Episode 1705 Scott Adams: Democrats Rigged (Via Media/Intel/Dem Conspiracies) Two Elections and Trump Still Won One of Them
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Obama visits White House
2016 Massive collusion between Dems, media, intel agencies
3 Clear examples of Dems, media, intel collusion
Online purchase of groceries from Safeway
Ukraine War Update
Economists can't predict inflation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Well, welcome to the best thing that's ever happened to you, and probably me too.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
It's the highlight of civilization, and I think you're all glad to be here.
But if you'd like to take it up a bit...
How would you like to enjoy this at the highest possible potential?
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass to take your chalice or stein a canteen jug or a flask or vessel of any kind.
Put your favorite beverage in there.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day that makes everything better.
It's called, that's right, the simultaneous...
Go.
Oh.
Does anybody feel their internal organs operating a little bit better now?
I think so. I think they're working pretty well now.
Well, Instagram reinstated me, so I had my account locked for reasons unclear.
But it turns out that they do look at their appeals, and I'm back online, so I don't know why I was banned, and I don't know why I'm back, actually.
But it all worked out.
It probably doesn't hurt that I tweet about it.
Do you think Instagram noticed when I tweeted about it?
Because I've got a feeling I did two things.
One is Instagram has its own little form you fill out if you think you've been banned unfairly.
So I did that.
But I also tweeted about it at Instagram.
And my experience has been That if you have a big enough account and you tweet at somebody, your customer service problem gets fixed really quickly.
So I don't know what happened, but it got fixed.
Well, I set a new personal record for expense to fill up my gas tank.
At the pump yesterday, I spent $116 to fill up my car.
That is a new record.
And the pumps had to be apparently reprogrammed to handle over $100.
They used to cap out at $100.
$116. So thank you, Joe Biden.
Rasmussen has a poll about what Americans think of Ukraine and Zelensky.
76% of Americans polled say they had a favorable view of Zelensky.
Does that kind of...
Does that seem high to you?
Who in the world has 75% support for anything?
But Zelensky does, in America.
And 76% of the U.S. public thought that Russia has committed war crimes.
That leaves that roughly 24%, 24%, 24%, rounded to a quarter, let's call it 25%, think that Russia has not committed war crimes in a war.
Okay. And 72% of the American public thinks Ukraine should keep fighting and not trade any land for peace.
Well, I just about threw up when I saw these statistics.
Number one, we are easy to manipulate.
We are easy to manipulate.
76% support Zelensky?
Really? Really?
Do 76% of you really know what's going on, even?
Do you know who backs Zelensky or why?
Do you even know what country he's actually in?
I don't know. I mean, I'm not going to say I have anything bad to say about him, necessarily.
But you do know he's a completely artificial creature, right?
He's a creature of manipulation and propaganda.
Why do you trust these polls?
Well, that's the next thing I was going to say.
I think that a poll like this is highlighting that the Americans are watching this like a TV show.
Unfortunately, until stuff starts blowing up in America, if the only impact I see is at the gas pump, and I blame Biden for that or inflation or something, I don't really see any direct connection to the war yet.
I think it's coming.
But I think we're watching it like it's entertainment.
Does anybody else have that gross feeling that we're being entertained by war?
Because we are. That's literally what's happening.
And I feel creepy about it, but at the same time, it's a major war.
How do you not talk about it?
So, I would just say this.
You know, there are no good guys in this war.
Have you heard one story?
Yeah, I guess you heard one story about Ukrainians doing war crimes against Russians?
The one where they're shooting them in the legs, which is horrific.
But do you really think the Russians are doing more war crimes than the Ukrainians?
I mean, I guess the difference is there are no Russian civilians in Ukraine.
Um... Yeah.
All right, well, Obama visited the White House to make Joe Biden look especially bad, and he succeeded admirably.
So Obama was there to celebrate health care improvements that he made in his office.
And did you see the videos of Joe Biden wandering around and nobody would talk to him because everybody was talking to Barack Obama?
It was pretty sad.
He literally just looked lost.
And he put his hand on Obama's shoulder to get his attention, and Obama just ignored him.
Like, the President of the United States has his hand on your shoulder, and Obama ignored him and just kept talking to who he was talking to.
He ignored the President of the United States.
Well, I guess you can if you were one, maybe.
But that was all sad and pathetic, and...
Whatever you thought of Obama as a politician, when you see the two of them next to each other, oh my God, the contrast.
Say what you will about Obama, but he was a great communicator.
Still is. And watching that next to Biden is just devastating.
You know, the purpose of having this kind of a visit is to get Democrats excited because they've got this enthusiasm gap that's like a million miles wide.
If you just judge by the enthusiasm to vote gap, Republicans will win everything.
But things could change.
I think that this visit backfired.
If I had to say, I would say the benefit of highlighting that health care got a little bit better according to Democrats, the benefit of highlighting that when it's not as salient as it was when, you know, first Obamacare happened.
I don't think that's going to pay for itself if you put Biden and Obama next to each other in the same photo shoot.
Because now it just shows you how degraded Biden is.
So I think they came out behind on that, amazingly.
Well, the Durham investigation has new information.
Now there's some document, I think it was an email, which does show that the lawyer who was working for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats in the 2016 election did, in fact, lie to intelligence people and maybe the FBI about who he was working for.
He said he wasn't working for anybody when, in fact, he was working for the Democrats and Hillary.
And now it's in writing.
So let me give you a little context of what's happening now.
Here's the context.
We know for sure that there was a massive collusion between intelligence agencies, Democrats, and the media...
To paint Trump as a Russian colluder, which he was not.
And it didn't change the election enough for Trump to lose, which is amazing, if you think about it.
It didn't change the election enough for Trump to lose.
But it looks like they took a better run at it.
And... I can't help but think that the January 6th insurrection narrative is just the same play, where the Democrats come up with a ridiculous narrative, but as long as they can get the intelligence people, the Democrats, and the media to say it's true, it's true for long enough to affect an election.
It's true for long enough.
So it doesn't matter if it later becomes debunked completely, as it will.
The January 6th thing was clearly not an insurrection.
And to imagine that you thought it was an insurrection, as opposed to a bunch of people who wanted to make sure the system worked the way it was designed, that's literally what they wanted.
They wanted the system to work as it was designed.
That's all they wanted. They weren't even asking for a different result, were they?
I mean, there were people who wanted a different result, but they weren't demanding it.
They were demanding a process which would give you some clarity about who actually won.
That's what they demanded, some clarity.
They only wanted clarity.
That's it. And it got turned into an insurrection.
One of the most amazing things that I've seen happen while I was watching it.
So now we've got the media, intel, and the Democrats.
They gave us the Russia collusion hoax.
They gave us Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian misinformation, and it wasn't.
And they're pushing the January 6th insurrection narrative.
Three clear examples of intel, democrats, and the media intentionally colluding to create a story that isn't true to influence politics.
Somebody says there are more than three.
I'm sure there are. I mean, those are the three that are at the top of the news.
I literally just took the three top news stories, minus the Ukraine war, and I've got three examples of massive collusion.
Now, I'm not going to say that the Republicans have never had some bullshit.
Trust me, I'm not the guy who says Fox News is always right, CNN's always wrong.
I don't see anything like that.
Nothing like that at all.
But what I don't see is the right-leaning part of the country doing anything like this.
Am I wrong? Can somebody give me an example...
Of where Republicans colluded with intelligence agencies and the right-leaning media to create a narrative...
There probably are some examples, right?
Seth Rich, maybe?
I guess you're good.
Oh, Iraq War. Interesting.
Iraq War. Yes, that would be actually...
That's a good example. Now, you have to go back a ways...
How many years ago was the Iraq war with weapons of mass destruction?
How many years ago was that?
2002? So 20 years ago.
I'm not sure that that's as relevant as it is today.
Pizzagate. Interesting. I don't know that Pizzagate was ever embraced by the right-leaning media, though, was it?
I don't recall that.
That was more of a social media thing.
All right. So now, here are some of the things that the media and the Democrats have gotten away with.
So Russia collusion hoax, Hunter laptop fake disinformation hoax, January 6th is an insurrection, the fine people hoax, the drinking bleach hoax.
If you were to design the contours of politics in 2022, it would be hoaxes.
It's all hoaxes. It's like our entire landscape of politics is literally hoaxes, which is weird.
Yeah, oh yeah, the don't say gay thing is a hoax, essentially.
So here's an experience I had that other people had, and I want to see how many of you had.
So in the comments, tell me if you've had this experience.
I went to order groceries with an app.
I use DoorDash. Could have been some other app, but I use DoorDash.
And they go to my local store, Safeway, to get things, and then they bring it to me.
And on paper, that sounds pretty good, doesn't it?
Isn't that a great idea?
Use an app, say what groceries you want, and then they just show up.
It's pretty amazing. Do you know what small, just a small little, let's say, error or imperfection in the system is?
It's just a small thing. But the app...
Doesn't have access to what supply the individual stores have.
So you could order all kinds of groceries, and then your person will go to one store only, and that one store doesn't have a third of what you ordered.
A third. A third of what you ordered, of a fairly long list.
Now, the first several times this happened to me, I thought it was because of supply chain problems, or I thought it was a fluke, or I thought the person shopping for me was bad at finding things.
As of yesterday, I can confirm that the app is not connected to their supply information.
Safeway literally sells you shit they don't have.
And then, to make it worse, this was my experience yesterday.
So yesterday I didn't have dog food.
I had only treats.
That's why I was giving her treats and waiting for my dog food to come.
So I didn't have dog food.
Like, I'm not going to go all night without feeding my freaking dog, right?
So I used the app.
Goes to the wrong store, doesn't have the dog food.
As my groceries were being delivered, for the price of $60 extra on top of the groceries, because I tipped well, so for a $60 tip, 20% of a $300 or so dollar thing.
For $60, I still had to drive past my delivery guy.
As he was coming to my house, I had to drive past him to go to the store to buy the shit he didn't get.
So far, every time.
Every time I've used a delivery service, I still had to go to the store.
Do you want to know how it's worse?
There's an option that they give you for substitutions.
They say, if we can't find this, would you like to substitute that?
I write in the comments, no substitutions.
Do you know why? Because they will text you the entire time they're shopping, and they won't stop.
Well, I can't find this cream cheese.
Would you like another? The reason I'm fucking using the app is because I don't want to fucking do the work my fucking self.
I pay $60 for the delivery of the food because I don't fucking have the time.
And from the moment you send in the order until the moment they arrive at your door, they don't stop texting.
Well, we don't have this.
Would you like this? We don't have this.
Would you like this? Now, I say to myself, I'm going to beat the system.
So I say to them, I write in the notes, no substitutions.
So therefore I won't get what I want, but I also won't spend the hour that I was trying to avoid.
Do you know what they do when you say no substitutions?
They text you and they say, well, I'm just asking about this one.
And I think, all right, one.
I'll answer one text.
Okay, I'll say, no substitutions.
And you think, now that you've said it in the notes, and now that you've answered one with no substitutions, you think, well, now they're not going to text you again.
Well, about six fucking texts later, one every ten minutes, during the same hour I was trying to take a nap, do you know why I didn't go to the store myself?
I was so tired, I didn't think I could drive there.
Literally. I didn't think I could stay awake to get to the store.
I tried to nap, and every five to ten minutes they texted me.
And here's the thing. If you don't answer the text, you're not going to get your food because they won't do anything or they'll cancel it or something if they're not getting responses.
So the whole food delivery business is completely open for conquering.
This is a gigantic industry.
And imagine that. It's not being serviced.
You can still get stuff from restaurants about...
I would say my DoorDash...
Ratio of working, if I have stuff delivered, is 3 out of 5.
It works. If you order food for delivery, and let's say there's at least two of you, so there are a number of things, how often do you get the exact thing you ordered?
About 60% of the time, right?
Something like that. Somebody says 25%.
It's very unusual to get what you ordered.
Now think about how bad these systems are and they're still being wildly used.
So if there's one thing I could tell you about how to decide what kind of business to go into, find a business that everybody wants to buy even though the business is terrible.
Like cell phones.
Do you remember the first smartphones?
They were terrible.
They were terrible.
3G, drop every call.
I had AT&T when I had the first smartphone.
It couldn't even make a phone call.
Literally, I bought a phone that couldn't make a phone call.
That's not a joke.
The AT&T phone with the antenna problem with the iPhone, you couldn't even make a phone call.
With a phone! Ever!
I completely stopped using the phone.
I just texted after that.
For years. I think two years of just texting because the phone never worked.
And yet, smartphones are an enormous market because everyone wanted them.
It's the same thing with grocery delivery.
Let me tell you what's wrong with groceries.
First you pick your food or whatever and you put it in a package.
Then you put it in the store. And then somebody has to go get it.
And then they put it in the bag.
And then they bring the bag home.
And they unload the bag. And they take it out of the bag.
And they put it in the refrigerator. And then they take it out of the refrigerator.
And they take out the packaging. There's like 50 steps to get you your food.
And they don't all seem so important.
So anyway, the point is that the entire food industry, I think, will be reworked because there's plenty of market opportunity.
Well, here's an opinion on the Ukraine war from Phillips O'Brien.
He seems to have some credentials for talking about this stuff.
And he says that the Russian army might be in worse shape than imagined.
And he goes on parenthetically to say, and I've probably been as skeptical about their condition as anyone since this started.
But he says it looks like Putin doesn't trust forces that were not sent to Ukraine in the first place.
So here's what he's saying.
There are two narratives about what's happening in Ukraine, and we can't really confirm either one, right?
But there are two. Number one is that the Russians are moving forces away from Kyiv because it's all part of the master plan to degrade the Ukrainian army in general.
And having done that, now they're going to consolidate forces in the places that matter the most, around Donbass.
They'll conquer that, they'll consolidate it, and then they'll expand back into Ukraine, which by now would be so degraded That it would be an easy job.
So that's one. So one is that Kiev was a decoy to get the Ukrainian army, you know, distributed and then degraded.
Here's the other one.
The reason that Russia needs to send the same military that got whacked around Kiev is because they can't send anybody else, meaning that they don't have fresh soldiers that they trust.
Think about that.
That if Russia had fresh soldiers, that's according to military people.
They would send the fresh ones into the south because the last thing you want to do is take an army that just got the ship beat out of it and send it directly into another fight.
Because... Because you don't want to send a crippled army into a fight.
Because sometimes there's not much difference between the last straw and being an effective military.
There's like just a little bit of a tipping point.
And if you've got a degraded army, you might be pretty close to the tipping point and not know it.
So... So one possibility is that the fact that the spent forces from the north are being used in the south is desperation.
So two narratives.
Putin definitely has everything under control and is largely working the way a military would conquer a country.
And they're shaping the battlefield and shaping the war, and they did that, and now they're going to mop up the Donbass and they win.
That's one. But the other is that they're in a desperate situation and they don't have reinforcements.
And the other is that...
I also read a piece...
I wish I had written down who wrote it.
But apparently the...
And I'm not sure I believe this, that the Russian military is designed for a nuclear fight and not a standard one.
In other words, the tanks can't even stop machine gun fire.
Have you ever heard of that? That a lot of the tanks used in Ukraine were developed for a nuclear situation.
So I guess they withstand nuclear radiation fairly well.
I don't know that that's possible.
But you could actually machine gun a tank.
And if you do it hard enough, long enough, you could actually penetrate the tank with machine gun fire.
Now that's what somebody says.
And they showed pictures of tanks that were reinforced because the armor was so light.
I don't know. I'm seeing lots of people saying that's not true.
Not true, not true.
It did sound a little weird that the tanks would be optimized for a nuclear confrontation.
All right. Well, a lot of you don't believe it.
I'm going to say there might be something true-ish about it, but I guess I wouldn't accept it just because I saw a tweet about it.
All right. Your skepticism is well-respected.
And then also, summer's coming.
So when the leaves are on the trees in Ukraine, it looks like that could be a big strategic advantage for the locals, because if you're an insurgency group, your benefit is hiding, and they can just hide better, because there are going to be leaves on the trees.
What happens when winter comes?
If Ukraine holds on until the winter, what happens then?
And I've said before that how things go in Ukraine is entirely a...
There's only one number that matters, which is the number of drones, I think.
If they get enough Switchblade and the really good ones that are even better than Switchblade Plus, if they get enough of them, I would think that they win.
Am I wrong? Who would agree with the following statement?
That there is some number of switchblade drones that would allow Ukraine to win outright.
Yes or no? Now, this assumes there's no tactical nuclear strike or something, I guess.
But yes or no?
It's only about the number of switchblade drones.
If they have enough, they win.
No? Some people say no.
Yeah, I mean, when it comes to war, I don't think anything's predictable.
Well, a lot of people are saying no.
Interesting.
Wow, I was not expecting so many people to say no to that.
So I don't quite understand why you would say no to that.
Now, I'm not saying that they will get enough.
That's a different prediction.
I'm saying that if they got enough, they're apparently not that hard to train somebody to use, right?
I didn't see anything about training being a big problem.
Yeah, and why haven't drones gotten into Moscow?
I do have that question. I assume that the Ukrainians don't want to look like the bad guys.
You know, they're managing their reputation, so they're not attacking any kind of civilian center.
Yeah, jamming is a thing, but you can get around the jamming as well.
All right, here's my take on the war.
I think everybody would agree...
That the invasion is on Putin.
Now, it's also true that the United States and NATO did lots of things which invited this attack.
But you don't really blame the victims if somebody attacks you, do you?
Even if you say, well, NATO and the U.S. did some provocative things, is that justification for war so it takes the blame away from Putin?
I don't think so. I don't think it works that way.
I think your victim can do everything wrong and it's still the aggressor's fault.
I mean, that's just the way things work.
But I'm going to revise this in my opinion.
I think starting the war in Ukraine was 100% Putin's fault.
Continuing the war in Ukraine after we see that there are massive war crimes is the fault of the Russian people.
Now, I know it would be hard for the Russian people to overthrow Putin.
It's also their job.
Lots of people have hard jobs.
Lots of people have difficult situations.
And I'm not minimizing how hard that would be and how many people would die if they tried to do it.
But let me talk directly to the Russian people.
You're letting never again happen.
Again. All right?
This is on you.
This is on you now. Putin can start a war, and if it was fast, he could finish it.
But it wasn't fast.
Now it's on you. So Russian citizens, you do know how to get real news.
You do know how to find out what your country is doing there.
You do. Now it's on you.
So the new Holocaust is on the Russian people, in my opinion.
Putin, of course, is guilty.
But because the Russian public...
Could, if they rose up as one, really get anything done.
But they're not. There's a little protesting.
Nothing important. So, somebody says it's on NATO. I think NATO made a mistake.
I'll give you that.
But it would be a mistake to wear provocative clothing in a dark, dangerous neighborhood, wouldn't it?
Wouldn't that be a mistake?
Wouldn't it be a mistake for a woman to dress provocatively In a dangerous neighborhood where there's no law?
Of course it would. Would you say, then, that if she is assaulted, completely her fault?
Is that your view? That the victim is at fault for creating a situation which invites the crime?
Is that your view? Because that's not my view.
My view is that the person who commits the crime is always to blame.
Period. Now, here's where I would make the distinction.
NATO was stupid, but Putin's to blame.
Will you buy that?
NATO made a mistake.
You could argue.
They made a mistake by being too provocative.
I think NATO made a mistake, but Putin's to blame.
He's the one who did the bad stuff that caused people to die.
Bad analogy?
Well, take any analogy you want.
When do you blame the victims?
Ever? Victims can make mistakes, and victims can do things that make it more likely that they're victims.
They can definitely do that.
And I would call them out for that, as I have called out NATO for creating a situation where victims would happen.
But this is on the Russian people now, in my opinion.
So if you're a Russian citizen and you're not doing something about this, I have a problem with you forever.
Forever. And I think we have to start moving the frame.
Because Putin isn't going to change his mind.
But the Russian people might have something to say about it.
All right. Let's talk about Elon on the board of Twitter, Elon Musk.
So do you think that Elon Musk will have access to the algorithm, directly or indirectly?
Do you think he'll have access to find out What's going on there?
Or does a board member not have that kind of access?
Who thinks that as a board member that would be enough to actually get into the engineering?
Because normally that would not be enough, right?
Would you all agree with that?
Normally the board member would not be digging into anybody's engineering.
So normally it wouldn't happen.
The only thing I know is that when I tweeted about it, Musk liked the tweet.
So when I tweeted that Elon Musk would get access to the algorithm and that that would be glorious, he liked the tweet.
So do you think that Elon thinks he can get access to the algorithm?
He liked my tweet saying he would.
I feel as if he wouldn't have bought 9% of Twitter unless he had a strong indication he could get into the parts he cares about.
Because otherwise it would be a waste of billions of dollars, and he doesn't really look like somebody who wastes billions of dollars.
So he must have had a strong inkling, or even maybe a direct, possibly a direct, some kind of direct agreement, that he could get into the details.
Now, what's going to happen when he does?
I looked to see if Elon had liked or retweeted anything that I said, because my number of users climbed by about 20 times.
After we found out that Musk might get access to the algorithm, The number of people who followed me went from around 100 a day, on average, to over 2,500, I think, in one day.
Now, people said it's because Elon Musk liked my tweet.
But when he just likes a tweet, I've never seen that move my needle before.
I think he's liked my tweets before.
I've had famous people like tweets.
But I don't really see it moving the needle.
So here's the first question I'm asking.
And because Musk did like my tweet, I can't say anything for sure about it.
Because that could have been the only reason that the numbers went up.
But I'm going to keep a look at it.
Keep watching it. The only reason I checked that stat, because it's not one I follow, the only reason I checked my daily number of new followers is that I imagined that if there's something sketchy going on with the algorithm, That the people in charge of it are actively rewriting it right now.
You know what I'm talking about?
That if there was something sketchy about the algorithms, the engineers who are in charge are quickly removing the evidence because Musk is getting too close.
Am I right? Now, I'm not saying that's what is happening.
All I'm saying is that I expected it to happen, and when I checked, the numbers were exactly what I expected would happen.
Because it does look like my account is suppressed in some way.
But of course we all think that, right?
It's easy to have confirmation bias on that.
So even though it feels like my account was being suppressed in terms of growth, I couldn't be sure.
So it's what I'm watching.
And now that I've talked about it in public, it probably ruins the experiment.
Because who knows?
So has anybody else had the experience that as soon as the news came out that Musk was going to be on the board of Twitter, did anybody see that their daily number of followers or even their engagement went up dramatically?
Did anybody see that? Because if you didn't, then I would guess that the only thing that's happening is that because Musk liked my tweet, it got a lot of attention.
Although I looked, you know, before I... I did look to see if he had liked it or anybody important, and I didn't see it, but somebody said he did.
Somebody says my engagement is way up.
I find this a very strange place for Scott to press in his heels, especially since we're still in the propaganda war.
So you're talking about my Ukraine take?
What exactly did I say that's not obvious?
Was there anything I said that's not really obvious about the Ukraine war?
Okay. Well, let's talk about inflation and experts.
As you know, there are many professional economists.
Do you think the professional economists are all in agreement about how bad the inflation is and what it will take to get it under control?
Of course not.
Of course not.
Kevin says, you missed the 2014 context.
You mean Maiden and Crimea and all that?
No, I'm not missing any of that context.
We're all aware of 2014 and Crimea and the Maiden movement and all that.
And I do think that NATO and the United States have a lot to explain in their strategy.
You appear to be pro-Ukraine.
Not really. I'm starting to hate everybody.
Meaning that I don't have any trust for Zelensky whatsoever.
I'm sure the Ukrainian military has committed atrocities.
Do you know why? Do you know why I'm sure the Ukrainian military has committed atrocities?
Because it's a war.
It's a war. You can guarantee it.
Both sides. Both sides.
Both sides commit atrocities in war, and I don't think there's any exception to that, really.
If anybody's going to argue with me that one side does war crimes and the other one doesn't, no.
I mean, that's just so simplistic.
I can't even imagine anybody would have that opinion.
So I don't think that the Ukrainians are more pure than the Russians.
I don't think that they're less evil.
I do think they have a Nazi problem.
Maybe not as big as some say.
I'm not sure I love any of them.
Not really. So I do think that you can't have countries conquering and rubbling neighboring countries.
So I have a...
If you're saying that I'm pro-Ukrainian, let's say I'm anti-attacking your neighbor.
Would you call that the same?
So I'm very much against attacking your neighbor...
I feel like that's different than being pro-Ukrainian.
Although, if we're talking about the citizens, I'm pro-Ukrainian citizens, as I was until recently, I was pro-Russian citizens.
But now I think the Russian citizens have fallen into complete disrespect at this point.
Let's put it that way. I'd say the Russian citizens are victims as well, but I've lost all respect for them.
I can't respect the Russian citizens for not doing something about this.
And I know it's dangerous, but that's why you respect people, right?
You respect people when they do dangerous things that have to be done, among other reasons.
But if they don't do the dangerous things that need to be done, I don't respect them, and I don't think you should either.
Although that's, of course, a personal decision.
So let's see, we've got the Paul Krugmans and the Larry Summers and Jason Furman and other famous economists, and they don't seem to have a common opinion about whether inflation is going to lead us into a recession or be no big deal in the long runs.
What do you think? One view is that we've never been in this situation without X happening.
But an X being you'd need a recession to get out of this, basically.
But I don't know anything as predictable.
Do you remember...
Are any of you old enough?
Some of you are. Do you remember stagflation?
The idea that your economy could be soft at the same time inflation could be rampant?
And the economists thought, well, that's not even possible.
The thing that makes inflation usually is a hot economy and stuff like that, shortages, because you have a hot economy.
So... I think my general statement is that economists don't understand inflation or what to do about it.
Is that too strong?
I mean, I remind you that I have a degree in economics, so I'm not guessing entirely.
I'm guessing a little bit.
But to me, it looks like economists can't do inflation.
It just seems to be beyond their ability.
If they could, then all the smart ones would be on one side.
And maybe some dumb ones would disagree, but...
Scott aping the MSNBC CNN genocide line.
Have you seen the pictures of the rubble?
Now, I haven't said genocide, have I? Somebody's saying that I'm aping the mainstream media genocide line.
Have I used the word genocide?
Has anybody heard of me use that?
I haven't used that word.
Do you think that a lot of civilians are getting killed?
You fucking idiot. I mean, seriously.
I don't need to use your words so that you can have something to debunk me with.
I'm going to use my words.
Russia's killing a bunch of civilians.
Deal with it. That's just the truth.
Do I think that Ukraine has done bad things?
Yes. Absolutely.
And I don't find that one of them more morally correct than the other, really.
If you're looking at individual acts, if you're looking at any individual citizen, they're fine.
Just like everywhere, right?
I don't think you can go anywhere and find where all the citizens are bad.
I doubt it. All right.
So let me make my prediction on inflation.
I'm going to give you my contrarian prediction.
Well, here's the problem.
Everything that's happened so far is because of surprises.
Am I right? You know, a lot of people didn't really think there would be a big war in Ukraine, although a lot of experts did predict it.
I'll give them that. But the general public didn't expect it, I don't think.
We didn't expect the coronavirus.
You know, there's just a lot of stuff we didn't expect.
So probably that's what the future looks like, too.
A whole bunch of stuff we didn't expect.
But given the coronavirus in China and everything else, I think the supply chain problem is pretty gnarly, and it's probably a five-year problem.
What do you think? I think we have a five-year major adjustment problem.
And one of the major adjustments will be building different manufacturing facilities, especially for chips.
Can you get a chip manufacturer up in five years?
If, let's say, Mexico wanted to build a chip factory, could you spin one up in five years?
Probably. Probably three to five, right?
That's what I'm thinking. So I'm going to say that we've got a three to five year problem.
And that at the end of it, we're going to have a better supply chain, far more robust.
So, you know, the bad news, good news situation is we're going to be in way better shape to handle the next pandemic.
Am I right? I mean, I think we learned enough from this pandemic, except for the masks.
I don't think we learned anything about masks.
But basically, we're in better shape, I think, for the next pandemic.
And I think the same will be true for supply chain, We had a really weak supply chain, it turned out.
We didn't know it because it didn't get stressed.
But as soon as it got stressed, it just fell apart.
But human ingenuity plus three to five years fixes just about everything.
Scott has never heard of Austrian economics.
Okay. Why is there a shortage of chips if they come from Taiwan?
Do they? Do they?
China makes chips too, right?
And I think there's also a raw material thing.
All right. Somebody wants to fix my analogy.
Oh, this will be useful. Let's argue about analogies.
AH says, your analogy, you would attack your neighbor that is threatening your way of life with the help of a bully.
You would attack your neighbor that is threatening your way of life with the help of a bully.
That is what Russia did.
Well, okay. Oh, the base materials come from China, but the chips come from Taiwan, somebody says.
That's interesting. So in other words, China and Taiwan do a lot of trade.
You know, I never wondered about that.
So China and Taiwan do a lot of trade.
I assume. I mean, I've never heard they don't.
That's sort of an interesting situation, isn't it?
All right. Raw material is sand.
Well, you need more than that, don't you?
I don't think the raw material is just sand, is it, for silicon?
China makes a lot of chips, too, but not as much as you...
Now, I don't really understand why chip manufacturing went to Asia.
Can somebody explain that? Wouldn't chip manufacturing be the ultimate example of something where low assembly line workers are not useful?
Isn't it a pretty much automated process plus engineers?
Somebody says, not true.
So I can't believe that labor cost is a gigantic portion of chip manufacturing, is it?
Am I wrong about that?
I feel as if you could build an automated plant designed by high-paid engineers that could make your chips with just a few people carrying boxes around.
Am I wrong? EPA regulations?
Is there a regulatory reason?
Environmental regulations. Well, but the machine could handle all that, couldn't it?
So is that why we don't do it in the US? Oh, EPA regulations.
So is it a dirty business, is that what you're saying?
Making chips pollutes, causes pollution?
Okay, people are saying it causes a lot of pollution.
That's what Mexico's for.
No, I'm just kidding.
I'm just kidding. But apparently if you're going to do it in another country with lower standards, wouldn't you rather do it in Central America?
Wouldn't you? I mean, I'm pretty sure we can find a Central American country that has low environmental requirements.
It might be evil to do so.
Probably would be.
But it looks like it would work.
Intel does it in the U.S.
just fine.
China just does it cheaper.
Okay. Automated fabs in space.
Oh, that's interesting. So if you put a chip manufacturer in space, you get the benefits of the environment, I guess, because no dust.
Interesting. All right.
Why are you laughing at never again?
So there's somebody here who thinks it's funny to put a never again in quotes with a happy face.
What is your point?
I just have a problem with people who mock a point without any information about what it is that's the problem.
Just nothing. Alright.
That, ladies and gentlemen, I believe was all I wanted to talk about today.
And I believe this was one of the finest 48 minutes you've ever spent.
And it can only get better tomorrow.
Now, let me ask you this.
Are you hearing any opinions from me that are different or additive to what you're hearing in the regular press?
Am I adding any value with that?
Because sometimes I don't know.
I just feel like you might be seeing the same opinion somewhere.
So in locals, I'm getting mostly yes.
Thank you. What was this?
Talk about Disney?
So I'm not going to talk about Disney.
And here's why.
It just bores me.
You know, Disney's woke...
You're too woke.
I don't know. There's just nothing there.
Now, I suppose you could say it's sort of the battle that is going to define the war or something.
So maybe it is. I don't know.
I just can't get interested in it.
I feel like the Disney story is almost like a manufactured story.
It isn't. I mean, it's based on real stuff.
But it feels like the press loves a story where no research is necessary.
Am I right? Whenever I see a story that's reached the top of the headlines, one of the things I look for is, okay, how hard would it be for the news industry to produce more of these stories?
No research needed.
Do you know why we don't know exactly what's happening in Ukraine?
It's really hard to get news over there, to get, like, somebody on the ground who can figure out what's going on and get that news back here.
So we don't know much about Ukraine.
So when you've got something like this Disney situation, don't you think Fox News and the others just say, oh, this is money in the bank?
We'll never have to research it, because it's purely opinion.
Never have to research it.
We can make infinite stories because every time a celebrity says something about it or there's any little change, it's a new story.
So I would suggest that if you think the story matters and you're not directly involved, probably you're a victim of brainwashing.
And that's sort of what I'm resisting, I think.
When I say I can't get interested, that's maybe not exactly the best way to say it.
I guess I'm resisting being manipulated into an unimportant story because it's easy for the news to cover it.
It's cheap for them to do so.
Did that make sense? I guess it's the economics of it.
The economics of the story say it's fake because it's free.
When it's free, you worry about it.
If I'd paid for it, or it cost them a lot of money to produce it, I'd say, well, there's something.
Somebody put money behind it.
It must be some substance.
But if somebody puts no money behind something, and they're just taking in money by talking about it, your filter flag should be flying red on that.
So, again, I'm not going to say the Disney thing doesn't matter.
It matters to a lot of them.
But the entire narrative has turned into, you know, don't say gay, which is, of course, a hoax.
So basically, it's a hoax versus people talking about a hoax, which is the very thing that the news industry likes the most.
They want to get you all worked up about a hoax, one way or the other.
Oh, I like the hoax, or I hate the hoax.
But if you're arguing about a Disney hoax, basically, you've really been sucked in.
I mean, you should feel manipulated, even if you care, you should feel manipulated by that story.
That's the instinct I'd like you to develop, is that if it's too easy for the news to do the story, that's a flag.
Right? That's a flag.
All right. Disney is opening a park in Ukraine, and it will have a never-again land.
Okay, that's... That's an awful joke.
Not that I don't appreciate it, but it's awful.
One of the problems with being a professional humorist, and I'll bet a lot of stand-up comedians have the same problem, is that what it takes to amuse us, since we deal with humor as basically the stuff we breathe all day, what it takes to amuse an actual humorist is something pretty edgy.
Something that would be painful for the regular public.
If the regular public would find pain in the joke, that would be just about where I'd want it to be.
Oh, please explain humor to us, Father Scott.
Well, I can do that.
I know you think that people can't explain humor to you.
But something like a third of the country can't recognize a joke.
I've seen this my entire life.
Doesn't matter who's telling it.
A third of the country doesn't have a sense of humor.
Just doesn't have one.
And they've been faking it.
Like they laugh when other people laugh.
But they don't get it.
You bought your friends, Scott.
What's that mean? Uh...
Somebody's asked for a micro lesson on being charmingly, charismatically humorous.
I don't think that could be taught.
Am I Scottish? Yes, I am.
Coincidentally. We love you, but you're an MSM puppet for two years now.
All right, let's deal with this.
So Holling, V. Holling, says, we love you, but you're a mainstream media puppet for two years now.
Who would like to agree with that?
Have my views matched the mainstream?
My views have not been anywhere near the mainstream view.
So, Holling, I would suggest to you that you've been subject to another hoax.
There's a Reddit hoax about me.
Collectively, I'll call it a hoax.
It's just a bunch of people talking.
But collectively, it's a hoax.
If you go to Reddit, it will say that I was pushing vaccines for the pharmas and the mainstream media.
There's literally nothing like that I've ever done.
But on Reddit, it's a fact.
And on 4chan, it's a fact.
Nothing like that's ever happened in the real world.
You can't find any example of it.
Nothing. You can't even...
Think of all the people...
Here's a test for you.
Think of all the people who have made that accusation that I'm pro-vax, etc.
Have they ever produced a tweet or a quote to back up the claim?
Not once. Not once.
Think about that. Think about the fact that I'm completely propagandized as somebody who is super pro-vaccine when I was the opposite.
And I wasn't fully the opposite as an anti-vaccine, but I was definitely never pro-vaccine for any of you.
I only made my own decisions.
So, what do you think about that?
Now, those of you who are agreeing with the statement that I was supporting the mainstream media, and then you're hearing me say that never happened, how does it make you feel to know that all the people who think it did happen have never produced a single quote or tweet to support that opinion?
Not once. Not once.
In two years. And you don't think?
I've had thousands and thousands of critics on that very point.
And not one of them had a quote.
Think about it. Let me ask you on YouTube.
I know the locals people are more informed about what I have and have not said.
But on YouTube, where people are a little less informed about my opinions, does it give you any pause to know that nobody's produced an example to back up that theory about me?
Not one. Does it give you any pause?
I just want to say if anybody who had that opinion about me is rethinking it based on the fact that nobody in two years has produced any example.
Not even a bad example.
I'm not even talking about a tweet that somebody thought said that, but maybe it didn't.
Nothing like that at all.
Now, this is where people start accusing me of being sensitive to criticism.
That's not really the point here.
You get that, don't you?
The context of my life is being criticized massively all day long about everything.
I'm not arguing everything.
I'm arguing one narrow thing, and I want you to only understand how easily you've been bamboozled.
So this isn't even about me.
Let me say it as clearly as I can.
I don't give a fuck about your opinion.
Why would I? Why do you think I care about your opinion?
I care that you understand when you've been brainwashed.
That's my show. My show is about helping you understand when you've been brainwashed, when you're in confirmation bias, when cognitive dissonance has taken you.
That's what I care about.
I'm not defending against the criticism.
I'm trying to help you understand that you've been bamboozled.
That's all. Now, anybody who thinks I'm sensitive to criticism, did you start watching me just today?
Nobody gets criticized more than I do, and nobody cares less.
Nobody cares less than I do.
I don't even think about it.
Like, I go through my entire day being massively criticized about everything on social media.
I don't think I think about it once during the day.
I mean, I think about it when I read it, that's about all.
Now, and you can see from the comments of the people who have watched me for years that I'm not exaggerating how much others have been brainwashed about me.
Thank you.
Alright, so much...
There's a Tesla Giga Texas Cyber Rodeo tomorrow?
I don't know what that means. All you talked about was the vax for like six months.
That's not a point. That was the only news.
The news stopped for two years.
It was just like, that's it.
If you have a show that talks about the news, what am I supposed to talk about?
It was like the number one question on people's minds for two years.
Is this vaccination going to help me or kill me?
So, alright. The fact that I talk about things a lot does not mean that you learn something about my opinion.
So he says, Scott, you're being ridiculous.
just own it okay that comment looks like cognitive dissonance the all caps people Scott, we all know you got duped by COVID because your friend scared you into trying to save the world.
Time to apologize. Well, do you know how many lives I saved personally?
Seriously. You probably don't.
But literally, do you know how many lives I saved?
Now, if you're a critic, you'll say, that's ridiculous.
You didn't save any lives. But I did.
So we'll remove you 'cause you're a jerk.
You assumed that no vax equals death.
Nope. And the quote that you gave to support it doesn't say anything like that.
So that's my example. Somebody just gave a quote that had nothing to do with the point that they said the quote was about.
That's like what my day looks like normally.
All right. Because of your pro-vax stand, John says...
So, how many of you who have actually watched me think I have a pro-vax stand?
Go. In the comments.
Now remember, the person who said that, you're all watching me.
So, on locals, it's 100% no.
Let's see. How many on YouTube?
On YouTube, it's a different mix.
Just watch the other people.
They've watched me too.
And watch how they have a different opinion about...
See?
Right.
So your opinion of my opinion is wrong, as you can see from the other people who have been watching me.
So does that change your opinion?
If you thought I was pro-vax, and now you're seeing that the other people who watched me, who watched probably more of my content, they say I'm not.
Does it affect you?
Because that's not me talking.
That's people who have the same experience as you.
Well, if you see the elephant in the room and nobody else does, that's a clue.
All right. Too much about this.
Too much about me. A little bit too self-referential.
