Episode 2074 Scott Adams: How I Destroyed Twitter Ad Model (Per The News), Soros Motivation Mystery
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
How I destroyed Twitter's ad model (per the news)
Corporate Equality Index (CEI) destroys corporations
Soros motivation mystery
Myocarditis and sudden death mystery solved
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the greatest thing that's ever happened in the history of civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and aren't you lucky to be here to enjoy it.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that only SpaceX has ever seen, All you need is a cupper, a mugger, a glass, a tanker, a chalice, or a stein, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Yeah, that was good.
That was good.
Well, would you like to see the Dilbert comic that's running on the Locals platform after it's been cancelled?
To see what kind of jokes I would do after I'm cancelled?
Do you think they get edgier?
Well, you're just beginning to see the beginning of it.
Because I still had some in the pipeline when I got cancelled.
So some of the ones you've seen are the uncancelled version.
They would have run in newspapers.
But here's one that definitely would not have run in newspapers.
And it features Dave the Engineer talking to the boss.
Now Dave's a new character, a black engineer, whose main characteristic is that you can never tell if he's joking about wokeness.
Because he's very woke, but you're not really sure if he's serious.
So that's what his personality is.
The boss says, Dave, your project is late.
What's the problem?
Dave turns around and says, according to critical race theory, the problem is you.
Boss says, are you sure?
And Dave says, that's what the smart people tell me.
Now, there was no way I could run that in newspapers.
You know that, right?
No newspaper would have run that.
And in fact, every comic this week, this coming week, will be a comic that could not run in newspapers.
Every one of them.
So if you were wondering when it would get spicier, well, your wait is over.
By the way, I don't target anybody or You know, do anything racially insensitive or anything like that.
I just do things that wouldn't be in newspapers.
There's nothing hateful or inappropriate about any of it.
It's just those topics were out of bounds.
Well, here's a weird story to start you off.
Did you see the video of the Dalai Lama and a young boy?
So the young boy came up to the Dalai Lama at some public event and said, can I hug you?
And the Dalai Lama said, yes, but first give me a kiss right there on his cheek.
The little boy gives him a cheek.
And then he says, give me another kiss on my lips.
Now, at this point, I'm saying to myself, huh.
Maybe a cultural difference.
Possibly a cultural difference.
I don't want to judge it, because it might be just a cultural oddity.
Something I'm not familiar with, with the Tibetans, perhaps.
So the little boy gives him a kiss on the lips.
And then the Dalai Lama says, and I swear I'm not making this up, the Dalai Lama sticks out his tongue and asks the little boy to Suck on his tongue.
I'm not making it up.
I'm not making it up.
This is actual, real news.
And do you know what the media's reaction to that was?
What did the media say?
They didn't know what to do.
The media was just I think we'll just describe it this time.
I don't think we're going to weigh in with an opinion on this one.
I think we'll just describe it.
Yes, it's exactly what you thought it was.
I don't know how you would interpret this any other way than that you wouldn't want the Dalai Lama around your kids.
Am I right?
I would not leave the Dalai Lama around my kids.
That's all I know for sure.
Anything else would be pure speculation.
I'm just saying I wouldn't leave him around my kids.
Yeah.
Now, can somebody fill me in?
Is the Dalai Lama allowed to have a sex life?
Or is he like a Catholic priest?
He's not allowed to have a sex life?
Huh.
Has anybody ever noticed what happens to heterosexuals when you put them in jail and they can't have a heterosexual sex life?
Has anybody told you what happens?
Well, they become gay while they're in jail because they take what they can get.
How are we surprised that people who are not allowed a heterosexual sex life would devolve to whatever is available?
It's the most well-demonstrated male effect in the world.
The men are unusually flexible once their other options run out.
I mean, if you said you didn't see it coming, I would say you should have.
You should have seen this coming.
Yeah, the Dalai Lama seems to be associated with Democrats, and so if a Democrat tells a young boy to suck his tongue, That apparently is just news that you describe.
Nothing wrong with that.
That's just some news, according to the Democrats.
Alright, apparently there is a thing called Corporate Equality Index.
Have you ever heard of that?
So you got your CRT and your ESG and your DEI.
But apparently you also have the CEI.
Now, if I can make one request, don't Google the letter CEI.
Don't do it.
Trust me.
Don't do it.
No, don't do it.
Do not Google the letters CEI.
You're not going to like it.
Or you might.
I don't know.
Stop it.
Stop doing it.
Don't do it.
It means something else.
And the theory here is that the reason these big corporate entities like Budweiser are doing things which maybe to you look like bad marketing, such as the Dylan Mulvaney situation with Bud Light, you might say that's bad marketing.
But really what's happening is these big companies have to get their CEI's I'm sorry.
It's hard for me to act like an adult sometimes.
They try to get their CEI score up.
Sorry, this is just for me.
This is just for my benefit now.
So I guess most of the big companies have a good 100% CEI score.
So good for them.
But apparently this is yet another example where entities can run big corporations.
So a big corporation, a big corporation doesn't run itself anymore.
It waits for these little interest groups to start pestering it, and then it does whatever it has to do to stop getting pestered.
So now they have an ESG score, a CEI score, probably a DEI score.
It's all, you know, CRT is sort of beneath a lot of that.
And don't you think we've gone too far?
Does it look like we took a good idea and ruined it?
Pretty much all of the wokeness falls into the following category, in my opinion.
Good ideas that are implemented the way a Dilbert company would implement something.
It's a terribly good idea to say, hey, let's treat each other as individuals.
Let's not discriminate.
Let's not be bigoted.
Great idea.
And then you create all these little organizations and you just make everything worse.
Because you're putting a boot on capitalism.
You're making them hire people that they didn't want to hire because they were looking for talent and not diversity.
And they're basically ruining the free market.
That's not too strong a statement, is it?
They're actually destroying the free market.
The engine upon which all of our happiness depends.
Completely.
If you destroy the free market engine, and they are, you're going to be in trouble.
And we are.
Alright, so that's crazy stuff.
But I think that we're missing one kind of three-letter Outside measurement.
I believe that we now need one for straight white males.
So there should be a, there should be like a grade that you give big companies for how they treat straight white males.
Because if you're, if you're a member of the LGBT community, the CEI rating is apparently exactly what you need.
And it doesn't mean what you think it means if you look up a CEI.
Don't do that.
So... What would be wrong with having a straight white man grade for these corporations?
Would that be... That's not illegal, is it?
Is it illegal?
Because wouldn't you want to know that if you were a straight white man?
Wouldn't you want to know what companies to not work for?
Apparently, you know, three quarters of the top 20 Fortune 500 companies have a 100% LGBTQ CEI score.
But suppose you said, hmm, it looks like they're gonna definitely favor the LGBTQ people for promotion.
Wouldn't you want to know to avoid them?
Looks like the comments are broken again on Locals.
I don't want to curse, but it's really going to be hard.
Oh my freaking God.
Can this technology get any fucking worse?
All right.
I couldn't do it.
All right.
It looks like maybe.
Nope.
Looks like the comments are broken.
At least they're not coming through.
I don't know if you can see the comments, but I can't see them.
All right.
Yeah, there's a new version.
I think that's part of it.
Alright, well, I'll carry on without locals' comments.
Now I'm gonna, actually, I'm gonna close it and reopen it.
See if that helps.
It's just so disturbing that I can't get through this without a major technical hiccup every time.
And now it's just not working.
Sorry, YouTube.
Sorry you have to put up with this.
But you do have good servers over there on YouTube.
And now it looks like the stream is dead itself.
I don't know if they can see me, but it's dead on my side.
I'll try it one more time.
Seriously, I'll try it one more time.
Alright, one more time.
Let's see.
Yeah, it looks like it's totally dead.
All right, well, we're gonna press on with just YouTube.
And we'll pretend like Locals works, which apparently doesn't.
Today, anyway.
Looks like they've got a new version that just crapped out.
All right, let's talk about... Anyway, did anybody disagree with me on having a score for big corporations for straight white men?
That's a good idea, right?
There's no reason not to.
So I'm going to give Bud Light a score of 50 out of 100.
50 out of 100.
Alright, so I continue to be fascinated by the George Soros story.
And of course I've been asking people, can you tell me what his motive is?
What is George Soros' motive?
For the money he donates, which appear to many of us to be a huge mistake, at least for the United States.
Because it does stuff like get elected DAs who don't put people in jail, and then your city becomes a crime-infested, you know, rat's nest.
And then you have to move away.
So here are the many, many reasons that people gave me why they're sure that George Soros is doing bad things intentionally.
One theory is that in his childhood he was protected by the Nazis because when he was a kid he helped them round up the Jews or do something or at least identify the assets owned by Jews during World War II.
So some people say it must be some kind of an effect from his childhood where he's really kind of racist and kind of a Nazi.
So this theory says that he's a Jewish Nazi.
Now, here's your tip for spotting a mass hysteria.
One way to spot a mass hysteria is that there are lots of different interpretations of what's going on.
Oh, the locals just almost came to life.
So, do you think it's likely that what's going on is that George Soros is actually identifying with Nazis and that's why he's trying to destroy the free world?
Does that make sense to you?
That doesn't really quite fit with me.
I'm going to say that one's probably not right.
Here's another one.
He wants to create chaos to make money.
So in other words, he's trying to crash the United States, but he'll make financial bets against the United States, so he'll make money if we go down.
Do you think that he wants to crash the economy of the country he lives in, as do his children?
No.
No, that would be crazy.
If you said he was trying to crash some country where he doesn't live, I would say, well, he's done that before.
He's tried that before.
But has he ever tried to crash the country he depends on for his own life?
That would be crazy.
But maybe he's crazy.
How about, he wants to usher in globalism.
And it's really about globalism and open borders.
What do you think of that?
That the reason he wants prosecutors who don't put enough people in jail is because he wants globalism and open borders.
I don't even see how they're connected.
How are they even connected?
What has globalism and open borders got to do with bad district attorneys?
That doesn't sound like an explanation to me.
How about That he's evil, and that the answer is demons.
That there's no explanation.
You can forget about intentions, you can forget about everything else.
He's just an evil demon, and the world has some evil demons.
And they're satanic, and they just walk among us and do evil things.
What about that one?
Now that's a bad explanation of the Mike Cernovich view on it, which he tweeted yesterday, I think, that it was just a case of evil.
Now, I do think that that filter on life can be useful, that just some things are evil.
Because you don't want to argue about the reasons for stuff, right?
Yeah, you don't want to have to argue about, well, he seems to be acting evil, but maybe he has a reason.
Maybe it's just better to call it evil, and then you know what to do about it.
But I don't have that filter, right?
That's more of a religious filter, so that one doesn't fit me so well.
So that one doesn't work for me, but I understand how it could be useful.
Now, I think that you do need to know his motivation.
Because if you don't know his motivation, you don't know what's happening or why.
You don't know if there'll be more of it, and you don't know if you can stop it.
If he's just evil, then there's nothing you can do short of something illegal.
But here's my follow-up question.
According to Elon Musk, who weighed in on this question on Twitter, And he said that it's his understanding that the son of Soros is the de facto head of the group.
So in other words, you would have to believe that the father was either a secret Jewish Nazi, seems unlikely, but that he also extended that down to his son.
And that his son, who did not live through the situation that George Soros did, somehow also became a Jewish Nazi.
I don't think that's likely.
That doesn't sound likely to me.
Or how about Soros is just crazy?
Well, unless he passed the craziness down to his son, that doesn't make sense.
Because you've got two complete different individuals who appear to be following the same plan.
So it's not crazy evil demons unless both of them are.
Which you couldn't rule out, right?
If you have the demon filter, well, two demons.
Demons give birth to other demons, I suppose.
Now, I don't buy that filter.
And to me, it's very curious that there would be two completely different individuals, one a son and one a father, who would have the same weird, destructive impulses.
What explains that?
I'm going to give you my theory in a minute.
But when I asked, well, what's the son's motivation?
Elon came back in a second time.
I said, which moves the question to his son's motivation.
Why would the son of Soros want to make America unlivable?
Because it feels like Soros money is making America unlivable because the cities are impossible, because of crime, because of the DAs he got in office, etc.
And so This is what Elon said to that, in terms of why the sun's motivation would be so similar.
He says, beats me.
Some amount of ivory tower pseudo-intellectualism is probably to blame.
Ivory tower pseudo-intellectualism.
In other words, they came up with a theory that the thing that they're doing is actually good for the country.
It just, in reality, is not.
Does that sound right?
That is very close to, or if not identical, to my hypothesis.
And here's the first thing I'd like to point out.
Don't you assume that people like Elon Musk know the actual reason for stuff?
Like, you and I are just sort of guessing.
Well, we're looking at these people, we're guessing.
But don't you assume that somebody in Elon Musk's position would have your preferred knowledge about other billionaires?
And that he would know exactly why Soros is doing what he's doing.
And if it were some other weird reason, he'd know it.
But his interpretation is exactly like mine, but I'm going to put my own words on it.
My words are that the Soros family, they have some things they need to, let's say, repair reputationally.
Would you agree?
Would you agree that George Soros should repair his family's reputation before he dies?
That's probably a good thing.
Because he's got the whole Bank of England betting against the pound thing.
I don't know the details of that.
He's got the story about helping the Nazis in World War II.
That's not a good look.
So even though he was a kid, so I personally, I give him a pass for that.
The way he responded on 60 Minutes sounded weird.
So people are like, well, we're not even sure he was sorry about that.
So I believe that the Soros family, their biggest priority, is rehabilitating the reputation by doing good work with charitable stuff.
However, I apply the Dilbert filter to this situation.
The way I got rich with the Dilbert comic is making fun of people who had good intentions and bad implementation.
Here's an example.
Management is good.
You can't really have a big entity without some kind of management.
So management is a good thing.
But if you do too much of it, you've got micromanagement.
Or if you let your management happen by third parties, like CEI and ESG, well, that would be an example of bad management, because there are too many chefs in the kitchen sort of thing.
So everything I write about is a good idea that went wrong.
That's what this looks like to me.
Now, you could say pseudo-intellectualism, but the pseudo-intellectualism is sort of the good intention part.
The good intention is, and let me give you, by the way, I'm going to give you another theory after this that's even more fun, which might even be right.
But my current working theory is that they're trying to do the right things, And they're trying to, for example, not have an excessive number of black Americans in jail for relatively low-level crime.
And probably they said to themselves, hey, we can make America better by having fewer black people in jail.
It's closer to an equity situation.
And the fastest way to do that is to not jail them for non-violent crimes.
Now, That doesn't mean it's going to work, but that would be a noble idea, wouldn't it?
Same with climate change, right?
If they're giving money to climate change, it could be that they think climate change is a real problem and they're really trying to help.
It's just that the things that happen because of that maybe aren't as helpful.
So, this guy has a bleeding heart.
I just wonder even what you're listening to.
Are you listening to some alternative where my mouth is moving but you're hearing different words come out?
Some of the comments are just so left field.
All right.
So, one possibility is that the Soros have good intentions.
They're trying to rehabilitate the family name, or at least do what's right with the world and not be killed for having too much money.
Because one of the reasons that rich people do charity is so you don't kill them and take their money.
That's why they do it.
They also might want to help the world.
But it's really good to defend yourself by showing that you're doing something good for the world.
Then people go, Oh, okay.
I hate that they have billions and I don't have billions, but at least they're giving it away.
Right?
Sort of the Bill Gates theory.
So, but I'm going to give you one more theory that I've not heard from anybody.
It goes like this.
Imagine that you thought, and this is just about the district attorney part, not other parts.
Imagine you thought that the biggest problem in the world is that too many, not the biggest one, but a big problem is that too many black people are being locked up and that we're using prison instead of school.
Suppose that was your view, because that's my view.
That's pretty close to my view, is that we use the prison system to basically take black people out of the public.
That's what it looks like to me.
It looks like there are a whole bunch of white people who couldn't live with that many black people who are doing smaller crimes and bigger crimes, and so the prison system grew up as an illegal way to take black people out of the population and put them in jail.
Now, I don't think anybody had that thought.
Like, I don't think anybody was in a meeting and said, hey, let's do something to take black people out of the public.
But it happened.
I don't think it was intentional, but it happened.
Now, suppose you were Soros and you said to yourself, I have to change that.
It's completely wrong.
But the thing that needs to be changed is too deep.
In other words, you'd have to change the school system, you'd have to change maybe something about single parents, maybe something about where people live, maybe something about welfare, something about training.
But all those are too big.
Like they're just too many big things that would need to be fixed.
So, what would you do if you thought you had to fix this situation?
But you couldn't think of any way to fix it, because the fix is too big.
What would you do?
Well, one thing you might do is break the system.
Because if you break it, it's going to have to do the big things to fix itself.
If you don't break it, it'll keep limping along the way it is.
So we had a limping system of taking people that we had completely failed, society had completely failed, we gave them no structure, gave them no education, gave them no skills, and then surprise, they're a criminal.
So society completely fails a class of people, largely black people in poor areas, and if you're George Soros and you say that's unfair, Gotta fix it.
The only way you can fix it is to make it worse.
The only way you can fix it is to make it worse.
It's a version of Embrace and Amplify, which I talk about all the time.
If you want to break a bad idea, embrace it totally.
Because it's a bad idea.
If you embrace a bad idea totally, it becomes really obvious that everything will fall apart.
If you just sort of, well, I'll bow to that idea, but I won't follow it too rigorously, then it can limp along forever.
And you don't want it limping along forever.
You want to break it so you can fix it.
Now, those of you who say this is mind reading, no, it's speculation.
Mind reading would be, I think it's true.
I didn't say that.
I said it's one of the hypotheses.
I don't think it's true.
I think my hypothesis is the strongest one, which is they're trying to do good things, they give their money to organizations that sound like they're good organizations, and then that organization does something messed up.
So here's the number one question I would ask.
If you looked at all of the things that Soros gives his money to, is it all destructive?
Because if it's all destructive, that would argue for evil.
Wouldn't it?
That'd be a pretty strong argument for just evil.
Or that he's trying to break everything to make money somehow.
But suppose, suppose you looked at his entire portfolio and you found that, I don't know if this is true by the way, but suppose you found that 80% of it was just feeding poor people and you didn't know about it.
Oh, he's also feeding poor people.
But 20% of it is really sketchy stuff, like hiring DAs that don't want to prosecute crime.
That's really sketchy.
Or getting Democrats elected, that's a little too much into the political interference realm.
Would it change your mind if you knew that 80% of what he was doing was purely good and everybody agreed?
But that 20% looks sketchy, because if he's purely evil, it's all evil.
Unless it's just a way to hide the evil, but that seems weird.
So it's either all evil, or only a little bit of it is evil.
And if only a little bit of it is evil, 20% let's say, just for conversation.
If 20% of it looks clearly evil, I think the Dilbert Hypothesis is the strongest one.
But I don't know that.
Right?
So, without knowing that, I can't say for sure.
But if it turns out he's doing good things and bad things, then I'd say the bad things are probably accidental.
Because they're doing a lot of stuff.
And they may also think that temporarily having higher crime is okay.
They may think, yeah, move out of the city.
Either move out of the city or pay more taxes so that the poor people who have turned to crime don't have to turn to crime.
But those are your two choices.
I don't know.
So I guess I'm going to leave this with, if Elon Musk doesn't know what's going on, but his best guess is that they're trying to do something useful but failing, I'm on board with that.
That's my best working hypothesis, is that their pseudo-intellectualism gave them some bad ideas about what works and what doesn't work.
How many will buy onto my theory of it's just pseudo-intellectualism and bad implementation?
Anybody?
Correct.
As Borba says, in all caps, I will allow the all caps in this case.
So one of the comments was, so like all Democrats.
Exactly.
Yeah.
The Democrat Party has one overarching theme, which is they prefer goals over systems.
They will break your system if they can make a temporary goal of more equity.
But the broken system, if it happens to be the free market, is going to destroy everything.
Whereas the Republicans are more likely to say, well let's keep our Constitution intact, let's make sure that everything's working, and then we'll do the best we can about these, you know, inequities.
But you've got to make sure the system works or we're all dead.
That seems to be a difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Democrats want to go for the answer even if it destroys the system that supports everybody's life.
It's very consistent.
You see it everywhere.
The difference might be in military stuff because that's the military-industrial complex is in charge of that and not Democrats or Republicans.
All right.
So if I haven't angered you enough, I have more.
So I looked into the myocarditis and sudden death of athletes situation and I asked on Twitter, hey you doctors, hey doctors, are you seeing in your practice a lot more myocarditis and sudden deaths?
What do you think the answer was?
Not practice, but two family members, which is weird.
But the Mayo Clinic, which believe it or not has for years, for decades actually, they've been tracking sudden deaths of young athletes.
Apparently that's something that's been tracked for decades by the Mayo Clinic.
And the Mayo Clinic who has been tracking the rate and the reasons for sudden cardiac arrest in athletes says, No difference at all.
No difference.
Do you believe it?
Or did somebody get to him?
Do you think somebody got to the Mayo Clinic?
It's not one person.
You know, it's people in this department.
No, I think it's true.
I think the Mayo Clinic is seeing no difference in myocarditis.
Or no difference in sudden death.
Let me correct that.
They were talking specifically about sudden death.
Myocarditis, separately, is also not seen by doctors.
Now, can you find some people who claim to be doctors in the comments and also say they're seeing it?
Yes.
Yes.
But the people who have MD in their profile?
They don't see it.
The people who don't have MD in their profile but tell me they're doctors?
Oh, they see it.
Oh, they can see it pretty well.
But the people who are actual doctors?
No.
Don't see.
All right.
Now, does that mean it's not real?
Not really.
Not really.
And do we believe that there's more myocarditis?
I have a theory about why there's more myocarditis.
Has anybody said this?
I think there's more myocarditis because we're looking for it.
And maybe it was always there.
Because it seems like something that's temporary and can be caused by a number of factors.
So my guess is that when everybody said, hey, myocarditis is a problem, that it was the first thing that a doctor would look for.
Whereas if you came in with exactly the same symptoms five years ago, and you said, hey, I'm tired, having trouble breathing, whatever, would the doctor have even checked you for myocarditis?
Would they have even checked?
I don't know.
I don't know the answer to that, by the way.
Coping.
I can tell the people who fell for the 4chan hoax, they always say coping.
I'm sorry you fell for that.
But doesn't that seem like the most likely explanation is that we were looking for it, and we were never looking for it before, but his symptoms mimicked other things, so they probably got treated for other things.
What would happen if you came in for myocarditis, it was misdiagnosed, and they gave you some treatment for some other thing, and then you did the treatment for the other thing?
What's the most likely outcome?
You got the wrong treatment for myocarditis.
The most likely outcome, what is it?
Your myocarditis would go away on its own.
Right?
Am I wrong about that?
You better correct me if I'm wrong.
But I would think that for years, doctors have been treating myocarditis thinking it was something else.
And then when the problem went away, because it goes away on its own, They said, oh, I'm glad I treated that whatever it was correctly, because it went away.
So to me, it very much looks like a counting problem.
Can you have your money back?
People don't like this.
Now, keep in mind, for those of you who are convinced beyond any doubt that the myocarditis is real, I'm not doubting it.
Can you accept that?
In my mind, that's still an open possibility.
There's very much a possibility that both the COVID and the shots created myocarditis.
I think that's very possible.
But I also think, at the same time, we're probably diagnosing it when we wouldn't have.
So there might be a few different effects that are happening at the same time.
Watch the doctors that Dr. Drew has on lately, in all caps.
Well, I'll ask him.
You're confused.
What am I confused about?
What am I confused about?
Now keep in mind, I've allowed the possibility that the shots are causing lots of myocarditis.
Are you happy with that?
I've not ruled it out.
If I ruled it out, you could be mad at me, if you think it's true.
I'm just saying that there are other hypotheses that are at least equals, and you should not forget about them.
Now, why would the Mayo Clinic not be aware of people suddenly dying at higher rates?
That would be very unusual, but possible.
But possible.
The thing that people always tell me is that I should do my own research.
Right?
So I just did my own research.
You don't like it?
I thought you wanted me to do my own research on this question.
I did.
I did my own research and this is my conclusion.
My conclusion is that nobody knows.
So all possibilities are still on the table.
That's my conclusion.
Research Mayo Clinic funding.
Do I need to?
No, I accept uncritically that everybody in the medical world has some kind of financial stake.
I don't need to research that, do I?
But I also don't think that the head of the guy who's in charge of sudden deaths is going to say there's no sudden deaths.
That's just not going to happen.
That is just not going to happen in any world that I'm a part of.
That the person who noticed a massive increase in sudden deaths and was the person whose job it is to spot more sudden deaths of young athletes, you think he's going to shut up?
No way.
All right.
Not in the world I live in.
In my world, that doesn't happen.
But I suppose anything's possible.
All right.
All right, CNN has two stories.
One, remote work is becoming less popular now.
That's story number one.
So the number of remote workers has gone down from higher percentage to a lower percentage, and looks like it's continuing with that trend.
So there might be more hybrid work, but also more people in the office.
So at the same time the CNN reports that remote work is becoming less popular, a separate story is about how remote work is so popular that office buildings are empty and it might be a huge real estate slash banking problem.
All right.
You're a fucking asshole and you're gonna go away.
Here's what you can't say to me without getting banned.
D.W.A.
says, Dr. Drew, Scott can't see the truth.
Fuck you for being useless.
I saw all of the truths.
I see several possibilities that all fit the facts.
If you only see one set of possibilities that fit these facts, the problems are your end.
You need to tell me what's wrong with my hypothesis.
You don't need to tell me that yours fits the facts.
Right?
Telling me that your hypothesis fits the facts is nothing.
It's nothing.
It's not thinking.
It's not being smart.
It's not doing your own fucking research.
It's just being an idiot.
You have to tell me what's wrong with my hypothesis.
If you can't do that, fuck off.
All right.
So, yeah, so a bunch of office buildings are going to be empty.
But I'm not sure these office buildings are empty, empty, or they have a different rotating number of people who have to come to the office sometimes, but not all the time.
I do wonder what's going to happen to them all.
I think that the cities are dead.
How many of you have heard people say that you should move out of cities?
Is that something you've heard?
Not from me.
from other people.
All right.
You've heard that, right?
Now when people say move out of cities, do they get cancelled?
Because you know what they're saying, right?
They are saying move away from black people.
You know that, right?
Move away from cities is basically move away from black people.
Because that's what they're doing.
When you see the crime, all of the videos of crime are black people.
It's like nearly 100%.
So, the people who say move away from cities, it's just coded language.
It's just coded.
When they say, oh it's crime, Well, the crime is coming from primarily one place, in cities.
There are plenty of white people who are criminals.
Yeah, blah, blah, blah.
Now, I'd like to take an aside for the dumb people.
You don't mind?
I'm just going to take a minute for the dumb people.
This is for the dumb people.
I'm going to talk in dumb talk so you can understand it better.
When somebody says anything about black people, they do not ever mean all of them.
Never.
Never ever does it mean all of them.
It never means that.
Ever.
That was just for the dumb people.
Now, I think a move out of the city is, I'm surprised that people are not getting cancelled for that.
Because that's kind of coded language.
You just say it directly.
So, let's talk about some more stuff.
I'll get back to me in a minute.
Rasmussen has a poll on the Trump prosecution.
64% of voters agree with the statement that it's Banana Republic stuff.
Nearly two-thirds of American voters think the prosecution of Trump is a Banana Republic move, even if they think he should be prosecuted.
64%.
My God.
And it's going to happen anyway, probably.
So how about that TikTok ban that turns out to be completely fake?
We hear today that Biden is organizing a huge influencer event at the White House and might even give the TikTok influencers, specifically TikTok, specifically TikTok influencers, their own space at the White House or something.
So apparently the Democrats, led by Biden, they are, they're trying.
They are trying.
To use TikTok in a really major way for the next election.
Do you think that Biden is serious about trying to ban it?
Do you think Congress, the Democrats, are serious about trying to ban it?
No.
Now you can see the play.
The play is obviously that they made a poison pill legislation that the Republicans would not be able to sign.
That's it.
It was always a play.
It was never about banning TikTok.
The legislation would ban TikTok also, but it can't get signed because it's such an overreach.
It's just like Patriot Act 2.
There's no possible way that can get signed.
Everybody sees it.
Even Fareed Zakaria on CNN.
CNN, one of their major hosts, Fareed, is telling you that it's a huge overreach problem and it's not about TikTok.
Everybody can see it.
It's obvious that they don't plan to ban TikTok.
It's obvious.
It's just like when Newsom sent the reparations people away to come up with a number.
He knew that that was the way to kill it.
Because they would come up with a dumbass number, and they did.
So nobody can take it seriously now.
Well, that's what happened.
That's what the Democrats did with TikTok.
They just decided to come up with the only thing you couldn't vote for.
It was the only way that you could make that impossible to vote for it.
Think about how easy it would have been to ban TikTok.
TikTok is banned in the United States.
One sentence.
That's it.
No enforcement needed.
Because Apple would immediately take it out of the Apple Store.
Google would take it out of their store.
That'd be it.
One sentence, that would be the whole law.
As soon as you see it's this whole big thing about VPNs and managing everything in the world, it's obviously fake.
I believe everybody who put their name on that should be impeached.
Everybody who sponsored that should be impeached.
Republicans and Democrats alike.
They should all be impeached.
Because it's so obviously they're working against the interests of the United States, very publicly, very obviously.
They certainly know how to make a bill to ban TikTok, don't they?
Do you think they don't know how to write a bill to ban TikTok?
They do.
They know how to do it.
They're choosing not to.
It's not an accident.
Everybody who put their name on it should be impeached.
And including the Republicans.
Including Republicans.
All right.
So there's a story about a so-called intelligence leak, but it might be a hoax.
So there's some classified Pentagon documents that got out, and some of it seems to talk about Ukraine, but some of it seems to talk about the US spying on its allies, like South Korea, Israel, and Ukraine.
And apparently there's some history of leaked documents being fake leaked documents.
Wherever Russia's concerned, I guess.
And do you think it's real?
It might be a real leak that was modified after the fact to make it look like it wasn't a real leak.
That's a possibility.
But do you think any of our allies are surprised that we might be trying to surveil them?
Do you think any of our allies would be, like, super surprised?
Oh, no.
They're trying to find out what we're thinking.
Of course not.
It's just so business as usual.
So, I don't know.
Whether this is real or fake, it might be at least part fake.
So, I was asked to talk about, and I was going to anyway, Tesla opening another battery factory in China.
Some, uh, what do they call it?
A, uh, Megapack.
Factory.
Now, how do we navigate the fact that Tesla and everything Musk is doing seems enormously positive and good for the United States, if not the world, at the same time that it's a real problem that Tesla is married to Chinese manufacturing?
On the other hand, Could Tesla be as successful if they did not use Chinese manufacturing?
I think the answer is no.
I don't think there was a practical alternative.
But spinning up new factories in 2023 has a really bad look to it.
It's a bad look.
My guess is that the factory was planned several years ago.
When things weren't as bad looking as they look now and it was just too hard to stop it and too expensive and maybe not even desirable.
But I don't understand why we're not hearing at least stories about moving more gigafactories to the United States or to Central America.
Because I think Central America is just sort of a natural place to put Yeah, an industry that's sort of a factory industry.
So, and there might also be something about the rare earth materials.
It could be that if you're in China, you have more access to the rare earth materials.
Maybe, just guessing.
But if you were operating out of another country, maybe China would be less likely to sell them to you or something.
I don't know.
But that might be part of it.
I'm guessing that it's not easy To not be in China if you need batteries.
So I'm assuming that Tesla would have already pulled out of China if you could do it.
If you could do it without crashing the company, I think it would be done already.
But on the other hand, Tesla is an international brand.
And he kind of needs to sell cars into the biggest market for cars in the world.
Which is China.
So it's a real tough situation.
I guess the best thing I'd like to see is just more battery manufacturing in the United States.
One way or the other.
And I think the United States needs to make it easier for Tesla to do that.
So there might be some kind of thing.
However, if you've been following the news today, it turns out that Musk has one big problem with Twitter.
Which is that big corporations, and this was reported today on Fox, and also there was something called Semaphore, which does some kind of reporting.
And Semaphore reported that somehow they got a hold of some emails about some marketing event that Musk was going to attend.
And some of the big VPs of marketing at the big companies were talking about how they were hesitant To advertise on Twitter because of Musk's racist stuff.
What?
What racist stuff?
Don't you wonder what that refers to?
Now they're not talking, and keep in mind, they're not just talking about things that people do on Twitter.
They talk about that also, but specifically they're talking about Elon Musk himself being a racist.
Do you know why?
They gave one reason.
Guess.
Guess what the reason is that Twitter will go broke because advertisers say that Elon Musk himself is a racist.
Guess why?
How are you not getting this?
You don't know the answer to this question?
I swear to God, I'm not making this up.
The answer is me.
They named me as the reason that Elon Musk is a racist.
Just let that settle in for a little minute.
And what they say is that he, quote, defended me.
Well, first of all, the story itself is all wrong, because I was speaking out against racists.
And apparently, if you speak out against racists, you get labeled a racist yourself.
And apparently, if you say that somebody who got labeled a racist for speaking out against racists If you say that his comic should not be cancelled, which is all must said, that you must agree with the racist, and therefore you're a racist, but he'd be agreeing with somebody who is anti-racist, none of it matters.
So somehow, they've managed to conflate my story into a whole different story, and then they've attached him to it for the most trivial connection you could ever imagine, and then they've decided that all of Twitter must be racist, because it's the association thing.
It's like, okay, he did this, he's this, you know him, you said this, therefore, you're all attached to the original comment.
Imagine me reading that this morning.
It's actually on Fox.
Fox is reporting about the semaphore report.
Fox News is reporting that that corporations think Elon Musk is a racist because he once said that Dilbert shouldn't be cancelled.
Do you know who else said Dilbert shouldn't be cancelled?
A lot of black people.
A lot of them.
Not all of them, of course.
But a lot of black people.
Even people who hated what I said.
Even people who said, oh you shouldn't have said that, that was offensive.
Of course it was offensive.
It was supposed to be offensive.
But even black people say I shouldn't be cancelled.
So Elon Musk saying what ordinary people say.
And by the way, I ran a poll.
Who were the real racists?
The people who cancelled me or me.
96... 4% said I was the racist in the story.
96% said either everybody's a racist or the people who cancelled you are racist.
I've been completely vindicated.
By public response.
Except for the woke entities that need to respond to these three-letter woke pressure groups.
They're the only ones who have a problem with me.
Everybody else is fine.
How many of you know that I'm more popular than I've ever been?
At the moment?
You're aware of that, right?
My Twitter audience is bigger than it's ever been.
My locals is through the roof.
I've never been more popular.
And today there was a story on, let's see, a story about me on a podcast called the Glenn, what is it?
The Glenn Show.
With Glenn Lowry and John McWhorter.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, they're both black?
Is there anybody who is familiar with the show?
I don't want to judge anybody just by looks.
But they're both black, right?
Good.
I'm just saying visually, that's my best guess, but I don't want to be wrong about that.
Okay.
Well, a lot of people say yes.
Anyway, their conclusion was, and I'll read a key part of that.
To conclude, so they talked about my situation a little bit, and they said, to conclude, Scott Adams crudely and rudely gave voice to a phenomenon that I think we all have to take seriously.
It's a lot of decent people, honorable people, confronted with a dilemma and having to make their way in the world.
And the dilemma is this.
Living in cities is too dangerous now.
And so they're saying out loud exactly what I said.
So there's two black Apparently very smart, I mean just based on listening to him for a few minutes, very smart, prominent, two black men, who said yes, white people are going to have to deal with the question of do they want to be around black people under these conditions.
Now, did they get cancelled?
They said what I said.
They agreed with me, except they said that I was crude and rude.
But that's agreeing with me as well, because I meant to be crude and rude, and I meant to offend.
To get attention.
For a point, not for just attention.
But, did it work?
So now that you can see that two prominent black podcasters have taken my point, and they've added some intellectual, I would say, weight to it, by saying this is a real problem that white people have, and it becomes a black person's problem.
And the way it becomes a black people problem is if the white people move away, you lose your tax base.
Which he said directly, one of them, probably Glenn.
So that was their point directly.
If you scare people away, and you are, and you are, that's what I said, if you scare people away by basically teaching one group of people that white people are the problem, I don't want to be around anybody who thinks I'm the problem.
I want to get away from that as far as I can get.
And they basically agreed with the main point, but not the way I presented it.
Now, they're not the only people who agree with the point.
So far, everybody does.
You know that, right?
Literally everyone agrees with what I said, but not the vigor with which I said it.
You know, the offensive way I said it.
Now, let me ask you this.
If I had not said it the offensive way I said it, would it be a national topic?
It would not.
We're not.
Do you see what happened?
This is what is supposed to happen.
This was supposed to happen just like this, without me getting cancelled so much.
I didn't think I'd get cancelled globally.
But I did know it would be trouble.
I created trouble, so that people would talk about this seriously, because in my mind, it's maybe the biggest problem in the country.
And if you don't talk about it honestly, there's nothing you can do.
You can't solve it by talking about it and lying.
Oh, everything's fine.
All right.
No, everything's not fine.
We've created a narrative where it's no longer safe for white people to spend too much time around large populations of black people.
Not just because of crime, but because the training that's happening right now through ESG and CRT and everything else is that white people are the problem and specifically straight white men.
So I don't want to be around people who have a problem with me.
And here's the problem as I think Glenn Lowry and John McWhorter would probably agree.
How do I know who's going to be nice to me and who isn't?
How do I know?
I don't have a way to know that.
So the only rational thing to do is stay away from any risk.
So you just minimize your risk by staying away from it.
Nobody disagrees with that.
Literally no one disagrees with that.
But I'm the bad one.
All right.
So I guess my only point is that rudeness has utility, and I was using rudeness for its utility, and I would conclude that it worked.
Because I introduced the topic, and now it's a real topic.
And now people can talk about it a little more honestly.
We discovered with a Freedom of Information Act, I forget who asked for it, but the FBI has been using certain words to flag extremists on the internet.
Here are the words they use to flag extremists.
Now when they say extremists, they mean racists and insurrectionists, basically.
So here are the words that I'm sure you would recognize as being words that are uniquely identifiable with bad, bad, racist, terrible people.
Red pill.
Red pill.
If you use red pill, the FBI gets flagged.
How about Chad?
Some people refer to Chad as, you know, some based white person.
How about based?
Based is on there.
Do you know how many times people call me based?
It happens a lot.
Does that mean I'm an extremist?
Because people call me based?
Maybe in some ways.
Not the way they're looking for him.
How about LARPing?
L-A-R-P.
You know, pretending to be something.
Apparently if you use the word LARPing, you're an extremist.
Or more likely to be one.
Yeah.
You would be a racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist if you use the phrase red pill.
I don't even know what to say about that.
I don't even know what to say about that.
Sometimes the stories are so bad that you don't even have a comment and you're like, really?
Really?
I mean, the argument for disbanding the FBI, it just gets better and better.
Alright.
What else is going on?
I like to follow the Don Lemon drama.
Apparently there was a hit piece on him in the Variety.
And CNN says that Variety hit them with fake news.
So imagine being CNN and having to defend yourself from another part of the left-wing media that told a bunch of lies about you.
Do you know who else Variety lies about?
Everybody.
Everybody.
So live by the fake news, die by the fake news.
But apparently some of the things that Variety said about Don Lemon, CNN says were not true.
But we do know his ratings are bad and he has a whole bunch of, let's say, offensive things he's said to women in the past that they think he's a misogynist.
Or some people do.
And I wasn't mad about any of that until I was reminded by the story that Don Lemon once compared Trump supporters to Ku Klux Klan members.
And then I thought, oh, OK, well, fuck him.
Yeah.
I was defending him for a while.
I thought, well, he's just playing his role there on CNN, but he looks like he'd be a fun guy.
And I'm going to change my mind now.
He looks like a destructive personality.
So maybe if there is such a thing as pure evil, maybe Don Lemon is.
You never know.
I don't think there's a thing called pure evil but if there is, he'd fit the facts.
But I guess the mystery is why he has not been cancelled by the network so far.
He's causing them all kinds of trouble and he doesn't give them good ratings.
Now, if you cause your network a lot of trouble and you don't give them good ratings, how do you not get fired?
And the speculation is that he's so litigious that between the fact that he's black and gay, that he would just sue the hell out of them and they just don't want to deal with it.
I don't know if that's true, but that's one hypothesis.
I guess there's some kind of problem with Chinese companies partnering with U.S.
companies to make things in the United States.
And I don't know.
Is that a problem?
I guess it is if it allows some intellectual property to make it back to China.
That's a problem, I suppose.
But I feel as if China would be less likely to want to destroy the United States if a lot of Chinese people had business here.
I don't know, sort of a double-edged sword.
It's something I'd watch for, certainly for the intellectual property part, but I'm a little... As long as the enterprise is in the United States, it's not the worst problem in the world to have Chinese ownership, is it?
If it's not a majority.
I don't know.
I don't mind some investment.
Alright.
AOC wants to impeach some judges.
I think she's thinking of What's his name?
Judge Thomas.
But here's what she said, quote, if we do not impeach when lifetime appointees repeatedly break the law in stunning shows of corruption, if we do not rein in the systematic abuse of the judicial overreach, if all we rely on is blah, blah, blah, abusing power.
So she wants to impeach judges.
This is very consistent with AOC and the Democrats.
What does impeaching a judge sound like?
A goal, right?
Sounds like a goal.
Like maybe she wants to impeach Clarence Thomas, or maybe she wants to impeach the federal judge who just ruled against the abortion pill.
But she's decided that impeaching judges would be a good idea.
Now, what are you yelling at, Erica?
I'll pay attention to you two for a moment.
Oh, I disappeared and now I'm back, I guess.
So, this is once again, AOC has a goal instead of a system.
The goal is to get rid of these judges that she thinks are abusing their power, but if you were to do that, it would destroy the system of an independent judiciary.
Now, how is it that she continuously Doesn't see that she's got a goal that would destroy the system.
It's just over and over again.
And it's always the same thing.
Inability, total inability to see consequences.
They don't see systems.
They don't see motivation.
They don't see incentives.
All right.
Lastly, There's some conversation about UBI, Universal Basic Income, paying people even when they don't work.
And the idea is that robots and AI will take away so many jobs, we might need UBI to keep people alive.
Cernovich had an interesting quote about this on Twitter.
He said, I was open to UBI arguments.
Then we had it during COVID.
It did nothing but increase alcoholism and obesity.
What do you think of that?
Do you think UBI would do nothing but exacerbate people's bad habits?
I say yes.
I agree.
But I would add one layer of complexity to it.
I would liken UBI to marijuana.
One of the big complaints with marijuana is that you'll do it and you'll become lazy.
And you won't get done what you need to get done.
My observation is this.
That marijuana makes you more of what you already were.
If you were lazy to begin with, oh, it'll make you lazier.
No doubt about it.
But if you were ambitious, naturally, it will make you more ambitious.
It just sort of exacerbates or accentuates what you already were.
Now, during the pandemic, The people getting the UBI, many of them had low-end jobs where the UBI was better than the job.
Probably, those were not necessarily the go-getters, and they may have said, hey, I can drink more, I got nothing going on.
If you said, I'm going to give a MacArthur Genius Award to somebody, but you don't have to do anything for us.
It's just we're giving you money because you're so smart.
We think you'll do smart things with it, but we're not going to tell you what to do with it.
You can just spend it if you want.
And in fact, a number of MacArthur recipients, the thing that made them a MacArthur recipient is that they were ambitious.
In other words, they came to the attention of the MacArthur people Because they'd done such good work and probably worked hard all their life and now they said, let's give you some money to see what you can do with it.
So those people, I believe, get free money and work harder because that's who they were.
Now they've got this extra resource so they can put some extra work in too.
So I think the UBI will be like weed.
It'll make you more of what you already were.
Lazy people will just be destroyed by it because they need a reason to get up and go to work.
And ambitious people will say, well, I've got a little freedom, a little more freedom to write that book I wanted, a little more freedom to do that startup I wanted, learn that thing I wanted to learn, go back to school.
So I think it's going to be both.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, is there any topic that I didn't talk about?
Lots of good news on Monday, or at least interesting news.
Yeah, UBI is not the same as grants or scholarships, but it still demonstrates the point.
Are you still a pro-trans community?
Of course.
Duh.
Apparently I have to do another notice for the dumb people.
Just one moment.
This will only take a moment.
This is for the dumb people.
Oh, there might be some bad people who are also trans.
Anything you say about trans does not apply to 100% of them.
Some of them might be violent.
Some of them might not be.
But anything you say about them does not apply to all of them.
I just thought you needed to hear that again.
So no, the fact that Riley Gaines got attacked by a bad trans person doesn't mean anything about the trans community.
It tells you nothing.
It's just like every other group has some bad people in it.
What's that tell you about?
Nothing.
Doesn't tell you anything about it.
You got to treat them as individuals.
If you don't treat people as individuals, well, what are you doing?
Now, by the way, if this seems inconsistent, I say you should treat every person as an individual.
At the same time, I say maybe you should stay away from large communities of people who have it out for you.
Those are consistent.
Because even in that large community, if I met an individual, I would treat them individually.
One is a statement of risk that's not dependent on any one person, and one is a statement about how do you treat one person.
Oh, I saw somewhere that I was described as, there was some hit piece about me recently, I was described as a member of the intellectual dark web.
Does that sound true?
I've never been in the intellectual dark web.
That's not true.
See, the trouble is people have a hard time identifying me because I'm left to Bernie, but I have a conservative audience for the most part.
Not every person, not every person in the audience is conservative.
When I say I have a conservative audience, I do not mean 100% of them are conservatives.
Again, notice just for the dumb people.
Yes, we're private.
All right, is there anything else?
Yeah, I never liked that intellectual dark web, because that would call me an intellectual, and that's never been the case.
But better at math.
You quit alcohol thanks to me?
Well, good for you.
Let's have a congratulations for this, I think, a gentleman who has quit alcohol for 12 weeks.
I don't know if you had a problem or you're just trying to have less of it in your life, but congratulations.
Right?
And I really mean that.
I really mean that.
Because if you've had a lifelong drinking habit, whether you're addicted or you just like it, it's not easy to stop.
But, wow, is it important.
So important.
You know, if I don't do anything else in my life, except apparently I've influenced a fairly large number of people to stop drinking, certainly nothing I saw coming.
I did not expect my life would take that path.
But if that's the only thing I did, I'm good.
Like I'm good with that.
If that's the only thing I accomplished in my life, that's solid.
Sober for five months, congratulations.
I will even allow capital letters.
In fact, this should be an exception.
If you're telling me that you've been off drugs or alcohol, use all caps.
That is not yelling.
Because you should be shouting that.
You should be shouting that from the rooftops.
And I want you to shout that.
Be proud of it.
15 months over here.
Good for you.
Good for you.
Alright.
Well, I'm very impressed with many of you in the audience.
Very impressed.
Now, I'm not, you know, I'm not your doctor, and I'm not going to tell you that you should never drink, but it certainly works for those who stopped.
All right.
Price to pay for our sins.
Four years and no drinking.
Ten years.
And here we have somebody who's not had a drink for three minutes.
Well, that's a start.
Good for you.
I'm looking at all the number of years going by.
Good for you.
I wonder if I have the least drinking followers of anybody.
I convince you to quit alcohol too.
Oh my God, so many of you.
Now, I realize I'm not hearing from the people who are continuing to drink, but there are a lot of people on the Locals platform, especially, telling me they quit.
