Episode 1569 Scott Adams: How We Confuse Politics With Mental Health Problems. They Are Actually Different
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Elon Musk, future Robot Lord of the Universe
Bill Maher hammers Democrats hard
MSNBC, toxic narcissists and overt racists?
Whiteboard: Left versus Right
Rittenhouse case, a Rosetta Stone
The Mother Cuffing FBI
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Yeah. A lot of people are waking up dead, but not you.
You're waking up alive and I respect that.
And if you think today could get any better, And you're thinking to yourself, I don't think it could.
It's already pretty good.
I don't think it could get better.
It can. It's called the simultaneous sip.
It makes everything better.
And you're about to experience it if you're here live.
If you're here recorded, it still works.
Still works. But not quite as well as live.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a gel, a stein, a canteen, jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind, filling with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dope, mean hit of the day, the thing that makes everything, everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go. I'm being asked on YouTube if I only have one sip of coffee per day.
That's all I need, this one sip, and I'm good for the whole day.
No. Coffee is like money.
Do you know what I learned about money when I was an economics major?
More is better.
That's one of the few things you can say about economics that works every time.
Money, more, is better.
All right. Would you like to go deep with me?
Would you like to go deep?
We're going to do some crazy shit right now.
Alright, here's where I blow your mind.
I tried this out last night with my private locals channel.
So they've seen this. I'll give you the quick version so they don't have to watch it again.
Elon Musk. What's his big plan?
Oh, I think I figured it out.
A little pattern recognition and I put it all together.
What are the companies that Elon Musk is investing in or owns?
Artificial intelligence.
He's into that big...
Neuralink, the thing that reads your brain waves.
Electric cars, but also electric batteries.
Batteries, very important to the story.
Humanoid-like robots.
Tesla announced that they're going to build a robot that has a humanoid look.
See where I'm going yet?
Mission to Mars.
See where it is yet?
He's going to be the first transhuman.
Take your new Neuralink technology, upgraded a few versions, and pretty soon he has mapped his own mind.
And he can take his mind map and add it with all the interviews he's done in public.
And you can create Elon version 2.0 and put him in a Tesla robot.
Not done yet.
Not done yet.
He isn't just going to be the first transhuman.
He's going to be the first transhuman augmented by the most advanced artificial intelligence in the world.
Do you see it yet? Do you know how hard it will be to go to Mars if you have a human body, if you're an organic entity?
Very hard. You might die.
How hard would it be to go to Mars if you were a robot?
Much easier. Elon Musk is going to be the first transhuman.
He's going to make his base on Mars, and he's going to rule the galaxy by using AI to take over everything that he hasn't already taken over.
That's right. Elon Musk has an actual functional plan to become the robot lord of the universe, and I don't think anything can stop him.
And by the way, I'm completely serious.
There's not a bit of sarcasm or humor in this.
I mean, it's funny sounding, but look at the assets he's compiled.
He literally has found a way to beat death.
In a sense. Because his robot can just keep continuing and it can get upgraded because it'll probably have a trust fund to fund it forever.
So he can get new parts, get new AI, upgrade, until he's the most powerful entity in the universe and might still control his entire fortune.
Because I don't think there's anything that stops a robot From controlling a trust fund, if the trust is set up that way.
Might need a human to, you know, co-sign for the robot or something, but basically you could do it.
So, the richest person in the universe has found a way to beat death and also rule the universe from his robotic entity in the future.
Just thought I'd throw that in there.
So you know what's ahead. You want another twist?
Oh, I'm not done.
Here's the final twist.
If you think that my vision of what he's putting together is possible...
Oh, and by the way, throw in Starlink, his satellite network, so that his robot will be able to have instant communication around the world without the interference of the government.
Because the government could shut down the Internet, but they can't shut down Starlink.
You will have the only unshuttable network.
In existence. And he will own it.
Or his robot self will.
Yeah, his low latency satellite network.
But here's the real mind effort.
You know that Elon Musk believes in the simulation, right?
That we almost certainly are a simulated world and not a real one.
And the funny thing about a simulation is, if there's even one, there's almost certainly lots of them.
Because you wouldn't make just one.
And even the simulation itself would create sub-simulations.
If it were a good simulation, it would invent its own simulations.
And so on and so on.
Turtles all the way down.
Now put those two ideas together.
That if the simulation is what reality is, and the numbers strongly suggest it is, and Elon believes it's true, And if it's possible in our simulation to create an Elon Musk robot that looks just like Elon Musk and acts like him, there's a billion to one chance he's already that robot.
That's all. That's all.
There's a billion to one chance he's already the robot.
Alright, that's just for fun.
Here's also for fun.
I saw a tweet by Paul Collider talking about a person who has invented a solution to basically everything.
Okay, I might be exaggerating a little bit, but I think he made a solution to everything.
Now I had a similar idea, but mine wasn't nearly as good.
Does anybody remember me talking about heat chimneys as a way to create energy while scrubbing CO2? Does anybody remember me saying that?
Now the way a heat chimney works is you would build, let's say, a mile-high chimney...
And you would find that the hot air would go into the bottom of the chimney, and it would rise very quickly, especially if, you know, you've heated the top of the chimney with the sun, let's say.
So, because warm air rises, right?
So at the top of the chimney would be cold air.
At the bottom coming in would be the warm air.
So actually, you don't need to heat the top of the chimney.
The air will just automatically go up.
I think. Now, This concept has been far, far improved, because it turns out if you have a big enough one of these, let's say you have multiple mile-high chimneys in the same place, they will actually create clouds.
Now, that's something I didn't know.
So the temperature differential, and I guess the fact that the warm air is being cooled, releases moisture.
So what you would do is you would end up creating a rainy climate very locally, like super locally, you would have the weather you wanted.
So you could create water out of nothing, create water out of the air, you could use that to farm in places that you couldn't farm before, let's say a desert, and it would grow a bunch of plants that you couldn't grow before,
And those plants would capture CO2. So you can capture CO2 by building these seed chimneys, create water, create electricity, capture CO2, and what else does it do?
And it's good for growing plants, of course.
I suppose if you had a greenhouse, you'd pump CO2 into it.
So it improves power generation, stabilizes planetary temperatures, gives you fresh water anywhere, Removes CO2. And apparently he's going to compete for the Elon Musk X Prize, the $100 million prize to scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Now, I imagine that somebody will win that with a different technology.
But apparently, from an engineering perspective, there's nothing about this that can't be done.
Isn't that cool? There's nothing about this idea that can't be done.
So this is all pretty much well-understood science.
You know, nothing has to be invented.
You would just have to engineer it.
All right, on a less happy note, the Nordstrom store that is just down the road from me in Walnut Creek, California, was hit by a mob of 50 to 80 people, I think 80 is the official number, who simultaneously had ski masks and clubs and stuff like that, And ran in and just ransacked Nordstrom and ran out to waiting cars.
Now, I almost didn't want to talk about this story because you don't want to give people ideas because it totally worked.
Very few people got arrested because there were just so many of them and nobody saw it coming.
But I would like to add this to the simulation.
Will there ever be one of these flash mobs of looting a store at exactly the same time a mass shooter is in the same place?
Is the simulation going to serve that up to us?
Because you have your mass shooters.
That's a thing. Way too many of them.
And I suspect that this mob looting thing is going to grow.
So you're going to have a bunch of them.
Can this simulation ever give us a situation where the mass shooter is in the same place as all the looters?
Two problems that solve themselves?
That's all I'm saying. I don't think it's likely, but it's a non-zero chance that the mass shooter will kill all the looters and the police will just have to go there and take the bodies away.
So it could be a self-correcting problem.
If we get enough mass shooters, they will cancel out the mass looting.
So that's the optimistic take.
I like to look on the optimistic side.
Well, Bill Maher continues to make news every single Friday.
I guess his show is going to go on hiatus for the winter, so it won't be as much.
But he is hammering the Democrats like nobody's ever hammered him.
I don't think the right has ever laid a glove on the left, because everybody just stays in their bubble.
But when the left is being pummeled by someone who's inside their bubble, I think it hurts a little more.
And he's talking about how the Democrats are completely out of touch with America...
Especially white, non-college educated America.
And he went pretty hard at it.
And I ask you this.
Why can Bill Maher see this so clearly?
I mean, everything he's saying about his team is just 100% accurate.
There's just nothing to argue with.
Why can he see it?
And the others can't.
Tell me what you know about human nature.
And tell me why he can see it.
But his party can't.
Somebody says ratings. Follow the money.
But I don't think he's doing it for ratings because he would do better on ratings if he just stuck with a team.
The best way you can do ratings is to stick with a team.
So he's actually going against his money interests.
I think his crowds actually have shifted now.
He has more conservatives.
But I don't think he did it for the money because that would have been a dumb play.
Like, nobody would have thought that would have worked.
And I don't know if it is working.
He likes conflict? No.
No, that's not it.
I mean, he might, but...
Mindset? Marijuana?
That's not a bad guess.
Experience? He understands human motivation?
Yeah, there's some of that for sure.
Well, I think part of it is because he's tried to put himself in the middle of topics, meaning that to try to see both sides.
Here's my take. I think that he's...
Yeah, maybe mushrooms.
Mushrooms might be part of the story.
But I think Bill Maher has trained himself to see both sides.
That's it. I think it's a skill.
I think it's a learned skill.
Probably you have to be born with a little bit of a certain kind of mind.
It probably does help.
If he had ever experimented with psychedelics, it probably did help to get you out of your box.
But I think it's a learned skill.
I think by not being slavishly on one side of every topic, his brain is just now optimized to be able to see what other people can't see.
Now, by the way, that's a real thing.
It's called reticular activation.
You know that effect where you can hear your name in a crowded room, but you can't pick out any other words?
You know, the background noise will be...
Scott.
And you'll be like, what?
The only thing I heard out of all that rumble was my name, clearly?
What's up with that? It's because your brain can tune itself to notice things if you practice.
In fact, you can actually practice noticing opportunity.
This is a real thing.
It's been studied. If you just tell yourself you have good luck and that you're optimistic, everything's going to work out for you, it changes your actual field of view.
Not field of view, but your perception.
You actually see opportunities that you wouldn't have seen before because you can tune your brain to spot things.
Here's an example from my own life.
As an older teenager, I once found $20 on the ground.
And that was a lot of money when I was a teenager.
That would be more like $100 today, right?
So if you imagine a kid finding something the equivalent of $100 laying on the ground, it causes you to look at the ground a lot.
So I somehow became trained to expect money on the ground.
Do you know how many times I've found actually cash money, like paper money, on the ground?
A lot! I don't know how many times all of you have found actual money on the ground, but I've probably done it 30 times.
Cash money, like lots of dollar bills, just laying on the ground next to the road.
And it would be a road where lots of other people have walked.
And for some reason I found it and other people didn't see it.
A lot of you are saying the same.
So my hypothesis is that you can train your brain to see things that other people don't see.
Will you accept that?
Will you accept the premise that a person can train their brain to notice things that you wouldn't otherwise notice?
I think that's fair, right?
And I think that somebody like Bill Maher, who makes his career...
To at least understand the argument on both sides.
I believe he's trained his brain so he can see it.
That's all. I think it's as simple as that.
Alright. MSNBC appears to be sort of a mental health crisis masquerading as a news organization.
And I say that in all seriousness.
Because the I guess the tone and the Guests and everything about MSNBC. And by the way, I don't really see this on CNN. If you watch CNN, it looks like you have angry partisans who are just taking a side.
But when you watch MSNBC, it doesn't look exactly like that, does it?
CNN is mostly just side-taking, and then just people say whatever the narrative is on their side, they just repeat it.
But on MSNBC, it actually looks like a mental health crisis.
And I'm not kidding even a little bit.
I'm going to be completely serious.
It looks like a mental health crisis.
And I'll give you even the specific mental health problem.
It looks like a vulnerable narcissist situation.
Or toxic narcissists.
You know, there are other names for it.
What are some of the things you would expect from an individual who's a vulnerable narcissist?
Let's say you catch them in being wrong.
You find out that they have a fact wrong, or you call them out in a lie.
How does a vulnerable narcissist respond?
They will attack you personally.
Right? Right? They attack you personally.
They don't say, well, what about your philosophy?
They call you a white supremacist.
They call you a racist.
They call you a sexist.
They call you names. So vulnerable narcissists don't address the argument.
They will call you names.
Who does that?
CNN a little bit.
But MSNBC, it's their whole gig.
Is labeling people as bad people.
Now, what's the other thing that vulnerable narcissists do?
Far more than the regular public, although I guess we all do it a little.
Projection. Yeah, a vulnerable narcissist will rob a bank and then accuse the police of being bank robbers.
And the police will say, we're literally police.
We literally just caught you walking out of the bank with a gun and a bag of money, and we've got 15 witnesses.
And we're the police.
We're the police arresting you.
The vulnerable narcissist will look right at them and say, you robbed this bank.
You're the bank robber.
And everybody who's watching will say, I don't even know what's going on here.
Right? Right.
You know somebody like that.
You know you know somebody like that.
They lie and call you a liar.
They're racist and they call you a racist.
Now MSNBC has gone full overt racist.
In fact, one of their guests today, somebody named Cross, again called Kyle Rittenhouse a white supremacist.
For which there's no evidence whatsoever and all the evidence which suggests he's not.
But on MSNBC you can actually go full racist and nobody makes a peep.
What? What?
How is that okay? How is that suddenly okay?
All right, to me that looks like a mental health problem, but here's the thing that really came out of...
I'm going to take this in a little bit slightly different direction.
The Rittenhouse case tells us the whole problem.
I think. And I'm going to go to my white supremacist board.
It used to be called a white board, but I've been watching a lot of MSNBC. And I realize that if you call it a white board, you're just buying into white supremacy.
So I'm just going to call it a white supremacist white board.
So MSNBC has something to talk about.
I could call it the black board, because as you know, I identify as black.
Oh, let me do that.
Since I identify as black, I'll just call it a blackboard, because it's my board.
It's not your board, it's my board, it's a blackboard.
Alright, so we'll go to the blackboard, and I'll tell you what I think is the whole problem.
In the Rittenhouse case, the most bizarre thing happened, and I'll bet all of you saw this.
How many of you saw somebody on the left say something like this?
If Rittenhouse had been black, what would have happened?
How many of you saw somebody say something like that?
If Rittenhouse had been black, what would happen?
And what did your brain do when you heard that?
Didn't your brain just explode and say, what?
What? What is wrong with you, right?
Your first impression was probably, what the hell is wrong with you?
Why on earth would the race of the people involved make any difference?
Like, how is this racial?
It's a whole bunch of white guys.
How in the world did this become a racial question?
And by the way, if a black man had done exactly what Kyle Rittenhouse would do, what would the right be asking?
When can we vote for him?
Am I right? That's what the right would be asking.
If exactly the same thing, but Rittenhouse had been black, they would say, when's he going to run for office?
I want to vote for that guy. Now, if you're on the left, you don't get that at all, do you?
I don't think there's anybody on the left who understands that even a little bit.
Why? Why don't they understand that?
I will tell you.
Watch this. This is going to blow your mind.
Now, I'm going to bring together some things I've said before in different ways.
But when I bring this together, I think this is going to blow your frickin' mind.
Watch this. Now that I've oversold it.
Totally. Here's what I see from the left and the right.
What I see is that the left has one filter.
They have one filter on life, which is grievance.
Their worldview is that whatever their situation is, is caused by other people who did better.
Sometimes they did better because they were terrible racists and they had slaves, whatever.
But sometimes they just did better for a variety of reasons.
But the left only has one filter.
What happens to you if you only have one filter?
Well, things don't go well.
Things don't go well at all.
Because life is somewhat subjective, meaning there's not the one preferred way to look at everything and you're done.
Rather, you need a variety of filters...
For a variety of situations.
I would argue that on the right, they have a variety of filters.
There's your Constitution. And depending on the topic you're talking about, they might be talking about the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, might talk about the court systems.
But basically, they have a systems view.
Well, we've got a system that takes care of this stuff.
They also have a Bible filter, which is also a system.
The Bible's a system.
It says if you act in this way every day, or as much as you can, you get a payoff in the end.
Bible is a system.
Constitution is a system.
Small government is a system.
Because every day you have to work at keeping it small.
You want to raise my taxes?
No. You want to create a new department?
No. You have to work at it every day to keep it from growing.
That's a system. And the system says if you can keep it small by working at it really hard, getting your Republicans in office, etc., whatever it takes, then you get better results.
We don't know the specific result, but overall, if you use these three systems, you get good results on average.
Very imperfect. Very imperfect, right?
Systems are imperfect. But the best we have.
And then also family is another system.
Family isn't a goal.
It's a system that for many people works very well, especially if you combine it with the Bible filter.
The Bible plus the family, two good systems that work together pretty well.
Now, I remind you that I'm not personally a believer, but it's obvious that as a system, religion works very well with family.
In fact, I wish I had that ability to believe because I think it's an advantage in life.
I just don't have it.
Now, I'm going to take it to the next level.
So the first level is that on the right, people have several filters to look through, and they can change out their filters as they need to.
Oh, this is a Bible filter.
This is a family filter.
This is a government filter.
This is the Constitution. So when the Kyle Rittenhouse case comes out, what do the people on the right do?
They change their filter to the one that makes sense.
They change their filter to the one that fits the situation.
The Second Amendment.
And they say, self-defense?
Okay, we're done here.
That's it. I put my filter on it.
We have clear evidence of self-defense with firearms.
Nothing to see here.
It's done. The filter got the same answer as the court system.
Right? So nobody on the right was confused when the courts...
Agreed with them that their Second Amendment filter on this was accurate.
Now imagine how lost you would be if you only had one way to look at the world.
A grievance filter.
And you have a situation that has no race in it whatsoever.
But you only have this.
That's all you have.
Just one filter. You've heard the old saying, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
That's the problem. The problem is that the MSNBCs and the CNNs of the world have hammered this one filter so much that they only have one.
They don't have the ability to do what conservatives do naturally, which is to move back and forth to the filter that makes sense.
Now, if you think all these filters are really just the same filter, they're not.
Let me give you an example.
What happens when your government filter conflicts with your family filter?
Trouble, right? Big trouble.
Big, big trouble.
All right, so these filters don't always work together.
But in a situation like the Rittenhouse case, it's a perfect system.
Just put it through the filter.
Boom, you predicted. Now, what do I tell you about your filters?
Are some filters true, like they really nail reality, and some less true?
Is that what I say about filters?
No, filters are not about reality.
Because we don't have brains that can see reality.
Never have. Never will.
I don't have one. You don't have one.
Einstein didn't have one.
Our brains, they never evolved for us to clearly see reality.
We're not even close. So we all have this little movie that's playing in our head.
So what do I say about filters?
How do you know you have a good one?
How do you know you have a good filter?
What's the one and only way you know it's good?
Exactly. Prediction.
If your filter accurately predicts, then keep it.
And keep it. If it stops predicting, get rid of it.
And that's it. Forget about what is true and what is false, because you can't tell.
But you can tell if it predicted.
Now, whose filter predicted Kyle Rittenhouse would get off?
Constitution filter predicted that.
And it predicted it with certainty.
Am I right? I mean, you were worried, but it was a pretty clean prediction, I think.
And what did the people on the left say?
What happened? How could this be?
Because their filter doesn't predict.
Am I right? So, if you joined late...
The reason that the left and the right can't see the same things is because the right uses different filters on reality, and they use the ones that predict the best.
Let's take this one.
Small government. Does that predict well?
Yeah. Yeah.
It predicts that if you add a new bureaucracy, you'll eventually come to regret it.
How often is that filter right?
A lot. It's really predictive, right?
So the grievance filter, unfortunately, can work sometimes.
Let me be completely clear about this.
This filter can predict sometimes, but not all the time.
And if you don't have the ability to switch to other filters, you'll be blinded by your one filter.
All you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
And that's really what you're seeing on the left.
The number of people who said, you know, hey, if Rittenhouse had been black, that was like the Rosetta Stone.
The Rittenhouse case was like the Rosetta Stone.
I love making this reference, because only 20% of you even know what it means.
But 20% of you just said, yeah, I get that.
The other 80% said, stop using references, I don't understand.
I don't even know the Rosetta Stone story, but there was some stone that had some code on it that if you had that one stone with that little written code on it, you could decipher this other language that you couldn't get your hands on otherwise.
You couldn't figure out the code until you got this one rock.
So the Rosetta Stone is the thing that opened up the code.
And I think the Rittenhouse case opened up the code so that you can see this clearly.
Because before the Rittenhouse case, it wasn't this clear, right?
When you watch people who see clear self-defense and they only see race, and it's all white people, that's the Rosetta Stone.
Now you know what's going on.
Everything is explained by these filters, right?
All right. Smirkanish has an interesting theory which I agree with 100%.
Now, I've told you before, and I'll say it again, while I criticize CNN almost nonstop, they do also employ this fellow named Smirkanish, who is closer to reasonable than just about anybody they've ever had on their network.
Now, he's had me on his show a number of times, twice, three times, different shows, and...
And what better evidence do you need that he's willing to hear both sides?
So Smirconish is kind of a Bill Maher personality, as far as I can tell from the outside.
Can't read anybody's minds.
But he looks like somebody who can see the argument on both sides.
So give him a follow.
If you don't follow him, he's worthy.
There are some people on the left that you just have to follow.
Van Jones...
You should follow Van Jones, even if you don't agree with him.
And Smirconish. Because those are two people who can at least see the argument on both sides.
And that's worth a lot.
So here's his theory about why Biden is so unpopular at the moment, aside from performance itself.
Trump is not in the news.
So you don't have a contrast.
Biden is not being compared to anybody right now.
Oh, how do you spell it?
How do you smell it? Smirconish is S-M-E-R-C-O-N-I-S-H. Is his first name Michael?
He never uses his first name, it seems like.
I don't even know his first name.
He seems to use his last name all the time.
Anyway, I agree with that.
I think Smirconish is absolutely right.
That the longer Trump stays out of the news, the more popular he'll get.
Oh, it is Michael. It's Michael Smirconish.
And I 100% agree with that.
Trump could become president again by simply making, let's say, ordinary comments about the news instead of Trump comments about A Trump comment always goes too far, which is sort of his signature.
His signature move is to go too far, because that's what makes it exciting.
That's what makes you look at it.
That's what draws your attention.
That's what controls the energy.
So at least one part of it is that Trump is not there to create the hated alternative to Biden.
Now, that's not the only reason, right?
Yeah, provocative. When I say goes too far, you can say provocative.
That would be another way to say it.
I saw this tweet by Mike Cernovich the other day.
I swear to God, I just read that thing over and over again because it was just so beautiful.
It was beautifully provocative.
Now, I didn't quite agree with all the content in it.
It was an opinion piece.
But, man...
Can Cernovich write provocative tweets?
Like, you can't look away.
It's like, ah, I want to agree with it, but I can't.
But I want to. Goes too far.
You know, that's just a perfect tweet.
And Trump has that same skill.
If we were to create, if somebody created a news channel, there was 100% real news as if you could really do that.
But they tried really hard to make it unbiased.
Who would watch it? Not many people is the answer.
And there's a reason for that.
Because real news isn't that interesting.
It's only the fake news that gets us interested.
It's the fake stuff that we care about.
Now, of course, we learned that the hard way, through social media's algorithms, and we discovered that if it fed us up more of fake news, we clicked on it more.
So, of course, we got into this situation honestly, I guess.
But I'm here to tell you that every once in a while you hear this, hey, if somebody invents a network with real news, think of how popular that will be.
No. Nobody's going to watch it.
Let me give you an analogy because you like those, right?
They're so convincing, analogies.
All right, here's one. If somebody invents a healthy food, everybody will stop eating the bad stuff.
You know, if it tastes good.
But if somebody makes some healthy food that tastes pretty good, man, obesity's done.
No, no.
Because people like unhealthy food.
The same way they like fake news.
Junk food and fake news are basically just the same stimulus.
It's just shit that's not good for you, but sure feels fun while it's happening.
So forget about your unbiased news.
You'll never see that. Meanwhile, the FBI has turned against the country and against the citizens.
And I think we can just say that directly at this point.
The FBI is no longer on the side of the citizens of the United States.
I think maybe it used to be, or maybe we just didn't know how bad it was.
But at this point, I think the news is painting us a pretty clear picture of the FBI being a corrupt organization that probably needs to be...
It needs to be dismantled and put back together, I think.
There's something wrong with it, deeply.
Now, at the moment, I guess it did a raid on a school board activist named Sharona Bishop...
Imagine an FBI breaking down the door of somebody who's just a citizen, who's just an activist on the school boards, and I guess she's helped flip nine local school boards.
I don't know what flipped means, but does that mean get new people in there or something?
Or to get them to, I don't know, whatever she's doing to flip them.
But can you imagine any scenario in which it makes sense for the FBI to break down the door of a mother, a mom, a mom who is just an activist about what's good for her kids?
And by the way, nobody is accusing her of a crime that I know of.
Is she even accused of a crime?
I didn't see that in the story.
There must have been something she was accused of.
Was it taxes?
No. Oh, supposedly wire fraud.
And it was the wire fraud supposedly about taxes, too, or not paying them, or whatever.
They cuffed her?
Are you fucking kidding me?
They cuffed her.
In front of her kids?
Did they fucking cuff a mother in front of her kids for a suspicion of a white-collar crime?
I suppose they have to do that, but...
I sure hope not. God.
You know, the FBI does seem purely political at this point.
And even if they had a good reason for this, we could learn later they had a good reason.
But they don't earn our trust.
So we're still in the fog of war on the story.
So if tomorrow it turns out that she was a horrible terrorist or something and the FBI had good information about it, or whatever.
So if it turns out tomorrow that the FBI was just right to do this, I can't see how, but you could be surprised.
Mother Cuffers. Those Mother Cuffers.
Nice. Nicely done.
Mother Cuffers. Mother Cuffers.
Now I'm just going to be thinking about that all day because that's too good.
All right. Anyway, the FBI, we don't trust them, so if we hear a story that could go either way, and I think this is one of those stories that could probably go either way.
You know, you could easily imagine that tomorrow we'll learn something that supports the FBI's action, but maybe not.
And I'm saying that if there's a benefit of a doubt, they don't earn it anymore.
I think the court system...
Still deserves the benefit of a doubt.
You could disagree with that, but I think our court system is good enough.
I give them the benefit of a doubt when I'm not sure exactly why they did what they did.
Usually. I think they usually get it right.
But the FBI has lost the benefit of a doubt.
Am I right? Has the FBI forfeited the benefit of a doubt?
When I hear a bad story about the FBI, I'm going to automatically assume it's probably true from now on.
And I would have maybe automatically assumed it was not true in the past.
I think they've lost the presumption of innocence.
I mean, if individuals, of course, still have the presumption of innocence.
But as an organization, they have lost the presumption of innocence.
That's pretty fucking bad.
All right. You know, I turned on the news, and it's just one topic that they can't stop talking about, which is why Joe Biden did not release his cognitive test results.
Or did he have one?
You know, have you seen any other news today?
It's like all over the headlines.
Oh, no, it isn't. I'm the only one talking about it.
It's not on any headline anywhere.
Now, I'm not the guy who usually does the, well, what if this was Trump?
Because that just bores the hell out of me.
It's too easy. Whenever you do the, if this were Trump, ugh.
You know, I mean, often there's a point to be made in that.
But it's so easy and so common that I hate to say it.
What if this had been Trump?
Sometimes you just have to say it.
If this had been Trump, it would have been the only headline.
Where's his cognitive test?
Where's his cognitive test?
And, of course, Trump passed.
I mean, that's what we hear.
And Biden is obviously degraded.
Obviously, to everybody.
There's nobody who doesn't see it, right?
And we're not even talking about...
We're not even talking about a cognitive test.
We are so brainwashed.
You see it really clearly in a case like this.
And it's not because Trump would have been treated differently.
You could take Trump completely out of the story.
Where's his cognitive test?
He's obviously cognitively challenged.
Or at least cognitively at risk.
So you don't need Trump in the story to say, what the hell is going on?
All right. Apparently, Kenosha didn't have anything that looked like a protest.
People gathered, but they seemed to have talked it out or something.
And I'd said before the verdict that it looked like low energy in Kenosha.
And Martin Cohen said in a tweet...
I'm leaning in this direction.
It might be an overstatement, but I'm leaning in the following direction to agree with Martin, who says...
Martin says that he predicted no protests after the Rittenhauser thing because the original protests, meaning the protests which Rittenhouse had attended originally, had the goal of defeating the president.
And now that Trump is out, no more protests for a while.
I hate to say that feels right.
Am I right?
Because there's nothing that happened that would have changed the protests from then to now.
Do you remember the Wall Street protests about, what was it, income inequality?
And those protests just went away?
Did our income inequality get fixed?
No. The protests were never real.
The protests were never real.
They were... Yeah, Occupy Wall Street, exactly.
The Occupy Wall Street, now we know, never was about a topic.
It must have been some political thing.
Now we know that BLM is mostly some kind of political instrument and has nothing to do with their issues.
Now, I'm overstating it, right?
There are plenty of people who would say they're part of BLM who do care about the issues, including me.
Because actually, I think BLM's issues...
Are good issues. You know, there's a whole separate question of how they're going about it.
But in terms of are the police treating minority people worse?
I don't know.
Because I don't really have a window into that.
But if 30% or whatever of your country thinks that the police are discriminating against certain types of people, I'm going to take that really seriously.
Whatever it is.
Right? Because if I were in that 30%, I'd want you to take it seriously.
Even if I were wrong.
Even if it was just in my mind.
Even if I were bringing it upon myself by the way I act when police come.
I'd still want you to be looking into this as a fellow citizen.
Which sounds sexist.
Fellow. Right?
Somebody says I'm in the 30%.
Yeah, I mean, I identify as black, but since the police won't know that, I think I would be able to get off.
Anyway, so I think protests you have to see as fake.
Really, from this point on, I would say any protest you see on the left that doesn't have support on the right...
Let's say if we're protesting a war, some new war, you can see that that would be a valid protest.
But so far, the ones we've seen most recently are apparently all fake protests.
That doesn't mean that the individuals aren't real.
Let me be as clear as possible.
I think the individuals probably had legitimate grievances and wanted to protest about it.
But the reason that they showed up at all was because somebody was pulling the strings.
You can have grievances about a lot of stuff and not protest.
I got plenty of grievances.
I didn't protest at all today.
But the thing that activates people to hit the streets is obviously coming from some source.
I don't know what source. You think it's George Soros?
I don't think so, but can't rule anything out.
I saw a graph today.
Adam Dopamine tweeted around.
And it seemed to show that vaccinations help, but not a lot.
That's what the data showed.
It showed that, yeah, it does protect you from hospitalization and stuff, but not a ton.
It's like maybe twice as good, where we thought it was eight times as good or something like that.
But it took about a minute and a half for...
Andres Backhouse to debunk it.
Apparently it's been debunked before.
So if you see that graph, it's a fake graph.
It's taken out of context, blah, blah, blah.
Read the footnotes. So if you see any graph on the internet, what is your first reaction to it?
If you see data about vaccinations, doesn't matter what the data says, and it's on Twitter, what should be your first response?
Seriously unlikely to be true.
If I had put a percentage on it, I would say that any data on vaccinations that you see on Twitter, 90 to 95% fake?
At least the odds of it.
I'm not saying all of it is 95% fake.
I'm saying if there's a new graph or finding or data about vaccinations or masks or shutdowns or anything about the pandemic, And it's on social media.
90 to 95% chance it's false.
And by the way, same percentage if it comes from the government.
I'm not going to change that depending on the source.
I don't care about the source.
CDC, FDA, Pfizer, it doesn't matter the source.
If it's about the pandemic, just assume there's about 90 to 95% chance it's not true.
And you'll be in good shape.
So that is my show for the day.
I don't know what the other live streamers are doing, but they're not talking about Elon Musk's transhumanism galactic conquest.
And I don't think anybody's talking to you about why the left doesn't have enough filters to understand reality.
Is Alex Berenson in the 5%?
I'm being asked. Alex Berenson, as far as I know, I've never seen him be right with any data.
That doesn't mean he's never had any data that's correct.
I'll just say that I've never seen anything from him that wasn't obviously wrong and got debunked within minutes of hitting the internet.
Now, your mileage might differ.
Maybe you're seeing different stuff.
Now, and let me be clear.
I'm pro-Alex Berenson, which might surprise you.
Because you need some of him, and lots of them actually, in a situation like this.
Because you don't want to just blindly say, oh, data, science, okay, let's do it.
You need somebody like him who's pushing on everything.
I mean, he's basically pushing back on everything.
That comes out about the pandemic.
How often is he going to be right?
When he says that the government is wrong, how often is he going to be correct?
A lot. A lot, right?
If all you did is say the government's lying and then you waited, how often would you be right?
A lot. A lot, right?
So saying that the government's data and numbers and promises are bullshit You need an Alex Berenson and lots of them.
Because a lot of it is bullshit, and you need people out there who have a public platform to warn the public.
Now, but the second part of that is when Alex Berenson is creating or boosting his own data.
I don't think he creates it, but he's finding data somewhere that's not from the government, and then he boosts it.
When he does that, he's wrong almost every time.
Because not only is the government Producing numbers that are bullshit.
But so is everybody else.
There's nobody who's giving you good data.
So it doesn't matter if it's Alex Berenson or anybody else.
Fauci, it doesn't matter.
Whoever's showing you data is misleading you.
Because it's almost never right.
And you don't know.
I mean, 5% of it might be right.
But you don't know which 5%.
Now I do think that you might be able to find, like, big trends.
So I still think it's very likely that the vaccinations help.
That's my current view, subject to change.
And like Bill Maher, I have trained myself that I can get out of my bubble if I need to.
Meaning that if the weight of information starts moving the other way, I'll just change my mind.
And then I'll say, huh, You know, I took a guess because we're all guessing.
We're all guessing. If you think the vaccination is a bad idea for you, specifically, you could be right and you could be wrong.
But the only thing I know for sure is you're guessing.
It's not about data because we don't have any reliable data about anything.
So I could easily change my mind to, oh, it was a big mistake.
I wish I hadn't gotten those vaccinations.
Easily. Easily.
So if you think I'm locked in, To a pro-vaccination stand?
I never have been. Never have been.
I'm always open to even obvious things that everybody says is true being not true.
Because it happens a lot.
Does RFK Jr.
have the voice problem? I don't think so.
I think he has a different problem.
I looked into it a little bit and it doesn't sound like they call his problem the same as my problem.
All right. Boo is doing well.
Gaining weight. 20 beds of mostly vaccinated coughing people.
So here are some other things that you should ignore.
The number of vaccinated people who are catching it.
Almost all the data on that is out of context or fake data.
Let me say it again.
100% of any data you see about vaccinated people...
Getting infected. I wouldn't trust any of it.
It might be true, but I don't think you can trust it.
I think all the data is out of context, poorly organized, poorly presented, willfully misinterpreted.
That's the world we're in.
Just look at Israel data.
No! No!
No, no, no.
No and no and no.
And somebody on here is going to say, well then, just look at Sweden.
No! No, no, no, no, no.
Don't look at Sweden.
You will learn nothing.
Because why? You can't trust any of the data.
Look at Israel. Do you trust the data?
No! Do you know why you shouldn't trust data coming out of Israel?
Is it because I'm anti-Semitic?
No! I'm not.
Is it because it's coming from Israel?
No! No! It's because it's data.
And it's about the pandemic.
And you can't trust any of it.
But if every country is coming to the same conclusion, with all their data doing it different ways, then in a way you can do a poor man's meta-analysis and say, well, basically every major country says these vaccinations are worth it.
That doesn't mean they are.
But at least it's sort of a poor man's meta-analysis that everything seems to be pointing in the same direction.
Take, for example, the fake news always, whenever it's wrong, it's wrong against conservatives.
Again, that's not a coincidence, right?
So you could not know anything about any individual story that's fake news and be uncertain whether it's true or not, but you can certainly see the big picture.
That if it's fake...
It's going to be bad for conservatives, basically.
All right. You, the uninformed parole, aren't qualified to research or analyze your facts.
Scott is, though. So somebody on Locals is saying that I'm saying that I think they're characterizing me as saying that I'm qualified to look into stuff and research it, but you're not.
Is that what you're hearing? Yes.
Is anybody else hearing that?
Does anybody hear me say that, oh no, unlike you, I can tell when the data is accurate?
No. It's exactly the fucking opposite.
If there's anything I can tell you clearly is I can't tell what's real.
If you think you can, you're fucked up.
All right. You're fucked up.
If you think you can read any of this pandemic data and know what's true and what isn't, you're just fucked up.
Alright. Which is not to say that you won't get some right.
You will get some right. By chance.
You're dismissive of the data as an average.
Correct. I'm dismissive of the data on average.
Correct. Crowder made a good point.
Obvious, but scared people are controllable people.
Yeah, scared people are controllable people.
Have you seen what's happening in Gibraltar?
No! You paid $10 to tell me that I should look at data and believe it?
Really? Are you hearing anything I'm saying?
You paid $10?
And you thought you would convince me with your one anecdote about one country that probably has bad data and Gibraltar.
Here's what you should take away from the Gibraltar.
So Gibraltar is almost all vaccinated and they're still having problems.
Here's what you should take away from the Gibraltar data.
Nothing. The moment you think that some data that agrees with you is right, you're lost.
None of it is believable.
Some of it is right, but none of it is credible.
So the moment you say some of this data is credible, you're into dream world.
You're just hallucinating, because none of it is.
All right. And by far, it's the exceptions that are the least believable.
So of all the data that's not believable...
If any of it is the exception, that is the least believable of an unbelievable bunch.
So anything you want to say about Sweden is unbelievable.
Anything about Israel, unbelievable.
Extra unbelievable. And anything about Gibraltar is extra unbelievable.
So your examples are the most unbelievable of a category which is unbelievable by its nature.
All right. Well, do you think the vax rate data is wrong or the case rate data is wrong?
So Robin is asking me what specifically I think is wrong with the data in Gibraltar.
It's fucking data!
I don't know how I can make this more clear.
See, maybe I can do it on the whiteboard.
Because for some reason I'm having trouble communicating this concept.
Let me get rid of this.
I think this was an idea that I decided not to do.
Too controversial. All right.
So I'm going to try to clarify this point.
Can you all see me? All right.
So if it's data...
If it's data, it's equal to...
Now, this is going to be an equation, so you're not all going to be able to follow the math.
So if it's data, it's equal to a big pile of steaming bullshit.
Now, I'll put some flies around here because I don't want you to be confused.
There's some flies...
Steaming bullshit right here.
Now, I didn't draw the cow, but...
Now, you could use this filter to answer a lot of your specific questions, and let me do that for you.
Scott, what do you think about the data from Gibraltar?
Let me see. Well, let me run it through the filter.
It's data, so it's equal to...
Steaming pile of bullshit.
So the Gibraltar data is unreliable.
What about Israel?
Good point. I got a good point here.
What about the data from Israel?
Well, let's run it through the filter.
See what comes out.
It's data.
So it's equal to steaming pile of fucking bullshit.
Steaming pile of fucking bullshit.
Let's do one more, because I know some of you are not following yet.
What about the data from Sweden?
Sweden. Well, it's data.
It's equal to fucking bullshit.
Bullshit!
Now, if anybody didn't understand the algorithm, there might be somebody in your circle who can explain it to you better.
All right.
Well, maybe I made my point.
But I know somebody out here is still going to ask me, but what about this data?
But what about the CDC? All right, that's all I got for today.
And I will talk to you maybe later today or maybe tomorrow.
I don't understand in which data of Israel is BS, the vaccination data or the infection rate.
Should I answer this question?
Let me answer this question.
It says, I don't understand which data in Israel is the BS. Are you talking about the vaccination rate or the infection rate?
Well, let's run it through the filter.
We'll see the vaccination rate.
Well, that's data.
And then that would be equal to, if I'm doing this right, steaming pile of fucking bullshit!
Okay, so that's the vaccination rate.
But if we looked at the infection rate...
Which is completely different.
So let's run that through the filter, too.
So that would be data.
And then...
How does this work again?
Can somebody remind me how this algorithm works?
Oh, I got it. I got it.
It's data, so it's equal.
Steaming pile of fucking bullshit!
Now, I'll read your comments to see if there's anybody else who has any more questions.
Okay. I think we're getting very close to making the point.