Episode 1957 Scott Adams: TikTok Is Digital Fentanyl, Latest Twitter Revelations, The AMA
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Twitters Partner Support Portal
TikTok is "Digital Fentanyl"
AMA is funded by big food & big pharma
Whiteboard: Laundering Fake News
COVID spreading through Beijing
Why is Trump so quiet lately?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
YouTube, I'd like to introduce you to the people at Locals.
Locals, this is YouTube.
All right. Back to me.
Back to me. Now, I don't know, you may have...
It may be too late for the simultaneous sip.
It may be too late.
Because once you miss the window...
Okay, we have to do it.
Here now, the simultaneous sip.
All you need is a cupper mugger, a glass of tanker, chalice of stein, a canteen jug or flax, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better. Everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
And it happens now.
Go. I will stipulate that this is the best part of the day.
Well, have you seen all the news?
Do you wake up every day and say to yourself, this is something I say.
Maybe you don't. Well...
We've seen all there is to see about Twitter.
Has anybody made that mistake yet?
Well, I guess all the news about Twitter's out.
Nothing left to see.
Well, there's a few things left to see.
We'll talk about that pretty soon.
But first, don't you wonder if artificial intelligence will ever be able to tell a joke?
We've been working on this.
The account I always mention, Machiavelli's Underbelly, has tried a number of times to get AI to do jokes.
And a number of other people have also tried to get it to do a Dilbert joke or any other kind of a joke.
And AI is always coming short On the jokes.
And it wasn't until yesterday that I realized why.
Do you know why?
There's like a really obvious reason that for some reason it took me until yesterday to realize.
Why can't AI tell a joke in 2022?
Why? There are two reasons.
There might be three reasons.
But here's the main one that I didn't realize.
Yeah, it's woke. It's woke.
Yeah, AI is programmed specifically to not offend.
It's programmed to not offend.
It's programmed not to be mean to anybody.
So AI doesn't have the capacity to be mean to a human.
You can't target anybody.
Now, if you take the targeting of people out, You know, that's 75% of all humor.
There's still some, like, observational stuff like, you know, your dryer is eating one of your socks and stuff like that.
But a lot of the good stuff is targeted.
Now, in order to get around that, I suggested to Machiavelli's underbelly that you do the AI trick where you ask the AI to write a fictional story about a stand-up comedian who is very inappropriate.
So that the AI doesn't need to be inappropriate.
It can tell a fictional story about a character who is inappropriate.
And then it writes some dialogue for that fictional character.
So I'm going to give you what I came up with.
But hold on for the analysis of it, right?
Because you're going to get ahead of me.
You're going to notice something, I think.
So here are some of the insult jokes.
It was specifically supposed to insult people.
So there were about ten of them or so, but the ones that I laughed at were, you look like you were put together by a blind monkey with a glue gun.
Not bad. You must have been born on a highway because that's where most accidents happen.
Not bad. Here was my favorite.
Your face looks like a bulldog chewing a wasp.
Your face looks like a bulldog chewing a wasp.
All right. But here's...
That's an old saying.
I had to Google it, because it was too good.
When I saw the bulldog chewing on a wasp, I thought to myself, okay, that is better than anything I've seen an AI do.
So I immediately Googled it, and it's an old saying.
Likewise, you must have been born on a highway, because that's where most accidents happen.
Probably somebody's joke already.
You look like you're put together by a blind monkey with a glue gun.
I didn't Google that, but I'll bet it's an existing joke.
So I think all of the jokes were derivative or borrowed directly from some other source.
So problem number one, AI is a plagiarist.
Because AI doesn't tell you it stole those jokes.
I had to go look.
Now that's a problem.
It's not the biggest problem in the world, but it's something AI will have to address.
Because I wonder if you asked it if it borrowed those jokes, if it would even know.
Would it be self-aware that it stole those jokes?
And would it know...
Here's another question.
Would it know that it violated...
You know, the comedian's code.
That's sort of the lowest thing you can do if you're in my profession, is steal somebody's joke without credit.
The problem is we all do it, right?
Usually accidentally.
But, you know, it happens massively because people have the same ideas about jokes, too.
Yeah, I think it was GP. Actually, I forget which it was.
But look at my Twitter thread.
You can see I tweeted it.
All right, well, AI, unless it learns to insult humans, and if it learns the two of six humor rule, what would be the process for teaching AI a new rule about a new area of content?
How would somebody go about that?
Because I've told you this before, but I'm positive this is a money-making future market, right?
So you know how your smartphone has apps?
And even as problematic, I hate that word, as much of a pain in the ass as apps are for consumers, it did make the market very robust, so it allowed the market to grow.
What I think is going to happen with AI is that people like me, who have very specialized knowledge or skills, in my case, I'm probably the number, I think so, in the world, I would say, the number one person who can explain how to tell a joke.
I literally have a formula, the two of six rule that works every time.
So nobody else has a formula that will guarantee create the structure of a joke.
Now, if I were to commercialize that, And create a little database that's my database.
And then I filled it with not only the formula for jokes, but then I also filled it with all the example jokes I could find.
From every book, you know, scrape it from everywhere I can.
Just every joke. You know, 10,000 jokes.
So if I had a database that had 10,000 joke examples, and then a formula that you could see is used in all the examples, and then I said, all right, AI, you can have access to my data, but I'll charge you a penny every time you access it.
Now, would it only access it once, and then it knows it, it just stores it in its own data, and then it never has to access it again?
Or could you build a model where, because my database gets updated, so I would be like adding jokes and stuff, would it need to check back with me every now and then to make sure that it was still the best thinking?
Maybe. So you might be able to build a model where people build their own specialized knowledge, and then AI has to pay to access it in an updated way.
And that business model would last 10 minutes until AI knew everything and then it doesn't need us anymore.
It would completely put people out of business.
I don't know what to say about this story.
It's so big that I'm having trouble believing it's real.
So there's America First Legal, this organization that does political legal stuff, and they tweeted that Breaking, following the Twitter files, AFL, that's them, has obtained new documents uncovering a secret Twitter portal US government officials used to censor dissenting COVID-19 views and violate the First Amendment.
Now, I read that and I said to myself, that feels like exactly the kind of thing that's A little too on the nose?
Yeah, too on the nose, right?
Like, really? Are you telling me that the government actually had a little dashboard or some kind of user interface where they could just change what's on Twitter?
Is that like a real thing?
And then I saw that Elon Musk replied to it, and his reply was, quote, extremely concerning.
Extremely concerning.
Do you know that Elon Musk uses Twitter to debunk fake news like right away?
Like he goes after fake news like right away.
Do you know what he didn't say?
That's not true. Do you think he knows if it's true that there's a portal that the government had access to?
I think so. I doubt he would have tweeted if he didn't at least look into it.
Don't you think? Don't you think he would have asked somebody, is this fucking true?
Do we really have a portal that the government was using?
Some members of the government.
Now, I'm a little confused about the story, so I guess this will become clear over time.
But there's some kind of a trusted media program.
They had a trusted media program who had, I think, a fast-tracked report stuff.
Now, I think Twitter was just trying to make sure that they had the government's most official input, but they created a system that looks like it's a real problem for the First Amendment.
Now, again, I don't know if I believe this.
Doesn't it seem bigger than something that could be true?
And also, we don't know what the implications are.
For example, it's the sort of thing that says, well, there could be big problems, but we don't know if there have been.
If we dig into it and we find that it has been used, but it never did anything except correct fake news that was really fake, it would still be a First Amendment attack, but you wouldn't feel necessarily as bad about it if people had good intentions.
So, do you remember that I was speculating that there must be outside forces that have control of internal Twitter?
Do you remember how long I've been saying that?
That I just believe there must be some kind of ISP... I was thinking it was the third-party apps, but there's at least a government entity.
Now, here's the question.
If government entities could have this kind of access...
Doesn't that mean that Twitter could authorize anybody to have that access?
Hypothetically, if somebody who was a foreign agent embedded in Twitter, couldn't they just say, well, this tool exists, I'll just give it to China, too?
Now, I would think their internal logs would show who has and who does not have access.
But suppose...
I mean, it just seems like a big risk.
I mean, it's the sort of thing you'd catch, but it doesn't mean it wouldn't happen anyway.
All right. Want to hear some good news?
Anybody want to hear some good news?
Potential good news. The potential good news is Representative Gallagher Has teamed up with Senator Rubio and Congressman Rajah, and they have introduced legislation to ban TikTok in the United States.
To ban TikTok.
It's bipartisan, it's active legislation, and it's got Senator Rubio on board, right?
So you've got a senator, you've got bipartisan Congress critters, and I think it's go time.
I think it's go time.
Because, you know, I've been tweeting for a while that there's literally nobody on the other side.
And I also retweeted that if somebody votes against us, I need to know their names.
I need to know the names of anybody who votes against us.
Because anybody who votes against us is paid by China.
I mean, you would have to assume, even if they're not, You would have to assume anybody who votes against this is paid by China, directly or indirectly.
You know, there's somehow in the bank.
Because there is no argument.
There's no argument on the other side.
So if you pretend there is one, you must be paid.
Because there's no intellectual argument.
And I'm not saying... This isn't like other situations.
I'm not saying there's no argument because I disrespect the argument on the other side, or I think my argument is so good compared to the other argument that it's like it doesn't exist.
It's not that. It actually doesn't exist.
Like, actually, literally, there's no counterargument, and it still wasn't happening.
But there are exactly three members of Congress that I will say in public are independent and not owned by China.
It's the only ones we know about.
Representative Gallagher, Senator Rubio, and Congressman Raja.
Those three people, I can tell you with complete certainty, do not have a China problem.
Everybody else?
Wait and see. Everybody else is a wait and see.
Because if you haven't voted for this yet, I've got questions.
You better step up.
So I'm going to go pretty hard on anybody who votes against this.
Unless it passes, then I don't care.
Now, an interesting element to this story is that, I don't know if you've seen the news, but it got a lot of news.
And did you see a certain phrase that was associated with the story?
There was one phrase, two words, that made it into all the headlines about the story.
Did you see it? It was something that Representative Gallagher used.
He called it digital fentanyl.
He said TikTok was digital fentanyl.
And if you Google that, all the headlines pick that up.
Digital fentanyl. Digital fentanyl.
Yeah. Also, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr not too long ago referred to it in a public event as digital fentanyl.
Now, Now, some of you are trying to give me credit for inventing the phrase, but I did a Google to see if there was any prior art, and I want to call out that Niall Ferguson had used the phrase in a tweet about China in 2020.
So two years ago, Niall Ferguson used it in, I think, October 2020.
And so I Googled trends, I think it's Niall, not Neil.
So I googled trends to see when was the first time somebody said digital fentanyl, and it was 2004 and 2005.
For some reason, 100 people searched for the phrase digital fentanyl in 2005.
I thought Niall was a historian.
He's an economist. Isn't Niall Ferguson a historian?
Oh, both? Both.
I know he's a serious academic, but...
Oh, okay. Well, that's pretty good credentials if you have both.
That's pretty impressive.
Economic historian. Wow.
That has it all. All right.
So... Here's what you need to know about that.
Some of you will generously rush to give me credit for popularizing that phrase.
I definitely didn't invent it because somebody else was using it.
I don't have any memory of seeing it before I used it, but I might have.
You know, that's the way that works.
Now, if anybody knows if I used the phrase before October of 2020, Because that would have been two years after my stepson died of an overdose.
So I know I've been talking about it for two years.
Actually, I've been talking about it exactly two years by that point.
So I don't know if I used it before October 2020, but I know I used it earlier this spring and through the summer, and then it started popping up.
Now, there is a difference between inventing it and popularizing it.
So I definitely popularized it, But, you know, Nile has a prior claim.
All right. What do you think is the power of that persuasion?
Do you think the digital fentanyl will move the needle?
Do you think it makes a difference?
It feels like it does, yeah.
It feels like it does. But you know what is the great irony of this?
The irony...
Is that we're calling it digital fentanyl to make it sound bad so people will act to ban it.
At the same time, actual fentanyl, the real fentanyl, is just flowing in like we're inviting it.
Now obviously it's illegal, but it's like nothing's happening to stop it.
So I saw Lex Friedman was talking to Calderon.
I forget the name of the gentleman.
He did an interview. Who was embedded, I guess, some Mexican paramilitary force and knew a lot about the cartels, etc.
And Ed Calderon, thank you.
And I didn't finish the whole thing, but it was really just frightening to see that the basic situation in Mexico, as I understand it, is that the cartels will just kill anybody who says anything against them or is a problem in any way.
Even people, if a police officer is known to be taking bribes from a rival cartel, they'll kill that police officer.
So even if you're a police officer who is taking a bribe from the cartel, you will still be killed by a cartel.
So basically, everybody in Mexico Who is doing anything except keeping their head down and minding their own business can be killed by the cartel.
So apparently the cartel just totally owns them.
Now, the scariest part is I didn't realize that the cartel has been scooping up not just larger military equipment...
But special forces type people.
So the cartels actually have special forces.
Yeah. So my assumption is that they're trying to create an actual state.
What do you think?
So right now we call them a narco state, you know, Mexico itself.
But it looks to me like at least the Zetas maybe are trying to create an actual country.
It looks like they're gearing up for independence.
Don't you think? And...
At what point does the Mexican government ask us to help?
Do you know when the Mexican government will ask us to help?
Never. Never.
It's not a thing.
So here's how I predict this will go.
I think it would be...
Unlikely that we'll send ground forces into Mexico to attack the cartels, at least right away.
It does seem likely that what we learn from Ukraine, especially the guided munitions and especially the drones, I think the sky above the cartel operations is going to be thick with drones, and those drones will be weaponized.
You know, maybe to shoot one bullet or small munitions.
And I think that they'll just hover over all the cartel operations, and then they'll see some guard, you know, some guard hiding at an outpost, and they'll just kill them.
And they'll just look for more, and they'll just kill them.
And I think the drones will just start killing, you know, people on the outside and working toward the middle until you can just walk in and take it over.
So I think the drones will soften it up for about two years.
I think you're going to see all-out drone warfare on the cartels maybe for about two years, until there's not enough left, and then we can walk in and do whatever we want.
That's what I think. So we'll see.
So, have you noticed that I have not been criticizing Fauci for the entire time?
Anybody notice that? Now, obviously, I called him out for lying about masks, but wouldn't you say it's unusual?
It's kind of notable?
Dog mouth barking sort of thing?
Anybody notice that? Because if he did notice it, it's true.
It's a decision. A decision on my part to not go after him individually, which I've had since the beginning.
And the reason is that, at least in the fog of war, you can't tell who is an honest broker who made a mistake Versus who's a weasel.
And it might take forever to sort it out.
So I didn't want to be the person who was going after individuals when we can know for sure that all of the information in this domain is corrupt.
It's all corrupt. The stuff that agrees with you is corrupt.
The stuff that doesn't agree with you is corrupt.
There's no real information that you could trust anywhere in this domain.
Nowhere. There's not a single thing in the whole fucking COVID world that I would trust.
Now, so as my standard of innocent until proven guilty, Fauci is like the exhibit A. He's the ultimate.
You have to use all of your ethical muscles to hold back and try to be like a human and like a citizen of America to not call him guilty until some court does, if they ever do. But I saw a tweet today that apparently as recently as yesterday he was still pushing the drinking bleach oaks.
Can you confirm that?
Did Fauci say as recently as yesterday that Trump suggested drinking bleach?
Is that really something he did?
Can you confirm that?
Did anybody else see it? I just saw it in a tweet.
Because if that's true...
I don't need to know anything about Fauci, do I? Because even if he committed serious crimes, it's not as bad as this.
I mean, this is worse than any crime I would find out.
This is really an attack on the country.
I mean, not in any technical legal way.
But to me it looks like an attack on the country.
Because this is just so obviously untrue.
He must know it's untrue by now.
He has to know that.
And if he doesn't know that this is untrue, well, then he's so incompetent or caught up in his own narrative that he's useless.
So he's either a useless, lying, incompetent fucking piece of shit who may or may not have done some worse things that he's being accused of, but if he did this, that's all I need to know about him.
So Fauci, for me, is flushed down the toilet if he's pushing this fake news at this late date.
Now, in the beginning, maybe people were confused.
If he'd said it a week after the event itself, then he was just copying the news.
Maybe he actually believed it.
But at this late date, that's inexcusable.
That's completely an admission of something.
Not corruption, but something so bad that you need to get him off the public stage immediately, you know, even faster than he is.
But... All right.
Here's another phrase that's catching on.
Narrative poisoning. Have you noticed it on social media yet?
So narrative poisoning.
It's catching on pretty quickly.
And to me, it really helps because if you deal with somebody who has narrative poisoning, it allows you to not engage.
As soon as you see somebody is clearly not an honest debater, as soon as you see the narrative poisoning coming into the conversation, just pull back and say, oh, I'm sorry, narrative poisoning.
I didn't realize that we couldn't have a conversation.
Because if you keep calling it out as opposed to engaging with it, maybe it could be more of a thing.
Right.
Yeah, the narrative poisoning is what happens upstream from the social media companies.
I think they're the victims of the poisoning, and then they, of course, spread it.
But I think they're victims first.
I mean, to me, the big revelation was that the Twitter employees knew exactly...
that the Twitter employees believed the narrative that there was a Hitler trying to take power in the country.
To me, it looks very clear that they actually thought that was real.
And once you understand that basic question, did they think that was real?
Then you know that whatever happened to them...
Was somebody else's cause or some outside cause?
So what was the outside cause that made them believe that?
It wasn't their own social media.
They were the cause of social media.
Social media didn't cause them.
Did it? I don't think so.
I think it was the media.
The media, you know, the left-leaning media, is beholden to the Democratic Party, And the Democratic Party operatives work with the intel agencies to control the country through persuasion.
So, to me, it looks like the Twitter employees were victims, but also because personal responsibility is important.
The legal system or their accountability to their new boss is a totally different situation.
All those have to be looked at differently.
All right. I can't wait to find out more about that alleged government portal to Twitter.
Like, don't you want to know what it actually got used for and who used it?
It's just, to me, it's a little too on the nose, though.
A little too on the nose. If all they were doing...
So part of it was just that they could report things faster.
If all it was was a faster way to report troubles on the system...
That might not be as big a First Amendment problem as if they were directly changing things.
That would be way over the line.
All right, there's an amazing Twitter thread today I recommend by Doc Anarchy, who also has a substack.
So Doc Anarchy on Twitter does a Twitter thread on the AMA, American Mental Association.
Which is a reputable group, right?
So it's the association of doctors.
I can't think of who you could trust more than doctors.
And then if you put an association of doctors together, that's even better.
Because we all trust our doctor, right?
Like, I always trust my...
I don't think my doctor has any bad intentions, any of them ever.
So if you take all these doctors who have good intentions, and you give them some kind of a...
Medical Association, you'd be like summing up all the good intentions and professionalism into this really effective, ethically impenetrable ball of goodness.
And then you'd call it the AMA and it'd be pretty good.
So you think that's the way it went?
Does that sound like the world you live in?
You sum up all the good people and they turn into a good organization.
Why wouldn't they? All the different components are good.
If you add good to good, how do you get anything but good?
Here's how. Do you know how the AMA is funded?
Anybody? Does anybody know how the AMA is funded?
Big food and big pharma.
Do I need to say anything else?
Is there anything else I need to say?
Big food and big pharma.
Yeah. Your head just fucking exploded, didn't it?
Did your head just fucking explode?
Because mine did. My head is laying in a hundred fucking places all over this room.
Like, this one's just fake.
It's CGI. My actual fucking head exploded.
I always assumed it was maybe, you know, doctors who were members paid dues.
And then the AMA promoted them.
I had no idea.
And read the thread for the examples of things the AMA has backed that were really bad ideas.
The AMA is just a captured organization.
Now, you say to yourself, well, that's okay.
The doctors are not beholden to the AMA, right?
The AMA is a voluntary organization.
So the doctors can still do what they want.
It's not like the big pharma can, you know, or big food can tell the doctors what to do, right?
Nope. As Doc Anarchy points out, if the AMA says a certain thing is the gold standard of treatment, do you think a doctor's going to do something else?
Nope. Too dangerous.
If the AMA says this drug is the way you treat it, and if you don't use this drug from one of the people who funds us, then you're not using the gold standard.
And if somebody sues you, tough for you because they can point to the AMA and say, look, even the AMA said don't do it that way.
And then you didn't follow the AMA, and then you killed my grandfather, so I sue you.
What are you going to do if you're a doctor?
What are you going to do? Well, you're not going to do the one that gets you sued.
You're going to follow the AMA. And, you know, you're not going to look into it too much to find out who funded them recently.
So it turns out the AMA is not anything like what you thought it was.
And it has no credibility whatsoever.
Zero. Actually zero.
Because as soon as you say who funds them, that takes your credibility all the way to zero.
Does it not? Wouldn't you say that's a fair assumption, that if they get substantial funding from either Big Food or Big Pharma, and both they get, that that alone, there's nothing else you need to know.
There's not a single extra thing you need to know to say that the AMA is a malign influence on the United States.
That's what it looks like.
All right. So, you know, Musk tweeted, prosecute slash Fauci.
He said, those are my pronouns, prosecute Fauci.
And then Musk got a lot of pushback.
And somebody tweeted at Musk about that, and he said, let me guess, you found messages between Twitter executives and Fauci's team asking to suppress any COVID talk that is not part of the official narrative.
And Musk confirmed.
Yeah, that was Hodges Twins.
Hodges Twins said that.
Thank you. So confirmed that we know that Twitter executives were talking to Fauci's team and that was the source of their suppression of COVID talk.
I don't know if any of that's...
Is that illegal? Is it illegal because it's the government?
No. Now, all of this is such gray area.
I'm not exactly sure.
Well, how would you feel if the government was doing its best to keep you safe and that was the only reason they were doing it?
Would you feel differently?
Would you say, hang them, hang them, they tried to save our lives.
They broke some rules to try to save our lives, so hang them.
I don't know, it's a tough one.
Is lying? Yeah, well, if they were lying, if they were wrong, it looks different than if they were lying, of course.
We don't know. Do you know how to launder fake news?
Would you like to go to the whiteboard?
Yes, you would. Here's how you launder fake news.
And here's a good example of it.
So, if you're the Democrats...
And you want to start a fake rumor.
Let's say the rumor is that under Musk, there are way more neo-Nazis and racist stuff happening.
And that's the fake news you want to create.
Because I think it's the opposite.
But let's say you want to create that fake news.
How do you do it? So we know.
Well, you do, and by the way, I forget the source, but I heard how that fake news was generated, and I don't have all the details.
But basically, there was an entity that creates fake news for Democrats.
Basically, it's the equivalent of Q... Except for the Democrats.
Q's a... No, that's a bad analogy.
But let's say on the right, you can see things come out of like a...
Not Q, but 4chan.
Like 4chan will make up some bullshit, or there'll be some bullshit on Reddit.
And then some congressperson will see it and think it's true, and then the congressperson says it, and then if a congressperson says it's true, then a media person can say it's true, because now they're not quoting 4chan, which would be ridiculous, they're quoting a congressperson.
So that's how you launder it.
You start with something that has no credibility, and it's literally a lie, literally just made up.
But if you pointed to the original source, it would be so obvious that it was made up.
They'd say, oh, this is a 4chan prank, or it's some website that is known for making stuff up.
But if you get Adam Schiff to say it out loud, because the first source has zero credibility, but within Democrats only...
Schiff has maybe, I don't know, 50% credibility or something.
So you're taking it from zero credibility up to, you know, the low tens, you know, 20% credibility, something like that.
But because he's an elected official, that allows a pundit to quote him.
Because if you're a pundit and you quoted the zero credibility people and you got busted, that would be embarrassing.
But if you're a Democrat pundit and you go on TV and you say something that Adam Schiff, an elected representative, is saying also, then even if you're wrong, it doesn't look so bad, does it?
Yeah, it doesn't look so bad.
I mean, no worse than our government.
No worse than Adam Schiff, who Democrats kind of like, I guess.
So that's how they can launder it.
And then by the time the public hears it, they've lost the laundering path.
And I'm sure there's a version of it that happens on the other side.
But you can actually launder fake news and have its credibility get bumped up, like, accidentally in each stage.
Can it be traced?
Yeah, it was traced.
Yes, it can be traced.
And it was traced, and we know exactly who funded it.
I don't, personally.
But people who looked at it know who funded it, know who made it up, And therefore they know where Schiff got it.
Now, you all know that Schiff is only brought out for this stuff.
He's their designated launderer of fake news.
It's his main purpose.
And so I've come up with a phrase.
I call it the Schiff test.
Schiff test. The Schiff test is, if Schiff says something is true in the political realm, there's a 100% chance it's the opposite.
And so when he says something is true, you can finally know for sure what's true.
Like, you can actually say, oh, finally, the fog of war has cleared.
Adam Schiff has entered the game.
He says, it's blue.
Well, one thing for sure, it's not blue.
It's the only thing we know for sure is that that version is not true.
And you know why we can know this for sure?
Why would the Democrats have somebody who is only like 20 or 30% credible be the main person to carry their message?
There's no reason.
If something's true, Nancy Pelosi will say it.
If something's true, Chuck Schumer will say it.
Because they like saying true stuff because they don't want to get busted.
They're in leadership. So you don't even take Schiff out of the...
You don't break the glass and take out your emergency Schiff unless you know it's fake.
And then you have him say it so it can launder it up the chain.
So that's your Schiff test.
I guess Biden signed that Marriage Protection Act, so-called Marriage Protection Act.
So now, throughout the land, you can stay married if it's a same-sex marriage or interracial couples.
Is that the weirdest thing you've ever seen in your life?
Does it feel to you that we needed to codify interracial couples?
How in the world could that ever have been reversed?
How in the world could you ever reverse interracial marriage?
I don't know what your state looks like, but if I have a party at my house, there's a lot of interracial marriage in my living room, right?
Is it different where you are?
If you invited 50 people to your house, there wouldn't be any interracial marriages in your house.
Is there anybody who is so, let's say, isolated that you don't have any interracial marriage in your personal circle?
Actually, I'm curious about that.
There may be people who don't.
There's one. Okay.
Somebody said yes. It could be, you know, I'm in my little California bubble.
In California, you can't go to any event with 20 people where one of them is in a mixed marriage of some kind.
I mean, it's not always black and white, but of some kind.
In fact, I might be approaching a majority at this point.
It's probably getting, I don't know, 40% of new marriages.
It's probably like a really big percentage in California.
Because California is 40% Hispanic, I think, now.
And, you know, there are very little barriers to any interracial anything in California.
All right. So that's a weird one.
I mean, I suppose there's some utility to the fact that we, you know, codified it, but that was never going to change.
There was no risk to that at all.
That's purely political to make it look like Republicans were going to go after that.
Obviously, they were not going to...
They were obviously not going to go after that.
They might have gone after same-sex stuff.
But throwing in the interracial thing is like a clever Democrat thing to basically just...
It sort of paints the Republicans as somebody who might go after that, which is ridiculous.
All right. Over in Beijing.
So I guess China had to back down from its citizens who were protesting quite vigorously, and Beijing has eased its zero-COVID lockdown policy, and now COVID is spreading through Beijing.
And I think I heard yesterday or today that China has four ICU beds for every 100,000 citizens.
The U.S. has 24.
So the U.S. has six times as much emergency medical facilities as China.
And then China, that's just as a percentage.
And then you have to look at the total population of China.
So I don't know what's going to happen.
It could be that now that we're on the Omicron era, China is opening up at about the right time.
In other words, if you have to open up someday, you might as well do it, and maybe it won't ever get any better.
So it's probably the best they can do.
I feel like they made the right decision, but it's blowing heads up.
I saw a video of somebody in Beijing.
It's kind of making their heads explode, because they just went from, you know, don't put your head out of a window or we'll all die, to, oh yeah, you can take off your mask if you want.
Like, imagine what that does to your head.
Now, here's the problem.
The residents of Beijing are so brainwashed and beaten down that they're still hiding in their apartments, and they're not going to work, and they're not shopping, and they're not buying stuff, for the most part.
Like, the streets are almost empty, even though they're allowed to be out.
So it could be that it'll turn into a Sweden situation.
The Sweden situation is they didn't have the lockdown, you know, the brutal lockdown stuff, but the citizens sort of did a natural, you know, organic distancing sort of thing a little bit and probably made a difference.
Probably made a difference. So maybe the Chinese citizens will voluntarily mask.
There might be a cultural impetus to that.
Maybe they'll be quite aggressive in doing what they need to do individually.
Maybe it makes a difference. You're wrong about Sweden, Holling says.
The only thing, Holling, that we know about Sweden is that we don't know anything about Sweden.
That's the only thing you know for sure, is you can't compare any two countries.
So, here's my prediction.
China's in a lot of trouble.
This might be the biggest risk to China that there has ever been, as well as the world economy.
Because I think this is going to take China offline totally.
For maybe a month.
So I think China is just going to be like it doesn't exist for maybe a month or two.
When the virus is raging, it's just going to shut everything down.
And it's going to take about two months.
I'm no epidemiologist, but I think it'll take about two months or so to get enough Enough infected people that maybe it slows down a little bit.
Sound about right? Two months?
Maybe longer. But if China shuts down for two months, everybody shuts down a little bit, right?
So I would say that the next few months are going to be really, really dicey economically because of the China impact.
But weirdly, almost everything else is heading in the right direction.
We are bringing manufacturing back.
We're bringing chip manufacturing back.
Inflation is starting to cool off.
We are fixing our supply chain in a variety of ways.
Oh, by the way, I saw an advertisement for a new Christmas toy that blew my mind.
It's a 3D printer for kids that they can make their own toys.
You've got an app with a whole catalog of toys, and the child just pushes the button and it makes the toy.
So, I mean, that's your glimpse of what the supply chain will look like in the future.
In the future, the supply chain will be the raw materials for 3D printers, you know, whatever it takes, plastic, etc.
I think everybody just will, yeah, they'll have their own replicator at home and they'll just make their own toys.
You can do that with a 3D printer you have at home, but this is a child-friendly one, which seems like a whole new step.
If the user interface gets down, and the cost gets down to child toy level, like, that tells you nothing's going to stop this technology.
All right. Wall Street Journal has a new poll that said in a head-to-head between Trump and DeSantis, 52% of Republicans would like DeSantis, and only 38% want Trump.
That's not even close.
That's not even close.
Now, some speculate that's because the Trump candidates didn't do so well in the midterms.
Maybe. Could be part of it.
But DeSantis has not said he's running, and there's good reason to think he won't, but at what point does he have to?
Because there's two ways to look at this DeSantis versus Trump thing.
One way is it has to be DeSantis because he's the only one who will get enough support to win.
The other way to see it is anybody could beat Trump.
And I feel like it's going to go that way.
If you're Mike Pompeo and you see that DeSantis can kick Trump's ass at the primary, but that DeSantis might actually not get into the primary...
How happy are you if you're Mike Pompeo?
Now, I'm not promoting Mike Pompeo.
I don't know too much about him.
But wouldn't you say to yourself, oh, shit, anybody could beat Trump now?
Wouldn't you? Get your head out of your ass, Scott.
All right. I'm going to kick you off the platform for that.
Who are you? Take your name down.
News views. Alright, well, I'm going to kick you off the platform.
If you want to quit before then, that would be fine.
But on the locals platform, we don't do personal stuff, okay?
You can do that and the rest of the internet.
But on the locals platform, you're here by invitation.
And that's not cool.
That's not cool. Alright.
But if you want to go to a non-subscription site...
If you'd like to be... Oh, you know what?
You might not be a subscriber.
I'll bet you're not a subscriber.
I'm going to lock out the non-subscribers.
Yeah, I assumed it was a subscriber, but I had the feed open.
Might be a non-subscriber.
But I don't expect to see that stuff from subscribers.
All right. Now, I'm not going to read anything you've written.
Now, based on that comment, I won't read anything you've written now or ever.
Yeah, I'm done with you.
So what do you think?
Would you agree that the DeSantis poll is telling you that Trump can be beat and is not only telling you that DeSantis can beat him?
Would you take that interpretation?
Now, here's a question I have for you.
Why is Trump so quiet?
Is it because he's just totally shut down by the media?
Or is he actually not trying to get elected?
Is it because it's too early?
Because he's announced, and he was doing rallies before.
He's either powering up, it's too early.
But what does too early mean in the Trump world?
When has Trump ever gone quiet?
You don't think that Trump knows that the more he's in the news in a productive way, it's good for him?
Of course he knows. You don't think Trump knows how to make news and get attention?
Of course he does. Of course he does.
To me it looks like he's not really serious, honestly.
Now, maybe he will get serious.
Now, it could also be that he needs to...
Maybe he's working on his family.
He may be trying to convince them to get on board so he can get serious.
It could be that he said, I'm totally running, but he sees he's not getting enough family and, you know, close support from people he cares about.
If he's not getting that support, he might be thinking, you know...
Maybe I'll rethink this.
Because I don't think he can win without total family support.
And I doubt he hasn't at this point.
And I don't think he can win without the same, you know, strong group of supporters being on his team.
And I think he's wondering.
I think he's wondering.
Because he doesn't have the same...
It's not the same people supporting him this time, for sure.
And I guess Biden is angry that the press keeps mentioning that he's 80 years old.
And he feels that's unfair because everybody knows his age, so you don't need to mention it all the time.
To me, I don't think we should mention anything else.
I'm totally the opposite.
I think the only thing they should say about Biden is his age, and then don't say anything else.
And we still have an 80-year-old president in other news.
That should be the entire political news.
And he's still 80.
In other news, because as soon as you say he's 80, almost everything about him makes sense.
It sort of explains everything.
I saw Rob Reiner say that so far the first couple years of Biden, he's been the most successful president in 60 years.
Most successful president in 60 years.
I guess it depends what you're measuring, isn't it?
If you're measuring immigration, not so much.
Well, depending on your point of view, I guess.
So, here's another dog that's not barking.
One of the biggest stories of the year...
That I've seen mentioned, like as a statistic, and then nobody talks about it.
And it's this. The immigration coming across the southern border, almost none of it is Mexicans.
Why? Why?
Don't you think that's like a really important thing to know?
Why? Is it...
Now, here's why that's so important.
Is it reproducible?
Did something happen in Mexico that's unique to Mexico, economically or politically or system-wise?
What happened?
How can Mexican immigration go to basically nothing?
Now, we understand that the other countries are having, you know, maybe more economic problems, but did Mexico suddenly become a first-world country or something?
All the Mexicans who wanted to come are already here?
That doesn't make sense. But no, there's something going on, right?
Is it that the cartels are filtering the Mexicans out and they don't let them come across?
But why would they do that?
Everybody who wants to pay, it seems like they'd take their money.
They don't care who it is. But why would the cartels block only Mexican citizens?
They're all willing to pay money.
It makes no sense.
Now, they're already here.
It doesn't make sense. The only thing that makes sense is that the economy of Mexico maybe isn't as bad as you thought.
Or there's something about the life there that's better than we think.
What do you think? I'm completely puzzled by that.
I have no idea.
The only thing I can think of is that the Mexican economy is not that bad and that that gives you a standard For how good the Central American countries would have to improve before you'd have a natural end to immigration.
But you realize that the Democrats are very close to proving that their immigration process was better than their Republicans.
Do you see that?
The Democrats are very close to proving they had a better immigration standard by just opening it up.
Because if Mexico just took care of itself, like the flow of people across the border maybe created maybe a better economic situation in Mexico, because a lot of the American-Mexican workers are sending money back to Mexico, it could be that it was a self-correcting problem.
Is that possible?
I'm not going to state that as my current assumption, but is it possible that That what happened with Mexican immigration going to zero is because having a lot of it for years took off the pressure.
Like the most dire people already came, and then the people who got set up here sent money back to Mexico, and then the people who stayed in Mexico are doing better, and they're just sitting there saying, well, it isn't so bad here now.
Could it be that the Kamala Harris method of...
I mean, she's done nothing that I know of.
But if she worked on Central America to get them up to the level of the Mexican experience, would immigration stop the way it did in Mexico?
I mean, isn't that like a gigantic question that nobody's asking?
I haven't seen anybody ask that on the news, have you?
Have you seen anybody speculate why the actual Mexican citizens stopped coming to America?
Your suggestion is what has been suggested for decades.
So the argument would be that mass immigration Might have peaks and valleys, but that it would sort of take care of itself over time?
Has that always been the sort of globalist opinion?
Because I'm not unfriendly to that opinion.
I just don't know if there's any framework or...
Is there any meat to that?
If there's one thing you could say about everything...
Let me take a...
A general statement about the world.
It's really unpredictable.
Have you noticed that?
The things that you're positive, you can predict.
The most predictable thing you can predict is if you open the border between Mexico and the United States, there would be an endless and maybe ever-increasing flow of Mexicans coming into the United States.
Isn't that the most predictable thing that could ever be predicted?
And it's not happening. The flow is coming from Central America.
So, like, we can't even predict that?
Are you telling me that that can't be predicted?
That is bizarre.
All right. The government portals.
New Zealand government has a portal on Facebook.
My goodness. My goodness.
Scott has willful blindness.
Maybe you have willful, can't write a message like an adult.
How about you?
Tell me what you think I fucking missed.
How about that? You know, I have such curiosity about the people sitting there behind the comments.
I feel like a lot of people comment somehow not realizing that a human is going to read it.
Because I feel like I've done that.
I feel like I've said things about, like, real people on Twitter, and then when they respond, I say, oh, shit, I didn't think you'd actually read it.
Because I might have said it differently if I thought the actual person I'm talking about would actually see it.
Now, of course, the effect is, you know, 100 times worse for me, because one of the problems about being famous that they don't tell you about is that you forget.
Have you ever heard that? I've never heard anybody talk about it.
But when you are famous, and I guess I'd be semi-famous, when you are semi-famous, you don't walk around all day thinking about your fame.
You walk around all day thinking, you know, it's time to do laundry, and I'm hungry, and gotta walk the dog, right?
I mean, my head is all just like what's happening around me.
And every once in a while, I'll tweet something, and I'll mention somebody or some organization, and then suddenly it's a big deal because they noticed it too.
And I'm actually surprised.
Like, oh, I forgot that people notice what I say because I'm famous.
Like, you actually forget.
You just go through your life saying, ah, who's going to know?
So that's a flaw that I find in myself, but I can't be alone.
You don't think I'm famous in the real sense.
Yeah, you could argue that.
So there was an Alex Jones-Fuentes debate.
How many saw the Alex Jones-Fuentes, I don't know if it was interviewer debate?
I'm told that I was prominently featured in that debate.
Did anybody see that?
I haven't seen it.
Did anybody see me get referenced?
Oh, there was a clip.
What clip was it?
Yeah. They played a clip of me.
Now, when they played a clip of me, were they both agreeing with what I said, or was that a point of disagreement?
Was one of them disagreeing with the clip?
It's the video when I talked about yay.
Okay. It's always agreement.
Okay, they agreed. Oh, was it the Don Rickles reference?
Is that what it was? Referencing yay basically taking on everybody?
No, it was something else.
All right, well, I'll go find it.
The clip about tossing the board.
Tossing the board? What's that mean?
I'm not sure you understand Mexican immigration, but I'm not sure you don't.
Well, the only question was, is it true that Mexican immigration has gone to near zero?
That's what the news says.
So, I mean, it might be wrong.
It's possible. Yeah, I would say that I'm pocket famous.
Pocket famous.
Meaning if you're in a certain group of people, I'm famous.
But if you're in some other group, you never heard of me.
So the other day, I found out that my traffic on Truth, not traffic, the number of followers I have on Truth Social had reached about a half a million.
Basically, I've tweeted maybe five times total Untruth, and Devin Nunes was giving me a hard time over Untruth, asking if I really use the platform.
He ran a little poll, and it was all pretty smart to get me to engage, which I did.
So it was sort of well played.
Well played, Devin Nunes.
Well played. And I will actually start posting some more stuff on Truth.
But to your point of whether I'm famous, it took, so I've got 800,000 followers on Twitter, which took seven years.
Seven years. And on Truth, I went from about, I don't know, Low tens of thousands in the first months or so, to half a million, I think, just over the summer.
So how famous I am, I appear to be more famous among Trump supporters.
That wouldn't surprise you, would it?
That I'm more famous among Trump supporters.
So apparently on Truth, I might get to a million, I don't know how many people use Truth, but I might get to a million followers on Truth before Twitter.
And yet the number of users of Twitter is probably, I don't know, 20 times, 100 times, whatever it is.
Could be the bots. Could be the bots.
Yep, could be the bots.
It's from a Babylon 5 appearance.
And the quality of your audience is...
You spelled quality wrong.
During US recession, always drinks.
Yeah. Mexican economy is still expanding.
You know, I think, here's what I think.
I'll bet you private indoor gardens are going to be gigantic in the next five years.
That almost everybody's going to be growing food in their home.
And they'll be doing it as a backup.
It'll start as a prepper kind of a thing.
Well, it starts as a hobby thing.
People just think it's cool.
And then it's going to move into the prepper category.
I don't think it's a prepper thing yet, because it's not as cost effective as it could be.
But I don't think people will think, I need to grow all of my food forever.
I think they're going to say, if the supply chain breaks down, I can eat this food on my wall for two weeks.
So I got, you know, two weeks no matter what.
You know, it might be all just vegetables, but it would keep you alive.
I think the problem with indoor farms is you can't get anything with protein yet.
I don't think you can grow a soybean if that's your thing.
So that's a problem.
I think they need some kind of GMO, you know, some modified food you can grow indoors that's high protein.
You know, some quinoa, like a quinoa-related thing, but something you can grow on a wall, because you can't grow grasses on a wall too easily.
You need too much of it.
Yeah, and, you know, the other thing is those artificial meats.
How long before people are growing their own artificial meat?
Because that should be a thing, right?
Peas? I don't know. Peas.
You can get a little bit of protein from peas.
Chickpea sprouts? Yeah, okay.
Yams? Yeah, yams.
I don't know if you grow those indoors necessarily.
But I think there's going to be a whole bunch of things happening there.
Oh, Mexico is stable enough that the asylum claim is not viable, and that's why they're not coming.
Well, would that be...
Really?
Because I don't think that they need a viable claim, do they?
All right, let's check.
So the thinking is that Mexico is stable.
Even though they're in the middle of a gigantic narco war, but let's call them stable, and therefore the people who would claim they need amnesty, their claims would be ignored.
But my understanding is that everybody's claims are ignored.
And that the reason they make the claim is that they can be released into the interior of the country until it's adjudicated, and then they just go on with their lives and never go to the court.
So wouldn't that, the same thing would apply to Mexico as it would to the Central American countries, would it not?
Okay, it's still a mystery.
Still a mystery. Yeah, the light, I think there's artificial light for growing now that's pretty efficient.
Get to know a beet farmer.
Now that's the best advice I've ever heard.
I'm going to pass on your advice.
Get to know a beet farmer.
Young man, young lady, if there's one piece of advice I could give you in this world, one thing that will set you on your path to success, get to know a beet farmer.
Yeah, you can take that one to the bank.
Alright, is there any topic which I have neglected to mention?
Ye is a beet farmer, B-E-A-T. Alright, alright.
I think that's all that's going on, right?
That's all that's going on?
So I saw some on CNN, they've got some more allegedly intercepted phone calls from Russian soldiers complaining back home.
And I've got a feeling that the Russian soldiers, there's not going to be much left after the winter.
I don't know how the Russian forces survive the winter, really.
I mean, it's going to be tough everywhere for the Ukrainians as well.
I feel like it's going to be harder for the Russians.
Although we'll never know, because the Ukrainians are good at managing the information flow.
Now, you've all noticed by now, right, that every time you see a video of the Ukrainian forces, they look well-fed and happy, and they're really big.
They're, like, physically large, and they're usually on some stolen Russian vehicle, and they're going to launch some missiles, and they're like, do-do-do-do-do.
It's like they're just having a good time.
And then anything you hear about the Russians, it's about how they're cannibalizing each other because there's no food or something.
I'm making that one up. But you've noticed, right?
You've noticed how controlled the information is on Ukraine.
It is so... It's incredibly propagandized.
It's just really thick now.
It's like the Ukrainian forces have no casualties, and the Ukrainian forces never are cold, and the Ukrainian forces never have a food problem, and the Ukrainian forces never run out of ammunition.
It's as if that doesn't happen, but it's like massively happening to the Russians.
Really? Really?
Yeah, I've got a feeling the Ukrainians are having some struggles, too.
But you don't see any of it.
So they do a really good job managing that.
All right. Lost 100,000 officers.
Maybe. You probably have to replace them pretty often.
Yeah, Russians are good at surviving the winter, but are they good when they're not in Russia?
It's the part about not being in Russia that's going to make it tough.
It's not like they have all their resources and they can share and everything else.
Will Trump even debate?
I don't know. All right.
I think we've said everything that needs to be said.
I'm gonna go do some other things.
I have to submit my book today to my publisher.
I gotta say it's looking pretty strong.
I think it'll be the most important thing I've done.
I think it will survive me by a long time.
It's gonna be really controversial too.
It's gonna make some people nuts.
Because some of the reframes, I make some claims that are so outrageous.
They're true. As far as I know, they're true.
Everything in there is my best attempt at the truest thing.
But it's going to make people say, I don't know if that would work.
And then they're going to try it.
For example, I talk about the sneeze cure.
Where you just imagine sneezing in your head and it makes the real sneeze go away.
Now, it doesn't work for all sneezes.
It's good for the ones that are kind of sneaking up on you, not the sun ones.
But... A lot of people are going to read that and they're going to say, well, that's not a thing.
That couldn't possibly be true.
And then later someday they'll try it and they'll make their sneeze go away and they'll be like, what?
And suddenly everything that I wrote in the book will seem more credible because the thing that they doubted the most they just find out for themselves was true with their own experience.
It'll be released in...
September. The sneeze thing worked for you in church.
Perfect application in church.
Why does looking at the sun make you sneeze?
Did you know that 23andMe can detect your genetic propensity for sneezing because of the sun?
Apparently, the sun-trigger sneezing is a well-understood phenomenon, and there's a genetic cause.
So I have that. Every time I leave my gym and walk to my car, I sneeze my head off all the way to the car, and there's no allergy whatsoever.
It's just the sun. It's every time.
Every time. Yeah, it's three sneezes, right?
The sun's sneezes are three.
There are always three. It's weird.
Alright, that's all I've got for now.
YouTube, goodbye. I'm going to go talk to the local people privately.
