Episode 2249 Scott Adams: Double Whiteboards & Triple Fun. I'll Tell You Why Everything Is Broken

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. And you're lucky enough to be here for it, live in some cases and recorded in others. Now, if you'd like your experience to go up to levels that no one had ever even imagined were possible, well, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker, chalice or stein, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens. Now go. Oh, yeah, yeah. No, it's not called Real Coffee with Scott Adams. It's only that on YouTube. On YouTube. I had to put the reel in front of it because some bastard took my name before I got there. Bastard. So it's actually called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I just had the reel on YouTube. Speaking of YouTube, I asked a question this morning. I don't know if anybody's noticed. YouTube seems to have completely changed its experience for me. And I wondered, is it just me, in other words, is glitching like crazy, and it won't allow you to download, and it's demonetizing, and it's adding advertisements in where you don't want them. So basically, it's like they. It's like the whole thing just blew up suddenly. So I'm trying to figure out, have I been targeted? Because it looks like it. You know, you have to suspect everything at this point. So it looks like I'm targeted because in the same time that my. My followers on Twitter went to a million, started at 15,000 and went to a million. During that same time, my traffic on YouTube went from zero to about 25,000 viewers and then just stayed like that for five years. Do you think that's natural? Do you think that there's anybody on YouTube who does a daily, highly regarded live stream that got no traffic increase in five years? No, that's not possible. That's not even slightly possible. Even my number of subscribers went up, and the traffic didn't go up. That should tell you something. All right, so I want to find out if that's just. See, there are two theories that are pretty good. One is that we have this national incompetence crisis crisis. And the other is maybe it's personal. I don't know. No way to know. Now, Rumble has its own issues, which is I can't at the Moment. I can't do Live Stream without going through a third party software, which makes it so impractical that I'm not using it. So enough about that. So here's a headline. That's a. It's a terrible headline. So something bad happened to somebody. But I'm going to test your ability to not laugh at other people's misfortune. There's nothing funny about this. This is not funny. So whatever you do, do not laugh at this, because you'd be a bastard if you did. The headline on Fox News says, a woman sues Disney for $50,000 over injurious wedgie on water slide at Typhoon Lagoon. And it turns out when you read the article, the injurious wedgie, it was not a backside wedgie. It was a front side wedgie. Front side. And she was actually injured. She had bleeding. And so she's suing Disney over a wedgie. Front wedgie, everybody. You better not be laughing at this at home. Take my role modeling here. Nothing funny about that. Moving on, next story. Well, we all love the story of Jamal Bowman, Representative Bowman, who claims he accidentally activated the fire alarm, actually pulled the fire alarm in an attempt to open a locked door. Because, as you know, the way you open a locked door is to go to the nearest fire alarm, read the directions, and conclude that maybe if you just pull the fire alarm a little bit, the door will open. Now, if you had an employee who came to you and said, I'm sorry, I was just trying to open the door and I thought that pulling the fire alarm was how you do it, would you have that employee drug drug tested? I would, yes, I would have that employee drug tested. Now, I would also look at the employee's other behavior. Did you confuse a lectern for a urinal? Did you try to make a phone call on a savage instead of a phone? If you did any of those things, I would say possibility, something going on. So I would like to throw into the mix the most likely explanation for how Representative Bowman could do something that you and I can't understand. Well, anybody could do. He was drunk, that's all. That's the whole story. He was probably drunk. Now, I have no evidence that he was inebriated or that he was on any kind of drugs. I'm just saying I can't think of another reason. Because even if you think, oh, it was a clever plan, he was trying to stop the vote, which I don't think is proven right, to me, it looks like it was a bad plan. Whether he did it intentionally or accidentally in either case. Accidentally or intentionally, you wouldn't do those things while you're sober. Can we just be honest? The most likely explanation was he was drunk at work. Am I wrong? Tell me I'm wrong. No, I'm not accusing him of being drunk. I'm saying that if you were presented with this set of facts, your most likely explanation, even if it's wrong, the most likely explanation is that he was drunk. If it were anybody else, what would be your most likely explanation? Because nobody's that stupid. Even if it was a clever plan, nobody would be so stupid as to think that plan would work. Don't you think that he knows that there is video security everywhere? The fact that we don't even include that possibility in the list of what happened is that a blind spot. Feels like a blind spot. If I had done. Well, let me ask you this. If I had done that, you have me as the exact person I am, and you heard I was in the Capitol and I pulled the alarm, and then my explanation was that I thought it opened a door. Wouldn't you assume I was stoned? Wouldn't you? I mean, really. Because you'd say to yourself, well, he seems smart enough to do this stuff. And you say of a representative, well, he's smart enough to get himself to Congress, but he's not smart enough to know how to unlock a door. I don't know. Inconsistent. So I'm going to say let's put drunk on the list of possibilities. But I don't have any direct evidence of that. It's just the obvious thing you would check. Well, the Senate Banking Committee is doing something that makes sense on the surface, so it must be a trick, right? They're doing something that makes sense on the surface, so obviously it's a trick. They're trying to make it legal for banks to handle marijuana businesses, which at the moment, banks don't like to do because it's illegal. So. So that sounds like progress, right? It's just a good thing. Oh, wow. They're trying to fix something that's broken that the banks can't even handle. A legal business. That's good, right? Do you think that's why they're doing it? Do you think this is why they're making banks able to handle your transactions? No, it's so they can fucking track you. Has nothing to do with you as a consumer or a citizen. It's so the government can have more control over you. Because right now, if you pay cash for your weed, they're not sure you bought any weed, but I think they'd like to know. And they'd like to know your address and everything else about you. No. So I see this as just another sign of fuckery, basically. But it would be useful. Trump's trial starts today. On his is mostly the issues about overvaluing his properties. They say, do you think that he won't win this? Do you think that he can't make an argument that his property is worth more than the court thinks it's worth? I feel like he should win this one, except for, you know, not having a real justice system. I don't know. So we'll keep an eye on that, You know, so he's got. It's amazing, the fact that overvaluing his business in the context of bank loans and also insurance, the fact that the public doesn't even understand how all that works. The public actually believes that the bank took his word for the value of his properties. Just hold that in your mind. The story that we, the public have been told is that there are banks, or maybe one bank, I don't know, that took his word for like a gazillion dollars worth of value. They didn't do their own work, apparently, they just took his word for it. That's what we're being told right now. Anybody who has even a little bit of experience in business knows that's not true. Yeah, there's no chance. There's zero chance that they took his word for it. Now what about the insurance companies? Suppose he inflated the value of his asset and then he went to get insurance. Does the insurance company hate that? No, they love that. They love that. That's their ideal situation. The ideal situation is that the customer pays too much for insurance and is happy about it because that's what they think their property is worth. And then if their property gets destroyed and you have to replace it, hahaha, we replaced it for half. Half of what you thought it was worth. So we win and we overcharge you for insurance. So he's going to. He might, he might be in legal trouble for making an insurance company rich. Now, I don't know all the details, so don't take my word for the details. But what the news has told us doesn't make sense. There can be no situation where a bank took somebody's word for the value of their property. That has never happened. And there cannot be a situation where overvaluing your assets is bad for the insurance company. Again, that's not a thing. The insurance company is going to make sure that they're only reimbursing you for the thing you lost, not for your opinion of its value. So how did we even get this far? That separate from the questions of whether the lawsuit is appropriate, the public is completely misinformed on the news? The only reason that I know the news is bullshit is that I was a banker and I have a big house, that I had to get insured. So I know how insurance works. I know two things that the public should know but probably doesn't know as well. So maybe we'll learn something here. We'll see. All right, according to Turley, there are a whole bunch of reasons why. At least four reasons why Biden could get impeached. Is that what your news is telling you, as your mainstream news said, that there are four reasonably likely impeachable offenses? Nope. Nope. Do you think Jonathan Turley is unqualified to say what is an impeachable offense? Nope. Nope. He's totally qualified. Totally qualified. Does Turley have a long record of doing things which would make him seem less credible? Nope. Nope. He has a long history of calling balls and strikes, be they Republican or Democrat. Very long history of that. And he says there's four pretty obvious impeachable things that still have to be demonstrated. Right. They're not proven, but the evidence we have strongly suggests that if we got a hold of the banking records, that's all you would need to connect it all to the Big Guy. So hold that in your head for a while. We'll get to some other stuff. There's a study, some interdisciplinary research team at the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, you know, the mpiea? It's over in Frankfurt. Anyway, they collaborated with some people and came up with this shocking result, that dancing can make you happy. Dancing can make you happy. So if you're in a bad mood and somebody makes you dance, the dancing will make you happier. Now, did you not already know that? Is there somebody here who didn't know that? Let me. Let me give you the reframe. All right? So my book reframe your brain, which is, according to readers, changing their lives like crazy. Here's the reframe, the usual frame, the normal way we look at it, is that your mind is contained in your brain, so that your skull is the limit to your brain and your mind, it's all in there. It's inside your head. The reframe, which will change everything for you, is that your mind includes the brain, of course, but also includes your body. And all of its experiences and also includes your physical surroundings. Right? If you don't see your mind as your physical surroundings, you won't know what to do when your mind is not where you want it to be. Do you know what I do when my mind is not right? I go for a nice long walk and move my body. Or I find my dog and I curl up with her for five minutes and get that little feeling from the dog hugging. Or I do something else that makes my body feel good. Eat some food. You know the rest right now. So when I think of my mind, I think of my entire environment, because those are the things I move to affect my mind. So it's like your environment is the user interface for your mind. The people who are lost are the people who say, my mind is not right. I'm unhappy. I'll try to fix it by thinking better thoughts. I can't. I can't. I can't fix my mind with my mind. Oh, no, there's nothing I can do. I'd better go to a doctor and get a pill. Don't do that. Just understand that your mind is your body and your physical environment. And that if you move your physical environment just right, and dancing would be only one example, you can change your mind. How often do I do this exact thing? Really often. Really often. Several times a week. I say to myself, oh, God, my head is not where I want it to be. And what do I do? Do I sit in a chair and think different? Think different. Oh, there we go. I got my mind all fixed. No, I do not do that. I immediately leave my environment. Get out of the room. You have to get out of the room, and you got to go somewhere else. You got to walk the dog. You got to be under a tree. You got to breathe differently. You got to do something physical. Everything else is a waste of time. So just remember that. Reframe. I've been listening to a lot of relationship advice on Instagram, which, by the way, is the very best place to get advice if you want to know how to handle the most important things in your life, you should go to an Instagram influencer. Not science. No, not science. Go to an Instagram influencer who has had two or three failed marriages, and they will tell you what to do so you don't have to do it. I already did the research, and here's what I've learned, and I've sampled quite a few relationship experts. And so this just applies to heterosexual men, right? This advice. So I can't speak for the LGBTQ community at all, but for hetero men, this is the advice that I've seen, and it's very consistent across all the experts, which is how you know it's right. There are two things you need to know as man. Number one, giving a woman whatever she wants will make you look like a weak beta simp and make her lose interest in you sexually until she cheats on you with somebody else. So that's number one. The last thing you can do. Say all of the. And by the way, the male and female experts say the same thing. It's not just the men saying this. The male and female relationship experts say, do not. Do not give the woman everything she asked for, because then she'll just think you're her servant and she'll lose interest in you and go cheat on you. So, but that's only one. I mean, you need more than that. So number one is don't give a woman whatever she wants. Number two is you need to know that not giving a woman whatever she wants will make her go look for a guy who will. So then she'll cheat on you. So you got your two situations here. Giving a woman what she wants will make her like you less and cheat on you and giving her everything she wants or giving her nothing she wants what will make her unhappy. And go find a guy who will. And then I was told, scott, Scott, Scott, you have to find a happy medium. You have to find the balance. What exactly is the balance between giving people what they want and giving people nothing they want? Is it giving them half of what they want? Let's say that it's giving women half of what they want. What would a woman do who got half of what she wanted? If she's rational, I'm pretty sure she would look for somebody who would give her everything she wanted, and then she would cheat on you, because why would she settle for half? Why would she settle for 80%? Who would settle for 80% when you could have 100%? So according to the relationship experts, there are only two ways to go. If you're a man and. And both of them end in failure and poverty, Literally. I'm not even making this up. Those are the only relationship advices on Instagram, is there are two ways to go, and they're guaranteed to fail. I'm not making this up. These are the experts, and the experts are never wrong. If anybody figures out what would work, you should let me know. All right, let's talk about Matt Gaetz, who's threatening to or trying to get McCarthy out of his Speaker's job. And his big complaint is McCarthy had made some promises early on and those promises, he says were not kept. Mostly promises about putting funding bills in one bill instead of collecting things together. Now, a lot of people think that's a bad idea, including Thomas Massie, who tweeted or posted, I fear that attempting to vacate Speaker McCarthy at this juncture is a bad idea that will lead to worse outcomes for conservatives. And then he says, signed the only still serving co author and co sponsor of the motion to vacate Speaker Boehner. So I guess sometime in the past, Thomas Massie had been a big part of trying to remove Speaker Boehner. So he is making sure, you know that he's not opposed to doing something that's provocative and even he's in the minority and even going hard against the Speaker. So he's not against it in principle. That's important to know. It's good context. He's just saying in this case, it looks like it would make for worse outcomes. Now, as you know, I love me some Thomas Massie because he's unique in the Congress and that he's very smart and he's willing to look at evidence, which makes him totally unpredictable. You don't know which way he's going to go because you don't know in advance which way the data is going to go. So that makes him fun, right? Because he's honest and he goes where the, you know, where rational thought should take you. And so he says, probably would get worse outcomes if you get rid of Speaker McCarthy. So what's the obvious question to ask in response? So here's somebody who has credibility and says, no, trying to vacate McCarthy would give you worse outcomes. What is the obvious question next? Worse than what? Worse than what? The current design is destruction of the whole country because we have a system that guarantees we will overspend and over borrow until we're dead. What's worse than that? Can you describe me a situation that's worse than that? Now, I suppose, you know, nothing improves and you still spend yourself to death, but you still end up dead both ways, right? So I don't think it's worse. It might be a lateral move. But is it worse? I mean, what does worse look like? What is worse than spending ourselves into certain destruction while we watch it happen? I can't think of anything worse. What's worse than having a Congress that doesn't do anything about the border? Literally? What is worse than that? I can't Think of anything. What is worse than mindlessly funding Ukraine for what appears to be not national interest? What's worse than that? I don't know. Everything Congress is doing is already the worst case. It's the worst case scenario. If you could take us away from the worst case scenario, then I would say, no, don't break it. Let me tell you how engineers think. Now, I'm not an engineer, but I've spent so much time with them and writing about them, I. I could pick up some of their vibe. Here's how an engineer thinks. Number one, if it ain't broken, don't try to fix it. Right? If it's not broken, don't try to fix it. Number two, if it is broken and you can't figure out how to fix it, what do you do? If it is broken and you don't know how to fix it, what do you do? You're an engineer. What do you do? No, scrapping. It would just make you build it back again, probably. You break it. You break it more. Yeah. If something is broken and you don't know how to fix it, you break it more. Because that's one way to get you to a different starting point. It could be that the reason you can't fix it is that there's too much inertia, there's too much built in resistance. So you might have to nuke it. So if what GASE is doing sends Congress into chaos and just completely breaks it, is that worse? Give me an argument that that's worse. Because what would happen if Congress completely dissolved? Like, they just couldn't do anything? Then they would have to fix it, wouldn't they? Wouldn't they then have to fix it? But then they'd be starting from a different starting point. They wouldn't be starting from, well, we have this cathedral, and we're not going to tear down the whole cathedral just to fix these things. So I guess there's nothing we could do. We'll just march on to destruction. No, bomb the cathedral, Bulldoze the cathedral, and then see what you got to work with. Right. So if it's broken and you can't fix it, you got to break the shit out of it some more. You got to further break it. You got to really, really break it. Then you might have a way to go forward. But if you don't break it, you're on a design cruise to destruction. The design will destroy you. You have to change the design, and that means breaking. So I'm fully in charge of chaos and complete Destruction. We do not have a Congress system which is worth maintaining. Now, I'm saying keep all the same people for the most part, but they're going to have to operate differently. They're either going to have to show their work, you know, show that they've got single issues that they're voting on or something. Something. But whatever they're doing now is not working. So break it. Just break. Break it all. And that would be rational. Now, if I haven't seen if Thomas Massey has responded, sometimes he does respond. He may have a good argument. If he has a good argument, I'm totally going to listen to it. Why? Because he's credible. He earned it. Right. The reason that I would take my time to listen to Thomas Massie, whereas I might not bother with somebody else, is that he's going to say something sensible. So I will listen to that and maybe change my mind. Well, Governor Hockel, she's governor of New York, right? Hockel is governor of New York, yeah. And Bill Clinton are in agreement about something. They both want New York City to stop being a sanctuary city. Do you know why? Because there's too many immigrants. Now, are Governor Hochul and Bill Clinton saying that the immigrants are worse than the people who already live here? Do they have bad genetics? Is that what they're saying? Is that what the governor in Bill Clinton. No, no, no. It has nothing to do with the. The genes or the race of the people. Right? So that's not part of the conversation. Has nothing to do with their genders. That's not part of the conversation. It's purely the situation. It's a design problem. If you take a bunch of people who are doing well, you know, the people who lived in New York in the first place, and then you introduce a large population of people who are not doing well, the natural outcome is that the people doing well are going to have to stop doing well and they're not going to be able to walk down the streets safely and they will have to give their money and give up other things that that money would have done for them. So when Bill Clinton and Governor Hochul say that New York City should stop being a sanctuary city because it's attracting too many immigrants, are they being racist? Are they being racist? No, no, they are not. Because first of all, it's all kinds of different races, right? It's a bunch of different people from different places. It's not all Central South American. A lot of it is African and Eastern European and Chinese, etc. So it's not racist. But if you were to summarize what Governor Hochul and Bill Clinton are saying about the immigrants, what would be a. A folksier, more casual way to say you should stop being a sanctuary city? Like what words? If you were, let's say, if you were crude and provocative, what would be another way to state it? Get the fuck away. Right, Right. So basically they're saying that the people in New York City need to get the fuck away from the immigrants, but has nothing to do with the quality of their character, the immigrants. Has nothing to do with their genes or chemist their chromosomes, has nothing to do with their gender. It's not based on bigotry. It's system design. It's just system design. If you put the wrong people in the wrong place, you get a bad outcome. Right? Am I right? It has nothing to do with anybody's quality of a human being. Has nothing to do with anybody's worth. Has nothing to do with your worth as a person. In fact, I think I would guess that the immigrant population coming in now, this is just a guess, is the highest quality of immigrants we've ever had. I know you don't want to believe that. My opinion is it's probably the highest level of quality. Here's why. If you can get all the way from Europe through Central America, you've got enough money to do that, you have enough ambition to do that, and you're the type of person who can even conceive of this working and you can pull something together in your homeland. You've already demonstrated a whole bunch of qualities I like. If you didn't know anything else about them, you'd say, I can work with this. I could work with this. Have you ever tried to hire a Native American lately? Native, as in not original Americans, but somebody who was born here. Try to get somebody who was born here all their life to come do some work for you. Not so easy. Try to get a recent immigrant to do some work for you. Yes, you can get a recent immigrant to do almost any kind of work and be delighted and really put in the effort. That's the kind of people who are coming here. So I want you to know from my perspective, although we don't know for sure because we don't really know the composition of them, we assume that more criminals are coming through. Would you agree? More terrorists? Absolutely. Definitely more terrorists. Definitely more criminals. But on average, if you were not counting the criminal elements, which are certainly part of it, on average, I'll bet we're getting a higher level, higher quality of Immigrants than we have ever gotten before because we have a bigger filter. Like it's really, really expensive to pay the cartels. And it's really, really dangerous. Which means you get all the risk takers. I want risk takers who could figure out how to get out of the hellhole they came from and to get into America. It's like your perfect test. It's the perfect test. Now, this is not my ideal situation. My ideal situation is totally controlled immigration in which we get to pick our favorite people, the people who add the most. But we don't have that. Sons of Liberty. We're going to delete you for saying the same fucking thing 50 times in a row. Goodbye. We'll get rid of everybody else who says that. NGOs. NGOs. NGOs. We don't need you anymore. So would you say yes or no, that the Kathy Hochul, the Governor Hochul and ex President Bill Clinton are saying the same thing that I say? It was. It was not about anybody's culture, any differences among people at all. It was a system design problem that if you, if you take half of the population and teach them that the other half have their shit and you should go get it. The half that has been taught, you know, if you're in the half that has their shit, you should get out of there, get away. So you don't want to be where somebody thinks that you have their shit. Here's a simple example. Suppose your state was getting really serious about reparations and you were literally going to be taxed just for being in that state. Does that say that somebody has bad genes? No, has nothing to do with any individual. It's a system that's bad for you, so you should get the fuck out of there. So if you could move to a state that is not considering taxing you specifically for reparations, you should go there. Now. Does that have anything to do with anybody's genes? No, that's a system design. So you can go where the system design works in your favor. And anybody who stays where the system design is clearly designed to make them suffer at the. For the benefit of others. You should get the out of there if you can. Now, realistically, there's no place to go. So if there were someplace to go, that would be serious, but it's hyperbole because where would you go? All right, so in the limited case, maybe you could change states or something, but people don't really do that. All right, there's a story that says that the Mark Zuckerberg and his wife sold their San Francisco home. So they've had it for a while. $31 million they got for it. Now, why do you think Zuckerberg would sell a home in San Francisco? What. What would cause him to not want a home in San Francisco where he used to. He used to like having a home in San Francisco? Could it be that he spent hundreds of millions of dollars of his own money to guarantee that Democrats got elected so that they could put in place a system that he can't survive? Because that's what it looks like. It looks like he said, shoot, this place has gone to hell because of the people I helped get elected. And so I've got to get the fuck out of here. Now, did Zuckerberg make any statements, or do you believe in his mind, he's thinking, oh, they moved in a bunch of people to my neighborhood who have bad genes or bad character? No, no, it's the system. San Francisco had a system that used to keep it clean and inviting, and people came there. And then, thanks to people like Zuckerberg, who got Democrats in place and Soros, et cetera, there's now a new system in which the smartest thing that he can do is get the fuck out of there. So he sold his house. How much more right do I need to be? Do you remember the coverage of my cancellation? Do you remember how many of the stories wrote that what I was complaining about was a system as opposed to some of these genes? Do you remember all those stories? You never saw one. You know why you never saw one? The only place you've seen it is where I've been on podcasts and I explain it. The reason you've never seen that story, Nobody ever asked. I was canceled worldwide by my syndication, all the newspapers, and my publisher. They never asked why. They never asked what was on my mind, why I said it, what was the context. Never asked. Oh, you're so broken. Goodbye. All right, Sam Bankman, fried. Apparently, according to Michael Lewis, who's writing a book on him, had considered seriously offering Donald Trump a large amount of money to not run in 2024. Now, he got popped before he could execute that. But the allegedly somebody gave him a number of $5 billion. And so the speculation is that Trump himself may be behind that estimate. Do you think that Trump would have taken $5 billion in crypto to not run? I don't really see it. I don't see it. Yeah. So, but do you think. Do you think there's somebody who was in the Trump Organization may have Floated their own number, which was their own best guess of what it might take to talk him into it. Easily. You know, if you'd asked me, I could have given you a number. You should have asked me. I'm good at estimating. I'll give you a number. You know what my number would have been if you would ask me, what do you think is the number? Do you know a number I would have given you? Just guess. Guess what number I would have given you as Trump's price to leave? Well, I'll tell you. 5 billion. That would have been my exact guess. Do you know why? Because 3 or 4 billion are not round numbers. They seem just weird. And Trump was probably already worth somewhere in that low billion dollar number. So getting a billion might not change his life. Getting 5 billion, that might change his life. He could buy entire new businesses. He could start a media empire if he wanted, could do a lot of stuff. He could run the country sort of without being an elected official. Sort of like a Soros type or Murdoch type or a Bezos type, own a major publication. So you could imagine that Trump, you know, might have at least considered 5 billion. But it's the same number I would have come up with because over five seems, like, unnecessary. Like, if five doesn't get it done, I don't see how six would. Right. So five is enough to matter, and it would be enough to give him a new set of power. You know, they could buy entities, but I doubt he was ever involved in that conversation. It seems unlikely that anybody would have taken that to Trump, because I think he would have. I mean, I don't know. Like, he's not violent, but he might have punched somebody if they said that. Anyway. Well, we got a new senator in California. Governor Newsom is appointing the replacement for Dianne Feinstein, who passed away. And let's see if there's any surprises involved here. He. Okay, put into job a black lesbian woman. Yeah, black lesbian. So I'm starting to think I never had a chance for that job. I mean, I'm seeing subtle signs that if I tried really hard to get that job, now that I'm a Democrat, I feel like. I don't know, I just feel like maybe the deck was a little stacked against me. In some ways. You could say it's the fifth career that I've lost because of being the white guy. Once again, I cannot be a senator. Couldn't work at the bank because I was a white guy. Couldn't work at the phone company because I was a white male. They told me that directly, by the way, that I could never be promoted at those places. My TV show didn't work because I wasn't black. And I had to be black to be on Monday night on upn. And then I got canceled for saying something about the system that had nothing to do with anybody's genes or race. So now it's the fifth time in a row I've been blocked by my white maleness. Could not be a senator in California, but I'm sure she's great. And the reason I'm sure she's great is that she's a woman, a lesbian, and black. Those are three of the greatest things I've ever heard of in my life. Can we all agree on that? There is nothing better than being any one of those things. But if you've got three of things, you're a woman, you're a lesbian, and you're black. Well, that's who I want from my senator. Because one way to know you get good quality is to artificially restrict your choice to the smallest pool of applicants. Because that's the way you get the best. The best people. All your best entrepreneurs do that. You've probably seen the clips of Steve Jobs. Say, when I hire people, I don't like to talk to more than two. I'm sure he said that right, because otherwise it's like we'd be acting stupid or something. But I'm sure he said that. Probably something like that. All right. She's been a fierce advocate for working people. Excellent. You know what the good news is? I'll tell you the good news. She has smart eyes. Do you think that's the thing? I really think that's the thing. Smart eyes. I just look at the picture of. Let me get her name right. Laphonza Butler. So, you know, I looked at a number of pictures of her, and you look at her face and you say to yourself, wow, she looks smart. Everybody's agreeing. All of the comments are the same. Yeah, she has smart eyes. That does mean something. It does mean something. I mean, you can really tell. She has an animated sort of smart face. All right. Joe Biden recently said in some interview that he was worried about the X platform and Musk's ownership. And he said, and I quote, they, they, they, they, they. That's the first part of the quote. They, they, they, they, they, they go online. They go. And you have no notion whether it's true or not, he said. So there it is. Directly, Joe Biden doesn't want you to see what People say on X because it's not his truth. Because I don't think Biden thinks that he knows the truth in a way that's like you and I don't know. Is that the claim? He has some special access to truth so he can look at X and he knows what's true because of his superior? You know, I don't know, access to information? No. It is the government directly telling you they want to censor you. It couldn't be more direct than the President of the United States trying to discourage people from using a platform or the adl, which is part of the Democrat machine, trying to destroy it before it was even paid for. That's purely an attack on free speech. There's no other way to put that. So that's why all the investigations into Elon are happening now. Do you know who's not being investigated? Let's see. Elon Musk has a whole bunch of investigations that all sound like bullshit to us, and none of them sound even vaguely like real crimes or anything. But are there also a lot of investigations into George Soros? Does anybody remember that? A lot of. A lot of George Soros investigations. I don't remember any. Let me ask you this. Do you think that the intelligence apparati of the United States would allow any billionaire to have an unusual level of control over the country? Do you think they would let that happen? Well, they're not. They're not letting it happen with Elon Musk. Is Elon Musk doing whatever he wants? No, he's. He's being blocked by forces that we assume are part of the Deep state. So Basoro seems to be operating with impunity, even though he seems to be funding things that would lead to the certain destruction of the United States, such as lawlessness and, you know, no cash bail and stuff. So why would this one guy be able to do things that even on the surface look like they're designed to destroy the country? And yet Musk, who everything he's doing is clearly designed to help the country. More free speech, get humans to become space faring civilization, electric cars for climate change. And he's the one being investigated. Why? Because he has a lot of power. So do you think that some other person who has a lot of power would be allowed to operate just by his own whims? That's kind of impossible. In the world as we know it, that sort of doesn't happen. So one has to assume that Soros is just a tool of the government, or at least a tool of The Democrat government. So I don't see him as separate from the elected officials. I think they just use his. And maybe the intel people do or intelligence people do. It looks like they just use him as a piggy bank and in return he gets everything he wants. That's what it looks like. Now there's no way to know, but I see no situation in which the intelligence apparatus of a country would not have total control over an individual. Or let me ask this a different way. If the intelligence apparati of the United States wanted to control Soros, could they do it? Remember, he's a citizen, so they'd have physical control as well as he's a citizen. Of course they could. That our intelligence people could control any individual. Would you agree with that statement? You know, unless that individual, I don't know, decides to off themselves or something. They could blackmail or bribe anybody because there's no limit to what they would do. That's bad. And no limit to what they could do for you. That's good. So they have unlimited tools. Of course they can. So the only logical conclusion is that Soros is part of our intelligence operations or at least compatible with them. What else could it be? Which also tells you that whatever else he's doing is either being tolerated because it's not the top priority, or we want it to happen. Who exactly wants to destroy our cities? I can only come up with one hypothesis that makes sense. So I can come up with one hypothesis where if you really twist it and play with it a little bit, you can make it make sense. It goes like this. Let's say Soros is genuinely concerned about the distribution of wealth and that rich people have too much and he wants to poor people have more. Now that would be consistent with the fact that he's giving away a lot of his money. So he seems to be sending his money toward other people. Partly self defense, I'm sure. But what would the possible plan or benefit be to destroy the cities of the United States with unlimited immigration? What would be the end state of that? Here's the only one I can think of. We would fix immigration because you realize that all of our problems is because our own system for immigration is totally broken. So at the very least you would fix immigration, but you also might have to fix your neighbors. In other words, we might have to invest in countries that aren't doing well to get them to stay home. Maybe that's what he wants more investment in, in countries where they're so desperate they have to leave. Maybe that's the best I can come up with, and I would argue that it would look like the Matt Gaetz approach where I said Congress is broken, so you should break it further because you can't fix it from where it is. It could be that Soros is trying to break cities, just break them and make them non functional. Because once you break the country, well, then you have more options. One of those options might be way more immigration, but controlled. I actually think we would be better off with way more immigration controlled. Do you agree with that? Could we increase the numbers if we also increased the vetting and made sure that we had some control? Some say no. So I think it depends what you think about our birth rate. If you think our native birth rate will keep up, then you could make an argument for restricting immigration. If you think it will not, which is what I think it will not, then the only way you can become a viable country in the long run is through immigration because there are no other people. Here's the fact that you need to know about economics. Economics is population. There's your reframe. Economics is people. The reason that India and China are world powers is not because each person makes a lot of money. You get that, right? There are not a lot of rich Chinese people and rich Indians as a percentage of the population. It's only because there are so many of them. If you take a billion middle class Chinese, they can pay more taxes than America. That has maybe more rich people. So power is people. So if you say, I want to stay a superpower, but I want to keep my population low or not growing too quickly, you can't have both of those. Those are incompatible. People equals economics. That's it. Now you want to do it right and have them trained and get the right people at the right rate. But people, People are money. That's it. All right? So chew on that. I can see some of you not too delighted with it. All right, here's a dog not barking. If you had to say the one thing that's a problem that's causing our immigration crisis, what would be the one thing that's the problem, the single root cause of immigration? Go and watch how wrong you are. Damn it. Some of you were right. Incentives. Democrats, women. Yeah, it's amnesty. So we have an amnesty law that was designed for one purpose, but is being wildly abused for a different purpose, which is illegal immigration. Now, which members of Congress have introduced the new amnesty laws? Can you give me the name, the names of the politicians who have proposed a solution which is to fix the Amnesty laws. What? What? Nobody. Nobody. So a hundred percent of us agree that this wouldn't be happening except for the amnesty law. And that's not being debated. Am I right? Somebody says Scott Wiener was doing something. That's a real person. It's not. I'm not making fun of myself, but can you explain that? Yeah, explain. Oh, asylum. I'm sorry, am I using the amnesty instead of asylum, I should say asylum. Right? Which is the right word. Asylum. All right. Correct, Correct. Correct my language for the last five minutes to asylum. Asylum. Asylum. Asylum. All right, asylum. So who's working on changing the asylum laws which. Which both Democrats and Republicans agree are being abused? Is it in the news? Is the news covering that somebody is trying to get that changed? There's something completely missing in the story. It doesn't matter if a candidate is talking about it because they can't make laws. So Congress is completely uninvolved in changing. The only thing that would matter is that. Right. And you're not seeing this on the news. Right. If I hadn't mentioned this, would it be at the top of your head that there's a simple fix? You just change that one law. Or you could just suspend it. You could just suspend it and say it's not working at the moment. Maybe someday later we'll, we'll reintroduce it. Just suspend it. You don't think a president could just suspend it with executive order? I do. I believe that a president could suspend it with an executive order because the president is the commander in chief. So if this law was being used to make us less safe and military age people and terrorists and stuff are coming across the border. Yeah, executive order, commander in chief. Shut it down, but don't make it go away forever. Just say at the moment this is too big of a risk, so it's suspended until later. Well, here's my take. Obviously the media is not legitimate because they would be reporting, oh, it's a simple fix. And here are the people working on it. So maybe you should give them some support. But instead we just show pictures of people streaming across the border and then talk about sanctuary cities. We are thinking so past the sale that we're in the world where there are no solutions. The solution was the part we ran past as fast as we could back up to the part that caused it, the asylum law. Change it or suspend it, and then you don't have to worry about too many people in New York City and whether you should be a sanctuary city. It would just go away. There's some kind of force at work that we don't understand or is very evil because everything tells us that this is the easiest problem we have. Can you think of any other problem that could be solved with a pen? I can't. They could just sign a little piece of paper and the asylum law. Boom. And problem solved. So, yeah, there's something going on and it's not good. All right, let's talk about garbage science, you know. Okay, this is gonna, we're gonna go to the whiteboards now. So I'd like to explain to you why science is broken and why everything else is broken too. You ready? It's a two parter. Here's what you need to know about science that cannot be told to you by the media, because the media is in on it, they're colluders. And it looks like this simple graph goes like this. So money involved in the topic, that's on the left and then level of corruption is on the bottom. And it's very easy to understand. If there's no money involved and it's just pure science, there's probably not much corruption. So you could trust. When there's no money involved, probably not much corruption because you can't make any money. But as you go up the money scale, you get to the things like climate change and Covid, if money works the way it always works everywhere else, over time, you're guaranteed that none of this is true. Why? Because criminals will always try to game every system and eventually it will only be criminals because the money is good. So it's not going to pay to do things that are just true when you could do things that are not true and get a big paycheck. So over time, if there's a lot of money involved in the topic, like climate and Covid, what should happen predictably, by the design of the system, not by accident by the design of the system, you guarantee that your most important questions are all fraudulent. There's no other way this could work. There's no other way it can go. It's not like, oh, maybe this could lead to something bad. No, it can only lead one way. There's not a second thing that could happen. It will always, always, always trend toward fraud. Always. It has to, because that's where the money is. Now you might say to yourself, but Scott, you know, there are some criminals, but mostly there's honest people. So wouldn't the honest people sort of crowd out the criminals? You know, wouldn't, wouldn't the criminal part always be smallish? Necessarily, no the criminal part is guaranteed to be the controlling part. Here's why. And it's just math. It's just math. There's no opinion here at all. Pure math. Let's say you started with some kind of a system that was completely legitimate when you started. It could be anything. It could be the, the system of science, you know, the whole scientific community, everything. It could be the Republic. That's a system. It could be your voting system. So it could be systems within the larger systems. If you started with these all being completely legit on day one, and then you wait, what's going to happen? Because all of these things have a lot of money involved, really big stakes, like the biggest money of all, billions and billions of dollars, you know, big money. You can assume there will be infinite criminal attempts to get some of that money and subvert your intentions. Now, let's say somebody tries, but they've only got a 5% chance of success. Boom, it didn't work. So everything's good because some people tried, but there was a 95% chance they would fail. Good, we're all good. Tomorrow comes, somebody else tries, 95% chance they fail. They failed again. Day three, failed again. Day four, failed again, failed again, Failed again, failed again. Yes. What a great. Oh, what happens if you keep going? Eventually somebody's going to succeed and then they're going to get ensconced and then more people will succeed over time. There is no way you can avoid all of our systems being corrupt eventually because they can be corrupted. It's just unlikely. Most of the time you get caught, but only a few people have to get through the System and succeed. 5% would be plenty to guarantee, guarantee that eventually all of these systems are corrupt. This is our current design. Our current design guarantees corruption. Do you know it would be something that worked against corruption. Term limits. Term limits. Just about the only thing you can do to make people not steal from you is to not keep them around for long. How could you fix the election system? If you believe the election system is not fair, what's the only thing you could do to fix it? Fire 100% of the people who work on it every year. And then next year a whole other group of people, then maybe you could find out if somebody was doing something because the good people would get fired. Like the people who are good at cheating might be replaced by somebody who's not as good at it and then they get caught. So pretty much the only thing you can ever do to assist them as people and money in it is you got to eliminate all the people now and then. Do you know why we don't have term limits in Congress? Now you do. Now you do. Because if you had term limits, you could not stay in Congress long enough to be. Bob Menendez. Bob. Bob Menendez, the guy who's, you know, accused of taking bribes as head of the Foreign Intelligence Committee. The reason that he was in a position to take bribes is he was there for a very long time, and he eventually got to the place where he could get away with shit, and so he did. If you've got somebody who's been in Congress for a long time and then you put them in the job, that is the most easy to get bribes. What do you expect to happen? What would happen every time when Biden was there? Looks like it was about the same. So if the design of your system is that you're going to keep the same people in place for a long time, they're just going to chip away at things until they find a way to steal all your money by design. So don't think that we have bad people. We also have that. But the design is guaranteed to make everything corrupt. Including science. Including science. The correct. The design of science at the moment is that the only way you can get a, you know, get ahead is to say things that agree with the narrative and are in a big topic. So it's going to be. You created a system that guarantees a whole bunch of people who say climate change is real, and then they compete to say how bad it is. Whoever can say it's the worst gets the most money if they can make a case for it. So why are things broken? They were designed to break. If you designed things to break, be surprised when they break. Right. So that's happening. Do you remember this study? I talked about it yesterday and a lot of you have heard about it. So Nate Silver was talking about. About the fact that there was some big study that showed that the people in red states were dying at a higher rate than the blue states after the vaccination came out. So Nate Silver, as I've said a number of times, is one of your most qualified people for looking at data and evaluating it. You want to hear the counterpoint to Nate Silver's take that? The data shows that as soon as the vaccinations came out, the red states did worse. That that difference started before the vaccinations came out. And it's in the data. If you dig into the data, you can see that the difference started long before the vaccinations came out. Are we done? Are we done? That's all you need to know, right? There's nothing else you need to know. If the difference happened before the vaccinations, it wasn't the vaccinations. Now, this comes to us in the Wall Street Journal from Alicia Finley, so I'll just read her words. A July study in the Journal of American Medical Association. Now, remember, the Journal of American Medical association is one of the respected ones. That's one of the biggies. So the study that was in that purported to find a higher rate of excess deaths among Republican voters in Florida and Ohio after vaccines had been rolled out. Differences in partisan vaccinations attitude, the study concluded, may have contributed to the severity and trajectory of the pandemic. Now, here's the counterpoint. But the study lacked information on individuals, vaccination and cause of death. Wait, it's a study about vaccination status and cause of death. But what it lacked was information on your vaccination status and cause of death. I'm starting to smell a problem with this. We'll go on. It also didn't adjust for confounding variables such as underlying health conditions and behaviors. Apparently, the age part was not the biggest problem. As others have pointed out, charts buried in the study's appendix showed excess deaths among older Republicans started to exceed Democrats in mid-2020, well before vaccines were available. Is there anything else I need to tell you about how science is done? Here was science in which their own data that they published disagreed with their own interpretation. And not just a little bit. Not just a little bit. It was opposite. It was opposite. And not only did that opposite get through the peer reviewers, it got through the peer reviewers, but it got all the way to probably. Dave Silver. I'm not sure if he was looking at this one or not. Might have been some other data he was looking at, but certainly other qualified smart people looked at it and said, well, that looks good, because how many people are going to dig into the appendix and see what's going on there? Probably not many. Now, if I got a second opinion from the study authors, would they agree with what Alicia Finley says about him? Probably not. They would have their own argument about why maybe something made sense. And you don't think it does? Maybe, I don't know. But we don't have science that works when money is involved. Would you agree that if money is involved, science just breaks? Just breaks instantly. It's like. It's like glass, you know, science is like steel when no money is involved. Because then just the truth matters. But as soon as money's involved, it's glass. Can't trust it at all. All right, well, ladies and gentlemen, now that I've proven that I was right about everything and you can see the gears of the machine, I'd like to say this is probably the best live stream you've ever seen. And if you like this and you have not yet picked up my book, reframe your brain. It's over here. It's right there. And a lot of people telling me it's the best book they've ever seen. Actually, they're saying literally, it's the best book they've ever read. Now, I don't know how often you read a book and you walk away saying, this is the best book I've ever read. But people are saying it about this book. So if that doesn't make you curious, I don't know what will. All right, thanks for joining YouTube. Go. Say goodbye to you now and hope you enjoyed it, and I'll see you tomorrow.