Episode 1560 Scott Adams: I Tell You All the Ways the Left is Being Manipulated by Their Own News Sources
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Dr. Robert Malone vs. Big Bird
Stockmarket crash predictions by Robert Kiyosaki
Why is it okay to hunt and hurt white males?
Steve Bannon indicted by DOJ
Andrew Sullivan article on the left's narratives
Rittenhouse trial thoughts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning everybody, ladies and gentlemen, and everything else.
What a day we have today.
Wow. Wow.
This could be so good.
Let me start. By showing how I fixed iPad's design problem.
You've probably heard that Apple computer does a pretty good job on design.
Well, not good enough.
I had to take the iPad and fix it myself.
And I'll show you how I did it with one of my iPads here.
See, here's my iPad.
And then if you see, let's see, see right here?
See this thing? This is a little sticky thing that I added myself.
Do you know why? Because every time I want to turn on or off my iPad, or I want to change the volume, I have to search all four corners because they look identical, and the iPad can work in any orientation.
So from the front, you can't tell where the power button is, The on and off switch.
And you can't tell where the volume is.
So on each of my iPads, I had to modify them so I know which corner the stuff is.
Because otherwise, I have a one in four chance of getting it right on the first time.
So my experience of the iPad is always the same.
Wow, this iPad is a miracle of design and function.
Okay, let's turn it on.
Damn it! Damn it!
Damn it! I hate my iPad, but at least it's on.
That's right. Every single time I turned my iPad on or off, I hated it.
And I hated the designers who did this to me.
I don't get it on the first try ever, it feels like.
It should be one in four, you get it on the first try.
But it feels like zero.
Now, don't get me started about who created the micro USB standard.
Have you ever used the micro USB? Let me give you an example.
I'll do the simultaneous sip in a moment here.
I'll give you an example.
God damn it. Is this the time I'm not going to be able to find...
I'm going to go into a swearing rant in about a second.
Come on. There we go. Here's a micro USB. Now, they made it so that there's a right way to go in and a wrong way.
So, you know, this is right sometimes, and that's right sometimes.
And let me show you how the micro USB standard works.
So here are my headphones. And these headphones, of course, you can charge them.
Now, the headphones look very similar on the left and the right.
So, because the people who make these headphones suck, and I hate them, like...
Like I hate anything.
So you first have to figure out which of the two places has the place you plug it in.
So I first go, well, let's...
It's sort of dark in here.
I can't even... I don't know.
Can you see the black hole on the black?
It's usually dark when I use these.
So you're like feeling around.
Where is it? Oh...
This one? This one?
So there's a 50% chance you get it.
So then once you find it, then you have to get the USB into it.
Let me show you how to do that.
So here's the USB hole.
You see that doesn't go in there.
Do you know why? Because that's not the fucking USB hole.
That's just a little indentation exactly where the USB hole would be on the other one.
That's right. They have a fake USB hole on one of the two places it could be.
They hate you.
Whoever made these, they hate you.
All right, so this is the real USB hole right here.
Now, you notice how it's made so that if you don't get it exactly in the hole on the first try, it'll just...
It doesn't guide you into the hole.
Make sure that if you don't hit it on the first try, it doesn't go in.
Alright. But let's say you were more careful and you could find it.
Then, here's how you get it in.
Remember, you have to get it in right side up.
So, here it is.
Sliding right into the hole.
Okay? So it doesn't go in this way.
So if it doesn't go in this way, obviously, it's the other way.
So you turn it upside down, and then you put it into the hole.
Okay, it doesn't go into the hole the other way, because it turns out that the first way was the correct way.
But because the stupid device is so poorly designed, you can't even tell if it's the right way.
So you turn it back to the way that it wasn't working, and you say, why isn't it going into the fucking hole?
And then you get it in there. And then by the time you use your device, you hate it.
You hate this thing.
So, how about the simultaneous sip?
I don't know. Maybe it's just me complaining about this stuff.
But all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a gel, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind, filled with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day.
The thing that makes everything better except your micro-USB connection.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
It happens now. Go!
Oh, yeah. That's good.
I saw a tweet that said...
This is from Jason Mouk on Twitter.
He talks about being literate in the future.
It isn't going to be just reading and writing, but because AI and robots and stuff will be taking over everything, we also need to teach kids things that kids can do that maybe robots and AI can't do.
And the example given would be, you know, an eight-year-old can Google something and a robot can plow, but what AI can't do is arrange living symphonies.
That's what AI can't do.
It can't arrange a living symphony.
But you know what it can do?
It hasn't done it yet, but do you know what AI can do?
It can make music that you would like a lot better than a living symphony made by humans.
Like a lot better.
So, at the moment, AI can't write music that you would like to listen to.
In the long run, it's all going to be AI. It's all going to be AI. Because once AI is better, and it will be better, because it can A-B test parts of a song, sounds, it can A-B test a chord.
It can A-B test like one chord, put it out to a million people and say, how do you like this chord?
And if not, people say yes, we'll put some of this in the song.
How do you like this lyric?
A lot of people like this one, don't like this one.
We'll put the good one in there.
AI could build a song that would be the number one song in the world, period.
It would make you tingle.
It would just reprogram your brain.
That's how good AI will be to make music.
So I wouldn't assume that music is the safe place.
How about fine art?
Do you think an AI will be able to make a painting that would be as awesome as our best human painters?
Well, it can't do anything like that now.
But it will. It will.
Yeah. AI will look at all the great paintings.
It'll test all the components of it.
It'll break you down and figure out what parts of it make it interesting to people, and then it will make paintings that are way better than what a person can make.
If you were to buy a human painting, it would only be because of the novelty that, oh, look, a human did pretty good on this one.
Pretty good. Not as good as the AI, obviously, but it's pretty good for a human.
You know, the same way we're impressed by cave wall carvings.
Anyway. The continued emasculation of Vice President Harris's husband is ongoing.
I saw this tweet by Katie Rogers.
She tweets, at a French cookware store, I guess the...
The VP is in France.
So at a French cookware store, the VP says the second gentleman, her husband, learned how to cook during COVID. Quote, I guess the husband said, she taught me during COVID, out of necessity.
After I almost burned down the apartment, he adds.
How does that make you feel?
Now, here's what I like and don't like about it.
On one hand... I do like the fact that she's flipping the gender roles.
I kind of like that.
I mean, anything that just shakes you up and makes you uncomfortable, I usually like.
If it makes you uncomfortable, I probably like it.
So the fact that she's very conspicuously becoming the...
I'll use this in the traditional historic sense.
In the historic sense, she's become the man of the family.
She literally wears the pants.
Literally wears the pants.
And the suit, and the husband stays home and takes care of the house, and apparently he's cooking now.
I had to add to that tweet by saying, sadly, the French cookware store did not carry the French maid uniform the VP ordered the second gentleman to wear around the house.
I don't know how much worse the emasculation can get, but I think it's coming to this.
I think he'll actually be wearing some kind of a French maid outfit around the house as he's dusting.
Looking forward to that.
But let me also say, I don't really care.
It doesn't bother me what nature of the relationship is in their family.
It's purely their business.
It's just interesting that they're flipping the gender roles.
All right, here's a horrible story.
So there was an astronaut that went up on Blue Origin's flight with Bezos.
So this was just a month ago.
A private citizen gets to go on a rocket ship into space.
And that turned out well.
And then a month later, he dies in a private plane.
He died in a Cessna 172 with some other people.
They don't know the cause of the problem yet.
But I'll tell you a little bit that I know about aviation.
Because, as you know, my wife is a pilot.
And the aircraft that he died in is the exact one she spends most of her time in.
It's a Cessna 172, which is, I think the Cessna 172 is like the most common small aircraft.
There are a lot of them. But here's what you need to know about the Cessna 172.
Again, I'm just sort of talking based on stuff I've heard being around pilot talk.
If you're flying that kind of an aircraft, you usually want to hang around somewhere where there's a road.
Have you ever heard that?
You want to make sure that you can see a sizable street from wherever you're flying.
And the reason is, if you have a mechanical difficulty, you still have a pretty good glide path, and so you could at least glide onto a street which wouldn't be clean, but it's better than a forest.
So the fact that he went down in a wooded area probably limits the possible problems to the following.
Yeah, I know where you're going with this.
Some of you are pilots, so you're ahead of me already.
Probably, so one of two problems.
One is he, or the pilot, diverted from where they could see a street, so once they had mechanical problems, maybe they didn't have any option of any place to land.
So that would have been maybe a pilot error, if that happened, because it is, I think it's pretty basic to keep a road in view.
Alright, if somebody's a pilot, can you fact check me on that?
Is it pretty basic to make sure that you can see a street?
Give me a fact check on that.
I know there's some pilots watching this.
So I think it is. So I would rule out mechanical difficulty.
I'll also tell you that in these small aircraft, the number of times they have mechanical difficulty in the air is shockingly high.
Shockingly high. The number of times they get 5,000 feet in the air and the engine starts sputtering, it's way more than you think.
But experienced pilots almost always can overcome the minor problems.
The number one reason that small aircraft crash is?
Anybody? What's the number one reason that small aircraft crash?
Well, pilot error, yes, but I want to be more specific.
Yeah, it's pilot error, but specifically pilot error.
The answer is people who accidentally go from VFR to IFR. So VFR means visual flying, meaning you can see well, so you can fly fine because you've got lots of visibility.
IFR means that suddenly there might have been a cloud cover that they misjudged.
And if you get in the clouds, the 172 might have, I think it has, the ability to fly IFR, meaning you could fly instruments, but only if you were good at it.
Only if you were good at it, right?
It's not good enough that the plane can fly IFR. The pilot has to be able to fly it.
So if I had to guess, and this is just pure speculation, If I had to guess, I would say the most likely situation is there was some cloud cover, but we haven't heard about that.
So wait to hear.
John F. Kennedy Jr., perfect example, yes.
And pilots are so afraid of that situation, going from VFR to instrument, you know, low visibility, that I think even some of the people who teach how to fly on instruments have never flown in clouds.
Let me say that again. The people who teach you how to fly in the clouds...
Some of them I don't think have ever flown in the clouds, because it's too dangerous, even if you know how.
That's how dangerous it is.
And you say, well, how did they learn to teach it if they've never flown in it?
They have something called foggles, a special kind of goggles that cover the top of your sight so you can only see the instruments.
So they practice with their vision obscured, you know, with a pilot who can see in the back, usually, or the front.
Anyway, that's your little aviation knowledge for the day.
I saw an excellent persuasive tweet that might not work the way the tweeter hoped.
You might be familiar with Dr.
Robert Malone. I would put him in the category of contrarian doctors about the pandemic specifically.
So he's one of these rogue contrarian doctors, one of the inventors of the mRNA technology, I guess.
So he's really highly qualified.
So that's the first thing you need to know.
If there was somebody you wanted to listen to, he'd be exactly the kind of credentials you'd want to look at.
So we have lots of differences about the pandemic from the mainstream stuff.
And he tweeted a picture of himself next to a picture of Big Bird, because Big Bird is being employed to persuade children to get vaccinated.
And then Robert Malone, MD, tweets of the pictures of his picture next to Big Bird.
He goes, your call. Who are you going to listen to?
I give you well-sourced information and try to help you to be able to interpret it for yourself.
CNN and the legacy media gives you propaganda.
USG, Big Pharma lies, and cartoon characters designed to sell jabs directly to children.
Alright, so who do you believe?
Do you believe the highly qualified doctor whose experience is exactly the kind of experience you'd want?
Or do you believe Big Bird?
Which one is more credible?
Big Bird or a doctor with the exact credentials you would want to see?
Here's the answer. It's a tie.
It's a tie. Do you know why?
Because what Dr.
Malone offers is to show you well-sourced information, this is his own words, and to help you be able to interpret it for yourself.
That's not a thing.
That's not a thing. You can't show me your well-sourced information and expect me to interpret it correctly.
How the hell am I going to do that?
I can't do that.
So who am I going to believe?
Big Bird. Who is essentially a front character for the entire medical pharma community.
You know, let's say the majority, not entire.
Versus the rogue doctor who is in the category of people who are usually wrong.
The rogue doctor is usually wrong.
Now, everything that changes starts with one person who's the rogue doctor and then eventually other people get persuaded.
But how often does that happen versus how often the rogue doctor is just wrong?
I would say experientially, without any science to back it, I would say experientially the rogue doctor on any topic is wrong 95% of the time.
Wouldn't you say? Does your experience give you a different result?
And it's only when they get it right that it's such a big story.
It's like, oh my God, the person who was the only lone voice got it right.
That's why you think it's a bigger deal than it is.
Because it's always a story...
If the lone outlier gets it right.
Do you remember in 2016, some of you remember, that I predicted before most people that Trump would win in 2016?
Now, why is it that everybody heard of that?
Why is it that I was somewhat famous in America for that prediction?
I mean, I was invited on shows or articles written about it.
Why was I famous for that?
Because it was a rogue outlier opinion that was right.
It was rare.
The reason I got press is because it was so rare to be a contrarian and be right.
So anytime you see a contrarian, I say you should give them full respect of listening to them, especially if they have credentials that Dr.
Malone has. Those are serious credentials.
If you're going to ignore somebody with that kind of credentials, well, do it at your risk.
I'm just saying that don't assume they're right.
The odds are way against it.
But they might be. This could be the 5%.
You never know. All right.
New Gingrich tweeted also about Kamala Harris.
He said, why is Kamala Harris in Paris, France, worrying about the Polish-Belarus border, which is actually what's happening, instead of being in Paris, Texas, worrying about the U.S.-Mexican border?
Did she misunderstand Biden when he made her in charge of the border?
And I said to myself, you know, this is a suboptimal situation.
We've got these big problems in America, and our vice president is in Europe.
That is suboptimal.
You know why it's suboptimal?
Because Europe isn't quite far enough.
If we could get the vice president entirely on the other side of the world, I'd feel a little more comfortable.
Maybe if she would go up in one of those Blue Origin or Elon Musk flights...
Get her off the earth entirely.
I feel a little more comfortable about that.
All right, here's some Gavin Newsom fake news.
Gavin Newsom, governor of New York.
There's a manipulated video that's really diabolical that makes him look like he's smiling creepily when he's talking.
So somehow, I guess the technology exists now that you can manipulate somebody's mouth...
On a video. I mean, we had that capability for a long time, but it looks like maybe it's easy to do now.
And so the governor's talking, but he's got sort of a crazy joker mouth.
And it's really creepy.
Now, I don't know how anybody could think that was real.
Right? It didn't look real to me.
But apparently some people did.
So that's the first...
Newsome, fake news.
All right. Do you know the author and investment advisor Robert Kiyosaki?
I think he wrote Rich Dad, Poor Dad.
Fairly famous for financial advice.
And I saw a tweet by Dr.
Parikh Patel. Who's got lots of financial qualifications, it looks like.
And he showed a graph showing the stock market and his climb for years and years with Robert Kiyosaki's predictions that it was going to crash.
Oh, it's going to crash! It's going to crash.
Totally going to crash.
Oh, it's going to crash.
You're going to be so sorry when it crashes.
And apparently he hasn't been right yet, at least in the long term.
He hasn't been right. But here's what I say about this.
Number one, investment advice is basically horoscopes with math.
Would you put your money into an investment based on a horoscope?
No. Well, don't put your money on anything based on investment advice either, because they're just horoscopes with math.
Nobody knows what's happening in the future.
Nobody understands the future.
Nobody. There's no investment advisor who knows the future.
The only thing you can do is diversify.
And if you have enough money, you might take some risky bets on a few things, like high-tech things.
But I just gave you all the investment advice you'll ever need.
It could be like one page.
That's it. Diversify.
Get the Fortune 500 index.
And that's 90% of what you need right there.
So... But let me say what Robert Kiyosaki is doing wisely.
If a big crash doesn't come, is anybody going to say, oh, you got that wrong?
Or is he just going to say, well, it hasn't happened yet, but it's going to happen?
So being wrong about a crash generally doesn't hurt you.
Right? Right? You predict a crash.
It doesn't happen. You can always say it's going to happen.
Well, it just hasn't happened yet.
Or you can say, oh, we got lucky.
This is not good. But if he gets it right, he will be called out the same way I got it right with Trump.
If I'd got my Trump prediction wrong in 2016, I would just go on with life.
I'd say, well, got that one wrong.
Just go on with life.
But if you get it right, it changes your life.
So Kiyosaki is playing the odds really well because the odds of a big stock market crash eventually are pretty good.
So he'll probably get one right and get a lot of attention for it.
Might be a good thing, at least in terms of publicity, a good thing.
So here's a story on CNN that's just sort of state of the world.
So apparently there was a white student in a school, it doesn't matter where, somewhere in America, and he made what is being described as a racist video.
Now, I don't know the details of the racist video, so I don't know if you and I saw it, we'd think it was racist, but CNN says it's racist.
So let's take that assumption and go with it.
Anyway, a black student approached that white student who had made that allegedly racist video, and a physical altercation occurred, and the white student was injured and needed to be treated for head injuries.
Now, I don't know how bad the head injuries were, but if it's like a concussion, it's a brain injury.
So is it a head injury, like, you know, he's got a bleeding head, or is it a brain injury, which would be a lot worse?
I don't know. But...
It's worrisome. But anyway, the students, they called for a walkout, and here's what they demanded.
They wanted disciplinary action against the white student and no disciplinary action for the black student who caused the head injury with this altercation.
Does that sound about right to you?
Now, what we don't know is which one of the students started the fight.
So if the black student...
Simply addressed the white student with verbal complaints, and the white student started the fight, well, then I'd agree, right?
Whoever started the fight is to blame.
But if it worked the other way, or they sort of both started the fight, which, you know, with kids, with kids, it's usually they both started the fight, wouldn't you say?
There's words, there's a touch, there's a push.
It usually escalates at the same time.
It's not like somebody walks up and throws a punch.
Could happen. I mean, maybe.
But probably they're both about equally culpable.
And it feels to me, without knowing the full details of this, so I could be wrong if I heard the context, but it feels like it's another example of violence against white males being acceptable.
Would you agree? Now, I'm not defending his racist alleged video.
I'm not saying that, obviously.
I'm saying that the way this is written and the student's reaction to it feels like, you know, one more little brick on that wall of it's okay to hunt white males and hurt them.
So here's the more Newsome fake news, except this time it's not Gavin Newsome, it's Hawk Newsome, with an E on the end of Newsome.
What are the odds that two people whose last name is actually a combination of some news are always creating some news?
Their last name is actually Newsome.
Some news. Hey, you want some news?
I got something about Hawk.
You want some more news?
Got something about Gavin.
How weird is that? But anyway, there was some fake news about Hawke that suggested he was encouraging violence should the new mayor, Eric Adams Institute, reintroduce the task force.
They had some kind of a police task force against gun violence.
And I guess it was disbanded, and if he reintroduces it, Hawke was saying that there would be violence.
Now, the way it was reported...
Was that Hawke was maybe encouraging violence or in favor of it.
That actually didn't happen.
He predicted it.
Predicting violence is perfectly acceptable.
Would you disagree?
I've predicted violence lots of times.
Is there any problem with predicting violence?
No. So while I don't back Hawk Newsome on a lot of things he says, this was just fake news.
Now, I've told you before that don't underestimate Hawk Newsome's game.
He's really clever.
And what he did here was walk right up to the line of saying something that would have been inappropriate, you know, suggesting violence.
He walked up the line, but he didn't cross it.
But he probably is...
He is. I'll take away the probably.
He is smart enough to know that phrasing it exactly the way he did would get the most attention while still putting him in a safe place, which is, he's not recommending violence, he's just predicting it.
And it's pretty clever, because it worked.
So every time you think to yourself that something that Hawk Newsome's doing doesn't make sense, give it another thought.
Because he's operating at a pretty sophisticated level with persuasion.
All right. Dagon McDowell tweets, and I agree, That Biden and the company have intentionally driven up the price of oil and fuel by taking a hatchet job to our energy economy.
They've intentionally, and intentionally will be the word that I'll question here in a moment, they've intentionally created hardships for Americans.
Only when energy prices are high do these alternatives make sense.
So in other words, Dagan is saying that the Biden administration is making fossil fuels too high priced, To make it easier for the green stuff to be economical.
Now, generally speaking, and I say this often, I reject the mind-reading opinions, which is you have to be in the mind of the other person to have that opinion.
But I don't know that that applies here.
Because I think they're saying it directly, aren't they?
Isn't the Biden administration saying directly that they want green energy and that they want to price carbon fuels out?
I feel like that's a direct message, but they don't package their message as succinctly as Dagan McDowell did by saying they're basically torturing the middle class to get their...
They're, let's say, left-leaning agenda through, which is more green energy.
That's what it looks like.
So I don't think that was mind-reading at all.
I think that was right on.
Anyway, Steve Bannon got indicted for refusing to testify to Congress.
I assume the Constitution gives Congress this power.
Congress has the power to demand that you go in and talk to them in public...
Does anybody know where that law would exist?
Or is it a right they gave themselves by just voting for it?
If there's a constitutional scholar here, could somebody tell me?
Yeah, I didn't think Congress had any police power, right?
So I'm a little confused about this story.
They have subpoena power, but does subpoena power give them power to punish you if you don't obey the subpoena?
I don't know. I'm very much in favor of citizens resisting this because it looks like a show trial to me.
When Congress does these things, it doesn't look like the point of it is justice, does it?
You know, when people get subpoenaed for the court system, I say to myself, well, flaws and all, at least it's part of the justice process, so that's okay.
But this is outside of the justice process.
How do you do a show trial when you're not part of the justice system?
Yeah, I guess Eric Holder also refused.
So this is kind of an interesting case.
We'll see if any penalty happens to Bannon.
I guess you could get 30 days in jail for doing this.
But I definitely support him in this.
I would support him.
And it wouldn't matter what his reason is.
So I don't care what Bannon's reason is for not wanting to do it.
I feel like every citizen should be able to refuse this.
Who's with me? I don't think we should be able to refuse talking to the real police, but I think we should be able to refuse this.
Yeah? Okay. I think most of you agree on that.
There is a great article by Andrew Sullivan on Substack.
I tweeted it so you can find...
You can tweet Andrew Sullivan and look for his articles or my Twitter feed.
And here's how he tweeted about his own...
This is sort of a summary of his own article.
He said, 2016 election...
So see what all these have in common.
What do all these have in common before he tells you?
2016 election, Rittenhouse, Covington, Russian collusion, vaccines, bounties on U.S. soldiers, lab leak theory, Jussie Smollett...
The Pulse shooting, the Atlanta shooting, Hunter Biden laptop, inflation, and the Steele dossier.
What do they all have in common?
Fake news, yes.
That's one thing they have in common.
What's the second thing they have in common?
One is that they're all fake news.
What's the second thing they have in common?
Somebody says it's about white people.
Not quite. It's not exactly where I'm going.
It's conservative bashing.
That's correct. Every one of these stories favors the left's narratives.
Every one of them. And he didn't even have a complete list.
He didn't have the fine people hoax and he didn't have the drinking bleach hoax.
I'm not sure if he knows they're hoaxes, honestly, because a lot of people who are well-informed don't know that these are hoaxes.
But I would have put them on the list.
But every one of these has the same pattern to it, that it's a liberal narrative.
And it's so shockingly obvious when you see him lay out the entire context.
We do not live in a country with anything like a free press.
I mean, technically it's free, but the way it operates is just as a captive of the Democrats.
All right. There was a French study that I saw and then didn't get much attention, maybe because it disagrees with the narrative.
You be the judge.
So I'm not going to say this study is necessarily highly credible.
But it's worth noting. So the French study says long COVID, the idea that even after you recover from COVID, there would be symptoms that are ongoing, are all in your head.
Now, that was always a possibility, right?
We've seen the reports that up to half of the people might have long COVID, at least 25%, but up to half.
Now, from day one...
Have I not told you from day one?
It could be all in people's heads.
This is exactly what that would look like.
If it were real or it were not real, it would look exactly like this.
Whether it was real or not real, it would look exactly like this.
So you can't really tell based on all the reports and facts, and you can't tell by asking people.
So if you ask people, hey, did you have any symptoms?
They'll say yes. But you don't know if they're accurate.
That's the problem. So this new study did something clever in which...
I'm not sure I totally understand it, but they found a way to do a control.
Allegedly. So let me tell you what they did.
They had a huge pile of people that they were looking at, but only 1,000 of them they ended up looking at closely because there were 1,000 who actually tested positive.
And out of the 1,000 who tested positive for COVID, about 450 believed they had the virus.
So more than half didn't even know they had the virus.
Now, you ask the people who definitely have the virus and knew it if they had symptoms, and then you ask the people who didn't know it if they had symptoms, and apparently there's a difference.
But anyway, I'm doing a terrible job of explaining this, so if it sounds like a bad study, it has more to do with the way I'm explaining it, I think.
But anyway, they concluded that the persistent physical symptoms, quote, may be associated more with the belief in having been infected.
So in other words, if you thought you had been infected but you hadn't, you have the same rate of long COVID as the people who have been infected.
I think that's what it's saying, right?
Let me say that again.
If you thought you had COVID but you didn't, you have the same experience of long COVID, you report the same symptoms as people who actually had the thing, which would suggest there's no such thing as long COVID. I'm not convinced.
And I'm not convinced for the wrong reason.
Here's the worst reason to not be convinced.
Anecdotal evidence.
I know two people whose experience with long COVID as they describe it Doesn't sound like something that could be in your head.
I mean, it's just too dramatic.
It's like way bigger than something that would be in your head.
And also I believe that they found differences in the lungs long after you recovered.
So I'm still on the side that says long COVID is probably something.
But it might be a lot smaller than we think.
But probably something.
Yeah, so Dr.
Drew is one who had symptoms that...
It would be hard to imagine that those were imaginary because they were pretty dramatic.
You can think...
If the only problem was, oh, I had more headaches or something, you'd say, eh, did you?
I mean, are you keeping track of your headaches?
You really know you had more headaches?
That would be suspicious.
But the types of symptoms are pretty dramatic.
I don't think that...
I would be surprised if they were imaginary.
Anyway, what is the main theme of Democrats and the left?
I think it's child abuse.
And look at this list.
Climate alarmism.
Would you agree that the children are being taught climate alarmism?
And would you also agree that the kids can't do anything about climate change?
I mean, you know, Greta can complain, but basically, children in general...
They can't do anything except influence their parents.
That's the play, right?
Isn't the play to influence their parents?
So we now have a pretty strong medical indication that anxiety is being...
Definitely kicked up because of climate alarm.
Would you agree with the following assertion?
We do know that kids are getting really scared and anxious about climate change.
I think we all agree that that's true.
We also know that anxiety is very strongly correlated with bad health outcomes.
So does climate change alarmism cause children to be less healthy?
Yes. I mean, it's pretty clear.
Unless, I guess the only caveat would be, if adults are more sensitive to anxiety or something.
Maybe kids are more resilient.
I doubt it. But, I mean, you could imagine it.
So, climate change is basically child abuse.
At least how it's being presented to children, for some larger goal, some goal of the left to have more green energy, I guess.
Critical race theory, or let's not call it by that name, but the things that are embedded in curriculums, does that not just turn kids against each other?
It basically labels some kids victims and some kids oppressors.
How is that good for kids?
That feels like child abuse, doesn't it?
To sort them into abusers and abused?
I think it's child abuse.
How about lack of school choice?
If you wanted your kid to get out of the cesspool of public school, you couldn't do it.
You know, unless you had a lot of money.
So that feels like some kind of child abuse.
How about forced vaccinations for kids that have almost no chance of having a problem with COVID? But we're going to vaccinate those kids to keep adults safe.
It's child abuse.
It's child abuse for the benefit of adults.
How about social media?
We allow children to use social media, which I'm opposed to.
I don't think children should be allowed to use social media because it's damaging.
It's obviously damaging.
It couldn't be more obvious.
I'm not even sure adults should use social media, but at least we get to make adult choices.
Kids don't make adult choices.
Basically, you're feeding cocaine to children.
That's what it is. It's like giving them cocaine.
So that's child abuse.
How about the Rittenhauer prosecution?
It was a 17-year-old who was being made a scapegoat to feed the narratives that white people are bad and guns are bad and whatever else.
And racism, I guess, even though there was no race involved.
So, you know, you could argue whether 17 at the time of the crime, he's 18 now, or the alleged crime.
No crime is in evidence, but it's an alleged crime.
That looks like child abuse too.
So, at what point do we say this pattern is a little too obvious?
Right? Now, I don't think that there are any people on the left saying, you know what we could do?
We could abuse some children and then we'd get away with this.
But just like follow the money usually predicts, follow the child abuse seems to predict wherever Democrats are going to go.
If you said to yourself, I don't know how the Democrats are going to respond to some future situation, just ask yourself, what would be the worst thing for children?
And that will be it.
Is it bad for children?
Yeah, they'll do that. I mean, it's really consistent.
All right. I love this tweet from Michael Edwards on Twitter.
So I got into a conversation with somebody who said that I'm a dumbass for believing that CRT is taught in schools because CRT is only a college-level class, and man am I an idiot for thinking that any of that's in the public school system.
Now, this person is a victim.
The person who thinks that CRT is not being taught in schools...
Every day I wake up and my social media has at least one example of written documentation where clearly the tenets, you know, the philosophy of CRT is embedded in the curriculum.
It's in writing in lots of different places.
And it's clear. They don't use the words critical race theory.
They just embed the concepts.
So somehow the left has convinced a lot of morons that just because the name critical race theory isn't specifically used when they talk about schools and high schools, that somehow that's meaningful.
It's not meaningful.
You're just using a different word.
But listen to what Michael Edwards tweets, and I love this.
He goes, so after this guy said that was a dumbass, saying none of this is being taught in schools, Michael Edwards tweets, if there is none in schools, then there's no problem banning teaching it, right?
Thank you.
Why would you be opposed to banning something that isn't happening anyway?
Can't we all agree on that?
If critical race theory is not being taught in schools, and that's what the left says, then let's just ban it and everybody wins.
The left is irrelevant because nothing would happen.
You can't ban something that's not happening, so big deal.
And the right would be happy to ban it, so we've got a deal, right?
will all just ban it, and the left will say, well, nothing will happen.
All right.
American courts are saving the day.
I am of the opinion that the only thing that holds America together is the court system, and that the court system is the jewel and the crown of the republic.
Everything else in the republic is a good idea.
But the core system is the one that's got to be working.
Now, it's full of warts.
Of course, any big system has problems.
But it's the only thing that'll save us.
And I'll give you a couple of examples.
Apparently, the Biden idea to have OSHA enforce vaccine mandates got stopped by, I guess, the Fifth Circuit, who said it was just an insanely overbroad mandate that didn't distinguish by degree of risk.
And it doesn't make sense for the truck driver to have the same degree of risk if he's all by himself compared to, you know, other types of jobs.
So they just said, oh, this is too far.
They stopped it. Now, I don't know if that'll last, but it's stopped at the moment.
Likewise, I think the court system is going to save us from this Rittenhauer situation.
I think the court is going to find him not guilty of murder, and even the prosecution has sort of given up on their murder case, and they're introducing lesser charges.
Does that seem fair to you?
Can the court...
Halfway through the trial or even toward the end of the trial, can the court just say, oh, it's not really this charge, it's a different charge?
Really? Can they do that?
Apparently they can, because it's being done.
It doesn't seem like that would be fair to the charged, but maybe it is, if it speeds things up.
I don't know. But once the prosecution has admitted that they don't have a case...
And there were no surprises in the trial.
Just think about this.
I don't believe the defense introduced any kind of surprises.
So everything that was known by the prosecution was known before the trial is known now, which is how much evidence they have, which is not, of murder anyway.
And I still feel like the prosecutor needs to go to jail for that.
What the prosecutor did to Kyle Rittenhouse, it's not a crime technically, but boy, does it need to be.
I mean, at the very least, you need to be disbarred.
I meant the least. But I don't know that any of that will happen.
Still, I'm glad that the court system, I think, will keep Kyle Rittenhouse from the worst of the potential outcomes.
I heard this factoid that is not confirmed, because it's just in a tweet from somebody I don't know.
But can anybody confirm that this is true?
That we learned just recently that Rittenhouse's dad, grandma, aunt, uncle, and cousins all live in Kenosha?
Because a big part of the story is he came to a town that he wasn't part of, and he should have just stayed home.
It wasn't his business. So I'm seeing somebody saying that his dad does.
Let me explain how a two-family, you know, a two-parent situation works when they're separated or divorced.
Rittenhouse has two hometowns.
Am I wrong? If his father's in one town and his mother's in a neighboring town, presumably he spends a lot of time in both, he might have a bed in one and not in the other.
But he has two hometowns.
The town that you spend your time with with your father, who lives there, is kind of your hometown, too.
And he only was 20 minutes away.
So all of this business about crossing state lines is just bullshit.
It's just bullshit.
So, it was bullshit before I knew that he had a reason to be there.
That was his hometown he was protecting.
He was protecting his father's town, you could say that.
Oh, and somebody says he works in Kenosha.
Yeah, Kenosha is pretty much his town.
All right. The funniest thing that came out of this is there's some photos of some part of the trial where it looks like the judge was sitting at maybe the defendant's table to look at some, I don't know, documents or a video or something.
And Kyle Rittenhouse, not handcuffed, is leaning over the judge's shoulder, not handcuffed, leaning over the judge's shoulder, looking at stuff with him, and nobody in the courtroom...
It's the least bit worried that Kyle would be dangerous.
He's being accused of double murder, and nobody in the courtroom, even the bailiff, isn't anywhere near him.
The bailiff's on the other side of the room, and an unhandcuffed guy charged with double murder is just looking over the shoulder of the judge, and nobody's concerned.
Nobody's concerned.
Because there's nobody there who thinks he's a murderer.
Not the defense, not the prosecution, not anybody.
I'm hearing in the comments that Robert Barnes might think there's more risk for Rittenhouse because the defense didn't do a good job or something.
Is that the story? I don't know the details of that, but you should follow Barnes.
I saw a tweet from Christian Vanderbroek talking about the issue of Kyle.
He was 17 at the time.
And Christian asked this on Twitter.
What the hell kind of, quote, well-regulated militia includes child soldiers?
Do you want to answer that question?
What kind of well-regulated militia, well-regulated militia, in quotes, includes child soldiers?
Do you know what the answer is?
All of them. All of them.
Yes. Every one of them.
Do you think the 15-year-old colonial boys weren't going to pick up a gun?
Of course they were.
Of course they were.
17-year-olds join the military routinely.
Yeah. Child soldiers is the norm.
Of course we're going to have child soldiers.
I'd hate to go to war without any.
Imagine trying to go to war without any, you know, 17, 18-year-olds as part of the process.
It'd be a lot harder. Apparently, Wisconsin has activated 500 National Guard troops.
Do you think we would need any National Guard troops if we were not all completely aware that the national media is trying to turn this into a riot?
If there's a riot, it's not about Kyle, is it?
The riot would be whatever the mainstream media gymmed up.
And it looks like they're trying to create a little riot here.
And I wonder if activating the troops is part of the risk management, I hope.
I hope it's just good risk management.
Or is it part of the persuasion?
Are we activating these troops as part of the signal that there's going to be a riot to make it more likely?
Because I would like to not know that they were activated, wouldn't you?
I'd like them to be activated, but I don't want it to be in the news, necessarily.
Does it make it less or more likely that they'll be rioting?
I don't know. It feels more like game on, you know?
There's going to be a lot of action and energy.
So wherever there's energy...
People are attracted. And I think if you put all these National Guard troops in there, it's going to be a lot of energy.
So I'm not sure if that's going to work exactly as they hope.
But it's probably good risk management to do this.
But talking about it, maybe not so much.
All right. That is pretty much influencing jurors.
Yeah, could influence jurors.
You're right. Ten Proud Boys could handle it.
Don't get me started on the Proud Boys.
You know, the problem with groups like the Proud Boys, and really any group, the left, the right, the problem with any of these groups is there's always going to be somebody bad in a group, and then they will come to define the entire group.
Russell Brand coming out as a commentator like you, leaning liberal but expresses very conservative opinions.
He has 4 million subscribers.
Yeah, Russell Brand, I hear what you're saying, that he leans liberal, but because he's open-minded and he's smart, and he does seem, he's on the short list of people that I think is immune to some of the biases.
And he's got 4 million subscribers.
I think he earned 4 million subscribers.
I think his number of subscribers is completely commensurate with the quality of his product.
It's a very high-quality product.
If you haven't watched it, it's really good.
Also, the divorce courts, yeah.
He's a libertarian, somebody says.
That makes sense. A left-leaning libertarian.
And Bill Maher keeps pounding on the Wake mob as well.
Conservatives with liberal audience.
Where's the other way around? Oh, good point.
Yes. There are liberal-leaning people who have conservative audiences, and I would be one of them.
By the way, let me explain this in case anybody's new here.
Here's the way I try to brand myself.
I say I'm left of Bernie because I think the left has better goals.
Their objectives are better.
It's like feed everybody, give everybody a good chance, get rid of the bias as much as you can, get rid of any structural racism that's holding anybody back.
I love all that stuff.
I even respect when people prefer to be called by certain terms.
Totally. Because I would like the same right.
I would like to be called what I would like to be called.
In my case, I'd like to be called, you know, he or Mr.
Adams or whatever. So that's just, you know, being polite.
Everything can go too far, of course, right?
Everything can go too far. So I like the objectives of the left, but I don't like their tactics either.
And I don't think they understand human motivation, so they don't build good systems.
So I like the systems and practicality of the right, because the right never ignores stuff that matters.
The left consistently ignores gigantic variables.
They just ignore variables, such as how people act.
Or how much money there is.
Just gigantic variables just completely ignored on the left.
So I can't embrace the left's strategy because it's just nonsense.
The right, however, has a, let's say, maybe a more clear-eyed and some would say cold-blooded approach to things because those make systems work better.
A good system is going to be a little harsh.
But it's only going to be harsh against the people it needs to be.
It's not going to be harsh against the people who are heading in the right direction.
So I appreciate the right's systems, and I appreciate the left's idealism, but I don't think either of them have it right.
That's my take. I don't think either side has it right.
There is clearly gigantic space for a middle party.
It would take somebody with extraordinary persuasion to pull it off, but there is an opening, and I don't think it's ever existed before.
There is an opening for a middle party that would represent 70% of the country.
70% of the country.
But the only way to pull it off is that the middle party would actually have to be middle.
It couldn't be pretend middle like everybody tries to do.
They try to pretend they're appealing to the middle, but they're not.
At the very least, the candidate for the middle party would give you both arguments.
That's the way I'd run it.
Now, somebody said Trump is middle.
That's not too far off.
It's not too far off to say Trump is middle, but because of his provocative ways, he'll never be seen that way.
So he doesn't work that way.
He doesn't work as a middle candidate.
But the other thing that Trump doesn't do, he doesn't explain the other side.
Now, I'm not saying that he should, because he's a great persuader, and just sticking to your points and letting the other side defend themselves is probably a good strategy.
But if you wanted to be credible, and I think there's this gigantic thirst for at least credibility, which is different from being right, you know, people will forgive you for being wrong, but they won't forgive you for being wrong when you should have done it differently, when you should have known.
They won't forgive that. So if I were the middle party, I would always tell you the other person's argument, and I would do the best job I could of explaining it.
Say, look, I'm going to propose X, but I've got to tell you Y has some good points.
If you can't do that, you don't deserve the vote.
I'll say that again really clearly.
If you can't argue the other team's side convincingly, you shouldn't be a politician.
You don't have the capability.
And I don't think you would be credible if you can't describe the other side credibly.
Now, on this livestream, I try to do that.
Do I succeed?
I don't know. That would be a judgment call.
But I do try to show the other party's argument.
And the reason I do that is to build credibility.
Does it work? Because I know it pisses you off a lot.
When you hear me even explain the other side's point of view.
But does it work, overall, that when I agree with you, it doesn't feel like I'm just taken aside?
Yeah, so I think it works, it's just not a perfectly clean process.
Some people are just going to hate me for it.
You can't have a middle party because the media is in control.
Well, if somebody had a big enough social media platform, they could end-run, as Trump did in many cases, they could end-run the major media.
What about Joe Rogan?
Oh, you mean...
Well, so Joe Rogan made some news.
Probably not the way he wanted to.
How many of you know the latest Joe Rogan news?
All right, I wasn't going to talk about it, but I don't know.
I don't think you can avoid talking about it.
So keep in mind that Joe Rogan is, you know, a comedian...
So when he says things, you shouldn't take them 100% seriously.
But apparently he said in some context that he's very flexible, and he's so flexible that he can...
Let's say he can orally please himself.
Now, first of all, I don't know that that's actually true, meaning I don't know if he's literally that flexible.
But, you know, theoretically, yes.
But the fact that he said it...
It's why he's a national treasure.
I keep referring to Joe Rogan as a national treasure, because I think he is.
But that's why. I would never tell that joke, because you can't get it out of your head.
You know, like now, it's gonna really, I think for some people it might change the way they see him.
So I wouldn't have told that joke, but I love the fact that he did.
I love the fact that he threw caution to the wind and told that joke.
He had to know, you know, on some level he had to know what would come of that.
And I'm just hoping that he doesn't, because he's influential, I'm just hoping he doesn't cause other men to join yoga classes.
So let me make a prediction.
You ready for this?
I'm going to make a prediction.
It's based on the fact that Joe Rogan is influential in the sense that he has a large platform.
So his platform, plus the fact that he makes news, tens of millions of Americans have heard that he's so flexible that he can please himself.
Here's my prediction.
You ready? Male attendance and yoga classes will go up in the next year.
Anybody? Anybody want to take the other side of that back?
I don't know if we can measure such things, because I don't know if there's any data on how many men take yoga classes, but my prediction is that there will be a good 10% uptick in men joining yoga classes.
I'll just leave that there.
All right. Apparently he's already got a nickname.
Joe Blow Rogan.
Alright. I'm just looking at your jokes now.
I'm just going to look at the jokes.
All right, I'm not going to read any of your jokes.
I think that's enough for today.
We'll leave it on that. And thanks for joining me.
