Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive May 24, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas

Context —

er. If 25 percent of those crowds were violent and destroying things, the rate of destruction would be way beyond what we've seen, I think. But that's without data. That's just sort of living in the world. It has that feeling about it. You know what I mean? Sort of my collective experience of the world says that if 25 percent of those crowds were destroying things there would be no cities left. I…

← Previous segment →

try getting permission to use special forces and stuff but I don't know. Would that make any difference? We'll see. I think military is inevitable at this point.

Here's what the world needs. The world needs what I call a zoom government or government in a box for situations in which a government would be temporarily without a government. Usually because of a war or revolution or something. So wouldn't it be good, and I'll just use the Swiss as my universal neutral country. Imagine you had a Swiss entity that was organized as already a government and they would go in and they would act as a government for a six-month period for any country that temporarily didn't have one. There would be, let's say under U.N. supervision, something like that. You know, just so there's a little bit of credibility. But the deal is they have to leave in six months. They have to. There's just no option. Gotta leave in six months even if they haven't fixed anything. Right, even if they haven't fixed anything. Because if you can't get something going in six months, yeah, probably you never will, right?

So I think we need something like that. I saw a bunch of people yelling no. What's the argument against it? Well you could make it an international group. Just people who are just safe, competent. Maybe they're older. It'd be good if they're older so they don't want to stay there forever. They just take over for a while, keep the lights on, and then you phase them out willingly. If they're well paid it would be not too big of a risk that they would try to stay. And I don't think that a foreign power could control the military very easily, right? So I wouldn't worry about the government in a box coming in and then taking over the country because they wouldn't have the loyalty of the military. The military at best would say, all right, we got a problem here. See if you can work it out in the next six months and then turn it back over to us.

Economic collapse? Well it would be better than no government at all.

Let's check in on the Biden competency for handling this Mexico, Mexico fentanyl problem and MS-13. To check competency we'll check in with Jean-Pierre. See what she said. Spokesperson. She said that fentanyl is currently at historic lows. Historic levels under the Biden presidency.

All right. So the Biden administration according to the spokesperson can't tell the difference between how much they catch and how much is getting in. They actually can't tell the difference between measuring how much you catch and knowing how much actually got in that you didn't catch. As if they can't tell the difference. And that that's who's in charge of it right now.

If you say to me, Scott, Scott that's the spokesperson. That's just a spokesperson. She sometimes has a gaffe. She's been saying this for a long time. It wasn't just yesterday. Am I right? She's been saying the same thing for a long time. They act as though they're not just lying. That they can't tell the difference. That they actually can't tell the difference. Like actually that's what it looks like. I mean you could say yeah it's just spin but it doesn't look like it. It looks like they can't tell the difference. All right. Don't know. I don't want to read her mind. Maybe she can't tell the difference. That would be even worse.

Has anybody seen this new beauty filter on TikTok where all you do is turn on the filter and in real time you look like a beautiful version of yourself? It's scary. Oh and there's a pedo one where a man could be a beautiful woman and stuff like that, right? So basically you can turn into anything and you can't tell anymore. What's different about it is you can't tell. You actually can't tell.

And there's good news and bad news. The good news is I'm going to look a lot younger in about a year because it seems to me that Zoom and all of these services at the very least they would have a makeup option. Am I right? So there's somebody like me who doesn't want to put makeup on to do a live stream. I would just hit a button and it would just give me a look as if I had TV makeup on and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. There wouldn't be any pixels floating or anything. It would just look exactly like me but better. And I could make myself younger. I could remove wrinkles. Anything I want apparently.

So what's that going to do to podcasting when you're looking at somebody who's a perfect reproduction but the better version? I guess you could argue that's what movies and TV have always been, right? Yeah, if you see the real movie star they don't quite look like they look in the movies. Although I heard one exception. There's one exception to that.

So when Angelina Jolie was in her, let's say, movie making prime, I don't want to say her prime. I'll say her movie career prime. Did you see how cleverly I danced around that? Don Lemon, take a lesson, Don Lemon. So when she was in her movie making prime I was photographed by somebody who had just photographed her not too long ago. So and I asked him about that. Apparently she, I think she showed up alone like at sort of the height of her fame. She showed up to a photo shoot alone, didn't need anybody. And he said that she was the most stunning person in person he'd ever seen. So apparently her movie charisma perfectly translated into a one-on-one private situation. Like he couldn't stop talking about what it was like to be in the same room. And he was a celebrity photographer so he'd done all the actresses and models and stuff. But she was the one who said yeah that it's the same in the room. That was interesting.

All right. Here's a thing that I just figured out today and maybe some of you already knew this forever. I've been asking you what's the deal with everybody hating Soros, right? And everybody gets mad at me but people wouldn't explain why. Now of course there's the vague Jewish thing. So I think, oh it's antisemitic, right? It's just an antisemitic trope. But I couldn't get any more knowledge or information about where it comes from. Why him specifically? You know, what's this business?

And I finally went down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole to figure out what's going on. How many of you knew the following thing? That when, not everybody, right, most of my generalizations are not everybody, but when people on the right, not all the people on the right, some of the people on the right, when they talk about Marxism they're really talking about Jewish people trying to take over the world. Do I have that right? But nobody's willing to say that out loud. That's the conspiracy theory, right? That from some document, I'm not going to name it, from like 1920 there was a fake document that said that Marxism was really a cover for the Jewish takeover of the world.

Now is that why you're trying to not tell me? Because you don't want to say that out loud? By the way there's no evidence of that. It would be crazy. Now let me tell you if there's anybody on here, right, some, there are a few guesses. Most of you are saying no but there are some yeses, right? So just look at the other comments. There are some yeses. That means that some people were aware of this and I just heard this theory yesterday actually and finally pieced it together.

So I was always confused why people would use the word Marxist. Do you know why? Because I don't think it's a persuasive word. And I kept wondering why does everybody say you know she's a Marxist, they're a Marxist, BLM is a Marxist. I never understood it because if you're calling somebody a Marxist when I hear that I go it's a different economic theory. Whoa. Like why are you using that word, right?

So I just wondered how much of a like antisemitic variable is built into that when people use that word. Because I would, I don't think I'd ever use that word. I'm not. There's something going on.

All right. So here's my take on conspiracy theories. Here's how to tell what is not a conspiracy theory. When too many people are allegedly involved that's never a conspiracy theory. Never. This is never a conspiracy theory. So this whole worldwide Marxist are really it's really a Jewish plan to take over the world imagines that there's like plotters everywhere and every nobody's talking about it but they're all connected. That's never a thing. That is never a thing. I guarantee you that's not a thing.

But if you told me that 50 intel people who knew each other signed a document and conspired

Context —

to lie about Hunter's laptop I'd say 50 is a lot but if they were all intel people who knew each other I could see that, right? So that's not too many people given that they're intel people who know each other. But as soon as you say worldwide like that there's nothing like that. Yeah, nobody can maintain a worldwide 100-year plan. Now that doesn't mean that there's nobody who ever said it 100 ye…

Next segment → →