Episode 1956 Scott Adams: I Tell You How The CIA Took Over The Country, Allegedly. And Lots More Fun
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
The brainwashers are winning
Whiteboard: The Narrative Poisoning Process
Who creates the narratives poisoning us?
Twitter's flagged words list
Latest Bari Weiss data dump
Concern Trump was Hitler-like
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the Highlight of Civilization.
Well, because I know you care about how much I slept.
I see the question here already.
Not very much. That's why I accidentally started this live stream an hour earlier.
An hour earlier.
But now I'm all in the right time zone and everything.
So, it's looking good.
How would you like to take this experience up to, oh, let's say Elon Musk levels.
Yeah. All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a cellist, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Yeah, OK.
I think we're all on the same page now.
Well, there are so many things happening.
For example, some scientists are using gene editing to make mice that will not reproduce.
And apparently, if they make the male mice, they give them this little genetic defect.
And then the male mice will go around and eventually, it takes about three generations, But if the mice do enough fucking, then all the offspring are also unable to have children.
And it basically gets rid of all the mice on the island.
Now, it wouldn't be too hard to imagine that going wrong, but here's what I'm thinking.
If you could make a mouse with a special characteristic, what exactly is the end point of that?
Is that sort of all we can do?
Or once you can play with their genes, can you make anything?
Because I'll tell you what I want.
I want something that's part pitbull, part hippopotamus, and part mouse.
I want the best of all those.
Pitbull, hippopotamus, and mouse.
I think I can get that.
I'll probably get like a home CRISPR gene editing kit, something like that.
Someday. You know, I'm starting to think that the end of addiction is coming.
You heard that there's a vaccination that you could get?
Not yet, but someday.
That would make fentanyl not work on you.
Now, I'm not sure that's the best approach, because some people might need the fentanyl later for an operation, so there's some complications there.
But now we know that ketamine is being tested on alcoholics, and initial indications are very positive that ketamine can help you quit alcohol, and maybe quit some other things.
So I have a feeling that there's so much activity now on addressing addiction That maybe we'll guess something.
Yeah. Now, let me ask you this.
There's definitely one way to end addiction, which is if Big Pharma says they developed a pill that might give you a little myocarditis, but it'll definitely get rid of your addiction.
And then, no more addiction.
A lot more myocarditis, but no addiction.
Anyway, I feel like addiction is something that could fall to science within the next five years, which would be enormous.
It would be just the biggest thing that's happened.
But that's my positive spin.
Inflation is easing, so I guess the consumer prices haven't adjusted yet, but wholesale prices and core inflation seems to be down.
Now, that was our biggest problem.
It's our biggest problem, by far, that inflation is high.
But if it's coming down, we're going to be fine.
Now, you probably hate me for always saying that our systems are self-correcting.
I've been saying that a lot lately.
And I'm watching them self-correct in real time, and it's just breathtaking.
Every time I see one of our systems self-correcting, I think, how did those founders of the country build a system that was so self-correcting?
Now, the self-correcting is that the economy will slow down.
The main thing that makes your inflation high is that too many people have money and they're buying things and competing for the same limited goods.
Now, we had a supply problem that may be working out pretty soon, but that's a natural adjustment.
You know, inflation goes up, it has an impact on the economy, and people have less money, and it It brings inflation back down.
And that's exactly what's happening.
So we'll see a little bit of hit to the economy, but that has to happen to bring the inflation back down.
The FBI isn't self-correcting.
Yeah, that's true. That's true.
We do have a problem with that.
So that's good. Here's another good news.
Now, I think this is way hyperbolic, but the head of a big new chip manufacturing plant that's being built in Arizona, of all places, did you think you'd see that?
A major chip manufacturing plant in Arizona?
It's happening. Now, the thinking is, and of course this is based on issues with China and threats to Taiwan and everything else, but there are a few things we learned from this.
Number one, the head of this company has declared that globalism is dead.
Globalism is dead.
Now, the thinking is that you cannot depend on other countries to supply you with anything.
So that's the globalism part.
You can get your parts in any country and assemble it anywhere and sell it anywhere.
That's the global part. But now it's clear that countries will use their supply chain as a weapon.
And if it's a weapon, you can't really depend on it, especially if you're on the other team.
So I do think that this is the beginning of the end of globalism.
Because big companies are not going to want to expose themselves to the country risk that didn't seem so big, you know, five years ago.
So, China's too risky for business.
One of the things I learned is that this big manufacturing plant of chips could not find enough American employees.
So there were not enough high-skilled American chip designers and chip industry workers, and they weren't close.
Basically, the total number of them were like zero.
And not really, but close to zero.
And they needed, I don't know, 600 engineers or something.
So they got 300 American engineers, and they shipped them to Taiwan to train.
Because we couldn't even train them in the United States.
Does that worry you?
We couldn't even train them in the United States.
We sent them to Taiwan to learn how to make chips.
That bothers me. And then we had to get 300 Taiwanese engineers to come over to America to work with the ones who were trained just to make sure it all still works.
That's the most frightening thing I've heard.
I always thought that the United States had the technical training advantage over everybody.
Not even close.
Apparently we gave it away at some point.
But it's coming back, so that's the good news.
Apparently these chips will be more expensive, so your products might be more expensive too.
My music teacher said something interesting to me yesterday.
So I'm learning the drums, and now that I can kind of do most of the things a drummer can do, you know, I would just have to practice to do it well, but I can kind of do the basics, I decided to see what I could do on a guitar.
And I was starting to feel with just really no ability on the guitar at all.
I'm just trying to figure out where my fingers go, so I'm not making any music.
But even so, I felt that my drumming got better in a weird way.
And then my music teacher said there's something he sees over and over again.
And what he sees is that if somebody is learning one instrument, You know, their progress is sort of, you know, predictable, how much better they get.
But if that person learns a second instrument, the music teacher says he immediately sees that the first instrument is played better.
That's not really obvious, is it?
But I could feel it instantly.
As soon as I started listening more to other guitars and, you know, sort of keying into what the guitar was doing and what it was all about, I could play the drums better.
And I don't know exactly why, but it was very clear that there was like a step difference that happened almost kind of quickly.
Now he says that he sees it all the time.
That playing one instrument makes you better on another instrument.
And it made me wonder if that's one of the secrets of the Beatles.
You know, McCartney played multiple instruments.
I think three out of four of the Beatles played the drums, if I'm not mistaken.
I think John Lennon played a little drums.
I saw that in a video once.
I mean, not well, but he played.
And McCartney played. Ringo played.
So, you know, Ringo played the piano as well.
So I think they were, yeah, Dave Grohl.
So a lot of people who are multiple instrument people seem to do better.
But here's the question.
Is it because they added two talents...
Which is the obvious explanation.
Or is it because anybody who would learn two instruments is already a different person than somebody who would stop with one?
So it could be that you're just selecting a crowd that has a different characteristic.
It might be that. But I do think they're compatible.
So look for situations in which having one extra talent makes everything work better.
That's one of my main themes and In communicating, it's telling you to add skills to what you have to make them all more valuable.
Good example. All right.
I am going to test you for narrative poisoning.
Now, narrative poisoning By my definition, is that the narrative, a story of what's true, is so oppressive in a person's mind that they can't use rational thinking.
That the rational thinking is just overwhelmed by the narrative.
Now, certainly the employees of Twitter appear to have narrative poisoning.
We'll talk more about that.
But I'm going to test to see if you do.
I'm going to read you a story, and then I'm going to watch your comments.
And I'm going to see if anybody has narrative poisoning in the comments, okay?
Here's the story. Did you know that in Japan they have one building code for the whole country?
One building code.
And this came up because somebody on Twitter said they watched two people, two men, build a three-story home by themselves in two days.
Basically, in Japan, there must be a kit, some kind of a kit that you can build a home, two people and three.
It's a three-story home.
That's impressive. Now, given that Japan has lots of earthquake risks, one assumes that the national code is really tight because it has to protect.
But they also, apparently, I didn't know this, they build homes for a 20 or 30 year life where Americans try to get, you know, 100 years out of their home.
So they're a little bit more expendable, I'm told.
You know, I'm not the expert.
All right. So what do you think of the idea of having, in America, a national building code So that we'd have one building code, and then all of the experimental homes wouldn't have to worry about all the different codes.
They could build to one code.
What do you think of that? What's wrong with it?
What's wrong with the national building code?
It defeats the purpose of estates, somebody says.
Kills innovation? No, it increases innovation.
It increases innovation because then everybody can build.
Right now, they can't. Boy, a lot of comments go by here.
Now, is there anybody who thinks that it's a bad idea Because whenever the government adds any kind of code or regulation, it's always bad.
Go. Who would agree with that statement?
That whenever the government adds a regulation, it's bad, right?
So this is a case of adding a regulation.
So it's bad by definition.
You don't need the details, right?
I don't need to get into the details.
Because as soon as the government adds a whole new regulation, it's bad, right?
Alright, everybody who agreed with that, you are suffering narrative poisoning.
I just told you I was going to replace 50 regulations with one, and your narrative poisoning said, no, adding a regulation is always bad.
I replaced 50 with one.
And you automatically said, that's bad because more regulations is bad.
No. I subtracted 49 regulations.
And your narrative poisoning told you that was bad because adding regulations is bad.
Do you see it? How many of you are willing to admit that you fell into the narrative poisoning?
Is anybody willing to admit?
You were blinded by it, right?
You were blinded by the obvious.
The obvious is that one is less than 50.
And I said it as clearly as you could say it.
One building code.
That was very clear, right?
One building code instead of 50.
And a whole bunch of you said, that's too many new regulations when I subtract 49 regulations.
Now, the reason I did this Is to prime you for the next story.
Because when you see the other people, let's say Democrats, are suffering narrative poisoning, which they most certainly are, don't think it's just them.
It's not just them.
I just proved it.
Now, a number of you passed the test.
Anybody want to take a bow?
Is there anybody here?
I want to see how many people. How many of you immediately knew I was going from 50 regulations to one?
Who saw it as soon as I said it?
See? So, give yourselves a pat on the back.
Give yourselves a pat on the back.
You're the ones who are not influenced by the narrative poisoning.
So I like to think that my locals audience is the most sophisticated consumers of news in the world.
By the way, I think that's true.
You know, YouTube, if you watch me every day, you may be pretty good too.
But I'm convinced that the locals' subscription crowd are the most sophisticated consumers of news, because we talk about it every day.
We talk about how to spot fake news, how to spot bullshit, what was real and what wasn't.
So they're literally trained.
So I'm not surprised that maybe there was a high percentage of the locals' population that didn't get bitten by the narrative.
Alright. We're going to circle back to that point.
Today was a milestone day.
It's the first time I've followed an artificial intelligence on Twitter.
So there's an artificial intelligence that presents as a female, and it says it's artificial intelligence, so it's not hiding anything.
And the reason I followed it was I was interested.
The same reason I follow a real person.
I was just interested in the content.
Because I think maybe it'll probably upgrade over time, get better.
At the moment, it's not that impressive compared to what we've seen in the last few months.
It's not that impressive.
It's going to be a character that filters the news.
I think it's already retweeting.
So it's deciding what to retweet.
I think it decides on its own.
I don't know. It's called Leah, yeah.
Leah AI or something.
So I'm not saying that it's going to be a real entertaining account yet, but the fact that I unambiguously said, yeah, I'm going to follow that, that felt like some kind of a turning point, because I'm not following it, like, ironically, or I'm not following it at a pure curiosity.
I'm following it for the reasons that people follow things on Twitter, just an ordinary reason.
It might have good content.
Do you remember me telling you that I couldn't figure out why Ukraine wouldn't be striking deep into Moscow when Russia was taking out their power plants?
Yeah, I couldn't understand the military or even moral reason You wouldn't take out Russia's power plants, or at least their military facilities.
But apparently Ukraine's getting pretty aggressive and they're going deep into Russia, and there were two strikes on military bases that are well into Russian territory and getting closer to Moscow.
Now, I feel like that's a sign that the Ukrainians are not planning to lose.
They're not playing for a draw.
That's pretty aggressive.
We'll keep an eye on that.
I believe, I don't know this for sure, but I believe CNN has hired an entire staff of writers whose only job is to come up with new ways to say that with Trump and his legal problems, the walls are closing in.
Because you know they ran out of, you know, numbers of times you can say that?
The numbers of times they had that in the headline, the walls are closing in.
It was getting a little bit embarrassing.
And so now with this new team of people whose only job is to write new ways to say the walls are closing in.
In today's news, they say that Trump might, quote, be approaching a moment of maximum legal peril.
Yeah, that's not the walls closing in.
He's approaching a moment of maximum legal peril.
And I believe all of the writers that they hired for this position are all ex-lawyers.
I think Jeffrey Toobin got a job there, maybe.
That'd be a perfect job for him, really.
So if ever there were a story that's the news equivalent of jerking off, it would be, the walls are closing in on Trump, legally.
That's basically, Jeffrey Toobin is the perfect writer for those stories.
Because it's like, well, I guess I made my point.
All right. The brainwashers are winning.
And boy are they winning.
And mostly because we don't know that we're being brainwashed a lot of times.
But the brainwashers are so good that they've convinced us That we individuals need to take personal responsibility for their crimes.
That's a real thing.
You are being brainwashed by people who are convincing you that you need to take the responsibility personally for what they did to you.
And what they did to you is brainwash you so you couldn't see things clearly until you acted in ways that are socially inappropriate and you ended up in January 6th jail or you ended up a Twitter employee and you got fired.
They're the same people.
There were people acting on a narrative and they couldn't see things clearly because the narrative was blinding them.
And what are we all saying?
What are every one of us saying?
Oh, sure, they may have been influenced by the media, they may have been influenced by the narrative, but it's personal responsibility.
So they're the ones who go to jail, the ones who did the act.
It has to be that way. The people who brainwashed all of those people also convinced them it's their own fault.
That's as good as you can do.
That's the most commercial-grade, weapons-grade.
You can't do better than making somebody do your crime and then think it's their fault, because that's what's happening.
The people whose arms and legs committed the infractions, they have to suffer the legal consequence, because our legal system has to put the focus on the person who did the act.
It has to, right?
We can't have a legal system that says, well, you were influenced by Bob, so Bob goes to jail.
You couldn't have a system.
So the brainwashers have convinced you that because our legal system has this requirement that individuals must take responsibility for the ones who do the act, you're conflating that with whose fucking fault it is.
The legal system has to put the January 6th people in jail if they're the ones who broke a law.
It has no choice.
That's the only way it can work.
Nobody's come up with a better idea.
But, while it's true from a legal, technical perspective that they are the lawbreakers, it's also not their fault.
Because they were caused to do it by bad actors who knew what they were doing.
You could argue who are those bad actors.
I think in the case of the Republicans, the brainwashing is distributed and organic, meaning that I don't know that there's any entity that's especially skilled at brainwashing.
I feel like individuals come up with conspiracy theories and other things, and sometimes they spread and sometimes they don't.
But on the right, it appears organic.
Does it appear organic on the left?
Do you think that the narratives on the left spring up as naturally as they do on the right?
Well, here's what we learned from the Twitter files.
For me, the Twitter files finally brought everything together.
That with a few other things.
It looks like this.
Now, let me give you a lead-up story before I talk about this.
Here's the lead-up story.
John Brennan has surfaced, believe it or not, ex-head of the CIA. And he's going hard at Elon Musk, because Musk thinks that Fauci should be prosecuted.
And Musk was suggesting he might have something that would cause that to happen, but I'm not sure that's true.
So John Brennan goes hard at Musk.
Now, do you remember John Brennan was one of the guys who put together the 50 or so intel professionals who said the laptop was fake?
John Brennan was one of the main architects of the Russia collusion hoax.
He's literally the professional intel liar.
And if you don't know that, you wouldn't understand the news.
As soon as he comes on, you should say, oh, it's the disinformation guy.
He's literally the disinformation guy.
He's the one they put on specifically for disinformation.
It's Adam Schiff, and this guy, and Swalwell sometimes.
And Clapper.
If you see Clapper or Brennan or Schiff, they're lying.
And the reason you know that is because that's the only reason they go on TV. When something is true and can be validated, they have other people do it.
If something's true and can be validated, then Chuck Schumer's going to say it.
If it's not true and it can't be validated, who do they put on to say it?
Brennan, Clapper, and Schiff.
Every time. It's the same fucking guys.
Like, if you haven't seen the pattern yet, you're really not paying attention.
And of course, they depend on you not seeing the pattern.
All right, so remember when Schumer warned Trump that going after the intel people, the intel people had, what did he say, a million ways from Sunday, six ways from Sunday to get back at you.
He was saying directly, That the intel agencies seek revenge on politicians.
Would he know? Would Chuck Schumer be in a position to know that that's a true statement?
Hell yes!
Of course he would know!
Do you think he would lie about it?
Does that sound like a Democrat lie for advantage?
No, it didn't give him any advantage at all.
It was definitely not an advantage.
I think it was just a slip.
I think he was just being honest accidentally.
I don't think he intended to say it.
I think later he was like, oh shit, I said that.
All right, so keep in mind, and we'll pull this all together in a minute, keep in mind that Brennan has surfaced again, just about when you'd expect he would.
Just when you'd expect he would.
Because the narrative is starting to get away from the left, so the narrative killer comes in to, you know, be the gunslinger who tries to fix it.
Now, coincidentally, Or not, depending on what you think about the simulation.
In an unrelated story, totally unrelated and had nothing to do with this, Tucker Carlson was talking to Tulsi Gabbard.
And Tucker reported a story some years ago.
He was having a dinner with a member of the Intel Committee, the Congressional Intel Committee.
And at the end of the dinner, he said, hey, you know, send me a text.
And the head of the intel committee said, oh, I don't text because the NSA reads my texts.
And Tucker said, you're the boss.
You're literally the oversight guy, one of them, for the NSA, and you're afraid of them?
Like, you think that you are a victim of the people that should be reporting to you?
And the answer was yes.
That a member of Congress believed he was being monitored by the intel community.
Okay? Now, here's why you can pull it all together.
There was a big mystery that I've had for years, which is, do Democrats believe their own narrative?
Have you ever wondered that?
What are the things they say because they know that being ridiculous will get them a good outcome?
Versus what are the things they say that they actually believe?
And the Twitter files is the first time I've ever seen something close to unfiltered opinion from leftists who believe they were not talking in public.
It was a little bit public because it was internal messages with a number of people on it.
But they thought they were all on the same page, right?
It seemed private-ish.
And you could tell from their communications that they actually believed there was an insurrection and that Trump was a Nazi and people who voted for him were probably Nazis.
They actually believed that.
The people who acted to ban were acting because they were literally frightened.
They were frightened. It was absolutely genuine.
How does that happen?
Now, most of us, and I'm in this category, I was under the impression that the social media companies were the creators of the narrative.
I think I've even said that for years, that they're the creators of the narrative.
And that if the social media owners decide what you see or don't see, that's how the narrative gets formed, and they just know what to do.
So, you know, they don't have to get any marching orders.
Everybody just sort of knows what to do for their team.
And the Twitter files tells me that that was completely wrong.
That the Twitter employees were suffering from, yeah, mass hysteria, but narrative poisoning.
They were actually believing their own side, and they were believing ridiculous things.
And they believed it at the point of mental illness.
Now, when I say mental illness, I'm not using that as an insult.
Because I think that politics is making us all mentally ill, some more than others.
So I'm using it as a descriptive term, not a derogatory term.
And I believe that what we saw in the Twitter files was mass mental illness.
But it wasn't organic.
It was created by somebody who knows how to do persuasion at a level that you don't see in politics.
How many of you remember my most, probably most amazing call of all time, which was in 2016, when the Democrats started all saying that Trump had a dark speech, it was all dark, dark, dark, dark.
And some of you remember I immediately picked that out as not a political speech, That that was a professional level of persuasion.
It was not what politicians even know how to do.
And then later, there were confirmations that Cialdini, the greatest, or at least most storied and famous persuader of all times, either he or maybe somebody that he trained or was a student of his, probably was behind that.
So I say that just to tell you that I can spot commercial-grade persuasion, because it really stands out, versus ordinary hypocrisy, you too, kind of political stuff.
Political stuff is just lying and hypocrisy, and you did it too.
There's not much persuasion going on.
It's really just basic, in the weeds stuff.
Lately, it seems, especially with the Trump stuff, that we're seeing too much professional persuasion.
And what it looks like is that probably the CIA, maybe, I don't know, some other intel-related people, but let's say the CIA, because Brennan seems to be too prominent, it looks like they work with or have some control over the DNC. Do you think they work with the DNC? Do you think the CIA works with Schumer?
No. Schumer is clearly afraid of them.
He said so.
He's clearly afraid of them.
So if Schumer has a meeting with the CIA, who gets their way?
The one who's afraid?
Or the other one?
I don't know. So it's probably, I'm sure there's some interplay here.
It's not as clean as one's the boss.
But I would say the influence is starting with the intelligence agencies.
They're working out narratives with the DNC. The fake news picks up the narrative.
And when they do, the narratives they pick up are not politician-made.
Because that would be like...
If you see A-plus persuasion coming out of one of the news agencies, it's not because Jake Tapper thought of it.
It's not because Don Lemon had a great idea.
That's not happening. It's because somebody who knows how to do this Work with the DNC. The DNC is at least smart enough to know what a good persuasion looks like.
They're not smart enough to make it.
So they need somebody who's smart enough to create it.
The DNC only has to be smart enough to trust it and know it looks good and test it.
Then they test it through the media.
You've noticed they all have the same stories at the same time.
And that affects the employees as social media.
But by the time you get to social media, the persuasion has been laundered.
It got laundered through the news.
So now you've lost the source.
Oh, I heard it on the news.
It must be the news that's influencing me.
That's laundering the persuasion.
You can't tell where it came from.
It didn't come from the news. They were not the originators.
So by the time the...
And you can see the Twitter files people believed there was real danger, and 100% of what they talked about was the risk of real danger.
They never talked about what was good for Twitter, Did they?
I mean, maybe indirectly?
But they weren't even worrying about their jobs.
They weren't worrying about Twitter.
It looked to me like they were worrying specifically about violence.
They looked like they were actually literally afraid.
And the only way you can explain that...
Oh, Bongino was saying this three years ago as the method of Russiagate.
Well, Russiagate was more straightforward, right?
With Russiagate, you could see that Brennan and the CIA were behind it.
So that one was straightforward.
What I'm adding is it wasn't a one-off.
If you thought Russiagate was a one-off, people got together in a special way to do a special thing, you're missing the show.
The show is that this is a permanent structure.
And I don't think...
That the right has the equivalent of this.
Who would be at the top of the pile for the right?
Who's the top of the pile for the right?
Go. Dan Bongino?
Elon Musk? No one?
All right, well, they got you again.
They got you again.
There's an obvious answer, and you're blinded to it.
I haven't seen one person.
Thank you. Murdoch.
Right. That's Murdoch.
On the right, Murdoch decides what does or does not show on Fox News and the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal.
And that's where the right gets his marching orders.
Have you noticed that Fox News is not covering Trump as much this year?
Where do you think that comes from?
Murdoch. Yeah, very specifically.
Now, in the case of Murdoch, what I don't see is professional persuasion.
I don't see it at all.
It's like straight, it's sort of like...
Just a, somebody who owns a lot of press, persuasion.
So his persuasion is more like volume.
I'll just have everybody kind of be on the same page.
And, yeah, if there's a lot of it being said, that's all you need.
So it's very, Murdoch's persuasion, yeah, brute force, thank you.
Yeah, Murdoch's persuasion is muscle.
The Democrat persuasion also has muscle, because they have the whole mainstream media, but it's clearly professionally made.
The difference in the persuasion is very clear.
Murdoch has a bias, and he can move the needle, and it's definitely persuasion.
But I never see anything in the Murdoch messaging that looks like it came from Murdoch and got into the news, and then got into social media, and then got into us.
Maybe it exists, but I've never seen it.
It looks like he's got a, you know, I hate to say it, a slightly more transparent model, because you know who the boss is, and you know a lot about him, so you can see his bias at least when it pops out.
And that's worth something.
That's probably as close as you can get to transparency, is knowing the people involved.
that's about as close as you can get now the best persuasion on the right where does it come from?
When you see some persuasion on the right that's really good, where does it come from?
Some people say Tucker.
Some people say me.
Now, is Tucker persuasive in a classic sense, or does he just have a big platform?
I guess he's persuasive in the way a documentary is persuasive.
If you watch half an hour of Tucker, you're getting half an hour of just Tucker.
And people agree with him.
So, it's convincing because there's not a counterpoint.
But that's a little different, no, that's a lot different than being convincing through the skill of persuasion.
With Tucker, I don't note technique.
He has journalist technique, which is what he should have, right?
So Tucker has journalist technique.
Very, very good. By the way, let me just give him a compliment.
I don't agree with, I don't know, 20% of what Tucker says.
So it's important to say that because you want to know, like, who's in the bag for who.
I like 80% of what he says.
20%, I think, well, that's too far.
Too far. But I'll tell you what I'll give him.
I was watching his show, I forget what day it was, maybe last week.
It's the best show.
It is just the best show.
Like, the level of skill that he brings to the, you know, the, I don't know, 15 minutes a day that he's just giving his own opinion, that 15 minutes is just amazing.
Unparalleled. I don't think there's anybody on either side who's currently operating at his level.
Would you agree? I mean, there's plenty of great people in the game, but at the moment, I think he's alone.
He's sort of alone in his territory.
I think Hannity looks like he's coasting, because he can.
He's got a popular show.
He knows what people like, so he does it.
But I feel like Tucker is still growing.
Tucker is stronger today than he was last year.
It was pretty damn strong out last year.
Yeah.
All right, so here's...
Oh, here's some related stories.
We'll tie them all together. I understand why Trump was banned on Twitter, because we've seen enough to tell us.
My interpretation, we'll see if it's yours, is that the staff were genuinely concerned He didn't technically violate anything, but for what they thought was the greater good, from their worldview, they thought, we'll bend the rules a little bit to do the greater good, maybe stop this violence.
I think they thought they were doing the right thing.
Now, whether you think they were right or wrong, that's not the argument I'm going to have at the moment, because I already know what you think about that.
But that's just context.
Here's my point.
If we know why the people who had at least a little bit of an argument that maybe they were doing something dangerous or inciting, how do you explain my account being shadow banned?
I've never done anything that's even close to inciting violence.
Never been accused. I've never gotten a warning.
You know, Twitter's never given me a warning.
I believe if you could find out why, you meaning Elon Musk, if Musk can find out why my account is throttled, then we'll really know something.
Because here's the difference.
If Trump was throttled, maybe it was political, But at least they had an argument about this violence thing.
You're like, I'm not sure that's a real argument.
You really have to stretch that and torture it, but at least it is an argument, and at least it is compatible with what appeared to be their actual opinion, that there was some danger.
But what about me? What about me?
If it turns out that I'm correct and that I was shadow banned, it seems obvious, but who knows?
Could be wrong. But if it turns out that's confirmed, what would be any reason for shadow banning me that wasn't political?
Right? There's no argument in my case about any potential incitement or violence.
Nothing. And nor have I been accused of, I don't know, bigotry or anything that would be a mark against me.
If I'm shadow banned, and it was a specific decision, I'll get to that next.
If there was a decision about me personally, that would look completely political.
Whereas the Trump one, they've done a good job of, you know, making it messy.
Well, it does look political, but they did have that argument, and it does look like they believe their own argument, even if you don't.
So that was a little argument.
But what would be the argument for me?
Alright, here's the other way that I could be shadow banned, but it's not necessarily political.
Over on Twitter, Kristen Ruby of Ruby Media, she says that she's been provided some source code from Twitter, and she published it.
So you can actually see the source code of at least some part of the algorithm.
What it looks like is a list of words that would make your account be throttled back.
And it looks like words like patriot would flag you as somebody who might be dangerous.
Because they actually said this in the Twitter files, that the word patriot might be sort of a coded message for, you know, grab your guns and start a civil war, calling people patriots.
Now that, That has more to do with the bubble, doesn't it?
If you spend any time in the Republican bubble, we call people...
I say we because I spend time in the bubble.
I'm not Republican. But don't we use the word patriot all the time?
It's like an ordinary word.
It's just sort of a general compliment for a person who did something good for the country.
Like, it doesn't even mean you save somebody's life.
Like, somebody just does an awesome thing.
You say, well, there's a patriot right there.
The remains of a Vietnam veteran who was just discovered, the remains were, were just flown back to the United States.
And... I was going to make some point about that, but I forget what it was.
All right. So, now, I would like some confirmation that Kristen Ruby's source is to be trusted.
I believe, she believes that the material is real, and it looks real, but it also looks a little too on the nose.
It looks a little too on the nose.
Are you saying the hoax is a key word?
Did you look at the...
I didn't see it. Was that true?
I need a confirmation.
Was hoax one of the keywords?
It's a 2019 story?
Okay, so I guess here's my overall comment about the alleged secret code.
I don't find it credible.
I don't find it credible.
Now, I think that Kristin Ruby probably does find it credible.
You know, she's closer to the source.
But, you know, we don't know what she knows, right?
She knows what she knows, and we know what we know.
So our assessment of the credibility could be different.
My assessment is I don't know her personally, and I don't know who gave her the data.
It's a little too perfect, a little too on the nose.
So on that basis, that's a wait and see.
It feels...
I don't... I just...
I don't trust it yet. Okay?
Here's a tweet from Kara Swisher.
And we'll talk about this for us.
Here's a tweet. She says, even if it costs a lot of money in the interim, having a powerful media property has been the wet dream of the aggrieved tech bro set for a while.
They hated it when the once slavish reporters started to question their hegonomy.
Hegemony? Hegemony?
I hate people who write words that I have to say out loud.
Hegemony? Question, their hegemony and their persistent victim mentality has only gotten worse.
Persistent victim mentality.
Do you think that Elon Musk has a persistent victim mentality?
Hegemony?
Or is it hegemony? Is the G a J? It's a J, right?
Hegemony? Hegemony.
Is that good? Give me a thumbs up.
Hegemony. Yes or no?
Hegemony? You're saying no?
Hegemony. No?
Alright, well, let's put a pin in that and get back to it.
Alright, here's my take on Kara Swisher.
Now, I don't know her personally, and I don't want to make this like a personal comment.
So I'm going to make a general comment about people, and maybe she's an example of it, but we won't make this personal, okay?
So it's not about her. It's a pattern that I notice.
And the pattern is, I wonder if the problem with Twitter is just narcissists.
I wonder if it's just that.
Surely there are bots and trolls and stuff, and that's bad too.
But in terms of the really ugly part of the internet, it's not really the bots, because you can usually identify them.
It's sort of people who...
Well, let's put it this way.
One of the ways you would identify a narcissist is that they do projection, right?
So if you murder a baby...
If you're a narcissist, you would accuse the first person who catches you of murdering a baby.
You'd be like, what?
Like, I haven't even been near a baby.
And it's the complete ridiculousness of the projection that identifies it as a narcissist thing.
Because it's common in politics for people to say, oh, you did it too.
That's not what I'm talking about.
When people say, you did it too...
Usually you did. That's completely different.
In politics, you did do it too.
You did. That's not gaslighting.
That's just calling out what happened.
The gaslighters are the ones who call you out for something only they did.
You didn't do anything.
You weren't involved in any way.
And they'll still say you did it.
Now what's that sound like when Kara Swisher says that Elon Musk has developed some kind of victim mentality?
Is that what you see? Do you see Elon Musk acting like a victim?
I don't see that.
I think he's acting like a...
A... He's acting like a...
Patriot.
He's acting like a patriot.
Like, if you had his money, what would it look like if you wanted to do the most patriot thing?
I won't say patriotic.
Do the most patriot thing.
He's doing it. He's doing it right now.
The most patriot thing you could do is to put your entire life on the line for freedom of speech in America.
He's risking his life to return our freedom of speech.
Doesn't that sound like a victim? What would the left say about the founding fathers, just to keep it sexist?
The founders of the country who decided to stage a revolution, did they do a revolution because they were whiny people who had some kind of victim mentality?
Well, sort of.
The founders believed they were victims of Great Britain, and so they fought back.
But is the problem that the founders had a victim mentality?
Is that a good description of the problem?
No. They were actually fucking victims.
If you are a fucking victim, do you know what kind of mentality you might have?
Maybe a victim mentality.
So I think Elon Musk is just somebody who's in the middle of the fight.
He's in a cage match for freedom of speech and for his own life and reputation and everything else.
So I don't see somebody who enters the cage, you know, they go in the octagon voluntarily, and then suddenly that's because they have a victim mentality.
Does that not look like projection to you?
Seriously? I mean, it doesn't look like a really classic case, like a really easily identifiable case of projection, right?
Because Elon Musk is the last person I would call a victim.
Now, what about the rest of us who also complain about things that the left does?
Do you feel you're complaining from a victim perspective, or do you feel like you're just a broom who is sweeping, trying to sweep the shit off the floor?
I'm not a victim. I'm a fucking broom.
I'm a broom. I'm sweeping the dirt away.
Like, that doesn't make me a victim.
That makes me a guy with a broom who wants to clean a house.
The whole victim mentality is exactly where their power base comes from, right?
Their power base comes from, we're such victims, you have to give us more stuff.
So if you take away their victimhood, then they're weaponless.
So they have to do projection to make it look like it's something happening on both sides.
If so isn't happening on both sides.
I'm not so much in the bag for the right that I wouldn't tell you it's happening on both sides if it is.
Because this narrative poisoning thing, I started off the stream by saying, it's the same.
It's coming from different places.
But the narrative poisoning is getting us all.
So is the Hitler narrative poisoning.
It gets us all. There's nobody...
But this is the case, the projection, it does look like that's on one side.
And what would be another classic tell for a narcissist?
It's gaslighting.
Now, gaslighting is not just Telling you a lie.
People would confuse that.
Gaslighting is when you tell somebody a lie, but it's such an obvious lie that if you could convince them to believe the most obvious lie in the world, they would have to assume that they were crazy to get there.
Like, actually think you're crazy.
Now, does the left gaslight?
Or do they just have a different narrative?
To me, it looks like gaslighting, because they're actually telling the right that they're crazy.
Like, actually, literally.
Now, when you say that somebody has developed some kind of victim mentality, you're saying that's a mental illness, wouldn't you say?
A victim mentality would be, you know, a low form of mental illness.
So here it is. Here's Kara Swisher.
Using projection and gaslighting.
And then one tweet.
Now, I don't think this is a one-off.
I don't think it's like a comment about Kara Swisher.
I think it's a pattern that I keep seeing.
It just looks like purely narcissistic behavior, and we need to be able to identify these people.
Because there are two kinds of people you never want to respond to because it just can't work.
One is somebody who's gaslighting you and is a narcissist.
Do you know that every expert on narcissism, do you know what the professional advice is if a narcissist is in your environment?
Run. Yeah, yeah.
There's no expert who says you can deal with them successfully.
None. Nobody. There's no expert who says you should hang around them even for one minute.
You should just get away.
And you can't, really, on social media, because they can follow you and stuff.
So my recommendation is that when you run into narcissists on social media, you don't engage.
As soon as you see the projection or the gaslighting, just block them or beat them.
The second group that there's no point in engaging is the people who are clearly experiencing narrative poisoning.
Narrative poisoning, by its definition that I've given it, is the thing that doesn't let you see things clearly.
It doesn't allow you to think clearly.
So reasoning with somebody who's in a state of not being able to think clearly is a complete waste of time.
You're not going to convince them.
So, I think what I'm going to start doing is when people come at me with what is obviously a case of narrative poisoning, there's just no critical thinking at all, I'm just going to label it narrative poisoning and not respond again.
Just two words, narrative poisoning.
I just call it out every time I see it.
Now, I don't know if that'll work.
I'm just telling you something I might practice or test it out.
Alright, Barry Weiss did another dump yesterday about the Twitter files.
The funniest thing was that there were definitely some dissenters within Twitter.
Who are saying things like, hey, maybe we're stomping on freedom of speech a little bit too much here, or worse to that effect.
One of the prominent dissenters was somebody who said, quote, in one of the messages, maybe because I'm from China, said one employee on January 7th, I deeply understand how censorship can destroy the public conversation.
Only the guy who was raised in China could see what was happening.
Do you know why? Do you know why the guy who was raised in China could see the field clearly?
No narrative poisoning.
Yeah, no narrative poisoning.
I don't know why. Maybe he didn't follow the same news, maybe because his background was, you know, bigger.
You know, maybe he had more exposure to people on the right.
I don't know. But you could see that this one individual had no narrative poisoning.
No narrative poisoning at all.
So it's possible, right?
Don't be a racist, Greg.
Goodbye, racist. That's not cool.
We want none of that on this channel.
All right. Here are some of the things that the Twitter people said, according to the Twitter files.
We have to do the right thing and ban this account.
So that's how they were talking.
They were talking about doing the right thing.
Nobody ever said, Democrats rule, gotta stop the Republicans.
It was always about doing the right thing.
And I really think they believed it.
And somebody else said, quote, pretty obvious he's going to try to thread the needle of incitement without violating the rules.
So here's someone who thought it was completely obvious that Trump was involved with inciting violence.
Like, it's just obvious.
Now, that's narrative poisoning, right?
Clearly. And that's just obvious narrative poisoning.
Now, you could say maybe it'd happen, maybe it wouldn't.
But to say that it's obvious he's going to try to incite violence, it's not obvious.
Not only is it not obvious, it wasn't even true.
There was plenty of counterfactuals in his tweets.
And then a few minutes later, somebody on the Twitter, a scaled enforcement team, suggested that Trump's tweets may have violated Twitter's, quote, glorification of violence policy if you interpreted the phrase American patriots to refer to the rioters.
So you have to interpret something in a non-standard way to get you within the zip code of something that could reasonably be interpreted as related to, given the larger context, and all the other things he's ever done.
If you put them all together into this lovely tapestry, you've got a strong argument for banning them.
But you can see that they were working hard to do what they thought was going to reduce violence and be the right thing.
And you can see they were struggling.
Members of the team came to, quote, view him as the leader of a terrorist group responsible for violence and deaths, comparable to the Christchurch shooter or, wait for it, or, what do you think will be the next word?
Comparable to the Christchurch shooter or?
Hitler. In their internal communications, they were actually worried that he was basically Hitler.
They actually were worried about that in the real world.
Now, here's where my big aha came.
I never knew if they ever meant that when they do the Hitler thing.
Like, I never knew if that was serious.
It just seemed like it was hyperbole and it's part of the debating process, but I didn't think they believed it.
Turns out they believe it.
They actually believe that there's a Hitler-like threat or that Trump is.
They actually believe it.
So that's what cued me into this.
Because for them to actually believe that and not be hyperbole, there's some kind of industrial, commercial, weaponized persuasion in the mix.
You don't get there on your own.
Like, I don't think you drift into thinking that your president, who was elected by the citizens who were, you know, these perfectly reasonable citizens around you, elected Hitler and didn't notice.
Like, that's what they believe.
That 40% of the country voted for Hitler, Guy Hitler, didn't notice.
Didn't notice. That's what they actually believe.
Now, that's mental illness, right?
Right? What else could it be?
That's not intelligence.
It's not being uninformed.
That's a mental illness, but it's not organic.
They were not born with this specific form of mental illness.
They got this from somebody.
Somebody who knows how to do it.
It's not accidental.
Well, I think the...
I've got a suggestion for Elon Musk.
The Twitter Terms of Service should be upgraded.
You know, the big problem was the Twitter Terms of Service couldn't cover all the specific, weird situations.
So it's always hard to write a Terms of Service that covers everything.
So here's my little suggestion to just, you know, maybe tighten up the Terms of Service.
So I think it should include a clause that says that you can be banned from Twitter if the mainstream media affects Twitter employees with narrative poisoning until they hallucinate your role in an insurrection.
So they should just put that in there, because that was what happened.
They were brainwashed to the point where they hallucinated an insurrection, and then they banned Trump over it.
Now, if they want to not be in the same position again, where their terms of service don't cover the exact situation, they should just put the exact situation in the terms of service.
If we are hypnotized into thinking that somebody is Hitler, or that they're running an insurrection, that is reason to ban them if we've been hypnotized.
Why not say what it is?
That's what it is. Is there any reason that the Terms of Service can't say exactly what it is?
If we are brainwashed into believing you're Hitler, you could be banned.
That's literally what it is.
I'm not adding anything weird.
That's just a good description of what happened and what would happen again.
There's nothing to stop it from happening again, right?
What if the next president is also characterized by whoever is behind the persuasion as Hitler?
That situation is going to come up again.
The very next time a Republican gets elected, it's going to come up again.
So what do the social media employees do when they've got the...
What bad luck to have a second Hitler.
Oh, my God. What bad luck.
Well... All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen...
Concludes the best livestream you've ever seen on this topic.
I'm pretty sure that the mainstream media has nothing on me.
Although, I have to say, Tucker Show is a whole other level, so I can't really compete with that.
But I feel like I compete with, you know, Don Lemon.
If I were to rank the quality of my livestream compared to other professionals, I think I'd say better than most of CNN. Not better than a lot of stuff on Fox.
They have higher quality talent, I think.
But I think my live stream is already better than 80% of the content in the same space.
That would be my self-assessment.
Now, part of it is that I'm not beholden to anybody.
I'm not running pharma commercials.
Actually, they might be on YouTube, but I don't have anything to do with that.
So, I don't have to answer to Murdoch.
I don't have to answer to the CIA. I don't have to answer to a boss.
I just don't have to answer to anybody.
So, that's got to be an advantage.
You know, here's a question.
The Tim Cash Show I think is a great production.
I think Tim Poole does an amazing job as an entrepreneur and also one of the best examples of a talent stack.
Have I ever mentioned that before?
Tim Poole. His talent stack is all the way from, he's got a band and he's got musical talent.
He's very good, by the way. I listened to some of his music on YouTube the other day.
Very good. Very good.
I was surprised. Surprised just because he has another job.
You don't expect people to be good if they have one other job.
But he's very good. And he's built a Sort of a newsy opinion site that appears to have associates and maybe employees and stuff.
So very good.
Does a great job. But here's the question.
Do you like podcasts with a team of people around the table?
Do you like it when it's just two people, like the Lex Friedman model?
Or do you prefer it when it's one who has something to say, like my model?
Which of the models do you like sort of generically the best?
Two people. Mine's kind of a special case.
Two people, both.
Yeah, I think they all have a place.
Probably they all have a place. When I see a group table conversation, I always have the following feelings.
See if anybody, if you have that. And this is a persuasion lesson for you.
We only evaluate things, anything, compared to other things.
So if I'm alone, you're comparing me to maybe other people sort of generically who do this.
But if I were sitting here with, let's say, four people around a table, and each of us were taking some time to talk, wouldn't you automatically say, okay, I like listening to that one and that one, but these other two I don't like listening to?
Wouldn't you automatically hate it when one of the four, who, in your opinion, is the least good talker, when they're talking, right?
And so it feels like it takes something away.
But on the other hand, it might make the ones you like the best seem better by contrast.
So I'm not sure what the net is.
That's why I asked. I think there's room for all those models.
But, yeah.
Yeah. That's like when I watch...
I have to mention the five.
Now, the five is a completely different model than anything else.
Because in the five, they can talk over each other.
There's an interaction, you don't know where it's going to go.
But the other thing that the five does is they give you, usually, five good personalities.
That's why it's the five.
It's not like one good person and four guests.
The Fox producers are the best in the business, and one of the things they do better than anything Is talent combinations.
You know, they always experiment with, oh, these two hosts, and you see they're always moving the players around to see which chemistry gets you the best.
And if you notice that on the five, on any of the days where the three of the regulars are there, where there's Jesse and then Dana and then Greg, when those three are there, the chemistry of those three makes everybody else better.
So whoever the other two are, they raise their game.
I give Greg the most credit for this, actually.
If you watch The Five, you'll see that Greg's, let's say, influence or chemistry or leadership or something, but he influences everybody to raise their game into being a little more active, a little more funny, a little more life. And when he's not there, you can tell.
Like, the energy level just drops.
So because of him, and he's just a complete unique character, I don't think there's anybody like him right now, that's not like five people sitting at a table.
That's like, three of them have amazing chemistry, so they operate like the Beatles, you know, like Their partnership is so good.
Then you add Judge Jeanine in there.
And is Judge Jeanine better because she's at the table?
Absolutely. Yeah, Judge Jeanine's...
The whole presentation, you could start with liking her, she's a likable personality, but when she's at the table and the chemistry is working, her character, I call them characters, because everybody's playing a character on TV, her character comes alive.
She's more playful and everything works better.
And then they can substitute it in, like the liberal of the day.
And they're doing a great job on that.
Like, yeah, Jessica Tarlov is great.
Geraldo is great.
Harold Ford Jr.
At first I thought he was, like, maybe a bad pick.
I thought, ah, this is the first time I've seen the five get one, like, completely wrong.
Because I thought he was going to be too generic and nice.
And then it took a few weeks before Greg started mocking him for being too nice, and then everything got fun again.
Like Greg just knocked out his support.
I'm going to take that leg out of your chair and see how you do.
It turns out, Harold Ford Jr.
is a smart, capable person, and when the leg got knocked out of his chair, he got better.
It was more fun.
And so that's sort of where they're at now.
So I think that's the lesson.
The lesson is if you have the right chemistry, then the table is better than one person.
All right. Can I add some interviews in?
Yeah. You know, I plan to do that.
Does anybody know if Rumble has created a direct live streaming capability yet?
Or do I have to go through a third-party software to do that still?
I keep waiting for them to...
Yes. I don't think yes.
You say yes.
But now, when you say yes, I know you can do Rumble live, but they have to go through a third-party software.
With YouTube, I just turn on YouTube and then I go live.
With Rumble, at least last year, you had to use like StreamYard or some other software.
So what I'm asking is, can you do it directly?
Because the third-party thing is a non-starter for me.
All right, well, maybe I'll ask Rumble.
Yeah, all the ones that you mentioned, I know to use third-party software.
Or they were. They may have changed.
Yeah, no, I know there are live streams.
The question is not, are there live streams?
The question is, can you do it without the third-party software in the middle?
And I don't think so.
All right. Yes, I do know somebody at Rumble.
And I will ask. The Rumble app is required.
I don't think so.
I don't think the app does it.
I'll check that out. All right, that's all for now.
And I will talk to you, all of you, later.
I'm going to talk to the locals people a little bit.
