Episode 2190 Scott Adams: Let's Look At The Machinery Behind The Headlines. We Can See The Gears Now
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Trump's Raging Insurrection, Andrew Tate, LK-99 Superconductor, Roseanne Barr, President Biden, The Government Machine, Democrat Media Narratives, Biden Crime Family, Devon Archer, 2020 Election Integrity, Steven Sund, J6, Trump Indictments, Passive Home Design, PHI Passivhaus Institute, Trusting Science, Al Sharpton, CNN Trump Narrative, Diane Feinstein POA, Joe Rogan, Ukraine War's Purpose, Dan Goldman, Illusion Of Access, Philip Bump, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
Today, we're also streaming just to test things out on Twitter Live.
I might not be looking at the Twitter comments because when I tested this before I went live earlier today, many of you wanted to talk about my vaccination status.
That's one year ago.
We're not talking about that again.
So just try to come forward to the future, which I call the present.
And if you'd like to increase the enjoyment that you're having now, wow.
And by the way, you can watch this show every day on YouTube and also on the Locals platform if you're a subscriber.
I'm not sure if I'll keep doing it on this platform or not.
So we'll just test it today.
If we like it, maybe we'll do more of it.
It's good to see that old periscope look, isn't it?
But how about the Simultaneous Sip?
Now, this could be quite the delight for those of you who have never experienced a Simultaneous Sip, because all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tanker, gels 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 dope being at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called Simultaneous Sip.
Go.
Oh, that was pretty good.
That was pretty good.
Three times the platform.
Twice the coffee.
Well, I have a suggestion for all of you for whenever you are tweeting or referring to January 6th.
Because we've been calling it J6, right?
J6, January 6th, you know, the, it was the insurrection.
But I would rather, I want to reframe that.
From now on, January 6th will be called, wait for it, hold on, I want to make sure you're all ready.
From now on, January 6th will be called Trump's Raging Insurrection.
Trump's Raging Insurrection.
It's funnier.
Yeah.
So he's going to be impeached over his raging insurrection.
Which I think impressed the entire world.
Yeah.
Because I want, every time this comes up, I want to laugh at it.
Because I can't take the real news seriously anymore.
I mean, can you?
Because the news is just ridiculous.
It's just absurd.
So we might as well have fun with it.
Because...
There's not much else they can do for you, except entertain you.
You know, I think I said this years ago, that the reason that comedy doesn't work anymore is that reality and comedy merged.
Comedy only works when it looks different than reality, and it really doesn't now.
Like, legitimately, hyperbole aside, it actually doesn't look different, the comedy and the reality.
The absurdity levels, through the roof!
Well, anyway, there's a controversy.
There's an AI influencer now who's on, I don't know where she is on Instagram, I think, but it's an AI creation.
that has photographs and video of a creature which is not a real creature.
It's an AI creature that is, it's branded as artificial.
But people are not convinced she's artificial because she looks, well I called her she.
See how easy this is?
I'm literally telling you a story about an artificial entity that is pretending to be a female and I reflexively refer to that AI as she.
Because it looks and acts like a human.
If you don't think, and I think Mike Cervich said this, if you don't think that regular ordinary human males, if you don't think they're going to have actual deep relationships with these AI creatures, you're wrong.
That people are going to have lifelong relationships with AI.
You can see it, it's obvious.
Now I don't know if women will.
I have less insight into what a female brain is like, but I can tell you that men are going to find the AI versions better than the alternatives.
And they're right on the cusp of that.
So that should change reproduction in the world pretty much.
The virtual influencer is called Mila Sophia.
So if you've been sending money to your girlfriend named Mila Sofia, just know that you're one of many people who have done that.
Apparently a number of people have offered to send this girlfriend some money.
So don't do that.
Don't send money to anything that looks good on a screen.
I mean, that's a good general rule.
All right.
Yes.
The question Kevin's asking is, is Andrew Tate going to pimp out virtual women?
Well, he's, he's out on house arrest.
Apparently the house arrest is over and Andrew Tate can walk around now.
Now, do you remember my, how many remember my prediction about the Tate brothers?
That where this would end up?
Does anybody remember my prediction?
I'm not sure if I said it specifically, that's why I'm asking.
I may have hinted at it, but not said it.
But what I hinted at was that his level of persuasion skill is not normal.
It's just way above average.
And I didn't think any jail could hold him.
Isn't that funny?
I don't think any jail could hold him.
I think you have seriously a Silence of the Lambs situation.
Where the prisoner is just more powerful than the prison.
And I don't like Andrew Tate.
In case anybody's new to my livestream, we're not friends.
For me, it's personal.
I just have a personal beef with him.
So, you know, irrespective of his message, you can make your own decision on that.
I don't like him personally.
But it is also true that his level of persuasion skill, some of it came from me.
Unfortunately, I'm at least partially responsible because I know he was following me before he became famous.
Or this famous, anyway.
So I know he was picking up persuasion tricks and you can see him implement his persuasion skills.
He's really good at it.
And my take was that I don't see how he could be convicted unless the system is broken.
I think he'll just talk his way out of jail.
And so far he's talked his way out of jail and into home custody, and now he's talked his way out of house arrest.
So I don't know what's next, but I'm going to make a prediction.
He's not going to go back to jail.
Does anybody want to take the other side of that?
And I'm saying this with no regard to the evidence and no regard to what he may or may not have done.
So it has nothing to do with what he's done.
It has only to do with his abilities right now.
I honestly don't think a jail can hold him.
Isn't that weird?
It's weird, but true.
I don't think any jail can hold him.
I think he could talk his way out of any jail.
So, and of course, to put anybody in jail, you're going to need something like witnesses.
Do you think they're having any trouble finding people to testify against them?
They might be.
They might be having a lot of trouble finding somebody to testify against him.
Because he's persuasive, but also, maybe he has too many friends on the outside.
So, I don't know.
I feel like it would be dangerous to testify against him, even if he didn't do anything about it.
He has a lot of people who might take things into their own hands, which would be super bad.
But it's a real thing.
I mean, it's a real risk.
So, I don't know.
I just don't think he can be jailed.
Superconductivity that I keep talking about that others are trying to reproduce.
Give me a fact check on this, but they have reproduced it now, right?
Are we yet confident that this is a real room temperature superconductivity situation?
Now I would say there's still, what do we call it, LK99 is the cool nerdish term for it.
Now the question I've got Is whether or not this really can be scaled up.
You know, the early reporting was these are common materials.
We have lots of it.
We can scale this up and it will be changing everything.
Because once you have superconductivity, you've got quantum computing and lossless, you know, transportation of electricity and a whole bunch of things become possible in the real world if you can do superconductivity.
And it looks like we're there.
I mean, if you just take one thing, just take one thing, quantum computing, suppose that's the only thing that changed.
And then suddenly your computer is a quantum computer.
That's a little bit better than the one you have now.
Let me tell you, a little bit better, like way, way, way better.
Now you combine your AI with a quantum computer.
I don't know what we end up with.
Who knows?
I mean, who knows where that goes?
But all bets are off.
There's literally nothing that you can predict.
I would say that predicting the world in five to ten years is now an exercise in absurdity.
That wasn't really always the case.
I mean, nobody's great at predicting five to ten years out.
But, you know, we were taking seriously things like climate change risk in 50 years.
We were acting like 50 years is like a perfectly good amount of time that you can predict things.
But that's clearly nonsense at this point.
Can quantum computers do general purpose computing?
I believe they can.
Can somebody confirm that?
The quantum computer can be your general computer, right?
I mean, if they got it efficient enough.
There's no reason it wouldn't.
No?
Oh, somebody's saying no.
Oh, I'm getting fact-checked on this.
That it wouldn't be... Not yet.
Well, no, I understand that at the moment there's special purpose.
But that's only because that's all we can make.
Isn't the whole point if you can make a quantum computer in an easy way, then it could be your general computer?
Am I wrong about that?
I think I'm right about that, but I'll take a fact check on that if I'm wrong.
Alright, let's move on.
Roseanne Barr, who you may know, she transitioned.
She used to be Bill Barr.
She used to be Bill Barr, Attorney General.
But now she's Roseanne Barr.
She's identifying as a woman, Roseanne Barr.
No, I made that up.
That's not true.
They're different people.
No, no, different people.
I made that up.
But Roseanne is getting her own show on On X, on the rebranded Twitter called X. And it looks like it's going to be part of a larger platform that's part of Public SQ, or Public Square, which I think is Don Jr.' 's, Don Jr.
is at least a prominent part of that.
So, it looks like there's some kind of a probably conservative, I assume, conservative leaning platform.
Actually, it's an anti-woke platform is the way to say it.
It's an anti-woke platform.
And Roseanne's the first one.
She's got a six-figure deal.
And I guess we'll see more about that.
Now, I did tell you that Roseanne asked me to be on her podcast.
And I said yes.
I think that would be a week or two.
But I don't know if that's part of this, because I don't know if the timing is the same.
So maybe I'm on the old version, not the new version.
But we'll find out.
All right.
So here's my theme of the day.
I call it seeing the machinery.
Would you agree that in the past year, especially, although it's been brewing for a while, that you can now see all the moving parts Of the, let's say, the effery that's happening to the public.
I'll give you some examples.
We can see now that, but here's one thing that Joe Biden proved to us.
And give me, give me your opinion as I go.
I'm going to list a few things.
Number one, the existence of Joe Biden as a president proves to us that the president isn't always the one in control.
Would you say that's true?
Can we see that the machinery says that they can put a figurehead in and still have some kind of functional control?
Now that wasn't 100% obvious to me before.
And it might be a special case because of Biden.
But we can say with some certainty now that you actually don't need a president with a functioning brain because the people around him will just, you know, fill in for that and maybe they were always in control.
So that's something that's new.
If you told me you could have a president who was just not even functional at all, and yet things would just sort of move along, I don't know if I would have believed it.
And I'm not sure I would believe it about other presidents.
I'm not sure I would say that about Obama, but maybe.
Maybe.
I know I wouldn't say it about Trump.
So maybe it's a more of a Democrat thing?
I don't know.
Maybe.
So that's one thing we see now more clearly.
We saw that with the 50 Intel professionals who said the laptop was Russian disinformation.
Now you can see that whole mechanism.
That part of the machine is transparent now.
So now you can see the members of the intelligence community in various groups.
You can see that they're willing to coordinate for the benefit of Democrat political purposes.
Now we know that for sure.
And we know it's not onesies and twosies.
We can see that they could fairly easily get 50 people with high-ranking intelligence jobs across various intelligence entities, 50 of them, would all be willing to sign up for a lie.
That shows you the machine, doesn't it?
It shows you that our intelligence group is not doing what you think they're supposed to do.
They're also Deeply involved in domestic politics.
And that's as deeply involved as you can get.
So deeply involved it may have determined who the president was.
So we see that machinery now and you can't unsee it.
Right?
It was so clear, so well documented, so obvious, that now you can say, oh, I get it now.
The intelligence apparatus and the Democrats are just part of the same machine.
You see those gears work together.
That wasn't as obvious as it was until the laptop situation.
That made it just super clear to everybody.
Here's another part of the machine.
Learning about how Hunter Biden and the Biden family made their money with this influence or the illusion of influence selling, are we not fully informed now how that works?
We all now understand that the phone calls don't have to be anything but proving you have access, right?
We know that there doesn't have to be a piece of paper necessarily saying this is our contract, this is our deal.
We all just understand how this works.
So we saw in detail exactly how somebody connected to the current government when Biden was vice president.
We saw how they make money by providing either access or the illusion of access that they charge huge amounts of money for Because they're big entities with a lot of money and they want a little bit of edge and they think they can get it this way.
Now, we also saw that the Democrat press was willing to cover up all of this.
So now we can see that the press is a player, not a reporter.
We can see that clearly.
That the press, the Democrats, and the intelligence agencies, or at least 50 people from them, are all on a team, and they're not on the team that is trying to sell the truth.
They're selling a version of the truth which is just anti-Republican and pro them staying in power and making money.
And you see it all now.
You know, before everybody knew that people sold access, right?
We all knew that.
Everybody knew that...
You know, lobbying was kind of dirty.
Everybody knew that the people were doing this, you know, foreign agent stuff without registering, you know, sort of Manafort kind of stuff.
Everybody knew this was going on.
But when you see it so clearly and specifically, where you've got an Archer Daniel, I'm sorry, Archer, Devin Archer, Archer Daniel, Devin Archer, when you have him explaining every gear in the machine, Then you can see it.
Right?
Now, and how about the media narrative that turned January 6th into an insurrection?
We all got to watch how something that clearly was not an insurrection in any way, because nobody really believes you can overcome a country.
Nobody thinks you can take over a superpower by trespassing.
Nobody.
But half of the country was willing to pretend that was real, because the media told them to pretend that way, I guess.
So we know that the media will change the narrative, and they'll actually make something that was, unfortunately, somewhat normal in American politics, which is a bunch of people protest, and then some of those people get out of control.
The most normal thing in American politics.
But the media narrative could turn that into an actual insurrection.
Or as I like to say, Trump's raging insurrection.
That's right.
The law enforcement at the Capitol, they tried to beat off Trump's raging insurrection, but they had some trouble.
Trump's raging insurrection was too much for law enforcement.
Then let's see, you also see, what else we see?
We see that the impeachment process was always fraudulent.
You could smell it and you knew it when it was happening, but now you can see it really clearly.
And you can see that they do in fact Use political processes to cover crimes.
We know, for example, that the impeachment, the first impeachment, I think Joel Pollack was saying this, and Breitbart, the first impeachment, the rules of the impeachment were that Republicans couldn't call witnesses.
Were you aware of that?
Did you know about that when it happened?
I feel like I maybe heard it, but I forgot it.
So one side in a, essentially something that's like a fake trial, this impeachment process, one side couldn't call witnesses.
Do you know what witness the Republicans would have called?
A fellow named Devin Archer.
So the entire impeachment process would have been completely different if the Republicans could have called Devin Archer.
Because suddenly, suddenly Trump's phone call to Ukraine makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
Once you know the whole, you know, Biden crime family, Devon Archer situation, and you say, wait a minute, Trump got in trouble for wanting to look into that?
That's exactly what you want to look into.
He got in trouble for asking a question.
Could somebody help him look into something that was clearly, if it wasn't illegal, it was very inappropriate and certainly not in the best interest of the United States.
And he got impeached for that.
Now do you think his impeachment could be reversed?
Because of things like that, you know, things we found out after the impeachment?
I think it should be.
I think it should be expunged.
I think the Devon Archer testimony and the fact that the Republicans couldn't even ask him to talk, which would have completely changed the context of the entire impeachment, that's good enough to expunge it.
All you need is control of the bodies and you can do it.
So maybe that'll happen.
But would you agree That we can now see the entire machine.
You can see it from the gaming that was done during the elections, etc.
Now there's one part of the machine that's left.
Do you know all the conspiracy theories that turned out to be true?
Remember all those?
There was stuff about vaccinations, well, it turned out to be mostly true.
There was stuff about the pandemic, well, mostly true.
Stuff about the Hunter Biden, well, mostly true.
Stuff about the impeachment being purely political, well, we knew that, and it's mostly true.
Stuff about the laptop, well, it turns out it's mostly true.
Russia collusion, it was the hoax you thought it was.
So, one by one, all of these things that were at one point seemed like hoaxes, they all seem true.
But there's one left.
There's one big one left.
What is it?
One big one left.
The election.
The election itself.
What are the odds that everything you thought was May be true, turned out to be true, pretty much all of it, but that the election would be the one thing that was like that shining exception.
Everything you thought about the machinery of government was true, all the bad stuff, but not that one.
Not that one.
And why do you think, why do you think you don't know more about that?
Could it be that if you were a news entity, and you questioned the election, you would be sued out of business?
Like Fox News?
And by the way, I'm not defending anything Fox News said.
Probably got some things wrong.
But everybody does, right?
Getting some things wrong is not exactly something you would expect the news business not to do.
Of course they do.
It's a human business.
They get stuff wrong.
Especially opinion.
It's becoming impossible to imagine that the election was fair.
Honestly.
And it's not because I have any information about the election.
I don't.
I have no information that would say it's unfair at all.
All I have is a context.
And the context is that every time there was something that could be rigged, it was.
Every time.
Every part of the government that could be gamed was gamed.
Everything that could be hidden was hidden.
Everything that could be turned into a narrative to fool you, was.
Every single thing that could be corrupted, perverted, or made worthless, was.
All of it.
Every time there was an opening, it happened.
But not with the election, right?
That's the only thing.
So the most important thing, the most important thing, That we imagine might have had some vulnerabilities.
Don't know what they were, but it might have had some.
The most important thing is the only thing they didn't try to game.
I mean, gaming it too far.
We know they gamed it, but within legal bounds they gamed it.
You know, if this is a movie, We're watching what could be the greatest third act of all time.
And if it's a movie, there's something that has to happen.
Which is Trump has to go to court, and in court, prove that the elections were fraudulent.
Or that at least they can't be audited.
Or at least that we can't know if it was real.
That might be good enough, to just prove that it's not fully auditable.
If you prove it's not fully auditable, then you can also prove that you don't know what the result was.
It can still be certified, and we can still accept it as true, but you won't know.
You wouldn't have any mechanism to know.
Have you seen the computer code that runs the machines?
I haven't.
Do I have any reason to think there's anything wrong with that computer code?
Nope.
Nope.
I have no claims of fact to add.
I'm just saying we live in a world in which any place there could have been some bad behavior, we found it.
Every rock we turned over had something under it.
When was the last time we turned over a rock when we thought there was something dirty there?
And we looked and looked and there was nothing there.
Well, I guess only when you're investigating some Trump stuff like Russia collusion.
In that case, there was nothing there.
But those are legitimately hoaxes.
There's a difference between a hoax and maybe just being wrong about something.
All right.
So now that we can see the machine, will it make any difference?
Well, I don't know.
Here's some more of the machine.
I'm not sure how much credibility I'd put on this thing, which is Tucker Carlson had an interview with, I guess, the former Capitol Police Chief, Stephen Sund.
And he told Tucker that he thinks January 6 was some kind of a cover-up.
And he said, quote, everything appears to be a cover-up.
Quote, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but when you look at the information and intelligence they had, the military had, it's all watered down.
I'm not getting intelligence.
I'm denied any support from National Guard, meaning when he was in his job, in advance.
I'm denied National Guard while we're under attack for 71 minutes.
And then he questioned the leadership of Milley and Pelosi.
Now, this is one person's opinion based on the atmospherics of the time.
So I don't think you should conclude from that one testimony that there was something sketchy going on.
But you could conclude by the fact that wherever it was possible for something sketchy to go on, it did.
Every time.
So was it possible at all for any of the characters in January 6 to have intentionally withheld intelligence?
Or could they have intentionally withheld, let's say, National Guard or other help?
Yes.
That would be easy to do.
It would be easy to do.
And every time there was something that was easy to do that would be good for Democrats, they did it.
No matter how weaselly and illegal and lying it was, they did it every time.
So, is this the exception?
Do you think this is the one time that there was like a big opening to do something weaselly that would have been bad for Trump, and they didn't do it?
They had an easy opening to make it look worse than it could have looked, and you think that they didn't do it?
You think that they wanted to immediately stop the protest so that Donald Trump would have nothing working against them because they immediately shut down the protest.
Was that what they wanted to do?
Do you think Democrats were like, oh, let's stop this before there's any violence?
Well, they live in the real world, and they know that if a bunch of Trump supporters wearing MAGA hats attack the Capitol, their best play is to let them destroy it.
That's their best play.
Do you think they didn't know that?
Do you think that Nancy Pelosi didn't know that their best play was to make it look dangerous?
Of course it was.
And of course they knew.
Is this the only time in all of these observed behavior, is this the first time that they were really operating legitimately and for the best interest of all the people?
No.
It's not even a thing.
I think at that level they don't even think about the public.
I honestly think, I mean I'm reading minds of course, but they act as though, I'll just say they act as though so I'm not mind reading, they act as though the public isn't even part of the consideration.
It's just whatever works.
Oh, there's plenty to help for.
Yeah, I hope I'm not painting a picture of all things are lost.
To me, the ability to see the machine is the essential step toward change.
If we can't agree what's happening, then you can't change things easily.
But once you can see it, it's all laid out for you really clearly, well then maybe, maybe you get yourself a new president and maybe something changes.
All right, so the big question that we're talking about with The new Trump indictments is, of course, everybody's going to frame it in their own way.
So one of the frames is that this would criminalize lying under the narrow situation that a politician lies, but you can show that they knew they were lying.
They knew it wasn't true.
And therefore, some action happened.
In this case, a conspiracy, some would say.
And that the action is really the problem, but the lying was contributing to the action.
So it's the action that's the problem, not the lie.
But in politics, there's always action.
Somebody's always acting.
They're either voting differently or they're complaining or threatening or doing something.
So if you criminalize lying that somebody else says you knew, because that's the important part, somebody else gets to decide what was in your head.
That's never good.
Somebody else gets to decide what you were thinking when you lied.
Were you thinking it was true?
Or were you thinking it wasn't?
I know.
So, I'm not sure, I guess Bill Barr said, you know, it's not so much about that.
The lying is not the problem, I think Bill Barr would say.
It's that it was part of a conspiracy.
So it was just, you know, one element of the conspiracy.
So if they prove the conspiracy, it's not about the lying.
I'll buy that.
I think there are two narratives that are, neither of them are quite accurate.
I think the truth is somewhere in between, that it's not about his free speech, it's about allegedly some conspiracy things to delay or overturn the election.
But it's also true that if you create a precedent That the things he said, according to other people, he knew it was a lie.
And therefore, bad things happen because of it.
If you let that standard become a precedent, I guess all politicians go to jail pretty quickly.
So, I think both sides are right.
That it's not about free speech, but the precedent it could set would be about free speech.
Does that make sense?
The case is not about free speech per se, it's just that it would accidentally have this side effect.
I'm seeing no's.
No?
Yeah.
With the legal stuff, here, let me give you a better, this is the most useful thing I could do.
Have you noticed that as soon as there's legal stuff mixed with politics, that there are only some people who are qualified to talk about it?
So when Jonathan Turley talks about it, he knows politics, and he knows the law, because that's his job, and he's a great writer.
So what he says is way more useful than what other people are saying.
Same with, I keep mentioning Joel Pollack when we're talking about these topics, because he has a legal background, follows the news, is a great writer.
That's a perfect combination.
Ben Shapiro.
Yeah, he's legal, right?
He's got a law degree.
Ben Shapiro.
Dershowitz, again, right?
Dershowitz is good.
Mike Cernovich, legal background, knows politics, knows how to tweet better than anybody.
Yeah, so there's some people you should follow and I'm not sure I'm one of them.
I would really Really favor your information toward the ones who have at least a little bit of a law degree background.
You're going to get much better.
All right.
Wow.
I just saw a meme there.
All right.
Kimberly Strassel in the Wall Street Journal was talking about this, about the lying.
All right.
To me, it seems like the precedent would be way, way, way too dangerous.
I can't imagine that the Supreme Court would ever get behind this.
Do we all assume that it ends up in the Supreme Court and gets thrown out?
And the only issue is whether there's a timing thing, you know, whether it's before or after an election or something.
I don't think anybody thinks he's going to jail.
Do you?
How many think he's going to go to jail?
Here's why I think he won't.
If you put him in jail, there's going to be physical violence.
Would you agree?
I don't think you can avoid physical violence if he goes to jail.
Now, I'm not recommending it.
I want to say as clearly as possible, I do not recommend any physical violence for anything.
Except self-defense.
But it would be unavoidable at that point.
Because at that point the country would be lost, and you actually would be Boston Tea Party time.
That would actually be an actual revolution.
I would consider that.
I wouldn't be violent myself, and I wouldn't recommend it, but I would understand it.
I would certainly understand it.
All right.
There, just to change the topic a little bit, because we're getting tired of all this legal stuff.
Over in Germany, they've built some houses, this passive house thing, by road architects.
And they figured out how to basically seal the home really tight, insulate it really well, and use almost no AC or warming.
And it's passive.
So they're just, they're piping heat in, they make sure the sun is the right orientation, the windows are super sealed.
And they've got, I don't know the technology, but they've got some kind of a, what do they call it?
A Energy Recovery Ventilation, ERV.
And then there's something that cleans the air because it's so sealed and blah blah.
But here's the point.
It's a 2,500 square foot house that costs maybe 15% more than a normal house.
But of course, that would probably go down if they make a lot of them.
And it doesn't require heating and cooling.
I mean, just imagine that.
So we were worried about You know, the future of homes and the future of climate change.
But if you can get a really, and they look really good.
They look great.
They're well designed and everything.
If you can get a 2,500 square foot home that you walk in and it just looks amazing.
I mean, it's better than a normal home.
It's just high design.
And you didn't have to pay for energy.
It's going to be really tempting for people to You know, want those homes.
I've been saying for a long time that the big economy of the future for America is going to be rebuilding our homes because all of our existing homes are built wrong.
Existing homes are not built for our lifestyle or our energy profile.
They were built when energy was cheap, and we didn't know how to build homes as well, and our lifestyles were different.
Imagine building a home today without a home office.
If you build a home today, two home offices is the right number, right?
Two adults?
The odds that you need two home offices is pretty high.
So everything that we do about building today, let's take an easy one.
It's hard to get your Wi-Fi to work throughout your home.
But if you build it in the first place with the understanding that it needed some, you know, Wi-Fi boosters or whatever, you're good.
So there's almost nothing about the way a home is built today that is optimized even compared to what we know how to do today.
So I think it's going to be gigantic rebuilding from old, you know, tearing down the old ones and building the new better ones.
So I saw a tweet by John Byrne Murdoch.
He showed two charts and it shows this huge trend line change where sometime around the pandemic, of course, the the trust in science by Republicans, you know, dived toward the ground and the trust in science by Democrats zoomed toward the sky.
I mean, just really.
And John Byrne Murdoch says it's a tragic story in two charts.
He says now there's a big partisan gap for trust in science.
And he says the Republicans are now essentially the anti-science party while Dems are stridently pro.
Is that what's happening?
Is it pro-science versus anti-science?
That's what's happening?
Let me put a different interpretation on the same data.
Same data.
I accept the data.
How about this interpretation?
Or, are Republicans the anti-bullshit party, and Democrats are brainwashed sheep?
Yeah.
Maybe one doesn't believe bullshit, and the other are brainwashed sheep.
And what do you call brainwashed sheep?
Pro-science, apparently.
Apparently pro-science is what you call brainwashed sheep.
Now, I like to say I'm pro-science, so I'm probably a brainwashed sheep.
But if you trust anything from science after the pandemic, how do you explain yourself?
How do you explain trusting science in 2023?
There's no conflict between these following statements, all right?
If you don't understand this, you missed the whole pandemic.
Two statements, there's no conflict.
Number one, the scientific process is the number one best way to figure out what's true and what isn't.
Everybody with me?
The scientific process, the process, not the people, the process is the best way to find out what's true.
Okay.
Now, we can say that that's true.
Can we also say that most, the majority, of the science that's presented to us by people is bullshit?
Most.
Yeah.
That's actually proven.
Do you know what proved that most of it's bullshit?
The scientific process.
Because they looked into it and they counted how many papers are reproducible.
Turns out, not most.
It's mostly bullshit.
The thing that we're presented as science by scientists and by the media is mostly bullshit.
If you're a Democrat and you still think that the things scientists are telling you are probably true, I feel really sorry for you.
I mean, actually, like, I have empathy for that.
Imagine going through life thinking that the things that they're telling you are true.
Sometimes they might be true, but it's going to be totally unknown when they tell you.
So it can be true that science is your best way to know what's true, while at the same time you can observe clearly the machine.
And the machine uses science selectively to brainwash you.
So if you tell me, does science tell you what's true?
If you do it right, the answer is yes.
But then you have to get a little bit real world about it and then you say, but are bad people using science to launder bullshit under the cover of science?
Yes.
They're called politicians for the most part.
Yes.
So to imagine that those two views are not consistent is something I guess you'd have to be a Democrat to understand.
And then the larger point is that data is largely useless in 2023.
But Democrats don't know yet.
So science would be a lot better if the data that they used was all accurate.
But the one thing we know for sure is that the data is bullshit.
We know that.
Right?
Just in general.
All of our data, pretty much all of our data is suspect.
Some of it might be right.
But how would you know?
There's so much that's wrong that we don't have any way to pick out the ones that are right.
Not the public, right?
If you were a scientist reproducing a study, maybe yes.
And then even then, even if you're a scientist and you reproduce a study, you still don't know if it's correlation or causation.
There's still some interpretation that you end up putting on top of it.
Alright, here's a good example of why I always say analogies don't work.
Have you ever heard me say that?
If you're making an argument, and your argument depends on an analogy, you don't have an argument.
Right?
And let me say this as clearly as possible.
If you have an argument that depends on logic and facts, and the facts and the logic are good, that's pretty solid.
You might want to put an analogy on top of your logic and facts to make it easier to package and describe the story.
But the analogy is not the argument.
The argument still has to be the logic and the facts.
The analogy is just to storytize it, you know, make it easier to convey, right?
So don't confuse the analogy with the data and the logic.
One is just for sales, just for selling something, and the other is for understanding something.
So Al Sharpton ran into that problem when he said, can you imagine, he was talking about January 6th and Trump and trying to, quote, overthrow the election.
And he said, can you imagine Jefferson and Madison trying to overthrow the government?
Yeah.
Yeah.
He actually said, can you imagine the American revolutionaries Having a revolution against the government?
And somebody tried to save him on Twitter and say, Scott, don't you realize that that was a dictatorship?
They weren't overthrowing a democratically elected government.
To which I say, what's that got to do with anything?
If you don't like your government, you don't like your government.
It doesn't matter how it got there, right?
If you're a revolutionary, you're a revolutionary.
But it's the dumbest thing a public person has said in a long time, and that's including everything that Kamala Harris has said.
Can you imagine Jefferson and Madison?
And I guess my comment about this, I made a snarky comment and it got picked up by a bunch of publications.
So if you tweet well, You'll get quoted.
All right.
CNN is creating the narrative that Putin is waiting for Trump to get re-elected because Trump will be friendly to Putin.
Were you expecting that?
Of course.
Of course.
Remember the machinery?
CNN is just part of the machine.
So this part of the machine has to turn because Trump is getting closer and closer to re-election.
So they've got to turn up the part that says that he's blowing Putin.
Oh no, he's a lover of Putin.
I think they're BFFs.
They're pen pals.
I think they have a sexual relationship or something.
So they've got to turn that up as they started today.
Now here's my take.
If Putin is in fact waiting for Trump, why is that a problem?
Other than it'd be good if things wrapped up sooner.
But why is that a problem?
Why are we complaining about it?
Doesn't that tell you that he thinks that Trump can end the war?
Here's what I see.
I see two entities that because of whatever their domestic situation is, they can't make peace.
They can't.
You need a large outside force to make them do it, so they can say, well, we didn't want to, but those Americans and NATO, they just forced our hand.
What could we do?
We had to make a deal.
So, of course he's waiting.
What do you think Putin wants to do?
Do you think Putin wants to just surrender?
So he can't win, and he can't just give up because that would look weak and terrible.
Of course he's waiting, because Trump's the only one who says he's going to negotiate an end to the war.
You don't think that Putin wants an end to the war?
Of course he does.
So the fact that Putin thinks that Trump would be a better leader in this situation, and the fact that he agrees with maybe a third of the public or so now, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Let Putin, let Putin say he'd prefer a president that will make a deal and let him get the deal.
So, Chris Christie's in Ukraine now.
Oh my God.
Do you know what you're not going to see?
Trump go to Ukraine.
You want to take any bets on that?
Does anybody think that Trump's going to visit Ukraine?
Not a chance.
Not a chance.
It would be stupid.
I mean, I hope so.
I mean, I hope he doesn't.
It would be ridiculous if he did.
But I guess Chris Christie's got to, I don't know.
I don't know what game he's playing.
He's obviously not going to be president or vice president.
Senator Feinstein, who's, I believe her age is 300.
She's over 300 years old.
She's over 300 years old.
And she's given power of attorney to her daughter for her personal affairs. - Yes.
So she's so incompetent that her daughter has power of attorney to make all of her legal decisions and stuff.
But she's still a sitting senator and has not resigned.
So she's one of the people running your country after having admitted she can't run her own life.
Because she has somebody else in charge of it.
And we're okay with that.
Why?
Because we can see the machine.
We're not really okay.
You can see the machine.
The machine is just not making it a story.
So unless Fox News mentions it, it doesn't come up.
So they just sort of live with it like that's okay.
You see the machine.
All they care about is the vote.
Wow.
So Joe Rogan is becoming quite outspoken about the political situation.
And he actually says that the Carrie Lake election in Arizona, he thinks he sees some real reason for, let's say, distrusting the results.
And thinks it's a banana republic that Trump got arrested.
Has Joe Rogan gone completely no Democrats watch his show?
Is that what's happened?
Has he turned into just like a thorough, you know, right-leaning conservative figure?
Because I was sort of surprised that he took such a aggressive public stand.
I agree with him on everything, but I was surprised because it seems like it would be I made the mistake of looking at one comment from X. Let me read it.
It's in all caps.
Love Joe R. He tells the truth and is not crazy like Scott.
Scott is jealous.
Who isn't jealous of Joe Rogan?
Is there somebody here who is not jealous of Joe Rogan?
I mean, seriously.
You're not?
What's wrong with you?
Maybe you should see somebody about that.
I feel like the most natural human feeling would be that you would have some, some jealousy about somebody who's just killing it.
You know, just killing it in life.
Especially if they're doing something that you also do, but they do it better than it's been done in the history of, you know, humanity.
Which is Joe Rogan right now.
I mean, he's basically Number one in human history for doing the thing he's doing.
Do you think I should not feel any jealousy about that?
I would say jealousy is the wrong word though.
I think competitive.
Yeah.
I was just sort of auditing my own feelings about it.
I think I know what jealousy and envy feels like.
But it feels more like it gets my competitive instinct up.
Makes me want to do better.
I spend a lot of time, I spend a lot of time thinking about what Joe Rogan does, and then thinking about what I do, and saying, alright, if that's the best in class, what can I do that's more like that?
You should all do that.
If you're looking at Joe Rogan and you're not saying, I need to up my game, because whatever he's doing is working, you should.
It doesn't feel like envy or jealousy because I don't have the bad feeling about it.
It's more of a positive, hey, he can do this, I can do better.
This is the perfect internet dad situation.
The fact that Joe Rogan, I find nothing but inspiring, and I find that he just makes me want to work harder.
Give me more of that, please.
Please, more of that.
So if he makes me envious or jealous, in your opinion, in your mind-reading opinion, but I process it as just wanting to work harder because he's setting a standard, then I think we're all good, aren't we?
We'll ban you for being too stupid.
Mute.
It does make you wonder about the personalities of the all caps shouters.
Would you like to meet one in person?
Just see what they're like in person.
I've been thinking about doing that.
If I could get just one of my trolls, like I've got one troll who comes on, I think it's been changing accounts and stuff, to tell me that I killed my stepson by neglect.
And I keep wondering, I would love to meet that person in person, like actually I would, because I just want to know what's going on.
Is this somebody who's broken all the time, and they just treat everybody like this?
Or are they so weak and powerless that they can bother somebody who's got a lot of viewers and they feel like, oh, I did something.
I made a difference in the world.
Or are they actually just like totally broken trolls and they get pleasure out of creating any pain?
Just sadists.
I think they're sadists.
What do you think?
Do you think they're political or just sadists?
I think they're sadists.
How in the world did that happen?
Oh, that's...
I think the front person came back.
We're blocking all the all-caps people because they're silly sadists.
But don't take it personally.
All right, what else is happening?
So I asked this question, how long before we learned Biden's corruption is the only reason for the Ukraine war?
Has anybody asked that question yet?
I feel like we're dancing around that question.
Have you heard anybody in the news say that directly?
That we wouldn't be in the war if we had a different president?
Because we had a president who couldn't say no to Ukraine.
So here's the thesis.
The only way the war could have been avoided is if somebody could give a hard no to Ukraine and Russia.
Trump.
Trump.
Trump could give a hard no to both of those countries and say, you're not going to have a war.
I think Trump could have told them what they're going to do.
Here's a Trump.
Putin, you've amassed your forces on the border.
You're not going to move them.
Well, what if I do?
No, you're not.
Well, we might.
You're not.
But why are you saying that?
Are you not hearing me?
You're not.
And I don't even think Trump would tell him what he would do.
I mean, he might throw in some threats, but I think he could just threaten him away.
He could literally say, you have no idea what I'm going to do to you.
You don't know the depth that I would be willing to go to.
If you move one soldier over that line, all the rules are off.
What would Putin do if he heard that?
Imagine if Trump said, and I'm just gaming it through, imagine if Trump said, if you move one soldier's foot over that line, all the rules are off.
If I were Putin, I would immediately stop.
Because I don't know what that means.
What does that mean?
Like it could be they're going to kill Putin?
Maybe he'll be assassinated?
I mean, he would have no idea what that means.
He would probably not think it was nuclear war, but you never know.
Now imagine, and then of course it would be easy for somebody like a Trump to tell Zelensky, we're not giving you jack shit.
I just told you he's not going to put one foot over the line.
Because if he does, all the rules change.
So could, now this is all hypothetical, it's easy to be, you know, 2020 hindsight, backseat quarterback, backseat driver, all that stuff.
But it does seem to me that we have the only president who didn't have a chance of doing that.
Because from what we've learned, it would seem that Ukraine has some leverage over Biden.
Does anybody disagree with that?
It seems to be obvious That Ukraine, let's say Zelensky specifically, would have knowledge of the Biden workings in Ukraine, and probably greater knowledge than we have so far.
You don't think that Biden knows that if he doesn't do everything Zelensky wants, there will be some information that comes out that's bad for Hunter?
Does anybody think that we know everything there is to know about Ukraine?
Don't you think it's obvious that Ukraine has some blackmail over Biden at this point?
It's not obvious?
Now even if he doesn't, imagine he doesn't.
Suppose we've heard everything there is to hear and if we heard more it would just be sort of more of the same and not change anything.
Maybe.
But are you comfortable and confident that your president is working for the benefit of America?
I'm not.
Tell me one other time, you tell me one other time that America's been in a war, you know, in this case we're supporting it without soldiers, but tell me one other time America's been in a war when you weren't sure if the commander-in-chief was actually on your team.
Think about it.
Has that ever happened before?
No, not El Salvador.
Not Iraq.
No, here's the thing.
Even if you say, you know, Vietnam, Iraq, they were all bad wars, they were all allegedly for the benefit of America.
Right?
We thought, I think people genuinely thought Iraq was some kind of a threat, even if they didn't know there was weapons of mass destruction.
It still looked like, you know, at least we could get their oil or something.
To me, it didn't look like the Commander-in-Chief was non-American.
It looked like maybe just making some bad moves.
But this looks like Biden protecting his family, and it doesn't look like it had anything to do with America.
That's what it looks like.
Not reading his mind, because I can't, but if you look at the actions, you'd say this does not look like somebody who's on the side of America.
It looks exactly like somebody protecting his family.
And it looks like the entire war is based on that.
So how many days has gone by since our crack news industry has found all the other people who agreed with Joe Biden that the Burisma prosecutor should be fired?
Because remember, he said he was doing it because all the other entities, the international entities, show me one.
Put one on camera.
Put any one of the people who agreed with him, before he did it, on camera.
And just say, so you thought this was a good idea, can you tell us how much you independently knew about this prosecutor?
Were you really following this prosecutor in Ukraine?
And then what you probably would hear would be something like this.
Well, it's not something I was following closely, but we trust that the United States was.
So when the United States says, you should back us on this, we kind of got in line because we trust them.
There was nobody who agreed with this.
You would have heard from them.
You don't think that Biden would have put somebody on the news, you know, his team.
You don't think they would have produced at least one person to say, hey, you know, I'm, I'm Danish.
And all, everybody over in Europe knew this guy had to go.
Because that was the story we were told, right?
And then you put on the French guy, it's like, oh, yes, oui, oui.
Oh, the French, we were so against this prosecutor.
We are so glad that he was finally removed.
Canada.
Oh, those Canadians.
They just wanted that Ukrainian prosecutor removed.
Yeah, yeah.
Paul gets blocked.
Paul.
I block people for saying that Scott is finally waking up.
So you're...
I think I blocked two or three people every day for saying, he's finally waking up.
No, I'm not finally fucking waking up.
Maybe you're finally listening to my show.
But stop saying that dumbass NPC bullshit.
He's finally waking up.
He's finally waking up.
All right.
Let's see.
All right, so here's a question of the day.
Did Devon Archer say that he was selling the illusion of excess, or was that only in the question?
Who said that Devin Archer was selling only the illusion of access?
Turns out that was Dan Goldman's question.
Were you only selling the illusion?
Well, but you were selling the illusion, right?
It was more about the illusion.
Could you please agree with me that it was just the illusion?
And then I think Devin said something like, well, Not just the illusion.
So he wasn't quite buying the completeness of that statement that it was the illusion.
So, of course, we will argue about whether that's true or false that Devon Archer said he was selling the illusion.
And then here's another part of the machine that I want to call out.
So Phil Bump, who writes for the Washington Post, says that Devin Archer said the opposite of what Republicans claimed.
So Phil Bump for the Washington Post, how many recognize that part of the machine?
How many know the name Phil Bump and the Washington Post?
Are you familiar with it?
All right, let me explain.
Phil Bump is the Adam Schiff of Eric Swalwell's Who writes for the Washington Post, which is the toilet paper of the news.
So did I get that?
So he's the Adam Schiff of Eric Swalwells, who writes for the Washington Post, which is the toilet paper of the news.
When you see Phil Bump come out with something, it means that the Democrats are having a tough time and they couldn't find anybody who would lie enough.
Let me soften that.
I won't say lie.
Couldn't find anybody who would torture the narrative enough.
That they can get support for their team.
So if you have to rely on Phil Bump, it means you've lost everything.
It's like you're in trouble.
Who can we get to say something good about us?
Everybody else is hiding, because the news is not in our favor.
Can we get somebody who will just say anything?
Just say anything.
Especially somebody in the Washington Post, because Democrats still think that's a legitimate publication.
Imagine being a Democrat and not knowing that the Washington Post is bullshit.
Imagine not knowing that.
Everything would be confusing.
Imagine thinking that the New York Times is intending to tell you objective truth.
Imagine thinking that's even their intention.
How confused would you be about everything?
Nothing would look right.
So anyway, part of the machine you should recognize is the Phil Bump play.
Maybe I'll even call it that.
I'll call it the Bump play.
Where your narrative has gone so wrong, you can only find one person who's willing to say you're right.
Phil Bump.
By the way, Phil Bump gave me a hard time when the Washington Post canceled me.
He's very much one of the bad guys.
At least in my world, he's a bad guy.
So yeah, he has the lowest credibility of probably anybody in the writing business.
That's my opinion.
Just my opinion.
And wait a minute, do I go to, can I go to jail for my opinion?
Hold on, let me see.
I had an opinion.
If somebody else thinks I lied, and then they cancel their subscription, But that wouldn't be politics.
I don't know.
I'm confused.
I don't know.
Looks like I just lost my picture on X. Aww.
So my live stream on X just ended on its own.
That's weird.
Alright, so I don't know if that was a technical problem or what.
Probably.
Rasmussen did a poll about Biden and the possibility of an impeachment, and the support for impeaching Biden has gone... Which direction did it go?
After all the Devon Archer stuff came out?
Are people more or less willing to... Less willing.
Less willing, yeah.
Does that make sense to you?
Does it make sense that there's less support for impeachment?
Compared to the beginning of the year.
All right, here's how you could explain it.
He's closer to the end of his term.
I think there might be less support for impeachment if he's not going to be around very long, and it's obvious he's not going to be the next president.
I think if he were a real risk to be the next president, then maybe people would have, you know, feel differently.
So I think it's time, but I also observe that every time a political leader comes under fire, their base ramps up the support.
So do you think it's just a combination of their base ramping up support, because their guy is under pressure, and the fact that he's closer to retirement anyway?
Yeah.
It could be just the vagaries of polling.
Polling's getting harder and harder to do.
But Rasmussen has looked at these numbers pretty closely.
They look like real opinions.
It doesn't look like somebody's gaming the system.
So, we'll see.
Don't impeach Biden, it will only backfire.
You might be right about that.
I don't know if I've ever, have I given an opinion yet?
Have I ventured an opinion on impeaching Biden?
I don't remember if I have.
So let me form an opinion right now.
It does seem to me that the Republicans could take the high ground.
And say, this is clearly impeachable, but we'll settle for expunging Trump's impeachment and reset us to where we were before this ugliness.
Because what you don't want is both sides perpetually impeaching each other, which is where we're heading.
So if the Republicans impeach, they've now set the standard that all presidents get impeached the moment Congress is in a position to do it.
Meaning the other side has the majority.
So the Republicans could take the high ground.
They could say the Trump impeachments were illegitimate and they expunge them.
Let's say they get a majority, expunge them.
And then say, we don't want to recreate the same problem that the Democrats did.
We do believe that Biden's behavior is beyond the pale.
We've described it to you in detail, but let the voters decide.
Now, there are two schools of thought.
And I'm not entirely sure which one is right, so I'll just put them out there for you.
One school of thought is that you push every advantage you can, and you try to destroy the other side in every way you can, no matter what, and that would imply impeaching.
I know I hate that point of view.
I don't know that it's right, strategically.
I don't know that it's the right strategy.
But I understand, you know, I respect it.
I understand the thinking.
I do understand that you've got to push hard or somebody's going to push you.
I get it.
But you don't want to use the same tool for every different situation.
This might be a special case.
Because the other thing you could say is that Biden is no longer coherent.
You can say that impeaching somebody who wouldn't know he's being impeached is buying you nothing.
That's the good high ground.
The high ground would be you don't impeach somebody who's that degraded.
Oh, that's it.
That's it.
That's the narrative.
The narrative is Republicans don't do this.
And by the way, you can't impeach somebody who couldn't defend himself.
That is a good frame, because it's actually true.
I don't think, in my opinion, I don't think you should impeach somebody who's that degraded.
I think you either time him out, just replace him in the normal order of things, or if his own team wants to take him out sooner, that's their own decision.
But having the Republicans press somebody who's just really not capable at this point feels like You know, just beating a baby harpseal.
It just feels like it's not a fair fight anymore.
Now, I get it that Biden is still fighting hard.
So, you know, he shouldn't get a free pass.
But you might have a better framing of saying you're above it.
Saying you're above it might be exactly what the country wants to hear.
Do you think the country wants to hear we've got to stop doing the impeachments?
I think people would say they want to hear it, but I don't know if they do.
Because they might like impeaching the other team, but not their own team.
No, they expect Republicans to be weak.
Yeah, but is it weakness?
So here's the central question.
Is trying to impeach Biden showing strength or weakness?
Because to me, if let's say somebody has a mental weakness and they come up and slap you in the face.
Would you be showing strength by hitting the back, or strength by saying, okay, I can take a hit.
Let's deal with it.
Let's deal with this as humans.
Which one makes you look strong?
Yeah, you have to think this through.
Because I think you could sell Biden as too degraded to impeach.
And that's actually a stronger, that's much stronger messaging, I think.
But you're right.
The only factor is what the public perceives.
If the public perceives that's too weak, then I guess it wouldn't work.
But I don't know that they would.
I see somebody calling themselves Rob Reiner, but not the real one.
You're fine with President Kamala and might say it's about time?
You're not the real Rob Reiner, are you?
I don't think so.
All right.
Slimy Joe?
I don't know.
Yeah, in my analogy, the crazy person is someone who they can defend themselves.
I mean, they did the first lap, but it just wouldn't be a fair fight.
So it's all about it not being a fair fight.
That's all.
So you should not take the... So here's a perfect example.
If my argument was the analogy, then that's weak.
But I don't need the analogy to make the argument that you don't want to attack a weak person in public.
Right?
You don't need the analogy.
So here's the analogy.
It's just packaging the point.
It's not making the point.
It's just packaging it.
So don't argue the analogy.
Argue the logic of it.
Does that make sense?
Don't argue the marketing of it.
The analogy is just an easy way to remember it.
Just think about the logic of it.
All right, 81 million, how weak is he?
Impeaching Garland might make sense.
I do wonder about him.
There are some things that Garland needs to explain to all of us, wouldn't you say?
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that is all I needed to do today to achieve the greatest livestream you've ever seen so far today.
And YouTube, thanks for joining.
I would say thanks to the people on X, but they appear to have left on their own.