Episode 1559 Scott Adams: Today's Show Will Mostly be About the Public Brainwashing We Are All Experiencing
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Fake News smears Kyle Rittenhouse and Judge Schroeder
Whiteboard: Rittenhouse Fake News Narratives
Dems don't know Kyle shot White attackers, not Black?
AP's deep bubble story on embrace of violence...by "one party"
Evolving story of FBI raid on Project Veritas
Bill Gates on vaccination and COVID transmission
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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, ladies and gentlemen, and everything in between, which we value equally.
This is the best thing that could have ever happened to you.
Yeah, it's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and how lucky that you either stumbled in here by luck, congratulations to you, or you're so smart that you know you should come here every day.
Either way, it's a great, great way to start the day.
And if you'd like to take it up another notch, yeah, it's possible.
I know, I know.
It doesn't seem like it could get any better, right?
But watch this. It's called the simultaneous sip.
And no matter how good your day has started, it takes it up another level.
I know you won't believe it until you try it yourself.
But let's try it. All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a canteen, a jug or 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.
Don't believe me? Watch this.
Go. Can you feel your antibodies bristling?
They're bristling with power now.
The only way you can tell is you feel a little bit extra friction.
It's from the bristles.
That's science.
Well, as Marty Blartfest pointed out in a tweet today, that Elon Musk was very clever to do a Twitter poll asking people if he should sell a bunch of his Tesla stock.
Why was that clever?
Anybody? Anybody?
I'll tell you why it was clever.
It was clever because he warned the public ahead of time and framed it.
He framed it as a citizen trying to pay taxes.
How much better could you do?
You couldn't do any better than that.
Because if he had simply just sold it, and I think he had to maybe to pay off some obligations from some other tax thing, and imagine if he just sold it and didn't tell anybody.
The stock would die if it would look like he's lost faith.
And, of course, that would be ridiculous because it's only $5 billion, which is not much for him.
But it would have looked bad.
But because he did this little Twitter poll, he made us think that the issue was paying taxes.
And we all kind of went along with that.
It was kind of genius.
And he's very...
If you watch Musk, he's very consistent...
In understanding the room, you know, able to work the room and work your impressions of the room.
You know, Tesla famously doesn't do advertising.
They don't do advertising.
Do me a fact check on that.
I think that's true, right? They don't do advertising.
Instead, they just make good products that people want to talk about.
And then Elon Musk does things that people want to talk about.
Every time Elon Musk does something you think is a little crazy and provocative and maybe he shouldn't have done it, if you're not simultaneously thinking to yourself, oh, they don't do regular marketing, they draw your attention in non-traditional ways, once you realize that, it's a little more transparent what he's up to.
Have I told you that I was expecting a hit piece on me?
Because it's the political season starting to heat up again as we get to 2022.
So how many thought my prediction would be good, that there would be a hit piece on me?
Well, yesterday on Twitter, a journalist for SFGate, so this would be a local left-leaning publication, Asked if I would like to be the subject of a profile.
A profile. Do you know what it means when a journalist asks somebody who talks about politics if they can do a profile on them?
Well, I'm sad to say that I used to be dumb enough to fall for this, and did.
And when I say used to, I'm not talking about when I was in my 20s and I didn't have much experience.
I'm talking about, I fell for this trick five years ago, four years ago.
I fell for this with Bloomberg.
So Bloomberg had a journalist who said, hey, we want to do a big feature piece profile on you.
And I thought to myself... You know, Bloomberg's a pretty big publication, and they want to do a feature piece on me.
This will be great. I can mention my website and sell some books.
This couldn't be better.
That wasn't two years ago.
No, that was like 2017, maybe?
Somebody do a fact check on that.
The Bloomberg article on me.
2017, I think.
No, was it before the election?
2016, maybe.
Anyway, the point is that Bloomberg clearly was playing on the Democrat team, clearly sent somebody to take me out, did not count on me retweeting it because I'm a little bit anti-fragile.
Meaning that the more you attack me, the stronger I get.
And I don't think they quite counted on that.
And so, indeed, my profile went up instead of down.
But they took a run at it.
They took a pretty good run at it.
And if you were to Google my name, the fake news industry would put their article at the top.
So if you do a search for me...
Now, I don't know if it's still the case, but if you did it on Google...
And you did it, oh, March 2017 is when the Bloomberg article was.
But if you did a search on that today, I don't know if it would still be there, but during the election, it was the top result.
So if anybody saw something I said and said, ah, I better check out this guy, see if I should listen to more of what he says or not, they would have seen that top result.
It was just a hit piece.
I mean, just a ridiculous hit piece.
So when the SFGate asked if they could do a profile piece on me, I of course said, thank you, but no thank you.
So they're coming.
They're coming. Now, this won't be the last one.
And I would expect that at least somebody will write a piece without my involvement.
It's far more credible if you can get the topic of your hit piece to be part of it, which is what I used to fall for.
Oh, I think this will be good.
I'll just say good things and then that's all they can write about.
Nope. They can just make up anything they want.
And they do. All right.
Here's more on my theme that Democrats uniquely don't understand human motivation.
Every time I give you one of these examples, put it in the bin in your brain with the other examples of Democrats not understanding human motivation.
It's the problem with all of their stuff.
All of their policies have the same hole.
The humans don't act the way they hope they do.
Conservatives typically get the human part right, consistently.
Consistently. Now, it might look like the conservatives are being more cruel because they can be more harsh in their worldview, but it's because it works.
There's no other reason. The only reason is because it works.
And the other things don't work.
I'm almost positive that if you could find out that, let's say, socialism worked...
You know, I don't think you could prove that.
But let's say pure socialism, not the little bit like the Europeans do.
But if you could prove that pure socialism actually worked...
I think you could convince conservatives, too.
It's just that it can't be proved, because it doesn't.
And it violates everything you know about human behavior.
But here's a new example, and Greg Gottfeld tweeted this about CNN's coverage.
So... The subject was the Rittenhouse trial, Kyle Rittenhouse on trial for self-defense that they call murder.
And the chyron on CNN, and Don Lemon was on there with two other people, the chyron said, Conservatives embrace, celebrate white vigilantism.
What? Is that the most, let's say, unaware...
Interpretation of conservatives?
Let me just give you a thought experiment.
Just a thought experiment.
Imagine that Kyle Rittenhouse had been black, and then imagine that everything else was exactly the same, and that the people he shot were three white people, just like Kyle Rittenhouse.
How would conservatives see this?
Do you think that conservatives would say, oh, wait a minute, I didn't realize that the shooter was black, and now self-defense doesn't matter, and I don't like the Second Amendment anymore?
Are you kidding me?
Are you kidding me?
See if I'm wrong.
I believe 100%, 100%, not even 99%, I believe 100% of conservatives would say, under the same facts, right, that the facts have to be identical.
I think 100% of conservatives would say, yeah, that's still self-defense.
That's still self-defense.
I'm looking at your comments, and you're all agreeing with me, right?
So anybody who has even a little bit of understanding of the conservative philosophy, there's no question about this one.
And to imagine...
As CNN does, to imagine in their usual, you know, mind-reading way, to imagine that conservatives are seeing this to be about race.
This is so not about race.
Let me ask you something.
If a conservative sees an issue, it involves a gun, and it also involves race, which one's bigger in their mind?
Yeah, there's a racial component.
Maybe it's not that important to the story, but there's a racial component.
And then there's a gun, and they're both important to the story.
The conservatives care about the gun.
The gun. Right?
The Constitution. This is easy stuff.
But the left, I don't know if they don't know it or they pretend they don't know it.
It's always hard to tell. All right, so as Greg Gutfeld pointed out, the CNN has for months, if not years, cheered on the violent protests, the Antifa, the BLM, and in direct language.
Chris Cuomo said directly that, you know, who said riots have to be peaceful?
Essentially supporting the fact that some forms of protest We're going to get a little violent.
And then when the most obvious thing happens, which is you rail against the police forever and you defund the police and you say, yeah, it's fine to have these peaceful protests that are actually violent, how did you not think a vigilante would appear?
Before Kyle, did I not tell you that vigilantes would appear?
Now, I don't think he was a vigilante.
So, first of all, don't buy their frame, because he wasn't a vigilante or anything like it.
But I did tell you the vigilantes were guaranteed, and I don't think Kyle's one of them, but he's getting thrown into that group.
So, it should have been predictable that somebody would, you know, you could call him a vigilante, but I would call him just a patriot who maybe made a decision that shouldn't have been made.
But certainly his intention was in the right place.
It looks like it to me.
So, Democrats, you got what you asked for, a world without police, but you've got to take it all.
You don't get just the good parts.
You don't get the part where there's fewer police shootings without the part where there's more crime, at least if defunding the police is your only technique.
Alright, I have a rule that you should never be taken seriously if you have a porn mustache.
Can we all agree on this?
If you've got like a goatee or a beard, maybe.
I'll take you seriously if you've got a full goatee or a beard.
But can we take people seriously who just have a mustache, like a big old mustache?
I would say no. And is it my imagination, or is Kyle Rittenhouse being prosecuted by Gary Oldman in Batman?
Am I wrong?
Right? The prosecutor?
That's just Gary Oldman in the Batman movies, right?
I think I'm right.
But there's new mustache news.
I said the same thing about...
Oh, I can't remember his name.
Never mind. But Biden is nominating a new head for the FDA, the presumably corrupt group in government.
I say presumably corrupt based on what we've observed in the last year.
I can't prove it, so I don't have data, but the smart assumption is that the FDA is corrupt and that money is behind it.
And I say that because of the experience with the rapid testing, you know, the slow approval of that.
If you look into that, you'll see there is no explanation for it, which means there's one explanation for it.
Now, I'd love to be wrong, and I'd love to find out that all the members of the FDBA are great patriots and doing the best they can, and there's no monetary anything.
But I doubt it. So anyway, the guy who's being nominated, Dr.
Raab Khalif, he's got a big old porn mustache.
He's being put in charge of the, you know, maybe the entity besides the Supreme Court that we should take most seriously.
Right? It's one of the most serious jobs you could ever have, head of the FDA. And we put porn mustache guy there.
Now... Porn mustache guy, we only know one thing about him.
Well, two. We know his name.
The second thing we know about him is the one thing we know he decided on, he got wrong.
I wonder if I should have a big old mustache.
If you're wearing a big error in judgment right on your face, how are we supposed to take the rest of it seriously?
Now, I've said that Trump had the same problem with his unusual haircut, and Boris Johnson too.
Although I've come to think that an unusual haircut might actually be an advantage, because people can't look away.
But the mustache is different.
The mustache is too normal, right?
Having wild hair is far less normal.
So I don't think you put the mustache guy in charge of the FDA. That's all I'm saying.
And by the way, this is speaking in terms of persuasion.
I'm sure he's very qualified.
But persuasion-wise, it's a bad look.
Let's talk about Kyle Rittenhouse and what's happening.
Are you all aware of what the fake news industry, the FNI, is doing right now?
So the fake news industry, I include...
I can reach over here.
Hold on.
Audio problem.
So the FNI, or fake news industry, I include the social media networks and part of that.
Okay.
This is the play they're running on the country right now, which is, there are several narratives that can come out of the Rittenhouse trial.
One of them is white supremacy, even though there's no white supremacy anywhere in the story.
There's no white supremacy anywhere in the story.
There's nobody who was one.
Nobody did anything racial.
It was something that white people did to each other.
No trace of white supremacy.
But... The narrative is that the country is full of white supremacy, so Kyle is being tied to this.
Biden even called him a white supremacist, which he should be sued for if not lose his job.
Biden, that is. He should lose his job for that.
He should be kicked out of the presidency for attacking a citizen and not even correcting it.
I suppose if he'd corrected it, if Biden did, I'd be willing to say, that was just a terrible mistake.
Well, you don't want to lose a president over it.
Not correcting it.
Not correcting that Biden called this young man a white supremacist with no evidence whatsoever that that was the case.
You need to be fired for that if you're the president.
That should be the end of it.
They should just walk you out of the office.
They should put your shit in a box and get out of the office because you are embarrassing the country.
At that point, you're so far from the, let's say, the culture of the United States and what is right and what every single person thinks is right.
You need to go.
And being mentally incompetent, that's not good enough.
You need to be out of that job right away.
Here's something that Trump never did.
Attack voters.
He never did that.
He attacked people who attacked him.
That's different. But he didn't go after, like, an individual in the news and call him something like a white supremacist.
I mean, that's so far over the line.
That should be immediate.
Lose your job. Anyway, the other narrative is that white men are bad, of course.
So there'll be more of that. He's a white man.
Look at all these white men doing bad things.
The other narrative is about guns, gun control.
Hey, if you have guns, people are going to get killed, blah, blah.
And then there's the unequal justice one, which will pretend that this case is like other cases where there's a black defendant.
Is this case anything like any of those other cases?
It's so...
Yeah, we're seeing it in the comments on locals.
These cases are all unique.
There are no two of these cases that should be compared.
And the moment you make an analogy of these cases, you've abandoned all rational disorders because they're just different things.
There's nothing in common with them.
So here's the play.
The CNNs and the fake news industry of the world will push these narratives, which will cause riots and conflict and lots of things to talk about.
That will get them lots of clicks, and they will make more money, and it will increase their political power.
Now, you can see this, right?
You all see this forming?
Because now that we've seen the cycle enough times, you can see it early.
I feel like there was a time we wouldn't have noticed this, right?
There was a time you wouldn't have really known this was going on, but now it's all transparent.
I don't think they try to hide it anymore because it's clear that they don't need to.
They can just do it right in front of you.
There's no penalty.
All right, so let me talk some more about Kyle Rittenhouse.
How many of you who watched it think he was fake crying?
This will be an interesting question.
I'm very interested in your answer to this.
How many of you think he was fake crying?
I'm seeing all no's on Locals and on YouTube.
I'm seeing nobody thinks it was fake.
50-50? Somebody says PTSD? Well, I saw LeBron James mock Kyle Rittenhouse because he thought it was fake crying, obviously, and he said there's no tears.
Now, if I told you there were no tears, I don't know if you noticed, but I looked at it again, I didn't see any.
If there were no tears, was it real?
Well, I mean, we can't read his mind.
But let me give you...
LeBron knows how to cry.
Let me give you my take on this.
I put myself in his position.
Suppose you were Kyle Rittenhouse.
How would you feel about the fact that you took two lives and you were being blamed as a murderer and a white supremacist in public?
How would you feel about that?
You'd feel really shook.
And I think the word that captures it best is shook.
PTSD, maybe?
But just shook to your core.
Now let me ask you the second question.
Do you think he's sad that he shot those motherfuckers?
Nope. Nope.
Why would he be? Would you be?
Would you be sad that you killed those particular people in those particular circumstances?
I wouldn't be. Do you think that if I were in this situation that I would act shook?
Yes. Would I have trouble even forming words?
Maybe. Probably.
Would I shed a fucking tear?
Not one. Not one.
There would not be a tear.
Because tears are with sadness.
And I don't think he has to be sad about who he killed.
In fact, they were people, if I may speak frankly, that nobody's going to miss.
I mean, there's nothing to be sad about.
So crying would have looked fake to me, honestly.
If he had cried, I'm not sure I would have bought that.
But being shook to the core?
Yeah, that's human.
That's human. All right.
Follow the money. So that's what this is about.
Have I told you many times that even when people are not consciously doing something for the money...
And even if they could pass a lie detector test, you put somebody in the lie detector and say, are you doing this for the money?
And they say, no, I'm doing this because this is the right thing to do.
And they pass the lie detector test.
It's still about the money.
Because people will always rationalize, and even to themselves, they'll convince themselves it's not about the money, and they'll really believe it.
So if you ask people, no matter how credible they are, no matter how much you believe them, and they say, no, it's not about the money, you can predict where things will go by following the money, even when it's not about the money.
So that's my take.
Follow the money always works when people are doing things for the money, and they tell you they are if you could ask them.
It always works then. But it also works, and this is the part I'm adding to the existing theory, it also works when nobody involved believes, honestly believes, that they're doing anything for the money.
It will still go in the same direction as the money would suggest.
All right? Now...
So here's the way the Rittenhouse story will go.
The way that everybody can make the most money is he gets acquitted, at least of the murderous charges, gets acquitted.
There might be some lesser charge there.
And then there are riots, and then the fake news industry gets everybody riled up, and there's lots of clicks, and then everybody gets money.
If you took the CNN analysts...
And put them on a lie detector.
Let's imagine that lie detectors work.
In truth, lie detectors don't work.
You all knew that, right? Lie detectors are fake technology.
That's why they're not allowed in courts, because they don't work.
But if people think they work, you can learn things, because people will act.
Anyway, there's a longer story about that.
But imagine, hypothetically, that there was such a thing as a lie detector that actually worked.
And reliably. I'll bet you could put all the CNN staff on it and say, are you doing this for the money?
This is really about the money, isn't it?
I'll bet every one of them would pass the lie detector.
No, it's not about the money.
I wouldn't do that. It's about the news.
But the predictor says follow the money.
So it's definitely going to go to acquittal because that's where they get the most money because that would be the most outrage.
And... So here's more on that.
So CNN was trying to make a story out of the judge, which now they're going to paint the judge as a white supremacist.
And there's no evidence of that either, right?
Of course. But they're going to make him look like he's part of the problem.
And I guess he made a joke about the Asian food might be delayed because of the supply chain problem.
And he was obviously making a joke.
And CNN is saying that some Asians were offended by that because it makes it seem as if the supply chain problem is the fault of Asians.
What? What?
I'm pretty sure there's such a thing as Chinese food.
Now, he said Asian food because maybe it wasn't all Chinese.
It could have been Vietnamese or whatever.
But if you say a joke about maybe your food didn't come because of the supply chain problem, that's saying that the people who make the Asian food are victims of the supply chain.
He's saying that the Asians, like all the rest of us, Might be victims of the supply chain problem.
There's literally no fucking thing here about them causing the supply chain problem.
Oh my God!
There's literally nothing here.
Now, there were some activists in the Asian community who made a thing of it, but I don't think that needed to be reported because activists will take any reason to connect to the headlines to make their case.
So I don't think you can listen to the activists in a story like this.
But really, CNN, do a little bit of filtering.
A little bit of filtering.
That blows my mind.
And then here's another...
This headline is on Twitter.
You know, Twitter puts their own little...
They call out different stories on the right-hand side of the web browser version.
And here's what they said today.
Overwhelmingly, white juries will decide both the Kyle Rittenhouse and Ahmoud Arbery cases.
The system is imperfect, legal experts say.
Now, do you see what they're doing here?
They're making you try to think that the Kyle Rittenhouse case and the Ahmaud Arbery case are equivalents.
Right? They don't say it, but that's the clear suggestion that these two cases have something in common.
And they don't.
They really don't.
Now, why do you imagine that overwhelmingly white juries are the ones that got picked in both cases?
Why do you think that is?
I don't know. I don't know.
But certainly, don't all the attorneys have the same amount of challenges?
Am I wrong? Don't you have exactly the same amount of challenges if you're the prosecution or the defense?
So the jury is whatever the jury is.
I mean, it's not because they picked it that way.
I mean, they might try, but there's a limit to how much they can game that system.
So, of course, just framing the story in this way, and by the way, I think this is a good question, don't you?
It's a perfectly good question.
I think you should be asking questions about the racial composition of your juries.
So there's nothing wrong with the question, and I don't think we should ever take our eye off of that.
It's useful. We should keep an eye on it.
But it shouldn't be the one factor, right?
It shouldn't be the one factor.
And when you frame the story like this, you're just playing to the narrative that this is a racial thing in which it wasn't.
All right. Apparently, some progressives are just learning that Kyle's victims were not black.
Because there's some tweets where people are saying, wait a minute, wait a minute.
This whole time, you're telling me that he didn't shoot black people?
That's actually what a number of people in the left community believe.
They've watched this story all these months and months, and they thought the victims were black.
Sorry, I said victims, didn't I? Good catch.
That's a good catch.
The victim was Kyle.
Kyle Rittenhouse was the only victim in the story.
The others were people who had bad things happen to him.
But the victim of the crime was Kyle Rittenhouse.
Thank you for that correction.
That is a good correction.
So apparently progressives are just learning that their bubble is not getting real news.
I saw some compilations of tweets to that nature.
And so I tweeted that and I said to progressives, after you find out that you've been lied to about Kyle Rittenhouse, go Google this phrase, fine people hoax, the fine people hoax, do it first on DuckDuckGo, And then do the same search on Google and compare them.
And then I advised them to wear a hat because their head is going to come right off.
Now, I was asked, why is it that I keep going back to this fine people hoax?
Like, why am I so obsessed with this above all other things?
And the answer is, it's the tentpole hoax.
Do you know what a tent pole refers to?
So the tent pole is the biggest pole that's the most important one holding up a tent.
Let's say a circus tent situation.
If you can take the tent pole out, it doesn't matter how many other smaller poles there are, the tent's going to collapse.
So on the find people hoax, I've been using the Andre Agassi strategy.
Now, Andre Agassi had a strategy playing players who usually were lesser players, but sometimes not so much.
And usually everybody you play has at least one strength, but they might have also at least one weakness.
Let's say the backhand is a weakness and the forehand is a strength.
Almost every tennis player would try to hit more balls to their opponent's weakness, because obviously that's where you're going to get your points.
You hit to their weakness, not to their strength.
Andre Agassi did the opposite.
Probably not every time, but one of his big strategies was he would go after their strength.
Do you know why?
Because their best shot is their tentpole.
If he goes to their tentpole shot, let's say it's the forehand, they've got a blistering forehand, and they hit a blistering forehand, what happens to the confidence of both of you?
Not much change.
Not much change.
Because you expected the person to have that blazing forehand.
You expected them to make some points off it, and that's what happened.
So your expectations were just about where they belonged.
But what if Andre Agassi can win two points?
Well, then you think, oh, crap.
My best weapon doesn't work against Andre Agassi.
And it could be he just got lucky.
It could be he just had, you know, two points that, you know, the bounce went his way.
But in two points, he can destroy a player completely.
Two points. That's the strategy.
Now, you have to be as good as him to be able to pull that off.
But the risk-reward is really good.
If you can take out the tent pole, You win, and the rest is just, you know, the details.
Because once their confidence is gone, you just dismantle them.
So the fine people hoax is the one that makes all the lesser hoaxes believable.
You see that, right?
If you were on the left and you believed the fine people hoax, you believed it actually happened, it would be easy to believe that all of the smaller suggestions of racist-like things could have also been true.
But if the tentpole is removed and you find out that the press had lied to you about something really important and really basic, you're going to question all the rest.
So this is an Andre Agassi play.
I don't know that I can take the tentpole out.
But when I saw people start to abandon ship over the Kyle Rittenhouse thing, I saw an opening.
And if I can make the Kyle Rittenhouse story connected to the Find People hoax and get people to just Google the two sources, DuckDuckGo and Google, and see that they're completely different...
One says it's a hoax and one says it's real.
I'm pretty close to the tentpole.
Now, if you also noticed, if some of you have been watching me now for years, actually, going after every suggestion about the fine people hoax, you know, I go after it pretty hard on Twitter.
And have you noticed that the replies have changed a lot since the beginning?
Remember in the beginning, I'd say it's a hoax, and I would just get slammed by people saying, God, it wasn't a hoax.
We saw it with our own eyes, heard it with our own ears.
Now, I still get that.
I still get that, but one or two, right?
And they get slammed by the other commenters who just show them the transcript and slap them down pretty hard.
So at this point, that find people hoax tentpole is in jeopardy.
I'm not going to predict it'll come down.
But this is the closest it's been to being wobbly, and it is what I'm going for.
Because I don't think I can make any progress chipping away at the lesser poles.
I'm going for the tent pole.
If I take out the tent pole, it's all over.
So that's the strategy.
All right, Biden's got some fake news about him.
He was talking about Satchel Paige, who had been a member of what was called in its day the Negro League for baseball.
Now, that's what it was called in its day.
So in its day, it wasn't considered an insult because the folks who were on the team used the same language.
Didn't mean anything back then.
So when Biden was making reference to Satchel Paige, he said he was a great Negro player and that he clarified that he was talking about the Negro League and that he was a player in that league.
Now, of course, the right took that out of context immediately and says, hey, he's calling black people Negroes, and therefore he's really a racist.
Now, do you think there's even one person on the right who actually believes that this is some kind of racist talk?
I don't think so. I don't think there's even one person who thinks this is racist.
But I think the right is having fun with it because it's so similar to what the left does to the right.
So I think people are pretending as if they're, you know, gotcha, because it's the same game that's played in the other direction.
So I think it's sort of fair game, you could argue, to take this out of context just to make the point.
But correct me if I'm wrong, there's no conservative who thinks this is racist, right?
He just was referring to a historical language.
Yeah. Alinsky says, make them live by their own rules.
Yeah, it's a good strategy.
It's a good strategy to attack it like it was as if it were true, but it's very much not true.
All right. This is a story from the AP. And here's a story that you'd have to be deep in the bubble, you know, news bubble, to read this story and not have the reaction that most of you are going to have.
All right, listen to this.
This is actually a quote from an AP story today.
This is mind-boggling.
It says, one of the nation's two major political parties appears increasingly tolerant of at least some persistent level of violence in American discourse, or at least willing to turn a blind eye to it.
Which party are they talking about?
Is that a reference to Democrats or Republicans?
Because it's one party.
They say one party. Let me read it again.
And you tell me this.
It's Democrats or Republicans.
One of the nation's two political parties appear increasingly tolerant to at least some persistent level of violence in American discourse or at least willing to turn a blind eye to it.
This is written as if anybody can see.
It's obviously we're talking about the Republicans and January 6th.
And, you know, and related conversation, I suppose.
Now, how could you be blind to the fact that the entire left has been cheering on riots for years?
And that even political members like, you know, Maxine Waters is saying you should go, you know, harass people in public.
Harass politicians in public.
And even Chris Cuomo saying that, you know, who said riots need to be peaceful?
How in the world could your readers be so dumb as to think that it's the conservatives who are tolerating a little bit of violence?
How could they possibly think that?
Like, you would have to be so deep in the bubble that it's just shocking that that's even a thing.
Anyway... Here's a persuasion tip.
Trying to change somebody's mind directly almost never works.
So if somebody says, X is true, you say, no, it's not.
And even if you show all your sources, it doesn't matter.
You're not going to convince anybody of anything most of the time.
But sometimes you can trick people into discovering the first clue on their own.
And if they find it on their own, then they can change.
So here's a persuasion tip.
Don't just say you're wrong.
Give them some breadcrumbs and see if they can find the path there.
So you notice I said, do search on DuckDuckGo and then search on Google?
Because if I told them what was there, it wouldn't work at all.
They have to have the feeling that they found it out on their own.
So I'm giving them the opportunity to generate a feeling that they learned it on their own by searching for it.
That's your persuasion tip of the day.
I made a claim yesterday, which I'm going to stick to, that is, one of my books, How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big, is the most influential book in America right now.
True or false? And by the way, this is not hyperbole.
This is my actual honest opinion.
Based on all the feedback I'm getting and the influence I can see on other books, etc., the most influential book in the country, I don't know about other countries, but in this country, is my book, How to Fail.
Because Systems Over Goals has taken over.
I mean, pretty much it's almost universally understood.
The talent stack idea, you see everywhere.
And the number of people who have read the book and changed their lives is through the roof at this point.
If I asked you in the comments how many people read that book and lost weight, Have anybody seen me do that?
Let me do it here. I'll just prove this.
I know the people on Locals have seen this before, but for the people on YouTube, how many people who read my book, Catafield Almost Everything and still went big, either had a big win in business, economically, or a big win in fitness?
Big wins in fitness or economics?
Now watch the comments.
It's a lot. It's a lot.
I could read them to you.
It changed my life. I lost weight.
Fitness, both.
Economics, yes.
Health. Name one other book that could do that.
I've never even heard of it.
I've literally never heard of any book that's done this.
Have you? Now, there are lots of books that have great stuff in them.
For example, back in the day, there was The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People.
But that sort of aged down.
It was great. Twelve Rules.
I would argue that my book is far more influential than the Twelve Rules, as good as those are.
Now, somebody said to me, Atomic Habits is sort of based on my book.
Or at least part of it is.
And the author will tell you that, by the way.
All right. I actually feel bad for Scott.
Well, don't. We'll make you go away.
All right. So the reason I mention this is shouldn't it be taught in schools?
I feel like something like this should be taught in schools because it's already proven itself as directly useful to everybody's life in the most important ways.
I was asked to defend my statement as the most influential book in America because somebody said, no, I think that's the Bible, Scott.
Duh. I think the Bible has you beat.
Does it? Does the Bible have me beat?
Now, I'm not saying my book is more important.
I didn't say that.
I'm saying it's more influential.
Have you ever tried to convince a Muslim to change to Christianity by giving them the Bible?
Works sometimes.
Sometimes. But in general, it's not going to change your religion, is it?
And I would argue that by the time you come to the Bible, most people are already convinced.
It's sort of additional to it.
And I would say also that the Bible is...
Do a fact check on this.
Isn't Christianity shrinking in the United States?
Fact check me on that.
Is Christianity growing or shrinking in the United States?
I think it's shrinking, right?
Shrinking a little bit? And are my ideas growing or shrinking?
Growing. So I'm just being provocative.
Nothing should be compared to the Bible.
There's some things that nothing should be compared to.
Don't compare anything to the Holocaust.
Don't compare anything to Hitler.
Don't compare anything to the Bible.
They sort of stand alone.
So I'm just being provocative when I say that.
But... It is the most influential book in America, I believe, at the moment.
There's a politician who's trying to get medical schools to beef up their curriculums for teaching nutrition.
So that the medical professionals could train their clients in nutrition and there would be gigantic benefits in health.
What do you think of that idea?
What do you think of the idea of better training?
And it wouldn't be a law.
It would just be some kind of recommendation, I guess.
Do you think that would be good?
To better train doctors on nutrition.
I feel like it's a total waste of time.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Is there anybody who doesn't know how to eat right?
Really? Because I don't know anybody who's overweight who doesn't know why.
They just look at their plate.
Look at my plate.
Here's why. It's right there.
Do you think there's anybody who doesn't know you should eat less cake?
Maybe a little more sushi?
Something like that. I don't know that a doctor is even the right person.
And do you have a doctor, if you went into the doctor and you've got, obviously, you know, you have a weight issue that would have an impact on your health, do you have a doctor who doesn't tell you to lose weight?
And if they told you that, could you not figure out how?
Now, again, back to my book, how to fill almost everything and still win big.
What I teach is a system...
For how to develop your own system.
So in other words, it's how to figure out the easiest way to lose weight and to learn about it, etc.
So that's what I talk about.
I don't say use a specific diet.
I say your process should be to learn as much as you can about diet choices and what healthy things taste good and how to season them.
And basically you use knowledge to substitute for willpower.
Does that make sense? I teach you how to use knowledge as a substitute for willpower.
Does that make sense?
Let me give you an example.
If you didn't know how to make food that was good for you also taste good...
Would you eat much good food?
Probably not, right? Because in the long term, you're going to go for the flavor.
So if you didn't know how, you lacked knowledge on how to make healthy food taste good, then you would eat the wrong food over time.
But if you simply had the knowledge, you would eat more healthy food and it would be just as good as the other stuff because you knew how to season it.
So I say that you can use knowledge as a substitute for willpower.
And that most diet plans, and even probably what your doctor would tell you, would be willpower-related, and those always fail.
Because why do willpower diets always fail?
Is there anything I said already today that would tell you why?
Willpower diets always fail because they don't take into account human nature.
Human nature just doesn't have willpower.
Human nature is you go after the biggest attraction.
That's it. If something is more attractive than something else, you go after it.
And you rationalize it later.
But you don't have any willpower.
Willpower is not even a thing.
It's a complete illusion.
Willpower is sort of the result.
It's not something you have.
So, if you simply knew that, let's say, eating pasta...
What is a little bit better for you than eating a white potato and you like them just as much, then the knowledge that the pasta doesn't spike your glycemic index as much as the potato does, if you just had that knowledge, you could use no willpower whatsoever and just say, oh, well, I like them both the same.
I'll have the pasta. Knowledge is a complete substitute for willpower, also because willpower doesn't exist.
All right. So I think that instead of having doctors tell people about nutrition, which I think would just be redundant with what people already know, that my book should be required in schools because people who read my book lose weight because they're not using willpower to do it.
I take willpower out of the equation.
All right. So that's the good way to teach nutrition.
All right. Here in the category of, can you believe this person got elected to office?
Do you know Representative Jayapal?
I may be pronouncing that incorrectly, which I do not mean any disrespect by.
But Jayapal? Jayapal?
Representative. Anyway, here's what she actually said.
This is an actual quote.
I swear to God I'm not making this up.
She actually said what I'm going to tell you.
Quote, she said that her constituents are, quote, are not talking about inflation, by the way.
They're talking about, hey, I don't have enough money in my budget to pay for the things I need to pay for.
What? They're not worried about inflation.
They're worried that their money won't go that far.
I don't even know what to say about that.
Like, normally when I read the news and somebody's being dumb, I'll add something to it to round out the story.
There's nothing to add to this.
This one you just look at and you go, uh...
How did she get elected?
Anyway. I saw that in a Joel Pollack tweet.
Anyway, Thomas Massey...
In response to a FOIA request, the CDC literally just admitted they haven't documented a single case of an unvaccinated individual with natural immunity spreading the virus.
So in other words, the CDC does not have one documented case of somebody who got the virus, recovered, and then somehow spread it later.
Which, you know...
Certainly asks the question why people with natural immunity don't have the same rights as the vaccinated.
Now, the fact that the CDC does not have that documented, does that mean it doesn't exist?
Does that mean it doesn't exist?
Because I'm not sure that's the same exactly.
So I'll just put a little yellow flag on this one.
It could be a really good point that would lead us to some deeper knowledge, or it could be That maybe the CDC just, I don't know, saw some studies, but they didn't document it themselves.
I don't know. Something like that.
So I'm not sure this means what we think, but it's certainly a flag.
So here's something to make you lose all trust in your government, if you haven't already.
So you know about the FBI raid on Project Veritas, right?
So the Project Veritas guys were raided by the FBI quite aggressively and over nothing, as far as we can tell.
I mean, it was over Biden's daughter's diary.
But when you hear what Project Veritas did with the diary, oh, here's something really clever.
I forgot to tell you about this.
So Project Veritas is given this diary, apparently they didn't steal it, somebody gave it to them, and they could not verify that it was real, and therefore decided not to use it.
Do you hear that?
The people most reviled for being, you know, illegitimate by the fake news industry, they wouldn't publish this Because they couldn't verify it was real.
That's... I mean, think about that.
Okay, but here's the best part.
Here's the best part.
So then, apparently Project Veritas offered to give it back to the Bidens, maybe either to the rightful owner, I think to the rightful owner, through an attorney.
And the attorney said no.
And did not accept it.
But also didn't debunk it.
Oh, actually, I don't know if they accepted it or not.
But they didn't debunk it.
Do you know what that is?
That's how Project Veritas confirmed it was real.
They confirmed it was real by giving it back.
How clever is that?
Because if they had said, oh yeah, that's ours, we'll take it back, then it's confirmed.
But also if they said, no, we won't take it back, and they don't say one way or another whether it's theirs, then it's theirs.
Right? Think about how clever that was.
He actually confirmed it by giving it back.
Right? We're attempting to give it back.
And whatever the response was would be the confirmation.
It's really clever.
So now that you know that Project Veritas did this, and you also need to know that Project Veritas was suing the New York Times over some, I don't know, alleged wrong statements about them.
And now we find out that...
I hope my story is not lost here.
And now we find out that from Harmeet Dillon, who's an attorney, I guess she's an attorney for Project Veritas and other things, and suddenly the New York Times gets tipped off by the feds about...
Well, anyway, so what are the odds that the New York Times would be getting sued by Project Veritas, and then the feds would tell the New York Times almost immediately about the raid on Project Veritas?
So in other words, there's a New York Times connection with the feds that is very disturbing.
So that's the story.
And it doesn't seem to be for the benefit of the country, right?
It's not like they're both patriots.
It looks like something super weaselly is going on here and massive corruption.
Here's my mystery of the day.
Bill Gates said that vaccines only, quote, to slightly reduce transmission, to which I said, wait, what?
The official story is that they greatly reduce transmission, like a lot.
Not like 20%, I'm talking like 800% times.
We're talking about a lot.
But Bill Gates, who I would imagine is one of the most well-informed people in the country and smart, seems to believe the opposite of the official story.
Why would that be?
I don't know the answer to that, and we can't read his mind, but let me give you some more on this story.
So then when I asked that, somebody sent me a study that seemed to indicate, but from September, they indicated that there was no correlation between vaccination rates and lowering transmission.
So there's an actual study of different countries, and they look at the vaccination rates, and they say there's no correlation.
The more vaccinated you are, it doesn't seem to have any impact on transmission.
So is Bill Gates right?
So he says so, and, you know, he's pretty well informed.
And there's this serious study of a number of different countries that showed there was no correlation.
And that would indicate exactly what Bill Gates said, that the vaccinations don't reduce transmission.
Do you think that's the whole story right there?
Do you think I'm done?
Nope. Nope.
Because it took about a minute for Jason Lewis, who is also a medical researcher, PhD.
Smart guy, knows what he's doing, and he does medical research, so he knows how to do this stuff.
So he looks at it, and basically he shows you the data that is exactly the opposite.
In the United States, for example, and the other thing said that in the United States there was also no correlation.
But according to Jason Lewis, who seems very credible, at least as far as you can tell on Twitter, shows us the data that sees the opposite.
It's the exact opposite and strongly the opposite.
What do you think of that?
So what is true? We've got one study that we can't verify that says there's no correlation.
We've got another study that says, oh yeah, it's really strong.
Here it is. Well, let's say a few things about the study that said there's no correlation.
Do you think that anybody can compare countries, different countries, and determine that one variable in that country worked?
It's not a thing.
If you wanted to find out if the vaccinations were reducing the spread, you would need two countries that are exactly the same, not sort of similar in your mind, but exactly the same, and one with vaccinations, one without.
Then you might have something.
Especially if you did multiple countries with multiple scenarios like that.
But if you're just looking at an apple and an orange, which is what any two country comparisons are, because there's lots of stuff different in every country.
If you're looking at an apple and an orange and you say the apple did better than the orange, you really haven't said anything.
Because there are all kinds of differences between an apple and an orange.
And why are you picking out one variable and imagining that nothing else is changing?
Let me give you a hint of what else could be wrong.
Do you think there's a correlation between how vaccinated a country is and how aggressively they test?
There is, right? Probably the most advanced countries with the best healthcare systems, the ones who would vaccinate the most, probably also have the best testing.
So if you test more, do you find more?
Of course you do. So you should expect...
You should expect that the more vaccinated you are, the more testing you're doing, too, and you should have the most cases where there are the most vaccinations, because they're looking for the most cases.
Right? Doesn't that make sense to you?
All right, here's another one.
How many of you had this experience?
After you got vaccinated, you changed your behavior to riskier behavior?
Anybody? I did.
Did anybody change their behavior to riskier behavior after they got vaccinated?
Yeah, look at the yeses.
There's still some no's, but it looks like most people did.
I did. Let's say you had been single.
If you had been single and you were unvaccinated, do you think you might sit it out and say, I don't even think I'm going to date?
Now let's say you get fully vaccinated and you say, I'll only date somebody who's fully vaccinated.
Well, then you're going to go nuts, right?
Because you're going to say, well, that's close enough.
I've got the risk down to where I want it.
I'll do that. So the other thing is, where people are most vaccinated, they should also be the least cautious.
How do they calculate that?
How about this? And do the places that have the most vaccinations also drop the restrictions?
Well, of course. Of course.
Because if the vaccination rate gets high enough, it's harder to keep all the restrictions on.
So there's that, too.
All right. So I don't believe that Bill Gates is necessarily right on this.
And I'm going to take a stand against him on this question.
Now, remember I taught you that if I sort of make a statistical argument, it doesn't mean I'm wrong if it doesn't happen.
It just means that that's how statistics work.
So here's my thinking.
Here are the parts I think we do know about the vaccination.
It makes it far less likely that you'll get it in the first place.
True or false? Would you agree that being vaccinated has a big impact on whether you get it in the first place?
I'm seeing some differences of opinions.
So I think, separately from the infection rate, I think that we do know that you're less likely to get it.
So vaccinated, you're less likely to get it.
Do we also know that it will clear up faster if you're vaccinated?
In other words, if a vaccinated and unvaccinated person get infected at the same time, won't the vaccinated person recover in, say, half the time?
I think so. So I would say that common sense, which is often wrong, and logic dictate that if fewer people are getting it and they're having it for less time, even if they had the same viral load, vaccinated people would spread it way less.
Even if they had the same viral load.
Because they have it for half the time, and they only get it maybe 20% as often.
So... I would say this is one of my opinions that you've got to put a really big question mark on.
Because I have a question mark on my own opinion.
I could easily be convinced in either direction at this point.
I could easily be convinced.
So, something to watch for.
Um, John Kerry is giving China a pass.
He's the main climate guy, so he's not making trouble in China about the Uyghur situation, ethnic genocide.
And so I tweeted that Hitler's biggest strategic failure was not making Germany's economy essential to the world's supply chain before he embarked on ethnic genocide.
But China did it right.
If you're going to do ethnic genocide, you need to make the world dependent on you first.
And then they'll let you do it.
So I always thought that Never Again was not just specific to the Jewish community.
You know, I suppose it is, though.
I mean, when I see this happening, I guess the Never Again is just for the Jewish community.
Because it's happening.
There's an ethnic cleansing going on right now.
So you can't say that didn't happen again, because it's happening right now.
And... John Kerry doesn't seem to care, as long as China has a supply chain.
All right, speaking of supply chain, Joshua Steinman, who you should follow on Twitter also, expert in cybersecurity as well as other things, he said he used to coordinate, under Trump, he coordinated the U.S. supply chain policy, When he was on the National Security Council.
And he had some ideas that I tweeted.
You can go see him. You should follow him.
Joshua Steinman.
S-T-E-I-N-M-A-N. And his...
You'll find him easily.
And he was talking about creating American manufacturing hubs...
So in other words, you pick a region that's the perfect region, transportation-wise and energy-wise, and you just build all the parts for, let's say, microchips.
Or some other zone might be the full supply chain for some other industry.
And apparently it works in some Asian countries and it's just a good model.
But I don't know that we have anybody in this country who could organize something like that.
Maybe we need more of a totalitarian government to pull that off.
I don't know. But it's a good idea and we should...
Try to study a subject first, Scott.
James, let me talk to you.
James, James. First of all, if you and I... So James says, try to study a subject first, Scott.
Number one, James, the odds are I know more about these topics than you.
The odds are you're wrong, and I'm right, and it makes you think I didn't study enough.
Why do I say that?
Because that's my usual experience.
It doesn't mean I'm right all the time.
But the only reason I get to do this is because I'm right more than most people.
So statistically speaking, if I didn't know anything about you, I would say, I'm probably right, and you're probably just wrong, and it looks like I'm wrong because we disagree.
Number two, try to understand what this live stream is.
If you came to this livestream for science, well, you're pretty dumb.
Because this isn't science.
If you came to this to see what questions the public has, because the fake news is not giving them everything they need, this would be a good place to come.
Because I try to approach the news like a consumer.
I'm not trying to approach the news as an expert.
If I were approaching it as an expert, then yeah, I'd do a deep dive in everything.
I'd have to before I talked about it.
But I'm doing it as a consumer who looks at the news and says, I'm not getting any news here.
Why don't I have any news?
Why is the news lying to me?
So that's the point of this live stream, is to be basically on your side, asking the same questions that you would ask.
But on top of that, I have one expertise, maybe two, if you count business.
But persuasion and risk management decisions are areas that I do have expertise in.
And so in those cases, I'll go deeper, but for everything else, I'm taking a consumer's view.
And I think that we need to lean on the media and science to answer these questions.
Yes, and bullshit detection.
I think I add that to the mix as well.
So, I keep being asked about Norm Macdonald's fictional autobiography review.
I've got to tell you, I'm not going to read it.
So you could ask me every day, and you do.
You ask me every day, and I'm sure it's good.
I just am not going to read any books.
I don't know when the next time I'll read a book.
The only time I read books is on airplanes, and I'm not flying anywhere.
So I have no plans to read a book anytime soon.
And I also think that in the world of the internet, reading an entire book doesn't make as much sense as it used to.
So if you're entertained by it, sure.
But if you're doing it for information, you can find the summary somewhere.
Oh, if somebody says Bill Gates is increasing the...
The demand for therapeutics.
Maybe.
Maybe.
Yeah, there have been years where I wrote more books than I read before.
I don't know if anybody can say that besides me.
Audible books are still good, yeah, especially if you're doing something, if you're exercising.
