Episode 2167 Scott Adams: Everything Is Going Well But Might Not Seem Like It Yet. Grab Some Coffee
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
-----------
Things are going well,
Politics, Elon Musk, FARA Indictments, Political News Bubbles, Biden Crime Family, Christopher Wray Testimony, Yevgeny Prigozhin, Design Is Destiny, Tucker Carlson, Andrew Tate, Emasculation, Mike Cernovich, Jordan Peterson, President Trump, Election Integrity, Governor DeSantis, Psychedelic Therapy, Climate Change, Amish Vaccinations, African-American Unemployment, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 Human Civilization.
It's Cold Coffee with Scott Adams.
Probably the best thing that's ever happened to you.
And if you'd like to take this up to another level, Well, there's a way to do it.
And it's not hard.
Just follow along.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or 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 of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Ah.
Ah.
Well, I need to warn you that today will be the worst dad joke you've ever heard. - Yeah.
Worst dad joke you've ever heard.
You'll know it when it happens.
I won't have to tell you in advance.
You'll just know it.
Alright?
Well, here are the stories.
Apparently there's an otter who is stealing surfboards.
Somewhere around Santa Cruz, I think.
And this otter had been raised in captivity and somehow had been acclimated to humans.
But when it sees people surfing, it goes and tries to grab their surfboard away from them.
And if it gets it, it jumps on top and surfs.
That's right.
It's a surfing otter.
Now, apparently they're having trouble Locating the otter because what they want to do is relocate it.
If they can catch it, they're going to relocate it.
But apparently there are two problems in identifying this otter.
Number one is that otters, I don't know if you knew this, but otters look a lot alike.
Has anybody ever told you that?
Have you seen one otter?
You've kind of seen them all.
So that's the first problem.
But there's a bigger problem is that when you stop an otter and you say, are you that surfboard stealing otter?
What do they usually say?
No, it's the otter one.
It's not me, it's the otter one.
All right.
Well, I hate you too.
All right, here's a little preview.
If you happen to be subscribing to the Dilbert Reborn comic, which you can only see if you subscribe either at the scottadams.locals place, where you can see lots more than that, or if you just want to see the comic itself on Twitter, you can subscribe.
But Dilbert's CEO is going to have a cage match with another CEO.
Nudity might be involved.
That's all I'm going to say.
It's going to be a series for the week, but Dilbert's CEO will be in a possibly naked cage match with another CEO.
I don't want to tell you that it goes well, but let's just say that their relationship may be kicking off at that moment.
It might be the beginning of something beautiful, is what I'm saying.
See?
It's a twist.
Didn't see that coming, did you?
Trick twist.
Well, by the way, Elon Musk does subscribe to Dilbert Reborn.
It must be so strange to be him.
Imagine being Elon Musk and you wake up in the morning and half of the news is about you.
Just every day.
Half of the news is about you.
And then you try to get away from the news by reading your comics.
And you read the comics and there you are again.
Alright, well, that's weird.
So, how about this?
Somebody invented better white paint.
Eh?
That's pretty exciting, isn't it?
It's white paint, but it's way better.
Okay, there's more to it than that.
Apparently white paint is not all the same.
So there's this new white paint that can reduce the temperature of your roof or anything else you put it on by quite a bit.
So in the middle of the day you can have eight degrees cooler roof than you would have otherwise with a different color.
That's pretty big.
And at night it could be a difference of 19 degrees.
So isn't that weird?
That if you had some black paint and some of this special white paint, so the black paint would be presumably the most absorb-y, so that'd be sort of the worst case scenario, and then you had white paint right next to it, you could have a 19 degree difference, and they're just sitting there, just sitting outside.
Just sitting there.
19 degree difference.
Does that even seem possible to you?
But apparently the secret is it reflects a lot of light out.
Now, how can it work at night?
Am I missing something?
Did I read this wrong?
And up to 19 degrees cooler at night.
But the way it works is by reflecting the sun.
How does it reflect sun at night?
Am I missing something in this story?
What?
Off the moon.
All right, well, I'm not sure I believe this.
If you could actually make a 19 degree... All right, are there any engineers here today?
Any engineers in the house?
If you could make something 19 degrees difference in the same location and it just stays that way, it never balances out.
It's just always a different temperature.
Couldn't you build a Stirling engine that just ran forever based on that factor?
Because a Stirling engine is an engine that already exists.
It doesn't have to be invented.
And it operates entirely off of temperature differentials.
Now, presumably, the greater the temperature differential, the more power you generate.
But would a 19 degree difference give you anything?
Would you even get a little bit of Stirling engine action out of 19 degrees?
I'm seeing some people say no.
I think no is the right answer.
19 would be weak, but would it be zero?
I know it would be weak, but it would actually be no energy at all?
Probably.
Or at least hard to measure.
All right.
It doesn't scale up.
Yeah, that would make sense.
I saw a material the other day.
I forget what it's called.
Have you ever seen this material that's metal?
And if you heat it, it will go back to its original condition after it's been bent.
Anybody seen that?
I forget what it's called.
There's a name for it.
But I can't figure out why you can't make a perpetual engine out of just that.
How hard would it be to make an engine where you had a spring, and then you stretch out the spring, because it's metal, so you can stretch it.
And then you just apply heat.
And then the spring goes back to its natural place and picks up an item.
And then you change the heat, it goes down.
There's no way to have it seek heat and then create energy that's enough energy to find it to seek coldness.
Maybe circling around in some way?
No.
You still need a heat source, so it wouldn't be perpetual motion.
That's correct.
So it wouldn't be perpetual motion, it would be an outside heat source.
But there's always an outside heat source.
There's always one.
There's always a heat differential.
You know, if all you did is drill into the ground, the temperature would be pretty different, most of the time.
I don't know, it just seems like we've got enough here, we can build our own engine that works forever.
Not perpetual engine, but not perpetual motion.
All right.
So that wasn't too interesting.
It's a weird news day.
Here's a question I saw on Twitter and the Amuse Twitter account, which is a pretty provocative account, Amuse.
Anyway.
He tweeted this, oops, Biden's DOJ indicted a man for failing to register as a foreign agent while working for CEFC, which is China Energy Company.
Hunter Biden and James Biden both work for the same company and neither registered as foreign agents.
White House has no comment.
OK, this is going to be, if this is true, you know, all of the stories have if this is true attached to them.
If it's true, How do you handle that?
I suppose they'll find some small difference in the cases.
Oh, that one case where we did prosecute, that was quite different than this in ways that we can't think of right now.
But is it my imagination?
No, I'm not an engineer, actually.
Somebody was calling me an engineer.
No, I'm not an engineer.
I just work with them.
So it's going to be kind of embarrassing if, in fact, the Bidens do not get indicted for something that somebody was exactly doing and indicted for.
But have we reached a point where there's literally nothing in the news that makes us act differently?
It's like we watch the news, but Nothing's different.
It's just the same stuff.
So are we actually seeing a situation where we know for sure, there's no doubt about it, that the Bidens did exactly what somebody went to jail for?
Is that our actual real life situation?
We're looking at somebody who went to jail for exactly the same crime and just nothing will happen.
Just nothing?
That's what it looks like.
But I remind you that you're in a deep bubble on the right.
It doesn't mean you're wrong.
It just means that your bubble doesn't have any correspondence to the left bubble.
Do you know what the story about Biden's obvious corruption and money-taking is?
Do you know what that story is on the left?
It's all been debunked.
It's all been proven to be just a right-wing conspiracy.
And there's nothing to worry about in the Biden's financial dealings.
That's actually what the people on the left are hearing.
There's nothing there.
Do you believe that?
I mean, if you could check yourself, check the news yourself.
It just doesn't exist.
And where they talk about it, they say it was debunked.
So I don't know where that goes.
Because first of all, I can't tell what's true.
If you're sure you know what's true, I don't know.
I don't think we live in that world anymore where you can actually be sure you know what's true anymore.
So, am I in the bubble?
Or are you in the bubble?
Or is the entire left in a bubble?
And is one of those bubbles true?
And one of them isn't?
But just think about the fact, you know, if you're my audience, you've probably been saturated With claims about the Biden's bad behavior and collecting money from other countries.
The entire half of the country is unaware of any of this.
Or if they're aware of it, they think it's been debunked or handled or wasn't technically illegal, so leave it alone.
You know, that sort of thing.
I don't think we could be more in different bubbles than we are right now.
I mean, during the Trump time, it was pretty bad.
But this is weirdly, weirdly aggressive bubbling.
This is some super bubbling with heavy sides.
Because imagine if your bubble is the correct one.
You're probably in the same one I am.
In my bubble, it's completely obvious that the Bidens are corrupt, and have been for years.
Is there anybody who would disagree with that characterization?
And I mean like super corrupt, like as corrupt as you could possibly be, taking massive amounts of money from foreign nemeses.
That's about as bad as you could get.
So most of you are in that bubble.
Would you agree that the left is absolutely unaware Whatever it is you think you see or do see.
I mean, don't even know if it's real.
But you would agree that the other side doesn't see any of it, right?
It's just not there.
All they see is, yeah, Biden's getting up there in age, but he's doing a good job.
Because that's what the news is telling them.
So.
Well, there's that.
And I guess Christopher Wray is going to, head of the FBI, is going to testify in Congress.
And people have helpfully suggested some questions he could be asked, including Vivek, and I saw some other people do that.
And I think Jim Jordan suggested a question, and Maggie, and a whole bunch of people.
So, do you think he'll be asked the right questions?
Kind of depends who's doing the asking, right?
But there are some really good questions.
And I think it was Jim Jordan who tweeted one of the questions he'd like to see asked is, have you ever been asked by the administration to slow down some investigation?
How do we not know the answer to that already?
Do we really have to put him under oath to ask that question?
We don't know that yet, but I guess we'll find out.
I think he won't comment.
That's what I think.
What do you think?
I believe you will not directly answer the question, did anybody ask you to slow anything down?
Yeah.
Yeah, oh my help.
All right.
The New York Post is reporting today that, you know, you're not going to believe this.
But there is speculation now, even among the military heads in the United States, they're actually thinking that the Wagner boss, Burgosian, he might be dead or captured.
So they're just starting to think, hey, hey, hey, wait a minute.
Are you telling me that the most brutal murdering dictator of our time, Putin, Are you telling me he didn't let him go to Belarus and live his life happily after trying to kill Putin?
Huh.
Huh.
So it's almost like Putin might hold a grudge of some sort.
I mean, I'm quite surprised at this speculation.
You know, I was thinking about changing the name of this livestream to The News Before It's News.
Because I feel as though there are quite a few times I've told you the news weeks or in some cases years before it happened.
How many examples can you think of where I told you the news like months or years before it was in the news?
And you just watched it and said, oh shit, he did it again.
Quite a few times.
I've done it live and in public quite a few times.
Now that doesn't mean they're all right.
I have also had incorrect predictions.
It's happened.
But I would like to give you this reframe, which I'll probably be putting into a micro lesson for my local subscribers.
It goes like this.
Design is destiny.
Isn't that quotable?
I hope nobody said it before I did, because it sounds very quotable.
Design is destiny.
Here's what I mean by that.
If you look at, let's say, how the higher education has designed their admissions policy, if you just looked at how they designed it, you wouldn't have to wonder how it will turn out, would you?
The design tells you exactly what's going to happen.
The design of the higher institutions of education guaranteed that they would game the system to discriminate against white people and Asian Americans.
It was pretty much guaranteed by the design.
And then further it was guaranteed, because we have a constitution, that it would come to a head and then the Supreme Court would have to say that's too much.
Every bit of that was predictable by design.
Because we designed a system that largely guaranteed that outcome.
Would you agree?
It was a design that guaranteed the outcome.
So very much like free speech and other things, these are systems that we have.
You can pretty much tell by looking at the system what's going to happen.
Take lower education.
Let's say, you know, the K through 12.
So we've got a design where the teachers are in a, let's say, adversarial relationship with the students.
It's designed, because there's a union, it's designed as an adversarial relationship.
What do you think's going to happen?
Do you have to be a genius or a psychic to know that if you design a system where the teachers are adversarial to the children, their interests are not the same?
What are you gonna get?
You're gonna get a system that's good for teachers.
And that's what we got.
And not so good for the kids.
And no competition, no free market, lots of CRT and whatever.
So you should have known from day one that's what you're gonna get.
So one of the tricks that I use for predicting the future is I look at the design.
The design usually tells you what's going to happen.
Design is destiny.
All right.
So that's part of the trick.
Some of you probably have seen the interview with Tucker Carlson and Andrew Tate.
I've watched much of it.
Something tells me it's going to start repeating a little bit because it already did.
So I don't know if I can get through two hours.
But I will give you the following observations.
Number one, Andrew Tate, who I am no fan of, meaning personally, I just don't like him personally for personal reasons, has nothing to do with his public persona.
I just hate his guts personally.
But that has nothing to do with his personal persona.
In terms of the way he presents himself, he has one of the best persuasion talent stacks you will ever see.
His talent stack for doing exactly what he does is just the strongest frickin' thing I've ever seen.
It is insane.
You know, as good as Trump is, and he's amazing in terms of influence and persuasion, Trump doesn't have quite the physicality part.
So Andrew Tate has the physicality.
He just looks big and muscular and, you know, he's well-dressed and put together.
So he's got that part of his persuasion.
Because people don't really want to listen to, you know, let's say Michael Moore, right?
If he looks sort of slobby, you know, it's harder to buy into his message.
So he's got that.
He's got perfect communication skills.
If you listen to him, there's no ahs or ums.
He never is searching for the right word.
It's always right there.
Super high IQ, it looks like.
But he used probably every trick of persuasion.
And when I say trick, I don't mean, you know, that sounds like it's a dirty trick or something, but I mean technique.
He has every tool.
It's really crazy.
And, you know, I could call them out, but it's all the usual stuff.
But did you see how, if you watched it all, did you see his pacing and matching with Tucker?
Like he was giving Tucker exactly what Tucker wanted to hear, and Tucker was responding to it very friendly, which allowed them to bond, you know, like the two guys agreeing on everything.
It was In terms of a persuasion project, it was insane.
It was just really good.
Now, do we believe that what Tate said to describe his own legal jeopardy and what he did do and what he didn't do, did anybody watch it enough and come up to an opinion as to whether he's telling you the straight truth?
Is his version look real?
Now his version roughly goes like this.
The only charges after all of those alleged charges that you heard everything from, you know, just horrible potential charges.
After all that time, the only thing they came up with according to him, right?
This is his version.
I'm not claiming this is true.
Just because remember everybody who's accused of a crime, They get to do their version too.
So don't assume that the person trying to protect themselves is telling you all the facts.
But allegedly, according to his version, is he's only being charged with this lover boy crime.
And that says that you pretend to be, let's say romantically, or interested in a woman, and that you use that as your influence to get her to do something that makes you money in the sexual realm.
But apparently, he's only being charged according to him.
Again.
I'd have to hear Romania's version of this, but according to him, Tate, he's being charged with being a nice guy to some women who later started TikTok accounts and made money from it, and he's being accused of taking their money and sort of forcing them, through his persuasive excellence, to become basically online sex workers or something.
But first of all, it's TikTok, so you can't do that much online sex work on TikTok, can you?
I guess you could make money somehow.
But did he need their money?
He's saying it's a trivial amount, and of course he didn't take their money.
I don't know.
How would I know?
So, I would say it seems very unlikely.
Well, James is saying he admitted trafficking.
That might be technically true, but it's only because trafficking has such a broad definition that you could sort of accidentally do it.
So be careful about that definition of trafficking, because apparently trafficking includes coercing somebody to start a TikTok account.
Does that sound like trafficking to you?
Would you call it that?
If you persuaded somebody to open up a TikTok account to make money for themselves.
Now, I don't know if that's what happened.
I'm just saying, if it happened, would that be trafficking?
Apparently, it would be.
Apparently, in Romania, that would be trafficking.
Persuading somebody, hey, you know, it'd be a good idea if you opened up your own TikTok account, you could make some money.
And then you go to jail.
Now, I'm exaggerating a little bit.
But we don't quite understand what the charge is and why it's so bad, and what does Romania have or not have.
Now, part of what Tate was suggesting, without saying it directly, because he doesn't want to make anybody too mad while he's still in legal jeopardy, is he's suggesting that Great Britain, and maybe the United States, We're behind his arrest.
In other words, Romania has a close, has had a long, close association with the U.S.
and Great Britain.
And the thinking is that Great Britain had already spoken out against Tate, the politician said, thought he was ruining the young men in their country.
And so Tate wonders if maybe You know, the Matrix and those in power.
We're trying to bring them down.
And the larger theory behind that, which you've all heard in the right-wing-osphere... Well, and I should remind you, by the way, in an upcoming Dilbert Reborn comic, Dilbert will be in jail in Elbonia, and his cellmates will be the Tate brothers.
So that's upcoming.
Wait for that.
But you can only see that if you subscribe.
Anyway.
So what do you think?
What do you think of the hypothesis that in order for the bad people who want to change the world, in order to do it their way, they have to make men eunuchs.
In other words, cut off the balls of men, either literally or psychologically.
So that men will not complain, because men are the only ones that can stop them.
In other words, strong men could stop the people in power, whoever they might be, from doing the terrible things they want to do, whatever that might be.
But first they have to get rid of all the Andrew Tate's and the, you know, the male, strong male figures.
Yeah, they could do it pharmacologically, or physically, or psychologically.
Now, do you think that there's anything to that?
Do you believe that there's anyone anywhere who consciously, consciously said, you know what?
I think we can push this ESG thing better if we get rid of all the dominant men.
So there are people who think that actual conversation happened among people who could make it happen.
In other words, people who could affect that change.
All right, I'm gonna have to give you a really on this one.
Really?
You think that people actually had that conversation, and then they had also the power to implement it, and then in a whole variety, wide variety of ways, they figured out how to take power from men so they could control things. they figured out how to take power from men so But you think it was a conscious, planned, actually like a meeting or a conversation in which the actual words were spoken out loud.
Hey, we've got to suppress these manly men because they're the only ones who can stop us from our evil plan.
All right.
Well, here's what I think.
Would you like a simpler hypothesis?
Here's the simpler hypothesis.
Women who don't like men have turned out to be in charge.
That's it.
Women who are not big fans of men have gotten more power.
And men have sort of let him.
But basically, it's just that women are more powerful.
At the same time, the LGBT community is doing great in terms of their power and influence and visibility and all that.
So those are two forces which are different from, and in some cases opposed to, masculinity.
But why do you need anybody in charge to make all that happen?
Our world would look exactly the same if nobody had planned it.
That's my point.
It looks like a plan, doesn't it?
Because there's so many ways that masculinity is under attack, it's hard to imagine that it could all be accidental.
Coincidental, right?
Doesn't it seem like it's way too coincidental?
It's like everything, really everything seems anti-masculine.
Just everything.
But I'll say it again, you would get to exactly that place simply by having more women in charge who are not crazy about men.
And that's exactly what we observe.
Would you say it's true that all new governments, institutions, etc.
are being populated with more and more women and all we're seeing is the female perspective Being, let's say, manifest through the government and through corporations because there are lots of women now.
Lots of women in those positions.
Remember I said design is destiny?
So you've got a world where, let's say, there's a lot of masculinity and maybe toxic.
Maybe even too much.
So that's your world.
And then you change the design to really, really promote More women and LGBTQ participation.
And then it works.
Because you've designed it to do that.
So now you've got lots and lots of women and LGBTQ people.
What is the most predictable thing that would happen with that design?
You've designed it to vastly increase the female and LGBTQ voices and influence.
How could it go any other way?
Why would you need anybody planning it?
The only thing you need is more women and more LGBTQ people in power.
And as soon as you get it, they should, if everything works the way the world always works, they should be expressing their preferences as they get power.
And do you think that women prefer patriarchy all the time?
Well, sometimes they do.
But lots of times they don't.
So the don'ts get introduced into the mix.
What else are you going to get?
The only thing that could happen with a system that's encouraging, you know, more voices, is that the mix of what you believe will change.
How could it go any other way?
So I don't believe that... So to me, the change in the, let's say, The respect for masculinity was completely predictable from day one of designing a system that would promote voices that were not that.
How does that not make sense?
Why would you need a meeting?
All you have to do is want equal rights for everybody and you end up here.
Equal rights and the desire to give everybody a good chance in society would be guaranteed.
Guaranteed.
There's no other way it can go.
You're guaranteed to end up here.
I would bet that every country that's had a similar trajectory ended up here.
No matter where they started from.
If they designed a system that was, oh, we have too many men running things, let's fix that.
How else could it end up?
There isn't any other way it could go.
So if you imagine there had to be people planning it to get to here, you're missing the biggest picture, which is it couldn't have gone any other way.
You don't need to plan something that's just going to happen.
Now, are there individuals Who have ever said, you know, what would be good is fewer men in charge and blah, blah, blah.
Of course.
But I just don't think it's a meeting with a plan.
That's my take.
So I think that Andrew Tate needs you to be persuaded that there are some kind of evil forces looking to tamp down his masculinity.
In fact, I think they're just people who didn't like his message and it wasn't compatible with a world where women have as much power as they do now.
People like Scott is why we still have ESG.
Somebody actually wrote that in a comment.
That people like me is why we still have ESG.
First day on social media?
Were you maybe an alien who just took over a human body today?
Did you learn your language skills from watching television, like ET?
How could you come up with the dumbest comment in the history of comments?
Without putting some work into it.
Did you have to work all morning and say, what is the dumbest thing I can say in public?
What would it be?
But you nailed it.
You nailed it.
All right.
So I did catch up on what's the beef between Mike Cernovich and Jordan Peterson.
First of all, I don't know if Jordan Peterson is part of the beef.
I don't know that he's responded in any way.
I guess one of the topics, there may be other things I disagree on, but one of the topics was Jordan Peterson thought that it's a bad idea to have anonymous accounts on social media, specifically Twitter, because the anonymous accounts hide the narcissists and the dark triad personalities, who are basically the sadists and the bad people.
And a lot of people say, no, we need free speech, so anonymity helps that.
So Cernovich is accusing Jordan Peterson of being a narcissist while at the same time saying that anonymity attracts narcissists.
What do you think of that?
What do you think of that critique?
That Jordan Peterson says, no, you've got to keep those narcissists off of Twitter.
But Cerdo says, but you're obviously one.
He called down his custom suits.
Jordan Peterson wears suits that look like no suit you could buy.
His jackets look like they're made just for him.
I guess they are.
And that he never saw a microphone he didn't like or something.
I guess that's what Mike is saying.
So what do you think of that?
Is that a good point?
That Jordan Peterson is saying, hey, keep these narcissists off there.
But yeah, at the same time, he would be the most obvious narcissist on social media.
I think they're both right, but here's the caveat.
There are two kinds of narcissism.
Jordan Peterson is my kind.
He's also Mike Cernovich's kind.
Do you know what Jordan Peterson, Mike Cernovich, and I all have in common?
We all like the microphone.
Hello.
Yeah, we're all narcissists.
Obviously.
I don't think you need to be a, you know, do you need to be a therapist to know that the three of us are in the same category?
Really?
Aren't we like super obviously the same person?
In a way, right?
In terms of the way we deal with the public, we're really all the same person, in my view.
And we're all major narcissists.
That's my self-identification.
But people don't realize that there are different kinds.
The grandiose narcissist loves the limelight, loves the attention, but only likes it if you're doing something good for the country.
In other words, if you're making something better, And you're getting a lot of attention.
Perfect.
That's my perfect situation.
I would only like to make things better and I would love it if you would give me some credit for it.
Is that wrong?
Am I an asshole because I want to help you and then I think the natural outcome of that should be you should give me credit if I succeed.
Am I the asshole?
Don't you want more of me?
Don't you need more Jordan Peterson, more Mike Cernovich?
I would clone both of those guys.
Give me a million of both of them.
Because that's the kind of people I want to see.
I want to see people saying that doing something good for the public is so worthy that I'll put myself out there and I don't mind getting some credit.
Not so crazy.
But the other kind, it needs to be said that the dark triad, the other kind of narcissist, they're more like sadists.
I don't really have, I don't have like a single whiff of sadism in me.
Like nothing about that sounds fun to me.
So that's a completely different animal.
So you really have a problem with just the definitions of what a narcissist is.
All right.
I saw somebody on social media say that I said that Trump would win.
Yeah, Trump would win.
I would like to clarify.
What I said was, I think, maybe I said it wrong, so most of you saw it, so tell me if I said it wrong.
What I say is that Trump has a very clear path all the way to the presidency.
The only thing that could stop him from just walking down the sidewalk that has no obstructions all the way to the presidency is stuff you don't see coming, of which there will be plenty.
There'll be a lot of stuff coming between now and the election.
I mean, there'll be so many surprises, right?
So that clear sidewalk is not going to be clear the whole time.
There's going to be all kinds of new obstructions.
So you can't really predict there will be no obstructions.
The only thing I predict Is if Trump took a certain approach to the rest of the campaign, he would have no friction whatsoever.
He would just walk right into it.
For example, if he could soften his stand on the election irregularity.
But that's probably impossible.
I just don't think it'll happen.
But imagine if he said, and I've used this example before, but I need to round out my point.
Suppose he said, and I'm not saying he will, I'm just saying he could.
He could just say, you know what?
We will never agree about what happened in 2020.
We could all agree it was a terrible time in our history.
But can we all agree that we need to fix the system so it doesn't happen again?
And he could also say what I said, which is, we don't know if it was rigged.
Honestly, we did not prove it.
I got to admit, we didn't prove it.
However, the system is not fully auditable.
And if you elect me, I'll work hard to make sure it is.
He'd walk right into the presidency.
He would just say, you know, I don't think we'll ever decide what will happen.
We'll never know what happened in 2020 because the problem is our system is designed.
Oh, here it is again.
Design is destiny.
Does the current design of our election systems, with electronic elements that other countries don't use and are hard to completely audit, does that design guarantee that you'll have fair elections?
Or does it guarantee in the long run they'll be rigged?
All right, you know the answer to that.
That situation, the current design of our system, guarantees rigging.
You just don't know when.
If Trump ever said that, it would just break the whole fucking internet.
If he just said, the design of the system, which can't be fully and quickly audited, especially after the vote, because once the vote happens, the court's standards of what they're willing to look at can get modified because they don't want to rock the boat too much.
So he could just say, the current design of the system guarantees rigging.
But we don't even need to talk about whether it happened in the past.
The only case I'm going to make to you today is that it's designed in a way that guarantees it's going to happen sometime.
So why don't we agree and fix that?
Could you imagine him saying that?
Imagine him saying, you know what?
I have to admit, January 6 got out of control.
In retrospect, I wonder if, you know, I wish I'd been more aggressive in tamping down the The violence.
How hard would that be?
How hard would it be to say, you know, it was way worse than it should have been.
I do have some second thoughts about whether I could have done more.
Done.
Right?
Done.
Because people just want to hear what he was thinking and that it wasn't some evil thing.
Just, you know, yeah, you got a point.
Could have been better.
Could have been better.
So, all right, that's enough on him.
I would also like to say again that Ramaswamy solves for Trump.
Too early to know who would be a vice president pick, and I'm endorsing Ramaswamy, so I'd like him to win it outright.
And by the way, he's doing great.
If you're watching the press that Vivek is getting, his press is great.
I mean, he's starting to be included in the conversation whenever you're talking about the, you know, the candidates, which is a big deal.
Because I don't see Nikki Haley just automatically being part of the conversation, right?
So the conversation recently was about right-wing people exercising.
Like it's a right-wing thing.
But I think RFK Jr.
was one of the people that they mentioned, which is weird.
He's a Democrat.
But Vivek has also highlighted his fitness, because he's a good tennis player, for example.
And so he's found ways to be part of the top conversation.
That's a big deal.
I don't think Nikki Haley did that.
I don't think Mike Pence did that.
Nobody was talking about Mike Pence this week.
Mike Pence gets used as examples.
Have you noticed that?
The only thing Mike Pence is for is for an example of something else.
Well, Mike Pence, for example.
That's it.
He's just the example guy.
All right.
And would you say at this point, yes or no, that the entire press coverage of DeSantis has caught up with my first take?
Is that true or not?
My first take was, he was, well I borrowed my first take really, from Bill Maher.
That as soon as you start seeing DeSantis as the tribute band, you just can't see it any other way.
Just can't see it any other way.
And I think the press is caught up to that.
That just being the capable governor, the capable governor guy, is not gonna It's not going to be enough.
We don't need a capable governor to be our leader of the country.
You know what a capable governor would be good for?
Governor.
Perfect job for a capable guy who doesn't make anything exciting.
Alright, well the FDA is continuing loosening up on psychedelics.
So there's some more guidance on research, which apparently gives people more abilities.
So the guidelines cover LSD, psilocybin, you know, that's mushrooms, and includes ketamine and MDMA.
And there's just so much evidence at this point, just so much evidence that these things are good for stress and PTSD and depression and anxiety and just all kinds of stuff.
So do you know why the Food and Drug Administration is managing this process instead of, let's say, just making it illegal?
Do you know why the FDA is so active in this?
Take a guess.
What's your guess?
Why would the FDA be accurate?
Because without the FDA, there's no way to make it illegal for ordinary people to treat themselves with the same chemicals.
What they're doing is creating an industry for big pharma, which will exclude you from growing your own mushrooms in the backyard.
That's what's happening.
Right in front of your eyes, you're watching the theft of the American public.
The whole world, really.
Because these chemicals that they're looking at, from LSD to mushrooms, ketamine, these are so cheap that they're basically universally available if you look for them.
Pretty much everybody could buy these things.
And, current indications are, That these things would solve your biggest medical and mental problems.
Pretty handily.
And lots of evidence that they do.
What is your worst case scenario by design?
Design is destiny, right?
Let's look at the design of the FDA.
The FDA is captured.
Do you agree?
The FDA is designed with this, you know, the individuals going back and forth from pharma jobs.
It means that pharma has captured the FDA.
So that's your design.
What does that design predict about the legality ...and availability of these miracle drugs from mushrooms to ketamine.
What is guaranteed by the design of our current system?
What's guaranteed is that to protect the pharma industry, the FDA, which is basically an agency of big pharma, will work with them to make sure that the only mushroom entity you can take comes in a pill form from one of the big pharma companies.
And if you try to get it on the street, you're going to fucking jail.
You're going to jail if you don't buy into the business model they're creating right in front of you, not for your benefit.
This is not for your benefit.
They can sell it as for your benefit, because that's what the FDA does.
They make sure it's safe.
But for these specific drugs, they're just going to try to turn it into some pharma-approved version of these.
So this is perhaps one of the greatest thefts from the American public of all time.
Imagine the size of the market for the drugs that eliminate your PTSD, your depression, your anxiety, and just about every other fucking problem you have.
Imagine the cost of that.
And do you know what's the biggest problem with these drugs?
From an economic model, what's the biggest problem with mushrooms?
Do you know?
They cure you.
That's right.
You don't need to do the mushroom every day.
It fucking cures you.
Forever.
Do you think the big pharma people want something that cures you of their most money-making diseases?
I don't know if it's the most money-making, but I gotta think depression is way up there in the money-making pharma business.
No.
Big pharma has to find a way that only they can make the pill, and everybody else is illegal, but also it has to be a shitty pill.
Because it can't work, as well as the actual stuff.
If they make it work, in a pill form, you're going to take two fucking pills and never need them again.
If they make sure that you need one every week, well, you're in business.
So, now given the design of the FDA, and the design of the pharma, give me your prediction.
Will Big Pharma create a pill that you just need one, And you get all the benefits of psychedelics.
Just one pill!
Wow!
Lucky!
And it was only $10.
And it only cost $10!
Because it's, you know, naturally found.
How expensive is LSD if you made it in bulk?
Probably not too expensive.
It'd be like 10 cents a hit, right?
If you made it in bulk.
So yeah, give me a $10 pill, just one of them, and I'll cure most of my mental problems forever.
No, there isn't a single chance, there's not any chance that that could ever come to pass.
Because the system is designed to guarantee it doesn't.
The system design.
The system is designed to guarantee that Big Pharma does make pills and maybe injections, because they'd be more expensive.
And that they will never be done taking them.
You'll need them.
You're going to need an update every week.
Anybody want to take the other bet?
Do you want to make a bet that a year, let's say five years from now, or whenever it happens, do you want to make a bet that the news reports exactly what I just told you?
In a few years.
Exactly what I just told you.
That big pharma has a pill.
It's the only one that's legal.
But you've got to take it a lot.
You know, you'll never be done.
Your PTSD will never be completely gone with these pills.
Yeah, you don't want to take the other side of that bet.
All right, there's a funny story about a DEI activist.
I saw this also in a tweet by the Amuse account.
And so there was a DEI activist.
Who got recruited by Texas A&M to run its journalism department.
But she is now refusing that job because she learned she can be fired if she implements racist policies that discriminate against Asian, Jewish, or white students.
So she's staying at UT where she won't have a problem.
Now, I'm trying to understand this story.
Is what happened here that there were two Texas entities of higher institution, one of them in which it would be illegal to teach her field of DEI.
So at one college in Texas it would be illegal, but at another college it would be required.
Am I right about that?
That within Texas, in one state, one college, maybe one is private and one is a state college.
So maybe the state college, it's illegal, but that the private college is required.
So in the same state, you can have one thing that's both illegal and also at the same time in the same state, mandatory.
Do I have that right?
Yeah, I think I have that right.
That it's both mandatory and illegal, just depending on which job you took.
Have we reached peak absurdity?
That's just peak absurdity.
All right.
Here are two stories that, well, no.
Everybody's going to want to say, Scott, why didn't you talk about that minister of energy or whatever from Spain?
I don't see any of that.
I don't know what you're seeing.
but then to show that she was in favor of green stuff, she got on a bicycle, but she was caught getting out of the car.
So really, she's a big hypocrite because she's promoting bicycles.
But really, she didn't get there on a bicycle.
That was just for show.
And she's a big old hypocrite.
I don't see any of that.
I don't know what you're seeing.
I mean, I saw the story.
But you think that's the story?
Do you think she was trying to trick you that she rode her bike from Spain?
Is there anybody who thought she rode her bike from Spain?
Anybody?
Or do you think it's more likely, is it slightly more likely, that she wasn't trying to hide anything?
She just wanted to promote bicycle riding.
And then maybe this wasn't exactly the right bicycle riding situation, but she wanted to promote bicycles.
So she just promoted bicycles and then everybody connected all these dots that shouldn't be connected.
To me it looked like a non-story.
It just looks like a summer story.
Summer story meaning the things that aren't real stories, but you have to have something to talk about in the summer.
All right.
Apparently the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is predicting a normal hurricane season.
So despite the fact that CO2 should be at all-time highs, and despite the fact that that should guarantee giving you weird hurricanes that are worse, this year they'll be fine.
Now that doesn't mean there's no climate change.
I'm not saying that.
I'm just saying that the thing that causes climate change seems not to be causing climate change.
Now there could be good scientific-y reasons for that.
Very scientific-y.
I don't know what they are.
And the best answer is that even if climate change is exactly what the scientists say it is, it doesn't mean that every year it goes up.
They've said that forever.
It never means that every year it goes up.
It means the average over time It's going up, because there are other factors, El Ninos and whatever, that can distort it in any given year.
So that's story one.
Story number one is that CO2 is at a record high, but hurricanes were unchanged, at least for one year.
Here's another story.
See if this sounds like that story, but it's completely different.
See what's in common.
Our national debt is at an all-time high.
Yes, money printing, national debt, all-time high, right?
Inflation went down again.
Inflation went down.
It's at a new two-year low, down to 3%, maybe 3.1 in June, and that's the lowest level in more than two years.
So the CO2 is at the maximum, but the hurricanes aren't going to change, at least this year.
And our debt and money printing is at an all-time high, like way all-time high, and inflation, which should move with that, went down.
Can we predict anything?
Can we predict anything?
Anything?
All right, let's use design equals prediction.
So climate change uses science to predict, right?
Climate change uses science to predict.
Economists use economics to predict inflation.
But what if we use design instead?
Because design is destiny.
So if I were to look at design for a climate change, I would say to myself, well, our design is that we give massive funding to people who say that climate change is a disaster that's coming really soon.
Would you agree?
That the funding goes to the people who say that climate change is bad.
That's our design.
What would you get?
Huh.
I wonder how that would turn out.
Racking my brain, if you give all the money to the people who have one opinion and zero money plus a lot of, you know, professional insults and shame, if they disagree, well, how's that going to go?
Which way is that going to go?
Right?
Design is destiny.
You can tell exactly what the scientists will say by the design of the model.
There's no doubt about it.
But did that tell you what the hurricanes would do?
No, it only told you what the scientists would do.
The only thing you could predict is what the scientists will do.
You can't predict the hurricanes.
All right.
Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome.
Exactly.
Let's talk about those Amish.
You know, I've had real questions about the belief that the Amish are... So here's the claim, which I'll tell you is not true.
But the claim is that the Amish are the healthiest and they don't get vaccinated.
So therefore, obviously, if they're not getting vaccinated and they're the healthiest, ipso facto, QED, it must be the vaccinations are terrible for you.
How many of you buy into that?
How many of you buy into the idea that the Amish are, first of all, not vaccinated?
Do you believe that?
And then, second of all, that that's the clear connection to their better health?
How many take that as just obvious and true?
A little bit of indecision today.
A little bit of disagreement.
That's exactly what I want.
All right, here's what I learned this morning.
Many Amish people are vaccinated.
Were you aware of that?
Now, I'm not talking about the COVID vaccination.
I'm talking about the childhood vaccinations.
But they're not all vaccinated, and they don't take all of the vaccinations.
But I'm told, at least online by people who seem to know, that they're fairly highly vaccinated.
Maybe not as much as the regular public, but fairly vaccinated.
So the theory on one website for why there's less cancer, diabetes, autism, and every other problem in the world, is that the Amish are more active.
They eat a cleaner diet.
But then I heard a genetic argument.
Here's a genetic argument.
Now, I hadn't heard this before, but I have to admit, I did think about it.
I thought about it, but I didn't want to say it.
Because I couldn't demonstrate it in any way.
But the argument goes like this.
The Amish are less genetically diverse because they keep to themselves and mate with people within their group.
So they're less genetically diverse than most of the world.
If you're less genetically diverse, that's your design.
Design is destiny.
What do you get with a group of people who are genetically more similar than other groups?
What does that design guarantee that you're going to get?
Guarantee.
There's a 100% chance.
It guarantees that they'll have different outcomes.
Right?
And one of the different outcomes very easily could be they would be more susceptible to some types of medical problems.
Would you agree?
So, for example, they might have bleeding problems, something like that.
But, at the same time, if their little in-group didn't have a lot of cancer in the natural group, they weren't really susceptible, then they would end up breeding a group of people who also didn't get cancer.
Because, you know, there are a lot of humans, just in general, who live their whole life, live to 100, and never get any cancer.
But imagine if you had a small group of people who just had something in common.
They start mating with each other and they don't mate with anybody else.
They would probably be really susceptible to some diseases and then maybe really not susceptible to some other common ones.
So you could easily see that they wouldn't have, you know, maybe depression and cancer.
But if you looked into it more deeply, you'd find out they have, you know, Pituitary gland problems or some damn thing, right?
So one possibility is we're not looking at all of the disease field.
We're sort of concentrating on the big ones.
And just genetically, maybe they just have some defense against that.
That would just be a coincidence.
But the one thing you can know from the design That if they're sticking to themselves, they should have a very different disease profile than the rest of the world.
Would you buy that general statement?
That the Amish should, by design of sticking to themselves, have a different disease profile than the rest of the world?
Guaranteed.
I would say that's guaranteed.
Now, I don't know that that explains what we're seeing.
It just would have to be true.
And I think the clean food, and remember I said yesterday that I predicted that sometime in our near future, you'll see stories that say, uh-oh, the secret sauce was physical activity.
And that everybody who was physically active was just as healthy as the Amish.
All right, let me make that claim.
I'm going to make that claim right now.
You ready for this?
Here's my prediction.
Someday we'll find out that everybody who is physically as active as the Amish has roughly the same medical outcomes.
That's my claim.
Because we don't measure that, do we?
When was the last time you saw the poll of what diseases people got relative to how active they were during the day?
And by active, I just mean cleaning the house, taking a walk, just not sitting in front of a screen for too many hours.
I don't know.
That's my prediction.
Physical activity.
And it's based largely on how it makes me feel personally.
I know that all the days when I have physical activity, I don't have any bad feelings.
It just eliminates anxiety, depression, you know, unwanted thoughts, like all of it.
So, how in the world could that not be N.P.C.
Jester?
Well, even though you say you're an N.P.C.
Jester, I do have to hide you on this channel for using all caps.
Alright, so a story in the Wall Street Journal by Jason Reilly.
Because it's a story about black economic progress, I will tell you that if I can judge from the little drawing, he looks like a black American.
So that's just context because he's going to be talking about black Americans.
And I think he needs to know that when somebody talks about black Americans, you should know, are they black?
Fair?
I think that's fair, because they're different perspectives.
So what Jason Reilly says is essentially that people are overlooking the tremendous economic progress of black Americans.
And I'll just give you a little slice of it here that's pretty impressive.
Between 1963 and 2012, unemployment averaged 5.1% for whites, but 11.1% for blacks.
The 28 financial crisis, you know, hit blacks harder.
But then under President Obama, black unemployment declined.
Didn't fall below double digits until the seventh year of his presidency.
But when he left office in 2017, the black jobless rate was 7.5.
That's pretty impressive from over 11.
Then under President Trump, it dipped to 5.3 in 2019.
And then it fell to a record low of 4.7 in April of this year.
How come nobody was reporting that?
Are you kidding me?
That in 2012 the average black unemployment rate was 11% and that was 4.7?
How is that not like the biggest cause of celebration for the black community of all time?
That's kind of amazing.
But you know what's even better than this?
This is like really good news.
Do you know it's way better?
Are you ready for this?
Way better news?
100% of the people who did the right thing got a job.
Every one of them.
100% of the people who did the right things, which are obvious, you know, stay out of jail, stay off drugs, show up for work, develop some skills, stay in school, 100% of all the black people who did those things got a job.
So did everybody else.
So we're at a point now where we can just say, well, let's forget about tracking black unemployment separately.
It doesn't really make sense anymore.
What you should track is people doing the right thing.
Well, once again, 100% of the people who did the right thing got a job.
But do you care if the people who know what they should do, and then they don't do it, are unemployed?
What problem are you solving there?
Oh, I'd like to get a job for the person who's clearly not qualified for a job.
Is that a solution?
And how can you force people to make different decisions?
I mean, it's a free country.
They can certainly make themselves unprepared for a job.
They have the freedom to do that.
So whether you're black or white or any other color, shouldn't we just be looking at the people doing the right things?
And then the people who are not doing the right things, make sure they know what the right things are.
You know, maybe help them get a leg up if there's some problem doing the right things.
I'd like to help them.
But we should just be looking at people doing the right things versus people not, and this whole race thing, it's time to retire it.
So, I'll tell you I have a very contrarian feeling about the affirmative action decision by the Supreme Court.
The contrarian opinion is this is wildly good for black Americans to get rid of affirmative action for the obvious reason that it was this giant stain floating above the black brand in America.
If your brand is suffering then you all suffer from it because you get the stigma from it and everything.
But now that the affirmative action stain is removed Then finally the free market can do its thing.
So if you see a black person succeeding in, you know, five years from now, you're going to say to yourself, holy shit, there's somebody who maybe succeeded against even greater, greater odds.
Definitely want to hire that person.
Give me that person.
So I don't think people have quite processed that while in the short run, it's very bad for a bunch of individuals who might have gotten into that college or whatever.
So it might be really bad.
Probably won't be, because I think the colleges will just adjust and figure out some way around the law.
But I think we just need to retire the black-white tracking.
It's just time to lose it.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, concludes the best live stream you've seen today.
10% of Stanford freshman class is white?
Somebody say?
Is that true?
and the Mennonites, and the...
Oh, interesting.
10% of Stanford freshman class is white?
Somebody's saying, is that true?
I think what will happen is the higher institutions will just degrade in reputation.
Because if they're not accepting people on merit, what is their degree worth?
If it's not merit, why do I care that you went to Stanford?
What possible advantage would that be if it's not based on merit?
The gay brand is stained, you say?
You know, the trouble with the, if you want to call it the gay brand, is that the LGBTQ brings in too many different groups.
I'm not the first one to say that.
But I would think if you're just the G in LGBTQ, you're not terribly happy about the trouble that the Ts are causing.
Am I wrong?
I mean, you might be philosophically 100% backing them, but it's also true that they're causing you problems because you made them part of your brand.
So if you're gay and you're identifying with the trans community, nobody did that to you.
Right?
That was somewhat of a voluntary branding.
And because the T part of the LGBTQ is, let's say, more provocative.
In today's world, just being gay doesn't buy you anything.
You're not even interesting anymore.
At least you used to be interesting if you were gay.
Now gay is just so ordinary that it just doesn't really mean anything anymore.
But the T is still getting a lot of attention, right?
The trans.
So the extent to which they allow themselves to be, you know, painted with that same brush when it's a very different situation, it's probably a mistake.
But what do you do about it now?
All right.
Showering is weird to me.
OK, I don't want to hear about that.
Alright everybody, I'm going to say bye to the YouTubers.
Thanks for joining.
I'm going to talk to the locals people privately because, well, they're worth it.
