Episode 1399 Scott Adams: Nothing But Goodness and Kindness. Possibly Cookies
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
8 things you should NEVER trust
Engineered viruses, CGGCGG
Affirmations and Logan Paul
The Simulation and life themes
Ivermectin effectiveness dust up
President Trump was right...again
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Are you ready? I have some suggestions for how to know what to trust.
Because we live in a world where sometimes you can't trust everything you hear.
Can't trust everything you see.
And I made a list of eight things you should no longer trust.
And here's the list. Never trust.
Number one. Scientists signing a letter.
Scientists don't need to communicate by poll.
They don't need to communicate by signing a letter.
If science is real, they might publish some papers.
They might give some talks, maybe some interviews.
But one thing they usually don't do is sign a letter.
So if you see scientists getting together to sign a letter, that's bullshit.
Case in point, the Lancet article in which a bunch of scientists were duped into signing something that said, well, there's no way that virus could be coming from a lab.
Must be a naturally occurring virus.
So don't trust anything that scientists sign a letter about.
Number two, don't trust any video clip if it involves Trump.
Now, most video clips can be edited maliciously, and maybe sometimes you could believe some.
But don't believe any video about Trump.
Do you know that yesterday there was a big controversy about whether Trump was wearing his pants That's right.
Much of the news cycle, well, not so much the news cycle, but social media, was obsessed by a video that appeared to show Trump wearing his pants backwards because the fly area was blank.
Well, it turns out that when you look at the still photography from that same moment, he has his pants on correctly, and there's a fly there, and everything's fine.
But if you believed the video, Well, you violated rule number two.
Don't believe any video about Trump.
Number three. Don't believe any complicated prediction models.
Do you know why you shouldn't believe any complicated prediction models?
Because they're complicated prediction models.
And if there's one thing you can't trust, it's a complicated prediction model.
Sometimes they might be right, but you don't know when that time is going to be.
You don't know if you're looking at one that's going to be right.
How do you know? It's just a complicated prediction model, so don't trust those, even when they're right.
Don't trust any graph or chart on Twitter, because Twitter is not exactly the place you put your good information.
Twitter is the place you take a chart without the source Slap it up there without any context whatsoever and claim you've found causality.
Don't believe any chart or graph on Twitter.
Number five, don't believe anything written by a journalist.
I know, it's a problem, because most of your news is written by a journalist.
So it's kind of a problem if you can't believe the people who report the news.
But let me say this clearly.
Don't believe the people who report the news.
That would be crazy.
There might have been a time when that made sense.
I don't know for sure.
Maybe it made sense when I was a kid.
I don't know. Maybe they were lying too and we just never found out.
But in 2021, if you believe something because you read it and it was written by a journalist, that's not good thinking.
You should check yourself on that.
Number six. Of things you should not believe in 2021.
Never believe any claim made by a government.
Any government.
Your government. Your enemy's government.
Your ally's government.
Governments are not in the business of telling the truth.
It's not even what they do.
It's like saying, hey, my lawnmower is failing to fly.
Yeah, yeah, your lawnmower can't fly.
Because it's not really meant for that.
Your government is not meant to tell you the truth.
If you looked at a list of what they do for you, telling you the truth wouldn't be on the list.
Defending the homeland, that's on the list.
Lots of stuff is on the list, but telling you the truth, it's not even on the list.
It's not even in the Constitution.
Find it in the Constitution, the part about telling the truth.
It's not there. Right?
It's not even an expectation.
Here's the seventh thing you should not believe in the year 2021.
Data. Data.
Because data is usually wrong.
If the topic is interesting, the data is probably wrong.
If the topic is boring and uninteresting and maybe unimportant, well, data might be right.
But as soon as the topic is important, people take sides.
The data gets fudged.
Don't believe data.
Now, that's not to say all data is wrong.
Of course, some of it is right.
But don't just believe it.
That's a bad take.
And then number eight, which is sort of overlapping with some of these, don't believe your own eyes or ears.
If you find yourself saying this statement, you've got a problem with your thinking.
Has this come out of your mouth in the last year or five?
Have you ever said, I know it's true, because I saw it with my own eyes, or I heard it with my own ears, or both?
If you're saying things like that, you need to check yourself.
Because you can't tell what's true by seeing it with your own eyes.
You can't tell. And you can't tell by listening to it.
Because you might not hear it right, and other people are interpreting it differently, and you might not know the context.
So don't believe your eyes and your ears.
They're lying to you all day long.
So those are the eight things you should not believe in.
Scientists signing a letter, any video about Trump, complicated prediction models, any graph or chart you see on Twitter, anything written by a journalist, any claim made by a government, yours or any other government, data, And your own eyes and ears.
Don't believe any of that stuff.
And now, let's drink to that, because I know you're on board.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chelsea, a cantine drug of Alaska, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid, and I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes...
What?
What? Yeah, that's right.
try everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it's going to happen now.
Go.
Those of you who got here a little bit late, aren't you happy that you didn't miss the sip?
Yeah, of course you are.
Well, it turns out that in our land of fake news, turns out that that old virus, that virus, that COVID-19 virus, that pesky little virus, which China Told us was completely evolved from natural means.
Probably some bat bit somebody or a pangolin or some damn thing.
But it turns out that there's this pesky little genome sequence in COVID-19.
And if you're familiar with it, it's the CGG-CGG. You all know what I'm talking about, right?
Yeah, yeah. I'm talking about The genome sequence, CGG-CGG, well known.
We talk about it all the time.
And it's one of 36 sequencing patterns that COVID-19 has.
It's one of the patterns. But there's something about this pattern.
Something about this pattern, which we just learned.
Something about it.
Did you hear? Apparently...
There's something about this virus which has never occurred in nature.
Never. As in, as far as we know, this one sequence here has never occurred in nature.
But it has occurred.
It has occurred. We are familiar with it.
Do you know where it occurs?
Only one way we know it occurs.
An engineered virus.
It's the only way it happens.
That we know of.
Now, we're still open to the slight possibility that this would be the first time it ever happened naturally.
But it would be really, really, really unlikely.
Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
But really, really, really unlikely.
And so as of today, based on what we know from additional unreliable sources, because remember, all of your sources are unreliable.
The ones you agree with, they're unreliable.
The ones you disagree with, they're unreliable, too.
So, you know, good luck figuring out what's true, but as of today, I believe that the common wisdom, by all the smart people, is that we are now reversing our default assumption.
The default assumption is now, I believe, let's see how today develops, right?
But I believe that as of today, All of the smart people will say the default assumption is that it was an engineered virus and that it was engineered in the Wuhan lab and that it got out.
Now, nobody's saying it got out intentionally.
I still think that's crazy talk.
But got out, that wouldn't be a big surprise.
Stuff gets out of labs.
It happens. It's a fairly common thing, unfortunately.
And so this puts the lie to everything we had been told.
And as you know, there was a letter signed by a bunch of scientists.
That's right. There were a bunch of scientists who signed a letter saying that, no, no, no, this virus certainly was not engineered in any kind of a lab.
It's a naturally occurring virus.
How many of the Scientists who signed the letter, I think it appeared in Lancet, how many of those scientists who gave their opinion in public had studied the virus and are experts in this topic?
Maybe none?
Right? Maybe none?
How many of them had looked at all the genome sequences and would be qualified to know that if they looked at the CGG CGG sequence, where apparently the tells for being an engineered virus, that's where they live. Just think about this for a moment.
There was a letter signed by a bunch of scientists saying, oh, this is definitely natural, no doubt about it.
At the same time, other scientists who apparently know what they're talking about, which would be different than the people who signed the letter, People who know what they're talking about, they actually knew where to look to find out whether it was engineered.
Let me say this again slowly, and then I'm going to add a curse word because it needs that treatment.
Send your children away.
The cursing is on the way.
So I'm going to say it again slowly so this fully sinks in.
There were people in our world who were experts in viruses who knew where to look on the sequence to find out if it was engineered.
They knew where to look and also what to look for.
Always. From the beginning, these people existed.
People who knew where to look And what to look for.
They were always with us.
Are you fucking kidding me?
Are you fucking, fucking kidding me?
There were people who knew where to look, and when they looked, it was there.
Is your head exploding right now?
My head is exploding.
There is something so wrong about this whole story that I can barely handle it.
And certainly science has lost us now.
And it's not our fault.
It's not your fault if you're denying science from 2020 on.
Believing science is fucking stupid.
Fucking stupid. So the next person who says, hey, I think you're a science denier, you should say, thank you.
Oh my god, I guess I've been paying attention.
I am a science denier.
And if you believe the science, you are fucking stupid.
You're a fucking moron if you believe science just because a bunch of scientists told you.
They just told you, so it must be true.
I believe my science.
You're a fucking idiot if you believe science from 2021 on.
Now, before this, before 2021, I would say, you know, maybe you hadn't been warned.
Maybe you just were unaware that scientists could be this unreliable.
Maybe you just didn't know.
I think that was reasonable.
But from this day on, literally this fucking day, the day we find out that this letter signed by scientists was always bullshit...
Always bullshit.
From this day on, if you believe science because the bunch of scientists told you it was true, you're a fucking moron.
There's no middle ground.
Now, that doesn't mean that the scientists will be wrong.
Sean says, is there a deep state for the establishment scientific community?
Well, I don't think so in terms of Something controlling all of science.
I do think that each field of science, in each pocket of science, has its influential people.
So, in the specific sense, yes.
But not in some big generic sense.
So, that's the world we live in.
How about that? Apparently, according to Rasmussen, who's reporting today, that Biden's approval is in a free fall since May 31st, which is not that long ago.
Thank you, Kevin. I appreciate that.
Apparently, independents have turned on Biden.
So, of course, Democrats still love him.
Republicans have always disliked him.
But independents were sort of split, and they just turned.
They just turned this week.
Michael says, remember when Twitter and Facebook would ban you for telling the truth?
Well, you know, to be fair, nobody knew what the truth was.
To be fair, Twitter and Facebook were also believing scientists.
And again, I'm going to say that if you believed scientists up until the year 2020, 2021, that was pretty reasonable.
Pretty reasonable. But if you believe them from now on, You're just a fucking idiot.
And you have no credibility whatsoever.
Which doesn't mean they're wrong.
Obviously, many times they'll be right.
It's just that you can't tell the difference.
Don't pretend you can. And they don't have credibility anymore.
Credibility being different than being right or wrong, right?
Credible means that if they say something, you're predisposed to thinking, well, it's probably true.
It's coming from a credible source.
But they are no longer a credible source, and we need to recognize that.
So I'm wondering, what topic was it that made Biden's approval go into freefall with the independents?
Do you know? What would be your take on this?
What is it that caused Biden's approval to suddenly drop in the last What do you think it is?
Somebody says inflation, masks, gas prices, maybe something about China, Russia, borders, I don't know.
The debt, tax rates, I don't know.
If I had to guess, I'd think maybe tax rates people are starting to worry about.
Cyber security, maybe.
Is it just everything?
Maybe it's just everything. So I don't know too much about that.
Here's a fun topic.
Most of you are aware that Logan Paul just had a fight with...
What's his name? Remind me the name of the fighter he just fought.
One of the best... Why am I blanking on who Logan Paul just boxed?
What's the name of the boxer?
Yeah, Floyd Mayweather.
Only one of the greatest boxers of all time, whose name I couldn't remember.
So if you're not into boxing, let me just tell you the basics.
Logan Paul was a YouTuber, but he trained very hard and actually became a credible fighter, changing careers.
And Floyd Mayweather is aging, but one of the best boxers ever alive.
They just had an exhibition match, and Logan Paul boxed him to a tie.
And I guess in the exhibition match, unless there's a knockout, you don't get a winner.
Now, I'm not sure that Mayweather fought as hard as he could.
I don't know. They both had something like a $20 million payday or some big number like that.
And here's the interesting part about it.
It turns out that Logan Paul is an affirmations guy.
And I don't know if he believes that we live in a simulation.
I haven't seen anything about that.
But he's very clearly talking about affirmations.
Here's a tweet from Logan Paul in which he was getting ready for the match, the boxing match.
And he said, in his tweet, he said, In 2015, I moved to Los Angeles.
Every morning and every night, I look myself in the mirror and repeat ten times, quote, I will be the biggest entertainer in the world.
I had no idea how or when it would happen, but after six years of manifestation, it's happening.
Life is a wild ride.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that in 2015, he literally, every morning and every night, looked in the mirror and repeated ten times, I will be the biggest entertainer in the world?
Well, maybe not every single day, but I believe it.
I believe it. It would be sort of a weird lie to tell, right?
Did it work? Do you think he accomplished I will be the biggest entertainer in the world?
Did he accomplish it?
He did. He did.
If only for one day.
Check your entertainment news for today.
He's the biggest entertainer in the world today.
All the stories are about him.
Now, he won't be bigger than, you know, Kanye or Michael Jackson in the long run, right?
But today, he's the biggest entertainer in the world.
He fucking did it.
He fucking did it.
You know, unbelievable.
He did it. You know, you could argue whether he's the biggest entertainer in the world.
You could argue how long is it supposed to last.
But one of the things I've told you about affirmations is don't make them specific.
Because when you make them specific, you might get them exactly the way you've made them.
And he did. He got exactly what he asked for.
He became the biggest entertainer in the world.
But what was missing is four years.
If he had said, I'll be the biggest entertainer in the world for years, well, first of all, that'd be harder.
And second of all, it didn't happen.
I doubt he'll be the biggest entertainer in the world for years.
But he was today.
He actually hit his fucking mark.
And, you know, when he talked about it after, he was quite inspirational, actually, talking about how you shouldn't believe the odds and Now, do you think you should stay in your channel?
Did Logan Paul take all the advice from all the losers in the world and say, Logan Paul, you're a YouTuber.
Yeah, you had some wrestling experience.
I know you've worked out.
You've boxed. I know you've got a little, you know, weight and height advantage over Floyd Mayweather, but really, seriously.
Seriously. You know, is this going to work out?
And he changed lanes.
And he made, I think, $20 million.
Minus taxes, minus managers and stuff.
So, wow.
I love this story.
I also love the sportsmanship.
You probably saw Logan Paul and Mayweather going at each other before the fight.
After the fight, Floyd Mayweather said, wow, he was much better than I thought.
Gave him full respect. Full respect.
Oh, is that net 10 million, somebody's saying?
Anne-Marie. Is that net for each of them 10 million, or are you just saying after taxes?
After taxes would be half that, yes.
All right. Well, that's enough of that.
I was asked the other day if the simulation has a null hypothesis, which in regular English means, is there a way to prove it's false?
Because if you can't disprove it, Maybe you can't prove it.
So I don't have that.
In other words, I don't have a way to prove it or to disprove it.
But I want to just put this thought out there for your observation.
And it goes like this.
In my opinion, my life has been so close to what a video game should be like that I can't ignore it anymore.
And one of the things that is very video game-like goes like this.
I have a theme my whole life, starting when I was, I don't know, 10 years old.
There's a theme in my life, and I'm sorry I'm not going to tell you what it is, but it's a theme.
There's a specific problem that I have over and over and over again, going so far beyond what chance could possibly deliver.
Now, you might say to yourself, Scott, Scott, Scott, everybody thinks everything that happens to them is a coincidence, because in a way it is.
Everything's a coincidence in a sense, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Explain it away with all your rational thoughts, etc., and maybe you're completely right.
But watch for the following pattern.
Is there a theme in your life?
Do you have a theme?
Is there a specific, let's say, a character flaw you have, or a challenge?
That just over and over and over seems to apply to you, but as far as you know, it's just not happening to other people.
Now, of all the problems that I could have, it's infinite, right?
There are infinite problems that could just arise that I don't know are out there.
Just anything could happen.
But that doesn't happen.
Instead, My problems are clustered, and have been since I was fucking 11 years old, one right after another.
And here's the freaky part.
Each time I get a new challenge within my theme, and I beat it, seemingly against the odds, I beat it.
As soon as it's beaten, within about No more than three days, usually two, a new problem that comes from nowhere will appear to replace the one that just got solved within the theme.
You know, whatever your life theme is.
And this just happened to me again.
You know, it's happened to me countless times.
But I've started predicting.
Try this. My belief is that the most accurate view of reality is the one that predicts.
Several days ago, I predicted out loud, privately, but out loud, that I had just solved my last problem in the theme, and that a new problem in the theme was going to come out of nowhere.
And boy, did it.
Wow. Wow.
Again, you know, you don't need to know the details of my little problems in life, but I got this supernova Of all fucking problems.
Solvable. You don't have to worry about me.
I'm not going to die or anything. But, oh my fucking God.
And I predicted it a few days before it happened.
I predicted it. So it's the predicting it that was the...
Now, your guesses are amusing, but you're not going to be able to guess it.
And no, that's not it.
But watch this.
Why are you all guessing the same thing?
No, you're not going to be able to guess it.
So... I was just laughing at your guesses.
But the point is, follow this in your own life and see if your problems follow a theme.
And if they do, does the new problem appear as soon as the old one is gone?
Because if it does...
You might be in a video game.
You might be in a video game.
Here's another supposition.
If you play a video game with, say, a friend, the two of you are inhabiting, let's say, different avatars, and maybe the rest of the characters are NPCs, just robots.
How can the two avatars that know each other in the outside world Make sure they know each other in the inside world, and they can tell the difference between a real player and an NPC. If we're a video game, you probably would need to be able to tell the difference within the game, so you know which ones are real.
Have you ever noticed that there are some people that seem real in your life, and there are others that are there, but they don't seem real?
In other words, there's some connection that you never make with them.
They're almost like scenery.
But there are other people that you know from the first moment you see them, oh, that's a real one.
Come on, you're on the team.
You know your teammate in the game as soon as you see him.
You know that's my teammate.
Sometimes it looks like love at first sight.
Sometimes it's meeting a friend and you say, there's some reason I met this friend.
Like there's something about this friend that It's not like the other things.
There's just something about this person, and then you're friends for life.
So I just put that out there.
Nothing like a scientific proof, but fun.
Here's an update on the ivermectin dust-up.
So I've accidentally created a little intellectual battle on Twitter between Brett Weinstein and Andres Bacchus.
The topic is the effectiveness of ivermectin.
And Brett recently did a very well-done and well-viewed video with Dr.
Corey, was it, in which they talked about the many studies that show ivermectin is effective, but each individual study might be flawed or too small or have its issues.
But if you do a meta-analysis of all of them, it becomes clear that ivermectin is overwhelmingly useful.
Against the COVID. Now, that all sounds very convincing.
And as I said, if you're just watching one point of view, you walk away from that video saying, well, that's pretty good.
I don't have anything to say about that.
It all looks like it's backed by data.
Smart people did smart things with the data.
Now they've got a conclusion.
Why would I doubt it? And then Andreas Backhaus comes along, whose expertise is And that gives you the ability to compare things and essentially be good at analyzing data and situations like that.
And Andres points out that meta-analyses are not generally considered a gold standard.
I'm paraphrasing here.
He didn't use those words.
But the point is that there are lots of smart people who would say some version of this.
And one expert said exactly this in an article I just read.
He said that if the signal is clear, in other words, if you've got a bunch of different studies that aren't that great in their design, but they all say clearly the same conclusion.
Let's say your study showed 100% success no matter what kind of study you did.
Well, if every study you do showed 100% success no matter how poorly designed the study was, Well, probably it works, right?
And you don't need a meta-analysis because you can just look at it and say, well, it doesn't matter what we throw at it.
Every single study, no matter how poorly designed, no matter what problems we put into it, is such a strong effect that you still see it, right?
When that's the case, you don't need a meta-analysis, right?
So if the signal is so strong you can just see it by looking at it, you don't need the meta-analysis.
But what if it isn't?
What if looking at it is like, ah, I don't know.
It's a little bit all over the map.
Maybe the results are not gigantic, but they might be small.
We don't know. If it's unclear, then it turns out that when you do the meta-analysis, what matters the most is what assumptions you made.
Which studies you said, well, we'll either leave the preprint studies out or we'll include them in.
Just one example. Of the many decisions you would make about, oh, this study, well, I did say we were going to include all the studies, even if they had flaws, but gosh, I think this one is more flawed than the other ones.
So this one I'll keep out, because it isn't the kind of flaw that the other ones have, or something.
So the point is, the meta-analysis is not something that all experts say, oh yeah, you got me with the meta-analysis.
Some experts say, I don't believe in meta-analysis because you had too many choices when you decided how to do it.
So it was your choices and your assumptions that created the outcome.
It wasn't the data. It was the assumptions you made about which data to use.
That's all that happened.
Now, so there's been some back and forth.
I think Andres just posted just when I was going live...
So he's making his point that maybe some of Brett's data is more coincidence and that each time you see the ivermectin come in and you see the infection rate drop, that in all or enough of those cases, to destroy the point, in all or enough of those cases, there are also other things going on and you can't untangle them.
Meaning that there's always a change in the lockdown, the weather's getting better, the vaccinations are pouring in, our ability to do therapeutics is better, we have vaccinated and protected the most vulnerable, we know how to treat these things, blah blah blah blah blah.
So how do you know it was just the ivermectin?
Because I don't know if this is true.
But I'll bet you could look for random variables that also correspond.
So, you've got one view that says it's so obvious in the data that maybe you don't even need a meta-analysis, but they did one.
And you've got at least one very smart person saying, don't believe meta-analyses.
But, this gets back to my original point, right?
Apparently the data is so strong, meaning that basically every test says that ivermectin works, do you need to do a meta-analysis if every study shows it works?
How is the meta-analysis going to show something different?
What the hell kind of assumptions could you make if every study shows it works?
There's nothing you could deselect that would turn that into the wrong answer, would it?
Now, again, you need the gold standard randomized controlled trial.
You need a huge number of people to make sure that you have enough of them.
And we don't have that yet for ivermectin.
And so here's the question.
And here's what Brett said on a tweet.
And he was concerned that I'm being influenced maybe in the wrong direction on this topic.
And I asked him what he thought I got wrong, and Brett responded, and what I saw, meaning watching the Twitter back and forth and maybe the live stream, I'm not sure.
He said, and what I saw, you, meaning me, correctly found the reputation hazard issue, but then allowed a credential to back you off the increasingly obvious pattern.
Would you agree with his statement?
Did I allow a credential, and I assume he's meaning Andres, Backhouse, did I allow Andres' credentials to back me off an increasingly obvious pattern?
Well, I don't believe I backed off an obvious pattern because I never said the pattern doesn't exist, did I? I'm looking at your comments and you're agreeing with them.
What does it mean to back off an obvious pattern?
Define that. What does this statement mean?
That I backed off an increasingly obvious pattern.
You know that doesn't mean anything, right?
You're agreeing with a statement that is neither true nor false.
It doesn't mean anything. How do you back off an obvious pattern?
Did I say the pattern is not obvious anymore?
Did I ever say that? Have I ever said that the pattern is not obvious?
The whole point of it is the pattern is obvious.
The only reason we're talking about it is that 100% of the people who look at it say, well, the pattern's obvious.
The critics say the pattern's obvious.
The proponents say the pattern's obvious.
Brett says the pattern's obvious.
Andres says the pattern's obvious.
I say the pattern's obvious.
As far as I know, The studies are very, very, very weighted toward it working.
And each study has some issues.
Where have I backed off?
So that's my view.
It's never changed. Tell me where I changed my view.
Where did I evolve?
Where am I wrong?
Yeah, you got pretty fucking quiet, didn't you?
So here's my point.
We can't even tell what somebody else is arguing.
Right? You don't even know what my fucking point is half the time.
Which is normal. That's not a criticism of a view.
It is completely normal for human beings not to even understand the fucking point.
Much less disagree with it.
Much less have different data.
Much less have a better analysis.
Much less have better pattern recognition.
Half the time you don't even know what the fuck I'm saying.
Alright? And there's nothing wrong with you.
Right? That's not a criticism in the least.
Same with me. It's just a thing.
People don't always fully understand what other people say.
It's the most common thing in the world.
So here's my point of view.
The pattern is 100% obvious.
It's never been less than 100% obvious.
But people can be fooled by obvious patterns.
That's all. Keep that in mind.
Let's talk about Putin and Biden.
Apparently Putin is putting the screws on Biden a little bit here.
And I guess President Putin on Monday signed a law to officially end the country's Open Skies Treaty with the US. So that treaty allowed us to fly over Russia and Russia to fly over the US. To build confidence that neither was doing things in a big way that would be militarily aggressive or something.
But I don't know if there was much value in that because who knows?
Can the satellites see it all anyway?
Does it matter if we have an open skies treaty?
Does that really buy us anything?
Because probably between the cyber means and satellites, I feel like we can see their shit and they can see our shit.
I don't know if that If you talk to an expert, would they say this even matter, this treaty?
But the fact that he's cancelling now, so soon to when Putin and Biden are going to meet, is kind of a little slap in the face.
It's a little bit telling of who's in charge.
Interestingly, last month, I think Fox News reported this, that the Biden administration told Russia that it had no plans to rejoin the arms control pact that Trump abandons.
So Trump had cancelled an agreement with Russia on arms control, and during the election, candidate Biden had said that it was short-sighted.
So Biden criticized Trump for cancelling that deal, and now Biden agrees with Trump that the deal should not be reinstated.
So add this to your growing list Of times when Trump was criticized for being wrong and has been proven right.
Added to the list.
The list is getting pretty long.
The things that Trump told us were true, but the news and the Democrats had to just disagree because it was Trump, and now they're just eating their words.
So here's another example.
Alright, so he's right again.
You know, there was one thing that I was most worried about with this pandemic.
And, you know, beyond the danger and the economics of it.
Of course, we're all worried about the deaths and the economy.
But one of the things I was most worried about is that when it was done, a significant number of the public would say it never happened.
Because I could kind of see this coming from a mile away.
And when I say it never happened, I mean that there will be a substantial amount of the public who will say, as Tucker Carlson did last night, that it was just a severe seasonal flu because the death rates were so low.
How many of you would agree that now it looks like we're seeing something like the end of it?
How many would you agree with this shocking statement that it was not a pandemic that Really.
We just treated it like one.
And that it was nothing more than a pretty bad seasonal flu.
How many of you agree with that?
I'm going to read off your statements.
Agree, agree, disagree.
No, no. Very bad flu.
I agree, I agree. Yes.
Hyperbole, but was way overhyped.
Not a pandemic.
Yes. No, disagree.
Don't agree. No, no, no.
All right. So, you can see from that That there are plenty of people who agree with this statement that a pandemic didn't fucking happen.
It makes me a little crazy.
So here's my context to help you out.
Number one, it's not a bad seasonal flu because the regular seasonal flu isn't real.
Meaning, the numbers that we get every year about people dying from the flu probably have never been real.
Meaning that the real number of people who die from the flu is probably closer to nobody.
Now, the real seasonal flu numbers are collected by statistics.
They just say, well, it looks like more people died this season than usual, so that must be the flu people.
They don't count flu deaths.
And what about people who are old and have the flu and then die?
Did they die of the flu?
Well, I don't know.
They had the flu. And they were about ready to die.
So the first thing you need to know is that there was never a thing, as far as I can tell, could be wrong, right?
So I'm going to allow that I could be wrong about this.
But based on what I can see so far, the regular flu was the hoax.
The regular flu.
This is not a bad version of the regular flu, because the regular flu deaths were always a hoax.
They didn't exist.
And that means I'm going to have to run really fast.
But let me give you this comparison.
Tucker points out that 99.5% of people under the age of 70 would survive COVID-19.
Therefore, it wasn't really a pandemic.
So 99.5% survived.
So you shouldn't be worried about that.
Let me ask you this.
What percentage of Americans, all Americans, died in World War II? Was World War II a big deal?
Anybody? Anybody? Was World War II a big deal?
I think it was.
Seems like a big deal, as in all the history books.
In World War II, how many Americans died?
0.3%. In other words, as a percentage of the whole country, fewer Americans died in all of World War II than died in the pandemic.
Now, if you want to say that didn't happen, then pick a side and say, yeah, and World War II was no big fucking deal.
Vietnam, nothing.
If that's your view, support it.
Just tell me that the Civil War was sort of a blip, World War II was an inconvenience, and, you know, it's about the same, if that's your view.
