Episode 1554 Scott Adams: How to Save the World and Why Biden Might Not Be Part of it
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Who briefed Biden on supply chain problem?
Steele dossier, a fraud on America
J6 political prisoners
HOAXES that defined President Trump's admin
Net electricity from fusion...by 2024
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
And you'd be as happy as I am right now if you had just seen a meme of Joe Biden's dog.
I'm not even going to describe it.
Just suffice to say that if you get a chance to Google a meme that's probably labeled something like Joe Biden's dog, you've got to see it.
Oh my goodness, what a day.
So... Alright, I'll just show it to you.
So over on the Locals platform, the commenters can put in images as well.
So you can't see this on YouTube, but...
Here you go. Here's a...
Joe Biden's dog.
I don't know why that's so funny, but it is.
I usually don't like jokes like that.
I don't like bathroom humor.
But when they're funny, they're funny.
All right, how would you like to take it up a notch?
And I know you would. And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chelser stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It's going to happen now, and watch what it does to your antibodies.
Watch this. Go.
Yeah, you can feel it, can't you?
You're getting healthier right now.
Now, I know there's a lot of talk about whether you'll need a booster, because the coffee will protect you for a while, but like most good things, it wears off.
Every three months, you need another simultaneous sip.
I recommend daily.
Yeah, I recommend daily, but the minimum is once every three months you need a booster.
Just like the vaccination.
All right. Let's get my comments back here.
I lost them. There we go.
All right. I don't even know where to start.
Are you following the Ashley Biden's diary story?
Ashley Biden's diary?
Now, we don't know what's true yet, right?
We're in the fog of war stage, but the things that we think we know are true is that allegedly there's an Ashley Biden diary that somebody stole, and it ended up allegedly in the possession of Project Veritas.
Now, the FBI apparently has raided people associated with Project Veritas to try to get back the Ashley Biden's diary, which we don't know is real or not.
That's right. The FBI raided to get back a diary that we, the public, don't know if it's a real diary or not.
What do you think? What do you think?
Well, I think if the FBI goes to raid to get it back, it's probably a real diary.
Probably a real diary.
Now, among the things in this alleged diary...
Have you all seen it?
Am I just telling you something you've already seen?
Or is there somebody here who doesn't know this story yet?
Well, I'm going to tell you some tidbits from it that, again, it's allegedly real.
And the FBI allegedly raided to allegedly get it.
So, you know, it's leaning toward it might be real.
Ashley S., can you tell us about the Ashley...
The Ashley thing.
Yes, well, here's what it says, among other things.
So she's got some...
She has some, let's say, suspicions about her own life, that she may have been sexually abused by somebody.
She's not saying her father.
But that she may have had some sexual abuse that's repressed or something.
Now, that part sounds pretty sketchy.
But she also alleges that she took showers with her father...
Until she was inappropriately old, she thinks.
Inappropriately old for taking a shower with your father.
Now, she doesn't mention what age that is.
If I were to ask you, what age is appropriate to stop taking showers with your father?
I would like to get your opinion.
And I'm seeing... In the comments from 2 to 6.
6 seems a little old, doesn't it?
I'm seeing 8, 10.
10 years old.
Really? There's somebody here who thinks that a 10-year-old girl can take a shower with her father?
You know, I respect that there are different cultural norms, but that one surprises me.
I'm seeing 4, 2 to 3.
I'm seeing some nevers.
Yeah, I think I would be maybe a little closer to the never category myself.
Yeah. Colin says, never stopped.
Never stopped. She's 35.
Still going. All right, so we don't know how much of this story is true.
And I would especially caution you...
That things like a reference to how old she was when she was taking showers with her father.
Remember, these are really sketchy memories.
I'll give you the larger context.
The larger context is that she has some memory problems.
Am I right? So I'm going to do what I think I would do if this kind of allegation were against Trump.
Okay? I'm going to try to play this fair.
Okay? And if we're playing it fair, the first thing we have to say is that the diary itself, if it's real, number one, we don't know if it's real.
Number two, if it's real, the larger context says she has deep problems with her memory.
Right? That's the context.
She has deep problems, she admits, with her memory of things which seemed a little sketchy in her past.
If you say, in the same context as this claim, it's like right on, you know, it's the next page of the diary, allegedly.
If you say that you have trouble trusting your memories, and then you say that, you have to put that in the same context of the person who's saying it doesn't know if it really happened.
And when I say really happened, I mean at the age she imagines.
Because it may have stopped actually younger than she remembers, for example.
So in other words, let's say, and I'm not alleging this is true, I'm just saying so that you can think of how these stories can be wrong in the fog of war.
Imagine if she really stopped at two, but she has a memory of stopping at four, and believes that four was way too old.
Just guessing. Speculating.
But that would explain it.
And remember, the whole context is she can't trust her memories from that time.
So I would say that we don't have any kind of a smoking gun.
It's just an interesting story.
Definitely a red flag.
Definitely a red flag.
When you put it in the context of other Joe Biden strange behaviors around children.
But Definitely not some kind of a kill shot or anything.
It doesn't look like that.
All right. But certainly a red flag.
All right. Now, what do you think of the if it's true that the FBI was looking for it?
What does the FBI have to do with that?
Is it just because it's a presidential thing?
How does the FBI get authority to even be involved?
They probably found it somehow, but it makes you wonder how.
All right. As someone pointed out to me on Twitter, Biden got infrastructure deal done and Trump could not.
Is that fair? Is it fair to say that Biden got infrastructure done and Trump did not?
That's fair. It's literally true.
But I would add some context.
One of the ways he got it done is by using a Trump technique.
I'm pretty sure that the infrastructure bill passed as large as it is, in part because it started sounding like $3.5 trillion.
It was a gigantic first offer.
Which allowed him to get probably more for infrastructure than he would have otherwise.
And maybe even it made it possible.
I don't know. It's hard to know.
But if Trump had done this, started with a big number and then negotiated down to still a big number but smaller, I would have said, yeah, that's what he always does.
That's good technique.
Start huge, negotiate down.
Because in truth, Biden made us think a trillion dollars wasn't really that much.
Right? In your mind...
In the past year, can you confirm this for me?
I'll say it's true for me, and then you can say it's true for you or not.
In my mind, a trillion dollars went from an ungodly amount of money you can't even imagine to, well, okay, I guess we're talking trillions now.
Right? How many of you normalized trillion?
I would say I did.
Now, if you didn't, it's not a universal, but I'll bet a lot of people did.
I'll bet a lot of people did.
And even if you swear you didn't, I'll bet you did a little bit, right?
So, I mean, it's up to you to tell me how you feel.
I can't tell you how you feel.
But if I had to guess a little bit, I'll bet each of you moved a little bit on that, even if it doesn't feel like it.
But then I would add yet further context, which is Biden's the one who got us out of Afghanistan, but that had just to do with the timing of it, right?
If Trump had been re-elected, Trump would have gotten us out of Afghanistan, probably in a different way.
But some of it's just timing, right?
It was just time for infrastructure.
We put off infrastructure as long as we could, and then it was just time.
So I think whoever was president would have gotten it done.
It was just time.
But the way we credit or...
Or criticize presidents is what happens while they're in office.
And if you're going to use the standard that I would have used, I would have used the same standard if it had been Trump, Biden got it done.
So you can like it or hate it, and that's fair, but he got it done.
And that can't be ignored.
All right, here's the scariest story of the day.
Turns out we don't have a commander-in-chief.
Have you noticed? You think you do, because you've got this whole president situation, Biden.
But here's why I say we don't have a commander-in-chief.
I would say the biggest problem at the moment in the country, it's arguable, but I would say the biggest immediate problem is the supply chain problem.
Would you agree? Would you agree that that's the biggest immediate problem?
Even if you think inflation and debt and climate change are the bigger problems, nuclear war, but immediately...
Like right now, the supply chain is the biggest problem.
Would you agree? Let's just say it's a big problem.
So you would expect that the President of the United States would have a good handle on the biggest problem in the United States at the moment.
Pretty fundamental assumption, right?
If it's the biggest domestic problem, the president should understand it and be all over it.
And yet, have we noticed that he doesn't seem to be involved in any way?
Right? Governors are involved and citizens are involved and even I'm involved.
I've been working on it.
You know, mostly as boosting message.
I mean, that's all I can do. But I've been working on it.
What's Biden been doing?
Have you heard anything? I haven't heard he's done anything.
Now we know why. Now we know why Biden hasn't done anything.
He doesn't understand the problem.
In his own words, he said the problem was...
And by the way, he condescendingly said that the public wouldn't understand the supply chain problem.
He goes, are you kidding?
The public would never understand the supply chain problem.
Too complicated. And then he explained it.
He said it's because plants, factories, basically, closed because of COVID. Two things that Biden said at the same time.
It's too complicated for the public to understand.
And here's the reason.
Because a lot of plants...
When I say plants, that's a misleading word.
I mean factories. Manufacturing facilities.
He said a lot of them closed during the pandemic.
That's it. Now, does Biden really believe that the general public can't understand that statement?
That factories closed during the pandemic and that's why we're behind.
He didn't think people could understand that.
He said that out loud.
At the same time, I'm not putting two conversations together.
This was the same conversation.
Too complicated for the public to understand, and it's because factories closed during the pandemic temporarily.
He said both of those things at the same time.
Here's what else.
He's 100% wrong.
That's not the problem. That's not the problem.
The problem is we don't have enough chassis to move empties because we got a...
The problem is actually closer to the opposite.
The problem is there are more goods ordered and coming in than we can handle.
Biden says the problem is we're not making enough stuff.
Exactly the opposite of the problem.
Exactly the opposite of the problem.
Do you know what this means?
Tell me in the comments what this means.
Like, do the implication.
He's 100% wrong about the problem, and the public even knows it for the most part.
Even the public understands it better than he does.
We have no leadership.
It's worse than that. Let me say a statement that will just chill you.
He's never been briefed.
He's never been briefed on the problem.
Just take a moment to think about that.
No matter how much you say about his mental capability, and I say plenty, the truth is that when he appears in public, he does say coherent things a lot of the time.
Most of the time. We make a big deal when he's a little incoherent sometimes, but sometimes that's taken out of context, etc.
He's mostly very coherent in public.
We don't know about behind closed doors.
He hasn't been briefed.
He would totally, his capabilities would suggest totally that if he had ever been briefed on this problem, he could reproduce it.
Does anybody disagree? If he had been briefed, because he does it on every other topic, on every other topic, such as the $450,000 alleged payment to the immigrants, he explains clearly and succinctly...
I was talking about the dollar amount being BS, not about the fact we're dealing with them, and here's why, and here's the thinking.
Completely cogent, right?
But on this topic...
He's not just babbling.
He's never heard about this topic.
Literally. He's never been briefed.
I think we can conclude that with some certainty.
Because if he's been briefed, and he still doesn't understand it, then he has to be removed immediately.
Because it's not that hard.
You know, we got backed up.
Not enough chassis to move the empties.
That's basically the story, right?
You don't think he could have remembered that for a day?
Even in his degraded state, he could have remembered that for a day.
Could have put it on a little note card.
A little bit of note card.
Oh, here's the problem. Not enough chassis.
Here's what we're doing about it.
I don't think we have a commander-in-chief.
And I don't think we know who's in charge because nobody briefed him.
Somebody needs to ask this direct question...
Peter Doocy would be a good choice.
Here's the question. Mr.
President, you said the supply chain is a problem caused by pandemic closing factories.
There are no experts who believe that to be the case.
Have you even been...
Have you been briefed on the problem?
And who briefed you?
Ask that question, Peter Doocy.
And it's the end of the Biden administration.
If that question is asked in public, Mr.
Biden, it's clear that you don't understand anything about the supply chain because you think it has to do with factories, and it doesn't.
Who briefed you on this?
Who briefed you on it?
Ask that question, it's the end of the Biden administration.
And I don't think it'll get asked.
But that would end it, wouldn't it?
Because that's the one that shows you he doesn't have a grasp or he's not even being filled in on stuff.
There is more than one supply chain problem.
That's true. That's true.
But the emergency one is the one we're worried about now.
There is a larger, we need to train more truckers and stuff like that.
But that's not the immediate problem.
All right. That's pretty scary.
No commander-in-chief. Or if we have one, we don't know who it is.
Now, as Adam Dopamine pointed out on Twitter today...
There's another announcement referring to the Biden administration as the Biden-Harris administration.
And Adam Dopamine on Twitter, not his real name, asked this question.
When before have we talked routinely about the administration with the vice president's name on it?
Is that common?
Now, when you're running for office, you're talking about Trump-Pence.
But did anybody talk about the Trump-Pence administration When they're just routinely talking about them?
I think you only talked about them in the context of running for election, right?
So is this the cat is on the roof?
Is this them getting us used to the fact that it's really a team, and if Kamala makes the decisions tomorrow, what Biden did today, that's fine, because it's all the same team?
It feels like they're softening you up, right?
It does. Now, here's some good news.
Remember when Trump was president and it felt embarrassing because other leaders of other countries were mocking our president, even somewhat openly?
And it felt bad, and we're like, ah, I hate it because other leaders are mocking our president.
Well, here's the good news.
We fixed that. We fixed that, because you don't see Biden get openly mocked by other leaders.
Now, of course, the reason for that is that he's mentally disabled.
And the other leaders are being polite.
But on the other hand, you have to admit it worked.
It's not the way I would have played it, but it worked.
They don't mock them anymore.
So we've got that.
Always look for the good news.
My favorite story, which is probably fake news, but I'm going to treat it like it's real.
Because here's how you treat news that you think might be fake news.
Does it agree with you?
If it agrees with you, go ahead and use it.
Standard procedure.
If it's funny, go ahead and imagine it's true.
And by the way, I would like to give this advice to you.
Should I ever be the subject of another hit piece, sort of the barstool approach?
So I'm assuming that somebody's going to come after me hard again when elections crank up, just as they did in the I don't know if you remember this, but Bloomberg did a pretty brutal hit piece on me when I was saying good things about Trump when he was running the first time.
And I would expect somebody to take another run at me just to quiet my voice.
But it hasn't happened yet.
But here's my advice to you.
Can I give you some advice?
Should you hear horrible things about me in the future, you won't know if they're true or false.
I mean, you might have a suspicion one way or the other, but you won't know.
I mean, basically, I'll be the only one who knows if it's true or false.
So here's my advice.
If it's funny, just believe it.
Or if it agrees with whatever opinion you already had, then go ahead and believe it.
Chances are 60% chance or higher.
It's not true. But if it makes you feel good, I give you my blessing.
If it's funny, go ahead and believe it.
So if you hear something like the Richard Gere stuff, you know that Richard Gere, famously an actor, many of you, if you're too young, you don't know, but a famous actor, and the rumor was that he once...
And by the way, I don't think this is true, but for a long time the rumor was that he had to go to the emergency room because a gerbil was stuck up his rectum in some kind of alleged sex play, and he had to get it out.
Now... I may have said this before in public, but I've never liked Richard Gere so much as I did when he didn't deny that rumor.
I've never loved an actor more, honestly.
The rumor was he put a gerbil up his butt for sex reasons, and he didn't deny it.
Now, I may be wrong about that.
Maybe somewhere he did, but he simply just didn't address it.
Now, I love that.
I love that.
Because I don't think it happened, but he let you think it would happen because he let you enjoy it.
Now, Richard Gere studies Zen, right?
That's sort of his philosophical nature.
And I feel like that was the perfect Zen response.
If you want to believe it, go ahead.
And so I would like to be as big a man as Richard Gere.
Should this ever happen to me, if you want to believe it, whatever it is, you know, in the future, go ahead.
If you like it, if it entertains you, go ahead.
You have my blessing.
All right, but here's the story.
The Independent publication, I think it's a UK publication, they started their article with this.
This is good writing.
This is good writing right here.
Boris Johnson may have hailed Joe Biden as, quote, a big breath of fresh air.
But it appears that events at the Climate Summit Conference in Glasgow may have given the Duchess of Cornwall, on some level, grounds to disagree.
That's right. So Biden was called a big breath of fresh air.
But the story is that...
Apparently when he was meeting Kamala, the Duchess, he farted so long and loud it was impossible to ignore.
And apparently she can't stop talking about it.
And what I love is that the President's alleged fart was classified not only by its audible volume, but by its length.
So now we've got a sense of how loud it was, but also how long it lasted.
And I don't know if you know, but that is two of the most important variables in a fart.
How loud and how long does it last?
Now, there are other ones. You know, there's...
Of course, there's the whole short consideration.
So there's much more to this topic, but I think the two important things are the volume, loudness, loudness volume, loudness volume, stop it, stop it.
The loudness volume is all I'm talking about.
And the length.
So apparently those were impressive.
And on Twitter, a Twitter user called BecomingAlert, Has suggested that because of this situation, they might need to rename Air Force One to Air Force Two.
I'll just let that sit there for a while.
Yes, they might have to rename Air Force One to Air Force Two.
Okay, you have to give me that one.
I mean, not me, it's not my joke, but that's pretty funny.
As dad jokes go, that's pretty funny.
Come on! Admit it.
You know you liked it.
Air Force 2. Excuse me.
Allergies. All right.
So, again, I don't know if this happened, but it's pretty funny.
So, Gladden Greenwald is reminding us again in a tweet.
He said, the last two DOJ indictments, DOJ indictments, The first was Hillary's lawyer, and I don't know if you call it Hillary's lawyer, and then of Christopher Steele's main source, shows that the Clinton campaign funded and fed to the FBI a gigantic batch of lies in the 2016 election, which the vast bulk of the media spent three years ratifying and spreading.
Now, is it my imagination, or is this story too big for our brains to process?
Because I feel like that's what's happening.
I feel like the Democrats, in particular, spend so much time believing in Russian collusion that when the facts come out, the story was literally the opposite, that Hillary seemed to have some Russian connection, at least through the Russian-American guy who was born in Russia, and even the lawyer had some connections to Russian, I guess.
And they did this disinformation campaign, and the media, which is obviously illegitimate, spent years saying it was true.
This story is so big that I don't think your brain can handle it.
Not yours. But I think the brains of the Democrats Because they're normal.
I'm not saying Democrats have small brains or something.
I'm saying that a normal brain put in the situation that the Democrats are in now, I don't think they can see this.
I think it's invisible.
I think that cognitive dissonance really creates like a blind spot where this is actually invisible.
Similar to the many hoaxes, I'll talk about that in a moment, when you find out something you believe to be true is just completely opposite, your brain can't really spend time on it anymore.
You just have to sort of act like it didn't happen and walk away.
And I feel like this is such a big mind-effer that the Democrats can't wrap their head around the fact that it wasn't just not true, it was opposite.
It was opposite. And the worst thing we've ever seen in this country, I would imagine, certainly worse than Watergate.
Let me ask you this.
Joking aside, is this worse than Watergate?
No joke. Give me your honest answer.
Take the politics out for a moment if you can.
It's impossible. But if you're just going to be absolutely as unbiased as possible, is this worse than Watergate?
Yeah, it's not even close, is it?
Right? I mean, usually I ask a question like this, I'm going to get a little disagreement, but this isn't even close.
And how much attention did Watergate get?
A lot more than this.
The news is going to treat this like it didn't happen.
I mean, the same people who spread the lies up until now are just going to act like it didn't happen.
And they are. Successfully.
They are successfully, successfully making this story go away.
Biggest story, I don't know, biggest story in years, in my opinion.
What's bigger than this? What?
Pulling the end of Afghanistan?
Maybe, I don't know, barely.
Pandemic? Pandemic's pretty big news, but I don't know if it's as big as this.
This seems pretty big.
All right. I finished watching Tucker Carlson's series The Patriot Purge.
How many of you have also watched the Tucker Carlson special The Patriot Purge?
Three parts. Alright, now I recommended it to you based on just the half of the first part, because it was mind-blowing.
And it is mind-blowing, and I recommend it.
But I'll give you my full review of it, and then it might make your viewing more fun.
Number one, it doesn't seem like it was intended to be an unbiased approach.
Can I say that? Can I say that it doesn't look like there was an attempt to make it an unbiased approach?
It's a biased, right-leaning approach to it.
Now, if you look at that and then compare it to the rest of the news, you might be able to triangulate what's true.
But it's not trying to show you both sides.
It really isn't. So be aware that it will paint the January 6th event as sort of a...
Sounds a little bit more like a stroll in the park by the time you're done.
I'm exaggerating here.
But it starts out by saying that the story was exaggerated in the other direction and makes a credible case for it, which is that the media was calling it a deadly day, deadly attacks, et cetera, but literally nobody died on the police or, you but literally nobody died on the police or, you know, government side.
There was one protester who was killed in circumstances that a lot of people have questions about.
But that was the only death.
And the media pretended that there was a, I don't know, was it Capitol Police or Police Officer?
But they pretended that he was injured and died later of his injuries, and none of that happened.
He seemed to die for unrelated reasons, but not long after.
But he wasn't hit by a fire extinguisher, and he wasn't bear sprayed.
So that part we do know.
So Tucker does make the case that it was exaggerated to how bad it was.
But here's my pushback on that.
In my opinion, if an unpredictable, and here's the key word, unpredictable, I'm not saying they were dangerous, and I'm not saying they were not dangerous, because that you don't know.
When you're in the middle of it, you don't really know.
Right? So it was unpredictable.
And if an unpredictable mob, who are pretty angry, gets inside the building where our elected officials are, In my opinion, you can start shooting.
Now, I don't think that...
I think it's a tragedy that...
Was it Ashley?
Was that her name? Was shot while protesting.
So you could argue all day long whether the shooter made the right decision or not.
Because it's a very specific situation.
But I'd say in general, if an unpredictable angry crowd gets inside the building with your elected leaders, you can start shooting.
I'm okay with that.
Now, I think that it was maybe misunderstanding.
Maybe it wasn't that dangerous.
Who knows? But if you get an unpredictable crowd inside my government building and my government officials are cowering and hiding inside, yeah, you can start shooting.
I'm okay with that.
Now, just my opinion.
I know many of you disagree.
And I'll allow that you can have some disagreement on this one.
The other thing that...
The Tucker special Patriot Purge did really well is back up a prediction that I made and got mocked for.
Do you remember my prediction before the election that if Biden won, Republicans would be hunted?
It's confirmed.
Now, not every Republican in every way, not yet, but it's pretty clear, and I think Tucker makes this case really well.
That the people who have been locked up do not seem to be anything but political prisoners.
That means they were hunted.
They were literally looked for by facial recognition and every other means.
They were hunted down.
People who were there for peaceful reasons, were not accused of any violence whatsoever, were hunted down.
And don't you think that this is part of a larger demonization of Trump supporters to make it easier to arrest any Trump supporter without a reason?
Keep in mind that the allegation, I don't know if this is true, but it sounded credible, that even right now there are people in jail for nonviolent crimes, like in solitary confinement and stuff.
I mean, some pretty bad stuff happened to those protesters who were not accused of a violent crime, many of them.
Now, they were certainly in the wrong place at the wrong time.
But I would say that the...
How many would give me this?
So this is a judgment call, right?
So would you say that my prediction that Republicans would be hunted has been borne out?
Obviously not every Republican is being hunted, right?
On locals, lots of yeses.
Let's see, over on YouTube, what do you think?
Did that prediction bear out?
I'm seeing some yeses.
True yes. Mostly yeses.
Now, keep in mind how much I was mocked for that.
Didn't that sound crazy? I mean, even people who were right-leaning or independent said, you know, you've gone too far.
They're not going to be hunted.
Literally hunted and jailed.
Literally hunted and jailed.
That's happening right now.
And apparently we're okay with it because we're letting it stand.
I don't think we'll be okay with it on 2022 or 2024.
I feel like it's game over.
I think Democrats are going to have a defeat like nobody's ever seen.
At this point, unless something really big changes, and of course something really big always does change, so that's the trouble with predicting, but at the moment...
It's going to be a fucking blowout, 2022.
It's going to be just...
It's just going to be big, I think.
That's what it looks like, unless something changes.
All right. Let's see what else is going on.
So part of what makes this January 6th thing so bad is that once you...
Sort of create the standard that if somebody is adjacent to white supremacists or adjacent to a crime, that's close enough.
Because that's really what happened with these people who were basically trespassers and protesters.
They were adjacent to worse behavior.
They weren't there for that behavior.
They didn't approve of it. But they were in the vicinity.
They were in the vicinity.
That was enough to go to jail and get basically mentally destroyed in jail.
So, that is a really dangerous thing.
Now, let me give you some context.
You ready? For my audience, it is very important that at least you see both sides, to the extent that I know both sides.
I want you to put this in context.
The things you're thinking that the Democrats are doing...
Looking toward some kind of totalitarian communist situation, putting Republicans in jail, etc.
How much does that sound like what the left thought Trump was going to do?
Pretty similar, right?
Don't you think that the left was so sure that Trump was going to round...
Do you remember? They actually believed he was going to round up LGBTQ people and put them in camps.
That was literally something that they talked about.
Trump's the most pro-LGBTQ president of all time.
I mean, Biden, I think, beats him.
But up until that point, he was the most pro-LGBTQ president of all time, I think.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but he never had any thoughts about that category that were negative that I'm aware of.
He's not even blamed of, like, that one time he said something insensitive.
Nothing. And yet we were sure that some portion of the country was sure they were going to be rounded up.
Well, I would say that the actual rounding up of these patriots who were at the January 6th goes way, way further than We're good to go.
Right? I mean, at this point, you could say they were completely wrong, because none of it ever materialized.
Nothing that matched their deepest fears about what a Trump could do in office, none of it, ended up being even close to anything that happened.
Am I wrong?
I don't think so. All right.
I would say, at this point, that the Trump administration is largely defined by three great hoaxes, but I'm going to add some.
The hoaxes that define his administration are, first, the Russia collusion hoax, which we now know was engineered by the Democrats, the fine people hoax, which was engineered by the Democrats and their press, and the drinking bleach hoax, which was engineered by the Democrats and the press.
So, if you think about it, they came up with a hoax That would fit every category of what a president does.
So the Russia collusion hoax sort of made him an unfit commander-in-chief, if you would believe the hoax.
The fine people hoax would make him a racist.
And the drinking bleach hoax would make him the worst president for a pandemic.
So they come up with a hoax that matches each of his job descriptions.
It's not a coincidence.
There's no coincidence here.
Here's some more. I would say that the January 6th insurrection is a hoax.
Based on some real stuff, but a hoax.
Is there anybody who would disagree with my characterization of January 6th as an actual insurrection where they actually intended to take over the country and hold territory?
You'd agree that was a hoax, right?
At this point. There were real people doing real bad things and they need to be punished.
The legal system will take care of that.
But that was a hoax.
Right. So that hoax is the one to keep Trump out of office.
That's the point of it. But there was also the kids in cages hoax about immigration.
Now, if you're saying, wait a minute, that wasn't a hoax.
He actually put kids in cages?
Yes. Yes, he did.
Exactly like Obama did, following Obama's, the Obama administration rules, which required it.
Now, it looked worse because the volume went up, the number of people came across.
But the hoax part is to imagine that it was Trump's plan.
It wasn't. He was just following the law, the Obama law.
And by the way, I'm not in favor of putting kids in cages, in case you wondered.
Here's another one. How about the hoax that the courts have ruled there was no election fraud?
That's a big one. The latest hoax.
The courts have all ruled.
Even Bill Maher believes this one.
I would love to have a conversation with Bill Maher in which I just run down the hoaxes and see how many of the hoaxes he believes.
Because I'll bet he believes half.
And I like to use him as one of my examples.
I have like three people I use in all my examples because they fit everything.
But Bill Maher is really well informed.
Bill Maher is very well-informed.
And I'll bet, it's just a guess, I'll bet he believes at least half of the hoaxes.
Anybody want to take that bet?
I'll bet if I talk to him personally, it would be great to do it on camera, I'll bet he would believe half of them.
And that's a well-informed person.
That's how deep this goes.
That's a well-informed person.
And then, of course, he mocked a reporter's disability.
How many of you know that was a hoax, right?
The one where he allegedly mocked a reporter's disability by doing an impression?
I think most of the people on the right have seen the compilation where he does that same impression he does with a variety of people who are clearly not physically disabled.
It's just something he does when he thinks somebody's being stupid.
He goes, like that.
I mean, if you've seen the compilation clip, you know it's a hoax.
If you haven't, you think it's definitely true.
Why wouldn't you? So, the number of hoaxes that define the Trump administration is incredible.
I mean, this is really incredible.
Now, certainly there are hoaxes about Biden as well, but I guess we live in the world of hoaxes.
All right, speaking of hoaxes, How many of you believe the following statement?
So I'm looking for a yes or no, and I'm going to give you a statement about the pandemic, and I'm going to get a test whether you have fallen for a hoax.
Yeah, not so funny now, is it?
Because you're wondering, oh crap, I hope this isn't me.
So here's my question, and we'll find out who fell for it.
How many of you believe that a vaccinated person, on average, not an individual, but on average, how many people believe that vaccinated people spread the virus as much as unvaccinated people go?
How many believe that vaccinated people spread as effectively as vaccinated and unvaccinated?
I'm seeing yeses and nos.
So do you know which one is the hoax and which one is true?
I'm saying lots of no's.
Joe Blow says I believe it.
I say yes's and yes's and no's.
All right, here's the answer. How do you spread a virus that you don't have?
That's the answer. People who are vaccinated, they clear the virus much faster.
That's not a dispute.
If two people get the virus at the same time, the peak viral load is pretty similar.
But the person who's vaccinated clears it quickly and is much less likely to get it in the first place.
Much less likely. So, even though the peak viral load is the same for a short period, the person who's vaccinated doesn't spend much time in that condition compared to the unvaccinated person.
Now, if you're doubting...
Somebody's saying WRONG in all caps...
I can't tell if that's... Oh, I was going to hide you, but that might have been a joke.
So this is where you can't tell if parody and reality emerged.
So somebody said in all caps, WRONG! And I can't tell if that's a joke.
I mean, I don't know.
It might be. So, anyway, so some of you are still disagreeing.
Now, if the science changes, I will change my opinion as well.
But... As of now, I don't think anybody in science doubts the two facts, that you're less likely to get it if you're vaccinated, and you are less likely to have it for a long period.
Which means that you're way less likely to infect somebody if you're vaccinated.
You can still do it, though.
All right. And now they're talking about having to get vaccinated every three months.
Let me ask you this.
If the government says you have to get a booster every three months...
Too far, right?
Too far. That's just not going to happen.
Telling me to get two vaccinations was a stretch.
But, you know, it's an emergency, so we got it done.
Telling me to get two vaccinations plus a booster...
Is already stretching my willingness to comply.
Well, I probably will, because, you know, in for a penny.
So, you know, I'll probably double down.
I haven't decided yet, but I'll probably double down with a booster.
Now, so I'm a compliant, wouldn't you say, even to a fault, I'm a compliant citizen.
Would you agree that I'm a compliant citizen?
Because I got the vaccinations pretty much the way I was told to do.
Let me say this. I'm not going to get a booster every three months.
I'm not. Come on.
Especially as the therapeutics are coming online.
I'm not going to get a booster.
Let me just say it as clear as I can.
If the government is listening, I'm pretty compliant.
I'm just the kind of citizen you want.
I say the Pledge of Allegiance.
I don't kneel for the flag.
I get my vaccinations.
I'm not going to get a fucking vaccination every three months forever.
Can I say this as clearly as possible?
I'm a compliant citizen.
But no, no, I'm not going to get a vaccination every three months.
No. No.
No. Hard no.
Fuck you no. That's the noest no you'll ever get from me.
You can't get more no than this.
This is a hard no. So, if our government decides that's going to be the new standard, it's over.
It's over. Meaning that their ability to lead us will just be done.
Just done. Because I will not be led that poorly.
I can put up with a lot of poor leadership.
We all can. Because it's a messy system, right?
Sometimes they're just guessing. But they're guessing on our behalf.
But this wouldn't be guessing.
This would just be too far.
Just too far. And I don't even care if the science supports it.
Do you? Let's say the science supported it.
And you even believed it.
I'm not going to get a vaccination every three months.
Just not going to happen. Not in the context of having therapeutics.
If we didn't have any therapeutics, maybe.
Maybe. I might be scared into it, I guess.
But not with therapeutics, no.
All right. Thomas Massey had an interesting question.
See if you agree.
Representative Massey tweeted, if the vaccinated are more likely to have asymptomatic COVID, in other words, you wouldn't know if you had it if you were vaccinated, more likely than not, When they catch COVID, why doesn't Biden mandate require testing them weekly instead of testing the unvaccinated?
Huh. Interesting.
It's kind of a good question, isn't it?
Now, there is an answer. There is an answer to it.
But it's kind of a good question.
Because his point being that if you are unvaccinated, you'll immediately...
Fairly soon, know if you've got symptoms, and then, of course, you can get tested.
But if you are vaccinated, and you can still get it, you have the most reason to test.
Am I right? If you're vaccinated, your reasons to get tested are higher than your reasons if you're unvaccinated, because you wouldn't know if you had it.
Now, that's not... It's one of those points that just makes you think.
So I'm going to...
Because Massey's one of your smarter members of Congress, right?
So sometimes I think he's just making you think about the logic of it, right?
Now, I do think that there's, you know, there's a reason, blah, blah, blah.
I'm not going to give you my math reason because you won't agree with it anyway.
I think it could be defended, but it's a good question.
It's a perfectly good question.
I think the answer would be either test everybody or why are you bothering?
All right. Bill Maher was dumping on the children.
Is climate change the only issue where children are in charge?
Can you think of another one?
And am I wrong that children are in charge of climate change?
You know, through, let's say...
Tundberg, Greta Tundberg, now she's no longer technically a child, but her followers are mostly children, and I think children are driving things, right?
You know, hey, stop leaving this burning planet for us, blah, blah, blah.
But it also looks like our solutions are from children, sometimes.
Because if climate change were the risk people are saying, and adults were in charge, what would they be talking about?
If climate change were run, if the topic were being managed by adults, what would be the main thing that they'd be talking about?
Nuclear energy, right?
Adults know you need nuclear energy.
Why are the children, and why is climate change not talking more about nuclear power?
Do you know why? Because children are afraid of it.
That's why. I mean, adults do, to some extent, if they're not informed about the newer technologies.
But you can see the signs that children are in charge because they don't talk about the solution.
They're afraid of the solution.
Nuclear. So we certainly need to get children not in charge of our major issues, no matter how major you think that is.
And the children are shaming us into action because they believe it, because they've been brainwashed.
They're the least rational creatures, and they're in charge of what they would say, and many would say, is our biggest issue.
So am I wrong that the issue that Democrats, at least, would say is the biggest issue to the planet, the children are in charge of it?
Is that wrong? Because it looks that way to me.
Remember, I always tell you that we misread where power comes from.
We think that the elected officials have power.
Not really. They only have power to help us on the ones where we can't decide because the public is divided.
But climate change is just clearly the children are in charge.
Somehow we put them in charge, and their fears are making our decisions.
Driven by fear. Children's fear.
And somehow we drifted into this situation and accept it.
Now, let me change everything.
Are you ready? Nothing we talked about matters.
That's the headline to the next topic.
Nothing I've talked about in the news will matter.
There's something bigger coming.
It's going to make everything you talked about suddenly not matter nearly as much.
Remember I told you there are some things that I hear before you hear?
Here's the one I was waiting for.
Not the one, but one.
So here's something really, really big that I knew about before you, just because I got to hear about it personally.
So Sam Altman, famous investor.
I think he's still head of Y Combinator.
So if you don't know the name Sam Altman, just Google it so you can understand the story.
Just Google Sam Altman.
What you need to know is when it comes to, you know, startups and investing, one of the smartest people on the planet and one of the more successful ones, right?
So insanely smart, successful, and in exactly the right place to tell you this.
He's invested in and plans to invest more in a company named Helion, which plans to make net electricity from fusion in 2024.
Now, some of you know what that means.
Let me say it again.
One of the most believable and credible people in the area of what's coming...
Especially somebody who's invested a lot of money in it, and has been working in this area for seven years, just told you in a tweet that they're going to have net electricity, meaning that they will make more electricity than they will use energy, from fusion in 2024.
That changes everything.
Do you realize what this changes?
If he's right, and remember, high credibility here, if he's right, everything's going to be different.
Now, you can't even...
I mean, it's almost impossible to understand how different this will be.
Now, if anybody's new to this, fusion would be the safe, cheap form of nuclear...
It wouldn't melt down.
It can't. And he says, further he says, this is what Sam says, with the long-term goal of electricity for one cent per kilowatt hour.
Electricity might cost one cent per kilowatt hour.
Can somebody tell me what your cost of energy is per kilowatt hour where you live?
If there's somebody here who has a I'm seeing numbers like 13, 25, 11.
Probably depends where you are, right?
All right, this is gigantic.
This is gigantic.
Now, do you think that this fusion model, should it work, do you think it will be reproducible?
Yup. Because I don't imagine that Sam Altman would fund something that you could only make one of them.
He's not going to do that.
So obviously, they're building a model that you can reproduce.
This changes everything.
Now, here's why I knew about this before you did.
So I actually heard it from Sam Alpin.
Got to hang with him a little bit a few years ago, and he told me about his investment in this, and told me he said the following statement then.
He said it's been reduced to an engineering problem.
Maybe you've heard me say that before, but that's where I heard it.
It's been reduced to an engineering problem.
They solved the science.
The science is already solved.
They just have to iterate until they figure it out.
And we know how to do that.
We know how to iterate.
And so they are. He's iterating to success.
And he thinks 2024. Do you think he would have tweeted this unless he was pretty confident?
I don't know. I mean, I think you'd have to be pretty confident to tweet this.
So, again, when you hear a story that's this big, I think your automatic response should be, well, I don't know, right?
If you just doubted every big story about fusion for the last 30 years, you would have been right every time.
But this one's a little bit different.
Let me say, let me put it in a different context.
If Elon Musk had told you...
That you might have fusion in two years because it looks good, would you believe it?
If Elon Musk told you that, would you believe it?
If he told you it was an engineering problem, it had been reduced to an engineering problem and we think we can have it in two years, would you believe him?
Some yeses, some noes.
You know, I never criticize the skeptics because doubting stuff usually turns out to be right.
But, so Sam Maltman, you should mentally put in the same category of credible futurists, if you will.
Has Scott Adams also invested?
Excellent question. How come only one person asked me if I invested in that?
Isn't that the most logical question?
The answer is no. Not.
So I don't have any financial interest in it.
Let me tell you what things I do have financial interest in, because that's a good question.
I recently invested in Regeneron.
Recently. So I haven't made any money on it, because, you know, the smart people got in a long time ago.
I will also tell you that long before you knew Regeneron was saving lives, I already knew that.
And I heard it through...
I can't tell you how I heard it, but...
or why I heard it.
But... If I had invested when I first heard it, that would have been pretty good.
And I don't know if Regeneron can still be a good investment, so I'm not recommending it, by the way, because the therapeutics that are coming out will be a direct competition.
So the question is, are you going to get both, or do you not need as much now?
So I don't know. So I don't recommend that as an investment, but you should know if I say good things about Regeneron, you should know that I also put a small amount of money behind it.
I've also invested in Israel Index Fund.
So if Israel's economy in general does well, I do well.
Because it's a startup nation and well-educated, and I think they have their security situation under control.
So that's why. What else?
Bitcoin. Bitcoin. So I own Bitcoin.
So if I say good things about Bitcoin, you should factor that in.
Just trying to think of investments might have some political element to them.
I don't have any coffee investments.
Don't have any gold.
I don't believe in gold as an investment.
I've got some, yeah, I have Ethereum too.
I don't have a reason to talk about ETH too much, but I have some of that.
Those are the only coins I have, just ETH and WAM, my own coin.
Oh yes, yes.
Amazon, that's a good point.
So I've also invested in Amazon.
I bought all the tech stocks when they dumped the pandemic.
So by Amazon, Microsoft, Tesla, Twitter.
I have Twitter stock now.
Something else. Um...
Uh...
Let's see. How's Twitter stock doing since you bought it?
I think it nearly doubled since I bought it.
I don't own any Netflix.
I should have. I don't own any Facebook.
Oh, an Apple. Yeah.
I didn't own a lot of Apple stock.
Originally, I bought a little bit of Apple stock, but now it's like a major part of my portfolio because I just held it.
Yeah, One Hub didn't do so well.
How do you feel about Musk dumping stock?
I don't know that he's dumping stock.
He's probably just diversified.
Oh, and yes, and I own equity in the locals platform.
That is correct. And I see Tesla as an energy play.
That's Adam Townsend's observation.
Unrealized profits.
Didn't you start with locals?
What do you mean? Don't know what that question means.
I'm an investor in locals.
Small investor.
Do I own Rumble now?
You know, I don't think anything happened stock-wise.
I'm not close to that, actually.
I should pay more attention.
Yeah, I'm an original investor in locals.
That's correct. Alright.
Do you sell your Ether now?
You know, once I realized that selling crypto has the same tax implications as other investments, I just thought, I'll just hold it and see what happens.
So the only reason I have crypto is just as a diversification thing.
There is a Dilbert NFT. There's two of them.
Go to OpenSeas and then you can find them.
They're both for sale. One of them for $21 million.
Last I checked. The tax man will always get you.
Yeah. Who has the best locals channel?
I don't want to call favorites.
Will the metaverse make the bubble worse?
I don't know. I don't know that that would make anything worse.
Oh, the bubble, you mean like the knowledge bubble?
Yeah, actually it would. A lesson on the technicalities of doing an NFT. Oh, yeah, maybe.
I don't know if enough people would care about that, though.
That was Bill Gates' toilet project?
I don't know. I think he'd made some great technical leaps there.
Scott, do you support people resigning from work?
That's just personal decisions.
To allow audio to continue on live streams when turning off a mobile screen.
I don't know if that's what locals controls.
Is that not something on your own phone or your device?
I don't know if that can be modified.
Brett Weinstein said he'd be interested in talking to me.
Well, yeah, I think he's mentioned that as well.
No, he didn't mention that to me.
I'm thinking of somebody else.
At the moment, I'm not going to do too many appearances.
and says I'm just overworked.
Time to feed the kids?
Do you have any new ideas that we'll utilize WEN tokens?
Yes, but nothing to announce.
So there is something happening there, but don't get too excited about it.
Cats doing well? What?
Syringes laced with fentanyl killed Caucasians in Houston concert.
I don't think that's true. All right.
I think I would treat that as not true.
Do I want to invest in a marijuana tech startup?
No, not really. Yeah, YouTube Premium allows background audio, but I don't know how they do that.
Do we need visualizations to debunk hoaxes?
What app on my phone do I use the most?
Twitter, by far.
Why no gold? The trouble with gold is that it seemed to me there would be a day when the psychology of gold just disappeared.
Now, gold will always have an industrial use, but I feel like maybe crypto is what will make it happen.
If you had a choice of owning crypto, especially Bitcoin or ETH, if you had a choice of them versus gold, That's no longer a close call, is it?
Because they're both psychology-based assets, but one has clearly got momentum and one looks like it's the past.
Why would there be 11 heart attacks at a vaccine-mandated concert?
Well, I don't think they were heart attacks.
They were crushed, weren't they? If crypto fails, gold is back.
That's true. But that's...
Read the reports before commenting on Houston.
I'm going to say that the odds that fentanyl was killing people in Houston are very low.
Very low. Not impossible.
But if I had to make a bet on it without reading any of the news, I would bet against that pretty heavily.
I don't know.
Seizures on video.
Seizures on video.
So it looks like there will be more we find out.
I'm seeing people saying the syringe story is true.
Other people think the syringe story is true?
Someone was injecting people at the concert.
Interesting. I am ignoring the long history of gold, because I think history changes with crypto.
Early reporting, fog of war, victims had to be revived with Narcan...
You know, it sounds like to me, it sounds more like there were some bad pills at the concert.
Because it would only take one batch of fake Xanax.
You know, you get the counterfeit Xanax and it's got fentanyl.
If somebody had one batch of pills that had too much fentanyl in it, that would kill all the people who died.
I'm not saying that happened.
I'm saying that would be the...
The odds that somebody was using a syringe when they could have handed down counterfeit pills...
You wouldn't use a syringe if you could use pills.
Yeah, I...
Okay, I already convinced one of you that the more likely explanation is if fentanyl is part of the story, and it might be.
It might be part of the story.
If fentanyl is part of the story, probably it got into them through pills, and maybe there was somebody with a syringe also, maybe not.
But I feel like maybe two stories got conflated there.
The theme of the concert was praising Lucifer.
Is that true? I don't think so.
Yeah, high temperatures, dehydration, getting crushed.
