Do do do do do do do do do today. Good morning, everybody welcome to the highlight of human civilization hunting. It's called coffee with Scott Adams, I'm pretty sure you've never had, better time in your life and it's gonna get better in a moment, we're going to levels and nobody's everything even heard of. entire life, all you need is a cup or a bug, or a glass of tank you're or stein, the canteen, jug or flask of vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee enjoyed me now for the unparalleled pleasure. It's the, I believe, the other day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sp join me that go. Oh everything in my life is a little bit better right now, a little bit. It's really all direct

you take, takes our supper, coffee and you're at least heading in the right direction. For a change my right. Well, I've got an update. I've decided that instead of having a mere lives, three more some somewhat collar podcast that doesn't so cool doesn't sound cool at all, so instead I decided that at least two people were on the local subscription site. We'll get a former cult occult now we're, not It will require you to shave your head. You know unless you're going to follow the leader sorta thing, but I'll just share mine, the rest of you. You can shave anything, you want it's a free form if you think these shave

I share it. You could 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 was scott Adams cult. You have to get our vaccinations, we've developed our own vaccination and it's just just for people in the group and if you're worried about the safety I'll be because we tested it. Six mice so are vaccination was tested on six mice, five of them survived. So I'm feeling pretty good about that. So that requirement, if you wanna, join the coffee was, was Scott called you ve gotta get her a vaccination which was successful and. Six mice. Well, one of the questions we ve had is: what is a woman? I know Matt washes s. I question what is a woman and a lot of you were saying Scott. We can figure out what

when will you finally settle this for us, so I have a lot of people, whereas s question they they just fall apart. So what is a woman well received at 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. So that's no good, no good! That's how people answer that question! I would like I'd like to now model for you the correct way to answer the question: what is a woman because you might get trapped? Somebody by you 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?

I like to show you the correct way to do this, we'll be using dale. Excuse me, sir. Could you tell me what is Orban 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 obey vision of a woman is defined, a woman is anyone who doesn't think about ancient rome once a day and and seen

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 ass if you think about five times a day like I do all man. Totally bail out. Many of you have seen the video new video of teslas new robots are working on call optimists, and Watches standing there like a person and sorting blue and green things into different bins. Now the amazing thing is not. That 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 dunno. If you could tell the difference as it has hands and a body and everything, but the thing that's new about it. Cause they've had robots. They can sorta things before, but what's new is a taught it to do this by video. So showed a whole bunch of video of stuff that then it knew how to do the stuff. This is a whole new world, all new world. I want one

his robots so badly. Now I dunno what the first test robots could cost. What would be your guess, as I'd ever been published, if you had to guess the first humanoid tesla robot you're saying fifteen thousand, 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 fifty thousand someday there'll be ten thousand, but I think the first ones are going to be industrial only and they will replace an employee. If you get a quarter million dollars But 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 high income or a higher income person with benefits cause. Remember, there's no benefits either, while 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 is going to be ten thousand, maybe. It'd be a man, you know it's tesla as musk. So if elon musk thinks that a low low prices, how you get more more immediate stuff, then maybe it will be, but let me ask

is how many millionaires and billion years would want to get a a robot that could actually just walk round and hang around with them. I think a lot. I think there are actually way more people than you think who would pay a quarter of a million dollars for the first robot. I think to be quite a few. I wouldn't, but People are mit, some big breakthrough in the hardware part for I just to make sure that you can learn and process faster, as something like several orders of magnitude. Better. so, who knows if that will turn into anything, but it does come from it's an mit team, so that's good and that.

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 with just one technology that might make it one hundred times more efficient to to learn and become an ai one hundred times better and that that's happening the same year, the ai became a thing that somebody figured out how to make it one hundred times better or at least more efficient. I have a question for you that I was bowling this morning. I'll just put it out. There are the large language model a eyes, 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

once so it can find intelligence just as a combination of words. Now here's the next question- words as they are represented on a computer, could also be thought of as numbers right. You can think of it. As you know, you could change any any word into a number and then do math on it and stuff, but you could at least turn it into zeros and ones. So it's amazing that you could make intelligence out of words, but as even freaky or would you think those words can be represented, representative, 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 need for intelligence was zeros and ones, and the right combination of freaky is that it was just euros in ones. In the right combination made intelligence, I mean it's, it only works because it is based on human intelligence if he didn't have that to it, wouldn't work, but it's just a combination of zeros and once this most the the, if that makes you think you're intelligence especial. Maybe not, maybe that's why I like drumming.

If you look at drumbeats, they're, they're, just left and right left right, left right and sometimes kick alright. Well, that was a that was sort of a dead end. I didn't have anywhere to go with that, but I just thought it's amazing that intelligence could be just zeroes and ones. Irish lifecycle of fake news sea than theirs, article about by didn't, do it 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 that the Biden news station is doing several things working with mexico, specifically to reduce immigration? What's the Worst that you say by that, the first thing you say is less interesting number one white is: why does mexico have to do everything instead of us

Now, maybe you say was just easier: you gotta sooner or Our laws don't apply, if 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 ism in one eyebrow just going up is like. Let me understand this: can you think of any other country whose, having aboard problem and the way they solve it as they go to the other country, they say, could you act differently so that we do have to close our borders? Who does that there's something just naturally wrong with the story? Is there

The subway like missing in the story- I we cannot close our own borders after you have to beg the other country to completely changed their processes. So you don't have to control your border. Okay. So that's the first head scratching. The second one is. Why now? Why would they be getting serious about now? The only reason is because it's making Biden pool poorly

If presents, it obviously has to do twenty twenty four and it obviously is being driven only by politics which suggests that the people behind you know 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 and just doing your job. You know it's not until you're threatened. You do something, but I'll tell you what the most amazing thing is about this story. I wonder how many of what would have mentioned would have noticed. Do you remember when Rfk Jr did his documentary little film about the border and, although he's Democrat said

attempt to you know, buy into the democrat narrative of everything when he reported. He told us something that I didn't. I did not know that almost all of the immigration was from countries outside of central and south America that was coming from africa and some parts of eastern europe and asia. Now, according to rfk rfk Jr, it was almost entirely that group yeah a lot a lot of africa, china, etc the 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 in 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 say it. It was 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? zella, obviously something that they ve left out of the story, or did our f k juniors make it up, did our engage. You knew just like do a film and all of those fake and there really are coming from mexico and central america, but he reported the opposite. That possible seems unlikely if I bet whose lion to me or if gay junior worry showing his work

or cnn, where they're just talking to you, I'm going to go with rfk jr on this one. So that's some serious propaganda. He fake news cause. Let me ask this: how do you feel about immigration? If you know it's coming from people who live south of border versus. How do you feel about it if its military aged men from all over the world completely different right? How you feel about it is complete, the different, because we're we're a little bit used to immigration from our southern region, and we know what problems and what benefits that breaks is 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 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 regular immigrants don't mind that much getting caught right cause. 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 get a really really really try hard to not get caught. I would think so. How many of those got away have no idea could be, 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 washing phocis flailing like crazy, because they ve been totally outed for being a dis source but apparently the writing again might bends, is all over this on twitter. You should follow, might be

He's the one who explained to you how the misinformation media works and how house part of the intelligence operation, so you can see all the years of the machine but, as he says it is to, since washing posts is attempting to point no attempt we're getting blown out. Last time I watched this master class, and so what 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 we'll be like watchdogs against the misinformation know. What mike bennett teaches us is that's exactly what our intelligence people do in other countries to control them. We create fake organizations in other countries. There seemed to be the just information seekers. Looking for all the

with this information, but in reality from the start, they're designed to create this information, they're just propaganda entities, and now we see that the the same system has been fully implemented into the united states, which is completely legal. Apparently it's totally legal. at the moment so cia or somebody of that type. Is working apparently with the washington post. That would be the accusation, the allegation and that they always have and that the

The news, media and the intelligence people have closed ranks and decided that misinformation only comes from one side of the political sphere. Just 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 a knob they'll, never know because they don't watch this and they you know they don't follow MIKE Ben's, if you're not actually following somebody who knows how this stuff works.

In the world? Would you know how would you ever know? Alright? So everytime you see disinformation studies or disinformation and researcher those, your keys, that it's a propaganda move, and not just I want to be clear about this- is not just something that's happening and I've decided to label it as propaganda is 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 our news industry is essentially done.

I think I could call the the death of the news industry today, I'm not sure what day it died, but we don't have it. We don't have actually a news industry at this point, let me 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 three, but they can't really break the the corporate. You know corporate cage. So as long as you work for some big employer, you're young you're, pretty much constrained hello. This is Scott Adams and now's your chance to reply to questions hot takes and calls for feedback from myself and all of your favorite podcasters on spotify. Every new episode could have a cure day or poll with a topic for you to weigh in on so let your voice be heard. Personally, I plan to use these tools to get you to enjoy the content even more so head over to spotify, search for coffee with Scott Adams or.

favorite, bunk, ass in view of the latest episodes and respond to culinary and bowls and spot on spotify. Only so we don't I'm news anymore. That was suggests that people like me, will systematically be squashed. Do you see that happening. You see, people like me being systematically squashed. Well, let's game it through, so I've been cancelled in newspapers but in publishing, but I was able to recreate myself within the locals sphere and also have subscription within the x platform, and I dunno, if you know, but the locals platform is part of rumble. Rumble is the parent of all that

so as we speak, rumble is losing its advertising, because a rustle 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 bread, but just think about that now, if rubble 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 could make money because I'm cancelled, so I'm right at the edge, depending how you know financially strong rumble. Is I also own some stock in rumble, because I had invested in locals and then that got taken over into trouble. That stock is worth a lot less than it was less than half. I think of where it was.

But so right now rumble is the last place, along with the ex platform where you can save. You can say something: that's not approved by the other intelligence sensors. Basically, and it looks like that's so seriously under attack. So if the locals platform goes down with rumble, because there are some organised thing against the advertisers, that will be one of the biggest blows to free speech ever ever. But I remind you that the eighty l driven by the Democrats tried to put twitter oedipus

it's by organizing a boycott, so the other place that I can make money on the x Platform- and I do is under risk of never being profitable, therefore, is an existential risk if you're never profitable, even if you're owned by the richest man in the world, you know something's going to 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 the level of completeness of the evil that is happening right now, because we've really lost the entire news business. The fact that people on the rumble can still say some things that sound free. How many people on the left will ever hear that

if the people on the left follow the locals very few, maybe almost none how many fold, 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 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 if you ve taken care of the rest of the media, it's all under control which it appears to be, then you ve got to go after the bubble, because you know what the bubble tat a break out 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

Intelligence people, so it looks like there's something like a complete. A complete loss of the first amendment is coming up. It's almost comply.

It's because I don't have any ability to talk and 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 is going gonna? Invite me out to give my side of things? I don't think so. The only reason anybody would invite me on the the massive part of the media would be to try to further degrade me. In other words, it'll be hippies, but there would never have been just talk. Those days are over think about 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 so some points in your life? You heard stories about the so called blacklisted.

and hollywood. You know back in the the dark mccarthy era and people were being canceled 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 about history? I remember mine, thank god. That will never happen again. That was what I thought. Well? That could never happen that mccarthyism- and here I am- I got mccarthy to 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 here summer, fake news about the new some part of sending said the ocean fake news, so you now that there was some legislation that new some vetoed by not signing it and the thing vetoed would have given essentially preference to the parent in custody dispute preference to the parent who accepted the gender assignment of their child. In other words, what the child said. They were

an accepted that there are more likely to have custody and the law would say that should be taken into account now newsome declined to sign that and people like me were fooled. I was totally fooled and thought oh well he's moderating because he sing he about running for higher office, so he can be so left. You do something that was

so yeah, just we just way over the line, so he's got to moderate that to run for national office. That's where 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 that the weasel trick was that in his veto, letter newsome said that he vetoed it in part, because it is already the current process that the current rules and regulations allows you to take into account which parents was the one who accepted the gender assignment as one of many variables.

So nurse a visit newsome did not veto something. He simply said it's already the case. That's really different! The vetoing something you didn't need a new law when it was basically the way people are already acting. That was a good weasel. Now I have to say what percentage if the voters would be aware that this law happened and that he vetoed it at all, not many ten percent maximum. Do you think not even five percent five percent? Maybe we're even aware the vetoed something and then of the five percent were aware. He vetoed it. What percentage of the five percent found no later than it was

back then he wasn't really be doing anything because it was already the process, probably one percent, of five percent. That, I think, is 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, I'm barely keeping my my nose just above the waterline with all the legal stuff You try 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- and we we can't put it in

box all right, there's a so so those are three really obvious. Examples of fake news is any of the newsreel. I don't think so. I don't think any of it, Israel. Why would it be one once the intelligence agencies can completely control the news, which is largely the case? Why would they ever do real news? What would be the point of it? There would be no real point

it. It would be all narrative alright, and 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 gimme your estimate before I tell you what percentage of people will marry for the first time eventually get divorced answers are all over the board. Somebody said one hundred percent, but I think that's you always die the answer. According to Google, the answer is between thirty and fifty percent of first marriages, end in divorce or thirty. Five to fifty isn't that too big of a rage how in the world would we not know how many first marriages have ended in divorce so far? I guess,

I estimate the ones that are married that have not yet so how exactly do you do that it, the sort of big range, alright, so up to half of first marriages, end in divorce, that'll be on the high side half while second marriages. Alright, 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 empire divorce rate of sixty to seventy percent. Almost seventy percent of the second marriages. Do you know why that makes sense. His my theory is that people who are good to be married to are always good to be married to, and people were not good to be married to before

The body are never going to be good to be married to so. A lot of people will get divorces because nobody could be married to that person. No, we can. Nobody is not, is not a compatibility thing? No! No! It's not about you! history is not about whether you went to your divorce or counseling. Now there are some people that nobody should marry a lot of them and after they get divorced or what's the second thing going to be, they get divorced again. Then they just find that again.

yeah. So marriage is a system that you would never design. Well, let me put it this way. If you are going to design a system that was the main operating system for society and marriages that still on paper, wouldn't wouldn't the current system the way it exists, the financial part, the way people are. You know there are opportunities on paper. This wouldn't work. What 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 that you showed it to people they'd, look at and they'd say well, this couldn't work out in the world with this work. This is the worst idea I've ever save on paper. You would never approve this plan no, but we we got there through history, and I don't think that people understand that marriage was historically for economic reasons.

To make sure that you are 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 in marriage was designed as a utility it was about, Keep you alive and making sure your economics worked and protecting your unit satellite that make you sure yet somebody's it take care of you when you're old, Well, those are pretty much economic but somewhere along the line. We go 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? I wouldn't world exactly

work with so we have. We have a process 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'd be weird if it did his eye would be a coincidence, not another design. I well there's a pole abc washing and postpone the shows done trump leading Biden by ten points. What does it tell you when there's one poll that's way different than the others cause? The other polls are closer to even, but it could be because it's newer, it did something happened in the last two weeks. That would have changed things.

Did I tell you it's a washington post abc for washington post? What? What do you know from that? So this is probably what lee intelligence people in the country want you to think, because it comes to the washington post and they would like you to think the trump will absolutely clobber Biden and the election. Why? Why, with anybody Who is on by their inside one really support the says, he's gonna get absolutely trounced has tried to remove it. Obviously, obviously there tried to remove them early enough that they can get somebody else it. What else could it be? also they either stop it stop it. You got.

What else it could be? Is that that's the data right, the 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 is 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, though, to help their narrative? Now? Do you know what would have happened under norm the times. If you saw a poll this a wildly disagree with the other polls. Do you know what happened? You would say you did it wrong and you throw it away now. I don't know that. That's true, but I'll bet. If you talked to Rasmussen or you talked 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, ten points is wild.

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 that those of you have any kind of experience in the real world. Do you publish that now hold now the real world in the real world you assume is wrong. You assume it's wrong. You might poll again to see if he got the same exit 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 just you would pull it back and you'd, say: we'd better take a week off cause next week, it'll either still be there, in which case you know, we have confirmed israel or by next week, we'll find out it's not there, because you know 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 is obvious. The other purpose would be to discourage Biden from running. It's very obvious. Of course, you abide was down on all of the various issues to see, if you can guess the result of this one asked about binds 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 is twenty three percent twenty three percent, 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 greenway. It was the only way, so microsoft is all in nuclear being grade.

They're. All in micro reactors and modular reactors have: how do you get nuclear approved in the country that takes twenty years to approve anything you make your modular

if your micro, so those were always the paths, the reason the companies didn't do it as they they didn't have the they didn't have the cover they couldn't do it. Partly the technology had developed to a certain point, but partly it would just be too hard to be a corporation and say you're 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 is it's like your only hope for green. It's. The only thing you can do may be 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'd still need to see a debate on nuclear vs, solar plus batteries alone. It's it's entirely yeah, it's entirely possible that musk is right and that solar plus batteries gets you a better state. But I'd love to see that argument and part of the 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. It could be a breakthrough that your doubles capacity or you know, gives you aluminum based batteries instead of lithium and suddenly all the economics are completely different. So both nuclear and solar could undergo like massive massive changes in economics. You know in the next five years and they could they could leapfrog each other. It could be that they're kind of similar now but

Innovation makes solar ten times as good, but it only lasts for a few years and then somebody figures out how to bake modular gen for nuclear stuff, get government approval for every state to override the state approvals, and suddenly nuclear is one hundred times better than the best. You know solar, so I don't think that everybody is smart enough to do an economic projection of which of those technologies will be the winner in fifty years. There's no way to do. It is just not as it's an undoable projection. So do both that's the only answer. Well, there's a fourth whistleblower saying that garland or the video J were slow. walk him and tried to thwart to the investigations and by two hundred by sea

I would say at this point: we have complete confirmation that the the garland organization, Agee garland, was wasn't. I was trying to slow down or stop stoppers worth the investigation, but listen to what garland says. He's tried to answer the question,

If you said that the prosecutor- I guess it was weiss- had all the authority needed, but yeah weiss seemed to not act like he had all the authority needed, and indeed he had to get more authority, as he has now so. Garland was asked about that and to do so, Jim Jordan sm. You said you said that you used to you told the senate under oath, that weiss had complete authority and and that no one had authority to turn him down and but they can refuse to partner with garlands of so yours, garlands answer that ways had all the authority.

so long as the people in those states agreed to work with him, but since I had the total power did not agree to work with him. That's why So, yes, it was true that he had all the authority needed so long as states with their own authority, which would be separate. so long as they were working with them, but they had. So the power to just say now said now we will work with you and then garland garland explaining as you can use. Whatever language you know refused, a partner is turning down. Oh Georgia 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 garlands tried to weasel and say you do have the authority, but other other people have the authority not to help you which effectively

Have you tried to sell that with? It actually said that it's not the same well known justice department practice garland plagued now If you and I are watching this- we don't know what well established justice department policies are, so you just hear this. You go I dunno, but to me it sounds exactly like they were thwarting him and I think the whistleblowers are being completely accurate than 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 That does that feel fair enough. I would say that for whistleblowers and then listening to explain himself would confirm these crooked.

It is folly that we can say that with confidence, you don't even have to wonder at this point. You know everybody's innocent until proven guilty, but I'd say he's proven guilty. He was innocent my mind until for whistleblowers said he wasn't, and then we heard his explanation that was obviously bullshit. So under this conditions, yeah he's proven guilty is, is 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 is right. you're. So the news is under every new site and he could have been about the supreme court unbelievable well. What other factory is happening? Others, a how many scientific papers do

think, were let's withdrawn or retracted, and two thousand two of lots of papers So the answer is in two thousand and two: there were one hundred and nineteen studies that turned out to have been published in peer reviewed, but later turned out to be flawed or absolutely fake hundred and nineteen of them in two thousand two. That's a lot right. It feels a lot one hundred and ninety, so that was in two thousand and two. How do you think were retracted in two thousand and twenty two last year, five thousand five hundred fifty five hundred forty papers were rejected. Now do you know why the number wasn't higher, because there's a team of people looking for fake papers we'll small to see their data kilometer enabler little group

and there are scientists who are just looking through the literature to find the fake ones and then surfacing them and then they're getting retracted now It looks like it's only three people primarily and there were fifty five other papers retracted. What what if the people looking for fakes were as well funded as ukraine or climate science, or any of that imagine if there were imagined, if you know the the people who are looking for racism like the hdl, 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 fell from fifty five hundred papers or they contributed to the fifty five hundred retractions. Now at fifty five hundred do you have

questions. Don't you wonder if there is any domain in which there were more affects the you? Do you do under if there's any domain in which there were more fakes? What about these social sciences? Do you think the psychology related ones were more fake, of course. Of course sailor did. Do you think that anything related to vaccinations or climate change? Do you think that my little extra little extra bakery in those groups- I don't know my my guess- is probably because is more money involved wherever there's more money involved.

And it's a hot topic. You expect more worship mannequins. So that's your situation. I dont know what percentage of papers get retracted. I heard at one point fifty percent, but I felt that was low. The fifty percent or retracted are just one. Somebody caught does not like there's somebody looking at all the papers, that's just the ones they caught so yeah. I don't. I don't trust anything anymore inside. so Jonathan turley is all over this bob menendez situation. So bobbin menendez member of congress, the senate side of the Senate foreign intelligence committee, who was ahead of it, which was also Joe Biden,.

A job in the senate and apparently is well understood that, if you're in their job you're dealing with other countries in which bribery is a normal way of business. Right, so is that he was like one of the focal points in our government to deal with the countries that bribe and that it turns out. They use. Excepting accepting bribes. And, of course we. We believe that by. I was doing something similar with the other Biden. Cried family now here's the question that Turley asks that I think is a pretty fair question. This is not the first time an end, as has been accused of wrong doing

this nature? He was already highly suspected of being this guide their person and yet use put it in the job where it would be easier to be this person and as Jonathan charlie accurately points out, why would anybody put this specific person and that specific job can you think of any reason? I guess whoever wanted him in that job was getting a taste. Can you think of another reason why in the world, when you put the most suspected crook in the job where a suspected crook would really like to be added to be intentional

No way it was an accident. So you have to assume that anybody you approved it is in on some kind of drift. That would be the reasonable expectation, hurried, I am reminded that twenty twenty one article. Was the survey that found that thirty four percent of ways, students who applied to colleges falsely claimed they were a racial minority. Thirty four percent: this isn't twenty twenty one. Why is it not one hundred percent? What is wrong with white people? Thirty four percent would suggest you ve got a sixty six percent of white people stupid that might be about right of national that's wrong, but under under today's rules.

You you'll be actually libya to say they were away person on the college and application, because there's no penalty for being wrong, apparently the the way they're doing it to their native american. Like Elizabeth war. 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? As I said, I dunno one 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 are 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- is not asking me who else identifies me is not saying. Do native americans identify, you know as

what I identify as so. I could identify as native american get myself some money get get accepted into college you'd be pretty stupid. Not to do it. I say comment. I think it was a local's, those somebody who's, a pilot who was filling out some internal forums, and there was some white guy claiming 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 have a 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 indirect discrimination. Why is nobody trying to claim to be white? Do you remember when people tried to passes

and, I think, is fairly obvious answer to that question. Because, being why is not an advantage? If it were, people would be pretending to be white but their pretending to be non white cause everybody. Everybody knows: that's an advantage, everybody anybody who doesn't know that's an advantage and twenty. What is raised like an area that this point so suddenly

is seven percent of the white applicants who lied about the races or applications were accepted to those colleges? Hmm interesting. So now I'm going to go to the white board, I'm going to tell you where things are headed erratic white board diet. 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 just in asia, the biggest topic of discrimination was usually white, vs black. So there was a time when it was just a white vs black conversation, but as you know, that was not good enough and that eventually evolved into something called intersect,

ivaldi now, if you're not aware of this term, this is an 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 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. You know people are differently abled, so you'd have a number of categories that you can be more than one. You could be several things right now. Why is this better? What why is it better to look at intersectionality versus just to see things as race? Well, I'll tell you. Your common sense is is very clear on this, which is that it's not close enough that the the people who have these unique problems have problems that are pretty unique right. If you're, if you're, hispanic and lgbtq and you've got a disability, your situation isn't quite

Anybody else's whether you agree. You have something in common, but you're situations different. So it makes sense. I think everybody would agree left their bright. It makes more sense to get down to some granularity. So suppose we wanted to improve on this. Yet again, so, just like a black and white is too big a category.

I 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 when you say more granularity yeah. If you're going to fix the 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? The next logical place that they should go if we continue to be rational people or actually person, because it's individuals, individuals.

Now, if you understood discrimination, then 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 vs black, what are you going to do about it? What's your plan to make that better, while there's some things, you can do improving it cations, etc, but doesn't seem to be working so that I'm getting to your more granular. Well, maybe we can do something if we understand that at this level, but how about going further? How about going all the way to the end

sure, because each of these individuals has unique problems and it's not just their color or 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 you know the discrimination it takes into account where they live? How old they are. You know what's her parents' situation, is there a good school in your town,

sure, what's your personality, which 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 dont know how to solve these other things. I gotta know what I can do as an individual, but if a person is in is in front of me and they are not there not succeeding in life, and they want to know how I can 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 as white 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 is the right instinct. It just doesn't go far enough.

Gotta go all the way to what makes every person unique and then you can solve their problems. Now. Here's the persuasion frame on this. Do you notice that there's a whole lot of making? You think, pass the sale in this, especially the the white blackmail, but also the intersection alamo. They both have the same characteristics. The care

listen. I guess they. They ask you to accept that this was the right way to look at it in the first place, if their, if they're making you talk about, if they're making you talk about the difference between a black and white performance or outcomes than than they ve already made, you think pass the sale that this was ever the right question. In the first place, you see that so every time somebody gets you undue conversation outcomes or differences in the average way 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 where we are not just different on race and we're not just different, because we all have some different intersection anything going on. We are infinitely different, we're infinitely different. So if you accept any of these frames, you're accepting an absurdity that, looking at the average of white people on average, a black people tells you something you could or should do something about. Do you know what I care about the average difference between these two groups? Nothin, I don't care, I have zero interest in fixing this average. Now that makes me so like a terrible person. Doesn't it but the reason I'm zero inches in this? Is that as a trick- and it gives you know

solution, it only gives you in victimhood and transfer of money. It doesn't give you a system to fix it, so you have a goal. It's a goal would like you know different groups to have similar outcomes as google, but what's the system the 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 is moving in the right direction, But it still doesn't give you a system. What are you gonna do about? It, So you do have an l, bony and disabled, bisexual so, and they have different outcomes than the asian american. I dunno non binaries or something. So what do you

Given that they make sense that isn't discriminatory, but let's say you take it to the next level of individuals. So I So individuals have different outcomes. So scott uk complaining about systems what you're, what your system, just because you divided at 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. The 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 of there. There are self. There are basically skill development books of all kinds. There are probably ten books that, if you read all ten, your odds of succeeding are close to one hundred per cent right. Unless you get a salary of 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 myself advice for there's a reason for that, but you have so many different sources for how to fix your individual problem. You also have an infinite number of mentors that will be willing to help. What can a mentor do if you're looking at the world as it's black versus white? What does it meant.

Where 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 albanians, I have a different problem than you do. as soon as you go to that, then these systems open up. Oh here's, the ears, the system for building skills, here's a system for networking. Here's a system for improving europe's education, welcomes here's a system for studying here's a system for your fitness, so cosette altitude in every way is a fitness for your diet. Here's a fitness for your appearance. So until you get to the individual level, there is no system solution and this prize for a system solution. That, ladies and gentlemen, is my whiteboard for today,.

And I would further encourage you if you want, 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 say: hey, you need help succeeded. Yes, I do well I'm not much of a mentor, but I can recommend five books. There would really gets you going so every one of you can be a mentor just cause. 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 nonexistent. Other person is doing, just don't buy it, don't let them make you think, pass assail. Individuals are the only frame this worth talking about. Everything else is political manipulation. It will probably clip this and that, ladies and gentlemen, it is my blockbuster live stream for today, yellow sir will clip that poured out.

Yeah it'd make that available. Marx's, say thinking about the individuals, bad, who cares and by the way, here's a little tip on making people go away or try to sell you stuff. If someone is trying to sell you, something will say, tell em arthur and wanna tell them to go away, but you do it in the best possible and most effective way. The phrase not interested is devastating. So if someone is trying to sell you something- and you go- I am not looking too by today, though, still keep up action. If you say, oh, you know I can't afford it. They'll tell you that

make payments over time. So anything you say this like a regular objection than a salesperson as as a counter to it. The one thing that they care 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 is over yeah boy. Would you like to yeah I'm not interested well, but if you don't yeah, not interested, I'm not interested.

Ok, thank you. Three times now works every time. I've never had never seen a fail and it works. When somebody standing in front of you at your door ever accidentally opened the door and was a sales person, and you can't make them go away. Just look around the I go. Yeah yeah, I'm not interested is not impolite. You have no obligation to be interested in what other people what you'd be interested it none you're, no obligation for that. Just look at the eyes,

I'm not interested it'll go away right away. So when somebody brings you, the the the average person in this group didn't do as good as the average person in this group so as to just say, I'm not really interested in that conversation. Yeah, that's those are people that don't exist, I'm not interested in nonexistent people and have solutions that can't work all right. That's all for now youtube thanks for joining I'll, see you tomorrow for more excitement.