All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 10, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:04:22
Episode 624 Scott Adams: Epstein Taking the Big Dirt-Nap, Word-Thinking, Civil Trade War
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Bum-bum, bum-bum-bum, bum-bum-bum-bum! Bum-bum-bum. Bum-bum-bum-bum, bum-bum-bum, bum-bum...
Hey, everybody!
Come on in here!
It's time for coffee with Scott Adams.
It's a very special coffee with Scott Adams.
Because, well, why not?
It should be special. Hey Jack, good to see you.
Everybody, come on in here.
Take a seat. We've got things to talk about.
Yes, yes, we're going to be talking about stuff.
But first, you know what you want.
You want the simultaneous sip.
And if you'd like to enjoy simultaneous sipping with people all over the world with good intentions, the dopamine hit that gets you going, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a styrofoam, a chalice, a tankard, A thermos, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.
Hey, Thomas. Join us now for the simultaneous sip.
Well, so I know you want to talk about Jeffrey Epstein taking, as my late father used to call it, the big dirt nap.
So, has there ever been a more suspicious suicide?
Nope. It is the world's most suspicious suicide.
Now, how hard is it to kill yourself in jail?
Well, I don't know.
I suppose if you tried to hang yourself or something, maybe that would work.
But I would think that the surefire way to do it is I can't imagine that they don't have access to drugs in jail.
Don't you think some kind of drug made it into his cell?
Now, here's the interesting thing.
Epstein is the only person in the world I can think of.
Maybe you can think of another example.
Can you think of anybody else in the world that 100% of the people in the world, including Epstein, wanted him to be dead?
Have you ever seen anything like that?
I've never seen a situation where everybody wanted somebody to be dead, including the person.
He wanted to be dead.
His victims wanted him to be dead.
The public wanted him to be dead.
Even the people who were his friends, they definitely wanted him dead because he could be talking about the situation.
Now, of course, the rumor mill will crank up.
And people are going to say, it's those Clintons.
You know, Epstein was just about to out them and then those Clintons had him killed in jail.
Maybe. Maybe.
You know, if I had to bet on it, I'd bet against that.
I would say that the most obvious explanation is that he wanted to kill himself.
Oh, somebody says he hung himself, already confirmed by the New York Post.
We're still early on in this, so I wouldn't assume that the early information is accurate.
But somebody said cardiac arrest, and somebody said hanging.
And are those the same?
If you cut off your supply of air, do you have cardiac arrest, and therefore they're similar?
I don't know. So...
Your filter is on fire, Scott, somebody says.
So, in this case, my guess is that he hung himself or killed himself one way or the other.
But he may have had a lot of encouragement from a lot of different people.
There may be something or somebody on the outside that he cared about, that he wanted to spare some pain, he probably thought he had no chance of avoiding jail, So I think you probably took the path that made most sense.
Now, you might be asking yourself, how do you kill yourself by hanging if you're already on suicide watch?
What does it mean to be on suicide watch if nobody's watching?
I would think the minimum requirement for a suicide watch is somebody watching to see if there's any suicide.
So there's something strange going on here, and it's possible that the guards may be in on it.
And this is the weirdest case, because imagine, if you will, that we someday learn that somebody else was complicit.
Let's say we learn that somebody else either turned around so it could happen, let's say a guard.
Maybe somebody slipped him a rope.
Does anybody care About prosecuting anybody who might have helped him.
I don't know that anybody helped him, but it's likely that somebody had to turn around or look the other way or provide an asset like a rope or something.
Maybe. But personally, I wouldn't even really care.
Somebody says it's 100% murder.
What if it is? Do you care?
You could put me on a jury trial.
And say, okay, here's the video, the forensic evidence, 100% evidence conclusively proving that this prisoner killed him.
Do I care? I'm afraid I don't.
I'm afraid I don't care.
Because if you kill somebody who wants to die and 100% of the planet Earth wants them to die, that's what I call a special case.
You know, I think we all agree that you want the laws to be applied equally.
Except in this case.
Can't we have one exception where the laws are not applied equally?
And I would say, you know, you can limit it to this case.
Say, all right, how about the laws apply equally, whether you're rich or poor, you know, black or white, man or woman, the laws should apply equally.
Okay, but one exception.
Just one exception.
If you happen to be an accused serial pedophile who wants to kill yourself and 100% of the people on the planet Earth also want to kill you, including your best friends, maybe then we turn around and just let it happen.
All right, we'll be jabbering about that a lot.
Obviously, it...
It might leave a hole in the investigations to find out who else was involved.
I think what this will leave is that his assistant and the women who were victims are the remaining witnesses.
But keep in mind that Epstein probably was never going to be His own witness.
So I don't think he would have told us anything that we needed to know, to know who was guilty of what.
I believe all the evidence would have come from other people anyway.
So I don't know that this makes any difference, unless he had secrets that people thought he was going to spill in return for some kind of reduced sentence.
But I don't see any kind of reduced sentence when you're 66 and you've been accused of such things.
I mean, what would that look like?
Get it down to 20 years so that he's only 86 when he gets out of jail.
So I'm not sure that anybody worried about what he knew.
Alright, maybe they did.
Let's talk about some other things.
Oh, and then I guess we have to mention that Epstein implicated George Mitchell and Bill Richardson.
Not Epstein himself, but one of the victims.
How reliable do you think that is?
If you hear that one of the so-called victims, I won't say so-called, let's call the victims.
If you hear that one of the victims, so now that he's dead, you don't have to say alleged.
So Epstein's dead, so we don't have to say he's an alleged pedophile.
We could just call him anything we want.
Now he's dead. So we can call the victims victims that are not alleged victims.
So one of the victims said that George Mitchell and Bill Richardson were somehow involved in all this stuff.
Does that sound credible to you?
I'm gonna say no.
I'm gonna say no.
Doesn't mean it's impossible, but it's also not impossible that, you know, you and I were on the airplane.
I wasn't, but maybe you were.
Prince Andrew. I don't know that any of these names are credible.
That doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
You know, you can't say, I can't prove a negative.
I can't prove something didn't happen.
But when I hear the victim naming names, I just don't leap to guilty.
I just don't leap that.
So, yeah, he's with Ken DeLay.
So I think I would suggest that you do the same.
If evidence comes out later that suggests that specific people are guilty of specific things, then maybe you could take that more seriously, depending on the evidence.
But if you have one person whose credibility has been questioned, naming some names, I don't think we can quite leap to guilty.
Same with Dershowitz.
Dershowitz has pointed out that the people accusing him have long histories of literally making up accusations.
So if you ever get accused of a heinous crime, You want to be in Dershowitz's situation, which is the person making the accusation has a long history of lying and accusing people of stuff.
That's your ideal situation.
So I think Dershowitz's risk, if it all comes down to one person's claims and one or two people and they're not credible, I would say he's in good shape.
So let's talk about Bill Maher, I guess Bill Engel was on his show, and they both agreed that maybe a short-term recession, I don't know how long short-term is for a recession, would be better than keeping Trump as president.
To which I say, what exactly is the danger of Trump?
I don't know exactly what that's referring to, because all of the noise about him being a white supremacist is largely coming from the other side.
I don't know a single person, not a single person, who's a Republican or a conservative or a Trump supporter.
I'm sure they exist, but I've never met one who believes that Trump is a white supremacist.
Never met one. But the entire other side believes it to the point where it's a national story.
So whose fault is it?
Is it the fault of all the people who are looking at the same evidence everybody else is and say, I don't see it.
Doesn't look that way to me.
Or is it the fault of the people who are suffering TDS because their news sources have triggered them into a state of continuous rage and unhappiness?
Whose fault is it?
Seems to me it's sort of a shared fault.
People who say that the way Trump speaks, he should know.
Would cause this sort of reaction.
I would agree with that to a degree.
There are some things the president says and the way he says them that I hear them and I say, oh, I would have said that differently.
But that also applies to everything else he says.
There isn't a single thing that this president has ever said that I listen to and I say, well, that's just the way I would have said it.
And so we live in a world where I don't know if you can get the good without the bad.
You can't really, you know, hire the politician that has all the good stuff and no bad stuff.
It'd be great if you could.
So Trump has this mixed bag in which he gets people very worked up and makes them unhappy and causes, you know, civil distress at the very least.
That's real. I think if you're a Trump supporter, You should not discount that to zero, you know, in terms of how important it is.
It's a big deal. You know, the national mood and mind is quite affected by the things he does.
But if you were going to...
Here's the mental exercise that I ask people to do.
Imagine that everything that Trump said had come out of the mouth of Obama, or just a Democrat, but you know, pick Obama just because we all know him.
Suppose Obama had said that the immigration on our southern border is so bad that it's an invasion.
Suppose he'd said that.
Oh, that's right.
He did. Did anybody complain?
No. Because it came from Obama.
But when President Trump said there's an invasion, people said, well, keyword, invasion.
Must mean you're a racist.
If President Trump spoke of a rodent infestation in Baltimore, but let's say it was somebody else said it.
Let's say it was a famous civil rights hero.
Would that bother you? No.
Because when Representative Cummings used exactly the same word, speaking of exactly the same situation, nobody was bothered.
So we have all this evidence of Trump saying things that are sort of close to something that somebody else could have said, but if someone else had said it, you would have interpreted it differently.
Is that Trump's fault?
Is it Trump's fault that he uses the same language and talks a similar way, but it's continually taking out of context for political purposes?
A little bit. It's a little bit his fault, because he could choose different words, things that are harder to take out of context, but it would also make him look like every other politician.
And I don't think people want to that.
I think people said, here's a politician that looks like he's going to break some dishes, but when he's done, we'll get some stuff that other politicians couldn't get for us.
So when Trump drops a dish and breaks it, Do you say, we've got to get rid of this president?
Or do you say, no, that's what we signed up for.
We signed up for broken dishes because we wanted something bigger than broken dishes in return.
And most of his supporters would say he's delivering exactly that with lots of broken dishes, just like we expected.
All right, let's talk about Yang.
I praised Yang for being the only person that I could think of who hadn't grotesquely lied In the process so far.
But people pointed out to me that Yang recently got cornered into the question of whether Trump is a white supremacist, an actual white supremacist.
And Yang used weasel words and basically said yes.
You know, he tried to word it in a way that That made it depersonalized, but I think in the end he failed.
He did a really good job. I mean, he made a heck of a try to say, well, if somebody acts a certain way and talks a certain way, then, you know, people are going to take it a certain way, which is different from saying he's a white supremacist, right? He's just observing other people's reaction to Trump and describing it.
That's fair. All right, when Yang said, Well, you know, people are taking him that way.
That was a fair comment.
People are taking him that way.
Why Yang leaves out, I think disingenuously, is why.
Why we're taking him that way is because people like Yang go in public and say he's a white supremacist.
That's why people take him that way.
I don't believe that people would have reached that opinion on their own if the news has simply reported what's happening instead of what they imagine he's thinking.
So, yeah, we talked about Epstein.
For the people joining us live, I'm not going to circle back to Epstein, but you can see it in the replay.
So I would say that Yang has now lost his authenticity.
It was sort of the only thing good about his campaign.
It was really good. Authenticity is really good.
And it seemed to indicate some independence of thought, some originality, some competence, a lot of things we like.
So Yang has always been interesting.
I don't think he was complete enough to be a politician, because he sort of concentrated on his UBI thing.
But But joining the people who have to call the president a white supremacist, because apparently that's the new litmus test.
So you can't be the Democratic candidate unless you call him a white supremacist.
Now, a lot of people like Donnie Deutsch, let me just say it.
Donnie Deutsch, if I heard that Donnie Deutsch If Donnie Deutsch had died in a jail cell, I would think the same of him as I think of Epstein.
I'll just let that sit out there for a while.
If Donnie Deutsch died in a jail cell, he's not in jail, I don't think he's committed any crimes that I know of, but hypothetically, if he died in a jail cell, in whatever way, suicide or murder, I wouldn't feel bad.
Because in my mind, Donnie Deutsch and Epstein are the same guy.
In my mind. See what I'm doing here?
I'm doing what Donnie Deutsch is doing.
Donnie Deutsch said, hey, if you support the president, you must be a white supremacist.
That's probably...
I would say, I'm not going to say it's worse than serial pedophilia, because we consider that the worst of the worst.
That's sort of a 10 out of 10, right?
Serial pedophilia on the badness range.
It's a 10 out of 10.
Donnie Deutsch going on television and consistently saying that people who voted for Trump are white supremacists, It's a 10.
It's a 10 out of 10.
And so, my complete lack of sympathy for Epstein dying in his jail cell, I would share, because I think what Donnie Deutsch is doing is on the same level of pure evil.
Now, some people are going to say, hey, he's not pure evil, it's just what he believes.
He would like to help the country, etc.
Maybe. I suppose, you know, everybody who's a monster has a reason.
If you talk to Epstein, do you think he'd say, yeah, you got me?
If he were alive, do you think he'd say, yeah, you got me?
I'm a monster. I'm a monster.
Do you think Epstein would have said that?
No. He would have said, well, I was giving these girls money.
They didn't seem to mind.
Everybody wins. That's what he would have said, right?
Epstein would not have said, yeah, I'm a monster.
You got me. Likewise, Donnie Deutsch has a perfectly good explanation for why he's trying to create a race war in the United States.
Because he thinks it's true.
Now, if you ask Donnie Deutsch, do you believe in the fine people hoax, what do you think he'd say?
He'd say he believes it.
He is either suffering from TDS or lying.
We can't tell because we can't read his mind.
But in terms of the badness of what he's doing in public and on a regular basis, labeling 60 million people as white supremacists is just about as bad as you can get, 10 out of 10.
Now, I don't want anything bad to happen to Donny Deutsch in the same way that I don't want anything bad to happen to anybody.
But I'm just saying that on a moral level, he is similar to Epstein.
Let's talk about some other stuff.
I saw a story on CNN. I was watching the fake news on CNN. And I forget the details, but there's some...
I guess there's a mine that had been closed for environmental reasons.
And Trump met with the CEO, and now the mine is going to be opened.
And there's a risk to 80 miles of river that could be polluted and all the fish could die or whatever.
So CNN was presenting it as an environmental catastrophe and that there was a reason it was closed in the first place and now the Trump administration is opening it just for commerce and money and all the wrong reasons and it's going to destroy the environment.
So I'm watching this news and I'm saying to myself, wow, if any of that's true, that's pretty bad.
I wouldn't support The administration polluting 80 miles of river to open a mine.
I'm sure we don't need the mine that much.
Can't be that many jobs.
That's an environmental disaster.
So I was waiting for the other side of the story.
Yeah, Pebble Mine, that's right.
Pebble Mine, it's called.
And the other side of the story, I thought, was going to look something like this.
It never happened, so I don't know.
But I thought the other side of the story was going to be the company figured out a way to not pollute.
They have some new technology.
They're going to do something differently.
And maybe they promised the government that they would use their new technology and they would watch the river.
And if their new technology didn't work, they could detect it pretty quickly.
And then they would shut things off because it didn't work.
So, you know, you could do a little bit of pollution and say, oh, we thought there would be none, but there's a little bit.
Stop everything. So I was waiting for that side of the story.
I don't know that it would sound like that, but it feels like it would have been something along those lines, don't you think?
Do you think that when the president met with the CEO, the CEO said to the president, hey, you know, we were polluting like crazy.
We'd like to do that again.
Do you mind if we pollute like crazy?
We can create a thousand jobs, or whatever the number is.
Do you think the president said, huh...
Pollutes like crazy, destroys 80 miles of river, for sure, or at least a big risk, but 1,000 jobs out of 360 million people.
Totally, I'm in. I'm down.
Let's open that thing.
Do you think it went down like that?
Because that's sort of what CNN suggests.
It's the fakest of news.
Now, to be clear, if that's what actually happened, I don't support that.
I think you'd have to reject that pretty strongly.
But I don't know that it happened.
I don't know what happened, because the reporting was only one side of a story that has two sides.
What good was that?
All right. I'm amused by this litmus test.
Who was it? I forget who it was.
Was it Biden? People were yelling onto the stage that he has to...
Who was the candidate who was forced to answer the question whether President Trump was an actual white supremacist?
Let me back up a little bit here.
I'm amused that that's a litmus test and they're all going to have to answer that question because it should be the question that disqualifies you.
Oh, was it Delaney? It was Delaney.
So Delaney, I guess, is the one who was resisting the longest and using that kind of language.
Delaney has a big problem, which is his face.
He just doesn't have leadership face.
There's something goofy about his face.
As far as I can tell, he's very talented and reasonable.
So if you could take Delaney's set of talents and move them to a better face, You might have something.
Now, I would hate to be the guy who says we should judge people by their looks because I don't think we should.
We don't elect handsome or beautiful presidents.
We generally don't, right?
They're not good looking and generally tend to be older, etc.
Some are better than others.
Obama was good looking.
Bill Clinton was good looking-ish.
Kennedy was good-looking, but we don't elect him for that reason.
That said, it certainly matters.
The look has to be at least presidential and serious and all that, or the voters have a problem with it.
Yeah, goofy-looking, I think that can work in business as long as you're performing, but for politics, that's tough.
And I don't mean to be cruel.
He probably knows he's goofy-looking.
He probably knows it. And I say that as someone who's not attractive.
So when somebody like me says that someone else is not attractive, I'm talking about my people.
My people are the attractive men in the world.
So if I say another man is unattractive, I'm talking about my people.
So keep it in context.
The dumbest thing that the country is doing Is considering a civil trade war.
Literally a trade war in which Democrats will not buy from any company that has a Republican connection and vice versa.
Can you think of a worse idea?
Can you think of any worse idea than a domestic trade war?
And we're actually heading in that direction.
Now, I don't believe in the slippery slope, so I don't believe that it's actually going to go to that.
But we are perilously close to it.
And I thought to myself, well, thank you, Nancy, for saying that.
And I thought to myself, is there anybody in the country who's smart enough to know that you probably can win a trade war with another country?
But you really can't win one if it's internal, because it's your country.
If one side wins and one side loses, it's still all the same country.
There's no way that can be good as a civil war.
But I do think there's a way that you could convince another country to give you a better trade deal and a little bit of trade war might get you there.
Somebody says, such a moronic statement.
Well, must be a Democrat.
I'll get a block.
Carla, I don't know who you're talking about, but on this Periscope, and in the world of Scott, if you make a comment that is just a personal comment about somebody, I'm not interested.
So you can make your personal comments somewhere else.
But if you're talking about policy or ideas or thoughts that involves personalities, that's good.
Now even when I talk about somebody's appearance, again, I'm not trying to be unkind.
It's just an objective fact that people look differently and people react to that.
I want to introduce a phrase that I invented yesterday.
I call it your game path.
Game as in a video game.
Game path. And it involves the idea that we're a simulation and not an original species.
Most of you know the idea.
That it's very unlikely, well, let me back up.
The simulation theory says that we will eventually reach a point where we can create computer simulations of people who believe they are people and have full lives within computer software, but they will believe they're humans.
They'll look like humans, they'll act like humans, they'll believe they have free will, everything else.
And that it's very unlikely That we're a real species, because we know that once you can do that once, probably we'll do it a bunch of times.
And there could be a billion to one more artificial realities than there are original species, if there are any original species at all.
So simulation theory says we could be real, we could have evolved, or God could have put us there, or whatever your belief is.
We could be exactly what you see, and we're real.
Maybe. But it's a trillion to one against it.
So I take the odds of a trillion to one and say, okay, we're almost certainly a simulation.
If we were a simulation, how would you build it if you were the programmer?
If you were the programmer and you were building this simulation, I think you would give some characters special something.
Some of your characters would be background characters or NPCs.
They're not really thinking people, they're just background.
Others might be real people who put their personalities into an avatar.
And so you know how you meet some people and they seem extra alive?
Have you noticed that? Have you ever walked around the corner, looked in somebody's eyes that you'd never met before and knew they were important to your life?
I've had that experience. Most of you have.
Usually you end up marrying that person.
But there are some people who are just extra present.
So imagine that it's a simulation.
Some of the characters are based on real people or managed by real people or whatever.
And some are just background.
So that's the theory.
So what I'm introducing is what I call the game path.
And it assumes that each of us have a challenge.
Within the game that is the simulation.
And the reason I introduced this is, have you noticed that there's some problems that you have in your life that repeat beyond what could possibly be a coincidence?
Have you noticed that? That some of you will get the same type of problem one after another, but entire other fields of types of problems you won't get at all.
I'll give you an example.
I've only been to, I've been south of the border a few times.
I'm in Mexico right now, getting ready to leave.
The last time I was in Central America was Costa Rica.
And it was the worst trip of my life because on the last day before I had to fly, I got a severe bacterial infection or stomach flu or something.
And I had to fly back home sicker than I've ever been sick.
And so when I knew I was going to come here, I'm in Cabo, I said to myself, I really want to go.
There's only one thing I fear.
Which is getting a stomach flu the day before I travel.
It's the only thing I'm worried about.
It's the only thing.
Today I'm traveling.
Yesterday I had a severe stomach ache.
Yeah, I don't know if it was Montezuma's Revenge or food poisoning or what it was.
But I was really sick yesterday.
And I woke up this morning feeling a little bit better.
I think I can travel. But what are the odds?
Now, when you're at a resort, all the water is purified and you don't really have access to anything that should give you a stomach flu from drinking the water.
It's all a very protected little enclave.
We never left the confines of the purified water.
It's mostly bottled water, etc.
Yeah, somebody says, oh my god, you created it.
Maybe. I may have manifested it by thinking it too much.
Because what are the chances that the only thing I was worried about was exactly what happened?
What are the odds? The only thing I was worried about.
I wasn't worried about getting mugged.
I wasn't worried about the airplane going down.
I wasn't worried about anything.
Just that one thing.
And then it happened. It happened on the day that I didn't want it to happen.
If it happened on the first day, I'd say, well, sometimes you get sick when you travel, but I'm glad it was the first day.
Yeah. Somebody said, oh, Michelle's saying my husband got Montezuma's revenge in Cabo.
Well, Montezuma got me good.
So, there's that.
But I want you to keep this in mind when you observe your life.
Do you see that there are certain sets of circumstances that just over and over and over happen to you?
Beyond what chance would suggest, maybe you have a game path.
Maybe there's a specific challenge that your simulation that you elected or whoever programmed it elected for your character.
So maybe it's not a coincidence, but also maybe you're manifesting it.
So lots of possibilities.
I just want to throw that out there.
Now, one of the things I'd like to suggest is...
I believe that I am unusually free from, let's say, judgmentalism or bigotry because I believe in the simulation and because I don't believe in free will.
I think free will is an illusion.
So when I see people doing things that I wouldn't do and I don't like it, I don't say, I hate that person, you're a piece of crap.
I think, well, I wouldn't do that.
I'm glad I'm not in that situation.
I'm glad my brain is not organized in a way that I would have to do that thing this other person is doing.
So I tend not to judge people.
And it gets me in trouble.
Because I don't even judge Donnie Deutsch and Epstein.
What I've said is I don't have any empathy for them because, objectively speaking, what they've done is, you know, horrible for the world in a very similar way.
But I don't judge it because I think that they are also victims of having no free will.
They believe what they believe, they think they're right, and they don't know the difference, just like the rest of us, the world just trying to get by.
So I also have a thought that bigotry, at least ethnic, I guess both ethnic and gender bigotry don't have the same utility that they used to have.
If you imagine hundreds of years in the past, you didn't have any way to know much about another person.
So if somebody from another ethnicity walked up to you, you'd say, I don't have any way to check you out.
The one and only thing I know is what kind of person you are, and I've got some Some bias about people who look like you, so I'm going to apply that just for safety, just to be cautious.
But now we live in a world where all you need is somebody's name, and you can check their entire social media history.
You can check on people at a detailed level.
So you don't need prejudice anymore.
You don't need bigotry about individuals.
Because I have a life straw with me, but I didn't use it for everything.
So you don't need bigotry the way you maybe felt you needed it hundreds of years ago.
Because bigotry was a terrible tool for judging any individual.
It was very ineffective, but it was the best you had.
Now we have every other means of finding out about people.
We can hire them on trial basis.
It doesn't work out.
You make a change. So we have all kinds of different mechanisms now where we can judge individuals.
We just don't need to judge groups of people anymore.
What would be an exception to that rule?
Immigration from countries that do not have good records.
That would be an exception.
In that case, and you saw that with the Muslim ban, the administration's decision was to use Bigotry?
Is that the right word?
Certainly they were using pattern recognition and some common sense to say, here's a group of countries that we don't know what we're getting, because they don't have good records, we might not even be getting the citizen that we think we're getting.
You know, it might be a fake person, you just don't know.
So in the cases that are fortunately rare, where you can't determine anything about an individual for sure, Then some gross, very unpleasant decisions at least have utility.
You may still, because you're a good person, say, I'd rather take a little risk than to treat people like that.
That wouldn't be unreasonable.
I think reasonable people can disagree on that.
But let's just say that for most situations and most people, bigotry doesn't really, it's just outdated.
Because you can know as much as you want about an individual.
That's all you care about, right?
When you're hiring somebody, you're not hiring all the people who look like them.
You're just hiring that person.
When you're marrying somebody, you're not marrying all the people who look like that.
You're just marrying that one person.
So if you know about that one person, you're all set.
And I think that would be a useful way to see the world.
Somebody says, somebody on here says that third world countries have low IQ levels.
Irrelevant. That's my point.
Would it matter to you that the average of any group, no matter what group you're talking about, has higher or lower IQ? It wouldn't matter.
Because you're looking at individuals and we do have the ability to To judge whether individuals are the ones we want in the country, that they go to college, if we have merit-based immigration, we could just look at their record.
So you wouldn't have to guess about an individual based on the people who look like them.
That's just antiquated. We have better tools now.
Don't need to do it. Somebody says, yes, because low IQ equates to more violence.
Well, you just missed everything I just said.
If you know about individuals, then you can make decisions about individuals.
That's what the president wants to do.
But we don't live in a world where you have to make decisions based on groups.
It's antiquated. We have better tools.
Bigotry lost its utility.
And if you still think it has utility, that's sort of on you.
You know? That's sort of on you.
With the exception of countries that don't have records and you can't tell who the person is.
That's the special case.
All right. So, I posted a blog post today, actual writing.
I don't know how many blog posts I'm going to write.
I just did a few while I'm traveling.
This one is on how we're using word thinking to make decisions.
Somebody says, come on, Scott.
Was there a point there? Come on, Scott.
What's that mean? What countries don't have records?
Countries such as Syria don't have reliable records.
A lot of stuff that got destroyed in war.
So there aren't that many of them, but they exist.
Can I deprogram Donnie Deutsch?
I doubt it, because he's committed himself in public to a position.
And once people commit in public, it's pretty hard to change their minds.
Yeah, it looks like the traffic's pretty high today.
Okay.
Has there been someone in the past that does what you do, or are you unique, Scott?
Well, everybody's unique.
I'm not sure exactly what that question means.
If you mean, is there anybody who has intentionally tried to present a rational position of the world, surely such people must exist.
I can't think of one. Why did Rome fall?
Immigration, somebody says.
Is that why Rome fell? I don't know about that.
So have you noticed, this is the dog that doesn't bark.
So it's been national news that the Fine People hoax is raging again.
It's been in a whole bunch of publications.
And all the talk you've seen about it, all the news coverage, do you notice something missing?
What is missing from all the conversation about the fine people hoax?
What's missing?
Me. I am...
For most of the coverage, I think except for the coverage on the right, perhaps.
But when the left talks about the hoax, they don't put me in the story.
Now think about how much trouble I've caused on the fine people hoax.
I'm one of the three horsemen, right, with Steve Cortez and Joel Pollack.
The three of us have been out front Debunking this hoax.
So if you're telling a story about how this situation happened, how do you leave me out of the story?
How do you not invite me on your show to talk about it?
I'll tell you how. You look at what I wrote and you say to yourself, oh crap, we can't have him on the show.
I'm going to say something that's the most immodest thing you've ever heard.
Are you ready? I think you know me well enough by this point that it won't bother you.
Your opinion of me won't change, even though this is going to be unpleasant.
Get ready for it. Gird your loins, whatever that means.
Gird your loins? Why is that even a saying?
Here's what I'm going to say. I don't think there's anybody more persuasive than I am.
Certainly not on this topic.
Now, there are more persuasive politicians.
Trump would be one. But if you're just having a conversation and you're not trying to be the leader, which is a different type of persuasion, if you're just talking about a topic, you can't get much more persuasive than I am.
I think there's nobody who is willing to take the chance of putting me on the air because I would obliterate the fine people hoax, at least for some people.
Most people don't change their mind regardless of the evidence.
But I don't think it's a coincidence that nobody wants to put me on the air and that nobody wants to interview me.
Do you remember how many people wrote about me and contacted me when I had my little, what do you want to call it, my little public scandal a few weeks ago?
All of them. There was press all over the place that wanted to interview me, tried to reach me, tried to get a quote, and it's because I'm a minor celebrity and I said something provocative in public on a political topic.
It was political just because it was in the news.
That's the only reason. And because people associate me with saying good things about Trump.
So the politics was sort of accidentally associated with my thing.
But you know that in my entire famous life, since I've been known to the public, anytime I say something provocative, my phone starts ringing because people want to write that story about the minor celebrity who says things that other people don't think is true.
It's the story that news organizations like better than all other stories.
Did they contact me?
None. Zero.
Zero on the left. So I'm going to say that there was no media on the left who wanted to talk to me saying in public that one of the primary beliefs in this country isn't true and it's easy to prove.
Think about that. Nobody?
Doesn't that tell you that they know it's not true?
Doesn't it? Do you think that CNN believes That they could have me on the air and that wouldn't go poorly for them.
They know it would go poorly.
By the way, I'm not sure if I would say yes to any of those offers.
Because the problem with, actually, I know I wouldn't say yes.
So if a TV network said, I'd like to have you on, you know, our segment is four minutes to talk about your views, I wouldn't accept that.
Because in those contexts, the game is to run out the clock.
And then end with something that doesn't change anything.
So if I were to be interviewed on CNN, it would look like this.
Scott, tell us what you think.
Let me interrupt you.
And by the time I was done, I would have gotten 60% of my message out.
They would wrap it up with, well, we're not convinced, and then they'd go on.
So being on a time-limited format, Would be useless.
You can't really determine anything that way.
Likewise, agreeing to an interview in which somebody else paraphrases what I've said has no chance of being persuasive because the paraphraser would remove the persuasion because they don't want it to be persuasive.
So, I can't do a standard interview on this.
The only way I can do it is by writing my own blog, doing my own content, in whatever length it takes to tell the story, and then hope that that gets some play.
Alright, that's about all I have to say about today.
The Joe Rogan podcast.
Joe Rogan would be one of the few places that any idea would get a fair hearing.
Think about that.
If I said to you, what media outlet is likely to give somebody a fair hearing for, let's say, a non-standard opinion?
Not many. Joe Rogan is one of them.
And then name the second one.
Right? Who's the other one?
Well, there are lots of podcasts that could do it.
Plenty of podcasts, but you don't know of them.
They tend to be more obscure.
All right. Oh, Candace.
Yeah, Candace has a long-form show, but she's also associated with the political right, and that's the group that doesn't need to be convinced.
Yeah. Oh, Dave Rubin is a good example.
Dave Rubin, but now he's associated with the political right, whether he likes it or not.
So you're right. So if you were thinking of who could actually tell the story, I would say Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan would be the top of the list of people who could get that out there.
All right. Any questions?
Yeah, you know, this whole Clinton body count thing.
Eh. I would say, you know, I did the Sam Harris show and I did not think that I could be persuasive on that because the topic seemed to jump around a little bit.
There's a certain amount of jumping around you have to do for the benefit of the audience to keep it interesting.
So even in the long form, it's hard to make a point if other people are talking.
Breaking news, Russians killed Epstein.
So think about this. What are the biggest beliefs that the people on the left have held that are the most important beliefs?
They believed in Russia collusion, which has been debunked, meaning that they still think it happened.
They believed in the fine people hoax.
I mean, that really is the alpha hoax that makes them believe all the other ones that are just sort of, well, why do you use that word?
The other ones are so weak that by themselves they wouldn't have much meaning.
But once you have the fine people hoax, it gives people license to say, you know, when he said infestation, even though he was talking about rats, I know what he was thinking.
So if you kill the alpha hoax, the fine people hoax, the others just lose their power because they're all fueled by the same hoax.
Then what about climate change?
What's the biggest hoax about climate change?
Now, I'm not the person who's going to tell you that the scientists are wrong.
I'm not going to tell you that CO2 has nothing to do with warming.
I'm not going to tell you the Earth is not getting warmer.
I'm not a scientist, and I don't trust anybody who is on this topic, nor can I evaluate their work independently.
So I'm solidly in the camp of Sounds important, we should pay attention to it, but I don't know what to think because I'm not qualified.
No matter how much effort I put into it, and I put a lot of effort into it.
I spent a year tracking down left and right opinions on this to see if I could form an independent opinion and couldn't because both sides lack credibility and I can't judge them independently.
But here's something that I can judge because both sides agree.
And I've said this before, but it's worth repeating.
The side that thinks that climate change is cataclysmic has estimated that in economic terms it could take 10% off the GDP in, what, 70 years, I think.
Let's say that's true.
Let's say that worst case economic prediction is exactly accurate.
That's telling us it's no big deal.
Because a 10% reduction in what the GDP would have been in 70 years Remember, everything doubles every 10 years.
It's just the way stuff works.
Let me reverse that.
I was going to talk about something else, but let me just say that in 70 years, if at the end point of that 70 years our GDP was 10% less than we thought it could have been, you wouldn't even notice.
So in other words, the people who are most concerned about climate change, the people most incentivized to give you a scary story, Have put their best people on the case and come up with the scariest story that it'll be a 10% hit to GDP that we wouldn't even notice.
Because that hit is spread over 70 years.
It's not even like the hit comes on the 70th year, which maybe would count a little bit.
The 10% is spread over 70 years.
It's like, eh, a little bit this year.
Eh, a little bit this year.
You wouldn't notice any of it.
And that's the horror story.
So I would say that based on the climate scientists' consensus about the economic danger, and I think they all buy into those numbers, that that's shown as a hoax in terms of, not in terms of the science, because that part I can't evaluate, but a hoax in terms of how bad the problem is in the future.
Now, I haven't looked into this myself, but I understand that Michael Moore has come down on the side of green technology being a scam.
My understanding is that somebody he's closely associated with, must have been his director or producer for his earlier films, made his own film about green technology.
He went into it thinking that he was going to show that this is the way to go, green, green, green, and discovered that it's all a fraud.
That if you look at, say, electric cars, an electric car is a coal-powered car.
An electric car is a coal-powered car because the coal plants make the electricity, the electricity goes into the car.
It's a coal-powered car, but the public sees it as green technology.
Now, of course, if all the other sources of electricity changed, well, then it wouldn't be a coal-powered car, but nobody knows how to get there except for nuclear power, and that's apparently not on the green people's list.
So my understanding is that the film is going to come down hard on green technology being the way out.
Now, combine these two things.
Roger Moore, who has, you know, did I say Roger Moore?
What's his actual name?
Moore. Michael Moore.
Roger was in the title of one of his films.
So Michael Moore, I don't mean James Bond, who would be Roger Moore, but Michael Moore is credible.
He's credible on the left, and if he says something that the people on the right like to hear, well, then he's credible on that side.
So suddenly you have the most credible person you could imagine Who would be believed by both sides, which is very rare.
But let me pause to give Michael Moore a compliment.
I would say that I disagree with Roger Moore as much as I agree with him.
So I'm not on his team, but I'm not against everything he says.
It must be called out that he saw Trump coming before anybody on the left did.
He understood the population, he understood the voters, and he understood Trump as a showman because Michael Moore is a showman.
I think he got Trump the way other people didn't.
And so I give him credit.
And if it's true, I'm still waiting for some verification, but if it's true that Michael Moore has looked at the data and made a U-turn on green energy, I think you have to respect that.
You've got to respect that.
So here's some respect for Michael Moore that you probably didn't expect from me.
Now, is that enough?
If you take Michael Moore's debunking of the green energy market, if you add that to the fact that the people who are promoting Climate change risk, their own numbers disprove their major theme that is cataclysmic.
Indeed, their own numbers show we wouldn't even notice.
Is that enough to say that climate change is a hoax, even if it's true that CO2 is causing warming, and even if it's true, we wish it weren't?
I think yes.
I think yes.
So it seems to me that The three pillars of the Democrats' belief, they came down to three hoaxes.
There's the Russia collusion hoax, the fine people hoax that says we have a white supremacist president, and then the climate change hoax.
And here again, I'm only talking about the economic predictions.
Being the hoax part because their own numbers show that it's no big deal.
You can confirm that by the way.
Go look at the United Nations most recent dependable numbers according to them and they'll tell you it's a 10% hit in 70 years.
Literally wouldn't notice.
Now there will be a lot of changes over 70 years but change is inevitable.
So think about that.
Is there anything like that on the Republican side?
There might be. Maybe if I thought about it for a few minutes, I could come up with the three big hoaxes that drive the Republican Party.
Well, actually, it isn't too hard.
One of the hoaxes is that there's no way we can get to universal health care.
I don't think that's true.
I think it's true that nobody has, like, the plan that could work, but we're a pretty resourceful place.
You know, if you tell me here's the challenge, you know, have universal health care for everybody in the United States, or insurance anyway.
Could we get there? I think we could.
I don't think we can get there just by raising taxes.
But I think we could get there.
So, I don't know how long it would take.
I mean, it might take 20 years, but I think we could get there.
All right. How can we form public policy with so many hoaxes Good question.
Well, the way we do it is poorly.
That's what we've seen so far.
And that's why I always suggest, until you're sick of hearing it, I suggest that we always favor plans that we can test.
If you can test it in a small way that doesn't hurt too much, then that's a good plan.
A good plan is one you can test small.
Anything else is risky.
Might turn out your way, might not turn out your way, but if you can't test this small, it's risky.
Have you ever seen a child scream in terror when someone tries to remove a Band-Aid?
Okay, I don't know the context of that.
Oh yeah, I heard Rush Limbaugh talking about Joel Pollack Challenging Biden in Iowa.
And it's good that Rush is on the same page.
Now, I can tell you that for most of my early life, Rush Limbaugh seemed too sort of Republican and he wasn't really my cup of tea, but I still listen to his show a lot.
Because he's really good at what he does.
Rush Limbaugh, no matter what you think of his politics, and I understand half the country despises his politics, and maybe that makes him dislike him too, but you can't avoid the fact that, man, he's good at what he does.
Same with Hannity. Hannity, you can dislike him all you want, but man, is he good at what he does.
They both have these serious talent stacks that just work perfectly.
All right. He's a good speaker.
You don't watch Hannity, do you?
Somebody asked. I watch all of the major news programs on the major networks, CNN and Fox News, so I watch them all.
Rush considers himself an entertainer.
I'm glad you said that, because that was the first time I understood Who Rush was.
Because I think years ago people were saying, hey, you're so good, why don't you run for office?
Because I think he could have won, don't you think?
If Rush Limbaugh had run for office, maybe not now, but there was probably a time he could have run for office, he probably would have won.
He was good. But he said, no, I'm not a politician, I'm an entertainer.
And then I understood it all.
He's an entertainer. Well, of course I knew that, but knowing that he labeled himself an entertainer kind of put it in a nice package.
He's a great entertainer, even if you don't like his content.
Even if you don't like his political opinions, he's a great entertainer.
All right. Did I see Kamala's new bus?
I think that's a fake video.
There's a... There's a video of Kamala coming out of some office and getting all excited, and then it switches to a picture of a police bus, and it suggests that it's her new bus with police logos on it.
I think it's just a fake video.
I would not assume that was real.
I'm sure it's a fake video.
We talked about Yang already.
Alright, I think that's about all we've got and I'm going to talk to you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection