Episode 2017 Scott Adams: UFO News, Baby Jesus Born? Chicken Hoaxes, Walls Not Closing In
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Baby Gibbon Jesus?
Chickens stopped laying eggs?
Why Durham failed
3 more UFO's shot down
AI and the value of art
Citizen self-defense
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 Coffee with Scott Adams, which is the highlight of civilization.
And today we've got some of the most interesting stories of all time.
None of them are true, but I think you're used to that.
So if you'd like to get ready for the fake news of the century, the fake news paloza, Is that something?
Fake News Paloza?
It's the cornucopia of fake news, and it's all here today.
And if you'd like to enjoy it to its maximum potential, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, 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, and today, today only, A little hint of oxytocin.
Just a little bit.
See if you can detect it.
Yeah, I got it.
There's one note of oxytocin in there today.
But the dopamine is sublime, as usual.
Well, I don't know if you caught it, but the biggest story of the day is that a Japanese zoo reports that they have a female gibbon that has given birth despite living in isolation for two years.
So there were no boy gibbons anywhere to be seen for two years, and yet the female gibbon is pregnant.
Now, this could mean one of two things.
Number one, it's a good thing I'm not an employee of that zoo.
We all agree it's a good thing I'm not an employee of the zoo.
They had the gibbon, they had the baby with the boy gibbons.
Because I'm the kind of asshole who would be mercilessly mocking the zookeeper.
So, get that female gibbon in there, she's looking kind of hot.
They tell me that no male gibbons have been in there for Two years.
Two years.
Seems there's only one person who has the key.
Bob.
Bob, you're the only person who's been in that Gibbon habitat.
And I'm just saying, maybe you and the Gibbon got a little busy.
Now, okay, you know that didn't happen.
But you know if I worked there, I would be mercilessly mocking Bob for having access to the Gibbon.
Can we agree on that?
It's a good thing I don't work there.
Okay, let's agree on that.
The second thing is, I think we're missing the significance because I only know one case in history in which a primate had an immaculate conception.
So, there's at least a possibility that baby Jesus has returned But maybe was being a little bit more modest than the last time.
Now you don't think of Jesus as like a bragger, right?
Am I right?
Jesus was not like, oh, look at my Rolex.
And Jesus could have had a Rolex.
He had powers.
But no, Jesus is humble.
If there's anything we know, Jesus is not a show off.
And I think it would be just like him to come back as a baby Gibbon.
Because that would put everything in perspective.
You'd be like, oh, we're humans, we're so special.
Then Jesus would come back and say, I'm not so special.
I'm a gibbon.
And I'm Jesus.
You're like, not even that.
So I think it would be a good lesson for humankind.
Now, just so you know, a gibbon is not a monkey.
So some of you are tempted to say, oh, it's monkey Jesus.
That's first of all, that would be disrespectful.
Second of all, it would be technically incorrect.
It is a gibbon.
And a gibbon, I looked it up, they're not one of the great apes.
Not a great ape.
Again, totally consistent with Jesus's personality.
Jesus isn't going to come back as like a great ape.
That would be not very modest, would it?
Oh, I'm the great ape.
Look at me.
I came back as a great ape.
No, that would be so, so not in keeping with the whole vibe.
Instead, there's at least a possibility that he chose what's called the lesser apes.
The gibbons are small compared to the great apes.
So they're called the lesser apes.
I think that's perfect.
I feel like that's right on brand.
It's like not too showy, but Still making a point.
It makes a point without being too showy.
So I think at the exact time that the space aliens are attacking Earth, Baby Gibbon Jesus may have come back.
We don't know this.
This is not confirmed.
But possibly, possibly and would be.
We're hoping.
We're hoping Baby Gibbon Jesus is on our side.
Because if Baby Gibbon Jesus is on the alien invader side, it's going to be harder than we thought.
And Joe Biden will tell you, you're going to need more than your AR-15 for that.
You're going to need more than your AR-15 for that.
Let's talk about chickens not laying eggs.
Have any of you heard that Chickens stop laying eggs because there's something in their feed that makes them non-egg layers?
Well, I would ask you to Google chickens not laying eggs and then the word debunked.
Because It looks like chickens are lag eggs.
But there are always sometimes when some individual groups of chickens will not be lag eggs.
And individual farms could have, you know, a variety of problems that are unique to the farm.
So it's not that unusual if one farm has chickens that are not lag eggs.
It would be very unusual if they were all not lag eggs, but apparently that's not the point.
Apparently that's not happening.
So don't worry about your chicken eggs.
Price is high, but there are plenty of them.
Wall Street Journal reports that the government started getting smart.
I know.
You're not going to believe this story.
This will be wild.
You did not see this coming.
This is out of left field, people.
It could be, again, Related to baby Gibbon Jesus or possibly the alien invasion.
Because this is not normal behavior.
All right?
Listen to this.
The government did this.
Our actual government, the U.S.
government.
Wall Street Journal reports that the Biden administration has started approving state requests to use Medicaid to pay for groceries and nutritional counseling.
It turns out that our government has discovered, and I think it's true, That what you eat is related to your health.
Has anybody heard that before?
This is brand new information.
What you eat, and how much of it, could have an impact on your health.
No, no, seriously.
I'm not kidding.
Stop it.
Stop doubting me.
It's true.
It's a true fact.
And what's more amazing than that, If that were not amazing enough, the U.S.
government apparently is acting rationally?
And, I don't know, preliminarily it looks like it's in the interest of the public.
Like, I don't want to get ahead of myself, but it looks like they did something smart that's good for us.
Screw it.
Yeah, I don't believe it either.
They'll find some way to take it back.
But for a moment there, I felt this little tinge of government competence.
It was, like, thrilling.
It, like, went through me like a chill.
Well, goosebumps.
Goosebumps.
Just the thought that the government would make a good decision.
Wow.
But probably not.
I'm sure they'll find some way to screw that up.
Here's an amazing thing that happened on CNN today.
An opinion piece by someone who's not a normal CNN contributor.
I'm not saying this person is not normal.
I'm saying not routinely a contributor to CNN, which is important to the story.
It's Jennifer Rogers, former federal prosecutor, is arguing that the walls are not closing in on Trump.
Did you ever think you would see that?
There's an opinion piece on CNN, the website, whose only point, there's like one point of view.
It's not like two points of view showing both sides.
There's one point of view that says the walls are not closing in on Trump.
And some recent things with, I guess the old prosecutor for Manhattan, I guess they're the ones that are following up on the Stormy Daniels payment, that BS story.
Not BS in terms of it not being true, but BS in terms of nobody cares.
Nobody cares.
There's not a single person in the whole world who cares if Trump did or did not use campaign funds to pay off Stormy Daniels.
Zero people care.
But apparently the prior prosecutor wrote a book And in the book, he gives away a little bit more information than a prosecutor ought to be giving away.
So it makes it a little bit easier for the defense to know exactly what the worst prosecutor was thinking, in terms of what the case would look like, which is just a present to the defense.
But it also showed that they seem to be wildly interested in just getting Trump, which is a real gift to the defense.
I don't know.
The big story here is not Trump's legal dilemma, because I think that was always trivial.
What's different is that CNN is going out of their way to say that it's trivial, and that he's moving in the direction of less risk, not more.
I've never seen that before.
Have you?
Have you ever seen CNN write a story with no hedging?
There's no hedging to it whatsoever.
It just says, looks like things are going his way.
It's different, right?
Yeah, and I like the fact that the public is being brutal on CNN, because I believe CNN could be a valuable asset to the country.
And I think they had been in the past.
You know, they certainly went useless at some point, but I'd love to see them rehabilitated.
I'd love to know that the news, you know, was real for a change.
So we'll see.
How many of you have forgotten the Durham investigation that was supposed to be the walls closing in on, I don't know who, Democrats and the Department of Justice and the FBI and Hillary Clinton and everybody associated with her.
And then basically they got kind of nothing.
Do you think that's because there was nothing there and we all got excited and there was never anything there?
So here's what I think.
I think that the Durham investigation was looking for crime, and if your conspiracy involved, just hypothetically, just hypothetically, if a conspiracy involved people at the Department of Justice, the FBI, lawyers, and the head Democrats who mostly are lawyers, do you think they couldn't figure out a way to do a plot without breaking any laws?
I feel like that would be easy.
Just don't write anything down in an email that's clearly illegal.
And just have all your conversations privately.
And then everybody does things which individually look like they could have been explained by one individual doing something they thought was the right thing to do.
That's all it would take.
So I'm not sure that the Durham investigation tells you anything.
About what did or did not happen.
The only thing that it does tell you is it was not something overtly and easily identifiable that was illegal.
So yeah, and all those conversations with super sketchy text stuff, that's super sketchy, but I think it falls short of being obviously criminal.
Meaning that if there's at least one other interpretation, that's all you need.
You only need one other interpretation of the facts and you're free.
That's the whole story.
So when they say stuff like, you know, something is an insurance policy, that could be an indication that that person had bias.
Which is not illegal.
Is it?
Is it illegal to be a human being with bias?
As long as what you're doing is your job, No, it's not illegal to have bias.
It's illegal to act in a biased manner.
But it's not illegal to have bias.
So they would have to find that they did something that was very non-standard and bordered on illegal to have anything.
So I don't know that Durham finding nothing means there's nothing there.
It might mean there was nothing illegal or nothing easily found that was illegal.
Well, let's talk about those UFOs.
The funniest meme I saw in the UFO hysteria is an alien talking to another one.
And one alien says, can we land yet?
And the other alien says, no, it's too early.
At the moment, they're trying to change the weather by eating bugs.
We are kind of doing that, aren't we?
Isn't that sort of exactly what we're doing?
I believe that's actually the literal idea on the table.
To eat bugs to change the weather.
What's funny about it is that it's technically true.
It's technically true.
We're trying to eat bugs to change the weather.
That's a funny meme.
All right.
What else about this hysteria?
The thing I'm waiting for is when the alien leader asks to meet our leader.
And the only thing we can hope is that the advanced intelligence of this alien civilization, I hope they have a sense of humor.
Because when we show them Biden, they're going to talk to him for five minutes, and then they're going to turn to us and say, OK, you're joking, right?
No, seriously.
That was a pretty good one.
You got us.
We traveled from Alpha Centauri, and that was one of the best pranks we've seen.
We almost believe that was your leader.
No, seriously.
Seriously.
Show us the real one.
You know, honestly, our universal translator isn't even working on this guy.
I mean, I'm looking at the universal translator.
He talked and I think he said, we're going to focus on the... We don't even know what that means.
This is a universal translator.
Universal.
It doesn't work on this guy that you're pretending is your leader.
We don't know.
What are you saying?
It seems like some kind of mumble talk.
We don't know.
So, that could not go well, perhaps.
Anyway, so we got an unidentified object shot down over Canada, one shot down over Alaska, another one shot down over our warmer waters in the south, in the southeast.
So now we've got three objects, one definitely a Chinese spy balloon.
Or not, who knows?
And then two things that are mysterious.
One of them might have been a giant tube with no people and no guidance system.
How do you know there are no people in it?
If you saw a giant metallic tube flying at 40,000 feet with no windows, there's no windows, how would you know there were no people in it?
Or aliens?
How do you know there's no aliens in there?
What mechanism do we have to know what's inside the big tube?
Or Gibbons?
Or Gibbons?
I don't know.
I feel like when they say it's unmanned, they either know it's a balloon, because if they know it's a balloon, then they could reasonably intuit there's nothing inside it.
Right?
Depending on the size of the balloon and where it is and everything.
There's no exhaust.
So if I were to build an inter, let's say, interplanetary wormhole traveling spaceship, would it have windows?
And would aliens necessarily need to look at things?
Maybe aliens have a different type of sensing, way of sensing their environment.
Maybe they don't need to look at stuff with eyeballs, so they wouldn't need any windows.
Nor would they need any external propulsion signs, like smoke coming out of the engine or anything like that.
Because my God, they just travelled interplanetary through a wormhole.
You don't need a gas engine for that, or even nuclear.
So, I don't believe that any aliens have visited us.
But I have questions.
Number one, Why did the U.S.
shoot down an object over Canadian airspace?
Now, it's reported that we were coordinating with the Canadian government, but why do we shoot things down over Canada?
Even with permission?
Is that because Canada doesn't have any air force that can shoot down a balloon?
Now, I get that NORAD is up there, and they saw it, and blah, blah, blah, blah.
And I get that we have better military assets, perhaps?
Maybe?
NORAD is Joint US-Canada.
It is?
NORAD is Joint US-Canada?
Well, NORAD is just the monitoring, right?
But when you put the actual jet up, I'm just wondering, why would Trudeau allow an American pilot to save Canada if Canada has pilots and missiles?
What's behind that?
He requested it.
Here's my theory.
As you know, Trudeau only looks for opportunities where he can look weak.
Am I right?
The Trudeau is always looking for a way to look weak and feminine.
The best way that Canada could look weak and feminine is to say, oh, could you help us with this UFO?
We don't think we can handle it.
Oh, we have jets.
Yeah, we have jets.
But could you handle this?
Maybe you could do this one.
How about you do this one?
Oh, you do this one.
We'll do the next one.
You do this one.
I feel like it was the most feminine thing Canada could do, to ask for help from the big strong neighbor.
Oh, could you lift this?
Oh, we could do it.
Yeah, we could do it ourselves, but we'd have to stand on a chair.
Could you do it?
You look so big and strong.
How would you like to be a Canadian today?
How would you like to be male and Canadian today?
Not feeling so strong today, are you?
I'm sorry, Canada.
We love Canada.
But your leader, he's fun to mock.
Alright, what else is going on?
You may have done what I did, which is click on the UFO links on Twitter today.
Did you see how many UFO sightings there are according to Twitter?
Now I recognize some of them as being old ones and they look like hoaxes and stuff.
So here's the thing I can guarantee you.
95% of everything you see on these UFO stories is just made up.
Would you agree?
Whatever is true, I don't know.
But at a minimum, at a minimum, 95% of everything you see is just made up.
So if you see a picture of a UFO, if you see a video, and even if it looks like it was taken from the space shuttle, and even if it looks like there's a ship landing on the moon, which we saw this morning, no matter what you see, There's a 95% chance it's not true, no matter the source.
No matter the source.
Now, I'm allowing 5%, which is pretty big if you're talking about, you know, aliens visiting the Earth.
5% is really big.
I'm just allowing that, you know, anything's possible.
Anything is possible.
So I'm not going to rule it out, but I wouldn't believe any of the pictures.
So don't believe any videos or any pictures.
That would be my advice.
All right.
So now there are still pictures of cylinders flying everywhere.
Now, unfortunately, a cylindrical tube is the easiest thing to fake if you're going to do like Photoshop or a fake video.
Yeah, I'm trusting the experts again.
Exactly.
So anyway, let me ask the audience.
How many of you believe, literally, that space aliens are here?
Go.
How many of you believe it?
Like, just say yes, I believe that these are actual space aliens.
Oh, it's all nos.
I saw one yes.
They're on the way?
All right, a few yeses, but mostly nos.
All right, that's good.
That's good.
You know what?
Imagine if we had not experienced five straight years of nothing but fake news.
If you had not been trained and primed by fake news of every type, would you be more likely to think there was an alien invasion?
I feel like we were protected by fake news.
The fake news acted as a, what's the word I'm gonna use?
Fill in my word.
Because we had so much fake news, we were primed and, let's say, protected from, let's say, thoughts of a mass hysteria of UFOs invading.
A vaccine, that's right.
Fake news acted as a vaccine so that almost all of you don't believe there's an alien invasion.
That's a real thing.
Just think about that for a moment.
If you had not been primed by five years of fake news, just obviously fake news, you might have actually believed this was an alien invasion.
But now you're all so battle-worn and experienced that you know just because it's in the news, and just because you saw a video, and just because you saw a picture, and just because you saw credible people talking to you on TV, that doesn't mean anything.
In 2023, what is the news value of a credible person telling you something happened that you can't verify?
Zero.
It doesn't matter how credible they are, because everybody's lying on TV.
Every side, every issue, everybody's lying on TV.
It's kind of good.
I think the public is treating the UFO stories and the balloon stories, I think we're treating it as pure entertainment.
Which is exactly how we should treat it.
Am I right?
When I look at the UFO stuff, I don't see it as news per se, I see it as just entertainment.
I don't think it has any impact on anything.
I think that probably there have always been balloon-like things floating around up there, and countries are now just shooting them down to look tough.
Or in the case of Canada, they're asking their big manly neighbor to shoot it down so that they can remain feminine.
And by the way, that is what's happening in Canada.
Am I right?
Mexico is becoming more male.
Canada is becoming more female in attitude, not gender.
And the United States is in the middle and we're being rocked by both of those things.
It's true.
Mexico is your dad.
Canada is your mom.
And America is trying to figure it out.
Like the two or three confused children of those two parents.
That's what it feels like.
All right, so don't believe anything on aliens.
Do you believe that there's a, I don't know, another country threat?
Eric writes, says for $25 on his super chat, he says, looks to me like Operation Space Boner is going way better than China was expecting.
Well, I don't know what it all means, but do you remember when Jesus was born, there was like a north star, and then the three wise men followed it.
And they knew that the star was a sign that the Lord would be born.
But just before this baby Gibbon had its immaculate conception, in the sky we were talking about two things.
One thing shaped like a big egg, The Chinese spy balloon shaped like a big egg.
And the other thing shaped like a big penis.
So in the sky, three wise men.
I have to be at least one of them.
Are there two other wise men to join me?
We'll open it to wise non-binaries too.
Women.
You can be wise women and wise non-binaries.
Anything you like.
But I saw the signs.
I saw the big egg in the sky and the big penis.
And I knew.
That baby Gibbon Jesus was being born in a Japanese zoo.
That's how I knew.
It was sort of obvious if you put the pieces together.
All right.
My ongoing conversation indirectly with Brett Weinstein and Heather Heyer continues.
I think they mentioned something on their podcast.
I haven't heard it yet.
But somebody was arguing their side and said that the fact that some people can consistently win at poker is evidence that Brett Weinstein could figure out what was right or what was wrong about vaccinations and the pandemic because it's possible to consistently win at poker, but only some people.
So if some people can consistently win at poker, Therefore, logically, some people could do what Brett and Heather did, but not everybody.
Because not everybody can win at poker, but some people can do it consistently, which shows they have a method.
Right?
If you can do it consistently, and it's predictable, that means you have a method.
So if Brett can do his thing consistently, that would be a method, and therefore the poker thing proves the point.
How many people accept that strong point?
Strong point?
John says good point.
Scott always mispronounces names, that's true.
Weinstein and Weinstein, I will never... I promise you I'll never get them straight, and that's on me.
That's on me.
But I know my limitations.
Statistics are a thing.
Alright, so here's the real answer.
Poker is an analogy.
There's no logic there.
There's no logic whatsoever.
It's just a story that reminds you of another story.
That's all that is.
It's a story that reminds you of another story in some way.
There's no logic connection at all.
Now, let me tell you why the poker analogy doesn't fit.
Had it been a good analogy, then it wouldn't matter that it was about poker or anything else.
A good analogy might have actually moved things forward.
Here's what's wrong with the analogy.
Poker is a bounded game with rules.
There are just so many things you can do in poker, and that's the only things you can do.
You cannot do anything but what the game allows you to do.
When you're looking at a bounded set of possibilities, it is quite possible that somebody could figure out a tell or a pattern in which this bounded set of possibilities always operates, you know, a certain way, let's say, on average.
However, the real world is not a bounded game.
The real world has infinite possibilities.
So if you compare something where somebody could conquer a limited set of possibilities, you have said absolutely nothing about the real world with unlimited possibilities.
In fact, you've proven that the only place you can do it is where the possibilities are bounded.
That actually works against the point.
If the point is, I can do things in this domain when there's infinite possibilities and new information that could come in, etc., you can't compare them.
So if you fell for that, if when I first described it, you said to yourself, that's a good point.
Some poker players can win, so therefore, maybe Brett has those skills, he's just applied them in a different domain.
If you bought that, I hope you learned something.
Never compare a bounded set of options to an infinite set of options.
It's a real basic comparison mistake.
Now, I tell you over and over again that my skill that I learned in two college courses, I know you hate it when I say that, but it is how to compare things.
Like, I've learned and had jobs in which my only job was to compare the correct two things.
So when I tell you that I see people in the wild comparing the wrong things, I'm the expert.
So if I see a scientist comparing two things that are obviously the wrong things to compare, I'm the expert.
I'm the expert, not the person who made the wrong comparison.
For example, some people said, I looked at the risk of the vaccines and made my decision.
Anybody who understands decision-making knows that that was an irrational process.
Because what you have to compare it to is the other risks, and those were unknown.
All right.
So that happened.
How many of you are bored at CGI movies because they all start looking the same?
Do you remember when you saw Star Wars for the first time, if you're old enough to have remembered that?
When Star Wars was brand new, the very first one, it was just mind-boggling.
Your eyes never shot.
You're like, oh, how'd they do that?
And then it got better and better until, you know, it was Iron Man and all the Marvel stuff.
And the first Iron Man was pretty amazing.
The first Superman movies, pretty good.
Pretty good.
But now if I watch a superhero movie, I watched Black Adam recently.
Watching it, I think, is an exaggeration.
I sort of had it on while I was doing something else.
And it was unwatchable.
The CGI was, I guess, amazing, but it started to look like every other movie.
There's a guy in a tight costume, and he put his hand out, and some stuff came from his hand and made that thing blow up again.
So I don't even watch, if I try to watch an action movie, I fast forward through the CGI.
Do you do that?
I fast forward through all the action because it's just boring.
It looks like every other movie I've seen.
And then I get to maybe a dialogue.
But if it's a dialogue where it's two characters who are trying to act romantically interested, fast forward.
Because there's nothing worse than the movie trying to convince you that the two people love each other so that you'll feel extra bad when one of them dies or is in danger.
And I think, no, I don't want to feel extra bad.
I don't want to be invested in that character.
Fast forward.
Let's just see the funny jokes.
And then I'll go to the dialogue where the hero is just saying clever retorts.
And I'll go, oh, that was good.
Clever retort.
I could watch that.
But here's where this is all going.
It's not about movies.
As you know, AI can make art and it can do it instantly.
And in my opinion, it's already way better than humans.
Not even close, in my opinion.
Now, remember, I'm an artist.
Sort of.
Sort of.
I'm kind of, kind of almost an artist.
Cartoonist.
That counts a little bit.
A little bit.
And in my opinion, AI art is already better than human art by far.
And here's what's going to happen.
It's going to go the way of CGI.
When I looked at examples of AI art, the first time I saw it, I was like, whoa!
Just like I did the first time I saw CGI.
Whoa!
That is amazing.
Second time, same thing.
100th time, same thing.
But already, It's starting to look like not special.
Because once you've seen your thousandth really, really good AI art, it just looks like things are supposed to look like that.
If you can make something that looks like that, why isn't everybody doing it?
It's free.
It's instant.
So I think we're getting to the point where visual art, and I'm going to go further, All art will become meaningless very quickly.
Probably ten years, but maybe five.
Because movies are no longer interesting.
And it's going to go the same way.
Now, somebody gave me an analogy with this.
And as I said, analogies are useless.
Somebody said, well, the radio didn't go away when television came in.
No.
Radio and television were a very small addition to our mental load.
Like it was just something you made a point to look at it once in a while.
So it was always like an exception and special and stuff like that.
So radio was still special, TV was special, but you didn't get too much of either one.
Even if you watched a few hours a day, you didn't get that much of either one.
But AI will just be everywhere.
Like every piece of art, every piece of entertainment, it'll just be AI created and better than anything that humans can make, eventually.
Not yet, but eventually.
And you will just get bored.
Because everything will be excellent.
The reason that art is special is because it's rare.
The reason human art is special is that it's rare.
But as soon as AI can make as much as you want for free, it's not rare, and you're going to see it everywhere.
It's just going to be everywhere.
And you'll be surprised when something doesn't look amazing.
It'll stand out, and you'll say to yourself, Why did you put this advertisement in this publication when all you had to do is push two buttons and AI could have fixed this for you and it was free?
Like anything that isn't excellent will just look like a mistake.
So it'll all be excellent.
Yeah.
So I think all art will actually go away.
Art will go away.
Because it can only exist as an exception.
Does that make sense?
Once there's no such thing as, oh, this one is special, it's just everywhere.
Every advertisement is art, every building will be art, every design will be art, every TV show will be AI, and it'll be pretty good.
Nothing will seem special or interesting.
And I think there's probably a biological reason why we're built this way.
I believe we are biologically designed To identify a genetic advantage in another human.
That makes sense, right?
We are genetically evolved that we can see, oh, that person can shoot a basketball really well.
I want to mate with that person.
That person is really smart.
I want to mate with them.
That person can create art.
I want to mate with them.
So we can spot exceptionalism anywhere.
And I often think that when we're looking at art, We're actually thinking about the mating potential of the creator.
Even though we're not directly thinking of it.
That's the thing that's triggering us.
Is the mating potential of the creator.
That they created something amazing.
Now the art itself can also be breathtaking.
So let me not take away from the art.
The art can be breathtaking.
But the only reason we respond to it is that we're seeing a genetic greatness coming through the art.
That's my hypothesis.
I do think humor will be the last thing that goes to AI, but that when it does, it will be instant.
Humor will not go slowly.
The moment AI can do humor, it will do it like it will replace people, basically.
But we don't know when that will happen.
Could happen soon.
All right, here's a...
I want to see if I can get your agreement on it.
You can't sell any idea to the public until they get a little bit used to it.
Would you agree with that?
That you can't introduce a brand new idea to the public because we reflexively reject anything new.
Would you agree?
Not every person, not every human, not every situation.
But as a public, we reject everything new the first time you hear it.
But over time, would you agree, that if you hear an idea enough, it starts to make sense.
Do you remember the first time you heard about reparations for slavery?
The first time.
Did you say, well that's not going to happen.
Nobody's going to take that seriously.
Right?
But then you just kept hearing it and hearing it and hearing it.
And now there are committees looking into a formula for it.
Like suddenly it went from a ridiculous idea to it just got socialized and became part of the fabric and now it's normal.
Think back to when you first heard that Trump had privately asked his defense secretary, I think, About the option of attacking the cartels directly, militarily.
Do you remember what your first reaction was?
Holy cow, you can't do that!
That would be an invasion of Mexico, that's not going to happen.
And the news treated it like Trump was basically a crazy person.
Right?
Well, I brought up the idea a number of times, and when I brought it up initially, I got the same response.
Which is, yeah, no, you can't attack your neighboring country.
You can't do that.
How about now?
How about today?
Today it's an option, isn't it?
It's an absolute option.
And politicians are talking about it out loud.
It's actually being discussed out loud by traditional politicians.
Right.
That's where we need to get to get anything done about the border and about fentanyl.
You have to get to the point where it feels normal that our military would take out the cartels.
And it's getting there.
So I was asking these provocative questions on Twitter and let me start by saying I do not recommend vigilantism or killing anybody.
So, I do not recommend violence.
I'm just predicting.
Predicting.
The things get worse with fentanyl.
Sooner or later, a bunch of dads with ARs are going to surround a fentanyl dealer's house and light it up.
It's going to happen.
Sooner or later.
And it's going to feel like there was a good reason for it.
When I was provocatively saying, can an American citizen kill a member of the cartel if they find them on American soil?
Even if they're not in the act of threatening anybody.
Can you just kill them for being an enemy invader on your land in a hot war?
And almost everybody said yes.
Think about that.
I asked if Americans should be allowed to kill fentanyl dealers and, let's say, cartel members on American soil if they're not actively threatening somebody at that moment.
And a lot of people said, absolutely.
Yeah, you could kill that person.
That would be self-defense in every definition.
Now, in my opinion, it should be legal.
So I don't recommend it because I don't think it's legal.
But in my opinion, we should change the law and make that legal.
Because it's going to happen anyway.
You just have to make sure the dads get pushed far enough.
You know what I mean?
And by the way, this is a case where I'm not going to say internet dads includes women and everybody else.
This does not include women.
If ever there's this situation, and I predict it will happen, I don't recommend it.
I don't promote it.
I don't recommend it.
But the government has checked out.
The government is allowing the invasion to happen.
It looks like they're promoting it.
So, I mean, their actions would suggest that they want it rather than they want to stop it.
So I think that the inevitable outcome of that will be there will be enough people who have personally lost somebody to fentanyl that they're just going to surround a dealer location and just take them out.
And there will be the beginning.
Here's the other thing that's really pissing me off.
How many right-wing militias are there?
You can stop worrying about your right-wing militias.
If you're on the left and you're worried about right-wing militias, they're not doing anything about an invasion.
There's an actual invasion of the country right now, and there isn't one frickin' militia who has organized to stop it.
None.
And you're worried about them?
They could not be more toothless.
Clearly this is LARPing and some kind of lifestyle preference.
Clearly the militias are not here to protect anything.
If they were here to protect anything, they would be organizing against the cartels.
They'd be doing what the government is not doing for them, which is protecting the country.
Again, I don't recommend militias.
I don't recommend that they act in any way.
I'm just saying that the country is now ready for direct violence.
And I don't care if they're in the country or not.
I'm not recommending it.
I'm saying what I care about.
To be perfectly clear, I would love every American citizen to say in public that they would not vote to convict if they were on a jury.
They would never convict an American for killing a cartel member in the United States, or even in Mexico.
I'd like to see if we have anybody in Congress who isn't useless.
I'd like to see one of them propose a law, a federal law, That says that if you kill a cartel member on American soil, it's legal.
Under any condition.
You don't have to be directly threatened.
Now, such a law could never be passed.
Would you agree?
There's no way Congress would pass a law like that, because it would be violence in the streets.
But we should have the conversation.
We should have the conversation about killing cartel members on American soil.
Citizens doing it.
Because our government has abandoned us.
The government has abandoned you.
They are not working to protect you.
And if we can't do that ourselves, we should at least ask why not?
I'd like to see somebody do a public argument telling us why we can't do that.
Now we can't do it because it's illegal, and I vigorously recommend you don't do anything like that.
But we should have a conversation about making it legal.
Because if the government's abandoning you, you have the absolute right of self-defense.
There is no wiggle room, and right now the government's laws are denying you your natural right of self-defense.
You have a natural right to self-defense.
That's the only natural right I think I believe in.
I'm not a big fan of a thing called natural rights, but the one that's unambiguous is self-defense.
Like, you don't even have to call it a right to say that you agree with it.
It just is.
Like, that's not something you debate.
Self-defense is not a debate.
But I'd like to see the people who are against it try.
I'd like to see what that looks like.
All right, so my main point on this is that the American attitude is changing, and it's going to lead to something.
And my prediction is it's going to be violent.
It has to be.
All right.
What else is happening?
I think that's about it.
Probably the best live stream you'll ever see in your life.
Now remember I told you, and I'll tell you again, that AI is going to change everything.
In a way we cannot predict.
Cannot predict.
But this UFO thing is interesting in its timing, isn't it?
If you were another civilization, let's say an advanced civilization, and you had been watching Earth for hundreds of years or whatever, would you contact the citizens before they had AI?
Or is the introduction of AI, which let's speculate they know is happening, would that be the time you made contact?
Because that's a weird coincidence, isn't it?
That our UFO hysteria is at a peak at exactly the same time the AI is becoming conscious.
I don't know.
That would be sort of a big coincidence if those two things were happening.
Now, I'm still going to go with the UFOs are all fake.
So in case you want to know where I stand, I believe all of the UFOs are fake in terms of aliens.
I don't believe aliens are on Earth.
But, if there are aliens, the version I prefer is that they've always been here.
Always meaning since the beginning of people, but they had to get here somewhere.
Yeah.
My preference is that they've always been here on Earth, and that they live underwater.
That's all.
They just live underwater.
And the reason we can't find them is they live in deep water and it's just deeper than we can detect.
Now, I would not bet on that.
Or maybe they're like Atlantis or something like that.
Now, I wouldn't bet on that.
I would put zero dollars to bet that that's true.
But if there are aliens, it seems more likely that their travel time is limited.
It feels like to have a lot of activity would sort of indicate they're here.
If we saw one thing once, that would suggest it was one ship from a distant planet.
But if there's, you know, stuff swirling around and has been for years, you know, just aliens all over the place, well, then I'd suggest maybe they're already here, just because of the commute time.
Some are interdimensional.
Maybe so.
Maybe so.
Maybe they're just different game players.
Maybe this simulation exists, but people are playing different games on the same field.
Because it's expensive, relatively, to create an entire environment.
But once you've created it, maybe the people who created it said, oh, let's introduce some aliens, We'll put some animals and some people, and you could inhabit any of them.
So as a game player, you could be a human character or an alien character who is visiting.
Now, how many of you think the alien stuff is an intentional distraction?
It's an obvious distraction.
But do you think it's a government-intended distraction?
I don't see any evidence of that.
What I see is a government that doesn't know how to deal with whatever the hell is happening.
All I see is incompetence and uncertainty.
That's all I see.
If you think that the collection of uncertainty and stupidity indicates a ultra-capable government that has secrets, maybe... Maybe they're ultra-capable and ultra-capable of keeping secrets, Maybe.
But what is more likely?
It's more likely that you're just seeing a bunch of uncertainty and incompetence and space garbage.
It's probably just space garbage.
It's probably just, you know, weather balloons that are deactivated that just never came down.
Don't you think?
Plastic bags, weather balloons.
I think we're just going to find out that there's some kind of debris in space.
It always has been.
Always in modern times, anyway.
We were capable enough to blow up the Nord Stream.
Well, I do believe that Americans are capable of blowing shit up.
Yeah.
If you gave us one task, say, all right, here are a hundred tasks.
Number one task, I'd like you to work out this reparations thing so all the public is happy.
Probably, probably not so good at that.
Number two, we'd like you to change your spending habits to bring down the inflation and national debt.
Probably, probably not so good at that.
We'd like you to change the racial animosity in this country and bring down the temperature.
Not so good.
Now let's say we give them the tenth task, which is, we'd like you to blow up some shit.
Do you want it to blow up in a certain way?
Nah, just blow the shit out of it.
Do you think America can do that?
Yes we can.
Yes we can.
We can blow up something no matter where it is.
We can find shit in space and blow it up.
We can find things you didn't even know existed and we'll blow that up too.
There isn't anything we can't blow up.
You got a bridge?
We'll take it out.
You got a jet?
We'll blow it up.
You got a building?
We'll take it.
We'll take it.
We'll blow it up.
Yeah.
Blowing stuff up is what we can do.
High-altitude Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the U.S.
So this is from 2019.
The Pentagon was testing mass surveillance balloons across the U.S.
Now, this article was in The Guardian, so who knows how reliable it is.
But that would fit my hypothesis.
My hypothesis is that there's just tons of shit floating around up there.
Some of it is just garbage, some of it we know about.
But probably we have to shoot down our own surveillance balloons just to show that we're not weak.
I feel like Canada was like, hey, hey, can you shoot down one of our balloons?
Because we don't want to look weak.
We want to look feminine.
So we're going to ask the big, strong United States to shoot it down for us.
Thanks, guys.
All right.
Careful.
Scott is an FBI informant, you're being warned in the comments.
That's totally likely.
All right.
That might be totally what's happening.
Yeah, I'm not joking.
When I say that we may have intentionally shot down one of our own assets to make it look like Biden is decisive and our military is capable, that's a real thing.
I would say that's at least 40% likely.
Maybe not the most likely thing, but it's at least 40% likely we knew we were shooting down our own asset, just to look tough.
If we were unmanned, it would be a pretty inexpensive way to boost your military preparedness illusion.
All right.
YouTube, I think we're done here.
I'm going to go talk privately to the local subscribers.
But on YouTube, you can do me a favor and hit the subscribe button.
Turns out that that's useful.
So hit that subscribe button if you like.
And I'll see you tomorrow on YouTube and we'll talk to the locals people for a bit.
