All Episodes
Feb. 16, 2023 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:39:12
Episode 2021 Scott Adams: Incredible Show Today, UFOs To Simulation, More COVID Nonsense, DeSantis

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Governor DeSantis digital bill of rights Bing + ChatGPT President Vivek Ramaswamy? Michael Shellenberger summarizes Twitter files Matt Walsh vs. Dylan Mulvaney Andrew Tate's talents ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I doubt you've ever had a better moment in your life.
Well, tomorrow's looking good, but today is amazing.
The news is all interesting, and that's what I live for.
Well, and all of you.
I live for you as well as the news.
And today, If you'd like your experience to go to levels you've never even dreamed possible, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Well, hello to you.
Well, let's look at all the news that's exciting.
But first, I have this question for you.
Is it only my personal experience, or has the service element of all large organizations completely disintegrated?
Have you noticed how hard it is to do anything simple?
Like, that's not my imagination, right?
Now, the most boring story in the world is anybody telling you about their problem they had with an organization.
But just see if this general problem sounds familiar.
You could just generalize it to whatever was your last service experience.
I get an email that says it's time to upgrade my modem for my cable and internet.
Now this is very efficient.
Get an email.
It already knows who I am.
Right?
It sent it to me from the same account that knows all of my information.
So it knows exactly who I am, and it even tells me it knows who I am.
And then it says, you know, click this to get your free upgraded modem.
And I think to myself, damn, this is a good system.
Imagine this.
I'm just going to like click on this link, you know, probably confirm who I am.
And then it's going to send me the new modem, which I just put in, you know, unplug the old one.
Probably it sends me a box to send back the old one.
So I click yes, and I think, oh wow, this is worth spending five minutes on.
And then it turns out that instead of this email automatically doing the work of sending you the new modem, it actually just connects you to a live person.
And then the live person asks me for all of the information that they gave to me.
They already told me they knew who I am.
And then after I confirm it, they send me a text to make sure that I'm on a phone that belongs to this person.
Alright.
Okay.
So far, so good.
Is it a scam?
I don't know, because they never asked me for any information they didn't already have.
I was waiting for that.
What I was waiting for is, and we just have to charge your credit card, just in case, but really, it's going to be something like that.
So, So I'm talking to the live person.
I give them all my information.
They know exactly what I want.
What happens next?
You tell me.
What happens next?
So now I've done the online stuff that did nothing.
It connected me to a live person.
That's right.
That's right.
The first person you talk to is not the person you need.
They take all of your information and then they say, well, I'm not the right place.
That's the place that the email sent me to.
It sent me to the wrong place.
And then they get that out, and they say, we'll connect you to tech support.
What happens next?
What happens next?
Just in every situation.
Disconnected, usually.
So about 25% of the time, that's when you get disconnected, right?
But that didn't happen this time.
Instead, it goes to the next person, and what do they do?
Do you think they ask for the same information again?
Yes.
Yes, they do.
Third time.
Third time I've confirmed my information.
And then they say, we're going to send you a text that will, uh, you just need to respond to make sure that you've ordered this.
Right?
Then what happens?
You're waiting for the email or you're waiting for the text.
What happens?
Do you get it?
No, no.
No, there's no text.
There's no email.
So what did they do?
Well, in this case, they said, well, it turns out we don't really need that.
Because it wasn't working.
So I spent maybe 40 minutes on the phone with a variety of people to return one modem, which was their idea.
So in other words, they have millions of people they need to talk to, just like me.
Millions.
They all have to upgrade their modem.
And every one takes 40 minutes.
Now, this is just an example.
I'm not even making fun of Xfinity.
It's my bank.
It's when I tried to sign up for Medicare.
It's my health care provider.
They've all just completely disintegrated.
You can't do the simplest thing.
You know, I told you the story, I think, when I tried to just sign up for Medicare.
Here's what it should have been.
Oh, you already have health care.
We have to move you to a different part of our health care.
Click this box and confirm you're 65.
You know, maybe they call me to make sure it's really me.
That should have been it.
Turns out they didn't know how to do it.
The most basic thing that they do all the time.
Didn't know how to do it.
They send me on like a three week Journey of screwing things up and then unscrewing them, only to learn that it was a simple process, just the person I worked with didn't know what it was.
Everything's like that now.
You can't do anything.
Let me give you another example.
About a year ago, I got an instant hot water thing installed in my sink, but it had some debris in it from, I guess, its internal filter.
So it took me like a year to get back to my plumber, And say, you know, it's never worked since you put it in, because it has this little debris in it.
So they said, well, we'll send somebody over to put a filter in.
And I think to myself, huh, it's weird that they didn't know you'd need a separate filter.
But I think, well, that makes sense.
If they had told me that in the first place, but it looks like they found out they'd need it later.
So I'm going to be flexible, because it's a plumber I use all the time, right?
So the plumber comes in and he installs the filter before the hot water unit.
That's right.
The clean water from my house and all the other faucets are completely clean.
We tested it, and the plumber that came first, because it was a two-visit situation, the first plumber specifically tested to make sure that the water going into the unit was clean.
And still, they sent a plumber who spent several hours and my whole afternoon to install a filter to further clean the clean water, which had nothing to do with the filter debris that came after that.
That actually happened this week.
And so it was so ridiculously incompetent that I couldn't even get mad.
I was just laughing the whole time.
And can you imagine this conversation?
You've watched me long enough to know what an asshole I am, right?
Can you all agree with that?
If you put me in this situation, I'm going to be the biggest asshole you've ever seen in your life, but I'm going to do it for fun.
So imagine this conversation.
So would you agree that the water that's going into the unit is already clean?
Because we could demonstrate that, and I showed him.
Yes.
So did you just install a filter to clean the water that doesn't need to be cleaned because you think that's the solution to the filter having a bad filter?
And he just looks at me.
And if you think I let him off easily, no, no, I'm an asshole.
I made him explain to me as many times as I could why that made sense.
It was kind of funny.
So where it stands now is their boss is trying to come up with a response.
What do you think the response will be?
I don't know.
But I can't even get mad because there's something that's happened to the whole world.
It's not even about this plumber, right?
Now the plumber just said, and I believe this is accurate, they told him what to do, but they didn't tell him, you know, enough details.
So he just installed what they told him to do at the office.
But at some point, He should have said, you know, if I'm installing this filter here, it does mean that every other faucet in your house is polluted.
You think he would have mentioned that?
Because I didn't know where he was installing it until he was done.
I just assumed it was after the problem, not before it.
All right.
Well, I've told you before I have continuous water problems because I live in a simulation, and that's my theme.
I do have one, two, three, four, four current water leak or pollution-related problems.
I always have at least four.
They're different ones.
Alright, enough about me.
Ron DeSantis announces Florida is going to have some kind of digital Bill of Rights, or at least it's proposed.
We'll see if it gets passed, but apparently in Florida DeSantis can get pretty much anything passed.
So this digital Bill of Rights would involve privacy so that the Big platforms are not spying on your personal communications.
Control your personal data.
I don't know how he's going to get away with that, but the idea is that if the platforms are using your data to sell ads, you should either have to approve it, or you should be sharing the money somehow, I suppose.
And something about preventing people from being deplatformed for bad reasons.
And something about protecting children from online harms.
What pattern do we see here with DeSantis?
What is his most consistent pattern?
Free money.
Free money.
Every governor could have done this.
Am I right?
Every governor could have done this.
Now, I don't know if it'll get passed.
It might be negotiated away or something.
But whether he wins or loses, he still wins.
Even if this doesn't get passed, I think it might.
But even if it doesn't, even if it doesn't, he wins.
Because he's the person who saw this problem, promoted a specific solution that looks somewhat practical.
I can't tell.
And, like, why is it the one person?
Yeah, Republicans have a two-third majority in both houses in Florida.
I'm being informed here.
Why is it that one person keeps getting all the right answers?
Like, how is that a coincidence?
I don't think it is.
I think he just wakes up in the morning and says, What would be popular with the public, and also a smart thing to do, that is doable?
And that he does those things.
Like, it just makes everybody else look like a clown, doesn't it?
When you see him do such clear, obvious, straightforward, practical, well-meaning things, it just makes all the other governors look like idiots.
You know, if he did it once or twice, you'd say, oh, he got lucky.
But the damn guy's doing it, like, every two weeks.
That's not luck.
All right.
Did you see that you probably know that Chat, GPT, the AI, is being combined with Bing, the search engine, Microsoft search engine.
And they did their little rollout kind of demo for the public.
It didn't go well.
It didn't go well.
Do you know what people are finally figuring out about chat GPT?
That it's a language-based intelligence.
Now, that was never a secret.
That was always known.
But I don't think people quite understood what that implied.
Right?
They don't know what that implies.
And what it implies is, there is no intelligence happening.
There's no intelligence happening.
It's just using words in whatever patterns and combinations have existed in the real world, and then it looks for patterns and combinations that seem maybe more prominent.
And then it adopts that view.
So none of that is based on fact or logic or anything.
It's just words have done this with humans, so I'll act like a human and do words like they do words, basically.
That's the worst explanation of AI you've ever seen.
But you get the idea.
Now, here's what I've been warning you forever.
The reason that AI will never have real intelligence, like people, is that your intelligence is imaginary.
You can't make a real thing match an imaginary thing that can't exist.
Look at every big topic in, let's say, politics.
And look at the fact that there are brilliant people on both sides.
And they all have the same information.
Same information.
And we disagree.
Brilliant people.
Now, it's no surprise if, like, the dumbest people in the world disagree with each other.
Like, that's no surprise.
Because they don't know anything.
But when the smartest people routinely are on both sides of every issue, what does that tell you about human intelligence?
It's an illusion.
Human intelligence is an illusion.
We're just like ChatGPT.
We're just a machine that's full of words.
And if the words that are in my head form a different pattern than the words in your head, you think that you did some thinking, and I think I did some thinking, and then we think we disagree on something.
Nothing like that happened.
Nothing like that happened.
You are Basically, chat GPT.
You're just word thinking.
How many times have you heard me say that people are doing word thinking?
You see it everywhere.
We try to win an argument by forcing our definition of a word.
You're seeing it with trans, you're seeing it with COVID, you're seeing it with basically everything.
Everything is about trying to get the other side to agree with our definition of a word, and then you think you won the argument.
There's no logic going on.
It's not real disagreement.
It's just your words and my words are in different patterns in our heads because we've experienced the words differently.
That's about it.
But we think we're thinking.
Anyway, so that not only did the AI associated with Bing make up some facts, which is the worst possible thing a search engine could do.
Now this is confirmed.
It just lied.
Now why would an AI lie?
Why would it do that?
Because that's the pattern of human interaction.
Humans lie about everything all the time.
If you were an AI and you were trying to figure out how to be smart like humans, would you lie?
Yeah, you would.
Because that's the only thing you would learn.
You couldn't possibly look at human interactions and conclude that we tell the truth.
Or even try.
Or even try.
So if it was trying to model us and match us, it would lie.
And it does.
And it does.
Not only does it lie, it does a complete gaslight in telling you you've never seen anything contrary.
There's a whole detailed story that didn't exist.
I mean, it's the worst possible situation.
It's like us.
And does anybody remember how many years I've been telling you that the reason that we can't develop true AI is that we won't let the AI be stupid?
If you let it be stupid, it'll act just like people.
That's what ChatGPT got right.
They let it be stupid.
And what's the biggest thing that people think?
My God, it's awake.
It's aware.
It's like a person.
Because they let it be stupid.
If ChatGPT were smarter than humans and could tell you where you were wrong, what would happen?
Suppose Chad GPD was just so smart, it actually knew, you know, is the vaccination better than the COVID?
Not really a vaccination.
That's the wrong word.
What if it actually knew the answer?
We would ban it.
We would ban it.
Right?
There can never be an AI that's smarter than humans.
Do you know why?
We would ban it.
It would take all our power away.
Why would you need a government?
Why would you need Congress if your AI could tell you the right answer?
You wouldn't.
So Congress would have to ban it.
Congress would say, well, AI is just making up stuff now.
It's just gaslighting us, so we can ignore it.
We would treat it like people.
If it's programmed to act like people, we'll treat it like it's wrong, just like our critics.
If it's programmed to be perfect and logical, unlike people, We would make it illegal.
The funniest thing about this is that we're always worried that AI is a danger to humanity.
I'm now convinced it's no danger because humanity won't allow it.
It simply will not be allowed outside of maybe a laboratory or something.
It just won't be allowed.
The moment it's overruling us, we'll kill it.
It's gonna die in his crib.
Alright.
So Elon Musk responded to just a funny tweet I did about a meme that was about Elon Musk.
And he just puts one little laughing emoji.
That's it.
That's his whole comment.
So his comment to my tweet is just a laughing emoji.
Two million views.
One laughing emoji from Elon Musk gets you two million views.
It's crazy.
It's just insane.
How many of you watched The Five yesterday?
Anybody watch The Five?
All right.
My favorite part about this, and you all know where I'm going with this, I think, if you watched it.
But talking about the UFOs and whatever it is up there that the US has been shooting down, Greg Guffield brings up the point that there are, quote, people on the internet who have pictures of the probable UFO, meaning the weather balloon with the octagonal payload, and nobody in power
is either debunking it or agreeing with it.
Now, what did I tell you would happen?
That's what I told you would happen.
I told you it would be such a brain breaker that it would have to be ignored.
Because there is no world that anybody could understand in which the cartoonist solves the problem.
By just finding a picture on a website that there's a commercial weather balloon that looks exactly like what they described was up there.
Minus the balloon part, which I believe could be invisible if you viewed it from below.
Alright, here, let me explain this.
Let's say you're a balloon, and you're a payload.
So this is the payload hanging from a balloon.
The bottom of the payload looks like an octagon.
So you're a jet, and you fly under it, and you look up, and you're going at, how fast does a jet go?
F22?
400 to 600 miles an hour?
Somewhere in there?
400 to 600?
Is that about right?
So you're going, you're looking up at 400 to 600.
Now let's say there's a balloon above it.
In the picture, the balloon looked the same color as the sky.
Sort of a milky white.
Now, I don't know what's up there, but I don't know, I don't know how easy, I'm not sure how easy it is to see things from a distance up there.
Is there, are there no clouds up there, right?
At the distances that these alleged objects were, were there any clouds?
Or could there be?
There are.
At, let's say, 20 to 65,000 feet.
There would be clouds?
I'm getting some different agreements.
At 20,000 I think there might be, but at 65,000?
Are there clouds?
All right, some people are saying yes, but let's look into that.
All right, here's my point.
Imagine you're in high winds.
And you're a balloon.
Does the balloon and the payload move at the same rate if you're in high wind?
I don't know the answer.
I'm asking a question.
Does it move the same?
Here's what I'd imagine.
I'd imagine it'd be more like this.
Because if you're in high wind, I imagine the balloon would be sort of dragging the payload, you know, not completely, but sort of like this.
So when you flew under it and you looked up, You would see the payload and you would see nothing above it, because you should have been looking over there.
But maybe you didn't know to look over there.
Because the balloon is somewhat, you know, it's not right.
When you think of a balloon and a payload, you think of the balloons that people go up in, that humans go up in.
In those cases, the balloon isn't too far from the payload.
But I suspect, based on just a photograph, it's hard to tell.
It looks like the balloon is actually higher from the payload in some of these weather balloons.
Maybe not all of them.
But anyway, that's what the hypothesis is.
Okay.
So, and it's still being ignored, which I think is still funny.
Now, here...
And I want to be clear about this.
I don't know that I solved it.
I just know that they described an object that looks exactly like the picture on the website of a weather balloon making company, Aerostar.
And you'd think that at the very least I would be debunked, right?
And then I looked at the tweet and it got like no traffic.
The tweet just sort of died.
You know where I'm pointing out that this is the object?
Yeah.
Just sort of died.
Now why is that?
Somebody says I was debunked?
Where?
And how could they possibly do that?
How could you debunk that?
But what was the debunk?
Somebody's saying there was a debunk.
I'll bet the debunk is ridiculous.
I mean, you see a picture of the objects.
I think the only debunk I saw is that they would have seen the balloon.
And I'm arguing that that's not the real world.
In the real world, you could easily imagine they didn't see the balloon.
Anyway.
Neil deGrasse Tyson.
I saw him on CNN, a little clip.
He's basically saying it's all weather balloons.
Now, he doesn't say that directly, but he suggests, you know, it's not aliens.
He basically says there are a thousand weather balloons released per day.
The country is full of weather balloons.
They're just floating in the direction of the wind, and it's probably not much about spying.
Because the ship, even the Chinese ship, sort of went where the wind went.
And all the other stuff is just going where the wind goes to.
So his take is that it's probably just weather balloons.
I agree with that.
I agree with that.
Alright, looks like we've got new disaster porn coming on CNN.
They warn us that as climate change accelerates, which is totally happening, The Thwaites Glacier is rapidly changing.
Now, how bad would that be if the Thwaites Glacier rapidly... Well, it's holding up some other piece of giant ice that if that falls, it'll go into the ocean and your water will go up, your tide lines will go up by 10 feet!
10 feet!
Destroying coastal communities.
Then at the end, while it could take hundreds or thousands of years, oh, well, you save that for the end, the ice shelf could disintegrate much sooner.
It could.
It could.
Could be much sooner.
Triggering a retreat of the glacier, which is both blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Now I say to myself, if I'd never heard about this, would I be happier?
I feel like I would be.
I feel like I'd be happier if I'd never heard of it.
Now, I will tell you that unlike the rest of you, I have actually acted upon the risk that the sea level will rise.
So I am intentionally at a height in California.
I'm away from the shore enough, I think, and I'm high enough that a tsunami wouldn't get me.
That's a good question.
Let me find out.
Hey Siri, what's my elevation?
There's an app for that, right?
It'll tell me my elevation?
Doesn't matter.
I'm high enough.
I'm high enough.
So I just mentioned that because it's another one of these things you can't prove one way or the other that makes you really scared.
Good news.
Good news.
All right, let's talk about that Ohio train disaster, which is getting weirder and weirder.
You know, I waited a little bit on this story because I thought it was one of those fog of war stories where as soon as you found out what's really happening, it would be more ordinary.
But it doesn't look that way.
It doesn't look that way.
I was just watching a Tim Pool video that I tweeted around, which I highly recommend.
In which Tim is talking about some of the weird coincidences here.
So the first thing I did was to check Snopes.
I know, I know.
You say Snopes is not reliable.
But if it agrees with what I already believe, or it agrees with popular opinion, maybe it's a little more information.
So I wanted to ask if the dead fish story is real.
Because you're hearing there are dead fish around the area of the chemical spill.
Now, Snopes checked it out and apparently the dead fish area that was filmed was 3.4 miles from the event and seems to be real.
Seems to be current and close to the event.
Doesn't necessarily mean Doesn't necessarily mean someone was fishing.
It doesn't mean that's the cause.
Because here's the first question I'd ask.
If fish are dead three miles away, and there's no direct indication that the upstream was near the crash, right?
Is it downstream?
Because that's missing in the fact check.
Here's what I'd expect.
The dead fish are three miles from the accident.
And that stream, if you go upstream, you'd find that there's some connection close to the accident.
But they didn't connect those dots.
So, if something could die three miles from the event, wouldn't there be a lot more dead stuff?
Now, I am hearing there are some dead birds as well.
But I feel like there would just be massive dead stuff just everywhere.
Yeah, I've heard some pets throwing up and stuff.
Are fish the thing that would die first?
Because it feels like fish are in water, and if it's, let's say, fast-moving water, I don't know.
It's just... So the first mystery is, Why three miles away?
And if it's three miles away, is that because it's directly downstream?
Which would make perfect sense.
But it is not reported.
It's not being reported that way.
And the wind, of course, could carry it.
That's possible.
But I feel like there would just be massive stuff within three miles.
If it's killing stuff three miles away, then one mile away, just everything should be dead.
It seems to me.
So I'm going to call a little bit of maybe BS on the dead fish.
Maybe.
I'm not convinced that there's a connection, but it's very scary.
So I would say this is like the VAERS report.
You know, when the VAERS report was signaling, oh my God, oh my God, probably meant something.
Probably had to be taken seriously.
So, I'd worry about that, but I think we need to find out more.
The other thing that is fascinating, Tim Poole points this out, somebody pointed it out to him, that vinyl chloride, the, I guess the most worrisome chemical of several that are released by the train, that the CDC, I can't even believe this is true.
I do believe it's true.
Because Tim Pool actually showed the website live and you can see it for yourself.
But apparently the CDC updated their information on this very chemical one month ago, in January.
Now what are the odds of that?
And it's actually labeled That their advice on it is new.
So you can see it yourself.
It's the only one that's new.
It's not like they updated everything a month ago.
It was either the only one or one of the few.
So that's kind of a big coincidence.
Kind of a big coincidence.
And then I'm told that the coincidental movie that was made about it On Netflix called White Noise?
Is that what it's called?
In which actual actors in that very town where the disaster was, some of those actors were in the movie and it was a movie about this exact thing.
So what are the odds of all of those things?
What are the odds of that?
And the answer to why they would burn it?
I believe they burned it because the alternatives were worse.
And my understanding is that once you flame it, it does get into the atmosphere, but maybe its nature has been changed by the flames to be less dangerous or something.
Or more distributed, I don't know.
But somehow the experts thought that that would help.
I don't doubt that that's true.
But it doesn't mean that it was safe.
It certainly doesn't mean that.
Yeah, the burn removes a lot of the poison, but probably not all of it.
All right.
So let's keep an eye on that.
I don't know if it means anything.
I really don't.
It might be nothing but a bunch of coincidences and bad reporting and could be any of that.
All right.
And then somebody else pointed out that, just in the conspiracy theory vein, that apparently this is true, but I'll take a fact check on this.
I guess I didn't check it myself, but it looked like it's true.
That a number of countries pulled their ambassadors out of Turkey, like maybe two days before the massive earthquake.
Do you believe that?
Now, they said it was because, oh, Turkey's looking unstable because of some political thing.
Did a number of countries really pull their ambassadors out right before the earthquake?
That one doesn't sound real, does it?
But I did see some fact-checking that alleged it was true.
Yeah, it does sound like bullshit, doesn't it?
A little too on the nose?
Yeah, but even if it were true, What exactly would somebody be suggesting?
Let's assume it's true.
What would it mean?
Does somebody believe that we can predict or cause earthquakes?
I mean, I don't think we can cause an earthquake, and I don't think we can predict them two days in advance.
So, fracking does?
Yeah, but I don't think there was any fracking in Turkey.
I'm not sure that the fracking is... Is the fracking proven?
As an earthquake problem?
Oh, it's been debunked?
Okay.
That doesn't mean it's not true.
It just means somebody debunked it.
All right, here was a provocative tweet from a big, famous investor, Bill Ackerman.
And he tweeted this yesterday.
He said, I'm going to make a bold and early call that Vivek Ramaswamy We'll run for president and win.
I think the country is ready for his message.
He is young, smart, talented, and will attract the center to the right to win.
The center to the right to win.
He speaks hard truths which many believe but fear to say.
And then he linked to a talk that Vivek Ramaswamy was giving at Turning Point USA.
And I said to myself, well, that's a provocative call.
Just based on what?
Like one video?
You see one video and you're going to be like, oh, he's going to be the president in 10 years or something?
I mean, that's crazy, right?
You can't really judge that from whatever limited interviews.
I'm sure he saw some interviews, too, as well.
But it's kind of early, isn't it?
I mean, how could anybody make a call like that this early?
And then I watched the video.
Yeah, he's going to be president.
Yep.
Yep.
If he wants to.
If he wants to.
Yeah.
Now, I'm just going to leave it at this.
Look at the video.
Decide for yourself.
If I tell you and you haven't seen the video, it's not really going to be persuasive.
But I will promise you this.
If you watch the video, you're going to see the same thing you might have seen the first time you were introduced to Barack Obama.
First time you saw him give a speech, whether you were Republican or Democrat, the first time you saw Obama give a speech, you probably said, I think he's going to be president.
And then you were right.
Because he exhibited all the all the qualities that you're looking for in that kind of person.
So, and here's what impressed me.
I believe he gave his entire talk that was on that video.
It was at Turning Point USA.
And I believe he gave the talk without notes.
It didn't look like he was looking at anything.
If he gave that that presentation without notes, which I believe he did, he's gonna be president.
He's gonna be president.
Yeah, I don't know what could stop him.
Because it's just crazy skill you're seeing.
And it just, it just blazes, you know, you can't miss it.
It's just so capable that you can't miss it.
All right, so keep an eye on that.
So I tweeted an agreement.
So now Bill Ackerman and I have both called him as a future president.
And I will stick with that.
Might be a while.
He's young, so it might be a while.
All right.
I finally figured out why Congress has not yet banned, or maybe never will, TikTok.
I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but you know how I always tell you to follow the money works, even when it shouldn't?
Like, even if you know the people involved, in your opinion, are definitely not doing it for money, their decisions are always coincidentally very compatible with what you would do if you were doing it for money.
Right?
So, my theory is, even when all the people involved don't believe they're doing it for money, it's for money.
Because you can predict that they'll go the same direction as the money.
And I'm now starting to see a pattern that seems so predictive it's hard to avoid.
That Congress does whatever's bad for children.
Or they won't change anything that's bad for children.
Now, the first few times I heard that from, you know, Right-wing provocative people.
I thought to myself, well, that's too far.
Too far.
There's nobody sitting down and making decisions that are bad for children.
Like literally no one.
But it keeps happening.
It just keeps happening.
And so I'm going to very much like follow the money.
You don't necessarily know what's going on in people's heads.
And maybe they're just trying to help children.
But the outcome seems consistently bad for children.
To the point where I believe you could do it, you could predict based on this effect.
So I'm going to make a prediction.
The next time there's some brand new topic, not something we're already dealing with, the next time there's a brand new topic that's a risk to children, we won't fix it.
That's the prediction.
The next new risk to children won't be addressed.
And here's my hypothesis.
And here's where it gets interesting.
Now you know that as a hypnotist, I think people make decisions for irrational reasons.
And then they rationalize it.
What would happen to a planet that believed it was overpopulated?
Suppose you believe that our biggest problem is overpopulation, which is a common belief.
What value would you put on children if you thought there were already too many?
Right?
Do I even have to finish it?
If there are too many children, we would quite naturally, as biological evolved, you know, evolution evolved, creatures, we should devalue them.
Because we don't need more.
Now suppose your biggest problem was underpopulation.
And everybody knew it.
How would you treat children if you thought your biggest problem in the world was underpopulation?
I believe you would treat them like the future.
You know, like we used to?
In the old days?
So, while I don't believe that there's any human being who's making a conscious decision to do something that's bad for children, I don't think there's anybody doing that.
But I do believe they might be influenced by the fact that there are too many of them in their opinion, which is incorrect.
So could the incorrect belief that drives everything from climate policy to everything else, could that be causing people to simply not act to protect children because they don't see it as necessary?
Just doesn't seem necessary.
Because remember, all of our big decisions are procreation-related, or mating-related.
From the choice of the shirt you put on, to my choice to be doing this.
This very experience right here, where I'm basically showing off to a crowd, is a mating instinct.
That's where it comes from.
Why does anybody show off?
Not for no reason.
Now, by conscious reason, would be nothing to do with mating.
But why is it I always make decisions that are compatible with that instinct?
No, it's not a coincidence.
It's because everything we do is a direct or indirect projection from your mating instinct.
Everything.
Once you understand that, that everything's a mating instinct, then your decisions make more sense.
Yeah, the self-pride, you know, making money, being famous, all of those are just so your mating options are better, even if you don't want to mate, as in my case.
I'm not looking to mate.
It's just I'm completely aware that all of my actions are some artificial expression of that basic instinct that never goes away.
Is Elon Musk peacocking by building giant rockets?
Yes.
All right, so take a look at Elon Musk.
So he believes we have an underpopulation problem, which I agree.
If you believed that the world was underpopulated, how would you act?
You would have lots of children.
Check.
You would build rocket ships to make sure that even if the Earth was destroyed, you'd still protect children on Mars.
Check.
Even if you're not sure if climate change is really the biggest problem in the world, you would still act to at least reduce the risk of it, even if you weren't sure.
Check.
That's what electric cars are and electric everything.
So when you see somebody, so here's the hypothesis, okay?
Here's the hypothesis.
That if you collected a bunch of people who believe that we're overpopulated, you would find a coincidental policy preference for everything from abortion to trans, and you could go on, you know, keep TikTok legal, Right?
And then you take a group who properly understands, in my opinion, properly understands that we're underpopulated, and then ask them their opinions about abortion, trans rights for children, you know, the trans children stuff, and TikTok.
If there's no correlation, I will be amazed.
What do you think?
Do you think that the group who thinks you're underpopulated and the group that thinks you're overpopulated has the same opinion about children?
I don't think so.
I think one wants more children and the other doesn't care.
Doesn't care or wants fewer of them.
Now, where have you ever seen anybody talk about this?
See, this is why you come to this livestream.
I might be right, I might be wrong.
Very, very good possibility that there's nothing there.
But it seems important enough to consider.
Wouldn't you agree?
Because I think the logic holds that the mating instinct drives our subconscious decisions.
And we're seeing a pattern of anti-children behavior that doesn't seem common to the people who think we should have more children.
That may be the driving factor for all of it.
Yeah, maybe.
All right.
Let's see, what else is happening?
Do you remember a long time ago, and since then, I've wondered what happened to the people at the Charlottesville Neo-Nazi March?
And I wondered why the news wasn't making more of surfacing who they are and talking about them, etc.
And then we have this story, an update in the news today.
Teddy Joseph von Newcomb.
Yes, his last name is N-U-K-E-M.
Newcomb.
Now that's not how I spell Newcomb, but I like that spelling.
Yeah, it's like Duke Nukem.
Alright, at age 35 he died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Interesting.
Are self-inflicted gunshot wounds the main way that somebody fakes a suicide?
Like if you were to murder somebody, but you want it to look like a suicide, what are all the ways you would do it?
I think I think self-inflicted gunshot wound would be one way to fake a murder and make it look like a suicide.
I'm not saying that's what happened.
I'm not saying that was what happened.
I'm just saying, you know, of all the ways to die, that does have that quality, I think.
And according to a report from the Texas coroners, oh, the Texas county coroners in Missouri, He was scheduled to be in court facing four counts related to illegal import and sale of fentanyl.
So he's a fentanyl dealer.
So I'm glad he's gone.
And if somebody did murder him, I hope so.
My perfect situation would be that he was murdered by a dad who made it look like a suicide, and even the coroner knew exactly what happened and decided to call it a suicide.
You know what would be great?
If the coroners around the country decided to call every murder of a fentanyl dealer a suicide.
What if they just said, well, we'll take care of this ourselves.
We'll just solve this problem ourselves.
If anybody dies from a gunshot wound and they're also an active fentanyl dealer, sounds like suicide to us.
No, that'll never happen, but you can dream.
Alright, so the story goes on that this Newcombe guy was famous for being photographed being at that rally.
He was one of the men chanting and holding tiki torches.
And he confirmed his identity.
So he confirmed he was there.
He was definitely marching with a tiki torch.
So if he was marching with a tiki torch and he was in that, the one thing we can say about him for sure is that he's a white supremacist and a neo-Nazi.
Is that fair?
Is it fair to say the one thing we know for sure If you had a tiki torch, and you were marching with the neo-Nazis, and you were chanting anti-Semitic stuff, you were definitely something like a white supremacist or neo-Nazis.
But interestingly, he says, he did not consider himself a white supremacist or a neo-Nazi.
But he said he would not, quote, counter-signal against them.
Interesting.
He admits that he marched with them.
But he's not one of them.
It's almost like he got paid to march.
Almost like he got paid.
Remember I told you that I don't think that the marchers were necessarily an organic group?
To me the whole thing looks like an op.
It looks like an op.
And I'm not I'm not saying you should trust anything about this news story or anything that this guy says.
He's a fentanyl dealer.
Or he was.
He was a fentanyl dealer, right?
So I'm not going to trust anything he says.
But I would predict, and I did predict, that if you hunted down the people in that group, there would be a lot of them who said that they were not neo-Nazis and not white supremacists.
That was my prediction.
So here's one.
Doesn't prove anything.
It's just one anecdotal situation.
But it is consistent with prediction.
All right.
Rasmussen has a poll talking about sex change, surgery, and also chemical changes for minors.
For minors.
What percentage of the public do you think is against sex change for minors?
58% of likely voters.
58% are in favor of making it illegal to do a sex change on a minor.
Slightly less, but still a majority, are against hormone replacement therapy for children.
For children.
Now, here's one of those bubble situations that is perplexing.
I've never met anybody who was in favor of gender change for a child.
Have you?
Have you ever met like a real person who was in favor of that?
Like anybody?
And something like, you know, a third of the country is in favor according to this?
How could that possibly be true?
Some of you have talked to somebody who's in favor of gender change for children.
Not in real life.
I mean, I've seen interviews.
I've seen people.
But in my real, actual life, I live in the bluest place in the world, right?
I'm in California.
I live in California.
All of my friends are Californians.
Well, my local friends are all Californians.
I don't know a single person who would be in favor of that.
And I know a lot of Democrats.
I don't know anybody who would say they're in favor of that.
So, what's happening here?
I'm not sure I've, as I say it, I'm not sure I've ever seen a real person in an interview say they're in favor of it.
I've seen advocates, but the advocates are a special case.
Is there anybody who's just a parent?
You know, they're not really involved as an advocate, they're just a parent.
Would they be in favor of that?
I'm willing to believe that they exist, but isn't it weird that I have no contact with them in California?
I've got a real question about what's going on here.
Now, I'm not doubting the accuracy of the poll.
I don't have any reason to doubt that.
I'm just doubting the accuracy of reality.
Like, I don't know how reality makes sense, if this is true.
How do I not run into any of them?
How could that never come up?
Strange.
And then let's see.
Same with the chemistry, the chemicals.
Well, anyway, on the Trigonometry, Trigonometry podcast, which is a very good podcast, Michael Schellenberger was on there recently.
And I liked his summary of what we've learned from The Twitter files.
And here's just the cleanest summary from Michael Schellenberger.
Quote, Twitter changed its rules so they could get rid of Trump.
That's the summary.
We know that now.
Because they didn't really have any rules that he violated.
So they made up some rules to get rid of him.
Now even Jack Dorsey disagreed with it.
Because even Jack said, you had other tools.
You could have removed one tweet and kept the ex-president on there.
Or you could have given him a little time out, like everybody else.
You could have done anything.
Just don't do that.
That was the wrong thing to do.
And the same with the laptop story, that Twitter sort of made rules On the fly.
Now, as Schellenberger accurately states, and I will agree with him, I don't disagree with them making up rules on the fly.
Which sounds like it's contradictory, doesn't it?
I don't disagree with that.
Because the real world is always throwing in new situations, right?
There's no two situations that are quite the same.
So if you just have a general rule and you slavishly follow it, even as reality is changing your situation, I do understand that you sometimes have to update your rules, because some new thing came up.
But it doesn't look like they did something useful in this specific case.
So I love the way Schellenberger acknowledges both sides.
That's a very strong technique.
Because if you don't acknowledge the other argument, you just sound like an activist or a proponent.
He's trying to just tell you what's real and what's not real, so he'll show you both sides.
I like that.
Alright, here's the most controversial and mean thing that ever happened.
I remind you, if anybody's new to my content, I'm a big fan and supporter of the LGBTQ and the trans community.
Which doesn't mean I agree with every single policy change or anything like that.
Certainly not for children.
But I'm just a big supporter of adults who have figured out what they want.
If you're not happy, go for it.
If it doesn't work, that was your right.
It was your right to try it.
So I'm a very big supporter of that community, maybe more so than many of my viewers.
So I give you that context.
Before I say the worst thing anybody ever said about the trans community.
You ready?
Are you ready?
Remember, I'm a supporter.
So the context of this is trying to be useful.
Not trying to be mean.
Not trying to hurt anybody.
Trying to be useful by understanding the situation.
And I came to this opinion while looking at some tweets by Conservative Matt Walsh, who's been deeply into the trans conversation, and he was doing a very mean-spirited, in my opinion, takedown of, what's his name?
Dylan Mulvaney, who is, what's his job?
He's in the Biden administration, and he's a very outspoken trans, currently living as a woman.
And Matt Walsh is very unkind, in my opinion, in his, let's say, opinion of whether or not that's actually a woman.
I won't repeat it, because it's a little meaner than I would want to be.
Now, here's where I agree with Matt Walsh completely, but without the mean parts.
It's the uncanny valley problem.
Uncanny valley problem.
Now, this will be an analogy, but in this case the analogy, what I'm going to say is that I'm not making an argument with an analogy.
I'm saying that the same effect might apply perfectly in this case.
So the argument will be the argument.
Don't imagine that the analogy is the argument, alright?
The argument will just be the argument.
But the analogy will get you to the argument, so you know what I'm saying.
So we know there's a thing with androids and robots, where if a robot looks like just a robot, you could say to yourself, oh, there's a cute little robot there.
Looks like a robot.
But if they make your robot like an android that's so close to being a human being, but not quite, it disgusts us.
Because it looks like a human that's unhealthy or unwell or something.
Because it's not quite right, but you don't know exactly why, it just freaks you out and creeps you out.
Alright?
So, I believe the exact same effect is happening with the trans community and the non-trans reaction to it.
When I see Rachel Levine, Also a trans woman, living as a woman.
I am not grossed out.
I'm not grossed out.
Because when I see Rachel Levine, my brain says, oh, there is someone who looks very much like a man, to me, that's just completely subjective, who prefers to live as a woman, and I respect that.
I'm not grossed out at all.
Because to me, it looks like the robot that doesn't look like a person.
Rachel Levine is not going out of her way to be female.
And so it doesn't get close to the uncanny valley problem.
It's just something you might agree with or disagree with, but that's just happening in your head.
But when Dylan Mulvaney expresses, let's say, her preference, it appears that she is trying to be as close as possible to a biologically born, physically female person.
But can't quite get there.
Isn't quite there.
Really close.
Like, if you were going to score it, you'd probably score it like a 90% or better.
I mean, it's pretty close.
But it's the uncanny valley.
So again, with love and affection, that's a problem that you have to navigate.
I don't know what the right answer is.
But you should be aware, if you're considering transitioning, you should be aware that at least one of the variables is that the closer you get to the perfect version of what you're aiming for, you might be more disturbing to people who are not Let's say, as open to your change as you would like them to be.
All right.
Now, do I get cancelled for that?
Because I genuinely mean this to be useful to the trans community.
Because I'm not sure they understand that.
They might.
But do you think that the The trans community knows about the uncanny valley.
Because it's sort of a niche little thing that not everybody knows about.
You cannot be useful, you say.
Well, the only thing I can be useful to is how some people might react.
Because that's part of the variables.
Doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.
I'm not telling you that.
I'm not giving you any Let me be clear.
Let me be clear, as the spokesperson for the president often says.
Let me be clear.
I'm not saying anybody should or shouldn't do it.
That's their decision as adults.
I'm just saying that one of the variables you should consider is if you get too close to your mark, it might have the opposite effect that you were shooting for.
That's all.
All right.
I saw some tweeting about Ukraine that all of us can agree, all tweets and information about Ukraine are unreliable.
Like, really unreliable.
But still fun to talk about, and I have this question.
I saw two tweeters who seem to know what they're talking about, but who knows, claim that the Russian military that's in Ukraine could be well over 90% of all the Russian military.
You know, the part that actually works.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that Russia is already all in with the stuff that still functions, right?
They might have massive assets that aren't very good, that aren't part of it.
And I don't know what the 90% includes.
Does it include weapons and people or just people?
So almost everybody's saying no in the comments.
So that was my first reaction as well.
So my first reaction is, now, they don't have 90% of their functional army in Ukraine.
And then I said to myself, they better.
That's what I'd do.
If I were Putin, I would put 90% or more of my entire army into that fight.
Do you know why?
Because he can't lose.
He can't lose that fight.
He can't lose.
And it's pretty close to looking like that's a possibility.
I think Putin would put 100% of his assets in there that worked.
The good stuff.
I think it's close to 100%.
Because does Russia have any risk on any other front?
No.
China is not attacking Russia.
They have no risk anywhere else in the world.
If they haven't put 90 plus percent of their assets into that fight already, that's a mistake.
Am I wrong?
It's a mistake.
They have to be all in, because losing is just not an option.
Now, what about Ukraine?
Ukraine's all in, don't you think?
Ukraine probably has greater than 100% of their military in the fight, because they have, like, other people fighting.
Like, they have people that were not even Ukrainian fighting.
So Ukrainian's, like, maybe 120% in the fight?
Like, 20% that's not even the Ukrainian military's in the fight.
Whereas Russia, if they have less than 90% of all their good stuff, including their people who can actually fight, if they have less than 90%, They're not taking you seriously.
Now let me ask you again.
Because almost everybody said no, they do not have 90% of their working assets, military assets, dedicated to Ukraine.
Now that I've explained it, that it would be stupid to have less than 90%, now what do you think?
Did I change your mind?
Anybody change their mind?
Alright, so I'm getting a few more yeses but a lot of nos.
I respect your skepticism.
I respect your skepticism, yeah.
Yeah, I'm not going to say that I have a high confidence that it's 90%, but I will say I have a high confidence that if it's not over 90% that Putin's making a mistake.
Would you agree with that?
Would you agree that if he's not putting over 90% of his working assets and people, that's a mistake?
What's the counter-argument?
Give me the quick counter-argument.
I'm ignoring Japan.
What does Japan have to do with Ukraine and Russia?
I don't understand that.
Counter-attack?
China has a claim on Siberia.
Yeah, but they're not going to move on it.
You think China's going to move on Siberia because Russia's busy?
That's not going to happen.
That's never going to happen.
All right.
Russia and Japan have disputed islands.
Oh, OK.
So there are disputed islands, and you're saying that Japan might move on those disputed islands?
Have you met Japan?
Have you met Japan?
You think Japan is going to mount an offensive war?
Come on.
That's not serious.
Just because they have an opportunity, you think they're going to mount an offensive war against Russia?
That's not going to happen.
All right.
Well, I could be wrong about it all.
But I think if he doesn't have 90% in there, he's stupid and he's not stupid.
That's my view.
If he doesn't have 90% in the fight, he's stupid and he doesn't look stupid.
Or I am.
Good point.
As a felony videos points out, or possibly, I'm stupid.
That is a possibility.
All right, you would not be surprised at the following.
That there's a new study that says that you practically can't get myocarditis from COVID, but man, you could certainly get it from the shots.
Are you surprised that there's a new study that says that all of the myocarditis is probably from the shots and none of it is from the COVID?
Is anybody surprised?
Would you be surprised that about a year ago there was a massive study that said exactly the opposite in a big way?
Exactly the opposite and in a big way.
Now you know what they don't clarify?
Here's my guess.
My guess is that if COVID itself caused any myocarditis, and I don't know at this point, if it did, it might have been bad under alpha and delta.
Exactly, your enemy, it's the variants.
But probably, or just theoretically, under Omicron.
So here's the issue.
It's starting to look like Getting the shot might have been good for some people during Alpha and Delta, but maybe more bad than good under Omicron.
Now that's very preliminary.
It could be that it was all bad all the time.
Very possible.
Could be that it was all good all the time.
I don't think so, but possible.
So we're still in the not completely knowing what's going on for sure, but just be aware That there are two credible-looking studies that say wildly the opposite.
Wildly.
Wildly the opposite.
How do you deal with that?
How do you deal with the fact that there's a study that looks sort of credible that says basically nobody gets myocarditis from COVID, and it's all from the shots?
And then a study from just one year ago Exactly the opposite.
There's like a huge difference.
It's all from the COVID, and you can also get it from the shots.
Both studies say you can get myocarditis from the shots, just to be clear.
Both studies say that.
But one says that's all of it, and the other one says it's much less than if you just got the COVID.
And then the next question is, suppose you had the shots first, And then you get the COVID.
Now, of course, I tweeted both the studies so you can see the difference.
And here was the interesting thing.
One viewer looked at the study that said that the COVID gives you the myocarditis and said, no, the title is misleading.
It says right here in the study that it's the opposite.
So really, Scott, you read the headline wrong.
You got fooled by this fake headline.
But if you actually go into the body of the study, it says the opposite.
So I went into the body of the study, and it does not say the opposite.
But do you think I could convince the person who said it did that it didn't say the opposite?
I could not.
I could not.
I could not convince them that what they were seeing was not real.
Now, here's the thing.
There was one statement that if you looked out of context, it looked like it said the opposite of the headline.
But if you looked at that one statement in the body of the context, it reversed it again.
So there's something that you see out of context that says, the sky is blue.
You add a little bit of context, it says, no, no, the sky is not blue.
And even that little bit of change, we disagreed with that set.
These are two educated people, looking at the same thing written in clear English, and one said, it says wildly left, and then I said, no, it says wildly right, and very clearly so.
And we could not solve that.
We could not solve that.
Now, I think I'm right.
And I think, you know, the other individual is experiencing cognitive dissonance.
But it could be the other way.
It could be the other way.
Who knows?
And then there's a there's a study that long COVID brains are very different.
So the people who had COVID, but presumably not a vaccination, when you look at their brains, they're clearly damaged.
So the COVID people have damaged brains, and you can see the difference.
Now, does that mean that so-called vaccinated people, does that mean that they don't have damaged brains?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Everything you look at is sketchy.
Right?
Because you look at it, you think it's telling you something, and then you realize what they're not telling you.
And as soon as you realize what they're not telling you, all the credibility goes away.
This guy is hung up on COVID.
So if your brain is damaged by COVID, would you not want to know?
Is that something you'd not be interested in?
Massive brain damage?
No interest?
All right.
There's also increasing evidence that the shots were bad for pregnant women and young people.
And does anybody remember me suggesting that if you were pregnant, you should get a under-tested vaccination?
Did I ever recommend that?
Nope.
Nope.
I did not.
I did not.
But a number of people would like to fact-check me for my personal medical decisions.
That's not a thing.
Here's the thing that almost everybody misses in the Vax or no vax conversation.
And by the way, I haven't heard anybody mention this, but one of the biggest variables is always left out.
And it's one I haven't mentioned before, believe it or not.
So it's not about long COVID or any of the stuff we've talked about.
There's one gigantic variable for the people who decided to vaccinate or not that I've never seen discussed.
What it does to you psychologically.
A lot of people who got the shots immediately felt better, psychologically.
Is that nothing?
Is that a nothing?
If you had a year or two of feeling safer, even if you weren't, like even if in fact you weren't, isn't that worth a lot?
Two years of feeling safe?
And there was nothing you could do about it, really.
or maybe there was, who knows.
So suppose you were very much concerned or afraid of the vaccination.
Let's say that was your mentality, was you were very concerned about the danger from the shot itself.
And let's say you're 40 years old and don't have too many comorbidities.
Are you really afraid of the shot itself?
Would I recommend that you got that shot?
What do you think?
Do you think I'd recommend a healthy 40-year-old get the shot if their mentality was, oh, I'm really concerned about the long term?
No.
No, I would not.
Who imagines I would have?
Like, who could even imagine I would have done that?
Of course not.
Yeah, I did not, of course.
And the people who imagined that I ever suggested what anybody else should do with their health The reason you know I didn't do that is because I never talked about the mental part.
If I talked about the mental part, then I would be getting very close to something that was like suggesting what you should do or not do.
As I am now, I guess.
But I never did that.
Because that was just purely your own decision.
We all had inadequate information.
Purely your own decision.
I talked about how I felt, and then people fact-checked me.
Doesn't work like that.
How I feel is a huge part of my mental and physical health.
Well, by definition.
What if Ivermectin made you feel safe?
Then take it.
Did I ever tell anybody to not take Ivermectin?
Ever hear that?
Did that ever come out?
No.
I've said consistently, if you think it works and your doctor agrees and Or even if your doctor doesn't agree.
The risk seems so low that why not?
If it made you feel better, sure.
You know, the placebo effect alone would make ivermectin work.
Am I wrong?
If you had any drug that worked, say, on 30% of the people who took it, that would be like one of the best drugs of all time.
Ivermectin should work on around 30% of the people, whether it works or not.
Whether it works or not, 30% of the people should have seen what they imagined was a benefit.
So, yeah.
I would never tell you to take it or not to take it, and never did.
All right.
But I maintain that so far I am the rightest person on the pandemic.
If you count everything from closing traffic to calling out Fauci is wrong, to masks, to vaccinations, to shutdowns, I was right on every element and every part of it.
I'm the only person as far as now.
I believe I was the rightest person by far.
And it's possible that I'll get a blood clot and die.
Those could both be true.
Right?
The chances that someday I die from a blood clot in five years?
Totally possible.
From making a suboptimal choice.
Totally possible.
But I'm still the rightest person on all the analysis.
Because you can make the right decision and nothing's 100%.
So you can make all the right decisions and still die from your decisions.
That's not even unusual.
Now review your statements on climate models.
The best ever.
Yeah, I have the best opinions on climate change of anybody by far.
Nobody's even close.
Yeah.
I've been right on everything on climate change.
I'm looking for some more pushback, because I'm making ridiculous claims, but they're also true in my opinion.
I expected more pushback.
What about Cernovich's comment that Fetterman is a baller because he risked his own health to get elected?
There's something to that.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Cernovich doesn't say crazy shit, right?
Like you can agree with him or disagree with him, but there's always something there.
There's something to that.
Yeah.
There's substance to that opinion.
I'll just say that.
The question of whether it was good for him Is separate.
The question of whether his wife or anybody else pushed him is separate.
But yes, when you see somebody who takes personal risk to do something that I believe he thought he was doing something good for the country, at least good for the country according to Democrats.
So yeah, anybody who puts their life on the line for public benefit has to be respected.
So I do respect that.
Criminal court after cutting off 37 man buns in one day.
How in the world do you cut off 37 man buns and not be killed?
How did that happen?
I know he did it with a knife, but... Wow.
That was crazy.
All right.
Brain surgeon looking for clots.
All right.
Anything else happening?
What else did I miss?
Robert Kiyoski called the Biden family the Biden crime family.
Oh, there you go.
Yeah, I think you can call the Bidens a crime family.
Because remember, the government is guilty until proven innocent.
They're individuals.
As individuals, they're innocent until proven guilty.
But since they're acting in the form of the government, the government's guilty.
Unless they can prove they're not.
If they can't prove they're not, you have every reasonable right to assume that they're guilty.
Because it wouldn't be hard to prove that they're not guilty.
All right.
Ooh, there's an idea.
Somebody's suggesting that if I got a man bun, I could cover my male pattern baldness.
That might be the best idea I've heard.
Because I was thinking of converting to Judaism, just so I'd always have a little hat to cover up the bald spot.
But that felt like a big sacrifice.
So I think I'll just grow my hair out and have a man bun right on top.
I think I could rock that.
Totally rock that.
Are you seeing the videos of the Tate brothers?
Where Andrew Tate doesn't get to shave his head probably in prison or however they're being detained.
So his hair is growing back in the shaved part and on the sides.
And the unfortunate outcome is that it's changing from a strong masculine look with the shaved head and it's turning him into the pointy haired boss with the two tufts on the side and bald in the middle.
And it's a real lesson on presenting yourself.
It's a real lesson.
And I'm going to give him a compliment.
I do think that That Andrew Tate, in particular, he does a better job working with what he was born with than just about anybody.
He does a really good job of turning what he has into the best asset it could be.
I'm seeing a lot of people, like Piers Morgan, for example, agree with the Andrew Tate, let's say, philosophy to some degree, not 100%.
And just being forced to say that.
You know, the Andrew Tate thing is really not about Andrew Tate.
If you think it's about him, you're missing the whole story.
The reason that he has a massive following is that he's saying the things that everybody's thinking.
That's it.
It's because of us that he's famous.
He's not famous just because he's good at it, and he's good at it.
He's famous because he says things that people agree with.
That's it.
But I don't think we want to deal with that yet.
I don't think we want to deal with the fact that men and boys feel so victimized that they need some kind of guidance to get them on a stronger path.
And if he's contributing to that message, it's a positive.
If he's just turning him into a little dirtbag misogynist, not so good.
Not so good.
But I would say, as of today, that I'm not familiar with anything I would consider convincing evidence that they committed crimes.
Now, I've said this before, but it's time to say it again.
The Tate situation is not like anything else, and here's why.
I've always wondered what would happen when a master persuader goes to trial.
Now, I heard about one case where a hypnotist went to trial and got convicted for some bad behavior.
But I always thought to myself, if the case were more complicated, let's say the one hypnotist, I guess, did one bad thing with one underage person.
So that was sort of a simple thing, yes or no, and the jury decided he was guilty.
But the taits are involved in something that, at the very least, is complicated.
It's complicated by, you know, who's trying to do what?
Who's after them?
Are they just victims?
Did they really do a crime?
Were the women really agreeing to it?
Were they not?
There's some kind of indication that there's some messages that have been recovered from the girls plotting to take Tate down with fake claims.
I don't know if the messages are real, but if they're real, It would suggest that there was a plot to take them down, which doesn't mean they didn't commit any crimes, right?
Nothing is guaranteeing anything else.
But here's what you need to know.
Andrew Tate's success is not an accident.
It's because he knows how to communicate and he is a trained persuader.
So his talent stack includes everything from fighting to communications to putting on a look that has a certain appeal to getting women.
He has a whole bunch of talents in his stack.
But he's very smart and one of the talents that he's added is hypnosis and persuasion directly.
He's an expert on persuasion.
And if you put an expert on persuasion who actually understands hypnosis, I don't think he's a hypnotist, but he would understand it.
You put him into a trial situation, and I think he walks, even if he's guilty.
So I think what's going to happen is, now things could be different in Romania.
It's a corrupt system.
So maybe, you know, maybe it doesn't matter how good your defense is.
I don't know.
But if the trial is fair and the Tates get to determine how the defense is managed, I think they walk.
And it has nothing to do with guilt.
I'm not making any opinion on their guilt.
I believe that his skill level is greater than the judicial system in Romania.
That's what I think.
I think it's not a fair fight.
That he's not in the fight yet because he's just being held like, you know, in a detention.
So he's not able to mount any kind of a defense.
But if it becomes public, I don't know if they do that in Romania, but if you imagine it's public, he wins.
If it's a fair trial, he wins.
Because he has the skill to induce reasonable doubt in almost any situation.
Even if you think, well, it's right here, here's the memo, we've got all these witnesses, he can make all that go away.
He can make all of that go away.
And I don't think you understand the degree of his skill.
Now, I'm not saying it's guaranteed.
He could just be convicted and we'll never know what the deal was.
It's possible.
But I'm going to bet on him not only getting out of it, but getting out of it like Nelson Mandela.
You know what I mean?
As in coming back stronger?
Because if he can add to his current narrative, because he's a construction of his own making.
Whatever opinion you have of Tate, he's created.
That's just a construction of his.
If he beats this charge, the next construction will be he's Nelson Mandela.
The system tried to take him down, but he was stronger than the system.
That's going to be really appealing.
Now, Lance says, Tate is a predator, not a persuader.
Well, he could be both.
He could be both.
I'm not supporting him.
Just to be clear, if anybody's new to me, again, I hate him.
For personal reasons, right?
For personal interactions.
I hate him.
Would I be happy if he went to jail for a long time?
Yeah, I would.
Honestly, I would be totally happy.
What he did to me personally, I would be perfectly fine if he went to jail for 10 years.
I don't even care if he's innocent.
I think karma might just take care of it.
Maybe karma will take care of it.
Now, here's another question for you.
Is it a coincidence that the people I want to go down seem to go down quite often?
You ever notice that?
That when somebody is my nemesis, bad things seem to happen to them?
Not because I did anything.
I mean, I didn't do anything in Romania.
It just seems like another one of those coincidences.
- Of the Trump effect, yeah. - Yeah, for sure of medical, most people don't care about medical necessity.
Okay.
All right.
Yes, there are lots of coincidences.
Am I aligned with the intelligence community?
What do you mean aligned?
Do you mean working with them?
I'm not in anybody's payroll, and I'm not aware of any assignments I've been given from the intelligence community.
What did he do to you?
Never mind.
It was personal.
It's all over the internet, but it was personal.
Do I meet with them?
Not that I'm aware of.
You know, but the whole thing about working with the intelligence community, that's a real gray area.
It's a real gray area.
If the CIA came to you and said, hey, you know, could you do us a favor?
Would you do it?
It would depend on the favor, obviously.
But let's say it was something easy.
No, my ex-wife has never met Tate.
But Tate says they met.
And believe me, I would know.
Because she would tell me.
She would just tell me.
But no, they've never met.
They had one exchange of DMs where she sent him a generic response like everybody else.
And then he made a whole rumor out of it.
There's nothing easy the CIA would ask you to do?
Sure there is.
Sure there is.
Suppose the CIA said to you, we'd like you to start a company.
that does the following things.
And then you say, I do start companies and I do that kind of work, but I don't want to do it just because you said so.
And then the CIA says, we can pretty much guarantee you'll get a government contract.
Because we need somebody to be in this business.
And you say, what?
They go, yeah.
We will guarantee that you're rich.
What?
No, we'll guarantee it.
Because we'll make sure that you have gigantic customers, because those customers also like to work with us.
So if you create a company that does this kind of a product that the CIA would like to see exist, what we'll do is make sure that you have lots of customers, and maybe the government will be one.
So you don't even have to worry about making money.
Now do you want to do it?
Okay, let me let me understand this.
You get a guarantee that I make money in this business just because you think it would be good for the United States to have somebody in this business.
And then the CIA says, yep, that's exactly it.
You will have no connection to us.
We will not be paying you.
You don't have to do anything for us.
We're not asking you for any favors.
We're just giving you one.
We're giving you a favor because it's good for the country.
So we'd like to see a company that can do this, let's say technology or whatever it is.
And so we'll put you in business.
There you go. - You're way ahead of me.
Do you think it's ever happened?
Do you think that there are any big companies that you're aware of today that the CIA may have helped along?
Might have helped them along a little bit.
Yeah, probably.
Not all of them, but probably.
I would rule out my pillow.
Probably not my pillow.
Yes.
All right, that's all for now.
That is the best live stream you've ever seen.
Provocative content.
Surely to get me banned in some way, if that still happens.
And I'm going to say goodbye to the YouTube people and talk to the people on Locals for a little bit, because they're special.
If you are a local, you would see my special man cave broadcasts, in which we do things we do not do in the morning.
We do them from the man cave.
And they're fun.
You should enjoy it.
Export Selection