Episode 2242 Scott Adams: Free Speech No Longer An American Feature. It's Time To Be Honest About It

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. Again, it's called Coffee with Scott Adams. And once again, it features a whiteboard. Yeah. Best thing you've ever seen. If you'd like this experience to reach levels that people have only accomplished with illegal drugs, all you need is a cupboard mug or a glass, a tanker jellice and 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. The dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip and habits. Now go. Oh, yeah, that's good. That's good. Have you ever noticed that it's easier to pay attention to bad news than good news? You know, good news, you just take it for granted. And I realized this summer in Northern California. This was the best weather of summer I have ever experienced, any year of my life. The best weather. It was like room temperature just about every day. It was just perfect. Southern California had a little bit of a tropical storm, which was unusual but didn't have much effect up where I am. And believe it or not, California's forest fires are actually the second year in a row that they're low at the moment. The weather where I am is smoky, so you can't really see the hills are full of smoke. But it's way less than it normally is this time of year. Right now it would just be a mess normally. But apparently California did either figure out how to do a better job on the fires because they did make some changes. Some of it might have been the weather itself, but they added 24 aircraft that they lease during fire season so they can respond faster, put things out faster. They've nearly doubled the acreage deprived of fuel by doing some burns. So they did some controlled burns. They got a bunch of aircraft to respond quickly, and apparently it worked. Seems like it's on the way. So I asked on the. On the X platform, I did a little survey and I wondered if other people are having worse or better weather. Now, what should the answer be? You would expect that a good number of people would be having worse than normal weather, wouldn't you? Well, I don't know if it's a function of the people who answered my polls. It's an unscientific poll, but I gave them a choice of as you weather this summer. I just limited it to the summer we just had. So you'd remember it easily. I said, is it better, worse, or average? 32% said this summer was better than average. 23%, almost a quarter said it was worse than average. Just a coincidence. And 46% said it's about the same. So it's really hard to sell a climate crisis when 3/4 of the human beings who live in the country, roughly speaking, it's a non scientific poll, but directionally it's probably true. Three quarters of us can't really tell that anything has changed or if it has changed. Maybe it got a little better recently. How in the world are you supposed to believe that climate change is real if three quarters of us are having a physical sensation that is not. Now, I get that you wouldn't necessarily feel it, so I'm not trying to sell you that, oh, my town had good weather, so there's no climate change. I'm not saying that. And I know that if anybody from a major publication is watching, they're already writing that down. Ho ho. Cancelled. Cartoonist says climate change isn't real because his weather was good. Aw. Aw. You know that's coming, right? But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying persuasion wise, not scientifically persuasion wise. How are you going to convince the country that there's an emergency when they walk outside? They just don't feel it. They literally don't feel it. So my comments about persuasion, not about science. I know you can't tell climate change by checking the weather. I do know that. I do know that. But I also tell you that one of the BS filters I use, it's a pretty good one, is when the science does not match your observation, you should ask more questions. Doesn't mean the science is wrong. But if it doesn't match your everyday experience, that's when you ask questions. I always use this example. Science says that smoking tobacco could give you lung cancer. And indeed, almost everybody I know who has ever had lung cancer, with one exception, was a smoker. So observation science, perfect. Good match. But climate change, so far, not a match. I walk outside and every day of my life has been either similar or hey, that's a nice day. No, no. Observable change doesn't mean climate change is not a risk. I'm just saying that if I can't observe it and feel it, it's a tough sell. So ask more questions. There's a study of when people are happiest and I thought this was a waste of studying. So it turns out that children are happy up until about the age of nine. Then between nine and 16, they get a little less Happy, but then their happiness increases slightly up till the age of about 70. And then after 70, their enjoyment of life starts decreasing until the end. Did anybody need to study that? Did you not know that children are happier than teenagers? Is there anybody who didn't know that young kids are happier than teenagers? And I'm pretty sure that, you know, between 9 and 16, it's not exactly teenage. But it's when you start seeing what older people can do and that you're not allowed to do and you start wishing you were like these older people. So of course it makes perfect sense to you. You're a little less happy when you're not quite little, but you're not big enough to do anything that you want to do. Terrible time. That makes sense. But also, is it a surprise that when people reach their reproductive ages, they have the most satisfaction? I feel like that's built into us. I think we're designed by evolution to be happiest when we're in a reproductively possible stage. And then it makes sense that people stay happy once they're established until they're 70 and they become unhealthy. My plan is to become unhappy after 72. That was always my plan. I'm going to stay happy until the age of 70 and then right off a cliff. But that's just my plan. All right, this is the funniest thing of the day. So a user on X called bardvopel tweeted this question for men. My mom, who has been married to my dad for over 30 years, just found out that my dad constantly scans for, assesses and plans for possible threats. And then Bard Voepl asks us men folk, do all of you do this? Yes, yes, I think we all do. I can speak for myself, but I have a continuous recording of non stop violence that runs in my head. And when you tell women that, it just blows them away. And they say stuff like. But not all the time, right? And I say, yeah, all the time. You mean just like sitting here at your own house? Yes, yes. You mean like if you're in bed? Yes, yes. I am definitely thinking about how I will overcome the intruders in bed all the time. Does it ever shut off? I hope not. I don't want it to shut off. It seems pretty basic to my survival. Maybe it's a little over attenuated for modern living, but maybe it isn't. Maybe it's just right. I don't think women understand the degree to which they don't need to worry about it, because we are so if you wanted to appreciate that this would be a good time to do it. But, yes, we continually think about threats because we know it's us. Right? If you're a guy and you're with, let's say, your family and trouble arises, you stand up automatically because you know it's your job, right? You're not looking at the kids. Kids, looks like there's danger. Go take care of that. Spouse, go take care of that. No, you just get up and take care of business, because that's just how we're designed. But let's add this to the question about thinking about ancient Rome. So in the past month, women have learned the following about men. They learned that we think about ancient Rome way too much. I know it's not every one of the men, but a lot of us, I do. And that we scan and look for threats 100% of the time. And the funniest comment. This was from Adam. Dopamine on X. Who tweets? First the Roman Empire, now this. What changed to make women notice men for the first time? That's right. Women started wondering about men, and they got curious what we're thinking. First time. I'll tell you, my experience does not include women asking me how I think and. And how I feel. That's not like, a big part of my experience. What are your private thoughts, Scott? Nobody's ever asked. I'm glad you asked. Nobody's ever asked before. So, yeah, women are finding out who men are for the first time. They may have picked a bad time in history to ask that question, but they're figuring it out now. All right. Would you like the next surprise for women? I'd like to offer the next surprise for women. And by the way, I don't know if this one's universal or not, but ever since I was very little, I spent a great deal of my waking time wondering how to blow the shit out of everything I say. If I see a car, I Wonder how much C4 it would take to blow it up. If I see a mountain, I'm thinking, huh, There's a theoretical amount of dynamite that would take that mountain away. Everything I see, I wonder how I could blow it up. I'm watching the men laughing because that's one of your secret thoughts, right? You don't want to tell anybody. How often do you think about blowing shit up? We think about it all the time. You know, when you were a teenager and you got some firecrackers that maybe your parents didn't know you had, you got some good Firecrackers. What was your first thought? Was your first thought, I could use these firecrackers to make a loud noise? Is that your first thought? No. Your first thought was, how can I catch a frog and attach it to the frog and see what happens? Because you're assholes. Young boys, I cannot defend them. I do not defend them. And I don't want you to blow up any frogs. Frogs are nice, but no, we're terrible. We're terrible. We just want to blow stuff up all the time. So aren't you glad you found that out? There's a little secret for you, for the lady folk. All right, so General Milley is retiring, and this gives people the opportunity to say terrible things about people. About Trump, mostly, hey, here's an excuse to say something bad about Trump. General Milley's retiring. Now, I gotta say that there are very few people in public life that look incompetent. You just look at them and you say, what is wrong with you? You look incompetent. And I don't say that about people who simply disagree with me. For example, when Eric Swalwell says things that make my head explode, I don't think to myself, oh, he looks incompetent. He just looks like somebody who's pushing a point of view for a reason. And that's all it is. When Adam Schiff stands in front of the camera and says things that are clearly untrue, I don't think to myself, wow, that guy's incompetent. I think he's just lying. He's probably good at lying. But when I saw General Milley talk the whole time, I would think to myself, is he dumb? It looks dumb. Everything he says just feels a little dumb. And I was trying to think, is there anybody else like that who has a high level job? And I'm going to give you two names that you do not think are just lying. Jerry Nadler. Jerry Nadler. Kamala Harris. You're way ahead of me. You had both on the locals platform. They were just screaming both of those names to me before I said, I swear to God, I was going to say both of those names. But that should tell you something, that you guessed the names I was going to say. Out of the thousand or so public figures that you could name, you guessed them completely. Yeah. Nadler does not look like he's just lying. He looks like his brain doesn't really work. Now, I'm not going to throw Fetterman on there because I don't know what's Going on with him. He presents himself like his brain is not working. But it's possible it is on the inside. I don't really know. Hard to know. So, yeah, I mean, those are three that I put in the same category. General Milley, Nadler, and Kamala Harris. Well, Amazon is making a $4 billion investment. It's only a minority stake in a company called Anthropic, which is an AI company. So I didn't realize that Amazon wasn't already super heavily into AI, and I think they probably were, but maybe they thought they needed a little jump start here, so they bought a stake in this company. And this raises the following question. If you were, let's say, wanted to know everything about Americans and you wanted to, like, really get into their business, cloud database would do it the best. If you had their banking information, you'd certainly know a lot about people because every purchase you make, you know, might go through a credit card or something. But our banking information is distributed across all the different banks and credit cards. And, you know, you could find it. You can find everything about me, but you'd have to go to a bunch of different entities to. To figure out what I'm doing. But if you had my Amazon history, you've got me. You know everything about me. You know, you could tell by the types of things I buy, a lot about my personality and certainly a lot about my situation. I'll bet you could tell my political preference. You could know my gender political preference. You probably know my sexual preference. You would certainly know my iq. You would just look at what books I buy, what products I buy. You would know my income. Because if I buy a little bit more than other people and more expensive stuff, etcetera, and I'm trying to think, there's almost nothing about me that you wouldn't know about my lifetime of Amazon purchases. And just about everybody's buying from Amazon. So I would say that the Amazon database, and I want to see if you have something that would top it. I think the Amazon database would be the number one most accurate set of information about an individual. Is there anything that would have more? When you say Facebook, but Facebook is still only 20% of the country, how many people are on Facebook? I guess a lot of people have it, but we don't all use it. Well, okay, I'll give you Facebook. And of course, the NSA has data and everything. Yeah, Facebook, maybe Google, Google might, Apple might, but Amazon certainly has, I would say, among the best. All right, let's talk about the shutdown. So the Government is doing one of these dumb shut down, playing chicken thing to see if they can blame the other side. And Matt Gaetz is, I would say he's the noisiest person on this topic in a productive way. And apparently he had a deal with Speaker McCarthy that they would vote on bills individually and not lump them together as one thing. Because if you lump them together as one thing, you can get away with a bunch of BS that you're stuck in there because somebody has a special interest. And I guess McCarthy agreed and then he went back on it. So according to the Matt Gaetz version of things, McCarthy made a commitment and then backed down. And because of that, Matt Gaetz is going to shut the whole fucking government down. Totally on board with that? Yeah, shut the whole government down. Crash it. Just crash the system. If the government can't do that. A simple thing which is make a promise and then keep it. And in this case, I'm talking about McCarthy. Does he have a reason for what he's doing? Does McCarthy have a reason for wanting to do it the way he did? Of course. Yeah, of course he has a reason. Is it a good reason? Probably. Probably a good reason. Do I care? Nope. Nope. Now, he made a promise, and I also think it's a good idea to vote on bills independently. And he's got to do it. And if he doesn't do it, shut the government absolutely on board. Yet you can't have a country of people who don't do what they say they're going to do. Yeah. This seems like one of the smallest problems in the world, but I would argue that the United States has been a superpower for a number of reasons. We had some natural geographic advantages and stuff, kept us out of some wars. But I think the biggest thing about America is that generally speaking, we do what we said we would do. There are plenty of people who don't. But in the business world, and it should be true in the political world more than it is, you have to depend on people to do what they said they would do. If you take that away, literally nothing works. The whole system falls apart. So McCarthy, the fact that he said he would do it, and we can see good reasons for doing it, he might also have some good reasons for not doing it, but I think that would be less important. I think the fact that he said he was going to do it has got a rule that's got to be the winning. The winning thing. Now. Somebody says he's a Democrat in disguise. I don't think so. Does anybody Even know his reason for not wanting to break up the bills. Was there some kind of negotiation that he's trying to hide? Globalism. Yeah, that's too simple. I don't think he's a globalist. Pork? You think he's hiding the pork? Oh, Ukraine. Is it about Ukraine getting Ukraine? Oh, is that what it was? You wanted to get Ukraine funded and the best way to do it was to put it with the other stuff that they want. Is that the answer? Well, that's not a good answer. If that's the answer. There's no answer. So Matt Gaetz has to win this. So I'm all in on Matt Gaetz on having separate bills to vote on. All right, we'll see if he wins on that. But I would point out that Matt Gaetz is doing what Desantis used to do, which is continually picking good little fights that, you know, the fights might not be the most important thing in the world, but he's picking fights strategically to define who he is, how much fight he's willing to bring to a game. Very important. And to take it, you know, take a, let's say, stand on principle. As long as he's not crazy about it, I like it and he's not crazy. All right. I saw Elon Musk did a post, he said the absurdity of reality is making parody almost impossible. Have you heard anybody else say that before? That parody and reality have merged, so it gets a lot more attention the way he says it. Yeah, I'm not the only person who ever said it, but I'm somewhat known for saying that a lot. So I agree. All right, you're following that story about the Nazi who was honored with a standing ovation in Canada. So Canada gave a Nazi a standing ovation because while he was a Nazi, he fought the Russians. So since he fought the Russians, he's a good guy, even though he was a Nazi when he did it. So now I've heard a lot of people interacting about it. Let me give you my overall opinion. I'll talk about a few of the details. My overall opinion of that is it's completely meaningless. I don't care. It's literally a Nothing. It's a 96 year old guy. And the people who stood up didn't know the details. They just thought he fought for Ukraine or something. I guess he was on the Ukraine side, but a Nazi. And so it means nothing that people clapped for him. Can we all agree on that? It means nothing that he got a standing ovation because the people standing had no idea what they were clapping for. They were just. They thought they were being polite or something. So the fact that is nothing now, what about the fact that there was somebody in charge who decided that they would clap for him? Well, it looks like just a mistake. Yeah, it doesn't mean anything. That whole thing just looks like a fuck up. I wouldn't put any meaning on it or importance, especially at that guy's age. All right, Wall street journalist has article about the talents shortage we're going to have. And I've talked about it as a incompetence crisis. So you've all noticed, right? You can't get even simple things done anymore. Just even routine things. You could go to a business whose only job it is to sell you lollipops. It's the lollipop store. And you'd walk in with your credit card and you'd say, I'd like to buy a lollipop. In the old days, you could buy a lollipop and pay for it. Leave with your lollipop. In the modern world, your employee won't know how to sell lollipops. And you walk in and you say, can I have a lollipop? They'll say, ooh, a lollipop. I don't. I don't really know how to sell a lollipop. And then you look at the store side, you're like, I'm sure this is the lollipop store. And you work here, right? You're the only employee of the lollipop store. Yeah, yeah, it's just me here today. But you don't know how to sell a lollipop. That's every transaction I have now is people in the job who don't have a clue how to do the job they're in. And they'll just tell you that directly. Here's another sign of incompetence that makes me crazy. I'd like to do my impression of renting a car. Okay? I go online and then it asks me every question about renting a car. My name, my address, my credit card, how long I'll keep it, what features I want, what kind of car. 100% of everything that can be known about me, I do online. And then I go to the rental store to actually get my car. And then they just hand me the key and I drive away, right? No, no. Nope. Now let me. Let me do the impression of the guy behind the counter after he has 100% of my information. It. It's the best reason for having a smartphone. Have you ever gone to do anything without your smartphone? Have you ever tried to buy a new phone at the phone store? The phone store already knows everything about you, and the phone store sits there, and it's a good thing you already have a phone. So this is me when I go for any kind of service. Okay. This is what I'd like to. Okay, you're going to be doing something that makes no sense whatsoever to me, and it's going to take you a long time. But I brought my phone. I mean, my God, has anybody tried to buy a car? Well, your. Your offer is low, but I'm willing to take it to my manager. Yeah, everything's broken anyway. Now, part of that is because the boomers were well trained, but they're all aging out. And Wall Street Journal points out that economies move with the number of new workers. And that's a scary thing because their basic point is that throughout history, the health of your economy was almost completely dependent on the flow of new workers, because they could always find, at least in a free market, they could always find something to do. So if you have lots of workers, you got a good economy. If you have a worker shortage, well, things are going to be slower. So we have ways to compensate for that in the modern world, but they're imperfect. Given that our demographic bubble suggests that there will not be enough workers to fill the jobs that we already have, and it's getting worse. Are we going to solve that with immigration? Some of it. Some of it will be solved with immigration, but of course, they're coming in with language issues in many cases. Not trained in many cases. But what about robots? If it's true that Tesla is going to have a robot that costs about the same as a car, they're going to do. And they can train them to do anything just by showing the robot just has to watch video of any task and it learns it by watching the video. Like E.T. i feel like robots are going to be the answer for all the competence problem. I feel that if I could have talked to AI about any of my situations, including buying a lollipop, I would have come out much better. I think the AI could have solved most of my problems, but the person can't even understand them. So the Adam's Law of slow moving disasters says this. Under normal situations, the demographic bomb that's happening in the United States would be horrible. But it looks like the Adams law of slow moving disasters is working again. I think we'll crank up our immigration, maybe improve it so it gets us more skilled People. But I think we'll crank up our immigration and I think we'll crank up our robots and we'll have better ways to retrain people and relocate them and we'll probably be fine. That's my theory. My theory is we'll probably be fine. We'll just work, we'll figure a way around it. All right, I'm going to call it, I'm going to call the game. Free speech is no longer a feature of America. Now I know some of you can say, Scott, what took you so long? We've known it for so long. I know, I know. It's just at some point you have to call it. You know, there was a long period where free speech was threatened and then it was more threatened and more threatened. But when you look at the cancellations that are happening and you can see that this is apparently intelligence related, that apparently there's some large op to completely suppress free, free speech. And apparently they're successful because the, the cancellations have worked. And it's a weird kind of cancellation because people like me are canceled only to the degree that I'm limited to talking to the people who already agree with me. I can't reach anybody else. Do you know the last time I had any kind of interaction with a Democrat? I don't even remember. I actually can't even remember any interaction with a Democrat. It used to be all the time. Now when I get interaction from somebody who pretends to be Democrat, they're just trolls. They're people who actually just came over to make trouble. They're not people who would naturally see my content and respond to it. So the ability of the bad guys, whoever they are, to wall us off and keep us in our own little walled area is the end of free speech. Because free speech doesn't have any meaning if you don't have a tool to do it. And if you did do it, nobody would see it. And then also the government has near complete ability to brainwash. And it's legal. It's legal in America for the CIA to brainwash the public of America for apparently any reason they want. And does anybody disagree with my statement that I feel like a fucking idiot when I say that we have a First Amendment right. It used to be something I was proud of and I was fighting for it. But let's just be honest, we don't have freedom of speech. And nobody who's a Democrat will hear me say this. Am I right? Do you know who will hear me? Oh, maybe Russell Brand will hear me. Maybe Tucker Carlson will hear me because they're canceled too, so I can talk to my fellow canceled people and future canceled people. But we're in our little free speech gulag and free speech. I would be offended to hear anybody say we that they're defending freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is gone. It is gone. And they're going after Rumble now and looking to finish off the X platform. Now, I think Elon Musk is going to hang tough, so they're going to have trouble finishing him off, but they're going to try. They're going to try. I think the only reason Elon Musk is not in jail is because he's adding so much to our, you know, space capabilities and he's building things that should be good for climate change. But otherwise I think Deep State would have killed him by now, honestly, because he's too dangerous. All of his free speech impulses are not working. But even on the X platform, I don't reach anybody whose mind I could change. It's just people who want to follow me. So I saw absolutely nobody disagree with my statement that free speech is already gone. We should actually rewrite the Constitution to get rid of that. Not that I want to get rid of it. I just think it would make a statement to actually have a Constitutional Convention to get rid of freedom of speech because we have this weird situation where the Constitution guarantees it, but the system guarantees we don't have it. So let's get the Constitution compatible with the actual system we experience. So at least we don't have any conflict there. We might want to double the Second Amendment power. We might want to strengthen that one. All right. Rand Paul has an article in which he said he's talking about the lack of free speech. He says, for example, a 2021 Pentagon program called Civil Sanctuary, which I've never heard of. Civil Sanctuary 2021. So this is recent news. Sought to develop AI tools to scale the moderation. Oh, the moderation capabilities, yeah, yeah. They're. They're hoping to get rid of disinformation and improve the moderation. So nothing wrong with that. Right. Because we all like some moderation. Sought to develop AI tools to scale the moderation capabilities of social media platforms to create what it describes as, quote, more stable information environment. More stable information environment. In other words, to censor the people they don't want you to hear. Oh, he actually says that. In other words. That was actually his next sentence. In other words, the goal of the Pentagon program was to exponentially multiply the government's Ability to coordinate censorship of online speech. Yes, that's exactly correct. That's not spin, that's not hyperbole. That is an exact accurate description of what that is. Yeah. And then meanwhile, as Rand Paul points out, the Department of Commerce is awarding million dollar grants for cognitive research into how the U.S. government. This one is unbelievable. So the government is spending money to learn how you can foster trust in AI with the general public. The government is studying how to make the public trust AI. Why? Why, why do you want us to trust AI? Is it because you're going to use AI to launder your opinions? Yes, it is. Yes. So remember the, the trick with controlling the public is to launder opinions. So you know how the politicians do it? They'll, they'll leak something to the press that's their friends. Then the press will report it as true, even if it isn't. And then the politician will say, well don't look at me, it's in the press. So the politicians, in order to lie to you, effectively need to control other organizations which you incorrectly believe are the keepers of truth. Oh, well, the fact checking organization says it's true, but they're owned by the politicians. Oh, well, there's this think tank that just came out with an opinion, but they're owned by one of the sides. Oh, there's this watchdog group who complains when there's anti Semit. Oh, but they also complain whenever their team wants them to take somebody out that they don't like. So it's always about building a fake structure of credible people. They're not actually credible. That add that fake credibility. Now what would happen in the world of AI if the AI told you the fact checkers, the think tanks and the watchdogs were fake? Because AI would have the ability to learn from the entire body of knowledge of humans and that is part of the body of knowledge of humans. Would the human programmers have to delete that knowledge so the AI didn't know it? And are they going to use the AI as their ultimate cutout? Well, gosh, I wouldn't have believed this if the government told me, but there's this independent AI made by Amazon or Google or Microsoft or somebody you could totally trust. And the AI says it's true, so I guess it's true. So right in front of us they're teaching AI to be more credible. And do you think it's because AI is more accurate? No, because you know what would make AI credible? Being right over and over again. Yeah. Do you know why you need to study, to make AI credible with the public, because you don't plan to make it accurate over and over again. If it were accurate, you wouldn't need to work on its credibility. It's only inaccurate things. You have to work out their credibility. There's a reason that people are doubting it. Now. There's another. There might be a credible thing that's poorly communicated, but I don't think that's what's happening here. All right, so that's your next effort to remove your free speech. Now, why would anybody want to remove your free speech? Well, let me give you an example that's in the news. The USA is going to fund the World bank with $25 billion that will go toward rebuilding Ukraine. That money will be largely or partly managed by the newly reborn Clinton Global Initiative that had gone on a long hiatus when Trump was in charge. Yeah, why did they need to go on a long hiatus when Trump was the president? It's just a charity. Why wouldn't the charity just do what it was doing all the time? Because it couldn't do it when Trump was in charge. Because it's not a legitimate organization and it would be too obvious. But when their own team is in charge, and more importantly, when the team that's in charge can control your freedom of speech as they do, you and I could know the following fact, that that's the sketchiest looking thing you've ever seen in your life. And it seems super obvious that the Clinton foundation is going to siphon off billions of dollars right in front of you, and there's nothing you can do about it. Now, the only thing I can think that you could do about it is to tell the Democrats so that both the Democrats and the Republicans are on the same side and saying, whoa, whoa, whoa. None of us like corruption. You know, this is not politics. This is corruption. And none of us like corruption. So we'll stop it. So do you think that any Democrat knows that this is a problem? Nope. Nope. You and I know, but we already knew it, right? If I tell you the Clinton Global Initiative is a problem, is there even one person here who didn't already know that? No, I'm just talking to the converted. You're already on the same page. There's not a single Democrat, the only ones who would make a difference in this case because you need unity. There's not a single Democrat who will ever hear what I'm saying. There's not a single Democrat, whoever hear you say the Clinton Global Initiative is crooked and somewhat obviously so. And they get any details and find out what's going on. So there's absolutely no free speech because I have no way of reaching a Democrat. When was the last time a Democrat entity invited me for a major news hit? I don't remember. Used to happen all the time. But as soon as I started saying things that made sense and disagreed with their narrative, I'm dead to the world. Now I'm just the canceled, disgraced cartoonist they'll never have beyond. Now, see how this works? All right, so the reason we don't have free speech is because the bad guys couldn't get away with something that's so obviously crooked if we had free speech. All right, Washington Post made news by being honest. I'm not even joking. The Washington Post, which is allegedly a news organization, but people watching this know it's not really a news organization. It's a. It's an intelligence op on the country. You all know that, right? Well, let me test this. I'll bet everyone watching now knows that the Washington Post is not even designed as a news organization. It's just a propaganda entity. Right? Every single person watching this knows that to be a fact. How many Democrats do you think know that? I would guess none. I've never met one. I've literally never met one. There's no free speech. If there were anything like free speech, the Democrats would at least know that other people think this. Even if they disagreed, they'd at least know what your opinion was. But no, they'll never be exposed to it. All right, here's how they made news, at least on social media, for being honest. So they ran that poll. Washington Post and ABC News did a joint poll that said that Trump was 10 points up on Biden in the general election. Now, that was way outside other polls results. And. But the Washington Post, to their credit, said, you know, right up front that the result, you know, I think it was the subtitle to the headline. So right up front, they said this, that this poll does not match other recent polling and that it might be an outlier. In other words, the Washington Post was telling you right up front, very prominently, we did this poll, but even we don't think you should necessarily believe it. Now, that feels like an upgrade, doesn't it? It's an upgrade because they did the poll. They didn't hide it from you. And then they told you, quite honestly, this doesn't make sense with the other polls. So don't assume it'll last. That's good work, isn't it? But as other people pointed out, they've done a lot of sketchy things in the past, and they've never pointed it out in advance. Why is this the one time they criticize their own work? The one time. Is it because it's good for Trump? Seems like a pretty big coincidence. So even when they're honest, they're honest in a way that's dishonest. That was a tough one to pull off. They were completely honest and forthright, and by doing so, they became more dishonest because of all the times they haven't done it. It's quite a trick to pull that off. All right, apparently Miss America, the current Miss America, is a nuclear fuel engineer. That's a long way to saying she's not as attractive as past title holders, but there you have it. No, I'm just joking. I'm just joking. She's not as attractive as past title holders, but I think that's a coincidence. No, I'm just joking. I'm just joking. I'm just joking. She's very. She's very attractive. Anyway, there's an article in the Wall Street Journal talking about her. Jennifer Hiller wrote this article, and I was caught by this sentence. It says, does the US need more nuclear power? Miss America thinks so. So do Oliver Stone, Elon Musk, and Sam Altman. So the tone of the article is that these following people who are prominent people are pro nuclear. And so you should take it seriously as well. And I'm thinking to myself, really, I feel like they left out a few people that may have been there as well. But it does help that famous, smart people, including a nuclear fuel engineer who is also Miss America, think that nuclear power is necessary and we should do a lot more of it. Yeah. Sam Altman's the head of ChatGPT. All right. It says atomic energy is elbowing its way back into the conversation. Okay, here's something that Elon Musk said a while ago, that desalinization is absurdly cheap. I guess he said that to Bill Maher. So that would be another thing that Bill Maher was not aware of, that desalinization is absurdly cheap. Now, that's interesting, because whenever anybody talks about it, they talk about how expensive it is. It wasn't obvious to me that it's cheap. I just knew that it worked. I knew that it worked. If you had no option, such as in the Middle east, they don't have a lot of options, but they have enough money so they can make it work. What I didn't know is that the efficiency and cost keep dropping. And if you were to add on top of that a nuclear power plant, so the cost of energy dropped, you pretty much have all the water you want. I saw a product for sale on Instagram, advertised on Instagram that was a household kitchen device that creates water out of air. And you just plug it in and you're done. You just plug it in and it starts creating water out of air and fills the thing and makes, I don't know, two gallons a day, something like that. So. And that looked, that looked pretty efficient. So I've got a feeling that the Adam's law of slow moving disasters is going to solve our water problems as well as our energy problems. We'll have nuclear, we'll have desalinization, we'll be able to reforest deserts and fix climate change. That's what I see happening. All right, would you like to see me get triple canceled? Anybody? Triple cancellation. Double, triple cancellation. I'm gonna need a whiteboard to pull this off. I saw a horribly racist comment today on social media. It was a video of a smash and grab robbery where lots of people come in at the time, same, same time. And they dominate the store and grab everything. This one was in England, I think. And the commenter said in a very racist way, why don't we ever see video of white people doing this? Because all the people doing the robbing were black in that video. And I would like to address that question. Do you think I could do it without getting canceled? Why do we only see video of black people involved in smash and grabs? Now if there's any video of anybody else doing it, maybe it's just I haven't seen them. So that could be another theory. They're all out there, but for some reason we only see some of them. Can't rule that out. Seems unlikely, but can't rule it out. All right, so whiteboard, here are the different theories for why it is that the videos. The. This has nothing to do with the people. We're talking about the videos. Videos are not people. Why are the videos also one sided? And I would give you these theories. It's hard to get this so everybody can see it. I think that'll work. All right, you got some racist theories. There's something in the DNA of these people. Don't think so. There's something about the culture which is sort of a clever way to say it's the DNA. I'm not sure those are too different or somebody will say it's about Poverty, which is another way to group these things. Now if it were about poverty, you would see lots of other groups doing it because there are lots of poor people of all type of. Would you agree? So you could rule out poverty because you're not seeing poor people of every group doing it. At least in the videos. I don't know what's happening in reality. I just know what the videos show. Is it culture? I would say no. If it were a culture, or there's just something about the black culture, wouldn't you see it everywhere? You're not seeing it in the historically black college campuses. There's no smash and grab of the, you know, the college bookstore. Right. So there's something else going on and it's not DNA, because again, there are plenty of people not doing it. So it's not baked into somehow. You weren't born with it. So what else could it be? Here's what I think it is. I think there's the most non racist take on this, which I think is the accurate one, is if you live in a world with crt, ESG and DEI and we're talking about reparations and systemic racism, you've created a narrative that one group owes the other group some stuff. That's the dominant cultural narrative in America is that one group owes the other groups their stuff. Now if you took any group of Americans and you put them in a situation where the dominant narrative, I mean almost the operating system of the country says, hey, somebody's got your stuff. Well, where is it? Well, it's probably in that store. Your stuff is in that store, you better go get it. What would you expect to happen? How could you have any other outcome? You could replace black Americans with Elbonians or any other group. If you spend all day long telling them that the other group has your stuff and it's in that store and you could get it out without risk, if you go with your buddies, if you all go, you can get your stuff back. What do you expect to happen if you design a system that guarantees you get this outcome and then you get this outcome? Why would you look at anything except the design of the system? Hasn't it always been true that a group of people could run into a store and grab stuff and get away with it? It's probably always been true, but it's never been so authorized. I mean, the fact that bail has been removed for shoplifting. So what would you, you know, what would you make of a fact where they remove the penalties for shoplifting and then they spend all day long telling you that the rich people and the white people took your stuff and it's in the store. Just go get it back. So that's my theory. So I think if you're. If you're stuck on the narrative that social media wants to feed you, that there's just something wrong with this group of people. I think you're missing the big picture. The big picture is that the operating system of the country is designed to incentivize one group of people to take stuff from another group of people. And incentives work. Incentives always work. There's no situation where incentives don't work. They've worked everywhere in every situation from the beginning of time. So we designed a system that incentivizes one group of people to rob stores en masse. And then we're saying, why is this happening? Because we incentivized it, of course. We took away the penalties, and we added a reward. Hey, you're getting revenge. You're getting even. You're getting your stuff back. All right, well, once again, am I preaching to the people who are already converted? Largely. Largely talking to the people who are already converted. Because the larger point here is that there's a downside to the training that all of our youth are getting and the population at large. There's a downside that if you train people to think that one group are victims and the other group are victimizers, you should pretty well predict that you end up in a South Africa kind of situation eventually. All right? And that's why you watch Coffee with Scott Adams for the takes that are completely not free speech. So we're just sort of talking to ourselves. But that'll give you something to talk about when you go home for the holidays. All right, ladies and gentlemen, YouTube. I think we're done here. I'm going to talk to the locals people a little bit more, and I will see you tomorrow.