My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
President Trump's Nobel prize worthy UAE deal
Kamala's eligibility to run for VP
Bill Gates dismisses HCQ
Kamala's hypocrisy doesn't matter
CNN hit piece on Dr. Scott Atlas
Alex Berenson's mask opinion
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Today, with a little bit less swearing, probably a lot less, I'm going to try as hard as I can to make this G-rated.
I'm going to do what I can, but it's a political season and it gets harder every day.
It really does. But you know what makes the world easier and better in every possible dimension?
Yeah, it's a simultaneous sip and you don't need much to participate.
Not much at all. All you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, including the election.
Go. Yes, I can feel my R0 coming up.
Well, I'd like to thank...
One of my viewers here, Gail, if you're watching, thank you for the excellent pillow, which you can see over my back.
It's quite nice.
Thank you for that. Well, is this the first election in which you could say the following is true?
We don't know exactly who we're voting for, and you might not know on election day.
Have you ever had an election for president in which you thought maybe you're voting for Biden, but maybe it's more Kamala and maybe somebody else is coming onto the ticket and you don't really even know who you're voting for.
So you don't know when the voting starts because of this mail-in thing.
It's going to be confusing. You won't know when it starts.
You won't know exactly who's running.
It's a weird year like that.
You won't know...
When the voting will be complete, you won't know if the voting will be rigged, you won't know if China or Russia influenced the election more than Great Britain, and you don't know anything.
Basically, this is the first election in which we don't even have a fighting chance of being credible.
What happens?
This will be the first time we've had an election that we know in advance will be questioned.
Has that ever happened before?
And we also know that no matter who wins, the other side will say it's rigged.
There isn't any way to get around that, is there?
Can you see any way that you could get around the country believing the result was rigged?
I can only think of one way.
There's exactly one way to save the republic.
Two ways, if you count the Second Amendment.
Yeah, two ways.
The first way is for a Trump landslide of such proportion that even if you assumed something went wrong, even if you assumed voter suppression, even if you assumed Russian collusion, even if you assumed Chinese interference, even if you assumed it all, it's still obvious who won't.
What are our chances? Well, at the moment, the slaughter meter is just pinned at 100%.
But things change, right?
There'll be more surprises between now and Election Day.
But if things go the way they're going, what it looks like is that every few days, President Trump is going to announce a historic accomplishment.
That's right. So like today, or yesterday, So here was how the matchup went yesterday.
So yesterday, President Trump surprisingly announced that the U.S. had brokered a deal, and I think people are going to agree that it took a Trump to get this done.
He brokered a deal for some peace deal between the UAE and Israel, and then hinted that there might be several more Countries in the region who might want to get on board and, you know, teased some of them, you know, coming up.
Now, that's a pretty big deal.
Both the Washington Post and the New York Times acknowledged it was, in President Trump's own words, and they both used the same word, huge.
I mean, think about it.
The biggest critics of the president just said, that's, okay, I got nothing, that's huge.
That's huge. So that's what the President did.
Historic, seemingly impossible peace deal that might be the beginning of something even bigger.
Let's see what Joe Biden did.
What Joe Biden did was take the President's current mask policy and reworded it into angry dementia patient language.
Do you know how that goes?
Let me do an example.
Here would be a person saying, could you pass me a napkin?
So this would be, let's say, normal language or Trump language.
Hey, would you mind passing me a napkin?
Oh, thank you. Thank you for the napkin.
Now, if you were to reword that into angry dementia patient, sort of the Joe Biden way, that same thing would turn into...
Where's the napkins?
No napkins?
What's wrong with the leadership?
There's no napkins here. Napkins, please.
Can somebody give me some napkins?
Come on.
Come on, man. Give me some napkins.
So even though the content was the same, you have to reword that.
So here's what President Trump, his policy on masks.
So his policy is that masks are helpful and you should wear one in situations where you're going to be around other people.
So he recommends it quite vigorously and then says that it's up to the states.
So that's the Trump policy.
Highly recommended when it makes sense.
Up to the states.
Here's the Joe Biden angry dementia version of this.
Gotta be mandated!
Mandated. We need some leadership.
Where's the leadership? Mandated.
But the states can decide.
Now, I'm no constitutional scholar.
But let me break this down for you in the best lawyer talk I can.
Once both of you, President Trump and Biden, have decided that it's up to the states, And also decided that they think masks are helpful.
That's really the end of it.
Because once you throw in the states get to decide on their own, once you put that in there, your opinion of whether they should be mandated isn't really important, is it?
Yeah. Biden thinks they should be mandated.
How much does that matter?
Turns out it doesn't, because the part about the states deciding is the operative part, the active ingredient.
The other stuff is the, you know, that's the sugar and the stuff that doesn't matter.
So summarizing again, the president accomplished an historic agreement that almost Nobody would have predicted, and it seemed impossible.
Might be the beginning of something tremendous, one of the best accomplishments of all time.
His name has already been discussed in terms of the Nobel Peace Prize.
So that was the President's Day yesterday.
And then Joe Biden had that angry dementia patient rewording of mask policy.
So, pretty good.
Pretty good, too, you know.
I think that's what it's going to look like all the way to Election Day.
I think you're going to see a lot more of this.
The President announcing an executive order, lowering pharmaceutical costs.
It's going to be one thing after another until you're so sick of Joe Biden's angry dementia talk that it just won't even look like a close decision.
All right. Let's talk about this.
UAE deal. Now, I thought I was going to come on this morning and give you this insight.
And then I read, was it in the New York Times, I think it was, I read that somebody was on to me, almost like they read my material.
Now, I'm going to tell you what I read from experts who were quoted in the New York Times.
I wish I had it with me.
I don't have the expert's name.
But ask yourself if that sounded like me.
And it was this, that the president had to manage to create an asset out of nothing with Netanyahu and Israel, that collectively they had created an asset out of nothing.
And the asset was, well, Israel has made an offer to the Palestinians to divide up the land a certain way.
Palestinians rejected it completely.
So Israel said, well, we don't really need your approval.
So Israel said, all right, if you don't want to work on a deal or negotiate, you don't need to.
We'll just take the land we said we were going to take.
We'll just annex it.
So, see you later. Anytime you want to talk, we'll be here.
But we're just going to take this land.
That's the end of it. No peace deal is necessary.
I mean, it would be great. It'd be great to have a peace deal, but it's not necessary.
Now, it works best if you've created a pattern.
And here's the pattern that Israel, with the United States especially, had created.
And it looks like this.
Can we move that embassy to Jerusalem?
No, no, it's impossible.
Don't do it. There'll be war in the Middle East.
Don't do it. Oh, you did it.
Okay, there were some protests.
It wasn't as bad as we thought.
Okay, but don't do anything else, because you're really, really pushing it now.
So how about that Golan Heights?
We'll just make that part of Israel.
Everybody said, no, no, don't do that, don't do that, you did the embassy thing, you can't go that far, that's way too far, don't do it!
Worked out fine. No problem.
How about, gosh, if you knew where Hezbollah was keeping their weapons and stuff, you couldn't just blow them up wherever they are.
I don't know that that's happening, but a lot of Hezbollah assets seem to be blowing up lately.
It doesn't seem to be a problem.
You know, you certainly couldn't kill the top Iranian general who was behind all the terrorism in the Middle East, or at least most of it.
You couldn't just kill him.
I mean, he's like the top guy in Iran, if you think about it.
The guy who owns the guns is really the top guy.
You can't just assassinate their top general.
But then we did. And then we waited for the end of the world.
And there were protests and some rockets fired.
But people were hurt, tragically.
But it wasn't the end of the world.
So now that you've created this pattern, and what is the pattern?
The pattern is, we're going to take whatever we want because you're not going to negotiate anyway.
And we're never going to stop.
How many times have I told you that it doesn't matter where you are It matters where everybody thinks you're going.
If it looks like you're moving somewhere, that gets people's attention.
It doesn't matter where you are.
It matters where you're going. And so Israel and the United States had created this very clear pattern of where they were going is they're going to take what they wanted.
We're just going to take what we wanted because collectively the other side, if you will, Anybody who would be opposing any of these things, you know, different people at different places, but none of them were powerful enough to stop it.
It was just going to be one thing after another, just rolling it up until it was just a de facto, Israel got everything it wanted.
So, that creates the opportunity for somebody like the UAE to say, alright, maybe we'll do a peace deal, but you've got to give us something.
It's got to look like we've got something important.
And so what does Israel and the United States offer them?
The thing that didn't exist.
They actually created an asset out of nothing, which is the intention to take this territory and annex it completely.
Instead of just controlling it, they were going to annex it.
But that was conceptual.
It was in the future.
Maybe it wouldn't have happened.
I don't know. And so they gave up the thing that didn't exist.
How many times have I told you that President Trump's...
It's almost a signature negotiating style.
He'll create an asset mentally and then use that mental asset to negotiate with.
When you see it, you know that's straight out of the Trump playbook.
Create an imaginary asset and then trade it for something that's real.
And that's just what they did.
Now, if you just heard me saying it, it wouldn't mean as much.
But like I said, people who actually know what they're talking about said the same thing.
But doesn't that sound like me?
Talking about creating an imaginary asset and picking up their free money.
Because it was free money.
Now, you've also heard me talk about the fake because.
The fake because is in sort of the persuasion domain.
It means that somebody wants to do something anyway, but they need a reason.
Because people make up their minds before they give you reasons, or even before they know reasons sometimes.
But in the case of the Middle East, don't you think the UAE wanted a deal?
They probably wanted a deal.
It looks like they've been talking to Israel for 10 years privately.
So probably they just wanted a deal.
But could the UAE have just said, hey, you know what?
We just want a deal, so you guys do what you want, but we're going to make a deal with Israel.
How would that look? It would look weak, wouldn't it?
Because it would look like they just said, all right, we'll give you what you want, we'll give you a peace deal.
But instead, the UAE gets to use the fake because they get to say, this wasn't for nothing, look what we did.
We stopped annexation of these lands that are in dispute with the Palestinians and Israel That's big.
We're like a leader in the Middle East now, because we've done one of the most important things.
There's nobody else in the Middle East who got Israel to concede something like that recently.
So the UAE gets this fake because, to do the thing that they wanted to do anyway.
What did the UAE get?
Not really anything.
This fake asset was generated, and they accepted the fake asset, which they can claim credit for.
Somebody says Biden took credit.
I don't think that happened, but maybe it did.
So, what would you say now about President Trump's deal-making ability?
And then on top of that, what would you say about Jared Kushner's ability to implement?
It's looking pretty good, isn't it?
It's looking pretty good.
And you have to see the whole Middle East as a whole package to see how brilliant this was all set up You've heard Trump use the phrase in The Art of the Deal and other times about setting the table.
The idea is that by the time you get to the negotiation, if you've done everything else right, the negotiation is almost done.
So in other words, you can be done with the negotiation before you start if you set the table so well that it can only go one way.
You've created a situation where you know where it's going to go.
Now you just have to get in the same room and say, alright, what's the deal?
There it is. It was the only way it could have gone.
And the biggest part of this, I would say, is pulling out of the Iran deal.
Which now looks pretty smart, doesn't it?
Now, a lot of people thought it was smart on day one.
I was more in the camp of, what the hell do I know?
I would love to say I'm so smart that I could tell the difference between it's a good thing to get out of the Iran deal or it's a good thing to stay in.
If you think you're smart enough to know the difference, congratulations.
I'm definitely not smart enough to know with all the variables in play and the psychology and the different countries and the histories and who knows what's coming in the future.
I'm not so sure I could have known.
What was the better path?
And maybe we still don't, because it could be surprises.
But, as of today's perspective, looking at what we're seeing right now, it looks like pulling out of the Iran deal, possibly one of the most baller, leader, successful, smart things any leader ever did.
I mean, it's starting to look that way.
It's not the end of the game.
And, you know, I wasn't really pounding any drums about getting out of that deal or staying in that deal because it's just sort of a little bit above my pay grade.
A little bit. Just slightly above my pay grade.
So I was sort of an observer on that.
But when you see this peace deal and you see others looking in line, you have to say to yourself, what is the environment which would cause that?
And the environment which would cause it is Iran is off the table.
I think Trump just took Iran out of the equation in terms of the other countries worrying about whether Iran would get mad at them for making a deal.
Because I don't know enough about the region to know if this is a thing, but I think it's a thing.
Maybe somebody who knows more can correct me.
Wouldn't each country in the area Under normal, let's say five years ago situation, wouldn't they be a little worried about Iran and maybe Iran doing something bad to them if they made a deal with Israel?
Is that a thing? I don't know if that's a thing, but it feels like it would be.
But at the moment, nobody's afraid of Iran in the way they might have been even a few years ago, because they're so weakened.
And it looks like Iran might just fall.
So, In the Middle East, do leaders follow power?
Does power and winning get you something?
In other words, if you created a history of winning, which Israel and the United States have done together, does that change minds?
Because everybody wants to be on the winning team, right?
And now it's kind of obvious who the winning team is.
It's not Iran.
Iran is not the winning team over there, and now I think everybody sees that.
So, I mean, when the United States took out their top general and got a week-to-nothing response, and that kind of really just opened up the options, didn't it?
All right, so I'm going to say that this is one of the greatest presidential achievements so far, and very cleverly done, very skillfully done.
I mean, this is just sort of A-plus material.
It's hard to find something wrong with this.
But I know that some of the most ridiculous anti-Trumpers are finding something wrong with it, but it's not even worth repeating.
Their arguments are so stupid that I'm not even going to talk about them.
They don't even rise to the level of being conversation-worthy.
All right. Jumping around here a little bit.
So Biden and Harris...
They did their little announcement about the masks, and they didn't take questions.
They didn't take questions.
Now, how much longer are they going to be able to get away with that?
I mean, really.
As other people have noted, why change strategy if it's working?
Well, let me tell you why you should change the strategy if it's working.
The... The strategy that you use early in a campaign isn't necessarily the one that's going to work a month before the election.
If it's a month before the election and you still haven't heard from Biden or Kamala in terms of answering questions, I don't know how they could possibly get elected, right?
So, yeah, it might make sense to stay away from the public for a while, but that's not really a sustainable strategy if you're talking about, say, one or two months before the election when people get serious anyway.
I guess most people don't get serious until sort of, you know, September-ish.
So they don't really have a strategy yet because the one they're using can't work in the last two months And the other possibility where they actually do take questions, well, that would be the end of their campaign, wouldn't it?
You know, Kamala Harris could take questions fine, but Biden?
It's going to look bad.
Brain-dead Biden?
So, what else we got going on here?
Oh, we have birtherism too now.
So this is how the fake news has spun this.
I always tell you that Trump will always leave his options open.
It's just a signature thing he does.
And by the way, you should learn from it.
If there's one Trump trait which you should take with you and say, oh, that actually, I just want that to be part of what I do from now on, it would be this keeping his options open thing.
It's like, what are you going to do with this country?
Are you going to bomb them? Keep my options open.
What are you going to do about this?
I'll tell you later.
Always keep the options open.
So when he was asked about this question of whether Kamala Harris is eligible for the presidency, because apparently your parents were born in two different countries, but Kamala was born in Oakland.
So, according to the Constitution, it's fairly unambiguous.
If you're born in this country, that's the end of the conversation.
Are you eligible for the presidency?
You are a certain age.
You were born in this country.
There are no further questions, Your Honor.
In the legal world, there's always somebody who can make an argument about anything.
So apparently there's some arcane argument about whether birthright citizenship is really in the Constitution.
But I don't think that is credible enough an argument that it's anything to worry about.
However, when Trump was asked about it, Did he say she is definitely not eligible?
No, he didn't say that.
Now, who is it who thinks it would be funny to say Scott is wrong in all caps?
Now, if you're somebody who knows that I block you for saying that, but you think it would be funny to say it because you know that I know you're kidding, it didn't work.
Because I just am going to block you.
So I hope you're not a fan trying to be clever because you just disappeared.
I remind anybody who's new, you can always give reasons.
You can always disagree with me.
That's invited. But if you just say you're wrong, then I block you.
You're gone forever. So Trump says that That he basically hasn't looked into it, so he doesn't have an opinion on it.
So he leaves his options open.
What he always does, he always leaves his options open.
So leaving his options open turns into, it's birtherism too, he's a racist and a sexist.
None of that happened.
None of that happened.
So it's just complete fake news, like we're used to seeing.
Alright, now, I do think it would be useful for Trump to dismiss that because it's not going to help him, but it could hurt him.
So, I think it would be to his advantage, since he has so many overwhelming advantages over this team, to not start a fight that he can't win.
That would be bad strategy.
Rarely do you seem to use bad strategy.
That's very rare. If ever.
I don't know. So I think he should just let that one go.
Next time he's asked, I would say, you know, I don't think that's a thing.
I'm not going to worry about it.
I would just say, just dismiss it.
Say, I'm no legal expert, but I'm just not going to treat that as a thing.
You know, we'll beat them in the regular way.
It doesn't matter. All right.
Somebody's asking in the comments if I... If I killed my Antifa neighbor?
Well, I think it's a teenager.
It's not...
I don't know how old, but 18-ish or so.
Looks like a teen. And...
Don't worry about that.
I'll take care of that.
Don't you worry.
All right. And...
So, alright, here's a funny thing.
So, Andres Backhaus, I mention him a lot.
One of my favorite Twitter friends, and he always has a good analysis of anything that's logical.
PhD in economics.
And here was a comment that I thought was really clever.
He tweeted yesterday,"...the Biden campaign must be running a loyalty check on the media." Virtually every U.S. journalist knows by now that the way Biden tells what happened in Charlottesville is incorrect.
The so-called find people hoax.
So the campaign can learn who among them, in other words who among the press, is willing to dump the truth in favor of supporting Biden.
And I thought, well that is what's happening.
Now I don't know if that's their plan, but the actual outcome is that the Democrats can learn which Members of the press are completely uninterested in the truth and will just back the team no matter what they say.
And I thought to myself, that does exactly that.
You know, who knows what their intentions were, but that's the outcome.
The outcome is that anybody who allowed...
Biden's statement to stand, which they know to be false, and really, really importantly false.
This isn't like other political lies.
This is a lie that can cause, and might cause, an actual physical violent revolution in this country the day after election.
So I would say that Biden, by repeating this lie, and his, I would say, Nazi supporters in the press, basically it's a Nazi-like statement, I think this is one of those very few situations where the analogy fits.
Because the fine people hoax, the point of it is to demonize white Trump supporters.
That's the whole point of it. So what country demonizes an identifiable ethnic group?
Nazi Germany.
So what Biden is doing is setting up Trump supporters for violence.
That's what Hitler did.
Now, is that too strong?
Because when people make Hitler analogies, it's just automatically disqualifying for you to be talking in public, really.
Because everything's a Nazi analogy, everything's Hitler.
But in this very narrow sense, Of a leader of a country who's identifying a certain other segment of the country and is specifically calling them out to be unworthy of good treatment.
I mean, that's what the whole point of it is, that anybody who supported Trump because of this alleged thing that didn't actually happen, that therefore the supporters...
are not worthy of the same kind of respect and treatment as citizens as somebody else would be.
That is Hitler.
That's not similar to Hitler.
That's pretty right on the nose, right?
Now, could that turn into something worse than words?
Well, one of the policies that Kabbalah Harris has Has promoted is gun confiscation in the form of a buyback, but what's the point of a buyback if you're not going to enforce it?
So imagine effectively the president, Kamala Harris, imagine that they get Congress.
So if they get Congress and they pack the Supreme Court and Kamala Harris is the effective president, or even if she isn't, Could they confiscate guns?
And the answer is, they kind of could.
They kind of could.
Now, I wouldn't put some kind of statistical odds of that happening, but could you rule it out?
You really can't.
I want to. I mean, I really want to.
Now, what would happen If our legally or maybe sketchily elected, because nobody's going to trust the election no matter who wins, what would happen if we have a non-credible election and then the non-credibly elected president,
who was not even the top of the ticket, Kamala Harris, who was not even popular in her own party until she became the president, hypothetically, And then she goes to take away the guns of mostly Republicans.
How would that go down?
Pretty much the way you think it would, right?
That would actually be a violent civil war.
I don't think anybody can doubt that at this point.
And while nobody promotes violence, and so I won't promote it, I'm not going to be a cheerleader for violence, it is nonetheless predictable.
So you can predict violence, I think, that's not promoting it.
I think that's fair, right? And I would predict that if anybody tries to violate the Second Amendment, it's only going to go one way.
It's only going to go one way.
And if you want to have Republican presidents forever, try to take away the guns.
You will get Republicans presidents forever, and not necessarily through an election, if you know what I mean.
At that point, it would almost become a patriotic duty to, shall we say, resist.
And I think resist would be the wrong word, because resist sounds a little defensive.
And this would not be a defensive situation.
The people with the Second Amendment rights would probably converge on Washington, D.C. You would probably see a massive mobilization of Of citizens driving directly into the capital.
Now, of course, there would be massive military protection.
And all of those military people would have families in the United States.
They would be presumably at least a little bit pro-gun because they'd have one with them.
It's hard to be in the military and be anti-gun, I would think.
Must be a few, but...
So what would happen when...
Three million armed Americans pull up in their cars and pickup trucks and say to the line of military, hey guys, pick a side because it's going down.
What would the military say when the citizens came up to them and said, last thing we want to do is hurry you guys because we're on your side.
But now you have to pick a side.
Take your time. It doesn't have to happen today, but we're going to be here tomorrow, and tomorrow we're going to ask you again which side you're on.
Are you on the side of the Constitution, or are you on the side of the dictator who is taking away our guns?
Because we're not going to leave, and we're not going to take no for an answer.
So you just have to decide which side you're on.
What side do you think the military would be on?
I don't know. The military are patriots.
Would patriots side with a dictator to overthrow the government and take away your guns?
Good luck with that.
That's why dictators usually have private armies.
If you don't have your own Revolutionary Guard or private army where you're You're bribing a certain subset of the military to have, you know, they've got extra stuff compared to other people, so they're more loyal to you, because if somebody else takes over, they might lose their extra stuff.
We don't have that.
We just have people in the military because they wanted to be in the military, because guess what?
They're patriots.
They're patriots, right?
The patriots know so much about taking your guns away.
So good luck with that, Kamala Harris, should you try to take guns away.
That would be the end of Democrats forever.
Because I don't think Republicans would ever allow, and when I say allow, I mean at gunpoint, I mean by force, would never allow it to happen again.
If it ever got close to something like a gun confiscation at the federal level, Republicans would end the Democratic rule forever.
They would. Because they have the power.
They have the guns. And I think the military would back that view.
So I think that would be the end of Democrats forever.
I'm not talking about dad.
I'm talking about as a political power, that would be the end of it.
But it wouldn't be easy.
So how about those reparations?
I was... Asked even today whether I want to continue the talk about reparations for slavery with somebody who is smart and had a good argument about reparations.
To which I said, reparations are already paid.
I don't know what you're looking at, but I just watched the destruction of several major cities in the United States and The reparations are over.
I was on the side of, hey, let's talk about this.
There might be some way we can work something out where everybody gets better off.
And I thought, you know, don't rule it out.
It might be something we can do here.
And I've written about it.
I've written about it favorably in terms of, yeah, maybe there's something you could do here.
But not at this point.
At this point, it would be freaking crazy.
Because the black community has...
Claim their reparations.
Even Black Lives Matter called the looting reparations.
They called it that. That's not even me.
Black Lives Matter called the looting a form of reparations.
To which I say, I agree.
I take yes for an answer.
And that was your reparations.
So that conversation, that's never going to happen again.
The reparations conversation, if there's anybody in the black community...
Who's wondering, hey, maybe we can circle back to that?
Don't bother. Don't bother circling back.
That conversation is as dead as Joe Biden's brain.
That's pretty damn dead.
However, that said, if the black community would like to stop being completely hypnotized by bad people and would like to work on their highest priority, Which would be getting education right, which means getting rid of the teachers unions, because that's the problem with education.
If they want to do that, I'm all in.
So it's not that I don't want to do work that would help the black community.
I'm all about that.
For years, that's been a primary interest.
Because I've always said, if you help the people who are in the deepest hole...
That also helps the whole country the most.
So taking somebody from no job to a job is a big deal.
Taking somebody from not educated enough to educated enough is a really big deal.
So most of your big gains can happen in that same segment of the world.
And I usually describe it as the people who don't have money, basically.
Because it ends up being skewed by race, but you don't have to make it that way.
You can just say, how do we help all the people who are in a bad situation?
And then it ends up being good for black people a little bit more than other people because they're in a deeper hole.
So I'm all in favor of that and willing to put work into that.
But reparations? No.
No, that's not even a conversation that we can have anymore.
That's done. And you can thank Black Lives Matter for that, for ruining your brand and making everything a little bit harder by focusing on the wrong stuff.
The wrong stuff meaning that in terms of your priorities, the police harassment problem all accept as completely real.
If you'll accept, it's also the smallest problem for most people.
It's a big problem if it happens to you, but it's the smallest problem for the community.
Alright, I had quite annoyingly, Ben, annoyingly to you, I think, defending Bill Gates on his many thoughts about the pandemic and about vaccines and everything else.
I'm reversing that as of yesterday.
So here's the reversal.
So I just saw an interview, an article in which Bill Gates was asked about hydroxychloroquine, And he dismissed it because of the bad side effects.
The bad side effects of hydroxychloroquine.
Now, I don't know how you could be a public intellectual and literally one of the smartest people in the country, which Bill Gates is.
By the way, if you've never seen a biography or anything of Bill Gates, you need to watch one.
Because if you think he's just a smart guy...
That's not what's going on.
Bill Gates is not like a normal, smart person.
He's like almost another species.
His brain, comparing our brains, I think I'm pretty smart, relatively speaking, but I'm not anywhere near the Bill Gates brain power level.
He's like another species.
Even compared to just ordinary smart people, he's another species.
So if you don't know that, and you just think he's a smart guy who got lucky and started a company, right place at the right time, you're missing the whole thing.
He is not like other people.
Like, really not like other people.
That said, how could he be unaware, when all of you are aware, that the hydroxychloroquine side effects are non-existent?
Now, of course, there are no absolutes, so of course it does exist.
But it's so tiny, the drug's been used for 65 years.
It's only those trials where they overdose people who are near death that something bad happened.
If you're giving these tiny doses to people who have mild symptoms, basically the risk is zero.
Now, are you telling me that Bill Gates doesn't know that?
Seriously. As of today, you're telling me that Bill Gates doesn't know that the hydroxychloroquine side effects are somewhere between trivial and none?
Really? Really, he doesn't know that?
Not a frickin' chance.
There's not a chance he doesn't know that.
I mean, I suppose only in the extreme case of anything's possible, but no.
And for him to say that in public...
Like it was true, suggests there's, I'm going to just put this in quotes, something going on.
Now, I didn't want to buy into the Bill Gates is in it for the money, and I still don't.
He's not in it for the money.
That's like the most ridiculous thing of all time.
He's literally working full-time to give his money away.
He's the last person who's in it for the money.
So anybody who thinks, ah, he's got this company making a vaccine and so he just wants them to make money, no.
No. Now, maybe he has an opinion about the way things should go.
He doesn't think hydroxychloroquine is enough.
It has to be a vaccination.
He doesn't want us to think we can get away without a vaccination.
It could have to do with the psychology of whether you get the vaccination when it's available.
Maybe. It could be one of those things.
I do believe that he has good intentions.
So that part I'm not doubting whatsoever.
So let me say that again.
I'm positive he has good intentions.
People saying he's a eugenicist.
But that's anybody who's in favor of birth control, basically.
But, having said this about hydroxychloroquine, I now have to reject him as being honest on this topic.
And once you've rejected him as being honest, anything else is up for grabs, right?
Oh God, my sense of smell is coming back.
I think I can smell my coffee.
I had a sinus operation, and I think I can smell again.
God, it's a good feeling. It turns out not everything smells good, though, so it's a bad thing.
A lot of talk about Harris being a hypocrite.
Meaning that when she was running in the primaries, she called Joe Biden basically sort of a racist for some of the things he did.
But now she doesn't think those things.
Likewise, there will be a number of things that maybe Biden has a policy that's different from hers, and she will immediately back off on that.
So how much should we care that Harris will be considered a hypocrite And that whatever policy she comes to embrace as a candidate now will be different than maybe a lifetime of things she's said before.
How much does that matter?
Here's the answer. Not at all.
Not at all. You'd like that to matter, wouldn't you?
Wouldn't you like it to matter that a politician said, no, you cannot do this on Tuesday, and then on Wednesday they say, this is the best idea in the world.
Yeah, this is totally good.
Yeah, forget what I said before.
This is totally good. How much does that matter to voters?
And the answer is not at all.
Not even a little bit.
In the context of vice-presidency, the job is to agree with the boss.
And we all understand that, right?
There's nobody who doesn't understand that the job description is to agree with the boss.
In this case, the boss might be the operatives behind Biden, but nobody's going to care about any of the hypocrisy stuff.
So anything that you say about that is interesting, but not persuasive.
It won't change any votes.
Here's an interesting thing.
There was a survey of the tech companies from Netflix through Apple through Google, Amazon, all the tech companies, And they looked at their political donations.
You would not be surprised to hear that 99.6% of employee political donations at Netflix went to Democrats.
99% at Twitter, 98% at Apple.
So what's your conclusion from that?
Is your conclusion that nearly 100% of employees at the tech companies are Democrat?
Is that your conclusion? Well, that might be one interpretation.
Can you think of any other reason why all of the donations which can be discovered by third parties, that's the nature of these donations, I guess, you can tell who donated in what way, So, is that the only explanation why all the people who made a public donation donated Democrat?
Huh. Is that the only explanation is that they're all Democrats?
Yeah, that's one explanation.
Let me suggest a second explanation.
Anybody who works...
Oh, can I be allowed one swear word?
Can I see a show of hands?
This will be brief, but I kind of wasn't expecting this.
So cover the ears of your children.
This will just be brief.
All right, I hope you're all ready now for this.
If 99% of the people who knew that their donation could be discovered, they only donated to Democrats, the other possibility is that the Republicans who work, or the conservatives who work in Silicon Valley, and I'm just going to put that out there, are not, what's the phrase?
Fucking idiots? How about the people who support President Trump but also work in Silicon Valley are smart enough to know that their donations are discoverable because blah blah database?
Don't you think that the Republicans and conservatives who support Trump are simply not going to do something that publicly flags them as a Trump supporter?
So do you believe this 99% of Donators are Democrat.
Well, I believe that's how it turned out.
But if you believe that there are not at least, I don't know, 10 or 20% of the Silicon Valley is Trump supporters, if you believe they're not there, you are very wrong.
Because guess what happens when you're the Dilbert guy and you say anything good about Trump?
Do you know what happens? You are contacted privately by a lot of people in Silicon Valley who say some version of this, I'm in deep hiding, but I'm glad you're not.
Do you know how many people have told me that?
Some version of, never mention my name, but I agree with what you're saying.
Do you know how many people watch this periscope in Silicon Valley?
There's a few. You might not know it.
There's a few. Some of them have done well.
Let's just put it that way.
So I wouldn't believe that statistic.
It's 2020, so you shouldn't believe any statistic or anything about anything.
All our data is wrong in 2020.
I am freaking out because the new doctor that President Trump has brought on board for the coronavirus stuff, his name sounds too much like mine.
And it's bugging me.
Because every time the president says, I perk up.
I'm like, what? He goes, yeah.
I got this new expert.
His name is Skada. And I'm like, what?
Oh, that's not me.
But it was even freakier.
The other day I was listening to the president and he just brought on Dr.
Scott Atlas to be an advisor.
And he refers to him by his first name, Scott.
So I'm just watching, you know, I'm just watching the president and I'm doing some other stuff and he's doing his press conference and he's like, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And so, you know, don't you think that's right, Scott?
And I was like, what just happened?
I thought I was just watching the press conference, but I think the president just called me by my first name.
Oh, Dr.
Scott Ellis. Okay. So I'm just saying it's freaking me out.
So CNN did a little hit piece monologue by one of their people I didn't recognize.
And they really went after Dr.
Scott Ellis. But here's the thing.
It was somebody who did not have a medical degree, somebody who was not a scientist, somebody who was just, as far as I can tell, a journalist.
Now, a journalist decided to go on television and explain to the public why a trained professional doctor was wrong on the doctor stuff.
And the argument was that he was, I guess, insufficiently qualified.
Now, how dumb do you have to be to listen to a journalist who doesn't have any training criticize somebody who does have all the right training and to tell you that the problem with the person who has all the right training per the journalist who has none is that the doctor is getting it wrong.
Now, I'm not saying that the doctor's getting it right or wrong, because we've seen that there are experts who disagree.
But how dumb do you have to be to watch that network, CNN, and see a journalist criticize a doctor on doctor stuff?
It's not on non-doctor stuff.
It's doctor stuff.
And then she goes on with her criticism, and they didn't make any sense at all.
They really didn't.
Because, for example...
Dr. Scott Alice was saying that maybe we should have football because football players tend to be healthy, youngish specimens.
So therefore, the odds of a football player dying from coronavirus is low.
Therefore, we should do that.
And the CNN journalist Not a doctor.
Says, oh, he's so wrong.
And then gives examples of young people who had problems.
Now, is that the right answer to the professional who says young people are, you know, quite protected?
Now, when Dr.
Atlas is speaking, did anybody interpret him to say no young person will ever get coronavirus or that no young person will ever have a problem with the coronavirus?
No. He wouldn't say that.
Nobody would say that.
But the CNN critique of him pretends as if he did, and then they criticize the thing that didn't happen, which is the absolute part of it.
So by showing that there are exceptions, and that there's a growing number of youngish people who are having problems with the coronavirus, is there anybody who didn't already know that?
No. No.
There's nobody who didn't know that.
Everybody knew that even young people can sometimes, doesn't happen often, but can sometimes have pretty serious problems, including death, I would suppose.
Who doesn't know that?
Nobody. Everybody knows that.
So when the doctor says these young people are safe, he means safe enough.
But When the analyst talks about the danger from closing down, the journalist says that the closing down is the better solution, while the doctor is suggesting that you need some balance between the economy and the lifestyle and the health and the risks.
So the doctor is looking at the whole picture, That includes the health impact, mental and otherwise, from the close down, calculating the risks to the young, the old, and then the economic thing.
In other words, the doctor is looking at all the things that matter and ignoring none of the things that matter.
The journalist is criticizing him by ignoring half of the equation, the economic part.
As if it doesn't matter.
Just don't even talk about it.
You just say, well, if we don't close down, people will die because they'll get more of the virus.
How in the world does that end?
What's the end state of that plan?
Because he's still probably going to get the virus just later.
See, Europe.
Didn't Europe get the virus later?
They're having another wave after the successful close down.
Even New Zealand got another case of it, but they'll probably do a good job because they're so small.
So it is ludicrous to watch somebody who is a journalist ignoring at least 50% of the entire equation and criticizing the guy who explicitly included all of the equation showed his work.
There's nothing that the doctor is doing that isn't checked for yourself.
Go look for yourself.
Here's my opinion.
You'll see it's compatible with everything.
So there's that.
So yesterday I was tweeting that I'm frustrated that this far into the pandemic, we still don't know if masks work.
Are you kidding me? Now, I have a little update on that.
So I think maybe the main voice of masks are perhaps unproven, at least, is Alex Berenson.
Most of you know him from Twitter, had worked at the New York Times.
So I think he's the probably most noted voice for the science is not conclusive on some things, don't act like it is.
And one of the things the science seems to be not as conclusive as we'd like is this mask stuff.
And so I was quite interested that Tucker Carlson had him on last night.
So right after I was sort of asking the question, do we really not know now if masks work?
Seriously? All these medical professionals recommending it?
We don't know. So before Alex Berenson was on as Tucker Carlson's guest, he had Dr.
Siegel. The doctor you see on Fox News all the time.
And Tucker asked Dr.
Siegel about the science of masks.
Now this is the right way to go because Dr.
Siegel's a doctor. He's obviously looking into this quite deeply.
Alex Berenson would be more in the journalist, non-doctor category.
And so I thought, what's going to happen here?
If first Tucker asks a doctor about masks, and then his very next guest is the anti-mask guy, are we going to get a difference of opinion here?
And I was quite surprised.
Somebody says, Scott, I believe you blocked people for questioning and saying just this.
That is correct. And I'm not changing that opinion.
So just to clarify, yes, I do block people who say masks don't work, and probably will continue to, only because I think it's obvious.
It's just obvious they do.
And you don't need too much science.
So, Dr. Siegel was asked, and his response was, there have been studies, and the studies show that they work.
Okay, did you hear that?
When a doctor was asked...
And this is a Fox News doctor.
In other words, that's his main association, Dr.
Siegel. So you would expect that if there was even a little bit of information to suggest that masks were a little overdone and maybe not proven, you would expect a Fox News medical expert to say, you know, there's no evidence for it.
But he didn't. He referred to studies of enclosed spaces He did note that wearing a mask outdoors when you're taking a walk would be overkill.
I guess we all knew that.
But he said there's science.
And the science was not just the lab kind of science, which is what the journalists will often refer to, because the lab experiments are ambiguous.
You'll see a lab experiment where they tried to put some virus through a mask None of that is useful.
Every bit of that stuff is useless.
Because it doesn't tell you how that translates into the real world.
It tells you what might happen, but it doesn't tell you the odds of anything.
So, what does matter is real people using masks in real environments.
And those are the types of studies that Dr.
Siegel referred to, that when real people wore masks in places that you compare to, you know, similar situations with masks and without all working with COVID patients, I think that's the situation, the mask wearers did much better than the non-mask wearers.
It's pretty clear. And there you go.
Now, that would be very That would be very convincing.
Now were they the controlled, randomized studies?
I don't know, but I don't think so.
But I also don't know that that would be as important in this situation.
As I like to point out, we've all been hypnotized into thinking you can only make a medical decision if you have a randomized, controlled, double-blind study with enough people and you've done everything right and it's been peer-reviewed and it's been repeated.
So we all understand that's the gold standard.
But did you know?
That 20% of all prescriptions written by actual trained medical doctors are for off-label use of a drug.
In other words, for a use that hasn't been tested in any kind of a trial.
Not a randomized controlled trial.
Not even a bad trial.
Just never been tested.
20% of all prescriptions have never been tested.
Is that wrong?
No. No.
Because if the risk is really low and if the hypothesis that the doctor is working on makes sense and the patient and the doctor work it out, it's completely legal and it's completely legal for a reason.
It's better than nothing.
As long as you've got really low risk, you don't need to have all of the certainty that a gold standard trial would give you Because your risk management alone tells you to try it.
Well, if it doesn't cost much and it's not going to hurt me, I don't have to have 100% certainty that it's also effective.
I just need a good chance that it's effective, and then why not?
What do you got to lose, right?
So... That's that.
And... So then Berenson gets on after Siegel, and I think to myself, well, what's he going to say?
If you're a journalist, how do you follow an actual medical professional who has looked into the science and just proclaimed that the science very strongly recommends masks?
What's the journalist going to say?
No, there's no science?
How do you play that?
And instead, he talked about something else.
So he didn't talk about the masks.
Alex didn't. So I would still like to see Dr.
Siegel and Alex Berenson on a split screen and have Hannity or somebody ask them both the questions.
Say, look, can you guys work this out and tell the public?
Because your messages are not exactly compatible.
Now, if I've misrepresented Alex Berenson's opinion on masks, I hope you'll let me know.
Because that's always the dangerous thing.
You know, whenever people talk about my opinions and criticize them, almost every time they get my opinion wrong, and they end up criticizing their imagination of my opinion.
So I'm sensitive that I may have been doing the same thing.
So somebody will tell me if I have, okay?
Because I don't want to misrepresent him whatsoever.
And I think he's a valuable voice because it's a contrarian voice that's presented strongly.
And I think we benefit from contrarian voices because sometimes they're right.
You never know. All right.
I think that's just about all I wanted to talk about.
One more thing.
I hear people say to me, Scott...
You do realize that we're in an insurgency.
Oh, somebody says, please help me.
How do I explain to my brainwashed in-laws the Charlottesville hoax?
There's nothing you can do short of showing them the printed transcript.
So just Google Charlottesville.
Google the fine people hoax.
Transcript. Enough people have tweeted it that it's all over Twitter.
You can see it in my Twitter account.
But make them read all the way to the end.
At the end, they're going to go down what I call the fine people hoax funnel.
Once you make people read the transcript, they understand that the president said the opposite of what was reported and that he called out directly, no, I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists.
They should be condemned totally.
Once you've established that what the person believed the president said is the opposite, they will always retreat To this secondary position.
Always. Every single time.
And that will be, yeah, but there were no fine people there.
Now, my argument is, I interviewed them.
People actually contacted me and said, I was there.
I'm a fine person. And I said, well, prove it.
You know, got on the phone with them.
You know, got the whole story so I knew they were real people.
Asked if they'd mind I use their name.
Some of them said yes.
And then I said, well, you're freaking crazy.
I'm not going to use your name.
I don't want you to get killed.
I don't want you to lose your job.
I mean, it's great that you're willing to let your name be out there as one of the people who's not a racist, disavowed the racists, and we're just there for historical monument reasons, and you thought you were a fine person.
I said, there's no way I'm going to give your name in public.
You would just be buried.
There's just no way I'm going to do it.
But they offer it. So when people say to me, well, can you prove it?
You say it, but can you prove it?
And the answer is, nope.
Nope. I'm not going to try to prove that.
Because I don't want you to know the name of anybody whose life would be destroyed.
Just because they thought they were showing up to support some monuments.
And then they'll say, don't you know that it was organized by the neo-Nazis?
So anybody who goes to something that's organized by neo-Nazis, well, they've got to be neo-Nazis.
To which I say, there was a religious group there.
The police were there. They're not neo-Nazis.
They went there for their own reasons, to protect people.
How about the medical people and the ambulances and stuff, which were probably nearby, right?
Were they neo-Nazis?
They went to a neo-Nazi event?
No, it's because they had their own reasons.
They're protecting the health.
How about Antifa? They went to the same event.
Are they neo-Nazis?
No, they went there for their own reasons.
It's a free country. If somebody says there's going to be a thing in the United States, a lot of people show up and they don't have the same opinions.
Have you ever seen a thousand Americans in one place that have the same opinion?
Never! You can't put a thousand Americans in one place on any topic, and they all got the same opinion.
So you can guarantee, just by the fact that there were however many people that were there, you can guarantee that some of them were not racist, but also thought the statues should remain.
Here's the kill shot.
Once you've taken them down the funnel, and you've said, of course, in America you're always going to get a diverse group, mention diversity.
The person you're talking to loves diversity.
So you say, look, it's America.
You have a big public event.
It's going to be a diverse group.
It's a good line because they like diversity.
And diversity means some people are going to be different from you.
And then here's the kill shot.
Polls say that somewhere between 25% and a third of black Americans support keeping the statues.
Are they bad people?
That's when you walk away.
That's your mic drop a moment.
So your mic drop is once your combatant has said, there's no way anybody who shows up could possibly be a fine person because anybody who supports Confederate statues by definition is a bad person.
And then you hold your mic like this and you say...
Polls say about a third of black Americans are okay with the statues for just historical reasons.
Mic drop, turn and walk away.
Because if your friend can explain why black people are okay, at least some percentage, are okay with them for historical reasons, well, good luck with that.
I've never seen anybody try to explain that.
All right, so I was talking about the insurgency.
Somebody asked me, do you know we're in an insurgency to which I say, Sure looks like one, but who's in charge?
Who's in charge of the insurgency?
And moreover, what would it look like if they got what they wanted?
Does the insurgency want to destroy capitalism and take over?
Well, good luck.
What exactly would they be taking over?
If you destroy capitalism and then you take over, you're just a pre-Chinese company.
A big country. Basically, any country that has a military can just walk right over you next time they want to.
And then your capitalism will come right back, but you'll be Chinese.
I guess that's capitalism of a sort.
Alright, somebody says Soros.
I don't know. Does Soros want to be the king?
Who would be in charge?
If the insurgents won, what do they get?
I would like to see somebody game that out and say, hey Antifa, Wouldn't you like to see Antifa interviewed about their vision of the future?
That's sort of missing, isn't it?
Hey Antifa, can you tell us what the future looks like if you got what you wanted?
Game it out for us, 10 years from now, what's the country look like?
Good luck with that.
They can't. And they should be forced to describe what the country looks like, how it makes money, and how it's allocated.
And how crime is handled 10 years from now, if they got everything they wanted.
