Episode 1299 Scott Adams: Trump Rises Again, Let's Annex Mexico, Republicans Self-Immolating at CPAC
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Judging each other by the worst members of our groups
If President Trump wants the 2024 nomination
Should we annex Mexico?
Shocking democrat comments to Chris Murphy tweet
The "approved narrative" for Floyd trial
Kristi Noem's White House potential
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
No. One of the best coffees with Scott Adams of the entire day.
And if you want to enjoy it, To his maximum potential.
And why would you settle for anything less, really?
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or gel, so it's time to canteen jug or flask or vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes absolutely everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Watch it happen right now with your help.
Go! Well, I promised all of you that I would read the book in 1984, which I'd never read before.
But one feels as though you get the idea.
You don't really feel like you have to read that book because you know so much about the idea.
But so many people said, Scott, Scott, you have to read it.
I know you think that it's not going to help, but you have to read it.
Trust me. So I got a copy of it, and I started reading it.
I haven't gotten very far, but let me tell you, before I give you a view of the larger book, oh my god, he can write well.
So the part I didn't see coming is just that he's just such a good writer.
I didn't know that that was going to be so striking, but my God, he's just good at writing.
So I'm only, you know, this much into the book.
I'll tell you if it changes my mind or anything.
What I'm expecting is it's just going to be a fun sci-fi read, and it'll be stuff that I generally had been thinking before.
The fact that it was prophetic, does that mean anything?
I don't know if that means anything, but yes, he was probably prophetic.
I think we should all make a decision as a nation that we should just judge each other by the worst people who say they're part of our group.
So whatever your group is, your group could be your ethnicity, your religion, could be your political affiliation.
It doesn't matter what it is.
But I think instead of pretending we're judging each other individually when we're not, it's sort of obvious we're not, why can't we just be more open about it?
And just say, you know, I'm going to judge you by the quality of strangers you've never met who voluntarily joined whatever group you're in or are just in it because of their ethnicity.
We should just not pretend that we're judging people individually, because we're not.
We stopped doing that a while ago.
We do judge people by the worst people who voluntarily decided that they're part of your group.
You know, you woke up in the morning and you thought, hey, I'm just a good Democrat, and then a Democrat goes on a murder spree.
You're like, well, I guess I'm just like that.
Just accept it.
Just accept it.
Those of you who are coming in late and saying, where is the simultaneous sip?
That's what you get for being late.
I mean, it's the same time every day.
Do you have any excuse for missing the simultaneous?
No! No, you don't.
There's no excuse. Timeliness.
It's next to godliness.
All right. You know what I always say about accusations of sexual harassment?
It's the second one to get you.
The first accusation for some famous person, let's say Governor Cuomo, just to pick a random example, if you have one accuser and you've had a long history of public life and being in charge,
etc., and only one accuser, people say to themselves, eh, what are the odds that this person who's accused of this behavior Only did it once, or only one person came forward after all these years.
It's always that second one that gets you.
And it looks like Governor Cuomo has a second one.
Now, will it end with the second one?
What are the odds there are only two?
Now, I have to say that if you were going to rank the badness of what he did, on the 1 to 10 scale, where 10 is like a violent sex crime, whatever 10 is, pedophilia, whatever you want to put at 10, Cuomo's down sort of in that, you know, mid-range where people get fired for that behavior, probably should, but, you know, he's not killing anybody.
So, watching this all come about, and again, based on my statement, somebody will take that out of context and say, why are you minimizing it?
Comparing it to murder isn't really minimizing, wouldn't that just be an accurate statement of Where it lives on the scale of badness.
But it's still bad enough to get fired in today's world.
But will Cuomo be fired?
Or will the Democrats gather around him?
Now the bigger story, what we're seeing is, do you think this is about Cuomo?
No. Do you think it's about the victims or the alleged victims?
No. No, it's not.
It's about 2024.
So when you see the people who are the presumptive, you know, maybe frontrunners for 2024, you're watching one by one.
They're all being taken down and assassinated by the opposite press.
So you're seeing Cuomo being taken down by...
By anybody who doesn't want to see him as president because he had such a strong base there from the coronavirus for a while that it looked like, wow, he would just have to want to be president and he'd just walk right into the job.
But the media has taken him down with the help of the accusers and, of course, Probably the longest string of gigantic mistakes we've seen from any politician in a long time.
Think about what you thought of Cuomo in the early days of the pandemic.
Because I was one of the people who praised him.
And, you know, I was trying to be independent of party affiliation and just say, hey, he's doing a pretty good job in these public hearings about coronavirus.
But it turns out that might have been the only thing he was doing a good job at when he wasn't.
Allegedly sexually harassing people and sending people to their death in nursing homes because of the coronavirus.
And then apparently covering it up, allegedly.
So he's had the worst, probably the worst year of any politician of any time.
And he's still in office.
Do you think a Republican would have lasted this long?
I don't know. I don't know.
So we'll see. But when you see Josh Hawley getting targeted to be taken down, that's because he has 2024 potential, etc.
But as of today, and based on what we're seeing in the polls and what we're seeing from CPAC and what Mitch McConnell is saying about Trump, etc., it doesn't look like the Republican side has any mystery left.
The reporting is that Trump is going to walk right up to the line, but not cross it at his speech today, of looking like he's running for 2024.
Now, I don't think he'd do it unless he meant it.
I think he's way beyond bluffing.
You know, I don't think it's a bluff.
So if you see that Trump acts serious about running in 2024, I would take it seriously.
And apparently the Republican Party has decided that if he does run, that's it.
Right? I mean, there'll probably be a primary challenge.
But it looks like he could just walk into the job.
So, so...
First of all, I'm happy that he's in the news again, so I have something to talk about.
That really helps.
But it does make all of the Republican potential challengers irrelevant now.
So when we were talking about Rand Paul and Josh Hawley and Matt Gaetz and anybody else running for president, none of that matters.
As long as Trump is in the mix...
None of them have a chance of getting nominated.
But would Trump have a chance of winning?
Well, what is the prediction I remind you of every single day?
My prediction I remind you of every day is that the longer Trump is out of office, the better he'll look.
The better he will look.
And the reason is that Biden will have to address, one by one, each of the same things that Trump was criticized for And he's going to have to do better, or presumably Democrats would lose the White House.
Now, has he? Now, my take on this has always been that Trump had actually done as well as you can do on a lot of things that he was criticized for.
And while we would all like a lot of things to be better, everything from health care to children in cages, who's in favor of children in cages?
Nobody, right? So we looked at those problems and say, they're problems because they're hard to solve.
So if Biden walks in and he solves them, I think he or the Democrats should get re-elected, wouldn't you?
Wouldn't you say if Biden came in and then just solved a bunch of problems that Trump couldn't solve...
Then I think the Democrats have a really good argument for the White House again.
But if Biden walks in and runs into a wall, so to speak, and he can't solve any of the problems that Trump also struggled with, such as immigration is sort of not something you solve or don't solve.
It's something you're sort of working on forever.
Yeah, now that they're overflow facilities, somebody says, they're not kids in cages anymore, so problem solved!
So I would say that Biden is a real liability for keeping the White House unless he actually solves some problems that Trump couldn't, and everything we're seeing is him making it worse.
It looks like Biden's making it worse on the border.
So far. We'll have to see how it develops.
But at the moment, the smart money says he's making it worse.
Looks like he's making it worse on jobs, with the pipeline, etc.
So there's a whole bunch of places that it does look like Biden is just opening up the door to the White House for the Republicans and for Trump to come back in.
All right. Here's a thing that I would have called maybe...
Not suspicious before.
You know, if you're a trusting person, you have to get screwed a number of times before you stop being trusting.
And with social media shadow banning and that sort of thing, I don't think we can trust that if there are two explanations for a thing with social media, I don't think you can trust the one that's innocent.
Usually I tell you to trust the innocent explanation because it's usually right.
But I don't know that we're in that world now.
And here's the specific question.
So I was watching my YouTube traffic for doing what I'm doing now.
It's on both YouTube and Periscope at the moment.
But the YouTube traffic, you know, they have really good stats.
You can track things.
At about the time in 2020...
When the Trump administration was making the most noise about some kind of regulation for the social media platforms and noise about suppression of conservative voices, something happened to my traffic in the beginning of the summer of last year, and it just went crazy.
So that's when the Trump administration was threatening the social media platforms.
My Twitter feed, my YouTube traffic just went through the roof.
Now, as soon as Biden won, my traffic fell off.
Like, a lot. A lot.
Now, is it just because it's not the election season?
Now, if you had asked me, you know, I don't know, two years ago, why did things get quieter after Trump lost the election, I would have said, well, obviously, there's just less energy out there.
People who were watching me came to see what I said about Trump.
He's not there. It's obvious.
It's obvious why the traffic went up before the election.
Obvious. And it's obvious why it went down after the election.
But I don't know if we can make that assumption anymore.
Because I think the social media platforms lack the transparency which would allow you to say that the obvious answer is the obvious answer.
That it's just a normal pattern because of the election.
It doesn't feel like that.
It feels like maybe it was the Trump administration pressure That changed the controls, and as soon as Biden's back in office, the controls went back on.
That's what it feels like.
Now, can I say that the evidence demonstrates that clearly?
No. No, because the other alternative, that it's just a natural, because of the election cycle and there's nothing else to explain, explains it perfectly.
But while you have these two explanations and non-transparency, it's sort of like the election problem, right?
As long as you have any limits on transparency, we're way beyond the world in which you can assume good intentions.
I think it's a good trend that women are getting more involved in mass violence.
You know that a number of women were injured and And we're a vital part of the assault on the Capitol.
I think 26 women have been identified as people of interest by law enforcement.
And where two women died, maybe?
At least one. But I noted also that Antifa and Black Lives Matter protests also have lots of women in them.
And those can get a little violent too.
I don't know how much of the women doing the violence, how much of the men.
We did see women in Antifa breaking windows and stuff.
So we know that they do some stuff, setting fires.
So I feel as though the violence, this mass violence, like the capital assault and the riots during the summer, they've all taken on this sort of lifestyle feel.
Because let me tell you this.
And I'm trying to say this in the least sexist way.
If you're really trying to take over a country, you leave the women home.
Sorry. Sorry.
If the capital assault had been an actual military takeover, the women don't go.
Right? And there's no reason they can't, of course.
Women can carry weapons.
Women are in the military. There's no reason they can't be there.
It's not logically or practically undoable.
Certainly doable. But I feel as if when you're serious about it, the women don't go.
They can. And they would be capable in many cases.
But I feel like that's a big tell.
That there's something more lifestyle about this and less kill-y about it.
You know what I'm saying?
Because as a culture, there are some things that are somewhat predictable, even if you don't like them.
And one is that when the serious killing starts, the men push the women away.
Right? Right?
If the men were there to do serious killing, they would have prevented the women from attending.
They would have just kept saying, you can't go beyond this point, because after this point, there's going to be some serious killing.
You stay there.
So I think that's yet another obvious signal that at least the bulk of the people who were at the Capitol were not planning it to be violent, because they would have pushed the women out of the building.
They would have physically removed the women...
If they were planning to be that violent.
Now, that's not an absolute, right?
You can't say that for sure.
But every time you see one of these indications of what people were thinking, it's worth throwing it in the mix.
But it might be apophenia.
That phenomenon where we see patterns where there are no patterns.
All right. David Boxenhorn on Twitter made a comment that I love for its optimism.
He said this on Twitter, he said, For decades the world benefited from technologies spun off from World War II, then the Cold War.
Will a new family of mRNA vaccines wipe out the last remaining serious infectious diseases and give us early protection from the next pandemic?
I'm betting yes.
Now, the specific examples in an article that David Boxenhorn tweeted was about how they're looking at the same technology, the base technology for the mRNA stuff.
By the way, I've heard this called a platform or a technology, and I don't know enough about it, but it's interesting that they see it as a A platform, meaning that you could do a lot of things on top of the platform, and one of them might be malaria.
So there's real good indication that you could use the same technology, not the same vaccination, but it's the same technology, to take care of malaria.
Malaria is like a big deal, if you're in the wrong part of the world.
And maybe even, as David Boxenhorn notes, maybe even targeted cancers.
So there might be a cancer solution here, a malaria solution, and a pandemic solution that come out of this pandemic.
And I think that this is more likely yes than no.
So I'm going to agree with David here that I feel as if there are massive, just massive, social and technological benefits coming out of the pandemic.
You know, everything from Changing how we do everything, right?
Commute, buy things, shop, we do our food.
I mean, just everything. But this is one of the big ones.
Here's another good Twitter comment from Christopher Hill, another person you should follow.
David Boxenhorn, you should follow him.
And Christopher Hill.
And he says, and I never thought about this.
This is a good point. He said, lockdowns largely rob us Of our everyday experiences with the other group.
Meaning, you know, people on the left and people on the right politically.
At least. I mean, it means every other kind of group as well.
How many leftists were kept in check because a conservative would stop and fix their stranded car?
Took one year to go full Nazi.
Like, things move fast, right?
Now, this example, of course, is just, you know, it's not like this affected every person on the left, so I wouldn't call it leftists being kept in check, but I think the point is a good one.
If you commuted to work, or you had your normal social life, you would have had probably a lot more accidental contact with people in different political persuasions.
And many of those contacts would have gone well.
In other words, it isn't somebody necessarily stopping to change your tire for you, but it might just be people being nice people.
And you say to yourself, huh, that Republican there...
Disagree with them totally, but I've got to say, nice person.
In person, very nice.
And likewise, the Republicans said, you know, this blue-haired, transgender person I had some feelings about first, but when you get to know him, great person.
So how often do we see counterexamples of what the other side is in all their differentness and their weirdness?
And have it counteracted by our personal experience.
Hey, my personal experience is these people are great.
People are people. But as soon as you're living in that Twitter world and you're socially isolating with your family, maybe all you get is one set of experiences for a year.
What's that do to you?
I mean, it's a good point.
It's sort of an unknown.
Is this a big deal? It could be.
It could be a big deal.
We won't know, maybe ever.
I ask you this question about border with Mexico.
So the Biden administration is going soft, I think it's fair to say.
Soft would be not even really an opinion.
It seems like that matches the news.
Going soft on immigration enforcement, or a lot softer.
So a lot of the folks who would have been eligible or targeted for deportation under Trump are no longer targeted, so they have to be pretty serious criminals to get deported now.
But beyond that, there may be more of an open invitation Open invitation to come on over because, you know, you won't be put in cages, maybe.
We'll see. Or you might be able to stay and, you know, just not show up for your court case and that's fine.
So under Biden, we do assume that there will be an increase in immigration of some kind.
We're waiting to see what that looks like.
But here's my question.
Shouldn't we at least be talking about annexing Mexico, making it some kind of affiliated organization.
I'm not sure Americans would want to increase their taxes to take care of the social programs in Mexico.
But I feel like we could have some kind of annexation.
Now, you say to yourself, wait a minute, that's about as illegal as anything could be.
To which I say, that would be true if Mexico were like a regular government.
But Mexico is effectively a narco government.
It's a criminal organization.
For all practical purposes.
Because the elected government can't do anything without the narco drug cartels approving.
Otherwise they would get killed.
So given that it's a criminal organization and Biden just opened the doors and said, hey, come on in with your criminal organizations.
How do we control the badness coming in?
Unless you can either have some direct control over Mexico...
By annexing it.
Or you close the border.
Aren't those your only two choices?
So Trump was going for the, you know, leave Mexico alone, close the border, and, you know, just have a controlled situation.
Biden is more porous border, not closing it, or not opening it, but it's porous by design.
We should at least throw it in the mix.
Now, if we throw it in the mix and smart people say, well, that's not practical, there's no way to do it, okay.
But I feel like it has to be in the mix if you're opening the border.
If you're going to be tight on border, then no, you don't need to talk about it at all.
But I don't see how an open-ish border can possibly work unless we can control what's happening on the other side.
So it has to be in the conversations.
I'm stopping well short of saying we should annex Mexico.
I'm not saying that. I feel like it should be in the conversation as an integrated strategy.
Because just having a porous border is a half strategy.
It just sort of makes the United States evolve into sort of a Mexico-ish, more situation.
If that's what you want, at least do it intentionally.
If you're not doing that intentionally...
Let's talk about what we could do intentionally.
Have you noticed that there are two situations when you have a disagreement with somebody?
Number one, they're hallucinating a world that doesn't exist because they don't have enough information.
So people who are low on information literally hallucinate a world that doesn't exist.
Because their lack of information causes them to piece together this view of reality that's artificial, isn't real.
So what if you approach this person who is under-informed, and you give them information, and it's good, and it's accurate.
Does that person take that information and say, oh, wow, you filled in a whole bunch of holes for me, didn't know about that, so now I'm going to alter my worldview with this new information?
No. No.
You can observe that that doesn't happen.
The person will be triggered into cognitive dissonance.
And cognitive dissonance is just another kind of hallucination.
So it's just a different hallucination.
The first hallucination is triggered by lack of knowledge.
The second hallucination is triggered by accurate knowledge.
It just doesn't match what they thought they thought before.
There are only two situations.
Not having enough knowledge, and then having enough knowledge.
Both of them cause you to hallucinate.
Now, I've been telling you since the beginning, I have this background in hypnosis, and hypnotists are taught, among other things, that everything is a hallucination.
In other words, everything is a subjective interpretation of something.
There might be some base reality, but it's not available to us.
We don't know what it is.
We can get clues to the process of science over time, but our day-to-day...
What's the world?
Who am I? What's going to happen today?
What are the forces that are operating?
It's all illusions.
You only have two ways to get to those illusions, but there are only two paths, and they both lead to illusion.
It's one thing to intellectually know this is true.
Intellectually, you can say, yeah, I see what you're saying, Scott.
Yeah, we're not that accurate with our worldview.
But there's this whole path going from, yeah, I know it intellectually, to actually seeing it.
Meaning that you're walking down the street and you don't think any of it's real.
That's a whole different level of understanding your world as subjective.
Now, you have to treat it as real, because if the truck is coming, you don't want to walk in front of it.
But there's a lot of interpretation going on here, is what I'm saying.
All right. And the best place you can see this, if you haven't tried it yourself, I was doing this yesterday with a Somebody on Twitter I consider a very rational person.
So you start to know people on Twitter that you don't know personally, if you watch anybody's responses.
And there's one individual, and I won't name him, but he's really good at responses.
And I see him responding to lots of different tweets in my feed.
And he does a good job.
And he often disagrees with me or the people he's responding to.
But he does it really well.
So it's not a name that you've heard before.
So I'm talking about somebody whose name I've never mentioned, so if you think you can guess who it is, no.
It's just somebody you probably haven't experienced.
And I was watching him doubt the fine people hoax, and then somebody showed him the full transcript and pointed to where in the transcript you can see Trump says without prompting that the racist should be condemned.
Now, The transcript is 100% clear information that Trump always talked about his assumption that there were non-racists there and they were the fine people.
The people who were the racists were the not fine people.
Clear as could be.
So what happens when a completely rational person is introduced with this new knowledge?
They go down the well. I call it the cognitive dissonance well.
And watching it happen in real time, you have to try it.
You need to try it at home.
The first thing they'll do is deny that there were any fine people there.
And then I usually add, I interview them.
And they denounce the racists, and they just like the statues.
And then a little further down the well, the person will say, but they couldn't have been fine people because they were marching with racists.
Who marches with racists?
Now that's the first hallucination.
There's no evidence that everybody was marching.
Nobody's ever reported that.
It's never been asserted.
It's a complete hallucination that all the people there were marching.
In fact, there were just different groups.
Some were marching. The police actually wouldn't let people who got there after a certain point even get anywhere near the marchers.
So they're physically separated.
So that's the first hallucination.
You get that every time. And then it goes down to, yes, but if you support statues, then by definition you must be a racist, and they must have been lying to you, Scott, when you interviewed them personally.
To which I say, something like 20% of African Americans support keeping the statues.
Are we done here? I don't know why they support them.
I haven't asked them. But it's fairly consistent, right?
Over 20% of black citizens who should be, in my opinion, a little bit offended by that.
At least a little bit, if not a lot.
And I'm anti-statute, by the way, because I think they're impolite.
And to me, that's the end of the conversation.
Why would you do impolite things in public?
I mean, it's legal, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
So, for me, the entire statute of conversation comes down to, is that polite?
To put something up there that so many citizens of this country are offended by?
I mean, you can do it.
And I get that it has a historical meaning, and free speech is important, and yada yada yada.
But it's kind of impolite.
And if you need to argue beyond that, you know, all the way to history and stuff like that, those are all true statements.
I wouldn't even give you any pushback on that.
No pushback at all.
I'm just saying, why would you choose impolite?
How does that make anything better?
You don't even need to get political about this even a little bit.
I don't see any politics to it.
It's just... It's rude.
It's just impolite. Now, it wasn't always rude, right?
Things change. But I think you have to allow that people's sensibilities change over time.
All right. Speaking of CPAC, Malcolm Flex, also on Twitter, made this comment.
He said that... Talking about CPAC, he says, making masking a hill to die on is a self-replicating L, meaning loss, for conservatives.
Many conservatives don't have any political capital or willpower to enforce not masking, could have just hammered on Fauci's inconsistencies and double masking idiocy.
Good analysis by Malcolm Flex.
I assume that's just his Twitter name.
Um... I would agree with this.
It is one thing to say that you as a, let's say, Republican, it's one thing to say that you're anti-mask and you think other people should be, etc.
But it's not something you're going to win, right?
So pushing against something you're not really going to win, you have to ask yourself if that's worth doing.
But more importantly, it's just this giant red flag that says don't vote for me in 2024.
You know, CPAC is primarily about the base, right?
But it's widely reported.
So whatever they do that sends a political message about who Republicans are is going to come out of CPAC. And the message that Republicans sent is that they're anti-mask.
Now, of course, Republicans vote for Republicans, but you need just a few people on the other team to vote for you if you want to be president.
You've got to get a few.
How many Democrats are Republicans going to get to vote for them by being anti-mask?
None. It's two Democrats, it looks anti-science.
So it's one thing to fire up your base with your anti-mask stuff, but it's such a bad look if you're trying to attract any votes from the other side.
So I would say, politically, it's a disaster.
And I would agree with Malcolm Flex's take.
But in terms of your personal opinion, it's fine.
I know you want to argue with me about the science, the freedom of the mass.
I'm not talking about any of that.
Those are all separate conversations.
I'm talking about only the politics.
The way you look and the way you present yourself Matters, right?
If you want your person to be in charge, you need them to put on a good show.
The show is part of politics, right?
The form is, in many ways, more important than the function.
That's how politics works.
So I think it's terrible politics, no matter what you think about the science or the freedom of it.
but those are just separate conversations.
On CNN, there's a...
No, MSNBC.
There was an opinion piece saying, why did the Capitol...
Let's say the Capitol law enforcement people, why did they prepare extensively for the Black Lives Matter protests about George Floyd but they did not prepare extensively for the Capitol assault by the Trump supporters?
And the implication, not implication, the direct accusation is that it was racism.
Do you buy that? Do you think it was racism?
Because I guess in both cases, they did not have valid intel to say that either one of them would cause excess violence that would require a massive presence.
There's always a little.
So if neither the BLM protests for George Floyd nor the Capitol protests were meant or at least predicted to become big violent events, always a little bit of violence, if they weren't predicted but one of them you prepared for and one you didn't, isn't that racism?
Did you only think that the BLM protests would get violent because there would be a lot of black people there?
That's a fair question, isn't it?
Is that a fair question?
No. No, that's not a fair question.
Because there was enough history with Black Lives Matter slash Antifa protests to assume that things could get out of control, at least looting-wise.
What was the track record of Trump-related gatherings?
Zero violence, or whatever is trivial.
So if you were making your assumption based on track record, you would prepare differently for those two things, wouldn't you?
I would. I wouldn't have called it racist.
Do you think if there, of course there are, not if, but do you think that the black law enforcement people...
Who you should assume would be less racist against black people.
Is that a fair assumption? That the black law enforcement people probably agreed with this same standard.
That they hadn't seen Trump supporters get violent before.
They'd seen Black Lives Matter and Antifa sort of combined protests definitely get out of control.
Why wouldn't you incorporate that in your planning?
I don't understand why that would not be an obvious thing to incorporate.
Past pattern? Seems obvious.
Senator Chris Murphy tweeted, and you've got to see the comments on this tweet.
It's on my feed.
He tweeted, I've devoted my life to politics, but I'm careful to not let my politics consume me.
I appreciate this.
That's a good statement. That's a good statement of how to keep your politics and your personal life separate and be good to everybody and it calls for unity.
Man, you should expect that the comments...
Wouldn't the comments on that be pretty good, huh?
Huh? I mean, you'd expect people in the comments, especially the Democrats, to say, yeah...
Yeah, let's have some unity.
Let's work together.
But no.
Instead, Democrats flooded into this Democrat's tweet to tell them that this is different.
And you cannot befriend Republicans because it would be...
I'm putting my own spin on this, but effectively they're saying, this is different.
Republicans are Nazis.
And you don't make friends with Nazis.
That's the world we live in.
And I've got to tell you, if you don't read the comments yourself, you won't even believe that there are people out there who believe that.
Now, what got us here?
What caused this situation?
This is clearly the fake news.
The fake news plus social media extending it.
This is a fake news problem.
100% a fake news problem.
And we're letting them do that to this country.
The fake news is just ripping the country apart.
We just let it happen.
Because, you know, Fourth Estate, yeah, very valuable.
Got to have that news business.
But we lost our news business.
We don't have really a news business.
Not in the way we used to, if we ever did.
I don't know. So, let's score one for fake news, destroying the country.
There's a study of a drug called fluvoxamine, which is used to treat stuff like OCD and social anxiety and depression.
And apparently in trials, it lowered the number of people who die of COVID. So it's a completely unrelated use because it's not meant for anything like COVID. But because it helps regulate the body's inflammatory response...
It took the death rate to zero.
Zero. In a small trial, right?
Now, you could certainly complain about the statistical power of what they did, but it was big enough that you'd certainly expect at least one person to die.
At least one. Because in the control group, several did.
And that's exactly what you'd expect.
Now, could it be that six people dying in the control group and zero in the other group, maybe that's a little underpowered statistically?
I don't know. I mean, I don't know enough about this trial or statistics to say that.
But it feels like six and zero probably is meaningful, right?
So who knows?
We might have an existing drug, which means that it would be easier to get it into the system.
You wouldn't need to get it through FDA necessarily because it's already approved.
That could lower the death rate to zero, maybe.
So it's called, what's it called?
Fluvoxamine. Fluvoxamine.
So the George Floyd trial, speaking of George Floyd, is coming.
I don't know when. But there's a report that Minneapolis, the city, is paying social influencers, as Jonathan Turley said in a tweet, to spread an approved narrative during the Floyd trial.
And there's quite a bit of money in it.
So they're actually paying people who are not part of the government To send the approved narrative to the world.
Now, I have two thoughts on this.
Number one, as a communication strategy, it's pretty good.
Because apparently, if you can get to, say, some big Twitter accounts, they can spread the news more efficiently than, say, the news could.
Because not everybody watches the news, but if you get the right social influencers, they can get all these nooks and crannies, Of people who are not following mainstream stuff.
So as a communication strategy, I like it.
But, can you see any reason that the government would need to control the news on this story?
One must always be careful that you are not the one who is experiencing cognitive dissonance and or confirmation bias.
The reason those things exist and are widespread is that if it's happening to you, you're the only one who can't tell.
Other people might be able to tell that you're hallucinating, but when it happens to you, by definition, they are your own hallucination, so you can't tell.
You think it's real. What is your take on the George Floyd thing and what's going to happen at the trial?
I don't know if I'm suffering from confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance on this story, but I've seen all the video, I've seen all the reporting, and my opinion is that I could be in cognitive dissonance and I could be experiencing confirmation bias.
Very possible.
Very possible. Don't rule that out.
But my strong impression, which could be totally wrong, is that there isn't any chance that the cop involved, the main cop who is kneeling on the neck, will get convicted of anything murderish.
Do you think so?
Did you see anything that would suggest he would be convicted of murder that wasn't obviously fake news?
Right. Because we know they had enough fentanyl in them to make that at least a likely cause of death.
If you're on the jury and somebody tells you, well, yes, he did have drugs in them that probably were going to kill him any minute, but really it was the knee on the neck that killed him, what kind of vote do you do?
Do you vote that guy guilty?
If there are two causes of death, one you know would kill him for sure, and the other one, it's hard to imagine it could kill him, but sort of looked like it on the video, but it's hard to imagine how it would, but one of them definitely would kill him.
How in the world do you get 12 people on a jury to convict that guy?
Now, he may be guilty of any number of lesser Police procedure violations.
I wouldn't be surprised if everything he did was a violation of police procedure.
I would now. Would you?
But murder? I don't think there's any chance.
So what we're seeing here is that the state, in this case Minneapolis, probably knows that something illegitimate is happening.
And they need to manage how we think about it.
Interesting, isn't it? Yeah, it looks like he was overcharged, and that's going to cause a problem.
I saw a lot of talk, people were asking me about Kristi Noem, Governor Noem, and that she was a star at the CPAC, and maybe she'll run for president.
But I will reiterate, as long as Trump looks like he's going to run, and he does, It doesn't matter what any of the other Republicans are doing or saying.
But I'll give you my take on Kristi Noem as a, let's say, as a star power Republican.
I can see it.
I can see it.
She definitely has that X-factor thing that makes people want to pay attention.
If we pretend her physicality has nothing to do with it, we're just being stupid.
Because obviously it does.
If I say anything on this topic, somebody in the comments will say, Scott's in love with...
Kristi Noem. And then I have to block you because you're just in high school and I'd like adults to be here.
But you can't ignore it.
It's just an obvious factor.
People's physicality just matters.
It matters. She has probably the most well-developed arms I've ever seen on a human being.
It matters.
It matters, right?
But she's a little low energy.
That's what I got from her speech.
Her wattage is a little lower than maybe it would take to get elected.
Now, maybe she can raise that wattage with some practice and effort.
I don't know. But I would say maybe not quite the energy needed.
But she'd be a strong candidate.
I mean, certainly she'd have...
If Trump were not in the race, she'd be pretty strong.
Because I can't think of a negative against her Except the Democrats wouldn't like her mask policy, but I don't know.
I think she could survive that, because the state did okay, relatively speaking.
Yeah, applause was high, and Republicans like her, but none of it's relevant as long as Trump is likely to be in the race.
Nobody has a chance against him.
All right, so Governor Cuomo apparently...
He's going to appoint a judge to look at the sexual harassment allegations against him, but he picks somebody who's an insider, somebody who has enough of a connection to Cuomo that nobody in the world would trust the result if it came out good for him.
So the fix is in on that.
And watching CNN have to cover this story, because at this point even they're covering it, is...
The story within the story.
It's better than the story.
Over in Portland, direct action.
The rioters are still rioting.
And they were shouting slogans and graffiting things like, no kids in cages.
And they spray-painted ICE field office.
So I guess Biden did not stop the protests about the kids in cages, but we'll see if that goes anywhere.
How in the world does Cuomo get to pick a judge to look into his malefeasance?
Yeah, how in the world?
Obviously it looks like an inside job, but we'll find out what happens.
And I will leave you on this following thought.
If we had a real leader in this country, here's something that real leader would be telling us.
Hey country, Here are the statistics for private schools that stayed open in the same general area as the public schools that did not.
And here are the virus outcomes for those private schools and their families.
And now you've got something to look at.
So when you're deciding to open the public schools, you can look at the private ones and say, how'd they do?
And that would be not a perfect analogy because The private schools might have more resources, might have richer kids, so you've got a different infection level, etc.
But it would tell you something.
It would tell you something important.
So, for example, if it told you that the private schools had lots of infections, well, then you should keep your public schools closed.
Maybe. Right?
Depending on the level.
But where is the leader just telling us that statistic?
Because it's our biggest question, isn't it?
It affects everything from the economy to your mental health to your...
just everything. It's the biggest question, putting kids back in school.
And the biggest data point would be one we have, I would imagine, or we could get, which is private schools.
How'd they do? And also some public schools that did remain open or have, you know, partially open.
How'd they do? Wouldn't your leader, if you had one, Just tell you that statistic or tell you what's wrong with it or maybe we need to collect more or something.
There might be some context that's important.
But why are we not being told that?
I feel as if I could be a better president on day one.
Let me tell you how I would be president or governor if you imagine me running California.
I would do it the same way.
When people said to me, okay, Scott, you're running for office, what's your opinion on policy X? And I would say the same thing for every policy.
I'll tell you what, when I'm elected, I'll have the best proponents of each strategy for each policy, debate in public with me as the host, I will cut them off and stop them when they're saying ridiculous things, and I will let you, the public, watch me interrogate both sides and come to a decision.
Right in front of you. And I'll iterate it so you might even see my opinion evolve as I've pushed back and got more information.
So I won't tell you what any of my policies will be.
I'll tell you what my system will be.
And you can watch it in real time.
You just watch it.
Who would you vote for?
Now I've told you before that I could get elected president or governor.
That's how. That's how.
Now you say to me, but Scott...
What about your personal life and all those things you did, or they'll say you did, or those statements you made on social media 20 years ago, and they sounded sexist when you said them, because they're out of context, of course.
There weren't actually any sexist remarks, but out of context you could imagine that they were.
What about all that?
Won't they take you down?
Well, here's what I would do with all that.
I would say, just assume it's all true.
Just assume that whatever bad thing you think I did or said, just assume it's all true.
And if I'm still not the best candidate, even if you think all that's true, don't vote for me.
I'd still get elected.
Because I would just say, I'm not going to waste time on that.
If you want to believe it's true, go ahead.
I still have the only system that makes sense.
I'm running against a moron.
I'm running against a moron.
If I've said some bad things on social media, count that against me.
But did I mention, I'm running against a moron.
I'm running against a moron.
I said some bad things you think, but of course they're just taken out of context.
Throw it all in there.
Just say it's all true.
Of course it's not true, but just say it is.
I'm still the best candidate.
It's not even close.
It's not close, right?
Now, you said that's Perot's strategy, but he didn't implement it right.
He did not say, I'm going to argue it in public.
He was more about the data and not being political and stuff.
And that was good, as far as it went.
But he didn't have the persuasion skills that I do.
And if he did, he probably would have been president.
But running as a third party doesn't work.
If I ran for office, I would run as...
What?
What would I run as?
Let me ask you.
If I ran for major office, what party would I run as?
I just want to see what you think.
Somebody says independent, wrong.
So it's definitely not independent.
Because you wouldn't get elected, there would be no point.
Alright, I'm just looking at your answers.
Most are saying Democrat, some are saying Republican.
Some are saying Republican, Republican, left to Bernie, Whig Party, Libertarian, Realist.
No, the only ones that make sense are Democrat and Republican, because that's the only way you can get elected in this country.
I mean, realistically. At least for president.
So it'd have to be one of those.
Which one would I run on?
Just think in terms of strategy.
I would run as a Democrat.
I would run as a Democrat.
Do you know why? Same reason Trump ran as a Republican.
To fix Republicans.
Trump actually fixed...
He fixed the Republican Party by giving it an identity that could win, at least in 2016.
And a set of policies that, even though the other team hated them, they were at least clear...
Clear and simple leadership, even if you don't like it.
It was clear and simple, and it was definitely leadership.
Definitely leadership, even if you didn't like it.
So, the Democrats don't have that person.
They don't have anybody to tell them they're messed up.
And that's what Trump did.
Trump was as critical...
Nah, that's not true. But he was very critical of standard Republicans.
You're not seeing as much of that.
There are a little bit the progressives getting on Biden a little bit.
But if I ran as a Republican, I would get only Republican votes.
Would you agree? If I ran as a Republican, the best I could do is to get only Republican votes.
If I ran as a Democrat...
Knowing that I have said as many good things as I have about Trump's process, his system, his persuasion, his way of achieving things, don't you think I could get some Republicans?
Of course I could.
Absolutely, I could get some Republicans.
How many independents could I get?
Most of them. I would sweep the independents.
So all I would need to do is run as a Democrat, because I genuinely have Democrat, let's say, objectives.
I have Democrat objectives, but I have a Republican-leaning approach to how to get there.
Systems. Transparency and systems.
I would tell you that the election system needs to be transparent, and it isn't.
And that would be a top priority to fix it.
Now, if I looked into it and found out it's actually quite transparent and fine the way it is, I'd tell you.
But I'd look into it right in front of you.
I would look into it right in front of you.
I would call the experts in and I would say, Is our election system fair?
One would say yes, one would say not so sure.
Then I'd ask the one who said yes, what percentage of the entire process of an election, from getting a ballot to the final count, what percentage of that total process is transparent now?
What would they say?
10%? Only the things we audit?
90%? I have no idea.
I have no idea how transparent it is.
Neither do you. I know it's not transparent to me, but I wonder if experts do know it's more transparent, and we just don't know it.
So imagine this proposition.
I don't care about Republicans.
I don't care about Democrats.
I'd run as a Democrat.
I would do every discussion publicly, and I would iterate them.
Not just once. Because you do it once and you end up with a bunch of questions.
You've got to do it a second time to get the questions answered.
Maybe a third time.
Maybe you do it six times a year per topic.
But it's the only way to do it.
And having closed-door meetings where the citizens don't know what I'm saying to either my staff or to, let's say, a foreign leader, I'm not sure we need those.
Do we? Now you say to yourself, what about all our secrets and secret negotiations and stuff?
I feel maybe you could do that without the president being in the room, right?
Maybe a secretary of state does that.
Maybe your generals do that behind the scenes.
If there's any stuff that the public genuinely should not see, and there is, maybe the president shouldn't be the one actively doing that in a meeting.
So I believe that proposition would make me president or governor.
I would just have to present it and say, look, if you want to know how I approach problems, I wrote three books.
Just look at my books.
That doesn't mean I'm smarter than you.
It just means you'll know exactly how I would approach a problem.
I'd do A-B testing, lots of transparency.
I would make sure that I challenged people's positions in public, so you can see it.
And then I would make decisions that gave us the best system, loving the Republicans, with the best objective, loving the Democrats.
So the best objective is that everybody in the United States has adequate, affordable health care.
Does anybody disagree with that?
I know there's some people who disagree that the government should be involved.
That's a fair statement.
But does anybody disagree with, if you had a way to do it, that worked for everybody, wouldn't you like to have everybody have high-quality, affordable insurance for healthcare?
Of course. So I would give the best system that would get you the closest to it, knowing that there are good ways to do it and bad ways to do it.
But I'd take the system that got you the closest.
And I would do it in public, right in front of you.
Am I bored? You know, I'm bored by the news, because the news got uninteresting when Trump left.
But I have to say, can I do a little poll here with my viewers?
With Trump mostly off the stage, although today he'll be back on the stage at CPAC, but with Trump mostly out of the news...
You would agree that the news got completely boring, right?
Right? Because he was really the energy that made everything fun to talk about, even if you didn't like it.
So there's that.
But here's the second part, and here's the question I want to ask.
So I guess these questions will get mixed up.
I won't know which one you're answering.
Don't you also feel more relaxed?
Because I feel as though some amazing pressure has been lifted from me.
That while if you gave me a choice, I would say, yeah, I kind of like the Trump energy.
And if you said, who would I like to be, President Biden or Trump, I would pick Trump.
But if I'm being honest, my mental health is way better.
Is anybody having this experience?
That their mental health is better because there's an amount of conflict that Trump brings just with his energy that's just always there.
It's like this baseline tension.
And I'm looking at now your answers coming in.
Somebody's saying yes to both, so good.
I know that the answers now are to the second question.
So some people are saying they're more scared.
I would argue that that's a fake news effect.
If you're more afraid under Biden, as in it's like the end of the republic sort of thing, I don't think there's anything like that going on.
The most likely outcome of a Biden presidency is it's kind of like not that different from the last one.
That's the most likely outcome, is it's just not that different, in ways that affect you personally.
Now, there will be differences, lots of differences, but they won't necessarily make this not America when he's done with it, right?
I'm not nearly as worried about the big outcomes.
Now remember, Democrats were just as afraid of Trump.
Just look at their experience when you're trying to determine if you're overreacting or you're accurately seeing the future.
Democrats thought Trump would be rounding people into prison camps by now.
That's what they thought.
And they were way off.
Why would your assumption about how bad things are going to be under Biden be any more crazy than the Democrats were about Trump?
Just ask yourself that question.
It doesn't mean you're wrong.
I'm not saying that.
Because you are seeing a number of trends that look like a decrease in freedom in a number of ways.
That looks real.
That looks real.
But I don't think it's the end of the world.
I also was noting the other day the number of personalities that I either interacted with or would read every day during 2016 and how many of them are off of social media now.
That list got really big, kind of creeping up on you, didn't it?
It's like, eh, one person a week sort of disappears.
You hear that story and you say, well, you know, I hate that freedom of speech is being suppressed, but that thing they said was pretty bad.
And you say to yourself, okay, I don't want to die on this hill.
Because this one person, their specific case, they did do something kind of bad.
So I'm not going to get involved with that one because I don't want that to be part of my reputation.
And then there's another one.
And then you say to yourself, this is a lot like that other one.
It's a special case again.
Do I want to get involved in a special case?
But, as you're noting in the comments, it does seem to be sliding in that direction.
So, we should be definitely worried about freedom of speech.
Now, I would argue that I am an excellent edge case.
I would say that I'm very careful about saying what is alleged versus what we know to be true.
So, in theory, my voice should be safe, freedom of speech, etc., because I'm not pushing inaccurate information.
And if I did accidentally, of course I have it accidentally.
So everybody who does what I do occasionally says something that's not true.
You can't avoid that.
But if you correct it, then you're just like the rest of the media.
It's only when you keep pressing that falsehood that you get in trouble.
So if you see me actually removed from social media, things have definitely gone too far.
Then things definitely have gone too far, because I don't cross the line.
Now, if everybody who does cross that line gets taken off of social media, but I don't, was there a slippery slope?
This is the case I've been making forever.
If I get taken off, when never saying anything that's untrue, unless I've added it as an allegation, which is always fair, if I get taken off, then things went too far, and I think you'd all agree.
That would be unambiguous at that point.
And I'm definitely getting demonetized and It seems obvious that Twitter is unfollowing people from me automatically.
If I ask in the comments, you'll see dozens and dozens of people who say they were unfollowed from me automatically just in the last few weeks.
No matter when you ask, it'll be dozens of people who will say, yeah, it just happened.
So we know that's happening.
But if I'm actually taken off, as opposed to slowly suppressed on a business, which is what's happening...
Right now, my entire monetized value for doing what I'm doing, it's now decreasing to the point where it will cost me money to do this.
It will actually just cost me money.
I'll have to pay to do this.
I will be demonetized pretty soon.
And you're just watching the graph.
It's only a few weeks away where I'll actually be paying to have freedom of speech instead of the model which, if you have enough viewers...
In advertising, in theory, your voice should get stronger as people enjoy it, etc.
And then somebody says, is it worth it?
Well, I don't know if that matters.
I don't know if that matters.
When you say, is it worth it, there are two ways to look at that.
One, is it worth it to me?
And the answer is no. No.
My personal life, my fortune, my reputation are all much worse.
Unambiguously. And I know that.
That was a conscious decision.
Nothing snuck up on me.
Nothing happened that I didn't see coming.
It was all transparent and obvious.
So somebody says, what's my motivation?
Well, I'll tell you that...
Some intelligence entities have wondered the same thing because people wonder if I'm being paid by somebody.
I'm not. I'm not.
And my motivation is as simple as this.
It's biological.
When you are being compatible with your biological self as the self that got created by evolution over hundreds of thousands of years or millions, I believe that's when you feel the best.
So I'm going to say that again because some few of you are going to hear this and it will completely change your life.
This is like a big concept, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time, so only a few of you are going to maybe catch on to this.
When you are true to your biological self, you feel fulfilled and your life is better.
That means, for example, for many people it means having kids.
That doesn't mean everybody would be fulfilled by kids, plenty of you are not.
But that is biologically compatible with how you evolved.
And most people, I would say, I would say the majority, would feel that biological compatibility.
And even though it's really hard to have kids, it's hard.
You still feel more fulfilled and glad you did it.
And I would say that in general, not just with kids, but whenever you're aligned with your biological truth, Your life feels better.
And here's another biological truth that you can't avoid.
And it's sort of the Spider-Man truth.
With great power comes great responsibility.
Biologically. You know, you would like that to be true philosophically.
Oh, if you have great power, philosophically and intellectually we'd like you to use it for good.
But it's way beyond that.
It's biological. When you have taken care of your own needs, which largely I have, your most biologically activated instinct is to take care of more people, to broaden your universe of people you're directly helping.
Since I've managed to take care of myself and largely people in my circle, the people personally close to me, my biological instinct is to take that to the next level.
Biologically, this is compatible with me.
That's why it feels so good.
It actually feels good.
Like, I'm a fulfilled person if I feel that you got something out of this and that it was good for the larger good.
So I would like to tell you how I'm going to rebrand these live streams.
So they used to be sort of a Trump-oriented energy fun, and that was great.
But while Trump is not in office, I'm going to change my focus to the following.
Self-improvement, meaning I'm going to build your talent stack, but I'm going to do it through a frame of talking about world events, especially politics.
And that will give you something meaningful and current that we can be talking about, but the intention is to build your talent stack of how to look at this stuff, and how to connect it, and in general how to make your life more effective, and this is a good example.
So this advice I'm giving you now about how to try to find your biological compatibility to have a fulfilling life, for some of you, not most of you, but for some of you, maybe 5%, maybe 10%, this is completely life-altering.
Because it's a filter that if you use it, it's incredible.
And this filter says take care of yourself first, because we don't want other people to take care of you.
Then it's ruining their lives.
Take care of yourself, then expand it.
Your family, your business, etc.
Just expand it. So that's going to be the mode.
Talk about the headlines, but build your talent stack in ways you won't even know is happening.
You won't even know you're getting smarter.
You won't even know you're getting more effective.
It's just going to happen.
Because you're going to be exposed to new ideas, and some of them will stick.
All right. Somebody said they had their 15-year-old read my books.
Let me tell you something.
If you have a 15-year-old who you can get to read even one of my books completely...
You have a prodigy there.
You have something special.
And I'll bet you know that.
I know you know that.
Because in the comments, tell me how many of you could get a teenager to read one of my books?
Really. How many of you could pull that off?
10%? Not 10%.
5%? Oh, wow.
A couple people saying they pulled that off.
Are you kidding? What?
Okay, most people are saying, or maybe half.
Half are saying, no way.
Holy cow, a bunch of you actually pulled that off.
I am so impressed with your children, if not your parenting.
You know, my instinct is not to give you credit for good parenting, although that's really good parenting.
But you have to have a kid who's willing to do that, and I'm not sure the parenting gets you to that point.
I think there's something about the kid.
If you've got a kid who can absorb this kind of material as a teenager, if I could buy stock in those kids, I would buy stock.
I mean, I would literally, literally, I would invest if I had a way to buy a...
If I could buy an index fund...
If there was some way to legally do this, an index fund of people who are capable of reading any kind of self-improvement book, whether it's mine or somebody else's, if they're even capable of doing that as a teenager, I want to put all my money on them.
Because if you don't think you can change your whole life, By studying it up.
In other words, studying it how to be effective.
Reading self-help books from a variety of people.
If you don't think you can completely change your life just by reading the guides about how to do it, you're wrong.
I was doing this as a kid.
When I was in my teens, I was voraciously absorbing success stories of famous people.
So wherever I saw a story about this person became successful...
I would read every detail.
And I'd be looking for the commonalities.
Alright, alright. Compare this success story to this success story.
What's in common? Okay, okay.
Now, how about this new one? And I'd always be looking for the pattern.
Because I believed there was a pattern.
And I believed that if I could find it, I could build a strategy around it to guarantee that I would be successful.
And that lifetime of looking for that pattern became my book, How to Fail Almost Everything and Still Win Big.
That's where systems versus goals came from.
It's where A-B testing came from.
It's where learning to get over a failure and shame came from.
All of those are based on looking at the Success stories of other people, which is a lifelong passion of mine to do that.
So, if you've got a 15-year-old kid who can do that, oh my God.
Oh my God.
The potential they have.
Because if you could get every kid to just read my book, And I'm not even going to say that mine is the best book in the world.
I think it is, actually, for this kind of thing.
But if you could get teenagers to read this kind of book in school, it would be completely life-altering.
I mean, in gigantic ways.
It would be huge.
It would change civilization.
But we don't do it. All right.
That's all for now. We'll talk to you later.
All right, YouTubers. Might need you to run just to take on China.
Yeah, you know, I think enough people are wise to China at this point that I don't know that I would be the best choice for that, but I would definitely be hard on China in a way that...
Oh, my God.
My son was like that too, Scott, as a kid.
Good. Good.
What is... Here's a good question.
What is Trump's tension the same as friction?
Well, it is a form of friction, a friction in your mind.
It's not the kind of friction I usually talk about.
But Trump just raises everybody's emotions, good and bad.
It's a knack. I mean, he has a knack for raising people's emotions.
So that's all I'm talking about, just the raising of emotions.
Somebody says they think I would really enjoy being a father.
On some level, of course.
Now, I have to tell you that when I got divorced from my first wife, I said to myself that I don't belong to that family unit anymore, and I consciously and explicitly donated myself to the world.
Meaning that I decided to turn my efforts outward and try to make the world a better place explicitly.
That was a direct, specific promise to myself that I was now owned by the world.
And that was my new responsibility.
Where's my golden age?
You're right in it.
You're in it.
The changes that the pandemic are bringing will be the triggers for the Golden Age.
It's what will change our healthcare, it will change what we think about everything.
Just almost everything got rethought and that will lead to a level of innovation and improvement in everything from healthcare to you name it, commuting, business, how we work, everything.
That the golden age is almost guaranteed at this point because of the pandemic.
This is a time of great clarity.
That is an interesting comment.
I was going to say something about that myself.
There is something about the pandemic.
Maybe it's Trump.
But there's something about this time in which people's illusions are...
Are evaporating. More so than I've ever seen before.
Now, we still have plenty of illusions, like hoaxes and stuff.
It dominates the news.
It's more hoaxes than real news.
But I feel as though, at the same time, there's this weird clarity that is forming about a lot of stuff.
And I don't know what's going to win, the greater new fake news hoaxes or the greater clarity About the fact that we're being manipulated by the movers and the power people.
I don't talk about Bitcoin just because it's outside of my expertise level.
And there's not much to say about it that's interesting, actually.
