Episode 2238 Scott Adams: The Gears Of The Machine Continue To Reveal Themselves. Wow. Bring Coffee
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Asylum Seekers Risk/Benefit, Michael Wolff, Oliver Darcy, AG Garland Congressional Testimony, President Trump CR Opposition, Weaponized Government, Open Borders, John Cusack, Dave Portnoy Hit Piece, Washington Post Questionable Ethics, Russell Brand Demonetization, Cartel Border Control, Soros Family Policies, WEF Influence, Ukraine War Purpose, Election Integrity, 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 while it lasts.
This is Coffee with Scott Adams, and if you'd like to take this experience up to a level that I don't think people can even understand, all you need is a cup of marigold glass, a tank of gelatine, a canteen jug of flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine at the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Well, there's all kinds of stuff happening in the world.
All kinds of stuff.
We may have an answer to why are we so dumb.
You know, people are always confused.
How did they build the pyramids?
And we wouldn't know how to do it today with their tools.
And you think, maybe they were just smarter.
Maybe we're getting dumber.
Well, there's a new report, scientific report, that male mice that consumed aspartame, the sweetener that's in a lot of drinks, for example, soft drinks, had offspring that demonstrated spatial learning and memory deficits.
So basically, aspartame made mice stupid.
Aspartame.
Now, am I wrong that that would explain everything we see?
It would explain everything, actually everything.
Now, I don't think it's true, by the way, because studies on mice are not, you know, they don't often translate to actually human beings.
So, and studies in general, studies in general are unreliable and, you know, maybe it was made by some company that competes with soft drinks, so I wouldn't trust any part of that.
However, the only thing I want to say about this is it gives me a new thing to say to the trolls.
You know, when the trolls come in and say some dumbass thing, you say, are you enjoying your soda?
And that's all.
How's your soda?
That's all I'm going to say.
All right, so the theme of today's live stream is who's really in charge?
Who's running everything, or who's trying to run everything?
Is it the Open Society Soros?
Is Soros running everything?
Is it the World Economic Forum?
Is it, as many anti-Semitic people are telling me every day, a gigantic Jewish conspiracy?
Is it the elites?
Is it the elites?
Is it the Deep State?
Is the Deep State also the elites who are also George Soros, who are also the WEF, who are also part of a big Jewish conspiracy?
Or is it the cartels and the CIA?
So we're going to look at those theories and see which ones hold.
Number one, if it were a Jewish conspiracy, do you think that they would open the borders?
Do you think there's some way a Jewish conspiracy could be furthered by opening the borders?
The answer is obviously no.
Obviously no.
Obviously.
So whatever's happening at the borders has nothing to do with any kind of a Jewish conspiracy.
Because why would anybody want to destroy the United States?
The biggest military benefactor Or the biggest military support of Israel.
That doesn't make sense.
So we're going to discard that one as obviously not true based on observation.
Now, as I've been reminded, oh, 50 fucking times this morning, there are many Jewish leaders.
Guess what?
All of our leaders have good educations.
Pretty much all of them.
So, are you surprised that people who are well-educated are more likely to be leaders?
I'm not.
All right, we'll talk about some of the others.
Question number one, as part of context for this.
My understanding is that the reason there are so many migrants or immigrants coming in is because they can take advantage of the asylum laws Not all of them, but most of the ones coming through the regular ports, they say, oh, I'm applying for asylum, and then our laws are so inefficient that they can end up basically staying here forever, even if they never were legitimately in danger.
Now, why don't we change that?
And the answer is, because the argument is, that the current situation is better than what we could change it to.
But who exactly did that analysis?
Who did the analysis that letting this number of people in claiming that they're asylum seekers, who did the analysis that that saves more lives than it costs?
Because the implication of the asylum rules are that it might save actual asylum seekers, which should be good.
But how many per year?
How many asylum seekers Went from, pretty much would have been dead, you know, let's say statistically, we're not talking about any individual, but statistically, how many of the asylum seekers who came to the United States would have been, you know, killed or victimized had they stayed where they were?
Or gone to another country?
Does anybody know?
See if going private gets rid of that troll.
Does anybody know how many asylum seekers, like numbers, not percentage, forget about percentages, just raw numbers.
What would you guess?
What's your guess of the number of people who are saved by the asylum program?
100 a year?
What would you guess?
Maybe 100 a year?
How many women got raped on the way to the border this week?
Probably more than 100.
How many people died trying to be part of this big asylum mass migration?
Probably more than were saved by asylum.
If the point of asylum is to save people, wouldn't you expect that there would be at least a little bit of a hand-waving toward an analysis that says if we keep doing what we're doing we're saving X number of people?
But because it also, obviously, encourages mass asylum seekers who may not be legitimate, you know, how many people die because of that?
Don't you think we have a right to know?
And how do you make a decision if you don't know?
If you don't know if the asylum rules are making something better, and you don't know that they're making it worse, what do all decision makers do in that case?
There's one right way to go.
No, you don't guess.
If you can't tell if a thing is really expensive, and it's really expensive to let people in, that's obvious.
If a thing is really expensive, you don't do it unless you're pretty sure it works.
Everybody gets that, right?
You don't affirmatively do a thing that's really expensive if you don't have pretty clear evidence that it probably works.
Where would be the evidence that this probably works?
None.
None.
The most basic analysis that anybody would do is this thing we're doing that costs a lot of money.
Once they get in, you know, they have to be supported.
But it costs a lot of money.
And it's an affirmative thing.
It's not just, you know, some default thing that came to us.
We're affirmatively doing this.
Without any information if it makes things better or worse.
And what does your intuition tell you?
Does your common sense and intuition tell you that it is saving more lives than it's taking?
If you count the fact that somebody who gets violently raped is never the same.
So what can you conclude about this?
The one thing you can conclude for sure is that it's not based on kindness.
It's not based on any sense of what's good for people.
So far, would you say that's 100% obvious?
Because if they were trying to save lives, They would make a case that this saves more lives than the alternative.
But the complete absence of that, along with the fact that it seems kind of obvious that it's costing more lives than it's saving.
I mean, just observationally, commonsensically, what it feels like, without the analysis, it feels like it's massively worse, what we're doing.
So under those conditions, could you honestly tell yourself that the reason the borders are as open as they are is because we did the analysis and we're doing what's good for people?
No.
No, you couldn't.
It's not even slightly feasible that that's why this is happening.
So if it's not because of the stated reasons, being good to people, what is it?
It's something else.
Maybe we can determine what this something else is with a little bit more context.
Here's some context.
Michael Wolff, an author who likes to write provocative books about public figures, among other things, he's got this book coming out, it's a hit piece on Fox News.
Now, do you think that this hit piece on Fox News is going to be credible?
Do you think it'll be credible?
Let me just give you a sense of how not credible it is.
Try to wrap your head around what I'm going to say, because you're going to have to sit down for this.
I swear to God, your head is going to fall off when I tell you what happens next.
It's a hit piece by a very Democrat left-leaning guy, Michael Wolff, and it's a hit piece against Fox News.
Now hold that in your head.
Democrat writes a hit piece about Fox News.
On CNN, the biggest competitor of Fox News, there's an opinion piece by Oliver Darcy.
Now Oliver Darcy writes a lot of opinion pieces that are, you know, anti-GOP, anti-right kind of stuff.
Now hold everything in your head so far.
It's a hit piece by a Democrat against Fox News.
Who's the biggest competitor of CNN.
And the CNN opinion piece person tells you that you should ignore this fucking book because it's going to be a non-credible piece of shit.
That's from the CNN opinion guy.
The CNN opinion guy just defended Fox News before the book hits.
Before the book hits.
He says this guy is so non-credible that he's not even going to support it against his biggest competition.
That's how bad it is.
Now, tell yourself, do you think you live in a world where the hit pieces are something about the news or something that you need to know?
No.
The hit pieces are all going after the economic model, mostly the advertising model, of anybody who's a critic of the left.
So this is a hit piece that is so obviously a hit piece that, to his credit, Oliver Darcy, who very clearly has a left-leaning bias, and there's nothing wrong with that.
So there's nothing wrong with having a bias.
We all have it.
My sense of why he wrote is that he's actually offended by being part of an industry that does this stuff.
I think he's actually offended by it.
Even just being part of this industrial bullshit complex.
That is something that's really notable.
So, congratulations, Oliver Darcy.
Now there may be more to the story than I know about.
Maybe they have some personal problem.
That would be funny.
If the whole thing is they have some personal beef.
On the surface it looks like he's just being useful.
Telling you the truth.
Alright, Attorney General Garland testified.
Would you be surprised to know that it looked like he perjured himself, according to Thomas Massey, and that it looks like he lied and avoided everything and something deeply, deeply is wrong?
I could get into the details of who asked what and how he avoided the questions and whatever, but the bottom line is he did everything you would do if you were guilty and you didn't know how to hide it.
Just everything you do.
He could not have looked more guilty or less like somebody who was working for the public.
Now just hold that in your mind.
The Attorney General doesn't even appear to be trying to hide the fact that there's something going on here that's not cool.
All right?
Trump came out against the continued resolution that would keep the government open by funding it the same way it's been funded before without any changes.
And it's just a way to kick the can down the road so they don't have to come up with a real budget.
But if you're against the continuing resolution, you're against the budget, or at least the budget that would keep the government open temporarily.
And Trump says No money as long as you have a weaponized government and the borders are open.
To which I say, okay.
Yeah, I think the very minimum for funding our government is they have to close the border.
I would be against, I'm against any funding of a government that's not doing anything for me.
If you're not going to actually work for me, close the border, why would I pay you?
Trump is completely right.
There's absolutely no reason to fund the government.
We should let it crash.
Just let the whole government crash.
It's better.
Because they want paychecks and they want jobs and stuff.
Just stop paying them.
See what happens.
And yes, I know there'll be gigantic repercussions, but not as gigantic as the alternative.
The open borders are way worse than crashing the government.
If we crash the government, let's say we were completely helpless That's okay.
Compared to what's happening right now.
If you want to make us completely vulnerable to foreign attack, I'm okay with that.
Because we're past the point of any safe options.
There are no safe options.
You're going to have to do something dangerous.
And closing the government is pretty dangerous.
But probably have to do it.
Doesn't mean we will, but we should.
Even actor John Cusack is blasting the Democrats for being a bunch of fascists.
I'm not making that up.
You know, John Cusack is sort of the Rob Reiner of sloppy-looking actors, who's, you know, one of the biggest critics of the Republicans.
But he just, you know, full-throated just said the Democrats are basically fascists.
They're just coordinating with big companies to screw the middle class.
Didn't pull any punches.
So that's happening.
Now you've also seen that even Morning Joe and the most lefty of the lefties are starting to come around and say, wait a minute, wait a minute.
Why are we opening the borders and not fighting crime anymore?
Like they're starting to understand that there's something deeply wrong and they don't even know what it is.
Maybe we can figure it out.
Koussak even went after Obama by name.
Created the conditions for fascism.
That's pretty direct.
And he's right.
So Dave Portnoy.
Made some news today.
I guess he's doing some kind of pizza related festival or event.
And the Washington Post called his advertisers for the event, said that he is a misogynist who's done lots of sketchy things and they want to talk to him.
To get their comment about why they would advertise for such a sketchy person.
So Dave Portnoy calls the The reporter, who first denies that something like that happened, and then he read the actual reporter's message, who then did not deny that it happened, but said, oh, well, yeah, we were going to talk to you.
So Portnoy says, could you show me the article?
And then I would talk to you about whether that's right or wrong.
And they say, oh, no, we can't show you the article because of journalistic blah, blah, blah.
Explain to me what journalistic principle would be violated by showing Dave Portnoy the article before it runs so that he can fact check it, or at least tell you what his impression is to each of the claims.
Tell me anything that would be a violation of journalistic integrity.
Nothing.
There's nothing that would stop you from doing that.
Most of the journalists won't do that, by the way.
That's something I've asked for in the past.
But they just laugh at you?
No, they're not going to show it to you.
Even if it's about you, they're not going to show it to you.
Do you know who doesn't do that?
Fortune Magazine didn't do that.
When Fortune Magazine would do a piece about me, the reporter would write the piece, And then separately, a completely different person would call me, and on the phone, read everything in the piece that was sort of directly about a fact about me, and say, is this true?
They would even check, do you have the date of birth right?
Did you really say this quote?
Did you make this much money?
Are you in this business?
Do you know why they don't do that anymore?
Well, newspapers didn't do it in the first place.
Now, something's happening with Fortune at the moment.
It's different ownership, I think.
But back in those days, they were actually quite serious about getting the story right.
So they would make sure that you answered.
Now, Fortune didn't show you the story.
So that is actually a journalistic practice.
They won't show you the story.
But they did the next best thing.
Which is they read, like, every detail that wasn't directly a fact, and they asked you to respond to it.
How many times did I have to correct facts when the fact-checker has asked me to correct them?
How many times were there substantial facts that would have been wrong if they hadn't asked?
100% of the time.
100% of the time, there's something in the fact-checking that's important and completely wrong. 100%.
Now what happens to a story where no fact checker does that?
It's guaranteed to be wrong.
I've never seen one that was right about a public figure in very important ways.
But is that what's happening here?
Is this just a hit piece?
Yeah, it's a little more than that, isn't it?
Because the way they went about it is they sent a message to the advertisers to chill them from wanting to be associated.
Is that what a hit piece is?
Usually the hit piece does the damage after it's published.
Here they were very directly trying to damage Portnoy's operation.
Without the article.
Just going right after the people who give him advertising.
To chill them, to think, do you want to be in a story about, in the Washington Post, that says you're associated with this, who they call a misogynist.
Now do you see the op?
The op is to go after every dissenting voice, after their business model.
So my business model was removed, Tucker Carlson's was removed, Russell Brand was removed.
Now they're going after Portnoy.
They're going to remove his business model.
Of course the entire Trump business was kneecapped by the entire process.
So you can see one after another that the press, which some say is managed by the CIA.
Some people would say the Washington Post is owned by the CIA or influenced by it.
And the press is trying to destroy a citizen.
Because that's not journalism.
And when asked why they were even writing the article, they said it's because he's interesting.
That's why the Washington Post writes an article about an individual and destroys his business model?
because he's interesting?
Stop saying I'm wrong and then agreeing with me.
So a local, somebody says I'm wrong, but then they're agreeing with me.
No, they didn't show the article in advance in Fortune.
The fact checkers asked me facts.
But it is true that I've had journalists for smaller publications who offered to show me the entire text just to make sure it was right.
So both have happened, but it would be uncommon.
It would be uncommon to show the subject, the article, if you're a big publication like the Washington Post.
That would be uncommon.
I've never heard of it.
Probably happened, but it would be uncommon.
All right.
So that's a clear example of a hit piece that's beyond a hit piece, because they're actually trying to destroy his business before they even publish the article.
Have you ever seen anything like that before?
Have you ever seen anything like that?
Unbelievable.
Now, we also know that the UK Has asked YouTube and TikTok to demonetize Russell Brand because he's accused of things.
Not convicted, not proven, but simply accused.
Does that strike you as something that's just a normal activity of the government?
Is that just a normal... Oh, I'm sorry, it was Rumble, they were trying to get to demonetize him.
Rumble and TikTok, thank you for the correction.
Because YouTube already demonetized him.
Now, do you think it's a normal and proper use of the government to ask American companies to demonetize somebody who's only been accused?
Does that sound like something they should spend their time on?
Can you see that this is very directly going after the economics and business model of anybody who has a dissenting opinion?
It's obvious, right?
But who would do such a thing?
Now you also know that TikTok, the reason it's still legal is because there's an American, I think he's American, billionaire who funds Congress.
So you know that that part's just illegitimate.
Why is Fentonland, why is the border open?
Tell me who would benefit from an open border.
Well, let me say it as clearly as possible.
Whoever is in charge of our border is in charge of the country.
Would you say that's true?
Whoever's in charge of the border is who's in charge of the country, because you wouldn't be able to be in charge of the border unless you were also in charge of the country.
Who lives inside the boundaries of America who would open the border?
Like what kind of a high-functioning person who actually understands the world?
Now I'm not talking about Louis C.K., because he would open the border, but if we're being honest, He hasn't really looked into it.
He's not one of the people in charge, so you don't have to worry about him.
But people who actually understand what's happening.
Who in the world would open it?
Who lives inside the border?
And the answer is nobody.
There's nobody who lives in America who would be okay with opening the border.
You just wouldn't do it.
But there is somebody outside of America who would want to do it.
Who would that be?
Who lives outside of America and would want to open the border, even at the severe risk of what would happen to America?
China, you say?
And who does China work with?
The cartels.
The cartels want the open border most, and they work with China so that they're connected, but mostly the cartels.
Did you ever wonder why our CIA can overthrow almost any government in Central and South America if they want to, and have?
I'll deal with the anti-Semitics.
So all the anti-Semitic people who are yelling, Jew, Jew, Jew, I will answer your questions, but saying it over and over won't actually change the fact that it's stupid.
So a lot of what you think is anti-Semitic is just stupid people who can't do pattern recognition.
The fact that a lot of Jewish people have good jobs is not telling you what you think it's telling you.
Because you've got a theory that there's a Jewish conspiracy to do something that would be the worst thing that could ever happen to Jews anywhere in the entire world, which is destroy the economy of the United States.
Do you really think that there's even one legitimate, high-powered Jewish leader in the United States who wants the economy of the United States destroyed?
You have to come up with a theory.
You're going to have to come up with a theory that actually makes sense.
And the, we want to destroy all of our own money And the people who protect us the most for our benefit?
Come up with a coherent theory.
So first you have to describe it coherently.
These are the people, here's what they're doing, and here's why that's good for them.
You haven't done that, right?
You've told me the people, but you haven't told me why it's good for them to destroy their own biggest assets.
If you can pull that together.
Now don't just shout Jewish names.
I'm kind of intentionally triggering people into cognitive dissonance right now.
So if it looks like I'm pushing this too hard, it's because I'm watching the cognitive dissonance.
So what you should see is a bunch of accusations about me, because nobody can answer the question.
All they can do is shout words.
Zionism!
Larry Finkel!
Go ahead, just shout words to show us how your cognitive dissonance is turning out.
Just try to make your case, but prove to us that you can't do anything except shout, oh, Jews are bad, oh!
Go ahead.
Oh, Great Reset, Great Reset.
Weimar, Weimar Republic.
So that's a pretty good argument.
Oh, there's good.
Scott Adamstein, good comment, good comment.
Soros.
Soros.
Oh, it all makes sense now.
Soros.
No, I'm going to play this out a little bit longer.
So bear with me.
Because all the people who have been... Where'd you go?
Where'd you go?
All the people who were sure that they had this all figured out, it's a giant Jewish conspiracy, and I ask you one fucking simple question, what would be in it for them to destroy America, their greatest asset, meaning a lot of their money would be here, as well as the military that helps defend Israel and everything else?
Just describe your theory, or leave me the fuck alone.
You can go believe it, but don't start just shouting it at me if you don't even have a way to connect your own dots.
Connect your own fucking dots first, and then come at me, and I'll look at it.
If you've got a theory that I have not considered, I'll look at it, but it has to be coherent, Don't give me an incoherent theory where people want to hurt themselves.
Oh, I want power so I can screw my own people.
That's your fucking theory.
All right.
Moving on.
So let's talk about the Ukraine war.
No, actually, I want to talk about the border some more.
Would you say it's fair to say That the cartels must be in control of the open border.
Do you think observation... There's only one alternative.
Because it's not the American people, and certainly not our government.
Now, let me ask you this question.
If the CIA can overthrow every government in South and Central America at will, but they can't overthrow the cartels, The cartels are just a government within a government.
That's the only thing they can't overthrow?
Is that your theory?
Is your theory that the CIA has all this power, but for some reason, they just can't get any purchase with the cartels?
Cartels just keep growing, keep getting stronger.
And are CIA just helpless?
Nothing they can do.
The only thing you could possibly conclude is that the CIA is either owned by Or working with the cartels.
Now, I'm not inventing this theory on my own.
Obviously, there have been books written about it.
There's plenty you can research on your own.
But I would say there's no conclusion you could reach other than that they're working together.
And that it's only the cartel who wants the border open.
They're making a lot of money.
And it would be a play to conquer the United States.
I think the cartels have an actual legitimate possibility of conquering the United States.
Because if we're not doing anything to stop them, and they're working with the CIA, they would have everything they need to conquer the country proper.
So maybe they would be on the same page for some things, but they would have different incentives.
They're not really trying to accomplish the same thing.
But if they work together, and it looks like they are, they would be able to control the United States.
So, I don't have proof that that's happening.
It's just the only thing that makes sense with what we see.
Now, you're going to say, what about George Soros?
George Soros is the open borders guy.
George Soros is funding people who are behind it, right?
So it's all George Soros.
Who owns George Soros?
Do you think that the Soros family is acting like they're independent people with opinions, and they're explaining them really well?
So when they say the open borders, they've made their argument in a way that you and I can look at and go, huh, I disagree with that, but that's a well-explained argument.
It's just I disagree with it.
No.
No, the only thing that would explain the Soros activities of letting criminals out of jail For drug charges especially.
And opening the borders is that the Soros are owned by the CIA.
It's got to be a CIA operation and it's got to be a cartel operation because nobody who lives in the United States would do this.
Alexander Soros lives in the United States.
He's a resident of the United States.
Nobody who lives here would open the borders.
Nobody who is rich and lives here, unless they were under duress, would do what they're doing.
So the most reasonable explanation of the Soros funding and activities is that it's under duress.
Now I'm not saying that's true, because I don't have direct evidence.
I'm just saying it's the only thing that makes sense.
Because I've been asking for years, literally years, online and other places, can somebody explain what is the Soros point of view where any of this makes sense?
And the answer is, there is none.
There is no argument that actually argues why this works.
None.
So obviously they're doing something that nobody would do willingly.
Nobody would willingly let their country be destroyed by unfettered immigration.
Literally nobody would do that.
So you can't assume that the Soros are in charge of America because they're not doing something that's good for the Soroses or anybody else except the cartels.
So I'm going to guess that the Soros family is compromised just based on observation.
So just so I don't get sued, I'm just saying there's no other explanation.
I don't have direct evidence.
There's just no other explanation.
And what about the WEF?
I think the WEF is a head fake to make you think that they're behind a lot of stuff.
They might actually be influencing things like climate change a little bit or something.
But I would go with Elon Musk's take that it's a club for rich people to meet each other and to signal that they're awesome and stuff.
I think the WEF is just a big head fake to make you think that that's the problem when the real problem's the cartels.
That's what it looks like.
How about the Ukraine war?
Do you think that's all legitimate and the money that we're spending there is because it's a valid concern for the United States?
Or does it seem like there's some kind of Democrat, CIA, Biden thing going on here that we don't know about?
It looks much more like... It looks a lot more like it's just some dirty thing we don't know about.
So that's all it looks like.
All right.
If we have open borders, which apparently we do, what are the odds that we also have fair elections?
What country is so owned by somebody outside the country that they would open their borders, and yet they would have fair elections?
How does that even make sense?
If there's somebody who can control the country so much they can make them open their borders, They would certainly have enough control to control the elections.
Directly or indirectly.
I don't mean that the elections are rigged in some specific criminal way, but they would have enough influence to make sure they got their candidate one way or another.
Yeah.
So I would say that open borders is proof that the election system is compromised.
But again, I have no direct evidence of that.
It's just there's no way these two things can coexist.
There's only one explanation.
So the gears of the machine are becoming obvious.
It looks like this.
It looks like the CIA and the cartels are working together, because otherwise the CIA would have stopped the cartels by now.
They clearly have the ability.
So if they haven't done it by now, and they're not even close, they're working together.
And the cartels evidently control the Democrats, because there's no explanation for open borders.
There really isn't.
And we know that the Democrats and the CIA collectively control the media.
I would say that's an established fact.
I don't need to support that with any sources.
I think you all know that.
And then of course the media is what controls the voters minds.
To me it looks like Soros is just the bank for the cartels.
I think it's just the bank.
Because the cartels are the ones who want people out of jail and the cartels who want chaos and the cartels who want the borders open.
So I don't think it's a coincidence that everything that Soros is funding that doesn't seem to make sense is also good for the cartels.
So I would guess that the CIA probably, working with the cartels, have compromised Soros and just using them as a bank.
And that's my take.
So Can you see the gears of the machine at this point?
Yeah.
So whoever and whatever is running the country, it's not what you thought it was.
Unless you were pretty conspiratorial.
Now, I'm not going to claim that my take is right.
I'm not going to say it's right.
I'm saying that there's no other explanation that I can think of.
If anybody can come up with a better explanation of what we observe, let me know.
Normally what happens is there are people with different arguments.
Let's take abortion.
Abortion is a situation I think I completely understand.
Because there are people who legitimately have different opinions.
And it looks to me like that's all that's happening.
Would you agree?
The abortion question, it looks like there's nothing but a difference of opinion and people are fighting as hard as they can to get their way.
Nothing mysterious about it.
But when you look at the open borders and the letting criminals out of jail and the destruction of the cities, there's no way that's accidental.
It's not, you know, it might be a side effect of some other thing we don't see, but give me any explanation For what we're observing, that doesn't involve the cartels working with the CIA.
I can't think of anything.
Now, if you're coming in late and yelling, it's the Jews!
I've already mocked you into silence, so you should talk to the people I've already mocked into silence.
If anybody wants to come up with some kind of coherent idea why one group of people would want to destroy their own wealth and military protection, I'll listen to it.
That would be quite a story.
But if you've got nothing that gives you a coherent idea about the Jews running the world, just because a lot of them have good jobs, you're going to have to try a little bit harder than that.
At least I've given you a coherent follow-the-money prediction.
Follow-the-money says that there's not some Jewish idea to open the border.
That would never be a follow-the-money scenario.
That would be anti-follow-the-money.
So follow-the-money definitely says CIA cartel is a business that's being protected.
Clearly.
All right.
Cheap labor, no money.
No, cheap labor doesn't explain it.
That's not what we're seeing.
Now, don't go with, it's not all the Jews, but many Jews.
You still do not have a coherent, even an idea of what you're suggesting.
There's no some people who are destroying themselves.
Addison?
All right, what you're asking is not on the topic.
So you can't change my mind by saying that there's an effect on the culture, because that would be every group has an effect on the culture.
So just admit that you don't have any theory that would make sense.
Your weird little example of gulag guards is not really persuasive on this topic.
Thank you.
Why do the CIA want to destroy America?
The CIA probably just wants to control America.
And some chaos might be just what they need.
All right.
I guess with 200,000...
200 character limit here.
No, you just, the character limit would be no problem.
You just have to complete the picture and then maybe I would have questions.
So for example, you have to explain to me why destroying your own money and your own military is actually a secret advantage.
And that wouldn't take more than a sentence or two.
It would be like, oh, it actually makes it stronger to destroy the military.
I mean, I'd ask some questions, but at least you tell me what you're thinking.
Or you might say, they found a way to make money on the chaos.
To which I'd say, oh, interesting.
How did they do that?
So you don't have to explain every detail, but give me a flavor.
Give me a taste.
Give me any sense that you have a coherent thought.
And then we can discuss it.
But if you can't give me the baseline coherence, don't ask me to talk about the details.
Open border is more money to government programs.
Well, at this point, nobody's thinking that way.
Because the government programs are overwhelmed.
Yeah, I don't believe that.
Louis CK said open the borders and it might be hard at first, but then we just adjust and it'd be fine.
You can't have any kind of economic growth without borders.
Borders are a baseline requirement for economic stability.
Period.
Nobody's ever figured out a way around that.
Now that doesn't mean a wall, but at the very least you have to prevent people who have less than you from flooding your rich situation and ruining it.
Because what entrepreneurs are going to stay around In a country that's being destroyed by immigration.
They'll simply go where there's a border.
Anybody who has money is going to go where there is a border.
And that would include leaving the United States if they had to.
Yeah, I don't think the adding voter numbers argument is explaining enough.
It doesn't explain enough.
All right.
Should New York City take down its George Washington statues?
Oh, I don't care.
No, I don't think that China is...
My observation is that China is a helper, but not the big power.
more.
Because I don't think China could keep our border open.
I don't think they have that power.
But I think the cartel does, with the CIA.
So it's hard for me to imagine that the CIA would be working with China, but it seems obvious that they work with the cartels because they have other benefits from the cartels.
Convergence of interests, to some extent.
All right.
Iran has a good border.
That's true.
So do you think JFK was not a fan of the CIA?
Yeah, I'm sure he wasn't.
Especially after they killed him.
Portnoy's follow-up with the reporter was cancelled.
So if you listen to Dave Portnoy's conversation with the Washington Post reporter, it's pretty fascinating.
You should listen to all of it.
I was just rapt.
I didn't go to the very end, but he was still talking about maybe he would talk to her.
Why would he talk to her?
It would be crazy.
It would be crazy to give her an interview.
But maybe just for fun, or if he wanted to record it himself or something.
Yeah, Rupert Murdoch is stepping back from Fox News.
The Clapper Brennan Task Force.
The fact that Clapper and Brennan were put on any kind of homeland task force, that should tell you that...
The fact that they could even think that that's okay is just mind-blowing.
All right.
How do you go after the CIA?
You don't.
I'll probably stop talking about this after today.
Because if I continue talking about it, I would be shut down.
And by the way, if you don't think there's a second attack on me being planned somewhere, I'd be amazed.
I'm sure that there's another attack on me being planned.
Some kind or another.
The age of men is over, according to Time Magazine.
A big target in the world.
Yeah.
Well, see, the thing I have working for me is that nobody is going to believe me.
The type of thing that I suggested today is sort of too big for people to hold in their mind.
I'm not making fun of anybody's mind.
I'm saying, in general, we can't handle this level of conspiracy theory.
So I think maybe we just have to get over the fact that this is what it is.
Thank you.
Coolkitty believes the CIA operation against me that says I believed in the vaccines.
By the way, I suspect that wasn't organic.
So all of my opinions on the pandemic were reversed.
And then I was criticized by it.
And now in retrospect, that looks a little suspicious, doesn't it?
Many of you believe that I said my opinions were the opposite of what they were.
Which would be the main way to shut me down.
The main way to shut me down would be to say that I said the opposite of what I said on the pandemic.
So, it looks like a weird coincidence that that attack came from the right.
Hmm.
Interesting.
Attributing what to incompetence?
Well, the CIA is not incompetent over a scale of decades.
If you're saying the CIA is incompetent at stopping the cartels, I would say all evidence suggests that they're pretty good at overthrowing stuff and stopping stuff.
So the fact that it's not happening and nothing like it is happening is a pretty clear signal that it's not incompetence that the problem is.
Seriously?
Harry is asking, always wanted to know if you took any influence money on the pandemic.
Seriously?
Now, you would only ask that if the CIA or somebody has brainwashed you into thinking that my opinions were the opposite of what they were.
Nobody would have paid me for my opinion, not the real opinions.
But the opinions that somebody told you I have, that would sound weird, wouldn't it?
So many of you actually have a very strong belief about something that didn't happen.
You ever wonder about that?
Do you decency of reading your super chat reply?
No.
No.
No, I don't encourage super chats.
So I don't like reading them.
Yeah, it must be new.
Anyway, you were all over the place during the pandemic.
No, Lou.
I was not all over the place during the pandemic.
You have once again fallen for somebody's propaganda.
The fact that you didn't see all of my opinions is not me being all over the place.
In fact, they were pretty consistent the whole time.
To argue with the chat while you have a microphone What do you think the chat is for?
How many of you think that I made a health recommendation on the pandemic?
I want to see how dumb you are.
This will be a good test.
How many believe that I gave you a recommendation about either the vaccination or the masks to use them?
Do you think I recommended that you should get a vaccination?
Who thinks I did that?
Or who thinks I recommended that masks should be mandated?
Anybody?
Well, a bunch of you were pretty chatty here.
How do you feel watching all of the comments go by that say that you are hallucinating about my opinion?
I mean, look at it.
They're all no's.
So why do you think that I accepted money to tell people nothing?
To tell them nothing about their health.
I told them to take vitamin D. Charles says you persuaded.
Did I?
Persuaded what?
Nope, never did.
Bob.
Alright.
Vitamin D is horse dewormer.
Was the teen rapist in the skirt in the girls' bathroom.
Yeah, you know.
I don't do the anecdotal crime stuff too much.
So I think you're all being manipulated when there's an individual crime story.
Whether it's a George Floyd story or a Daniel Penny story, all of the individual anecdotal stories are manipulation.
So I don't like to be part of it unless the story gets so big you can't help it.
All right.
All right.
You said you were not worried about mandates and vaccine passwords because it was a temporary problem.
It was only a temporary problem because people were kicking and screaming.
If people had rolled out what were similar to your laxatives, I think we'd be dealing with it and worse.
Well, you're wrong, because I knew that the complaints is what would stop it.
So you're complaining that my prediction was accurate.
I had an accurate prediction that the pandemic would not lead to a permanent state of vaccine passports or whatever.
It was temporary.
And so was I right or wrong?
Oh well.
All right.
The last thing I want to do is talk about the pandemic.
So let's talk about something else.
Is there any topic I missed?
I don't think there's much else going on right now.
So I think the big topic is the demonetization and the shutting up of people like me.
And so I've said what I'm going to say about that stuff and probably I'm going to leave it alone so I can stay alive.
Literally.
So you think you live in a country with free speech?
I'm telling you directly, I'm not going to be hitting this topic hard in the future because I want to stay alive.
And the only reason I can do it It's because I know that nobody thinks I can make a difference.
If I had a big enough audience, like a Russell Brand sized audience, I'd probably be afraid of getting murdered.
But the smart play in my case is to let me drop it.
And I'm saying directly, I'm going to ease out of the topic.
It is what it is.
What am I going to do about it?
Am I going to complain about it and then it will change?
Nope.
But at least I'll understand it.
Yeah.
The last thing that would be good for anybody who wanted to shut me up would be to do it now.
So...
Because it would validate anything I've said.
So that would be the worst time to do it.
So I'm safer than I've ever been safe at the moment.
As long as I get off of this topic, I could probably stay alive.
Don't be a martyr.
Oh, so this is probably a coincidence.
Probably a coincidence.
But just before I got on, I saw that cartels were trending.
And I thought to myself, uh-oh, I hope that's not because of me, because I tweeted about the cartels a bunch of times this morning.
And I thought, oh god, I hope one of my posts didn't go viral, because I don't want to stick my head up that much.
So I clicked on the trending cartels and now of course the reason something trends is because a lot of people are talking about it, right?
That's how it trends.
The trending doesn't happen on its own.
A lot of people talk about it and then it shows up.
So I clicked the thing that showed up as trending and that was the response I got.
That there's no data on that.
Was that a bug?
If you click it now, I think it actually works.
But isn't that kind of a weird bug?
Because the other trending things actually gave me a result.
So I said, oh, maybe it's the trending thing doesn't work.
So I just clicked another one.
Boop.
Result.
I don't know.
It could be a coincidence.
It could be.
A lot of coincidences in the world right now.
Well, I would ask you, if you'd like to understand the world, if you try to click my book, it gives you an error now too.
My book, Reframe Your Brain, is changing lives all over the place.
I keep hearing from people who have completely changed their life, gotten a raise, fixed their mental health, stopped drinking, lost weight.
All from one book.
So whatever it is you're looking to fix, it's the fastest way you can do it.
I'm going to make a claim.
I'm going to make a claim that my book gives you the greatest life benefits with the least amount of work.
Because the book doesn't require you to do anything.
You just read the reframes.
That's it.
And it updates your software.
So you don't have to keep a journal.
You don't have to go practice something.
You don't have to do anything.
You just breeze through a well-written, easy-to-read book, and suddenly your life will look different.
Now, that sounds like quite a claim, doesn't it?
That if you just sort of breeze over this easy-to-read book that's kind of fun in any way, that your life will change.
But ask anybody who's read it.
Just ask anybody who's read it.
Did it change your life or any part of it in a way that's substantial?
