All Episodes
Aug. 6, 2023 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:02:56
Episode 2192 Scott Adams: You Will Enjoy This Livestream While Getting Smarter & Drinking A Beverage

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Politics, National Debt, The Best Idea, Joe Rogan Politics, Jamie Foxx, President Obama, Jonathan Turley, President Trump Indictment, Political Prosecutions, President Biden Allegations, Hunter Biden, Biden Crime Family, Democrat Designated Liars, Vivek Ramaswamy, Kayleigh McEnany, Rob Henderson Newsletter, Female Happiness, 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Do do do do do do do.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization and probably A.I.
and lots of other planets, too, if you'd like to take this experience up to levels which nobody in the universe could ever imagine.
Well, it's easy.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of chalicestine, 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 today.
The thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Mmm.
Quite good.
Quite good.
I think everything's going to be better after that sip.
Well, let me catch you up with all the exciting news.
Are you ready for this?
Well, it turns out the Zuckerberg vs. Musk fight, or as Musk calls it, Zuck vs. Musk, what are the odds that those two billionaires would both have a U in their name?
Just, I don't know, for some reason that strikes me as weird.
Anyway, that fight looks like it might actually happen.
It's not 100% confirmed, but they both said yes.
And Moss says it'll be streamed on X. The X Twitter platform called X. Oh wow.
It's an X Twitter platform called X. Everything's weird today.
It's probably me.
So that's gonna happen, and you'll get to see that.
I can't imagine that, you know, I'm sure Facebook would do the same.
Alright, today's theme, and I do have a theme.
Do you like my shows where I have a theme?
Or is that just for me?
Alright, we'll go private on locals.
I always just assumed it was just me.
But here's the theme.
You'll be fine.
You'll be fine.
Here's the overall theme.
Does it seem like you wake up every day and the world's falling apart and politics is going to cause a civil war and all that?
I don't know.
It's been like that my entire life.
I actually don't remember any time in my life when it wasn't exactly like that.
The Vietnam War was going to kill me, and the communists were going to nuke me, and the atmosphere was going to fry, and the world was going to freeze, and we were going to run out of oil and run out of food, and China was going to destroy us, and that's only if Japan didn't do it first with their superior technology and manufacturing.
So basically, What would be different about our current set of problems?
Really nothing.
It's basically more of the same, which is stuff that humans are pretty good at getting past.
Pretty good.
So I think we'll be fine.
And no matter how bad things are, remember that the business model of the media is to scare the shit out of you.
That's how they make money.
So if you read media reports and you found yourself getting anxious and scared, that's what they were trying to do.
It's somewhat independent of what's actually happening in the world.
Whatever reactions you're having to world events are because of the way they're being presented to you.
It's not the actual events.
In most cases, those things will be fine.
We'll work it out.
Now there is one thing that still worries me, which is debt.
I don't have a clean answer to debt, but I'd like to give you the most optimistic take you've ever heard.
This is so optimistic, if you called it stupid, I probably wouldn't push back too hard.
But it's really optimistic.
You ready?
That the combination of the following technologies is going to make debt disappear.
In other words, we could owe a hundred trillion dollars But there'll be a day when everybody looks to each other and says, we don't really need money.
And the debts will all go away.
And so whoever has the largest debt, when money becomes obsolete, will be the winner.
Because they got all that free use of money.
And then when money was worthless to everybody, their debt went away.
Now you say to me, Scott, that's stupid.
Debt will never go away.
How could debt go away?
I mean, without paying it off, how could it go away?
And the answer is, a combination of AI, robots, superconductivity, fusion, and time.
And all of those are happening.
Right?
Time, of course, always is happening.
But if you give it enough time, AI plus robots plus superconductivity plus fusion gives you unlimited labor and energy.
And you say, no, but Scott, you know, there's going to be a limit to how many robots there are.
Not in the long run.
In the long run, robots will build other robots.
And they'll have free energy to do it.
And then when robots can build other robots, there's really no limit to how many robots there are.
They say, but wait, they'll run out of raw materials.
No.
Robots will be building, they'll be looking for raw materials.
They'll be mining, they'll be digging it up.
And then AI will figure out cheaper, better ways to do it.
So they'll get more and more efficient.
And then you say to yourself, but hold on, Scott, there will still be scarcity in the world.
As long as there's scarcity of anything that people want, you're going to have to have some money to negotiate who gets it and who doesn't.
Right?
And I saw the best example, the counter-argument was, who decides who gets the beach house?
In your world with no money, Scott, who gets the beach house?
Well, same as today, whoever has the best weapons.
That's the way it'll always be.
Whoever has the most control of the weaponry will have the beach house.
Now, I don't know if that changes when money doesn't, you know, because if you think about it, the only reason that rich people have a beach house is because you can't go there and kill them and take their beach house.
And why can't you?
Because the rich people control the government, the government controls the military and the police.
Military and police will keep you the hell out of the rich people's house.
Right?
So whoever has the best weapons gets the beach house.
That's one answer.
Here's another answer.
Every place will be a good location.
So if you're thinking to yourself, but wait, everybody's going to want the good location.
No, every place will be a good location.
Once the robots are building anything, you don't have to worry.
The AI is designing things.
You'll live in a city that's so awesome, you'll feel so good all the time, that you won't care if you're at the beach or not.
I mean, how often are you actually looking out the window anyway, right?
So if you make every place amazing, it doesn't matter who has the beach house.
And maybe the people in the beach house will say, you know what?
I'm getting a little tired of the beach.
How about you guys?
You want to use it for a weekend?
I think the things would end up working out in the long, long run.
So, I'll just put that out there.
It takes a lot of thinking through the details of how it could possibly be that money would become obsolete.
But I almost guarantee it.
In the long run.
Would anybody take the opposite side of that bet?
Maybe not in my lifetime.
But in the long run, do you think money will still be a thing?
Remember, money only has a value when there is scarcity.
So the argument is entirely about, can you make everything abundant?
Or at least people don't care about their choices.
That would be the same as abundance.
You don't need abundance if you can change what people care about.
They just don't care about that beach house.
It's out of the equation.
All right.
Enough about that.
I just thought I'd give you a little optimism.
And LK99, which is that alleged superconductivity thing, every day I open Twitter and say to myself, it's not called Twitter, it's called X. And then I look at the content after I say that to myself, and then I see what's new in superconductivity, because really that's the key to everything I just said.
If in fact there's room temperature superconductivity, And your AI and your fusion, everything just works, basically.
Everything would be completely different.
You know, I look at the reports, and I can't tell.
I actually don't even have a 51% feeling about whether this is real or not.
Does anybody else have a... Does anybody have confidence about it, one way or the other?
To me, it looks like an absolute coin flip.
Honestly, if I had to bet, I would bet against it.
So I guess I do have a 51%.
If I had to bet, I'd bet against it.
I hate to say that.
What do you think?
The things I've seen are so obviously fraudulent that it makes me wonder if anything isn't.
But the fact that many of the videos are fraudulent, and somewhat obviously so, I would say, That doesn't mean it's not real.
But I'm leaning against it.
But not strongly.
So let me say this in advance.
If I get this one wrong, I'll be the happiest wrong guy ever.
Because I'd really like to be wrong about this.
But I feel like probably it's not.
And when I say it's not real, let me put some nuance on that.
Not real in a way that it could be commercialized.
So it might be real in some technical sense that works in the lab, but I'm gonna bet against it being something that could ramp up.
51%.
Ford has allegedly submitted a patent for a self-repossessing car.
If you don't pay your Pay your payments.
And it has a very clever system.
Anyway, it's not issued, it's just submitted for a patent.
And it would do things like decrease the services of the car over time.
So let's say you didn't pay your payments and you missed a few months, they would turn off your air conditioning.
Isn't that diabolical?
They would turn off your air conditioning.
The car would still work.
You can still get to work, but you better be thinking about making that payment because it's gonna get hot.
It's just gonna get hot.
And then apparently there are other elements of the car they could turn off.
I imagine they could turn off your stereo system.
But the coolest part is if it becomes a self-driving car, they can have the car drive to a different location on its own.
So, for example, they might have it pull out of your driveway, you know, drive to a parking lot where they can pick it up.
But this reminds me of, do you remember Baked Car?
Was that the show?
It was a TV show where they had a special car that they would leave unlocked for people to steal.
But once they got in the car, the doors would lock.
And then the show was about what happens once they're in the car and they can't get out.
And they know they're going to get caught in the baked car.
I love that show.
I could watch that all day long.
But, yeah.
Anyway, so maybe something like that's happened.
All right, here's my thinker for the day.
You will disagree with this, but the longer you think about it, the better it sounds.
All right?
So I'm going to acknowledge that your first exposure to this will be, well, that can't be true.
Okay?
So that's the challenge.
It'll sound bad when you hear it.
It'll sound better every day you're alive.
The person with the best idea is always in charge.
The person with the best idea is always in charge.
It will take you decades to learn that in your real life.
Decades.
Now, it sounds stupid, doesn't it?
Your first impression of that is, wait a minute, wait a minute.
I'll give you some pushback I got just on Twitter today.
Somebody said, what about Stalin?
What about Stalin?
Was that a bunch of good ideas?
Stalin seemed to be in charge.
And that didn't seem like a bunch of good ideas, did it?
Is that a good argument?
No.
Because here's what I didn't say.
I didn't say the person with the best idea couldn't be shot.
I didn't say that they're bulletproof.
Right?
Nothing I said is about the person with the best idea being bulletproof.
You can still kill them.
Stalin probably killed a lot of them.
So you have to be alive in order to be in charge.
So that's the first thing.
If you're not alive or you're in jail, that doesn't work.
But you also have to assert yourself.
Having the best idea and not telling anybody, well, that's not going to help.
That doesn't put you in charge.
But suppose you have the best idea, and this was another bit of pushback, but it can't be well described.
Does that violate my point that the person with the best idea is in charge, when that best idea is just too hard to describe?
So therefore, maybe not, because I can't communicate it, right?
I say, not true.
I say the best idea is always Able to be communicated.
I mean, maybe indirectly.
Maybe you're bad at communicating, so you tell another scientist, the scientist understands, and then the scientist communicates it.
But the best idea is going to bubble up.
Maybe not on day one, but over time.
So here's the inspirational part of that.
If you're in the room, And you have the best idea, you are effectively in charge.
And you're going to find that over and over again.
Because the person whose job it is on paper to be the boss, really doesn't want to make all the decisions.
They want a solution.
And so if you have the best idea, they're going to say, OK, do that.
They'll probably make you do it.
But the best idea does always win.
Now you're saying to yourself, Scott, I know that's not true.
Because there was that time I had the best idea.
I communicated it clearly and nobody was buying it.
It wasn't the best idea.
I know that's hard to accept.
But if it had been, it would have actually won the day.
If not then, eventually.
So, I know your brain doesn't want to accept this.
I know it doesn't want to accept it.
But let me give you a little bit of comfort.
It doesn't have to be 100% true.
Okay?
It doesn't have to be 100% true.
It doesn't have to be true in every exception, in every case.
It's just one of those things that if you reframe your situation, and this is one of the reframes in my upcoming book, you're going to see pretty soon.
The reframe is to believe that if you have the best idea, you're in charge.
Even if it's not technically 100% true every time.
It still works as a reframe.
Because you should be acting as though you're in charge if you have the best idea.
You should just assume it, and act that way.
It'll work out for you.
Alright, it doesn't mean you win every situation.
I noticed that Joe Rogan was going in hard at politics, and I thought it was Almost jarring.
Did anybody have the same experience?
That Rogan being, you know, at this point I think you could easily say the most influential independent podcaster.
Do we call him independent?
If he's working with Spotify?
I don't know what the definition would be there.
But he seems independent.
I mean, I don't think that they control what he says.
So, are we happy about this?
Are you happy that Joe Rogan is going in strong?
Because he's saying directly that Biden is incompetent.
Trump had some good things going for him.
And lots of complaints about Newsom, called Newsom a cardboard cutout.
Criticizing him for mandating vaccinations for children.
Criticizing the science and the scientists and all that.
I guess I'm happy about it.
On the other hand, You want to make sure he's right.
It's not good if he's not right.
But he does seem to be right more than he's wrong.
Has anybody noticed that one of the great tricks of Joe Rogan is to lull you into thinking he's not that smart?
When in fact, very much the opposite is true.
He's one of the smartest people in all of media and his success is not some kind of weird accident.
He didn't get lucky.
There's no luck involved in the whole story.
He was just really smart and just worked hard and did all the right things.
Now he's in the right place.
Yeah, you know, I think that he's an example of the internet dad's stepping up.
So it's a good trend.
I'd like to see more voices like his, you know, take responsibility for the fact that people are listening.
So he's taking it pretty seriously.
I like that.
All right, here's a test of your media savvy.
Media savvy test.
Jamie Foxx, actor Jamie Foxx, is being accused of posting something anti-semitic on Instagram.
That's all you know.
Is it a true story or a fake story?
I mean, the story is in the news for real, but did it really happen or is it just bullshit?
It's bullshit.
Do you know how you know?
Because it's a jaw-dropping story about a public figure.
Jaw-dropping stories about public figures are pretty much never true.
The reason it's so interesting is because nobody would act like that.
And indeed, he did not.
Did he say something that bad people could take out of context?
Of course.
You know, that's just every day.
All right, here's another one, same test.
Jennifer Aniston is accused of doing something online that people say is anti-Semitic.
Did it really happen?
Is it real?
No, of course not.
Of course not.
It's actually somebody accused her of liking the thing that Jamie Foxx did that wasn't interpreted correctly.
So, you know, social media, buzzing about those.
Now, I saw some pushback going by, and I would like to agree with you on this.
I can't really explain Mel Gibson.
You know, except that probably alcohol is part of the answer, but that doesn't change what came out of his mouth.
So there are some cases where maybe things are exactly what they look like.
Maybe sometimes it's just what you think.
But if you bet in that direction, you're going to be wrong a lot.
Right?
I don't know if it's 90% of the time that the news about public figures is wrong.
And by the way, I don't know for 100% sure that the stories about Mo Gibson are correct.
I kind of think they are.
But I don't know.
I don't know.
Just keep in mind, stories about public figures usually fake.
All right, here's a tougher one.
There's a biographer of Obama, and this is New York Post is writing about this.
So this Obama biographer, I think he had a 2017 book, and he makes the following claims based on his research of Obama.
That Obama, people don't realize it, but he's as insecure as Trump.
So the Obama biographer, somebody who spent eight hours interviewing him, talked to lots of people, says that Obama is as insecure as Trump.
You can now discount everything else that biographer says as ridiculous.
What is he, a mind reader?
Is there some objective scale where you can compare two people, two people that maybe you don't even know one of them, and you could tell which one's more insecure?
How patently ridiculous that he can read Obama's mind.
Completely ridiculous.
All right.
What else?
He said that it's clear that Obama doesn't care about rebuilding the Democratic Party as an institution.
Really?
Because what?
He said that?
No.
He has a mind and his mind was read?
Probably.
It's just mind reading.
You should not believe anybody who talks like this about another person.
You don't know what people are thinking.
You don't know what level of anxiety they have about anything.
And you don't know how it compares to some other stranger.
These are ridiculous things to say.
Never talk like this.
And then he's got some story about Obama writing a letter to his girlfriend saying he had Fantasies about sex with men.
Now, let me ask you this.
First of all, I don't think that means anything.
Imagine if all your secret thoughts were available to the world.
How would you look?
I mean, just think about it.
Suppose people had access to all of your private conversations forever.
Private conversations between lovers, ex-lovers.
Suppose they had all of that.
How would you look?
Do you think any of that would be a little surprising to other people?
And more importantly, what's wrong with thinking about stuff?
I don't care what Obama thought about.
Why do we care what he thought about?
He had thoughts.
Well, first of all, I don't care if he acted on those thoughts.
That shouldn't be relevant in any way.
But we're not even talking about what he did.
We're only talking about a conversation of something he thought about.
Oh my God.
Don't be this guy.
All right.
Jonathan Turley continues to be the most fun and interesting voice.
I would say also with Joel Pollack, the two I would listen to the most on all this legal stuff with Trump and the Biden stuff as well.
Those are two people you should absolutely be following and reading during the current news cycle, especially.
All right.
So here's something that Turley says.
He says this case, talking about charges against Trump, which criminally targets the sitting president's leading up opponent, is much more dangerous because it sets up the federal government as the arbiter of truth.
This indictment essentially charges Trump with not accepting the quote truth.
Now that's a really Clean way to express what's going on.
There are a lot of windows to look into here, but this one's pretty important.
Yeah, we're on the cusp of accepting that your government can tell you what the truth is, and if you say things opposite of that, you might get in trouble.
Maybe for something related to it, like how people acted because of what you said.
So that they can make it look like it's not the speech that was the thing.
Oh, it's not what you said.
No, no, no.
Oh, free speech, of course.
But what you said was untrue and therefore people acted on it and bad things happened.
But we can't really have a civilization on that rule because we're always acting on bad ideas and bad opinions.
You couldn't really have any kind of a system that worked that way.
So that's a good point.
I like the way you're saying it.
But I did have something I disagreed with.
This might be the first time.
I disagree with Jonathan Turley on the following point.
He thought it was unwise, and you know, I'm paraphrasing for him, so these are my words.
I guess he thought it was unwise for Trump to make his threatening-sounding truths, you know, effectively a tweet on truth.
And that saying that if you come for me, I'll come for you, and that wasn't helpful.
And do you agree with that?
Do you agree that that worked against his legal strategy?
Here's where I disagree.
I do not believe that Jonathan Turley and I have the same opinion of what Trump's likely strategy is.
Now remember, we can't read his mind.
So here Turley and I are operating both blind.
I don't know what Trump's thinking.
But I know that Turley doesn't.
Agree?
Right?
Nobody knows what he's thinking.
We know what he's doing.
But what we watch him doing is threatening the system in a way that your common sense and your history and your sense of right and wrong says should not be happening.
But here's where I differ with Turley.
I don't think Trump is trying to win his case.
Only.
Only.
So only is the keyword.
I don't think Trump is trying to win his legal cases only.
He's going after the whole system.
He's trying to tear down the whole system.
And if you're trying to tear down the whole system, this is the way to do it.
You should say directly what you're going to do.
Yes, this is a witch hunt.
If you push this witch hunt, I'm coming for you.
That's exactly what his supporters want.
In a legal, non-violent way, right?
We're all talking non-violent here.
But certainly in a legal sense, certainly in a political sense, you'd want him to come as hard as he could.
You'd want him, maybe if you're a supporter, you'd say you want him to take over and fire the entire management of everything that's looking rotten at the moment.
So I would agree, if this were a normal defendant in a normal situation, that he should not be attacking the system.
He should work within it and try to get his best result by keeping his mouth shut.
But this is the furthest you could be from a normal situation.
Trump is probably the only person that I would say, yeah, he should attack the whole system.
He should go after the judge.
He should go even ahead of time.
He's the only person I would say this about.
But he should go after the system.
Because if he does a good enough job in making the system look as corrupt as it apparently is, then it will be impossible for him to be prosecuted.
Because there might be a case that he's broken technical, you know, there might be technical violations.
If the way the law goes is that the law accurately pursues the technical violations, that ends up taking him off the field for the election, nobody's going to be happy.
Well, half the country will be happy about it.
But his supporters are not going to be happy.
And that's not a country you're going to want to live in.
It's going to get Pretty unhappy.
So I think in his specific case, when everybody can see it's a political prosecution, in the context of a political prosecution against a likely number one or two finisher in the end, he should go after the whole system.
So I believe that he's playing it right.
Now I don't predict it's going to go well.
You know, who knows?
A million things could happen.
Some people are already suggesting that Trump should negotiate a pardon for not running.
What would you think had happened if Trump, I think Scaramucci was saying this, how, yeah, okay, I see the reaction already.
If Trump negotiates his own freedom in return for not running, I can't even explain what that would do to me.
Like my brain?
I don't even know what I'd do about that.
But that would be the worst case scenario.
In my opinion, that's the worst case scenario.
Because if Trump rolls over, we're lost.
It just means everybody will roll over.
You like to think that there's somebody who's going to take it to the mat.
And it feels like it's him.
It feels like Trump is just going to take it as far as he needs to take it.
And the Democrats need to know that he's not going to stop because he might get killed.
I mean, either politically or financially or even physically.
If Trump puts up enough of a scare, which is his specialty, right?
His specialty is scaring the other side.
You don't know what I'll do.
I'm unpredictable.
And he's definitely playing out that strategy.
And I think, well, he's creating a situation where finding him guilty, even if there is a technical guilt, is dangerous.
And I think that's actually the healthy situation.
It should look dangerous.
Would you agree?
The safest situation for the country is if everybody's transparent about where their red line is.
All right?
If you're a gray area, that's where you get trouble.
I think I can push them a little here.
Well, OK, you got away with it.
I think I'll push them a little bit.
There's got to be a limit.
And both sides need to know where the other's limit is.
So communicating where the limit is Is just good government, I think.
And I think Trump's doing it.
In a way that no lawyer would advise.
But it might be good for the system.
All right, let's see if you can recognize this pattern of deceit.
Let's call this a disinformation play.
The Democrat processes are now becoming clear.
You know, I keep saying that you can see the machinery now.
So see if this sounds familiar.
It's a combination of these plays.
The Russian disinformation play that you saw with the laptop.
The cat on the roof play.
Where there's bad news, but instead of just admitting it, they just trickle it out.
Well, the cat's in the tree.
Can't get it out.
Well, it's on the roof.
And then later it dies getting off the roof.
So it's the slow cat on the roof.
And then what about the play of getting the media to cover for you?
Like the lying media, the ones that you know are the designated liars.
So, and then if you were going to get the media to lie for you, would you get the usual suspects?
You'd get the Washington Post, you'd get Politico, right?
If you want to cover a Democrat lie, you'd ask them.
All right, so we know the play is, so let's see if it got applied here.
We just learned that Devin Archer has confirmed that a dinner that Hunter was at, Hunter Biden, with his business associates, was in fact attended By Joe Biden.
They say it was Russian disinformation.
They did.
They said it was Russian disinformation.
Sound familiar?
Now you can start to recognize the play.
Russia collusion, laptop.
Joe Biden wasn't at this dinner with those business partners.
No, that's Russia disinformation.
I think that actually came from one of the White House staff.
And then once you got that going, and so the current news, and this is also from Turley, You really have to be reading thoroughly.
You're going to miss everything if you're not reading in these coming weeks.
That we know that Joe Biden not only attended, but that he attended in a meaningful way.
In other words, he sat there, he met everybody, he talked with everybody.
It was the actual dinner.
But then came the, so after the Russian disinformation play, as things trickled out, they did the cat on the roof.
And they said, oh, oh, oh, we said he didn't attend the dinner.
We didn't say he didn't say hi.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, he did a drive-by.
He said hi to, I don't know, maybe one or two people.
And then he just left.
And then it was, well, he didn't more than say hi.
He did, there was a little bit of interaction, yes.
And then it was, okay, he did sit down.
He sat down for a little while.
And then it turned into, yeah, he came there intentionally knowing everybody who was there, sat for dinner.
It was exactly what you thought it was.
And then did they have the usual suspects covering?
Yes, Politico and Washington Post.
So now you see the machinery?
Once you recognize the machinery, you can see it.
Because, and probably the best tell, somebody said this last night on the live stream, that one of the most useful things I've taught you is designated liars.
Does everybody know who the designated liars are?
If the Democrats bring out Schiff, Swalwell, Clapper, and Brennan, that's an op.
That's not news.
That's an op.
And now, you know, Goldman.
Goldman seems to have joined that.
Those are the ones who apparently will say anything.
So when they know they've got a losing hand, in other words, the facts are against them, they bring out the designated liars.
But the media is also designated liars.
You know, you've got your Washington Post opinion people and your Politico opinion people, right?
So there's some entities that once you see it, you can't unsee it.
It's like, oh, designated liars.
I got it.
This is not real.
It's very consistent.
Once the designated liars are turned down.
What about when you see Bernstein come on CNN to say something's worse than Watergate?
What is the signal?
The signal is that it's made up.
That whatever he's mad at that's worse than Watergate probably didn't even happen.
Probably didn't even happen.
Alright, so learning to recognize the pattern.
Vivek Said, and this is an NBC News report, and I'm just going to read it because the exact wording really matters.
This is really interesting.
I promise you this is interesting.
So Vivek Ramaswamy, according to NBC News, he implied Saturday that American involvement in the war in Ukraine may be because of President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden.
Whoa.
Whoa!
And he said, quote, the purpose of the U.S.
military is to advance American interests, to protect the homeland, not to aimlessly fight some random war that's arguably a repayment for a private bribe that a family member of the United States received $5 million from Burisma, said Ramaswamy, speaking in Iowa.
Quote, he goes on, was the payment under Biden corrupt?
Absolutely it was.
Do I think that it has some relationship toward our posture toward Ukraine?
I think it's likely that it does, Ramaswamy said.
Have I mentioned that he's good at making news?
He is the best, the best, the best.
He's the most famous campaigner you've ever seen.
Now, Trump is a special case, right?
Because Trump came on the scene already famous.
But to do what Ramaswamy's doing, where that was starting as being famous, I mean, he had some exposure from his book, but it's just incredible how much he's hitting, I mean, he's hitting like line drive triples every day.
It's like, boom, triple, boom, triple.
So let me talk about this for a minute.
The way he states it is proper, which is that there's some doubt.
Do you believe, as a citizen, do you believe that the war in Ukraine and our support for it would look exactly the same if Hunter Biden had never done his work in Ukraine?
Does anybody think it would look just the same?
I don't think we do.
Yeah, all new.
Now, you know, this is clearly a bubble audience.
You're all in a, pretty much all of you are in the same bubble.
So keep in mind that you're in a bubble.
Don't lose sight of the fact that there may be another bubble with all different information here.
But here's the proper way to look at the Hunter Biden, you know, Joe Biden connection and what's happening in Ukraine.
Here's the problem.
You don't know if that war was influenced by their financial dealings.
And you can't know.
You can't know.
In other words, there's no way to know, because you'd have to read minds and speculate to form a causal connection.
And we can't read minds, and the speculation would be unfair, you know, because Hunter Biden is innocent until proven guilty.
Innocent until proven guilty.
And by the way, I'm not sure he committed any crimes.
After listening to Devon Archer, I came away thinking, you know, it sounds like a crime, but I don't know exactly what laws were violated.
And you say, well, it's FERA, you know, the Foreign Agent Registration Act.
He should have been registered.
And then I say, are you sure?
Are you a lawyer in that field?
Are you sure that the way they did it didn't make it okay?
Because they knew this law.
These were lawyers.
Very experienced in, you know, this area.
They weren't beginners.
They probably set it up in such a way that it's technically legal.
Or legal-ish, or close to legal.
Something.
So, I'm not even sure there's a crime there.
But here's what I am sure of.
I can't know, and I don't know, if any of Hunter's actions affected our support for the Ukraine war.
Or even if we would have a war.
I don't even know if the war would exist, except for that connection.
But I also don't have a direct causal link.
Like, I can't tell you, well, this phone call, that conversation.
I don't see it.
But you cannot have a president where you're not sure which side he's on.
And you're legitimately not sure.
And when I say what side, I mean maybe his own financial dealings.
That is 100% unacceptable.
Now, I'm willing to accept that when people go into public office, they do well, then they retire.
That there are a variety of ways they can monetize that.
And I think, well, that's not ideal.
But probably it's okay.
Most of the time, it's probably not the worst thing.
But if you're a sitting president, and the public really can't tell if you're doing a dealing for yourself or for the country, that's unacceptable.
And that has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican.
Believe me, if Don Jr.
had been making deals with Ukraine and then Donald Trump took us to war or caused a war to happen, do you think I'd be, oh, that's just their own business?
Oh, Donald Trump, he's not involved in his son's dealings.
Do you think I'd be saying that?
God, I hope not.
Like, I hope not.
I really, really hope this would look exactly the same to me if it were reversed.
And it's not reversed.
So, to me, Vivek once again found the most important question for the 2024 election.
You think, oh, I think the basic question is, you know, Biden's competence or You know, I don't know, inflation or something.
But there's nothing more important than this.
It's a war.
It's like a whole freaking war.
If we're not even sure that our commander-in-chief is on the same side as the public, as opposed to doing some self-dealing, you can't live with that situation.
That has nothing to do with politics.
That's literally a military situation.
So the military decision is, you've got to have leaders that you can trust are on your side.
That's just minimum.
Minimum requirement is you have to know they're on your side.
We don't even know that.
All right.
There's some reporting from, I heard Kayleigh McEnany, and this will be another test of your media savvy.
Here's yet another test.
This will be a hard one.
But I have given you the rules to do this correctly.
So there's a there's a rule you can follow that will get you the right answer.
Kayleigh McEnany says that Biden privately told aides that Trump should be prosecuted for January 6 and that he wanted Merrick Garland to take decisive action.
Now people would be bothered by this because it would show that Biden, they would interpret this as a political act.
You know, go get my opponent.
Defenders might interpret it as, well, he just wants the law to be followed because, you know, this dangerous insurgent must be stopped.
But let me ask you this.
And apparently this is buried in a New York Times story that this conversation happened.
Who was the source?
Who was the source for this story?
It was the New York Times, but who was the person?
What's the name of the source?
Oh, they didn't name a source.
What do you know about anonymous sources telling you something that happened behind closed doors?
They're never true.
You could just discount it as, like, act like you didn't even hear it.
Pretend it never even happened, like there was no news story about it at all.
Now, it's important that I do it on this story because most of my audience is, you know, leaning right.
And this is just an example that it happens both ways.
Now, I'm not saying this is not true.
I'm saying that you should give it zero credibility.
In other words, you can't tell anything about it based on an anonymous source in a political context.
It means nothing.
Nothing.
So, I hope you all got that one right.
How many of you immediately noticed that the source was anonymous before I told you?
Did you see it right away?
Because that's what you should look for right away.
Anonymous source.
Yeah, a bunch of you got it right away.
Alright, there's a story about an anti-racism instructor who was so mean to a white guy, I guess at a school, Toronto principal, that the white guy killed himself after being mocked by the DEI instructor as being a white supremacist and a good example of what white supremacy looks like.
What do you think of that story?
Does that sound like a real story?
Or does it sound... too on the nose?
A little too on the nose?
Yeah?
That the DEI instructor caused a white guy to kill himself?
Now, I don't know the real story, but wouldn't you have to be a mind reader to know that that was the cause of the suicide?
I mean, obviously it didn't make him happy.
It didn't help him any.
And I could easily believe it did.
I could easily believe it's connected.
But we don't know that.
By the time somebody kills himself, I mean, that's a pretty radical act.
So don't you think that, don't you think there might have been more going on in his life than that?
Yeah, you can imagine it's the last straw.
But can you imagine that there would have been no other last straw if he was that close?
And I get that that's a big deal, being painted as a white supremacist by your DEI instructor.
That's kind of a bad day at work.
But the exact same thing happened to me.
I literally got branded a racist by the entire United States.
Not once did I consider suicide.
Because, you know, other things were fine, right?
Not once.
I literally will go through the rest of my life knowing that in any public setting, at least, you know, 20 to 30 percent of the public will believe that I'm a racist.
It doesn't make me even a little bit suicidal.
And to me, it's just stupid.
And it's kind of funny.
Like, I literally, when I'm alone, I laugh at it sometimes.
I think it's hilarious that I'm a disgraced cartoonist.
And honestly, it's the way I wanted to go out.
I wanted to go out as a disgraced cartoonist.
I just didn't think it would happen that way.
Or that quickly.
I don't know.
I think this story's a little suspect.
You could definitely see the connection between the DEI instructor and the death.
But you'd have to accept a lot That's not an evidence that that was the last straw.
Sometimes there's just coincidences.
But it didn't help.
Certainly didn't help any.
All right.
Rob Henderson in the Rob Henderson Newsletter.
And by the way, Rob Henderson is a good follow also for a lot of the psychological studies and stuff.
Rob Henderson, so just look for him on Twitter, which is now called X. And he said there's a, in one of his newsletter pieces, he said there's a declining rate of female happiness.
So women used to report having a greater feeling of well-being than men, but that's reversed.
And now men are happier than women, at least in reporting their well-being.
What do you think of that?
Number one, do you believe that you could poll such a thing?
Do you think that that could be measured?
No.
No.
No, it can't be measured.
That's stupid.
How would you even measure that?
You know, you could measure what people say, right?
The only thing you're measuring is what they say.
You're not measuring their inner thoughts.
Because I don't think people, you know, are so in touch with themselves that they even know what's making them happy, why.
All right, we're not really that smart that we go like, all right, I was a 7.6 out of 10 yesterday, but it looks like my numbers are up to 8.2.
All right, that's not a thing.
So don't imagine that you could poll people about their happiness and get some kind of useful number.
But it might have changed historically.
So whatever the baseline was and why for whatever reason, maybe there's some change to the baseline.
That might mean something.
But if you were to speculate why women would seem recently less happy, what would be your first guess for why?
What's top of mind as a hypothesis?
I'm going to put my hypothesis out there.
I believe that when women decided to compete with men as men, it was a strategic mistake.
Now clearly we're all awake and aware enough that we want every human to have all the opportunities of any human.
So it has nothing to do with opportunities.
Everybody should do whatever they want.
But, as has often been pointed out by women especially, the competitive workplace was designed by men for men to compete the way men compete.
If our free market had been designed entirely by women, it probably would look a little different.
So you have basically women entering a game they didn't design and was designed for a different set of personalities, perhaps.
So, let me say the other way.
If men tried to enter domains that women have been killing for centuries, they probably wouldn't do so well.
So some of it may have to do with what you're measuring.
And what game you're playing.
And if it's true that, as women say, that capitalism is set up by men to favor male traits, that there are certain male aggressive risk-taking traits.
Let me give you an example.
When I take a risk, I often feel excited by it.
Other people, when they take a risk, feel anxiety.
Now, that's not because I'm awesome.
I was just born that way.
I just like risk.
Not every risk.
I don't like physical risk at all, but lots of risk.
You know, risk of embarrassment, that sort of thing.
Risk of having to blow my nose on livestream.
That stuff I like.
So, here's the question.
Do men and women enjoy the same level of risk?
Well, I would think that evolution would cause us to have a different appetite for risk.
Simply because women are more valuable to reproduction.
than men.
You only need a few men and you get all the sperm you want.
So logically men would be less risk averse because we don't need men as much.
They have their own roles in which taking risk is actually a positive thing.
It's kind of risky to hunt that big game and it's kind of risky to go to war but you got to protect the tribe.
So Some of it has to do with just that.
But there could be lots of other reasons that people are answering differently.
Could be fewer family situations, less happy marriages, less certainty about roles.
You know, the one thing we don't like to admit about humans is that we're very comfortable being told what to do.
Because you don't have to think.
And then it's also not your fault if it goes wrong.
So, you know, men and women, all of us, we kind of like to be told what to do.
And in the old days, it was obvious what you were going to do if you were a woman.
Right?
You got to get married and have kids and take care of the home.
And even if those were not, you know, individually awesome, and there were two limiting options, you know, all the reasons that had changed were good reasons.
But it certainly gave you certainty.
It told you what your role was and it put you in it.
And that had to be good for your mental health.
Same with men.
But now, suppose you say to women, all right, you could be, you know, a mother and focus on that, but you could also be a career person and, you know, put the family thing to the back.
Imagine the decision making you would have to go through to decide whether to be a mother or an executive, or to try to make both of them work at the same time.
That would be a really disturbing choice.
And I'm glad I don't have to make it.
So I grew up knowing exactly what I had to do.
I probably knew exactly what I had to do as a male by age of five.
Maybe by the time I was five years old, I knew exactly what I needed to do.
And it never changed.
What I needed to do was become as useful as I could.
Useful in the market, useful to other people, useful financially.
And not become a burden on other people.
So, you know, job one is not to make other people take care of you.
Job one.
I knew that.
I knew I had to work.
I knew I had to, you know, do something useful, not just move rocks.
Every part of my life was just presented to me.
Even going to college was presented to me basically at birth, you know, by my mother.
I came out of the womb and I think my mother was saying, college, college, you're definitely, I don't know what else you do, you're definitely going to college.
College.
And I didn't even know there was another option.
By the time it was time to apply to colleges, I'd never even considered another option.
So I didn't have any unsettling decisions, and now at this point in my life, I can look at all the things I've done, and I can say, oh yeah, that was pretty much on track.
I was supposed to work hard, I was supposed to make money, develop skills, be useful.
Yeah, I did those things.
I'm a man.
But I can't imagine having had to choose between that and some kind of, you know, family matriarchy kind of situation.
That would have been a really, really disturbing choice.
Because I think either way I chose, it would have seemed like a mistake some of the times.
Like some of the times I would wish I'd gone a different direction.
Now I saw... I want to give you a reframe that might help you.
This one also is in my upcoming book.
I'll tell you more about it in the next week or so.
Well, I might save that one, actually.
Amen.
So... Yeah, let me save that one.
Alright, that's all I have for you today, YouTube.
I hope my theme, that everything will be fine, came through.
Yeah, we get problems, but we'll be fine.
It's no worse than it's ever been.
In fact, it's probably better than it's ever been.
on a lot of different scales.
Let me finish the point I was gonna make.
If you're worried that your goal is to spread your genes, I've heard people say that if you don't get married and have kids, you failed in life because your primary goal is to spread your genes.
How many of you think that way?
That that would be a good definition of success?
That the thing that is you lives on in your children?
Well, I saw somebody say that on social media today.
And here's the reframe for that.
By the fourth generation, all of your contribution will be randomized.
When you get together with one mate and you have a kid, it's about a half you.
When that kid gets married and has another kid, it's maybe a quarter of you, but you're not even guaranteed that.
Because it's not really half and half ever.
You're not even guaranteed that you got your half.
By the time you're the fourth generation, you can barely tell who contributed anything, right?
And you've brought in all these outside people to be the people you marry.
You're only a few generations from being irrelevant.
The fact that you might have contributed some genetic, raw material to somebody five generations down is so trivial and so unimportant That they shouldn't be part of your decision-making.
Yeah, your tiny little contribution to the gene pool will get washed and diluted to nothing after a few generations anyway.
So it really doesn't matter.
I do think that we're designed or we evolved or we were created to want to reproduce.
So if you're connected in any way to the reproductive process of society, I think you do find meaning.
So you could be just working law enforcement.
I think that's connected to reproduction.
Because if crime ran rampant, there'd be less reproduction probably.
So there are lots of ways to be part of that reproductive chain, but weirdly, and I know this seems upside down, the least important thing you could do is contribute your DNA.
Your DNA is the least important part of the whole process, because there's plenty of DNA.
We're not going to run out.
We don't need yours.
We might need you to be a police officer.
We might need you to work your job and make some money so everybody can eat.
Eating's good.
But your genetic contribution?
That's magical thinking.
Yeah, you got some particles, some parts of a gene will look like maybe they came from you in four generations, but it's irrelevant.
Export Selection