Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

July 24, 2023 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams

01:46:02

Episode 2179 Scott Adams: Is The American Incompetence Crisis Caused By Women Dominating Policy?

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: ----------- American Incompetence Crisis, Politics, Aphantasia, Twitter Context Note, VP Harris, NPR Content, American Incompetence Crisis, Vivek Ramaswamy, UFOs, Giant Bones HOAX, Anti-Education, Anti-Semitism, AI Future, Remote Worker Productivity, Employment Numbers, Women, Fooling Professional Class, RFK Jr. Excellence, Free Speech Intimidation, Section 230, President Trump, Overriding SCOTUS, Thomas Massie, Domestic Terrorism Narratives, Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, Scott Adams --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
	It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
	And would you like to take this experience up to levels that even astrophysicists cannot imagine because the universe is too big?
	That didn't even make any sense.
	But it won't matter to the Simultaneous Sip.
	All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
	Fill it with your favorite liquid.
	I like coffee.
	And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day.
	It makes everything better.
	It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
	It happens now.
	Go.
	Oh, that was perfect.
	Pretty sure I nailed it.
	And that's a good sign for the rest of the day.
	How many of you have ever heard of something called aphantasia?
	It's the ability to see things in your mind.
	I didn't know that people were all over the map on that.
	And apparently people don't, there are some people who don't think in images.
	I don't even know what to think about that, because I only do.
	And apparently the test, I was just seeing this on Wikipedia or someplace, is if I told you to imagine an apple And then I said, describe to me what you see in your mind.
	Apparently there's a wide range of how clearly people see the apple.
	Now, I'm a sort of an artist.
	I'm sort of an artist by profession.
	And I can tell you that I can see the apple as clearly as a photograph.
	How many of you would say that?
	If I imagine it, it's just like a photograph.
	I can see all the details.
	I can rotate it.
	I can change its color.
	Just like a photograph.
	Now, how many of you would say the opposite?
	And I think it might be like just 5% of people or less.
	Or fewer.
	How many of you would say you can't see the apple at all?
	Is there some who say you can't see it at all?
	It's just sort of a concept of an apple, but you don't actually see it.
	So we have some, right?
	Yeah, there's some people saying that that applies to them too.
	You know, I don't think there could be a better example of understanding how differently people are experiencing their reality.
	I honestly don't even have a way to imagine what it would be like if your imagination didn't reproduce things as well as the real world.
	I don't even know what it would feel like.
	I have no way to even visualize, well, I can't imagine it.
	I suppose if it were visual, I could visualize it.
	So one of the secrets about why I can draw, you know, let's say a new object, is that I'm tracing it.
	It's actually tracing.
	I know you hate me, because that makes it sound too easy, but I see it first, and then I just put the lines on where I see it.
	Now if you can't do that, and apparently there are a number of you who can't, how would you ever learn to draw?
	It feels like if you tried to draw it'd be like stick figures and stuff, because the one in your mind, you wouldn't know what it looks like on the paper.
	So I would guess, and when I see artists who can do photorealistic drawings, I think maybe they're even further than I am in terms of being able to see it.
	Or actually, they do more than seeing it.
	It's like they're seeing it plus something else.
	Plus what they're adding, I guess.
	Now, here's another theory.
	You know, affirmations, the idea of visualizing your goals?
	I've had good luck anecdotally, not scientifically speaking.
	But anecdotally, it seems like when I can visualize what I want really clearly, the odds of it happening are so close to 100%.
	And there are things that I tell myself I want that even I have trouble visualizing.
	It's more of a concept.
	I don't get those.
	But when I can see myself standing there, you know, I'm with a person or I got a bag of money or something I really, really see, damn it, it just seems to happen.
	So that's one of the things I've been hypothesizing over a long time.
	Is it possible that the more clearly you can imagine something for your visualizations and your attainment of your success, is it possible that actually determines whether you'll be successful?
	That you can You can draw up a picture in your head, because my theory is that brains, that's one of the ways you program your brain.
	If you think your brain is in charge of you, and you're just doing what your brain's telling you, you're lost.
	You're just wandering around.
	But you should be able to use the executive function of your brain to do something like visualization, which would be effectively reprogramming your brain to make it more effective.
	So, Reality's pretty subjective, and maybe that's all that's happening here, but it does seem to me that if you could visualize something clearly, the odds of it happening are pretty high.
	All right.
	Twitter has become X. So now you're not sending tweets anymore.
	You're X-claiming.
	Somebody said that on Twitter.
	If I remembered who, I'd give them credit, but I don't remember who.
	I don't think we're going to use that one.
	We're not going to use that.
	It's not going to be exclaiming.
	I think it's still going to be tweeting.
	What do you think?
	I think this is Prince becoming the symbol.
	You know, the artist formerly known as Prince.
	Because I'm going to do the thing formerly known as tweeting.
	And then eventually I'm going to stop.
	I'm going to lose the formerly known as.
	And I'm just calling tweeting again.
	So I'm going to say, well, I was X-ing today.
	Formally known as tweeting.
	And I'll start just saying formally known as tweeting, I'll drop the axe.
	And then I'll drop the formally known as tweeting, and I'll be right back to tweeting.
	That's how I'm going to play it.
	Anybody with me?
	I'm not going to stop calling it tweeting.
	And I'm pretty sure we can call it whatever we want.
	We'll just make it so.
	Make it so.
	As they say in Star Trek.
	I got a context note on a tweet.
	You know how Twitter will add community notes?
	Are there two things?
	Is there a community note and a context note?
	Or are they really the same thing?
	Does anybody know if that's two different things or one thing?
	Let's see if anybody knows.
	Because most of you haven't seen one or both.
	So how would you know?
	It's the same thing?
	Somebody says it's the same.
	So let me just give you an idea how this works.
	I'm actually very happy.
	With the community note, or maybe it's just reader added context notes, I think it's working really well.
	It's imperfect.
	All things are imperfect.
	But I'll give you an example.
	So here's where I got a context note put on my tweet.
	There was a clip of President Biden with an evil-looking grin on his face, subjectively speaking, according to me.
	Muttering that he would look into Elon Musk and Twitter to see if there were any crimes there.
	Now, when I saw him muttering that he was going to look into Twitter to see if any crimes were there, I said to myself, what?
	Since when do you go looking for crimes?
	That's the scariest thing ever.
	So I tweeted something about it.
	It sounded like the plot of a bad movie where there's an alternative America that's been taken over by a dictator.
	Because listening to Biden say that he was going to look into Musk's purchase of Twitter just to see if there's anything wrong in terms of homeland security, why would there be?
	Why would there be a problem?
	What would make you even think you need to look?
	And wouldn't that apply to every citizen?
	You know, my neighbor Bob, I'm not aware of any crimes he's committed, but when I talk to him, I'm a little bit suspicious and I think maybe we should go overturn his finances and see if we got any crimes there.
	Nobody would stand for that.
	But there was the leader of the country standing there saying basically a dictator kind of a statement.
	Now that the context note was that this was an old video.
	Is that useful?
	Was it useful to me to know that this happened around the time of the transaction?
	It did not happen this week.
	Is that a good community note?
	I'd say yes.
	I'd say yes.
	Because that's good context.
	You need to know when stuff happened to understand it in its fullness.
	So good note.
	But it also went on to say that it was more about the question of the original buying of the company.
	Now that doesn't change my tweet.
	Would you agree?
	It doesn't invalidate my tweet.
	It just takes a little edge off it, gives a little context.
	I thought this was all good.
	Would you agree?
	This was nothing but good.
	A good context.
	And the reason I'm bringing it up is because it happened to me.
	Trust me, if you get a context note, your first reaction will be negative.
	And to that point, one of the things the Context Note lets you do if you're the tweeter, maybe everybody, it lets you rate the Context Note.
	So the Context Note kind of rates you, but then you can rate the Context Note.
	And my first reaction was, damn it.
	And I said it was useless.
	So I gave it a useless grade, and then I slept on it, and I looked at it the next day, and I thought, oh, Ah, maybe I was a little hasty.
	Maybe that context note is 100% accurate and adds something to the understanding of the tweet.
	Okay, dammit, you're right.
	So I'm going to give you the win.
	You get the win, Twitter, the company that formerly was known as Twitter.
	Let's talk about the summer news.
	I think summer news is so funny.
	So summer news usually is somebody misinterpreting a public figure and then pretending to be really angry about it.
	And that's called summer news.
	So when Jason Aldean does his song and people say, we see some racist stuff in there that's totally not there.
	They go, ah!
	And they get all theatrically upset about it.
	But they're not really upset.
	Literally nobody cares.
	It's just summer news.
	And of course, we've talked about Kamala Harris.
	Now she's talking about the Florida, the school lessons for history.
	And she believes that they're teaching kids that slavery had an upside.
	There was something good about slavery.
	Of course, that's not non-existent, right?
	Of course, if you look for it, it wouldn't be there.
	But, fake news.
	So they sent Kamala out to get angry about fake news.
	Imagine if you had been elected the Vice President of the United States, and they're saying, okay, what valuable portfolio can we give you?
	So first they give you immigration, you know, the border control.
	And you do absolutely nothing useful for a few years.
	So they're like, all right, all right, maybe that was just hard.
	So then AI is an existential threat to humanity, some say.
	So they give the AI portfolio to Harris.
	And what did she do to make everything better?
	Nothing, nothing.
	So I don't think there's any job you can give her.
	That will result in some kind of positive outcome.
	So if you had an employee like that, sort of a Wally employee, if you use the Dilbert analogy, if you had a Wally employee and time after time the projects don't get done, what do you do with them?
	What's the next project you give them if you don't want to fire them or it's too much trouble?
	You give them the least important, most bullshit job, something that only needs to be done so that people know it's being done, but has no value to the world, has no possible benefit at all.
	And that would be complaining about the Florida curriculum by imagining what it is, and then getting really mad at what she imagined, what is not real.
	And that's her current job.
	Now, do you think she's going out and talking about this topic because that was a thing she came up with on her own?
	Oh, I think this is where I'll put my time and energy.
	I doubt it.
	To me, it looks like an assignment.
	How many of you would agree that her talking about this topic has to be certainly an assignment?
	I don't think the vice presidents just go out on their own and pick a topic and start complaining about it.
	Yeah.
	Just think about this.
	Do you believe that the people who assigned her the topic think that the topic is real?
	Meaning that Florida is actually teaching kids that slavery wasn't all bad?
	Do you think that's really happening?
	Of course not.
	No, there's nobody in the White House who believes it's real.
	They actually assigned her an imaginary job.
	Tell me that's not true.
	Tell me that's not true.
	Kamala Harris was intentionally assigned an imaginary job because she could not fulfill any real assignment.
	They wallied her.
	She's being wallied.
	Right?
	That's what the pointy-haired boss does.
	He doesn't want to go through the paperwork of firing Wally, so he just gives him... He usually lends him to another manager who asks for some resources.
	You know, hey, could you maybe lend me an engineer for this project?
	You know, somebody who would sort of dotted line, report to me for a while, you know, but it'll just be a loan.
	And the pointy-haired boss says, uh, sure.
	You're not only my Coworker, manager, but you're sort of my competitor in this company because if you get the promotion I can't, so I'll be glad to help you because I'm a team player.
	How about Wally?
	You can have him as long as you want.
	Yeah, so the wallification of the vice president continues.
	I saw a tweet from somebody named Andi Petro.
	He said, this is a great tweet.
	All the imaginary people who think slavery was okay are the worst.
	All the real people who think the imaginary people are real are the second worst.
	Summer News.
	You know, if anybody takes Summer News seriously, you're falling into their trap.
	When you see somebody complaining about any of this stuff, just say, Summer News.
	Can't wait for the real stuff.
	All right, here's one of my... There's a lot of funny news today.
	I think it's all funny.
	So NPR has a headline talking about the right-wing conspiracy about eating bugs.
	So NPR is essentially demonizing the right part of the country for saying that the left part of the country is promoting the eating of bugs sometime soon for protein.
	So while NPR is mocking the right wing for imagining there's some conspiracy about eating bugs, Stephen Miller, the company formerly known as Twitter, he tweeted, yes I'm calling it tweeted, he tweeted three headlines from NPR talking about the value of eating bugs.
	So NPR, Is blaming the right wing for starting this bug-eating conspiracy theory?
	At the same time, NPR's own headlines, there's three of them recently, about the possible value of eating all the bugs.
	And I think Stephen Miller asked if NPR reads NPR or listens to it.
	Does NPR actually listen to NPR?
	Or do they know not to?
	Oh yeah, we produce content, but God knows we're not going to listen to it.
	We don't want to get hypnotized.
	So the clownishness of the world is the macro theme for today.
	So today's theme is American National Incompetence.
	How many of you would agree with the statement that there's an incompetence crisis in America?
	How many of you would agree with that statement?
	An incompetence crisis, basically.
	You could call it incompetence crisis.
	To me, it seems obvious.
	And I'm going to talk about that more.
	But notice how the stories are all going to have that quality.
	Right?
	We'll talk about the causes that's coming up.
	But do you notice all the stories in the news?
	They don't really look like something just went wrong.
	They don't really look like we disagree on priorities.
	It's not looking like a difference of priorities or preferences.
	It doesn't look like there was a natural problem and people have solutions.
	It doesn't look like that at all.
	It looks like incompetence is the issue.
	Let me say this in the cleanest way I can.
	Do we have a problem with climate change?
	Do we have a problem with inflation?
	Do we have a problem with, let's say, the Ukraine war?
	Well, on some level, you'd say yes.
	But wait a minute.
	Could there be one problem that caused all of those problems?
	Yes.
	And I don't mean it necessarily caused the war or caused climate change.
	I mean that the way we deal with all of these topics has left the realm of anything sensible, if ever we were there.
	So we've upgraded to a realm of pure incompetence, where the incompetence itself becomes the topic.
	So we're only talking about the incompetence We don't have anything going on that's talking about making the problems better.
	We have an incompetence crisis where we've replaced the topics with talking about our own incompetence, because we don't even know how to get out of that loop.
	We're in a little bubble of our own incompetence.
	So Kamala Harris is obviously an example of an incompetence crisis.
	Joe Biden is clearly an example of, I'll call it a competence crisis, clearly an example.
	Do you know that we've got two candidates, the leading candidates, who may be running to stay in a jail?
	At least in part, right?
	As much as you might want Trump to be president, has he ever done anything that might have technically violated some kind of law?
	I don't know.
	Maybe.
	Probably.
	Do they all do that?
	When you reach a certain level, are they all violating technical laws?
	I think so.
	My guess would be they're all violating some technical law that nobody cares about.
	How is it that we've got three, I would say three hyper-capable candidates, and they're fighting for second place in the primaries?
	They're not even fighting for second place in the general.
	So RFK Jr., clearly more qualified than Biden by a lot, fighting for even to be on the ballot and be a second choice.
	If you look at the Republican side, I think Trump is very capable.
	He just causes people to lose their fucking shit.
	If I had one problem with Trump, it's just that.
	It just causes people to lose their shit.
	So that's not a competence problem.
	That's something that just comes with the whole program, I guess.
	But you look at the capability of Vivek Ramaswamy.
	Oh my God, do I want that as the model for the future?
	I just want somebody who's just killing it with competence, and everybody's watching, and your kids are watching.
	They're like, did he really do that?
	Did he just sit down and play concert piano level, and then he went off and played tennis at a college level, and then he started, you know, startups, and now he's running for president and making a big dent and changing the world?
	Is that all the same person?
	It's all the same guy.
	It's like one guy.
	You don't think you want your kids to see that?
	The talent stack concept brought alive?
	I mean, he brings alive the talent stack idea.
	That if you layer enough talents, you know, by working on those talents, you can create something extraordinary from the sum of it.
	Quite amazing.
	And I'll say for the DeSantis lovers, highly capable.
	Highly capable.
	Very admirable.
	You'd love to have a president who just demonstrated that level of skill.
	You know, you could disagree about his preferences and his policies.
	You might like somebody better.
	But is anybody calling DeSantis incapable?
	Nobody, right?
	I don't believe there's a single person who says, oh, that DeSantis, he can't get anything done.
	It's not even part of the question.
	So we do have super capable people who are fighting to get out.
	I would also say that in the category that I call the internet dads, which includes women, I'm just sort of using it as a label.
	But the internet dads are showing a level of capability that's just crazy.
	The Jordan Petersons, David Sachs, Elon Musks, Mike Cernoviches.
	I could go on.
	But you know who they are.
	You know who the dads are.
	And if you just read a week of Cernovich tweets, your IQ goes up like five points.
	There are some super qualified people who are getting deeply into the process.
	It's just hard for them to break through past that top crust of incapable people.
	Yeah, Tucker's another example of highly capable.
	All right, let's talk more about this same topic through UFOs.
	I saw Eric Weinstein had a tweet thread on the UFO mystery, I'll call it.
	I thought he did a great job of summarizing the frustration of all the smart people.
	So I'm just going to read one part of his thread which was tremendous and I recommend it just because I think he just does a great job of just summarizing.
	What's going on with the whole UFO mystery?
	All right, but here he restated something I guess he said before.
	He goes, I stand by my statement.
	Something is wildly off.
	And then he gives you the options for what might be happening.
	A, our pilots are crazy and or liars.
	So the pilots who claim to see UFOs are either crazy or liars.
	So as I go, see if any of these Makes sense to you.
	B. There is a PSYOP gaslighting our own people.
	You know, some kind of government plan to fool us.
	C. We are too incompetent to call our own people.
	Wait.
	We are too incompetent to call our own people.
	Is that a typo or does that make sense to you?
	We are too incompetent to call our own people?
	I'm not sure what that one means.
	Must be a typo.
	D, there is a secret long-standing involvement of top scientists.
	In other words, the top scientists, they know there's something going on, but they're not telling you.
	E, there are some crazy seagull and mylar balloon effects.
	So there's just something up there, but it's not UFOs.
	A cult of UFOs has infected the Pentagon.
	So, you know, a mental problem.
	Or China and others are taking over our airspace and we're using UFOs as an excuse rather than dealing with the problem.
	So we're telling the public that it's UFOs when it's really Chinese technology or something.
	And then I love his conclusion.
	All right, so this is Eric Weinstein's conclusion of all this confusion.
	He says, but this is so stupid to be this far in with so much bullshit.
	Dot, dot, dot.
	I'm embarrassed for us.
	I'm with you, Eric.
	Same page.
	It's literally embarrassing.
	Does anybody have that feeling?
	Like, as an American, I'm literally embarrassed that we can't work through this.
	I mean, embarrassment, I would say I've removed it from my life as anything that influences me.
	I'm not bothered by any level of embarrassment.
	And you shouldn't be either.
	If you can learn to be free of embarrassment, it's like a freaking superpower.
	But you know what I'm saying.
	It's just not a good look.
	You know, it doesn't bother me to my core.
	But, you know, I'm not proud of it.
	Not proud of it.
	I am not proud of being an American based on this, you know.
	I am proud of being an American, but not based on this story.
	So I want to add a few hypotheses to his list.
	So he's got A through E or G. I didn't understand one of them.
	I think it's a typo, but I'll add my own take.
	I think it's a combination of the following.
	So it's not one of these things.
	It's a combination of all these things.
	Optical illusions.
	We just see some things.
	We didn't know what they were.
	Tech malfunctions.
	In our sensing equipment.
	Or it might be just a feature slash bug that doesn't look like a malfunction.
	Could be confirmation bias.
	If you're expecting to see something, you see it everywhere.
	Could be some are hoaxers.
	Some, not all, but some of them might be just literally hoaxers.
	Then there's cognitive dissonance.
	You've got your grifters, you've got the effect of money that distorts everything.
	Then on top of that, on top of the reality or non-reality of these UFOs, separately but connected, is the timing of when we learn about alleged new stuff.
	I believe the timing is strategic, which is independent of whether there are any real UFOs.
	That's a separate question.
	But the timing of when the news stories about UFOs is, that's probably political.
	Not for sure.
	But it seems like there's always something that's embarrassing for Democrats who are in power when it comes out.
	But working against that theory is that stuff came out during the Trump administration too.
	And I don't recall that that was necessarily timed to any bad Democrat news.
	So I don't think the hypothesis that it's always timed to cover up the news works every time.
	But could it have been done once?
	Is there any one time that somebody said, you know, this would be a good time for this story?
	Maybe.
	So I do think that there's a possibility that the media gives it more attention when there's something that they don't want to talk about.
	But that doesn't mean they're necessarily doing it consciously.
	Right?
	If Fox News is talking about all the bad behavior of the Democrats and they've got five good stories, you know, like Hunter's laptop and, you know, new whistleblowers and they got all that, and CNN kind of doesn't want to talk about it at all, what do they have?
	Better talk about UFOs, because you want to stay away from that stuff.
	So I think it's a whole bunch of ordinary things.
	I do not think any of the extraordinary explanations are likely.
	So listen to how many of Eric Weinstein's potential, you know, these are ways it could be explained, how many of them are extraordinary?
	All right, so just see, so I gave you a list of possibilities, they're all ordinary.
	You know, technology bugs, most ordinary thing in the world.
	Confirmation bias, that's so ordinary it's the operating system of human beings.
	That's the most ordinary thing.
	You think it's there, but it's not.
	Cognitive dissonance, all ordinary.
	So everything on my list would explain everything we're seeing.
	Hoaxers, grifters, money, media.
	And it wouldn't require any extraordinary anything.
	It wouldn't require any new introduction of any new effects.
	It would purely be explained by all the ordinary stuff.
	But look at Eric's list.
	Are pilots are crazy or liars?
	Well, if it were one or two pilots, crazy or liars would be a pretty good hypothesis.
	But it seems to be a lot of them.
	Or at least enough that crazy and lying is probably ruled out.
	That would be extraordinary.
	There's a PSYOP gaslighting our own people.
	Well, PSYOPs to gaslight us we know are common.
	Would you agree?
	It's common to have PSYOPs.
	But I don't think that the government would use UFOs for a PSYOP.
	That would be extraordinary.
	What would not be extraordinary is to say there's a Let's say an anonymous source.
	That wouldn't be extraordinary, because they do that all the time.
	It wouldn't be extraordinary to say there's a pre-print study that says you should shove masks up your ass to stop cancer.
	That's ordinary.
	Lying in a pre-print study, that's just ordinary.
	Or not being accurate.
	How about, we're too... I don't know about the incompetent one.
	That might be the typo.
	Alright, there's a secret long-standing involvement of top scientists.
	And no top scientist has talked.
	Well, that would be extraordinary.
	Right?
	Not likely.
	There are crazy seagulls and mylar balloon effects.
	Well, that actually gets to what I was saying that there might be just a technical glitch or optical illusion, right?
	So I think that one's more in the ordinary category.
	Or there's a cult of UFOs has infected the Pentagon.
	I think that's confirmation bias and the fact that UFOs are fun and everything else is less fun.
	If you're working in the Pentagon, name one topic that's more fun than talking about UFOs.
	Well, we've got to find out if there's illegal chemical weapons.
	UFOs?
	Ah, UFOs.
	So you'd expect that people chase fun.
	So they like it.
	So of course there's people in the military who want to talk about UFOs.
	UFOs are fun.
	I don't think it's likely that China is taking over our airspace with their advanced machines and we don't know the difference or we don't want to talk about it.
	So my theory is it's ordinary.
	That the UFO thing is ordinary.
	Let me tell you why I think it's ordinary beyond the fact that all of the elements to make it happen are ordinary.
	The history of humankind Is one hoax after another like this?
	You know that, right?
	There has never been a time in human history where there were not multiple hoaxes that had multiple people saying they were true.
	My favorite one was earlier in the 20th century when there were all these hoaxes about giant bones.
	They were finding skeletons of giant bones and there were a lot of them.
	If you just went by how many there were, and you went by how many people told you they saw it with their own eyes, and you went by the media reports that they were true, and you talked to the scientist who said, oh yeah, I saw it, you would think that was pretty true.
	Zero of them were true.
	Zero.
	It was just like widespread, you know, giant bones all over the place.
	But we don't have any.
	The Smithsonian has zero giant bones.
	Now, how different is the Giant Bones hoaxes than the UFO story?
	What part of the Giant Bones hoax is not 100% common to the story about the UFOs?
	Yeah, we have better technology.
	But does it matter if you have good technology if, you know, you're seeing a tic-tac and you think it's a UFO?
	You know, the humans are doing the interpreting.
	Now, the giant bones hoax period lasted many years, just like the UFOs.
	Now, you also know, I'm not going to name names, but there have been some modern religions, not going to name any names, that seem to have lots of people who are direct witnesses and they all saw it, you know, hundreds, maybe millions of people.
	You know, join something that was born just a few hundred years ago.
	So, people massively believing in something that isn't true, including believing they saw it with their own eyes, they heard it, they experienced it, is very common.
	So if you're asking yourself what's common and what's uncommon, a gigantic hoax about UFOs that lasts for years, has hundreds of direct eyewitnesses that feel credible, has actually technology like radar that seems to be recording it, has every sign for being real, and even the media suggests it's real, none of that has any validity.
	We have a long history of none of that ever mattering to anything.
	It's just a hoax.
	Now, could I be wrong?
	I hope so.
	Wouldn't that be cool?
	I'd love it.
	Yeah.
	Well, unless they're here to kill us.
	But I would say if you're doing the Carl Sagan analysis, the Carl Sagan analysis is this looks like every other hoax.
	Why would it be different?
	This is the extraordinary one?
	Maybe.
	But I would say, if you're going to put odds on UFOs being real, I'd say 100 to 1 against it.
	100 to 1 against it.
	Based on the fact that it looks exactly like every other hoax through modern history.
	They're all the same.
	They don't look different.
	You know, so I asked this question on The service formerly known as Twitter.
	So I said, if you want to figure out, let's say, the truth about climate change.
	The truth about climate change.
	And you had a choice.
	You could only talk to scientists.
	Just scientists.
	Or experts on the history of hoaxes.
	Experts on the history of media hoaxes especially.
	Who would give you a more useful answer?
	The scientists or the people who know what hoaxes look like through history?
	Well, I think three quarters of the people who answered that, of course, were biased in their answers.
	So they said the media hoaxers.
	And I think that's true.
	I think climate change is so perfectly like a dozen other hoaxes.
	Now when I say hoax, I don't mean that there's nothing true about it.
	Let me be clear.
	I think the basic idea that if all else was equal and you added some CO2 to a closed system, it'd probably get warmer.
	I believe that.
	Do I believe that climate change is not a problem because a million years ago we had more CO2?
	Does anybody think that?
	That climate change is not much of a problem because a million years ago we had more CO2.
	Does that make sense to you?
	Does that sound logical to you?
	That a million years ago there was more CO2 and the world was thriving.
	Therefore, the current level of CO2 is not dangerous.
	You know that's not logical, right?
	Even Thomas Massey was making this case, and I was cringing.
	Because Massey is sort of my standard for good behavior.
	He's like the standard for a rational, scientific approach.
	But I saw him actually in a video arguing that CO2 was much higher, like 1,000 parts per million instead of 400, in the distant past.
	Do you all know what's wrong with that argument?
	Now, John Kerry tried to diffuse it by saying, yes, but people weren't here.
	Humans weren't here.
	That's a terrible, terrible defense.
	Would you like to hear the good argument and the good defense?
	Well, there's no good argument.
	There's no good argument that says a million years ago the CO2 was higher, therefore it's not a problem today.
	There's no connecting logic to that.
	Do you know why?
	Because everything was different a million years ago.
	The brightness of the sun was different.
	The composition of the atmosphere was different.
	Everything was different.
	So if everything's different, a high level of CO2 may have been no problem at all.
	Maybe it was no problem.
	So John Kerry's correct answer should have been, not, there were no humans.
	Because what is the obvious thing you say to there were no humans?
	We were teeming with life.
	Life was all over the planet.
	There was probably more life on the planet then than there is now because of the extinction of species.
	So it's a terrible charge.
	Massey's claimed that it's meaningful that there was more CO2 in the distant past.
	It is just not meaningful.
	Is not.
	Because all the other variables were also different.
	So it may be that you needed more CO2 in the past because the sun wasn't as warm.
	Right?
	That would be a positive CO2 because it was keeping you warm when the sun wasn't doing its job.
	But now this is just an example.
	I'm not I'm not making a claim about the sun.
	I'm using this as an example.
	But suppose the sun got a little warmer in a million years.
	Well then you better not have all that CO2.
	Right?
	So the right answer is, although the variables were different, you can't compare the past.
	Why is it that neither of them could get that right?
	And let me check.
	100% of you agree, right?
	Have I convinced 100% of you that I'm right about this?
	I think I have.
	It's easy.
	I mean, the argument is so plain and simple.
	No?
	All right, if you disagree, give me one sentence of disagreement.
	Go.
	The one sentence why what I said is wrong.
	Why is the CO2 from a million years ago relevant?
	Okay, you all got quiet when I had to say... You all got quiet, didn't you?
	Here's the best argument I have for the other side.
	This is the best one.
	Quote, you're vaccinated.
	Oh, well.
	And then there's always somebody in the comments who's blaming it on the Jews.
	I assume that's satire.
	All right.
	I'm going to give you the benefit of a doubt.
	The benefit of a doubt that that was satire, right?
	I don't want to see that shit in the comments otherwise.
	I don't want to say this every day either, right?
	Can you maybe not do anti-Semitic things in the comments?
	Like maybe that's just not cool.
	How about a lot less of that, huh?
	So, you know, free speech, fine.
	But it doesn't belong everywhere.
	It's not satire.
	Let me take a break here.
	Let me take a break.
	So you've got a group of people in the world who everybody knows are unusually successful.
	Let's call them Elbonians.
	And these Elbonians are really good at going to school and getting advanced degrees.
	And with their advanced degrees, They have lots of opportunities, especially at the higher levels of business and society.
	So they take their better degrees and they start doing really well.
	So well that they look at what would be the best industry to be in if you could be in any industry.
	So these Elbonians that I'm talking about are so well trained.
	They've got such good educations that they could be in tech, they could be in government, They could be in media.
	Really, they could just call their shots.
	And if you were in media, you'd do well.
	You might even be the boss after a number of years of having experience.
	So once the Elbonians just sort of worked through the system, just being Elbonians, Eventually, the Elbonians look to be dominating a lot of important industries.
	Now, why is it that they dominate the important industries?
	And somebody would say Hollywood, too, because that influences our minds.
	Why are all these Elbonians in the important industries?
	And why do they have all this power?
	Because they went to school.
	Would you like your family to be captains of industry and maybe head up a media company someday?
	How about sending them to fucking school?
	How about if you send your kids to fucking school, they can be the CEOs of a media company too?
	How about fucking opening your head and looking at if there's a group of people who are killing it on education and they become your fucking boss?
	Maybe you should look at yourself.
	Maybe you should check your work, right?
	If you've got a boss that's an Elbonian, because they all went to fucking school, and it was their biggest fucking priority, and it wasn't your priority, they should be your boss.
	You should work for Elbonians.
	The Elbonians are going to run your country, they're going to run your media, they're going to run your Hollywood.
	They're gonna run your tech, they're gonna run every fucking thing that matters.
	Why?
	Because they went to school!
	It's making me crazy.
	Alright?
	How is that not obvious?
	How is that not fucking obvious?
	Every one of you anti-semitic assholes, you don't see that going to school is the main variable?
	Can you not see that?
	Seriously?
	You can't see that there's a correlation between school and success.
	Am I the first person to tell you that?
	Like you've never fucking heard that before?
	You never thought of it?
	Didn't have that thought yourself?
	How about it doesn't require any collusion on behalf of Israel for the people who took schooling as their top priority and then executed?
	Now, you're going to say, but Scott, they might be talking to each other and preferring their in-group or something.
	Yeah.
	So what?
	You want to be on the end group? - Good.
	Go to school.
	Send your kids to school.
	Make it a priority.
	All right.
	God, that bugs me.
	All right, back to the main topic here.
	Do you think that AI will create work for humans or reduce work?
	What's your best guess?
	Will AI create work?
	I'm going to make a prediction that it's going to be more like when we said computers were going to reduce paper.
	Do you remember that?
	The 70s, early 80s?
	Yeah, all these computers are going to reduce paper.
	The current market for computer printers is about 50 billion dollars.
	I remember when computers came in, the first big change was more paper.
	Right?
	Because you have to print it twice, you know, you may have to make copies and everything.
	So there's a story about, at least in some jobs, there's one group of people who are looking at, they're vetting, I guess you'd say they're examining articles to see what would be included in their publication.
	And they got a big problem, because it used to be humans would write articles, they would submit them to their publication, they would look at them and say, oh, okay, and they'd pick the good ones.
	Now, the number of articles that are being submitted is shot through the roof, because they're being written by AI.
	And AI Can't write for shit.
	So where they used to have to look at, you know, maybe I'll just pick up numbers.
	These are, I'm just making this up, where you might have to look at, let's say, a few dozen human written articles.
	Now you've got a thousand articles that have been submitted, written by AI, just with a prompt, you know, so nobody did any work.
	And they're all bad.
	So now they have to look through a thousand to find that one, where they used to look through a few dozen.
	Now that's a very specific, you know, industry and situation.
	But I feel like there's going to be a lot more of that.
	For example, if you said to me in the pre-AI world, I'm in my cubicle, and boss comes in and says, Scott, I need you to do this task.
	Now in the old days, I would have a certain set of tools and I'd go work on that task.
	And maybe, you know, I wish I had AI because AI would do it better.
	So that's just the old way.
	I just go work on the task.
	What's the new way?
	The new way is if I know that there's an AI that could help me, I'm going to have to research it and I'm going to have to learn it.
	And the way the current architecture is, you might need two or three different AIs.
	For example, you might need one AI that creates a photograph that doesn't exist.
	Use a second AI to animate the photograph into a 3D image.
	You might use a third AI to add a script like a movie script to animate it into an actual movie.
	You might use another app to clean up the lighting and fix the sound.
	So you could end up with, you know, it might take you a dozen AI apps to do a thing.
	Now, people might be impressed by your thing.
	It might be great that you did the thing.
	But all of your normal work, you're going to have to pause and do a deep dive into what AI can do and completely re-architect your business process to do the thing.
	You will spend as much time learning the tools to do the thing as it would have taken you just to do it the old way, blah, blah.
	Now, I'm not a troglodyte who wants to stay with the old ways.
	I'm pro-AI.
	Let's do AI and the market will sort it out.
	But I think it is completely optimistic to imagine it's not going to add work to the cubicle class, as well as at home.
	I think it will make my life at home harder.
	Because I'll be continuously trying to find out what tool.
	All right, is it this tool?
	But somebody says this tool.
	I've got to sign up, and this one's not sending its data to the other one.
	Why is the API isn't working today?
	And all the things that used to be easy, there'll be so much better way to do it in this complicated way that you have to spend all your time figuring out how to do it.
	Ordinary things that you did the other way.
	Now, in the long, long, long run, Is it going to make everything better?
	Maybe.
	Maybe.
	And also, in the long, long, long run, there could be fewer computer printers.
	I don't think we're there.
	But there could be.
	At some point, there'll just always be a screen everywhere.
	So you really will never use a piece of paper.
	But that might be a long time away.
	All right.
	The Hill is reporting there was a survey They showed that remote workers, the ones working at home some of the time, are more productive.
	Do you believe that?
	That the remote workers are more productive.
	How do you think they measured that?
	Just guess.
	I decided not to read the article.
	I read the headline.
	How do you think they measure the productivity of somebody working at home versus the office?
	Would it be, I don't know, impossible?
	Just putting it out there.
	Is that one of those things that might be impossible to measure?
	Yes, it is.
	It is impossible to measure.
	So who do you think might have been behind this result that the remote workers are so much more effective?
	Could it be, I don't know, Maybe people who work at home did the survey?
	Maybe when you ask people who work at home and prefer it, if they're more effective, they say, yeah, yeah, I totally have.
	Uh-huh, uh-huh.
	Do you work more hours?
	Sure, sure.
	And when you work those hours in your distracting atmosphere with your dog and your kids and everything, are you focusing better at home?
	Oh yeah.
	Oh yeah.
	It's way better.
	It's way better.
	Write that down.
	Write that down.
	Way better focus and oh, so many more hours.
	Weekends.
	Sometimes I'm up all night.
	Sometimes the work is so appealing I just can't stop.
	Do I need to tell you that this survey is bullshit?
	I don't really need to tell you that, do I?
	I wouldn't believe anything in this domain.
	Now, I'm not saying it's not true.
	I'm not saying that.
	I'm saying you couldn't possibly, couldn't possibly have accurate information.
	This is sort of like measuring the temperature of the world.
	Every time somebody says they measured the temperature of the whole world, the average, I just laugh.
	Do you know why?
	I was born in the real world.
	In the real world, you can't measure the temperature of the Earth and compare it to last year.
	That's no thing.
	Who thinks that's a thing?
	Who thinks you can do that?
	Well, obviously with thermometers.
	The satellite stuff might be a little closer to something that's real.
	But who thinks the thermometers put all over the Earth are giving you some kind of good answer?
	That's ridiculous.
	Do I have to be a scientist to know that you can't measure the temperature of the earth?
	All right.
	The fact that anybody believes that.
	Apparently the American workforce is coming back strong.
	A lot of people in the 25 to 54 year age are heading the market.
	Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
	Way more people are entering the labor So they do have openings and more people are going in.
	This is the Wall Street Journal who reported this.
	Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
	Do you think it would help or hurt the competence of the economy?
	Lots more people going to work.
	Think it's good?
	Which people didn't have a job already?
	The competent people or the incompetent?
	Which ones were already employed?
	Were employers mostly preferring the incompetent, while the highly capable people were just sitting it out?
	But now they've decided, hmm, this would be a good time to go back to work.
	I don't think so.
	I think the capable people already had jobs.
	And that the employers are lowering their standards to fill positions, just like the military is, right?
	The military is doing the same thing.
	So wouldn't you say that this good news, that the labor force is really strong and people are going back into it, is that as good as it sounds?
	I mean, it's good that they get paychecks.
	It's good for the economy.
	But if you're looking at the competence of the country, it should take it down.
	Would you agree that that seems like a cause and effect of bringing in people who are not already well employed?
	All right.
	I'm going to give you a little story before I talk about Americans' incompetence problem in a little more detail.
	I've got a friend who, when he was 16 years old, and he's in my age range, so this was long ago when he was 16, his father owned a bowling alley.
	And then his father got a better offer, better job at a big corporation.
	So rather than closing or selling the bowling alley, The 16 year old was asked if he wanted to just manage the bowling alley.
	Just run the company.
	He was 16.
	So remember this is many years ago.
	So what did the 16 year old say?
	Who basically had been running the company anyway.
	He was like assistant manager.
	He just got running it anyway.
	He said sure.
	Sure.
	So it was a whole business, you know bowling alley, that was managed by a 16 year old kid.
	Now, in my day, in my day when I was a youngster, that wasn't that unusual.
	Yeah, and if you went back into, you know, old-timey times, you know, back in the prairie, yeah, a 16-year-old was the head of the household.
	It wasn't that unusual.
	But do you think a 16-year-old should run a company in 2023?
	I mean, there might be some special ones, but it's different.
	Things look really different now.
	I believe I could have run a company at 16 back in those days.
	Things were simpler, too.
	But I think I could have.
	I felt I was ready.
	It wouldn't have been easy, but I could have figured it out as I went.
	I could have gotten there.
	Now compare that to the design of America at the moment.
	I'm going to read a bunch of statements that just tell me if you think these are true or false.
	And do they contribute to the incompetence of the country?
	So my thesis here is that we have a current design for our country that guarantees incompetence.
	And we didn't always.
	We used to have a design that guaranteed that the competent people would rise and take over everything.
	But here's our current situation.
	We've got the teachers' union blocking school choice.
	Should that make us more capable or less capable over time?
	Less, right?
	Because competition is the only thing that makes anything work, and they're getting rid of it.
	And they also maintain teachers who are not good.
	They're hard to fire because the union protects them.
	So certainly the teachers' union should make us all stupid by design.
	I don't see any way around it.
	Another one.
	Affirmative action.
	Do you think affirmative action causes companies who would obviously prefer to have highly qualified employees but also diverse?
	That's what they prefer.
	But unfortunately they have to deal with math.
	Which is they can't all get qualified people because there just aren't enough.
	It's just numbers.
	So if you can't get enough but you're being measured on your diversity Even more than your profits, what are you going to do?
	You're going to start lowering your standards, which has nothing to do with the capabilities of any group, right?
	This is not about bigotry.
	This is just math.
	That if you lower your standards because it's the only way you can fill your spots, you get less qualified people.
	There's no argument there.
	That's a strict definition of cause and effect.
	How about a tight job market?
	Well, the lower standards, we talked about that.
	How about the fact that in 2023, the media, the scientists and experts in general are all lying to us.
	I don't know how different that is from the past.
	Maybe we just know more about it.
	But do you think we're getting dumber because we're lied to by all the smart people?
	I feel like that has an effect.
	So I just gave you the story of, you know, probably the smartest person in Congress, Thomas Massey.
	He might literally, like if you gave an IQ test, he might be number one.
	And then John Kerry is no slouch, right?
	You might disagree with him, but he's not dumb.
	He's a real smart guy.
	Super smart guy.
	Those super smart guys were arguing about CO2 a million years ago, like it mattered.
	Like, I feel like this is somehow downstream from all the experts' stupidity, that even smart people are dragged into kind of a conversation that doesn't make sense.
	How about the fact that we have lots of college and lots of people going to college, but we have lots of college courses that don't make you smart.
	Does college make you smart?
	It used to.
	I'm pretty sure it used to.
	And there are a lot of college majors.
	You know, if you pick the right major, yeah, totally it'll make you smarter.
	But I feel like there's a whole bunch of college majors that are actually designed to make you dumber.
	And that feels new.
	How about a few more things that would make us dumber?
	We've got a lot of the smart people are retiring.
	What about just retirement?
	Do you think we're losing skills because the boomers?
	The boomers tend to have a wide range of skills.
	They tend to be talent stackers.
	I don't know if that's still true.
	So maybe we're losing stuff to retirements.
	And there's also a bubble.
	You know, since the boomers were a big bubble, just the fact that boomers had a lot of training, and that the group with the most training is also the group that's most retiring, Again, it's just math.
	There's no opinion here.
	The math requires that you have less qualified people when you're done with those retirements.
	How about startups sucking all the smart people into areas that, by their nature, 9 out of 10 are going to fail?
	Well, it's probably great for startups, because you want your smart people in the startups.
	But don't you think the startup world is now so large That you can suck the best people out of every corporation.
	So when the startup world is small, it can be your smartest people, but you still have plenty of smart people just doing their regular jobs.
	But what happens when all of the smartest people realize that they could be billionaires if they just do a startup?
	And then 9 out of 10 fail.
	So you take your smartest people from environments where most of the time they're succeeding, You put them into a start-up situation where, by its nature, 9 out of 10 fail, you're basically putting your smartest people into failure and taking them out of success.
	Now, I don't know if that's a net bad or good, because those smartest people are creating Google and Apple and stuff like that.
	So it might come out positive, but it's at least one of those things I look at that might be sucking talent out of places we need it.
	All right, so you put this all together, and there might be something that's making us smarter, but I can't think of it.
	The best I could come up with is that you can get online training for just everything.
	But that only applies to people who are willing to go get it, right?
	It doesn't come to you.
	You've got to say, all right, I'm going to learn this new thing, and then you've got to really work at it.
	So it seems to me that we have designed a system, accidentally, so design is the wrong word, but we've drifted into a system that guarantees growing incompetence.
	Yeah, you can throw drugs in there and addiction and everything.
	Yeah, actually addiction is a good one.
	Let's throw addiction in there.
	I think there's more addiction.
	So that should take something off your capability as well.
	And also health.
	What about general health?
	Nobody's as smart or as productive if they have bad health.
	But our food system is killing us and our big pharma is doing a mixed job.
	So we're making people less effective By their health, less effective in their education, less effective in their training, less effective by filtering, you know, actually preferring less qualified people because you've got to fill these spots.
	Now, is there anything that all of these forces have in common?
	It's like a whole bunch of things I just talked about making us less capable.
	But is there any like core, like bottom thing that's causing it all?
	Because I heard some people say it's obviously the communists.
	It's communists.
	So it might be other countries trying to influence us, but it's the local Marxists and the communists who are doing it.
	Do you think that's what's happening?
	All right, I'm going to give you my hypothesis.
	It's women.
	It's women.
	It's all caused by women.
	Now when I say it's all caused by women, do I mean that every single... Hold on, let me take a break.
	Why do you mean every single woman is exactly the same?
	Well, Dale, that's not what I mean.
	And anybody with good reading comprehension or has lived in the world for more than a second knows that when people talk about groups, they never, ever, ever mean every person in that group is the same.
	So why are you saying they're all the same?
	Okay, again, I didn't really say that.
	I'm just talking in the normal way that people talk.
	When they talk about the average of a group.
	It's more about an average sort of situation.
	And yet, you say everyone is the same.
	Dale, can you look at the calendar for me?
	Certainly.
	What's today?
	July 24th.
	What season is that?
	Summer.
	So, are you pretending to be angry about something that you know isn't true?
	Because it's the summer and it's just summer news.
	Baby.
	Dale.
	Go back to where you came from.
	Gladly.
	And pause.
	All right.
	So here's what I mean.
	Here's what I don't mean.
	I don't mean there's anything wrong with women.
	Can I put that out there?
	There's nothing wrong with women.
	Women are great.
	And there's nothing wrong with individual women.
	Individual women, I'm a big fan.
	I can show you plenty of individual women who are just killing it in the workplace, killing it in life, killing it with their families.
	Awesome people.
	I like women.
	However, it is generally true, if we can stay out of the trans conversation for a moment, if you will, can I have permission to talk about something that's not related to trans?
	Anybody?
	Is that okay?
	Is it legal?
	It's still legal, right?
	I can talk about a topic without even referencing.
	Is it like trans is not central to the topic?
	Okay.
	Well, I had to check.
	All right, so here's what I say about the difference between men and women.
	Men have more testosterone.
	That's not true!
	What about the trans?
	Shut up, Dale!
	Shut up!
	We're not doing trans today.
	Men have more testosterone.
	If you take a bunch of people with more testosterone, be they trans or be they not, are they more likely to develop systems that focus on competition, compared to a control group of people with less testosterone?
	What do you think?
	Do you think that the testosterone group If they were creating a system that would make them competitive.
	Such as the free market.
	Such as democracy and voting.
	Of course.
	I think they would.
	And would that mean that those people who had more testosterone, are they the smart ones?
	No.
	I'm not saying that.
	I'm saying that if you pump anybody with testosterone, they make different decisions than if they had less testosterone.
	It has nothing to do with your brain.
	It's literally a chemical.
	That you had nothing to do with it?
	Well, maybe you boosted it somehow.
	But it's just a chemical.
	All right, now, second question.
	If you had a group that you were studying that you knew were lower testosterone, what would be the nature?
	And let's say that they had female chemistry.
	What is the nature of systems that they're likely to build?
	Would they be competitive systems?
	You know, dog-eat-dog, winner-takes-all.
	Or, are they more likely to be a sharing, communal kind of a situation where no one is left behind?
	Well, I mean, you know the answer, right?
	Don't you?
	Yeah.
	And is there anything wrong with a cooperative system that leaves nobody behind?
	It sounds great!
	It's exactly how you want your family to work, right?
	Yeah, you want your family to work that way.
	That is a family frame.
	You're not going to let the weakest child die.
	You take care of your whole family.
	But if you take these two groups who are individually and as a group, awesome.
	So let's say that women are awesome individually and as a group.
	And let's just be charitable here and say that men are awesome individually and as a group.
	Nobody's better.
	Nobody's worse.
	But one group has more testosterone, and that predicts, I believe, I believe it predicts a set of actions in general.
	Again, not every person, but in general.
	And I believe that everything we're seeing of this growing incompetence in America, and I'll just read you the list again, alright?
	As I read you the list, ask yourself this.
	If only men had been involved, would they have designed these systems?
	So you've got the teachers' unions, run by a woman, very dominated by women.
	You've got affirmative action, which I'm sure has more women promoting it than men, at least really caring, because women would be more benefiting.
	The job market, that takes care of itself.
	How about the media, science and experts lying?
	I don't think that has to do with women.
	I would say that I wouldn't blame that on women.
	How about useless college classes?
	Well, the only reason that useless college classes exist is that people sign up for them and they pay for them.
	Who is signing up for the useless college classes?
	The non-STEM cell?
	Women.
	And again, that's an average.
	It's not meant to represent any one woman.
	The people retiring, that's just happening on its own.
	And start-ups have some.
	So some of these are just an effect of where we are in the economy.
	But others are clearly because women dominate policy.
	Do you think that's a true statement?
	That women dominate policy?
	I think it's guaranteed by the nature of men and women.
	That women would eventually would dominate.
	And the reason is that a lot of these questions are kind of close.
	You know the reason that there's any conversation at all is that reasonable people can disagree on what to do.
	But you know what reasonable people have a hard time doing?
	Pissing off women.
	Pissing off women.
	If you put me in a situation where I'm just analyzing, you know, the risks and rewards and which one's better, and there's no outside force, I probably get the right answer more than not.
	You know, oh, this one's better than this one.
	But if you put on top of it, can you analyze these two forces, but let me tell you in advance that if you decide that one of these is better than the others and it's the wrong one, you're gonna be fucking canceled.
	Because women.
	Because women exist.
	Which one am I gonna choose?
	I'm gonna choose the one that doesn't get me canceled, doesn't give me a fight when I go home.
	Women are very influential without having, let's say, power on paper.
	PJ says, God is terrified of powerful women.
	Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
	I'm terrified of powerful women.
	I'm going to use you, PJ, as an example of the declining competence in the United States.
	That was not a, let's say, A-plus comment.
	I'm not sure it was a B-minus.
	That was sort of a D-plus, barely represented human communication.
	Do better.
	Do better.
	Stefan says, in all capital letters, I would bet my left nut this guy is single.
	Big fucking surprise, because I don't have to go home to a wife and explain what I did on a live stream today.
	That's why I'm telling you the truth, because I don't have to go fucking explain it to a woman when I'm done.
	Do you think I would have done this livestream when I was married?
	Oh, you poor bastards who can't say what you want to say.
	I just want to make you jealous for a moment.
	I don't like to brag, but I'm cancelled and single.
	Yeah.
	Same time.
	I'm cancelled and I'm single.
	I can say any fucking thing I want.
	And I'm rich.
	I can say any fucking thing I want.
	To anyone.
	Well, unless somebody might beat me up.
	So I think you should sit there in the silent jealousy that I have that thing you crave, the ability to say what I want.
	Yes, I think that the political power of women is destroying the country.
	And I'm not sure I would even change it, because who wants to take political power away from citizens of the United States?
	I don't have a solution.
	If you're telling me, but Scott, are you saying going back to the old ways where women were property of the men?
	No.
	I don't have a good idea.
	I literally don't have a better idea.
	I'm just describing the current situation.
	If you're trying to understand why we are where we are, maybe you understand it better.
	I'd love to see somebody come up with a solution.
	I would say that one solution is Vivek.
	Vivek Ramaswamy is saying directly, strongly, clearly, and with a good argument, I'm going to get rid of affirmative action because it's counterproductive for everybody.
	And so that's the solution.
	So I guess I would promote that, and I am backing him.
	But it's important to understand it.
	You don't have to get mad at each other for that.
	All right.
	I saw a tweet by Kena Anna.
	Who said in her tweet, it still shocks me that the, quote, educated class is the easiest manipulated class.
	Do you know who knew that?
	That the most educated are the easiest to manipulate?
	Well, hypnotists and magicians have known it forever.
	So have fraudulent psychics.
	I remember the amazing Randy.
	Amazing Randy.
	A magician who used to debunk, you know, frauds.
	And he was famous for saying that it was easier to fool a scientist than an average person.
	Because the average person is not confident in what they know.
	So they'll look at something and say, I don't know, that looks sketchy to me.
	I don't know the details, but it looks sketchy to me.
	You fool a scientist with a magic trick, and the scientist will say something like this.
	I can see no way that that could be a trick, so probably you're talking to spirits.
	So in other words, you can be trapped by your own discipline, and say, alright, well, I've considered every possibility that's not talking to the dead, and here's the dead talking to me, so I'm going to have to rule out all the other possibilities, because I can think of no hypothesis.
	That would be an alternative hypothesis.
	Given all the controls that you put on here, you know, given the fact that I got to check the room and, you know, given the fact that I really, really made sure there was no magic trick.
	And then those ghosts were talking.
	I heard it with my own ears.
	So I have to conclude, from a scientific perspective, having totally controlled the environment and then seen the results of the experiment, I have to conclude that the dead do talk to us.
	And I saw it myself.
	Now, you take a non-scientist and put them in that same situation.
	And they're sitting in the room and the psychic's like, oh, your grandmother is talking to you!
	And the ordinary person says, I don't have time for this bullshit.
	Seriously.
	And they get up and they walk out.
	Because the ordinary person is just going to say, I don't really have to do a lot of research on this.
	It looks like bullshit.
	It's bullshit.
	It's kind of like what a lot of you did with the pandemic.
	I think it's the funniest thing that the experts got everything wrong.
	I mean, it feels like the experts just got everything wrong.
	And the non-experts got a lot right.
	Not everything, probably, but a lot.
	And what were the non-experts, what was the rigor that the non-experts were putting into it?
	So, you're telling me that this is the only virus in the history of humanity that does not give you natural immunity?
	Just this one?
	Huh.
	And at the same time that the virus doesn't give you natural immunity, which is weird, there's a pharma company that spun up a solution in one year after saying it couldn't be done in 30.
	One plus one.
	That's a... Okay, I'm not very smart, but... You got the one plus the one.
	I think that's two.
	And that was like the public.
	And the scientists were saying, but what about that randomized controlled trial?
	Paid for by the people who want the answer to come out one way.
	What about that?
	So you can see that the scientists were trapped in their professions.
	Right?
	They had to use the tools of their profession to understand reality.
	And the tools of their profession were corrupted by the other people in their profession.
	So they used corrupted tools.
	You know, the studies and the data that was bad.
	And then they had great confidence because their entire life would be meaningless and their life would be ridiculous if they'd been scientists in a world where studies don't mean anything.
	Right?
	The scientists can't live in a world where they realize they've dedicated their whole life to a field in which the data just doesn't mean anything.
	So therefore, when scientists were presented with data, you know, of course they checked to make sure it was peer-reviewed and stuff like that.
	They said, well, it's probably convincing because it's data.
	So there is a reason.
	There is a reason that the professional class is the easiest to fool.
	Now, if you said to me, I want you to discover some new information that nobody knew before, I would talk to the scientists.
	I would not talk to the average person.
	Would you agree?
	Discovering new things, yeah, let the experts work on that.
	They're going to get there faster than I am by guessing.
	But once they come up with their solutions and their policies and here's what we ought to do, that's when the public gets really You know, a little bit curious.
	Oh, so you haven't discovered a new thing.
	Rather, you've discovered that this thing, this thing called the virus, is the only thing that doesn't give you natural immunity.
	All right, that biased nature, that should not have been credible.
	All right.
	RFK Jr., I love what he's saying so much.
	I'm just going to read it to you.
	Can I go with a great tweet of this, but it's from RFK Jr.?
	Quote, the White House had deployed an army of federal agencies, including the CIA, FBI, DHS, and IRS, and many others, to threaten Facebook, Google, and Twitter with withdrawing their Section 230 immunity, which is an existential threat.
	So yes, we had free speech.
	But you had the agencies of the government telling the platforms for our free speech that if they didn't restrict our free speech, they would lose their Section 230 immunity, which would allow them to be sued for misinformation on their platforms.
	So they would be out of business pretty quickly.
	So RFK Jr.
	paints a picture.
	Where the government does use this trick of threatening the 230 status of the platforms to make the platforms be their bitches.
	So we now have a very direct and documented connection of the government making the platforms their bitches.
	About free speech.
	There's no question about that now, right?
	Everybody agrees?
	That is established as a fact.
	The government used threat and coercion To turn the platforms into their bitches.
	To make them do what they wanted.
	Now the platforms, if you looked at the communications, it sort of looks like the platforms are happy to do it.
	It looks like they also have an incentive to get rid of bad actors.
	They also would like to have no Chinese trolls on their platform.
	So there's, you know, the Venn diagram of what's good for the platform and what's good for the country is pretty extensive, right?
	Neither the platform nor the country wants China to be influencing your opinions on social media.
	But when it gets to that free speech part, that's where we go different directions.
	Public wants free speech.
	Government might think there are some cases where that's a bad idea.
	And so they threaten the platforms.
	Effectively, they create a way to squelch speech without being looking like the bad guys.
	Because you don't see their fingerprints until all this documentation comes out.
	All right, so RFK Jr.
	goes on.
	Those companies cannot exist without immunity.
	That's that section 230 thing.
	And they were told that if they did not censor the president's opponents and critics of these policies, they would lose that immunity.
	I'm editing a little bit, but then he goes on.
	With the intelligence agencies, many of them, although not all of them, are now serving the purpose of enriching the military-industrial complex and expanding its power for some military contractors.
	Here's the kill shot.
	My uncle, JFK, my uncle recognized that the function of the CIA had devolved into providing the military-industrial complex with a constant pipeline of new wars.
	In order to enrich military contractors and expand the power of the intelligence apparatus.
	That's so well said.
	Wow.
	And then he ends with, my primary platform is unraveling the war machine and the national security state that is bankrupting and destroying the middle class.
	My God, he tied it to the middle class and he made it work in our country.
	The ultimate objective is to protect democracy and restore the American middle class.
	Fuck, he's good.
	He's just so good.
	These Kennedy's could just do this shit, can't they?
	The Kennedys, they just have the gift of gab or something.
	But I haven't seen anybody ever tie the military-industrial complex to the decline of the middle class.
	But you can see it.
	You can see it.
	Your brain connects them as soon as he says it.
	It's just brilliant.
	Now, I'll say again, RFK Jr., Vivek Ramaswamy, and I'll throw DeSantis in there too.
	Super capable.
	We're so lucky that they exist.
	All right, along those lines, I saw a tweet saying that BlackRock was going to make a trillion dollars rebuilding Ukraine after the military-industrial complex and their backers made a trillion dollars destroying Ukraine.
	Is it true that our economy is literally designed To destroy countries for profit and then rebuild them for profit with that profit coming from the taxpayers in the middle class.
	Sure feels like it.
	Now, I don't know how much of that is intentional, but this is one of those cases, and I usually don't say this, I usually say that we just got here because the variables, you know, turned the way they did.
	I usually don't go for the conspiracy theory.
	But it's hard for me to look at Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Ukraine, and imagine that this isn't true.
	It looks exactly like what's happening.
	It looks like the intelligence agencies start a war that didn't need to be started, and then the military contractors clean up, they destroy the country, and then when you're done, another group of Bastards make money from the taxpayers to clean it up.
	So, could RFK Jr.
	actually change that situation?
	Probably not without getting assassinated.
	You know, I didn't want to go there, but he is really on the hottest third rail of all third rails.
	There is no third rail that's hotter than this one.
	And he's standing on it with both feet and shouting.
	He's basically saying, shoot me.
	And the balls on these Kennedys.
	I saw Bill Maher try to bait RFK Jr.
	into talking about Bill's theory that the Kennedys do risky things.
	They do dangerous stuff, you know, both for entertainment and in their professional lives.
	Well, I mean, RFK Jr.
	is the perfect example of that.
	His entire career before now was doing really dangerous stuff, going up against Big Pharma.
	How dangerous is it to go up against Big Pharma?
	Well, he found out.
	He got as cancelled as a cancelled person could be.
	And he went from cancelled to running for president.
	So instead of running away, he ran at it.
	Like, the pillbox is tearing him apart.
	And he's running at the pillbox with a hand grenade saying, well, we'll see how this ends.
	To me, it looks like it's me or you.
	He's not saying these words, but RFK Jr., to me, it looks like he said, I'm going to die doing this.
	I think he just offered his life.
	And seriously.
	I think he seriously offered his life.
	And I think that if he got assassinated doing this, he would die happy.
	If it meant that we understood the problem and then maybe did something about it.
	I don't know.
	This is the kind of patriotism I don't think I have ever seen.
	I'm trying to see if there's, this is the highest level of pure patriotism I've ever witnessed.
	Now I would say that Trump is up there too.
	You know, Trump may have some, you know, other things going on.
	But I think Trump is a patriot.
	And I think that his, possibly, you know, maybe his co-biggest incentive, other than he might want to be president, I think his co-biggest incentive is that he's a patriot.
	And he took on enormous risk I mean the size of the risk that Trump took on to enter politics at that level, you gotta appreciate the risk he took.
	That's a patriot.
	That's the real thing.
	So to have two of those in the race, two people who I would say literally put their life on the line to make America better.
	Literally put their life on the line.
	Now I think Vivek is a patriot at the highest level as well.
	He doesn't have the same risk that these two had, but boy does he have a risk too.
	He's lucky that he already cashed down his company, so he got rid of his company risk.
	But his reputational risk is extreme.
	Extreme.
	So these are people who are really putting, they're laying it down for the country.
	Somebody said on Twitter today that I'm too pessimistic.
	And I think maybe on Twitter it looks that way, because the things I tweet tend to be about problems.
	But I'm not that way.
	I'm actually very optimistic.
	I think there are things happening right now in the world that are tremendous.
	And this is right at the top of the list.
	This is the best field of candidates in my lifetime.
	I'm not saying there isn't, wasn't, you know, maybe you like Reagan or something.
	But for a field of candidates, this is really impressive.
	All right, new way of making fake news.
	This is also an RFK Jr.
	story.
	The ties to method.
	If you want to smear somebody, you say they have ties to something unsavory.
	So this is what, who did this to RFK Jr.?
	This was some illegitimate publication.
	Some investigative journalist, I forget who it was.
	Was it Rolling Stone?
	Somebody will tell me.
	Look in the comments.
	But anyway, so RFK Jr.
	was accused of having ties to the ultra-mega-republicans.
	Having ties to them.
	Because that would smear him because he has ties to the bad guys.
	Do you know what the ties were?
	Do you have any idea what those close ties were?
	It looks like in some context they use the same accounting firm.
	They used the same accounting firm.
	That was the close tie.
	So whenever you hear that somebody has ties to something, your antenna should go up and go, oh, that's fake news.
	That's fake news.
	Now, if they had said he's working with and he's making policy with, maybe, you know, who knows?
	But if they say his organization has ties to this unsavory group, Fake news should be your first instinct, and then the article better work pretty hard to talk you out of it.
	They had the same accounts.
	So, RFK Jr.
	is, he says, I interrupt my normal tweet stream for a bit of comedy.
	It's so ridiculous.
	He goes, blah, blah, blah, Rolling Stone, yeah.
	Rolling Stone and Congressional Democrats are irate about a Kennedy super PAC having, quote, ties to MAGA Republicans.
	Actually, the, quote, ties are that I hired an accounting firm that has also done accounting for other PACs, including those of Republicans.
	Shocking, isn't it?
	I hope they continue this bold investigative journalism.
	They might discover other ties.
	Maybe they use the same janitorial services, too.
	I tell you, mocking is the way to go.
	Mocking is the way to go.
	So again, that was perfectly phrased.
	Jonathan Turley is writing about all the Democrats who now want to basically ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court because they don't like them.
	Apparently there were two professors, a Harvard Law professor and an SF State University professor, who were calling on Joe Biden to defy the rulings of the Supreme Court if he considers the rulings mistaken.
	Can you believe that this even happened?
	That there are two college professors, one from Harvard, who are actually saying that the President should ignore the Supreme Court, you know, the whole basis for what makes the Constitution work, the separation of powers, that he should ignore the separation of powers, the single most important thing that keeps the country together.
	The single most important thing.
	And he should ignore it.
	And that's like a real thing.
	I don't need to tell you why it's a bad idea, right?
	We can skip the whole counter argument, right?
	Agreed?
	We all stipulate that it's so stupid, I don't have to say anything about it.
	But apparently there are a number of Democrats and other people who are backing the same idea.
	That if you don't get what you want, you can ignore the Constitution.
	And they're talking about it out loud, in public, like they're proud of it.
	How did we get here?
	It's so dumb.
	This is like they were never they never learned how the Constitution worked.
	But I mean it's a Harvard Law professor.
	So clearly they prefer the power over the constitutional system.
	All right.
	Speaking of Thomas Massey.
	He tweeted this.
	He said that Department of Homeland Services... Department of Homeland... What's the S?
	Department of Homeland Services?
	The S is for what?
	Security.
	Department of Homeland Security said that misleading COVID-19 narratives inspired domestic terrorists.
	All right, so the Department of Homeland Security, they're protecting us.
	So this is our government protecting us.
	And they're worried that misleading COVID information narratives would make more domestic terrorists.
	So as Thomas Massey points out in his tweet, what were some of those examples?
	What were some of those so-called narratives that were going to cause some kind of domestic terrorism?
	So he lists them.
	Natural immunity is real.
	Vaccinations don't stop the spread.
	Most masks don't work.
	Most masks don't work.
	I love Thomas Massey.
	He's the only one smart enough to put the word most.
	The rest of you are like, masks don't work.
	And then I have a heart attack.
	I go, come on, you can't say that's not an absolute.
	You tell me if you wore your N95, For a two-minute interaction with your 80-year-old grandmother, it wouldn't give you anything.
	Nothing at all.
	All right.
	I'm anti-mask, by the way.
	Very anti-mask.
	But I love that Massey is smart enough to say, most masks don't work.
	I would have added, most masks don't work in 99% of situations.
	But in the narrowest of situations, eh, maybe a little bit.
	Just not enough to have a mandate.
	Mandates are unconstitutional, people were saying, and the virus came from a Chinese lab.
	So basically, five examples of things that the conspiracy theorists got right, and they're not random things.
	They're the five most important things.
	Aren't they?
	Aren't they literally the most important things?
	They got them all right.
	Just remember that.
	And how about this?
	Rand Paul is tweeting that the government quote science.
	That's right.
	A sitting senator just put quotes around the word science and I have no argument with it.
	No argument at all.
	And he goes on, government science published a study purporting that 90% reduction in death from COVID if you boost with the vaccine.
	The only problem, the authors of the study failed to reveal, I think he has a typo here, I think he means the unboosted group also had a 90% reduction in deaths from all causes.
	In other words, the patient group were not equal to begin with, and the booster vaccine may or may not have had any effect.
	That's right.
	It might not have had any effect, at least based on the data.
	And then Rand Paul goes on and goes, this insightful critique is exactly what the FBI and Department of Homeland Security have been attempting to censor.
	Only this time it made it into the New England Journal of Medicine.
	So the New England Journal of Medicine can print it, but all the other people who said it was obvious, they couldn't say it.
	I guess they didn't have enough science backing them.
	But can you imagine that pretty much the whole argument for boosting came from people who couldn't read science?
	They didn't know what the study did or said.
	It didn't either design it right.
	And even the author of the study said, oops, yeah, you're right.
	Imagine that.
	The author of the study, once it was pointed out that it was a ridiculous study, said, oh, yeah, well, it's true.
	And we set our policy on that.
	We determined our policy on that.
	Are you ever going to trust another study about anything?
	Amazing.
	So, there's another competence problem.
	And apparently the new news on Hunter Biden is that, I guess who's the archer, who is the, Devin Archer was a partner with Hunter Biden.
	Apparently he's going to testify, or already has, that Hunter Biden Participated in over two dozen calls in which his father was on the call for these businesses that Joe Biden says he had no knowledge of.
	That's right.
	There are 25 instances or so, 24 or so, instances of, we have good information from Devin Archer, that Joe Biden was on the calls.
	24 times-ish.
	And he said he had no idea of what his son was doing.
	And that they were just overtly selling access.
	Now, of course, Devin is facing jail.
	So I would want to be careful that he didn't work out any kind of a deal.
	But I haven't heard that.
	So you don't want Devin Archer testifying about anybody else if he's worked out a deal.
	Because that means he might have an incentive to lie.
	So I would be careful about that.
	I would be careful about anybody who's looking at jail time for his own work talking about anybody else.
	But I guess we're going to hear about that pretty soon.
	And then this question of whether Joe Biden Fired the prosecutor who was looking after the Burisma stuff.
	Do you think that Joe Biden fired him just to protect Hunter and Burisma?
	Or did he fire him because the international community was asking him to fire him?
	Because both were true.
	So apparently, apparently both were true.
	That it was true that the international community was asking for that same guy to be fired.
	And it was also true that Burisma's senior management, this is the new information, Burisma's senior executive, at least one of them, very much wanted, they actually tried and it's documented, to get Hunter to use his connections to get that guy fired.
	So, I'm a little confused.
	If the international community wanted this guy fired, that sounds like it's legitimate, and if If Joe Biden did it for any reason at all, but also the international community wanted it done for their good reasons, he's in the clear.
	At least on that.
	To me, it wouldn't matter that there's also somebody in the company who wanted him gone, because you know somebody in the company wants him gone.
	And you know they would try to make it happen if they could.
	So I don't know how to... Is it possible both are true?
	And what does that tell you?
	It's true that the international community thought the prosecutor was bad, but it may also be true that he's going after somebody that you're protecting.
	So he could be bad, but also doing something that wasn't necessarily bad for once.
	It's a little confusing.
	I'm not sure anything is gonna hang on this.
	The firing of the prosecutor.
	But it's very sketchy.
	It's very sketchy.
	All right.
	That, ladies and gentlemen, concludes what must be called the best podcast you've ever... Oh, shit.
	Well, that went pretty long.
	All right.
	I didn't know I was going that long.
	I have something blocking my clock.
	I normally don't do that because I'm looking at a clock, but there's something in front of it today.
	So sorry I went long, but I'm sure it was the exact thing you needed today.
	Probably the best thing you've ever seen in your life.
	YouTube, thanks for joining.

▲