Episode 1303 Scott Adams: The Fake News Alleged Threat on the Capitol, Congress Makes Voting Worse, and Reality
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Elon Musk is awesome
Jan 6th "armed insurrection"...with ZERO guns?
Daniel Dale fact checks voter ID and Pence
Biden offered to take questions...and someone cut the feed
China requires anal swabs for all foreigners
Is the universe nothing but consciousness?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
I'm sorry if you saw my aborted attempt to do a live stream just a minute ago.
I was trying to take my selfie profile image that appears as the thumbnail, and I hit the wrong button because this interface could use a little help.
But how great is today?
I'm going to teach you about reality, tell you what the fake news is trying to fool you with, And we're going to have some fun.
Oh yeah. And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go! I saw a question go by that I want to answer.
It feels weird.
I'm just reading one of the commenters saying that They're addicted to the simultaneous sip.
And now they feel weird if they think I'm not going to be here to do it.
Well, that's exactly how I got you.
Get you addicted.
It's not an accident.
There are no accidents.
Bill Pulte, good to see you.
And we have lots of stuff to talk about.
Let's jump right in, all right?
Number one, Elon Musk.
One of his test rockets exploded after it returned otherwise safely back to the launch pad.
Have you watched one of these SpaceX rockets land after it's done its thing?
And it's the wildest thing to see it land upright.
It just seems like, isn't there some way to do this easier than trying to make it land upright?
But maybe not.
I'm sure they thought about it all.
So it did land okay, but a few minutes after it landed, it exploded.
There was some kind of leak or something, maybe.
And I was trying to think how hard that must be if you were on the team and you thought it worked.
And it went up and it came back, and I guess previous ones have exploded.
And this one landed, and you're like, yay!
What? And it just blew up.
I'll tell you, Elon Musk has a pair of gonads about the size of Jupiter.
I believe our largest planet.
And I love the fact that he's just going to blow up rockets until this works.
I don't know if NASA could do this.
Could NASA fail as many times as you necessarily will need to to get to success?
I don't know if they could.
I feel as if Elon Musk's sort of special place in the country gets more and more special every time he pushes through something like this.
And you know he's going to push through it, right?
They're going to learn something, do it again.
Just keep doing it again until it works.
So I love living in a country where Elon Musk can put up a rocket and it can blow up.
Doesn't even slow him down.
Don't you like that? I mean, you know, nobody wants the rocket to blow up.
Nobody was hurt. But there's something awesome about it blowing up and having no impact.
No impact on the fact that he'll keep going.
Tiger Woods is talking about his crash and apparently says he doesn't remember driving, which is interesting, because he was lucid when he was found.
But he doesn't say, I don't remember the crash.
He says, I don't remember driving.
Is that ambient?
What is that? It does feel as though there was some loss of consciousness.
So my guess, I'm just speculating, but based on where the car, the automobile, went after he lost control, it looks like he was unconscious.
So I guess we'll find out.
Or maybe we'll never find out.
The effort to recall Gavin Newsom in California needed 1.5 million signatures, but they always get extra in case some are thrown out.
They're up to 1.9.
They have 1.9 million people signed a recall petition for the governor.
Does anybody have any idea who would replace him?
Because I think if you do the recall, he can still run, right?
Is that how it works? Even though he's recalled, he can still run?
Because nothing prevents that.
So he's out to win again, right?
So who in...
California is even the right candidate.
I don't even know. Somebody's saying Rick Grinnell.
I don't know if he wants to run for state office, though.
I could see him running for president someday.
Rick Grinnell. How would you like to see Rick Grinnell run for president?
Let me just give...
Let's just see what it looks like here in the comments.
Because I don't know how he would lose.
Do you? How could Rick Grinnell lose if he ran for president as a Republican?
I don't think he could.
I feel like he's got the demographic little advantage there, the people who are going to sort of be semi-automatic voters, and then you just get all the Republicans, and then you're done.
I don't know how he could lose, honestly.
Now, you may have, you know, maybe somebody digs up some scandal or something we don't know about.
Everybody's got one of those.
But he seems pretty solid.
Seems pretty solid.
We'll see. Chris Harrison, host of The Bachelor, He's actually going to come back.
For a while it looked like he was going to step back from the job because he said some inartful things about one of the contestants who had some years ago been at a, what do they call it?
A party celebrating the Old South, antebellum party.
And that was considered racist because it was celebrating a system that included racism as a prime foundation of the system.
I want to read you Harrison's actual words, apology.
I want you to see if he says something racist in the apology.
See if you can find it.
So he's trying to avoid being called racist, or insensitive, I guess.
And he's going to make a statement.
See if you can find the racist statement that's in the apology.
Here it goes. Chris Harrison says, quote, I am saddened and shocked at how insensitive I was in that interview with Rachel Lindsay, and I didn't speak from my heart.
And that is to say, I stand against all forms of racism, and I'm deeply sorry.
I'm sorry to Rachel Lindsay, and I'm sorry to the black community.
Harrison added, did you catch it?
Did you catch the racist statement within the apology?
Let's see if anybody saw it.
Right? You got it.
Somebody got it right away.
All forms. If you say that you're opposed to all forms of racism, what have you said?
It says you're opposed to racism including against white people and against adult white males.
Because it's all forms, right?
I don't know if you can include that anymore, can you?
Because it feels like when he threw in the all forms, didn't you feel a little bit of a Republican vibe to that?
Just a whiff of maybe a little...
I don't know that he would be Republican.
I'm not saying he would categorize himself that way.
I have no idea, so I'm not speculating on that.
I'm just saying, that choice of words is just a whiff.
There's just a whiff of a hint...
With that phraseology.
Now, I don't know if you can tell that I'm not calling it racist.
You didn't think I was calling it racist, right?
I'm saying that there's just a choice of words there that shows a little bit of independence.
There's just a little bit of revolt That's embedded in an embarrassing apology.
It's embarrassing because it's over the top.
You know, I'm a horrible person.
I can't believe what I did.
It's the end of the world because I used an inertful phrase.
What was I thinking? It's all ridiculously over the top.
And then after he's gone ridiculously over the top, where you're thinking to yourself, legitimately, I asked this.
Like, no joke.
The first time I saw his apology, I said, I can't tell if he's kidding.
Because he did it so on point that it looked like sarcasm.
Like, almost, right?
And then he comes out with this, with this little all forms of racism in it, and I think, did he do it again?
I feel like Chris Harrison just sent us two secret messages.
I'm reading a book you may have heard of.
It's called 1984.
And people said, hey, you should read this book, 1984, because it has historical significance.
And somehow my incredible education in Wyndham, New York, did not include that book.
It's amazing. But I'd never read it before, so I just started digging in.
And one of the major themes...
Is that the people are so observed, you know, they've got a monitoring screen in their house that listens to them and watches them, and they don't even want to make a wrong facial expression unless they turn away from the screen that's in their home watching them all the time.
And they don't even want to make eye contact with somebody else if even the eye contact could be interpreted as maybe some kind of the beginning of a rebellion.
It's like, hey, If you looked at that person across there and they looked at you in a knowing way, maybe that's the beginning of a rebellion and you better watch how your eyes work.
So in 1984, things are so restricted, and you'll be effectively cancelled, I guess, if you deviate even a little bit, that the main character is wondering if some other character is sending him a secret message Just because of the way he looked at him once.
Just once. Just gave him a look, like, oh, I'm on your side.
But he wasn't sure if that's what the look said.
All he had was the look.
And it was the only thing he had to cling to, to feel any hope, any hope, basically, or any feeling of humanity, was just a little glance from another person that may or may not have said, I feel you.
You know, we're all trapped here.
And here's Chris Harrison.
By the way, this is all just speculation for fun, right?
Nobody knows what Chris Harrison is thinking.
So don't take anything I say about what he's thinking as any kind of a credible statement.
I'm just saying, if you read the book and then you watch this, it feels very similar.
It just feels like Chris Harrison sent us a message.
But it was a really subtle one.
By over-apologizing, you saw it, right?
How many of you got that message?
When you saw his apology, did you say to yourself, huh?
Anybody? Before I told you that it looked suspicious, how many of you saw it and the first thing you thought was, I'm not sure?
Just look at the comments and see if anybody else picked up on it.
It's like a wink. Somebody says yes.
There's more no's than yes.
Somebody says, I heard a dog whistle.
Nah, nope. Yeah, so I'm probably imagining it, right?
Maybe so. But that is the world that we have entered in which any thought that you would say your actual opinions, pretty dangerous, pretty dangerous.
The latest presumed fake news, and I'm going to use that word presumed, because I think you have to presume some kinds of stories are fake news from the start, right?
If you hear a story that says an anonymous source It says that Trump was eating a baby, a live baby.
What would be the presumption?
The presumption would be that's fake news, right?
Just on the surface.
Here's another one.
Quote, we've obtained intelligence that shows a possible plot, this is a government statement, to breach the Capitol by an identified, not unidentified, by an identified militia group On Thursday, March 4th, the USCP said in a statement, so what do you think of that?
Do you think that there's a possible plot to breach the capital by identified militia groups?
That's being reported.
So it's probably true, right?
Because it comes from our intelligence organizations.
And If you can't trust our intelligence organizations, who can you trust?
Am I right? So the intelligence organizations, the same people who told us there was an armed insurrection, or at least associated with the same people who told us there was an armed insurrection, as Byron York points out in the Washington Examiner, Brett Hume tweeted this, tweeted Byron's article, and Byron York points out something that I kind of think maybe I sort of almost knew, but I didn't.
Which is, during the, quote, armed insurrection, and Byron shows how armed insurrection, those exact words are used by the media a number of times.
So they called it an armed insurrection.
And there were also lots of people arrested, right?
So those are the two things we know.
The media called it an armed insurrection, and they arrested a lot of people.
How many guns...
Did they take from the people they arrested?
Give me a number. What do you think the total number of guns that were taken from all the people arrested?
There are hundreds now, right?
Is it dozens or hundreds who were arrested?
Zero. Zero.
They did have stuff like bear spray and clubs and stuff like that, and they'll kill you too, apparently.
But zero. If they had taken one gun...
I would be sensitive to, at least if they said armed insurrection, at least it's sort of, technically almost true.
Somebody's saying one, but that was taken from a car.
It wasn't taken from a person.
Taken from a car, from somebody who owned it, of course.
Think about that. Think about the fake news selling you on an armed insurrection, and nobody who got arrested had a gun.
Now, there were people with concealed carry.
And unconcealed carry, I think.
I'm not sure. But we know weapons were there.
There is a complete non-overlap between the people who had weapons and the people who were willing to break the law at that time.
Nobody with a weapon broke a law and got caught.
Not one person who had a weapon on them also broke some different law and got caught.
That's a little bit hard to sell as an armed insurrection.
But now we're being told there's another one.
Armed insurrection version 2.
And it's an identified militia group.
What's their name?
What's the name of the identified militia group?
Let me read further in the story.
I don't see it.
Did you? Have you seen the name of the identified militia group?
They're not going to tell us the name?
If this were Al-Qaeda, would they say, well, we have a terror group.
That's all you need to know.
Somebody says it's classified.
Hmm. Should it be?
Maybe it is.
Should it be? Because I don't believe any of this story.
Because this story depends on the fact that somebody watched the Capitol assault on January, whatever, and that they said to themselves, I think this could work out if we take another run at it.
What would that look like?
How big is this militia?
Is this a militia with, let's say, I'll pick a number, 80 people who are associated with it, which would be a lot, 80 people, who maybe 15 of them could get a plane ticket to Washington, D.C. on this date, and then they were going to do what?
Were they going to conquer the Capitol and hold territory with their 15 people, and then use that as As the beginning of running the country.
What? Could the news that's making up this story, this is obviously a bullshit story, could they at least give us some kind of a make-up, some more details, like...
What they plan to do is bring X number of people, and they plan to hold the government, or is it the beginning of what they hope will be a general uprising once they get things going?
Because they watched the first capital assault, and you'd have to think that they thought, well, that works so well, let's do some more of that.
What exactly was the plan here for these 15 guys, I'm just making up a number, 15 guys who could get to D.C.? Were they going to take on the military of the United States?
If you can't even come up with a fake news story that even holds together with its own fake news facts, don't put it in the news.
Don't even tell us about it.
If you can't even make the fake news fit, like this doesn't even make any sense.
These guys really, they're going to...
Anyway. So that's the world we live in.
All right. Don't expect to see any militia uprise in D.C. President Biden did something...
I don't know that he's done anything like this in a long, long time.
It was quite unprecedented.
He said something interesting.
I know. I didn't see it coming either.
So apparently Biden was talking about the governors of Texas and Mississippi who dropped all the restrictions for coronavirus, masks and lockdowns and stuff.
And Biden said, the last thing we need is the Neanderthal thinking.
So he's basically calling the Republican governors of those two states Neanderthals.
To which I say, thank you.
Thank you, Joe Biden, for being interesting for once.
I mean, I do this livestream every day.
You're giving me nothing.
Nothing. I need a little more, dare I say, Trumpiness.
What did I tell you would happen to Joe Biden eventually?
And really, there's no way to be avoided.
Inexorably, there's a word you shouldn't say until you practice it in front of the mirror.
Inexorably, you know the word.
I'll just do a Joe Biden.
You know the word. You know the word.
The thing. The thing.
But he's finally insulting people with insulting names like Neanderthal.
And I, as an observer of politics, appreciate this.
Thank you for being more like Donald Trump.
Because Trump was interesting.
No matter what else you said about him, he always entertained.
Now, Biden taking a little baby step into being more interesting...
Calling the governors Neanderthals?
I approve. I'm not saying I agree with his opinion.
I'm saying I approve of his insulting, his insulting ways.
Well, in other news, the Democrats, this is according to Steve Scalise, he said the Democrats just voted to ban voter ID nationwide and force every state to permanently expand mail-in voting.
Now, How many of you know the argument, pro and con?
I'll bet none of you.
Or close to none of you.
How many of you could articulate the argument on either side?
On either side.
Because I don't feel like we were ever told the argument.
It feels like they just report what the bill is and then just say what happened.
But what's the argument?
What would be the argument for Not requiring ID. Well, according to Daniel Dale, who tried to do a fact check on the claims made about this latest legislative thing, and he really has to try hard.
You have to listen to these Daniel Dale fact checks on this.
So he's not fact checking Steve Scalise.
He's just fact checking people saying things about the bill.
He says... Well, first he's talking about Mike Pence's, talking about the topic, and he says that Pence claimed that under the bill, voter ID would be banned from coast to coast.
So is that true or false, that voter ID would be banned?
I feel like that's what was reported, right?
Wasn't that exactly the point?
So I feel like Mike Pence just described exactly what the news told us, that the bill would ban requirement of voter ID. But Daniel Dale says that's a false statement.
It's false. And here's why.
He says, facts first, this is false.
The bill does not prohibit states from having voter identification requirements.
Oh, well, that's different, right?
But read on. Rather, it requires states to allow voters who do not show ID to instead submit a signed statement under penalty of perjury Attesting to their identity and eligibility to vote.
Oh, oh, that kind of ID. The kind of ID where you promise it's really you.
Why didn't you tell me?
Why do we need driver's licenses?
Can't we get rid of the DMV? And then if a cop stops you, And he says, do you have a license?
And I say, of course I do.
He says, can you show it to me?
And I say, what kind of Neanderthal are you?
This is 2021, Jack.
We don't show ID. That's a little bit discriminatory, but I'll tell you what I will do.
I will promise you that I'm really who I say.
Are we good? No.
And the cop says, whoa, now that you've put it that way, I was thinking that some kind of government ID would be the only way I could tell reliably whether you are who you say.
But now that you've offered this alternative, where you simply promised me that you are, would you put that in writing?
Yes, I would.
All right, here's a form.
Just sign it. It says you're really you.
You swear to God, you're really you.
Okay. Here you go.
And we're good.
Right? If you're like this comedian, was it Chris?
Who's the comedian who just got in trouble for doing naughty things online with a 17-year-old allegedly?
Now, if the problem is that the 17-year-old is under 18, I guess that is the problem.
I feel as if Chris should be let off as long as she promised that she was over 18.
Because why would she need to show him ID when she could just promise, just say for sure I'm over 18?
I think we should take this as a standard too.
If you're writing a check at the store, And the store says, I'd like to see some ID. Here's what I'm going to say.
I'll just write it right on the check.
I promise I am really the named person who is named on this check.
Scott Adams. I'll show it to the store and they'll say, that's not really ID, that's just you promising that you're really this person.
And I'll say, have you heard of the United States government, Neanderthal?
You probably haven't.
The United States government, the Congress, have you heard of Congress?
They say that promising you are who you are is just as good.
So let's be taking this check, guys.
Snap it up. So I think we should even take an attitude about it.
Rather than when anybody asks you for identification, you should just look at them like they've got a turd hanging out of their mouth and just say, Oh my God.
Who are you?
Asking me for ID. I promise you I'm who I say.
If you need more than that, that's voter suppression.
Or something. Discrimination at the very least.
But that's not all.
Daniel Dale did more fact-checking.
Because we can't have Mike Pence out there saying stuff.
So, here's another one.
Let's see. Oh, and Pence made an outrageous claim.
An outrageous claim.
But luckily Daniel Dale was there to catch it.
Because this could have just slid right through if Daniel Dale had not flagged it for you.
So Pence makes the outrageous claim in his article that he wrote, claiming that the election involved, and this is a quote, this is not from me.
This is from crazy Mike Pence, okay?
Not from me. I can't get cancelled for this, right?
I'm just quoting this Neanderthal Mike Pence.
And he said that the 2020 election involved significant voting irregularities.
That's him. That's him.
That's not me. I would never say such a thing.
But Mike Pence says it involved significant voting irregularities.
Now, Daniel Dale fact checks him hard.
He fact checks him so hard, he checks him right into the wall.
He says that unlike Trump, Pence did not say that the election involved, quote, fraud.
But he left his vaguer claim about voting irregularities wide open, wide open for readers to interpret it as an endorsement of Trump's fraud lie.
That's right.
So when Pence notes irregularities, what do you think he was referring to?
Could it be That this election violated every, what do you call it, bellwether indicator of who should win?
Would you say that the irregularities would be anything that is off-regular?
That's what the word means, right?
So if there's something that regularly happens, such as every time you win these certain counties, you win the presidency, that regularly happens.
Such as winning some high percentage of the primary vote, which has historically guaranteed you would become president.
But it didn't happen this time.
So regularly it happens, but not this time.
Were there other statistics which you could look at and say, you know, that's never happened before?
Yes, there are.
A lot of things that regularly happened in the past didn't happen this time.
So is Mike Pence saying something that is untrue even a little bit?
No. There's not anything that's even a little bit wrong with what Pence said.
Is it true that people might interpret it, voting irregularities, as being voter fraud?
Yes, that's possible.
It's called people being bad at reading.
That's a thing. Do you think that fact-checking Is the right thing to employ for anything that might be misinterpreted.
Do you know what else might be misinterpreted?
Everything I've ever fucking tweeted.
Everything. Everything I've ever put in words has a high chance of being misinterpreted.
How do I know that?
Because everything I've ever put in words has been misinterpreted by somebody.
You know, not everybody.
But everything I've written has been misinterpreted.
So therefore, is everything I say a lie?
Because I know that I'll be misinterpreted.
I know that.
There's no chance there won't be.
It always is. So better fact-check me hard.
Because sometimes people misinterpret me, and therefore that's my fault.
A liar, in a way.
So, Pence suggested, this is Daniel Deal, fact-checking again, suggested that the bill, this voting bill, would allow undocumented immigrants to register to vote.
Well, that's quite a claim.
You Neanderthal lying pence, he's suggesting that the bill would allow undocumented immigrants to register.
Well, that's not true.
Here's the facts. The bill does not change the current law that bans people who aren't citizens from voting.
So that's good. So it did not say undocumented non-citizens can vote.
So it didn't say that, all right?
But what did it say? Daniel Dale says, the bill makes clear that people would still have to affirm.
Interesting choice of words.
Affirm. How would they affirm it?
Let's go on. They would have to affirm that they are U.S. citizens before they are added to the voter rolls.
It also says that the government agencies involved in the process are to inform only U.S. citizens that they will be registered to vote.
But that's something that the The government does.
But in terms of these citizens themselves, they must affirm that they're U.S. citizens before they're allowed to vote.
Affirm. Sign a document that says you are.
It's just a promise, right?
So Daniel Dale is fact-checking Pence and Who is...
I would say he could have added more context to his statement, but I feel that neither of them did a good job on this one.
I don't think that Pence was clear enough, and I don't think the fact check was even slightly legitimate on this.
All right. So that's the kind of fake news we're getting today.
So here's the context we have.
So we had this Capitol assault, which was the biggest news the last few months, right?
So the Capitol was assaulted.
Some say a coup.
Some say an armed insurrection.
Without guns, I guess.
So we've got this hanging over our head that the election was not credible enough to prevent a Capitol attack.
How bad does your credibility need to be?
And I'm only talking about credibility, not talking about any allegations of fraud.
I'm not saying the election was not accurate.
Those are separate claims.
I'm saying that in terms of people's minds, a huge number of citizens thought it was not credible and gave reasons, as in lack of transparency, as in we don't know if all the right people were registered to vote, etc.
Just lack of transparency.
So given that that's the biggest problem we have right now, wouldn't you say?
The biggest immediate threat to the republic is the country itself pulling itself apart without any external influence.
Or at least, not much of it.
And at the same time, to address the biggest problem in the country, Congress just voted to make it worse.
That just happened.
The biggest problem in the country was a big part of the country, let's say one-third or half or whatever the number is, not thinking that the elections are credible the way the system is designed.
Independent of whether the result was right, a big part of the country doesn't think the system is even designed right.
And then Congress aggressively made it worse.
That was their response to their so low credibility in the system that the capital was attacked, or at least occupied, let's say.
How'd they fix it?
By making it worse. And they did it right in front of you.
It's not like this is even an interpretation.
Do you think that the people who attacked the capital would be less inclined to attack because now you just have to promise you're a citizen to vote?
That makes them less likely to attack the next time?
No. No, it doesn't.
It makes it more likely.
How do you look at the victory and decide to make that a little worse?
Obviously worse. I mean, clearly obviously worse.
This is unambiguous.
So, and then there's complaints that the Republicans are just trying to change the rules because it will give them an advantage.
Wasn't that what the Democrats just did?
They just changed the rules to give their team an advantage.
It's either legal or it isn't.
If the stuff you're doing is legal, and you're doing it through the courts and the elected officials, you can change the rules to benefit your side.
It's not illegal.
It's just shitty.
All right, well, I'm trying to say this without...
Without being blamed for inspiring or inciting insurrection.
I don't know if you have enough National Guard on the Capitol if you keep doing this stuff.
If you spit in the face of the voters enough, and this is just a spit in the face, that's what this is.
This is an insult. This isn't even just bad work.
This is an insult to a big part of the country.
So it's adding insult to injury, quite literally.
And if you don't want trouble, you're going in the wrong direction.
Alright, here's the most provocative idea of the day.
And here's where you get to have some fun.
I'm going to put something out here that you as a collective group could actually make a big difference in a national topic.
Are you ready? And it's funny because it's so easy.
There's something you can literally do, it could happen in the next few minutes actually, that would make a big difference to a national topic.
And it goes like this.
I saw Jeff Pilkington on Twitter.
He wondered why we don't have a poll specific to female athletes under 40.
To ask them what they think about transgender sports athletes playing on women's teams.
Now, why is this important?
It's important because women under 40 are strongly in favor of transgender athletes.
But that's just generally women.
Not every woman would be in any way affected by the topic.
But what about the people most affected?
The people most affected, the victims, if you will.
And I don't call them victims, by the way.
Because as soon as you call them victims, that's anti-LGBTQ, anti-transgender.
In my opinion, it comes out that way.
So I don't think there's a victim here.
Because no matter what you do, there's still just one winner.
There's still just one winner.
Everybody else was going to lose no matter what.
So if you take a situation where there could only be one winner, And there's still just one winner.
I don't know. Doesn't feel like that's the worst thing in the world.
But that's just me.
So here's what I would wonder.
Could we do a poll of just female athletes?
People who are actually currently, currently involved in female sports.
And I would say do it at the high school, college level.
I don't think you need it to do it professional level, do you?
You can throw them in there. But it gets better.
You're waiting for the good part?
Here's the good part. Rasmussen will do this poll if they can find a sponsor.
Sponsor meaning money.
So if there's anybody out there who has access to some money and you would like to see this poll, it's going to cost something because it's not their normal polling setup.
They would have to do a custom thing.
But I just talked to Rasmussen and they say that they'll take this seriously.
You just need somebody to fund it.
So how would you like to know Just say women athletes.
Under 40 is sort of automatic if you're an athlete.
But say women athletes.
Just them. And then just settle it based on that.
And just settle it. Because I think you know what's going to happen?
I'm not positive.
But I think the female athletes are going to be pro-transgender athletes.
I'm not positive.
But I think they will.
And they might be like two to one.
I mean, it might be overwhelming.
Because remember, the women under 40, not exclusive to athletes, but just women under 40 were, I think, like close to two-thirds of them were pro-transgender athletes.
So why do you care if they don't?
You should not care more about somebody else's victimization than they do, right?
The reason that I care about the Uyghurs Being imprisoned in China is that I feel confident that they care about it too, right?
I don't believe if you checked in with the Uyghurs, they'd say, why are you making all this noise?
We're fine.
We got food.
We're good.
No, you should not be more angry at somebody's victimization than the victim.
Let the victim tell you how angry you should be, right?
If you want to have some empathy.
Alright. Did you see the latest Joe Biden video where it looks like Nancy Pelosi shut off the feed when he said he would take questions?
You have to see this thing.
I will never be bored at looking at a new Biden gaffe video, but this one's pretty good.
And it looks like he just ran out of life force or something.
I'll paraphrase it, but at the end of his video, whatever it was, some kind of video event, and he said, well, I'll take questions if that's what you want me to do.
And they just sit there looking confused, and they just cut the feed.
He just offered...
The President of the United States just said he was willing to take questions.
And somebody else, who is not the President of the United States, decided he wasn't.
You watch that in front of you.
Because he said it as clearly as possible.
I'll take questions.
And then somebody decided he wouldn't.
Just think about that.
And people are saying it was Nancy Pelosi cut it.
I don't know if that's the case. But he...
And it made me wonder, if you made a deep fake imitation of Biden and you nailed it, somehow you could make...
We're not there yet.
But somehow if you could make a perfect reproduction of Biden, nobody would think it was real.
Because the real Biden...
Doesn't act like a sentient person.
Because you would just need to make the deep fake make no sense.
You'd be like, oh, we'll take questions.
And you could nail it.
You could pass the Turing test pretty easily if you were trying to imitate Biden.
Because you know what he's going to do all the time.
Or you know what people will tell him to do.
All right. There's new news that China is making all foreigners take mandatory COVID-19 anal swabs.
That's right. If you didn't have enough reasons not to visit China, and there might be a few reasons you missed, for example, you might not be aware that they kill 50,000 Americans a year with fentanyl, Intentionally. Maybe you didn't know that.
So you're thinking to yourself, I'd like to visit China.
But you hear about that and you're like, eh, I still want to visit.
Then you hear, you know, there is very credible evidence that they're harvesting organs from political prisoners and selling them to people who have money in China.
And you say, well, I know that.
But I'm not a political prisoner.
I'd really like to see China.
I think I'll visit. You say, you're aware that they have actual, literal prison camps for their Uyghur minority.
You knew that, right?
To which I say, I've heard a few things about that.
But you know, I've been to a lot of other countries, and I'd really like to visit China.
I think I'd like to go there anyway.
You know they're stealing our IP and cheating on all of our deals, right?
Yeah, but I'd really like to visit.
That doesn't really talk me out of it.
You know the cities are so polluted that you won't even be able to breathe outdoors without a gas mask just to walk down the street.
You know that, right? I do know.
I do know that. I saw something about that.
But still, I would like to visit.
And then they say, you know that China will make you drop your pants and bend over, and they will shove an anal swab up your ass just to let you in the country.
And then you say, what?
Yeah, yeah, they'll actually make you bend over, they'll shove something right up your ass.
Because you're a foreigner. I really want to visit China, though.
Well, if you didn't have enough reasons to not visit fucking China, there's a good one.
All right. Barry Weiss has a real good article in Deseret News.
And it's about how the left is killing itself with their own rules.
And the... The gist of it is that young professionals who are left, so people who are on the left, they're scared to death of talking honestly to anybody, even a friend.
That if you're on the left, they're actually afraid of talking to a friend privately.
Do you feel that yet? If you lean right, let's say you're more conservative, most of this audience probably is, have you ever felt that it was dangerous to talk privately to a friend?
I haven't. I don't think I can think of one example where I ever edited myself privately to a friend.
Like, you know, there are always things that you don't say to some people, right?
But I've never worried about it.
I never thought, what if my friend tells somebody what I said?
Now, I suppose it's a risk, especially if you're a public figure.
You know, people could actually take something I said privately and make something out of it in the news or social media.
But I've never once worried about it.
Never once. Literally, it's never crossed my mind.
But if you're left-leaning and you're a professional, the example that Barry Weiss gave was lawyers, they're actually literally afraid of what their friends will say.
Because they're afraid of their friends.
Because of all the wokeness.
Oh my God. I'm glad I'm not part of that.
Alright. Even though I'm left to Bernie, I'm still not crazy.
So, I always say I'm left to Bernie, but better at math.
Which ends up, you don't get to do a lot of Bernie stuff, because if you're good at math, it doesn't make sense.
Here is my last point.
And the most interesting one.
It's only half developed, so you might have to look into this if you care.
There's a thought from Hoffman.
Is he a physicist or a philosopher?
I can't remember. But he's got an idea that the universe is nothing but consciousness.
And that there might not be any physical stuff anywhere.
That it's just consciousness looking at other consciousness.
And when you say that, you say to yourself, what the heck is consciousness then?
How do you define that? And the idea is that in quantum physics, and I'm going to mess up, I'm going to get all this wrong, so go Google Hoffman and TED Talk and reality, and you'll get the good version.
But the idea is...
That we know from quantum physics that nothing exists exactly until it's observed.
In other words, if a human sees something, the probability wave collapses, to use their words, and then that's real from that point on.
And if you go back and somebody else checks, it's still real.
It stays there. But until something is witnessed by something intelligent, or something conscious, I'll say, And I'll define that in a moment.
It doesn't really exist.
It's just a probability stew that's just, well, could be, could be, until somebody sees it.
But seeing it doesn't require a, let's say, a sentient entity.
The process of seeing something could be a device.
So if you had a detection device, and it detects something, that collapses the wave, just like if a person saw it.
So anything that can be changed by sort of existing or interacting or observing anything else, it becomes real once anything else reacts to it.
Does that make sense? So instead of, say, using words like consciousness, I'm replacing that with like a cleaner, simpler definition, which is anything that responds or anything that...
It would cause something else to have a reaction to it.
Let me give you a trivial example.
If you were the only thing that existed in the emptiness of space and a meteor went by, that being the only other thing, and you saw it, I guess you needed one other thing, the sun.
And there's some stars and there's some sun.
The light would bounce off that meteor, and then that light would hit your eyes, and that would be like an interaction.
So that would be like intelligence.
Because something got registered.
Something changed.
So my brain registered the light reflecting off the meteor.
That became a memory or some slight change.
And that slight change became like a recording.
Or let's say it collapsed the reality into one reality.
Now, Hoffman takes it to the next level, apparently, in which he says we don't have proof that there's anything physical here at all.
All we have is consciousness looking at consciousness.
Now, I can't quite get there.
My brain doesn't even know what that means.
But we're getting really close to understanding something a lot deeper about what all this is.
And I feel as though it's going to be one of the biggest points of enlightenment in human experience.
And the way Hoffman explains it, and by the way, this is the way I've explained and viewed reality for a long time, which is that everything you see and touch is more like a user interface.
And the example you use is that on your computer screen, there's a little Icon for the garbage pail.
But the little icon of the garbage pail is not a garbage pail.
It's a representation of something that you know how to use it by dragging things into it.
But it doesn't exist in the real world.
It's like an icon or a user interface.
You don't know what's happening behind that because you're not a programmer.
You don't know what the bits are doing.
You just see the front, the icon.
And the idea is that everything's like that.
Everything in reality is just a Your brain has turned it into an icon.
You don't know why anything works.
You just know if you push this button, a pellet comes out.
And if you push this button, a pellet doesn't come out.
That's all you know.
And you don't know anything else.
This one's got a pellet.
This one doesn't. But you don't know what's behind the button.
And nobody does.
Now, what are the implications of this?
Let me tell you one, and this is the fun part.
If you read any of my books, some of them behind me, you know I talk about affirmations and trying to steer your reality by just focusing and maybe repeating or writing down the thing you want to happen.
If it's true, That our world is consciousness and flexible to our minds, meaning that we're inventing the reality as we go.
It doesn't exist.
We're inventing it.
How flexible is that?
How much of a different reality could you invent if you were just taking it like an artist instead of a scientist?
Look at my life.
For my entire adult life, I've believed that reality was subjective to the point where I could manipulate it and create a subjective life that I could live in just like it was real.
And in theory, all of us are living in a subjective reality just like it's real.
But I said to myself, if it is subjective, can't I program it?
If it's objective, then I don't have much control over it except the things I directly touch.
But if our reality is subjective, a product of the mind, and there are lots of different ways you could create a subjective reality.
One says, I'm the greatest person and I'm happy.
The other says, I have no confidence and I'm unhappy.
But all the rest is the same.
It's just how you're interpreting it.
So if you can interpret it differently, how much differently?
Is it just that you could be happy or unhappy in the same scenario?
Is that the limit of what you can change?
Or can you change the stuff?
If you believe that the only thing you can change is how you think about the stuff, maybe.
Maybe. Perfectly reasonable assumption.
But we haven't ruled out that you can change your external environment in a practical way.
Practical means that you can live within this artificial reality and it never hurts you.
And it only helps you.
So, you can have different filters on your reality that work perfectly as long as you can also mate and reproduce.
It's the only requirement.
So, look at my life from the outside.
At the age of six or something, I said that I wanted to be a famous cartoonist and rich.
As a cartoonist, do you know how few cartoonists in the world are rich?
A lot of cartoonists.
But do you know how few actually got rich?
It's almost none.
I mean, it's out of 7 billion people, I don't know, 20?
20? Maybe?
Out of 7 billion? So, did I create this reality?
And do you see the same one I see?
Do you even experience a reality in which I exist?
And I'm a cartoonist and I did well.
I don't know. I have no way of knowing.
I only know that I perceive it.
So if you look at where my life has gone and what I've done, it would look to an observer like I had created it.
Just out of nothing. Because things go my way To a degree, that doesn't make any sense even to me.
Like, it doesn't make any sense the number of things that go my way.
I can't explain it.
And the subjective reality theory is the only one that at least is robust enough to explain 100% of what I see.
I don't know that it's true in some sense that anything is true.
I know that it explains everything.
So I offer you this.
I can tell I've received, I don't know, hundreds and hundreds of messages from people who have read my work.
They've tried this affirmation idea, the idea that they can create their environment somehow.
It might be a subjective one, but they can create it.
And have reported that it's changed their life in major ways.
People are telling me they're losing 45 pounds.
I heard that yesterday. You know, 80 pounds.
Now, some of it's using a system and not a goal, but a number of people tell me that they basically just carved their subjective reality into a whole new thing.
And they did it by simply having the intention to do that.
I told you before, the spookiest conversation I've ever had was with the founder and CEO of Salesforce, Mark Benioff.
And he talks about the importance of intention.
And intention is that thing that you're putting into the universe that's modifying reality.
And I didn't ask him this question directly, but I'll bet Mark Benioff has a sensation that he is creating reality.
Because it looks like he is.
Or at least some subjective reality that I also live in.
So, if you focus your intentions, you might find that your subjective reality starts wrapping around those intentions in a way that you cannot explain.
There is no science that can explain it, and it might just be an illusion.
But I'll tell you, if this is an illusion, if it's an illusion that my life dream of becoming a cartoonist actually happened, and that I get to do this every day, if this is an illusion, I'll take it.
Pretty happy with it.
So, that's what I got for today.
Somebody says, that's what my art mentor talks about all the time.
sounds like you have a good mentor.
Just looking at somebody, I just want to see some of your comments because I want to see if I went too far.
more.
Every thought is a limit.
Oh, I like that thought.
Deal with that thought.
This just came in from a comment.
Every thought is a limit.
You're going to have to roll that one around for a while.
Every thought is a limit.
It reminds me of freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.
Have you ever been in a situation where things went so badly that you gained freedom?
And you thought to yourself, what's this I'm feeling?
Oh... Everything went so badly that now I'm free.
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.
Once you realize that, it's a real mind-bender.
And it's also true that having complete power and having no power whatsoever turn out to be the same thing.
And by the way, if you don't know that, that will place you on your level of awareness.
If you're trying to figure out where do I rank on awareness, here's a good test.
Do you understand what I mean when I say that having complete power and having no power at all are identical?
If you don't, maybe you will.
And if you do, you know exactly what I just said.
So there are some little ways you can test yourself along the way.
All right. That's all for now, and I'll talk to you tomorrow.
All right. The homeless guy does have freedom.
Well, the homeless guy doesn't have money, so money would help.