Episode 1508 Scott Adams: Lots of Red Meat Stories About Politics Today and the Simultaneous SIP
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Our media parrots planted propaganda?
BLM threatens uprising against vax mandate
US Gov embraces nuclear energy
Haitians under a bridge
Shocking new Hunter Biden emails
Tucker Carlson on non-white DNA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to probably the best thing you'll ever experience.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I know some of you are new to this, and you're saying to yourself, this doesn't look so good.
What's the big deal about this?
But you haven't had the simultaneous sip, right?
If you've experienced the simultaneous sip, you know the pure joy...
Of feeling everybody in the world who's watching this at the same time.
Enjoying the same simultaneous sip, and you're going to enjoy it too.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a canteen jug or a flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid I like.
Coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And this is what makes you addicted.
It's going to happen now.
Go. John says it's his first day of sipping, but he's been listening for months.
Oh, there are others like you, aren't there?
There are other people watching who are thinking to themselves, I'm not going to do the sip.
Okay, I'll watch the content, but I'm not going to do the simultaneous sip.
Don't manipulate me, hypnotist!
Not going to do it. Oh, you'll do it.
Oh, you will do it.
You just don't know it yet.
Because you'll want to.
I don't have to talk you into it.
You're going to want it.
You're going to want it.
Ah, so good.
I feel sorry for the people who aren't doing this.
I think I'll take another one.
Don't, yeah, don't do it.
Don't be manipulated into it.
No matter how good it is.
No matter how much you would enjoy it.
Do not let me manipulate you into taking a sip of a delicious beverage just because I want you to.
That's no reason. Mmm.
Mmm. Mmm. My God!
It goes down just as good as it goes past the taste buds.
But don't do this.
You do you.
Enjoy it. Everybody's different.
One more. Ah!
Wow. Yeah, but you do you.
All right, let's get to the news.
Rasmussen tells us Just what I expected.
Do you know what kind of polls I like?
The kind of polls I like are the ones that agree with me.
Those are the good ones.
The ones that don't agree with me, I call those bogus.
But the ones that agree with me, pretty, pretty accurate.
Well, Rasmussen has a poll that says, if Trump ran against Biden today, do you know how he'd do it?
Well, according to registered likely voters, 51% would vote for Trump, and only 41% would vote for Biden.
Now, who told you?
Who told you that Trump would get more popular after he left office?
I did. And it's happening.
Because you're going to forget all the individual outrages because there were so many of them.
They all just sort of lumped together.
But you're going to remember what he did.
You're going to remember the border was better.
The economy was good.
China was being pushed back.
You're going to remember all that.
Now, I worry about a poll where people have just two choices here.
Because I think... I think people probably would just vote their party line in the end.
But suppose Trump ran against Harris.
According to Rasmussen, 52% would say Trump.
39% would say Harris.
So the two strongest Democrats in the world, in the country, let's say, would both lose to Trump if they had an election today.
So... I would say my prediction that Trump would grow in popularity once out of office is kind of looking good.
It's kind of looking good.
I think there's another level after this.
I think the level after this is where we've really forgotten all the acrimony and the mean tweets and stuff.
I think that the distant historians are going to be the kindest to Trump.
Because his accomplishments will last and his outrages will seem unimportant.
All right. Glenn Greenwald continues to be one of the best follows on Twitter and one of the most interesting public characters, I would say.
So if you're not following Glenn Greenwald, you're really missing a good show.
I mean, his Twitter feed is...
Like, I would pay for it.
You know, it's almost subscription quality.
Compared to other tweets.
But he says today, in a tweet, huge numbers of corporate media outlets have spent weeks peddling an outright lie from the CIA that the Biden emails were, quote, Russian disinformation.
Do you remember that? Do you remember when all the talking heads were saying, oh, those emails, that's probably Russian disinformation.
So Glenn says that was the CIA's Gaslighting the country.
And as Greenwald says, and now we'll ignore the fact that one of their own, a Politico reporter, just published a book definitively debunking their lies.
So Politico, I don't know who it is, but some Politico reporter has a book, I guess.
And Greenwald goes on.
He says, these are the same people who spread the CIA lie that Russians put bounties on the heads of U.S. soldiers and Trump did nothing about it.
Same people who spread the now-debunked Trump alpha bank lie.
That was the idea that there was some kind of private server that Trump had that was connected to some bank, which somehow I didn't even see that story when it happened originally.
Now, What do you think?
Do you believe, is it true or false?
I want to see any of your comments.
True or false? Do you believe that the CIA planted all three of these stories?
And he doesn't even mention Russian collusion.
You know, the Trump collusion story.
Doesn't even mention that one.
Was that CIA? So in the comments, how many of you believe it?
I'm seeing only yeses.
I see one no on locals.
I see a maybe. Well, it looks like YouTube is very much believing it, and locals too, looking at both platforms, your comments.
Yeah, you do believe it, don't you?
So, here you are in a country in which your most important industry to protect your freedom, which is the press, You believe doesn't exist.
You okay with that? Are you okay with that?
Yeah, you can throw in the FBI, I guess, as part of this.
How are we okay with the fact that the CIA is making up stories and the corporate press is just printing them like it's real?
Could that be a more dangerous situation?
Have we already lost everything?
But it's weird, because when you say the CIA did something, is it always the same people?
Is it the head of the CIA who makes these decisions, or is it just people associated with people making up their own projects?
How has this happened?
Well, it feels real to me...
To me, it feels real that the news is not real and that at least the political parts, a lot of it, are just literally just made up by our own CIA. Now, can I prove it?
Nah. I don't have any proof.
But you've seen, yeah, you've seen Clapper and Brennan on TV lying to the public.
You've seen that. So I don't think you trust these entities whatsoever.
Now, here's a question for you.
The media. I would say the media has two major forums at this point.
One of the forums is the regular legacy media, the Fox News and CNNs and stuff.
But the other part of the media is people like me.
Pundits. If you believe that all of the major media legacy platforms have been, let's say, captured by the CIA, if you believe that's the case, what about the independent voices?
What about the people that you follow on Twitter who have gigantic followings and seem to be independent voices?
Has the CIA also captured them?
What do you think? Has the CIA captured the independent political voices, the people with just social media followings?
Yeah, you're a little worried now, aren't you?
A little bit worried now?
Now let me ask you this.
Do you think I know the answer to that question definitively?
So here's your new question.
I'll wait for you to be done answering this because there's a lag here.
Do you think that I know the answer to the question of whether the CIA is also co-opting individual voices who are not part of legacy news?
Because I would be one of those people, right?
So if they had never contacted me...
Well, let me ask you this.
Do you think any intelligence agencies have tried to co-opt me?
In your comments, have any intelligence agencies, US or other, tried to co-opt me on politics?
Yeah, of course.
Yes. The answer is yes.
Have they succeeded?
Have they succeeded in co-opting me?
I'm looking at your answers.
You say no, no, no, no.
Well, you're wrong. Hate to tell you.
They've co-opted me.
Now, when I say they've co-opted me, that doesn't mean that I'm saying anything that I wouldn't normally say.
But one of the things that is the subtle way that people like me get influenced is by what stories we see.
And which ones are brought to our attention.
So when I talk about the news, I talk about the things that have come to my attention.
How does stuff come to my attention?
What do you think is my process for deciding what stories to focus on?
No, Scott did not just admit to being a sellout.
Listen to the rest of the fucking story.
I'm open to hearing your opinions after you've heard it.
But maybe wait until after you've heard it and then make your decision, okay?
All right. So here's how people like me decide what the news we're going to talk about is.
Often people send me stuff.
You can see it yourself.
You can watch it in real time. You see people tweet things at me, and then I say, oh, that's interesting, and then I talk about it.
Do you think that anybody is tweeting at me Things they would like me to spend more time on who may or may not be associated with intelligence agencies.
So that's the model.
How many think that that's happening?
That there are people associated with, maybe not on the payroll.
I'm not talking actual spies.
I'm talking people associated with.
Because, you know, intelligence agencies don't work with just people they pay.
They have an extended family of connections that do things for them.
So I would say that I'm not necessarily aware of who works for who.
Well, I can say that for sure.
I am not necessarily aware of who works for who.
I have some ideas.
I have some ideas.
If somebody sends me a story that seems to be pro-Israel, do I say to myself, huh...
I wonder who this person is.
And I wonder if they have any connections with, you know, Israel intelligence or the government.
And I often assume they do.
But if the story is what I like and it's been brought to my attention, yeah, I'll talk about it.
Because it's something I like and it's in my wheelhouse and it's what I would have talked about anyway.
I know about it, so I talk about it.
So it works. The way that somebody like me can be influenced is just by what stories I talk about.
So I believe that some number of stories that get sent to me through a variety of channels, usually individuals who say, hey, I think you'd be interested in this, some number of them are intelligence agency connected.
Now, some of them I know, meaning I know they're connected, and some of them I assume they're connected.
So I use that filter when I see stuff, So, you know, there's no time when I don't say to myself, why did somebody give this to me?
So, at the very least, I'm aware of it, and I try to do what I can to, you know, monitor my own bias, but can I succeed at that?
I don't think so. I don't think you can completely succeed at that.
I'm not talking about any one person.
There's a universe of, you know, maybe, I don't know, 20 to 50 people who might send me things.
On any given topic. And I just assume that they have some connections or some, say, affinity for different countries.
All right. Are there any major media outlets that are captured by our CIA? What do you think?
Are there any major media companies that are not captured by the CIA? No.
Do you think? And what would it be?
Somebody says CNN. Okay, I hope that's a joke, right?
Because CNN would not be on the top of my list of non-captured entities.
Yeah, you know, I don't know.
I don't know the answer to that.
Because it's always a matter of degree, right?
It's not so much that something is completely captured and something is not.
I think it's all a matter of degree.
Yeah, and I would say that the independent political voices, such as myself, I think we're trying to be independent for the most part.
I mean, I speak for myself.
But we have to be influenced.
I mean, you can't turn off influence.
If somebody tries to influence you and they're good at it, it's probably going to work.
My friends with Bob Dole, that is the weirdest question in the world.
I've never met Bob Dole.
But how weird. All right.
Black Lives Matter. BLM is threatening an uprising against what they call the racist vaccine mandates.
Did you see that coming?
The racist vaccine mandates.
Because I guess since the black population has low vaccination rates, it would be a bigger burden on them if vaccination mandates are required.
BLM might actually go to the streets about that.
But here's the weird thing.
Can Black Lives Matter agree with the Republicans this aggressively?
And what happens if they do?
What would happen if...
I'm just going to put this out here.
This could actually happen.
Imagine a Black Lives Matter rally against vaccine mandates.
So just imagine that happens.
And then imagine that conservatives say, we're in.
We're in. And there are just as many conservatives that show up, clearly conservatives, like you could just look at them and go, okay, that's probably a Trump supporter there.
And watch them march at the same time with Black Lives Matter.
Because they have a shared idea on this one topic.
Could that happen?
Could it? Why wouldn't it happen?
What would stop it from happening?
Would anything stop it from happening?
In fact, I would say that the main reason that Black Lives Matter will not go to the streets is that Republicans will join them.
Right? Right? It's the main reason I don't think it's going to happen.
Because Black Lives Matter, the whole deal kind of falls apart if they go to the street and 5,000 conservatives join them and just say, we're with you.
Boom. We're with you.
That's it. No arguments.
No fighting. We're with you.
Now... I'm not sure this is the fight that I would recommend anybody be in.
That's a separate topic.
But it could be.
It could be strange bedfellows.
And I would tell you that the next thing that Black Lives Matter and conservatives might agree on is school choice and the problems with the teachers' unions.
Again, there's pretty much complete agreement.
That we need more school choice.
It's a conservative thing, and it's a black interest thing.
Both would benefit, maybe in different ways, but both would benefit from that kind of change to society.
I could see them getting together twice.
And the way to do it is to just say that reparations means fixing schools.
It's the best you can do. I mean, some people would like reparations to be some kind of cash payment, but since that's never going to happen, I don't think, why don't you do what you can do?
What you can do is fix the biggest source of systemic racism, which is the teachers' unions.
And the Republicans would be all over that.
So Black Lives Matter and Republicans maybe haven't figured it out yet, but they're on the same side on the biggest issue, which you could call reparations, You could call it systemic racism.
That's what Black Lives Matter would call it.
But the Republicans would call it, where's my freedom?
Why can't I go to a school I want to go to or take my kids to an optional, better school?
So they'd have different reasons for why they want school choice, but both of them would be getting at better school.
I mean, I guess it's the same reason in the end, better school.
But you would describe it differently in terms of why you want better schools.
I don't know. We might be...
I've been predicting for some time that there would be a strange coming together of Black Lives Matter and conservatives.
That it was almost inevitable.
I feel like.
I feel like it's inevitable that the black population in this country is going to start courting conservatives.
Partly because they agree on so much.
You've got a... At the very least, there's a religious connection, right?
Highly religious, black population, pretty religious.
Republicans, pretty religious.
There's a lot they could come together on.
And I feel like it's going to happen.
Because as soon as Black Lives Matter realizes that Republicans are not against them, or let's say not against black people, but rather pro-freedom and pro-competition and all those things...
I think they can figure it out.
They can get together. So I'm going to keep that...
That will be my most counterintuitive prediction of all time, although I've got a few good ones lately.
I'm going to say that Black Lives Matter will explicitly...
So I'm going to put this in the form of a prediction.
Black Lives Matter will explicitly join forces with Republicans on at least one topic...
Maybe more, because if the first one works, you would do more.
But there'll be at least one topic where they...
I'll go even further.
I'm going to make it physical.
Here's my prediction.
Black Lives Matter and conservatives will march together in the street within two years.
That's my prediction.
Within two years, Republicans and Black Lives Matter will march together on some topic.
Within two years. All right.
The debate over nuclear energy has officially ended.
Does that even sound possible?
The debate over nuclear energy just ended.
So Jennifer Granholm, who's the Secretary of Energy, right?
She just gave a big speech and made it as clear as you could possibly make it.
Climate change is an emergency.
This is her framing.
And you can't handle it without nuclear.
And that nuclear energy is now safer.
And that new technologies are safe compared to other things.
And you don't need fusion for this.
Fusion would be great, but it's not necessary in this model.
Now, here's the weird part of the story.
I don't know if you remember how much I was trying to get the Trump administration to say as strongly as Jennifer Granholm did that nuclear power has to be in the future.
It has to be a big part of the future.
And the Trump administration was always pro-nuclear, and they did a lot of pro-nuclear things in terms of setting up test sites for nuclear technologies, etc.
So they acted right, the Trump administration, but they didn't really make a big deal about it.
Trump himself hardly ever mentioned it and certainly never made a big point of it.
It was usually just sort of mentioned in a list.
But imagine, if you will...
That Trump had been pro-nuclear like a big deal.
As much as he was build the wall, imagine if Trump had been nuclear, nuclear, nuclear.
You've got to build some nuclear.
That would have made it impossible for Democrats to do it, wouldn't it?
It would be like the wall.
The Democrats can't accept a wall even though they want one because it was Trump's wall.
Am I right? Don't you think there are a lot of Democrats who'd kind of like to have a wall now?
Not so much that they stop everybody from coming in, but that at least we have the option.
Of regulating it the way we want to regulate it, not the way some entity wants to regulate it.
So I feel as if we got to this complete agreement, and I'm going to say complete agreement meaning that Democrats and Republicans are both strongly pro-nuclear now, at least at the higher levels.
So I'll call that the agreement.
Obviously citizens will take a while to catch up.
But... This is amazing.
And I don't think it would have happened if Trump had been way, way, way more pro-nuclear.
I think the only way this could happen is that Trump was kind of quiet about it.
Right? Because it's not that polarized, and it could have been.
So here's my question to you.
How did this happen?
What happened? What happened in the last, say, five years...
That made nuclear energy go from a highly polarizing topic to complete agreement.
What happened? What do you think happened?
I'm just looking at your Schellenberger, right?
I think that's what happened.
I think Michael Schellenberger is a big part of the story, but we'll never know how much.
So let me complete the pieces here.
So many of you know that Mark Schneider was a big advocate of nuclear, worked in the industry, still works in the industry, I think.
And he taught me everything I know, and I would talk continuously about nuclear needing to be a bigger deal.
Now, also, Michael Schellenberger has written books on the topic and included in books on the topic.
And he's testified to Congress twice, I think.
At least twice. And if you haven't heard the Michael Schellenberger presentations on all of this green energy stuff and nuclear, you really have to.
Because he's got the whole package, right?
He's got the whole persuasion package.
And I think he sold it to Congress.
I mean, they called him in for that purpose, to find out, you know...
Find out what's what. Now, I see you mentioning Bjorn Lomborg, and he would be the other biggest name that I can think of in this same category.
But I don't know if he testified.
Did he ever testify to Congress?
Because he's not American.
I don't know if he did.
I doubt it. I think I would have remembered hearing it.
Anyway... So I'm going to say congratulations to the people who put in the time.
I feel like I tried to help as much as possible.
I don't know if I did, but I tried.
And it looks like it happened.
I mean, was there any... Five years ago, if I said to you, if I said to you five years ago, I think we'll have a complete agreement on this nuclear energy thing, would you have believed that?
I mean, it seemed like it was something that was just going to be a permanent division.
Now, like I said, the public still hasn't caught up, but the fact that both Republicans and Democrats are pro-nuclear now, I mean, that's the end of the debate, because the public will catch up.
Yeah, somebody says, honestly, it wasn't even on your radar.
Yeah, that's true. All right.
Fox News, and I'm going to give them credit for this.
I don't know if they came up with it, but do you remember when Kids in Cages was the big story?
That kids in cages story was really powerful, wasn't it?
Because it wasn't just, oh, immigration is going to be really bad for a lot of people.
That doesn't feel...
It's not visual. It doesn't hit you in the feels.
But then you say, we're putting kids in cages.
Now, was that true?
Well, you know, sort of.
They were fenced in areas.
Calling them cages makes it ten times worse, how it sounds.
So yeah, it was true-ish.
You know, you could make the argument.
But it was so visual, meaning that you would not only see the pictures of it, some of the pictures were fake, but you would still remember them.
But you'd have, in your mind, a perfect picture of it.
So that's what made it so devastatingly effective.
And now Fox News and the right has come up with their response to kids in cages.
It's called, Haitians Under a Bridge.
Haitians Under a Bridge.
Do you know how much the under the bridge part adds to the story?
A lot. Same as the cages.
It's not just kids, and it's not just Haitians.
It's kids in cages, and it's Haitians under a bridge.
Because as soon as you add the under a bridge, the movie is complete, right?
You don't need all the details.
You just see a massive humanity under a bridge, and you can see it.
So here's your persuasion lesson for the day.
Adding the under a bridge really sells this story.
Just like adding in cages sold the story before.
So once you see a play that works for one team, you can pretty much depend on the other team giving that technique a try.
And here it's happening and it's working.
It looks like it's...
It captures our imagination in a very similar way.
I mean, kids is obviously the ultimate.
If you could do something about a story where kids are being injured, that's your ultimate persuasion.
But Haitians have something going for them too, don't they?
What the Haitians have going for them is that they're black.
And in this country, if there's a story about a massive group of black people being mistreated, that's a damn big story, right?
Because you've got kids in cages, Haitians, black people being forced to live under bridges, horrible conditions.
It does add that extra spice to the story.
And not in a good way, but it does.
So anyway, good persuasion play from the right, whoever came up with that.
I tweeted a story for you to debunk.
There's some claim.
I won't even tell you who it is, but there's a tweet and a tweet thread claiming that India beat the Delta variant when they introduced ivermectin.
And it comes complete with graphs that I don't believe, etc.
So I asked my skeptics to debunk that.
I think it'll be debunked by the time we're done here.
I haven't checked the comments yet.
But it looked really persuasive.
If you had only seen the claim, you absolutely would be convinced if you'd never seen any pushback on it.
It looks very convincing.
There's a graph, and it shows the time that ivermectin was put into place, and then the graph falls, and then you compare it to the United States and other countries, and we're just going up.
But allegedly, I don't know if any of this is true, but allegedly India went up, and then ivermectin went way down.
Did that really happen?
Because it's an outrageously specific claim with stuff that can all be checked publicly.
Now, I don't have the time to check it.
That's why I was asking other people to look at it.
But somebody says curry.
I don't think so. Anyway, so I just put that out there that I don't think there's anything true to that story.
But I'd love to be wrong.
That would be fun. What did...
Oh, ivermectin sounds good until you listen to ZDogg.
All right, so I'm going to call that story BS, that India beat the Delta with ivermectin.
I don't think that's true, but I'll let the skeptics tear that apart.
The new story about Hunter Biden, I guess Business Insider has this, breaking news.
Allegedly, Hunter Biden asked...
There's some new emails of Hunter Biden that have been discovered, not from the laptop.
So there are Hunter Biden emails, allegedly, but not from the laptop.
So you have to wonder if they're real.
That's the first question. All right.
Apparently, Hunter Biden asked for a retainer of $2 million per year plus a success fee...
Because $2 million a year, not enough.
You also need a success fee.
To help unfreeze money belonging to the Libyan government.
This was in 2015, while his father was still vice president.
What? What?
Am I really...
Is this real? No. Now, it's breaking news, so like most news, you should say to yourself, maybe it's not real.
It could be a fake email that somebody got or something.
But what if this is real?
If this is real, how is Hunter Biden going to unfreeze Libyan money with all of his Libyan unfreezing money connections that he personally had, not through his father, who was vice president of the United States?
There's no conceivable way...
That he could have gotten this job done without his father.
Is there? Or dealing with people who want to make his father happy, but it's the same thing.
So, here's what's going to happen.
I feel like nothing.
I feel like this story will come out.
We will believe it is true.
And nothing will happen.
Right? Doesn't it feel like nothing's going to happen?
Because this is clearly a crime, isn't it?
Or if it's not a crime, it's something terrible.
Now, apparently the project didn't go forward, so maybe that gives them an out because it didn't happen, it was just an offer.
But... Oh, my God!
Oh, my God!
If this is true, oh, my God!
I mean, it's as bad as the other stuff we've already heard, but it's additive to that.
RICO. Interesting.
I'm seeing in the comments there could be a RICO case.
I don't know. Could there? I don't know anything about that stuff.
But to the point that it would be an organized conspiracy, I don't know.
I wouldn't rule it out. All right.
Tucker Carlson being provocative.
Being provocative again.
I'm going to tell you what he said, and then I'll give you my comments on it.
So he quoted Joe Biden in 2015, I guess, or so, made this comment.
So Joe Biden said somewhere, quote, Folks like me who are Caucasian of European descent for the first time in 2017 will be an absolute minority in the United States of America.
Absolute minority. Fewer than 50% of the people in America from then on will be white European stock.
That's not a bad thing.
That's a source of our strength.
So the key words here are that Biden says...
That having lots of immigration and making the United States not majority white European is, quote, not a bad thing and, quote, a source of our strength.
So to that, Tucker says, he goes, that's the reason, to reduce the political power of people...
So this is Tucker's commentary...
That Biden has admitted that it's to reduce the political power of people whose ancestors lived here and dramatically increase the proportion of Americans newly arrived from the Third World.
And then, Tucker said, that Biden went further and said that non-white DNA is a source of our strength.
Did that happen?
Did Biden say that non-white DNA is a source of our strength?
Did you hear that in the quote?
So that's Tucker's summary that Biden said that non-white DNA is a source of our strength.
Let me read his exact quote again.
Biden said that we'll be no longer a majority white European, and he said that's not a bad thing.
That's a source of our strength.
So I'm seeing in the comments most people say, yeah, you said it right there.
There's the quote. There's Tucker's interpretation.
That interpretation is correct.
Right? I'm seeing only yeses to that.
It's right here. So Tucker's interpretation is accurate, right?
Because I read you the quote, I read you the interpretation, and you're saying, yeah, that's it.
Oh, wait, now I'm seeing some no's.
Where did all the no's come from all of a sudden?
Did you think I was tricking you?
Now it's all no's, I'm seeing in the comments.
Nope. No.
Biden did not say what Tucker says he says.
My interpretation of what Biden said when he said, that's not a bad thing, that's a source of our strength, who's us?
Who's our? Who's our strength?
The United States, right?
So can you say that...
Moving from a majority white European stock to a more diverse mix, what would be the argument that that makes us stronger?
So Tucker's interpretation seems to be that it brings in better DNA, that brown people have better DNA than the white people who are already there.
I don't think that's what that's saying.
I don't think that's what Biden's saying.
To me, it looks like Biden is saying that what makes the United States great is that we're diverse.
Now, do you think that diversity has ever helped the United States?
Well, it certainly helped when we got those German scientists after World War II... I don't know if you want to call that diverse, but I don't know how many other Nazis or Nazi sympathizers or workers or anything.
Well, I wouldn't call them sympathizers.
But I don't know how many people from the Nazi regime we brought to the United States, but it helped, didn't it?
There's a little diversity that helped.
That's a weird example, I know.
But do you buy the argument that diversity is an advantage?
See, Tucker took it in a different direction with DNA. I don't think that was ever the intention.
I think it was just diversity.
Well, I'm going to give you the counter-argument.
I'm seeing lots of people say no.
Here's the frame I'd put on it.
What is it about the United States that made it work?
Well, a lot of things.
We had lots of natural resources and stuff like that.
We didn't have a World War II on our shores.
So there were lots of things that made the United States work, and some of it was luck.
But I would argue that the biggest thing that makes it work is how people got here.
Meaning that the people who said, to heck with this country I'm in, I'm going to go make something happen somewhere else...
Don't you think that that is a really selective group?
Suppose you started with the population of the world.
You said, all right, I'm just going to put all the people who have the following qualities in one country.
Those will be the people who couldn't stand the country they were in because it wasn't free enough, didn't give them enough options, and they were going to take a tremendous risk to get out of there and improve their life.
So that's the group that you've filtered.
People who will take a big risk, succeed, because they don't get to this country unless they succeed, succeed as something really, really hard, because the long-term advantage will be good.
How many of those do you want in your country?
How many people with that quality, we're not talking about where they came from, any culture, doesn't matter the culture, wherever they came from, They took a gigantic risk to get here, pulled it off, made it work, and they were planning for the distant future.
They weren't planning for what was happening today.
They were planning years in advance.
So their mindset was years in advance, hard work, risk, and freedom.
And we got all of them.
Well, we didn't get all of them.
But that's basically what makes up the United States, right?
Now, I would argue that any time that...
Yeah, brave. Brave, right?
Risk takers. I would argue that any time you take the best of every culture, those are the best, right?
In my opinion...
The people who can make that work are thinking so far in advance.
They're thinking generations in advance.
Literally. They're thinking their children and grandchildren.
That's why they come here. I would think that if you took those people out of every country and put them in one country, that country would rule the world.
Every time. So, in order for that to work, I'm going to say they're the best people from each culture.
If you take the best people from each culture, the ones who have that quality about them, that doesn't make you stronger?
Remember all the no's you had?
Everybody said, no, no, no, there's no way diversity makes us stronger.
But I just gave you an argument where we got the best of all the diverse cultures because they're the only ones who could get here.
The ones who weren't the best couldn't get here.
They were just going to take care of what was happening right in front of them.
They were not long-term planners.
They weren't willing to take a risk.
They couldn't figure it out. Well, that's the argument.
So... They only want free stuff.
I think there's certainly a number of people who are not, you know, the cream of the crop.
I mean...
Everybody's different, so you're not going to get only the cream of the crop.
But I think on average, you bring in the good people.
And you also need people to do every other kind of job in society.
Now, here's another thing to think of.
Can the United States survive if our birth rate falls?
And what would happen to our natural birth rate if we didn't have massive immigration?
I'm not in favor of massive immigration.
I'm just asking the question.
What would happen to our birth rate if we didn't have massive immigration?
It wouldn't sustain the country.
It's a problem. We actually need young people economically.
It's a requirement. Where were they going to come from?
We weren't going to have them.
I mean, I suppose we could have done some massive persuasion to get Americans who are already here to have more babies.
I don't know that that would work.
I feel as if the one and only way that you can be economically viable is to bring in young people if you're not making young people.
You have to bring them in. And bring in populations that have more babies.
Now, am I arguing, therefore, that we should open the borders and just let everybody in?
No! It's crazy.
The way we're doing it now?
Crazy. It's all wrong.
What I'm arguing, and I've always argued, is you need a totally secure border, and then you can decide, based on economics, based on economics, how many to let in in any given year, and maybe what types of people to let in.
So I think you have to control it, but you gotta let in a good number of people.
I don't know what the right number is.
But you almost have to Take immigration.
And you've got to treat it pretty seriously.
I can't argue what the absolute number should be, because, I mean, that would take a lot of research, and I'm not even sure you could ever know that.
But I do know you need a lot of it.
We may have twice as much as we need right now, but you need a lot of it.
And if you don't have it, you're dead.
Did I make my case? With just the argument I gave that we're really, at least for the most part, we're trying to pick off the risk-takers and the higher-quality people from every country that can get here.
No. All right.
So, as per typical, very rarely do people change their minds.
Nope, nope, nope. I'm seeing lots of no's.
What would be your argument?
What would be your argument against the notion that we're filtering in the right kind of risk takers and the people who think ahead?
That's not who's coming, rich guy.
Now, I'm completely aware that there are tons and tons of, you know, just workers coming in because they heard the crowd was moving north and they just got in the line.
So clearly there are going to be tons of people who are not the cream of the crop.
I'm not claiming that.
What I am claiming is that we're getting enough of the cream of the crop, you know, the risk takers, that we come out ahead.
That would be the argument.
You come out ahead, even though you're bringing in a lot of common laborers who are maybe just going to break even economically, you don't need that many superstars, right, to start a billion-dollar company, et cetera.
Yes, legal immigration, yes.
If I didn't say that explicitly, I only favor legal immigration.
So I certainly don't favour whatever's happening now.
Diversity of appearance means nothing if people are thinking the same.
Well, I'm saying that we don't want diversity in one way.
There's one kind of diversity you don't want, which is you don't want people who don't want to be successful.
You want the kind of diversity where it's all kinds of people, but they want to make the world a better place.
Like, that's the diversity you want.
You don't want diversity of thought, because, like, some of them are terrorists.
Some of them don't want to work.
Some of them just want you to take care of them.
I don't want that diversity.
That's the diversity of thought I don't want at all.
I want people who have some shared notion of the United States and what success looks like, and they want it.
That's who I want. Yeah, I get more of those.
Anyway, I don't think Tucker's interpretation of it was quite spot on, but very provocative, as he always is.
Different cultures have different thoughts, true enough.
But I do think that the United States attracts people who have, on average, compatible notions with freedom and capitalism.
I've never been an illegal immigrant that didn't want to get money to take back home.
So? What's wrong with that?
What is wrong with that?
I mean, the money that they send back home is what keeps everybody home.
If they weren't sending money back home, those people would be coming here too.
So I'm not sure that's the negative you think it is.
Just looking at some of your comments...
You're dreaming if you...
Let me just read this. It's so hard as they're going by.
If you think that getting risk-takers who are going to help grow our economy, we're seeing people because they're motivated by the takers.
All right, so the point here would be that the people coming here for free stuff are the dominant thing.
Maybe. But would it matter to my point?
Let's say my point was that we're bringing the cream of the crop, but you say to me, Scott, Scott, Scott, you might be getting 10% like that, but 90% are just people coming here for free stuff.
Do you think those immigrants don't want to work?
How many of you think the immigrants came here for free stuff and didn't think they were going to work hard?
I feel like zero.
We're getting the people who want to work...
More than Americans want to work.
Now, when you say free stuff, I would just say that it's a better life.
I think they want to give and get also.
I don't think they want to get without working.
I think they came here to work.
Do you really not think they came here to work?
And I think they came here to work under a system that would reward them better than the system they were in.
What's wrong with that? That's what we all do.
We're all doing that. We're looking for the better system that treats us better for the same amount of work.
Do you hate them for that? All right, so back to my point.
Let's say we've got 10% of the people I'm describing, like the go-getters, the risk-takers, the entrepreneurs, the people planning ahead, and you get 90% of the people who just want to work hard and have a better life.
Did he come out ahead or behind?
No. That's my scenario.
Did you come out ahead or behind?
You only got 10% of the people who are awesome, like really think ahead, entrepreneurs, going to make this country great.
90% are just here because the crowd came here because it's a better life, but they want to work hard.
No doubt they want to work hard.
Did you come out ahead or behind?
I said, John says behind.
How do you know? Are you an economist?
I've got a degree in economics and I don't know.
I feel, if I had to guess, I'd say ahead.
But again, it depends on amount, right?
There's some amount of immigration that puts you behind.
There's some amount that would put you ahead.
I don't know where that cutoff point is, but we ought to find it.
Lyle says, Scott is surprised his audience is overwhelmingly racist.
No, I'm not. Do you think that surprised me?
My view, all people are racist.
So I would expect all of my audiences to be racist all the time, no matter who I was talking to.
It's just a complete illusion that they're non-racist.
They're just people who think of it different ways, they communicate different.
But the thing that makes everybody racist is that your brain is a pattern recognition device.
Your lawnmower can only be a lawnmower.
Your dishwasher can only be a dishwasher.
Dishwasher can't mow the lawn.
Lawnmower can't clean your dishes.
Your brain is just one thing.
It's a pattern recognition machine.
It can't be anything else.
And the problem is that you're bad at pattern recognition.
But it's all you got. And if you're bad at pattern recognition, as we all are, we're all fooled by the wrong patterns, then you end up thinking, well, those Elbonians, they always wear hats and You know, and eat bananas and fall under faces.
Because you saw three Elbonians like that.
So of course you're a racist.
You cannot be.
Because your brain is just oriented that way.
Now, you can use your higher level thinking to get past it.
That would be awesome. But you're starting as a racist.
So, is my audience racist?
Yeah, because they're humans.
Yeah, of course they are. Alright, that's all for now.
