Episode 2035 Scott Adams: ESG, FBI And J6, And How My Plan Is Going So Far
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Women's History Month
Reciprocity as a life strategy
My cancellation timeline
I won't apologize for trying to help Black America
Success is a learned skill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
And if you'd like to be on time and experience the highlight of civilization, it's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
All you need is a cuppa, a mugger, a glass, a tanker, gels, a tine, a canteen, jug, or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dope bean hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
Go!
Oh, that's a good one.
Premature sipping is allowed.
It is allowed.
Well, let's talk about the minor stories and then toward the end I might say some more about my little brouhaha.
There are updates.
There are updates.
I saw a tweet from Mike Sertovich who was asking why young people seem to watch TV with the What do you call it, the subtitles on?
Have any of you noticed that?
That the use of subtitles, even if you speak the same language, captions.
Captions, yes.
Not subtitles, captions.
And Mike asked, quite reasonably, like, what changed?
You know, what is the reason for it?
And I have to say I've noticed it myself, and I didn't know what it was about, but I have a hypothesis.
One hypothesis, three actually, one hypothesis is that sometimes the young people want to keep their headphones in, or they want to turn the sound really low, but just have something on, and maybe check in once in a while.
So it might be a little bit of that, but it's definitely not just people with earbuds in.
The other thing I think is that movies and TV shows are so insensitive to what their consumers want that they stopped making clear speaking.
It's not my imagination.
Allow me to give you a demonstration of a movie from the 40s.
You ready?
Here's a movie from the 40s.
What were you doing at the scene of the crime?
Well, who else was there?
Well, you'd better talk to the police department.
Right?
That was a 40s movie.
Now let me give you an impression of every person trying to win an Academy Award in the modern time in a movie.
And scene.
It's just that, right?
It's just that the movies have so disrespected their audiences that they literally don't even think the audience needs sound anymore.
Well, you don't need sound.
Why should you be concerned about listening to the voices of the people?
Now, I think part of it is also that background noise has been elevated.
You know, just because they can.
Like they can add some background noise.
You know, some street sounds or whatever.
And then everybody's mumbling.
And between the two things... I will tell you that as far as I know, my hearing is fine.
Last time it was tested.
But I can't hear dialogue on TV.
Can you?
It's just all mumbling shit.
And if it's anything British at all, I don't have a chance.
Yeah, British mumbling is like... Nothing.
Like, I can watch an hour of a movie and not pick up a word at all.
And I think my hearing's fine, as far as I know.
Anyway, the other possibility is that young people are used to seeing captions on Reels and TikToks.
So it just seems more natural.
That's possible.
Alright, Germany.
As Michael Schellenberger tweets, he says, the Germans say they care deeply about climate change and yet Chancellor Olaf Scholz is proceeding with plans to replace Germany's last three nuclear plants with coal next month over the objections of his finance minister.
And then here's the final phrase that Schellenberger adds to his tweet, because witches or something.
Because witches or something.
There's literally no reason.
The anti-nuclear people literally have no reason left.
The pro-green people are pro... You know, the ones who would know what they're talking about are all pro-nuclear.
Even AOC is pro-nuclear.
There is no argument left on the other side.
We now know what to do with the waste.
We know how to build nuclear sites that are either not going to melt down, the newer technology, or ones that have never melted down.
If you're going to build a nuclear plant today, you would build either a generation three that's never had a meltdown, or you'd build the newest generation of four that can melt down, like it's designed so it can't.
And still, still, there's just nothing you can do to change minds.
You know, once people get something in their head, they just can't get it out.
Just can't get it out.
Now, there might be a timing issue.
So I want to make sure I'm not losing the context of this one, because I might be.
It might be that they need to do something quick, and nuclear isn't as quick as it could be.
You know, maybe they'd need to fix something to keep those plants open.
Something like that.
I don't know.
But I might be missing some context, but there is no argument left against nuclear.
You know, if we're looking at a climatic catastrophe, you could have like ten nuclear plants melt down.
Well, let's see if this makes sense.
There have been zero meltdowns of the new kind of plant, if you were going to build one today.
Zero.
Never been one.
What does the left think is the risk of climate change?
Total catastrophe, right?
The risk, according to the left, I don't buy this, but according to the left, the risk is total catastrophe.
Suppose everybody put in a bunch of nuclear power plants, and in some period of years that isn't too much, ten of them melted down.
Would that have been a bad idea?
If 10 of them melted down unexpectedly, because the new technology has never melted down, it's literally never happened with the new power plants, it would totally be worth it.
Yeah.
If you were to compare it with any objective measure, you could have 10 meltdowns and still save the world.
The meltdowns are going to affect a few people around it, and even they would get out of town.
As soon as they got the alarm, they'd just be gone, probably.
If everything went wrong with nuclear, it would still save the world, according to the left.
Again, I don't buy into the disaster narrative, but they do.
They do.
And if they think the disaster's coming, they could have all kinds of nuclear disasters, which would be zero, actually.
In all likelihood, it would be zero.
Because like I said, the technology that you would build one today is the technology that's never melted down.
We're pretty good at this now.
And like I said, the new plants won't melt down at all.
They don't have the option.
All right.
I'm going to throw out a theory.
Conspiracy theory option maybe.
It's a conspiracy theory in the sense that I haven't heard anybody talk about it.
But it's not one I believe.
It's one that might be true.
I'm just going to put it out there.
Suppose Putin doesn't believe he can win in Ukraine outright.
Or what would be his option if he couldn't win?
And let's say he's reasonable enough to not use nuclear.
I mean, he might threaten, but let's say he's not going to use it.
What would Putin do if he didn't want to lose exactly?
He doesn't want to lose, but he can't win.
What would he do?
Here's my theory.
He would have to sue for peace.
Well, not sue for peace.
He would have to negotiate some kind of a deal.
Now, we don't know if the Ukrainians would negotiate anything.
I mean, not productively, we don't know.
But suppose you think it's an option.
If you were Putin, what would be the most dangerous thing you could do?
I'll tell you.
Negotiate peace and keep the Wagner group intact.
Because the head of the Wagner Group doesn't seem as pro-Putin as you'd like him to be, you know, if you're Putin.
It feels like he's getting too much power.
And he commands his own army.
The most dangerous thing for Putin would be to end the war and let the head of the Wagner Group stay on the job.
Now, since you can't do much about that at the moment, because the Wagner Group is the only one who's doing anything useful in the war, so you can't take him out.
But I'll tell you what you could do.
You could order him to have his forces do really, really dangerous stuff until they're so degraded that you could negotiate for peace, and then the Wagner Group would not be strong enough to defeat your loyalist forces.
If you tell me that the head of the Wagner Group is not actively thinking about taking over Russia itself, I think you're nuts.
Of course he is.
And you think Putin doesn't know that?
Of course he does.
Now why do I say that about the head of the Wagner Group?
Who even does that kind of a thing unless they're power hungry and not afraid of anything?
If you're the head of the Wagner group, you're not looking to be a wallflower.
You're looking to conquer some stuff.
You're looking to be in charge.
I think his job history is enough that this is not mind-reading.
I think there's enough that's obvious about the situation that you could say that he's a person who wants power.
Because I think it's just true of everybody in this situation.
He wants power.
And he probably doesn't want to be Putin's bitch much longer.
And he might be in a position where he could just take it himself.
Just take over.
So, I think Putin has to send him into harm and have the Wagner Group as degraded as possible before he talks peace.
And then he can get both things.
He can get the peace and he won't get overthrown.
Now, is there anybody here who believes that's even possible?
Does anybody think that's even possible?
That theory?
That he wants to grind down his own troops?
Only the Wagner troops.
Yeah, I think it's at least possible.
And the reason I say it's possible is that it's probably what I would do.
If I were an evil dictator, I didn't care about anybody but myself, I would make sure the Wagner group was At least taken down by half before I ended the war.
That's what I'd do.
So I just assumed Putin would do what I would do because it seems smart.
But so far Putin doesn't do what I would do, so I wouldn't put a high odds on that theory.
But don't you think it's worth being in the mix?
Don't you think it's at least feasible enough that it should be in the conversation?
I think so.
Apparently Congress just turned down some ESG promoting thing for your 401ks.
I guess whoever managed your 401ks would have to have an ESG plan in order to be able to do that.
I don't know if that's just for government pensions or what that was.
But Congress turned it down.
Congress turned it down.
So, there were enough Democrats to join the Republicans to turn down an ESG-promoting bill in Congress.
Did you imagine that that would happen?
Now, that's not the good news yet.
Meaning that it might not be good news, because Biden said he'd veto it.
So he's vetoing an affirmative action to get rid of ESG.
So he's vetoing the getting rid of ESG, which would keep ESG in this context.
Now, just the fact that Congress as a whole turned it down, you know, it didn't take too many Democrat votes to... Was it just one?
I don't know.
And then, we're also missing Fetterman, right?
So the balance in the Senate is kind of wacky at the moment.
Is there anybody else missing besides Fetterman?
I assume he can't vote, he's just missing, right?
Yeah?
All right.
So, and This is something that Vivek Ramaswamy said about that ESG story.
He said, on a tweet, he said, Democrats are the ones who used to be skeptical of undue corporate influence on politics.
ESG is that on steroids, meaning undue corporate influence.
For a political party that loves to ritually bemoan threats to democracy, it's funny that they teamed up with the likes of BlackRock to create the biggest one of all.
I feel like the problem here is that nobody can handle nuance, or any kind of context, or any kind of detail.
Because if you just say, ESG, equality, Then, of course, you salute that.
Who doesn't like equality and stuff?
Sounds good.
But as soon as you get into the fact that BlackRock is promoting it, and it's like putting an anchor on Fremont, and it puts other people in charge of your business, it's crazy.
It's equity, not equality, right?
Yeah, but even equity is one of those words that people reflexively say yes to.
Yeah, equity.
Without thinking through what that means or what it would take.
All right.
Rasmussen has a poll, and as you know, there's never been a Rasmussen poll that's ever gotten me in trouble.
I think you'd agree on that.
No, slow down.
It's not going to be one of those.
Not going to be one of those.
But according to the polls, 61% of voters, American voters, believe it is likely that undercover government agents helped provoke the Capitol riot. 61%.
So clearly that's picking up independents and also Democrats.
I'm very surprised at that result, are you?
Because usually I would expect that more down like 40%, where it just goes along party lines.
But 61% believe it is likely, not that it's a fact, but likely, that the undercover government agents helped provoke the Capitol riot.
Wow.
39% say it's very likely, so that's probably a long party line sort of thing.
And only 30%...
Oh, only 18% say it is not at all likely.
Now, the 18% is the one that's the closest to the 25%, so we're at least consistent in directional sense.
I always tease that 25% of the people will answer every question wrong.
It doesn't matter what the question is, and it's not the same 25%, but every poll question 25% of the public will just have the most dumbass answer.
It'll be like, is oxygen good for people?
75% yes, 25% not so sure.
Not so sure about this oxygen.
All right, my favorite story by far.
Now, I introduced this story by saying you all know that I've been a big supporter of the trans community as well as LBGQT whatever in general.
And I love people's reaction to this story.
My own reaction is only about other people's reactions.
Right?
So I don't have a reaction.
So let me tell the story.
So to kick off Women's History Month, and this is an important part of the story, Women's History Month, the Hershey Company did an ad where they were honoring women And they featured, primarily, they featured a trans woman.
And that was their look for Women's History Month.
So it's sort of like honoring Rachel Dolenz for Black History Month.
It's like a little off.
Some people think it's off point.
I remind you that if it sounds like I'm making fun of any trans people, that's not what's happening.
Here's what I think is funny.
I think it's funny the reaction that they got.
Like, people are really pissed.
And especially women.
Let's say biological women.
Biological, and people identify as women who were born that way, are kind of pissed That their brand, they think their brand is being a little diminished by having somebody who was born a biological male and transitioned to a woman.
And am I wrong that that's just funny?
And I'm not making fun of trans.
I really am not.
Am I wrong that that's just funny?
That they did that?
They got tons of attention.
I'm not sure if it's going to sell more chocolate.
But they did get a lot of attention.
And they were on the right side of the social narrative at the moment.
But here was my biggest take.
What was the discussion in the boardroom or wherever they made this decision?
Wouldn't you love to see a Dilbert comic?
In which they walk through the corporate decision of having a trans woman as the face of Women's History Month.
I feel like I could make that funny.
Again, not picking on anybody.
So it's not about trans.
It's not about trans at all.
It's only about the decision process and how awkward it would be because there's no winning answer.
Like you can't not do it and you can't do it.
Like, it's just wrong in every way.
So I'm guessing that there were probably some activists within the company who brought this idea to management, and then management said, oh, what the hell are we going to do now?
Because we can't win if we say no, right?
If people within the company came to you and said, hey, I think this is how we show we're progressive and we'd be really mad if you don't consider trans women women.
And then management is like, I think half the country who wouldn't like this are not going to buy as much chocolate.
Do you think that would stop anything?
I think they'd have to do it anyway.
I think the internal pressure would be so high that they'd just have to do it.
Now, I kind of like that they did it.
I like that they got everybody all charged up and were talking about it and the conversation is deepened and people are mad.
I just kind of like it.
Maybe I like provocative things.
Alright, remember I told you that I thought that A number of programs are backwards-looking, such as ESG and CRT, etc.
And they're backwards-looking in the sense that they depend on a narrative of white people being racist and continuing to support systemic racism.
So, in my opinion, a forward-looking philosophy would look like this.
There would be optimism, Right?
Maybe some affirmations, maybe some manifesting.
You'd have strategies for the future, you'd make plans and stuff like that.
You'd have systems, maybe even more than goals.
So there's a number of ways, but there's one thing that's future-oriented that I'm seeing in play this week.
Reciprocity.
Reciprocity as an operating system.
is just a killer.
And it's all future-focused.
And reciprocity has to be future-focused, because you're doing something without any sense of reward.
The reciprocity might come to you in the future, so you're preparing for a future where you need that.
Now, let me give you some examples where that mattered.
Do you remember there was some, I don't know if it was a riot, or there was some Some kind of big commotion that caused some street in America to be all littered.
And there was a national news story about some young black man who got a broom and it wasn't his job.
He just didn't like his neighborhood dirty.
And so he just took his broom and just started sweeping, you know, this enormous job.
I mean, it was a pretty big job.
I don't know how big the street was.
Was it Baltimore?
And the news picked it up and it was nothing but A young man who wanted to make his neighborhood better.
That's it.
And if you remember, he was deluged with money and offers.
Now, why would he get offers?
Why would anybody make him offers?
Just because he was sweeping up the street.
Didn't know anything about it.
Well, here's my take.
They could see that he had a reciprocity operating system.
That he was just saying, this needs to be done.
This will be good for everybody.
I'll just go do this.
Now, if you do that kind of stuff on a regular basis, most of the time you will not be rewarded.
Most of the time you will not be rewarded.
But sometimes you are.
And that was a good situation where he was.
Now, I think also people were signaling that they want more of that kind of behavior.
I think that's part of it.
So, generally speaking, when you're looking forward and you're doing things for other people, it will come back.
Now, I've got to tell you how important that is in my life at the moment.
You may have noticed the headlines.
There were a few people who were angry at me in the past week.
But I'll tell you, almost all the people that I've ever helped, either individually or in some way, black and white, because it turns out there were more black people I've helped than I remembered, but they all appeared.
They all came out of the woodwork.
And that includes people who are not necessarily wanting to get into this.
So I would say that having laid down a long history of being useful to other people, intentionally, and not for some specific reward, I just think it's a good way to be.
Those people came to my defense in a big way.
Not all publicly.
Most of it was private.
But they came through.
That's reciprocity.
I'll give you another example.
In the darkest moments of my being cancelled, I joined a Spaces.
I just logged on.
It was run by Sonny Johnson and a number of mostly black listeners.
And the topic was somewhere in the domain of stuff I'd dusted up, I guess.
And I didn't know how that would go.
Because I thought I might be walking into the hornet's nest.
Like I thought I was just going to get yelled down or something.
But instead, Sonny Johnson noticed I was there, invited me to speak, which I did.
We had some technical problems, so if anybody thinks I left, it's because of a technical problem.
I didn't just leave.
But, when I talked, they listened.
And they were respectful, and they were curious, I think, because nobody was shouting me down, etc.
And then when I had some technical problems, Sonny invited me back on.
Now, what Sonny was doing, by giving me the respect and the opportunity to talk to exactly the people I wanted to talk to at that time, that created reciprocity.
So all week long I've been turning people down for interviews.
No, I can't be on your podcast.
I'm not going to do your show.
I don't have a quote.
And then Sunny Johnson messages me.
So I'm going to be on her show on Saturday.
I'll give you details before Saturday.
So I said yes.
The only reason I said yes is reciprocity.
So she gets the scoop.
Because she was respectful to me when she didn't need to be, didn't need to be, and when it was my darkest time.
That's reciprocity.
She gets my full service in return.
That is what I'd like to teach as an operating system for everybody.
You could say it's for black people, but it's an operating system for everybody.
Everybody needs to learn that what you're putting out is the only thing you're going to get back in a variety of ways.
If, however, you're looking backwards instead of forward, and you've got a victim mentality, hey, you owe me something because of something that happened in the past, that does work in the short run.
In the short run, you'll get more resources.
That totally works in the short run.
In the long run, it destroys the world.
It can't work in the long run.
In the long run, the only thing that works is cooperation and reciprocity.
That's it.
Everything else fails.
So, let's go through my scorecard.
Where I'm at, having been fully cancelled.
By the way, the actual full cancellation for Dilbert takes effect mid-March.
So there's a few more weeks of comics in the pipeline, I guess.
After that, it will be available only on the Locals platform, subscription platform.
And you can find it at scottadams.locals.com.
And by the way, it would help me if you subscribe on Twitter.
I'm sorry, if you subscribe on YouTube.
All right, so here's the scorecard so far.
And I tweeted this, I'll just read it.
Only the dying leftist fake news industry cancelled me.
Did you know that?
Did you know that only the left-leaning world cancelled me?
The right hasn't cancelled me at all.
Not even close.
Like not even a little bit.
The right is completely supportive.
The only unsupportive thing I saw was a few people haven't seen the context yet.
But 100% of the people saw the context understand what's going on.
All right, so far I have not been banned on social media.
Twitter, no problem.
I'm here on YouTube right now.
Yeah, the Hodge twins need a little background.
I was thinking of reaching out to them.
The Hodge twins.
Because I'm pretty sure I follow them.
I think I'm I think they would enjoy that, actually.
I'm thinking of reaching out, just to give them a little content.
So how do you explain, if you're on the left, and I got cancelled for a hate speech, how would you justify in your mind that social media hasn't even touched me?
Still on Facebook, Meta, still on Instagram, no problem, Twitter.
How do you explain that?
The easy explanation is I didn't violate any terms of service.
But if I had done what I was accused of doing, I think that would be hate speech.
I think that would be a violation.
So, credit to YouTube.
I don't know if any of the YouTube monitors are watching.
I know you're probably watching me carefully.
But maybe not live.
Good for you.
I like to call out when somebody does something right.
YouTube is handling this situation just right.
Just right.
I'm even monetized.
And I think YouTube probably looked at the context.
You know they were asked to look at it, right?
Would you agree?
Would you agree there's no chance in the world that the YouTube censors did not look at my situation?
Because it was national news.
Of course they did.
And it originally happened on YouTube, where it still lives.
It's still on YouTube.
And I don't even think they rigged the algorithm.
I think the algorithm was surfacing it just fine.
It had like half a million views or something.
So, yeah.
Anyway, so how do you explain the social media, which all bans hate speech, looked at the context of this situation and said, nope, that's not hate speech, or at least not enough to violate any terms.
I also have zero pushback in person.
Zero.
There's one fellow I know named Vlad, who's real, real mad at me.
But on behalf of his wife, who's black, who doesn't know the context, apparently.
So he's sort of acting up on behalf of his wife, it looks like.
So that's fine.
That's fine, right?
Yeah, VladTV.
If Vlad wants to be mad at me because his wife needs him to be mad at me so he can stay married, that's fine.
But he's bothering me a little too much, so I had to go after him on social media today.
And by the way, I considered him a friend until this week.
But he has to do what he has to do.
But except for him, 100% of the people I've interacted with this week in person have been perfectly fine.
It's like it never happened.
Or they're supportive.
Mostly actively supportive.
Alright, no impact on my banking.
No impact on my banking.
Do you know why?
Because I didn't do anything.
I didn't do anything that would affect banking.
If I had, apparently they could turn off my banking.
Apparently that's a real thing.
It didn't happen to Laura Loomer and some other people.
So if I had done actual hate speech, and even in context it looked like that, yeah, I would be banned probably in all those things.
But you have to explain to yourself why none of the things except leftist political organs have banned me.
Leftist political organs.
And that means the newspapers.
I think you all figured out that taking me out before the 2024 election was a good Democrat strategy.
Those of you who have watched me long enough, do you think I impact Let's say the framing of issues.
Do you think I've had an actual political impact that makes a difference?
So for those of you who don't know me, look at the comments.
So the people who know me best on Locals are almost all saying yes, 99% it looks like.
The people who know me less would be on YouTube, but you can see the yeses and nos.
The ones who say no, you're the least familiar with what I've done for the last five years.
The ones who say yes are the ones who've actually watched me for five years.
There's no question whatsoever that I'm influencing things.
You want some evidence of that?
That I'm influencing things?
I'll give you some evidence.
If I wrote it down.
Well, you may have seen that Mark Andreessen was one of the founders of the Internet.
Inventor of the browser.
And a famous venture capitalist guy.
He wrote a long thread on Twitter in which he said that he was quitting drinking And that he had come to realize that all of the studies for years that had been in the newspapers that cancelled me, that all of those studies had been bogus.
And when he quit drinking, he felt much better, etc.
Now, Elon Musk weighed in, and he was in favor of, you know, maybe occasional moderate drinking with friends.
But he said in direct words, alcohol is poison.
And if you understand that alcohol is poison, You know, you can keep it moderate.
Now, those of you who have been watching me for a while, everybody on Locals knows what I'm talking about.
On YouTube, do you know why I gave you that example?
How many of you know why I'm giving you this example?
As an indication of influence.
I'm primarily the person who's been saying alcohol is poison.
It's actually the first chapter of my book that just got cancelled.
I say it so often, I led with it in my book.
Now, as some have said, I don't know that I invented it, because the sugar is poison preceded it, and probably somebody already thought to say alcohol is poison.
But if you start noticing how many times my frame on things becomes, let's say, a common frame.
Because the alcohol is poison thing, I'm not saying it's just an Elon Musk thing.
You see it everywhere now.
It's a common phrase.
And I think I'm probably the biggest pusher of that phrase.
There could be others as well, but I'm sure I'm the biggest influence on it.
Now, are there other things that I've influenced?
Yeah!
A lot of things.
A lot of things.
All right.
So, those who would be concerned about me influencing politics, coincidentally, are the ones that cancelled me completely prior to the biggest political election that we've had in a long time.
All right.
So, so far, no disagreement from anybody who knows the context.
No disagreement from any of my friends.
Even the people who cancelled me, I don't know what they were thinking, but I didn't hear any of them disagree with my actual points.
They, of course, are alarmed by my rhetoric, as everybody is.
Alright, I'm going to get to something useful here in a minute, believe it or not.
Here's something the Washington Post reported about me.
This is an actual quote from the Washington Post.
What?
What?
The student who created the workplace satire comic strip in 1989 had been entertaining extreme right ideologies and conspiracy theories for several years.
What?
What?
I'm literally the most famous debunker of conspiracy theories on both the right and the left.
Have you ever seen anybody spend more time debunking all the conspiracy theories?
In fact, the biggest problem I have with the right is that I don't believe their conspiracy theories.
Am I right?
The biggest problem I have with my own audience, which is mostly right-leaning, by far, is that I'm not buying into the things that they have more quickly believed.
Now, to be fair, Most of those conspiracies theories turned out to be true.
You know, I don't know what the percentage is, but it feels like too many of them turned out to be true.
But would you agree that I'm more famous for disagreeing with right-leaning conspiracy theories?
Which is more true?
I'm more famous for disagreeing with the right or agreeing?
Yeah, on locals they all know, they're all saying yes.
Yeah, I'm way more famous for disagreeing with the right.
Now at the same time, so there are two papers that cancelled me at about the same time.
The Washington Post and the L.A.
Times.
I'm cancelled everywhere, but these were two of the quick ones.
So at the same time that the Washington Post is reporting that I've been entertaining extreme right ideologies and conspiracy theories, was it the L.A.
Times or, I think it was the L.A.
Times reported I'm a Democrat.
So those are your two high-quality news organizations.
One reported that I'm a right-wing, like super right-wing conspiracy person, and the other one reported I'm a Democrat.
At the same time, at the same time, they reported that.
Now, if that doesn't tell you everything you need to know about the quality of the news, and I told you before that before getting cancelled, zero people at newspapers asked me for the proper context.
Nobody.
Now after I've been cancelled, it got more interesting and people started looking into it and looking at my comments in a broader way.
But they all cancelled me without doing any journalism.
None.
No journalism.
And the journalism they're doing now, the LA Times, was actually, in my opinion, somewhat supportive by showing the full context.
And Newsweek said directly, I shouldn't be cancelled, in an opinion piece.
All right.
Hotep Jesus tweeted this.
He said, Twitter users are addicted to being offended.
That's pretty much all I'm seeing now.
Most of the negative stuff on Twitter about me is people who are clearly just gooners.
They are literally just getting off on it.
Oh, Scott, you're so cancelled now.
Oh, oh, oh, I think you're so cancelled.
Oh, oh, oh.
I'll stop doing that.
I know that's creepy.
Yeah, they're just gooning out at their criticism.
And you can tell that it's not even about me.
They don't actually care about me.
They care about the process of gooning and getting a little dopamine hit.
So I can't take them too seriously.
It's just people who don't know the situation, gooners, and then political enemies of mine who are just waiting for a chance to cancel me.
That's all it is now.
There are no reasonable people who know the context who have any problem.
Is that an extreme claim?
I haven't seen any.
I have not seen any reasonable person who knows the context, who still has a problem with it.
None.
It's just a media thing.
So my actual world of being totally cancelled, except for the financial part which is enormous, my everyday is exactly the same.
I go outside and I see people who are not on social media.
Mostly.
I went to the park.
To walk my dog, and I know quite a few of the neighbors just from dog walking.
Well, they all know me, basically.
And I thought, oh, this is going to be awkward.
Nope.
Big smiles.
Big smiles everywhere.
How you doing?
How's your dog?
Big smiles.
So my local experience is that it didn't even happen.
That the cancellation never happened.
And if you subtract the gooners and crazy people and the political operatives and the grifters, there are no actual complaints from black people or white, once they know the context.
Here's the funniest comment from Ghost of Gettysburg.
Now, I'm not endorsing this.
I just think it's funny.
All right?
So this is just for the laugh.
Scott pointed out that the Emperor has no clothes and now all the NPCs are upset.
This is usually what happens before a societal epiphany happens.
Scott Adams might be a sort of Rosa Parks to look back on.
Rosa Parks.
Now, obviously that would be offensive for me to embrace that, which makes it funny.
It's funny because it's outrageous.
But I would ask you this question about Rosa Parks.
Looking back in history, was Rosa Parks not good for white and black people and everybody else?
Are you glad that Rosa Parks existed?
Whether you're white or black or anything else.
Because she created a societal change that was positive.
Is that correct?
Like there's nobody who's anti-Rosa Parks.
Today, nobody would want a segregated boss or anything like that.
So Rosa Parks is a good example of someone who was very, let's say, controversial back in those super racist days, more racist than today.
But today, in the length of time, we now come to know that it's a good thing she did that and it's a good thing that, you know, We got to a better place.
Everybody wins.
I like to think that's my case as well.
Not Rosa Parks, of course.
But I believe that what I'm doing is pissing off half of the world that's paying attention.
And you're going to hate me for a while, but you're going to be glad I did it.
That's my prediction.
You're going to be glad I did it.
But you can hate me for a while, just like the white racist hated Rosa Parks.
They probably hated the hell out of her, I assume.
Right?
But not now.
So, time is on my side, because you are going to be happy that I, let's say, waded into the conversation.
Now one of the biggest complaints I'm getting lately is even from people who support me or at least don't want me cancelled.
They're saying that the way I said it was unnecessarily provocative and it was unproductive and it made things worse.
What do you say?
Was it an awkward, well it was definitely awkward, but was it unproductive and just made things worse?
And it was a big mistake the way I said it.
Well here's what's wrong with their theory.
I did it intentionally and it turned out better than I'd hoped.
Here's what I hoped.
I didn't expect I would get fully cancelled that time.
I have been predicting I would be fully cancelled, but I thought it would be for political reasons and some excuse would pop up.
I didn't know it would be this one.
And if it hadn't been this one, I'm sure there would have been others.
They'll just find some reason.
But I was trying to be provocative.
I was trying to make people angry.
Is that a mistake?
If I'd done it unintentionally, it would have been a mistake.
But I did it very intentionally.
I was trying to get people mad so that they would send me energy, and then we'd talk about it, and then everybody would say, oh, that was useful.
Thanks.
What happened was it got too big.
And the reason it got too big is not because of what I said.
Well, you all get that, right?
The reason I got cancelled had nothing to do with what I said, except sort of, you know, any excuse was good enough.
Once it started, it was just sort of a political cascade, but it wasn't what I said.
People aren't mad at that.
They're mad that I made them mad.
I did that intentionally.
If you're mad that I made people mad, okay.
If you're just mad, okay.
That's what I wanted.
That's exactly what I wanted.
And I wanted you to turn all of your guns on me.
I wanted you all to circle around me, draw all of your weapons, point them at my head, and make me defend myself.
That's what I wanted.
And that's what I got.
Now, I would argue that I'm already the most... I'll use the word interesting, only because I'm controversial.
If you're controversial, you're automatically interesting too.
I'm the most interesting voice in America, right now, on this topic.
Does anybody disagree?
I'm not saying I'm the most authoritative, the most credible, the most believable, the most anything else.
Only the most prominent and interesting voice.
And what makes me interesting is that I'm walking through this topic instead of around it.
I know how to go around it.
I know how to apologize, but there's nothing to apologize for.
I'm trying to help you.
I'm not going to apologize for trying to help you.
And when I say you, I mean black America.
You know, and everybody else.
The same way Rosa Parks was helping black America, but ended up helping everybody.
This is specifically for the benefit of black America.
It's going to help everybody else too.
Because we have to get to the point where you can actually say something honestly about the topic.
How in the world could you possibly move ahead if you have to lie about the topic you're working on?
And the non-lie is that, given the trends we see, and I like to say my lived experience, I don't need the Rasmussen poll to tell me what's obvious, do I?
You can just watch the news and talk to people and be on social media and live for five minutes, and you see everything that the Rasmussen poll suggested.
Now, perhaps the exact numbers are a little off, but there's no doubt that even if the Rasmussen Poll had never existed, there's clearly racial tensions that have gotten worse since Trayvon Martin, and I think they're reaching a point where the society is starting not to work so well, like it's starting to have some cracks.
And the thing that makes America America, in my opinion, is the so-called classic melting pot.
Like if we can't figure out how to work together across races and make it better than if we had no diversity at all, we're not really going to be a competitive country.
And I want to be a competitive country.
So is it good for me to help black America?
Yeah, yeah.
Absolutely.
Because that helps me.
It helps you as well.
Now, if I were only helping black America, then you might have some questions.
But I don't do things that aren't good for everybody.
Like, that's how it works.
You help the ones that are in the deepest hole, and that's sort of good for everybody.
Just like Rosa Parks.
It was good for everybody.
Let me say a little bit more about that.
If you thought that my communication was poor, and a number of people have said words to this effect, we know he's a professional communicator, so why did he do this so wrong?
Have you seen that?
People saying, he knows how to communicate, why did he do this so wrong?
It wasn't wrong.
It was supposed to get exactly the... I was communicating for effect, and I got exactly the effect I tried to get, which is outrage.
Does anybody think I wasn't trying to outrage you?
How in the world could you think that wasn't intended to be outrageous?
Of course it was.
Of course it was.
You've seen me do it before, by the way.
So I wouldn't say that that was communication.
I would say it was protest.
It was protest.
Protest is supposed to make you pissed off.
Do you remember that I supported Colin Kaepernick's protest and everybody who's watching me now hated me for it?
You remember that?
And I supported his protest because it was perfect.
He made everybody mad, and what he did was super inappropriate.
You know, kneeling for the national anthem.
Inappropriate in the sort of classic way.
So the fact that he was so inappropriate, and he got fully cancelled, like somebody I know, like somebody I know, made a great protest.
That was a good protest.
You still remember his name, you still remember his issue, and he took the bullet.
Now, I think he should have gone back and... I would have liked to see him go back and play again, but that didn't work out.
So, if you think I was communicating, then it would look like I made a big mistake.
If you know I was protesting a situation which I don't think can stand, then pissing you off is exactly what I wanted to do.
That's exactly what I wanted to do.
I didn't think it would get that big.
I thought it would just stay within my audience.
And my audience is well aware that I like to agitate them, and then once they're in an agitated state, then I reframe it and bring them back.
How many times have you seen me do that?
I agitate my audience with some provocation, and I slowly bring them back to another frame.
It's a fun experience.
If you haven't experienced it, you should try it.
All right.
What else?
I asked a poll, I said, on Twitter.
Now this is a Twitter poll, so don't take it too seriously.
But I said, if you're white, is it better for you to lie to black Americans about where you think things are at, or to be honest and see if you can figure out solutions?
Well, I haven't checked, but 25% of white Americans said it's better to lie.
Is that healthy?
Do you think it's healthy that 25% of Americans feel they have to lie to black Americans?
How in the world is that healthy?
And is there any black American who wants them to lie to them?
If I may say one super racist thing, and I think I will, you want me to say something super racist so I can get cancelled again?
Here it comes.
Super racist.
Black people like honesty.
Super racist.
Right?
Black people like honesty.
Anybody want to argue with me?
Individuals.
I'm not talking about like some race grifters and stuff.
But individually, I've never met a black person who wanted to be lied to.
Is that even a thing?
No.
They like some honesty.
Do you know who doesn't like honesty?
Tell me.
Who doesn't like honesty?
There's an answer to this question.
Who doesn't like honesty?
Liberal women.
Liberal women.
And the men who need to do what the liberal women say.
The left is mostly a female-centric philosophy with men who are willing to go along with it.
Mostly.
Like everything, lots of exceptions, right?
So even when I said the racist thing I said just now, which is black people like honesty, do you think I meant every single black person?
No.
It never means all of them.
It never means that.
You would have to be an NPC to think that any statement about a group is intended to mean all of them.
In no world, in no conversation, at no time ever has anybody ever meant that interpretation.
But that's the interpretation the news has taken, because they're not honest.
It's fake news.
All right.
Here's something that June Stone said to me on Twitter.
She's a black woman and she was not a big fan of my comments.
Not a big fan.
But she was not a big fan in a different way than you expect.
So let me read her comment because I think it's a good one.
She said, black people don't need people who think like you, meaning me, giving us, quote, success strategies.
Just work on your own internalized biases and colonial mindset, which I suppose I do have.
Is that unfair?
She says I should work on my own internalized biases and colonial mindset.
That's fair.
I usually make fun of mind readers.
But is there anybody who doesn't have internalized bias?
Like, how could you not have an internalized bias?
Nobody can get rid of their internalized bias, but working on it is something we all should do, right?
You can't get rid of it, but you've got to stay on top of it, right?
You've got to know what it is, you've got to work with it, you've got to try to tamp it down, right?
So I would take her advice as good advice.
I should work on my own internalized biases, as should all of you, as should all black people, as should all white people.
And everybody in return.
By the way, I keep leaving out Asian Americans and Indian Americans and Hispanics, but it's only because I'm simplifying things.
All right, so she goes on and she says, let me read it again.
She says she doesn't want people like me giving black people, quote, success strategies.
Come back when you've done the work and change your heart.
So here's how I replied.
I said, I hear you, June, but success strategies, quote-unquote, are your only hope to slice through systemic racism.
You're asking for more systemic racism by being denied the influence of successful people.
The government isn't coming to help make you successful, and it's largely a learned skill.
So here's what I'm telling black America.
Success is a learned skill.
If you learn that skill, systemic racism will only be a pain in the ass in your life.
It won't stop you from success.
It will just be a pain in the ass.
But you can slice right through it with some pretty basic, well-tested, universal, you know, nothing about black or white, just universal success strategies.
I happen to have a lot of them.
My best-selling book that is now cancelled, had it failed almost everything and still went big, is the most influential self-help book in the world.
It's the most influential.
Now, it's not the bestseller, but other bestsellers have borrowed my ideas and become bestsellers.
But there's nobody more influential at the moment in the self-help, personal success domain than I am.
I'm number one in that domain by influence.
I invented the idea of the talent stack, or popularized it maybe, and the idea of systems over goals, which are two of the most important self-development concepts in the world.
And they're now generally the advice that people give.
That came from me.
The advice that white people give each other largely came from me.
Now, I have a number of black followers who also report to me that that same advice completely changed their lives.
Made them richer, happier, more successful, etc.
None of these things are black or white, in the sense that I don't think there's any such thing as... Well, no, I'll take that back.
These are universal.
But on top of that, there would also be special strategies for black Americans.
And that special strategy would be, go where you have an advantage.
Go to a big company that's trying to improve its diversity, you go right to the top of the list, as long as you're qualified.
So, strategy-wise, what I offer to black America, now that I have your attention, now that I have your attention, exactly as I was planning to do, I would like to offer you, for free, For free.
The best success strategies you've ever seen.
Now the reason that being denied these strategies I call systemic racism is because when you're white, now again this is not a universal for every white person, but in general, let's see if I can get some agreement on this in the comments.
Would you agree that the average white person in America has more casual contact with financially successful people than the average black American.
Just on average.
True.
Right?
And do you believe that that contact, even though it's a casual contact, might be friends, could be your father, mother, could be, but your friends, etc.
Don't you think that makes a difference?
Don't you think that the knowledge of how to succeed is probably the biggest lever for anybody.
For anybody.
And whenever you see a black American who's succeeded, you look at their process.
And it turns out that they use the same techniques that I'm promoting for everybody.
If you listen to Kobe Bryant, Like if you listen to him just talk about what makes him, made him successful, it will sound just like it came out of my mouth.
Except, you know, different framing, of course.
But it's going to sound very familiar.
He's going to talk about the system he uses instead of the goal.
And, you know, developing his entire game so he wasn't a specialist, you know, I'm just a shooter or just a defensive person.
He was great at everything in basketball.
So he had a talent stack, he had systems over goals, and probably a dozen other things that I teach in terms of success.
So it has nothing to do with white or black.
These are just universal things that work for everybody.
So when I talk about the The what I call the reciprocity operating system.
The most useful thing to do if you're black and you want white America to embrace you and effectively take the systemic racism away for you.
Then reciprocity is how you do that.
Because white people are just all primed for reciprocity.
Maybe everybody is.
Like I'm not saying somebody isn't.
I think everybody is.
But I can talk about my own life better.
And if you simply give a little bit more than you're expected to give, most of the time you're not going to get anything back from that.
But over time you will.
When you need it, probably you will.
I tell the famous story of my neighbor who was an old white guy when I knew him and he was rich.
And he didn't have a college education, and I asked him how he did that.
His first job was selling salt.
Do you know how hard it would be to sell salt to grocery stores?
They already have salt.
It's all almost completely the same.
It's like just price.
And if you don't have the lowest price, how the hell do you sell your salt?
Here's how he did it.
He gave me one anecdote.
He knew that there was a store owner who was going to spend the weekend organizing his shelves.
The store owner had never bought his salt, but he'd been trying for a while.
So, on Saturday, he puts on his work clothes, and he shows up at the store, and he says, I'm here to help.
Just for free.
For nothing.
I'll just help you organize the store today.
The store owner accepted his help, and bought all of his salt.
And bought his salt from that day forward.
Why?
Reciprocity.
Yeah.
Because he couldn't not buy it.
Once he'd accepted that level of help, the guy worked with him all day, reciprocity kicks in, and you buy that guy's salt.
So, if instead, my friend had said, you owe me this because of something you did in the past, would that have worked as well?
Maybe in the short run?
But the reciprocity play is permanent.
That's a good solution right there.
At the same time that the Washington Post was cancelling me, they were reporting that the sonic weapon, the Havana Syndrome sonic weapon, was never real and it was all imaginary.
Reading the newspaper, you would have waited five years to learn that.
If you had listened to me, the person the newspaper cancelled, I told you that on the first fucking day.
First day.
Do you know why?
Because I'm really good at this.
I'm really good at a very narrow specific thing.
I can see a mass hysteria forming.
I can tell the difference between a mass hysteria and a real story.
And I saw it immediately.
It was classic.
It was the most classic mass hysteria you could ever have.
It was so obviously a mass hysteria that I called it on the first day and never stopped saying it.
And even when the news started to move against me, I was like, well, maybe this damage really does suggest there's a weapon.
Even when the news was working against me, I said, nope, mass hysteria, no weapon, you're never going to find a weapon.
And now that's the common belief.
Do you remember, was the Washington Post also reporting that alcohol was good for you in moderation?
I don't know, but I'll bet they were.
In fact, I'll bet most of the people who cancelled me If you had followed the people who cancelled me for five years, or you had followed me, who would know more?
The people who followed me, or the people who followed the so-called news that cancelled me?
It's not even close.
The fake news is so fake that my guessing was better.
Now, they're educated guesses, right?
But I didn't have data.
I just looked at it and said, eh, that doesn't look right to me.
Now, some of you fell for the Vax hoax about me.
4chan basically changed all my views and sold you that those were my views, and then everybody got mad at me.
But if you're not up with that story, you should catch up.
Find out what my actual views are, and you'll get over that pretty quickly.
But that was one of the best pranks ever on me, was that whole Vax prank.
Anyway, in order to be mad at me for my latest outrage, You would have to accept the following things.
Here are all the things you would have to believe in order to be outraged at me.
It's a long list.
These are all the dumbass things you would have to believe.
You'd have to believe them all.
All of these things.
Now listen to this list of things you'd have to believe.
You'd have to believe that news about public figures is generally accurate.
How many believe that?
How many believe that news about public figures, specifically, and political figures, because I'm a political figure, effectively... Does anybody believe that news about... Right.
But in order to be mad at me, you would have to believe that the story was accurate.
Am I right?
You wouldn't be mad unless you thought the story about me was accurate.
So you would have to believe that the news tells accurate stories about public figures.
That's not even a thing.
That's not a thing.
Even the friendliest story about me that was definitely not a hit piece called me a Democrat.
Like, that's in the news.
That's the LA Times.
They reported I'm a Democrat.
Now, it makes me wonder if they checked... Is there a way to check somebody's registration?
Is there a public way to check to see how somebody's registered?
Because it's entirely possible that the last time I registered it was Democrat.
Oh, so that's probably what they did, because they didn't ask me, they just checked.
I might actually be a registered Democrat.
Because the last time I voted, I voted Democrat.
That was a long time ago.
Your registration stays, right?
Unless you change it?
No, that doesn't make sense.
I thought I registered as an independent long after I was a Democrat.
But maybe not.
Maybe not.
Anyway, it doesn't matter.
For me, registration was random.
I would have just picked a party.
I wouldn't have cared.
All right, so you'd first have to believe that news about public figures is accurate, which is absurd.
It's like you haven't paid attention to anything.
Secondly, you'd have to ignore the context, which all the major news did.
Every major news except the LA Times.
I'll give them credit.
They did a really good job of context.
All the rest ignored the context.
So you would have to believe that the fake news gave you accurate context.
You'd have to imagine that when I said that white people should move away from black people, or stay away, that that was somehow a practical plan.
In my head I thought, yeah, that'll work.
There's a real practical plan.
That's not a practical plan.
If you didn't recognize that as obvious provocation, You're not really good at recognizing hyperbole, I guess.
Now, you could say that I was not communicating well, but since I wanted to provoke you, I would argue that I communicated better than I hoped.
I provoked you more than I thought.
You'd also have to believe that... You'd also have to not know me, and know that I have a long pattern of using hyperbole to attract energy.
You'd have to know that I don't do this very thing on a regular basis.
Not on this topic, but I provoke in order to make it harder for me to make my case, and then when I make my case, it's more of an interesting journey that I take my followers on.
So you'd have to not know that I do this on a regular basis.
It's a pattern.
You'd have to not know that I write about this specific technique.
I write about doing this.
If you read Winn-Bigley, you'll read how I talk about Trump using provocation to attract energy, and the energy is more important than the damage from the provocation.
I talk about that as an actual persuasion technique, and then I did it in front of you.
In order to be mad at me, you'd have to also know, you'd have to not know that I'd promised to end ESG.
So you'd have to know that it's not part of a larger plan to get rid of ESG and CRT and similar stuff.
You'd also have to believe I said a word that I didn't say or that I meant every black person is the same.
You would have to believe that I believed all black people are the same.
Even though I just went out of my way, in the provocative statements, to say I was only talking about a specific percentage from a poll.
But you'd have to believe that even though I said it's only fewer than half, that what I really meant was all.
You'd have to believe that.
And you'd have to believe that I think, you'd have to believe that I think, that all black people are alike.
Or that all anybody's alike.
Who in the world believes that?
If you thought that was serious, you should maybe examine your thinking process.
You'd have to also believe that I thought the Rasmussen Poll was essential to the point.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that the only thing that suggests there's racial division and it's getting worse was that Rasmussen Poll?
Do you think I had no other data points or lived experience, or I'd never seen the news, or I hadn't seen the Gallup poll saying race relations are worse, or I hadn't seen black people talking openly about how white people suck?
You think I needed the Rasmussen poll?
No, it was just a conversation opener.
Now, I will take criticism for not explaining that it wasn't essential to the point.
That would be a good criticism, by the way.
Because I wasn't trying to provoke in that way.
I was trying to provoke, but not based on the accuracy of one pole.
I wouldn't depend on that.
In order to be mad at me, you'd have to ignore your lived experience, because everybody sees the same thing I do.
Black or white, you all see the same thing I do.
You'd have to Oh, you'd also have to believe that I and some large number of the poll respondents were aware that the phrase in the poll, which was, is it okay to be white?
You would have to think that I was aware of that, that that was some kind of 4chan racist thing, and that the poll members were aware of that.
How many of you were aware of that?
Now this is a very political crowd, so it's going to be a high percentage in this crowd.
But what percentage of the general public do you think were aware that they had some racist past?
I'd never heard it before.
So Vlad, who's very mad, Vlad, who's mad at me, He says, it is clear that I knew that.
How in the world would I have known that?
Like, I don't spend time on 4chan, and I never saw it before.
I'd never even heard of it.
I don't think most people have heard of it.
I mean, only like 12% of people are even on Twitter, right?
It's not most people.
So it's possible that that, I agree that it might have influenced the poll, but to imagine that I knew that, there's no way I would have talked about it if I knew that.
That would be crazy.
Do you think I would have talked about it if I knew it had a white supremacy past?
That would have been more provocative than even for me.
I like being provocative.
But that would have been way over the line.
No, I didn't know that.
And I don't believe that most of the people in the poll do that.
And I don't believe that most of you knew it.
I don't believe that.
All right.
What else would you have to believe?
You'd have to wonder why social media is not canceling me.
You have to wonder why black conservatives, who are aware of the context, which is not all of them, don't think I should be cancelled, or they support me.
They understand it was provocative, and they understand it was meant to be alarming, if you see it in context.
You'd have to ignore the bigger context of CRT and the SGE and DAI, because those are obviously the context that's relevant here.
And you'd have to believe that I suddenly changed to a different person or went insane.
Let me ask you this.
Do you think that the media is digging through everything I've ever said and done to find more examples of my badness that they hadn't noticed before?
Of course they are.
Have you seen any?
The best they could come up with is that long ago I had blogged that it must be really hard to count the number of people in the Holocaust.
It was World War II.
You know, records are destroyed, etc.
Now, that doesn't change the Holocaust.
Like, whether it's 5 million people or 10 million, it's exactly the same narrative.
Like, nobody loses if I say, I don't know how accurate you could be.
Right?
But that turned into a Holocaust denier, which is crazy.
I've never met anybody who denied the Holocaust.
Have you?
Have you ever even met anybody who denied the Holocaust?
Like, I know they exist, but I've never met one.
Some people have.
Well, I'm not one of them.
That would be stupid and crazy.
Alright, but you would have to believe everything on that list in order to keep your angry narrative at me.
If you saw it in context, you would know.
That I have penetrated your leftist bubble, I have forced you to pay attention, and I'm offering you useful tools.
Those useful tools will work in any situation.
They're success tools.
And anybody who wants access to them, I'm happy to tell you more.
Moreover, my newest book that got cancelled, the How to Fail book will also be cancelled, but I'll make that available some way, one way or another.
My newest book is also about reframing.
And has anybody noticed that what I've done here is reframe the problem?
Because the reframe that mattered is what the impact of all of the backwards-looking CRT, DEI, ESG stuff does.
The reframe is that it's not free.
That it has a cost to it that nobody talks about.
And the cost is how it makes everybody feel.
Which is pretty bad.
And it's a pretty racist feeling.
Now, at the same time, There are plenty of ways to make things better for black Americans.
But I will echo one thing that was said by one of my critics, is black Americans, many of them, I won't say all because everybody jumps to crazy talk if I don't clarify, I don't mean every single one, but I would think that there are a lot of black Americans who would at least be curious about the tools for success.
They're free, they're easy to learn, and it gives you basically what systemic racism took away.
So, not everything.
But one of the biggest things that systemic racism takes away is your accidental association with people who know how to succeed.
Because that's where you pick up the patterns.
So I'm trying to fill that gap.
And help you slice through, there'll still be systemic racism, but it'll help you slice right through it, like it didn't even matter.
It'll just be annoying, but not a stopper.
All right.
Took away.
All right, does anybody have a problem today?
With me?
Anything you want to say?
The floor is yours, YouTube and locals.
What tools where?
Oh, good question.
My book, How to Field Almost Everything in Still One Big, would be the primary source.
But I also talk about these things at length.
So you'd be looking for, you could just Google the same thing.
So you could just Google these terms if you don't want to read my book.
Google talent stack and systems are better than goals.
Those are two concepts.
There's a whole bunch of other stuff about passion being BS and affirmations and a whole bunch of other forward looking and even stuff about reciprocity.
So it's just a book full of things that work for everybody.
There's no black or white or anything.
It would work from 14 years old to whatever age you are.
Baba says, are you comfortable at the fulcrum of all of this power and energy or am I unhappy?
I am weirdly comfortable.
You know what this feels like?
It feels like exactly where I'm supposed to be.
That's what it feels like.
It feels like I'm exactly where I'm supposed to be.
I feel like I was supposed to get cancelled.
Now, you know, if you take the big picture of this, I was cancelled on an industry that could be dead tomorrow.
Right?
The newspaper industry could... I'd long predicted that when it starts to completely fall apart, there'll be like a collapse period.
It'll just completely go away in a year or two.
So I managed to, accidentally, it wasn't my plan, but I escaped a dying industry.
And increased my attention level, you know, people's attention to me, on this form, the live stream and social media form.
Now this is a growing field, and it's growing even more toward, you know, election day.
So I managed to escape a dying industry and get a turbo charge in the most exciting industry that's happening, at least in the entertainment field, which is podcasting.
So that's pretty good.
I do have offers coming in that won't come close to matching my old income, but I'm also retirement age.
I don't really need to go set the world on fire any more than I did this week.
And like I said, my personal life is unchanged except people like me more.
I'm getting more respect for not apologizing than anything I've ever done in my life.
I did not see that coming.
Like, that was a surprise.
If you had told me that not apologizing would be like this mark of something... And by the way, the reason I don't apologize is because I didn't do anything that deserves an apology.
I'm really big on apologies.
Like, some of you maybe disagree with apologies.
I'm very big on apologies.
I think apologies are a great way to go.
But only if you did something, right?
If the only thing I did was make people mad so they'd pay attention and then I could help them, I'm not going to apologize for that.
No, I'm not going to apologize for making you mad while trying to help you.
That's not going to happen.
Yeah, I mean, I could give a husband apology.
I thought about that.
I thought about doing a tongue-in-cheek husband apology.
A husband apology is when you know you're not in the wrong, but you have to apologize anyway.
But if I did it, I would make sure that... If I did it, I would make sure you knew I wasn't serious.
Don't worry, I won't apologize.
I will give you I'll give you my promise that I won't apologize.
Alright.
Isn't it dishonest to intentionally try to fool people and then chastise those same people for being fooled?
Is it dishonest?
Yes.
Is that what you're looking for?
I mean, I just told you it was dishonest.
But it was for a good purpose, right?
I mean, it's temporarily dishonest.
The intention was always to be Fully transparent.
With communication, sometimes you tease things before you're fully transparent.
So I may have teased too much before I was fully transparent.
And if that feels like fooling you, I'm not going to quibble with the words you put on it.
But it was all for a positive purpose.
Scott's walking it back.
What did I walk back?
Speed for hire.
Tell me what I walked back.
Did you see something that I didn't see?
What walked back?
I'm fully responsible for and embrace everything I said.
In context.
Adding context is not walking anything back.
All right.
All right, I think we've done what we needed to do here today.
And I'll remind you again that if you want to see the good stuff, I'm already planning some awesome Dilbert comics after it's fully canceled in a few weeks.
You'll only be able to see those on the Locals platform.