Episode 1396 Scott Adams: I Put the Dilbert Filter on the Wuhan Lab Story, Headlines That Don't Match Stories, & Show Trials
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Wuhan Lab stories through Dilbert filter
Fake news weaponizing public against each other
Immunosuppressants and COVID vaccinations
Examples of fake news assigning opinions
A new force of evil...the Strike PAC
Extraordinary potential of mRNA tech
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Hey, everybody. You know, I said by Twitter this morning that this might be one of the best coffees with Scott Adams of all time.
Let me check my notes.
Yeah, yeah, it's true.
It's the best one of all time.
And before we get to the simultaneous sip...
Because I know there's some kind of a delay here that blocks you from seeing it.
But until we get to that, let me tell you a little story.
I have long believed that the past can be changed by what happens in the present.
Now, this is a form of affirmations.
Because the idea with affirmations is that when you're affirming something, you say, oh, I want this to work out, or this part of my life to be better.
In order for those things to happen as if by magic, which is often the way you observe them, I'm not saying magic exists.
I'm saying you feel like it's magic when something happens just the way you wanted it to happen.
But in order for that to happen often, The past has to be altered.
Or at least seem like it's been altered.
And what I mean is...
Let me give you an example.
You heard the story, I think some of you, in which I was experimenting with Christina to see if we could simply use affirmations to make money show up, substantial money, that we had not anticipated.
Something that wasn't related to my normal work.
Just money showing up.
And sure enough...
It turns out that sometime in the past, maybe over a year ago, I had inadvertently left some cryptocurrency, just a little bit, in an account that I forgot I had, which is worth a quarter of a million dollars today.
It just came out of nowhere.
Now, what are the odds that I was doing this affirmation for money to come out of nowhere exactly when it happened?
What are the odds? Well, if affirmations is, let's say, real, or we live in a simulation, it could be that I altered the past.
Because in my model of reality, you can alter the past under one condition.
What is the one condition in which you can alter the past?
Hypothetically. We're just talking for fun here.
But if we live in a simulation, and you can change it, you'd have to be able to change the past For the events to work their way up to the future to be just the way you want it.
Because if the past isn't just the way you want it, neither will the future.
So you're close.
The one time under this model, if this were true, the one time you could change the past is when there's no counter-evidence.
In other words, nobody has already looked into the past that you know of.
And found it to be different than the past you want it to be.
Well, yesterday, I got $100 in the mail.
And thank you, James.
You're probably watching this right now.
But this is cheating.
One of my viewers sent me some free money to make my affirmations come true.
Thank you. Now, the rest of you, don't send me any money.
You don't need to be sending me money, right?
But thank you. It was kind of funny, and you definitely got my attention, so thanks for doing that.
But maybe you can change the past, is all I'm saying, and how would you like to enjoy the simultaneous sip?
Oh, I made you wait.
I made you wait. Some of you are thinking, wait a minute, did I already miss the simultaneous sip?
No, it's coming now, and all you need is a cup or mug, a glass, a tanker, a chalice, a stein, a canteen, a jug of glass, a vessel of any kind!
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like, that's right, coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day.
I'm going to mix in a little serotonin, just a dash of oxytocin.
This is going to be the good one.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now all over the world.
Go. You know, if Tony Robbins had come up with this idea...
Maybe he could have made something of himself.
Well, let's talk about all the things.
Looks like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are major investors in a nuclear energy...
I think it's a fourth generation nuclear reactor.
Now, if you don't know what a fourth generation nuclear reactor is, the definition is a little squishy.
But basically it means a safer, more economical form of nuclear energy.
You might not be aware, I think this is true, that there's never been a major problem with current, the newest type of nuclear power.
Do me a fact check on that, but I think it's true that Generation 3, which is what you would build today, not counting this Bill Gates thing I'll talk about, But up until today, any new plant would have been the so-called third generation.
I believe there's never been an accident in one of those that killed anybody.
But check that out.
I think only second generation or prior have ever had an accident because we know how to do it now.
Third generation? I don't think there's ever been one.
But fact check me on that.
I think I'm right. Anyway, but even way safer than the third generation, which probably has never killed anybody, I think.
The new stuff is even better.
And so Wyoming has decided to partner with the Gates and Warren Buffett-funded entity.
I think it's TerraPower.
But this is going to be the Natrium power plant.
And it's expected to be more fuel-efficient, cost-effective, and safer.
I don't know if it actually eats the waste from traditional plants, but some of the Generation 4 will do that.
I don't know if this one does this.
Here's my take on this.
We quite rightly do a lot of complaining about the income gap and the wealth gap in the world.
It doesn't seem fair that people are starving at the same time somebody has $100 billion.
Your sense of fairness is just hard to process that.
But it is nonetheless true that our mega-billionaires can do some things that the government can't.
Why does the government do anything for you?
Like, why do you even have a government?
The point of a government is that the government has a god-awful amount of money and power, so they can just do stuff that requires a god-awful amount of money and power.
But, fast forward to 2021, our billionaire class has a god-awful amount of money that they can focus on particular projects.
You know, they don't have the government kind of money, so they can't focus everywhere, which wouldn't make sense.
But a Bill Gates and a Warren Buffett could just say, alright, here's a problem the government isn't fixing, and then they just go fix it.
Now, what are the odds that this power planet will work out the way they hope?
I don't know. You know, it's the first of its kind.
It's the first of its kind.
So maybe there'll be little stops and starts.
But whether it's perfect on the first try, or they tweak it later, This is amazing news.
Do you understand how big a news this is?
If you've been following the whole climate change and even especially the nuclear energy field, let me put a value on this.
In terms of what this could mean for the planet, it's a 10 out of 10.
Did you know that?
That this news is a 10 out of 10 for the health of the planet.
I mean, this is... This is so big, it's almost incalculable.
If it works, right?
Now, even if it doesn't work, like I said, it probably moves us closer to the one that does.
You know, they might have to tweak it or whatever.
But this is amazing news.
Is it the top headline?
No. No.
Is there anything more important happening in the world than this?
Yeah, you know, the pandemic and You know, China's rising and we've got genocide and those things.
But this is right up there.
This is one of the biggest stories on the planet.
Golden age? What do you think?
I think the golden age is coming.
There's more on this too. Jobs report came out.
It's a little less than people expected.
Is that bad news? The jobs report came out.
And there are fewer people going back to work than people hoped.
Is that good news or bad news?
Nothing. It's nothing news.
Because there are so many jobs that are unfilled, we don't have anything like an employment problem.
So you can actually just stop talking about employment.
It actually doesn't matter.
Have you ever seen a time in the history of, well, your life, have you ever seen a time when the employment rate Didn't even matter.
It was like the one statistic that we all thought was the most important.
Your employment levels basically tell you how the entire economy is going to go.
How the entire economy goes tells you everything.
Normally. But we've reached this bizarre situation...
Where there are open jobs, and there are people without those jobs, and they're not especially hurrying to get them because they have the benefits from the government largesse.
So the jobs reports means nothing, but I imagine the stock market will move anyway.
Well, let me check.
Did the stock market move on the jobs reports?
Because it shouldn't.
And the answer is the market went up.
So as I predicted, the fact that the jobs report is not excellent didn't change the market at all.
And it shouldn't. So that's actually irrational.
For once, it's rational.
Alright, let's put the Dilber filter on this question about the Wuhan lab and the Fauci stuff.
So here's some little background, some new things that we're learning about it.
I guess Dr.
Fauci gave a wide-ranging interview recently in which he said he was asked if he believed his own National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases could have any responsibility for the global pandemic.
Now, the reasoning here is that maybe he was part of approving some funding that made its way through the Wuhan lab, That may have been involved in some way in gain of function, may have contributed to the outbreak, is at least the allegation and or question.
And here's how Dr.
Fauci answered it.
He said, quote, Are you really saying that we are implicated because we gave a multi-billion dollar institution $120,000 a year for bat surveillance?
Now this is according to the Financial Times, and they didn't publish the question he was asked, but the answer is pretty interesting without the question.
I hope we're not losing any context here, so just put a little checkmark in that box in your brain that says, might be some missing context, but for now I'm going to treat it like it's true.
So here's the first Dilbert filter.
You're going to talk to your boss and you want to ask him for a lot of money.
So you go to your boss and you say, I need a lot of money.
What's the best way to express it?
Well, if you want it to sound like it's a small amount of money, you say it's $120,000 per year.
Not that much. If you want to make it sound like a large amount of money, you say it's $600,000, because that's what five years of $120,000 gets you.
So Fauci calls it $120,000 a year.
His critics call it $600,000.
So the first thing is, the Dilbert principle, is beware of the weasel numbers.
So weasel numbers comes right out of Dilbert, right?
Every big organization does weasel numbers.
Where they may be accurate, but where you focus, and whether you say it's one year or multiple years, is really just persuasion.
It's just corporate, organizational bullshit, right?
So that's the first thing.
Number two, how do you know that any specific money...
Got spent in a way that has nothing to do with gain of function.
It's a multi-billion dollar operation, presumably with lots of shared and overlapping functions and equipment.
Probably the spaces that they use probably overlap with whoever may or may not be doing gain of function with people doing other things.
So if you pump a little bit of money into this big organization full of Dilbert-y scientists, how do you know if the money was spent on anything?
What if there was a lab that they needed to build for gain of function, but they also needed it for other reasons?
Did the money fund the gain of function?
Or was it going to happen anyway?
Because they needed to build a lab that does a number of things.
I'm not entirely sure you can even determine what is gain of function, even if they're doing it, right?
Now, I believe Fauci actually said, you know, we don't have control of what happens after the money goes over there, and we don't even have a lot of visibility, right?
We're just sort of trusting that things were going well.
So there are certainly some big questions about oversight and the ability to know what's happening over there.
So that's a very Dilbert-y situation.
You give a bunch of money to somebody and you don't exactly know why they're spending it.
Right? The Dilbert filter works on every part of this.
If you just assume that it works like every other big corporation, every other big organization, everything makes sense.
Like suddenly you go, oh, okay.
So it makes sense. Here's some other Dilbert-y examples.
Weasel words. In any big corporation, in any Dilbert-y situation, people are going to use weasel words.
Here's an example. Fauci refers to funding, quote, bat surveillance.
Does funding bat surveillance include or not include gain of function?
Do you know? I don't know.
I don't know. If the big category that you funded is bat surveillance, what's in that?
Is part of your bat surveillance maybe tweaking it a little bit?
I don't know. Do you know?
So this is classic weasel wording.
I don't know. Why would you talk about gain of function?
We've just got some bat surveillance here.
Now, question.
Why was it done in Wuhan?
Was it because they were closer to the bats in the wet markets and so they could do a little more direct research because they're right there where things happen?
Maybe. Do you know what would be another good reason to fund the Wuhan lab instead of doing it in the United States?
Anybody? Anybody?
What would be a perfectly smart reason to fund this research in China instead of Boston?
What would be a good reason to do that, besides the fact that they have access to more of the wildlife implicated in this?
Somebody says no snitches.
Maybe. In case of escape, let me ask you this.
If you knew that Dr.
Fauci had some money to look into being more cautious about bat viruses, if you knew he had some money and it was going to be spent for that, would you want him to build that lab or fund a lab to do this where you live?
Or would you like to fund this lab in the middle of a Chinese population center?
I feel as if maybe that wasn't the worst idea in the world.
Now, I don't know if this research, we could trust what they learned from it to all come our way, or maybe they're doing stuff that only goes to the Chinese government.
That's a big problem.
That's a big problem.
And the lack of transparency, it's a big problem.
But, I don't think you could ignore the fact that you're happy it wasn't in Boston.
Anybody? Anybody?
You're still happy it was over there, right?
And I can't imagine that wasn't part of the decision.
Let's get that shit over there.
We don't want it around here.
And if Wuhan had closed down a little more effectively, if China had closed down more effectively, as effective as they were, maybe that wouldn't have gotten out.
So it wasn't a bad idea to put that away from us.
All right, here's some more Dilbert filter on this.
Does it seem to you that the entire reason that we're so confused about what got funded over there and who funded what to do what, it seems like a cover-your-ass situation, right?
There is a report that even people in the State Department were saying, no, don't push this Wuhan lab leak hypothesis because then people are going to ask questions about our stuff.
Is that reasonable? Would you think it were reasonable that the United States, anybody associated with this kind of work, is it reasonable for them to say, you know, if we start asking questions about the Wuhan lab, there's no way you can contain that.
They're going to be asking questions about us next, because you just can't separate it.
You just can't. So, would it be reasonable to say that the United States knew they were doing something wrong, and that's why they wanted to cover their ass?
In the comments, answer this question.
This will test your worldliness.
How much do you understand about reality and the way things work?
I forgot how he asked the question, so now I don't know what the yes means.
But the question should be, do you think that the U.S., the people who were in the know, do you think that they would try to stop the questions about the Wuhan lab unless they were guilty of something themselves?
Unless they were guilty of something themselves, why else would they do it?
Right? Well, let me ask you this.
Let me give you a hypothetical, and this might help you a little bit.
Let's say you're married, and you're gonna go golfing, and one member of the foursome that you're gonna go with happens to be the brother of your ex-girlfriend.
Would you want your wife to be asking a lot of questions about your golf game?
And if you said, yeah, I just went, we golfed, just had a foursome, it was a good time.
And you didn't mention that one of the foursome was the brother of your ex-girlfriend.
And then your wife finds out.
Wait a minute. You golfed with the brother of your ex-girlfriend?
Well, now there's a fight, right?
Is that because you're getting closer to her?
Or are you trying to find out some more about her because you're interested?
In the real world, the fact that you're guilty or innocent has nothing to do with whether you want people to look into your shit.
Right? Take your phone.
You live a completely clean life.
Everything that you've ever done since your marriage and before is clean and your conscience free.
There's nothing on your phone, no flirting, no messages, no anything.
Hand it to your spouse and say, spouse, I'm totally free of any guilt.
Just take a look through my phone.
Go ahead. Will your spouse find something to be really mad at you about?
Remember, there's nothing on your phone incriminating.
Nothing. What will your spouse find?
Well, you'll be divorced in about an hour.
You'll be divorced. Because your spouse will find plenty of things that you thought were innocent, and were, but look pretty sketchy if you're looking at it down in context, right?
Pretty sketchy.
So in the real world, you should try like hell not to get people to look into your shit.
No matter if you're guilty or not.
It's the most basic Hygiene of safety you could ever practice.
Don't look into my shit, unless you've got a warrant.
Right? So, what do you make of the fact that there were Americans who were also pushing to not look into the lab as the main cause of the thing?
To me, that's just normal Dilbert behavior.
It doesn't mean they knew they were guilty.
It could mean that.
I'm not ruling it out.
I'm just saying it could go either way, and you would always get the same result.
They would always resist that and should.
Next, here's the other Dilbert-y filter.
Find a scapegoat.
Everybody wants a scapegoat, right?
Dr. Fauci. He'll be our scapegoat.
Or China. China will be our scapegoat.
Or Trump. Mean old orange man.
He'll be our scapegoat.
But we need scapegoats.
It's the most Dilbert-y thing you can do.
It doesn't matter what happened or who did what.
We just need to find who's to blame.
Blame! Do you think it'll make any difference if we confirm that China knew it came from the lab and it did?
What difference will that make?
Seriously. We're not going to change our security protocols in any way.
Because we already suspect it could have come from there, or even if it didn't come from there, we're still going to beef up security because of the worry.
So it would have no effect on security, because presumably we're already doing everything we can to increase that.
China's not going to admit culpability.
So it's just going to be, hey, you did this.
Look at all our proof. And then China's saying, hey, you made that up.
No, we didn't make it up.
Look, here's all our evidence.
Here's the video.
Here's the scientists talking about it.
Here's our 15 witnesses.
It's proof. Nobody could doubt this absolute, total proof.
Here you go. What would China say?
Nope. Nope.
No, that's not real.
There's nothing you can do with knowledge.
We are chasing knowledge with no use.
It doesn't have a function.
You think it does, but I don't think it does.
It just feels like it should matter, but it doesn't.
It doesn't. Because I agree with Fauci when he says there's no way anybody did this intentionally.
It just wouldn't be a rational act.
All right. What are other reasons in a Dilbert filter Oh, here's another one.
Did you note that it was only maybe 48 hours ago that we were saying that Fauci was lying?
Fauci lied about X. Fauci lied about Y. Fauci lied about this.
But already, it's starting to soften.
So now we're going from him lying, to at least in this one situation, to underplaying.
He's not lying about the Wuhan lab being a potential source of the leak.
No, he wasn't lying about it because he didn't tell a direct lie.
He only underplayed it.
He underplayed it. Who gets to decide what is underplayed?
Do you? Is there some international standard for what is underplayed versus what is played just right versus what is overplayed?
See the difference? If something is a lie, you can debunk it or confirm it.
If I say this is a lie, you can fact check it.
But can you fact check underplayed?
You see the trick?
We went from something that could potentially be proven or not to something that's pure opinion.
I think he should have said more words around this.
I'm not sure he should have.
Here's why. So here are some Dilbert-y reasons to not immediately look into the Wuhan lab.
Now, I think we should, so I'm saying these are the Dilbert reasons, not good reasons.
One is that it might stop all gain-of-function and maybe related research.
There has to be a reason that a lab does gain-of-function stuff.
There are two reasons.
One would be to weaponize it, Which we don't have a confirmation anybody did.
And if we did, I wouldn't believe it.
But we certainly have the experts saying that the other reason you do gain-of-function is to prevent an outbreak.
The point of gain-of-function, the whole point, is to avoid a pandemic.
Now, it may have caused one.
That's possible. But it doesn't change the fact that the point of it was to make us smarter and better prepared.
So if you were a reasonable person who cared about the world, might you try to discourage people from looking into the Wuhan lab as the source just because it might have a dampening effect on other research that's essential?
It's a tough one, isn't it?
Because you might find that the most moral position you could take on this is to lie.
It's not impossible. It could be that the most moral position would be to lie about it and just downplay it because you don't want this other research which is essential to be just killed at the same time just because people can't abide by this kind of stuff.
That wouldn't be a bad reason.
I'm not saying it was the reason.
I'm saying if anybody thought that way, it would be reasonable.
You can make your own decision about what is moral or ethical.
Fauci also said directly, I believe he said this, that accusing China before we had some kind of solid evidence, we had less evidence then, that it would make them less compliant with our requests.
Is that fair? Do you think China would respond differently to an aggressive, accusatory approach versus something more moderate?
I don't know. You know, China might just do what's good for China no matter what.
But it's not crazy to think that we would get a little less participation from them if we were mean to them.
So that's not crazy, but it's subjective, right?
How about the fact that looking into the Wuhan lab would at least highlight the fact that Americans are funding some gain-of-function stuff that's going to look really dicey.
And even if the reason we were doing gain-of-function funding Was to make vaccinations and to avoid pandemics.
It's not going to look like that, is it?
So in the real world, you do avoid telling people the truth when the truth looks worse and more misleading than a lie.
That's the real world.
Sometimes the truth is the most dangerous thing you can put out there.
That's just a fact. You could argue that you want it anyway.
You could argue you'd rather take the danger to get the honesty.
I'd listen to that argument.
But it's a fact that lying to the public sometimes has utility.
That's why it happens. It's one of the reasons it happens.
So there were good reasons for people to push back against the lab leak story, which had nothing to do with whether it was true.
Sort of a cover your ass, cover your other funding, make sure it doesn't come into your backyard, Make sure we don't get blamed for the wrong thing.
Those are all reasonable reasons.
Alright, I have the most provocative, probably get me cancelled topic of the day.
And it's based on this.
So the rioters in Minneapolis were smashing windows and looting at some scale.
I don't think it was the biggest thing in the world.
And it's because there was a suspect who was already accused in a homicide.
And he was stopped, and I guess he wasn't supposed to have a firearm, but he had one.
He brandished it. He was shot in his car by law enforcement.
Now, of course, he was black, so that sparked these riots.
Now, you might say to yourself, but wait a minute.
This is exactly the opposite of George Floyd.
This is a known, or at least accused, murderer of Who had a gun and brandished it during a traffic stop.
This is nothing like anything else.
Yeah, somebody says good riddance here.
Yes, I join you in saying I have no sympathy for anybody who resists arrest.
But here's my question.
Would this be racist?
I need a ruling. Give me a ruling.
And I'll start with this context.
It would definitely be racist if you decided to move...
Because there were too many black people in your neighborhood.
Can we agree on that?
That if you just said, huh, there are a lot of black people in my neighborhood.
Let's say you're not black.
And you decided to move just because there were too many black people in your neighborhood, according to you.
Is that racist?
Yes. Yes.
That's about as racist as you could get, I would think.
Right? I see somebody say no.
Okay. But I'm going to get to your point.
Hold on. Hold on.
So I think it would be racist if you just said, I don't like being around any ethnicity, and then he moved.
But how about this?
Suppose you said to yourself that in our current fake news politicized world, that the fake news is riling up a certain population to be more disruptive than they would normally be.
In other words, it has nothing to do with the ethnicity.
It has a lot to do with the fake news targeting a group And getting one group all worked up against another group.
Under those conditions, if you were a white person deciding where to move to, or even where to move out of, could you use the density of the black population as one of your criteria without being racist?
Go. Could you?
Because on the surface it sounds racist as hell, right?
But if the context is nothing about the individuals, and this wouldn't be.
This would not be.
It wouldn't be anything about the individuals, which would be totally racist.
It's about the fake news.
And the fake news weaponizing part of the public against the other part.
Do you want to be somewhere where the people who live in walking distance are weaponized against you?
I say no.
I say that in 2021, and this would not have been true in the past, but in 2021, because of this special case of the fake news weaponizing the public against each other, I think it's a fair variable.
And I think that there are people who are going to say, you know, I just don't want to live next to a black population center, because even if they haven't been radicalized yet, it looks like it's going to happen.
Because the fake news is relentless, right?
So, yeah, it's going to be a judgment call, but I'll put that out there.
We'll see if I get canceled for that.
Funny story of the day that you could interpret in any way you want, but apparently Hunter Biden is moving from his $5.4 million rental home in Venice Beach, which appears to be overrun by the homeless.
Now, not his home, per se, but the place he lives is overrun by the homeless.
Is that the reason he's moving?
Is it possible, and the story doesn't make this connection, because he could be moving for any reason, right?
He could be moving just because he got a better home, which seems more likely.
But the implication here is that he would want to move out of this place because it was overrun by the homeless.
Why were there so many homeless there that weren't always there?
Would it be Democrat policies?
Is it possible that the president's son Had to move out of a place that had too many Democrat policies.
Or was it too much access to drugs?
That's a possibility too, right?
Too much access to drugs.
Because, you know, no joke, we can all be critics of the Bidens, etc., politically.
But there's one thing I refuse to be a critic of, which is Hunter Biden's drug addiction.
Drug addiction is a medical problem.
I know you want it to be about your character.
You want it to be about being weak-willed.
You want it to be all those things.
But it's not.
It's a medical problem.
And yeah, I see the disagreements, so I'm conscious of your disagreement on this.
But in my opinion, that's the one thing that I'm not going to give him a hard time for.
I just wish him well in terms of his health.
Here's something I did not see coming.
Reparations apparently is happening and is working.
Working in the sense that it's happening, not working in the sense that you necessarily like it.
If you look at the defunding the police, that's kind of reparations, because it allows more crime without punishment in a place where you have a large black population.
And so you'd have fewer people presumably going to prison, so that's good.
Although they may have committed crimes, so if you're the victim, that's bad.
But also I would imagine shoplifting and looting are through the roof.
And at least one member of Black Lives Matter, I believe, has defended that as reparations.
So if I said to you reparations would be going along strongly in 2021, how many of you thought that would happen?
It's actually happening.
And now we see that the agricultural secretary wants to make unequal grants to farmers who are black to give them more money than if you're a white farmer.
Now the reason for this is historical discrimination.
Is it true that there was historical discrimination against black farmers?
I don't know, but I would think so, right?
I mean, you don't have to stretch your imagination to imagine it was probably terrible, like everything else during that era and up to the current.
So yeah, probably.
So whether or not you think it's a good idea or a bad idea, I'm making the point that it's happening.
It's reparations.
So in a bunch of different ways, reparations are actually happening.
Now, I don't think that they're being done in a way that makes me happy.
It seems like you could be done a better way.
In a way that helps all poor people.
Specifically. But it's actually happening.
I'm actually surprised.
In terms of my own predictions, I'm going to mark this one as a failure.
Because I didn't see all the side doors.
I kind of imagined reparations as, we're going to mail you a check.
And I thought, well, there's no way that's going to happen.
But they don't have to mail a check.
They can just carve along the edges and get there.
Here's a new story. I tried to look at a story in the news, and the news was referring to a Facebook video.
And so I started to click on the Facebook video, but I couldn't.
Because DuckDuckGo, which I've been using as my browser, told me that if I clicked on it, which I could actually, I could click on it, but it gave me a warning.
And it said that if I click on it, I would go to Facebook and they'd track me.
And if I didn't want to be tracked, Don't click on this link.
So, how great is that?
Right? Again, I didn't see this coming.
But in a world in which Facebook can block Trump, and our social media platforms can block people talking about ivermectin, can block talking about hydroxychloroquine, which, by the way, I don't have an opinion about whether those work.
And they can block the election fraud claims.
So the social media companies can be the deciders of what to block.
Why doesn't that work the other way?
Is there any reason you can't get a browser extension or just a browser that would work the way DuckDuckGo has worked in this case, which would block you from seeing harmful things on the social media platforms According to your own requirements.
Here's what I'd like to see.
I'd love to see a browser or extension, which gave me a checklist of what things are lies.
And I could decide which ones are lies, because there's no credible source to tell you what's a lie or what isn't.
You have to decide on yourself.
Could you start blocking videos that appear on Facebook and other social platforms because those platforms are not trusted?
It's kind of interesting, isn't it?
Because what is the response to the social media platforms having so much control over you?
One possibility is that the public will use one platform to block the other.
And they'll use each platform to block the other.
It could be they're all being used to block everything.
Until everything is blocked, that's considered a lie.
Right? And almost everything is considered a lie by somebody.
So, where does this end up?
Alright, I just thought it was fun that I got blocked from Facebook instead of being blocked by Facebook.
Maybe it's healthy.
Here's another story where the headline doesn't match the story.
This is a CNN example.
Surprise! And here's what the headline said.
Now, this is the headline as you would click it on their website.
To get to the story. So on the front page it says this.
Observers find massive security problems with Arizona audit.
Now if you saw the headline on CNN, Observers find massive security problems with Arizona audit, would you expect that the story would include massive security problems with the Arizona audit?
Well here are the details once you find them.
You have to sort of dig down to get the details.
One person had a cell phone inside the audit.
It was one of the people in charge.
So one person had a cell phone.
So that's a major problem, I guess.
Some people had black and blue pens, which is a problem because then they could fraudulently mark ballots.
But it's also all on video, right?
Like everything that's happening during the audit is on video.
If somebody picked up one of those black or blue pens and started marking ballots, I think it's right there on video.
And then the other major problem was there was one door unattended.
One unattended door.
And then also some observers or the observers were made to wear pink shirts which caused them to be teased by other and mocked by other people there.
So those were your Those were your massive security problems.
Those are massive.
That's it. Headline does not match the article.
Here's a scary thought.
The news is telling us today that people who are on immunosuppressants, which apparently could be 60 million Americans, it makes the vaccination not work.
What? 60 million Americans might have a vaccination that didn't work at all.
And when I say didn't work, the suspicion is worked zero, as in didn't give you any immunity, as in no immunity could be detected after you got the vaccination.
Now, so far it's anecdotal, meaning that there's not a big study proving it.
There are some anecdotes.
But, oh my God, if this is true...
Oh my God. And here's my question, which I didn't see in the story.
If these immunosuppressants make the vaccine not work, could they make you more susceptible to COVID itself?
Or is it just unrelated?
So there's my question of the day.
Would the immunosuppressants make an individual...
More likely to die from COVID. Feels like it would, right?
Feels like it would.
So if America had 60 million people on immunosuppressants, how many of them are the ones that died?
Because I didn't even hear this being part of a comorbidity.
Unless the reason you have an immunosuppressant is because you have a comorbidity and that was on the list.
But I don't think so. I don't remember seeing it in the top five, whatever it is that you take these drugs for.
So this is potentially a gigantic problem, but I think this is a wait and see.
We'll see if it is. Now, I've told you before that our opinions on politics are assigned to us.
We think we're making up our own minds, but not even close.
You're definitely getting an assigned opinion.
And you can see this when there's a question that doesn't have much of a political element to it, but we've forced the politics onto it.
Now the pandemic did that a lot.
Why in the world would there be different opinions on a pandemic that would line up by political party?
Does that make any sense? In what world does pandemic science information, correct or incorrect, in what world is that political?
Well, in a world in which your opinions are assigned to you.
Not in a world in which you make up your own mind.
But we don't live in that world.
So here's Rasmussen, who did some questions that really point this out.
One question was, was the January 6th riot at the Capitol the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War?
76% of Democrats said yes.
26% of Republicans said yes.
Weren't we watching the same news?
It's all the same news, right?
We watched the same news.
Everybody has access to the same information.
So why is it 76% of Democrats but only 26% of GOP? And I've told you that you can get a quarter of the people to say any damn thing.
So saying that a quarter of the people believe X means no people believe X, except people who didn't understand the question or something.
So once you get down to 25%, that's like zero, because they're the ones not paying attention.
This could not be more clear.
It could not be more clear that these opinions were assigned.
These are assigned opinions.
These are not independent opinions.
Here's another one. Were the summer of 2020 disturbances in the U.S. mostly peaceful protests or riots?
69% of Republicans say riots.
Only 32% of Democrats say riots.
Were we watching the same news?
Why is a riot political?
If a store burns down, it burned down.
It's not Republican fire or Democrat fire.
There should be nothing.
There should be absolutely nothing political in these stories.
And yet, because our opinions are assigned to us, it's hyperpolitical.
Hyperpolitical. Now, is this convincing to you?
Because you're also in the category of somebody who got an assigned opinion.
But can you see it?
I'm interested, because the comments are a little ambiguous right now.
Watching your comments, can you see this?
Is it obvious to you that humans are not making up their own opinions on stuff like this?
I'm just interested if you can see it or it feels like hyperbole to you.
Alright, I'm seeing some yeses, so you can see it.
But you don't think it happened to you, right?
It feels like this is just something happening to Democrats.
Until you realize it's happening to you, you're not really free.
You don't get to go to the next level.
Here's how you can be at least a little bit...
No, I wouldn't say confident, but a little bit safer that you have something closer to an independent opinion.
And that would be, do you sometimes disagree with your own party on something where...
Is there any situation where 75% of the people in your political party say one thing and you disagree with them?
If there are a few of those examples...
You might not be having your opinion assigned to you.
You might be actually coming up with your own opinions.
I think those people exist, but they're by far rare.
All right, so if you haven't disagreed with your own team, you're probably just having assigned opinions and there's nothing else to say about it.
So there's a new force of evil in the world, just about the most evil thing I've seen since the Lincoln Project.
It's a new pack.
It's called the Strike Pack It looks like their deal is to make anti-Republican commercials.
And they did one that says, retweet if you're sick and tired of the GOP assault on democracy and are ready to fight back.
And that is filled with misleading imagery equating the Capitol protests with literal Nazis and Hiller.
But the worst part, the part that just made me, like, fly into a rage, was they take out of context Laura Ingram.
I never can pronounce her name right.
I apologize. Because I think Laura watches the show sometimes.
So I apologize. For some reason, there are some kinds of names that no matter how many times I hear them, like my brain can't process them.
So it has nothing to do with anybody.
Personally, there are just some names I can't handle.
I don't know why. But they showed a picture of her, and I'm not going to do an impression of it, but she was extending an arm...
And it looked like she was just waving to the crowd on some stage event where she was on stage.
And they interspersed her with her extended arm with Nazi imagery.
And when you see them trying to make the case, very strongly, they were making the case that Republicans are basically just Nazis.
There's no subtlety to it.
Republicans are Nazis.
That's the whole deal.
And I say to myself, why does Twitter allow that?
Because that's the most hate speech you'll ever see, that literally a group of people are Nazis.
Now, do the social networks have some kind of an exception for Nazi illusions or comparisons?
Because it seems to me that anything that was somewhat this bad would be banned.
In any other context, this would be banned.
Why is it okay to call the GOP Nazis, but they can't question the legitimacy of an election?
They can't talk about other medical hypotheses just because they're unproven?
They can't.
But you can run this on Twitter, comparing people to Nazis who just aren't.
So Richard, who I'll call Dick, Sky has no readability.
He said Trump did not mock a crippled man.
Well, Dick, let me tell you, Dick, you've never seen the compilation videos.
They show that Trump uses that same mocking impression for lots of different people.
Were you aware of that, Dick?
Dick, did you know that almost everybody who's watching this, except you, for some reason, Dick, you're the only person who hasn't seen the compilation video where he commonly uses that gesture.
You're the only one.
And the problem is that I have a readability problem.
That's why you concluded?
Because you're fucking ignorance?
Because your opinion was assigned to you by assholes?
And you just adopted it?
Oh, I think that's true.
Some assholes told me that's true.
I guess it's true. So, Dick...
I would ban you, but it's too much work to go find your comment.
But thank you for the entertainment, Dick.
Is it just a coincidence that all the people who are by trolls are named Richard?
It's weird. There's a story about Jake Tepper of CNN. He says he won't book anyone on his show who has pushed the, quote, big lie about election fraud.
To which many people asked, including me, is that a standard you're willing to use on everything?
Because shouldn't you then ban people who told other big lies?
Is there only one big lie that matters?
There were no other big lies?
Can you think of anything, anything in the last several years that CNN has said that's not true?
Well, they did say that the president called neo-Nazis in Charlottesville fine people over and over again.
And we know that didn't happen.
It was a RUPAR video that made it look like it did.
We know that CNN has said that the president suggested drinking bleach.
And we know that didn't happen because, again, that was a RUPAR video, not a real one.
They took out the context.
What about the koi fish hoax?
What about the Russia collusion hoax?
Where do you draw the line?
Where do you draw the line?
How could you have this standard that liars can't be on the show?
If you have the standard that liars can't be on the show, it's just an empty set.
There's nothing but liars on TV. I mean, there's just nothing but liars.
So, it's a weird standard, and it takes a lot of guts.
I mean, you have to have guts to say that out loud.
Or you have to think it's true.
Is there something else I can help with?
No thanks. Okay.
My devices just talk to me sometimes.
How about this?
Apparently in London, this is one of the best ideas...
You want to hear a good idea, and one that could change the world?
Have you ever worried about fake news?
Of course you have. And what it's doing to us?
It turns out that there's a solution to fake news, potentially.
I don't want to get ahead of myself.
But there might be a solution.
And it's not fact-checking.
And I'll tell you this story, and then we'll tie it into the fake news.
A London-based People's Tribunal...
So in other words, there's no government involvement.
This is just people who organized.
And they're organizing a public trial, or a tribunal, I guess, called the Uyghur Tribunal.
It has no state backing, and any judgment they make would not be binding on anybody.
But they'll basically have a public trial on whether China is committing genocide with the Uyghurs.
You see where I'm going with this?
The only way I can imagine we'll ever get past fake news is to have public trials for facts.
Have a public trial on anything that's in the news that's accused of being a hoax.
Let's have a trial.
Let's have both sides make their case.
We're putting on trial this fact.
And now individuals can organize.
And they could turn it into entertainment.
Would you watch a YouTube channel in which you saw major questions put on trial and they made it nice and tight and entertaining so it doesn't drag on for days and years like a real trial, but it's just tight and it gives both sides and there's some back and forth and there's some kind of a judge, let's say a moderator judge, who is more of a Judge Judy, like a badass, We just said, nope, that's not true.
Or, nope, if you don't have a link or a source for that, it's not admitted.
Just somebody really staying on top of the people.
Because right now the model is a TV host lets two people who disagree talk and make lies until time runs out.
Right? How good is that?
They can talk until time runs out and you don't know who is right, nobody checks their sources, nothing.
That's our current model.
It seems to me the only way around the stranglehold that the fake news organizations have is for the people to self-organize and self-organize around topics.
So, for example, if somebody wanted to do the topic of, is Israel an apartheid state or just defending themselves?
And just organize it.
Put it out there. Make it content.
I'd buy it. Keep it tight.
Maybe you want to keep it 45 minutes, no longer, because that's all it would take.
Well, somebody said I should do it, but I'm thinking now it should be organized by topic rather than a person organizing a bunch of them, because I don't know that anybody cares enough to organize a bunch of stuff, but you might find somebody who cares enough to organize about a topic like the Uyghurs.
So I'm going to be watching this Uyghur tribunal To see if this is maybe a model to beat the fake news.
Do you remember, speaking of experts, here's an expert opinion that I haven't heard criticized yet.
Do you remember early on in the pandemic when Trump said we're going to work on a vaccination?
What did all the smart people say?
Didn't all the smart people say, first of all, it would take too long?
But there's another thing the smart people said, and they all said it.
And I have to admit, I was fooled by it.
So I'm going to admit I was wrong about this.
Those of you who say, Scott, you never admit when you're wrong.
Well, here's one, okay?
So add this to your list of something I'm telling you I got wrong.
So the next time you come and say, you never say you're wrong, the list is growing.
Because everybody gets stuff wrong, right?
Like, I would never claim I don't get things wrong.
I get plenty of stuff wrong.
I'm just trying to get more right than wrong.
That's the best you can do. But here's the thing.
In the beginning, the experts said, we've never made a coronavirus vaccination that worked.
And therefore, there's probably a reason.
We probably don't know how and probably can't make a coronavirus vaccination that works.
We can make other kinds of vaccinations work.
Do you remember that?
That was considered common knowledge.
So the experts were telling us we couldn't do this.
At the same time, it was literally being done.
Now, obviously, Moderna didn't say this, so the people who knew how to do it knew they could do it, apparently, or had a strong suspicion.
So I believed that when I heard it, and I bought into that, and although I thought, I did predict that our If our therapeutics and our science would rise to the challenge, I did not believe that the vaccinations would be the magic bullet.
So if you're predicting who got that prediction right, I got that one wrong.
So add that to my wrong list.
But here's some frickin' incredible news.
Do you like good news with your coffee?
Sure you do. Sure you do.
I hear somebody say therapeutics is a better answer.
You know, it's still an open question whether we had the therapeutics.
That's all I can say without getting banned.
I don't want to be banned by social media.
So I'll just say it's still an open question whether I was right-ish that a therapeutic would be the big answer.
It could have been.
We just don't know.
I'd say it's an open question.
But the golden age is coming, not only with nuclear energy, as I mentioned, but did you know that this mRNA vaccination stuff has way more potential than just the coronavirus?
How many of you knew that?
That we're on the cusp of something really big.
Really, really big.
Here's an example. Keep in mind...
That the people who are telling you this, what I'm going to tell you, the same people who are telling you this told you they could make a coronavirus vaccination in six months or whatever it took.
Moderna. Moderna told you they could make a vaccination that nobody's ever made before for a coronavirus, and they did it.
Okay? So these are credible people.
They're also trying to do a vaccination with the With the same platform of technology to target a number of other problems, including...
And this is already happening, right?
So this is in the pipeline.
This is not hypothetical.
It's happening now.
They're using this technology to come up with vaccinations against HIV, NIPA, whatever that is, N-I-P-A-H, Zika, herpes, Deng, Deng fever, Hepatitis and malaria.
Those are just the ones that are announced.
That's not even just the ones they might be able to do.
Those are just the ones they announced.
And apparently what's so special about this mRNA platform, if I can call it that, is that it is designed specifically that once you get it working, you can quickly make vaccinations.
Could it be the end of humankind because the technology is bad and kills us all?
Yeah, I suppose so.
It's always possible.
But I feel as though this field is going to be just gigantic.
Just gigantic. And we may have through completely, just completely inadvertently, this might be one of the greatest boons to humanity of all time.
Meaning the coronavirus that nobody wanted Might be the best thing that ever happened to humanity.
Isn't that weird? It could be the best thing that ever happened.
Because the number of people that would be saved by turning this technology into a common platform to solve other problems, it's incalculable.
I mean, you were talking millions and millions and millions.
I've been asked to rate Nick Fuentes' persuasion skills high.
Very high. Now, Nick Fuentes is very controversial.
I'm not going to be the one to endorse anything he says.
That's for him. He can defend himself as much as he wants.
But on the narrow question of whether he's capable...
Yes. Yes, he is.
And he's very capable.
So if you think that he's a bad force in the world, you should be afraid because he's very capable.
And if you think he's entertaining and useful, well, good for you.
All right. That is my live stream for today.
I dare say it was one of the best of all times.
And now I'm going to go do some other things.
And, oh, Catherine is asking how I'm feeling.
Yeah, so an update. I got my second vaccination, the Moderna.
The 24 hours after it were rugged.
You know, it was pretty uncomfortable, I will say, for about 24 hours.
But when it was over, here's the weird thing.
Other people have said this, that you can feel like your whole body is fighting something or evolving or something.
You actually feel like your whole body is involved.
It doesn't just feel like there's a part of your body or something.
You feel like your whole body has something new in it.
Like I had goosebumps all day, and you really...
There's something happening, right?
It's definitely not a placebo.
I can tell you that.
Well, I guess I wouldn't know.
But here's the fun part.
The second day when I woke up, 100% better.
But, and here's the part I'm wondering about, and let me ask this question.
For those of you who got the Moderna shot, the Moderna shot, you've had the second shot, and you also had a little discomfort, or you had a bad day after, how many of you had the following experience?
That when it went away, maybe when you woke up, it was 100% gone, all the symptoms, and you felt great.
So that's the part I didn't see coming.
I didn't just feel a lack of symptoms.
I felt great.
Like, great.
I didn't have a stiffness anywhere in my body.
I exercised more than I have in a long time.
It was great.
And I can't tell.
I can't tell if it's only just because I felt so bad the other day that it was the contrast.
So that's why I'm asking the question.
How many of you felt great after the symptoms went away?
Like way beyond normal grade?
And a number of you are saying yes.
Somebody says it was the marijuana.
No, that's every day. So I couldn't tell the difference.
Somebody says it felt great.
Somebody said it's crazy.
Felt no symptoms.
Psychological, might be.
Perfectly possible. I felt relieved, somebody says.
Okay, yeah, it's probably just contrast.
So it may just be that my brain was relieved and my body was relieved and that's all.
So we will not assume that that is a common experience, but it was my experience.
And man, do I feel good now.
Sparky had no noticeable effects from the Moderna shot.
Well, I hope you're not taking any immunosuppressants.
