Episode 1323 Scott Adams: Senate Goes Full Racist, Legacy Media Gets Competition, Gun Control Laws, and More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
47% of Dems aren't concerned about border security?
Taiwan's near future fall to China
Elie Honig's opinion on Sidney Powell defense
Biden considering executive orders for gun control
Government algorithm for gun control
Racist Senators won't vote for White people
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, the bestest place in the entire universe.
There are other dimensions we haven't checked yet, but all indications are that this is the best place to be of all reality.
Don't know for sure, but let's test it.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a canteen jug of glass, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, including the vaccinations.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's going to be rocking people all over the world at the same time, hence simultaneous.
And it happens Now, go!
Oh, yeah. Never disappoints.
I just saw a tweet by Richard Grinnell.
He says that the border to Mexico was opened up before California was reopened.
And if that doesn't bother you, you haven't been paying attention.
Well, that does bother me.
I gotta say, that's a good point.
So how many of you have Neanderthal genes?
Have you ever had your DNA tested?
Well, I have.
I got a little Neanderthal genes in me.
And it turns out that that can have a big impact on your coronavirus outcomes.
Now, who told you really early in the pandemic that we would probably find out that the biggest difference in outcomes was genetic?
And it looks like the biggest difference in outcomes is genetic.
Now that's on top of comorbidities.
So the comorbidities are still bigger, but within the comorbidities there are plenty of people who don't have bad outcomes.
So there are people who are, you know, overweight and they're older and whatever, and they just do fine.
And apparently it's genetic.
So the genes can protect you even if you've Not protected yourself with your lifestyle.
And I think that we will find out more and more about this now.
Raises an interesting question, doesn't it?
Suppose, just brainstorm here, suppose the United States had a national registry of DNA. Oh, you don't like that, do you?
You don't want the government having your DNA, do you?
But what if they did? Let's just walk it through.
If they had your DNA, and if a pandemic came through and they could fairly quickly determine, which wouldn't take long, that some genetic situations are dangerous and some are not, given that the biggest challenge with the vaccinations is to get them to the people who are in most danger,
what would happen If you could take the people you know are in most danger, the comorbidity people, and then you could further divide them by which ones are really in danger because of genetics.
Suddenly, you're giving your vaccines to exactly the right people.
At the moment, we're giving vaccines to sort of generally the population that we think statistically has the biggest problem.
But once you have their genetics...
You can give it to exactly the people who need it.
You know, you're getting really close to knowing exactly what a person needs.
Now, of course, there are all kinds of privacy questions and whatnot about anybody having your genes, but here's the thing you need to know.
China is already collecting your genetic material.
So the question you have is, do you want to live in a future where China has your genetic material, but the United States does not?
Because that's where we're heading, and we're heading there fast.
One of the stories that didn't get much play is that there were a number of lab resources that people were using that were Chinese-based companies.
Do you want your blood and your DNA to be analyzed by an American company that's owned by China?
Do you? Because everybody they test, they're going to have your DNA. So I think the world is heading in the direction where governments will have your DNA. So do you want your own government to have it?
Because China's going to. China will have your DNA. Now, to the question of whether China had developed this virus...
To be, let's say, work on some people less than others?
Well, there's no evidence of that, by the way.
So that was just a conspiracy theory.
But apparently there's more Neanderthal genes in Eastern Asia than there is in most places.
So China actually has a high percentage of Neanderthal DNA. But apparently there are two kinds Just having Neanderthal DNA doesn't mean you're good or bad.
Some people with some subsets of that situation can do worse than others.
So it's a little more complicated than that.
But it doesn't seem to be true that the virus is less effective against Chinese ethnic people.
One of the most fun stories of the day is that a writer for Vox, Aaron Rupar, became so famous for tweeting misleading videos that he got in the dictionary.
So the Urban Dictionary now calls Rupar, his last name.
They turned it into a verb, and it means to purposely mislead, mischaracterize a video.
So the video of Trump...
At the Charlottesville fine people hoax, that's a root bar.
Because it's a misleading video, they always cut out the end where he says he disavows the racist completely.
So you just take that part out, and it looks the opposite.
It looks like he didn't. Same with the drinking bleach hoax.
It's just an edit. You take out the part where he's specifying light, which he did before he talked about it, so you knew he was talking about light.
And then when he was done, he brought it back to light, so you knew he was talking about light the whole time, which is a real thing.
But it got Rupar'd. It got Rupar'd by taking off the end and the beginning, so you didn't see the reference to light, and then they Rupar it and say it's bleach.
And then that's the story.
It just got Rupar'd.
Now, there's nothing that makes me happier.
And by the way, Rupar has come after me personally, so we've had some exchanges online.
So I can't say he's my Natural enemy on Twitter, but you know what I mean.
He sort of is.
But he made it into the dictionary before I did, so I call that winning.
So here's an interesting thing.
Rasmussen is going to be reporting today in a poll that says 47% of Democrats are Think that border security is not a vital national security concern.
What? What?
47% of Democrats don't think that protecting your border is a national security concern.
Now, remember what I was telling you about how consuming news from one source, doesn't matter if it's just the left or just the right, science has shown that it causes brain damage.
Now, if you're looking at this story and you're saying to yourself, wait a minute, nearly half of Democrats think that protecting the border doesn't have a national security element to it?
And this is a perfect example.
If you were trying to explain this, how would you explain that?
Would you say to yourself, huh, it looks like 47% of Democrats are really stupid.
But you know that's not true.
You know that's not true.
Half of all Democrats are stupid?
I mean, not more stupid than anybody else, right?
So, it's not their intelligence, right?
But is there some kind of bias in play?
Well, I'm not sure it's exactly a bias.
It looks like brain damage, doesn't it?
Because this is the kind of opinion that you could only have if your brain wasn't working.
Because there's no argument.
It's not like there are two arguments and they're pretty good, and, you know, well, I can see the other side, but I prefer this one.
There's no argument in favor of opening the border.
There's none. Yeah, there's certainly arguments about how many people you leapt through, but there's certainly not an argument that is a vital security concern.
Anyway, so once you realize and you reframe your understanding of the world to say that these people are probably literally...
So this is not...
I'm not giving an analogy.
I'm not speaking figuratively.
Literally and scientifically brain damaged.
And almost certainly...
You can tell the source of the brain damage consuming too much news on one side.
Once you see it, you can't unsee it.
Because it explains everything.
Right? It just explains everything.
Why doesn't this make any sense when you're talking to these people?
This doesn't make any sense.
It's like you're talking to somebody with brain damage.
And it turns out that's literally exactly what's happening.
Exactly what's happening.
So sometimes things are just the way they look.
Here's a story that is sort of teasing us about becoming a big story, and boy is it going to be a big story.
So you know that Taiwan is a little island country that sits just off of China, and you know that China has for decades claimed them as their own, even though they're officially a separate country.
And the United States is sort of, you know, back to Taiwan and giving them weapons and stuff so they can protect themselves.
But here's the thing you need to know.
Probably in the next 10 years, say the experts, China will take Taiwan.
And it's going to be easy.
It's going to be easy.
And the things I know about this, apparently it's been...
You know, war game.
And every time the United States does a war game on this to figure out what would happen if China tried to capture Taiwan.
And the answer is, China captures Taiwan.
Every time. It's not even close.
Because of proximity.
Now what China is doing is quite clever for a long-term plan.
If they were to just start a fight, it's going to get pretty bloody and it's going to hurt them in international relationships forever, etc.
But as China builds up more and more capability around Taiwan, the number of hours it would take to conquer all of Taiwan starts shrinking.
So we're at the point now where China could conquer Taiwan in about a day.
It's about a one-day process currently.
With their current military situation.
Nobody believes that Taiwan could defend itself against a legitimate attack.
Nobody thinks that. And that timing will probably get down to an hour because they'll just keep adding assets.
You know, more missiles, more ships, more capability.
And once Taiwan is completely surrounded and the time it will take to conquer it gets down to about an hour, They'll just negotiate to become part of China, because it'll be their only choice.
So I don't see there's any way that Taiwan could go any other direction, really, in long run.
And I think our military is starting to...
Well, not starting to.
They're warning the same thing.
But the United States has this, you know...
I assume there's some kind of military pact where we would have some responsibility or moral authority to help defend Taiwan...
But what do you do when it's impossible?
It's just impossible.
You couldn't possibly militarily defend it.
It's just not a thing. So here's what you should expect.
I would expect sometime in the next 10 years, China will just take Taiwan.
And it will become a jaya issue for a few years.
Like Hong Kong. And then we'll get over it.
And they will just own Taiwan.
I don't see any other future.
I just can't imagine it would happen any other way.
Bernie Sanders continues to be interesting.
And he said he was very uncomfortable about Twitter banning Trump.
Now, you know, he's no lover of Trump, of course.
But he says, but if you're asking me, do I feel particularly comfortable that the then president of the United States could not express his views on Twitter?
And Bernie says, I don't feel comfortable about that.
So thank you.
Thank you, Bernie Sanders, for being a voice of reason on this.
But there's an interesting trend developing.
And if you're not sort of in the writer's world, you haven't seen it.
And it goes like this.
Right now, we, the public, are at the mercy of the big platforms.
Right? So if you're on a big platform, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, whatever, you pretty much have to do what they will allow you to do or else you're going to get booted off like the president.
So that gives the platforms narrative control.
So if you're saying something that's against the narrative, you just get shut down.
You either boot it off or your traffic is depressed.
But there's something happening that you might not be aware of.
I've talked about Locals, which is a subscription service.
So you could be free of the platform control, because the individuals on Locals just charge you a small subscription fee, and you can just see them directly, and you don't have to get filtered by any platforms, because Locals doesn't do that.
Each of the creators own their own content there.
It's a different situation. But even bigger than that is Substack.
Are you all familiar with Substack?
Now, it's essentially a, I guess I'd call it a platform, for writers who want to escape the narrative machines, and they get paid a lot of A lot.
In fact, some of them are being paid in advance, so they can get a very large paycheck just for joining Substack, more than they would make in legacy media.
And suddenly, they have full access to lots of people.
You have to subscribe, but they have lots of reach.
And suddenly no platform tells him what to say.
So Glenn Greenwald is on Substack and making quite a lot of noise.
And he's become even more interesting than he was, and he's always been interesting.
So to watch...
To watch somebody of his talent level suddenly completely free, it's really kind of fun to watch.
Matt Taibbi, I believe, is also over there.
Another perfect example.
Somebody's saying Barry Weiss.
I think she is over there as well.
So Substack and Locals are both sort of recruiting, if you will, getting the interesting voices, the people who don't quite fit in the official narrative platforms.
Here's the shift that's happening.
The shift is moving away from the platform controlling the narrative back to individual stars.
Andrew Sullivan's another one who's on Substack, that's right.
And Locals is pulling in lots of people.
Greg Gottfeld's on there, I'm on there, etc.
So there's... So this is a big thing, because as the number of people who escape the narrative machines, the big platforms, they will become the new opinion makers.
And there is a trend toward taking the mainstream media a little bit out of the power structure.
So just keep looking at this and see if there's any threat to this subscription model.
Now what I think will happen eventually, and it might require some new company to do this, but I think eventually you will be able to choose your voices and then some service will stitch them together into a channel so that you can say, well, rather than watching who CNN thinks should be on TV or who Fox News wants to interview, I'll just pick my individual writers.
I'll take one Glenn Greenwald, I'll take Scott Adams, I'll take a Barry Weiss, and I'll just make a channel that's just the people that I know are not big fucking liars.
Basically, it would be a channel of people who are not liars.
They could be wrong, right?
I could be wrong about a lot of stuff, but I'm pretty sure I haven't lied to you.
I mean, I can't think of any reason I'd need to.
What would be the reason to lie to you?
I don't have any reason. So the people who don't have a reason to lie, I'm not part of, you know, I've got enough money that if I get cancelled, I get cancelled.
And same with Greenwald and Taibbi, etc.
Their voices are unleashed now, and that's a really good thing to watch for.
I told you yesterday that I thought Sidney Powell had an airtight defense.
Not airtight in the sense that she'll definitely win, but solid defense.
Let's just say it's solid. It doesn't mean she'll win.
And then I watched CNN's Eli Honig, who apparently is a brilliant lawyer, according to CNN, and he disagrees with my completely uneducated legal opinion.
So let's talk about that.
So according to Eli, in order for Dominion to prevail over Sidney Powell, if you don't know the issue, Sidney Powell had made claims about Dominion election systems being...
I don't want to use the word because I'll get banned from social media, but she said there were some problems with Dominion...
Dominion is suing her for making these claims.
And Eli Honig says that Dominion only has to prove that Sidney Pellow knew what she was saying was false and that she's basically admitted it in her filing.
Because in her filing, she says, you shouldn't have believed me.
Basically, I'm paraphrasing.
You shouldn't have taken it as fact.
You should have taken it as my opinion that would need to be verified.
So, do you take the Scott Adams legal opinion or the Eli Honig legal opinion?
So, my opinion is that I'm a reasonable person, and when I heard Sidney Powell talk, I believed exactly what she said.
That she had an opinion, like a hunch.
It was based on stuff, but it was basically a strong opinion.
And that she was advocating that we find out.
In other words, her whole thing was that she doesn't know.
She believes it to be true.
And we need to find out.
Now, if she said we know it to be true, and we don't need to do any research, because we already have the information we know it to be true, well, that would be liable.
Right? If she knew it was not true, and she said it was true, that's pretty bad.
But... I think her case is solid.
So now I've heard the opposite.
And how do you prove somebody knew something that they were saying was false?
How do you do that?
How do you prove somebody knew what they were saying was false?
Especially if somebody's job is an advocate.
If you're an advocate, you're saying some stuff that, you know, certainly could be questionable.
But it's her job to be an advocate.
Of course lawyers say things that might not be exactly true.
It's sort of the job they're in. So I'm going to say again that I think Sidney Powell will win this, will prevail, because it was clearly an opinion.
Clearly an opinion.
In my opinion, it's obviously an opinion.
Because how could somebody know something that can't be known?
The whole problem with Dominion is that it was non-transparent.
Nobody looked at the code, and nobody looked at the whole process from beginning to end.
It hasn't been audited in that fashion.
So I think she wins.
Gun sales are up, of course.
Of course. People are going to buy more guns because there's mass shootings, and because the Democrats are talking about more gun control.
So good luck.
Good work on that, Democrats.
More guns coming.
So, let's see.
Let's talk about the mass shooter.
Everybody's talking about the guy.
I guess he was an immigrant from Syria.
He had mental problems, seems pretty clear.
He was anti-Trump. And...
He was against Islamophobes.
But beyond that, there's not any specific motivation for it.
So we don't know the immediate cause of why he did this.
We just sort of know he might have some mental problems.
It looks likely he does.
I'm going to make a statement you're not going to like at all.
I hate to do this to you, but I have to do this because otherwise you won't believe I'm telling you the truth unless I occasionally tell you something you don't like.
Otherwise you'll just think I'm telling you all you want to hear.
And here it is. You're going to freaking hate this.
In my opinion...
It's just an opinion.
And this opinion is informed by my experience with hypnosis, my experience with just the way the brain works.
And it goes like this.
If you banned the cool-looking weapons, you would have far fewer mass shootings.
I hate to say it.
Now, when I say the cool-looking weapons, I'm talking about the coolness.
I'm not talking about the killing power.
Because as we discussed yesterday, somebody with a handgun can do a lot of killing and it's going to be almost no difference, right, if they're good at it.
But imagine kids playing video games and watching war things and then they're imagining their last moments.
Because anybody who goes into this mass shooting thing, they certainly have to imagine it before they do it.
Imagine yourself going in with this really cool, somewhat military-ish looking gun that you just love holding in your hand.
I mean, you just love it.
Now, if you're a female, or if you don't have an affinity for, let's say, cool objects, you don't understand what I'm saying.
This may be harder for women to understand.
And I'm going to be a little over-sexist here to make the point.
Obviously, some women like guns.
We're all adults, right?
When I make a generalization about gender, in your head you should always say, well, that's not everybody, obviously.
It's not everybody, right?
Plenty of women, I'm sure, like the look and feel of a cool gun.
That's a thing. But I would say, in general, guys are more likely to like just the physicality of it, just the coolness of it.
What happens if you take that away?
It doesn't end all mass shootings, of course.
Like I said, somebody who's crazy or has a motivation is just going to get a handgun or some other weapon.
But I do think that people like this guy, this particular guy who had some mental problems, if you took away the coolness factor, does it look the same?
I just don't know if it looks the same.
You've heard that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
If you build up a big military, don't you think you're more likely to use it than if you hadn't?
Of course. You tend to use a tool just because you have it.
So if you have an awesome, somewhat military-ish looking gun, not really military, it's going to feel like you need to use it.
Because you have it.
And if you're not a hunter...
And you have a bad day, and you've got this cool thing, 1 plus 1, and you've got a bad situation.
Now, I don't imagine that this would have an effect on most mass shootings, because they're either ideological or somebody's crazy or whatever.
But this guy probably wasn't so crazy.
That he wouldn't be influenced by the, let's say, the vibe of the whole situation that makes him look kind of awesome in his diseased mind.
Now, somebody says, nice mind reading.
So it's not mind reading if you're talking about people in general.
Mind reading would be if you're talking about an individual.
But if you're making a general statement about how people act, you can be pretty safe about that relative to guessing what one person thinks.
Now, of course, I'm watching your comments.
A lot of people are going crazy on this.
No! The numbers don't show that.
I'm not aware of any numbers that would suggest one way or the other.
I'm telling you that there's no way the coolness of it has no effect.
I just don't know how much.
Could it be 5%?
10%? I would say that it's at least 10%.
I don't think it's 80%.
Is it 50%?
Could be. Could be.
I think it's less than 50%, but it could be.
Now, I'll add one other factor, the news.
What would it look like if the news did not report these and almost always report that it's the same kind of weapon?
Do you think that this guy would have had this idea to be a mass shooter at this grocery store?
Do you think he would have even thought of it?
Except for the news.
Probably not. Probably not.
No. So you need two things.
You need a news that can't shut up about it.
And you need a really cool weapon.
And then you need somebody whose life is not going well.
Apparently he couldn't get a girlfriend.
He had some mental problems.
I don't think his life was going to go that well.
So, anyway.
Now, this is all separate from whether there should be gun control.
I want you to hear this clearly.
The question of whether there should be gun control...
It opens up all kinds of other questions.
So the question is not just, if you made this change, would it reduce the number of shootings?
You have to weigh that against freedom and protecting the country, etc.
Now, one of the things that I often say about gun control, and the reason that I'm in favor of guns, is that there's at least a small chance...
That you have to protect yourself from the government itself.
And somebody said to me, what are the odds of that?
We've been around 300 years or whatever, and the country hasn't fallen apart yet.
Do you really need those guns to protect yourself against the government of the United States?
Really? To which I say, I don't think it's a big chance.
2%? I would say the odds are 2%.
Now, if you say it's zero, I think you're not in intellectually secure territory.
So I think it's closer to 100% if you wait long enough.
It's just how long you wait.
Because there are no dynasties that lasted forever.
They all have an upheaval.
So the odds of the United States of Sunday not being the United States is 100%.
It's just how long you wait.
Is it 1,000 years or 50 years?
So there is some chance.
I would put the odds at, just for discussion purposes, 2%.
2%.
This is just to do some math, right?
You don't have to agree with that number.
Now, how would you look at the risk...
Of a 2% chance of this big problem, you know, like the government turning on the citizens, 2%.
How would you rate that compared to the deaths by guns?
Well, the deaths by guns you can count, and you can say, all right, we get this many thousand people per year die from guns.
What is a 2% risk that the entire United States would be, you know, devastated by some civil war or the government would turn on the people?
Well, you multiply 370 million people times 2%, you get, you know, 7 million people at risk.
Now, that would be if the whole country was fighting each other with weapons, which wouldn't happen.
But you very quickly, you very quickly...
By the way, this type of analysis...
It's called an expected value.
You multiply the odds of something happening times the cost if it did happen.
Now both of these are guesses, but it allows you to at least have some kind of rational comparison to an alternative.
So the alternative is, what, 30,000 people a year die from guns in the United States?
But you've got a 2% chance of preventing millions from dying.
Millions. So I would say that that's worth it.
To me, as an insurance policy, against that 2% in the short term, but really 100% in the long term, I'd say that's a good insurance policy.
Yeah, so 100% chance doesn't mean that everybody dies, right?
And I didn't say that. 100% chance is that there would be a lot of upheaval.
So let's say a million people died in the Civil War.
Let's say you did 2% of a million.
So 10% would be 100,000.
Do the math. All right.
Yeah, I think the news plus the coolness of the weapons are the two variables that we won't talk about, but are at least a big part of it.
It's not the whole story.
I guess Biden is talking about maybe using his power of executive orders to do something with these weapons.
And I'm thinking, what kind of executive order can you do about that?
I'm still confused about the scope of executive orders.
Like, when can you use them?
How could you use an executive order to make a constitutional right less available?
That feels like a questionable thing to do.
But maybe he can.
I don't know. So he hasn't ruled out the executive orders.
And I guess what they mostly want, or they're asking for, is background check improvements.
I don't know why anybody disagrees with background checks.
And I don't know if this guy could have been stopped with a background check.
But, here's the scariest thing you'll hear today.
Do you believe that you could write an algorithm that would detect somebody who is a potential mass shooter before they do the shooting?
Here's the things that could have been detected about this shooter in Denver.
He's concerned about Islamophobia.
He doesn't like Trump.
Couldn't get a girlfriend.
And there's some indication of mental illness.
Now, if they also had access to the fact that he'd recently bought a weapon...
Could there be any kind of algorithm that could see all of those things?
Say a government algorithm that could look into your financial stuff and also look into your postings and say, wait a minute, wait a minute, we've got a bad match here.
Here's a guy who's got sort of the characteristics that doesn't look safe.
He doesn't have a happy life, little mental problems, and he's got a political motive.
That's bad. And then he just bought this particular type of weapon.
And there's nothing on his social media to suggest he's a hunter.
And there's nothing on his social media to suggest he's just a Second Amendment guy.
Right? Do you think you couldn't write an algorithm that would find the shooters before they shot?
Now, you would find too many people.
That's the problem, right? You'd find way more people than actual people who commit crimes.
But I feel like we're heading in that direction.
Hello?
Hello, Adam?
Yes. Hello? Good morning.
This is Jack with Today Capital.
How are you doing today? Oh, I'm great.
But, you know, I don't need any capital.
I understand that. Actually, as a direct lender, we have 15-plus loan programs where we don't need any guarantee, no personal...
All right. So do you need any additional capital for your business?
Yeah, if you could send me a check, that'd be great.
Probably had more to say about that, but I think he's going to send me a check.
Alright, let's say...
So everybody's talking about the ethnicity of the shooter.
And in the beginning, people like me and people like Kamala Harris's niece, I think it was.
Was it her niece? Yeah.
Her niece said, well, it's probably a white guy with a big weapon.
You may recall that I said the same thing.
I think it's probably a white guy has that feeling about it.
Turns out it wasn't.
And yesterday I had also raised the question about what his ethnicity might be because it hasn't been released.
The longer it takes them to release the ethnicity, the more you suspect it wasn't a white guy.
I feel like if it's a white guy, you know right away what the race is.
But people were saying that since they took him alive, he must have been a white guy.
But that turned out to be the case.
So everybody got to have their biases tested by this situation.
I got my biases tested.
Now, the bias is just, in my case, it was statistical.
I just thought, statistically, the odds are good it was a white guy.
But it wasn't. I saw a quote from, I think, a gentleman who lives in India, if I'm correctly seeing that.
And he tweeted this.
He said, He just said it was brazen that they're just openly discriminating against white people now in the Senate.
You probably heard that Tammy Duckworth and Maisie Hirona said they'll vote against all Biden nominees who are not racial minorities.
So these stories end up becoming the same story.
Because every story just turns into a racial filter.
Oh, the shooter, it's racial.
Yeah, in the comments somebody's saying the shooter was already on FBI radar.
Which means they already do have an algorithm.
Apparently they do have an algorithm that can put you on their radar just by your social media traffic.
And if they haven't yet bashed that against firearm purchases...
Why haven't they? That seems like the obvious thing to do.
So amazingly, two Democratic senators said that they won't vote for white people to fill these cabinet positions.
And I almost don't know what to say about that.
They literally won't vote for white people.
And they said that out loud.
Now, I think it was Duckworth who may have pulled that back a little bit, but they would only make an exception if you're LGBTQ, which is an interesting exception because if I were a nominee and I were an adult white guy who was qualified for the office,
and I knew that Tammy Duckworth and Maisie Hirona would not vote for me unless I were LGBTQ, I would become LGBTQ within minutes.
Because you just have to say you are, right?
I'm not wrong about that.
And if you think I'm joking, no, no.
If I were a nominee, and I were a white guy, and I thought I couldn't get the job because of my race, unless I were LGBTQ, I would stand in front of the public And say, you know, I maybe am not naturally leading that way, but as a lifestyle choice, it is my right to make it.
And I declare myself to be gay for the purposes of employment, and I understand I don't have to actually have sex with anybody.
Because you can be gay without the actual sexual act, obviously.
Heterosexuals who are not having sex are still heterosexual.
So I don't have to prove I'm gay.
I just have to be gay in my personal preferences.
And I would play it completely...
Ironically, I would play it straight.
I wouldn't joke.
And I wouldn't say I was kidding, no matter how many people asked.
I would look you right in the eye and say, yes.
Totally honest. I'm as gay as you can get.
For the job. I'm doing it for the job.
But I'm definitely gay.
For the job. Now, this is one of my perma-trolls, somebody on Twitter called Hampton Stevens.
He saw me tweeting about these issues.
And replying to somebody else, he goes, right, Adams is going full-on white grievance.
To which I tweeted in reply, yes, I am.
Our system works best with guardrails in every direction, and only the people who can survive the blowback have the ability to perform that public task.
You can sit it down if you're frightened.
I understand. So I told my critic that if he's frightened to be part of this conversation, I understand.
He has every right to be frightened.
It's a scary thing.
And the only people who can even talk about this topic in public are people who are bulletproof.
And I'm kind of bulletproof.
So it's almost like this Spider-Man problem, which is, I don't really want to talk about this.
I really don't.
I'm just not interested. But I'm the only one who can.
I mean, not the only one. But there's a small number of people who can even talk about this in public and not have their life ruined.
So I guess I'm one of them now.
Because I can. And it's important.
Full-out racism in the Senate.
Tom Cotton called it down as well on Twitter.
And I feel as if they should be removed from the Senate...
Like, they should really be removed from the Senate.
As in, all of the white people in the Senate should walk out until they are.
If I were a white, straight Republican, I would refuse to do service, I would refuse to do the work of the people until they're gone.
I wouldn't do any work of the public.
I wouldn't do anything in the Senate.
I wouldn't look at a nomination.
I wouldn't even look at the nomination.
I wouldn't even show up until they get rid of these two people.
Because if you think there's something more important than this that they're working on, well, you're wrong.
This is the most important thing that happened in the country that has to get fixed.
That people were openly racist in the Senate and don't think there'll be repercussions for that.
So you need to play by their own game, which is if it's racist, it's racist, and you have to deal with it.
It's the biggest issue. And this is really racist.
This is like super racist.
This is as racist as you can be.
Does anybody feel sorry for the white people who will be victimized by this?
No. But you still can't be racist.
It doesn't work in the long run.
Now, I've told you before the only way to stop the crazy brain-damaged part of the left from the slippery slope that just goes forever into madness is aggressively agreeing with them.
Disagreeing with somebody who has brain damage doesn't work.
Do you know why?
It's sort of in the setup.
It's the brain damage part.
If they didn't have brain damage, well, you could probably reason them.
But they do. So you can't.
So you have to use persuasion, not reason.
And I would say the way to do that would be to embrace their policies and watch their break.
So that's happened with immigration, right?
So the Democrats got to try their immigration plan and got to see it didn't work.
And that would be true of a lot of the stuff they're doing.
If they got their way, if the dog caught the car, it wouldn't know what to do with it.
So sometimes you have to let the dog catch the car and say, all right, dumbass.
Now what are you going to do with it?
Chew on the bumper? How's it taste?
Sometimes you have to let them get their way because they're brain damaged and just see what happens and then talk themselves out of it.
They can talk themselves out of it that way.
So, that's why I think the GOP should just shut down the Senate.
Because that's what the Democrats would do.
If there had been, let's say, a GOP member who had said something that was not just maybe a little racist, not just a dog whistle, but direct.
If some white adult Republican had made a direct racist statement...
Like this. I think the Democrats would just stop the Senate, wouldn't they?
They would just stop everything and say, oh, wait a minute.
This is the biggest problem.
Nothing else is as big a problem as this is.
These two people have to be gone, or we're not going to do any other business.
Somebody's using the example of Representative King.
King is an example of the dog whistle type.
Some people thought they heard it in his words.
Other people said, he's just bad at talking in public.
It's not really there, but you can imagine it if you want to.
That's different. The dog whistle stuff is a little bit mind-reading, and you have to assume you know what they're thinking, and you can't.
But if somebody says it directly, as Duckworth and Hirona did, you have to stop the Senate.
And fix that.
Nothing else matters today.
You gotta fix it.
So, the other way to go would be for the GOP to embrace it and use the aggressive agreeing idea.
Imagine, if you will, that the GOP introduced some legislation to ban white men from serving in the Senate from that point on, or serving in a cabinet position from that point on.
What would you do?
What would happen if the GOP said, well, let's take your lead, Duckworth and Ronnie.
We're going to put together a bill that says that white people can't serve in government.
What would happen? Because if they disagree with the idea, it's just another disagreement.
It means nothing. But what would happen if they said, yeah, let's take this to where you want it to be.
Let's put it into law.
And then put all the Democrats on record to see if they'd vote for it.
See if they'll vote for it.
Put them on record. See how many Democrats will vote that no white people can serve in the government.
You like it, don't you? So this is why I could never be in the Senate, because I would just be trolling the other side nonstop.
All right. Purge the whites.
Yeah, Schumer wouldn't put it on the calendar.
Well, he doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it gets voted on.
It matters if they would do it, because it would be a news attractor.
That makes you overqualified for the Senate.
Yeah, you definitely wouldn't want me in the Senate.
Although that would be fun.
Maybe the Senate would be better than being president, because I could cause more trouble in the Senate.
They're so brain damaged they would probably vote for it.
Yeah, but you were really going for the other half of the Democrats who are not brain damaged.
They just have different policy preferences.
All right, that's all I got for now.
And follow me on Locals.
I'm doing lots of stuff on reframing.
So I've discovered that people like best my lessons on reframing, how to look at the stuff you're already looking at in a different way so that you can deal with it more productively.
So I'm putting up more reframing lessons on there.
And I've been asked a number of times lately by my critics to explain how I was so sure that Trump would win the election even after the election because I was suggesting that there might be some improprieties discovered.
And people say, well, I guess you're wrong.
To which I say, am I? Am I wrong?
We only know that it hasn't been checked.
How do you know I'm wrong on the thing you haven't checked?
Because that's the whole point, isn't it?
Now, we know that the courts did not overrule anything.
We know that Biden's in office.
I'm not arguing any of that.
I'm just saying, you don't know if I'm wrong.
You just know we didn't check.
So I tweeted the other day that sometimes you think I'm wrong, but really you just haven't waited long enough.
That's one of these.
I cannot. Can we get a simultaneous sip every time you speak publicly?
Well, I don't know if you've noticed, but I've stopped speaking publicly.
Has anybody noticed? I just stopped taking interviews.
I'm going to be doing, unless it gets postponed, I'm going to be doing a Clubhouse event a little later this morning.
And I haven't been on Clubhouse yet.
I just signed up, just playing with it this morning.
And I'm going to be, if this happens, I think it's going to happen, I'm going to be defending the indefensible.
So I'm going to be picking a topic which can't be defended.
And then I'm going to defend it anyway.
And I'm going to have a guest. A controversial guest.
Controversial. Oh yeah.
Really controversial.
So look for that unless it gets postponed.
and I will talk to you tomorrow.
I just saw a comment go by that says the Beatles are the best band ever.
I am totally obsessed at looking at old Beatles videos and stories and learning about how they succeeded.
Because that's really interesting.
And when you see that they had systems...
So the Beatles had systems.
They didn't have goals.
And when you look at their systems, it becomes somewhat almost obvious why they succeeded.
They just had better systems.
And I'll give you one example.
One example would be when they were writing a song, different band members would have little bits of ideas of things that are completely different.
And the Beatles would say, well, if you're a little bit...
It's awesome, but you couldn't build a whole song around it.
And then, you know, if George has a little bit that's awesome, why don't we just put the bits together and we'll make a song of all the random bits?
And then you think, well, what about the vocals?
And the vocals, well, we'll just do random sentences.
What? You're going to make music that has random vocals that literally don't mean anything.
And your song will be a hodgepodge of different things that you just like that just were put together.
And that's what they did.
And it turns out that that's a better system.
Because people like music where they like all the good parts.
You've noticed that a lot of modern music has the...
You might have the hip-hop artist with maybe Rihanna or somebody who can sing.
And then you get a little bit of rap and a little bit of singing and you kind of like it.
Because it's, oh, I liked a little bit of that, a little bit of that.
So the Beatles sort of pioneered putting things together that shouldn't be together, sort of the pineapple on the pizza sort of thing.
And they did tons of experimenting and tons of practice and...
They took it from the...
They were stifled doing live performances because they couldn't hear themselves.
The crowds were too loud. And so they changed their system.
And they moved to the studio and started making sounds that you'd never heard before.
So another part of their system is...
They would mic their equipment differently than other people.
I think in one case, a piano was microphoned underneath it.
They would have different devices that nobody else used, different sounds.
And they would just make music out of sounds.
So, once you dig into what the Beatles did, systems-wise, it's pretty impressive.
So, it's not exactly an accident that they succeeded.
I mean, their talent was off the charts, and they had exactly the right people, but their systems were amazing.
