Episode 2198 Scott Adams: Reality Is Changing Right In Front Of Us. Wild Times. Bring Coffee
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
-----------
Politics, SBF, Stephen King, San Francisco HHS, Oakland Crime, ESG Decline, Fentanyl Reality, China Trade, Hunter Biden, Special Council Weiss, RFK Jr., Maui Wildfires, Ukraine War Funding, Klaus Schwab's Future, Age Of Universe, Evolution Debunked, The Simulation, Elon Musk, Manifesting Reality, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
And you know what I say?
Let there be light.
Let there be lighting.
Let us be prepared for once.
Look at that.
Look at that.
That's called production quality.
Impressive, I know.
If you'd like to take this production quality up to a level that nobody's ever seen before, well, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of chalice, a sign, a canteen jug, or a flask of a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now in the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Yes, I did get a haircut.
Thanks for mentioning it.
Do I look more like my mug now?
Yeah, look at that.
Identical.
You cannot tell the difference between me and the picture on my coffee mug.
Which one's me?
You can't tell.
You can't tell.
Well, today is just the weirdest, weirdest, wonderful day.
There is bad news, too, but everything is weird.
And I'll walk you through it, but that's the theme for today.
Reality has started to bend in a way that's really remarkable.
Everything's in play right now.
Everything you think is true Is on the table.
Doesn't mean it's false, but everything's in play right now.
I don't think I've ever seen that before.
Have you?
Does this seem different to you?
Here's what I think.
I think that the civilization is going to another level of awareness, and it's going to be a bumpy ride.
The bumpiness is what we're feeling now.
But if you look at what we understand, at least the informed part of the public, what we understand to be true is changing in such a fundamental way in just the last few years.
But it seems to have accelerated and even today I would say has reached some kind of peak so far.
It's going to keep going.
But here are the stories of the day.
Did I see that Sam Bankman Freed, the crypto alleged scammer guy, is back in prison?
And is it true?
Because I saw this and I need a confirmation of this.
Did he really get put in the same jail that Epstein died in?
Did that really happen?
In the real world that actually happened.
Can somebody confirm that?
Can you confirm it's the same place as Epstein?
I mean, not the same cell, but... Alright, I'm not seeing a confirmation of that, but I saw it on social media.
So I don't know.
I thought you'd be confirming that by now, but you're not.
So let's put a question mark on that.
So Stephen King, famous writer and lefty political person, Stephen King.
He asked this question, and I thought it was worthy of me answering it on Twitter.
He said on Twitter, so here's a question.
If you consider yourself a loyal American, how can you possibly support a man who fomented insurrection in the United States Capitol?
Now, is that a good question?
Well, it's a good question if you live in a certain bubble of reality.
So I thought, Hey, who better to clear up this situation than me?
So I answered him and I said, he was talking about the January 6th, and I said, it's an absurd narrative half the country believes.
That's why you are so confused.
You have literally been brainwashed by your team.
And then parenthetically, I said, I'm a trained hypnotist, by the way, so I'm speaking as an expert.
And then I said, find out how many times you have had the same experience with this quiz.
And then I attached to his tweet the 20 or so, I don't know what it's up to, 20 or so major political hoaxes that everybody on the left believed.
Now, what do you think happened if he saw my tweet?
Now, I attached 20 examples that are just like this one. 20!
They're just like this.
There are things that didn't happen, but his news told them they did.
Now, he hasn't responded, or at least I haven't seen it.
I don't expect him to respond.
But aren't you curious what somebody's brain would do?
Aren't you?
He did?
No, he didn't block me.
I don't think he blocked me.
But, aren't you curious what would happen to his brain if he saw it?
So, just walk yourself through this.
So, suppose he sees that the tweet comes from me.
Now, presumably he would know what Dilbert is and who the Dilbert guy is, do you think?
Is that a fair assumption, that he would recognize my name?
What do you think?
Probably.
Probably.
You know, most writers know other writers, etc.
So he would probably be aware.
And then he might check to see how many followers I have, as sort of an indication of weight.
So he'd see I have a million followers, and he would see that my interpretation is very different from his, and that my interpretation does answer the question.
That doesn't make it right.
It's just that, you know, the answer I gave fits the variables in question, right?
There's nothing that's not explained by it.
But what would he do?
What do you think a normal human brain would do when presented with an opposite reality that actually makes sense?
Now, it's doubly interesting because he's a fiction writer of great renown.
If you're a fiction writer, isn't it a little bit easier to move from one reality to another if you're given the opportunity?
I think that people who write fiction can move realities a little bit easier than other people because they're used to sort of living in a fake reality while they write it.
You know, so it's just a capability you develop if you're a writer, basically, a fiction writer.
I do it when I write comics.
In order to write a Dilbert comic, I put myself in the office.
I go, okay, I'm standing there, I'm in this situation, what's happening now?
So, I'd be very curious if he looks at the list of 20 hoaxes and he does what I've seen other people do.
All 20 of those are true.
Do you think that's going to happen?
Do you think he's going to look at a list of 20 hoaxes?
Which, by the way, the news admits are hoaxes, like the Hunter laptop would be the best example.
Anybody who looks at this list can very clearly see that the news has been giving you ridiculous fake news for years.
What do you think would happen?
Now, here's what should happen.
There should be massive cognitive dissonance.
Meaning that the reaction would look like word salad or an attack.
Here's what you would expect.
He would attack me personally.
Oh, aren't you the cancelled racist guy?
So that would give him something to say without having to address any of the points.
So that would be one way.
So you could predict that one thing would just be a personal insult.
Another thing would be ignoring it completely because it's too awkward to respond to it.
Can you imagine if he responds?
He's never responded to me in the past.
I've tweeted at him a few times.
So not responding would be my first guess.
I think the odds of him responding are no more than 10%.
But the other possibility is wild hallucinations, where you say everything on the list is true, why are you saying these are hoaxes, etc, etc.
But he actually believes that people wandering around without weapons were intent on literally conquering the country.
Like, actually.
He believed that.
So, a lot of people do, I saw the comments.
Well, the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services has advised their employees in San Francisco to work remotely because the city is too dangerous.
That's right.
The federal government just told its employees not to go outdoors in San Francisco.
It's too dangerous.
Not to go outdoors.
Don't even be there.
The place is too dangerous.
So at the same time, there was a video of the Oakland police riding around in an armored vehicle.
An armored vehicle in Oakland.
So basically, the police have gone full military.
Do you think you should walk around in Oakland?
No.
Also, do you think you should drive through Oakland or near it?
Not unless you've got a full tank of gas and make sure your cell phone's charged, because you don't want to have your car break down anywhere near Oakland.
Our cities are, frankly, too dangerous.
A number of people asked me, my book will be, I hope, if everything goes right, on Thursday this coming week, my book will be available for sale.
My new book called Reframe Your Brain, which will be the biggest thing that ever happened in the United States.
Even if you don't realize it, it will be anyway.
You might not know it, but it will be the most important book ever published.
Excluding religious documents.
But people ask me, hey Scott, are you going to do a book tour?
You know, where authors go and they go into population centers and they sign books for people?
Not a frickin' chance.
Do you know what it would take to get me to go to a city?
In 2023?
Do you think I would actually go to San Francisco?
How about Berkeley?
Do you think I would go to Berkeley?
Do you think I would visit Oakland and sign some books?
How about Washington, D.C.?
New York City?
Los Angeles?
Because those are the places you go, right?
You always do Los Angeles, New York, maybe Washington, D.C.?
Those are the book tour places?
Not a chance!
I wouldn't go near any of those places.
Number one, as a cancelled person, it just wouldn't be safe.
I would make one exception, though.
I would make one exception.
It's unlikely that this would happen, but if I ever got invited to be on The Breakfast Club, that's in Chicago, right?
Chicago?
I would do that.
I would actually get on a plane and go to Chicago to talk to those guys.
Because I think they're kind of cool and they would be exactly the right, you know, kind of tension for entertainment.
But I would take a risk of dying to go to Chicago to do that because I think it would be worth doing.
Alright.
So no, no city tours.
I do plan to do some podcasts, but we'll see how that goes.
Well, ESG continues to decline.
There's a report per Bloomberg that ESG has been removed from some parts of the McDonald's website.
Now, I don't know if that was intentional, or maybe they were just, you know, revamping the website or something.
So there could be an explanation, but I would say, would you agree that ESG is literally embarrassing?
Who would agree with me with that characterization?
That if you work for a company that's putting ESG on their website, that's embarrassing.
Because I think we all understand what's going on at this point.
You know, I don't know who doesn't know at this point that ESG is just ridiculous, destructive bullshit.
Ridiculous, destructive bullshit.
Now, you might not know that the other day I changed the world.
You don't know yet, but you'll figure it out.
And I did it with a reframe.
By the way, the new book that comes out next week is a book of reframes.
It teaches you how to do it and gives you a bunch of them to change your life in a variety of ways.
But the reframe was that all success is based on imitation.
All success is based on imitation.
We first look at what other successful people do, and you at least adopt those things.
Okay, they work hard, they do this, they take some chances, they stay out of jail, they don't do drugs, or at least not so much that it stops them from working.
It's pretty obvious stuff.
Everybody who has succeeded anywhere, ever, imitated other successful people.
Now, most of the time, the really successful ones added their own spin.
You know, your Steve Jobs, your Elon Musk.
At some point, they're creating the rules that the rest of us follow, right?
So at some point, they're actually creating new techniques and rules.
But mostly, I think it's safe to say they were also aware of, or students of, what works and what doesn't.
And the only way you know what works is you looked at other people doing it.
Oh, you did that thing and it worked.
I'll do that too.
The moment you accept, and by the way, there's no choice, you will accept it.
It's easy to accept that imitation creates success because we all see it.
A reframe works very quickly.
The moment you heard that, you agreed with it.
Show me.
Prove it.
The moment I said to you that success requires imitation, what did you say?
You said yes?
100% of you.
100% said yes.
Now when I said the next part of this, which is the critical part, if imitation requires success, how do you succeed if you're a black person in America?
Because you would be asked to imitate the people you've been told by ESG are your oppressors.
Who among us would imitate our oppressors?
I wouldn't.
I would not do that.
If you're Jewish and they said, you know, to be successful, you should really dress up in Nazi regalia.
Forget that that doesn't make sense.
But imagine a world where you were asked to do that.
Oh, you know, it's just symbolic.
No, no, no, no, don't.
Yes, I know about the Holocaust, but let's not think about that now.
To be successful, everybody's wearing these Nazi uniforms, so you should play along too.
I know you're just being oversensitive about the past.
Can you let that go?
Can you let the past go?
Just wear the Nazi uniforms like everybody else, and you'll be successful too.
Imagine if that was the Jewish situation.
The only way to do it was to dress like a Nazi.
Would they do it?
No.
Well, you know, it's a big world, so there's always somebody who'll do anything.
But no.
If you were in that situation, you'd say, okay, show me any other way I can survive that I don't have to wear that uniform.
I will do anything but put that on.
Now, that's a little more dramatic, maybe, maybe not much, than the black American situation.
You've been taught since you were born, you know, there was slavery, you were oppressed by a certain class, followed by, you know, how many decades of, you know, severe discrimination at the hands of?
Who?
People who look like me, right?
People who dress like me, look like me, talk like me.
Then you get your CRT, then you get your DEI, then you get your ESG, and there's an entire industry That's evolved to reinforce that there's an oppressor class, albeit mostly the past, but still in the present, and there's a victim class.
Whoever was taught that they are a victim and then asked to dress and act like the people who are their oppressors, has that ever worked in any society ever?
Of course not.
Of course not.
It couldn't possibly work.
And every one of us know it.
And every one of us can see it.
So here's the part I'm adding today.
Let's say you buy into my framing.
And I know you do.
Every one of you agreed.
By the way, I'm watching the comments.
Not a single disagreement.
Just think about that.
Not a single disagreement.
Not a single person.
You all see it.
It's obvious.
Here's the second part that you might disagree with.
The why of it, you know, the why black America is not doing the things that successful people do.
And again, this is on average, right?
There are plenty of successful black people.
I don't have to go through the whole speech about whenever I talk about a group of people, I'm never talking about all of them.
Never!
It's never about all of them.
People are too different.
You don't need to tell me, because I'm telling you that any mention of a group does not require that you believe all of them are alike.
So we're at least adult enough not to fall into that trap.
But generally speaking, there's some generalities.
So the number one thing that I'd like to add is that if two groups act differently, It is not your problem if they get different results, and you should not be the one to solve it.
The only ones who can solve it, and I don't know what the solution is, and I think it would be arrogant and inappropriate if I were the one who said, you know, you black people should do this thing differently.
I feel like that's just a mistake.
Because remember, I'm part of the alleged oppressor class.
The last thing anybody wants to hear is advice from the repressors.
So I'm going to take that as the smartest move.
It's going to look like a lack of empathy.
It's the opposite.
This is the opposite of a lack of empathy.
I'm going to show the greatest level of respect and empathy for my fellow citizens of the United States by saying, you can solve this.
You know exactly what the problem is.
I honestly don't know the solution.
And I don't even know what I'd try.
I don't even know what I'd try first.
I have no idea.
But that's not for me to solve.
I can tell you what it takes to succeed.
But I can't tell you what's in your head, or how you should change it, or how you should think differently.
That would be completely out of place.
I wouldn't want to hear it from anybody else.
Like if somebody were giving me that kind of advice, it wouldn't go down that well.
I'd like to figure it out myself.
And I think that we should be willing to give black America the respect of letting them work it out.
And the longer you try to fix it for them, the worse it gets.
The worse it gets.
Now, I don't think this was always the case.
I think when things were, you know, slavery and Jim Crow and all that stuff, that you needed a big, big outside push.
So in that case, yeah, white people should be fully involved trying to fix this horrible systemic situation.
But once you get to where we are now, where it's really about any individual who walks into a job, can probably get that job if they do the right things.
Did you hear the story about the highly educated black guy?
This just happened.
He had an engineering degree, no drug problems, never been in jail, and he starved to death because he couldn't get a job.
Did you hear that story?
It was tragic.
There was a black man, highly educated, did everything right, and then he starved to death.
He actually starved to death because he couldn't get a job in America.
Do you know why you haven't heard that story?
Because it never fucking happened.
And it never will happen.
That cannot happen in America.
It just can't happen.
There are no poor, educated people who stayed out of jail.
There aren't.
No, well, educated to the point of being an engineer, let's say.
Certainly there are people with educations who are struggling for different reasons.
But if you do the things that people do to succeed, it just works.
There's no special rules for one class of people.
Everybody who does the same rules of success, they get there.
Now, should I worry that one group has, on average, lesser performance than some other group?
No.
Stop caring about that.
It was right to care about that when things were dire.
Slavery.
If you're talking about slavery, absolutely you're talking about classes of people.
That is the right frame to talk about what's happening on.
Oh, a whole class of people are slaves.
A whole class of people are suffering Jim Crow.
In those situations, yes, you should absolutely focus on the group because you've got to fix a group problem.
But we're way beyond that now.
We're now in the age of the individual.
If the individual does the right stuff, they'll do great.
Do I care that one individual does worse than another?
Not really, because it has to be that way.
There's no way that will change.
Do I care that the average of some group is not doing as well as the average of some group under the specific situation that they all have access to the same rules of success?
In that case, I don't care.
As long as the law is giving everybody a good shot, and as long as everybody has some path to succeed, maybe not identical paths, but some path.
You just have to let people work it out.
So I think now we have to push it back to the individual and say, look, honestly, I don't know why things aren't working out for you.
I know what works, and I know what you're doing, and it's all the stuff that doesn't work, but you need to tell me why you're not doing it.
It's not for me to tell you why you're not doing it.
Because as soon as I tell you why you're not doing it, it's just trouble.
I should just show you what works.
I should make every availability to you.
If you'd like an introduction, yes.
If you'd like some mentoring, yes.
If you'd like some access that maybe you feel you're denied, yes.
Just ask.
If any individual wants individual help, yes.
Yes.
If a group wants to increase their group average compared to another group average, no interest at all.
Because I'm not a group.
And you're not a group.
All right?
I'm not a group.
You're not a group.
I have no interest in making some kind of weird average equal.
But I'll help you.
You individually.
Sure.
And if you bought my book, you would be on your way to success.
All right, here's a question I saw.
Is the U.S.
government behind the cartels?
Jim Beckmeyer asked that on Twitter.
Is the U.S.
government behind the cartels?
Now, behind the cartels could be defined in a number of ways.
I would say that one way would be, let's say the CIA is working with one of the cartels or something.
Another way would be if members of our government were accepting bribes for the benefit of the cartels.
Another way would be if they were just afraid of the cartels.
Maybe no money, but they were just afraid of them.
Now, I don't know, I don't have any specific evidence of any of those things.
I have no evidence that would suggest any of that.
But I did say this.
I can't think of any other explanation for what we're observing.
Can you?
What would be another explanation for a complete unwillingness, not an inability, not an inability, an unwillingness of our government to stop this problem?
Because would you agree that we're not dealing with an inability?
Does everybody agree with that?
There's nothing like an inability to stop it.
You do know that Afghanistan is out of the poppy business?
Because ISIS just decided, or no, the Taliban.
The Taliban just decided, yeah, I guess we're just not going to have drugs in this country.
Yeah, they had the ability.
Even the Taliban could remove drugs from Afghanistan.
So yeah, we have all the ability.
It's clearly an unwillingness.
What would cause an unwillingness to solve our biggest deadly problem in the United States, fentanyl?
What would cause that?
Well, the only explanation is that the government has been co-opted in some fashion.
And I don't have a hypothesis of what that fashion would be.
But when we look at it, do you think it's a coincidence that the people who have the most aggressive stance are independently rich, Do you think that's a fucking coincidence?
rich outsiders want to shut down the fentanyl trade and close the border.
No.
People who are not as independently wealthy and have been in the government for a while, they seem to be less willing to do stuff that needs to be done.
Do you think that's a fucking coincidence?
No, that's not a coincidence.
And we live in a world now where the reality is slowly becoming clear to us all.
I tell you, the pandemic was the best thing that ever happened to our brains.
It doesn't feel like it.
It feels like it broke your brain.
But it's the only way we can get to the next level of awareness.
That level of awareness is everything that can be corrupt is.
Everything.
Everything that can be corrupt, it already is.
Except for the elections.
All 50 elections run by the different states, those were all done properly.
Nobody knows why.
It's like a mystery.
But I tell you, there's no evidence.
No evidence.
All 50.
It's amazing.
It's like a big coincidence.
So here's a report in the Wall Street Journal that trade with China is way down.
So China accounted for 13.3% of U.S.
goods imports during the first six months of this year.
That's below a peak of 21.6% for all of 2017.
The current level of U.S.
US goods imports, is at the lowest since 2003, two years after China got into the World Trade Alright, so this shift, do you know when this started?
Do you know when the trade with China started to fall off a roof?
Do you remember what year it all happened?
According to the Wall Street Journal, this happened, this shift started in 2018, as the Trump administration imposed tariffs on a range of Chinese products.
2018.
Was there anything else that happened in 2018?
2018.
What else was happening in 2018 relative to this?
2018 is when my stepson died of a fentanyl overdose.
2018.
2018 is the year that I told you I was going to destroy the economy of China and I was going to make us decouple.
The shift started in 2018.
Probably just coincidence.
lessons.
What year did ESG start taking its nosedive?
Did you notice that ESG sort of fell off a cliff?
Right about the same.
It was 2022, wasn't it?
What year did I say I was going to destroy ESG?
2022?
2022.
Was it 21?
No, I think it was 22.
And so, probably just coincidences, right?
How many of you are looking at this situation and scratching your head and saying, "Are you kidding?" Is this real?
Can't tell, can you?
Did I just predict well and get in front of a parade that was going to happen anyway?
Or did I tell you what I was going to do?
Did I point for the fence and then hit the ball over the fence where I was pointing?
Which of those two things happened?
You know that when I said China, we're going to decouple from China, 100% of the people who heard me said that said, no, it's just going to be more every year.
100%, 100% of everybody said that's not gonna happen.
I was the only one who was right, and 100% of the rest of you were wrong.
If you're keeping track, keep track of that.
All right, let's talk about some other things.
I guess Attorney General Garland has appointed a special counsel for this Hunter Biden stuff.
Mark Levin, who knows the law better than I do, so I'll just read his comment.
He said, a special counsel must be chosen from outside the Department of Justice.
So how did Garland appoint Weiss, the special counsel?
Now, that's an interesting sub-question, and I don't know the law well enough to participate in this one, but is that a thing?
Did Garland actually pick somebody that's not really even The right person.
And it was kind of interesting.
Picked us somebody, this Weiss person.
Now, why is Weiss famous?
What did Weiss do recently that we already knew about?
Wasn't he behind the Hunter Biden sweetheart deal?
What was he behind?
Russia collusion, somebody says?
I don't know about that.
But he was behind the sweetheart deal, right?
Yeah.
So now, If you appoint a special counsel, what do you think that does to the Congress's investigation?
So Congress was subpoenaing people and talking.
Do you think that Congress can keep doing what they're doing once the special counsel is on board?
I think the answer is no, right?
So this would shut down the Republicans.
Who were having great progress.
By the way, the Republicans did great.
Can we say that?
You know, I spend most of my time criticizing bad behavior, but I gotta say this Comer fellow, and Jim Jordan, and there may be some other people that I should mention, but have they not done a great job on this?
I think they have.
I think this is real service.
I think the country should appreciate it.
McCarthy?
Yeah.
So, you know, they don't only make mistakes.
You know, I got lots of problems with both Republicans and Democrats, but in this one situation, I would say there are several people who did exactly what I would want them to do as a citizen.
So thanks for that.
But can we agree that this looks suspicious as hell?
Suspicious as hell.
It looks like it's a play or an op to keep Hunter safe.
It does not look like any kind of justice the way you would recognize it.
Can you agree that it does not look even slightly like a legitimate process?
We all agree with that, right?
It doesn't look legitimate.
Now the argument that it is legitimate is that this is the person who, you know, was involved in the original Hunter investigations and apparently he was limited in his abilities, although there's a big question because Garland said he wasn't going to be limited, but maybe there was after all, we're not sure.
That sort of might be more of a bureaucracy question.
But this should authorize him to do everything that needs to be done To bring us to a good conclusion about Hunter and what he did and did not do and what to do about it.
So on one hand, you can make a real strong argument that it's the right thing to do.
On the other hand, every bit of it looks crooked.
Would you agree?
They can definitely make the argument, oh, this is the right person because reasons, reasons, reasons.
And you listen to the reasons, reasons, reasons.
You go, OK, well, those are all true.
I mean, it does make sense that one person who knows the most and is already involved and he's available and blah blah blah, yeah, finish the job.
On the other hand, this is very conveniently taking him out of the, takes him out of the headlines, you know, when the election is coming.
So it looks dirty to me.
Would you agree?
I would think that if they wanted something like a good conclusion, they would have picked somebody else.
I think if they wanted a political conclusion, they would pick Weiss.
So to me it looks crooked.
Not illegal, but crooked.
Alright, let's talk about Hunter's gun charges.
Have I ever talked about that?
My opinion about the gun charges?
My understanding, and I might have this wrong, I think there might be more to the gun charge than this, but isn't part of it that, or maybe the main part, that he lied on his gun application and he said he wasn't an addict?
Do I understand that correctly?
That that's the biggest issue?
That he said he wasn't an addict?
So he lied on it.
How do you Second Amendment people square Your desire that he be prosecuted with that.
Now, I'm no expert on the Second Amendment, but let me give you my preliminary opinion.
It's probably a good idea to have a law that says we don't automatically give guns to drug addicts.
That might be a good idea.
Because drug addicts By and large, not all of them, but by and large, they might have trouble paying for their drugs.
They might say, well, I got this gun and I need some drugs.
So if you've got an addiction and no money and you've got a gun, that's just begging for trouble.
So we can understand why that law exists.
And I would also agree with anybody who said, no, the Second Amendment has to be an absolute.
People will die, you know, a lot more people will die if the Second Amendment isn't absolute.
But you might want it that way anyway, because there are benefits from, you know, not chipping away at your rights.
But here's my take.
Does anybody think that the law that would deny a gun to somebody who was an addict, do you think that law was meant for somebody like Hunter Biden?
Do you think that a multi-millionaire is who they anticipated when they said, oh, we don't want a gun in the hand of that multi-millionaire?
No.
So here's my problem with this.
It may be technically against the law, and it may be true that Hunter broke a federal law, like a really important federal law, because it involves a gun.
But it's also true, in my opinion, that he was never a special risk.
There was no chance he was going to use the gun for offensive purposes.
Am I right?
They're not denying guns to drug addicts because they might accidentally shoot themselves.
They're denying guns to drug addicts so the drug addicts don't use them to go get some money.
But that's not a risk with Hunter Biden.
He wasn't going to use a gun, he was going to use the Vice President to go get some money, and it worked really well, so he didn't need a gun.
Now, his gun was clearly for defensive purposes, would you all agree?
There's no question, or at least there's no indication it was for anything else.
But the indication is it was for defensive purposes.
You don't think the gun was for defensive purposes?
What do you think it was for?
What evidence is there he was going to use the gun for an offensive purpose, like to rob a bank?
There's no evidence of that.
Shoot his girlfriend.
There's no evidence he was going to shoot his girlfriend.
No.
So I'm going to have to, you might not like this, but I'm trying to remain consistent with some standards.
And one of my standards is, There's a reason that humans get to judge the law, right?
There's a reason it's a jury.
There's a reason it's a judge in some cases.
You need a human being to say, did this law work for this situation?
In my opinion, this is a misapplied law.
Now, nobody's above the law, but the law itself is not above itself.
Does that make sense?
Nobody's above the law, but that doesn't excuse the law from being stupid.
The law can't be above itself.
I mean, the law still has to make sense, right?
If somebody passed a law that said you can't wear a blue shirt, and they execute everybody who does...
You wouldn't say to yourself, well, nobody's above the law.
You'd say, no, we've got to change that law right away.
There's something wrong with the law.
You wouldn't say there's something wrong with the person who's resisting the law, if it's a stupid law.
And although the law is arguably makes sense, you know, I'm not sure, I'm not sure I would have backed it.
I'd have to hear the argument.
But I think there's no chance whatsoever this law was designed or passed with somebody like Hunter in mind.
So I think there needs to be a penalty, because lying on a federal document, that should have some kind of penalty.
But I'm thinking whatever is the smallest penalty.
Definitely not jail.
Definitely not jail.
Does anybody think he should go to jail for that?
Trying to protect himself with his Second Amendment rights?
You actually think he should go to jail for that?
I would argue that you're just in team play.
You're in team play mode if you think that.
That just feels like a team play decision.
You couldn't possibly think that somebody wanting a handgun to defend themselves in the United States, you can't think that should go to jail.
Well, we won't solve this today, but that's my opinion.
Now, that doesn't relieve Hunter of any of the other things he may or may not have done, but I have a second question.
So, look at all the influence buying stuff.
Is it a fairer violation to be an introducer?
If your only job is to make introductions, is that a fairer violation?
Now, forget for a moment that there's a debate about whether that's the only thing he was doing.
But if it's the only thing that could be proven, and so far it is, so far the only thing we've seen is introductions, do you think it should be illegal to make introductions?
I don't.
If there's a law that says you can't introduce people from another country to someone in this country, there's a lot of people that are going to go to jail, aren't there?
What would happen if you knew somebody in another country, they were just a friend of yours, and they called you and said, you know, Scott, you deal in politics a lot.
Could you connect me with, you know, some senator?
And I would say, well, you know what?
I actually, we follow each other on Twitter.
Yeah, I'll send a DM.
You know, you've got a problem over there.
Maybe it's in our interest, too.
You know, it's not against the interests of the United States.
It's just somebody wants to, maybe knows who to talk to, sort of thing.
So I wouldn't even think twice.
I would think, oh, my Afghanistan friend?
Sure.
I'll send a DM to this person I just happen to know.
I'll connect you.
Would that be a FARA violation?
Did I just describe breaking the law?
Can somebody tell me the real answer to that?
I mean, I think we're just guessing, but... Well, let's say he paid me.
Let's say I got paid for it.
Let's say my friend said, you know what?
I'll invest in your company or something.
It'd be a nice favor if you could make this introduction for me.
So, I'm not going to say it's not illegal, because I don't know.
But I'll give you my opinion.
It should not be illegal.
It should not be illegal.
If it is, you know, maybe it is.
But do you want to live in a world where you can't introduce people?
I mean, seriously.
Do you want to live in a world where you need to sign a piece of paper and a document and tell the world, I might introduce somebody?
Now, of course, if it's your main business, you know, you're going to do a lot of it.
But I have a real problem with introductions being illegal.
Now my guess is this.
My guess is that since Hunter was operating somewhat openly, wouldn't you say?
As do other people, somewhat openly making introductions.
I don't think that Hunter thought it was illegal.
Do you?
My guess, this is just speculation, so I can't read his mind, right?
But without the mind reading, if I put myself in this situation, I doubt I would have acted so visibly if I knew it was illegal.
I think I might have said, I've got an argument why it's not.
As long as I have an argument, you know, I'm going to be okay.
The argument might be a little specious, but as long as I have an argument, I think I'm okay.
And the argument would be, I'm not asking anybody to give any favors to this other country.
I'm simply introducing them.
And people meet people in the ordinary course of life.
Maybe they could have found this person on their own.
You know, it just would have taken more work.
I'm just saving them some time.
So I have a feeling that introducing people is going to end up not being illegal.
That there would have to be the extra, you know, something happened because of it, some influence.
So it's not illegal, but maybe he did more, some people say.
Now, I'm not judging them more.
I'm just trying to predict where this will go.
In my opinion, Hunter is not dumb.
At least, you know, not the classic way.
Like his IQ seems to be high.
Would you agree with that?
He's done some things that you wouldn't do and I wouldn't do, but you know, drugs are involved, etc.
But he's not a low IQ guy.
Nobody thinks he's actually low IQ, right?
Nobody.
So if you're that smart, You don't think you've figured out a way to do these sketchy things in a way that at least you have a good argument.
Because I think in his case, he probably thinks, if I have an argument, the government's going to leave me alone because I'm too politically connected.
If he had no argument, it was just like flat-out crime.
Well, he would probably think he wasn't protected.
But if he had something of an argument, that's probably enough for the government to leave him alone if you're that connected to the government.
I would not be surprised if none of the Hunter Biden stuff turns into a major crime with jail.
To me, this is the stuff that ought to get worked out.
Now, I'm not being naive.
I do think that he was selling influence, or at least the illusion of influence, which is so close to real influence that, I don't know, I wouldn't even make a distinction, really.
But I don't think it's going to be provable.
Do you?
I just don't think it's provable.
So I think the outcome will be no jail and they'll hide this as long as they can.
Statute of limitations will run out and some stuff.
It'll just trickle into nothing.
Well, RFK Jr.
had what I consider the best take on the Hawaii fires, which the death count is up to 59, I think.
No, 80.
I think the death count is up to 80 the last I checked, and it's going to get worse.
But instead of blaming climate change, which is the idiot move, if I can just say that, blaming the Hawaii fires just on climate change, that's sort of an idiot move.
Nobody knows that.
We can know it's a factor.
It could be a factor.
But we don't know that's the reason.
So RFK finds the high ground here.
And he basically says, Hawaii fires result from poor tending of the land.
So he goes into his explanation of why the land was ready to burn that way.
But he doesn't dismiss that there could be a climate element to it.
And then he, but he says, you don't know.
I mean, that's way more than we know, right?
Now that's consistent with his theme for drugs and food.
We just don't know they're safe.
And then he takes that to climate change and he says, maybe, but we don't know that.
The part we know for sure is we're not managing the land and the water correctly.
So then he ends with an appeal to find the middle ground, which is, can't we all just agree that we should manage our land and our water better?
We don't have to agree on climate change.
You could disagree on climate change, but still, don't we agree that we should reduce the risk of fires?
It's funny watching him find the common high ground that you can't argue with.
There's just no argument to that.
Who is it who's saying, no, we should not manage our fire risks?
Nobody, right?
Of course.
I think he found the perfect sweet spot.
Don't become a climate change crazy person, but don't ignore that the brush is extra bad this year, so you should do something about it.
I just liked his reasonable middle ground, because it's so rare that anybody can find the middle.
All right.
CNN is starting to show a little doubt about funding the Ukraine war.
And I'm going to call this as a signal of some kind of a shift.
So last week CNN had a poll that said 55% of the public doesn't want Congress to give more money to Ukraine.
And 45% say yes.
So that's a pretty solid lead saying don't give more funding to Ukraine.
And CNN, the way CNN is talking about it is, here's their actual sentence on their website.
The White House on Wednesday downplayed CNN polling, showing most Americans oppose the funding of Ukraine.
Think of that choice of words.
This is CNN, they love them some Democrats, but they're saying they showed their own poll, so their own poll, Says that funding is not popular by the public.
And then it says the White House downplayed the CNN poll.
So you can see them beginning to turn, right?
They just turned on them.
It's like, wait, this is our poll.
Imagine being CNN.
Imagine all the water that CNN has carried for Democrats.
CNN is just doing everything for Democrats.
And then they put out their own poll, and the White House downplays their poll.
Imagine how you'd feel.
I've been carrying your water for years.
I've told every imaginable lie you could imagine and pretended we believed it.
Could you just say that the poll is actually meaningful?
It's our poll.
A little bit of reciprocity wouldn't be the worst thing.
You know, you can almost feel like the tension there starting to form.
Of course, you would not be surprised that the Democrats are strongly in favor of funding.
The Republicans are strongly against further funding.
And where did we get to the point Were the opinions about unnecessary wars reversed?
When did the Republicans be the ones who don't want unnecessary wars?
Do you think that the only thing happening is team play?
Do you think that if a Republican had been the leader who said, we got to do this Ukraine thing, do you think the numbers would be actually reversed?
And the Democrats would be saying, my God, why are you funding this war?
Of course, of course.
Then let me ask you this.
Do you think the media is the reason for the war?
Because the media is what causes us to be divided.
Let's say the media is a business model of chasing outrage.
It causes the teams to move to their teams.
And now it's caused a huge number of people to be in favor of an unnecessary war so that they can be on the other side from the Republicans.
To me it looks like team play is why we fund the war.
It doesn't look like we thought it out and it's in our favor and we've considered all the alternatives and you know.
It doesn't look like that.
It looks like the media Poisoned the public to the point where you just can't be on the other side's team.
It's impossible.
And that's why we have enough support to fund it.
Because 45 he can get away with, but much less than that he couldn't.
All right.
I saw a video in which Klaus Schwab, if this is real, because remember we're in the age of deep fakes, I think this is real, but I'm not going to guarantee it.
So, put a little question mark, put an asterisk on this story, because the video itself could be fake.
I think it's true?
But anyway, here's what Klaus Schwab allegedly said.
In the new world...
Uh-oh.
He's in trouble right off the bat in the new world.
And all of you just went, what's wrong with the old one?
All right.
In the new world, you have to accept total what?
You have to accept total transparency.
It will become part of your personality.
You have to accept it.
In the new world, you have to accept.
Yeah.
Everything will be transparent.
If you have nothing to hide, you have no reason to be afraid.
So what do you think of that?
Is that the... Is he telling you that he's gonna make you do it, or is he predicting?
Is he saying he's causing it, or is he predicting it?
How do you interpret this?
All right, well I'm going to make your heads catch on fire because I agree with him 100%.
I agree 100%.
As a prediction, as a prediction, do you know why there's a 100% chance that you will lose all privacy?
Does anybody know the answer?
There's a 100% chance you'll lose all privacy.
Why?
Correct answer number one, you already have.
You already have.
Do you believe that any of your communications are not monitored?
They only need a reason.
They just need a reason, and they already have access to all of your bank accounts, they can unwind your entire life, all of your private messages, etc.
So yeah, so you don't have much privacy.
You just didn't know it was happening.
It happened gradually until you didn't have any.
But that's different from your neighbor knowing what you're doing.
It's bad enough that the government can know anything it wants.
But it would be bad if your neighbor could just see everything.
That'd be kind of scary.
However, here's why I agree with the prediction.
This is not a preference.
I'm not talking about a preference.
I'm predicting.
You will have no privacy whatsoever because every individual will have the power to destroy an entire city.
Do you disagree with my statement that in the near future, whether it's AI or biological entities or building your own nuclear weapon, do you agree that we're pretty close, maybe 20 years away, from the point where any individual can destroy an entire city?
Yeah.
Once you reach that point, will any cities be destroyed?
Once you get to the point where somebody can, will they do it?
Of course.
Yeah, of course.
Will they do it more than once?
Probably.
Probably.
After they've done it three times, and three major cities have been completely destroyed, what will happen next?
We will realize there's literally only one way to stop it from happening again, and that will involve a complete lack of privacy for all humans that come in the country anyway.
They will have to remove all privacy to prevent one person from destroying an entire city over and over again.
Now, if you don't believe that prediction, tell me how else it could go.
Do you believe that one person won't have that ability?
Because that seems like a stretch.
Or do you believe that they won't use it?
Because that would be like not understanding humans.
Maybe any one person won't use it, but if you have millions and millions and billions of people, somebody's going to use it.
You only need one to destroy a whole city.
And what would be the other way to fix it?
The only way to fix it is to fix it before it happens.
Have you noticed that there hasn't been a major terrorist attack in the United States in how long?
When was the last major terrorist attack in the United States?
Do you think that's a coincidence?
Do you think it's because no terrorists wanted to attack?
The fact that there's been no terrorist attack for this long pretty much guarantees that all privacy is already gone.
Would you agree?
There's no other way we could be stopping what I presume would be a lot of terrorist attacks.
There's no way we could have 100% efficiency unless there's no privacy.
I think it's a guarantee that we have no privacy already.
Now, when I say no privacy, that doesn't mean they're looking into your stuff.
They're of course looking into my stuff.
Do you think I have any privacy?
Given what you know about what I do in public and the things I say, do you think that, and the fact that we have a Democrat in office, do you think that nobody's looking at my communications?
I would be amazed.
I'd be amazed if nobody's already in my WhatsApp and all my DMs.
I'd be amazed.
So I try not to commit any crimes.
Because I already live in Klaus Schwab's future.
My reality is that I have no privacy.
Because I'm a public figure, and I talk about politics.
So I just assume the government's crawled through my business more than once.
Don't you?
Yeah.
And I run a clean shop, and I do that because I always assumed I had no privacy.
So I run my life like I have no privacy.
And it doesn't really hurt me.
You'd be amazed how rarely I need to commit a crime.
It doesn't come up a lot.
It just sort of doesn't come up.
Yeah, I just do my stuff.
So... Anyway, yeah, I think that we'll all lose our privacy.
I can't predict that'll be good or bad, and I'm not going to get into that now, but as a prediction, I think it's guaranteed.
It might be good, by the way.
You might enjoy it.
And the reason I say you might enjoy it is that it doesn't really hurt me.
Maybe you'd find the same.
Because I'm sort of living the future that way.
Alright, there's a story, there's a new study that somebody found that the universe might be 27 billion years old instead of close to 14.
So maybe we're doubling the age of the universe.
Now, it's a study, so who knows if that will hold up.
But, at the same time, I've told you this before, that evolution Has been debunked by the simulation theory in my opinion So but here now I'm gonna tell you something that maybe some of you haven't heard before 25 years ago and by the way, you're just gonna have to take you're gonna have to take my word for this.
I wish I could like Find an email or something but 25 years ago, I promise you I On my, you know, on my dog's life that this is true.
On Snickers life, I promise you.
25 years ago, I said to myself, you know what would be fun?
To predict that the most true thing in science is really fake.
And I said to myself, if I do that, and I wait a few decades, watch me be right.
And here's the part that'll blow your mind.
I wasn't fussy about what I picked.
That's the weird part.
I said, I just have to pick something that is guaranteed by all scientists to be true, whatever they say it is, and just say it's not true.
And I'll say it in public, and I'll make a prediction that in your lifetime, the most true thing in science will be debunked.
And the reason is, I don't think anything's true.
And I also don't think that science has ever been close to the truth.
It's pretty good at knowing what works, but not the truth.
It doesn't matter when the Big Bang happened, because we can still build a rocket ship.
It doesn't matter if evolution is true, because I can still drive my electric car.
So the things that don't matter to your day-to-day, those can be completely fake, And you never know.
You just go through life as if it's true.
So I took some things which don't affect our actual day-to-day life, because those things I think will be true enough, but things that are just concepts.
And I thought to myself, you know, I could pick the Big Bang.
Because in my opinion, the Big Bang was the most ridiculous thing we've ever believed.
Just by its nature.
You know, it couldn't possibly be what we think it is.
I don't know what it is, but it's definitely not that.
So here we are.
So now there's a question that the Big Bang even happened because there are some, I believe there are some galaxies that can't exist based on the life of the universe.
But now maybe we got the life of the universe completely wrong.
I think we're, you know, just a few steps away from saying that the Big Bang didn't happen.
Now, I won't go into the long description, but evolution is largely debunked at this point, in my opinion, and along scientific and rational means, not along religious arguments.
No religious argument needed.
It's just the Elon Musk argument that we can already build AI creatures and tell them they think they're real, and they would go through their life.
Thinking they're real.
So as long as that's something we can do now...
It's probable that if the universe is 14 billion years, or maybe 27 billion years, that there could have been infinite civilizations that also could build simulations.
What are the odds that you're one of the original species, and not one of the millions of simulations that each species that reaches our level will create?
So the odds are, you know, maybe a trillion to one, or a billion to one, that you're an original species.
And it's like a billion to one that you're a simulation.
Actually, zeros and ones or some form of that.
So I would argue, so the one I picked 25 years ago in my book, The Dilbert Future, published in 1997, 25 years ago, I said to myself, I swear to God this is true.
I said, I'm going to e-ship for 25 years.
But at the end of that 25 years, it's going to be sweet.
And And so I wrote a book in which I specifically said, evolution will be debunked in your lifetime, not in religious terms.
And I said that not in religious terms, but in scientific terms, because we don't understand the nature of reality itself.
I said that specifically 25 years ago.
Do you know what happened?
I got cancelled.
It was the first time I got cancelled.
Does anybody remember that?
Is anybody old enough to remember the blowback?
Because I had a comic strip that was mostly, well not mostly, but technical people and STEM people and science-y people really loved Dilbert.
When I predicted that evolution would be debunked, I lost almost all of them.
I was completely cancelled by science in 1997.
Does anybody remember that?
Now that was before cancelling was the thing it is now, so it didn't have that much effect on my publishers or my syndication, but the number of people who were willing to buy my books and read my stuff plummeted.
I was cancelled.
Probably I lost 25% of my market, like overnight.
That was the first time I was cancelled.
So, 25 years I waited to be right.
Could you do that?
Could you eat shit intentionally for 25 years under the bet that you'd be right in 25 years?
I literally did that.
Here we are.
Yes, I'm not right, you say.
I don't know that I'm right.
I only know that it's probably a billion to one that I'm right.
So I can't guarantee it's not the one, but there's a billion to one chance I'm right.
At least, maybe a trillion to one.
So I saw a tweet from the whole Mars catalog regarding simulation stuff today, and the tweet said, this world is too crazy to not be a simulation.
And Elon Musk replied to that with, tell me about it.
Is that the best tweet?
The world is too crazy to not be a simulation.
And then the richest man in the world, who's building rocket ships to space, among other things, among other things, says, tell me about it.
How could you be Elon Musk and believe that this is a real reality?
How could you?
Have you ever thought, what would it be like to be him?
Every time he sits on the toilet and tweets, he changes the planet Earth while he's on the toilet tweeting.
That's real.
Now, not every tweet, because some of the tweets are just jokes, but if he tweets something serious, the entire world looks at it, reads it, thinks about it, changes how they think, there's a story about it.
How in the world could he feel like he's living in reality?
Now, the reason that I'm sensitive to that is that that's my life as well.
My life is so unusual, and has been forever, that if I'm part of reality, I can't understand how that's possible.
Or at least, you know, the reality we used to think.
If it's not a simulation, and I'm not creating my reality as I go, how do you explain anything I've experienced?
My reality is so far out of anything normal, as is Musk's and, you know, similar but very different scale.
Yeah.
I'm going to tell you the story without much detail.
There's somebody in my, let's say, my life, who I've been teaching the simulation concept and the idea that you can manifest your reality.
And, you know, this has been an ongoing conversation.
And the person I talked to, I believe, has incorporated this.
And I was having a conversation just, I think, the other day, in which the person was feeding back to me some successes that were so wildly unlikely.
I mean, it involved like a big coincidence.
And the person was telling me like it was a coincidence.
And I had to say, hold on, hold on.
Do you see what's happening here?
Do you have any idea what's happening right now?
I taught you how to manifest your reality, and now you're telling me that you've got exactly the weird, unusual thing that you wanted, and you're telling me that's a coincidence.
You should have seen the look on the person's face.
This is a human being that I pushed to a higher level of awareness.
Somebody who just figured out That everything in this person's life suddenly, at exactly the time they learned the skill of manifesting, everything turned right in weirdly coincidental ways that could not have been under anybody's control.
It looks like reality just wrapped itself around this person.
Very impressive.
I got to see the evidence myself.
Just the weirdest situation.
Now this is my every day.
Every day I wake up into a situation that there's something that happens that's so unusual that's in my favor and it's something I wanted and wanted to manifest.
And I think, how in the world?
How in the world is this real?
Anyway, so let me do it to you again right now.
You're going to watch it in real time so you can make your own decision.
Am I changing reality?
Or just getting lucky?
Because you're going to find that my reframe about imitation is the only path to success.
And black America needs to figure out what to do, given that they're locked out of the only path to success.
Because why would you imitate your oppressors?
Right?
So they have to figure that out.
That is not for anybody to tell them what to do.
They have all the capability.
They're completely capable, and it needs to be something they do on their own.
But the tools are here.
So once they're freed from that... I would call it a glass ceiling of types.
But once they shatter the glass ceiling, which unfortunately nobody can help them with.
They're gonna have to do it on their own.
But once they do, they'll probably dominate industries the way they've dominated other industries.
If you say that, I've said this to some black leaders before, but I like the way it sounds, so I'll say it again.
Whenever black Americans had full access, full access to an industry, they usually dominated.
So why would we think that that would stop with some future industry that, let's say there's some, you know, systemic, there's a systemic reason that's keeping them away from it.
As soon as they lose the systemic, in this case I think the glass ceiling of imitation is the problem, but if they can punch through that, they're gonna dominate other industries.
Why wouldn't they?
Why would they not?
Every time there was an industry they had full access to, without the systemic racism being the stopper, did great.
So why not assume the best?
And I think that it's terribly damaging to say that somebody else has to change to fix their problem.
If your path to success is waiting for your oppressor to change, How well are you going to do?
But if your path to success is, oh, everybody who follows these same tools gets a good outcome, boom!
Doors open.
Highway is free.
Drive right down.
All right.
So this will be your test to see if I'm hallucinating that I can change reality.
Because you realize that I'm in a three-act movie, right?
Do you all know that?
You can tell I'm in a three-act movie, right?
And you don't know what my third act is.
Well, you don't know the solution to the third act.
The third act was getting cancelled.
Would you agree?
My third act was getting cancelled worldwide.
Every book disappeared.
Every comic came out of every outlet.
Same week.
Third act.
Thursday of next week, My book that got cancelled but now is reborn will be available for sale.
I'm assuming the technical part works.
It should be Thursday.
So it'll be independently published with the help of Joshua Lysak who's helping me with the editing and the business process of it.
And that book needs to be the number one book in the country.
Once you see it, you're going to agree, because you're going to realize how much utility is in it.
And part of that utility is selling the idea that reframing works.
I'm going to create a micro lesson just for the people on the Locals platform.
So I've got about 200 two-minute lessons on a life skill or different way to look at things.
So I'm going to add one today that will teach you Why mindset changes actual reality.
And it's based on old wisdom.
Not something I invented, but it's gonna blow your mind.
So you have to be at the Locals Platform.
That's a subscription service.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what I need to tell you today.
I'm pretty sure that all of you are at least emotionally on board with the following point, if not financially.
Financially, if you can't afford to buy books, don't buy mine.
If you have any financial problems at all, don't buy my book at all.
But if you don't, and you can afford a book now and then, you might enjoy changing reality.
Because reality needs for me to have a third act followed by a fourth act.
So if you want to be part of the fourth act, you're going to get your chance next week.
And I would appreciate it beyond imagination, because as you can tell, it's not about the money at this point.
I got plenty of money.
So if you want to do something important, that'd be a good way to do it.
And ladies and gentlemen, this completes my amazing live stream for today.
