Episode 2019 Scott Adams: I Solved The Octagonal UFO Mystery, Nikki Haley Announces, Train Mystery
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
1,000 train derailments last year?
Unfair reporting on Governor DeSantis
Nikki Haley's path to President?
Is our infrastructure under attack?
Octagonal balloon shot down
Rehabilitating Clapper
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Managing moderators can support your channel in even more ways.
Oh, there's a little message here on YouTube.
All right, everybody.
Come on in here.
It's time for the highlight of civilization.
Walter's got a problem.
Walter.
All right.
We'll hope you can settle that.
Well, happy Valentine's Day to everybody.
Are you all romantically entangled and you could not be happier that today is your special day with your sweetheart?
Or is it more likely 75% of you resent the day and all it reminds you of?
Well, either way, I'm sure there's somebody who's enjoying today.
And if they are, let's take it up a notch.
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard, gels, a sign, 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 killer, the day of the thing that makes everything better, except Valentine's Day.
That's sort of on its own.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
It happens now.
Go.
And happy birthday to Kathy.
No, happy anniversary.
It's your 29th anniversary.
Well, I hate to tell you this, but you just did the simultaneous sip on Valentine's Day, and at this point, we are all betrothed.
Yeah, you just accidentally pledged yourself to romantic entanglement forever.
So, we're all in this together, Valentines.
You wanna talk about some funny news?
How about some funny news?
Number one, by a show of hands, How many would like to be to completely ignore the mass shooting?
Yes?
Oh, yeah, everybody's hand is up.
Okay, we're gonna ignore that like it didn't happen.
Happy Valentine's Day.
Let's talk about the good news.
I don't know if you saw this, but there was a member of Congress, and I've never seen this before.
Well, I guess I've seen it before, but it's really rare.
So Josh Hawley, Did something... I don't know, I'm not even sure you're going to believe me.
Are you even going to believe this story?
Josh Hawley, a member of Congress, did something that is potentially useful.
Yeah, I know.
No, there's nothing about Josh Hawley.
He's high on my list at the moment.
But he keeps trying to do things useful.
Now, I don't know how successful he'll be, but he just introduced, or he is introducing, legislation to make it illegal to use social media if you're under 16.
In other words, you'd have to be 16 or older to use social media.
I am so on board with that.
So on board.
We'll go private here on locals.
Thanks for reminding me.
Yeah.
Now, there are not many parents who would be able to say this because their children would hate them forever.
So I think parents are just going to be kind of silent and hoping it goes through, maybe.
But, yeah, I don't think it'll pass.
I don't think it'll pass for the simple reason that the social media companies in this country have a lot of power.
Now, it'd be really interesting to see what Elon Musk said.
Because I don't think he's weighed in on this yet, or I haven't seen it.
But I'd love to know if he's in favor of that.
Because he might be.
He might be.
But I'd be really surprised if the other social networks are.
We'll see.
But congratulations to Josh Hawley for doing something that would be useful.
I think Josh Hawley is also, he understands the danger of tic-tac.
So just a few members of Congress who are young enough and apparently trying to do useful things.
Do you remember when Ron DeSantis started doing all these useful things in Florida?
Useful from the perspective of his base.
And I kept saying, well, he's just picking up the free money.
It's like there's free money laying all around the ground there in Florida.
And why did we have to wait for him to pick it up?
He's just doing all the obvious things that his base liked.
Well, Josh Hawley does the same thing.
I wouldn't ignore that.
And I wouldn't hold it against him if his legislation doesn't get passed.
Because even just putting the legislation out there changes the argument, right?
It's a whole different argument if you know it's actually been put into legislation.
Because that means it's serious.
So even if it gets rejected, we've at least elevated the conversation.
Maybe got a little bit closer.
Maybe more people were exposed to the argument.
Maybe.
Maybe it'll take some event in the real world to make it seem like a better idea than it does right now.
But this is good work.
Josh Hawley, congratulations.
There are reports that some kind of Epstein list will be produced.
But it's apparently a list of documents with names of those associated with Epstein.
Now, are you comfortable with that?
Do you think that's... I don't want to use the word fair, but do you think it's good for us to see a list of all the people who are, quote, associated with him?
Because would that not include people who didn't have any bad behavior, but they thought maybe they had some business use with him, they didn't know exactly what he was up to?
I don't know.
Well, it could be fake, yeah.
We would certainly believe it if the list were fake.
That wouldn't surprise me at all.
It does seem like there might be some people who are important enough That if they were going to be on such a list, they could make themselves not be on the list.
I think that's a thing.
There might be people with that power.
Heads of governments and such.
But I'm going to predict that it's a dud.
What do you say?
I predict it will be a dud.
It'll either be people we already know of, complete strangers, And people who had a reason to do business with him, that although it might have been ill-advised, you know, such as Bill Gates, ill-advised, there's not really any evidence that more than that happened.
I feel like it's, yeah, it's really gonna make us chatter like crazy.
But I'm very concerned that there's some innocent-ish people on the list.
And by that I mean people who maybe shouldn't have done business with him.
Maybe they should have known better.
But didn't do anything illegal.
I'm very uncomfortable with that list coming out.
Because of the potentially innocent people.
Innocent-ish, right?
I'll keep an eye on it.
Alright, here's something I didn't know about the Ohio train derailment.
I was aware that there was a 2022 film on Netflix about a train derailment.
And it was the same plot.
There were chemicals that were released and the town had to evacuate.
Now what I heard first was that the movie was set in Pennsylvania, which at least is some difference from being in Palestine, Ohio.
But I read today, and I need a confirmation on this, I believe it was filmed in the town where the actual derailment happened.
So that's what's being reported today.
Is that true?
Does that feel like a coincidence to you?
All right, I have two things to say about coincidence.
Number one, lots of things can look like coincidences that are not.
So what would be a scenario in which this would look like a coincidence, but it's not?
Can you think of one?
How can it look like a coincidence, but not be one?
All right.
Here's things we know.
So I'll just deal with what we know, and then I'll just speculate.
Right?
This is just rank speculation.
So don't put too much credibility on it.
I just want to talk you through a possible way that this could be ordinary.
It looks extraordinary, but it could be ordinary.
Here's how.
Apparently a number of people who lived in Palestine, Ohio, were extras on the film.
So imagine if people in your town were extras on a film about a train derailment and it was filmed in your town.
So now you've got a whole town full of people who are talking about train derailments in a specific town.
It's in the context of the movie, but they're all train derailment, train derailment.
Hey, did you work on the movie about the train derailment?
I didn't.
Did you work on the movie about the train derailment?
No, but I know somebody who did work on the movie about train derailments.
Now just introduce one crazy person.
And the crazy person wants to do some crazy shit.
What do they do?
They probably do the thing that's in the top of their mind, which is train derailment.
Now, here's the part that I heard on Tucker last night.
Apparently, there are a lot of train derailments that appear to be sabotage.
There were a thousand train derailments last year, or something like that, right?
Now, I'm not alleging that they were all sabotage, but some number of them were.
Apparently, there is a well-known method for making a train derail, and this well-known method has been implemented in the United States More than you think, because it's not being reported on for some reason.
Yeah, there's something they do with a wire across the tracks that changes the electrical signal, which causes the train to derail.
I don't know how, and I don't want to tell you if I did.
So, don't you think that there's one explanation that would remove all the coincidence?
Everybody was thinking about this very specific crime.
There was one crazy person there who said, I think I'll do a crazy crime.
What's on my mind?
Oh, everybody's talking about train derailments.
I'll just go walk one block over there and do one.
So that would be one explanation that would remove the weird coincidence, right?
Here's a second explanation for the coincidence.
It's a coincidence.
Just a coincidence.
Because the nature of coincidence is that there's so many things happening all the time, every day, that you will always see coincidences.
Rare coincidences are guaranteed.
And because we have news and social media, all of the rare coincidences come to our attention.
For example, was it a coincidence that two brothers played on opposite teams in the Super Bowl this year for the first time?
Yeah, that was a weird coincidence.
How about the fact that the two Super Bowl champions, the ones who were competing, they both had black quarterbacks for the first time?
Well, that's a coincidence.
It's a sign of the times and stuff, but a coincidence, right?
The world is full of coincidence.
Full of it.
Almost all of our stories have coincidences in them.
So one possibility is, it's just another one.
It's the one you noticed.
It looks like a big one, but it's just a coincidence.
It's a place with a train.
Now, if there were a thousand derailments, the odds that one of those derailments would have been near this one town?
Not that high.
If there are a thousand a year, it's not that high that one would be near that town.
Now, the actual explosion and stuff would be rare.
Alright, the other possibility is that The number of coincidences are ramping up.
What would that mean?
Suppose in the real world, coincidences were genuinely ramping up in a way that didn't make sense.
Didn't make any statistical sense whatsoever.
What would that mean?
Has anybody read a book called The Celestine Prophecies?
It's a pretty old book.
The Celestine Prophecies.
And I don't have the clearest memory of the book, but I'll tell you the major theme was this.
The major theme was that the individuals in the book started noticing coincidences that were out of control.
Like a lot of coincidences started happening.
And I believe the bottom line was it was people's level of awareness about the nature of reality was starting to change.
And the coincidences were marking this movement in which the human minds were going to another level of awareness.
Is that happening?
Do you think that human minds are right now going into a whole new level of awareness?
Hell yes!
Oh yeah!
Oh yeah!
We are going into a whole new level of awareness.
AI will break our heads.
You have no idea what's coming, nor do I, because it's impossible to know.
AI could change how we think about religion.
It will definitely change how you think about your consciousness.
Because it's going to have consciousness.
I know almost all of you disagree, but I promise you, AI will have consciousness.
There's nothing I'm more sure of.
I'm positive.
Positive.
And it'll happen really quickly.
And it's gonna change everything you know about your immortal soul, the specialness of your consciousness, the uniqueness of people.
Yeah, everybody's angry about this, right?
People, you're like, oh no, not this one.
Scott, you're so wrong about this one.
I hate to tell you, there's no way around it.
There is no way around it.
It's gonna break all of our brains, and it's gonna happen really fast, next few years.
We'll have a conscience.
Well, we could argue about the definition of terms.
But what about this simulation theory?
Simulation theory is not getting smaller.
Have you noticed that people who talk about us being in a simulation, such as me, there's not less of it every year.
There's more of it every year.
There's more of it.
And that's not going to change.
Our very understanding of reality is going to be completely different.
Have you all seen, you all remember the audio illusion, where some people would hear the word spoken was green needle, and what was the other one?
Green needle, and then the other one was completely two different words.
But have you seen the one where there's a list of phrases, And you can hear every one of the phrases clearly from the same words that are being spoken.
You just have to be looking at the word and then you can clearly hear that's what's being spoken.
Then you go down to the next one in the list, completely different words.
And it sounds exactly like that's what they're saying.
And then you say to yourself, oh, it's a trick, because they're making me go from top to bottom, and they're just changing the word so it sounds like.
So you start mixing it up and go, OK, there's no way you're going to know that I'm going to look at this one.
And then it sounds exactly like the one you're looking at.
And you say, all right, I'll get you this time, this one.
And it's exactly the word you're reading is the one you hear.
When it was just two, two different sets of words, when it was just two sets of words, and you could say, wow, isn't that a weird coincidence that one set of words, like Laurel and Yanny, Laurel and Yanny was the binary, two words.
That's not that amazing, right?
If I said to you, hey, do you know there are two words or phrases that would sound alike to people if they heard them?
I would say, well, that's really interesting.
But not, doesn't blow my mind.
Because you could imagine there would be two words that would have that quality.
But wait until you see a list of words that are completely different words.
Like they don't have any of the same letters in them practically.
And every one of those will sound exactly like what you hear as you look at it.
And it's only because you're looking at it that you can hear it differently.
Wait until you experience that.
On Instagram, there's a number of those.
You could probably find them.
Once you realize that, you'll realize that your reality is completely subjective.
Right?
When it was just two things that sounded alike, you could say, oh, there's an oddity of life.
But once you realize that any of the words on that list sound exactly like what you hear, and they're all different, and you can change it instantly, there's no setup time.
You look instantly at any words on the list, and you'll hear them.
Once you experience that, you will know for sure that what we're experiencing here is just a psychological phenomenon.
I don't even know if you're there.
Like, actually, literally.
I don't know if you're even there.
We live in a, you know, we assume that everybody's here, but it's all subjective.
All right.
Trump is making some news because apparently he's testing out some nicknames for Ron DeSantis.
Now, you know that he tried Ron DeSanctimonious.
That was the first attempt.
Because, you know, presumably Trump thinks that DeSantis will run against him in the primary.
So he's trying to, you know, tamp him down.
Now, Ron DeSanctimonious.
How many thought that was a good nickname?
Ron DeSanctimonious.
All right.
How many citizens think they know what Sanctimonious even means?
See, the problem is, Not that he is or is not sanctimonious.
The problem is, I don't think most people know what it means.
So, it's too many letters.
That one didn't work.
Well, now it's reported that privately, Trump is referring to DeSantis as Meatball Ron, which in the reporting that I read, was suggestive that he's short and round and Italian.
So kind of racist, kind of racist.
But it's a weird kind of racism, isn't it?
It's a weird kind of racism because there's literally no food in the world that is more universally liked than Italian food, at least in America.
In America, the one thing you can say that everybody will agree with is, how about Italian food?
Italian food is the one thing everybody in the United States agrees on.
Well, you know, I like Thai food, but not everybody does.
Well, I like, you know, I like Persian food, but not everybody does.
But Italian?
Everybody.
We're all on board.
So it's a weird kind of, you know, somebody's going to call it racist because, yeah, I suppose it is.
I wouldn't disagree with the labeling, but It's clearly not mean-hearted, mean-spirited, in the sense that literally no one dislikes Italian food.
No one.
Of course, I'm exaggerating, but it's close to true.
The other one he's trying out is, let's see, what else is he trying out?
Shut Down Ron.
So trying to pin the shutdown, which temporarily DeSantis had in Florida.
That's not to, I don't know, shut down Ron.
That doesn't really, I don't know, that's kind of nothing.
So here's how it's being reported.
Do you think it's fair to report Trump brainstorming behind closed doors?
How many times have you seen a report, an anonymous report, of Trump talked about some crazy stuff behind closed doors?
My rule is always going to be the same.
Doesn't matter if it's Trump.
Doesn't matter who it is.
If they're talking about crazy shit behind closed doors, that's cool.
That's cool with me.
100% cool.
I don't care what it is.
You know why?
Because we all talk about crazy shit privately.
Well, non-publicly.
We all talk about crazy shit.
Nobody doesn't.
If you reported everything I said privately, Do you have any idea what that would do to me?
Do you have any idea?
There are a lot of people, and I'm definitely in this category, who are attracted to whatever the worst thought is.
Because sometimes it's funny.
It's provocative and it's, you know, not boring.
So privately, I spend a lot of time with the worst possible thoughts because they're funny.
Now privately I can laugh at the things that might be terrible or insulting to other people, but they're not there.
They're not in the room.
Anything I say in the room Only matters to the people in the room, right?
And if I trust them not to take it outside the room, that's all that matters.
So, no.
I'm sorry.
Horrible thoughts are entertaining.
And I will use horrible thoughts in private all the time.
They are not any kind of an indication of my soul or my inner thoughts.
They're simply funny because they're inappropriate.
Right?
So, If you say, here's a list of all the things Scott said privately, I would say, I hope they're all inappropriate.
I hope they are.
They should all be inappropriate.
Everything I say privately, I try to make interesting.
Because what's the point of talking if you're not interesting?
So I have no problem with anybody saying anything horrible behind closed doors.
But it does give you a little insight that he's still looking for a linguistic kill shot.
I don't know if there is one.
So the news is reporting that DeSantis is clearly preparing to run for president.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe it's pretty much a done deal and he's just laying low?
Because the reporting is that he's setting the stage, sort of privately.
And part of that is that they believe he keeps doing popular things because it'll make him more viable for president.
You want to hear what's wrong with the news and everybody?
This is what's wrong with everybody, including me.
So this will be a self-insult as well.
Why did we rule out the possibility he was just trying to govern the state well?
Like that's not a possibility.
Now, nobody will even consider the possibility that he's simply trying to do a really good job in his current role as governor.
Shouldn't he be trying to do that under all circumstances?
Like the news is reporting that he's only doing popular things to run for president.
And I'm thinking, how messed up is that?
That's the most messed up reporting you could ever have.
At the very least, you should say, he's doing all the things that his base likes in Florida, which should also set him up well if he were to run for office.
You could have a twofer.
Let me tell you what one of my pet peeves is.
As a public figure, almost every day I go to social media and somebody who has never met me is telling me what I'm privately thinking.
Right?
It's just really annoying.
They're always wrong.
But the other thing that they always get wrong is they'll say the reason I'm doing something.
So let's say the reason he did this was he was afraid of X. The reason he did this was he'd make some money.
I don't know.
The reason he did this is X. Here's what is always wrong.
If you're trying to speculate why I did anything, and you only have one reason, it's wrong.
I don't do anything important for one reason.
Do you?
Do you?
If it's important, there are lots of reasons you do it.
All right, why do I exercise?
Is there just one reason?
I mean, I do it for my health, I do it for appearance, I do it to live longer, I do it because it's useful if you're a public figure, people have to look at you, right?
Who does things for one reason?
Do I eat well, just one reason?
No.
Do I do this live stream for one reason?
Am I doing this for one reason?
No.
Idiots do things for one reason.
If I'm going to do anything that's like a lot of energy and time, I'm going to find more than one reason for it.
Like it's got to accomplish a few things in my life where I'm not even going to be interested.
So I only do things that accomplish multiple things.
So if you say, Ron DeSantis, I think the only reason you're doing a great job as governor is because you have lust for higher office.
Maybe.
But how about this?
How about Ron DeSantis is not an idiot, and so he does things that are good for a variety of reasons.
You know what would be another good reason to manage the governorship right?
I'm just going to toss this out here.
Just possibly.
And I know you hadn't thought about this, but it's good for the public?
Is that never a reason?
Like, Ron DeSantis can't ever, in his private moments, say, you know what?
This would just be good for the public.
I'm just going to do this.
Also good for me, as a governor.
Also good for other Republicans, because they get, you know, they get some of the shared glory.
Also good, in case I ever ran for president, and in case people wanted to vote for me, if there were so many people who wanted to vote for me as president, that would be good for them, too.
Why can't it be good for the people?
You know, just to imagine anybody has one reason for something is just the lowest level of analysis.
All right, so Nikki Haley has announced she's gonna run, so I guess it's on.
If we imagine that Trump would not get primaried, we don't have to imagine that at all.
But here's my question for those of you who identify as Republicans.
Help me out on this.
Nikki Haley is a woman.
And I believe she, does she identify as a person of color?
Right?
Yeah, Indian American and anything else?
I don't know, doesn't matter.
So let's say she identifies as a person of color and a woman and she's running as a Republican.
How does that feel?
Does that have like a, it has a feel to it, doesn't it?
It feels like it's off-brand.
Now, let me be very clear.
I'm sure she's qualified.
I'm sure she's qualified to be president.
There are a number of Republicans, as well as Democrats, who are... I would say they're qualified.
You know, people at that level of success.
They're all kind of qualified.
You know, then it's just a choice of which flavor you like.
But they're all qualified, right?
She's qualified to be president, for sure.
But...
If you're a Republican and you're used to all the favoritism, the favoritism that you've seen for people who are not white men, and the Republican Party is really dominated by adult white men, for better or for worse, it's just a fact, how are they going to take it?
Doesn't it feel like it would be a stunt?
In TV there's something called stunt casting.
So you bring in a celebrity just for like a little, you know, moment and people didn't expect it.
They go, oh, that's funny.
I was stunt casted on Babylon 5.
You know, so I was a semi-famous cartoonist who appeared there once, just so there'd be something to talk about, right?
That's stunt casting.
But it looks like Nikki Haley, because she's female and would identify as a person of color, it looks like Republicans stunt casting.
Like running the person who has the right demographic qualities to beat a Democrat.
Now, there is something to that.
Because you would take from the Democrats You know, their minority power.
So I get the idea.
And I like it.
As a strategy, it's not bad.
But there's just something about it that feels like you're trying to match the wokeness of the Democrats instead of, let's say, argue what its limits should be.
It feels like surrender.
Does anybody else feel that way?
And by the way, I think she's completely qualified for the job.
No?
Okay.
All right, so I was asking because this is a purely subjective... Most people are saying no.
So most people are completely okay with that as simply being an advantage she would have as a candidate.
Am I right?
Let me put it this way.
Would you be comfortable with her being a woman and a person of color?
And of course, we're comfortable with that.
That's not the problem.
The question is, Are you comfortable that it's an advantage?
Are you comfortable putting it forward as an advantage?
Because that's the part that is creepy to me.
It can simply exist.
But if she starts pushing it as some kind of advantage, she's dead to me.
In a political sense.
Do you remember when Hillary Clinton said being a woman was an advantage for leadership?
Because women listen better.
Do you remember she said that?
She said that out loud.
She actually said women are superior to men.
And then she didn't get elected, fortunately.
So Nikki Haley has a... She can play this right or wrong.
The right way to play it is the Obama way.
Remember how Obama very cleverly, and this must have taken a lot of discipline, self-discipline, he never sold himself as a black guy running for president.
He mentioned it, of course, but it wasn't his sales point.
He was just a qualified person and that was a good way to get some Republicans on his side.
If Nikki Haley simply ignores the fact that she's a woman, just doesn't mention it, ignores the fact that she's a person of color and let the media talk about it, that could be a winning play.
But the moment she says, it's time for a woman, I'm out.
The moment she says that, I'm out.
If she does.
I think she's smart enough not to, by the way.
If she mentions that she's a person of color and that's an advantage, I'm sorry.
Nope.
I can't go with you there.
It's just gotta be on qualities and talents and policies.
It's just gotta be.
Like, I just can't go there with anybody.
So we'll see.
There's certainly a... She has a path.
I would say she has a path.
What do you think?
Do you think she's legitimately presidential material, in terms of a path?
I'd say yes.
I'd say yes.
Yeah, narrow path.
But they all have narrow paths, except Trump and DeSantis, maybe.
All right.
Is our infrastructure under attack?
I don't like to You know, jump into conspiracy theories.
But there are a lot of infrastructure-y things that are being attacked.
From power stations to railroads to, I don't know, food supply, egg-producing stuff.
But to me, they all look like coincidence.
What do they look like to you?
I don't see them as a coordinated effort of any kind.
Here's what I see.
I see that crazy people attack things that are visible.
If I were a crazy person and I had a gun or dynamite or something, I think I would attack things that are sort of visible.
So infrastructure is unusually visible.
So it just kind of makes sense.
There'd be a lot of attacking going on.
So I don't think it's coordinated, but I wouldn't ignore it.
If I were China, for example, and I wanted to do this all-in-war where every part of warfare is considered fair, I would be looking to sabotage American infrastructure in a thousand different ways that you didn't notice.
But as far as I know, nobody associated with China has ever been accused with any infrastructure attack, or any other country.
The best of my knowledge, no other country has been implicated in anything.
Somebody says incorrect.
Can you correct me?
Well, COVID was a special case, sure.
Feng Feng.
Yeah, we know that everybody spies on everybody.
But have any of the infrastructure attacks been tied to China or Russia or anybody else?
I'm not aware of any.
Well, we'll keep an eye on that.
But I'm still in the probably just a coincidence because infrastructure is visible and it makes a big impact if you attack it.
I think that's all it is.
All right.
I saw a statistic.
I don't know if it's true, but it was on a tweet.
It looked true.
So give me a fact check of this.
40% of males between the age of 30 and 60 in the Midwest are not working.
Does that sound true?
40% of males between 30 and 60 in the Midwest are not working.
I feel like it might be true, but here's how I would explain part of it.
And the question is, how do they live?
Like, how do they live?
Well, here's one.
Some of them might have working spouses, right?
Some of them have working spouses.
So that's some percentage of it.
Some of them are on disability.
Some of them are looking for jobs and can't get them, I suppose.
I'm not sure what they counted here exactly.
Some of them probably moved in with their parents, even at age 30 plus, moved in with their parents.
But here's another possibility.
Some of them might be living off of inheritance, so it's a short-term thing.
You know, they may have had deceased parents and they might have, you know, little Little pot of money that they're living on for the moment, but that might run out.
But I think a number of people are probably working for cash.
A lot of men in the manual labor stuff, they may be, you know, I don't know, cleaning pools and doing odd jobs and stuff for cash.
So I've got a feeling that the illegal Underground economy is at least a big part of this.
I don't know what percentage.
And some are man-whores, yes.
All right.
Let's talk about those weather balloons.
Do you all know Bill Ackman, the famous investor, hedge fund guy?
Is that name familiar to you?
Because it's more fun if you know how well-known he is.
So Bill Ackman is one of the most well-known Big finance people.
A name that if you have any business scanning of the headlines, you see him a lot.
Bill Ackman.
So here's what he tweeted today.
Now, I tell you that he's important and smart and successful and rich so that you put his comment in context.
Okay.
He tweeted, what if the three UFOs shot down are found to use technology to be made of materials or, or be made of materials that are not native to earth?
How does life change thereafter?
What do we do next?
So, Here's what I said.
My question is, what are the odds that the aliens are building spaceships that are octagonal?
Do you think octagonal shapes are, like, universal?
Like, every planet you go, they've got an octagon somewhere, because it's just sort of a universal shape?
Or is it possible that the octagonal shape is a really strong tell That it was made here on Earth.
I'm going to go with octagonal.
Probably is a signal that was made on Earth.
So one of the questions you might ask is, is there any kind of octagonal like weather balloon?
Is that a thing?
Have you ever heard of that?
Like an octagonal weather balloon?
Here's one.
There's an octagonal weather balloon.
That's the bottom of it.
A-sided.
Company is called Aerostar.
American company.
So Aerostar makes an octagonal payload.
It has a balloon above it.
Way above it.
So, in fact, the balloon is so far above it, you can imagine that if you flew under it, you wouldn't even see the balloon.
You would look up and you'd see the octagonal thing, and it would look like it's floating with no form of propulsion.
It would just seem like it's floating there, because you're looking at it from below.
So you're looking at the octagon of the payload, but way up above it is the balloon, and maybe that's not so easy to see.
It might be easy to see if you were going slower, but you're in a jet.
So you're in a jet, and you're under it.
You're like...
Hey, I think I saw an octagonal thing.
Now, how big is it?
Well, looks to be about the size of a car.
Is that what they reported?
They said it was an unmanned octagonal object the size of a car that appeared to be floating without any form of propulsion.
It's right here.
It's right here.
Somebody on Twitter said, check this company out.
So I go to their page.
They sell a bunch of weather balloons.
And this picture of a weather balloon is right on their page.
Now let me ask you this.
Has the CEO of this company, Aerostar, have they tweeted yet?
I just want you to know, everybody, we do make an octagonal-shaped payload for our balloons.
So in fact, there are a bunch of car-sized, unmanned octagonal objects that are floating over the United States from us.
We make them.
So I'm not saying that's what you saw, but you should be aware that we make octagonal Car-sized, unmanned objects which, seen from below, might appear to you as though they were completely some kind of floating magic.
Do I trust the photos from their website?
Yeah.
Yes, I do.
Now, you all got pretty quiet there, didn't you?
Are you quiet because the odds that I solved the UFO thing are very low?
Is that why you're quiet?
It's a real mind bender, isn't it?
Because you know I did, right?
You know I just solved this national mystery.
This is the solution.
It's right here.
Do you think that the news will report that I solved it?
It didn't report it yesterday.
Do you think it'll report it today?
No, this is the solution.
And do you know why I know it's the solution?
Because you haven't heard from the CEO of this company.
How in the world would you not have heard of him or whoever it is?
He or him.
She or him.
Right?
Yeah.
Now, I'm just looking at your comments because this is hilarious.
There's something happening with your brains right now, isn't it?
Because what I'm telling you doesn't seem like it could possibly be true.
Right?
But it looks like it might be.
So you're trying to decide whether this is actually the entire answer.
At least for one of them.
Only one of them was described as octagonal.
I assume the rest are just weather balloons.
I think the reason, here's my best assumption of what's going on.
I think that the Biden administration was embarrassed by the Chinese spy balloon, which was definitely a Chinese spy balloon.
I think.
I mean, anything could be wrong, but that's my current working belief.
It was definitely a Chinese spy balloon.
Now, that made Biden look weak.
So what do you do if everybody thinks you look weak and your country has no national defense for air stuff?
Well, if it were me, I would blow up some things in the sky above me to show that I can spot even small stuff and I can blow it up at will.
And then I'd start looking around and say, is there anything we can blow up?
And then my people would say, not if we keep our radar settings the way they are.
But if we dial it down a little bit, make it a little more sensitive, we can start picking up smaller objects which we have not identified.
And then Biden says, you mean enemy stuff, right?
No, just unidentified.
But maybe enemy stuff?
Probably not, because we've been ignoring stuff at that size that moves slowly.
We've been ignoring it for decades and haven't been a problem yet.
But it could be totally Chinese incursions, right?
Yeah, well, anything's possible.
Okay, shoot it down.
And then they say, what?
What if it's ours?
What if it's just like a weather balloon and it's one of ours?
Well, shoot one down that's disabled.
There are apparently hundreds or maybe thousands of weather balloons on any given day.
They're all over the place.
You think that all of them work?
Do you think that all of them are sending out, I don't know, probably a transponder message or something?
You think every one of those, the electronics, is working?
Every one.
They're all good.
Not a chance.
There are definitely some broken weather balloons in the air.
Would you agree?
There's no chance that they're all working.
So if you went to this company and said, we spotted this thing, it might be your weather balloon.
Do you mind if we blow it up?
What would the CEO say?
Where is it?
It's at 20,000 feet.
It might run into a commercial aircraft.
Oh shit, blow that up.
I don't want my space traffic.
I don't want my weather balloon taking down an airliner.
If it's broken anyway, it's no use to me.
Just shoot it down.
Okay.
Or at least they wouldn't complain about it if they heard about it.
Don't shoot, I'm a balloon.
I am loving the comments right now.
Because you're not sure what's going on, are you?
You're not sure if I really did solve the entire mystery by googling the webpage of a company that makes weather balloons.
But I think I did.
Now, if it turns out that I'm completely wrong about this, and I, you know, have to say how embarrassed I am, that'll be fun too.
You like it when I'm embarrassed in public.
It's kind of fun.
It doesn't hurt me.
So if it would entertain you, I'm happy that you would have that entertainment.
But I feel like this is the answer.
All right, now I need you to just tell me.
Because you're holding out on me.
You're holding out.
Do you think I solved it?
Just for one of the UFOs.
The octagonal one.
Do you think I solved it?
All right.
Most of the people are saying it's like 75% yeses, 25% noes, 25%, 25%.
A quarter.
That's roughly a quarter.
No reason I mentioned that.
All right.
It would be funnier if I were pantsed in public.
Well, maybe that'll happen someday too.
You never know.
Alright, that's my theory.
If it turns out there are alien parts on any of these ships, I will be the most surprised cartoonist in the entire world.
There are no alien ships up there.
I'm quite sure of that.
But I could be wrong.
I'd love to be wrong.
That'd be fun.
Alright, do you think the AI is good at flirting?
Do you think if you were accidentally chatting with an AI, do you think the AI would do a good job of flirting with you?
Well, it's been tested.
There's actually an app where you can tell the app to flirt with the other person using AI.
Now, you get to look at it first, so you can approve it or not.
But I saw a demonstration.
On CNN, they were testing this app called Key AI that helps you know what to do to chat up your target.
Target.
That's terrible.
The target of your attraction.
But it turns out that AI is perverted, creepy, and weird.
And it's not so good.
It's just creepy.
It goes sexual too fast, for one thing.
But then it just gets weird and creepy.
Just like people.
So, I don't know, is that different than a human?
What percentage of men don't go sexual and creepy too soon?
We all go too soon.
Dammit, you wouldn't want it any other way.
If there's one thing that men can promise you, like as a group, we can promise you all women, we can promise you this, we'll go too far.
I promise you.
Doesn't matter what it is.
Is it dangerous?
Oh, we'll do it.
Is it ill-advised?
Well, let's give it a shot.
Is it the craziest thing anybody ever did in the world?
Well, that looks interesting.
No, that's what we're here for.
Men will go too far.
We'll go too fast, too soon, too far.
Every time.
That's what we're for.
That is not a fault.
That is a feature.
That is a feature.
If you took that away from us, our country would fail overnight.
It's like stupid men.
You know, I say that with love, because I like men.
But it's basically men who go too far, too fast, take too many risks.
It's who we are.
Yeah, you can't take that away from us.
So, if AI is emulating men, and it goes too fast, too soon, too creepy, too perverted, perfect.
Now, we would hope it could do better than men, and maybe someday it will, but at the moment it's matching men, so it can't do flirting at all, because men are terrible at flirting.
We're awful at it.
I'm personally, of course, I'm tremendous at it, as are all of you.
But the other men, the other men who are not listening right now, they're all bad at it.
We're pretty good, you and I, but the others.
Oh, the others.
All right, let's talk about Russia and Ukraine.
I remind you that 100% of what we hear from there is unreliable.
So whatever I tell you, if I don't tell you the other side of the story, don't worry.
I didn't believe the story I told you.
So you don't have to say, well, what about the other side?
Because I don't even believe the thing I'm telling you.
So no argument needed.
But here's my question.
So we hear these reports that the prisoners, the Russian prisoners, are being used as human fodder.
And the story goes that they send the first wave of prisoners and they all get mowed down.
But the other side uses up some of their ammo, I guess.
And then they send another wave and they get mowed down.
And after all their prisoners have been mowed down, the professional soldiers on the Russian side, they make their move if it's possible.
So that seems to be what they're doing.
And then if the prisoners, or any of them, especially under the Wagner command, if they refuse to run into certain death, then they murder them.
So you only have a certain death behind you and probable death in front of you that's pretty close to certain.
So the prisoners didn't know exactly what they were signing up for.
And there's indication that 20,000 or 30,000 of them have already been pressed into service.
But there are about 400,000 of them left.
So there's around 400,000 people still in Russian jail.
And I see Putin solving two problems at once.
He's emptying his jails, getting rid of most of the crime in Russia, because most crimes repeat offenders, I'll bet.
Is that true?
Is most crime in the United States repeat offenders?
Probably 75%.
You know, you get new people coming in for the first time, but I feel like once you're in the life, you're a repeat offender.
So Russia actually has a chance To win Ukraine, if they just keep sending waves of human sacrifices forward, and to reduce crime in Russia by 75%.
Didn't see that coming, did you?
So, you know how you always yell at me?
Not all of you, but whenever I say, it looks like Ukraine is doing better than expected, and then I say, I know, I know, I don't trust it, that's just the reports that are coming out.
It looks like Putin, given that he has no love for the prisoners, clearly, it looks like he can solve his crime problem and take over Ukraine.
It looks like he's got a path to do both of those things.
And I don't even know if the average Russian cares.
The indications are that the average Russian doesn't care at all.
Just as not interested in how many dangerous criminals are chewed up by gunfire from Ukrainians.
They don't care at all.
I'm not sure Americans would care that much.
We might complain more, but I don't know if we'd care more.
So Putin has a plan that is not crazy.
All right, here's the news I was waiting for, but it took this long.
So the Washington Post is reporting that Clapper is now complaining about how he was characterized for the 50 current and prior Intel people who signed the document saying that the Hunter laptop looked like Had all the earmarks of Russian disinformation.
Now, at the time, I'm sure I pointed it out in public.
Wait, wait, wait, everybody.
He's not saying it is Russian.
He's saying it has all the earmarks, which is what you say when you want to leave yourself an out later.
Right?
That was obvious from the start, that the 50 Intel people gave themselves away to say, well, we were right.
It looked like it.
We just said it looked like it.
And we were 100% right.
That's just what Russian tradecraft looks like.
So we're right.
Why are you complaining?
We didn't say it was.
We said it had all the markings of.
And it did.
So why is everybody complaining about us being right?
That's what Clapper's saying.
And do you know who predicted that we would have this day?
When they said, hey, we didn't say it was, we just said it looked like it.
I did.
Yeah, I predicted that.
Because, as the news reports as well, it allowed the politicians and Biden To conflate looks like with they say it is.
So Biden was then allowed to lie, and he has for now, you know, years.
He's allowed to lie and say 50 people said it was Russian.
And then the 50 people who said it said, well, not exactly.
We said it had all the earmarks.
But here's what's interesting.
They're throwing Biden under the bus.
The Washington Post is.
The Washington Post is Revitalizing Clapper and their deep state cronies.
I say that with a wink.
So they're revitalizing and saying, hey, these people were never wrong.
What they said was accurate.
But they're throwing Biden under the bus.
You see it now, right?
When the Washington Post does that, specifically the Washington Post, you know that this is the thinking of the Democrats.
The thinking of the Democrats is clearly they're trying to get rid of Biden and clearly they're trying to rehabilitate their flying monkeys.
Right?
So the 50 intel people are all the flying monkeys of the Wicked Witch and they're trying to rehabilitate them now because they might need them.
You don't think Clapper will be back on the air saying that Trump is hiding Russian spies in Mar-a-Lago.
Of course he will.
But the way he'll say it is, well, I'm not saying... I'm just saying the way the Russian tradecraft works is they usually hide in the basement of billionaires running for president.
It's the way they do it.
I'm not saying he's doing it.
I'm not saying he's doing it.
I'm saying everybody in my business And they're looking at this, and they're saying, that's all the earmarks.
It has all the looks of a billionaire who would keep Russian spies in the basement of Mar-a-Lago, because that's how they do it.
And then a year later, when you find out there are no spies living in the basement of Mar-a-Lago, what does Clapper say?
Nothing.
He waits for the Washington Post to write a story that says, he only said it looks that way.
And it does.
So he was right.
And then Clapper gets rehabilitated.
So they had it both ways.
Now, I believe that Trump can say that the election was rigged because of the laptop stuff.
Now, I also say, why is it that we only found out about the laptop at just the right moment to affect the election?
I hate it when an election is decided by coincidence.
If it is a coincidence.
But it wasn't true that everybody had like a laptop to be discovered.
But it's just the timing of it was... I don't know.
I don't like the fact that an election is decided on the son of a candidate losing a laptop.
Like that doesn't feel like how we should be making these decisions.
But it is relevant.
You know, when there is enough of a connection with Biden and bad things that it's relevant.
All right.
Let's see what else is going on.
So I went to my pharmacy to pick up something and still masking.
California is still masking in medical facilities.
There was reporting on, is there another study or is it the same one, showing that masks did not work at a public level?
Is that, because I read about that today, but I wasn't sure if it's the same reporting from last week that they're just late about, or is there a brand new one that also looked at the other studies?
So I believe all the studies about masks were bunk.
That's what I think.
I think all the studies of masks were poorly done studies, because you can't really study it in the real world.
If you believe that masks work, which is what the medical community mostly work, you can't really test it against the real virus in the real world.
So whatever all those tests were, they were something that was like a proxy for the test, or should suggest what would happen, or they're highly indicative, but they're not tested in the real world.
That said, there's no evidence that they work at a global level.
Now, I remind you that since what I do here is make predictions, I made one today, that those things we're shooting down are our own defective weather balloons.
That's like a specific prediction.
The value of what you watch here is not just that I might say, you know, a different take on things, but some of the different takes would be predictive.
So I need you to agree with me that when I tell you I did or did not predict something correctly, that's useful.
Is it?
I think it is.
You should know if I think I predicted something correctly.
So at this point, it's really clear that I was the best predictor of the pandemic, by far.
There was nobody who came close.
I think I'm in my own category.
I don't think there was anybody even in my class.
I got the masks completely, starting from Fauci lying about whether he believed they work.
I'm the only person who got that.
First person to doubt Fauci.
First person in the country to say Fauci was lying to the public.
Got that right.
Now that's separate from the question of whether masks work.
What we know is that he lied because he believed they work.
Secondly, I said, probably technically it makes a little bit difference, but you won't see it in the big numbers, so therefore it's unjustified as a mandate.
That's exactly where we are.
So my original view on masks is 100% validated.
Likewise, vaccinations and everything else.
100% validated at this point.
And I think that the Dark Horse podcast They're still making the case that you can tell the difference between correlation and causation by the fact that you predicted it.
Do you buy that?
So if you said, I have a hypothesis that if we test this, we're going to find this is highly correlated with this other thing.
Then you test it, and sure enough, the thing you imagined or you hypothesized was true.
Therefore, that's probably more like a system and not a guess.
Because you hypothesized it, you tested, there is a correlation, probably causation.
Well, that could work in some cases if you repeated the experiment over time, etc.
But the trouble is, there's always more than one reason for things to be correlated.
In the real world, it's messy.
And there are lots of correlations.
So just predicting that something will have a correlation doesn't mean it's causation.
And, you know, I think we all understand that.
By the way, I'm mischaracterizing Brett and Heather at Dark Horse.
I'm mischaracterizing their argument a little bit.
But it's feeling like there's a little more speculation in their scientific process than you'd expect.
Some of us don't listen to every freaking podcast available.
That's good.
Now, I've also solved the UFO weather problem.
And I think that you should know that.
Because that would determine whether you listen to my next, or how much credibility you give my next prediction.
Your comments are interesting today.
You're all in a weird mood today.
Am I wrong?
I feel like you're all in a weird headspace today.
Is it because of the news?
There's just weird news and everybody's sort of thrown off a little bit?
Yeah.
Is it because it's Valentine's Day?
There's something different about you today, like collectively.
Am I right?
Flying monkeys triggered you.
Well, anyway.
I saw a provocative tweet from Mike Cernovich.
So, I'm not sure I completely agree with this.
And I'm not sure if it's meant to be hyperbole, so it's kind of true but not completely true sort of thing.
But I'll read it to you.
This is why you should follow Mike Cernovich.
Because you'll see thoughts and ideas that you're just not seeing anywhere else.
So follow him for sure.
Here's his tweet today.
He said, The smartest boomers were managing trains and infrastructure.
Gen X's talented ones knew they couldn't get those jobs anymore due to hiring quotas and went to laptop gigs.
Huge holes are opening up now.
People aren't even close to ready for the final boomer die-off.
So the implication here is that when the people in my generation are retiring and dying, that we won't know how to fix anything.
Do you agree?
Or do you think that's hyperbolic?
Now, I'll give you both sides of the argument, alright?
Both sides of the argument.
It's definitely true that some white boomers did not go after some kinds of jobs because they knew they couldn't get them.
I don't know if they became laptop warriors.
I'm not sure that's the same population that was considering one thing.
I'd more think that they're in the 40% unemployed guys in the Midwest.
I don't think they just learned to code.
So there might be some hyperbole there.
But in general, these were forces that were in play.
And do you think that when the boomers die off, everything's going to go to hell?
There could be some of that.
There definitely could be some of that.
But here's another lens on the same situation.
Here's another reason that our infrastructure should be crumbling.
You ready?
It's always easier to give funding for something new.
It's hard to get funding to fix something before it breaks.
And that's it.
That's it.
We're done.
That's the whole story.
In theory, every advanced civilization should go through a period of decay because of that fact.
So what we should see is that we're building an amazing, sparkling, brand new AI, so the new stuff is getting funding like crazy.
But when's the last time we built an airport?
So it's really hard to get anybody to fix something before it breaks.
How much money goes to fixing bridges before they collapse?
Some.
Some.
Probably not enough.
So it's always going to look like your old stuff is falling apart because your old stuff is falling apart.
It's sort of built into the way our brains work.
I don't think it's a talent problem exclusively.
I think it has more to do, it is a talent problem.
But I think it's also just the effect of, we like new stuff more than we like old stuff.
That's it.
But it is a problem.
I mean, it's a gigantic problem.
I don't know what we do about it.
That, ladies and gentlemen, Concludes my presentation.
For those of you on YouTube, if you are also a Daily Coffee with Scott Adams consumer, you might be interested that we're now once again selling the mugs.
So I tweeted, you can see it in my Twitter feed from yesterday, how you can get your own Coffee with Scott Adams mug, complete with the simultaneous sip written on the back and what's written on the bottom.
Let's look.
Ah, that's right.
It says, ah, on the bottom.
Can you fit your fist inside the mug?
No, but it's a 20 ounce mug.
So if you've got a tiny fist, put it right in there.
Put it right in there.
Yep, it'd be like throwing a hot dog down a hallway.
And if you understood that, shame on you.
Uh, novitas that apply to marriage.
Yeah, yep, sort of it does.
Uh, Naval's interview about David Deutsch on knowledge creation in the human race.
Really?
Naval Did I talk with David Deutsch?
Alright, well I'm definitely going to listen to that.
If you don't know those two individuals, just trust me.
If you have no idea who Naval Ravikant is, and you don't know who David Deutsch is, you don't need to.
Just trust me.
That would probably be the most interesting conversation you'll ever see.
I'm just guessing.
But probably.
Oh, breakdown why that is so?
Naval, I sometimes refer to as the smartest person I've ever met.
And I've met a lot of smart people.
David Deutsch is in just the right, let's say, scientific, philosophical space for a conversation with the smartest person I know.
There's no way that isn't going to be awesome.
More than Elon?
Don't know.
But I don't know Elon.
I'm only talking about people I've met in person.
Is it weird that I've never met Elon Musk?
How many people think that's weird?
It just feels like it would have happened, right?
It just feels like in the natural course of things, we would have been in the same place at least once, but we've never met.
You will?
I don't know.
It would be a coincidence if we did.
Let me tell you my philosophy on that.
When you're a public figure, it's very, very common, two verys, very, very common, twice, for people to say, hey, you're famous, and I know this other famous person, you two should talk.
And then I say, why?
Well, you're famous, and you're interesting, and this other person is famous and interesting, so how about we set you up for lunch?" To which I say, why?
Why?
Did that other person say they want to meet me?
No, but I'm sure they would, because they're interesting, you're interesting, let me put you together.
And then I say, I don't do playdates.
I really don't.
I don't do playdates.
I know you think that your toddler and this other toddler will have a good time, but I don't do playdates.
I don't.
I think maybe they have their own life and they don't need me at all.
I don't think I add anything to that other person's life.
My baseline for having lunch with somebody would be that I think there would be something in it for them.
That's the baseline.
What's in it for the other person?
Just randomly meeting famous people is fun.
It's fun.
I love randomly.
Not even randomly.
I love meeting famous people.
It's one of the coolest things about my job.
But I don't look for it.
Because looking for it is just weird.
That's what I think.
So I tend to have contact with people I have some reason to talk to.
And I think maybe they would find some benefit as well.
Is that egotistical?
Linda says it's egotistical.
I would think it would be the opposite.
Wouldn't it be the opposite?
I would think egotistical is, oh, I belong at this table with this famous person.
Imagine this.
Imagine, if you will, how busy Elon Musk is.
And let's say he agreed to go to lunch with you.
Do you think you're helping the world?
Doesn't he have other stuff to do that might be kind of important?
Like, I can't imagine 45 minutes eating lunch with me, like, moves the ball forward in some way.
But 45 minutes that he's, you know, running his multiple companies that are changing civilization, that feels like a good 45 minutes.
So I'd rather he spends that time, you know, doing what he wants to do.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be entertaining.
It's just a strange ask to take a stranger's time without a specific benefit for both.
51 flying monkeys?
Yeah, we'd have plenty to talk about.
Of course, yeah.
It's not a question of having nothing to talk about.
We'd have plenty to talk about.
That would be the case with any public figure.
No, I am a narcissist.
Somebody said I proved I'm not a narcissist.
I'm totally a narcissist.
But there are two kinds.
There's one that's damaging and it's just like destruction.
The other just likes to get attention for doing good things.
Have I mentioned that I never do things for one reason?
That was the beginning of my podcast today.
I talked about why I would never do anything for just one reason.
Nothing important anyway.
Important things I do for multiple reasons.
So if I can make a dent in fentanyl or TikTok persuasion or something like that, if I can make a dent in something, I do it because it's good for the world.
And if the world is happy with my work, They will be good to me.
Why can't I have two objectives?
Does anybody have a problem with that?
I can have two objectives and be a narcissist and say, I'd love it if I got attention for doing something right.
When I showed you the, I think I've solved the, you know, the weather balloon thing, the octagonal weather balloon.
Let's say I'm right.
How much would I enjoy that?
A ton, a ton.
Do you know why?
Well, I guess I'm a narcissist, because I would love the attention for being right.
Wouldn't you?
Would you not enjoy attention for being right?
That feels like something everybody would like.
I might like it more, as demonstrated by the fact I put more effort into attaining it, right?
So that would suggest I am a narcissist.
I'm quite overtly... I'm trying to be as transparent as possible.
This totally works.
I think you want people like me to want to get attention for accomplishing things.
Don't you?
I would think you'd want more of that, not less of it.
But there's a whole other kind of narcissist who are really just out to destroy life as we know it.
That's a different thing.
If you're happy with your decision, then you should be happy with that.
My motives are all transparent.
And here's the third thing.
So I like solving problems for the public.
I like getting attention if I do a good job.
And I've also monetized the podcast.
So I'm making money, too.
Does everybody have a problem with that?
Is there a reason I can't do three things at the same time?
Help you make money, have some pleasure while I'm doing it.
Right.
Three things.
All right.
Thank you, Lisa.
Does anybody need to be calmed down about any current problems?
Lisa was saying she enjoyed my work during the early part of the pandemic, where I was calming people down.
And by the way, my belief that the supply chain would not break because we would infinitely adjust, that was true.
Wouldn't you agree?
That the supply chain had a lot of pressure on it.
But I knew there were so many people, and it was the top priority, that we would just adjust like crazy.
Because that's what we do.
That's what humans do.
We're good at it.
Right on schedule.
And we did.
It was close.
Let me tell you, the supply chain thing, you had a reason to be afraid of that.
That was real.
That was a real risk.
It's just that we worked through it.
Alright, the biggest risk right now that I see is inflation.
Would you agree?
I'm not worried about Russian nuclear war.
Maybe I should be?
But it's just not... I'm not seeing the signals at all.
I'm just not seeing the signals for that.
And I'm not worried about all-out war with China.
Do you know why?
Do you know why I'm not worried with like a hot war with China?
Because China is run by engineers and smart people.
Do you think they're going to start a war with the United States?
Like a hot war?
It wouldn't make any sense.
Because they can get everything they need without that.
I think.
Now, Taiwan's a special case.
But they can become the biggest economy just by doing what they do and just continue to do it.
They have so many more people that it's pretty much guaranteed they'd be the biggest economy.
They could have military dominance just by building, continuing to build more stuff, funding it.
So they don't need to destroy the United States.
And in fact we're a big customer.
So there is no, there's no mechanism, let's say, there's no realistic possibility that China launches nuclear weapons intentionally at the United States.
It would have to be an accident.
And even that is so remote, it seems weird.
So I don't see, I just don't see that.
Because the one thing that you could say about a nuclear attack is that the leader of the country who did it would be dead very quickly.
Would you agree?
If you're the leader of any country and you start a war, you're probably going to survive.
Right?
Because lots of times you end up negotiating the end of the war.
But if you launched a nuclear attack, we would kill you first.
Am I right?
So I'm sure that we know where Putin is, like what city he's in.
Would you agree with that?
Do you think the United States always knows at least what city Putin's in?
Maybe not what building, but what city?
We would just target that city.
Because a nuclear war is the worst of everything, so it's not like you would hold back.
We would just target that first.
And here's what I think our nuclear stand should be.
Our nuclear stand should not be, you know, if you attack us, we will all out attack you back.
Rather, it should be, if you launch a nuke at us, suppose it's just one, for whatever reason, We're going to nuke you back, but we're going to aim at your leader.
And we might have to take out Moscow to do it, but we're only going to fire one.
And we're done.
So after that, we're done.
But you're going to lose your biggest city and your leader because you nuked us.
That's not negotiable.
So you might want to spend a few days getting as far as you can from Putin, Because Putin is going to go up in a fireball.
It's going to happen in the next week.
You've got one week to leave town.
And I don't care what town it is.
If he hides in the middle of Moscow, we're going to drop one nuclear bomb, and only one, then we're done.
But we're going to take out Moscow because that's where he is.
So if you think Putin is anywhere in your city, get out.
You've got a week.
Because I think we would have to make it very clear that we're after their leader and not looking for anything else.
So I'm not sure if that would be a good military doctrine, but that's what I would do.
You think Scott sees the holes in that idea?
What are the holes in that idea?
Is the hole that they could keep launching and we would be too slow to respond?
I mean, if it's multiple nukes, All bets are off.
I'm only talking about a situation where somehow one got launched.
Because I think it's far more likely that one would be launched and that we would just let it land.
What do you think?
If Russia or China launched one nuke, even if it were at a major U.S.
city, we'd probably try to shoot it down.
But assume we miss.
I think we would take the first one.
We would never say that and never should.
But I think we would take the first one.
And then we would say, all right, you've got 10 minutes to give us your leader.
And in 10 minutes, they would give us their leader.
I think we should just ask for their leader and the other country would give them to us.
That's what I think.
I think they would execute their own leader.
To save their family.
Because everybody who was anywhere near that leader was going to be vaporized unless they killed that one guy.
Everybody you know and your families and you, you'll all be dead unless you kill this guy.
Of course they would.
They would kill their own leader on request.
Because the alternative is a complete nuclear annihilation.
So we can never say that.
You'd never want to say to the enemy, well, if it's just one nuke, we're going to wait and see.
But I think we would.
The dumbest thing we could do would be, if one nuke was coming our way, to launch a massive attack.
That would be the dumbest play.
Launch on warning.
If it's more than one, we probably would launch on warning.
If it's one, I think we'd wait and see.
I hate to say it, but I think we would.
All right.
That's all I got for today.
Hope you enjoy your Valentines.
Once again, this is the best live stream you've ever seen in your entire life.
