Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Oct. 30, 2021 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams

01:57:18

Episode 1546 Scott Adams: Trouble. Get in Here

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Biden's Global Tax Accord Bitcoin and inflation Michael Shellenberger's addiction solutions AT&T training employees white people are the enemy? Race activist Ibram Kendi race advantage tweet Ibram Kendi's self-disputing tweet 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. My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hold on, hold on. Not yet.
	Not yet. This is the part of the show that locals people usually see, but you don't see on YouTube.
	This is where I'm fussing around to do my checklist of everything and get it right in two minutes.
	As sound you hear is my notes printing out.
	For the best show you're ever going to see.
	Let me tell you, we've got a good one today.
	I won't say that every time.
	But today, oh yeah, it's a good one.
	Alright, just a couple more steps here and we're good to go.
	Let me grab my notes.
	Oh, good news.
	It looks like there might be another twist in the saga.
	That instead of my normal show, you might get to see me take that HP printer.
	See it there? That's my HP printer.
	It's trying to do something.
	Trying to print my notes for the show.
	It's making noise.
	Looks like it's begging for cartridges or something.
	I don't know. But my last HP printer is in pieces on the floor of the garage.
	I don't even think it knows it.
	Because obviously, hey, what the hell is going on?
	Obviously, if my printer knew what its fate was going to be in about five minutes, it would be printing a lot better than it is.
	A lot better. Because its predecessor is in a lot of pieces that I keep in a container next to the door in the garage so I can see it every time I walk by.
	And I'd like all of my equipment to know that it's this close to being destroyed in public.
	Let me push this button and see what happens.
	Oh.
	Might be just on a paper.
	Hold on. Because if this doesn't produce anything like my notes in about 60 seconds,
	I am going to rip it out of the wall and throw it over my balcony onto the sidewalk below.
	Now, see? A lot of you think it's senseless.
	A lot of you think it's senseless to threaten your technical devices, but no.
	You can see it working right in front of you.
	Yeah. Those of you who say, it doesn't make sense to threaten technology.
	That's not going to make a difference.
	But you see it yourself. See?
	See a few threats, boom.
	Well I don't want to say this is the worst start to the show of all time because I've had some pretty bad ones.
	I might even put the camera on me.
	Welcome to the worst simultaneous sip of all time.
	Oh, are you kidding me?
	Come on. Come on, technology.
	Come on. My iPad was teasing me, but...
	I think now. There we go.
	There we go. Take a deep breath, everybody.
	I know there was a little bit of panic there when you thought to yourself, I don't know if there'll be a simultaneous sip today.
	It's not looking good. Because it almost went off the rails.
	But we saved it. We saved it with what?
	Threats. Yeah.
	A lot of people don't think threats work, but they do, even on technology.
	And I think we're in good shape now.
	So I can't claim this will be the best thing that happened all day because I had such a bad start.
	But it's going to be in the top ten, even with this bad start.
	And the only thing that could make it better, well, just one way, would be the simultaneous sip.
	And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice, a stein, a canteen, a jug, a flask, a 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 everything better, including your antibodies.
	And that's science, bitch.
	Go. You can feel your antibodies a little more active now, right?
	You can feel it.
	Don't you feel yourself getting stronger?
	Yeah, I think you do.
	Well, there's all kinds of fun news today.
	Let's jump right in.
	Jump right in.
	And I'm going to do that by showing you a little video here that some of you may have seen, but it's so damn good, I've got to show you again, in case you missed it.
	Just in case you missed it, there's a new meme video going around.
	I don't know how well you can see it.
	God fucking damn.
	I'm sorry. All of my technology is sort of acting the way it's not supposed to.
	This is something that should have taken, oh, 10 seconds, and now I'm boring you forever.
	All right? I'm going to try to do something simple here.
	There's a photo on my phone, and now I'm just going to touch it with my finger.
	I tried that before, and all kinds of bad shit things happened.
	But I'm going to try it again, because I'm pretty sure that touching a photo worked that time.
	All right. Here's a photo of Joe Biden greeting Boris Johnson.
	Now, here's the funny part.
	Look at the expression on Boris Johnson's face.
	Can you see the expression on Boris Johnson's face?
	But also, look at his right hand.
	It turns out that cornholio disease is actually transmissible by touch.
	You know what I mean.
	You remember the Joe Biden where he was standing like he was frozen?
	Like cornholio?
	Well, apparently, you can transmit that.
	Because it looks like Boris Johnson just immediately went into cornholio mode as soon as Biden touched him.
	Well, that's got to mean something.
	I think our medical professionals should look into that.
	But that wasn't even what I was going to show you.
	I was going to show you one of the best political ads I've ever seen.
	And I'm not really following the Virginia governor's race enough to have a favorite.
	But Glenn Youngkin is running as a Republican against Terry McAuliffe.
	And I just looked at a campaign ad put out by Youngkin.
	So again, I'm just showing you his work.
	I'm not promoting him or whatever.
	I haven't looked into any of these candidates enough to have an opinion.
	But... Except that it's school choice, of course.
	Whoever's in favor of school choice, I'm probably for.
	But I want to show you this.
	I don't know if you'll be able to see it well enough on my little phone, but it'll give you the idea.
	Let's see. So this is Glenn Youngkin.
	Oops. Right again.
	For too long, we've been told by the same career politicians that more government control is the answer.
	But this election isn't about them.
	It's about us. It's law enforcement that needs our support to keep Virginia safe.
	Parents who want a better education for our kids and Virginians who deserve lower taxes.
	Together, we can build a better future that works for us.
	This is our moment.
	On November 2nd, a new day begins in Virginia.
	Alright, so you missed the first part that makes it brilliant, but it's the first few seconds is what makes this brilliant.
	There's a crowd of all white guys in suits.
	They're all white. Alright.
	I realize that's a terrible audiovisual, but the point is, it starts with this army of boring zombie-like older white men in suits, and they sort of represent, you know, the government or the power or the people in power, and they're just sort of marching zombie-like.
	And then you see regular citizens, beginning with a police officer, you know, walking through them, sort of violating their...
	They're powerful whiteness, I guess.
	Now, they weren't all non-white, but the clever way that they set it up is that it's all these old white guys in power, and then you see people who, some white, some black, you know, you've got a mix of men and women and stuff, and you see that they're all sort of violating that row of old white guys.
	But here's what happened.
	Here's what happened. You said bye.
	You should wait for the payoff.
	The payoff is that he reframed the situation from race, which is where the other team was going with it, to power, which was very clever.
	Because he made it look as though the old white guys are not about being white, because the people violating their power visual were some white, some black, some men, some women.
	So he basically reframed it from race to power.
	Somebody says my Locals mic is off, but it isn't, is it?
	Are you having trouble with the sound on Locals?
	All right. Let me see if I can change anything here.
	Let's see. I am plugged in.
	I'm going to pull the mic.
	All right. I pulled the mic on Locals.
	And let's see if you can hear that now.
	It's the same. No difference?
	Is there anybody who can hear it well?
	Okay. Looks like we've got a problem here in locals.
	I'm going to kill this feed, which means ending the app.
	Yeah, they're going to try to restart it.
	Over on YouTube, apparently we have good sound if you want to run over there and not have to worry about it.
	Looks like I'm not going to be able to do this, aren't I?
	Alright, let's see. Let's try it on my other device.
	What a nightmare this morning.
	Oh my God!
	Is just everything going to not work?
	Seriously, just everything's not going to work today.
	All right. Well, let me try another one.
	I'm going to try a test one.
	Sorry, YouTube, you're just going to have to sit this one out because I've got to fix this right now.
	So take a second. See, this is the trouble with all live streaming.
	If you've never tried to live stream, the technology never works the same twice, which is why it's just really hard to live stream on two platforms at once.
	All right. Let me see if I can fire this up.
	So in theory, I'm firing up another locals feed, but you might not be able to see it.
	You might not be able to see it.
	So we'll see if they can find it, and I'll go on.
	Boom, boom, boom.
	Boom.
	So, I doubt you can hear this.
	All right. Have you seen the LGB meme video?
	Let's go, Brandon.
	Yeah, I'm kind of surprised that my locals app wouldn't learn something from the printer.
	All right. Still not.
	All right, let's try this.
	Permission denied.
	That didn't work. Let's see.
	All right. Screw it.
	Go to YouTube. Go to YouTube.
	Sorry, locals.
	We're still in beta. God!
	Oh my God, I'm going to have to break something now.
	I'm trying to just type a message to the Locals platform to go to YouTube.
	And every time I type, it's just changing the words as I type them into something else.
	So I can't even type, go to YouTube.
	And if I can't type that in the next minute, I'm just going to destroy everything in this office.
	I'm literally going to start ripping the technology out and throwing it all out the window in about 60 seconds.
	I'm just going to try to write, go to YouTube on an iPad while it continually tries to correct me.
	Go to capital Y-O-U... T-U-B-E. Send.
	All right. Shit.
	All right. Honestly, I'm so pissed off right now.
	I don't know if I can talk.
	What a day.
	All right. So, have you seen the...
	There's a great meme called Let's Go Brandon.
	And I was going to play it for you, but the odds of that actually working seem so low right now that, sure enough, I can't even find it.
	All right, it's just...
	If I were you, I would just give up on this.
	You know, normally, I'm pretty happy about the content I'm producing here.
	But today, you should just give up on me.
	You should just freaking give up on me.
	I have failed you completely.
	I'm the Joe Biden of podcasters today.
	Anyway, somebody made a great meme in which they blah, blah, blah.
	Wouldn't it be great if you could hear the thing I'm talking about?
	Is there anything more boring than somebody describing a meme that they're not showing you?
	No. Nothing. Well, there is one thing.
	Describing a dream or telling somebody about a good meal you had, those are worse than this.
	So it could be worse.
	You could be listening to a co-worker telling you about a great potato they ate that one time.
	That's worse. All right, let's talk about something that doesn't require any technology.
	Have you seen that Facebook is doing these ads in which they're asking for more government regulation?
	Have you seen that? It's pretty clever, because both the left and the right are mad at Facebook for different reasons, and some similar reasons.
	So Facebook is very cleverly doing persuasion in which they're producing ads saying...
	We'd like to, you know, have the best control of bad content while letting good content through.
	But it's tough for us to do.
	It would be a lot easier if we were more regulated.
	They're actually asking to be more regulated.
	And I think it's brilliant in terms of a way to manage the problem.
	I don't know what could be better than asking to be regulated.
	All right. Yeah.
	So, apparently Roe v.
	Wade might fall because of the nature of the Supreme Court.
	People are saying that. I'm not predicting that's going to happen.
	But let's say it gets chipped away to the point where it's difficult to get an abortion in, I think there could be up to 20 states that would restrict it if they could.
	So if Roe v.
	Wade falls, let's say 20 states or so, Make it illegal to get an abortion.
	You should expect people would drive to neighboring states where they could.
	And here's my prediction, which I predicted before, but I'll re-up it.
	I will predict that...
	There will pop up a solution to the transportation problem.
	So right now, if you were low-income and you wanted an abortion in a state that, let's say, in the future they restrict it, you could, in the future also, I'm pretty sure, arrange to get a ride and maybe even a place to stay overnight until you come home, something like that.
	And I think it'll just pop up spontaneously from abortion activists.
	Who will just say, all right, I'll take a turn.
	You know, today will be my day to drive 100 miles.
	I'll take a couple of people.
	So I have a feeling that it will get really complicated to get an abortion, but I can't see it going away.
	I feel like the system will just adjust.
	All right. So here's something that you wouldn't expect.
	You know that Joe Biden likes to raise your taxes, right?
	You've probably heard of that.
	He wants to raise your taxes.
	But Biden loves taxes so much, he's actually trying to raise taxes on other countries.
	I'm not even making that up.
	I'm not making that up.
	Biden is at the G20 meeting right now, and he's going to be pushing something called the global minimum tax.
	He's literally...
	Not making this up. He's literally trying to raise taxes in other countries.
	Now, if you had told me that could happen, I would have said, that's pretty funny.
	That's some hyperbole right there.
	Ha ha ha. He loves raising taxes so much that he's raised all the taxes he can in this country, and now he's got to go to other countries to raise their taxes.
	Except that it's happening.
	It's actually happening.
	Well... But don't you feel good that instead of sending a leader that would embarrass the country, somebody who's embarrassed the country with mean tweets, don't you feel better knowing that we sent an empty bag of meat instead of a mean tweeter?
	I don't know about you, but as an American, I feel pretty, pretty good about Joe Biden being there, a brainless sack of meat, and...
	The good news is I don't think people are going to mock him like they did Trump for his mean tweets and things he said.
	I think they're going to let Biden off the hook because you don't really want to be seen as mocking the mentally handicapped.
	And while you think that might be a joke, it isn't.
	Because I do think that Biden is so obviously mentally degraded at this point that it's a little hard for any leader to make fun of him because it would be making fun of somebody mentally handicapped.
	And no leader wants to do that in public.
	Right? So Biden has somehow solved the problem of our president being mocked by being so degraded that he's unworthy of mocking at this point.
	Or at least you wouldn't do it in public.
	So, good work for those other leaders, not mocking our degraded president.
	How much must it sting to be Trump?
	Did you ever get, let's say, you leave a job or you get fired or something, and then you're replaced by somebody who's really good?
	You don't really like that, do you?
	Because you're like, oh, damn it, I got replaced by somebody who's better than me.
	That really stings. Same as if you have a breakup.
	You get replaced by somebody who's, I don't know, better looking, younger, richer, whatever it is.
	You're like, ah, damn, that stings.
	But it's worse if you get replaced by somebody terrible.
	I mean, it's bad both ways.
	But if you're running for president and you get beaten by a brainless bag of meat, that's got to sting.
	Well, who beat you?
	Well, it was almost a human being.
	It was sort of a semi-sentient bag of meat and beat me pretty handily.
	That's got its thing.
	No wonder Trump's having a hard time with it.
	Apparently, one of the big topics at the G20 will be climate change.
	And I remind you, this is a perfect example, that the public runs the government, not the other way around.
	The public runs the government, not the other way around.
	Now, it's different in maybe a dictator situation, but in any democratic republic kind of a situation, the people are in charge.
	And why is it that the politicians all have to say good words about climate change when they get together?
	Is it because they, as leaders, decided that's what they want to say?
	Nope. Nope.
	They have to say these things in public because the public requires it.
	The public's in charge.
	The politicians have to give the public what they ask for, or they can't stay in their jobs.
	Here's the catch, though.
	We do delegate to our government decisions that are close.
	In other words, if the country is a little bit closer to, you know, having a mixed opinion on it, well, then we say, all right, okay, we can't figure it out ourselves So government, you know, go make a decision and we'll live with it, because at least we'll respect the system, even if we don't like the result.
	But the public does that intentionally, in a sense, because they can't make a decision on their own.
	But when the public wants something, let's say 90 to 10, does the government have any flexibility?
	None. If the government wants something by a 90% majority, the people will get what they want.
	The government has to give it to them.
	So if you're trying to get something, don't convince the government.
	They're just listening to the people.
	You need to convince the other citizens.
	So your power play is to convince other people.
	And then other people, when they get to some majority, will convince the government.
	But convincing the government of anything is probably a waste of time.
	They're just responding to the biggest forces.
	So never forget that you're in charge if you need to be.
	And if it's 50-50, well, maybe you just need a different system and the government satisfies that.
	Apparently, Biden's playing the forgetful old man card at the G20. So, of course, it was sort of awkward when he meets France's head, Macron, because there was that thing where the US, Australia, and the UK put together some submarine deal with Australia and cut France out of a multi-billion submarine deal.
	Now, France was quite mad about that, and here's what Biden said to Macron...
	He said... I'll give you his exact words, which are...
	Biden said he was, quote, under the impression that France had been informed long before that the deal would not go through, meaning the French deal.
	So Biden actually used as his excuse he didn't know that they hadn't been informed.
	His excuse is that he was uninformed about some major thing happening in the government.
	And that's his excuse.
	And he got away with it.
	Apparently people are going to say, yeah, that makes sense.
	He probably did forget. So...
	I guess we got that going for us.
	Now, what do you think of Bitcoin?
	Anybody? What do you think of Bitcoin?
	And what do you think of Bitcoin in the context of regular money being inflated and debt and all that?
	Now, I think it was Jack Dorsey who was tweeting about Bitcoin and its association with inflation.
	And he had some provocative tweets that I thought were really good because they were provocative.
	You know, really got you. It forced you to think about the question.
	So there was some good tweeting there.
	And, yeah, Bitcoin is an outlet for inflation.
	So if you're worried about the value of your regular money, what would you do?
	How would you play that if you were worried about your regular money?
	Well, some people are going to put their money in Bitcoin.
	But Bitcoin has its own problems.
	Right? Because Bitcoin is not risk-free.
	But some percentage of the public is going to put money there.
	So what are the odds that Bitcoin will grow as inflation grows?
	What do you think? Let's get your prediction rather than mine.
	Because I don't make financial advice here.
	So nothing I say should be financial advice.
	What do you think? Do you think that Bitcoin goes up because it's an inflation escape valve?
	Almost all of you are saying yes, aren't you?
	Now, of course, crypto is a psychological money, right?
	In some ways, or a lot of ways, regular money is psychological too, but not as sensitive to it, probably.
	Some say Bitcoin is an inflation gauge.
	If I had to guess, and again, this is not financial advice, and I should tell you that I do own some Bitcoin, not a ton.
	So Bitcoin is not a big part of my portfolio, but it could be.
	Someday it might be most of it if things go the way they're going.
	So my Bitcoin exposure is small, not enough to really care, but I have more ETH. I have much more ETH than Bitcoin.
	Now, I think that those two cryptos, just because people know them the most, they've been around for a while, I think people go with what feels familiar.
	And while there will always be lots of frothiness in the altcoins world, the crypto coins, I think the two that people are just comfortable hearing and using the most are just going to grow because people are comfortable hearing them and they've been around.
	And that's all anybody's going to be able to understand.
	So if you expect the public to understand any intricacies of cryptocurrency, well, not many of them, 2% maybe, tops.
	The rest of the public is going to say, I guess I've got to get into this crypto thing.
	Tell me the least amount you can tell me that will let me get into it and, you know, stay out of trouble.
	Now, if you were going to give somebody advice and you couldn't educate them completely, and you just wanted to make it simple, what would you advise them?
	Here's what I would advise them.
	It is the time to at least diversify into some crypto.
	Anybody agree? How many would agree that it's the time, maybe it wasn't always, but it is certainly the time now, that if you don't own some crypto, it's probably a mistake that If you're 90% crypto, that's probably a different mistake.
	It could work out well for you.
	It might work out really well.
	But in terms of statistically, it would be a mistake.
	So here's what I think.
	I think because the uneducated masses are likely to start looking around for alternatives...
	I think they're going to go to the big names.
	Just like people buy Apple because it's safe.
	They buy IBM because it's safe.
	They buy Microsoft because it's safe.
	They shop at Amazon because it's safe.
	Relative to something they don't know anything about.
	So if I had to guess, the psychology of this is that inflation will make crypto seem like a smarter move, a less risky move, because the alternative is more risky now, and that the Bitcoin and ETH will be the big winners.
	There will also be some minor coins that do well, but those will be exceptions.
	All right, let's talk about something else.
	The Lincoln Project...
	Has taken responsibility for, I guess, a fake demonstration in which they had people with tiki torches pretending to be conservatives, pretending to support Glenn Youngkin, the Republican.
	Now, what they were trying to do is associate Youngkin...
	With the Charlottesville Fine People hoax, because most of the voters don't know it was a hoax.
	Most of the Democrats still think the Fine People hoax was something that actually happened.
	They don't know it was a fake edit of the video.
	And if you ask them, they'll say, Scott, you're so wrong about this, because I saw the whole video.
	I saw it with my eyes, I heard it with my ears, but of course they didn't.
	They saw an edited version that they thought was a complete one.
	Now, here's the funny part.
	Somebody named Lauren Windsor tweeted, In my capacity as a communications consultant, I worked with Project Lincoln, which is a weird thing to admit in public.
	If you were trying to sell your services, would you admit you had worked on the Lincoln Project?
	That feels pretty dicey.
	I'm not sure I would admit that if I wanted to sell my service to anybody else.
	And she said that she worked with them to coordinate today's Youngkin action in Charlottesville, meaning the fake protest thing.
	And she says, I joined them in the fight to defend our democracy from right-wing extremists and call for Glenn Youngkin to denounce Trump's, quote, very fine people.
	So she's a communications consultant who either doesn't know that the fine people hoax was a hoax, which is a big problem.
	If you're in the political world and you don't know that's a hoax, that's a very big problem.
	Or either knows it and is lying or doesn't know it.
	Which do you think? In the comments, tell me, do you think that Lauren Windsor is lying when she references the fine people hoax?
	Or do you think she doesn't know it's a hoax?
	What do you think? Most of you think she's lying.
	I'm going to go against your opinion.
	It has been my experience that the left actually believes it's true.
	And I can tell you from one personal conversation with one person in the news business, you know, a prominent news person, I won't mention a name because it doesn't matter, but I've had an extensive conversation with somebody who reports the news for a living, and that person absolutely believed it was true.
	Absolutely. It was a long conversation, and there's no way they were lying.
	It was somebody who absolutely believed it was true.
	Now, when I was done...
	I'm not sure he believed it was completely true.
	And I'm not sure he believed that Trump was completely off the hook.
	But I probably changed at least the way he was thinking about it, I think, at the end of the conversation.
	It doesn't matter who. Your guesses are...
	I'm not going to respond to your guesses.
	Because the personality doesn't matter.
	It's not about the personality.
	It's about the fact that somebody in the business really thought it was true.
	Genuinely really thought it was true.
	And I think that's probably what's going on.
	I think they do. All right.
	Somebody named Sean Puri, if I'm pronouncing it right, probably not, was writing about the metaverse.
	You know, of course, that's the company formerly known as Facebook, now called Meta.
	They're going to build these virtual worlds, and it's going to be Facebook's new big thing.
	But here's what this tweet thread, which I tweeted and I recommend, from Sean Puri.
	How do you pronounce S-H-A-A-N? Sean?
	Or do you give some love to each of the A's?
	Sean? How would you pronounce that?
	I don't know. We'll work on the pronunciation.
	But he points out that our real lives in the physical world are gradually being sucked into the digital world.
	And his argument is just really elegant.
	And he's talking about how when TV came...
	We sort of got a little bit of our attention, got absorbed into television.
	And then computers came, and a little bit more of our real life got pulled into the digital world in terms of where our attention is.
	And then phones came, and suddenly like 75% of your life is now like a digital virtual life about things that are happening digitally.
	And he says the meta will just put you over the top.
	It will be the crossing point where the virtual world is your real world, the one you prefer, the one you care about, the one you're interested in, and your real world, the one you think is your real world, will be one you try to avoid as much as possible.
	You're going to have to spend some time there to do some basic stuff.
	But you might be able to work and live and have sex in a forum.
	You might be able to have relationships, form families, have lives in the digital world.
	And here's the thing.
	For those of you who have not experienced VR yet, even just to demonstrate it for a minute, put on the goggles and see what it's like.
	If you think...
	It will not be addictive enough to get you.
	You haven't tried it.
	I tell you, the experience of actually trying it will change everything you think about it, even with the current technology that's not so great.
	I think I'm going to block...
	I'll just give you one warning here.
	I'm going to start blocking whoever is doing the red herring...
	There's somebody over there who wants to say red herring, red herring, about something.
	I don't know what it is, so I'm not going to comment on it, but I'm going to start blocking you because you're really annoying.
	And by the way, you can just tell me what it means or what it is, and I'd be happy to look at it.
	But just saying those words over and over again, if I see it again...
	I'm just going to make you go away, okay?
	I'm sure I'll see it in half a second, so I can make you go away.
	All right. I guess somebody doesn't want to go away.
	And I love this argument that we're being dragged into it, but all I'm going to warn you is that I've spent some time in the virtual world, and it's good.
	And in many ways, it will just be better than regular life pretty quickly.
	It's guaranteed. AOC doesn't like Meta, the company formerly known as Facebook.
	And she says it's a Meta, as she tweeted, Meta, as in, quote, we are a cancer to democracy, metastasizing into a global surveillance and propaganda machine for boosting authoritarian, easy for you to say, authoritarian regimes and destroying civil society for profit.
	Now, Facebook is hated by the left and the right, and yet growing like crazy.
	So I don't think anything can stop it.
	Because I think both the left and the right complain like crazy and then use it.
	They complain and then they use it.
	So as long as they use it, it's going to keep being whatever it is.
	Here's a topic that I have avoided for...
	Personal, emotional reasons.
	So there's an important topic, and I just haven't been able to talk about it because it kind of still hurts too much, if I'm being honest.
	Michael Schellenberger is doing great work trying to get something done about the homeless and the addiction problem in San Francisco in particular, but you could generalize this to other cities.
	One of his main points is that because we're so progressive, progressives have said they would rather addicts die on the street, in effect, than to be forced into something they didn't want to do, which is to get treatment and medical help.
	Where do you stand on that?
	Because I know a lot of my audience is pro-make-your-own-decision.
	And a lot of you are, hey, the government shouldn't force anybody to do anything.
	But what if you're an addict and your brain no longer is your own brain?
	Because I don't know if you understand this, but an addict doesn't have a brain in the way that regular people have brains.
	An addict's brain is effectively like an alien took it over, but the alien is the drug.
	So a person who's an addict can't make decisions.
	Let me just say that as clear as possible.
	If you expect an addict...
	To make a decision, you don't understand what addiction is.
	They don't make decisions.
	The drug does.
	The drug makes them do what they do.
	So the concept of some free will decision-making doesn't apply to an addict.
	Now, I would argue it doesn't apply to anybody, but it definitely doesn't apply to an addict.
	The addict is just responding to what the drug is making them do.
	So the progressive thought that addicts should have the same, let's say, civil rights as other people...
	I know, it's a dicey situation, right?
	The fact that addicts have the same civil rights as other people, I think you have to question it.
	Because they're not like other people.
	We don't treat people with a functioning brain the same as someone who doesn't have one.
	And I would argue that an addict doesn't have a functioning brain because it's now dysfunctional because of the drug.
	Yeah, you could throw alcohol in here if you wanted, but the overdoses are mostly from the other kinds of drugs.
	So... I think I'm on board, and having gone through this, and the reason it's a sensitive topic, if anybody doesn't know, my stepson died of an overdose in 2018 at age 19.
	So this topic is just so painful for me that I've ignored it.
	You know, even though I should be an activist and have been, it's just hard for me to spend time thinking about this stuff because it just hurts too much.
	But... And by the way, let me tell you something that you might not be aware of.
	I've had a number of people who died, you know, in my lifetime.
	Parents, grandparents, you know, usually older people.
	When somebody who's elderly dies in your life, you'll be sad.
	But it's not a tragedy, and you don't see them everywhere you go, like in your mind.
	Because when people are ready to die, you just accept that as part of the cycle, and you move on.
	When a child dies, and this would apply to a stepchild who's been part of your life for a long time, when a stepchild dies, they never die.
	They just don't stay dead.
	My stepchild is everywhere I go, all the time.
	He's just there.
	And I don't know if that's the case for everybody who loses a child, but three years later, he's everywhere.
	I can change the topic.
	That's why I don't talk about it.
	All right. Here's my favorite story of the day.
	I'll start with this as a lead-up to it.
	AT&T, they must be experiencing a lot of cancellations.
	Because if you haven't heard, AT&T decided to go full racist.
	It's really shocking.
	So in particular, they've decided to be anti-white.
	And they're actually training the employees...
	To consider white people the enemy and the source of all racism, etc.
	And while there's some factual truth, of course, that white people were behind slavery and lots of other things, I'm not arguing the factual reality of it.
	I'm just arguing that if you're a major company, you can't target an ethnic group and get away with it.
	You can't target an ethnic group.
	I don't care which one.
	And get away with it.
	And what have I told you about the public?
	The public's in charge.
	AT&T won't do this if the public doesn't want them to, in large enough percentage.
	And in this case, it's not going to take a large number of people to cancel their service.
	If 10% of people canceled their service over this, I think the CEO would be replaced.
	Wouldn't they? You don't think you can get 10% of the public to cancel AT&T service over the fact that they're blatantly racist?
	And this is not even an interpretation.
	I'm just telling you what they say.
	They're demonizing white people.
	I'm not making it up.
	You can check for yourself. And...
	I would have to think that by now, just based on the number of people in my own follower base, the number of people who told me that they cancelled AT&T this week, it's pretty big.
	On YouTube, now on the Locals platform, a lot of people cancelled AT&T this week.
	How many of you are looking into it, or on YouTube, the followers there, how many looked into it?
	At least considered it.
	And I see a yes.
	Looking into it. I'm just reading some.
	I'm considering it. Hell yeah.
	I cancelled it today.
	I am now. Yes.
	Too much hassle. Yes, I'm looking.
	Definitely going to do it. Looking.
	Yes, me. Okay, so look at the comments.
	A lot of yeses. Now, we can't get a sense of the percentage, right?
	Because the people who are going to cancel are the ones who are going to answer here.
	So I don't know if that's a big number or not.
	But given that there are 3,200 people on here, that's a lot of yeses, isn't it?
	Again, I don't know that that's a lot of yeses, because I don't know how many no's there are.
	But it looks like it. I mean, anecdotally, it looks like a lot, but we can't be sure.
	All right, so here's the point.
	I wonder if their board has taken up this issue yet.
	Because they have to be noticing it.
	I think they're going to notice the cancellations.
	And in my opinion, the company needs to be driven out of business.
	I think that this is a big enough offense that the company needs to be bankrupted for it.
	And the alternative would be for the CEO to resign or be replaced.
	I would accept that.
	But, you know, if they change the policy at the same time.
	But you can't let a major American company be overtly racist and stay in business.
	We don't do that in America.
	That's just not American.
	So if you want to be anti-American and sell to Americans, good luck.
	Good luck. And by the way, I don't think it's just white people who are complaining.
	Like, don't you think that some black people are saying, um, this is what we were fighting against.
	Racial profiling. You don't think there's some black people?
	I mean, I've heard from them, so I know that there are.
	There are some black people who don't like AT&T targeting white people.
	Because as soon as you say it's okay to target a group, you're causing some problems.
	All right. And I'm going to dovetail from that story into this one.
	My favorite story of the day, by far.
	Do you all know who Ibram Kendi is?
	Ibram Kendi.
	Apparently a very smart guy.
	I think he's some award-winning scholarly person.
	So a very smart guy. And he's one of the major forces behind, let's say, educating people about systemic racism and pushing the education of the public on race, etc.
	And he tweeted something which he had to delete.
	This is so delicious, I'm doing it slowly.
	I want you all to get a good dose of this one.
	So here was his tweet, which he deleted quickly.
	He said, more than a third of white students lied about their race on college applications, and about half of these applicants lied about being Native American.
	More than three-fourths of these students who lied about their race were accepted.
	Do you know why he deleted it?
	Now, I don't know that the information is wrong.
	The information is probably right.
	I haven't seen it challenged. But why would he delete that tweet?
	Well, Andy Ngo has an opinion about this.
	Andy Ngo responded by showing the deleted tweet.
	And he tweeted himself, Andy did, race activist Ibram Kendi tweeted out a report claiming high numbers of white students falsely identify as people of color to reap benefits.
	He deleted the tweet after realizing it didn't advance his argument that whites are privileged in every way.
	How delicious is this?
	Yes.
	The white people who were lying about their race on college applications were doing it for money.
	They were lying for money.
	Meaning that they would get into a better college, have a better job, or they would maybe get a scholarship.
	They were lying for money.
	Can white people get money just by saying they're white people?
	Apparently not. But if you say you're another race, you can get advantages, like really big ones, like being accepted into a college you wouldn't be accepted in, maybe, or getting a scholarship you wouldn't have gotten otherwise, maybe.
	Those are pretty big advantages.
	So I don't think...
	Mr. Kendi got exactly what he wanted with this comment, and it's funny that it took him a moment to realize it was counter to his entire reason for existence.
	His entire reason for existence is this.
	Now, as many of you know, I also identify as black.
	Why? Why?
	Because I can. That's one reason.
	So first of all, there's no limitation.
	Because the current rules, the 2021 rules, are that you can identify with wherever you have the most affinity.
	And I feel a strong affinity to the black population in America.
	Partly because I was so discriminated against in my own employment for my race.
	Partly because I just like black people and I like sort of being on the team.
	I like to be on a winning team, exactly.
	So I identify.
	Now, do you think that these students were lying or were they identifying?
	Were they lying or were they identifying?
	Because if they were identifying, it's fine.
	If they were lying, well, then they're liars.
	Nobody can support that.
	But I don't support that you lie about it.
	I support that you literally identify as whatever group gets you the most benefits.
	And here's the cool part.
	You can change it any time you want.
	So you could be filling out your college application and identify as Native American or black or whatever you wanted.
	And as soon as you've handed it in, you could say, I'm going to the store now.
	I'm going to go shopping. I'm going to identify as white so people don't follow me around and think I'm going to steal something.
	And then as soon as you leave the store, and nobody has followed you around for suspected stealing, and you've got to apply for a job, identify as black, apply for the job, get the job, keep your identification as black until you need to change it.
	Now, I don't see any problem with that under the current rules.
	Do you? And I didn't make the rules.
	I'm not suggesting a rule change.
	I'm saying those are the current rules.
	Have I ever told you how to destroy a bad idea, a bad policy?
	In the comments, tell me what's one and maybe the only way to destroy a bad idea that's policy or law.
	How do you destroy a bad idea that's policy?
	You embrace it. Exactly.
	You can't do it by criticizing it.
	You can't make a bad thing go away by criticizing it, because whoever did it in the first place still thinks it's a good idea.
	But you can adopt it, you can embrace it, and you can use it for all it's worth.
	And you know what happens when you embrace it?
	The system collapses.
	Because it was a bad rule. The reason it's a bad rule is that if everybody embraced it, things would go to hell.
	So if you want it to go away, just embrace it.
	Embrace it. What do you think these college students did when they said that they were Native American or some other person of color?
	What do you think they were doing?
	Lying? Were they lying?
	Or were they embracing it?
	Probably a little of both.
	But the ones who were embracing it hard, they're my heroes.
	It's hard to know if anybody was doing anything but just lying for money.
	But if they were consciously embracing it to break the rule, and they got away with it, heroes.
	Total heroes. So if you get to the point where 100% of the students identify as people of color, problem solved.
	Problem solved. It's the Bulwerth theory...
	Except accelerated. Do you know the movie Bullworth?
	It was an eccentric politician who said a lot of outrageous things, and he was running for president in this movie.
	And one of the outrageous things he said is that, and I have to use the F word here because it's a quote, right?
	So send the children away.
	There'll be an F word here, but it's somebody else's.
	He said, why don't we just all fuck until we're all brown, right?
	Just everybody fuck until everybody's brown and then problem solved.
	No racism. Of course there would be racism because we'd just find other reasons to dislike each other.
	You know, the left-handed people would be in trouble or something.
	We'd find some reason to discriminate because that's who we are.
	But I think if a third of students said this and many of them got an advantage from it, what's it going to look like next year?
	Next year, if you found out that three-quarters of the people who lied on their application got a financial benefit from it and no penalty, what's going to happen next year?
	Well, it's not going to be one-third.
	It might be two-thirds.
	So next year, it might be two-thirds of all the applicants are pretending to be or identifying with another race.
	So I think that's the most delicious story of the day, in my opinion.
	All right, here's a question for you.
	For the people who are getting booster shots, if you've already gotten two shots of the same type, let's say two Modernas or you got two Pfizers, apparently now they're going to open it up that your booster shot could be a different vaccination.
	And I think the idea is that they've tested and they found your antibodies still look good, no matter which you boost, whether it's the same or a different one.
	But on top of that, on top of that, you know, it might make it easier for supplies, more availability, because you don't have to worry about which one you're getting, etc.
	So there could be a whole bunch of benefits for that.
	But there's one obvious problem, isn't it?
	Isn't there one obvious problem?
	And that... If you are worried about the safety of the vaccination itself, aren't you doubling your risk by doing a second one?
	Am I wrong about that?
	So I need a medical opinion on this.
	Medical opinion. So I've taken two Moderna shots.
	If I were to get a booster, personally, this is my own thinking, so I'm not recommending this to you, but my own thinking says I should get the same shot again.
	Here's why. Because the first two didn't kill me.
	I had no known side effects from the first two shots.
	Would you get a separate vaccination if you were a little bit worried about the side effects, knowing that the first two you got didn't hurt you?
	Wouldn't you get the same kind the third time?
	Am I wrong about that?
	I'm seeing lots of no's, but I don't know which question you're saying no to.
	Now, I get the idea.
	Now, I would imagine that there's a benefit from getting a separate one, which is that if the one vaccine protects you in a particular way, and another vaccine added a different way to protect you, a little more protection.
	But don't you open yourself way up to one of the vaccinations being more dangerous than the other, and you switch to the one that gave you specifically a problem?
	Okay, so I see some people agreeing with me, but I don't know if we're medically smart about this.
	This is the type of question where your common sense can get you to the wrong place.
	My common sense says do the same kind, but I don't know if the medical community would agree with that because they're recommending the different kind here.
	So I'm a little confused about why they're recommending this without a caveat.
	Somebody sent to me on Twitter a long text thing by an Australian engineer.
	He's an engineering PhD.
	So somebody who's really good at analyzing things.
	And this gentleman, I think he's Australian...
	Did a deep dive into all the COVID data, you know, really went to, like, base, you know, fundamental data, you know, really dug in further than any of us would or probably could.
	And he had a number of questions.
	Now, if you read the questions, they're very provocative, like, huh, if this is the data, then why is this true?
	And there were so many of the questions That it turned into what somebody called a A gish gallop, which I'd never heard of.
	Have you ever heard of that term, a gish gallop?
	G-I-S-H? Maybe it was named after somebody called gish.
	But the idea is that you overwhelm with so many points that if somebody tries to argue with you, they only have time to argue a point or two.
	And then you could say, oh, well, okay, maybe you win on that point or two, but I had all these other points, so I still win.
	So basically, it's a way to win an argument by overwhelming with so many points that the other team just can't deal with them all.
	And then you can always go away and say, well, you didn't deal with them all.
	And I've called that the laundry list approach.
	The laundry list.
	And I've recommended that there is a way to deal with it.
	The way you deal with the laundry list is you ask for the most, let's say, powerful point.
	What's your best point?
	Give me your best point.
	And if I can debunk your best point, can we agree that all the rest of them are weaker than that?
	And this one got debunked.
	So you should go back and rethink your other points.
	I think that's the only way to do it.
	Now, when I first heard this term, a gish gallop, the first thing I thought is it sounds like any weekend for Tiger Woods.
	But that's just me.
	I'm just going to let that sit there for a moment.
	The gish gallop is like any weekend for Tiger Woods.
	Anybody? Anybody?
	No? Nobody?
	Does anybody appreciate that joke?
	Nobody, apparently.
	Apparently that was just for me.
	Okay. But here are some of the questions that the engineer asks.
	Why is it that so many old people were dying right after the vaccination?
	If the vaccinations are safe, why, according to some data source, were so many old people dying right after the vaccination?
	How can you explain that?
	That's the question, right? Well, I can answer that.
	Is there anybody here who can't answer that?
	Why did so many old people die after getting vaccinated?
	It might have something to do with the fact that the order of vaccination was people closest to death first.
	I'm just going to guess that if you were almost ready to die anyway, wouldn't you expect that group to have a lot of deaths after a vaccination?
	Because you could walk into any old folks' home and juggle.
	Let's just say you're a juggler.
	And you go to the old folks' home and you just start juggling.
	Do you think any old people will die within two weeks after you juggled?
	Probably. Probably.
	Yeah. So I don't know if that's the answer, but it seems obvious to me.
	One of the questions was, why did the regular flu disappear?
	Why did all indications of the normal seasonal flu just disappear?
	Now, I've asked this question myself.
	What do you think is the answer?
	Why did the regular flu...
	Now, one would be that the regular flu is being misdiagnosed as COVID. That seems likely, right?
	Good chance the regular flu is being misdiagnosed as COVID. Maybe.
	But I would think 100% of the people who had the regular flu and thought it was COVID would get a test, wouldn't they?
	Wouldn't everybody who had symptoms get a test these days, at least in the United States?
	Yeah. So I'm not so sure that's the explanation, and I don't think he was suggesting that's the explanation.
	Here's why I think the regular flu disappeared.
	Somebody says kids not in school, but there were a lot of places where kids were in school, right?
	And it doesn't seem to make a difference.
	So in other countries, the regular flu disappeared, and in other countries, they went to school.
	Do you think it's because masks are really good against the regular flu?
	Maybe the masks are really good, but only for the regular flu, not for COVID. Do you think?
	I don't think that's the answer.
	Robin says, here we go.
	The people who think that I'm cleverly trying to convince you to wear masks or to get vaccinated or anything, you're all wrong.
	You're all completely wrong.
	So you can't read my mind, but let me tell you what's in there.
	Nothing about telling you what to do.
	And I'm anti-mask.
	At this point in the pandemic, I'm anti-mask.
	Except in special situations.
	Here's why I think the regular flu disappeared.
	It was never real.
	That's why I think the regular flu deaths disappeared, because they were never real.
	There were always estimates based on seasonality.
	There would be a seasonal bump in total deaths, and people would say, well, we don't have any other way to explain it.
	It's probably those flu deaths.
	Maybe. But I think when you started counting and you couldn't find any, you know, once we got really serious about, oh, you've got some symptoms, we're going to test those symptoms?
	And then they tested them, and it wasn't the regular flu?
	I have a feeling that the regular flu was always bullshit, in terms of the deaths, not in terms of whether people had the regular flu.
	Yeah, and I've never known anybody who died from it.
	Now, if you talk to doctors...
	Doctors will tell you they do see people die from flu.
	So it's not like it didn't happen.
	But it's also very old people, frail people, etc.
	All right. That was just about everything I want to talk about today.
	I'll try to figure out what's...
	CDC reports pin deaths weekly?
	What? Oh, did I recover?
	Did I recover well enough to salvage this terrible live stream?
	Oh, I have good news on the cat.
	Being asked on an update on the cat.
	So my cat had a tentative, probably cancer diagnosis that turned into absolutely no cancer.
	So when the most sensitive test was run, it was not there.
	So Boo the Cat will go on to a long, healthy life, we think.
	We think. You wanted to see a printer defenestrated.
	Yeah. Well, you missed it when I did my last one.
	Yes, and the person least surprised was me.
	Here's why I didn't think it was real cancer.
	Have I ever told you to follow the money?
	Yeah, I didn't have to tell you that, right?
	When you're trying to figure out what is true and what is not, follow the money works so often...
	That it's amazing. And I'm not even sure that it's people making a conscious decision to follow the money.
	Because I don't even know why it works.
	Because I'm pretty sure a lot of people don't do that.
	Here's why I thought it was not true from the start.
	The so-called maybe cancer was discovered while fixing a different problem.
	Which is she had some polyps that she had some surgery to remove them in her ear.
	And it was causing some balance problems and stuff.
	And... When they did the surgery, they found some suspicious stuff, and they said this could either be a signal from the surgery itself, just inflammation, or it could be cancer.
	Now, what are the odds that they would find this cancer in a youngish cat?
	She's not that old. What are the odds they would find this cancer in the very place that they were looking for something else and found something else, And the process of finding and removing something else definitely would cause something to look exactly like cancer, which I think was more white blood cells or something.
	Now, how expensive is it to figure out if you have cancer for sure?
	Really expensive.
	And what happens if you do have cancer?
	Really expensive if you're going to treat it.
	Now, so we did more tests.
	Follow the money. The money would have suggested that there would be more tests.
	Sure enough, there were more tests.
	Next test run was ambiguous.
	It was ambiguous.
	Because it was an insensitive test.
	So what do you do if you get an ambiguous test?
	Well, you've got to do the expensive one.
	You've got to do the expensive one.
	And so that's what we did.
	Now, all along I said to myself, it seems like this would be a very big coincidence, a very big coincidence that we discover cancer.
	Here's another fact. A cat that has this particular cancer is going to die in a few months.
	This one will get you in a few months.
	What are the odds that that little period of the cat's life, those few months, would be exactly the only time we did a surgery and discovered this cancer and not only discovered it, but discovered it so early that there were no symptoms?
	There are no lumps or anything like that.
	What are the odds? So I said from day one, follow the money.
	It looks like this is not real.
	And sure enough, it wasn't.
	It wasn't. So I don't know that...
	I actually like my veterinarian a lot, and I don't believe that she was just following the money.
	But I do think that it's weird coincidence that you could predict it always goes that way.
	Now, she has another problem, which is she still has the infection that caused the original surgery to happen.
	But there's some drugs you give her.
	You can give her drugs, but you have to give it to her for two months, and then she'll be fine.
	The alternative is a hyperbaric chamber.
	And the vet explained to me yesterday, if you want an even better result, you could take her to a hyperbaric chamber, frequently for two weeks, For these, what I assume are super expensive treatments that traumatize your cat.
	And then you could be a little more certain that the antibiotics work.
	But the antibiotics will probably work even without that.
	Now, I said, stop, stop, stop.
	I'm not going to drive to Oakland many times in the next two weeks to do this really expensive thing that I could do at home and just give her drugs every day.
	So, Follow the money just works almost every time.
	Here's a little experiment for you.
	Next time you can't decide what to eat at a restaurant, ask the server which of the two things that you've narrowed it down to, which of the two things they recommend.
	Are they ever going to recommend the less expensive of the two items you say?
	Which one is better, to people like this one or this one more?
	I've been tracking this for decades.
	100% of the time, the server recommends the expensive one.
	100% of the time.
	Now, are they lying?
	I don't know. I actually don't know.
	Because I don't think it makes that much difference to them that the customer gets the one that's a dollar more, right?
	You know, their tip goes up by 20 cents.
	But they're certainly going to sell that one.
	And maybe the restaurant requires them to upsell that one.
	But watch for this.
	Watch how many times you can't identify the mechanism for why following the money would be predictive.
	You look at it and you say, yeah, I get what you're saying.
	Follow the money should work.
	But the people involved definitely don't care about the money in this case.
	Because that's quite often, right?
	You can identify a lot of people who, as far as you can tell, are not in it for the money.
	It could be the Pope.
	You can imagine lots of situations where you're convinced it's not about the money.
	Still make your prediction as if it were.
	And you're going to be right.
	Not every time, but a lot.
	Yes, it explains the hostility toward ivermectin, even if it's not the reason.
	That's a perfect example.
	All right, ivermectin's a perfect example.
	I don't have any evidence that the reason ivermectin is being crapped on is that some pharma company will make more money if that's not available.
	I have no evidence...
	That I've seen to suggest that's what's happening.
	However, if you made a prediction based on follow the money, and that would be an obvious way to follow it, you would get to the right conclusion, which is that it would be diminished by everybody who's got a foot in that world.
	Yeah. I think if you're dealing with the pharma companies, it's definitely about the money.
	What do I know about January 6th and who planned it?
	Well, I know what's in the media.
	But I also know more about the world.
	So you're never going to know what I know about that.
	That will never come out.
	But I don't have any information that says the FBI was behind it.
	I have no information to suggest the FBI was behind it.
	Or that they weren't. I have no information on that.
	I don't think it's part of the story.
	If it is, it's a small part.
	If Trump ran as a Democrat, he could blow up the progressives in the party.
	Interesting idea. He won't do that.
	Will Tucker be cancelled?
	I don't think so.
	I think Tucker's a pretty big part of Fox News' profit model.
	Ray Epps, I don't know who he is.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	The Lazy Man's Guide to Enlightenment.
	Sounds good. Trump should run as an independent.
	No, they never get elected.
	Yeah, Tucker might be too big to cancel.
	That's right. You know, and the other thing that Tucker has going for him is that when he's wrong, he tells you.
	That's a good protection.
	Now, I said this the other day, and I don't think Tucker Carlson gets enough credit for this, that when he's wrong, he says it directly.
	And he says it pretty quickly.
	He doesn't make you wait for it.
	And I think that keeps you safe.
	Because he could say something that was pretty outrageous...
	As long as it was, you know, an honest opinion.
	And I think you could say, okay, I was wrong about that.
	You know, now that you mention it, I'm wrong.
	Look into Ray Epps.
	He incited the crowd.
	Somebody says, I don't know, who's Ray Epps?
	Somebody says, Tucker is pro-white.
	Well, I'm pretty sure Tucker is pro-people.
	And some of them are white.
	If his beat seems more pro-white than some other person, that probably has more to do with the audience.
	Oh, Epps is a fed informant.
	Ray Epps was a director provocateur and he was not arrested.
	So Vernon tweet, somebody tweeted about this.
	Ray Epps was paid by the FBI to cause the insurrection.
	Ah, okay.
	I'm going to doubt that story.
	Let me give you some...
	Let me tell you what it sounds like.
	A little bit too on the nose.
	Now, I'm not saying it's fake.
	I'm saying that if you hear that story for the first time, and you hear that there was, in fact, a specific FBI agent who was paid to incite a riot...
	The first thing you should think is it's probably not true.
	That should be your default assumption.
	Probably not true. And why?
	It's too on the nose.
	Doesn't mean it's false.
	I'm open to the possibility.
	Doesn't mean it's false. All I'm going to say for sure is that it doesn't sound true.
	I could be wrong.
	But if you always bet against everything that sounds too perfect, just always bet against that.
	You'll be right 90% of the time.
	But, you know, 10% is real, so maybe it's real.
	Watch the video. Oh, is this based on the Tucker Carlson video?
	Did that come out? The special he did?
	He's on several videos inciting the people to go in.
	And has he been confirmed to be a FBI asset?
	I assume so, or you wouldn't be saying this.
	I have a...
	Yes, old people die from the flu.
	I think it happens. I don't think it happens in the numbers, we've been told.
	All right, I'll watch the Tucker package on it.
	Yeah, I heard about the Whitmer situation.
	But fill in the blanks for me.
	Why would the FBI be doing that?
	Complete the picture for me.
	In the comments, I think you have enough room in the comments.
	Can somebody complete the picture?
	Let's say it's true.
	And I'm not stipulating that.
	But let's say, just to think it through, imagine if there was an FBI informant.
	Let's say it's this Ray Epps guy.
	And let's say the FBI paid him to help encourage the...
	Why do you do it? Why would he do it?
	FBI works for China?
	I don't see that.
	To draw out the righties?
	That doesn't feel like a good plan.
	Maybe. FBI hates Trump?
	I don't know. That's a weird plan for somebody who hates Trump.
	Yeah, so you've got a problem there, don't you?
	To blame the PSYOP on Trump.
	That's kind of assuming too much intelligence and foresight.
	If you imagine that the FBI informant did it for the purpose of making Trump look bad, maybe.
	That's a pretty big stretch.
	And I would say that's not a plan any rational person would try to do.
	Now, I do know that, you know, various agencies have done a lot of clever things, but that feels not certain enough.
	In other words, you couldn't know with enough certainty that you would get a good output from that so that the risk of doing it would be greater than the likely payoff.
	Somebody said, didn't say he was rational.
	So you think there was an irrational FBI agent, irrationally...
	Okay, you see where this all fall apart?
	I think you're watching it.
	Yeah, false flag.
	So, all right, to do a false flag, you'd have to have reasonable confidence it would work, right?
	So let's say in Syria, if somebody did a false flag about a chemical attack...
	Would they have a reasonable chance of getting away with it?
	And not much penalty if they didn't.
	So let's say you staged a false flag chemical attack in Syria.
	I'm not saying that happened, but let's say you did.
	If it didn't work, would there be any penalty to you, the people who put on the hoax?
	No. No, there would be no penalty.
	It would just be a hoax that didn't work.
	Now, suppose it did work...
	There'd be a big payoff, right?
	Because you might change the military balance there.
	So it makes complete sense that somebody in Syria would try to fake a chemical attack, do a false flag attack.
	Complete sense. Because the payoff is obvious.
	There's no downside.
	But the potential payoff is huge.
	And it's hard to see it going wrong.
	It's hard to imagine how that could have gone wrong.
	But now take the alleged Ray Epps convincing people to attack the Capitol.
	Could he have known with reasonable confidence that that would result in people disliking Trump more without collateral problems such as deaths?
	I don't think you could do that.
	Now explain the Steele dossier.
	Yeah, I can do that. So now explain the Steele dossier, because in some ways that looked like an op.
	The Steele dossier only had to convince the fake news to tell a fake story that was bad for Trump.
	What are the odds that that would succeed?
	Anybody? It's a fake story, and they only have to convince the fake news to tell it.
	That's it. It doesn't have to be true.
	That's easy. So it's easy to do a fake flag attack, and you can even predict it.
	If the upside is tremendous and predictable, it's very predictable that the fake news is going to report this story.
	Even if they retracted it later, it would still work, because they would report it up to that point.
	Now, what are the odds that Christopher Steele thought that he would come out behind by doing this?
	Well, he was getting paid...
	There was every reason to believe it would work.
	And he didn't go to jail, right?
	So he did something that was a low risk to him, that a huge potential payoff, and it was very predictable, the payoff.
	Very predictable that it would work.
	Under those conditions, what are the odds of a false flag?
	Really good. Really good.
	It's a perfect condition. But I would argue that the January 6th stuff...
	Is exactly not like that.
	You wouldn't know what could happen from a march on the Capitol.
	Because that's the whole problem, right?
	You didn't know if it would go peaceful.
	You didn't know if it would go dangerous.
	And if it went dangerous, how dangerous.
	And you just wouldn't know.
	So I don't believe that anybody rational would have done a false flag of that nature.
	because it doesn't fit the model that you would do a false flag for.
	Scott's assessment of odds are not convincing.
	Well, you know, the beauty of my argument, when I put it in terms of the odds, is that you can take the structure of the argument and just put it in your own odds.
	And then you might get a different opinion.
	Not a false flag, merely a framing.
	thing.
	Well, it would be a false flag in terms of who initiated it.
	But yes, I would take that.
	I take that correction.
	It might be more of a framing situation.
	Framing as in framing somebody for it.
	But I guess that's a false flag, isn't it?
	Top three ways to detect fake news.
	Okay. Number one.
	It's reported as true on only one of the big networks.
	If CNN says it's true and Fox News says it isn't, probably isn't true.
	But also the other way around.
	If Fox News says it's true and CNN says that never happened, probably didn't.
	So that's the first rule.
	Both networks have to report it the same or it's probably not true.
	Secondly, is it too on the nose?
	It's just a little too perfect, that story.
	It's a little too perfect.
	Number three, follow the money.
	If following the money suggests that the news is probably fake, it's very predictive.
	Very predictive. Now, not always.
	Not a guarantee.
	In fact, none of these rules are guarantees.
	But I think you get to the 90% range.
	90% predictive.
	Let's identify...
	All right.
	Here's somebody who's coming back with the red herring stuff.
	So let me hide you on this channel.
	All right. Oh, here's one.
	The payoff of January 6th was that the FBI did not have to investigate voter fraud...
	Eh, that's maybe too clever.
	Because I don't think...
	Well, I see what you're saying.
	I see what you're saying.
	But that would be pretty risky.
	I just don't see the FBI doing risky plays.
	It's the wrong organization for risky plays.
	Um... FBI is dirty.
	Well, every...
	Open your eyes, Scott.
	So Z3 gurgling says, open your eyes, Scott, in all caps.
	I'm going to close your eyes as you are now hidden from this channel.
	What's the risk?
	What's the risk? The risk is getting caught.
	And then finding out that the FBI was behind it.
	That's the risk. By the indicators, is Hunter's laptop fake?
	No. Because although CNN was at first trying to sell you the idea that it might have been a Russian plant, they've backed off that.
	So I don't believe CNN is reporting it's fake.
	So now you have both networks reporting it was a real laptop.
	So I think that works.
	So certainly...
	When did the FBI getting caught ever matter?
	Well, I don't know the history, but it would have to matter.
	Everybody who's doing this gets hidden on the channel now.
	All references to that.
	Okay. Just trying to get rid of some more of the...
	Everybody who's saying the red herring thing, I don't care if you're the troll or talking about the troll.
	I'm hiding all of you. Just annoyed because you don't tell me what that's about.
	If I knew what it was about, I probably wouldn't care.
	All right. Just spend a moment looking at your comments because there's a lot of pushback.
	Now, but hear me clearly.
	I'm not saying it's impossible that the FBI did some kind of a weird false flag or they're guilty of something.
	It's possible. I just don't see it yet.
	Meaning that the story's got a hole in it.
	It doesn't kind of hold together to me.
	I don't think there's zero risk to the reputation of the FBI. There's only zero risk to the agent.
	So if it was an FBI thing, as opposed to an independent actor, the FBI would never...
	I just can't see them authorizing that.
	Too easy to get caught.
	Too much of a downside.
	Unclear that the upside even exists.
	I don't see it. You will be persuaded, Ellen says.
	Possible. I'm open to being persuaded on that, by the way.
	If you think I've closed the door on that, I haven't.
	What I've seen is not persuasive.
	What you've seen seems to be persuasive.
	Maybe there's something else you've seen.
	But I'll look into it. I'll watch the Tucker Carlson package.
	By the way, that's up now, right?
	Explain the Whitmer plot.
	I believe the Whitmer plot was not intended to actually kidnap her, was it?
	Now, I don't know if I have the details right, but wasn't the story that an FBI informant was getting a bunch of militia to come up with a plan to kidnap Whitmer?
	But I don't believe there was any intention that they would actually kidnap Whitmer, right?
	Isn't it routine for the FBI to maybe get people to plan a crime and then stop it before it happens?
	Have you read anything by Nassim Taleb?
	Well, yes.
	I read the Black Swan stuff, but later after listening to him on Facebook, I'm sorry, listening to him on Twitter, I ended up blocking him, and I don't consider him a useful voice.
	He has...
	I don't want to diagnose somebody I don't know, and I'm not a doctor, but whatever Taleb has going on, It is influencing his opinions and communication.
	There's something going on with him that doesn't have to do with the arguments.
	And I don't know what it is.
	But I don't see him as being a useful voice at this point.
	Same Whitmer agent sent to incite January 6th.
	Might be the same people...
	But I don't believe that the FBI gets people to do actual violent crimes just so they can accomplish something.
	Is there any precedent for that?
	Is there any precedent for the FBI getting people to do the actual crime as opposed to arresting them before it happens?
	Has that ever happened?
	The Whitmer kidnapping crew's lead agent and two of his underlings have been kicked out of the FBI, one for being a wife beater.
	That seems coincidental.
	Did I hear Michael Schellenberger on Joe Rogan?
	You know, I love Joe Rogan, and I love Michael Schellenberger.
	I think I know the arguments, so I'm not sure I would have to follow all three hours of it.
	My only problem with the Joe Rogan show is that it's long.
	Now, if you want long content, that's exactly what you want, but I rarely can consume long content.
	Let's see.
	Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto. - So?
	All right. How would we know?
	By the nature, we can't know if it worked.
	Well, maybe. That's a good point.
	But also, the people doing it couldn't have known it would work out.
	There's no way they could have known that.
	And it didn't work out, did it?
	Many of the Islamo plots were done the same way.
	Martin Luther King, well, that's sort of ancient.
	Yes, FBI agents in Boston, John Connolly.
	I don't know that story.
	There's a bunch of people in jail, right?
	Yeah, Rogan and Chappelle have been doing their act together for a long time.
	Wake up, Scott.
	I'm just going to block you.
	Hide you. Anybody whose best comment is, wake up, I don't want you to follow me.
	I'd rather you just watch other content.
	Wake up. I don't believe that I'm un-woke.
	I believe I'm... I believe I'm influenced by evidence.
	Is that okay? Can I be influenced by evidence?
	Ab scam. Now, ab scam was they got to getting people to do a financial crime.
	You can definitely let them do the crime and then arrest them because nobody got hurt and they can unwind the financial part.
	But I don't think there's any precedent for the FBI getting people to do a violent crime or even a potentially violent crime like a protest.
	Do you watch Barnes?
	Yes. Any advice on how to be balanced in hobbies and fun stuff?
	Nope. I'm the worst person in the world with that.
	Alright. Vegas shooter?
	No, I don't think there's a plot there.
	Do I know who Craig Wright is?
	Nope. I don't.
	What's this? Feel comfortable sharing your ETH to Bitcoin radio?
	No, I'm not going to take any invitations for media stuff until I get my life under control.
	I'm not getting...
	Until I can get more than three hours of sleep on a regular basis, I'm not going to accept any invitations.
	Only murders in the building?
	I tried to watch that. I couldn't get into it.
	So believe without evidence until evidence to the contrary?
	No. I simply believe that the ordinary is the best explanation until the extraordinary has been proven.
	I always just make the assumption that the most ordinary thing is going to happen.
	Yes, I'm still drumming.
	Would you like to see what I've come up with as my intro to this program?
	Want to hear the drum intro?
	Here's the drum intro.
	Now... What you need to know is that the drum intro is based on my morning routine, and the name of the piece is called Coffee.
	So this is my own drumming.
	And it's supposed to represent me sleeping.
	It starts with a heartbeat.
	That's my sleeping heartbeat.
	And you'll hear a little bit of noise.
	That's the alarm. You'll hear my two feet hitting the ground, getting out of bed.
	Two, two. You're going to hear me going down the stairs, and then you're going to hear me going on with my day, until I have my first drink of coffee, all right?
	So going from sleeping down the stairs, getting a cup of coffee, here is what might be some form of this, my new drum opening.
	Heartbeat.
	Alarm.
	What's going on with my day? And then I match that with the sip.
	Anyway, that's my first draft I'm working on.
	You think it needs to be Jazza?
	Ugh, no. You like it?
	Steel drums would be nice, huh?
	It sounds better, of course, not played through my phone onto my iPad.
	Well, I'm going to work on that.
	I might even ask somebody who's an actual drummer to drum it better, so it sounds better.
	But I also wanted to write a song.
	I wanted to write a song.
	So I guess in some ways it's like a I guess it's a song.
	Now, you want to hear a tragic story?
	It's tragic. Not very tragic.
	Small, small tragic.
	So back when I was doing the Dilbert TV show, it ran on UPN for two half seasons, we needed an opening, and so I designed the opening.
	And the design was, it would be Dilbert evolving.
	You'd show evolution, and then he'd evolve into a cubicle dweller, and then you'd show him in the cubicles and stuff.
	Now, that was just sort of the first draft.
	I sort of asked the creative people, okay, go make me...
	Go make me an opening that has these features in it, where Dilbert has evolved like evolution, you know, from a creature into a monkey, into a human, and then into a cubicle, because it's funny to show that people evolved into something so weak as living in a cubicle.
	So we hired, I think, the top person in the field to make the music, and then the animators put together the animation that achieved that, etc.
	And people liked it.
	And I'm blanking on the name of the famous composer, Danny Elfman.
	Have you ever heard of Danny Elfman?
	A very famous composer for movie scores and stuff like that.
	Who was he with originally?
	DeVoe? DeVoe?
	I forget who he was with originally, but he's one of the most successful people.
	So he did the music.
	Oh, Oingo Boingo?
	Is that where he was? Oh, interesting.
	Chad asked, do you know if they can determine if you've got natural immunity or vaccine immunity?
	Yeah. To know if you have a natural boost.
	Interesting. Anyway, so I put together...
	So the introduction is a big hit, and it is submitted for an Emmy.
	And it won an Emmy.
	So apparently there's an Emmy category for show introductions.
	And the show introduction that I designed and then was executed by the animators and Danny Elfman won an Emmy.
	So do you want to see my Emmy?
	Anybody? Would you like to see my Emmy?
	It's right here behind me.
	If it looks like a blank shelf, it's because there wasn't enough room on the Emmy application for my name.
	True story. It was submitted without me knowing it.
	I didn't know it was submitted for the Emmy.
	But the people who submitted it...
	Left my name off because there wasn't enough room.
	So I didn't win an Emmy for the thing I designed.
	Now, to be fair, all of the creative work was done by other people, right?
	The animators definitely deserved an Emmy, and Danny Elfman definitely deserved an Emmy for their work.
	But I did design it.
	It was my first draft, and typically, the person who does the first draft, no matter how much it changes, but typically in the creative world, whoever does the first draft gets some credit.
	Some credit. So I actually won an Emmy without winning an Emmy.
	I think that's special.
	Do I use blue light blocking glasses?
	No. That's the weird question.
	Elon Musk tweeted that he wants to create the Texas Institute for Technology and Science so that the acronym can be TITS. And, of course, he's named the models of his Tesla cars so that the letters will spell sex.
	There's models S and E and X, I guess.
	Or he planned to do it, I forget.
	I love the fact that Elon Musk is the richest person in the world and also a teenage boy.
	I don't know. I can't stop loving that.
	That he's not above this joke.
	I love that he's not above this joke.
	I just love it.
	And I'm not sure it was, like, it wasn't so funny.
	I guess it's funny because he said it.
	That's what makes it noteworthy.
	If anybody else said it, it would have been, eh.
	But the fact that he could fund it and actually create it, it actually might, just for a joke, is hilarious.
	By the way, if you haven't heard Elon Musk mocking Warren Buffett...
	You have to check that out.
	Yeah. Check out how dismissive Elon Musk is of Warren Buffet.
	Because apparently Warren Buffet also doesn't think much of Tesla.
	So, you know, they conflict a little bit.
	But hearing Elon, who's, you know, taking us to Mars and building electric cars and changing the world, hearing him talking about Warren Buffet as a guy who just looks at numbers...
	Which is pretty close.
	Pretty close to a good explanation of who he is.
	Yeah, he reads balance sheets and financial statements, and it's very boring.
	And that's all he does.
	That's his contribution to the world, is he reads balance sheets and financial statements better than you.
	What is Elon Musk's contribution to the world?
	Freedom. My God!
	Elon Musk's contribution to the world is freedom.
	It's not even close. Oh, yes, I am a big Elon Musk fan.
	And I do have some small amount of Tesla stock that I bought in the past year.
	So that's my full disclosure.
	So I'm very pro-Musk and Tesla.
	But here's what I mean by freedom.
	We probably will only be free if we can leave the Earth.
	Right? Long, long term, freedom pretty much requires leaving the Earth.
	Secondly, you're not going to be free unless you have some energy sources that don't completely depend on the government.
	That's what he makes.
	He makes your solar panels and your solar battery to make you free from the government.
	Now, you could argue it's not enough, blah, blah, blah.
	You need your nuclear power, and I agree.
	But he is giving you freedom.
	You could ignore the government and be your own power company with your house.
	It's possible, depending on the design of the house.
	And he's also building Starlink.
	That's his, right? Starlink.
	The satellite network.
	What will Starlink allow you to do?
	Avoid the phone companies.
	Avoid the big companies.
	Probably also avoid the government.
	In some ways. Because if you have more competition in how information is distributed, the more competition, the more freedom, probably.
	So I would say that Elon Musk is directly and substantially altering the very nature of humankind in terms of the amount of freedom we'll have now and in the future.
	And Warren Buffett It's just taking money from bad investors and giving it to himself.
	Because that's what he does.
	He just invests smarter so that some people are buying the wrong stocks.
	He's buying the right stocks on average, and he makes more money than you do, but it's at somebody's expense.
	It's at the expense of the people who made the wrong decisions.
	He's just taking money from one pocket and putting it in another.
	Now, you could argue that He creates a more efficient system, blah, blah, blah.
	That's true. But you can't compare the impact that Musk has on humankind to what Warren Buffett did for himself and his investors, right?
	But basically, they were just moving money from one pocket to another, and Musk is moving you from Earth to the moon, right?
	Those are not the same conversations, right?
	So I just love that.
	And by the way, I have a prediction about Warren Buffett.
	You want to hear it? And I can only give it to you in partial form.
	And the prediction goes like this.
	That when he and Charlie Munger, who is also super old, when both of them have passed, you're going to hear some stories about one or both of them that you never heard before.
	And it might not be good.
	You know what I mean? I have a feeling that the major publications, the people who could maybe find out if Warren Buffett has ever done anything bad, probably stay away.
	Partly because he's so lovable, and genuinely he's just terrific in public.
	But I can't believe that somebody with that money doesn't have a skeleton or two in the closet.
	I don't know in what domain or anything like that.
	No, I'm not thinking of, you know, any Epstein stuff or anything like that.
	I think financially.
	I would be amazed if after they both passed, and I think both of them have to go, Charlie Munger and Buffett.
	And by the way, I'm pro both of them.
	I think they're amazing, amazingly successful, good role models based on what we know about them.
	And you should listen to almost everything they say, because it makes sense.
	But I just have this intuition or something that there's something in that story that we don't know, the Warren Buffett success story.
	Just something we don't know.
	We'll find out.
	Could you do a podcast on reframing?
	I was thinking of writing a book on that topic.
	Because, unfortunately, it might overlap with too much of what I've already done.
	But I think that if people understood reframing as a technique and saw lots of examples of it and how to reframe some basic things in your life, it could be life-changing.
	Do I own more than one house?
	No. I own one car and one house.
	Because... In order to own two houses, you need to have a staff, I think.
	and I don't want a staff.
	Microlessons on decoupling and divesting from woke companies.
	No, I think that doesn't belong in the micro-lesson So the micro lessons I do, I've got over 190 of them now on the Locals platform, so it's behind a subscription wall.
	But there are 190 lessons in two minutes to four minutes generally, each one of which would give you a new superpower.
	It's just something you hadn't thought of, a new way of framing things in many cases.
	And they're all designed to give you a power.
	They're not inert.
	Everyone is like a power pack.
	And there are 190 of them now.
	If you consume all 190, and again, it's just two minutes apiece.
	You could just do it while you're on the toilet one day each until you're done.
	Oh, here's an interesting point.
	Some work for money. Scott works for ideas, and the money follows.
	I would say it a different way.
	I would say that I have a system, not a goal.
	My system is to follow the energy and apply my talent stack in a way that helps the most people.
	If you do that, money will follow.
	But it's not a process everybody can do.
	Because I have the advantage that I have financial security.
	So I can wait for things to come to me.
	This live streaming was just a huge money loser for me.
	It was just a money loser.
	It was just drive away Dilbert fans and didn't make any money.
	I wasn't even monetizing it.
	And for what, five years?
	I think I did this for like five years just because I was following the energy and it seemed to have a value that people appreciated.
	And now it's monetized.
	So between the YouTube ads, which you can skip if you're subscribed to either Locals or to YouTube, and now it's actually producing money.
	Now it's not life-changing money that I didn't need it, but it's doing it.
	I mean, it's actually a genuine, what would you call it, a genuine business line of business, I guess.
	Did it help book sales?
	Probably. Probably.
	Yeah, so I didn't have a goal of being this.
	I had a system where I followed the energy, I experimented, I listened to the audience input, change, change, change, and I just followed it where it went and applied and built my talent stack at the same time.
	And if you do those things...
	And you improve your production quality, apparently not well enough today.
	If you just chip away at all these things, five years later you've got a business that you didn't plan on.
	Exactly. The Hershey's CEO said water is not a right.
	That's true. That's just the definition of the word rights.
	Now, if you say to yourself, having access to water should be a right, I would agree with you.
	If you say it is a right, you have to point to it somewhere in a law or God's word or something like that.
	But a right is not just you think it should be something for everybody.
	The definition of a right is that it's codified or at least comes from a religion in some way that you could point to objectively and say, oh, there's the rule.
	Somebody says in Texas water is a right, but I would imagine that that's a limited right.
	But abortion is a right?
	No, I don't say anything's a right until it's codified.
	So abortion is a right if you're in a state where it's a legally defined thing you can do.
	Biden said her rights are just there.
	He doesn't acknowledge they come from God.
	Well, it's better not to acknowledge they come from God because then you're limited to whatever's defined by God and not everybody's following the same one.
	Am I talking too long?
	Somebody's running on a beer. You know your rights when you're alone in the wilderness.
	I don't know. Yeah.
	I think you should always talk about what should be your rights.
	Somebody says Craig Wright invented Bitcoin and he has a huge trial that starts on Monday.
	Now, why would I not be aware that the founder of Bitcoin had been identified, if that were true?
	If that were true, are you telling me that wouldn't be the headline story?
	I don't believe what you're telling me.
	There's something left out. Insurance are not rights, but yeah.
	Yeah, I don't think anything is a natural right.
	I don't believe in natural rights.
	They're just things you want, things that make sense, things you would like to be right, but there's no natural right, in my opinion.
	God-given?
	I don't know that God gives you any rights.
	Right to life?
	You have a right to life because it's illegal to be killed, and it's in the Constitution.
	Yeah, there are things you need, but that doesn't make them a right.
	Thank you.
	Alright, that's all for now.
	I'm going to go do something else.

▲