Episode 1876 Scott Adams: I Give You My 11 Point Fentanyl Plan
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Iran protests, death in custody for headscarf crime
Highly successful, effective protests
Scary: AI entity doing an interactive hypnosis session
Operating assumption...Ray Epps is a fed
11 Point Fentanyl Plan - 1st Draft
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Well, were you worried I wouldn't make it on time?
Come on. Come on!
Who do you think you're talking to?
Yes, always here and always on time.
And how would you like to take this special experience that you have lucked into, the best thing that's ever happened to you, probably, and take it up to an even higher level?
Yeah, you would. And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chelsea, a canteen jug or a 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 to the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it's happening now.
Go. Excuse me while I enjoy a little afterglow.
I need a cigarette.
I don't even smoke. That was one good sip.
Did you all feel it? I felt that.
I could feel it to my bones.
Well, I'd like to thank Erica, who has put together a great mug.
For Coffee with Scott Adams.
And you'll see the final design pretty soon.
And production.
And that will start pretty soon.
So just a few weeks, I think, you'll be able to get your own Coffee with Scott Adams mug.
I'm not going to make any kind of profit off of that.
Just people wanted them. So Erica was nice enough to organize that.
Well, there are protests in Iran.
I guess a young woman was taken into custody for not wearing a proper headscarf, and she died in custody, which nobody knows the specifics of that, but it doesn't sound good.
And so there are protests erupting all over Iran.
What do you think are the odds that the protests that are erupting all over Iran will topple the government?
Well, it looks like there's no chance of that.
Nobody thinks there's any chance of that.
In fact, the Iranians are sufficiently confident that they actually let the protests Kind of rage for a while.
They don't try to stop it right away.
They actually let people get their energy out.
Which isn't the dumbest thing to do.
It's not the dumbest thing to do.
But they're kind of watching to see if it spreads.
I feel like it won't.
I don't know. I don't have a good, you know, obviously I'm not keyed into the mood of the average Iranian person, but I feel like it'll be like one of these several other flare-ups, and then it will just flare away.
And as some experts said, until you see some kind of a leader on the other side, an opposition leader, and there is none, right?
There's nobody to rally around.
Until you see something like that in any kind of military defection, nothing's going to happen in Iran.
And there's nothing like that.
So, unlike the United States, unlike the United States, in Iran, if you protest...
Nothing's going to happen. I mean, you're not going to get anything.
So weirdly, here's the weird thing, is that Iran is allowing more protests than I thought they would allow.
It's probably not legal, but they are kind of letting it run a little bit.
I was surprised about that. So aren't you glad that you live in a country, if you live in America or you live in some free country somewhere else, aren't you glad that in your country...
A big protest movement would be successful.
Because we don't have military and stuff like that to stop a protest.
And that's why in the United States, for example, we have this long string of successful protests.
Remember Occupy Wall Street?
Well, that changed everything.
Remember? Because before Occupy Wall Street, there was this huge income inequality.
And then the Occupy Wall Street came in, they camped in their tents and stuff, until that gigantic gap between the rich and the poor just shrunk.
I mean, that's solved, really.
Then let's not forget Black Lives Matter, who had many valid criticisms of the way the country was being run, especially in regards to racial things, and most particularly policing.
Now, since Black Lives Matter did their summer of protest, have you seen one major story of a police department abusing a black person?
None. None.
When was the last time you saw it?
So I think you would have to conclude that Black Lives Matter completely succeeded in eliminating police violence against black citizens.
Completely done. I haven't seen any.
Have you? That's the most successful protest anybody's ever done.
It eliminated police brutality against black people.
Because if it were still happening, we'd see it in the news, right?
Wouldn't you? It'd be in the news.
I mean, that would be a giant story.
It always was before. And so we don't hear about income inequality.
That got solved. Racism was solved.
Now, this is something you can't do in Iran.
In Iran, you'll just march around and protest.
Ah, well, I'm protesting.
And then they'll shoot you or put you in jail, and nothing will change.
But in the United States, we've already eliminated income inequality, police brutality.
And then don't forget about Antifa, because Antifa...
They had a series of complaints and they were unhappy that the United States was even a cohesive operating entity.
You know, Antifa is more like, we just want everything not to work.
And sure enough, sure enough, just a few years after Antifa was active, the entire country is disintegrating, exactly like Antifa wanted.
Now, in Iran, again, no impact whatsoever.
Protest, protest, protest, nothing.
They get nothing. That's because they are a totalitarian country.
In the United States, we have freedom of speech, freedom of protest, freedom to organize, and we get things done.
And that's how we solved income inequality, police brutality against black people, and the cohesiveness of the United States.
And I'm just getting started.
What about those January 6th protesters?
Do you remember how they were worried that the elections were perhaps not transparent enough?
Well, thankfully, the patriots got huge changes.
Both the Democrats and the Republicans immediately told you that the stuff that they run is fine.
So I was worried about it for a while.
But the Republicans will tell you that all the places that Republicans handle the elections are just fine.
And the Democrats will tell you every place they do it, it's all fixed.
It's all good. So this might be one of the most effective, probably one of the most effective protests of all time.
Honestly, let me ask you, before January 6th, didn't you have some questions?
I mean, just small ones.
Maybe not big questions, but at least small little concerns about the integrity of the election.
You probably did.
You probably did. But now, after the election's over and the January 6th protests have happened, what do you think now?
Well, your media has told you that not only have our elections been solid in the past, but they are so solid now, you don't have anything to worry about.
So think about this.
Iran, all their protests, no benefit at all.
They got nothing out of it.
United States, Occupy Wall Street, solves income inequality.
When was the last time you saw a story about income inequality?
Find me a headline about income inequality.
It's solved. Done.
No more problem.
Black Lives Matter, they solved all black, all violence about police against black people, because we would see it.
I mean, it obviously would be in the news if any of it were happening.
And Antifa did disintegrate the cohesiveness of the United States as they wanted.
Perfect. Perfect.
And then January 6th, according to the news, we now have the most secure elections of all time.
Of all time.
And I just want to give it up.
For the protesters of the United States who make things happen.
You, you're the heroes.
You're the heroes.
No, you are. You are.
You're the heroes.
Not me. Not me.
You're the heroes. So keep up the good work.
Keep up that protesting because it's making a difference.
Does anybody remember in the beginning of the Ukraine war when I said, I don't know, everybody seems to think Russia is just going to win this thing kind of easily?
But it seems to me somewhat obviously not true.
To me, it seemed like they were going to have a lot of trouble.
And then maybe they wouldn't succeed at all.
Do you remember...
Do you remember how much shit I got for that?
Does anybody remember that?
I mean, something I remember, but maybe you didn't notice at all.
Did anybody notice? And today, the news is pretty much 100% exactly what I said.
Am I wrong? The news today, from all sources, is exactly what I said.
That the technology of the Ukrainians made a big difference.
Especially because they were fighting in their home court.
Right? And so what I was wondering is, if there are any of you, because I know some of you are quite brutal, if you'd like to take this opportunity to say you were wrong, and that I was right.
I'll wait. Because I'm pretty sure 75% of you thought I was wrong.
Now, if you were right, if you were right and I had been wrong, let's say Russia just took them over, I would tell you I was totally wrong.
I would tell you I was totally wrong.
Because I did tell you I was totally wrong about Russia invading.
Because I said, well, no, they're not going to invade, because obviously it wouldn't turn out well.
I was so wrong.
So all of you who told me, Scott, it's obvious that they're going to invade.
They've got their entire military there.
It couldn't be more obvious.
And I was still saying, no, no, they're not going to invade.
So I will tell you I was completely wrong.
Will you accept that?
Will you accept I was 100% wrong when I said Russia won't invade?
Obviously. Obviously it was wrong.
But I'd like you to tell me that I got that one right.
Now here's the thing that always comes back at me.
Whenever I make a prediction that counters the experts, which I've done...
How many times have you seen me make a public prediction that's the opposite of basically all the experts and then been right?
Quite a few times. In different domains, right?
Political, scientific, now military.
That's a pretty wide swath.
Now, even terrorism, I think.
I've had some good guesses.
And let me remind you that my expertise is not knowing more than experts.
Obviously, I don't know more than experts.
My expertise is spotting bullshit.
Which is a specific skill.
And spotting bullshit is a higher level skill than experts.
You get that, right?
So every time everybody says, Scott, the experts are up here, and you're a lowly cartoonist, and you're down here.
So if you're down here, don't be criticizing these people up here because they're up here.
That is a complete misunderstanding of the situation.
The experts are here, and everybody who has developed skill at spotting bullshit are up here.
I'm not looking up at the experts.
I'm looking down, only in the case of the bullshit.
Now, if there's some technical thing that they claim, I'm not going to be arguing them on some small technical thing.
That's what experts are for.
But if they make a large pronouncement about stuff, As soon as it's a large pronouncement about anything, it's automatically political, right?
There's almost no such thing as a pure scientific opinion that, you know, matters to the public and the public hears it.
It's always political by the time it reaches the public, by the way it gets filtered and massaged.
So that's the only thing I'm offering you.
So anytime you see me criticizing the experts, Your first question should not be, should not be, who has more expertise?
Because that's a given. I never claim more expertise.
I only claim that you can spot bullshit if you learn to do it.
And in some of my books I teach you how to do it.
Now, I do it right in public.
I do it right in front of you, so you can see when it's right and when it's wrong.
Here's about the scariest thing I've seen in a while, and I've seen some scary things.
Let me tell you, I've seen some scary, scary things.
But here's the scariest one.
And it's not going to scare you at all, because you won't understand it.
And I'm sorry. And this is not an insult to you, but it really is not.
Would you accept the general statement, That if you were, let's say, well versed in a topic, you would have a different take on it than somebody who didn't know much about the topic.
You give me that, right?
That, you know, an expert's opinion is going to be different than somebody else's.
I always talk about this account which you should be following, Machiavelli's Underbelly, who does a lot of AI demonstrations.
So you're seeing all kinds of demonstrations of what you can ask the AI to do, from artwork to creating, talking artificial figures to writing poetry and making comics, and just seeing where the AI is at, and it's It's there.
So, somebody says, Andrew Tate was right about me.
Andrew Tate literally copies my opinions and then pretends I have opposite ones so he can mock me.
You know that, right? He actually just imitates me.
The Andrew Taint story is actually, he is a disciple.
So he was a fan of mine and I basically mocked him in public and then he got hurt.
So now he's acting up.
But basically he's somebody who imitates me, tries to put his own spin on it and create his own little thing.
But he's a humorous character.
Anyway, here's what the latest AI came...
And this is the scariest thing I've seen so far.
It was a deepfake-looking character.
Not a deepfake, because it was just an animated head.
So it was a person who looked pretty much like a person who was giving a hypnosis...
Monologue. In other words, it was somebody who was an artificial entity using AI to hypnotize you, the viewer.
But knowingly. I mean, you would know you were being hypnotized because it's overt.
And here's something that you would not be able to appreciate.
Like if you're sort of in the hobby or professional realm of influence and you spend a lot of time hypnotizing or being hypnotized or feeling influenced or judging, you have sort of almost like a musician would have a musical sense they develop.
That somebody who just likes music would never develop?
You know what I mean? When I watch this AI, I can feel the persuasion.
I can feel it.
It's actually visceral.
And it's instant.
Oh my god!
I didn't even know what to say about it.
I went to tweet about it, and I didn't even have a comment.
Like, I didn't know what to say.
I just, OMG! Because if you pair me with an AI and say, Scott, can you train this thing?
I'd say, yeah, I probably could.
And I'd start giving it rules.
I'd say, try this, try this, try this.
Now, if the only thing it did was present, it didn't interact, There's a limit to how powerful it could be.
Because it would have to give a generic presentation to people who are all different.
So there's no generic presentation that's going to work the same for all different people.
What makes hypnosis one-on-one powerful is the hypnotist is observing the reaction and then adjusting in real time.
It's that part that makes it really powerful.
We're at the point where the technology could very easily read my face as a viewer and determine if the things the AI is saying are working or not.
And it could do it better than I could do it.
And it could probably do it fairly quickly better than I could do it.
On day one, I could do it better than the machine.
On day two, I could still do it better than AI. Day three, day four, I'm still better than AI. Well, somewhere around a month of training the AI, it's going to be way better than people.
So it will be the most capable persuader, by far, and for sure.
So AI will be the most persuasive asset, resource, entity, I don't know what to call it.
The most persuasive entity?
And it won't be like beating humans by 10%.
And here's the part you're never going to believe.
There's nothing I can tell you that will make you understand how powerful this is.
Nothing I can tell you.
You have to have lived it, felt it, breathed it to really understand this.
This is so powerful, I had to turn it off.
Like, I watched it for a while, and it was just taking over my body.
I mean, I could just feel it.
And I was like, I'm out of here.
And that was just a test, right?
That was before somebody like me tried to train it.
Imagine. Imagine if somebody who was actually a deep expert trained this thing to be manipulative.
Because the other thing you can do is, presumably, you could change the face it's presenting.
I'm pretty sure that some faces are more persuasive to some people.
Now, it could be just obvious stuff.
Maybe a sexy woman is more persuasive to most or some people.
Maybe an older male with a deep voice...
Would be more persuasive to just some people, not everybody.
Maybe a gay voice.
Now you're going to argue with me whether there's a gay voice, right?
Are we going to do that?
I once had a conversation with somebody who was very angry at me for being a racist for suggesting that you can usually identify a black person's voice on the phone.
Now, I'll acknowledge that you could be wrong quite often.
It's pretty common. We've heard lots of singers, for example, that sound like they're black singers because they're trying to pretend, I guess.
So you can certainly be fooled.
It's not any kind of 100% thing.
But anybody who tells me that you can't generally tell...
You're not a serious person.
And the same with gay voice.
Of course there are gay people who don't have identifiable gay voices.
Of course. Plenty of them. I can name five right now.
But am I wrong that usually you can identify if somebody's out and, you know, they're not trying?
Yeah. Dave Rubin's a perfect example.
You wouldn't be able to identify him by voice, but there are plenty of people you could.
Nobody doubts that, right? And I've always wondered about that, have you?
Have you ever wondered how much of that is just social?
And how much is biological?
Has anybody ever looked into that?
Because I've always wondered that.
I assume it's biological, right?
But maybe some of it is affectation?
I don't know. Because it doesn't seem like some people could turn it on and off depending on whether they're at work Whether they're at work or in a private setting.
I always wondered about that.
It's just a curiosity. It doesn't have any importance to anything, but watch out for those persuasive AIs.
Here's something that the Republicans are doing all wrong.
They're demanding an investigation into Ray Epps.
Why is that all wrong?
Anybody? Anybody?
Why is it wrong to demand that we know more about Ray Epps?
It's wrong because they already gave us the answer.
They said they're not going to give us any more information.
That's all you need.
If you go to somebody and say, did you steal my pen?
And they say, I'm not going to answer that.
I'm not going to take that question.
Does that mean they didn't steal your pen?
Well, maybe.
It's not confirmation at all, is it?
If somebody said, did you steal my pen?
And the person says, I'm not going to tell you, that is not confirmation, is it?
But would it make sense for you as a normal thinking human in the United States or any other country, would it be reasonable for you to say in that situation, well, my working assumption is that you have my pen?
Don't know for sure, but I'm going to go live my life as if that were true, because that's the only working assumption that makes sense.
Ray Epps is a working assumption.
I don't know if he was a Fed, and I will not make that claim, because I don't know.
The reason I don't know is that the FBI won't tell me.
Now, under those circumstances, given the credibility being low for the FBI, given that they've been asked directly by members of Congress for whom they should answer, and given that they said directly, we're not going to tell you about it, you don't need to ask any more questions.
You don't need to ask any more questions.
You can simply act on that assumption.
And you should tell people that complain about it and go, it's really not my problem.
Here's what we do, we do meaning people do.
Here's a common mistake that people make.
They assume that somebody else's problem is their problem.
Ray Epps is the FBI's problem, period.
It's not a Republican problem.
Republicans just say, you know, we have to operate on this assumption.
We are forced to operate on the assumption, so we'll go forward based on the assumption that it was an FBI operation.
No research needed.
Am I wrong? The problem is the FBI is to solve.
We should conclude, at least Republicans, everybody else should too, but at least Republicans, just say it has been demonstrated to our satisfaction That the most reasonable working assumption, given that we can't have all the information, the most reasonable working assumption is that he worked for the FBI. So that's how we will make policy.
We will proceed on that basis, we'll communicate on that basis, and we'll act on that basis in every way.
Because that's the only thing we have.
It's all we have. If the FBI wanted to solve their problem, Their problem is a credibility problem.
It's not your fucking problem.
Stop making their problem your problem.
Just declare it's over.
The Ray Epps situation is over.
We know everything we need to know.
If we're wrong, we're wrong.
And they have every opportunity to correct us.
But don't make their problem your problem.
Just act as though you already have the information, because you do.
You have everything you need.
You don't need anything else to know that you can't trust what happened on January 6th.
And therefore, you can pardon every person associated with January 6th, except for the violent ones, because the operating assumption is that the FBI was at least one part of the incitement.
I'll bet not one person disagrees with that, right?
And until you hear that it wasn't your problem, I bet you didn't realize that before, did you?
You just sort of kind of get in the mode, and you go, well, this is our problem.
We have to solve this.
We have to have the information.
No, you don't. You don't need anything.
You have everything you need.
This is settled.
It's settled.
It's like, did Hillary Clinton try to overthrow the government effectively with the Russia collusion stuff?
That is settled.
It's a yes.
There's no question about it.
We keep acting like these are open questions.
And they might be unknown, but they're not open questions.
Because the question-asking period just has no value anymore, because nobody's going to answer your question.
You have to go forward based on what is the working assumption, because that's what you do with everything.
If you walk outside, you don't know that your car is still there, but you still walk out with the intention of getting in it.
Everything you do is with the understanding that you don't know for sure What's true?
You just have to have operating assumptions all the time.
That's it. And every time somebody says, well, do you think it's true?
Or what is your proof that Ray Epps did anything?
You say, oh, I don't have any proof.
Don't have any proof, no.
It's an operating assumption that the FBI has given us.
They've just provided us that operating assumption.
And then just go on.
I wouldn't even give it...
The slightest attention to if it's true.
Because if it's true has now completely become irrelevant.
Because nobody will tell you, right?
If nobody's going to tell you if it's true, and that's obviously the case, if nobody's going to tell you it's true, then the truth doesn't matter to the decisions.
Does that make sense?
If you know you'll never know the truth, then the truth isn't relevant to your decision-making.
Because you have to just make an operating assumption.
Yeah. All right.
I came up with a 10-point, but then I added a point based on comments.
So now it's an 11-point fentanyl policy proposal.
Why did I come up with a fentanyl policy proposal?
Well, nobody else was doing it.
No, seriously. I mean, I think some people have said, oh, I think we'll do border security.
Okay, that's not serious.
That is not serious.
Let me tell you what a serious fentanyl planet would look like.
Now, I want to be very clear.
I have no reason to believe these are good ideas.
This is a first draft.
It's brainstorming.
I'm creating a framework that people can react to.
Have you ever noticed it's easier to react to an idea than to come up with one?
By the way, this is a really persuasive trick.
The person who writes it down first usually owns the debate.
So that's what I did.
I just thought... I kept looking for somebody to have a plan that I could back.
I was like, oh, somebody must have a good plan.
Once I find that good plan, I'll promote that.
I'll back that. Nope.
Nope. No plan. So I just wrote down a plan and tweeted it.
Do you know what that does? That puts me in charge.
I just took charge of it.
You think that's not true, but it just happened.
I just took over.
And it's because there was a vacuum.
There was a vacuum, and I just walked into it.
Now, I don't want to be here, but it was open.
If you're going to leave the door open, Don't blame me for walking through.
So I walked through, and I gave you an 11-point plan.
And from this point on, you're either going to have to make a better plan, or you're going to have to react to mine.
And even if you made a better plan, you're probably reacting to mine.
So at this point, I'm going to make other people react to me.
So I'm in charge. Right?
You see how this works, right?
And by the way, this works in your business and in your personal life just as well.
The first person who writes it down in, like, an easy-to-look-at form, it has to be easy to look at.
I looked at Carrie Lake's proposals for, you know, she's running for governor in Arizona, and her proposal was very text-based and Probably well written in terms of, you know, good sentence structure and stuff like that.
And there was lots of it.
It was like page and page and page and just some of it was about fentanyl, but it was part of border security and blah, blah, blah.
And that's not it.
That's not what we're looking for.
What we're looking for is build the wall, simplicity.
If it's not as easy as build the wall...
People aren't going to do anything about it.
You need to get simpler.
So I give you now my 11-point plan.
Let me tell you the 11th one that's added because otherwise you won't be able to concentrate.
So I'm going to tell you the one I added based on comments, which I agree with, which is we should test legalizing alternative opioids locally just to see if that does make a difference.
You know, just pick a zip code and say, all right, in this zip code, you can do all the heroin and cocaine you want.
It's all legal. You just, no fentanyl.
I guess, you know, some of them might still get a fentanyl.
But you would test to see if it made any difference at all.
Okay? So I want you to know that that's added to the plant, but it's last.
So now you know it's there, so you don't have to obsess about it.
All right. Number one, these are my suggestions, and I don't know if they're good.
Don't know if they're good. It's a starting point.
Number one, remove prescription requirements for Narcan.
That's a drug you administer to somebody who has a fentanyl overdose.
And in some places you need a prescription, and I think in some places you don't.
And I believe Florida you don't.
But that's not good enough.
It's not good enough that it's just available.
It's not good enough.
You also need some kind of organized method, maybe an app, maybe the Nextdoor app, maybe something like that, where if you volunteer that you have some in your home for emergencies, That somebody can send out an alert in your block and say, uh-oh, there's an overdose happening right here at this address.
And then your alert would go off and you're like, oh shit, I've got some Narcan in my closet.
You grab it, you run out the door.
It's literally your neighbor.
Literally your neighbor. You're out the door in 30 seconds.
And by the way, that's probably true.
You get an alert, boom.
Narcan overdose. You look at the address and it's two doors down.
30 seconds out the door.
Right? What would stop you?
You'd be grabbing it on or on, and you'd be out your door in 30 seconds.
In 40 seconds, in 40 seconds, you'd be on site.
40 seconds. Just, you know, on average.
And if you knew how to do the Narcan...
I guess there's also a question about some kind of a device.
There's a... What's the name of it?
There's a certain device that...
Used to come with it or does come with it that makes it easier to administer.
I think you can still administer it as a spray up the nose.
So I have some questions about its physical form and how to administer it.
But I think, which goes to another point, there should be a national education program on how to use it.
Alright, that's point number one.
Get Narcan available and also organized through apps so it's really, really available, like within seconds.
We can do that. Number two, create a military unit specifically for destroying the cartels in Mexico.
Do they have to be deployed?
No. No.
They don't have to be deployed.
But if we don't create one, the cartels are never going to take us seriously.
We need a dedicated, big, badass military unit for invasion and occupation of Mexico.
Not the whole country. Just the narco centers.
Maybe just one.
Alright, so that's number two. Create a special military unit for attacking the cartels.
Number three. Give the cartels a six-month deadline to stop all fentanyl operations, but not necessarily everything else.
Fentanyl only. They can still do illegal stuff.
We don't want them to.
We're not saying it's okay to.
We're just saying this is our red line.
This is just the red line.
You have to know, cartels, that selling us the other stuff is very, very bad, and we're going to try to stop you in normal ways.
We'll use sort of normal ways to try to stop all the other stuff.
But fentanyl, we're not going to be normal.
Fentanyl's war. It's not drugs.
We'll treat the drugs in the normal way, what you're used to, but fentanyl we're going to treat as a war, and you are our enemy.
If you want that model going forward, just keep selling fentanyl for six more months.
Now, the reason you give them six months is that it takes a long time to unwind anything.
They need to think about it.
They need to really maybe even get some alternatives.
It's just not going to be fast.
And that six months happens to be Ideally, six months from the time a new president is installed.
So I'm thinking maybe summer of 2024, we should tell the cartels, we've spun up a military unit, and if at the end of June we see one pill of fentanyl across this border, we're going to launch an invasion.
And it's not going to be, you know, just to do a mild kind of a, you know, punch you and hurt you.
It's to take over.
The United States military should take over the cartel's operation, just like conquering a country.
You should take over as the head of the operation and just run the thing and turn it into something else.
Just be the battered boss.
Alright, I would say open, number four, open a direct negotiation with the cartel leaders.
President to cartel leader.
Now, would Biden do that?
Of course not. Would he be capable?
Of course not. Could Trump do that?
Could Trump talk directly, maybe not directly, directly, but through an intermediary, could Trump negotiate with the head of the cartel?
Yep. In fact, name one person on the planet Earth who would be more ideal for that job.
You can't. You can't.
He would be the number one best person on the planet Earth to negotiate directly with a cartel leader.
Nobody else could do that.
Not as well. Then I think we also, if we're going to negotiate, we're going to have to give the cartels a retirement plan.
So either the retirement plan is you just go back to doing your other illegal things and we'll just go back to our cat-and-mouse game, or you need some financial guarantees and, I don't know, some kind of legal guarantees, but you've got to get out of the business and you've got to close it down so nobody just takes it over.
I mean, one of the things you could do, for example, is hire one of the cartels to become the fighting force to beat the other cartel.
I mean, you could probably just hire them as, you know...
If cartels can hire people to be murderers, quite easily, apparently, we should be able to bribe some people to go murder the murderers.
Doesn't seem like that would be expensive.
Number five, declare fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction and the cartels terrorist organizations.
You're already seeing some calls for that, but that would open up military options, of course.
Then it would also signal our intentions.
It's very important to signal our intentions because the cartels have to do what we want them to do or nothing happens.
So you've got to signal very carefully, okay, you know that drug war you thought you were in?
Well, that's not this.
The drug war is the other stuff.
This is war-war.
So we're going to distinguish between drug war and war-war.
This is war-war. This is the kind that gets wet.
Number six, tighten border security, of course, but understanding that it won't make much difference.
The understanding that it won't make much difference is key because otherwise our politicians who are worthless will just talk about border security because it's fun to talk about and they understand it a little bit.
If you let them talk about border security, it's all they'll talk about.
And that's a Trump problem, right?
Trump made border security like the tastiest thing to talk about.
So they're only going to be like the shiny object.
Border security. Border security.
You've got to make sure they know that's 5% of the problem.
Because, you know, you could hold in your hand enough fentanyl to take out a whole city.
It's like a baseball.
It's over the wall. It is not hard to get fentanyl across a border.
The fact that people have been caught in fairly large numbers tells you nothing about how hard it is to get it across.
Nothing. Fentanyl is so...
Let me do the math for you.
Let's say 100% of the fentanyl that gets shipped gets to the border.
That's bad, right?
Now let's say you find a way to catch 90% of what comes through.
90%. What does that do to the usage on the receiving end?
Nothing. Nothing.
Not at all. And it's not because the 10% that gets through is enough.
Do you know why? Because I'm saying it does actually cut it by...
Let me say it in a more specific way, because I think I'm misleading you.
Let's say you catch 90% of everything that goes across the border.
Would that reduce fentanyl usage in the United States?
It would not. Do you know why?
Somebody tell me why catching 90% of it wouldn't reduce the use at all.
Why? It's a math reason, kind of.
It's a business reason, really.
Like the price?
No. Ooh, okay, thank you, thank you.
Somebody came up with the right answer.
The answer is, they will make 10 times more.
That's all they have to do. They'll just make 10 times more.
And then the 10% that gets through is now their original number.
There's nothing you could do at the border.
They'll just make more. Now, that would not be true of marijuana.
Do you know why? Because marijuana is bulky.
And it's hard to, like, go make another crop in 10 minutes, right?
You have to wait months for another crop.
Fentanyl, you could just go back to the lab, like, da-da-da-da-da, da-da-da-da.
Well, there's another batch, right?
So every time you make any analogy to drug wars, they're all wrong.
All the analogies to a drug war just don't apply to fentanyl.
Alright, so border security, yes, but don't think that's a solution.
Number seven, do a massive public education campaign on fentanyl and Narcan.
A lot of people think they understand it, but I see a lot of really basic misunderstandings out there.
Number eight, give China a deadline to stop fentanyl shipments, or the alternative is we do it for them, whatever it takes.
And this should not be a point of negotiation.
We should simply tell them the date beyond which all the controls are off on our side.
And just say, we're taking all the controls off.
Now, what's the first thing you might worry about?
They might nuke us, right?
Like, suppose we started killing people in China, which is exactly what I'm suggesting.
Killing people in China.
What if they nuke us?
Yeah, war, right?
Totally worth the risk.
Let me say it again.
Yes, war.
Yes. Yes.
Unambiguously, war.
That's my choice. Unambiguously.
Yep. If you want to go to war over the question of you're already killing 100,000 Americans, I'm in.
I'm in. Sign me up.
If China wants a war over this, give them a fucking war.
A full war. A real war.
Destroy half of the world.
Because you know what you can't do?
You can't let people kill 100,000 of you a year and not respond to it.
That is not an option.
Our current situation is not an option.
Did you ever have somebody in your life who threatened to kill themselves if you didn't give them what they wanted, which was unreasonable?
Has anybody ever had that?
Anybody close to you ever say, I will kill myself Watch the yeses go by.
I will kill myself if you don't give me what I want.
And what was your response?
If your response was giving them what they wanted, how'd that work out?
I feel like on at least two occasions I've been threatened that way, and not only did I say go ahead, I meant it.
So let me give you a bottom line in my life.
If somebody comes to me, and I don't care who, doesn't matter what kind of loved one it is, family member, spouse, it doesn't matter.
You come to me and you say you're going to kill yourself if I don't do something that really is a bad thing to do.
Fucking kill yourself.
I'll give you the gun.
Because I'm not going to live one minute under those conditions.
Not one minute. So if killing yourself is the alternative, go kill yourself.
By the way, I've said that twice.
They both tried. They both tried twice.
Didn't work both times.
And if either of them had been successful, I would have been fine with it.
I never would have a moment of guilt.
Not a moment.
Because there's no way I'm going to live under somebody else taking control of my body and my life by telling me that they're going to hurt themselves if I'm not their slave.
I'm not going to be your slave.
No. I'm not going to be China's slave.
So if people have to die to make me not China's slave, that's what war is for.
That's the whole point of war.
To make me not somebody else's slave.
All right. So, here's the thing.
China has to know that you're serious about this and not bluffing.
And there's only one way to make them know you're serious about it and not bluffing, which is actually do it.
We should actually just start killing some people in their country.
I don't know how hard that is.
I feel like there must be some way to get a murderer into China or send a drone in there or something.
Mail them some poison.
Send them something in the mail.
Send them a pipe bomb.
There must be some way to kill people in China.
But we should go ahead and start killing them.
Let's see. And then number nine, when the deadline passes, because China would ignore us, of course.
I don't make any...
I have no dreams that they would act in any way.
So of course China will ignore our requests.
So we should start killing their people, the dealers only.
But then when the deadline passes, this is number done, send our diplomats home and theirs too.
Fentanyl needs to be a single topic issue.
They shouldn't be negotiated as part of a package with anything else.
We should just say, look, fentanyl's a red line.
We're taking our diplomats home, and we're sending yours home.
We're not even going to be a country talking to you if you can't solve this.
And then we should expel one Chinese student, meaning somebody who's an actual Chinese resident, one Chinese student in American colleges for every fentanyl death.
Just do them in alphabetical order and just make it a formula and say, we don't even fucking care.
We'll just send them home because we just don't care.
And then... Number 11 was do the local test.
And I think you have to test it locally, the idea of legalizing other drugs so there are fentanyl alternatives.
You'd have to do that locally, because there's no way that the country is going to say, let's do it the whole country.
You agree? There's no way we get the whole country to say, oh, let's make cocaine legal.
That's not going to happen. But you could make a zip code.
You could find a blue state.
It doesn't have to be. It could be a red state.
And by the way, I think the red states should test it.
And just test it. But you probably have to make it...
I don't know.
Would you have to make it non-porous?
I suppose some fentanyl would still get in, so you'd have to make it free or something.
I don't know how you would design it, but let's just say that that feels doable, like you probably could design something to test.
Somebody says that I'm suggesting that the CIA should fight the CIA. Is that because you think fentanyl is a CIA plot?
Is that what you think? I don't think so.
All right. Rapid test kits to screen for fentanyl.
Maybe. Maybe.
So the rapid test kits, I've heard that there are some, like, practical limitations to that.
Like, it sounds like a good idea, but the addicts won't actually use them, you know, at least at a high enough level that make a difference.
But test it.
Test it, right? You could do the same thing with a zip code.
Just pick a zip code and say, we're going to have all kinds of fentanyl testing stuff here.
All you want. It's free. See if it makes a difference.
There's no criminal penalty for having drugs in Oregon, which suggests we should test Oregon to see if they have a higher OD level.
Per addict. You don't do the OD level in general.
You would say, of addicts, what percent of them OD'd.
And I would be interested if Portland has legalized drugs.
But what I think probably happens in Portland is they simply legalized fentanyl accidentally.
Because if you buy a pill, you don't know what's in it.
There's nothing in Oregon that would make their pills suddenly become pure cocaine or pure heroin when they had always been partly fentanyl.
How would legalization change the mix of drugs that they're buying?
Unless you gave those Portland people free heroin, they're still going to buy whatever's on the street, and what's on the street is fentanyl.
So how does the legalization help?
Because that doesn't change the supply.
So it has to be more than legal.
It has to be free, right? The alternatives would literally have to be free.
Otherwise, they just go in the streets and they buy and they don't know what they get, just like now.
The legalization would have no impact on anything.
You'd just be buying the same mix of good and bad.
All right. Here's my...
Well, I think I had some other topics here, maybe.
Or did I? Nope.
Nope. Was there anything else that happened today?
Terrible idea. Fentanyl is cheaper than heroin now, I would imagine, yeah.
Because fentanyl, the precursors are easy to get, right?
You have to actually grow poppies to make heroin.
So I would assume that would be true.
Military coup on China is possible?
I don't think so. Oh yeah, Musk has been cleared to send Starlink to Iran.
How does that really help Iran, though?
I don't know that Starlink helps Iran.
It makes sense in Ukraine, because they could put the Starlinks behind enemy lines.
And then turn them off after they've used them so that they get some benefits so that they're not targeted.
But if you had a Starlink base station in a house in Iran, they would spot it immediately, right?
And just go turn it off.
So I think that a Starlink is a good idea.
I mean, it's better than not having it.
But I think it's something that would make a big difference in Ukraine.
I don't know if they could hide them well enough in Iran.
It would help them.
It would help them a little bit, but I feel like they would spot them, because you can find them electronically.
Oh, yes, I'm sorry.
Thanks for reminding me. So Matt Gaetz will not be charged with any of those crimes that he had been accused of.
Did you hear that? Matt Gaetz is in the clear.
He's clear. Did I ever say that he would be cleared?
Does anybody remember, did I make a prediction about him?
I did say he'd be cleared.
I thought I did, yeah.
So that would be another prediction that I think would be non-obvious, right?
Given the excitement around his potential legal problems, I feel like my prediction was sort of counterintuitive.
Because it did sound like, oh, they got the goods, they're really going to go after him.
But I never thought for a moment that that was a risk.
I just thought it was a very bad political situation that will dog him forever.
But I never thought he was at legal risk.
Yeah, I predicted it would come to nothing.
Exactly. Um...
Uh... Oh, so somebody's reminding me that what I said was that every day that you don't learn that there's something bad really there, it's less likely that you'll ever find it.
The longer it goes, the less likely anything was real.
And I think that became clear a few months ago, right?
A few months ago, it was already clear that that wasn't going to turn into anything.
Because you would have known by then, right?
Remember, we never heard an accuser.
Nobody ever even surfaced the actual woman.
And I can't believe that the young woman would actually bring a, you know, be a good witness.
Imagine if you were the woman involved, or if there was one, right?
Allegedly. Like, who would want to be part of that?
If they participated willingly, who would want to bring them down for that?
Nobody. So I'm not even sure it matters in terms of the legal process.
I don't think it matters what did or didn't happen.
It wasn't in the domain of things that the public cares about.
Even the legal system doesn't care about it.
It's so trivial.
It's closer to normal human behavior than crime.
And that's what I saw.
From the very beginning, it looked like normal human behavior didn't look like a crime to me.
All right. And it looks like we have now completed possibly the best show you've ever seen in your life.
Now, how many of you are on board with the fact that if we don't push on fentanyl, nothing's going to happen?
And here's what I think I can do.
I think by creating some kind of thing for people to react to, that probably moves the ball a little bit.
But I'm also increasing the envelope of what you can talk about in public.
Imagine, let's say, a normie.
Imagine a normal politician saying the things that I just said.
Can you imagine it?
Just imagine a routine, normal, existing politician saying anything close to what I just said in my 11-point plan.
Nobody. Nobody.
There's nobody who has those balls.
There's one candidate who's close.
His name is Trump.
And I'm going to be honest, this is purely a balls question.
Like, you'd have to have balls the size of...
You know, beach balls to get this done.
And he's the only one who does.
He's the only one who does.
I don't know why. I don't know why, but he's the only one who does.
Now, you're mentioning some other people, but I guarantee you they're not going to be as strong on this as I just was.
Now, I've also created a problem for Trump.
Do you realize that?
Do you know why? Why does my plan create a problem for Trump?
Because it's stronger than his is.
His is nothing, I think.
So now he looks weak on crime.
I just made Trump look weak on crime.
You know why? Because he's weak. He's weak on fentanyl.
I think he's strong on wanting to do something about it, but he's weak on ideas, so I'm trying to move the ball forward.
So I'm trying to help him.
As well as everybody else.
And by the way, if Biden said tomorrow, I like your plan, I'm on Team Biden, and I'm going to ride that horse.
So I just want the problem solved.
I don't really... This is not a Trump thing.
I don't care one way or the other.
All right. And so, ladies and gentlemen, this brings us to the conclusion of the best livestream of all time.
And if it wasn't the most entertaining, maybe it was the most useful.
Because I've told you before that this thing we do, this live stream, is like a collaborative intelligence.
Meaning that I throw out ideas or you throw out ideas and we all react to them and form an opinion sort of collectively.
And I think this model is really powerful and maybe essential.
It might be the model that is the counterbalance to some other forces that are making politics not work at the moment.
All right. You don't declare war on Mexico when running for president.
Trump could. Trump could.
Trump could declare war on Mexico while running for president.
Absolutely. And here's what I proved with my list.
This is the most valuable thing that I proved.
In fact, I'm going to claim credit for one thing.
Did you see...
The low level of pushback to my tweet about the 11 points.
Look at the comments and look at people's pushback.
There are, of course, critics, right?
So there are plenty of critics.
But the pushback is really low.
In fact, it's less pushback than just about anything I've said that's provocative.
Yeah. Yeah, declaring that Mexico would pay for the wall, that was more just political stuff.
Right. Another drug will not work.
It's been tried. I don't think all the variations of that have been tried.
And the other thing that I would suggest is that people should not say, well, this thing is better than this thing, so we'll do this thing.
You don't do that in a war.
In a war you do both things.
I've got one weapon against fentanyl that doesn't look that strong, but I've got another weapon that looks pretty strong.
So let's use the strong one and don't use the weak one.
