Episode 2063 Scott Adams: Newsom's Reparations Trap, IQ With Healthcare, AI Control, Restrict Act
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Reparations trap for Governor Newsom
Increasing IQ with healthcare
CIA control of AI
Restrict Act
Armed school security
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams.
It's the highlight of civilization.
You might notice my voice is a little raspy, got a little laryngitis.
So turn up your sound, put on your headphones.
This is as loud as I can get.
Now, if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that, I don't know, are just impossible to imagine at this point, all you have to do is grab yourself a cup, or a mug, or a glass, a tank, or gel, or styne, a canteen jug, or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine, the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, and today it comes with a little oxytocin too.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Well, Jacinta, I hope you enjoyed your very first simultaneous sip.
Everybody, congratulations to Jacinta.
Good.
I hope I'm pronouncing that right.
I turned the J into a Y. Is that correct?
J-A-C-I-N-T-A.
Jacinta?
Sounds about right.
Alright, well.
How many of you have seen the famous, probably every one of you, the famous audio illusion in which you can hear, what is it, Green Needle or something else?
So you can hear two different things even though it's always the same?
Well, have you seen the one where there's a whole list of things you can see?
This is the one that will completely change your opinion about the world.
Now, I don't know if you can hear it.
Hold on.
Alright.
So before I put on the audio, just see that there's a whole list of different things which the same audio will sound like.
But only if you're looking at it at the time.
So in other words, if you're looking at the line that says, baptism piracy, you hear exactly that on the audio.
As soon as you move to any other thing on the list, and there are two, four, six, eight, there are eight things here.
Eight completely different sets of words.
Completely different.
You can hear each of them clearly by reading it at the same time as the music.
Now I don't think it'll come through very well on my audio, but you'll at least get the sense that this is the most mind-bending thing you'll ever see in your life, right?
So here's the sound.
I just realized this doesn't work at all because you can't read the sentences.
But you can hear this as Bart Simpson bouncing, rotating pirate ship, that isn't my receipt, lobsters in motion, that is embarrassing, lactates in pharmacy, baptism piracy, or that isn't mercy.
No sound?
Yeah, there's plenty of sound.
So the people saying there's no sound are just trolls.
Now, here's why this is so mind-blowing.
When the audio illusion was two different things, you could tell yourself, oh, well, that's a weird coincidence.
There are two different things that, in the right conditions, you would confuse with each other.
In a way, it's not really that interesting, is it?
It's not really interesting.
But what happens when there's eight entirely different words that you can hear clearly by looking at them when the same sound is playing?
How do you explain that?
The only way to explain that is that reality is super subjective.
Now, you knew reality was subjective, because we all have different opinions looking at the same stuff, but I'll bet you didn't know it was that subjective.
I mean, that is really subjective.
And that might be the way you walk around through life all the time.
You know, I think it was in the 60s, the first time I heard, you hear what you want to hear, you see what you want to see.
And the first time I heard that, it was sort of mind-blowing.
Really?
Do you hear what you want to hear?
Hmm, I'm not so sure.
Because, you know, I was a kid.
I was like, I don't know.
That sounds a little simplistic, doesn't it?
But you do.
You actually hear what you want to hear.
You can see this with news stories.
How many times have you seen on social media somebody would tweet a story and say, look, this proves X. And I look at it and go, no it doesn't.
It disproves X.
Literally the opposite.
So that's the reality that you walk around in.
There is no fixed reality.
Or if there is, we can't tell what it is.
I would like to give one clarification, an important one.
When Elon Musk and other prominent people said we should pause constraints, I said that's a good idea.
Other people said, wait, wait, China and other countries will blaze ahead of us if we slow down, and that would be dangerous.
To which I say, I'm not in favor of stopping development, so I'm only in favor of not making it available to the general public too soon.
So that's the only pause I would favor.
I don't favor stopping research.
I don't favor stopping training it.
I do believe that we have a competitive national security and financial interest in being first and being best.
And we're lucky that we have a company that seems to be first and best, at least at the moment.
So, I wouldn't want to lose that asset.
It's one of the things that makes America as strong as it is.
That we have entrepreneurs who can create technologies that change the world.
It looks like that's what's happening.
But, I do think it would be wise to keep it out of the hands of citizens for a little while, or even other commercial interests, and let the AI people do what they're doing, and then we can decide what to do with it.
But here's a take on this that is sort of a clarification of something I said before.
The real risk of AI is that if it starts telling us stuff that isn't true, it will be banned or ignored.
Would you agree?
If you couldn't trust AI to tell you what's true, which is the current situation, it's not reliable.
I found that my need to use it was much lower once I realized that it was full of shit.
Does anybody have that experience?
When it first came out, I thought, oh my god, I'm so interested in what it says.
But as soon as I knew that it lies, or just randomly makes up facts, I thought, oh, it's just a random word generator.
I have no interest in a random word generator.
A random word generator that looks intelligent to people who don't look into it too carefully is not interesting in the least.
But will it always be like that?
So there are two conditions.
One, if AI is undependable, it won't be that useful and people won't be caring about it.
But what if it becomes accurate?
And how would we know?
It's almost as dangerous if it's accurate.
Because if it's accurate, then there will be no common narrative for the country.
Here's the problem.
In my youth, in let's say 40s and 50s or 60s, we know now that the CIA was actively manipulating movies and TV and trying to create a culture that would be successful and defensible.
And they succeeded.
The so-called American dream of owning a house and being a consumer and having a nice car, being a Christian back in those days, that was a key thing.
Those things were never natural.
Those things were programs.
So the United States wisely and effectively programmed its citizens.
How many of you stood and did the Pledge of Allegiance?
You know that's just brainwashing, right?
It's good brainwashing.
It's the kind I approve of.
Because you can't really let society take its own wild direction any way it goes.
It's just chaos.
So there probably is some need to brainwash at least children.
At the very least you have to brainwash the children.
Because they can't make decisions.
Now you could argue that adults can't either.
But certainly with children we'd all agree.
So you have to brainwash children.
Later you can teach them critical thinking and maybe they'll change their opinions on things, but they would do it somewhat on their own.
However, it appears that the CIA got out of that business for a while until Obama put them back in that business through legislation.
Once you know that the intelligence services of the United States can legally, legally brainwash the citizens, and there's actually a utility to it, it's not all bad, then you have to say to yourself, what are they brainwashing us with?
Well, at the moment, they're brainwashing us with wokeness.
Because they could make it go away.
They could make it go away.
If the CIA, or whoever, you know... Here's a phrase that I saw in an article by Jacob Siegel, writing for a tablet, and it's called, A Guide to Understanding the Hoax of the Century, Thirteen Ways of Looking at Disinformation.
The problem is, in our current situation, The intelligence entities of the United States have formed working relationships with social media and the news.
Now, the way they approach it is that they're going to help the news and help social media remove disinformation.
So who says no to that?
You go to the news and you say, hey, we know what's true and what isn't.
Wouldn't you like to report true news?
What's the news going to say?
Of course.
Of course.
You know, tell us what's true.
You know, they might check it, but at least they'd want to know what's true.
So, if you have an entity that is selling itself as the correctors of disinformation, they really are in control of your information.
You've given them control of your minds.
Because you've decided that some entity can tell you what's true and not true, and believe me, they don't know.
They don't know.
They're just going to tell you a version that they think is to their best interest.
So we have a situation where our media is completely, and here's the Phrase I wanted to read from Jacob Siegel because he said it so well.
He said, The American press, once the guardian of democracy, was hollowed out to the point that it could be worn like a hand puppet by the U.S.
security agencies and party operatives.
The media is so hollowed out it could be worn as a hand puppet by the CIA, U.S.
security agencies, and party operatives.
Perfect.
Perfect.
First of all, it's great writing, because it's visual.
Secondly, it just captures the entire situation.
So, we're so addicted to watching the news that we think it's real.
Even when we know it's not real, we act like it is.
I do that every day.
I know the news isn't real, and I still act like it is.
And I can't break myself of the habit.
I tell myself, well, you know, I'm working on this assumption, or, you know, it's real until it changes.
You know, I tell myself ridiculous things, but what I should tell myself is none of it's real.
Because it's not.
The facts might be real, but the narrative in which it is presented is always artificial.
I do believe in pausing AI, but how in the world do we get AI to be free from the same things that corrupted our media, which is intelligence agencies?
How do you keep intelligence agencies from owning AI?
Can you?
I don't think it's possible, because they have more power, and they're better at it.
See, here I think This is my speculation.
The way intelligence agencies can co-opt social media managers and news people is that when the CIA or somebody, you know, like FBI, somebody official, comes in and meets with you, and they say, hey, let us be partners and let us help you, the first thing you might think is, oh, I've got a partner.
Free partner.
Maybe it's free, maybe it's not.
But I've got this partner.
Like, they'll help me.
But the trouble is, intelligence agencies are never your partner.
They're always your boss.
They're always your boss.
They're never your partner.
They might come in as your partner, but try to do something they don't want.
See how that goes.
And some of it is ego.
Imagine you're the CEO of whatever news entity.
And the CIA asks for a meeting.
What does that do to your brain?
You're in charge, and the CIA asks to meet with you because it's important to national security.
And you're important.
Yes, you.
You're important to national security.
And we really think you're great, and we'd like to work with you to help you, because you're so important.
We'd like to help you be even more effective.
And by the way, we can tell you some stuff that you wouldn't have known otherwise.
Do you like some insider stuff?
Would you like to tell your family that you meet with the CIA?
Yeah, you would.
Sounds kind of sexy, doesn't it?
Makes you look kind of powerful.
You'll like it.
Let's be partners.
So, I don't think they need to force anybody to do anything.
I think they just have to associate with them and then people start doing what they want.
It's somewhat automatic.
Somewhat automatic.
All right.
Given that the news is not reliable, I would like to propose a way of dealing with the news.
This is how to deal with the news when you don't believe it's necessarily reliable.
I call it the working assumption model.
The working assumption.
Now, a working assumption doesn't mean you believe it.
It means that the evidence suggests something's true, and unless something disproves it, that's your working assumption.
Let me give you some examples.
There's no evidence that the Mexican cartels have corrupted the government of the United States, in a big way, right?
Would you agree?
There's no evidence, that I'm aware of, that the government of the United States is already corrupted by the cartels.
I've never seen any evidence of that.
However, given what we see, which is a complete lack of interest in dealing with the cartels effectively, my working assumption is that the government is already compromised.
I don't know that it's true, but everything I see supports that working assumption.
So if I said it's true, well, then I would be lying, because I don't know that it's true.
But if I say the most practical working assumption is that the government has already been corrupted, what would you do?
How would you act differently?
I'll tell you how I would act differently.
I would arm.
Because we might reach a point where the citizens have to get rid of the cartel.
And the only way that's going to happen is with superior firepower.
If the government is out of the game, that doesn't mean the game's over.
The game isn't over because the government decided to set it out.
No, the game is on.
And you better arm yourself.
Because the cartels have already wiped out the black gangs.
Did you know that?
This is Peter Zahan's provocative idea.
He says that the reason that the murder rate dropped It's because the cartels murdered the murderers.
The gangs.
They just murdered the murderers and took over their business.
Have you wondered why you don't hear much about the Crips and the Bloods lately?
They're dead.
Not all of them, obviously.
But apparently their power has been diminished and completely gunned by the cartels.
Now the cartels are more dangerous in one way, even though they murder less, believe it or not.
When the cartel completely owns a place, the murder rate goes down.
It's only when they don't have control that the murder rate is high.
When the murder rate goes down, that's trouble.
Worry the most when the murder rate goes down, because that means the cartel already has control.
So, working assumption is that our government is already compromised by the cartels.
I'd love it to not be true, but I have to act like it is true because the government is acting as if it's true as well.
Here's another one.
There's no evidence that I'm aware of that our elections were rigged in the sense of vote counting.
No evidence at all.
However, The fact that our elections are not fully auditable and there seems to be no interest by our government to make them fully auditable, my working assumption is that they're rigged or will be.
They're either rigged or they will be.
Now I don't have evidence of that.
It's a working assumption under the context of a press that isn't dependable.
And a government that is obviously not working on a gigantic problem.
Completely ignoring it.
The working assumption is that the elections are rigged.
Or, that they will be soon.
Is that fair?
Again, let me be as clear as possible.
I don't have proof of it.
If I said I had any kind of proof, or even strong evidence, that would be a lie.
What I have is a working assumption based on living a life of, you know, who you trust and who you don't.
Sorting things into those buckets and say, well, that's what it looks like.
That's my working assumption.
All right.
Here's another one.
The TikTok ban.
So the country wanted to ban TikTok.
It appeared that there was some bipartisan support.
But instead of a simple bill that bans TikTok, we got something called the Restrict Act from Senator Warner, I believe, Democrat.
But the Restrict Act is not targeted at TikTok.
In fact, I believe TikTok is not mentioned.
Rather, it gives broad powers to the government To determine if there is foreign influence, you know, in any of our communication, social media structure.
And it can go after any of that foreign influence, you know, with the powers of the government.
Here's the problem.
Why are they doing that?
Who asked for that?
Do you remember a big American uprising saying, give the government more power over all our social media?
When did that happen?
No.
There was a problem.
There was a problem with TikTok.
A specific TikTok problem.
If the government is not working on the problem, as clearly defined, and instead is looking to increase its powers more generally, what would you assume?
What's your working assumption?
My working assumption is it's a corrupt process and it's just a power grab and it's just political and has nothing to do, nothing to do with solving the country's risk.
Nothing to do with it.
Now is that true?
I don't know.
I have no idea.
But it's my working assumption.
It's a reasonable working assumption.
Here's what I say.
I say that if you say something's true, your enemies can say it's false.
So don't do that.
Don't say it's true when the other side just says, well, prove it.
You can't prove it.
Nope.
Just say, if anybody wants to change my mind, it's pretty easy.
Do you know how you can change my mind on TikTok?
Produce a bill, just about TikTok, and then if you want, you can also have a bill with this other restrict stuff in it.
And then let Congress vote on them separately.
One, to ban TikTok, which is what we all want.
And one, let's talk about it.
Maybe they have an argument that I'm not aware of.
On the surface, it looks like a big mistake.
Just a power grab that citizens aren't going to like in the long run.
But I'd listen to it.
I just don't want it combined with the thing that I want solved, which is TikTok.
See how easy it would be to change my working assumption?
With that little change, a little change, just a tiny little change, just make a separate TikTok bill, I would say, okay, it looks like the government's trying to protect me, and they've got some ideas I didn't think of.
So we better talk about those as well.
How could they prove me?
How could they change my working assumption about fentanyl and the cartels already owning them?
Simple.
Just attack the cartels.
Or announce that you're going to, or get tough, or close the border.
Lots of stuff.
There's probably five different things they could do to change my working assumption, and none of them are hard.
Or, well, none of them are undoable.
How about my... What else?
Yeah, well, you get the idea.
It's easy to change my working assumption.
Don't claim things are true.
Claim that your working assumption, based on the facts, can be changed.
So, basically, you would put the burden of proof back on your accusers.
Here's the normal way it goes.
I believe X is true.
Then your Democrat critic usually says, you don't have proof of that.
There's no court that said that's true.
Show me a link, show me some evidence, show me some data.
There's no evidence.
You're just off in crazy town.
But instead you say, well, the situation suggests that this is true.
If you'd like to disprove it, it's easy to do.
I welcome you to disprove it.
I'd love to know it's not true.
So you want to put the burden of proof on the other side, instead of having them put it on you.
So stop this certainty.
And say, well this is what it looks like, so that's my working assumption.
If they'd like it not to look like that, they know how.
It's easy to make it look not like that.
It's real easy.
But they're not doing it.
As long as people aren't doing the easy thing to solve the obvious problem, you can have a working assumption that they're corrupt.
You can.
That's completely reasonable.
Alright, let's talk about the Nashville shooting that I hate to talk about because it just makes more of them, but I guess this one has some details that made it interesting.
As Tucker Carlson and other people have noted, apparently the shooter left a manifesto, which one presumes is a complete explanation of motive.
That's what a manifesto is, right?
And yet that has not been released to the public, and the officials who have seen it say they don't know the motive.
What's your working assumption?
The working assumption, and this is the way Tucker handled it, and I think that was correct.
The working assumption has to be that they're hiding it from you for a reason.
What would be a good working assumption of why they would hide it from you?
Well, I'll tell you the most obvious interpretation, for which I have no proof.
For which I have no proof.
The obvious working assumption is that it was a trans person who was declaring war on possibly Christians.
Now, do we have any direct evidence of that?
Nope.
Nope.
There's no direct evidence of that.
In fact, my first interpretation was it was just a school.
And I think that it's very likely that will still be the final interpretation, that it was just a school, it wasn't about religion at all.
But at the moment, given the lack of information about the manifesto, I think a good working assumption is that it was about Christianity, and the news or the government doesn't want you to know that, because it might just make things worse.
Now, I'm not totally criticizing that.
You know, as much as I think that freedom of information is good for us in general, and it is, this might be one of those special cases where we're better off not seeing it.
Because I doubt that it represents anything like a widespread opinion.
If it did, then maybe I'd want to see it.
If it's just a crazy person babbling, I don't want the right-leaning news to say, well, this represents trans people.
Yeah, look at this one case of this manifesto.
That's how we'll understand trans people from now on.
So I don't feel like we're necessarily better off with seeing it.
But I don't like the way the government's treating us.
You know what I would have respected?
I would have respected saying, you know what?
We don't want you to see it.
I actually would have been perfectly good with that.
Because that would be honest.
That would be honest.
You know, we've seen it.
We're going to deal with it.
It does tell us something we didn't know.
We're not going to show it to you.
Believe it or not, I would be okay with that.
Believe it or not.
Because I'm completely okay with, there is some information, I know you want to know.
We're going to keep it from you.
We think it's in your best interest.
Now, depending on who says it and what the context is, I might not believe it.
But in this case, I would.
In this one simple, unique case, if the FBI said, you know, honestly, we just don't want you to see it.
I'd be okay with that.
Now, I can totally understand if people were not.
I understand that as well.
But I feel like it's only use is political.
Talk me out of it.
Would seeing the manifesto have any use besides political points?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
And we already know what the point would be, right?
If the government kept it from you, you would already know what it says.
Or at least your working assumption would be.
If they kept it from me, my working assumption would be it's some trans person who declared war on Christians.
I would have no data to prove that, but that would be my working assumption.
And you know what?
I'd be okay with that.
I'd be okay with that.
Because I wouldn't really be in the dark.
I would just be, okay, they kept a political football off the field.
Eh, that's okay.
Yeah.
All right, so, and then there's the question of why there seems to be, I don't know, why are we treating a potential hate crime against Christians as different than we would treat other hate crimes?
But I guess it's a little unconfirmed at this point, so that's part of it.
And Tucker also asks the question, why don't we ask if antidepressants were involved?
Now, this question has a lot more salience to me And it might to you, because I've actually experienced, as most of you know, when I took some blood pressure meds that were not to my liking, I was suicidal.
And it was just the meds.
Literally the day I stopped, boom, everything was fine.
And everything's been fine every day since then.
And you know what's interesting, is that by some other measure, you might say, but Scott, how could you be happier now When you've had a whole bunch of bad things happen to you in the last year.
And the answer is, I guess I just had the right mindset.
These allegedly bad things don't seem so bad to me.
The upside seems so substantial that I'm like, I came out okay.
But over the summer, when I was on the wrong meds, there was nothing that could go right.
I just wanted to get out of this world.
I just wanted to get out of this world.
And when I stopped the meds, it went away.
Now, it's easy for me to understand how people, and it would be different for individuals, it's easy for me to understand how a drug could make you a mass killer.
Because if it made you suicidal, at the same time you had negative thoughts about something else, the suicidal part could make you a murderer.
Because if you don't care about your own life, you're not going to care about anybody else's life after you're gone.
So, anyway.
So we should definitely look at antidepressants.
And I thought that that was super brave of Tucker to say it on a TV program, which I believe is largely, or used to be anyway, sponsored by Big Pharma.
Imagine how much balls it takes To say that your advertisers might be causing mass murder.
That's like a lot of balls.
Now, I realize Tucker's in a strong situation, career-wise, but you've got to have balls the size of a planet to say, on the very platform that's supported by big pharma money, somebody says no pharma ads on Tucker.
And I was wondering about that because I've never seen any.
There's probably a reason for that, right?
Yeah.
So, I think that was a valuable service by Tucker Carlson, just sort of putting these ideas out there.
Of course, Madonna is going to have a concert in Nashville to raise money for trans rights.
I'm not sure she's reading the room right.
But can we just agree that Eddie's story about Madonna is a story about mental illness?
Would you agree with that?
I don't know what's happening with Madonna, but my working assumption, I'm not a doctor.
I'm not a doctor.
I can't diagnose her from a distance.
But the way she presents is with mental illness.
Pretty severe.
Pretty severe.
You know, the kind where if she were not famous and powerful, somebody would have forced her into treatment of some kind.
But I also think that the trans story is at least partly about mental illness.
Now, because I have more respect than some of you do, let me say as clearly as possible.
I think it is super, super likely that for some portion of the trans community, transitioning was exactly what they needed, and it made their life better.
I just don't know what the percentage is.
I don't know if that's 10% or 90% because I don't have visibility, but whether it's 10% or 90% it's the same point.
We live in a free world, or we try to be.
We're trying to be free.
If they're adults, they've looked into it, they think they need it, they talk to professionals, That's their business.
It's not my business.
It's just their business.
And I've never had a problem treating any trans person as a human individual with dignity ever before.
I don't know why I'd have that problem in the future.
But it does seem that it has created a magnet for crazy people.
Right?
Which is no fault of the law-abiding, you know, good citizens who just have a, you know, different situation that they found a way to deal with.
It's not about them.
It's about some portion have been attracted to this for all the wrong reasons.
And if you can't say that the trans issue is both things, you know, legitimate people looking at legitimate solutions That their freedom allows them to pursue versus people who are just batshit crazy.
And as soon as you lump them together and say it's all trans, well, there's nothing you can do.
There's nothing you can do with that as soon as you lump them into one category.
And I think that's what the right does to their detriment.
I think it weakens the argument to just treat it like it's all one thing.
So I think the Madonna thing really Underscores that.
Rasmussen asked about preventing mass shootings.
In a Rasmussen poll, 50% of voters say it's not possible to completely prevent mass shootings.
Well, shouldn't that be closer to 100%?
That only 50% of people polled agree it's not possible?
Well, it's not possible to stop them all.
I think everybody would agree with that.
How do you only get 50% agree with that?
Alright, well, but 38% believe it is possible to completely prevent such shootings.
Okay, that's crazy.
And another 12% are not sure.
It's a weird little poll.
So I suggested, well actually I stole an idea.
Somebody sent me a letter and I liked the idea, but I extended it.
So the idea that was not mine was to recruit ex-police officers to be teachers.
Wouldn't you like to know that there were some legally armed ex-police officers who just had become teachers?
So that if your school wanted to be a little safer, just make sure that of your, I don't know, 100 teachers, how many teachers in a school?
What would be an average number of teachers?
A hundred?
Fifty to a hundred?
Something like that?
Let's say fifty to a hundred.
You wouldn't need many of those to be cops.
Two?
Three?
Two or three percent being retired police officers?
Because, you know, if you're getting out of the police game, and a lot of people are because of the changes to, you know, bail and everything else, If a lot of people are leaving the police force, you have exactly the pool of applicants you're looking for.
Some of them might, yeah.
Now you could extend it to ex-military as well, that's correct.
But I wanted to extend the idea even further.
So I tweeted that, what if the federal government, or maybe you could leave it to the states, that's a separate argument, but what if funding was made available, either in a state or federal level, That anybody who wanted to be a legal carrier of a weapon could take the classes or get certified in whatever certification.
And maybe have to get recertified every year.
And then keep the weapon in some kind of a protected safe in a few places.
So you want to make sure that people can get to them quickly, but you don't want the kids to get them obviously.
So some kind of a safe.
A holster?
Well, somebody can grab your holster.
If three kids wanted to, they could hold you down and take your weapon.
So, I don't want it in a holster.
Unless they're actually a security guard, then yes.
But not in the classroom.
We've seen too many videos of students taking on teachers.
Students will take on teachers.
They will steal their gun.
I think that's like a real thing.
There's biometrics for holsters.
Interesting.
I'm not sure I would trust a biometric for a holster.
You still might want to steal it and get rid of the biometric somehow.
So that's just one idea.
Speaking of which, I saw a tweet from Emily Brooks saying that there was a quote shouting match between Representative Jamal Bowman, Democrat, and Representative Thomas Massey.
And then I watched the video.
When I watched the video, do you think I saw a shouting match?
This is the way all headlines work.
There's a shouting match.
And then I watched the headlines.
Nope.
Nope.
There was one person shouting.
Jamal Bowman.
And then there was a plucky representative, Thomas Massey, who happened to be walking by the public hallway or rotunda or wherever it was.
He just happened to be walking by.
And so as Jamal is just like screaming at the crowd in like every direction, he's just, you know, screaming his gun control stuff.
Thomas Massey just walks right up to him and just starts talking to him calmly about a suggestion for, I think, for arming teachers.
And Jamal just keeps yelling and yelling and Massey just keeps to his same tone.
And at one point they're just talking each other over each other.
And then Thomas Massey sees that it's being filmed.
So he sort of excuses himself from the shouting guy and goes to talk to the... it was probably a phone or a news reporter or something.
And he starts to give his idea directly to the video.
And then the shouting guy comes over and tries to shout him away from the video.
So he can't even say his idea.
Alright.
Every day I'm finding a new reason to love Thomas Massey.
I just love the fact that he just walked right up to him and started talking to him with a productive suggestion.
And the guy wouldn't even listen to it.
Wouldn't even listen.
It was awesome.
Alright.
Here's one of the best and scariest ideas I've ever heard.
How many of you are in favor of universal basic income?
Where the government gives you money and you don't have to work.
You just have enough to live.
Right?
Pretty much in this audience it's going to be all no, right?
Oh, a few yeses.
A few yeses.
All right, here's a hidden danger of UBI that I'd never thought of.
And you're going to say to yourself, oh shit.
How did I not think about that?
Are you ready for this?
I'm going to bend your mind, courtesy of A tweeter called TheCommanderInChief1.
It's all one word.
TheCommanderInChief and then digit 1 if you're looking for this person on Twitter.
And here's the tweet that just blew my top of my head off.
Are you ready for this?
Seriously, this is going to blow your head off.
Hold on to your scalp.
Here it comes.
They can talk about a universal basic income as much as they like.
Any smart person will know where this is going.
But I didn't know where this was going.
So I don't qualify as smart.
Let's see if you did.
Here's where he says it's going.
They will not be interested in keeping people around who cannot be useful.
That's what I realized before.
Yeah.
Suppose we create a society where, let's say, 30% of the people are just using the money of the other people, and they're not working.
Now, in our current, woke, democratic world, that's pretty safe.
If you were to introduce UBI, if you could afford it somehow, and you introduced it into America, and let's say 10% of Americans took you up on it, That'd be kind of safe.
It would be not that big of a burden on the country, 10%.
They're probably getting some kind of services anyway.
And you'd say to yourself, well, I'll never even meet one.
I'll probably never even run into anybody who's on UBI.
It's no big deal.
But imagine it got to like 30%.
Imagine if one third of adults were not working and they were just taking your money, your money, The money you work for.
So you get to work and have a good life and they get to do no work at all and spend your money.
Now presumably they would have fewer things.
They'd have to live a more basic life.
But probably they could be just happy doing their fentanyl and whatever.
Now in the short run, that could work.
In the short run.
In the long run, you can never be sure that a despot won't take over.
Am I right?
History has shown us that every civilization ends.
Every one.
They all end.
Or they become a different thing.
What if the United States becomes a dictatorship?
And what if we don't have enough money to feed everybody?
They're going to kill all the UBI people first.
They're going to round up the UBI people, starve them to death, and say, all right, we have a chance now.
We got rid of the anchor that was holding us back.
I'm glad they self-identified as useless, because when we got rid of them, nobody even argued.
Oh, you're going to get rid of the useless people?
And it wouldn't even be racial.
Because it would be, you know, distributed across races and everything.
So you say, hey, it's not even racial.
It's just all the useless people.
All the people who add nothing to society.
We'll just round them up and put them in camps or kill them all.
Had you ever thought about that?
Had you ever considered that you're guaranteeing the death of the people who stop working?
And I'm going to generalize this to a bigger point.
There's no such thing as security in this world.
You're never safe.
You can have the illusion of being safe, and you can be safer than other situations.
So you can be safer, but you can never be safe.
We don't live in a safe world.
But one thing you can do to make yourself as safe as you can, in a dangerous world, is to be useful to other people.
Nothing is going to help you more than that.
All of your happiness, all of your financial success, all of your physical safety is going to depend on how useful you are to other people.
If you're taking UBI and you're nothing but a drain on other people, don't expect to be safe.
Do not expect to be safe.
Because other people don't care about you at that point.
They really don't.
If you're just going to take my money and give me nothing in return, good luck.
You're on your own.
So, I would argue that the more you create your talent stack, the safer you are.
Why was it that I wasn't panicked when I got cancelled worldwide in my primary profession for 34 years?
Why did it not send me into a death spiral?
Because my talent stack is so well developed, I knew I could just do other things.
And so within a day, I was already spinning up my other things.
And they're working fine.
And it's only because I'd spent a lifetime developing a set of skills that I know work together and have commercial value.
If you don't have that going on, you're not safe.
You can only make yourself safe by developing a talent stack that helps other people in some way.
They find value in it.
That's your advice for today.
Well, I don't know if I said this yesterday, but Governor Newsom got himself in a trap by commissioning this group to recommend reparations.
Then they came back with an absurd number that some are saying would cost $800 billion.
Two and a half times the annual budget of California, according to NBC.
So now Newsom has two choices.
If he backs his reparations, he has no future in politics.
Would you agree?
He has no future in politics if he backs the reparations.
But if he doesn't back them, he has no future in politics.
Not national politics.
It might make He might be able to get re-elected.
Probably not.
But he would certainly be out of the race for president.
There's no way he could be president.
That would be completely dead.
So he can't accept it, because then he'd be dead.
And he can't reject it, because then he'd be dead.
Politically.
So what are you going to do?
You can't accept it, and you can't reject it.
Resign?
No!
He's going to form a new committee to study the recommendations of the first committee.
That's what I would do.
That's what I would do.
I'd form a new committee to look into the committee's recommendation, and then I'd wait a year and see if everybody forgot about it.
And maybe release it on a late Friday afternoon.
It looks like it wasn't practical.
Well, we tried.
But the committee that examines the committee found that the first committee didn't do its job as well as it could, so I guess it's dead in the water.
It's a good thing I asked the committee to look at the other committee.
Now, every path he takes on this is a losing path, but that's the least losing path, so I predict it.
All right.
Meanwhile, over in Minnesota, Governor Tim Walz did a big event in which he introduced and announced A new Chief Equity Officer, Dr. Stephanie Barrage.
Chief Equity Officer.
If you're looking for a state to move to, I would recommend one that does not have a Chief Equity Officer.
That should be a giant red flag to stay away from that state.
As far away as you can.
Why?
Because they're racists.
Do you think a white male could have been hired as the first Chief Equity Officer?
Seriously.
Do you think a white male could have been considered for the job?
Of course fucking not.
Of fucking course not.
Of course not.
It's purely racist.
What's the definition of racist?
You're hiring people based on their race.
There's no fucking way they would have hired a white man for the job.
Why would you move to that state?
That state has a big sign on it that says, no white men allowed.
Women?
I don't know.
Maybe women.
But white men?
No.
Nope.
Can't get a job in Minnesota.
It's pretty clear.
All right.
Speaking of Governor Newsom, he tweeted two charts.
One is a chart of the states that have lots of guns.
The states that have the most strict gun control.
And he found that when you have the strictest gun control, it correlates really high with fewer murders.
Now what do you think of that?
So the data probably came from good sources.
Well, let's say the data is accurate.
We don't know it's accurate, of course.
That would be ridiculous.
But let's say it is.
How many problems do you think there are with that comparison?
A lot of them.
A lot of them.
All right.
Let me give you just the sampler set of problems, which for some reason I didn't include in my notes.
Here's the sampler set.
If you're looking at states and comparing a state to a state, do you think that's a good comparison?
Because California shows up as a low murder state with high gun restrictions.
But you can't go near Oakland.
You can't go anywhere near Oakland.
I drive around Oakland.
I don't even want to drive through it.
It's so fucking dangerous.
Right?
So, yeah, Compton, etc.
So, the use of states is meant to conceal what's true, not to tell you what's true.
Would you agree?
That almost all the murders are in cities.
Well, you know, the vast majority are in cities.
And if you don't break down city to city, so what I'd like to see is strictest gun laws by city.
I think you'd find that Chicago has strict gun laws and a high murder rate.
Washington DC, strict gun laws, high murder rate.
Oakland, strict gun laws, high murder rate.
Baltimore, strict gun laws, high murder rate.
So you can see how easily Newsom can lie with accurate numbers.
Now you're saying the numbers might not be accurate and I agree.
But even if the numbers are accurate, he's found the only way to be misleading by grouping it by state instead of by city.
It makes the whole thing ridiculous.
Then you'd also want to see a before and after.
Show me the murder rate in, let's say, Chicago before and after the gun control strict regulations went into place.
Did it immediately fall?
That'd be a strong argument.
Or did it go up?
Which I think it did.
So those are just a few problems.
If you looked at the comments on that tweet, you'd see other people suggesting other problems.
We've reached the point where data is absolutely useless.
Data.
And so I tweeted this.
Here's where we're at.
This is my summary of everything you need to know about data.
Dumb people argue without data.
Would you agree?
If somebody's making their argument and they're ignoring the data or they don't know what it is or they're not using it, that's pretty dumb.
Pretty dumb.
Smart people argue with data.
Would you agree?
If you see a smart person, they're probably showing you their data.
But the smarter people, the people who are smarter than the smart people, know that you can torture the data until it tells you anything you want to hear.
Right?
So, summarizing so far.
If you're dumb, you don't use data.
If you're smart, you do use data.
If you're smarter than that, you know the data is useless because it's been put together by corrupt people.
But there's one level above that.
Smarter than the smarter people, these would be the smartest people, know that the data is not real and neither are you.
I'll just leave that there.
All right.
Senator Mark Warren was defending his Restrict Act.
That's the one that's supposed to be aimed at TikTok, but is in fact a general statement about giving the government more power over Social media, basically.
Even domestic.
And he said this, defending it.
He said, the Restrict Act isn't an infringement on free speech.
It's a systemic, rules-based approach to identifying and addressing foreign tech that could threaten national security.
Now, when he explains it that way, that doesn't sound so bad, does it?
Wouldn't you like to know that our government has a rules-based approach?
You know, something you can really... There's no gray area.
It's a rules-based approach, he says.
And don't you want them to identify and address foreign technology that could threaten national security?
That's all good, right?
Isn't that terrific?
Here's what I tweeted back at him.
We don't trust the government with new rules, in other words, powers, over communication.
It's that simple.
My reply is, we don't trust you.
What he's proposing is something that would be good for somebody that you trusted.
Am I right?
If we trusted the government, that probably makes sense.
It sounds like they'd need a little more structure to look for bad intention from foreign powers.
Sounds good.
But what happens if you don't trust your government and you think everything they do is a trick?
Which is my current operating belief.
In that case, you don't want to give them any power for any reason.
Because they're not going to use it for good reasons.
So his problem is not that it's a good or a bad bill.
The problem is him.
Let me say that again.
The problem is not Senator Warner's bill.
Because he defended that quite adequately.
The problem is Senator Warren.
Warner.
Warner.
The problem is the Senator.
And the other Senators.
Because we don't trust them.
Am I right?
He's defending the wrong thing.
He should defend why we should trust him.
Not why we should trust the bill.
Why we should trust him.
And he has no argument for that.
Sorry.
Because, you know, nobody's going to trust the other party, and nobody even trusts your own party, and it all looks suspicious to me.
So, no.
You're not allowed to change the topic.
The topic is you, Senator Warner.
We don't trust you.
And if you say, oh, I have this other senator who agrees with me, oh, that's just another person I don't trust.
Oh, you've also got Romney on your side.
I don't trust him.
I don't trust him.
Because he's in Congress, basically.
All right.
If he put together a one-pager banning TikTok, I might trust that.
Have you heard of the Tartarian theory of why civilizations might disappear?
I'm not sure.
How many of you heard this?
This is the greatest, some call it a conspiracy theory, some call it true.
All right, let me tell you what it is.
It's an idea that there used to be an advanced civilization on Earth that built great structures, from the pyramids to even skyscrapers in New York.
So that, you know, a lot of stuff is included.
And that there was a great mud flood Literally a bunch of mud that destroyed that advanced civilization, but the buildings and structures that remained were the tall ones.
So that if you looked at the tall, older buildings that are more ornate, the less modern ones, you would find that they have many stories below the ground that used to be above the ground.
And you don't know it, but it's been hidden from us that there was a great society that got wiped out by mud.
No, it's not real.
As far as I know, there's no reality to it.
But it's the most interesting new theory.
And apparently there are some examples of some buildings that do have substantial below-ground structure.
So they use those as examples.
All right, so no, I don't think that's true.
Here's a story about female students at the University of Wyoming.
They were concerned, and now they're suing their sorority because a trans-identified... They call it a trans-identified male.
I don't know if that's the wrong way to say it or not.
But yes, a trans...
No, I think they're using the wrong language here.
I think the polite language is, there's a trans person who identifies as female.
So there's a trans person who identified as female, not the way they were born, at least physically not the way they were born.
And it alleges that this Trans woman, Artemis Langford, has been, quote, watching the women undress in the sorority house, sometimes while erect.
Now, my first question is, why are all these women who are undressing erect?
I mean, is it a clitoral thing?
I don't understand.
It's possible that the sentence is just confusing, and what they mean is that the trans person, Artemis Langford, is erect, not the women who are undressing.
Okay, I think that's probably what it means.
Alright, now here's my question.
What's wrong with that?
What's wrong with this trans woman who still has male equipment having an erection while in the company of all these women who are just like Artemis?
They're just other women.
And would they have a problem if Artemis had been born a lesbian?
Wouldn't a lesbian... I mean, I don't know too much about lesbian culture, but am I wrong?
Would a lesbian be turned on by seeing naked, attractive women?
Is that a thing?
I don't even know if that's a thing.
Is it a thing?
So if a lesbian would be allowed in the sorority, and I assume they would be, right?
The sorority isn't going to discriminate based on LBGTQ stuff.
So if you could be a lesbian in the sorority, it seems to me that a trans who also had a physical reaction to women, same thing.
So I feel like they're discriminating against this poor trans person for having a penis.
That doesn't seem right.
Because they wouldn't discriminate against lesbians.
It's not the same?
You can never tell when I'm serious, can you?
Am I serious?
Alright, so what I'm doing is a little bit of You know, basically accepting and amplifying.
Alright, so I'm doing some amplification to make a point.
Embrace and amplify.
Correct.
So, alright, here is the most provocative thing you'll ever hear in your entire life.
Something that I could never even mention until I'd been cancelled.
Somebody says I look high.
I wish.
No, I'm not high right now, believe it or not.
I'd tell you if I were.
You know, I live a transparent life when it comes to marijuana.
I'd tell you.
If I were, I'd just tell you.
But I'm not.
All right, here's the topic.
And first you need to know where this comes from.
All right, here's my source.
So my source is Tyrone Williams, who's on Twitter and goes by ImmuneHack.
You know, at ImmuneHack.
Now, I don't know what's true.
But I'll tell you what looks true.
That's all I can do.
What looks true is that Tyrone is a real person.
A black American.
And the black American part is important to the story.
Alright?
Because if you didn't know that I was quoting a black American man, you would think I'm the worst person in the world for bringing up this topic.
But it's not my topic.
I think it's useful.
I think it's valuable.
I don't know if it's true, but it has enough meat on the bones for me to say, I think Tyrone's onto something.
And I'm going to share it with you.
And the biggest reason that you probably won't have seen this is it's just so dangerous.
It's like dangerous thoughts.
You ready?
Here it comes.
Remember, this is from Tyrone, not from me.
And all of this is meant to be constructive.
Right?
If it seems to you that this is anything but trying to be helpful for America, then you're misinterpreting.
I'm trying to be helpful.
It goes like this.
According to Tyrone, there are at least four or five health-related factors that can affect your cognitive ability of a baby, and therefore the cognitive ability of that baby when it grows up.
Some of those things include weight.
If a mother is obese when delivering a child, the child has lower cognitive function.
Did you know that?
Or at least it's correlated.
Let's say it's correlated.
Causation, I think you have to be careful about causation.
But it's correlated.
If you're obese, your kid will have lower cognitive function.
Now some people have rightly said, are you sure you have the causation right?
Maybe it's backwards?
It might be.
It might be.
And that would be exactly the kind of thing you want to look into.
But it's not the only thing.
Other things associated with cognitive function are vitamin D, something called inflammation IL-6, something called oxidative stress or CRP, something called omega-3, well we know what that is, but the ratio of omega-3 to omega-6, and then blood pressure.
So all of those things are based on science, not guessing, but based on studies.
Now, do we trust all studies?
No.
Nicholas Fleming is yelling, name the Jews, Scott!
Name them!
Nicholas believes that, as some of the people in this channel are, that I'm cowardly not mentioning the cause of all problems, which he believes are the Jews.
We're going to be hiding you on this channel for more serious people.
Sorry, you're gone.
But here's the point that Tyrone makes.
Every one of these is treatable.
Don't have enough vitamin D?
Add some vitamin D. Don't have enough ratio of this to that?
Improve your ratio.
Blood pressure?
Yes.
Weight?
Yes.
Inflammation?
Yes.
So there are a bunch of factors that can all be treated.
And here's the kicker.
All of the things I mentioned are at far higher rates in black Americans.
Far higher rates.
Obesity, for example, listen to this one.
This just blew my mind.
Do you know that 80% of black women are obese?
But it's two-thirds of white women are obese, too.
Two-thirds of white women and 80% of black women are obese.
Huh.
I wonder why the... I wonder why the birth rate is going down.
Like, sometimes the answers are so fucking obvious.
Alright, let's not get into that though.
Alright, so Tyrone's point, which I think is brilliant and brave, is that there are identifiable, completely treatable medical conditions That might completely change the IQ differential between black Americans and everybody else.
Now, my biggest issue is that correlation and causation are not demonstrated.
Right?
But you could test it.
Justin Dunn needs to go away because he also wonders why I'm not blaming the Jews for everything.
Maybe because I'm not a crazy conspiracy theorist.
Maybe.
All right.
So what do you think of Tyrone's approach?
You can see how toxic it is, right?
Because as soon as you talk about IQ difference, even though IQ difference is the primary indicator of success, if it's true that black Americans, for a variety of reasons, are giving birth in a suboptimal way, healthcare-wise, it's a suboptimal way, why don't we take that seriously?
At least test it.
You could take a county or a state and say, you know, I don't know if this is a racist theory or if it's just good thinking.
So let's just take a population of people, correct everything, see how their kids do by third grade.
By third grade, you'd know if it worked.
Wouldn't you?
So here's what I say.
What I say is, if you can test it small, and the potential benefit would be extreme, and the cost to do it looks like it'd be doable, because most of these things are education plus, you know, some supplements, basically.
So, I think that's worth doing.
I think that's worth trying.
Third grade is the inflection point.
I think you'd know by third grade if it worked.
What about the Slippery Slope?
The Slippery Slope, just so I clarify.
Claire, I'm going to make you go away for too many repeated comments in caps.
Here's what I say about the Slippery Slope.
When people say Slippery Slope, it's lazy thinking.
Meaning that there's nothing about a Slippery Slope that tells you anything about a topic.
There are some things that will go until something changes them.
So I prefer to say everything will go forever until something stops it.
That's a more productive way to look at it.
And usually something pops up to stop it.
But usually after it's gone too far.
Right?
You have to go too far before you get the reaction.
So in my view, The acronyms and the, you know, let's say the wokeness.
I think it's guaranteed to end.
It's guaranteed to end.
Because it went too far.
Now, if I believed in a slippery slope, I would say it will just keep going forever.
But you can already see the resistance starting to pop up.
People willing to say things they couldn't even say out loud a year ago.
They're willing to say it out loud.
I mean, even the fact that, you know, people are saying seriously that the trans situation is at least partly mental health.
Not all of it.
But some part of it is mental health.
That's a brave thing to say in public.
Under the current situation.
And I would argue that the trans community needs to do a better job of separating themselves from the crazy parts.
Right?
Just as if you're a Trump supporter you want to separate yourself from the white supremacist who might also like it.
It makes sense for your brand to separate yourself from the crazies.
So I think the I think the trans community would help themselves and help the rest of us if they helped us identify the crazy people.
It's not as easy for us, I think.
Get the hell away.
That's funny.
Alright, ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the most shocking and entertaining livestream in all of reality.
I don't think you'll see a better thing today.
That's my belief.
And I'm going to say goodbye to the YouTube people for now.