Episode 1355 Scott Adams: Hilarious CNN and WaPo Propaganda, Arizona Erection Freud, and New Mask Science
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Chinese censorship vs American censorship
CNN anti-Matt Gaetz propaganda
Mask value is situational, the 4 "Ds"
CDC re-approves J&J vaccine
CNN John Blake: indifference racism
Post-vaccination mask wearing
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Come on in. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, the best part of the day.
And if you're not wearing your pajamas right now, you're overdressed.
Because this is the time to relax.
Have a little beverage.
And if you'd like to enjoy it to the maximum potential, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen drunk or flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And if you're not part of this, you're going to feel bad in a minute.
Wow. I feel sorry for you.
But for the rest of you, go.
Sublime, as always.
and So I finally figured out why Biden is so big on masks.
Because apparently Kamala Harris' tech team, they can save 50% of their work and resources because they only have to CGI Biden from the top half of his head.
Bottom half?
You don't even have to animate it.
CGI is easy.
You can imagine the meetings.
How are we going to do a CGI version of Biden?
We don't quite have the resources to pull this off.
And then somebody else in the room says, I've got an idea.
Just let me spitball this.
What if we never show the bottom part of Biden's face?
And everybody laughs.
They go... No, seriously.
Seriously. Does anybody have any ideas how we're going to be able to CGI Biden?
No, seriously.
If you just make everybody wear a face mask, you won't even have to animate his mouth.
That's the hard part.
And everybody in the room just says, they just look at each other and I think, could we do that?
We just need a reason.
Well, I'm not saying that's what happened.
No, I'm not starting a conspiracy theory.
I'm just saying that coincidentally, it would be easier to animate a CGI version of Biden if he only had to do the top half of his head.
That's all I'm saying. Watching Bill Maher Call bullshit on Black Lives Matter and the narrative-making properties of the news is getting really fun.
Because I think Bill Maher probably realizes, I can't read his mind, but he probably realizes that the Democrats really need some kind of adult supervision.
And apparently with great power comes great responsibility.
And I think people like Bill Maher just think, if I don't do it, who the hell is going to do it?
And by it, I mean call bullshit on his own team when they've just gone into crazy land.
So he's starting to do that, calling bullshit on the, let's say, the left's narratives, if you will, especially around police shootings.
He's being completely fact-based and realistic, and it's fun to watch.
If you're not watching the show, I recommend it.
It's... Without Trump being the only story, the distorting effect of Trump on the media has sort of reduced a little bit.
Now you can see Bill Maher as he was meant to be, without Trump in the story.
Here's a question for you.
If you could invent an electronic device that would emit some kind of electronic signal...
That when you pointed it at a person, it could make that person dumber, maybe even give them brain damage.
You've heard that there's some kind of a sonic weapon that is allegedly being used against our diplomats, not quite confirmed, but suppose you could invent such a device where just some kind of electronic signal would actually make people stupid and literally cause brain damage.
What would you call it? Yeah, you'd call it CNN. And that's not even a joke.
Because if you haven't heard me say this before, science now has determined, fairly conclusively, I think, I mean, you always wait for confirmation, but I think it's fairly solid that people who watch only one side of the news and don't get the other side have brain damage.
Actual, literal, that's the word.
No hyperbole.
Scientists use the words brain damage, meaning that you can't think as well because the bias of the news has actually warped your brain.
Now let me ask you this.
If we knew all this, let's say science was always where it is now, and we always knew that biased news would cause brain damage, Would it be legal to start CNN if it didn't already exist?
Think about it.
There are a lot of things that could not be legal if you started them today.
For example, if we didn't already have lots of guns in the United States, let's say just nobody had any, would it be legal to start having them?
Not a chance.
Not a chance. If we didn't already have them, It wouldn't be legal to start it up tomorrow.
Yeah, alcohol, perfect example.
If it were not historically embedded in our society, no.
No, it wouldn't be legal.
Right? And, you know, I know you're talking, you're going to be thinking about prohibition didn't work, blah blah, but that's because it was already here.
If somebody had just invented it and ran it through the FDA, it probably wouldn't get approved.
And I was thinking about this with dogs.
I was walking my dog, Snickers.
And of course, you know, Snickers does their business, and I've got my little bag, and I'm picking it up.
And I'm thinking to myself, if dogs were not part of our culture for so many years, and somebody came up with the idea, hey...
Let's have a dog.
It'll live in my house and it'll poop on my neighbor's lawn.
But don't worry. I'll clean it up sometimes.
I mean, I'm pretty good at that.
But other people, maybe not so good.
I don't think dogs would be legal.
I don't think so. I mean, you can't have just any kind of livestock you want.
You can't have an elephant. Can you?
Well, maybe you can. I don't know.
Could you have an elephant as a pet if you wanted to?
Maybe you could, actually.
I'm not sure you couldn't.
I guess I suppose it depends where you are.
I grew up with a neighbor who had elephants.
True story. Where I grew up in Wyndham, New York, upstate New York, my grandfather's farm, which was in walking distance from my house, the farm that was just sort of adjacent to his, they owned elephants.
Apparently they were trained elephants that they sort of provided to circuses and stuff.
But one day my grandfather was working in the hayfield, and he turns around and there's an elephant that walks up to him in upstate New York.
True story. All right, but that's neither here nor there.
I'm just saying that things like boxing, cigarettes, alcohol, dog ownership, and CNN all have this weird quality That if they didn't exist, and you started them today...
Somebody knows the Catskill Game Farm.
Hey, Patty. The Catskill Game Farm, I don't think that was part of why my neighbor had elephants.
I think it was for circuses, if I recall.
All right, so...
Here's a little interesting fact.
I've noticed lately that some of the best...
By best, I mean diverse.
Sources of news is my own community within locals.
So if I look at the Fox News homepage, then I look at CNN homepage, there's a certain set of stories that half of them overlap and half of them are just in their narrative.
But they're all kind of...
Narrow. It's just not a lot of breadth in the coverage, it seems.
But if I go on Locals, where I'm posting my more provocative content, subscription service, and other people in the community are posting as well, I see all kinds of stories that I didn't see in the regular media.
Now, they're in some kind of media because they're linked, but they tend to be in not the tier that you see the most.
Here's an example. Chinese authority is a story I didn't know about until I saw it on Locals.
I'll link to it. Chinese authorities are cracking down on feminist activists online in China, and dozens of social media accounts got shut down.
And the story said, until very recently, you could see vibrant discussions on women's rights online in China, and now they just got rid of it.
It's starting to look like China's censorship is getting as bad as our censorship in America.
And I don't know if China's worried about that, but it's heading in that direction.
And if China's censorship gets any worse, it's going to get up to American level.
And that's going to be pretty bad.
What? Oh, you think Chinese censorship is worse?
Than in America. Oh, that's so cute.
Yeah, a lot of people think that.
But let me give you just this example.
In China, they said, you can't say that, and here's why, and we're going to close you down.
You can't say it because it's bad for China, I guess.
That's kind of honest, isn't it?
Now, I don't like it.
I certainly wouldn't want anything like that in America.
But it's kind of direct.
This kind of language is bad for China, so we're not going to let you do it.
Wait a minute. We do the same thing here, don't we?
Isn't there a topic...
I'm not even going to mention it.
Is there a national topic which you would expect even a few years ago you could have spoken your opinion on with complete freedom?
But now you can't. There are entire topics you can't talk about on social media in the United States.
You'll get cancelled. So, China is worse?
I don't know.
It looks kind of similar to me.
And if you think it's worse, maybe you haven't been paying attention.
Because the other thing that's happening is The massive propaganda that is disguised as news.
So probably twice a week or more I tell you to watch Glenn Greenwald because he's just ripping the media apart for being a propaganda organ.
And right now nobody's doing a better job of just pulling the cover back on the ridiculousness of the media.
But this is, I guess, on Fox News.
Glenn Greenwald was appearing and he was talking about how Washington Post apparently did some kind of a fact check on Tim Scott, Senator Tim Scott's story of being a young black man who, I don't know, his family picked cotton or something.
That's the story. And I guess they fact check it to make sure that he's an adult black man now, but they fact check to make sure that he was ever once a younger black man.
Apparently he was. So he's always been black.
So they fact-checked that.
I'm just kidding. They didn't fact-check that.
But they did write a fact-check that they found everything he said was true, but they wrote it in a debunking tone.
So that when you're reading it, you feel like it's being debunked, but they confirmed everything.
Now you say to yourself, wait a minute, that's not a thing, is it?
Can you do a fact check in which you fact check something is true, but you write it so that somebody thinks maybe you're not?
Is that really a thing?
Yes. I gave you an example yesterday.
The USA Today fact check on Trump saying, you know, about the disinfectants.
They fact check it's true, That Trump was referring to a real known technology for injecting light into the body.
It was being trialed at the time.
But they wrote it like it was false.
But they fact-checked it as true.
It's a thing. It's a real thing that they fact-check things as true while writing it like you think it's the other way.
It's amazing when you see it.
All right, here's another great one like this.
Perfect example. Today you can see a piece on Matt Gaetz.
Now, we know from Project Veritas, Undercover Video, they talked to a technical director at CNN, Undercover.
It was Undercover Video.
He didn't know he was recorded.
And he admitted that they target Matt Gaetz for political reasons.
It has nothing to do with the news.
So we know that they target Matt Gaetz.
So start with that knowledge.
That it's not real news.
It's a target at a person.
Now knowing that, that's your framework.
Listen to what they did to him today.
It just makes your head shake.
It's now passed into just Parody?
I mean, it just looks funny at this point.
So here's from CNN. Federal authorities are looking into whether a 2018 trip to the Bahamas involving Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz and several young women was part of an orchestrated effort to illegally influence Gaetz In the area of medical marijuana, people briefed on the matter, told CNN. In other words, anonymous sources?
They're the good ones, aren't they?
If you hear that CNN has some anonymous sources, you know you're hearing the truth.
No. Anonymous sources means not true.
Pretty much most of the time.
Not every time. So, let me read this again.
And then I'll give you the punchline, right?
You have to hear exactly CNN's words, and then I'll tell you the punchline.
Federal authorities are looking into whether a 2018 trip to the Bahamas involving Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz and several young women was part of an orchestrated effort to illegally influence Gaetz in the area of medical marijuana, people briefed on the matter told CNN. So that's how they introduced the story.
What do you think was the evidence in the story to support this claim?
None. None.
There wasn't any. Even the anonymous sources didn't say there was any crime.
Nobody did.
Nobody involved in the story has even made an allegation.
Do you get that?
There's not even an allegation.
Not only is there not a crime, nobody's accused him of a crime, and there's no evidence whatsoever that anybody ever will, it gets better.
Wait, it gets better.
And the idea here is that he may have been influenced to vote in favor of medical marijuana.
His track record has always been in favor of legalizing medical marijuana.
He has introduced...
Legislation repeatedly on that point.
So we have this long history where there's nothing to influence because he's always been in that camp.
You don't need to convince somebody to do something that they've been trying really, really hard to do for years.
Now, don't you think that was important?
Don't you think that's sort of an important context?
That he's actually famous for years trying to get medical marijuana more legal, but at some point he takes a trip, and then people are suddenly investigating whether they're trying to influence him?
This is just hilarious propaganda.
I mean, this is just crazy.
All right. I know that you don't like to hear about masks, but I promise you, this will be good.
You're tired of masks.
I get it, I get it, right?
We just argue, do they work, do they not?
But this is the most insightful, let's say, credible explanation of why we think they don't work, but probably they do in some cases.
Are you ready? Because we're trying to reconcile why it is that there are a number of trials or tests or whatever that show that they don't work, but those are specific situations.
So are there situations where they work?
And here's one doctor who looked pretty good.
Dr. Pierre Correa is a doctor, he's a researcher, And he broke it down this way.
And I think this has a lot to do with how well you explain it.
And he basically says that masks can have a value so long as...
And hold with me here, because this is...
It's going to get a little detailed, but not too bad.
That masks do work for indoor stuff only.
So this doctor admits that wearing masks outdoors is ridiculous.
But we're all on the same page on that, right?
Masks outdoors?
There's no scientific evidence that you can even get it outdoors.
Like, there's one case verified of two Chinese guys...
Who talk to each other in the face for an hour outdoors.
Nobody else. So we're all on the same page that masks don't make sense outdoors, right?
But indoors. Some of you still think indoors doesn't make sense because you've seen tests or trials or whatever that said they didn't.
So this doctor breaks it down, and I've never seen it done so well.
He mentions the four Ds.
That masks will work indoors, he claims, unless you violate one of these four things.
And if you violate more than them, then the mask won't work.
Number one, density.
If you have a lot of people in a room...
says this doctor, then masks can extend the amount of time before you might get it, assuming somebody in there has it.
So all the mask does, according to this doctor, is extend the amount of time you could be in a full room before you get it anyway.
Now the argument is that the masks make the, what would you call it, the air particles or the water particles or whatever, go up and down And that basically they permeate the room.
So it's not so much that you're like a cannon talking into somebody's face with your COVID. It's more like it's spreading into the room.
So visualize this.
It's the difference between me talking directly in your face, and it's like a water cannon of COVID, Versus I'm just releasing it slowly into the room through the tops of my mask.
And it's just sort of filling the room with virus over time.
So here's the thing.
If you violate any of these, you're going to get some COVID even with a mask indoors.
Density. Number of people in the room.
That's bad. The more people, the more risk.
Duration. The longer you're in the room, the worse it is.
The masks will extend, we don't know how much, extend the amount of time that you can be in a room.
Dimensions, the size of the room, obviously.
The bigger the room, the better. And then the draft, the amount of airflow.
So if you don't get all of these things right, the mask won't work.
And when they test masks, they're not really testing it in the way they would get to this, right?
So this claim...
And I'll say it's one doctor, researcher who's making a claim.
I won't say this is my opinion, but it matches exactly my opinion.
The reason that I like this, this breakdown, is it matches exactly the opinion I've had for a year.
Which is, there's no way it works in every situation.
But it must buy you a little time.
I've always figured it was a friction thing, that it's not binary, it doesn't stop anything.
It just gives you a little extra time, a little extra cushion.
So, because I was primed to believe it anyway, I do believe this doctor.
But I'm probably, yeah.
So, in the comments you're saying, so, confirmation bias?
Exactly. Yes, I can't tell the difference.
The way confirmation bias works is that the person experiencing it is the only one who can't tell.
You might be able to tell by observing me, if you had enough context to do that.
But by definition, if I'm suffering from it, I'm the only one who can't tell.
So when you say, is that confirmation bias?
I don't know. It's not possible for me to know.
It's only possible maybe for somebody else to know.
All right, here's a fun story.
There's Arizona Erection Freud.
Now, those words are not exactly the words that this story requires.
It's not really an erection.
They use an L in that word instead of an R. And it's not really a Sigmund Freud.
It's a different word, but I don't want that to be picked up and demonetize me.
So let's say in Arizona there's an erection Freud going on, and CNN's headline for it is that, and I swear they really said this, it's an effort by conspiracy theorists to undermine results.
That's how CNN reported on the Arizona erection Freud.
It's a conspiracy theorist attempt to undermine results.
And I thought to myself, that's an interesting way to put it.
For example, I'm going to start adopting this way of talking.
When I go to my doctor, the purpose of going to my doctor is to undermine my health.
That's why I do it.
Why else would you go to a doctor other than to undermine your health?
When I check the tires on my car, what I'm really trying to do is undermine their proper inflation.
That's why I do it. Why else?
Really? And when I go to the gym, it's of course to undermine my fitness.
This is why we do these things.
So if you're going to be checking the votes in Arizona, it's to undermine the credibility of the system.
That's why you do it. Everybody knows that.
So that's how CNN phrases it.
Here's the funniest part.
Do you know why Democrats are complaining about this erection audit?
Do you? Do you know why they're complaining?
This is the fun part.
Democrats are complaining, wait for it, that the audit is not, wait for it, transparent enough.
Is that beautiful?
That's just beautiful.
Yes, that's right. Although the election itself, some complained, some on the other side of the aisle, some complained that the election itself was not transparent enough.
And so they proposed this massive audit, and Democrats are complaining that the audit is not transparent enough.
And do you know what?
It's not. It's not transparent.
Apparently the people doing the audit are not going to let people watch, etc.
What's your take on that?
Well, besides the fact that it's freaking hilarious, now, of course, we all know, because we've been told, that the audit won't find any irregularity.
You know why, right? A lot of you are not logical, so let me connect the dots for you the way CNN has done for me.
And follow this, because a lot of you are not trained logicians, so this might be a little complicated for you, and try not to get lost.
We know that there won't be anything found in the audit, and we know everything's good, and you can go back to trace why we know that, because...
When the courts were asked to not look into it, or they didn't look into it, they didn't find the thing that nobody looked for.
And because they didn't find anything that they didn't look for, that logically, QED, means that there isn't anything there.
Because one way to know that something doesn't exist is to not look for it.
And that confirms its non-existence.
You're following this, right?
Because a lot of people will think, wait a minute, that doesn't even make sense.
But that means you're just not following the logic.
If you don't look for it, or you use the wrong mechanism to look for it, and then you don't find it, that's proof it doesn't exist.
QED. All right.
So part of this erection fraud audit is they're going to take some ballots and then go knock on doors and see if there are any real people corresponding to those ballots.
What would happen if they find there's a difference?
Hypothetically. You know, of course, I know that they won't.
And the reason I know they won't is that the courts who didn't look into it said that it's not there.
So I know they're not going to find it, but hypothetically, just do a mental experiment.
What if they did?
What if they did? But it's not transparent.
Well, if it's not transparent, I guess the Dems will say, but you added those ballots yourself.
Those are not part of the original ballots.
You probably added them yourself.
I suppose there's always some way that even an audit could be faked.
So the Dems, without their transparency, are going to be claiming that.
But I'd be really curious how this turns out.
And by the way, why don't Democrats want this to happen?
Now, Part of the pushback is that they think that the audit will be done, let's say, illegitimately and maybe cause confusion.
Maybe. But you'd think that Democrats would want an audit because the vote went their way, and they also want you to believe it was a credible vote.
I would think they'd be dying for an audit.
Do you know, if I knew I were innocent of all charges, do you know what I would want?
An audit. I'd want an audit if I were innocent.
Now, this assumes that the audit doesn't create some fraudulent claims, so that is a risk.
They do have a legitimate point there.
You could easily imagine that it confuses the public and doesn't tell us anything.
That would be, you know, not that unusual.
But I would say that's a risk worth taking.
Apparently, good news coming out of Israel.
That for the first time, this was yesterday, for the first time in 10 months, no Israeli died of COVID-19 in the last 24 hours.
Now, today's a new day, so maybe that changed.
But there was a day yesterday when Israel had no COVID deaths.
And they've been vaccinating like crazy.
I guess the best success story in vaccinations.
So that's looking pretty good for the vaccinations.
Pretty good for the vaccinations.
Meanwhile, the temporarily halted J&J vaccination has been reapproved for use.
So apparently the risk is much smaller than the benefit.
And that's the single shot one.
That's the one I want.
I talked to somebody who got vaccinated in my area recently.
It took five hours.
It was a five-hour wait in their car to get vaccinated.
Five hours. So I'm not vaccinated, and it's only because it's just not really practical.
So you can use all the websites and all the places that you look for where your vaccinations are, and you can sign up for things, but none of it works.
So in California, I don't know how anybody gets vaccinated unless they take days off.
So this is somebody who probably had to dedicate one full day to getting the first shot, one full day to getting the second shot, and then might lose one or two days for the side effects.
That's four days of lost work for a frickin' shot.
I need better than that.
I don't mind taking an afternoon off, but I'm not going to give up four days at work for a fucking vaccination.
California needs to step it up a little bit.
Yes, I know in other places it's shorter.
And I know that if you can somehow magically get an appointment close, then you don't have to wait forever.
But not everybody can just go sign up.
You can sign up all day long.
In fact, all the places that you look for vaccinations right now will tell you that you can get it, and you're doing the sign-up, and you're saying your age and all your comorbidities, and you get all the way to the end, it goes, all right, and here are your options, and none of them work.
So you can use a website to find options that don't work, but that's all they do.
So right now, it's not really practical where I live, but people are still doing it.
It takes them five hours. Here's an interesting point on racism.
John Blake is an opinion piece.
I guess it would be an opinion piece on CNN. Says that the real problem with the Floyd case and Chauvin's body language, etc., was that it displayed indifference.
And that there's apparently a line of thought that goes all the way back to and includes Martin Luther King.
That the real worst racism is indifference.
Indifference to somebody's struggle specifically.
And... And you've heard this before, right?
You've heard a number of black people who speak out on this kind of issue to say that they'd rather deal with a direct racist, because at least they're paying attention to you.
At least you have something to work with there.
But the ones that are the worst, in some ways, are the ones who are just indifferent.
They don't care one way or another whether you live or die.
And so that makes sense in terms of Black Lives Matter.
They're not saying, well, it's just perfectly on point.
That's why I think there's a lot of genius in the phrase Black Lives Matter.
As a slogan, I doubt anybody's ever come up with a better one.
Even Make America Great Again didn't work as well as this one, even if you don't like how it turned out.
But it certainly worked.
And You know, I was thinking about that.
And part of the story is that there's a presumption here, hard to prove, but a presumption that Chauvin's body language, when he was photographed on top of Floyd, that his look of indifference was the most triggering part about it.
In other words, his body language looked like his mind was saying he doesn't care if this guy lives or dies.
Which might be the case.
But did Chauvin get convicted because the jurors believed they could read his mind based on his body language?
Somebody says only in one photo, but apparently that one photo was focused on by the prosecution.
So did we just send a man to prison...
Based on the belief that jurors can read body language and determine intention.
I feel like we did.
I feel like we did.
And, of course, you can't read minds, so if there was anything that would ever give you reasonable doubt, it should be that you could read somebody's mind.
What would be more reasonable doubt than thinking you could read somebody's mind by their body language?
Have you ever tried that at home?
Next time you look at your spouse's body language, see if you can guess what they're thinking.
See how well that goes.
Sometimes you get it right.
Maybe one in three.
Two out of three times, you're completely off.
We're not really good at reading body language.
It's not really...
I mean, I believe that maybe experts can do it more often than chance.
I mean, I believe that's reasonable.
But it's not a reliable way to send somebody to prison.
I think his body language says he's lying.
But we do. It's part of the process.
The only way we know people are lying is just by looking at them and judging whether it looks like lying, unfortunately.
But I would like to add this provocative thought to the process.
That wanting to overcome indifference is something that you control.
Are you indifferent to people who are nice to you?
Are you? If somebody knocks on your door and says, hey, I noticed it snowed last night and I've got a few minutes.
I know you're elderly.
Do you mind if I shovel your walk for you?
I'm here anyway.
If that happens, do you think that the person who offered to shovel your sidewalk for nothing, nothing in return, are you indifferent to that person?
No, you're not. You actually care about that person because they did something for you.
The way to make people not indifferent is to do something for them.
People who don't do anything for you, you can be indifferent to them.
Sort of natural.
So I feel as if everything comes down to this.
That if you have an attitude of zero-sum attitude, that for somebody to get something, somebody has to lose something, that you end up with indifference.
Because if the only way you're going to get ahead is by taking my stuff, I don't care about you.
I don't care about you at all.
I really don't.
And I'm not going to change that opinion.
If the only way you think you can get ahead is by taking my stuff, I do not care if you live or die.
Sorry. Now, if you would like to work with me, find a way we can both benefit, I'm so in.
I'm totally in. If you can find a way that even something is just good for me, I'll probably return the favor.
It's called reciprocity.
It's reciprocity.
Yeah, and somebody says, no empathy?
No. No, I don't have empathy for people who want to take things from me and give me nothing.
You know, unless it's a child or a dog or something like that, right?
But an adult human being who wants to benefit by taking something from me, no, I don't care if they live or die, and I never will.
If they want to work with me, I'm all in.
You know, I'm very generous.
But you have to come at me with a sense of reciprocity.
And if the only thing I get out of it is that I feel good, that works.
I'm good with that. If the only thing I get out of it is thank you, it works for me.
I do a lot of work just for thank yous.
I do lots of work just for recognition.
Just for somebody, you know, pat me on the back and say, good for you, good for you.
But I don't think this can ever change because human nature is sort of hardwired.
You know, racism is sort of hardwired into us.
We have to work pretty hard to overcome it.
But this reciprocity thing is also hardwired.
And if you're not coming at me with reciprocity as your theme, I don't give a fuck about you.
I really don't. I don't care anything about you or your life.
I care nothing about you.
Clear enough. But if you want help, I'm all about it.
I understand, although I did not see this in person, that Floyd's defense lawyer, Nelson, he did use the defense I had suggested would be effective, but it didn't matter.
The jury probably didn't use the facts anyway.
But... Part of his defense was that why did Chauvin do everything he did right in front of witnesses with cameras?
If Chauvin had had any idea that what he was doing would get Chauvin in trouble, he wouldn't have done it, would he?
Do you have to be a mind reader to know that people don't do things that are so bad for themselves that they would end up in a 7x10 jail cell 23 hours a day for decades?
Because that's what's happening to Chauvin.
And he had to know.
I mean, if you're a police officer, you know that if you kill somebody in front of witnesses and there wasn't a good reason for it, you know that's not good for you.
But apparently that argument that Nelson did use did not, of course, did not sway the jury.
But again, they were not really fact-based, I don't think.
What do you think about the question of whether you should wear a mask after vaccination?
There's Dr. Amesh Adalja.
Let me see if I can read his name right.
Adalja. Dr.
Amesh Adalja. And he's a senior scholar at the Center for Health and Security.
So he's got some credentials.
And he says that the preponderance of evidence supports the fact that vaccinated individuals are not able to spread the virus.
So good news, right?
So here's a real doctor who's really looked into it.
So you and I don't have to be the doctor and we don't have to look into it.
And he says that the preponderance of evidence is that you're not going to spread it if you've got the vaccination.
Now, I don't know how that squares with the J&J shot being 77% effective and the other ones being 95% or whatever effective.
If something's only 95% effective or 77% effective, how does that prevent you from shedding it?
You know, in some cases.
But apparently the actual real-world cases of it happening must be so small that it's almost not a thing.
But here's the bad news.
Are you waiting for the bad news? As Dr.
Adalja says...
Vaccinated people probably don't need masks, he says, his opinion, but the cashier doesn't know who is vaccinated.
That's the problem, isn't it?
The store is going to make you wear a mask anyway because they don't know who's vaccinated.
So whether you have a passport or not, and I think those will be found illegal in most states, passport or not, the store is going to say, we don't know.
Wear your mask. You're only going to be in here for a few minutes anyway.
So if I had to predict, I think that there will be sort of a tipping point in which people just won't wear the masks.
And if you want to sell stuff, you're going to have to drop the requirement.
So I think stores at some point are going to ask you to be vaccinated or masked, but they're not going to enforce it because they just can't.
And they don't want to run out of money.
You saw what happened to Coca-Cola when they said things that conservatives didn't like.
It's not good for business.
It's really not good for business.
And at the moment, a store can still get away with making you wear a mask, right?
You're not going to hold it against the store.
But once you're vaccinated and all your friends are vaccinated and then you go to that store and you still have to wear the mask, you might go to a different store that's not going to ask you to do it.
So I think market competition is going to get pushed and pushed and pushed until just something breaks.
And the only people that will ask for masks are people who you just don't have an easy option to go somewhere else.
So I think market competition will get rid of masks in a few months.
Very interesting things happening with gun control.
And I did not see this coming.
Which is that even if the federal government puts more restrictions on guns, the states can just refuse to enforce it.
Because they can refuse to put resources in that way.
So it doesn't make it legal.
They just won't enforce it.
And I guess they have that option.
So to that point...
We've got, I guess, four different states who are moving in that direction that are already there.
So, Arizona, basically they're not going to enforce any new gun restrictions or something along those lines.
Oklahoma, something like that.
Arkansas, something like that.
Montana, something like that.
So, I'll tell you, the one thing that is predictable about the world, it's not predictable.
If you told me that the states...
Yes, basically it's a sanctuary city for guns.
That's exactly what it is.
It's a sanctuary state for guns.
If you had told me that this was something that might have happened, I wouldn't have seen this coming at all.
It's so hard to make a straight-line prediction about any kind of slippery slope.
This is why I don't believe in the slippery slope.
Things do go in a direction until something stops them.
That's true. But you can never predict the thing that will pop up to stop it.
I wouldn't have predicted this.
And it looks like it's pretty solid.
I mean, it looks like pretty good play.
All right. They did that in Kansas quite a while ago.
And people still went to jail, somebody says.
Yeah, there must be cases in which, let's say, there's a Somebody has a firearm in commission of a crime.
I would imagine that that still gets enforced.
Wouldn't you? Alright.
Because the news is a little bit light today, I thought I would take some questions because I know you have some.
Is there anything that you were wondering about?
That you said to yourself, you know, I can't sleep until I hear what Scott says about this.
Would you like to accuse me of anything or challenge me on anything?
Here's one. So the right-lane bandit says, the 60s sexual revolution turned into full-fledged transsexual rights.
And? And?
Progress is something that does go on forever.
So if my progress is your slippery slope, is it a slippery slope?
Because I'd like to see full equal rights for everybody who is an individual.
As long as you're not bothering me or breaking the law.
Why should I care what your sexual preferences are?
Why is in my business what your genitalia is?
Or your genetic makeup?
Why is any of that my business?
So, yes, when something is a good idea, it does keep going.
If you're going to call that a slippery slope, that's more about your impression of where it should go as nothing to do with the quality of the thing.
And, yeah, I think that there'll be enough pushback on the issue of children.
That's probably where things will stop, I would imagine.
When does Kamala take over?
You know, if I'm being objective, Biden's doing a strangely good job.
You know, maybe better than I expected.
Stock market's up.
He's starting to tighten up on immigration because he had no choice.
The Middle East doesn't look like it's going to blow up, especially anytime soon.
He's getting out of Afghanistan.
Now, he's doing some really scary stuff.
Tax increases?
Not a fan.
Like, really not a fan.
The climate change stuff?
You know, I'm not sure he's going the right way on that.
But he's pro-nuclear, as far as we know.
Pro-nuclear is good. Everybody's happy about that, who looks into it anyway.
All right. Tax increases equals stock market down.
Oddly enough, the day Biden said he wanted to increase taxes on capital gains, the market dropped, as it should...
And then it went up to a new high the very next day.
Yeah, the markets, weirdly, the markets don't seem to be as tax-obsessed as you'd think.
They seem profits-obsessed.
Bella says, you're old.
Old people, selfishly, don't care about climate change.
I do. Well, Bella, let me tell you what's different about old people.
Old people have seen more scams than you have.
And when you reach my age, there are things which you see in the news that will make your hair catch on fire at your age that you will have seen dozens and dozens and dozens of times turned out not to be the problem you thought it was.
Until you've been through that cycle, Bella, you have to go through that cycle 10, 20 times until you see the pattern.
The stuff you see in the news is not real.
And if you don't know that, you're going to be very, very worried all of your life.
The news is not real.
It's a narrative.
It's the result of industry forces, economics, personal interest, bias.
It's this weird mix.
Now, Bella, here's why I believe you shouldn't worry.
I'm not telling you that climate change is not real.
And I'm not telling you that somebody shouldn't worry about it.
But humans are really, really good at this.
We're really good at getting ourselves so scared that we think we can't possibly solve this problem, and then we solve it.
You had the energy shortage where we were going to run out of oil.
We didn't. For a hundred years, we thought that humans would run out of food because the population would grow too fast.
Didn't happen. We thought Japan was going to eat our lunch economically because they were growing so fast in the 80s.
Didn't happen. We thought that when I was a kid, there was a certainty that there would be nuclear war with probably the Soviet Union.
Didn't happen. I could go on.
But there's so many of them.
Yeah, AIDS was going to cross over and wipe out heterosexuals as well.
Now, it does pay to panic about these things.
It does pay.
Because it's the panic that makes you work hard enough to make sure that they don't become a problem, right?
Now, sometimes things are pretty bad.
I would say the pandemic was pretty darn bad, but was the pandemic as bad as you thought it would be?
I don't know. It depends on how bad you thought it would be.
I'm going to tell you something that I haven't said publicly before.
Early on in the pandemic, I got a phone call.
From somebody, many of you would perhaps recognize his name, but not everybody.
But somebody who really, really knows what they're talking about.
As in, you would replace your own opinion with this person's opinion because they have so much credibility and they're so smart.
And that person told me that the virus...
It was going to be a total meltdown of society.
And that we would have military rule, complete breakdown of order, supply chains broken, and basically just effed.
No, it was not Naval.
And I've never been more scared about the world...
Than that night. Let's just say I didn't sleep well.
Yeah, you can stop guessing who it is.
You're not going to guess. But no, it wasn't Cernovich.
But that's a good guess. I'm just saying there was somebody who understands the, let's say, the math of pandemics.
So somebody who's way more in the sweet spot of this.
And I've never been more scared.
About a news story, period.
Now, I've told you before, I don't really have physical fear of really much of anything.
But that was just chilling.
Now, I had an alternate opinion.
My opinion was...
I see somebody saying, Weinstein, that's a good guess...
In the sense that that would be a voice that would be as credible as somebody who would understand the math of it.
But it wasn't him. Stop guessing.
You're not going to guess. Doesn't matter.
So here's the point.
I had a competing opinion, which is that we would figure a way out.
And that we would figure out how to do it.
And we did.
So who was right?
Was my friend who really knew what he was talking about and scared the hell out of me.
I would say his vision of where it could have gone didn't happen.
My version was that we would not run out of food and that it would not be martial law.
We did not run out of food.
The economy did not collapse.
It took a big hit.
It didn't collapse. And here we are.
And I think we're on the other side of it.
And part of what I predicted is that we would do way better than people imagined in therapeutics and vaccines.
That was part of my prediction.
So, you remember, those of you who watched me since last year, you remember that I was more optimistic...
About the pandemic than most people.
And so far, I would say that at least that level of optimism was appropriate.
So, Bella, if you're still watching, it is a crime what the news is doing to you because they're selling you on some level of certainty that never exists, never has, never will.
We cannot predict things 20 years in the future.
Nobody can. And we will have developed so much technology and understanding and better ways to do things in 20 years that you can't even imagine.
So, when the news is trying to scare you, just remember there's an agenda.
The CNN said directly that they need scary content and they're going to try to scare you with climate change.
They don't say it that way, so I'm interpreting for them.
And here you are. There is a reason that you're afraid, but it's not because of the facts.
You're afraid because of the way the facts are presented to you.
If I had to tell you what you should worry about the most, climate change wouldn't even be in the...
Top 20. And it's not because it isn't real.
It's because we know how to do this stuff.
We're really, really good at it.
And if you give us 20 years, us meaning humanity, give us 20 years, we can fix almost anything if we're dedicated to it.
Alright, any more questions?
Yeah, look at just nuclear energy.
You look at the...
Let's say that the mood about nuclear energy just from the last five years might be my imagination, but I'm pretty sure that the public's understanding of the risk of nuclear is that the risk is way less, I mean, way, way less than people imagined.
Way, way less. I mean, it's minuscule.
It's less risk than almost anything else we can do, historically speaking.
And we should get better in the future, not worse.
But I think you could even hear somebody like an AOC say, she's open to the argument.
That's a big deal, right?
AOC is basically open to the argument on nuclear, which I feel she probably means she's ready to be persuaded, just isn't making that an issue at the moment.
All right. Got any other questions?
Thank you, Hollywood, for nuclear fear.
Yeah, I'll bet that's true.
Hollywood's a big part of that.
Let's talk about Bill Gates' idea to spray crap in the atmosphere to block the sun is dangerous.
Well, here's the thing.
Think about any technology that works.
I'm going to invent this big metal thing that's going to fly through the air.
And it'll be flying at hundreds of miles per hour, but don't worry, we'll figure out how they can land safely.
That didn't sound like a good idea, did it?
Would you be one of the first ones to get in that airplane?
I don't think so. How about a nuclear power plant?
Let's take this stuff that killed hundreds of thousands of people in Japan and make it into a power source and put it in your backyard.
Sounds like a good idea, doesn't it?
Well, for the most part, with the exceptions of the poorly designed ones like Chernobyl, we've been fine, right?
It's actually been the safest technology.
So, there are no examples of, you know...
These big, intrusive kinds of technologies that affect your body that didn't look like a bad idea at one point.
So here's what an engineer would know, and I'm guessing if you're afraid of it, maybe you're not one.
Back me up. Engineers.
I know I have a lot of engineers watching this.
Back me up. That the way you would approach this, and the idea is that you put...
I forget what the... What the material is, but something you would put in the air that would block the sun just enough to compensate.
If you were an engineer, how would you approach it?
Would you do everything all at once and then just find out if it worked?
Or would you put a little bit up there and see what happened?
Now my guess is that it's exactly the kind of thing you could test small, And it probably dissipates after some point, whatever it is.
So could you put some up there?
Do a lot of human testing to make sure that people weren't dying?
Keep this option in your back pocket, and don't use it unless the hurricanes start destroying the world.
So here are the things which, if your immediate thought is it's the worst thing in the world, here's what you're missing.
If you can't test it small...
In a way that you really know that you could expand it safely.
If you couldn't successfully know on a small-scale test, you wouldn't do a big test.
So when you're saying to yourself they want to block out the sun, what you should have said is they want to run a small-scale test, and then we'll know if that's dangerous.
If it's not, we might run a slightly bigger test and sort of inch into it.
Or we might do the test and then just keep the option in our back pocket, knowing that we've not tested as the best you could ever test, but we've tested.
In case there's a global emergency and everything's just falling apart, it's 30 years from now and we just need to do something.
As a last-ditch effort, maybe.
Right? Because even, let's take the vaccination.
If I said to you, there's no risk at all of getting the coronavirus, but we'd like you to get a vaccination, would you do it?
No! No!
If I told you there's no risk of you getting the coronavirus, you're not going to take the risk of the vaccination, as small as that is.
It's just extra risk for nothing.
So people don't take risks until the risk-reward is so bad that the risk is worth it.
So what is the risk of putting some junk in the air and it blots out the sun and destroys the earth?
Pretty big risk, unless you've tested it small.
And then you've got a good idea of what's going to happen.
And unless things are so bad that you're a little desperate.
But if you imagine that it's implemented in the worst possible way, then everything's a bad idea.
Nothing annoys me more than somebody will come up with an idea and the critic will say, well, assume it's implemented in the dumbest possible way.
If it's a government program, maybe that's fair.
But if it's Elon Musk, I'll just pick a name, right?
Or Bill Gates, do you think they're going to implement it in the dumbest possible way?
I don't think so.
Somebody says that's playing God.
It's all playing God.
It doesn't matter whether you're blocking the sun or putting on sunscreen.
Do you wear clothes?
That's not a real argument.
Am I describing the COVID response?
In a sense. Yeah, the COVID warp speed vaccinations is something you wouldn't do unless the alternative was so horrible that it was worth the risk.
So that's exactly where we're at.
Do I ever persuade for pay?
I can't think of a time I've done that.
Maybe I have. But not actively.
Alright, other questions?
Have I heard of that person?
Probably not. You have almost zero risk.
Alright, let me see. I thought I saw a good question coming by there.
Saying that oil is limited has been the way oil companies have been scamming us.
No, oil was limited.
But we developed new technologies, especially fracking.
So oil was limited.
That was real. Am I getting asked to do speaking engagements?
Well, I have been asked to do some virtual ones, but I'm not interested in those.
So I'm not open for speaking at the moment.
Fourth stimulus check?
I don't know.
I don't have an opinion on that.
No, you're trying to guess what story I said disappeared, but it wasn't that one.
Did I see Bella back here?
What's your economic view of petrodollars?
I haven't really looked into that.
Any Clubhouse updates?
I haven't been using Clubhouse.
I've been avoiding interviews.
Thoughts on Tesla energy?
What is Tesla energy?
Just the batteries, you mean? I think that's the future.
The future will be Having your own battery at your house.
I don't see any way that won't be the future.
Plans for a new book.
Well I'm thinking about it.
Thinking about a new book.
Will I go on Gutfeld?
You know, if I get out of my media hibernation, I will.
I would enjoy that.
By the way, if you're not watching the new Gutfeld show that's on at 11pm weekdays on the East Coast, 8pm on the West Coast, it's the best thing on at that time.
Literally, it's the best thing on at that time.
What's this? What would you ask Donald Trump if you had the opportunity to talk with him?
Well, Mustafa, I did have the opportunity to talk with him.
I was invited to the Oval Office in 2018, and I actually got to chat with him.
I can't tell you everything we talked about.
It wasn't like, you know, national secrets.
But... I don't know if I asked...
Oh, I did ask him a question.
Yeah, I did ask him a question.
But I can't tell you what it was.
Because that would have been part of a private conversation.
Do you like my thinking about you tweet?
I don't know if I've seen them.
Oh, here's an interesting question.
Will Larson says, Christianity as a system.
What do you think about confession?
I'm a fan. I'm a fan of anything that religion has been doing long enough to know that it works.
And it does appear to me that this process of Catholic confession feels like a useful thing.
It feels like that is a way to relieve some burden.
So I think it's time-tested.
I'm very much in favor of religion, although I don't have one.
I'm not a believer.
But Objectively speaking, it's just obviously good for a lot of people in a lot of different ways.
Gives them structure, gives them something to live for.
It's 90% good, and then 10% nothing's perfect.
Do you still ride your motorized bike?
You mean my e-bike? I do, just waiting for the weather to get a little bit better.
Your thoughts on Freud?
Well, I think Freud has been debunked, right?
I don't think there are any modern people, modern psychologists, who believe that Freud was anything but fraud.
I don't think anybody believes him still.
Frank TV. Is Frank TV the Lindell TV? I've only seen that word in the news, and I didn't know what it referred to.
But I think it's Mike Lindell's, right?
Oh, somebody bought two of them and you love them.
Nobody doesn't like them.
I'll bet there's no such thing as anyone who's ever bought an e-bike, you know, an electronic assist bike.
I'll bet no one's ever bought one who regretted it.
It is just one of the coolest products of all time.
You really, you can't really just look at somebody riding one and understand.
You have to be on it.
Like, otherwise you just don't get it and then you get it immediately.
Yeah, it's a totally different experience.
It's not like...
It's not really a bicycle.
It's not a motorcycle.
It makes you feel like you have superpowers, so it's cool.
What do you think of dreams?
You know, that's an interesting question.
Because one of my hypotheses is, isn't it weird that we dream?
It doesn't make sense, does it?
It doesn't feel like dreaming should be necessary.
It feels like we would have evolved out of it or something.
But here's my simulation theory.
That if we are a game, in other words, if this thing we think is our reality is actually a video game, and that some of us, maybe not all of us, have a human player or some alien or something who is basically...
Inhabiting us for the purpose of the game, sometimes they take time off in their world.
What if when you're dreaming, that's the time that your real-world operator of you as an avatar is simply doing something else and they're not playing the game?
And when they're not playing the game, you just go unconscious and random firings of your brain.
So it could be that the only time you're awake is when you're You know, your character player is inhabiting you.
Or? Or you just need sleep.
Alright. You just lost the game.
Yeah, if you die, I think you lose the game.
So why do dogs dream?
Do they? Well, good question.
That would be a flaw in the plan, wouldn't it?
Unless people, unless dogs are inhabited by players.
I guess you couldn't rule that out.
Do you believe in manifesting talents?
I don't know what you mean in that context.
I believe in collecting talents that stack up well.
There's a Biden crypto attack.
I don't know what you're talking about.
Is Biden trying to limit cryptocurrency somehow?
Have I tried DMT? No.
I don't think I need it.
Let me explain. When you talk to somebody who's tried DMT, they'll tell you how it changed their worldview.
But it usually changes it to what my worldview already is.
So, while I'm sure I would enjoy the experience, I don't know that I need to change my worldview to what it already is.
Read the book, Why We Sleep.
Yeah, I realize there's a biological necessity.
What is the result if we eliminate the narratives?
What's that question? What end result do Dems and the MSN want after eliminating conservatives?
Well, power. You know, everybody wants power and ratings and all the usual stuff.
Power, money, ratings, influence.
Oh, the SEC is going after crypto.
Well, that's no surprise.
They have to. I don't know that you can have a country if it doesn't have control of its currency.
Maybe it can. I'm saying asteroid is greater than the Earth.
Somebody keeps writing here.
Is there an asteroid heading for the Earth?
I'm not aware of that.
Taiwan tried to get nuclear weapons.
I'm surprised they haven't.
Maybe they have them. Do we know for sure that Taiwan doesn't have nuclear capability?
Would we know? I don't know.
It seems like exactly the kind of place you'd want to put it.
Yeah, Biden's capital gains tax increased to 40%.
I like to think that the Republicans are never going to let that happen.
It might be just a big first offer.
Did I watch the launch?
I did not. Will China invade Taiwan?
I don't know if they need to.
That's the bad part.
I think that China can just keep surrounding Taiwan and putting pressure on in a thousand different ways until some opportunity comes up where they can make their move.
I don't know that they'll do it militarily or that they'll need to, but I would say it's inevitable.
I don't see any future in which Taiwan remains independent, if you look 100 years in the future.
Governor Jenner, yeah.
I guess Caitlyn Jenner is thinking about running for governor.
That would be interesting.
All right, that's all I've got for now, and I will talk to you tomorrow.
