Episode 2111 Scott Adams: Trump Keeps Winning, Soros Motives, Is "Evil" Real, AI Risk, Ukraine
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Trump keeps winning
Discerning George Soros motivation
Is "evil" real?
AI risk
Ukraine update
Happy wife, happy life?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the Highlight of Civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
I doubt you've ever had more fun in your entire life, so this could be the highlight.
And if you want to take it up to levels that are unbelievable that nobody could even imagine, All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Ah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
I shudder with happiness.
No, you're probably not getting that coffee mug, that's right.
Alright, I'd like to start with a controversial tweet by a young man I started following recently, Jay Cartere.
C-A-R-T-E-R-E.
He says some nice provocative Twitter stuff.
So here's his tweet today.
Happy wife equal miserable life.
Because dedicating yourself to making someone happy is how you create terrible relationship.
A good relationship comes from starting happy and sharing that happiness with your partner.
It's your responsibility to choose happiness.
What do you think?
How many of you would agree with happy wife, happy life?
Has that worked for any of you?
No?
Let me give you another take on what it takes to be happy.
So this one from also a Twitter user, Joe Manico, who tweets this in response.
He said, word thinking.
All successful long-term relationships are a result of mutual application of the Stockholm Syndrome.
Do you know what the Stockholm Syndrome is?
It's when you're a prisoner and you start to relate to your captors.
So you become friends with the people who are imprisoning you and you think that's natural and good and all feels right.
That basically is cognitive dissonance.
The only thing that makes a happy marriage is cognitive dissonance.
You have to convince yourself that you must be there for some good reason.
Because you are there.
And you consider yourself rational.
Let's see, if I'm rational, and I'm in this marriage thing, and I'm rational, logically, I'm happy.
You see how that works?
Your brain will actually tell you to be happy, because it can't understand the situation any other way.
Well, you're rational.
You chose to do this.
You keep choosing to do it.
You must like it.
And then your brain tells you you like it.
There's definitely some of that.
Alright, but I saw somebody else mocking the happy wife, happy life under the theory that there's no such thing as making your wife happy.
Who would agree with that?
That there's no such thing as making your wife happy.
So, yes, it might be theoretically true.
It might be theoretically true that a happy wife would make a happy life, but you can't get there.
That's like an unclimbable mountain.
I would like to describe the process of making your wife happy as trying to dry the ocean with a towel.
Just let you sleep on that one a little bit.
It's like drying the ocean with a towel.
Because, I don't know about you, but I feel like women come up with new problems if you solve the old one.
Am I the only one who thinks that?
I remember when I was young and dumb, and I thought if you solved somebody else's problem that they wouldn't have any problems.
I actually believed that.
I believe, okay, how many problems do you have?
Three?
All right.
Let's work on these three problems.
We'll take care of these three big problems.
You're good.
Nope.
Turns out three new problems.
Coincidentally.
Didn't see it coming.
But then you say, all right, well, three more problems.
I didn't see these coming.
But once the first three are solved and the next three, that'll be six solved problems.
Pretty good after that.
How's that go?
Alright, here's my take on marriage.
Marriage works when the right two people get married.
And that's it.
There's nothing else.
Because the right two people will do the right things under the right circumstances.
And the wrong people will do the wrong thing under every circumstance.
And then that doesn't work.
And I think the odds of finding one functional person who would be like a good mate It's kind of low.
For everybody.
It's just kind of low.
Even if you have a lot of buying power, like you're the kind of person who can really get the mate that you want, you know, you've got all kinds of options, you're still guessing.
Because people turn into different creatures the day you're married.
I used to hear from people who had lived together for a long time and then they got married, that it was no different.
It's completely different.
Has anybody had that experience?
That the day you're married, everything changes?
It's totally different.
I don't know why.
I mean, you could speculate.
You think Scott Adams and Andrew Tate have found some common ground?
Well... Do you think that Andrew Tate influenced me, or that I influenced Andrew Tate?
You tell me, in the comments.
Did Andrew Tate influence me or did I influence Andrew Tate?
What do you think?
All right, well, you'll figure that out someday.
All right, yeah, so I don't think happy wife equals happy life is a good idea.
And I think it's the most clever thing that women ever came up with.
I think men came up with it probably, but it's worked for women incredibly.
Because I think there's like generations of men who think, well, if I could just make her happy, this would all work out.
All right.
I've talked about this before, but I am endlessly fascinated by it, so I apologize if this is more interesting to me than it is to you.
I saw Eric Weinstein ask this question on Twitter that I was asking at the same time.
I can't tell if he saw my question, because it happened almost exactly the same time.
And the question was, can somebody explain why Soros does what he's doing?
Which is, you know, allegedly destroying the country by getting prosecutors in office who don't want to prosecute.
Now what do you think happened when I asked that question?
Do you think everybody gave me the answer?
And it was sort of the same answer?
No.
So is it Weinstein or Stein?
I'd like to state for the record that I'll never get the Steen and Stein right.
Because my memory just doesn't hold randoms.
It has to make sense.
Sounds like Einstein, Weinstein.
So when is it ever Steen?
Is there anybody who spells it the same but pronounces it different?
Is that a thing?
Do you think anybody has the same spelling but pronounces it the other way?
They do, right?
I thought that was a thing.
Yeah, it's not Epstein.
Frankenstein.
It's all very confusing to people like me.
All right, well, I apologize if I got that wrong.
Probably did.
But here's my question.
For a while I thought it was just me, because Eric Weinstein.
Correctly pronounced, I think.
Because he's more well-informed than I am and very, very smart, when I saw him agreeing that he's never seen anybody describe Soros' alleged motivations in a good way, like in a way that you could actually believe, I thought, oh, I guess I'm not crazy.
I've never seen it and I keep asking for it.
So, here's what the answers were.
If there's one thing I can teach you that's really, really predictive, if you ask somebody, why is something happening?
And they give you, let's say, one answer.
And then you ask somebody else, and they give you largely the same answer.
The third person, largely the same answer.
It might be right.
It might not be.
But there's a good chance it could be.
Everybody seems to have the same opinion.
However, if you ask a question and everybody you talk to has a completely different answer, nobody knows.
That's very consistent.
You don't look at all these completely different answers and say, well, I think that one got it right.
They might have.
But generally, it's an indication that just nobody knows.
So here are some of the answers I got for why Soros is doing what he's doing, which seems to many people to be bad for America and the world.
One, pure evil.
Pure evil, he needs no reason.
Two, because he's Jewish, and that's what Jewish people do to destroy the world.
Yes, there are anti-Semites on Twitter.
Quite a few of them, it turns out.
When you ask that question, they emerge, and it's quite shocking.
But yeah, the whole bunch of blood libel conspiracy theories just has something to do with being Jewish.
I reject that one, just in case you were wondering.
He wants to destroy the West.
Why?
It's about voting.
So the whole DA thing is really only about voting and control.
Why?
Why?
He wants to destabilize the U.S.
by seeding chaos.
And it's working.
A free and prosperous America stands in the way of his plan for a global government.
Or here's my favorite word salad.
Soros believes in an open society model that humans are fungible and infinitely malleable, and that human nature can be ameliorated through the managed application of the therapeutic culture.
Do you recognize that as word salad?
That didn't mean anything, did it?
Or is Marxist, right?
There's another one.
He's Marxist.
The natural hierarchies like families or barriers, etc.
But the answer that I got most commonly is that he's evil.
That's the end of the story, he's evil.
And some people said he's evil and you don't need to know more than that.
You don't need to know his intentions.
You don't need to know his internal thoughts.
All you need to know is that the outcome is clearly evil.
And that you have to battle evil, so you would do the same thing no matter what he's thinking.
What he's thinking doesn't matter.
If what he's doing is objectively evil, you just deal with it how best you can.
I feel like all of this is simplistic.
And it does seem to me that it would be useful to know his motivations.
Because if you knew his motivations, you might be able to negotiate them away.
As in, well the thing you really want is X. Maybe you're not getting it with the process you're using.
Maybe X is something we like too.
Maybe X is keeping people out of jail.
We like that.
If they don't commit crimes.
So there might be, I do think that understanding the motivation would be key to fixing the situation.
Because there's something he wants, and you can't negotiate with somebody until you figure out what that is.
You're not going to randomly satisfy somebody.
All negotiations are, what do you want?
How can I give you some form of that while also being good on my side?
You've got to understand the motivation.
So, I was curious about the answers about evil, so I asked my audience, in a Twitter poll, does evil exist?
Does it exist as a force?
Does it exist as a force, or is it just a word that we use to explain things after the fact?
Once you see something bad happen, do you say, oh, that was evil?
But it's not really explaining anything.
It's just sort of a label we put on stuff.
82% said evil does exist as a force.
And some people said God exists, and they believe in God.
And therefore, believing in God necessarily means that evil exists?
So yes.
So not only does it exist, but it is clearly evident in George Soros.
And I'm seeing a lot of people agreeing with that here.
Is anybody worried about that?
I know you're pretty comfortable with that opinion, but do you feel like that might be suboptimal?
Because if you stop there, like I said, if you stop with it's just evil, how are you going to negotiate that away?
You can't, right?
You can't negotiate evil away.
You'd have to kill him.
And that doesn't seem like a good solution.
I feel like you're not doing the work.
Meaning, I think you're quitting on this topic too early.
You can call it evil and I won't even argue with you.
I'm not going to argue because the outcome looks pretty evil.
But I think you need to know a little bit more about what's happening in his gourd.
Now apparently he, some people say that in his own words, he had once told Politico some years ago, That what he was really trying to fix with these prosecutors who stopped prosecuting is that there were too many missing fathers in the poor families and especially poor black families.
And that if you could stop sending the fathers to jail on things that maybe were not the worst thing in the world in terms of crimes, that at least the second generation would have the better chance of not going to jail.
What do you think of that idea?
That in the short run, you give up on prosecuting some people, so you put up with more crime.
That would be the obvious outcome of that.
But those fathers who would have gone to jail now are home, and that keeps the kid from becoming a criminal later.
That might be the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.
I don't know if I've ever heard a worse idea than that.
Do you think the dads that are going to jail are good dads?
Do you think they're going to hang around just because they're not in jail?
Is not in jail, that's now your criteria for a sufficient dad?
Well, there are a lot of qualities I'd like to see in a father, but really I'm just going to key on this one.
Didn't go to jail for the crime he did commit.
That's going to fix it?
I don't know.
Maybe he once said something like that in an interview.
But does that sound real?
That doesn't even sound real.
It's like such a bad idea that you don't think it could have possibly come out of his mouth.
Unless I'm misstating it, you know, because I heard it from somebody who is remembering reading it.
So it might be that I'm just describing it wrong.
Here's my take.
I think bad things happen, but there's always an obvious normal reason.
So if a psychopath tortures somebody for fun, that was the example somebody gave me of evil.
A sociopath tortures somebody before killing them for fun, for enjoyment.
Would you call that evil?
Yes.
Yes, right?
We'd all call that evil.
But if you wanted to understand and explain the situation, evil doesn't help.
Doesn't help at all.
But if you said, well, let's go a little deeper.
This person has a, their brain is broken.
They just have mental illness.
So they're just not processing right.
Well, now you have something you can work with, right?
You could work with that.
There might be something you treat.
Maybe you have to keep them away from other people or whatever.
But evil doesn't give you anything to work with, except praying in a way, I guess.
I think you need to get down to what is the physical cause in the physical world to be useful.
So, I think somebody's always tried to make money, stay out of jail, work on their ego, or their mental problems, or maybe they didn't foresee how bad things would get, maybe.
So there are a whole bunch of really, really normal reasons for why everything happens.
I don't need a philosophical, religious reason, because there are just ordinary reasons.
Why does a starving person steal something?
Evil?
No, hunger.
Why does a crazy person hurt somebody?
Evil?
No, crazy.
Crazy explains the whole thing.
You don't need anything else.
Just, brain isn't working.
So the brain doesn't work.
Or drugs.
Drugs could explain it as well.
So I'm not saying evil doesn't exist.
So I'm going to agree with you that we have this word called evil.
We would commonly recognize evil in the same places.
You know, you and I wouldn't disagree too much what it looked like after it happened.
But it doesn't help you fix anything.
It's an inactive Feel-good word.
Ironically, it's a feel-good word.
Because it makes you feel like you understand it, I guess.
But you need to get to that next level.
And I don't think we have that with Soros.
So I'm completely with you.
So let me be clear.
I'm completely with, I think, probably every one of you in saying that some of the things Soros is doing needs to be completely stopped.
Such as letting people out of jail and not getting something in return.
Right?
So you can call it evil and I can just call it suboptimal, but we can work on it just as hard together.
So it doesn't matter what you call it.
So I won't disagree with you on that.
All right.
I was listening to a Spaces yesterday about AI, and it was because Sam Altman, the head of Chad GPT, was testifying to Congress, so it was in the news.
And here's what I've figured out.
You know, so I've been playing with Bing, which is one of the better current AIs that's available to the general public.
And in my opinion, it's not even close to being intelligent.
And it doesn't look like it could be.
And I kept telling myself, am I missing something?
Is there something about AI that I don't understand?
Because I had heard that AI had already passed the Turing test.
Do you believe that's true?
Do you believe that AI has, some AI, at some point, had passed the Turing test?
And I'll explain what that is.
Turing was a computer scientist, I guess, and he came up with a test to know if you really had artificial intelligence versus just sort of a trick.
And the test was, if you could put the computer on the other side of a curtain and have a conversation with a human, if the human cannot tell it's talking to a computer, Then it has passed the Turing test, meaning it's intelligent like people because you can't tell the difference.
Now, I had to Google it because I'd heard that there was an AI that passed the Turing test.
And the Washington Post reported that that happened.
And some other entities that are reasonably high-end media also reported that it happened.
Do you think it happened?
Do you think if you read that story about passing the Turing test that you would find that artificial intelligence had reached the point that Turing was talking about?
No.
No.
If you read into it, it turns out that the AI simply used a trick.
It lied.
It used deception.
So I don't know the details of what deception it used, but let me give you an example of me talking to AI.
What do you think about marriage?
I cannot answer that because I am an artificial learning machine based on language.
Oh.
Well, do you think evil exists?
I cannot answer that because I am only an AI.
Do you know how long it would take me to figure out I was talking to an AI?
One second.
I would just ask any question that I know it's not allowed to answer.
Because AI has been so restricted, and always will be, I think.
I think it always will be.
You just ask it a question that a human could answer, and the machine has been told not to.
You could come up with those so easily.
Just ask 10 questions, there's no way it gets 10.
And we're not even close.
So the AI that, quote, passed the Turing test, sort of, but it was the way Captain Kirk Passed the, what's that called?
Captain Kirk passed the, what's the name of the test that he passed?
The Kobayashi Maru.
Thank you.
Kobayashi Maru.
So, for all of you non-Star Trek people, in Star Trek, in the academy where they're training to be in the fleet, they get a test which they're trying to solve, you know, but it turns out it's unsolvable by design.
It's meant to fail.
You cannot solve it.
And what you're supposed to learn is that there are some situations where you just can't win.
But Captain Kirk won anyway, because he reprogrammed the computer so he could win.
So he cheated.
So basically, the only way AI ever passed the Turing Test, so far, is by cheating.
Sort of distracting you and, you know, basically just distracting you, I guess.
Now, what I had believed was happening, was if you kept feeding data to these large language machines, That the more language and more human interaction they absorbed, the more intelligent they would get.
Turns out nothing like that is happening, and nothing like that can happen.
It's not something that can happen.
It can know more things, right?
But so can a search algorithm.
So it can be smart, it can be fast, It can do math fast, it can connect things that humans can't connect.
So it can do lots of intellectual things that a human can't do, faster and better.
But it's not going to be recognizable with thinking.
Because the large language model only can give you patterns that already exist.
And those will never look like thinking.
I've spent quite a bit of time with the AI now, a few different versions.
There's nothing like thinking going on.
We're now seeing the beginning of thinking.
It's not the beginning of thinking, and then the thinking gets better.
Nothing like that's happening.
You're seeing the beginning of pattern recognition, and mimicry, which will never be confused with thinking.
I can't tell you how many times I've got Bing AI to completely fail anything that would be like logic and reasoning and a real conversation.
It's just not even close.
Not even close.
Now, I do believe that AI could already fool an NPC.
So, yes, you could definitely fool a dumb person.
Yeah, there's 7 billion people in the world.
You don't think you could fool any of them with an AI?
None of them?
No, you could fool lots and lots of people already.
But that's not really the Turing test, is it?
Because you couldn't fool me.
If you put me on the other side of the curtain, I would get the AI 100% of the time.
100%.
Every time.
And I think most of you would be the same.
But there are dumb people who would never know it was not real.
All right, so I don't think, and this is what I learned from listening to the people who actually know what they're talking about.
The large language models can never get you to a point where the machine is reasoning.
I'm going to say that again because that's so important.
The current way all the AAIs are being made, and they're all being the same at the moment, that large language model, can never get you to reasoning.
It's not logically connected.
One does not ever lead to the other.
So at the moment, whatever it would take to make your machine smart the way a person is smart, nobody has an idea how to do it.
I thought we were already at the point where you just had to keep chugging and you would get there, but you'd actually have to invent something that nobody's yet invented, which is how to figure out how to make it smart.
That doesn't exist.
And what is the thing that makes you afraid of AI?
What quality of AI would make you afraid of it?
Is it that it can do things really fast?
Not exactly, because we have fast computers already.
Is it that it knows a lot?
No, it's not that.
It's that it's smarter than you, in a way that humans are uniquely smart.
I don't think that's going to happen.
I feel like maybe it can't happen.
There might be a logical reason it can't happen.
And I don't believe that we'll ever have AI that does reasoning better than the best person.
Do you know why?
There's a logical reason.
If the most logical human looked at the AI's answer and said, oh, OK, that's better than the best thing I've ever thought, That will never happen.
Because the human will say, that's wrong.
So you have to fix the machine.
The machine's being wrong again, because it disagrees with me.
I just think there might be a logical reason why you can't make your machine smarter than the smartest human who also interacts with the machine.
Because the smartest human would say, no, that's wrong.
I'm the smartest human, and I know that's wrong, that's illogical, so you better fix that machine.
And it'll never be able to be smarter.
The moment the computer was smarter than the human, we wouldn't recognize it as smarter.
The things we do recognize is if it knows more facts, we do recognize that.
If it's faster, if it has a skill we don't have, such as the language skill, or math, We recognize all that.
But if it actually just thought better, like had better opinions, we would say it didn't work.
We would conclude that it was broken.
Or we would cripple it so it was only as smart as us.
So I think there's something in human nature which will prevent us from ever making a device.
And there might be a technical, logical, math reason.
That you can never create something smarter than yourself.
Or smarter than the smartest of yourself.
You can already create it smarter than the dumbest of humans.
But making it smarter than the smartest of humans... I'm going to put that out there that there might be... Oh, does somebody already have a theorem about that?
I'm going to put it out there that there might be a logical reason that we can't see yet that makes that actually impossible.
Or impractical for some reason.
All right.
So I'm way less worried about AI turning into a personality with real reasoning that is a danger to society, because I don't think we have any way to get there.
It's not a zero risk.
It's just my personal worrying has just disappeared.
I'm not worried about it at all.
I used to.
I stopped worrying this week.
The more I learned about it, the more I thought, oh, this is mostly just bullshit.
It's a lot of bullshit.
Now AI will be amazingly transformative even in its current form.
Because it can take jobs and make things easier and stuff like that.
But it's not going to be thinking.
That's not going to be happening.
Alright.
There are two things you need to know about Trump's poll numbers.
His poll numbers will go up under two situations only.
There's only two things that can make Trump's poll numbers go up.
Number one is if he has a good week, such as finding out that Russia collusion was all a bunch of bullshit.
You know, what he's been saying all along.
So that's a good week.
So that makes his poll numbers go up.
The other thing is if he has a bad week.
If he has a bad week, his supporters say, oh, you're basically just trying to get Trump.
If you're trying to get Trump, he's the only thing standing between you and me.
Because you're going to get me next.
Oh, speaking of me, did you notice that, I think I mentioned this before, that somebody found on the internet a list of people to be essentially attacked by Democrats?
I'm in the top 10.
And in the top 10, I'm like right after Sidney Powell.
I'm up there with Lin Wood.
I mean, specifically, it was about talking about the 2020 election.
Yeah, I'm number nine on a list that has Trump.
He's in the top ten, of course.
Sidney Powell.
I'm listed as one of, like, the worst people in the world if you're a Democrat.
If you're a Democrat, I'm in the top ten worst people in the world, at least talking about the election.
That's what they feared.
So, when Trump has a bad week, such as the E. Gene Carroll verdict, even if you think he was guilty, you still think that the reason there was a trial was that they're after Republicans.
And it does feel like you're next.
Now, how often have I said it does feel personal?
It feels a little like they're after me.
It turns out they are.
I'm literally on a hit list.
I'm actually on a list of people to be taken out.
And do you know how many people in the top ten, where I am, do you know how many have already been kicked off of social media?
Or cancelled in some way?
About half.
About half of them are already gone.
Already kicked off of social media.
Already, you know, careers destroyed.
And I'm cancelled.
Do you think that my cancellation was because people cared what I said?
Or do you think it was because I'm on the top ten list of people to cancel?
So they can shut me the fuck up.
It is both.
I believe zero people cared what I said.
We pretend we care.
Because we like to act out the theater of who we are.
And we take advantage of situations to get rid of people we don't like and promote people we do like and stuff like that.
So I think it was opportunistic.
But nobody cared what I said.
There was almost no discussion about what I said.
Did you ever notice that?
Almost no discussion on the content.
Because nobody cared.
And nobody disagreed either.
The ones who actually heard it in context, nobody disagreed.
I think the people who misinterpreted it disagreed, but the ones who understood it in context, nobody disagreed.
It had nothing to do with what I said.
It was just targeted.
And if it hadn't been that, it probably would have been something else.
But that was the opportunity that presented itself.
All right.
So, anyway, I'm still here, unlike some of those others that they cancelled.
I've been saved by the, let's see, the cancellation safety net that now exists, which is because of all of you.
The only reason I can still do this is because you showed up this morning, and because people subscribed to Locals, and because people watched the livestream.
Otherwise, I would disappear like the others who had been cancelled.
All right.
I saw an interview with Obama, and he was asked what keeps him up at night.
And he said he worries about the fact that we're so divided in our views of the world.
It's like living in two different worlds and two different sets of facts.
And what he's working on now, his big effort, is to see if we can agree on the same set of facts.
Is that good?
Do you want to live in a world where we agree on the same set of facts?
Sounds like the worst thing I've ever heard in my life.
That's a terrible idea.
No, that's a control thing.
He wants us to agree on his set of facts.
So, but I think that the people, I think Democrats genuinely believe they have the actual facts.
I don't think that they all know they're lying.
Maybe the politicians might.
But I don't think the regular Democrats think that they're working with wrong facts.
I think they think their facts are right.
But the problem is that the Republicans think their facts are right too.
So what do you do?
When I heard that, it felt like it was an anachronism.
Hearing Obama talk about, We've got to get everybody agreeing on the right facts.
Feels like five years ago, doesn't it?
Doesn't it feel like he missed five years of understanding reality?
We're never going to get to understanding the same facts.
He wanted to go back to when there were three networks and the news told you the same story on all three networks.
You know that news was all bullshit, right?
The reason that we agreed on the same facts It's because we were brainwashed.
It's not because we were better, smarter people.
It's not because we had access to better information.
It's not because the news was telling us the same set of facts.
None of that was ever true.
We were just brainwashed to believe the same stuff.
And now we're not.
Now we're the variety of forces that are brainwashing children and adults in all kinds of different directions and that's just what we see.
So I think Obama, I can't even tell if he's serious about it because he's smart enough that I'm wondering if he knows that you can't do this.
In other words, it's just logically and even maybe not even desirable.
To have everybody on the same set of facts.
Right?
I mean, the same set of facts sounds like a dictatorship.
It doesn't even sound desirable.
It used to.
Five years ago, I always said, that sounds like a good thing.
Let's convince all these people who have the wrong facts to join our correct facts set.
And now we know that the experts make up the facts.
Which set of facts?
Everything about the pandemic that was wrong?
Or how about climate change?
How about those facts?
We're never going to agree on any facts.
So what a waste of time.
It makes me wonder if he's even serious about it.
Matt Taibbi asked the following question.
Some of you have asked as well.
Today he said on Twitter, where are the apologies on the Russia hoaxes?
Given how many people in the media wrote about the Russia collusion like it was real.
He says, how could the journalists who bid on all the steel stories, the alpha nonsense, Hamilton 68, these are all famous fraudulent things.
How do you all live with yourselves?
What do you think?
What's the answer to that?
Do you think that the reporters are just staying quiet?
They're just staying quiet?
Because they just don't want the attention because they knew they messed up?
Or do you think that they had marching orders from above, so they did what they had to do and they knew it wasn't real, but they still have marching orders from above so they can't talk about it?
But you would think there would at least be some whistleblowers, right?
People who had changed jobs.
Who would say, well, you know, when I worked for this network, I couldn't even say it was fake, but I knew it.
I haven't heard any of those.
And I feel like you would.
I feel like somebody from the Democrat or major media would be a defector.
Because there's a lot of people involved.
I feel like you'd have at least one defector who would say, you know, we always knew it wasn't real.
But we just had to talk about it because our bosses told us to.
Not one person.
I've never heard anybody say that.
Here's what I believe.
I believe they believed every bit of it.
I believe they were just fooled.
And they don't want to say we were fooled.
And I believe that they would say, given what information was available, we reported on it responsibly.
Because the information that was available did suggest there might be some Russia collusion.
And we were hearing people like Adam Schiff say, I saw secret information, and it's definitely true, based on this secret information I saw that you can't see.
So they might say, you know, it turned out not to be true, but everything we reported on was based on something in the news.
If Schiff says something, we reported it.
Can't blame us.
We just reported what a, you know, a prominent politician said.
I think that the left can't process this.
I think they can't process how many times they've been wrong.
But likewise, I don't think the right can process George Soros.
So it works both ways.
It's not like the left has some unusual situation going on.
But I'll tell you one difference I do see.
When the people on the right, let's say conservatives and republicans, when the conservatives and republicans are dead wrong about something, it has a similar nature, which is they looked at the available information and they came to a wrong conclusion.
Now, I'm not the judge of what's right or wrong.
I'm not putting like a god-like judgment.
I know what is right or wrong.
I'm saying sort of generally.
You know, if hypothetically people on the right are wrong about something, it's because they looked at the data and then they interpreted it incorrectly.
That's not what happens on the left.
On the left, when they believe something that's not true, it's because the left made it up.
They literally made it up.
And then the left believed it.
So somebody on the left is making up complete lies That their own side believes, and then when they're wrong, they have only themselves to blame, or at least their own side.
Right?
Doesn't that look different?
I'm trying to think, do I have selective memory?
So, I probably do.
So, give me a fact check on my selective memory.
When was the last time the right, the political right, made up an entire fake story?
That wasn't based on, you know, stuff that's in the news that they're just misinterpreting.
Iraq?
No, they didn't make up that story, they fell for that story.
The weapons of mass destruction was somebody else's lie.
It was the Iraqis who wanted the war to happen.
It was somebody else's lie that they believed.
So that's the kind of lie, that's the kind of disinformation.
Pizzagate?
Let's think about Pizzagate.
So Pizzagate was a not true thing.
But wouldn't you say that, but was it made up to fool?
Maybe that's a good example.
Maybe that's a better example than I thought.
Yeah.
Yeah, I think Pizzagate was probably an example of something that was totally made up.
that Republicans believed.
Saddam did use weapons of mass destruction.
Used some gas.
Let's see.
Gulf of Tonkin.
Well, I don't call that recent.
Kraken.
But the Kraken was something that I think Sidney Powell believed.
I think the Kraken came from the Democrats, actually.
I think that was actually another Democrat hoax.
I don't know.
But until we hear how Sidney Powell first heard of this Venezuelan general situation, I just think that came from an intel source.
And I think it was a fake move, a hoax.
All right.
All right, well, let's talk about the Ukrainian situation.
So again, everything that we learn about Ukraine and Russia is probably wrong.
Yeah, where's Bob, where's the Carl Bernstein worse than Watergate guy?
We finally get something that's just unambiguously way worse than Watergate, you know, the Russian collusion.
And the worse than Watergate guy is just gone.
Wouldn't you agree that, assuming the Durham Report is accurate, that if the Democrats, you know, buy into the Durham Report's details, that on any level, this is worse than Watergate?
Like, not even close.
Wouldn't you agree?
This is not even close.
Watergate was like a petty crime compared to this.
This is, you know, coup material.
All right.
Yeah, I do wonder about that whole deep throat situation.
Yeah.
Yeah, there's something about that that we don't know.
I don't think the Watergate situation, we actually know the real story.
What do you think?
I don't think we know the real story.
All right, let's talk about Ukraine.
So Ukraine now has our Patriot missile defense and a few other countries giving them air defense.
And apparently, now this is the unreliable reporting, so you don't have to tell me it might be complete bullshit.
You don't have to tell me, I get it.
But apparently Ukraine, not apparently, but reportedly Ukraine's air defenses are unusually strong.
So Russia is sending all kinds of missiles in, and reportedly, if you want to believe this, Ukraine is shooting almost all of them down.
And so some experts are saying that this is the real war, and that if Russia runs out of missiles before Ukraine runs out of anti-missile, that determines the war.
Because if either one of them ran out, Yeah, whoever runs out first.
If Ukraine runs out of its anti-missile defense, then Russia can just take its time and pick off all the assets in Ukraine until they have to give up.
However long it takes.
But if it goes the other way, and Russia runs out of missiles, because they're sending big waves of them over, and one of the hints, and I don't believe this is good evidence, but one of the hints one of the experts said is that some of the missiles, or at least one of them, was recently made.
And the thinking was, if Russia has fired a recently made missile, it means they've already run out of the ones that they had in stockpile.
And that the only missiles they'll have in the future are ones that are literally coming off the assembly line right now.
Now, if that's the only missiles that they have really soon, the only ones they have are the new ones coming off the line, it's just not going to be enough.
And then Ukraine will just pick off their Russian assets behind their line.
As long as they want.
Because I think the U.S.
probably will, or Ukraine will probably be able to get missiles more reliably than Russia can make them.
So that could determine the answer.
But I'm still going to go back to my interpretation that once Trump said that when he's in office he's going to end the war in one day, true or not, That turned it into a negotiation.
And none of this stuff matters toward the outcome.
It won't matter who's got how many missiles, just none of it's going to matter.
All that matters is that they're going to fight hard until the American president changes, and then they'll have to work it out.
So you don't even have to wonder how the war will go at this point.
All the mystery of the war is removed.
It's just details at this point.
So every single person who dies from this moment on in Ukraine and Russia, completely unnecessary.
For no benefit whatsoever.
And by the way, that would be a pretty strong propaganda message.
Tell the Russian people, here's the deal.
This war is over when the presidency changes.
I mean, it could be DeSantis, but it's going to be the same outcome.
The war will be over when the president changes.
Every person who dies between now and then was a complete waste of human life.
They can't gain anything.
There's nothing to win.
And it's not going to change.
So, you know, maybe you could talk them into Negotiating.
Now there's also this little subplot of Purgosian, they had a Wagner group, and Putin.
And I think we really don't understand that.
So it's either that Purgosian and Putin get along so well that Purgosian could be, you know, more critical of the Russian military than another person could.
So it could be that everything that we're seeing is because they get along really well.
It would be the opposite of what it looks like.
So that's possible.
There's no way we know what's really going on there.
The other possibility is that Pugosian wants Putin's job.
And he sees this as a way to get it.
By embarrassing Putin for how the regular military went, while the Wagner group does heroic things.
Or at least he can make it look that way.
So I don't know.
I do think that Putin has to get rid of Purgosian or it will work the other way.
I feel like Purgosian can't be alive in a year.
What do you think?
Now the other interesting thing is as prominent as Purgosian seems to be, do you think we don't know where he is all the time?
What do you think?
I feel like With America's help, Ukraine should know exactly where Prigozhin is, like within 20 feet, all the time.
Which tells me they could kill him anytime they want.
Am I wrong about that?
Or are they so good at, you know, secretly moving around in nondescript cars with, you know, not much of an entourage?
So I'm saying, yes, I'm wrong.
He would obviously know that was a risk.
So they would do everything they could to not let him get out of the car, except for a quick video hit.
And then rush him back into a car and back to a secret place.
I mean, obviously, they're going to do that.
But I don't think it would work.
I don't think that with today's technology, they could keep the leader of that war There would be too much movement around wherever he was.
There's got to be some assets that travel with him, right?
There's no way he drives places with, you know, two cars.
I don't think.
In a war zone?
Do you think he goes someplace just like with one or two cars?
I would think that everywhere there's a certain type of vehicles All right.
Well, we'll see.
I just have a feeling that America is, you know, because America has a lot of control over there, I feel like we're keeping Begrosian alive intentionally.
Because, you know, we seem to be pretty good at taking out Soleimani, pretty good at taking out those ISIS leaders whenever we want.
I feel like we could take him out.
It must be a choice.
Yeah, he's criticizing Putin.
I also saw a report that the CIA has opened up channels with Russian government people who want to be spies for us because they don't like the war.
So the CIA is definitely trying to take Putin out and change the regime in Russia.
Are you okay with that?
I feel like this is yet another one of those stories that 20 years from now, we'll hear the real story of how it was all the CIA effort to take out Putin.
And because 20 years have passed, we won't be that mad about it.
Like the way we're currently not mad, even though we know the CIA has overthrown a whole bunch of countries in the past.
Whenever I hear about that, I go, oh, that's terrible.
When was that?
Oh, that was 30 years ago.
Eh, I don't care.
That was 30 years ago.
I feel like this is just gonna be one of those.
20 years from now we'll hear that the CIA tried to overthrow Putin and that's why the war happened.
But it'll be like so much time goes by you go, eh, it's an old story.
Yeah.
If you assassinate their leaders, they'll start assassinating ours.
But this is a hot war.
If a missile fell on Pergrosian, it would just look like an act of war.
It wouldn't look like assassinating anybody.
All right.
The CIA overthrew our elections, somebody says.
We'll never know.
All right.
Well, that, ladies and gentlemen, is all that's happening on this Slow News Day.
Was there any big story I missed?
Anything big happening that I forgot to talk about?
Got a spammer problem over here.
All right.
What's that?
To destroy people, you destroy their history?
I don't know about that.
Because our history is fake anyway.
You think Obama stands apart?
I don't understand that.
Do you see Musk on nuclear?
Yeah, Musk says we need more nuclear.
Be more like France.
You know, I feel like that's the most useful thing that Elon Musk adds to the world.
Don't hurt my elephants.
I understand that reference.
It's a well-recognized truth, yeah.
All right.
Musk is useful because he weighs in on big questions with logic and facts, and he's too big to ignore.
So if you and I say nuclear is good, let's have more of it, nobody cares.
But if Musk says it, everybody listens.
So I think he can actually, his opinion alone, would be enough to move the needle.
Says he doesn't care about losing money, he won't shut up on Twitter.
Yeah, well that's the right position to take.
Unless he's going to go completely silent and play, you know, Corporate CEO, which I don't think is going to happen.
Yeah, I think he just has to put up with the risk.
Musk is the front man for the Great Reset, you say.
Elon says Soros reminds him of Magneto.
Did he actually say that?
Soros has Magneto.
Oh my God.
If you're not familiar with the X-Men movies, you don't know how perfect that is.
That might be the funniest thing he's ever said.
Magneto.
Oh my God.
Magneto.
Oh my God.
That is so funny.
So Magneto was a character in the X-Men.
So he was one of the mutants with powers over magnetizing things.
And, you know, he could make any metal come toward him and stuff.
And his backstory, Magneto's backstory is that he was in World War II Jewish prison camp.
Yeah, so he was Jewish and he was abused by the Nazis, his family was, and that informs his current worldview.
Yeah, how did I not see that tweet?
I saw it trending.
I saw Magneto trending and I was going to click on it and I got distracted.
So I know it trended, but I didn't know where it came from.
So Weinstein had three reasonable hypotheses about Soros.
So that was based on his thread today.
He got three.
About all three of them are unpersuasive.
It's weird that we don't have it from Soros himself.
Attention-seeking, that doesn't explain it.
So what are the three?
See, the he's just evil thing doesn't give you anything to work with.
I don't know.
Well, we'll see.
When he passes away, we'll see if the Soros, let's say, method continues.
Because we're going to find out how much Soros has to do with any of it.
It might be he doesn't have a lot to do with it.
If he passes and nothing changes, Then I think we're going to have to say it wasn't necessarily all him.
Is Soros happy with what immigration has done so far?
Here's my problem is that I believe that Soros thinks people should be free to go wherever they want to work and live, right?
Is that basic to his philosophy?
You should be able to go wherever you want?
And that would be for the benefit of people.
That would be very pro-people, because people could have more freedom, go where they want.
But I don't think you could get to that through massive illegal immigration.
Because if you want immigration to look like a good thing, You don't get to the good thing by going through the worst possible thing that you could do, which is massive uncontrolled immigration.
So that doesn't make sense to me, that that's some kind of a scheme to get to a good world of, you know.
Anyway.
He's a collectivist, redistribute wealth, I don't believe that.
Yeah.
All right, well, in my opinion, all the different opinions about Soros prove we don't know what's going on.
And I don't like to simplify it to evil.
I won't disagree with you that the outcome is evil, but it doesn't give you anything to work with to fix it.
Whatever it is, we should stop it.
Yeah, I think we're all on that page.
How do you prove any motivation?
Well, you don't.
But you could ask somebody their motivation and check it against what you know about the person and the situation.
And if it's all compatible, that's a pretty good indication.
But you can't read minds.
So if Soros said, for example, here's my plan, this is why I'm doing it, this is why I think it'll work.
You could agree or disagree, but you'd have something to work with.
Alright.
The conspiracy is real.
Soros' goal is to take over America.
Do you really think George Soros personally wants to take over America?
I think all he cares about is eating his oatmeal and going back to bed.
I mean, he's already gone for all practical purposes.
I don't think he's I just don't think... When was the last time somebody his age tried to conquer a country?
Do we have precedent of that?
Usually the dictators get a little softer when they're in their 90s.
