Episode 1955 Scott Adams: Fusion Energy, Here At Last? And Everything Twitter Did Was Illegal Or Not
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Hunter's laptop indexed, made public
Twitter crowdfunded debates
Fusion energy might be economical
Another reason to ban TikTok
Elon Musk on wokeness & pronouns
Whiteboard: How The World Works
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 the Highlight of Civilization.
Today's show will be extra special because yesterday I did something that was unprecedented.
I'm not sure, but I think I slept almost seven hours last night.
The last time I did that, I might have been in my 20s.
I don't think I've done it since my 20s.
And I feel completely different.
I mean, I feel like a whole different person.
Weird, I know. But let's take that energy up a little bit.
I'll share it with all of you.
In case anybody's a little low energy today, I've got some for you.
I get extra. And the whiteboard behind me?
Yes, we will be going into full whiteboard supremacist mode.
No, it's not as bad as you think.
It's poorly branded.
I get that. I get that.
I didn't put a lot of work into the branding.
Maybe I can work on that later.
But for now, it's whiteboard supremacy?
Well, yeah, that's really a bad name.
All right, we're going to work on that.
But while we're doing it, if you'd like to take your experience up a notch, All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass or a tank or a chalice or a canteen drink 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.
It's the dopamine of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
You wouldn't even need a whiteboard for this day.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now. Go. Ah.
I'm being told in the comments That there's now a Scott Adams Fans Discord site.
Did I read that right?
Or is it about coffee with Scott Adams?
Anyway, the link is over on the local site.
If anybody wants to put that link on the YouTube site for them, that would be great.
Some of you are on both.
Is that where all the nudes are uploaded?
Yes, you can see all of my nudes.
Apparently we hear that, I heard this yesterday, I didn't realize it, that Hunter Biden had maybe 25,000 pictures of genitalia, mostly his own.
He seemed very, very proud of his own junk, and that's no crime.
Because he's probably not the only person who ever stood in the mirror and took a picture.
Even 25,000.
I might know somebody who took 25,000 pictures of themselves.
That would be everybody on Instagram.
Anyway, we'll talk about that.
Let's talk about it now.
So yesterday I was alerted to a Kim.com Spaces event where people can do voice conversation on Twitter.
And they had with them an individual, Garrett somebody, whose last name I didn't catch, who was apparently, is it Garrett Ziegler?
I'm just looking at the comments as I go by.
I don't have any way to validate or put a credibility ranking on what I heard.
So I don't have a good sense of how credible any of this was.
But I'll tell you that if you didn't hear the other side of it, and that's always the problem, right?
If you hear one side of anything, You should discount it a little bit.
You've got to hear the other side.
And we haven't really heard any kind of defense from the Hunter Biden team.
I mean, other than they claimed falsely it was Russian disinformation.
But beyond that, I haven't seen anything other than, hey, there's no evidence.
I think that's the defense is, no, there's nothing there.
Nothing to see. So that's about it.
But let me give you my impression of it.
If most of what I heard on those spaces was right, the government is a deep criminal organization and the Biden family have been criminals for decades.
Like serious criminals.
Like really serious criminals.
Now that's the claim.
And the evidence for that is the laptop itself.
So nothing, I don't believe anything was added to the conversation, but the exact stuff on the laptop.
So what this individual did, Garrett, was he, let's say, indexed the laptop.
I think that's the best way to say it.
So if you wanted to see any topic, they've got an index that will point to all the various places within, you know, a zillion documents that you would see some reference to it.
So now that it's indexed, And it's also public.
So the entire laptop contents with no editing are available through some site that he had published.
So you can now go look at every base source yourself, and you can also see it in the most organized way, because it's now indexed, so you can go right to the parts that matter, even if they're in different places.
So somebody needs to probably post the In the comments where the links are.
I don't have that myself.
I would do it myself, but I don't have them.
Now, here's my caution.
I don't know how much credibility to put in that.
I don't. I mean, these are people I'm not familiar with, at least in terms of their credibility.
So I don't know. I don't know.
But it's really interesting because the evidence seems fairly solid.
But that's always the case when you only hear one side.
Do you remember my story about watching the two competing documentaries on the question of whether Michael Jackson had sexually abused underaged kids?
So I watched the first one, and it made the claim that there's tons of evidence and witnesses and, you know, whistleblowers.
No pun intended. Who are saying, yes, definitely happened.
No doubt about it. So I watched that documentary, and man, it was convincing.
Totally convincing. When I was done with that, I was like, whoa, that blew my mind.
He's so guilty. Then another documentary came out to debunk the first one.
So I said to myself, well, there's no way they're going to pull that off, because I just watched something that's so convincing.
What could you possibly say about it?
And then I watched it, and it was 100% convincing that Michael Jackson was innocent and was framed.
100%. Now, which of those two positions do I take?
I've seen two documentaries, and they were both 100% convincing.
Like, really, really convincing.
And the only conclusion I can take is I don't know.
Innocent until proven guilty.
You know, it's not very comfortable, because if he is guilty, it's pretty horrible.
But... But I don't see it.
Unfortunately, what is presented to the public is two completely convincing arguments that are opposites.
So I don't know. So when you watch, when you see this presentation, if you follow up in the Kim.com spaces thing and Garrett's take, it's all very useful because he's indexing a real thing and he's showing his work, it's all transparent. Very useful.
But you haven't heard the other side.
You just haven't heard the other side.
But things that we know are reported are that the Bidens did do the so-called mafia talk.
You know, the mafia talk where you don't say the crime directly, but it's pretty obvious, as in 10% for the big guy, that sort of thing.
And Joe Biden's brother saying that what they were involved with was, what's the word, deniability?
Feasible deniability.
What's that phrase? Plausible deniability.
They actually used the phrase.
Biden's brother actually said they're engaged in plausible deniability.
That's like as close as you can get to a mafia talk confession of a crime.
But it isn't. It isn't.
That's just somebody talking.
And, you know, it's hearsay by the time you get it.
So, I don't know what's true, but I'll tell you, my bias...
It's just screaming that they're a criminal organization.
Just screaming it.
But I'm trying to use that little tiny remaining critical part of my brain, whatever's left of it, to say, It's not proven.
You haven't seen the other side.
Wait until you see the other side.
Remember the Michael Jackson thing?
You got fooled by that.
Remember you fell for the Covington kids hoax until you saw the other video that totally debunked it.
So, unfortunately, we are a species that can be fooled very easily by circumstantial evidence.
So, yeah, even with the Tony Bobulinski...
Information, even with the laptop, you still...
It's hard.
It's hard. But you still have to hear the other side.
You just have to. There's no...
There's just no way around that because there's so many cases when you thought there couldn't be another side.
There just couldn't be another side.
And then there was. And then there was.
You've all had the experience, right?
You've all had the experience of being convinced there could not be another side to the story, and then there was.
If you had never had that experience, it would be a very different situation.
But we all have. We've all had the same experience.
So I feel like I'm the only person in the whole world who's defending innocent until proven guilty.
I mean... And I'm doing it under the cloud of being really, really certain that they look guilty.
But still.
But still. So, that's sort of my theme for the day, is innocent until proven guilty.
Yesterday, some folks on the local subscription service suggested that I suggest to Elon Musk using my big ol' Twitter account that Twitter should host debates And maybe they should be crowdfunded debates where any Twitter user could say, hey, I'd like to see these two people debate.
And they start a crowdfund.
And then if those two people both accept the debate, you share the money.
So Twitter would make its, you know, let's say 30% or whatever.
And maybe the host plus anybody involved would give some share.
And then it's just the free market.
Then the free market just creates whatever you want it to create.
I saw somebody say, Scott, you know, me, and Keith Olbermann.
I would do that debate if enough money was involved.
Sure. I mean, I would do it for fun, but I would also do it because I like money.
If I could spend an hour doing something I wanted to do anyway and get money for it, of course I would.
Of course I would. Would he?
I don't know. Maybe.
So I guess the bigger point about that is not whether that debate thing will ever happen.
The bigger point is the mechanism.
So this small group of people on the Locos platform can communicate to me, and then, since I'm a high-visibility kind of person, I can get to whoever they need me to get to with at least a suggestion.
Now, did Elon Musk see the suggestion?
I don't know. But he's very active and seems to read a lot of stuff that references him.
Maybe. I mean, I would think he looks at the bigger accounts and what they say.
So that might have worked.
We'll see if anything comes of it.
You want to hear the best news ever?
That's a big claim, isn't it?
The best news ever.
That's my claim. My claim is that there will never be news, maybe in the history of the world, that will ever be as good as this following news.
Fusion looks economical.
We don't know, so don't get too excited.
There's some uncertainty here.
But my neighbors down the road...
Literally, e-bike distance from where I live, just down that way.
No, actually, down that way.
Yeah, down that way. They figured out, they did an experiment with nuclear fusion, and it created more energy than it took to create the effect.
It actually was net positive.
Now, they have not announced it.
This is based on insiders talking to some sources.
There are also indications in the same articles that Lawrence Livermore is not confirming it yet.
So it's not confirmed.
But the insiders are confirming it.
Now, I don't know if the insiders are right.
Maybe we'll be disappointed like the last...
Oh, have we ever been disappointed by an optimistic fusion energy story?
Has that ever happened, oh, 4,000 fucking times?
It's like the most repeatable fake news of all fake news.
Hey, they got that fusion to work.
Tuesday, oh no, Wednesday, no, it wasn't.
Thursday, hey, they got that fusion to work.
Oh no, it turns out not so much.
It's basically Charlie Brown kicking the football.
However, everything that worked...
Started as something that didn't work, and sometimes for a long time.
Are you following quantum computing?
How long have they been talking about quantum computing?
But it's actually now being used for actual applications.
How about flying cars?
Talking about it forever, right?
But you can buy one.
There are designs that totally work.
They're sort of like the hobby drones with the four little helicopter things that are kind of protected.
And the only thing that they needed was to have better batteries and better computing so that the computer can keep it stable.
And we have those things.
Now, it may not be economically viable yet, But you can actually invest in a real thing that could actually be built, and if they built it, it would actually fly.
And it would do exactly what they say.
So that's all real now.
So on one hand, you have to be really skeptical about a claim that's been wrong 4,000 times in a row.
We all get that, right?
Still, You cannot turn off my optimism because I've had over seven hours of sleep last night.
There's nothing you can do to me.
I'm invulnerable.
Yeah, you can try your negativity on me, but it's just going to bounce right off.
It's like it's not even there.
Yeah, I'm invulnerable today.
That's what a good night of sleep will do for you.
So I'm going to say that my neighbors down the road have pulled it off.
And we might find out that later.
And if I'm wrong, it will be the 4001th time I was wrong about this time is real.
So hold your breath.
Hold your breath on that.
Well, I got a little pushback on my claim that Fusion might finally be here, because I said, stop making fun of California.
My neighbors just saved the world by cracking Fusion.
But a Twitter account called Christy Land, and Christy said, that's California's tragic flaw.
Aww. She said, brilliant people, thank you, but they espouse luxury beliefs that increase their own social status, but also harm the lowest class.
Thank you, Rob Henderson, for putting into words something I've been bothered about since the 90s.
So the claim is that Californians might do some good things, such as saving the entire world, Maybe, with fusion.
But they also have a bad habit of espousing so-called luxury beliefs.
A luxury belief would be sort of a woke kind of thing you believe because it doesn't hurt you.
But it might hurt other people.
Might hurt other people. So if you're rich, for example, you might say, let all those immigrants in, because then you look like an awesome, open-minded person.
But you're not the one who's going to suffer.
You just get free workers or inexpensive workers.
Other people might suffer.
So that would be a luxury belief.
Yeah, it's a luxury that I can say, let all of the immigrants in who want to come.
Let them all in.
Because if I'm an elite, it's just free gardening.
It's all good for me.
Luxury belief. So I didn't take that well.
And so I don't know if you've heard it yet, but I had seven hours of sleep last night.
Nothing could affect me.
No argument can penetrate my armor.
And so I said...
Do you know the last time I had a private conversation with a Californian who embraced wokeness?
Never. Not once.
Not a single time.
There is not one person I've ever I've never ever spoken to privately when nobody else is there.
Not one person has been even a little bit supportive of wokeness.
Not a single one in my entire life.
Not one. I live in Northern California.
I live in the middle of the supposedly bluest place in the world.
Never met one. Never met one.
If I sparked a conversation at Starbucks with a barista, I would get a different response.
So my filter is people who talk to me.
That's a very limited filter.
I suppose I get an argument.
There surely are people who do have that feeling.
But the people that I tend to associate with are what kind of people?
Who is it, do you think, that finds their way to me?
High IQ people.
I just tweeted before I went live that above a certain IQ, wokeness just doesn't exist.
It doesn't. And the people who tend to seek me out and end up having private conversations tend to be unusually high IQ people.
They're CEOs. They're the most successful investors.
They're literally famous people that you've heard of.
They're very smart people.
And among the highest IQ people, behind closed doors, there is zero support for any wokeness.
None. I've never seen it.
Now, if I go down the IQ... Latter, do I find people who argue vigorously in favor of wokeness?
Yes, I would. Yes, I would.
But I have almost no contact with them.
If you took a, if you gave my entire neighborhood an SAT test, you'd be really impressed.
My neighborhood could just fucking kill an SAT test.
Pretty much every house on this block has somebody in it who's probably top 2%.
Now that's, of course, I live in a strange neighborhood.
That's not usual. But that's my claim.
My claim is above a certain IQ, there is no wokeness, behind closed doors.
Now publicly, there are plenty of smart people who speak in woke terms.
Plenty. Not behind closed doors.
Doesn't happen. All right.
Here's a reason to ban TikTok if you didn't already have one.
Machiavelli's Underbelly account on Twitter tells us he tried to infect TikTok a little with counter-propaganda.
In other words, he tried to put something on TikTok that would be counter to TikTok's presumed social wokeness agenda.
And it was a deep fake, but not one that was trying to look like the actual character.
So it was a CGI, AI kind of version of Trump saying some things like Trump would say them.
But it was not created to make you think it was real.
It was too cartoonish.
And TikTok did not allow it on there because they disallow deep fakes.
So their policy is no deep fakes.
So when this content went on there, there was obviously a cartoon.
It wasn't even close to trying to look like a real person.
They stopped it under the policy of deepfakes.
Now, do you imagine that there are any deepfakes on TikTok That are supportive of their presumed social preferences that are not banned, despite being deep fakes.
Of course there are. Of course there are.
Yeah. So their enforcement is quite unambiguously non-even-handed.
Now, if an American company did this, I wouldn't like it.
I wouldn't like it at all.
Because their finger would be on the scale.
We don't like that.
But if a Chinese company proves to you that they can change the narrative, and then they do it right in front of you, this would be an example of them using their own rules to accomplish that.
That's a weapon of mass destruction.
The level of influence that TikTok has is already...
Enough to destroy a country.
You can bring down a government with what TikTok already can do.
Now, I haven't seen them weaponize it to the point where it's obvious they're trying to do that, because I think that would be a little showing their hand a little bit too much.
But they do have already the power to completely change our system.
And we still allow that.
Yet there's no member of Congress who wants to keep TikTok, and they won't get rid of it.
Do you need any evidence of Biden corruption?
See, here's a perfect example where you have to assume corruption because governments are guilty until proven innocent.
It's not the other way around.
So if you look at a situation where everybody in the government seems to be on the same side of banning TikTok, and yet it doesn't happen because the Biden administration's slow-walking it, because that's what's happening, they're slow-walking it, what are you supposed to conclude?
There's only one conclusion.
Is there not? Well, I guess incompetence would be another conclusion.
But you have either incompetence or you have the Bidens are beholden to the Chinese government in a way that may have something to do with Hunter's business dealings.
Maybe. Now, we don't know.
Maybe it's something ordinary in the bureaucratic process.
Without transparency, so we can see if it's the bureaucracy or is it some kind of a Biden corruption thing, if you don't have that, what is the fair assumption?
Corruption. As a good citizen, you should assume, publicly and privately, that you're seeing corruption in an overt, non-disguised form.
Because if they wanted to debunk it, They could just say, oh, let me explain why it's delayed.
And you can check it yourself.
It's delayed because, let's say, this committee is working on it or something.
And you could talk to the committee, find out for yourself.
And they will confirm. The only reason it's delayed is they have this process and it takes a long time.
Something like that. Wouldn't it be easy, super easy, for somebody in the Biden administration to say, oh, yes, yes, everybody wants this ban, but it just takes longer than you think, because, you know, that's the way government works.
I might even accept that.
I mean, as an indication of incompetence over corruption.
But when you have no explanation...
Your default has to be, as a good citizen who's just trying to call balls and strikes, you have to assume guilt.
It's not proven, but it has to be your active assumption.
You should vote on that basis.
Vote on that basis.
Now, that's a little different than the accusations against Trump, right?
Because the accusations about Trump, they kind of need to...
Work in a court of law, and so far they haven't.
That's really all you know about that.
Well, what else is going on?
Quite a bit, actually. I saw that some Democrats are canceling their Tesla orders because they're so angry at Elon Musk because yesterday he tweeted that his pronouns are prosecute and Fauci.
Elon Musk actually tweeted prosecute and Fauci.
Now, I have a problem with that.
I have a problem with that.
I do love The transparency.
I do love that we see Elon Musk unfiltered.
It's just so entertaining and probably useful, too.
Because you do feel like you're getting the real story because of the lack of filtering.
But when you see the richest person in the world who also owns Twitter suggest that an individual American should be prosecuted...
That feels uncomfortable to me.
Does anybody else have the same feeling?
It shouldn't be illegal, because he's got freedom of speech, but it feels uncomfortable to me.
That's not exactly where I think His best service to the country lives.
But at the same time, it's freedom of speech and it's an honest opinion.
It's an important topic.
You know, I can see it both ways.
You can see it both ways.
I would just, I guess, it's dumb to try to give advice to Elon Musk, right?
Because it kind of puts you in like you're some superior brain or something, which is sort of an absurd assumption.
So I could say that if it were me, I would be pulling back on accusations about individuals.
But accusations about entities, totally fair.
And certainly accusations about past Twitter employees, that's right in his strike zone, so that's okay too.
You say you disagree because he's speaking for a conservative majority.
I'm not opposed to his freedom of speech.
I'm not opposed to...
I don't say it should be illegal.
I just think as a citizen of the country, there probably are plenty of people who are making the case, and there are.
I mean, social media is full of calls for prosecuting Fauci.
It's just I don't like to see somebody with that much power use it against an individual citizen.
It was bad enough when we saw the Yoel Roth campaign Noth, or whatever, when we saw his college PhD paper, which apparently has been removed.
I don't think he gets access anymore.
That was uncomfortable to me, but at least it was right on target with what everybody cared about, and he had promised us transparency.
So I think that was acceptable, even if uncomfortable.
Uncomfortable doesn't mean you need to ban it.
We live in a world that is routinely uncomfortable in lots of ways.
We just have to deal with that.
All right, the other thing that Elon Musk said is that the woke mind virus is either defeated or nothing else matters.
And, you know, Democrats see this sort of talk, and one of them, I didn't care who it was, said he was going to cancel his Tesla order.
He said he already did. He just canceled his Tesla order because of Elon Musk hating wokeness.
Now, this creates an interesting situation.
Very interesting. It turns out that in about two to three years, we will be able to identify Democrats because they're driving shitty electric cars.
Because everybody who was going to get a Tesla, who decided to get a competing electric car, is going to be driving around in a shitty electric car.
So we're about three years away from conservatives driving down the street in their new Tesla and looking over at the non-Tesla electric car, you know, the Chevy Volt or whatever it is like.
Democrat. Democrat.
Democrat. The Nissan Leaf.
All right. Now, let me be fair.
I have no reason to believe that the Rivian models are anything but good cars.
I don't know. I mean, I don't have any information one way or the other.
I'm just saying that Tesla has a pretty commanding technical, reputational sort of system advantage that's hard to compete with.
Yeah, market share, etc.
Alright, what do you think?
Do you think the woke mind virus is either defeated or nothing else matters?
Will the woke mind virus defeat us?
Will it make us so ineffective that the whole country is doomed and maybe the world?
Maybe. Maybe.
But the counter to that is the Adams Law of Slow-Moving Disasters.
The Adams Law of Slow-Moving Disasters says if everybody can see the problem coming, And you've got lots of time to get ready.
And it's a big scary problem.
We always solve it.
That's why we still exist.
Humans would already be extinct if we couldn't solve that kind of problem fairly often.
Fairly often. We're pretty good at it.
So what would that look like?
What would it look like if the woke mind virus is being defeated or the beginning of it is happening?
Well, it would look like ESG is dying.
So ESG is taking a hit from critics everywhere.
Looks like Vanguard pulled out and some other entities are pulling out.
The top minds in business are mocking it.
You know, Musk mocked it.
Dilbert comic mocked it.
So that's just the beginning of what I think is the pendulum shift.
Now, here's my argument for the Golden Age.
The Golden Age does not happen.
When one side has all the power, it happens when you're moving from one side to the other, and you're sort of in the middle.
So the pendulum, I think, went with full wokeness, and now it's starting, just starting its pullback, and when we hit somewhere in the middle of the pendulum swing, before it goes full conservative point of view, because it won't, Somewhere in that middle, everybody's going to be the happiest compared to either side of the pendulum.
At either side of the pendulum, you satisfy half of the people.
In the middle, maybe 65%.
The difference between half of the people being happy and two-thirds is really big.
That's golden age versus a bad day.
So we may be heading towards something good.
Here's the weirdest story that will break your head.
Over in Japan, they have a population bomb problem.
They have too many old people, not enough young people to fill important jobs.
So they're trying to use immigration.
To fill the necessary jobs because they basically can't survive.
They don't have a plan to survive as a country, really, unless they bring in young people from someplace else.
They just don't have enough time or social structure to create enough babies to fix it.
So it's either going to be robots or immigration.
Now, Japan has a problem.
Because immigration doesn't work as easily there as it does in the United States.
The United States is a designed, immigration-friendly country.
You could argue that. But we're more immigration-friendly than, let's say, Japan.
More than China. More than a lot of other places.
So we have a design flaw, which is we don't have a system to keep out people we want to keep out.
That's a flaw. But our design was always meant to be permissive about letting at least large numbers of people in.
Now, here's the weird thing.
America has the same problem.
We also have, maybe not as bad, but it's a big problem.
We have a big old age bomb and not enough young people in the pipeline.
There's not enough babies to replace the people who are dying.
So America has the same solution, and there's no way around it.
We're going to need massive input of young people, younger, from other places, and we hope that there are people who have high birth rates.
Now what are we getting? So we're getting mostly Central Americans, right?
We're getting mostly Central Americans.
What do Central Americans bring to the United States that we most need besides young workers?
There's something else they bring that we need They bring crime, a little bit, as do all populations.
They have crime. And drugs.
All populations bring crime and drugs, so that would be common to any group.
But what else do they bring?
Yeah, some of you got the right answer.
Is there more traditional values currently in America or in Central America?
It's in Central America.
The Central Americans are all family, religion, Let's have lots of babies, family, religion, hard work, stay out of trouble.
Now, I'm not talking about the criminals and the drug dealers.
The vast bulk of them are as conservative as you could possibly get.
There isn't a woke person in Central America, I don't think.
Like, actually, none.
There probably is no woke person in Central America.
Now, in my opinion, we are bringing in people who are superior culturally.
To the average of the people here.
Superior culturally, meaning that if we simply adopted their culture, that won't happen, but if we did, if we just said, all right, we're just going to take your culture, we'll just adopt it, we would all be religious, family-oriented, hard-working people, and we would kick Japan's ass competitively.
We would kick their ass. Now, it's much harder, I believe, I could be wrong about this, but I would imagine if you're an Indian worker, and that's where Japan is getting a lot of Indian workers, if an Indian worker goes to work in Japan, probably the language problem is pretty big.
And probably they don't want to stay there because there's a cultural difference, etc.
When a Central American comes to the United States, Quite often they also don't speak the language.
But where I live, there's always somebody around who speaks Spanish.
Always. There's always somebody around who speaks Spanish.
And the Spanish people are quite incentivized to learn English.
They try really hard to learn English.
So we can absorb Central Americans with nothing but upside.
No, that's a lie. We have extra crime and extra drugs, but it's more upside than downside.
And it actually can renew that cultural thing that made America special.
Right now, we don't have a source.
Let me ask it a different way.
Where did America's traditional culture come from?
Did it grow from the dirt in America, like corn, or did it come to us from all the people who came here who brought their culture with them?
They brought their culture with them.
There's no such thing as an American culture.
There's a culture that ended up American, but it didn't grow out of the corn that was coming out of the ground.
It came with the people. And we're doing the same thing now, but I don't think you're appreciating how positive this is.
The Central Americans are bringing you more positive culture than we've seen since maybe the 40s or 50s or something.
About the planet destroying asteroids.
I don't know about that.
Somebody's asking about planet destroying asteroids.
That's sort of a different topic.
I'll look into that.
So I guess there's some legislation brewing that would give amnesty to some number of the illegal, what should I say, undocumented.
Let's be a little bit woke.
I like a little bit of wokeness, by the way, more than you do.
I like a little bit. I do like calling the people who have come in here without the benefit of a legal umbrella, I do prefer calling them undocumented.
I do. I get that it's illegal.
I get that. I mean, I get the argument on the other side.
It's just a human thing.
And I think it's a human thing because I spend more time around that population than a lot of you.
So to me, it's such a positive population of people that I just reflexively want to use whatever is the most polite term because I respect them.
It's not because they told me I had to.
No Central American has ever said, Scott, stop calling us illegal, calling us undocumented.
Not once. I don't think they ever talk like that.
I'm just saying that I show some respect to people who want to be Americans so badly that they'll break the law to be one.
Like, I can't dislike that.
There's nothing in me that can dislike that.
Yeah, and I'll admit that in Southern California, and if you're closer to the crime and danger areas, you'd have a different opinion.
And I'll allow that.
So I'm telling you that my opinion is based on bias.
I'm not defending it on logical terms.
All right. Rasmussen did a poll, see what people think about the idea of giving amnesty to some people.
And... You know, I hate to stroke your egos this much, but it just can't be avoided.
I do have the smartest livestream audience in the world, and no matter how many times I demonstrate how brilliant they are, how psychic, it's always impressive.
So I give you another public demonstration.
What percentage of the U.S. voting public believes amnesty would make the problem better, would improve the situation?
What? How are you doing this again?
How are you doing this?
You're right. It's 23%.
It's within the margin of error of one quarter.
How do you do this?
Every time I ask you a poll question, you nail it.
I'm starting to think we don't need Rasmussen and Gallup polls and I mean, they're just telling us why you already know.
They could just ask you. You don't even need to do a poll, do you?
How about that? What else is going on?
Ivermectin is making a big comeback on Twitter because Twitter apparently is no longer blocking ivermectin stories.
So ivermectin trends almost every day on Twitter.
And I think a lot of it is people need to get it out of their system.
If you tell somebody they can't talk about ivermectin on Twitter for two years, and then suddenly they think they can, they just want to talk about it.
So I think a lot of it is the pent-up conversation that they just need to get out.
But let me piss off everybody.
That's going to be my theme for the day.
I'll disagree with everybody today, both sides.
The ivermectin conversation on Twitter goes like this.
My anecdotal information beats your flawed studies.
No, it doesn't.
My flawed studies beat your anecdotal information.
And that's the whole fucking argument.
Nothing else.
Now, seriously, people, can you advise me?
How can I take sides?
Can I take sides with that?
Which side am I going to be on?
Am I going to be on the, my anecdotal information beats your flawed studies side?
Does that sound good?
Or do I want to be on the, my flawed studies beat your anecdotes side?
Which of those is the smart side?
Yeah, let me give you another, this is a callback.
If I have a private conversation with somebody in California, somebody really smart, What do they say about ivermectin?
If I talk to the smartest people I know, what do they say behind closed doors about ivermectin?
Guess. Guess.
They say there's no way to know.
They say there's no way to know.
Because there's only one smart opinion on ivermectin.
That the information has been so denied to us, or delivered in such a non-credible form, that you don't know anything.
You don't know anything. And above a certain IQ, that is the universal opinion that you can't tell.
Now, there would be people who have a best guess So there could be very smart people who say, I don't know, but I'm leaning toward X. And certainly every one of them would say, it should have been legal to try.
Every one of them would have said, well, it should have been legal for the doctors to prescribe it.
Like, that should have been okay.
They'll all say that.
No exceptions. All right.
What about all that highly credible information that the reason that Africa did so well, relatively speaking, with COVID is because the Africans take ivermectin.
Is that a good argument?
Africans take ivermectin and therefore that's the reason they did so well with COVID. Everybody convinced?
Have you ever heard the numbers of how many take ivermectin Compared to how many people live there.
What percentage do you imagine of all Africans take ivermectin?
What percentage? Just guess.
Just guess.
Correct. You're correct.
Okay, I'm joking. There's an account on Instagram where there's a young man who goes on the street and asks people common knowledge questions, like really easy ones.
Like, what country is the Panama Canal in?
He asks those kinds of questions.
And then no matter what the person says, he goes, right.
So he'll say, what country is the Panama Canal in?
And somebody will say, I really don't know.
I think he'll say, just guess.
He goes, okay. Japan?
And then he'll say, right.
And then he just walks away.
He just walks away.
Right? All right.
Here's the answer. There are 1.3 billion people in the continent of Africa.
The number who are treated annually with ivermectin is about 112 million.
So less than 10%.
So somewhere around 8 point something percent.
So do you think that if 8 point some percent of Africans took ivermectin, that gives us our answer for why Africa did so well?
Yes or no? 8% took ivermectin and that's why they did so well.
No, clearly not.
Clearly not. Alright, now let me fuck you up a little bit more.
Oh, stop beating me to it!
Damn you, Shawn Michael, who said, next to hydroxychloroquine.
I didn't study that, but surely there are some hydroxychloroquine users in Africa, right?
And then somebody says the dose is too low.
The dose is too low or given too late.
That's why we can say the studies are all flawed.
Because the dose is too low or it's not in combination or they did something wrong.
So you'd always say the studies are flawed.
But all of the country comparisons are ridiculous.
They're all ridiculous. Now, I would like to sprain my arm by patting myself on the back in front of all of you.
Because that's what we narcissists do.
Nobody else told you at the beginning of the pandemic that you would never be able to compare country outcomes with each other and know why they were different.
Who else told you that?
Nobody. I'm the only person in the world who said that when we got to where we are now, you would not know which countries did the best job of managing it.
How many thought that was crazy shit?
Right? How many thought that was just totally crazy?
But it's true. Now, I know some of you are saying, but Scott, what about Sweden?
Don't get me started. Everything about Sweden is different from every place else.
Like, Sweden is, I think, younger, skinnier, and more natural social distancing than anybody.
Plus, their voluntary social distancing wasn't that far away from other people's mandatory distancing.
So, everything you think about Sweden, If you dig in a little bit deeper, you find out, you know, that none of your assumptions hold.
They just don't hold. Now, the other thing that Sweden does is they almost all supplement with vitamin D. Did you know that?
How many of you knew that Sweden, it's sort of a national habit because they don't have enough sunlight, it's normal for the Swedes to supplement with vitamin D. Did that matter to the outcome?
I don't know. Could have. We keep getting more studies saying that it mattered.
All right. Jay Bhattacharya.
I think I'm saying that right.
He's getting a lot of attention lately because, among other things, he was one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, that basically said it was more about letting the virus give us natural immunity and less about being aggressive with vaccines.
Was that the essence of it?
I'm characterizing that correctly, right?
And the official word was, no, vaccines are the way to go.
So Jay was invited in by Elon Musk to Twitter headquarters to actually learn about his own shadowbanding, which is fascinating to me.
So he was indeed shadowbanned.
So that's a confirmed fact.
And he was blacklisted for, quote, unspecified complaints.
And he says, each time the reasoning, parenthetically, never conveyed to us, so I guess he found through either documents or conversations with people that there were internal conversations.
And those conversations was that we were not, oh, this was a conversation about whether they should have a blue check.
And within Twitter, the reasoning was that they were not notable enough.
Does that sound real to you?
Is Jay Bhattacharya not notable enough to be a blue check?
It's a pretty subjective standard, isn't it?
You know, does anybody remember how long I was on Twitter without being verified?
I was on Twitter for a long time without being verified.
Do you know, on Instagram, I'm still not verified.
I've been on Instagram for years.
I've always been famous cartoonist guy, Scott Adams.
I'm not verified. Not verified.
So there's certainly a lot of...
I think it was about seven years.
No, to be verified, I think, was maybe two or three years.
But I don't recall if I ever applied for it.
So I may not have applied for it, so that may be part of it.
But it is a subjective standard.
I do think that...
Twitter was probably putting their finger on the scales here, because I imagine that they thought the Great Barrington Declaration was dangerous, and I believe that they acted on what they thought was safe.
We want to get rid of this dangerous information in favor of safe information, which is kind of their job.
So it's another gray area where it looks sketchy as hell.
So if you say to me, Scott, Scott, Scott, you can't excuse that.
That's sketchy as hell. To which I say, I'm not excusing it.
It looks sketchy as hell.
But I don't know if a law is broken, which is a separate conversation.
All right. And then people on Twitter are calling Musk space Karen.
For being too sensitive to criticism.
Because they say he blocked Kathy Griffin right after he tweeted something bad about him.
And there was some other notable person, I forget, who was blocked right after tweeting something negative about Musk.
And so the critics are saying, oh, he's Space Karen.
He's too sensitive. You know, I don't think it's optimal.
That somebody gets kicked off of Twitter if their last tweet was an insult to the CEO of Twitter, or the owner of Twitter.
I feel like that's suboptimal.
But, again, was it illegal?
We learned that Fauci's daughter has been working on Twitter for years in engineering.
Now, I don't think there's necessarily anything to that fact that's important, except indirectly.
Imagine, if you will, that you're a Twitter employee and you know Fauci's daughter is one of your coworkers.
Would you want information on Twitter that made your coworker's father look like a chimp?
Well, you might say to yourself, yeah, that's our job.
We're not managing people's opinions, so, you know, it's there.
But I would think that there would be, like, a subtle peer pressure to not throw your coworker under the bus.
I don't know if it made any difference at all, but it's an interesting side thing.
No matter what, Fauci's daughter is not implicated in any wrongdoing, so leave her alone.
All right.
Let's see.
So Twitter has this whistleblower who is making a lot of claims.
And I was sort of semi-unaware of this whistleblower, but I saw a long tweet thread today.
And one of the things claimed by the whistleblower that, in my opinion, makes everything else they claim not credible.
And here's a claim by the whistleblower.
Now, there are a bunch of other claims about poor engineering of the network and major vulnerabilities.
Might be true, might not be.
But I don't believe anything this person says because they started with this.
This person claims, this whistleblower, that it was not uncommon, and this is a key phrase.
Keep in your mind, not uncommon.
So it wasn't common, but it happened enough that it was, let's say, ordinary.
And here's what he says was ordinary.
That employees would install on their own computers, intentionally, spyware that allowed outside entities to control their computer within Twitter.
And that it was not uncommon to do it.
So it wasn't one person.
It was something that people were doing.
Now, I read that as Twitter was giving outsiders control of Twitter.
How do you read it?
Because that couldn't have happened.
Yeah, really? That's what I tweeted, was, really?
Really? Really, it's not uncommon for people to open up the security of Twitter, not only on their personal laptop, which their work and personal were probably kind of mixed, but also they would just walk away and let these outsiders just manage not only their careers, because the outsiders would be managing their careers.
They would have full control of the person's career.
They can do anything to them.
And the people were doing that commonly.
Now, the only way that would make sense is if there were so many foreign spies within Twitter that there was like one-third spies or something.
Possible. I suppose anything's possible.
But do any of you see that as credible?
Does anybody believe that they put spyware on their own computers?
Somebody does. Alright, here's how it might be true.
It could be that the word spyware is being used too, let's say, flexibly.
Here's what I think.
I think they were telecommuting.
And the telecommuting software is spyware.
Because if somebody else had it, they could get into your computer.
So it's only who's using the software.
If the employees were using it themselves, well, then maybe you have a security issue.
That's possible, because remote work gives you more security problems.
But if they had, let's say, airtight security, Let's say they had one of those, you know, two-factor authentications.
Let's say they had two-factor authentication or something better.
You know, one of those little counters that, you know, the super-secured places use.
So if they were using something that was sufficiently secure, this is just somebody calling it a spyware, but it was probably just telecommuters who wanted access to their system.
They wanted their own files plus, you know, Twitter files, so they go in through their own computer and they get both.
That's what I think. Now, could they have handed over the control of that to malign forces?
Of course. But it's not in evidence.
That is not in evidence.
So given the grotesqueness of the way it was communicated that there's some kind of remote software thing, I don't believe anything else that comes out of this whistleblower.
Fair? Is that fair?
Doesn't mean he's wrong.
Doesn't mean he's wrong. I'm just saying that there's no credibility here that I can get my fingers on.
All right. What else is happening?
Well, that was close to everything I wanted to talk about except the whiteboard.
Are you ready for the whiteboard?
This may be more excitement than some of you can take, and so this would be a good time for you to, you know, close your ears and eyes.
this could hurt.
It could hurt.
Here's how the world works.
Step one. The Democratic National Committee...
Creates a narrative, which is a spin on the news.
Hey, tell the news this way.
They go to their lackeys in the major media and they say, hey, let's harden this narrative.
Let's make sure everybody hears our narrative.
So the news hardens the narrative.
Twitter employees, do they create the narrative?
Not at all. No.
They are suffering from narrative poisoning.
Which comes from the hardening of the narrative that comes from the DNC. We observe the Twitter staff believing the narrative and then acting as though they're saving the world by suppressing conservatives.
And this is how Jack Dorsey can tell you the truth and it's also a lie.
And there's no conflict between those two things.
Here's how the truth and the lie are the same thing.
Because the result of this system is that there was de facto shadow banning.
De facto being the fancy word for saying, well, in effect, no matter what anybody intended, there was shadow banning.
Like any reasonable person would look at this system, and if you look at the whole system, they'd say, well, the net obvious effect is that conservatives were suppressed, and that is shadow banning.
Everybody on the same page so far?
If the net effective outcome...
It's suppression of the conservatives.
That's exactly what we see.
And a reasonable person would call that shadow banning, wouldn't they?
Wouldn't they? A totally reasonable person would say, well, that is shadow banning.
So that's how it's true that shadow banning was happening.
And most of you will be on this.
Here's how it's not true.
It was de facto.
It wasn't the intention, it wasn't the policy, it wasn't a written policy, and it was not an informal policy.
There's no document that suggests they even talked about it in a political sense.
It's clear that they had preferences.
That's unambiguous.
It's clear that they thought conservatives were insurrectionists, crazy, dangerous people.
So what they acted on was their Own narrative poisoning.
They acted on what they believed was good for the country, but they weren't shadow banning.
What they thought they were doing is getting rid of bad people.
And they thought that the bad people, well, yes, it's true that they seem to be mostly in one party, but how is that our fault?
Right? Yes, we observe that all the bad people, according to them, are all conservatives, but would they think that's their fault?
It's not to fix. Suppose the Nazis were active on Twitter.
Suppose they are. But suppose Nazis are active on Twitter, and Twitter decides to suppress all of the Nazis, and none of the people who are criticizing the Nazis.
None of them. All the people criticizing the Nazis are untouched, but all the Nazis are suppressed.
Is that evil? Is that evil?
Is it? Is that evil?
No. No, that would be people doing exactly what you wanted them to do, because they're citizens of the country and they have your well-being in mind.
They're protecting you from the Nazi effect, and they're doing it for all the right reasons.
Now, because of narrative poisoning, who did the Democrats think were the Nazis?
The Conservatives. So they were just acting on their illusions.
Acting on your illusion is not good, but it's not necessarily illegal.
So my argument that nothing illegal has happened, and probably even Jack Dorsey did not lie to Congress, he probably said we don't have any policy like that.
We simply act on things that come to our attention no matter where they come from.
Now, I pasted on Twitter, I pasted my worst Twitter-related arguments.
I'll just hit them really quickly.
You've heard them before, but I just want you to see them in context.
Here are the worst arguments.
And these are the worst arguments for people who agree with me.
So these are people I like with the worst arguments.
So I'm not biased against the speakers.
Because I agree with them sort of in principle.
It's just their argument is so weak that it's embarrassing me.
I don't want to be on the same team with a bad argument.
Here's the first one. Twitter colluded with the FBI to ban or throttle things.
We know that they met.
We know that the FBI gave them wrong information.
And we know that they acted on it.
Is that a crime? No.
Anybody could bring Twitter information, and then Twitter would act on it.
If they had acted on all of the things that the FBI brought to them, well, that's different, isn't it?
That's the case of the FBI being in control.
But they only accepted half of what the FBI said were factual problems or whatever.
Only half. So that indicates that they did not feel coerced.
Also, all of their conversations about either the Democrats or the FBI Was that they were all on the same team.
What's it mean to be coerced by people who agree with you?
There's no coercion there.
It's just two people agree and they're in the same room.
So, now, I'll get to your other arguments because I know you have more.
What about the idea that Twitter should be a common carrier and not censoring anything?
It's a good argument. It's just that's a different argument than the did they break the law.
The question of whether in the future they should be regulated is a good conversation.
The question of whether they broke the law already is unrelated to that.
So that's just a different conversation.
Bad argument. Did Jack Dorsey lie to Congress that they shadow ban for political reasons?
I don't think so. There's no evidence that it was a policy, and there's no evidence that they even talked about it like an informal policy.
It might be true, but we have no evidence of that.
And there would be evidence.
There would be by now, I think.
All right. There might not be any direct evidence of Twitter policy of shadow banning, but what about all their mafia talk?
What about all the mafia talk?
If you look at the full context, and who they banned, and how they talked about it, and clearly they had some attitude about Trump in particular, and maybe Bongino too.
If you put that all together, it's kind of like mafia talk where they all understand what they're doing, but they don't have to say it out loud.
Maybe. Let me tell you what actual mafia talk sounds like.
10% for the big guy.
That's actual mafia talk.
How about Joe Biden's brother telling Bobulinski we're operating under plausible denial, meaning keeping Joe Biden out of the bad business?
That's mafia talk.
That's what it looks like, right?
Mafia talk is not so subtle that you can't tell it's happening.
The criticism of Trump is that he was always using this mafia talk.
Now, I think it would be harder to defend Trump, because Trump's pretty...
He's a clever, persuasive player, and maybe he's got a little extra that he's intending there.
All right. Do you think...
Some people said, Scott, Scott, Scott.
It doesn't matter that the Twitter employees had good intentions and that they thought they were simply correcting dangerous information.
It doesn't matter what they thought, because why does it not matter?
Because Hitler thought he was doing the right thing, too.
And the Nazis thought they were doing the right thing, and Pol Pot thought he was doing the right thing, and Stalin thought he was doing the right thing for the greater good, and I'm sure Mao thought he was doing the greater good.
So you really can't...
You can't give people a break for thinking they were doing the greater good, right?
Except that we only have evidence of content moderation.
That's all we have. We have evidence of content moderation of the normal kind they do when somebody from the outside says, hey, this is dangerous, and then they look at it, and in the case of the FBI, they only took their recommendations half of the time.
If you only take FBI's recommendations half of the time, are you worried about them?
Does that sound like somebody who's worried?
Worried would be 90% of the time.
50% says we're in control.
That's what it sounds like to me.
Now, but what if there really was some coercion there?
It's just not obvious, but what if there was?
Like, they just felt coerced.
Is that a crime? Well, how would the FBI inform Twitter of something that's important and dangerous without influencing them?
Is there some way to do that?
And should the FBI not tell them?
Because to tell them would be to influence them.
You can't make it illegal for somebody to tell you stuff.
You can't make that illegal.
Now, maybe in the case of insider trading or some special case, but the FBI have freedom of speech.
They can talk to anybody about anything.
Twitter has freedom of speech. They can talk to anybody about anything.
And if Twitter were complaining about the pressure, I would take that really seriously.
And maybe that will be a defense.
Maybe they'll say, yes, we did feel pressure, and I would take that seriously.
But it's not in evidence.
There's no evidence at the moment that Twitter was doing anything except what they wanted to do, and the FBI made it easier.
Because the FBI was doing the fact-checking that happened to agree with their bias.
So if you do something that agrees with your bias and you want it to do anyway, is that because you were coerced?
It's the opposite. It's just somebody helping you do the thing you wanted to do.
So... How about this?
Is Twitter's work on behalf of the Democrats an in-kind donation?
So it would be a violation of election law.
A lot of people are telling me that.
Does that make sense? It's an in-kind donation.
So even if maybe they didn't have any intention, the net effect was they were so biased, there was like a gift to the Democrats.
And therefore, since they did not report that gift, it has a monetary value.
That's against election laws, right?
So, why is MSNB still in business?
Can you explain that?
How about the New York Times, the Washington Post?
How about Breitbart?
How about Fox News?
How about CNN? Why are they still in business?
They are all in-kind donations to a political party.
Unambiguously, Each of those networks, the only one that doesn't is Axios.
Axios is the only independent network.
The rest are just working for a party.
Why would you pick out Twitter as being different than CNN or Fox News?
Are they not all making in-kind donations?
You think Fox News is not helping the Republicans?
Come on. Yeah.
I don't know if it's technically illegal, but I can guarantee it won't be prosecuted unless you prosecuted everybody, and that's not going to happen.
So being biased and being a public communicator, that's not an in-kind donation.
How about me? Should I be prosecuted?
How many people voted for Trump in 2016 because of my activities?
Thousands. I know because I asked in a Twitter poll, and 1,500 people said yes, that they voted for Trump because of me.
Is that not an in-kind donation to the Trump campaign?
How is it not? How is that not an in-kind donation?
I literally helped the campaign in public, and there was real monetary value to it.
How is that different? Yeah, it's a terrible argument.
It's a terrible argument.
I get the argument. The argument makes sense.
There's a logic to the argument.
But as soon as you look at the context, you can see that nobody's ever been prosecuted for that.
It's just not a thing. So at the moment, I don't see any legal jeopardy for Twitter whatsoever.
So that's my view.
And I'm going to further distress you by saying this.
This is your January 6th.
You know how the left all believed that January 6th was an insurrection?
And you looked at it and you said, Republicans don't do insurrections and leave their weapons home.
Or at least not brandish them.
So to you, it's obvious that January 6th is some kind of mass hallucination affecting the other side, right?
It's obvious to the Democrats that all this Twitter stuff is a mass hallucination that's affecting the right.
They're the same story.
It's the same story.
It's just the reverse of it.
The conservatives are pouncing on everything that comes out of the Twitter files as if some law has been broken, but there are none.
It's probably just exactly what it looks like.
It's probably just this.
The most obvious explanation is the one that's right in front of you.
The biased people act like biased people all the time.
That's it. And we know where the bias comes from.
There's no question about that.
It's all plain and obvious and right in front of you.
There's somebody spitting up people's bias, and then they acted on their bias.
And that's the whole story.
And the January Sixers?
The reason that the left can't see them as people who are on their side?
Because they were. The protesters were on the side of the people who hate them.
Because they were trying to protect everybody's republic.
They weren't trying to protect their own personal republic.
They were trying to protect your republic too.
Now you could argue that Twitter does the same thing.
They're not just protecting themselves.
They're trying to protect you.
All right. So just be aware that the January 6th thing and the Twitter files are just the mirror image of each other.
It would be hard to have an opinion on one that is conflicting with the other.
Now, let's talk about cognitive dissonance tells, and I'll count them out as they come by.
So Patrick L. says, wow, in caps, Scott is flailing.
Is that a personal attack or is that a comment about my point?
It's a personal attack.
So that's cognitive dissonance.
That's someone who knows that their argument fell apart.
How do you know? Because if I'd said something that would be easily debunked, you have plenty of space to say it.
You would just say, oh, you got that fact wrong.
Check the source. It would be easy to argue against me if you had a reason.
But if you're arguing out of cognitive dissonance, you'll go after me.
Here's Kamikaze. Kami says, your argument fell apart, mate.
That's cognitive dissonance.
You made a personal attack on J. Batacarya.
No, I didn't. What?
You saw me make a personal attack on J. Batacarya?
I don't think so.
I think you hallucinated that.
How about John says in all caps, Scott, Charles Manson is innocent.
We have no evidence and he denies involvement.
Does that sound like a good factual comment or maybe cognitive dissonance?
No, that's cognitive dissonance.
January 6th is resulting in felonies.
So? Cognitive dissonance.
Hmm... J6ers are still in jail.
Irrelevant, irrelevant to the point.
True, but irrelevant. So Scotty is ignoring FBI involvement.
Am I ignoring FBI involvement?
Let me be clear.
The FBI looks like they committed a crime.
As far as I can tell. Because it looks like they knowingly interfered with the election as a government entity by spreading false information.
So I think the FBI should be in jail.
You all agree with that, right?
I think the evidence against the FBI is...
That's pretty clear.
Now, again, I'd have to hear their counter-argument.
I'd have to hear their counter-argument.
Maybe they have a defense. I don't know.
But to me, that looks like a grotesque crime of some sort.
I mean, I don't know. Maybe I'm being biased and there's no crime there either.
Now, if the FBI claims that they were also mistaken, it might be hard to prove.
But it looks obviously like a crime to me.
Scott, you shouldn't silence all cap commenters.
I don't, only the bad ones.
All right, now you want to hear the weirdest thing that's happening at the moment.
I'm going to do a callback, and I'm going to look at the biggest context you can imagine, and I'm going to pull together some things that will blow your fucking mind.
You ready for this?
How long will it be before Ye brings Yol Roth onto his campaign team?
You realize that he's forming a campaign of the canceled, right?
Thank you.
Have you spotted the pattern yet?
He's scooping up all the cancelled.
All the cancelled people.
And he's also making a free speech absolutist claim.
And the free speech absolutist claim is that he can say ugly things.
And he doesn't want to get cancelled for it.
Now, when Ye says ugly things, they're not like a Nazi says ugly things.
They're things which you can interpret as being ugly, but if he explained it to you in the room, you'd say, oh, okay, that doesn't sound so bad.
So being cancelled because somebody else thinks that you've crossed the line That's different than actually crossing the line and getting cancelled.
Just somebody thinks you did.
So Ye is going to make a bigger impact, potentially, on our entire wokeness situation than maybe anybody.
He might actually break the model by being so extremely...
Counter-socially acceptable, I guess, that, I don't know, he might actually expand our thinking to the point where we say, all right, screw all this wokeness, let's just ignore it.
There could be, it's too early to say, but there is a possibility that Ye is the, what do you call it, the Rosetta Stone that fixes everything.
Ye might be the Rosetta Stone.
Because he's so damaging our standard way of thinking that he's just shaking the box at the very time the box needs to be shaken.
So I'm not saying that we'll all agree with Ye or that he'll be president.
I'm saying that the way he's shaking the box and putting everything in question by the fact that he's teaming up with Fuentes, like what does that do to your head?
I still can't wrap my head around that.
But if he keeps pushing this box-shaking, counter-expectations thing, it does actually put your brains in a more productive place.
Where it just shakes you out of your bias a little bit because you've just got too much to think about.
You know, Ye is just scrambling your brain intentionally.
So, I'll just put it out there that Ye might be, possibly, and it would be a complete stealth situation you wouldn't see coming.
He could be the one who fixes it all.
He might be the one who fixes everything.
Because one of the things that he does is he forgives everybody.
Right? He just forgives everybody.
But then he says what he believes, and he'd like to say that if a particular group coincidentally seems to be thwarting him, that he can refer to them as a group.
That's all he asks, I think.
It seems like a pretty small ask, but he gave up everything for that point.
All right. Saudi Arabia aligning with Russia and China.
Saudi is just being smart.
Saudi is just aligning with everybody they can align with who wants to align back.
That's just smart. Did you see the poll I ran about who is the most discriminated person in America?
Anybody see my poll?
I'll give the updated poll results.
So, you'll probably have it pasted in the comments before I can find it myself.
But I asked this yesterday.
So, and the categories I gave for who is most discriminated against were black man, black male in America, a woman in America, LGBTQ in America or a short white man?
Last I checked, it was 83% thought that the most discriminated person in America would be a short white man.
Not a black man, not even close.
83% not LGBTQ and not women.
Does that sound right to you?
That there's far more discrimination against short white men than Than any of the target groups.
Yeah, of course. Because you've been completely brainwashed for decades that the groups that have power are the ones that are suffering.
You've been brainwashed for decades.
So, you know, up looks like it's down, and yes looks like no, and zero looks like one.
So you look at the short white men and you say, well, that guy's in charge.
I would sure like to be him, so he won't have any discrimination.
Now, clearly people of all types can succeed.
I'm not saying that being in any category makes it impossible to succeed.
Now do ugly women.
Do ugly women and then do ugly men.
So short is in the category of unattractive, unfortunately, since I'm in that category.
But you have to compensate by making something about you Better than average.
Alright, so here's my reframe on that.
If you frame yourself as either, as any one of these things, if you say, I'm black, or I'm male, or I'm female, or I'm LGBTQ, etc., you're sort of giving yourself a reason to fail.
And my observation is every group has people who succeed.
And they do it all the same way.
They do something good that blinds you to whatever you didn't like about them.
So, I'm 5'8", and I can blind you to that by having gigantic muscles and lots of money.
Right? It just sort of blinds you to whatever you might have been focusing on otherwise.
Now, What about Prince?
Remember when Prince was alive?
I think Prince was like 5'6".
Well, you mostly don't think of Prince as 5'6".
You think of him as 5'8".
You think of him as one of the best musicians of all time.
And incredibly sexy, say the women.
Bruno Mars, yeah.
So there's a pretty big history, especially, you know, Tom Cruise, et cetera.
There's a big history of people of every kind who made whatever their disadvantage was disappear.
And I always tell this story, but it's my favorite story, where there was a suit salesman.
I was buying a suit, and we were chatting as I was trying on my suit, and I made some self-deprecating comment about being bald.
And he said, well, you can make that baldness disappear by being really fit.
Because when you're really fit, people see your body and they just sort of don't see your head.
Like, they don't see it in the same way.
And I thought, that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
Who's not going to notice somebody's bald?
And then I noticed that he was bald for the first time.
Because he was really ripped.
He was really ripped.
And I noticed that. I walked in and said, shit, that guy's ripped.
I wouldn't mind looking like that.
And later, I realized, oh yeah, he's also bald.
And the moment I had that realization, That you can make any of your flaws disappear by misdirection.
Basically a magic trick.
Don't look at this hand. Look at this hand!
No, not this one. Look at this one!
Look at this one! So you just misdirect.
So the positive part of this Joe Rogan, another good example.
The positive part of this is that people all over the world are redirecting people from their, whatever they would call their shortcomings, to whatever they do well, and it works every time.
Yeah, Bezos. How many people call Bezos that bald guy?
No. He's not only rich, but he's ripped.
Why did he get ripped? Probably the same reason I do it.
Because you want to distract from whatever people are going to criticize you for.
So that is your encouraging thought for the day.
Just an update on my upcoming book on reframes.
I'm at 60,000 words.
And by Wednesday, I've got to be done.
So I'll be working real hard this week, but then there's a whole other level of hardness that comes after that with the editing and everything else.
But more about that, I'll probably be testing some of the chapters with my locals crowd, so I think I'll read you some chapters and some reframes as part of our micro-lessons.
You won't get to see that unless you're a subscriber, but the book will be out next September, I believe.
