Episode 2214 Scott Adams: Science & Coin-Flipping In Tense Battle For Legitimacy & All News Is Fake
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Sam Altman, Backwards Causation Science, Eco-Friendly Straws, Canadian Censorship, Gad Saad, Flying Cars, DeSantis Border Plan, COVID Masking, Public School Failings, Presidential Race, Vivek Ramaswamy, Ron DeSantis, Democrat Fear Narratives, Democrat Organized Crimes, 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.
Today, testing.
I'm also streaming live on X.
For the first time.
And we're doing it over on the Locals channel where they get a little extra before and after.
And lots of other extras other times.
And of course on YouTube.
Welcome everybody.
Good to see you all.
All right.
I just noticed that if I turn my camera landscape, which is what I did, the comments are upside, not upside down, they're sideways.
So, there might be a little more development that Elon needs to do on the livestream.
Because most people want to do it the way I'm doing it.
And that means that your comments are all sideways.
So, if you can deal with that.
All right, everybody, if you'd like to take this triple platform experience up to levels that nobody's even imagined could be possible, well, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice, 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, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Ah, so good.
So good.
Well, I saw a tweet today from Sam Altman.
He of You know, leading the chat GPT and other billionaire stuff.
One of the smartest people on the planet, Sam Altman, and he says something very compatible with something I've said.
So he said, quote in a tweet, give yourself a lot of shots to get lucky is even better advice than it appears on the surface.
Luck isn't an independent variable, but increases super linearly with more surface area.
You meet more people, make more connections between new ideas, learn patterns, etc.
Now, what is my version of that from my book?
Reframe your brain?
Yeah, my version of that is that you can make luck happen by going where there's more of it.
So if you stay in your little small town and you know three neighbors and that's all you know of the entire world, what are the odds you're gonna get lucky?
Because there just aren't many things happening.
There's not much luck to happen.
But if you go somewhere, let's say an exciting industry, and an exciting place, and you meet more people, and you network, and you invite people over, and you make more friends, and you do all the things you know to put yourself in a greater energy situation, just more stuff happening.
That's where luck happens.
So the reframe is that the old view is that some people are lucky, some people are not, and that's the end of the story.
But that's sort of a loser's frame.
The truth is that you can make your luck happen by going where there's more of it.
So that's your first little lesson.
And as Sam Altman says, although he talks about increasing your super linearly surface area, I just say go where there's more stuff happening.
That's the dumb guy's version, my version.
All right.
Allow me to tell you a story that went over really well on my Man Cave livestream last night on Locals, so I think you'll like it too.
It goes like this.
There are two stories, and then I'm going to connect them.
Story number one, if you have children, especially teens, you may have had this experience, that you think they're not listening to any of your wisdom, Because you're always trying to drop it in.
You know, you're trying to be subtle about it.
It's like, well, you know, in this situation, it's always a good idea to handle it this way.
You know, you're just sort of like slowly letting your magic of your wisdom seep in.
But you can never tell if it's working.
Because they're not going to give you feedback.
Like, the thing you're not going to hear is, my goodness, that's the best idea I've heard all day.
I've been live for 10 years already, and I don't think I've heard a finer idea.
I'm going to adopt your idea now, because it seems so sound.
No, that doesn't happen.
That doesn't happen.
So just keep in mind that sometimes they're listening and absorbing, but you're not going to know right away.
All right?
Now take that story, put it aside, but don't forget it.
It's coming back.
So yesterday, I finally got my own copies of my own book, because when you do independent publishing, you have to buy your own book.
If you do regular publishing, the publisher sends you a box of them, and you can give them to your friends and stuff.
But I had to wait, wait for my own book to come, just like you did, order it from Amazon.
And I was standing in the kitchen, And I was flipping through it, you know, just to make sure it looked the way I wanted it to look, and it looked great.
And I sort of randomly picked out a chapter and just started reading it.
Now, which is weird, because I wrote it.
But it's been so long since I wrote it, it's actually like a new experience sometimes when I read it.
And the reframe that I was reading about, I'm going to share with you.
So you get a freebie.
Now, I swear this will change some of your lives in a small way.
This one's not going after a big thing.
This is going after a small annoyance, and I'm going to completely solve it for you right now.
Watch how happy you are when you try this reframe.
And the reframe is to solve the problem of deciding where to eat with your partner.
Have you ever had that problem?
Where do you want to eat?
I don't care, where do you want to eat?
How about here?
No!
Right.
It's a continuous problem that we all have.
There is a solution.
And it requires a reframe.
If the frame you've adopted is that you're trying to make a decision with somebody who's not good at making decisions, or doesn't make them the way you'd like them to.
Now let's take the classic, let's say traditional stereotype situation of a boring, boring hetero couple.
They're so boring they bore me.
And we'll just use that as an example.
Obviously, I can't speak for the LGBTQ community.
Maybe stuff, maybe it's a little different there.
I don't know.
Wouldn't know.
So I won't speak for them.
But in the hetero community, generally it goes like this.
The guy says, hey, do you want to eat at X place?
Because he wants to take, he wants to take charge.
Like guys, even women like it.
They say it all the time.
Women like it when the man will sometimes make a plan.
Because women are planning all day and, you know, often taking care of kids and, you know, so they're kind of planned out and they'd kind of like it.
It would feel really good if the guy would just say, hey, I got a plan.
Let's do this.
So if you're a guy, you have two things you need to accomplish.
Number one, you have to be the take charge person who makes a plan for dinner.
But also, you've got to make sure that you don't do any decision making on your own because you're going to get clowned in about a minute.
You know you're going to get clowned.
So you can't make a decision, but also you must make a decision.
So that's impossible.
How do you make a decision and not make a decision at the same time?
That's the only way you can satisfy the situation.
So you reframe it.
Instead of saying, I'm trying to make a eating decision with a crazy person, for which there is no solution.
Nobody's ever come up with a solution.
You do the Kobayashi Maru, Star Trek reference, and you reframe it so that the real problem is you have a puzzle to solve.
You're not deciding where to eat.
You're solving a puzzle, which is how do you take charge and not take charge at the same time.
That's the puzzle.
And here's how you do it.
You pick two places you're willing to eat, and you say to your partner, usually the guy saying to the wife in this classic stereotype situation, and you say, uh, let's go eat, I suggest one of these two places.
Now what you've done is you've taken charge.
You've said let's go out, you've narrowed it to two, but still, still the wife has a choice.
Excellent, right?
She has a choice.
So, then she says, oh, that's a good idea.
I love it.
You're taking charge.
She's thinking that, not saying it.
And then she says, let's go to this one.
And you say to yourself, wow, that worked pretty well.
Now, you get in the car.
If any of you are married, you can back me on this.
So she's chosen one of the two choices.
You get in the car.
And then she says, after you start the car, but you know, we have eaten at that last place kind of recently.
Yeah.
You know what would be even better than the two choices you gave me?
Would be this third place I've been thinking about.
And then, you go for the close.
You're the guy, and you've given two choices.
She said yes to one, and then she's doing an audible in the car.
Here's the closer.
Yes, that would be great.
I'd love it.
Boom.
Problem solved.
Woman says he took charge, and yes, she's still got to eat exactly what she wanted to eat.
Now, I've already heard from people who have tried it, and it totally works.
Right?
Now remember this story, and put it aside.
Hold, hold.
Let's go back to the other story.
Now I'm going to insert a third story between the two stories.
And then I'm going to connect them together.
I swear this happened.
This really happened.
This is a real, real thing.
As I was reading the part of my own book about how to decide where to eat, my stepdaughter comes walking down the hall, and we had made plans earlier to go out to lunch, but hadn't picked a place.
She walks directly up to me as I'm reading this section, and she says, we can eat at pastas or the railroad cafe.
Now it's up to you to connect the two stories.
Okay.
Apparently she's been listening to me.
Apparently she paid attention.
So what did I say?
I said, pastas.
And then we drove to pastas and had a perfectly great lunch.
So that's your reframe of the day.
This one is the most trivial one, in the sense that it's just getting rid of a little frustration.
But the book is full of ways to change your mental and physical health and your career and everything else.
Even your view of reality.
So that's your funny story of the day.
Let's do backward causation science.
Are you ready?
So a tweet by William Costello.
There's a study out of Harvard that tracked people over 84 years and what they found was that good relationships are the greatest predictor of happiness.
The people with the best relationships have the best happiness.
Huh.
That's quite a surprising result.
I wonder if there's any other way to look at the same set of data.
Let's see.
You've got a choice of two people to mate with.
One is grumpy and unhappy and one is happy.
Who to choose?
Grumpy and unhappy all the time?
Or happy all the time?
Other things about equal?
I don't know.
What do you think people do in that situation?
Backward science!
Have you ever seen so much backward science in your life?
Yeah, here's how you know backward science.
Every time somebody says doing something makes you healthier or doing something makes you happier, it's a lie.
Because the happy people do those things and the healthy people do those things.
And it's not that doing those things makes you those things.
It's that people who are those things do those things.
Do you know what being healthy allows me to do?
Just take a guess.
So I'm in good health now.
Do you know what that allows me to do?
Exercise.
If you tested me, you'd say, hey, he exercises and he's healthy.
Well, there is a causation that way.
Of course there is.
But do unhealthy people exercise?
I mean, it's kind of hard.
So anyway, always look for the backwards causation.
Often it's a both ways causation, like exercising and being healthy.
You know, they cause each other.
But don't believe, just don't believe any science on these topics, what makes you happier or healthier.
A lot of that's just BS.
All right, speaking of science, there's a new study that says these eco-friendly straws might be as bad or worse than regular straws.
Because the eco-friendly ones are adding some chemicals to the environment that we didn't have.
But the plastic ones maybe last forever.
The microplastics get in your water supply.
I've been watching this pitched battle that we've had recently between science on one hand and flipping a freaking coin on the other hand.
Now, when I was young, I feel like science was ahead.
Like it could stay ahead of the coin flip, but I feel like that's at least reversed, or maybe drawn even.
So whenever you see a study that's a binary, there are two things that are possible.
So in this case, there are two things possible.
Either the ecos draws were an improvement, or they were not.
You could argue it was exactly the same, but that would be unusual.
So they're either an improvement or not.
So do you think that flipping a coin would have gotten you, on average, a worse result than studying it with your science?
Well, you'd love to think that the science would win every time, wouldn't you?
But I'm here to tell you, it's sort of a really even battle between flipping coins and science when it comes to a lot of stuff.
Now I should be quick to tell you, the science starts out shaky.
And in a perfect world, it improves over time as people reproduce things and find different ways to test things and they, you know, get skeptical of things, etc.
So over time, it probably does crawl closer to the truth than whatever else we were using.
So that's good.
I don't recommend getting rid of science.
But for new stuff?
Yeah, new stuff like the straws.
That's kind of new.
Coin flip.
All right.
Apparently Canadians aren't allowed to have news.
I don't know, do you even care about the details?
The summary, the summary is Canadians are not allowed to have news now.
Now if you were worried that the Canadians were slowly losing their rights, you know, I have to admit, I haven't really been super worried about Canada.
And the reason is I like Canadians.
And I think Canadians are, generally speaking, quite well-balanced, rational, high-functioning people.
So I've been telling myself for a long time, well, the Canadians will work this out.
We don't need to go help the Canadians.
The Canadians are real smart, solid.
They've been running this good country for the longest time and doing a good job, in my opinion.
So, you know, they don't need any help from us.
They don't need my opinion.
Well, writer Gad Saad is reporting that he had a post blocked by Canadian Facebook for alleged misinformation.
But then there was a community notes that says it was blocked, but maybe not for the reason that he thinks, not for misinformation.
Now, The first part of the story is, imagine being a pretty famous author.
You know, Gad Saad, very famous.
Imagine that your work is blocked on social media and you don't even know why.
Because that's part of the story.
The part of the story is not that he's wrong.
It's that he didn't have a mechanism to know why.
Imagine being censored and you don't know why.
All right, here's the reason why, according to a community notes.
Doesn't mean he's wrong, by the way.
But I'll just tell you what the community notes says.
The fact that this is real, I'm going to read this.
I'm just saying it's from the community notes.
I feel like it couldn't be real.
But it might be.
I'll read it to you.
You decide.
Community notes, the Canadian government has not forbidden posting news articles, but did start requiring social media companies to share revenue when they link to news sites.
What?
In response, Facebook made a business decision not to allow display or posting of such links by Canadian users.
Really?
Seriously?
Seriously?
That Canada was so fucking dumb that they thought that Facebook would just start sharing the revenue with the news people that people linked to?
That wasn't going to happen.
Of course that wasn't going to happen.
That would be the stupidest thing ever.
You can make fun of Zuckerberg all day long for what his preferences are politically, etc.
You can make fun of him for looking like an android.
But he's not an idiot.
He's not stupid.
He knows what a business model looks like.
Of course he's not going to do business with Canada under those conditions.
At least not the way they want it.
Of course not.
There's no head of a social media company that would have ever agreed to that.
So imagine this.
You're a Canadian using social media and on Facebook you're not allowed to see news from your own country.
You can see news from other countries but you're not allowed to see your own news.
Now keep in mind that the links were links to drive your traffic to the news site Now, that would be advertising, we call it in this country, or marketing.
It's advertising or marketing when people from somewhere else are encouraged to go to your product.
But now that's not going to happen.
It's not illegal, but Canada decided to make it non-economic to look at the news.
That actually happened.
In the real world, Canada is making it uneconomical to know what's happening in your country.
So, all of you Canadians, if you'd like to follow people like me on X, you might find, for the first time, what's happening in your country.
I got some surprises for you.
You're not gonna like it.
I'm just saying, you're not gonna like it.
Alright.
Poor Canadians.
Well, flying cars, I think, are here.
Although, as somebody said, we should stop calling them flying cars because they're just tiny little personal quadrocopters.
It's basically like a little helicopter with, you know, four little electric motorized things like a drone.
So it's not a car, but it's kind of a car.
In the Dilbert comic, that you can't see unless you're a subscriber on X or on the Locals community, Dilbert has ordered his own flying car.
He was trying to compete with a character named Topper, who was bragging that he ordered a Cybertruck.
And a Cybertruck would be really, really cool.
But it's no flying car, is what I'm saying.
So I want to get my Tesla flying car.
Apparently China's got one that's flying around in prototype and it looks pretty awesome.
The only thing that was keeping us from having private aircraft was the power of the battery, which is now sufficient.
The processing speed, so that you could do a lot of processing to keep it stable, which is, we got all that.
And I would imagine some kind of GPS, you know, we've had for a long time.
And then you would need the regulators to be okay with it.
But basically, everything that would be needed to have your own little flying personal vehicle, it's here.
There's no technology left to design, it's just productizing it and making it legal.
Now the one I saw, It was kind of hilarious.
Because it looked like the four wings on the quadcopter were external.
As in, if you walked over to it, it would chop you in half.
And they're kind of low, the same height as the car.
And I'm thinking to myself, I'm positive that I've seen those where the blade thing was protected.
I feel like they have to at least add that.
Right?
You know, where there's a casing around the blade.
I'm no inventor of flying planes or cars.
All right, DeSantis, I guess I missed this during the Debate, but DeSantis was proud of it, so he was tweeting it around, or X-ing it around.
At the debate he said, I'm not going to send troops to Ukraine, but I am going to send them to our southern border.
When these drug smugglers bring fentanyl across the border, we're going to leave them cold, stone cold dead.
Applause, applause, applause, applause.
Sorry, too weak.
Too weak.
So weak.
You're gonna wait for them to come across the border?
Seriously?
Like, if they're standing at one foot on the other side of the border, they're like, na-na-na-na-na-na, we'll be like, oh, if only there was something we could do about that guy!
Really, that's our plan?
We're gonna watch them, the coyotes, bringing people to the border, and then, you know, stopping on their side while the immigrants cross, and we're gonna be okay with that?
No, we should be dropping them with sniper fire.
You don't think that would slow the flow?
We should have snipers taking out all the coyotes as soon as we spot them.
Now we can shoot from our side if he wants to be like that, but I'm not going to support, I just can't support anybody who's weak on fentanyl.
This is weak.
You're going to stay on our side of the border while they're coming over to kill us.
No, you go kill them where they're in their sleep.
Kill them in their sleep.
Bomb their facilities, take their shit, and make their full-time job at trying not to get droned.
That should be their full-time job if you're in the cartel.
Looking up.
Your full-time job should be looking up.
Because we should have that whole place blanketed with drones by now.
And we should just be raining death on the cartels every single day with no remorse.
Anything else is stupid and weak and we're just asking for what we get.
So as much as I like DeSantis in a lot of ways, I don't exactly, you know, I suppose he's maybe tested it or something and it sounded good in a poll.
I don't know.
I mean, I don't know why you would have this opinion even.
All right.
I'm not going to talk a lot about maths.
I'm just going to tell you the two worst takes on either side.
Okay?
So we're not going to talk about what the good take is.
I'm just going to tell you the ones I don't want to see anymore.
The worst take on the ProMask is that the data shows that they work.
Do you agree?
The worst take on masks is that the data shows they work.
At a population level.
At a population level.
Because there's no dependable data.
There's no dependable data on anything, really.
But there's no dependable data at a, let's say, a city or a county level that supports it.
So saying that there is, I think is the worst argument.
Now, to be clear, I don't know what's true.
I just know that the data doesn't support it.
So you don't ask citizens to do something that's quite extreme like that, wearing masks everywhere.
That's pretty extreme.
If you can't demonstrate it Unambiguously, that's a no-go.
Because freedom requires that if you're going to take any of it away, you've got to have nailed down, absolute, incontrovertible science.
And we're nowhere near that.
In fact, we're not even in an environment in which incontrovertible science would be useful.
It's not even useful.
Because there's no credibility or faith or believability from any organization that would create data.
So in a situation in which you can't know what's true, don't tell us that the data says it's true when we don't see it at a city level and you're taking our freedoms away.
So it's a terrible argument that you think they work and therefore I should wear a mask.
Sorry!
What you think works should have no impact on me.
You know what should make an impact on me?
What I think works.
That's it.
What I think works should matter.
What you think works?
No.
No bueno.
Here's the worst argument on the anti-mask side.
I'm completely anti-mask.
No mandates.
If you want to do it, do it.
Same with anything.
But no mandates.
And there's no wiggle room on that.
I have no wiggle room, no mandates on masks.
However, I am embarrassed to be on that point of view when I keep seeing people tweeting around this thing that shows the size of a virus versus the size of the holes in the mask.
If you don't say, I intentionally left out the size of the water droplets so that I could fool you into being scientifically illiterate, Well, that's missing.
Let me ask you this.
Would you say that Dr. Jordan Peterson is very anti-mask?
Yes or no?
Dr. Jordan Peterson, is he anti-mask?
Yes or no?
He's anti-mask.
Let me answer the question.
He's very anti-mask.
Now would you say that also he understands the topic better than most people because he's scientific by nature?
Would you say he's one of the smartest people around and he's looked into it enough?
He's got a good take on it, right?
Do you think you'll ever see Dr. Jordan Peterson, who agrees with you completely about no mask mandates.
Do you think you'll ever see him tweeting that little meme about the size of a virus compared to the size of the holes in the mask?
No, you'll never see that.
Because that is not an argument that smart people make.
Or informed people.
If you're uninformed, do you think the virus travels on its own?
If the virus left your mask on its own, without any water droplet, it would just fall to the ground.
Or be dead, because I had no water droplet.
It'd be dry down.
I don't know.
So here's the question I ask you.
If you were to measure the amount of COVID on the inside of a mask for somebody who had COVID, let's say they had COVID and didn't know it.
If you measure the amount of COVID on the inside of the mask, would there be any?
Would you borrow a mask from somebody who had COVID, if you knew they had COVID?
So some of it's on the mask, but clearly it doesn't seem to make any difference at a population level.
And probably the reason that masking doesn't work is that we all violated a home.
Did anybody wear a mask at home?
Even if people came over?
Even if you had guests?
Did you wear masks at home during the pandemic?
No.
No.
Did you have, did your kids have playdates at your house and nobody wore masks?
Yes.
Yes, many playdates.
No masks.
Yep.
No, obviously the parents had a choice of being in a mask, sending their kids to a maskless situation or not, but nobody seemed to have a problem with it.
In Spain, people wore masks at home and during Christmas.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry about that.
Yeah, you can require masks all you want, but we're not going to wear them at home, so good luck with that.
And that's the last time I want to talk about masks.
Well, the next time I'll talk about it will be when I'm helping to organize the destruction of the first corporation that requires it.
All right.
I don't want to go after any health care organizations, because that's just messed up.
They've got enough problems.
You know, they're trying to fight through a tough situation, if there is one.
I don't want to go after them.
I'd rather go after people who have customers who have options, like Bud Light.
You can decide not to shop at Target, but changing your whole health care situation, that's like more trouble than the protest would be worth.
So the first time there's a public company, that requires masks, of the customers at least, you've got to close them down.
You've got to put them right out of business, and you've got to make it fast and brutal, and you've got to make sure there's no ambiguity about it.
Short of that, you deserve masks.
If you want to say what would make us deserve to be masked and be slaves to our overlords, well, not fighting it.
So if you don't shut down the first corporation, well, you're asking for it.
All right, there's a bunch of news that I'll call the black and white stuff, meaning black people and white people.
I'm supposed to get excited about a shooter because there's a racial element.
I'm not.
I'm actually surprised that there isn't more racial violence.
Aren't you?
I'm not recommending it in case anybody was unclear on that.
But given the media landscape, I'm surprised there isn't a lot more.
And if there is a lot more, that would be Kind of predictable.
Because the news is turning all the stories into black-white stories.
What's the most obvious outcome of stories which focus on a person of this type killed a person of that type and vice versa?
Would be more of it, of course.
Because do you know what causes you to act?
There's a requirement for action.
There's a few requirements, but one of the requirements is that you have a thought.
Because we think about the thing we're going to do, and then we do it.
But if you'd never thought of something, if it had never been in your mind in the first place, the odds of you doing it are pretty low.
So the news is putting thoughts in our heads of, you know, black-on-white crime with these videos, and then, you know, white-on-black crime with the mass shootings, and then we're doing this weird math where we're competing.
Alright, did the black people kill more white people?
Well, it depends if you're looking at percentages, or you're looking at raw numbers.
And how often do the white people kill the black people?
If you engage in that conversation, then you have been basically owned by the people who like to own minds.
If you want to be an independent thinker, reject the stories.
Don't talk about them in the way that they frame them, black and white.
There was an individual who killed some other individuals, and it's a huge tragedy.
Not greater than any of the other tragedies that happened today.
A tragedy.
It's a maximum tragedy.
But not bigger than all the other ones.
Other people died in terrible ways as well.
So I'm just not going to participate in that.
We'll all wait for the other story that I think is bullshit.
You're seeing a bunch of Trump is going to be gaining with black people.
And maybe it's because he was unfairly accused.
Maybe it's because Biden's not delivering.
I don't believe any of it, really.
And here's why I don't believe any of it.
It's not that the polls are inaccurate.
I'm not saying that.
They might be.
They might not be.
I wouldn't know.
But there's going to be another George Floyd op.
So whatever you're thinking about racial relations now, that will be completely transformed with the next George Floyd.
So you know that there could have been George Floyds for four years during Biden, right?
Easily there could have been more George Floyds.
I'm pretty sure that whatever You know, problems there are between police and the black community.
I'm pretty sure they didn't get fixed when Biden became president, right?
But the way we treated them, which ones we highlighted, what the news decided was news, you know, probably, you know, CIA influence on the news.
So there will be.
Guaranteed.
Something that was going to happen on its own.
I don't think it would be an op to create a crime.
But I think that some crime that was going to happen on its own will have just the right elements to make it the only thing that's a story.
They'll George Floyd it.
So it doesn't matter what Trump's numbers are today.
Those will be wiped out by the next brainwashing operation.
And you could just put it on your calendar practically.
It's guaranteed.
All right.
And then there's a story about the Maryland schools, and I guess the Baltimore schools in particular, in which there are zero people who learned anything in school.
That's the summary.
And none of the students learned anything in their schools.
They're all failures.
To which I say, is that a national story?
Or is that people getting exactly what they wanted?
They keep voting for it.
They must want it.
If they wanted something different, I imagine they would go get it for themselves.
Do you know why we don't have this problem in my town?
So in my town we have pretty highly rated schools by California standards.
Because people in my town want good schools.
That's it.
They want it.
That's the whole story.
They just want it.
So they make sure that they get it.
Baltimore has no functioning schools, as far as I can tell.
But every year they vote.
They go vote for it, and they vote for more of this, apparently.
So, I don't care about Baltimore's failing schools.
They're getting what they asked for.
And they ask for it every two to four years.
They re-ask for it, and they re-ask for it.
They know what to do to fix it.
They don't want to.
I don't know why.
And when I say they don't want to, that never means everybody, right?
It means there's not enough people who care.
So what should you do about that situation?
Should you take some of your money that you earned and maybe try to give it to them?
No, that would be crazy.
You should just avoid it in any way you can.
Just get away.
Just go where that's not a problem.
Move to my town.
My town has good schools.
Problem solved.
All right.
Yeah, move away.
Let the cities fail.
The faster the cities fail, the better off we all will be.
Because they need to hit bottom.
And apparently they're not close.
So they've got to get a lot worse.
So when nobody in Baltimore can read and everybody dies by murder, that would be about the time that something will change.
All right.
But I'll tell you what I'm not going to do.
I'm not going to make it my problem.
Everybody agree with that?
I'm not going to make that my problem.
If you want your problem to be solved, you need to leave.
It's not really the hardest thing in the world to understand what needs to be done, and if you want to leave and you can't, that's something I would put some energy into.
If it turns out there were a lot of people who just wanted to get out of their bad situation physically, and just go anywhere, just anywhere, that there's a real school, I would be behind throwing some energy and money behind that.
But no, I'm not going to fix a place where the people don't want it fixed.
That's not going to happen.
All right.
I keep seeing the presidential race like the Avengers.
And what's interesting is the Democrats are trying as hard as possible to take down Iron Man.
Let's say that's Trump.
But what's different this time is that it's not just one superhero.
Because the GOP also has a Hulk.
They don't just have Iron Man anymore.
Now they have a Hulk.
If you take Trump down, you're going to get Vivek.
You think you're going to get DeSantis?
Surprise!
You're not.
You're not.
You're not going to get a surprise.
If Trump goes down, you're going to get the person who's going to fix it.
Do you think that's DeSantis?
Has he been talking like somebody who's going to fix it?
No.
No.
There's one person who has the capability And the clear message that he's going to fix it.
Now you say to yourself, but Scott, I've heard before that people are trying to clear the swamp.
We've heard this before.
Do you know the only way to clear the swamp is the way Vivek is suggesting?
And I didn't realize the genius of this until really just yesterday I figured it out.
The only way you can take a corrupt organization and make it less corrupt is to make it go away.
And that's what he plans to do.
He's going to spread the FBI's functions across other functions.
He's going to take the Department of Education and take that money and give it to the states.
You have to take away the entire entity if it's that corrupt.
And I think we've reached the point where the entity has to go away, but not the function.
The function needs to stay exactly as Vivek wants to do.
So if you have fewer people, You have fewer places that corruption can hide.
If you have less complexity... Do you know how many people just work in that Hoover building?
I mean it's just filled with people doing complicated things that you don't understand.
Interact with each other.
That's where all corruption hides, in complexity.
But if you were just to simplify it, make things more local, make them more, you know, on point, you know, the field agents would be working on, you know, discrete things and different organizations.
You're more likely to find corruption by having fewer people, more simplification, and bringing it closer to the local level.
So that's a real plan.
So good luck taking Iron Man down, because you don't want the Hulk.
You really don't.
All right.
All things being equal, the Democrats have an impenetrable advantage.
At the moment.
Impenetrable.
So unless this changed, Democrats will just win everything in 2024.
And this has to do with the fact that fear persuasion is the strongest.
Fear persuasion just beats everything.
Now, the reason that Trump won the first time is that his fear persuasion was excellent.
You know, you can say it's inappropriate or immoral or whatever you want to say.
But it was effective because he said people coming across the border, you know, too many criminals and all that, and got people scared.
And, you know, basically you were scared of everything by the time he was done.
I was scared of China.
But right now the Democrats own fear.
So they've got climate change fear that doesn't affect Republicans too much, but their base is all about it.
They've got the white supremacy.
Fear or just white men fear, which is something that the Republicans can't match.
You know, they could try showing lots of social media videos of, you know, criminal behavior and stuff, but it doesn't, it's not really getting through.
I think the white supremacy message by the mainstream media is pretty strong.
And then last, women losing bodily autonomy, as they would say.
Over abortion.
Imagine if somebody said, the state is going to have control over your body.
Well, that's what women are imagining right now.
You don't have to imagine it.
That's actually what the state is saying.
And by the way, if you think that I'm giving you my opinion on abortion, that won't be here.
I don't do that.
I let women take the lead on abortion.
Whatever they collectively decide in their state, I back the women.
So I'm not backing Republicans or Democrats.
I'm not backing pro-abortion or anti-abortion.
I'm backing women.
Because this is an impossible decision, and you need to at least make the people with the most skin in the game, at least they should have to take a lead.
Now, I'm not saying you should give up your vote.
If you want to vote, go vote.
You have that right.
I'm just saying for me, I can't justify Being persuasive in this domain.
I want to be anti-persuasive on this and let women take the lead.
Anyway.
But if you were a woman, that would be one of the scariest things.
I can imagine if I put myself in that position, which I'm not.
If you told me somebody was going to take away one of my ways to manage my life, and I didn't think that a fetus was a human life, let's take that assumption, I'd be pretty scared.
So what is it that the Republicans have to offer, fear-wise, that would match, at least for the voters on the other side?
Obviously, the Republicans have Republican votes already.
But if they want to influence the other side, what do they have?
Crime.
COVID lockdowns.
Poverty is too slow moving.
Racism.
No, that's what, the racism is what the left is using.
Zombie cities?
I don't know.
See, the trouble is the cities don't care about themselves enough.
If the cities cared about themselves, they would have already fixed it.
So it's hard for me to care about San, I don't care about San Francisco, honestly.
You know, I live near it.
It's like a major part of my whole life.
But San Francisco wants to be what it is.
The moment they decide not to be that, they'll change it.
So it's not up to me to tell them that they can't walk in feces when they go outside if they want to.
And obviously this is hyperbole.
They don't all want to.
Yeah, I get that.
But they're acting in the way that gives them one result.
If you want to get a different result, act differently.
But don't make it my problem.
I'm happily living away from San Francisco.
You know, work it out yourself.
So no, that doesn't give me any fear.
I think that's just evolution of, you know, it's just change.
So inflation, you know, if you look at what the Republicans like to push, they push, you know, inflation is bad, that's true, nobody likes inflation, but it doesn't give you a visceral fear.
It makes you feel bad, but you're not, like, afraid it's gonna go come kill you.
Climate change, people think is going to actually kill them.
White supremacy, if you watch CNN or MSNBC, there's a whole bunch of people who think the white supremacists are arming up and are coming for you.
Or something.
But, you know, that's not true.
I mean, not at scale.
Anyway, so keep an eye on that.
A really predictive feature is who has the better fear persuasion.
And right now, that's all Democrats.
Big advantage.
There's another story that Kamala Harris tried to talk in public again.
Summary, didn't go well.
Yeah, that's that's the whole story there.
Yep, Kamala Harris trying to talk coherently in public didn't go well.
Here's more evidence that the Democrats are an organized crime party.
So there's emails now that show that a U.S.
Attorney Weiss talked to the DOJ to thwart congressional questioning.
That's the charge.
But once again, we have entities in the government, Democrats, who are talking to each other in a way that appears, on the surface, to be organized and coordinated for illegitimate purposes.
Now, as I've said before, the Democrat Party has become an organized crime party, which is not to say that the individuals in it are worse than the individuals who are Republican or Independent.
So here now, I'm not talking about the voters, I'm talking about the leadership.
Here's what I think is a key difference, just observationally, between the Democrats, the party, and the Republican Party.
See if this tracks with your observation.
So this is not science, just observation.
It seems to me that when Republicans are pushing bullshit, Which happens a lot.
It's coming from citizens and sometimes boiling up till you'll see somebody in Congress, you know, some of the more controversial ones, it'll come out of their mouths.
But basically, you know, everything from Pizzagate to you name it, started with citizens who happen to be Republican.
You know, maybe it was on Reddit or 4chan and then it bubbles up and then maybe it comes out of somebody's mouth.
Right?
But, when the Democrats run an op, it is very clearly organized by the leadership, and then trickles down through the news to the rest of us.
So one of them is a bullshit bottom-up party, and the other is a bullshit top-down party.
And it's very consistent.
So let me give you an example.
On the Democrat side, you've got your Russia collusion hoax, you know, coordinated across multiple entities.
You've got your Hunter Biden laptop hoax, again, coordinated in a sense, you know, the media was in on it, the Democrats were in on it, the Intel operations were in on it.
You've seen the prosecutions.
So the prosecution depends on the organized nature of the crime on the Democrat side.
If it were not an organized approach to take Trump down, what would the news have reported about his perfect phone call to find votes?
If it were not an organized attempt, what would the news say if they were just describing it objectively?
They would say, people question elections all the time.
Perfectly legal.
Fine votes in the context of thinking that an audit would show that he had actually won, was just talking.
That's what they'd call that.
Well, there was an example of a phone call and it involved some talking.
That's literally the only thing that happened.
But because it's an organized event, not only do you have the media covering for it, the Democrats covering for it, but you have actual prosecutors who have arrested and indicted the probable next president of the United States on what is clearly an organized op.
And about the Hunter or the, let's say the Biden crime family allegations.
Do you think that the Democrats are coordinated in covering up the importance of that story?
Of course.
It's very coordinated.
The media, the Democrats, probably the intel people, all.
It's very coordinated.
But do you see the difference now?
Have I told you that the Democrats organize, they actually plan and execute multi-agency operations that are, you know, gaslighting operations.
Republicans, too, gaslight themselves and try to gaslight other people, but it almost always starts on 4chan or Reddit or someplace like that.
Many of you believe that because 4chan started a rumor about me, that all of my pandemic opinions were reversed by 4chan and then caused me this huge problem that people thought my opinions were the opposite of what they are.
And that didn't come from the top.
That came from just people.
Just people who were probably on 4chan and Reddit and stuff like that.
So once you see it, watch how often you see more of it.
The Democrats are literally a criminal organized enterprise.
It's organized at the top.
It's implemented through various agencies, including the news, which as we know, is corrupt at this point.
All right.
Apparently Tucker Carlson can interview Putin now.
Looks like nothing will stop him because he's an independent person now.
So won't that be interesting?
Yeah, won't that be interesting?
Now nothing that Putin says can be trusted, obviously, but I'd love to hear what he has to say.
I told you the other day that one of the things that Vivek does, his campaign, and also Trump did well, and let's see if you can agree with me on this.
One of the things Trump did better than anybody is he could read the room, because he was always following social media, and he was seeing immediately how people reacted, and then he was riffing off of that.
And so, one of the things that happened was, that if you had a good idea in the Trump administration, and I've given you examples of this before, I won't do that again.
If you had a good idea, it would immediately trickle up to the President of the United States, and he would say, oh, that's a pretty good idea.
And then he would implement it.
It could be an executive action, it could be, you know, a campaign change.
And you saw it all the time.
You saw, like, one individual would have an idea, and the next thing you know, Trump would have adopted it only because it was a good idea.
Didn't matter where it came from.
Just a good idea is a good idea.
Well, Vivek is the same.
I gave you this example, but now it's implemented.
So I was whining and bitching on X that I kept having to explain away his various, the rumors about him and the WEF and Soros and Big Pharma, all these rumors swirling about him.
And I was getting exhausted.
And I said, you guys just got to put up a page That says what the rumor is, what's your version of the truth, and then I can just link to it.
Well, now it exists.
So now there's a page for all of those rumors, and I looked, I think he got them all.
By the way, I was worried that he might skip a rumor, and then you'd say, oh, why'd he skip this one?
But I think he got them all.
Actually, it looked pretty extensive.
And when I read through it, I said, OK, those are good answers.
Here's the one I like the best.
That he accepted a Soros scholarship that had no strings attached.
What's the only right answer to that accusation?
And it wasn't George Soros, by the way.
It was his dead brother.
He said, here's the only right answer, and Vivek had it.
If you're not willing to take free money when it's offered, you shouldn't be anywhere near the White House.
Done.
Done.
Who is it who once said that?
What does that sound like?
Trump during the debate.
Mr. Trump, you know, you've also donated money.
I think it was donating money to politicians.
And he said, no, no, it was Mr. Trump, you've used these, you know, these tax loopholes or whatever to save your taxes.
And Trump says, absolutely, of course I use them.
They're legal, they're available, and every one of Hillary's donors uses them too.
Can you beat that answer?
Of course I use them.
They're legal, they're available, and every one of your donors uses them.
If you want me not to do it, change the law.
How do you beat that?
How do you beat that argument?
So, you know, Vivek didn't only find the high ground, you know, he was sort of like floating in the clouds above this argument.
Because you're a freaking idiot if you don't take free money, no strings attached.
And I think somebody said he already had money, he'd made some money by that time.
So?
Do you know how he made money?
By not being a dumbass.
How about by not being a dumbass?
And after he made his money, guess what?
He didn't turn into a dumbass.
When somebody offered him some more free money, he took the free money.
I don't want the guy who can't take the free money.
I don't want that person anywhere near the White House.
So that was a good answer.
So I tweeted the link.
It'd be near the top of my tweet feed today, or the X feed.
And if you'd like to have that link, I recommend keeping it handy if you're running into this conversation.
Just keep it in your notes.
Cut and paste it every time you need it.
We'll see what happens.
But I do love a candidate who responds to a good idea.
That was a good idea, right?
I'm not... am I...
Blowing too much smoke up my own butt?
No, it's just an obvious good idea.
Put all the answers in one place.
I've always said that Trump should do the same.
Trump had so many hoaxes against him.
It'd be nice just to have a hoax page, wouldn't it?
So that the You know, every time I get in a conversation, which is like three times a week about the fine people hoax, I just give them the link.
Here's the full transcript.
Here's the part they always leave out.
It's a root bar.
Blah, blah.
Save us all some time.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, it looks like we have almost, well, 600 people watching live on X right now.
And hey, people on X, how's the feed?
You got good audio, good sound?
Are you happy with what you're seeing in terms of the quality?
It's a great feed.
Oh, we're getting good technical performance here.
Excellent.
Good to know.
There's no microphone, but the iPhone has a good microphone built in.
All right.
Now, I don't know if that might have some impact on one of the other platforms.
We'll see.
Is there chat?
Yes, there's chat messages going by, but they're sideways, so they're a little harder for me to read.
Loud and clear.
Lighting's good, too.
I think we're nailing it.
Look at this.
Just nailing it.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I've got some more things to do to go talk to people, promote my book, make some comics, and generally enjoy my day.
The rest of you, I hope you have a great day too.
I'm going to say goodbye to YouTube and to X, and I'm going to spend a little more time talking to the locals people, subscribers.
