Episode 2238 Scott Adams: The Gears Of The Machine Continue To Reveal Themselves. Wow. Bring Coffee
Episode Stats
Length
1 hour and 1 minute
Words per Minute
136.90167
Summary
Who's really in charge? Who's running everything? Or who's trying to run everything? Is it the Open Society Society, Soros, or the World Economic Forum? Or is it the Deep State? Or the CIA? Or are they part of a Jewish conspiracy?
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization while it lasts.
00:00:22.720
This is Coffee with Scott Adams, and if you'd like to take this experience up to a level
00:00:27.060
that I don't think people can even understand, all you need is a cup of moraga glass, a tank of chelsea stein,
00:00:33.640
a canteen jug or flask of a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.
00:00:39.960
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. It's the dopamine hit of the day. The thing
00:00:44.040
makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. It happens now. Go.
00:00:49.360
Well, there's all kinds of stuff happening in the world. All kinds of stuff. We may have an answer
00:01:02.820
to why are we so dumb. You know, people are always confused. How did they build the pyramids,
00:01:10.360
and we wouldn't know how to do it today with their tools. And you think, maybe they were just smarter.
00:01:16.360
Maybe we're getting dumber. Well, there's a new report, scientific report, that male mice
00:01:25.920
that consumed aspartame, the sweetener that's in a lot of drinks, for example, soft drinks,
00:01:33.740
had offspring that demonstrated spatial learning and memory deficits. So basically, aspartame
00:01:43.500
made mice stupid. Aspartame. Now, am I wrong that that would explain everything we see?
00:01:53.960
It would explain everything. Actually, everything. Now, I don't think it's true, by the way,
00:02:01.840
because studies on mice are not, you know, they don't often translate to actually human beings.
00:02:08.260
So, and studies in general, studies in general are unreliable. And, you know, maybe it was made by
00:02:16.560
some company that competes with soft drinks. So I wouldn't trust any part of that.
00:02:22.880
However, the only thing I want to say about this is it gives me a new thing to say to the trolls.
00:02:27.780
You know, when the trolls come in and say some dumbass thing, you say, are you enjoying your soda?
00:02:42.840
All right. So the theme of today's live stream is who's really in charge?
00:02:50.020
Who's running everything? Or who's trying to run everything?
00:02:52.400
Is it the Open Society Soros? Is Soros running everything?
00:03:01.900
Is it, as many anti-Semitic people are telling me every day, a gigantic Jewish conspiracy?
00:03:16.020
Is the deep state also the elites who are also George Soros, who are also the WEF,
00:03:29.380
So we're going to look at those theories and see which ones hold.
00:03:35.840
Number one, if it were a Jewish conspiracy, do you think that they would open the borders?
00:03:44.780
Do you think there's some way a Jewish conspiracy could be furthered by opening the borders?
00:03:58.780
So whatever is happening at the borders has nothing to do with any kind of a Jewish conspiracy.
00:04:04.980
Because why would anybody want to destroy the United States?
00:04:08.180
The biggest military benefactor, or the biggest military support of Israel.
00:04:18.740
So we're going to discard that one as obviously not true based on observation.
00:04:23.180
Now, as I've been reminded, oh, 50 fucking times this morning, there are many Jewish leaders.
00:04:41.360
So are you surprised that people who are well-educated are more likely to be leaders?
00:04:53.400
Question number one, as part of context for this.
00:04:57.460
My understanding is that the reason there are so many migrants or immigrants coming in is because
00:05:06.320
Not all of them, but most of the ones coming through the regular ports.
00:05:09.660
They say, oh, I'm applying for asylum, and then our laws are so inefficient that they can end up basically staying here forever,
00:05:17.360
even if they never were legitimately in danger.
00:05:26.900
And the answer is because the argument is that the current situation is better than what we could change it to.
00:05:35.940
Who did the analysis that letting this number of people in, claiming that they're asylum seekers,
00:05:45.140
who did the analysis that that saves more lives than it costs?
00:05:50.560
Because the implication of the asylum rules are that it might save actual asylum seekers, which would be good.
00:06:02.440
How many asylum seekers went from, pretty much would have been dead, you know, let's say statistically,
00:06:09.740
we're not talking about any individual, but statistically, how many of the asylum seekers who came to the United States
00:06:16.300
would have been, you know, killed or victimized had they stayed where they were, or gone to another country?
00:06:25.700
Let's see if going private gets rid of that troll.
00:06:32.760
Does anybody know how many asylum seekers, like numbers, not percentage, forget about percentages, just raw numbers.
00:06:42.300
What's your guess of the number of people who are saved by the asylum program?
00:06:51.860
How many women got raped on the way to the border this week?
00:07:02.020
How many people died trying to be part of this big asylum mass migration?
00:07:11.640
If the point of asylum is to save people, wouldn't you expect that there would be at least a little bit of a hand-waving toward an analysis
00:07:21.420
that says if we keep doing what we're doing, we're saving X number of people?
00:07:27.400
But because it also, obviously, encourages mass asylum seekers who may not be legitimate,
00:07:40.140
And how do you make a decision if you don't know?
00:07:43.680
If you don't know if the asylum rules are making something better and you don't know that they're making it worse?
00:07:59.380
If you can't tell if a thing is really expensive, and it's really expensive to let people in, that's obvious.
00:08:09.240
If a thing is really expensive, you don't do it unless you're pretty sure it works.
00:08:17.620
You don't affirmatively do a thing that's really expensive if you don't have pretty clear evidence that it probably works.
00:08:24.020
Where would be the evidence that this probably works?
00:08:30.500
The most basic analysis that anybody would do is this thing we're doing that costs a lot of money once they get in.
00:08:41.200
But it costs a lot of money, and it's an affirmative thing.
00:08:46.600
It's not just, you know, some default thing that came to us.
00:08:49.520
We're affirmatively doing this without any information if it makes things better or worse.
00:08:59.140
Does your common sense and intuition tell you that it is saving more lives than it's taking?
00:09:04.380
If you count the fact that somebody who gets violently raped is never the same.
00:09:14.460
The one thing you can conclude for sure is that it's not based on kindness.
00:09:20.960
It's not based on any sense of what's good for people.
00:09:26.920
Because if they were trying to save lives, they would make a case that this saves more lives than the alternative.
00:09:35.020
But the complete absence of that, along with the fact that it seems kind of obvious, that it's costing more lives than it's saving.
00:09:43.500
I mean, just observationally, commonsensically, what it feels like, without the analysis,
00:09:51.120
it feels like it's massively worse what we're doing.
00:09:54.760
So under those conditions, could you honestly tell yourself that the reason the borders are as open as they are
00:10:04.800
is because we did the analysis and we're doing what's good for people?
00:10:10.840
It's not even slightly feasible that that's why this is happening.
00:10:16.560
So if it's not because of the stated reasons being good to people, what is it?
00:10:24.760
Maybe we can determine what this something else is with a little bit more context.
00:10:34.240
Michael Wolff, an author who likes to write provocative books about public figures, among other things,
00:10:44.780
Now, do you think that this hit piece on Fox News is going to be credible?
00:10:55.960
Let me just give you a sense of how not credible it is.
00:11:02.120
Try to wrap your head around what I'm going to say, because you're going to have to sit down for this.
00:11:06.720
I swear to God, your head is going to fall off when I tell you what happens next.
00:11:13.760
It's a hit piece by a very Democrat left-leaning guy, Michael Wolff.
00:11:28.800
On CNN, the biggest competitor of Fox News, there is an opinion piece by Oliver Darcy.
00:11:39.540
Now, Oliver Darcy writes a lot of opinion pieces that are, you know, anti-GOP, anti-right kind of stuff.
00:11:51.420
It's a hit piece by a Democrat against Fox News, who is the biggest competitor of CNN.
00:12:00.280
And the CNN opinion piece person tells you that you should ignore this fucking book,
00:12:06.620
because it's going to be a non-credible piece of shit.
00:12:14.300
The CNN opinion guy just defended Fox News before the book hits.
00:12:25.320
He says this guy is so non-credible that he's not even going to support it against his biggest competition.
00:12:38.860
Now, tell yourself, do you think you live in a world where the hit pieces
00:12:42.580
are something about the news or something that you need to know?
00:12:47.780
Now, the hit pieces are all going after the economic model,
00:12:52.740
mostly the advertising model, of anybody who's a critic of the left.
00:12:59.480
So the first, this is a hit piece that is so obviously a hit piece
00:13:04.000
that, to his credit, Oliver Darcy, who very clearly has a left-leaning bias.
00:13:16.360
But my sense of what he wrote is that he's actually offended
00:13:22.200
by being part of an industry that does this stuff.
00:13:25.380
I think he's actually offended by it, even just being part of this industrial bullshit complex.
00:13:40.440
Now, there may be more to the story that I know about.
00:13:42.600
You know, maybe they have some personal problem.
00:13:45.100
That would be funny if the whole thing is they have some personal beef.
00:13:48.500
But on the surface, it looks like he's just being useful.
00:14:00.020
Would you be surprised to know that it looked like he perjured himself,
00:14:06.920
and that it looks like he lied and avoided everything
00:14:20.820
he did everything you would do if you were guilty
00:14:28.980
or less like somebody who was working for the public.
00:14:34.580
The Attorney General doesn't even appear to be trying
00:14:38.400
to hide the fact that there's something going on here that's not cool.
00:14:46.640
Trump came out against the continued resolution
00:14:53.900
by funding it the same way it's been funded before without any changes.
00:14:59.100
And it's just a way to kick the can down the road
00:15:01.200
so they don't have to come up with a real budget.
00:15:05.000
But if you're against the continuing resolution,
00:15:10.140
or at least the budget that would keep the government open temporarily.
00:15:15.980
no money as long as you have a weaponized government
00:15:25.320
Yeah, I think the very minimum for funding our government
00:15:45.060
There's absolutely no reason to fund the government.
00:15:52.540
Because they want paychecks and they want jobs and stuff.
00:15:57.440
And yes, I know there'd be gigantic repercussions,
00:16:04.940
The open borders are way worse than crashing the government.
00:16:11.200
let's say we were completely helpless to foreign attack.
00:16:19.820
If you want to make us completely vulnerable to foreign attack,
00:16:25.980
Because we're past the point of any safe options.
00:16:31.500
You're going to have to do something dangerous.
00:16:33.940
And closing the government is pretty dangerous.
00:16:42.400
Even actor John Cusack is blasting the Democrats
00:16:49.760
You know, John Cusack is sort of the Rob Reiner
00:16:59.920
who's, you know, one of the biggest critics of the Republicans.
00:17:34.340
Like they're starting to understand that their side,
00:17:42.400
Well, you know, even Cusack, even went after Obama by name,
00:18:04.260
I guess he's doing some kind of pizza-related festival or event.
00:18:08.000
And the Washington Post called his advertisers for the event,
00:18:13.600
said that he is a misogynist who's done lots of sketchy things
00:18:20.480
To get their comment about why they would advertise
00:18:30.120
who first denies that something like that happened
00:18:39.580
but said, oh, well, yeah, we were going to talk to you.
00:18:43.520
So Portnoy says, could you show me the article?
00:18:50.440
And they say, oh, no, we can't show you the article.
00:18:58.840
Explain to me what journalistic principle would be violated
00:19:03.800
by showing Dave Portnoy the article before it runs
00:19:20.640
There's nothing that would stop you from doing that.
00:19:22.380
Most of the journalists won't do that, by the way.
00:19:25.660
That's something, you know, I've asked for in the past,
00:19:41.580
When Fortune magazine would do a piece about me,
00:19:56.740
that was sort of directly about a fact about me
00:20:16.720
Well, newspapers didn't do it in the first place.
00:20:22.280
something's happening with Fortune at the moment.
00:20:53.880
when the fact checkers asked me to correct them?
00:20:59.660
that would have been wrong if they hadn't asked?
01:01:01.000
You just breeze through a well-written, easy-to-read
01:01:37.160
And I will talk to you tomorrow or maybe in the