Episode 1043 Scott Adams: Secondary Simultaneous Sip, This Time With Better Anger Management
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
I endorse Joe Biden...for my personal safety
Democrat party tweets that Mount Rushmore is racist
The government is whomever uses the most force
Capitalism has flaws...but it's better than the alternatives
Tik Tok's future
Entire Daily Beast story hit piece on Van Jones was made up
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Because if you tried to join me in the first two failed attempts at the simultaneous hip and coffee with Scott Adams, you know it didn't go well.
I'll explain that.
But some of you may be prepared for the simultaneous sip.
Maybe you already had it. Maybe you'd like to do another one.
But it happens right now, and all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a challenger stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Yes, I'm doing this for all of the OCD people who are watching this.
I include myself in that category in this context.
Sometimes you just need your routines, and I know you wouldn't feel the same.
If I didn't come back and finish this.
And so, I invite you to enjoy the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
The second simultaneous sip may be the first for you.
Go. So, here's a little lesson in anger management.
I aborted my first couple attempts there.
Well, actually the second attempt because my anger overwhelmed me.
Now, what I was angry at, you have no idea because it wouldn't be obvious from what you were watching.
So I wasn't angry that my technology wasn't working because I had a guest on.
I was angry at myself because I have this problem with Calendars.
And when I say I have a problem with calendars, I mean it's one of the biggest problems in my life.
Literally. And I would love to know if there's anybody else in the world who has this problem.
And in general, I have a problem with time.
If you give me your phone number out loud, and you say blah blah blah blah blah, I can hear the numbers, but I don't have a sense of what order they came in, if you say it quickly.
So I've always had sort of an audio, let's say, issue with time.
I hear things, but out of order.
And likewise, when I read, somebody noticed once that I don't read sentences necessarily from left to right.
Which is true. I kind of look at them left to right, right to left, middle, that word.
Because things arrive, and then I just reorganize them into what should have been the order they should have been.
So if that sounds like dyslexia, that's what I call it sometimes.
But it applies to all things calendars.
And I've got this weird thing where I can look at a calendar...
For my day. It'll be just a square box for the day.
And there'll be nothing written in there.
No appointments whatsoever.
And I'll say, ah, I've got nothing on my calendar.
And then somebody will say, like today, hey, what about this appointment?
Where are you? Or why aren't you on this phone call?
And I'll think, I just looked at the calendar.
There's nothing on my calendar.
And then I'll pick up the calendar and I'll look at it and there it is.
It will just be there when it so clearly wasn't there the last time I looked.
And sometimes it might be because my calendar isn't syncing.
Sometimes I'm crazy.
Sometimes I have a false memory of looking.
I don't know. Maybe it's some variety of things.
But it is so consistent that it's like a glitch in the matrix.
You know, it's like my simulation isn't working.
One of my main jobs Every time I make a comic, a Dilbert comic, I have to put the date in it.
So I have to figure out what date it's going to run in the future, and then write down the correct date.
How often do you think I can look at when my comic is due, I mean, it's just, there's a list that says it's due on this date, and then just write the date of the comic.
Pretty easy, right? Here's the date, and just write it down.
How often do you think I do that wrong after 30 years of practicing every day?
About 80% of the time, wrong.
About 80% of the time, I can't write down a date or look at it and look at the right day of the week and translate it into my head to what I need.
So I'd be really interested if anybody has a calendar-specific problem that doesn't seem to be affecting any other part of your life.
Because I can do pretty much any other complicated task effortlessly.
Just effortlessly.
And somebody's saying excessive weed.
Now, I would say the same thing, except that it's always been the case.
So it's not something that happened when I discovered marijuana in college.
It was a continuous lifetime thing.
Anyway, that has nothing to do with anything.
Let's talk about the news. So the story about Trump and whether or not he was briefed on the Russian bounty story, that they were putting a bounty on Afghans killing American soldiers.
And here's the thing.
This story was so important that it's the national headline, and everybody agrees, by God, if this is true, it's a gigantic thing.
Right? Everybody agrees that.
There's nobody who's saying, no, no, no.
That wouldn't be a big deal.
Is there anybody who says that?
Nobody. But yet, it's such a big deal that the briefers never thought to mention it to the president.
Apparently the claim is that it's in the briefings, but so buried in so many briefings that it took a while to even find out it existed.
So, what exactly Is going on that we think this is a really big story, but the people who briefed the president didn't think to mention it out loud, knowing that he doesn't read the detailed reports.
He would depend on them to tell him what's important.
And that never came up.
That never came up, right?
There's something wrong.
Now, could it be That the reason it didn't rise to that level of importance with the people who actually understand how the world works, the people briefing the president, could it be that this is fairly routine?
Do you know what I mean?
How unordinary is it for some country to be paying the bad guys In some other group to kill the people that you want to influence in this group.
How unordinary is that?
Because it might be just so routine and so ever-present, it's entirely possible that the people briefing the president, it just didn't seem like it was a top ten concern.
Because it doesn't matter why somebody's trying to kill you, If you're in Afghanistan and you're in the military, you're kind of looking for people to try to kill you all the time anyway.
Like, do they need a reason?
Does anybody think...
Who thinks that you have to be bribed if you're an Afghan fighter?
Who thinks you have to be bribed to kill Americans?
Well, I wasn't thinking of killing Americans, but now that you've given me all these...
Excellent Russian Rupels, or whatever they are.
Now I'm thinking of it suddenly.
Maybe. So, CNN has trotted Carl Bernstein out again to say crazy stuff, you know, mind-reading stuff, like, Trump was seeking Putin's approval.
Trump is always seeking Putin's approval.
Why is Trump always seeking Putin's approval?
To which I say, uh, isn't that like reading his mind?
We know what Trump does, I mean the things we can observe.
We know, for example, that he has been soft on Putin in public.
Other times he's been, you know, quite hard in terms of sanctions and whatnot.
So we see what he does, but...
To then translate that into he's seeking Putin's approval.
And I think, how dumb are CNN viewers that they think they need to turn on the TV to see Carl Bernstein, the worse than Watergate guy, comment on his mind-reading skills that have been wrong every time so far.
It's just weird that this is even on television and that it works.
Like, apparently it works well enough that they bring him back.
He must be popular to their audience.
But, of course, the thing I always tease them about is that you only bring Carl Bernstein on if the whole point of it is to get him to say, whatever you're talking about is worse than Watergate.
It's like the whole game.
Because it's not like he's the natural person that you would be inviting on for any other reason.
If he didn't have the ability to say, eh, it's worse than Watergate, if you took that away from him, he would never be on TV. So it's obvious that that's the driving thing.
Carl, do some articles on this, and we'll give it about three interviews.
About the third time, he hit us.
Hit us with a worse than Watergate.
That's going to be the highlight clip.
All right. So, I told you in my aborted periscope that I've decided to endorse Joe Biden, but only to protect myself from racist Democrats.
We'll talk about racist Democrats in a moment, a little bit more.
You may recognize this maneuver from 2016 when I said that I was going to endorse Hillary Clinton but only for my safety.
I was completely serious, meaning that it actually kept me safe.
I was able to say, hey, I endorsed Hillary.
What are you coming after me for?
It's kind of confusing.
So I am going to literally endorse Joe Biden I don't expect this will have any influence on anybody's votes.
Why does anybody care what anybody else endorses anyway?
Why is that even a thing?
And you know I don't vote.
I'm not a member of any political party.
Don't plan to be. And I don't plan to vote because it biases me.
But if it makes me safer during this violent revolution that we seem to be seeing here, I endorse Joe Biden.
So let me just run this by you.
Angry mob comes to my house and I say, why are you here bothering me?
I endorse Joe Biden.
And they say, did you?
I don't think you did. You're always saying good things about Trump.
I said, check my Twitter.
There it is. Boom.
Boom. Somebody says, COWARD, in all caps.
You know, there's something my mother taught me, which is there was a, it's an old saying, you know, there's a fine line between bravery and stupidity.
I would rather be smart and alive than very brave and stupid and dumb, you know, and dead.
So we all get to choose.
Alright, so the Democratic Party tweeted that Mount Rushmore was a symbol of white supremacy.
And here's the thing. Are they wrong?
Right? I mean, George Washington, you know, you may love your George Washington and you want to keep your Your dollar bills and your quarters and your Washington, D.C. and all that.
I certainly understand that.
But it's hard to escape the fact that you own slaves.
It's just a fact.
I can criticize a lot of things, but I can't really criticize someone who doesn't want to be surrounded by Your reminders of slavery.
It's not the most unreasonable thing, even though it's terribly impractical to change things and it makes people upset.
At the same time, you know, there aren't that many cases where you can so easily see the other side.
You know, this is one where you can say to yourself, oh, I totally get.
White people say that's too far.
George Washington's special.
Don't go that far. It's complicated.
People weren't perfect back then.
It has to be viewed through the lens of history.
I totally get that. That's a completely reasonable argument.
I don't disagree with it a bit.
But I completely agree with the people who say, you know, I don't think you'd like this, because I wouldn't.
So I can definitely see both sides.
So I think that's just a question of power.
Wherever the power is exerted, it will determine the outcome.
Now, speaking of power, let's talk about the thing that everybody's thinking, but you don't want to say it out loud and get banned from all platforms, I guess.
Which is, what are the odds this turns into an actual shooting revolution?
Because the interesting thing is that the protesters are quite brilliantly avoiding gunfire, except at each other.
So the only people being shot by protesters are other protesters, apparently.
Now, that is surprisingly good discipline, don't you think?
I mean, it's sort of scary how good the discipline is.
And the reason makes sense.
Because as long as they have numbers but they don't use guns, the other side is going to have trouble using guns against them because it would just increase their numbers.
So they have sort of this checkmate kind of thing where if it's just lots of humans with maybe some clubs now and then and some dirty tricks but no guns, It's just going to be hard to control them if your only tool is guns, because shooting them would make them stronger.
It would boost their argument.
But on the other hand, it has always been true, and probably always will be true, that the government is whoever uses the most force.
So if the government in name, the one that you think of as the government now, is unwilling or unable to use the most force, then whoever is willing to use the most force becomes the government.
So right now, the way they use crowds against smaller numbers of armed people who won't use their weapons, what would stop them?
What would be the thing that stops them?
Because it's working, right?
And people keep doing what works.
Well, the only thing that will stop them is force.
It would have to be a force that is violent.
Again, not recommending.
I'm not saying anybody should do anything violent.
I never recommend that.
What we're doing is sort of thinking through what is the logical ramifications of Of what you're seeing, right?
So it's more just a prediction.
So things, you know, I always say there's no such thing as a slippery slope, because it can't slip forever.
And, you know, if we rethought how we treated George Washington, and that ended up being, you know, sort of where the line got drawn, in retrospect, you look at it and say, well, you know, something stopped it.
But the only thing that's going to stop it That I can imagine.
Because they're not looking for concessions, right?
If the protesters were looking for something that they could get, you know, an actual specific deliverable, and then you could give it to them, you'd say, oh, well, it's like a strike by a union.
As soon as they get what they want, or the best that they can get, then they go back to work.
But these protesters are not like a union strike.
There's not really a specific thing they want except more, and more is not something you can satisfy, you know, because you can't just give more if the response is more and more.
So there's no way to negotiate an end to something that isn't a negotiation and can't be by its nature.
It's just a It's basically a power move.
And the only thing that will stop it is violence.
So if there is none, and again, I'm not suggesting there should be, but it will just sweep through the country and become the law of the land, would obviously destroy the country because the main difference between the left and the right is an understanding of incentives and how to build a system Republicans are good at building systems that are a little bit cruel by objective standards,
which is, is capitalism cruel?
Yeah, yeah.
It leaves people behind.
But it works better than other systems.
That's the only thing you can say about it.
As compared to the alternatives, It's way better.
It's not even close.
But it has lots of flaws, of course.
Anyway, so that's the big difference is that there isn't any way that the left's view of how the world should run could actually work.
And that's one of the reasons that I am non-jokingly in favor of letting the chop-occupied zone Let it run out a little bit.
Let it play out.
Now you say to me, but Scott, people are being killed there.
We've had several shootings and murders in that area.
But it's only a few.
I know that sounds cold, but it's an area that has a few murders every year.
This is more than normal.
But what would be the alternative?
What's the alternative? If there's no way to get them out without force, then leaving them there and having them basically discover that they would like a better system might be the least damaging way to game this out in the long run for the least loss of life.
So it might be that they just need to have enough of a bad experience, which would include death, But it's not even the number of people getting shot or killed that would make the big difference.
Imagine living in this zone where you see people walking by open carry.
You know, they've actually got guns.
You know that there was a shooting the other night, and you know that you've kicked out the police.
And you live there.
So what if you're, especially if you're a woman, You've got a little extra risk if you're a woman.
So what are they thinking?
What are the women in CHOP thinking when they see that it has become the law of whoever has a gun or whoever decides to be the most violent?
So it seems to me that letting it run a little bit may, if you were to fast forward into the future and say to yourself, How is this going to look two years from now when we're looking back?
At the moment, Republicans are saying some version of President Trump is not showing enough force, not showing enough leadership.
He's sort of standing back and letting the mayors handle things.
That may turn out to look brilliant.
Somebody says I have a blind spot about this.
I think it's about the Marxist plan to take over the world.
So I don't have a blind spot about that.
In fact, everything I've said is compatible with that.
But I think that's what you're talking about.
And you also have to factor in the odds that there's a foreign influence over the protesters.
Now, the odds that there's attempted foreign influence is 100%.
The odds that it is successful and that it's a variable that matters, let's say that Russia or China or anybody else, Great Britain, is it possible and could they do it easily?
The answer is yeah. It's possible, they can do it easily, and they have motivation to destabilize, at least in the case of Russia and China.
All right, so I laid a little trap on Twitter that finally sprung, and it goes like this.
I made three claims in a conversation in which a lot of Hollywood artists were involved.
Now, as you know, artists are my natural enemies.
So whenever I say anything on Twitter that gets the attention of other writers, authors, artists, musicians, they all attack, but they're always hilarious in their attacks because they can't even really follow the point, usually, and their attacks are just completely irrational, which is completely different from when a lawyer or an engineer usually comes after me.
You know, those are more rational attacks.
They're either right or wrong, I agree or I don't.
But when the artists come after me it's just sort of crazy nonsense and it's more fun to do that.
But anyway, I used a technique that I've written about in which I said three things.
Two of them are easily checked and I don't think, you know, I wouldn't get as much pushback from.
But the third one Set people's hair on fire because it's a little ambiguous.
Now, when I say it's a little ambiguous, I mean reasonable people could look at the same information and say to themselves, I totally disagree with how you're interpreting that.
Now, when you can create a situation like that, where there's a difference in how people interpret the same data, and it's something that matters, that's a good fight.
So if you're trying to draw attention to something, Have I taught you that doing something that's a little bit wrong, but it's close to something that's right, is where you get all the attention.
Simply making a claim that's true or false doesn't get the same attention as something that's just a little bit wrong and, darn it, you should have known it.
How can I fix this?
Can't I correct this for you?
You fool! How could you have made this mistake?
So here are the claims I made.
It was in a thread about some discrimination against African Americans in Hollywood, which I'm sure exists, of course.
I wouldn't doubt that. Because it exists everywhere.
So I just added context.
Now, where do you see the breadth of this play here?
You might appreciate the complexity of it.
All right. So I said that I lost two jobs in corporate America for being white and male.
You've heard those stories.
And those are true because they told me directly to my face, you cannot be promoted because you're white and male.
So I left both of those positions eventually because I had to.
I couldn't be promoted. But then I made a third claim that's a little sketchier Now here's the part that's the fun part.
Of course I know it's sketchy.
That's why I did it.
So I included a third part because it draws attention to the other two.
So that's the play.
So here's what I claimed.
And by the way, this claim is as good as a lot of other claims that people would consider legitimate.
Which is what makes it sort of a good prank.
That it falls into that category of, well, Maybe.
And so I claimed that I lost the Dilbert TV show that ran on UPN because I'm a white creator with a white product.
And the context is that UPN decided to do a focus on African American audience right after my first season in which the Dilbert TV show had good enough ratings and You know, within the UPN universe, they had good enough ratings to be renewed.
Now, that's pretty good.
But, you know, I don't know what percentage of shows ever get renewed after the first season.
You know, it's not terrific, whatever that number is.
So just to get renewed, it's a pretty big deal.
Now, in the animation world, it's a much bigger deal.
Because here's the thing.
With a live action, you can adjust as you go, because you see what you're getting while you're getting it.
In other words, you can have your actors do a run-through of the script.
If it's not funny, you change a few lines, and by the time it gets on television, you've really refined it in real time.
But, if you're making animation, you write it, you add the voices, it gets sent off to, I think, South Korea at the time, Animation happens and you don't see it again for months.
And the only thing you can do for the most part is cut extra stuff to get it down to size.
But you can't really manipulate it after it comes back.
So unlike live action, you've got a six month wait before you can make your first adjustment.
And we did make adjustments.
So we'd get it back and we'd think, oh wow, I was sure this would work.
Because it looked good on paper, but it didn't work once it got to the screen.
So I'd say, alright, I'll do less of that.
But this thing I didn't think would work.
It worked really well, so we'll do more of that kind of thing.
So by the second season, now both of these were half seasons, but that's a detail you don't need.
So by the second season...
We had corrected all the things that weren't good in the first season, so the second season was much better.
Alright, so here's the setup.
First season, good enough ratings to be renewed.
But the content, I would say, was just, alright, it was pretty good.
But the second season was actually quite good.
And in the world of animation, that demonstrates, you know, you probably have a pretty big hit on your hand.
But that's the time that they decided to be the African-American network.
And we lost our time slot because it wasn't an administrative communication error, as I was told.
Well, I think there was some of that involved.
But don't you imagine that Dilbert would be the show that would lose its time slot because that's how you kill a show.
You move its time slot.
It's well known in TV world that if you move something's time slot, the ratings plummet.
It happens pretty much every time unless you're moving it to like a premium slot.
Then it could go up. So the ratings plunged because the time slot was moved at the same time they were considering being an African-American network in which Dilbert would obviously not be the right product.
So, was racism involved?
Hard to say, isn't it?
Hard to say.
And I wouldn't even make the claim, except I know it lights people's hair on fire, and it's very much of the type that you hear all the time.
How often have you heard someone else make a claim, not me, but someone else make a claim of discrimination, and you listen to the story and you say to yourself, Maybe.
You know, it could be.
But you know what else it could be?
You know what else it could be?
Could be you're not good at your job.
So what did people say to me when I made that claim?
The writers and the artists went crazy and they said, no, it's because you weren't good.
It's because the show wasn't good.
I said, look at your ratings in the final year, which of course is my point too.
Once they move the time slot, the ratings go down.
So of course it gets canceled.
It got canceled for low ratings, but it had low ratings because the time slot was moved.
Why was the time slot moved?
Well, I can think of one reason.
It would have made sense in their strategy, which was stated to be an African-American programming network.
So, now that I've got people's hair on fire for this sketchy claim that of course I can't prove It's exactly like all the other things that can't be proved to my ears.
So if you'd like to know how it sounds to me when I hear somebody make a claim, I just taught you.
That's how it sounds.
It sounds like, I don't know, Scott.
I think maybe your show wasn't good.
Maybe consider that.
That's exactly what it sounds when I hear other people's complaints.
And let me be perfectly clear.
It doesn't mean your complaints are wrong.
It doesn't mean your complaints are wrong.
Because I don't know if mine was right or wrong.
I actually don't know.
Can I prove that I was disadvantaged in any way?
I can't, really.
So if somebody says, Skye, you can't prove that, I have to say, Hey, guess what?
That's the fucking point.
That's the fucking point.
Now, let's get to the fun part.
This allowed me to draw a lot of fire.
What happens when somebody who is a trained persuader draws energy to themselves even when it's negative?
What happens when you draw negative energy to yourself?
Well, You could be like Joe Rogan, who draws both positive and negative energy, and he just made a $100 million deal with Spotify.
So that's what he did with negative energy.
You could be like candidate Trump, who turned negative energy into the presidency of the United States.
You could do that.
Or you could do what I did, and that was to set a trap for Ida Bay-Wells.
She's been covering race for the 1619 Project.
She calls herself the Beyonce of journalism.
This is just in her profile.
And she's the co-founder of something, the 1619 Project, I guess.
So she writes for the New York Times Magazine, so she's involved with writing about race and racism.
And she replies to me...
What was her first reply?
You're absolutely right.
That is why white men are totally underrepresented in supervisory positions, high-paying jobs, corporate management.
I mean, they're practically unicorns.
Now, was there anything I said that suggested that I believed that senior management was diverse?
100% of what I said agreed with her comment, which was there was no diversity.
There's not much diversity in Hollywood, right?
That was the whole reason that UPN thought, well, let's be an African-American network.
The whole point was they thought it was an under-filled category.
So everything she's saying is what I say.
In fact, that's why I lost my two corporate careers.
I lost them because there were so many white men in senior management that they said, hey, too many.
We've got to hold off.
So that's why I lost my banking and my telecommunication jobs.
But the other thing that everybody accused me of was asking for pity and running a pity party.
To which I say, I've never asked for pity.
Have you ever heard me ask for sympathy?
I'm just telling you my story.
But, are you waiting for the good part?
Here's the good part.
I tweeted Ida Baywell's comment, her first comment, I think that was her second comment actually.
And I pinned it to my profile and I asked people to say if they had a similar experience of being discriminated against because they were white and male.
Do you think anybody had any stories?
Let me see how many we've got so far.
Let's see...
And this was...
The culmination of the whole point.
So there are about 1,600 comments.
And I'll just scroll down, catch somebody in the middle.
So these are people who said they were white men who were discriminated against and lost a job for it.
Almost all of them say that they were told directly.
Right? So almost all of these were told directly.
Let's see. Yep, it happened to me.
Yeah, when I was a state employee.
Blah, blah, blah. I have all these rejections saying the same thing.
Exactly the same thing happened to my dad.
Blah, blah, blah. As a police department.
I once applied for a job.
Blah, blah, blah. Wrong demographic.
Same here. Blah, blah, blah.
I was passed over for less experience.
Blah, blah, blah. So, Just on my little, yeah, you can see in the comments.
So here's the red pill of all red pills.
Are you ready for it? It's the red pill of red pills.
And by the way, what I'm going to say next, I couldn't say until I had set up this chain of events so that I could post this tweet in context.
So I had a contact so I could tweet it and say, hey, anybody have the same experience?
And I had to create a whole series of events just to be free to say that because I don't have freedom of speech the way other people do.
And now I can say this.
It's one of the biggest discriminations in the world against white men.
But the trick that is being played on us is that if you lost a job because you're a white man, well, fuck you because there are rich men that are not you.
You understand that reasoning, right?
You were passed over for a job, so your life was impacted by a racist decision.
They were trying to fix a past injustice.
We all get that. In fact, I agree with some reverse discrimination.
I'm not even opposed to it.
I'm just saying it exists, and it's way bigger than you think it is.
The fact is that white people have not been allowed to complain.
But here's what you got wrong.
Once things got to the point where George Washington is being torn down and Mount Rushmore is being threatened, now it is no longer a power imbalance where if you're a white male, you just couldn't talk because you were considered part of the elite and you didn't have free speech.
But as your power in society subsides, and it's happening in real time right now, The power of being a white male in the United States, would anybody argue, is at least heading in the direction of lower.
So whatever you thought it was before, it's certainly going lower.
So that frees up some free speech.
Because whoever is the most downtrodden in our society gets the most free speech.
The president, the most powerful, he has to be the most careful.
Or she has to be the most careful about how they talk.
But if you were, let's say, a black man in America, you can kind of say anything, right?
You can kind of say anything, because traditionally you've got so much working against you that people will say, yeah, okay.
But the more presumed or actual power you have, the less free speech you have.
It just works that way.
So I can say now something I couldn't say before, which is that although I'm not personally complaining, it was a series of events which led me, because I had enough options, to succeed in a better way than working in a cubicle.
So for me, it worked out great in the long run, right?
I'm not sure it works out great for everybody else.
But what I would like to suggest is that it is super racist to overlook all of the white men and others, not just white men, but a number of the examples were Asian Americans and women who were having the same experience.
So it wasn't just white men.
But there's a massive amount Of serious, direct discrimination going on.
And the reasoning given for it is that you have to pay for the sins of some strangers who have also white skin, which is the most super racist thing you've ever heard in your life.
Super racist.
But we can say that now.
Couldn't really say that before.
Alright, so that was the whole point of that.
And I felt bad because there were actually some well-intentioned people who were trying to figure out if my example was real or not.
And I felt bad because I was kind of pranking, you know, pranking people with that third example.
But the third example was to draw attention to the other two.
The third example might be true as well.
I just don't know. I don't know, but I know that it got people's hair on fire.
That's what I wanted. Here's an interesting factoid.
The Iranian budget has an income for the government, so this is what the government has to spend.
Oil revenue and tax income combined, $57 billion.
So that's the annual amount that Iran has to spend, $57 billion.
Their budget is $480 billion.
And the problem, of course, is that oil prices are low, but also that Their economy suffers from all the sanctions.
So how long can Iran just continue as a country if they're making $57 billion a year by spending $480 billion?
And I have to think that they're going to prune back their support of adventurous terrorism just because they can't afford it.
So is the president's plan totally working?
Because it sort of looks like it is.
It sort of looks like squeezing around is totally working.
I don't know.
Let's see.
I'm sure I had a few other things on here.
So TikTok just got banned in India.
Yeah.
Do you know how big a deal that is?
So TikTok was banned in India along with, I don't know, 50 other apps that had a Chinese connection because it allowed China to gather data, I think, and spy on people and God knows what else.
So how long do you think TikTok is going to last in the United States?
TikTok. I said TikTok again.
TikTok. How long do you think TikTok...
is going to last and still be legal to use in the United States.
I don't think long.
Now here's the most interesting thing that came out of that.
So Balaji Srinivasan and Naval Ravikant.
If you don't know those two names, then you don't know anything about Silicon Valley.
But I just mentioned two of the smartest, most successful people in Silicon Valley.
And they said they're open to looking at business plans, investments, for people who make a competitor, an American version of a competitor, to these Chinese apps.
So, goodbye Chinese apps.
So, no matter whether or not the government bans the Chinese apps, I think that's just a guarantee.
I can't imagine that's not in the pipeline, and I can't imagine it's not going to happen soon.
So that's probably going to happen.
And it looks like the smartest people in Silicon Valley just put the green light on business plans for competitors.
So let's watch the smartest people in America just take that off the table.
Just take those apps just right out of the game.
Now, it's not going to happen right away, and it probably does require that the government ban the ones that are coming from China.
But capitalism, it's going to do its thing.
So Washington Post global opinion senator Karen Attia.
So something she said recently was, quote, in a tweet, I guess.
I think she took it out.
But the tweet said, White women are lucky that we are just calling them Karens and not calling for revenge in a since-deleted tweet.
Now, imagine if you were not a black woman who's an opinion editor at the Washington Post.
Who else could say that and still keep their job?
I mean, she deleted the tweet, but I can't imagine a white person being able to say that and keep their job.
So keep an eye on that.
So that's a little freedom of speech that some people have that not everybody has.
So I was complaining about the treatment that the Daily Beast gave to Van Jones.
And I was saying that, so their claim was that he had advised the White House on the police reform executive order, And then he had said good things about it on TV without disclosing that he had advised them on it.
So I had said, how disgusting of the Daily Beast.
People don't brag about advising the White House.
It's just not done.
And if he liked the outcome, well, just why not?
He liked the outcome.
What's he going to do? Say he doesn't like the outcome when he likes the outcome?
So I was saying it was just a hit piece over nothing.
But then Van Jones clarified that That he had nothing to do with the executive order.
Apparently they reported they saw him going to the White House.
He's been nowhere near even Washington, D.C. The entire story was just made up.
The entire story was just made up.
Can you freaking believe that?
From the Daily Beast.
They just picked a guy to do a hit piece on and literally just made up stuff and then wrote an article on the stuff they made up.
Doesn't that just make your head spin?
And that the Daily Beast is still in business.
People read it and they think they're getting news and stuff.
They think that there's something real in it.
It's kind of mind-boggling.
Anyway. So, that's what that's all about.
Yeah, somebody in the comments is making me laugh.
Speaking of the Steele dossier, let me ask you this.
So this is, we're in the second cycle of, or is it the third, if you count Ukraine indirectly, of Russia being pulled into American politics.
Who has an interest in pulling Russia into American politics?
Who has that interest?
Now, you're saying to yourself, well, obviously, the Democrats.
The Democrats have an interest because it works pretty well.
Gets their base fired up, throw a little more Russian stuff on there.
And I would say to yourself, yeah, yeah.
But I would say the Democrats are somewhat agnostic about how they attack the president.
I feel as if they would use whatever they thought worked.
It could be Russia.
It could be something else. But is really the Russia stuff the strongest play?
Think about how badly the Democrats got spanked on the whole Russia collusion thing.
Do you think that they would say, you know what?
I'd like to do the Russia collusion thing again.
Let's do some more Russia stuff.
Do you feel as if that would be their just logical go-to?
Could be. Can't rule it out.
But let me ask you this.
What other country would like us to be anti-Russia?
Some people are saying China.
Does that fit?
Would China like the United States to be anti-Russia?
Well, what would we do?
Let's say you're China.
What would the United States do if they thought Russia was more of a threat?
Build more weapons?
Build up our military?
Does China want the United States to build up its military, even if the point of it is that part of the threat is Russia?
Maybe. Maybe not.
So who would be a country who would like the United States to build up its military, but would be sort of concerned about Russia?
Somebody who's had a connection to, for example, the Steele dossier.
Yeah.
Great Britain. Great Britain is the obvious suspect.
Because Great Britain can only survive if the United States, and through its NATO efforts, has a huge military deterrent against Russia.
Because who else threatens Great Britain?
Is it France? Is Great Britain worried about France?
No. Not at the moment.
Germany? No.
Is Europe, and Great Britain in particular, worried that Russia might get a little adventurous?
Yes. Is Great Britain worried about China?
Probably a little bit.
But they gave them, you know, they were friendly with Hong Kong.
It's like, yeah, it's a deal.
You take it back. We said we'd give it to you.
So, given that the Steele dossier had a British connection, it feels like they just come up a lot.
And it feels as if Anything that directs the United States' public opinion against Russia and against President Trump, who they might think is a little soft on Russia, you've got to look at them first, don't you?
So I'm not blaming them.
So obviously I don't have any inside information about this.
I'm just saying if you're just looking at the board and you're saying, here's a coincidence, Russia story, Russia story, Russia story, You'd think if it worked really well the first time, you'd see more of it.
But it didn't work.
It was sort of an embarrassment.
Or did it work?
I don't know. So, I would at least say, let's keep that in mind.
Alright, that's all I've got for now.
And I will see you tomorrow.
And I'm going to try to make the interview with Carson work.
