The Scott Adams School - 08/06/26 Thursday With The Home Team. Fauci, Iran, Made-Men and More

Um, how do you judge that? Because like, you know, if, if let's assume that Fauci said, okay, I'm going to answer your question, like, you know, the color of the carpet and whatever else, then I would expect that the next line of questioning would just be leading him gradually towards stuff that might incriminate him. And the whole point of that game would then be to say, okay, now we hit something that you won't answer, so you're hiding something, and that must be an incriminating thing. Like, it's basically trying to get him to reveal where the crime comes in.

So that's what, um, Blumenthal, I think, was doing. He was saying, you know, I have to— like, I don't know if he's an attorney, but he was— one of them was like, oh, you know, legally it has to be liberally construed, meaning that you have to— that reasonable, uh, suspicion, the reasonable understanding that you're gonna self-incriminate needs to be liberally applied. So you have to apply it everywhere. He was taking your point, Owen, but you made it even better than him. Um, no, that's not how the court sees it. The court sees it question by question. So if that particular question doesn't lead to any— it can't possibly lead to anything self-incriminating, you should answer. I understand that if you have the next question, the next question is like 'Oh, do you see COVID on the carpet?' And did it—

is COVID sitting here right now?

And did it, did it need to be 6 feet apart from you? You know, something like where you're like meshing the carpet with what you want him to answer. Then that particular question, Fifth Amendment, right? Because he has a reasonable, uh, fear of being self-incriminated. But it's question by question, which is why Josh Hawley even even today said, this is the reason why I asked the question, because it's about good faith, um, about Fauci's good faith of using the Fifth Amendment in the correct way. So, but he didn't do it. And that, I would say, when— if you watch, if you watch the hearing again, which I'm sure you won't because it's kind of like, I don't know, hearing him speak his, his Fifth Amendment thing, but you see the lawyers behind him they kind of cringe when he doesn't answer the what the color of the carpet is because they know that that particular thing is not appropriate. So not that that's a big deal of everything he's done in his life, but, um, I see YouTube is back.

Yes, I was waiting for you to finish. Sorry, YouTube, there was a glitch with Rumble and I, I hit a button while Marcela was talking and hope for the best, and you made it in.

And I was just talking to them.

Okay.

I was talking to them before talking and I was telling them, Erica can't get you in. Once you're not in, you're not in. And I'm sorry, I was—

I just took a wild chance and it worked. So thank God.

Mistaken. I'm mistaken. Erica made it happen. But hey, so they voted for contempt. The other thing they were going on about is that they believe Rand Paul, Senator Rand Paul, is going to send it up to the DOJ without having the whole entire Senate vote on it. That I agree with them. He is, by, by the rules of the Senate, he is supposed to take it from committee to the full Senate. Now you can, you know, laws, so you can see them different ways. So you can argue that he could do it without doing that, but naturally, um, he should be able to take it to the Senate and the Senate should vote for it, right? But we know how the Senate is.

All right. So, Owen, I know we talked about this the last time because I saw somebody asking in the chat, what about how he made that statement first? And like, you're not supposed to make an opening statement, like the whole Lois Lerner thing. But anyway, I don't know. So I think that— I don't know what I think. I don't know what I think because what I saw was if they recommend it to the DOJ, that his punishment might be $1,000 and a year in prison or something like that. Like, I was just like, what? So none—

so he, he's allowed to make an initial statement. And, and Louis Lerner, from what, um, Owen told us, that was not found to be like detrimental.

Um, but people are still talking about it. Lawyers. Well, so they—

lawyers talk all the time.

Congress did find that woman in contempt of Congress. Or, you know, whatever their finding was. But then they referred that to the DOJ, and the DOJ said, we're not going to pursue that, like, we don't agree with you, basically.

So, so him making a statement doesn't make him in contempt when, you know, so what they voted for— and maybe they think, oh, it was wrong and self-serving, and, you know, legally, whatever it is. But the reason why he's in contempt, you guys, is because he already has a pardon, so he can't there is a, there is, um, oh my gosh, Walker something, 1896 case, 1896, I think, um, Supreme Court case, which indicates that if you already have a pardon or some kind of immune, which gives, it gives you immunity, you are supposed to answer questions of Congress because you cannot self-incriminate because you already can't be prosecuted. However, I give Fauci— I hate to say this— oh, Marcelo, the benefit of the doubt because of the fact that it was announced that he was going to be, uh, prosecuted for perjury beforehand. You know, I wouldn't— if I would have been Senator Rand Paul and his counsel, I would have counseled him not to say it out loud. Just, uh, just go ahead. The, the one of the things that you learn as an attorney Um, is before you go for the jugular, in your case, you don't announce it, you just go do it.

And I would think that's the way to do it.

Yeah, Erica knows.

Yeah, I mean, sneak attack. Why would you warn the enemy?

We were just talking about that with Iran, right?

Yeah, yeah.

But back, I mean, back to the original point, I do agree that Fauci is a creature of DC. He is part of the DC mafia, is the way I would describe it. And I, I think I've said that for years when, when all this was happening, that it was clear to me that Fauci had been in the government and in DC, that whole circle, for so long. He knew how to navigate that to keep himself out of trouble. He knew how to make sure certain things didn't end up in an email or it wasn't on a government computer or it wasn't something that could be FOIA'd. And like, it was very clear that he knew his way around all this stuff, like, very adeptly. He, he had been practicing this sort of thing for years and So I, I remember saying years ago, I don't think Fauci's ever going to see any consequences from this because he's just too good at it. He's, he's too good at playing that game to say, even though I'm essentially committing crimes, I'm never going to be held accountable for this because there's not going to be any evidence that ties me to anything, or there's not going to be anything. And I think this diary certainly is the closest thing to it because it clearly does show that he lied a whole bunch and he was very deceptive. And so I don't think he ever expected that to get out. And I'm kind of surprised he even wrote all that stuff down, especially letting it cross onto a government computer.

Oh, you guys, they have his cell phone too.

Yeah, but I, you know, I still think— I still expect him to be the weasel that's going to find a way out of this stuff and protected, probably because a lot of other people would be implicated if he really was nailed to the wall, that they're was clearly a lot of intelligence community involvement here that I'm sure the government does not want released. And there's probably a whole bunch of other people that people don't want coming to light. And so they're just going to protect Fauci because otherwise it would all fall apart.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

Well, all right. So then it takes me to— so we did an extra credit segment on Locals, on scottadams.locals.com, with Dr. Drew and BJ. And Dr. Drew had watched something BJ did on his Locals and wanted to talk to BJ about something, but then we took a left turn into Fauci-ville. And here was our exchange. It's a few minutes long. And then Owen, you'll react first to this.

I wrote a book on narcissism in like 2010 or '08 or something. And I wanted to put a chapter on this in there then. And they, the publisher said it was too speculative. No one would get it. I thought, God, I wish I had it because I know there's going to be mass formation and there's going to be scapegoating. The guillotines will come out. And there was no social media at the time. I didn't know that the social media would be the public square where the scaffolding is built. And we have seen it writ— we continue to see it writ large. And it's one of the most unhealthy things that humans can do. It's why, frankly, one of the reasons I'm a little worried about what we're doing with Dr. Fauci. It's— there's a, you know, everyone wants satisfaction and they want answers and they want truth. And I do, too. But if you start wanting to scapegoat, you're engaging in this phenomenon again. And it's not healthy. And if you learn nothing from history, once you bring out the guillotine, everyone goes on the guillotine.

So bring up—

He ended up on the guillotine.

Yeah.

No, I agree.

Can you bring that back to Dr. Fauci? Because that's a current day example people can understand. Why isn't he the scapegoat?

He is easily a scapegoat, right? I mean, he affected tens of millions of lives. He could easily go public and say, I did the best I could. I made some errors, you know, but I was really in good faith trying to help. I had this thing. I didn't know how bad it could get. And you could argue that he was trying to hide this and that. Just if he just came forward and said that, there would be a lot of satisfaction. But there is a significant number of people They want to see him in jail or something, you know, something really violent happening to him. And what I'm saying is, yes, that might be justified. It might even be justice. But once you start engaging in this scapegoating behavior, even when there's good reason for it, it just doesn't end well. It just doesn't. I'm telling you, it's, you know, it's lawfare is sort of part of that as well. Lawfare is part of the scapegoating mechanism. You know, it's, it concerns me. It concerns me.

Well, not to take a complete left turn, but I can say, speaking for myself and other people I've spoken with, so when no one ever has to reap the consequences of their actions, which as the American general population sees, it becomes more frustrating watching to be like time after time after time, people are breaking laws, perhaps causing millions of deaths. And when no one has a punishment, for lack of a better word, I think it makes the crowd more infuriated. So I feel like, you know, for me and you, we'd be in trouble. But then you see these people and nothing happens. And I think that's bad for our psychology.

Look, Michael Gates is running for attorney general of California on the slogan, make crime illegal again.

Please.

And he's right. Yes, I agree with you writ large and philosophically. You know, the DSA is going the other way, right? They want to get rid of prisons, get rid of police, get rid of everything. And that's why this is happening. That's why there are no consequences for many of these things. I'm just saying, watch your scapegoating mechanism. There's a guy named René Girard that famously wrote about the— he called it mimetic passions, but it was the Scott Adams. It's actually a little more the way he was a literary sort of critic, but he put his finger on something very important, which is that we have a— when we form mobs, we will scapegoat and we're not happy until there's blood. And it's some of the most pathological behaviors that humans can get into. So, it's one thing to go, "Hey, let the legal system take care of it." Right? Hopefully, they will. Fine.

He's got immunity.

He was given, you know, all these things that are going to prevent that from happening. Be frustrated. Don't let it happen again. But don't insist on a scapegoat for this. All I'm saying is just an instinctive concern I have. Look, I want the truth and I want— I would love him to apologize, too. But I'm also not into forced apologies. There's this world— you got to apologize. No, no, no, no, no, no. There's various ways to take accountability. Apology is the least effective, but it's the way narcissists like to, like to evoke their envious, envious aggression on you.

Thank you, Dr. Drew, for doing that extra credit segment with us. We love you here. So, Owen, I'll just let you riff on that.

Yeah, well, I mean, I do think there's sort of different angles to look at this from. One is like the justice system itself, and I think all of us want justice, and we feel really angry and frustrated because we don't see it. And it seems like there's this two-tier justice system where someone like you or me, if we had done something like this, we'd be in prison. But, but someone like Fauci gets a pass and gets a pardon and gets, you know, all this special treatment. And so I think that's infuriating for a lot of people, and I think that is something that's wrong. Just like everybody's been harping on the no one's above the law thing. It's like, well, actually some people are. And it's also very selective when politicians are saying that because what they really mean is the other side shouldn't be above the law because I want to punish them. But when it comes to my side, no, I didn't mean it that way. I agree that there is this instinct that Dr. Drew talked about in terms of getting sort of hyped up into a mob and that can be a very bad thing. I mean, we've all seen kind of mob actions that have gotten out of control and have ended with violence. And, there's plenty of examples of that through history that never seem to go well, but it is kind of just part of human nature that people end up with these lynch mobs or whatever you want to call them. I mean, honestly, I think the whole George Floyd is another example of that where it's like it got whipped up into a frenzy and Derek Chauvin is in prison today and he probably shouldn't be because I think as far as I can tell, he did exactly what he was trained to do. And in my opinion, allegedly, I think George Floyd actually died of a fentanyl overdose. But that to me was a similar example of people just had to punish somebody, right? They just, they couldn't let that go without somebody being their scapegoat. So it definitely does happen, and it happens both ways. It's not, you know, like one side is the only one that does this. But, um, and I do think we should be careful about that. But at the same time, I, you know, personally, I still think Fauci was one of the central figures behind this whole situation, not just the response to it, but even creating it to begin with, with the science that led to it. Um, and so I, you know, I've said many times before and I'll say it again, I think Fauci is directly responsible for probably millions of deaths. And so I, I can totally understand, and I agree that, you know, myself, that I want to see some kind of punishment or accountability for this. Um, but at the same time, you know, I, I don't really expect to see it, and I, I don't want it to go around the legal process either. I don't want our whole system to crumble because of vigilante justice or other things, right? But I think there is a balance there too between if you don't have real justice, then it's likely to lead to vigilante justice as we've seen recently with Luigi Mangione and all sorts of other situations that we would all wish didn't happen. But I do think that it is that balancing act of you need to have enough justice to prevent people from losing faith in the system.

Yeah, I agree with that. Like, a little justice right now might go a long way to, like I said, release that pressure release valve. Because, you know, even like prepping for the show every day when I'm like reading, I'm sure this happens to all of you, but like I'm reading news stories and I'm just like, oh my God, like I wish I could just bring things that aren't, you know, so like infuriating. But it feels like everything's infuriating right now. And that's why I brought you the tongue choir yesterday, because it was like, okay, here's something that shouldn't infuriate you. But, um, so Marcella, do you want to say anything on that clip? Oh, mute. You're on mute.

Yes, I do. Um, I'm 100% agree with Dr. Drew and 100% disagree with him. I agree that scapegoating is wrong, and I understand the mob mentality. I don't agree with, um, would you call it lawfare, what they did to Trump, um what they do, what Trump was doing to other people at times. I won't mention names, but, um, but the scapegoating— okay, scapegoating is the practice of unfairly singling out a person. This is not unfair. Um, Fauci is not— in my opinion, my opinion— is not innocent. So Finding justice and trying to seek as Congress answers to questions that they have because of information that they have gathered recently, as well as I believe they took— they have custody of his phone now, so I'm sure they're going to find out more stuff. That is one— they're— that's their job. Is to find this out. Um, if I understand what he means when— and I think I just spoke about it, about Senator Rand Paul saying we're going to prosecute for, for perjury before perjury even happens, you know. So I understand having that tone to let's, let's, let's prosecute, let's jail him. Maybe the tone has to be toned down because you want to gather everything and then perhaps see if there's enough there to prosecute. Um, but I don't believe the word scapegoating is—

is—

should be used with Fauci.

Let's just say, I think, I think maybe he picked the wrong word and we sat with it for too long. But I, I'm guessing that what he meant was like, we get so worked up that we're just like, we're not going to be satisfied until he's dead, you know what I mean? Yeah. So it's like, it's completely like, we gotta calm down. That way. But, but, um, I think—

what is that saying? The saying is revenge is best served cold or something like that.

Yeah, cold. I, I just think that we need to see— listen, like, this was, to, to quote Joe Biden, this was no joke. I mean, COVID was brutal and traumatizing and I want to, I want to see something happen to him. Nothing— I'm not saying I want to see something happen to him, you guys. Like, let me just make that clear, Marcella. I'm not saying I want something like physically bad to happen to him. I need to see accountability, okay? I'm talking about accountability. Yeah, um, but go ahead.

But you know what I think Dr. Drew would agree with, and I would mind read him and you and everybody else, we want to see justice being done in a less, um, Scarlet Letter guillotine search for him and get him. Because they're— like we've said previously, there's many other people besides Fauci that were involved. And I don't see Dr. Birx being brought to, to the Senate. I don't see any of the other people. I believe that one of his aides or somebody, an assistant, is being prosecuted, and that's great. So today when I heard Senator Rand Paul say this is just the beginning and there's going to be many other people that are going to be put in question, I liked hearing that because I think what it— what the—

the—

sorry, I'm going long, but the optics of just like Fauci must be taken and then we'll put him out to the pasture, do whatever we need to do, it just the tone and the optics aren't good. Yeah, they're not good.

So sticking on the theme, because I want to get to a Scott clip that I have, but I just want to wrap up this like made man mafia stuff. So I'm going to play a clip from John Solomon. His company is called Just the News. And I think this was on Steve Bannon's show, man. I'm telling you. Did you guys in the chat, do you Did you, do you trust, uh, Tom Cotton? We know Thune is our pain in our ass for sure, but I never trusted Tom Cotton. But anyway, listen to another protected made man and what's happening here.

I'm going to go back to being a reporter for a second. I do not know this information from anything I've gained in government. I can tell you with 100% certainty that Republicans are obstructing the investigation into weaponization. There are two Republicans I can name by name, Senator John Thune and Senator Tom Cotton. They have refused for months, four months now. The first request came in late January, early February. They are refusing thus far to provide to Joe DeGeneva, to the prosecutors in Florida, to the Miami U.S. Attorney, to the Justice Department the transcripts of John Brennan's interviews with the Senate Judiciary— Senate Intelligence Committee. They have refused to do so. I'm going to call out a third name because I don't understand the Justice Department's behavior. When a body that's separate of the executive branch doesn't comply, every other time in American history— go back to Iran-Contra, go back to Watergate— the Justice Department subpoenas the Congress. For some reason, the acting Attorney General, who wants to be the permanent Attorney General, has not authorized a subpoena to the United States Senate to get those documents. Those documents will allow the prosecutors in Miami to decide whether the charges are warranted against John Brennan. The idea that Republican senators will not cooperate with the Republican administration is ridiculous politically, but it's illegal. It's obstruction. There ought to be a grand jury subpoena sitting in the Senate clerk's office, and there ought to be a court case yesterday compelling this because the Justice Department has been delayed by 8 months by 2 Republican senators who have the responsibility and the ability to deliver this. You want to get to the grand conspiracy case, you need the missing evidence, and the Senate possesses it. And as of this date, I can find no evidence they've turned it over, and there is no grand jury subpoena because The clerk of the Senate would have to report it publicly. I just checked the Congressional Record again today. So Todd Blanch, Tom Cotton, John Thune, you got some explaining to do to the War Room posse.

Yeah, Weezy, you got some explaining to do. So Todd Blanch, why isn't that happening? Owen, I'm going to come to you first on this one. You know, it's— it's— I want to say we always have to point out, you know, even if the Republicans are doing something like this or the Democrat, it doesn't matter what party someone's on. This is bad. And, you know, they're blocking this from happening and therefore protecting John Brennan. And, you know, so Sandy was saying to me, you know, like, well, once CIA, always CIA, because I— was it Tom Cotton that was in the CIA? Um, So is he protecting his own? Like, what, you know, what do you think? Just hypothesize.

Well, I think it is another thing where politics are wrapped up into this. The deep state is wrapped up into this. Clearly John Brennan was all— was, you know, running a lot of dirty ops for many years, and I'm sure this is one of the central ones. Um, and so I think clearly in my mind, people like Thune and Cotton are also wrapped up in the deep state and don't want all of this stuff revealed. Um, some of it might be because it has something to do with January 6th or whatever, and they're in, you know, like, in arms just because they were so afraid essentially when they were subject to that, where they felt like they might have some actual physical danger. And Congress also has another legal standard or another standard about, you know, it's one thing if somebody commits a crime, but if it's against us, well then it's a completely different thing. Like, you know, they took our phone records.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

You know, I don't really care that they do it for millions of other Americans, but you can't But I think it's, you know, to me it's just a clear example of the deep state protecting their own. And I don't know if I could be as critical as, as Solomon is. I mean, justifiably, but of, of Blanche, just because he's in this moment where he's trying to be confirmed and he's being confirmed by that same Senate. And so he's obviously courting the votes of all those senators and doesn't want to do anything to piss anybody off. And so from a political perspective, I would understand why Blanche might just be like, you know what, maybe we'll do that later, or I just won't tackle that or go into that controversial area right now because I don't want to lose a whole bunch of votes. I'm not defending it because I don't think Thune and others should be offended. They should be supporting this, you know, investigation into the weaponization of government. But, um, I can understand at least politically why, why Blanche would be a little shy to say "Let me go step into this controversy right now," because he's trying to get confirmed. You can have positive or negative feelings about Blanche. I know he has his own, in my opinion, questionable background of like, is he really on Trump's side? Is he really part of the deep state? Because he has history on the other side, I think, as well. But I do think he's been doing a lot of good things in general and trying to move things in the right direction on a lot of things aligned with Trump's agenda. Now again, once he's confirmed, it could flip, you know. I don't know because I'm not sure that I can really trust him. But I, I do think that, um, you know, to me it's disgusting that these senators are blocking this investigation. I think we should be trying to get rid of the weaponization of government stuff. I think it was terrible, all the things that happened, especially during the Biden administration, about the weaponization of government. But, you know, all the way back to Obama, really. And Um, I think there probably were a lot of really bad crimes committed throughout that whole process, and I think we should get to the bottom of it and we should stop it from happening again. So I'm hoping we'll get there.

Uh, I hope so too. Marcela, do you want to quickly comment? Because I want to get to the Scott clip.

Um, no, I don't have to.

Oh no, you— I want you to. Oh, okay.

The CIA, I don't know if they're watching, but, um So I think regarding— you asked about Todd Blanchard, and I think he's gonna wait until he gets, um, he becomes confirmed Attorney General, and then we'll see what happens then. I think we need to table this because I'm sure he's gonna go, um, maybe, maybe I shouldn't say anything because remember, you should never say to your interview what you're gonna do, but I think confirmation is needed for him.

Yeah, I mean, that's kind of what I think too, but it's, you know, I don't know, maybe he needs to go talk to Cotton and Thune also and just be like, listen, I don't understand, but the deep state, the swamp is alive and active. Oh, by the way, is Uphill Gardener on YouTube? Uphill Gardener, I have a news report for you when we're done with Scott's clip and we're done with the discussion. So I read your comments. So we have a special report coming to you after this. So you guys, let's listen to Scott. This is just great. Loser versus winner. Okay, let's listen to Scott. I think this is like maybe 7 minutes or so and then we'll talk on the other side.

Hey everybody, it's a very special single topic Periscope today. I'm going to wait for 1,000 people to jump in and then we're going to jump right into it. It's going to be short. There will be no simultaneous sip. We already did that today. It's going to be on one topic and this topic will change the lives of some of you. Others of you will say, "I kind of knew that," but it will give you a new way to package it so you can convince other people, maybe change somebody else's life by using this communication method. So this is about the losing way to look at the world versus the winning way to look at the world. This is something I've noticed over my lifetime, that people who are having a, a tough time making it in this world have very similar thinking patterns, and the people who are doing great have also very similar but different thinking patterns from the people who are not doing so well. And I want to show you those so you can choose the one that works for you. Let's start with the loser frame. This is an unproductive way of looking at the world. It doesn't mean that the people who think this way are losers. It does mean that the technique is not a winning technique. And it goes like this. This is one way of looking at the world. There are people in the world who are continually doing stuff you don't like. And those people are having a big effect on you. They're making your brain register all this stress. And then your brain is sending that stress into your body and it's making you feel bad in a variety of ways. It's making you sick and unhappy and lose sleep and everything else that stress does. And then all of that is, of course, going back into your brain. Figuratively, or at least conceptually, you could think of it as a loop in which it just makes you sad. Now, how do you fix this situation if that's how you see the world? It's tough. The only thing you can do is wait for other people to act different than normal people. That's it. Your only hope of getting out of this is if other people stop acting like regular human beings all of a sudden. Sudden, because they're acting like normal people. It's not really reasonable to expect that they will just stop acting that way. So here's a permanent losing framework. If you see the world like this, you see yourself as a victim of these other people who just don't seem to change. So what's the productive way to look at this? Well, without changing any facts in the world, without making anything different about what you perceive, Here's the way winners look at the world, and it's pretty consistent. I think you'll notice that the winners often think this way. It goes like this. The way winners think is that your brain has different parts. And again, this is conceptual. I'm not saying everybody who does well in life thinks of it exactly this way, but once you see it, I think you'll agree. But we have this little executive decision part of our brain, just a small part that can make rational decisions. For example, that part of your brain could say, "I'd better go to college. I'd better learn a skill." Just a rational decision. This part says, "I hear it's good to go to the gym, so I'll build that into my schedule." Rational decision. We're not rational species. This big part of your brain is doing a whole bunch of irrational stuff, but still there is a little part of our brain that can make perfectly rational decisions about the easy stuff. Do I go to the gym? What kind of a diet do I have? You know, the things that take care of yourself. Now let's say you make good executive decisions. You do the things that people through the centuries know work— increasing your talent stack, Works every time. Learning works basically every time. Being nice to people, having good manners, staying out of jail— they're easy, logical things that you can make your body do. You can make your body not pick up that piece of cake, and instead you can make your body pick up something that's a little healthier for you. You can make your body have the right body language so people appreciate you, etc. Under this model, you make these little executive decisions about what your body will be doing. Now, that includes your mind and includes what you say. I'm not talking about literally just your arms and legs. I'm talking about going to school. I'm talking about, you know, driving across town if it makes sense to do that. All the things that your body does. And in this model, everything you do influences other people. Do you notice how this is the reverse? Of the loser opinion. In the loser framework, other people are the cause of all your problems. In this framework, you're making decisions, your body is going out and doing things, and you are the one influencing other people. The way they treat you is an outcome of your executive decision and what you did. Let's say your executive decision was to go to school and get a degree. Does that affect other people? Absolutely. Those other people now feel differently about you, they act differently, they offer you jobs. If you tell your body to act polite, even when you're not feeling polite, does that affect other people? Absolutely. Other people will respond to your politeness, usually with politeness. They will like you better, etc. If you tell your body to show interest in people, even if you don't really feel it. So you ask them about themselves, you listen, you're a good listener. Does that affect other people? Absolutely. If you act like a good listener, even if you're not feeling it, but if you act like it, if you get your arms and legs and mouth to be a good listener, these people will be influenced. They'll say, "I like that person. Good listener. Cares about people. Empathy. I think that would be a good manager, somebody I want to mate with." et cetera. Now in this model, if you, your executive decision moves your body, your body influences other people, both the things that your body is doing and the things that other people are responding with are making you happy. In this model, you are controlling the entire flow. Now, does that mean that the loser frame is 100% debunked? No, they both run at the same time. It is true that other people are just doing stuff that's making you unhappy. Can't change that. But you can understand your world differently and take control. If you understand that your executive decisions that move your body are what is programming other people, at least the other people that are affected by you directly, you're programming those people. And that programming is the thing that makes you happy. Because they are loving you, they are hiring you, they're giving you raises. They're saying good things about you. They're becoming your friends. They're doing you favors. And it's all because they're getting something out of it. They're not doing it because they're good people, although some might be. They're doing it because you programmed them. You programmed them by the way you act. That is the winning frame. Now, you're probably thinking to yourself, "All right, who do you know who has the winning frame versus the losing frame?" And this is the sort of lesson that is going to become more profound as you think about it. The more you think about it, you're going to start noticing people, the people who just can't figure out how to make it in life, are all the people who think they're victims of what other people are doing. The moment you can reframe that as you, you are programming other people, which by the way is a different way of explaining the Dale Carnegie The Dale Carnegie Method. There's a reason that Dale Carnegie has been a best-selling book for how many decades? Decades after decades. It's because it works. And the Dale Carnegie Effect, the Dale Carnegie Method, among other things, it teaches a wide variety of things. But one of the things that I find most important is that you learn that you are the agent of reprogramming your environment. People will respond to you based on what you do. So you are programming them all the time. If you allow them to program you, they will. They will. They'll fill in the blank. If you're not programming the people around you, they will program you, guaranteed. So you only have those two choices: get programmed and have no control over your life, or become the programmer. Somebody in the comments is saying, "Hello, Jordan Peterson." I would contend, I haven't heard Jordan Peterson say this exactly, but I'm pretty sure it's compatible with the things he says. You will notice that all the people that you recognize at good at this stuff, meaning good at understanding strategies for being successful, I would be willing to bet that 100% are compatible with what I just said. Probably every person who really gets it, probably every person who's ever made a billion dollars understands that they are the agents programming other people. As soon as you think it's the other way around, that's what's going to happen. It's self-fulfilling. So, yes, I think you'll see this quite a bit. I thought I would put this in one crisp little video, and I'm going to end it right here. But I hope that was helpful. And happy Valentine's Day.

Happy Valentine's Day, everyone. So great. Another amazing, always, lesson from Scott. And I'm just laughing. So for those of you not on Locals, EJ, you might hear us talking about EJ sometimes over here on Locals. He's sort of like Uphill Gardener over on YouTube, but EJ's got more like antisemitism in him. It's kind of an inside joke, but not really. So EJ's saying, well, how do I program people to unblock me? Because a lot of people have blocked him. And the chat, so smart, they pointed out, well, you program them to block you. So you can program people in a positive way or a negative way how they think about you. You have to be careful how you're using this persuasion technique and what Scott just taught you, because you could go in either direction. So, Marcella, I'll come to you first. I love this lesson, and I oftentimes hear from people, well, this is just how they act, and she always says the same thing, and what am I supposed to do? And I love how Scott's like, you can tell yourself, let's reprogram this person by the things that you're doing yourself. Do you do that? I'm assuming you do with your job especially.

Yeah, you know, like sometimes in my job I have people— I have, I hate to say, clients or opposing counsel, they're doing a certain thing. I'm like, um, maybe it's the way that I'm acting is making them— or how Scott Adams would put it, program. So I have to reprogram the program. And do it better. But he, he specifically, um, to be a winner, you shouldn't think that what's happening to you, that you're a victim of what's happening to you. You should, uh, reprogram yourself or pro— or look at the program you're using of yourself towards the outer world and change that, you know. So that's key.

Yeah. And just practice, just practice doing it. And I think, Owen, if you're, if you're like putting it in the forefront of your head, like, I'm going to practice doing this and then I'm going to see what the result is. And you'll see that the result is different and things do change, that you get more excited about that. And I'm assuming this is something you teach your sons.

I mean, there is so much in this micro lesson. It's kind of incredible.

Like, it's a—

he presents it as such a simple idea and it is, but He ties so much into it. I mean, we are going through "How to Win Friends and Influence People" in my subscriber spaces with my ex-subscribers right now. And we're talking about a lot of those ideas that he mentioned from Dale Carnegie. He mentioned Jordan Peterson. Jordan does have a lot of things that are right in line with this. His future authoring program is right in line with that where it's essentially just a simple writing exercise. But the whole idea of it is right along the lines of what Scott Adams said where he's saying, okay, let's identify all the, you know, let's identify the future we want, like what a good future would look like for me. And then let's look at it. Let's also define what a bad future would look like for me. You know, just kind of think, think about, okay, what, what's a good future and a bad future? And, and then now we've done that and it's in your own terms, whatever you think is good. Um, now let's identify what things I could do that would lead me towards the good future and what things I could do that would lead me towards the bad future. And they tested this in a school and it actually reduced dropout rates from high school significantly. It raised grades like a whole letter grade, especially for the low performers. It didn't help the high performers as much, probably because they were already doing this, but the low performers, it helped. And so I think it's been shown statistically or scientifically to work. So, I think there's a lot of power in that. And of course, Marcelo will appreciate that it's the whole Jocko Willink philosophy of extreme ownership that if you take ownership of yourself and you take ownership of the situation, even if you think I'm a victim, even if that thought enters your head, you don't accept that and just say, "Oh, well, I guess I'm powerless." No, you take charge and you say, "I'm going to do something to change this. I'm going to do something to make this better." And if you want to have people unblock you, the way to start thinking about that is, "Well, why are they blocking me?" And what can I do differently that would not lead to that outcome? And Dale Carnegie certainly would say it's a lot about thinking about other people and what they want. It's not about just expressing what you want because you feel like it. It's more of a— the frame is about other people, taking genuine interest in other people, figuring out what they want and how you can help them get what they want. And so if you think about things in that way and you get outside your own head of just, well, I just say this stuff because I feel like it and this is what I believe. You could do that. But you're taking this kind of self-centered view that won't be very well received by other people. And so you have to think through those things and say, "How do I serve other people?" And that ties it into the success frame of saying, if you're helping other people and serving other people, they're going to naturally want to pay you or they're going to want to give you rewards for that or they're going to treat you differently in a better way because of that and you are going to be more successful. So I think it's a great micro lesson and just a lot of powerful ideas packed into a few minutes.

I'm so glad we got to that today. I wanted to do it yesterday, but like, we just get going and going. Um, so EJ, if you're sincere that you would like to have people unblock you, maybe a few people will give it a shot. And then just, you know, maybe you can, um, make your posts a little bit less aggressive and, um, see what happens. You know, try something different. I do read everybody's comments. After the show. I just want to make sure that, you know, we're all caught up. And there are— there's a lot of shitposting. There's a lot of people that just want to be provocative and just like always be the contrarian or like nitpick at something. And it's so silly. It's just like, consider that you're talking to a group of people you really don't know. There's a bunch of them. The Beloves know each other a lot better. But, you know, maybe just like be, you know, be the person— like, you want to represent yourself in a good way, then maybe change your wording a little or come at a comment with a little bit more care or something constructive and not like, you know, childish. That's just my opinion. So Uphill Gardener, for you, I saw that you said the girls don't care about the reflecting pool anymore because Trump is trying to prosecute an innocent man. I honestly haven't followed the story at all. There's been so much going on. So I asked Marcella to do a big 20-second deep dive into this story, and we care. We just want you to know we care about the reflecting pool, and Marcella is going to give us the update.

So I have the update for folding— what was that— folding umbrella Pirro. What, um, so Trump is not happy about, um, our, um, Judge Jeanine Pirro, who is now US Attorney Jeanine Pirro for DC. She's over them. Um, so there was allegations and, um, an indictment dismissal of a former Olympic canoeist, David Hearn, who was accused of allegedly destruct— destroying the government property at the Lincoln Memorial, uh, reflecting pool. Um, he's upset that that she dismissed the case. One thing you guys have to understand is when you as a prosecutor are prosecuting something like this, you go from indictment to actually doing a trial because this criminal act, it has to be beyond reasonable doubt. You have to have a lot of evidence, which is good. I mean, it is good for everybody. It's good for Trump, it's good for me. To have that high standard. I know we're, we're about to, we're about to go into over the hour. Yeah, but, um, the reasoning behind Jeanine Pirro dropping this is that there was evidence that the— they did not know that allegedly that the Interior Department, the Department of the Interior, had represented that the damage came from the people, um, on the ground because he was not, um David Hearn, who was indicted, was not the only one. There was a few other, uh, misdemeanor bandos— Justin, Carino— well, anyways, I don't want to name them, but the— there's a few of them. And but the issue is that later on they found, um, the Janine Pirro group, uh, found evidence from the Interior Department here that represented that the damage was caused by the actual, um, work that was done on the place, the contract, the no-bid contract. Um, and so she had to dismiss the, the misdemeanors, and she had to dismiss the felony, uh, indictment. So President Trump called her up to the White House. I don't know what occurred, uh, there obviously, but she brought a huge amount of, uh, documents with her to visit him. And I'm sure she made a case for why she dropped it. Um, and I do have to, um, I don't know if I agree because, you know, none of us know what she knows and what Trump knows and everything else, but I, but I agree with her independence, um, in regards to if there's not enough evidence that you have to dismiss.

Sure.

Okay. So I don't have an opinion uphill, but I hope that this satisfies your itch. We care about the reflecting pool and we care about you and your wanting to hear us talk about it. So thanks, Marcella. Thanks, Owen. Thanks everybody for being here. Tomorrow, King Randall, he's here with us tomorrow. I know, I'm so excited. My hope for tomorrow, you guys, is that maybe some of you moms and dads or aunts and uncles or like someone like me, no kids, maybe we will get, you know, tripped into an idea of being able to help our community of parents or kids. He has so many great ideas of how he's got like groups of dads working together. There could be groups of moms, there could just be groups of people that could help the kids out there. So maybe we can spread spark some kind of great idea to be useful in that way for the children of our future. Okay, so as always, a closing sip and a closing thank you to Scott Adams and Shelley Foss for allowing the show to continue. I want to thank Marcela and Owen for a great show again today. And to every single person who shows up here, thank you for getting to know us and understanding us and letting this thing just play out, and we appreciate it. Every day is different. So I know some people are like, where's— I want to see Scott Adams 24/7. You totally can. Right here on this channel is every YouTube video he ever made. So if you want to see Scott Adams 24/7, scroll back and just pick any video. It will be gold. Okay, so please just know that everything you want to see from him is on this channel. Every day here is different. Okay, so thank you to everybody. Go out there, be mega useful as Scott would want us to be. And, um, a closing sip to our beloved Scott. All right guys, be useful to Scott.

To Scott.

I'll do an Akira song. Okay guys.

Oh, okay.

I'm gonna do Pattern Recognition if anyone wants to stay. If not, we'll see you tomorrow. Hi everyone.

Bye, Al.

Guess he must not like that song.

Pattern recognition. Once you realize that the humans are not logical machines, we're pattern recognition machines. Pattern recognition machines. It's that pattern recognition that isn't very good. Pattern recognition is what makes you a racist. Pattern recognition is what makes you an ageist, a sexist, everything bad, because your patterns are all you have. You're not really a logical person who reasons everything out. Your brain isn't big enough. You wouldn't have enough time. So instead you default to these little biases which are determined by patterns. We're pattern recognition machines. Pattern recognition machines. Your patterns are all you have. You're not really a logical person. Now the problem is, Many of those patterns are fake. Let's say you had met 3 Elbonians in your life and every one of them slapped you in the face with a glove. The next time you met an Elbonian, you'd be like, "Oh, no thank you. I don't want to get slapped in the face with a glove. Those last 3 Elbonians were pretty rough on me." But it's only 3 Elbonians. The odds that your pattern is predictive, probably low. Probably low. We fall victim to patterns, but you can also use patterns to convince people of things. If you are consistent, people say, "Oh, this person's always honest." So patterns are a tool, but they're also our biggest defect. Are also our biggest defect. We're pattern recognition machines. Pattern recognition machines. Your patterns are all you have. You're not really a logical person. We're pattern recognition Machine. Pattern recognition machine. Your patterns are all you have. You're not really a logical person. And then of course, understanding the brain as a visualization machine is very, very important. Very, very important. Because visualization is the biggest, most powerful part of your brain. It's the part that influences you most. Part that influences you most. Understanding the brain as a visualization machine is very, very important.

Very, very important.

Because visualization is the biggest, most powerful part of your brain. It's the part that influences you most.

I wanted to keep going.

Is it like— is that truly what it is?

Yeah, I wanted to like keep bopping, like I was getting into the groove. Oh, so good, Akira.

Oh, it was so good to see Stella too.

Stella, yes, she has made an appearance twice, I think, this week. Maybe, I don't even know. She's, um, she's Aging. I hate it. Her legs hurt now. Poor thing. Um, but don't worry, you guys, I'll always do right by Stella. I'll always do right by her. All right, you guys, I think I am gonna have a little day for myself. Marcella, you gonna head off to work?

Yeah.

Ah, and I have to— I have a judges, uh, get-together tonight.

Oh, you love that.

I love it. You know, just have to stay on program them instead of them programming me.

Program them, Marcela, do it. Yep. All right, Smoochie, back to you, you guys. Oh, you guys, you like my top? That's so cute.

Yeah, we love your top. It's so summery and happy. Oh, thank you.

I got it on sale from Anthro, just so you know. All right, a little fashion talk.

You should post the link of how to buy it.

And my OOTD, outfit of the day.

Everybody will wear it.

Oh my gosh. All right, guys, so— oh, Dr. Von Hardy. Dr. Von Hardy, you had a rough, uh, day yesterday. Yeah, are you okay? Uh, Metal Seer, I'm gonna miss you till tomorrow too. All right, so Marcela and I, we're gonna go have a productive day. We're gonna be useful.

I miss you guys already.

I know, I know. I like Marcela with a pattern on too. It's cute.

I, you know, if I go to court, I can't wear this, so—

Oh no. Yeah, no, you have to wear like a suit or something.

Yeah, like less, uh, very conservative, like no patterns, just one color, that blue color, you know, the blue that you guys love.

What about the purple?

And the— well, no, the purple. I cannot wear that shirt to court. It's too—

no, no, no, not that shirt.

No, no, no, no, not that shirt. Maybe the color.

Yes, they love you in the purples and the blues. They actually— they love you in everything, Marcella, so you can't go wrong. All right, guys. Kimberly said don't go. Oh, all right, guys. So King Randall, I think he's— I think his handle is Emerging King. So try Emerging King on Twitter if you're looking for him. Um, but he's a great guy. I'm excited to talk to him. Okay guys, so love you so much. Marcella, have a killer kick-ass day. Everybody have the best day ever. Thanks. All right, bye guys.