Episode 1915 Scott Adams: Lots Of Good News Today If You Know Where To Look. Come Have Some Fun
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Tim Ryan in front of Fox News audience
Feds may end election betting
Breathing technique relieves anxiety
Harvard racism against Asians and Whites
Israel elections are credible, US elections aren't
New Twitter blue-check cost & advantages
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
There's never been a finer moment or a finer place or a finer time.
And we'll be doing the best live stream you've ever seen in your entire life pretty soon.
And how would you like to take it to another level, a higher dimension, a range in which few people have ever experienced this kind of joy?
Well, all you need to do that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, 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.
It's the dopamine here of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go. I feel like I felt that in all of my...
Extremities. All of them.
I mean all of them.
Well, let's talk about the funny news first.
Andrew Tate has converted to Islam.
Now, I didn't think that was true.
Ha, ha, ha, ha.
And I had to actually research it.
It's actually true.
No, it's true. He actually did.
And there's a video of him prior to converting.
There's a video of him going around saying that ISIS was the only true Islam because they meant what they said.
They would actually kill you if you didn't take the religion seriously.
So he's on record saying the real Islam is ISIS. Now, to be fair, I'm pretty sure that opinion came before the decision to actually convert.
I feel as if he may have modified his opinion since then.
But is it my imagination...
Let me just ask you this.
Is it my imagination that there are some characters who, when they burst on the scene, you can say on day one that it's going to end up on the rocks?
Like, yeah, yeah, that...
Do I? That was a good trick.
All right. So you can look at some people and say, I feel like this is not going to end well.
Now, who knows?
Who knows? Maybe he'll make it work.
Who knows? But since he's one of my mascots, I like to keep track of him.
There's not really much to say about that, is there?
Because now that he's in, he can't really leave, because I think you get a little pressure on you if you try to leave Islam, so he's in there.
Now, at the same time, he's also building some kind of a, I don't know, men's organization movement.
Some people call it a pyramid scheme.
I don't know. I haven't looked into it.
But I have a feeling that that's going to hurt recruitment.
It might hurt recruitment.
All right. Well, I'm seeing in the popular press...
That conservative people have been making jokes about Paul Pelosi, and let me tell you, the popular press says, there's nothing funny about the Paul Pelosi situation.
There's nothing funny about that.
So, do you agree with that?
All right, here is an edge case for the Golden Rule.
Now, I try to live by the golden rule.
Not entirely, because sometimes you have to modify it a little bit for people being different.
But my golden rule says I wouldn't laugh at somebody else unless I would be comfortable, if the situation were reversed, that they would be laughing at me.
And in the Paul Pelosi situation, Of course it's a tragedy, and first we think of the human element, right?
First we're happy that he's going to fully recover, as far as we know.
And it's horrible he had to go through with it.
And by the way, I don't think there's any such thing as fully recovered.
Do you? If you're 82 and you get a fractured skull from a home invasion, you don't fully recover.
You don't. That's not a thing.
Whatever the mental PTSD part of that is...
You know, good luck getting rid of that.
So I'm not sure full recovery is even a real thing except in some strict medical sense.
So, we of course care about the person.
However, having said that, if I were to put myself in this situation, and let me commit to this, I'm going to commit to this publicly, should I ever be attacked by somebody with a hammer, And both the attacker and I are wearing underpants at the time of the attack, and there's no one else in my home, I give you full permission and authority to have fun with that.
I would want you to enjoy that.
Why? Because I love you.
I love you. Do you think I'm going to give you a gift like that and tell you not to open it?
No. No.
If somebody gives you a gift like that, A hammer attack in your underpants?
If you get a gift like that, you get to open it.
I would never deny you that laugh.
So let me say, if anything like that ever happens to me, and let's be honest, if you were going to guess a second person who might die or be attacked by a hammer attack, And is also in his underwear as well as the attacker.
If you tried to guess, gosh, that seems really unlikely that that would happen twice.
But if it did, who would you guess would be a likely candidate for the second person that would happen to?
Well, probably me.
Probably me. I don't know.
Probably me. Just thinking.
And so I tell you in advance, if anything bad happens to me that is also funny, You get my permission.
Have fun with it.
Please, have fun with it.
Now, I do think it's going a little too far You know, with the allegations of the gay sex and stuff, which I don't think has any backing whatsoever, in my opinion.
But that's a different matter.
But have fun with it. I think that we should be allowed to have fun with funny things.
And I can't help it.
If it's funny, if it's funny, it's funny.
I don't make the rules.
All right. Tim Ryan, who is a politician running for...
Governor? Senate.
Against? He's running against J.D. Vance.
For Ohio, exactly.
Have I revealed just how much I follow state politics and other states?
I feel I have.
I feel you know now.
What percentage of the American public could have answered that question?
How many people could have told you there are two candidates running for Senate in Ohio?
You say 25%?
No way. I'll bet it's 3 to 5%, maybe?
3 to 5%? But most of you, if you're watching this live stream, you're probably in the top 5% of people who pay attention to politics.
Anyway, so what's interesting about it is there was a Fox News town hall and Tim Ryan was talking about January 6th and said that a police officer was killed on January 6th, a Capitol Police officer, which every one of us knows is not true.
Would you agree? 100% of the people on this live stream know that that didn't happen, right?
100% of you. I'll bet there's not one person who doesn't know that's a lie.
But do you think Tim Ryan knew?
What do you think? Do you think he knew that that was a lie?
I actually think he didn't.
I actually think he didn't.
And the only reason I think that is because it was an unnecessary thing to say.
And here's what happened.
He said that in front of a live Fox News audience.
How do you think that went? If you didn't see it, how do you think it went when in front of a live Fox News audience he claimed that a Capitol Police officer was killed on January 6th?
The audience went nuts.
They basically just went nuts at him.
Now he pretended like he was just being heckled and it was just generic heckling, but that wasn't generic heckling.
That was the case, correct me if I'm wrong, but do you think that he knew?
Give me your answers. Do you think he knew that he was lying, or that it was a lie?
Do you think he knew it was wrong?
Some of you say yes, and I applaud your skepticism.
And I don't know that you're wrong.
But I'll tell you, he looked like he believed it.
In my opinion, which isn't worth much in this particular case, but my read of the man is he wouldn't have said it in that crowd.
He wouldn't have said it there if he knew it was untrue, because it was a live crowd.
That would have been an obvious mistake.
And he could have ignored that one detail.
His point didn't require it.
So I feel like he actually thought it was true.
Now, How many times have you seen an entire audience being better informed than the politician that they came to see?
When was the last time that ever happened?
Probably every time a Democrat is in front of a Fox News audience.
All the time, right?
Now, you don't have that situation a lot, but about 100% of the politicians who come before a Fox News live audience know less about what's happening in the country than the audience.
And I mean that. I mean that literally.
And I mean that with confidence.
Because when you see that even a major politician doesn't know what the news is, it's because they follow a certain set of news that doesn't tell them the news.
How would they know the news?
If you don't read the news, you don't know the news, right?
It doesn't come to you. I mean, most of the time.
So there's something like some kind of a sign of the times or like an indicator or a canary in the coal mine.
There's something about the fact that the entire audience knew more than the Senate candidate that feels important, doesn't it?
Is it just me? Like that feels like a sign of something.
Right? This should be the point where everybody realizes, wait a minute, are you telling me that the information bubble is so bad that you could run for Senate and not know a basic fact about the most important story for the last year?
I mean, January 6th was treated as the most important story.
And one of the most basic facts about it, he didn't know.
That's incredible. That's really telling us something.
However you think something's gone too far, It's one thing when the public is confused.
But when the politicians themselves don't know what's true, you've got a whole other problem.
That's where we're at. That's where we're at.
Here's just an update, a persuasion update, something I've said before.
So it's not a new thought, but whenever I think of a new persuasive way to frame things, I like to share it with you just to teach you the persuasion part of it.
All right? Now, in my opinion, there are two types of racism.
The old-timey racism, where somebody would say, my people are better than your people.
I'll call that the old-timey Ku Klux Klan kind of direct racism.
And then there's the systemic racism where it's sort of embedded in the system.
I think the teachers' unions being the top example of that.
You could argue what is and what is not in there, but you probably would not argue that whatever is or is not in the systemic part is different from the part that was just in people's minds and souls and hearts.
Now, I think there's very little of the old-timey racism left, meaning I don't know if I ever see it.
Like, I live in Northern California, so maybe it's real different here.
Other people have said they live in the South, and they say, oh yeah, oh yeah, there's like the old kind is there.
Like, there are definitely people just saying all of my people are better than all your people.
That's a real thing. I don't think I've seen it Almost ever, as an adult.
It's very rare. And believe me, people would tell me, right?
People would tell me.
You know, if you're alone in a room with me, you know you can say anything.
People know they can say anything to me alone in a room.
So I would know what they were really thinking.
Nobody would hold back.
But here's my new framing.
This is just about the old-timey racism, not about the systemic stuff.
It's stolen valor.
Stolen valor. If you think you're awesome because you're white, you're kind of saying you're awesome because Ben Franklin invented something.
All right, I'm simplifying.
Just say there are other people that did awesome stuff.
I'm not Ben Franklin.
I don't get any credit for Ben Franklin inventing a light bulb or whatever.
No, I'm sorry. Not Ben Franklin.
But, you know, I don't get credit for anything any white person did.
Do I? And if I took credit for that, it would be stolen valor.
You know, the term we use for people who claim military service but were not actually in the military.
It's stolen valor.
And I think that stolen valor is strong enough that what's left of that old-timey racism, maybe that's enough to stamp it out.
Because if you said to, you know, if you could actually get one of these old-timey racists in a room, and you said, you know, that's kind of stolen valor.
You're kind of taking credit for other people's accomplishments there.
Like, what have you done? Right?
Do black people get credit because Michael Jordan is really good at basketball?
Or was? No.
No, because they're not him.
Right? They can't do what he did.
So they don't get credit.
Anyway. Then I thought, suppose you were going to deal with the systemic racism, and let's say you wanted to do something that was practical and doable, and both sides could agree on.
Here's how I'd do it.
I'd say, Democrats, make a list, a ranked list, of where you think systemic racism is the worst, So we know what to focus on first.
And then the Republicans would make their own list of systemic racism problems.
Now, the Republican list would have at the top teachers' unions.
The teachers' unions prevent competition in schools.
Lack of competition in schools keeps black students at the bottom because they're already in bad schools overall, you know, in general, and nothing's changing that.
So that's what would be at the top of the Republican list.
What would be at the top of the Democrat list?
What would it be? What would be at the top of the Democrat list?
No, for a system that needs to be changed.
Because we're talking about systemic racism.
Not talking about people.
Don't talk about Trump. We're not talking about people.
No people. I think they'd put education at the top.
Am I wrong? So, what would happen to...
Prisons, interesting. You know, prisons would be near the top two, but guess what?
If you put prisons and education at the top of things that need to be fixed, and even maybe police, you could get Republicans and Democrats to largely agree.
Think about it. Suppose your lists were largely different.
Let's say three out of five of the things on your list of the top five things you'd work on were different.
But I'll bet the top two were the same.
Or at least there's top two you could work on.
So if the left and the right wanted to work on things productively, which by the way, I don't think that's the case.
But if they wanted to, the way you would do it is say, make your top five list.
Compare it to our top five lists and say, oh wow, even though the lists are different three out of five, we both have the same two on there.
We both have prisons and Let's say the justice system and education.
Work on those. Work on those.
You've got something to agree on.
So today's overall theme is that the golden age may not be upon us, but it is accessible, meaning it's within reach.
We just got to see it.
Just got to see it and grab it.
There's going to be some more stories on that.
I've told you about the Adams Law of slow-moving disasters, which I developed decades ago, and so far it keeps working.
And the law goes like this.
If humans can see a disaster coming, From far away, we always find a way to survive it and make it no problem.
It's only the sudden problems, like the pandemic.
The pandemic is just, whoa, whoa, sudden problem.
Now, arguably, Bill Gates warned us years in advance that we should have been ready for it, but you can't be ready for a specific virus.
It's hard to be ready for a specific one.
So those are the ones that are really dangerous.
But how are we doing on the ones we could see coming for a while?
Number one would be climate change.
You might agree or disagree the extent of the problem, but would you agree that nuclear energy is now favored by almost everybody who matters?
And that, largely, that's going to be part of the solution.
Would you agree I told you a story.
Well, you don't have to agree with this.
I told you a story that one of the biggest problems with solar panels is the recycling of the old ones.
And there's an entity which has figured out how to recycle 98% of it, which would be a huge solution.
Likewise, on batteries.
Battery storage, there are these huge developments, and some of them don't require rare earth minerals.
So there are battery designs that don't require rare anything.
Now, of course, Elon Musk has noted that those rare minerals exist basically everywhere.
So they're the least rare thing that they are, but we call them rare because they're hard to mine.
But they exist everywhere.
So, would you say that the Adams Law of slow-moving disasters is going to take care of climate change if you assume that that's the problem that we've been told it is?
And I say yes.
I say that everything we're doing from developing CO2 scrubbers to developing every kind of alternative power...
It does look like we're in good shape.
Now, will the temperature go up?
Yes. Will it?
I mean, who knows?
Why? I mean, you could argue that some is natural, some is not.
But yeah, it'll probably go up. Will it wipe out humanity?
Probably not. Probably we'll survive better every year than the year before.
Now, the pandemic set us back a little bit.
But generally, the lifespan of humans and our ability to survive just gets better every year, no matter what else is going on.
Alright, so climate I think is okay.
We were running out of fertilizer, but now there's some stories about at least one big fertilizer maker is ramping up their fertilizer production because the price of gas has come down enough to make that worthwhile.
So I'm still worried about fertilizer.
That's the one that's so unsexy.
We don't talk about it at all.
But it's really, really, really, really a big problem.
Like, it's as big of a problem as you could possibly imagine in human existence.
But I also think we'll solve it.
I think the right people are working on it.
Because it seems to me that if you knew your yield was going to go down, Correct me if I'm wrong, are there not plenty of fields that could be planted that you wouldn't normally plant?
That's true, right? Even in America, I don't know about other countries, but in America, don't we have fields that we don't plant that we could?
Right? So we could kind of ramp up, and let's say two or three years, couldn't we ramp up quite a bit, even if the yield went down per acre?
I don't know. But I think we could.
How about the supply chain?
When was the last time somebody complained about the collapsing supply chain?
Is it fixed?
I can't remember the last time I had a problem because of the supply chain.
It feels like it's sort of...
It's not fixed.
Right, I understand it's not fixed.
But when was the last time it made a difference?
Somebody says diesel is close to collapse.
Diesel fuel is running low.
Now that could be an example of something that snuck up on us.
I haven't even heard of that until then.
Baby formula, cars are expensive.
But the system stretched, didn't it?
The system didn't collapse.
It just adjusted in a million ways.
What about food shortages?
Today we learned that Russia is back on board with shipping grain out of Ukraine, which should help a great deal.
I think we're probably going to make it through the year or two without starving in a mass way.
And I also think that Europe's energy shortages, they'll find a way, you know, apparently Germany already has enough stockpiled gas to get through the winter.
So it looks like All of our long-term obvious problems are heading more toward a solution than not.
Now, fentanyl?
Fentanyl is still an out-of-control problem.
But what would it take for everything to change with fentanyl?
What would it take?
Well, probably Now, somebody told me that there's a popular video game that just came out that features American forces attacking the cartels directly in Mexico.
Can you confirm that?
What's the name of the game? I'm sure somebody knows it.
Is it Destiny 2?
Is it Call of Duty?
Or Modern Warfare?
I don't know which one it is.
I don't do gaming.
There are more people saying Modern Warfare 2 than other things, it looks like.
No, it's Destiny 2.
Alright, well, there's a...
We have a disagreement.
There's slightly more people saying...
I don't know.
I'm getting five different answers here.
Anyway, you can find it pretty easily with a Google search.
But my point is this.
When a video game features America attacking the cartels, what do we know?
What's that tell you? What's it tell you when there could be a video game attacking Mexico?
I'll tell you what it tells you.
There's one thing it might be telling you that I don't know.
Do you remember in the bad old days, it's now confirmed, that the intelligence agencies of the US and the government was definitely influencing movies, To make them propaganda, to make people more patriotic and join the military and all that.
So you would agree that in the past, movies and TV were used by the government To do propaganda on the public.
Agreed? That's a fact that nobody doubts.
There's nobody who's questioning that.
That's within the record.
Okay? Now, if the government were trying to influence modern kids, how would they do it?
Well, they might try to do it on social media, but the trouble is the social media company is a little bit more of a Wild West and there's not much they can do with TikTok.
There's a limit to what you can do, but I'm sure they would try social media.
Yeah, they would use education, for example, but I think they would use video games.
I think they would have to influence the video game industry.
Now, I'm not claiming this happened, but is it a coincidence That we're getting close to having a decision, a national decision about attacking Mexico, the cartels.
We're getting close to having to make that decision, and then suddenly a popular game pops up in which they treat it as a matter of fact.
By matter of fact, I mean they normalized attacking Mexico.
Is it a coincidence that a popular American video game just normalized attacking Mexico?
You think that's a coincidence?
It could be. It totally could be.
I'm just saying that if American history is telling us what's happening now, and I'm not sure it is.
I don't think that history repeats the way historians want to tell us it does.
I just don't think it does.
But this is where you would look.
If you expected some bad behavior by your government to do propaganda on its own citizens, where would you look first?
Video games. That should be the first place you look, right?
Am I wrong? Because video games are so absorbing, I would imagine, you know, everything I know about persuasion tells me, that they would be more influential than other types of media.
Because you don't get immersed.
You know, TikTok's super influential.
Anyway. Benjamin Netanyahu is apparently heading for likely victory in Israel, so he would take the top job again.
Does that feel like foreshadowing?
Does anybody see the return of Netanyahu as feeling like, it's going to be 2016 all over again?
If Netanyahu gets back in office, Is there any chance Trump won't as well?
I feel like...
I feel like Israel's maybe having the same experience that America had.
And it goes like this.
We hate that leader.
That leader is so obnoxious.
That leader is so provocative.
Ah, we hate that leader.
Ah, good, we got rid of that leader.
We sure hated that leader.
And then you realize that the stuff the leader did It was the kind of stuff you liked.
It's just you didn't like the leader.
You know, there was a personality problem or something.
Or the news had framed them in a way that was terrible.
But I feel like Trump and Netanyahu have that same thing.
Remember when Trump left office, I told you, Trump would be more popular every day he was gone.
Because once his personality, like, fades into your mind, then you just get to see what he did.
And what he did was strong.
Very strong, in my opinion.
Yeah.
So, I don't know, it feels like a return to something.
So, Greta Thunberg, Michael Schellenberg had a tweet thread.
Apparently Greta Thunberg is not happy with almost destroying the planet with her climate change activism.
But now she'd like to get rid of the whole capitalist system.
in her words, quote, the whole capitalist system.
Which she says is responsible for the, quote, imperialism, oppression, genocide, racist, oppressive, extractism, extractionism.
I guess that's mining other countries would be the extractionism, I'm guessing.
And what do you think?
Is she correct that the capitalist system is responsible for imperialism, oppression, genocide, racist, oppressive, I'd say yes.
I'd say yes.
Yeah. Yeah. Now, I love my capitalist system, so let me be clear.
I'm pro-capitalist.
But if you say, does it also create the opportunity for these other things, imperialism, repression, genocide, racism, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Do you know what else creates the situation for those things?
Everything else. Right?
Everything else. Because you know why?
Imperialism, oppression, genocide, racism, and oppressive extractionism, those are qualities of humans.
That's not quality of a system.
You could put any human in any system and they still want to do all this stuff.
And they'd still be able to do it.
It would look different.
But it's still all this stuff.
So Greta, probably the most destructive person since Hitler, Would that be fair to say?
Is Greta Thunberg the most destructive global personality since Hitler?
I'm not comparing her to Hitler, because I have a rule against that, because nothing's compared to Hitler.
But I would say second. Second place?
Pol Pot only had six million.
I think Greta will have a bigger...
There's a good chance Greta's body count will be bigger.
Bigger than Stalin?
Hmm. Yeah, Stalin and Mao.
Okay, Stalin and Mao had tens of millions.
Do you think Greta will get over tens of millions?
I think so. I mean, she could.
We hope that we have time to correct.
But in terms of her impact, it has the potential to kill 100 million people.
Would you agree with that? I'm not predicting it will.
I think we'll adjust, because the Adams law of slow-moving disasters, etc.
But she's a risky personality.
She's a pretty risky personality.
Alright, here's the scary story.
Do you know the online betting app Predict It?
I used it when I bet on Trump for 2016.
And apparently the The Commodities Futures Trading Commission is moving to shut it down for political bets.
So they can make it illegal, they'd like to, make it illegal to, or like they shut it down so you can't make political bets.
Now, do you know what reason they gave for getting rid of this popular service that people seem to enjoy?
Well, obviously they gave a reason, right?
So there's a good reason.
There's a good reason. So the reason you'd want to shut down a futures market that's working perfectly and bothering nobody.
And by the way, the predictive markets do sometimes a better job of predicting outcomes than even polls.
But anyway, the commodities futures people gave a good reason for wanting to shut them down.
The reason was... Oh, no reason.
No reason given. No reason given.
No reason given.
Huh. I guess we're left to speculate.
What would be a reason for the government to want to get rid of one of the only independent ways you could check that the polling and the election were not rigged?
Why would they want to get rid of that?
I know I can't think of a reason, can you?
Nothing comes to me. So here is exactly the kind of situation where I say this.
If you give me a reason, you might like it, you might not like it.
But I would say to myself, well, at least, you know, I support this system.
So the system came up with a reason.
The system's doing what it's doing.
If we need to change it later, we will.
But, you know, I don't have to get everything I want, right?
I don't support systems that only give me what I want.
I support systems that kind of keep society together, right?
Because that's a bigger goal.
But here's the thing.
When your system makes a change of this magnitude and doesn't give a reason, you should assume that it's the wrong reason.
Fair? You should assume that the Commodities Futures Trading Commission did not simply forget to tell you the reason.
I don't think they just forgot to tell you.
No. These are fucking criminals.
So let me say it again. As far as I can tell, now this would just be based on their actions that we can see publicly.
As far as I can tell, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission are fucking corrupt criminals.
Now, I can't guarantee it.
So they can't sue me because I'm not saying I know it or I have some inside information.
But that's the signal they've given us.
And unless they change the signal, you're welcome to accept the signal that they gave you.
If somebody walks up to you and says, I'm a murderer, and here's my track record, here's my record of...
You're allowed to believe them.
If somebody tells you who they are, you know, believe them the first time.
You know that thing. So I think you're allowed to hate every member of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission because they've done a huge disservice to this country simply by not showing their work.
Now let me be clear.
I'm not supporting predict it.
I'm saying that if you make a change this big, you're the government, if you make a change this big without a reason, we get to assume it's the worst reason.
And there's no wiggle room on that.
There's no negotiating.
You don't give us a reason, we assume the worst reason.
Do you remember years ago, I got shit for...
Saying that Obama should be impeached because he changed his opinion on going after weed dispensaries in California.
So after he became president, he changed his campaign promise of not going after them and went after them.
Now, that alone is not a problem, if he had reasons.
He didn't give the reason for his change.
If you don't give the reason, we have to assume that he was bought off.
So I've always assumed that Obama is a criminal because he told us he was.
He told us he was.
Now, he could change his message, and I would listen to it, and I would consider it.
But the message he told us directly is that he's corrupt.
And you have to hear this every time a politician changes an important policy and won't give you a reason.
If they won't give you a reason, they are corrupt.
And that's the best case.
That's the best case.
The worst case is they're so fucking incompetent that they don't know that giving you a reason is part of the process.
If they don't even know that giving a reason is important, that's even worse.
I'd rather have a corrupt, competent person in there.
At least you know what's going on.
So, yes, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, every member there is a corrupt piece of shit.
That's what they told us.
That's not my opinion.
That's what they told us to think of them.
And so I accept it.
You have to see a thread by Doc Anarchy.
That's the name he goes by on Twitter, Doc Anarchy.
He's also got a substack in which I need an unauthorized SIP. Unauthorized SIP? Much better.
All right, so, among the things that Doc Anarchy talks about on this thread are the things, a lot of things that you thought were a good science, not so much.
It turns out that there are a number of things that you just thought must have been, you just assumed, was long-settled medical science.
But then you actually look at the science and you're like, uh...
Maybe not. I'll only talk about one element to the threat, but he talks about a number of other conditions, etc.
And did you know that blood pressure medication is highly correlated with lowering your blood pressure?
So the first thing that everybody agrees on is that the pills do lower your blood pressure.
Second thing everybody seems to agree on, no matter what side you're on, that the lowering of your blood pressure is correlated very strongly with lowering of strokes.
Everybody agree? So that part of the science, it seems like everybody agrees, including Doc Anarchy and the studies.
But here's the interesting part.
Blood pressure medication is not associated with all-cause extended mortality.
Did I say that right?
It's not associated with living longer.
So it seems to stop you from some specific problems, But if you look at the all-cause mortality where all the other possible ways you could die, they end up living about the same length of time as anybody else.
Now, I don't know if that means that they live with disability.
You know, I suppose that's the next question.
But here's why I trust that.
You all know my story.
I've told it too many times. So recently I was on blood pressure meds.
I'm not at the moment. And the blood pressure meds were killing me.
Let me say it as clearly as I can.
They were killing me.
And I could feel it.
I could feel it.
And here's what I mean specifically.
They made me have almost non-stop thoughts of suicide.
The moment I stopped them, completely went away.
I haven't even had the slightest inkling of anything like that.
It doesn't even make sense.
Because my day looks fine.
Oh, I'm going to have a good day today.
Yesterday was fine. Tomorrow looks good too.
And the only difference, the only difference was, I stopped the meds for one day.
And then I stayed off, and my mood stayed good the whole time.
So... When I was on meds, I did not care about the quality of my life.
I could not exercise physically.
I mean, I tried really, really hard, but I just couldn't.
And I felt that my vitality, or what would be the word, I was no longer thriving.
What's the word for that? There's like a word for that, right?
Where you're not vigor?
No, there's another word.
Like my vitality, maybe.
Vitality? Something like that?
Yeah. So my sort of purpose for a living, my stamina, my dopamine, all that stuff was gone.
Now, I could tell that I would not have lived as long in that condition.
And one of the other points on Doc Anarchy's Substack Goes to why.
It turns out one of the best things you can do for helping your health and longevity is walking every day.
Just walking every day. That's all it takes.
Do you think I could walk every day when I was on blood pressure meds?
Nope. Now, let me be clear.
All meds are not alike.
There's a whole bunch of different blood pressure meds.
I don't know if one of them would have worked without side effects.
And I don't know if they do or do not work for you.
I'm just telling you my own experience.
And so what do you think would be better?
To lower your blood pressure, let's say 10 points, from let's say 140 to 120 or something.
Do you think that would be better if you could not have exercise for the rest of your life?
I mean, it's not even...
There's an obvious reason.
Why people on blood pressure medicine don't live longer than other people.
It's really obvious. You would die of all the other stuff.
Like every other problem should be slightly magnified because you don't care about living.
Do you know what kind of risks I would have taken a month ago that I would not take today?
There's a big difference. A month ago I would have done something that I knew could have killed me and I wouldn't have given a fuck.
I really wouldn't have.
I would not care one fuck if I died last month.
Did not care. Today?
Today I wouldn't do anything stupid.
Because I feel like, hey, tomorrow will be fun.
I don't want to miss tomorrow.
Yeah. So I recommend it because coming out of the pandemic, I feel like this is a tweet thread that would have been harder to get away with before the pandemic and also before Elon Musk bought Twitter.
And also before Substack, because he could write on Substack.
So, by the way, so let me recommend Dr.
Anarchy's Substack, which you can see more stuff like this.
Now, the reason to read it is you get a lot of contrarian, non-mainstream medical opinions from somebody who's in the mainstream medical world.
So it's pretty useful. Yeah, amlopidine was my med.
That's right. So, my current blood pressure is exactly perfect without any medications.
I have a hypothesis on lowering your blood pressure.
You ready? You've seen a number of techniques that lower your blood pressure, from taking a walk, exercising, a whole bunch of things.
But one of the things that a lot of these things have in common, if you're looking for the pattern, is exhaling.
I feel like the exhale is where you get all your benefits.
There's one technique, I don't know whose it is, one of you will tell me, where you take a big breath and then you exhale, and when it's almost done, you exhale again.
It's like you really empty it.
Try this. Is it Wim Hof?
Is it Wim Hof? Maybe.
But here's what I learned that I feel instantly.
When I do that breathing technique, you can do it any time.
Yeah, you can do it any time.
You could be walking down the street, and you can just go...
When you feel the second exhale, when your lungs are completely empty, feel your sort of anxiety, stress level that's sort of in your chest area.
Completely gone. You can actually feel anxiety, can you not?
Let me ask you this. I feel like I can.
Do you feel anxiety, like, in your body or just your mind?
You feel it in your body, right?
You can make that anxiety feeling that sometimes is with you all day long, you can actually make that completely go away with two exhales.
Now, it doesn't stay that way, but if you can bring yourself down to zero anxiety anytime you want, And I've started doing this multiple times a day.
So instead of sitting in one place, I'll just be walking the dog and I'll just do it a few times.
And I'll just be sitting at my desk.
Sometimes I'll be sitting at my desk and I'll be working.
Take right now, for example.
Since I've been sort of concentrating on what I'm doing for a while, if I were to monitor my body right now, I could feel I've got like a bunch of stress up here, not bad, like pretty mild, and I could feel sort of an elevated, you know, my whole body is elevated because I'm doing this in front of an audience, but I could make that completely go away this fast.
Just watch. Second exhale, totally gone.
Totally gone. Like, my entire body feels completely different than it did 30 seconds ago.
I have a theory that if you did that alone, you wouldn't need blood pressure meds if you're in that, you know, say, the lower end of the high blood pressure range.
Just a hypothesis.
And I'm trying it myself, but I'll bet you, I'll bet you it would work for all of you.
And here's the thing, it works so instantly that it's hard to doubt it.
Like, it works instantly.
All right. And take long walks.
So here's some things we've discovered lately.
Now, we know for sure that our government has colluded with With social media and with the media, right?
So we know the government is colluded with the media.
I'm going to build a little case here, so just, you know, stick that to the side for a second.
Here's a story on CNN who is being what I call woke silly.
I'm going to make that one word.
Woke silly. It's more than woke.
It's where you take wokeness all the way to silly.
Now, let's see if I need to finish...
The point. All right?
So I'm just going to give you the setup, and then I want all of you to complete the hilarious ending of the story.
Okay? Just the setup.
And then I'll be done.
CNN is reporting...
There's a report by the Institute of Diversity in Ethics and Sports.
They found that there are a very low percentage of black major league baseball players And they're feeling that that might be a case of discrimination.
And now, I'd like you to do the rest of it in your minds.
Okay, complete it.
Oh, that's... Oh, God.
Oh! I'm doing it, too.
You can do this at home.
Oh, my God. I guess I showed them.
Oh, look at this point. How about this counterpoint?
All right, you're all doing it, right?
NBA, mostly black.
NFL, mostly black.
Prisons, too much black percentage.
There are all kinds of things that are like that.
Is baseball the one that's the problem?
That sounded racist, but I'm going to allow it as funny.
Alright, I'm going to tell you the joke.
So over on YouTube, somebody says it's the Jews.
That's pretty funny, actually.
I love jokes that when you first hear them, you think, well, is that racist?
But then you have to think about it, and you realize it's the opposite.
It's not. Alright, it's just kidding.
It's not really the Jews.
That was pretty funny. That's a yay callback.
All right.
Well, let me get to the good news.
You ready? 2016, free speech came under attack from wokeness.
Would you agree? Now, you could argue about what year it was, but about 2016, wokeness became this big cloud that made free speech...
Basically went away, right?
2016. Let's fast forward from 2016.
You've got Dave Rubin creating Locals, a place where people like me can go and not be censored, because it's a subscription community.
You've got Glenn Greenwald moving over to Substack, and suddenly he has complete free speech over at Substack.
You've got Elon Musk buying Twitter.
Oh, look at that.
A little bit of free speech.
And Russell Brand has moved over to Rumble.
I don't know if he... Does he still have a YouTube account or not?
But the story is that Rumble is now a serious business, obviously, because Russell Brand has moved and he's a serious content creator.
And what did this do for me?
Add it all together. What did it do for me personally?
What did it do for me?
It returned my free speech.
It returned my free speech.
I feel already that I can say things I couldn't say last year.
Do you know why? Because if I get cancelled, I can go to Locals, I can go to Substack, I can go to Twitter, I can go to Rumble.
Right? I'm fucking free.
I'm free. And you know what did that?
The free market.
The free market.
Now, individuals did it, right?
Thank you, Dave Rubin.
Thank you, Elon Musk.
Thank you, Rumble creators.
Thank you, Substack creators.
It was people that did it.
But those people were operating in the free market.
Just take a moment to savor the beauty of this.
In 1770-whatever, when the founders were building a system, a constitution, and they said, you know, let's have some freedoms in the constitution.
Free market was sort of assumed in the system because it wasn't prevented.
And they built a system to try to last, you know, the ages.
That system, for hundreds of years, supported freedom of speech with ups and downs.
And when it hit a speed bump in 2016, the founders reached through time and space and fixed it because the free market fixed it.
The free market fixed free speech.
And you know what happens if the free market dies or the free market gets broken?
Free speech would fix it.
So you've got free speech that can fix free markets.
You've got free markets that can fix free speech.
It's a self-healing system.
Now, I suppose everything could go wrong at the same time, but we haven't seen it yet.
The beauty of our system is just breathtaking.
It's just breathtaking.
This thing reached through hundreds of years and fixed this problem, right?
How about racism at Harvard?
Racism at Harvard.
If you haven't seen the stats, I had no idea how badly Harvard was discriminating against Asians and white people.
I knew it was bad, but you should see the statistics.
And I'm going to say something that sounds horrible, but I have free speech now so I can say it.
I'm not even sure I'd say this a year ago, but now I have free speech.
If I see a black guy with a Harvard education, I'm going to assume he's not qualified.
Sorry. And is that because I'm a racist?
Nope. That's because that's what Harvard did.
Harvard did that. I didn't do it.
The black guy didn't do it?
What did the black guy do in this hypothetical example?
Did the black guy do anything wrong?
No. No, the black guy did everything right.
The black guy had a chance to go to Harvard, which means he did everything right to prepare.
And, you know, maybe the standards were different, but the black guy did everything right.
I have no problem with the black guy, right?
I just won't assume that he's competent just because he has a Harvard degree.
I would assume the opposite, actually.
I would assume that, oh, I can't really treat this person like an Ivy League person.
Not that I would treat people differently for that.
But am I wrong?
Harvard has actually degraded their own credentials, and I don't know if I could have said that a year ago with, you know, complete freedom.
And also, this lawsuit, which looks like it will go in the direction everybody thinks, that wouldn't have happened unless Trump had been elected, Unless he put conservative justices in there.
That's the only way that was going to get, you know, revised.
I won't say fixed, because people have a different idea of what is right, but it will get revised, I think.
Now again, look at the beauty of the system.
A system built hundreds of years ago by people who didn't even know the internet was coming.
And it reached through all that space and time and fixed, it looks like, it's going to fix this Harvard weirdness.
Pete Hegseth sent their diploma back.
I don't know. If I were Pete Hegseth, I'd be pretty proud that I'm a white guy and I still got into Harvard.
I don't know if he had any help because he was a veteran or anything.
I don't know how that works.
Anyway. But free speech has returned, and it's breathtaking.
Honestly, it is. Here's a small technology that is a giant deal and could change my life entirely.
Tiniest little technology.
So there's an AI that can now read your podcasts, listen to them, and it can index it immediately so that you can search for a content within a podcast.
Now, if I understand it correctly...
You could say, hey, AI, show me where Joe Rogan was talking about ivermectin.
And it should take you right to that time stamp.
Can you imagine that?
Because here's the thing.
A lot of the most free speech people are doing what I'm doing.
I say it in audio, and I keep it in of written form somewhat intentionally.
Did you know that one of the reasons I do this in audio form is to make it less accessible?
I do that intentionally.
Because I only want the people who are willing to put in the work to even hear what I have to say.
You know, the influential people, the people who care.
I don't want the low-information people to even have access to my thoughts.
Because low-information people are only going to cause trouble.
They don't boost anything.
So, at the moment, I'm happy influencing only people who really care enough to find it.
But imagine if people like me Became instantly indexable.
You could search for it.
Just think about that. Every single day, somebody sends me a YouTube video and says, oh, there's something really important in here, and I don't watch them.
Do you know why? Because it's an hour-long video, and I don't know.
I don't know where it is in there.
But all that information that just hits a brick wall, that'll all be unlocked.
The smartest podcasters in the world would have their influence increased by, I don't know, a factor of 100.
Now that's gonna really change things.
Consider my, now here's another technology that I'm sure is available.
Imagine telling an AI to look at all of my live streams and write a book.
Write a book with my name as the author and just read all of my content and then figure out, you know, get rid of the duplicates, put them in themes, and create a book.
Totally doable. Totally doable.
Soon. Let's see.
Oh, here's Joe Moore on Twitter.
He's a good fellow, Joe Moore.
He tweets this. Now, a number of people have been, David Boxhorn is notable, have been pointing out that Israel has very credible elections, and it's because they keep it really simple.
My understanding is that one person walks into a room to vote, nobody else is there but that person and a bunch of observers.
And it's a paper ballot, and the paper ballots never leave the room, And they get counted by, you know, observers from all sides within the room.
So basically, they've created a system where it's nearly impossible to cheat.
America has created a system where it's possible to cheat.
You might get caught, etc., but it's possible.
Now let me ask you this. If we know there's a system that would be easy to reproduce, which is just one person in the room and people witnessing, if we know it's easy to reproduce a nearly foolproof voting system, but we choose not to, we choose not to, what's that tell you?
Well, that's a choice.
That's a choice. It's not an accident.
The only thing you can conclude from this is that both Democrats and Republicans want the option of cheating.
There's no other way to interpret that.
Am I wrong? That both sides want the option of cheating.
Because remember that, you know, within a state, if one side has control of the election management, they want to keep it.
They want to keep everything the way it is if it's working for them.
So we do have a system that's designed for cheating, interestingly.
Let's talk about Twitter. Here is the current preliminary thinking from Musk, and I am blown away by the speed of execution, which again is the new CEO play, where you go in and you make some important changes right away and everybody says, oh, there's a leader who means business.
And that first impression really just stays.
So the first impression is just awesome in terms of, let's say, credible management.
Here's one thing we haven't seen yet from Elon Musk that you're seeing with Twitter.
We've never watched him build a company, because most of it happens in meetings.
But he's actually managing Twitter in public, very much in public, because he's asking our opinion at every move, which is the most amazing thing I've ever seen.
Have you ever seen anybody develop a product in person, in public, What about this?
Alright, you don't like that? How about this?
It's incredible. But here are some of the things that look likely.
He's thinking he wants to charge $8 per month to get people a blue check, but a blue check wouldn't mean what it used to mean.
Under the New World, anybody could pay to get verified, I guess, through some kinds of steps.
It would level the playing field more so they're not special blue check people and paupers, I guess he calls it.
But here are some of the things you get for your $8 per month.
Priority and replies.
I don't know what that means, but my guess is that my reply would be at the top of the reply list.
Would you guess that's what that means?
Because that would make me happy.
I'd be happy to be at the top of the reply list.
Because that means that people who were not verified to be real people, they might be bots, they might be just troublemakers, would automatically be lower in the list.
I would pay $8 a month for that.
Totally. Because it would, not just for my own comments, but to get rid of other people's comments and get them lower in the list.
So if that's what that means, I like it.
If it means something else, I might like it as well.
He says, ability to post long video and audio.
Well, of course.
Of course. Why can't I already do that?
Is there some reason that Twitter limits the length of my audio?
Let me ask you, do you know how many times I have tried to post what I thought was a short video to Twitter that I thought was awesome, like something I made myself, and I couldn't do it?
Like, I hit that limit, like, oh, shit, that limit again.
I would totally pay for that.
Absolutely. If you create content, you would pay for that.
Half as many ads.
Now, that's pretty cheeky.
Half as many ads.
I would definitely pay for no ads, but would I pay for half as many?
Damn it, I would.
Damn it? Damn it, I would.
Yeah, and I hate that, because I'll still see ads.
I would prefer being able to, you know, I'd rather pay $9 a month for no ads.
But I can't say that the ads on Twitter have ever bothered me.
Which is why Twitter doesn't make money, right?
If Twitter bothered me more with ads the way YouTube would, if you don't have a, you know, the red tube thing.
Yeah. I mean, I'm not really bothered by YouTube ads at all.
But I'll take less.
That'd be good too. Fewer.
There would also be, Elon says, an extra tag for public figures, which I think is hilarious.
So now, instead of just a blue check, which sort of suggests I'm a public figure, but, you know, there are lots of people who are not so public who have blue checks, you'd have the blue check plus an extra tag for a public figure.
Question, am I a public figure under this framing of things?
It's not just politicians, right?
Because politicians was the example given, but I think I'm a public figure.
I think so. Do you know what this would...
All it's going to do is instead of bragging or feeling good that I have a blue check, I'm just going to brag and feel good that I have a blue check plus an extra tag.
So instead of being the blue check douchebags, of which I'm a member, I will no longer be a blue check douchebag.
I'll be a blue check plus an extra tag.
Douchebag. And I look forward to joining that crowd.
And here's a really good one.
He suggests that they're thinking about a paywall bypass for publishers willing to work with Twitter.
Meaning, how many times today have you clicked on a link to a site that you couldn't read because it's a subscription site?
Three times today?
I think for me.
Like, all day long I'm clicking on things I can't read.
Now, imagine if all of those publishers could make a deal with Twitter where you can read it if you come from Twitter, but they get a penny and Twitter gets a penny or something like that.
I don't know. I feel like the publishers would make more money.
Wouldn't they? I feel like they would.
That seems like a great idea.
And I also don't know why it doesn't already exist.
And then somebody asked if, asked Musk on Twitter, do you think you could get some scientific journals on board too?
And he said, I think so.
Now, again, I just have to back up for a moment and just marvel at what we're watching in real time.
The person who asked that question is just a Twitter user.
Like it wasn't some famous person.
It was just a Twitter user.
Says, do you think you could get some scientific journals on board too so that you could see them past the paywall?
And he says, I think so.
Since when does the owner of a gigantic company entertain an idea in public and say, I think so?
Like the fact that he didn't say, I'll look into it.
Look at the difference between I think so and I'll look into it.
Do you feel that difference? I think so.
Like gives you an actual window into his mind.
You know exactly what he knows and where he's going.
I love that.
The transparency of his thinking process as he does it.
Like in real time.
You're getting the equivalent of an MBA just by watching Elon Musk work in public.
You are. Because you're seeing business model after business model.
You're seeing all the constraints being brought into the fore.
You're seeing the competitive situation.
You're seeing how he deals with the government.
You're seeing how he's replacing his marketing department with himself tweeting.
You're seeing how he can integrate one company into a group of companies.
You see how he manages public opinion.
This is an MBA. If you're not watching this, you're missing the best show on earth right now.
Just in the same way that Trump was an advanced degree in persuasion in psychology.
Like, if you watch Trump, you learn stuff.
You learned. If you were open to learning, you learned.
And if you watch Musk, you're learning.
You're learning how to run a business, how to be an entrepreneur, just by watching this thought process.
Most amazing thing...
It's just amazing.
Just amazing. And how much better would the world be if you went to Twitter and you could actually see an actual scientific journal?
Of course, there's a problem whether we trust them, but it's pretty amazing stuff.
Anyway, I think...
That we have proved the genius of the founders of America.
They've shown us that their system can survive.
Assaults on free speech, because free markets have fixed it.
And we've seen that the Adams Law of slow-moving disasters continues to do its thing.
And I think We are entering a really good phase.
Now, will the stock market take a huge hit?
Yes. If that bothers you, then you are in the stock market for the wrong reason, or you're nearing retirement, which would be bad timing.
The stock market is supposed to take a big hit.
That's because everything's working the way it's supposed to.
The stock market got way ahead of itself.
And now it's adjusting to where it needs to be.
That's not bad news.
That's good news.
That means everything's working the way it's supposed to.
Free markets, the adjustments, the, you know, everything, balancing everything out.
You're watching a system correction like you've never seen before.
I believe that the fake news, which was a big system problem, Was essentially broken by Trump, but then the fake news broke Trump in return.
Kicked him out of office.
But he's back.
And Trump is going to come back and finish off fake news.
Along with Elon Musk, and along with Substack, and along with Locals, along with Rumble, along with Parler and Getter, and the other stuff.
So, ever notice that Scott's moods track the stock market?
Eh, a little bit.
But not so much.
Because I think the market is poised to go lower today, but I'm in a very good mood.
So that would be a counter example.
Love that Trump is being quiet, Linda says.
You know, I think Trump may have learned something from Biden.
Because the only way Trump can lose is by talking.
Am I right? Yeah, he could say something that could get him disqualified, but if he just says, I'm going to do exactly what you think I'm going to do, stay tuned.
It would be hard for him to lose.
All right. So, we're on the right track.
America is getting ready to adjust.
Would you say that wokeness is on the way out?
Yes, but like many things, some of it will be permanent, but not the worst of it.
So I think wokeness is on the way out.
How about ESG, which is part of wokeness?
ESG is being assailed.
It's on the ropes. What about defund the police?
Dead. Nuclear power, up.
At the moment, it's hard to think of anything that's not trending in the right direction.
Again, the economy and the inflation, they have to do what they have to do.
So think of the economy sort of like a machine, right?
When you defrag your computer, I don't think anybody does that anymore, but when you do maintenance on your computer, you don't say, my computer is worthless.
You say, oh, this is the maintenance I have to do.
So our economy is in a maintenance mode.
That's the best way to think of it.
The economy's in maintenance mode, and it's going to stay a little bit less available for our benefit than we'd like for a while.
And then when it gets in a maintenance mode, it will go up again.
That's exactly how it's designed to go.
Now, there is one thing that is not trending right, which is fentanyl.
But do you know what fixes fentanyl?
Trump. And if I were Trump, I would run for office saying, the cartels better get into that business before Election Day.
There's a story that I don't believe that goes like this.
That when Trump talked to Putin, he told them if Putin got adventurous with Ukraine, that he would attack Moscow.
And, oh wait, it gets better.
Now, I'm not saying I believe it.
That's just a report. And then there's a report that Trump, when he talked to Xi, he told China that if they took Taiwan, he'd attack Beijing.
Now, I don't think those are credible reports.
But, is it believable?
Yeah, it is. Yeah, it is.
I'm not going to say I believe it.
That's going too far.
Because I don't think anybody has credible reporting from secret conversations.
But it does sound like something he might say, doesn't it?
And if Trump said, cartels?
Trump could actually put a death date on the cartels.
You could say, you know, there's this many days until election and then inauguration.
So I'd pick inauguration date as the date.
Inauguration date, 2025.
If the cartels are not out of the business, I'm going to take them out.
What would happen? If you gave the cartels two years to get out of the fentanyl business, but not the other business, right?
That's still going to be a cat and mouse game.
But if you said, look, that's a line.
You cross that line, we're going to level you.
Just give them a two-year notice and say, you're actually just going to disappear in two years.
So you've got time to change things, but you're going to disappear in two years.
They would assassinate him.
You know, I do worry about Trump's safety.
Not when he's out of office, but, yeah, in general, he's one that is provocative, so...
You never know.
Now, it could be that the reason that our government has never attacked the cartels is that the leaders are afraid.
That's possible. I don't know that that would affect Trump, though.
Trump might be the one political leader who would say, "Yeah, they might come after me." And then just do it anyway.
All right.
Who is Robert Barnes?
Somebody keeps asking.
You don't know who Robert Barnes is?
Well, let me introduce you to the left-leaning audience.
There are some personalities and content makers of the left that are unusually highly credible.
Robert Barnes would be in the highly credible area for a lawyer who's more associated with the right.
So you should know, there's some people you should know, and Barnes is one of them.
I like the fact that the political right has developed a number of credible people.
Have you noticed that?
There's a bunch of people on the political right who are not, like, necessarily classically, you know, full Republican or anything like that.
It's not so much that they're Republican, it's just they're, you know, willing to fully evaluate the right's opinions.
So I would say Jonathan Turley would be very high up in that category.
Very credible. Britt Hume, very credible.
Tucker's more provocative.
That's a different situation.
Tucker's a national treasure, but he's a little more in the political vein.
Jordan Peterson is interesting for lots of reasons.
Glenn Greenwell, yeah.
So there's a number of people that you can follow on the right that would never embarrass you.
You know what I mean?
Like, there's some characters, if you, you know, associate with them, you say, oh, God, you did that?
And then you have to explain away why you ever liked them in the first place.
But there's a whole bunch of people on the right who just aren't like that.
They're just actually legitimate, you know, people.
Yeah, Megyn Kelly.
I'm seeing other names go by.
Gad Saad, Geraldo.
Geraldo's a... I wouldn't call him a voice on the right.
He associates with the left.
He just likes Trump. And he's also open-minded.
Yeah. I saw Dana Perino go by as a name.
I saw Greg Goffeld, famously more open-minded than a lot of the TV people.
Victor David Hanson is recommended, of course.
So if you wanted to see what the, let's say, most intellectual members of the right are saying, then you'd want to follow Victor David Hanson, yes.
I don't know if he's as, let's say, flexible about any benefits that are happening on the left.
I don't know if that's the case.
So just be aware of that.
John Stossel, good example.
Open-minded, not associated with one side, you know, in a crazy way.
Rick Wilson. Thomas Sowell is another Thomas Sowell.
You know, we should make a list.
That would be interesting. I guess we'd never agree on the list.
But there should be a list of people you could listen to on the right without having your head explode.
How about that? How about that?
If you could give people on the left a reading list or a follow list that's like, okay, we get how Trump makes you crazy, right?
We get how Mike Cernovich might make you crazy.
But here's a list of people who won't make you crazy who just say things that are compatible with the right.
So if you want to see what the reasonable arguments look like, follow this group.
That would be really useful, wouldn't it?
I don't know if I'd make the list or not.
Mike Rowe? Do you know Mike Rowe's politics?
I don't. Would you even associate Mike Rowe with the right?
I don't think it's fair to say that a guy who thinks that work is respectable is necessarily a Republican.
Well, that's gone too far.
I'm almost positive there are Democrats who value work.
Almost positive.
All right. Yeah, micro seems more like the common sense middle type of person.
Tyrus. Tyrus is an interesting voice.
You have to be careful about the people who are not as established yet.
So Tyrus is doing a great job managing his career.
And if you're watching that, it's real fun to watch.
Just watching how he's putting the pieces together and becoming, you know, a substantial voice from, you know, maybe being more of a stunt casting to actually becoming substantial now and contributing to other shows, etc. So that's a real fun...
It's real fun to watch that growth.
He's doing a great job.
Like Jesse Waters did.
I'm going to go.
All right. I think that's all I got for today.
Sticks and hammers, a good recommendation.
Clay Davis, Tulsi, yeah.
You could actually have a very long list of reasonable people who lean right, who are not necessarily even Republicans, right?
