All Episodes
March 19, 2023 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:04:36
Episode 2052 Scott Adams: Trump Indictment Absurdity, My Second Rant, Fentanyl Strategy

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Kamala, fear of public speaking? Jonathan Turley on Trump's pending arrest Alvin Bragg funded by Soros Vivek Ramaswamy keeps doing smart things Peter Zeihan on cartels ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 finest live stream in the history of live streams.
And today, your experience is going to reach levels which I don't know if you can even handle it.
It'll be so awesome.
But if you'd like to take your experience up with the rest of us, join us.
Join us.
Let's take this experience up.
Yes.
I almost want to make a joke, but don't ruin my flow.
Don't ruin my flow.
That was a... Just kidding.
But anyway, all you need is a couple of my... Do you know that when my flow gets disturbed, it really does have this ripple effect?
I'm going to try to regain my... And here's the way I'm going to do it.
As I was saying, if you want to bring this experience up a level, somebody mentioned Stormy Daniels in the comments.
And it was just too good.
Like, okay, no, don't make a joke about bringing your experience up and mention Stormy Daniels.
Do not do it.
And then I'm trying to think at the same time and I'm thinking, no, no Stormy Daniels joke, no.
And then I lost my place.
So I'm going to have to do the Stormy Daniels joke first, before I can even do the simultaneous sip.
It's just now in my head.
You did that to me.
If you'd like to take this experience up to levels that only Stormy Daniels could provide, all you need is a cupper, a mugger, a glass, a tankard, a chalice, a styne, a guillotine, a jug of glass, a vessel of any kind.
See, much better that way.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine here today that makes everything better.
It's called a simultaneous sip.
Now we're back in the flow.
Alright, it's working now.
Go.
All right, now we're on track.
Right on track.
Do you all know that Dilbert, although cancelled worldwide, is running on the Locals platform at scottadams.locals.com?
And people have asked me, Scott, these are new comics, but where are all the old ones that used to be on the archive on Dilbert.com?
I don't have a solution for that, but I probably will.
Please understand that when you get cancelled worldwide, it creates extra work.
So I'm a little bit busy for the next few weeks.
But it's all good stuff.
Honestly, being cancelled is one of the best things that's ever happened to me.
I did not plan it that way.
I really didn't.
But it could not have worked out better.
Honestly, it could not have been better.
Alright, but enough about me.
Elon Musk says he's got a new plan for Twitter.
The first things you'll see is people you follow.
Doesn't it seem like that should have been the first thing you saw before?
The people I follow were not the first things I was seeing.
I was definitely missing people I was following, but I thought, wouldn't it make perfect sense that the people you follow were the first ones you saw?
Is that really different?
But I guess it will be different.
After the people you follow, next would be verified accounts.
So people who paid to be verified.
And then third would be unverified accounts.
So I don't know what percentage of my trolls are unverified accounts, but at least half.
So that'd be good.
At least half of them are just, you know, bad people doing bad things.
So I think And Musk says that the verified accounts are a thousand times harder to game by bots and troll armies.
So we should see, this will happen in the next few weeks, so we should see some kind of big difference in Twitter.
But I do want to make sure that I don't miss People who I don't follow.
I mean, the people that I don't follow are sometimes the most interesting ones, simply because they disagree with you.
So, this is a good thing to try.
I think it's the right direction, but we'll see how it works out.
How many of you saw my rant yesterday?
Was it yesterday?
Yeah.
How many of you think that that rant will go viral?
You think it'll go viral?
I don't.
You know why it won't go viral?
Well, it could, you know, it might go a little viral just among, you know, a certain part of the population, but it won't cross over to the rest.
Do you know why?
It's too dangerous.
It's too dangerous.
Now, if there's something in there they could take out of context, because all of the, you know, everything's political in this environment.
If they could find some political way to tank me, they'll do it.
But there's no way that they're going to show the whole rant, because it's too honest.
It's just too honest.
And there is a degree of honesty that the system can't handle, and that was well beyond the limit they can handle.
So you're not going to see that.
That will never go viral.
I promise you.
I've seen more people speculating, what I speculate, that the reason Kamala Harris acts the way she does in public is that she's drunk.
Now, have I ever been in trouble before for saying somebody seemed drunk in public?
Yes, I have.
I would say it about Hillary Clinton, but not every time she spoke.
I've never said Hillary was drunk every time she spoke, because it didn't look like it.
It was just that sometimes she looked like maybe she had some wine for lunch or something.
But Kamala does look drunk pretty much every time she speaks.
Now, I'm not saying she is.
Because the story would be just as shocking if she were not.
Imagine if she acts like that naturally.
I mean, literally, that would be scary.
I would be a little more comfortable if I found out she'd been drinking.
Because at least you can stop drinking, you know, for a few minutes.
Here's my current speculation.
Just speculation.
So this is based on, you know, living a life and knowing a lot of people and just sort of being in this world.
But here's my speculation.
I think she's like Raj on, remember the show, The Big Bang Theory?
The Big Bang Theory?
It was a character, Raj, who couldn't speak to women unless he was drinking alcohol.
He literally just couldn't speak.
And I feel like Kamala has fear of public speaking.
And that when she thinks she's going to speak, I think she has to drink.
That's just my speculation.
And here's what it's based on.
Very scant clues.
Very scant.
Number one, she acts drunk quite often when she's talking.
Number two, the over-cackling seems to be a fear of public speaking.
Do you get that?
The laughing too hard is sort of like buying her time in a public situation.
So it's not just a speech, but also, you know, she's answering questions.
I think the cackle is a delaying tactic because she doesn't want to speak.
I think that people who are afraid of speaking in public might sometimes say to themselves, well, you know, after a glass of wine, I'm a lot better.
Just one glass of wine.
But then you have two, because if one is good, two might be great.
And that's my theory, is that she drinks because she's not a comfortable public speaker.
Now, I did a little Googling.
And found out that in two occasions she's helped people who were bad at public speaking.
She gave them advice.
One was somebody who was breaking down in public and she helped him out.
And another was some young girls and she was giving them some advice about how to be comfortable public speaking.
How many other national politicians have ever advised somebody on public speaking?
I've never heard of it.
It seems like that would be maybe something in her mind or something she cared about.
So there's a little bit of a tell that she cares about public speaking and being comfortable.
It would also explain my biggest mystery about her.
In the beginning of the primary, I thought that she would be the strongest candidate.
And that was based entirely upon seeing her performance during congressional hearings, where she'd be one of the people interviewing people.
And I thought, wow, she looks really put together.
And when she's interviewing people and asking tough questions, like a prosecutor, she actually seemed on her game.
And then I learned that the only thing she does capably is blaming other people of crimes.
That's the only thing she can do.
So it actually explains why she was a public prosecutor and Attorney General of the state, is that blaming people of stuff, she can do really well.
But as soon as she gets out of the mode of blaming stuff, you know, politicians, criminals, as soon as she's not blaming somebody, she doesn't know what to do.
So she has one mode that she's good at.
Oh, I'm blaming you of a crime.
I'm blaming you of some racism.
I'm blaming you of being a bad politician.
I blame you, I blame you, I blame you.
But as soon as she's out of blame mode, it looks like she can't speak.
She's got one mode.
So that's on me, because I saw her coincidentally in her prosecutor mode when she was doing these congressional investigations.
And I thought, well, there's somebody who knows how to Do this investigating stuff.
It looks like that would be a skill that you could transfer into the larger leadership realm.
But apparently she doesn't have those skills.
She's just good at blaming people for crimes.
A very narrow skill, but got her to Vice President.
And so I'm going to start calling her instead of Kamala Harris, I think I'll call her Druncula.
Sort of like Count Druncula.
Drunkula Harris.
And here's my take.
If she's not drunk, that's not the good news.
Now, the good news is not that, Scott, you're wrong.
She doesn't ever do that.
She was completely sober.
That's the bad news.
I'm being a little bit kind by saying, I hope she's drunk.
Because if she acts like this, literally, and by the way, this is not hyperbole.
Doesn't it sound like it?
That difference between, you know, a joke and reality?
It's now completely merged.
I'm not kidding.
If this is her real self, I'm way more afraid than if she has some drinks and maybe sometimes she can make sober decisions when we're not watching.
That would be the best case scenario.
Sort of like Winston Churchill.
He drank a lot, but seemed to get the job done.
So it's not the drinking that would bother me, it would be if she's not drunk.
Putin is now, I guess he's an accused war criminal because there's some Rome statue.
123 nations are obliged to arrest Putin if he shows up in their country.
So remember how Putin was always showing up at all these G20s and he was always visiting other countries and he had this really high profile, which I think was really good for Russia.
Like, it gave you an impression of Russia as, you know, like a number two or number three on the world stage and, you know, real involved in world affairs and, you know, one of the people you should take seriously.
But now, He can't even travel to most countries without being worried about getting arrested.
What do you think would happen if Putin got arrested in another country and actually held?
Do you think that over in Russia his cronies would say, oh we'd better do everything to get him out of there, threaten war, etc.
Or would the people back in Russia say, Well, looks like we all got a promotion.
Am I wrong?
I think if some other country picked up Putin, there of course would be lots of noise.
Oh, stop that.
We're going to nuke you.
But do you think that they would actually feel bad?
Because whoever is number two in line, or thinks they might be number two, there might be a number of people who think they have a shot at it, wouldn't they all be happier if Putin were gone?
And it's not their fault?
Well, it's not our fault.
He's just sort of not available.
So I guess the rest of us will have to figure out who's in charge.
But it wasn't us.
It was that other country.
So it feels like it would be the best case scenario for the Russians themselves.
Because even the worst, the worst of the leaders who might try to take over and be their own little despot, even they would think, well, I just got promoted one One level.
I'm a little bit closer to the top today.
No, that's not mind reading, that's speculation.
That's different.
So, I enjoy it when somebody says, Scott, are you mind reading?
Because that's actually a good question.
Speculation is, I don't know what they're thinking, but I'm imagining what ordinary people would do in this situation.
That's just speculation.
But if I said, those people are thinking X, that's mind reading.
That's my dream.
And that would be dumb.
All right.
So Putin can't go too many places.
That's kind of a bummer for him.
Over at CNN, the cat's on the roof.
And by that I mean CNN's Aaron Burnett was talking to some pundit expert about the revelations about the payments from Chinese companies and other companies to the Bidens directly and indirectly.
And this is what she said.
So this is Aaron Burdett on CNN.
So, again, from a layperson, that doesn't look good.
That doesn't look good.
She continued before asking Goodman, who was her guest, if he found the records to be damaging legally.
So apparently the expert said, there's probably nothing legally that's illegal.
And I agree with that.
Probably not.
There's probably nothing illegal.
But even their expert said, but it certainly looks unethical.
Now if you've got CNN's Aaron Burnett, you know, stirring to hint, just a little bit of a suggestion of a hint that the Biden crime family is exactly what it looks like, exactly what it looks like.
It might not be illegal.
It might not be.
I don't know.
You don't want it.
It's definitely something you don't want.
Now my understanding is there's some Marco Polo document that documents hundreds of crimes that Hunter Biden did.
And that might be true too.
But it also might be hundreds of crimes that are sort of theoretical, like whatever the hell Trump is being accused of now.
Stuff that you wouldn't normally pursue for anybody.
I'm open to the possibility that there are genuine crimes.
I mean, certainly with his gun situation, there was something that looked like a crime.
Well, you know, if you're paying for access, is that a crime?
Can you not charge for an introduction?
I've never heard of that being a crime.
You can?
Well, that's if you didn't register as a foreign, whatever, lobbyist or something.
But even that doesn't get, even that typically doesn't get prosecuted, right?
There are lots of people who have done the same thing, but they're sort of, you know, as long as they admit it after the fact, it's not the biggest deal in the world.
Yeah.
Well, I guess that's selective prosecution too.
Depends how much you like the person.
If you like him, it's no big deal.
If you don't like him, arrest him.
Well, here's what they're not saying on CNN, at least I haven't seen it yet.
The walls are closing in on Trump.
Have you seen that yet?
Has anybody on CNN said the walls are closing in?
And I'm pretty sure that they have somebody on retainer whose only job it is to say the walls are closing in.
Like one of the anti-Trump opinion writers, their opinion writers are just the anti-Trumper go-to team.
Even they won't do it.
But no word yet on MSNBC.
MSNBC, I think they're probably still committed.
Yeah, they're still committed to being nothing even similar to news.
To be as far away from anything that's like a legitimate news entity as you could possibly be.
So if you're making CNN look like the reasonable ones, that's quite a statement.
And MSNBC, I think they're doing it.
Well, Jonathan Turley weighed in on these alleged indictments that are coming for Trump out of the Manhattan office and Alvin Bragg, the DA.
Here's how Jonathan Turley puts it.
He says, Trump faces serious legal threats, blah, blah, blah, but the New York case could be easily dismissed outside of a jurisdiction like New York, where brag can count on highly motivated judges and jurors.
So Turley, who knows what he's talking about, he's one of the reasonable people in the world, says basically it's only going forward because New York Is not a reasonable place.
That's your starting point.
That this wouldn't work in a reasonable state.
It's only that New York is broken that it's even happening.
Now that's a good starting place for the conversation.
Turley's branding this America's Got Trump.
That's the funny version of the walls are closing in.
Like from the people who can see what's happening.
It's like America's got Trump.
And apparently, could any of this be televised?
Is it possible that this would be televised and it would actually be like a reality show, America's Got Trump?
We got him this time.
We got your Trump.
I would kind of enjoy that.
I would sort of like to see it.
Honestly.
I'd like to see it.
I don't think there's any chance that Trump will be handcuffed, because that would be just handing him the election, but anything's possible.
And apparently the Hillary Clinton campaign, I'm reminded again by Jonathan Turley in writing in The Hill, or at least it's printed in The Hill.
That the Hillary Clinton's campaign hid the Steele dossier payments.
In other words, they paid to have the Steele dossier created, but they laundered those payments as legal expenses, as opposed to a campaign expense, which it clearly was.
Do you think anybody was saying that Hillary should be picked up and handcuffed?
Of course not.
She just paid a fine.
She paid a fine.
That was it.
Now, it's not exactly the same situation, but on the other hand, it's exactly the same situation, if you know what I mean.
It's different, but it's exactly the same, meaning that they're both being treated politically, in my opinion.
Now, I think the right way to treat it is politically, by the way, and the right way is the way Hillary was treated.
I'm actually glad that Hillary was not put in jail for that Steele dossier.
Because if you start going down that road, then a lot of political stuff is going to be a jailable offense, and I'm not sure that's in our best interest.
If you catch them and you make it news and it's part of the campaign, maybe information is the better way to go.
I'm not really in favor of going hard against candidates, especially losing candidates.
That's not a good look for the Republic.
So I would go easy on politicians at the highest level anyway.
I would go easy on them for what I call the technical violations.
They're skeevy, and they're sketchy, and they're unethical.
But if you put them in jail, it's just a whole different game.
So let me say as clearly as possible, I do not believe in equal justice for all.
I believe that our leaders should be treated Treated better than the rest of us.
Has anybody ever said that?
As long as I apply it to both sides, I feel like it's a completely reasonable thing to say.
Yeah, the whole, you know, nobody's above the law.
I get that.
Nobody's above the law.
But you still have to run the law for the benefit of the citizens.
No, people should not pull their money from banks because of the January 6th thing.
Do not crash the economy of the United States over a protest.
That's not the way to go.
I'm seeing that suggestion.
That's not a good suggestion.
Yeah, you should drop that right away.
I'm okay with protests, but don't destroy your own economy.
That sounds like China talking.
I mean, seriously, if I had to guess, I'd say you were a Chinese agent with that idea.
That's not any kind of a patriotic idea.
It's the worst idea of all time.
Protests, good.
Protests, good.
Safe protests.
Crashing the economy?
No.
Absolutely not.
Worst idea ever.
I don't care who's pushing it.
It's a dumb fuck idea.
It's like really bad idea.
Really bad idea.
Worst idea I've ever heard.
In the history of ideas, it's the worst one.
Alright, here's the other thing we're not talking about.
Why is this not a race story?
Because the prosecutor is Elvin Bragg.
He's a black man.
Trump is usually unfairly accused of being a giant racist.
You don't think race has anything to do with this?
You don't think if the roles were reversed, that's all we'd be talking about?
Of course we would.
Of course we would.
And of course it's racial.
It's not entirely racial.
It's more political than racial.
But it's also racial, right?
It's also racial.
So Soros indirectly funded Alvin Bragg and other so-called progressive prosecutors.
And I guess the way it's done is, at least in part, is through an organization called Color of Change.
Color of Change.
So I read that today and I thought, well, who are they?
So Color of Change is a group Who has both white and black members, and they're fighting for a variety of social improvements that could broadly be called systemic racism.
So some of the things which this group has accomplished is getting NCAA athletes paid in California.
Getting them paid for racial justice.
Because there are so many black athletes, I guess.
That's real important work that I don't think anybody cared about.
Nobody.
And let's see, what else have they done?
Some valuable stuff.
They've stopped some apps that were predatory lending.
And they've stopped weddings at plantation sites.
So no more weddings at places where slavery was a thing.
Those are the things that are listed, but then there are also things where they're trying to get Progressive candidates elected.
So apparently that's happened.
Now, how is this not racist?
It's racist, right?
It's an entire organization working for one group.
And I looked at a picture of the people who work for them, and I was pleased that with the group photo, there were a number of white faces.
who were also working for justice.
And they were working together as a group.
And I wondered to myself, huh, you know, if the actual number of people actually had a pretty good number, I don't know, maybe 20% or something.
I mean, that's pretty significant.
20% looked like they were white.
But then I looked at the official documentation for the group.
I don't think there were any white people when they advertised their group.
Just sort of a racist thing?
They just show the black faces as members of the group, but when they actually do a photograph, they do have a good number of white members.
Interesting that they wouldn't focus on them, or show that it's a bipartisan group.
I mean, you'd think it'd be stronger if it were bipartisan, right?
So anyway, it looks like a racist group, but not all racism is poorly intended.
It might have good intentions.
But a lot of racism happens, just sort of, because that's the way the world works.
All right.
Somebody named John Anthony Castro, who apparently has a million dollars to waste, he's talking about the fact that Trump said, asked people to protest his coming election, or his coming indictment.
Now, is Trump saying protest?
Just that one word, protest.
Is that suggesting people should do illegal and dangerous things?
When you hear the word protest in the United States, do you just immediately think, oh, danger, violence?
Or do you think it's the basis upon which our country is built, the most fundamental right we have of free speech and protest?
Now, I think that calling for protest Is entirely, entirely fair.
Whether it's a good idea or not.
Alright, that's a separate question.
It might not be a good idea.
I think it would be a bad idea actually.
I think that a good idea would be to let it play out and then Trump wins in a landslide because it's so obvious that the system is corrupt.
That would be the way I'd do it.
Now I think protest can also be verbally.
Meaning that people like me can say, oh this is clearly, you know, nothing like justice.
Not even close.
So I don't want to, you know, suggest that anybody hits the streets.
I guess there's some concern that they might.
So this Twitter user, John Anthony Castro, says, New Yorkers, if they try to January 6th a New York courthouse, show up with bats.
Time to put these MAGA MFers in their place.
I'm donating one million toward armed security.
No more effing around.
If we're going to take this prick down, we have to do it together.
Now my first thought about this is that no story that involves bats ever works out just the way you hope it would.
First observation.
That's more of a simulation thing.
As soon as the word bats is part of the story, you know this isn't going to go in a good direction.
Nothing good started with bats.
Can you think of any happy story this started with?
Bats flew out of a cage and dropped money on everybody.
No, no, never.
Bats were used in this battle between... No, no good.
No, nothing with bats.
But I thought this was a great, great idea by the By probably a Democrat.
Because if you're going to take on the greatest supporters of the Second Amendment, the way to do it is with bats.
And let me extend that.
If ever there comes a civil war between red and blue America, do not take your ARs, if you have them, Democrats.
Take your bats.
Those bats are really going to be effective against the people who are the biggest proponents of the Second Amendment.
So good luck with that.
Now, I do not recommend violence with bats or guns or anything else.
In fact, I don't even think you should hit the streets about this.
But Batman, I'm going to just call him Batman, John Anthony Castro.
So Batman has a plan that might be the worst plan I've ever heard, but I do hope he spends a million dollars on armed security, because that would be funny.
I'd just like him to spend a million dollars on armed security.
Alright, remember I said that maybe the only way to do something about fentanyl demand, just on the demand side, would be to provide fentanyl for free and make it cheaper than the cartels and maybe put them out of business?
Turns out that Vancouver is doing exactly that.
So Vancouver is doing some kind of... Oh, there we go.
We're back.
So the idea would be that if you had a prescription, you could get fentanyl powder, but the quality control and the quantity would be carefully controlled so that the odds of getting an overdose would be much lower.
And apparently substituting fentanyl for anything won't work.
Do you know why?
Do you know why you can't say, hey, hey, we won't give you fentanyl, but here's this free cocaine or free heroin or something like that?
Do you know why?
It's because the fentanyl's better.
So the people who are addicts, they're not going to do the second choice.
They're just not going to do that.
So they do need the fentanyl or they're just going to get it illegally because the illegal fentanyl would be better than legal heroin or legal anything.
So you're going to have to meet them at fentanyl or they're just going to go get it.
So all I will say about this is that I'm glad somebody's trying it.
I'm glad somebody's trying it.
Now, if you ask me, would you bet that this will work?
I'd probably bet against it.
And the only reason I'd bet against it is that everything we've tried hasn't worked.
Am I right?
It wouldn't even matter what it was, if it sounded like the best idea in the world.
The best idea in the world.
I'd still say, well, nothing's ever worked before, so probably not this.
But you have to try it.
Somebody's got to try it.
So I say, you know, standing ovation to Vancouver for putting themselves out there trying something.
Could work.
I wouldn't rule it out.
Could work.
I was reminded in the comments to back up on the Trump Indictment story.
So Vivek Ramaswamy is calling for Republican candidates to disavow or to, you know, talk out against this illegal looking indictment.
I won't say illegal looking.
Let me say that it's obviously a political indictment.
Obviously a political indictment.
Everybody can see it.
Well, everybody who pays attention can see it.
So, And I was reminded to say that Vivek is picking up free money.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
So that's another smart, just a smart play by Vivek.
Because if you're a Republican and you're not speaking out against a political arrest of the most prominent Republican, if you're not talking out about that, you do not deserve to run for office.
I'm sorry.
The minimum bar for being a Let's say a national, credible Republican is to disavow this.
If you can't say that out loud and right away, with no hedging whatsoever, you cannot be a president.
At least you're not going to get votes from Republicans.
Now this puts DeSantis in an interesting situation.
I saw Mike Cernovich say that DeSantis could You know, try to work against the federal government jurisdiction.
Try to do some jurisdiction thing.
I don't think it would work.
And I don't think that Mike Cernovich thinks it would work.
But it might be the right look.
Might be the right look.
You know, it's free money.
Just pick it up and say you'll do whatever you can to stop it from happening because it's obviously a political Now, it won't make any difference in the real world, but at least you'd be throwing down your marker and saying, all right, I say this is wrong.
And it's stronger.
It's stronger because he'd be talking about somebody who's potentially his strongest competitor to be president.
So if DeSantis can't say out loud, strongly, and fairly soon, this isn't right, this is political, it's got to end.
Whether or not he tries to stop it with some Florida law that's separate.
But if he can't say that full-throated, he's not qualified to be president, in my opinion.
That would be disqualifying.
And I think that's just another example where Vivek Ramaswamy is doing smart things right in front of you.
I'm not sure you can get elected doing smart things.
I hate to say it, but if you did only smart things, I don't know if the public would get inspired.
Sometimes they need a little red meat.
But anyway, good to anybody who's smart enough to take the free money and denounce it on the Republican side.
All right, here's another idea for dealing with the cartels, but I'll update you.
with what Peter Zayin says about the cartels at the moment.
Now I've been asked by members of the audience, and thank you for doing that, that I should see what Peter Zayin says about this whole cartel, fentanyl business.
And so I did.
Now his point of view I have not heard anywhere else.
But I think he knows what he's talking about.
So I'm going to give you the caveat that I don't know that this is true.
Because it's still a single source.
But it is a single source from a smart, connected person that I don't think has a reason to lie.
And it goes like this.
The image that I had of the cartels was that there might be two or three big ones and they've sort of reached a kind of a sort of a mafia-like agreement about who has what territory.
So in effect one or more of them could control the government and the border and everything else.
But basically the cartels were like this big Well-managed, you know, solid industry.
And then there were a few of them and they'd reached some kind of a balancing point where they weren't fighting each other so much.
They're just sort of controlling their domains.
Turns out that's all wrong.
All wrong.
Apparently, and I hope I have this right, that when the US got El Chapo, His cartel sort of disintegrated into warring factions trying to take over what was left.
So now the biggest one became a bunch of warring factions.
The smaller ones apparently also are more characterized as thugs, you know, warring with each other.
And that the reason that the murder rate is currently so high is because the cartels do not have control.
Isn't that a You know, mind effort.
I always thought it was because the cartels had control that they were just killing anybody they could kill, you know, willy-nilly.
But apparently when El Chapo was in control, the murder rate went way down because they didn't want trouble.
They just wanted to run his business.
So apparently the Sinaloan cartel was like a business.
What's left is more like gangs.
So the situation has degenerated from something like a business of selling drugs to gang selling drugs.
And that now it's just violence and inter-fighting.
Now, under that situation, you would have to deal with them a little bit differently.
I was thinking that if there really are big cartels that you could negotiate with, you could actually negotiate with them.
Just like a country.
And just say, look, we're bigger than you.
We are going to crush you.
You need to do something different.
And then, you know, at least make the offer before you crush them.
It seems like the sporting thing to do.
But if it's really a bunch of disjoint people fighting for power, that's a whole different deal.
So let me suggest a strategy that matches that situation.
Instead of invading with the military, you simply put whatever assets in place that you need to, to know what all of the cartel people are doing.
And then whenever you see something, you tell the other cartels.
Hey, looks like this cartel has got a little action going over here.
Just letting you know.
Hey, looks like there's a big shipment that just came out of the Sinaloa group and it's on this highway, heading toward the border.
In case you want to stop it.
Somebody says there's a movie called Sicario where they did that.
I don't know that movie.
Now, I'm not saying this is a good idea, but if you knew that the cartels were breaking into factions and infighting, would you ask yourself, are we already doing that?
Are we already doing it?
And why wouldn't we?
I presume that US intelligence assets are operating in Mexico, don't you?
Don't you think we have some CIA or something going on in Mexico involving the cartels?
I assume so.
Of course we do, right?
Now, what would be the best thing you could do if you couldn't move your own assets in?
Well, you don't want the cartels to get so powerful that they are You know, literally like a country, forming their own armies and stuff.
So the first thing you do is give them all information about the other ones and just keep it coming.
And just make them fight with each other, give them some rumors.
Hey, did you know this other faction is planning to move against you?
I don't know, yeah, they're really serious.
I don't know, your best bet might be to move against them first.
You know, take the first shot.
So, there's a part of me that wonders, If there's any part of our military or intelligence agencies that are already breaking up the cartels into small parts by rumors and information and narking on one group versus the other.
Kind of looks like it.
So I'm not going to say that's what's happening, but why wouldn't it?
I mean, why wouldn't it?
It's the obvious thing to do, isn't it?
It's the most obvious thing to do.
So I'm going to say it's not a suggestion.
It looks like it's happening.
And I don't know where that's going to end up, but it looks like it's happening.
I also heard... Let me see if you think this is true.
Remember we always used to hear about the crypts and the bloods?
You know, it's like, you hear about it all the time.
And I don't hear about it so much.
At least in Southern California, I don't hear about it so much.
And there's some speculation that the MS-13 wiped them out and just killed all the people who were competitors.
Now, obviously they still exist, of course.
But I wonder if MS-13 actually wiped out the drug competition.
Now, I would have trouble believing that anything thorough happened, like all the drug business went away.
I don't think that.
But I wonder if there's anything to that, that the MS-13 got rid of the rival gangs, because that is the first thing they do.
They get rid of the rival gangs so they can take over the business.
I don't know.
I'm not sure I believe anything about that.
Here's a question for you.
If someday we have chips in our skulls, microchips or little computers in our skulls, that's what Neuralink is trying to do.
I'm sure others will do it.
Will we get to the point where robots can read your mind?
I think so.
Because robots will have AI in them, eventually.
Wouldn't you agree?
Of course a robot will have AI.
Now if you have AI, Can't you hack any password?
If you had A.I.
and maybe a connection to a quantum computer?
Yeah, right.
If the A.I.
had connection to a quantum computer and also had all full A.I., it could kind of crack any password or encryption.
And could it pick up a signal from the chip in your head?
And could your robot walk up to you, read your signal, and say, I see you would like a glass of water, I'll get one.
Now that's the good news, but suppose you committed a crime and you died in the commission of the crime.
Do you think your chip will remember the memories of what happened?
Because we do know now that you can assemble a memory by scanning somebody's brain.
You know that's real, right?
That's an actual real thing.
If you knew how to scan or monitor somebody's brain, you can actually reassemble their memories.
Like in picture form.
So in theory, you could take a dead guy, take his chip out, and if it had any memory in it, we don't know if they'd have memory, but presumably someday they'll have memory, right?
And you could actually read the memories.
I believe that's current technology.
Not operational, like not commercialized current technology, but every part of that has been demonstrated, I think.
Now, is there any situation where you'd have a chip in your head and the chip in your head did not communicate with the rest of the world?
Because that would be its best benefit, it could communicate with the world.
So it's got to be sending out some signal.
So pretty soon you'll have a signal and an artificial memory in your head.
Maybe not, you know, version 1, 2, or 3, but I think you're going to have some kind of memory chip in your head.
Yeah.
So I don't know what the future looks like.
You know, I do agree with, well, I agree with what I imagined Elon Musk is thinking.
So this is not mind reading, it's a speculation again.
I think that he probably says it's going to happen no matter what.
Say with AI, it's going to happen no matter what.
And if he's involved, maybe he can keep it more ethical.
But it's going to happen.
So you might as well, if you're not an unethical person, well, maybe it's best that you're the one who's making it happen.
At least you have a chance that way.
That's what I speculate he thinks.
I'm not reading his mind.
All right, let's read his mind this time.
All right, this time we're going to read his mind.
All right?
I went from speculating to this time I'm going to read Elon Musk's mind.
And you can all join me, just for fun.
Here's the story.
He tweeted out a meme early this morning, as in the middle of the night.
And the meme said, without any explanation, The meme said, falling in love hits different when you know they're a paid actor sent by the CIA to distract you from dedicating your life to dismantling the government.
What does that mean?
Falling in love hits different when you know they're a paid actor sent by the CIA to distract you from dedicating your life to dismantling the government.
First of all, is Elon Musk Dismantling the government?
I mean, in a way.
In a way, yes.
In a literal way, no.
But in a conceptual way, yes, through the Twitter files.
But do you think that he had some recent experience with somebody he thought was sent by the CIA to act like his girlfriend?
Of course he did!
Of course.
You think the CIA isn't trying to get into Elon Musk's personal life?
I assume they are.
Now I doubt that they would send somebody... I doubt they would send somebody who's like on the payroll.
I don't think they do that.
I think it's more like somebody they know would tell them stuff.
Yeah, somebody associated with, perhaps, in some way.
Yeah.
Now, I don't know if that's what he means.
Do you think there's another meaning to this?
Because it could be just a metaphor for something that's happening in the news.
Do you think it's just a metaphor for something happening in the news?
Or do you think he's telling you that they send somebody and he found out?
Or he figured it out?
What do you think?
I don't know.
I just love the fact that we don't know.
Like it's open to interpretation.
I don't know.
But I'd be surprised if they didn't send somebody.
Wouldn't you be surprised?
Because I would think the CIA would wonder, I hope he's totally on our side.
Is he ever not on our side?
I feel like the CIA would want to know as much as they could know about him and his business.
Just to, you know, just to be careful.
Because he has, he has so much influence.
You want to make sure that he's not influenced by somebody from outside America.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I guess we'll probably never know the answer to what this is, but it's intriguing.
All right.
Article in one of the news, was it CNN?
I think, according to Pew Research, 63% of men between 18 and 29 are single.
That means the number of single young men is nearly twice as that of single young women.
What?
What?
How's that possible?
Do the math.
How's that possible?
Lesbianism?
No.
The only way I can see this is possible is that the young women are with older men.
They're dating older men.
Is that the answer?
And why do you think that younger women are, presumably more than ever, dating older men?
Why do you think that is?
Do you think it's because of just money?
But that was always true.
It was always true that older men had money.
Why would it be so much more now?
Because the money thing is exactly the same as the way it's been forever.
But why would they be dating them now?
Well, here's some theories that the article had.
It said dating apps are making it impossible for anyone but the best-looking people to date.
So that's true.
And then porn is mentioned as something that's draining off the energy of some of the men.
So they have something that's keeping them from dating.
I would add a few more speculative things.
A few more.
Number one, Men between 18 and 29 are captives of women.
In other words, the young men are basically woke bitches.
And women want two things.
Number one, they want their men to do what they want them to do.
Am I right?
Women want the men to do what they want them to do.
Number two thing you need to know, no woman is attracted to a man who does what she tells him to do.
There's your whole story.
That's your whole story.
The men in that age group have been hypnotized into thinking that doing what women want them to do is their ticket to being liked by women.
Nope.
And do you know what?
I believe that at that age.
What is this age?
18 to 29.
Between the ages of 18 to 29, I believe that my best strategy with women was to be as woke as I could possibly be.
In fact, my first relationship, she used to brag to other people that her guy was... What word did she use?
Like... Something like more open-minded or, you know, less sexist or something.
So I tried to be the least sexist person I could be.
Because I thought, well, that's what society wants.
And let me tell you, that's sure what women want.
And how did I know that women wanted it at that age?
Well, that's what they said.
When I did things that were, you know, clearly showing that I was... What was the word we used?
Not metrosexual.
There was a word that was like a diabolical word, because you wanted to be that.
It was like, not open-minded, but a word like that.
Not whipped, not chauvinist, not cock, but good guess.
Enlightened!
There it was.
That was the word that hypnotized me for years.
I was called enlightened.
Enlightened would mean that I would treat my woman like a proper man.
Because everybody's the same.
So you treat everybody in an enlightened way.
And that is your ticket to, man, you want to get some sex, guys?
Be enlightened.
There's nothing the ladies like more than that.
Am I right?
I actually believed that in my 20s.
And there's this long process of getting red-pilled, where you start thinking, well, The people who are doing well don't seem to be doing this.
Is that a coincidence?
And pretty soon the anecdotal counter evidence becomes overwhelming.
And then at some point in your life you decide to try it.
You know what I mean?
What if I tried being a little less, what they call, enlightened?
And then you realize it works great.
And you say to yourself, I don't know what's going on now.
Why does treating people poorly work so well?
Well, maybe it's not treating people poorly.
Maybe that's not what's happening.
Maybe treating people in their biological truth is actually something that has a mating instinct trigger.
Maybe it does.
Maybe acting like somebody who could protect you is going to be a bigger turn-on than somebody who understands you.
Alright, you've got two choices, ladies.
You can have somebody who protects you or somebody who understands and listens to your feelings as much as possible.
Of course, women lie.
You know, men lie too, of course.
But women lie, and they tell you that what they want is an enlightened guy who understands the wokeness and can march with them and paint their hair green and be a proper lady just like they are.
That's what they're looking for.
That turns them on.
No, I think that there's an entire generation who have been turned into women, and the women say, all right, the job is done.
We've turned these young men into proper women.
We're not interested in them, of course.
But I've noticed this older guy who seems to be killing it.
That's what's happening.
Now, I have an anecdotal experience that I never believed was worthy of sharing, because it's just so specific and anecdotal.
It goes like this.
I've been more attractive to women every year I've aged.
Including now.
Explain that.
Now, I've been rich for 25 years.
So if you're saying, well, it's because you got richer, I would say, no, I did not get richer.
In fact, it's probably about the same as it was 25 years ago.
It had nothing to do with that.
It had everything to do with the fact that I just stopped caring about ridiculous things and just started acting more according to my nature, I guess.
So you're seeing now probably the most accurate representation of who I am.
As scary as that might be.
And believe me, men, I think you can concur.
That if men act honest, it's scary.
True or false?
If men are just honest.
Just honest.
They just represent their biological nature as best they can.
Yeah, we're scary.
There's a reason that society puts a lot of pressure on keeping us under tap.
We're just scary people.
So I don't think there's too much mystery to this millennial men giving up on dating.
The women turned them into women, then the women looked for men.
That's the whole story.
The women turned the people their age into women, were no longer attracted, and then went and found some older men who still acted like something like a biological man.
I see no disagreement in this audience.
Almost everything I say has somebody disagreeing, and I just got complete agreement.
I don't see a single person disagreeing.
Older men know how to be kinder.
I don't know if kindness is a variable.
Now Nathan, I always had money for 25 years, but it's different.
There's clearly a A preference for men who are more biologically true to their nature.
That's the best way I can do it.
Talk about it, I guess.
You say older men seem more confident?
You should have met me at 25.
Let me challenge that belief.
If you believe that my current self is confident because I'm older or something, You had no idea what I was like at 19.
If you met me at 19, I did not lack confidence at any time in my life.
That's never been a thing.
I did not become confident because I succeeded.
I was exactly the same.
Exactly the same.
I just thought I would succeed.
I didn't know how.
Yeah.
But if you're confident and you haven't actually succeeded, Then people say you're cocky, you're arrogant, you're all those things, but I'm exactly the same.
I have learned that if you actually succeed, you have to dial it down.
It took me a while to learn that, by the way, because I took my youthful confidence into my successful years, and it was a terrible match.
Because I realized that my sort of cocky presentation of who I was, as soon as you actually succeed, it's really a turn-off.
You have to dial it way down to, OK, I'm just living my life.
If you notice I'm successful, that's great.
But me, I'm just living my life now.
And then people accept that much better.
But I really had to turn down the cockiness, because I believed I would succeed.
It was more than belief.
I just, you know, in retrospect, you could say I knew it, but I didn't really know it.
I just assumed it.
So, anyway.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is what I wanted to talk about.
Was there something?
I think I reminded the locals people on a separate thing.
There was something I wanted to talk about.
You reminded me last night in the Man Cave.
Oh, yes.
But I think I mentioned this.
You're reminding me to mention something that I mentioned.
See if I did.
All right.
YouTube, tell me if I already mentioned this.
That Bill Maher referred to... Yeah, we're private.
That Bill Maher referred to DeSantis as the tribute band.
Yeah, I think I mentioned it before, right?
No?
Yes?
Well, I'll just say it again.
Apparently I did mention it, but I'm going to just say it again.
That if you think of DeSantis as the tribute band, and you think Trump is the real thing, that is such a kill shot that it ends the primaries.
If Trump ever said, don't vote for the tribute band, it would just be the end of it.
And, by the way, Trump would know that the moment he heard it.
If anybody ever said to Trump, you know, I would consider this.
Just think about DeSantis as the tribute band.
You don't think that Trump would immediately see the power of that?
He would.
That's his sweet spot.
That's what he does well.
Yeah, he's the tribute band.
All right, so that alone makes me think that DeSantis doesn't have a chance.
Because that play would just be so strong that I don't see how we could get out from under it.
Yeah.
There's a support rally Tuesday at 3pm at Mar-a-Lago.
Oh, that's interesting.
That's the perfect place to have a protest.
That's perfect.
That's so perfect.
Let me just take a moment.
If we assume that's going to happen, a protest, where would be the perfect place to do it?
The perfect place would be at Mar-a-Lago.
It's the only place somebody isn't going to worry about violence, and nobody's going to worry that it turns into something bad.
Well, that's just brilliant.
Whoever came up with that, A+.
A+.
That's good.
That's good stuff.
Brilliant.
All right.
Rob Reiner already implies that.
Everyone gets a Big Mac after?
All right.
Better do it early in the morning?
Why is that?
Oh, because bad things happen at night?
Alright, that's all for today, YouTube.
Export Selection