Episode 1367 Scott Adams: Climate Racism, Tucker and Vaccinations, Facebook Trump Ban Fake News, Weaponized Virus and More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Fake News: Facebook Oversight Board
Male pattern baldness and COVID risk
Tucker Carlson vs Scott Adams
Shell game: crowded border holding facilities
2020 census and voter discrepancy
Azerbaijan President on media freedom
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Because today will be the finest coffee with Scott Adams.
All day long, really.
It'll be the best one. And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker, chalicers, dine, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And if you have not participated, oh again, I feel sorry for you.
But it's happening now.
Go! Ah, yeah.
That's good. So, let's talk about the news.
How many of you believe this is true news?
This will be a test of your BS detectors.
Is it true or false that a Facebook oversight board upheld Facebook's suspension of Trump's account?
Go. In the comments, is that a real story or is it fake that the oversight board of Facebook agreed with Facebook to keep Trump suspended?
Go. I'm looking at your comments.
I see true, not real, false.
True, true, false.
Fake, fake.
Yes, fake, true.
Interesting. Now, all of you who are saying it's true, what do you think of the people that you can see in the comments saying it's not true?
Does that give you any feeling that maybe your confidence should be shaken?
Yeah, and somebody said, if you're asking, it must be fake.
Well, you are correct.
Turns out it's fake news.
Here's what the news really is.
The opposite. The opposite.
It's the opposite.
It's not even like close.
It's literally the frickin' opposite.
Now, I didn't know this because I was reading CNN and Fox News, but then I went to Axios and I got a whole different story.
Here's the real story.
Can you believe this?
This will blow your mind if you think that that was true.
Here's the real story.
That the Oversight Board basically said, let's see, here's one of them summarizing it, just one member of the Oversight Board.
We felt it a bit lazy of Facebook to be sending over to us a penalty suggestion that didn't exist in their own rulebook, so to speak, in their own community standards.
And this was the Danish, former Danish Prime Minister who was on the board who said that.
He said, we are not here to lift responsibility off of Facebook.
We're here to be independent.
And so basically what they did is they sent it back to Facebook and said, why isn't this either a permanent ban, which we could evaluate, because permanent bans are part of what Facebook says they can do, or a temporary, say, six months or whatever the time limit is, ban.
That's different. That's really different.
Because according to the Oversight Committee, the Oversight Committee apparently would have been fine letting Facebook put Trump back on, as long as he had been treated the same way as everybody else.
So what the Oversight Board said was, you didn't follow your own rules, and therefore we don't support the ban.
Now they didn't say, He should be banned or he should not be banned.
I have to be really careful here.
They basically said, you didn't even follow your own rules, so don't ask us to rule on your own rules when this isn't even close to them.
Go back and figure out if he's permanently banned, and then we'll rule on that.
Or go back and say he's banned for a certain amount of time, which is also part of your standard.
And we'll rule on that.
But don't tell us there's some ambiguous ban that doesn't have a time and it's not permanent.
Because it's not in the rules.
So, now think about how that was reported to you.
Does that make you angry?
You should be a little bit angry that this was reported as these people upheld the ban.
What they did was just say it's not even appropriate to ask us the question.
It's so inappropriate the way you've handled it that we can't even rule on it.
That's pretty much the opposite of upholding the ban.
They basically said the ban is illegitimate as is.
Go back and do something that's legitimate.
Yeah, Dorothy says I'm speechless.
Just think about how abused you were by that news.
Now, I've decided to start reading Axios Because my understanding is that they're attempting to be some kind of non-left, non-right, you know, more medium of the road, less biased.
I don't know if they can pull that off.
That's a pretty hard standard to pull off.
But I'm going to start watching them because they did report this accurately and everything else I saw reported it inaccurately.
As far as I know. Maybe Axios is wrong.
Who knows? Maybe.
So here's another more on that topic.
Larry Elder tweeted out that Facebook banned Trump for saying, since November 2020, that the election was, quote, stolen by Hillary Clinton since November 2016, has said the same thing.
And he showed a bunch of quotes of Hillary Clinton.
So he's saying, why was Trump banned for saying the election was illegitimate?
When Hillary was not.
Well, I saw some pushback to this saying those are different situations and Hillary was not saying that our election was rigged.
But I think she was.
Just a different way.
I think the idea that Hillary was promoting was that Russia had corrupted the election somehow.
That's the same.
It's a different situation.
But in terms of Questioning the integrity of our election without actually having any evidence whatsoever looks the same to me.
To me, it looks the same.
So in terms of whether both of them or neither of them should have been kicked off of Facebook.
Now, it's kind of amazing that as long as you've got the majority with you, let's say, you know, 60% of the country or whatever it is.
I'll just make up a number for conversation.
As long as most of the country is willing to accept a lie, you don't have to tell the truth.
If 60% of the country is willing to just act like it's true, even if they know it's not, in this case, the situation is treating Trump differently than Hillary Clinton.
Now, as long as the public is willing to treat them as different, I guess you could get away with it.
It doesn't matter if it's true.
Here's something that makes me wonder if we've solved a little mystery or not about the virus.
You know, we've been wondering why it is that the Asian countries have been doing so well in avoiding the virus, the worst parts of the virus, and non-Asian countries, especially mostly white ethnic countries, Are doing poorly, often.
Not every time. So, there's a little bit of new information here.
Now, we don't know if this will be, you know, who knows if future studies will uphold this, but this is what we think we know right now.
That bald men are up to 2.5 times more likely to suffer severe COVID stuff than people with a full head of hair.
Now, your first take on that is, oh, Scott, you're in trouble.
And you might be right about that.
But here's maybe the answer to why it's affecting different ethnic groups differently.
Now, male pattern baldness, and by the way, let me be clear here.
I'm now going to veer from stuff that may or may not be true, because it's reported in the news, and now I'm going to go into complete speculative territory, okay?
So everything you hear from now on about this topic, just speculation.
So it's not a false claim, it's just speculation.
But is it propaganda?
Well, you decide. It probably is.
If it's true that male pattern baldness is a big indicator of how bad it's going to be, who has the most male pattern baldness?
Well, it turns out white people do.
By a big percentage.
So Asian men have much less hair loss than American men.
Now, interestingly, the thing that causes this hair loss is a sensitivity to male hormones.
So bald people don't necessarily have more testosterone and male hormones.
They're simply more sensitive to it.
So my male pattern baldness, in all likelihood, don't know if it's for every person specifically, but in all likelihood, what it's telling you If you see somebody with male pattern baldness, is that their body, for whatever genetic reason, is more susceptible to male hormones.
In other words, you're more likely to be alpha.
Here's the fun part.
I'll just wait for everybody to get mad.
Bald people, bald men, are more likely to have, let's say, toxic male chemistry.
Do I have toxic male chemistry?
Probably. If you've watched me at all, if there's anything that I would criticize myself for that sounds pretty fair, I'm pretty sure I have a high dose of male chemistry.
Now, whether you equate that to being alpha or beta or anything else, well, that's, again, more speculative and...
I don't have data to prove that, but I have heard that at least that it is possible to detect who has more testosterone.
Have you ever heard that? Have you heard that people can detect who has more testosterone, or at least who is more influenced by it, I guess would be the other way to say it.
Yeah, I think you can.
So would it be...
Now I'm going to speculatively connect a whole bunch of dots...
What I say next is not confirmed or there's no evidence for it, right?
There's no evidence for this.
I'm just speculating.
Suppose you were a Chinese company and you were trying to create a virus that if it got out of the lab would be really bad for your competitors but not nearly as bad for your own team.
What would it look like?
And what would be a clever way to do it?
Well, you would certainly want a virus that didn't affect ethnic Chinese people, or even people in your area, you know, Asian people in general.
You'd want it to affect mostly white people.
Now again, I'm not saying that any of this happened.
I'm saying if you were to create a virus for the purpose of destroying your competition, and if you were China, You would create one that would target people who were not you and also were the people that you worried about the most in terms of long-term competition as a country.
So here we have this virus that some people think was a weaponized, modified virus that does seem to target White alpha males who tend to be the warlike people in the United States.
So does that mean that, therefore, it's a weaponized virus?
No. No.
It doesn't mean that at all.
But if you were going to make one, This would be a pretty good way to do it.
Here are the differences.
A 2010 study from six Chinese studies found that fewer than 3% of men, younger men, and just over 13% of those over 30, experienced male pattern baldness, which is way, way less than Americans, where Caucasian men, pretty much all of them have some baldness, but around half can expect to lose their hair by middle age.
So you've got 14% versus half.
Now, you could ask yourself, is it a coincidence, just a coincidence, that a natural virus happens to look a lot like the way a weaponized virus would look if you made it?
Yes, that could be a coincidence.
Easily could be a coincidence, because coincidences happen.
So I'm not going to say that this teaches you anything except it's a red flag.
I mean, I would certainly be looking really hard at anything that took out all the alpha white males and didn't affect so much Chinese nationals.
It's a red flag.
Speaking of red flags, there are more ex-girlfriends of rocker Marilyn Manson...
Accusing him of abusive behavior.
Now, as I tweeted just before I got on, I don't care about anybody who resists arrest or dates Marilyn Manson.
Because if you didn't see that coming, I can't help you.
Right? You have to do a little bit for yourself.
Right? I'm happy to help people who get themselves in trouble.
I'm happy to help people who are just unlucky.
But you have to do a little bit.
Like, just work with me.
Just a little bit on your own.
Like, don't date Marilyn Manson.
What do you got, 3.5 billion other possibilities?
I'm only going to rule out the one.
Maybe, you know, maybe Jeffrey Epstein, if he were still alive.
I might rule him out. But basically, just don't date Marilyn Manson.
And don't get aggressive with police who are stopping you.
If you just do those two little things, then I'm on your side.
I could help you.
Bad luck? I'm there for you.
Need a little helping hand?
I feel like I could do that.
You want a little advice?
I got it. Maybe some people need some money?
Okay. Depends if you can make good use of it, if it'll help.
Well, you've got to do a little, just a little, on your own.
I asked this question, and you'll know why immediately.
I did a little informal poll, and I said, who would you trust on a health question in the news?
Tucker Carlson or me?
Let's see how you answer here on this livestream.
Who would you trust...
Let's say there was a health question in the news...
You know that Tucker Carlson is not a doctor.
You know that I'm not a doctor.
So neither of us have any medical or scientific credentials.
So if we disagreed, who would you trust?
Looking at your comments, can't tell, can't tell.
Somebody says Fox is owned by Big Pharma.
Somebody says you, Tucker.
You, Tucker. You, you.
Neither, neither. Both, neither.
Well, you can't be both because the setup is that we disagree.
All right. Here's how I would make that decision if I were you.
I would look at who has the broader talent stack that is appropriate to the question.
Who would you prefer, let's say, I won't use myself, Nate Silver, who is an expert on statistics, and also not a doctor.
So if you had to trust Nate Silver, who is an expert on analytical data, statistical things, versus Tucker Carlson, and let's say they had a disagreement about a health issue that's in the news, so they have the same information, but they have a different difference.
Who would you trust? In that case, well, if you trusted Tucker Carlson, you would be trusting the person with a smaller talent stack.
Because Nate would be more qualified, just on the analytical level.
Doesn't mean he'd be right, right?
But he'd be more qualified.
Even though neither of them are medical, one of them can look at the data better.
Is that fair? Now, suppose it was Tucker Carlson and then me, and we disagreed on a health issue.
Neither of us are experts.
Which of us has the talent stack that is appropriate to sorting out that kind of question?
I would argue that you should go with somebody who has analytical background.
You know, economics, business, statistics, and that that person would probably have a little bit of an advantage over somebody who might have been more of a journalism path.
Now, I don't know if that's true.
I don't know what Tucker Carlson's full background is, so maybe there's more there that I'm aware of, but that's what you would take into account.
Then I would ask, who has fallen for more hoaxes?
And I'd like to see this in the comments.
In the comments, And let's only count hoaxes that we know are hoaxes.
Because there are things that you still suspect are hoaxes, but we don't have an answer to them.
But who has fallen for more hoaxes?
In the comments.
Who has fallen for more hoaxes?
I'm looking at your comments and I'm seeing it looks like mixed.
So some say me, some say Tucker takes more risks.
That's probably true. Some say me, me, you.
Alright, what would be the examples of the hoaxes I've fallen for?
Now watch this.
So a lot of people say that I've fallen for more hoaxes.
Now list them. Please list the hoaxes that I've fallen for.
So the Covington kids, I fell for that hoax for one day from a Rupard video.
So that one's on my bad list, right?
Is that it? The find people hoax I debunked.
Climate change, we don't know what that is, right?
That's still an open question.
Bill Gates UFOs.
Well, I'm right about all that.
The bird UFO. I'm right about that.
If you think I'm wrong about the UFOs, well, good luck with you there.
COVID fear. No, you're just misstating my opinion.
Global warming.
Now, most of you who think that I've fallen for hoaxes on climate change, etc., would not be able to describe my opinion.
So here's the challenge.
Anybody who thinks that I've fallen for a hoax, see if you could describe my opinion in your words.
Bet you can't. I'll bet you can't.
All right, so that was interesting. Now, I don't know that there's any right answer to this, but then I would also say, who predicted better?
If you've watched Tucker and me...
Which one of us has predicted better?
I don't know. But I think it's probably me.
But I don't know.
Somebody says masks.
Now, there are a bunch of topics in which you cannot yet determine who is right or wrong, but you can determine that I'm on the side of science.
So there may be some things where we disagree, but my opinion agrees with science.
I might be wrong.
Alright, let's go on.
The new study that says salt is bad for your immune system.
If you get too much salt, your immune system isn't going to fight off the COVID as well or anything else.
And here's my question.
Why is the universe designed in a way that if there's anything we shouldn't do, it's something we wanted to do?
You know, there's...
Well, I suppose that makes sense because we wouldn't be doing it if we didn't want to do it.
But... The level of coincidence that whenever there's a new scientific breakthrough, it's always going to be don't do something you want to do.
Right? It's like the things I want to do are eat bad food, look at my phone, have reckless sex, whatever.
But can't do any of that stuff.
And I guess there's a reason for that because nature used to take care of that.
But nature doesn't do that anymore.
Now you have to figure out how much salt to eat.
This is funny in a bad way.
So apparently even at least one Democrat is criticizing Biden and the administration.
So Representative Quaylar is pointing out that they're showing photographs of now their uncrowded and almost empty facilities for holding the children at the border, the immigrants coming in.
And apparently it's just a shell game.
All they did was they took the crowded kids out of this place, and they moved them next door to the Health and Human Services tents.
So they moved them from indoors to outdoors in tents.
But here's what's funny about this.
As long as the Biden administration can give you a photograph of the old places that now don't have much crowding, and they don't show you a photograph of the new place they moved them to, They win.
They win. Because the photo is all that matters.
That's it. The Biden administration is getting the persuasion on this completely right.
They knew all they had to do is one fake photo of a seemingly empty facility, even though they just moved them to probably another crowded tent facility next door.
That's all they needed. And it worked.
So the fact that the critics of the administration are calling it out, well, of course they knew they would be caught.
Do you think that they did this trick thinking they wouldn't get caught?
No. They knew they'd get caught.
They also knew it wouldn't matter.
Because the truth will be the photograph in people's minds.
That's the truth. And the fact that people that the left doesn't follow say it's fake news, they won't see it.
Totally successful persuasion.
Totally unethical, but totally successful.
There's new reporting says, this is also Axios, that the distribution of global greenhouse gas emissions has reached a point where China is...
Emitting more than all the developed nations combined.
Wow. So, climate change is basically a China problem.
Meaning that if China were not doing what it's doing, it would be half of the size of the problem and probably pretty solvable.
Right? Now, I knew that China was a big part of the problem.
I didn't know it was half.
Did you know that? I mean, if you had asked me in a survey, how much is China as part of the problem, I would have said 25%.
I might have thought India, 25%.
That's what I would have guessed.
But China, 50% and growing.
It's not going down, it's going up fast.
So, somehow the left has managed to make climate change a race problem.
So they've combined their favorite topics and said climate change is racist.
But it sort of should be.
Climate change is a China problem.
And that would be an important reframing, but I don't think it's going to happen.
Speaking of climate, the Biden administration is, at least privately, saying that it wants to prop up the nuclear energy business in the United States with subsidies.
Taxpayer subsidies. So apparently there are three sources that say this is true.
I'm going to have to give credit to the Biden administration.
Now, I think this is a continuation from the Trump policy that nuclear energy needed to be important.
But let me say this about both Trump and Biden, about nuclear power.
I believe they were both complete failures.
Total failures.
Trump, Biden, complete failures.
Because they're trying to have it both ways.
They're trying to quietly support nuclear power.
Which both Trump and Biden apparently are doing in substantial ways.
So the amount that they're supporting it quietly looks pretty good, actually.
I don't have a complaint about that.
There do seem to be lots of resources.
They built test beds.
Trump started that. Biden looks like he wants to give them subsidies to keep them going.
So they're definitely doing the right stuff on the details.
What they're not doing is saying it out loud.
I don't know why Trump didn't.
Maybe he was just uncomfortable with the topic, because it veers into the scientific pretty quickly.
So I don't know what's going on.
But I would say they're both complete failures in informing the public that nuclear has to be a big part of our solution.
Complete failures. I mean, 100% complete failure, Biden and Trump, on this issue.
While at the same time, their administration is doing all the right stuff.
Which is weird. That they could both be completely successful and 100% failures at the same time, but it's happening.
Here's a provocative little story that I'm going to say is more likely fake news than real.
The 2020 census, apparently, Shows that the number of voters is 5 million less than the number of votes for the last election.
So in other words, the number of people who reported that they voted, according to the census, is 5 million fewer than the number of votes we got.
Now, when you hear that, you say to yourself, we got it.
We got this smoking gun.
So now we know...
That there are a whole bunch of fake votes, right?
Don't fall for this.
Do not fall for this.
If you've fallen for this, you're falling for anything.
You should not trust this.
All right, here's some background.
Have they ever been wrong before?
Yeah. Yeah, they've been wrong before by big numbers, like 9 million, one previous census.
But apparently they were usually wrong, or almost always, in the other direction.
So this is the first time they've been wrong in this direction.
Does that mean anything?
If they've been wrong before, also by large amounts, but lots of times they've been right...
But the only times they've been wrong was in the other direction.
So does that tell you that you know something?
Is that a smoking gun for some kind of election problems?
No. No it isn't.
It doesn't tell you anything.
It just tells you that the number of people who voted and the census don't always match.
That's all I hear. If you take it to the next level and say, well, there it is, smoke and gun.
We found all these fake votes.
That's a little too far.
Now, we can't rule it out.
Does it make me curious?
Oh, yeah, it does. Is it a red flag?
Yeah, it is. Yeah, well, or maybe whatever is less than red.
But you should definitely look into it.
So I'm not saying it's unimportant.
I would definitely want to get a little bit more information about this.
But I don't think that it necessarily is any kind of proof that there was some bad stuff going on.
Because it could be inaccurate for a variety of reasons.
And as others have pointed out, I think this was, if it's 2020, the census was taken during the pandemic.
So, I don't know.
And how many people decided to vote, let's say, in the last month or two of the election?
I have a feeling a lot of people didn't even make up their mind to vote until the last few months.
So if they did the census, let's say started in the beginning of 2020, how many people said they were going to vote?
I can easily imagine that 5 million said they weren't going to and then did.
So I've got questions about this.
There's some news, if I can call it that, coming out of the Arizona...
The Arizona recount? Don't believe any of it.
So here's my advice to you.
Everything that you hear coming out of the Arizona recount, Because I read some stories today that I just shook my head and I said, these are obviously fake news.
Now, could be wrong, but wait until you've got a few respectable outlets or there's somebody who goes on camera that you know is associated with them and that person says, on camera, yes, we found this or that.
But don't look at an obscure publication on the internet That tells you that they've found something already.
They might have. I'm not ruling it out.
I'm just saying I don't think we have any visibility yet.
So don't believe any of the early reports.
Did you know that Coca-Cola has paused its controversial diversity plan, which included penalties on outside law firms if they failed to meet racial diversity quotas So they wouldn't even deal with law firms that did not have enough diversity in the law firm.
Well, apparently the guy behind all that, their former general counsel, Bradley Gayton, has abruptly resigned last month after less than a year on the job and lots of criticisms of the quotas.
And here's what I'd like to know.
First of all, Did he leave his job because people were unhappy with him?
We assume so, but we don't know for sure.
And I wonder how many other stories there are of people losing jobs for being too woke.
Because the more of those stories you hear, the less of the wokeness problems you'll get.
Because people deal with anecdotes, not data, right?
So if you hear a story about somebody who went too far and got fired...
That puts a little damper on people going too far.
Likewise, the story about Basecamp, the company that said you can't talk about politics anymore, which basically was a war on wokeness.
You know, it was in disguise.
But it said you can't talk about politics anymore.
And 20% of the workplace left.
In essence, they lost their jobs for being too woke.
It was voluntary, but they lost their jobs.
So, as we find more of these, that will be the thing that pushes back against, you know, the slippery slope.
Here's how I would like to...
we should talk about racists.
I think we should talk about racism as being something that happens on the extreme left and the extreme right, but does not affect ordinary Republicans or ordinary Democrats.
And if anybody's on this live stream who leans Democrat, I just have to tell you this personal experience.
So for as long as I've been talking about Trump stuff and dealing with Republicans and conservatives, mostly my audience leans right, I have not encountered one example, ever once, of a Republican...
Who criticized a black conservative?
I've never heard it.
Because if you believe that Republicans are a bunch of racists, you think to yourself, yeah, but behind closed doors, what do the white people say about Tim Scott?
What do they say behind closed doors?
I've been behind a lot of closed doors in the sense of private conversations.
With people who would assume I agreed with them on enough things that they could speak freely.
I've never heard it.
I've never heard it.
How many conservatives have you heard who have criticized Candace Owens?
I've never heard it.
I've heard positive things about her all the time.
I've heard lots of negative from the left.
But I don't think I've heard one Republican...
Say anything bad about Candace Owens.
Behind closed doors, privately.
It just doesn't happen.
And I think there's this whole illusion out there that Republicans have maybe a public look, but behind closed doors is a little bit different.
Don't you think that? Don't you think that behind closed doors, don't you think the Democrats think it's different when we're talking privately?
It's not my experience.
I'm looking at the comments to see if anybody's disagreeing.
I don't see it. So I think it's clear that conservatives judge people by their philosophy and their approach to life.
If you've got the right philosophy and approach to life, you're willing to take responsibility for your own stuff, and you don't want to bug other people too much, Republicans love you.
There's just no exception.
There's just no exception.
And if you think there is, you're living in a horrible illusion, because I would imagine it would be tough to deal with the Republicans if you thought they were saying different things behind closed doors.
So I think a more productive way to look at this, which counters the propaganda from the news, is that the racists are on the extreme left and the extreme right.
But it has nothing to do with Republicans, and it has nothing to do with Democrats.
It's just the extremists on both sides.
The overwoke people are just racist against different groups.
You know, the white supremacist, racist against whatever.
It looks the same to me, so I don't see any difference between extreme left and extreme right.
They're both just horrible racists.
There's a report from the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
I'm guessing this is a British group because of that royal part.
And apparently the climate mental health crisis is pretty, pretty bad.
We've talked about this before.
But 60% of the people in their polls said that climate affects their mental health.
Does climate affect your mental health?
Because if it does, you're definitely doing it wrong.
Here's my advice, and I've been reading some tweets from Ed Latimer today that feels like the same vibe, but different approach.
And it goes like this.
There are things you can control that you should worry about.
There are things you can't control directly, That maybe you should worry less about.
The reason that I don't worry about climate change is not because it's not a problem.
The reason I don't worry about it is that other people are worried about it.
That's good enough for me.
As long as other people are panicked, that means that the resources are going there, the smart people are working on the problem, there's enough intention and energy happening, we'll be fine.
Whenever humans focus on and throw their energy at solving a problem, we kind of do.
We kind of do. So I think this will be no different.
So I'm not worried about it, which is completely different from saying it is or is not a problem.
I do think that no matter what humans are doing to the climate, we humans should reach a point where we can manipulate it.
I think it would be good, no matter what the situation is, if we could learn to Turn the temperature up and down as needed.
Yeah, I know that sounds dangerous, but I think it's a good trade-off.
And then people said, will climate emergencies be a concern in 10 years?
84% said yes, but that just comes from the news.
And then there's the propaganda question.
So think about these three questions on a survey.
Two of them are sort of legitimate, and the third one is a question that is really persuasion.
It's really sneaky.
It's totally unethical in my opinion.
But it comes from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and I guess they thought it was ethical, so we have a disagreement there.
But here's the third question.
First of all, the first two are innocuous.
Does climate affect your mental health?
Fair question. Will you still be worried about it in ten years?
Fair question. Now this third one.
See if you think this is fair.
Did you realize climate emergencies contributed to the outbreak of COVID-19?
22% said yes.
That's a statement.
That's not a survey question.
That is trying to Push a fact into a question so that you read this, and if you were not aware of any other facts on this topic, you would come away from this thinking, oh, I didn't realize that.
But the question tells me it's true that climate emergencies, and they use the word emergencies, contributed to the outbreak of COVID-19.
Guess what else?
Let me think. Can you think of another example of something...
That was affected by climate change.
Because their claim is that the COVID-19 thing was affected by climate change.
What other things were affected by it?
Was it everything?
Yes. It was everything.
There wasn't anything that wasn't made worse, except maybe telecommuting.
Traffic, I guess, by climate change and COVID and all that other stuff.
Anything big is affecting everything.
So climate change should affect everything.
Do you think that they...
When they said that climate emergencies, their word, contributed to the outbreak of COVID-19, do you think that they did any cost-benefit?
Do you think they did that?
Do you think they did a cost-benefit and they said, well...
Yes, there were some bad parts of the climate to COVID-19, but it was also a little warmer than it would have been.
So if people got outside and they got more vitamin D, no, they didn't do that, right?
There's no way that they looked at both the costs and the benefits of any climate change.
They just looked at the costs.
You know that without even looking into it, right?
You know that, because they don't in situations like this.
So this is propaganda.
Disguised as a pole.
You should learn to recognize that.
But think about the destruction of the climate compared to the destruction of 60% of the public's mental health.
Which one's worse?
I feel like the destruction of 60% of the public's mental health is worse than a little bit of a rise in the sea level.
Let me give you a choice.
I'll give you these two choices.
You can have a mental health problem forever, or sea level will rise an inch.
Those are your two choices.
Which one do you pick? Right?
You're going to pick the sea level every time because you're not too worried about the sea level, really.
But if you have a mental health problem, that's all day every day.
It's not even close.
So if you said to me, what is a bigger emergency?
Climate change, which I believe all the right people are working on to make that okay in the future, or That the way the news reports this is making 60% of the country sick.
Sick. Because mental health problems is, you know, it's a health problem.
You're sick. These are not even close.
But, like I say, the only reason that there's so many resources working on climate is because 60% of the people are so worried about it they have mental problems.
I feel as if there would be some way to get people to work on it without the mental problems.
Yeah, so the fake news does not blame itself.
You know, you've heard of the military-industrial complex, the idea that the people who sell weapons will work on the government to get them to be starting wars because it's good for business, so the military likes the people who sell them weapons, etc. So it's one big military operation.
And here we have another one, which is the fake news industry and the mental health industry.
Have you noticed that they kind of work together now?
You know, just in the way that the The weapons-making industry is sort of good friends with the military, but a little too good.
You don't want them to be too friendly, right?
They have to be able to work with each other, of course, but you don't want them to be, you know, like that.
That's going to be a problem.
But now we have the fake news industry and the mental health industry working in this circular fashion.
So the fake news makes people sick by the way they report it, And then the mental health people say, hey, it's true, a lot of people are getting sick, and then that becomes news for the fake news business, and then they use that to beat up Republicans, who didn't cause the problem.
The Republicans are the ones who say, don't worry about it.
And whether you should or should not worry about it, it's not causing anybody mental illness.
So that's a pretty ugly situation there.
So climate and racism, the two things that we know from Project Veritas that CNN wants to push as a theme.
So it's climate or racism.
And what do those two things have in common?
They're hard to measure.
You know, you can measure the temperature, but you can't measure what will be the problem in 80 years.
It's just, you can do it, but nobody's going to believe that you got it accurately.
Racism, same thing.
It's so subjective in terms of how you measure it and do you count racism against white people or that doesn't count.
So these things are resistant to data.
So if you're looking for what the fake news loves, look for what a manager of a corporation loves.
Do you know what a manager of a corporation loves?
A situation where the quality of their work It can't be measured, because then they can make any claim.
Well, we can't measure it, but I'm pretty sure all those policies I put in place made everything better.
Just no way to measure it.
Same with climate and racism.
You can beat up Republicans on it all day long, because if things were getting better, how would you know?
How would you know? So beware of ambiguous topics.
Funniest story in the news...
By the way, I think we should be saying that fixing climate change with green technology is racist.
Because it is. If you use green technology, with the exception of nuclear energy, if you use green technology, you're spending more to create energy.
And that locks in the rich people.
They get to stay rich. But poor people don't get to move up because energy costs are too much.
So... Yeah, the green technologies, with the exception of nuclear, are entirely racist.
Mike Cernovich had a tweet where I saw that the president of Azerbaijan was talking to a BBC correspondent, and you just have to see this thing.
It's a thing of beauty.
If you ever want to see a politician...
Just crush a journalist?
I mean, just crush her.
You have to watch this.
And the idea was that he was being asked about freedom of press in his own country.
He responded quite capably.
Now, I'm not going to support him or whatever he is or is not doing, but he answered the question very capably.
By saying that they have full social media in their country, and they don't ban it.
So apparently you can go on Facebook, say whatever you want in Azerbaijan.
Do you know where you can't do that?
The United States.
You can't go on Facebook and say whatever you want if you're in the United States, because then you can get banned for life.
But he's saying, in my country, say whatever you want in Facebook.
Now, of course, Facebook has their own policies, But I don't think the government would be pushing them one way or another.
Maybe they are. Hard to know.
But then he brings up Assange.
And he says, you know, who put Assange in jail and why?
So basically, the president of Azerbaijan is saying, you can't talk to me about freedom of press when Assange is in jail for being a reporter.
And that's it, according to him.
And I would say that's a pretty good argument.
So you have to see how he just dissected this BBC journalist.
On Bannon's War Room podcast, which you should probably watch, I guess there was an author, Joe Allen, talking about transhumanism, which is the idea that your digital identity can go on beyond your mortal life.
So I've told you before...
That I have authorized myself to become a digital AI in the future, if anybody wants to do that.
However, I realized that now with blockchain and with the NFT technology, where any digital work can be, let's say, registered on the blockchain, So you know what is the original, and you can distinguish it from any copies.
Well, someday in the future, there may be many copies of me.
Because if you were developing AI, and you were trying to make it human-like, you would look for somebody who has the most written and spoken words in the world.
That would be me. Not more than everybody in the world.
But I have so much...
Public writing and speaking that you could scoop it all up with AI and then rebuild me in digital form.
But like an NFT, I might authorize or sell one version that will be my soul forever.
And whoever is the owner of that one version will have it registered on the blockchain.
And they will know, forever, that I'm the one that's authorized to be my eternal digital soul.
And any other copies you see, which are authorized, make as many copies as you want, would not be the original.
By the way, I've already told Christina that I will be haunting the hell end of her starting day one of my death.
But it will mostly be in digital form.
I'm going to haunt.
I'm going to haunt her so bad.
Satan will buy it.
Satan will buy by NFT. Okay, that is funny.
So whoever...
Okay, that's really funny.
All right, I'm going to be laughing about that all day.
That Satan could buy my NFT. That's pretty funny.
Alright, I've got one more question for you.
There's some reporting that...
That is funny. There's some reporting that Bill Gates, as you know, he's separating from his wife of 27 years, but there's some reporting in the Daily Mail today that he had an agreement before he got married, he had an agreement with his wife, that he could spend the weekend one time a year with his ex-girlfriend.
Now, what do you think of that?
Now, apparently he even asked his ex-girlfriend for permission, and he even used that word, permission to get married to Melinda.
And then Melinda agreed that he could spend, I think, a weekend or, I don't know, a week, a year or something with his ex-wife, with his ex-girlfriend.
What do you think of that?
Well, here's my question number one.
Let's assume that it was non-sexual.
Okay? So I feel like we can give him the benefit of a doubt that at least everybody assumed it was going to be a non-sexual thing.
Because I didn't hear about her husband, the ex-girlfriend's husband.
I think she had one.
So I think maybe even he was in on it too.
So they seem more like, you know, life friends, etc.
But what do you think of that?
Here's my question specifically.
Would you consider both his marriage and his ex-girlfriend relationship, would you say that his ex-girlfriend's relationship was, quote, intimate?
Not sexually, but But just intimate.
Would you say it was intimate? And if he had two intimate relationships, does it...
Is that marriage?
Are you actually married if you have two intimate relationships, but only one of them is physical?
I'm just looking at your comments now because it's kind of fascinating.
Well, she's 70 years old now, yes, but apparently for 27 years they've been getting together once a year.
So I'm seeing some yeses, nope, just an affair.
Emotional cheating is way worse.
We don't know that it was emotional cheating.
It wasn't, well, actually it's not cheating because it was above board, right?
So here's what we can't call it.
I don't think you can call it cheating.
Because the reporting is that everybody knew everything.
There was no deceit going on that we're aware of.
So it wasn't cheating, but was it two intimate relationships?
I would call it intimate.
That would be my opinion.
And can a marriage survive when there is more than one intimate relationship?
I suppose everybody's different.
Yeah, I'm looking at your answers are all over the board.
It's kind of a... It's quite a mind-bender, isn't it?
When you figure out how other people live.
Somebody says there are open marriages.
Yeah, there are open marriages, but again, nobody's lying to anybody, so it's not cheating.
But is an open marriage, if it's just sexual, is that intimate?
Here's a good question. If two people have just a physical encounter and it doesn't go anywhere else, they're not in love or anything, is it intimate?
I guess it is, just because it's physical.
Somebody says, this is petty.
Who cares? Well, I was just interested how close to the public opinion he was.
And I've got to say, I can't imagine that they stayed married for 27 years, because here's what I'm guessing Melinda Gates thought when she agreed to this.
Pure speculation.
Can't read any minds.
If you were the wife in this situation, let's say the fiancé, and your potential husband said to you, I just want to ask one thing, That once a year I can go off with my ex-girlfriend.
We're just friends now, but we're going to spend a week or whatever together.
Wouldn't you think, if you were the wife, and let's say you agreed to this deal, would you expect that he'd really do it every year?
Or would you expect that he'd do it once, you'd give him tons of attitude when he returned, and then he'd find a reason not to do it again?
Because I don't think any wife who agrees to that think it's really going to last 27 years.
I feel like anybody who agreed to that would think, eh, he might do this once or twice, but I'll talk him out of it.
And then he did it for 27 years.
So I don't see how that marriage could have lasted with that situation.
Now, there's no evidence that that had anything to do with their dissolution.
I wouldn't suggest that.
But... It's a mystery to me how it lasted 27 years.
That seems like something that should have lasted about 7 years.
And at that point she would have said, you know, I really thought you were going to stop doing this after a while.
But 27 years?
Every year? I don't think you missed a year.
I don't know. I don't know how you stay married in that situation.
