Episode 2220 Scott Adams: Most Of The News Is Fake, Per Usual
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Phil Bump, Democrat Propaganda Machine, Anthony Fauci, Smerconish, Racist Project Managers, Race HOAX 2024, Alex Soros Politics, String Theory, Predictions, Ukraine War, 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
Well, all you need is a cupper, mugger, a glass, a tanker, gels, a stand, a canteen, jugger, flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dope beat of the day.
The thing that makes everything better except Phil Bump is called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Now, let me test the audience.
When I say the name Phil Bump, how many of you don't know who I'm talking about?
Is there anybody who doesn't know who he is by today?
Because he's the Rosetta Stone that opens up the entire machinery of the Democrat, well, propaganda machine, basically.
If you don't know who he is, just Google him, watch the interview, oh, you'll find out.
Alright, speaking of things that aren't working, my book, Reframe Your Brain, is shown as hardcover, is available to purchase, except that it says they're out of stock.
Now, what you should know is that I'm independently published, which means that Amazon prints them as they're ordered.
There is no stock.
So I'm out of something that isn't a thing.
And that's why you can't buy it.
But of course, you probably won't buy the softcover, because it disappears when you're looking at the hardcover.
So it looks like the hardcover is unavailable, but the softcover isn't even there.
So if you watch my rankings, they went from top 20 to just sort of disappeared in the last few days.
Now, do you think I can get this fixed?
I don't know.
Been trying.
Do you think I can get the six fake books of mine off of there that are called workbooks, but really they're just pirate books?
Nope.
There are something like, I think, six now, fake books of mine.
There are two fake covers.
That you could think you're buying and you can't.
There's six fake books that you can buy that aren't mine.
They're just pirates.
Can't get rid of any of them.
Right?
There's no recourse.
Apparently there's just nothing you can do about it.
Other people have said they've had similar problems.
So I don't know that I'm being targeted.
It just looks exactly like I'm being targeted.
That's all I know.
So, there is a new Andrew Tate documentary on BBC which says many bad things about him.
Let me test your media knowledge.
We're not going to talk about him.
No, it's not about him.
I'm going to ask you this simple question and we're done.
What kind of credibility should you give a documentary about a public figure?
Zero.
Yeah, the right amount of credibility would be zero.
But let me tell you, if you were to watch that thing, you're totally going to believe every part of it.
Because that's how documentaries work.
The least reliable form of information, maybe in the entire world, would be a documentary that has a point of view.
Now, if you don't believe me, You want to have your mind bent?
I've said this before.
There are two documentaries about Michael Jackson that have been around a long time.
One of them says he's a horrible child abuser.
The other one says it's all made up.
You could watch either of them individually and be completely convinced that the one you watched tells you everything you need to know.
And they're opposites.
They're opposites.
You can watch the one that says he's guilty as hell, and you will be convinced he's guilty.
Five minutes later, just watch the other one.
You will be convinced it was all made up.
What's my opinion?
I have no idea.
I really have no idea.
I'll tell you, I watched the one where he was, where they debunked the claims.
I watched that a second.
So if you put a gun to my head and said, alright, you watched two things that are, you know, neither of them are convincing, but, you know, gun to your head, you have to pick one.
I would pick the second one I watched.
Do you know why?
Because it was the second one I watched.
Not because it was better.
Not because it was more true.
The reason that in a trial the defense gets to go last is that whoever goes last has a huge advantage.
So even though I'm completely aware of the fact that the only reason I think the one that debunks the claims is the true one, is because I saw it second.
That's it.
So I simultaneously think it's true, while at the same time know that the only reason I think it's true is an irrational reason.
It was the second one I watched.
Isn't that amazing?
How easily we can be duped.
All right.
So the whole Phil Bump meltdown is just getting more interesting.
I confess that he has been one of my biggest critics, who I call my mascots for years.
But he's also been the pusher of, I did a little googling to find out what else he's been up to now that we know he's a fraud.
Or at least those are the suggestions based on his podcast with Noam Dorman.
But he was pushing the fine people hoax like it was real.
Are you surprised?
Are you surprised that somebody who appears to be unmasked as a knowing stooge of somebody, but somebody who wasn't even trying to do real news apparently.
Yeah, he pushed the Find People hoax.
And now that would be in the Washington Post.
And if I've told you a million times, other news outlets look for the Washington Post, or the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal usually, as their signal that something is real.
So he got in the biggest outlet and signaled it was real.
And then everybody jumped on board.
He was one of the people signaling.
He also pushed the injecting disinfectant hoax, which you would know as the drinking bleach hoax, but he couldn't go so far as to say drinking bleach, because it just wasn't in the transcript.
That's something that CNN did, when they don't show you the transcript.
But he went for injecting disinfectant like he meant a liquid disinfectant instead of what he was talking about, which was light as a disinfectant, which was being actually in trial at the time he mentioned it.
So yeah, it turns out that Phil Bump is exactly what you thought he was.
He is a stooge for somebody who is the primary, maybe the number one pusher of political hoaxes in the country.
Don't you feel better that you know that?
So that whenever you see his work, if you ever see his work again, he's totally backed by his company.
How would you like to be the Washington Post and know that you have to back that guy?
Because if you don't back him, you know what?
It means you know what was happening.
They have to act like they were unaware that anything bad was happening.
Oh no, he's a great writer.
I don't even know what you're talking about.
That's a very awkward place to be because surely they know he was just making shit up.
Do you think they didn't know that?
Do you think his editor was unaware that he was just making shit up?
I don't know.
It's a mystery.
Well, Tony Fauci got the Phil Bump of Science award from me today because he actually was on, who is he talking to?
You'll remind me.
He was being grilled about the effectiveness of masks, because, you know, they're talking about bringing them back.
And, oh, it was Smirkonish.
So, once again, can we give a nod to Smirkonish for not being a CNN stooge?
I mean, he's on CNN, but he seems to be independent.
And he might be one of the few.
So, yeah.
I mean, think of how hard it is to be Independently minded on CNN.
That can't be easy.
He probably gets a little pushback.
But I appreciate him.
And he was fair to me when I was on his show.
Once.
Once he was not fair.
He brought on a critic to be there at the same time.
Which is basically a hit.
But I'll bet the producers brought the critic on.
I'll bet that wasn't him.
Yes, I think back, I think the producers probably tried to sandbag me with the critic, but I don't think he would have done that.
That sounds like something they pushed.
So I do trust Murkowski.
But anyway, he pointed out to Fauci that studies of populations show that mass didn't make any difference where they were implemented.
So the ones who had them and the ones who didn't have them, different cities and locations.
Smirnkonish argues that the best science says that there was no difference.
Now, Fauci argued, well, maybe the science doesn't show that there's a difference at a population level.
But there's plenty of science that shows that they work on an individual level.
What?
So Fauci believes that they totally work individually, but if you take all the people who it individually worked for and added them together, all the benefit would add to zero when you measured it.
Because nobody can find it at a group level.
He actually tried to sell that, that the statistics could be true for an individual, but when you added them up, gosh, we don't see it, but that doesn't mean anything.
Can you even believe that?
Is your brain just going, you must be explaining this wrong, Scott.
I don't think I am.
I think I'm explaining it pretty much the way he did.
Now his argument would be that he thinks the science about the individuals is a little more solid than something about the population.
But his reasoning would be, at least this is how I intuited it, you know, he didn't say it directly.
That because the individual stuff agrees with him, that must be the right one.
Why would he say, if the two are out of sync, the individual studies and then the group studies are out of sync, why would he pick the group studies?
What would be the logic for that?
It's because it agrees with him.
What else would it be?
I can't think of any other reason.
He didn't offer any other reason.
Talk about being Phil-bumped.
Oh my God, Smirkonish actually Phil-bumped him right out of, you know, all conversation.
But most of the country wouldn't know the difference and would think that, well, if it works on an individual level, that must be proof it works on a big level, and I guess they just got that data wrong.
Let me remind you that all information about the pandemic is non-credible.
It doesn't matter if it agrees with you.
If you're accepting the pandemic information that agrees with your point of view, you've missed the last five years.
There's no reliable data.
Are you kidding?
About the pandemic?
It's all motivated data.
The stuff that agrees with you is motivated.
The stuff that disagrees with you is motivated.
And science apparently can't study most things.
They just pretend they can to get funded for it.
Well, they can study it, they just can't know that they've got anything useful in it.
Anyway, I'm old enough to remember, because somebody tried this on me on X today, they tried to dunk on me by saying that the best trial was a randomized controlled trial, so once you have one of those, you're good to go, right?
You can ignore all the weak trials, Because you got the good, high-quality, randomized, controlled trial.
The gold standard, they say.
I used to believe that that was a thing.
That a randomized, controlled trial told you something that you could trust.
That is so not true.
It just depends who funded it.
Who funded it will pretty much tell you what the result was.
Do you know why?
Because if the people who funded it didn't get the right result, I'm not entirely sure you would ever know what happened.
Am I wrong?
If the result is opposite of what the people who funded it, or even did the study, wanted it to be, do you think that they would publish it and say, wow, this really caught us by surprise, but it's a good thing we know now?
No!
They would say, it looks like we did this study wrong, there's a flaw in it, so we're going to, you know, just hold on to it, because there's no point in giving people flawed data.
Do you know how many studies would be Beyond reproach.
Like even the experts could look at it in detail and say, wow, the people who did this study nailed it.
They got everything right.
Probably never.
Probably never.
Because if there's any complication whatsoever, people will have different opinions about what was the better way to handle that one element of the larger trial.
And they'll be like, hmm, is your sample, you know, I wouldn't have picked that sample because of some reason, blah, blah, blah.
So if you have one randomized controlled trial, it's closer to an opinion or fake news than it is to true.
But it could be true.
I'd say it's a 1 in 3.
I'd give a randomized controlled trial, if you only had one of them, if there's only one, I'd give it a 1 in 3 chance of being useful.
So you should actually bet against them.
So there's some possibility that the fix is in, and whoever funded it is making it come out one way.
And the other possibility is they just did it wrong, and it's a mistake, or their control group was wrong, or some damn thing.
Probably 1 in 3 is my best guess for a randomized controlled trial.
I would have said 9 out of 10.
Five years ago, I would say, well, they can't all be right, but, you know, if you do everything right, the gold standard, 9 out of 10 probably.
I'd say 1 out of 3.
That's my current best guess.
Well, we're all waiting for the newest race hoax for 2024.
We know it's coming.
There might be more than one.
So they might have to roll out like three or four to see which one catches on.
But there's one, they're floating now about a pregnant black woman who was shot.
If you take out the part where she was trying to kill a police officer when she got shot, It looks pretty bad.
If you leave in the part where she was trying to murder a police officer with her car, then it looks a little different.
And then there's also the very well-dressed and well-equipped new set of Nazis.
Turns out there's a whole new set of Nazis.
They've got nice red shirts.
They've got their matching hoods so you can't see their faces.
And they've got these brand new Nazi flags with actually swastikas on them.
And there's some video of them, so it must be true.
Am I right?
There's video of them.
I saw it with my own eyes.
Don't tell me that it's fake.
I saw it with my own eyes.
And if there's one thing we know for sure, if I saw it with my own eyes, that's better than a randomized controlled trial.
Am I right?
No, because most of the hoaxes people saw with their own eyes.
Do you know how you fool a scientist?
Does anybody know how to fool a scientist?
Yeah, you all do, because it's the easiest thing in the world.
There's nothing easier than fooling a scientist.
I saw one today who believed one of the hoaxes.
And he was literally, literally teaches science and yet he believed one of the major hoaxes.
Do you know why he was easy to fool?
As I mentioned to him.
Because a scientist doesn't know all the ways that people are evil.
If you're a scientist and you work with other scientists or actually just trying to figure out what's true, you kind of imagine that other people are like that too.
It would be hard for you to imagine that somebody would even intend a study to be fake.
If you were a real scientist, that wouldn't even be in your mental model that somebody would fake a study intentionally.
You'd be thinking, well, some studies might make mistakes, but you would never, ever think somebody funded a whole study just as a fraud, which I'm pretty sure is routine, actually.
Routine in the sense that if they get the right answer, they'll keep it.
If they get the wrong answer, they'll throw it away and say it was flawed.
Right?
So in effect, they're just buying an answer.
I think it could be that this new group is that, you know, we'll see more of them and then they'll become the new fine people hoax.
They'll wait for somebody like Trump to say something that can be taken out of context so it looks like he's supporting them.
You know, he'll say something like, who knows, but you can imagine it being taken out of concept.
Here's my guess about that group.
Probably mostly real racists.
Probably mostly real racists.
The second part of my prediction is this.
Hold on.
That they only existed as a bunch of online people chatting about stuff they agreed with until some well-dressed New personal persons came into the group and suggested that they should take their act into the public.
You know, this chatting isn't nearly enough.
You know what you guys need?
You need some nice shirts.
If you'll let me, I'll order them for you.
If you could give me all your sizes, I'll make sure you get all the shirts.
And while we're at it, you know, it doesn't cost much more money.
Why don't we get some flags?
Don't you think you'd feel better if you had a flag?
If you're out in public with your nice shirt?
Yeah, yeah.
And make sure you've got some, you know, face coverings.
And then I'll do some project management for you.
And we'll pick a time, we'll organize everybody, make sure everybody has transportation.
And then we'll make sure we've got a nice public show.
Do you know what kind of people are good project managers in the context of racist organizations?
Apparently the FBI.
Apparently the Feds.
Right.
Those undercover people are really good at organizing.
So, I don't know the truth of this group.
I assume that they're real racists.
But I think that their unusual level of organization and fashion suggests they have a project manager, if you know what I mean.
Somebody's making them a little bit more organized than you would expect this group to be.
Yes.
It looks like it's up.
And maybe it'll get bigger.
We'll see.
But there will definitely be a race hoax in 2024.
And I've already come up with a hashtag before the hoax itself.
So when the hoax arises, and we all recognize it, we'll do hashtag race hoax 2024.
So I want to get it going before the actual hoax.
Because I feel like It would help convince Democrats that they've been brainwashed if you can call the hit before it happens.
You know, if you can point to the fence you're going to hit it over.
I'm going to hit it over the left field fence.
It's going to be a race hoax.
It's going to happen in 2024.
And just wait for it.
I mean, it's almost guaranteed.
Is there anybody who thinks it won't be a race hoax?
There's nobody who thinks there won't be one, right?
Of course there will.
And you notice that they all kind of stopped under Biden, like all the race hoaxes.
You know, it's funny that no police officer shot an unarmed black man or killed an unarmed black man during the entire Biden administration so far.
Don't you love how Biden completely stopped that problem just by existing as a cadaver?
Very effective.
Yeah.
It's almost as if those things were, I don't know, not exactly what you think.
So, once again, the I-saw-it-with-my-own-eyes crowd are weighing in to my list of political hoaxes.
When they see it, they always say the same thing, but I saw it with my own eyes!
And they're the easiest to fool.
Because that's how all magic tricks work.
You think you saw it with your own eyes.
It's how all hoaxes work.
You thought you saw something real.
So they actually argue that it's not a hoax because they saw something they believed.
I feel like they don't know what a hoax is.
A hoax is something that looks exactly like it's real, but it's not.
And so their argument that it's not a hoax is that it looks exactly real to them.
Not really understanding the whole hoax concept.
That not knowing it's a hoax is really integral to the hoax.
If you knew it was a hoax, because you could just look at it yourself, it wouldn't be so effective as a hoax.
Well, anyway.
So my approach with the, I saw it with my own eyes, people, is pity, then point.
Pity, then point.
So I express my sympathy that this has happened to them.
And I always say, I'm sorry this happened to you.
Which is a very powerful phrase, because you know what nobody wants in the context of an argument?
Sympathy.
Because it's out of frame.
Do you understand that?
If you enter the frame of, I've got some claims, I have some counterclaims, we are now debating the claims versus the counterclaims, well you can't win that.
But you might be able to make them feel embarrassed through your empathy.
I actually, and by the way, the empathy is real in my case.
When I see somebody saying stuff like this that is clearly just brainwashing result, I actually just feel sorry for them.
Imagine going through life thinking that this stuff really happened.
Imagine living in America thinking that the president praised Nazis on television.
Imagine thinking that actually happened in the real world.
I saw it with my own eyes, Scott.
I heard it with my own ears.
No, you didn't.
That's how the hoax works.
You saw things that you thought were that because they took out the context.
They, the bad people.
Anyway, it's easy to prove.
You can just Google any of them in the debunks and you'll see how they did it to you.
George Soros' son, Alex, I was reading Glenn Greenwald's tweet.
Glenn called it a manifesto on his foreign policy, but basically it was a statement that he's going to keep doing George Soros types of things.
As Greenwald asks, and I think it's a good question, is at what point did our political system allow one billionaire to tell you how he's going to change the system and then do it right in front of you?
Which part of the Constitution was rich guy will spray money in the direction of getting shit he wants, he's telling you he's doing it.
And I do appreciate that, by the way.
I do appreciate transparency, so I'm going to give Alex, you know, A plus for that part of his transparency.
So, and it is, he does have free speech.
Correct me if I'm wrong, he's an American citizen, right?
Actually, I don't know that that's true.
Is he an American citizen?
I think he is, right?
Thank you.
Pretty sure.
I think he is, yeah.
So, alright, we have confirmation.
So as an American citizen, he is innocent until proven guilty.
Not that I'm accusing him of anything illegal.
And he has free speech.
Free speech.
And he has, apparently, the legal avenues to donate money to causes he cares about.
Including politicians.
So, But why is it okay?
I get that it's legal.
It seems totally legal.
But why is it okay?
I feel like it should be embarrassing to say that you're going to use your money to bias our system.
Yeah.
Because if you can't do it with argument, should it be done?
I suppose there are some things that couldn't happen without money, but you don't think that a good argument could get you to a better place than money?
Because as soon as money's involved, people are going to look to how to steal your money and, you know, just keep stealing it.
It becomes a different objective when money's involved.
Well, I would say it's a sketchy but legal and There's something wrong with the system where we can't fire him.
Am I right?
Like, you know, in our normal elected system, if somebody does a bad job, at least there's some chance they could get voted out of office.
But he's like a shadow government.
And the amazing thing is he's telling you.
He's telling you how he's trying to influence policy.
But I guess it's not illegal.
Maybe it should be.
Maybe you should be.
I don't know.
I don't know how you could make it illegal and not make too many other things illegal, but this is not a sustainable situation.
It would be interesting if some other billionaire decided to fund whatever was the opposite of everything Alex funds.
Imagine this, just for fun.
This is not going to happen.
But imagine Elon Musk or somebody like that saying, I'm going to double the funding of whatever you do to whatever is the anti-group for the group you funded.
So if you're funding prosecutors who want to let people into jail, I will double what you give to their competition who wants to keep them in jail.
And you just double all of his investments for one year.
If you weren't there at all, it would be more like a fair fight.
But if he's gonna donate a dollar, you give the other side two dollars, and you never stop doing it.
Now, if he tried to match you, like, you know, up his, it would be sort of a ridiculous use of money, and it would just look stupid, and everybody would just laugh at both of the billionaires for wasting their money.
But it would make his whole deal look stupid and a waste of time.
Right now, presumably, he wakes up.
I'm just guessing because I can't read minds.
But wouldn't you say he's probably a true believer?
Or do some of you think he's secretly trying to destroy the world because his father something something?
I feel like he's a true believer.
Like all the signs are that he believes that he's got a better vision for things.
But don't you think that motivates them?
Like you feel like you're doing something good, so you wake up and say, God, I'm going to give some money to good things today.
But suppose you knew that every time you gave a dollar, it doubled the competition to your idea.
Would you still wake up and want to do that job?
How many days would you wake up and make your own causes worse off because there's another billionaire who's going to counter program you by double?
I don't know.
I feel like you could discourage him out of the business with, you know, vast amounts of money in a way that you couldn't talk him out of it.
You know, at least just the stuff that needs to be talked out of.
Alright, I'd love to deprogram him in public, but he would never talk to me.
I assume.
All right, so if you didn't already doubt science, just think of these things.
Science failed during the pandemic, I would say completely.
Nutrition failed.
You know, the experts have been lying to us about nutrition forever.
Climate predictions have not materialized, the dire ones.
String theory, I was just mocking that on X yesterday.
String theory is so ridiculous.
The idea is that You know, there's stuff you can see, particles and atoms and electrons, and if you burrow down to what stuff is made of, and then what that stuff is made of, and you get to what a quark or a charm is made of, you know, the smallest elements of reality, then the scientists are telling us that they're made with some kind of vibrating string of something, and the type of vibration determines what kind of a particle it is.
But isn't there a missing question?
What is the string made of?
And somebody said energy.
What's energy made of?
Does energy exist if there's no matter?
If the universe had no matter, could it have energy?
Because energy is the movement of matter, isn't it?
No, it can't.
It would be logically impossible in an empty universe to have energy.
To have only energy.
Because energy doesn't exist except in the context of things moving.
And there would be nothing to move.
So basically, at the bottom of it all is nothing.
If it's just energy, it's literally nothing.
Yeah, the whole idea, and by the way, I guess the string theory hasn't panned out, hasn't explained everything.
Huge amounts of money have gone into it, just like some of these other things.
And it looks like it was just a money suck, and it never really had any possibility of doing anything.
So, yeah, Eric Weinstein's been saying this for a long time.
He says it better because he understands the field.
Whereas I'm just looking at it from the outside.
Imagine the arrogance of what I'm doing right now.
Well, I have said this, but ten years ago when I said this, and I think I was saying it ten years ago that string theory looked ridiculous, you would have just laughed at me, right?
Oh, let me check your resume.
Scott, I'm looking for your science accreditations.
Oh, I don't see any.
It appears that you don't have any science-y background, so why don't you just listen to the experts?
Right?
Ten years ago, that's the treatment I would have gotten.
How does it feel after the pandemic?
After the pandemic, when I say, uh, they've been working on it for 50 years and produced basically nothing, it's probably just a hoax.
That is a big money, money spigot.
Does that sound crazy today?
Not so crazy, huh?
See, if you wait long enough, I become less crazy over time.
It's a weird phenomenon.
I started out batshit crazy, and then I become more normal over time.
You want to hear another one?
Do you remember a certain thing I got in trouble for and cancelled worldwide?
I said you should get the hell away from a certain group of people.
Did you take that as something racial?
I expressed it that way, but is that how you took it?
Because here's some of the context that of course gets lost by the Phil Bumps of the world.
Did Phil Bump write about me?
He probably did, I don't know.
He tweeted about it.
But here's the argument.
If there's a segment of the population, it doesn't matter who they are, if there's a segment of the population that has been trained to believe that you have their stuff and they need to get it back, you should get as far away from them as you can.
Nobody disagrees with that.
It has nothing to do with your DNA.
It has to do with the fact that our current environment with CRT training and DEI and companies and ESG, you know, above it all, they all have in common that there's a victim class and a patriarchy kind of class that are the oppressors and that the oppressors have your stuff and you better get it back.
If you find yourself in that environment, get the fuck out of there.
Now, the fact that I used the most provocative shorthand for it, I don't apologize for it at all.
Because I was trying to make people really, really mad, so that eventually when they calm down, they could hear me say this.
Black America, if you didn't know it, CRT, ESG, and DEI have poisoned your relationship with white, especially male, Americans.
And it's not going to get fixed.
You've poisoned the relationship forever.
Anybody who sticks around, people who think that you've got their stuff and you should give it back, legally or possibly if I have to shoplift it, you need to get as far away from those people, no matter what their DNA is.
They could be white, they could be the white people who believe that equity is the way to go, and that the people who are shoplifting maybe shouldn't be arrested.
Because after all, it's balancing the equity a little bit, isn't it?
You should get far away, get the fuck away from any white person who thinks that you've got somebody else's stuff.
That's no good for you.
And let me say again, the thing that every black man will agree with, man, every black man will agree with, women, I don't know, I have less insight there.
Here's something every black man will agree with.
Number one, we should not discriminate in employment.
Right?
Everybody agrees.
Number two, should not discriminate in making, let's say, loans.
Absolutely not.
No tolerance.
Number three, we should not discriminate in individual relationships.
Not who you date, not who your friends are, Not who you marry, not who you have kids with.
Those are not proper domains that anybody reasonable wants discrimination.
However, if you find yourself in a situation where the topic is not, let's say, some of those things that I mentioned, and is literally your self-defense.
If it's your self-defense, you can discriminate as much as you want.
There's no rules about that.
Right?
If you're physically threatened or somebody's trying to rob you, for example, you don't have to worry about feelings.
There's nobody's feelings you have to worry about.
You don't have to worry about precedence.
You don't even have to worry about the law except not getting caught.
Right?
None of it matters.
For self-defense, you just do what you need to do to stay safe and keep your family safe.
So, Anybody who's operating on the process of keeping themselves and their family safe, they can discriminate all they want.
I'll give you an example.
If you're a black man, let's say you're married and you want to get a babysitter for the kids, would you pick a 40-year-old single white guy as your babysitter?
Would you?
Or would you discriminate?
Because that looks like trouble.
Well, if this were more like an employment situation, and I guess it is.
It is actually employment.
But no sane person would ignore what they imagine to be the risks.
When it comes to your safety, or your family's safety, you are absolutely allowed to use your imagination of what keeps you safer.
You could be wrong.
You could be just a terrible, you know, discriminator.
But you have every right to protect yourself as you see fit.
That's not illegal.
It's just not illegal at all.
And if it were illegal, you should ignore that law, because that would be a dumbass law.
So.
What black person would disagree with anything I just said?
They would definitely disagree with the provocative way I said it, but even I disagree with myself on that, because it was just to get attention.
It wasn't, you know, how do you actually separate?
But I think the important part of the story is that black Americans need to understand they're just poisoning the relationship and white people won't tell you because they would get cancelled.
So I decided to tell you, if you're black and you're watching this, you don't think it's useful to know that white America wants to get away from you, even if they don't say it out loud?
Because they don't want to get sued, they don't want to be competing against you for jobs because they can't, and they don't want to be anywhere where there's no bail and massive shoplifting.
They might not say it, But they're all thinking the same thing.
Now, does all of the CRT, ESG, DEI stuff, does it give you some immediate benefits?
Probably.
Probably does.
Maybe some more people get a little opportunities.
But, you should always weigh whatever benefit you're getting with the costs.
And if nobody's going to tell you that you've completely poisoned white America so that we actually feel that it's dangerous to be in an environment with people who think that you have their stuff and they need to get it back to reach equity.
You don't want to be around that.
If there's any way you can get away from an environment where people's brains have been poisoned, not their DNA.
Nothing is about DNA or about some natural thing in anybody.
It's just that the mind virus has focused on a certain group of people.
Not exclusively, but mostly.
So, do I sound as crazy as I sounded the first time you heard it?
So my thesis here is that I sound less crazy as time goes by, just in general, generally speaking.
Now I'd also, one of the things I'd point out, Is that my audience is unique, and a big, big mistake I made was not realizing that anything I say can get into the larger audience.
And the larger audience has no idea what's going on with me, because they don't have any context.
So they just figure I'm just one of those crazy racists.
When in fact, I probably was the most useful person to black America of anybody this year.
That's my claim.
The most useful person.
Because they didn't know this.
Did they?
Do you think there were any black Americans who knew they had poisoned their relationship with white America and it doesn't look like there's a fix?
And that white America is going to do everything they can to stay away from that risk.
It's a risk that's extreme.
It's cost me so far two jobs and one, well four jobs.
Actually all four of my jobs were because I'm white.
So I lost my banking career because my boss said you can't promote white guys.
True story.
Black people think that didn't happen.
They think, there's no way, it was probably just because you were a bad employee.
There's no way that your boss told you directly, we can't promote you because you're white and male.
And if you think that's the case, that I'm making this up, I would give you as my witness, 100% of white men who have had any experience in the corporate world.
Everyone.
You can ask every single one.
And now you might ask yourself, but why are they quiet?
Isn't that obvious?
I was cancelled worldwide for simply telling my actual experience and my actual opinion, which was not meant to be harmful to anybody.
So white people have been trained to just keep their heads down and try to make the best of it.
But that's the reason you didn't know.
So the most useful person is the person who tells you the truth that you weren't aware of.
It's just that that person is going to take a spear in the back for doing it.
But if it's worth it, I just thought it was worth it.
I just felt that the truth, or let's say the additional information, was so useful that you needed to stop the train with a little bit of a, you know, truth bomb.
So that's what I tried to do.
We'll see how that goes.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I had prepared because it's a slow news day.
Was there some story or anything that you want to talk about that I haven't talked about?
Why don't you apologize for pushing the Ukraine war the first year?
You felt there was a good side and we had to help.
No, Jill, that would be you being an idiot.
Jill has asked me to apologize for pushing the Ukraine war.
Did anybody remember me pushing a war?
Nope.
No, I've never pushed a war.
Actually, I'm pushing the war with the cartels, but that's the only one.
You fell for the hoax that Ukraine was on the good side.
Did I?
Did I?
Was I telling you that Ukraine was the good ones?
Nope.
Nope.
Opposite.
So Jill, where are you getting your information?
Is it from your own asshole?
All right.
I made predictions that were, one was the worst, and then all the rest were the best.
I predicted Ukraine would win?
Nope.
Did not.
Did not.
Let me ask the others.
Did I predict that Ukraine would win?
Those of you who are saying yes, why are all the other people saying no?
You imagine that I did.
Let me tell you what I did predict.
I predicted incorrectly, this is my worst prediction, that Putin would be crazy to invade because the resistance would be far more than anybody's guessing.
And then he attacked.
So who was right?
Was Scott right that it would be way worse than Putin imagined?
I was.
I thought he would know it too.
completely wrong that he would know that too.
I thought he would know it too.
Apparently he didn't.
Secondly, I said that Ukraine would not be easily conquerable because they would have modern weapons, especially the things that fly through the air that maybe the Russians haven't seen yet.
That would be drones and missiles and stuff.
And what is it that's keeping Ukraine safe so far?
A lot of that plus modern weaponry plus, you know, they've got a lot of fight in them apparently.
So I would say I had the best prediction about Ukraine's ultimate fighting ability.
I've also said That you can't predict the final outcome because on both sides there could be some key collapse point.
In other words you could imagine there to be something that would collapse the Russian military.
Let's say a supply line problem or something like that.
And you can imagine that to be something that would collapse the Ukrainian side.
Similarly supplies or maybe a lack of manpower.
But we don't know which what collapse is going to come first.
So I've never predicted that Ukraine would conquer Russia.
I predicted an unusually stiff resistance because of modern technology and the home court.
They had the home court advantage.
So, there are two categories in which I have the best predictions, which social media has reversed my predictions to imagine that they were the worst.
Yeah, it looks like Ukraine might run out of people before Russia runs out of money or willpower or anything else.
Why is the only state where racism is allowed by law?
Is that a thing?
Oh, yeah, in terms of the law.
Well, that's not true.
Because anywhere there's an Indian reservation or a Native American reservation, They have different laws there, so that's a form of discrimination.
Maybe not, it might not be bad, but it's a form of discrimination.
How do you feel about Maui being covered in black tarps?
I don't think that's a thing.
Catherine Austin Fitz, don't know anything about her.
Nazi feds, we talked about them.
with What's happening in Burning Man?
I don't care.
Does anybody care about what's happening at Burning Man?
Nobody cares about that.
U.S.
troops, I don't think U.S.
troops are going to fight Russia.
Does anybody think that's going to happen?
Does anybody believe that you do?
You think U.S.
troops are going to fight Russia?
More than are already there, because presumably there's a lot of advisors there.
Yeah, I would bet against it.
Now, I bet against Putin invading Ukraine, so you should put that in your negatives for my predictions about war.
In my opinion, there's no chance of American boots on the ground, you know, like in actual troops, just advisors and maybe some special forces or something.
But they'll try to look like they're not there.
Well, I think we've learned, I think we've learned something, haven't we?
Could you imagine?
Well, let me ask you this question.
If Biden put troops in the ground and before the 2024 election, sorry, If Biden were to put American troops in the war prior to the 2024 election, do you think he could win?
I don't see any way you could win putting troops on the ground.
No way.
No way.
So given that Biden knows that, and anybody who took his place would know it as well, who exactly is going to be in favor of the war?
I mean, the neocons, but it would be political disaster to back a war at this point.
I can't even think of anything worse.
Is there anything that would more guarantee the election goes in one direction?
There's nothing that would more guarantee that a Republican would be elected.
Well, nothing's impossible.
Nothing's impossible, but it would be political suicide.
Now, that's exactly where I got it wrong with Putin.
I said if Putin invaded Ukraine, it would be political suicide.
And it kind of was.
He didn't die, so it looks like he'd probably recover fully.
But I'm saying the same thing about Biden.
But what if he's not in charge?
What if the military-industrial complex is calling the shots?
In that case, there wouldn't be boots on the ground, I suppose.
Have you figured out the brilliant thing that the military-industrial complex did with Ukraine?
It's the smartest thing I've ever seen.
I was thinking about it yesterday.
Alright, let's say you're the military-industrial complex and you're trying to sell weapons to the United States, you know, your big buyer.
Hey, do you want to buy some more bullets?
And they say, we've got so many bullets.
We got all kinds of bullets.
And then you say, but, you know, some of them might be getting older.
You should replace the older bullets with new bullets.
And then they say, ah, I see what you're saying.
You know, I get it.
But we have a lot of other uses for this money.
And replacing our bullets that may be getting older, it's not really at the top of our list, because there's no active war.
And then the Ukraine war starts, and we start giving away all our old stuff.
You don't think we're gonna have to backfill that by buying new stuff from the people who were back in the war?
It's kind of brilliant.
The business model of this is insanely good, in an evil way, of course.
Bite the bullet.
Why do I think the war is continuing?
Because nobody knows how to stop it.
Everything continues until there's a counterforce, and there isn't a counterforce.
Don Steele says, but troops on Mexican ground is good, Per Scott.
Have I ever told you about reasoning with analogy?
That's how you can spot an NPC.
An NPC will say, you shouldn't do this war because something something about another war.
As soon as somebody says that, you can discount everything they say after that.
There are no similar wars.
There are no two wars that are the same.
The reasons of one don't apply to the other one.
It doesn't work that way.
They're just never the same.
History doesn't repeat.
It can't, because you're always at a different starting place.
Oh my god, you just tried to order my paperback, and you got issued a refund for damaged or undeliverable. and you got issued a refund for damaged or undeliverable.
In spite of all the other ones that go just fine.
Do you know how easy it is to ship a book?
Have you ever seen the package that a book comes in?
The book comes in like this, this package that like seals the book like hard in between the cardboard.
So you have to like pry it open.
How does a book get damaged?
A paperback?
This weighs nothing.
Imagine this between two really thick pieces of cardboard.
How does that get damaged?
How in the world does that get damaged?
There's a lot of coincidences, isn't there?
Or aren't there?
Oh, water?
Yeah, I suppose.
I think he would have said water, but that's a good point.
Could have been water, I suppose.
All right.
Unreliable?
Yes, all reporting about Ukraine is unreliable.
Well, that's true.
When 100% of the signals point to a total collapse of Russia, you might want to start paying attention.
Do you disagree?
Why would you disagree with it?
I swear the weirdest thing about arguing online is that people will show links and quotes that support your argument and they'll think it supports theirs.
It's the oddest thing.
All right.
Building the wall somewhat misframed.
I don't know about that.
His son under the bus.
What's that?
Trump threw his son under the bus.
I don't know about that.
Krugman does the same thing.
Elon Musk's daughter transitioned.
I guess that's true.
Yeah, well, I don't want to put a gender on it, but one of his children transitioned.
I don't know which direction it was.
Can you explain why replacement is better than a demographic crash?
Well, no, I'm not going to respond to a replacement question.
You're going to have to phrase that differently.
Aren't many reframes analogies?
I don't know.
Give me an example.
I can't think of one.
The online...
Muscox.
Oh, McConnell replacement by a Democrat governor.
Yeah, I saw a headline about that.
So isn't it, according to the Constitution, is there a law that says that the governor has to replace a senator with somebody in the same party?
It's state law.
I wonder why it should be.
It feels like it shouldn't be a state law.
Kentucky says that.
Depends on the state.
So the Kentucky governor is saying he might not necessarily replace with the same party.
Party has to submit three names and then he chooses from the names somebody says.
Well, we'll see.
Oh, the governor's calling it unconstitutional to say that they can do that.
Somebody's saying, you said you wanted Ukraine to win in the beginning of this conflict.
Would you not agree?
Can you show me me saying that?
I don't have any memory of saying that.
Why am I just defending people's literal hallucinations about things I've said?
I don't believe I've ever said that.
All right.
Well, it doesn't sound like something I thought.
So I don't know if you thought you saw something like that.
I can't explain that.
Bricks and the gold standard.
I don't really talk about that because nobody knows anything about that.
Nobody knows anything smart about that.
All right.
Illusions are necessary, doctor.
That is correct.
Chuck Schumer is promoting replacement theory and Scott literally won't touch the subject.
No, I'm only objecting to the word, the use of the term, because the term is a racist red flag, replacement theory.
If you say we have a population problem which is somewhat mitigated by immigration, Then I've said that, how many times have I said that?
I say it clearly and often, that probably the United States' secret weapon would be that we're better at immigration.
Now, at the moment, we're not doing it right, because we're letting all comers in.
That's completely wrong.
But if you were doing it wisely the Vivek way, and you were making America the place where the smartest and best and most educated people come from everywhere, You would have a superpower.
That would actually be better than growing your own.
At least economically.
You might argue that it has social risks you don't like, but that's a different argument.
Why would you say I wouldn't touch that?
The only thing I wouldn't touch is your racist sounding word.
Why would you use a racist word when you don't need to?
Like why would you identify yourself as a racist by using replacement theory when you could just say, we don't make a lot of babies so we should bring in lots of good immigrants that benefit the country.
Or argue against it.
But you don't need this replacement theory thing.
Because the replacement theory imagines that that's the real plan.
The plan is to make us more brown.
And I'm sure there's some people who want that.
There are probably plenty of citizens who want it.
But it's not some master plan that's being organized from the top.
You mind culture change?
Well, you know, the good news is that the Hispanic migration is more American than we are.
I hate to tell you.
Have you spent any time with anybody from south of the border who grew up there?
They're not exactly liberals.
They're very family-oriented.
They're very religious.
They're hard work first.
They largely like to stay out of trouble.
Obviously, there's a gang element.
But your average Hispanic immigrant has every quality you'd want in an American that we've lost.
If you want to renew the American ideals, there's a whole bunch of it south of the border.
There's not much of it left here that we're growing natively.
So we might have to bring in some American ideals from other countries.
Because they still think that America has a set of qualities that it sort of lost.
So they're bringing in that point of view.
It's like, oh, let me join this team that has these great qualities.
And then they find out maybe it's not quite what they thought it was, but at least they brought their good attitude here.
here, that's gotta help.
I saw that Nikki Haley was ahead of Vivek in the polls, in In one poll.
Do you think that's real?
It might be real.
Because I think the woman vote... Basically, I heard men say they liked Vivek and I heard women say they liked Nikki Haley after the first debate.
Did anybody else hear that?
Men said Vivek, women said Nikki Haley.
So probably the men who liked Vivek probably also liked Trump, so that's where their vote went.
But the women who liked Nikki Haley were a little easier to dislodge from wherever else their vote may have been, because the woman thing attracts votes.
And I'm not even saying you shouldn't.
If I were a woman and there had never been a woman president, I think I would be just like most people.
I'd say, well, we need one.
Same thing I said about Barack Obama.
It wasn't so much that he was black, it was, let's just get this over with.
Let's do this, show that we are able to do this, like America can have a black president and all we'll care about is how good the job is.
No, that didn't happen.
We got a black president and the right flipped out.
And a lot of bad things happened after that.
But in theory, it could have worked out.
It just didn't.
I was on his jock.
The lowest level of comments would be, you want to date him?
Or, he was on his jock.
Or, get your mouth away from his penis.
Those are the people who don't know how anything works, but they still want to participate.
They're the ones who say it's not fair.
But what about fairness?
Ah!
Fairness, the concept that was invented so that idiots and children can participate in conversations.
And thank goodness we have personal insults so that the worst among us can be full participants in the political back and forth.
Well, I think tax rates should be higher.
No, I think tax rates should be lower.
And then the other person comes in.
You look like a thumb.
All right.
Valuable contribution to the conversation.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I do look like a thumb, but that's a completely different conversation.
All right, I think we've done enough for today because it's a three-day weekend and nobody wants to think about any kind of stuff like that.
Use one false part that discredited an actual atrocity.
So Kenzora says that I rupared myself with a Canadian Indian story.
Use one false part that discredited an actual atrocity.
Well, the only thing I said was that it was a hoax that there were babies in a mass grave.
Did you hear me, therefore, debunk the entire history of indigenous people in Canada?
Did you hear that?
In your, like, weird little olive that's rolling around in your skull?
Something like that came in and sounded like that?
No, I don't believe that happened.
but your imagination is very vigorous.
All right.
Did you know that Akira the Don has a song that uses the reframe, good, from Jocko?
No, I did not.
All right, that's all for today, YouTube.
Thanks for joining.
If you can find a way to buy my book, Reframe Your Brain, it's changing people everywhere.
