Episode 2447 CWSA 04/17/24 — Scott Adams Philosophy

Episodes › Episode #2447 › Segments

NewsReaction Politics as Persuasion

Back to episode — Episode 2447 CWSA 04/17/24

Context —

he most likely. So instead of taking the most likely which wouldn't have gotten people afraid enough they took the scariest level and they tried to sell it to you as the most likely which would be very frightening. It's also not likely but they didn't tell you that part. So there's another case where some billionaires are ruining the world like George Soros. There's that. I saw a story that China…

← Previous segment →

gy from Russia. Yeah we do live in a world where routinely people will sacrifice tens of thousands if not millions of their own citizens for a profit. Yeah there's no doubt about it. As Mike Benz spoke on this, the cartel connection. Yes and I'll refer you to him for his take on that. And by the way I'm informed by his models of the world are informing me on this.

I just explained. Maybe you know the thing I don't believe about is that the other schemes are clearly good for the schemers and bad for other people so that makes sense. I'm going to start a war but I'm not going to personally be in the war. I'll just make money from it so it's your problem not mine. I'll make money you'll have problems. That's what I want. But if you're convincing me that somebody intentionally created a pandemic for their own profit I would say that would cause me to think that they're not acting rationally. It's not impossible but it wouldn't be a rational thing to do. You wouldn't destroy your own country and the pandemic destroyed everybody's life for like two years. I don't think you would do that for money because you're in the country. You would definitely destroy somebody else's country for money but destroying your own country for money? Now the fentanyl situation is not a case of destroying the country for money. If in fact our intel people are allowing it to happen there they would be treating it like a war. There would be 50,000 casualties but we would have control over the hemisphere and they might think that's an acceptable expense. So that's not really the same.

All right ladies and gentlemen that is all I have in my prepared comments. I'm going to say bye to the platforms of YouTube and X. Thanks for joining. Sorry about that l

Context —

ittle technical hiccup. And I'm going to hang with the people on Locals after I say goodbye to the rest of you. But we'll see you tomorrow. Thanks for joining the best live stream ever. All right locals people only coming up.

Next segment → →

← ← Previous segment

Next segment → →

Wisdom from this episode

"If you're convincing me that somebody intentionally created a pandemic for their own profit I would say that would cause me to think that they're not acting rationally. You wouldn't destroy your own country for money because you're in the country. You would definitely destroy somebody else's country for money but destroying your own country for money?"

Rational actors won't destroy their own country for profit because they live there, but they would readily destroy another country for gain.

"The fentanyl situation is not a case of destroying the country for money. If in fact our intel people are allowing it to happen they would be treating it like a war. There would be 50,000 casualties but we would have control over the hemisphere and they might think that's an acceptable expense."

What looks like a domestic drug crisis might be viewed by intelligence agencies as asymmetric warfare, where tens of thousands of deaths are an acceptable cost for strategic hemispheric control.