Episode 2235 Scott Adams: The Gears Of The Machine Are Visible Now. Yikes!
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Missing F-35, Riley Gaines, Word Thinking, Russell Brand, Senate Dress Code, Fake News Tells, Stephen Collinson, Dean Obeidallah, Glenn Kessler, Mike Benz, Laundering Censorship Power, Censorship Machine, Government Cutouts, George Soros Intentions, Healthcare, Climate Change, Trump Abortion Compromise, President Trump, 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.
And it's just getting better every day.
You're getting smarter?
Sexier?
I mean, I can't even stand it anymore, but if you'd like to take it to another level, that's blinding.
Blinding is what it is.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or sty, and 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 that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Ah, delightful.
Well, I'd like to start with some fake news.
Fake news is the good appetizer, isn't it?
You start with the fake news, and it's like fun and light, and then you get to the good stuff.
Well, one of the fake news update, fake on the side of, let's say, the right-leaning news-osphere.
Do you remember, a lot of you saw on X Platform, that there was a gentleman who was killed by two people in a car who hit him when he was on his bicycle, intentionally, and killed him.
And tragically, he died, and he was a retired police guy, police chief.
Anyway, the controversy is that the page of the Las Vegas local newspaper Said it was a bike crash.
So how many saw that and said, my God, my God, the media is calling this a bike crash.
It was obviously a murder.
Where's the racial element to this and all that?
Well, it turns out that was fake news.
Fake news.
Fake news in the sense that when the paper first got the report, They didn't know much about it, so they called it a bike crash, and they knew he was dead.
As soon as they found out it was something else, they reported it was something else.
So they weren't trying to hide the news, they just didn't yet know the news.
The first report seemed to be more of a fog of war situation.
So there you go.
You may have seen the weird story of an F-35 In the United States, it was flying around and the pilot ejected, for reasons we don't yet know, and the plane continued flying on autopilot.
And as of a moment ago, they don't know where it is.
Does any of this sound real?
Doesn't really sound real, does it?
And there's a picture, there's an accompanying picture of a, probably an F-35, that's doing barrel rolls on its own.
Really?
On autopilot it does barrel rolls?
Do you believe that they got a really clear picture of an F-35 doing a barrel roll and that that's the missing airplane?
How about no?
How about no?
I think it might be entirely made up, but I'm not sure.
It's just stock footage.
Anyway, so the video is clearly not real, whether or not the F-35 is really missing.
It's in Lake Marion?
Maybe.
Maybe.
But we'll keep an eye on that, the missing F-35, an $80 million plane.
an $80 million plane.
In other news, it turns out we know where the Epstein client list is.
You might not have caught that part of the news because you got distracted, but the Epstein client list has been located.
It's on the F-35.
Oh, okay.
All right.
Yeah, it's on the F-35.
But they'll find it any minute now.
I'm pretty sure they're almost going to find it.
They're looking hard.
Everybody's looking for it.
But soon as they get it, we're going to see what's on that list, that's for sure.
There's a study that is totally credible, totally credible, says that women prefer funny and good-looking men.
Well, yeah.
You know, if there's one thing I can tell you from my experience, That long before I was successful as the Dilbert guy, oh did the women want me for my sense of humor and my good looks.
Yeah, it was, I swear I was beating them off, which was what I was doing when I wasn't beating myself off.
Oh my God, it was just a nightmare.
It was like Night of the Living Dead.
I would walk down the street and people would see me and they'd say, I bet he's funny.
And they'd just start following me.
And they'd be like, look at that funny guy.
Can I get a piece of that?
Tell me a joke, funny guy.
Oh, oh, I'm so wet.
That's the best dad joke that ever made me close to orgasm.
Let me tell you.
Let me tell you.
Yeah, the women, they love the funny guys.
They love it.
So you believe that, science, right?
Well, it's interesting that they complicated it with, they also like good-looking men.
So they like funny men, but especially if they're good-looking.
Do you know what Norm Macdonald said about this scientific observation, even though he's deceased?
He said that, uh, turns out women just laugh at whatever handsome guys say.
Uh-huh.
Now we have the truth.
If you've ever been in the company of a really good-looking guy, and any female, Anything that good-looking guy says is pretty hilarious.
Am I right?
Pretty hilarious.
Oh my God, did you say that?
Pass the salt.
Are you kidding me?
Pass the salt?
You're so funny.
You're so funny.
Oh God, you're so funny.
Can I touch you?
Yeah.
So there's your science.
So, can I give you this advice?
Trust the science, people.
Trust the science!
Because it's so accurate, and believable, and totally credible.
And do you know when you should trust the science?
There's one time you should trust the science.
And then there's another time you should not.
Don't trust the ugly scientists.
No, no, no.
The ugly ones cannot be trusted.
But if you see, like, a really handsome scientist or a hot woman scientist, yeah, that's science.
That's the real stuff.
I tell you, if a beautiful woman who's a scientist tells me something is scientific, I'm going to say, oh, yep.
Something like that.
That's how I talk.
Anyway, so science.
Have I taught you?
That when we learned that AI could be created, artificial intelligence could be created out of nothing but the prior word patterns of human beings, a lot of people said, hey, that's not real intelligence.
That's like some fake kind.
And I said, no, that's how humans work.
Humans use words in sentences that they believe are reasons.
And they're not.
It's the same reason we use analogies instead of arguments.
We think the analogy is some kind of logic or reason.
It's not.
It's just a different situation.
So if you're using an analogy to make your point, that's sort of word thinking.
It's just something to remind you of something else.
That's it.
There's no logic to it.
And I'm going to give you the best example.
Well, the best example would be Abortion.
And I did a little experiment last night on the Man Cave video that I do at night for subscribers and locals.
And, you know, somebody was, one of the members was giving an opinion on abortion.
And using words like this.
Is it a life?
You know, are we talking about a life?
And, you know, blah, blah, blah.
And, of course, that's word thinking.
That's trying to win the argument by having your preferred definition of a word be the preferred definition.
And if another person has a different definition of the word, you're not really having a debate.
You're trying to be a dictionary.
That's completely different than logic or anything.
You're just trying to win with the word.
I'll give you the best example of this.
I saw it today.
Somebody named Jonathan Perkins tweeted on September 15th, obviously in support of trans people, wrote, trans women are women, but didn't write it once.
You know, wrote a whole bunch of times to really drive it in.
Trans women are women, trans women are women, trans women are women, like 20 times.
Now, that is what's called word thinking.
Trying to win an argument by making you accept the definition that they've accepted as the word.
That's not an argument.
That's just trying to be a dictionary.
If you're trying to be a dictionary, you're not even part of the reasoned conversation.
So, Riley Gaines, who you might know as The award winning, I guess, award winning?
Would that be the right thing?
A champion, a champion swimmer, who is railing against people who were born male swimming as women.
And she tweets, in response to trans women are women, written 15 times, she tweets, hot dogs are dogs, 15 times.
Hot dogs are dogs, hot dogs are dogs.
Now, yeah, it was perfect.
So Riley Gaines, in addition to being a champion swimmer, I'm starting to learn, is actually very smart.
Have you noticed that?
She's not just a champion swimmer, and she's not just outspoken, and she's not just good at tweeting.
She seems to be unusually smart.
I'll just keep an eye on that.
Yeah, but she called out, you know, she used her own way, but yeah, she called out somebody for word thinking.
Word thinking has no role in anything.
All right, interestingly, you're following the Russell Brand story, I'm sure.
He's been accused by four anonymous people.
Coincidentally, at exactly the same time that he's making a big dent in the national consciousness in a way that's not really friendly to the Biden administration, although he's by no means a right wing person or even close to it.
But Elon is backing him, so Elon Musk tweeted, I support Russell Brand.
That man is not evil.
That's a full-throated endorsement or support.
Do you know what Elon Musk said when I got canceled?
He said, we shouldn't cancel humor.
We shouldn't cancel it.
He said, we shouldn't cancel humor.
No, he weighed in right away.
He said, we shouldn't be cancelling humour.
But when he supported Russell Brand, he said, the man is not evil.
Well, I'm not going to make anything of that.
Then when he supported Russell Brand, he said, the man is good.
And when he said something about my case, he said, humour is good.
If I were married to Elon Musk, I would be divorcing him right now, which apparently is a very financially advantageous thing to do.
So, yeah.
No, I don't think it means anything.
That's just sort of a funny observation.
Somebody else pointed out that There was a woman who had a theory that Russell Brand has known since the beginning of Me Too that his day would come.
And so he's been carefully cultivating a right-wing audience that would accept whatever he said about it uncritically.
And here we are.
He planned the whole thing.
He knew that he would be attacked as Me Too and he couldn't survive on the left.
But if he found a home on the right, he would be insulated against his Me Too accusations.
I don't know.
I don't think people are that smart.
I mean, he is really, really smart.
But I don't think he made up years of opinions to cover up the potential for that.
I mean, if he did, he's smarter than we think, and that would be pretty impressive.
But I don't know.
That's a little too clever.
It doesn't quite fit my sense of how people work.
But hey, who knows?
It seems far more likely that it's not a coincidence that he's being taken down, because it seems like all of the powerful voices on one side of things are all being attacked, in pretty much the same way.
It's all sex or racism, racism or sex.
It's all the same stuff.
All right, well, the Senate has decided to relax.
It's a dress code.
Everybody's pretty sure it's about John Fetterman dressing like a hobo, and they want that to be okay, I guess.
So, I suspect that most of them will still wear suits, but at least the law has changed so that Fetterman can run.
Now, do you think this is all because of Fetterman?
I'm going to check your conspiracy theories.
Is it all because of Fetterman, you think?
Maybe.
I'm going to say maybe on Fetterman.
But here's what I think.
I think that they're holding out hope that Representative Boebert could run for the Senate.
I'll just let that sit there for a moment.
So you can complete your own joke in your head.
Yeah, they're just hoping that Boebert would someday run for Senate.
So this is sort of like the Russell Brand thing.
They're planning maybe a dozen years in advance, because it might be a long time before she runs for the Senate, if she ever does.
But you've got to play the long game, and the Senate is good at that.
So, I mean, she might be 75 by the time she's there, but, you know, still, they're holding out hope.
It's a very lonely body of people, and they don't have a lot of hotties in the Senate, and maybe they'd like to get one, so I'm just putting that out there.
Now, the good news is that finally I can run for Senate.
People have been saying, Scott, why don't you run for Senate?
Well, two reasons.
One, dress code.
And two, I don't like to commute.
So if I could do it by Zoom, in my pajamas, boom.
I feel like I'm running the country right now, and I don't have a dress code, so what difference would it be?
It'd be very similar.
Very similar.
All right, let's talk about your tells for fake news.
I've got opinion pieces here from Stephen Collinson, Dean Obadiah, And Glenn Kessler.
Kessler's at the Washington Post.
The other two are writing for CNN.
Do you recognize those names?
Anybody recognize those names?
So remember, if you know the players, everything makes sense.
If you don't know the players, it looks like news.
These are not the players who tell you news.
These are opinion pieces, first of all.
But they're sort of special purpose.
Pundits.
So let's see what Stephen Coulson says.
Says the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, talking about Trump, is a twice impeached ex-president who is facing four criminal trials and has, here's the important part, has never shelved his attempt to overturn the American democratic system of fair elections.
Now that's stated in an opinion piece, but that's stated as fact.
Is that a fact?
Would you say this is how you would word it?
That he tried to overturn the American democratic system of fair elections?
Or would another way to say that be he didn't think the elections were fair and he was trying to make them fair?
So the reality is the opposite of this, as far as we can tell.
Trump thought the election was unfair and wanted it to be rechecked so that he could get a fair result which he believed would show him the winner.
Do you think that the facts have shown that he has not given up his attempt to overturn the American democratic system of fair elections?
Does anybody think he was trying to do that?
This is word thinking.
Because Stephen Collinson can put words in a sentence, those words will be picked up by the readers.
Do you think the readers will think through the entire situation and then on their own They would come up with the opinion that he was trying to overthrow, overturn the American democratic system of fair elections?
Is that something that the Democrats, on their own, would have come up with that interpretation?
If the news had always just shown them the facts, but not the interpretation, would they have come up with that?
Or would they say, oh, he's a sore loser, so he did what he could to make sure that the election was really what it was, and maybe he shouldn't have, but it didn't work out, so there we are.
No, I don't think that the watchers would come to that opinion on their own.
They'd probably just say, oh, there's always a protest after an election if you don't win.
Right?
There's sort of always a protest after an election, if you know it.
And somebody thinks there's something up.
It happened when Trump won.
It probably happened before.
All right.
How about Dean Obadiah?
He's going to deal with the question of Biden's age.
So do you think Dean Obadiah is going to write a balanced opinion?
Well, his take is that maybe Biden is old, but you've got to look at how old and how many gaffes Trump is making.
So you know the argument against Biden is largely based on a series of gaffes, right?
And acting strange in public.
But Dino Budaya is here to remind you that Trump has done many of those same things, and just recently.
So here are some of the things that are being compared to Biden's gaffes.
You ready?
Trump did a 40-second pause during one of his speeches, which his supporters generously interpreted as he was emotional and needed a pause.
But Dean Obadiah points out that if Biden had glitched for 40 seconds, That you'd say that's a cognitive problem.
Did it look to you like Trump glitched?
Did he glitch like McConnell?
Or was he clearly just waiting, and there was something going on in his head, but he knew exactly what he was doing?
It didn't look like a glitch to me.
At all.
But if you hadn't seen either one, and you're reading this opinion piece, you'd say to yourself, oh yeah, old people do stuff.
It's probably about the same.
It wasn't even close to the same.
No, he didn't glitch.
He paused for dramatic effect, and it worked really, really well.
Here's another one.
Twice Trump referred to Obama when he meant, I think once he meant Clinton and once he meant Biden.
So he said Obama instead of one of those two people, who basically, some people say, are being run by Obama.
Now, I don't know what is the most common gaffe in politics, but if I had to nominate the most common gaffe in politics, it would be saying Obama when you meant somebody else.
It's the most common mistake in politics.
How many times have you heard people who are clearly not too old say Obama and then can correct themselves and say Clinton?
All the time.
All the time.
And even the spokesperson for Biden Had said Obama when she was talking about her own boss.
Does anybody think that that Biden spokesperson has cognitive declined?
No, I think she started that way.
It's not cognitive decline.
It's just the most common thing that people get backwards.
Then the other thing that Trump got wrong is said, you were worried that we're heading toward World War Two.
When obviously he meant three.
But Dean Obadiah reports this as he doesn't know what year it is.
Or that he doesn't know that World War II happened.
Does that sound like what happened?
Has anybody ever confused World War II with the hyperbole that World War III is gonna happen?
It's probably the second most common thing that people get wrong.
I've seen it.
You've seen it too, right?
When they're talking about, whoa, this might launch World War III.
But they were just thinking of two before they opted by one and then they say two accidentally.
So yeah, this is a pretty hard stretch.
This is the type of opinion piece that the more respectable people would never write.
So you have to invite somebody whose specialty is writing just really stretches.
Stretches of the imagination.
All right, how about Glenn Kessler, who wants to make the case that Biden fired that Shokin guy in Ukraine, or got him fired, for good reasons that other people thought were good reasons, and everybody agreed, and so there's nothing sketchy here.
He just got rid of a bad prosecutor.
And one of the things that Glenn Kessler mentions is that the French and the Germans agreed with Biden.
So we know the French and the Germans agreed.
Really?
What were their names?
Which French person?
Did they?
Did they agree?
And there were other people in the Biden administration who agreed with Biden.
You mean the people who are all fully aware that this was his grift?
Yeah, the people who were fully aware of what Biden's grift were, were in favor of him getting rid of the person who might be stopping the grift, some people say.
I don't know what's true.
When you look at how weak the other people are, there's no reference to the other people except the people who knew that Biden was in on some kind of Ukraine grift.
Scott spins the crimes of criminals.
Which criminal are you talking about?
You don't even know what you're talking about.
I'm not even sure if you know what topic you're on.
So I would say that if they send Glenn Kessler out to support the fact that everybody agreed with Biden on firing Shokin, the minimum that that would require would be at least one name of one person who is not under the Biden sphere of influence who actually agreed.
Just one.
You don't think an article like that should have at least one person with a quote or even a quote.
How about a quote from a well-established French or German politician to say exactly what they said, so we can read it ourselves.
Yeah.
So, now that you know the names, Stephen Collinson, Dino Badia, Glenn Kessler, Phil Bump, Those are the names you should know, that they're telling you the opposite of what's true, so you can actually read them as the real news.
The fact that what is not mentioned is more prominent than what is mentioned, tells you exactly what's going on.
It's not real news, it's not even real opinion.
All right.
RFK Jr.
has a pandemic-related conspiracy theory that many people believe, But I'm having a problem with it because it's a little bit too James Bond villain for me.
And it would go like this.
That, roughly speaking, that the people who created the COVID virus are the same people who created the vaccine.
And it's all one big plan.
So that the trial runs were some part of a And the predictions of the pandemic were all part of a major plan to use the pandemic to take away freedoms.
And the freedoms they wanted to take away were freedom of speech mostly, but basically a massive, a way to roll out a massive censorship program, basically put a put a lock on the country.
So here's what's wrong.
With that theory, I think they could have done it without the pandemic.
I don't think they needed the pandemic, did they?
Because it turns out that all of the entities that sort of played along were their own entities.
So related to this, is a far better analysis from Mike Benton's.
I keep mentioning that you should follow him.
Oh my god, am I having my brain unlocked by his analysis?
So he knows how the CIA operates.
And he goes through, I tweeted it, and you absolutely have to watch it.
If you don't watch the Mike Ben's 40 minute explanation of how the CIA has set up these cutouts to make you think real things are happening but it's all operated by the CIA.
If you haven't seen it, you have no idea what's happening in the world.
You would have no idea who's actually running things.
Here are some things that Mike Benz teaches you, and there's a lot more.
If you see the government refer to some academics that they're working with, they're not academics.
They're cutouts.
Meaning that they're people that are funded by the government to give the government what it wants, because the government can't do something legally itself.
Do you know what the government can't do legally?
Censor people.
They can't do it directly.
So they hired groups of fake academics who did have jobs at universities, but the academic part was really just convenience.
So they could launder the government's censorship through these seemingly independent academics.
And then the other trick is that when they say that the academics are there to study misinformation, that is a smokescreen.
They're not there to study it.
They're there to stop it.
And they're going to tell you what the misinformation is.
You don't get to decide.
So somebody else that the government pays to do this and has to keep the government happy because that's where the money comes from.
They create an organization that says that this and this and this are misinformation.
And then they work, those entities work with the platforms and they say they do.
To get them to stop the misinformation.
Now the platforms don't want to get in trouble, so it's easier for them to go along because they don't want to cause trouble.
So the government creates these cutouts and funds them to say what the government wants them to say, to block and censor people.
And then they go to the platforms and they say, hey, we're these independent academics.
We're just trying to make the world a better place.
And we're going to make a lot of trouble for you if you don't do what we say.
And apparently all of the platforms conformed.
All of them.
Basically everything except X, I guess.
And that was before Musk owned it.
So even then, probably.
So apparently the censorship included the 2022 election.
You see it yet?
The government actually created a CIA-led entity, a mass structure, to keep you from knowing that the election had some critics, shall we say.
Yeah.
Amazingly.
Amazingly.
What are we looking at here?
So, anyway, you should look at... Yeah, so here are the keywords to look for to know that it's a government cutout.
Look for academics.
When you see academics, that should be a flag.
They're not so much academics as they are people paid by the government to do what the government wants.
Look for they studied something.
It means they're stopping that thing.
And look for conversations with the major platforms.
Do they have conversations?
I don't know.
When I have a conversation, the people that I talk to don't immediately change all of their activities.
That feels like a little bit more than a conversation, doesn't it?
There must have been some kind of pressure on him.
Anyway.
Did I see a real tweet the other day of Musk saying that the Soros organization appears to have the intention of destroying civilization?
Did you see that?
And I believe he was called anti-Semitic for that.
But what about the fact that that's exactly what it looks like to all of us?
If there's an organization trying to fund people who elect criminals out of jail and mass immigration in, how else could you describe that except an intention of destroying the world?
It looks like intentionally destroying the world.
Now, if there's an argument in favor of it, Why don't I know it?
Why don't I know the argument on the other side?
I mean, I've looked for it.
I can't find it.
Why is it so well hidden if it's such a dominant narrative that's affecting the entire country?
I've never even seen the argument for why it's a good idea to let everybody in and open the jails, basically.
Now, I've heard it said that the You don't want to put a lot of black people in jail over minor crimes because then, you know, they forever will have the criminal record and what are they going to do but become criminals because their options are limited.
But there's nobody in the world who thinks that's working.
Do they?
To me it looks like that almost all the crime is repeat criminals.
If you're treating the consistent repeat criminals exactly the same as the one black guy who stole a candy bar once, what are we talking about?
That's not even sensible.
I'm completely on board with not ruining somebody's life because they shoplifted when they're 19.
I'm totally on board with that.
But if you shoplift every day, and it's power tools, I'm not going to let you out on that.
That's a whole different thing.
So clearly at this point, the Soros organization knows what's actually happening, which would be very different from whatever idealized plan they have.
So why don't they adjust their plan?
Why have they not said, oh, that was a mistake, we will correct, and we should only be going after the non-repeat offenders?
So the only ones that we should be lenient with is the non-repeats, but definitely not the serial criminals.
But they don't seem to be doing that.
So it does look like, unless they have a better explanation for their activities, it does look like their intention is to destroy the country.
Am I wrong?
What else could it be?
If you could give us any other explanation, I'm sure I would listen to it.
And I would fully value the argument.
I might disagree, but I would give it full respect because it's so important and there must be smart people who are in favor of it.
But the fact that there's no argument in favor of it that is in the news, you know, don't you think that if Soros had a good argument, CNN would be telling you what it is?
Right?
If there were a good argument for the open borders And for the, you know, the run-up in crime in the cities that's completely intentional, CNN would tell you that it's working out.
And MSNBC would be saying, yeah, you know, maybe the right-wing MAGA extremists don't like it, but it's totally doing what they hoped it would do.
Where's that?
Soros doesn't even have the support of the left-leaning media.
But they definitely take his money.
Right?
He's one of the major funders of Democrat stuff.
They take his money, but they don't support anything he wants to do.
Which means that, can you imagine that?
How much more money could they get if they supported him?
But there's nobody, there's nobody in the news business who will even say it's a good idea that this Soros money is having the effect it's having.
Nobody.
Have you ever heard anybody support him?
Anybody.
Anybody on the left or the right?
If there's nobody on the left or the right who can see any positive in his actions, then he is destroying the world.
What else could it be?
What else could it be?
Now, by the way, I say that with hyperbole because I would rather hear the argument and then I'd know what I'm really dealing with.
But there doesn't seem to be an argument that anybody on the right can articulate But of course, they would see themselves as a nemesis.
But the people on the left who are taking his money can't explain why he's good for the world.
You can't get Glenn Kessler, Stephen Collinson, or Dean Obadiah to write an opinion piece that supports Soros.
Or at least those specific things he's doing.
Just think of that.
You can't even get the professional misinformation people to misinform you.
Even they won't do it.
Because they can't see an argument for it.
There's no argument.
Alright.
You want to hear some more about the absolute fuckery of the thing that you think is news?
Is it my imagination or was healthcare a big issue before?
Did somebody solve it?
Did somebody fucking solve healthcare while I wasn't watching?
Or did we just stop talking about it because Biden hasn't done a fucking thing?
Now I think he added some people to Obamacare, but did that fix it?
Are we all good now?
Are the costs not spiraling out of control?
And suddenly the entire news industry doesn't care anything about healthcare.
Suddenly it doesn't matter at all.
He reduced the price of insulin, which I think Trump tried to do and got reversed, and then Biden reversed the reversal or something.
Yeah.
But the healthcare story tells you as clearly as you could possibly see that the news is not real.
Because healthcare didn't get better.
They just stopped talking about it.
That's all that happened.
They just stopped talking about it.
All right.
I have a prediction for you.
That we're getting to the point where there's enough reasoned scientific pushback to climate change that it might disappear from the news without anything changing.
What do you think?
And I feel like it's... I'm feeling the first whiff of it.
The same way that the healthcare thing was the biggest thing in the world until they decided it wasn't, I feel like the Schellenbergers and the Epsteins, not the Island Epstein, Alex Epstein, that they're doing such a good job of laying down the counter-argument that I think it might just disappear.
I think they might just stop talking about it because it doesn't work.
And then we're going to pretend that everything they said about it, we're just going to act like the biggest problem in the world just disappeared because they stopped talking about it.
Or maybe it was never the biggest problem.
Yeah, Vivek is also a big part of, you know, punching through the narrative there.
All right, so that's my prediction that there will be a time in the future, and I'm going to give it a date, one year.
So before the election, one year from now.
No, that would be still in the election cycle, so they might still be trying to scare people.
It'll probably take longer.
I think it'll be four or five years before it goes away.
But it's just going to disappear.
All right.
Over in Ukraine, nothing to worry about here, but seven deputy defense ministers were dismissed.
That's seven of eight.
I wonder why.
Seven deputy defense ministers.
And there's some rumors about corruption.
Huh.
Is it possible that seven deputy defense ministers did not get fired just because they were incompetent, but maybe they were making some money on the side?
Oh, what are the odds of that?
Yeah.
So, there's that.
Let's talk about Trump on his interview with Meet the Press.
And was it a woman named Welker who was the host?
If I have that right.
Anyway, so one of the big pieces of news that came out of that was that Trump was asked about a national abortion ban, a federal ban.
And he said that he wanted to help the country negotiate Some kind of compromise where everybody would be happy and they'd love him for it or something like that.
Now, Matt Walsh didn't like that because it looks like a compromise on something you should never compromise on.
In his view, why are you compromising on killing babies?
I'm summarizing, but that's the basic idea.
Why would you ever compromise on killing babies?
So this is not my point of view, just to be clear.
I'm characterizing somebody else's point of view.
Which is, why would you ever compromise on baby killing?
That would be the last thing you would compromise on.
And Seth Dillon made a similar point by saying, now we know who among us would have compromised on slavery instead of fighting for its abolition?
Whoa!
Hitting us with a slavery analogy.
So here's the thing.
In both cases, I think there's a similar thing going on.
I think we did find out who among us would have compromised on slavery when the Union was formed.
And the answer is all the people who are good at long-term planning.
Would have compromised on slavery, because it was the only way to get there.
The other possibility wasn't there.
We wouldn't have been one country.
So the other country would have just had their slavery, and nobody would have been there as a counterpoint to it.
Likewise, Trump knows that whatever happens will be something like a compromise, and so being the practical person he is, He would rather say, let's focus on the process of how we would negotiate a compromise.
That's kind of perfect.
If he can make you think about the process, about negotiating, you know, where is the end?
Is it this many months?
Is there a ban of some kind?
You know, is there any limits?
Whatever.
If he can make you think about the negotiations, he's already made you think past the sale.
The sale is, should it be negotiated?
But he's making you think about the details of the negotiation and whether there should be a negotiation.
And so your brain is already negotiating.
He does it all the time.
And it's perfect.
He also says that he's going to reach an agreement that everyone will love.
Now you know that's impossible, right?
There is no possibility you could compromise on abortion and have everybody love it.
But do you think he doesn't know that?
Of course he knows that.
Do you think he wants you to focus on the fact that you won't all love it?
Of course he does.
He wants you to be thinking about that.
If you're thinking about whether you'd love it, again, you're thinking about whether or not there should be a negotiation.
It's his classic trick.
He does it all the time.
It's perfect persuasion.
And so I would answer the question this way.
Now we know who among us would have compromised on slavery instead of fighting its abolition.
Everybody who is good at cost-benefit analysis would have.
The answer is not your moral strength.
Your moral strength would get you the opposite of what you wanted.
Your moral flexibility would get you eventually what you wanted, but also all of the other things in the meantime, like coherence, a country that works, less division, etc.
So this is not a question of morality, because Trump's morality probably would get you to the same place as the people who are his critics are.
It would just take longer.
But you would have a way to get there.
If you want to do it the immediate way, you probably just don't have that option.
So why would you spend a lot of time on something that wouldn't make any difference?
So Trump's being practical, and of course is getting a lot of pushback.
But I would say that focusing on the process is exactly the way a president should go.
And I would add this suggestion.
The best answer for Trump is that, imagine a president saying this.
You don't want your president making your personal health care decisions for you.
Right?
Who's going to disagree with that?
You don't want your president to make your personal health care decisions.
But I'm going to add something.
You also don't want your president to make your personal life and death decisions.
Because that's what it is.
It's a life and death decision.
It might be in some cases the life of the mother.
Because she might need to protect her own life.
In rare cases.
But it's certainly about the life of something that some would call a human and some would call, you know, a pre-human in some way.
So you could argue about the words to put on it, but we're all looking at the same thing.
So the question that's hard to disagree with is, do you want your president to make your personal health care decisions?
No.
Do you want the president, who doesn't even know you, to make your own personal life and death decisions?
Life and death.
Do you want the president to decide?
The president doesn't even know you.
The president doesn't know anything about your situation.
Now, that's not to say that the laws should not be strict.
The laws will end up where they end up.
But it's very smart for the president, whoever the president is, to say, I'm going to help you guys, you guys meaning the public, I'm going to help you reach a situation which is stable for the country.
And I do have preferences.
I do have, I do have preferences.
But my preferences should not lead your life.
The only thing I'm going to help you do is make sure that your life and death and your personal decisions are decided by the public as best as possible and not by a president.
Now, I think that's strong.
I think that's strong persuasion.
But if you're very much in favor of, you know, no compromise, you're going to end up with nothing.
You'll end up with a Democrat president.
So if the moral win is more important than the actual win, then that would be the way to go.
Now I'll say this, I've said it a million times and I'll say it again.
Trump is a business person who's been making business decisions for his whole life.
If your job is a writer or a humorist, and you've been mostly writing for your life and talking, You're not really, you don't have the same decision-making qualifications.
And I say this often.
Decision-making is a skill.
It's not something that you're purely born with.
If you've studied economics or business, you've been taught how to make decisions.
You've actually been taught.
I've sat through classes where they teach me to focus on the long run by doing something called a discounted cash flow analysis.
And that forces you to always think about the long run or the complete picture, I would say.
The complete picture.
And don't focus on the initial investment.
The initial investment is, do I buy this computer for half a million dollars?
If that were your only decision, the answer is no.
Right?
Because you lose half a million dollars.
But there's a point to the computer, and if you look at three years, maybe it made sense.
So if you're looking at business people having a different approach to something than writers, Who are you going to believe?
Well, not believe.
Who would you trust has a better grasp on decision-making?
A lifetime business person who operated at a high level, or a lifetime writer?
Now, of course, writers also have to make plenty of decisions about their own life and their families, and they run a business as well.
But it's a very different scale.
The complexity and the long-term planning of real estate I mean, when Trump does a project, he's probably thinking 20 years.
Right?
You wouldn't do a building unless you had sort of a 20-year mindset.
So I think I would trust the people who learned how to make decisions over the people who were doing something else during that time.
All right.
And of course comparing it to slavery is an analogy which is not what good decision makers do.
Have you ever heard Trump do that?
I'm trying to think if I've ever heard him argue with an analogy.
And my first impression is no.
Can you do a fact check on that?
Does anybody remember Trump ever making an argument with an analogy?
I don't think I've ever heard it.
Now that's a shocker, isn't it?
Because that is a real, that's a real endorsement of his analytical abilities.
If he can stay away from analogies, and I think he does actually, I don't think he uses analogies.
So, and the reason is that you don't use an analogy, is although in the legal system, you know, precedent does matter, but in arguing what is rational, An analogy is just somebody else's situation.
It doesn't have a bearing on the one you're looking at.
But people who don't know how to do analysis, imagine it does.
So this point about who among us would have compromised on slavery, the answer is all the smart people.
Unfortunately, that's the answer.
All of the smart people.
Because they would have known it was the only way to end it in the long run, and also have a strong country in the meantime.
Jesus used parables.
A parable is a story trying to give you a way to act in the future.
Yeah, that's not trying to win an argument with an analogy.
It's pretty different.
The snake story?
Was the snake story an analogy?
I think if you... So here's the thing.
The snake story is made up, right?
An analogy is a real thing that you're comparing to another real thing.
If somebody makes up a story, that's a story.
Story is persuasion.
And story gives you a mental model to hang your facts on.
But it's not an analogy.
All right.
What's happening?
My AI is malfunctioning.
You can always tell the people who are in cognitive dissonance because they go immediately personal.
So if I say something smart and you see somebody saying, what happened to your brain?
That means that the cognitive dissonance.
If I say something that has a, let's say, a logic error, Then people say that.
Well, you're forgetting this variable.
Or, have you considered also this other factor?
That's what they say when they disagree.
When they're experiencing cognitive dissonance, they say, what's wrong with your brain?
What happened to you?
It's pretty consistent.
All right.
What if you say something dumb, like we should compromise on abortion?
Well, Luo, I didn't say that, did I?
Did you hear me say that?
Did you hear me say what you should do?
Nope.
No.
No, you haven't heard my opinion on abortion.
I think women should work it out.
That's my opinion.
So if you're anything but that, that is actually your imagination, and you're having an argument with your imagination.
No, no, I never said you should negotiate it.
I said that if you want the country to stay together, that would be the path.
If you want us to be forever divided, then you would fight it to the death.
So you get to pick your two approaches, but I didn't tell you which one to pick.
If you want to die for your moral, you know, if you want, if you want the country to fall apart for your moral victory, You do have that option.
I didn't tell you you shouldn't do it.
If it's that important to you that you would destroy everything for it, I don't know.
I can't tell you what's important.
You have to decide that on your own.
No, our ancestors didn't need analogies to get a message across.
They needed stories maybe, but not analogies.
All right.
Well, that's got a lot of action on here.
All right.
Against women getting the right to vote in America... I'm asked, did I ever read any of the opinions of people who were against women getting the right to vote in America when it was first being debated?
Some of the reasons were compelling.
You know, of course, I'm opposed to taking away anybody's right to vote.
But the arguments are funny.
Like if you're going to follow along.
And I don't know that we would have much of a different outcome if women didn't vote.
I'm not sure exactly what would be different.
Yeah.
Yeah, I don't even ask.
All right.
Yeah.
Pearl thinks women should not vote.
It's pretty funny.
All right.
How about only taxpayers?
Well, I've said that before.
That your vote should be in proportion to how much taxes you pay.
So, I mean, It should be.
Yeah, the other model was what the Constitution originally had, which was property owners.
You know, the argument for property owners is way stronger than the argument for women not voting.
Am I wrong?
Because the property owners, as long as everybody has a chance to own property, like you wouldn't want a law that limited new people from owning property, but as long as everybody has a way to own property, Then it should be only people who own property should vote.
Do you think that property owners would vote for letting criminals out to rob again?
No property vote.
A property owner is not going to vote for that.
It's people who don't own property and hate people who do.
If you hate people who have property, you do the things that are being done now.
You let in mass immigration and you let all the criminals out of jail.
That is anti-property.
Now here, let me spin this into a related topic.
Does anybody have the problem that there's a young person in your life And you're trying to be a mentor or advise them, but you don't know how to advise them what to do in the land of robots.
You know, when AI and robots are running everything.
I try to think of a job to recommend that wouldn't be taken over, obviously, by a robot or AI.
And here's the best that I've come up with so far.
You ready?
There's one thing that AI and robots will never be able to do.
I hope.
It's actually possible that they could do it, but it's your best bet, and it goes like this.
They won't be able to own property.
They won't be able to own property.
If you own property, you can rent it, sell it, make money from it.
If you don't own property, you only have labor, and it's going to take all of your labor away.
So I would say that your only defense against AI and robots is to own property any way you can.
Because your property is the only thing they can't compete with.
And one of the properties that you could own is a robot.
So I'm looking forward to having a robot, or a little fleet of robots, and that I rent them out like temporary workers.
So I'm going to use robots.
I'm going to own them, because it's ownership that's the only thing that will be worth anything in the future.
So I think ownership will be the prime way anybody makes money in the future.
You've got to own real estate or assets or something.
You've got to own something.
A business.
You could own a business.
So look for ownership.
Boom.
Yeah, I don't think...
I don't want to talk about that a millionth time.
Every adult owns some form of property at some point.
Hm. - Yeah.
Alright, so have we found that F35 yet?
Yeah, I did contact Perl.
Lord You know, it was interesting.
The reason I had trouble contacting Pearl is that I followed her and I got automatically unfollowed before she could DM me.
So... Alright.
Alright, that's all I got for now.
Have you heard of the Pegasus bug?
Russia has, I think Russia was developed by Israel or something.
It's a bug that, it's a program that can get on your phone and they can monitor everything in your phone.
Did you know that that's a real thing?
And apparently, I don't know, some thousands of people have it on their phone and don't know it.
Now the people who have it on their phone tend to be influencers.
So what are the odds that I have Pegasus on my phone right now?
It's pretty high, isn't it?
Pretty high.
Yeah.
If you said that Russia made sure that the top 1,000 political opinion people had it on their phone, I'm definitely in the top 1,000.
Am I not?
If you were a Russian, you wouldn't put me in the top 1,000 of people whose phones you wanted to listen to?
I think you would.
I mean, I think I'd be in the top 50.
But top 1,000 for sure, if they could get me, they would.
There's no way to prove it, apparently.
You can't spot it.
Yeah.
So it might be... I suspect that somebody's deeply into my communications.
Let's just say there's an indicator... Well, I'll just tell you.
There's somebody reading one of my messages.
With one person.
And... I'll just tell you the scaria.
I can watch the new message indicator disappear while I'm looking at it.
While I'm looking at it.
I did that this morning.
New message indicator comes on in my DMs.
And then I actually filmed it.
And I said, watch, this is going to disappear without me touching the computer.
And I just filmed it.
Boop.
Twice.
Twice in a row.
I watched the new message indicator disappear.
Now only on one account.
It's only on one account.
So you tell me that nobody's reading that message before I read it.
What do you think?
What else would it be?
Do you think there's a bug that affects the new message indicator after it's been up there for a minute?
Now, if you told me it never went on in the first place, I'd say, well, could be a bug.
But you're telling me that a new message indicator shows up, but only for one person, and then it disappears within a minute?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure somebody's in my communications.
Yeah, no, it couldn't be anything about the person.
In terms of technically, because what would the person have to do with my phone?
You know, it's my app on my phone that sees it as a new message.
It can't be something that's happening on somebody else's device.
Yeah.
All right, so that's not fun.
What is deja vu if we're a simulation?
I don't know.
Could be anything.
Macedonian teenagers?
Yeah, so the message turns to a read message from an unread message while I'm looking at the list of messages, but without touching the computer.
I'm not touching it.
Anyway, so I would remind you that there's no such thing as privacy.
Privacy is the same as being boring.
That's it.
If you're completely uninteresting, you accidentally have privacy.
If you're doing anything interesting, somebody's in your shit.
Every time.
You just have to live your life like you're fully transparent.
Now, I'm pretty sure I've been living my life like somebody's reading all of my messages for pretty much my whole career, I think.
The only thing I would put in a message that I didn't want, you know, that would be, like, embarrassing, would be, like, flirting or something like that.
Put a tracker...
What's a tracker?
That's not a thing.
You have multiple stalkers.
Willie Brown said the E in email stands for evidence.
All phones are already trackers.
What?
So on the cure, scans all data and checks the device is infected.
Well, I don't think that works on the iPhone.
I think that Pegasus checking thing is for... I think it might be only for Android.
Someone started a 4chan poll thread on me.
So, what are they gonna talk about me?
Why would you need a new thread on me?
Yeah, Pegasus is in iOS, but I think the solution doesn't work for iOS.
us.
But I'm not positive about that.
One million child march.
What?
No, I don't use Q. Roomba could be hacked?
Wow.
Can Boebert recover?
She's already recovered.
Nobody cares about Boebert.
Nobody cares that she vaped.
Nobody cares.
All right, that's all I got for you, YouTube, so I will talk to you tomorrow.
