Episode 1861 Scott Adams: Long Live The King, And Illinois Is Lost. Watch Me Get Cancelled Today
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Lincoln Project goads President Trump
Illinois legalizes crime January 2023?
Would you live in a Black neighborhood?
Larry Elder mulls a run for President
Ukraine war update
Blackrock and ESG
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass or a tank or a chalice or a canteen jug or a flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine here the day thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Ah, ah, ah, ah.
Savor it.
Savor it. Alright, now we can continue.
Well, condolences, I guess that's the right word, to Great Britain and the entire Commonwealth for losing your queen.
You know, obviously when somebody beloved, such as a queen, passes, people like to say lots of good things about them.
And I thought I would wake up this morning and I would see that all the good things had already been said.
You know, they're obvious good things.
One of the most impressive things that the Queen did is rule for 70 years without making a mistake.
Do you know how big that is?
Talk about an MVP award.
Who rules for 70 years without making a mistake?
What the, what the, what the?
Are you kidding me?
So, how about that?
But, you know, you get caught in that and you say to yourself, all right, 70 years of making Great Britain look good.
That's what she did.
That's what she did.
She made Great Britain look good for 70 years.
That's a hell of an accomplishment.
But I'm going to say that she did something maybe as impressive or more impressive than that.
Think about the fact that the monarchy has existed and coincided with the democratic process for all those many decades.
What were the odds that that was going to happen?
Do you think that happened just sort of easily and automatically?
Or is it something the Queen did?
And I would say that her greatest accomplishment is making the monarchy not just relevant, but essential to Great Britain.
And it seems to me that what the Queen did was offload, in a sense, the character and maybe, let's see, maybe the heart.
Can we say it that way?
The heart of Great Britain?
They get to take that into politics a little bit.
They go, okay, we'll put our heart over here, and then we'll go fight over here.
So we'll fight in politics, but we'll keep our heart safe.
Insane. Insane.
Such a good idea.
And really, it wasn't obvious until it happened, right?
It's one of those things you look at in hindsight.
And you say, oh my god, the monarchy went from ruling a country, that was their primary function, to becoming the heart of the country.
Essential, right?
I mean, it would feel essential.
And I don't know, has there ever been a more impressive evolution from one thing to another?
It's hard to think of another example.
And you could say soul, heart and soul.
But I think that's their biggest accomplishment, actually, is making the monarchy not just relevant, but essential.
That's what it feels like from here.
Anyway, and it looks like there will be a peaceful transition of the monarchy, of course, of course.
But let me ask you this.
How important was it that she was queen and not king?
I feel like that mattered.
Do you? Do you think that it mattered that she was a queen and not a king?
Because when King Charles takes over, do you know what I immediately think?
Why is there a king there?
You know what I mean? It's definitely a sexist differentiation here, right?
When it was a queen, and she was the heart and soul of the country, that felt exactly right, right?
But now you put a king there, and there's just something about the history of kings that makes it feel different, like maybe he's not the heart and soul, like he might be the architecture guy.
You know what I mean? It feels different, doesn't it?
Just the gender change.
So I hope that King Charles, I hope that King Charles III, does as good a job as his mother did, which would be incredible if he could.
So good luck to all of them.
I asked this highly unscientific and biased and deeply disturbing question on Twitter, so you don't have to tell me that this is unscientific.
But I wondered about this.
Here's the biased question I asked.
I said, have you changed your opinion on climate change in the past five years from being skeptical to believing it is probably directionally true, but the actual impact of it would be impossible to predict?
And 22% of the people who answered, and again, this is deeply unscientific poll, but 22% said they had changed their opinion to what I would consider the mainstream smart opinion.
Yeah, it's close to 25%, and we can't ignore that, can we?
But it's also a changing number, which is it probably started small and is growing and will probably grow past 22%.
So if it's changing, I don't know if that still applies.
I don't know if the 25% still applies if it's in the process of passing through it.
Because you can't get from 0 to 100 without passing through 25.
So it kind of depends how long you stay there.
If you stay there for a while, it might mean something.
If it keeps going up, well, then you're just passing through.
So we'll see. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bjorn Lomborg, who I've had on my show and you've seen his books, does he not say that climate change is real?
And man-made to some extent.
We don't know the percentage.
But that the extent of it and what is the likely cost of it and all that is the thing that is highly questionable.
And I believe that that's Michael Schellenberger's opinion.
I hate to say anybody else's opinion, but I believe that Michael Schellenberger also says climate change seems to be real and there's a human element to it.
But that the way we're handling it is all wrong.
And it's getting better now because nuclear is taking on a bigger role.
But it seems to me that the people who think it's real but don't know how big a deal it is are the ones who are going to win in the end.
I think that's the opinion that's going to become the dominant one over time.
It seems to me. Now, some of you are still...
How many of you are in the...
Are still in the belief that it's not happening in terms of people.
That people are not causing anything to happen.
How many of you would say at this moment that you're confident that nothing's happening?
There's no climate change whatsoever that's been caused by people.
How many of you would be on that opinion?
So a number of you, right?
So a number of you who still doubt everything about it.
Here's what I would say is the best way to approach it.
So I'm not going to tell you what to think about it.
So this is not me trying to change your opinion.
This is a suggestion about how to think of it.
And how I think about climate change is I would take the components of it and give them different levels of likelihood.
For example, if you took the component of just the predictions, the 80-year prediction, I think that's worthless, except as a way to scare us into action.
But it's worthless in terms of its accuracy.
So I'd say if you're doubting that, you're on strong ground in doubting that.
But if you go all the way back to the basic science of if you add CO2 to a closed environment and nothing else changed, would it get hotter?
What do you think of that? Do you think that in a laboratory, if you created an artificial world, which is not like the real world, right?
The artificial world is not like the real world, but let me ask this question.
If you created the artificial world, it's not like the real world, so it doesn't tell you exactly what's going to happen in the real world, and you just make a little artificial atmosphere, and you add CO2 to it, does it get warmer?
What do you say? Would it get warmer in the laboratory?
And again, that doesn't mean it happens in the real world.
It only means it happens in the laboratory.
No, the answer is yes.
That's been tested. In the laboratory, if you add CO2 to a closed environment, it gets hotter.
Does everybody know that?
You're all aware that in the laboratory there's no question, right?
Even the skeptics would say, well, yeah, in the laboratory it works.
But remember, that doesn't mean it necessarily works in the real world.
But now put the odds on this.
What are the odds that that laboratory experiment does actually tell you something about the real world?
I'd say it's not zero.
It's not 100%.
It's not zero.
But compare that to the odds that the predictions are right.
That's close to zero.
That's pretty close to zero.
It would be a complete chance if they were right.
Right? So I wouldn't put the odds of the science being wrong in the same category as the odds of the predictions being wrong.
So I'd say if you're adding them all together and saying it's one big thing that you don't trust, maybe just pull those apart and just say, there's one that's a little more likely.
There is a far greater likelihood The CO2 causes warming in the real world than there is that the predictions are correct.
That's all. And I think that's the view that most people will end up on in the long run.
That's my prediction.
Am I wrong in saying that usually It's our leaders who are supposed to protect us, right?
It's not the people who are supposed to be protecting the leaders, is it?
I mean, we do that too.
We give them security and try to vote them into office and do that sort of stuff.
But in general, the model is we elect our leaders to save us.
Am I wrong? That's the whole model, right?
But we save them so that they can save us.
Here in California for the last couple of days, our leaders have asked us to turn down the power and not use our appliances to try to save the grid and save the state.
But mostly it saves the leaders, doesn't it?
If the lights go out in California, Newsom's toast.
Our governor is toast if the lights go out.
For ten minutes. If my lights go out for ten minutes, because it hasn't yet, if my lights go out for ten minutes in the middle of a heat wave, I'm never going to be the same person.
I will never be the same person.
That won't just change my vote.
That will change my fucking being at my core if my lights go out for 10 minutes.
I'm telling you that my trigger for that is really thin, right?
If my lights go out for 10 minutes in a heat wave, I'll never be the same.
My sense of my safety will be changed forever.
So, in my opinion, when the Californians, as I did, you know, got the message, hey, you better stop using as much power or else we're going to lose it, I walked immediately to my thermostat, said, no problem, I'm in.
No problem at all. I'll do that.
Boom. Turned off my, or I didn't start my dishwasher.
Yeah, I did all the things. I turned off all the lights in the house that were not essential for a little while.
And... And so I saved my governor, as did the other residents of the state.
The residents of California actually saved our governor's ass.
We did. We saved his ass.
But here's the interesting thing.
You know, I'm getting a lot of pushback from people who say, oh, you're a sheep for doing what your leader has told you.
I didn't do it for him.
I didn't do it because I was a sheep.
I did it because I didn't want the power to go off.
I feel like that was a good enough reason.
I don't need to go, bah, I just want to not be dead.
That's all the reason I need.
But here's what's interesting.
Compare the compliance of California that was almost instant and sufficient with, let's say, vaccinations or lockdowns.
I don't think anybody complained about turning their power down.
And here's why. It was a reasonable request.
It was completely doable, like you could act on it immediately and easily.
It was quantitative.
The state said, here's the total amount of electricity we can give you.
Here's where you are.
Quantitative. And I trusted it, actually.
Now, maybe I shouldn't have.
But I trusted the numbers.
Because I figured, oh, we probably do know what our maximum capacity is.
We probably know that. So under those conditions, how hard was it to get cooperation from the public?
Completely easy.
And did I care that my governor might have a different political leaning than I do?
Nope. Nope.
It's quantitative. It's practical.
It's reasonable.
It's doable. Boom.
Done. You got me.
That's all you need to do.
Just be reasonable and I'm on your side.
That's all it takes. All right.
So now Trump's in additional legal jeopardy.
The walls are closing in because his post-election fundraising is now the focus of some federal grand jury.
I'm starting to get a feeling that people don't want Trump to be president again.
Starting to get that feeling.
It's just one thing after another, and then Rick Wilson, the worst person in the world, did this cleverly baiting video in which he's calling the president a little bitch, and I guess the president said he would sue the Lincoln Project for an ad that It had some misleading stuff in it.
And then Rick Wilson of the Lincoln Project makes this video calling the president a little bitch and saying, I dare you, come sue us.
Because if there's a lawsuit, then there's discovery and it's bad for the president.
So Rick Wilson cleverly is goading him into trying to sue him.
I don't know if that'll happen.
But he says, Rick Wilson said that he was talking about the big donors to Trump.
He said they need to put a bullet in Donald Trump.
Now, he was speaking hyperbolically and metaphorically.
He did not mean that the donors need to assassinate him.
But we don't talk that way about presidential candidates, do we?
Is that the way we talk about our leaders?
Because you know when you talk that way, somebody acts on it.
You know, freedom of speech is still free.
It's still legal to say this.
But whether it's legal or not to say this, it's ill-advised, unless you're trying to encourage somebody to murder.
So it does feel like either accidental or intentional encouragement to create somebody crazy to murder A presidential candidate.
Yeah, and I think that he knows exactly what he's doing, but we can't read minds.
I would not rule out the possibility he's that dumb.
Can't rule it out. I don't think so, but I can't rule it out.
Well, and I guess the Lincoln Project says that all the money that Trump collected by saying that the election was fraudulent...
That all that money went to support Trump businesses.
Now, that seems deeply unlikely to me, doesn't it?
Because the Lincoln Project says all of that money went to Trump businesses.
I don't think so.
In fact, that seems like the least likely possibility.
Because nobody in their right mind would even execute a plan like that.
How would you even get any employees or underlings to even fill out the paperwork or whatever it takes?
Who's going to write that check?
Nobody knowingly is going to do that because they would be criminals and they would not be beneficiaries of that crime.
And it's not like Trump is doing the paperwork himself and writing the checks.
It would have to be an organization.
Now, if you tell me somebody in the organization did something sketchy, I would say, I expect that of all big organizations.
So that wouldn't surprise me.
But the Lincoln Project is making it look like it was set up as a scam and all the money would go to, like, Trump businesses.
There can't be any chance that that's true.
I give that a zero chance of being true.
But it does look like the Lincoln Project is goading Trump into suing them.
So this might be part of their play, to say something sensationally false to make him sue you so he has to open up his books.
It's not a bad play from the Lincoln Project trolls.
Well, there's a video from a governor, not a governor, a mayor of some small place in Illinois, who's warning people that the law changes on January 1st, the ones that have already been approved but go into effect statewide, basically is going to let everybody out of jail, except for the worst of the worst, I guess.
So you could do all kinds of violent crimes and you won't go to jail and you won't even be arrested for some.
Here's something that you won't be arrested for.
Trespassing. That's right.
The example given is that somebody can go live in the shack behind your house in your back lawn and if you call the police, the police can't remove that person.
They can only give them a ticket.
That's right, somebody can move into your property and now there will be no legal recourse.
What would you do about it?
Well, I'll tell you what I'd do about it.
I would check the list of things that don't put me in jail, which apparently is pretty big right now, and find out what kind of violence I could get away with against the person who was squatting on my property.
And I'd say, okay, well, if the police won't do anything about you squatting here, let me look at my list.
Let's see. Assault and battery.
Assault and battery. Apparently, I just get a ticket for that.
And then you just beat the shit out of the person on your property, and everybody wins.
So... No, everybody doesn't win.
But anyway, there's a warning that the entire state of Illinois will be unlivable because crime will be legalized at that point.
I mean, I'm exaggerating.
But in effect, you've legalized crime in the state.
It looks like. Because there's not enough of a disincentive.
So... Here's the first question that this sort of suggests.
So you know that Texas is bussing busloads of immigrants, illegal immigrants, I assume, to other states to punish them for not getting on board and helping them close the border.
And I'm wondering if the busloads of immigrants will lower the crime rates in those cities.
Is that a joke?
Seriously, is that a joke?
I say that the busload of illegal immigrants, even illegal, even illegal, will lower the crime rate where they're going because they're going into the cities.
Now, I don't know how much exposure you've had to the, let's say, the Central American or Mexican immigrants.
While I will acknowledge that some number of criminals do come across the border, the people who came here to work really, really don't want to get in trouble.
You know that, right?
The people who came here to work do not want to get in trouble.
They really, really don't want to get in trouble.
And I see some disagreement.
I think it depends on your personal experience, right?
So I'm speaking from the experience of my safe little neighborhood where we hire a lot of people to help.
By and far, they're the safest community.
They're just so safe.
Do I let...
Well, enough about me.
All right. And I think that's the real question.
And I don't think that the immigrants get enough credit for the fact that the vast majority of them will lower your crime rate and not raise it.
They'll lower your crime rate.
And I even said before, I would hate to have my kids compete with somebody who had the balls to come here illegally and try to make a life.
You don't want to compete with those kids.
Those are going to be tough kids.
So... Alright, so are you ready to get me cancelled?
Everybody? Everybody on board?
Let's get to the cancelling, okay?
Now, I'm going to say things that would help me not get cancelled, but ultimately I'll be taken out of context.
So, if it's in context, I'll be fine.
I'm not going to say anything that actually is bad.
I'm going to keep it within context.
But when I get taken out of context, which I will, it's going to look really, really bad.
You ready? So here's my context.
You know that I like black people so much that I identify as black, right?
If you've been watching me for a while.
I literally, for now, over, I don't know, a few years, I've identified as black.
And I do it non-ironically because I've lost jobs because of my color.
It's a true story.
I've lost two different careers because I was a...
I was accused of being a white male.
So I know what it's like to be discriminated against directly, like direct discrimination.
And I have a great affinity to the community, because I tend to like black people.
No reason, right?
There's no rational reason to it.
It's just my biased experience is that black people have a good sense of humor, and they've got a tough time.
And I tend to appreciate people who have a sense of humor, basically.
So... So starting out from a positive point of view, let me say the part that will get me cancelled when it gets taken out of context.
I would never live in a black neighborhood.
Are you kidding me? And let me be as clear as possible.
It has nothing to do with their skin color.
It has nothing to do with their DNA. Nothing to do with being black, exactly.
Here's what it has to do with.
Thanks to Black Lives Matter and, I'd say, the school system, especially the teachers' unions, and especially the Democrats, they have convinced an entire community that they can't succeed if they play by the rules.
Give me a fact check.
Fact check me. Fact check my statement.
The black community in America Yeah, goodbye, huh?
The black community in America has been convinced by their own side, by their own side, that they can't succeed if they follow the rules, because the rules were made by a structurally racist society, and there are too many points of friction.
Would you ever go live somewhere where the people who live there, forget about their color, this has nothing to do with color, Exactly.
I mean, it's related, of course.
But would you live somewhere where the people who live there have been convinced by their own team that following the rules is a sucker's play?
Because the rules are made to thwart you.
I wouldn't. No way.
No way. So when people go to look for a house and they have money, let me say this directly.
I don't know if people say it out loud, but they look for the least black place to live if they have money.
Do you know who else does that?
Black people with money.
Black people with money.
They go wherever it's the least black population.
Is it because they don't like black people?
No. No.
Especially if they are black.
Of course they like black people.
I like black people. Lots of people like black people.
It's pretty common. Some people like them better than other people.
It has nothing to do with how much you like them.
It has to do with that it's a proxy for crime.
Why is it a proxy for crime?
Is it just because of poverty?
Nope. It's not based on poverty.
It's based on the fact that it's a community that has trained itself that the rules don't work for them.
Not that the rules are bad rules, but they just don't work for them.
If you put me in a world where you say the rules don't work for you, I'm gonna break the rules.
Wouldn't you? If you were put in a position where everybody said the rules don't work for you, would you follow them?
Who would? No reasonable person would follow the rules.
So when I say that black communities are more likely to have lots of crime and blah blah blah blah blah, it's not exactly just because of poverty.
It's also because it's a community that has been taught that the rules don't work for them.
That following the rules isn't going to make you successful and happy.
I wouldn't follow the rules under those situations.
If it were me, I wouldn't follow the rules.
So, here's my suggestion to fix it all.
I think that the black community needs to change their strategy.
It's a strategy problem.
And they need to understand that the last mile of getting equality has to be a completely different strategy than the first 99 miles.
Now, the first mile was a Civil War.
So the first step of getting equality is to get rid of slavery, and you probably needed a war for that.
Next phase, you use the legal system, and you start suing employers who are not giving you your rights, etc.
And for decades we've been doing that, and I think they've made great progress.
So much progress that big corporations are actively recruiting and looking for minority employees.
But that last mile, That last mile with the so-called systemic racism and, you know, why can't we get that last mile?
That last mile, you're only going to get there by accepting the rules.
That's the only way you get there.
Now, you might not like them, and it might be true that the rules don't work in your favor.
That could be true. I'm not even arguing that.
But you're going to have to still win with those rules.
Because everybody else did, right?
Asian community succeeded with those rules.
Jewish community succeeding with those rules.
The Hispanic community succeeding with those rules.
If everybody is succeeding with those rules, but your community has been taught that the rules don't work for you, you're never going to get to the last mile.
The last mile is out of reach for you.
And don't even fucking bother trying, really.
If you're going to come at me with a strategy that bad, don't fucking blame me if it doesn't work.
Do not blame me if your strategy is so clearly the wrong strategy.
You want my respect?
Earn it. Earn it.
I'm not going to give it to you for nothing.
For nothing? No, you're going to earn it.
What do I think about the Jewish community who has taken really some of the deepest discrimination you could imagine and turned it into a successful American experience?
Total respect.
Total respect.
I heard Alan Dershowitz play an audio voicemail he got.
You should hear the things that people will leave on a voicemail to Alan Dershowitz?
Oh my fucking God!
Like, you don't even think that that kind of anti-Semitism even exists?
Because, you know, in polite company you never hear it.
But it exists. And man, when he plays it, you think, holy shit!
How do you live in a country walking around with people like that attitude about you, like all over the place?
Probably. I mean, I don't know what ratio it is.
But how did the Jewish community do?
Total respect. Total respect.
So if the black community wants my respect, which they don't have, they don't have.
It's because their strategy is no good.
Doesn't have to do with their genes.
Doesn't have to do with their DNA. Doesn't have to do with what color they are.
We're not even talking about any of that.
It's just strategy. You come at me with a dumb fuck strategy that obviously only benefits your leaders, and I'm not going to respect you at all.
Not at all. So that's the deal.
I want to help.
And I'm trying to help right now, actually, at great personal risk.
If we can't talk about it honestly, you can't do anything, right?
Step number one is to be able to talk about it honestly.
And you know that you couldn't say what I'm saying right now, could you?
How many of you could say in public what I'm saying right now in public?
None of you. Because you couldn't survive it.
You couldn't survive it.
And I'm trying to be helpful.
I see it in the comments here.
I tried to help Black Lives Matter when it first came out.
I thought, oh, here's a movement that's trying to help black people.
I'm on board. I'd love to help black people.
Because if you're helping whatever group is in the biggest hole, you're making the biggest impact.
So I want to be a leader of the Black Lives Movement.
What I learned in the process was the leaders were not on the same page as those who were being led.
And this does not include Hawke, by the way.
Hawke said, and I believed him, he was not being funded by Soros.
He didn't have any money coming in, basically.
But there were other parts of Black Lives Matter who were basically just scams.
They were just leaders taking the money that was coming in from God knows where, donations and Soros and everything else.
So the black population has no black leaders that are worth a damn who are making a difference right now.
I mean, I'm sure there are black leaders who would be highly qualified, but they don't seem to be breaking through.
It seems like, for whatever reason, there's a leadership vacuum there that's gigantic.
And I think the biggest problem Is that they have painted themselves as people who can't succeed in the current system.
And if you don't change that, you're not going to get anything.
So the solution to all of this is the white teachers unions, the white-led teachers unions, are absolutely destroying the black population by teaching them to be helpless and teaching them that the system is their problem.
And if they break the system, they break it for all of us.
It doesn't get put back together.
So we're on a path to destroying the whole fucking country because the teachers union is training one part of the country to act helpless and blame the other part for their problems.
Now, do I think that systemic racism is real?
I do. But it exists primarily in the school system.
And if you got it out of there, you could get rid of your...
you could get rid of a lot of your systemic racism in about a generation, right?
Anybody who thinks that this is fast is kidding themselves.
You know, if you could do it in one generation, that would be a miracle, right?
I mean, it probably takes three.
But you've got to fix the school system for everybody.
I mean, that should be a...
that should be a human right, right?
It feels like...
The lack of education we're giving to especially the black population.
It's just a crime.
I mean, and the crime is committed by white people.
Because to me, I think most of the teachers' unions is a bunch of white women, right?
Or white men and women.
So, I'm not going to let white people off the hook, because There are some terrible, terrible white people who are promoting the bad strategy that's happening right now.
So here's what the black population needs to know.
Your leaders benefit by causing trouble and painting you as losers.
Your leaders benefit that way.
But you don't. You used to.
So, you know, up through the 60s, the 70s, even the 90s, I would say that complaining was your best strategy.
Because it works. Hey, this is unfair.
The legal system needs to get involved here.
That's all good. That worked.
But once you get to that last mile, and I think that's where we are, you have to play by the rules unless you're going to throw out all the rules and try to make that work.
I don't see how that's going to work.
So, anyway.
Am I wrong to say that The black population in America is the only group that is actually trained by their own people that they can't succeed.
Am I right about that?
Is there any other group that teaches its own people that they can't succeed?
Because the system won't let them.
And again, I want to be clear, the truth of that is not relevant to my point.
It might be true that the system is holding people back.
And I think there's plenty of evidence of that.
But if you act like it's true, you're fucked.
You are fucked.
Do you know who else had the system working against them?
I did. Because I was born in a small town with not much money.
I had things working against me.
But if somebody said, well, there's nothing you can do because you're born in a small town, well, what would I have done?
I wouldn't have tried as hard. My mother told me I could do anything I wanted, which was insane.
But I bought into it enough that I thought I could do much of what I wanted, not all of it.
Now, how many black parents are telling their kids that they can be anything or do anything?
You can almost tell what percentage it is because they're the kids who are growing up and actually succeeding.
And then they'll tell you, that's what my mother said or my father.
Generally, if you see the successful, like the black athletes and whoever has made it big, got rich or whatever, and they tell you how they were raised, there's usually at least one parent who told them that they could do it.
Am I right? I'll bet almost everybody who succeeds has at least one parent who said they could do it.
At least one. Now some people, you know, there's every kind of situation.
Some people, you know, maybe they tried harder because their parents didn't think they would succeed.
You know, you get a little bit of that too.
Yeah, you just need one parent to tell you you can do it and you're fine.
So I don't know how common that is across different groups.
All right. According to my highly biased survey on Twitter, two-thirds of the people who answered said they would avoid living in a mostly black neighborhood, and that included some black respondents.
I know that because they said they were black.
And again, just to be clear, it has nothing to do with being black or your DNA or your genetics or your color.
It just has to do with if you're trained to think the system doesn't work for you, why would you use the system?
Of course you wouldn't. And why would I want to be anywhere near that?
Of course I wouldn't. Of course I wouldn't.
Let me ask you this.
Can you imagine me living in a mostly black neighborhood, And then people find out that I've said anything good about Trump.
Right? I would literally be killed.
Depending on the neighborhood and depending who knew what.
But it wouldn't be safe for me to be anywhere near that environment.
So let me say as clearly as I can, I would never live in a mostly black neighborhood.
Because I wouldn't feel safe.
Again, nothing to do with being black, and everything to do with the fact that one community has been trained that following the rules doesn't work for them.
I don't want to be anywhere near that.
Do you? All right.
Larry Elder is reportedly mulling a run for president.
I don't know if that means primarying Trump or maybe if Trump doesn't run or something.
So I don't know the details of that because I didn't bother reading the story.
But I love reading the story about somebody who's mulling.
He's mulling. And I thought, Larry Elder, you magnificent bastard, that is exactly the right thing to do.
If I were Larry Elder, I would also tell people I'm mulling a run for the presidency.
Because it raises your profile.
I'm sure he has things to promote.
It's a perfectly smart thing to do.
It's what Trump did, basically.
So I love Larry Elder.
But it made me wonder if I should get in on this, too.
So I don't want to go full mulling.
But I'd like you to say that I'm reportedly considering mulling.
Could you do that for me?
If I come up on social media, don't force it.
But if you could say that Scott Adams is reportedly considering mulling.
Don't go to straight mulling, because I can't fully mull.
But I'm reportedly considering mulling.
And that's true, by the way. That's completely true.
I am literally, reportedly, considering mulling.
So, let's put that out there.
Do you remember the...
There was a 60s sort of semi-fake musical group called the Monkees.
Enough of you who are old enough to remember the Monkees.
Well, the Monkees apparently were investigated by the FBI... Because in some of their concerts, they had a screen behind them in which they showed some anti-war messages.
So the FBI was actually after the monkeys.
And I guess Mickey Dolenz, the surviving member of the monkeys, is trying to get the FBI's records and documents about just what the hell they were trying to do with the monkeys.
Now, Yeah, I think there's a FOIA request or something.
So, when you see that, what else are the FBI investigating?
Let me ask you this. Do you think the FBI has ever investigated me that I don't know about?
What do you think? Yeah.
If they haven't investigated me, I'd be really surprised.
Now, I don't know if they investigate anybody who's saying anything interesting.
Maybe they do. I don't know.
But here's why I think they would investigate me.
Find out what side I'm on.
And actually, I think they probably should.
Right? I'm not even sure that's wrong.
Because their job is to make sure that, you know, there's not foreign interference, right?
And if you saw somebody like me come along, and you couldn't tell who I was affiliated with, if anybody, and you saw that I might be moving the needle, wouldn't you be worried?
I don't know. It's actually a reasonable question to look into anybody who's persuasive.
But I will assure you that I'm just a patriot.
I know it's hard to believe, right?
I'm literally just a patriot.
I do this because I think it helps.
Maybe it doesn't, but that's the reason I do it.
I do it because I think it helps.
This is the worst way to make money.
If you think I'm doing this to make money, and I do monetize, like I monetize the YouTube feed, for example, but this is the worst way to make money.
I could do a lot better just by...
Here's how you make money.
You tell people what they want to hear.
That's how you make money.
I mostly tell people what makes them uncomfortable.
That's not how you make money.
Everybody knows that. So you can very easily tell when I'm trying to make money.
When I'm trying to make money, I'll tell you what you want to hear.
And then you'll give me money.
That's how it works. If I tell you something that makes you uncomfortable, you know I'm not trying to get your money.
I'm trying to do something useful, whatever.
All right. It's still fog of war in Ukraine, so you can't trust anything coming out of there.
But the reporting that's coming out of there today, as uncredible as it is, is that the Ukrainians are totally kicking the Russians' asses with a counteroffensive that's going better than anybody expected.
And for reasons that you have to wonder about, the Russian Air Force seems to be not involved.
What? That's right.
There's a major offensive, I guess you'd call it a counteroffensive, that the Ukrainians are pushing.
They've captured a number of towns and made, apparently in 72 hours or so, they made tremendous progress in recapturing territory.
But reportedly, they seem to be operating without any fear of air superiority by Russia.
In other words, the Ukrainians, you know, devices and stuff are pretty exposed, but they're not being destroyed.
And so this raises questions.
First of all, is any of the reporting accurate?
We don't know. But it's consistent, so everything we're hearing seems to be in the same direction.
Yeah, so one possibility is it's a trap, right?
Maybe the Ukrainian army is being lulled into a kill zone or something.
Maybe. But you'd have to think that the Ukrainian army would be sophisticated enough to know what a trap looked like.
Would you agree? The Ukrainian military have been special forces trained by NATO for a long time.
They're reportedly quite good at what they do.
I think they'd know what a trap looked like.
It could be a trap, but I think they'd know what it looked like, so I'm going to guess no.
I think it's possible that the Russian military can't get parts of And can't get qualified people to do the basic stuff.
I've always thought that the difference between complete collapse of the Russian military and effectiveness is razor thin.
I don't think that you would see the Russian military collapse in a slow way.
In other words, I don't think you'd see it go down, oh, it's 5% worse now, and now it's been several weeks later, and now it's 5% worse again.
I feel like there's a collapse point.
Now, that's an untested hypothesis, right?
I believe that there's some point where the wheels just fall off.
And one of those possibilities is that they don't have enough ammo.
Because it could be a psychological change.
Imagine you're the Russian military, and this is just hypothetical.
I'm not suggesting this has happened.
I'm just working through the psychology of it.
Imagine you're the Russian military and you know you don't have enough ammo because the Ukraine did a good enough job of blowing up the ammo depots.
You don't have enough ammo and you hear the Ukrainians are coming at you hard.
What do you do? I would retreat.
Wouldn't you? Or quit.
Or desert. If you don't have enough ammo, and there's an army coming at you, and you know you don't have enough ammo, what the fuck are you going to do?
Fight? Try to get lucky?
So what this is suggesting is that the Ukrainians have either degraded the resupply lines or the ammo depots, and maybe their anti-aircraft weapons are better than we think.
Because remember, the Ukrainian anti-aircraft is coming from Western sources.
It's the good stuff. It's possible that Russia can't afford the jets.
They may not have, I mean, it's easy to imagine that if you looked at the number of Russian jets, it'd be some ungodly big number, right?
But I'll bet only 20% of them are on.
What would you say? What percentage of all of the Russian Air Force do you think is worthy of getting in the air and possible to get there?
I'll bet it's 20%.
What do you think?
I'll bet it's 20%.
And if it were 20%, now I see that some of you are going to disagree with that, and that would be reasonable, because I'm just guessing, right?
So, I think that the Russian military could be closer to collapse than anybody is reporting.
Could be. That's not a prediction.
That's just a statement of how I see the situation.
That they could be really close to collapse.
Now that doesn't mean they're running out of money, because Russia seems to have money.
And they seem to have the capacity to make a lot of new weapons and take things out of mothballs and stuff like that.
So you assume that Russia has lots of flexibility for adjusting to win it in the long run.
But in the short run, it might be that their shit isn't working.
And Ukraine just has better maintained, newer stuff at the moment.
So I don't think there's anything you can say about how this will turn out, but how is my initial, how is my prediction looking now?
Do you remember how badly I got mocked at the beginning of the invasion when I said, you know, I think you might be surprised at how well Ukraine does in this war.
Do you remember how badly you mocked me?
Does anybody want to say, you know, is there anybody here who would say that maybe I was closer to right than you were?
Is there anybody who's willing to give me that at this point?
That my prediction that Ukraine would surprise how effective their defense was with modern military equipment.
Okay? Thank you.
So some of you are willing to give me that.
Now that doesn't mean we know how it ends, right?
If, in the end, Russia goes big and destroys the country, I'm not going to say that that was impossible.
But so far, the Ukrainian war is going largely the way I thought it would.
Now, right, it's not over, so anything could happen.
Yeah. Now, what is the biggest criticism you see of me that's sort of a general criticism?
If you've watched how people criticize me, especially on Twitter, what is the biggest criticism I get, and it doesn't matter what topic I'm on.
So regardless of the topic, what's the biggest criticism I get?
I'm being bald, yeah.
The biggest criticism is that I'm talking on topics at which I'm not an expert.
Now, I see some of your answers are, my ego is big, or blah, blah, blah, but that's really the same thing.
It's all the same thing.
The criticism is that I weigh in on topics that I don't know anything about.
Right? But at what point do you notice the pattern?
At what point do you notice the pattern is that that's what I do?
The Dilbert strip was entirely a different take on business.
The Dilbert comic was me saying, you know, you all are buying these business books and reading them like they're real.
It's all bullshit.
So when I started saying that every expert in business was full of shit with the Dilbert comic, that's where it all started.
So as a cartoonist, I debunked every business expert.
And now most people would have come to my side.
Then, when I entered politics, I said, hey, you're getting this wrong.
This Trump guy has persuasion ability and he's going to be your next president.
And what did people say?
They said, Scott, stay out of politics.
Just stay out of politics.
But, of course, I was right.
Now, so far, whenever I've gone into a topic which I don't know anything about, what has been my track record?
If you were to look at all the times that I have publicly disagreed with the mainstream opinion on whatever, from business to politics to science to nuclear power, you name it.
You name it. What is my track record of disagreeing with experts?
It's really, really good.
It's probably at least 80% disagreeing with experts.
Who in the world has an 80% accurate record of disagreeing with experts?
That's kind of crazy, if you think about it.
Now, the reason that I have a high hit rate, in my opinion, somebody might have a different opinion of that, in my opinion is that I pick places where I have an advantage.
I don't just speculate on everything that can be speculated on.
I go where I have a specific advantage.
So in the case of Dilbert, I worked in that world so I could see it.
I could see that it was bullshit.
So I used my advantage to disagree with all the experts.
In the case of Trump becoming president, I had a little niche of expertise and persuasion, so I could just see that.
It was just plain as day to me, where others couldn't see it.
So I wasn't exactly disagreeing with the experts.
I just had this narrow little keyhole Of special knowledge that I took advantage of.
That's about it. So at what point do people start telling me that it's okay for me to disagree with experts in fields of which I am not a member?
So now I would argue that my military estimation of Ukraine is the best so far The best prediction in the entire world.
That's what it looks like to me.
In my opinion, I had the best prediction about Ukraine of anybody in the entire world.
So far. Now, it could go wrong.
Now, I'm seeing LOL. Why are you laughing?
That's either true or it's not.
I don't believe there was anybody who said what I said.
I've never heard one person agree with that opinion.
And here we are.
Here we are. And this is exactly why I'm reportedly considering mulling a run for president.
It is this exact kind of skill that makes me the kind of person you'd want to reportedly consider mulling.
All right. Now, how many of you are totally Grossed out by me saying that I got things right.
It's uncomfortable, isn't it?
Does it make you uncomfortable when I tell you I got things right?
Anybody uncomfortable? Because if you're commenting on my ego or whatever, yeah, your ego.
Your ego, damn it.
Well, I would suggest that since you see me equally tell you what I got wrong, By the way, how many of you would agree with this statement?
I just as aggressively will tell you when I'm wrong, and have on a number of occasions.
I clearly state when I'm wrong, just as aggressively as I'm telling you I'm right.
And locals are all agreeing, because they've seen it a number of times, right?
So what is the ego portion of that?
If I'm telling you when I'm wrong and I'm telling you when I'm right, what's the ego portion?
Well, I suppose you could say you think you're right more than you're wrong, but that's just numbers.
You can check for yourself.
You can look at my predictions, see how they did.
All right. Enough about me.
So BlackRock is getting some pushback because they're big on the ESG stuff, right?
And they say they only want transparency on the companies.
They're not trying to force them to do something.
They just want investors to know who is doing the right things and who is not.
To which I say, that's the same as forcing them.
So I guess there are a number of states where the states are suing or they're bad at BlackRock because they think their pension funds for the state are going to get lower returns because BlackRock is essentially embarrassing companies into doing non-economical things in service of ESG, which stands for Environment, Social, and Governance, right?
Now, don't confuse your ESG With your DEI. Diversity, equity, and inclusion is different by overlapping environment, social, and governance.
So the social and governance part overlaps the equity and inclusion part.
In other words, making sure every type of person gets their chance.
And How much would I love being in the corporate world where they're trying to sort out their DEI from their ESG? That is such a Dilber world.
I feel like I have to go back to work, like just for a year.
I have to go back to a cubicle job and just live in that DEI, ESG, uncomfortable world for a while.
And watch people try to work it out.
Because here's what I expect.
There's probably somebody who's at a big company.
There'd be somebody in charge of ESG compliance and somebody in charge of DEI. And they probably hate each other.
Because the DEI person is always, like, getting in the business of the ESG person and vice versa.
You know that's happening.
Yeah. So Dilbert's company will be implementing both DEI and ESG, and things are going to get complicated.
Things are going to get complicated.
And at Dilbert's company, they will change the letters from DEI to D-I-E, and you can expect that.
There's fascinating reports coming out.
That when Trump was president and he was trying to get a Middle East peace deal that would include Israel and the Palestinians, which is not what was included with the Abraham Accords.
So the Abraham Accords...
You know, it was the best they could do, given that Israel and the Palestinians could not make a deal.
And Trump is saying now, apparently, that Netanyahu never wanted peace with the Palestinians, and he said, quote, I think he just tapped us along.
Just tap, tap, tap, you know?
I love the way he talks.
He just tapped us along.
Like, Trump actually, like, created a whole new expression.
And when you heard it, you thought to yourself, okay, that works.
I will now incorporate that in the way I speak for the rest of my life.
How the hell does he do that?
Have you ever heard that?
He just tapped us along?
Tap, tap, tap. Nobody's ever said that, right?
Nobody's ever said those words.
I don't think. I've never heard it.
But as soon as you hear it, don't you say to yourself, I'm probably going to use that.
He was just tapping me along.
Tap, tap, tap. Right?
Now, this is the sort of observation that is what I brought to the politics.
This level of skill, which you see in just this minor little story, right?
It's a minor little story, it's a minor little quote.
But you can see in this, genius.
Right? I know if you're anti-Trump or that just hurts to hear it.
But his linguistic and his communication talents Are just off the fucking chart.
Like, I can't do this.
I couldn't do that.
And, you know, I do communication for a living.
Like, he is so good.
It's crazy.
Like, it actually is genius level.
It is actually genius level.
And I don't know if he'll ever get credit for it.
I think it will be completely misunderstood forever, probably.
But do you remember what my opinion was about Israel and the Palestinians making peace?
Because it's better if you remember it than if I tell you.
What did I say about Israel and their desire to make peace with the Palestinians?
Now, before I knew what Trump said about Netanyahu, what did I say?
That neither of them want peace.
That's the last thing they want.
Because the Palestinians need the conflict, their leaders do.
Because the leaders exist, in large part, because there's a conflict.
They're leaders of that conflict.
And then Israel, the longer Israel keeps the conflict going, the more they can build up their military, the more they can respond aggressively, the more they can gain territory.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Israel just keeps gaining territory, right?
So if you were Netanyahu, would you make peace with the Palestinians?
I wouldn't. I would have done what Netanyahu did.
I would have acted like I was interested, and then I would have said, tap, tap, tap.
I'm just going to tap you down the line a little bit.
So... Would you give me credit?
So in the same context of me not being an expert on anything, remember?
And I give you that.
I'm not an expert on these things.
But every now and then, you can see there's like a little keyhole that I can see through that I feel like I add some value just in that little keyhole.
And in this case, the keyhole was, why in the world would Netanyahu want peace?
Everything argues for keeping it the way it is.
And now we have confirmation that that's exactly what he thought.
Or at least Trump's version of what Netanyahu thinks matches what I just said.
That's all we know for sure. So, was there anybody else who told you, until Trump told you, any other public figure tell you that Israel and the Palestinians are not interested in peace, they both have their best situation right now?
I'm the only person who told you that.
Am I wrong? Disagree with me.
Name one other person who told you that Israel doesn't really want peace, or Netanyahu doesn't really want peace.
I can't think of anybody else who told you that.
And now you have it right from Trump, who was pretty close to it.
I think I would trust Trump's analysis of this.
Alright, here's an interesting persuasion question.
I'm going to put the question to you, and then I'm going to give you my opinion.
I saw an opinion today, and I will not tell you where it came from, so you will not be biased by the source.
So the opinion is this, that Trump should not brag about his warp speed success, because it will hurt him in the election.
Do you agree or disagree?
The opinion is that Trump should not say that he was behind the vaccinations or not make a big deal about it, because doing so would hurt him in the election.
Agree or disagree? Okay, I've seen more people are saying agree, but a few are disagreeing.
Agree? Interesting.
Okay, you're all wrong. You're all wrong.
Who say it would hurt him?
Now, part of the argument is that people will conflate Project Warp Speed, they will conflate it with the lockdowns.
Do you think that's true? Will people think that Trump is part of the lockdown because he would be embracing the Warp Speed Project?
Do people conflate them in their minds, do you think?
Some might. I think most wouldn't, but some might.
All right, here's why it's not going to hurt him, and he should absolutely say that he was behind warp speed.
Here's why it won't hurt him.
Because he's going to be competing against the Democrat.
That's it. If you looked at Trump in isolation, I'd probably agree with you that his base would not be real big on the vaccinations.
But he's going to be running against the Democrat.
Right? If you have to choose, there's no question.
So that part of the persuasion, even though you're right, that that's a mark against him, is only a mark against him in isolation.
As soon as you compare him to a Democrat, you'll go, okay, he's better than the Democrats.
On the lockdowns, especially.
Yeah, do you think that Trump would be pushing boosters for Omicron?
I doubt it. And also...
Trump was with the mainstream of science when he made those decisions.
All right. If you had to guess, would Trump win election if he ran today?
Let's say against Biden.
Would Trump win re-election against Biden if he ran today?
I'm seeing more yeses than nos.
Yeah. And I know you want to tell me that Democrats steal elections.
I get it. All right.
So, you're here to hear me, not the other people.
I think he could win.
And I think that what would prevent him would be dirty tricks.
But the dirty tricks are going to be really good dirty tricks.
So maybe one of these legal challenges makes a dent.
Maybe something else. But can you imagine what kind of hoax the Democrats have waiting that we haven't seen yet?
Because you know they haven't emptied the Clip?
Is that the way you like to say it?
They've not emptied...
Yeah.
They've got plenty of the magazine.
They've not emptied the magazine.
Thank you. Alright.
They've not emptied the magazine.
They're probably saving a big one.
Don't you think? They've not emptied the quiver either.
Quiver. Quiver is a funny word.
Yeah. Well, I think that there's a hoax that...
Here's what I think. I think there's a hoax that's so big that they think that would be like their Hail Mary if they need to use it.
But I'll bet it's also so big and also ridiculous.
I'll bet you the next, let's say, the mega-mega hoax...
You know, the next mega, mega hoax is going to be so big that when you see it, you'll laugh.
Now, I thought people would laugh when Trump was accused of having nuclear secrets at Mar-a-Lago so he could sell them.
I thought people would know that that one's just one you can laugh at, but people thought that was serious.
And they still do.
And I thought, okay, was that a little bit on the nose?
Seriously? You can't spot that one.
You haven't learned how to spot hoaxes well enough to spot that one?
Nuclear secrets at Marta Lago that he's going to sell to adversaries?
No. Nobody saw the warning signs that that was a hoax?
All right. You laughed.
I literally laughed when I saw it.
I literally laughed.
Okay. That's so over the top.
But it wasn't big enough, was it?
As ridiculous as it was, it looks like it made no difference in the polls.
So they're going to have to go bigger than Trump is selling nuclear secrets.
What the hell would that be?
Like, what's bigger than that?
And they can't go...
I don't know if they can go for, you know, Trump is trying to make money from China, but I feel like they'd have to.
You know why? Oh, I've got it.
Yeah, the hoax is going to be Trump's making money from China.
Do you know why? Why?
Why does the hoax have to be Trump's making money from China?
Why does it have to be that?
Number one, we're at war with Russia and people don't think Russia would necessarily be playing with Trump that way.
But you need a country where you can't check on their end.
And if we blame China for something, you can't check.
Because you can't check on anything in China.
And they also need to project.
So because Biden is credibly accused of dealing with his son illegitimately with China, they have to project that.
So the most likely hoax that you'll see before the 2024 election is a hoax that Trump is making money from China in ways that will sound ridiculous.
Does that sound right?
I think that's where they'll go.
They're going to go with that China hoax this time.
I think so. Yeah, they tried to tie him to China last time, but I feel like the Russia allegations and Trump, If there were anything there, we would know.
So Trump's genocide.
The vax deaths are his fault, not pharma, somebody says.
Maybe. North Korea.
All right.
Yeah, the Democrats have done a good job of accusing Republicans of what Democrats do.
Let me ask you this.
Do you think I'm going to get cancelled from my earlier statements?
What do you think?
See, here's...
I get yeses and nos.
Here's what's dangerous about me.
I'm definitely an energy monster.
I'm definitely an energy monster.
And I don't know how much energy anybody wants to push in my direction.
So it might be a little dangerous to engage me in this topic because I could take the whole topic down.
You don't want to give me attention on this topic because I could own this topic.
I could totally own it.
Yeah, Memphis is looking like it's falling apart.
Micro lesson on how to be an energy monster.
I don't know if I can microtise that, but I'll tell you the basic idea.
The basics of being an energy monster is you have to be, first of all, willing to take a punch.
So you've got to be able to take punches to your ego, to your career.
So you have to be in a position where you can't lose money by being attacked.
Or if you do lose money, it's not money you care about.
So you have to be invulnerable.
That's the first part.
The second part is you need to be in some kind of public domain, because that's the only place energy can be used productively.
So you want to be in a public speaking domain where if you get attention you get more followers and it works in your favor.
So that's basically it.
I don't think you want to be an energy monster if you're working in a cubicle.
You don't want to bring energy to your cubicle.
Just keep your head down. Work on developing your second career and just keep your head down.
So you can't be an energy monster unless you're going to be in front of the parade.
If you're going to be in the parade, don't try.
If you're dumb enough to try to lead the parade, then try to be an energy monster if you can.
Energy monster is somebody who benefits from negative energy and positive energy.
It doesn't matter. It's all energy.
All right. Only bad publicity is your obituary, is it?
Is it? Yeah, Great Britain is ending the fracking ban.
Did I mention the Bannon arrest?
Not recently. So Bannon turned himself in, right?
I assume he's free?
Bannon's not in jail, right?
Because if they keep Bannon in jail but they release the violent criminals, I don't know what world we live in.
He did the perp walk.
Now Bannon is an energy monster, right?
So Bannon dealing with anything public is going to be helping Bannon.
The War Room podcast isn't getting smaller because he's getting legal problems.
It's getting bigger, not smaller.
And They'd better be careful how much attention they give Bannon, because he's largely platform-free at this point, isn't he?
What platform is he on?
Is he on Rumble? What is the war room on?
Is it on Rumble only?
So as long as Rumble's in business, he's going to be in good shape.
And by the way, if I get cancelled, I'll just go to Rumble.
I don't think that's going to hurt me too much.
Although I do like being able to talk to both sides to the degree that that's possible.
All right.
His Timcast shows are very good.
Oh, here's a question for me.
There's a sexy, experienced bimbo who wants to date somebody, but he's engaged to someone who will be a prude, a great housewife and a great mom.
How to choose? Do you go with the bimbo or the great housewife mom?
What advice do we give them?
Do you take the prude and try to turn the prude into a bimbo, or do you take the bimbo and try to turn the bimbo into the wife that you think you want?
I don't know. I think marriage just doesn't work, frankly, for most of us.
I think for 20% of the population, it works great.
80%, it just doesn't work.
Scott, what was the reason you brought up the topic of race today?
Probably mostly the Memphis news.
And the fact that when you look at all the news of violence, it's hard to ignore the pattern.
Right? So I'm not going to ignore the obvious anymore.
So I do not have scheduled Russell Brand and I do not have scheduled anything else.
So we had a schedule issue with the Russell Brand interview so that didn't happen.
And it's not rescheduled.
I don't think it's going to be rescheduled.
My guess is that was probably one and done.
I think it probably won't happen.
I'm considering just not doing any more podcasts.
And the Megyn Kelly thing got rescheduled as well to never, I think.
Yeah, I don't think the Megyn Kelly thing will happen.
Now, what normally happens with me, and I'm sure this did not happen with the Russell Brand situation, but may have happened in other situations, is I get invited to stuff, sometimes as a speaker or whatever, and then I get uninvited.
It's very common for me to be invited and then uninvited.
Now, that's just in the last several years.
It was since I started talking about politics.
Because there's always somebody in the larger group, after they hear I've been invited, who says, uh, that guy?
I saw something about him on the Internet.
Now, in every case, in every case, what I get canceled for is something that's not true.
But it doesn't matter.
If they think it's true, that's all it takes.
Yeah, I mean, I could go on Gutfeld, or I could go anywhere, I could go to any podcast or show where they actually know what's real.
So the people who know what's real would have no problem having me on.
It's the people who are still living in some kind of weird bubble, you know, believing I'm somebody I'm not, they would have a problem with me.
Get on Rogan again? What would be the point?
I don't know. What would be the point?
Alright. Do you have someone else already?
You mean like a woman?
I am going to be a single person for as long as that makes sense, I guess.
Smoking doobies. Yeah, this is going on long enough.
You're absolutely right. And I think we're done for today.
