apps, and AI could get rid of apps.
I don't even know if AI would need to build you an app.
I think AI could just sort of handle what you needed.
Without you ever being aware that there's something like an app.
Alright, so if you didn't think that Elon Musk could put Apple out of business, he actually can.
It would be hard, but there is actually a path where Elon Musk personally could put Apple out of business with just leapfrogging the technology of the phone.
Probably won't happen, yes.
Probably won't happen. Did you see the Maricopa hearings about the election?
Anybody watch the video from that?
So, in Maricopa, there were public hearings before they certified the election.
It was the Cary Lake versus Hobbs one where Cary Lake lost, according to the certification.
Now, they did certify it, but not until listening to the public just rake the officials for what a bad job they did.
And when you hear all the anecdotal reports...
These are unconfirmed things.
It's just people talking. So it's anecdotal.
But the anecdotal reports are just vicious.
If you hear them out of context, without the officials responding to why it's not such a big problem, if you hear it out of context, it just sounds like the whole election was just totally, totally just screwed the pooch, like nothing about it was credible.
But here's the part that I want to summarize.
If you knew that the difference between a Republican and a Democrat victory was how inconvenient it was to vote on election day, because Democrats vote by mail more often, if you could make voting on the day of a little bit inconvenient, wouldn't that be enough to throw the election?
That's all it would take, right?
You simply have to make sure that it doesn't go smoothly on the day of, and that's it.
Now, you remember those machines that had been tested, and yet it turned out that they were poorly calibrated for the ink that was on the ballots?
Do you think anybody would be smart enough to know that if they tweaked that calibration ahead of time, just make it a little bit below the level, that it might take hours to figure out what's wrong and correct it, and in those hours a lot of Republicans would give up and leave the line?
That would be a pretty straightforward prediction, wouldn't it?
If we can just make the lines longer on election day, that's all we need.
Because people don't have infinite time.
They vote during the workday, and some of them just need to say, fuck it, I'm going home.
So, it looks to me...
Without any proof of this, right?
It looks to me like the inefficiency was the feature, not the accident.
And it's being treated like a feature, not an accident, because we're not trying to fix it.
If you saw some big move from Maricopa to say, my God, we've got to change this system.
We've got to make sure nothing like this ever happens.
So here's what we're going to do to fix all of this.
No. No.
As far as I know, they plan to run the next election in the same way.
I'm just going to guess, but I'll bet you the next election has some long lines and some unexpected technical problems that don't look like any rigged election at all.
It's just, hey, it's technology.
Technology sometimes is, you know, a little bit tweaked wrong.
No big deal. It's sort of normal.
You'd expect a few hiccups in exactly the right place.
So we got the most problems in the place that would actually change the election.
There were other places that had problems, too.
But that was kind of a coincidence, wasn't it?
That the one place that would definitely change things, that place had little problems, long lines.
And as many times as they checked the machines the night before, how weird that they didn't work the very next day.
How weird. Yeah.
I don't know. Here's my take.
Here's my take on the elections.
Guilty until proven innocent.
Guilty until proven innocent.
That's my standard.
And to me, they look guilty.
So, you can...
Let's see if I get kicked off of social media.
YouTube... And whoever's watching me on YouTube and decides whether to monetize me, it is my opinion that the credibility of the last election is below the level in which you should accept it.
Now, I don't have any specific claim about specific bad shenanigans.
I'm just saying that the overall situation with which we've been presented doesn't appear designed to make us believe it.
It doesn't seem designed for us to believe it.
It's designed for us not to believe it, which causes more problems for Republicans, right?
What's the worst-case scenario for Republicans?
An election they say they don't believe.
That was the trap.
It's the perfect trap.
If we can trap those Republicans into doubting a second election, everybody's going to think that they're not good citizens, right?
So, YouTube, I don't know who did what.
I'm making no specific allegations of bad behavior.
I'm simply saying that if you look at the design which is intentional, the intentional design is to make it less credible.
So I accept what I've been told.
The officials have given me a non-credible election by design, intentionally, By design.
And so I accept what they've given me.
It's not credible. So I reject the 2022 election.
In my opinion, I don't have a specific allegation.
It was presented to us in a way that we're being told not to believe it.
And so I accept the message.
It would be easy to say...
Here's what we're doing to make you feel more comfortable with the result.
But I don't see that.
If you had that, I'd say, oh, you're designing the system to make me feel comfortable with the result.
I get that. Now I do feel more comfortable.
But if you design it in a way, the design is very clearly to make us less comfortable with the result.
Because they know how to do it the other way, right?
Right? Do you think there's any doubt among the professionals how to make the election completely unquestionable?
Yeah, just paper ballots, count them the same day, have witnesses.
It's easy. There's no question about how to do it.
So it's a choice.
And it's a choice that both sides appear to be making.
So if both sides are making the choice to have non-credible-looking elections, you as a consumer should take the message and say, oh, you're presenting us a non-credible election, we'll accept it as a non-credible election.
Now, having said that, I agree with certifying it.
I agree with certifying it.
Same reason I agreed with moving on when Trump allegedly lost in 2020.
Because you do have to move on.
You do have to move on.
And that's a separate question from fixing the problem.
You have to fix the problem, but sometimes you just have to move on, too.
You can redo the election?
Yeah. No, but we would just be redoing it with a system that's not credible.
But do you mind that the vote was maybe not as accurate as it could have been?
Given that some people may not have participated.
Here's why I'm not complaining as much as I could.
It was the first thing I said today.
I don't think the vote is what matters.
I think it's censorship determined the narrative, the narrative determined the opinions, the opinions determined the vote, and pretty much 90% of how we ended up where we were is from the censorship.
Not from anything else.
So the vote was important, and it may have been the last straw, because it was a close election.
So it probably did matter, just because it was close.
But 90% of it was just that the censorship determined what people saw.
What people saw determined their opinions, and then they voted on their opinions.
So it wasn't actually an inform the public, and then the public makes opinions and votes for their representatives, sort of the way a republic should work.
Nothing like that happened.
Nothing like that happened.
The brainwashers decided what we would think, and then we acted on it.
That's all. All right.
Do a redo? Yeah, maybe we should have some kind of a standing redo system so you can redo it quickly.
Now, here's what I'd like to do.
I would love...
To see a survey of how many Republicans got out of line.
And then separately, how many of them didn't vote in the normal way, but maybe had to put their ballot in the special ballot box that didn't have a good chain of custody.
So wouldn't you like to know how many Republicans got out of line?
Because it might be none. It might be none.
Because it could be the Republicans were just, you know, screw it.
I'm here all day. You're not going to make me get in line.
Because, you know, Republicans are pretty much tough characters, which is exactly why I like them, right?
The thing I like most about conservatives is that when they have a principle, they're really going to stick to it.
Like, they're really sticky on principle.
And if the principle is, you're not going to discourage me from voting...
Maybe every single Republican in the United States stayed in line as long as it took.
It's possible. Because the Republicans are not like regular people, right?
They're not. They're very stubborn.
And they don't like to get beaten by a game.
They don't like to be beaten by a magic trick.
All right.
Thought experiment. .
Why can anyone do that list of things to succeed, but not anyone can avoid overeating?
Oh, good question.
So I told you the things that somebody needs to succeed, and why do I think that somebody has free will and they can do that thing, when I don't think that people can stop overeating, because they like to eat.
And the thing is that eating is an addiction.
And addictions are a whole different deal, right?
So if you have an addiction, you have to be in addiction mode to deal with that.
But what I was talking about was sort of a non-addiction.
You're just a kid and you're trying to figure out your way in the world.
There's no addiction involved.
So if there's no addiction involved, you can certainly brainwash kids in the direction you want.
Make a clip of my mom's useful advice.
Hmm. Maybe so.
Yeah, maybe so.
The trouble is that my mom had that be the best at one thing advice, which is the opposite of what I ended up doing.
To good effect. Alright.
You need a micro lesson on hoarding.
Oh. Yeah, maybe I'll do that.
Micro lesson on hoarding.
You want to stop hoarding, I assume.
You don't want a micro lesson on how to hoard more.
Yeah, maybe so. I can reframe that, I think.
Let's talk about China.
Let's talk about China.
You know, there's an interesting thing when I see the aerial views of the protests.
So the things that are different, number one, it's not that unusual to have protests in China.
What's unusual is that they're countrywide.
That's unusual. And they may be bigger, you know, In each individual place that we've seen before.
But here's the thing that I'm really taken by when I look at the crowds.
So you'll see a big crowd from above, and you'll see, let's say, the riot police, I guess.
They tend to be dressed in all white or police uniforms.
And you can see how many police there are, and then you can see the size of the public crowd.
And it looks to me like the crowd is more powerful than the law enforcement.
Like a lot. And I don't think that the law enforcement wants to open fire and start massacring people, because then the public goes to the next level as well.
And I'm watching that and I'm thinking, it looks like the Indian elephant trainer situation is what it looks like.
Let me explain that.
I use this example a lot.
If you're an elephant trainer, how do you get this gigantic mammal that could crush you, if it wants to, to follow your orders?
How do you make an elephant afraid of you?
I always wonder, why does the elephant do anything for this little person?
It makes sense why your dog does what you want, because you're bigger than your dog, usually.
You feed it. But it seems like the elephant would just want to crush you if you beat it with a stick.
But the way they do it is they hurt the elephant when it's a baby.
So when the elephant is a baby, and it doesn't know how to fight back or anything, the elephant trainer hits it until the elephant is afraid of the human.
And then the human never becomes less afraid of the human.
The elephant never does. So the elephant becomes a big monster, but it still thinks that little human can beat it up.
So that never changed.
And I feel like the Chinese public Is the elephant.
Because I watch the number of people there are protesting, and it's a far bigger force than the number trying to stop them.
It's not even close.
Now, yes, if that force wanted to use firearms, then it's not a fair fight.
But if they use the firearms, then the crowd gets bigger too.
Right? So, here's what I don't think the Chinese public knows.
They have complete control already.
The Chinese public has complete control and they don't know it.
Because if you saw the size of the crowd, they just have to rush the other people.
They just have to say, all right, we're going to take you down and just use numbers and just take them out.
And I feel like the public, either the public doesn't want to escalate, or they think they don't have the power like the elephant that was abused as a baby.
Because they've been abused since birth to do what they're told.
And even as rebellious as they are now, which is impressive to watch, I feel like they still don't know how much power they have.
I look at it from above and I say, this is a five-minute problem.
People would die, but it's a five-minute problem.
Every one of those law enforcement people could be grabbed by a person in the crowd, brought down in five minutes.
In five minutes, they would own the city.
But they're not doing it.
Now, here's the question.
What would have happened in America?
Forget about guns for a second.
Just imagine the protesters are unarmed in America.
Do you think America would not have already taken down the law enforcement?
I think Americans would have already taken them down.
Because we're not trained like the elephant.
We're trained to think we are in control.
Maybe it's one of the things that makes Americans such assholes.
One of the reasons we're assholes is we grow up thinking we're in control.
Right? We think we have all kinds of power, even if we don't.
So, if you had a crowd of Americans who were that pissed off, and the number of people who were preventing them from going or doing whatever they were, was that small?
This would be so over.
The only thing that's keeping China intact is this psychological thing that keeps the citizens thinking they're weaker than the government, and they are not.
Not even close.
They are the elephant.
And they don't know they can stomp on the government any time they want.
That's what it looks like. So, what this means is...
No, I did not forget the Chinese military.
I did not. Because I'm calculating here that if China was sent in the military and they started killing massive people, which they'd have to do, that the citizens would rise up to an even higher level.
Now, in America, that's what would happen.
In America, if there were more force brought against the crowd, the crowd would increase their own force, and they would be armed after that point.
Now, China can't arm itself, so they've got a different situation.
But they can still take out a small force.
Now, my understanding is that the Chinese military is actually smaller than the local community enforcement, because they need lots of local community enforcement relative to how many they need in the military.
So, it is possible that if the psychology of the Chinese people changes, and it could.
You could imagine some small event that just changes their psychology.
The moment they say, we have decided versus we want, it's all over.
The Chinese people have not decided.
They have not. They're expressing a desire.
They're expressing a preference, a very strong preference.
But if the Chinese people decide, it's a five-minute problem.
It's five minutes.
They will just destroy whoever is stopping them, and they will just do what they need to do.
They'll take care of business.
So there's a very big possibility that China is teetering on a full revolution, and nothing physical is stopping it from happening.
There's no physical thing.
Just that little bit of mental switch.
And if that switches, All bets are off.
Now, I would bet against that happening.
I would bet in favor of the Chinese government suppressing them.
It goes back to normal.
And the reason is, I think they're so well trained.
I think that the conditioning is so deep that they simply will never know their own power, and they won't express it.
Now, do Iran.
Iran is different.
Than any situation I'm aware of.
Because the women seem to be taking a lead.
Now, maybe I don't have that right, but if there's anybody who has any Iranian connections, can you do me a fact check?
Does it still look like the women are taking the lead and the men are helping?
Does it look like that?
See, once that happens...
Then we're in unpredictable territory.
Because the male-female relationship in Iran is something we can't fully understand.
And we don't really know how much power women have in Iran.
If you listen to anybody who was born there, they'll tell you some version of this.
Oh yeah, the men are totally in control.
The men have all the power.
Except at home.
Within the house...
The matriarch has an unusual amount of power.
But, you know, outside and if anybody's looking, the men have all the power.
Now, I don't know how much of that's true.
That's just sort of a thing you hear.
But if they really do control the house, who knows?
Who knows? Anything's possible.
And if Iran goes ahead and does a mass hanging...
I think all bets are off.
Apparently they're going to, or maybe they already have, a public hanging of one of the leaders.
And that is like a bad, bad play for Iran.
Doing that in public seems, in 2022, seems like the dumbest thing the leadership could do.
To me it looks like they'd just be begging for their own demise.
Alright, did I miss any stories?
Anything that I should have talked about that I didn't?
Would you sell your Apple stock if they banned Twitter?
Yes. Yes, I would.
If Apple bans Twitter, I'm selling my Apple stock immediately.
And not just because of politics, but because I think Musk might take them down.
I think he might take them down.
If Apple tries to destroy his $44 billion investment, he's not going to leave any weapon unused.
That is full war.
Do you think Apple wants a full war against Elon Musk?
Because that's not fucking around, right?
If they take out his $44 billion investment and what he thinks is the only hope for free speech, there will be no weapon that he won't use to fix that situation.
And you've never seen Elon unrestrained.
I don't even know what that looks like.
There's a David Sacks tweet.
Alright. There's a David Sachs tweet, and that is interesting enough that I'm going to look at it before we go here.
Let's find that. Because if you don't know, there are some people whose opinions are just a little more, let's say, a little more persuasive than others.
Let's see. David Sachs.
Let's see what he said.
That you're...
Oh, there we go.
You mean the 23 minutes ago?
23 minutes ago, David Sachs tweeted, as long as tech MAGA, Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Amazon.
MAGA. M-A-G-A. Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Amazon.
Oh my God, that's good.
Wow. Have unlimited power to engage in bundling and to act as gatekeepers of competitive products.
There cannot be a healthy startup ecosystem.
There we go. And then earlier, 42 minutes ago, David Sachs says, with the possible exception of Microsoft in the late 90s, there's never been a tech monopoly as powerful as Apple.
Its power is so fair that few applications companies will dare to criticize Apple publicly, even though almost all privately voiced similar concerns as Elon Musk.
Oh, shit.
Glenn Greenwald, here David Sachs retweets him, Glenn Greenwald said, there are few things more revealing of an authoritarian mindset than wanting Google and Apple to use their monopoly power to act as internet overlords, dictating who can and can't be heard.
Yet that's our situation, and so many seem grateful.
Wow. Here's what I think.
Tim Scott is not going to pick a fight with some of the most powerful people in Silicon Valley.
David Sachs is wonderfully public with both his influence and his opinions.
I can tell you for sure that there are powerful people in Silicon Valley who are less public Who would go after Apple pretty hard for this.
If Apple tried to take down Twitter, there would be major powers In Silicon Valley who would go after Apple pretty fucking hard.
And I would be joining that team immediately.
So I think Tim Cook is connected enough and he can read the room well enough to know that this would not be a fight with just their users.
This wouldn't be just a public relations problem.
This would be an existential threat to Apple.
There are people big enough who would just want to wipe them off the map and probably have the power to do it.
So my prediction is that Apple will back down.
If it was real.
I don't know how real it was that Apple was really considering bumping them.
I think probably the truth.
Probably Apple just did a warning shot across the bow.
Because Apple wants to establish that it's the good person and they're doing the right things.
So I think Apple is just positioning so that people say, oh, Apple's the good one.
They said, don't go too far with your lack of censorship or we'll have to ban you.
So I think it's just a warning shot, which actually is no problem at all.
I think everybody should do warning shots if there's something to warn about.
So I don't mind a warning shot.
Never go to war with a man who owns a rocket company.
Never go to war with somebody who literally owns a spaceship.
That's good advice.
Never start a fight with somebody who owns a spaceship.
I might tweet that.
Maybe one of you could tweet it.
Alright, that's all I've got for today.
Did I miss any big stuff?
I think I got it all.
All right. YouTube and Rumble and everybody else, I'll say goodbye to you, but I'll talk to locals for a few minutes because they're special people.
