Episode 1973 Scott Adams: The Tate Brothers Bad Day, And Elon Musk Fact-Checked Me On Population

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the highlight of civilization. And I haven't checked the news in a day. Has anything happened? It's going to be the best show ever. My God, My God. Is this some kind of gift to me from the gods of content? Have I done something so right all year that karma just said, whoa, whoa, whoa, year end is coming. Let's give Scott the best livestream of all time. And here it is. But this may be a little unbelievable, but I'm going to ask you to suspend your disbelief. Do you think this experience could go even higher? Yes. Carpe and carpe. Duncan makes an appearance. And it's all signs of good news. It's like the robins of spring. But let's see if we could take this up a notch. I think we can. And all you need. I'm going to do this in a Joe Biden whisper. You need a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind. So you have to do that after the whisper, fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that'll tweak your serotonin, your oxytocin, and possibly the alcohol in your blood. You know, I'm not judging. It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens. Now go. Ah. Yeah. That is so satisfying. I barely have the words to describe it. But if I did have the words to describe it, that word would be, ah. Well, let's see what's in the news. There's this gentleman, I don't know if you've heard of him. He's getting a little attention lately. Andrew Tate. Tate. Have you heard of him? Well, he's allegedly arrested in Romania, where he resides. Now, here's what you should believe about this story. Nothing. Can we start off by saying that if you believe that I believe anything about the story, you don't know me. Of course I don't believe it. Am I going to have fun with it and pretend as though it's true? Oh, yes, I am. Of course I am. Do I believe it's true? Very unlikely. Hugely unlikely. So I'll tell you what I think is true. Best guess. But we don't know, right? It's all fog of war and mirrors and bullshit and persuasion and counterclaims. And, you know, there's. There's corruption and lying and there's, you know, there's. His last arrest is Being conflated with his new arrest. And there's stuff about Greta Thunberg and the pizza box, which totally was bullshit. How many of you believe that he was caught by the authorities because he showed a pizza box on TV that showed he was in Romania, and so that was how they knew to nab him. Did anybody think that was suspicious from the jump? No. Of course that didn't happen. Widely reported, yes. Did it happen? No. But Greta treated it like it was real. So the story yesterday, which wasn't real, is that he was so dumb, he showed a pizza box that showed he was in country, so they picked him up. And why didn't he know not to do that, how dumb he is? So none of that's true. But Greta, being somewhat like me in this regard, decided to treat it as true because it's funny. So let's go with that. And she tweeted, this is what happens when you don't recycle your pizza boxes. Because he was joking that he wasn't going to recycle his pizza box. And then he ended up in Romanian jail, like, a few hours later, Greta's dunking on him. This is what happens when you don't recycle your pizza boxes. Now, do I believe that Greta comes up with her own Twitter jokes and tweets on her own? Of course not. Of course not. You know, I don't. I don't know. I mean, I don't rule it out. Don't rule it out. But it's a little bit. A little bit too good. You know what I mean? You know, I'm a professional. I know what a professional tweet looks like. And while Greta has some game. She has some game for sure. Not quite there. This is a little bit better than her game. So I think she's got some help. But it must be qualified help because they're doing a good job. All right. Now, one of the versions of the story is that the Tate brothers and two others were arrested allegedly for. Let's see, Fox News is saying as of this morning, assume all of this is going to change. Like everything you know about this will be different in an hour. But Fox News was reporting this morning that it was. The raid was because they appear. Appear to have the Tates created an organized crime group with the purpose of recruiting, housing and exploiting women by forcing them to create pornographic content meant to be seen on a his website. Blah, blah. And then there. There's another rumor that that rumor was completely false. And they were really brought in to discuss Some kind of money laundering thing which might be part of some larger investigation of which they would be just a part of it, in which case they might not even be charged or anything. They might be just witnesses or people of interest or something like that. Now, is any of that true? Assume none of it's true. Just assume everything is untrue. That's your best position at the moment, because very little of it looks true to me. Now, you may have seen some videos they showed them being arrested and then being released. Some of those are from the past. So those are not new videos because they were picked up one other time and released. So you'll see they're wearing different clothing. You see one where he appears to have handcuffs, But I don't know if that's real. Who knows? Then they say that they found $10 million in cash in one of his homes. Is that real, do you think? If the most corrupt government in the world found $10 million of cash in an accused criminal's home, do you think that would be accurately reported? I mean, just ask yourself that. $10 million in untraceable cash, and they would report exactly how much they found. I mean, just think about it. Now. If they reported 10 and there was any money there at all, they found 20. You get that, right? If they really found. If they really reported 10. And who knows if that's true. And they actually said, here's this 10 million, they probably found 20, wink, wink. All right? Because one thing that nobody is questioning is that Romania is like the most corrupt place in the world. And even the Tates say that directly. They say they chose it because it's one of the most corrupt places in the world. And as long as you understand that and you have money, it works really well for you. Now, let me ask you this. In the most corrupt country in the world, let's say it's, you know, one of the most. In one of the most corrupt countries in the world, if they pick you up and they know you have tens of millions of dollars, what are the odds that you will spend a day in jail? Just think about it. What are the odds there's somebody with tens of millions of untraceable cash and probably crypto and everything else, what are the odds that that guy spends even one day in jail? Now, allegedly, he was in some kind of jail last night. Do you believe he was behind bars last night? Maybe. I don't know one way or another, but it seems highly unlikely to me. The most likely outcome is that they handcuffed him Brought him into the police facility, and they said, let's talk behind this closed door. And then he would go behind the closed door with somebody who was looking for a very big bribe, and the person looking for the very big bribe would negotiate with him. They say, all right, we have to sort of pretend we're a real police force. So we'll probably keep you here for a few hours, but, you know, then we'll release you. So it looks like we actually did something, but thanks for the $10 million. Why in the world would anybody in the police force not try to shake him down? Apparently, there's no. There's nothing to stop everybody in power from collecting bribes. That seems to be genuinely generally understood. So does anybody think he's going to go to jail in Romania? It's probably the safest place he could ever be. In fact, I would argue that the safest place Andrew Tate could be in the entire planet Earth would be arrested, allegedly inside a Romanian police force. In theory, those are the people he owns or will own in about five minutes. Now, here's something else that has to be injected into the story. Oh, and let me say directly, innocent until proven guilty. Now, you all know that I'm no fan of the Tates, right? Everybody knows that. So I'm not a supporter. I would love to see him go down because he's a bad human being and I have personal, personal interaction that would be good enough for me to be happy if something bad happened to him. But he's innocent until proven guilty, and I've not seen anything that would change my mind on that. Now, do I think it's unlikely that there's any illegality going on? Oh, I would say he's sending strong signals that there's something going on. If you were to look for glaring signals, there's a little bit too much unexplained cash floating around in that situation. Am I right? So if he can explain how he has access to so much cash, good luck with that. Good luck with that. But the fact is, there's no evidence of a crime. Having a lot of money is not evidence of a crime. Now, I heard on a Spaces show last night, an expert on financial crimes who is also an expert on the subcategory of trafficking, because there's usually a way to catch traffickers is you can catch them through their financial transactions. Now, that expert said, ooh, everything about this fits the pattern of some trafficker, maybe, but that doesn't mean he committed a crime. Now, here's where it's Going to get really interesting if it turns out he's accused of, let's say, any kind of forced sexual activity or forcing anybody to do anything sexual. Or there are videos of him, you know, having paddled or whipped women and there's some ambiguity about their participation in it or whether they participated like on a small level. But he took it too far, which would also be a problem, you know, so there's some ambiguity there. But here's what you don't know. You know he's trained by a hypnotist, right? Do you all know that it's not an accident that he's the biggest thing on the Internet? He has the actual skills. He's actually been trained. How many of you knew that. He's got Trump level skills, but actually trained by hypnotists. Now if you put Tate in a court, I just don't think he can get convicted. And I hate to say this, but his skill level is so high that I don't think he could be jailed. I know that's a big claim, but he has the ability to bend reality so well because he actually has, he's learned specific skills, right? It's not like a native ability is not just that he's a bully, he has actual skills. So his skill stack for manipulation and persuasion is off the chart. Like he's, he might be exceeding my own abilities here because he's added, he's very cleverly added the macho alpha thing. So if you had the alpha, the alpha thing, the whole Persona, if you add that to a persuasion stack, it really does double it. I don't have that going on. It would be similar to a beautiful woman who also added to her capabilities persuasion, that would be so far beyond what just any normal person who knows persuasion could do. So because of his physicality, which is impressive and that Persona he's created and then the fame and the, you know, the following that he's created, he has more power than most court systems. Like, I think he could be hypothetically dead guilty for a crime and wouldn't have much of a chance of going to jail at all. Not at all. See, between the money and the corruption, and even if you assumed he was wrongly accused, he would still walk free because his, his talent level is at that level. If you don't see it, it's because you, you know, you're not trained in the persuasion now. So I, I don't think, I don't think he had a bad night last night necessarily. Maybe might surprise me, but don't even Assume he had a bad night. He may have had a perfectly good night last night. He may have had more sex last night than most of you. Because if you don't think he could have had sex inside the police station on the night that he was supposed to be in jail, if you don't think he could have gotten a girl in there and had sex with her in the police station, then you haven't been paying attention. He totally could do that. I don't know. And I'm not saying you did. I'm saying that if you're in the most corrupt country and you have tens of millions of dollars of free cash, and this is only rumored. I'm not making this claim. Is rumored. You might have some connection to organized crime in Romania. If you're connected to organized crime, the only way you're going to stay down is if they want you to. So it's possible that he pissed off somebody that he works with. Right. That would be a different situation. That would be dangerous. But if he only. But if it's just the police pretending to arrest him, I don't know. He's not much trouble. All right, so you could have an interesting conversation about free will and whether or not Andrew Tate hypnotized them, brainwashed them, or they were willing. Because, you know that part of the story is that some of the women, I don't know how many, had his name tattooed on their crotchets. Do you believe that that was against their will? It's impossible to know. It's actually impossible now because the Tates have enough skill that they could change somebody's mind from something that makes sense to something that's a bad idea, and that person would actually think it was their idea until maybe later they change their mind. And what is that? Is that free will? Because the person had all the information, and then they made the decision and they thought it was their own decision. Was that free will? And then later they changed their mind and said, oh, my God, I must have been brainwashed. Why did I do that? Is that free will? There's no way to convict him. See, you would have to prove that the women did any one of these behaviors that are part of the accusations. You would have to prove they weren't willing. It can't be done. It can be done with normal people. That's how people get convicted. It can't be done with the taints. The taints. It can't be done with the taints because you would never be able to sort out what was their actual willing decision. And what was the influence can't be sorted out. All right, Ann Coulter provocatively tweeted, how could any white man vote for the Democrats? She pointed out, to back her assertion there, that of the 97 judges Biden has put on the bench, only five have been white men. And then she cattly says and parens, and I'm reserving judgment on those five. I'm reserving judgment on those five. Now, some would say, quite reasonably, this is a case of racists calling out racists because the judge selection seems racist on its face. And of course, when Ann Coulter calls it out the way she does in her provocative way, people say, well, you're the racist. We're not the racist. You're the racist. We're trying to correct the racism of the past by having a more balanced bench. So I think they're both right. They're both right. It's sort of like racists calling each other racist in the narrow sense that they're both looking at through a racism lens. So if that's your lens, then you're both racists, right? It doesn't mean one of you is bad and one of you is good. It just means you're both looking through a racial filter and they both are. Being blind to race, to me, would be the opposite of racism. But since they're both highly tuned to it, I'm not saying one of them is a bad person. I'm saying their filter is race. I think that's less the question then the question of her. First good question. Why? Why would a white man ever vote Democrat? What do you think? Why would a white man vote Democrat? Go. I think it's because they. They pair up with women on birth control more likely than the people on the right. I'm just letting that hang there a little bit. Do you think I'm serious? I'm not serious because I don't have any data to support that. But let me finish the thought. Women on birth control are more likely to pick a beta male for a mate. True or false? True or false. Does science support that statement that when women are fertile, they pick more men with masculine features? Now, there have been studies on that. We don't trust any scientific studies anymore because we've learned from the pandemic that studies are usually bullshit. But this particular study doesn't seem to have any kind of pharmaceutical backing. Right? It's just an interesting study of can people identify testosterone in men? And so since it doesn't have an obvious pharmaceutical bias to it, it probably is an Academic study where people just wanted to know, is a little more credible but not necessarily 100% credible. Now, do you think it would be true that Democrat women are more likely to be on birth control? I don't know if that's true. Is that true? Is that true? Because, you know, anecdotally, I have no idea. I'm saying yeses and nos. So this is the reason that I'm not actually seriously making this claim. But just follow it through. Let's say what if it is true? It's sort of unknown, but what if it is? If it is true, here's the situation. You should expect. You should expect that Democrats, if it were true, and we don't know this, if they were more on birth control, the women would filter out the masculine men and they would prefer the more compliant simp, like beta men, huge over generalization. So I'm not insulting any specific Democrats, right? Everybody's individual, but I'm talking about large movements. Now, in theory, that would create a situation where Democrats would be favoring females over males on lots of big political decisions because the women would say, what's good for us? Oh, we like that. And then they tell the men what to favor. And then the men who had been selected for being compliant, you know, the low testosterone men, those men would say, all right, okay, if that's good for you, it's good for me. So you should, from just a hormonal perspective, end up with a male party and a female party over time. Over time. Because on the right. And again, this would be a gross generalization. You know, every individual is different. We're all smart enough to know that on the right, there may be some filtering toward more masculine, dominant men and women who prefer being in that kind of relationship, in which case you'd see that the men would say, what's good for me? And I'm also looking out for you. That's part of the deal. And the women say, all right, if it's good for you and you're looking out for me, and I don't see anything wrong with it, I'm on board. So over time, birth control alone, if it favored one political side, and that's the part I don't know, but if that were true, you should end up accidentally with a male party and a female party. Did I blow your mind yet? Because I don't know if any of that happened. But it would explain. Would explain what you see. But I can't make the claim that that's what's happening now. It does Seem that birth control or not, it does seem clear that there's a filtering toward a certain kind of male on one side and a different kind of male on the other side. But you would agree with that much, Right? So the trend toward a male party and a female party is pretty clear. All right, So Musk tweeted a Escape the Matrix meme this morning that included unlearning everything you have been taught. So I love the fact that Musk is trying to deprogram civilization. That's what he's doing. He's trying to move them more toward rational thought and away from the craziness. Now, can he do it? Well, part of it would depend on whether he's hallucinating or he's the one who's figured it out. Hard to know. Cobra Tate retweeted it. What did he retweet? Oh, the. Oh, the. Okay, the meme, I guess. Well, and Musk was on a podcast recently talking about some of the changes at Twitter that are quite interesting. Among them, the points he made is that Twitter, before Musk took over Twitter, there was a disincentive to get rid of bots because bots were a part of their profitability. And what they focused on was number of daily users, and bots would show up as daily users. So if you're going to sell advertising, you want to act like you have lots of users. And so they didn't have a real incentive to get rid of the bots because the bots were making them money. Now, this is Musk's claim now. And then Musk fairly quickly reduced the number of bots substantially because he said it was never hard. It was never hard to make them go away. They just didn't have a reason because they were making money from them. Now, remember I told you that watching Musk work on Twitter would be like an mba, like, you're getting a whole business degree here. Perfect example. Musk understands that you have to focus on the customer experience first. And I would argue that's why Tesla succeeded, because he didn't focus on profitability. He focused on making something that would turn on a consumer. And he's never left that focus. It's like, do you like it? Does a consumer like this? And then with Twitter, the same thing. He's interacting with the people and finding what they want and failing quickly. But this focus on the customer instead of the profits is how you become more profitable. So if you skip the step of making the customer happy and skip straight to more profitability, such as allowing Bots to stay on your service, you lose in the long run. Now that's. That's an actual class in an MBA class like this. This is exactly, precisely what you would learn if you took an advanced class in business. You would learn to do what he just taught you to make sure you didn't get lost on the short term. Profitability. And then he talks about failing fast and correcting. And that, again, is a B testing. That's straight out of the best practices for startups or anything that's operating with urgency. All right, I'm going to prime you and then take you into some difficult psychological territory. Who's up for a ride? Are you ready for a ride on the wild side? Now I'm going to prime you, but I'm telling you, I'm priming you. All right, so this is all upfront, fully, fully transparent. The first story is a primer, and it's unrelated to where I'm going to go, except it primes you. Okay. Back when I was. I was working in Pacific Bell, some of you have heard this story. I was asked to work on a special project to build a technology laboratory within our headquarters, you know, to convert some space into a really big laboratory. And the budget at one point was up to $10 million, or at least the estimated cost. So somewhere between 3 and $10 million, depending on how big it needs to be. And I was put in charge. So this is pretty important project, really. It was kind of the most important thing that was happening in the whole area. But I had financial background, and so I was sort of the right one to figure out if it could pay for itself and if it made sense. So the starting premise was that customers were begging for this ability because they couldn't buy our products. You know, they wanted to, but they couldn't buy them unless they tested them with their networks and equipment, and they didn't have any way to do it. So they said, you need a lab so we can come in and connect and see if it all works. So I'd heard that the customers were begging for this. And so to do my analysis, I went to the various people who know the customers are asking for it. And I said, hey, is it true that the customers are asking for this laboratory? And the first manager, I asked, oh, God, yes, yes, very important customers are asking for it. I keep getting all kinds of requests. I'm like, oh, okay. So I went to another manager, same story. Oh, yeah. The customers are like, they're begging us for it. And so many of them, lots of customers. And then I kept asking and kept asking, but I kept asking him if they could turn me on to an actual customer. Like, do you know which ones asked? Because I wanted to actually ask the actual customer, right? Because that might be different than having it filtered through somebody. So finally I found out the name of an actual customer. There was one of them. The entire thing started from one customer one time asking if we had a laboratory to test some equipment. When we said no, they rapidly found another way to satisfy themselves and never had a problem about it again. Here's what happened. The first person who was asked if we had a laboratory went to, let's say, their boss and said, no, we don't have that. So that was one person who was aware of one other person. So now both of them are aware that only one person had ever asked. So now the boss, having been asked the question and knowing it was kind of a good question, has given an answer, but also wants to check on the answer. So talks to one of the other managers and says, hey, you know, customers are asking if we can test things in a lab. What do you think about that? And the other says, we don't have a lab. That's a good idea. I'm going to talk to some people, see how we can do this. Pretty soon everybody in management in the technology area was talking to everybody else to see what they thought about building a lab. Because there was so much demand that everybody was being asked. Eventually they convinced themselves through a self generated mass hysteria that it was the most important thing we needed to do. And that everybody was asking about was never more than that one customer one time who solved their problem without any help. So did we build the lab? What do you think? Well, once I had determined for sure that there was zero demand, did we go ahead and green light the lab? Damn right we did. Damn right we did. Because we were all committed at that point. Now I was telling management clearly there is zero demand. And they said, it's also our biggest project. And we've told management we're going to build this thing and it sure would look good on my resume and we'd all like it and it sure would be nice to work there. And it certainly looked like progress. So it was close to being green lit. And then there was a reorganization and the new manager came in and said this wasn't my idea. And that was all it took to kill wasn't the new guy's idea. So the last thing you want to do is take over and then have the new guy Be responsible for somebody else's great idea. Because if the great idea works, it's the guy who thought of it. They get the credit. If it doesn't work, you're the one who ruined it. So the first thing you do when you take over is, is kill all of the last guy's babies so you don't have to raise them like you want your own babies. Because then if they succeed, it's all you. So that's how the real world works. In the real world, you can come to believe that one person saying something once was a lot of people talking and it was the most important thing. That's your primer. Just keep that pattern in mind, see what happens. Here's another pattern to keep in your mind. Suppose somebody came up to you and they said they believed the fine people hoax. They actually believed that Trump was talking about the neo Nazis when he called. Some people at the event find people. And then they said, on top of that they said they also believed that Trump said drinking bleach might help with COVID Now suppose they believe both of those debunked hoaxes. What would you think of the third thing they said? No matter what it was on any, let's say, a political topic, how much credibility would you give them on the third thing if you heard them believe two debunked things? Zero. Right. And that would be the correct. That would be the correct answer. Their credibility has been proven. Now, hypothetically, suppose something like that had happened to you and you didn't know it because the people who believe those two hoaxes, they don't know it, they think those are real. And is it because they're stupid? Is that why they believe hoaxes? Do people believe hoaxes because they have low IQs? No. No, there's no correlation. You could be the smartest or the dumbest. People believe stuff that isn't true. Smart people, dumb people, all kinds of people. So if well informed and smart people can have cognitive dissonance and believe hoax, how could you know? That's never happened to you. How could you know? Well, you couldn't, right? Because by definition the person who's suffering is the only one who doesn't know. Everybody else can tell. But if you're suffering, you don't know. So would you agree, hypothetically? I'm not saying that it's happening to you, but I'm saying hypothetically, if it did happen to you, you would be the only one who couldn't tell. Right? That's just a definition of what cognitive dissonance is. It's the thing that the person who has it can't tell. Let's talk about the World Economic Forum and Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates and the UN and other entities that you believe want to depopulate the Earth. How many of you here believe that important powerful entities want to reduce the population of Earth from. It's currently around 8,8 billion ish. How many of you believe there's people in power? This is a key phrase, people in power. How many think people in power want our 8 billion people to be reduced? A lot of people believe that. I'm seeing a lot of confirmation here. Let me tell you why you believe that. And it's just like the Pacific Bell Laboratory. Here's the pattern you're going to see now. If you're in deep cognitive dissonance, you're going to change the subject and, and you're going to say but. But something related to this. No. If you stay on the subject, I might be able to walk you out so that you're not the one who believes the fine people hoax and the drinking bleach hoax. If you believe the depopulation hoax, you will not have credibility on the next thing you say. So what I'm trying to do is fix the credibility of people I largely agree with and want to be associated with. So you're people I largely agree with and want to be associated with. So I would like you to make sure that you're not lowering your own credibility because that's good for all of us. We would all benefit if we're all a little bit more credible. Okay, here's how the belief that there are powerful people who want to depopulate came into being. Let's see. I haven't decided which side I'm going to show you first. Here's the reality as far as I can tell. And by the way, part of this story is Elon Musk fact checked me this morning. How many of you saw that? It's so freaky. So I will talk about this next. But Elon Musk has. I'm not sure it's a disagreement, but let's say he added a lot to the conversation. We'll get to that. I know you don't always get that. So here's what I believe is truth. And I will convince you that this is truth. That there are definitely people who want to manage the population growth of the planet. Manage. Not. Not decrease, not increase. Manage. Now manage means this. In some cases you might want it to go up. Let's Say Italy and Japan and the United States, in some cases you might want to slow it down. That might be, let's say a super poor African nation. So that would be managing. It's neither up nor down. It's finding the right amount for each individual area of the earth. Okay? Now I believe that everybody who has power is on the same page. That every single smart person with power, see, I put myself on the list, persuasion. I make a list with all the smartest people I can think of and I just throw myself on the list. I hope you caught that. Even the fact that I pointed it out and told you it's persuasion still works. It still works. That's persuasion. Association is an irrational process. So even though I said, hey, look at my trick, I put my own name on the name of a list of super successful smart people. Still works. Still works. Anyway, so my belief is that the UN, the WF gates, etc. Have never, have never been on any page except wisely managing it. Now you're going to say to me, Scott, there is a mountain of information, a mountain, massive information that at least several of these people want to depopulate. I could show you the video. I could show you the direct quote, right? How many, how many would, would say that right now? Scott, there's massive information that they want to do that I've seen it with. How many would say, I've seen it with my own eyes and I've heard it with my own ears. Where else have you heard that? Who, who else says I saw it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears and yet it didn't happen? That's everyone who believes the fine people hoax. Their defense is always the same. Their defense is I saw it myself, I heard it myself. The drinking bleach hoax, same defense. I heard it myself, I saw it myself. That's the same evidence people have that the powerful people want to depopulate the earth. I saw it myself. I heard it myself. It has, it has no evidentiary value because if you're in cognitive dissonance, you believe you saw it and you believe you heard it, but it's unrelated to whether it happened, right? If you believe that you heard any of these people say they want the planet of the population to go from its current 8 billion to a number less than that. That never happened anywhere. It never happened anywhere. Now I got fact checked by Elon Musk, who pointed to a New York Times article that Elon, he represented as a common view. Now you could argue what common is that's a little subjective, but the. There was a gentleman named. Give you his actual name, somebody Knight, you probably know it. So there's a guy named Paul Ehrlich, and there's another guy, somebody Knight, who wants to depopulate the world. What the hell is his name? Oh, Les Knight, the founder of the, quote, voluntary extinction movement. So the New York Times talked about this guy who literally wants to decrease the population. So first clarification. Do you believe that? I believe that out of the 8 billion people, there's not a single person on earth who wants the population to decrease from 8 billion to something less. Would you believe that? I don't think anybody believes that. Like, there's nobody in their bedroom somewhere to believe it. No, of course not. You should never interpret anything as an absolute. If you hear me make a statement, unless I say it's an absolute. Never. It's never an absolute. It's just sort of general, you know, general trends and stuff. So do I believe that there are crazy environmentalists who. Who do in fact, want to get rid of people? Of course I do. Of course I do. I'm literally famous for saying that there's always going to be somebody. 25% of the public will always get the wrong answer to every question. Is there anything I've said more often than that, that 25% of the public gets every question wrong? This is one of those. Do I think that there is a common view that there are too many people? Well, maybe not 25% in this case, but yeah. I mean, if you said it's 10% or 20%, I'd say maybe. But here's the part you're missing. Do you remember when the left went crazy, that a bunch of unarmed, or at least they didn't show their weapons, at least guns, that a bunch of people without firearms tried an insurrection against the United States? And you said, what the hell is going on here? There's no such thing as unarmed people trying to take over, take over the government. That's not a thing. But the left believed it or acted like it. And it's because there are a few people. There were a few people on January 6th who were the worst people. And so if you concentrate into those few people and imagine that's like that somehow they have power, then suddenly you've imagined a few crazy people have more power than they do. A few crazy people don't conquer a country. They don't do an insurrection. And those few crazy people had no influence on the bulk of the people because. Because the bulk of the people were just trespassing without even knowing they were. In many cases, they didn't even know they were breaking the law. So here's my point. If you're worried that anybody who has power wants to depopulate the earth, there's no evidence of that. The evidence is that 100% of the people with power want to manage population, maybe slow it in a poor country, maybe increase it where the population decreases the problem. And then here's the pushback I got. But, Scott, you're missing all of the hints. The hints? The hints are these. They say stuff like population growth is a huge problem, so therefore they don't want. They want fewer people. To which I say that's not the same thing. Population growth is a huge problem. Everybody agrees, but it's a problem. We manage. Let me give you some other examples of where people thought they saw evidence, but they imagined it. Let's see, I'll give you some exact quotes here. So there is a leftist professor, this Paul Ehrlich guy, who does want fewer people. How much influence does that guy have? I've never heard anybody in power who wanted fewer people. So I would say he has as much power as the few extremists on January 6th. A little bit. Nothing to worry about. A little bit. Hardly anything. All right, So I wouldn't worry about the weirdo environmentalists who want fewer people because nobody's paying attention to them and nobody with power. But certainly citizens believe it, as other people say. But what about Jane Goodall had this quote about too many people, to which I say, that's Jane Goodall. If she's talking about apes, people might pay attention. If she's talking about human population growth, she has no power. And it was years ago. I don't even know if she would say the same thing today. Do you think Jane Goodall would say that Italy doesn't need more people? No, she would do the same thing everybody else did. She'd find out, oh, their population is decreasing. They probably need more people. How about Prince Andrew had some kind of foreword or something in a book in which he did say that, you know, population was too much. It was a. It was a 1986 book. And then somebody else said, but we were all. We were all trained as kids, that there are too many people. Yes, we were. I was back forever ago because population growth looked like a real problem, and now it looks like it's a problem in some places and not others. So. So our view is modified. So anything that happened 50 years ago isn't relevant. That's not happening today. Anything that a few weirdos think would be better for the world apparently is having no effect on any decision makers. But what about somebody like Paul Krugman? Somebody produced a quote and of course this is so out of context that I hate to even criticize it because when you take it out of context it's so not fair because I don't even know if Krugman was talking about this. But let me ask you, if you knew that Krugman was the only person on one side of an issue. You know he's famous for being wrong, right? That's literally what he's most famous for. He's the most famous wrong economist of all famous economists. Now I'm sure he's gotten some things right, but he's actually famous for being the most wrong. So if he's all you got, that's a problem. But let's see what he said. Now remember, he's an economist and economists tend to talk in confusing weasel word way. See if you can even understand this, you're going to think you do the first time I read it, but then I'm going to go back back through it, see if you really do understand it. Quote, and first of all, I don't even know if this is a real quote, but let's say it is. Is stagnant or declining population a big economic problem? Whoa, we'll get back to that. So is stagnant or declining population a big economic problem? Remember, he's a famous Nobel winning economist. He says it doesn't have to be. Okay, that sounds pretty clear, right? He's saying declining population doesn't have to be a problem. And he says in fact, in a world of limited resources and major environmental problems, there's something to be said for a reduction in population pressure. Okay, there it is. He's saying directly he wants fewer people in the world, Right? Right. Is that what you heard? Yes or no? I'll read it again and then say yes or no. Does he want fewer people in the world? Is stagnant or declining population a big economic problem? It doesn't have to be. In fact, in a world of limited resources and major environmental problems, there's something to be said for a reduction in population pressure. No, but the person who said it to me thought it did say that. Why? Why do they think he said it when you can so clearly say he's see that he's not saying it? It's confirmation bias. Once you believe, just like the laboratory thing, once you Believe that all the customers are asking for it, and that's your belief. Then you just see it everywhere. Everywhere. You hear, yeah, there's another one. There's another. That's what. That's confirmation bias. So all of these examples that people send to me, they're absurd or ridiculous or the opposite of their point. But if you ask them, have I debunked all of their examples? What would they say? What would somebody say? If they'd shown me, let's say, six examples, and they're all easily debunked. If I do it right in front of them, what would their response be? Oh, I changed my mind. You debunked all my examples? No, people don't act that way. They would say, my God, Scott, you must be working for the World Economic Forum. Klaus Schwab has obviously got to you. You must be one of the elites. You're ignoring the mountain of evidence. And then I would say, there were six examples. They were your best examples. And I just debunked them in 30 seconds. What mountain of evidence? And then the person in confirmation bias would say, the mountain of evidence I just showed you. Right? That's what they say. They say, I just showed you the mountain of evidence. And then I would say, I just debunked all of it, like, easily. So that was somebody experiencing a psychological phenomenon. That's how they would act. All right, so then somebody said to me, what's it like being fact checked by Elon Musk? That didn't happen. That literally is imaginary. Elon Musk didn't fact check me because I don't disagree that there are weird environmentalists who do, in fact, want fewer people. I was aware that that group existed. So even when I was making my more extreme claims that nobody believes it, I really, of course, thought there were crazy people who believed it. But nothing to worry about. Nothing the crazy people are saying is bleeding into reasonable people who have power. Now, here's the part that's really going to make you crazy. Klaus Schwab. Do you know what his academic credentials are? His background? Do you know what is like job and academics are. He's both an engineer and an economist. How many of you knew that he's an engineer and an economist? Do you know how often. But. But here's what he's not. He's not an expert at communication. You see the problem? He's not an expert at communication. Has he communicated well? Apparently not, because there are a lot of people who believe that he thinks differently than he thinks. Do you believe that there's any economist who's also an Engineer who in 2022 believes that the population should go from 8 billion to less than that. Go. Do you believe there's any economist who's also an engineer? Who's also an engineer? Do you believe there's any of them who believe the population? No. That's where I'll take my stand. Yes. Elon Musk, I agree with you. It's common. I'll even use your word. I do think it's common that crazy people think there should be less humans or fewer humans. I'll give you that. No disagreement at all. But show me somebody who actually is in charge who believes it. Nobody who's also a globalist. Okay. You can even throw in the globalist. So if you read the UN website, you read the WF and you read the actual context, in every case, they're talking about managing population as one of the big variables about civilization. Energy is one, climate is one, population is one. You know, it's just one of the variables. So of course they mention it and of course they take it seriously. And of course it has to be managed. And you all agree with that? All of your historical examples are either wrong or. I stipulate that they're correct, but they're not on topic. We're only talking about. Now, I will also agree there may have been maybe even important people in the past who thought that population should be reduced. But today there's nobody with any power, nobody in charge, who thinks that in general we should have fewer people on Earth. Now, do you think that anybody who understands, and by the way, I say it as an extreme so that you'll be incentivized to prove me wrong, which would be interesting. Yeah, the Malthusian. All right, all right. I know you want to talk about the past, but I don't. What do you think would happen to national defense of a country with a declining population? Do you think a country with a declining population could defend itself in the long run? Because you realize that the reason China is a threat is mostly because of the number of people. Because. Because if you have that many people, a little bit of economic benefit generates so much cash that they can buy more bombs than anybody can. So they don't even have to be per person the best. They can just be growing and have the most people, and that gives their government the most money to buy the most bombs. So there's nobody in power who wants their country to be more defenseless. Would you agree? There's nobody who Understands geopolitical power. Who would want fewer soldiers, fewer taxpayers? Nobody. That's not a thing. The only people who would even think that way are people who have no power and will never have power. Because that's crazy talk. That's just crazy talk. All right. I think I had another side I was going to show you. Yeah. So when the UN or the World Economic Forum says they want to manage population growth, they're saying obvious, smart, unescapable things. There's nothing to debate. They're literally saying that some countries need more people. Some people, some groups might need to flatten their growth rate because they don't have enough economic activity to support it. But the population is just part of a lot of variables that include everything from health care to economics, and you have to manage them all. It's basically a bunch of bureaucrat talk that we put in our minds to be more than that. So is there anybody here who used to believe that the World Economic Forum wants to decrease your population? Who now believes that was never the case? Has anybody changed their mind? Looks like about. I mean, it's hard to judge. Maybe half. Now, for those of you who didn't change your mind, which might be the majority, what is your opinion of the people who just did change their mind? Do you think that they're all dumb? The ones who just changed their mind? Do you think they're all dumb or do you think. Well, like, how do you explain it? How do you explain the people who change their mind? Because you just watched the same thing they did. They're saying that you're in the 25%. Everybody thinks the other people are in the 25%. Your arguments are shallow carbon doctor says your claim of the WF is a straw man. Well, not intentionally. Not intentionally, but let's take that seriously. So a comment is that my WEF comments are a straw man, which I think indicates that I mischaracterized their opinion or somebody's belief of their opinion. Did I? Because I think there are multiple opinions. So. So I'm not. If I characterize one opinion, it necessarily left out some others. Well, if somebody thinks that the WEF wanted to reduce the population of Earth, that's a pretty clean binary. Yes. No claim. And I think I made my case. All right, so here's your common use, your tell for cognitive distance. It'll always look like this. And I don't mean to call you out, but Dances With Aardvarks says the actual evidence is easy enough to find and is not debunkable. That comment is always cognitive distance. Now, I know you don't believe it yet. You have to see enough examples. It's always cognitive distance because this is identical to what the fine people hoax people say. It's identical to what the people who believe the bleach, drinking Coke say. It's identical. And you don't get identical responses unless there's like a similar psychological thing going on. It's just a weak case. It's too shallow. I don't even know which side you mean is shallow. Robert says, so here's another. Cognitive distance. Robert Wood says, wow, Scott, lately your stream's all about trying to pump up your massive ego. Now, I'm pretty sure my massive ego has been somewhat similar the whole time. If you believe that I was not displaying a massive ego before, I would question your assumption. So I believe that you are hallucinating an increase in that behavior. And the reason you're hallucinating it is that that's your escape hatch. Your escape hatch is to imagine something is wrong with me, because there's nothing wrong with the argument. That's what cognitive distance looks like. So cognitive distance is almost always a personal attack, a claim that there's a mountain of evidence that you're blind to, even if you just talked about it. So it's changing the subject and acting like it's the same thing. And the personal attacks, those. Those are just clear signals. Now do the Berggren Institute. I don't know who they are. Yeah, we talked about Tate. And so, Kyle, I'll show you all the cognitive distance. So you've all watched me say over and over again, I'm not counting historical examples, because in the past, people did some of them want fewer people. So Kyle woods says, scott, Hitler thought the world was overpopulated. Now, that's cognitive dissonance, because I so clearly said, I'm only only talking about now. Anything you say about the past, I don't care or I agree with. And then somebody will say, but what about the past? So that's cognitive distance. They literally can't hear something right in front of you. What benefit is the quote? Great replacement. Do you believe in the Great replacement too? Historical examples is your escape hatch. That's cognitive distance. That's projection. What's the WEF's purpose? Change of topic. Cognitive distance. Please show us where the WEF says they want more people on the planet. Cognitive dissonance. Change of subject. All right, but you can see. So this. This stream was not meant to make you feel warm and fuzzy or at Least that part of it. I'm trying to cultivate an audience who can debunk things more readily than other people. And sometimes it means your own beliefs are going to get debunked. And the thought that there's anybody in power who wants fewer people in the world is ridiculous. You need to get past that in order to seem credible on other topics. And I think that this is useful. Well, let me ask the question. Is it even useful for me to try to do this? I get that it didn't succeed with all of you, but was it useful to try? The locals people are more likely to say yes, but we have some sprinklings of no in there. And that. Oh, actually, I'm getting a better response to this than I expected. Good. The critics sometimes are a little too loud, so they're screaming about any topic that makes their head hurt. So I feel like maybe I was missing that some of you were appreciating the debunking. All right, I feel like there was at least one other topic that I'm forgetting, but this is slow news week, so. Yeah, usually somebody calls me a grifter by now. Iron sharpens iron. That's the attitude. So Chaos Corner says, so here's your classic example. There was no debunking done today. Now, you can tell that that's cognitive dissonance, right? Because the people who have. The people who have specific, you know, objections, they say them every time. Because if you have, like, a specific, like, game winning objection, you're not gonna, you're not gonna leave it on the table. You're gonna play it because that's your, Your winning card. Nobody leaves the winning card on the table to go insult you and run away. First they play the winning card, and then they insult you and go away. So if they insult you first and tell you that they've got the winning card, but they're just too busy to show you, you can discount those people. Rogue stranger says, Scott thinks, if he says no, it's a debunk. You see what that is, right? All right, your card. What? And now people are arguing about my analogy, which is another good sign of cognitive dissonance. Can you name some of your own beliefs you debunked? How does one debunk their own beliefs? Are you asking me something I've ever changed my mind on? Is that the question? Is there. Is there actually somebody on locals who thinks they haven't seen me change my mind? Is that even possible? I. I might literally be the most mind changing public figure of all time. I don't think anybody's ever done it more than I. All right. And somebody's still asking me if. Asking questions about Hitler. Everybody who mentioned Hitler in this conversation. You might be experiencing cognitive dissonance. All right. Have you caught yourself in cognitive dissonance? Yes, but you don't catch yourself while you're in it. You catch yourself when you accidentally get flipped out of it. And then you look back, you're like, what? There is a hole in your theory. Cognitive dissonance. If we're a simulation, that's a longer conversation. What can we do to flip your dissonance evidence? Here's what it would take to flip my dissonance. One clear statement from a member of, let's say a managing member of the WEF that says that 8 billion is too many people. That would do it. Anything. Anything that suggested that would do it. But that doesn't exist. The georgia guidestones. What? All right. You think people in power are benevolent. Cognitive dissonance. Nobody thinks that. I hate on Kerry Lake, but what's Katie Hobbs? Fentanyl plan. You're hallucinating. He hates to be on the side of the majority. You're hallucinating. Did Scott talk about Chris Deo's baby daddy getting arrested? That, of course, is a rumor that Tate himself started because he's not a good person. What are the top three cognitive biases I see today? I don't know. I'd have to think about that. That's weird. There's somebody who's obsessing about my opinions about Katie Hobbs. Could there be anything less important? Today I'll hide you because you're having some kind of episode. Alex Katz. I don't know. The problem is Scott refuses to read any articles anyone sends him debunking his arguments. Do you think that's true or does that sound like. Because you couldn't know that. You think that's true? No, that's obviously not true. Let me tell you what I don't look at. If somebody says, I have an article that proves that. Let's say that proves that Superman is real. And then I don't look at it. And people say, if you would look at my argument that Superman is real, maybe I could take you more seriously. No, I'm not going to look at your argument that Superman is real. But I'll ask you to do this. Type into a Google search what you think is real and then the word debunk. Because I did. Because I did. And I read a lot of articles about your point of view. And I've seen both sides. But I'll bet you can't describe the other side. I'll bet you can't. So for those people who said you sent me something I didn't read, there's a reason I didn't read it. There are some things that are so obviously bullshit on the surface, you don't need to read it. Do you know what I didn't read is Paul Ehrlich's reason why he wants fewer people. I also didn't read all of Elon Musk's article he sent me about that one crazy guy who wants fewer humans. There's nothing to read there. Yeah, it. Let me teach you something I learned in graduate school. Now, this will sound really cocky. I guess there's no way to fix that. So I'm just going to sound really arrogant now. Okay. And. But the arrogance is based on the fact that sometimes you have a difference in agreement, but other times you have a difference in training. I think I'm not going to finish that thought. There's a hole in your argument. It's technically possible to depopulate via blah, blah, blah, various mechanisms. No, that's not a hole in my argument. That's not related to my argument. So there's somebody saying there's a hole in my argument that I'll see if I can paraphrase this. Right. That there are a bunch of mechanisms from monetary policy and technology that would have the effect. It would have the effect of depopulating. Right. So that has nothing to do with my point. Those are the things that you need to change. So if the effect of those things is to give you a smaller population in Italy, then you need to fix it. If the effect of those things is to give you a slower growth in a poor country that needs some slower growth, then you don't fix it. But you're just talking about the tools. We have tools. Did I disagree with that? Is there a hole in my argument that I agree with you that tools exist and that things can affect other things? That's not a hole. That's obvious. Depopulation is a foregone conclusion. Depends on the country. Hard to prove intent. Ban who? All right, I think we've exhausted this topic. I'm trying to decide if I should be live streaming on New Year's Eve tomorrow. They want to. They want to distribute wealth. So there is them and slaves. That's everybody. Everybody wants to be in charge and enslave everybody else. They just don't admit it. Where to get hypnotist training? No idea. Other than finding a hypnotist to train you. And even then it'd be better with a group of people. So use Google. And I have no better. I have no better advice than that. All right, I think we're done on YouTube, and I'll talk to you tomorrow, and I'm going to talk to the locals people a little bit more.