Episode 1236 Scott Adams: Non-Kinetic War With China, With Whiteboard, Stimulus Checks, Vaccinations and Fake Science
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Mitch McConnell's family connection to CCP?
Stacey Abrams sister, the election case judge?
Should people decide on their own to vax or not?
Rep. Gohmert's lawsuit against VP Pence
China's infiltration of all our major news sources
Whiteboard: War With China
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
And all you need to enjoy it to its maximum potential is a cup or a mug or a glass or a tank or a gel or a sign or a canteen jug or a flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine to the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
Everything. Literally everything.
Go. Ah.
I believe it even made the comments kinder.
I feel my critics backing off a little bit.
I feel my investments doing better.
I feel my natural biological defenses at maximum.
And that's all from the simultaneous sip, by the way.
Don't try to blame that on anything else.
Alright, let's talk about some stuff.
I have for you a recommendation for entertainment.
Are you ready? It's a recommendation for entertainment.
I highly recommend that you listen to a podcast with Hugh Jackman as the guest, Tim Ferriss being the host.
Now, if you think to yourself, why do I want to hear a podcast from some actor?
That's probably what you should think.
That would be your first impression.
And the answer is, this is no ordinary actor.
He has a very complicated, not complicated, I would say sophisticated, but not complicated.
Sophisticated, but fairly simple, systems for success.
And you really have to hear it to hear the structure and dedication and the system that he puts together to do all the things he does, because Hugh Jackman is unusually successful.
In a whole bunch of different areas, right?
So he does stage and movies and sees things and blah, blah, blah.
Anyway, so watch that. You will enjoy it because he's really fun to listen to.
But when you hear how disciplined he is at absorbing self-help stuff, including from Tim Ferriss, you'll see a really good strategy there.
All right. So I guess Mitch McConnell played the Grinch and blocked the Senate Democrats, and a lot of Republicans also wanted $2,000 checks, but he blocked the vote on that.
Now, here's the problem, and I'm going to be talking about this when we get to the whiteboard.
We're at a point where it's hard to trust anybody who has a China connection, wouldn't you say?
And unfortunately Mitch McConnell is married to someone, fact check me on this, because I almost can't believe this is true, so I guess I'm going to say it as something I've heard that I can't believe is true.
Is it true that he's married to a woman whose father is connected to the Chinese Communist Party and is some really rich shipping magnate?
Now, I'm not making any accusations because one assumes that short of any evidence to the contrary, she's a patriot.
She's on the right team.
So I'm not making any accusations.
Somebody says she's Taiwanese, which would make a big difference, I suppose.
But I'm hearing that her father has connections to the CCP. Can you fact check that?
Because it feels like that couldn't be true.
Right? I'm seeing a lot of you saying it is true, but I feel as if it couldn't be true.
Check that on me. But the point is that we have to ask that question.
We're no longer in a world where you can ignore that.
I hope and I assume there's nothing to worry about there.
But we're just not in that world where you can assume that you can't worry about it.
I'll say a lot more about that later.
So apparently that Nashville bomber, a year ago the FBI was warned by, I believe it was his girlfriend, so a direct witness, that he was building bombs in his camper.
That's right. The FBI was told by a direct witness, not somebody who had suspicions, but somebody, you know, with this guy, direct witness that he was building bombs in his camper.
FBI decided not to follow up on it.
Now, what was the FBI doing instead of that?
Probably not something as useful as this would have been.
And every time you think to yourself, well, I've reached a new low in my trust for American institutions, and you see that they Weren't that interested in somebody who has a direct witness.
They were building bombs in a camper.
If he had been building bombs in his bedroom, I would be less concerned than he was building them in the camper.
Because you know the camper is going to be part of the plan, right?
Like, you don't have to be an evil genius to know that.
And this is one of those stories that you just have to shake your head and say, what?
What? Now, if I may defend the FBI... It's probably fair to say that they get way more solid sounding tips than they could possibly follow up on.
Don't you think that's probably true?
They probably get so many tips that it's just really hard to know which ones are real and they couldn't possibly look into all of them.
So maybe that's all that's going on.
They're just, you know, not enough resources.
Let's hope that's the situation.
When you voted, if you voted this year, did you think your vote mattered Because it turns out there's a lot of evidence that maybe it didn't.
It turns out there might have been only one voter that mattered in this country, a lawyer named Mark Goliath.
Now, he didn't matter in the sense that his one vote mattered, but when you hear the full story of the things that he did to get rules changed in key states, so he was working on making sure that the right rules changes happened right before the election...
So the allegation against him is that he was the legal mastermind behind bending the rules or changing the rules in Georgia, North Carolina.
And he's best friends with Stacey Abrams.
Watch how small the world is about to get, all right?
So Stacey Abrams, you know she ran for governor, thought she won, but didn't.
And now she's very involved in getting out the vote for the Democrats in Georgia.
So this guy, Mark Elias, coincidentally, who was one of the main people who got rules changes, which may have been the difference in the election, he's coincidentally good friends with Stacey Abrams.
But it gets stranger.
Stacey Abrams' sister is a judge.
And instead of recusing herself on an election case, she ruled against the purge of 4,000 voters from the rolls, blah, blah.
So there's some technical reason that the lawsuit said they should be purged.
But she ruled against that, which is good for Democrats and bad for Republicans.
And she's the actual sister of Stacey Abrams.
Who is good friends with Mark Elias.
And she didn't recuse herself.
When I read this story, I thought, well, clearly I'm reading this wrong.
I couldn't actually be reading this story, and this actually happened, that Stacey Abrams' sister gets to decide.
What? What? And this goes with the story about the FBI, you know, not following up on the camper full of bomb-making equipment.
And I'm thinking to myself, there are some stories that are so wildly implausible that you actually can't believe they really happened.
Well, you can read it, but my brain can't hold that in my head.
I can't even hold this as a real thing.
It goes in, and then my brain says, no.
No, Stacey Abrams' sister couldn't be the judge who made the decision.
Not really, right?
That couldn't possibly be true.
And so my brain just rejects it, and I won't even act on it.
I can't even get outraged, because I literally can't hold it in my head that that could possibly be true.
But maybe it is.
Tragic news that Congressman-elect Luke Letlow, I think he was 41, and he died of COVID before taking office.
But as is the case for 2020, which we're still in, there's more to the story.
It turns out he was noted for his non-mask wearing and saying that we should open up and get back to normal.
Yes, the guy who said we should live more dangerously died from the thing he said we shouldn't be afraid of.
Now, that of course is a coincidence, tragic one, and we should not make really anything out of it, in my opinion, because one anecdote of one person who had one experience shouldn't be telling us anything about the world in general.
But because we like stories, when I say like, I mean our brains naturally go to stories.
So one story where you can imagine what the person looked like and you could put yourself in that situation in your mind, that's going to be more persuasive than a lot of data.
So unfortunately this is going to be fairly persuasive and just One of the most tragic things you could ever imagine.
So he's got a three-year-old kid and a wife, so it's just horrible.
But Democrats on Twitter are being insanely cruel in pointing out that basically they're saying he had it coming.
Now here's my question.
Are you sure he died of COVID at age 41 with at least not obvious comorbidities?
He didn't look like he was severely overweight.
He wasn't old. He wasn't black.
Somebody says he had a heart attack.
Is that true? A heart attack during surgery, somebody said?
So I would say that I wouldn't believe anything about this story.
Just start there.
Don't believe anything about the story.
Because you don't really know what he died of.
Right? You really don't.
He might have. Might have.
Let me give you an update from California based on an experience of somebody I know very well.
It took over one week to get a COVID test result from my local Kaiser Permanente Healthcare.
One week to get a COVID result.
A week.
During this time, this person quarantined and did not have coronavirus.
So for one week, somebody had to give themselves jail because my healthcare provider couldn't give a result in a week.
Do you know what the result was when we got it?
I don't know. We never got it.
As far as I know, it never came in.
But the quarantine had gone so long that it wouldn't matter because the symptoms would have been gone by then anyway.
So if you think that we're doing a good job on the coronavirus, you should think again.
We're doing a terrible job.
I'm in California.
Think of this. I'm in California now.
And one of the most sophisticated healthcare organizations going, which is why I use them.
Kaiser is actually a tremendous organization.
I compliment them all the time, at least the one I use.
But even they couldn't get me a test.
Not me, it was somebody else.
But they couldn't get a test in one week?
A result? Come on.
It feels like not even trying, honestly.
Here's another report in fake news.
You may have seen the story that said there was a study at OSU... They studied 26 college athletes and found out that several of them had, let's see, ones that had coronavirus and said that they had myocarditis.
Myocarditis. So an issue with your heart that could be quite serious.
Now, so that's what the news reported.
So if the news reports that these College athletes had an unusually high number of heart-related problems that couldn't even be permanent.
I don't know how permanent these are.
But shouldn't that tell you, oh my goodness, oh my goodness, that's a big problem, right?
But then you read the follow-up story, and one of the people involved in the study says, well, you should probably point out that the way they tested for this myocarditis is using a different technology Than it is normally looked for.
So they used a more sensitive imaging.
So the first thing you need to know is what would happen if you just randomly picked athletes and gave them this more sensitive test that is not the normal one that you do for myocarditis.
It's going to pick up more small nuances.
Is that maybe the whole story?
That they just tested in a more sensitive test, so it looks like there's more of them, but no, it's just a more sensitive test?
I don't know, and I won't claim that's the case.
I'm saying that I feel like that was an important fact that was left out of the original reporting.
And then, of course, there are only 26 people studied, and, you know, that's not enough to make a claim.
It wasn't a controlled study, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So I don't know how...
I just don't know what weight to put on that.
It's enough to scare me, but if you think that you can follow the science, good luck, because this science was reported through the filter of the media, and the media told you the wrong science.
So do you believe the science when the media describes it wrong?
Because that would be smart, according to Democrats, right?
According to Democrats, if there's real science that's described completely wrong by a journalist, you should trust it.
The completely wrong interpretation.
Because that's trusting science.
According to Democrats, they believe that's what they're doing.
What I believe I would be doing in that case is listening to a journalist Who has almost no chance of correctly interpreting science.
I'll give you an example.
There's an article in the Wall Street Journal recently about hypnosis.
It was talking about using hypnosis for quitting cigarettes and stuff like that.
Now, I, as a trained hypnotist, read the article in the Wall Street Journal, and I could tell that almost every part of it was wrong.
Almost all of it.
Pretty much everything they thought they understood about hypnosis and what it can and cannot do, all of it wrong.
But did you know that?
If you read that article, could you tell the difference?
Because you're not a hypnotist, right?
You probably read the article and said, yeah, that looks pretty good to me.
So keep in mind, yeah, it's the Murray-Gell-Mann amnesia that's called, when the experts can tell the news is fake, but other people can't.
All right. What do you make of the fact that California has some of the strictest COVID restrictions, but at the same time, they're not doing that well?
There are other places that are doing worse.
But California has most restrictions, but it doesn't seem to be helping as much as it should.
What do you make of that? Here's what I make of it.
Having harsh restrictions in place...
Has no correlation with what the people are actually doing.
Now, if you had told me that Californians do the best job of conforming to the guidelines and restrictions, then I'd say, whoa, this is telling me something.
Because we've got big restrictions, but it doesn't seem to be having a big At least one that's obvious just by eyeballing it.
You can't really tell unless you've done a controlled study.
But when you eyeball it, just look at the graph, you're like, I can't tell if this is working at all.
Right? But here's the part that they leave out.
Don't tell anybody.
But Californians are not socially distancing.
They're not. Where is the biggest infections coming from?
Well, not restaurants.
They're closed. Not movie theaters.
They're closed. The biggest infections are coming from households that are not socially distancing from other households.
In other words, the blending of households within the house.
Do you know how much social distancing there is in California among households?
Close to none, right?
The only thing that matters really is whether you're blending households at this point, because we know that people do wear masks to use the grocery store, because they kind of have to, right?
So we know they're not getting it from touching things in public, because surfaces don't seem to be the big problem.
It's got to be households, and it's got to be blending households.
It's got to be the blending part, right?
My observation as a Californian is that At least for young people.
I think people are still trying to keep the old people safe.
But among the young, the households just gave up on social distancing.
Is that what you see? I don't see households stopping a teenager from visiting another household.
I just don't see that.
Yeah. And somebody's saying divorced parents.
Does California have more two-household situations than anybody else?
I don't know, but we might.
We might have the most cases where there's a kid who has to go back and forth from mom and dad to a different household.
I don't know. So when you say that there's a state that has the most restrictions, I just don't know that that matters anymore because I think people gave up on it.
That's what I observed. People just gave up on it.
And I think that the news that asymptomatic people are not the big spreaders and that young people aren't having as bad outcomes, I think you put those two things together, that you need to be symptomatic and probably won't kill you as likely if you're young.
And I think households just made the decision.
I can't go another month keeping a teenager locked up.
I think people just said, The risk-reward is now reversed.
Early on, yeah, lock up everybody.
Because you thought it was just going to be maybe a month or something.
Yeah, lock up the teenagers, lock up the kids, lock up the schools.
If we can kill this thing in a month, that's a good deal.
But once you realize you can't, and that it's going to be a year or whatever it's going to be, maybe longer, you can't really keep the teenagers locked up anymore.
So I think we should stop pretending that social distancing is even happening, because it isn't.
It's happening in public places, you know, the grocery store, but it's not happening in homes.
People just stop doing it, I think.
I think that's the whole story.
All right. Are you worried about this new virus strain?
Now, the experts say that the vaccinations might work against the new one, But they're saying that it's more viral but possibly less deadly.
Quick. Is that good or bad?
Can you tell? Is it good or bad that there's a second strain of the virus that's spreading rapidly but it seems less deadly?
I don't know how much less.
They say less. That could mean anything.
Less deadly but more viral.
Good or bad? Can't tell, can you?
Yeah, I'm seeing goods, and I think you're saying it's because there will be more natural herd immunity, and if it's less deadly, you'll get to the...
If it spreads more and it's less deadly, maybe you get to some kind of herd immunity of the variant that might work against the original.
Probably. Because they're still close enough that if you got antibodies to the variant, I would imagine this is not confirmed.
But I'd imagine you'd have antibodies sufficient to the other one.
So this is another example of where we can't tell good news from bad news.
I hear this news and I'm like, ah, is that good or bad?
I don't know. Because I don't know that the vaccinations will ever get us to herd immunity.
I don't know. Here's another question I have.
When you're trying to decide who to give it to first, should we have government rules about who gets it first, or would we be better off if we said to everybody, look, you make your own decision?
Which would get you to a better outcome?
The government with strict guidelines of who gets it first, or just let everybody decide on their own?
Now, I think that's unclear.
Israel is doing something closer to letting people decide on their own.
I think they have some guidelines, but they're doing way less filtering.
So I think if you go in and you say you need it, you're probably going to get it.
Now here's the problem. If you have government guidelines, they're never going to fit your situation.
Am I right? Let's say you've got somebody in your household who's 25, and they're just not socially distancing.
They're totally healthy, They should be the last person to get the vaccination, right?
But what if they're not doing any social distancing and there's nothing that's going to change that?
They're dating on Grindr or they're dating on some app and they're mixing with other people every day.
Shouldn't that perfectly healthy person get it first?
Because they're not going to socially distance.
And if they're not socially distancing, they're the problem.
They're the one who gets into your household.
Right? If you vaccinate grandma, well, she wasn't going anywhere anyway, and I could probably get her to stay home, and I could probably get her to socially distance.
But I can't get the 25-year-old to do it.
They just won't do it.
So do the math for me.
Forget about the, just for a moment, forget about the morality and the ethics of it, right?
Because I'm going to say that whatever gets us to pass the pandemic fastest might be the best result.
I don't know that that's true.
But I feel as if you let people make their own decisions, you might optimize.
Because people know their own situation better than you do.
And here's the other factor that isn't picked up in any kind of a checklist.
The psychological part.
Do you believe that there are people who are psychologically deeply damaged by what they feel is their risk, compared to other people who are just handling it better psychologically?
Of course. The mental health element of this is gigantic, and how is that going to be picked up on a checklist?
Are you going to put on the checklist, I'm way worried about the virus and it's ruining my life, versus, you know, oh, I'm not too worried.
I know it's bad, but I just don't worry too much.
Because the amount you're worried about it is a really big factor.
Take me, for example.
I'm worried about it, and I'm at an age, and I've got a comorbidity that I would...
I think I'd be in maybe the next wave of who's approved to get it, or maybe the one after that.
But I'd be in the top third of people who would get it.
But if he asked me to make my own decision, I might wait a little longer.
And the reason I would wait a little longer is maybe I thought I could socially distance better.
Because let's say if Christina got the vaccination and I only have close contact with her, do I need it right away?
I'm not saying she would get it right away, but I'm just using an example.
So there are so many specific weird situations Where you would have to include what people are likely to do, socially distance or not, what their mental state is, what they know about their own comorbidities, what they know about whether they can socially distance well or not.
I think maybe you just let people make their own decision.
I could tell you that I would voluntarily wait a little bit longer than I will under the current guidelines.
So I just put that out there.
Apparently there's some kind of idea from Representative Louis Gohmert from Texas.
And the Constitution is so weirdly complicated for some of this stuff.
So weirdly complicated that you can't tell...
What the rules ought to be in any given situation, but apparently there's at least a theory that if both Democrats and Republicans from a state put forward their own electors for the Electoral College,
even if only one set of them should have gone, if the others, I guess if they send their people anyway, even though they should not be going, that there's one theory that says that the Vice President Guess to decide which electors are the real ones.
Now, I doubt that that's going to pass any kind of court ruling...
Because does it seem to you that...
I don't even understand this.
Does it seem to you there could ever be a situation in which the vice president's the only one who gets to decide who becomes president?
Under any scenario?
Under any scenario, does it sound like that actually could be our system?
Because I've got a feeling that even if technically it is, the Supreme Court would say, are you kidding me?
Are you kidding me?
I think the Supreme Court would just throw it away, no matter what the Constitution says, because it would be a stupid process.
And the country would be torn apart.
There's no possible way that it would be good for the country if he did it.
But here's the funny part.
I might be Mike Pence's biggest supporter, and I'm not even a supporter.
Meaning he wouldn't be my first choice for president, but damn, he's good as a vice president.
I would say Pence might be one of the world's best vice presidents.
Al Gore was good, in my opinion.
I know you don't agree with that, but he was great as a vice president.
And Pence decided that he wouldn't do it.
Pence decided that even if that were the constitutional right, and even if he could do it, Pence said no.
He said no. I love that.
I know you hate it, some of you, because you just want, you know, Trump to be president and maybe this would be a way.
But I could not respect Pence more for just saying this is bullshit, effectively.
And be saying, even if I could, this is bullshit.
This is not the way you pick a president.
I mean, I'm reading his mind.
I don't know exactly what his thought process was.
But if that's what he was thinking, good for you.
Good for you. Put the country first.
Even if it's not what you wanted.
I still respect the decision.
Can you fact check this following statement for me?
Fact check this because it's the most important question in the country and I don't know the answer to it.
It's the most important question.
Have any courts...
Seen actual fraud evidence and ruled on the evidence, as opposed to ruling that there was no standing, so they don't have to look at the evidence, or ruling that there's a doctrine of latches that says it's too late, which again would not have them looking at any data.
Were there no lawsuits that even got entertained?
Because if you listen to pundits on the right, they say that.
They say that nobody's ever looked at any evidence of fraud in terms of the court.
But I'm having trouble believing that because is that the only reason that none of the court cases got to the evidence place?
Or is it the case that there were some lawsuits that were based on just evidence and maybe the court looked at it and just said that's not going to be enough?
Oh, I think the other reason was that even if the case was valid, it wouldn't be enough to overturn an election.
And in some cases, I guess there's a standing problem that the state should be in charge of it, right?
All right, so... What do you make of the fact that I don't know the answer to that?
Does this sound like...
So just see which parts you agree with, and then we'll see if we have any disagreement here.
Do we agree that the country is unclear on this question?
Would you say that that statement is true, that the public is unclear on You think you know the answer, but the public is unclear on whether the fraud allegations have even been looked at by the court.
Now, some are saying...
I'm seeing a little bit of disagreement here.
Now, how could we be in this situation?
How could it be this far after the election, when the election is the biggest news in the country, and the question of whether the courts have seen any fraud...
is the biggest question on the biggest topic in the whole country, right?
It's the biggest question. How do I not know the answer to it?
How does the public not know the answer to it?
It's almost as if there were some kind of external force that is keeping us from understanding even the simplest questions.
Some kind of force maybe even outside the country.
For example, Did you know, and I guess Rahim Kassam was tweeting on this, Rahim Kassam, he said that on his show today, they're going to reveal that every major Western media outlet is compromised by the Chinese Communist Party, and we show the receipts.
And he lists CNN, the Atlantic, BBC, Reuters, Washington Post and the Hill, AFP, Bloomberg, you name it.
So according to some people who have looked into this, it would seem that China has infiltrated, at least in a monetary way, all of our major news sources.
Now, if China was, let's say, influencing our news sources, what would that look like?
Well, let me take this to a wider context.
Are you ready? Here's the part that gets me assassinated by Chinese spies.
So if you never see me again, it's been nice knowing you.
Totally worth it. Actually, if they kill me over this, it'll be a good death.
I hate to be a Klingon about it, but if I get killed over this, it's worth it.
Totally worth it. Let me show you my view of our world.
And I tend to look at things as sort of a fake engineer.
I'm not really an engineer, but I spend enough time around them that I pick up some Some thinking patterns.
And so I see the world as sort of like a machine with lots of moving parts that are connected.
And you can't really change any one of the moving parts without affecting the whole machine.
But because we're humans, and because the news needs to be simplified for our little brains, we often look at one part of the machine as if we can analyze it in isolation.
But that doesn't work.
Because there is nothing in the real world that is that isolated.
Everything's connected. And so I want to give you a little lesson for those of you who maybe don't have a background in economics or don't follow the news that closely.
And here it is, that your economy and your military are in some sense interchangeable or proxies for the other.
What I mean by that is you can't have a good military unless you've got a strong enough economy.
So if you have a strong economy, you're in good shape.
Assuming you make the right decisions also, right?
So, protecting the economy is a military action.
You have to understand that point.
Keeping the economy strong is a military decision.
It's a homeland security decision.
Now, what will happen in the next coming decades if, let's say, if nothing changes from the trends we already see?
Well, because China is so large, just physically and has a number of people, its economy should, in the next decades or two, should overcome the United States.
So in very short order, at least within my lifetime even, you're going to see that the economy of China will be bigger than the United States.
What does that imply for the military of China, bigger than the United States?
Eventually, just because of size, they will have more power, both economically and militarily, and China uses them interchangeably.
So, to get control.
Now, if you have a big military, you don't actually have to go to war with a country that has a weak military.
You can bribe them.
You can tell them you won't protect them unless they do what you want, let's say the Middle East.
You can threaten them, right?
So you don't have to attack them if your military is the strongest.
You can just sort of control things because people know not to get on your bad side, if you know what I mean, right?
But then you can also directly control things through your economy because you can buy off people, you can invest with people who don't want to get you mad, you can hold out the possibility of doing business that'll make you rich, you can start a factory so you don't want to lose your factory in China.
So China can find a thousand ways to buy influence if their economy is big enough.
Now, here's what I believe Trump understands and Biden does not, or Biden is already under the influence of China.
Either of those two situations would explain what we observe, and I don't have an opinion of which one that is, but they're both possible.
Here's what Trump understands.
All of these things which feed into the economy are really a military homeland security decision, and our biggest rival is China, and we are already at war.
If you don't understand that we're already at war, or that sounds like hyperbole, you need to catch up.
Right? Because there's nobody who really understands the world who would disagree with the statement.
Everybody who really understands international events would agree with the statement, we are already at war.
It's a non-kinetic war, meaning there's, at least at the moment, there's no bullets and bombs.
But it's full-on war.
They're sending us fentanyl, intentionally.
They're, you know, they're stealing their IP, they're sending spies to sleep with Eric Swalwell, etc.
They're buying property, they're investing in businesses.
Little by little, and in a thousand different ways, they're finding ways to buy influence over our country.
And they're succeeding.
And because we don't, let's say a President Biden is not going to see it as a war that's even happening, he won't even know he's at war.
You don't win a war if you don't know you're in one.
That's like step one.
Trump knows he's in one.
Now, you may have asked yourself, why do I harp on certain topics?
Why is it that in a world with lots of topics, I'm not talking so much about wokeness, but I'm talking more about, let's say, nuclear power?
Let's say the school, the teachers' unions.
You hear me talk about them all the time.
Why do I talk about those topics?
Here's why. Because those topics feed directly into the economy, which feeds into the military, and is the only way to protect us from China.
So, if you looked at, say, the school system, we need a really good school system to compete with China.
Everybody would agree. But, what's the biggest problem with our school system?
The teachers' unions, who prevent any possibility of meaningful competition, and without competition, nothing works.
Who influences the teachers' unions?
Do you know?
Who influences the teachers' unions?
Well, I don't know, but they're acting as though they're influenced by China.
Again, I'm not saying they're influenced by China.
I don't have direct evidence of that.
I'm saying that everything we observe would suggest that they're playing for China, not the United States.
So, if I were president, I would say, this isn't really about a union.
This is a military decision.
We're not going to have shitty schools, you motherfuckers.
We're not going to have shitty schools because you're going to be working for China and you're going to be in a fucking concentration camp if you keep fucking up our fucking schools, you motherfuckers.
So, when you see me go off on the teachers' unions as the enemies of the United States, and effectively Chinese spies, effectively, not literally, but effectively they're working for the enemy.
This should be a government decision.
Federal government should just nationalize it.
They should just ban the unions for military reasons.
Because we're in a war.
If our schools suck, China wins.
They're fighting on the wrong side.
You get that? This isn't one of the issues that's...
Well, this is one of many issues.
And you just noticed I seem to have a hard-on for this one issue.
It's like, Scott, why are you so obsessed about this little issue when there's so many other things?
So many other things are not going to put you in a fucking concentration camp.
This will. That will put you in a fucking concentration camp if you let that problem go.
That's how big it is.
If you don't see that as a military problem, you don't see the whole field.
Trump sees it. Trump sees it.
Biden does not.
Because the Democrats have some kind of deal with the teachers' unions, and they have a mutual love fest, and they can keep each other in power.
Take nuclear energy.
Are you tired of me talking about the importance of nuclear energy for climate change, etc.?
Do you know why I talk about nuclear energy so much?
Is it because of climate change?
A little bit. I mean, that's really important.
No. I talk about nuclear energy because if we don't have the most robust domestic nuclear energy program, we won't have the right scientists and experts to control space.
And if we don't control space, and you would need nuclear energy to really do it well, if we don't control space, China fucks us.
Eventually. Guaranteed.
Guaranteed. There is no possibility that anybody smart can say that if we leave our nuclear energy private industry where it is and don't boost it the way China is, we're fucking done.
This is the end of your fucking country if you don't make this a lot better than it is.
So why do I harp on this so much?
Because your whole fucking country is going to be gone.
You're going to be a fucking Uyghur in a concentration camp.
Not next year.
Not probably in five years.
But that's where it's going when China gets enough control.
Of course, we need a robust startup situation.
So this is one of our advantages over China.
They don't have quite the startup entrepreneurial situation for a variety of reasons.
So we need to goose our startup world as much as possible because it's a strategic advantage for our military.
For our military, right?
What about all the Chinese students that we allow to come over here to our top universities, get all our good training, and then go back?
Got to stop that immediately.
If all we were doing is competing with an economic rival, I'd say, well, maybe we should try to have some openness and cross-communication, and maybe the Chinese people who go to American schools become sort of Americanized, and that's good.
That's if you're not at war.
The moment you're at war, they all gotta go.
They all gotta go right away.
All of them. Doesn't matter if they're spies, because we can't tell the difference.
Right? It doesn't matter that many of them are just perfectly nice people who would like to be American someday.
They might. But it's war.
Right? It's war.
In a wartime situation, you don't pick and choose.
You just say, this is a hole.
I'm going to block the hole.
That's it. It's a war decision.
We can't keep losing our IP to them.
Here's the most controversial thing on the list.
Geniuses drive economies.
You need workers for every part of the economy, but it's kind of geniuses, the super smart people who are inventing the next stuff, the AI and the space travel and all that stuff.
We need more geniuses.
One way to get them is through targeted immigration, where we create an immigration system that really tries to get the geniuses from, let's say, India.
If we could get lots more geniuses from India who are not naturally friendly with China, we're in good shape.
Recently you saw, I don't know the details of this, I think Trump was allowing more immigration from India recently.
Why? Well, the more Indians we get in this country, the more defense we have against China.
The Indians from India who tend to come to this country tend to be technical, tend to be educated, tend to add something right away.
They Assimilate immediately, almost instantly.
And they're a huge strategic advantage.
So when you're doing your border control and your immigration, if you're just trying to, you know, let's say control the population or whatever, or keep out crime, you're not doing enough.
You should use your immigration and border control as a strategic military asset.
And the military part is you want to get the geniuses in, And get enough people, other people, that you have a good, vibrant economy.
But you want to get the geniuses.
Here's the other thing you need to do.
In the long term, I don't know that this is avoidable.
In the long term.
We're going to have to make designer babies.
In the long term.
Because if we're not actually finding a sperm and an egg that has the right DNA to create an unusually smart person...
China will. China will.
So if you're looking at a hundred-year war, and you should be, because it's a hundred-year war, you're going to need to build some geniuses, and you're going to need to design them, and you're going to have to figure out how to change the laws and get comfortable with the ethics and the morality of it, because if you don't, they're going to have more geniuses, bigger economy, completely control us in the long run.
And likewise, you have to control the border against everything from fentanyl to spies getting in.
So border control should be seen as not a domestic issue.
Our border control is part of our war with China.
If we can keep our economy at the maximum and still want immigration, you just have to do it intelligently and control it as much as possible.
So Trump gets that.
He sees the bigger picture.
Persuasion, of course, is very important to the economy.
Trump is good at it.
Biden is bad at it.
Biden's telling us our worst days are ahead.
I mean, he's a disaster for persuasion for the economy.
Trump is the best we've ever seen in persuasion for the economy specifically.
And then, of course, one of China's big advantages is they will target an industry such as 5G, and they'll say, we're going to own 5G because it's a strategic asset.
Strategic asset, read that as military.
We're going to give it away.
We'll own this industry because it's so important, and we'll have our nodes everywhere that will steal the data, potentially, etc.
So we don't do this as much, but Trump has started a little bit.
And you can see that Trump went against TikTok, he moved against Zoom, but I guess nothing happened there, or maybe they tightened up their...
I don't know why Zoom is still in business.
I actually don't understand that, because of the Chinese Communist Party indirect connection.
I just don't understand that.
But you do see that Trump is more willing to be an activist...
From the federal government in terms of specific industries.
Now, the way we've seen it is that he's pushed against 5G and he's pushed against things like TikTok, etc.
But we probably need to do a lot more of directly promoting the industries that have a national defense element to them, which is a lot of them, right?
So we probably have to be better at that because China's good at it.
So here's my...
By field.
That's my field.
If you don't see that the economy and the military are basically the same thing, they're interchangeable.
I'll give you an example of that interchangeability.
I'm bad at history, so if I get some of this wrong, you'll understand.
Kuwait was pretty rich, but didn't have much of a military.
Iran had a big military and enough money that they could use it Attacked Kuwait.
But because Kuwait was rich, and a lot of countries that had big militaries like the United States said, hey, we'd rather keep Kuwait where it is because we might want to get some of that oil out of the ground.
So effectively, Kuwait's wealth became its military.
It didn't defend itself originally, but because it was wealthy, other people kicked out the Iraqi army.
All right. So, in all cases, think of the economy as your military, because they're interchangeable.
And... Oh, did I say I meant Iraq?
If I said Iran, correct that.
I meant Iraq attacked Kuwait.
In the comments, somebody says I accidentally said Iran, and I probably did.
So... All right, I'm just looking at your comments for a moment.
I'm not saying that Trump necessarily has a chance of taking office for a second term, but this is part of the larger story that I've been telling you, which is as we see less of Trump as a personality when he's doing his provocative stuff in public, if he's out of office, if we assume that happens, we'll see less of his personality and we'll start to forget how it affected us.
You'll remember intellectually, but You know, you'll start to fade.
That memory will fade. But the things that he did that permanently work, such as improvements in the Middle East, defeating ISIS, North Korea looks a little better, you know, warp speed, etc., all those things are going to look like lasting accomplishments.
So Trump's legacy is just pretty much guaranteed to improve.
Now, you might be saying, yes, but what about all this election fraud stuff he's claiming, and he's tweeting things that don't pass the fact-checking like crazy, like every day now, to which I say, you won't remember any of that.
You're not going to remember his angry tweets about the election.
I mean, it's barely going to be a footnote in any history book.
But you're going to remember warp speed?
We'll always talk about it.
You'll always remember that Space Force was created.
It's a pretty big list of things you're going to remember that Trump did, but you're not going to remember his personality as much.
So here's the question or the task that I would assign to you.
Look at everything that happened in 2020, all the big political news, including everything from the street riots on.
Ask yourself this.
How much of that would have happened the way it happened if China were not already controlling our media and our politics?
Because there are two filters I can think of to explain what I watched in all of 2020.
One filter is everybody went crazy and we just noticed it.
Maybe. Did everything just get crazier in 2020?
It's possible, right?
So it's possible that it was just a crazy year, and that's the whole story.
Could have been a coincidentally crazy year.
Maybe Trump got us all worked up or something.
But the other explanation for everything we saw, from the election result, to the riots, to even laws that got passed, even how we negotiated with China, the Biden side, almost all of it, Now ask yourself, what would it have looked like if the reporting and the way we filtered it was influenced by China?
It would look exactly like 2020.
So there are two theories.
One of them is just a coincidental, random, bad year when everything happened.
And the other one is that we're at war with China.
And the with war with China explains every frickin' thing that you saw.
Every bad decision, every absurdity, every bit of fake news could all be explained by China.
I mean, even take the Swalwell impeachment stuff.
Would Swalwell have been pushing impeachment as hard if he had not slept with a Chinese spy?
I don't know. I don't know.
Maybe. But it certainly explains a lot, doesn't it?
I feel as if there was one other topic that you were interested in me talking about.
I don't remember what that was.
Yeah, Black Lives Matter, Antifa.
You would have to assume that they're all influenced directly or indirectly by Chinese money.
Now, I don't know that that's true.
But it would be the explanation.
Oh, the stimulus.
Yeah, the stimulus check, getting back to that.
So here again is something that prominent Republicans and Democrats agree about this $2,000 thing.
And coincidentally, the person who's married to somebody who allegedly has Chinese connections, and that's something that needs to be fact-checked, He's the one who stops it.
Just look at how many coincidences start to add up.
There are a whole lot of coincidences that track back to China.
And if that's an accident, I don't know.
I don't know. All right.
I think that's what we wanted to talk about today.
Oh, there's a video from Ukraine naming Biden.
Yeah, I saw some story about that.
But I would wait for a little more confirmation on that.
That looked a little sketchy.
My favorite podcasts?
Yeah, the Tim Ferriss podcast is consistently great.
But I don't listen to a lot of podcasts, actually.
All right. That's all for now.
And I will talk to you tomorrow.
All right, YouTubers, still here for another moment.
um Thank you. You like that picture?
What are the books on your shelf?
So those are my books.
Are you looking at the ones at the top?
Those are just random books.
I think they're all Dilbert books.
And they're not going to be happy with this one.
Yeah.
So this will be interesting, right?
It'll be a good test. Watch the numbers that this video does.
I would argue that this Periscope or this live stream on YouTube, whichever, I would argue that this is as good as any other live stream I've done.
But if the numbers are much less than you've seen for my other live streams, could be.
It could be it's the holidays, but I would be looking for that.
Alright. So Mitch presented another bill with the 230 stuff on it.
I'll have to look into that.
Do I play an instrument?
I've been trying to learn the drums for several years, but I would say that I do not play an instrument.
Let's just say my drum learning isn't going as quickly as I'd hoped.
But I'm still at it.
How does the golden age happen?
Well, all we have to do is Put China in check and do the things that are good for the United States, you know, from nuclear energy, etc., and we should be fine.
It's just not dealing with it would be the problem.
Where do I learn hypnosis, somebody says.
I would recommend that you only learn it in person.
The Wall Street Journal article was talking about how hypnosis is being put on videos so people could just watch the video and get hypnotized for some purpose.
I would not think that that's going to work because the biggest part of hypnosis is observation and then adjusting your technique.
So if you're just sending out the same hypnosis to a bunch of people, it would only be a coincidence that it happened to hit your specific brain pattern.
So I don't see that hypnosis can work as effectively as it works in person, but of course advertising works and marketing works, so on some level, on some level it would work, but I wouldn't call it hypnosis.
Is hypnotherapy acceptable to learn?
Sure. Why would it be unacceptable?
What if you're self-taught?
I don't know that you could be self-taught.
That's an open question.
My experience of it was that the things that happened in person would not be reproducible in any other way.
How do I benefit from marijuana?
So many ways.
It's hard to list.
It gets rid of allergies.
It gets rid of mental health problems.
Some of them. Not every mental health problem.
It makes you feel younger.
You can exercise more.
Your sex is better.
Almost everything.
And you wake up better, you're better rested, you're happier.
There's very few things that doesn't make better.
So Debbie's been listening so long you can recognize the hypnosis.
Well, you should be able to because I call it out and I highlight it when I use it quite often.
So I've been telling you what I've been doing and demonstrating it, so you should be able to see it by now.
Who taught the first hypnotist?
Mesmer. I think Mesmer was the first hypnotist, and he figured it out.
That's why the word mesmerize exists.
What's the best way to prep the US public to accept designer babies?
I feel as if it's just going to sort of happen.
Meaning that we're at a point now where I think we can already do it, and I think that a couple, if they wanted to, probably could do it now.
I don't think it's illegal.
I think you get to choose which fertilized egg you take to completion, right?
So I think it's legal.
I don't know if it's illegal.
It probably happens right now.
Why wouldn't Biden reverse everything Trump did?
Well, he will reverse a lot of stuff, but it's going to be the small stuff.
Things he can't reverse would be, you know, ISIS is gone.
If they try to reverse the Iran deal, they're going to run into a brick wall.
What is it exactly he would reverse?
If he tries to raise taxes during a pandemic, I don't know that that's going to work out.
So it's going to be tough.
It'll be tough for Biden to reverse anything that was a good idea.
Space Force is going away, somebody thinks.
No, that's not going away.
Space Force will be with us forever.
Alright. How can I go about learning hypnosis?
The only way I know of is to learn it from an actual hypnotist.
And if you can just Google something local.
But your trouble is that you would need...
References. And unfortunately, a hypnotist is going to be really good at making sure somebody gives you a good reference.
So you can't really shop for a hypnotist the way you could shop for a product because there's a little extra going on there.
