Episode 2239 Scott Adams: More Reports On The Gears Of The Machine. It Is Completely Clear 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, Governor Newsom, Micro-Cults, Mental Health, Pronoun Indicators, Ibram X. Kendi, Cuban Twitter-Like App, Dave Portnoy, WaPo Hit Piece, Jeff Bezos 2013 WaPo Purchase, President Biden, Demonetizing Conservatives, America First Legal, Weaponized Government, Arabella Advisors, Gears Of The Machine, Climate Model Accuracy, Open Border Benefits, Ukraine War, Michelle Obama, Ken Paxton Hypothesis, 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.
And if you'd like your experience to be so special that you'll be talking to your grandkids about it forever, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gel, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the Dopamedia of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Ah, so good.
Savor it.
Savor it.
Alright, well, let's talk about all the news.
Governor Newsom was complaining recently that there are a lot of micro-cults And he gave some examples.
He said that his own son has been talking to him about Andrew Tate, Joe Rogan, and Jordan Peterson.
I guess those are the micro-cults.
That's right.
Governor Newsom's son is listening to Tate, Rogan, and Jordan Peterson.
So what can you conclude from that?
Here's what I conclude from that.
I'm just going to guess that that son has a very clean bedroom.
Anybody want to take the other side of that bet?
Wouldn't you love to ask him that question?
Just one question and walk away.
Governor Newsom, I hear your son's listening to Tate and Rogan and Jordan Peterson.
Well, yes, I'm afraid to say it's true.
I just have one question.
How clean is his bedroom?
And don't even wait for the answer.
Just walk away.
That's how I play it.
Well, I have a theory that there will be a rebalance of our current crazy situation.
And the reason for the rebalance is that men, adult men, have been completely taken out of the, let's say, the political conversation because we're too easy to cancel and to threaten.
So men need jobs.
And if you say the wrong things in America, you lose your job.
So men are just completely taken off the board because we'll just get canceled like Russell Brand or Tucker Carlson or me.
So adult men don't have any hope of being part of the conversation in a meaningful way.
This, however, will be very different with young men who have nothing to lose.
And even when they don't have anything to lose, they're more likely to risk losing it because they're young men.
I don't know if you've been paying attention, but the young males are not on board with wokeness.
And I don't think that's an exaggeration.
The young men, not on board with wokeness, not even a little bit.
I've never even met one.
Never even met a young male who was woke.
Never even heard of one.
And those men have nothing to lose because they don't have jobs.
They have nothing to lose.
So you're going to see this explosion of male energy that has been suppressed in the adult male population for a long time because you know why?
We thought we could protect our jobs.
How'd that work out?
Didn't work out at all.
Yeah, no, because your job will be taken by a diversity hire anyway.
So a woman will take your job, or LGBTQ.
So going along with the plan doesn't help as much as you think it would, but it's a natural impulse.
So look out, we might be a generation away from it, but now that I know that Governor Newsom's son is being raised by Andrew Tate, I'm just going to say there's a few surprises coming.
That's all.
All right, in the segment I like to call Dumb Science, where science gives you a result that you don't have to be an expert to know is bullshit.
Okay?
So the test here is, without being any kind of a scientist at all, can you tell that this is bullshit?
So let me tell you what they found.
There was a study that found out that the events of January 6 caused a substantial degradation in mental health.
So there's a big drop in mental health.
But it doesn't seem to be across the board.
It seems to have hit Democrats really hard, but Republicans sort of not at all.
So January 6th actually caused measurable mental health decline for Democrats.
But no real difference for Republicans.
And so do you know what they concluded based on this?
Their conclusion was that the events of January 6th caused a decline in mental health.
Does that sound accurate?
The events of January 6th caused a decline in mental health.
Let me postulate another possibility.
Could it be that the reason Democrats were affected is that they watched fake news and the Republicans watched both so they could judge what was real and what was fake pretty easily?
And that the people who saw the real news did not think that there was an insurrection that almost destroyed the country or anything like that.
And so the Republicans had reason to be angry You know, politically angry.
But they didn't have any trigger to be politically, mentally, you know, unhealthy.
But the Democrats did.
They were told non-stop that their country was almost lost and they live in a white supremacist society that almost took over.
That would be pretty scary to imagine that something like that actually happened in the real world.
But it didn't.
It's just that their niggers told them it did and it made them crazy.
Now, getting back to Dr. Jordan Peterson's theory that a lot of what you see online is the dark triad personality traits, narcissists mostly, and that you're mostly just seeing mental health amplified.
You know, before, if you had bad mental health, it only bothered a few people that you associated with.
But now, bad mental health is like, ah, I can scream it on social media.
I can cancel you.
I control you.
I just thought that control and can troll are very similar, aren't they?
Because they use trolls to control.
If you can troll, you control.
Interesting.
That's a dumb science for today.
Dumb science.
A question I like to ask every few months, just to get people talking.
Why in the world would anybody hire someone who had pronouns in any of their bios?
Online or otherwise?
Why would you do that?
Now, I imagine there'd be some, like, super blue businesses that just, you know, have to get somebody just like them.
There'd be some of those.
But doesn't a pronoun signal that you're going to cause trouble?
I don't know how it could be more clear.
Hi, I'm going to have a problem on this minor point.
And not only am I going to have a problem, I want to tell you in advance.
So when you violate this minor point, whoa, there's going to be trouble.
Why would anybody hire somebody who led with how much trouble they're going to be?
Now, my assumption is that the pronoun thing will go away.
And I think it will go away.
Because the number of companies that will hire you because you have a pronoun will drop to zero.
But the number that will reject you because of pronouns is probably already at a third, maybe 30% or more.
I would think.
What's your guess?
What percentage of hiring managers across the board everywhere would reject somebody just immediately because of a pronoun?
I would.
I would not even consider somebody with a pronoun.
It has nothing to do with their political opinions.
It's really, really bad judgment to put your pronoun in your bio if you're applying for a job because you don't know yet if your employer thinks that's cool.
So that, I mean, it's a big signal of bad judgment, but it's also a signal of potential lawsuits and trouble like that.
And also somebody who's going to support every woke person and woke thing, and you don't need that either.
So, my guess is that pure economics will drive this out of the marketplace.
Just economics.
What do you think?
Do you think there'll be more of it, or is it just sort of obvious that economics will drive it out of the system?
I think we're just a few years away from disappearing.
Maybe three.
I think in three years pronouns will make you look like just a fucking idiot.
Yeah.
Alright.
I've said this story before, but I like it so much I'm going to say it again.
So, Ibram Kendi, the anti-racist guy, activist, he's trying to figure out what happened to $30 million of mismanaged money for his, quote, anti-racism center.
So, Boston University is investigating the Senator following allegations that he mismanaged grant funds, failed to deliver key projects, and unleashed employment violence on the staff.
Now, guess what type of people he hired?
He hired the kind of people who would have pronouns in their bio.
How'd that work out?
Well, it looks like they have some complaints.
Yeah, they have some complaints.
Now, there might be a really good reason for a complaint, because it's missing $30 million and the other accusations you have to take seriously.
But even if Kendi had done nothing wrong, but the only thing he'd done is hired a staff full of complainers, how in the world was that going to work?
So we've actually seen the test case of hiring people not for merit, but For being like-minded.
Didn't work out.
Turns out, big surprise, didn't work out.
All right, here's something I'll bet you didn't know.
Mike Benz taught me this on Twitter, on accident.
Did you know that in Cuba, the CIA tried to create a Twitter-like product that the CIA would control, And unknowingly, the Cuban population would use it, not knowing that the CIA controlled it.
And the plan explicitly was to build up a population of users, and then after they got the population of users, they would politicize it.
In other words, they'd put their finger on it and start using it to foment revolution.
Well, it didn't work out because they didn't get enough users and they didn't get their funding, so it never got to the second step of fomenting protests, fake protests that were fomented by the CIA.
So this was literally a way that was being used to overthrow Cuba.
Unsuccessfully, but you could tell that the CIA And by the way, this is documented.
It's on Wikipedia.
It's not one of these weird conspiracy theories.
It's a well-documented thing.
Now, you don't think that China thought of that with TikTok?
You don't think that China said, let's build up an audience.
And once we've got a good audience, we're going to turn the crank a little bit.
No?
Because it turns out that the news is also reporting that TikTok is moving more into political content.
Huh.
Big surprise.
There's more political content now on TikTok.
Huh.
I wonder if it's mostly conservative.
It's not?
What?
It mostly is terrible, woke things that would destroy the country?
Oh, big surprise, big surprise.
Is it lots of things that would reduce the odds of reproduction?
Oh, yeah, it is.
Oh yeah it is.
But it's a complete coincidence, right?
It's just a coincidence.
It's a coincidence that our CIA tried to do an op that looks exactly like TikTok.
That's just a coincidence.
So no, China's not up to anything.
And the way we know that China's not up to anything is that Rand Paul squashed the effort to block TikTok downloads in Congress.
Rand Paul.
Oh, Rand Paul.
Who is one of his biggest funders?
Oh, an owner of TikTok.
Yeah.
An American billionaire who owns a lot of TikTok is one of the biggest funders to the people who stopped it from being banned.
Things are exactly the way they look.
The gears of the machine are becoming visible.
How many of you have a completely different understanding of our system Just in the last several months from listening to me.
It's nothing like what you thought it was, is it?
Yeah.
It's kind of mind-blowing, isn't it?
When you can see the whole system.
All right.
Let's talk about Dave Portnoy, as you probably already know.
A food writer.
That's right, a food editor.
decided to write a story about him having a pizza festival, which was for the benefit of the small businesses, and they decided to call the sponsors for the event and say, are you comfortable working with this misogynist who does sketchy things?
Which obviously is intended to destroy his economic model.
Now, Portnoy being a media I would say expert.
Knew exactly how to handle this and recorded his phone call when he called the reporter for the Washington Post and basically embarrassed that reporter and made it a national story, which was perfect.
You know, you can't handle it better than that.
That was perfect.
Now, do you see the gears of the machine?
The Washington Post.
Who, by the way, do you know the Washington Post is probably the biggest entity that cancelled me?
Did you know that?
Because you heard that I was cancelled in newspapers.
But unless the Washington Post goes first, the other ones aren't going to do it.
So they were the big voice.
So just keep that in mind.
I wonder if there are any other stories that would be relevant to this one in a different way.
Well, let's go back to 2013.
Here's something he didn't know.
In 2013, Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post.
So the guy who owns Amazon, richest guy in the world at the time, bought the Washington Post.
A lot of people didn't think that was a good investment, because it didn't look like he could make money.
It's like, why would he even do that?
It's kind of a weird investment.
Seems like the last thing you'd invest in.
But he did.
That was 2013.
Some people say that the Washington Post is the outlet that the CIA likes to use to put their preferred news into the reporters.
That's what they say.
I mean, I can't confirm that.
That's what smart people say.
I wonder if anything else happened in 2013.
2013, the same year that Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post.
Oh yeah, oh yeah.
So here's a story.
The CIA actually needs a lot of processors.
So they're using it.
In 2013, they made a $600 million deal with Amazon Web Service.
So the CIA has a $600 million deal.
It happened on the same year.
Same year that Bezos rescued the newspaper that some say is the CIA newspaper.
So Jeff Bezos rescued the CIA newspaper, some say, the same year that the CIA decided to give their gigantic deal to Amazon.
But that's a coincidence.
Things happen in the same year.
That's just a coincidence.
So now we have a situation where the news is so owned that Biden can say absolutely anything And be confident that his audience won't hear any counterpoint, no matter what it is.
This is something Biden actually said in an event yesterday, that MAGA Republicans spent four years gutting the immigration system under my predecessor.
They continue to undermine our border security today.
Just hold that in your mind.
The Democrats are so cut off from actual news, That Biden can tell them that the border problem was Trump's fault.
And they might actually believe it.
Just think about that.
That's where we are in 2023.
It's almost too hard to hold in your mind, isn't it?
You almost can't keep that in your mind.
It's like, really?
Really?
Biden said that the border problem was Trump's fault?
But if you didn't have access to real news, would you believe it?
Probably.
You probably would believe it.
Dave Rubin says on some ex-posts that he's been demonetized a few times lately by YouTube.
And are you surprised?
Let's see.
Dave Rubin getting demonetized.
Andrew Tate demonetized Jordan Peterson.
His license is being threatened.
Joe Rogan, they tried to cancel him.
Iowa's completely canceled.
Dave Portnoy, they're going after his business model.
Do you see any patterns yet?
Musk, going after Elon Musk.
Do you see the pattern?
Yep.
There's the pattern.
So what else is happening?
Let's talk about Twitter.
Apparently a group called America First Legal is suing Biden's FTC for what they say is illegally concealing documents on government targeting of Elon Musk and X.
Because a report by the House Weaponization Committee concluded that the FTC inappropriately stretched its regulatory power to harass what was then Twitter.
So we might actually have documents to show that the FTC was going after Musk for political reasons.
Total weaponization of the government.
Would you like to know how the original Twitter boycott was organized?
So when Musk said he was going to take over Twitter, can you imagine the amount of panic in the Democrats who had figured out a way to control most of the other sources of news?
But if they couldn't control Twitter, then they can't keep the lid on.
So here's something I learned.
There's a group called Arabella Advisors.
And they somehow bankrolled 26 NGOs who then organized a Twitter boycott.
So the NGOs probably wouldn't have done this without the Arabella Advisors bankrolling them.
So don't you wonder who they are?
Who are these Arabella Advisors?
Have you ever heard of them?
Because they had a really big impact on your life if you were on social media.
But have you ever heard of Arabella Advisors?
Let's see, I wonder who was on the board of Arabella Advisors?
Oh, Sam Bankman-Fried's father.
Sam Bankman-Fried's, the crypto scam guy who was the biggest donor to the Democrats.
So Sam Bankman-Fried's father was on the Arabella Advisors board and they bankrolled the NGOs to organize a boycott So you would probably think that it wasn't organized, because it was coming from lots of different directions.
And where do they get their money?
Soros.
Soros Democracy Alliance.
So the Soros Democracy Alliance gives money to the Arabella Advisors, and then Sam Bankman Freed's dad, being on the board, and others, give it to these NGOs, Which are created specifically to look like they're independent organizations that coincidentally have the same opinion.
Well, there's so many organizations.
These non-government organizations, they're not even part of the government.
We're the government.
We're just listening to the citizens as they express themselves through the non-government organizations.
Well, there are 26 of them.
I mean, if 26 non-government organizations all have the same opinion, well, that's pretty important, so you better listen to them, because there are 26 of them.
I mean, you don't get 26 non-government organizations suddenly all of a sudden on the same page.
unless they're all paid by the same person, in which case it's pretty easy.
So how many big organizations do you believe have DEI organizations within their organization?
What percent of big entities?
That would include newspapers, publishers, social media, all of them.
The big ones are close to 100%, I think.
You know, at least 90%, right?
So now, do you see how the machine works?
So let's say the Washington Post, for example, let's say the Washington Post does a story and says somebody's bad.
Did that story necessarily start with the writers at the Washington Post?
Or did the idea for the story maybe come from another source?
Such as the CIA.
Or such as Democrat operatives.
Which are very similar, because the CIA and the Democrats seem pretty overlapping.
So if this is the model, you can imagine that somebody, a Democrat, asks the Washington Post to crap on somebody.
So the Washington Post writes a hit piece on them.
And then every DEI organization in every organization says, whoa, whoa, whoa, we have to act on this.
Do you know why they say they have to act?
Because if you hire a DEI group, they're going to have to get involved in everything that looks like their business.
And do you think they're going to say, oh, that's fine.
Let it roll.
Yeah, it's just the Washington Post.
Don't believe anything they say.
Do you think that happens?
No.
The DEI people will say, you have to cancel whoever they're talking about.
You have to do it now.
So as long as there's Democrat influence on the big publications, the big publications can talk to the public, the DEI groups within big entities will say, oh, that's for me.
I better act quickly.
And I'm the tail that wags the dog because you don't want to get on my bad side.
I'm the DEI person.
Believe me, you might be the CEO, but I'm the one who can ruin you.
So I'm kind of the real power when it comes to the things I care about.
Not all things in the company, but the things I care about, the DEI person is the real power.
So now the Democrats have a model where they can cancel anybody because they have the signal they can send out, the bad signal.
Washington Post, Phil Bump says, whatever.
And then the DEI people, without being asked to do it, they would just know that that's what they do.
They activate all the sources of money so that anybody who disagrees with them loses their money immediately.
Now when you lose your money, you also lose your influence, usually.
Because you can't build your own network, you can't hire people, you can't advertise, you can't put in a book, you can't do anything.
So it just reduces your impact.
In the intelligence world, it's called reducing your capacity.
So the fact that there's this network and structure of NGOs and DEI and all that, that would increase the capacity of the Democrats, and then they would go after the economic assets of their enemies, like me, And then when we're pressed down by our economic situation, then their message can rule.
I think they largely took Fox News completely out of the game.
I think Fox News is just completely neutered at this point.
What do you think?
And try to do a social media search for Breitbart.
Do you know how hard it is to find Breitbart on a search engine?
It's not an accident.
So the largest entities have been economically suppressed to the point where Biden can say that immigration is Trump's fault.
Amazingly.
They can tell you that January 6th was an attempt to overthrow the country, and half of the country will think that actually happened.
They can tell you anything, and half the country, their half, will think it actually happened.
Super beats.
Stop it!
I'm not talking about super beats.
That's funny.
All right, now let's talk about climate models.
I saw somebody tweet to show me that climate models have, in fact, been successful.
And not only have the climate models successfully predicted, but they've been doing it for 50 years.
There are climate models that are 50 years old that have accurately predicted today's temperature.
Isn't that amazing?
Yeah.
Would you like me to understand how the science works?
Yeah.
Here's how science works.
Somebody does some science, and then they hand it off to somebody who's a big fucking liar or doesn't know how to do statistics.
And then they do a bunch of lying and bad statistics.
And then the people who are fooled by this say, hey, you're going to have to believe this bullshit and bad statistics and ridiculous data, because if you don't, you're anti-science and I've got somebody who's going to cancel you.
So let me see if you can find out that this will be a test to see if I've taught you anything.
If I taught you anything.
So here's the claim.
That there were a number of models in the old days, 50 years ago, that tried to predict the temperature.
Some of them didn't work, so they were discarded.
Others also didn't work, but they found that if they tweaked it a little bit, They could get it to backcast, you know, they could get it to match the past a little bit, and then they would see if it also matched the future.
So there's a little bit of tweaking to make sure that as you go, you're maximizing your, you know, of course, you'd like to fix it as you go, right?
So when you're done, you find that there were a number of models that actually did predict the temperature.
So that means models work, right?
Models work because they have models that predicted the temperature.
How can you argue with that?
There are the models.
I can show you.
They can show you that they existed 50 years ago, and they can show you it got the right answer.
Do you all see what's wrong?
Yeah, okay.
Brian got the word I was looking for.
Survivorship bias.
If you throw away the models that don't work, that's not science.
That's like the opposite of science.
If you throw away the models that don't work, it gives you the impression that somehow you knew, you could have known that these models work and the other ones don't.
If you don't know it when the models are created, which ones are the good ones?
You can't wait until some of them got lucky and say these were accurate the whole time.
That's not science.
That's a scam.
Not only is it a scam, It's literally a scam.
Actual scams are done that way.
I've described this before, so I'll just do it fast.
One of the ways you could do a scam is I'll send you an email and you'll get the email and it'll say, if you buy this stock today, I guarantee it'll go up.
And you're like, eh, nobody can predict stocks.
So you ignore it.
Next day, they say it went up.
And here's another one.
The next one I picked to go up is this one.
You're like, eh, I got lucky once.
And then the next few days you get another email, two in a row.
You can check for yourself.
You can look at your first email, sure enough, recommended these stocks.
Then you can look at what the actual price is, and sure enough, the two stocks that this stranger picked and wants you to invest with them, they both went up, two for two.
Then they do it a third time.
Three in a row.
And they don't just go up, they go up quite a bit.
If you see three in a row where they call the shot before the shot, you're pretty convinced.
Because three out of three is kind of hard.
If it goes up substantially, that's really hard.
So you give them your money, and then it turns out to be a scam.
How did they get three in a row?
Here's how.
They wrote lots of emails to lots of people, And they gave different recommendations to the people.
Most of them were wrong, so they never emailed that group again, because that group doesn't trust them.
But some of them were right because they got lucky.
It's just a subset.
They got lucky.
So now they say, just to the lucky people, here's my new recommendation.
But again, they don't give them one recommendation.
They give even the new smaller group a bunch of new recommendations.
Again, a few of them end up with two in a row.
Just luck.
And then they repeat.
And then there's even a smaller group.
They get three in a row right.
They throw their money at you.
They throw their money at you.
Because once you see three in a row, you're like, OK, this is real.
And then you find out it was always just random.
That's what the climate models are.
If they're tweaking the models as they go, of course you can tweak it until it matches the current situation and the past.
Of course you can.
You can tweak any model until it hindcasts correctly.
You just change your assumptions until it does.
That doesn't mean it predicts.
It just means you can tweak it until it matches the past.
And if you throw away enough models, and there are enough different ones, some of them are 100% likely to be closer than others, and some of them might be real close, and then you say, well, these are good models.
Now, the real test is to take any one of those models that worked over the last 50 years, never change them again, don't touch them, see how they do for the next 50.
Do you think they're going to do the next 50 because they did the last 50?
No!
Do you know why?
Nobody can predict the future.
There's no such thing as a model that predicts the future.
In very narrow circumstances, sometimes an economic model will be useful.
But I did economic models for a living.
That was my background, economics, business, and I would do financial projections for big companies.
The one thing we all knew is you couldn't predict more than six months.
And after that everything just goes, you know, polywompus.
So we had no belief that we could actually predict the things we were predicting.
But you can sometimes tell what is the range of possibilities.
So that's really all you can get out of a financial prediction.
It's sort of a range.
Well, it's not going to be way up here, and probably it's not going to be way down here, but it might be in this cone somewhere, and that could be useful.
But usually we just did things we thought we wanted to do and then made the numbers correspond to what we'd already decided.
Like everywhere.
Just like everywhere.
If you think that the climate change people are the only ones who are not Tweaking the model to make it do whatever they want.
But every other industry is.
Right?
Every other industry is.
I guarantee that.
But not these guys.
It's the one place.
Oh, the one place where the people who make models that predict the future are actually doing it.
They can do magic.
They can see the future.
No, nobody can see the future.
You don't know what's going to be invented tomorrow.
I mean, the other day I saw there was some new battery technology, maybe with aluminum?
I think it was aluminum.
Instead of the current battery technology, it was supposed to be lighter and more dense and better in every way.
Well, which climate model predicted that?
So, yeah, instead of lithium.
Right, so yes, climate models are BS and always will be.
Well, there's shocking new data on a study that says the Mexican organized crime groups are the fifth largest employer in the country, and there are 175,000 members in organized crime in Mexico.
5,000 members in organized crime in Mexico.
So now, obviously, if the cartels are getting bigger, what can we conclude for sure?
Well, we can conclude that for reasons that are mysterious, the cartels are the only thing that the CIA can't shut down.
They can overthrow entire countries, but they can't shut down the cartels.
They just get bigger every year.
Huh.
What could possibly explain that?
Could it be that The cartels also protect some things that the CIA wants protected, such as maybe some businesses in Mexico that would rather have the cartels protect them than attack them?
Maybe?
Maybe the CIA would like that to happen because, you know, they're on the side of business.
Yeah.
Now, I don't know what's going on there.
I'm just saying that There's a big mystery about why we're ineffective in this one area.
And I can't think of any reason we'd be this ineffective, including keeping the border open as it is, unless we wanted to.
Unless we wanted to.
So, there's that.
I did see that At least somebody's making a run at the fact that this is in the Wall Street Journal.
So not a left-leaning publication.
So this is the Wall Street Journal, which is what made it notable.
And the Wall Street Journal says that the immigration is already good for the economy.
Like this mass over-immigration is already a plus for the economy.
Do you believe that?
The argument is that we were so hurting for labor When I say we, certain businesses, industries, they were so hurting for labor that it's basically a lifeline.
The immigration is the only way they can stay in business.
And that the immigrants are adding a certain amount of economic activity that pays for them to be there, and we don't make enough babies.
So our economy would be in serious trouble because we don't make babies.
And the only way we could survive is massive immigration.
Now, I don't think that explains why we're seeing it.
Do you?
Because if you were doing it for the purpose of your economy, The way you would launder that opinion is you'd have some board of economics experts, and then they would tell you what kind of people to allow in, what skills we need, and how many, and maybe from where, I don't know.
But if you were trying to make this an economic policy, explicitly, hey, this is good for the country because we're not making enough babies, you would do it differently.
You wouldn't do it by Pretending you're doing border security but doing it poorly.
That's just not the way you'd approach it.
You would do it right out front because there's nothing to hide.
You would have nothing to hide if you made the argument we need more people and we don't have another way to get them.
In fact, I think I could be persuaded by that argument because I've made the same argument.
I've made the same argument that as disruptive as immigration is now, and it's plenty disruptive, Probably it's additive, in the long run.
It might take 10 years, but... Well, let me say it this way.
If we shut the border completely today, and all we did is work through the system that people have already come in, I'm pretty sure we'd come out ahead.
Because people are money.
In our country, when there are plenty of jobs, because we don't have a shortage of jobs.
So if you have jobs, you just add people.
That's the whole economy.
Jobs exist.
Not enough people.
Add some people.
Boom.
Problem solved.
So in all likelihood, as horrible as our current system of bringing people in, and of course, they're bringing in crime and there must be terrorists and everything else in these groups.
So the terrorists and the crimes and all that have to be netted out.
But even with that net, it's probably cash positive.
Not right away, though.
In the short term, cash negative for sure.
Well, yeah, I see what you're saying.
It depends what part of the country they come from.
And I think that's where I'm sure this is not intentional for economic reasons.
So the fact that the immigration is coming from everywhere is strongly suggestive that the government is not in control of the process.
And there might be some net positive that comes from it, but it doesn't look intentional.
It looks like there's some other reason for the immigration that's not stated.
My best guess is that the cartels want it because it's good for the cartel business, and that we either have too many people working with them, or afraid of them, or bribed by them, or blackmailed by them, that the U.S.
government doesn't have any power over them, which would suggest that the cartels have power over the United States.
Let me put it a different way.
There's no way in hell that somebody who lives inside the United States is behind the mass immigration.
I don't see it.
I just don't see it.
And if you think Soros is behind it, you're going to have to ask the second question, who's behind Soros?
And all signs point to the same entity.
I don't know, but they all point to the same place.
All right, you'll be amazed that Ukraine has breached the main Russian defensive line in the southeast of the country And their armored vehicles have gone through.
It's a significant milestone for the three-and-a-half-month counter-offensive.
And it looks like they're aimed at cutting the Russians' occupying army in two.
Because that's totally true.
Does anybody believe that the Ukrainians have a substantial breakthrough?
It seems far more likely that the Russians have created a weak spot so that they would break through, so that they just enter a kill box.
And then when we're done killing them, they'll shore it back up again.
To me, it looks like a trick.
Because apparently they are taking heavy losses.
So even though they got humans on the other side of the line, Most of the humans are not in mechanical vehicles anymore because they all got whacked.
So the news was trying to make it look like it was a plus for Ukraine that although they tried to come across in their armored vehicles, the armored vehicles were largely taken out, but the people inside lived in many cases.
So the humans made it across the line.
What would be less good for the Ukrainians than to have all of their exposed humans, who are their most limited resource, as the humans, they're running out of people.
So now the people will be outside of armored vehicles and behind the lines of the Russians.
How long are they going to live?
I mean, every part of this looks like a Russian trap to me.
It's reported as a Ukrainian success.
But if they got their success and they lost their mechanical, they lost their tanks and their armored vehicles, and they're just running around with guns on the other side, that doesn't look like a win.
That looks like a kill box.
I mean, with my vast military experience, I say.
I'm just saying it doesn't look like a win.
That's all I'll say.
Doesn't look like a win.
But I won't rule it out.
I mean, anything's possible.
Maybe there will be a breakthrough at some point.
Don't know.
But I would not bet any money on that.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I needed to talk about today.
Did I miss any big stories?
Is there anything I missed?
And not every tank crewman has a gun, but they probably could find one.
Armenia.
Yeah, I don't have a take on Armenia.
Yeah.
Do you think that Pence mentioning troops makes it likely we'll put soldiers on the ground?
I can't see it happening.
So let me take the temperature.
Do you think we're going to have soldiers on the ground in Ukraine fighting Russians?
I mean I assume we have some in secret who are like advisors and stuff.
I don't see that any administration could survive that.
I don't see it.
So you know it would be interesting if Trump ran, instead of running against Biden, let's say Biden is the actual candidate, but I always wondered what would happen if he just said he was running against the CIA or he was running against some kind of machine.
He's not really running against Biden.
So my assumption is that they tried to get rid of Biden and it didn't work.
Meaning that Biden needed to keep his job probably so he could cover his tracks and make more money and keep Hunter out of jail.
So I think that he was probably pressured to leave or to not run and he decided that he was going to be stubborn.
So now it turns out they're going to send Gavin Newsom to be the person on the ground around the GOP debates so that Gavin will be the counter message.
They're very much keeping Gavin in the news, aren't they?
Have you noticed?
He's always in the news, just sort of hanging around.
So it does look, the people who say they're going to wait until the last minute and slot him in there without a convention, you know, maybe even wait until after the convention, and then Biden steps down and they slip him in, slip him out at the last minute.
Very much could happen.
But here's what I think.
I think that Biden doesn't want that to happen, because I think he actually wants to win again.
And I think that the Democrats are just keeping him around, you know, governor under glass, breaking case of emergency, but that's the best they can do.
So I think it's going to be a hilarious race.
And watching Biden decompose and watching Democrats explain that it's not so bad is going to be funny.
And watching, you know, Fetterman and Feinstein and Biden and Harris try to speak and walk and act is going to be hilarious.
There's a lot that's just funny at this point.
Are you sure Gruesome Newsom's the man?
Well, I'm sure he's the one that's chosen.
So let's talk about Michelle Obama, because who was it?
Ted Cruz.
He said that he believes Biden will not be the 2024 nominee and that they will parachute in Michelle Obama.
How many of you think that Michelle Obama will be the replacement?
I'm going to put that at zero.
It's weird to hear Ted Cruz suggest it, because there are a lot of things I would say, well, that's a 10% chance or 20% chance, but I'm pretty sure that's zero.
How could they possibly win putting in somebody that they wouldn't even pretend disqualified?
That's not even pretending.
I mean, even Democrats would understand.
She was the spouse.
At least Hillary had the You know, she had the experience of government before she ran for president.
Now, I don't think there's any chance, but the funniest comment I saw from somebody on X is that the reason that Michelle Obama will come out as trans, and quote, that's why we have been softened up.
So one person's theory.
I don't buy this theory.
All right.
So this is not me.
I just thought it was a funny, funny that somebody has this theory that the whole trans conversation has been a way to soften the country's binds up so they can drop in Michelle Obama.
She'll come public as trans and then become president and we'll have our first trans president that we know of.
I don't think any of that's going to happen, and I don't think that the country has been softened up for this possibility, and I don't think she's a man.
I don't think she's a man.
I'm not 100% sure.
Well, let me put this in a better comparison.
I'm 100% sure she's not going to run for president.
I'm not 100% sure she's a woman.
I'm 95% sure she's a woman.
I'm 95% sure. 95%. But not 100%.
But you know, I'm not sure I would say anything different about most of you.
If I met you in person, would I be 100% sure of your gender?
100%?
I don't know.
Depends who I'm talking to.
Well, do you buy the idea that the young men We're coming up or going to reject wokeness and change things?
I heard from quite a few people who say, oh yeah, that's my kids.
Now let me tell you what I've heard a lot of times, and then I'll tell you what I've heard zero times.
I've heard a lot of reports of kids hating wokeness in all of its forms.
I've heard zero stories of somebody in school who was pushing wokeness.
None.
Not once.
Now, I'm not talking about inclusivity, because that is pushed, you know, to make sure that everybody's included and stuff.
That's definitely pushed.
But that's not a bad impulse.
And that's not even political.
But, you know, the true woke stuff?
I'm gonna cancel you for the wrong pronouns and stuff?
Nope.
I think there are zero boys on that page, and I haven't heard of any girls.
I'm imagining there are, but I haven't heard of any.
We can't get libs of TikTok.
What?
Who do I talk to that's still in school?
That's a fucked up question.
Yeah.
I know you want to like...
Let me just say, I suspect that that's a fucked up question.
If you live in the real world, you know lots of people have kids.
I've got My own step kids.
Everybody's around kids.
unless you live in an old folks home or something it's hard to avoid the real world mind reading mind reading Why are you trying to influence to believe it is okay?
That what is okay?
I don't even know what you're talking about.
The aliens in Mexico just sort of went away, didn't they?
Oh yeah, New Jersey Senator Menendez was indicted for bribery.
It sounds like they might have the goods on him because it involved gold bars.
Apparently he accepted like $400,000 worth of gold bars for something.
Hey, thank you for buying my book.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, Ken Paxton.
And so Attorney General Paxton was on Tucker's show.
And Ken Paxton has the same belief that many of you have, which is the discontinuing of the counting on election night in 2020.
Followed by the huge spike in Democrat votes that didn't look organic, is definite proof that the election was rigged.
Now that's Ken Paxton's point of view.
And Tucker seemed to be nodding along with that.
And how many of you would be on the same page?
How many of you would say, that really is a strong signal of fraud?
Now, how many of you have heard the official explanation of why it happened?
How many could tell me in the comments, what's the other side's story?
I'm not saying it's true, but could you tell me the other side's story?
Like, why that made sense and it's just natural?
Well, water leak was one location, but it wasn't just a one location problem, right?
Weren't they just waiting for some stuff to come in?
Well, so the official story is that if you're counting the ballots that were drop-box ballots, that they're highly weighted toward Democrats.
So if you counted the regular votes during the day, it would look close.
If you counted only the mail-in ballots that had been done, in some cases, well before the election, those would be heavily Democrat.
So the official story, I don't know what's true, but the official story would look exactly the same.
Now, I hear you when you say, I'm not buying it, because we've been lied to so many times that not buying it is always a good take.
But what's wrong with the, what's wrong, is there anything logically or factually wrong with the claim that the only thing that happened is that's when they started seriously counting the mailed-in early votes ballots?
Is there anything wrong with that explanation?
Why just those states?
Because those are the states where they stopped counting for a while.
It wouldn't be 100% Biden, but that's not the claim.
The claim is not that it was 100% Biden.
Just that there was more Biden.
But the Biden votes could have easily been 3 or 4 to 1, right?
I don't know what the actual ratio is.
But there's such a difference in who votes by mail.
That I think it's like a 3 to 4 to 1 Democrat advantage.
Yeah, so the competing, the two theories are this.
One theory is that the reason they stopped is to find out how many they needed to fake, because they didn't want to fake more than they needed to.
It fits the observation, wouldn't you say?
The hypothesis that the only reason it was stopped was to count the votes they needed, and they ship in the fakes, that fits the observation.
But does it also not fit the observation that it's exactly what they said, which is they stopped the votes, it might have been a water leak, it might have been some other reason, but when they restarted them, they were into the mail-in ballots, and they were 4-1 for Biden, and that's all it was.
What's wrong with that?
It fits observation.
Now, whether or not the water leak was real, it wasn't just one place that stopped counting, was it?
I mean, they could have just gone home and wanted to, you know, get some sleep and take a shower or something.
They might have just been there all day.
So, it wasn't 4 to 1, but there was some big advantage in Democrats' mail-in votes.
All right, so here's my problem with Ken Paxton.
And this is a persuasion lesson for you.
If there are two hypotheses for why something happened, one is, you know, hugely provocative.
The other one would be sort of normal.
It might not be true, but it would fit in the category of normal things happening.
If you say that you believe the extraordinary one, the provocative one, And you spend zero time talking about what the other side said was the actual explanation?
You're full of shit.
So Ken Braxton is full of shit.
You might not be wrong.
You might not be wrong.
I'm not judging the accuracy of the claim.
I'm saying that if you go on television in a big venue like that, and you say there's one reason this could have happened when the other reason has been offered and also fits the facts, I lose all, you have no credibility after that.
No credibility.
It wouldn't matter if you were Republican or Democrat.
If you walk into that situation and you ignore the other explanation, then you can be ignored for anything else you say.
Your credibility is at zero at that point.
Now if, here's what credibility would have sounded like.
Had he said, well their claim was That it's just because there are more mail-in votes for Democrats.
Here's why that doesn't make sense.
But where's that?
I've been hearing the official explanation forever, but not once, not once, have I heard anybody say, here's why the official explanation doesn't add up.
I've never heard that.
Have you?
Seems like the most obvious thing you'd hear.
I've never heard it.
So if somebody has an argument of why the official explanation doesn't work, it might be a good argument.
And I'm completely open to it.
Because when Paxton and Tucker say, this looks super suspicious, I see it too.
Right?
Don't get on me like I'm blind.
You can't see it.
I see it.
I see it just as clearly as you do.
I'm just saying that when you listen to somebody who doesn't even give a moment to the fact that there's a fairly solid counter explanation that also fits the observed facts, then I can't take you seriously after that. then I can't take you seriously after that.
Yeah.
Democrats stole it fair and square.
That's sort of where I'm at.
Where I'm at is if they cheated better, they won.
I thought that on day one.
I've never changed the fact that I congratulated Biden as soon as the race was called.
I've never backed off from that.
He became the president that day.
He's still the president.
Because if he cheated and won, well, I guess the system allowed that.
You don't think there were any Republicans who cheated a little?
I don't know.
But that's the game.
So if cheating's just built into the game, one side cheats better.
I give them the win.
You got the win.
Congratulations, Mr. President.
I wish it were otherwise, but that's the way it is.
Scott, are we having a world moment?
I don't know what that means.
Yeah, the voter ID laws are automatically registering some people.
And again, if that's why the Democrats win, well played.
If the Democrats win because they made it easier to register migrants and so they can illegally vote, well played.
Good job.
I don't think that's going to be the big thing.
I don't imagine most of the immigrants caring about voting.
The fact that they could vote doesn't seem related to the fact that they might.
I just don't see it happening.
You know, the ones who came in this year?
How many people who walked over the border this year are going to vote?
You know, even they're not allowed to, but technically they could probably get away with it if they had the right ID.
But who's going to do it?
I don't know.
Maybe if you pay them or something.
It seems like not even a risk they would take money for, because it's pretty hard to get here.
You know, you don't want to be sent back and have to come back again.
So I would think that they would not take a chance on something as inconsequential as one vote in an election that they don't even know who's running.
They won't be involved.
Yeah, maybe.
How do we defeat the machine?
I don't think you can.
Maybe you need to join them.
Maybe we should all just become Democrats.
Oh, that would work.
If all Republicans just re-registered as Democrats, they could probably have anything they wanted.
What would stop you from doing that?
Couldn't 100% of Democrats just re-register?
It would make all polling obsolete.
You can make polling obsolete.
Just re-register.
That's what I did.
That's why I'm a registered Democrat.
Once the Democrats labeled me a racist, I thought, well, I'm not going to slime the poor Republicans.
They didn't do anything to me.
So I decided to take my bad reputation over to the Democrats where it belongs.
Andrew Tate just registered as a Democrat?
Did that really happen?
I can't tell if you're joking.
No, he can't.
Well, he can't vote.
Wait a minute, he's not even a citizen, is he?
I don't think he can vote.
All right.
Fetterman has been replaced by a body double.
Where in the world would you get a second person who looks like Looks like him.
And if you wanted a body double, would you give your body double a porn mustache?
Because I feel like the porn mustache is sort of a giveaway.
He does look different.
Yeah, he does look different.
And he's admitted that he has some kind of permanent cognitive, at least linguistic problem.
But I guess the Democrats are happy with that.
They got what they wanted.
All right, that's all I got for you today, YouTube.
Predicting we won't need to vote.
Well, I think he was being hyperbolic when he said that.
