Episode 2133 Scott Adams: Trump Indictment Coming, Biden Briber, Aliens Landing, Pence's Bad Timing
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Trump indictment coming
Ukraine briber
Aliens land in Vegas (or not)
Orange skies bad
Trump on Christie
Poor Mike Pence (snooze)
Other dimensions
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Also, my birthday, if you didn't know that.
That's right.
I'm 66 years old in the sixth month.
But don't let that bother you.
Doesn't mean a thing.
If you'd like today to be extra, extra special just like mine is, all you need is a cupper, a mugger, a glass, a tanker, chalice, or 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.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's the birthday sippin's coming at you now.
Go.
Ah.
Extra good.
Oh, I feel the love.
I'm feeling the love.
But we have lots and lots of news to talk about, so I know you want to hear about that.
Top story today, there's a case of a crocodile that had a virgin birth.
It was in captivity for 16 years with no other crocodiles, and yet it produced eggs.
So, virgin birth.
I have two things to say about that.
Number one, I would wait until the eggs hatch and see if they bear any resemblance to the habitat keeper who has been caring and feeding for the alligator for 16 years.
They may have fallen in love.
Maybe something happened.
I don't know.
But I'd wait and see the eggs.
If it looks like the gamekeeper, well, then you have your answer.
However, if it turns out That it was a genuine virgin birth.
What is the most important thing?
The most important thing.
Don't tell the other crocodiles.
You know what I mean?
Because otherwise you're going to have a whole crocodile religion.
And they're all going to be wanting to pray to that crocodile.
And you don't want any of that.
Just do not tell the other crocodiles.
That's all I'm saying.
Don't tell them.
Well, in other big news, yeah, we'll get to all the political news also.
But you need to know that the Large Hadron Collider is getting ready to, what is it?
Make contact with another dimension.
That's right.
They hope to open a black hole and make contact with another dimension.
And I don't see what could go wrong.
What could go wrong?
I mean, what does that other dimension have that we don't have?
Do their crocodiles have to have sex before they have eggs?
Ours don't.
So it might be like a crummy kind of a... What if it's a dimension where everything's the same, except San Francisco has clean sidewalks?
It's all the same.
Wouldn't it be cool if we found another dimension that was just like ours, but more Canadian?
That's what I think when I go to Canada.
When I go to Canada, I don't feel like I'm in another country.
I feel like I'm in another dimension where something happened to America.
What's wrong with the money?
Who did this to our money?
Why do you say sorry?
Just say sorry.
Don't say sorry.
But, you know, it's just sort of like another dimensional situation.
I might be getting some happy birthday text messages while we're on the air.
And sure enough, I am.
Alright, what was I talking about?
Other dimensions.
What if we find out that we're a simulation?
It seems to be that one of the things that could happen is as the physics probes into the deeper and deeper secrets of our reality, we'll find out it's all artificial.
And that there's nothing below the level we're at.
There should be some level beyond which there's nothing else.
That would prove we're a dimension.
I think it would prove that we're A simulation, if you found the bottom of physics.
In other words, if you found the most fundamental item, that would mean we're a simulation.
Because, if we were real, you could go down forever, and everything would be made of something else.
To infinity.
I think.
Because if everything is the same stuff, nothing would move.
All right.
Northeast still under smoke.
How many of you think that the fires coming out of Canada were naturally occurring?
Well, that includes arson.
But how many think it's an attack versus just some arson or something?
Do you think it's an attack?
Sure looks like it.
Yeah, I was I was looking at some tweets, I guess I won't mention the name of the tweeter, but one is an accident, two is a coincidence, three is an attack.
I think that was the saying?
Yeah.
Three coincidences is an attack.
Two coincidences, well, maybe it's a coincidence.
But there are some satellite images showing that the fires seem to have started around the same time.
In the context of our southern border being wide open, and correct me if I'm wrong, if you get through our southern border, it's not a big deal to get into Canada, is it?
Does Canada have a wall?
So who knows?
Maybe some saboteurs are coming through the U.S.
and setting Canada on fire just at the right time to make the smoke come our way.
Maybe.
I don't know.
If it were an attack, we would see other attacks like it.
So it seems to me that we would see more things that look like organized activity.
But if this is the only thing... I don't know.
I'm not sure this is attack-like.
I'm gonna say I'm not buying into the attack theory, but it's definitely on the table.
Definitely on the table.
Well, as you know, Tucker did his little monologue on Twitter and got, what's it up to, probably 70 million impressions by now, something like that.
But Fox News lawyers are angry because they say, you can't do that.
We still have you on contract at Fox News.
You're not allowed to do a show.
To which people like Glenn Greenwald say, a show?
All he did was talk on social media.
You're not allowed to talk on social media, to say anything you want in any way you want, which is a pretty good defense.
Now what we don't know is, is Tucker in any kind of a contract with Twitter?
In other words, did he monetize that?
His first go, did he monetize it?
Because if he didn't monetize it, which is possible, maybe he didn't monetize it, And how would he monetize it?
What would be the mechanism for monetizing?
How do you monetize a tweet?
Were there extra ads that were added into the comments or something?
Yeah.
He would have to be on the payroll or something and I don't think that's happening.
I don't think so.
So we'll wait and see, but I like the fact that Tucker is pushing the envelope, as he always does.
I love the fact, when he did the video, I said to myself, did they already settle?
It seemed like it'd be too soon to settle all that legal stuff.
So is he just pushing the envelope to try to break it?
See what happens?
And that's what it looks like.
It looks like, well, I don't think he's got a subscription service yet.
But if he does, maybe that's coming.
All right.
Well, I just like the fact he's pushing the envelope, because he always does.
So the news is saying the signals look like there might be a Trump summer hoax indictment over his boxes.
What do you think?
Is that going to be the summer hoax?
The Trump summer hoax.
Mar-a-Lago boxes.
We've been waiting to get serious about this.
Yeah, some people think so, because there was a meeting between Trump's lawyers and the DOJ, which usually signals they're ready to indict.
And Bill Barr thinks they're ready to indict.
Now, the biggest knock against Trump on these boxes, the Mar-a-Lago boxes, we see it in the press, but we haven't seen if the legal system will use this yet.
And it is that on one hand he's claiming that anything he takes out of privacy, takes out of a secure place, is automatically and by virtue of moving it, he's declassified it.
So he doesn't even have to say the words.
The President has full authority to declassify and there is no written process for doing it.
However, there is a historical standard for doing it, which is different from a law.
And he showed knowledge of that standard in some document, either a document or a recording or something.
So he knew that there was at least one piece of information he couldn't show people because it was private or, you know, it was secure.
I don't think that argument holds.
I don't think that argument works at all.
Do you?
The fact that he said there was something he couldn't show to somebody because he hadn't gone through a process doesn't seem related to me to the fact that he can declassify anything.
Because even if you had declassified something by taking it out of its secure environment, in theory, there'd still be things you can't show people.
Right?
Just because he'd moved it from one place to another, that doesn't mean you could just show it to anybody.
So it might have been that he was concerned about who saw it, which would be slightly different from who is legally able to see it and whether it's classified and all that.
So, you know, Trump has such a history of hyperbole.
That if he said one thing under one context and another thing under another context, everybody would say, well, okay, that's just what he does.
It just wouldn't even look unusual to me.
Because he probably exaggerated what he could or could not show to another person.
He may have stretched the truth just to avoid showing somebody something, right?
There are a hundred reasons why he may have said something that wasn't technically accurate, just because he wanted something.
So I've got a feeling that will not be a legal problem for him, but we're going to talk about it all summer long.
All right.
There's a theory that AI is already in charge of our elections.
This might be the last election that is not determined by AI.
Or it might be determined by AI, because we still have over a year to go before the actual election.
And here's the argument.
The argument is it's inevitable that AI will be used for online campaigning.
Would you agree so far?
Let's see if we can agree as we work up from assumptions to prediction.
Assumption one, AI will be used by campaigns to improve their campaigning.
Assumption two.
One way that AI will improve over the old way is to give people very individual campaign ads so that the campaign ad I see might be different than the one everybody else in the world sees.
So in other words, it can learn from interaction with me.
Let's say it sends me something and I don't click on it.
Well, it learned I won't click on that.
Then it sends me something else and it might be about puppies.
It might have nothing to do with politics.
It could be puppies.
And I click on it.
What's going to happen next?
Next thing I'm going to get is a campaign ad with puppies.
Because I just learned puppies activate me.
So you take that and multiply it by a million.
And you've got your AI learning about you individually.
And then serving you up persuasion individualized.
If it found out, for example, that you had posted, let's say, some gun pictures.
Then it's going to say, oh, you're one of those Second Amendment people.
And it's going to say, here's my best argument for why you should vote for my candidate based on your preference for owning guns.
So in theory, the best AI will be better than the best campaign ads and better than the best candidate.
Even the candidate wouldn't be able to persuade that well.
And if one entity uses AI successfully, what's going to happen?
What happens next?
There's a candidate who uses AI, uses it better than anybody else, and they win the election.
Well, then the other side escalates and they get AI too.
So then we're going to have two AIs battling it out.
But here's the thing.
Nobody who created those AIs will know what the AI will do.
So it's not like people telling the AI what to do.
Hey, Go do that thing.
They're going to unleash the A.I.
and let the A.I.
figure it out on its own.
So the two different A.I.s could be comparable A.I.s, even identical.
They can be identical A.I.s, but they might trial and error things differently.
So by the time they feel their way through the system to develop on their own their best persuasion, they might end up in different places.
So you would then have a system that depended entirely on which A.I.
did a better job.
And it won't have anything to do with voting anymore.
You still have to vote, but your votes would be determined by who had the better AI, and that's it.
Now, at the moment, it's not that different than the current system.
Because I would argue that we don't vote for the best candidate, we vote for the best persuader.
So you're voting for somebody who's persuading you, but that's not really the job of a president entirely.
I mean, it's part of it.
But we already have this artificial way of picking a president, because the president's full range of capabilities are not picked up by how well they campaigned.
That's a big part of it.
So we already have a system where campaigning is who determines who is president.
The quality of the campaign.
Did that ever make sense?
Not really.
Not really.
That never really made sense.
Because it doesn't tell you who's the best president, it just might tell you who had the best campaign staff, which might not even be the permanent staff and maybe shouldn't be because campaigning is different from governing.
So we already have an irrational system that we've convinced ourselves is rational.
If we replace that with another one, Where the two AIs battle it out and we don't know why they're doing it and don't know who's going to win and then we just get a result.
We're still going to think we voted.
We're still going to think our vote made the difference.
So it won't make any difference.
We'll just go on like it wasn't happening.
Just like we do now.
But yes, I do believe that the human part of elections is Largely gone, and it's not coming back.
The AIs will figure out how to persuade us, and that's it.
That will be the whole story.
It won't even be about the candidate.
At least when the candidates are close.
I mean, if the candidates are wildly different in quality, that still does matter, of course.
Alright.
How about this?
How would you like to see if AI could persuade one person?
Wouldn't that be interesting?
Put one person in a room with one AI and work on one topic.
And we'll say, all right, the topic is whatever.
Could be abortion, could be guns.
You know, something that nobody ever changes their mind about, realistically.
It's very rare for somebody to change their mind about, let's say, the Second Amendment.
So you put somebody in a room and you unleash the AI.
You say, alright AI, take as long as you want, use all the sources you want, use every form of persuasion you want, have a conversation with this human, see if you can change the human's mind.
Do you think the AI could do it?
Well, most of the time not, just because it would be limited by time.
You'd have to work on somebody for a long time.
But, suppose you put a thousand humans in that situation, and the AI was trying to work on all thousand of them as best it could.
Do you think it could change a hundred?
I think it could.
It wouldn't change 900.
I mean, it couldn't do it right away.
Even if it did everything right, it probably couldn't.
But it can get 100.
Because good persuasion always picks people off.
Whether it's human or machine, you can always get some.
And if you can pick off 10% of the other side, you win every election in our system.
So I'd like to see it tested on an individual or a small group to see if AI can really persuade people.
Because maybe it can.
Maybe it can.
Alright, I've told you about this, I call it the Scott Alexander effect, named after a blogger who used that name, Scott Alexander, which was not his real name.
And he taught me, and then I've taught some of you, the following rule.
That if something's in the news, and it's really, really interesting, it's probably fake.
You've heard me say that before, right?
If it's in the news, and it's really interesting, let's say aliens, it's almost certainly fake.
If it's in the news, but it's normal, there's another hurricane.
It's probably real, because that's normal.
But when you see a story that makes your hair catch on fire, like, oh my God, did that person really say that?
Or did that person really do that?
Did the President of the United States just call neo-Nazis fine people?
No, he didn't.
Of course he didn't.
It seemed like it.
People thought so.
They thought they saw it in the video, but it didn't happen in the real world.
The video was edited.
By the way, that's the same way the RFK Jr.
video was edited.
It was a Rupar video that makes it look like he wants to execute people who don't believe in climate change.
If you saw that video and said, I saw it myself, he said it, that's a Rupar video.
Same thing that got Trump a couple times.
So don't believe that video.
So there's a study that gives some meat to this effect.
And it says that false news stories are more commonly retweeted by humans than bots.
By a lot.
70% more likely to be retweeted than true stories.
A fake story is 70% more likely to be retweeted.
That's not small.
That's huge.
Now this is evidence that people prefer fake news.
Now what makes it fake news?
Usually it's something that's too on the nose.
That's the stuff that gets retweeted.
If tomorrow you found out that, let's say, the Democrats were accusing Trump of starting the forest fires in Canada, you'd say to yourself, OK, that's a little too, just blame him for everything, right?
You would pick that up immediately.
It's like, no, I don't think so.
That would be so absurd.
But if that story ever ran, it would be tweeted like crazy.
Because people wouldn't believe it because it just catches their hair on fire.
Are you kidding me?
He's done so many bad things and now he's setting forest fires in Canada?
Oh my God!
Is there anything he won't do after praising Nazis and telling us to drink bleach?
Now he's setting forest fires in Canada?
Now the way you would know that news was fake is that it got you going.
Yeah, news like that that just gets you going?
It's almost always fake.
Almost always fake.
How about this story of the FBI?
Allegedly, there's a Ukrainian person who alleges to have given a $5 million bribe to Biden for whatever, for policy purposes.
Does that sound real?
Do you think that there's a real trail of real evidence?
I mean, I do believe that the person said it and it was written down.
So I believe there's a document.
But does that sound real to you?
That somebody gave him a five million dollar bribe, a Ukrainian?
Look at all the people who say yes.
Why does it sound real to you?
Does it sound real to you because it's right on the nose?
And it's so outrageous it makes your hair stand on fire?
Is that why you believe it?
It's so outrageous!
And yet, so perfectly what you expected.
That doesn't set off any alarms at all.
That doesn't tell you that it's most likely bullshit.
If this were Trump, would you have believed this for a minute?
For one minute, would you have believed this if they said it about Trump?
No, you wouldn't.
You would not believe this.
Now, it could be that the reason the DOJ didn't want Comer and Grassley to see it in Congress, maybe the reason they didn't want to see it is exactly the reason you'd think, that they don't think it's true.
Wouldn't that be the most logical explanation of what's happening here?
That the people who looked at it said, it looks like another one of those steel dossier things.
It's just another liar.
So, I will grant you that it might be true.
Will you allow that?
Will you allow that it might be true?
It could be true that Biden took a bribe.
Maybe.
I mean, we've seen things that look pretty sketchy, but we haven't seen them take a direct bribe, have we?
If we know that the Biden family set up a structure to hide bribes, right?
The entire structure was about hiding bribes.
But you think somebody just wrote a check, just gave them a bribe.
When they had this whole structure for accepting bribes without making them look like bribes, allegedly, allegedly they did that.
Why would you just take a bribe?
When you can do it the way that nobody gets caught.
I don't think you would.
So I'm going to say that the public doesn't have a right to know about big accusations like this.
But it doesn't look real to me.
I do not think the walls are closing in on Biden.
And I think that it's very unlikely to be real.
But it could be.
I'll give you a solid 10 to 15% chance it's true.
That's pretty big.
A 10% chance the president took a $5 million bribe.
That's a really big chance.
But 90% chance it didn't happen at all.
That's what I think.
All right.
I hate to disappoint you on that.
But we'll see.
Maybe I will be the one embarrassed and disappointed at my bad predicting.
It's possible.
So believe it or not, there's still a question about who blew up that Ukrainian dam, or if it failed on its own.
An article in The Hill says that the dam was badly mismanaged, and at the time it broke it was under poor management by the Russians, and that it was at its all-time high.
So there was a combination of they knew it was poorly managed, at the same time they knew that the water pressure was the highest it had ever been.
And so one theory is that it just broke.
Yes, it broke exactly before the Ukrainian offensive.
Can we all just act like we believe that?
Ah, yeah, it broke immediately before the Ukrainian offensive.
Well, that's a big coincidence, isn't it?
Okay.
Yeah, that's... Sorry.
I'm not buying the accidental thing.
But then that leaves the question of who did it.
And the Hill also thinks that Russia is likely to have done it, to delay Ukraine, who was already getting ready in its counter-offensive, was already, you know, shaping up.
Do you think that Russia Would blow up its own dam, meaning they already controlled that territory, to get a temporary advantage that doesn't even last?
No.
That doesn't even sound a little bit plausible.
And yet The Hill is writing this like, yeah, that's a good idea.
Maybe that happened.
All right, here's my theory of the dam.
And I don't believe you've seen this theory anywhere else.
And it goes like this.
If you're the Russian military, what do you think would stop the Ukrainians from their counter-offensive?
What would it take for them not to attack?
Generally speaking, what it would take for the Ukrainian counter-offensive to not happen is that the will of the Ukrainian fighters or the government, they didn't have a strong enough will.
They weren't willing to take enough losses.
They weren't willing to do whatever it took.
Because you're not going to win unless you're willing to do whatever it takes.
What's it due to the morale and thinking of the Russians If the Ukrainians blew up their own Kiev dam because the Russians owned it.
Do you know what that would do to me psychologically if I were a Russian?
I'd give up.
If I saw them blow up their own freaking critical dam just to get a small advantage in their counter-offensive, I'd just fucking give up.
Because it tells me they're not going to quit for anything.
To me that says, we're going to do whatever it takes.
You conscripts, you better start running.
Because conscripts are not going to do whatever it takes.
But the Ukrainians just sent a message that is like a million volts of electricity that just said, we will destroy anything for any advantage.
There's nothing that's going to stop this from happening.
You better get out of the way.
That's what I saw.
So that's my current theory.
My current theory is there's a psychological operation with maybe a small on-the-ground benefit, but psychologically it's devastating.
I think that's devastating.
Am I wrong?
Let me test you.
I don't see comments confirming or arguing.
Do you think if you were the Russian conscripts and you saw the Ukrainians blow up their own dam, would you run?
Because they're not going to quit.
They basically said, we're not quitting.
So if you don't, we're both dead.
So that's your choice.
You die, we die, we all die.
Or you could run away.
But we're not quitting.
We're going to blow up our own stuff.
We don't even care.
So that's what it feels like.
I'll just put that hypothesis out there because I haven't seen it.
But it looks like a psychological operation by the Ukrainians.
All right.
There are some TikTok allegations.
There's a former employee of ByteDance who says that he personally saw, but there are no documents to prove it, but he says he saw it with his own eyes, that the Beijing-based, that basically China had full access to TikTok's data and it used some kind of God mode password.
And they could see where all the pro-Hong Kong protesters were and what they were up to.
And then they could go round them up.
Do you believe that?
It's based entirely on somebody who doesn't like the Chinese government telling you what happened.
And it's two on the nose.
Two on the nose.
Yeah.
I'm going to say... See, here's the problem.
Sometimes two on the nose It has two meanings.
One is too on the nose because somebody made up a fake thing, and so that's why it sounds so perfect.
And the other is, didn't you all expect that China would be looking at the data?
It's exactly what you expected to be true.
Now, I think two things can be true.
I think that this guy could be lying completely, but it's also true that China looks at the data if they want to.
What do you think of that?
The most likely explanation is that the guy is lying because it helps his case or he has some advantage in it, but that they do have access.
And that's a real thing, he just didn't see it.
All right.
Here's Rasmussen on Democrats and whether they should debate.
73% of Democrats think Biden should debate his challengers.
Meaning RFK Jr., primarily.
And 78% of Republicans and 72% of voters not affiliated.
This is overwhelming.
When was the last topic that over 70% of every demographic agreed?
Over 70% of every demographic.
Every demographic, a political demographic.
Now, how in the world can Biden ignored the will of three quarters of the people, including his own people.
That really says he's done.
To me, that says he's done.
Because there is no scenario in which you ignore 70% of your own party.
Right?
I mean, it's obvious he can't do it.
If he could do it, he'd do it.
I think at this point.
It's obvious he can't do it.
So I'm going to go with my prediction that Biden will drop out before the election.
I think before the primary, but definitely before the election itself.
There's only a few months there.
So I'm going to say before the primary.
I'll keep my prediction to he'll fall out before the primary, and probably through worsening health, because that's the only way he can do it.
He has to claim worsening health so that everybody understands.
Because he's going to be in trouble for taking it as far as he has, right?
If he waits another nine months to drop out, he's going to get all kinds of trouble for putting the chill on all the other people who might have been running.
So he's got to make it look like there was nothing he could do.
He was doing his best job, but sometimes nature catches up to you.
So you've got to do what you've got to do.
So it's going to be a health-related problem, probably not dementia, because if he says it's dementia, everybody's going to say, yeah, we saw it.
You should have done it sooner.
It's going to have to be something like a heart murmur or, I don't know, some physical problem.
Yeah.
All right.
Did you know that, for some reason I didn't know this, do you know that Bud Light is still the top-selling brand of beer in America?
You probably knew that, right?
Because I'm sure that was in stories.
That even still, with its, I don't know, 20 or whatever percent drop in sales, it's still the number one brand in America.
Did you know that?
Yeah, I'm just looking at the suggestions on locals for what kind of health problem Biden might have that isn't cognitive.
of.
And somebody suggested he had one of those four-hour erections that doesn't go away.
He can't appear in public because his ED meds gave him a permanent erection.
He can't stand in public.
That would be the best.
That would be simulation perfection.
All right.
I didn't have anything to say about Bud Light.
It's just funny.
All right.
Did you hear about the new head of CNN?
So the new head of CNN is temporary.
And I think there's three people who were involved, but one of them is sort of the boss.
And the husband of the person who is currently in charge of CNN, her husband was in 2021 nominated by Biden to be the U.S.
ambassador to Israel.
In 2021.
So his wife, the guy who was nominated to be the ambassador to Israel, his wife is running CNN.
So... I guess he's a Democrat insider, is what we're saying.
He's a Democrat insider.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen.
That is the end of my prepared statements.
But I'd like to talk about the whistleblower who says the aliens are here.
As someone who shall remain nameless because he would like to be anonymous, I believe.
Said on Twitter, look at that whistleblower talk and shake his head no when he's telling you things you're supposed to believe.
Now, which is very interesting.
So I'll do my impression of him answering a question.
This wasn't a real question, but just my impression.
It's like, so you're saying the U.S.
actually has bodies of the dead aliens?
Yeah, we've had them forever.
They've had, there may be a dozen of them.
There's at least a dozen crafts that landed.
And he would shake his head no while he was talking.
What's that tell you?
And apparently he used a lot of adverbs.
I'm seeing some people say, I think Joshua Lysak says this, if you use too many adverbs, it's sort of saying that you're lying.
Right?
Because people who tell the truth just don't need them.
Because they're just describing what they see.
The adverbs are telling you that you're trying to sell it.
The adverbs are a tell that you know your story is not working.
So you're adding a few adverbs to give it a little boost.
But people just telling the story, just plain out telling the story, they leave out the adverbs.
Because the story is the story.
You don't need them.
So I'm not sure that works every time for detecting a lie, but I like it.
So, alright, let me ask you this.
If it's fake, and if the whistleblower is not telling us the truth, why would he do it?
What do you think would be the potential motivation, allegedly, for someone to tell an untruth with that much detail?
For attention?
For money?
For sex?
To sell the book?
All good reasons.
All good reasons.
Can you think of any other reason?
How much are you going to want our military to be funded if there are space aliens?
A little bit more, right?
You're like, uh, are you telling me we might be fighting the aliens?
We better have some good guns.
But apparently we can shoot them down or they crash a lot because there are 12 of them.
12 alien crafts.
Now, come on.
May I just give you a really on this?
All right, let's do a really test on this.
The U.S.
government has 12 alien crafts that they've somehow obtained without any citizens getting any video of it happening.
Some of them have dead aliens in it.
Nobody's talked about it until this guy.
Dead aliens.
And there's nobody that he talked to that allegedly told him about this information who would be willing to say it in writing or to give an interview.
They're not going to do.
There's not anybody who'd be willing to give an interview, let's say with their name disguised, to say, yes, I'm the one who told him about these alien crafts and I saw them personally.
Nobody.
Really?
Really.
You can't find anybody else.
Just this one guy.
Just this one guy.
And have you noticed that the government hasn't tried to kill him yet?
Let me say this with some confidence.
If we really had Alien Crafts and he was really giving away the biggest secrets the United States has ever had, they would have killed him.
He'd be dead already.
They're not going to let this guy go on every TV show telling all the secrets of the United States.
That's not going to happen.
They would stop that shit right away.
That's how you know it's true.
Because nobody's stopping him from talking.
Has anybody sued him?
Has the government threatened him?
Have they brought him in to say, oh, you better stop it?
They have not.
I know Bob Lazar had a similar story, but this sounds like just somebody copying Bob Lazar, actually.
It's a Bob Lazar copycat, it looks like.
Bob Lazar found Element 151 before science found it.
Really?
Really?
Did he?
Really?
I don't know what any of that means, but I don't think it's true.
All right.
Yeah, so one possibility is that he's just a rogue attention seeker.
Don't know.
The other possibility is that he's working for our government.
And he wants you to hear this.
Why would our government want you to hear that we have aliens if they didn't?
Why would they want you to hear that?
Alright, well here's one reason.
They might have to get you used to it.
They might have to get you used to it.
The other possibility is that Russia and China Don't want to have to go to war with us if we have alien technology.
So we might be trying to scare China and Russia because you know who believes any bullshit?
Chinese and Russia people.
They'll believe any bullshit, just like us.
I mean, they're not that different.
But if you can get enough Russians in the Russian military to believe that we have some UFOs and we're back engineering their technology so that we'll have it, Or you can convince the Chinese.
That actually might change their plans.
So just when China is maybe eagerly looking at Taiwan, suddenly there's a story about how the United States has secret alien weapons.
Wouldn't those secret alien weapons come in handy if we got into a war with China over Taiwan?
They'd be really handy, wouldn't they?
And what if Russia decided to use some nukes in Ukraine?
Which, you know, if they're losing, maybe they would.
Huh.
Would you use nukes against a country who had alien UFO technology?
Well, at your peril.
I don't know.
I think they're just throwing it in there to sow some doubt with our potential competitors.
To me, it looks more likely a government operation than a lone person making an allegation.
What do you think?
Does he look like he's working alone to you?
Or does it look like it's part of a disinformation plan?
Too dumb for an op?
Is it?
I don't know.
It may be so dumb and smart.
Because they know people are going to believe it, right?
Clearly.
Now, here's the worst Meaning most disturbing hypothesis.
Here's the most disturbing hypothesis of what this could be about.
You ready?
Nothing will disturb you more than this.
It's a test.
They're testing what they can get away with.
If they can make the public believe they have 12 UFOs with dead aliens in them, they can make you believe anything.
And they might think, you know, they're just testing.
Let's see if we can get away with this.
Because if we get away with this, we can get away with anything.
And then maybe the anything is yet to come.
Famas says, you are out of touch on this one.
Are you in touch, Famas?
Are you in contact with the aliens?
What would it mean to be in touch in this concept?
Do you think I haven't looked at the debunking and also the claims on YouTube?
Do you think I haven't looked into every UFO thing that there ever was because they're all interesting?
Yeah.
What do you think I'm out of touch with that you're in touch with?
How are you plugged into this UFO situation?
Tell me more about your connection to the UFO world and how I could get one.
All right.
I I know you've seen the aliens yourself.
Read a good book.
See, that was my problem.
I haven't read enough books.
On YouTube, they're telling me, if I'd read some books, boy, would I be in better shape now.
Because you know what books are?
Books are always accurate.
Tough on them.
A lot of accuracy in those books.
All right.
Would you have sex with a sexy alien?
Are you talking Star Trek quality alien or Star Wars?
Star Trek alien, yes.
Star Wars alien?
I'd have to see this in that situation, make my judgment individually.
But possibly, possibly.
Since I don't have any birthday sex lined up, Today, probably.
I'd probably smash an alien.
Yeah.
All right.
You think they're humans?
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is all I have to talk about.
Two hanging and trying.
Yeah.
OK.
Oh, yeah.
Are the aliens illegal?
They might be illegal aliens.
All right, here's a question for you.
Here's a question that nobody's ever asked.
Would it be legal to murder?
Well, it wouldn't be murder.
Would it be legal to kill an alien in your backyard?
If a real alien landed, could you take your gun out and just kill it?
I believe the answer is yes, right?
Even if you're not threatened?
Because I'm pretty sure there's no law That covers aliens.
I don't think it has to be in self-defense, does it?
If you just saw one, you could just kill him because you wanted a trophy.
Well, I think we should... You know what would be a good signal that aliens are really here?
Would be if we started considering legislation about them.
That would be a good sign.
Because you imagine that maybe somebody in Congress would be aware of the secrets.
Suppose they started introducing legislation that if aliens arrive, you know, there are limits to how you can treat them.
If you see some legislation, it means the government actually believes there's aliens.
If you don't see any legislation, I don't think they know, I don't think they believe there's any aliens.
You couldn't kill it if it speaks English to you.
Yeah.
You enjoy my bad takes?
I think my takes are the best takes ever.
Oh, is it Kanye's birthday today?
I think Ye has the same birthday, right?
All right.
Well, it is my birthday, and I guess I'll have to Figure out exactly what to do about it.
I'm the Jim Cramer of life predictions.
You know, how many of you think that I make bad predictions?
I know what locals will say.
But let me ask you on YouTube.
How many of you have watched my predictions for a number of years and believe I'm bad at predicting?
Does anybody think I'm bad at predicting?
You got real quiet there, didn't you?
The only person who says yes can't spell perdition, so that's a good sign.
for addition.
I'm like the opposite of Kramer.
That's right.
Yep, 25% think I'm bad at it.
And you're going to have to explain why these other people think I'm good at it.
