Episode 1869 Scott Adams: Let's Talk About Those Migrants Going To Martha's Vineyard, Everybody Wins
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Mike Lindell sues FBI & DOJ
Governor Newsom vs Governor DeSantis, debate?
Martha's Vineyard political stunt success
America's digital currency, coming soon
Fetterman and Oz to debate
Ray Epps and J6
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Is it my imagination, or are you better looking today than yesterday?
Yeah, sexier.
Sexier. Well, on that positive note, how would you like the rest of the day to go as well as that?
You would. And all you would need would be...
A cupper mug or a glass of tanker, a canteen 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 of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
It's the best thing that'll ever happen to you.
Go. I feel my mitochondria are repairing themselves a little bit faster.
All systems go.
So, would you like to hear about all the good news?
Isn't it weird that I keep telling you that we're going to enter a golden age?
But you listen to the news and it's all like, the world is falling apart.
Everything's bad.
Here's some positive things that are in the pipeline.
There's a company that's made some big breakthrough in battling autoimmune problems, which could include things like lupus and MS, some really big stuff.
And apparently they've got something that looks like it works really well.
Now, the details, it doesn't matter.
Because remember the rule.
Remember the rule when I tell you about a breakthrough new technology?
What's the rule? When I tell you about a breakthrough new science or technology, the rule is we're going to pretend it's true.
Because most of these end up not being true.
They end up being big disappointments in the end.
But our agreement with each other is we'll pretend they're all true.
Because it feels good.
If it turns out later it's not true, well, you're not really worse off.
You felt good for a while.
So we're going to take the feel-good, okay?
So it looks like there might be a breakthrough in lupus and MS and other autoimmune stuff.
Thanks to Machiavelli's Underbelly for tweeting some other good news.
It looks like a flying car will happen in my lifetime.
There's one that's being funded.
It's already built. And it's basically a...
It's like sitting on top of a hobby drone.
You know, if you just took one of those little drones that you can buy in a store and put a little cab on top of it like a car, that's what it is, basically.
A four-rotor situation.
Now, remember, I told you the only thing we were waiting for, you know, because flying cars have been the thing we've joked about forever, the things we've been waiting for are here.
AI to make sure that the thing can stay stable, and batteries that are powerful enough to take people long enough.
That's it. We have everything else.
So the flying car might not be able to get licensed, you know, there might be government regulations and stuff, but we can build it now.
It's done. We have the technology.
Likewise, there's a company that's already built a functioning flying motorcycle.
So it's very similar to what I just described, except instead of having an automobile cab on top of a drone, imagine a motorcycle situation.
So you've got motorcycle handles and you're just sitting on top of a drone.
It just is a big one.
And that already exists in the sense that they're already demoing it and driving around in space.
Not space, but in the air.
So we've got flying cars, flying motorcycles, autoimmune disease, and there's a company also working on fuel cells for drones, which doesn't seem like a big deal.
Except that these fuel cells would extend the range and the power of the drones substantially.
Like a really big deal.
Now it doesn't mean they'll catch on.
Maybe nobody will ever buy a fuel cell drone.
But the fact that we can do it is certainly directionally interesting.
I was thinking yesterday, what are the odds that I would be born And many of you too.
So that I can see the following things that will only happen once in the history of humankind.
What are the odds?
For example, the development of the computer.
The computer was built and developed in my lifetime.
Now, how many humans will be born and die over the course of human civilization and human biology?
What are the odds that I would be alive when computers are developed?
And space travel, exactly, to go to the moon.
So space travel...
Artificial intelligence.
Now, in my opinion, artificial intelligence is already sentient.
But then we just get into arguing about definitions.
But I believe the AI will be sentient in my lifetime.
That's only going to happen once.
Ever. The first time, anyway.
What are the odds of that?
What about the virtual reality?
The metaverse?
That's only going to happen once.
And it's happening in my lifetime.
Flying cars? The first ones are only going to happen once.
Looks like it's going to be my lifetime.
What are the odds of that, really?
Doesn't that seem weird? Like, that's one of the arguments for this being a simulation and for me being a player in a game.
Because I can't really understand the odds of it unless I'm a player in a game and it's designed so I see more stuff.
This is a weird coincidence.
All right. Have you ever thought about all the...
Oh, and also digital currency.
Digital money. Crypto.
All in my lifetime.
And that's just like a small sample of things that are happening just in my lifetime.
But here are some things that...
You have to stop and think about the things that have changed permanently because of the pandemic.
So I'm going to give you a starter list of things that permanently changed during the pandemic, and then add to it.
So in the comments, you probably can think of a few more.
So food delivery, I don't think will ever be the same.
I suspect kitchens might just disappear.
It will just be, deliver my food all the time, it's just cheaper and easier.
Healthcare will change forever, especially the online doctors on Zoom.
Working from home changed forever.
Supply chains are going to change forever.
Decoupling from China especially.
All of our energy systems will change.
So we'll have a complete change of energy.
I might be alive during nuclear fusion being developed.
It looks like it.
Looks like that's going to happen.
I suppose I might just barely be alive then, but maybe.
So all of our energy systems are being retooled.
Trust in institutions?
Completely different.
The way the world feels about any official institution is completely different now.
That's going to have some expense.
I don't know what happens with that, but that's not a nothing.
That's a big deal. We just don't know how that's going to come out.
I think also these factory-built homes, I don't know if it's because of the pandemic, but...
This boom and these factory-built homes I can sort of deliver and just put together.
Now, let's combine a few concepts.
Let's combine the idea of relocating the homeless, which is the wrong name for them.
You know, we should stop calling them the homeless if they don't want a home, because they don't, most of them.
We should call them the outdoor livers.
Or just the outdoor people.
Because their preference is for outdoors.
That's the main thing they want.
Just let us be outdoors so we can have more freedom.
Or in a way, you could call them the free.
In a weird way, they're the freest among us, are they not?
Who is more free than street people?
They can do all the drugs they want, seem to be able to violate the law at will.
Go anywhere. They can trespass.
I don't know. They don't have a job they have to be to.
They don't have a boss. They don't pay taxes.
Exactly. I call them campers.
Campers. Now that would be funny.
That's the funniest one.
Instead of calling them homeless, call them campers.
That's just getting funnier as I think about it.
Campers. I'm sure somebody would say you're being insensitive.
All right. So there's a whole bunch of stuff that's going to happen in my lifetime, a lot of it accelerated by the pandemic.
But here's what it feels like.
It feels like the wheels are coming off, doesn't it?
If you read the news.
Oh no, inflation is going to kill us and the immigrants will change the nature of the country and climate change will mop up whatever humans are surviving and the racism will put us in each other's throats and everything else.
Is it really worse than it was in the 60s?
Are any of you old enough to remember the 60s?
It doesn't feel worse.
Does it? Oh, some of you say yes.
You think it's worse than the 60s?
I think that might be selective memory, though.
In the 60s, we thought that Russia was going to nuke us.
There's no way I would live to die of old age, because I'd get nuked.
Yeah, it's better televised.
Well, it feels like we're in some big rebooting phase.
That's what it feels like to me.
In order to get to the new thing, you have to go through a bad thing.
It's almost always true.
If you want to build a house, you usually have to do demolition first, because there's already one there, usually, in all the good locations.
So if you want to get radar, you have to have World War II. Sorry, that's the only way you're going to get radar.
No, that's probably not the only way.
But there are a lot of things that got accelerated.
And maybe the pandemic is just a big reboot program.
It feels like it. Well, Mike Lindell, as you know, was...
What would you call it?
He was stopped and surrounded by FBI agents, and they took his phone that they have now access to.
So Mike Lindell...
And I don't believe he's been charged with anything.
Is that right? There are no indictments against Mike Lindell that I'm aware of.
He's targeted, but we don't know if there's any charges.
I suppose they don't know either until they look at his phone.
But he's retained Alan Dershowitz to sue the FBI and the Department of Justice.
To which I say, good for you.
Good for you. You know what I think the government or the Democrats?
Here's what I think the Democrats have totally underestimated.
Here's what the Democrats, I believe, have totally underestimated.
Two words.
Mike Lindell.
I feel like they underestimated him.
Am I wrong? Because I don't think he's out of money.
He seems to be... He took a big hit with my pillow just by speaking out.
But he doesn't look like he's willing to quit.
Right? Now, the game that you play with somebody like him is you hope you can scare him off before he gets too serious.
And he was pretty serious to start.
But it looks like they're not scaring him off and he's just getting more aggressive.
So... Is he the guy you wanted to piss off?
He obviously has skill.
He's got a lot of capability.
I mean, he built a company, you know, really was on his personality, if anything else.
So in a sense, it looks like the government may have found a worthy nemesis, because I think he's going to take it to him.
We'll see. I don't know.
I don't think he got where he is by luck, do you?
I mean, it looks like skill.
It looks like he's good at selling, good at getting stuff done.
Well, we'll find out.
But it's an interesting development.
See if he can make something out of this.
The other day I said that to persuade the government to do more on fentanyl, we should produce pictures of 300 dead bodies every day.
And Machiavelli's underbelly asked an AI to do that, and sure enough, so I tweeted this morning, a group of bodies that looked like they died on the Capitol steps.
Now, I would improve that by making them, instead of spread out on a field, I wouldn't spread them out on a field.
I'd put them in an actual pile.
So it's the pile that actually sells the story.
It's not the number.
Like if you just had a row of people who died, that wouldn't be persuasive.
You need the pile.
Because the pile tells you how you're treating the dead.
You've treated them like they didn't matter.
That's what the pile says.
A group of people dead in a field says something bad happened.
Well, we already knew that.
But if you put them in a pile, it says not only did something bad happen, but we don't care.
We'll just throw them in a pile.
And so if we can tweak that, I'd put them in a pile.
And I would take the American flags off them, because that ended up being accidentally patriotic.
I think the AI wrapped all the bodies in an American flag.
So let's get the positive imagery away and put it into just purely horror.
We'll see what that does.
So yesterday I did a number of reframes for Republicans, telling them how to sell their own policies better.
And I turned those into a series of little videos, so each reframe has its own little two or four minutes, whatever it is.
And that's on my channel if you want to go see that.
I was asked to put that into a playlist, which I'll work on today.
So we'll put that into a playlist.
But I tweeted somebody else's playlist this morning, so if you want to see the whole list of them, just look at my Twitter.
So, Governor Newsom, my governor here in California, has challenged Florida's governor, Ron DeSantis, to a debate.
Because I guess DeSantis said something humorous and insulting about Newsom's hair gel.
And Newsom said, you know, hey, DeSantis, clearly you're struggling, distracted, and busy playing politics with people's lives, meaning Martha's Vineyard stuff.
We'll talk about that. He goes, I'll bring my hair gel, you bring your hairspray.
Name the time before Election Day.
I don't know, speaking of underestimated, are you underestimating Newsom?
Because he's not a guy you want to underestimate.
You know that, right?
He really does, he's got the whole package.
He does have the whole package.
So if you're underestimating him, that would be a mistake.
He does have the goods.
He could bring it. So, and again, that's from a Democrat perspective.
But what do you think of this idea of him challenging a governor from another state?
They're not even running against each other.
Or will they?
Huh? Or will they?
Maybe not this election, maybe the next one.
But it also could be this one.
It could be. Could be this one.
It's hard to imagine Newsom primarying Biden, but it's possible.
It could happen. Or Biden could drop out or something.
But I like the idea completely.
Anytime two politicians are willing to debate in public, and they're both capable, that's what's different about this.
These are two media stars who are super capable.
I would love to see that debate.
And especially if there's nobody else on stage.
I don't like these eight-people debates, do you?
I mean, that's barely anything but a few sound bites.
But you could have an actual debate between two highly capable people with different opinions.
That would be very useful.
So I would say, Newsom, you get the win on this one.
Because he's asking for something that I, as a consumer, would like to see, as a citizen.
I'd like to see it. So I don't think it's going to happen.
Do you? I don't think it's going to happen.
Newsom is going to debate his Republican contender for California, which is appropriate.
But no, I don't think that's ever going to happen.
You know what the best news of the year is?
What is the best news of the year?
I'm going to say it's DeSantis shipping the migrants, the illegal immigrants, as you like to say, or undocumented, pick your phrase, up to Martha's Vineyard.
This is the only story I can think of where everybody came out ahead and also had something to complain about, which is also coming out ahead.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the migrants themselves don't seem unhappy.
In fact, they're probably being treated pretty well.
So the migrants are fine.
I would think. I don't see any problem.
Got a little attention. It was a little exciting.
Imagine being a migrant.
You just came from some horrible situation.
The next thing you know, you're on TV in America, and you're at Martha's Vineyard, and you don't know where you're going to end up, but it looks like the country has embraced you.
That's what I would think. If I were a migrant, I would think the country had embraced me.
Because one party sent me on a nice trip to a good place, and then when we got there, that place made sure I had food and a place to stay.
I don't know what happens next.
I'm not sure what happens after they get taken from their cages.
They're probably in... I don't know what happens after that.
So you've got the Republicans who are delighted, Because as a political stunt, it was really good.
As political stunts go, it exactly made the case that the Republicans want to make.
They got all the attention they wanted.
It did deepen the conversation, which is what they wanted.
I'd say the Republicans won.
Now, how about the Democrats?
They won, too.
So they won. Because they said, yes, we will take care of them.
And then they did what their version of taking care of them is, which is sent them off to some military base.
But that took care of them.
In my opinion, that's not cheating.
I know that the right-leaning news is sort of acting like that's cheating.
Oh, no, you didn't keep them in Martha's Vineyard.
You shipped them off to a military base.
To which I say, it doesn't matter how you do it.
I think the migrants won.
I think the Democrats made their point.
They actually treated it like a sanctuary.
They took care of them.
They didn't send them to jail, I guess.
So, for some weird reason, the migrants won, the Democrats won, and the Republicans won.
Everybody won. Nobody died and nobody got injured.
Everybody ate, nobody got a sunburn.
Taxpayers lost? Well, did they?
I don't know. I'm not even sure taxpayers lost.
Because it cost money, but it was money that deepened the debate in a way that I think is productive, actually.
So this is one of the most weirdly win-win-win productive things the country has ever done.
And the fact that both the Republicans and Democrats are accusing each other of being the hypocrite, it doesn't get any better than that.
That is peak awesomeness.
Everything about the Martha's Vineyard story is good.
Everything. Even the way we're complaining about it is good.
Because if that's all we have to complain about, we're in pretty good shape.
I guess it's no fun to talk about inflation non-stop.
We do have real problems, but this wasn't one of them.
And I do love the Republican theory that if there's a part of the country that says, hey, it's a sanctuary and you're welcome, and there's another part of the country that the citizens are like, hmm, maybe not so much here, why isn't this a win for everybody?
If it's a sanctuary, Take them to the sanctuary.
And the way DeSantis has explained it, I think, was perfect.
We're not a sanctuary city.
Martha's Vineyard is a sanctuary city.
Where does an immigrant want to go?
An illegal immigrant?
Where do they want to go?
Do they want to go to the place that doesn't want them?
Or the place that says, hey, sanctuary, come on in.
It's weirdly win-win-win, even though it's just a political trick.
It's the weirdest situation.
But this is the sort of thing that proves we're in pretty good shape.
The fact that this is what we're talking about.
And somehow, because we're all dumb, We've managed to make this real problem, which is the debacle at the border.
If you think about the border and the struggling people trying to stay alive and coming in and how we're treating them, that's like a big, big, hard problem.
But once the news put it in Martha's Vineyard, it became a sitcom.
Oh, look, it's people. It's a fish and a water story.
It's Fresh Prince of Beverly Hills.
Look, we took somebody who is not normally in a high-end environment, and we put him in a high-end environment.
Ah, look at that.
Look at the entertainment we got out of that.
Am I right? We took an actual human tragedy, an ongoing rolling tragedy, and we turned it into this little humorous sitcom.
And now nobody's thinking, well not nobody, that's an exaggeration.
It diverted our energy from a real problem To this sitcom-y thing, fish out of water, Fresh Prince of Beverly Hills situation.
I don't know. I think it trivialized the whole thing.
But it did what the Republicans wanted it to do.
It told the story that they wanted to tell.
And it looks like DeSantis is going to be sending some more.
So we'll see more of this.
There was some fake news around this.
There was some immigrant activist person.
In other words, somebody who was pro-immigration.
Who tweeted something, I'm paraphrasing, but something along the lines of the way DeSantis was treating these migrants, according to this person, was as if he had been driving around and throwing his trash out the windows from his car.
And then what did the people on the right said?
Are you calling the migrants trash?
You hypocrite!
You're supposed to be on their side!
Then NBC retweeted it.
You know that's all fake news, right?
Did you all...
Did anybody get fooled by that?
It's just all fake news.
The original tweet was accusing DeSantis of treating the migrants like trash.
There's no other way to read that.
But somehow, if you got fooled into thinking the person who tweeted it was saying that...
Either the Martha's Vineyard people or the person tweeting it thinks that migrants are trash.
You really got taken by fake news.
It's all over the right.
The right is just leaning on this hard.
It's completely fake.
It was fake. Somebody said something bad about DeSantis and the people on the right decided to tell you that it was the opposite of what it was.
There was something bad about migrants.
That never happened.
It never happened.
It was just a comment about DeSantis.
But it was, you know, in a political environment, the Republicans tried to turn it into a weapon.
But it was fake.
It still worked as a weapon.
I was not aware of this until yesterday, that our government is copying China.
Not really copying, but apparently the U.S. government is going to have its own digital currency.
At which point they can track everything.
Now, they're close to being able to track everything, but only for people who have money.
If you're poor and you pay in cash, they can't track you so well.
But if you have a credit card of any kind, oh, they can track the hell out of you already.
But once you have a digital currency, one assumes that everything will turn digital eventually, then you can't cheat the government, you can't have an underground business, you can't do any sketchy deals.
I don't know if you're going to want to live in that world, but I'll just say it out loud.
People are uncomfortable living in a world where they can't cheat.
Am I supposed to say that out loud?
Because people don't say it that way, but that's what it is.
People are very uncomfortable living in a world where they can't break the law and cheat.
Because people want to be able to break the law and cheat.
It's a very popular thing.
You know, cheating on your taxes, taking cash.
People really, really want to do that stuff.
So we'll see if the government gets away with it.
I think they will. One of the weirdest predictions I made, maybe 15 or 20 years ago, in my book, the Dilra future.
I predicted that all crimes would be solved in the future.
And it sounded ridiculous, but I saw this coming.
Once you've got everybody on video and you can manage everybody's transactions, how the hell do you do a crime anymore?
If we've got a picture of you and we've got all of your records of where you were and what you spent and what you bought, you can't get away with anything.
This will, first of all, get rid of street mugging, because there won't be any cash.
So there's a whole bunch of robbery that will just go away, because there won't be cash.
There's a lot of crime that will go away, but it's crime that we're used to.
We all think that we have a right to that kind of crime.
Well, you know, everybody cheats on their taxes a little bit, so why can't I? I avoid that theory because I'm a public figure.
So I'm really careful on my financial world to keep that completely legal.
You don't want to make that mistake.
Yeah, they can steal credit cards, so I suppose they can steal your passwords for your crypto.
So, yeah, that risk is there.
But I'm not sure that the common street criminal will be still in business when you have to be a hacker to steal something.
If all you needed was a gun, it's a lot more accessible business.
Well, here's the update on Ukraine.
So yesterday, was it yesterday?
Some of the comments here were saying that when Russia took out that dam, that it might have been a clever, you know, super evil move to strand part of the Ukrainian army so it could be destroyed by the Russian army.
That might be an overstatement, as in maybe Russia would like you to believe that that was to their favor, but it doesn't seem to be true on the ground.
Exactly. I mean, it might have made a difference, but not a big difference.
And so there doesn't seem to be any narrative saying that Russia has the ability to counterattack the counterattack, meaning Ukraine is on the offensive.
And one opinion I saw this morning is that Russia's military is designed as an occupation force and not so much a fighting force.
And if that's true, and I have a hard time believing that's true, but if it's true, then the Ukrainians are an offensive force against basically a non-fighting force, which is what it looks like.
It looks like one came to fight and the other came to squat.
And the squatters are being killed by the people who came to fight.
Now keep in mind that 100% of anything that I say about Ukraine could be completely wrong.
Could be that I'm reading the wrong propaganda feeds.
I have no idea. But I'll tell you what, you don't see anywhere.
You don't see it coming from Russia, and you don't see anybody else saying it.
Which is that the Russians are making any gains.
Now, Putin did say they're taking new territory, but nobody believes that, right?
Nobody believes they're taking new territory.
I don't think. So at this point, I would say the forming consensus from the experts, who are close enough to have an opinion, are making it look like the Ukrainians will be able to liberate that area.
Now Russia, of course, has options for stepping up the risk and the danger, maybe destroying the rest of the infrastructure in Ukraine with long-range weapons.
That would be pretty bad.
They don't seem to have the ability to fight on the ground against the Ukrainian advances.
So what's up with that?
And I tell you again that how can you hold territory when all of your local leaders, who would be the collaborators with Russia, they'll all be murdered?
Because there's no way you could protect the collaborators, could you?
How are any collaborators ever protected?
Because they still go outdoors.
I mean, they still have families.
I just don't know how you can do it.
Now, I understand how you can do it before the war had reached this level of conflict.
Like, you know, Russia had their little area that they controlled, and they probably just said, if anything happens to one of our side, really bad things are going to happen to you.
But if the context is that really bad things are happening to everybody every day, because that's what a war is, Then suddenly the locals are going to say, you know, I'm in the middle of a war zone, and there's that collaborator over there walking through the public square.
I'm just going to take that guy out.
So it seems to be at an all-time high right now.
Worth doing.
Because maybe you killed a few collaborators in this situation.
But now you're at a point where killing collaborators definitely could change the situation.
Definitely could. Because if nothing else, it would convince Russia that there's no way to hold the territory.
You just keep killing the collaborators as fast as possible.
Yeah, see the difference was that the Nazis, they had another way to control populations.
Which was collective punishment.
So the Nazis could say, oh, you killed one of ours?
Give me 500 of your men, and we'll line them up and shoot them in front of you.
And that would work, I think.
But that's not the situation in Ukraine, because I don't think Putin can do that.
Like, if he goes full Hitler in that very specific way, I don't feel like he could survive it.
And we'd know about it.
So he just doesn't have the tools that a true despot would have working against basically his own people.
The Ukrainians and the Russians have too much in common.
Putin has already done that with civilians.
I doubt it. I doubt it.
Now, I don't doubt that there have been war atrocities, but I don't think Putin has ordered people to line up civilians and shoot them.
I don't think that happened. It may have happened, but I don't think he ordered it.
It would be a dumb thing to order.
So the Texas Supreme Court ordered that social media platforms can't censor people's voice.
And I don't quite know what this means yet.
You know, Texas is big enough that the social media platforms will have to either satisfy them or not operate in their state.
Do you think they're going to give up on Texas?
No. Because it seems like other states will follow suit since this...
Well, I mean, I don't know.
Maybe this goes to the real Supreme Court.
Maybe it gets overturned.
But if this holds, then I would think other states would take a look at it, and then social media platforms are going to have to get pretty serious about changing something.
Anyway... And I saw Alex Berenson celebrating this victory.
What is your opinion of...
I don't want to bring this up as a topic, but I'm only interested in the data collection part of it.
Do you think it's possible at this point that all the different medical experts around the world...
Would say nothing about vaccinations if they were actually more dangerous in general.
We're not talking about the special case of vaccinating children.
I don't know who's in favor of that.
But in the case of vaccinating anybody, you know, just anybody who makes sense to get vaccinated, do you think that all the experts in the world are seeing data that says it's more dangerous than not doing it, and yet they're all doing it?
Or do you think that they're all seeing evidence that is working, not as a vaccine, but as a therapeutic and a pre-therapeutic, whatever that means?
So here's what you would have to believe.
You would have to believe that there's no whistleblower in any country in an official capacity who's willing to say, wait a minute, wait a minute.
You're looking at this data?
This data says it's sketchy.
Why are you all saying it's not?
Where is that person?
Because there are plenty of people outside the system, you know, the Malones, etc.
There are lots of people outside the system who are saying stuff like that.
But why nobody inside the system?
Now, your first impression is, well, they can't take the risk.
They can't take the risk.
But it's a really big world.
There are always enough people to take the risk.
There's no shortage of people to take the risk if you're talking about the whole world.
If you're talking about a specific company or a department within a company, yeah.
Yeah, maybe nobody takes the risk.
But you're talking about all of the medical experts, all of the scientists in the world who have access to largely the same information at this point.
You're telling me that With all those experts, if there were solid data saying that the vaccinations are injuring people more than they're helping them, you're saying that we wouldn't know that by now?
Now, we're not talking about the future.
That's still unknown. But a lot of people think that the evidence is still completely here.
Somebody says, fear and money.
But here's my warning to you always.
There's no such thing as 100% of humans doing the same thing for anything.
And it's amazing how many times we make that mistake, to imagine that people would all act the same.
So here's the math of it.
If you have one person, and the story is only about one person, can you trust that the one person will act like himself?
Well, probably. It's one person acting like themselves.
If you have two people in a story, could you imagine that they would act in tandem together?
Sure. It's pretty easy for two people to collude.
Three people gets a little harder, ten people harder.
But when you get to millions, Millions of people who could potentially be a whistleblower or debunk, or not even be a whistleblower.
Just send out a tweet.
Just send out a tweet.
Hey, I'm a doctor.
I'm reading this study, and this study is telling me something bad.
You tell me there's not one doctor who's still in the system who won't put out that tweet.
That would be different than everything we know about everything.
That would change everything about reality, if that were true.
There's no reality where millions of people are on the same side.
None. That is not possible.
This is the Great Barrington Declaration of those people who are working currently within jobs that they haven't been fired.
Mass delusion? Mass delusion wouldn't do it.
I don't think it would do it.
See, mass delusion also doesn't get everybody.
It's the everybody problem.
It's not the majority problem.
It's the everybody problem.
Drew was talking about it.
See, the trouble is that the people who are saying negatives about it Tend to be the people who talk about things in public.
But we're not seeing, like, you know, a member of the top medical team of some European country say, you know, we're all looking at the same information, but I'm looking at this differently.
This doesn't look good to me.
Anyway, keep that in mind.
What are the odds? I guess in Pennsylvania the two candidates for Senate, Fetterman and Oz, have decided to debate.
I'm going to watch that one.
Because one of the debaters had a stroke, Fetterman, and we don't even know if he can debate because his public appearances have suggested that for health reasons it's difficult for him to form sentences.
How do you debate if you can't form sentences reliably?
Will you get a sympathy vote?
Well, apparently Democrats have already said they don't care.
So Democrats have said, well, if his policies are good, we don't need him to be able to talk and think and walk and stuff like that.
And I think Biden made that easy.
So if you think Fetterman can't win because he's obviously degraded, You have to keep in mind that the Democrats have looked at two years of Joe Biden, who's clearly degraded, and they're saying to themselves, yeah, that worked. That worked.
Give us some more of that.
Because it worked so well with Biden, why wouldn't it work with this other person who can't walk and talk?
Why not? So, I think the room got softened up by Biden.
All right, well, it's a slow news day, and I don't know what else we have to talk about.
Do you? Is there something amiss?
Was there a...
Yeah, is that really a neck tumor he has, or is that just neck fat, Fetterman?
I can't tell.
There's some pictures of him looking like he's got a big old lump on the back of his neck, but it might be just a neck fat.
Did Republican strategists reach out to me?
No. Nor would I expect them to.
The trouble is, if you're a strategist, you think you don't need other people's advice, because you're selling advice.
The people who are selling advice are not going to ask for my advice, because people can get that for free.
Imagine being a high-priced consultant.
Let's say you're charging, I don't know, $100,000 per month, which is probably in the ballpark, right?
High-end strategist, $100,000 per month.
Are you going to charge $100,000 per month and then bring to the person who's paying the bill an idea that you saw for free on Twitter or YouTube?
I mean, I'm not sure how you do that.
Oh, you know, I'm charging you $100,000 per month, but if you just watch this YouTube channel for free, you'd have everything you need.
So let me just show you the YouTube channel and you give me my $100,000 for this month.
I don't know. It's pretty hard.
Pretty hard. What about James Clear?
I like where you're going with that comment, but I don't know where it's going.
Scott, cover the agree and top argument on January 6th that I did on Locals.
I'm pretty tired this morning.
What did I say about that?
Well, if I just rethink it from scratch, I'll probably come to the same place.
The Republicans need to say that the assault on the Capitol was terrible, the violent parts, and that we should move on, and that we should agree that both sides should work hard for election transparency and integrity.
It's a winning message because it's not like they're going to go back in time anyway.
It wouldn't matter how bad it was.
Now, the Ray Epps thing, I've also said we should make a national agreement, the Democrats and the Republicans, independents too, is to base our entire opinion on Ray Epps.
Now, he doesn't explain everything, no matter what you know about him.
It doesn't really explain everything.
But we can agree that he does.
Imagine if we looked into it and we were convinced, all of us, That he really wasn't an FBI agent?
It's possible, right?
Very possible. Would you be willing to drop it then?
Say, all right, all right. We don't know what happened, but let's agree to move on.
If the Ray Epps thing is nothing, let's agree to move on.
Even if there's something there, we'll try to fix it for the next time.
But what if you find out that Ray Epps actually was working for the FBI or associated with him in some productive way then?
Then you get to say, all right, we were right.
Release all these people from their prisons and then still focus on the future.
So the bad argument is there was nothing that went wrong on January 6th.
That's just a bad argument.
And it's maybe even worse to say, oh, it was just a few violent people.
I'd rather just say, yeah, it was a horrible thing.
Let's move on.
Let's find out what we can about Ray Epps and then just move on.
How can he prove he wasn't FBI? Hmm.
I don't know. I guess that calls into question what proof means.
But I suppose if he were interrogated enough, you could find out one way or another.
There's a streak of insanity.
You know, it's funny that we all watch politics as if the politicians mean it to be serious, and then we debate it like they meant it to be serious.
I'm way past that.
It's hard to debate things that people didn't mean to be serious as if it were serious.
I can't get past the fact that they didn't mean it when they said it.
If you didn't mean it when you said it, and it's obvious, didn't mean it when you said it, I don't need to debate whether it's true or false.
If you didn't mean it when you said it, and it's obvious, EPS could prove it by going to trial.
No, you couldn't really prove it, prove it.
Because you can't prove a negative.
You could simply show there's no evidence of it.
Maybe.
A simulated...
Yeah, so we do have videos now of the simulated 300 dead per day.
But put them in a pile.
And today we did another Dilbert ESG cartoon.
And I don't yet know how many newspapers have cancelled me or censored this week.
But things are going to get a lot dicier in the coming days.
So I just wrote a series that I don't know if the newspapers will publish.
I'll give you a preview.
Dilbert's life is going to mirror my own personal experience.
So there's going to be an opening for a promotion, and Dilbert will be one of the people considered.
And the boss will tell him he's being considered.
But he's being considered along with Alice, not Alice, Tina, the tech writer, who has no qualifications for the job opening, Dave, the new employee, Who looks black, but because he's a prankster, he identifies as white, just to thwart the boss.
And Ashok, the intern.
Now, you may have noticed that each of those three characters have something extra going on.
So they're either people of color or female.
The way it's being set up is that Dilbert will be known to all of all, including the other people who are up for the job.
Even they will know that Dilbert is the most qualified for this opening.
But he will not get the job.
So, do you think I'm going to get away with that?
Do you want to hear the writing before I draw it?
I might read it to you.
Let's see. I don't think I can find it quickly enough, but if I can, on my little device here, I will read you the ones that I think are going to get killed.
Let's see. Nope.
I'll find it in a minute.
Dilbert Daly's.
God. There it is.
It's so hard to find things.
You ever notice that? And then they're not scanned in order.
Modified. Shored by modified.
Oh, God. They're all sorted in some random order that doesn't look like they can be re-sorted.
God. Why is this so hard?
Anyway, I guess I can't...
The interface for Dropbox is so bad that I can't even just go in and see my own files.
They're organized chronologically.
It doesn't look like I can sort them.
There's no way that they didn't leave me with that option.
Can I really not sort them?
That'd be crazy.
Doesn't look like I can.
Huh? Amazing.
Alright, sorry I mumbled and looked away from you for a while.
But I'll look at it on another computer and read it to the locals people after we're done here with YouTube.
