Episode 1394 Scott Adams: Fauci Emails, Iran is Near War, Spotting Fake News, Russia Attacks Brain-Dead Biden, More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Governor DeSantis and transgender athletes
Voter suppression before 11AM?
CNN's weaseltastic fake news
Biden on 1921 Tulsa massacre
Fauci emails...what he knew, when
Why is Biden soft on China & Russia?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Well, I've been told that some people miss the simultaneous sip because there's some kind of a 30-second delay or something that happens.
So, let me talk about something else, and then we'll do the simultaneous sip.
Well, I just got my second shot yesterday, my vaccination, Moderna.
And how do I feel the next day?
Well, I'd like to get the license plate of the truck that ran over me.
And then backed up over me.
And then ran over me again.
And then backed up over me.
And then ran over me again.
Because I'm not feeling 100% today.
It's the strangest thing because if you had ever told me, Scott, we're going to schedule a specific illness for you.
It'll be on this day.
Set your watch.
From about this day to about this day, you're going to feel like you got run over by a truck.
Welcome to it. And there's a weird psychology to this that I wasn't expecting.
Which is I was weirdly looking forward to it.
Did anybody have this experience?
Because I don't expect that whatever I'm feeling for two days is going to kill me.
So I don't have any legitimate worry about death or something.
But I did have sort of a competitive feeling and a curiosity about how much the vaccination itself would kick my ass.
And I felt like it was a contest.
And for weeks I've been thinking, bring it on.
Bring it on. Let's see what my body can do.
And I don't know how to explain it, but I was weirdly looking forward to the next two days of feeling bad, and I don't know why that is exactly.
Like, if I understood that, I'd know something about myself.
But I know why you're here.
You'd like the simultaneous sip, and if you'd like to enjoy it to its maximum potential, and don't you?
Yes, you do.
You do.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or gel, a canteen jug, a glass, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid I like, coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine here the day, the thing that makes, oh, everything better.
Everything.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
And it's going to happen now all over the world.
Go.
Go. Go. Go. Go.
Yep, I feel like I'm coming back.
Coming back. Barry, I'm not going to read that comment, but thank you for it.
So, Israel, apparently some researchers have discovered a way to increase the life expectancy of rodents.
So they got 250 rodents, and they changed this protein supply, SIRT6. And I guess when they tweaked that protein, these mice, these rodents, they don't say mice, they say rodents, so could be chipmunks, we don't know.
But these rodents, they lived much longer.
And I would like to thank science for, I don't know, there's one thing that I've thought this world needed more than just about anything, and it was rodents who live much longer.
So good news, Israel has made rodents, at least the possibility that rodents can live a lot longer.
Oh wait, there's more to the story.
Oh, oh, this is good news.
They think they might be able to apply this to humans someday.
Here I thought it was a story about making rodents live longer, but apparently this is more about people, if you really interpret it correctly.
So there's this protein, and they think they might be able to, in three years, they might be able to give you a pill that'll make you live 20% longer.
Do you believe that? Here's one of the advantages of being my age.
If you happen to be a young person watching this, You might have said to yourself, wow, researchers found a way to extend life by 20%?
That must be pretty good.
If you're my age, you say, this would be the 276th story exactly like this one.
So far, all the other stories turned out to be bullshit or never came about.
But this one's real. Oh, this one's real.
Maybe. Maybe.
Every day that goes by, we're probably closer to a day when there is a real one.
So we're at least closer than we were to having something real.
Is this the one? Is this the one that's real?
The one that really extends our lifetime?
And all the other ones were fake?
Maybe. Here's a trick for spotting fake news.
Doesn't work every time.
Works very often.
Not every time.
And it goes like this. There are categories of things which, if anything pops up in that category, you can just discount it.
For example, let's say somebody says, I was abducted by an alien spaceship.
Probed, brought back to Earth unharmed.
That is in a category of stories that you don't really need to dig into the details of the specific new one to know it's not true.
Because it's in that category.
Another category is life extension.
So if you see one of these stories, it's in that category of things that are basically never true.
So far. But someday.
Someday one of these will be true, I think.
Just don't know which one it is.
Well, it looks like Ron DeSantis is continuing his march toward the presidency.
If he keeps doing things that are this popular with Republicans, I don't know how he could not get nominated unless Trump runs.
If Trump runs, I think he'll get nominated.
But if Trump does not run for some reason, DeSantis is really setting himself up pretty well.
Or maybe for vice president, which would set him up to run for president later.
But he's signed a law making it illegal to have transgender athletes playing on, how do they word it?
It bans people whose biological sex is listed as male from participating in women's sports, from middle school through college.
Now, what do you think about that?
Well, I feel that's halfway right.
That's about half right.
Here's the half that I don't like.
I think trans athletes should have equal access to sports, and I'm not entirely sure that just having biological male and biological female sports quite meets their needs.
I'll tell you what would, and also would meet lots of other people's needs, so you wouldn't be doing something really special just for one population, but you would be doing something that would just work for everyone.
It goes like this. Have more co-ed teams.
That's it. Just have more co-ed teams.
And if you're a co-ed team, it doesn't matter what you identify with.
It just depends. Are you one of the good players on a co-ed team?
Well, then you play in the higher level team.
Are you one of the bad players, no matter what your gender is?
Are you one of the bad players?
Well, then you play at the lower co-ed team.
So, I've always said that the real problem is that we have teams separated by gender in the first place.
Now, I do understand that we have a tradition that some athletes win scholarships, etc.
And so it does make a difference if you're biologically female.
It could make a difference that you're not the top athlete on your team.
Maybe you don't get a scholarship.
Maybe if you were the top athlete, you would.
So definitely there's some edge cases where it's just bad for women who were born biological women.
So I don't think you need to take that away from them.
Because it's always cruel to take something away from somebody after they're used to it.
So I think we could keep the teams the way we have.
I think Ron DeSantis making this change protects one group at the expense of another.
That's the way it always works.
But I do think that transgender athletes should have more opportunity to play.
Just maybe on co-ed teams.
Almost all professional sports do not have a gender requirement.
It just folds out that way.
Yeah. So I think we can protect people and also make more opportunity for everybody.
So maybe we can make a win-win here.
I got a question for you.
Try to decide if all these states that are doing voting...
Voting day changes, or just voting changes.
How many of them are just good hygiene for an election?
Meaning that you'd all want that rule because it just makes it safer from any kind of fraud.
So how many of the rules are really just common sense, making things better?
And how many of the rules are cleverly designed to target one group to suppress the vote?
And one example that was given of that latter kind, the kind that might be designed to really prohibit black voting, is the thinking here.
And I forget which state it is, but there's at least one state that is proposing or has a Sunday prohibition on voting before 11 a.m.
And I said to myself, why is that even being talked about?
Like, why is that even a thing?
What would be the problem with voting before 11 a.m.?
And why did we ever have it?
And why are we changing it?
Now, the thinking that I've been told is that there's a church relationship.
In other words, apparently there's a long tradition of black voters going to church and then using sort of the peer pressure or just the energy from church to go immediately to vote.
And presumably, if you take that church energy and transform it into votes, you'd probably get more voters.
Probably get more voters.
Right? So what happens if you change that?
And say, oh, now you can't vote before 11am.
Does it target black voters?
Does it? I'd say yes.
Yes. If, in fact, it's true that black churches have this tradition...
Maybe white churches don't.
I don't know if they do or they don't.
But let's say that the people who made the rule were aware of that.
And they knew that it would make a difference of who voted.
Does it matter? Does it matter?
Because let me ask you this.
So here's a story just to give you some context.
Imagine, if you will, that there were some rules in place That made it more likely for white people to vote.
I don't know what that rule would be, but it's something that just makes white people more likely to vote.
And there's a rule change, and then somebody says, hey, this also has maybe some risk to it, so let's change it.
So now white people don't have as many opportunities to vote in that narrow way that got changed, but they can still vote, just like everybody else.
Would you say white people were targeted?
Would you? Because I don't believe there are any kind of voting changes that don't target people.
Wouldn't it be true that every change to the voting system targets a group?
Probably. Probably there's nothing you can change, even if you were just going to say, oh, randomly, I'll just reach into some rule and I'll randomly change it.
I feel like it would target somebody, even if you didn't intend it.
So here's the question. Suppose there's one group who has a set of rules that actually work really well for them, such as voting in the morning after church.
Is it wrong to take that away?
Because it was sort of a special privilege, wasn't it?
Privilege is the wrong word.
It was more, I don't even want to say accommodation.
I don't know exactly what the right word is.
But it was a set of laws that favored a group.
It would be allowing voting in the morning on Sunday would allow and maybe favor more black votes.
Is that good or bad?
It should be neither.
It should be neither.
Because all of our voting laws favor or don't favor somebody.
And so, I don't know, should one group have a special advantage?
You know, we're all in favor of making it easy to vote.
And certainly allowing people to vote on Sunday morning would make it easier.
Right? We'd all agree with that.
It makes it easier. So why would you make something less easy?
Well, there might be a reason.
I just don't know it.
I heard somebody say it was harder to get people to work the polls on Sunday morning, but I don't believe that.
There will always be enough people to work the polls.
Anyway, so that's just an open question for you.
If anybody knows the answer, was there any legitimate reason For changing the time of voting on Sunday morning.
Legitimate meaning something about reducing fraud.
Or even expense, I guess.
But if not, then it does look like it just targeted black people.
I don't know how you could interpret it any other way.
But I'd like to hear the other argument.
And for some reason I haven't.
If there is one. Maybe there is none.
CNN says that three out of four people...
In some kind of a poll.
Three out of four people believe that they're better at spotting fake news than they really are.
And they report that Republicans are the worst.
The worst at believing fake news.
So, what do you think of this story?
CNN tells you that Republicans are the worst at believing fake news.
Is this real news?
Because I think it might be fake news about fake news.
I think they gave you the rare fake news, fake news.
Now we don't see fake news, fake news often.
Usually it's just fake news.
But this is actually fake news about fake news.
And it's kind of brilliant.
So let's dig into this a little bit.
Here's my question. In order to know if somebody is good or bad at identifying fake news, how do you determine that?
Logically. How could you determine if any of us are good or bad at believing or being taken in by fake news?
Well, logically, the only way you could do it is to present a test And have people answer the test, and then you can see how many fake news things they believed.
You know, does this person believe more fake news than this person?
That's the only way you could do it, right?
Is there any other way you could know if some group is better at identifying it other than just to give them a test?
Now, here's the question.
Who grades the test?
And who makes the test?
For example, was the Charlottesville Fine People hoax on the test?
Because I'll bet it wasn't.
Was the, let's say, the hoax that President Trump suggested drinking bleach for the coronavirus, was that on the test, CNN? Was it?
Because I'll bet that was right there on the test, wasn't it?
Of course not.
Of course not. And did the test say, do you believe that Russia helped Trump get elected?
What's the right answer?
Is the right answer yes?
Or is the right answer no?
So the beauty of this fake news about fake news from CNN is really diabolical, like so much so that I have to actually compliment them.
This is so weaseltastic It's one of the coolest things I've ever seen in the weasel category.
Now, keep in mind that I'm also somebody who sees stories about serial killers, and often I think to myself, well, that person is really well organized.
There's a serial killer who puts some work into it, and I appreciate hard work.
Oh yeah, I don't like the serial killing.
Totally against that.
But if I'm being fair, the serial killer is very industrious and seems to have his act together in terms of Engineering and planning.
So CNN, I compliment you on this fake news about fake news.
And if you could get people to believe that there is some source in the world that knows which news is fake, and they graded these tests, good for you.
Because that's the most ridiculous fucking thing I've ever heard in my life.
There is no way that CNN has access to somebody who can tell what the fake news is.
Do you know how I know that?
Because if such a person existed, I think they would get invited on TV to talk about all the fake news.
Wouldn't they? Every time there's a new fake news or a question about whether something's real, wouldn't you invite that hypothetical person who is so well informed that they, alone among humans, can tell which news is fake?
They should be on TV a lot, don't you think?
Get that pundit on TV. There's somebody who knows what the fake news is.
But of course, such a person does not exist.
But CNN would like you to believe it.
So Biden, I guess, was talking...
Was he in Tulsa?
Talking about the Tulsa-Oklahoma massacre and the so-called Black Wall Street.
Apparently it was a very prosperous area.
Black people were doing great, historically speaking.
And there was this horrendous slaughter.
I don't know, 300 people died.
Just because they were black and prosperous, apparently, and the whites just attacked them and killed a bunch of people and destroyed their area of the city.
Now, here's what bothers me the most about this story, beyond the fact that the story itself is a horror, but beyond the story, why didn't I know this?
How many of you knew this?
Like, really? Why didn't I know this already?
Because I didn't know this. I consider myself not a historian by any means, but I feel like I at least know which big stories exist, right?
I feel as though, you know, maybe I don't know the details of the, you know, Tuskegee, you know, tests or whatever, but I know it exists.
How many of you...
I'm looking at your comments.
So I'm seeing a number of you say yes, that you did know.
And a number of you said that you didn't.
Yeah, Nick Reese says it was a shock.
That's how I took it. Because there are some stories that are so horrible, you read them and your brain almost can't accept them.
I mean, I read this story and I thought, I thought I'd heard everything bad that there could be, but this is like evil on a level that I was unaware of.
And I feel like it was useful.
So I'm going to give Joe Biden a compliment because I do think, you know, it's one thing to interpret your history in a specific way, you know, critical race theory, etc.
But it's another thing not to even know it, to not even know the history.
This was really, really important in terms of understanding, you know, the history of race relations in this country.
This was big. And I had a blind spot to it.
I was completely unaware.
And so I say, Joe Biden and your administration, you did a good job on this, educating the country.
I don't know that they were leading it, but they at least participated in it.
But here's my concern about it.
One of the things Biden said during his speech there in Tulsa was that terrorism from white supremacy is the most lethal threat to the homeland today.
Now, It looks like it might have been the most lethal threat to the homeland back when the Tulsa massacre happened.
That would have been a pretty strong argument, I think.
But today? Who would want Joe Biden to say this?
Who in the world would be the happiest to hear Joe Biden say terrorism from white supremacy is the most lethal threat to the homeland today?
Who would be the happiest people in the world to hear Joe Biden say that?
China, right?
Now, of course, there are concerns, no proof, but certainly concerns, that Joe Biden might be beholden to China because some people speculate that China has some secrets about Hunter Biden.
Now, I don't have any evidence that that's the case, but it's widely, you know, people have a concern about it because it's not impossible.
And I would say it's maybe 50% possible.
I mean, it's pretty high likelihood.
It's not impossible by any means.
And is it a coincidence that Joe Biden says something this ridiculous, because it's ridiculous?
Does anybody disagree with that?
That the statement that terrorism from white supremacy is the most lethal threat to the homeland?
Does anybody believe that's true?
That if you actually made a list of all the risks and how many people might die from each risk, that the risk from this would be higher than the risk of nuclear war with China, higher than the risk of 50,000 to 70,000 people a year that China is killing with fentanyl,
higher than the risk that they're doing, higher than the risk that they're maybe experimenting with viruses in an unsafe lab, I mean, I don't know if any of that's true, but they're pretty big risks.
So, to say something so blatantly untrue that is just ridiculous, who would have caused Joe Biden to say this?
Did Joe Biden look at the world, he surveyed all the risks, and then just on his own he said, you know, I've looked into all the risks in the world, and yup, I'm feeling pretty confident, That the biggest one is the white supremacist.
Did that happen?
Because I don't think it did.
I think that he's being influenced by the Democrats to say something that may be good for the next election, because he wants the Republicans to look like the white supremacists, right?
So is it just politics?
Do you believe that Biden is such a political animal, and of course they're all political animals, But is he such a political animal that he would say something this blatantly absurd and just do it for political reasons?
Because it doesn't look like it.
It looks exactly like China made him say it.
Like they had their hand right up his ass, all the way up to his mouth, and they were just going, say it's not us.
Say it's not China. Don't mention China.
No problem with China.
It's white supremacy.
That's your biggest problem. Ignore China.
I don't know. To me it looks obvious that this is foreign influence.
And if it's not, which is a possibility, of course, if it's not foreign influence, you have this problem of the appearance of it.
Do you want a president who appears to be favoring your greatest rival?
Because he appears to.
This statement appears to be Chinese propaganda.
Doesn't mean it is. But it sure looks exactly like it.
And you gotta worry about that.
Alright. Axios had a story in which there was one little nugget in there that said, Two in five white independents say social policies, including affirmative action, discriminate unfairly against white people.
Two in five white people say that.
Only two? What?
Are you telling me that if you could gather five white people together who identify as independents, and you just put them in the room with me, and I said, you know I've been fired, well, essentially indirectly fired, twice explicitly because I'm white and male.
You know that's happened, right?
And you do know that big corporations directly discriminate against white people because they need to increase their diversity.
Which is a good goal. I don't have any concern about the worthiness of having more diversity in your company.
I think that just makes sense in a diverse country.
But how do you argue it's not discriminating against white people?
You could certainly discriminate that it's good for the world.
You could certainly say, well, it does discriminate against white people, but in the long run it's better.
I could agree with that or I could disagree with it, but it's not absurd.
Do you know it's absurd? That white independents, only two in five of them, think that it's discrimination against white people?
It's exactly discrimination against white people.
It's not slightly discrimination against white people.
It's not reminding you of discrimination of white people in an analogy kind of way.
It's not accidentally discriminating against white people.
It's direct, intentional, Huge boot on the throat.
Discrimination against white people.
For a good purpose.
I mean, there's a genuinely good purpose to it, which is some kind of racial balance, some kind of income balance.
At least trying to get it is probably healthy for society, even if you don't get there.
At least trying to get there, making an effort...
It does make us maybe a little bit better to live together.
So I'm not going to say there's no benefit to it.
It just isn't a benefit to the white people who lost their jobs.
Can't we say that? Can't we say it's very bad for the white person who lost their job?
But if you're making an argument it's better for society, I'll listen to the argument.
I may disagree with it, but I'll certainly listen to that argument.
It's not absurd. So...
There's that. All right, big story today is the Fauci emails.
I guess there was some freedom of information Action got us a bunch of these emails, and now we're digging in to find out just how bad it really was behind the curtain.
How bad was it?
Now that we know what Fauci actually was thinking, and when he was thinking what he was thinking, from these emails, my God, we found some things.
And let me tell you the horrors we have found, as described by CNN. So CNN dug into these, and Wow.
You think there's some bombshells in there?
Oh yeah. Here's a couple of the bombshells that CNN found.
And this is just jaw-dropping.
Listen to their reporting. I'm summarizing it, so paraphrasing it.
But the CNN says that Dr.
Fauci worked so hard during the pandemic that often he was exhausted.
Yet despite being exhausted, he was always polite in answering his emails.
Yeah, that's what we learned.
And what else did we learn from CNN about the emails?
Well, that's it, actually.
So that pretty much covered it.
So the two things you need to know about the emails, according to CNN, is that Fauci worked very hard, and yeah, he was always polite.
He was always polite.
There is also information, update, that he is kind to pets.
He's very kind to pets.
And he doesn't eat a lot of sugar.
He's punctual.
And he doesn't talk behind people's back.
And I believe that he never forgets an anniversary.
So these are some of the important things we're learning about Dr.
Fauci from CNN. And I think this is totally unbiased, so you can believe it.
Let's see if anybody had a competing opinion.
Anybody? Let's see.
Well, on the Internet, there's Mike Cernovich.
Who, as you know, is the internet's dad.
He's changed his Twitter profile.
What does it say? Internet dad or dad of the internet, which is hilarious and true.
And Mike Sinovich says this.
He says, compare the Washington Post's dishonest spin of the Fauci emails to what the emails show.
And Mike says, Fauci knew about the lab leak possibility.
He covered it up from day one.
No, I'm sorry.
I think I'm reading my own quote there.
But anyway, the point is that...
Something didn't print out here.
But the point is that the opinions on these emails range from there's nothing there all the way to we got the smoking gun.
We found out that Fauci's been lying to us the whole time.
So I looked at the coverage to try to find the lies.
I didn't really find any.
I didn't find any.
So I guess you think there's something in there that's a bombshell?
But why didn't I see any?
I don't know. So, for example, some of the things he said was early on, he said that he didn't think masks that you bought at the drugstore would help you from receiving the virus, but it might help you if you had the virus.
It might keep some of the spittle closer to your face.
Now, my memory is that's exactly what they said in public.
Do you remember it differently?
My memory is that he said exactly that in public.
So I don't know that that told me anything.
How about the allegation that he always knew it was a possibility that the Wuhan lab was the source of the leak?
Because the emails suggest that he knew it was at least a possibility.
Didn't he always say that?
I mean, I don't think he ever ruled it out, did he?
And is there anybody who doesn't think it's at least a possibility?
I don't know. The differences between what the emails say and what he said in public, maybe you can find a little difference, but nothing I can say that makes any difference.
So anyway, if there's more of a story there that I'm missing, somebody fill me in.
But it'll look to me like a non-story.
Taiwan is having a big spike in coronavirus despite being one of the success stories.
Now, we all thought that maybe Taiwan was a success story because they were an island.
At least I thought that. Because it's easier to close off travel if you're an island.
Because not many people are swimming there.
And boating there, I suppose.
Travel is mostly by airplane.
But I guess one of the things that Taiwan got right is they closed travel from China.
And I didn't even know they had travel with China, so that's what I knew.
Maybe early, and maybe that made a difference.
But they've got a spike now.
So remember what I told you early in the pandemic?
So I'm reading a comment from Sashiko.
He absolutely did rule it out.
Show me that quote.
Show me that quote.
Because I think we're dealing from memory.
And I'll bet if you looked at whatever Fauci said about the lab leak, He probably said something like this.
There's no evidence it happened.
Check me on that. Do a fact check.
If what he said is there's no evidence of it, that's completely compatible with saying, well, anything's possible.
There's no difference.
So find me exactly what he said that you believe contradicts the email, and then tweet it at me, okay?
Because I'm not saying that there's nothing in there.
I'm saying I looked.
I spent some time.
I looked for all the bombshells.
I just didn't see any. But if you saw some, let me know.
I don't think it's weasel words to say we have no evidence for something.
I don't feel that that's weasel words.
But anyway, I think some of you think I'm misinformed, and I want you to clear that up for me.
And I'm not wed to my opinion on this, so I'm happy to change my opinion as soon as you give me some data to do that.
Alright, so do you remember I told you early on in the pandemic when Trump was getting lots of heat for not doing things the way people thought he should do them, and I said to you, you need to wait till the end.
Because if you're judging who won the game in the second inning, you're probably not that accurate.
And that We might make some mistakes in the United States early, but we might be kind of spectacular by the time we get rolling.
What happened? The United States maybe made some mistakes in the beginning?
I don't know. You know, we could debate that all day long.
But we certainly had more deaths than other countries.
So if you just base it on the deaths and infection, we did poorly in the beginning.
What we did with vaccinations, we, the United States, collectively, from the companies that made them to the government that fast-tracked them, thank you, Trump administration, to the implementation of them, which is frankly just amazing.
The fact that we rolled them out and produced them and got them in arms so quickly is just amazing.
And I said in the beginning that if you judge the United States...
Pandemic response by the early days is just not fair.
You're going to have to look at the whole game.
And I said in the beginning that when you're all done and you looked at the whole game, the United States would look good.
You know, not maybe the best in the world or something.
But among nations, I think we're going to be one of the top five, maybe?
I think the United States will end in the top five.
Of countries that handled it right in the end.
Now, that doesn't mean we didn't bungle a bunch of stuff in the fog of war.
That's just, you know, presumed to happen.
And it doesn't mean that the people who got it right early on in the pandemic, if they did, it doesn't mean that they were the geniuses, because everybody was kind of guessing.
And you know somebody was going to guess right, and you knew somebody was going to guess wrong, and it didn't mean that one of them was incompetent.
It was just guessing in the beginning.
I mean, educated guesses, but they were guesses.
But over the course of a year and a half or whatever it's going to be, you could understand the true capability of these different countries.
At the end of 18 months, leadership is going to matter.
Execution is going to matter.
Maybe not in the first few months, because you're just guessing and poorly executing and trying things and seeing what works.
But by the time you get to the end, you've rapidly tested and ruled things in and out, and your end point should be where you judge.
And I feel that the United States has this one superpower that I don't know anybody will ever be able to match.
We're just maniacs in this country.
We're freaking maniacs when a problem comes our way.
We will jump on a problem like a starving man on a ham sandwich.
We love attacking problems in this country.
We're a whole country of problem solvers.
I think this is vaguely racist, but I'm going to say it anyway.
I do think that the way this country was created, and continues to be creating itself, is that we have this weird filter.
And the filter is, do you have the balls to get on a fucking ship and sail all the way across the ocean just to be an American?
Do you have the balls to do that?
Are you bold enough?
Do you have what it takes? Can you take a risk for a better world?
Well, we get all those people.
And I know this is unpopular to say with this particular crowd, but the one hidden benefit, I would say, of illegal immigration, not all of it, not all of it, of course.
You know, you've got your criminal elements coming in.
But I've always said, if all we do is attract the people who have the highest tolerance for economic risk, meaning that they will walk across a desert to get a job, I want all of them.
I want all of them.
Now, of course, you can't just let everybody in, right?
You have to have controls on the border.
But if we could only get the people who have such gigantic balls that they will go across the ocean, they'll walk across the desert, they will kill to be Americans, you're going to get some good Americans out of that bunch.
You're still going to get a bunch of People who are neutral, and you're going to get a bunch of people who are criminals, any big group.
But man, that is such a good filter.
Does anybody else have that?
Is there any other country that has as their filter, give us your best people?
Now when I say best, I don't mean most educated, right?
I don't even mean anything else.
Just the attitude.
Bring me boatloads of people with that attitude.
That's the country I want to live in.
We're just filling it with people who are that kind of person.
No other country has that.
And I think that that gives us an advantage, a system advantage, that is enduring, it seems to be.
So, anyway, Taiwan's got some issues with the coronavirus.
Here's... A story where I can't even imagine how this mystery could be solved, but apparently the Iranian Navy's largest warship...
Now, it's a warship, but mostly it's used for supplying the other smaller ships, I guess.
But their largest warship caught on fire and sank Wednesday in the Gulf of Oman.
And it's called Unclear Circumstances, and it's sort of a mystery.
Let's see if we could solve the mystery.
Huh... Is there anything happening in the Middle East which would suggest a hypothesis that maybe we could dig into a little bit and clear up some of these unclear circumstances?
Well, for one thing, we have Joe Biden's administration getting friendly with Iran.
At the same time, Netanyahu is saying this won't stop us from attacking Iran.
Because you're basically just making it more dangerous for Israel, and you're making it more likely we're going to attack.
So, given that that's sort of an obvious point, that Israel will go it alone and clearly attack Iranian assets, it's war, basically.
So the fact that the United States is not going to back Israel and go hard at Iran negotiating-wise and sanction-wise...
That frees Israel, right?
As long as the United States is being productive...
Oh, Ryan had zero side effects from the second shot.
As long as the United States is being a productive player, or trying to be, or setting itself up as one, in the whole Israel-Iran situation, as long as we're in there, Israel has to restrain itself, right?
Right? So is that a better world or a worse world?
Suppose Trump made it harder for Israel to attack.
I don't know if that was the case.
Maybe the evidence suggests not.
But I wonder if Biden is playing this exactly right while making it look exactly wrong.
On the surface, I would say Biden's approach looks completely wrong because it looks like he's just emboldening Iran And I can't imagine anything good could come out of that, right?
But what if the real play is to get the United States off the hook, make it look like we're a little bit more pro-Palestinian and indirectly pro-Hamas than maybe we actually are?
And Israel, now being unconstrained because the United States isn't on its side in the same way, can they just attack now?
Without any recourse.
You know, the Biden administration would say, hey, don't do that again.
You, you scallywags, why are you attacking Iran?
You shouldn't do that.
I feel as if this is intentional to give Israel the green light to do whatever the hell they want, while making it less likely that the United States gets attacked on the homeland.
And if Israel did attack, I feel like we might help a little bit under the covers.
If only for intelligence or whatever.
I'm being asked, didn't Israel ask the USA to stay away?
I don't recall that.
I always thought that the US was welcome in these negotiations, but I could be wrong about that.
So clear it up for me if I'm wrong about that.
Meanwhile, more unclear circumstances.
For example, did you know that Biden is going to be talking to Putin pretty soon in what they're calling a summit?
And, you know, here's a coincidence.
Russian cyber gangs are hacking into pipelines in the United States, in one case, and now a meat packing plant that will have a big impact on meat production.
And Putin is saying, hey, that's criminal elements.
That's not me. I'm not behind that.
So it's sort of an unclear circumstance.
I believe some in the United States are saying, hey, hey, I think you're doing this intentional to harm the United States.
And Putin's saying, not me.
Not me. It's an unclear circumstance.
Because we don't know how this is happening.
Certainly not me.
Well, what do the professionals say?
So the professionals say, apparently, the Kremlin issued a warning earlier this week that, quote, Uncomfortable signals would be sent to the US ahead of the summit later this month.
What? The Kremlin specifically warned that there would be some uncomfortable things coming our way.
And sure enough, uncomfortable things came our way that seem associated with Russia.
But no, they're not behind it.
These are just criminal elements.
They have nothing they can do about it.
And I guess Russia's deputy foreign minister said this.
He said, quote, the Americans must assume that a number of signals from Moscow will be uncomfortable for them, including in the coming days.
I mean, they actually pointed to the fence before they hit the ball over it.
And... Apparently there's this Rebecca Koffler, she's a former defense intelligence agency person, intelligence person who knows about Russia, and she said that Putin's playbook is that Russia's secret plan to defeat America, she told Fox News, was to use criminal gangs as a common tactic.
Wait, what? So our intelligence agency already knows that That Putin plans, he plans to do it, to use criminal groups to give deniability for Russia, and then Russia says, we're going to send you some signals, and they say when it's going to happen, and then hackers attack us, or attack things that affect us.
Is this as obvious as it looks?
Because it feels a little bit, you know, too on the nose.
Is there something wrong with this story?
Because I don't think it could be more clear that Russia is doing this and basically attacking us.
And we're going to just act like they're not?
Is that what Biden's administration is doing, just pretending it's not happening?
Or are they doing something, you know, behind the curtain that we don't know about?
It could be that we're hitting Russia hard and we, the public, just don't know it.
Maybe. Maybe Biden would think that's a better deal.
But, as Ian Bremmer pointed out, the people who voted for Biden because they thought he would go harder on Russia are now discovering that he is going softer on Russia.
So if that was one of your reasons for supporting Biden, you did not get what you thought you were voting for.
Rasmussen is reporting that they asked in a poll, have American relations got better or worse under Biden?
15% think that relations with America and Israel have gotten better under Biden, and 45% say worse.
57% of liberals believe it's about the same.
To which I say, are they watching the news at all?
Sparky asks if the Russian hacking was false flag stuff.
Could be. Could be false flag.
But why would Russia tell us in advance that they were going to do something?
I feel as though they're telling us it's them.
They could at least say it wasn't.
So here's what I wonder.
How in the world do 15% think that relations between America and Israel have gotten better During Biden.
100% of the news stories suggest that relationships got worse.
All of them. I don't believe there's one story in the news that says, you know, what Biden's doing is making Israel really love the United States.
Not one. I don't believe there's even one.
And yet 15% say, yeah, it's getting better.
Because Joe Biden. Thank God for Joe Biden.
Well, Laura Ingram had on her show last night on Fox an expert who says that there's a new study showing that hydroxychloroquine works.
And that the reason we didn't know it worked until now, and this was, I guess, the study was on hospitalized people, so people who were on ventilators, etc.
Apparently, if you give them a high enough dose, it works, like, really well.
But if you don't give them a high enough dose, you can't tell the difference.
Like every other medicine, basically.
So, the fact that this is only being reported on Laura Ingram's show, and only on Fox News, and it seems to be this one doctor, and it's about hydroxychloroquine.
Let me ask you, is this in the category of stories?
Remember what I taught you?
You can judge things by their category.
Is this in the category of stories?
That are likely to be true.
Meaning that hydroxychloroquine really did work really well all along, and we just didn't know it.
Is that likely to be true?
Well, it's in the category of things that are unlikely to be true.
Because when you see one entity make a claim like this, but the other entities are quiet, it's either the biggest conspiracy in the world, or the one entity who's talking about it It's going to turn out not to be correct.
So, I'm not willing to say this is incorrect.
I have no evidence to debunk it in any way.
But, be aware, it's in the category of things that are almost never right.
Like, almost never.
Just by its category.
Doesn't mean this one's wrong, and I'm not going to suggest it is.
Because I've said way too often from the beginning, That there was this weird coincidence that all of the hydroxychloroquine studies apparently intentionally studied the wrong thing.
You've heard me say this, right?
So I've said many times that I can't understand why they seem to be intentionally studying the wrong thing.
Because we know how it should be used, or what the recommended protocol was, but that's not what they tested.
They would test other things, or they test...
A group that's too small, or they test somebody who's already critically ill and don't test enough of it.
But basically, none of the tests look like actual tests.
So, could it be that this has worked all along?
Yes, it's possible.
But it's in the category of things that usually aren't true.
Just be aware of that.
Alright. I guess I talked about this other stuff already.
Alright, if you're joining late, I'll give you an update.
I did get my second Moderna vaccination shot yesterday.
I did wake up this morning wishing that this arm was no longer with me because it kind of hurts a little bit.
I did feel full body body ache.
I would say...
Nothing probably that will stop me from doing everything I was going to do today.
So immediately after getting the shot, I did a full workout, arms and back and stuff.
It didn't bother me at all. Somebody says, I got a two and didn't sleep well.
I was on the border of not sleeping well, but it didn't stop me.
It was nice knowing you.
Oh, somebody's going to skip their second Moderna shot.
I thought about it. I did think about it.
Maybe if I were younger, I would skip the second one.
Maybe. I'm not suggesting you do it.
You know, I feel like if the first one didn't kill you, the second one probably won't.
But I know that doesn't make sense.
Let's see. I saw a Brett Weinstein question there.
Boop, boop, boop, boop. All right, so Brett Weinstein has a podcast that I just began to listen to, in which he's talking about ivermectin.
And the story is very similar to the hydroxychloroquine story, which is that there are some people who say the evidence clearly says ivermectin works.
There are other people who say clearly it doesn't.
But when you see somebody that's qualified, And Brett would be in that category.
Somebody who could, you know, look a little bit deeper into the science than you and I can.
And he has somebody on his show who has just impeccable credentials and seems to have a strong opinion that it works.
I think you have to start paying attention to that.
You have to start paying attention.
Now, is the ivermectin story in the category of stories that usually turn out to be false?
Yes. Yes, it is.
It's in the category of things that usually are not true.
And I mean usually like 90 plus percent.
But how often do you have somebody with these credentials stepping up and putting their reputations on the line?
And the answer is not that often.
Not that often.
Because these are some serious people saying you need to take this seriously.
So I would say when you add that factor of the people involved, then it's not in that category anymore.
That's what would remove it from the category of things that are wrong 90% of the time.
I feel like I'm going to upgrade this one to a 50-50.
Now again, you and I don't know, and we're not really qualified to know, but I'd say it went from, ivermectin went in my mind from 90% chance there's nothing there to maybe 50% chance there is something there.
And I couldn't go further than that because it still is adjacent to that category of things that usually is wrong.
So I don't want to get excited about it.
But, could be.
Could be. Maybe good news.
Yeah, Brett Weinstein is risking cancellation to tell the truth.
He really is. And I was listening to the first part of his podcast where he was trying to deal with the cancellation threat.
And he did it very well by...
By not claiming something that wasn't supported and showing that the qualifications of his experts and the qualifications of the research, I assume, were strong enough that he should not be cancelled, just talking about it.
We'll see. We'll see.
I think there's going to be quite a reckoning with the platforms and with the news after we know what's true and what isn't.
And here's my question.
Let me ask you this. Let's say, hypothetically, someday somebody finds out that hydroxychloroquine absolutely, definitely worked.
What if that happened? Would you say, oh my god, Trump was right, and everybody else was wrong, and therefore you should give credit to Trump for being right?
Is that how you would interpret it?
Or, or...
Would you say there was something unique about Trump which made people not even use a medicine that would save a million lives?
Because if that's true, Trump is the problem, right?
That he was so divisive that even something that clearly worked, people wouldn't even take a life-saving drug or let other people take it because it would allow Trump to be right.
So there are two stories here.
One, in which Trump is the hero...
Because he was right all along.
Now this makes an assumption that's not in evidence yet, that hydroxychloroquine actually works.
So I'd say that's not proven.
There's just some recent evidence suggesting it might.
So that's my take.
All right. So you could make a story that Trump is either the villain or the hero in that story.
And the evidence would support both, I think.
Let's see... Imagine actually believing that the manufactured story around Trump is Trump's fault.
You're smarter than that, Scott.
Well, I always block people who say you're smarter than that because that's just a dick thing to say.
So I'll hide you on this channel.
But I don't think you can hold Trump harmless from the fact that he intentionally is provocative.
Because being intentionally provocative...
Is exactly what allowed him to win, right?
It's how he won the first election.
But if being intentionally provocative has a cost associated with it, which is that the predictable outcome is that people won't believe him when he's right, right?
People won't believe him when he's right.
A little of that is on Trump.
Because we do know that even if you support Trump, you do know that he did pass the fact-checking fairly frequently.
Now, I've often said it didn't matter either, because it's just hyperbole.
Most of the fact-checking is fake anyway, and it was just hyperbole, and he's directionally correct.
And I still think that's all true.
But maybe, I think we should be open to the possibility that if you're using these techniques to become president...
Don't be surprised if people don't believe you on a medical question.
Don't be surprised.
That should be the fairly predictable outcome of that.
So I've often said that Trump is what I call an expensive president, or was.
Meaning that he can get you things that you couldn't get from anybody else.
North Korea being the best example.
So he can just do stuff that other people couldn't do.
But... He's going to be expensive.
And maybe this is one of the expenses, you know, hypothetically.
