Episode 2063 Scott Adams： Newsom's Reparations Trap, IQ With Healthcare, AI Control, Restrict Act
Episode Stats
Length
1 hour and 14 minutes
Words per Minute
143.41628
Summary
This is the most mind-boggling thing you'll ever see in your life. It's called the "Simultaneous Sip" and it happens when there are 8 entirely different words that you can hear clearly by looking at them when the same sound is playing.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams. It's the highlight of civilization.
00:00:07.000
You might notice my voice is a little raspy, got a little laryngitis.
00:00:12.000
So, turn up your sound, put on your headphones. This is as loud as I can get.
00:00:18.000
Now, if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that, I don't know, are just impossible to imagine at this point,
00:00:25.000
all you have to do is grab yourself a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker gel, a stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
00:00:34.000
Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.
00:00:37.000
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better,
00:00:42.000
and today it comes with a little oxytocin, too. It's called the Simultaneous Sip. It happens now. Go.
00:00:49.000
Well, Jacinta, I hope you enjoyed your very first Simultaneous Sip.
00:01:06.000
I hope I'm pronouncing that right. I turned the J into a Y. Is that correct?
00:01:19.000
All right. Well, how many of you have seen the famous, probably every one of you,
00:01:26.000
the famous audio illusion in which you can hear, what is it, green needle or something else?
00:01:35.000
So you can hear two different things, even though it's always the same.
00:01:38.000
Well, have you seen the one where there's a whole list of things you can see?
00:01:43.000
This is the one that will completely change your opinion about the world.
00:01:57.000
All right. So before I put on the audio, just see that there's a whole list of different things,
00:02:04.000
which the same audio will sound like, but only if you're looking at it at the time.
00:02:10.000
So in other words, if you're looking at the line that says baptism piracy, you hear exactly that on the audio.
00:02:18.000
As soon as you move to any other thing on the list, and there are two, four, six, eight,
00:02:24.000
there are eight things here, eight completely different sets of words, completely different.
00:02:31.000
You can hear each of them clearly by reading it at the same time as the music.
00:02:36.000
Now, I don't think it'll come through very well on my audio,
00:02:39.000
but you'll at least get the sense that this is the most mind-bending thing you'll ever see in your life, right?
00:02:49.000
I just realized this doesn't work at all because you can't read the sentences.
00:03:06.000
But you can hear this as Bart Simpson bouncing, rotating pirate ship, that isn't my receipt,
00:03:14.000
lobsters in motion, that is embarrassing, lactates in pharmacy, baptism piracy, or that isn't mercy.
00:03:31.000
So the people saying there's no sound are just trolls.
00:03:41.000
When the audio illusion was two different things, you could tell yourself,
00:03:49.000
There are two different things that, in the right conditions, you would confuse with each other.
00:03:55.000
In a way, it's not really that interesting, is it?
00:04:00.000
So, but what happens when there's eight entirely different words that you can hear clearly
00:04:08.000
by looking at them when the same sound is playing?
00:04:14.000
The only way to explain that is that reality is super subjective.
00:04:21.000
Now, you knew reality was subjective because we all have different opinions looking at the same stuff.
00:04:26.000
But I'll bet you didn't know it was that subjective.
00:04:32.000
And that might be the way you walk around through life all the time.
00:04:38.000
You know, I think it was in the 60s, the first time I heard, you hear what you want to hear.
00:04:46.000
And the first time I heard that, it was sort of mind-blowing.
00:05:05.000
How many times have you seen on social media somebody would tweet a story and say,
00:05:30.000
I would like to give one clarification, an important one.
00:05:34.000
When Elon Musk and other prominent people said we should pause the constraints, I said,
00:05:46.000
China and other countries will blaze ahead of us if we slow down.
00:05:53.000
To which I say, I'm not in favor of stopping development.
00:05:59.000
So I'm only in favor of not making it available to the general public too soon.
00:06:15.000
I do believe that we have a competitive national security and financial interest in being first and being best.
00:06:25.000
And we're lucky that we have a company that seems to be first and best, at least at the moment.
00:06:34.000
It's one of the things that makes America as strong as it is.
00:06:38.000
That we have entrepreneurs who can create technologies that change the world.
00:06:44.000
But I do think it would be wise to keep it out of the hands of citizens for a little while.
00:06:53.000
And let the AI people do what they're doing and then we can decide what to do with it.
00:06:59.000
But here's a take on this that is sort of a clarification of something I've said before.
00:07:07.000
The real risk of AI is that if it starts telling us stuff that isn't true, it will be banned or ignored.
00:07:18.000
If you couldn't trust AI to tell you what's true, which is the current situation, it's not reliable.
00:07:24.000
I found that my need to use it was much lower once I realized that it was full of shit.
00:07:35.000
When it first came out, I thought, oh my God, I'm so interested in what it says.
00:07:40.000
But as soon as I knew that it lies or just randomly makes up facts, I thought, oh, it's just a random word generator.
00:07:54.000
A random word generator that looks intelligent to people who don't look into it too carefully is not interesting in the least.
00:08:09.000
One, if AI is undependable, it won't be that useful and people won't be caring about it.
00:08:26.000
Because if it's accurate, then there will be no common narrative for the country.
00:08:35.000
In my youth, in let's say 40s and 50s or 60s, we know now that the CIA was actively manipulating movies and TV and trying to create a culture that would be successful and defensible.
00:08:57.000
The so-called, you know, American dream of, you know, owning a house and being a consumer and having a nice car and being a Christian back in those days, that was a key thing.
00:09:15.000
So the United States wisely and effectively programmed its citizens.
00:09:22.000
How many of you stood and did the Pledge of Allegiance?
00:09:32.000
Because you can't really let society take its own wild direction any way it goes.
00:09:39.000
So there probably is some need to brainwash at least children.
00:09:44.000
At the very least, you have to brainwash the children.
00:09:58.000
Later, you can teach them critical thinking and maybe they'll change their opinions on things.
00:10:05.000
However, it appears that the CIA got out of that business for a while until Obama put them back in that business through legislation.
00:10:18.000
So once you know that the intelligence services of the United States can legally, legally brainwash the citizens,
00:10:33.000
Then you have to say to yourself, what are they brainwashing us with?
00:10:37.000
Well, at the moment, they're brainwashing us with wokeness.
00:10:51.000
Here's a phrase that I saw in an article by Jacob Siegel writing for Tablet.
00:11:00.000
And it's called A Guide to Understanding the Hoax of the Century, 13 Ways of Looking at Disinformation.
00:11:07.000
The problem is, in our current situation, the intelligence entities of the United States have formed working relationships with social media and the news.
00:11:20.000
Now, the way they approach it is that they're going to help the news and help social media remove disinformation.
00:11:32.000
You go to the news and you say, hey, we know what's true and what isn't.
00:11:45.000
You know, they might check it, but at least they'd want to know what's true.
00:11:49.000
So, if you have an entity that is selling itself as the correctors of disinformation, they really are in control of your information.
00:12:00.000
You've given them control of your minds because you've decided that some entity can tell you what's true and not true.
00:12:11.000
They're just going to tell you a version that they think is to their best interest.
00:12:15.000
So, we have a situation where our media is completely, and here's the phrase I wanted to read from Jacob Siegel because he said it so well.
00:12:25.000
He said the American press, once the guardian of democracy, was hollowed out to the point that it could be worn like a hand puppet by the U.S. security agencies and party operatives.
00:12:39.000
The media is so hollowed out it could be worn as a hand puppet by the CIA, U.S. security agencies, and party operatives.
00:12:51.000
First of all, it's great writing because it's visual.
00:12:54.000
Secondly, it just captures the entire situation.
00:13:00.000
So, we're so addicted to watching the news that we think it's real.
00:13:05.000
Even when we know it's not real, we act like it is.
00:13:10.000
I know the news isn't real, and I still act like it is, and I can't break myself of the habit.
00:13:17.000
I tell myself, well, you know, I'm working on this assumption, or, you know, it's real until it changes.
00:13:26.000
You know, I tell myself ridiculous things, but what I should tell myself is none of it's real, because it's not.
00:13:33.000
The facts might be real, but the narrative in which it is presented is always artificial.
00:13:38.000
So, I do believe in pausing AI, but how in the world do we get AI to be free from the same things that corrupted our media, which is intelligence agencies?
00:13:54.000
How do you keep intelligence agencies from owning AI?
00:14:00.000
I don't think it's possible, because they have more power, and they're better at it.
00:14:05.000
See, here I think, this is my speculation, the way intelligence agencies can co-opt social media managers and news people,
00:14:17.000
is that when the CIA or somebody, you know, like FBI, somebody official, comes in and meets with you,
00:14:24.000
and they say, hey, let us be partners and let us help you, the first thing you might think is, oh, I've got a partner, free partner.
00:14:34.000
But I've got this partner, like, they'll help me.
00:14:37.000
But the trouble is, intelligence agencies are never your partner.
00:14:47.000
They might come in as your partner, but try to do something they don't want.
00:14:57.000
Imagine you're the CEO of whatever news entity, and the CIA asks for a meeting.
00:15:07.000
You're in charge, and the CIA asks to meet with you because it's important to national security.
00:15:18.000
And, you know, we really think you're great, and we'd like to work with you to help you because you're so important.
00:15:27.000
And, by the way, we can tell you some stuff that you wouldn't have known otherwise.
00:15:34.000
Would you like to tell your family that you'd meet with the CIA?
00:15:47.000
So I don't think they need to force anybody to do anything.
00:15:50.000
I think they just have to associate with them, and then people start doing what they want.
00:16:03.000
Given that the news is not reliable, I would like to propose a way of dealing with the news.
00:16:13.000
This is how to deal with the news when you don't believe it's necessarily reliable.
00:16:24.000
Now, a working assumption doesn't mean you believe it.
00:16:27.000
It means that the evidence suggests something's true, and unless something disproves it, that's your working assumption.
00:16:37.000
There's no evidence that the Mexican cartels have corrupted the government of the United States in a big way, right?
00:16:46.000
There's no evidence that I'm aware of that the government of the United States is already corrupted by the cartels.
00:16:57.000
However, given what we see, which is a complete lack of interest in dealing with the cartels effectively,
00:17:05.000
my working assumption is that the government is already compromised.
00:17:11.000
I don't know that it's true, but everything I see supports that working assumption.
00:17:17.000
So if I said it's true, well, then I would be lying, because I don't know that it's true.
00:17:24.000
But if I say the most practical working assumption is that the government has already been corrupted, what would you do?
00:17:37.000
I would arm, because we might reach a point where the citizens have to get rid of the cartel.
00:17:43.000
And the only way that's going to happen is with superior firepower.
00:17:47.000
If the government is out of the game, that doesn't mean the game's over.
00:17:53.000
The game isn't over because the government decided to set it out.
00:17:59.000
And you better arm yourself, because the cartels have already wiped out the black gangs.
00:18:11.000
He says that the reason that the murder rate dropped is because the cartels murdered the murderers, the gangs.
00:18:20.000
They just murdered the murderers and took over their business.
00:18:23.000
Have you wondered why you don't hear much about the Crips and the Bloods lately?
00:18:32.000
But apparently, their power has been diminished and completely gunned by the cartels.
00:18:37.000
Now, the cartels are more dangerous in one way, even though they murder less, believe it or not.
00:18:44.000
When the cartel completely owns a place, the murder rate goes down.
00:18:49.000
It's only when they don't have control that the murder rate is high.
00:18:52.000
When the murder rate goes down, that's trouble.
00:18:57.000
Worry the most when the murder rate goes down, because that means the cartel already has control.
00:19:04.000
So, working assumption is that our government is already compromised by the cartels.
00:19:10.000
I'd love it to not be true, but I have to act like it is true, because the government is acting as if it's true as well.
00:19:21.000
There is no evidence that I'm aware of that our elections were rigged in the sense of vote counting.
00:19:30.000
However, the fact that our elections are not fully auditable, and there seems to be no interest by our government to make them fully auditable,
00:19:39.000
my working assumption is that they're rigged or will be.
00:19:50.000
It's a working assumption under the context of a press that isn't dependable and a government that is obviously not working on a gigantic problem, completely ignoring it.
00:20:03.000
The working assumption is that the elections are rigged or that they will be soon.
00:20:17.000
If I said I had any kind of proof or even strong evidence, that would be a lie.
00:20:23.000
What I have is a working assumption based on living a life of, you know, who you trust and who you don't, sorting things into those buckets and say, well, that's what it looks like.
00:20:47.000
It appeared that there was some bipartisan support, but instead of a simple bill that bans TikTok, we got something called the Restrict Act from Senator Warner, I believe, Democrat.
00:21:01.000
But the Restrict Act is not targeted at TikTok.
00:21:08.000
Rather, it gives broad powers to the government to determine if there is foreign influence, you know, in any of our communication, social media structure.
00:21:20.000
And it can go after any of that foreign influence, you know, with the powers of the government.
00:21:32.000
Do you remember a big American uprising saying, give the government more power over all our social media?
00:21:45.000
There was a problem with TikTok, a specific TikTok problem.
00:21:51.000
If the government is not working on the problem as clearly defined and instead is looking to increase its powers more generally, what would you assume?
00:22:06.000
My working assumption is it's a corrupt process and it's just a power grab and it's just political and has nothing to do, nothing to do with solving the country's risk.
00:22:30.000
I say that if you say something's true, your enemies can say it's false.
00:22:37.000
Don't say it's true when the other side just says, well, let's prove it.
00:22:44.000
Just say, if anybody wants to change my mind, it's pretty easy.
00:22:48.000
Do you know how you can change my mind on TikTok?
00:22:56.000
And then if you want, you can also have a bill with this other restrict stuff in it.
00:23:09.000
Maybe they have an argument that I'm not aware of.
00:23:15.000
Just a power grab that the citizens aren't going to like in the long run.
00:23:21.000
I just don't want it combined with the thing that I want solved, which is TikTok.
00:23:25.000
See how easy it would be to change my working assumption.
00:23:29.000
With that little change, a little change, just a tiny little change,
00:23:35.000
I would say, okay, it looks like the government's trying to protect me,
00:23:46.000
How could they change my working assumption about fentanyl
00:23:54.000
Or announce that you're going to, or get tough, or close the border.
00:24:00.000
There's probably five different things they could do to change my working assumption,
00:24:19.000
Claim that your working assumption, based on the facts, can be changed.
00:24:26.000
So, basically, you would put the burden of proof back on your accusers.
00:24:49.000
But instead you say, well, the situation suggests that this is true.
00:25:02.000
So, you want to put the burden of proof on the other side instead of having them put
00:25:10.000
So, stop the certainty and say, well, this is what it looks like.
00:25:16.000
If they'd like it not to look like that, they know how.
00:25:28.000
As long as people aren't doing the easy thing to solve the obvious problem, you can have a working assumption that they're corrupt.
00:25:43.000
Let's talk about the Nashville shooting that I hate to talk about because it just makes more of them.
00:25:50.000
But I guess this one has some details that made it interesting.
00:25:53.000
As Tucker Carlson and other people have noted, apparently the shooter left a manifesto, which one presumes is a complete explanation of motive.
00:26:10.000
And yet that has not been released to the public, and the officials who have seen it say they don't know the motive.
00:26:24.000
The working assumption, and this is the way Tucker handled it, and I think that was correct.
00:26:30.000
The working assumption has to be that they're hiding it from you for a reason.
00:26:36.000
What would be a good working assumption of why they would hide it from you?
00:26:40.000
Well, I'll tell you the most obvious interpretation for which I have no proof.
00:26:49.000
The obvious working assumption is that it was a trans person who was declaring war on possibly Christians.
00:27:05.000
In fact, my first interpretation was it was just a school.
00:27:09.000
And I think it's very likely that will still be the final interpretation, that it was just a school.
00:27:18.000
But at the moment, given the lack of information about the manifesto, I think a good working assumption is that it was about Christianity.
00:27:31.000
And the news or the government doesn't want you to know that.
00:27:47.000
You know, as much as I think that freedom of information is good for us in general, and it is, this might be one of those special cases where we're better off not seeing it.
00:27:57.000
Because I doubt that it represents anything like a widespread opinion.
00:28:06.000
If it's just a crazy person babbling, I don't want the right-leaning news to say, well, this represents trans people.
00:28:17.000
That's how we'll understand trans people from now on.
00:28:21.000
So, I don't feel like we're necessarily better off with seeing it.
00:28:27.000
But I don't like the way the government's treating us.
00:28:41.000
I actually would have been perfectly good with that.
00:29:03.000
Because I'm completely okay with, there is some information.
00:29:13.000
Now, depending on who says it and what the context is, I might not believe it.
00:29:19.000
In this one simple, unique case, if the FBI said, you know, honestly, we just don't want you to see it.
00:29:30.000
Now, I can totally understand if people were not.
00:29:40.000
Would seeing the manifesto have any use besides political points?
00:29:52.000
And we already know what the point would be, right?
00:29:55.000
If the government kept it from you, you would already know what it says.
00:30:02.000
If they kept it from me, my working assumption would be, it's some trans person who declared war on Christians.
00:30:11.000
I wouldn't have any, I would have no data to prove that.
00:30:24.000
I would just be, okay, they kept a political football off the field.
00:30:32.000
All right, so, and then there's the question of why there seems to be, I don't know,
00:30:39.000
why are we treating a potential hate crime against Christians as different than we would treat other hate crimes?
00:30:46.000
But I guess it's a little unconfirmed at this point, so that's part of it.
00:30:50.000
And Tucker also asked the question, why don't we ask if antidepressants were involved?
00:30:56.000
Now, this question has a lot more salience to me than it might to you, because I've actually experienced, as most of you know,
00:31:06.000
when I took some blood pressure meds that were not to my liking, I was suicidal.
00:31:15.000
Literally the day I stopped, boom, everything was fine.
00:31:19.000
And everything's been fine every day since then.
00:31:22.000
And you know what's interesting is that, you know, by some other measure, you might say,
00:31:28.000
but Scott, how could you be happier now when you've had a whole bunch of bad things happen to you in the last year?
00:31:34.000
And the answer is, I guess I just had the right mindset.
00:31:39.000
You know, these allegedly bad things don't seem so bad to me.
00:31:45.000
You know, the upside seems so substantial that I'm like, no, I came out okay.
00:31:50.000
But over the summer, when I was on the wrong meds, there was nothing that could go right.
00:32:06.000
Now, it's easy for me to understand how people, and it would be different for individuals,
00:32:12.000
it's easy for me to understand how a drug could make you a mass killer.
00:32:17.000
Because if it made you suicidal, at the same time you had, you know, negative thoughts about something else,
00:32:26.000
Because if you don't care about your own life, you're not going to care about anybody else's life after you're gone.
00:32:37.000
So we should definitely look at antidepressants.
00:32:41.000
And I thought that that was super brave of Tucker to say it on a TV program,
00:32:46.000
which I believe is largely, or used to be anyway, sponsored by Big Pharma.
00:32:52.000
Imagine how much balls it takes to say that your advertisers might be causing mass murder.
00:33:02.000
Now, I realize Tucker's in a strong situation, career-wise.
00:33:07.000
But you've got to have balls the size of a planet to say,
00:33:12.000
on the very platform that's supported by Big Pharma money,
00:33:20.000
And I was wondering about that, because I've never seen any.
00:33:27.000
So, I think that was a valuable service by Tucker Carlson,
00:33:35.000
Of course, Madonna is going to have a concert in Nashville to raise money for trans rights.
00:33:46.000
But can we just agree that Eddie's story about Madonna is a story about mental illness?
00:33:54.000
I don't know what's happening with Madonna, but my working assumption,
00:33:59.000
I'm not a doctor, I'm not a doctor, I can't diagnose her from a distance,
00:34:04.000
but the way she presents is with mental illness.
00:34:11.000
You know, the kind where if she were not famous and powerful,
00:34:14.000
somebody would have forced her into treatment of some kind.
00:34:20.000
But I also think that the trans story is at least partly about mental illness.
00:34:27.000
Now, because I have more respect than some of you do,
00:34:33.000
I think it is super, super likely that for some portion of the trans community,
00:34:40.000
transitioning was exactly what they needed, and it made their life better.
00:34:47.000
I don't know if that's 10% or 90%, because I don't have visibility.
00:34:51.000
But whether it's 10% or 90%, it's the same point.
00:34:59.000
If they're adults, they've looked into it, they think they need it, they talk to professionals,
00:35:11.000
And I've never had a problem treating any trans person as a human individual with dignity ever before.
00:35:19.000
I don't know why I'd have that problem in the future.
00:35:22.000
But it does seem that it has created a magnet for crazy people.
00:35:29.000
Which is no fault of the law-abiding good citizens who just have a different situation that they found a way to deal with.
00:35:41.000
About some portion have been attracted to this for all the wrong reasons.
00:35:46.000
And if you can't say that the trans issue is both things, you know,
00:35:52.000
legitimate people looking at legitimate solutions that their freedom allows them to pursue,
00:36:01.000
And as soon as you lump them together and say it's all trans, well, there's nothing you can do.
00:36:06.000
There's nothing you can do with that as soon as you lump them into one category.
00:36:12.000
And I think that's what the right does to their detriment.
00:36:16.000
I think it weakens the argument to just treat it like it's all one thing.
00:36:20.000
So, I think the Madonna thing really underscores that.
00:36:29.000
Rasmussen asked about preventing mass shootings.
00:36:33.000
In a Rasmussen poll, 50% of voters say it's not possible to completely prevent mass shootings.
00:36:44.000
That only 50% of people polled agree it's not possible?
00:36:59.000
But 38% believe it is possible to completely prevent such shootings.
00:37:21.000
So, the idea that was not mine was to recruit ex-police officers to be teachers.
00:37:32.000
Wouldn't you like to know that there were some legally armed ex-police officers
00:37:41.000
So that if your school wanted to be a little safer, just make sure that of your, I don't
00:38:10.000
Because, you know, if you're getting out of the police game, and a lot of people are
00:38:14.000
because of the changes to, you know, bail and everything else, if a lot of people are
00:38:19.000
leaving the police force, you have exactly the pool of applicants you're looking for.
00:38:26.000
Now, you could extend it to ex-military as well.
00:38:34.000
So, I tweeted that what if the federal government...
00:38:41.000
But what if funding was made available, either in a state or federal level, that anybody
00:38:47.000
who wanted to be a legal carrier of a weapon could take the classes or get certified in whatever certification.
00:38:59.000
And then keep the weapon in some kind of a protected safe in a few places.
00:39:07.000
So you want to make sure that people can get to them quickly.
00:39:11.000
But you don't want the kids to get them, obviously.
00:39:21.000
You know, if three kids wanted to, they could hold you down and take your weapon.
00:39:28.000
Unless they're actually a security guard, then yes.
00:39:33.000
We've seen too many videos of students taking on teachers.
00:39:51.000
I'm not sure I would trust a biometric for a holster.
00:39:54.000
You still might want to steal it and get rid of the biometric somehow.
00:40:02.000
Speaking of which, I saw a tweet from Emily Brooks saying that there was a, quote, shouting match between Representative Jamal Bowman, Democrat, and Representative Thomas Massey.
00:40:17.000
When I watched the video, do you think I saw a shouting match?
00:40:33.000
And then there was a plucky representative, Thomas Massey, who happened to be walking by the public hallway or rotunda or wherever it was.
00:40:44.000
And so Jamal is just like screaming at the crowd in like every direction.
00:40:48.000
He's just, you know, screaming his gun control stuff.
00:40:51.000
Thomas Massey just walks right up to him and just starts talking to him calmly about a suggestion for, I think, for arming teachers.
00:41:05.000
And Massey just keeps, you know, keeps to his same tone.
00:41:09.000
And at one point, they're just talking each other over each other.
00:41:12.000
And then Thomas Massey sees that it's being filmed.
00:41:15.000
So he, you know, sort of excuses himself from the shouting guy and goes to talk to the, it was probably a phone or a news reporter or something.
00:41:25.000
And he starts to give his idea directly to the video.
00:41:28.000
And then the shouting guy comes over and tries to shout him away from the video.
00:41:37.000
Every day I'm finding a new reason to love Thomas Massey.
00:41:41.000
I just love the fact that he just walked right up to him and started talking to him with a productive suggestion.
00:41:55.000
Here's one of the best and scariest ideas I've ever heard.
00:42:02.000
How many of you are in favor of universal basic income, where the government gives you money and you don't have to work?
00:42:13.000
Pretty much in this audience, it's going to be all no, right?
00:42:19.000
Here's a hidden danger of UBI that I'd never thought of.
00:42:29.000
I'm going to bend your mind courtesy of a tweeter called the commander in chief one.
00:42:35.000
It's all one word, the commander in chief and then digit one, if you're looking for this person on Twitter.
00:42:44.000
And here's the tweet that just blew my top of my head off.
00:42:50.000
Seriously, this is going to blow your head off.
00:42:56.000
They can talk about a universal basic income as much as they like.
00:43:01.000
Any smart person will know where this is going.
00:43:13.000
They will not be interested in keeping people around who cannot be useful.
00:43:24.000
Suppose we create a society where, let's say, 30% of the people are just using the money of the other people.
00:43:38.000
Now, in our current woke democratic world, that's pretty safe.
00:43:45.000
If you were to introduce UBI, if you could afford it somehow, and you introduced it into America,
00:43:51.000
and let's say 10% of Americans took you up on it, that'd be kind of safe.
00:43:58.000
It would be not that big of a burden on the country, 10%.
00:44:03.000
They're probably getting some kind of services anyway.
00:44:05.000
And you'd say to yourself, well, I'll never even meet one.
00:44:09.000
I'll probably never even run into anybody who's on UBI.
00:44:17.000
Imagine if one third of adults were not working, and they were just taking your money,
00:44:24.000
your money, the money you work for, so you get to work and have a good life,
00:44:30.000
and they get to do no work at all and spend your money.
00:44:39.000
But probably they could be just happy doing their fentanyl and whatever.
00:44:48.000
In the long run, you can never be sure that a despot won't take over.
00:44:56.000
History has shown us that every civilization ends.
00:45:03.000
What if the United States becomes a dictatorship?
00:45:07.000
And what if we don't have enough money to feed everybody?
00:45:12.000
They're going to kill all the UBI people first.
00:45:15.000
They're going to round up the UBI people, starve them to death, and say,
00:45:21.000
We got rid of the anchor that was holding us back.
00:45:25.000
I'm glad they self-identified as useless, because when we got rid of them,
00:45:30.000
Oh, you're going to get rid of the useless people?
00:45:33.000
And it wouldn't even be racial, because it would be, you know, distributed across races
00:45:43.000
All the people who add nothing to society will just round them up and put them in camps
00:45:52.000
Had you ever considered that you're guaranteeing the death of the people who stop working?
00:45:58.000
And I'm going to generalize this to a bigger point.
00:46:02.000
There's no such thing as security in this world.
00:46:07.000
You could have the illusion of being safe, and you could be safer than other situations.
00:46:12.000
So you could be safer, but you could never be safe.
00:46:17.000
But one thing you can do to make yourself as safe as you can in a dangerous world
00:46:31.000
All of your happiness, all of your financial success, all of your physical safety is going
00:46:40.000
to depend on how useful you are to other people.
00:46:43.000
If you're taking UBI and you're nothing but a drain on other people, don't expect to be safe.
00:46:52.000
Because other people don't care about you at that point.
00:46:55.000
If you're just going to take my money and give me nothing in return, good luck.
00:47:02.000
So I would argue that the more you create your talent stack, the safer you are.
00:47:10.000
Why was it that I wasn't panicked when I got cancelled worldwide in my primary profession for 34 years?
00:47:21.000
Because my talent stack is so well developed, I knew I could just do other things.
00:47:27.000
And so within a day, I was already spinning up my other things.
00:47:34.000
And it's only because I spent a lifetime developing a set of skills that I know work together and have commercial value.
00:47:43.000
If you don't have that going on, you're not safe.
00:47:47.000
You can only make yourself safe by developing a talent stack that helps other people in some way.
00:48:00.000
Well, I don't know if I said this yesterday, but Governor Newsom got himself in a trap by commissioning this group to recommend reparations.
00:48:09.000
And they came back with an absurd number that some are saying would cost $800 billion, two and a half times the annual budget of California, according to NBC.
00:48:25.000
If he backs his reparations, he has no future in politics.
00:48:33.000
He has no future in politics if he backs the reparations.
00:48:37.000
But if he doesn't back them, he has no future in politics.
00:48:48.000
But he would certainly be out of the race for president.
00:48:55.000
So he can't accept it because then he'd be dead.
00:48:59.000
And he can't reject it because then he'd be dead politically.
00:49:11.000
He's going to form a new committee to study the recommendations of the first committee.
00:49:20.000
I'd form a new committee to look into the committee's recommendation.
00:49:24.000
And then I'd wait a year and see if everybody forgot about it.
00:49:29.000
And maybe release it on a late Friday afternoon.
00:49:37.000
But the committee that examines the committee found that the first committee didn't do its job as well as it could.
00:49:46.000
It's a good thing I asked the committee to look at the other committee.
00:49:49.000
Now, every path he takes on this is a losing path, but that's the least losing path.
00:50:01.000
Meanwhile, over in Minnesota, Governor Tim Walz did a big event in which he introduced and announced a new chief equity officer, Dr. Stephanie Barrage.
00:50:16.000
If you're looking for a state to move to, I would recommend one that does not have a chief equity officer.
00:50:26.000
That should be a giant red flag to stay away from that state as far away as you can.
00:50:34.000
Do you think a white male could have been hired as the first chief equity officer?
00:50:42.000
Do you think a white male could have been considered for the job?
00:50:59.000
There's no fucking way they would have hired a white man for the job.
00:51:06.000
That state has a big sign on it that says, no white men allowed.
00:51:20.000
Speaking of Governor Newsom, he tweeted two charts.
00:51:29.000
One is a chart of the states that have lots of guns.
00:51:39.000
And he found that when you have the strictest gun control, it correlates really high with fewer murders.
00:52:05.000
How many problems do you think there are with that comparison?
00:52:14.000
Let me give you just the sampler set of problems, which for some reason I didn't include in my notes.
00:52:27.000
If you're looking at states and comparing a state to a state, do you think that's a good comparison?
00:52:33.000
Because California shows up as a low murder state with high gun restrictions.
00:52:55.000
So, the use of states is meant to conceal what's true, not to tell you what's true.
00:53:08.000
Well, you know, the vast majority are in cities.
00:53:11.000
And if you don't break out of city to city, so what I'd like to see is strictest gun laws by city.
00:53:19.000
I think you'd find that Chicago has strict gun laws and a high murder rate.
00:53:24.000
Washington, D.C., strict gun laws, high murder rate.
00:53:36.000
So you can see how easily Newsom can lie with accurate numbers.
00:53:41.000
Now, you're saying the numbers might not be accurate, and I agree.
00:53:45.000
But even if the numbers are accurate, he's found the only way to be misleading.
00:53:59.000
Then you'd also want to see a before and after.
00:54:02.000
Show me the murder rate in, let's say, Chicago, before and after the gun control strict regulations went into place.
00:54:21.000
If you looked at the comments on that tweet, you'd see other people suggesting other problems.
00:54:28.000
We've reached the point where data is absolutely useless.
00:54:39.000
This is my summary of everything you need to know about data.
00:54:49.000
If somebody's making their argument and they're ignoring the data or they don't know what it is or they're not using it, that's pretty dumb.
00:55:01.000
If you see a smart person, they're probably showing you their data.
00:55:06.000
But the smarter people, the people who are smarter than the smart people, know that you can torture the data until it tells you anything you want to hear.
00:55:24.000
If you're smarter than that, you know the data is useless because it's been put together by corrupt people.
00:55:33.000
Smarter than the smarter people, these would be the smartest people, know that the data is not real and neither are you.
00:55:45.000
Senator Mark Warren was defending his Restrict Act.
00:55:52.000
That's the one that's supposed to be aimed at TikTok, but is in fact a general statement about giving the government more power over social media, basically.
00:56:03.000
And he said this, defending it, he said, the Restrict Act isn't an infringement on free speech.
00:56:10.000
It's a systemic, rules-based approach to identifying and addressing foreign tech that could threaten national security.
00:56:21.000
Now, when he explains it that way, that doesn't sound so bad, does it?
00:56:26.000
Wouldn't you like to know that our government has a rules-based approach, you know, something you can really...
00:56:36.000
And don't you want them to identify and address foreign technology that could threaten national security?
00:56:50.000
We don't trust the government with new rules, in other words, powers, over communication.
00:57:01.000
That would be that what he's proposing is something that would be good for somebody that you trusted.
00:57:10.000
If we trusted the government, that probably makes sense.
00:57:14.000
It sounds like they need a little more structure to look for bad intention from foreign powers.
00:57:23.000
But what happens if you don't trust your government and you think everything they do is a trick?
00:57:31.000
In that case, you don't want to give them any power for any reason.
00:57:35.000
Because they're not going to use it for good reasons.
00:57:37.000
So his problem is not that it's a good or a bad bill.
00:58:18.000
Because, you know, nobody's going to trust the other party.
00:58:32.000
And if you say, oh, I have this other senator who agrees with me.
00:58:54.000
If he put together a one-pager banning TikTok, I might trust that.
00:59:05.000
Have you heard of the Tartarian theory of why civilizations might disappear?
00:59:26.000
It's an idea that there used to be an advanced civilization on Earth that built great structures.
00:59:33.000
From the pyramids to even skyscrapers in New York.
00:59:40.000
And that there was a great mud flood, literally a bunch of mud, that destroyed that advanced civilization.
00:59:49.000
But the buildings and structures that remained were the tall ones.
00:59:56.000
So that if you looked at the tall, older buildings that are more ornate, the less modern ones, you would find that they have many stories below the ground that used to be above the ground.
01:00:11.000
And that you don't know it, but, you know, it's been hidden from us that there was a great society that got wiped out by mud.
01:00:27.000
But it's the most interesting, the most interesting new theory.
01:00:32.000
And apparently there are some examples of some buildings that do have substantial below ground structure.
01:00:46.000
Here's a story about female students at the University of Wyoming.
01:00:52.000
They were concerned and now they're suing their sorority because a trans-identified, they call it a trans-identified male.
01:01:04.000
I don't know if that's the wrong way to say it or not.
01:01:12.000
No, I think they're using the wrong language here.
01:01:15.000
I think the polite language is there's a trans person who identifies as female.
01:01:23.000
So there's a trans person who identified as female, not the way they were born.
01:01:29.000
At least physically, not the way they were born.
01:01:32.000
And it alleges that this trans woman, Artemis Langford, has been, quote,
01:01:38.000
watching the women undress in the sorority house, sometimes while erect.
01:01:43.000
Now, my first question is, why are all these women who are undressing erect?
01:01:53.000
It's possible that the sentence is just confusing.
01:01:56.000
And what they mean is that the trans person, Artemis Langford, is erect, not the women who are undressing.
01:02:11.000
What's wrong with this trans woman who still has male equipment having an erection while
01:02:17.000
in the company of all these women who are just like Artemis?
01:02:23.000
And would they have a problem if Artemis had been born a lesbian?
01:02:30.000
Wouldn't a lesbian, I mean, I don't know too much about lesbian culture, but am I wrong?
01:02:35.000
Would a lesbian be turned on by seeing naked, attractive women?
01:02:48.000
So if a lesbian would be allowed in the sorority, and I assume they would be, right?
01:02:52.000
The sorority isn't going to discriminate based on LBGTQ stuff.
01:02:58.000
So if you could be a lesbian in the sorority, it seems to me that a trans who also had a physical
01:03:12.000
So I feel like they're discriminating against this poor trans person for having a penis.
01:03:20.000
Because they, you know, they wouldn't discriminate against lesbians.
01:03:37.000
So what I'm doing is a little bit of, you know, basically accepting and amplifying.
01:03:45.000
So I'm doing some amplification to make a point.
01:03:54.000
Here is the most provocative thing you'll ever hear in your entire life.
01:03:58.000
Something that I could never even mention until I'd been canceled.
01:04:10.000
You know, I live a transparent life when it comes to marijuana.
01:04:23.000
And first, you need to know where this comes from.
01:04:28.000
So my source is Tyrone Williams, who's on Twitter and goes by Immune Hack.
01:04:37.000
Now, I don't know what's true, but I'll tell you what looks true.
01:04:44.000
What looks true is that Tyrone is a real person, a black American.
01:04:49.000
And the black American part is important to the story.
01:04:54.000
Because if you didn't know that I was quoting a black American man, you would think I'm the
01:05:02.000
worst person in the world for bringing up this topic.
01:05:13.000
But it has enough meat on the bones for me to say, I think Tyrone's onto something.
01:05:21.000
And the biggest reason that you probably won't have seen this is it's just so dangerous.
01:05:38.000
If it seems to you that this is anything but trying to be helpful for America, then you're
01:05:49.000
According to Tyrone, there are at least four or five health related factors that can affect
01:05:56.000
your cognitive ability of a baby and therefore the cognitive ability of that baby when it
01:06:08.000
If a mother is obese when delivering a child, the child has lower cognitive function.
01:06:20.000
I think you have to be careful about causation.
01:06:24.000
If you're obese, your kid will have lower cognitive function.
01:06:29.000
Now, some people have rightly said, are you sure you have the causation right?
01:06:36.000
And that would be exactly the kind of thing you want to look into.
01:06:42.000
Other things associated with cognitive function are vitamin D, something called inflammation
01:06:48.000
IL-6, something called oxidative stress or CRP, something called omega-3,
01:06:54.000
well, we know what that is, but the ratio of omega-3 to omega-6, and then blood pressure.
01:07:01.000
So all of those things are based on science, not guessing, but based on studies.
01:07:11.000
And Nicholas Fleming is yelling, name the Jews, Scott.
01:07:18.000
Nicholas believes that, as some of the people on this channel are, that I'm cowardly not
01:07:23.000
mentioning the cause of all problems which he believes are the Jews.
01:07:27.000
We're going to be hiding you on this channel for more serious people.
01:07:56.000
There are a bunch of factors that can all be treated.
01:08:01.000
All of the things I mentioned are at far higher rates in black Americans.
01:08:19.000
But it's two-thirds of white women are obese, too.
01:08:22.000
Two-thirds of white women, and 80% of black women are obese.
01:08:38.000
Like, sometimes the answers are so fucking obvious.
01:08:48.000
All right, so Tyrone's point, which I think is brilliant and brave, is that there are identifiable, completely treatable medical conditions that might completely change the IQ differential between black Americans and everybody else.
01:09:13.000
Now, my biggest issue is that correlation and causation are not demonstrated.
01:09:27.000
Justin Dunn needs to go away, because he also wonders why I'm not blaming the Jews for everything.
01:09:34.000
Maybe because I'm not a crazy conspiracy theorist.
01:09:50.000
Because as soon as you talk about IQ difference, even though IQ difference is the primary indicator of success.
01:09:57.000
If it's true that black Americans, for a variety of reasons, are giving birth in a suboptimal way, healthcare-wise, it's a suboptimal way, why don't we take that seriously?
01:10:15.000
You know, you could take a county or a state and say, you know, I don't know if this is a racist theory or if it's just good thinking.
01:10:22.000
So, let's just take a population of people, correct everything, see how their kids do by third grade.
01:10:37.000
What I say is, if you can test it small, and the potential benefit would be extreme, and the cost to do it looks like it'd be doable.
01:10:52.000
Because most of these things are education plus, you know, some supplements, basically.
01:11:07.000
I think you'd know by third grade, if it worked.
01:11:21.000
Claire, I'm going to make you go away for too many repeated comments in caps.
01:11:32.000
When people say slippery slope, it's lazy thinking.
01:11:36.000
Meaning that there's nothing about a slippery slope that tells you anything about a topic.
01:11:42.000
There are some things that will go until something changes them.
01:11:46.000
So, I prefer to say, everything will go forever until something stops it.
01:12:02.000
You have to go too far before you get the reaction.
01:12:05.000
So, in my view, the acronyms and the, you know, let's say the wokeness, I think it's guaranteed to end.
01:12:19.000
Now, if I believed in the slippery slope, I would say it will just keep going forever.
01:12:24.000
But you can already see the resistance starting to pop up.
01:12:28.000
People willing to say things they couldn't even say out loud a year ago.
01:12:33.000
I mean, even the fact that, you know, people are saying seriously that the trans situation is at least partly mental health.
01:12:46.000
That's a brave thing to say in public under the current situation.
01:12:51.000
And I would argue that the trans community needs to do a better job of separating themselves from the crazy parts.
01:13:01.000
Just as, you know, if you're a Trump supporter, you want to separate yourself from the white supremacist who might also like it.
01:13:10.000
It makes sense for your brand to separate yourself from the crazies.
01:13:13.000
So, I think the trans community would help themselves and help the rest of us if they helped us identify the crazy people.
01:13:33.000
This concludes the most shocking and entertaining live stream in all of reality.
01:13:44.000
And I'm going to say goodbye to the YouTube people for now.