Episode 2103 Scott Adams: Title 42 Ends, eVerify Debate, RFK Jr., HCQ And CIA Killing Kennedy, More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Title 42 ends and the wave begins
eVerify yes or no
Media race baiting since 2013
RFK Jr. on HCQ
Birth control and depression
DeSantis blocks China in Florida
Vivek Ramaswamy vs China
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the Highlight of Civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and aren't you glad you made it?
Those of you watching this live are having the experience of your life.
Those of you watching it recorded, well, you wish you were here when it was live.
I'm sorry, but it'll still be great.
If you'd like to take it up to a level, Don't forget that part.
ever even imagined it was possible.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tankard, a chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid I like, coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the doping at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called a simultaneous sip and it ends with a big, ah, don't forget that part.
Go.
Ah.
Satisfying.
So satisfying.
Alright, well.
I continue to be amused by the best entertainment on the internet, which is when Twitter's community notes slap somebody down.
I'm still waiting for it to happen to me.
I don't think it's happened to me yet, that I'm aware of.
But apparently Randy Weingarten, who's the head of the biggest teacher's union, she's now on her sixth community notes correction.
Six times in a row.
I think it's all the same topic.
I believe she's claiming, let's say, that she put more energy into opening schools than the critics say is correct.
So it's a question of whether she was working hard to open schools or was she working hard to keep them closed for the benefit of the teachers.
So she's got a story that she's trying to sell that she was really trying to do the right thing for everybody.
And maybe that's true.
But Community Notes is having none of it.
So they're fact-checking the hell out of her.
If you got fact-checked by Community Notes six times, would you keep tweeting?
I think it would be time to stop tweeting after that sixth time.
But boy, they're vicious on her.
All right.
Title 42 ends Thursday.
That's that COVID-related rule that allowed some degree of border controls.
Now there are many, many, many, many potential immigrants waiting to come over.
And I guess Texas is sending reinforcements to the border and federal government, Biden, sending reinforcements to the border to handle all these people.
And here's the question I have.
Are those reinforcements there to turn people back?
Or are they just processing them?
Because they're all going to have legal claims, right?
Aren't they all going to come in and say, I'm not an illegal immigrant.
I'm escaping bad things, so I need... What's that called?
What's it called when you come in?
Oh, asylum, yeah.
I need asylum.
So, in theory, all those reinforcements are not there to stop people from coming, are they?
Or are they there just to more efficiently process them as they come in?
I don't think they're there to stop anything.
They might be guiding them from illegal crossings to The legal crossings or something.
But here's a question I have.
This gives you an idea of what weird things enter my head.
So we know that it's mostly the coyotes, meaning the cartels, are behind all this human trafficking.
So for every huge group of immigrants trying to come across, there's some cartel person who's in charge.
Now here's a business question.
If you get stopped at the border, Does the cartel offer a rebate?
Or do they say, alright, we promised we'd get you across the border, and you've already paid us, and they stopped you at this one border crossing, but we'll just take you at another one because you've paid.
See, most of you are reflexively saying that there's no refunds.
Are you sure?
Are you sure?
I'm not sure, because the cartels are such a business at this point that you actually wonder if they've started adopting any normal business principles.
Would you not be more likely to pay the cartels if you knew that they would try a second time if you got caught, or they'd refund your money?
Right?
So it might be, from a purely business perspective, they might get more business if they look like they're a good firm to work with.
Oh yeah, we'll give you a rebate if it doesn't work, and we'll try two or three times.
It probably doesn't cost them that much to try a second time.
I'm just wondering, if you assume that they're not acting like a regular business, you're probably right.
Probably right.
You know, they'll take what they can get.
But they might actually be running it like a regular business.
They might actually have rebates.
And, like, discounts.
If you leave today, 20% off.
I mean, why wouldn't they?
If it works in every other business context, why wouldn't it work in this one?
I don't know.
I guess the only reason it wouldn't work is if you knew these people were all going to pay a large amount of money and try no matter what.
If people are going to come no matter what, and they were going to pay massive amounts, well then they don't have to offer any deals.
But maybe they get more if they offer a good deal.
That's just my weird thought.
So, DeSantis picked up some more free money, and by that I mean he did something that seems obvious, but only after he does it.
And then you say to yourself, why didn't everybody do that?
So, DeSantis, of course, is trying to do things in Florida that would have some national-looking impact, so that it helps him in Florida, but also helps him if he runs for office, which people think he will.
I'm still not convinced he's going to announce.
I still think it's a jump ball on that.
Could go either way.
I think he's waiting until the last minute to make sure.
And it probably just depends on Trump's legal problems and poll numbers.
I'm guessing.
It just depends on that.
Alright, so what DeSantis did in Florida is there's some new legislation here preventing Chinese citizens from owning stuff in Florida except small properties, and they can't have it near military facilities and... Let's see.
So there's a few other things he's going to prevent China from doing in Florida.
But I guess this would apply to some other countries such as Cuba, Iran, North Korea.
Basically, Florida doesn't want foreign influence in their education system or ownership.
of their, too much of their property.
You could have a little bit.
But they don't want to, basically they just don't want this foreign influence in their state.
Now, who would be against that?
Yeah, this seems like free money.
Because when you describe it, it just sounds like an obvious thing to do.
It just seems obvious.
So good for him.
That looks smart.
Alright, here's an issue which I cannot come up with an opinion on yet.
And I'll tell you why.
It's really complicated.
So, Thomas Massey is tweeting against the E-Verify idea.
The E-Verify would be a digital way for all immigrants to be in a system.
And if they're not in the system, they can't get jobs.
And the idea is that if people can't get jobs, They'll self-deport because they're coming here for jobs.
Now, let's go through just, and also part of E-Verify, sort of unrelated but related, is that the U.S.
is looking toward maybe a fully digital currency.
So if you had a digital currency, so every transaction could be tracked, And you had E-Verify, which eventually will apply to Americans as well as immigrants, one assumes.
Then the government would have complete control that by pushing a button or two, they could just turn off your access to civilization.
Which is a lot of power for your government.
That's a lot of power.
Now, Thomas Massey quite reasonably warns us that giving the government any new powers is dangerous, and these specific new powers are probably extra dangerous, because they're going to be watching everything you do, and they can punish you with one button.
So that's the reason not to do it.
But if you don't do it, It'll be far, far harder to know if anybody's working in the U.S.
illegally.
Because it's easier to get fake paper documents.
I guess it would be harder to get the fake digital documents.
And I saw one story that says that Florida already has problems at construction sites because they already have you verified.
Can somebody fact check me on that?
Did Florida already implement E-Verify?
I see a confirmation, yes.
And it's already having an effect that employers can't get employees?
And construction companies are sort of shutting down because they can't even operate?
Now that's what would happen in California.
In California, if everyone was here illegally, Suddenly needed E-Verify to even work.
That would be the end of, I don't know, 30% of all businesses in California.
It's a big number.
Small businesses.
I would guess that 30% of all small businesses in California would instantly shut if we had E-Verify.
Because that's how illegal the system is.
We have a very mature illegal system, where it's somewhat easy for people to get fake documents.
And under the current system, if you present fake documents to your employer, the employer is off the hook.
Did you know that?
The employer doesn't have any obligation if they've seen documents.
Because they're not supposed to be experts on fake documents.
They're just supposed to ask for them, confirm that they got them, you know, document that they got the documents, and then the employer's out in trouble.
There's no legal risk after that.
You just have to check the documents.
But with E-Verify, I guess that changes.
And my assumption is that you would have to have somebody in E-Verify in order to have them as an employee.
I'm guessing.
That's where it's going.
Because otherwise there would be no point to it.
So, what do you think of this?
Do you think this is a slippery slope that will be bad for all of us?
Or is it inevitable, so you could argue about it all day long but it won't make any difference, it's just going to happen anyway?
Or, is it a bad argument?
So I tweeted back to Thomas Massey, I'll give you his tweet first.
He said, Thomas Massey said, Representative Massey said, I hear people say E-Verify will be so effective at denying employment to illegals that millions of them will self-deport.
For E-Verify to work that well would require biometric proof of identity for every American and a cashless society.
Which is scary.
He says, is this what you want for your children?
What do you think of that argument?
So the argument would be, you know, it's not just about the undocumented immigrants.
It's also about, it's going to be all of us putting our biometric information in there.
So our fingerprints and our face prints and all that stuff.
What about that?
Well, let me give you the best counter argument I can.
I don't have an opinion on this yet.
I might form one, but it's very unpredictable.
So my first part of the opinion is it's unstoppable, so therefore the argument is almost irrelevant.
It's unstoppable.
There's no way we're going to be using pieces of paper to pay people in a hundred years.
Does anybody think we're going to be paying people with pieces of paper in a hundred years?
There's no way to stop it.
Does anybody think that biometric identification won't be the standard in 100 years?
I mean, we might be cyborgs by then.
But none of this is stoppable.
Does anybody think it's stoppable?
It might be you slow down-able.
You might be able to delay it and maybe you want to, but none of this is stoppable.
So that's the first part of my argument is you can't stop something with this much utility.
That's the problem.
The problem is that it's just too useful for the government, but people will find benefit too.
Have you already reached the point where writing a check feels like you traveled back in time and you're churning your own butter?
Right?
The last time somebody asked you for a cash payment with dollar bills that was some large-ish amount beyond $40, didn't it feel just ridiculous?
Because you've got Venmo, right?
You've got PayPal.
You've got Google Pay.
Paying anybody a small amount of money with money feels like I just went back in time or something.
So, let me explain my own situation and this will give you some insight.
Take me personally as a public figure.
Would you agree that I don't have the option of hiding my identity in any practical way?
Would you agree?
Because I'm a public figure.
If I walked in some place without my wallet, I could just say Google me.
Right?
There's no doubt who I am.
I'm 100% easily identifiable with anybody who has a phone.
So you say you're Scott Adams, huh?
So you say.
So you say you're Scott Adams.
Well, yeah, you are Scott Adams.
Obviously.
Here's 900 pictures of you right here.
Yep.
Here's you talking.
Let's hear you talk.
Yep, that's you.
All right.
So in an inefficient way, I've already been living an E-Verify life, which is my biometrics, Literally the way I look has already been identifying me for decades.
And I can't go anywhere without anybody who has a phone being able to look at me and just check.
Now if you had a facial identification app, even easier.
Click.
Now that's individuals, right?
So you're saying, but Scott, that's individuals.
It's different than the government.
Well, I'm also using a system for travel called the clear system.
Have you heard of that?
You go to the airport and you just show it your face and your eyeballs, and that's your identification.
And then you go to the front of the line.
So my biometrics already exist in that system.
Do you think the government could get access to it if it wanted?
Yeah, it just needs a reason.
It just needs a reason, that's all.
And they can ask for it.
With my phone, when I turn on my apps, usually I'm using facial recognition.
So Apple knows my face.
It's already got my biometrics in there.
It used to have my fingerprint.
Probably that's still stored somewhere, because the old phones used my fingerprint.
So I'm a person whose identity has been public for years, and I can't really hide.
I don't have that option.
And the money that I spend has already moved from, a fair amount of it was cash, actual dollar bills at one point in my life.
I was paying people who were doing work, whatever.
But at this point, it's all digital.
I can't remember the last time I reached into my wallet and took out a piece of paper.
Do you have the same experience?
It just sort of doesn't happen.
I don't pay with anything with a piece of paper.
So, the only reason I have any pieces of paper is for, you know, very just random stuff.
It's not even like a normal use.
Now, some of you are not where I am, so I'm not saying that my situation applies to you.
Here's the point I'm going to make.
I already live in a world where I have no privacy, and my biometrics are already recorded in a variety of ways, and I already only use digital money.
So all of my transactions can be tracked.
Has there been a problem?
What problems have I encountered because of that?
I can't think of one.
It doesn't mean that you wouldn't have a problem, and it doesn't mean that I won't have one someday.
And it doesn't mean it wouldn't be worse if everybody were in my situation, right?
So you could do a whole population, not just one person.
But how about the idea that if everybody's in this digital currency and E-Verify, that the government could just push a button and turn off your money?
You realize that I got canceled globally, right?
I got cancelled globally, you know, the Dilbert comic, and it didn't take any work at all.
There was no effort whatsoever.
We already have a way to cancel people completely.
Now, I only got cancelled from things they wanted to cancel me from.
They didn't need to take me out of all civilization.
Because they don't need me to starve, right?
If the government had turned off all of my ability to make money or interact with the world, what would I have done in response?
I would have become a criminal.
Immediately.
What else would you do?
There's no other option, right?
So the government, I don't think the government is going to want to create criminals.
So even though the government could, you know, tweak your money, turn it off, turn it on, control your employment, I don't think they want to.
Because it doesn't help them to create new criminals if your only option is to rob somebody for money.
Let me put it this way.
If the government ever made it so the only way I could make money is by robbing people, I would rob people.
In a heartbeat.
Wouldn't you?
I'd be robbing people every day.
I mean, until I got caught, I suppose.
But I might also try to foment a revolution against the government.
At the same time I was robbing people, I'd probably be forming a militia to attack the government.
If they took me out completely, they would have created a super enemy that they wouldn't want.
Here's what I predict.
I don't think the government's going to want to turn people's money off completely, with the rare exceptions of perhaps like a, let's say a criminal who's on the run.
It might be a good way to catch a criminal on the run.
But they're not going to want to do it to people who just have an option of working.
If you have an option of having a job, The government wants you to make money and pay taxes.
So I don't know that they're ever going to want to turn it off.
It doesn't make sense for anybody.
All right.
So I'm going to agree with Thomas Massey that the risk is real and unknown.
And you should be very cautious about going into any situation where the risk is real, potentially very large, and unknown.
However, the counter argument is, there's nothing to stop it.
There's no way in a hundred years you're going to be paying for things with pieces of paper you carried in your pocket.
Right?
I'm not even going to listen to that argument.
And likewise, your biometrics are all getting into the system in a variety of ways.
You know, we're probably one week away from AI being able to identify you every time.
You know that, right?
Biometrics might not even make any difference.
Do you know that if AI wanted to identify me, because I'm a public figure with a large body of writing, I could talk to AI for 10 minutes, it could check my answers against all the ways I've ever answered questions or written things in the past, because it has a large body of my work to pull from, and it would know.
There's no way I could artificially choose words over an extended, let's say a 10-minute conversation, in which I could avoid being me.
I only know how to speak one way.
Like, even if I tried to pretend, it would be obvious I was pretending.
So, we may be a point, because of AI, where the whole identification thing doesn't even matter.
Because AI will just know who you are and where you are.
It'll just know you, basically.
So I'm going to say that I'm less afraid of this than Thomas Massey.
But his concerns are valid.
Which is not quite an opinion yet.
Because to be an opinion I think I'd need to get closer to we should do it or we should not do it or we should delay it.
I'm not there yet.
I'm recognizing the weight of his opinion but I'm not persuaded yet.
Could be.
I'm open to be persuaded on this.
Now here's what I tweeted back to Representative Massey, one of my all-time favorite politicians because he actually tells the truth and he's smart.
I advised him in a tweet, I said that his argument needs a story to be persuasive.
And ideally a story that conjures up a visual.
Because if you're trying to persuade somebody, you don't want to use just a conceptual argument, such as, do you want your children to grow up in this world?
What?
Like, so I'm imagining a child, Then I'm imagining that my child is always easily identified.
Does that scare me?
Does it scare me that my child, if they're stolen from me, can be easily identified as my stolen child?
No, that sounds kind of good.
That my child will always be easily identified, no matter what context.
And you can't change their identity.
You couldn't change it if you wanted to.
I don't know, does that sound bad?
And then how about that world where I'm paying everything with digital currency?
Do you think you can convince me that paying for things with just a few punches of a button is worse for me than having to go to the ATM and get pieces of paper to carry around in my pocket?
It's not an argument that has a feeling to it.
Do you understand that?
The concept you can understand intellectually, and I can agree that there are risks there, and they're pretty big.
I see that.
But it doesn't, that concept doesn't come into my body, and if it doesn't come into my body physically, and give me like a fear, or a elation, or something, I'm not going to be persuaded.
So here's what I would need for the Massey argument to be persuasive.
He needs to say, alright, here's your scenario.
You did X, and then the government did X to you.
Are you okay with that?
No, maybe yes, maybe no, maybe I disagree with this example.
But that would be visual.
So for example, it's like, okay, you go to the ATM and it doesn't work.
Because you said something on social media that the government thought was inappropriate.
So now your money is blocked because of speech.
Now I don't know if that's a good example, which is why I'm asking you for an example.
Because I don't know if there is an example.
What exactly is the story where I run into trouble because there's digital payments and the government e-verifies?
But what about the trucker rally?
They turned off their digital money.
But you're making my point, not their point.
See, your point is that in the current system, the truckers have their money turned off.
I'm saying that the current system already allows you to turn off anybody's money.
The government can turn off any bank.
They just have to have a reason.
Right?
So, your argument is actually supporting my case, that we already live in a place where anybody's money can be turned off by the government.
Anyway, that's as deep as we can get on that.
Continuing to like Vivek Ramaswamy, he appeared on, I think it was Fox, and he had this to say.
I'm going to quote it.
He said, we're literally addicted to China.
They push fentanyl via cartels across our southern border.
They push digital fentanyl via TikTok.
Digital fentanyl.
Very good.
Blackmailing young Americans.
Our national debt is basically financial fentanyl.
And Vivek says the real declaration of independence for the 21st century is from the CCP.
It's pretty good framing.
The declaration of independence is from China.
That we need a new American revolution.
Now that's good persuasion.
Because the Declaration of Independence, don't you think of that as physical?
I don't know, maybe it's just me.
But I actually see the piece of paper.
And I see the people with the old wigs signing it and stuff.
And then I see the entire Revolutionary War.
You know, I see the actual, you know, the red outfits and the marching with the guns and stuff.
So that's a very visual declaration of independence.
If you're an American, it's very visual because you've been trained with all those images.
So that's good persuasion.
And then he's packaging the addiction and fentanyl argument into finance and TikTok.
I like all of that.
That's all good persuasion.
And it was so good, and because I'm a single issue voter, I retweeted his request for campaign donations.
So we'll see how he does.
Now here's something interesting.
RFK Jr.
is making great, interesting stories.
So one story is that he's still saying in public that he believes the CIA was involved in killing President Kennedy, his uncle.
Now, apparently he refers to tons of evidence that was collected that all points in the same direction.
But the story that really got my attention was, according to RFK Jr., RFK, when the president was assassinated, the president's brother who was already Attorney General, right?
He was Attorney General at the time.
The Attorney General of the United States, according to RFK Jr., called his contacts at the CIA to ask if they did it.
Because he believed that was the most obvious people who did it.
Just hold that in your mind.
I'm not saying that the CIA did it.
I'm not saying they did.
I'm saying that the Attorney General believed they did.
You could even take out the part where they did or they did not.
The person who knew the most about how the country really works is the Attorney General.
I would argue that no one knows more than the Attorney General how shit really works in the real world.
Am I wrong?
There's nobody who understands the real workings of the government better than the Attorney General.
And the Attorney General Thought the CAA probably killed his brother, the President of the United States.
Just hold that in your head for a minute.
And that, as of today, RFK Jr.
still believes it, and also believes that the evidence is very clear and convincing.
Enough so that he's got some confidence in saying it.
He's not crazy, right?
He has proven himself to be a good, you know, analyst of complicated stuff.
So, that's just amazing.
It just blows my mind.
And then when we saw that the intelligence agents, you know, did their fake letter about the Hunter laptop, you say to yourself, has anything changed?
Has anything changed?
And then you ask yourself, who told Sidney Powell that there was a Kraken coming and it had something to do with Venezuela?
election machines and some general in Venezuela.
Where do you think that came from?
Who knows?
But if that did not come from some intelligence agency in the United States, I'd be really surprised.
Don't know.
Don't know for sure.
But I'd be really surprised if that's not them.
All right.
So we do have a problem in this country is that we don't know who's running the country.
It's kind of a big problem, isn't it?
I honestly don't know.
Because we tell ourselves it's the Democrats, right?
It's Obama and whatever.
But I actually don't know, like legitimately.
Honestly, legitimately, I don't know.
I don't know if the Democrats or Republicans or anybody is in charge.
It could be entirely the CIA.
It could be.
Just don't know.
All right, or they just, or they just, it could be that the CIA just participates in lots of things you don't know about, but that would be short of controlling everything.
All right, we'll talk more about RFK Jr.
in a minute.
Well, right now, how about?
He also was called out in some interview about his opinions on hydroxychloroquine and the The nature of the questions was, hey you conspiracy theory nut job, you've been saying that hydroxychloroquine might actually work, but all the science says it doesn't.
And I'd never heard anybody give a really good answer to that.
I'd never heard anybody who was pro-hydroxychloroquine who explained their position as well as he did.
So I'm still in the camp of the evidence does not show it works.
But maybe it doesn't show it doesn't work either.
So his claim goes like this.
And I'm not going to back his claim.
I'm just going to say it's the best explanation that I've heard.
That if you looked at all the hydroxychloroquine studies, there are three big randomized controlled trials that look like the good ones.
The good ones show it definitely doesn't work.
Meaning that the deaths were greater in the treated group than the untreated group.
Did you know that?
That the three real solid randomized controlled trials just show higher death if you use it.
But here's what RFK Jr.
points out about those three studies.
They all use the same dosage rate.
And it was all wildly beyond what any reasonable doctor would give somebody because you know it would kill them.
Or you know it would put them at risk for death.
The only thing that was tested in those high quality studies was a toxic level of it.
Now, I've heard other people say, of course, that the studies were designed to fail.
They've been hearing that forever, right?
So far, this is just the common argument.
The studies are bad.
The studies were designed to fail.
But here's why his argument is stronger.
He points out in detail the three studies, tells you that all three of them use the same dose level, which automatically is very suspicious.
Because the dose level that all three of them used was something that an ordinary doctor would look at and say, oh no, that's way too much.
Where did that come from?
It seems like a little bit too much of a coincidence that the three trials that were the good ones, the ones with a lot of money behind them, That those are the ones where they did a toxic level test.
Now, as RFK Jr.
says, if you take those three out of the meta-studies, and the meta-analysis would look at all the studies that are flawed, but if you look at all the flawed studies, if they're flawed in different ways, you hope that those different ways cancel out each other, and maybe you can tell something.
And his argument is, if you take out the three studies that are clearly wrong, You end up with something that looks like a positive result.
What do you think of that argument?
Do you see any weakness in the argument?
Well, I do.
Let me explain the weakness in the argument.
A meta-study is a study of all studies.
But do you know what people usually do when they do a meta-study?
They say, well, all of the studies are maybe a little bit weak or flawed or underpowered.
But when we add them together, you know, that'll tell us something.
But there's something they do before they add them together.
Do you know what that is?
They use their judgment to decide which ones to remove from the study, because those ones are just so bad, they have to be removed.
In other words, it's not science.
If it were science, I might back it.
It's not science.
There's somebody who says, I will use my human judgment, not science, not science.
I'll use my human judgment, because I know a little something about this study, but I know less about the other studies.
So just because I randomly know more about this study, and I know it's bad, I'll take it out.
That's not science.
That's not even close!
So, if you want to tell yourself that the science shows that hydroxychloroquine works, that is false.
Because meta-analysis is not science.
If you want to say that the science shows hydroxychloroquine does work, that's not science either.
So basically, the mistake That RFK Jr.
points out correctly, which is some of these big studies have an obvious problem.
What about the ones that are left?
They all have obvious problems.
So it's basically nothing but studies that are bad.
How many bad studies can you add up to get a good study?
I think the answer is that's not a thing.
Right?
So while I would agree that his defense of hydroxychloroquine It's the best I've seen.
For a short, tight public defense, pretty solid.
Pretty good job.
He's persuasive.
But I'm not persuaded.
So, to his credit, to his credit, he only points at the evidence.
He describes the evidence.
You're still left with the question of does it work or does it not, but his criticism of how we decided it doesn't work is valid.
So I'm going to give him three quarters credit for a valid analysis, but I think there's another level of uncertainty.
That was interesting.
All right.
I think it's still hilarious that reparations are being taken serious, seriously by anybody, the California stuff.
And I've seen, you know, tweets, people saying, actually, Robert Malone, you know, Dr. Malone, famous from COVID days.
Dr. Malone basically said, unless you're a person of color, you should get out of California because of the reparations thing.
Can you believe that?
Like Dr. Malone, one of the most famous people on social media lately, he just said outright, if you're not a person of color, you should get out of California.
Does that sound like anything that somebody else said?
Does that sound like, that reminds me of something.
Something, something.
It's not coming to me.
But I can't believe That we're letting this prank go on so long.
Doesn't it feel like a prank on black people?
They really think they're going to get reparations.
You know that's not going to happen, right?
Is there even one person on this live stream who thinks they're going to get reparations?
At least the way it was described where taxpayers just give them a bunch of money and a check.
Now even if it's spread out over time or anything, no it's not going to happen.
And the reason that you know it's not going to happen?
It's too far.
It's way too far.
And it's just not going to happen.
Now, if it did happen, I would move out of California.
And so would a lot of people.
It would just end the state.
There's no way that Newsom could be considered a serious national candidate if California pays reparations.
That's the end.
Would you agree that there's no way that Newsom could become a national politician, run for president, if reparations go through under his watch?
Would you agree?
That takes him out from being a national politician.
And I don't think he can stand for that.
It looks like he has some ambitions there.
So I feel it's cruel and probably dangerous to let black people imagine that this is going to happen.
And their imaginations have been taken, I would say, unethically too far.
To let them imagine that this is serious or that anybody's not laughing about them behind their backs.
I'm talking about the reparation committee.
To imagine... Now remember, I told you that the biggest problem that black Americans have, in my opinion, is that they've trained people not to tell them the truth.
Right?
Look, how many black Americans are completely wasting their time on this?
Because there's no white American who will tell them, look them in the eye and say, you know, you can study it all you want.
It's not going to fucking happen.
Not as long as I'm alive.
Do you know how much energy I would put into stopping this?
Yeah, this is like clear your calendar kind of stuff.
Yeah, no, this is not going to happen.
This is not going to happen.
And nobody will tell black Americans anything honest.
Do you think it's in their best interest to spend a bunch of time convincing themselves that this is going to happen?
It's terrible for them.
It's not good for me, but it's even worse for them.
For me, it probably has no impact at all, because it's not going to happen.
For them, they're going to get all, you know, worked up.
They've spent all this time.
It's for nothing.
It's all for nothing.
And do you know why the white politicians let you do it?
Because they couldn't tell you the truth.
That's why.
Because you've trained us.
You've trained white people to lie to you.
So they did.
You got exactly what you asked for.
Now, so far, you might think it's working.
It's like, we're getting exactly what we asked for.
We've got this reparations committee.
This is going well.
No, it's not.
It's a white trick.
Trust me, I know white tricks.
It's just to study it to make it look ridiculous so it's easier to turn it down.
Now, the best thing that happened from Newsom's perspective is that the recommendations are absurd.
And I think he knew that.
I think he knew the recommendations would be absurd.
So it's easier to turn down something that's absurd.
But even better, he doesn't have to turn it down, does he?
No.
He can send them back to study it better.
And he can just keep doing it.
Do you think there's any end to how long he can put them off?
Just say, you know, your committee recommendation is interesting.
We're going to have to commission a committee to look at it.
All right, so that's what's happening there.
So I told you about Conocoa the Great's thread, where at 2013 something suddenly happened in the media and words such as, you know, white privilege and systemic racism went from hardly ever being used in history to all the media was using it all the time.
Just massive spike in 2013 and then continuing on.
So, why?
So I asked... So the easy answer is that the media did it.
And the easier answer is that the media model changed so that, you know, provocation got you more clicks.
And it's just because the internet exists.
But I think the internet existed before 2013.
And I think that... Here's what I think.
I saw a bunch of anti-Semitic people saying, Scott, when you say the media, are you catching on?
Are you catching on?
Wink, wink.
The media, George Soros, the media, are you catching it now?
Are you getting it?
Wink, wink.
No, that's not where I'm going.
I do not believe, and I've been behind the curtain enough.
To know when something's complete bullshit.
Here's what's not happening.
Here's what's not happening is the Jewish leaders of media companies all getting together and saying, let's do some Jewish conspiracy stuff.
That's not happening.
That's not happening.
You don't think I would know about that?
Seriously.
I mean, I lived and breathed completely in that world.
Publishing, right?
Media and publishing, that's where I live.
It's the most Jewish environment you could ever be in.
You don't think I would have any hint that it was a massive Jewish conspiracy if there really was one.
You don't think I would have picked up on that in, like, decades of being completely immersed in that environment?
It's not a thing.
It's not a thing.
There's a correlation, right?
There's a high percentage of Jewish, you know, owners and managers and stuff in the media, but to imagine that therefore, you know, they're all coordinating, that's not how anything works.
You could also say that most of the media managers are male, which I think is still true, but is it a male conspiracy?
So a whole bunch of men in media, right?
But are the men coordinating to get one over on the women?
And the LGBTQs, because they're outnumbered?
That's not happening.
There are other reasons, external reasons, why there were a lot of men in media.
And that's it.
It's not part of a conspiracy of men against women.
It's not a conspiracy of Jewish media owners against anybody else.
Now, are there individual members that own the media who have a love of Israel?
Sure.
Sure.
Pretty normal.
But it's not some giant conspiracy.
So, who do you think is behind the sudden media spike?
What's your guess?
Sudden media spike in...
Do you think, well let me ask you the first one, do you think it was organic?
And organic would include the algorithms changed so people just naturally wanted more of it and then the media just gave them more of what they clicked on.
Is it organic?
Doesn't feel organic, does it?
Some say the colleges, but the colleges doesn't explain the 2013 spike because it's too sudden.
College would be more of a You know, a long burn?
To me, there's only one thing that could do this.
Only one thing.
The CIA.
I don't think anything else could do it.
And is there any history in this country of the CIA manipulating the media?
Yeah!
It's like one of their primary functions.
And correct me if I'm wrong, it's completely legal, right?
At the moment, it's completely legal for the CIA to manipulate our media and our minds.
Am I wrong?
It's not illegal.
And here's how it would happen.
It would happen like this.
Somebody in the agency would talk to a publisher, And say, hey, we'd really like to see more stories of this type.
And then the publisher of the newspaper says, oh, I don't think so.
I don't see a market for that, or that feels like more of a narrative than news.
And then what does the CIA say?
Well, we have helped you in the past quite a few times.
Well, yes, but what you're asking is sort of unreasonable.
Yeah, yeah.
And in the future, we would be very friendly with you as well.
There could be opportunities that open for you.
And if those opportunities didn't open, well, it's hard to know what would happen to your business.
So you can imagine that it's not even a threat.
It could even be less than that.
It could be just, we'll give you tips.
Here's the deal.
You get all of your, you know, your news tips and insider stuff from us.
We've been keeping you in business.
We're just asking for this one small thing.
Just give us some stories on this topic.
Yeah.
All right, so I don't know what caused that massive spike.
I do think that it could be a change in the algorithms.
Somebody said that Facebook made some kind of a change around that.
Maybe.
I think that's a possibility.
And then the fact that people click makes more of it, etc.
So it could be just a bunch of things happened at the same time.
But I would say the rapidity of it suggests a intelligence operation.
It's just what it looks like.
I have no evidence beyond that.
All right.
What else we got here?
There's a Rasmussen poll on RFK Jr.
and 53% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans have at least a somewhat favorable opinion of RFK Jr.
Did that sound like a typo?
Let me say it again and watch your head explode.
Alright, RFK Jr.
is a Democrat.
That's important to the story.
He's a Democrat.
53% of Democrats have a favorable opinion of him, but 61% of Republicans and 48% of not affiliated, but those are kind of fake.
What's going on here?
Let me ask you this question.
If this is true, That more Republicans than Democrats like RFK, but more than half of the Democrats also like him.
If he got nominated, if, how could he lose?
I don't think you could lose if 61% of the other team thinks you're pretty good.
Because your own team is going to vote for you for sure, right?
Because they're just not going to want the other team.
So even if RFK Jr.
is not their first choice as a Democrat, they're all going to vote for him.
It's just whoever the candidate is.
Now, that's mostly true of Republicans, but you only need a few people to cross over, and it looks like he has them.
It looks like he would actually get a few people to cross over.
I can tell you that I've heard Republicans who have been lifelong Republicans say, this RFK Jr.' 's interesting.
Have you?
How many of you have heard, you know, diehard Republicans and conservatives say that they would give him a look?
They would just give him a look.
This is completely different than anything you've seen in politics in a long time.
I would say since Obama, at least.
Obama was like that in a sense.
Because I think there were people who were more conservative who said, you know what?
I'm going to give him a look.
I'm just going to give him a look.
And RFK Jr.
is in that category.
People are willing to give him a look.
Now, it does make sense, because he was compatible on the COVID vaccination stuff.
He believes the CIA killed Kennedy.
That's pretty compatible with Republican thinking, at least some portion of Republicans.
He believes the border should be tightened, but he seems like he's actually serious about it.
Like, because he comes at it from a logical place.
I don't know.
This guy's got a lot going for him that Republicans are going to appreciate.
Now, there are some big, big wild cards.
I know he's been anti-nuclear in the past, but I have not heard his updated nuclear opinion.
And I would allow for people to change their opinion.
I wouldn't hold it against anybody.
If anybody went from, you know, anti-nuclear to pro, I would only care that they're pro now, and I might even give them a benefit for being willing to change their mind.
Like, it might even be a little bit of a plus, right?
So, I mean, it would be better if they'd been here for a long time, but I'm not gonna, I wouldn't hold it against anybody that they got here eventually on nuclear.
So I'd like to hear his update on that.
I also haven't heard his fentanyl ideas, and I'm a single-issue voter on that, so we'll wait for that.
At the moment, Vivek is the strongest on fentanyl, and so he's got my support.
I saw a tweet from Ashley St. Clair.
Clair.
And she said this, Doctors hardly, if ever, advise women that it may be their birth control making them depressed or even suicidal, despite documented risk of both on the pill.
Instead, they'll describe an antidepressant, and that'll be your solution.
Imagine being a woman, I guess for some of you, that's easy.
And you're on birth control.
The birth control makes you sad, and they give you an antidepressant.
You would have no libido left.
So you would be capable of not getting pregnant two different ways.
One is you don't want to have any sex, and the other is if you did, you wouldn't get pregnant.
Now, this may be curious enough to do a little searching, because I said to myself, is it true that this link is well established?
What do you think?
Do you think it's a well-established, just a medical fact, that birth control is associated with depression?
And it was something like a 30% greater rate or something.
Some big number percentage difference.
So then I looked at one article.
There was a Denmark study.
And a big study, because Denmark apparently has good records of stuff, so you can study things there that you can't study here.
And accordingly, they did find a big percentage difference of depression of people who had any kind of hormonal birth control.
But here's the weird part.
It included IUDs.
Apparently, people with IUDs would get Depressed as well as people who took a chemical, a pill.
Now, that surprised people.
But, then I kept reading, and it said that normally 1.7 women out of 100 would be depressed.
So that was their baseline.
But it went from 1.7 out of 100 to 2.2, which as a percentage is a pretty big difference.
But it's still 2.2 out of 100.
There's something wrong with this study, isn't there?
Have you ever met a hundred women?
You think if you randomly pick a hundred women, that only two of them have depression?
Just two.
Out of a hundred.
Well, maybe in Denmark.
Maybe they shouldn't be studying Denmark so much.
I don't know.
Is that true in Denmark?
That only 2 out of 100 people are depressed?
In the United States, it's at least 30%.
Am I wrong?
At least a third of women would say they're depressed.
Or have some emotional, mental problem.
And I think that's low.
Could be way more than that.
So, once again, studies and science look worthless, so I don't think you can say anything, except that to me it seems obvious.
Here's my argument for why it's obvious that it would make you depressed.
This is the least medical argument you've ever heard in your life.
There will be no science in what I say next, and I'm still confident of it.
No science, no studies, no data to back it.
I'm still confident.
It goes like this.
The single thing that humans are optimized for by evolution is what?
What's the one thing a human reproduction, right?
We're only optimized for reproduction.
We're basically reproducers.
And it's the only thing evolution cares about.
It only cares about making more of you.
Nothing else.
Just survival and making more.
Now, if you take your most basic instinct, which is your reproductive instinct, and you click it off, because your body knows it can't make a baby, how does that not affect your mentality?
How could that not make you feel like you're not an actual human being in the world?
Your most basic biological drive, and they turn it off.
There's no way that's good for you.
Is it?
Now, again, I have no medical data to back it.
It's not based on my advanced medical degrees I don't have.
There's no science to it.
I'm just saying, isn't it obvious?
Am I wrong about that?
To me, that's so obvious that I wouldn't even need to study it.
If you turn off your most basic instinct, What's left?
Because you never evolved.
Humans did not evolve to be happy outside of their primary drive.
That's why I tell people if they're trying to be happy, make sure you're connected to the reproductive process, even if only symbolically.
Because at least your body and brain will, you know, be connected symbolically and that might be enough to trigger some happiness.
By symbolically I mean, take my example, so being a stepfather connects me to the whole, you know, bringing up children and stuff without actually being a biological parent.
So there are other things you can do.
Dating.
You know, just being dating, trying to get married, trying to have a kid.
You know, any of those things that are contributing to the reproductive process probably makes you happy.
You know, all other things being okay, that's probably what makes you happy.
All right.
So the walls are closing in.
So Comer, Representative Comer says he's got evidence of the Biden family receiving money in exchange for policy decisions.
On Wednesday, we're going to hear that evidence.
Is anybody prepared to be disappointed by the quality of that evidence?
Does anybody think the walls are closing in on Biden?
We have one optimist in the group.
I don't think that optimism is called for.
I will certainly pay attention.
I will listen to that story.
Let me guess what it's going to look like.
We found a thing which we don't fully understand, could be explained by more than one thing, but one of those things that would explain it was that he sold something for a policy decision.
I feel like there will be more than one explanation for what we see.
Yeah, there'll be some plausible deniability, right?
So it might convince us as voters, it might convince us that there's something there, but I don't think the legal system is going to move on it.
Yeah, we'll see.
I guess Biden has banned the New York Post from some press events upcoming because they were the big Hunter laptop story people.
I don't know if that's true.
Maybe they had some other reason, but it's disturbing.
Are you wondering how hard it is to move our manufacturing from China?
Well, here's an update.
India is going hard at trying to become the extra place to manufacture.
But in case you didn't know, here are the other countries that are trying to be that China replacement for manufacturing.
So India is number one.
They're going the hardest, it looks like, and having the best success.
But also Mexico.
Vietnam and Malaysia.
So keep an eye on those three countries.
And the fact that Mexico is one of them, I don't know how much effort the United States is putting into helping Mexico become a non-corrupt place to do business, but I feel like it's the corruption that's the only thing keeping Mexico from being the dominant manufacturing hub.
Am I wrong about that?
Well, doesn't Mexico have everything?
I mean, its proximity to the United States alone is gigantic.
It seems like Mexico has everything, or could easily have everything.
So it's got to be the corruption that keeps it from being, you know, the place for North America to move its businesses.
Yeah, it's got to be the narco state, you're right.
Remember the other day, the Wagner Group head, Prigozhin, was complaining in public, which was weird, that Moscow was letting him down and the regular military wasn't giving him weapons.
And he was going to withdraw and stop fighting because they weren't giving him, not weapons, but enough ammunition.
And then the Russian military said, yes, we will give you enough ammunition.
And then Purgosian backed down and he decided that he would not pull out because they promised to give him ammunition.
Now, what do you think happened next?
Do you think Purgosian got a whole bunch of ammunition?
Do you think that the Russians who promised him more ammunition loaded it up on trucks and sent it off to him?
No, they just lied.
That was it.
They just said, oh, absolutely.
We'll give you ammunition.
We'll give you all the ammunition you like.
We'll send you more ammunition than you can even shoot.
And then they just didn't.
So everything that you worry about Russia lying to the United States or to NATO or anybody else, they're lying to each other just as much.
So Russia has an enormous lying problem, maybe even worse than ours, in which they can't get anything done internally because they're all just lying to each other.
Oh, absolutely.
I'll have that done tomorrow.
Don't mean any of it.
So Prigozhin's mad again about not getting his M.O., but he's not at the moment saying he's going to leave, so maybe he's still hoping.
I thought this was funny.
Russia had its annual Victory Day, which is a military kind of parade, and they scaled it back.
I saw one headline that said they had one tank.
I didn't even read the story, because when I saw the headline that said they scaled it back to one tank, I didn't want to read it and find out that wasn't true.
Because I'm pretty sure that if I read down, there would be lots of other assets there.
So maybe the one tank thing, the headline was misleading.
But I liked the misleading headline so much, I didn't want to know that it wasn't true.
It's like, yeah, just one tank.
Victory Day?
One tank.
Even if it's not true.
But to me, the Victory Day thing, as Purgosian was criticizing it as well, it was a really bad look.
If you're Putin, and your military says they don't have enough ammo, and they're gonna lose the war, and you're having a Victory Day celebration, it's just a bad look.
And then making your Victory Day celebration more pathetic, by having fewer military assets in it, makes you look like you're running out of shit.
Like, there wasn't anything Putin could do that wasn't going to be a big mistake on Victory Day, except cancelling it, and he didn't do that.
I guess cancelling it would look bad, too.
Here's a story I'm trying to keep you up to date on.
I was pretty sure this was going to happen, but now it's happening.
You've heard of this job called prompt engineer for AI?
So if you have to ask the question in just the right way, and sometimes you have to put a whole page of prompts, To get a good answer.
What that means is regular people will only be able to use AI for basically ordinary search stuff.
You know, pretty basic stuff.
But for anything really useful, such as having it write code for you, that sort of thing, you're going to need somebody who's not only trained to know that the code is right, so you need a programmer, But you also need somebody who knows psychology and AI and is also good with words.
So it's this whole new skill to be a prompt engineer.
So prompt engineer is basically a programmer.
They are programmers.
It's just that instead of calling it a program, they call it a prompt.
The prompt being a bunch of English words in English sentences, but it's code.
It's the code that you have to know to write, on the fly, so that AI will give you a useful answer instead of a surface-y, not useful answer.
So, if you thought that AI would make programmers obsolete, it looks like it's going to be the opposite.
It looks like programmers will just use AI as one of their tools, but that AI isn't going to make programs on its own, and you and I won't know how to tell it to do it.
Let me give you the current example.
So years ago, I was a programmer.
So I've written a lot of programs.
And so I understand the basics, even though I haven't been involved in a long time.
I wouldn't know how to write code with AI.
And as a casual user who doesn't work as a programmer at the moment, I would know more than 85% of the normal public about how things work, just because I was once in that world.
And I don't know how to do it.
Which AI would I use for that?
And then if AI wrote me a code, what would I do with it?
Where do I put it?
How do I compile it?
How do I get it into the Apple Store?
I feel like all these stories we're seeing in the press are all like a demonstration of a new product.
Do you ever go to a technology demo, you know, in your corporate lives, and somebody will demonstrate the technology, and you'll say, wow, you know, when can I buy that?
Well, you know, we don't have one with these features, but you just showed me these features.
Well, this is more of a prototype.
But it works, right?
Working is sort of hard to define.
It's using a temporary database that in the real world doesn't exist, but it's more to show you what it could do.
But it doesn't actually do that.
Like I couldn't do that, right?
If I owned that?
No, you couldn't do that.
It's just a demonstration of what maybe it could do in the future.
So I'm feeling like all these AI demonstrations People will say, look what I did.
I had to write this code to do this.
And I'll be like, wow, AI wrote you a whole bunch of computer code that works and did it like in a second.
Impressive.
But what would I do with that?
So now I've got a page of code.
What now?
OK, here's the code for my app.
And now I cut and paste it.
Right?
So there's this 100 miles of technical knowledge that you would have to have to make use of AI's ability to write code.
You're not going to get rid of programmers.
You're going to need them to use AI to do anything.
Because regular people won't be able to do anything.
At least in terms of writing apps and stuff.
AI can teach you all of this?
Not yet.
Not yet.
Now, I don't disagree that it might happen, but I can't see AI creating flawless apps that don't require a programmer to debug them or optimize them.
I just don't see it happening.
All right.
To serve man is a cookbook.
There's always got to be an NPC in here somewhere.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, concludes one of the most powerful and informational, perhaps entertaining, live streams of your entire lives.
Maybe the best thing you've ever seen in your life.
Possibly.
So I'm going to say goodbye to the YouTube folks.
Thanks for joining.
Powerful and useful.
And I might be doing a man cave tonight for subscribers, if you'd like to get a little extra.
By the way, let me just tell the YouTube people a little bit about this.
So I started doing a separate live stream some evenings from my garage slash man cave in which we enjoy some legal adult entertainment and chat about anything we feel like it.
But here's what's interesting about it.
It sort of evolved from a presentation, where I try to have something that I plan to say, to just hanging out.
Right?
I'm looking at the locals people.
Wouldn't you say?
Because I actually, I turn on the live stream, and I don't go on right away because I'm preparing, and you know, a few hundred people will stream in, and they start their own party.
So by the time I go live, the party's in full flow.
And it has nothing to do with me.
And they start talking.
And they're just talking among themselves.
I can barely get in a word edgewise.
But it doesn't matter.
Because people are craving human connection.
There's a lack of human connection in society.
You're all aware of it, I'm sure.
And it's severe.
It is severe.
And this little bit of digital connection that I enjoy with the other few hundred people most evenings, I'm doing it more often than not now, is really satisfying.
And I have to say that when I started doing it, you know, It would look like it would be a lot of work if I did it all the time.
But now I just look forward to it.
Much the way I look forward to doing this live stream.
So it turned into this completely symbiotic, it evolved into a few hundred people who essentially have a similar sense of humor.
Let me ask this question to the locals, people.
Wouldn't you say that the single thing that binds the live stream reamers together for the Man Cave is the same sense of humor?
It's kind of that, right?
Yeah.
And that's kind of a thin connection, right?
But it's important.
Because if you can laugh with another human being, you feel connected.
You know, a good laugh with another person is a very connecting thing.
So we get together at night, and you'd have to be a subscriber to see it, and we just hang out.
And I think it's really useful.
You know, on an actual mental health level, I feel like it's good for all of our mental health.
What would you say?
Locals?
Would you say it's good for your mental health?
Because I think it's gone beyond entertainment at this point.
You know, I try to be entertaining, but I don't think that's the benefit.
I think the benefit is just the connection that people are feeling.
So, maybe we'll see more of that.
Alright, good.
It's all yeses.
It's a big stream of yeses on the locals.
Alright, I just wanted to share that with you on YouTube, and I will talk to you in the morning.
