All Episodes
Aug. 18, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:00:41
Episode 1096 Scott Adams: My Opinion of Last Night's TDS Telethon, Coronavirus Craziness, Coup Two, Mailboxgate, Failing States

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Kimberly Klacik's excellent campaign commercial DNC TDS convention, Day 1 Michelle Obama's convention speech Is President Trump stealing mailboxes? FOX writer, Arnon Mishkin, shy Trump voters? Financial incentive for death from COVID19 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody!
Come on in.
It's time once again for Coffee with Scott Adams.
And I promise you, this will be the best coffee with Scott Adams since, I don't know, yesterday at least.
And you're going to love it.
It's going to kick your day off to a good start.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure that dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better except the Democratic Convention.
I don't think coffee can help that, but let's try.
Go. Nope.
It didn't help a bit. But everything else, it makes better.
Well, thank God the President finally got around to pardoning Susan B. Anthony.
I don't know if you saw the news.
But, yeah, Susan B. Anthony, she's apparently been released from jail.
I'm being told she's dead, so she's not really happy about it.
But the weirdest part about Trump pardoning Susan B. Anthony is that by sometime this afternoon, you would expect the Democrats to do a full-scale attack on Susan B. Anthony.
So the funniest part about it is if he pardoned Susan B. Anthony, what are the Democrats going to say?
We hate that bitch.
Doesn't leave much to say.
So I think they'll just ignore it or say it's trivial, which it is.
But it's not unentertaining, so we got that.
So how many of you saw there's a very viral video?
It's a campaign ad by Kimberly Klasik.
K-L-A-C-I-K. She's running for, let's see, U.S. House candidate in Maryland.
And if you saw, you have to see it.
I tweeted it, but it's all over the internet.
And it is one of the best made campaign commercials you'll ever see in your life.
And if you haven't seen it, it's this young woman, Kimberly Klasick, who's wearing a tight-fitting red dress, which is important to the story.
It's not sexist.
It's important to the story.
And heels and she's walking through a broken down Baltimore neighborhood that just looks terrible and it's all gray and brown and she's wearing this bright red dress and walking through it and talking about how things are bad and she can fix it.
I gotta say, whoever put that commercial together She either has really good advisors or she knows how to do this kind of stuff or something.
But keep an eye on that race.
It looks like she's going to be an up-and-comer.
But you have to see the commercial to realize how powerful it is.
How many of you watched the TDS telethon last night?
I didn't see any numbers about how much they raised to cure TDS, but I assume that's what that was about.
I made the mistake of turning on CNN last evening, and I had to take a Silkwood shower after that, for those of you who know what that movie was about.
I thought my eyes were going to fall out of my head.
It's like, ah, it's burning my eyes.
There were some bad visuals on that program, mostly the entertainment stuff.
But among the highlights, by far the worst, you always think, Well, they can't go any lower now.
What would be the lowest, most disgusting thing somebody could do to try to win an election?
Well, the Democrats have a good entry.
They brought a woman in who said that Trump basically killed her father by saying the wrong things about coronavirus.
Her argument is that her 65-year-old dad had no pre-existing conditions and It was simply that he believed Trump, saying something like the virus wasn't going to hurt him, and then he got it and he died.
Now, you can kind of see where this is going, right?
If you're watching something on CNN, just something they're covering, in this case the convention, and you hear about somebody who died with no pre-existing conditions, What's your first thought?
No pre-existing conditions.
Huh. What's the first thing you think, if it's on CNN? The first thing you think is, I'd like to see a picture of this person who had no pre-existing conditions.
Is this person, oh, I don't know, obese?
So it turns out her dad was 65 and...
Could have lost about 65 pounds.
Now, I don't want to speak ill of the dead, but because the daughter of the deceased brought it into the political realm, it is now, as the lawyers say, fair game.
So it wasn't me who wanted to politicize it.
It was his own daughter.
He, of course, would be spinning in his grave because I don't think she was saying stuff that he would have necessarily approved of.
But here's the thing. How are we supposed to ignore the picture of the guy who is obviously way overweight and doesn't look healthy at all, and his daughter saying, no pre-existing conditions?
Have they heard that weight is highly correlated with a bad outcome?
Have they heard that being 65 doesn't really give you the best chances in the world?
And I don't recall Trump ever telling the public The overweight senior citizens had low risk.
Do you remember him saying that?
Did anybody say, oh, it's okay if you're a senior citizen and you're overweight.
Go ahead. Go nuts.
You don't need a mask.
You don't need anything. I don't remember Trump saying that.
It feels as if he said the very opposite of that and lots of times that it's bad for the senior citizens.
It's bad if you have pre-existing conditions.
Oh, but I guess he didn't have any, except that the picture shows he clearly did.
So that's some more fake news.
We'll circle back to that point.
So do you see the coup two taking place?
Now, coup number one was the Russia collusion coup that failed.
But you can see the coup two, I call it, just has a nice ring to it, coup two.
So Q2 is shaping up, and it's so ridiculously obvious that it's almost funny, but the fact that it's obvious that you can see this plot taking shape, it won't change it at all.
The fact that we can see it happening, no difference.
It will happen just the same, just like we didn't know it was happening.
And the plot goes like this.
Number one is you have to do something that guarantees The election outcome will not be credible.
In other words, no matter who wins, the public is going to look at it and say, I don't think so.
Not so sure that we actually counted the votes right.
Now, how could you have an election that nobody thinks the votes were counted right?
Well, one way would be to have massive mail-in votes.
So that's what the Democrats want.
They're fighting to have an election system that guarantees you won't know who won, exactly.
Think about that.
They're fighting for a system that guarantees you won't know who won.
Why would they do that?
Could it be, you know, the obvious is that they plan to cheat.
But wouldn't the Republicans cheat too?
I mean, it's not like all the cheaters are in one party.
I mean, you might think they are, but probably not.
Probably not. So you think there's a different play here.
If the play is not to out-cheat the Republicans, because once it's a competition, if it's a competition, the Republicans are going to come to play, if you know what I mean.
So if you think you're going to out-cheat the Republicans, well, you know, they're not the ones who made it a competition.
I don't approve of cheating on the I don't think the plan is to out-cheat the Republicans.
It seems to me the real plan is to make sure that the election results are not credible, because Trump's going to win.
And if you want to press a second coup...
You're going to need to have this narrative.
Hey, the president rigged the election either by stopping mail-in votes or by whatever, whatever.
And therefore, he must be removed from office by any means necessary.
And that will be coup two.
Now you've seen that they've already floated the idea that the military should be looking at removing him if he doesn't leave.
So they're softening up the room.
They're setting the table. They're pre-suading, if you want, although pre-suading is a different, specific term.
They're softening you up to expect that you're going to have a bad or an undependable result if that undependable result says Trump won.
They're going to say the election doesn't count and he's a dictator staying in office.
And then they're going to call for the military to remove him.
That's actually happening right in front of you.
And we're just, every day we'll just wake up and go to work and eat dinner, just like it's not happening.
Which is just the craziest thing.
The fact that we can see it and then act like it's not happening, all at the same time.
It's a very human thing to do.
Let's talk about Michelle Obama's incredible, incredible speech.
If you've heard any Democrats talk about it, it was a speech for the ages.
It was a tour de force.
She laid into the president and just made that case because she's the most popular woman in the world.
Except I watched part of it, and apparently there's some subjectivity involved in deciding how good that was.
Even the AP had to fact-check her.
Imagine the AP fact-checked her as false when she, well, not false, but they gave context when she mentioned kids in cages.
Even the AP couldn't take it anymore, and they're like, ah, we can't let that go.
Kids in cages. Your husband put the kids in cages.
Those cages were built and acquired by your husband for that purpose.
And I guess that policy has been discontinued probably because there's less volume at the border.
So the big problem that the Democrats are having with President Trump Is they talk about his character and not telling the truth.
Now when they complain about his character, do they also always lie in a way that you can very easily determine is a lie?
Yes. Pretty much every time they will tell a lie at the same time they're telling you that your president is a liar or his character is bad or he's not up to it or whatever they're saying.
And the more you see them use these generic insults for the president, the more you know they don't have anything.
Because if they were going to lead with policies, like, oh, we got them.
Our policies are so much better than the sitting president.
Wait till the public sees our policies.
Then we're going to get all the votes.
No, they don't.
Because they don't have any policies that they think can win an election.
If they did...
If they did, that would be front and center.
So they're signaling to you by talking about the president's character while they're lying in a transparent way.
They're talking about the president's character.
And they're selling you on this idea that that's all you need to think about.
Policies, schmallacies.
Let's not worry about the policies.
Let's not look at that shiny object.
All right. And of course the press is in full support.
So my take on the Michelle Obama speech is that she looked angry.
She looked like she had Trump derangement syndrome.
And when she says that she's so confident that Biden is capable of doing the job, you just have to shake your head.
Like, okay, I get that Trump isn't your man.
Like, I get that you'd prefer somebody else, but don't tell me you think Biden is capable of the job.
Come on. I just tweeted out before I got done, just a brutal video that shows Joe Biden just five years ago looking completely coherent and in command, juxtaposed by his current bumbling mode.
And when you see him five years, just five years ago, now you've seen this before, like, I think they showed when he was maybe in his 30s, and he was quite capable, or he seemed to.
And then they show that today, and he doesn't look capable today.
But if you see that just five years ago he was a whole different person, that's kind of all you need.
That's kind of all you need.
So for Michelle Obama to get up there and talk nothing about policy, only about character, And tell two of the biggest whopping lies that are completely obvious as lies.
I don't want to call it down as hypocrisy.
I'll just call it down as just head-shakingly, that's all you got?
Really? That's all you got?
Is stuff like, we've got to end the chaos?
Can you be more specific about the chaos that the president caused?
Did the president cause the chaos in Seattle or Portland or New York City?
No. He didn't cause that.
That was the fake news and the Democrats.
So they actually cause chaos and then they try to blame him for it so they can get a promotion for the trouble that they've caused to the country.
It's amazing.
All right. I was watching a guest on CNN. I think it was maybe, it might have been the Atlanta, I don't know, some Atlanta politician, who was saying that, I'm just guessing, I don't know who it was, but I think it was one of the vice presidential candidates who was passed over.
Anyway, this guest on Jake Tapper's program on CNN states as a fact that That Trump is taking the mailboxes away so that people can't vote.
And Jake Tapper just let that go.
Can you believe that on CNN somebody says that they're stealing the mailboxes so you can't vote, which, if you don't know, is not true.
And Jake Tapper didn't correct her.
He had plenty of time.
It wasn't like there were other guests cutting her or anything.
It was just the two of them. It was just the two of them, and he didn't correct her.
Now, that's like not even trying, is it?
I mean, if you thought he was trying to be objective, you could get rid of that idea.
Now, people have been sending me evidence on Twitter to show me that the stealing the mailboxes story is not true.
Do you know what you didn't need to do to convince me of that?
Send me any evidence.
In any other topic, I would say, yeah, let me see the evidence so I can be sure this is true or sure it's not true.
It's always good to have evidence, sources.
It's good. On the mailbox story, I didn't really need to see proof that that was fake.
If you didn't know that was fake the moment you heard it, Your filters are not quite as set to where they should be.
Now, I was so bored by that story that I didn't even bother looking into it as to specifically why it was fake.
It didn't even matter.
It's just so obviously fake.
I don't even need to know about it.
But apparently the fakeness is just extraordinary.
So Reuters showed some photographs of A whole bunch of mailboxes in some kind of a junkyard-looking situation.
So it looked like all the mailboxes had been collected up and put in this parking lot to be destroyed or something.
And Reuters actually, you know, they're a news service, so other people are going to be picking up that news and presenting it.
And it turns out they took a picture of a mailbox rehab place where they just do maintenance on the mailboxes, you know, shine them up and repaint them or whatever, and then put them back in the field.
That's what it was. It was just a business that rehabs mailboxes for the post office.
They have a contract to do that.
It didn't take much time for somebody on the internet To contact the business and say, what's up with the mailboxes?
And for them to say, oh yeah, we've been doing this for years.
We just rehab them and send them back to the field.
Complete fake story.
Will Reuters correct it?
Maybe. Probably not.
Probably not. And I wondered if Democrats are actually believing that story.
Probably. So, if you have not had this experience, you really have to do it.
When you're talking with just the random trolls and idiots on Twitter, and they'll say something about their democratic side and something against your side, and you'll say to yourself, huh, this sounds like sort of a dumb person.
And so you might argue a little bit, but in your mind you're thinking, what's going on is just a dumb person.
Right? That's what you're thinking.
Because they don't seem to know as much as you know.
Because conservatives tend to know mostly what the Democrats know, but the Democrats don't know what the Republicans know.
It's just completely different news sources, and the conservatives tend to see both.
So, you know, that's my view of the world.
But you have to have the experience of talking to somebody who's a strict Democrat who is really well-educated.
That is freaky.
I mean, it's really freaky.
Because when you're talking to somebody that you can confirm has a very high IQ and is very well-informed, follows the news every day, you know, really gets into world events.
And so what One of my friends, I've known forever, has the worst case of TDS you'll ever see, but he fits that category of being really well informed.
And when you talk to somebody who you would say is really well informed, and they don't know anything about this, they don't know anything.
Well, they know what the Democrats say, but that's the fake news version.
Let me just give you an example of how bad it is, all right?
Just one example, and now magnify this by 20 to get a full idea of how bad it is.
My friend, I mentioned fake news in one of our back and forths, and my friend said, and I'm not making this up, he actually said this, there's no such thing as fake news as something that the right made up.
What? There's no such thing as fake news?
It's something that was just made up by the right?
He thinks that fake news is fake news.
So I responded with six examples of obvious fake news that we all know is fake news, right?
So you know the drinking disinfectant, the overfeeding the goldfish, the Russia collusion.
So I just gave him six quick examples, the post office box stuff.
So I gave him six quick examples.
There are hundreds, but six easy ones.
Now, if you give somebody six definite, verifiable answers that are fake news and were major stories, not trivial, pretty big stories, isn't that a complete answer to the question of, does fake news exist?
Well, here are six examples.
That should be the end of it, right?
This doesn't exist.
Here are six examples that you already know.
You don't even have to research it.
Here they are. Six of them.
You already know these are fake. What do you think was the result of that?
Do you think the result of that was my very smart friend said, Oh, huh.
Well, there's six good examples.
I guess there is fake news.
Do you think that happened?
No. No, that didn't happen.
That didn't happen at all.
Now somebody's saying the laundry list.
The laundry list is when you're trying to make an argument and all of your argument is weak, so you give lots of them under the theory that lots of arguments of zero value will add up to something.
The way I did it is an answer to a does something exist?
If somebody says, does something exist?
Well, you only need one counterexample.
But since somebody could maybe argue against one, you're a six.
So that's a different context than the laundry list.
The laundry list being not persuasive, but showing that something exists when somebody said it didn't, that could be persuasive.
So my friend, who was not persuaded, as it turns out, simply changed the subject.
Now, how many times in the past has he said to me that fake news doesn't exist, and how many times have I given him examples that are easy to verify, and then how many times do I talk to him again a few weeks later and he doesn't know that fake news exists?
It's like it didn't happen.
It's like it didn't happen.
And it's the freakiest thing.
And, you know, Eventually he always devolves into something about Trump's personality.
Blah blah blah, the fact checkers.
Blah blah blah, you know, con man, blah blah blah.
And whenever anybody retreats to Trump's personality, you know that they're experiencing some cognitive dissonance.
Because we didn't really hire him to have a good personality.
That really wasn't part of the job description.
And indeed, the people who voted for him got what they thought they were going to get.
Was there anybody who voted for Trump who said, you know, fingers crossed, I don't think he's ever going to fail the fact-checking again.
Anybody? Did anybody think that wasn't going to happen?
Or that was going to happen?
How about people who thought that there would never be more accusations of one kind of impropriety or another?
Nobody. Nobody thought there would be no more accusations.
How about people who thought there would be some stories that popped up about some financial thing that somebody thinks is illegal and other people don't?
Or something of that nature.
How many thought that would happen?
Everybody. Everybody thought so.
When New York, who is it, the Attorney General, when they go digging into Trump's tax returns, do you expect that there'll be anything in there That his critics will say, hey, that looks bad.
Of course there will be.
It doesn't mean it is bad.
But if it's a complicated situation, they'll find something that looks bad.
If you don't look at the whole context, you know they will.
But as long as the people who voted for him are getting their conservative judges, a good economy when we don't have a coronavirus, They're going to be pretty happy, right, if he gets the big stuff right.
So for some reason, the Democrats don't understand that Trump is delivering or trying very hard, let's say in the case of the wall.
It's clear that he's trying and that nobody else would try that hard.
So I don't know how the left cannot understand why he's popular.
Because I don't know if we've seen this combination before.
Somebody who makes promises and then really works hard on the promises.
Somebody said, ask my friend about Charlottesville.
I think I have in the past, and you know how that went.
It's always the same.
They always go down the funnel until they've changed the subject.
And then they think changing the subject is winning the argument that they are no longer talking about.
It's always the same. California just texted me and everybody else saying that they're going to do rolling power outages, meaning we're all going to take turns not having electricity during a heat wave.
That's actually happening.
We're going to take turns not having electricity in a record-setting heat wave.
Why do we have to do that?
Because California is so poorly managed, they can't keep the lights on.
Actually, literally, specifically, can't keep the lights on.
And when people talk about keeping the lights on, that's like a ridiculous example of if you can't at least keep the lights on, you've done everything wrong.
And in California, we actually can't keep the lights on.
How incompetent do you have to be to get rid of your border security, have no laws that allow you to deal with all the mental illness on the streets, let people out of jail even if they've committed crimes, raise taxes?
And the reason that we don't have power is that it's been poorly managed.
They tried to be green, and you just can't get there with green.
And so we didn't.
So, what a bad state.
I would be amazed if...
No, I won't be surprised.
Gavin Newsom will probably get reelected because it's a Democrat state.
So I was listening to Van Jones talk about Michelle Obama's speech.
He was quite impressed with it.
But this is how Van Jones sort of summarized the situation.
He said, in 2016, there were many decent people, thank you, thank you, so...
He's talking about many of you as decent people willing to give Trump a chance in the hope that he would rise to the level of the office.
Well, that was generous of you, Van Jones, to say that decent people were willing to give him a chance.
But, he goes on, over the past four years, they have been dismayed by his tweets and exasperated by his general behavior in office.
That's a little generic, isn't it?
Yeah, I... I think it's fair to say that people have been dismayed by his tweets.
But is that a reason not to re-elect him?
I like what he did with ISIS, the economy killing Soleimani.
I like that he's decoupling with China.
He's the best bet for getting the economy going.
But oh, those tweets.
They're dismaying me.
I like to make money and I like to be Safe from all of our foreign and domestic enemies.
And he does a good job on that.
But I'm dismayed.
He sends a tweet and I get this feeling that comes over me of dismayment.
That's probably almost a word.
And not only am I dismayed by his tweets, it's worse.
I'm exasperated by his general behavior.
Exasperated by his general behavior.
Oh, his... His outcomes are good.
His solutions are good.
But I'm, oh boy, am I exasperated by his general behavior.
So if you've got people who are not willing to talk about policies and only somebody's general behavior and dismaying tweets, I don't see how Biden has a chance of winning.
So I'm just looking at my own notes here because sometimes I write stuff down and I I don't know what the hell I meant.
Oh, so CNN, James Griffith, is writing an opinion piece on CNN, and he says that there's a model for how to handle the pandemic, and if only the United States had followed the model, we would be doing better.
So here's the model.
That the United States apparently has not followed.
And so James Griffiths says this, but there's a model for responding to such waves, meaning new waves of infections.
And it's the one being used across much of Asia Pacific.
And I'm thinking, oh good, we're going to find out something we're not doing that's like something that they're doing over there and it's working well, so maybe we could borrow that.
And it says that what they're doing is they stamp out community infections Through lockdowns, mask wearing, and social distancing.
Well, that sounds very familiar.
Gradually lift controls as infections go down, and reintroduce them if they go up again.
Um, I think you just described the United States.
So... So...
What kind of criticism is that?
To say, if only we could be like those other countries, and then describe our exact strategy that's both stated and observable.
What exactly is CNN selling us?
I don't know. Somebody said that the Democratic Convention was all about unity.
What? How in the world can you see the Democrats being about unity?
Aren't they exactly the opposite?
Isn't identity politics the opposite of unity?
I mean, it's as opposite as you can get.
It could be no more opposite.
Isn't globalism the opposite of national unity?
It's really the opposite.
Isn't it the fake news associated with the Democrats who caused Black Lives Matter to be a gigantic movement focusing on the wrong thing?
This is all the fake news causing all the problems in the country at this point, and all the unity problems.
So between the Democrats and their pet press, they are the cause of just about all of the national disunity.
Now, now, I know what you're going to say.
If there are any Trump haters here, you're going to say, Scott, Scott, Scott.
When President Trump He said things about immigrants coming into this country.
He was being divisive.
No, he wasn't.
Because he was talking about the United States.
If somebody is outside the United States and wants to get in, that's not the people we're trying to have unity with.
Because you can't have unity with the whole world unless you want to give away all your stuff.
So, anyway.
To imagine that the Democrats are about unity when they're so obviously, aggressively the opposite.
I mean, their most fundamental beliefs are the opposite of unity.
For example, look at all the protests.
Are the protests about unity?
Not even a little bit.
They're not about unity.
They're exactly the opposite of unity.
By design. Over at Fox, who, President and Fox News...
Who President Trump says is sounding more like CNN every day.
I'll let you judge.
So there's an opinion piece by Arnon Mishkin who questions whether there is such a thing as a shy Trump voter, which he describes as someone who knows that they're going to be voting for Trump, that is willing to tell a stranger,
let's say a pollster, their education, religion, income, and somehow When it comes to their vote, deliberately lie, and Arnon says, I don't think so.
So here's somebody writing for Fox who doesn't believe that conservatives will lie to pollsters about their support for Trump.
Really? Really?
You don't believe that? While I don't encourage people to be gullible and to believe things that they don't have evidence for, I'm pretty sure that one's a safe bet.
We don't know how big it is, but, oh yeah, there are people who lie to pollsters.
That's definitely a thing.
I speak from experience, because when a pollster called, I was going to lie.
So, you know, I'm not representative of the world, but I think they're more like me.
Why did the Seattle police keep going to work?
So last night, more protests, more police got hurt.
Some of them pretty hurt.
And so it's this dangerous job, and they're completely unprotected by the government officials because they can't do what they need to do, which is to clear the streets and stop the protests.
They just show up as targets.
I would approve of the Seattle police just having a sick out and just not coming to work anymore.
At least the ones who are doing something about the protests.
I don't think the police should be asked to go into harm's way if they're also not allowed to do their job.
You can't have both.
If they're allowed to kick some ass and do their job and lock people up and they'll stay in jail, under those conditions, I'd say, yeah, that's what they signed up for.
It's dangerous work, but that is the job they chose, and we're happy they did.
But if you're not going to protect the police, if you don't have their back, I think they have a right not to go.
And I wouldn't feel bad if they just abandoned the city.
Just let it happen. Because what would happen if they did?
Well, somebody would have to figure out what to do, and they would either call in federal forces or they'd back the police or something.
But I think the police should just let the rioters go nuts, do whatever they want.
They don't have any support from their own city, so screw the city.
That's what I say. So, here's a thought for you on hydroxychloroquine studies.
So there have been...
This is a different way to look at it.
I may have mentioned this before, but I think I can say it better, which will make a difference.
So there have been 53 studies...
That showed positive results from hydroxychloroquine.
Now those studies were not the randomized controlled gold standard studies.
So the fact that there are 53, you can't add up a whole bunch of studies that are not gold standard to get a gold standard.
It doesn't work that way. But there were also 14 studies that showed neutral or negative results.
But 10 of the 14 We're patients who are near death and they were using it in the wrong way.
So that wasn't really the intended use of it.
So that would leave four that say that it doesn't work and 53 that says it does.
Of the four that says it works, I believe two of them were by the same researcher.
So here's the point.
If you've got 53 studies that show positive results, but they're not gold standard, can you still say anything about it?
Well, here's the thing.
Imagine that every one of those 53 studies had a flaw.
But imagine they were different flaws.
What are the odds that 53 flawed studies, no matter what the flaw was, it would all show that hydroxychloroquine worked?
Why couldn't the flaws ever be in the other direction?
Why couldn't some of those flawed studies show that it doesn't work?
Because remember, a flaw is something you don't know is there.
So why can't there be surprises in the it doesn't work direction?
As much as, it seems like, what, 95% of all the results are in one direction?
So I put this out there as a challenge to you.
Do you buy that if the studies are different, and they have different flaws, but no matter the flaw, it all points in the same direction, what are the odds that all of those flaws, different ones, would point in the same direction?
Well, there is a possibility, which is that all of the studies cherry-picked data the same way.
So if the way they all collected their data was all the same and all flawed, well then, yeah.
It wouldn't matter what else they did.
Maybe they would have bad data.
So we don't know, but I would say that the evidence that hydroxychloroquine works, 30%.
I'm going to still put it at 30% odds.
It's a game-changer. Meanwhile, over at South Korea, who was held out as a model of how to do things, they're experiencing, and I quote, the early stages of massive recurrence of the virus.
So South Korea is back at it.
Now, they'll probably get a handle on it and beat it back down, because they do seem to be pretty good at that.
And then, of course, New Zealand had a little bit of an uptick, not much compared to the United States.
Now, I ask you this.
In the United States, there was apparently a massive financial advantage in declaring something to be a COVID death.
Is this true? Do a little fact check on me here in real time.
It is true that hospitals had a big, a very big financial incentive to code something as a coronavirus death, whether it was or not.
So, so far that's true, right?
Fact check, true? Number two, for countries that have socialized healthcare, meaning that nobody pays extra for their healthcare, did they have the same incentive?
Because I believe they did not.
I believe that if you have universal healthcare, or if you just have a different system, and you're not rewarding people for declaring the coronavirus, wouldn't you expect that there would be a gigantic difference in the numbers reported?
Because it's the perfect crime.
I've told you before that if you have this situation where there's a big upside, there's a lot to gain, and there was a lot to gain by saying something was a coronavirus death, financially, it was a big, big difference.
There's a lot to gain, there's lots of people involved, so it's not like there might be one honest person who was the only person who saw this opportunity, but they were honest.
You don't have to worry about that because there's so many people you can always get some dishonest ones.
And then thirdly, no real risk of getting caught.
What would be the risk to a doctor or even the hospital who said, all right, this patient has coronavirus, they also died, so we'll call it a coronavirus death, and then maybe later there was an autopsy and they find out it wasn't a coronavirus death.
What would be the penalty?
Nothing. Nothing.
There would be no penalty. It would just be a routine difference of opinion.
It was an educated guess that was wrong.
There would be nothing. There would be no penalty.
So I would say that we should at least be looking at that for some kind of a multiplier of how many fake deaths we might have had compared to other countries.
Now, I wouldn't put an estimate on it, but some number of deaths are probably fake.
All right, now there are at least three or four different correlations that people claim, and I wonder about them all.
One is the correlation to hydroxychloroquine use, and you've seen evidence that anybody who used it did better, but I think that might be cherry-picking some data, so I don't trust that.
You've seen also that vitamin D seems highly correlated.
Because who doesn't have good vitamin D? Black people.
And I think half of the deaths in the United States are black Americans.
By the way, how many black people in Sweden?
How many black people in these other countries that we're being compared to?
If half of our deaths Are black Americans?
And we're comparing ourselves to a country that doesn't have many black people living in it?
Is that really apples and oranges?
Not really, right?
Same as if you're comparing it to that one city in Italy where they had tons of old people.
You can't really compare that to anything else.
They had tons of old people.
So that's a problem. So the other correlation, so you've got your hydroxychloroquine correlation that I don't believe.
You've got your vitamin D correlation because people who are diabetic, they're old, they're black, they've got some comorbidity, is almost always correlated with low vitamin D because the black folks have less vitamin D in general, which is a problem health-wise.
And then the last one is, there's a correlation with the BCG vaccination, right?
Now somebody says, what about Africa?
The other factors, let me just finish up with the BCG thing.
Now who is it? Who knows me well enough to have my phone number to text me who doesn't know I'm doing this right now?
I'll have to talk to him.
So you've got four different correlations, all of which I imagine could be fake, maybe one of them is real, but we can't tell the difference.
Somebody said, what about Africa, which doesn't seem to have as much of a problem with the virus?
Here are a few things.
Number one, probably a lot more outdoor living, wouldn't you say?
Probably people are spaced out a little bit better.
Probably it's underreported.
There may be people who have it that are not being reported.
People dying from it, they don't know.
They were never tested. But there's...
And if people are outdoors more, they're not only socially distancing, but they might get more sun.
So if you're a black person living in New York City and you walk outside and you're in the shade because of the big buildings, or you're a black person living in Africa and you walk outside and there's sun everywhere, I would think that there'd be a difference in vitamin D. There's definitely a difference in age.
The African...
Continent is really young, like super young.
So if you just factored in social distancing and density and youth and more sun and all that stuff, you could easily explain it away.
And then, of course, there's the Sweden thing, which is, did they reach some kind of herd immunity at 20%?
Did that really happen?
I guess we'll have to just keep watching.
We don't know. And then somebody else said that there's a correlation with countries that have malaria as an issue, that they already have widespread hydroxychloroquine, so that probably makes a difference.
Let me ask you this.
Did German doctors use hydroxychloroquine?
Do you know? Do you know?
I don't know. I know that when the virus first broke out, I did hear indirectly from a high-level German official that they were using hydroxychloroquine widely.
In other words, it was widespread use.
Now, since then, I've heard other reports.
So is it true that That the doctors are prescribing it.
And could that be the reason Germany is doing so well?
Could it? Don't know.
Why don't we know that?
Could somebody just find that one thing out for me?
Just find out this one thing for me.
Are the German doctors...
Forget about what the policy is.
There may be a national policy.
But what are the doctors actually doing?
As somebody says in the comments, Bayer is a German company, and Bayer is one of the makers of hydroxychloroquine.
In fact, they shared some with the United States early on.
So why don't we know that?
Doesn't that feel like exactly what you want to know?
In fact, I would like to know any country that's not an island...
Because I think the islands have to be compared to just each other.
You know, New Zealand, South Korea is kind of an island because of the DMC, etc.
Somebody says, talk about Spygate.
Spygate's sort of, that's been disappeared, hasn't it?
You think that Spygate happened?
But according to CNN and MSNBC, nothing happened.
So it's going into the memory hole and it will be disappeared.
Nothing to see here.
It was only a coup.
Nothing to see here.
Somebody says, all German doctors I know take it.
Yeah, 100 and...
What is it? Only 1,100 deaths in Germany?
Well, if Germany was taking hydroxychloroquine, which they might have been, and they got that good result because of that, well, that would change things, wouldn't it?
All right. Is there anything else I haven't talked about?
Um... Why would Democrats promote riots during the pandemic?
Well, this gets to who's in control of the riots.
If you've looked at all the mugshots of the Antifa people who got arrested, they all have clear mental illness.
Is there anybody who disagrees with that?
If you're wondering, watch Andy Ngo, for example, his account.
And he'll sometimes tweet the Antifa mugshots, the ones who just got arrested.
100% of them look obviously mentally ill.
Like, just obviously. You just look at them and go, well, that person's mentally ill.
That's kind of obvious.
So you've got a lot of people with different motivations.
You've got the sincere people who just want a more equal world.
You've got people who are there for mischief, people who are bored, people who are just joining in.
And then you've got some assumption about foreign interference, there are probably some, and the leaders being Marxists and want to turn us into a communist country, and that everything you see is part of that master plan, from wearing masks to the coronavirus.
It's all part of the master plan for the communists to take over.
I don't know about that.
I don't know about that.
It feels to me like there are indeed people who want to take over the country and make it a socialist slash communist country, but there are so few of them, and I think that they're not really the ones who are moving the ball forward too much.
I think the fact that the mainstream Democrats are not trying to stop the protests is why they can go on.
As soon as Democrats found it not convenient to have them, or they wanted to stop them for whatever reason, I think they could.
Because then you'd have Democrats and Republicans who want to stop it.
How hard would it be then? Somebody says, you can't instill socialism without controlling enforcement.
Yeah, so the play here would be that the The Marxists, if you will, are trying to take over, or have succeeded, in taking over education and then neutering law enforcement.
And, of course, they own the media.
So if you've got the media, the schools, and law enforcement, you can make just about anything happen after that.
You would be able to control minds and bodies so effectively you could kind of make anything happen.
Somebody says, why won't you run for president?
Can you imagine the opposition research on me?
I would last about a minute.
I would be cancelled in about a hot minute.
And I wouldn't want that job anyway.
Yeah, the Babylon Bee got shut down on Twitter for a while.
They're back. I don't know what they did.
So here's the thing that guarantees that the press is the enemy of the people.
And at this point, you know, when Trump first started saying that the press were the enemy of the people, I wasn't completely buying into that notion.
I just thought they should be more accurate and less biased for a side.
But at this point, I think you can say it's unambiguously true, that they're not just rooting for a side, that they are actually a malign influence, and maybe the most dangerous influence in the country.
I would say that the fake news is probably the biggest problem in the country, because the fake news prevents you from solving any of the other problems.
Right? Because it hypnotizes people into some kind of a gridlock where we're just fighting each other instead of working together to solve anything.
So I would say the fake news is the biggest problem in the world and that I think you could say that they're evil in this case because here's something that you don't see them doing.
Getting some Antifa or Black Lives Matter Organizers.
People who can speak for more than themselves.
Getting them on TV and say, can you describe the world that you're trying to create?
What's it look like if you get everything you want?
What kind of system is it?
How does it make money?
How are taxes handled under the system?
Because the reason that you don't see that is because the answers would be completely disqualifying and the protests would have to just stop.
Because you would see that there's no positive intention there besides words like Black Lives Matter, which is not a plan.
So if you actually ask them what they want that's different, it would sound so shocking or stupid that nobody would support them again.
So the fact that you don't see the news even attempting to interview them should tell you something.
And by the way, where's Fox News interviewing the leaders?
Maybe they won't go on Fox News.
I don't know. But it seems like the news business is just not doing the job.
And then, of course, as you know, the teachers' unions are the primary source of systemic racism and maybe the cause of just about all of our problems.
Just about all of them. But it looks like school is going to be in for a big change.
We'll see what happens. Something that Noam Chomsky said on a video I watched recently scared the crap out of me.
I wasn't going to mention it, but I feel like it's too important not to.
And it goes like this.
That even when I was young, it was true that if you worked hard and stayed out of jail, You are pretty much guaranteed that you can get some kind of an okay job, at least, and have some kind of a life with maybe a house and a family and kids can go to college and all the American dream stuff.
And as Chomsky points out, that all collapsed.
And I thought about that for a minute and I thought, did it?
Did it collapse? Because if you're a 12-year-old in, let's say, public school in the United States, and you do the right stuff, you study, you stay out of jail, you don't do drugs, if you just do the basics, and it doesn't matter what you are, white or black, if you just do the basics...
Can you still not have a good life?
Now, I realize you might have some college debt, and I realize that you won't be able to live anywhere you want.
So you're not going to be able to live in San Francisco.
Well, maybe you can now.
Maybe the rents will be dropping in San Francisco.
But I don't know if it's completely true.
Here's what it feels like.
It feels like that's another fake news problem.
Because I think the fake news has hypnotized at least the black community That they have obstacles that will slow them down no matter what.
This systemic racism.
Imagine if the fake news told people the opposite.
That if you just do these basic things right, you'll be fine.
They don't. They don't tell you that.
In fact, they go as far away from that as they can to make sure that you know that somebody's doing better than somebody else and that's unfair and it's gotta stop.
The opposite of any kind of a positive message So, I'm not sure Noam Chomsky is right that it's collapsed.
I believe that we think it's collapsed, and the fake news is the primary cause of that.
But that indeed, if you did everything right, you could work out a pretty good life for yourself, even today.
I do think the education system is just crap at this point.
And I would say that even if you thought...
Even if you thought people could get a good education in public school, the damage that's done to kids just by hanging out with other kids is pretty substantial.
The biggest risk to kids is other kids because that's who's talking them into drugs and bad behavior and stuff.
It's just other kids. And when you send them to public school, the bad influence is just horrendous.
And, you know, I live in an upscale place, so, you know, mine's probably better than most, and it's still just horrendous.
It's a disaster, I would say.
Export Selection