Episode 1872 Scott Adams: My Plan For Decreasing Fentanyl Overdoses And Celebrating Our Victories
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
President Biden's 60 Minutes interview
Josh Shapiro and school choice
Twitter, Feinstein's car, Swalwell's bed
Peter Zeihan and China's chip access
Republican plan...punish Americans
War crime penalties for fentanyl dealers
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to an amazing, amazing experience.
Today you're going to find out how to end the fentanyl crisis.
I'm going to tell you some amazing things that will blow your mind.
But first, how would you like to get in the right mood?
Would it take mushrooms?
No, no.
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 or 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 hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
And it's famous all over America and it's happening now.
Famous all over the world, really.
Go. Ah.
Oh! Wow.
Wow. I didn't know life could be this good.
Okay, it's wearing off now.
I guess it wasn't permanent. Well, I hope you all caught this important story.
This is maybe the most important thing.
Did you hear about Maroon 5 singer Adam Levine and his little...
Is it a personal problem?
Did you hear about that?
Now, I hate to feel...
I hate to laugh at somebody's personal problems because I know you've had a good laugh at mine.
Have you not? So I guess it's fair.
Fair is fair. Now, it's not because it's a bad thing happening.
It's only the specifics of it that are funny, right?
So I don't wish bad things on anybody because it's actually a bad story.
It's a story about three people who are unhappy right now.
And it doesn't look like they're going to get any happier.
But here's what happened.
So Maroon 5 is married to this super beautiful...
I think she was a model or an actress, whatever she was.
And they're having their third or fourth child.
Fourth. So he's very married to a famously beautiful woman.
A Victoria's Secret model, yeah.
A famously beautiful woman.
And having their fourth kid.
And he sent a text to his mistress, who is an Instagram model, and asked the mistress if it would be okay with her if he named his fourth baby after his lover.
Her first name is Sumner.
That didn't go well. Turns out that she shared that message with one of her friends.
I'm going to give you some advice right now.
There's a little advice.
There's no such thing as sharing a secret about the Maroon 5 singer with your friend.
Yeah, because your friend's not going to mention that to anybody, right?
That's what friends are for.
No, there's no such thing as somebody who's not going to tell this story.
I mean, seriously.
You tell your best friend in confidence, look, my boyfriend, this famous singer guy, wants to name his fourth baby after me, his mistress.
How do you not tell that story?
There's no way you don't tell that story.
So I guess one of his friends offered to sell the story to a tabloid.
That would be your first indication to reassess your friend group.
If you ever have a friend who wants to sell a screenshot of your private message to ruin your life, To a tabloid, that's the definition of not a friend.
Not a friend at all.
Well, if you ever thought marriage was a good idea among beautiful people, this should change your mind.
This is another reminder that the people who cheat are the ones who can.
And then they do. My favorite Biden story, so you all saw some clips of him being on 60 Minutes and looking completely lost.
I think Biden only has, he's got one eye that's half open and one eye that's super squinty.
So his mouth is...
No, he's up.
This is his mouth. Yeah.
So that part looks a little weird.
But here's the part that is the most, I don't know, interesting, I guess.
I was going to say fun, but this doesn't sound fun.
Have I told you, I think I have a few times, that when I took hypnosis classes, my hypnosis instructor taught me this trick that I didn't think was real.
In my mind, I was just debunking it.
It's like, that's not real. That's just something you see, you think it's real, but that's not real.
And what he said was that people will tell you exactly what their secret thoughts are if you just listen to them.
Just listen to the words they choose and their choice of words, not the sentences.
The sentences might be misleading, but sometimes within the sentences there will be phrases or choices of words that completely give away their inner thoughts, sort of like a Freudian slip.
Now, the first time I heard it, I thought, that's not true.
People don't give away their inner private thoughts that easily.
And then you start looking for it.
It's so often true.
I don't know if there's ever been any science study of it, but it sure looks true.
Here's one I spotted with Biden that really jumped out.
When asked by 60 Minutes if he were planning to run again, he said it was his intention.
I'm going to paraphrase it a little bit.
He said it was his intention to run.
But there are certain things that get triggered if you say for sure you're going to run.
So he was explaining how the process works, right?
You might have an intention to run, but the final decision is what triggers a whole bunch of activity.
So until he wants to trigger the activity, he's not going to make it official.
But the words he chose to explain that very ordinary thing...
There was no news in that.
That's just an ordinary way people do stuff.
But the word he chose was that it was his intention to run, but it remains to be seen.
It remains to be seen.
Do you know what a hypnotist would say about that?
He just announced his own death.
Because his remains will be seen.
Now keep in mind, this is in the context of the Queen's funeral.
In which her remains...
Is an open casket?
Is the queen an open casket?
I don't know how that works.
But whether she's not an open casket, that makes sense.
But still, her remains are there to be seen.
They're in a box, but remains to be seen.
Now... Yeah, so you can't see her.
That makes sense. I think we would have seen a picture if you could see her.
So, now you're going to have the same experience that I did, which is you say, Scott, that is quite a stretch.
Stretch! You're saying that just because he used a common phrase remains to be seen as a very common phrase, right?
Just because he used a common phrase and gave an ordinary answer to an ordinary question, that he's announced his death.
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
And we'll see. Now, this is not one of those 100% things, right?
You get that, right?
You can't predict it 100%.
But to me, this is a glaring signal that he is contemplating his own demise, which suggests the timer is already ticking, which suggests he may have some illness that we don't know about yet.
That's what I think. I believe he has an undisclosed illness.
So I'm going to make that prediction, and the prediction will be entirely based on this one phrase, remains to be seen.
Anybody want to take the other side of the bet?
Now, it's not based on looking at him.
He does look not super healthy, but that's more age.
And, of course, the odds are sort of in my favor because he's at a certain age where everybody gets something.
Not too many people want to bet against it.
Now, even I think I would bet against myself, if I'm being honest.
If you said, all right, now put money on it, I would bet against myself.
But for fun, because this is a good test of the theory, right?
It's sort of an edge case.
If this one's true, you're really going to believe the next one, aren't you?
So that's all this is.
It's an experiment, right?
So this is an experiment to see if my hypnotist instructor...
Was correct that people say exactly what they're thinking if you just listen.
We'll see. Again, I would bet against it.
I think the smart money says, you know, he'll survive at least until the reelection.
But it sure looks like he says he's not.
Rasmussen did some polling on how people are thinking about Ukraine.
42% of U.S. likely voters think that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has made America's security situation worse.
18% think it made it better.
What do you think?
Does the Ukraine situation, the entire situation, There.
Does it make America less safe or more safe?
Secure. What do you think?
Well, here's one of those questions where what you're actually answering matters because you will interpret the question differently.
I would say that the variability is way up, wouldn't you?
The variability of what could possibly happen in the next year or two is way up.
If you say the variability, in other words, there are just more variables in play, there are bigger variables, there are just more swirling around, doesn't that always make you less safe?
By definition. But one of the possibilities is, since we can't predict what's going to happen, one of the possibilities is it makes us more safe.
By permanently degrading Russia.
Or, or, the safest situation would be a strong Russia.
Because you don't want a weak country with nuclear weapons, do you?
That feels like a really bad idea.
That's what happened to Ukraine.
They were a weak country with nuclear weapons.
Didn't work out. So, I don't know.
I'm not sure if anybody can tell if we got safer or less safe, because it depends what happens next, and nobody knows.
But I would like to say this, because I've been accused lately of never saying anything good about Democrats.
If things go the way they look like they're going to go now, I think the Democrats, and you'd have to give Biden credit because he's in charge, allegedly, It looks like their strategy in Ukraine is working.
And I'm not sure that anybody thought that would be the case.
I mean, even I said that Ukraine is going to put up a better fight than anybody imagined.
So I think that was a good prediction.
But to me, it looks like the Biden administration showed that NATO is not to be fucked with.
What do you think? And maybe that helps us in the future, that NATO just, they're not going to get pushed.
I don't know. Maybe it helps.
I think there's plenty of room to disagree with this.
But do the shoe and the other foot test, the old Dershowitz test.
If Trump had done everything that Biden has done, Gave lots of weapons to Ukraine, fully supported them against Russia, and said, you know, you're not going to take Ukraine, we're going to make sure it doesn't happen.
And then we got to the place we are now, where it looks like Russia won't take over Ukraine.
Do you think I would be saying it looked like a failure?
Seriously. Don't you think I would be praising Trump for executing a strategy that was exactly what he said he was doing?
Now, I might have...
Now, I might have criticized him for getting us into the situation, which might be different.
If he did, I don't know if he did.
Maybe there was nothing he did.
Maybe he did. I don't know. Don't know the details.
But... Yeah, but let me ask you just one question.
If Trump had backed Ukraine, and Ukraine was clearly seeming to do really well, wouldn't I say that Trump did a good job?
Wouldn't I? I would.
So why wouldn't I say that about Biden?
It's really tough for you, isn't it, to hear anything good about your presumed political nemesis?
But it's a good exercise.
It's a good exercise.
I'm going to compliment another Democrat in a little bit.
I want to see if you can hang with it.
But I think you can. This is the smartest group.
I believe this is true, by the way.
I think that my live streams are the smartest observers of the news.
Because you learn to observe it through a different filter than other people are observing it.
And I think that just gives you an extra sense, basically.
All right. So although the Ukraine situation, you know, may be part of our spiraling economic problems, but it looks like the strategy is working, at least the military strategy.
All right. Speaking of a Democrat who gets smart, there's a guy running for governor in Pennsylvania named Shapiro.
He's a Democrat, and he attended private schools.
And his children attended private schools.
Have you seen all of the tweets by Corey DeAngelis who outs every person who says, I don't want school choice, but then you find out they had school choice?
They actually went to an alternative school?
It's a lot of politicians who are in that boat, Democrats.
Democrats who went to private schools and say, no, people shouldn't have that choice.
Or they shouldn't have more choice.
Not that choice, but they shouldn't have more choice.
And of course, the polls show that that's pretty much a death sentence to be against school choice at the moment.
So Shapiro, he's a regular Democrat.
He runs for office, and he puts parents above teachers' unions.
Like, explicitly.
Puts parents above teachers' unions.
And he is in favor of school choice.
Now he's a Democrat. How does that not work?
How does that not win in the election?
Seriously. You know...
The thing that makes me nuts is we see all these allegedly highly capable people running for office.
And they do have good credentials.
You know, a lot of them are from the best schools and lots of experience and stuff.
And then they get into these high offices and they can't do the simplest stuff to please the public.
And none of it's hard.
It's not hard. How hard was it for a Democrat to say, you know what?
Well, because of fundraising, right?
But you know what?
I think parents are maybe higher priority than the teachers' unions.
Then the teachers' unions will, you know, try to fundraise against them, right?
No, they won't.
The teachers' unions are not going to fundraise for a Republican against a Democrat.
It's a free shot.
It was a free pass.
Now, if he had enough money, so he didn't need any extra money from any teacher union stuff, then he's fine.
He's fine. Now, I say the same thing about Republicans.
It would be so easy for a Republican to talk about, let's say, immigration in a way that didn't sound racist.
Super easy. But they can't do it.
Now, I don't think that Republicans are doing their immigration border policy because they're racists.
I don't believe that.
I think they're doing it for all the reasons they say.
But when they talk about it, they do sound racist quite often.
And I think they're not.
But I look at their language and I'm thinking, seriously, you couldn't do better than that?
When you know you're going to get accused of racism and you can't do better than that, There's nothing you can say that would take that stink off you?
Of course you could.
It wouldn't be hard.
Watch me do it. Watch me do it right now.
Here's my view on immigration.
We should separate the question of our ability to control immigration from the question of who we let in.
We keep conflating them, like our policy is to be haphazard.
That's not a policy.
We should have total control over who gets in, and then we should use our empathy and our awesomeness and our economic strength and our economic wisdom to decide who gets in and under what conditions.
And then we dial up the border to let in that many people under those conditions.
But you let the decision of who comes in be made by economists.
Bipartisan, ideally. You want some bipartisan economists to say, you know, we need more people.
You better less than them.
Dial it up. No, things are bad.
If you let more people in, it'll be bad for the United States, even though it's good for the immigrants.
But how bad? Well, just a little bit bad.
A little bit bad? But we are helping all these people, and they'll become good citizens.
Okay, we'll still let them in.
We know it's a little bit bad.
We know it's a little bit bad, but we're also a big, generous country.
So a little bit bad, we'll live with that, right?
But what if the economists say it's real bad?
Well, then we'll turn it down.
Now, that was a totally Republican point of view, was it not?
Was that not 100% Republican point of view?
It was. Did I not completely free myself from accusations of racism?
Completely. There's nothing there you can chew on.
Nothing. Because I said a bipartisan commission will decide who gets it.
Done. They'll just look at economics instead of other stuff.
I even allowed that we would take some pain to let in our neighbors from the South who need some help.
A little bit of pain, right?
There's no Republican who wouldn't take a little bit of pain to help somebody out.
That's who you are. Why not have a candidate who represents who you are?
Yeah, you take a little bit of pain to help somebody out.
Absolutely. You would help your neighbor mow the lawn if the neighbor got sick.
Couldn't mow the lawn? You'd mow the lawn.
You would shovel your neighbor's snow out of their driveway if you knew they couldn't do it.
That's what you do. So a little bit of pain, sure.
But too much pain is just giving away stuff you worked for.
You didn't sign up for that.
So, so easy to tell a Republican story that everybody would buy.
So easy. And what does Trump say?
Trump says over and over again they're not sending their best.
I assume he's trying to make it sound racist at this point.
I mean, I can't believe that he doesn't know what that sounds like at this point.
Maybe the first time he said it he was just being provocative.
But at this point, he still says it.
Still says it. What's up with that?
Alright. You can use your own judgement for what's up with that.
I was looking at a list of the audiences for the biggest network shows and I didn't realize that The Five just destroys other shows.
I didn't realize on Fox News that that show has just become like a powerhouse.
And so now Greg Gutfeld has, you know, that show plus Gutfeld that's absolutely ruling the evenings.
Did any of you have on your prediction card Greg Gutfeld runs most of the world?
Did you see that comment?
Because I don't think you understand how important it is When certain personalities become prominent at Fox News.
Because Fox News sort of shapes, you know, the biggest single group in the public shapes their opinions.
So, yeah, I mean, he's not the only person on The Five, obviously.
So Dana Perino now has, she's on The Five and also her other show is also in the top five, I think.
Like, she's killing it.
Yeah, Dana Perino is just killing it.
And Jesse's got two top-rated shows as well.
So the three of them from The Five pretty much are just the most influential people around right now.
Now, of course, Tucker and Hannity will always be singularly special.
But it's interesting to watch to see how that's going to shape up, especially as the next presidential election comes at us.
So I saw an article in Vice that this Twitter whistleblower alleges that a Chinese spy works at Twitter.
And maybe, I think there was at least a Saudi Arabian employee spy that was caught at a different time.
But when he brought that information to senior management, allegedly...
And by the way, this doesn't sound true to me.
So here's a story of, you know, a story you weren't there.
It's not anonymous, but you weren't there.
And allegedly, when the whistleblower brought that information that he believed there was a Chinese agent on the payroll, that the unidentified...
Executive said, well, you know, if there's one on the payroll, what does it hurt to have another one on the payroll?
So let's grow our staff.
I feel like maybe there's some context missing there, right?
I don't think an executive said that.
I don't think so. That's not something that comes out of anybody's mouth.
Something like it might have been said.
I can certainly believe there's something unsatisfying or, you know, You know, maybe suboptimal came out of his voice.
I don't think you said exactly that.
But we'll see. Now, who was it who told you probably five years ago that I thought that some of the things you were seeing in terms of the algorithm looked like they might have been influenced by foreign countries?
Who was the first person who told you that Twitter was definitely Controlled by foreign entities by now.
If not the CIA. Right.
And do you remember the reasoning for why it had to be true?
There's a reasoning for why it had to be true without any evidence.
With no clues, no evidence, no whistleblowers.
Why did it have to be true?
It's the same reason that insider trading exists.
It has to exist.
It's a huge payoff.
There's no real penalty if you get caught, right?
Because China doesn't care if they catch and fire one of their agents.
Huge payoff.
Not much downside if you get caught.
Lots of time and lots of people involved who would have an interest.
If you have all of those things, it happens every time.
Lots of time. Lots of people who are interested.
It's really important if you could pull it off.
And there's not much downside.
Not much downside at all.
Under those conditions, the predictable thing happens every time.
It's not sometimes.
It's every time.
Now, I've said that about our election systems.
Which doesn't mean that they are corrupt, and it doesn't mean that anything was wrong with the last election.
What it does mean is that there's a 100% chance it will happen, if it hasn't already.
In other words, corrupting our election systems, whether you're a foreign entity or an interested party in the United States, lots of people involved, there's lots of time to get things done.
The penalty for getting caught Would seem to some people low enough, right?
There are some people who say, I'm not going to do that.
But there are plenty of people who do crimes and fraud, especially white-collar crimes.
You can find plenty of people who are willing to do that.
So you have plenty of people, lots of time, huge payoff if you can pull it off because you can control the election outcome.
That's all you need. It'll happen 100% of the time.
Now, does that mean that somebody has a way they can cheat from the outside?
I don't know. I have no idea.
But if you put somebody on the inside, and they're part of the process, they're writing the software, they're designing the hardware, there's some stuff they can do.
So, yeah. So, we've now found spies at the following places.
Twitter, Feinstein's car, and Swalwell's bed.
What do those three things have in common?
Democrats.
Democrats. Have any Republicans been penetrated?
Either Republican-run companies or Republican politicians?
I don't know.
Yeah, Feinstein's driver was a Chinese spy.
That's the perfect job for a Chinese spy, isn't it?
Driver, because they hear everything.
All right. Peter Zan has been talking for a long time about the coming decoupling from China.
Now, there are people who have different opinions on this, right?
So the opposite opinion is that we'll never get all of our manufacturing out of China.
That's just a pipe dream.
But Peter Zan points out that the trade war is sort of this low-grade but escalating situation that's a little bit below our notice at the moment.
But something really big happened.
Apparently we are preventing advanced chip manufacturing components and equipment from going to China.
So China, according to Peter Zan, doesn't have the ability to manufacture its own advanced chips and doesn't look like they would have it any time soon.
So, of course, China will fight back with their rare earth minerals and everything else.
At the same time, we're developing batteries that don't need them.
So I think, you know, they'll be...
But they want to sell them because they make profit.
So it's going to be this weird fight dance.
It's like a dance fight.
But I guess there are some, you know, disagreements about airframes.
So now aircraft, advance anything with a chip, is not going to be traded.
And do you remember about...
Well, actually, Peter Zahn says that in one to three years, if you don't get your company's business out of China, you're going to regret it.
Basically, he thinks that you won't be able to do business in China in one to three years, that there will be a complete collapse of any, at least American company, that's in China.
They just won't be able to operate there anymore.
And how many of you remember that about...
Probably the end of 2018, when my stepson died of fentanyl overdose.
How many of you remember I vowed to bring down China and cause the United States to decouple their economy?
Do you remember that?
What did you think about it at the time?
In 2018, when I said I was going to crash China and decouple our economy from them, what did you say?
Crazy. Crazy, right?
Totally crazy. Now, coincidentally, and maybe because of the pandemic, maybe some other coincidences, but coincidentally it's happening.
So pretty lucky, huh?
Pretty lucky prediction.
Isn't it amazing how lucky I get?
Remember when I predicted that Trump would be president in 2016?
Got pretty lucky on that one.
Remember when I advocated for closing travel to China when the pandemic broke out?
What did you think when I said close travel to China?
Well, that's not going to happen.
But then by coincidence and by luck it did.
Just by luck. Got pretty, pretty lucky there.
So I got lucky again, it seems, that...
That this decoupling is happening with complete coincidence and had nothing to do with me whatsoever.
Let's talk about fentanyl.
Have I mentioned that I'm going to punish China for fentanyl?
And I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.
But the decoupling should be, you know, plenty good for punishing China.
They'll be left with their aging population and they've got troubles.
But here's what I would suggest.
I read the Republican plan.
So there is a Republican maybe strategy or plan for dealing with it.
Here's the weak Republican plan.
Totally, totally toothless.
Increase the penalties for dealers, which might include life or life imprisonment or death.
But these are American dealers.
So, the Republicans want to punish Americans for China sending in precursors that turn into fentanyl in the cartels.
Punish Americans. Now, these Americans would be breaking the law and causing people to die.
But just keep in mind that the Republican plan is to punish Americans.
Okay? So that's suboptimal.
And, let's see, what else would they do?
They would... They would make it possible to sue countries that are responsible for the fentanyl coming in.
So I guess you'd be able to sue China and Mexico.
So that's going to work out for you, right?
To sue China?
Because I'm sure they'll pay off when you win your lawsuit.
How about Mexico? When you win that lawsuit, how long before the check arrives in the mail?
I can't imagine this having any use at all.
You're not going to sue China and get some money, are you?
I don't see how that's going to work.
So that's toothless.
So we're going to punish Americans because China's attacking us.
And then we're going to do that thing that makes no difference at all.
And then there was something about limiting immigration from countries that are involved in this.
So I guess we're going to try to limit immigration from Mexico Are you laughing yet?
That's the fucking Republican plan.
We'll try to limit immigration from countries involved.
Mexico. Now, is there a big problem with Chinese immigration?
How many Chinese citizens immigrate to the United States?
I don't think it's a big problem.
So that's completely toothless.
I mean, it would be like a small annoyance.
Alright, so now I'm going to tell the Republicans how to do their job.
Are you ready for this? This is how you do your job if you don't want to be pathetic and weak like their current plan.
You take fentanyl out of the drug category.
It needs to be two, but for this purposes, you say fentanyl is a weapon of mass destruction that comes from China and is weaponized through the cartels.
China actually sends the precursors that the cartels turn into fentanyl and then they ship here in pills.
Here's what you do. You say that if an American sells fentanyl to another American...
That the American who sold it is not a drug dealer.
They're a traitor. And you prosecute them for a war crime.
It's a war crime. Is it treason or traitor?
Whatever the word is.
But basically it's collaboration with the enemy.
And you take it completely out of the drug realm.
Completely out. You treat the addicts as addicts, you treat the dealers as traders, and you use only trader law to go after them.
And you say, this is a war, and you even get Congress, let's say you, as Republicans, you ask Congress to declare it a war.
Just declare it a war.
Now, I don't think that would start a hot war, meaning I don't think that would cause China to launch their nukes just because we did some paperwork.
But we could say this is a weapon of mass destruction, describe where it comes from and where it goes through, and say if you're an American who is part of this process, you're a traitor because you're a part of the war effort for China.
Now, here's why this is brilliant.
Number one, you can't ignore this.
If this started happening, the news would have to talk about it all the time, because it's just too hard to ignore.
So that's the first thing.
If you want something to be handled, you need to get focus on it.
So it would be a provocative way to get focus.
It would reframe it.
Have I told you that reframes can be very powerful?
So you reframe it that way, and then you treat it that way.
Now, would a drug dealer...
If they had a choice of selling heroin or being a traitor to the United States.
Now you say to yourself, Scott, if somebody's already a major fentanyl dealer, they don't give a shit about the United States.
They're already not patriots.
I think you're wrong.
I think you're wrong.
I think you would find out that drug dealers are patriots.
American drug dealers.
Now, not all of them. Not all of them.
Might be 40%.
Might be 40%.
But I think you could take 40% of the dealers right out of the market on day one by saying, oh, shit, I don't want to sell out my country.
I just wanted to make some money, and I don't respect this law.
Then what happens if you find out there's a trader selling drugs on your corner?
No, no, not a drug dealer.
A trader. A trader to the country.
And you're looking at him. Wait a minute.
That's not a drug dealer. That's a trader.
He's not even in my country.
Well, you drop the dime.
You call the police and have the trader picked up.
But if he's just a drug dealer, do you mind your own business?
Maybe. Maybe you mind your own business.
Because if you think, well, he's just coming off these idiots who are on drugs...
And you don't have much sympathy for idiots on drugs, do you?
Because you're like, well, I'm not on drugs.
They should be not on drugs, too.
I'm not endorsing that point of view.
I'm saying that a lot of you have it.
So you don't care if a drug dealer kills some fucking drug addict.
Most of you literally don't care.
Be honest. You don't care.
Many of you don't. Not all of you.
But many of you don't care.
You really don't care if a drug dealer kills a drug user.
You don't. Let's be honest about it.
You don't. But would you care if a Chinese agent or a trader was on your block?
There's a guy trying to destroy your country.
He's right there. You're looking out your window.
You're looking right at the guy.
Somebody's going to shoot him.
Somebody's just going to fucking kill him.
Just assassinate him right on the corner.
Some Republican will just walk up with a gun and take his head off.
Not on day one, but you'd have to really build this thing to the point where people saw it that way for real.
Right. So if the 15-year-old dies because they thought they got a Xanax and it was fentanyl and they died from the overdose, yeah, that's not the person we want to hate on.
You don't want to hate on that person.
All right, so that's my idea.
So I believe if you reframe it as a weapon of mass destruction, it doesn't have to be reframed for its medical use, because we do the same thing with Botox, right?
Botox can be rat poison if you're killing rats, but it can be cosmetic surgery and has other medical uses if you're using it that way.
So I think we can deal with the fact that it can have a medical use but also be largely treason on the street.
Now, do you think you can drone the cartels more likely if you've defined it as a war?
Of course you can. Of course you can.
If you define it as an addiction problem in the United States, you can't drone the cartels.
But if you define it as an act of war, you can do anything you want, because it's a war.
All right. I'm seeing a comment.
Most gun crimes are committed by Democrats.
Is that true? It feels like it's true.
But do we have an actual statistic on that?
That most gun crimes are committed by Democrats?
Because you know what? I think Republicans should also do this, but more as a joke.
They should suggest that Democrats only give up their guns.
So if you register as Democrat, you should be required to give up your guns.
Do you know why? Because it would make the world safer.
The Democrats say that any gun you take out of the system makes the system safer.
If you took only the Democrat guns out of the system, wouldn't they be safer?
That's their exact argument.
Their exact argument is that all guns are dangerous in the public, and Democrats have tons of guns.
Lots of them. So why don't we say, prove your point by getting rid of guns from Democrats.
If the murder rate goes down because Democrats gave up their guns, come back to us with your argument.
I don't know if it would.
But don't you think that...
Because here's the reframe.
The reframe is that Republicans largely want guns for self-defense and hunting and protecting the Union.
Right? The Republic.
And so mostly they use them for that.
There are plenty of Republican criminals as well.
But if the Democrats are serious at all about what they want, they should disarm first, because that's their entire plan.
Their plan is that every gun out of the system makes you better off.
They don't say take the guns away from the bad people, do they?
They do not. They say take all guns away.
Every gun is a danger.
So if that's true, Republicans should.
Tongue in cheek, but not really.
Not really. They should embrace and amplify.
Have you heard me say that before?
It's a great persuasion technique.
Embrace and amplify.
Rather than arguing their point, you say, well, why don't we embrace your point?
We also agree that Democrats should get rid of their guns, and let's see if that makes you feel safer.
And we're all in.
Republicans, on the other hand, will keep their guns because we're largely using them for self-defense and hunting and stuff you don't care about.
Now, would that change anything in the real world?
Probably not. But the argument would change.
If the Republicans stuck to that and just every time a gun control argument came up said, look, we're halfway, we should meet in the middle.
You'd like all guns to go away.
We'd like people to have guns.
Let's meet in the middle. Democrats give away all their guns and see what happens.
The trouble is, how do you argue that?
How do you argue it?
The only argument Democrats could have is, well, we need our guns for self-defense.
And then what do the Republicans say?
What do they say? No, we're not going to give away our guns because you have guns.
We need guns for self-defense.
Now, I don't know how many times I can make the same point.
Being a Republican with a good argument is so fucking easy.
And nobody's done it.
Nobody's done it. Not Trump.
Trump's done the best.
But I'd give him a B-.
I mean, his immigration persuasion is terrible.
It's terrible. It's terrible for the public.
It's good for the base. It's terrible as a president.
So it's baffling, isn't it?
It's baffling how bad they are at communicating.
Because I'm not wrong.
These are better communication strategies.
All right. There is a hilarious video that I highly recommend.
Just a few minutes of your time.
You have to watch the clip that's going around.
I retweeted it this morning, so you can see it on my Twitter feed.
Dawn Lemon talking to some British woman.
I think the main topic was, you know, the Queen.
But the question of reparations came up.
And Dawn Lemon asked her if the Brits should be thinking about paying reparations.
It didn't go well for Dawn.
You have to see this.
It's like really good.
So the woman, without losing a beat, she describes how...
So remember I told you to embrace?
Embrace the other argument?
So instead of saying, reparations are stupid, get out of here with that dumb idea, that would have been a losing argument.
Here's what she said.
Reparations? I'm going to paraphrase, right?
So she didn't say it exactly this way.
Reparations? Absolutely. We should go look at the cause of them.
The cause was the African kings who rounded up their own people and put them in cages and put them on the beach to wait for people to pick them up so they could sell them.
And they were the beginning.
And so we should look at the descendants of those African kings and ask them for reparations.
Then she pointed out that 2,000 British soldiers, 2,000, I think, Navy people, died trying to stop slavery.
And she pointed out, and people are debating this, by the way, but she said that Great Britain was the leader in ending slavery.
So she said, should the British people who died trying to end slavery, should they get reparations too?
Because they died fighting on that side.
So she's like, yeah, reparations.
For the sailors who tried to stop it, Let's give a big hand for the first country in the entire world of civilization who tried to stop slavery.
Great Britain. Alright. Hand for that.
And what about those African kings?
We should talk to them about reparations.
Now, this is a version of what I've been saying.
A version of what I've been saying is you can't have a reparations conversation in public.
Do you know why? Because it'll always go this way.
If you put me in that conversation, what am I going to add?
I'm going to say, well, if you look at, let's say, the model that we have, let's say the Japanese internment camps.
There you had living people, still alive, who were getting reparations.
You had a clear enemy, the American government.
No other governments. There was no African nations involved.
It was just our government. They made a decision.
It was purely racist.
And they knew how much they took.
So the people who were rounded up, I don't know if you know this, but if you owned property and they put you in the Japanese internment camps, some white person would go down to the clerk's office and just bribe somebody to change the name on the property, and then the white person owns it.
So the Japanese who were rounded up and put in the internment camps, they lost everything.
Everything. But we could, you know, you could get a pretty good idea what that everything was, I mean, as an estimate.
You knew exactly who took it, and some of those people were still alive.
Lots of them, actually. So that is your perfect reparations example.
Right? But...
Because that has the comparison built in.
So you could say, what would happen if we didn't do anything with the Japanese-American public?
And then compare it to what happened when we did.
And you could say, oh, you had a house, you lost a house.
That's pretty objective.
But then you look at the African slaves, and you get some economists involved.
The first thing they're going to do is the first thing that happened in the Japanese internment case.
What are we comparing it to?
Well, you're comparing it to staying in Africa and having a king who doesn't mind selling you and putting you in a cage.
So you would go back to a situation where that was okay.
So that was your alternative.
Now, I'm not saying that slavery was better than that.
I don't know. It sounds like they were both pretty terrible.
I'm saying that that's what you have to compare it to.
So you'd say, our American...
Americans who came from the legacy of slavery, do they have more or less money than the people who stayed in Africa and were not sold as slaves?
That's the comparison.
And what you'd find is that they're doing better.
So what do you do with that?
See, the trouble is, slavery was sort of a...
except for the Holocaust, I suppose, an incomparable evil.
Right? The evil is the thing that's under our skin, so to speak.
You know, it's the evil of it.
You feel like you need to address the evil, but you can't do it economically, because the economics, weirdly, were not the evil part.
The economics were, coincidentally...
Weirdly, somewhat positive, you could make the argument.
It was just a horrible human thing to do.
So there's no way you could have the argument in public because it would devolve into that, where you would get a big dose of how do you calculate stuff, how do you compare things, you know, what's the real value of things.
Ooh, there we go.
What?
So, here's a comment on YouTube.
Dallas Hosie says, it's working.
I'm an attorney, and today I had a large institutional client ask if the shareholders of their company could sue the entities pushing ESG as it drives down their share price.
You're welcome. Now, did I tell you that when Dilbert...
Talks about something as a well-known thing, that that becomes a legal standard?
I've told you that before, right?
So the Dilbert comic strip has been used as a legal standard to define when you should have known something.
If it's in the comic, you should have known it.
If I could put it in a comic strip without describing it, that's the standard.
I can publish it without having to describe it.
That means you should have known.
Now, Dilbert is mocking it as a terrible thing.
So that's what I've been doing all week.
Now that I'm mocking it as a terrible thing, that frees all the people who were going to say, can we say this was a terrible thing?
Can I say this out loud?
Now you can, because it's in a Dilbert comic.
I basically took the cancellation risk for you.
You don't need to get cancelled because the newspaper published it.
I took the risk, and I did, in fact, get cancelled in a number of papers.
I don't know if it's temporary or permanent yet.
But a number of papers stopped running Dilbert's For that series.
Because I think that they have ESG influences as well.
I don't know, but I think that's probably what it was.
However, there were enough that ran it and ran online and probably got copied and sent to everybody.
So at this point, I've established a legal standard, which is that anybody involved in ESG should have known what they were getting into.
You can no longer claim you didn't know it was a problem.
Do you see the power of that?
That's really powerful.
Because anybody before could have said, well, ESG sounded like a good idea.
It had all these noble goals.
And by the way, the goals of ESG are great.
I love the goals.
It's just that when you take this outside control and you layer it onto the free market, you don't get a good result.
So it's about implementation.
You just can't implement something like that.
So I believe that I have accomplished my mission.
I'm still working, because that was important.
If I had been completely cancelled, then nobody would raise their head, right?
If I talked down against ESG and got completely cancelled, there's no stockholder who's going to...
There's no employee who's going to complain, that's for sure.
So by flying close to the sun and surviving...
I increased the envelope of conversation.
So now people know they can go at least as far as I went.
They can go that far, because I did it and didn't get cancelled.
And they can say, hey, it's not just me.
This is everywhere.
This is not my opinion.
Look, it's in the newspaper. The newspapers are publishing this.
So I think...
I think that on maybe three occasions, the thing that I've maybe influenced, and it's hard to know, is that there are some things that are just too wild to think about.
And if I can make you think about it, then it becomes part of the conversation.
I hate to use that phrase.
But it's something you can talk about because it has been talking about.
Somebody did it. So I think I did that with...
Closing travel with China.
That was unthinkable.
But when I started talking about it, you're like, that's unthinkable.
Well, I'm thinking about it now.
And then it happened. Decoupling from China was unthinkable.
But people like me talked about it, and then you thought about it.
And after you thought about it for a while, it was no longer unthinkable.
You might not want to do it, but it was definitely part of the conversation now.
With fentanyl being treated as a weapon of mass destruction and treating our dealers as traitors and not dealers, that's a wild idea, isn't it?
If nobody had ever talked about it, could you imagine a Republican presenting it?
It'd be kind of risky.
Might get laughed at, right?
But because I've presented it and I got a positive response, now it's safe.
Isn't it? If there's anybody in Congress watching this right now, you just learned that you could say that in public and you're going to get a good feedback.
Right? Probably Thomas Massey might see this.
Tom Cotton sees some of the clips, I know.
There's a number of other people I won't mention.
But there are a number of people in Congress who do watch this, and staffers, etc.
So I feel like that's maybe the thing I can do that really makes a difference.
I can take your mind where you didn't know would be safe.
I can just make it safe for you.
So that's what I'll continue doing.
All right, what else is going on?
Oh, so yesterday's Dilbert joke...
Mentioned non-binaries, and you probably said to yourself, oh no, don't go there.
If you mention non-binaries in your Dilbert comic, you're going to get cancelled.
So I mentioned non-binaries in my Dilbert comic, and not only did I not get cancelled, but I got retweeted by the Association of LGBTQ Plus Corporate Directors, whose mission is it to get more diversity in the boardrooms, And they loved it.
They loved it. Now, let me give a shout-out to the LGBTQ plus community, and most specifically the gay community.
Has anybody done a better job of persuasion?
Like in the history of the whole frickin' world.
The gays are awesome at this.
So, so good.
This was exactly the right response to me.
The wrong response was, you tried to use us as a dupe.
Why are you bringing us into this?
Stop making it about LGBTQ with your Republican audience.
Are you mocking us? Nope.
This is fun. Do some more.
How awesome is that?
How awesome is that, right?
Very awesome. And the joke was that ESG measures your environmental impact as well as your diversity.
And the joke was that the CEO knew that they couldn't do much about their CO2 emissions, they were going to go up.
So he was going to compensate and he was asked how much the emissions would go up.
His answer would go up, oh, about one non-binary board member.
So they're just using it as a scale for CO2 emissions.
Yeah, how much CO2 emissions do you?
It was about, wow, two non-binaries and a lesbian.
But if we build another factory, it's going to be two binaries, a lesbian, and possibly a gay man.
So that's how much emissions we have.
Anyway, I just thought it was funny to equate them as like currency, two things you could trade off.
All right. I don't know, but I feel like this was the best live stream of all time.
I feel like it was.
Am I crazy?
No, it was. It was.
It was the best one of all time.
And I think we should drink to that.
YouTube, are you with me?
Wow, I ended right at 8 o'clock, too.
Amazing. All right.
We're going to do ourselves a little simultaneous sip.
This one for such a good job.
Now, I tell you this all the time.
But I want to remind you, I only get to do what I do to the extent that you like any of my persuasion or affect anything.
I only get to be persuasive because you show up.
This whole thing is just one big machine and I get most of the attention.
I'm sort of like the key that starts the car, but I'm not the car.
I'm just the ignition.
You're the car. So what you do is 100% necessary for anything I do that's useful.
And to that, I salute you.
The simultaneous sip is for you.
Go. Was that good?
Oh my goodness, that was good.
So good. Well yesterday I gave you a reframe about forgetting your history and your past and the feedback I got from that both during and afterwards was really phenomenal.
And I'm writing a book right now on reframes.
It will include that one. And so I took yesterday's presentation and essentially wrote it up much the way I presented it, because I thought the order of that worked out really well.
So you'll see that in the book.
The other reframes, I think, are just as powerful.
Maybe more. And here's the proposition.
Let's see if this would sell a book.
So this is a marketing question for you, right?
So it's not a question about necessarily what you will do.
So it's more of a marketing question.
If I had a book with, let's say, 85 reframes, and they applied to your happiness and your specific modern life, and I told you, you know...
There might only be one of these reframes out of 85 that will have an impact on you.
But if it has an impact, it will just change your life.
Would you buy a book that had 85 reframes if the proposition was, it's only going to take one of these to change your life, and I guarantee one of them will?
Which I do, by the way. This would be an impossible book to read without it changing your life.
I don't think you could do it.
The thing with the reframes is you don't have to do any work.
A reframe you just have to listen to.
It's the easiest self-improvement you could ever have.
Most self-improvement is bullshit like keep a diary, use your free will and your stick-to-itiveness and stuff like that.
But with reframes you just have to hear it.
You basically just have to be walking by.
You can get all the benefits.
You just have to hear it once and you're done.
Do you include a reframe that makes your IQ 185?
Weirdly, I didn't, but I did that reframe.
So you think you're joking, but I'm going to do that right now.
I'm going to reframe all of your IQs to 185.
You ready? If you start with your basic IQ, the one you're born with, that's probably not 185.
But then you layer on education.
If you add some education to your natural intelligence, aren't you smarter in a practical sense?
Not your IQ, but in terms of dealing with the world, you're smarter.
Now, add emotional intelligence to that.
Where you can forego some benefits?
I'll bet most of you have that.
I mean, you show up here almost every day at the same time, pretty organized, right?
Most of you have that. So doesn't that make you operate as though you're smarter?
Because you'll get better results.
So now you've got your natural IQ, but you've boosted it by what you learned.
Then you've boosted it again because you have natural emotional intelligence.
So those operate as sort of a total.
So now let's say you started at 120.
I'd say if you had the right kind of education and you had emotional intelligence, you'd be operating like somebody at 140.
Now, add a talent stack and systems instead of goals.
And when you add the talent stack and you start building a set of talents that work well with each other, that's the key, is that they're additive to each other.
Can you operate like somebody with an IQ of 185?
Yes. Yes, you can.
Your functional intelligence will be through the roof if you add the right kind of skills together.
What is... Kanye's, like, natural IQ. I don't know.
He looks pretty smart. I would say he's probably very smart.
But then you put on top of that all of the other skills that he's put in his stack, and then you get Kanye.
He operates like his IQ is 185.
Functionally. I would argue that whatever my natural IQ is, That I have assembled a set of skills, persuasion, live streaming, etc., that makes me functionally smarter than my IQ. Would you agree?
Would you agree with that claim that I operate functionally better than my IQ just because of the weird skills I've compiled?
Now, I've said, for example, that if you want to know the future, the two skills that will do that best are economics, follow the money, And persuasion part of psychology.
Psychology in general, but persuasion specifically.
If you know persuasion, and you know economics and business, you're in really good shape to know what's coming next.
And I know those two things.
Those are my two strongest categories.
So it's not an accident if I get better results than other people.
So I believe that I get better results than people who have my same organic IQ because I assembled things which made me operate higher than my IQ. And I think that you all do the same.
So I think that you could assemble the same set of skills Largely because I'm helping teach you.
You have my books to look at.
If you read these two books, had it failed almost everything and still went big, your personal life would start looking like you're a genius.
If you read Win Bigly, you would learn persuasion, and your effectiveness in general would look crazy.
People wouldn't understand why you were getting the promotions, you were You're dating above your station and everything else.
So you would functionally look like you were smarter.
And that's my point. So you didn't think I could do that, did you?
You didn't think I could reframe your IQ up to 185.
And then I just did.
Challenge accepted. All right, that's all for today, YouTube.
