My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Tucker Carlson vs. Taylor Lorenz
COVID relief package, free money and what else?
Rand Paul's bill to dismantle systemic racism
COVID rapid testing logjam and our corrupt FDA
George Floyd jurors terrified of doxxing and mob violence
CNN's obvious prep of Kamala Harris for the Presidency
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
This will be one of the, yeah, one of the best ones ever of all time.
It's not my fault either.
It's just that the stories are fun and interesting today.
You might even learn something.
Yeah, you might. And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice, a stein, a canteen, a jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
Have I mentioned that I like coffee?
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's making waves all around the world as you lift your glass for the unparalleled pleasure, the simultaneous sip.
Here it comes. Go! Just imagine, if you will, seven-plus billion people doing this simultaneous sip, all as one.
Yeah, it would be good.
Well, here's the news today, and the first thing you're going to learn, Prince William was asked if the royal family is racist.
Totally fair question.
Hey, is your family racist?
People were expecting him to say, yeah, we're totally racist.
But no, he didn't go that way.
Instead, he said that the royals are, quote, very much not a racist family.
Very much not a racist.
Now, have I taught you how to answer this question?
I believe I have, because I've seen some people on Twitter who are all over this because it makes one of the most classic mistakes of persuasion you could ever make.
Don't put, I'm not racist.
Don't say, I'm not a serial killer.
Don't say, I'm not an idiot.
Because the brain forgets the not part.
It's the idiot part that they remember.
So, if somebody asks you, are you a racist family?
The correct answer is, the royal family...
Treats everybody as equally valuable and always will.
Imagine that quote as opposed to, oh no, we're very much not racist.
We're very much, very much not racist.
Nope! Nope!
Pretty convincing, wasn't it?
Never make this mistake that Prince William made.
Now what's interesting is, Can you imagine any group of people who have had more media training and experience?
Don't you assume that the royal family, especially the younger ones, have had actual, legitimate media training about how to handle this stuff?
And this is a pretty big mistake.
It's interesting that it wasn't part of his training, or he didn't remember his training.
I'm not sure. Here are the two people I would most like to interview.
I'll probably do more interviews going forward, but only if I have a good reason.
So I'll probably interview some people.
I definitely will interview some people coming up who have some books coming out.
So those are always interesting.
But here are the two people I would most like to interview and on specific questions.
I would like to interview AOC on nuclear energy.
Just see where she's at on that.
You might know that Michael Schellenberger testified yesterday on nuclear energy to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
And his main message was that if we don't stop closing our nuclear plants, and if we don't start building new ones, especially with safer, newer technology, we're going to be in real trouble.
We just won't have enough energy.
So forget about the Green New Deal.
We just won't have enough energy, just like Texas, just like California has experienced.
So I would love to see AOC just take a strong position on nuclear energy, whether it's for or against.
Because I feel like her opinion moves things.
And I feel like her opinion is actually probably the right one.
She just doesn't emphasize it much.
And I believe that she's open to nuclear energy as a part of a solution.
And wouldn't it be good to get her on record?
Because it might be one of those things that everybody agrees on, right?
We might as well find the...
It would be the most important thing that everyone agrees on.
Probably, right? Energy is really close to the top of concerns.
So it's the most important thing...
That we actually probably pretty much agree on, weirdly.
So we should put that on record.
Maybe we can move in the right direction there.
But in the positive sense, I think at least our government is pro-nuclear.
Feels like it.
I mean, I don't have a full sense of all of them, but it feels like the energy in our government is moving pro-nuclear.
And again, I'm talking about the newer, safer technologies, even though the past has been pretty safe.
I would also like to interview Bill Gates, specifically on Green New Deal and pandemic stuff.
And the reason I'd like to interview him is that he needs help.
He needs help communicating.
And I think his blind spot is that he doesn't take critics seriously.
In other words, if somebody criticizes him, he just sort of lets it lay out there.
Now, on one hand, it is what makes him awesome.
The fact that he is so, in my opinion, singularly focused on solutions, you know, building toilets for Africa, figuring out how to get clean water in third world countries, solving malaria, stuff like this, I don't think he cares too much about the critics.
But he should. And here's why.
Because I think his voice is way more important than other voices.
Specifically because he's non-political.
He's aggressively non-political.
Relatively, right?
Everybody's a little bit political.
But I would say he's probably the least overtly political person in the game, who's also the smartest, who also unambiguously has the world's interests, and even poor people specifically, in mind.
And I think that because of whatever weird thing happens with his reputation, people think he's putting chips in you and he's trying to make money and sterilize Africa and all these things, that the fact that he doesn't bother defending against those claims, I think, weakens his voice.
And I think his voice should be stronger, not weakened.
So he would be a perfect person for me to interview because I can help him with his communication strategy, which I think is lacking.
You should see a video.
If you haven't followed ZDogg, anybody follow ZDogg?
Spelled letter Z, D-O-G-G. And he's a doctor who has an interesting talent stack.
He's probably one of the best communicators ever, right?
That's a big statement, right?
But watch ZDogg explain anything complicated.
He's just one of the best, clearest explainer of complicated stuff you'll ever see.
So you should follow him. In a recent video I just saw, he was talking about how one virus might protect against another.
As we're trying to figure out why is it exactly that the seasonal virus went to almost zero at the same time that the coronavirus was a pandemic?
Why is it we didn't get both of those?
And the preliminary answer, as ZDogg explains, is that we do have examples of one virus giving you some kind of protection against another.
Now, that doesn't fully explain what we're seeing.
But as ZDogg states, it's not meant as the full explanation, but it might be a significant part of why we're seeing what we're seeing.
So listen to his explanation.
That is great. He's also on Locals, by the way, if you want to see more of him.
There's a deep fake of me singing the song, What is Love?
What is Love?
Now, did you think this was going to happen so quickly?
There's literally already a deep fake of me.
I think all they do is take some various photos of me and then put it to music and there's some kind of AI program that automates your lips.
And actually you can see your lips singing a song you've never sung.
Now, it isn't too hard.
To look at it and know that it's a fake.
Because it's sort of jumpy and the pixels move around and stuff.
But I think that's only a function of the low processing speed and sort of a low technology approach to doing it.
Just something you can do with an app.
Right? This was done with an app.
I think. Just an app on a phone.
I don't know which one. But imagine what you could do with a supercomputer if you could do that with an app already.
You could already produce a video of me singing a song I didn't sing with an app.
What happens when that app gets better?
You won't believe anything you see in the news anymore.
Well, if you're believing anything you see in the news, you probably shouldn't, but it's gonna get worse.
All right. So, to me, that was like an interesting point in time.
The first time you become a deepfake, you'll always remember where you were the first time you became a deepfake.
Alright, I have to circle back to this Meghan Markle stuff.
God, I think everybody's in the same position, right?
Which, we fundamentally don't want to talk about this topic.
Because it shouldn't be world news.
It just shouldn't be in our minds.
But it's a good example of how the media tells you what's important.
The part of my brain is telling me this very clear message.
Don't talk about the royals, Scott.
Let me give you two good reasons.
Number one, it's completely unimportant.
Number two, You know your audience is not really too much about the royals, right?
Pretty good reasons.
It's not important, and you don't care.
Now watch this.
I'm going to do it anyway.
Why? I don't know.
I actually don't know.
Because those reasons are real reasons.
It's not important, and I know you don't care.
And I'm still going to do it.
Now, this is a perfect example of how the media can tell you what's important.
They can manipulate you like a puppet, and it's happening to me right in front of you.
I am literally out of control.
I'm going to talk about this thing I don't want to talk about, because I'm on the puppet strings.
This is how persuasion works sometimes.
Sometimes you can feel it, and you know it's happening, And you know, you think you have control over your body, you could just get up and walk away, but you don't.
And if you haven't had that experience yet, of having your brain having two people in there, and they're just two people, and one says, you know, this is stupid, and the other one says, we're doing it, but you know it's stupid, we're doing it.
Can't explain it.
There is a theory that we only imagine we are one person, but that your brain is better framed.
Here's a reframing for you that's a good one.
It's better to reframe yourself as a bunch of competing almost personalities, because there are different parts of your brain that have different interests.
There's a part of your brain that's just afraid, and that part is saying, no, don't do it.
There's a part of your brain that's logical and saying, I think this will work out.
There's a part of your brain that only cares about, I don't know, your body.
So you've got all these different sort of opinions, if you will, that are almost like personalities.
So thinking of yourself as a tribe which shares different parts of a brain is sort of a productive frame.
I think you'll benefit from that.
So this is what's happening.
One part of my brain says, don't do it.
The other part says, you're doing it.
And that part won.
So a good way to imagine your brain is competing voices, and sometimes one gets stronger.
You don't know why all the time.
All right, here's what I'm going to add to this story.
Meghan Markle said, quote, that there were concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he's born, talking about their baby, who I believe, if the news is right, would be something like 12% black.
Now here's the first question.
Were people really concerned about how dark a baby would be who is 12% black?
Like, how dark could a baby be?
Right? We'll get to whether it's even appropriate to talk about it.
But the first question is, what kind of a serious conversation do you have about a baby that's 12% black?
Like, is there...
Is there even a chance that that kid would look black?
Is that even a thing?
This is a real question, by the way.
So it sounded like a statement and a question, but it's an actual question.
Would there be some scenario in which that kid could come out looking basically black?
Somebody says yes in the comments.
So I'll rely on the science people to answer that question.
I feel like no, but I'm acknowledging a lot of people are saying yes, you might know more than I do on this.
I feel like you'd have to have a little bit of black on both sides.
Am I wrong about that?
If you had at least a little bit of black for both parents...
Then you have a chance that that little bit of black and both gets combined, right?
And then that's how you get a redhead, right?
The only way you get a redhead, if one of them is redhead and one is not, since redhead is not a dominant trait, the other parent has to have a little bit, or you can't get a redhead, right?
I think that's right. But anyway, regardless of the specifics of genetics...
What does it mean to say you were concerned and you had conversations about it?
Is concerned the same as racist?
Is it? Can you not be concerned about things and discuss them without being a racist?
What topic exactly is there that you can't even discuss?
Does that exist?
What would be another example of a topic that just discussing the topic without knowing what the opinion is, but just bringing up the topic, is racist in and of itself?
Is that a thing? Because if you're the royal family, the way you are received by the public is your whole job, isn't it?
The royal family's entire job is to present an image of That does something positive for the country.
I think. So, if somebody was having a conversation about how will the country respond to any difference in our brand, is that not a fair conversation unless you injected something racist into it?
Now, if somebody in this conversation had said, we're worried he'll come out black and that's bad...
Because we don't want black people.
Well, that would be just racist.
But what if they said, and I wasn't there, so I'm just speculating, what if somebody said, you know, if the public ends up having this impression, this will have an impact on the royal family, and maybe we should prepare for how best to address it, because we know we're not racist, but other people might be, and how they view us, well, we'll have to deal with that And we should plan ahead for that.
Suppose that was the conversation.
Would that be racist?
Would it be racist to say none of us are racist, but we think we'll have to deal with this?
It's a public thing.
I don't know. I just feel as though when you have a third-hand report about other people who are not in the conversation, they can't defend themselves, And you make a statement that there were concerns and conversations, you need to be a little bit more specific.
Because we're all leaping to the assumption that you can't even talk about the topic without being a racist.
But I'm talking about the topic, right?
Didn't Meghan Markle talk about the topic?
She brought it up.
Didn't Oprah talk about the topic?
She did. She was in the conversation.
So why is it that the royals, or whoever allegedly talked about it, why is it they can't have that conversation, but Oprah can, on television?
And that I can when I'm talking about it.
Why can I talk about it?
I won't get cancelled, right?
Because I'm not saying anything racist, I'm just talking about it as a topic that might affect other people in some racist way.
So I feel as though leaping to the conclusion that the royals are racist because of this one statement that they were talking about, a topic, that's not fair.
That is not fair.
Especially when you don't list the person so they can defend themselves.
Alright, there's also news that Nancy Pelosi tried to organize a coup.
Now, I'm going to describe what she did, and I want you to see if my characterization of it as organizing a coup, or attempting to, is fair.
Just see if that's a fair statement.
All right, this is what happened. So I guess Pelosi, some time ago, when Trump was in office, she said, quote, this morning I spoke to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, to discuss available precautions I guess Tom Fitton at Judicial Watch has a lawsuit to try to find out more about this situation.
Just hold this idea in your head that Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, had a private conversation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff head about basically taking Trump out of power based on her assumption that he was unstable.
But I think it matters if that's a common opinion.
The fact that most of the...
Well, I don't know what percentage, but at least half of the country does not think that Trump was unstable sufficiently that you should take his powers away.
They may think he's unstable in his Trump-like eccentricities, but not in dangerous to the country kind of way.
So there are two ways to look at this.
If you could know for sure...
That Trump was unstable and dangerous, then she was just protecting the country.
Would that be fair?
If you knew for sure that Trump was just obviously unstable and dangerous, then I would say, in that situation, I would say, you know, I know we have rules and procedures and constitutions and stuff that have to be followed, but we can all see that this is a dangerous situation, and in this one case...
I think the grown-ups have to take control and just fix this, even if they have to bend a rule to do it.
But that's not the case.
We're looking at the same Trump, right?
He doesn't look even a little bit dangerous to me.
Not even a little bit.
So, in the case where there is clearly a major difference in observation, what do you make of the Speaker of the House talking to the Joint Chiefs of Staff about a coup?
It's just a coup, isn't it?
To me, this was a coup attempt.
And I don't know how I can't even think of another way to think of it.
Because... And imagine the precedent.
Imagine a precedent where one party, an obvious political enemy...
Can claim that the other one is unbalanced without any evidence that would suggest that whatsoever.
At least nothing that would be medically suggestive of it.
And that the Joint Chiefs of Staff could just take control.
She literally tried to organize a military coup.
I feel like this really happened.
Now, have I told you too many times yet That what you decide is important, you think is your own decision, but it's not.
We are programmed citizens.
We are told what is important.
And until the media, not just Fox News, but the larger media, until the media tells you it's a story, that Pelosi organized a military coup, but it didn't work out, until they say that's a story, Nobody will treat it seriously.
It doesn't matter what the facts are.
It's irrelevant. Now, every time you say to yourself, but wait, in my own private thinking, this should be the biggest story.
Irrelevant. Because what you think should be a big story doesn't matter.
The only thing that will be a big story is whoever decides what the news is decides it's a big story.
And the decision has apparently been made.
This won't be one.
So the most important thing that happened last year, actual, a literal admitted attempted military coup.
That's not much of a story.
We'll mention it and then we'll move on.
Now I suppose you could argue that it's not a coup if the only thing she wanted to do was Remove his military power.
But I think if you remove the president's military control, that's kind of a coup.
All right. Tucker Carlson's making news, as he often does, for going hard at a reporter, the social media reporter for The New York Times, named Taylor Lorenz.
Now, it's important to the story that That you know that she's a youngish, I don't know how young she is, but she's youngish, woman.
So that's important to the story.
Telecom Act of 1996 allowed media consolidation.
Yeah, that didn't help at all.
So, now the New York Times is pushing back and saying that attacking their reporter is not cool.
And Tucker has pointed out, and this is why we love him, there are some things that, I swear to God, there are some things that only Tucker Carlson will say out loud.
Right? There are things you're thinking, or maybe you say on social media, but there are some things that only he says out loud, and here's one of them.
Reporters destroy people's lives as their job.
Reporters destroy people's lives for a living.
It's routine. It's the most common thing we see, as a reporter writes a story, destroys somebody's life.
And Tucker says, quite reasonably, why doesn't it work the other way?
Why can't we criticize you, even if it destroys your life?
Because you're in the business of destroying lives.
Why is it not fair that you should also be the subject of that?
Now, I haven't heard anybody else ever say it quite like that, but once he says it, I think to myself, well, yeah.
Do you know how many individual reporters have attempted to destroy my life?
Quite a few. You know, over 30 years, quite a few people have taken a swing at me to try to actually destroy my life.
Now, if somebody went after one of those reporters, legitimately, right, with real complaints about real things that happened, and it happened to destroy their life, would I feel bad about that?
Not really, because that's the game they got in, right?
It's the same reason that I control how much I complain about my own critics, because I intentionally got into a job where you attract critics.
So, you know, that's part of something I accepted.
All right, so we're watching that story.
That's fun. Speaking of my critics, although I'm not sure this is a critic, so this is actually from somebody who is fairly objective, oddly enough.
Somebody tried to put together my predictions over time to see how well I predicted.
Now, I noted when I looked at the list of predictions, there are tons of predictions that aren't on there.
And the ones I remember, of course, are the ones I got right.
So the number of predictions I got right that are not on the list, and yet still, the claim is that if I said something is 100% likely to happen, it comes true 73% of the time.
Now, that's even lacking lots of the ones that I got right.
Now, I don't remember too many times I've said 100% likelihood.
And I feel as if maybe that was a judgment call.
I don't know. Because I make such a big deal about saying nothing's 100% that I'm not sure I really said a lot of things were 100%.
Maybe I did. But I don't think you could...
This is a tough thing to measure.
So you'll see some predictions missing.
But I like the fact that even the person who was doing the predictions noted that they appreciated my predictions in a falsifiable way and I do it publicly.
So you can see if I'm right or wrong and I appreciate that.
Alright, here's a prediction I made which is not on that list of predictions.
And I don't know why some are not on it, but do you remember that I predicted on one of these live streams that when the pandemic first started and the vaccinations were first talked about, and I said that as soon as the vaccinations are given, you will see stories of somebody who died immediately after or had a medical complication.
And I told you...
You need to know that these are coming, and you need to ignore them, because when millions of people get a vaccination, it's guaranteed statistically some of them will die right after it, and you won't know why.
Because people die, and often you don't know why.
And so I told you, don't assume this means the vaccinations are deadly.
Could be. Can't rule it out.
But it doesn't mean that.
It just means that there's a timing thing.
There was a vaccination, Somebody died.
Sure enough, there's a Utah mother in the news today, like the most reliably predictable thing that could ever happen, and she died suddenly after taking the second dose of COVID vaccine.
And then also, there are Danish health officials, they halted the AstraZeneca shots because they found severe blood clots in some people who received the doses.
Now, was it also predictable?
That there would be some kind of statistical cluster of problems that seemed to coincide with the shots?
Yes. What were the odds that there would be a coincidental, purely coincidental, cluster of medical problems, the same kind of medical problem, that seemed to be, before you've studied it closely, that seemed to be closely related to the shots?
What were the odds that was going to happen?
100%. Because remember, they didn't say in advance there's a chance of blood clotting.
Blood clotting was one of, I don't know, infinite number of things that might have gone wrong.
And I'm not sure blood clotting even quite makes sense with the vaccination.
Is that something that could happen?
I don't know. I'm not a doctor, so I don't quite see the mechanism that connects them, but I suppose anything's possible.
So there was a 100% chance that some kind of medical coincidental cluster would happen in some country, somewhere, soon after shots.
It was guaranteed.
Does that mean that these blood clots are from the vaccinations?
Nope. It just means that they're smart to take a look at it.
And I think that they're doing that.
So do not take these anecdotal one-off stories, even if it's a cluster of people with the same problem.
It's guaranteed by the laws of big numbers and statistics.
These were going to happen.
And I'm not saying that the shots are risk-free.
I assume there's some side effects to somebody in special cases.
Biden's going to do his first public address as president tonight, I guess, or today.
And he hasn't done a press conference in 50 days.
Are you going to watch the Biden speech just to see if he falls apart?
Because I think he can still read, right?
That's all we'll be watching for is to see if he can function.
But I guess I'll probably watch that.
But I suppose he can still read the teleprompter.
Looks like the public is, by a majority, happy about this COVID relief package.
Do you know why people are happy, on average, about the COVID relief package?
Because they don't understand what's in it, except for the free money part.
If you want to make a legislation popular, make it too complicated to understand, except for the part about where we're going to send you free money.
And then you can have a popular bill there.
So it doesn't mean anything that people are in favor of it, because of course they would be in favor of it, the part they understand.
Which brings me to a comment by Hotep Jesus, who you should be following on Twitter, Hotep Jesus.
You can just Google him, he'll pop up.
And he tweeted this.
He said, we need to introduce a bill to Congress which halts all bills submission, then mandate all bills to be five pages, instead of hundreds of pages like they are now, in 12-point Times Roman font, double-spaced and written at a fifth-grade reading level.
And then the president should read all bills aloud.
Now, I don't think the president would have time to read all the bills, because there's lots of unimportant ones.
But I would only add to this idea that five pages?
Five pages? Why does it need to be five pages?
If you can't put what the law is on one page, you need to go back and rewrite it.
Now, the big problem, of course, is that these big bills are omnibus, or whatever you want to call them, where lots of different things are stuck in it, so it's just a big, big thing.
To which I say, fine.
If you can't fit all of that stuff on one page, it can't be in the bill.
Simple. Because human beings can't understand hundreds of pages of stuff.
So what would be the point of hundreds of pages of legalese that nobody can understand?
There's no point. If you can't put your bill on one page...
And an ordinary person, a citizen, can read it and say, oh, I get it.
I see the basic idea here.
If you can't do that, that need not be a bill.
And if you have to break out lots of little ones from these omnibus bills, well, maybe you'd have to do it.
Now, at the moment, the lumping them together is what helps you pass a bill because you have to bribe different senators and people in Congress.
You have to bribe them, basically, to say yes to something they didn't want to say yes to.
So you say, well, we'll give your state this money, and your state will get this, so you'll get re-elected, and vote for the bill you don't want.
So that pork has a bribery function that is essential to the operation of our government.
But if you had a one-page rule, it would kind of go away.
Because the one page would basically get the public involved.
I would also say that when I start my new city, someday when I build a city from scratch, there are a few things that I will do.
Number one, there will be no need for identification because your face and your biometrics will always be your identification.
So you'll never need a driver's license in my new city.
Again, this imagines you could create a A city where the federal government doesn't have control.
I know that's not possible.
Maybe it's an island.
Maybe I'll start my city on the ocean 12 miles out.
But another thing would be a law that says lawyers can't use legalese.
That it would be literally illegal to write a contract or a law that the average person can't easily understand.
So you just can't use legalese.
And you would get rid of the need for most lawyers.
You wouldn't even need lawyers if contracts were written in just ordinary language.
And that's one of the things I did with my own lawyer over the course of my career.
There'd be lots of cases where somebody would want to do a deal, and maybe it's not that much money involved, but you don't want to spend forever dealing with a lawyer for what is not such a big deal.
And so I would just take my lawyer's First draft, and I would just rewrite it into ordinary language.
And then I would give it back to my lawyer and say, am I saying the same thing you said, except you can understand mine?
And my lawyer would often say, yeah, yeah, you know, mine's like a little more precise, but yours says the same thing, basically.
So we'll go with yours.
So you can actually get your lawyer to agree to using real language if you have that kind of relationship.
All right. It turns out that even CNN is reporting that Biden's plan to deal with Saudi Arabia over the Khashoggi thing is basically Trump's plan.
So Biden is just adopting Trump's approach to Saudi Arabia, which is penalizing some of the individuals with sanctions and stuff, but not punishing...
MBS, the guy who ordered it.
So, here's another one of my predictions, right?
And this prediction is not on my list of things I got right, but I'm getting it right as it goes.
And that goes like this. That the longer Trump is out of office, the better he'll look.
Because Biden will be forced to do the same things that Trump did.
You know, kids in cages and...
The Saudi Arabia thing.
There's going to be a whole bunch of stuff he does that's just going to prove Trump had the only solution, because he'll have to follow the same solution.
And CNN also, finally, the K-file group within CNN is reporting on Governor Cuomo downplaying the nursing home deaths.
So on their website, it's just one line.
It's over on the right, the most de-emphasized part of the page.
Just one line of text, no picture.
Just a line of text over on the far right with some less important stories.
But they're covering it.
So we'll give them credit for covering it.
They're certainly not emphasizing it, as Fox is emphasizing it every day.
Senator Rand Paul introduced a bill to fund students instead of systems.
What that means is if a kid wanted to go to a different school than the public school, Then the funding that the school gets would move with the child to a private school, for example.
Now, that would create competition in schools, and it would be the biggest step toward dismantling systemic racism.
Because as you know, the teachers' unions are the source of most systemic racism that lingers in this country.
And the reason is that if you fixed Education, then that doesn't fix every form of systemic racism, but it does make it a lot less important, you know, if every black person in this country can get a good education, which is certainly not the case right now, it goes a long way toward making things look better for everybody, right?
So fixing the teachers' unions, which are the source of bad schooling, because they make it impossible to have competition, But Senator Rand Paul would try to break that logjam with this bill.
They would give funding to the students instead of the system.
And I will say the same thing I've been saying a number of times.
Are there only two senators?
Because I thought there were like 100, right?
But why is it that anything that happens that's worth a damn comes from the same two people?
If it doesn't come from Rand Paul, it comes from Tom Cotton.
Am I wrong? No.
I feel like there's only two people who are even trying to do work.
Like, it just feels like the rest of them aren't even trying or something.
How many senators have you never even heard their names?
What the hell are they doing?
Right? So Rand Paul taking on, like I said, biggest problem in the country.
Or one of them, right?
The school situation.
Tom Cotton taking on China.
In a number of different ways.
One of the biggest problems in the world.
Who else is doing anything?
Ted Cruz, actually.
Yeah, Ted Cruz, also.
He does emerge as somebody doing actual things.
But it's kind of amazing, isn't it?
Why would you go through all the trouble to get elected and go to Congress, or go to the Senate, and then you don't do much?
Somebody says Taylor Greene's doing a lot.
Well, Josh Hawley, you could throw him in the mix.
He's making some noise.
But the point stands.
There are only a handful of people who are doing anything.
I would like to throw in this tip for you.
Remember I told you that every live stream will try to tell you something that's useful.
I told you About how not to use the word not when you're denying some claim.
So you got that. But I would like to add this.
If you're trying to build your skill stack, your talent stack, the most accessible skill is success.
Meaning that if you were, and this describes me perfectly, at about the age of 12, I said to myself, wait a minute, why are some people successful and some are not?
And I asked myself, is it technique?
Are some people just using a different technique?
Or is it just luck?
Is it just pure luck?
And it didn't look to me like pure luck.
It looked to me, and I started following the stories of successful people.
And whenever there was any story in the press, even as a child, anybody who was successful, I'd read that story, like every word of it.
Say, okay, what's the pattern?
What did they do? And then later, as I got a little older, if there'd be a book about how to succeed, I'd read it.
Tip on how to succeed?
I'd read it. It turns out, it does take some work.
I mean, you'd have to read the books, you'd have to find out which ones to read, etc.
But there is no more accessible skill than success.
And since that's sort of a domain that I've wandered into, people's own success, how to have a better strategy, how to know what is bullshit and what isn't, how to have a system, not a goal, how to build your talent stack.
So since I'm mostly dealing in this self-help realm, it occurred to me that there's some number of people who live their entire life not knowing that That success is a learnable skill.
Now, I'm not saying that everything I tell you has to be like the last word on what to do to be successful, although I think it's a good start.
I'm saying that if you take it as your mission to find out the body of work around what works and what doesn't, what is successful, what isn't, and you make that sort of a part of your system.
So, in my case, I had a system that Which is that I would continuously learn what other people think works and doesn't work in the realm of success.
Now, of course, people say a lot of stuff turns out not to be so useful.
So you have to be pretty aggressive about filtering and seeing what really works for you in experimenting, etc.
But I'm just going to leave you with this fact.
If you didn't know that success, the techniques of success, are learnable and somewhat easily Compared to, let's say, learning a foreign language, which should be hard.
Learning engineering, that's hard.
Learning math, that's hard.
But learning the techniques of success are weirdly simple.
You just have to be exposed to them.
That's all. Here's a question.
What are the recommended therapeutics for COVID-19 in the United States?
Let's say you go to the doctor and they test you and you've got COVID. What therapeutics do you get in the United States?
Now, the reason I ask is that we see reports of various therapeutics from ivermectin to a bunch of things with big words.
Let's see. Monoclonal antibodies, bamlanivimab and edizimabab.
And I think I pronounced those correctly.
Let me say them again.
Bamlanivimab and absimabab.
So I think you got those.
And they massively reduce hospitalization.
These are lilies, monoclonal antibodies.
So we keep hearing these stories about various therapeutics that reduce hospitalizations to zero, basically, right?
Or close to zero.
So I ask the question, given that we hear all these reports of therapeutics that reduce the risk to zero, why are people still dying?
Right? Right?
So I ask the question, what therapeutics do you get in the United States?
Do you know what the answer is?
Do you know what therapeutic you get if you go in and you do test positive for COVID? Nothing.
Nothing. That is the current therapeutic, is that if you have a confirmed case of COVID, you get nothing.
Go home, tell us if it gets worse.
And I feel like I didn't quite know that.
Until today, actually.
A number of people confirmed it.
But what is the point of therapeutics if you don't get them?
Now, I'm assuming that when people come in with worse symptoms, or maybe if they have some comorbidities, that the doctor or the hospital will be a little bit more aggressive in getting you into some of these.
But correct me if I'm wrong, Don't most of the therapeutics have this quality to them?
If you don't get it really soon, it doesn't help as much.
Because I think there are a number of therapeutics that aren't so good when you're close to death, but are terrific if you get it early.
Right? But we don't give that to people early.
Why? Is it because the ivermectin doesn't work?
Or these monoclonal things?
Is it because we don't have enough?
Is there some place where we could say, okay, 100% of the people who come in with any kind of comorbidity, even if it's just a little overweight, we're going to give you these monoclonal antibodies, we're going to give you ivermectin, and basically take all the people who are at risk and just eliminate the risk.
Couldn't we? Is it just a supply problem?
Is that it? Somebody says insurance is the reason.
I can't confirm that that would be true, but I wouldn't rule it out.
I would not rule out a distorting effect from insurance.
I'm not going to make that claim, but I think you'd have to look at that for sure.
Yeah, and of course people are saying there's not enough money in therapeutics, etc.
I don't know that that's the case.
There's a reason that they're made.
The companies that make the therapeutics didn't make them not to be used, so they want them to be used.
All right. So I feel as if we could almost say the therapeutics, we don't use them until they're too late in many cases.
There's a... Oh, but the study that said these Lilly monoclonal antibodies were successful, it took about five minutes for Anatoly Lubarsky, one of my favorite skeptics, to weigh in to say that the study's not very good.
How often have you heard this? There's a study that shows that something or something helps with the coronavirus, and five minutes later, it's not a very good study.
So even I could recognize that it wasn't a very powerful study, meaning that there weren't enough people to feel that you got the right answer.
So it's a little weak, just so you know.
Michael Amina, who's been the one most advocating the quick, cheap tests, which are not legal in the United States because the FDA requires a prescription to get a test, and I think reporting is still required.
Two things which almost prove that our FDA is corrupt.
We just don't know who at the FDA or what kind of corruption it is.
But I think we can conclude at this point that the FDA has a corruption problem.
The rapid testing thing just shows it as clearly as you could possibly show it.
Now, I'm open to a counter-argument.
If the FDA would like to argue that they have reasons for having a prescription and a reporting requirement, if there are reasons, I'd like to hear them.
But short of hearing the reasons, you have to assume corruption at the FDA. But Michael Mina announced a massive public health research study with Citibank, And if I have this right, they're going to use, just in a test scenario, they're going to test these rapid tests on, I think, probably just Citibank employees for a while and see if it makes a difference.
I don't know if it's Citibank employees only.
But the point is that there's going to be some testing on this, and it will be harder for the FDA to say no.
This could be really, really important for future pandemics, and maybe it helps us mop up a little at the end of this one.
But we should have been doing this a year ago.
We really should have.
Let's talk about the George Floyd trial.
So Jack Posobiec is reporting on this.
I don't know who else is reporting on it.
I feel like the only thing I'm seeing about the trial is from Jack.
And he tweeted today, I don't know who needs to hear this, but nearly every potential juror called in the George Floyd case...
Testified that they were terrified of being doxed and their families threatened if they served on the jury.
You should just stop the trial now.
We should stop the trial.
You've got to stop the trial.
This is not fair.
Because somebody is going to say yes to serving on this jury, and I don't think they should.
I feel as if this situation is just not fair.
To the poor citizens who are just trying to do their civic duty and to do a trial.
Stop the trial.
Stop it right now.
Move it. Maybe move it somewhere where people would be less concerned.
But man, if nearly every potential jury has this fear, the people who don't have the fear, and maybe say yes to serving, Either means they already know they're going to vote to convict, which is the worst possible scenario, or they're not aware enough to know that they're in danger.
And you don't want that person making life and death decisions either.
Right? You should stop this trial right away.
In the same way, here's something I've told you before, that you don't decide what your product is.
The customer tells you what business you're in.
So if you think you're providing one kind of service or product, but your customers keep asking for something that's a little different, and then you start giving that thing that's a little different, that's the business you're in.
You're in that business. Your customers decided what business you're in by telling you that's what they need, and then you just move to that business.
I think we have to apply some of that thinking to this trial.
Normally, normally, The court system tells us what the trial is.
And the court system says, we've got this system.
It's a jury of your peers.
It's going to work with these rules.
And that's good. That normally works.
But what happened here already is that the customers, in this case the jurors, just changed the product.
They just told you this isn't the product.
The product that the court system thinks they're selling...
You know, in a figurative sense, is some kind of fair justice system that's like every other fair trial we've had.
This isn't like that.
This is dangerous to the jurors.
This is really dangerous to the jurors.
And it needs to be stopped.
They need to just call it off right now and try to figure out how to do it in a safe way.
But it needs to be stopped.
We should not be putting citizens who are just trying to do their civic duty...
In front of a firing squad.
It's outrageous.
If I were one of the lawyers for the George Floyd case, here's one of the things I would be arguing.
As somebody said to me on Twitter, Scott, how can you say it's the fentanyl that might have killed George Floyd?
We know fentanyl was in his system.
We know Fentanyl kills you quickly the way George Floyd died.
But at the same time, there was a police officer's knee on his neck.
And so somebody said, Scott, there was a knee on his neck for nine minutes.
So... To which I say, if I'm the defense attorney for Derek Chauvin, I say...
If you look around the courtroom, you'll see a number of men wearing neckties.
How many of them will be strangled to death by their neckties by the end of today?
Because they'll be wearing those neckties for hours.
How many of them will die from strangulation?
And the answer is, probably none.
And you know why? Because things that touch your neck don't kill you.
Watch this. Still alive.
Still alive. I can breathe.
So it turns out that things can look like they're strangling you and not even barely be touching you at all.
How about that? In fact, if I were the attorney, I would take off my necktie, wrap it around my neck, Hold it as tight as possible and give my closing statement while holding it really, really tight.
So that the jury could not possibly miss the point that things can look like strangulation and not be.
Since they're only arguing a...
The defense only has to argue reasonable doubt.
And so if the main thing is this visual video, there is a knee touching a neck, right?
Anybody who says that shouldn't be looked into, well, I disagree.
You need to look into that, right?
If somebody dies while a policeman is on their neck, you have to look into that.
But the reasonable doubt is just all over this thing, right?
Well, he passed out, but we assume that he might have anyway, because he had the kind of drugs in him that makes you pass out in those situations.
Now, the part that's going to be dicey is whether they should have known that there was a risk.
He was saying, I can't breathe, but he was also saying that before they put him on the ground, so a reasonable person could have thought, well, he's just saying this has nothing to do with his position.
But I believe on the video that the officers asked him if he was on any drugs.
Does anybody remember that?
Did the police officers not ask him directly what drugs he was on or if he was on any drugs?
I think he did. And I believe that George Floyd lied and said he was not.
Now, how would this have gone if George Floyd had said, yes, I have some fentanyl?
Well, he probably didn't know he had fentanyl.
But yes, I have a number of opioids in me.
What would the police officer do if somebody said, I just took a bunch of opioids and I have a breathing problem?
Now, if that cop doesn't treat that as a medical problem, well, that's a problem, right?
Because every cop should know that somebody who takes too many opioids could die and their breathing problem might be the warning that that's going to happen pretty soon.
So the cop would have handled it completely differently, one imagines, if George Floyd had not lied to him about his medical condition.
So if you're saying, hey, why didn't the officer believe him when he said, I can't breathe?
Why did the officer believe him when he said he didn't have any drugs?
The fact is, he was dealing with a liar.
When George Floyd said he wasn't on anything, don't you think the police knew he was on something?
Not necessarily opioids.
I mean, that would be hard to tell.
But they knew he was lying, right?
So once he had established that he would lie to the police officers, when he said that he couldn't breathe, and that's sort of a common thing that people say, oh, I'm handcuffed, I can't breathe.
It's probably one of the most common things police officers hear when they try to control a person.
So I don't see any chance that there's going to be a conviction on the murder charges.
There might be something in terms of procedure or something that was violated.
I don't know. So we're hearing more stories about Harris.
Watching CNN prepare...
Kamala Harris to take over is kind of funny because it's a little bit heavy-handed.
It's just a little too obvious what they're doing.
But there's a story today that's sort of building her up to get ready to take over.
And here's what the CNN is saying.
Quote, she spends a good portion of each day around four to five hours with Biden and their team behind closed doors.
According to White House sources.
Now, how many hours a day did Pence spend with Trump?
Closer to zero, right?
Now, I do think that they talk a lot, but do you think Pence spent four to five hours around Trump every day?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
So this is, of course, softening you up to see her as a co-president, because she's just always in the room.
And then they quote Jim Clyburn saying, the chemistry between the two of them is great, said Representative Jim Clyburn.
Do you remember any stories about the chemistry between Pence and Trump?
I don't recall any chemistry stories.
Do you? All right.
And then it says, learning on the job is no small thing for the second-in-command.
Learning on the job.
Learning what? Is she learning how to be a vice president?
What does learning on the job mean?
I feel like it means, in this context, learning to be the president.
Which, of course, a vice president should do.
And CNN says she's taking a very strong, hands-on approach.
To his most important projects.
That's right. She's taking a strong, hands-on approach to his most important projects.
Which sounds a little bit like she might already be making the decisions.
Like, moving in that direction.
And then this last part, which is just laugh-out-loud funny.
Biden himself strategized the passage of the stimulus package and personally worked the most critical senators.
Now, wouldn't that be just every president?
Doesn't every president talk about the strategy of getting something passed if they want it to get passed?
Wouldn't that just be every conversation every day with every president?
What's the strategy to get this passed?
But I feel like they had to add it in for Biden to make you think that his brain still works.
Oh, Biden, he's all over the strategizing.
Yeah, he's still good.
Alright, I asked yesterday on my Locals channel, which is a subscription service, Locals.com, I asked my followers there what they got the most value out of.
And the answer I saw the most was reframing.
How to reframe a situation so you just think about it in a more productive way.
And I realized that most of what I do is reframing.
And it's super powerful.
So I'm going to be doing more of that.
I'll give you an example of some of the reframes.
One of them is systems versus goals.
Just reframing the way you think about success from a goal-oriented to a systems-oriented.
Thinking about how you prepare your skills from being really good at one thing to a skill stack where you have a combination of skills that work well.
Those are reframes.
Reframing equals apologists.
No, it doesn't. It's nothing like that.
A reframe could be used in any context.
It has nothing to do with politics, per se.
Reframing in politics is usually just more politics.
But reframing about success, or how you look at the world, that's useful.
Harris is there as the military-industrial cunt.
Yeah, I see what you're saying there.
Reframe success. Well, you know, there are lots of components within success that will be reframed.
And I will reframe Biden.
Well, I don't think of reframing so much in terms of a person.
I think of reframing in terms of how you visualize things or how you imagine things in your head.
Odds that Biden speaks live...
Well, I think he will speak live.
Um... I'm mad if warm kiss ready to go.
Okay, that's an interesting concept.
Reframing equals Antifa.
Yeah, Antifa did a clever reframing, whereby calling themselves anti-fascist, you can't be against them without being a fascist.
So that was pretty clever.
That's more persuasion than framing, I think.
All right, so more on that later, and I will talk to you all tomorrow.
And that's it for today.
All right, YouTubers. Jill Biden's done more than Melania.
I don't know. What has Jill Biden done?
I have nothing against Jill Biden.
I think she's probably doing a great job, by the way.
Question on Jen Psaki.
What is the effect of you saying circle back on Jennifer Psaki's use of it?
I don't quite understand the question, but the circle back thing is just something people are talking about because she says it a lot.
There's not too much to say about that.
Let's see.
I want to see that comment again.
Yeah.
Yeah, I don't understand the question, SOA 700.
So ask it a different way.
I'm not sure I'll be here much longer.
Somebody says, Bill Gates is a eugenicist.
No, he isn't. So all of those things like, you know, Bill Gates is a eugenicist and, you know, he's going to put a chip in you.
Those are crazy.
Those are crazy. And they're so far from being a rational opinion.
That it almost has to be seen as mental illness of some kind, some mild kind of mental illness, where you imagine that the guy who's literally doing the most to help the world is actually some kind of a devil character.
I mean, that's a weird...
It's a kind of mental illness, but I don't know what I would call it, per se.
Somebody says Scott Adams is a toad?
Perfectly reasonable opinion.
Um... Will houses in your city have virtual reality headsets installed?
Maybe. How much Roblox stock did I buy?
None, but I'll tell you, I've witnessed a child hooked on that program, Roblox, and I've never seen anything like it.
There is something about that that has a stickiness that's just crazy.
Are you on Bill Gates payroll?
I am not. Why would you even assume that?
Somebody says, Bill is no patriot.
Bill is no patriot?
You know, I'm going to agree with you on that.
Because I don't see Bill Gates being a nationalist.
He does seem to be a globalist.
But not in the globalist bad way, but rather he just sees his mission as being outside of, you know, not restricted to the United States.
So I would... I wouldn't say he's not a patriot.
It's just not his brand.
Akira the Don plays your tunes?
Yes, he does. He's got a really good one of that.
How will you overcome the secret cabal if you run for president?
Oh, the secret cabal of people who are really in power?
Well, you'd have to do it the way Trump did it the first time, which is surprise them.
Because there are certain, let's say, gates to keep people out of power, but if you overwhelm the gate before they know what you're doing, it's too late.
That's what he did. Who paid for the fraud?
I don't know what you're talking about.
Have you experienced telepathy?
Not that I'm aware of.
I've experienced things that have that sensation.
Why let nerds, who are by definition socially inept, run society?
Well, you're talking about Bill Gates, right?
I would say that Bill Gates does a really good job of sticking to the things that Bill Gates is good at, which is looking at complicated situations and trying to simplify them and figure out what's a good strategy.
If you could tell me there's somebody better at that, Maybe Elon Musk, right?
Maybe Jeff Bezos. There are a handful of people you'd say, okay, are really good at this, looking at complicated things and picking out what's important.
That's what he does.
If he told you how to have good manners or something, you'd be the wrong person.
Are you interested in power structures?
Interested, sure. I don't know what that means.
Do you go to AA? No?
Why do you ask? Is it because I say that alcohol is poison?
By the way, that's another reframe.
Somebody said that it was helpful in stopping drinking.
That just saying that alcohol is poison and just repeating it whenever you see alcohol makes it so.
