Episode 1932 Scott Adams: The News Is All Fun Today. Find Out What Twitter Is Up To And Lots More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Defending Liz Cheney and Ray Epps
Should Trump be reinstated on Twitter?
Has AOC seen the HOAX List?
Free market competition fixing things
Giorgia Meloni vs Emmanuel Macron
Central Bank Digital Currency is coming
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
It will certainly be the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
It's the finest experience you'll ever have.
And if you think that's enough, no.
We are not the kind of people who settle for just the most amazing thing that's ever happened.
Is that good enough for us?
No. No.
We're going to take it up a notch.
And if you want to take it up a notch, too, all you need is a cupper mugger, a glass of tankards, a chalester, a canteen jug and flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
Mmm! Mmm!
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine here of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's gonna happen now!
Go! Savor it.
Savor it. Good.
Well, if you have any trouble with the signal on YouTube, if you are a subscriber, you could also be watching it on Locals.
I'm going to let the Locals feed be open for a little bit, and then if I remember, I'm going to lock it off just for the subscribers.
But for the moment, it's open.
So if anybody wants to join, I'll leave it open for a few minutes so you can see what's happening over there.
Well, the news is wonderful today.
You know, if you do what I do, these live streams, you really hope that the news is going to give you some good stuff.
Oh my God, do I have good stuff today!
And none of it is sad.
It's all mostly just funny stuff.
The best kind of day.
All right, let's just start.
We'll start slow, and we'll build into it, okay?
One of the founders, I don't know, or the founder of Airbnb, is doing a side business now, making tiny factory homes for backyards.
Now, that's already a big thing.
Boxable. I think Musk is a big investor in that.
But there are a number of little factory-built tiny homes.
And they're going to start in California, because California Despite what you think about my state, California every now and then will do something just right.
You know, that you say, oh, damn it.
I want to hate my state and move out.
And then they'll do something right.
And you're like, okay.
One of the things California did right, very right, like super right, you know, like I don't have anything to say about it except, well, that was right.
The state... Overrode the local building, I think this is what happened, the local building requirements and said that if these little factory homes, you know, meet a certain standard, they can go anywhere in your backyard with fairly, fairly broad, you know, flexibility.
So, somebody having a problem on locals?
I'll monitor that.
It's working fine for me. But here's what I think.
I think it's a big and growing industry, and that's interesting.
But there's something more interesting coming.
So these little units would be priced at around the low $300,000 for something in the 400 to 500 square feet range.
Like, really tiny.
It's basically a one-person home, or maybe a couple who's very close.
Here's what I think is going to happen.
The next phase is that these will not be for just backyards.
The next phase is somebody's going to build a community of just these things.
Now, it might not be one company.
It might be Boxabl will be your neighbor, and maybe this Airbnb thing will be your house, and another company will do anything.
But if you build a small community that's well-designed, So they have some common, you know, transportation, and they've got a park that they build around.
They've all got a nice, you know, green zone.
And here's the most important part.
A central cafeteria for food delivery or pickup, because they could just walk to it, so that nobody needs a kitchen.
I think these little units have kitchens, but, you know, that would just be for a little extra.
So imagine if your food was cafeteria created, and you could just, it's two blocks away, and you just walk over there and pick up your food anytime you want.
You know, you pay for it, but you get it anytime you want.
I think that would be the model, because it's based on a college campus model that, you know, where I went to college.
Here's what I experienced.
My highest lifestyle was my college dorm.
And it had everything to do with the fact that everything was convenient.
So I never had to do house maintenance.
I didn't have to drive.
I didn't have to cook.
I didn't have to shop. So all the things that I need to do that are a pain in the ass.
I didn't have to mow my lawn.
I didn't have a dog.
You could argue whether that's good or bad.
But everything was easy.
And then they surrounded me with people I wanted to be around, young people my age.
It was like a perfect situation.
And plus, I was doing something useful, you know, going to school, so I felt I was productive and all that.
And so my point is, not that you would reproduce a college environment, but that we don't engineer a community To be the most livable community it could be.
Communities are optimized for what?
You tell me.
Any new development, wherever it is, what is it optimized for?
What do they optimize?
Sales. Sales.
That's it. Sales.
Right. So that's the reason that you don't have good closets.
The reason that you don't have enough closet space in your house is that when you're looking to buy a home, you don't notice.
You're like, I didn't really notice there wasn't enough closet space until I bought it.
So you need to build homes that are optimized for the community, not for the seller.
So that's something coming.
This is just a prediction.
I don't know, but I've been watching the news, and I feel like a pattern is developing, and I feel like we might be only one week away from the following news item.
The AP announces that Satan is actually an FBI informant.
Yeah. Beelzebub himself, turns out he thought he was operating independently, but now for years it turns out that he was actually an FBI informant the entire time.
You've heard of that group ISIS? They were never real.
All FBI informants, the entire organization.
I know, seems weird.
Hitler's SS? It's kind of historical.
But we now know all FBI informants.
I know, weird. That's like before the FBI, wasn't it?
Or was it? When was the FBI started?
30s? 20s?
20s, right? Yeah, in the 20s.
All right. Let's talk about Ray Epps.
I saw a video of a young, I'm guessing, conservative-type fellow who got a chance to ask a public question of Liz Cheney at some event.
And he asked her would she support jailing Ray Epps as an insurrectionist, given that we have him on video saying insurrection-y things like, go into that Capitol, Et cetera.
And Liz Chady gave the following answer, sort of a long, rambling general answer that at least Daniel Schmidt, who asked the question, believes was avoiding the question.
But I'm not so sure.
Watch me defend Ray Epps.
You didn't see that coming, did you?
Now, I don't know what the real story of Ray Epps is, and I'd like to know, if there is any real story.
Might not be anything.
But here's what I say.
Why would Ray Epps be arrested?
Don't you have to have some evidence of a crime?
Why the hell would he be arrested?
I saw the video.
I didn't see anything illegal.
Did you? You can't be arrested for standing outside and agitating.
Can you? Was anybody else arrested for saying, hey, go do something?
So here's my take.
It might be illegal.
It might be illegal to incite.
But do you think anybody else was arrested who did not go into the Capitol and did not do violence?
Was anybody else arrested?
You're saying yes? You're saying somebody was arrested who did not trespass and did not do violence.
They weren't even inside the building.
You're saying people outside the building who were just standing there saying things were arrested.
Alright, you need to give me a fact check on that.
You're going to need to give me a specific example of that.
I need a specific example.
Because I don't believe there was anybody who wasn't trespassing who got arrested.
If you're right, then I'll adjust my opinion, okay?
So I'm seeing Brandon Straka mentioned.
Didn't he go inside? Brandon didn't get inside?
No. What was he doing at the time of arrest?
Because if he wasn't inside, and he wasn't doing violence, then he was just doing what everybody else who didn't get arrested was doing.
Really? He was standing there and he got arrested.
He was standing there not trespassing.
Okay, I don't believe you.
Honestly, I don't believe you.
You could be right. So let me say this as clearly as possible.
I won't be shocked if I'm wrong.
I won't be shocked.
And I'd be willing to be corrected on that.
But I don't think you're right.
Even Erica the Excellent is saying she's 100% sure I'm wrong.
Okay. Make your case.
Not right now, but send me...
Oh, Erica actually spoke to Brandon.
All right, but did everybody standing around him get arrested?
Why was he singled out?
Just answer that one thing.
Why was he singled out?
Because he must have been in a huge crowd.
Alright, there's something missing in the story.
I hate to say I don't trust Brandon Straka, but if he said he was picked out of a group of people who were doing exactly what he was doing, then there's more to the story.
He was famous, you think that's why?
Maybe. But how many police officers would have recognized him?
I wouldn't even recognize him.
I've seen him on Twitter a million times.
I wouldn't recognize him.
I mean, I can get a picture in my head, but if I saw him in a crowd, I doubt I'd recognize him.
They might have. It's possible they did.
All right. So here's my statement.
Liz Cheney also said that no information was ever presented to her that would suggest he was part of the FBI or part of, you know, some undercover thing.
So... If Ray Epps was one of the people who didn't get arrested doing the same stuff, well, let me say it a different way.
If some people did get arrested, let's say Brendan Straka, let's say that he got arrested for no good reason, then that's bad and that should be fixed.
But would you agree with the following statement?
There were plenty of people who didn't get arrested, Who are doing roughly what Ray Epps was doing, inciting and saying bad things, but they didn't hurt anybody and they didn't trespass.
So if there were hundreds of people who didn't get arrested for doing what Ray Epps did, is it shocking that he didn't get arrested?
Because I don't think law enforcement wanted to arrest hundreds of people I think they wanted to get the, you know, the ones that make a point.
You know, the ones who are, like, notable.
I don't know. I'm not...
So let me be clear.
I'm not defending Epps because I don't know what he was up to.
I'm just saying that Liz Cheney's answer wasn't that bad.
Right? If we're going to be a little bit objective, she did not see evidence of him working for the FBI. She didn't see it.
And she asked. And he was one of maybe hundreds of people doing what Ray Epps was doing who also didn't get arrested.
Because probably you don't want to arrest people who are just standing there yelling.
Right? So I'm going to accept your point.
Let me provisionally accept your point that people were arrested for doing what Ray Epps was doing, which is just saying stuff and not trespassing.
But would you agree with me that the vast majority of them were not arrested?
Could you say that?
Even if some were, the vast majority were not, were they?
Do I believe her?
That's a good question.
I feel like we would know if anybody had presented information that Ray Epps was...
Undercover. I feel like that would have gotten out somehow.
Know you? But you're right.
So I take that correction, which is, you can't believe what a politician says.
So, okay. I'll give you that.
All right. Well, let's leave that interesting question.
But I think, could I at least, let's see if I can sell this.
How many of you would be willing, if the Republicans dig into this and they satisfy themselves, that they know everything about Ray Epps?
Could you accept, if the right people looked into it, that he wasn't doing anything except exactly what you saw?
He was just one of the people there yelling and stuff.
Could you accept that, if it turned out that was what came out?
I could. I could.
I could actually easily accept it.
I agree with every one of you who says, this is fishy and we need to look into it, you know, and really satisfy ourselves.
This is one of those you can't sort of like let it go.
I feel like we need to be like pit bulls on this.
You know, the country needs to have like an answer they can trust.
Right. But if the answer is he's innocent, I'll apologize publicly, because I've used his name in this context as well.
So if Ray Epps deserves an apology, I'm ready to give him one, but not until maybe some Republicans dig into it.
All right, let's talk about Musk and Twitter and all the fun stuff happening there.
So Musk has already reinstated the Babylon Bee, No big surprise.
Kathy Griffin.
Good decision.
Jordan Peterson. Good decision.
And Andrew Tate.
Also a good decision.
Now, I have to say something about Andrew Tate.
As you know, I don't like him personally just because we have some bad blood between us.
But there's no denying he puts on a show.
Right? So I'm going to model what I like to tell you you should learn to do, which is say whatever's the best thing you can say about somebody you don't like or somebody you oppose.
I don't like Andrew Tate.
I don't like him at all.
But that's just personal.
If I'm being objective, he is an energy monster.
And the more you try to attack him, the stronger he gets.
He got cancelled on every platform and got twice as strong.
Okay, I'm not going to ignore that.
You can't ignore the fact that he's one of the best energy monsters in the country.
That's just a fact.
He really is. I'm going to give him another compliment that'll sound like a backhand compliment, because it probably is.
I saw a woman who was no fan of his on Twitter tweet a picture of him where he wasn't wearing his aviator goggles, and she was mocking him for not being handsome, basically.
And here's my compliment.
Years ago, and I've told you this story probably a few times, I was self-deprecating about my own baldness and And a bald guy told me, well, if you go to the gym and work out, you'll distract people from your baldness, and they'll see that you're fit, and then that will be sort of their main idea when they leave you, is, wow, that's a fit person, not like a bald guy.
And so I've taken that advice.
I do whatever I can to distract, distract from my weak points, errr, My head, you know, the ugly face area, and try to change whatever I can change.
So I try to improve my physique to distract.
He does that better than I've ever seen anybody do it.
Because if I'm being honest, you know, he's sort of in my category of not really good looking guys.
Right? If we're being honest.
Neither of us are good looking. But he does a great job of working on his body and his whole vibe.
You know, he's got the cigar, he's got the beard.
The beard's sort of a concealment thing.
He's got the glasses and, you know, the whole story and everything.
It's really well done. Now, in terms of his philosophies, I don't know if anybody follows him enough to know where it all comes from.
You can kind of see all the parts.
Like you see a little bit from me, a little bit from Cernovich maybe, a little bit from Jordan Peterson maybe.
I'm not sure what mix or who else.
But you can see where it all comes from.
In some ways it's a little bit ordinary.
A little bit ordinary.
I would say Jordan Peterson says new useful things you've never heard before.
Cernovich says, new useful things in ways you haven't heard before.
I try to do the same thing.
I'm not sure that Andrew Tate does that.
I don't think he's adding to the intellectual conversation.
But he packages it brilliantly.
And here's what, persuasion-wise, he's very strong.
So here's what he's actually pulled off that I have to give him a sitting ovation for.
He's basically selling a brand to men.
He's primarily a brand that men follow, right?
And women get angry.
Some women follow him, of course.
But mostly he's appealing to a type of man who wants a, I don't know, maybe some kind of a role model, for example.
But here's the thing he's pulled off.
He's managed to convince men that following his example makes them alpha men.
Now, I would argue that following his example makes you a beta man by definition.
If you're following yourself, and you're doing what you think is right, and you're just saying fuck everybody, you might be an alpha.
Maybe. You might be.
But if you're listening to Andrew Tink, Tell you how to be a man.
And then you're smoking cigars and drinking whiskey and looking at expensive cars like he is.
I don't know that you're necessarily an alpha.
I'm not even sure that alpha and beta make sense.
Maybe everybody's a little alpha and a little beta, depending on the situation, right?
But... While Andrew Taint himself does a great job of presenting himself as an alpha male, he pulls that off, how did he convince other men that following him and praising him makes them alpha males, when in fact it does look exactly the opposite?
But he's pulling it off.
He's got over a half a million Twitter followers and gigantic video.
So I have to say that for someone who has, you know, starting with a set of talents, he has maximized.
He has maximized, you know, where his talent leads him because he's got a good talent stack, too.
So he's got...
Somebody says he's an FBI informant.
That would be amazing.
I don't think that's true, but it would be amazing.
That would be the simulation giving us just what you wanted.
They make affiliate money from selling his program.
Is that true? He makes money that way?
Anyway, he is a genuine, interesting character, and I will give him, legitimately, skill.
He is a very skilled guy.
I'll give him that. I just don't like him personally.
All right, so then Musk says, I also think that if there's ever a nuclear holocaust, it's entirely possible the only survivor will be Andrew Tate.
He just survived total cancellation by the entire planet, and he came back stronger.
He might be the only survivor in a nuclear holocaust.
Anyway. So, Musk does a poll asking people if Trump should be reinstated.
And what do you think of that?
Could we be more entertained than Elon Musk buying Twitter and running a poll on Twitter to ask us if Trump should be reinstated?
It doesn't get any better than this.
This is like peak entertainment.
Like, I just wake up and go, oh, what's in the news today?
So, last I checked, and I'm sure it's changed, it was 52% wanted Trump reinstated Trump.
The best comment on this came from Kyle Becker, who is a real strong follow.
I've said it a number of times. If you don't follow Kyle Becker on Twitter, you're missing a good follow.
So, go follow him.
But he had this joke.
Most of his stuff is news, but he entered my domain a little bit today by just doing a joke.
He did it so well, I'm going to compliment him on it.
So, commenting on the Trump poll, Kyle Becker tweeted, Dems are going to need to stop the count so they can haul in some mail-in votes.
And then he followed up with, Hold up, Maricopa just dropped another batch.
Because I guess the vote suddenly went anti-Trump for a moment.
Great call back, Kyle.
Good job. Then I saw some other conversation in which Musk was responding, because he's real active today on Twitter.
I took from the context of the comments plus his reaction is that one of the things that Twitter might become is the ultimate polling place.
Now, he didn't say that in direct language, but in context I was sort of like picking up the vibe, because right now Twitter does these, you know, totally unscientific little polls, right?
But they're unscientific.
I think they're still useful and fun, but they're unscientific.
How hard would it be for Twitter to get a little more information about you voluntarily?
Only voluntarily.
And you could say, all right, I am this demographic.
And then have you randomly selected on various questions and have Twitter push you a poll?
So you don't even have to be following somebody.
It just pushes you a poll. You go, oh, I signed up for this because I volunteered to be one of the demographic people who could be polled.
All right, I'll vote for this one.
And Musk also noted that you would want the polls to be separated by country, at the very least, maybe state in some cases.
But can you imagine that?
Imagine having something close to an instant poll that actually had a lot closer to scientific validity.
I don't know if you could get there with volunteers.
I need somebody who's smarter than me to tell me if you could ever get a random sample, no matter how hard you tried, if it's only Twitter users.
I don't know if you can get there, but you might be able to get close.
Or at least close. So to me, looking at that is enormous.
Like, how much would that change everything?
If everything had an instant, like, valid poll?
I don't know. I'd love that.
Just as a tool.
Well, AOC continues to flirt with Musk, and answering the question of Trump being reinstated, AOC tweets, IDK, meaning I don't know.
She goes, I don't know, man.
Last time he was here, this platform was used to incite an insurrection.
Multiple people died.
The Vice President of the United States was nearly assassinated, and hundreds were injured.
But I guess that's not enough for you to answer the question.
Twitter poll it is.
To which I responded, to AOC. I said, it's going to be hard to gaslight Musk into believing Republicans staged an insurrection without firearms.
Only Democrats believe the entire hoax catalog.
And then I published the entire hoax catalog.
You know, my list of hoaxes.
Don't you wonder what AOC does if and when she sees that?
I figure, I don't know, since I'm a blue check, but it doesn't mean anything anymore, I don't know if she'd notice.
Do you think AOC would notice a comment from me?
I'd notice all the blue check comments about me.
Do you think she would notice?
Maybe? She'd probably get so much hate on her Twitter feed she might not look at the comments.
I'm not sure I would if I were her.
Anyway, What do you think her brain does when she sees the hoax list?
Does she say, oh, those are not real, and just dismiss it as right-wing fuckery?
Probably. Probably.
I don't think she reads the list.
Do you think she reads all 16 items on the list?
I don't think so. I doubt it.
All right. But...
This gets us to the next fascinating fact.
CBS News announced on Twitter that it might be taking a pause from using Twitter.
Do you know why? Some kind of uncertainty about the platform.
Yeah. CBS News has some uncertainty about the platform.
And then in related news, Musk asked What should we do next on Twitter?
He just tweeted that.
What should Twitter do next?
How much do you love that?
What should Twitter do next from the head of Twitter?
I couldn't love that more.
And then you see a bunch of people made suggestions, and he actually reacted to the suggestions.
Somebody said, bring back Alex Jones.
He replied, no.
Okay. But the fact that he's actually looking at the suggestions in detail from anybody.
Anybody. There they are.
He probably looked at 300 suggestions this morning.
So I made mine.
To find out what is causing the automatic unfollows.
I'm going to tie this all together in a minute.
I've talked about this before, and we know it's been going on before and after he took over.
So people are definitely, definitely automatically being unfollowed.
Don't know why. But it's definitely happening.
Apparently it's not TikTok.
I thought TikTok might have too many permissions and be messing with your Twitter.
But very few people who have, who responded to my poll on Twitter, very few of them also had TikTok, but they were having this problem.
So it's not just TikTok, if it's TikTok at all.
It might be other apps.
That's possible. Other apps might be doing it.
But don't know. So I'd love to know that.
Now, will Elon Musk see my comment?
It's the second time I've tweeted at him to find out what that's about.
Because here's why I think that's important.
I feel like if he found out why the automatic unfollows are happening, he would find the darkest, naughtiest part of Twitter.
What do you think? Now, I can't rule out a technical bug It could be like a weird technical bug that under just the right condition somebody gets unfollowed from you accidentally.
Could be. You know, that would be exactly what a bug would do.
You know, you could easily imagine that being a bug.
But do you think that bug could go on so long without being caught?
It would be like a five-year bug that's well understood.
Because I've been complaining.
I complained to Jack Dorsey about it.
I think that's really high priority.
Find out what the unfollow business is all about.
Because I think you probably are going to find the nest of bad behavior when you find that.
Or a bug, and that would be good to know as well.
So, what do you think is going to happen to all of the fake news gaslighting media when Twitter starts fact-checking them?
Now, when I say fact-checking, I mean including relevant context, which they're starting to do.
So, it used to be that only the right got fact-checked.
What's going to happen if they all get fact-checked?
Here's what I think. That's why CBS has to leave the platform.
They can't handle being fact-checked.
And I mean that. Sometimes they say things that sound like a little bit of political team play and just sort of a hyperbole team thing.
This is not. They actually would not be able to survive as a news organization if anybody prominent fact-checked them.
They wouldn't be able to survive.
It's a real problem.
And here's the weirdest thing, because reality is just giving us so much entertainment.
Do you know what news entity is most likely to survive that?
Which news entity is most likely to survive fact-checking on Twitter?
Fucking CNN. Nope, not Fox News.
I love my Fox News, but they wouldn't survive fact-checking.
That's just... I'm sorry.
They just wouldn't. They wouldn't.
CNN. Little fucking CNN. Yeah, because they actually are executing on their plan to be closer to actual news.
They might be the only one who could survive.
With the greatest irony of all.
The greatest irony. Anyway.
So that's fun.
Um... There's a whole bunch of good news happening.
There's now a competition for ESG. So ESG is the environmental, social, and governance stuff that BlackRock and some other financial entities are trying to rank other companies to say how wholesome they are in terms of good for the country according to these three things.
And Now there's a competitor called Strive, or Strive Funds, all one word on Twitter anyway.
I'm not sure if it's two words or what.
But Strive will only invest in non-ESG funds.
So now the free market has provided an alternative to ESG. Well, that's what we wanted.
That's all we wanted.
So... Don't you think ESG is just going to be crushed?
Because by definition, a non-ESG will have a wider palette of things to choose from.
And if they're looking for profitability, it seems like they'd find it.
So I remind you that FTX, that just went out of business, had a very high ESG rating.
And petroleum companies did not.
So which one do you want to invest in?
So that's good. I tweeted yesterday something I thought would get, probably would have got me kicked off of Twitter in the old days.
But I'm getting braver now.
Like you can just, you feel like you can say the truth.
It still has to be the truth.
But you can say it without hesitation now on Twitter.
If it's true. And here's what I tweeted.
I said, I'm not worried about climate change because any species that can predict the average temperature 100 years in advance won't have any trouble handling climate change.
Just live with that for a moment.
If we're clever enough to know what the temperature will be in 100 years, we're definitely clever enough to figure out how to survive climate change.
Because one of those things is close to impossible.
The other one is just really, really hard.
If we can do impossible, I think we can handle really, really hard.
Can't we? And I would recommend that as your holiday answer.
So try that on your relatives, and then just walk away.
I better refill my drink.
I don't know. So you want to do it like this.
You know, you'll be having a sip of your beverage.
And you'll be with your family members, the cousins, you don't see that often, and the uncles and stuff.
And they'll say, you know, climate change is going to kill us all.
And you just sip your beverage and just take a sip and go.
I don't know. I think a species that can predict the sea level 100 years from now won't have much trouble handling climate change.
I need a refill and just walk away.
Just walk away. All right.
Geraldo, He's not pleased that Republicans getting control of the House are going to go launch investigations.
So here's what Haraldo said in a tweet.
He said... Republicans get control of the House, and the first they do is, no, not explore how to tame inflation or crime, etc.
They launch an investigation of President and Hunter Biden.
Boring, divisive, retro, unwanted, zero positive impact on the lives of Americans.
Is this the real red wave?
To which I say, first of all, I love me some Geraldo.
I love Geraldo.
Do I agree with him all the time?
No. But that's not my standard for why I love him.
I love Feraldo because he's my role model of not being affected by embarrassment.
Right? That's a big part of his career success, is that that fucker has balls the size of Iowa.
He is a really brave man.
Individual. Not just physically.
He's physically brave.
But he doesn't get embarrassed.
And wow! Is that something to learn from?
But here was my comment to him about all these investigations.
It's not as if Republicans can pass any legislation.
The public decided that we would tie them up and not let them make any more laws.
So we voted ourselves a totally deadlock to Congress so that we would make them not do stuff anymore because they're doing too much.
Stop doing stuff. Do a little less.
Do a little bit less.
That'll be good with us. So we got plenty of time because they don't have to worry about legislation.
But on top of that, that is my top priority.
The Hunter Biden investigation is my top priority.
Now, when you say top priority, it doesn't mean it's the most important thing in the world, because, you know, maybe that's defense or something else.
But those other things are largely being dealt with.
Not perfectly, could be better, but something's happening, right?
There's some activity going on.
But the Hunter Biden thing, the laptop, nothing is happening.
And I believe that the country really, really needs to know if those 50 intel professionals who said it was Russian disinformation, are they working on the side of the United States or not?
That's a pretty big question.
To know if our intelligence agencies are working on the side of the United States?
I would like to know that.
You tell me there's something more important than that?
I don't know what it is.
So don't be gaslighted into thinking any of this is unimportant.
Some of the other investigations might be gratuitous, you know, revengey, I don't know.
But the laptop thing and whatever Hunter was doing, we need to know that.
That's not trivial.
That's right at the top.
We're fighting a war.
In Ukraine, and a sort of a war with China in a different way, and we don't know if our commander-in-chief is compromised.
The reason we did the Russia collusion investigations Was that there was enough, it turned out fake evidence, but there was enough reason to say, I don't know if this is true, I think it's not true, but if there's any chance that a sitting president is colluding with Putin, we probably need to know that, right?
Now, it turns out the evidence was manufactured in bullshit, but I don't hate the fact that we looked into it.
As it turns out, it was a huge waste of time, but probably had to do it.
So, yeah, I'm pro-investigation of that one anyway.
Does anybody disagree? I honestly think that's pretty close to the top of our national priorities.
I don't think it's revenge, and I don't think it's purely political.
It has those elements, but I don't think that's why you do it.
I really want to know.
It's very important to me. All right.
Apparently this FTX thing just continues to be the gift that keeps on giving.
Now we learn that FTX didn't only fund Democrats.
They were one of the...
You're naive. Old Tom too here tells me I'm naive.
Tom, apparently you must be new to this jail because I don't want to use the C word on you.
Because we're having such a nice time here.
But you know what you are.
You're the C-word.
All right. So FTX not only majorly funded the Democrats, but they also funded McCarthy and some anti-MAGA candidates.
So apparently it was an anti-Trump movement even more than it was a Democrat movement.
Because remember, FTX had Trump lose as an item on their balance sheet.
And they weren't just funding Democrats.
They were funding what they believed would be normal Republicans who were anti-Trump.
So it gets more interesting as we go.
Some say it was the Uniparty.
Do you remember Forbes, the magazine, back when magazines were a thing?
Well, they still exist in some form.
I guess the magazine still exists, but at least online.
And here's something they actually said.
They printed...
A story, a major story, about the FTX CEO of Alameda, which was associated with FTX and was part of the whole scam.
And she was the girlfriend, 20-year-old girlfriend, of Sam Bankman.
So Forbes does a major piece about the girlfriend of Sam Bankman.
And here's the headline.
Forbes calls the FTX girlfriend person a darling of the alt-right.
A darling of the alt-right?
This is Forbes.
Forbes. What?
And here's how they supported it.
Apparently there's one person who's on the alt-right who is saying that the problems weren't so much her fault but maybe the prior leadership or something.
And that's it. That was enough for Forbes to run a headline that she's a darling of the alt-right.
Because there's one guy who thinks that some of the details of the story are wrong and that she might be getting blamed for something that could have been some other guy's fault.
That's it. I don't think there was anything...
I don't remember, I didn't read every word of it, but I don't think the story even mentioned that they fund Democrats.
What's going on here?
This is Forbes.
I don't even understand that.
I mean, it's the...
This is the depths of unethical journalism.
There's nothing you can say about this, but this is just deeply unethical.
And I hate to say that, because I like the Forbes family, and I like the publication.
What's going on here? Do you even understand?
Like, why would they even do that?
It's a misprint? No, it's not a misprint.
All right. All right, that's just an open question.
I don't know what the hell's going on there.
Okay. Well, call me an optimist, because I'm feeling quite optimistic today, but I love me some free markets.
Anybody else like free markets?
Of course you do. We like competition, too.
It seems like wherever there's competition, something good comes out of it.
But look at all the things that are on the, let's say, on the correction path.
So these are things that are still bad, but they seem to be on the correction path because of competition.
And if you don't see them all together, your brain can miss how good things are going right now.
So these are all things that are currently being fixed by competition, but are not fixed yet.
So these are still broken things, but they're clearly on the way to being fixed.
School choice. Corey D'Angelo, big credit for that.
But school choice is clearly growing.
And that's competition for schools.
So nothing's fixed yet, but that's the path, right?
So we're going in the right direction.
And it's, you know, improving.
At the same time, I mentioned the ESG has competition now with the Strive Funds.
Free market allowed somebody to create a fund that competes with it.
That's all I wanted.
That's all I wanted. If it turns out that the ESG funds outperform The non-ESG funds?
Okay. I'll just say I was wrong.
And then I'll go invest some money in some ESG funds.
And I'll say, ah, I was really wrong about that.
But I'm sure glad I know where to put my money now.
So, however it turns out, competition moved us forward.
We've become smarter.
How about Twitter fact-checking the fake news?
Perfect. Twitter is the competition for the mainstream news, and it's actually a fair fight now, for the first time.
And the funny thing is that Elon Musk's a Democrat who's just sick of their shit.
Musk is not alt-right or right or conservative.
He's not Republican. He is a pure Democrat who is sick of their shit.
He was just embarrassed to be associated with them.
That's what it looks like. I can't read his mind.
But it looks like he was just embarrassed to be associated with such bullshit.
And so that temporarily he's doing his own thing until he can fix them.
And one of the ways he can fix the Democrats is to call bullshit on their bullshit and make them compete on policy.
What happens if fake news is mortally wounded by Musk?
Because I think he has. If you haven't noticed it yet, you will.
I believe fake news has been mortally wounded.
And the big gaslighting stuff, the stuff like we'd never seen before, you know, the Russia collusion, I mean, that was a whole other level, wasn't it?
I think Twitter will just erase all that stuff.
There'll still be bullshit, but it's going to be in the weeds now.
It's not going to be a major national, you know, hallucination.
So competition for fake news, and we see CNN normalizing toward the middle.
That's also competition against the fake news.
We see we're trying to pull business out of China.
That's the right kind of competition.
We see that Congress is deadlocked.
Congress is deadlocked.
Competition. The only way Congress can get anything done now is by not being fucking assholes.
Hey, the public just narrowed their path to, all right, before you wanted to spend all of your time being fucking assholes, because it worked.
You could still get your thing passed because you had the majority.
Now you can't be. Now you can't be a fucking asshole.
There's this little narrow path of reasonableness that if you want to get anything done, you're going to have to find that narrow path, and there's going to be some people from the other side who are on it.
Perfect. How about the fact that nuclear is now no longer the worst thing in the world and it's competing with solar?
Perfect. I don't want the world to be only solar.
I don't want the world to be only windmills or only nuclear.
I want them to fight it out.
We're there. Again, we're in a bad place, but we're clearly using competition now for the first time.
Because remember, before nuclear got its reputation fixed, Michael Schellenberger, thank you, before it fixed its reputation, it wasn't competitive.
Now it is.
So when you start looking at everything that's wrong, You start noticing, wow, there's like a thing forming that's an offset.
It's not there yet, but it's clearly forming.
So I'll tell you, there's one thing that America gets right, and it's this.
The one thing America gets right consistently is free markets.
Now, we put our little laws on them, and we get them wrong temporarily, but we do correct.
We do correct. And you're seeing a massive...
A massive correction going on in America.
So it's going to look like chaos.
It'll look like chaos for a while.
It's going to look like everything's broken for a while.
Because it is. Basically, you have to eat your baby to have more babies.
It's just the way the world works.
And now here's one that will just blow your mind.
I saw Speaker McCarthy say directly in public, That we need more immigration, not less.
Did any of you catch that?
Republican leader of the House said in public, loudly and without any kind of qualifier, we need more immigration.
How many of you agree that we need more immigration?
This is very interesting.
Everybody I saw on Twitter said yes.
The ones who said no, speaking to the ones who say no, I'm not going to persuade you, I'm going to inform you.
So I'm just going to give you information that is clear you don't have.
And it goes like this.
If we don't increase our population all the time, the economy fails.
Did you know that? So the people who are saying no to more immigration, did you know that there isn't any way to support the economy without it?
Now the alternative which you might be thinking is, but wait, but wait.
The people who are already here will just have more babies.
And we should do that too.
But do you know why Americans don't have more babies?
I don't think it's fixable.
The reason Americans don't have more babies is that we're too selfish.
We're too selfish. That's it.
If an immigrant comes over here with absolutely nothing, they'll still have a baby.
They'll still have a baby.
Even if they have nothing.
Because they'll share their nothing with the baby.
But an American will say, if I had a baby, I couldn't go out tonight.
Couldn't have my career.
It's going to change how I look.
I'm going to be locked down with some guy I don't like after five years, ends up in divorce.
I don't want any of that.
Now, it's the culture of stupid is correct.
American culture is anti-baby.
Would you agree? It's anti-baby because the way our economics and our social structure is, we want both the mother and the father working because they both have to work.
If the mother and the father are both working, the pressure on having kids is just extreme.
Extreme not to have them.
Or to have two or one and call it good.
But the people who wanted to have six babies, you know, that tends to be billionaires and some people who are, you know, conservative.
Or people who don't use birth control, I guess.
But let me say this as clearly as possible.
And for those of you who think we don't need more population...
Well, let me back off.
Forgetting about how the population grows, either from our own babies or from the outside, can I sell you all, I want to see if I can get every person to agree, that all economists agree, all of them, both sides, every economist agrees, your population needs to be increasing for your economy to be healthy.
Can you give me a yes on that?
I don't believe there's any economist who disagrees with that.
Now, we can talk separately about where the people come from.
It's a separate decision, right?
Some are saying no?
Okay. If you're saying no, you don't have any experience with economics.
And I would ask you to go talk to somebody who does.
No country has ever succeeded with a shrinking population, have they?
Not if they want to be a superpower.
I mean, I can imagine a small country, let's say they use tourism, or let's say a special case, the Middle East.
Could a Middle East oil country have low population growth and still do fine?
Probably. Probably.
Because they would have, like, oil would be their entire economy.
So you could have a special case There could be a special case.
Japan, I would argue, is in bad, bad shape because of their demographics.
I don't think Japan, as well as they're doing, and Japan's solid...
Remember, Japan used to be ruling the economic boom in the 60s and 70s, but now they're not.
Now they're just a me-too kind of a company or a country.
India is huge and in poverty, but India's economy is growing like crazy, which will solve their poverty.
So I guess I'll give you that there could be a special case where a shrinking or a stable number of people doesn't hurt you, but America is not the special case.
America is a case where our economic power is because of the number of people.
Suppose we had stopped immigration when there were only 10 million people in the country.
We wouldn't be in the United States.
Immigration is what made us, in part, who we are.
So, here's the real mind-bender.
Here it comes. Trump could say we need more people.
And that would just fuck everything up.
If he said we need more people, we just have to have tight border security to make sure the criminals are not coming over, that's very much what he's already said.
Because I don't know that he's ever said we need fewer citizens, has he?
Has Trump ever said we need fewer humans who are in America?
Or has he only said it has to be legal?
He's in a perfect position where he can reverse everything they said about him by saying, we need more brown people coming across the border.
And by the way, more of everything.
More Africans, more Nigerians, more non-shithole countries.
He could just say, we need them all.
But we need the right ones.
We don't need every Nigerian.
We want their good ones.
Now, some of you are saying he has said that.
Not well. And not in a situation where we can say unambiguously, our birth rate is too low.
I've never heard Trump say our birth rate is low.
We need more people. He's never said that.
But that's what McCarthy did.
So McCarthy, this is actually a service to the country.
So McCarthy did a service to the country by floating this and taking the hit if you don't like it.
So let me give Speaker McCarthy a kind of a big congratulations on that.
It's not easy to say something like that when you know your party is going to have a reaction to it, especially brand new on the job, right?
Well, you don't like, okay, maybe you don't like McCarthy for other reasons.
I'm not arguing the other reasons.
I'm just going to say this was good government.
Good government. Because he said what you don't expect a Republican to say.
He was right in terms of economics.
And he had a plan.
He had a plan, a very specific plan.
You know, fix border security.
We know how to do that.
And tighten up our vetting, but still let in more people.
That's as good as you can get.
I'm sure I'll criticize McCarthy later for some other thing he does.
But I'm going to give him this as an A+. This was an A +, for the country.
I don't think it helped him.
I think it helped the country.
How weird is it, or coincidental, or is it telling us something, that, in my opinion, the two most talented politicians in the world, at the moment, are both women?
You know, I always complain when we say, it's the first woman to do whatever job, or the first black person elected to whatever.
Because I think, are we past that?
Like, where's the news value of the first black American who is doing some job or gets elected?
Like, where's the news value of that?
It used to be. But if there's somebody who thinks that black people can't work or something, can't get jobs, that would be surprising.
But shouldn't we just sort of incorporate that into the baseline now?
Shouldn't it be just the baseline that good people of all types get jobs?
Doesn't matter who you are.
If you're good at it, you can get the job.
This one really catches my eye, because Italy's Milani and Carrie Lake are who I'm talking about.
If you didn't know, you probably already knew.
But I saw a video of Italy's Milani, their new head of the country, just ripping Francis McCrone into little pieces.
And I don't even speak the language, so I'm just reading the subtitles.
I don't think I've ever seen stronger persuasion.
It was visual.
She had exactly the right emotional build.
She started out factual.
She made her case and then she just took it up a notch and was like, oh my god, you can't do that better.
Carrie Lake? She's the best American politician in my opinion.
Would anybody disagree?
Who would you put above her just in skill level right now?
Is there anybody above her in skill level?
Because I think Trump's a close second, but he's second right now.
I think so. I think she's the best one.
And I believe that Carrie Lake was reportedly visiting Mar-a-Lago.
I wonder if that means anything.
Now, it doesn't necessarily mean vice president pick, but they're both smart enough to know that it's going to get us talking about it.
I'm sure they knew that the news would get out if they didn't leak it themselves.
They may have leaked it themselves.
But she hasn't conceded.
Is that true? Yeah.
So I think that Trump might have a strong play there.
And like I said before, the thing about Carrie Lake that's different, different than Pence and different than other people, is I believe Trump would appreciate her skill.
And when he appreciates somebody's skill, he can work with them easily.
It's the people he doesn't respect that he's going to fire or be an asshole about.
So it could be a really strong team.
You never know. All right.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the best live stream you've ever seen today.
And is there any topic I missed?
CBDC?
What's that mean?
I don't know what that means.
What is CBDC? Oh, central bank digital currency.
All right, so let's say the government has a digital currency and the point of it is that they can control the citizens better.
Because that's one of the things that happens, right?
Here's the problem.
It's going to happen anyway.
It doesn't matter what their intentions are.
We're going to have digital money.
Does anybody disagree with that?
Do you see us 100 years from now reaching in your pocket to take out a piece of paper to pay for something?
Right? So while we don't like the fact that the government could have this extra control of us, it's going to happen.
So do you debate things that are just going to happen?
Like, I don't debate whether oxygen is good or bad.
It's just going to happen.
It's just there. So I don't know if that's even a debate.
You could say, my God, you know, it gives the government power we don't want them to have, but I'd say they already have it.
So I heard somebody say that the government could then just turn off your ability to buy things.
They can do that now.
The government can turn off your financial life anytime they want.
Try to use cash, but you end up in the criminal underbelly world.
Are you going to pay your mortgage with cash?
I don't think so. Yeah.
You can't play with cash if you have to write a check.
I mean, because we call writing a check is the same as cash.
But if you don't have a bank, you can't even write a check.
So you can't even use cash in that technical way.
So the first thing you need to recognize is that your privacy has been going on for a long time.
You know that, right? If you're arguing for privacy, you're living in the past.
The government has access to everything.
The only thing that keeps them from accessing everything about you is wanting to.
All they have to do is want to.
Digital money isn't going to give them deeper control than they have now.
The government controls your body.
Your body. So, no matter what kind of money you have, they can walk into your house and put handcuffs on you, take you away and kill you.
Legally. You know, depending on what you did.
You'd have to do a capital crime.
But the government controls your body.
Are you worried about them controlling your access to your money, which they already totally control?
I feel like some of this is psychological.
Now, don't get me wrong.
Don't get me wrong. I don't want the government to have that kind of control over me.
But I also live in the real world where they already do.
They already do.
It just seems like if the digital currency gives me any advantages, like convenience, and I don't have to touch dirty money, I don't like touching money, If it gives me that and the control the government has over me is still 100% like it is now...
So you're saying that they could make you get vaccinated or turn off your money.
They could do that now.
They could do it right now.
All they have to do is go to the banks and say, here's a list of people that you can't bank with.
Right? Sometimes you think there's something to argue about, but there isn't.
You can't argue about something that's going to happen anyway, and you can't argue about something that won't be any worse than the current situation.
But it feels worse.
It definitely feels worse.
If I could stop it, I would, but I don't know if I want to.
Control of money is control of the population.
Got it. They already have that.
Do you not understand?
They already have total control.
They already have it.
You're talking about 20 years ago.
20 years ago, or maybe not even 20, but there was a time when maybe you didn't even need a checking account.
Didn't even need a credit card.
But that's not today.
Remember, the banks can't refuse the government.
Right? If your bank can unbank you, then the government can unbank you.
Because the government can control the banks by saying, you need certain access to things that we only have, and we'll take away your Whatever authorization you have to be a bank, we'll just take it away.
So they have full control.
That minor bit of convenience, where they can just push one button, I don't know if that makes much difference.
And by the way, what would happen if it happened once?
Naive. The naive people are just pure NPCs.
They're starting to get funny.
Ali Alexander got all of his finances shut off.
Andrew Tate got all of his finances shut off.
Andrew Tate said he has to...
I don't know if this is true, but it's just a great story.
He says he has to fly his super expensive sports car in a jet wherever he goes because he can't use Uber.
Uber won't let him.
His Bugatti... Now, I don't know if any of that is true, but I love the fact that he said it.
I love the fact that he said it.
Joe says, Scott is priming us for the WEF Great Reset.
Joe, Joe, Joe.
Just because I tell you you're already fucked doesn't mean I fucked you.
There's a difference. If I find you on the street with a fuckhole in the middle of your forehead, I'm just the guy who found you.
I'm not the one who put the fuck hole in your forehead.
Damn, I'm keeping quiet.
Okay.
I'm going to turn off the...
On locals, I'm going to get rid of the unsubscribers now so I can talk to the locals after.
