Episode 1638 Scott Adams: Come Watch a Hypnotist Reframe Reality Right in Front of You

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the most amazing hour you're likely to ever spend in your entire life. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. And normally it's tremendous. On an average day, it's better than anything you've ever experienced. But today, even the normal Coffee with Scott Adams experience is going to go to a new level. It will. Yeah. And if you'd like to get us started off right, and by the way, you might need a little swaddling for your brain, Find a nice warm blanket. Unless you're exercising. If you're running on the beach right now and you hear me laughing in your ear as you're running in the beach and you're saying, damn it, he's making me laugh when I'm running on the beach. I think he's talking about me, and I am. So keep running on the beach. But the rest of you, get a nice warm blanket, because you're going to need to swallow your brain. Swaddle it. But first, how about a simultaneous sip? And all you need is a cup of mug or a glass, a tanker of chalicense din, canteen, jug of flask, vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid, a beverage, some would say. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, and I mean everything in every reality better. It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens. Now go. Well, would you like to see the Matrix? You know, some people think that we live in a simulation. And if this were a simulation, it would be subject to resource constraints, wouldn't it? If we were any kind of computer simulation, the one thing you could be reasonably sure of is it would have some kind of limits, because everything has to have a limit, just logically. And so could we ever spot the limits of our own simulation as evidence that that's what we're in? And here's the frame that I'm going to give you for today's entire episode. And it goes like this. Did you ever wonder why cognitive dissonance is so common? Or to put it more generally, why people have completely different views of reality? And it doesn't just apply, doesn't just apply to the news. Don't you know that sometimes you'll be talking to your friends you've known forever, and you'll have completely different memories of events in which you both were there? What's up with that? Why do we have memory, but our memory is so close to fantasy that sometimes you can't even unentangle them. Why do we so often live in what seems like completely different worlds? And here's the answer. It has to be that way because of resource constraints. Cognitive dissonance isn't a flaw, it's a feature. You couldn't program the simulation without that requirement. Here's why. Imagine creating a simulation. And by the way, if those of you who have programmed. Back me up on this. If you were creating a simulation in which every character's actions had to be known to every other object and item in the entire universe because they might someday interact, and someday you might hear about something that somebody else did, and it has to be consistent. If our memories were perfect, it would have to be consistent. So if you tried to build an artificial world in which everybody's story, their narrative, if you will, or their subjective reality, it. If they had to be consistent in all ways with all other stories, the resources would be astronomical to the point where it's unimaginable that it could be programmed. But could you build a world in which people believed they were seeing an accurate view of the reality? But in fact the accuracy was only a trick of the mind. That'd be a lot easier. So watch, if you will, the predictive power of the simulation hypothesis. Do I tell you that the simulation is the true way to see the world? Never. Nope. The only thing I can tell you is that some ways of looking at things might be more predictive than others. And that's probably the closest you can get to something that's real, if anything is. So my prediction is this. There can never be a major story that has only one interpretation. You always. There could be exceptions, of course, but let's say in general that the headlines will always tend toward two interpretations, even when it's not just a Democrat Republican thing. Because take vaccinations, for example. You saw that a lot of, let's say the black population and the Republicans were often on the same page. So it wasn't even a left right thing. But every story has to have multiple interpretations because that's the only way you could program the simulation. Let's talk about a few things that are happening now. One is the continuing of what I call the Roganization of the news. The Roganization of the news is another indication that we live in a simulation, that we're reusing themes because it's just simpler, uses less resources. So the way we see the news used to be through a Trump filter, and now we see it through a Joe Rogan filter. So if we talk about Vaccinations, we talk about Joe Rogan. If it's about Ivermectin Joe Rogan, you know, the government taking away our rights, Joe Rogan, freedom of speech, Joe Rogan and now even music and streaming Joe Rogan. Now some of it is just, you get something in your mind and it sticks. And he's gigantic in terms of his reach. So it makes sense in the same way it made sense that we talked about everything through a Trump filter. But think about how that simplifies the programming. We all just think the same way. We just go through the same filter. It's a big simplification if you were going to program a simulation. So here's what else is happening. The story is that the following four people, and before you fact check me, I'm going to fact check myself when I'm done, that the following four people have said they don't want to be on Spotify, this streaming service, if that Joe Rogan is on there with his misinformation about health related things. So it started with Neil Young, but now then we heard that Barry Manilow joined and then we heard that Peter Frampton was on board. And then Joni Mitchell. How much of that story is true? It's like every story, right? There's a true version and a fake version. And so here's the details. Barry Manilow came out and said, I don't know where that started. It didn't come from me, didn't come from anybody who represents me. So the Barry Manilow part of the story was completely fake. So at least 25% of the story is fake. And then there's a Peter Frampton tweet in which he said he's always been an Apple guy, so he uses Apple streaming. And I said to myself, wait a minute, is Peter Frampton saying he doesn't want to be on Spotify? Is he saying he's never been on Spotify? Or is he saying that he's not even talking as a creator anymore? Because I don't know the last time he published any music. But is he talking as a consumer? Is he just saying that he didn't use Spotify before to listen to music? I feel like Peter Frampton trended just because he says he listens to music at a different streaming service. I think that's what happened. Now, if that's true, if I'm interpreting it correctly, and again, we're all going to have different stories. It has to be that way. That would be 50% of the story isn't real. So that would leave Joni Mitchell on the side of Neil Young. And if you take Joni Mitchell's music off of Spotify, well, you won't be able to go to Spotify to hear Joni Mitchell's big hit. Joni Mitchell's big hit. She was really big when I was young. Had a lot of hits, actually. She was very famous. And then her big hit was. I don't know, but I'm gonna miss it. I'm gonna miss it, is what I'm saying. I. I never used Spotify before. I was kind of a different streaming guy. But in case you want to put that in the headlines, I think I should be trending. Wait a minute. I'm on Spotify, aren't I? I'm on Spotify, am I not? Can somebody confirm that? I think I am, right? Yeah. I mean, I just published the podcast wherever. I think it's on there. Well, why the hell did nobody ask me if I am willing to be on Spotify with my highly valuable podcast, which probably gets roughly as many listens as Neil Young, But I feel that I've been overlooked. Am I wrong? Should I make a public statement now? I think I'm gonna have to. I'm gonna have to go on the record. I think everybody who is on Spotify needs to give their Joe Rogan opinion. And I'm. I'm embarrassed to be on Spotify, honestly, now that I know that Barry Manilow is still on there. So I refuse. I refuse to be on Spotify. I would like my representation to pull all of my podcasts immediately, because I just. It's not really music, is it? It's not music. It's sort of like an earworm that gets in your head and makes you happy and you can't get it out. Now, I personally have spent many, many hours as a busboy in my early days when I was a busboy. And we would clean the dining room all at the same time after all the guests had left, it was a hotel. And they would play Copacabana over and over again through the ceiling speakers because we only had a few songs for whatever reason. And I've heard more Copacabana than any human has ever heard. And I don't know if I can be on Spotify with that man. Excellent music, very successful. But you gotta draw the line somewhere. Edward Snowden had a funny tweet. He said, nobody has a stronger opinion about. Nobody has stronger opinions about Joe Rogan than people who have never listened to Joe Rogan. And I thought, you know, I'll bet that's exactly true. You know, this is one of those tweets where you say to yourself, well, that's not, I'm sure that's not true completely. And then you think about it and then you think, now that might be actually true for every single human in the conversation. It might literally be true of everybody who is against him. Is that you haven't heard the context. Now, I don't know how many of you could say the same, but I feel like I've been following his career since the earliest days, literally on news radio. And do you remember that he had a show, I can't remember the name of the show, you'll probably tell me, in which he looked into stuff like Bigfoot. He actually went looking for Bigfoot. Who remembers that? What was the name of the show? You'll remember. I think you'll remind me. No, it wasn't Fear Factor. What was it? Come on. It wasn't on for a long time. Oh, Joe Rogan questions everything. Was that it? Joe Rogan's questions everything, Right? So now I'm not going to characterize Joe Rogan's opinion about Bigfoot. Who knows what he was thinking, when or what. But if you know that part of his arc include literally being an actor, literally being a huge stand up comic, and literally at one point searching for Bigfoot, all in the name of entertainment. If you understand that, then don't you have a better appreciation of any other content that he presents, which is that the larger context is if it's interesting, I'm going to put it on. I don't think there's any other. Is there another criteria? Does he claim any other criteria for putting on entertainment? It just has to be good, right? It has to be funny, it has to be interesting, provocative, something. It just has to be good. So if you understand that the context is things that are interesting, then you listen to the rogue Doctor and you make your own decision. You know, you're not watching it like the news. But what if you've only seen clips of his show, you don't know anything about his history, his other work. Maybe you don't even know he's a stand up comic. Don't you think a lot of people who are his critics, maybe, you know, vaguely know he's done that kind of work, but don't know he would be one of the biggest in the country at the moment. So, you know, I think the context makes a big difference. Not only the context within the show, but the larger context that if it's interesting, he's going to let us see it. And how do you complain about that, right? If you know the larger context, if it's interesting, I think I'll show it to you. What the hell? How do you get mad at that? Form your own, make your own opinion. He's not telling you what to think. If he told you what to think, that'd be a whole different conversation, wouldn't it? But nowhere, nowhere are you going to find anything in his record that tells you what to think. Fact check me on that, right? I'm pretty sure if you scour his record, you're not going to find him telling you how to think. He's just going to show you interesting shit and you make up your own mind. It's a good model. Well, those of you who have experienced doing mushrooms, you know that you have a much better understanding of our reality as being a subjective reality. So even if you discard the simulation hypothesis, you probably would agree that we are living in our own subjective reality in lots of different ways. And we'll talk about some of those ways. Number one is many people have lived for the last two years in a subjective reality in which the elites are using Covid as a plot to take control for the Great Reset. And it was never a problem, et cetera. Others. And again, I don't have an opinion on that right now. I mean, I have opinions, but not right now. My larger point is that didn't we live in different worlds? There are some people who just said, hey, there's a deadly virus, people doing the best they can, but people are weasels and liars. And so this is what you get. So that was my reality. My reality is just a whole bunch of weasels and liars doing the best they could, usually for themselves. And this is what you get when you have weasels and liars and a crisis, along with lots of people doing, trying to do the right thing. It wasn't like everybody was lying, but it's not like everybody was telling the truth. It's not like everybody was trying to get an advantage on other people. Some people were literally just trying to help and nothing else. And a lot of people, that's the best thing that came out of the pandemic by far, is the kindness that was expressed pretty much universally, at least by the citizens. So those are different worlds that we've been living in for the last two years. How about. What happens if we are a simulation and the way we think affects it? Here's something that worries me Because I worry about weird things. What if we wish a new variant into existence? What happens if everyone in the world expects a new deadly variant? Just because we've been primed that way? Can we actually make that happen? Can we just will it into existence? I worry about that, like actually literally, because I think our understanding of the reality we live in, such as it is, is so weak. What we actually understand about reality is so weak that I wouldn't discount 7 billion people expecting exactly the same thing to happen having no causal effect. It might not have enough causal effect that I could believe. It's hard to believe it would have none, even if the only thing it did is affect somehow the way we acted. Because you know that you're drawn toward things you think about a lot. Your behavior is attracted to just whatever you're thinking about the most, just somewhat automatically and subconsciously. So could we just think our way into problems? I don't know. But I'd like to at least give a consideration to thinking our way out of it instead and maybe focus a little more on February 1st being over. Now you see the real power of that. What happens when everybody says February 1st, the day we stop? Or at least with mandates in the United States, could it have the opposite effect? Could it have an effect that doesn't seem to be directly related to the public rising up? In other words, could the virus just burn out as if by magic because everybody was focusing on the same time to make it burn out? I don't know. But I'll tell you that I have this one observation. There's no scientific backing, right? So this is not a science, but maybe you could, you know, compare it to your own situation. I find that the more clearly I can visualize something potentially happening, the more likely it'll happen in my actual life. If I can see it as clear as I can see a photograph in front of me, and sometimes I can, then it just always happens, even if it's unlikely. I use my example all the time of becoming a best selling author or becoming a cartoonist, a famous cartoonist, or visiting the White House and talking to a president. These are things which I visualized really specifically. And there are other things that I just sort of want, but I don't really visualize them and they don't happen. But the things that I think about specifically. Oh my God, do they happen on a regular basis? In a weird way. So I just want to put it out there that if you all focus on February 1st for dropping mandates, which is similar to saying that the pandemic itself. The crisis has abated. I'm not going to tell you it'll make it happen. But if you want to play it safe, if you want to play it safe, I'd rather think about stopping it than having it forever. All right, here's a bombshell that's going to scramble your brain. The Australian. I saw this on a tweet by Twitter user called Logic Bombshell Reports from Australia. Australia media places the blame for the pandemic on Fauci. In other words, the United States. So there's at least, you know, one person in the. I don't know how many more believe this, but talk about a reframe that made my brain hurt as soon as soon as I heard it from somebody else's point of view. We just spent two years blaming China. We just spent two years blaming China, which I'm all on board with that because I'm no lover of the Chinese government. But at the same time, we were slowly learning Fauci's involvement, and somehow it never occurred to me, and I would wonder if this is blowing your mind as well, why had it never occurred to me that it's the United States that's responsible for the fucking pandemic? I'm not saying we are. I'm not saying we are. I'm saying. Here's the part. I'm only saying, why didn't it occur to me until now? Why did that literally not occur to me? I had only thought of it as a Fauci problem. Did the same thing happen to you? Did you think, oh, there's a Fauci problem? I never once said to myself, this is the fucking United States. We unleashed this pandemic by our actions. Now, does China have some culpability? Probably. Probably. I'm not going to let China off the hook, but why did I never once think of it this way? And I'm going to introduce a new phrase for you, and this new phrase is going to act like an antivirus. So it's a phrase that, if it catches on, would act like an antivirus. So that the problem I just described, which is my own cognitive blindness, which some of you shared. So I was cognitively blind to America's culpability or potential culpability, because nothing's proven proven in this world. And it's because of what I'm going to call a diversion narrative. A diversion narrative. Watch what happens when you start looking for them and you see how many times there's a narrative about what's true that's really Designed primarily as a diversion. What would it do to your brain if you found out that the China is to blame narrative was always a diversion narrative? What if someone in the government or someones always knew that this could come around and become a blame America problem because they knew that chain of events from Fauci to funding to. To Wuhan to maybe a mistake? We don't know for sure. What if somebody cooked up the diversion narrative to say it was China so that we would in America be cognitively blind to our own culpability? Have you ever seen anybody cook up a diversion narrative before? How about Trump, Russia, collusion? That's a diversion narrative for the fact that Hillary was literally colluding with Russia. Apparently. I'll say allegedly or apparently. How often are diversion narratives really all we're seeing? And how often are we just wrong? Because my usual interpretation of these things is that there are two worlds because there's a Democrat side and a Republican side. So we all understand that part. But some of these go beyond that. It seems like there's something else going on besides just the teams. These diversion narratives seem to be almost the operating system of civilization at this point. It's just diversion narratives. Let's talk about some more as we go. But here's something that I've said a number of times and I just want to explain my thinking on it better because often I'm talking about a topic in the news, then we all get diverted about the topic. But really I'm trying to say something about the way we think about things. So if you'll allow me to divorce myself from the topic of something, whether it's true or false. Forget about what's true. I don't care about that at the moment. It has to do with a tweet I saw this morning from Twitter user who calls himself still unvaccinated PhD and he's responding to my thought that the category of rogue experts are generally wrong. And he says rogue doctors and scientists, as Scott M. Says likes to call them, are often the ones who discover huge breakthroughs in different industries. Now, I agree with that, don't you all, when you say that the rogues, you know, the ones bucking the standard, pretty much create everything good. Wouldn't you agree? I mean, they're all rogues, you know, all the ones that really make a difference, they're all rogues. So have I ever said anything that would be conflicting with that? I've never said anything that conflicts with the fact that pretty much all progress seems to come from rogues and sometimes whistleblowers. Right. But is there any conflict with that, with the fact that I say that 90% of the time the rogues are wrong? You shouldn't think there's any conflict with that. And here's an analogy that's just used to help you see the math better. I guess it goes like this. You know about Google and you know about Amazon.com and you know about, you know, Microsoft and you know about all these gigantic companies that at one point were just startups. If you saw them when they were startups, you would have said, well, the odds are at best 1 in 10. That's optimistic. It's probably 1 in 20, but let's say 1 in 10. So if you were looking at all startups, 90% of them that are going to fail, and you can be pretty sure that's true. But the ones that become famous are so famous that the narrative of the famous ones makes you cognitively blind to the fact that most things that are like that, most things that are in their category, the category of rogues taking on the world and winning. You know, Jeff Bezos, great example, taking on the world and winning. So just, just know that everything important comes from the rogues, but mostly they fail. So I use it as a prediction shortcut. So whenever there's a rogue, I just say, well, I'm gonna, I'm gonna go with the 90%. I'll vote against it. I'll vote against it. So when I, when I tell you that I've got suspicions about, let's say a Dr. Malone or McAuliffe, Dr. Corey, any of the names that you've seen that are the rogue doctors, as I like to call them, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything about their science. How would I know? I'm just saying they're in the category that if you and I are going to take a bet, I'll bet with the 90%. It's just a category, a category related prediction. That's all. I obviously can't counteract their science. All right, Jack Posavic has another tweet. And maybe, maybe a scoop, I don't know. But he tweets that Biden Chief of Staff Ron Klain is planning to start leaking and pushing a narrative. A narrative, you say? What kind of a narrative? That President Zelensky of Ukraine is Kremlin compromised. This is according to a White House staffer. And again, Jack's got good sources. So here's the two worlds. Do you see reality just splitting? So I have to admit that when you see Zelensky being less worried about his country being invaded than the United States, it's a perfectly reasonable question, why is Zelensky less worried than we are? Right. But there's not just one way to explain that. One explanation is that he is just as worried, but he wants to play it differently. He doesn't want to cause panic. So we don't know he's less worried. He's talking about how we talk about it. So he doesn't want the rhetoric to be as high as it is. But this might create an opening for this second narrative that Zelenskyy is a puppet of the Kremlin and he's practically inviting them in. And then the other narrative, that nothing like that is happening. So once again, two worlds. Does the simulation require that in every case, and I'm not even sure this is a Democrat or Republican question, is it? Because I think you could find people on both sides of what we should do on Ukraine. But everything has to be at least two stories or more because the simulation can't handle complexity with one story if you're coming in late. If we live in a simulation, there's got to be a resource constraint like any computer. And so there's a reason that we all have different realities, because you couldn't have one reality and make every part of every reality consistent with every other. Too much resources. Too many resources. So the prediction of the simulation is that every major story will branch into multiple realities. And that has to happen. You can't program the simulation unless you do that. Here is my mind breaking whiteboard for today. The thing you've all been waiting for, but you didn't even know it. I call it the military financial reframe. And it goes like this, that if you look at the arc of time, that power used to be really a military thing, which of course was highly correlated with. With wealth. Wealth could get you a better military, but not necessarily so. If you had a great military, you had a lot of power. If you had money that was great, money was great. But if all you had was money and you didn't have a good military, the military next door would come and take your money. But thanks primarily to the Internet and our financial markets becoming global and, and intertangled, and the fact that money has to go through basically wires to get anywhere, it doesn't get on a boat, it's not hidden somewhere, has to go across a wire. So we became so connected with each other because of the Internet that finance as a weapon gets more and more Powerful, the more connected we are and the more trade we do. And so I would submit to you that Ukraine is our crossover point. The crossover point at which a financial weapon is more useful than a military weapon, because a military weapon would guarantee Russia's destruction. Am I right? So it pretty much guarantees they're not going to go nuclear. So the value of their arsenal is not really that good. So here they are, a nuclear power, they can't really use their nukes. So that brings them down to what weapons can you use in these smaller conflicts? And so finance is everything. And so when Biden says you can line up your military on the border if you want, but at your own peril, it's time for the military financial crossover point. Boom. Now, I submit to you that I do not know if Ukraine is the point in history at which the experts will say, yep, that's when it happened. From that day on, the, the larger powers just resolve things through negotiating because it was, you know, you had to use your financial tools. Still, there will be plenty of wars with the smaller countries with neighboring conflicts and stuff. But anybody who's a big enough country to have a submarine, I'll just use that as my standard. If your country is big enough to have a submarine in your military, probably you're going to work it out financially because you can be taken down by the rest of the world. Now, like I say, I don't know if Ukraine is going to be the test case that proves the rule forever, but the day will come, you know, if it's not Ukraine, it's Taiwan or, you know, it's something, but, but something is going to prove this rule. I, I think China, Taiwan is a different situation because of the history there. But I don't see the Russia, Ukraine situation becoming a major shooting war. So test my prediction. My prediction is that Ukraine probably is the point where the shooting war just stopped making sense. Now, I will not rule out, will not rule out minor incursion. Minor incursion and continued pressure and, you know, cyber and everything else, that stuff, probably. But I don't see the Russian military moving in force like a major campaign. And the reason is two, too expensive, can't afford it. And Putin is not irrational. So he would do a slow but steady pressure, probably get what he wants in the end. That's what I think a lot of so test that. I think all the talk about NATO and the US and sending some of our forces over there and trainers and sending military and all that, I think a lot of that is just theater And I felt like our own military was saying that. They were saying that we're not doing it so much to fight Russia. We're doing it to show our allies that we back them. So it was really theater, and I think we said it directly. Well, it's sort of theater. We're just showing the allies that we back them. We're not really putting a fighting force there, because what would a fighting force look like? A fighting force would look like a real fighting force. I don't think we have anything like that in the neighborhood. It's really just for show. And I think that our military leaders, to their credit, to their credit, I think they said so directly and they said it multiple times. This is to show our allies that we have their back. And a show, okay? So I don't know that that show is something we have to worry about militarily. All right, here's my next provocative question, and I'll start with this priming of your brain. Are all of you aware there's a generally accepted parenting practice that if you're a step parent, you don't do the discipline? Are you all familiar with that rule? It's generally a universally acknowledged rule. Now, the thinking behind it is fairly solid. The thinking behind it is that there is a biological connection for a biological parent that is a sort of unbreakable bond and that you have this, you know, unrestricted love that won't be changed by some. Some punishment, but it is assumed that the non biological parent doesn't have that. And so if punishment comes from a non biological parent, that could become a rift that lasts forever and becomes a problem. Now, I'm not saying every family is the same. I think there's a world of difference between a step kid that you get as a baby and the original parent was never in the picture. That's effectively just a biological parent for all practical purposes. Right? But I'm talking about like a step kid comes in at age 12. Okay? That's a different situation. And the real father, let's say, is still in the picture and involved in that case, the stepdad. You just have to step away, you report, observe and report. That's it. Observe and report. Unless it's an immediate danger. If it's an immediate danger, then you step in immediately. But I'm going to take that analogy to a weird place. Our Constitution has a rule in it that you have to be born in America to be president. You have to be born in America to be president, not for other jobs, but to be president. What do you think of that rule, does that rule feel appropriate or does it feel racist? Because it is racist. I mean, in outcome, right, it's racist. Let me give you an example. Do you think that Arnold Schwarzenegger would be a risky president in the sense that he would have too much loyalty to his native born Austria? Well, actually, if we ever got in a conflict with Austria, I would be worried about that. I definitely would be worried about that. But you know, we'll never get in a conflict with Austria, not realistically. So why is there a constitutional thing that prevents Arnold from running for president? There's no real reason. I mean, it just ends up looking racist in his case. But do you agree with the general statement that people, they develop a love for the place they were born? Just ordinarily it's just the most natural. I don't know, it must be biological. I guess some of it is, or a lot of it is cultural. But people are very bonded to where they're born. So would most of you have. Now, given the background, would you all agree that the country is safer, and I'm not even talking about America specifically, would you agree that any country probably is a little safer if they restrict their presidents to people born on the soil of any, of any cultural background? Of course, yeah. Most of you would agree with that as a reasonable but a little bit racist. But it's national defense and that's where we bend things a little bit when we have to. Right. Elon Musk, perfect example. Would you be worried if Elon Musk were president if we were not born in American soil? I wouldn't, I wouldn't be worried about that at all. It just seems kind of racist that he's. But, but we still accept, I think, that a president should be born on the soil of which that president is. As the president, it just gives you that little extra, little extra protection. This brings us to George Soros, who is Hungarian born but American citizen. Now he can't run for president. Are you happy about that? Are you happy that George Soros, with all of his money can't run for president? It's not even an option. I'm seeing most people say yes, they're glad that in this case, they're glad that that rule exists because he did have enough money. If you think about it, he did have enough money that if it were constitutionally allowed, he probably could have made the grade, probably could have gotten over the hump. Because money, I mean, you can buy anything. So we're happy about it there. But here's the provocative question, why do we allow that same person that we would not trust as a president to donate so much money to activist organizations that they effectively control our government on those issues? Why is that okay, and am I being racist to even ask the question? Because I don't think it's more racist than our current constitutional situation. It's probably equal. They're both racist. I'm just asking the question. That's the podcaster's dodge. I'm just asking the question. But in this case, I think that's fair to say. I actually wonder, why do we allow that? Why is it legal? Now I get that it's constitutional, so it's not a constitutional question right now. Why do we allow that? We have all kinds of campaign finance restrictions, but why do we not restrict something that is so important to us? It's in the Constitution. It's built right into the Constitution. It's so fundamental that you want somebody whose, let's say, biological connection to the soil is unquestionable. Somebody says it's not racist, it's nationalistic. That's a fair characterization. But I would say that almost everything we do has a racist outcome. Even if you don't intend it for that purpose, it just always does. So I don't think it's. I just like mentioning. Because it gets one less thing for people to complain about. So I think maybe a Republican should run on that if there's a way to do it. Now, it might be impossible to stop money because Soros could give money to an entity and say, I'm done with it. And then the entity could say, well, now that we have this money, it's ours and we'll give it to this cause. So I'm guessing he could probably still launder it somehow and there's no way to stop it. I don't know. Must be a way to do it. But don't we even try? If we're concerned about foreign influence so much that we can't have a foreign born president, we're so concerned that Arnold Schwarzenegger can't be our president who's worried about him being not pro American enough, or even Elon Musk. Who knows what Elon Musk is thinking? That would be impossible to imagine. But I wouldn't be worried. All right, Here's the answer to the question why I stay in California, because people always ask. I'm going to read. I'm just going to read this headline from Twitter. The nor' Easter storm will bring a major snowstorm and potential Blizzard stretching from South Carolina to New England. The storm is predicted to form off the coast of the Carolinas on Friday and move north up the east coast across the weekend. A storm has brought the east coast into its first blizzard warning in four years. According to Blah Blah, airlines have canceled thousands of flights. High winds, heavy snows, between 6 and 12 inches of snow, 1 to 2ft of snow in some places, and maybe major power outages at the same time. People will be freezing to death in their own homes. So that's what, that's what the people in those states are doing. Yesterday I took a walk in the sun. Had some legal cannabis before I went. It was T shirt weather. Beautiful day. So if you don't mind, if you don't mind the, you know, the high taxes and the crime and the drought and the forest fires that are blotting out the sun, if you don't mind that stuff, it's a pretty good place to be. And if you can stay away from the tsunamis and the earthquakes. But I know where all the faults are. I just stay away from the faults. Did you know there's a depopulation time bomb facing the west? And one wonders, is there a reason we're talking about a depopulation time bomb that we've known about for a long time now? Some of it may be it's just reaching that, you know, critical point where everybody notices might be because Elon Musk has brought it up, but the west is hitting this problem. China's going to get it first because of that one baby problem or policy they had for over 35 years or something. So deaths are going to outstrip births and pretty soon we'll have all these old people that require all this care, and we won't have enough young people to work and take care of them. I think that maybe technology and civilization will adjust. I think we'll adjust. I think that a lot of those old people live in houses and they'll just say, hey, and this is something already happening. They'll say, hey, young person, come live rent free in my house and you do some of the work and we both win. So I think that the first thing that will happen is civilization will just immediately adjust because we're real good at that. We adjust. Probably the single thing that makes humans the dominant species over the planet, although fungi are doing pretty well, but humans, we're having a good run, is because we adjust so well. Other is it Brett Weinstein who says this? It's our ability to adjust that makes us special. I Think his new book says that. So I think we'll adjust, but it's important. Watch it. And what is behind this depopulation time bomb? Well, it's a number of factors. Economic, social. But CNN is also reporting that we are too fat to fuck. That wasn't the exact headline, but I think once I read this to you, you'll think that the headline too fat to fuck kind of fits. So CNN says that 43% of women and 31% of men have some form of distant sexual dysfunction, with obesity and lack of exercise often being factors. Now, I do not do fat shaming because I don't think anybody chooses bad health. I just don't think anybody does that. And I don't think people choose to be addicts. I don't think we choose to be a lot of things that it looks like we choose, but we really don't. So I don't make fun of people who are in whatever situation they're in, because if I don't have this one problem, well, I got my own shit, right? So I tend not to. And I used to be far more judgmental. I would say this is more of a recent evolution in my case. So I feel not judgmental about other people's issues because I don't see my own as being all solved. If I could solve all of my issues, like, everything that could be solved, well, then I'll talk about yours and how. Why don't you be like me and solve all your problems? I solved all of mine. But as long as my problems aren't all solved like your problems are, fine, we'll talk about them, but it's not about you. Okay, so we'll talk about the problem, but it's not about you personally. This is a big deal. And again, this is this gigantic path for somebody like a DeSantis to walk right through. How many people would like to see an American president? And the reason I say DeSantis is he makes every right move. Like, he reads the room better than anybody's ever read the room. And, well, Trump read the room pretty well, too. But the other thing DeSantis does is he responds to it. But he also takes free money. Free money is the thing that anybody could have said, but he says it. Trump used to do that all the time. If there's a thing you can say and it's just sort of obvious anybody could say it, but only one person does. It's like, why did everybody leave this free money laying there? So the free money, this gigantic, is you've got this enormous health and obesity problem in this country. How about a president, how about a DeSantis says, look, let's not kid ourselves. You know, I can do everything in the world to help this country, but if you're overeating and not taking care of yourself, it's not going to mean anything to you. So please, let's figure out how to, like, get in shape. Let's figure out a system, let's get some help. Let's put some money on it, let's put some attention on it. Let's talk about it. Right. Let's not judge each other. Let's stay out of the judging business. Let's just treat it as a health problem, because it is, and just go from there. Gigantic, gigantic opportunity with no disagreement. If you do it right, you would always get the people who are advocates for people who are larger, and they don't want to be mocked for their, I guess, lifestyle choice in some cases, and that's fine, but it's really not about them. Nobody's saying you have to do anything. There wouldn't be mandatory gym. I'm talking about helping people, not forcing people. Right. The government could certainly help people. Doesn't have to force anybody to do anything. Yes. So if you have a low T and you've got sexual dysfunction, that can't be helping the population. It just can't be. Although I suspect these days, having a kid is more choice than not. Sean Penn got in trouble for saying that men in America are becoming, quote, quite feminized. And he said, quote, there are a lot of, I think, cowardly genes that lead to people surrendering their jeans, meaning the jeans that they're wearing and putting on a skirt. Now he's talking about some famous celebrities, I guess more than the public. But what do you think about that? Do you think that's an old man that yells at the clouds? Ah, these kids today. Back in my day, men wore pants. Or is he onto something? Because, remember, Sean is not right wing by any stretch of the imagination, but he's saying something that you would more associate with somebody who is on the right. The political right. Yeah. Can we at least come together on that? Now, I, unlike many in my audience right now, I am very supportive of anybody who doesn't want to be like the mainstream in any social way whatsoever. So lgbtq Love you. Just be whatever makes you happy. If society can't allow you to do that, then society sucks. Should let people live whatever life they want to live. So I'm in favor of the Freedom for people to be who they are. That said, let me ask a question just for the women. Can I, if I could, I know this is going to be tough for you guys because I have more men than women watching. Typically for the men. Just if you could hold off for a moment, I want to ask a question just for the women watching this. So women, if you don't normally comment, this would be a good one to jump in. Do you think that there is a shortage of masculine men now? I don't want to use alpha and beta. You could translate that in your own mind. Okay. On locals, I get faster responses and I'm getting 90% yes. It looks like on YouTube I'm seeing so far only yeses. Well, okay, now this, this may be a reflection of my audience more than a reflection of the world, but at least we agree. Now, don't you think that literally the low testosterone is part of it? I mean, it has to be, right? Am I being anti science? Did I go too far? Wouldn't we see exactly what we see with no other change than lower testosterone? Now, what causes the lower testosterone? It's not one thing, right? Some of it is diet. Some of it may be getting poor sleep because of screen time. Some of it may be the comparison problem. If you compare yourself to the people on Instagram, what's that do to your testosterone? It doesn't help, right? If you're comparing yourself to the best whatevers in the world instead of just your neighbor like in the old days. I mean, I could only compare myself to people I knew personally because, you know, there were some people on tv, but it wasn't that big a deal. But today you're being compared to the best of the best in the whole world. In theory, if you are being compared to something that's better than you, it should drop your testosterone. Is that true? Give me a fact check on that. I never know what things I believe forever are bullshit because you could always find out, oh, I believe that forever. And that was just never true. But I think that losing a competition has at least a temporary drop in testosterone. That's been proven, right? Being embarrassed as opposed to being victorious. I'm pretty sure you can measure a difference in testosterone. Now imagine you live in a society where boys are mostly the winners. Let's say 50s, 60s, 70s. And you could extend that to wherever your politics want you to extend it. If you grew up in a world where you just felt like you were the king of the universe because you happen to be the right gender at the Right. Time in history. That probably would raise your testosterone, wouldn't it? Because you would just walk around feeling like, oh, yeah, I'm in charge now. What would happen if instead you were born in the more current era and you were told that boys are the cause of all problems? Which isn't too far off from what's happening right now. Right now, I'm not going to say that men don't cause a lot of problems. Oh, we do. We do our share of crime and whatnot, but we're also most of the police force, most of the emergency stuff. So, I mean, we contribute as well. So some say divorce, some say divorce. Yeah, that might be a factor. I'm not sure it's one factor. I think it's everything from. And I'm going to say allegedly on this one so I don't get sued. Allegedly. Our soy intake. Have you seen how much soy is in every freaking product? Like, the only thing that doesn't have soy in it is like, a stalk of broccoli. I swear to God, they're going to figure out how to make soy broccoli just so you can't get away with it. Every packaged food seems to have soy in it as some kind of filler or maybe the source of protein or something. I don't know. But why does soy have to be in everything? Everything? All right, so I do think that this testosterone thing is real. All right, now I've got a question. Just for the men. Just for the men. All right, women, you have to ride this one out, okay? Just for the men. And I'm going to further segment it, okay? Just for the men watching, who would consider themselves a masculine compared to the average. I know you're all going to say that's you, right? You're all going to say, that's you, but just the ones who consider themselves masculine. Have you seen that the demand for what you're selling is the highest it's ever been. Go. Just because you just happen to be masculine. Look at the answers. On YouTube. You should see the answers on locals. The comments go by. The quickness of the comments is based on how many there are. So the faster they answer, the faster they zip by. It was just like this wall of. Yes. It just went yes. All right, so I'm not imagining it, right? I'm not imagining it. All right, here's my next question and maybe my last for today. Do you remember Black Lives Matter? And do you remember Antifa? And do you remember Occupy Wall Street? And one thing they all had in Common is that they were really, really big and then they just sort of went away. Were any of them natural? Were they all scams? They were just funded by somebody, right? I think they were all scams. Based on today's. Look backwards, just the fact that they made such a big impact and then went away just as suddenly, that does suggest that it was never real. Now what's going to happen when the next one pops up? Are you going to do. Are you going to have a gel man amnesia? Do you know what that would be? So gel man amnesia? I won't give you the whole background of what that means. What it means is when there's another totally bullshit group that starts protesting, are you going to say, oh, this one's real? Are you going to believe the next group after, after three in a row that are obviously, in my, just my opinion, in my opinion, they're obviously bullshit. And I thought they were bullshit. At the time I wasn't really following Occupy Wall street, but I didn't really understand that one. I mean, when it was happening I kept looking at it thinking that's kind of weird that this suddenly pops up when nothing is much that different. But now I would say it's somewhat clear that these were scams of some sort. Now when I say there were scams, I don't mean that the people who were individually protesting were insincere. I do think that most of the people on the street were sincere in whatever that means for antifa. I'm not sure what it means to be a sincere antifa person, but I'm talking about the leadership, the funding and the organization. Apparently that was all a scam. Now here's some news from the Washington Examiner, I think report. Yeah, the Washington Examiner. So they were looking into who's in charge of Black Lives Matter at the moment. This is just the best story. Now I don't know if it's because I'm the author of the Dilbert comic that I love this story so much, because if you could come up with a more Dilbert scenario than what I'm going to just describe. Again, this is the Washington Examiner's reporting. So they were looking into who's in charge. Now that the person who was in charge, the co founder, Patrisse Cullors. So she moved on and she said that she appointed two of the activists to serve as the group's senior director. So far so good. So we knew who was in charge. She was a co founder and I guess when she left she was the last of the co Founders, and she appointed two activists, and we know their names, so good. So the Washington examiner went and talked to the two people who were appointed, and they said, we didn't accept the appointment. What? They said, yeah, yeah, we were appointed, but we didn't accept the appointment. Wait, what? Well, who's got the $60 million allegedly that they have? I don't know. What? What? Like, this is one of those stories that you can't even read to the end because you just keep going, what? What? Now, typically, let me give you a warning here. Typically, a story like this is so on the nose, it's probably wrong, it's probably not true, right? When you see something that's just too perfectly, stereotypically the worst thing that could possibly happen, right? What would be the most stereotypically racist. Let's put that out there. What would be the most stereotypically racist thing you could imagine would be that, you know, a black organization stole a bunch of money, right? That's. That the racist brain would go there immediately, and then the story comes out that looks. Looks like that's exactly what happened. Your first instinct shouldn't be, well, I told you so. If your first thing. If your first instinct was I told you so, well, you might be a racist. Your first instinct should be. Could be true, but your first instinct should be, that's a little too close, little too on the nose. So just be warned about this one, okay? I don't know that it's fact or fiction, and I'm not going to predict either way, so I don't have an opinion whether it's real or not. I'm just saying that whenever you see one that's this close to exactly a racist trope. Is that the right word? You got to ask yourself, is it real? You just have to ask yourself, all right, but allegedly, we don't know who's in charge, and money's missing. And the two remaining BLM board members. So there are two board members who are different from the two directors who were appointed, right? So there's still two board members. We know who they are. And they were asked for comment, and they did not return numerous. They did not return numerous requests for comment. All right, I give up. This story might be exactly what it looks like it might be. All right, So I asked this poll on Twitter, I said on Twitter today, a little poll I said, were antifa, BLM and Occupy Wall Street's real movements that suddenly evaporated, or were they always Democrat scams? When Last I checked, 77% said they were always Democrat scams and 23% said that they were actually real organizations or that they weren't sure. 23% 23% rounding off 2325 25% this will come as no surprise are fucking idiots and it's a very consistent result. Now, I believe I have delivered on my claim that I would show you that every major topic of any complexity has to branch into different stories. Once you see this, you will say to yourself, wait a minute. Maybe the problem isn't cognitive dissonance. Maybe cognitive dissonance is a necessity. It's the only way the simulation that runs our reality can handle the complexity. My story and yours don't have to match anymore because I'm in my own subjective reality. And it'll never make any difference if your story and mine never match. So every future story, even if it doesn't line up perfectly with Democrat and Republican, should branch into multiple versions because it has to. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the reframe of the day. I believe I have delivered on my promise that this is the best live stream of all time, bar none, And I will talk to you tomorrow.