All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 5, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
49:02
Episode 404 Scott Adams: The SOTU, President’s Schedule, Healthcare, Conspiracy Theories
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody!
Is anybody around?
I know I'm coming to you at an unusual time.
But it's worth it.
Oh, it's so worth it.
Come in here and we will enjoy the simultaneous sip.
You might like it in a cup, in a mug.
You might like it in a stein, a chalice, a thermos.
But whatever it is, Fill it with your favorite liquid.
And my choice is coffee.
And join me for the simultaneous sip.
Oh, that's good sippin'.
So yesterday there was this big story about the president's schedule.
So without talking about the obvious question, which is, how the hell does somebody get a copy of the president's schedule and then leak that?
I suppose getting it is the easy part, but leaking it is the outrageous part.
And yes, I am reading your comments.
And then the big story was that 60% of it was unscheduled, and therefore, maybe he's not working so hard.
But it didn't really land, did it, in terms of a criticism of this president?
Did that even leave a dent?
Because even this latest tell-all book from whoever was the gopher, I can't remember his name, which is funny, but you know the recent behind-the-scenes book about Trump, in which Trump called the writer a gopher and barely knew him?
Even that guy said the one thing you can't doubt is that this president is a workhorse.
You know, he's working hard.
So even critics are kind of willing to say he's a hard worker.
And all that unscheduled time just means we don't know what he was doing.
That's different from unscheduled.
I mean, the whole thing was ridiculous.
It sort of turned into...
Have you noticed the entire presidency has turned into a Dilbert comic?
Am I the only one noticing that?
Alright, let me give you some examples of why this is a Dilbert comic.
Normally, when people are talking about a president's performance, are they talking about stuff like what time he comes to work, how he schedules his time, And whether or not he's a good boss to his employees.
Have you ever heard any of that about any other president?
For every other president, you talk about the policies and international relations and stuff.
But with Trump, it's totally become a Dilber comic.
And if you look at the things they're complaining about him now, the complaints are every employee bitching about their CEO. If you were to take the best CEO in the world, and who knows who that is?
Maybe it's Jeff Bezos or Tim Cook or whoever you think is the best CEO in the world.
And let's say there's a general agreement that this person is an amazing, amazing CEO. Don't you think I can find a lot of employees who think that boss is not working hard enough, making all the wrong decisions?
I made my fortune by noting that everybody thinks that about their boss.
So, as long as they're turning politics into a Dilbert comic, I'm not too worried about this president.
Alright, let's talk about the State of the Union, because this is going to be fun.
I've probably never looked forward to a State of the Union more than this one because there's just a lot going on.
Now one of the things that's going on, the funniest thing that's going on is that both sides are trying to invite guests Who simply by their existence tell a story.
Now they'll tell a story about the guest as well, but there's something about their situation or about them personally that is important.
And so President Trump has invited a kid, it's a kid whose last name is Trump.
Who's been getting bullied in school.
Yeah, Joshua Trump.
And I'm thinking, this is the funniest thing I've ever seen because somehow the president managed to invite somebody to the State of the Union that was as much about Trump as about the other person.
So somehow he made it about himself, but in the funniest possible way.
So that's not a criticism, it's just a funny observation.
Everybody else is, you know, bringing somebody who had a hard time for one reason or another.
And this poor little Joshua Trump probably is having a real hard time.
I'm sure that part is real.
But the fact that it's still about Trump is just, I don't know, it just couldn't be more perfect.
Adults on Twitter are bullying him.
That's terrific.
So the Democrats have got their own lineup of people who've had serious problems.
So here's the net of that.
Wasn't the State of the Union where we used to talk about the good news?
Am I wrong that the State of the Union used to be all about things that are working well?
It used to be, hey, look at all these things that the country's doing and the country's doing great.
And now the vibe of it has changed all this bad news.
It's like the big bad news festival.
Oh yeah? Well, you brought some people who were having a hard time.
Look at the people we brought.
They're really having a hard time.
So there's that element of it.
The other element, of course, is all the wall stuff.
But there's another thing shaping up here that I think is going to happen.
I think what the president's going to do is take this opening to try to bring the temperature down on race and racial divisiveness.
I can never know which way that goes.
I think he's going to say this is the perfect time to talk about what he's doing for African Americans, what he's doing for every ethnic group, because he's had a full week of Democrats getting accused of terrible things.
I mean, the whole Virginia governor story could not be more perfect in terms of its timing.
So if he's smart, he'll take the opportunity that Democrats are being accused of all the things that he's been accused of, and he'll take the high ground and try to make something out of that.
And I think that's what's coming, and that will probably be the right play.
Alright, how many of you noticed that I correctly predicted the winner of the Super Bowl?
Pretty impressive, right?
Well, I and about a billion other people predicted the winner.
But the only reason I mention it Is that for years I've been predicting the winners of the Super Bowl based on their mascots fighting it out.
And it is surprisingly, it is surprisingly predictive.
So I predicted that a patriot with a musket could kill a ram.
And sure enough, muskets win, somebody says.
All right. I think today CNN called the president racist.
Repeat indefinitely.
It's sort of all they got now.
And it's just falling apart in front of their eyes.
If you haven't seen a tweet that I did this morning, Watch a tweet of Bill Paltay, who's down in St.
Louis, or was down in St.
Louis, looking at the blight.
So, see the actual footage.
I just tweeted that right before I got on here.
And you can see what urban America has turned into.
It's just house after house with nobody in it, run down, and those are the things that Bill's taken on with the city, and you'll hear more about that, a lot more about that coming up.
Any update on Middle East peace predictions?
Well, it feels like it's been quiet over there, hasn't it?
Been kind of quiet? So maybe that's good news.
I still feel like there's something big brewing for the Middle East.
So, maybe something this year.
Rand Paul is mad.
Yeah, Rand Paul seems to be the one who is leading the charge to get us out of these places.
And I have to admit, the arguments on both sides are fairly compelling.
Because one side says there are all kinds of countries all over the world where we could put troops, and it might help the population, but is that our job, to help every country that needs help?
And when you hear that you say, well that is a good point.
We haven't helped Afghanistan, and there are lots of other countries we could help.
Why did we pick this one country?
And then the opposite argument is that there's something special about these Middle East countries and that having a presence there is what helps us beat down terrorism.
They're both pretty strong arguments.
Usually I don't say that, but in this case they're both pretty strong.
Now the other thing The other thing that's happening, of course, is if the President doesn't make a big deal about health care, he's missing a big chance.
The big thing that the Democrats have working against the President is this universal health care call, you know, Medicare for All.
Apparently it's pretty popular.
And so he's got to say that they're doing something, they have some kind of answer to that, some kind of Republican type of situation.
But this would be a good time to tell you that this Periscope is brought to you by my company's app, interfaced by WenHub, where we have added some doctors.
If you open the app, let me show you how easy it is.
The app is free. If you open it up, you can say find an expert.
Click that. You can just type in doctor, doctor.
And then a bunch of doctors will show up.
You can scroll through and you can see them.
And right now there's an orthopedic surgeon.
We've signed up 20 doctors from a platform called Encore.
So later today you'll see them appear live and I believe some of them can also take a schedule.
So you can schedule some of the experts now.
We didn't used to be able to do that.
The point is that if you did not have healthcare and you wanted 15 minutes or half an hour of medical advice, you could get it now instantly through your app and you would just pay by a credit card the way you would pay for anything.
So, have I signed up the Virginia governor?
That's a funny question, and the answer is no.
Can they prescribe?
Yes. So, if the doctor you choose is licensed in your state, and it would say so in the, if you read their bio, it would tell you where they're licensed.
They can, it's legal, yes, and they can prescribe medicines.
Now the exception, I think, is opioids.
They're not gonna do any opioids without seeing you in person.
But for general stuff, if they're licensed for your state, And I think the first set of doctors, we're just putting on a trial set, the first set of doctors cover about 25 different states, so check their bio to make sure that it's the state you care about.
Now, somebody said, Viagra?
I assume so.
Adderall is always more of a controlled substance.
I'm not the expert on this stuff, but I would think that something like Adderall probably could not be prescribed over without seeing somebody in person, but I'm not positive about that.
And then as far as ordering blood tests, that one you'd have to ask the doctors about.
Alright, have you signed up any lawyers?
Yeah, there are lawyers on there all the time.
And right now we've got a chicken and egg thing going, which is, it's easy to get experts as long as there are people to call them, but we need both callers and experts.
So the more of you who sign up, the more successful we'll be.
So, if you want to bring down the cost of healthcare and make an option for people who don't have it, If you support this platform simply by signing up or telling other people about it, you'd be helping bring down the cost of healthcare and making it more universal.
And then, Some of you might want to use it for a second opinion, which is probably what I will use it for myself.
How many times have you gone to your doctor and your doctor says, do X or Y, and you just want to get a second opinion, but it's kind of inconvenient to find another doctor and go there.
So you could just call up the app and say, my doctor says this, does that sound reasonable?
Get a second opinion for a reasonable price.
Yes, sign up even if you don't actually use it.
Because the more energy it gets, the more sign-ups we have, the more likely you're going to think about it if you've already signed up, the more likely you'll use it even if you didn't think you were going to use it.
Now remember, doctors are just one type of expert.
So any kind of expert can sign up.
It's called Interface by WinHub, and it's in both of the app stores.
And also now, If you search for interface by WenHub, we also have a web version, so you can do it on your laptop as well, or any device.
Are they allowed to sell my data?
Well, WenHub does not sell your data, but it's between you and the person you're talking to what happens with your information.
Yeah, just Google Interface by WinHub and the webpage will come up.
So some of you have seen Hoaxed by now.
And yes, I did have a significant part of it, but there were a number of people in it.
Any new projects? I just got my first draft of my upcoming book, and I got the first comments from my publisher.
There is nothing better than the first comments, if they're good.
So my publisher says the first draft is, quote, fantastic.
So, there's no better feeling than writing an entire book, and you don't know how other people are going to respond to it, and then you send it in to your publisher, and your publisher says, it's fantastic, and we'll sell a ton of them, is what she told me.
So that's good. Would I advise Howard Schultz for $200,000 a month?
That's a good question.
No, I don't think so.
But for one billion dollars, I will advise Democrats how to win.
One billion dollars.
Nobody's going to pay that, so don't worry.
What did I think of Hawk Newsom's appearance in Hoaxed?
I thought it was powerful.
I don't want to say more about it because people will watch it and I don't want to give anything away.
But that whole part was very interesting.
Where did the money come from?
Which money? Taleb blocked Peterson on Twitter for supporting GMO and Monsanto.
What's your take? That's a scientific question, and I don't know if I have anything to add to it.
If the science looks good, I'd be in favor of it.
If the science says it's sketchy, then I wouldn't.
But I'm no expert on that.
I don't have any opinion.
Everyone is worried they'll offer you $1 billion.
If they did offer me $1 billion, it would be the smartest investment they ever made.
They wouldn't have to do anything else.
Or for $1 billion, you can buy the Dilbert property.
You could own Dilbert. You could own the rights to Dilbert forever for $1 billion.
Somebody says I'm a sellout.
Don't worry, nobody's going to pay the price, so I won't sell out.
Would I sell to a Saudi prince?
Well, I don't think the Saudi prince is going to buy Dilbert, so I don't have to worry about that.
Can you upload your podcast to Spotify?
I hadn't thought about that.
Will CNN switch from Kamala to Hillary if she runs?
I don't think so.
I think they're done with Hillary because they don't think she could win again, would be my guess.
What animal would you be if you were a cartoon character?
I would be dog bird, of course.
Any thoughts about North Korea?
Well, I think North Korea is looking good.
And I think it's going to be a long, slow bringing together of North and South Korea.
Oh, I heard what I thought was the dumbest comment That I've heard lately on CNN from an expert.
I won't mention the expert, but he was an ex-CIA guy, I believe.
So an expert in all things, you know, foreign and mostly foreign.
And he said that if Trump starts pulling out of all these countries, pulling our military out, that if he eventually pulls out of South Korea, Now listen to this.
He said, if we pull out of South Korea, U.S. troops out of South Korea, he said North Korea would be in Seoul by the afternoon.
Does that sound like a professional with a professional opinion?
I mean seriously. Do you think if we pulled the US military out of South Korea today, then North Korea would immediately attack South Korea?
That's maybe the worst opinion I've ever seen on television.
Honestly, CNN should be embarrassed.
Should be embarrassed that they let that guy say that unchallenged.
And by the way, nobody said, you think North Korea would immediately commit suicide by attacking South Korea?
Or somebody might have said, are you saying the only reason that the Kim family doesn't commit suicide, because it would be suicide for the Kim family for sure, is that the U.S. military is down here?
Does that make sense?
There's nobody here who thinks that even makes a little sense, do they?
South Korea has plenty of weapons, and it wouldn't take us long to get back over there.
The one thing that would happen for sure is that Kim Jong-un would be killed if North Korea attacked South Korea.
No matter what happened, the Kim family would be killed.
There's no doubt about that.
So I don't think there's any chance that that would happen.
That said, we're not going to pull out of South Korea anytime soon, so I'm not going to worry about it.
Do you think Kim values human life?
I think he values his own.
Can you explain the Bitcoin password issue?
Yeah, so there was a big exchange where the only person who had the important passwords died, and so everybody lost access to all their money on that exchange.
So that was...
Pretty bad. The only thing you need to know about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies is that if you lose your password, roughly speaking, let's just call it passwords, if you lose your password, you lost your money.
There's nothing that can change that.
Brooklyn, New York, D.A. going after Trump.
That sounds like Can we talk about...just looking at your comments.
Oh, so now that Periscope has this feature where you can invite a guest.
I did that last night just for a test.
So I can actually invite a guest here and do a split screen.
Last night I didn't think it was working the way I thought it was supposed to work.
But it turns out that on your end you could see the split screen, so you could see the video.
On my end I could hear audio and I could see myself, but there's probably something I could have pressed to change what I was seeing.
So I haven't quite mastered it, but we'll start having some guests on here probably when I get back.
Please create a central list of books, movies, podcasts, and interviews you recommend.
I might do that someday.
Somebody said I could only hear audio.
That's funny, because I did hear from somebody who could see a split screen.
So I guess I have to...
Now, a number of you are saying it's only audio, but why did somebody actually see a split screen?
If somebody saw it, Okay, now I guess I don't know.
Well, I heard it from a reliable source that it was a split screen on your side.
But most of you are telling me that that is not the case.
Well, I wasn't lied to because it was somebody I know.
Okay, well, I guess I have to figure that out.
We'll do that. Could you do a split screen with Mike Cernovich about Hoax?
Yeah, I believe I will try to do that, but I want to make sure that...
Somebody said, I saw an overlay.
I saw talking boxes.
Only heard audio.
Maybe if it's portrait versus landscape.
I was going to...
Alright, we'll do some more testing on that.
So, other people are saying they saw a split screen.
I wonder if it was the orientation on your screen.
If you click the static logo that came on, what would happen?
Alright, we'll play with that.
That's boring to talk about.
What else is happening? So we did the State of the Union, we did the Trump schedule, and there's some story about James Brown's death.
I probably will bring on some climate people.
Oh, let's talk about Q. I made a comment about the Q conspiracy.
I actually tweeted an article in which Q was just called the conspiracy theory.
And once again, all the Q people attacked me for being stupid.
Now, I didn't know there were any Q people left.
And I was kind of blown away that there are so many people who are that resistant to seeing the obvious.
There's some conspiracy theories where even I say, well, maybe.
For example, the conspiracy theory that there were other gunmen who shot Kennedy.
Now, I think that's probably not true.
If I had to bet on it, I would bet that the story is fairly close to the story that we've been told, single shooter.
But I also say to myself, well, maybe...
You know, it's not impossible that there was more to this story.
But when I hear things about chemtrails and the Q conspiracy, I do not have that feeling.
To me, it's just pretty obvious that those are made up.
Yeah, I thought the Q people had just gone away.
So part of the story was that the Q was being boosted by the Russian trolls.
So the Russians had accurately identified the Q thing as a disruptive, useless, fake news, and they were boosting it so more people were getting in on the fake news.
So I'm not seeing any Q supporters here so far, but on Twitter they came after me and I kept thinking, I thought there were no Q people left.
I haven't heard about a Q drop in a long time.
Didn't Jack Posobiec and I and Ginger McQueen, didn't we do a good enough job killing that conspiracy theory?
Yeah, that's what I said.
Is Q still a thing? There's somebody still willing to say that they believe that.
It's kind of amazing. Can I get Judith Curry?
I might try to do that because she would be exactly the right person to talk to.
I'm going to do an update on my current understanding of climate.
So, as you know, I've been doing a deep dive and I think I'm at a point Where I can give you an update about what seems real and what seems BS. My general overview is that both the skeptics and the climate science community have so much BS that neither of them look real.
In other words, both arguments look fraudulent because so much of their arguments on both sides are obviously fraudulent.
So there's no side which has been accurate and honest and scientific.
Apparently that didn't happen.
Both sides have some large amount of total BS. But one of those sides is right.
So even though they both have large dollops of BS, which is the part we can recognize, one of them is right.
Either it's a problem or it's not.
And I'll give you my current thinking on that.
I have a new question for those of you who are sort of following this.
I saw a claim that if you had just 18 temperature buoys, it would be as good as having hundreds or even thousands of buoys measuring the temperature all over the oceans.
And the reason is that 18 is enough to be representative and somebody did the math and compared it and found out that that would be the case.
Now if it's true that you can get a reliable enough and the key word is enough but if you can get a reliable enough Measurement of the ocean from just 18 buoys, but we actually have far more than that.
That would change my mind about whether or not we can even measure the temperature of the ocean.
If we can't measure the temperature of the ocean, I'm not willing to say that we know what's going on.
But if it's true that just any well-placed sample of 18 buoys would actually track the ocean temperature pretty well, That would change my mind on whether or not we have a handle on this.
Now one of the things you see all the time is, look at the satellites, dammit.
The satellite temperature measurements are the accurate ones.
Here's what I know about that so far.
Satellite temperatures have only been measured since 1979, when they started having that technology, and it only measures the atmosphere.
So a satellite Can't tell you the temperature below the water.
And so I say to myself, since 90% of the Earth's heat is in the ocean, how helpful is it to be able to only measure the air, because that's the 10%.
Now, if the theory is that measuring the air is actually all you need to do, Then I'd like to hear that.
So that's a gap in my knowledge.
Is there anybody who claims that measuring just the atmosphere and not directly measuring the ocean, obviously there's interplay there, but not directly measuring the ocean, if somebody can tell me that that's totally good enough, then that would be important because the satellites tell you one story that might be a little different from the buoys, etc. I'm seeing in all caps the dumbest comment about climate.
Here's one thing I found out for sure, and if it's the last thing I do, I'm going to make sure that nobody ever types a comment to me in all caps.
It's the sun. It's the sun.
They forgot to measure the sun.
Let me tell you why that Is the worst, most uninformed comment on climate.
And it goes like this.
Do you think all the climate scientists in the world, when they were trying to figure out the heat of the planet, do you think all of those scientists forgot to include the sun?
That's what people think.
A huge part of the skeptical community believes, and my mind just goes blah blah blah blah when I hear this, they literally believe that the best scientists in the world on the question of climate and warmth forgot to measure the impact of the sun.
Now of course we're talking about the intensity of the sun and the sunspots and the sun cycles and all that, but Please, dear God, if you don't believe anything else I ever tell you, the climate scientist did not forget the sun.
That would be the dumbest opinion.
In the whole conversation.
Everybody who says they forgot the sun should not be able to talk in public anymore.
Their friends should just stop them.
Their friends should say, Bob, when we talk about climate science, if you mention the sun again, As if it hasn't been thought of and nobody checked it, you can't talk anymore.
You're not allowed to speak anymore if you think the sun has been forgotten by scientists.
That's not a thing.
And indeed, the other big argument from the skeptics is that the temperature and the CO2 in the past don't line up.
In other words, one was going up and one was going down in the past.
Do you know why they produced that graph?
Because the skeptics forgot the sun.
That's literally true. So the reason that you see these graphs that are fake graphs of CO2 and temperature not moving together is because those graphs made by the skeptics did not include the changes that we understand about the Sun.
And once you put those in there, the lines actually match up.
So... Somebody's saying, hmm, I wonder about the Sun.
So here's the other thing that people say.
Some people are saying that the Earth has cooled for the past two years.
So I asked this question on Twitter just so I could get an answer.
And apparently the temperature has cooled substantially in the last two years.
If you think that means anything, it does not.
It does not. Because any few years of change means nothing because that's all assumed and the climate scientists assume that the temperature goes up and down in different years, but that the average is moving.
Here's the other worst skeptical argument.
The worst skeptical argument, besides they forgot the sun, is that they used to call it global warming, but they had to change it to climate change because there were a lot of, you know, a lot of low temperatures too.
Haha, we caught them.
They had to change the name because their theory was so bad that it wasn't just warming.
Sometimes it got cooler.
That's a terrible argument.
Because, it turns out if you do a little fact checking, it's been called climate change for as long as it's been global warming.
So, scientists did not just come up with a new marketing term.
They've always been using that term, and they have always understood that if you warmed one part of the world, it would cause a ripple effect that might cause other places to be temporarily cooler, but all that matters is the average.
All that matters is the average.
So that's the other just terrible argument that they changed the name of it.
Changing the name of it doesn't mean anything, and all it really means is that you heard the new name more than you heard the old name after a while.
But both names always existed.
So that's a terrible argument.
The North Pole shift, I think we're still trying to figure out how that all fits in.
Verify in the IPPC reports, then come back with a fact, bro.
I don't know what you're talking about, but since you're an idiot, I'm going to ignore it.
How's the climate change ranting polling?
Polling.
Well, not everybody likes it, so I save it for the end of my periscopes.
Oh, here's the other worst argument.
So the other worst argument is that climate change is a giant conspiracy that's meant to create a socialist world.
Have you heard that one?
That one's sort of a chemtrails Q is magic kind of belief.
And it's even backed up by some, I don't know, some UN dignitary saying exactly that.
So there are actually people on video saying, hey, we're doing this climate change thing to, you know, turn socialist.
But there's no frickin' way that all of the scientists in the world are in on this globalist scheme.
That is ridiculous, right?
I wouldn't be surprised at all if there are real people who are not scientists who are in it for other reasons.
Maybe they think it will make the world a better place because it makes us more socialist or something.
I believe they exist.
But there's no frickin' way that the scientists who are working on this field are all in on this conspiracy.
Now then people say to me, no, no, Scott, you don't understand.
We're not saying that all the scientists are in on the conspiracy.
We're saying that the big people who control the money are the conspiracy ones, and they're the ones who are incenting the politicians, incenting the scientists to do all the wrong things.
Now, nobody understands bias more than I do.
Well, I'm sure people understand it more than I do.
But the point is, I literally wrote a book on bias.
And of course, monetary bias is close to the top bias.
Here. Scott is incredibly naive.
Damn it, you can't really block people anymore because the one you touch is not the one that gets blocked.
Those who think I'm naive because I don't believe there's a global conspiracy about climate change, you really need to check your conspiracy thinking gene.
If you're believing in chemtrails, global conspiracy theories, Q, these are all ridiculous.
And I don't want to even spend too much time talking about them.
They are ridiculous on the surface.
You don't have to dig down.
You don't have to do your own research on these.
These ones are just ridiculous.
Somebody says, you're destroying your argument, lol.
Alright, there's nothing I can do for you if you're going to believe a conspiracy theory that is that outrageously crazy.
I can't change your mind if you're that far gone.
But one thing I'm sure of is that the scientists of the world are not making up science because there's some global conspiracy that's influencing them all in lockstep.
That's just not happening.
Thoughts on helium-3 fusion energy technology?
Well, I have a lot of thoughts on helium-3 fusion technology.
Let me show you a little model I made.
No, I don't have any thoughts on that.
The President said it's a conspiracy.
Well, maybe he did.
But I don't know what sense he means it's a conspiracy.
So if I drag the list, somebody's giving me some user interface tips.
Oh, I see. Alright, yeah.
So if I drag the list, I can stop it and I can block people.
Yeah, I'll probably...
Let's see what's happening here.
Here we go. Somebody said, they're getting married to an American lady today.
Wish me luck. That would get me in trouble if I say anything about that.
Here's a comment that in the old days I would have made a joke about it.
Somebody says, I'm getting married to an American lady today.
Wish me luck. And I thought, not going to touch that.
I'm not going to touch that at all.
All right. Now it appears...
Oh, there we go. Do I block with my middle finger?
I should. He keeps saying it, not sure if he's trolling.
Scott, you're afraid you'll be kicked out of your globalist climate changer's lodge.
Any comments on IQ debate?
Yes, I do. I don't know which IQ debate that you're talking about, but IQ comes up all the time.
Usually in some racist sense.
Should we be treating people differently because their ethnicity has some kind of different IQ situation?
Here's what I have to say about that.
The dumbest thing about white supremacists is that white supremacists believe that they, the white supremacist, get credit For something that people who are not them, who also happen to have some DNA in common, invented some stuff.
And I say to myself, wait a minute, wait a minute.
Just because you have some DNA similarity with complete strangers who invented some great stuff, that doesn't make you great.
That doesn't say anything about you.
You are completely disconnected.
You, white supremacists, with anything that people who happen to also be white do.
You don't get credit for that.
So the whole idea that you can get credit for something that other people have done just because those other people share some kind of weird DNA with you, there's no logic to that.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
And here's another one.
And then other people say, yeah, but we have to, you know, the white supremacist might say something like, oh, we have to control who comes into the country, because if you let people come in from this country, say the white supremacist, you know, you're going to bring people who have lower IQ. To which I say, how many people from any group Are inventing the next iPhone.
It doesn't matter how many people you have from any group, because 99.9% of every group is not changing society.
They're not inventing the future.
They're not the ones who have solved anything, not of any ethnicity.
99% of them are not changing the world.
So what matters is the number of them.
So as long as the number of our smartest people goes up, it doesn't matter what ethnicity, what gender, it doesn't matter if they're trans, LGBTQ, none of that matters.
We just need a lot of them.
The more of them we have, the smartest 1%, the better we are.
It doesn't matter what color they are, because if somebody who happens to be white Or happens to be male, does something awesome, that doesn't help me.
That wasn't me. I don't get the reward.
I don't get the bonus because somebody who's not me did something cool.
It's sort of, it's just not a productive argument.
So there are things you can say about IQ that you can find scientists to say, yes, this is true in some average sense.
But in the real world, The only people changing the world are these few, just unusual people, and it's not me.
It's not you. So, you know, treating each other by our ethnicity because there are some strangers doing something great somewhere else is just ridiculous.
All right. Somebody says, are you saying IQ is not genetic?
I didn't talk about that topic at all.
What I talked about is how it wasn't terribly important.
We think it matters, but if it's only true in some weird, you know, average way, it wouldn't matter if that were true or not.
It shouldn't change what you're doing.
I've never met a white supremacist, have you?
Literally not. If a white supremacist is someone who thinks that white people are superior to all the other races, I'm thinking now, but I think that's true.
I believe I have never met one.
I've never met anybody who had that opinion.
That is true. I'm not saying they don't exist, so don't take me into context.
I'm just saying, personally, I've never had a personal, private conversation with somebody who had that opinion.
All right.
So I think that's all I have to say today.
And I may or may not join you for the State of the Union announcement.
I haven't decided yet, but I will talk to you later.
▲
Export Selection