Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Nov. 14, 2023 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams

01:11:32

Episode 2292 Scott Adams: CWSA 11/14/23, Feels Like Something Big Is Brewing Today, But What?

My new book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8 Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Rum pum pum pum.
	La da da da da da da da da da da da.
	Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
	You probably wondered where it was.
	It's here.
	It's the best day of your life.
	It's going to get better.
	If you'd like to take this experience up to a level that nobody can even explain with human words, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard, shells, a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
	Fill it with your favorite liquid.
	I like coffee.
	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.
	It happens now.
	Go.
	It has been stipulated.
	Well, I have a feeling something big is about to happen.
	Does anybody else feel it?
	You know how you just sort of feel something's brewing?
	The last time I said that was right before October 7th.
	Some of you might remember.
	I just like felt like some big thing was brewing.
	But I'm having that same feeling again.
	Doesn't mean it's bad.
	I'm not going to say it's bad.
	It could be a new invention.
	You know, a breakthrough.
	Could be a peace deal.
	Could be anything.
	I feel like something big is about to happen.
	We'll talk about that.
	So, condolences to the Trump family, because Donald Trump's oldest sister, Mary Ann, has passed away at age 86.
	I guess she was a judge for many years.
	Didn't hear about her much, and I had her a little confused with Mary Trump, who was the niece.
	But he had a sister who was Mary Ann, and she was the good one, I guess.
	The niece is the one who has a problem writing the anti-Trump books.
	But she passed away at 86.
	Why is this important?
	Well, so Donald Trump is 77, and his sister died at 86.
	He would go into office at, if he won, at 78.
	And he would complete at 72.
	I'm sorry, 82.
	Do you feel, and then given that women have a longer life expectancy, does it give you any pause about Trump's age?
	You should.
	That's exactly what should.
	And this is exactly the reason that I endorsed Vivek.
	Because as much as I like many things about Trump, he is a troublemaker.
	I mean, he is an expensive president because he gets people riled up.
	But that's probably going to happen with any Republican, so I'm not sure you can hold that against him.
	But he's really knocking on the actuarial door by the end of a four-year run.
	And did I or did I not warn the world That Biden would be too old by the end of his even first term.
	Did I not tell everybody?
	Did I not say that loudly and clearly and often?
	Too old, too old, too old.
	And now here we are.
	The entire world says, hmm, too old.
	How is that going to be different for Trump, honestly?
	I mean, if you let your bias down just a moment, do you really want the guy in his early 80s to be president?
	Now, to be fair, he does look like he's 100%.
	I don't think he's lost a step.
	In fact, he looks maybe refreshed from when he was in office.
	So he doesn't show any signs of it, in my opinion.
	I guess he's called Biden Obama a few times when he's talking about him.
	But doesn't everybody do that?
	Do you know anybody who has not called somebody Obama accidentally?
	Haven't I done that?
	Haven't I done that on this?
	I think I've done it on this live stream.
	I'll bet I've said Obama when I met some other president, at least once.
	But there's nothing unusual about that.
	That's not really a sign of age.
	I wouldn't say.
	It just feels like a natural mistake.
	Anyway, it's certainly a wake-up call about age and not taking it seriously got us where we are.
	You get that, right?
	Not taking age seriously.
	Got us where we are.
	Do you want to do it again?
	So that's the vivate question.
	The vivate question is, you knew you made a mistake last time.
	The country, not you specifically.
	You know you made a mistake last time.
	You elected somebody who was just simply too old.
	Do you want to do it again?
	I don't know.
	We're heading that way.
	We all wonder how AI will handle Troubling, you know, sensitive topics.
	Anything in the woke category, you wonder how it's going to handle it.
	And I was asking the Amazon digital assistant, which is some kind of an AI engine now.
	Because remember when, I don't want to use the word for it, but you know the digital assistant from Amazon that sits on your desk, if you have one.
	So I asked it, is IQ hereditary?
	Because I knew that would be a sensitive topic.
	And I didn't know if it would give me the actual answer or if it would dance around it a little bit.
	But the answer was that IQ is 40-80% hereditary.
	Does that sound true to you?
	And then I checked the internet.
	And that does seem to be the estimate that science is giving us.
	It was 40 to 80% hereditary.
	Now, are they doing a little weasel thing with us?
	Because hereditary is different from genetic, isn't it?
	And if you weren't careful with your language, you would think that they were the same.
	For example, two siblings could have even a different, according to 23andMe, they could have a different ethnic mix.
	You know, your sibling could have a little more You know, of German than you have.
	Maybe you've got a little more Neanderthal or something.
	So we know that two children from the same parents could have a little different mix.
	But once you're born, you have what you have.
	Do you think it changes after you're born?
	And how much?
	Well, here's what I think.
	I think that the answer that IQ is 40 to 80% hereditary is a socially acceptable way to present the science, but also misleading.
	It's socially acceptable because it would say everybody could be smart, and you could even be born in a bad situation, but educate yourself up to a real useful level.
	And that's a good message for society.
	If you're trying to keep society cohesive, Melting pot and all that stuff, that's a good take.
	But is that compatible with the fact that what you're born with is what you're born with?
	Because that's sort of different, right?
	You could have two siblings where one was just born smarter than the other one.
	Doesn't that happen all the time?
	And yeah, but you know, smarter according to one very specific measure of intelligence, which does not measure Artistic intelligence, kinesthetic intelligence, all kinds of different intelligences, but I guess one narrow type.
	So, here's what I think.
	I do believe your environment can lower your natural IQ.
	In other words, if someone is born and raised by wolves, And then you give them an IQ test, they're going to not do so well.
	If someone is raised in a well-off family with two teachers for parents and they raise them to go to an Ivy League school, well then the environment is doing the best it can.
	Maybe even would raise your perceived IQ.
	But I'll tell you my observation.
	My observation is this.
	My useful IQ, which is a term I'm making up, so this doesn't exist anywhere else, my practical IQ, the part that gets me to navigate the world, is determined much by what I was born with, but probably as much by my talent stack.
	So I've told you this before, if it appears to people who have been watching me for a while, that I have clear views on some topics, It's because of the specific background training I have.
	For example, if you want to understand what people will do in any given situation, a good thing to know would be persuasion.
	So if you're an expert in persuasion, you're going to see people and their motivations a little more clearly.
	Would that seem like you had a higher IQ?
	In a practical sense, it would.
	Because you could be talking to someone who's much smarter, but if they don't have that understanding, It'd be different.
	Now, suppose you added to that the understanding of economics.
	If you add this understanding of economics, then you also have the follow the money predictive power.
	It's like, wait, persuasion is predictive, but following the interests of money is predictive too.
	So what if you only had one of those things?
	Suppose you knew economics, but you didn't know persuasion.
	Well, you wouldn't see Trump coming.
	You wouldn't have known that Trump was a bigger force than you thought if you only knew economics.
	So when you add economics and persuasion, suddenly you're seeing things more clearly.
	In a practical sense you have a higher functional IQ because you can navigate your world more accurately and predict better.
	Now suppose you add on top of that business skill.
	Like business models, knowing how to build a business.
	That's different than economics.
	Economics is more the theoretical.
	If you knew business models, then you could also have another way to predict.
	Because a good business model will beat a bad business model.
	So that's another predictive vector.
	Now if you add on top of that that you've been following the news since you were little, As I have.
	You've got that extra thing where you've seen more history, more examples, more patterns, and then you add all those together.
	You know persuasion, economics, business models, and you've been following the news.
	Now I would argue that anybody who had that stack of talent would be able to predict and even analyze better than somebody who didn't have it.
	Is that IQ?
	Well, Probably not.
	I mean, if I took an IQ test, I doubt it would be any different than when I was 20 and I took it the first time.
	But my ability to function in the world is maybe a hundred times better.
	It's not even close.
	So I would say that you don't want to make too much of IQ, but you're definitely born with You know, your working base, and then there's a whole bunch you can do with it.
	You can make it worse or better, depending on how much you want.
	Now, I would even extend that to watching the news.
	And I say this about Democrats all the time.
	The weird nature of the fact that Democrats believe they're seeing the real news, you know, the mainstream news, and therefore they would not waste their time to look at the alternative views on the right, makes them functionally lower IQ.
	They don't have bad genes, I'm not saying that.
	Nothing about the genes.
	And there's nothing about even their education system.
	They may have actually been educated just fine.
	But if, when you're done with all that, and the only thing you're looking at is one view, and you're simply locked down to the other view, you would be functionally dumber than somebody who had similar capabilities, but just had access to both left and right.
	And that's what I see.
	To me it looks like Democrats are functionally lower IQ, but not because of their genes, and not because of their educational attainment.
	Only because their talent stack has not extended to seeing the other stuff.
	Now that's not because the people on the right are wiser, and are more interested in seeing the whole picture.
	Nothing like that.
	People are pretty similar.
	But the people on the right are forced to encounter the mainstream narrative.
	They don't have a choice, it's everywhere.
	And then they see their own set of information and they can compare it, and maybe triangulate and say, well that looks like BS on our side this time, and it looks like BS on their side this time, or it looks like half of us, you know, it's half BS on both sides, that sort of thing.
	But it's not close.
	But if you watch both sides, it does make one side look functionally like a lower IQ.
	Even though there's nothing wrong with them other than access to information.
	All right.
	There's a new device by a company called Humane.
	It's called a wearable pin.
	So it's a little thing you literally pin to your shirt or your jacket by your breastplate.
	And it's sort of alive and AI all the time.
	Now it's not listening all the time.
	They're very careful to say it's not, you know, it's not alive all the time.
	You have to tap it.
	So it's more like a Star Trek communicator thing.
	It's on your chest.
	You tap it once to wake it up.
	And then you can just tell it what to do.
	So I guess it has a camera and it can see your environment.
	You could tell it Hey, can I get this can of soup cheaper somewhere else?
	And it will look at the can of soup, maybe scan it, tell you there's another place to get it.
	So basically, it'd be like your little buddy that's always just giving you good advice everywhere you go.
	But it also has this little projector in it.
	So you could hold your bare hand in front of it, and it projects on the palm of your hand information you could read.
	And that's pretty cool.
	I told you a while ago, and first of all, don't take any investment advice from me.
	That's not what I do.
	So I'm going to mention an investment, but it's not a recommendation.
	It's just my way of explaining my point of view.
	I sold all of my Apple stock recently, and it was because of AI.
	Now, probably, probably, Apple will do a great job on AI.
	They have tremendous resources they're putting toward it right now.
	Eventually, you'd expect to have a whole different product in your hand.
	And Apple, being Apple, is likely to have the best people working on it and really come up with a good productized thing.
	Likely.
	However, what they did lose is their monopoly.
	And the reason I invested in them is their moat was so large that they could just print money forever and nobody could compete with them.
	So I was investing in them like a monopoly, not like a company that's just doing a good job.
	As soon as AI became a thing, it was obvious it was going to start to dominate, Apple lost its monopoly.
	In the sense that it will lose its monopoly.
	It hasn't yet, but it's obvious that it will.
	There'll be some other mechanism to communicate and do all those app things.
	So if the app concept goes away, so does the iPhone advantage completely.
	And I think that's what AI will give us.
	Some kind of device that you can do all the things an app can do without an app.
	You just talk to it.
	And that's the ultimate The Ultima app is just the one you talk to and it can do anything you want.
	All right.
	So that's on the way.
	I don't know that this specific wearable pen will be a home run or anything.
	I don't feel it.
	Here's the difference.
	When smartphones first came out, you started hearing about them.
	I don't know if any of you had this experience, but I had an irrational lust for that product.
	Even when it was terrible.
	Like, in its infancy, it really was a piece of crap.
	You know, the very first smartphone.
	But boy, did I want it.
	Like, in a way, I could really feel, like, the lust for a product.
	Which is unusual.
	I don't have many product impulses at all.
	But when I look at this wearable pen, I have an intellectual reaction to it.
	It's like, oh, that's an innovative and interesting way to go, and I can see how it would have some advantages.
	But I don't feel it.
	Does anybody feel it?
	Do you feel it the way you felt when you knew there was such a thing as a smartphone for the first time?
	When you heard there was a smartphone, you wanted it, didn't you?
	We're all different, so.
	A lot of you said no?
	Well, eventually you wanted it, most of you.
	All right, there's a neuroendocrinology researcher named Robert Sapolsky who wrote a book and he's been giving some interviews and he's talking about free will not existing.
	Now, if you were going to ask somebody, does free will exist?
	Who's the best person to ask?
	Well, I would be looking for a neuroendocrinology researcher, because you'd have to know the neuro part, you know, the brain part, but you would also need to know the endocrinology part, the chemistry, you know, because your cognition is some weird Frankenstein monster of brain action and chemistry.
	So you'd have to know both.
	So he knows both.
	And he's looked at it forever and he says, basically, your human actions are determined by neurobiology, hormones, childhood, and life circumstances, and there's no such thing as free will.
	In any practical sense, there's no such thing.
	So he's the expert.
	Now, who told you there was no free will decades before the person who was the expert told you?
	I did.
	I've been telling you forever.
	And do you know why I knew it before this expert who studied for decades came up with the same answer?
	Because it's obvious!
	I knew it because it's obvious.
	Because the laws of physics do not stop at the outside of your skull.
	Obviously the laws of physics apply inside your head as well as outside.
	So whatever your brain is doing is the same thing your lawnmower is doing, just more complicated.
	The lawnmower doesn't have a choice of turning into a toaster and walking away.
	It can only do what a lawnmower can do.
	That's it.
	You pull the cord, it starts if it's functional.
	Same with you.
	So it was always obvious, but since we resist it so much as humans, and the reason we resist it, and there's somebody who's going to say this in the comments right now.
	I mean, I don't have to read them to know.
	I'm waiting for it.
	If we didn't have free will, then you shouldn't be punishing people for crimes, right?
	And then the whole system falls apart because we all turn into animals.
	Is anybody thinking that?
	That the moment you allow yourself to think there's no free will, well, I guess you can't punish people.
	I guess there's no laws.
	I guess there's no jail.
	Do you know why that's stupid?
	This isn't a matter of opinion.
	That would just be stupid.
	Do you know why that's a stupid idea?
	Because there's no free will.
	Let's get back to the basics.
	Do you know why there is jail and there is punishment and you do think that you need them?
	Because you don't have free will.
	You don't.
	I don't.
	You could believe you do have free will and you'd still have jail.
	Or you could believe there's no such thing as free will and you'd still have jail.
	Do you know why I know that?
	Because I don't believe in free will but I certainly believe in jail.
	And so do pretty much everybody who doesn't believe in free will.
	Do you think Sam Harris, who also doesn't believe in free will, do you think he's opposed to jail?
	I don't think so.
	No, you don't have any risk at all.
	Things will be exactly the way they are now, whether you think it's free will or not, because you don't have free will.
	And that should be obvious, but it isn't.
	All right, so nothing will change whether you have free will or not.
	I saw a video from ABC News featuring Jenna Ellis, who had been one of Trump's attorneys, and she had a story to tell that will make Democrats cheer and Republicans say, uh-oh.
	Now, to understand the story, it really, really matters the exact wording.
	And it really, really matters who is talking to whom.
	And it really, really matters where they were and the context of where they were talking.
	Right?
	So know that all of that matters a lot in what I'm going to tell you.
	And we might not know all of those nuances.
	So I'll tell it as best I can in the version that would make Democrats happy.
	And then I'll tell you what I think is really happening, but I don't know.
	So the version that would make Democrats happy, if I were to explain in my own words what I think Jenna Ellis said on the video, it would be something like this.
	That Dan Scavino, who's very close to Trump, and I think he was working at the time as the deputy, what do you call it, the deputy chief of staff or something.
	I think that was his role at the time.
	So, Schiavino has always been really close to Trump, because before that he handled his social media.
	And Trump was always tweeting.
	So he would have Scavino sitting right next to him about half of the day, I think.
	I mean, Scavino was there all the time because he was the one connecting him to the social media world.
	But anyway, the claim is that Jenna said something like, the path to challenge the 2020 election.
	So this was at the, I believe it was at some kind of a Christmas event for Trump supporters.
	So remember this, it's a Christmas event for Trump supporters, but give me a fact check on that.
	If somebody, I think I heard that.
	Now if it's a Christmas event, what would you expect to also be true at that event?
	Alcohol?
	Would you expect that alcohol was involved in any kind of a Christmas party?
	I would assume so.
	Alcohol.
	So we don't know if alcohol has anything to do with the story, but we also don't know that it doesn't.
	So just keep in your mind, it's an event where alcohol was probably present.
	That's important.
	But we don't know if it had anything to do with it.
	It just probably was present.
	So the claim is that when Jenna said basically that the path to challenging the election in 2020 is complete, there's sort of nothing left, you know, we've burnt up all of our challenges.
	So it's time to move on.
	And Dan Scavino allegedly said something like, the boss, meaning Trump, everybody would understand him to be the boss, is not going to leave under any circumstance.
	Now, do you hear the Democrats cheering?
	What?
	We got him.
	We got him.
	We have the smoking gun.
	We have Trump admitting that he's not going to leave under any circumstance.
	We got him.
	Do you?
	How do you hear that?
	How do you hear that?
	Here's what I hear.
	Hearsay.
	It's hearsay.
	So what Jenna Ellis hears Dan Scavino say about what Trump thinks or said is not exactly the evidence that you want in a courtroom.
	What you want is Trump saying it or, you know, some document recording it.
	That would be the best.
	You know, something that recorded his thoughts in real time at the time.
	But we don't have that.
	I think everybody agrees there's nothing recorded or nothing written along these lines.
	Second, you'd want to get directly from Dan Scavino.
	Dan, did you actually say that?
	Yes or no?
	And if you did say it, was that actually, in your opinion, an accurate representation of what the boss said?
	What do you think he'd say?
	Under oath, do you think he would say, yeah I did say that to Jen Ellis, because Trump said under no circumstances is he going to leave, he's just going to take over the country.
	Do you think he would say that?
	Is that likely?
	Here's what I think he would say.
	That was an accurate statement of what he was saying, but I don't know what he was thinking.
	So it could have been simply a statement that he was going to fight in every way he could fight, but not literally staying in office once there was nothing left to fight about.
	Now, what happened in reality?
	The reality was that when the vote got certified, as it was going to do, he packed up and he left.
	Is there anybody who said, no, no, even though we were packing the boxes, he stayed in the office and we had to drag him out?
	Nobody said that.
	So the facts on the ground suggest that he did not plan to stay there no matter what, because when no matter what came, he just peacefully packed up and left.
	So do you think the Jenna Ellis take At a party with alcohol, where people are going to say things that you say after a few drinks.
	He's not going anywhere, the boss says he's never leaving.
	Doesn't that sound like drunk talk to you?
	And do you think that they could find anything else that would back up the drunk talk?
	I don't know if it's drunk talk, by the way.
	I'm just speculating that it was a party where alcohol was involved.
	It sounds exactly like something you say with a drink in your hand that's exactly not what you do in the real world.
	That's how it comes across.
	But, of course, everybody will interpret it their own way.
	Alright, here's what I think might be a big change.
	Trump went hard on True Social today, saying that the prosecutors and judges, the people trying to take him out, are suffering from extreme Trump derangement syndrome.
	Now, I'm pretty sure he's used the term before, right?
	Trump has used TDS and Trump derangement syndrome.
	If this shifts a major, let's say, shift in messaging, I think it would be a smart one.
	Because I've been saying for a while that the kill shot is for him to put together the Trump derangement argument.
	The Trump derangement argument is all the hoaxes.
	So what Trump's campaign team needs is a nice, clean, short, go-through-the-hoaxes.
	Here's what they said.
	Here's how they did the hoax.
	Really quick.
	Because you don't want to do one hoax that would take too long and people are going to be bored by it.
	You want to hit every hoax in like 10 seconds.
	They claimed he said this.
	This is what he actually said that they didn't show you.
	They claimed he said this.
	Here's what he actually did.
	They claimed he overfed the koi fish.
	Here's Abe doing the same thing, right?
	So you could do almost every one of them in five seconds.
	Five seconds for the claim, five seconds for the debunk.
	Imagine you got to the 20th thing on the list, and there are 20!
	Like, there are 20!
	How would you feel if you were, you know, somebody on the other side?
	You would start to understand it as derangement syndrome.
	And do you remember they said that when he became president, he would turn into Hitler?
	When did that happen?
	Was it when he peacefully packed up his boxes and lost?
	Where was the Hitler part?
	The entire Hitler part is based on the one hoax that the so-called insurrection of January 6th had any intention or ability to take over the United States.
	There was neither the intention of 98% of the people or the ability.
	There was never the ability.
	And nobody even bought the resources.
	Nobody even brought any resources that would be appropriate to that job.
	Yes, they had some clubs.
	Yes, they had some bear spray.
	Nobody overthrows a country with those things.
	They didn't even bring tools to do it.
	I mean, there are tools.
	Insurrections have actual tools.
	Weapons, for example.
	So, yeah, I think that Trump could go directly after Trump Derangement Syndrome and make them defend the hoaxes.
	Actually, make them talk about the hoaxes, even if they're saying, no, no, this one was true.
	Make them talk about it.
	Force them into that argument, because they can't win the Trump Derangement Syndrome argument.
	It's so well documented.
	I mean, at this point, science agrees with him completely.
	Science recognizes there is, in fact, a derangement syndrome.
	It's not imaginary.
	It's not political.
	It's actually medical.
	And it matters.
	It does matter.
	Governor of New York says they're going to do a bunch of new online surveillance, looking for all the anti-Semitic hate online.
	This would be in New York.
	So, Does that scare you?
	So they're going to look for the anti-Semitic people who are on the right or the left, interestingly.
	I don't know.
	Every time they do surveillance, it seems scary, but it's going to happen.
	It's going to happen no matter what.
	I mean, it's legal to look at public statements If you're posting on X, it's legal for them to look at it and get an idea what's going on.
	So I don't know how worried to be about that, but every time you are... I wouldn't call it privacy because I think it's what you're doing in public, but certainly you've got to watch for it.
	Be alert about these things.
	All right, protesters are around the New York Times building and they're saying, shut it down, meaning the New York Times, I guess.
	And these are pro-Palestinian, some would say anti-Israel, protesters.
	Now, I would say that the easiest prediction anybody ever made, and I don't take credit for this one, you know, I made it too, but I think every one of you made the same prediction.
	It goes like this.
	If on the left you have an oppressor, oppressed mindset, where does that end up?
	There's only one way that can go.
	You run out of enemies and you start eating your own.
	If that's your model, that the world is oppressor and oppressed, you have to go after your own people eventually, because they're a little bit different from you, and maybe some of them have a little more power than you do.
	So as soon as you have that oppressor, oppressed mindset, you eat your own.
	And so now the New York Times is surrounded by its own, and they're trying to eat them.
	I laid that cognitive dissonance trap I already talked about, in which I was cheekily suggesting you make your family mad at you on Thanksgiving.
	Never a good idea, so I hope you took that as not serious.
	But the idea would be if you have some Democrat relatives, you could ask them, Some questions.
	Anyway, that would trap them into cognitive dissonance.
	But I don't want to talk about the topic again, just the reaction to it.
	The people who fell into cognitive dissonance just reading my post responded that I didn't know what the definition of cognitive dissonance was.
	Does that sound like something that might be true?
	Do you think I've written three books on it, in which it's like a major component of three books, talk about it continuously, even with doctors and experts, and that I don't know what the definition is?
	But that is cognitive dissonance.
	Then other people dismiss me as a cartoonist, as if that have anything to do with the point.
	So those are both cognitive dissonance.
	So here's the point.
	A good tell for cognitive dissonance is somebody has to change the definition of a word to something you've never heard before.
	You'll see that one a lot, by the way.
	They'll just change the word to some weird definition to allow them to maintain their original point of view.
	All right.
	President Xi's come to San Francisco, which you all know, was amazingly, surprisingly, immediately cleaned up as soon as President Xi was going to visit, which makes all the smart people say, why couldn't you do that before?
	Of course they could.
	But they haven't told us where they put those street people, because I feel like they're coming back.
	If you think San Francisco is cleaned up, I don't think so.
	I think they'll just release all those people and they'll wander back to where they were.
	Won't they?
	Why won't they tell us where they are?
	Have you noticed an insane amount of lack of curiosity about where all those street people went?
	They're very uncurious.
	How many were there?
	Have you heard the numbers?
	So if we had a real press, you would know the number of people, roughly, that they took off the street.
	You would know where they are and what they're doing with them.
	And you would know if the plan is to allow them to come back.
	Right?
	If we had a real press, those would be simple questions to ask and simple to answer.
	Because obviously the people who moved them know where they are and it's not going to be a secret.
	So this is one of those cases where you can see that you don't have a press.
	You don't even have the illusion of a press.
	This is not even trying to give you the illusion that there's any useful news.
	The most important part of the story, where the hell are they, is left out of the story.
	And you don't even see any curiosity about it.
	Except by the poor people who can't find out where it is.
	Now there might be some news on it, but it hasn't hit the kind of national level yet.
	All right.
	So the thinking is that there might be some kind of a new agreement from China about cracking down on fentanyl because the precursors come from Chinese companies.
	And of course we've asked them before and they've said it before that they'd do it.
	But here's what I think was a big negotiating mistake for Biden.
	And I asked the following question.
	Would Trump have made the following mistake?
	So Biden, and maybe he didn't order it, but you have to assume that Democrats were all on the same page.
	When Democrats cleaned up the street people in San Francisco, many of them were there because of fentanyl.
	Where he's going to negotiate with President Xi about the effects of fentanyl on the United States.
	Was that the most dumb fuck thing anybody ever did?
	Let me tell you how I think Trump would have handled this.
	I think he would have been in the car with she, and he would have taken him right through the homeless people that he left there intentionally, and he would have said, and he said, you see this?
	That's because of you.
	And we know that.
	Every one of these people in the fentanyl, that's because of you personally.
	It's not about anybody else.
	It's about you.
	And you know what else?
	We're not going to stand for it.
	So whatever else we're going to negotiate about and whatever else we're going to talk about, you're going to fucking fix this.
	And if you don't, everything else is off the table.
	This is not one of the things we negotiate, President Xi.
	This is your ticket to negotiate.
	We're going to close your fucking embassy if you don't shut this down in an hour.
	I need you to make a phone call right now.
	You need to shut it down before we start negotiating.
	This is not a negotiation.
	This is the ticket to the negotiation.
	You do this first.
	It's not part of the negotiation.
	Because if you do this, we're going to respond as strong, and you're not going to like it.
	Don't ask what I'm going to do.
	You're not going to like it.
	Then I would cancel TikTok while I'm in the car.
	Just so we knew I was serious.
	I'd basically make a call and say, all right, fuck Congress.
	This is a Commander-in-Chief decision.
	Shut down TikTok by this afternoon.
	Commander-in-Chief.
	No argument.
	This is not about Congress.
	This is not about legislation.
	Commander-in-Chief.
	I'm making the call.
	And you can take it to the Supreme Court.
	Go ahead.
	But it's going to be shut down while you're arguing.
	Now, I think some version of that is how Trump would handle it.
	Here's how Biden handled it.
	He cleaned up the city, so when she pulls up and Biden says, but about this fentanyl, she is going to say to himself, inaccurately, doesn't seem too important to you.
	Looks like you took care of it pretty easily.
	Just cleaned it right up there.
	Doesn't look like it was a problem at all.
	So how seriously am I going to take it?
	So I think cleaning up the street people was the biggest negotiating mistake in the world because there's no way that she knows how serious we are about this.
	He cannot know how deadly serious we are about fentanyl.
	And he also doesn't know there's something about the American character which is we will we will bend.
	We'll bend.
	And we'll bend.
	Until we don't.
	And you're not going to see the point where we stop bending until you're really, really going to fucking regret it.
	That's the American character.
	We'd like to be flexible.
	We like to work things out.
	But once we know it's not going to work out, you're fucked.
	Just know that.
	All right.
	So there's an argument for TikTok that it's free speech.
	You've heard the argument.
	Vivek says it, I think.
	No, Vivek says we should just use it.
	But there's a free speech argument.
	I think Thomas Massey makes it.
	Here's what's wrong with that argument.
	The free speech argument for TikTok is word thinking.
	It's not thinking, as in reason and logic and facts.
	It's word thinking.
	In other words, you're making a decision based on the definition of a word, and that's not thinking.
	So if you say, TikTok is free speech, then you're already done with the thinking.
	But there wasn't any.
	You just said, definition, free speech.
	TikTok, free speech, okay.
	Free speech carries all the qualities of protection, so we're done with the conversation.
	That is not logical, that is not reasonable, and that is well below the Thomas Massey level of intellectual investigation.
	Here's what would be more accurate.
	If you can detach yourself from the definitional way of thinking, you'd say to yourself, alright, definitions aside, what is this?
	What's happening?
	And you would say, well, OK, there is definitely a free speech element to the conversation.
	No doubt about it.
	But is that all?
	No, it's not all.
	It is a military weapon that if China has not yet used it in a military way, and it feels like they are, they probably are, they certainly could.
	They just have to push one button, literally one button, and it's actually labeled heat.
	And TikTok has told us this.
	They can make anything trend by pushing one button called heat.
	So the Chinese, of course, have control over Chinese companies.
	They can make them push that button on any topic they want.
	Have they already pushed it on the question of the Palestinians and the Israeli situation in Hamas?
	Probably.
	It looks like it.
	So if you say to yourself, this is a homeland defense question, that has a free speech element to it, you can get to the correct decision.
	Because now you've considered the entire universe.
	The safety, the free speech, and you said, okay, given both of those balance, you know, those two competing things, given that we have American-made products that could do the same thing, you know, could get you the same level of free speech, etc.
	You should treat it more as a military threat or a threat to the cohesion of the society, which would be a military problem, because we'd fall apart.
	Now, this is rare that I would disagree with Thomas Massey on a logic question.
	And I get that he's being pure to the Constitution, but the mistake is to say it's a free speech question and then be done with it.
	It is free speech.
	It's also a military question.
	And the military always overrides free speech.
	Would you agree with that statement?
	A military necessity should, if you're being smart, override free speech.
	Now, it's dangerous.
	It's dangerous because then somebody can say it's a military necessity.
	Well, in the time of war, do you think all the soldiers get to tell you what they're doing?
	Let me ask you more specifically.
	In a hot war, Should the soldiers in the field have their smartphone, because they've got free speech, remember?
	And should they be able to call the New York Times and tell them what battle they're in and what they plan next with their free speech?
	No.
	There's not a single person who thinks that a soldier has free speech during a battle.
	Why?
	We love free speech.
	Why don't you like it?
	There's some people saying, yes, the soldier should tell you where their troops are.
	Seriously?
	Really?
	This is the really test.
	Give me a moment.
	I got to do the really test.
	Really?
	You think the soldier in a battle should be able to tell the other side what they're doing?
	Really?
	Yeah.
	No, you don't believe that.
	So, let's take it out of the free speech realm, because while it is free speech, There's a far bigger question there, and we're getting that question wrong.
	That's what word thinking gets you.
	There's a new poll that found that 90% of women find bald men attractive.
	They did not ask, do you find bald men who wear corrective lenses especially attractive?
	I think the answer is obviously yes.
	But they're saying that the women like, and gave some examples.
	So Prince William, they like him despite his shaved head, and Vin Diesel, and name some others.
	And I'm not going to doubt science or doubt such a well-made and constructed survey, but I have to ask myself this question.
	Do women like bald men who don't have power and money?
	Or is only the bald men Who are really rich and powerful.
	Because I feel like if they only like the bald men who are rich and powerful, it might not be about the hair exactly.
	Just putting that out there.
	Yeah.
	The Rock.
	Do they like The Rock?
	Would they like him if he were not successful?
	And didn't have muscles like hell?
	Yeah.
	They like Jeff Bezos.
	Yeah.
	There was some relationship person on Instagram who was saying that men pick based on looks, because men are just tuned to looks.
	But looks are not, if you think about it, looks are highly correlated with health.
	And if the men are looking for a health signal, Attractiveness is a pretty good health signal.
	So that makes sense from a biological evolutionary perspective.
	But then women pick men, this was one person's take on it, based on how men interact with his environment.
	They say the most important thing is how they interact with their environment and specifically how their environment interacts with them.
	So the The belief here is that if a woman starts to date a guy, and then she notices the way the guy's friends sort of react to him and do what he wants and, you know, kind of listen to him and stuff.
	And maybe even other women, you know, want to be around him.
	And maybe he can, you know, make things happen in the business world or he has some influence in politics or something.
	So the more a man can control his environment, To suit his preferences, the more attractive he is.
	And that sounds right to me.
	Because that gives you more than just the rich people.
	Because there are non-rich cult leaders and stuff like that, that just seem to be able to influence their environment.
	And that makes them attractive.
	Trump should shave his head.
	I've been saying it for a while.
	I said it before the first election in 2016.
	If he shaved his head, he'd win easily.
	Although he might look more scary.
	Actually, it might make him look scarier.
	So he'd have a skinhead problem then.
	Yeah, maybe not.
	All right.
	Rasmussen says that in a two-way contest, according to polls, in a two-way contest, That Biden and Trump would be pretty close.
	Trump would get, let's say, Donald Trump would get 46% of likely voters, and Biden would get, I'm sorry, opposite.
	46 would be for Biden and 42 for Trump.
	Now, that's with the general vote.
	So if you look at just the overall vote, which is not what makes a president, the swing votes are the only ones that matter in our system.
	But the overall vote would put Biden above Trump, right?
	Now that's not telling you who wins, that just tells you the overall vote.
	But that reverses if you throw RFK Jr.
	into the mix, and he is in the mix.
	So in a three-way election, Kennedy would get 12% of the vote, and Trump would beat Biden in the popular vote by one percentage point.
	Now imagine if Trump won the popular vote in a three-way race.
	That would be a hell of an argument, wouldn't it?
	Because if he loses the popular vote but wins in the electoral college, it never looks legitimate to the team that lost.
	You need the president to win both the popular and the electoral college to feel completely legitimate.
	And he might do it.
	There's a path there.
	So we'll see.
	But let's look a little bit more about that.
	You saw the other day Van Jones was on CNN and there was a stunning poll that said that Trump would win over Biden with black men by three points.
	Let me say that again.
	Current polling suggests that Trump would win the black male vote if they held the election today.
	Stunning is right.
	Now, do you know anybody who predicted this outcome?
	Did anybody predict this outcome?
	I did, in 2016.
	I predicted that he would someday win the black vote.
	Now, at the same time, I was predicting that the Democrats would become more the female vote of all females, and the Republicans would be the male vote of all males.
	So if you put those two predictions together, I predicted that black men would start to favor Trump over time.
	Is that one of the craziest, best predictions you've ever seen in your life?
	Do you know what people said in 2016 when I said that?
	Absolutely crazy.
	Here we are.
	If you put together the number of things I've predicted that are actually crazy, that are current reality, it's a pretty weird, surprising list.
	But that's near the top.
	How many of you thought that was going to happen?
	Scott has major white guilt.
	E.J.
	Caron says, Scott has major white guilt.
	You may have missed the last nine months.
	My critics have taken a weird characteristic.
	They don't know anything about me.
	You need to do a little bit of research before coming at me.
	You've got to do better than white guilt.
	Because if there were a poster child for the person who is cured of any white guilt, that would be me.
	I would be on the poster of people who don't have it.
	All right, so maybe you need to catch up.
	You're about nine months behind.
	So, Israel owns the sky.
	Here's another thing I was telling you was probably true.
	That, you know, I was saying that Gaza doesn't get much cloud cover.
	And given that drones and satellites exist, can't Israel look down on the war thing and have this insane advantage because they can see from above all the time?
	Well, it turns out that's exactly the situation.
	So they have a combination of mostly drones, I think, but there might be some satellite stuff, and they've got a control center that apparently has good enough software so they basically have an above-ground look at everything.
	They can see every bad guy coming out of every Every hole in the ground.
	Basically, Israel is playing chess because they're moving their strong pieces based on the board.
	And Hamas is playing whack-a-mole, but they're the moles.
	So they're not playing the same game anymore.
	If you think it's like a war, well, it's kind of a war because they're shooting and killing.
	But Israel is definitely playing chess And Hamas is playing whack-a-mole as the moles.
	Now, sometimes the moles win in whack-a-mole, right?
	I mean, you don't always get all the moles.
	That's why it's hard.
	But it's weird that they're not even in the same game, much less winning a game.
	All right.
	Here's my provocative take that I said today.
	I'm just going to read this.
	Because I want to get it exactly right.
	It took me a long time to write it.
	This is a post I did today.
	I said that men on average, and the on average is going to do a lot of work here, so don't forget the on average part.
	We're not talking about individuals.
	So men on average are protectors and hunters, and women on average are nurturers.
	Are you with me so far?
	We know individuals are all over the place, but on average, Biologically, we evolved, so men hunt and kill stuff and protect, and women are more nurturers.
	And of course, individuals could be all over the place.
	So if you accept that, then I'll go on.
	And I said that when the nurturers gain sufficient political power, the system falls apart because the ratio of protecting to nurturing gets out of whack.
	And that's where we are now.
	No, I'm not saying that women should not vote.
	That's somebody else's.
	That's Pearl's thing.
	And Pearl can say that.
	I'm not saying that.
	I'm saying that when you get an imbalance of nurturers to protectors, then your system has a problem.
	Now, I would imagine it would be the same the other way, right?
	If you had too much protecting and not enough nurturing, that's probably a bad society as well.
	So I'm saying there should be a balance.
	I'm not saying you should have none of one or one's the good one and one's the bad one.
	Nothing like that.
	There's no judgment here.
	No judgment at all.
	I'm just saying that if you take these two things which exist in every society and you get them out of whack, it might be the suboptimal combination.
	And I think that's where we are now.
	We're at a suboptimal combination.
	And I go on, I say, Western women protesting in favor of the Palestinian people is a perfect example.
	The nurturers don't know how to protect themselves or anyone else.
	Again, it's on average.
	You know, there are plenty of individuals who are smart and know what's going on.
	Right?
	Who favors the weak on crime district attorneys?
	And who favors the weak border security?
	Mostly women.
	And the men that those women control.
	They're called Democrats.
	Now, if you don't buy into the fact that Democrat women are the dominant force in the Democrat Party, you need to pay attention a little bit more.
	Because they clearly are, and the men are clearly accommodating the women.
	All right, so you could use your insulting, you know, beta male blah blah blah, you know, there's more LGBTQ blah blah blah.
	I'm not making a judgment call.
	I'm not saying that, you know, anybody's good or bad or that they have more value or less value.
	I'm just describing.
	It's just a description.
	And So it's very clear that the level of political power that women have, and the control that they have over the men in the Democrat Party, creates this imbalance of nurturing to protecting.
	And you can see it everywhere, right?
	It's obvious everywhere.
	It's obvious when you see shoplifters walk in and walk out with goods.
	Those are men not protecting, and it's because the nurturers are protecting the criminal Because they're nurturers.
	It's a little over-nurturing.
	And so just to make everybody mad, I said, we'd all be better off.
	Now, be careful about this choice of words.
	I chose this very carefully.
	I said, we'd all be better off.
	Now, I'm going to tell you what we'd all be better off with.
	Here's what I'm not saying, but some of you seem to be hearing.
	That you should do this.
	I didn't say that.
	I'm not saying what you should do, right?
	So this is not a recommendation for what you should do.
	Just get that clear.
	I'm saying what would be better.
	But lots of times you might have a reason to not do the thing that's better.
	And when I say better, let me be clear about that.
	Better for the cohesion of society, not better for the baby in question, not necessarily better for the woman or anybody else.
	So not for the individuals.
	So if you're arguing for the individuals, that's a different argument.
	For society, wouldn't it be good if we weren't tearing each other apart about the issue of abortion?
	So I think women should, let me get rid of the should.
	Here's what I said.
	We'd all be better off if men abstained from abortion law decisions and women abstained from national defense decisions.
	Better off.
	Now people said, but Scott, I'm definitely going to have an opinion on abortion because it's life or death and it's about a dead baby.
	Go ahead.
	Did you hear me saying not to?
	You may have imagined you heard it, but I didn't say that.
	Because you live in a free country.
	And you can have any opinion you want.
	And you can be trying to save babies as hard as you want.
	And I would say, OK, that's you acting on your conscience.
	Do I have a problem with you acting on your conscience?
	No, I don't.
	Because that's basically a human thing.
	But is it necessarily going to get you to the best result?
	Well, that's where we differ.
	So you can fight on principle to save every baby's life, and I would say to you, well, there's a principle, and there's you following your principle.
	I don't hate that.
	I can't hate you having a principle, sticking to it, and then acting on your principle.
	So if you ever think that I said, don't do that, well, you're hearing something I'm not saying.
	Everybody does what they need to do in their situation, and there's no free will anyway.
	So it's not a criticism, and nobody is telling you what you should do.
	At least I'm not.
	I'm observing that if we stay with the fight, then you get the fight.
	But if you let women work it out, would that get you to your preferred outcome?
	Maybe not.
	So if all that matters to you is your preferred outcome, Then you would want men and women to be involved if you're a man, because then your voice gets involved.
	If your interest, as mine is, is to, this is more of a decision-making thing, then it sounds like a preference, but I'm describing how to make a good decision, just in general.
	If you have, if there's something about your decision that can't change, then you should go to the next factor.
	Right?
	So you're never going to change the fact that half the country think that abortion is murder, and half, or whatever the numbers are, but you know what I'm talking about, and some portion think it's not.
	If that won't change, then you move to the next factor that matters, because you can't change it.
	So stop changing the thing that won't change.
	We will disagree forever about this question.
	So you move up to the next question is how do you live together?
	How do you reach a decision where half the country can hate it and still respect it?
	To do that, you want the people who are closest to the decision and have the most skin in the game to have a dominant opinion.
	That's women.
	They have the most skin in the game.
	Now you say, but they'll make the wrong decision.
	According to who?
	Where do you get that from?
	How do you know what the right decision is?
	The only thing you know for sure is your opinion.
	That's the only thing you know.
	You have no access to some universal what is right.
	You have a religious belief, which you're welcome to.
	I encourage it.
	You have a principle, which you're welcome to, and I encourage it.
	And then you can have your opinion, which you're welcome to, and I would encourage it.
	But that won't get you to a good society.
	None of those things will help you get to living together in peace.
	What might get you there is trying to convince women to your opinion.
	That's always good.
	And if they change their mind, And maybe they decide differently on abortion in your state or otherwise, then you're still doing a credible process, because if women have the most skin in the game, and whatever way the laws go is compatible with the bare majority of women, then you have the most credible system, even if half the country hates it.
	Now, it could be in either direction.
	It could be either pro or anti.
	But it would still be the most credible outcome and nobody will stop you from saying anything you want about it at any time.
	Your opinion?
	Full on.
	But just know that decision making says stop arguing about the thing that you can't win.
	The argument of whether it's life or not, it's going nowhere.
	And it will go nowhere.
	So go to the next thing that matters, how do you keep this society together?
	That's all I'm saying.
	Now, those who disagree said, but, but, but, it's life and death and I have to make my feelings known.
	To which I say, go ahead.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	But the same should apply to war.
	I think men should be primarily the ones making the decisions about do we go to war?
	Who do we support?
	How do we keep the country safe?
	Do we close the borders?
	What do we do about crime on the city?
	Same problem.
	I think that women are less credible in that domain because they're not the ones who are going to have to clean it up if it goes wrong.
	So Neither of these things will ever happen in our system, but that would give you better results.
	All right.
	Another survey of whether Trump would win in the battleground states, and the newest one says that Trump's on track to win 292 electoral college votes compared to Joe Biden at 246.
	That's like a big win.
	That's pretty close to a landslide.
	Would you call that a landslide?
	In your opinion, would 292 to 246 be a landslide?
	I think they would call it that, but we'll see.
	A lot will change.
	And interestingly, if you're not looking at the national vote, but you're looking at the key states of the Electoral College, according to this survey, Trump is the only Republican who could win against any Democrat.
	Let me say it again.
	According to this, Trump is the only Republican who can win against any Democrat.
	Biden, Newsom, or anybody else.
	Now, that's not believable because, you know, anybody could really be anybody, so you never know who's going to get in.
	But that's interesting.
	DeSantis actually would not beat either Harris or Biden.
	Did I read that right?
	Doesn't matter if he faces...
	Oh, Trump would be Biden, Harris, or Newsom, and it looks like DeSantis and Nikki Haley would get demolished no matter who they ran against.
	I don't know about Vivek.
	You can imagine a world in which Trump decided not to run for any personal or other reason and endorsed Vivek.
	Because that seems like really possible, doesn't it?
	I mean, in the worst case scenario where he decided not to run, or couldn't run, or was a health problem, or something like that.
	If Trump endorsed Vivek, you don't think he could beat the Democrats?
	I also believe that DeSantis would have a problem, although I think he'd do a lot better than Nikki Haley.
	And I think Nikki Haley would have a problem.
	But they don't have his skill.
	They don't have Vivek's skill.
	And they don't have his compatibility with Trump supporters.
	I think if you think Vivek doesn't have a path, He really does.
	I mean, he's operating as the emergency backup spare to Trump.
	Now, to be fair, he's not running to be vice president.
	He's not running to be anybody's backup.
	He's running to be president.
	And that's exactly the mindset and position he should have.
	But in reality, you know, things happen.
	Do you think Tucker Carlson could ever be the vice president?
	I think that Trump is wisely and smartly just saying good things about Tucker because they're working well at the moment together.
	So I don't think Tucker has any interest in being vice president.
	That would be like the worst idea in the world, really.
	And I like Tucker.
	I just don't think vice president is where he would serve the country best.
	I doubt he thinks it either.
	All right.
	I believe I've talked about all the interesting news.
	And that concludes the live stream of the day.
	The live stream of live streams.
	The best thing you've ever experienced in your life.
	Volcanoes in Iceland.
	Yeah.
	Some are saying there's lots of volcanoes at the moment and then I saw some experts say no it's not true it's actually a low volcano year but I guess the volcanoes are just in interesting places so we're talking about them.
	I don't think Trump as president would serve the country best, somebody says.
	VP under Biden or Trump is a bet on death in office.
	That's true.
	Yeah, so Tim Scott is out of the race.
	It's a cobbler's skill of speaking without saying anything.
	That's funny.
	All right.
	Thanks, YouTube, for joining.
	And I will talk to you tomorrow.
	And it'll be another wonderful news day.
	I just feel like something's about to happen.
	There might be some big news brewing.
	We'll keep an eye on that.

▲