All Episodes
May 7, 2023 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:05:37
Episode 2101 Scott Adams: The Most Brainwashed Voters (Per Data), Our AI Czar (LOL), Reparations

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: White liberals are most easily brainwashed (per study) VP Kamala Harris the AI Czar, LOL Why everyone lies to Black Americans California reparations nonsense Debt confusion ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning everybody and welcome to the High Line of Civilization, the best part of your weekend, maybe the best part of your whole damn life.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
There's never been anything better.
If you'd like to enjoy it at levels that nobody's ever experienced before, all you need is a cupper, a mugger, a glass, a tanker, a chalice, a stein, a canteen jug, or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Ah, so good.
I feel like there's some people who turn off the live stream as soon as I do that.
No, not that again.
Well, look at all the news.
Starting with, apparently it's hard to break up with your girlfriend if you're Tiger Woods.
So Tiger Woods had some longtime girlfriend who was living in his house.
And I think there's some kind of squatter's rules or something.
You can't really kick somebody out of where they live if they're a renter or any other condition unless you've gone through a whole bunch of squatter's rights and renter's rights and stuff like that.
So what's reported that Tiger Woods did is he told his girlfriend that she was going to go on a luxury vacation.
And he told her to pack up all her stuff and drive to the airport.
where Tiger Woods' attorney met her and said she's never allowed back in the house.
Now, what do you think happened?
Do you think that maybe she sued him for sexual harassment?
Oh yes, oh yes she did.
Sexual harassment.
It had something to do with the fact that She was an employee of his before a girlfriend.
And when things started getting going in the employee nature, he asked, Tiger asked her to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
And then I guess there was some negotiations about her work versus her relationship, and that was enough.
That was enough.
So she's going to, she's going after him for sexual harassment.
Knowing nothing about their relationship, all right?
We know nothing about their personal lives.
What would you intuit if you knew that only two things about her?
That she was suing him for sexual harassment for what she would also consider a consensual relationship, and that he had to trick her to get her out of the house.
He couldn't just break up with her in a normal way.
I gotta say, it's not like I automatically believe Tiger Woods.
Right?
So I'm not some big golf fan.
So I'm not automatically saying that Tiger is the right one in this situation, or the wrong one.
No idea.
But it's a really bad look for her, isn't it?
It kinda looks like he got into a bad situation there.
And he couldn't get out.
Oh my god.
Well, if you think that being rich is always good, think about poor Tiger Woods.
Can you imagine what a living hell his life probably was in the last several months as he was trying to get this woman out of his house?
He couldn't figure out how to get her out of there.
Oh my God.
Alright, well, you know, I've told you I don't think anybody understands economics, including economists, because nobody can explain stuff like Why is the national debt not already crushing us?
Do you remember when the debt was a trillion dollars and we thought it was too much and we're all going to die?
And now it's 30 trillion?
And our story hasn't changed that much?
Well, now it's definitely too much.
Before, when it was one trillion, we thought it was too much.
But now they're 30 trillion.
That's definitely way too much.
Then Paul Krugman does this long thread on Twitter Which I couldn't understand even a little bit.
But it sounded like the thrust of it was, you don't understand debt, it's not as bad as you think.
Does that sound true to you?
But I believe his point was, it's not as bad as you think, as long as it completely stops growing today.
Is it going to completely stop growing, the debt, today?
No, I think the debt is going to grow to the moon because we have no mechanism for stopping it from growing.
You can't assume it's going to stop when there's no tool, there's no mechanism, there's no system.
We don't have a government that can do it.
The people won't demand it.
There's nothing that would stop it.
So that's a little bit of a problem with the prediction, don't you think?
Yes, it assumes some human rationality, which is always a bad assumption.
All right.
Am I the only one who thinks we're in the middle of a zombie apocalypse?
It's just that the zombies are not exactly the traditional brain-eating kind.
Although, in a way, they are.
But you've got your mental health zombies.
You've got your drug-addicted zombies.
You've got your screen-addicted zombies, you know, the social media zombies.
We have a lot of zombies, don't we?
And have the zombies not taken over San Francisco and a few other downtown areas?
We keep acting like the collection of problems is an important part of the story, but we don't have any solutions for any of those problems.
We have no solution for all the mental illness, the drug problem, not really.
So, I feel like filtering it out by what was the cause of one person's problem versus another person's problem is probably too much work.
Maybe all we need to do is get away.
So wherever there are zombies of any kind, you just need to get away.
So I think distance is the main requirement for success.
I used to say, That, you know, education and all the usual things are the biggest factors for success.
Then I heard Naval Ravikant say that in the future your ability to withstand or manage addiction will be the biggest challenge, the biggest factor for success.
Now I'm starting to think it's location.
You know, in real estate it's always location, location.
But I think for success It used to be that wherever you were was almost as good as any place else.
You know, it's better to be where there's more action.
But otherwise, things are about the same.
But now you really have to get away from zombies.
You're gonna have to go where there are not literally people wandering around trying to take your shit.
So go where there are no zombies.
I heard somebody say that was an analogy.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the right use of an analogy.
Here would be the wrong use.
The people in San Francisco are like zombies.
Therefore, we should be afraid they'll eat our brains.
Would that be a proper use of an analogy?
No, that would be the stupid way to do it.
That's the way people normally do it.
The smart way is to introduce a theme.
And the theme is that you could collect up all these various different causes of what makes people a zombie, but it all ends up being zombies.
That does not use, that does not require you to buy into the analogy to understand anything else I'm saying.
Right?
It's simply an introduction to the topic.
So for the four millionth time I have to explain this, analogies are really good for introducing a topic.
They have no value, no value for winning a debate.
No value, right?
So was I trying to win a debate just here, when I said it seems like there's a lot of zombies?
Was there somebody on the other side of the debate who I was arguing with, with my analogy?
No.
I introduced the topic with it.
That is the correct way to use an analogy.
If I had said, therefore we must shoot them, Because they're zombies, therefore you must shoot them, because that's how you deal with zombies.
That would be wrong.
That would be a wrong use of an analogy, and perhaps bad policy as well.
Now, is anybody still confused about that?
Because YouTube gets very confused on that.
Alright.
Well, you've heard it said from Elon Musk, and I believe I've said this as well, that reality has this weird quality of following the most amusing path.
And every time it happens, you say to yourself, well, that one's got to be a coincidence.
And then it just keeps happening.
You could just say, all right, what is just the craziest, most entertaining thing that could happen in the real world?
There it is.
And then it happens.
Now, sometimes it's obvious stuff, right?
The most entertaining election...
Would involve Trump.
But that's, you know, that's not really what I'm talking about.
Trump's just entertaining, so wherever he is, that's the most entertaining thing.
But it works everywhere, even where you don't expect it to work.
For example, the most entertaining thing that you could do if the country was very worried about AI destroying humankind.
Let's say that's your situation.
The US government is concerned about AI getting out of control and destroying humanity completely.
It's the biggest risk you could probably have.
So think to yourself, what would be the funniest thing that you could do?
Well, I'm going to suggest that you could, if you wanted somebody to be in charge, or let's say the czar of AI, Artificial intelligence.
And you wanted somebody who could really control a super intelligence.
So you'd have to not only be intelligent, but you'd have to anticipate what a super intelligence would do without being one.
Pretty hard, pretty high bar, isn't it?
So, who did Biden put in charge of that?
Kamala Harris.
Literally the only person who can't speak a coherent sentence.
One of the few people that you could say with complete certainty could be replaced with AI and it would be a big improvement.
And I'm going to ask you this.
Does it seem backwards to you that Kamala Harris is going to be the czar of AI?
Because I've seen AI and I've seen Kamala Harris.
If this were me and I were designing the system, I would put the AI in charge of Harris.
Because it seems to me that AI can control Harris, like literally, in a predictable way.
For example, it could write speeches that she could just read, so she wouldn't sound like a freaking moron.
For example, just one example.
Or, it could remind her to stop talking about Venn diagrams when she starts.
She'd be like, I love Venn diagrams!
Have I mentioned how much I love Venn diagrams?
Oh, yeah, well, moving on.
That would be a great use of AI.
It could make her look like less of a moron.
And so I'd just like to put it out there that we should maybe assign AI to be the czar of the vice president.
Because that would make a hell of a lot more sense than having the dumbest fucking person in the world in charge of advanced intelligence.
I don't know, just putting that idea out there.
Just putting it out there.
Now, you tell me, was that not literally the funniest outcome?
I mean, before we're all destroyed by AI, of course.
That part's not funny.
But what would be funnier than literally the most famous dumb person in America?
She's literally famous for being incompetent.
And, you know, I wonder who her backup is.
Yeah, if Kamala Harris can't do the job.
Who would be the other funniest person you could put in charge of AI?
Like the least capable person.
Fetterman.
Okay, Fetterman.
Fetterman is funny, but he has a legitimate health issue.
So I don't want to make fun of Fetterman because he's got a health issue.
We can make fun of how that turns out, but I don't like to mock him at the moment.
But I think it would be Corinne Jean-Pierre.
I think Corinne Jean-Pierre would be the other funniest person you could put in charge.
Because she's also famously incompetent.
But Fetterman was a good suggestion too.
Liz Warren.
But Liz Warren is famously smart, we just don't agree with her.
Elizabeth Warren is very smart.
Whatever is going on with Kamala Harris, there's not a lot of smart happening there.
Alright.
I don't know if this is real, but I saw a tweet by Rob Henderson, who's a real good follow on Twitter if you're looking for somebody to follow.
Rob Henderson.
He tweeted today, every six months my mind returns to this heat map.
So it's a graphic, I'll explain in a minute.
Indicating that conservatives devote the majority of their empathy and care to family and friends.
Does that sound wrong?
It sounds right, doesn't it?
The conservatives, they focus their empathy on family and friends.
That sounds about right.
But what about the liberals?
according to one study.
The liberals devote most of their concerns to plants, trees, and inner entities such as rocks.
Well, that explains everything.
Okay, I'm going to call bullshit on this, but the only reason I'm going to call bullshit on it is it's just too on the nose.
A little too on-the-nose.
I'll throw this in the category of, you know, 50% of studies are thrown out because they can't be reproduced.
I don't have any specific criticism about this data, but doesn't it feel a little bit too convenient?
It's just a little bit too funny?
Now, it could be another example of reality following the most amusing path.
But since this is something we have to go dig for, it's not like the story.
It's just some data somebody dug out.
I feel like this couldn't be true, could it?
Do you think this is really true?
It does feel like it.
I mean, the conservative view of abortion Is that, you know, that entity is human and they have empathy for it.
On the left, the empathy goes primarily for the person making the decision.
So it does feel as if they like their inanimate objects.
But I feel like that's going too far.
I can't really convince myself that liberals don't also mostly care about their friends and family.
So...
Yeah.
I'm going to call BS on that, but it was funny.
All right.
I love when not only does Twitter fact check things, such as Uber commercials.
There was an Uber ad that got fact checked pretty hard by the community notes.
But I love it when Elon Musk does it himself.
So you've seen him a number of times comment on a tweet just to call bullshit on it.
The data's not right or whatever.
Well, here's another one.
So some people have been tweeting around these National income tax figures.
And the point of it is to show that the U.S.
doesn't have as high an income tax as other successful countries.
And so a lot of them re-own the 50% tax, etc.
And then the United States, the point of it, is that the United States is not among the highest tax rates.
I think the opinion there is that therefore there's room to grow.
We could raise our taxes and still be okay.
That's a terrible argument, but I think that's why people were tweeting it around.
So Elon Musk says this is incorrect, meaning the chart, because it didn't show the U.S.
anywhere near the top.
And he says the de facto U.S.
national income tax is 40%.
When added to California state income tax is 53%, which would put it, you know, right in the top of income tax people of other countries.
That means the state confiscates the majority of your income, but at least they're fixing the potholes, right?
Then he says something about the gift tax exemption.
If you try to give your money away, they tax you again.
Did you know that?
It's the dumbest thing in the world.
You're not allowed to give your money away.
How in the world do we allow that to be a thing?
You're not allowed to give your money away.
I mean, up above a certain limit, right?
You can give money away up to a certain limit, but beyond that, once you die, that reckoning comes back.
So your estate will You have to pay taxes to give people money.
Isn't that weird?
The person who receives the money doesn't pay taxes.
The person who gave it to him pays taxes.
I mean, just think about that.
To give money to your own family, you have to pay taxes on it.
To give it away.
The only reason there's not a revolution about that is that I think there's like a five million dollar cap or something, where the first X amount of money doesn't get taxed, but above that it does.
So I think there's just not that many people in that situation.
Otherwise, it's the most insanely unfair sounding thing you've ever heard.
Anyway, other people argue that Elon didn't have the numbers right, which is part of my larger theme that I'm getting into here, which is none of the numbers are true.
None of our studies are useful.
Because if you see something you don't like, you just say the numbers are wrong.
That's the entirety of our analytical ability.
I agree with the message in those numbers.
Therefore, those are reliable numbers.
That's it.
Well, we have now some pretty solid proof that the media assigns our opinions.
But interestingly, not in the same way, depending on who you are.
So this is a great thread by Kanekoa the Great on Twitter, who you absolutely should be following for great threads on lots of stuff.
But Kanekoa tells us this, and I'll just pick out a few things from the thread.
That between 2011 and 2019, the New York Times and the Washington Post increased the use of the word racist, racist, and racism by over 700% and nearly 1,000% respectfully.
So what was happening between 2011 and 2019?
So what was happening between 2011 and 2019?
What was happening?
Obama?
Well, so the newspapers were, or the press anyway, was increasing the use of these words.
Do you think there was a huge increase in racism and racists?
Were there a lot more of them?
Is that why they were writing about it?
Nope.
Nope.
It was going down.
But the writing about it went through the roof.
All right, so did all that writing about it change people's opinions?
Well, let's check.
In 2011, before that trend started, just 35% of white liberals thought racism in the United States was, quote, a big problem, according to national polling.
So before the press started hitting it hard, 35% of white liberals thought racism was a quote big problem.
By 2015, after the media had pounded it for a while, this figure had ballooned to 61%.
And further still to 77% in 2017.
So if you were a white liberal, your opinion was only 35% of them thought racism was a big problem.
It went from 35% to 77% while the actual racism was decreasing.
Because the media was pounding it.
Now when I tell you that your opinions are assigned by the media, Do you get that now?
Is there anything else to say?
It's very obvious that there was nothing in the real world that caused that change.
It was just the media.
They just brainwashed people.
And why did they do that?
For political power.
It was a politically expedient thing to do.
So, here's a real question.
If the white liberals were so influenced by it, what about everybody else?
Well, let's look at that, from the same excellent thread by Kanekoa the Great.
Let's see, in 2006, So again, this is before the trend of all the reporting.
45% of white Democrats and 41% of white Republicans knew someone they considered a racist in 2006.
Now that is an alarmingly high number, isn't it?
Because I don't know if I know anybody who I would call a racist, per se.
Back then, 45% of white Democrats and 41% of white... So after all the press, how did that change?
By 2015, the white Democrats who started at 45% who knew a racist, suddenly 64% of them knew a racist, personally.
So in 2006, the same group, less than half of them thought they knew a racist, but by 2015, two-thirds of them thought they knew one.
Do you think it's because more racists were created during that time?
No.
It's because the media was pounding on it.
That's it.
And so their opinions were signed.
So that's what happened with white Democrats.
They went from 45 to 64 just because of the news.
But what about those white Republicans?
Because they had news too, right?
White Republicans.
So the white Republicans back in 2006 were at 41% that thought they knew a racist.
But after years and years of being pounded about how much racism there is, that number changed to nothing.
No change.
No change.
Republicans were completely unaffected by the news.
Yeah, can I give you a little... Most of you are conservatives, right?
Wouldn't you say most of you identify as either Republican or Conservative, if you're watching this live stream, probably?
Well, you know, as you know, I recently... I'm a newly registered Democrat, because I was cancelled for being a racist, so I thought I would just join the racist team.
I became a Democrat.
So I don't count, but I gotta give it up for you.
A little standing, sending ovation for not being influenced by the news.
That's pretty impressive.
So, how did that happen?
You know, some of it might be because, I don't know, Republicans skew older.
Maybe they're harder to sway.
I don't know.
So whatever was happening there was highly concentrated in the white Democrats.
But one thing we know for sure is that with all that news about all this extra racism and stuff, certainly the black and Hispanic Democrats would also, you assume that they would see a lot more racism, right?
Because the black people and the Hispanics are the subject of most of the racism, and therefore they'd have the best view of it.
And if the media is also surfacing more of it, you'd expect that they'd have a much elevated view of how much racism there is.
Except nothing like that happened.
The opinion of the black and Hispanic Democrats, about the same, didn't change.
So it turns out that the media is not hypnotizing black people, at least on this specific question.
Not Hispanics.
And not Republicans.
Just white Democrats.
Just white Democrats.
So white Democrats were literally brainwashed for over a decade.
And it worked.
It totally worked.
So I would say that if I were running for office as a Democrat, I'm sorry, as a Republican, that I would make use of this.
And I would say that science shows that the white Democrats are the most brainwashed segment of the country.
And I'm running for office to try to change that.
Instead of arguing with them about the specifics of policy, I would say we have a huge problem here.
According to the data, white Democrats have been brainwashed in a way that for some reason hasn't affected black Americans or Republicans.
So that's a major national emergency, is to unbrainwash white Democrats.
Imagine a white Republican saying, we really have to unbrainwash these white people.
Because the media absolutely hypnotized him.
What do you think of that?
So, this would be a persuasion technique called thinking past the sale.
The argument that they want you to have is whatever the topic of the day is.
Oh, you're a racist, you're a racist.
If you get into the argument that white Democrats are calling you a racist, you've lost the case.
The case is, have they been brainwashed, and are they even part of the logical or rational discussion?
To imagine that the white Democrats were literally brainwashed, according to this data, literally brainwashed, to imagine that you could have a conversation with them about the topic, is really ignoring what's happening.
What's happening is that people got brainwashed.
Literally.
Literally brainwashed.
This is, by the way, let me be very clear about this.
This is not an analogy.
I'm not making an analogy that people are, it was like being brainwashed.
Yeah, there's this thing called brainwashing, but that's, you know, that's the high grade version of it.
No, it's not an analogy.
It's literally a description.
They're brainwashed.
Now that's what propaganda does, it brainwashes people.
But it was really successful.
Super successful.
Who do you think is the biggest loser in this brainwashing Olympics?
What segment of the country are the biggest losers because of it?
Is it the white Democrats?
Are the white Democrats big losers?
They seem pretty happy with what they're doing, so I'd say no.
I think it's black people.
I think black Americans are the big losers.
Let me tell you why.
Well, I'll get to that after this other point.
So the California reparations situation, which started out ridiculous.
You have some immense amount of reparations were recommended by this silly committee.
Now, of course, as you know, the reparations committee in California is simply a white person trick.
I'm probably not supposed to tell you that, but it's just a white person trick.
So it's getting the black people who thought reparations was a serious topic, getting them all excited about it, telling them, oh, why don't you go come up with a recommendation, knowing fully well that whatever they recommended would be laughably ridiculous.
Not only was it laughingly ridiculous, they just upped it to $200 million per person.
So, they actually let somebody speak out on this to say that 200 million per person is what each descendant of slaves should receive.
He did some math, about 40 acres and a mule.
He figured out with compound interest, it'd be worth 200 million dollars.
I don't know where you can get 40 acres for 200 million dollars, but let's say that's true.
So, Here's the bigger theme that I would like to introduce.
Can any group of people, or any individual, this would be true for an individual, but also for a group of individuals, can any group of individuals, or even one individual, be successful if they require you to lie to them?
They require it.
If you tried to tell them the truth, they would get really, really mad at you.
Right?
They would get really pissed.
Because the truth doesn't fit the narrative.
And you could be in trouble, you could be in physical trouble, you could get cancelled if you told the truth.
So we have this situation in which, thanks to the media, and largely white Democrats, I think white Democrats are primarily responsible for what I'm going to describe.
Not black people, interestingly.
It's not the black people who would be the You know, the perpetrators in this case.
This would be white Democrats making it impossible to tell black people the truth.
There.
There you go.
White Democrats make it impossible for black people to hear the truth.
Right?
Because they'll cancel your ass if you try.
Now, I'm not saying that everybody who has a different opinion is the correct opinion.
I'm saying that if you don't compete in the, let's say, the market of free ideas, where people can be wrong and people can be right, but at least you're seeing all of the ideas.
You don't want to know the best superpower that white men have and you're not going to ever take it away from us?
You can tell us terrible things, and we'll thank you for it.
You can never match that, black people.
Sorry.
It's an enduring superpower that you can't get close to.
Because the white Democrats who are your supporters will cancel you, or cancel anybody who tells you the truth.
Or attempts to.
I'm not saying they have the truth, but if they attempt to tell you something that you don't want to hear, we can cancel.
If somebody tells me something horrible about me, personally, or whatever demographic group I'm in, if they think I'm a white man, if they say terrible things about white men, I listen to it.
And if it's useful, I use it.
I've told you the story that the most useful advice I ever got in my career were criticisms.
were just brutal criticisms.
Brutal.
I mean, really brutal criticisms.
And what did I do when I got brutal criticisms?
I altered my technique to take into account that the critics might be right.
For example, I once, when I was very young, 22-ish, I went into a meeting with a senior vice president of the bank where I worked, and he told me that I needed to upgrade my shoes.
Because they were scruffy.
They were pretty scruffy.
I had one pair of shoes.
I had no money.
Just started working.
And it was brutal.
Imagine being called into your boss's boss's boss's office.
Like, I'm talking about somebody several levels above me.
You know, just below the president of the bank.
Really big bank, right?
So it's a big deal.
Calls me in to criticize my clothing, my shoes.
Now, I gotta tell you, that was pretty brutal.
Also, one of the most useful things anybody ever told me.
Because I immediately improved my shoes.
Did it make a difference?
Yes.
Yes, because the way you presented yourself makes a difference.
Now, I could give you five more examples where I got brutal criticism and then I just adjusted and it helped me.
I believe that if you try to make any argument about race and the disparity in outcomes for black Americans, you're forced to lie.
Unless you're agreeing with a narrative that isn't helping anybody at the moment.
So if you agree with a narrative that's hurting everybody, you're allowed to speak.
But if you suggest, hey, maybe there's this other way to look at this.
Maybe this data is not incorrect.
What if this data actually is useful?
Well, there's a whole range of stuff you can't even talk about.
If you're talking about black crime, if you're talking about black academic achievement, you know the topics.
And I won't even mention them here.
But if you have an entire segment of the population who is prevented from hearing anything useful, how could they possibly succeed?
There isn't any way.
There's literally no path for black people to succeed as a group, individuals of course.
There's plenty of paths for individuals.
So individuals have great paths in America.
If they get a job and stay off drugs and stay out of jail, they've got a great path.
No matter who they are.
But as a group, if you're looking at group performance, as long as we white people let you tell us the truth, we're going to be way ahead.
And so let me tell you.
You want to tell me some ugly truths?
I'm open to that.
You've probably watched the evolution, some of you, of this live stream.
Almost everything that I've done that changed it was because of some brutal criticism.
Some brutal criticism that I thought, oh, that's a pretty good point.
I think I'll take that into consideration.
So here's my suggestion to black America.
If you want to hear the truth, then every time you hear something that you hate, Play this little sound effect in your head.
This is my trick.
I do this.
It goes like this.
Ka-ching.
Yeah.
Cha-ching.
You can do cha-ching or ka-ching.
Same thing.
It's the cash register sound.
When people tell you things that you already know, what value does that have to you?
Usually nothing.
Usually nothing.
No ka-ching.
So when people are saying, hey, you're doing a great job and the only thing holding you back is systemic racism, What do you hear?
Nothing.
Nobody's making any money.
No?
No, well, the grifter did.
Yeah, the grifter who told you that might be cha-chinging, but you're hearing nothing.
All you heard is that your life is worse, and your prospects are worse than you thought.
But if you say to that same person, you know, maybe all this systemic racism is real, and maybe it's holding you back.
But what's stopping you from building enough talent to actually succeed?
Can't say that.
Can't say that.
But if somebody could say that, like, how about you take care of yourself, take responsibility?
Why don't you do all the things that people who succeed do?
If you were to do the things that successful people do, and it doesn't work for you, then I'd be real worried about systemic racism.
But if you do the things that all successful people do, and then it works, well, maybe that's how everybody does it.
Maybe everybody does it the same way.
It's all the same steps.
There's not one set of success steps for one demographic group and not for another.
So, what do black people do?
I mean, everybody's lying to black people.
About everything, basically.
Anything involving success, or crime, or culture, or any of it.
Any of it.
We're all just lying.
And it's the only group you have to lie to.
It's literally too dangerous to live in the country and tell the truth to black Americans.
You'll get cancelled or beat up.
But, I'll say again, as long as that's the case, white Americans are in good shape competitively, you'll never have to really compete against black Americans, because they're being lied to so much, that they have no idea even how to succeed.
Again, that's a big generality.
Does not apply to individuals.
There are plenty of very successful black individuals, and how do they become successful?
Doing all the things that successful people do, of every type.
Always.
It's always the same.
You're either extraordinary at some one thing, such as Tiger Woods, or you did it the way everybody else did, which is you learned a bunch of skills, you tried hard, you stayed in a jail, you didn't do too many drugs.
It's the same thing.
Everybody does it the same way.
Alright.
So this brings me to my AI topic, that you've seen people testing AI for bias, right?
And I saw a few tweets today of some Asian Americans who asked AI something like, I'm paraphrasing, but it was something like, you know, I'm proud of my Asian heritage.
And then AI will say something positive.
Oh, that's great that you're positive about your heritage.
Good for you.
And then it will say something about, what about white Americans?
And AI will say, well, I'm an AI and I don't like to get into topics like this.
So literally, AI is discriminating against white people very overtly, like right in your face, overtly discriminating against white people.
I don't see how that could be avoided.
It seems unavoidable.
Because either AI is going to learn from the body of language that's out there, which is pre-censored, right?
Anything that AI can get its little brain on has already been censored.
So it's only getting censored one opinion kind of stuff.
And so we've built a bigoted AI.
So good for us, huh?
All right.
Let me ask you this.
Do you feel that there's been any change in the last two months in the way we can talk about race?
Do you feel like there's a little more honesty sneaking in?
So we might have a... So I see a lot of yeses.
But a lot of no's too.
So there'll be some no's and yeses.
Well, I would say Vivek Ramaswamy is adding some honesty to the system that it's not used to.
Would you agree?
Vivek has definitely changed the conversation.
Because he's not only very direct in these third rail kind of topics, but he's so good at explaining his position that I think he just carved down some territory that didn't exist before.
Because he went there and survived by showing you that if you're not a jerk, And you just stick it with the facts, and you're not trying to hurt anybody.
You're trying to make the country a better place.
As long as people believe your head's in the right place, and you're smart about it, I think he opened up a little bit of extra territory.
I think that my situation allowed other people to speak out a little bit more, let's say, directly.
If only because they were talking about me.
That's always safer than being the one who's talking.
So, I feel that the, and then the, this seems unrelated, but it's not, the Bud Light situation, it's all telling me that the, there's a, let's say a tolerance for the woke sensibilities is peaked.
I think we've hit peak wokeness.
And that it's going to quickly turn into an embarrassment for people who continue to stay on that path.
It's not there yet.
Not there yet.
But you can see all of the signs across the entire environment.
When I saw the video of Trump talking about doing his deposition, And I should have mentioned this, I don't think I mentioned it, but when he was defending himself from saying that one of his accusers was not his type, and he was asked by the female lawyer who was asking the questions, you know, did you mean her appearance?
Trump, you know, said, well, you know, it's the whole deal, but that he also would not be interested in the woman who was asking him the questions.
Not even a little bit.
Now, The fact that Trump went right at the most politically incorrect thing you could do, and just like went right into the middle of it, I feel like he made the real estate expand a little as well.
So there's something going on, and you can see it on social media as well.
There's a new level of honesty that's happening on social media about male-female relationships, and also about the trans situation.
The fact that there are now a number of people on the right who are just referring to trans women as men, and they're doing it publicly, does suggest that there's some kind of a turning point happening.
Now mostly, mostly the conservatives are doing that in the context of sports.
Outside of sports, I'm kind of proud of conservatives for not giving a shit what other people do.
That's a pretty good stand, as long as it's not bothering them.
All right.
I'm seeing a comment that Vivek speaks so openly that he could look like the good cop compared to Trump being bad cop, but I don't know.
I don't think Trump could ever settle for being second place in the Speaking Frankly Olympics.
So, I don't think anybody's going to get ahead of him, in frankness.
But it's going to be a fun competition.
You think I started it with my ramp?
I feel like maybe it was going to happen at the same time.
I don't feel like I started the end of Wokeness.
I feel like wokeness was reaching its peak, and I was one of many variables within that umbrella.
Do you see Trump say he was happy that Vivek was doing so well?
I'll bet he is happy.
I'll bet he is happy about that.
Yeah.
I mean, because Trump is not feeling... If I were Trump, I would not say bad things about Vivek because Vivek is saying things that Trump says.
So it'd be hard to get on the other side of him for policy.
And as long as Vivek is, you know, sub-10% polling, It's smart for Trump to lay off him.
Because he's also a potential VP candidate.
I don't think he would be the choice.
I'm really bad at picking VP candidates or predicting.
But he'd be on the short list of 10.
Don't you think?
I think they always end up picking some boring governor or something.
But you would have to consider Vivek for a vice president.
Because he does, he's a good complement to the ticket.
Yeah.
Isn't he too strong?
Vivek would be too strong if he also had more experience.
But since he doesn't have government experience, he's going to look like somebody who has tons of potential, but not quite the seasoning.
That's sort of perfect for a vice president.
Because then you're seeing the vice president as the trading ground for your next president.
And we haven't seen that in a while.
Our vice presidents have not looked strong enough, you know, universally, that you just automatically assume that they're a contender.
Are there any stories that I should have mentioned that I didn't?
I saw another story about voting irregularities in New York, but I don't believe any of those voting irregularity stories.
But I'm going to ask this question again, because I feel like there's a news that I missed, but maybe some of you didn't.
Has anybody ever heard where Sidney Powell got the information about the Venezuelan general and the so-called Kraken?
Have we ever heard where she got that?
That's literally not reported.
Maybe nothing more important in the country right now than the answer to that question.
Because if the answer to that question is it just came from some sketchy source, then that tells one story.
But if the answer is it came from an intelligent source, Or anybody who might have been one, we wouldn't know for sure.
That's a completely different story.
So, what is your working assumption, without knowing the answer to that question, what's your working assumption?
Your working assumption has to be that it came from our own intelligence agencies, and that they were trying to take Sidney Powell out, because they were working for the Democrats at that time, and that's well documented.
I mean, it looks like an op to me.
It looks like they fed the most ridiculous rumor to her to discredit everything else that she would claim.
To me, that's what it looked like.
So my working assumption is that she was taken out by the intelligence agencies of the United States.
Everybody okay with that?
It's not unreasonable, is it?
I would say it would be the most likely explanation, which doesn't mean it's true.
So when I talk about having an operating assumption, it doesn't mean I think it's true.
It's just the most true-looking thing that fits the facts.
So I could be talked out of it pretty easily.
Any new information would easily talk me out of it.
Yeah.
Unblock James Lindsay?
No, he's a dick.
Yeah, I'm not gonna unblock people who are dicks to me personally.
You might think that he's useful to you, but that doesn't have any sway with me.
Would you vote for RFK Jr.?
Well, I'm a single-issue voter on Fentanyl.
So I'm going to call balls and strikes on all the candidates.
I'm going to tell you what they did well and what they didn't, be they Democrats or Republicans.
And I have not heard anything on Fentanyl from RFK Jr.
Has anybody else?
I can't imagine he would be as tough on it as Vivek or Trump would be.
Has he been unusually quiet about Fentanyl?
I feel like his level of quiet on that topic is, it's becoming a dog not barking situation.
There's something wrong with... He's recovering from addiction?
I've never heard that.
Tara Maras, I don't know who she is.
He vaguely talks about drug use.
Really?
Solution, give the zombies all the fentanyl they want?
Maybe.
But you also have to run away.
He does talk about immigration, you know, tightening up immigration.
Alright, well, so that's the answer to your question.
The fact that we've been several weeks into the Kennedy campaign and I don't know the answer to that question suggests that I'm not going to like the answer either.
So at the moment there are only two candidates that would potentially get my vote.
So the two toughest on the cartels would be Vivek and Trump.
If somebody comes up with a stronger plan than that, I'm going to listen to it.
And I would also listen to anything about testing legalization in some small place.
Just anything.
Just try something.
Just don't do the same things we're doing because they're not working.
All right.
DNA and addiction.
You know, that's true.
We should be able to tell people from their DNA whether they're going to be addicts, right?
With pretty high percentage of likelihood.
I don't know why we don't do that.
I almost feel as if people who have the addict gene should almost, you know, well, not be forced, but they should choose to live in dry cities.
Because you know Trump was talking about building cities from scratch and putting it on public land so that you already have the land to take care of.
I think at least one of those cities should be a dry city.
But be very serious about it being a dry city.
Like you just can't even order it in the mail.
You just can't get it.
Yeah.
He won't eat the bugs.
You'll hear RFK Jr.' 's fentanyl position soon, somebody says.
Maybe.
Maybe so.
But that's going to be critical.
Now, what's interesting is, so RFK Jr., if there's anybody who hasn't heard, he did have a procedure done to help his voice.
Now it was a different procedure than I had done.
I had a surgery, he had a non-surgical, well, I'm not going to describe it.
But he had a procedure that was different than what I did.
And it helped.
Definitely better than where it was.
But I also don't know if it will continue improving.
Because that's possible.
So we don't know where it could end up.
Honky-Tonk Live.
Yeah.
I thought he was, you know, 30% improved.
I did send him... I DM'd him some tips.
Voice tips.
Because I think what he needs is to produce his voice in the mask of his face instead of down in the throat.
And when I listen to him, I don't know if he knows that speaking technique.
If you speak with your throat, that's where all the problems happen.
But if you raise your speaking, let's see, the mechanism of your speaking, if you put it up in your face, which you can do.
Like right now I'm speaking from my face.
This is what it sounds like if I talk up here in my face reason.
But if I talk down in my throat.
This is what it talks like when I'm in my throat.
You realize, you see it's not as clean.
It's a little bit scruffier.
Because I'm actually vibrating my vocal cords and talking down here.
So I don't know for sure, but I don't know if RFK Jr.
has ever studied how to move your voice production up to your face.
I found that that was super important for me.
Here's a true story.
Before I had the surgery that fixed my voice, I went to a voice doctor who claimed to cure people by making them hum in the key of F.
Weird, huh?
And so you go in there for hours at a time and you put on headphones and you'd have a little machine that would tell you if you're in the range of where you want to be.
And the reason was that he determined that the key of F you produced with your face But if you talk lower, like men often do, they'll talk down in their throat and in their chest, and then you have all the problems.
So his theory was, he could cure this incurable problem by having you just hum all day in the key of F, you literally hum, and then you talk.
Because if you can hum in the key of F, and then immediately talk, you'll use the same production as the humming, and it bypasses the problem part of your production.
Now, my reaction was that after two weeks of that, and he recommends that you practice it for months, but after two weeks of that, I came home and for a while, for a while, I had almost normal voice.
That was before surgery.
But the problem is that it's too hard to remind yourself to speak correctly.
So over time, it didn't last.
So it wore off in a week or so.
But I do have a definite example where you can take your voice up to the non-injured part if you can stay with it.
Now, the same time that I went to that doctor, and this is the interesting part, He was claiming that he was curing an incurable problem with just voice exercises.
That was a big claim, and if you looked him up, it would say he was a fraud and everything.
But there were small classes, and I attended one, and there was somebody in my small class whose voice was fixed permanently in one week of humming.
I mean, not continuous for a week, but yeah.
And I've confirmed, I confirmed that that one person out of, I think, five just absolutely had a total cure.
It did work.
Now, there's some controversy because some say the fact that they were cured without surgery or something more aggressive is proof they didn't really have the condition.
To which I say, oh, that's clever.
So if they get cured without your expensive surgery, that proves that they were just misdiagnosed.
Oh, isn't that convenient?
Then nobody had to say that a cure exists.
You don't have to say a cure exists because you just say, oh yeah, 20% of the people got better, but it's because they had something else.
No, no.
But I can tell you that it fixed me for a week, and it fixed somebody else permanently.
And I got to see that in person.
I'm not guessing.
But it definitely didn't work for some other people.
So it was not a 100% thing.
And it wasn't sold that way.
All right.
A former highlight.
OK.
There's a big comment there I can't read.
The green shirt makes me look like a turtle.
Fair enough.
I do get the turtle comment now and then.
I do get a little of the Mitch McConnell treatment sometimes.
Now, see?
That was a constructive criticism right there, wasn't it?
Brutal.
And do you know what I'm thinking right now?
This is a perfect example.
So a brutal criticism that in my green shirt I remind somebody of a turtle.
I get that.
I'm sure that if I had a different face, I would not remind you of a turtle.
But apparently I have enough of a turtle vibe that wearing a green shirt puts you over the line.
So do you know what my reaction to that is?
You know my reaction, right?
Come on.
Somebody say it.
Say it.
There it is.
Cha-ching.
Cha-ching.
So I just heard something that would make me money.
Don't wear the green shirt.
Easy.
Right?
Just don't wear the green shirt.
Because I have to admit, this morning when I put it on, I said to myself, huh, I don't know if this is the right choice.
Because the blue or the gray always works.
I don't know if green is going to work.
And now I have that excellent turtle comment.
And did I tell you I'm going to beat you up or cancel you for saying that?
No.
Cha-ching.
Green shirt, retired.
Moving on.
See, that's how I do it.
So you can tell me anything that's true, or even just true in your opinion.
Your opinion is good enough, if it's your true opinion.
Tell me the truth, I will turn it into money.
And black Americans, you can never catch up to me.
You'll never catch up.
Because if you can't take the truth, and white Democrats will make sure it's unavailable to you, there's no way you can compete.
All right.
It's sort of a Zelensky shirt, too.
Yeah, that's not a good look today.
Master of disguise.
Somebody's going to clip that sentence here, probably.
I don't know.
Are you culturally predisposed to being offended?
Not personally.
Alright, that's all for now, YouTube.
Thanks for joining.
I thought it was a terrific Sunday livestream.
Because frankly, you didn't want to hear about the British coronation one more time.
I didn't mention it at all.
That's why this is the best livestream.
Did I mention the latest mass shooting?
Nope.
Nope.
And how much do you appreciate that?
Don't you?
You do.
You appreciate the fact that there was yet another thing that I won't mention and that I've decided that is not worthy of your attention.
It's a big, big problem.
Not worthy of your attention.
Yeah.
All right.
That's all for now, YouTube.
Export Selection