Episode 2200 Scott Adams: If You Want Your Mind Blown, Today Is The Day For That. Bring Cleanup Rags
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, RFK Jr., David Weiss, Hunter Diversion Agreement, Jordan Peterson Online University, Lao Tzu, AI LLM, Success Patterns, Norway Targeted Ads, Meta, President Biden, Vivek Ramaswamy, President Trump, Judge Tanya Chutkan, Military Grade Brainwashing, Bill Maher, Whale Killing Windmills, Veteran Suicides, Mind-Reading Lie Detector, Victoria Nuland, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 human civilization times two.
You might see behind me a whiteboard, but don't be confused.
It's two whiteboards, two whiteboards today.
Yeah, I know.
Settle down.
Settle down.
Two whiteboards.
But if you'd like to Put your mind at a level that is equal to the content you're going to see today.
All you need is a cupper, a mug, or a glass of Tanger Chalicestein.
A canteen jug or flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Ah, there we go.
Yes, everybody have an equitable morning.
We will settle for nothing less.
Lots of stories today.
I'm not sure the Zuckerberg versus Musk fight is going to happen.
I think Zuckerberg is saying that Musk is not serious enough and he doesn't want to do a practice fight at his house.
So it looks like maybe that's off, I don't know.
But we'll keep an eye on it.
RFK Jr.
says that the media is hitting him harder than Trump.
He says, I like this quote, if I believed the stuff that's written about me in the papers and reported about me on the mainstream news sites, I would definitely not vote for me, Kennedy said.
Which is totally correct.
If you believed what the news said about Kennedy, you wouldn't vote for him.
But I remind you, how often is the news about public figures accurate?
The news about... never.
Not even ever.
There's always context left out.
There's always a bias in the reporting.
There's always stuff that nobody could possibly know that matters.
Yeah.
So nothing you see about RFK Jr.
is going to be true if it's in the news.
At least not true completely.
Maybe true facts, but out of context, that sort of thing.
Alright, I have a conspiracy theory to add to the mix.
Do you feel like there are enough?
Do you need a new conspiracy theory?
But you're gonna have to help me out on the fact-checking on this.
Because there are so many legal cases going on.
That I'm starting to get confused.
What's a Biden case?
And what's a Trump case?
And which Trump case is it?
And is it the gun charges?
Or is it something else?
So Weiss... I'm getting Jack Smith and Weiss confused.
Weiss is the one who did the sweetheart deal for Hunter, right?
Is that right?
So Weiss is the one with the sweetheart deal for Hunter.
Now Weiss is also the one who's been chosen as the, what do you call it, the special counsel?
So here's the sequence of events that didn't make sense.
So Weiss was a Trump-appointed prosecutor, correct?
Give me a fact check on that.
Trump-appointed.
Right?
Trump appointed, but then brought a Biden-related sweetheart plea deal to the courts, and it was so bad that it was thrown away.
So how do you explain that?
Why would he be a professional and even a, you know, possibly, you know, not too lefty, but why would he do something that so obviously was, you know, imperfect?
I don't know the answer to this, but I would tell you what I would do in his situation, just to give you some context.
All right, let's say you put me in Weiss's situation, and my boss, Garland, says, you have full approval to prosecute in any state you want, and you have all the resources you want, and nobody will bother you.
And then you find out none of that's true, hypothetically.
You find out that you can't actually do whatever you want.
You don't have the power and they lied to you and they did not help you the entire time.
How would you play it?
Would you resign?
Some people would.
It's not what I would have done.
Do you know what I would do?
It's a little thing called embrace and amplify.
Yeah.
Won't you see it?
You put me in his job and you know what I'd do?
I would put together the most absurd, ridiculous plea agreement.
I'd make sure that all the idiots who were trying to block me and stop me and influence me thought it was the best plea deal they'd ever seen.
And then I would go public with it, and I would let it blow up in my face.
Just the way it happened.
I would put together a deal so absurd that the public would be signaled that there's no justice going on.
And that's what happened.
And so absurd, he couldn't guarantee that a judge would throw it out, but he had to know it was an option.
And what would happen if the judge threw it out?
Well, there would be a lot of conversation then, wouldn't there?
About what was going on.
And then, the fuckery that I think he was probably subjected to would come to light.
And what was the net result?
He got more power.
He got more power.
Now, I understand the argument that, oh, isn't this convenient?
You know, just when Congress wanted to look into things, it becomes a special council so that they can't.
Yes, that is very convenient, and it might be the whole reason.
Could be.
Wouldn't rule it out.
So maybe the whole thing is just to keep Congress from finding out what's going on.
But the other possibility Is if you put me in Weiss's job and then I found out I couldn't do my job, and yet it was my job to go embarrass myself in public like I really had, I wouldn't do it.
I would not play along.
But I wouldn't necessarily resign.
I would stay to destroy the system.
That's what I'd do.
I mean, I think that's just a personality thing, but if you put me in that situation, what I would do would look exactly like what he did.
But my intentions would be to blow it up, and just show how corrupt it is.
Now, if that's what happened, and then the result of that is he got the power he always needed in the first place, you might see something like an interesting outcome.
However, today we find out that the so-called Diversion Agreement, where I think they take a, the classic case for a Diversion Agreement, as I understand it, is that if somebody's an addict but non-violent, sometimes you'll divert them into some treatment and don't treat the crime like you might have, because it's a non-violent situation.
So to me this is a perfect situation for a Diversion Agreement.
Like, he is non-violent.
There's not much chance, you know, he's going to do that exact same gun crime of lying on a federal forum.
What, is he going to repeat that crime?
I don't think so.
So you need some kind of, you know, the justice system needs to be involved.
He wouldn't like a diversion either.
But it seems like the right application.
And now there's some thought that the diversion part was separate from the plea deal, so that at least the gun charges would be treated in a diversion-y way.
I think that means he gets treatment, counseling, something like that.
Doesn't get to keep his guns, I imagine.
So, I think that's what the legal system should be doing for somebody like him.
But the rest of the plea deal, I suppose that's a bigger question.
All right.
So I'm just going to throw that out there as this might be an embrace.
Embrace and amplify.
It might be.
It looks like it.
Jordan Peterson says he's creating a new college online.
Isn't that like one of the best things you've heard lately?
That Jordan Peterson is trying to create an actual accredited online university that wouldn't have all the flaws of Current education systems, you know, the wokeness and ridiculous courses and stuff like that.
But he thinks he could get the course of a bachelor, the cost of a bachelor's degree down to $4,000 if it's online.
Now, I don't think online is as good as in person, but maybe with AI it will be fairly quickly.
Maybe it will be.
Because if you had AI to ask questions, In addition to whatever the lecture looked like and the homework, it might really help.
I mean, we might be where online is actually competitive.
Jordan Peterson would be exactly the person I would hope would be involved in this sort of thing, because he can see the whole field.
He understands Academia, of course.
But he also gets the whole psychological, political, you know, situation.
So he could put together something that made sense.
So, I like that.
But, I would like to amplify and add to this conversation a little bit with some whiteboards that are coming up.
Don't get too excited.
Oh yeah, it's gonna be good.
It's gonna be good.
But I asked this question on my live stream in my man cave last night, and I'm going to ask the same question to you, in this group, because I think it's relevant to Jordan Peterson and his creating new colleges online.
Question number one.
You're an employer.
You're looking for employees.
You've got two candidates, and they seem to be identical.
One is a white candidate, one is a black candidate.
But on paper, they seem to have just the same background and experience, so you can't tell.
But, the black candidate mentions that he's building a talent stack, and he prefers systems over goals.
And you immediately recognize that he's read my book.
Had a feel of almost everything and still wouldn't pick.
Who do you hire?
Which one do you hire?
The one who read my book or the one who didn't?
Well, read it and is implementing it.
Racist says white person.
No, you would hire the black person because the black person had acquired a set of skills That very clearly signal a serious person who is very likely to do well and you would want to work with them.
So I put that out there as evidence that there already is a strategy for people to succeed.
But why don't they?
What's holding things up?
If we know exactly what it would take for any individual, be they white or black or brown or anything else, We know how to do it.
Why isn't it happening?
Well, that's what the whiteboards are going to teach you.
Are you ready for this?
Are you ready to have your mind blown?
Some people on the Locals platform, my community there, have seen some of this, but you're going to see it all put together in a way they haven't seen either.
So the first part you may have seen.
It's an idea by philosopher Lao Tzu.
I'll try to get rid of that.
There we go.
And Lao Tzu said many years ago, he said, watch your thoughts because your thoughts become words.
Watch your words because your words become actions.
Watch your actions because they become habits.
Habits become your character.
And your character is destiny.
Now, I'm going to update this.
Lao Tzu was a very smart guy, apparently, but he was smart before we discovered how to make AI work.
So there's something we have to update on this.
Words and thoughts, turns out, are the same thing.
Whoops!
So AI taught us, the large language models, that all you have to do is look at the pattern of words, and if you applied the right technology to it, just the word use alone would produce intelligence.
But before that, we imagined we had some kind of reason and thoughts and stuff that was independent from our words.
But AI kind of put the lie to that, which is something, by the way, hypnotists have known forever.
Hypnotists know that the words are what are activating you.
The thoughts are really word combinations, because we think in words.
Your thoughts right now, your private thoughts, are in words.
If you were to change those words, what would happen?
Well, if you change the words, so I'm going to treat words and thoughts as one thing, because AI taught us that, right?
So if you change your words, you're going to change your actions, because that's how you're built.
That's the only way it can work.
The things you do are literally based on the frequency and combination of words in your programmer, your head, your brain.
So to reprogram a person from something suboptimal to something that they would want, all you do is change the frequency and arrangement of words.
Do you know what this is called?
If you change the frequency and arrangement of words, and what you're doing is trying to change somebody's actions, what's that called?
Wordsmithing?
No.
Reframing?
Yes.
Could be.
Hypnosis.
That's exactly what hypnosis is.
Hypnosis is not, a lot of people if they watch movies, they think it's about the watch this clock, they think it's about the voice of the hypnotist.
It's not the voice.
It's not the mannerisms, although those are helpful parts of the process.
It's actually the frequency and the arrangement of words.
That's hypnosis.
That's it.
That's enough to change somebody's entire brain and their actions, their habits, their character, and then their destiny.
So if you could optimize the words in your head, blah, blah, blah.
Let me give you a real concrete example.
The other day I was showing this to somebody, and the person said that they were working on a problem.
They had a fear of rejection.
They were considering doing something.
It was somebody considering an action which would have been almost certainly good for them.
A very obvious, really obvious thing to do that would be good for you, but couldn't get the action right.
Because of a fear of rejection.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is word poisoning.
You say to yourself, well, there's some bad thoughts there.
No.
Words are thoughts.
Words, and their combinations, and their frequency, is your thoughts.
There's no difference.
Once you get that, you unlock this power.
Until you understand that your words are a programming language that you can change on your own, you don't have access to the stack.
And then when I heard the person say to me, fear of rejection, I had this thought.
I don't use that word for anything.
Anything.
I'm never going to let that word in my head.
When I heard it, I recoiled.
I recoiled.
The actual word hurt me.
I was like, shit, I don't want that in my head.
I will never use that word because I don't want to stop myself from acting.
Do you know what I say in those situations?
This is going to be great.
This would be great.
Because keep in mind that in all of the situations I'm talking about, mine or anybody else's, people know what they're supposed to do.
Am I right?
Don't people almost always know what they're supposed to do?
It's just hard to do it.
And the reason it's hard is because you don't have your words right.
If the word in your head is the word rejection, you're not going to do this.
Whatever it is.
If the word in your head is, this is going to be great, this will be exciting, this will be interesting.
By the way, curiosity is one of the best replacement words.
If you have some negative words and you want the easiest way to replace them, replace them with curiosity words.
I wonder what's going to happen.
Well, this will be interesting.
I'm fascinated about how today is going to turn out.
You put those words in your head, you're going to act.
You put the R word in your head?
I'm not even going to say it again, because it's such a damaging word.
Or the F word?
F-A-I-L?
Nope.
When I say it's not in my vocabulary, I mean that I have consciously made sure that if it comes up, it's not about me.
I'm talking about a system failure or something like that.
All right, so.
How many of you are sold on this as a good way of understanding the world?
Just give me a halfway point.
Is this a good way to understand what you see?
I think most of you say yes.
Got one no.
So hold on to this thought that words, not thoughts, words are what unlock habits.
Words, and the combination of words, is the only thing that unlocks habits.
Not thoughts, Just the words.
If you don't get that, you don't get anything.
All right?
Now let's explain the world.
This, by the way, would apply to other people more generally.
But I'm going to give you a specific problem.
So we have a problem.
Let's say you're a black kid and you want to succeed in this world and you want to do it the way everybody succeeds.
The way everybody succeeds is they imitate people who have successful patterns.
So you look for somebody who's succeeding and you say, what are you doing to succeed?
And then you try to do that.
That's how everybody does it.
Everybody everywhere.
Now, every once in a while, you might produce a Steve Jobs, right?
Steve Jobs does seem magical.
It's like he was inventing things that other people copied.
Now, I don't think he actually invented anything, but he was better at noticing patterns.
So, he might be, you know, like a real exception.
Where he's inventing patterns as opposed to following them.
But the rest of us follow, we would follow him, right?
She'd say, what did you do?
All right, let's do more of that.
But because we have an industry that tells you that, well, these all have something in common.
The DEI, the CRT, the ESG.
One thing they have in common is the words.
That there were slaves, there is systemic racism, There's black and there's white, and that there is a oppressor class and an oppressed class.
Those would be, you know, that's an example of the words, right?
So don't think too hard about the specific words, but you would agree that all of these ideas, these concepts, are built on words.
You agree so far?
It's a word-related set of thoughts, as everything is.
So these are not uniquely about words.
Any three-letter concepts I put here would also be supported by their sets of words.
These sets of words create what I call the glass imitation ceiling, meaning that if you're a young black kid and you're asked to imitate successful people, You're going to be looking at the people that you have been taught are your oppressors.
Who can do that?
Who could imitate their oppressors?
I couldn't.
If you said the only way you can succeed is by imitating your oppressors or a life of crime, I'd pick the crime.
I would.
I'm just being honest, if you put me in that same situation, the mental, emotional impact of having to imitate my oppressor There's just no way I'd do it.
I would take up a life of crime before I did that.
So that's the situation you're putting black kids in.
And again, if anybody's new to me, I'm never talking about all black kids.
I'm never talking about all white people anything.
I'm never talking about all black people anything.
Or all anybody anything.
People are Amazingly different from each other, but this is just a good conceptual framework.
So, here's what I think has to be fixed.
Black Americans have an imitation ceiling.
They simply can't do the things that other people would do.
But, the tools are all there.
The tools are there.
I mentioned my book, How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big.
My new one that is also coming out I think this week, if the last technical parts work with the online publishing.
But those would be two examples of books that would tell anybody how to succeed.
Because I've organized the words in the books to make that happen.
The books are also hypnosis in the sense that they're built to be persuasive as well as utilitarian.
So, how do you fix this?
I'm going to tell you I have no idea.
I have no idea how to fix it.
The only thing I'm sure of is that it has to be fixed by the people who are involved, which is not me.
This is something that can't be fixed from the outside, no matter how good your intentions are, no matter how good your skill is, and no matter anything.
It doesn't matter how many resources you have.
There are some things that have to be fixed from the inside.
And I feel like every time you put outside pressure...
On a group that's already in a, say, victim and oppressor model, that outside pressure, depending on who it comes from, let's say it comes from somebody like me, is it helping?
I don't know.
I don't have a good argument that would say it would help.
Might actually make it worse.
So somehow black America needs to figure this out.
How do they either create enough black successful people or stories about them so that young black kids have lots of role models that they can imitate?
But this is the basic setup.
You don't know how much of your problem is systemic racism until you deal with the fact that people are not pursuing individual success.
Because they feel like it's denied to them, or where it would be unpleasant to copy somebody.
So, that's my understanding of the world.
Did it help?
All right, give me some feedback.
Did this give you a framework that you can at least say, well, I can compare this to some other points of view?
There's a big difference in the comments on YouTube versus here.
All right, for those who said no, I guess it would be hard to ask the question.
So I see more yeses than noes.
But I think the noes may be... I mean I have a theory about the noes.
I think the noes are people who don't want this to be useful.
I think there are a lot of people who just want... they want their drama.
They want their hate.
You know, they want their helplessness.
You can get real addicted to that stuff.
So, you're welcome to your feelings.
Alright, Norway is going to be finding Meta for their targeted advertising.
As you know, Meta used to be Facebook.
Their entire business model, and other online models, is that they can give you an ad that's targeted just for you.
But Norway says no to targeted ads, sort of on a, I think it's a privacy issue.
But they're going to fine $100,000 a day for Facebook and Instagram's business if they keep doing it.
Now, whatever Norway does is not going to make or break meta, but It makes you wonder if this is something that could catch on.
Would you agree that targeted advertisement is by definition a violation of your privacy?
Feels like it.
I mean, I understand the argument.
But you know, there are lots of situations where you're trading a little bit of privacy for a little bit of utility.
So you always have to measure, well, I gave up a little privacy, but I got a lot of utility.
So...
I don't know.
Norway might have the right idea on this.
This one, I think this one's open for opinion, but I'm leaning toward Norway.
But more generally, I don't understand how Meta can stay in business.
Like, have you ever seen a business in your town that seemed to defy economics to such a degree that you think it must be a money laundering situation?
Because they couldn't possibly stay in business for 30 years with the business model that you observe.
It's like, okay, you're selling decorative, I don't know, doilies, and you've been in business for 30 years, and I never see anybody in your store.
You're like, hmm, something else going on there, I think, right?
But that's how I feel about meta.
I don't know anybody who's happy about using it.
Now, Instagram, of course, is a monster.
And WhatsApp is a monster.
So they have sources of revenue.
But the main business, which I would say would be the Facebook part of old, and now the virtual reality stuff, I think those are dead.
Those both feel like dead men walking to me.
I don't know how they could survive.
But we'll see.
Zuck has been right before.
Zuck has been more right than me.
So if I'm being reasonably humble, well, he's probably got a better grasp on this than I do.
Do you think that history repeats?
How many would say this is a fair statement?
History repeats.
No, it can't repeat.
Can't repeat.
Here's the problem with history repeats.
Which history do you pick?
Suppose you were looking at history repeats and you were looking at the news from 2015 to today.
And you wanted to use that as your model for history repeats.
Which version of history?
Would you use the version that says that President Trump was a coup planner and insurrectionist?
And then you would say, well, that'll happen again.
Or would you use the version of history that says that was always fake news and that nothing like that happened?
They're both history, but they point in opposite directions.
So if history repeats, which one do you pick?
See the problem?
The problem is you get to pick the history you like.
It's the opposite of science.
If you get to pick the version of history that supports your point, it's not because history repeats, it's that you cherry-picked a little story that probably wasn't real to begin with, because history isn't real, and then you tried to generalize it.
Now, history repeats is ridiculous, but we were brainwashed into thinking it's a thing.
The only part that I would say history repeats is the human motivations are always the same.
So for example, if you created a large organization with no transparency and a lot of money is involved, What's the likelihood that it would eventually become corrupt?
100%.
100%.
So that's a case of history repeating, but it's within the special case of, yeah, people always act the same.
So instead of saying history repeats, Change that in your mind to, people are people.
Follow the money.
Follow the money will take it all.
Follow the money gets you the whole answer.
It's just always going to be right.
So that's better than history repeats.
But I mention this because somebody asked, is San Francisco in a doom loop?
In other words, is it just going to keep spiraling down into nothing?
And somebody used the example of Detroit.
Is it going to become like Detroit when manufacturing left?
And my answer is no.
San Francisco is not going to go to nothing.
And neither will Maui.
Because Maui and San Francisco have a lot in common.
That the weather is unusually, you know, good.
And even though San Francisco is like cold for California, famously foggy and stuff, people like it.
I mean, it's something that people like.
Now, if you have the best locations in the world, follow the money.
Follow the money.
The money says that you always build along the coast.
You know, there's just always going to be money for that.
Now, yeah, there might be, you know, some companies leave and there's lots of disruption and stuff, but San Francisco isn't going to be abandoned.
There's just too much money involved in that location.
Of course it'll be rebuilt.
Of course it'll come back.
And Maui's the same.
Nobody's gonna leave Maui, you know, unrecovered.
Way too much money in that.
So yeah.
But Detroit?
Once manufacturing left Detroit, who had an interest in putting a bunch of money into it to build it up?
You still had Detroit weather.
All right, so follow the money, don't say history repeats.
So I've got another theory.
So you probably saw the news that Biden's been at the beach for a few weeks and then he was asked about Maui.
And although I think he has put out an official statement, he was asked for a comment live and he said no comment.
About Maui.
About the fire that destroyed Lahaina.
And might be the worst disaster we've ever seen of fire.
No comment.
Here's my interpretation.
If you were Jill Biden, And you had been either asked by others or you decided it was time.
And you are going to tell Joe that he's not going to be president.
And by the way, I do believe that Jill can just tell him that.
Does anybody disagree?
I believe that Jill, his wife, has the decision of whether he runs or not, and it's not Joe's decision.
And I'm not doing the old, oh, the wife's in charge.
It's not that.
I'm not doing the old, she's always been the puppet master.
I'm not doing that.
I'm saying that in any couple, the older one is...
...need to make this decision for me.
Conceive it that way.
But in a realistic sense, when it comes to, you know, the big decisions of life, Jill's the decision maker. - Thank you.
In my opinion, that would be obvious by this point.
I don't think it was obvious four years ago.
Four years ago, I think Jill was in enough control that it was more like a partnership.
In other words, that both Jill and Joe had to be on board, which they were, it looks like, and then they could go forward.
But this time, if Jill is not on board, that's the end of it.
Now, if you were Jill, and it was your job to tell your husband that he's not really going to run for president again, how would you do it?
And where would you do it?
And when would you do it?
You would do it right now.
You would do it on his summer vacation, and when you were done, what would Joe's frame of mind be?
Because remember, it wouldn't be his decision.
It would be his wife telling him that was the decision.
And when he's asked about Lahaina, after he's been told he's not going to be the president, how does he respond?
Well, one way he might respond is no comment.
Not because he doesn't care, but because he checked out.
And that his mind is entirely upon his own situation right now, which would suggest a decision has already been made.
So here's my front running of the news.
The decision is made by Jill.
Joe has been informed.
And you'll find out probably much later.
Now I could be wrong.
Pretty easily.
But that's what it looks like.
And I base this on pattern recognition.
If you put me in this situation and you said, alright, you're Jill and you're going to have to break the news to him and he's not going to like it.
I do it on his summer vacation when he has lots of time away from the regular work to process it.
I do it when he's away from everybody else, because if he doesn't take it well, you don't want a lot of witnesses.
And I would do it exactly at this time, so there's enough time for a replacement to get in, without it being too embarrassing.
What do you think?
I think, to me, it is screamingly obvious Here's the model I'm putting.
If you put a political model on this, you can't see it.
If it's only a political model, it's a little bit invisible.
If you put a relationship model on it, it's obvious.
If you put a relationship filter on this, it's obvious.
She must have told them in the last two weeks.
That's what I think.
So we'll test.
So this will be a good test of my predicting.
You know, nothing is 100%, but I feel pretty confident about this one.
That I think the relationship filter is screamingly obvious on this one.
But we'll see.
And also anything could change.
All right, I saw Ben Shapiro and some other smart people say that the special counsel that's been chosen can't be chosen from a government employee and that's what they did.
So did they just sort of decide to ignore the, I don't know, laws or statutes?
Or is there actually a counter argument to this?
Because to me it looks pretty cut and dried.
You can't pick him from a government employee.
He is a government employee.
They did pick him.
Can somebody explain that to me?
It's not a law, it's a statute.
So is it a suggestion but not a requirement?
Oh, they violated it before.
It's a regulation, not a requirement.
So who can violate a regulation?
Anybody who's the boss?
I don't know.
So I don't know if that's a big story or not.
Probably not.
Do we need to talk about the Georgia situation and Trump's perfect phone call?
Now, the perfect phone call to me looks just like the drinking bleach hoax, the fine people hoax.
It's entirely based on intentional misreporting, isn't it?
They changed the words of what he said, and then they changed the context a little bit.
If they didn't change his words, his exact words, and his context, it looks completely different.
So I guess that's all I would say about it.
It's the same trick of taking him out of context.
All right.
Remember every single day I tell you that Ramaswamy Vivek won the news cycle again?
Well, here we go again.
One of the viral videos is a pansexual LGBTQ reporter for some publication
Got in a conversation and asked Vivek some questions, quite politely, and Vivek's answer was so perfect and complete and off the cuff, like he wasn't reading from notes or anything, and he talked for a while, I mean, so it was a really complete, tight little package, that it became viral just because it was the best answer anybody's ever seen to that question.
Imagine being so good at answering a question, That people make you viral just because your answer was so good.
You just look at it and go, how did you even do that?
That was so good.
Right?
And that was just one thing he did.
I mean, he was rapping the other day.
But then he also makes news by being sort of the only one who's saying, and I think this is his actual words, a Ukrainian state-affiliated company's multi-million dollar bribe to the Biden family.
So he's calling it a bribe, and he's saying it's somewhat obvious that this should have affected his decisions on support for Ukraine's war.
And he says it directly.
Which again, makes news, and I think is a perfectly fair framing of the situation.
He's not saying that there's any specific decision, but this clearly would put you in a conflict, bribery-looking situation, which he says is impeachable.
It looks impeachable to me.
I mean, it looks like the most impeachable thing of all time.
It's like perfectly impeachable.
Oh, we'll see.
So there it is again.
Yeah, Vivek, day after day after day, wins the news cycle.
Now, how did DeSantis do in Iowa?
DeSantis looks like somebody who already decided to quit the race.
Right?
Because the other people are, they still have a second bite of the apple, because they still have the vice presidency that's sort of up for grabs, and then, you know, another chance at the presidency.
DeSantis is not really a possibility as a vice president.
Would you agree?
I don't see any way that DeSantis would be a vice presidential shortlist.
So if DeSantis thinks he can't, you know, make it to the top, It looked like a whole lot of giving up this week.
It looked like maybe he's already decided that, you know, he's just going through the motions because he has backers and, you know, they told him not to quit yet.
But of course, I suppose everybody's waiting just to see if Trump escapes all of his legal problems.
But I think Vivek will be the If Trump went away, I think Vivek would rise to the top immediately as the person who would get the Trump votes.
All right.
So Trump went after his judge that he's going to have for her alleged bias in her past statements about Trump.
And I would agree that her past statements about Trump, to me, Show a bias against him.
Has anybody read her comments?
Because in one part she talked about other people in January 6, in some public statement, and said that, yet Trump remains free.
Now that statement is chilling, because it's a very clear statement that she believes that he should not be a free man, before seeing the evidence, just based on what she saw in public.
Now, here's the situation.
So the media spent how many years, like six years, seven years, brainwashing the public, mostly Democrats, brainwashing Democrats, into believing that Trump is a traitorous, racist, sexist.
Am I right?
He's a traitorous, racist, sexist.
The news has been telling everybody, mostly Democrats, this for years.
And then the person who is randomly chosen happens to be a female, black, Immigrant.
Right?
The very groups that the news has been telling everybody should be the most outraged that he even exists.
Now, as I said in my tweet, if science were real, and I'm pretty sure it's not at this point, and the scientists were not Useless weasels.
Don't you think there should be some scientist, like a cognitive scientist, who should say, under these specific situations, you absolutely cannot have an immigrant black female judging Trump.
Now, this is not a comment about her qualifications.
You gotta hear this clearly.
I have no reason to believe she's not a great judge.
No indications.
I also understand that judges can have bias but still do their job.
Do we agree?
This is not a comment about her as a judge, not about her.
It's a general statement that if you put anybody in this situation, cognitive scientists, if they were not all frauds and weasels and pieces of shit, Would be going public and say, look, look, look, this is really a special case.
You've had the most powerful brainwashing forces brainwashing half of the country into believing that he's this massive monster, a racist, sexist, immigrant, and hating person.
And then you randomly pick a female black immigrant to be his judge.
And the rest of the country is supposed to watch this and say, oh, that looked fair to me.
No problem here.
I absolutely think that you can't remove bias from, you know, juries and from judges, because we're humans.
And I absolutely think that even with those biases, you can still get the right result.
But that's when the bias is at, like, normal levels.
We're not looking at anything normal.
The Trump derangement syndrome is very real.
It's been studied.
There's no question that it's real.
And when you see the comments of the judge about, you know, he's still free after January 6th, you cannot imagine that this would look like a fair trial to anybody who's paying attention.
And I think that the justicism has an obligation to not only try to give people a fair trial, duh, but to make sure it looks like it.
Make sure it looks like it.
This doesn't look like it.
And Trump is calling it out because he's the only one with the balls to say the obvious.
It's really obvious that this is not looking fair.
Now, again, am I saying that she is not professional enough?
To be fair, I'm not saying that at all.
I believe that her intentions, in all likelihood, would be to be as fair as possible.
I would assume that.
But I don't think that from a scientific basis, from a scientific perspective, you could put any female black immigrant into the specific job with the specific case of Trump.
He's the exception.
This can't work.
This can't work.
And the only reason we've gotten this far is because scientists are fucking cowards.
Do you think there's even one cognitive scientist who would back this?
Just one.
Anywhere in the world, do you think there's one cognitive scientist who would say, yeah, I think this is a situation where as long as it's transparent and judges are taught to be independent, So this should be fine?
Do you think so?
You think you could get one actual professional to say that about this?
Now they'd obviously say it about trials in general.
In general, we do the best we can.
But this is not in general.
This is a very specific situation that violates every historical precedent.
There's never been a president like this, who has been the subject of massive media brainwashing.
Massive.
And you could prove that the brainwashing is even intentional.
You could probably find quotes from news executives, etc.
that would prove that it's not accidental.
It's an actual brainwashing operation.
When you saw the fake laptop story that it was Russian disinformation, when you see that 50 past and current intelligence people signed a letter, is that ordinary brainwashing?
Is that like a rank and file, you know, all of you could do it?
No!
No, that is military grade.
That is military grade brainwashing.
That's not commercial grade.
Commercial grade is advertising.
Right now I'm doing commercial grade persuasion.
But the government does military grade.
That's what the laptop persuasion was.
How about the Russia collusion hoax?
Was that like commercial grade?
No, that was military grade.
That was absolutely military grade.
How about the fine people hoax?
The fine people hoax, do you think that was just commercial grade?
No, that was military grade.
So you're looking at military grade brainwashing.
That has clearly affected one segment of the country more than others.
I would argue both sides are being brainwashed, but in different ways.
It's not always the same level of danger, depending on the brainwashing.
So for example, Trump is brainwashing his team into believing he did better than he did.
But we just call that politics.
We expect that, right?
But Trump does a good job.
He actually has people very convinced of his successes.
Which, by the way, he did have a lot of successes.
All right.
Well, this is completely unfair.
Trump is 100% right.
I agree that he should go as hard as possible at her.
In most situations, I would say no.
But in this specific situation, Of Trump and years of massive military-grade brainwashing.
Yes, he should go right at this as hard as he is.
Totally agree.
Did I talk yesterday about Bill Maher?
Apparently he knows the fine people hoax was a hoax.
So he said it on his Club Random.
He actually said that he doesn't like being gaslit and that this was obviously a made-up thing.
But even though he knows the story is fake, He still seemed to believe, I don't want to read his mind, but based on what he said, he seemed to indicate that he thought Trump actually said something like that.
But his defense is, you know, that it's sort of taken out of context or something, I don't know.
But he actually didn't say it.
Like, Bill is almost there.
He thinks he did say it, but it was like over-interpreted or misinterpreted or something like that.
Or, no, here's what he said.
I'm sorry, I'm botching this story.
What Morris said was that Trump had so often clarified that he disavowed Nazis, that that should be taken as more of the truth than the one thing he said that didn't sound good.
Now that's not really the argument.
The real argument is he didn't ever say it.
And literally, he said, aggressively, clearly, and immediately, the opposite of what was reported.
That's really different than, oh, he has said before he disavowed them, so you should take that as true.
That's the weakest, not quite accurate defense.
But at the very least, at the least, Maher knows he's being gaslit on this topic.
That's progress.
That's a little bit of progress.
Not nearly the entire story was reversed and faked, but it's progress.
Alright, you've heard people say that the windmills, the offshore windmills, are bad for the whales and maybe some of the other sea life?
And I never knew what to think about that, but one of the things that I use as my BS filter is when the science matches observation.
So we have, in our own community here, We see you, Erica.
So we have a real-life human being that I can verify is a real-life human being who says they've seen their 61st dead whale on their beach.
61.
This is one person with one beach.
And offshore there are apparently some newish windmills.
Can you imagine any beach that ever had 61 dead whales?
I don't know what the time period is, but I imagine just a few years.
Yeah.
That doesn't look like a coincidence, does it?
Because I don't think there were 61 dead whales where there are no windmills.
So I'm going to say, you know, I didn't see the whales, and I wouldn't understand the science if I saw it.
But when you've got the science and the observation matching like that, and then you've got Michael Schellenberger who's, you know, he's on this case and he's basically untangling it for you.
If you've got those three things happening, Schellenberger is weighed in, he's done the work, he's very highly credible.
Very highly credible.
You've got observation that's through the roof.
You know, if you saw three whales with three whales Tell the story?
I don't know.
Three seems like a lot, actually.
If I heard the three whales, you know, that would get my... You tell me the 61 whales?
61?
I'm not going to ignore that.
And then the science seems to back it.
So you've got three points of credibility here.
That's unusual.
That's an unusually high level of credibility.
I don't want to say it's 100% proven because nothing in our world ever is, but wow!
I wouldn't worry about this one.
You know, those signals are pretty glaring.
All right.
Do you think that the world has more fires or fewer fires?
Bjorn Lomberg.
Says that you're talking about the re-insurers.
So some people are saying, hey, there must be more natural disasters caused by climate change because the re-insurers don't want to be in the insurance business.
So they're afraid that the climate change will be too bad.
Do you see anything wrong with that argument?
So the things we know is that the insurance business, the re-insurers, the insurance business is too afraid Of climate change risks from natural disasters.
So that must be pretty credible that climate change is real.
Must be real.
Because the insurance companies are the most realistic players anywhere.
Because they don't get the... The insurance companies go out of business if they're trying to gaslight you.
They can only use real numbers as best as they can understand them.
Because otherwise they go out of business.
They can't just make shit up.
So did they just make stuff up here?
Let me tell you what's missing from the story.
How many of you know what's missing from the story?
That changes it totally.
What's missing from the story?
The price of real estate.
Price of real estate.
Let's say you're in the insurance business and somebody builds a house on the ocean and that house is worth half a million dollars.
You say, yeah, I mean, if something happens to that house, we can afford to pay that half a million dollars.
And then a bunch of people build on the shore, and each of them is half a million dollar house, let's say.
And the insurance company still says, well, that's more than I can handle.
Like, that's a lot of houses.
But what I do is I sell my insurance into what's called the reinsurer market.
So basically, you can spread your risk among other entities.
So even if all of the homes there got taken out by a hurricane, if every one of them went, you're still okay.
Because you didn't take on all the risk yourself, you sold some of the risk to other people who shared in the risk.
So everybody's okay.
So far everything's good and everybody has insurance.
Now, let's say that the risk of a climate change makes the risk of your house going away, your half-million-dollar house, goes up 30%.
Can you still get insurance?
Oh, probably.
Probably.
Yeah, you probably could.
Now let's say that your half-million-dollar house turns into a 20-million-dollar house.
Because maybe a little bit of it is inflation, but also houses are rebuilt by even richer people who want, you know, ocean and beach.
So now the insurer says, I can't even insure one house.
The real estate's too expensive.
And even if I try to insure a bunch of houses and try to spread that risk with the re-insurers, it's too big.
It's just the numbers are too big.
So, that's always left out of the story.
The price of real estate should make insurance impractical at some point.
They can't charge enough.
To be sure they'll get their money back.
Now, when insurance companies say they're pulling out, you haven't interpreted that to mean they don't want to sell insurance there, right?
Nothing like that's happening.
The insurance companies that are pulling out, they totally want to sell you insurance, even no matter how big your house is.
But they want you to pay a market rate for it, and there's no way you will.
It's just too expensive.
So, when you see the stories about insurers pulling out, make sure that you're also seeing the context that the cost of real estate is so high that it's hard for an insurer to just even afford losses at that scale.
And then some of it, you have to think, might be brainwashing about climate change.
So they may have convinced themselves it's really about climate, when it might more be about the cost of real estate going up.
All right.
But there are not more fires or catastrophes.
That's mostly media bullshit.
All right, DARPA is developing a screening tool to detect risk of suicide, primarily in service people.
Because did you know that since 2001, more than 30,000 US active duty members and veterans have died from suicide?
30,000.
That would be three-fifths the size of the Vietnam War.
Which was 50,000.
Wow.
So I'm not sure I knew how big a problem this was.
You know, I hear in the news all the time that military suicides are higher than ever.
You know, that's alarming.
But I wasn't really aware of the scale.
The scale is way different.
I mean, now add the PTSD people, the people who are living a life, you know, maybe they wish they were dead.
That's a lot of people who are Dead like that we don't count as victims of a war.
Yeah, and maybe that's a problem.
Maybe we should be able to calculate how many people are going to commit suicide after any military action.
And maybe we should say, all right, this military action is likely to take 5,000 lives today and 30,000 over the next 20 years.
and 30,000 over the next 20 years, or something like that.
But there's an interesting side element here The tool that they're going to use to screen for early signs of suicide is actually a scan of your brain.
So they're going to ask you questions that would be relevant to the topic of taking your life, and then they would look at your brain and see if you're lying.
So for example, if you said, hey Bob, you've been complaining a lot, things aren't going well, have you ever thought of taking your life?
And then Bob says, no, no, no, no.
Now if Bob says yes, then this screening process has already worked.
Oh, we found one.
Bob just said yes, he thought about it.
But if Bob says no, they can look at his brain and they can tell if he's lying.
So that would be another yes.
So then Bob can get some help maybe.
Now, on one hand, I say to myself, wow, this would be amazing if you could shortcut this problem and get them the treatment they need, which as a patriot, I'm especially interested that anybody who went to war or was any part of the war machine, they should get everything that they can get.
But the scary part is they're building a lie detector.
So instead of the ones that are not allowed in court, you know, the standard lie detector, I think you know they're not allowed in court.
And the reason they're not allowed in court is that they're not reliable.
The way a lie detector works, and I probably shouldn't give away the secret, the way a lie detector works is fooling you into thinking it works.
That's the active process.
The active process is not the machine reading your vitals.
The active process is the person who uses the machine BS-ing you into thinking it's gonna work.
Because if you think it's gonna work, and then they ask you, did you kill the hobo?
And you're like, shit, shit, shit, I'm hooked up to this thing, it's totally gonna, it's gonna get me, it's gonna get me, it's gonna, then your vitals go crazy on the machine.
And then the operator, still not a science, still not a science, because you could be going crazy for an unrelated reason.
You may be afraid that you would get caught, right?
The real problem might be that you're afraid of getting caught, and that elevates your vitals.
So that's just one reason they're not allowed in court, because they're not a science.
Right?
So, along the non-science level, so let's say that the person knows they're lying, and so their vitals go crazy.
And then the operator says, well, yeah, the machine has caught deception.
Would you like to modify that statement?
And then the person's like, shit, shit, maybe I can say something that's not exactly admitting it, but maybe I can beat the machine, and then they try to lie a little bit more.
And then the operator says, okay, that was an obvious lie.
Let's say it is.
It appears that you're sending all the signals of lying.
And then you just watch the person and how they react.
So the idea is to convince somebody that they've been caught lying.
And then they'll maybe confess.
But if you walked in knowing that that's how it works, if you put me in the machine, it wouldn't matter what the machine said.
You know, if the operator said to me, oh, it's going crazy, I'd say, what would you expect?
When you use something that's not based on science and you put my life at risk with a machine that you know is not even allowed in court because it's not reliable.
If that fucking thing gives you the wrong indication, you're going to go tell people I'm guilty.
You think I'm going to sit here all calm and And put up with this pseudoscience?
Why don't you read my goddamn horoscope and decide if I should be in jail?
Alright.
So that's how my lie detector would go.
I would attack the lie detector guy.
And I would make him defend his non-science.
And I would put him on trial.
And I would tell him he's a liar.
I would say, are you telling me this works?
Well, you know, there's an indication that overtime... No.
Does this work?
Well, you know, many people have used it in many situations.
No.
Fucker.
Does this work?
And he'd have to lie to me.
So I would actually make the lie detector guy lie to me.
And I would just say, look, it's all bullshit and this guy's a liar.
Here's what he said.
It's on tape.
Because they would usually videotape the thing just in case.
So you say, look, I've got him on tape lying.
He says this shit works.
We have a hundred years of science that says it doesn't work.
And this guy just told me it does.
So, you know, you've got a liar here.
You're worried about my lying?
This guy's on video lying.
All right, so that can be a problem if they come up with an actual lie detector that works, unlike the current models.
Hey, let's talk about that Ukrainian offensive.
So, the name Victoria Newland comes up in the news all the time, mostly on social media, it seems.
And I hear all these accusations of her.
What are the accusations?
That she's, I don't know, neocon and she likes wars or something?
Is that what we think?
All right, so here's something Glenn Greenwald pointed out.
In a tweet he said, the US began openly touting NATO's expansion into Ukraine in 2008 under Bush.
That was when now CIA Director Bill Burns wrote his memo warning that was a red line for all Russia, not just Putin, all Russia, and would trigger war in Crimea and Donbass.
And then Greenwald says, guess who was the U.S.
ambassador to NATO then?
Victoria Nuland.
So Victoria Nuland was central to the NATO expansion in Ukraine and then was ambassador to Ukraine?
Was she ambassador to Ukraine?
U.N.
Or UN ambassador?
I don't know.
So here's what I know and what I don't know.
What I know is her name comes up a lot when there's something sketchy about Ukraine or war or Russia.
I don't have any, personally, I don't have any specific accusations.
Is there a specific accusation?
Or people just think she's too hawkish?
Is this sort of a generally too hawkish situation?
I'm not exactly sure what she's being blamed of.
But apparently she is a Russia expert.
She's a Russia expert.
Do you know what I said was the cause of the war?
Does anybody remember what I said was the cause of the war?
Or the cause of our bad relations with Russia in general?
In my opinion, It's because we create too many Russia experts.
And the Russia experts have to do some Russia stuff and cause some Russia stuff to happen.
So I think we're creating the people who create the problem.
Because they need to have a narrative, they need to justify their life's work.
Imagine if we created these tens of thousands of Russia experts like Victoria Nuland.
And then we made peace with Russia and they became an ally.
They all lose their jobs, or they have to at least retool, and maybe find a way to use those skills.
But I think we're creating a system which guarantees war with Russia.
And the system is, we keep making Russia experts.
Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't have Russia experts, but at some point, if you've produced an abundance of Russia experts, you could guarantee a war with Russia.
Let me put it in a different way.
If we had an unusual number of, I don't know, North Korea experts, do you think that more people go into the foreign services and become Russia experts?
Or do more of them try to become North Korea experts?
Do you know why we're not at war with North Korea?
Probably Because we have not created enough North Korea experts to have something that they need to do with their life.
Probably.
Because if you're a Russia expert, at least you get to visit Russia, which could be cool.
If you're a North Korean expert, you're not even going to get to visit the place you're an expert at.
So why would you even go into that line of work?
Honestly, I think Victoria Nuland might be part of my larger Framework that we create too many people who have to make it their job to create a war with Russia So she just might be one of those She has family from Russia Yeah, I don't know which way that would affect her maybe that would make her less liking Putin Depends how their depends on the family was doing I guess all right ladies and gentlemen
This completes my prepared remarks.
Is there a topic I missed today that is vitally important to you?
Yeah, so Starseed is asking the right questions.
So questions I would ask, because Victoria Nuland seems important to the understanding of the larger story.
Wouldn't you want to know what her connections are?
I tried Googling her, and it's just page after page of official government stuff.
That doesn't look like it's telling me anything.
Because the real questions are, who's she married to?
Right?
Who's she married to, if she's married?
I don't know if she is.
Who's she married to?
What associations is she a member of?
And what do those associations do typically?
And, you know, what has she done in the past that might be relevant or controversial?
So there's a whole bunch I'd like to know about her, just to understand the situation, but I don't have an accusation.
So I'm not accusing her of anything.
I'm just saying maybe we got too many Rush experts.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to say goodbye to you over on Alright, so I'm getting the anti-Semitic thing over on YouTube.
I've got to pause for a second, okay?
For all of you anti-Semitic people, while I don't condemn thought crimes, I don't want to see it, Like, you don't have to put it here.
But let me give you this little framework if you're anti-Semitic and you think the Jews are coordinating to take over the world.
I would like to give you a reframe on that.
So I'm going to reframe some of you anti-Semites and of your anti-Semitism.
And it's going to happen right now, right in front of you.
It won't work for all of you, but I'll pick up a few of you.
So a few of you I'm going to cure right now.
How would things look different If the only thing about the Jewish community is they put a big emphasis on education and career success, how would that look different from every observation?
Would they, for example, go into industries that pay a lot and are great jobs, such as the entertainment industry?
Yes.
Would they have more control over the industry than maybe another group that had less attention to education and career success?
Of course.
So all you need to know is that the Jewish community has been super successful as school.
That's it.
Every other observation would look like that.
So everything you think about, oh, there must be some coordination and some Jewish thing.
No.
How about it's a group of people who put an emphasis on the stuff that puts you in those jobs.
And then they got good jobs.
And then you say, hey, wait a minute.
There are too many Jewish people in high levels of government.
How would there not be?
How could that not happen?
There are also lots of people from Harvard and Yale in government jobs.
Is it a Harvard conspiracy?
Because there's so many Harvard people in government?
No.
It's just an indication that there's a certain people who are trying to get those jobs and they're doing the right stuff.
The only thing I would ask you is if you've been spending too much time online, you're gonna get all the pattern people.
Oh, look at this pattern.
Oh, that's funny.
Every time there's something bad happening, why do I see so many Jewish names in the leadership?
Because they have a concentration of people who like to go to school, get good grades, and get good jobs.
If you can't eliminate the obvious fact that people who try to succeed and do all the right things do in fact succeed, there's your whole explanation.
I have worked, and I'll give you my personal experience.
So I've worked in mostly publication, publishing, the book world, syndication.
Can you imagine how many Jewish professionals I deal with as my normal work?
It's saturated.
Most of my success Most of it is because I worked with really good Jewish executives and professionals who were trying to make me successful, because that's how they do their jobs and how they're successful.
But I've spent a lot of time, you know, saturated in that community.
I've never seen anything that looked like a conspiracy, and I'm pretty sure I would have.
Like, I've never seen anybody discriminating against me because I was, you know, not Jewish.
I've never seen anybody coordinate.
At all.
I've never even heard of it.
I've never even heard of anybody like, oh, the Jewish executives got together and did some Jewish stuff.
Never once.
Do Jewish executives like Israel?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Is that a newsflash or something?
Would they say things in public that would be supportive of Israel and it would sound like they were on the same team?
Yeah.
Yes, of course.
You're looking for conspiracies where It's hard to find.
Now, let me, so that I don't look like I'm, you know, just completely crazy to you.
Does it look like the Jewish, let's say, lobbying in the United States is effective?
Yes.
Yes.
Why would it be effective?
Same fucking reason.
You've got a whole community of people who focused on education, Have really good communication skills, because that's what education gives you.
Also very, you know, career-oriented, so they have good jobs.
So when they talk, you listen to them, because they're in the kinds of jobs where people listen to them.
And they like Israel.
And so there's a whole bunch of people who do things that, you know, are not bad for the United States necessarily, but, you know, they have an Israel benefit to them.
It's all transparent.
I mean, it's as transparent as you could possibly see.
Israel is one of our closest allies, and we'd probably like to keep it that way.
Yeah.
So watch the comments and you'll see the people who can't handle the refrain.
They're just going to go with the insults to me.
Would anybody like to live out their troll-like, anti-Semitic wet dreams by saying something shitty about me?
This would be the time to do it.
And you're debunking what now?
I'm just telling you that you're seeing conspiracies where you should see a group of people who are just doing the right things for success and succeeding.
And of course, they might like Israel above average.
