Episode 314 Scott Adams: The New and Hilarious Climate Change Report, Schumer’s SCOTUS tweet

Date: 2018-11-24 | Duration: 55:10

Topics

Dire report from Government on climate change…isn’t Financially and science challenged CNN “80 years from now” projections for economy and climate change Remediating hurricanes by reforesting the Sahara President Trump vs. Chief Justice Roberts President says judges are politically influenced left or right Justice Roberts says judges are neutral Schumer tweets about partisan decisions by Justice Roberts Schumer’s “cognitive blindness”, as he agrees with Trump 3 components of government? Reality: Supreme Court is now a component of Presidency Left/Right tally pre-determines outcomes Rate of 9th circuit court decisions overturned by Supreme Court
Is that misleading because of “selection bias”? What’s the influence of “court shopping”? Hillary’s take on European immigration handling Did she agree with Trump on European immigration… …so she doesn’t have to agree with him on US immigration? What RATE of immigration causes social unrest? Chinese Muslim population (the Uyghur) internment camps They’re treating Islam like a virus needing isolation Are thoughts and ideas dangerous, like a virus? Assimilating immigrants into your society without social unrest

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a "boss" somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I'm trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.
See all of my Periscope videos here…
https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1nAKERDOwylGL
Find my WhenHub Interface app here…
https://interface.whenhub.com

> [!note] Rough Transcript
> 
> This is an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors.

## Transcript

[0:08]

pom pom pom pom pom hey everybody hey Peter get in here I hope you all have your beverages because if you ever came to watch coffee with Scott Adams and you did not have your beverage with you it would be like trying to fly without an airplane it would be like being naked in public you would be completely ill-equipped but luckily most of you are smart and inexplicably inexplicably sexy as well you know you are so join me for the simultaneous sip it's time to grab your mug your copy your glass your stein your your chalice fill it with your favorite liquids I like coffee and join me for the simultaneous imp

[1:10]

good stuff so I told you that the news was gonna start getting silly because we've reached the holiday season and the serious people who make serious news we're not making not making much news you know there's no new legislation probably won't see much happening internationally things are going to slow down but the news still has to produce news so there's still news it's just that we'll get more excited about things that are less and less important but there are some really fascinating things happening and some of them are not reported that's why you have me and the first thing I will note is that the complaints about the president being a big ol racist sort of just sort of stopped and it happened about the time he was he was saying great things about a number of African American leaders it's about the same

[2:11]

American leaders it's about the same time he was doing prison reform and promoting it and bet that have about the same time that the economy was doing great etc so that's a change it's a pretty big change but did you all see the CNN's reporting about the the big climate change whose it's funny to call this news so this is CNN's headline climate change will shrink US economy and kill thousands government report warns so it's it's a government report so that's the best stuff right so the fact that it comes from the government and they made a big deal about or somebody did about the fact that was released during the holiday so that people wouldn't notice that it said that the environment was going to kill people but once you dig into it a little

[3:12]

people but once you dig into it a little bit it turns out that like many things you can't really tell the difference between good news and bad news so let me tell you what the the headline here is in terms of the bottom line it says that new US government report delivers a dire warning all right so now CNN is calling this a dire warning so a dire warning would mean that what follows that description should be something that's bad for the world so let's see if what follows dire warning is something bad for the world it says about climate change and it's devastating impacts so the impacts are going to be devastating and it's dire it says the economy could lose hundreds of billions of dollars wow that's a lot of money it's dire it's devastating it's hundreds of billions of dollars we can lose it's bad stuff let's keep going or

[4:15]

lose it's bad stuff let's keep going or in the worst-case scenario oh my god it's worse here it comes here's the worst-case scenario it can lose more than 10% of its Gd P good lord 10% of the GDP that's like a depression or at least a recession by the end of the century wait what by the end of the century that's a little over 80 years wait so in 80 years we might lose 10% of the GDP do you know what the GDP will do in 80 years do you know how many times it will double about seven times so by the end of the century the GDP let's say let's say it increases at 3.5% a year the GDP will roughly go up by 700 percent so if

[5:21]

will roughly go up by 700 percent so if we do nothing about climate change over 80 years we'll lose 10% of that seven hundred percent game or something like that I don't know where they take this the 10% exactly do they start taking it from the beginning or the end but let's say let's say you invested heavily in Klein in climate and let's say it took your GDP from 3.5% a year down to 3% a year because you're spending all your money on stuff to clean up the environment what would that do to the GDP well it would be down a lot more than three point five percent so you have this interesting situation where CNN because they are largely financially illiterate and science illiterate like the rest of the world so what I say the CNN is financially illiterate

[6:21]

financially illiterate and science illiterate I don't mean they're worse than anybody else I mean they're exactly average right if you're a journalist you're not a scientist and you're not a finance person in all likelihood I suppose some people cross over but for the most part you're not really the right person to to report on this sort of stuff now I read this news and to me this is the best news I've ever seen now let me let me be as clear as possible that this is not hyperbole what I say next for the world so not talking about me personally but for the world I think this is the best news I've ever heard because I wasn't around when World War two ended that would have been maybe the best news and everything else sort of just trickles along and gets

[7:22]

sort of just trickles along and gets better over time a little bit but I've never heard better news than that the worst or the worst case scenario for the climate is that it would only take ten percent off the GDP by the end of the century in 80 years if we do nothing am I wrong that's the best news that the that the civilization has ever heard assuming is right now what are the odds that a projection over 80 years is correct zero now some people have said no no Scott you don't understand what this projection is for the projection is not telling you what it will actually be the projection is telling you what it could be if nothing changes what are the odds that nothing important will change in 80 years

[8:26]

zero zero there are very few things you can say are zero chance but the odds of nothing important changing in 80 years well that my friends is zero so it could be much worse right it could be the end of the world because something could change that would be very bad maybe but far more likely there will be technological change is it likely that in is it likely that in say forty years China will still be polluting at the same rate it's possible well I think the technology will be a lot better and they're not going to want to choke themselves and have to live underground or or live in a bubble or something because they're pretty polluted over there so it seems that the normal march of technology would get you to a point where people are driving electric cars and ride-sharing and you know telecommuting more and you know everything is greener and better and we

[9:28]

everything is greener and better and we found 10 new sources of energy and in 80 years the odds of fusion being implemented economically are really high now if you said what are the odds in 10 years I'd say 10 years that's probably probably a toss-up 20 years starting to look like fusion might be you know you might have a fusion reactor but in 40 years you're gonna have fusion reactors seems to me not a hundred percent but more likely than not you've seen that there are a number of technologies I think I've seen half a dozen technologies for directly dealing with co2 meaning that they're they're scrubbers that will suck it out of the air there are ways to sequester it and trap it there's an idea about putting an aerosol in the air that cools off the planet which sounds scary to all of us I know I'm not sure that one will ever be

[10:28]

know I'm not sure that one will ever be used but the other the other thing that we don't we don't seem to count is how good we are at remediating against danger take for example the severity of hurricanes let's say for example that climate continues to warm and we don't even have to talk about why doesn't matter if it's humans doesn't matter if it's natural let's say the climate continues to warm one of the things that we have a pretty good idea would happen is that the Hurricanes would be bigger and more frequent perhaps and if you didn't know this and please fact-check me if anybody knows more than I do about this topic that would be easy to do one of the reasons that the Hurricanes developed the way they do in the Atlantic anyway is because the Sahara Desert is so hot so this era does that it is really hot that creates some you know high high temperature zones I guess and that gets the Hurricanes going so there's a reason

[11:30]

the Hurricanes going so there's a reason that there's a hurricane season it's because Africa is heating up now we also have the technology to reforest deserts so apparently we already know how to reforest things and one of the ways is you just put animals there if you put the right kind of animals there apparently they they poop on the land and over time it actually fairly quickly you can reforest a desert area now I don't know if you could reforest the entire Sahara but I'll bet there's a lot of stuff you could do if you wanted to just remediate the Hurricanes so they're probably stuff you could do to change the temperature in just that one place that would make the Hurricanes softer now look at the number of people who died in major catastrophes these days I said in a periscope recently that I

[12:31]

said in a periscope recently that I think in the last hundred years there was a major flood in China so it's a hundred years ago the technology is bad there's no communication and the flood killed between 1 & 4 million people it killed so many people that they can't even narrow down to between 1 & 4 million in China now when we have a major disaster here what is the death toll well the worst one I think recently was Puerto Rico right and that was 2,000 now what will happen after Puerto Rico gets rebuilt what will be the risk of the next hurricane to Puerto Rico well could still be bad but whatever they build is like to be a little more hurricane proof so every time we have a any kind of a disaster we get smarter and better and more protected against the next one take

[13:32]

more protected against the next one take the fires we just add in in my state in California 80 some people died few hundred are missing but what is the result of that we have a pretty good idea of how to make sure that the risk of that is lessened because of the because of the disaster we learned a bunch unfortunately we learned it the hardest way you can learn something but we now have a better idea about how to protect the forest there's more energy about doing it people will will certainly have a better system for getting out of town so you should exact expect that people have a buddy system that you know elderly will not be abandoned to the fire as apparently was the case here so it is the normal way of civilization that we figure stuff out we figured out how to remediate we figured out how to harden against earthquakes we figure it you know how to build things that don't fall apart we figure out how to communicate better so we can get out of trouble we figure out how to probably

[14:34]

trouble we figure out how to probably probably in 80 years we'll figure out how to reduce hurricanes by changing the temperature on the land that's causing the Hurricanes to form so if you're looking at an 80 year projection economic projection how do you factor in how good we will become at just avoiding death and destruction take a look at the impact on the coasts so there's some there's some thought that a lot of the economic loss would be real estate near the coast because the sea level will sea level will rise how do you have that conversation without talking about how good it will be for reducing the income inequality can you think of anything that would reduce income inequality faster than a rising ocean because who has the nice real estate on the ocean it's not the poor people poor people

[15:35]

it's not the poor people poor people don't really have beach houses poor people did not build a skyscraper in Manhattan poor people do not own Al Gore's beach house so if all of the real estate on the coasts gets threatened they're gonna have to rebuild remediate build walls you know tear it down and build another house in land who does all of that work who would do all the work of moving people from the coast where they're getting destroyed by larger you know higher water if that happens we don't even know for sure if that'll happen but if it did the low-income people are gonna get jobs there's gonna be a lot of activity who's gonna pay for that construction not poor people it's gonna be rich people it's gonna be corporations it's gonna be and maybe maybe the government but again they'll be taxing the people who have money they won't be taxing the people who don't have money so how do you figure that into your economic projections you don't

[16:37]

into your economic projections you don't how did you fit how do you figure the technologically technological solutions into your forecast over 80 years you don't because you don't know if they'll be so when CNN reports that this is a catastrophe and it's dire I'm looking at the same number and I'm saying are you kidding me we're only gonna lose 10 percent of our GDP over 80 years during a time when if things went normally it would go up by 700 percent because remember three and a half percent compounds pretty quickly if you go up three and a half percent per year you're really growing so somebody says that's false rich people pay less in taxes you must watch too much CNN if you think rich people pay less in taxes but that is very not true in fact only the people

[17:41]

is very not true in fact only the people who have money pay taxes that's I hate to tell you but the people who don't have money and actually don't pay taxes yeah most of the taxes are paid by the top 10% right uh 1% pay 40% of the taxes and probably the top 10% pay 90% of the taxes I'd say federal taxes anyway state taxes is another situation okay so that's the funny thing so the funny thing is that we can't tell the difference between good news and bad news this dire report about the climate to my mind I'm looking at the same numbers that they present it I'm looking at their report and I'm saying to myself we're doing the right thing by pulling out of the Paris Accords to me that's what their report tells me 10% by the end of 80 years now they also say that thousands of people will die but remember remember they're

[18:45]

will die but remember remember they're not telling you that thousands of people will die that's not what they're doing they're saying that if nothing changed thousands of people would die but they everybody acknowledges things will change so for example to my earlier statements if we never learned how to help people who might die from the extra heat well then maybe thousands would die but that's not the case we will learn how to protect them we will learn how to harden against hurricanes we will learn how to predict them we will learn how to clean the forests so that they don't burn up as easily we will learn how to get people to air-conditioning if they're just maybe they're poor we will figure these things out so that thousands is likely to be just you know an imaginary number all right now the other funny thing maybe the funniest thing you'll see in a long time is the

[19:46]

thing you'll see in a long time is the Chuck Schumer tweet so if you didn't see this as great so the background here is that President Trump had said that the Supreme Court was politicized meaning that there were Obama appointed judges that were likely to be Obama judges meaning they would agree with stuff from the left and that there were Bush judges were more likely to vote right so the president was saying that the Supreme Court is politicized now it is exactly what he said about judge curiel during the Trump the Trump what was it called the University anyway during that trial so what the president said is that the judge might be politicized by his association with his cultural heritage he had nothing to do with this DNA right the the president's didn't say anything like your DNA from

[20:48]

didn't say anything like your DNA from Mexico makes you bad at your job nothing like that he made a political comment which was good politics which is to say that somebody has an association with any kind of group they're likely to be influenced by it in this case judge cereals association was with his entire family which had Mexican heritage and since the president was the biggest critic of that community politically speaking not racism politically speaking the judge's membership in that class of politically minded people might make you biased in a political way now here's the fun part just hold this in your mind how much the president was criticized at the time for saying that a judge could be political okay so hold that thought fast-forward to the president where the

[21:49]

fast-forward to the president where the president is once again saying the same thing he said before but he's he's now taking the argument to the Supreme Court some of them are Obama appointees likely to vote the left some are a bush appointees and Trump appointees likely to vote right judge roberts pushes back by saying there are no such things as obama judges and bush judges we are just judges we are judges who just used the the evidence to reach decisions here's where it gets interesting Chuck Schumer jumps in with this tweet he get talking about the judge Rob Roberts response to president Trump's tweets so Schumer says about those people talking he says I don't don't agree very often with Chief Justice Roberts especially his partisan decisions which seem highly political on Citizens United

[22:50]

Citizens United Janis and she'll be all right so that humor is starting out his tweet by saying that Chief Justice Roberts makes partisan decisions so far that's exactly what Trump said about Judge Carrie L politically biased it's exactly the same thing he's saying about the Supreme Court so now the Schumer has just agreed completely with what Trump tweeted all right keep in mind Schumer's tweet is a criticism of the president in which he starts it by agreeing with him a hundred percent that Roberts is politicized and not judging and then he goes on to say but I'm thankful today that he meaning Judge Roberts almost alone among Republicans stood up first of all he's calling judge Roberts or Republican all right so he's calling the he's calling the Supreme Court Justice a Republican while arguing

[23:52]

Court Justice a Republican while arguing that they're not political he says almost alone among Republicans stood up to President Trump and for an independent judiciary oh my freaking God it's the dumbest tweet anybody's ever sent and of course a number of people I'm not the one I'm not the one who noticed this right so that the the little the political class is all over him for agreeing with President Trump harder than anybody ever agreed with him while acting like you wasn't now I don't even know what to make of that I don't even know how to interpret that if I interpret it through the persuasion filter you know my my go-to filter for the world it would indicate this Schumer actually doesn't know he did this meaning that he wrote it with no

[24:52]

meaning that he wrote it with no awareness whatsoever that he had contradicted himself as violently as you can contradict yourself in a tweet there was just a few characters long I believe he doesn't know now those of you are saying he has low IQ that he's senile almost certainly that's not the problem because say what you will about you know the your adversaries on the other side blah blah blah they're all dumb remember they're saying that about your side all the while they're all dumb it's never true well it might be true sometimes but it would be the rarest thing for somebody to achieve what truck Schumer has achieved and to be actually low IQ that would be pretty unusual so I have no reason to believe that Chuck Schumer is anything but a really smart guy who succeeded through his talents and hard work now that doesn't mean I

[25:52]

and hard work now that doesn't mean I agree with him on issues or anything I'm just saying that he's almost certainly a fully functional adult with lots of experience lots of brains lots of street smarts lots of political smarts and all that and yet he did this how do we explain it there is only one filter that explains us cognitive dissonance I don't know that there's any other way to explain it yeah Trump derangement syndrome is kind of the same thing so I believe that he actually is I like to use this phrase cognitively blind in other words his his mindset has rendered him in a sense blind to the obvious because it doesn't agree with his preconceived idea his preconceived idea is that the president's wrong and if he's criticizing the Supreme Court oh my god

[26:52]

criticizing the Supreme Court oh my god it's the end of the world remember we keep saying that the president is criticizing the Supreme Court it's it's all bad so he had to stick with that but he also couldn't he couldn't agree with the guy who disagrees with him on rulings which is Roberts so he had to he was holding to thoughts that he hold he held as solidly true the trouble was they were opposites so he he may have been actually cognitively blind and his brain just turned one of them into something else so they fit together most likely so I'm not a mind reader we can never know for sure there's no test you can do to find out but if you compare my my description of what is likely to have happened a cognitive blindness caused by Trump derangement syndrome essentially compare that to he's just so dumb that he can't tell the difference I think the the

[27:55]

tell the difference I think the the hypothesis that he's so dumb or senile that he can't tell the difference is very weak again can't rule it out he may have gone crazy over the weekend and I haven't heard about it right he may have been drinking you know so it's possible that were something else but cognitive dissonance is so common that you have to if you if you're playing the odds you say oh it's a cognitive blindness caused by cognitive dissonance that's that's by far the most likely I'd say it's a 60 to 80 percent likely explanation whereas all of the other explanations put together or maybe 20% 40% of most all right here and let me let me put a cap on this discussion by saying this you know how we always talk about the three branches of government you know you've got the judiciary you've got the you know the presidency and then you've got the Congress and everybody we're all about the fact that we've got these

[28:56]

about the fact that we've got these three three branches so they have some some balance and checks and balance there's nothing like that there are not three there are not three branches of government it was designed that way it was designed with the intention that there would be three three chambers somebody saying it was designed with the intention that there would be three components or chambers or components but the the reality which I think chump Chuck Shumer agreed with is that the the Supreme Court is really just a captive of the presidency now now it's not one-to-one you know whoever as president owns the Supreme Court but because the appointees don't do judging anymore let me say that as clearly as possible the Supreme Court is not in the business of making legal and constitutional rulings

[29:58]

making legal and constitutional rulings it was designed to do that but I don't know when it stopped but it doesn't do that now all the does is it do you just count up the number of conservative if you count up the number of of liberals and you say okay who has more all right right now there are more conservatives how hard would it be to predict which way they're gonna vote not really hard at all they they're gonna surprise you once in a while but not really alright and if you're talking about something that happened in the past I would say it's now really relevant because we're far more partisan today than than maybe ever so I don't think it's fair to speak of the Supreme Court as a separate branch of government because it really isn't it's a it's a wholly owned subsidiary of the of the party that nominated them you know they're they're really a party apparatus more than a a judging group now have you seen the I

[31:02]

a judging group now have you seen the I saw a list of how many rulings were overturned by the Supreme Court based on which Circuit Court they came from so the ninth apparently the ninth is in the top four for getting overturned but apparently the ninth is not the most overturned I guess it's the fourth and four for getting overturned it's like 80 some percent of the time it gets overturned now if you see that percentage and you say to yourself my god eighty percent of the the rulings that the supreme court takes they overturn something from the lower court the ninth but is it that misleading I don't know a lot about the court systems so somebody fact-checked me on this but doesn't the court only take cases they think they have a really high chance of overturning isn't that true and don't the most controversial decisions give funneled

[32:05]

controversial decisions give funneled into those courts where they think they'll get the right decision so it seems to me that when you look at OAD some percent are overturned that's there's a there's a selection bias there there the Supreme Court doesn't take every case they decide what they're going to rule on and I would imagine they look at all the things the supreme the ninth does and they say oh all right this one that's gonna stay that'll stay we're not going to change that one we're not going to change that one oh here's one this one by its nature is something that we think might change that's what it that's what makes it a Supreme Court case that it maybe could go either way so I think there's a selection bias in there isn't there I'm not sure that so there are two selection biases one is that lawyers might take them to those lawyers might bias where they take a case to a place where they think they'll get a friendly result and then also the Supreme Court is only picking the ones

[33:05]

Supreme Court is only picking the ones they think have a good chance of getting overruled otherwise why pick it
it doesn't try to correct every decision yeah okay so uh I would plead ignorance on you know the the finer details of how the core systems are working this is not an area that I should take my word for it but it seems to me it seems to me that that number is probably greatly exaggerated just by the way things are selected I would not assume if you're assuming that 80% of the Ninth Circuit stuff gets overturned by the Supreme Court means that the Ninth Circuit does a bad job 80 some percent of the time I think that's completely wrong but somebody needs to correct me I think it's because it just looks that way because the things they select are the ones that are likely to get overturned what about the other

[34:12]

get overturned what about the other circuits well in theory they would get fewer controversial cases so the courts the circuit courts that don't have things overturned never ruled on anything that was likely to be overturned that's my guess but again I'm putting that out there as my very unreliable understanding of what's going on somebody says I'm correct but I'm sure there's somebody out there who's saying I'm incorrect so it still means there are under underpinnings or a weak it means that but it doesn't mean that 80% of them are weak it only means that the few they decide to rule on are weak and that's why they pick them so that the 87% number strikes me as being completely misleading but I could be wrong

[35:16]

I'm directionally accurate somebody says all right so let's let's put together some of the things that have happened recently we saw both Hill Clinton and John Kerry in the last week say that the Europe was mishandling its immigration and that Hillary's take on it was hilarious in a way so her take on it was that the problem with immigration in Europe is that it was sparking nationalism and racism and sort of a creating conflict where it didn't need to be and therefore they were handling immigration wrong but that says a lot to my ears like you don't know how to handle immigration and it's ruining your country but nobody really does know how to handle immigration do they it's not like anybody knows the answer because we keep acting like immigration as a yes no

[36:17]

keep acting like immigration as a yes no problem yes immigration or no immigration but it's never been a yes/no question it's always been a rate crashing question if you said to me let me give you a little thought experiment if you said to the citizens of the United States hey we're gonna let in a hundred million Sharia loving Muslims and we're gonna do it in the next two years what do you think Americans probably something like eighty five percent of Americans would say no no that's too many now some of them would be racist and some of them would not but pretty much everybody would say that's too many it's too much of a shock to the system it's too much of a different opinions coming in to try to mingle with our opinions and it's going to cause social unrest so that's if you said we're going to bring in a hundred million people into our country of 300 whatever a million but suppose you said

[37:17]

whatever a million but suppose you said I'd like to bring in one Muslim per year just one how many Americans would object to one well vetted Muslim who believes in Sharia but otherwise has a completely peaceful point of view one per year what percentage of Americans would say no way no way we can't let that person in almost zero you know some people would've disagree right because there's always somebody on the other side but when we pretend that it's about Muslim immigration or not or Mexican immigration or not it's never about that it's always about what is the rate that keeps your society whole what is it that what is it that Hillary was complaining about with European migration policy that the rate was high enough that it was causing social unrest it's the same

[38:18]

was causing social unrest it's the same freaking point it's the same point as as Trump so we actually saw the biggest most I guess the divisive divisive issue in the country you just watched the biggest critic of the president and and John Kerry would be up on the top of the list essentially agreeing with him but they're agreeing with him over in Europe so that it they don't have to specifically agree with him on exactly the same concept here so as long as your leaders are talking the dumb argument you should just ignore all of them it is equally dumb to say we should have open borders as it is to say we should let nobody in you know and and it feels like both sides even though they they do lip service to you know some proper rate of immigration it feels like we've

[39:18]

immigration it feels like we've characterized the two sides for the two stupidest positions the two stupid positions are no immigration and as much as immigration as you want those are both stupid and somewhere in the middle is the right amount that's good for the country and good for the immigrants as well who really knows what that amount is we don't know what that amount is we do know that our systems don't support as much immigration as maybe many of us would like so
now let's talk about China and their discrimination against the I don't have to pronounce the name of this ethnic minority group Uyghur or agur you I agh er or something like that but anyway it's a small ethnic Muslim community small in terms of OS we ger and we Gers

[40:21]

small in terms of OS we ger and we Gers okay thank you the we ger community in China so apparently China is putting them in reeducation camps and locking them up and doing horrible things to them now I'm going to try to discuss this without putting a judgement on it so before I get taken out of context because we know I will be I'll say in the beginning and then if I remember we'll say it at the end I'm not putting a judgment or an opinion on it I'm just gonna try to describe it and it seems to me that China is treating the religion of Islam as a medical problem now I'm not saying it is a medical problem and I'm not going to give you a my opinion I'm just going to try to describe it and then contrast it because it's really interesting China is treating it like a medical problem meaning that it needs quarantine

[41:22]

problem meaning that it needs quarantine and treatment so another medical problem like that would be an addiction for example somebody who is addicted to drugs you would quarantine them keep them away from their sources of bad influences and bad drugs and then you would treat them now what's different is that you know a belief in a particular religion whether it's Islam or any other is you could think of it like an idea of virus now again I'm not going to say it's a bad virus that's for you to decide I'm just gonna say that in terms of how it spreads it spreads by human contact and once you get it it's hard to get rid of it and what's different from Islam from other religions is that you can't leave you can leave but you risk your life it's more dangerous in some places than others so Christianity has a an escape valve if you get into it you don't like it you can leave but you can

[42:24]

don't like it you can leave but you can also as we've seen you can modify it over the years it can become sort of whatever you want it to be people have all kinds of flavours of it but mostly it's it's a peaceful coexisting kind of an idea Islam has a bit of a conquest of mentality built into it as well as you can't leave or we'll kill you and you can't marry somebody outside the faith so and again forgive me if I get any the details wrong but you'll get the general idea so that's different from other other ideas so other ideas you can reject or accept and you can say it in public are I reject that idea or I accept it but with Islam it's a different idea it's almost like a I don't want to characterize it in any way that acts like an opinion but it's sticky meaning that once you have it you're gonna keep it and your your

[43:25]

it you're gonna keep it and your your kids are going to have it too in all likelihood so you get all the details wrong but tell me if I get anything wrong you can so of course there are you know moderate Muslims then lots of them but you don't need that many to be the kind to want to take over the world and spread their religion and etc before it becomes a social conflict with the people who don't want that so I'm watching this and I'm thinking you know if you're going to judge it by our standard metrics of how we treat people in the West you'd say oh my god China is treating the Weig ours like a medical problem and and we're deeply offended by that because our our sense of
of is that one of our most basic ideas is freedom of religion freedom of thought you can think whatever you think go to

[44:25]

you can think whatever you think go to the church you want it's very basic to the to the West but China is treating it like a medical problem now suppose they didn't suppose they suppose they encouraged it let it grow would it become a social problem in China well there's a hundred percent chance of that right if if the the people who wanted a Muslim Sharia kind of a life grew to a large enough number China would have to either accommodate them or what or what if they didn't accommodate them they're not going to change their mind because that's the nature of the religion right that the Islamic folks in China are not going to say Oh China doesn't like us to have this religion well why didn't you tell me I'll just change my religion that's not gonna happen so you can't deport them can't kill them can't put them in concentration camps so China is making this cold calculation that we in the West would call evil but they may be

[45:28]

West would call evil but they may be looking at it more as a system problem like a machine that's broken and they're like okay you know we better take the pain now because if we take it later it'll be worse so they're discriminating in a way that we in the West would considers the worst thing that ever happened but they're also treating it like a medical problem which is a very different approach we in the United States would almost certainly not do that but we kind of are in a little way by limiting how many people can come into the country the fact that we don't allow and we would never allow a hundred million people to come in with such a radically different view of how things should run is because the idea is dangerous like like a virus but we don't think of it that way so Scott stop telling lies

[46:28]

it that way so Scott stop telling lies somebody says what would be lie or incorrect thing I've said do you have plenty of characters tell me what I've said that is not true I'm waiting
China persecute Christianity and falutin Gong - yeah so they treat they treat religion in general as a negative but I do think that they probably have a harder and this is just speculation probably a different opinion about some religions than others
all right so some people are saying they agree with you and it's an interesting it's an interesting way to think of an idea and let me let me give you another thought experiment and when I do this somebody's going to say hey did you just

[47:30]

somebody's going to say hey did you just did you just compare Islam to Nazism and the answer is no I am NOT saying that Islam and Nazism are the same but I'm gonna give you a thought experiment what if there was a country let's say it's elbonia in which the elbow nians had decided to you know follow Hitler and become Nazis how many how many elbow nians is the right number to allow to emigrate and let's say that they have these obnoxious these horrible views they're literally Nazis they dress like Nazis they'll tell you they're Nazis they're not trying to hide it so there's there's no guessing about what they're thinking they're saying that it's elbonia and they just half of them decided to be Nazis what would be our immigration policy suppose that they were not committing any crimes in elbonia and

[48:30]

committing any crimes in elbonia and were not intending to commit any crimes here can you would you keep them out of the country because of their belief system because it's not compatible with their own but but think about it that's a serious question would we let any elbow nians into the country if they were overt racists but they said look we were did we don't act on it you know where we will take your oath to be good Americans you know we'll we'll act like it's just our belief system you have different beliefs but we'll we'll follow the law we promise we'll follow the law but we'll bring our belief system with us how many of them would we let into the country I don't know the answer to that actually because maybe some I don't know but I suspect that we would draw the line there now the trouble is somebody says were you born yesterday that's not really a comment now the problem is the Islam is

[49:33]

comment now the problem is the Islam is not one thing you know there's there's you know mostly people just trying to mind their own business and take care of themselves and there's some some number that are you know have bad intentions so you can't treat it as one big bowl of the same thing and that's where it gets complicated but what percentage let's say let's say you knew elbow nians were 10% I'll just pick a number if you knew elbow nians were 10 percent actual Nazis but you couldn't tell which ones they were how many elbonian would you let into the country if you knew that one in 10 in all likelihood worth just flat-out Nazis but you couldn't tell which ones I don't know is 10 percent too much of a risk to let in any of them because you wouldn't want to punish the nine that are binding their own business and have no bad no bad intentions whatsoever so that's the practical kind of question one must ask when running a country I'm

[50:34]

one must ask when running a country I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions I'll say again I am NOT not not comparing Islam or any other relation on the other religion to Nazis that's not what I'm doing it was just a thought experiment that if people were coming in with views that you thought would be destructive to your society even if you're wrong if you thought it was true what do you do about it our thoughts dangerous our ideas dangerous the same way of virus is dangerous I would say they could spread the way virus Spence they spread by contact and some of them are dangerous and some of them are not it's a lot like a virus you just have to decide who's the virus and who's the cure that's where we go wrong just for everybody who says this is a virus there's some people who say this is the cure not the virus

[51:35]

if you were in charge what would you do I would change the question to how many and I would turn it into a systems map in which I would say the more the more different your world view from the current world view the lower the rate should be and so I would I would make some general statements about you know if let's say what would be a good example I want to pick a country what's a country where the people are not white but they all speak English and they you know they have a reasonable education system I don't know what that would be
can you name a non-white country where they were the primary okay yeah yeah India I don't know what the percentage of English and Indian is but the of the educated class it would be hi Singapore okay good example so so I would say the

[52:39]

okay good example so so I would say the rate of the rate that you would allow someone from Singapore or India into the country should be based on how different their ideas are from the ones that are already here and I would say if you're in India your ability to what's the right word what's the word when you fit in with the culture to assimilate the average educated in in immigrant assimilates in the United States really really well so you would say it has nothing to do with their race and it doesn't really have to do with the country per se but the culture assimilates very well I've argued that Mexicans actually assimilate very well as well now I know that that's some of you don't want to hear that but for the average Mexican immigrant or south-of-the-border emigrate in general once the second generation learns

[53:40]

once the second generation learns English they're just Americans yeah Mexico is a is a one hop assimilation the the generation that goes to school here they're just Americans the the Indians who come over are sort of a zero hop situation if they come over speaking in English they're pretty much Americans you know you know day one you know that they're buying into the system before they get here and they speak English they've got an education they can get a job that's you know you can't get closer to being an American than an Indian national immigrating to get a job because again we're a country of immigrants so if somebody immigrated to this country speaks English buys into the Constitution and all of its beliefs that's pretty American write it right from the jump and it has nothing to do with the color of your skin Vietnamese

[54:43]

with the color of your skin Vietnamese is similarly well to a good example the Vietnamese who can speak English assimilate right away the ones who the children have to are the ones were learning English originally totally assimilated in in a generation and a half right it's not even a full generation all right that's enough for today I'm gonna go do something else and I will say have a great day talk to you later