Episode 1373 Scott Adams: CRT is Double-Racist, Putin and the Pipeline Hackers, Fauci Versus Rand Paul, Lots More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Critical Race Theory
Whiteboard: Racism
Terrorist pipeline hackers
Dr. Rand Paul vs Dr. Fauci
Ilan Omar and Fine People HOAX
Palestinian leadership strategy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
You're about to watch me send the tweet to tell everybody to come here.
But because I have one of those computers that takes a long time to turn on...
Screw it.
I can't wait. My attention span is so low right now.
So... Are you ready to have the simultaneous set?
I know you are. I know you are.
And by the way, if this is the first time You've ever joined this live stream?
Wow, are you lucky.
You found the best one.
Today is the best live stream you've ever seen.
And I can pretty much guarantee that right after I send this tweet.
You won't mind waiting, do you?
Talk among yourselves.
There will be a lot more people once I send this.
There we go. Work done.
Now, if you'd like to be prepared for the best livestream ever, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or gels or stein, a canteen jug or flask, 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.
And it happens every time all over the world.
Right now, get ready for the simultaneous sip.
Go! Good work, Ken.
You got here on time.
Punctuality will be rewarded.
Alright, let's talk about all the things that are happening in the world that are fun and interesting.
Oh yeah, there's a whiteboard behind me.
You thought it couldn't get any better?
But it can!
Well, in my ongoing series, Democrats Eat Their Own, Tom Cruise has reportedly returned three of his Golden Globes back to the Golden Globes organization because the organization is not diverse.
Apparently they have zero black members in whatever that organization is.
And I could not be more amused at watching the people on the left set standards for themselves that they cannot achieve.
Let me give you some advice on setting standards.
If you're setting a standard for yourself that you can't achieve, you did it wrong.
It's sort of a simple lesson.
If you can't achieve your own standard, you probably did it wrong.
Liz Cheney is out from her committee jobs, I guess.
So... She got voted out by Republicans because she's very anti-Trump, especially the parts where he makes claims about the election integrity.
And she's going to fight him to the death, and she's going to carry her fight, and she's going to keep him out of the White House.
And she's decided that that's her mission in life.
How would you like to be so broken, so completely broken, That your mission in life is to try to keep Trump out of the White House.
That's the lowest form of usefulness I can ever imagine.
Now, I get that people have preferences about who is president, but if your life has been reduced to that as your primary mission, you've done everything wrong.
You've made some bad choices in your life.
If you find that to be your primary mission in life, thwarting the Republicans from getting the leader that they actually want.
So, good job Liz Cheney in doing everything wrong.
You know, I'm still puzzled about this, what's being called a weak jobs report.
So the story is that there are tons of jobs unfilled, like 7 million of them unfilled.
At the same time, there are lots of unemployed people.
So there's not a good match between the workers who want work, or maybe they just like their stimulus checks better than working, and the job openings.
And I'm thinking to myself, are we not at the point where it would be way more economical to help people relocate and train them if that needs to be done as well?
Because it feels like the problem is relocation, isn't it?
For example, when there were lots of oil jobs in, where was it, North Dakota?
They had lots of openings, but who wants to go to North Dakota and how do you get there if you're a low-income person anyway?
It's pretty hard if you're a low-income person.
A lot of people have never been on an airplane.
A lot of people have never left the state they were born in.
So moving to another state to get a job is not something everybody can do.
And I wonder if we should just have a relocation service that replaces what would be unemployment payments and social services.
So, just wondering if it's cheaper to move people than it is to pay them to not work.
Well, here's more good news.
Good news.
Now that we have a President Biden, I think you'll all agree that world leaders respect the United States again.
Thank you. Thank you, Joe Biden.
And one of the things we can be sure of is that behind closed doors, those other leaders, they never say anything unkind about the capability or the verbal competence of our new president.
So finally, Finally, we got some serious, credible leadership there, and all of the world leaders are respecting Joe Biden in a way that I find quite delightful, and I feel better.
I know that when I'm in public, knowing that other leaders now respect my president, I walk with a little bounce.
Have you noticed that? Have you noticed your shoulders are just up a little bit and Your chin is up a little bit, and you just feel...
You can feel the love and the respect from Canada, for example.
Do you remember when Canada would make fun of our president, and it felt bad, and sometimes you couldn't even go outside?
You'd be in your bedroom, and you'd be, like, rocking.
You'd be like, I want to go outside, but Canadians...
They don't respect my president.
And you'd know that that would be on you as well.
So it was hard to live life under this cloud of other world leaders not having the respect for my president.
But now that that's fixed, And that all the world leaders, they could not have a better opinion of Joe Biden.
And I find that that has a trickle-down effect.
Makes me feel terrific.
So thank you, Canada, and everybody else who laughed at Trump, because finally we got somebody that you just can't laugh at, Joe Biden.
Let's talk about critical race theory.
Now, I'm not going to say I'm a big expert on this topic, but let me tell you what it feels like.
Because one of the things that we're all experts on is how stuff feels to us.
So I can talk about that, right?
So I'll tell you the message that I'm receiving from the critical race theory movement, which is trying to teach...
Teach the school children that white people are bad and that the cause of all problems for black people is racism by these white supremacists.
I'm giving you the hyperbolic version, right?
So obviously there's more nuance than that.
Now, here's my problem with it.
It seems to me that if the basic thrust of critical race theory is that white people suck, And again, that's a little hyperbolic, and I'm summarizing.
But it's basically white people are a historical problem, and they continue to be.
Right? So it's at least racist against white people.
And I feel that that's just objectively true.
Because if you carve out any group and say, this group has too much privilege, or this group has whatever, it's racist by definition.
Some of you saw a viral video going around of a presumably black woman, based on the video.
I don't want to assign anybody's race to them, but I think that was the whole point of the video, is that it was a black mother who was complaining to, I guess, the school board that critical race theory was racist, and she didn't want her black children to go to a racist school.
Now, it happened to be racist against white people, was her point.
But she didn't want to be part of anything that Martin Luther King would have disagreed with.
And even quoted him.
So it was a powerful moment.
And let me say this.
Every white person who watched her take down racism will offer her a job.
Right? Now, I don't know what she does for a living.
I don't know if she's working or staying home with the kids.
I don't know if she's trained to do something in particular.
But when I saw her go in public and very competently and very emotionally take down racism, I just said to myself, I would hire her for anything, right?
Because she has a higher level of awareness, right?
Her understanding of the world is just better than other people.
It has nothing to do with race, nothing.
She just has a better understanding, just a better awareness of things.
So talk about an easy strategy to make your life better.
Just be reasonable.
It works out pretty well.
Now here's my theory on critical race theory.
It goes like this.
Let's say you have a very unfair situation at the beginning, which is trending better, like racism in America.
Very bad history, still not where it needs to be, but I think we'd all agree it's better than racism, it's better than the 60s, it's better than Jim Crow.
It's just not where anybody wants it to be.
But here's my argument.
The value of complaining...
And I'm going to say complaining is everything from critical race theory to Black Lives Matter to anything which is a vocal complaint about the unfairness, starts out being the best thing you could possibly do.
When unfairness is at its maximum, the value of complaining about it in every form, from protesting to who knows what, is very, very high.
But as that fairness improves over time, you get to a point where the complaining has a negative value.
That's where we are.
We've reached a point.
Now, of course, it doesn't mean every pocket in the country is the same.
I'm going to be talking about sort of an average situation here, right?
But as an average, the closer you get to this point where the complaining is counterproductive, The more aware of it you need to be, because you could easily slip into, it just doesn't help.
In my opinion, critical race theory has this problem.
It says white people are the source of the problem, so it's racist.
And it says that black people, and this is the message I'm receiving, this is not my opinion.
Let me be clear about that.
This is what I'm being told by critical race theory, or it's what I'm hearing.
I don't know what they intend, because that would be mind reading.
But what I'm hearing is that black people in America, according to critical race theory, and according to other activists, are uniquely unable to overcome obstacles.
Now, is that true?
Doesn't look true.
Because millions and millions of successful black Americans have clearly overcome all kinds of obstacles.
So if the message I'm getting is that black people are uniquely unable to overcome obstacles, now again, I'm not saying that's the message anybody intends, but it's the one I'm getting.
Is that helping? How does that help?
Because it seems to me that we have plenty of science, and you're probably aware of this science.
If you take young kids and you divide them into two groups randomly, and you tell one group that they're very smart, and you don't tell the other group anything, they're just regular students, control group, the group that you tell are smart will get better grades than the ones you didn't tell are smart.
Children are programmable.
They become what you tell them they're going to become.
What happens to a black kid who gets exposed to critical race theory?
Does the black kid say, oh, I'm in a world full of obstacles.
I guess I won't be that successful because the world won't let me.
Don't you think, without the benefit of seeing a study specifically on this point, don't you think that with everything we do know about how kids are programmed by expectations, don't you feel it's hurting them?
If you were a black kid and you learned that you had obstacles that were unique and that you alone, your group, will be held back in a way that's different from other groups because you can't overcome your obstacles, but apparently Asians can.
What are you going to think about your abilities?
I feel like you're not going to do as well.
And if the whole point is doing better, it feels counterproductive.
So it seems to me that critical race theory is double racist.
It's racist against white people, which it demonizes.
And it's racist against black Americans, because it assumes there's sort of an implication there, without being stated, obviously.
There's a feeling or an implication that black people can't overcome obstacles.
Because there's nobody in the world who doesn't think they have obstacles.
Like, I'm doing pretty well at the moment.
Do you think I had any obstacles?
I don't know if anybody knows enough about my life, but do you think I had any obstacles?
Of course. And everybody thinks they have obstacles, I assume.
But they're different. So Obama overcame his obstacles.
Every famous black person you can think of overcame obstacles.
Every successful black person overcame their obstacles.
So telling kids that they've got obstacles that are unique to them that they can't overcome, it's got to be the worst thing in the world.
It's got to be counterproductive.
And we have to recognize that you need to change your technique when you get close to fairness, even if you haven't achieved it.
As soon as you get close to fairness, you need to take the meat cleaver away and get out the scalpel and see if you can figure out what's going on.
And I think also recognize that the teachers' unions are the primary source of systemic racism.
If we get that right, we're in good shape.
Really, just one thing we have to get right is understanding that the school system is what's keeping anybody poor back.
No matter your ethnicity.
So that's my take on that.
And I want to make this point clear.
That if you had a choice between being completely, let's say, transparent and honest and factual about somebody's history...
So really honest and direct and factual.
Or strategic.
Which one is more likely to work out for you?
The thing that is totally true, but makes everything worse?
Or the thing that might ignore a little bit of truth, but it's strategically designed for advantage?
Always go for the strategy.
Always go for the strategy.
I was saying that about Chappelle, Dave Chappelle.
He said the other day that he's a fan of tactics.
Tactics. Why is Dave Chappelle doing better than other people?
White or black, he's doing better than most of us, right?
And he explained it in one word.
Tactics. If you looked at Dave Chappelle's life, and I don't know much about it, I almost guarantee...
You would see that his tactics got him where he is.
His strategy. All bad.
I mean, I don't know. But since he favors tactics, and he succeeded, and we know that working on tactics helps you succeed, probably.
Probably. And I feel that's why he's one of the more useful, valuable voices.
Kanye, the same thing.
Kanye looks to me from the outside...
Like a systems person, a tactics person, you know, a real, let's say, a student of success.
And those are the voices I think are the most productive.
I'm feeling as if July 4th this year will actually be Independence Day.
Whereas last year, not so much, right?
And specifically, I think that might be the time when the people take power back from the government on some of these questions of masking and distance and what should be opened, etc.
And here's my suggestion.
I think the public needs to set its own deadlines.
I think it's great that the government has something like deadlines.
Because that gives you an idea of what they're planning, right?
So it's good that the government gives us some deadlines.
And I think it's essential if you're in an emergency, if you're in a crisis situation, I do think it's essential that you take your lead from the government.
But once you get on top of a problem, and we're at the cusp of being on top of coronavirus, once you're on top of it, I feel at that point the people need to lead the government.
And I believe that the people need to set their own deadline.
It's great that the government set a deadline, and I think that they're different ones for different locations, whatever.
But I feel like it's time for the public to somewhat collectively, if we can self-organize around it, to set our own deadline.
So while the government is setting a deadline for the people about masks and distancing and stuff, there's nothing that would stop the people for setting a deadline for the government.
Right? But we just say July 4th, if you're vaccinated, the masks come off.
What about that? Or, if you prefer, if you're vaccinated, you can, let's say, eat in the restaurant.
But if you're not vaccinated, take your chances.
It's your choice. I feel like Independence Day is just about the right point.
Can I get some feedback here on whether that seems like the right date?
I want to see if you feel it.
Because I've also said that we need an Independence Day.
This coronavirus is like a war.
I mean, it's exactly like a war in the sense that there's a specific enemy and it's attacking and killing us and we're attacking it back.
I feel like we need a celebration that the war is over and I don't know that our government's going to offer it.
I feel like maybe we've got to do it ourselves.
What better day than Independence Day?
Now, I don't want to do anything that is counter to the science.
Let's talk about the science.
Maybe I'll lead into this with a few other stories.
Is there an asteroid heading toward the Earth to destroy us?
And the government knows, but we don't?
Now, I don't have any information about that, but I'm trying to understand why we're not concerned about the national debt.
Has anybody figured that out yet?
Is there some reason we're not panicked about the national debt?
Now, there are a couple of possibilities.
One is that national debt...
It's not like you imagine it to be, like personal debt.
It doesn't operate the same.
So maybe we just don't have a big problem.
It just feels like it.
So that's one possibility.
My economics training tells me maybe that's true, that maybe you can just inflate your way out of it if your economy's strong enough and you have nuclear weapons, and maybe you just don't ever need to pay it back, and I don't know.
Maybe it's just not a problem.
Maybe it's a one-time massive transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor.
Maybe. I don't know.
But if it's a gigantic problem and our government is not working on it, I would have to ask myself why.
Why are they not working on it?
Do they know that a giant asteroid is heading to the planet?
Because the only reason I can think of for the government not to be panicked about the debt they're creating is they're either, I don't know, in cognitive dissonance, they're in denial, they know an asteroid is going to destroy the Earth in five years anyway, so it doesn't matter.
None of it makes sense, does it?
Yeah, or the rapture's coming.
Bring on the asteroid, somebody says.
I feel like that sometimes.
Let's talk about Putin and that pipeline.
So reportedly, and certainly not confirmed, there is allegedly a group of Russian hackers or Russian-affiliated hackers that are not necessarily part of the government because they're a rogue criminal group allegedly operating in Russian territory.
And they're allegedly behind this pipeline hack that's Essentially, an attack on the homeland.
Here's my take.
This sort of needs to be Putin's problem.
And if it's not, we need to make it his problem.
Like, we really need to make it his problem.
Because this feels a little bit like the Soviet Union putting missiles in Cuba.
There's sort of a line that you just can't cross with the United States.
And I feel like it doesn't matter to us, or shouldn't, whether Putin is directing this criminal group, or if he doesn't even know who they are or where to find them.
I don't think it matters.
I think you have to punish Putin exactly the same, or sanction Russia, whatever.
I think you have to sanction Russia...
Russia exactly the same, whether Putin knows where these criminals are or not, if we've determined that they're in Russia.
Now, we'd have to be pretty sure.
But I don't think you let him say, I don't know where they are, or they're operating independently.
I think you just say, I don't care.
Hey, they're operating independently.
I don't care. Well, why would I care about that?
It's your country.
You're responsible for what's happening...
That's coming out of your country.
Period. Period.
And I don't see us doing that, but of course maybe we don't have confirmation that Putin's...
that they're even Russian hackers.
So lots to find out about that.
I'd say I'd give Putin a week if we confirmed that they're Russian hackers.
Give Putin a week and then I'd just turn off his lights.
And when I say turn off his lights...
I mean, actually, literally turn off his lights.
Just find out where Putin is vacationing and just take out the power grid.
Wherever he is.
Just send a signal.
If he's at his dasha or whatever, just kill that power grid.
I'm sure we can do that.
And just put some pressure on him until he kills these hackers himself.
Speaking of negotiating...
I've been promoting an idea that the hackers should be subject to the death penalty.
Now, of course, if you thought they were enemy combatants, you would say, of course, you get to kill enemy combatants.
But what if they're just criminals, and they're really just in it for the money, which is what they say.
They say they're just in it for the money.
How would you negotiate with them?
Here's how I would do it.
I would not negotiate with them unless they were afraid they would be dead very soon.
Never negotiate with somebody you have not threatened with death.
Seems a little general statement.
But let's limit that to these situations where there's some really bad behavior going on.
If Trump were president, what do you think that hacker group would be thinking right now?
Seriously. If Trump were president, I think he would be saying things out loud that would suggest that they would be captured and skinned.
Yeah, I'm exaggerating a little bit, but don't you think that the hackers would be a little bit more afraid of Trump?
Because Trump, I think, would have complete moral authority to kill them.
And I think we should tell them that we're going to know where they are any day, And that we're going to kill them.
But if they'd like to keep negotiating about this ransom, go ahead.
But you better fucking hurry, because you've got about 24 hours until a missile hits your shack.
Maybe. Maybe.
Now, let me ask you this.
If you were a hacker, and you heard the President of the United States tell you, you'd better settle this in 24 hours, or a missile is going to take out your shack no matter where it is, we're going to kill you in 24 hours.
Maybe don't put a date on it.
It would be better if you said, really soon.
We're closing in.
We definitely can find you.
We have sources already.
The amount of time you have to remain alive is shrinking, shrinking, shrinking.
By the way, do you still want to ask for just as much for your blackmail?
We should say, death is what you'll get very soon.
Death. If we're not talking about killing these fuckers, we're not even trying, really.
We're not even trying.
Now, should we kill them?
Well, that's a different question.
I'm only talking about negotiating.
A separate question is, can you find them and can you kill them and is it legal?
Those are good questions. I'm not even talking about that.
I'm only talking about negotiating.
If you have not put out a credible threat that these assholes will be dead by the end of the week and make them believe it, you're not negotiating.
You're not doing anything.
You're not even playing the game.
And it's a credible threat.
I would think that...
I can't imagine any hacker...
Thinking that they're completely safe, right?
They might be technologically completely safe, but you always have human intel.
There's always somebody who talked to a spouse.
There's always somebody who delivers things to a place and might know something, right?
There's no such thing as being completely safe if you're a hacker.
Didn't they pick up whoever hacked Hillary's email, allegedly?
How do we find that hacker?
How do we find any hackers?
I always wonder about that.
All right. CNN is trash-talking Biden's CDC for not being scientific.
And I was thinking about how many things has the CDC gotten wrong that I got right?
This is important because we're asked to follow the science, right?
So let me just give you a list of the things that the CDC got wrong following the science, allegedly.
And so far, at least according to me, I got right.
You might remember I was the first person in the country, pretty sure, I was the first person in the country to say that our professionals were lying to us about masks having no value.
I don't believe anybody said it before I did in the whole country.
Fact check me on that.
But I think I was the first person.
And that turned out to be true as far as we know.
Now, I know some of you are doubting whether masks work, but I'll just say that all of the experts in the world and every single country agree with me now.
Could be wrong. But every single country...
Every one of them, all the experts in them, agree with me now.
So I think I was right there.
Could be wrong, but looks right.
I said from day one, but not very loudly, and not outdoors, so you'd just have to take my word for it.
I never thought masks were important outdoors.
I was right, and most of you were too, probably.
And science was wrong.
Masks are not useful outdoors.
So I'm two for two, and the science is 0 for 2 so far.
How about vaccinated people needing masks?
From the beginning, I said to myself, because again, it's medical stuff, I don't want to talk out loud about too many of these medical things, I thought, there's no way that getting vaccinated should make you also have to wear a mask, no matter where the hell you are.
And yes, I understand that vaccinated people can still get infected.
Now, it looks like the science is leaning toward vaccinated people probably won't need masks, and probably the recommendation will change pretty quickly.
So I'm three for three, and the science is 0 for 3 so far.
On day one, where the experts were telling us to disinfect all of our surfaces and to wash all of our groceries that we got from the grocery stores, I did those things zero times.
Zero. I washed nothing from the grocery store.
I did not do any hand sanitizing except when people were watching, either to socially signal or because I had to when I was entering the building.
But I gave it zero credibility that I could catch this thing from surfaces.
Now again, I didn't say that out loud, because that would have been irresponsible.
But personally, I treated it as untrue.
Now we know it was untrue.
I'm four for four.
Science is zero for four.
Right? And I would guess that many of you listening to this right now had at least three out of four, maybe two out of four.
Daniel says, this is silly.
Daniel, I'll give you one chance to tell me why it's silly, and then fuck you.
You don't make comments like that without a little, just a hint of what you're talking about.
Is it silly because it's obvious?
That would be a fair thing to say.
Is it silly because I'm wrong?
And then maybe give a reason.
That would keep you from being banned forever from this valuable broadcast.
So Sanjay Gupta was giving the CDC... Oh, here's another one.
How about opening schools?
I was on the side of, I think we should open schools if we know that kids are not going to be the big problem.
And yes, I understand they could bring it home, but now people are vaccinated if they wanted to be, so we should open schools now.
Who's right? Me or science?
You already know, all right?
I'm right. So I'm five for five on science.
The scientists are zero for five.
Am I wrong about that?
Do you think I'm lying to you about the ones that I didn't say publicly, that they were my beliefs?
I don't really have a reason.
Well, I suppose I'd have a reason to make myself look good.
But I'm not lying about it.
I didn't make it up. I'm five for five, and the science is zero for five.
That's just a fact. All right.
So here are the things we know for sure.
Three things that all of us know.
Number one, we should follow the science.
Am I right? We all know that.
You're paying $10 to encourage me to ban Daniel.
I think I found a new revenue source.
I get people to bribe me to ban people who are watching this.
No, I'm not going to do that, but it would...
That would be funny. All right, so we know we should follow the science.
We all agree with that.
I mean, that's just obvious. Number two, we also know that our institutions lie to us about the science.
Any argument? No argument, right?
We know that the government told us the food pyramid was true.
I just gave you all the examples of institutions lying to us about the coronavirus.
So we should follow the science, and our institutions lie to us about the science.
Therefore, following the science is the same as following bullshit, for all practical purposes.
Because if you followed all the science this year, you would have been following bullshit.
So we've all accepted these three ridiculous things.
We should all follow the science.
Our institutions lie to us consistently about what the science is.
And therefore, the only conclusion one can make is that what we're really doing is following bullshit.
And we're pretty happy about it.
Yes! We're the smart people.
We follow the bullshit.
Yes! I'd sure feel bad for those other people who are not following bullshit.
Like, I guess they're science deniers.
Here's how you control the public in three steps.
Number one, persuade the public that following the science is absolutely required of all smart people.
And if you don't follow the science, you're just garbage.
So that's the first thing.
Make sure the public thinks that following the science is just something you have to do.
Step 2. Control the narrative so you're the only one who gets to say what the science is.
Oh, that is not really about the science, isn't it?
It's about the narrative of the people who control the science.
Step 3. Dictatorship.
Because once you get all the idiots in the public to believe they should follow the science, and once you are the keeper of what is the one interpretation of that science, which is sort of what the news slash Democrat machine does, they control the narrative of what the science is.
So what you're hearing is narrative, you're not hearing science.
That's one step away from dictatorship.
Because a dictatorship, you would just need to say it's scientifically necessary.
Oh, we did the science and we found out that changing this rule is better.
Oh, we did a little science and we found out that I should be president for more than eight years.
You see where it goes? As soon as the public buys into science and as soon as you can control what science is, in terms of how it's interpreted, you have complete control.
A little bit dangerous.
Let's talk about this theory that there was a Wuhan lab leak.
You saw the Fauci versus Rand Paul videos, probably.
Rand Paul challenging Fauci for...
Allegedly, I think Rand Paul used the phrase that Fauci favored gain-of-function research in China.
Fauci said in completely clear terms, that is false.
I do not favor gain-of-function research in China.
So what is true?
Is it true that Fauci has funded, or recommended funding, For an entity which had something to do with gain-of-function research in China.
Well, if you look on the internet, you'll find a number of sources that you've never heard of, and people that don't have a national standing, saying, yes, absolutely, Fauci is doing that.
I don't believe there are any major publications that are reporting it.
Are they? I asked on Twitter, can somebody tell me what respectable or credible publications are agreeing with Rand Paul on the accusation that Fauci has funded or is funding or recommended funding for the Wuhan lab and specifically for gain-of-function stuff.
Now, is it true?
Okay, here's the catch.
There's a catch. I'm seeing...
Let's see who said this...
So PuckerUp, that's the username, says Newsweek reported it in April.
Somebody says Tucker Carlson said it.
Somebody says Alex Jones said it.
Now, Tucker Carlson is not news.
You know that, right?
That's an opinion show.
He would tell you the same.
You know that Alex Jones is an opinion show, which is not to say they don't mention science and facts, but those are opinion sources.
So... Beyond opinion sources, where have you seen it?
Tucker Carlson.
So Tucker Carlson refers to the news, but I want a news source.
The New York Times article, Washington Post, Fox News.
Is there a Fox News?
Joe Rogan, again, he's not the news, right?
So the first thing that you should say to yourself is, why is it that the opinion people say it's true, but the news news people, I can't find anybody saying it's true.
I have a hypothesis, and...
It goes like this.
And I'm stealing this from Jacob Koster, who apparently has some expertise in virology.
And he says in a tweet today on Twitter, Jacob does.
He's a Twitter user, not famous beyond that.
There seems to be a lot of confusion between gain-of-function studies and dual-use research.
Gain-of-function is quite common.
If you make a virus glow in the dark, it's a gain-of-function study.
You see where I'm going yet?
If your study is intended for good, but could also be used for evil, let's say military, it's a dual-use study.
So when Rand Paul uses the phrase gain-of-function, what do you think he's talking about?
Don't you assume...
That when Rand Paul says gain of function, that he means military weaponization of a virus.
That's what you assume, right? Did you know until just now, because I learned it just now, I learned it an hour ago, but did you know until I just told you that gain of function just means making the virus have some extra features that isn't necessarily related to anything military?
How many of you knew that?
In the comments, I'm seeing some yeses.
So you were better informed than I was.
Saying noes, I didn't.
Well, more yeses than I expected.
This is a well-informed group.
Relative to the country in general, I'll bet my followers here are far more well-informed.
Yeah, so you're seeing a lot of noes.
Here is my hypothesis.
I believe that it is a true statement, Rand Paul, That Fauci has recommended or been behind some funding that went to some entity that was involved with gain-of-function.
True. I believe that to be true.
I also believe the opposite is true.
That when Fauci says he does not favor gain-of-function and has never funded it, also true.
Can it both be true?
Can the thing be true and its opposite be true?
That he did fund a gain of research, or a gain of function, and also that he definitely did not.
Can they both be true?
Yes. Yes, they can both be true.
And I think that's the problem.
Because Fauci could have funded gain of function that didn't have a military purpose.
Rand Paul could be looking at gain of function as a generic term, in which he would be correct.
And if Fauci is using game of function in the military sense, which is the only part we care about, so why wouldn't he use it that way, right?
It would be reasonable for Fauci to interpret it as military use and to say, no, I didn't favor it and I didn't fund it.
At the same time, maybe he did.
So it feels like a fake argument.
And it's probably word thinking, and it has more to do with just how we define stuff.
That's my hypothesis.
So I'm not 100% confident about that, but that's where I'm at at the moment.
And you should be concerned that you can't find a news source, just opinion sources, you can't find a news source to tell you that this gain of function was really military.
And then the other gray area is if you do gain-of-function research for the purpose of defending against future attacks, in other words, just to understand what could be out there, I don't know, is that the same as gain-of-function to weaponize a virus?
Because you have to weaponize it to defend against it just to know what you have.
I don't know. It's a gray area.
I've got a question for you.
So, Ilhan Omar, As recently as yesterday, tweeted again that she believes the fine people hoax.
Here's my question.
Is Ilana Omar now so isolated from mainstream people that she actually doesn't know that was a hoax?
I mean, in 2021, you should all know that the fine people thing was a hoax.
And it was a rupar.
A rupar involves an edited video In which, if you see just the edited part, you're 100% sure you know the story.
But if you see the rest of it, it completely reverses the story.
That's a Rupar. Now, I don't think that Ilhan Omar...
I don't know that she knows it's a Rupar.
Which would be really scary, because it's general knowledge now.
And it would suggest that she's not part of the...
Normal. Now, remember Biden used to say the fine people thing in his campaign, and he said it all the time, but he has stopped saying it.
And it's been so long since he said it, I feel like we can say he stopped saying it.
And the reporting on Biden is that he doesn't like to say things untrue.
So when he gets fact-checked, he actually stops saying stuff.
Have you heard that? So unlike Trump...
Whether you're a fan or not a fan, it is simply true that when Trump got fact-checked, it didn't really change what he ever said after that.
Whether the fact-check was true or false, he just did what Trump was going to do.
But there is, observationally and reportedly, Biden does stop saying things that are untrue, once he's sure they're untrue.
And I feel like he found out, even, that the fine people hoax is untrue, otherwise he'd be saying it, because he does talk about white supremacy all the time, and it would be the obvious thing to throw in there if he still believed it.
So I think Omar is so isolated that she doesn't even know what other Democrats know at this point.
Now, I don't even see too much the left-leaning news use that fine people hoax as much, so I think they've gotten the message, but maybe it gets to her last.
All right. Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck are back together.
That's the big news.
Let me ask you a question.
We don't know if this is true, but reportedly when Jennifer Lopez was engaged to get married to A-Rod, during her engagement, she was emailing back and forth with her ex, Ben Affleck, and Whose emails reportedly, and who knows if any of this is true, but reportedly were along the lines of him wanting to get back with her.
Now, assuming that Jennifer Lopez was participating in the email exchanges, as opposed to simply reading them and saying, you know, hey, hope you're having a good day, was she cheating on her fiancé?
In the comments, I want your opinion.
If it's true, and I would put a low likelihood that we understand the situation, so don't assume it's true.
I wouldn't want to be the one who suggested it's true.
Because the celebrity reporting is 85% false.
But if it happened, was it cheating?
Looking at the comments, I'm seeing a wall of yes that she was cheating on A-Rod.
Now, I believe that A-Rod's alleged infidelity was reportedly the problem.
I feel like they were both cheating.
Now, you could say to yourself, well, it wasn't physical, and she didn't say, I love you, or I want to get back together with you, with Ben Affleck, and that might be true.
But if she was keeping the exchange going, in other words, if she was answering him in ways which would suggest she was welcome to another email in return, I feel like she was cheating on him.
Was she still married to Affleck?
No. She never married Ben Affleck.
She was reaching out to him because A-Rod was exposed.
Maybe. But at that point, wasn't she cheating as well?
That was a different kind, right?
It wouldn't be physical in that case.
Oh, here's a question.
Cold Steel Fanboy asks, she cannot have a friend.
Well, is your ex...
Who keeps telling you he wants to get back together with you, allegedly.
We don't know if that's true. But is that just a friend?
I would say if you're talking to an ex and either one of you is talking about getting back together, you're cheating.
Sounds like cheating to me.
All right. Let's talk about Israel versus the Palestinians.
Do you believe that we would be seeing this level of violence over there right now if Trump were president?
Do you think that Trump's more full-throated support of Israel would have made the Palestinians less likely to do what they're doing?
It's hard to know.
But I feel like Trump plus Netanyahu were too scary together for the Palestinians to make a move.
But as soon as you put Biden in there, it sort of kneecaps Netanyahu.
He has fewer options.
And I feel like they expect...
I think they expect Biden to back him.
Or at least not to be too opposed to him.
So I would say this is probably on Biden.
My guess is you can't know, right?
But it feels like Trump would have handled this better, or not even had to handle it.
Just being Trump might have been enough to discourage this.
But here are some numbers.
Israel says the militants have fired more than 1,000 rockets since Monday.
1,000 rockets?
Gaza has 1,000 rockets that they can fire in one day?
How many do they have left?
A thousand terrorist rockets sounds like a lot of rockets to me.
And they injured many of their own, people are killed, etc.
But here's what I notice.
I feel as if Israel gets bigger every time they're attacked.
Because as long as Israel is being attacked, they have no incentive to make peace.
Because instead, they can just increase their hold on land.
Every time they get attacked, I need a historian to fact check me on this because, you know, every time might be an overstatement, but it seems to me that when Israel is attacked, Israel gets bigger because it's just one more excuse to say, well, now we've got to clear this security zone.
It wasn't a problem before, but all these rockets being attacked, I guess we're just going to have to build a settlement here.
It's the only way we're going to be safe.
Now, If attacking Israel makes Israel stronger, which I'm pretty sure is happening, right?
Consistently. Every time they get attacked, they get a bigger military.
They get more practice counterattacking.
They get more control of their territory.
It just looks like they get bigger.
So I'm going to add to my list of people I don't have empathy for.
Don't have empathy for anybody who dates Marilyn Manson and then it turns out bad.
Don't have any empathy for somebody who resists arrest and gets killed.
I don't care about anything else.
I don't have any empathy for the Palestinians who are pursuing an obviously bad strategy.
Just obviously bad.
I just don't have empathy.
Now, let me be clear.
I do have empathy for ordinary people who are just trying to live their lives and, you know, they're not political and bombs fall on their children.
Of course I have empathy for that.
But they have to take control of their own situation over there.
I can't be in charge of the Palestinians.
They kind of got to handle this themselves.
And they have the biggest opening anybody ever had in the history of openings.
The Palestinians could simply say to the world, look, we'll stand down, but we need $500 billion.
And then we'll dismantle our military.
We'll just work on building up our own world.
We won't worry about Israel, but we need $500 billion.
Do you think that they could get $500 billion?
I'm just picking a big number, so whatever the number is.
I think so.
Because everybody is so sick of this situation and it's so destabilizing that I think people would say, well, maybe Israel can't pay $500 billion, but maybe we should just chip in.
Just have a GoFundMe.
If the Palestinians set up a GoFundMe account...
In return for giving up their weapons and said, for example, if it reaches 500 billion, we'll lay down our weapons.
Now, it's not practical, I don't think.
But if you give somebody such an easy way to make their life better and they won't take it, I just can't care about it.
So I would say that Israel is doing exactly what they need to do.
There's talk about it escalating into a major war.
Well, it should, shouldn't it?
Shouldn't the Palestinian situation escalate into a major war?
It should. Now, I'm not saying I want it to, but I don't know how they're going to solve the problem without that.
How would Israel ever solve this without a major push?
Including ground troops and pretty massive destruction.
I feel like that's where it's heading.
And, you know, I feel sorry for the people who are not political, but you've got to take care of yourself.
Hamas controls and buys support of...
Yeah, there's a lot going on over there that makes it impossible for progress to be completed.
I'm just going to look at your comments for a moment.
Derna says, Palestine receives billions in aid every year.
The reason for the violence is the leaders.
They want first dibs on the money.
Yeah, you know, you have a problem every time your leaders have different incentives from the people they are leading.
I think the Palestinian situation is one of those.
I think it's a situation where the leaders don't have the same interest as the people.
And then you can never get an outcome because the leaders want conflict.
That's what gives them their power.
So I don't expect that with the current leadership there's any chance of the Palestinians doing well.
Joe says, I can't believe the people tolerate Israel.
So you've got some anti-Israel people here.
Well... I have to admit that my opinion has evolved on that.
There was a point when I would think to myself, hey, this looks very unfair, it looks like apartheid, etc.
But when you get down to the practical element of it, the practical element is you shouldn't ask a country to do something you wouldn't do.
And if I were Israel, I would do exactly what they're doing.
Because it's in their national self-interest.
So I don't know how you ask anybody to do something that's not in their national self-interest.
So when I used to be complainy or critical of Israel, now I'm more likely to look at it and say, okay, what's in their national interest?
Well, it's what they're doing.
It looks like they're pursuing their national interest.
If you look at the Palestinians, and they ask the same question, are they pursuing their national interest...
I'd say, no, not even close.
They're pursuing some kind of psychological motivation that has nothing to do with what's good for the people.
It's just unrelated.
So if you watch one group pursuing what is obviously their national interest, I'm pretty happy with that.
If you see another group doing the opposite, well, no empathy.
So rather than saying who's right or wrong, which I think is an impossible conversation, saying stuff like, who really owns the land?
There's nowhere to go with that, right?
There's nowhere to go with who really owns the land.
If you want to solve things, don't do that.
Useless. Because that's just a power thing.
But you can certainly say one country is pursuing their own self-interest, which is what you'd hope for every country, and one isn't.
That's fairly clear.
AA, you're high.
You're talking to somebody else, I guess.
It is not Palestine...
Alright, so that's what I call word thinking.
Palestine. If you say that Palestine isn't real or doesn't exist, that's word thinking.
There's nothing there.
We should just ignore you.
That's not reasoning.
That's just... I think I'll define the word this way.
Alright. CM Clary says Scott isn't nearly as informed as he pretends to be.
Well, fuck you.
Remove.
All right.
I like Trump best when he spoke to the United Nations, encouraging all nations to take care of themselves.
Yes. Uh...
Scott's airplane. No, we don't have any airplanes anymore.
Christina sold her airplanes.
She had two airplanes.
One she got in a trade, and the other one wasn't optimal for the kind of flying she does.
Why is being yourself bad advice?
I was going to say the three worst pieces of advice in the world are...
The three worst pieces of advice are be yourself, number two, follow the science, and number three, pursue your passion.
Three worst pieces of advice.
Quickly, be yourself is a loser philosophy.
Be yourself means that you're still shitting your diaper, not learning to speak, and being nursed by your mother.
Does that sound like a good strategy?
How about instead of being yourself, literally the worst advice anybody ever gave anybody, how about you be better?
Compare the two.
Be yourself versus be better.
Improve. Try to be useful.
Being yourself is like a complete abdication of any responsibility to be a social human in the world, right?
You should be trying to improve.
Be yourself is what every loser believes is a good philosophy.
By the way, you'll never see somebody who believes this is true who's not struggling in life.
Number two, follow the science.
I talked about that.
We don't have that capability, right?
All we follow is the narrative of somebody who's fooling us about what the science says.
That's all we have. We can't follow the science.
And the science is wrong so often that I'm not even sure it makes sense.
You know, the number of times science is wrong.
So follow the science makes no sense, but certainly review the science and consider the science and take the science seriously and try to Try to triangulate and get different opinions on the science.
That would make sense. But follow the science is stupid.
There's no other way to say it.
It's just stupid. Because you'd be following the narrative.
You can't follow the science. And then pursue your passion.
I talk about this in my book, How to Filled Almost Everything and Still Win Big.
You should follow what makes you useful and successful.
If I were to follow my passion...
What would I be doing?
Well, nothing useful.
It would just be following my passion.
My passion doesn't have any practical outcomes.
So don't follow your passion.
That's for losers.
If you can find a way to get rich and it also is fun and enjoyable and even makes you passionate, that's great.
But I would submit to you that success makes everything look more fun.
Right? If my job were, yes, as Carol, I think, is saying, science is not as static.
So what is science changes tomorrow, and which one do I follow?
Yesterday's science, today's, who knows?
Somebody says, now I'm with you.
Somebody just saw a wolf and her puppy run through your backyard.
Wow. Are we witnessing the end of Western civilization?
Well, we should.
Western civilization should end.
Now, that doesn't mean it's going to be worse, but the only reason that it's Western civilization is that at one point things had not been as settled as they are now, so West meant something.
Shouldn't we be a melting pot in which our culture is evolving?
I don't think that a static culture Is necessarily a positive.
I think that an evolving culture is likely to be better if you're careful about how it evolves.
You could evolve in a bad way or a good way, right?
But I would submit that evolving can be good.
And that I'd rather be an evolving culture than just always the Western culture and just staying that way.
Yeah, and I would argue that Eastern culture has evolved quite a bit.
So... We're not evolving carefully, Colin says.
That may be true, but I don't think we're evolving in a dangerous way.
We are going backwards.
There's probably no time in human history where the current generation of older people did not believe we were heading backwards.
One of the benefits of being my age is you get to live through a whole bunch of situations.
And one of the situations I've lived through, I don't know how many times, is people telling me that this generation, this new generation, man, they're going to be all losers.
The last generation was great.
My generation, terrific.
But that next generation, a bunch of losers.
How often have people been saying that?
I think that's been said since the time of Plato, right?
Or Aristotle? I believe there's like some old Greek saying in which people were already observing that it looks like the next generation is going to hell.
