Episode 2241 Scott Adams: Lots Of Fake News And Fake Science Today (Probably All Of It) 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, Biden Immigration Control, RFK Jr., CNN Immigration Fake News, Washington Post, Disinformation Studies, Propaganda, Advertising Boycotts, Rumble, Ending Free Speech, McCarthyism, Governor Newsom, Marriage Viability, Dubious Poll Motivation, President Biden, Microsoft Nuclear Power, AG Garland, 2022 Retracted Scientific Papers, Senator Menendez, Jonathan Turley, Intersectionality, 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
*Sings* Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
I'm pretty sure you've never had a better time in your life, and it's going to get better.
In a moment, we're going to levels that nobody's ever even heard of in their entire life.
All you need is a copper mug or a glass, a tank of Cholesterstine, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine, the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Join me now.
Go.
Everything in my life is a little bit better right now.
A little bit.
It's really all directional.
You take that sip of coffee, and you're at least heading in the right direction for a change.
Huh?
Am I right?
Well, I've got an update.
I've decided that instead of having a mere live stream, or some would call it a podcast, that doesn't sound cool.
Doesn't sound cool at all.
So instead, I've decided that at least the people who are on the local subscription site, we're going to form a cult.
A cult.
Now, we're not going to require you to shave your head.
You know, unless you're going to follow the leader sort of thing.
But, you know, I'll just shave mine.
The rest of you, you can shave anything you want.
It's free form.
If you think it needs shaving, shave it.
You can wear anything you need.
You do not need to wear flowing robes.
Pajamas are recommended, but not required.
However, there is one requirement for being in the Scott Adams Coffee with Scott Adams cult.
You have to get our vaccination.
We've developed our own vaccination.
And it's just for people in the group.
And if you're worried about the safety, don't be.
Because we tested it on six mice.
So our vaccination was tested on six mice.
Five of them survived, so I'm feeling pretty good about that.
So that's a requirement if you want to join the Coffee with Scott Adams cult.
You've got to get our vaccination, which was successful in five out of six mice.
Well, one of the big questions we've had is, what is a woman?
I know Matt Walsh has asked that question, what is a woman?
And a lot of you were saying, Scott, we can't figure out what is a woman.
Will you finally settle this for us?
So I have.
A lot of people, when asked that question, they just fall apart.
So, what is a woman?
Well, let's see, you've got your chromosomes and your genes, but then your preferences, but then you wake up in the morning and you feel more like a woman, so you put on lipstick, but you could have felt more... See, that's no good.
No good.
That's how people answer that question.
I would like to now model for you the correct way to answer the question, what is a woman?
Because you might get trapped.
Somebody might, you know, put a microphone in your face when you're walking down the street.
Excuse me, ma'am or sir, can you tell me what is a woman?
And so I'd like to show you the correct way to do this.
We'll be using Dale.
Excuse me, sir, could you tell me what is a woman?
And then I say, yes, and I always take the microphone out of their hand, because you want to take the power away.
Yes.
Yes.
Definition of a woman is, it defined a woman as anyone who doesn't think about ancient Rome once a day.
And scene.
Scene.
If you're not thinking about ancient Rome at least once a day, can we really call you a man?
You would only be sort of a man.
If you think of it five times a day like I do, all man.
Totally male.
All right, how many of you have seen the video, new video, of Tesla's new robot they're working on, called Optimus, and watch it as standing there like a person and sorting blue and green things into different bins?
Now, the amazing thing is not that it looks exactly like a person.
Now, it looks like a robot, but the way it moves is kind of exactly like a person now.
You really, I don't know if you could tell the difference.
It has hands and a body and everything.
But the thing that's new about it, because they've had robots that can sort of things before, but what's new is they taught it to do this by video.
So they just showed it a whole bunch of video of stuff and then it knew how to do the stuff.
This is a whole new world.
A whole new world.
I want one of those robots so badly.
Now, I don't know what the first Tesla robots gonna cost?
What would be your guess?
Has that ever been published?
If you had to guess the first humanoid Tesla robot, you're saying 15,000?
I was thinking quarter of a million.
I was thinking more like a quarter million dollars for a robot.
For the first ones.
You know, someday there'll be 50,000, someday there'll be 10,000.
But I think the first ones are going to be industrial only, and they will replace an employee.
If you get a quarter million dollar robot, how many years do you have to use it in replacement of a person before you get your money back?
It's not that long.
Because a quarter million would be two years of a high income or a higher income person, you know, with benefits.
Because remember, there's no benefits either.
Well, there's maintenance, I guess, so that's sort of an offset.
But I would think you could price these things, the first ones, at about a quarter million apiece, because they're going to do dangerous work that you don't want to hire regular humans to do anyway.
So if you're thinking it's going to be $10,000, maybe.
It might be.
I mean, you know, it's Tesla and it's Musk.
So if Elon Musk thinks that a low price is how you get more immediate stuff, then maybe it will be.
But let me ask you this.
How many millionaires and billionaires would want to get a robot that it could actually just walk around and hang around with?
I think a lot.
I think there are actually way more people than you think Who would pay a quarter million dollars for the first robot?
I think there would be quite a few.
I wouldn't, but there will be people.
All right, MIT has some big breakthrough in the hardware part for AI.
Just to make sure that you could learn and process faster.
And something like several orders of magnitude better.
So who knows if that'll turn into anything, but it does come from, it's an MIT team, so that's good.
And it's just sort of a sign of where this could go.
As interesting and good as AI is at the moment, here's one Just one technology that might make it a hundred times more efficient to learn and become an AI.
A hundred times better!
And that's happening the same year that AI became a thing.
That somebody figured out how to make it a hundred times better, or at least more efficient.
All right, I have a question for you that I was mulling this morning.
I'll just put it out there.
All right, the large language model AIs As you all know by now, it creates something like intelligence just by looking at the combinations of words as those words have been used by humans.
So it can find intelligence just in the combination of words.
Now here's the next question.
Words, as they're represented on a computer, could also be thought of as numbers, right?
You can think of it as, you know, you could change any word into a number and then do math on it and stuff, but you can at least turn it into zeros and ones.
So, it's amazing that you could make intelligence out of words, but it's even freakier when you think those words could be represented in zeros and ones, and that a combination of zeros and ones Which is also words.
And then the combination of those words is intelligence.
But if you take it all the way back, all you needed for intelligence was zeros and ones in the right combination.
How freaky is that?
It was just zeros and ones in the right combination that made intelligence.
I don't know.
I mean, it only works because it's based on human intelligence.
If you didn't have that to see it, it wouldn't work.
But it's just a combination of zeros and ones.
If that makes you think your intelligence is special, maybe not.
Maybe that's why I like drumming.
If you look at drum beats, they're just left and right.
Left, right, left, right.
And sometimes kick.
All right, well, that was sort of a dead end.
I didn't have anywhere to go with that.
But I just thought it was amazing that intelligence could be just zeros and ones.
All right, let's talk about all the fake news.
CNN has a big article about Biden doing a bunch of useful things to secure the border.
Now, since you're all suspicious and skeptical news observers, what do you make of the fact That the Biden administration is doing several things, working with Mexico specifically, to reduce immigration.
What's the first thing that you say by that?
The first thing you say is, well that's interesting.
Number one, why does Mexico have to do everything instead of us?
Now, maybe you say, well, it's just easier.
You just get it sooner, or, you know, our laws don't apply if it happens down there, so we don't have to worry about our own laws getting in the way, like asylum and stuff.
That'll make sense.
But why is it that we have to depend on other countries to secure our border?
Isn't one eyebrow just going up?
It's like, let me understand this.
Can you think of any other country who's having a border problem and the way they solve it is they go to the other country and they say, could you act differently so that we don't have to close our border?
Who does that?
Right.
There's something just naturally wrong with the story, isn't there?
There's something like missing in the story.
We can't close our own borders.
You have to beg the other country to completely change their processes so you don't have to control your border.
Okay, so that's the first head-scratcher.
The second one is, why now?
Why would they be getting serious about now?
The only reason is because it's making Biden poll poorly for the Presidents.
It obviously has to do with 2024, and it obviously is being driven only by politics, which suggests that the people behind border security are not interested in actually securing the border.
Because if you require the politics to even be interested in it, There's not much interest there in just doing your job.
You know, it's not until you're threatened that you do something.
But I'll tell you what the most amazing thing is about this story, and I wonder how many would have noticed.
Do you remember when RFK Jr.
did his documentary, little film, about the border?
And although he's Democrat, so you'd expect him to, you know, buy into the Democrat narrative of everything, When he reported, he told us something that I did not know.
That almost all of the immigration was from countries outside of Central and South America.
That it was coming from Africa and some parts of, I don't know, Eastern Europe and Asia.
Now, according to RFK Jr., it was almost entirely that group.
Yeah, a lot of Africa, China, etc., Middle East, almost entirely.
And it was actually very little from the actual region.
So when CNN does their story, it's a big story, about how a bunch of stuff is being done on the border and that the U.S.
is working with Mexico to keep people within Mexico so they don't cross over, what part of the story mentions that the people are not coming from Central and South America?
Well, I read it quickly, but I didn't see it.
It wasn't mentioned.
So somehow CNN wrote this major story about immigration and the border without mentioning where the people are coming from.
Does that sound right?
Is there like obviously something that they've left out of this story?
Or did RFK Jr.
just make it up?
Did RFK Jr.
just like do a film and all of it was fake?
And they really are coming from Mexico and Central America?
But he reported the opposite?
Is that possible?
I don't know.
Seems unlikely.
If I had to bet who's lying to me, RFK Jr., where he's showing his work, or CNN, where they're just talking to you.
I'm gonna go with RFK Jr.
on this one.
So that's some serious propaganda-y fake news.
Because let me ask this, how do you feel about immigration, if you know it's coming from people who live south of our border, versus how do you feel about it if it's military-age men from all over the world?
Completely different, right?
How you feel about it is completely different.
Because we're a little bit used to immigration from our southern region, and we know what problems and what benefits that brings.
It's well understood.
But as soon as you say military age men from all over the world, I assume some number of them are terrorists, and some of them were.
A lot of them were caught as actually terrorists.
Now, how many of the terrorists got through?
I would think the terrorists would be trying pretty hard not to get caught, even harder than the regular immigrants.
Because the regular immigrants don't mind that much getting caught, right?
Because they still get released into the United States.
But if you're an immigrant and you're a terrorist, and you're on some list, you're going to really, really, really try hard to not get caught, I would think.
So how many of those got away?
No idea.
Could be thousands of, you know, military terrorists in the country.
We have no idea.
There's no way to know.
So that's less than awesome.
But look for the dog not barking, which is CNN not telling you the nature of the people coming into the country.
Let's talk about the Washington Post.
The Washington Post is flailing like crazy because they've been totally outed for being a disinformation source.
But apparently they're writing again.
Mike Benz is all over this on Twitter.
You should follow Mike.
B-E-N-Z.
He's the one who explains to you how the misinformation media works and how it's part of the intelligence operation.
So you can see all the gears of the machine.
But as he says in his tweet since Washington Post is attempting a 2.0 attempt after getting blown out last time.
Watch this masterclass.
And so the Washington Post is flailing around to try to create this narrative that in the world there's all this misinformation.
And there are these good guys forming entities that the government is funding, I guess.
And these good guys are the ones who will be like watchdogs against the misinformation.
Now what Mike Benz teaches us is that's exactly what our intelligence people do in other countries to control them.
We create fake organizations in other countries that seem to be the disinformation seekers, you know, looking for all your disinformation.
But in reality, from the start, they're designed to create disinformation.
They're just propaganda entities.
And now we see that the same system has been fully implemented in the United States, which is completely legal.
Apparently it's totally legal at the moment.
So the CIA or somebody of that Is working apparently with the Washington Post.
That would be the accusation, the allegation.
And that they always have.
And that the news media and the intelligence people have closed ranks and decided that misinformation only comes from one side of the political sphere.
It's just people on the right with all their misinformation.
And the people on the left will never know That this is all fake and it's all, you know, an op.
They'll never know because they don't watch this and they, you know, if they don't follow Mike Benz.
If you're not actually following somebody who knows how this stuff works, how in the world would you know?
How would you ever know?
All right, so every time you see disinformation studies or disinformation researcher, those are your keys that it's a propaganda move.
And not just, I want to be clear about this, it's not just something that's happening and I've decided to label it as propaganda.
It's propaganda by design from the start with lots of moving parts.
Right?
So we're not interpreting it.
It's intended to be this and built to be propaganda.
And it's in our country.
So our news industry is essentially done.
I think I could call the death of the news industry today.
I'm not sure what day it died.
But we don't have actually a news industry at this point.
Let me say that as clearly as possible.
We don't actually have a news industry.
There's no industry that's called the news anymore.
It's only propaganda.
Now, that's not to say every member of the news is a propagandist.
There are plenty of good people who are trying to break through, but they can't really break the corporate cage.
So as long as you work for some big employer, you're pretty much constrained.
All right.
So we don't have news anymore.
That would suggest that people like me will systematically be squashed.
Do you see that happening?
Do you see people like me being systematically squashed?
Well, let's game it through.
So I've been cancelled in newspapers.
And publishing.
But I was able to recreate myself within the Locals sphere.
And also a subscription within the X platform.
And I don't know if you know, but the Locals platform is part of Rumble.
So Rumble is the parent of all that.
So as we speak, Rumble is losing its advertising because of Russell Brand.
Now that's the given reason.
So Burger King and a few other companies are pulling out their advertising from Rumble because Rumble has not cancelled Russell Brand.
But just think about that.
Now if Rumble loses enough advertisers, Rumble goes out of business.
If Rumble goes out of business, remember they own the locals platform.
The primary way that I can make money because I'm cancelled.
So I'm right at the edge, depending how financially strong Rumble is.
I also own some stock in Rumble, because I had invested in Locals and then that got taken over into Rumble.
That stock is worth a lot less than it was.
Less than half, I think, of where it was.
So right now Rumble is the last place, along with the X platform, where you could say something that's not approved by the You know, the intelligence sensors, basically.
And it looks like that's seriously under attack.
So if the Locals platform goes down with Rumble, because there's some organized thing against the advertisers, that would be one of the biggest blows to free speech ever.
Ever.
But I remind you that the ADL Driven by the Democrats.
Tried to put Twitter out of business by organizing a boycott.
So the other place that I could make money on the X platform, and I do, is under risk of never being profitable and therefore it's an existential risk.
If you're never profitable, even if you're owned by the richest man in the world, you know something's gonna happen.
So the only places that you can be free at the moment Rumble and Locals, which are the same thing, and The X Platform are both under massive advertiser pressure and are going to have a little trouble being profitable, which means their existence is questionable.
So, I am actually impressed at the level of completeness of the evil that's happening right now.
Because we've really lost the entire news business.
The fact that people on Rumble can still say some things that sound free.
How many people on the left will ever hear that?
How many people on the left follow me on Locals?
Very few.
Maybe almost none.
How many people on the left follow me on the X platform?
Very few.
Very, very few.
So the first thing you do is make sure that the dissenting voices are walled off.
Because then they're only just talking to themselves.
And then you can do whatever you want with the rest of it, which they've done.
But then once you've got that, you've taken care of the rest of the media, it's all under your control, which it appears to be.
Then you've got to go after the bubble, because you don't want the bubble to have a breakout moment.
So now you can see that the bubble is being squeezed by the advertisers, who is being squeezed by the Democrats, who are being squeezed by intelligence people.
So it looks like there's something like a complete loss of First Amendment that's coming up.
It's almost complete, because I don't have any ability to talk in most of the media.
Would you agree?
I can get on podcasts, but they have their own little audiences.
But do you think that CNN's gonna invite me on to give my side of things?
I don't think so.
The only reason anybody would invite me on, the massive part of the media, would be to try to further degrade me.
In other words, it would be hippies.
But they would never have me on just to talk.
Those days are over.
Think about it.
Free speech actually is gone, except for the few little bubbles that they're exterminating at the moment.
That's actually happening in your life.
Do you remember some points in your life you heard stories about the so-called blacklists in Hollywood?
You know, back in the dark McCarthy era, and people were being cancelled and their lives were ruined for allegedly being communists.
Ruined all kinds of lives.
Do you remember your thoughts about that when you were reading it about history?
I remember mine.
Thank God that'll never happen again.
That was what I thought.
I thought, well, that could never happen, that McCarthyism.
And here I am.
I got McCarthy'd, like personally.
Not only did I not think that it would happen again in the world, I'll tell you the last thing I thought is that it would happen to me personally.
I really didn't see that coming.
I mean, I knew I was flying close to the sun, but I really didn't think it was going to go full McCarthy and take down free speech in general.
I mean, I really didn't see the end of free speech, but here we are.
Here we are.
All right.
Here's some fake news about Newsom.
And I'm part of sending out some fake news.
So you might know that there was some legislation that Newsom vetoed by not signing it.
And the thing he vetoed would have given Essentially, preference to the parent in a custody dispute, preference to the parent who accepted the gender assignment of their child.
In other words, what the child said they were, if the parent accepted that, they were more likely to have custody, and the law would say that should be taken into account.
Now, Newsom declined to sign that, and people like me were fooled.
I was totally fooled and thought, oh, wow, he's moderating because he's thinking about running for a higher office.
So he can't be so left.
He would do something that was so just way over the line.
So he's got to moderate that to run for national office.
That's what I thought.
I was very wrong.
That's not what happened at all.
That didn't happen.
It was a weasel trick.
Now, Joel Pollack points that out.
And the weasel trick was that in his veto letter, Newsom said that he vetoed it, and in part because it's already the current process.
That the current rules and regulations allows you to take into account Which parent was the one who accepted the gender assignment?
As one of many variables.
So Newsom did not veto something.
He simply said it's already the case.
That's really different than vetoing something.
You didn't need a new law when it was basically the way people are already acting.
Oh, that was a good weasel.
Now I have to say, what percentage of the voters Would be aware that this law happened and then he vetoed it at all?
Not many.
10% maximum?
Do you think not even 5%?
5% maybe?
Or even aware that he vetoed something?
And then of the 5% who were aware he vetoed it, what percentage of the 5% found out later that it was a trick?
He wasn't really vetoing anything because it was already in the process.
Probably 1% of 5%.
I think it's hard for those of you who watch this content every day, it's hard for you to understand how little the public knows about anything in terms of politics.
I mean, I'm barely keeping my nose just above the waterline with all the legal stuff.
Trying to figure out who's suing who for what and who got indicted where for what.
It's like really hard for non-lawyers to keep that straight.
If you're a lawyer, you're probably in pretty good shape.
But for the non-lawyers to keep all those different legal shenanigans in your mind, it's almost impossible.
So it almost has no effect because it's beyond our ability to process it.
We can't put it in a box.
All right, there's a So those are three really obvious examples of fake news.
Is any of the news real?
I don't think so.
I don't think any of it is real.
Why would it be?
Once the intelligence agencies can completely control the news, which is largely the case, why would they ever do real news?
What would be even the point of it?
There would be no real point of it.
It would be all narrative.
All right.
I saw some disagreement online about the current divorce rate, so I googled it to find out what it is.
Let me ask you, what do you think is the current divorce rate of people married for the first time?
Give me your estimate before I tell you.
What percentage of people who marry for the first time eventually get divorced?
All right.
Answers are all over the board.
Somebody said 100%, but I think that's, you know, you always die.
The answer, according to Google, the answer is between 30 and 50% of first marriages end in divorce, or 35 to 50.
Isn't that too big of a range?
How in the world would we not know how many first marriages have ended in divorce so far?
I guess you've got to estimate the ones that are married that have not yet.
So how exactly do you do that?
That's sort of a big range.
All right, so up to half of first marriages end in divorce.
That would be on the high side, half.
Well, second marriages... All right, let's see if you know this fact.
Are second marriages more likely or less likely to divorce?
More likely or less likely?
It's way more likely.
Like a lot more likely.
So second marriages have a higher divorce rate of 60 to 70 percent.
Almost 70 percent of second marriages.
Do you know why that makes sense?
Because my theory is that people who are good to be married to are always good to be married to.
And people who are not good to be married to for anybody are never going to be good to be married to.
So a lot of the people who get divorced is because nobody could be married to that person.
No, we can, nobody.
It's not, it's not a compatibility thing.
No, no.
It's not about your chemistry.
It's not about whether you went to, you know, divorce, uh, counseling.
Now there are some people that nobody should marry.
A lot of them.
And after they get divorced, well, what's the second thing going to be?
They get divorced again and they just find out again.
Yeah.
So marriage is a system that you would never design.
Well, let me put it this way.
If you were going to design a system that was the main operating system for society, and marriage is that still.
On paper, wouldn't the current system, the way it exists, the financial part, the way people are, their opportunities, on paper this wouldn't work, would it?
If there were no such thing as marriage and nobody had heard of it, and you had a chance to design it, and you designed it and you showed it to people, they'd look at it and they'd say, well this couldn't work.
How in the world would this work?
This is the worst idea I've ever seen.
On paper.
You would never approve this plan.
You know, but we got there through history.
And I don't think that people understand that marriage was historically, you know, for economic reasons and to make sure that you were really the father and some protection reasons.
And it's just completely different reasons.
You know, today you're supposed to get married because it feels good.
Am I wrong?
Marriage was designed as a utility.
It was about keeping you alive and making sure your economics worked and protecting your unit and stuff like that.
Making sure you had somebody to take care of you when you're old.
So those are pretty much economic.
But somewhere along the line we got sold on the idea that it's something about God.
That was always part of it.
But it's more about how you feel.
Do you feel complete?
How in the world is that going to work?
So we have a process that was designed for utility, but we're told that we should use it because of the way it makes us feel, but it wasn't really designed to make you feel good.
I mean, it does have that quality for a lot of people, but it wasn't really designed to do that.
It's just not the point of it.
So it would be weird if it did, because that would be a coincidence, not a design.
All right, well, there's a poll, ABC Washington Post poll that shows Donald Trump leading Biden by 10 points.
What does it tell you when there's one poll that's way different than the others because the other polls are closer to even?
But it could be because it's newer.
Did something happen in the last two weeks that would have changed things this much?
Did I tell you it's a Washington Post ABC poll?
Washington Post, what do you know from that?
So this is probably what the intelligence people in the country want you to think, because it comes to the Washington Post.
And they would like you to think that Trump will absolutely clobber Biden in the election.
Why would anybody who is on Biden's side Want to release a poll that says he's going to get absolutely trounced.
Because they're trying to remove him.
Obviously.
Obviously they're trying to remove him early enough that they can get somebody else in.
What else could it be?
What else could it be?
Oh, oh, I know.
Stop it.
Stop it.
You're going to say, what else it could be, is that that's the data.
Right?
One possibility is, well, that's just, that's how the poll came out.
There's no, there's no clever plan or intention.
They just did a poll and it's wildly different than the other polls, but you know, sometimes that happens.
Does anybody believe that this would have seen the light of day, this poll, unless the people in charge thought it helped their narrative?
No.
Do you know what would have happened under normal times if you saw a poll that so wildly disagreed with the other polls?
Do you know what would happen?
You would say you did it wrong and you'd throw it away.
Now, I don't know that that's true, but I'll bet if you talk to Rasmussen or you talk to somebody who's just a pollster, right, they're not political, they're just pollsters, and you said, if your poll came back and it was wildly different, 10 points is wildly different, than the other polls, all of the other polls, not just some, but all of the other polls, and you're wildly different, do you just publish that fucking thing?
You tell me.
Those of you who have any kind of experience in the real world, do you publish that?
No.
Not in the real world.
In the real world, you assume it's wrong.
You assume it's wrong.
You might poll again to see if you got the same.
But you're not going to publish that.
You would never publish that if your job was just polling.
That's my contention.
That no professional would publish a poll that was wildly outside the bounds of all the other polls.
You would pull it back and you'd say, we'd better take a week off.
Because next week it'll either still be there, in which case we've confirmed it's real, or by next week we'll find out it's not there because we try again and it's just not there.
But nobody would publish that poll For news purposes.
You just wouldn't do it.
So you would have to have some other purpose.
What would be the other purpose?
It's obvious.
The other purpose would be to discourage Biden from running.
It's very obvious.
All right.
And of course, you know, Biden was down on all of the various issues.
Let's see if you can guess the result on this one.
Asked about Biden's handling of immigration situation at the border.
What percentage of people said they approve of Biden's handling of immigration at the border?
Oh yeah, good guess.
It's 23%.
23%.
And once again, my audience is so smart.
They knew the answer before I asked the question.
Yeah, that's how we roll here.
Well, Microsoft is going into the nuclear power business.
Did you see that coming?
Microsoft, the company, is going hard.
They're not just tiptoeing it.
They're going hard into building nuclear reactors.
Do you know why?
It's the only way that they can power their data centers in a green way.
It was the only way.
So Microsoft is all in on nuclear being green, and they're all in on micro-reactors and modular reactors.
How do you get nuclear approved in a country that takes 20 years to approve anything?
You make it modular, and you make it micro.
So those were always the paths.
The reason the companies didn't do it is they didn't have the cover.
They couldn't do it.
Partly, the technology had to develop to a certain point.
But partly, it would just be too hard to be a corporation and say you were going to do something with nuclear.
You would just get hammered.
But apparently, the message that nuclear is green, and not just green, is your only hope.
It's like your only hope for green.
It's the only thing you could do maybe fast enough and big enough and reliable enough.
Now, of course, I think Elon Musk would say you could get there with solar and batteries.
But I still need to see a debate on nuclear versus solar plus batteries alone.
It's entirely Yeah, it's entirely possible that Musk is right and that solar plus batteries gets you a better end state, but I'd love to see that argument.
And part of the reason that you can't be sure is that you don't know what happens with the economics of solar in five years.
In five years, there could be a breakthrough that doubles capacity or gives you aluminum-based batteries instead of lithium, and suddenly all the economics are completely different.
So both nuclear and solar could undergo massive, massive changes in economics.
You know, in the next five to ten years.
And they could leapfrog each other.
It could be that they're kind of similar now, but, you know, one innovation makes solar ten times as good, but it only lasts for a few years.
And then somebody figures out how to make modular Gen 4 nuclear stuff, get a government approval for every state to override the state approvals, and suddenly nuclear is a hundred times better.
than the best solar.
So I don't think that anybody's smart enough to do an economic projection of which of those technologies will be the winner in 15 years.
There's no way to do it.
It's an undoable projection.
So do both.
That's the only answer.
Well there's a fourth whistleblower.
Saying that Garland or the DOJ were slow walking and trying to thwart any investigations into Hunter Biden.
So I would say at this point we have complete confirmation that the Garland organization, A.G.
Garland, was trying to slow down or stop or thwart the investigation.
But listen to what Garland says He's trying to answer the question, if he said that the prosecutor, I guess it was Weiss, had all the authority he needed, but yet Weiss seemed to not act like he had all the authority he needed, and indeed he had to get more authority as he has now.
So Garland was asked about that, and so Jim Jordan asked him, he said, You told the Senate under oath that Weiss had complete authority, and that no one had authority to turn him down, but they could refuse to partner with him, Garland said.
So here's Garland's answer.
That Weiss had all the authority, so long as the people in the States agreed to work with him.
Since they had the total power to not agree to work with him, that's what happened.
So yes, it was true that he had all the authority he needed, so long as states with their own authority, which would be separate, so long as they were working with him.
But they had also the power to just say no.
And they said, no, we won't work with you.
And then Garland explained, he says, you can use whatever language, You know, refused to partner is turning down.
Oh, Jordan said that.
So Jordan says, you know, it's the same thing.
That's the same as saying you don't have the authority.
If you can't do it, you don't have the authority.
And Garland's trying to weasel and say, you do have the authority, but other people have the authority not to help you, which effectively stops you.
And he tried to sell that.
And he actually said that it's not the same under well-known Justice Department practice, Garland claimed.
Now, if you and I are watching this, we don't know what well-established Justice Department policies are.
So you just hear this and you go, I don't know.
But to me, it sounds exactly like they were thwarting them.
And I think the whistleblowers are being completely accurate on this.
That's my take.
So if you're wondering if the Department of Justice and Garland were crooked, I would say that's confirmed.
Does that feel fair enough?
I would say that four whistleblowers and then listening to him explain himself would confirm that he's crooked.
And it's funny that we can say that with confidence.
You don't even have to wonder at this point.
Everybody's innocent until proven guilty.
But I'd say he's proven guilty.
He was innocent in my mind until four whistleblowers said he wasn't and then we heard his explanation that was obviously bullshit.
So under this conditions, yeah, he's proven guilty.
He's corrupt.
Absolutely.
Think about the fact that he could have been on the Supreme Court.
He could have been on the Supreme Court and we have confirmation that he's corrupt.
Confirmation.
It's right here.
It's in the news.
It's on every news site.
And he could have been on the Supreme Court.
Unbelievable.
Well, what other fuckery is happening?
There's a... How many scientific papers do you think were, let's say, withdrawn or retracted in 2002?
Of course, there's lots of papers.
So the answer is, in 2002, there were 119 studies That turned out to have been published and peer-reviewed, but later turned out to be flawed or absolutely fake.
119 of them in 2002.
That's a lot, right?
It feels like a lot, 119.
So that was in 2002.
2002.
How many do you think were retracted in 2022?
Last year.
5,500.
5,500 faulty papers were retracted.
Now, do you know why the number wasn't higher?
Because there's a team of people looking for fake papers, a little small team.
Let's see, the Data Collada is the name of their little group, and they're scientists who are just looking through the literature to find the fake ones, and then surfacing them, and they're getting retracted.
It looks like it's only, I think, three people primarily.
And there were 5,500 papers retracted.
What if the people looking for fakes were as well-funded as Ukraine or climate science or any of that?
Imagine if there were... Imagine if, you know, the people who are looking for racism, like the ADL, they find it everywhere, don't they?
Because they're paid to look for it?
So if you're paid to look for something, you're going to find it everywhere.
But these three people who are doing it not for money, they seem to be doing it because it would be good for the world, found 5,500 papers, or they contributed to the 5,500 retractions.
Now, out of 5,500, don't you have some questions?
Don't you wonder if there was any domain in which there were more fakes?
Yeah, you do.
You do wonder if there's any domain in which there were more fakes.
What about the social sciences?
Do you think the psychology related ones were more fake?
Of course.
Of course they were.
Do you think that anything related to vaccinations or climate change?
Do you think that might have a little extra, little extra fakery in those groups?
I don't know.
My guess is probably.
Because there's more money involved.
Wherever there's more money involved, and it's a hotter topic, you'd expect more shenanigans.
So that's your situation.
I don't know what percentage of papers get retracted.
I heard at one point 50%, but I felt that was low.
The 50% that were retracted are just the ones somebody caught.
It's not like there's somebody looking at all the papers.
That's just the ones they caught.
So yeah, I don't trust anything anymore in science.
So Jonathan Turley is all over this Bob Menendez situation.
So Bob Menendez, member of Congress in the Senate, sat on the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee, who was the head of it, which was also Joe Biden's old job in the Senate.
And apparently it's well understood that if you're in that job, you're dealing with other countries in which bribery is a normal way of business.
Right?
So he was like one of the focus points in our government to deal with the countries that bribe.
And then it turns out that he was accepting bribes.
And of course, we believe that Biden Was doing something similar with the, you know, the Biden crime family.
Now, here's the question that Turley asks.
And I think it's a pretty fair question.
This is not the first time Menendez has been accused of wrongdoing of this nature.
He was already highly suspected of being this kind of person.
And yet he was put in the job where it would be easiest to be this person.
And as Jonathan Turley accurately points out, why would anybody put this specific person in that specific job?
Can you think of any reason?
I can.
Whoever wanted him in that job was getting a taste.
Can you think of another reason?
Why in the world would you put the most suspected crook in the job where a suspected crook would really like to be?
Yeah, it had to be intentional.
There's no way it was an accident.
So you have to assume that anybody who approved it is in on some kind of grift.
That would be the reasonable expectation.
All right.
I'm reminded that in a 2021 article, there was a survey that found that 34% of white students who applied to colleges falsely claimed they were a racial minority.
34%.
This is in 2021.
Why is it not 100%?
This is in 2021.
Why is it not 100%?
What is wrong with white people?
34% would suggest you've got 66% of white people who are stupid.
That might be about right.
I'm not sure that's wrong.
But under today's rules, you would be actually an idiot to say that you were a white person on a college application.
Because there's no penalty for being wrong.
And apparently the way they're doing it is saying they're Native American like Elizabeth Warren.
Uh-huh.
That's the perfect way.
Because unless you've got your, you know, unless somebody's going to do some research to actually go and talk to the tribe that you claim to be a part of, and maybe you don't know what tribe, so you say, I don't know what tribe.
And then they'll say, but you're not really Native American unless a tribe says you are.
That's the way it works, right?
That's my understanding.
You have to be claimed by a tribe or you're not Native American.
But, if you were filling out these forms, would you care about that distinction?
Or would you just say, it's my impression that I'm Native American?
Because I have Native American ethnicity, and the form is asking me about my identification.
It's not asking me who else identifies me.
It's not saying, do Native Americans identify you?
No.
It's asking me what I identify as.
So I'm going to identify as Native American.
Get myself some money.
Get accepted into college.
You'd be pretty stupid not to do it.
I saw a comment, I think it was on Locals.
There was somebody who's a pilot who was filling out some internal forms and there was some white guy claiming to be some other ethnicity.
And apparently all the pilots are figuring out that they have to claim to be another ethnicity too.
So the pilots are teaching other pilots how to claim to be not white.
And how to get away with it.
So let me ask you this.
In a world in which we have all this systemic and direct discrimination, why is nobody trying to claim to be white?
Do you remember when people tried to pass as white?
And I think there's a fairly obvious answer to that question.
Because being white is not an advantage.
If it were, people would be pretending to be white.
But they're pretending to be non-white.
Because everybody, everybody knows that's an advantage.
Everybody.
Anybody who doesn't know that's an advantage in 2023 is a fucking idiot at this point.
So, 77% of the white applicants who lied about their race and their applications were accepted to those colleges.
Interesting.
So now I'm going to go to the whiteboard, and I'm going to tell you where things are headed.
You ready?
Whiteboard time!
Well, I'm old enough to remember, as many of you are as well.
Let me give you a clearer look here.
When, if you're talking about discrimination, The biggest topic of discrimination was usually white versus black.
So there was a time when it was just a white versus black conversation.
But as you know, that was not good enough.
And that eventually evolved into something called intersectionality.
Now, if you're not aware of this term, this is intersectionality means that you might be discriminated against for more than one reason.
For example, you could be black, but also a lesbian.
So that's the intersection.
And that's important because the problems of just being black would be different from somebody who's black and LGBTQ.
But let's say you could throw disabled in there.
People are differently abled.
So you'd have a number of categories and you could be more than one.
You could be several things.
Now why is this better?
Why is it better to look at intersectionality versus just to see things as race?
Well, I'll tell you.
Your common sense is very clear on this, which is that it's not close enough.
That the people who have these unique problems have problems that are pretty unique, right?
If you're Hispanic and LGBTQ and you've got a disability, your situation isn't quite like anybody else's.
Would you agree?
You have some things in common.
But your situation's different.
So it makes sense.
I think everybody would agree.
Left and right.
It makes more sense to get down to some granularity.
So suppose we wanted to improve on this yet again.
So just looking at black and white, it was too big a category.
Can't do enough with it.
Go to a little more granularity.
Well, you might be black and also this, or this and also that.
That's better, wouldn't you say?
More granularity.
Yeah.
If you're going to fix a problem, you want to understand it as well as you can understand it.
And this moves you closer to understanding.
So what would be the next logical place that this should go if we continue to be rational?
People.
Or actually, person.
Because it's individuals.
individuals.
Now, if you understood discrimination and everything else in terms of individuals, Which is really where this was getting to.
It was getting closer to the individual.
But if we go all the way, now we can really do something.
Because if this is the problem, white versus black, what are you going to do about it?
What's your plan to make that better?
Well, there's some things you can do.
Improving education, etc.
But it doesn't seem to be working.
So then getting to more granular, well, maybe we can do something if we understand it at this level.
But how about going further?
How about going all the way to the individual?
Because each of these individuals has unique problems and it's not just their color and their sexual preference or anything like that.
They're just different people.
So how about creating a strategy that is the right strategy for each person?
Which takes into account far more than the discrimination.
It takes into account where they live, how old they are, what's their parent's situation, is there a good school in your town, what's your personality, what's your character, what things do you need that you don't have.
These are all solvable problems.
If you give me an individual, they might not take my advice, but I can certainly tell them what to do.
I don't know how to solve these other things.
Like I don't know what I could do as an individual.
But if a person is in front of me and they're not succeeding in life and they want to know how, I could totally help that person.
So I would say that the left and the right were accidentally heading in the same direction.
Which is the framing of white versus black wasn't getting you enough, what do you do about it?
The instinct to go to the next level of detail was the right instinct.
It's the right instinct.
It just doesn't go far enough.
You've got to go all the way to what makes every person unique, and then you can solve their problem.
Now, here's the persuasion frame on this.
Do you notice that there's a whole lot of making you think past the sale in this?
Especially the white-black model, but also the intersectionality model.
They both have the same characteristic.
The characteristic is they ask you to accept that this was the right way to look at it in the first place.
If they're making you talk about If they're making you talk about the difference between black and white performance or outcomes, then they've already made you think past the sale that this was ever the right question in the first place.
You see that?
So every time somebody gets you into a conversation of outcomes or differences in the average white or average black, they're talking about somebody who doesn't exist.
There's no average white person.
There's no average black person.
There's no average person.
We're not just different on race, and we're not just different because we all have some different intersectionality thing going on.
We are infinitely different.
We are infinitely different.
So if you accept any of these frames, you're accepting an absurdity that looking at the average of white people and the average of black people tells you something you could or should do something about.
Do you know what I care about?
The average difference between any two groups?
Nothing.
I don't care.
I have zero interest in fixing this average.
Now that makes me sound like a terrible person, doesn't it?
But the reason I have zero interest in this is that it's a trick and it gives you no solution.
It only gives you victimhood and transfer of money.
It doesn't give you a system to fix it.
So you have a goal.
It's a goal.
We'd like different groups to have similar outcomes.
That's a good goal.
But what's the system?
The system you don't really have.
Let's say you go to the next level and you complicate it or go down to more granularity.
It's moving in the right direction, I think.
But it still doesn't give you a system.
What are you going to do about it?
So you do have an Elbonian disabled bisexual.
So?
And they have different outcomes than the Asian-American, I don't know, non-binaries or something.
So?
What are you gonna do with that?
That makes sense, that isn't discriminatory.
But let's say you take it to the next level of individuals.
So alright, so individuals have different outcomes.
So, Scott, you know, you keep complaining about systems.
What's your system just because you divided it this way?
Well, my system is sitting behind you.
Right there.
Now these are two books that I wrote, but you wouldn't have to buy my books.
These are both teaching you how to develop a system for your own personal success.
So if you divide it by individuals, you don't just have a goal, but you have a system.
Oh, there are basically skill development books of all kinds.
There are probably 10 books that if you read all 10, your odds of succeeding are close to 100%.
Right?
Unless you get sick or you have some terrible bad luck.
But if you just did the things that people who are successful advise you to do, and it might not be my advice.
You know, I don't call my stuff advice.
There's a reason for that.
But you have so many different sources for how to fix your individual problems.
You also have an infinite number of mentors that would be willing to help.
What can a mentor do if you're looking at the world as it's black versus white?
What does a mentor do?
It's hard to be a mentor in that world.
And the same with intersectionality.
But the moment you say everybody's infinitely different, and my problem isn't like your problem just because we're both Elbonians, I have a different problem than you do.
As soon as you go to that, then the systems open up.
Oh, here's a system for building skills.
Here's a system for networking.
Here's a system for improving your educational outcomes.
Here's a system for studying.
Here's a system for your fitness, because that helps you in every way.
Here's a fitness for your diet.
Here's a fitness for your appearance.
So, until you get to the individual level, There's no system solution, and this cries for a system solution.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is my whiteboard for today.
And I would further encourage you, if you want this kind of frame to be the dominant one, That when somebody tries to bait you into a conversation about the average difference between black and white performance, tell them you're not interested.
But tell them you are very interested in the success of any individual, for which you could probably help with some advice.
I mean, if the only thing you did is say, hey, you need help succeeding?
Yes, I do.
Well, I'm not much of a mentor, but I could recommend five books that would really get you going.
So every one of you can be a mentor just because you know of a book to recommend.
Probably more than one.
So do not buy into the frame of what the average non-existent imaginary person is doing compared to the average non-existent other person is doing.
Just don't buy it.
Don't let them make you think past the sale.
Individuals are the only frame that's worth talking about.
Everything else is political manipulation.
Yeah, we'll probably clip this.
All right.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is my blockbuster live stream for today.
Yeah, we'll clip that part out and make that available.
Marxists say thinking about the individual is bad.
Thank you.
Who cares?
And by the way, here's a little tip on making people go away or trying to sell you stuff.
If somebody's trying to sell you something, let's say a telemarketer, and you want to tell them to go away, but you want to do it in the best possible, the most effective way, the phrase, not interested, is devastating.
So if somebody's trying to sell you something, and you go, oh, yeah, I'm not looking to buy today, they'll still keep at you.
If you say, oh, you know, I can't afford it, they'll tell you that you can make payments over time.
So anything you say that's like a regular objection, then a salesperson has a counter to it.
The one thing that they can't counter is a lack of interest, and they will give up right away.
A lack of interest is the end of the fucking conversation.
And sometimes you have to say it three times.
But by the third time you say it, it's over.
Yeah, but would you like to?
Yeah, no, I'm not interested.
Well, but did you know?
Yeah, I'm not interested.
I'm not interested.
Okay, thank you.
Three times and out.
Works every time.
I've never seen it fail.
And it works when somebody's standing in front of you at your door.
You ever accidentally open the door and it was a salesperson?
And you can't make them go away?
Just look them right in the eye and go, yeah, yeah, I'm not interested.
It's not impolite.
You have no obligation to be interested in what other people want you to be interested in.
None!
You have no obligation for that.
Just look them in the eye and say, yeah, I'm not interested.
It'll go away right away.
So when somebody brings you the average person in this group, didn't do as good as the average person in this group, just say, I'm not really interested in that conversation.
Yeah, those are people that don't exist.
I'm not interested in non-existent people and solutions that can't work.
