Episode 2089 Scott Adams: Tucker, Tate, Lemon, Digital Currency, Court Packing, Bud Light, More Fun
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Tucker mystery
Tate brothers mystery
Don Lemon
Digital currency plot
Domestic spying
More
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the Highlight of Civilization.
Best thing that ever happened to you and anybody you'd know.
And if you'd like to take your experience to levels that nobody's ever seen before in the known universe, all you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tankard, chalice or stein, 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 of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go!
That's some good stuff.
Well, I know what you all want to talk about.
Tucker Carlson and the news and stuff like that.
But I'd like to suggest a theme for today's live stream.
Do you like it when I have a theme?
When all the news coincidentally seems to fit a theme.
And here it is.
We'll put it together as we go.
But first, I would like to do a demonstration of the wisdom of my audience, the smartest audience in the history.
Don't answer the question before I ask it.
Stop it.
Stop it.
They're answering the question correctly before I've asked the question.
That is unbelievable.
Unbelievable.
It's actually happening.
It's happening on YouTube too now.
I'm just blown away at how smart my audience is.
Well, now that you know the answer, let me ask the question.
According to a Rasmussen poll, what percentage of Americans, I think it's likely voters, but something like that, but what percent of these Americans are not concerned about domestic spying?
Oh, you all get it right.
It's exactly 25%. 25%.
Yeah, it turns out that 74% of likely U.S.
voters are very concerned, or they're concerned, and then half of the people are very concerned, but 25% not concerned one bit about the government watching everything you're doing.
No problem with that whatsoever.
So, pat yourself on the back if you got that one right.
I'm going to keep quizzing you until you get one wrong.
Yeah.
I'm just going to keep asking questions until I can find anything you guys don't know.
It's amazing.
All right.
Have I ever told you that all news about public figures is fake?
Have I ever mentioned that?
Like maybe a lot of times?
Like maybe almost every day?
Yeah.
So I'm going to tell you a bunch of news about public figures.
How much of it should you believe?
The answer is 25%.
Now the answer is zero.
It might be that all of the facts are accurate.
So I might be telling you all accurate facts based on the news.
But how often are all the accurate facts that you hear in the news a complete and accurate picture of what was going on?
Basically never.
It's just not even a thing.
And I'm saying this based on my own experience.
I've been a public figure and the subject of news for 30 years.
It's never true.
They'll get maybe your birthday right.
And even that's awesome.
All right.
So let's talk about some famous people.
So a tweet from Tristan Tate, one of the Tate brothers.
And I guess they got brought back into court in Romania.
And things are getting really sketchy over there.
Right?
The news is just so incomplete.
But would you agree that whatever we're hearing about Romania and the Tate brothers is probably inaccurate?
Would you agree?
Do you think we know anything about what's going on?
Let me tell you this tweet just to give you a sense of how little we know about what's happening.
All right?
This is from Tristan Tate.
He says, they, meaning Romania, they charged me yesterday with, quote, inciting violence toward others.
And then he says, I thought it was a human trafficker.
Where's the evidence for that?
Oh, yeah, that's right.
They don't have any, so they make something else up.
All right.
Now, I'm not going to uncritically assume that the defendant is telling the truth.
That would be sort of a stretch.
But do you think that Romania is acting in a way that sounds like just a government looking to handle crime?
There's something else going on there, isn't there?
Don't you feel like there's something else going on?
Yeah.
Now, do you think that one way to characterize the Tate brothers' problems is bad behavior toward women?
Do you think that's at the heart of it?
I mean, there's some other allegations swirling around, but it seems like some kind of behavior regarding women.
Not women in general, but the women who may have worked with him in his operation.
Now, those are the accusations.
I'm not saying I know what's true, but those are the accusations.
That women are accusing them of being bad men who do bad things.
Alright, let's talk about Tucker Carlson.
So, Tucker Carlson and Fox News are going to part ways, but apparently it's only the show.
I guess his contract will probably be paid out, the news is saying.
So, Tucker Carlson is having a terrible day.
Where he just learned that he gets to spend as much time as he wants with his family and doing whatever he wants.
And instead of working he'll be, and being the subject of everybody's hate, he'll just make $20 million a year from staying home.
So bad day for him, huh?
Yeah.
He must be, I'll bet he's crying himself to sleep.
Probably crying himself to sleep.
But, given that we know absolutely nothing about this situation, And it wouldn't surprise me if Tucker doesn't know why he was fired either.
Because it's all what's in people's heads, right?
I mean, whatever happened there, we'll never really know.
I don't think we'll ever know the real truth.
But don't you think it's some kind of average of what people have in their private thoughts?
There's some executive who has a private thought about this or that.
There's another executive who has a private thought about this or that.
There's Murdoch and the Murdoch kids who have different thoughts about different things and then some decision gets made.
So you're going to see all kinds of reasons for him getting fired, but none of them individually seem to rise to the level of, really?
That's the reason they got rid of the show?
But I'll list them all, alright?
So the Daily Beast has helpfully put together a list as have other media and they've got their own ideas, but among the many, many, many things that Tucker Carlson did.
He used the C word a lot.
He used the C word a lot.
And there's something about his comments about Sidney Powell.
Now, it's a little unclear if the C-word was used in conjunction with a conversation about Sidney Powell, or if those were just different topics.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but when you use the C-word at work, that really angers men.
I'll tell you, men really get bad about that.
You use that C-word in front of a group of men and nobody else, and those men will be like, Hey, don't use that word.
So I'm just assuming that men complained about his use of that word.
He made disparaging remarks about management.
Is there anybody who hasn't never made a disparaging remark about management?
Are you kidding me?
I'm doing a live stream, which is almost entirely people who want to see me.
And even most of you have made disparaging remarks about me.
I mean maybe not Nat.
You might like some things too.
But everybody makes disparaging remarks about everybody.
What's different is that his emails may have been surfaced.
His communications may have been surfaced during that lawsuit.
So maybe some of those executives saw some discouraging or disparaging remarks.
Then the Daily Beast also says it's something about his January 6th conspiracy coverage.
Now, do you think that there was anybody at Fox News who said out loud, the problem is, is January 6th coverage?
Maybe.
But this sounds like just something that the Daily Beast would make up because they want it to be true.
It feels like wishful thinking, doesn't it?
Dan the NPC says, Scott, you ignorant?
That's almost a sentence there.
Goodbye.
Thanks for joining us.
Let's see, what else has he approved?
Tucker is also accused of a former producer has a lawsuit that says it was a sexist environment.
Now he's not being accused of any Me Too stuff, but rather the way he talked was sexist.
And that's the sort of thing that men he worked with probably complained a lot about.
So I can imagine Tucker talking to the guys, and the guys are like, whoa, whoa, Tucker, that's a little bit sexist.
Can you calm that down a little bit?
Calm that down.
We men don't like that at all.
Let's see, what else?
Oliver Darcy says it's related to ex-producers' lawsuit for his rampant sexism.
And then Oliver Darcy, as seen then, throws this in.
And anti-Semitic behavior.
What would be an example of anti-semitic behavior?
Now I would understand if they said he had anti-semitic words, like words.
I could imagine somebody doing that, not necessarily Tucker, but you could imagine a person doing something that's anti-semitic.
But what exactly was his behavior?
Do you think that's real?
Did he start a little holocaust of his own there?
Was his behavior to overtly discriminate against Jewish employees or Jewish guests?
Seems like if they had a specific, we might have heard it.
Does that sound like just something that was made up by CNN?
Does that sound true?
Remember, A hundred percent of stories about famous people are not true.
Now, I only see this stuck in in the CNN report.
Like, even the Daily Beast, which is no friend of Tucker's, doesn't mention anything about any anti-Semitic thing.
Do you know that when I got canceled, the ADL, somebody from the ADL came after me.
They tried to make it anti-Semitic, just kind of tack on to the story a little bit.
Well, you know, Maybe he did something antisemitic too.
Right.
Well, he said some bad things that had nothing to do with us, but we think we can maybe tag on a little bit and get a little juice from this too.
So, uh, that's probably ridiculous, but it's a serious accusation.
So we'll, uh, we'll put a pin in it.
But if you don't hear this from other entities, it sounds like it's just a CNN little, little jab.
All right.
Uh, Profanity-laced remarks.
There's another thing that men hate.
Men hate it when men swear.
A lot of men were mad at Tucker at Fox News, that's for sure.
And maybe something about the advertisers wanting to stay away from Tucker's show.
It did seem to me that Tucker did not have the A-level advertisers.
You know, I've always wondered how Fox News even makes money.
When I see the advertisements that they run, I think to myself, how many pillows can you sell?
Or, you know, how much gold do people need?
I don't really even understand their business model, because when I look at If I look at a commercial on one of the major networks, it's going to be some big pharma company or something, and you say, oh, I understand how they make money.
That big pharma company is paying them a lot of money to advertise.
But Fox advertisers don't look like they even have money.
I don't even know where they get their money.
I mean, they seem like smaller outfits.
I just don't know how the... Honestly, I don't know how they make money.
Like, literally, I don't understand how they do it.
Maybe it's that.
Then RFK Jr.
said it was something about not long after RFK Jr.
was on the show and talking about Big Pharma.
So RFK Jr.
thinks it might be something about Big Pharma pushing back.
What do you think?
Of all those reasons, which ones do you find compelling?
Knowing that we'll never know.
Alright, it could be that the real reason is some reason that's not even in the news, right?
So some say Big Pharma, some say lawsuits, potential lawsuits.
Some say RFK, some say a combination.
Some say it's a Ray Epps story, the January 6th stuff.
Don't want to get sued, basically, right?
You think it was Kennedy?
You think it was Dominion?
You think it's J6?
Some say insurance.
All right, what if I taught you... Let's see if you remember this lesson.
What does it mean when everybody has a different opinion of why it happened?
What's that mean?
What can you conclude from the fact that all the observers have a different opinion?
Well, nobody knows.
Nobody knows.
It might also be unknowable.
Because like I say, I'm sure it was a group decision.
You know, even though Murdoch could make the decision himself, I'm sure it was a group, you know, they consulted.
But I don't think that they each knew what was in the minds of the other.
Obviously they said what they wanted to say, but maybe their actual secret thoughts were for themselves and they just made the argument that was fit for other people to hear.
So I've got a feeling it was just a bunch of people who had a bunch of problems, and when the bunch of problems reached the level where it was higher than the benefit, they pulled the trigger.
Yeah, it could be the Paul Ryan effect.
He's on the board.
It could be that Carlson was too friendly, not friendly, but too beneficial to Trump getting elected.
Because if Tucker kept going at the January 6th thing, Then that would make Trump stronger.
All right.
So I guess we don't know what it was exactly, but I'll tell you the spot that he's in.
So the people who have been in that spot was Bill O'Reilly was there in that APM spot.
Megyn Kelly was there, right?
And now Tucker, was there somebody else there?
Glenn Beck, right.
So Glenn Beck, Megyn Kelly, and O'Reilly, and now Tucker.
So if you had to come up with a name for what you would call that 8 o'clock block, I would call it the kill me block.
You know, if you go there, you might as well just kill me, right?
Just kill me.
Um, so who did they have as a guest host in the kill-me slot last night?
Just guess.
Just imagine that you live in a simulation and everything is meant to be a joke.
You don't know it, but it's like a physical joke that's being played on us.
Who would they put in the kill-me spot?
Brian kill-me-da.
Brian kill-me-da was in the kill-me slot.
I mean, come on.
Come on!
Total simulation.
I didn't say it was funny.
I just said it was a simulation messing with us.
You can decide on your own if it's funny.
I mean, it's not my joke.
It's a simulation.
So, let's see.
We got all those possibilities.
Now, the speculation also is, what's going to happen to Tucker?
Where will he go?
Everybody's got their own guesses.
Now there are two lines of thinking and they're both worthy of exploring.
One says that Tucker is a singular personality.
He's bigger than Fox News and wherever he goes, if he goes independent, he could become the Joe Rogan of independent people or something like that.
But even Joe Rogan depends on advertisers, doesn't he?
It's going to be a little bit tough for Tucker to find advertisers because he couldn't find it for his show.
So, I mean, if Fox News can't get you an advertiser, it'd be hard to scrounge one up on your own.
But I suppose he could.
I suppose he could.
Yeah, Mike Cernovich accurately points out That Tucker is sort of a target for lawsuits.
So unless you've got some big organization behind you to pay your legal bills, it's too risky to be in business the way Tucker does business.
Maybe.
Maybe.
But, you know, if you're making Joe Rogan kind of money, you can also buy Joe Rogan kind of insurance.
And Tucker does make Joe Rogan money, so he can buy insurance.
I don't know if he can buy $100 million worth of insurance, but maybe he can.
I don't know.
So some say he's going to go to the independent room.
Now, others say, and I think they're not wrong, that Fox News is the star, and the 8 o'clock spot is the star, and you could put in anybody good, and they would have huge ratings, because it's about the platform.
That's not wrong.
You know, I've been telling you for years that whatever you want to say to complain about Fox News, there's one thing that they do consistently well, and have for years.
Which is their producers really produce.
CNN looks poorly produced to me, as does MSNBC.
But Fox News consistently looks like the producers, the people behind the curtain, are just a higher level of operators.
They just seem more effective to me.
So they can put it on a show, and maybe it's the show is the star, and they can put in interesting people.
Picking the right celebrity Or the right personality is part of producing.
So, I'm going to say that their 8 o'clock hour is going to do fine.
What do you think?
Now, it might take them a while to find their footing, but I think they're going to put in somebody who's as interesting, you know, maybe not on day one, but as interesting.
And you're going to tune in because it's 8 o'clock and the TV's on and you're just going to watch it.
That's what happened when they got rid of, not got rid of, but so after Glenn Beck, after O'Reilly, after Megyn Kelly, their ratings just kept going up.
So why won't that happen again?
So I'm going to say that from the perspective of Fox News, probably it looks like a pretty good decision.
Does that surprise you?
If I'm just going to do the business decision, The things that have been listed as the potential problems for Tucker, if any subset of that is true, yeah, that's pretty good reasons.
Pretty good reasons.
Now, because remember, they would have confidence that they can fill that slot, eventually, with somebody who makes them just as much money.
And they wouldn't have the problems, they wouldn't have the lawsuits.
So it's not a terrible business decision.
It doesn't mean that it'll work out, right?
All business is a risk.
So it could be, it could be the worst thing they ever did.
But if you based it on their history, it was a smart business decision.
Which is not to, I'm not trying to not support Tucker.
I'm just saying you can see it from a business perspective and the risk was higher than the return.
We'll see.
But how will Tucker do?
Do you think that he will go off and start his own thing that's bigger than his old audience?
Well...
I saw reporting that says that none of the three people I mentioned did.
So Megyn Kelly's doing well, but doesn't have the same size audience.
Glenn Beck obviously is doing great on The Blaze, but probably a smaller audience.
And O'Reilly's got his own thing, but smaller audience.
So do you think Tucker will go on to just have a nice, solid, respectable podcast?
You know, he'll just happily go on.
Maybe.
Maybe.
There are a number of entities that would try to get him.
NewsNation.
NewsNation is where Chris Cuomo ended up.
So that might make sense.
They're independent.
They're trying to get some kind of middle ground reporting.
So I don't know.
I don't know if anybody has enough money to pay him what he needs, but he could make a fortune as a podcaster, obviously.
So he's got lots of options.
It's a good place to be.
I would guess that his cancellation, if you want to call it that, feels a lot like mine did, which is everybody else thinks it's worse than it is for you.
And you're thinking, oh, Well, it's a good thing I spent my career up to this point building a bunch of skills.
Because if you have a bunch of skills, as Tucker does, he's got a ton of options.
He has so many options.
I hope nobody's feeling sorry for him.
Is anybody feeling sorry for Tucker?
I mean, I wish things didn't happen that were bad for anybody.
But no, he's doing great.
I would guess he's having a good week.
If I had to guess, this following week will be more fun and interesting and stimulating for Tucker than the week before.
Because he was just sort of going to work and grinding out the same show after show, which had to be a lot of work.
And now he's on vacation.
He's getting paid the same.
The entire world has opened up to him.
I don't know.
Looks pretty good for him.
Let's talk about... Oh, AOC talked about...
Deplatforming works and it is important.
So AOC is very happy about Tucker being deplatformed.
Okay.
Oh, also some people think it's the war in Ukraine because Tucker was anti-war in Ukraine.
Some say it's about the presidential election because you want to remove players from the field.
I think it's all of those things.
I think it's all of those things.
It's the whole bag of things.
That's why we'll never hear that it was one thing.
And if you do hear that it was one thing, I wouldn't believe it.
It's all the things.
How about Don Lemon?
So Don Lemon, now I don't know if this is true, but I like to think it's true.
Every once in a while you like to think, You like to think that people do smart things.
If CNN was getting ready to fire Don Lemon, and then the unexpected news about Tucker Carlson hit, wouldn't the smartest thing for them to do is immediately fire Don Lemon so that his news is tagged on to Tucker's news, but it's behind it?
Because Tucker's going to get more attention.
I think that's what they did.
If they didn't do that intentionally, I'll be very disappointed, because it would be one of the smartest media things I'd ever seen.
I mean, really, really smart.
You know, they like to announce bad news on a Friday before a three-day weekend, but this was even better.
You know, assuming that they were ready to go, you know, they'd already made it, or almost a decision to fire him, that was just such good timing.
And what was Don Lemon fired for?
Well, his diva-like behavior.
Do you think his diva-like behavior was bothering the men?
The men at CNN?
Do you think the men were saying, that Don Lemon, he's acting so diva-like?
I don't know.
Based on the reporting, there are a lot of women in the reporting who seemed angry at him.
And he was being called misogynist.
Oh.
So the Taser misogynist, Tucker Carlson, was accused of being a misogynist.
And now Don Lemon, gay man, is being accused of being a misogynist.
Have you seen the pattern yet?
Do you notice the pattern?
Yeah.
Working with women is really dangerous.
Working with women is going to put you in jail and get you fired.
That's where we are.
Basically, if you're working with women, and there are a bunch of them, the odds that one of them will sue you, or call you a misogynist, is nearly 100%.
It's nearly 100%.
So it seems to me that the obvious future of all men in public life is to eventually be sued and fired in disgrace.
Because if you took a hundred of any type of person, so this has nothing to do with being women, right?
If this sounds anti-woman, just, you can remove the woman from the story and replace any demographic.
There's a hundred of whatever.
Elbonians.
A hundred binaries.
A hundred cisgender white men.
A hundred anything.
If there are a hundred of them, you're going to have some bad ones.
Do you agree?
It doesn't matter who it is.
A hundred human beings, you're going to have some bad ones.
And if those bad ones have this easy way to take out the men they work with, it's going to happen over time.
So you're seeing the complete inability of men and women to work together for long.
Now, I'm not going to give men a pass.
If you put men in any environment and you wait long enough, they're going to do some bad stuff.
Because, you know, men.
I can say that because I am one.
We do bad stuff if you wait long enough.
So, men and women working together just doesn't work.
I hate to say it, but in 2023, men and women working together absolutely is too dangerous.
Because some of the women are going to complain, and then that would have to be taken seriously.
And probably it is serious.
It probably is based on something real.
So, let me ask you this.
Do you remember when the Me Too movement was everywhere and people were getting Me Too'd all over the place?
Did you notice it stopped?
What's up with that?
How did it stop?
Did the guys stop being guys?
I doubt it.
Did the women stop complaining?
I actually don't know the answer.
But didn't we get one or two Me Too stories per day?
And the closest we've come is wasn't there some NBC executive who admitted he had a consensual affair with somebody at work and then he quit?
But even that wasn't scandalous, was it?
It wasn't even scandalous.
It just seemed like there was an affair and that was against the rules.
And that's about the whole story.
Yeah.
So that's ongoing, somebody says.
All right.
So.
Oh, and it might be a little bit racist to the Don Lemon stuff.
Not that Don Lemon was fired Because their management was racist.
I'm not saying that.
So management was not racist.
Rather that Don Lemon was being called a racist.
And Don Lemon was being called a racist because when he interviewed Vivek Ramaswamy, he said something along the lines of that Ramaswamy couldn't speak about the post-Civil War history because Ramaswamy wasn't black.
Is that racist?
I guess so.
I mean, technically, yes.
Okay.
So, Don Lemon was a racist, misogynist...
As were basically all men in all of our stories.
But how about a story that's not?
Can we have a story that's not about men and women fighting and the men losing?
Because that seems to be the theme.
All right, here's one that just has nothing to do with that.
Elizabeth Warren wants to pack the courts so that they can get what they want without having to worry about the majority of the Republicans.
So at least that has nothing to do with, you know, women blaming men for stuff, right?
Oh yes, except that that's exactly what it is.
It's a woman blaming the men on the Supreme Court for abortion decisions, basically.
Because this is all about abortion.
I don't think they were going to pack the court until there was an abortion question.
And what about guns?
Maybe something about guns.
Do you think guns are maybe Sort of have a gender split too, maybe?
So, here we have Elizabeth Warren trying to destroy the most important part of the Republic, which is that we don't pack the court.
If I could, if I could come to Earth as some kind of a god and tell America how the one thing they have to do right, imagine I just appear as an angel.
I have come to Earth to tell America, you can do almost everything wrong and recover.
There's just one thing.
I just want to ask you, just do one thing right.
Don't pack the court.
It's the only thing that could destroy everything.
Everything else we can figure out.
But if you pack the court, it's over.
Now, how does she not know this?
I think she puts the goal above the system.
I put the system above the goal.
I understand that they have a goal of having the Supreme Court make different decisions.
I get it.
But if it were the other way, I wouldn't want to destroy the court to get those specific decisions.
Especially if it's something that got sent to the state, like abortion.
But to me this looks like a decision she doesn't like and so she's going to do something to destroy the entire civilization.
So those men won't make that bad decision anymore.
She wants to destroy, not wants to, but her proposal has a pretty high risk of destroying the Republic and maybe all of human civilization as a consequence of that.
So that's special.
Biden made his announcement.
And he's got a theme for his announcement.
His theme will be that he will be telling lots of lies about Trump.
So that's his theme.
So he's going to start with the January 6th lies.
He's going to go to the soul of the nation.
That's the Charlottesville fine people lie.
And probably a few other lies.
So he's basing his campaign on lying about Trump.
I wouldn't expect much more than that, actually.
Do you think that the Democrats are feeling trapped?
Do you think that Trump can finish off Biden this time, if it turns out to be Trump versus Biden, which is sort of looking like?
I don't know.
I thought Trump was going to make easy work of Biden the first time.
Except for, you know, let's say the changes to the voting system because the pandemic just made everything different.
But don't you think Trump has more to work with this time?
Last time it was all a hypothetical.
Well, if you elect Biden, he will do these bad things.
But now we've seen Biden.
So there are specific things to talk about, right?
Energy, blah, blah, blah.
Well, many of you think the system is rigged and that Trump can't win.
Do you think that the Republicans will do an adequate job of making sure that they're monitoring elections better?
I don't.
I don't think the Republicans did anything useful.
So I wouldn't be surprised if the campaign makes no difference to the outcome.
It wouldn't surprise me.
Would it surprise you?
Don't you think you could see a campaign that clearly indicates one person's gonna win but then the other person wins and you wouldn't be surprised?
Because we don't believe the system at this point.
Yeah.
So I have no evidence that the election system is rigged.
I have no evidence of that.
I only have a brain which tells me that if anything can be rigged, it will be.
If it can.
And do you think that the election is something that can be rigged?
Of course.
Of course.
In some way, big or small.
And someday, today or later, or yesterday.
But yeah, it's a riggable system, so therefore it will be.
Just eventually.
We don't know if it happened yet, or in the future.
All right.
So Biden put out his little video.
Yeah, he's going to focus on January 6.
Isn't that convenient that Tucker Carlson, the primary person who pushed back on January 6, disappears right before Biden announces that he's running and it's all going to be about January 6 stuff?
Interesting.
That's a lucky coincidence for Biden right there.
All right, speaking of January 6th, in a story that reminds me of it, apparently a bunch of left-wing protesters descended on Montana's Capitol, disrupting proceedings in the State House of Representatives.
This was in support of transgender lawmaker Zoe Zephyr, a Democrat.
Now, what happens when protesters, they disrupt a government proceeding?
What's that called?
There's a word for that?
Insur... Insurrection!
Yes, insurrection.
So the next part of the story is that every one of those left-wing protesters were rounded up and put in jail.
Do you believe that?
No, of course not.
You don't put left-wing protesters in jail?
What are you, crazy?
Are you crazy?
Ray Epps was not there, I know you're gonna ask.
Okay, well.
So, what else can you even say about that story?
You just have to shake your head, because you live in such a corrupt country, that the Democrats can make this coherent story that only applies to this one situation?
But no!
That's not gonna apply to other situations!
No!
All right.
And do you think that the trans movement is more about left-wing men or left-wing women?
Who do you think are the primary backers of the trans movement, besides the trans themselves?
besides the trans themselves?
You're saying men?
Now, men might be transitioning more often, but who are the non-trans people supporting?
Mostly women, right?
So this would be a case of women complaining about men, and the context here is trans discrimination.
Alright?
So, do you see the theme yet?
Let's talk about Bud Light.
So you all know the Bud Light story, so I don't have to tell you that.
But apparently Bud Light increased sales in some of their other beverages at about the same rate that Bud Light decreased sales.
So the Budweiser boycott didn't work at all.
In case you're wondering.
The Budweiser boycott probably didn't make any difference.
You know, Budweiser doesn't like it, and they're paying some expensive people to figure out how to make their brand good.
And I don't know if you saw the clip of Joe Rogan laughing hysterically at Budweiser's new commercial, because they tried to change the commercial into America and patriotism and Clydesdales, and it was just so over-the-top pathetic that Rogan was just using it as a joke to laugh at it.
It feels like they've lost their way a little bit, but I don't think they're gonna lose their money.
So it looks like Budweiser's gonna be fine.
Let's talk about a U.S.
digital currency, which you all want me to talk about, but you're not gonna like what I have to say.
So that's why I've been avoiding talking about it, because you're not gonna like it.
All right, here's what you want me to say.
The government is looking at creating a digital currency, not yet to replace cash, but We assume that that's the direction it's going.
So what you want me to say is that we should stop this immediately, because as soon as the government can control your money and everywhere you spend it, they can just turn the knob on and off and they can control you, and that's an unlivable future.
So we must stop them from doing digital currency, and I just can't make that argument.
Because unfortunately, there's another argument that's bigger than that.
Which is, there's nothing you can do to stop digital currency.
Do you seriously think you can stop digital currency from replacing cash?
There isn't anything that could do that.
There's no protesting.
There's nothing that could do that.
We absolutely are going to have digital money that the government can control and can control you.
I can complain about it, but it's not going to be different.
It might delay it six months or something.
But no.
Cash will not be the way we pay for things in a hundred years.
No.
It's just going to be digital.
And there's nothing you can do about it.
So I see people signing off.
Bye bye!
No, I'm not saying that I want it.
I'm saying I don't complain about things I can't change.
That's not a changeable situation.
Now, We might want to figure out how to safeguard our life in that situation.
I haven't heard of any ideas for that.
If I do, maybe I can back them.
But, yeah, there's nothing you can do.
We will be completely without privacy, and we will be completely controlled.
I don't like it, just to be clear.
It's not my first choice, but there's nothing you can do about it.
I suppose complaining could make people think of better alternatives, but I don't think there's going to be one.
It's going to be digital.
Now, I don't think it'll be as different in the future as you think it will, because how many of you already pay for things digitally anyway?
How many of you are still writing checks or giving cash to people?
Don't you pay on Venmo or Google Pay at least, let's say, half or more of your transactions?
Don't you?
For the little stuff?
You know, the little services and stuff?
No.
You're not there yet?
Well, you will be.
Yeah, you will be.
Sooner or later, this is going to happen.
You need to pay somebody cash and you won't have the cash with you.
And you don't have time to go to the ATM.
And then you're going to say, well, I have this thing called Venmo I've never used.
Does that work?
And then the person will say, yeah, that works.
Yeah, Apple Pay.
I think we're just going to sort of drift into it from convenience and there's nothing that can change it.
All right.
If you think of a better spin on that, let me know.
Here's news from the Haitian capital.
So over in Haiti where crime is rampant and the The gang members are practically running society over there.
This happened.
A mob in the Haitian capital pulled 13 suspected gang members from police custody.
They actually took the gang members from the police and set them all on fire.
Put a tire on them.
I guess that's sort of the way it's done.
Put a tire on them, pour gas on them, and set them on fire.
The law-abiding public in Haiti is so fed up that they actually attacked the police to take custody of their prisoners to murder them in public.
Now that's some serious citizen action right there.
Now, I'm not going to say that's a trend, but I don't hate it.
I don't hate it.
It looks like citizens might have to do what they need to do.
And I'm predicting a wave of vigilante action in the US.
What do you do if you're in a high-crime area and there's no police?
You either have to fight yourself or leave.
If you leave, well, you get cancelled, I hear.
I hear bad things about people who try to stay away from potential trouble.
I don't know.
I think there's going to be a lot more vigilantism.
Also a lot more mass shootings, because there's so many young men with no purpose.
So I think you're going to see a lot more of that.
All right.
Here I'm going to agree with Ibrahim Kendi.
Here's something you didn't expect today.
So I saw on Twitter, people are tweeting around, Paul Graham had it, the average income of people by ethnic groups in the United States.
And what it showed is that the Indian immigrants, who are now Indian American mostly, have the highest income by ethnic group.
And then there are various Asian Americans behind them who have high incomes compared to the rest.
And some people said, Hey, that means that if black people are not doing as well as Indian Americans and Chinese Americans, etc., that must be something wrong with black culture.
So what is it about these Asian and Indian cultures that Allows them to succeed.
And the critics say it must be something with black culture.
Now, Abraham McKinney says, no, it's systemic racism and it's not culture.
Who do you think is right?
Who do you think is right?
Is it culture or is it systemic racism?
What do you say?
Well, I'm going to agree with one of the points that Kendi said, especially, that the immigration paths were different.
And that does matter.
Do you think that the Asian and Indian American immigrants are coming here with the same disadvantages of a freed slave?
It's not even close.
I feel as if the people we're getting are, you know, often technically proficient, often came from a, you know, a high-end school in India, are specifically recruited for their skills, you know, they're going to be doctors and technologists and engineers of all kinds.
So, isn't there a filtering issue going on?
Are we not getting the You know, cream of the crop from some countries because of the way we set up the immigration process, whereas the black Americans were brought in on slave ships, many of them, and descended from that.
So there's no filtering mechanism.
At least that kind of filtering mechanism.
I think that's a good point.
How many of you think that's not a valid point from Kendi?
That the immigration filters differently from different countries at different times?
That's valid.
There are people actually saying that that's not valid.
Now, keep in mind, I'm not saying that's the only thing that's causing differential.
I'm not saying it's the only thing.
But there's no way that's not a valid point.
Come on.
Come on.
Seriously?
You don't think that we have different filters for different countries of who we let in and why?
Of course we do.
Do you think you would get the same result from Indian Americans who are flying here on airplanes compared to people flowing across the southern border, which is basically anybody with legs?
So if you were to compare any two groups, one group is anybody who has legs, and the other group is people who can figure out how to buy an airplane ticket to get to America.
There's no way those two are going to have the same income in 10 years.
There's no way.
All right.
I feel like when I say Kendi, you just want to disagree with him.
You would be far more credible if you allowed him the points that are clearly, obviously true, which is the immigration paths make a difference.
As long as you don't accept all of his points.
I'm not saying accept all of his points.
That's just one good point.
It's just one good point.
I think we can agree to that.
Now, beyond that, I'm sure there's a cultural difference that makes a difference.
It feels like it.
But that's just anecdotal.
I don't have any science to support that.
But it looks like it.
It looks like it.
So from the outside, our poor powers of observation, sure, it looks like it.
I just don't have any scientific evidence that would back that point.
And I would definitely back Kendi for saying that there is systemic racism.
In the school system, for example, that would be my best example of it.
Alright, so did you catch my theme of the day?
Every time we put men and women together, it's a problem for white men.
And every time you put black people and white men together, it's a problem for white men.
Okay, not every time.
You know, every time I say every time, you shouldn't believe every time.
That's obvious hyperbole.
So all of this is obvious hyperbole when you double cancel before it.
It's probably going to happen.
Probably going to get double, triple canceled today.
But there is a real problem of people working together now.
There's a real problem.
It's actually dangerous to be around other people.
Am I wrong?
It's actually dangerous to be around other people, even if you think you're not breaking a law.
You might think you're just being yourself, or you think, oh, I just tell the truth.
That's maybe what you think about yourself.
But other people are like, oh, I'm going to cancel you, mofo.
I'm going to get a little dopamine hit from canceling you.
I don't want to be around anybody who gets a dopamine hit from cancelling me.
Did you see AOC's glee when Tucker Carlson partied with Fox News?
Like watching her little video of how happy she was?
I mean, she was genuinely happy.
That's a dopamine hit.
Don't be around anybody who would be that happy if something bad happened to you.
Is that good advice?
Don't be around somebody who would be happy and get a dopamine charge just for seeing something bad happening to you.
Get away from that as far as you can.
Yeah.
So.
All right.
That's my general theme.
Men and women.
We're dangerous to each other.
All right.
The Uniparty idea.
No, I don't buy the Uniparty idea.
I buy individuals doing individual things and it sums up to something that looks like a uniparty.
Well, we definitely have a unit party when it comes to war, so there's no argument on that.
Your kids have canceled you because you're afraid of woke culture.
All right.
All right, so here's something I'm no longer going to entertain.
Please, please do not ask me to comment on people from different political parties running as one party.
I'm not going to comment on RFK Jr.
maybe being on the ticket with Trump.
Just stop.
That's not going to happen.
That is not worth talking about.
There isn't any chance.
- All right.
And so what else is going on?
I continue to use AI with no success whatsoever.
Has anybody used AI for anything successful?
Where it saved you time and made you some money or something?
Yeah, I've been looking.
So far it's just extra work.
I mean, one assumes that the upside is tremendous, but Nothing yet.
All right.
Charging higher fees for people with good credit scores.
Well, the Democrats are consistent in ignoring human motivation.
So the story about people with higher credit having to pay extra to pay for people with bad credit is one of those stories.
The story about Elizabeth Warren wants to pack the court as if the Republicans won't repack it when they take charge.
It's a ridiculous idea.
Ridiculous.
But each of these ridiculous ideas has the same problem.
It ignores human motivation.
If you ignore how humans are, and how they normally are, and how they normally act, you cannot build a system.
And that's consistently what the Democrats do.
They ignore human motivation.
All right.
Using mid-journey for film production right now?
Well, I'll bet you spend extra time and don't get any extra benefit from it.
Democrats announced their 2020 foreign nominee.
Okay, Biden, I guess.
All right.
At Biden's current rate of decline, what do you expect by next year?
Is he going to be even a little bit functional?
And what do the Democrats do about Kamala?
You know what would be interesting?
If Trump just ran against Kamala by just not mentioning Biden, by saying he's irrelevant, he could actually just say, all right, I'm running for president against Kamala Harris.
And then people would say, no, no, Biden is the top of the ticket.
And then you just look at him and you go, right.
Yeah, that's funny.
He could just pretend Biden isn't running.
Just imagine that.
Imagine Trump running for president by simply acting or playing as though Biden is not in the race.
And just say Kamala Harris whenever he talks about their candidate.
Just don't even act like he's part of the process.
So Joe Biden is babbling with his dementia, making some claims about January 6th and the good people hoax.
He can't tell a hoax from reality.
He's so far out of it.
But looks like I'm really running against Kamala Harris.
So if you think Kamala Harris can do a better job than me, vote Democrat.
So Susan Rice, Resigned, which is making people speculate that she could be a vice presidential running mate.
What do you think of that?
That does sound like it.
Does that sound likely?
Wouldn't Susan Rice be the Obama handler?
Like the one that Obama would use to handle, to handle Biden?
So, to me that doesn't sound crazy.
If you were going to predict what Democrats want to happen, I think what they want to happen is Susan Rice to replace Kamala.
But ideally, they'd like to replace Biden, I guess.
All right.
Oh, someone says that Susan Rice was not left enough, so she got pushed out for not being left enough.
Well, not being left enough might be a perfect vice president.
Because you don't want somebody who's too left.
She's horrible for this country, some people say, that Susan Rice.
I don't know enough about her.
I don't really have a...
Is there a Susan Rice and a Condoleezza Rice?
Two Rices?
What are the odds that there would be two Rices?
All right.
She's just Obama as a woman.
All right.
Well, could Obama transition and then run again?
Interesting.
No, it would still be him though.
So technically it would still be him.
So he couldn't do it.
All right.
I don't think I have anything else left to say.
So we're gonna end this conversation now for YouTube.
