Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1976 Scott Adams： I've Accepted An Invitation To Join The Elites, Will Report On Their Evil

00:00:00.000 Do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do.

00:00:03.000 Ra-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba.

00:00:06.000 Do-do-do.

00:00:09.000 Well, this morning, the technology on the locals' platform is glitching.

00:00:16.000 Am I glitching on YouTube as well?

00:00:18.000 Because otherwise, if I am, there's no show this morning.

00:00:22.000 How's our sound and how's our picture?

00:00:25.000 All right. I just told all the locals' people to give up on locals for this morning and to come over here.

00:00:36.000 Looks like we're good over here.

00:00:38.000 All right.

00:00:42.000 So I guess we'll just have to wing it with one feed today, okay?

00:00:46.000 I'm going to wait a minute for the people on locals to come on over.

00:00:50.000 I should probably... I need to tell them.

00:00:53.000 If I don't tell them, they won't come over.

00:00:57.000 Bear with me.

00:00:59.000 Technical problems two minutes before going live.

00:01:03.000 So typical.

00:01:05.000 Interesting.

00:01:07.000 I can't figure out how to post on locals.

00:01:11.000 You'd think that would be the most obvious thing I could do,

00:01:14.000 since I literally do it three times a day.

00:01:17.000 And yet there's no prompt for posting.

00:01:19.000 It's so weird.

00:01:22.000 I have the locals thing called up on my computer.

00:01:25.000 As far as I can tell, I can't figure out how to post a new post.

00:01:31.000 I do it three times a day.

00:01:33.000 But I never do it from the browser.

00:01:35.000 So I do it from the app.

00:01:37.000 So apparently I can't post it either.

00:01:38.000 Somebody do me a favor and post on locals that they need to come over to YouTube.

00:01:43.000 And maybe we'll do something like a show.

00:01:46.000 But to take it up a level,

00:01:48.000 all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stionic,

00:01:51.000 a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.

00:01:54.000 Fill it with your favorite liquid I like, coffee.

00:01:57.000 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day.

00:02:00.000 The thing makes everything better.

00:02:03.000 It's called the simultaneous sip.

00:02:06.000 It happens now. Go.

00:02:12.000 Thank you, Sandy.

00:02:14.000 I appreciate that.

00:02:16.000 And so it might take a minute for everybody to go over here to YouTube for today.

00:02:20.000 That's why we have two platforms.

00:02:22.000 Do you know how many things are broken in my house right now?

00:02:27.000 Besides the locals platform at the moment?

00:02:31.000 I've got five plumbing and water related problems.

00:02:34.000 Almost every part of the technology in my house is broken

00:02:38.000 or needs to be repaired in some way.

00:02:40.000 My car needs service.

00:02:42.000 Pretty much everything I own is broken right now.

00:02:44.000 Sign of the times.

00:02:46.000 All right. Now, let's talk about some news.

00:02:49.000 Let's talk about some news.

00:02:51.000 Question.

00:02:53.000 How many of you know about magnesium and magnesium deficiency in people?

00:03:00.000 And what problems it causes?

00:03:02.000 Do you all know?

00:03:04.000 Every few years, I get excited that magnesium is the answer to all of my problems.

00:03:10.000 And that'll take some magnesium for a while.

00:03:12.000 And then my digestive, without being too graphic,

00:03:16.000 let's just say my digestive system has some changes that are not ideal.

00:03:23.000 So I've never really known if they worked.

00:03:27.000 But one of the things that is a problem if you have low magnesium is anxiety.

00:03:34.000 Did you know that?

00:03:35.000 Did you know that?

00:03:36.000 So apparently magnesium is the biggest, or some say, the biggest deficiency in humans.

00:03:43.000 I'm sure there's a debate on that.

00:03:46.000 But our biggest problem at the moment is too much anxiety.

00:03:52.000 Too much anxiety.

00:03:54.000 So we've got a whole country that's full of anxiety and nobody knows why.

00:03:59.000 But we also know that the mineral that you need to help prevent it is the one we have the least of.

00:04:07.000 Now, what type of things will decrease your magnesium?

00:04:11.000 Number one, vitamin D.

00:04:14.000 Did you know that?

00:04:15.000 It could be that if you're taking vitamin D, it's making you healthier in one way,

00:04:21.000 but giving you anxiety if it reduces your magnesium.

00:04:25.000 So apparently you're supposed to match, not match, but have some magnesium at the same time as your vitamin D.

00:04:33.000 How many of you knew that?

00:04:35.000 I didn't know until 10 minutes ago.

00:04:37.000 Number two, one of the other things that reduces your magnesium is prescription meds.

00:04:45.000 I don't know which ones.

00:04:47.000 But since we take more prescription meds than, you know, any time in history,

00:04:52.000 I'm kind of wondering if all of our problems that seem like new ones,

00:04:58.000 you know, where everybody's got anxiety and depression, it might all be magnesium.

00:05:02.000 It could be that there are several things about our lifestyle and our environment that are putting pressure on our magnesium,

00:05:11.000 I don't know, uptake.

00:05:13.000 It might be that.

00:05:15.000 It might just be that.

00:05:19.000 So anyway, I just put that in.

00:05:20.000 Oh, it also helps asthma, right?

00:05:22.000 So asthma is also something that boomed in the last 20 years.

00:05:27.000 Adult asthma is a new thing in terms of how big it is.

00:05:34.000 I think it always existed.

00:05:36.000 But adults were not getting massive amounts of asthma until about 20 years ago.

00:05:42.000 There was something in our lifestyle or environment that changed.

00:05:46.000 Magnesium fits every hypothesis.

00:05:48.000 So here's the only thing.

00:05:49.000 If you're a curious person and you care about this sort of thing,

00:05:55.000 just do 10 minutes of research to find out what it looks like if you have a magnesium deficiency.

00:06:04.000 You'll immediately see that you have like seven of the symptoms.

00:06:07.000 Can't sleep?

00:06:09.000 Bingo.

00:06:11.000 Anxiety?

00:06:12.000 Bingo.

00:06:13.000 Depression?

00:06:14.000 Bingo.

00:06:15.000 Right?

00:06:16.000 Is it a coincidence that all of the problems, and asthma,

00:06:21.000 is it a coincidence that all of the problems that are unexplained and somewhat recent

00:06:27.000 happen to map exactly the decrease in our magnesium?

00:06:31.000 Is that a coincidence?

00:06:33.000 Because it looks like it's direct.

00:06:35.000 It's just a direct correlation.

00:06:37.000 So I don't know if it's causation, but you might want to do your own research on that.

00:06:41.000 And I saw somebody suggest there are at least three or four kinds of magnesium.

00:06:47.000 And I saw the suggestion, just pick one.

00:06:51.000 Try it for two weeks.

00:06:53.000 And if it doesn't work, you don't notice any difference, try another one.

00:06:57.000 But once you've run through the four that you could do with two weeks apiece,

00:07:01.000 if you don't notice any difference, don't do it.

00:07:02.000 But if you do, there you go.

00:07:08.000 Well, here was an unexpected thing that happened to me.

00:07:12.000 I really, honestly, I didn't even think this was real.

00:07:15.000 But I got an invitation to join the elites.

00:07:17.000 Have you heard of the elites?

00:07:19.000 They're getting a lot of attention.

00:07:21.000 It's sort of a shadowy group that runs everything behind the scenes.

00:07:25.000 And I thought it was just a rumor.

00:07:29.000 I didn't think there were actually any elites.

00:07:32.000 But I've been invited to join.

00:07:34.000 And to entice me to join, they showed me the agenda for the next meeting.

00:07:38.000 And I don't think I'm supposed to share this with you.

00:07:41.000 But since I haven't yet accepted, I think it's okay.

00:07:45.000 So I'm going to tell you what the elites have on their agenda.

00:07:48.000 The first one is how to profit from promoting cannibalism to fight climate change.

00:07:53.000 Okay, that's exactly what you would think.

00:07:57.000 Number two, how to keep Andrew Tate in the matrix.

00:08:01.000 Okay, obviously that's going on.

00:08:04.000 How to profit from human misery, just in general.

00:08:08.000 There's another seminar on the many benefits of war.

00:08:14.000 There's a speaker who will tell us why national borders are imaginary.

00:08:18.000 There's going to be more speculation about the new mind control vaccination they're planning to roll out next year.

00:08:27.000 There's a conversation, I think, on the agenda.

00:08:31.000 How to make Hunter Biden's next lost laptop disappear.

00:08:35.000 So they're already planning for his next lost laptop.

00:08:39.000 And then this one's a little scary.

00:08:43.000 I'm not sure exactly what they're referring to.

00:08:46.000 But this agenda item is, do pure bloods taste like chicken?

00:08:52.000 So I know I'd be worried about that one a little bit.

00:08:56.000 So here's what I'm going to do.

00:08:58.000 I'm going to join the elites.

00:09:00.000 But I'm going to report back to you what's happening behind the scenes.

00:09:06.000 So you'll no longer have to wonder what they're talking about.

00:09:11.000 I'll just tell you.

00:09:13.000 And so far their agenda looks pretty useful.

00:09:17.000 But let's talk about the World Economic Forum.

00:09:19.000 I saw a tweet today from Jordan Peterson, who was criticizing the World Economic Forum, etc.

00:09:35.000 And let's see, what did Jordan Peterson say?

00:09:41.000 He said, well, he thought it was a bad idea to have this top-down planning from some big entity that's making decisions for us.

00:09:52.000 And here's my take on the World Economic Forum.

00:09:58.000 If Jordan Peterson, which I think you'd all agree is one of the smartest people in the game,

00:10:06.000 and as far as I can tell, is a straight shooter all the time.

00:10:11.000 As far as I can tell, right?

00:10:13.000 I'm not magic, but it looks like he's one of the smartest people.

00:10:17.000 It looks like he has good intentions.

00:10:19.000 You know, he's trying to make the world a better place.

00:10:21.000 And it looks like he tells the truth every time that I've seen.

00:10:24.000 I mean, I've never seen anything that even suggests he's not being completely forthright.

00:10:28.000 So Jordan Peterson is like a huge, huge asset to the world, in my opinion.

00:10:37.000 Now, Klaus Schwab has a completely different educational and experience set.

00:10:44.000 So you've got Jordan Peterson with all of his psychology and psychiatric and, you know, a broad array of related, you know, talent stack sort of things.

00:10:58.000 All good stuff.

00:11:00.000 Klaus Schwab is an engineer and an economist.

00:11:03.000 Almost completely different skills than Jordan Peterson.

00:11:07.000 Now, if Jordan Peterson and Klaus Schwab have a disagreement about the WEF, who would you trust?

00:11:16.000 Let's say you believed, just hypothetically, they were both honest.

00:11:21.000 So the only thing that you're wondering about is who knew more about the situation.

00:11:26.000 Like, who is the smarter person?

00:11:29.000 So who would you trust?

00:11:30.000 So you would trust the person, now in my hypothetical, they're equal character.

00:11:38.000 I'm not saying they are.

00:11:40.000 I'm saying in a hypothetical, they're equal character, but one has the exact background for the WEF, and one has, you know, a great skill set, but unrelated to economics and engineering.

00:11:56.000 Who would you trust?

00:11:57.000 All right, here's the test.

00:12:00.000 You ready?

00:12:04.000 You're a business person in a company.

00:12:07.000 So let's, let's, I'm going to run you through a little scenario here.

00:12:10.000 You work for a big company.

00:12:12.000 And you have two choices, because you've been in business a long time and you're a really big company now, billions and billions of dollars.

00:12:19.000 And somebody comes to you and says, let's, let's tweak our existing systems to make them better.

00:12:27.000 That's a good idea, right?

00:12:30.000 Who would, who would be opposed to tweaking your existing systems to make them better?

00:12:36.000 Anybody?

00:12:38.000 Would anybody disagree with that?

00:12:39.000 Hey, we have a bunch of systems in our company, let's tweak them to make them better.

00:12:44.000 All right, it's a trick, it's a trick question.

00:12:47.000 You don't always tweak them to make them better.

00:12:49.000 You know that, right?

00:12:51.000 Tell me, see if you can answer this question, because this will, this will determine if you're as smart as Klaus Schwab.

00:12:57.000 Because this is an engineering slash economics specific question.

00:13:04.000 You've got two choices.

00:13:06.000 Tweak your existing systems or rebuild them from bottom up.

00:13:11.000 Which one's the smart one to do?

00:13:13.000 Go.

00:13:15.000 Do you tweak your systems to make them better?

00:13:18.000 Or do you just say, all right, we need to rebuild this from the bottom up?

00:13:21.000 Go.

00:13:22.000 Well, if you don't know the answer to the question, you should not have an opinion.

00:13:27.000 If you don't know the answer, you should not have an opinion on Klaus Schwab.

00:13:32.000 Would you accept that?

00:13:33.000 Would you accept that if you can't answer that question, because it's a pretty simple question.

00:13:38.000 Should you tweak your systems to make them better, right?

00:13:41.000 Would you agree that's a really simple question?

00:13:44.000 And would you agree that if you can't answer that simple question, you're not qualified to have an opinion about the WEF?

00:13:50.000 Would you agree with those statements?

00:13:53.000 If you can't answer that simple question, should you tweak your systems to make them better?

00:13:58.000 All right.

00:14:01.000 All right, now, let me tell you the right answer.

00:14:04.000 Most of you said yes.

00:14:06.000 You should tweak your systems to make them better.

00:14:09.000 That proves you do not have the same training as Klaus Schwab.

00:14:14.000 Because it's the wrong answer.

00:14:16.000 Nobody had the right answer, by the way.

00:14:18.000 I didn't see.

00:14:19.000 There might have been somebody.

00:14:21.000 Thank you.

00:14:23.000 Thank you.

00:14:24.000 Thank you.

00:14:25.000 One person had the right answer.

00:14:27.000 So far, I've only seen one right answer.

00:14:29.000 What system are you talking about?

00:14:31.000 That was the right answer.

00:14:33.000 Right?

00:14:34.000 What I was going to say is, yeah, I think some of you did get the right answer.

00:14:37.000 Everybody who said tweak the system doesn't understand enough about engineering and economics to criticize Klaus Schwab.

00:14:47.000 I'm not saying he's right.

00:14:49.000 Remember, I'm the guy who talks about both sides.

00:14:51.000 I'm not saying you should follow him.

00:14:54.000 I'm not saying the WF is a good idea.

00:14:57.000 Nothing like that.

00:14:59.000 I'm saying that if you think the system should be tweaked in all cases, then you're not up to the level of, let's say, experience and talent stack that Klaus Schwab has.

00:15:10.000 Or I have.

00:15:12.000 Right?

00:15:13.000 You wouldn't be up to, you wouldn't even be up to my level.

00:15:16.000 Nor would you be up to the level of the commenter who said it depends what system.

00:15:21.000 That's the right answer.

00:15:23.000 Right?

00:15:24.000 An engineer would ask that first.

00:15:27.000 I said, I asked this generic question, would you tweak a system to make it better?

00:15:31.000 The engineer says, which system?

00:15:34.000 Because you might want to get rid of that system.

00:15:36.000 Right?

00:15:38.000 Maybe it just needs to disappear.

00:15:40.000 Maybe it's too hard to tweak it because it, you know, it's patches on patches on patches.

00:15:46.000 Maybe it's better to start a new one.

00:15:48.000 And then when you're confident that the new one can take over, then you get rid of the old one.

00:15:52.000 Right?

00:15:53.000 If you couldn't answer the question of should you tweak a system to make it better with the complexity that I just added,

00:15:59.000 you probably are not yet at the level where criticizing the WEF makes sense.

00:16:09.000 Now, here's where you can criticism without that knowledge.

00:16:13.000 And here's where I think I would agree with Jordan Peterson.

00:16:17.000 It does depend who's making the decisions.

00:16:20.000 You know, we don't necessarily want to accidentally create a new world government.

00:16:25.000 You know, let's say they get extra power at the WEF.

00:16:28.000 You don't want to accidentally have them more powerful than your own government.

00:16:33.000 Right?

00:16:34.000 That wouldn't be a good system.

00:16:36.000 So there's plenty of room for criticizing the WF.

00:16:39.000 But here's a statement.

00:16:42.000 I believe I wrote it down.

00:16:46.000 Here's what Klaus Schwab believes about the, quote, great reset.

00:16:50.000 Here's the scariest thing you've ever heard anybody say.

00:16:54.000 All right?

00:16:55.000 I'll just read his words.

00:16:57.000 This is scary.

00:17:00.000 This is from the Spectator.

00:17:01.000 I got this out of.

00:17:03.000 So, Klaus Schwab believes that the world needs a great reset.

00:17:05.000 Uh-oh.

00:17:06.000 What's that?

00:17:07.000 And it goes on.

00:17:08.000 COVID, according to the WEF's website, explaining the global reboot,

00:17:14.000 awaiting the world, revealed all of the...

00:17:17.000 So COVID revealed to us that there are lots of inconsistencies,

00:17:21.000 inadequacies, and contradictions of multiple systems,

00:17:24.000 from health and financial to energy and education.

00:17:27.000 Would you agree with that?

00:17:28.000 Would you agree that COVID showed the inadequacies of really all of our systems?

00:17:35.000 You would disagree with that?

00:17:38.000 Seriously?

00:17:40.000 Okay, that's not.

00:17:41.000 Come on.

00:17:43.000 That wasn't even a question you were supposed to have a different answer on.

00:17:48.000 You're not supposed to say no to that.

00:17:51.000 Are you honestly, you went through the pandemic

00:17:55.000 and it looked like all of our systems were working perfectly?

00:17:59.000 Did you notice anything about the supply chains?

00:18:03.000 How about our decision-making of how we threw money at things?

00:18:06.000 Did that work out well?

00:18:08.000 Did Congress make all good decisions?

00:18:10.000 Did our governments make good decisions about masking and vaccinations?

00:18:15.000 Did our healthcare system give you accurate information

00:18:19.000 about the vaccinations and the masks?

00:18:21.000 If you didn't notice that everything broke, or not broke,

00:18:27.000 but you could see the weakness in everything because everything got stressed.

00:18:32.000 So I'll make a general statement.

00:18:35.000 If you stress a system, that's how you find its weaknesses.

00:18:39.000 Would you agree with the general statement?

00:18:42.000 That stressing a system is exactly what you do to find out where its weaknesses are.

00:18:47.000 Now, we didn't do it intentionally, COVID did, but it did stress our systems,

00:18:53.000 and we saw what broke and what didn't.

00:18:55.000 Now, that's what Klaus Schwab is saying,

00:18:57.000 that COVID stressed our systems and it made it more clear where we need to fix things.

00:19:02.000 So far, that's not crazy, right?

00:19:04.000 That's not crazy.

00:19:06.000 Let's go on.

00:19:07.000 The entire planet needs a new social contract to reshape the future state of global relations,

00:19:14.000 the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies,

00:19:18.000 the nature of business models, and the management of a global commons.

00:19:22.000 What would be another way to sum up all of that stuff?

00:19:28.000 Like, it's a bunch of buzzwords and jargon.

00:19:31.000 But that sounds to me like an engineer who is...

00:19:37.000 Engineers jump in.

00:19:39.000 I know there are engineers watching this.

00:19:41.000 He's an engineer.

00:19:43.000 What is he saying you should do?

00:19:44.000 What's your first step?

00:19:45.000 First step of the reset would be...

00:19:48.000 First step.

00:19:53.000 Is this really hard?

00:19:55.000 I wasn't expecting any of these questions to be hard.

00:19:58.000 Apparently it is.

00:20:00.000 No, the first step is to collect the user's specifications.

00:20:04.000 You're an engineer.

00:20:06.000 You find out what you're trying to accomplish.

00:20:10.000 And you collect the preferences of the users.

00:20:12.000 So he's basically saying we should re-look at everything.

00:20:17.000 You know, get all the input from everywhere you can get input

00:20:22.000 so you're as smart as possible.

00:20:24.000 And then see if we should change stuff.

00:20:26.000 Well, part of that's crazy.

00:20:29.000 You get everybody's input.

00:20:31.000 You do everything in public.

00:20:33.000 You know, you publish the speakers.

00:20:36.000 It's all public. It's all transparent.

00:20:37.000 And they're collecting user input about what needs to be changed.

00:20:43.000 How's that evil?

00:20:46.000 Now, the problem is why is he doing it?

00:20:49.000 Like who elected him, right?

00:20:51.000 That's a good conversation.

00:20:53.000 It's a good conversation to say who elected him.

00:20:55.000 Like why would he have this influence?

00:20:57.000 Good conversation.

00:20:59.000 It's not a good conversation to say he shouldn't collect user specifications.

00:21:03.000 To say that the important people in the country should not be looking at what's broken

00:21:09.000 and what people want different, that would be crazy talk.

00:21:13.000 Somebody needs to be looking at what broke and what we should do different.

00:21:18.000 Maybe it's not them.

00:21:20.000 That's a good conversation.

00:21:22.000 All right.

00:21:23.000 So here's my statement that anybody who knows both engineering and economics would agree with.

00:21:30.000 By the way, is there anybody on here who is well-versed in both engineering and economics?

00:21:38.000 Just go on.

00:21:40.000 Okay. All right.

00:21:42.000 Eat at this.

00:21:44.000 So I'm going to say for those of you who are well-versed in both engineering and economics,

00:21:48.000 I want you to see if you agree or disagree with the following statement.

00:21:53.000 Sometimes it makes sense to tweak your systems.

00:21:57.000 But if the only thing you ever do is tweak them and they're complicated, right?

00:22:04.000 So it's a complex environment.

00:22:06.000 If the only thing you ever do is tweak them, you're doomed.

00:22:11.000 You're doomed.

00:22:13.000 If that's the only thing you do.

00:22:14.000 Sometimes you have to rebuild from scratch.

00:22:18.000 I want every single person who knows both economics and engineering to weigh in.

00:22:25.000 Yes.

00:22:27.000 Sometimes you tweak them.

00:22:29.000 Sometimes you rebuild them from scratch.

00:22:31.000 And the first thing you do is you figure out who your team is.

00:22:35.000 That would be the elites.

00:22:37.000 Because nobody else has power.

00:22:39.000 Who are you going to do?

00:22:41.000 Bring together the people who have no power?

00:22:42.000 That would make no sense.

00:22:45.000 So Klaus Schwab brings together the people who can make a decision.

00:22:53.000 He makes sure that the user requirements of what is broken and everything, you know, is aired.

00:22:59.000 So that we can see the whole process.

00:23:02.000 So who are they trying to benefit?

00:23:06.000 Good question, right?

00:23:07.000 So if they were not doing things that are pretty transparent, then the urgency of that question would be much higher.

00:23:16.000 But so far, everything seems to be, by necessity, transparent.

00:23:21.000 And by necessity, I mean the entire purpose is that when they figure out what they think is a good idea, they publish it.

00:23:31.000 Right?

00:23:32.000 Their business model is not to hide information.

00:23:36.000 Their entire purpose is to create opinions and put them out there so you can see them.

00:23:40.000 So, as far as I know, they're not dealing with secrets.

00:23:47.000 They're dealing with, very explicitly, they want the entire public to pay attention to everything they do.

00:23:53.000 Don't you think the World Economic Forum wants everybody watching?

00:23:57.000 And they want you to see every speech and every document.

00:24:00.000 In fact, they have people whose job it is to make sure that everybody sees those documents and everybody knows what they're talking about.

00:24:09.000 If any of this were, like, totally behind closed doors...

00:24:13.000 And by the way, there are enough of these so-called elites that at least some of them are Elon Musk, right?

00:24:20.000 Remember, he was invited, but he declined because he said it'd be boring.

00:24:23.000 Somebody in those rooms is going to tell you what happened.

00:24:27.000 Do you think all the elites are on the same page?

00:24:30.000 No, there's not a chance.

00:24:33.000 The elites are competitors with each other.

00:24:35.000 Somebody is going to tell you what happened in the room, because they don't like it, if that were the case.

00:24:41.000 Now, all right, how many of you watching this say that I just defended the World Economic Forum?

00:24:50.000 Go.

00:24:52.000 Who believes I just defended the World Economic Forum, and thus, I'm in favor of their existence and all the things they do?

00:25:01.000 Now, this...here's one.

00:25:05.000 Now, look at the answers. Those are the correct answers.

00:25:08.000 No.

00:25:10.000 I maintain that I have the smartest audience.

00:25:14.000 Like, I actually believe that.

00:25:15.000 Like that, I know it sounds like something you would just say, but I actually literally believe that.

00:25:21.000 Because most of you have gone through the work, so to speak, of, you know, putting up with me for a while, and we talk about this stuff all the time.

00:25:30.000 All right, so here's your lesson for the day.

00:25:32.000 If you're an engineer or an economist, you are always looking at your systems and saying, do we change it at all?

00:25:39.000 If we do change it, do we tweak it?

00:25:42.000 And if we tweak it forever, we're doomed.

00:25:46.000 At some point, the tweaking becomes too much patch on patch, and you've got to just start over.

00:25:52.000 That's what the World Economic Forum is teaching you, but it's hard to learn if you don't have that background.

00:25:58.000 All right.

00:25:59.000 Now, do you think that Dr. Jordan Peterson has a sufficient understanding of engineering and economics?

00:26:06.000 Because he is a polymath, right?

00:26:07.000 He's not really limited to one field.

00:26:09.000 He's smart enough that he's got at least, you know, one foot in anything important, I would think.

00:26:15.000 So do you think he has enough background to make that distinction, that sometimes you do need to tweak and sometimes you need to go bottom up?

00:26:27.000 I don't know.

00:26:29.000 I haven't heard him specifically criticize that point.

00:26:33.000 He is usually about, you know, who is making the decisions.

00:26:37.000 And on that front, he and I, I think we agree.

00:26:40.000 I think we agree that the question of who makes the decisions is super important.

00:26:47.000 But here's the problem.

00:26:50.000 There's no right answer to who makes the decisions.

00:26:54.000 Because whoever it is, if they're unelected, and if it's a, assuming it's a global thing, nobody's going to get elected, right?

00:27:03.000 Because we don't really have a global election system.

00:27:06.000 So we don't really have an obvious way to fix it.

00:27:10.000 So that we would be happy that the people who are considering these questions, which do have to be considered, we want them to be on our side.

00:27:19.000 But how can we guarantee that?

00:27:21.000 We can't.

00:27:23.000 The only thing we can get, well, the only thing we could, let's say, demand is transparency.

00:27:29.000 And, you know, then if you see something you don't like, then, you know, fight like hell.

00:27:36.000 Do you know why we don't have mandatory vaccinations right now?

00:27:42.000 Do you know why we don't have mandatory vaccinations right now?

00:27:47.000 There's only one reason.

00:27:49.000 There's exactly one reason.

00:27:52.000 What is it?

00:27:53.000 Transparency.

00:27:54.000 Yeah.

00:27:55.000 There was enough transparency that the public said, I don't think your data is convincing me.

00:28:01.000 And that was enough that the public simply took power.

00:28:05.000 If the government had all the power over the citizens, we would all be vaccinated.

00:28:10.000 Agree or disagree.

00:28:11.000 I mean, unless you hid in the cave or went on the wild.

00:28:14.000 Agree or disagree.

00:28:16.000 If it were the government's decision, it would be mandatory.

00:28:19.000 Agree?

00:28:20.000 Yeah.

00:28:21.000 I think that's clear.

00:28:23.000 Because the government was very clear that it was, in their opinion, it was better for you and everybody.

00:28:30.000 Right.

00:28:31.000 So, who had the power in the United States?

00:28:34.000 Who had the power?

00:28:35.000 The citizens did.

00:28:37.000 And you see that over and over again.

00:28:39.000 Now, let me ask the second question.

00:28:41.000 I know you're going to get this one right.

00:28:43.000 Why do the citizens of the United States have power, but the citizens of Australia are slaves?

00:28:48.000 You know the answer.

00:28:53.000 Why?

00:28:55.000 Guns.

00:28:57.000 Yeah, guns.

00:28:59.000 It really is that simple.

00:29:01.000 The citizens of the United States, we're not going to take shit.

00:29:05.000 That's who we are.

00:29:07.000 That's sort of like an identity, right?

00:29:09.000 Now, your identity and your, I don't know, I don't know if it's a culture or just an identity, but Americans are very clear that their government is not in control.

00:29:22.000 True?

00:29:24.000 True or false?

00:29:25.000 Americans believe, and they act like it, that the government's not in control.

00:29:30.000 How about Canada?

00:29:32.000 How about that trucker movement?

00:29:34.000 Is the government of Canada in control or are the citizens in control?

00:29:40.000 It looks like the government, doesn't it?

00:29:43.000 Why is the government in control in Canada, not the citizens?

00:29:49.000 I can think of two reasons.

00:29:53.000 Canada doesn't have enough assholes.

00:29:57.000 Not enough guns.

00:29:59.000 Now, I'm not saying gun owners are assholes.

00:30:03.000 Those are separate categories.

00:30:05.000 I'm saying that sometimes you need a lot of assholes to get anything done.

00:30:09.000 You need people who are just willing to, I hate to say, storm the Capitol.

00:30:14.000 Let me say it.

00:30:15.000 I'm going to say it right out loud.

00:30:17.000 I'm going to say it as clearly as you could possibly say it.

00:30:21.000 I am delighted that January 6th happened.

00:30:25.000 Does anybody else have the same opinion?

00:30:27.000 Now, I don't condone violence.

00:30:31.000 That's all tragic.

00:30:33.000 And I wasn't there and I wouldn't have gone.

00:30:35.000 Like it wasn't something I would have done.

00:30:37.000 And I think that people were misled.

00:30:40.000 You know, every problem with it, right?

00:30:42.000 Every problem is valid.

00:30:44.000 But do you want to live in a country where 40% of the country genuinely believed,

00:30:51.000 I'm not saying it's true, but they genuinely believed the election had been rigged?

00:30:55.000 Let me ask you this.

00:30:58.000 What did you want them to do?

00:31:00.000 I know what I wanted them to do.

00:31:02.000 I mean, after the fact.

00:31:03.000 I didn't want it ahead of the fact.

00:31:05.000 After the fact, you know, once I'm understanding how everybody felt about everything,

00:31:09.000 I think you had to do that.

00:31:13.000 You had to put pressure on the government.

00:31:16.000 Now, I think it was ill-informed maybe, didn't give us a better outcome.

00:31:22.000 But no, I do not want to live in a country where the citizens will not occupy the capital if they get fucked.

00:31:29.000 Sorry.

00:31:30.000 I didn't go very far without using that word today.

00:31:34.000 I was really going to try hard.

00:31:37.000 I didn't make it one day.

00:31:40.000 So, here's my nuance for the day.

00:31:44.000 You can hate a lot of the things the individual actors did on January 6th.

00:31:51.000 You can hate the individual characters, both on the government side and also on the protesters' side.

00:31:58.000 There's plenty of people who did things you wish they hadn't done.

00:32:02.000 But you tell me.

00:32:04.000 Do you want to live in a country where that wouldn't happen?

00:32:08.000 That's the country I want.

00:32:10.000 I aggressively want that country.

00:32:12.000 I super, super want that country.

00:32:14.000 I have no ambiguity about that whatsoever.

00:32:17.000 I'll take the cost to get the benefit.

00:32:22.000 Was it worth it that people died and people were injured maybe permanently?

00:32:28.000 Was it worth it?

00:32:31.000 Yes.

00:32:32.000 Yes, it was.

00:32:34.000 Yeah.

00:32:35.000 It's tragic.

00:32:36.000 Nobody is happy about the bad stuff that happened.

00:32:39.000 But we absolutely have to demonstrate that we're going to get out of our houses and out of our chairs

00:32:46.000 and we're going to be in the street if you mess with us.

00:32:50.000 And I think the election is a clear case where the people in charge were messing with us.

00:32:55.000 I don't know.

00:32:56.000 And the election was rigged.

00:32:57.000 I don't see that evidence, you know, clearly.

00:32:59.000 But they were messing with us.

00:33:02.000 And there had to be a reaction.

00:33:05.000 So, there you go.

00:33:07.000 So, WEF, my bottom line is what they state they want to do is vitally important and smart.

00:33:16.000 The way they're doing it is certainly available for criticism, like anything, right?

00:33:23.000 But as long as they keep the transparency up, I'm probably going to be reluctantly open-minded about it.

00:33:33.000 I think that the opportunity for mischief is really high.

00:33:38.000 It's really high.

00:33:39.000 It's really high.

00:33:41.000 So, your suspicion about the WEF, totally support it.

00:33:47.000 Can we be cool with that?

00:33:49.000 Because I know a lot of you think you disagree with me on the WEF, but a lot of it is that I like to show both sides of things.

00:33:56.000 So that can be misleading.

00:33:57.000 I'm completely on your side of not trusting them.

00:34:01.000 Good?

00:34:03.000 Can we just agree on that?

00:34:05.000 But I will fight vigorously for the process which they describe.

00:34:11.000 And the process they describe is you bring the people in power together.

00:34:16.000 You say, maybe this is a time where we look at rebuilding some systems.

00:34:19.000 You gather the specifications.

00:34:23.000 You do it as publicly as you possibly can.

00:34:26.000 And I think they do a good job of doing it publicly.

00:34:29.000 And then you let the public debate it, right?

00:34:32.000 You're not...

00:34:34.000 Here's the thing people miss.

00:34:36.000 You imagine that the WEF is going to make a decision and then it'll just get implemented.

00:34:41.000 But the public is part of the process, right?

00:34:45.000 Completely part of the process.

00:34:46.000 So maybe some other country, like Australia, will just have to do what the WEF tells them.

00:34:52.000 But we won't.

00:34:54.000 America won't.

00:34:56.000 America is going to look at it and we're going to fight like hell, like we always do.

00:34:59.000 And we'll sort it out.

00:35:02.000 And maybe the WEF comes up with an idea we like.

00:35:05.000 But we're certainly going to kick the tires and test the hell out of it.

00:35:09.000 Alright, here's why I know this simulation is messing with me.

00:35:12.000 This couldn't possibly be a coincidence.

00:35:14.000 Alright, I think most of you know enough about kind of what I've been into the last few weeks to know that this is just weird.

00:35:23.000 Alright, so I had this like very public back and forth with Elon Musk and a bunch of other followers.

00:35:31.000 On the question of whether there existed in reality, anybody with power, and the with power is the important phrase here.

00:35:41.000 Anybody with power who believes that the current level of population on Earth, we should drive it down.

00:35:48.000 As opposed to managing the rate of growth.

00:35:53.000 So we definitely want to manage the rate of growth.

00:35:56.000 And there are good ways and bad ways to do that.

00:35:58.000 But I contend that there's nobody with power, nobody with power, who wants to decrease the absolute number of people.

00:36:08.000 Alright, so now I have this big public back and forth on that point.

00:36:12.000 And 60 Minutes runs a major episode yesterday in which they interviewed Paul Ehrlich, the most famous person who has that view, and is really powerful.

00:36:28.000 More than I assumed.

00:36:29.000 Now, how could that happen within days of me being in this public debate about whether this person exists?

00:36:39.000 I mean, what are the chances of that?

00:36:42.000 Doesn't that just look weird?

00:36:44.000 I mean, it looks like I caused it.

00:36:46.000 You know, I'm not saying I did.

00:36:48.000 It just looks like it.

00:36:50.000 Now, hold on.

00:36:52.000 What you're saying is that this has been out for decades, and we'll talk about all of Ehrlich's bad predictions.

00:36:59.000 Alright, so here's some of, this was on Epstein's Twitter feed.

00:37:10.000 So, Paul Ehrlich, here are some of the things that he's been wrong about all of his career.

00:37:19.000 So here are some of the things.

00:37:21.000 So he got in 60 Minutes and he got lots of attention.

00:37:24.000 And here are the things he's predicted.

00:37:25.000 Are you ready?

00:37:26.000 Let me get to the list here.

00:37:37.000 Where is it?

00:37:38.000 Alright, Alex Epstein did a long thread on this that I retweeted, if you're looking for it.

00:37:43.000 So here are the things Alex is calling out Paul Ehrlich on.

00:37:46.000 He says he's been 180 degrees wrong for 55 years in a row.

00:37:53.000 So here are the things he said.

00:37:55.000 Humanity is not sustainable.

00:37:57.000 To maintain our lifestyle, yours and mine basically, for the entire planet, you'd need five more Earths.

00:38:03.000 Do you think we would need five more Earths to maintain our current lifestyle?

00:38:10.000 Does that even...

00:38:13.000 Hold on, Robert.

00:38:16.000 So Robert, we're going to talk about you.

00:38:18.000 Robert's an NPC.

00:38:20.000 And on the whiteboard, I'm going to show you how to identify people like Robert.

00:38:24.000 So he's having an episode now, because he's a binary.

00:38:28.000 And he can't kind of understand that there could be two sides of something, or any kind of nuance.

00:38:33.000 So Bob will learn he's an NPC today, and I hate to do that to you, Bob, but that's coming up.

00:38:40.000 That's how you'll find out.

00:38:42.000 So if you're yelling me in all caps that I must change my mind, before you've heard what I have to say, you're an NPC.

00:38:51.000 If after what I say, you have a criticism, well, that might be something.

00:38:57.000 I'd listen to that.

00:38:59.000 But to be quite sure, before you hear what I have to say, feels like a little NPC-ish.

00:39:07.000 All right.

00:39:08.000 So hold on.

00:39:10.000 So the context here is we're trying to decide if Paul Ehrlich is a nut job, or he actually has power.

00:39:20.000 Okay, that's our context.

00:39:21.000 So here are things he said, that the world is not sustainable, we need five more Earths.

00:39:27.000 Clearly nuts, wouldn't you say?

00:39:30.000 Isn't that obviously nuts?

00:39:33.000 Like, if our population stopped right where it is, you think we couldn't handle that?

00:39:40.000 That's nuts, right?

00:39:42.000 How about the oceans will be as dead as Lake Erie in less than a decade?

00:39:47.000 I think he was saying these things in the 70s.

00:39:51.000 That's nuts.

00:39:53.000 We don't have to wonder how wrong he was.

00:39:56.000 Just observe.

00:40:00.000 He said, America will be subject to water rationing by 1974.

00:40:06.000 So in 1974, we'd be water rationing.

00:40:10.000 And food rationing by 1980.

00:40:11.000 This is the guy who is the number one most influential person on population.

00:40:19.000 Okay?

00:40:21.000 Wrong, more wrong than anybody's ever been wrong in the history of wrongness.

00:40:26.000 And Paul Ehrlich, as Alex Epstein points out, he's the media's longest standing environmental expert since the 70s.

00:40:35.000 60 Minutes still thinks he's worth putting on TV.

00:40:42.000 Now, if the context was not all the things he's gotten wrong so you should never listen to him again,

00:40:51.000 something's very broken here.

00:40:54.000 Am I right?

00:40:55.000 Does CBS in 60 Minutes not know that he's the wrongest person of all the wrong people who have ever been wrong?

00:41:04.000 Did that somehow escape their gaze?

00:41:08.000 I didn't watch the episode.

00:41:10.000 Did they go back and criticize him for his past wrongness?

00:41:13.000 How much did they talk about how wrong he's been in the past?

00:41:21.000 Did they just brush over it?

00:41:29.000 All right.

00:41:30.000 They think he's right.

00:41:32.000 So they treated him like he's like an actual serious player.

00:41:36.000 Interesting.

00:41:37.000 All right.

00:41:39.000 He said by the year, I don't know when he predicted this, but he said by the year 2000,

00:41:43.000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands inhabited by some 70 million hungry people.

00:41:52.000 So, yeah, he said that.

00:41:56.000 Let's see.

00:42:01.000 He said the battle to feed all of humanity is over.

00:42:04.000 In the 1970s, hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.

00:42:14.000 Okay.

00:42:18.000 He said we will soon be asking is it perfectly okay to eat the bodies of your dead because we're all so hungry.

00:42:25.000 That's 2014.

00:42:27.000 2014.

00:42:28.000 I have to admit, some of you have been looking delicious lately.

00:42:31.000 So, all right.

00:42:32.000 He got one of them right.

00:42:34.000 Maybe that's just me.

00:42:37.000 He wrote The Population Bomb.

00:42:38.000 That was his book.

00:42:40.000 In 1968, basically got everything wrong and that made him the media darling for climate change.

00:42:51.000 Now, you tell me.

00:42:54.000 Do you think, clearly this guy is influencing non-government people.

00:43:03.000 And he certainly, if he influences enough of them, then the government people get influenced as well.

00:43:08.000 So, would you say this is someone who has power?

00:43:11.000 Because I was thinking of elected officials.

00:43:14.000 But does this person have power?

00:43:17.000 The person who has been wrong about everything in a laughable way.

00:43:22.000 Yeah, I think you could argue that.

00:43:27.000 You could argue that.

00:43:28.000 You could argue that.

00:43:29.000 You could argue that.

00:43:30.000 That he has power.

00:43:32.000 Now, I was specifically thinking about elected power.

00:43:36.000 And here's my statement.

00:43:37.000 Has Paul Ehrlich specifically said we should decrease the number of people that we have now?

00:43:50.000 Because I didn't see that.

00:43:51.000 Because I didn't see that.

00:43:53.000 But maybe you have.

00:43:55.000 Do you remember that the entire conversation is about, is there anybody who has power who wants to decrease the current number of people like has a plan for doing that?

00:44:05.000 So, even Ehrlich, who is, you know, the most nutty one on this, he doesn't ask to do the thing that was the original topic.

00:44:18.000 So, the original topic was, I said, there's nobody who wants fewer people.

00:44:24.000 He said we have all kinds of problems because of how many we have.

00:44:28.000 But has he ever said we want to decrease the people?

00:44:32.000 Has he ever said that?

00:44:33.000 Has he ever said that?

00:44:38.000 Because he might have.

00:44:39.000 I'm not saying he hasn't because I haven't seen anything.

00:44:42.000 He says implied it.

00:44:44.000 Implied, no, implied isn't good enough.

00:44:47.000 I'm not going to buy implied.

00:44:48.000 Because just saying there are too many people, that doesn't imply that.

00:44:52.000 It implies that we need to work harder to feed people or maybe reduce the rate of new people.

00:44:58.000 But it doesn't imply that just because he says there are too many.

00:45:01.000 Yeah.

00:45:04.000 Yeah.

00:45:05.000 Well, I'm going to say I'm accepting, I will accept this example of somebody who had power without being elected, who influenced the system, probably.

00:45:20.000 Almost certainly.

00:45:22.000 But let's take this further.

00:45:24.000 If it's a person of power, it means he actually changed things.

00:45:28.000 Is it fair to say this one person changed things?

00:45:31.000 I think it is.

00:45:33.000 Yeah.

00:45:34.000 I mean, it does seem like he was a primary influencer.

00:45:38.000 So if he changed things, you should be able to measure whether it was good or bad.

00:45:44.000 And I have a simple question here.

00:45:46.000 Do you think Paul Ehrlich killed more people or fewer people than the Holocaust?

00:45:53.000 I don't know the answer to that.

00:45:56.000 I don't know the answer to that.

00:45:57.000 Do you think that Ehrlich killed more people than the Holocaust, let's say 6 million or fewer?

00:46:02.000 Because he's blamed for India going on a mass sterilization program.

00:46:07.000 So that has certainly reduced some number of people.

00:46:10.000 He's certainly responsible for influencing policies that may have been suboptimal for some groups of people.

00:46:21.000 But if he had this much influence and he was wrong about everything, one assumes that he may have killed tens of millions of people.

00:46:28.000 Is that unfair?

00:46:31.000 I think that's actually an entirely reasonable statement.

00:46:34.000 Because the most important thing we're dealing with is the, you know, population and economies and feeding us and climate change.

00:46:42.000 I mean, those are the most important questions.

00:46:44.000 If he was 100% wrong on all of them, did he not cause more poverty because he would have been a drag on fossil fuels,

00:46:54.000 which is really how people get into poverty or traditionally.

00:46:57.000 But just hold the question in your mind.

00:47:01.000 Has he killed more people than the Holocaust?

00:47:04.000 I would say probably yes.

00:47:06.000 Is that, is that too, too far?

00:47:10.000 Now, I always say you should not compare things to the Holocaust, but I'm not doing that.

00:47:16.000 I'm just, I'm just using it as a benchmark, right?

00:47:19.000 It's not, I'm not saying he is the Holocaust.

00:47:22.000 I'm just saying a benchmark for a number of people dead.

00:47:25.000 I think he probably killed more than the Holocaust.

00:47:27.000 Yeah.

00:47:28.000 I think his impact was probably worse than Hiller.

00:47:32.000 Although, no, because World War II killed about 60 million people, so not all of it was Hiller.

00:47:39.000 I think you'd have to use the 60 million to get closer to World War II's badness.

00:47:44.000 So he's not as bad as World War II, but he might be, he might be more bad than the Holocaust in terms of total impact on the world.

00:47:52.000 Imagine working all your life to save the world, and you're 90 years old, and when you get your final report, it looks like you killed several million.

00:48:01.000 We can't be sure, but your policies, you know, from any objective perspective, it looks like you may have killed 10 million people or so.

00:48:10.000 We don't know for sure.

00:48:12.000 Now, I don't think he believes that.

00:48:14.000 I think he believes he saved the world.

00:48:17.000 So, but it's debatable.

00:48:19.000 Alright, and the final word on that, I believe when people get elected to public office, they can never say anything that sounds like,

00:48:26.000 I want fewer of my citizens to be alive next year.

00:48:32.000 Nobody can be elected and say, you know, you people who elected me, really what would be good is there are fewer of you next year.

00:48:40.000 It just, it can't work.

00:48:42.000 It just can't work.

00:48:44.000 Alright, so yesterday I provocatively tweeted something that would not have worked a few years ago.

00:48:54.000 So, every now and then I like to test to see if the public mind has shifted, so I can say things you couldn't say a few years ago.

00:49:02.000 One of the things you can say now is you can accuse the government or anybody else of a conspiracy theory, and it doesn't sound crazy anymore.

00:49:13.000 That's a big difference.

00:49:15.000 Am I right?

00:49:17.000 You can now embrace a conspiracy theory that before you thought, you know, I don't think I'd want to say that in public.

00:49:24.000 But now I'm going to say in public something that I thought from day one, but the environment wasn't quite right.

00:49:32.000 Because people didn't understand the degree to which the conspiracy theories tend to be real.

00:49:38.000 So here's mine.

00:49:40.000 I think the Charlottesville neo-Nazi march was an anti-Trump op.

00:49:45.000 I think it was our own intelligence people who were involved directly or indirectly.

00:49:50.000 I think obviously many of them were real racists because there was an effort to collect them up.

00:49:56.000 I do believe that some number of them were assets for FBI or something else.

00:50:02.000 And some of the evidence that I would suggest is, and I tweeted this, I said,

00:50:08.000 ever wonder why the so-called news never did profiles of the Charlottesville neo-Nazis?

00:50:13.000 And they never asked the locals if they knew any non-racists who attended the venue, but not marching with the racists.

00:50:21.000 Not marching.

00:50:22.000 Just we're in the same, you know, zip code.

00:50:25.000 And wanted to support the statues.

00:50:28.000 Now, some people said, Scott, Scott, Scott, how in the world could you support those racist statues without being a racist?

00:50:38.000 To which I answer, same way you support the Holocaust Museum.

00:50:43.000 The Holocaust Museum is not pro-Holocaust.

00:50:47.000 You understand that, right?

00:50:49.000 It's sort of anti-Holocaust.

00:50:52.000 Sort of its purpose.

00:50:54.000 You could do the same thing with the statues.

00:50:56.000 Just, you know, change the plaque.

00:50:59.000 This plaque was put up in our racist past.

00:51:03.000 You know, this is paraphrasing, but do it better.

00:51:06.000 Basically, you just put it in context.

00:51:08.000 You know, this person supported slavery.

00:51:11.000 And he was one of the heroes.

00:51:13.000 We keep it here for historical purposes.

00:51:15.000 Boom.

00:51:16.000 Just give it the right context.

00:51:18.000 Everybody's happy.

00:51:19.000 Now, not everybody's happy.

00:51:20.000 That's too much.

00:51:21.000 But a non-racist can have a non-racist argument for supporting the Holocaust Museum.

00:51:28.000 Because it's providing context.

00:51:30.000 And they could add the context, which wasn't yet there, to the southern statues.

00:51:36.000 No big deal.

00:51:37.000 No big deal.

00:51:38.000 So, yes, I can promise you that there were locals who had views like that who did attend the event.

00:51:47.000 And I know because I talked to them.

00:51:50.000 I actually asked, hey, you know, I think I tweeted it, if anybody was there and you're not a racist, contact me.

00:51:57.000 And several did.

00:51:58.000 Now, yesterday or the day before I heard from somebody else who's a local who says, oh, yeah, if you ask the locals, a lot of them will know people who attended who are definitely not racist.

00:52:09.000 So, Trump's statement about the fine people was the simplest thing to check on.

00:52:14.000 The simplest thing.

00:52:16.000 Just talk to a few people who live there.

00:52:18.000 Hey, did any of your neighbors go to the event?

00:52:20.000 Give me their names.

00:52:21.000 I'd like to ask them if they share the racist views.

00:52:24.000 Of course not.

00:52:25.000 I mean, some might.

00:52:26.000 Who knows?

00:52:27.000 But I doubt most of them would.

00:52:29.000 So, think about how easy it was to check.

00:52:32.000 How easy was that?

00:52:34.000 I did it.

00:52:35.000 I did it with one tweet.

00:52:37.000 It was easy.

00:52:38.000 Do you think the entire news organization couldn't have done that?

00:52:42.000 Hey, if you consider yourself a non-racist, but you attended, give us a call.

00:52:48.000 We'd like to see what you're thinking.

00:52:50.000 The most important thing that determined Biden's presidency is that there were really no fine people there.

00:52:59.000 That fact and that fact alone is why you have the president you have.

00:53:03.000 Because he ran on that more than anything.

00:53:05.000 It was explicitly.

00:53:07.000 That was never fact-checked.

00:53:09.000 And had they fact-checked it, as I did personally, they would have found the same result.

00:53:14.000 Yes, there were fine people there.

00:53:17.000 Right.

00:53:18.000 And so, then the second part is, why have we not seen more about the attendees?

00:53:24.000 You know, the January 6th attendees, like tons of names are out there in the public.

00:53:30.000 A lot of people, you know, partly because they were arrested.

00:53:33.000 But I think the names of the people, even if they weren't arrested, were very widely discussed.

00:53:39.000 You know, we know what Bake Alaska did.

00:53:41.000 We know what Ray Epps was up to.

00:53:43.000 Right?

00:53:44.000 There's a whole bunch of individual names and personalities of people who were there on January 6th.

00:53:49.000 Name somebody who was at the Charlottesville event.

00:53:54.000 Except for the organizers.

00:53:56.000 Except for the organizers, name somebody who was at Charlottesville.

00:54:00.000 Just marching.

00:54:02.000 That's obviously missing, right?

00:54:05.000 It's just so obvious that they didn't talk to the people marching.

00:54:09.000 And the only reason I can think of is that it wasn't an organic march.

00:54:14.000 Some of them were racist for sure.

00:54:16.000 But some of them surely were not.

00:54:18.000 Surely.

00:54:19.000 So, in my opinion, given that the transparency that the government is in the media, since the media is obviously hiding the story, your reasonable assumption is that it was an operation.

00:54:34.000 Who would disagree with that?

00:54:36.000 Do you disagree that the lack of transparency, given how easy it would be to provide the transparency?

00:54:43.000 Very easy.

00:54:44.000 Just moronically easy.

00:54:46.000 Easier than anything the news does.

00:54:48.000 Hey, call us.

00:54:50.000 Call us if you're one of those fine people.

00:54:52.000 That's it.

00:54:53.000 Literally the easiest thing a news organization could do, except talk about the weather.

00:54:58.000 The only thing that's easier than that is talking about the weather.

00:55:01.000 Nothing would be easier than that.

00:55:03.000 Right.

00:55:04.000 Yeah.

00:55:05.000 So, the rule is, if you're an individual, you're innocent until proven guilty.

00:55:11.000 This applies to your Andrew Tates and anybody else.

00:55:15.000 If you're a government, you're guilty until proven innocent.

00:55:20.000 And this would be one of those cases.

00:55:22.000 Now, I don't know if the government's involved, but the media is clearly covering it up.

00:55:27.000 And we know that the media works with some members of the government to cover things up.

00:55:31.000 So, the assumption is reasonable.

00:55:33.000 It's a reasonable assumption.

00:55:38.000 You say, a bridge too far.

00:55:39.000 Well, remember, we're dealing with assumptions.

00:55:42.000 Right?

00:55:43.000 I'm not saying I have proof of anything about Charlottesville.

00:55:46.000 That would be a misinterpretation of what I said.

00:55:49.000 I'm saying that you should favor the most likely explanation.

00:55:55.000 And that's that it was an operation.

00:55:57.000 You know, Intel-related op.

00:56:00.000 Alright.

00:56:04.000 Would you like to see my NPC identifier?

00:56:08.000 Let me show you how to identify an NPC in the wild.

00:56:12.000 It's easier than you think.

00:56:14.000 We might have some here today.

00:56:17.000 Alright.

00:56:20.000 So, here's how I do it.

00:56:23.000 If Scott does the following thing, discusses both sides of the issue,

00:56:28.000 the people who are players, that would be non-NPCs,

00:56:32.000 they say, well, that's smart.

00:56:34.000 You discuss both sides of the issues.

00:56:36.000 The costs and the benefits.

00:56:38.000 The risks and the rewards.

00:56:41.000 Wow, that's smart.

00:56:42.000 But the NPCs would call you a fence-sitter.

00:56:44.000 Because you haven't committed.

00:56:47.000 Now, if I say that there's new information,

00:56:51.000 and this new information revises my opinion,

00:56:54.000 then the players would say, well, that's smart.

00:56:57.000 Because you got that new information.

00:56:59.000 So, good.

00:57:00.000 Good for you.

00:57:01.000 But the NPCs would say, you flip-flopper.

00:57:04.000 You're trying to take both sides of every conversation.

00:57:07.000 If I do not embrace all conspiracy theories,

00:57:14.000 I do like conspiracy theories,

00:57:16.000 especially the ones that turn out to be true,

00:57:18.000 like the Russia collusion hoax and that sort of thing.

00:57:21.000 I like those.

00:57:22.000 But if I don't accept all of them, then the players say, well, that's smart.

00:57:30.000 You don't want to just like accept all of them.

00:57:33.000 But the NPCs say, you're a little bit gullible.

00:57:37.000 A little bit gullible, Scott.

00:57:39.000 A little bit gullible.

00:57:41.000 Now, that's your NPC identifier.

00:57:46.000 I'd like you to find the recent episode of Curry and Dvorak.

00:57:53.000 What's the name of their show?

00:57:54.000 Their podcast is...

00:57:56.000 Adam Curry and John Dvorak is...

00:57:59.000 I'm just blanking.

00:58:01.000 It's like one of the most famous podcasts in the world.

00:58:03.000 No agenda.

00:58:04.000 Yeah.

00:58:05.000 No agenda.

00:58:07.000 Listen to their conversation about me,

00:58:10.000 and you tell me if Adam Curry is an NPC.

00:58:14.000 Just use this guide.

00:58:17.000 Because what you're going to hear him say is that,

00:58:20.000 I changed my positions on things.

00:58:23.000 Of course I did.

00:58:25.000 Of course I did.

00:58:28.000 If you didn't change your position during the pandemic,

00:58:32.000 I have questions.

00:58:35.000 In the fog of war,

00:58:37.000 you should have treated everything like it was deadly,

00:58:40.000 because you didn't know.

00:58:42.000 And then as you learn things, you should say,

00:58:44.000 Oh, okay.

00:58:45.000 I guess the masks weren't that important.

00:58:47.000 You know, maybe some people shouldn't get vaccinated.

00:58:50.000 But you do that as you learn it.

00:58:54.000 So listen to the no agenda.

00:58:56.000 I haven't heard the whole thing.

00:58:57.000 I just heard...

00:58:58.000 I heard the first sentence, and it was already wrong.

00:59:01.000 Like it was a dumb assumption about me.

00:59:03.000 It was just incorrect.

00:59:05.000 Masks are effective, so they say.

00:59:12.000 I need a TV show.

00:59:20.000 Opinions are optional.

00:59:22.000 Not being open to information, i.e., Scott and depopulation.

00:59:29.000 Alright, here's an NPC thing.

00:59:31.000 Alright, you all just watched me discuss how I had been surprised

00:59:37.000 that this new information about Paul Ehrlich does conflict with my view,

00:59:43.000 that there's nobody with power who has that view.

00:59:46.000 Now that was just the context of everything I just said.

00:59:49.000 That I am revising my opinion based on new information.

00:59:53.000 And then Chris says this.

00:59:55.000 All for...

00:59:56.000 That he's all for new information and changing my mind.

00:59:59.000 Not for prejudicial bias.

01:00:01.000 And not being open to info, i.e., Scott on depopulation.

01:00:05.000 So after just observing me directly, adding new information,

01:00:10.000 and then modifying my opinion to fit the new information,

01:00:14.000 this NPC says, Scott does not... he's not open on this topic.

01:00:19.000 I literally just changed my opinion right in front of you.

01:00:25.000 Right in front of you.

01:00:27.000 So Daryl says, you were just wrong then.

01:00:30.000 I will accept that interpretation.

01:00:33.000 I'll tell you what I was thinking, but I will accept that you call me wrong.

01:00:38.000 Right?

01:00:39.000 I won't argue that.

01:00:40.000 Because I put myself in this position.

01:00:42.000 Here's what I was trying to do.

01:00:44.000 I was trying to be absolute, because that is more provocative.

01:00:50.000 As in, there is not one person who holds this view.

01:00:55.000 And by the way, I proved my point.

01:00:58.000 But because you can't tell, you think I was wrong.

01:01:01.000 My point was, there's nobody who says we should reduce the number of people.

01:01:06.000 Paul Ehrlich doesn't say that, but he does sort of imply there are too many.

01:01:10.000 So I'm accepting that as both he has influence,

01:01:14.000 and that at least it looks like he's implying there are too many people.

01:01:18.000 Did I not accept both of those right in front of you?

01:01:21.000 Now, the reason I said that nobody exists is so people would do their best job of giving me counter examples.

01:01:30.000 I will do this again in the future.

01:01:33.000 And when I do it again in the future, you're going to say that they proved me wrong.

01:01:38.000 But if you understand the pattern, I'm asking you to prove me wrong.

01:01:43.000 Because that's how we both figure out, you know, how to get to the next level.

01:01:47.000 I was asking people to prove me wrong in public.

01:01:51.000 So I challenged people to prove me wrong.

01:01:55.000 Right?

01:01:56.000 And then people did.

01:01:58.000 Somebody says, you hide behind narcissism.

01:02:01.000 Projection.

01:02:02.000 Projection.

01:02:03.000 Projection.

01:02:04.000 The all caps guy accusing me of narcissism.

01:02:12.000 All right.

01:02:13.000 Well, thank you.

01:02:15.000 Some of you appreciate what I'm doing here.

01:02:18.000 Here's putt life.

01:02:19.000 Scott spent three years talking about masks working.

01:02:23.000 Never once did he cover the other side.

01:02:26.000 Now, that's an NPC.

01:02:29.000 Right?

01:02:30.000 Do you think I talked about masks without ever covering the other side?

01:02:34.000 Do you think I never mentioned that the masks allow the virus out the sides and the top?

01:02:41.000 I said that every time.

01:02:43.000 That's clearly an NPC.

01:02:48.000 Right?

01:02:49.000 The rest of you, am I wrong?

01:02:54.000 Is that not obviously an NPC?

01:02:57.000 There couldn't be any human thought that's happening there.

01:03:01.000 It could possibly be.

01:03:08.000 All right.

01:03:09.000 Yeah.

01:03:10.000 I always cover the other side.

01:03:12.000 So if you dip in and see, you know, one thing.

01:03:20.000 The only thing you haven't observed me talking about from the other side is the Russia-Ukraine war.

01:03:26.000 Well, I think that has more to do with what you've observed,

01:03:30.000 but also is a phenomenon that I talk more about the things that people don't yet know.

01:03:36.000 So that creates a bias.

01:03:38.000 So the Russia-Ukraine thing is a perfect example.

01:03:41.000 If most of the things I talk about are how Ukraine is doing better than expected, there are two reasons.

01:03:48.000 One, because I predicted it.

01:03:49.000 And I think that's important.

01:03:51.000 And two, that's the interesting part.

01:03:54.000 The other side that Russia has all the time in the world, Putin can just grind up Russian bodies until he wins.

01:04:03.000 He can just wait until, you know, Ukraine is ready.

01:04:07.000 I think that's all obvious.

01:04:08.000 Does anybody need to say that all of the information coming out of the area is non-credible?

01:04:14.000 And that Russia could definitely win the war if they want to, you know, press it to its ultimate cost?

01:04:22.000 So the thing is that the Russian side of it seems too obvious to have to explain.

01:04:29.000 So if I don't do it, does that mean I'm not considering both sides?

01:04:33.000 I guess it could look like that.

01:04:34.000 Yeah.

01:04:35.000 Which systems exactly?

01:04:36.000 There's no fresh take on Ukraine?

01:04:37.000 I have the freshest take on Ukraine ever.

01:04:38.000 Who provided the tiki torches?

01:04:40.000 Well, we know who the organizers were, so that was through the organizers probably.

01:04:47.000 Scott is evil.

01:04:48.000 Okay.

01:04:49.000 All right.

01:04:52.000 So, Rick says, NPC is almost the level of name calling.

01:04:57.000 It's a crazy person.

01:04:58.000 Who provided the tiki torches?

01:05:01.000 Who provided the tiki torches?

01:05:03.000 Well, we know who the organizers were, so that was through the organizers probably.

01:05:06.000 Scott is evil.

01:05:07.000 Okay.

01:05:08.000 All right.

01:05:09.000 This time.

01:05:10.000 You don't eat bread.

01:05:11.000 I don't know.

01:05:12.000 So, oops.

01:05:15.000 Rick says, NPC is almost the level of name calling.

01:05:21.000 It's a crutch used to offer rather than pointing out specifics.

01:05:24.000 Now, I accept that criticism, but let me respond to it.

01:05:28.000 All right.

01:05:29.000 So, is my identification of the NPC is name calling because it leaves out the specifics

01:05:36.000 of what my complaint is?

01:05:39.000 Because you see me leaving out the specifics of my complaint right here, right?

01:05:43.000 This is me leaving out the specifics of my complaint by identifying them and detailing them on a whiteboard

01:05:52.000 and then live streaming into the world.

01:05:54.000 This is how I'm ignoring the specifics.

01:05:58.000 That's an NPC comment.

01:06:03.000 Is that name calling?

01:06:05.000 Or is that just obviously somebody who's not engaging with any part of the reasoned conversation?

01:06:15.000 It's a name calling analogy.

01:06:16.000 It's worse.

01:06:17.000 It's worse.

01:06:18.000 It's worse than name calling.

01:06:19.000 It's name calling and an analogy.

01:06:22.000 Somebody says.

01:06:23.000 Except it's not an analogy in my world view.

01:06:26.000 In my world view, NPCs are actually real.

01:06:29.000 I don't accept, I'm not saying you should accept it.

01:06:34.000 But in my world view, there are actually NPCs.

01:06:37.000 And I have a hypothesis with no evidence to support it that Elon Musk thinks the same thing.

01:06:47.000 I don't know.

01:06:49.000 I mean, I'm not a mind reader.

01:06:51.000 It wouldn't be fair for me to say that.

01:06:53.000 But he mentioned NPCs even like this week.

01:06:56.000 Oh, and he tweeted recently that he tweeted without any provoking.

01:07:02.000 Well, something provoked it, but he just tweeted all by itself.

01:07:07.000 If you don't at least have a little bit of doubt that you're an NPC, you're an NPC.

01:07:14.000 So he's basically saying the same thing.

01:07:17.000 The NPCs are the ones who act like there's no doubt.

01:07:21.000 Right?

01:07:22.000 They're binary thinkers.

01:07:23.000 No, it's definitely this and no amount of information will change it.

01:07:26.000 So I think he's identifying the people who are unable to respond to nuance as NPCs.

01:07:34.000 And he does believe in the simulation.

01:07:38.000 And if you believe that the simulation features players who can modify the simulation somehow and NPCs who are just scenery, doesn't Elon Musk look like somebody who alters the reality all the time?

01:07:54.000 I mean, he acts like somebody who thinks he's a player and he can just change reality.

01:07:58.000 And then he doesn't.

01:07:59.000 And then he doesn't.

01:08:01.000 Yeah, you need to play video games to understand NPCs, right?

01:08:07.000 So if this is like a video game, not all of the creatures you see have a conscious entity behind them.

01:08:15.000 Some of them are just scenery.

01:08:17.000 Why would there be players?

01:08:22.000 So the hypothesis is that if we're a simulation created by some other higher level of intelligence, that they would have a purpose for doing it.

01:08:32.000 The purpose would be either to A-B test strategies, which is why I think I have a theme, because I have continuous water-related strategies.

01:08:44.000 So I believe I'm a player that was inserted to act like the people outside the simulation.

01:08:52.000 So I'm actually a player with the same characteristics and decision-making as my creators.

01:08:58.000 But I've got a theme.

01:09:00.000 And so I'm dealing with all my water-related and plumbing problems.

01:09:03.000 And then you've got a theme which is, I don't know, maybe disease or something like that.

01:09:08.000 You've got other problems.

01:09:09.000 I just don't have those.

01:09:11.000 And that you're either A-B testing solutions or you're entertainment.

01:09:18.000 Or it happened accidentally.

01:09:20.000 You know, maybe an AI-created simulation.

01:09:23.000 That could happen, too.

01:09:25.000 So it could be either, you know, random coincidence, entertainment, somebody's watching us, or they're trying to test strategies.

01:09:35.000 And the one that makes sense is testing strategies.

01:09:38.000 What strategy is Elon Musk testing?

01:09:42.000 Have you noticed that he has a theme as well?

01:09:46.000 What is Elon Musk's theme?

01:09:51.000 It's the impossible.

01:09:54.000 Right?

01:09:55.000 Elon Musk, the theme that he deals with every day, is how to do the thing that everybody says can't be done.

01:10:02.000 Do you think that when they started PayPal, and they wanted to move money digitally without actual physical money or checks,

01:10:09.000 don't you think that people told them that couldn't be done?

01:10:12.000 No, no, you're going to have to get the banks to give up their monopoly, and Congress has bought.

01:10:18.000 Don't you think that looked impossible?

01:10:21.000 When he built an electric car, everybody said that can never be economical.

01:10:26.000 Oh, sure, you can build it.

01:10:28.000 But let me tell you what you'll never do.

01:10:30.000 You're never going to be profitable.

01:10:32.000 Most profitable car company in the world, I think.

01:10:36.000 Build a rocket to go to Mars, and a rocket that is reusable.

01:10:41.000 Build a reusable rocket that just, like, lands upright.

01:10:44.000 Like 60-some times already this year, or last year.

01:10:50.000 Impossible.

01:10:52.000 Take over Twitter, overspend like crazy, and then make it profitable.

01:10:59.000 Does that sound possible?

01:11:01.000 Seriously.

01:11:02.000 Does it even sound possible that he could make Twitter profitable?

01:11:07.000 I've looked at the numbers, and I'm pretty good at numbers, and I'm pretty good at business,

01:11:11.000 pretty good at knowing what a good business model looks like.

01:11:14.000 It looks impossible.

01:11:16.000 You know?

01:11:17.000 Honestly, it just looks impossible.

01:11:19.000 But do I think he'll do it?

01:11:21.000 There's a good chance.

01:11:23.000 Yeah.

01:11:24.000 I mean, nothing's certain.

01:11:25.000 But I think he has a good shot at it.

01:11:27.000 Like, everything he's talking about makes sense, you know,

01:11:32.000 and would move you in that direction if you could implement it.

01:11:35.000 I think he might pull it off.

01:11:37.000 So, over and over again, people have themes.

01:11:40.000 His seems to be doing the impossible.

01:11:43.000 Mine seems to be dealing with rumors about me.

01:11:47.000 Maybe that's everybody in the public eye.

01:11:50.000 Brady gets divorced and loses a fortune.

01:11:57.000 I don't know.

01:11:58.000 Was that related?

01:12:00.000 All right.

01:12:03.000 Now, what else is happening?

01:12:06.000 That's about it.

01:12:09.000 Now, let me test to see if you know me well enough.

01:12:15.000 You just saw me call Adam Curry and John Dvorak NPCs.

01:12:21.000 Why did I do that?

01:12:23.000 Go.

01:12:24.000 You know me well enough by now.

01:12:28.000 What am I doing?

01:12:31.000 What's my plan?

01:12:37.000 Test my reach?

01:12:38.000 No, not really.

01:12:43.000 Bully.

01:12:44.000 Am I being a bully?

01:12:45.000 Stirring energy?

01:12:48.000 Triggering them?

01:12:50.000 Test for a reaction?

01:12:51.000 I need attention.

01:12:52.000 I need attention.

01:12:53.000 I always like attention.

01:12:54.000 Yeah.

01:12:55.000 It's partly an energy thing.

01:12:56.000 But it's also because they've been dicks to me.

01:13:09.000 I don't know if you know that, so I can add that piece of it.

01:13:12.000 They've been dicks.

01:13:13.000 Because they consistently misinterpret what I say and then do one of the biggest podcasts

01:13:19.000 in the world in which they malign me and defame me and don't correct it.

01:13:25.000 Now, in the past I've been invited to correct it, you know, on their show.

01:13:29.000 So they have invited me to correct it and I give them all the credit for that.

01:13:33.000 But they're dicks and they're wrong about me and so I'm going to call them NPC just to

01:13:40.000 get a reaction.

01:13:41.000 I don't suspect they're NPCs.

01:13:43.000 But I'm going to call them that because they're acting like it.

01:13:46.000 Right?

01:13:47.000 So if they're acting like it, if they're acting like it, it's just more interesting to,

01:13:53.000 you know, put down a marker and say, look, if you can act like NPCs and just misinterpret

01:13:59.000 what I said.

01:14:00.000 In the first sentence, Adam Curry misinterpreted what I said.

01:14:04.000 What did he say?

01:14:06.000 I forget what it was.

01:14:08.000 It was some total misinterpretation.

01:14:13.000 I'd like to see how you would do in a structured debate.

01:14:16.000 Poorly.

01:14:17.000 Poorly.

01:14:18.000 Do you understand why I would do poorly in a structured debate?

01:14:22.000 Everybody know that?

01:14:25.000 Because a structured debate is designed to remove the advantage of the best debater.

01:14:36.000 Am I okay?

01:14:37.000 I'm great.

01:14:42.000 Yeah, I'm not sure I debated Sam Harris.

01:14:46.000 That was a conversation.

01:14:48.000 It looks like Jim Jordan is going to be the speaker.

01:14:52.000 Is that real?

01:14:56.000 Too broad.

01:14:57.000 It wasn't both who criticized you.

01:15:00.000 Dvorak was in on it in a prior podcast.

01:15:05.000 But it is definitely true that the two of them have a completely inaccurate view of my pandemic views.

01:15:14.000 Now, since there's a good chance that one of them will hear about this.

01:15:17.000 I updated my pandemic opinions and predictions so that all the NPCs can just read what my actual opinion was.

01:15:27.000 And I put the link in my profile.

01:15:31.000 So if you run into a conversation about me and what I believed or didn't believe,

01:15:35.000 you can just point them to my profile and there's a long write-up of what I did and did not believe.

01:15:51.000 Did Ben Garrison get it right?

01:15:53.000 No, Ben Garrison is a moron.

01:15:56.000 I'm considering suing Ben Garrison.

01:15:59.000 What do you think?

01:16:01.000 Can I sue Ben Garrison for...

01:16:04.000 He probably reduced my income by a third by starting some rumors.

01:16:09.000 Because in this day and age, accusing somebody of being pro-vax, which is the opposite of what happened,

01:16:16.000 that kind of slander is really expensive to the victim.

01:16:22.000 So he's a moron, and he's a low-character, unethical weasel.

01:16:27.000 But I don't expect him to correct in public, so I'm going to use him as my personal whipping boy.

01:16:34.000 So maybe every day from now to eternity I'll remind you that Ben Garrison is an untalented hack and unethical piece of shit.

01:16:43.000 Suing is for the lame.

01:16:47.000 Well, would you say that if you lost a third of your income?

01:16:51.000 This is a serious question.

01:16:53.000 If somebody defamed you, they knew they had, because it's easy to check that he was wrong,

01:17:00.000 and they don't correct it, and that becomes your permanent brand and it decreases your income by 30% forever,

01:17:08.000 you would say that you wouldn't take legal action in that case.

01:17:11.000 Really.

01:17:12.000 You wouldn't take legal action in that case.

01:17:14.000 You're lying.

01:17:15.000 You would definitely take legal action.

01:17:25.000 What about Nicky Cline?

01:17:31.000 You never heard of him before I mentioned him?

01:17:33.000 He's not...

01:17:34.000 He's well-known on the right, and they're the ones who have been fooled by him.

01:17:44.000 Oh, good fake words.

01:17:51.000 You say, I would have better opinions if I traveled to more third-world countries.

01:17:56.000 That's true.

01:17:57.000 Generally speaking, people who have traveled and experienced other countries and cultures,

01:18:02.000 they have better opinions.

01:18:04.000 So I accept that comment.

01:18:13.000 How would proof of income be decided?

01:18:14.000 Yeah.

01:18:15.000 So that's the problem.

01:18:16.000 The closest you could come, and I don't think this would hold up in court,

01:18:20.000 I could do a poll, and I could find out how many of my followers believed that rumor.

01:18:28.000 I guess they'd be ex-followers if they believed it.

01:18:31.000 So you could find out how many people believed the rumor.

01:18:35.000 And then you could quite easily say, none of these people are ever going to buy my products again.

01:18:41.000 And they're not going to follow me on any monetized livestream.

01:18:45.000 And then you could say, okay, 40% of my base believed this rumor that totally made me toxic to them.

01:18:55.000 But maybe only some percentage of that really is the important part.

01:19:01.000 So you couldn't prove it with a specific dollar amount.

01:19:06.000 But it would be easy to demonstrate statistically.

01:19:09.000 I don't know if a jury would buy it.

01:19:12.000 It would be a tough case, but it would be tough for him too.

01:19:15.000 See, part of it is, it wouldn't be just to get justice.

01:19:18.000 It would be to enable karma.

01:19:24.000 Because somebody who does something that bad to another person that they've never met and never did anything to them.

01:19:31.000 And that's really bad what he did.

01:19:33.000 That's very bad.

01:19:35.000 Alright, karma should visit him.

01:19:38.000 And if it hasn't yet, I'm going to make sure it does.

01:19:41.000 So karma is going to come visit you.

01:19:44.000 And nothing you can do about it.

01:19:48.000 So yeah, bankrupting him in the process and destroying him would be completely within my ethical bounds.

01:19:57.000 At this point, destroying him financially would be completely ethical.

01:20:02.000 Does anybody disagree?

01:20:05.000 If somebody punches you first, and it was an illegitimate punch, you got a free punch.

01:20:11.000 With no, right?

01:20:14.000 How would I destroy him?

01:20:16.000 Well, I suppose if he won the court case, I'd have to pay his lawyer fees.

01:20:25.000 But, if he were involved in a lawsuit, it would make him very unhappy whether he won or lost.

01:20:36.000 He did not cost you money.

01:20:39.000 NPC?

01:20:40.000 No, that's an NPC comment.

01:20:42.000 Somebody said he didn't cost me money.

01:20:44.000 He poisoned a third of my audience.

01:20:47.000 And you think that didn't cost me money?

01:20:49.000 No thinking human would believe that.

01:20:53.000 It's like, do you think that Ye lost any audience when he said his recent comments?

01:20:59.000 Because he can't prove it, right?

01:21:01.000 Can Ye, do you think Ye could prove that he lost money because of the comments?

01:21:06.000 I guess he could because licenses were cancelled.

01:21:10.000 Yeah, I guess you could measure that one directly.

01:21:15.000 What features would your debate platform have?

01:21:21.000 I think I've talked about that too much.

01:21:24.000 Oh, 4chan is changing Ben Garrison's comics to turn them hilariously racist?

01:21:34.000 Well, if there's anybody here from 4chan, I'd better not say it.

01:21:46.000 4chan is such an interesting place because I think they do both the worst and the best things there.

01:21:52.000 There's nothing in between.

01:21:54.000 They're either doing things that you really wish had never happened or things that nobody else was going to do when somebody had to do it.

01:22:01.000 Like there's nothing in between.

01:22:07.000 I got invited to Bohemia Grove once.

01:22:10.000 True story.

01:22:12.000 But as an entertainer, not as a participant.

01:22:26.000 Ye did it to himself, yeah.

01:22:31.000 Alright, ladies and gentlemen, I think I've said what I need to say.

01:22:35.000 And I'm going to go do something else.

01:22:37.000 Best live stream you've ever seen.

01:22:39.000 Tomorrow we'll get the locals platform ironed out.

01:22:42.000 And we'll be back to that.

01:22:46.000 Bye for now.

01:22:47.000 Best live stream ever.

01:22:49.000 Best live stream every day now.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - January 02, 2023

Episode 1976 Scott Adams： I've Accepted An Invitation To Join The Elites, Will Report On Their Evil

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript