Episode 1430 Scott Adams: The Golden Age is Here But It's Hiding. I Show You Where.
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Tucker NSA update
Japan Olympics
Rep. Tlaib calls for defunding ICE
Rapid analysis climate change headlines
President Trump sues Google, Twitter, Facebook
American flag vs BLM Utah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, the best time of the day.
Coming to you live on YouTube and on the Locals platform without any commercials if you're a subscriber.
And at the moment, even if you're not a subscriber.
Because I think I opened today's live stream so that you could be a non-subscriber and check it out.
I think I did.
So that would be out at scottadams.locals.com.
All right. But we've got lots of stuff to talk about, but not until the important things have been taken care of.
The important things? Yes, the important things.
Let me tell you once again that if the volume is not good on YouTube, it's a YouTube problem because the volume is fine for other people.
Especially if I put up my microphone.
So I've got a checklist now.
Where I make sure that before I go live, I make sure my cables are connected, because unfortunately I disconnect them between live streams, and I make sure that my microphones are put on, which I just forgot.
And no matter what I fucking do, somebody's going to tell me that the sound isn't good.
So if you wonder why do I ignore you when I don't have my microphone on and I'm ignoring tons and tons of people saying your sound is bad, it's because they say that every fucking time, no matter what the sound is.
There's a YouTube problem that makes that happen.
In addition to me forgetting to put my microphone on, of course.
All right. Let's do the simultaneous sip instead of talking about the sound problems.
Okay? And all you need is a cup or mug or a What?
A glass, I guess. A tanker, a chalice, a canteen, a drink, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill you with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. Not big butts.
Coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called Simultaneous Hip.
It's going to happen now. Go. So good.
I think I might change the name of my livecast every day to the sound is fine, the problem's on your end, even when it's not, because half the time it's on my end.
Well, I told you the golden age is coming, and apparently a lot of people will agree with me.
Turns out that according to a Gallup poll, we've reached the highest ever measured Percentage of Americans who evaluate their lives well enough to be considered, quote, thriving.
So we've got 59% of Americans rate themselves as thriving, the highest it's ever been.
Now, it's only been measured for 13 years, I guess, but it's pretty good.
And I guess it was only one previous high that was almost that high, and we just topped that too.
So, what does it mean when the news is telling us everything's going to hell, but the citizens are happier than ever?
How do you interpret that?
I feel as if maybe things are going really well.
Now, the pandemic was a pretty big hiccup, but even that's going better at the moment.
But here's a question that I ask.
Wouldn't you love to see a happiness poll by ethnicity?
And by gender, I suppose.
Maybe by religion, too.
Throw in anything that people get discriminated against for.
And wouldn't you like to know if the people who are suffering the greatest discrimination also are the least happy?
Because what if they're not?
What if they're not?
Because I think that's what would happen.
I believe if you did a poll and just asked people, how happy are you, without any other context, you would find that all the ethnicities are sort of roughly just as happy as all the others.
I think. That's a hypothesis.
But try Googling for that information.
See what happens.
So some of you are better researchers than I am.
Do this little test. Take a minute and try to Google whether or not there are some ethnic groups in the United States that are happier, on average, than other groups.
Not income, not education level, not employment rates, but just happiness.
What would happen? Well, wouldn't it ruin everything if everybody's the same amount of happiness?
Right? But if the groups that we know suffer the most discrimination are also the least happy, well, that gives you more fuel for fixing it, right?
So if you've got a bunch of, you know, systemic racism, etc., and everybody's unhappy about it, the people who are suffering from it, that's a pretty good argument for fixing it.
But what if they're not unhappy?
What if it's something that people complain about But overall, they're just as happy.
What would you do with that?
Then do you have a problem to fix?
Because if the goal is to be happy, and everybody is about roughly happy, at least, let's say, by ethnicity, just to pick one dimension, what is there to fix?
Right? So I think there's a reason that you don't see that information.
It's hard to believe that nobody ever polled Different racial groups to find out who's happiest.
I feel like it had to happen.
All right, I'm seeing over on Locals, somebody has sent me...
Oh, there it is! Happiness by ethnicity.
In 2016, the Temkin group.
And so here are the numbers.
According to this one graph that I don't have the information about to know how credible it is.
But according to this, 73% of African Americans are happy, I guess.
That's what it's telling me. 75% of Asians, 75% of Hispanic, and 76% of Caucasians.
So the difference between Caucasian and African American in terms of happiness, according to this one poll, don't know how much credibility to put in it, would be three basis points.
Now, suppose you adjusted for how many people are literally in prison because you know that there's like a tragedy within the black community of just a number of people who are literally in jail.
Right? It's an alarmingly big number.
And suppose you took them out of the poll.
You know, you took all the people who were in jail out of the poll.
Although, did they get polled in the first place?
That's a good question. If they never got polled in the first place...
Yeah, so probably they didn't poll anybody in jail, so maybe you don't have to take them out.
But you would assume...
That if one group had a higher incarcerated group, that that would come out in the happiness numbers, but probably didn't come out in this bowl.
Anyway, so is the Caucasian and African-American happiness levels, are they within statistical, let's say, statistical margin of error?
Yes. It looks like...
It looks like...
All right.
Here's a little thing for you to do as a little experiment if you've never done this.
Now, you might have to like watching soccer for this to work for you.
But here's the experiment.
Go to YouTube and do a search for Lionel Messi.
His last name, M-E-S-S-I. Now, if you don't follow soccer, you would not know that Lionel Messi is maybe the best soccer player who ever lived.
His ability to run around other players and score goals that can't be scored, etc.
Now, do this experiment.
Just watch a compilation clip of Lionel Messi scoring a bunch of goals, and then try to watch a professional soccer game that he's not in.
Just a whole bunch of high-level professional soccer players, the best in the world.
They look like children.
You really have to do this experiment.
Watch Lionel Messi play, and then just watch a normal game that doesn't have him in it, and it'll look like they don't know how to play soccer.
You'll see nobody can get around anybody.
All their passes are to nothing or to nobody who can do much with the ball.
It is so hard to watch the best soccer players in the world unless you've got one of the greatest of all times on the field.
There's just not much to watch there.
And I've said for a long time that all of the sports are broken.
We should take every sport and start from scratch and say, okay, it's 2021, what's different that we need to change this sport to make it more interesting?
Imagine, if you will, making the size of the goal, let's say five feet wider.
Why? Because our attention span in 2021 is much shorter, and you need a sport that scores a few more goals.
So just make the goal a little bit wider, right?
Fix it. Tennis is a complete nightmare to watch.
It used to be fun, but now it's mostly serve and miss, serve and miss, serve and miss.
So get rid of the serve.
Somehow put the ball in play without serving, and you'd suddenly have an interesting sport again.
You could do the same thing with a bunch of other sports.
So we have new information about Tucker Carlson's claim that the NSA was spying on him.
So Axios did some reporting, Jonathan Swan, I think.
And so this is how they described it.
An NSA spokesman declined to comment about whether or not Tucker had been picked up when talking to some Russians.
So I guess Tucker was trying to get an interview with Putin, and he'd been trying for a while, and had talked to some American-based Russian folks.
I don't know if they were American citizens or not.
That's not clear. And, uh, axios, not axioms, yeah.
And, uh, apparently Tucker allegedly, probably, we don't know for sure, but it seems likely, was picked up in those conversations.
So, here's what the NSA said when asked about it.
They referred to their prior comment to say that he was not targeted.
So, you know how lying works, right?
Hey, did you pick up any of Tucker Carlson's communication?
He was never targeted.
Okay, okay. We didn't ask you if he was targeted.
We asked you, have you monitored any of Tucker Carlson's communications?
How many times do we have to tell you we did not target Tucker Carlson?
Okay, okay, but you're not really answering the question, which is, are you monitoring his communication?
How many times do we need to tell you we didn't target him?
So it's basically, not basically, it's a confirmation.
So now we know the NSA has, in fact, Been monitoring the communication of Tucker Carlson.
Now, he makes a further claim, apparently this comes from a whistleblower, that the purpose of it is to get his show off the air.
Now, I doubt that the NSA's leadership has that as a purpose.
I mean, they might want it.
They might be happy if it happens.
But I doubt there's any kind of policy from the top.
But are there plenty of people who work at the NSA Who would be pretty happy if that happened and maybe would be on the lookout for a way to make that happen?
Probably. You know, if you just assume a normal distribution of Democrats and Republicans everywhere, yeah, there are going to be some people at the NSA who would like to do them in.
All right. So, it's sort of shocking...
But we also don't know quite what to do with it, right?
Because I doubt Tucker said anything during these conversations that was too secretive.
But the fact that they could watch him at all is crazy.
Now, here's a question.
Does the NSA only have the authorization to monitor communications when he's talking to somebody who's a foreign national?
Or... Can they say you've ever talked to somebody on our list and therefore we can watch you as long as we want because you had one conversation with somebody on our list?
How does that work?
How much authorization does the NSA have if somebody had one communication?
Yeah, and then unmasking is the crime, we're told, that he was unmasked.
Now, I don't know the details of that or if that's confirmed, but that would be a big...
Yeah, the unmasking and the leaking would be pretty big issues.
You are correct. Well, Keith Olbermann created some fake news today, so he took that story, the NSA story that Axios reported, and then he tweets it and he says, as we told you at the time, Tucker Carlson was communicating with a foreign-based individual intent on harming the U.S. That's Keith Olbermann.
Now, is that statement true?
Would you say that Tucker Carlson was communicating with a foreign-based individual?
Okay, that part seems to be true.
I'm not sure if he was foreign-based.
Yeah, I guess you'd say foreign-based, even if he was in the United States at the time.
Intent on harming the U.S., is that true?
Do you think that a Russian person who's maybe associated with Putin would be intent on harming the U.S.? Maybe.
Maybe. If harming includes just suppressing the United States power so it doesn't get too powerful, you know, relative to Russia, that's probably true.
But is the entire message here from Keith Olbermann true or misleading?
Well, Jonathan Swan, who I guess wrote the article, believed it was misleading.
He says in response, not what the story says.
I have tried to get foreign interviews with adversaries and use back channels.
So basically Jonathan Swan said it's normal journalistic procedure to talk to bad people as part of your job.
So how do you get an interview with Putin How could anybody ever get an interview with Putin without talking to, and I quote, you couldn't do it.
How could anybody do that?
How did Biden set up a phone call with Putin?
There's only one way to do it.
The only way Biden's administration and staff could set up a phone call with Putin Is by, quote, communicating with foreign-based individuals intent on harming the U.S. It's exactly what Biden does.
And any president would do.
So Keith Olbermann continues to be the most ridiculous person on social media.
Meanwhile, over in Japan, it looks like the Olympics will not have live spectators.
So I guess it's going to be indoor Olympic type stuff.
And the Tokyo Olympic Games, it looks like at this point, pretty sure that it will happen in empty arenas.
Now, let me ask you this question.
Is there any way that you could make the Olympic Games less relevant to any of us?
Well, One way would be to have athletic events that you and I can never participate in ourselves, such as, let's say, skiing and shooting, although I don't think that's part of this Olympics, and weird things like throwing a hammer really far, or how fast you can run in a specific distance, or how high you can jump over an object.
Does anybody care about any of that?
If I told you you will forever never know who in the world can jump the highest, what would you say to that?
Oh no! How can I go through my life without knowing who could jump the highest every four years?
I'm pretty sure you would do okay.
But if you wanted to take that ridiculous and worthless activity and make it even less relevant, how about if nobody watches it?
That would be one way.
So we won't have anybody watching it in person, but at least they can watch it on television, right?
Unless it's boring and it's 2021 and people don't watch boring things for long periods of time on television anymore.
So now we have ridiculous competitions that are somewhat randomly invented.
How about throwing a heavy object?
How about that? How about using a broom in front of a slippery thing on ice?
To make sure that it goes in the right direction.
How about that sport?
So you've got all these people around the world who are wasting their youth preparing for these random competitions of no value whatsoever.
Meanwhile, people aren't going to watch them in person this year and probably won't watch it too much on television at all because television is sort of a legacy media at this point.
Why do I hate sports?
I love sports.
So when I criticize sports, it's from a perspective of somebody who loves sports, playing them.
Now, spectating is a little different.
I love watching Lionel Messi.
I loved watching basketball whenever one of the greats was playing, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, any of those.
So I do like watching sports.
If it's the right sport with the right stars.
And I love playing sports.
And I always have. But sports are a mess.
They haven't really been fixed for decades.
So that's all I'm saying. In funnier news, the squad member Tlaib is calling for defunding of ICE, the Border Patrol, DHS, and claims they terrorize migrants.
And here's the question I have to ask.
At what point is it safe to assume that Tlaib, Representative Tlaib, is being paid by a foreign adversary?
Is that a fair question?
And that's a serious question, but is it fair?
At what point is somebody so obviously working against the interests of the country she's supposed to represent that you would just have to assume she's being paid by an enemy?
Wouldn't you? Because it's one thing to say, hey, the police are too brutal.
Fair enough. You could agree or disagree, but it's within the realm of ordinary opinion.
But to say you should just get rid of the organizations that protect the border...
That's more like trying to destroy the country.
That doesn't really sound like you're trying to make something better, does it?
So is it fair to start asking who is funding her?
Is this the sort of thing that could open up an investigation?
If you are law enforcement, or let's say FBI or something, Would you look at this and say, we better start monitoring her communication?
Because the odds of her receiving some kind of payment from an outside source, it looks at least feasible, right?
I'm not making the claim, so this is not an allegation.
I'm just saying that if you act exactly like somebody who's being paid by a foreign adversary, At what point do you get investigated just by doing legal things?
Because she has freedom of speech and it's her job to say stuff about politics.
But at what point is the stuff she's saying so obviously not in the interest of the United States that you can just start investigating her to see where the money's coming from?
I don't know. Is there any way that could ever happen?
And would you even want to live in a country that did that sort of thing?
Because I suppose if you had a rule that said you could do that, look into people just based on their opinion, that that would get misapplied, right?
So you probably don't want a rule like that.
But in related news, Biden and the Democrats are going to have to be worried about all this defund the police stuff.
Because if there's one way that Republicans can take back Congress and the presidency and basically everything else, it's by being tough on crime when crime is rising.
So crime is rising like crazy and And I think everybody's aware of that.
At the same time, the Democrats are saying, let's do less about it.
How can you possibly win an election with that?
The worst problem in the country is crime, and we'd like to do less about it.
I feel as if the Republicans are just going to walk into every office that's available.
It just doesn't even seem like the Democrats have a chance.
And, of course, the Democrats will try to run away from this.
You know, a lot of them will say, well, that's not my message.
But the Republicans are going to paint them with the same brush.
So if there's a Republican who is opposed to funding or defunding the police, all the Republicans have to say is, yeah, yeah, maybe this Democrat is not in favor of defunding police, but here's my argument.
Every additional Democrat who's in power makes it more likely that the police will be defunded.
Because that is harder to argue with.
Certainly a candidate can say, I'm a Democrat and I don't want to defund the police.
But all the Republican has to do is say, being a Democrat is all it takes.
Because that's going to give your side enough power and you're probably not going to oppose it full-throatedly.
So that's how you get to defund the police.
You get more people like this Democrat than I'm pointing to, even though that one says to not defund the police.
So I feel like this is just such a slam dunk that you could just easily predict what's going to happen in the midterms.
Is there anybody who doesn't think the Republicans are going to do well in the midterms?
Because I'd be interested if anybody has a counter idea.
It just seems obvious to me at this point that's the way it's going to go.
All right, but I could be wrong.
I could be wrong.
You never know. So the New York Times has some excellent fake news, or fake news alerts.
So apparently there's a group that does what's called a, quote, rapid analysis.
Of any major climate events.
Let's say there's forest fires or heat waves or wind-related storms or stuff.
And they do this attribution analysis, this rapid analysis, to get a news headline out as quickly as possible that's paired with the news that says it's related to climate change.
So they start with the assumption that these big events are likely caused by climate change.
Then they jump in and do a rapid evaluation and then produce a headline to say, yes, indeed, it was related to climate change.
Now, they did this recently with the heat waves.
And... This was not the same information that I'd heard from all sources, and so I was wondering if anybody would push back.
And sure enough, Joel Pollack in Breitbart does an article in which he references a new book out by Stephen Koonin called Unsettled, What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters.
Now, This attribution analysis is specifically criticized in this book, and this fellow is a former Obama administration climate scientist.
That's important.
He's a climate scientist, and he was in the Obama administration.
And he's saying that the analyses are basically not to be trusted in a lot of stuff, especially the rapid response stuff.
Do you know how the rapid response stuff is peer-reviewed?
It's not. It's not.
Because they don't have time for that.
The thing that makes it rapid is that it's not peer-reviewed.
So how much trust should you put in a complicated subject...
You know, climate change is really complicated.
And somebody does a rapid analysis with the stated purpose of making a headline for political purposes.
So it's explicitly for propaganda.
Now, they don't say explicitly we're going to lie, right?
That's not what they're doing.
But explicitly, the purpose is propaganda.
So would you trust a non-peer-reviewed analysis that was rapid on a really complicated area where you know people are going to disagree and lots of assumptions were made, and there's no randomized controlled trial?
How much trust should you put in that analysis?
The answer is none. Yeah, exactly zero.
Which doesn't mean they're wrong.
They can be right, but you wouldn't have any way of knowing or any way of trusting it, really.
So the New York Times runs this review, or this rapid analysis thing, that even the authors of it said was an untested hypothesis.
The people who did the analysis won't even tell you it's credible.
They call their own analysis basically operating on a hypothesis.
Right? So if the people who do the analysis cannot give you confidence in their own analysis, it's still just a hypothesis, how should the New York Times report that?
Well, I would say they should report it as there's a hypothesis that is not strongly supported by science, but there's a hint that some reasonable people looked at it and they have some concerns.
Something like that. But here's what the New York Times said instead.
That these heat waves were virtually impossible without climate change.
Virtually impossible without climate change.
And then the story doesn't support that headline at all.
Again, it's possible that climate change caused everything just the way it's reported.
But we don't have science to indicate that.
I mean, not credible science.
We've got a propaganda group that did something without peer review that was exactly the answer you expected them to come up with in a complicated area where people can disagree.
So, that's your fake news for the day.
Meanwhile, Trump is suing Google, Facebook, and Twitter for censorship.
How do you think that's going to turn out?
Well, the smart people, who are often wrong, by the way, but the smart people, all the lawyers are weighing in and saying, ha, ha, ha, ha, he has no chance.
Because it's not really a First Amendment situation, because it doesn't involve the government, and therefore that's the end of the story.
They're private companies, they can do whatever they want.
But interestingly, Alan Dershowitz is getting a lot of pushback today because he's saying that it is a First Amendment kind of a case, and the most important First Amendment case of the 21st century.
Now, is saying it's the most important First Amendment case of the 21st century, is that the same as saying Trump could win?
No, no.
So even Dershowitz is not saying it's likely Trump would win.
He's just pointing out how important it is.
And I would agree with the importance of it because in a very real way, freedom of speech depends on private companies now in a way that it didn't depend so much in the past.
So it's certainly important, but the thought is that maybe Trump is just using it for fundraising.
To make it look like he's doing something useful, it helps him with the fundraising, keeps him in the news, keeps him with an enemy, because he likes to have an enemy.
So I've got a feeling that this won't go anywhere.
It just feels like it's not going to go anywhere.
Somebody's saying the audio on Locals is much better.
Just so you know, I'm running that audio through a Rodecaster Pro.
So it's taking the S's out.
And I'm running the YouTube just through this little booster thing by Shure.
And that doesn't have a de-esser on it.
So there should be a little bit of difference.
All right. So the flag, the American flag, is now being considered by at least Utah's Black Lives Matter chapter as a symbol of hatred.
It's a symbol of hatred, the American flag.
And she says, when we black Americans see this flag, we know the person flying it is not safe to be around.
What? Do you think that assumption would hold?
Do you think that if you saw somebody holding an American flag, which literally symbolizes the melting pot and the American ethic of treating everybody the same, etc., or at least treating everybody with the same rights, I feel as if this Black Lives Matter chapter may have gone a little too far.
Because I certainly don't see people who respect the American flag as being the special racists in the group.
I don't really see that.
Now, I get the point that there are a lot of right-wing groups that use the flag also.
But that doesn't really ruin the flag, does it?
Because every group has some bad people who agree with them.
That's universal. You know, if I said, you don't want to be a Democrat because there are so many Democrats who are pedophiles.
Well, there are, right?
Probably you could pick any group and you could find some bad people among them, but does that mean you shouldn't be a Democrat because there are so many pedophiles who are also Democrats?
We don't manage life that way.
So the fact that there might be some bad people using the flag as their symbol doesn't ruin the flag.
And I've said this before, but I'll say it again.
Bad people using the flag for their own purposes is what makes the flag powerful.
Because it's all of our flag, and it stands for unpopular opinions, as much as it stands for popular opinions.
So the fact that anybody can use it, but also anybody can burn it, that's what makes it magic.
If you couldn't burn it without destroying it, it wouldn't be magic.
You know, the flag is one of the few things you can literally burn, and it gets stronger.
Right? Because, hey, you can burn that flag.
That's like a feature. That's not a flaw.
You can burn it all day long, and it still stands for your right to do whatever you want.
In fact, you're burning the flag that gives you the right to burn the flag.
I mean, or symbolizes that right.
So there's almost nothing you can do to a flag that doesn't make it stronger.
It's very anti-fragile that way, if I could use that term.
Somebody says, Coco says, burn a rainbow flag and see what happens to you.
Well, I would not compare the two, because one is a symbol of a certain group, and one is a symbol specifically to include us all.
So I reject your analogy.
All right. Then apparently there are 40 progressive groups sent a letter to Biden...
Urging that the Biden administration plays nice with China so that we can fix climate change.
Which would imply ignoring whatever's happening in Hong Kong, which I'm sure is too late to do anything about, but also ignoring the forced detention of the Uyghurs.
Now, are we supposed to just ignore concentration camps?
In China? Because if we don't, it'll be hard to deal with them on climate?
Because I've got a feeling that China is going to be exactly as hard to deal with, no matter what the topic is.
It's hard for me to imagine that if we were really nice to China on the Uyghurs, that therefore they would get rid of their coal-burning plants faster.
Like, what exactly is the connection?
I just don't see that China is going to do more on climate because they like us more, because we were more respectful to them by not calling them out for concentration camps.
I don't know. This makes no sense to me.
And once again, this is another example of the left ignores human motivation.
Just consistently.
They always get human motivation wrong.
It's as if they don't know why people do what they do.
All right.
Well, as somebody said, somebody needs to make a Schindler's List movie about the Uyghurs, because if you don't turn it into a movie, nobody's going to care.
And I think Steven Spielberg was a genius because he realized that making a movie about the Holocaust, Schindler's List, was a powerful thing to do.
It would just keep it in the public's consciousness forever, and it was very successful that way.
What about Tibet? You know, yeah, Tibet, of course, is oppressed by China, but I don't know the details of that.
If I did, I'd be talking about it.
Now, I heard a bunch of comments yesterday that people enjoyed my comments about intersectionality.
And my suggestion specifically was that we add more categories to it and it would just collapse under its own weight.
And adding, you know, short people and old people and Republicans and ugly people and everything else.
But I don't know what else to do with that.
So if nobody's going to actually try to do that, then it's a suggestion that just goes out there and dies.
But somebody somewhere probably needs to try to get those things included in a curriculum, because it would just make the whole thing fall apart.
Yeah, diabetics, heart patients, everybody who's got a health problem, throw them in there in the intersectional situation.
So Ronnie says, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a critical race theory book that's in schools now.
Well, I think that conversation has been settled.
So you saw a bunch of people saying, it's fake news that critical race theory is being taught in schools.
But the two biggest teachers' unions just came out strongly in favor of it and are talking about it being in schools as a fact, meaning that it's already there and it's being taught, and the teachers' unions call it by that name, critical race theory. So those of you who thought that it was fake news that critical race theory was being taught in schools, if it isn't, it's going to be.
Because there's way too much pressure to make it happen.
Tim Pool had a guest who was showing the materials.
Was that Christopher Ruffalo?
I don't know who that was, but it probably was.
And we've seen some of the documents, especially in corporate America.
They just call it something different, yes.
All right. It wasn't Christopher Ruffalo, but somebody else saw it.
All right. Wokies or...
Oh, somebody's asked me how to spell Wokie.
So I was suggesting that the people who are woke be called Wokies.
I spelled it W-O-K-I-E-S, but I suppose you could do it a different way.
Yeah, it's possible that critical race theory will be the downfall of the teachers' unions.
Or at the very least, it will be the rising of school choice.
So we're seeing that everywhere.
Between critical race theory and defunding the police, I think the Democrats found a way to remove themselves from power.
It looks like that's what's going to happen.
Alright. I'm going to need to go get ready and do something else.
And I will be back here tomorrow, YouTubers.
I'm going to say a little bit more to the locals people.
