Episode 1976 Scott Adams: I've Accepted An Invitation To Join The Elites, Will Report On Their Evil
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Magnesium deficiency causes anxiety
Jordan Peterson vs. Klaus Schwab & WEF
Stressing systems to find their weaknesses
Paul Ehrlich's predictions
Whiteboard: Player vs. NPC
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Well, this morning, the technology on the locals' platform is glitching.
Am I glitching on YouTube as well?
Because otherwise, if I am, there's no show this morning.
How's our sound and how's our picture?
Alright, I just told all the locals people to give up on locals for this morning and to come over here.
Looks like we're good over here.
Alright? So I guess we'll just have to wing it with one feed today, okay?
I'm going to wait a minute for the people on...
Locals to come on over, I should probably.
I need to tell them.
If I don't tell them, they won't come over.
Bear with me.
Technical problems two minutes before going live.
So typical.
Interesting. I can't figure out how to post on locals.
You'd think that would be the most obvious thing I could do, since I literally do it three times a day, and yet there's no prompt for posting.
It's so weird. I have the locals thing called up on my computer.
As far as I can tell, I can't figure out how to post a new post.
I do it three times a day, but I never do it from the browser, so I do it from the app.
So apparently I can't post it either.
Somebody do me a favor and post on locals that they need to come over to YouTube.
And maybe we'll do something like a show.
But to take it up a level, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass or tank or chalice or stionic, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind, filling with your favorite liquid I like, coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now. Go! Thank you, Sandy.
I appreciate that. Yeah, so it might take a minute for everybody to go over here to YouTube for today.
That's why we have two platforms.
Do you know how many things are broken in my house right now?
Besides the locals platform at the moment?
I've got five plumbing and water related problems.
Almost every part of the technology in my house is broken or needs to be repaired in some way.
My car needs service.
Pretty much everything I own is broken right now.
Sign of the times. Alright, now, let's talk about some news.
Question. How many of you know about magnesium and magnesium deficiency in people?
And what problems it causes?
Do you all know? Every few years, I get excited that magnesium is the answer to all of my problems.
And that'll take some magnesium for a while.
And then my digestive, without being too graphic, let's just say my digestive system It has some changes that are not ideal.
So I've never really known if they worked.
But one of the things that is a problem if you have low magnesium is anxiety.
Did you know that? So apparently magnesium is the biggest, or some say, the biggest deficiency in humans.
I'm sure there's a debate on that.
But our biggest problem at the moment is too much anxiety.
So we've got a whole country that's full of anxiety and nobody knows why, but we also know that the mineral that you need to help prevent it is the one we have the least of.
Now what type of things will decrease your magnesium?
Number one, vitamin D. Did you know that?
It could be that if you're taking vitamin D, it's making you healthier in one way, but giving you anxiety if it reduces your magnesium.
So apparently you're supposed to match, not match, but have some magnesium at the same time as your vitamin D. How many of you knew that?
I didn't know until 10 minutes ago.
Number two, one of the other things that reduces your magnesium is prescription meds.
I don't know which ones.
But since we take more prescription medicine, you know, any time in history, I'm kind of wondering if all of our problems that seem like new ones, you know, where everybody's got anxiety and depression, it might all be magnesium.
It could be that there are several things about our lifestyle and our environment that are putting pressure on our magnesium uptake.
It might be that. It might just be that.
So I just put that in.
Also helps asthma, right?
So asthma is also something that boomed in the last 20 years.
Adult asthma is a new thing in terms of how big it is.
I think it always existed.
But adults were not getting massive amounts of asthma until about 20 years ago.
There was something in our lifestyle or environment that changed.
Magnesium fits every hypothesis.
So here's the only thing.
If you're a curious person and you care about this sort of thing, Just do 10 minutes of research to find out what it looks like if you have a magnesium deficiency.
You'll immediately see that you have like seven of the symptoms.
Can't sleep? Bingo.
Anxiety? Bingo.
Depression? Bingo.
And you're going to say, is that a coincidence?
Is it a coincidence that all of the problems, and asthma, is it a coincidence that all of the problems that are unexplained and somewhat recent Happen to map exactly the decrease in our magnesium?
Is that a coincidence? Because it looks like it's just a direct correlation.
So I don't know if it's causation, but you might want to do your own research on that.
And I saw somebody suggest there are at least three or four kinds of magnesium, and I saw the suggestion, just pick one, try it for two weeks, And if it doesn't work, you don't notice any difference, try another one.
But once you've run through the four that you could do, you know, with two weeks apiece, if you don't notice any difference, don't do it.
But if you do, there you go.
Well, here was an unexpected thing that happened to me.
I really, honestly, I didn't even think this was real.
But I got an invitation to join the elites.
Have you heard of the elites?
We're getting a lot of attention. It's sort of a shadowy group that runs everything behind the scenes.
And I thought it was just a rumor.
I didn't think there were actually any elites.
But I've been invited to join.
And to entice me to join, they showed me the agenda for the next meeting.
And I don't think I'm supposed to share this with you.
But since I haven't yet accepted, I think it's okay.
So I'm going to tell you what the elites have on their agenda.
Let's see, first one is how to profit from promoting cannibalism to fight climate change.
Okay, that's exactly what you would think.
Number two, how to keep Andrew Tate in the matrix.
Okay, obviously that's going on.
How to profit from human misery, just in general.
There's another seminar on the many benefits of war.
There's a speaker who will tell us why national borders are imaginary.
They're imaginary. There's going to be more speculation about the new mind control vaccination they're planning to roll out next year.
There's a conversation, I think, on the agenda.
How to make Hunter Biden's next lost laptop disappear.
So they're already planning for his next lost laptop.
And then this one's a little scary.
I'm not sure exactly what they're referring to, but this agenda item is, do pure bloods taste like chicken?
So I know I'd be worried about that one a little bit.
So here's what I'm going to do.
I'm going to join the elites, but I'm going to report back to you what's happening behind the scenes.
So you'll no longer have to wonder what they're talking about.
I'll just tell you.
And so far, their agenda looks pretty useful.
But let's talk about the World Economic Forum.
I saw a tweet today from Jordan Peterson, who was criticizing the World Economic Forum, etc., And let's see, what did Jordan Peterson say?
He said, well, he thought it was a bad idea to have this top-down planning from some big entity that's making decisions for us.
And here's my take on the World Economic Forum.
If Jordan Peterson...
Which I think you'd all agree is one of the smartest people in the game.
And as far as I can tell, is a straight shooter all the time.
As far as I can tell, right?
I'm not magic, but...
But it looks like he's one of the smartest people.
Looks like he has good intentions.
You know, he's trying to make the world a better place.
And it looks like he tells the truth.
Every time that I've seen, I mean, I've never seen anything that even suggests he's not being completely forthright.
So Jordan Peterson is like a huge, huge asset to the world, in my opinion.
Now, Klaus Schwab has a completely different perspective.
Educational and experience set.
So you've got Jordan Peterson with all of his psychology and psychiatric and, you know, a broad array of related, you know, talent stack sort of things.
All good stuff. Klaus Schwab is an engineer and an economist.
Almost completely different skills than Jordan Peterson.
Now, if Jordan Peterson and Kalao Schwab have a disagreement about the WEF, who would you trust?
Let's say you believed, just hypothetically, they were both honest.
So the only thing that you're wondering about is who knew more about the situation.
Like, who is the smarter person?
So who would you trust?
So you would trust the person...
Now, in my hypothetical, They're equal character.
I'm not saying they are.
I'm saying in a hypothetical, they're equal character, but one has the exact background for the WEF, and one has a great skill set, but unrelated to economics and engineering.
Who would you trust? All right, here's the test.
You ready? You're a business person in a company.
I'm going to run you through a little scenario here.
You work for a big company.
And you have two choices because you've been in business a long time and you're a really big company now, billions and billions of dollars.
And somebody comes to you and says, let's tweak our existing systems to make them better.
That's a good idea, right?
Who would be opposed to tweaking your existing systems to make them better?
Anybody? Would anybody disagree with that?
Hey, we have a bunch of systems in our company.
Let's tweak them to make them better.
It's a trick question.
You don't always tweak them to make them better.
You know that, right? Tell me, see if you can answer this question, because this will determine if you're as smart as Klaus Schwab.
Because this is an engineering slash economics specific question.
You've got two choices.
Tweak your existing systems or rebuild them from bottom up.
Which one's the smart one to do?
Go. Do you tweak your systems to make them better or do you just say, all right, we need to rebuild this from the bottom up?
Go. Well, if you don't know the answer to the question, you should not have an opinion If you don't know the answer, you should not have an opinion on Klaus Schwab.
Would you accept that?
Would you accept that if you can't answer that question, because it's a pretty simple question, should you tweak your systems to make it better, right?
Would you agree that's a really simple question?
And would you agree that if you can't answer that simple question, you're not qualified to have an opinion about the WEF? Would you agree with those statements?
If you can't answer that simple question, should you tweak your systems to make them better?
All right. All right, now, let me tell you the right answer.
Most of you said yes.
You should tweak your systems to make them better.
That proves you do not have the same training as Klaus Schwab, because it's the wrong answer.
Nobody had the right answer, by the way.
I didn't see. There might have been somebody.
Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. One person had the right answer.
So far, I've only seen one right answer.
What system are you talking about?
That was the right answer.
What I was going to say is, yeah, I think some of you did get the right answer.
Everybody who said tweak the system doesn't understand enough about engineering and economics to criticize Klaus Schwab.
I'm not saying he's right.
Remember, I'm the guy who talks about both sides.
I'm not saying you should follow him.
I'm not saying the WEF is a good idea.
Nothing like that. I'm saying that if you think The system should be tweaked in all cases, then you're not up to the level of, let's say, experience and talent stack that Klaus Schwab has.
Or I have, right?
You wouldn't even be up to my level.
Nor would you be up to the level of the commenter who said, it depends what system.
That's the right answer, right?
An engineer would ask that first.
I asked this generic question, would you tweak a system to make it better?
The engineer says, which system?
Because you might want to get rid of that system, right?
Maybe it just needs to disappear.
Maybe it's too hard to tweak it because, you know, it's patches on patches on patches.
Maybe it's better to start a new one, and then when you're confident that the new one can take over, then you get rid of the old one, right?
If you couldn't answer the question of should you tweak a system to make it better with the complexity that I just added, you probably are not yet at the level where criticizing the WEF makes sense.
Now here's where you can criticism without that knowledge.
And here's where I think I would agree with Jordan Peterson.
It does depend who's making the decisions.
We don't necessarily want to accidentally create a new world government.
Let's say they get extra power at the WEF. You don't want to accidentally have them more powerful than your own government.
That wouldn't be a good system.
So there's plenty of room for criticizing the WEF. But here's a statement...
I believe I wrote it down.
Here's what Klaus Schwab believes about the, quote, Great Reset.
Here's the scariest thing you've ever heard anybody say, all right?
I'll just read his words.
This is scary.
This is from The Spectator.
I got this out of. So, Klaus Schwab believes that the world needs a great reset.
Uh-oh, what's that?
And it goes on.
COVID, according to the WEF's website, explaining the global reboot, awaiting the world, revealed all of the...
So, COVID revealed to us that there are lots of inconsistencies, inadequacies, and contradictions of multiple systems, from health and financial to energy and education.
Would you agree with that?
Would you agree that COVID showed the inadequacies of really all of our systems?
You would disagree with that?
Seriously? Okay, that's not.
Come on. That wasn't even a question you were supposed to have a different answer on.
You're not supposed to say no to that.
Honestly, you went through the pandemic and it looked like all of our systems were working perfectly.
Did you notice anything about the supply chains?
How about our decision-making of how we threw money at things?
Did that work out well? Did Congress make all good decisions?
Did our governments make good decisions about masking and vaccinations?
Did our healthcare system give you accurate information about the vaccinations and the masks?
If you didn't notice that everything broke, or not broke, but you could see the weakness in everything because everything got stressed.
So I'll make a general statement.
If you stress a system, that's how you find its weaknesses.
Would you agree with the general statement that stressing a system is exactly what you do to find out where its weaknesses are?
Now, we didn't do it intentionally.
COVID did. But it did stress our systems, and we saw what broke and what didn't.
Now, that's what Klaus Schwab is saying, that COVID stressed our systems and it made it more clear where we need to fix things.
So far, that's not crazy, right?
That's not crazy. Let's go on.
The entire planet needs a new social contract to reshape the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models, and the management of a global commons.
What would be another way to sum up all of that stuff?
It's a bunch of buzzwords and jargon.
But that sounds to me like an engineer who is The engineers jump in.
I know there are engineers watching this.
He's an engineer. What is he saying you should do?
What's your first step? First step of the reset would be, first step.
Is this really hard?
I wasn't expecting any of these questions to be hard.
Apparently it is. No, the first step is to collect the user's specifications.
You're an engineer. You find out what you're trying to accomplish, and you collect the preferences of the users.
So he's basically saying we should re-look at everything, get all the input from everywhere you can get input, so you're as smart as possible, and then see if we should change stuff.
Well, part of that's crazy.
You get everybody's input, You do everything in public.
You publish the speakers.
It's all public. It's all transparent.
And they're collecting user input about what needs to be changed.
How's that evil? Now, the problem is, why is he doing it?
Like, who elected him?
That's a good conversation.
It's a good conversation to say, who elected him?
Like, why would he have this influence?
Good conversation. It's not a good conversation To say he shouldn't collect user specifications.
To say that the important people in the country should not be looking at what's broken and what people want different, that would be crazy talk.
Somebody needs to be looking at what broke and what we should do different.
Maybe it's not them. That's a good conversation.
All right. So here's my statement that anybody who knows both engineering and economics would agree with.
By the way, is there anybody on here who is well-versed in both engineering and economics?
Just go up. Okay.
All right. Edith is.
So I'm going to say, for those of you who are well-versed in both engineering and economics, I want you to see if you agree or disagree with the following statement.
Sometimes it makes sense to tweak your systems, but if the only thing you ever do Is tweak them, and they're complicated, right?
So it's a complex environment.
If the only thing you ever do is tweak them, you're doomed.
You're doomed, if that's the only thing you do.
Sometimes you have to rebuild from scratch.
I want every single person who knows both economics and engineering to weigh in.
Yes. Sometimes you tweak them, sometimes you rebuild them from scratch.
And the first thing you do is you figure out who your team is, that would be the elites, because nobody else has power.
Who are you going to do?
Bring together the people who have no power?
That would make no sense.
So Klaus Schwab brings together the people who can make a decision, He makes sure that the user requirements of what is broken and everything is aired, so that we can see the whole process.
So, who are they trying to benefit?
Good question, right?
So, if they were not doing things that are pretty transparent, then the urgency of that question would be much higher.
But so far, everything seems to be, by necessity, transparent.
And by necessity, I mean the entire purpose is that when they figure out what they think is a good idea, they publish it.
Right? Their business model is not to hide information.
Their entire purpose is to create opinions and put them out there so you can see them.
So, as far as I know, They're not dealing with secrets.
They're dealing with, very explicitly, they want the entire public to pay attention to everything they do.
Don't you think the World Economic Forum wants everybody watching?
And they want you to see every speech and every document.
In fact, they have people whose job it is to make sure that everybody sees those documents and everybody knows what they're talking about.
If any of this were totally behind closed doors, And by the way, there are enough of these so-called elites that at least some of them are Elon Musk, right?
Remember, he was invited, but he declined because he said it'd be boring.
Somebody in those rooms is going to tell you what happened.
Do you think all the elites are on the same page?
There's not a chance. The elites are competitors with each other.
Somebody is going to tell you what happened in the room because they don't like it, if that were the case.
Now, All right.
How many of you watching this say that I just defended the World Economic Forum?
Go. Who believes I just defended the World Economic Forum and thus I'm in favor of their existence and all the things they do?
Now this, here's one.
Now look at the answers.
Those are the correct answers. No.
I maintain that I have the smartest audience.
Like, I actually believe that.
I know it sounds like something you would just say, but I actually literally believe that.
Because most of you have gone through the work, so to speak, of, you know, putting up with me for a while, and we talk about this stuff all the time.
All right, so here's your lesson for the day.
If you're an engineer or an economist, you are always looking at your systems and saying, do we change it at all?
If we do change it, do we tweak it?
And if we tweak it forever, We're doomed.
At some point the tweaking becomes too much patch on patch.
And you've got to just start over.
That's what the World Economic Forum is teaching you, but it's hard to learn if you don't have that background.
All right. Now, do you think that Dr.
Jordan Peterson has a sufficient understanding of engineering and economics?
Because he is a polymath, right?
He's not really limited to one field.
He's smart enough that he's got at least one foot in anything important, I would think.
So do you think he has enough background To make that distinction.
That sometimes you do need to tweak and sometimes you need to go bottom up.
I don't know. I haven't heard him specifically criticize that point.
He is usually about who is making the decisions.
And on that front, he and I, I think we agree.
I think we agree.
That the question of who makes the decisions is super important.
But here's the problem. There's no right answer to who makes the decisions.
Because whoever it is, if they're unelected, and assuming it's a global thing, nobody's going to get elected, right?
Because we don't really have a global election system.
So we don't really have an obvious way to fix it.
So that we would be happy that the people who are considering these questions, which do have to be considered, We want them to be on our side.
But how can we guarantee that?
We can't. The only thing we can get, well, the only thing we could, let's say, demand is transparency.
And, you know, then if you see something you don't like, then, you know, fight like hell.
Do you know why we don't have mandatory vaccinations right now?
Do you know why we don't have mandatory vaccinations right now?
There's only one reason. There's exactly one reason.
What is it? Transparency.
Yeah, there was enough transparency that the public said, I don't think your data is convincing me.
And that was enough that the public simply took power.
If the government had all the power over the citizens, we would all be vaccinated.
Agree or disagree. I mean, unless you hid in the cave or went on the wild.
Agree or disagree. If it were the government's decision, it would be mandatory.
Agree? Yeah.
I think that's clear.
Because the government was very clear that it was, in their opinion, it was better for you and everybody.
So, who had the power in the United States?
Who had the power?
The citizens did.
And you see that over and over again.
Now let me ask the second question.
I know you're going to get this one right.
Why do the citizens of the United States have power, but the citizens of Australia are slaves?
You know the answer. Why?
Guns. Yeah, guns.
It really is that simple.
The citizens of the United States, we're not going to take shit, that's who we are.
That's sort of like an identity, right?
Now, your identity and your, I don't know, I don't know if it's a culture or just an identity, but Americans are very clear that their government is not in control.
True? True or false?
Americans believe, and they act like it, that the government's not in control.
How about Canada? How about that trucker movement?
Is the government of Canada in control or are the citizens in control?
It looks like the government, doesn't it?
Why is the government in control in Canada, not the citizens?
I can think of two reasons.
Canada doesn't have enough assholes.
Not enough guns. Now, I'm not saying gun owners are assholes.
Those are separate categories.
I'm saying that sometimes you need a lot of assholes to get anything done.
You need people who are just willing to, I hate to say, storm the Capitol.
Let me say it. I'm going to say it right out loud.
I'm going to say it as clearly as you could possibly say it.
I am delighted that January 6th happened.
Does anybody else have the same opinion?
Now, I don't condone violence.
That's all tragic. And I wasn't there and I wouldn't have gone.
Like, it wasn't something I would have done.
And I think that people were misled.
You know, every problem with it, right?
Every problem is valid.
But do you want to live in a country Where 40% of the country genuinely believed, I'm not saying it's true, but they genuinely believed the election had been rigged.
Let me ask you this.
What did you want them to do?
I know what I wanted them to do.
I mean, after the fact.
I didn't want it ahead of the fact. After the fact, you know, once I'm understanding how everybody felt about everything, I think you had to do that.
You had to put pressure on the government.
Now, I think it was ill-informed, maybe.
Didn't give us a better outcome.
But no, I do not want to live in a country where the citizens will not occupy the capital if they get fucked.
Sorry. I didn't go very far without using that word, did I? I was really going to try hard.
I didn't make it one day. So, here's my nuance for the day.
You can hate a lot of the things the individual actors did on January 6th.
You can hate the individual characters, both on the government side and also on the protesters side.
There's plenty of people who did things you wish they hadn't done.
But you tell me, do you want to live in a country where that wouldn't happen?
That's the country I want.
I aggressively want that country.
I super, super want that country.
I have no ambiguity about that whatsoever.
I'll take the cost to get the benefit.
Was it worth it that people died and people were injured maybe permanently?
Was it worth it?
Yes. Yes it was.
It's tragic. Nobody is happy about the bad stuff that happened.
But we absolutely have to demonstrate that we're going to get out of our houses and out of our chairs and we're going to be in the street if you mess with us.
And I think the election is a clear case where the people in charge were messing with us.
I don't know. I'm not saying the election was rigged.
I don't see that evidence clearly.
But they were messing with us.
And there had to be a reaction.
So, there you go.
So, WEF, my bottom line is what they state they want to do is vitally important and smart.
The way they're doing it is certainly available for criticism, like anything, right?
But as long as they keep the transparency up, I'm probably going to be reluctantly open-minded about it.
I think that the opportunity for mischief is really high.
It's really high.
So your suspicion about the WEF totally support it.
Can we be cool with that?
Because I know a lot of you think you disagree with me on the WEF, but a lot of it is that I like to show both sides of things, so that can be misleading.
I'm completely on your side of not trusting them.
Good. Can we just agree on that?
But I will fight vigorously for the process which they describe.
And the process they describe is you bring the people in power together.
You say, maybe this is a time where we look at rebuilding some systems.
You gather the specifications.
You do it as publicly as you possibly can.
And I think they do a good job of doing it publicly.
And then you let the public debate it.
Here's the thing people miss.
You imagine that the WF is going to make a decision, and then it'll just get implemented.
But the public is part of the process, right?
Completely part of the process.
So maybe some other country, like Australia, will just have to do what the WF tells them.
But we won't. America won't.
America is going to look at it, and we're going to fight like hell, like we always do, and we'll sort it out.
And maybe WF comes up with an idea we like, but we're certainly going to kick the tires and test the hell out of it.
Alright, here's why I know this simulation is messing with me.
This couldn't possibly be a coincidence.
I think most of you know enough about what I've been into the last few weeks to know that this is just weird.
So I had this very public back and forth with Elon Musk and a bunch of other followers on the question of whether there existed in reality anybody with power and the with power is the important phrase here anybody with power Who believe that the current level of population on Earth, we should drive it down, as opposed to managing the rate of growth.
So we definitely want to manage the rate of growth, and there are good ways and bad ways to do that.
But I contend that there's nobody with power, nobody with power, who wants to decrease the absolute number of people.
So now I have this big public back and forth on that point.
And 60 Minutes runs a major episode yesterday in which they interviewed Paul Ehrlich, the most famous person who has that view and is really powerful, more than I assumed.
Now, how could that happen within days of me being in this public debate about whether this person exists?
What are the chances of that?
Doesn't that just look weird?
I mean, it looks like I caused it.
I'm not saying I did.
It just looks like it. Now, hold on.
What you're saying is that this has been out for decades, and we'll talk about all of Ehrlich's bad predictions.
All right. So here's some of...
This was on Epstein's Twitter feed.
So Paul Ehrlich...
Here are some of the things that he's been wrong about all of his career.
So here are some of the things. So he got in 60 minutes and he got lots of attention.
And here are the things he's predicted.
Are you ready? Let me get the list here.
Where is it? All right, Alex Epstein did a long thread on this that I retweeted, if you're looking for it.
So here are the things Alex is calling out Paul Ehrlich on.
He says he's been 180 degrees wrong for 55 years in a row.
So here are things he said.
Humanity is not sustainable.
To maintain our lifestyle, yours and mine basically, for the entire planet, you'd need five more Earths.
Do you think we would need five more Earths to maintain our current lifestyle?
Does that even...
Hold on, Robert.
So, Robert, we're going to talk about you.
Robert's an NPC. And on the whiteboard, I'm going to show you how to identify people like Robert.
So he's having an episode now, because he's a binary, and he can't kind of understand that there could be two sides of something, or any kind of nuance.
So Bob will learn he's an NPC today, and I hate to do that to you, Bob, but that's coming up.
That's how you'll find out.
So if you're yelling me in all caps that I must change my mind, before you've heard what I have to say, you're an NPC. If after what I say, you have a criticism, well, that might be something.
Listen to that. But to be quite sure, before you hear what I have to say, feels like a little NPC-ish.
All right, so hold on. So...
So, the context here is we're trying to decide if Paul Ehrlich is a nut job or he actually has power.
Okay, that's our context.
So, here are things he said, that the world is not sustainable, we need five more Earths.
Clearly nuts, wouldn't you say?
Isn't that obviously nuts?
Like, if our population stopped right where it is, you think we couldn't handle that?
That's nuts, right?
How about, the oceans will be as dead as Lake Erie in less than a decade.
I think he was saying these things in the 70s.
That's nuts. We don't have to wonder how wrong he was.
Just observe. He said, America will be subject to water rationing by 1974.
So in 1974, it would be water rationing.
And food rationing by 1980.
This is the guy who is the number one most influential person on population.
Okay? More wrong than anybody's ever been wrong in the history of wrongness.
And Paul Ehrlich, as Alex Epstein points out, he's the media's longest standing environmental expert since the 70s.
60 Minutes still thinks he's worth putting on TV. Now, if the context was not, if the context was not all the things he's gotten wrong so you should never listen to him again, something's very broken here.
Am I right? Does CBS in 60 Minutes not know that he's the wrongest person of all the wrong people who have ever been wrong?
Did that somehow escape their Their gaze?
I didn't watch the episode.
Did they go back and criticize him for his past wrongness?
How much did they talk about how wrong he's been in the past?
Did they just brush over it?
All right, they think he's right.
So they treated him like he's an actual serious player.
Interesting. All right.
He said by the year, I don't know when he predicted this, but he said by the year 2000, the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands inhabited by some 70 million hungry people.
So, yeah, he said that.
Let's see. He said, the battle to feed all of humanity is over.
In the 1970s, hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.
Okay. He said, we will soon be asking, is it perfectly okay to eat the bodies of your dead because we're all so hungry?
That was 2014. 2014.
I have to admit, some of you have been looking delicious lately.
So, Ari got one of them right.
Maybe that's just me. He wrote The Population Bomb, that was his book, in 1968.
Basically got everything wrong, and that made him the media darling for climate change.
Now, you tell me.
Do you think... Clearly this guy is influencing non-government people.
And he certainly, if he influences enough of them, then the government people get influenced as well.
So would you say this is someone who has power?
Because I was thinking of elected officials.
But does this person have power?
The person who's been wrong about everything in a laughable way.
Yeah, I think you could argue that.
You could argue that.
That he has power.
Now, I was specifically thinking about elected power.
And here's my statement.
Has Paul Ehrlich specifically said we should decrease the number of people that we have now?
Because I didn't see that.
But maybe you have.
Do you remember that the entire conversation is about, is there anybody who has power who wants to decrease the current number of people, like has a plan for doing that?
So even Ehrlich, who is the most nutty one on this, he doesn't ask to do the thing that was the original topic.
So the original topic was, I said, there's nobody who wants fewer people.
He said we have all kinds of problems because of how many we have.
But has he ever said we want to decrease the people?
Has he ever said that?
Because he might have.
I'm not saying he hasn't because I haven't seen anything.
You say he's implied. Implied?
No, implied isn't good enough.
I'm not going to buy implied.
Because just saying there are too many people, that doesn't imply that.
It implies that we need to work harder to feed people or maybe reduce the rate of new people.
But it doesn't imply that, just because he says there are too many.
Yeah. Well, I'm going to say I'm accepting...
I will accept this example of somebody who had power without being elected.
Who influenced the system, probably.
Almost certainly. But let's take this further.
If it's a person of power, it means he actually changed things.
Is it fair to say this one person changed things?
I think it is.
I mean, it does seem like he was a primary influencer.
So if he changed things, you should be able to measure whether it was good or bad.
And I have a simple question here.
Do you think Paul Ehrlich...
Killed more people or fewer people than the Holocaust?
I don't know the answer to that.
Do you think that Ehrlich killed more people than the Holocaust, so let's say 6 million or fewer?
Because he's blamed for India going on a mass sterilization program.
So that has certainly reduced some number of people.
He's certainly responsible for influencing policies...
That may have been suboptimal for some groups of people.
But if he had this much influence and he was wrong about everything, one assumes that he may have killed tens of millions of people.
Is that unfair? I think that's actually an entirely reasonable statement.
Because the most important thing we're dealing with is the, you know, population and economies and feeding us and climate change.
I mean, those are the most important questions.
If he was 100% wrong on all of them, did he not cause more poverty because he would have been a drag on fossil fuels, which is really how people get into poverty, or traditionally.
But just hold the question in your mind.
Has he killed more people than the Holocaust?
I would say probably yes.
Is that too far?
Now, I always say you should not compare things to the Holocaust, but I'm not doing that.
I'm just using it as a benchmark.
I'm not saying he is the Holocaust.
I'm just saying a benchmark for a number of people dead.
I think he probably killed more than the Holocaust.
I think his impact was probably worse than Hiller.
Although, no, because World War II killed about 60 million people, so not all of it was Hitler.
I think you'd have to use the 60 million to get closer to World War II's badness.
So he's not as bad as World War II, but he might be more bad than the Holocaust in terms of total impact on the world.
Imagine working all your life to save the world, and you're 90 years old, and when you get your final report, well, it looks like you killed several million.
We can't be sure, but your policies, you know, from any objective perspective, it looks like you may have killed 10 million people or so.
We don't know for sure. Now, I don't think he believes that.
I think he believes he saved the world.
But it's debatable. Alright, and the final word on that, I believe when people get elected to public office, they can never say anything that sounds like, I want fewer of my citizens to be alive next year.
Nobody can be elected and say, you know you people who elected me?
Really what would be good is there are fewer of you next year.
It just can't work.
It just can't work.
Alright. So yesterday I provocatively tweeted something that would not have worked a few years ago.
So every now and then I like to test to see if the public mind has shifted so I can say things you couldn't say a few years ago.
One of the things you can say now is you can accuse the government or anybody else of a conspiracy theory and it doesn't sound crazy anymore.
That's a big difference.
Am I right? You can now embrace a conspiracy theory that before you thought, you know, I don't think I'd want to say that in public.
But now I'm going to say in public...
Something that I thought from day one, but the environment wasn't quite right because people didn't understand the degree to which the conspiracy theories tend to be real.
So here's mine. I think the Charlottesville neo-Nazi march was an anti-Trump op.
I think it was our own intelligence people who were involved directly or indirectly.
I think obviously many of them were real racists because there was an effort to collect them up.
I do believe that some number of them were assets for FBI or something else.
And some of the evidence that I would suggest is, and I tweeted this, I said, ever wonder why the so-called news never did profiles of the Charlottesville neo-Nazis?
And they never asked the locals if they knew any non-racists who attended the venue, but not marching with the racists.
Not marching, just we're in the same, you know, zip code.
And wanted to support the statues.
Now, some people said, Scott, Scott, Scott, how in the world could you support those racist statues without being a racist?
To which I answer, same way you support the Holocaust Museum.
The Holocaust Museum is not pro-Holocaust.
You understand that, right?
It's sort of anti-Holocaust.
Sort of its purpose. You could do the same thing with the statues.
Just, you know, change the plaque.
This plaque was put up in our racist past.
You know, this is paraphrasing, but do it better.
Basically, just put it in context.
You know, this person supported slavery, and he was one of the heroes.
We keep it here for historical purposes.
Boom! Just give it the right context.
Everybody's happy. Now, not everybody's happy.
That's too much. But a non-racist can have a non-racist argument for supporting the Holocaust Museum, because it's providing context, and they could add the context, which wasn't yet there, to the southern statues.
No big deal. No big deal.
So, yes.
I can promise you that there were locals who had views like that who did attend the event.
And I know because I talked to them.
I actually asked, hey, you know, I think I tweeted it, if anybody was there and you're not a racist, contact me.
And several did. Now yesterday or the day before I heard from somebody else who's a local who says, oh yeah, if you ask the locals, a lot of them will know people who attended who are definitely not racists.
So Trump's statement about the fine people was the simplest thing to check on.
The simplest thing. Just talk to a few people who live there.
Hey, did any of your neighbors go to the event?
Give me their names. I'd like to ask them if they share the racist views.
Of course not. I mean, some might.
Who knows? But I doubt most of them would.
So think about how easy it was to check.
How easy was that?
I did it. I did it with one tweet.
It was easy. Do you think the entire news organization couldn't have done that?
Hey, if you consider yourself a non-racist, but you attended, give us a call.
We'd like to see what you're thinking. The most important thing that determined Biden's presidency is that there were really no fine people there.
That fact and that fact alone is why you have the president you have.
Because he ran on that more than anything.
It was explicitly. That was never fact-checked.
And had they fact-checked it, as I did, personally, they would have found the same result.
Yes, there were fine people there.
And so then the second part is, why have we not seen more about the attendees?
You know, the January 6th attendees, like, tons of names are out there in the public.
A lot of people, you know, partly because they were arrested.
But I think the names of the people Even if they weren't arrested, we're very widely discussed, you know, we know what Bake Alaska did, we know what Ray Epps was up to, right?
There's a whole bunch of individual names and personalities of people who were there on January 6th.
Name somebody who was at the Charlottesville event, except for the organizers.
Except for the organizers, name somebody who was at Charlottesville, just marching.
Life's obviously missing, right?
It's just so obvious that they didn't talk to the people marching.
And the only reason I can think of is that it wasn't an organic march.
Some of them were racist, for sure.
But some of them surely were not.
Surely. So in my opinion, given that the transparency that the government is in the media, since the media is obviously hiding the story, Your reasonable assumption is that it was an operation.
Who would disagree with that?
Do you disagree that the lack of transparency, given how easy it would be to provide the transparency?
Very easy. Just moronically easy.
Easier than anything the news does.
Hey, call us.
Call us if you're one of those fine people.
That's it. Literally the easiest thing a news organization could do, except talk about the weather.
The only thing that's easier than that is talking about the weather.
Nothing would be easier than that.
Right. Yeah.
So, the rule is, if you're an individual, you're innocent until proven guilty.
This applies to your Andrew Tates and anybody else.
If you're a government, you're guilty until proven innocent, and this would be one of those cases.
Now, I don't know if the government's involved, but the media is clearly covering it up, and we know that the media works with some members of the government to cover things up.
So the assumption is reasonable.
It's a reasonable assumption.
You say, a bridge too far.
Well, remember, we're dealing with assumptions.
I'm not saying I have proof of anything about Charlottesville.
That would be a misinterpretation of what I said.
I'm saying that...
You should favor the most likely explanation, and that's that it was an operation.
Intel-related op.
All right. Would you like to see my NPC identifier?
Let me show you how to identify an NPC in the wild.
It's easier than you think.
We might have some here today.
All right. So here's how I do it.
If Scott does the following thing, discusses both sides of the issue, the people who are players, that would be non-NPCs, they say, well, that's smart.
You discuss both sides of the issues.
The costs and the benefits, the risks and the rewards.
Wow, that's smart. But the NPCs would call you a fence-sitter because you haven't committed.
Now, if I say...
That there's new information, and this new information revises my opinion, then the players would say, well, that's smart, because you've got that new information.
So good, good for you.
But the NPCs would say, ugh, you flip-flopper.
You're trying to take both sides of every conversation.
If I do not embrace all conspiracy theories, I do like conspiracy theories, especially the ones that turn out to be true, like the Russia collusion hoax and that sort of thing.
I like those. But if I don't accept all of them, then the players say, well, that's smart.
You don't want to just accept all of them.
But the NPCs say, you're a little bit gullible.
A little bit gullible, Scott.
A little bit gullible. Now, that's your NPC identifier.
I'd like you to find the recent episode of Curry and Dvorak.
What's the name of their show? Their podcast is Adam Curry and John Dvorak.
I'm just blanking.
It's like one of the most famous podcasts in the world.
No agenda. Yeah, no agenda.
Listen to their conversation about me And you tell me if Adam Curry is an NPC. Just use this guide.
Because what you're going to hear him say is that I changed my positions on things.
Of course I did.
Of course I did.
If you didn't change your position during the pandemic, I have questions.
In the fog of war, you should have treated everything like it was deadly because you didn't know.
And then as you learn things, you should say, oh, okay, I guess the masks weren't that important.
Maybe some people shouldn't get vaccinated.
But you do that as you learn it.
So listen to the no agenda.
I haven't heard the whole thing. I just heard...
I heard the first sentence, and it was already wrong, like it was a dumb assumption about me.
It was just incorrect.
Master effective, somebody said.
I need a TV show.
Opinions are optional.
Not being open to information, i.e., ScottMD populations.
All right, here's an NPC thing.
All right, you all just watched me discuss how I had been surprised that this new information about Paul Ehrlich does conflict with my view that there's nobody with power who has that view.
Now, that was just the context of everything I just said, that I am revising my opinion based on new information.
And then Chris says this.
That he's all for new information and changing my mind, not for prejudicial bias, and not being open to info, i.e., Scott, on depopulation.
So after just observing me directly, adding new information, and then modifying my opinion to fit the new information, This NPC says, Scott, he's not open on this topic.
I literally just changed my opinion right in front of you.
Right in front of you.
So Daryl says, you were just wrong then.
I will accept that interpretation.
I'll tell you what I was thinking, but I will accept that you called me wrong, right?
I won't argue that, because I put myself in this position.
Here's what I was trying to do.
I was trying to be absolute because that is more provocative.
As in, there is not one person who holds this view.
And by the way, I proved my point.
But because you can't tell, you think I was wrong.
My point was there's nobody who says we should reduce the number of people.
Paul Ehrlich doesn't say that, but he does sort of imply there are too many.
So I'm accepting that as both he has influence...
And that at least it looks like he's implying there are too many people.
Did I not accept both of those right in front of you?
Now, the reason I said that nobody exists is so people would do their best job of giving me counter examples.
I will do this again in the future.
And when I do it again in the future, you're going to say that they proved me wrong.
But if you understand the pattern, I'm asking you to prove me wrong.
Because that's how we both figure out, you know, how to get to the next level.
I was asking people to prove me wrong in public.
So I challenged people to prove me wrong, right?
And then people did.
Somebody says, you hide behind narcissism.
Projection. Projection!
The all-caps guy accusing me of narcissism.
All right. Well, thank you.
Some of you appreciate what I'm doing here.
Here's putt life. Scott spent three years talking about masks working.
Never once did he cover the other side.
Now, that's an NPC, right?
Do you think I talked about masks without ever covering the other side?
Do you think I never mentioned that the masks allow the virus out the sides and the top?
I said that every time.
That's clearly an NPC, right?
The rest of you, am I wrong?
Is that not obviously an NPC? There couldn't be any human thought that's happening there.
It could possibly be. All right.
Yeah, I always cover the other side.
So if you dip in and see one thing, The only thing you haven't observed me talking about from the other side is the Russia-Ukraine war.
Well, I think that has more to do with what you've observed, but also is a phenomenon that I talk more about the things that people don't yet know.
So that creates a bias.
So the Russia-Ukraine thing is a perfect example.
If most of the things I talk about are how Ukraine is doing better than expected, there are two reasons.
One, because I predicted it, and I think that's important.
And two, that's the interesting part.
The other side that Russia has all the time in the world, Putin can just grind up Russian bodies until he wins.
He can just wait until Ukraine is ready.
I think that's all obvious.
Does anybody need to say that all of the information coming out of the area is non-credible and that Russia could definitely win the war if they want to press it to its ultimate cost?
So the thing is that the Russian side of it seems too obvious to have to explain.
So if I don't do it, does that mean I'm not considering both sides?
I guess it could look like that. Yeah, which systems exactly?
There's no fresh take on Ukraine?
I have the freshest take on Ukraine ever.
Who provided the tiki torches?
Well, we know who the organizers were, so that was through the organizers, probably.
Scott is evil, okay.
All right.
You don't eat bread.
I don't know what... So...
Oops. Rick says, NPC is almost the level of name-calling.
It's a crutch you used to offer rather than pointing out specifics.
Now, I accept that criticism, but let me respond to it.
All right, so is my identification of the NPC's name-calling because it leaves out the specifics of what my complaint is?
Because you see me leaving out the specifics of my complaint right here, right?
This is me leaving out the specifics of my complaint By identifying them and detailing them on a whiteboard and then live-streaming them to the world.
This is how I'm ignoring the specifics.
That's an NPC comment.
Is that name-calling?
Or is that just obviously somebody who's not engaging with any part of the reasoned conversation?
It's a name-calling analogy.
It's worse. It's worse than name-calling.
It's name-calling and an analogy, somebody says.
Except it's not an analogy in my worldview.
In my worldview, NPCs are actually real.
I don't accept...
I'm not saying you should accept it.
But in my worldview, there are actually NPCs.
And I have a hypothesis...
With no evidence to support it, that Elon Musk thinks the same thing.
I don't know. I mean, I'm not a mind reader.
It wouldn't be fair for me to say that.
But he mentioned NPCs even, like, this week.
Oh, and he tweeted recently that he tweeted, without any provoking, well, something provoked it, but he just tweeted all by itself, if you don't at least have a little bit of doubt That you're an NPC, you're an NPC. So he's basically saying the same thing.
The NPCs are the ones who act like there's no doubt.
They're binary thinkers.
No, it's definitely this, and no amount of information will change it.
So I think he's identifying the people who are unable to respond to nuance as NPCs.
And he does believe in the simulation.
And if you believe that the simulation features players who can modify the simulation somehow, and NPCs who are just scenery, doesn't Elon Musk look like somebody who alters the reality all the time?
I mean, he acts like somebody who thinks he's a player, and he can just change reality, and then he does it.
And then he does it.
Yeah, you need to play video games to understand NPCs, right?
So if this is like a video game, not all of the creatures you see have a conscious entity behind them.
Some of them are just scenery. Why would there be players?
So the hypothesis is that if we're a simulation created by some other higher level of intelligence, that they would have a purpose for doing it.
The purpose would be Either to A-B test strategies, which is why I think I have a theme, because I have continuous water-related strategies.
So I believe I'm a player that was inserted to act like the people outside the simulation.
So I'm actually a player with the same characteristics and decision-making as my creators.
But I've got a theme.
And so I'm dealing with all my water-related plumbing problems.
And then you've got a theme which is, I don't know, maybe disease or something like that.
You've got other problems. I just don't have those.
And that you're either A-B testing solutions or you're entertainment.
Or it happened accidentally.
Maybe an AI-created simulation.
That could happen, too.
So it could be either random coincidence Entertainment, somebody's watching us, or they're trying to test strategies.
And the one that makes sense is testing strategies.
What strategy is Elon Musk testing?
Have you noticed that he has a theme as well?
What is Elon Musk's theme?
It's the impossible.
Right? Elon Musk, the theme that he deals with every day is how to do the thing that everybody says can't be done.
Do you think that when they started PayPal and they wanted to move money digitally without actual physical money or checks, don't you think that people told them that couldn't be done?
No, no, you're going to have to get the banks to give up their monopoly and Congress has bought.
Don't you think that looked impossible?
When he built an electric car, everybody said that can never be economical.
Oh, sure, you can build it, but let me tell you what you'll never do.
You're never going to be profitable.
Most profitable car company in the world, I think.
Build a rocket to go to Mars, and a rocket that is reusable.
Build a reusable rocket that just, like, lands upright.
Like, 60-some times already this year, or last year.
Impossible. Take over Twitter, overspend like crazy, and then make it profitable.
Does that sound possible?
Seriously. Does it even sound possible that he could make Twitter profitable?
I've looked at the numbers, and I'm pretty good at numbers, and I'm pretty good at business, pretty good at knowing what a good business model looks like.
It looks impossible.
Honestly, it just looks impossible.
But do I think he'll do it?
There's a good chance. I mean, nothing's certain.
But I think he has a good shot at it.
Everything he's talking about makes sense and would move you in that direction if you could implement it.
I think he might pull it off.
So, over and over again, people have themes.
His seems to be doing the impossible.
Mine seems to be dealing with rumors about me.
Maybe that's everybody in the public eye.
Brady gets divorced and loses a fortune.
I don't know. Was that related?
All right. What else is happening?
That's about it. Now, let me test to see if you know me well enough.
You just saw me call Adam Curry and John Dvorak NPCs.
Why did I do that?
Go. You know me well enough by now.
What am I doing?
What's my plan?
Test my reach?
No, not really. Bully?
Am I being a bully? Stirring energy?
Triggering them? Test for a reaction?
I need attention. I always like attention.
Yeah. It's partly an energy thing.
But it's also because they've been dicks to me.
I don't know if you know that, so I can add that piece of...
They've been dicks because they consistently misinterpret what I say and then do one of the biggest podcasts in the world in which they malign me and defame me and don't correct it.
Now, in the past, I've been invited to correct it on their show, so they have invited me to correct it, and I give them all the credit for that.
But they're dicks, and they're wrong about me, and so I'm going to call them NPC just to get a reaction.
I don't suspect they're NPCs, but I'm going to call them that because they're acting like it.
So if they're acting like it, If they're acting like it, it's just more interesting to put down a marker and say, look, if you can act like NPCs and just misinterpret what I said.
In the first sentence, Adam Curry misinterpreted what I said.
What did he say? I forget what it was.
Some total misinterpretation.
I'd like to see how you would do in a structured debate.
Poorly. Poorly.
Do you understand why I would do poorly in a structured debate?
Everybody know that?
Because a structured debate is designed to remove the advantage of the best debater.
Am I okay?
I'm great. Yeah, I'm not sure I debated Sam Harris.
That was a conversation. It looks like Jim Jordan is going to be the speaker.
Is that real? Too broad.
It wasn't both who criticized you.
Dvorak was in on it in a prior podcast.
But it is definitely true that the two of them have a completely inaccurate view of my pandemic views.
Now, since there's a good chance that one of them will hear about this, I updated my pandemic opinions and predictions so that all the NPCs can just read what my actual opinion was.
And I put the link in my profile.
So if you run into a conversation about me and what I believed or didn't believe, you can just point them to my profile and there's a long write-up of what I did and did not believe.
Did Ben Garrison get it right?
No, Ben Garrison is a moron.
I'm considering suing Ben Garrison.
What do you think? Can I sue Ben Garrison for...
He probably reduced my income by a third, by starting some rumors.
Because in this day and age, accusing somebody of being pro-vax, which is the opposite of what happened, that kind of slander is really expensive to the victim.
So he's a moron, and he's a low-character, unethical weasel.
But I don't expect him to correct in public, so I'm going to use him as my personal whipping boy.
So maybe every day from now to eternity I'll remind you that Ben Garrison is an untalented hack and unethical piece of shit.
Suing is for the lame.
Well, would you say that if you lost a 30 of your income?
This is a serious question.
If somebody defamed you, they knew they had, because it's easy to check that he was wrong, and they don't correct it, and that becomes your permanent brand and it decreases your income by 30% forever, you would say that you wouldn't take legal action in that case.
Really. You wouldn't take legal action in that case.
You're lying.
You would definitely take legal action.
What about Nikki Klein?
You never heard of him before I mentioned him?
Yeah, he's not... He's well-known on the right, and they're the ones who have been fooled by him.
Oh, good fake words.
You say I would have better opinions if I travel to more third world countries.
That's true. Generally speaking, people who have traveled and experienced other countries and cultures, they have better opinions.
So I accept that comment.
How would proof of income be decided?
Yeah. So that's the problem.
The closest you could come, and I don't think this would hold up in court, I could do a poll and I could find out how many of my followers believe that rumor.
I guess they'd be X followers if they believed it.
So you could find out how many people believe the rumor.
And then you could quite easily say, none of these people are ever going to buy my products again, and they're not going to follow me on any monetized live stream.
And then you could say, okay, 40% of my base believe this rumor that totally made me toxic to them.
But maybe only some percentage of that really is the important part.
So you couldn't prove it...
With a specific dollar amount.
But it'd be easy to demonstrate statistically.
I don't know if a jury would buy it.
It would be a tough case, but it would be tough for him too.
See, part of it is it wouldn't be just to get justice.
It would be to enable karma.
Because somebody who does something that bad to another person that they've never met and never did anything to them, and that's really bad what he did.
That's very bad.
All right, karma should visit him.
And if it hasn't yet, I'm going to make sure it does.
So karma's going to come visit you, and nothing you can do about it.
So, yeah, bankrupting him in the process and destroying him would be completely within my ethical bounds.
At this point, destroying him financially would be completely ethical.
Does anybody disagree?
If somebody punches you first and it was an illegitimate punch, you got a free punch with no...
Right? How would I destroy him?
I suppose if he won the court case, I'd have to pay his lawyer fees.
But if he were involved in a lawsuit, it would make him very unhappy whether he won or lost.
He did not cost you money.
NPC? No, that's an NPC comment.
Somebody said he didn't cost me money.
He poisoned a third of my audience.
And you think that didn't cost me money?
No thinking human would believe that.
It's like, do you think that Ye lost any audience when he said his recent comments?
Because he can't prove it, right?
Do you think Ye could prove that he lost money because of the comments?
I guess he could because licenses were cancelled.
Yeah, I guess you could measure that one directly.
What features would your debate platform have?
I think I've talked about that too much.
Oh, 4chan is changing Ben Gerson's comics to turn them hilariously racist?
No.
Well, if there's anybody here from 4chan...
I better not say it.
4chan is such an interesting place because I think they do both the worst and the best things there.
There's nothing in between.
They're either doing things that you really wish had never happened or things that nobody else was going to do when somebody had to do it.
Like, there's nothing in between.
I got invited to Bohemia Grove once.
True story.
But as an entertainer, not as a participant.
Ye did it to himself, yeah.
I Alright. Ladies and gentlemen, I think I've said what I need to say.
And I'm going to go do something else.
Best live stream you've ever seen.
Tomorrow we'll get the locals platform ironed out.
