Episode 1598 Scott Adams: Mass Formation Psychosis, The Great Reset, Manchin and More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Joe Manchin stops Biden's BBB bill
Goldman Sachs not an honest player
President Biden's Supreme Court packing play
No Agenda podcast hallucinates my opinion
Elon Musk will pay $11 Billion in taxes this year
Clay Travis on COVID and vaccines
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Can you believe it? You showed up on time, for those of you who are live.
And amazingly, those of you watching this on a recorded...
You're on time, too.
It's weird. Something about space-time.
I don't understand it either.
But all I know is this is the best thing that's ever happened to you.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams because of the Scott Adams part plus the coffee.
And we're going to enjoy that right now.
Would you like to take it up a level?
Anybody? Anybody?
Take it up a level? Yes?
No? I feel the yeses.
I feel the yeses.
And so 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, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine to the day.
I think it makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip, and this happens now.
Go. Ah.
Yeah, some of you weren't ready, were you?
See? You've got to be ready.
Let this be a cautionary tale.
Those of you who are thinking, I've got plenty of time to pour my warm cup of coffee.
No, you don't always have time.
You've got to be ready. Well, we've got a great show today.
Let's start it off with Joe Manchin killing the Build Back Better bill.
So Biden's Build Back Better bill...
Got blown to parts to bits.
That's right. Biden's Build Back Better got blown to bits.
And actually, it's just shelved because Joe Manchin was a big no.
Now, here's the thing.
How do you view this?
Like, what is the way you interpret the situation?
Well, Michael Schellenberger had an interesting take on it, which I agree with totally.
That it was progressive dogmatism that killed it.
Progressive dogmatism.
Progressive dogmatism would be the opposite of...
What would that be the opposite of?
Science?
Economics?
Rational pragmatism?
And I think that is accurate.
And specifically, it's accurate because a lot of it was clean energy-related, and it was just the wrong analysis.
If the Build Back Better bill had included, let's say, expansions of nuclear and natural gas...
Do you think that maybe they could have gotten a Republican vote?
Maybe not, because it would still be inflationary.
But they'd be a lot closer, because at least they'd be compatible with science.
You know, if you're not even compatible with science, and you're the party of science...
Now remember, when I say, hey, be compatible with science, the first thought you're thinking to yourself is, Scott, Scott, Scott.
They think they are.
They think they're compatible with science.
No, they don't.
No, they don't. Because even the Democrats now understand that the only reason we are where we are is because we still have some nuclear.
We'd better get some more soon.
And that natural gas made a big difference on our CO2. So anybody who actually looked at the data and looked at the science would not have put together a bill that looked this way.
There would have been much more focus on the things that are scientifically and economically demonstrated, nuclear being chief among them.
And so, here's the story I see.
I see that Joe Manchin took his party seriously.
That was the problem.
Joe Manchin took his party seriously.
It's the party of science, right?
And so he said, well, let's look at the science.
The party of not being all crazy like the Republicans, with all their conspiracy theories and whatever the Republicans are blamed of today.
They're the party of being rational and empathetic.
You want empathy and science.
That would be the things that the Democrats would tell you that they're all about.
And so, Joe Manchin, apparently calling their bluff, said, all right, let's say those are our highest priorities, science and empathy.
Using science to be the best we can for citizens.
What would that look like?
And it doesn't look like the Build Back Better bill.
And by the way, how do we avoid noticing that his last name is Manchin?
I mean, somehow that's important.
I don't know. In our simulated world, somehow that should be a signal that he's a character in a play.
Anyway, Goldman Sachs lowered its growth, GDP estimates, and the stock market's taken ahead, I think, last I knew, because the market is interpreting this as bad.
So in Goldman Sachs' take, they said, well, you know, there won't be all this money going into the economy.
And then when they talked about inflation, this is the only context they talked about inflation.
That because of inflation, it would be harder for this Build Back Better bill to ever get signed in the future.
What's left out?
There's something sort of big left out, right?
The effect of inflation on the economy...
This is Goldman Sachs.
Did they forget inflation?
No, they didn't forget it.
They talked about it. In the wrong context.
The only context they talked about it was in a political context, whether it would be harder to pass a bill.
I think you're supposed to include what that would do to the actual economy if...
Your goal is to talk about the economy.
So here's Goldman Sachs so obviously signaling that they're making a political decision and not any kind of economic decision.
Because an economic decision would look like this.
There would be a lot of stimulus added to the system.
That's on the positive side.
But on the negative side, there would be extra inflation added to the system.
And we've looked at these two factors, and we've decided that one of them is bigger than the other, and therefore we're in favor of it or against it.
That's what an honest analysis would look like.
Did they do that?
No, they said there won't be as much growth.
True. And that the inflation will affect the politics.
True, but you just left out the biggest factor, the inflationary effect on the actual economy, like it didn't matter.
So if you ever thought that Goldman Sachs was an honest player, that should talk you out of it.
So congratulations for Joe Manchin for calling the Democrats bluff and actually being consistent with science.
And by the way, did it matter that Joe Manchin got an education from Michael Schellenberger in person about, you know, the economics of climate change?
Yeah, it mattered.
I don't know if it changed the decision, but yeah, that matters.
When you have, I'm arguing, the strongest persuader in the country right now, that would be Schellenberger.
The strongest persuader in the country, talk to this person, and he stopped the whole deal by himself.
Stopped the whole deal. I mean, not by himself.
He needed all the Republicans to be against it, too.
All right. The first case of Omicron variant in the United States.
That can't be true. Somebody's saying that in the comments.
We must have known it was here.
All right. I'm going to give a little kudos to Joe Biden.
Now, for those of you who are not long-time listeners, I remind you of my technique.
If you want to criticize someone, you should also protect yourself from confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance by saying as many good things as you can about the subject of your criticism.
Because if you can't say anything good about them, well, I'm not going to take you seriously.
So here I'm going to say something good genuinely about Joe Biden.
He did something that was really clever, and I called it out when he did it.
In other words, I said, oh, this is going to work out.
This is clever. And it worked.
Here's what it was. There was a big call for packing the Supreme Court.
Joe Biden, to his credit, did not favor that, but a lot of his party did.
So what are you going to do?
You don't favor it, and you have a pretty strong opinion about it, but your party does, and you've got to make them happy.
What do you do? You put together a big old commission, And you have them study it.
Because that's how you kill something.
Because he knew, of course he knew, that the commission would come back and not recommend back in the court.
Don't you think he knew that?
Of course he knew that. Because nobody's going to recommend it if they're a serious academic.
And And so that's exactly what happened.
Now, they didn't recommend for or against.
They simply laid out the argument.
But he got the same result.
He basically sent it to a committee to kill it.
I told you that on day one.
That's how you kill something.
You send it to the committee to take all the energy out of it.
Because a lot of these things are about the people, right?
It's about Trump. It's about Biden.
It's about the personalities and Kavanaugh and stuff.
But as soon as you take the personalities out of it and give it to a committee, all the energy just drains out of it.
And then once all the energy is gone, it's just a bunch of academics saying, you know, this would be a bad precedent.
Because every single person who gets elected would just repack the court and therefore we wouldn't have a system anymore.
It would literally eliminate the system because you wouldn't have the checks and balances.
So, good move.
This is A-plus management.
I don't know if I've seen a cleaner kill than what Biden did with this court-packing idea.
That was a clean kill. And you could see him set it up from day one.
It was obviously a plan, obviously.
I mean, I'm not a mind reader, but you don't have to go too far into people's thinking to know this was an intentional play.
It's such a standard play.
Corporations do it all the time.
So, A+. Good job.
How many of you have listened to the No Agenda episode, a very popular podcast with Adam Curry and John Dvorak?
And on episode 1409, I guess it's a new one, they take me on.
How many of you have heard that?
They're criticisms of my opinions.
Now, the take on this is that they destroyed me, if you look at the comments.
So let me give you context, and then I'll tell you why this is fascinating.
Now, it's not just fascinating because it's about me.
It makes it a little more interesting for me, I guess.
But here's what you need to know.
Number one, I like these guys, Curry and Dvorak.
I've known Dvorak for, I don't know, a thousand years or something, and I like them a lot.
Generally, we're very close to the same opinion on all kinds of stuff.
Not everything, but generally.
So I would say that they would be closer to my, I don't know, view of life than a lot of people.
And that's a compliment.
Of course, anybody who agrees with you, you think you're smart, right?
So this is important for the context.
Remember, these are not automatic, binary people who are just against whatever I say.
These are people who are inclined to agree with me.
Because they've agreed with me enough in the past that they would not be biased against me.
Now, they took on my opinions on ivermectin vaccinations and about the mass formation psychosis.
But I want you to listen to it.
I'll play just one little part of it.
And I want you to listen to it so you can learn to spot cognitive dissonance.
Now, the first question is, Is it me?
Because that's part of their claim, is that the cognitive dissonance or the hypnosis is affecting me, and that's why my opinions don't make sense to them.
So, how would you know who is in cognitive dissonance and not?
I'm going to teach you this over and over again, because you have to see examples of it before you're good at it.
The first thing you do is look for the tells.
Here's one tell. The over-laugh mocking.
An honest mocking would be somebody just laughing, and you say, oh, this person's really amused.
It's pretty funny.
But the over laugh is this guy.
He says, X, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
Sort of like a Larry David almost comic laugh.
So you'll see that tell in some of it.
And again, I'm sure they have genuine laughs, but it doesn't even sound genuine when you hear it.
It sounds like trying too hard.
Does that make sense?
So listen for the trying too hard to laugh thing.
Here's another tell.
Mocking my credentials, specifically the credentials as a hypnotist, without actually having a specific...
Complaint about it. Oh, he's a hypnotist.
Oh, well, I guess he keeps mentioning that.
But what does that have to do with the argument?
It's actually useful context because a lot of people are new to any live stream, right?
You have to give the context.
So what's wrong with that?
So look for oversized criticisms of things which are completely ordinary, which is somebody telling you their credentials before they tell you what they tell you.
Alright, then here's the biggest one.
Look for them to, you could say straw man, but I don't think that's what's going on.
I think they're actually hallucinating my opinions.
So, and I want to play one for you so that you can hear it yourself.
If you don't hear it live, you might think I'm misinterpreting this.
So, I don't know how far I am into this.
It's 30 minutes into No Agenda podcast number 1409.
So if you're looking for it yourself, and it's definitely worth listening to.
It's interesting stuff.
So it's the No Agenda podcast.
You can find it everywhere. Just Google it.
And it's show 1409, and it's at about the 30-minute mark.
And I'm going to play a little bit of it here.
So they're talking about me.
And I'm disappointed.
Now, you hear what they're doing?
So they're starting by saying that they're generally in favor of me, which is exactly what I did with them, which is also why I like them, because that's exactly what they should be doing to set up the conversation.
Because they need you to know they're not biased against me in some general way.
It's just this technique.
So that's actually a good technique.
Really, with what he did.
But not surprised, because I think I can prove that he, in fact, himself is trapped in the mass formation.
He's going to prove that I'm trapped in the mass formation.
In other words, that I'm hypnotized.
Have you ever heard of a projection?
I used to think it wasn't a thing, and now I've seen so many cases of it that it's undeniable at this point.
So that doesn't mean they're wrong, right?
So, so far you just know that they're accusing me of being hypnotized, essentially, and I would accuse them of the same, which I'm doing right now.
So, so far it's a tie.
You wouldn't be able to tell anything one way or the other from this.
And also, sorry, it could be.
I think I can show it.
You'll show it. Well enough so that we comprehend it and can reiterate it and explain it and measure Scott Adams' debunking versus how we believe it works.
Now, this all came out of the...
I guess he watched Dr.
Peter McCullough on the Rogan Show, and that's where McCullough brought up the mass formation.
Now, Scott Adams, as you pointed out, he's a trained hypnotist.
In fact, we should probably say right off the bat, we have proof that he is a very well-trained hypnotist.
And if you've seen his wife, you know this guy definitely is a hypnotist.
I'm not saying they don't make good points.
They do make good points.
I brought that up.
This is a good one.
Thank you.
Come to me.
And the reason, well, so that's what, unfortunately, he didn't really do the research about the theory or refresh his memory, which is a big problem.
Incorrect.
I read about the theory before I commented.
Go. And he starts off with one of my favorite things that we talk about here, just in general about Dr.
Peter McCullough. I think he's not good at evaluating data, so when he says that some countries have good experience with ivermectin, that's just false.
Okay, John, you want to weigh in on that?
You want to weigh in on that?
All right, so you heard my claim, right?
So the claim they played was me saying that there's no country we've identified that ivermectin has solved the problem, right?
Now, some of you disagree, but later I'll say if you research it, you'll find that there are no countries that fit that.
Now, remember the claim.
The claim is there are no countries, right?
Now, watch the response to my claim that there are no countries, right?
Those seem to have a good result.
No countries. Well, that's a pretty much of a whopper.
I mean, there are, again, I've had this website that I keep referring to, which has changed this basic URL. It used to be ivmmeta.com, but now it's iv9 something or other.
I don't have it handy.
But there's about 70 studies showing its effectiveness that have been peer reviewed.
And then the FDA itself on their one web page where they say, oh, you shouldn't use ivermectin because it's unproven.
They have a link on that exact page to 75 more studies.
Did you hear it?
So what did I say?
And then what did he say?
He called it a whopper, meaning that what I was saying was clearly wrong or a lie.
And then what was his response?
It was a different topic.
I said there are no countries that have demonstrated it's working.
He changed it to that there are studies that are peer-reviewed.
Did you hear me say...
In the clip he played, that there are no peer-reviewed ivermectin studies.
I've never said that.
I've said the opposite.
I've said there are lots of ivermectin studies that show it works.
But they all have certain limitations of size, or no control, or it was an observational, stuff like that.
Now, you can see this clearly, right?
Because you're my judges.
You're the ones who are judging who's in cognitive dissonance.
Did you clearly see that he changed the subject to debunk me while actually just being on the wrong topic?
Did he ever debunk the claim that there are countries, that there are no countries or towns or anything that have solved their problem with ivermectin?
Now, if anybody's new to me, I'm not telling you ivermectin doesn't work.
I'm not telling you that.
Because I've actually said that, you know, if I got in this situation, I'd probably take it.
Risk management. I think we're going to find out it probably doesn't work.
But that's just statistical, you know, prediction.
If I had to bet my life on it, I'd say there's a solid 10% chance it could make a difference.
I'd take it. You know, if my doctor agreed, etc.
So, they've hallucinated an entire opinion that I don't hold...
That there's somehow no studies that show it works?
Of course. I've talked about it at length.
All right. So that's the first tell.
Let me give you a vote so far.
Who's in cognitive dissonance so far?
Is it me or is it them?
Yeah, it looks like them, right?
I mean, I'm not the one who can tell.
That's why I need a third party.
But, of course, you're biased for me, so that's also a problem.
Let's see what else they say. So John says, where there's smoke, there's fire, meaning that there's so many indications that it works.
How could it all be wrong?
That's not really a sophisticated analysis of anything, is there?
Because do you know what else has lots of smoke?
Everything that's not true.
Everything that you thought was true for a while, maybe, from Russia collusion to you name it.
They all have plenty of smoke, but they're not true.
How much smoke is there that Hillary Clinton has massively been executing people?
Lots! I don't think it's true, personally.
I mean, I could be surprised, but I don't think it's true.
There are plenty of things that have tons of smoke that aren't true.
Do you know why we do randomized controlled trials?
I don't think John Dvorak does.
Now, that's not fair.
I don't know what he thinks in his head.
But the argument for a randomized controlled trial is that you never want to say this.
You never want to say there's so much smoke there must be fire.
That's what you're trying to avoid with science.
Science is trying to cure this problem of people saying they can see it with their own eyes.
I'm looking right at it.
Look at all this evidence. That's the problem that science cures.
So he's in the problem instead of what science cures while claiming a scientific, I don't know, insight.
And then of course there's the discontinued use and then reuse and watching the numbers go up and down.
So that is a bad thing to say.
Well, let's listen how he arrives at this.
And by the way, Peter McCullough, who was the editor of a couple of journals where all you did was look at data, just kind of belies, overlooks that fact.
He was a peer reviewer himself, as it were.
All right. So Dvorak is saying that I'm overlooking the fact that Dr.
McCullough is very experienced in peer review of looking at studies.
Did I overlook that?
Do you think I overlooked that?
No. I'm saying that if you took somebody who was a data analysis expert and you sat them next to Dr.
McCullough with all of his experience looking at peer-reviewed or being a peer-reviewed person, I would say it wouldn't be close.
Those are different expertise.
That would be like me saying, well, I've been paying attention to medicine for a long time, read a lot of articles, so I'm as good as a doctor.
I mean, I've been reading up on it.
I have experience with my own medical problems and stuff.
So I'm basically a doctor, aren't I? No, no.
If you don't study data analysis, you don't get there just by looking at studies.
You're going to have to go a lot deeper than that.
I'm getting data. So that's the exaggerated laugh.
Did you hear it? So I said that the doctor I was talking about was highly skilled in his areas of expertise, but they do not include looking at data.
And I'll give the exact example that he's not aware that there's no country that's had good success.
And probably not aware of maybe some other stuff.
but let me play the laugh again because you have to hear the laugh that was almost as if we scripted it John I love that so when he says that some countries Why would you do that?
We got everything on a roll.
We know what to do.
We know exactly what to do.
Actually, we should talk about that.
What do they need to change?
All right, well, I think I could go on too long with that.
So the point is they make some claims that I think that ivermectin is nonsense.
Nope. Nope.
That does not capture my claim.
And they said that I'm, quote, all in on vaccinations.
Those of you who have been watching me since the beginning, would you say that that is a good characterization of my opinion, that I have been, quote, all in on vaccinations?
No. It's not even fucking close.
It's not even in the ballpark.
I'm literally the only person I know who predicted the vaccinations wouldn't work.
Do you know anybody else?
I mean, some experts said it before I said it, and that's actually what informed me.
The reasoning that I used was the expert said, we've been working on a coronavirus vaccination for decades.
We're not even close.
There's nothing that has changed except the pandemic.
Why in the world would we suddenly know how to make this thing that we haven't known how to make for 20 years and we've been trying hard?
And I listened to that and I said, yeah, that's a pretty good point.
What are the odds that by coincidence the pandemic would hit at exactly the time we knew how to make a vaccination we never knew how to make?
I mean, it's possible.
I wanted to feel optimistic about it, but I also predicted it wouldn't work.
And then it didn't, as a vaccination.
Now, I do say that the vaccinations work in the sense that reducing the chance of major illness.
That's the official word.
I mean, I didn't do any studies myself.
But the official word is it reduces your risk.
So, if you see the maniacal laugh and all that, I don't know what happened to...
But it looks like cognitive dissonance, because I think they're watching their ivermectin opinion go to hell.
They probably thought binary about me, that I was either for vaccinations or against them.
Both of those are bad opinions, in my opinion.
Scott has gradually lost my respect on these issues.
I think his investments may be part of his blind spot.
Investments? What investments do I have?
I had an investment a little while in Regeneron, but I sold it.
So I don't have it, and I just held it for a few months.
I don't know of any investments I have that would have any bearing on this.
But when you say that I've...
Actually, let me respond to this directly.
I'm always open to you saying what you disagree with me.
But I've lost my respect.
Fuck you. Fuck you.
Just fuck you and everybody who talks like that.
Really. I don't want to hear about you losing your respect for me because I didn't ask for your fucking respect.
I asked for you to maybe engage in the argument.
So fuck you. I don't have any respect for you either.
Zero. Zero.
All right. I mentioned that the publication Revolver had an investigative story about the possibility that January 6th had some FBI operatives pushing what happened.
Now, I claimed that it looked like a credible...
But somebody sent me a chart that showed the various media entities on a graph so that you could see if they were credible or not.
It had Revolver, like, way down in the not-credible area with InfoWars, according to whoever put that chart together.
And I think to myself, who in the world could put together a chart of media bias?
Who could do that?
How in the world would you not have CNN and New York Times as the least credible entities?
Who gets to say what's credible?
It's like, if any of us knew what was true, we wouldn't need the news.
We're all confused.
All right. But here's my question.
I haven't seen anybody debunk it.
Now, keep in mind that Revolver did not state the FBI was behind it.
They don't have that position.
They just said, here's the guy who looks like the FBI. Here's a guy who's not indicted that looks suspicious.
Here's another one who's not indicted who looks suspicious.
If you put them all together, it does tell a pretty powerful story if the story is complete enough, if they didn't leave out any context, and if what they reported was true.
They show their sources, so you don't have to wonder where they got it from.
They show you. So, has anybody seen a debunk of the Revolver reporting?
Because I haven't yet.
It could be.
I'm open to it.
Somebody says the January 6th looks like the Charlottesville thing.
Well, you know, the Charlottesville March, I've got a lot of questions.
I've got a lot of questions. I don't think it was organic.
Clearly there were, you know, racists who organized it.
I mean, that's all clearly in the record.
But who runs the racists?
Do you think that the racists who organized that are completely devoid of any outside influence?
They're not.
They're not. So to the extent that we don't know who was backing the racists, we don't know even what happened.
Nothing. And there's no curiosity about it.
I mean, I could tell you what I know, but I'm not going to.
Let me just tell you that there's a little bit of a deeper mystery on what powers were behind that that has come to light.
But maybe someday we'll know.
Elon Musk says he'll be paying more than $11 billion in taxes this year in response to all the people like Elizabeth Warren saying he's not doing enough.
And I'm wondering, is that the most that anybody has ever paid in taxes?
Certainly in one year, right?
Did he just break the world record in taxpaying?
How would you like to be so rich that you can solve every problem?
If you think about it, how many of you could have solved this problem if somebody says you don't pay enough taxes?
Elon Musk can say, well, how about I throw $11 billion at it?
Will that make you stop talking?
And you think to yourself, well, it would make me stop talking the same way.
So it's like, all right, if you're complaining about my taxes, how about $11 billion?
Will that shut you up?
Apparently not. It didn't work.
That's the funny part. People will still say he doesn't pay enough taxes.
To me, the funniest part will be that this won't work.
But it's a hell of a try.
And I just love the fact that we always forget that Tesla doesn't do marketing.
I don't think SpaceX does.
And that Musk is their marketing.
So when he does something like this, do you know what really happened?
Do you know what the real story is?
What's the real story of why he sold stock?
Anybody? What's the real reason he sold his stock?
Public relations?
Publicity, somebody says?
Stock options?
To make a profit? No.
He had to exercise options.
Was that it? I thought there was some voluntary part of that.
Thank you. Diversification.
Yeah. If you make...
If you're the richest person in the world, but your wealth is entirely in a few different entities, you need to get some of that out of there.
You need to get some of your money out of the things that have a specific risk.
Because it could be that tomorrow somebody builds a, you know, fusion engine and puts it in a Prius, and the next thing you know, nobody's buying the Tesla.
So any company has the odds of going to zero.
No matter how big or successful the company is, it still has a chance of going to zero.
So the smart thing to do is to find an excuse to take money off the table and put it somewhere else where nothing can happen to you.
You're invulnerable.
So Elon Musk does a totally normal economic move, which is to take some money off the table and diversify.
But he turns it into this public spectacle of paying more taxes than any human and, you know, dunking on Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
Any time you think that anything is done for one reason, sometimes, but it's very simple people who do that.
When Elon Musk does something, there are probably five reasons.
Right? And we can think of three of them and two of them he thinks of and you haven't even thought of.
So yeah, there are like five reasons to do this.
One of them was that he's responding to the criticism.
The others are even better.
But it was a perfect exit point because he can make it look like he's not cashing out.
He made cashing out look like he was paying taxes.
Could you do that? Would you be smart enough to figure out how to make taking your money off the table and keeping it forever, cashing out?
Could you make cashing out look like you're paying taxes?
No, you're not that good.
He totally pulled this off.
This is one of the greatest persuasion plays you'll ever see.
I mean, it's A+. All right, as Greg Duffield said the other day, and I love this phrase, the public needs a hostage negotiator to help us get out of the mandates and the lockdowns and whatever else is coming at us.
And the reason is because the government's the wrong tool.
But the public needs to weigh risk versus life, and we weigh things differently.
So in almost every other situation, it's better to let the government do the republic thing and represent us.
This is just the one unique situation where they're the wrong tool.
If a war breaks out, you don't want the public voting on it.
You want the government to say, whoa, whoa, we got this.
Let us handle this until we can sort out what's real, and then the public can get involved.
But with the pandemic, they were never the right tool, except in the fog of war stage, in which they were.
But at this point, they're not the right tool anymore.
They were, at the beginning.
And the trouble is that the public doesn't have any way to organize, short of the government itself.
And the groups that might be resisting the mandates are too diverse.
So you've got the black Americans might be resisting at some level.
You've got conservatives at some level.
They tend not to join together.
There are some cases where they are joining together.
But I would say that we need a hostage negotiator.
Adam Dopamine suggested, indirectly suggested, that maybe somebody like a Trump...
Somebody like a Trump.
But I would say he's too divisive.
So it would be amazing if he did that.
It would be one of the greatest spectacles of all time.
If he just played it straight and literally said, look, let me just negotiate this.
And see if we can come up with a date or a metric that sets us free.
But here's what I think we need.
I think we need a hostage negotiator who's not too identified with one side or the other to simply pick a date and say, we're all taking our masks off, if you're in a state that has masks, we're all going to take our masks off on whatever date you want.
And, you know, that's just the day.
We're just going to take our masks off on that day.
And maybe March 1st.
If I had to pick a time, I'd say March 1st.
Now, you'd all like it to be sooner, right?
But we do have the Omicron.
We don't know everything that we need to know about it.
And, of course, we could change that date if something came up.
March 1st, change it.
But I think we need to have a date.
And... I think it would be responsible to have that date, you know, not right away.
Give us a little time to sort out what's true and what's not.
Yeah, and anybody who says it should have been a year ago, I get what you're saying.
I get it. Anyway, if you can think of who'd be a good hostage negotiator, but please don't pick me.
I feel like I'd be semi-good at it, but I don't want it to be me.
Sounds like a terrible job.
All right. Let's talk about the Great Reset.
You know, before that, let me clarify my thoughts about the...
The mass formation psychosis.
I don't think I've done a good job of telling you my objections to it.
So the idea behind the mass formation psychosis is that a set of conditions have happened that could lead to totalitarianism.
Now, one of the things that the No Agenda podcast said is that since I was discounting that as being afraid of Hitler, They said, oh no, it's not about Hitler, it's about totalitarianism.
To which I say, okay.
Okay, it's not about Hitler, it's about totalitarianism, which is about Hitler.
I mean, I get that there's a difference, but we're not really talking about a real distinction here.
The fear is that powerful people who don't have your interests will take control.
So here's what my take is on mass formation psychosis.
It doesn't add anything to the understanding.
Because we're always in it.
We're always in a mass formation psychosis.
In other words, we're always confused.
We're always not sure what's happening.
We're always frightened about the future.
Why? Why is that always the case?
It's because of the fake news.
Did you catch this play?
Alright, you heard about the SUV that killed people.
It wasn't the person driving, it was the SUV. You heard about the stone that threw itself.
We keep hearing about all these things that are happening on its own.
There's no person doing it.
And now we have the mass formation psychosis.
Huh. That's sort of like nobody's problem, is it?
I mean, nobody caused it.
There's no name you could put on that.
Oh, it just happened on its own.
Here's my problem with it.
It's the fake news that is the problem.
There is a name to put on this.
If the fake news were telling us the truth, or, ultimately, just one truth, even if it were fake, we'd all be on the same side, and we wouldn't be so worried.
But the business model of the fake news is to keep you uneasy.
It's to isolate you and divide you.
That's how the business model works, once everybody worked up and clicking on stuff.
So when you say, oh, the problem is a mass formation psychosis, you have shifted blame from the obvious guilty parties.
The guilty parties are the people running the fake news, who have removed all confidence from the public.
And scared us to death.
If you scare us at the same time you're teaching us that all the news is fake, how is the public going to feel?
Well, it's going to be exactly the situation to create a mass formation psychosis.
So I'm not saying that the conditions don't exist because they clearly do.
I'm not saying that that doesn't contribute to the psychosis because it clearly does.
All I'm saying is...
It's a diversion.
It doesn't add anything.
We're basically adding water to the ocean and telling you it got wetter.
Yeah, you might be a little bit more confused now.
You might be a little bit more aware that the facts are fake.
But we've always been here.
We always were confused and hypnotized.
We always were one inch away from totalitarianism.
Do you know what prevents it?
Do you know what has prevented us so far from descending into totalitarianism in the United States?
Do you know what?
Partial credit for whoever's saying the Second Amendment, which is a lot of people on the locals' platform.
I was going to say the Constitution.
Second Amendment being, you know, you could say that's the foundation of the Constitution, in a way.
You could make that argument.
So I'll take Second Amendment as a correct answer.
But I was looking for a Constitution.
That we do have a set of checks and balances, however imperfect, that keep totalitarian at bay, totalitarianism at bay.
Now, if we pack the Supreme Court, totalitarianism is coming.
And do you know who knew that?
Joe Biden. Even Joe Biden knew you don't pack the Supreme Court because you get rid of your checks and balances and then, yeah, then the mass formation psychosis is going to eat you alive.
It'll eat you alive as soon as you take that protection away.
But the Constitution has, for a few hundred years, provided us a weird protection against it.
It's like a self-correcting system, which is what makes it so magic.
And so I do not deny that there is a mass formation psychosis.
I simply add to it that it's always here.
Maybe a little worse, like adding water to the ocean, but not in a way that doesn't help you understand anything, doesn't tell you what to do about it, doesn't predict better, doesn't do anything.
So the cleaner story is the fake news has so messed with us that we're looking for any kind of explanation and that causes psychosis.
So look at the fake news.
Don't be diverted by a clever but accurate idea about the mass formation psychosis.
It's a diversion, but true-ish.
There's nothing about it that's untrue.
Let's talk about the Great Reset.
How many of you believe that the Great Reset is a clever plot by the elites to gain power and control?
How many of you believe that?
Yes, yes, yes.
Yep, yep, yep. Yes, yes, yes.
Yes, yes, yes. Well, the Great Reset, in my opinion, is nothing like that.
Let me tell you what I think it is.
So it's based on, apparently, in June 2020...
The Great Reset was the theme of this annual meeting of the World Economic Forum.
So the first part that's true is the elites did get together and talk about the Great Reset.
So that part, everybody agrees is true.
That's just a fact. The topics, it was convened by Prince Charles and blah, blah, blah, and other people.
Some of the topics were climate change stuff.
And so the idea was to use the current pandemic and all the chaos that it creates, along with any chaos that comes from climate change itself, to say, let's rethink everything and see if this is a situation to fix things.
Now, is that a conspiracy?
If a bunch of people say, hey, we've got a situation to fix a bunch of things, like climate and fairness and other things, because it's completely overt.
They're showing you their work.
They're doing it in public. Is that a conspiracy?
And is what they want power and control?
I always reject that argument because, again, that's like adding water to the ocean.
Everybody wants power and control.
Everybody. You want it over yourself.
Some people want it over other people so that they can have a better life themselves.
But we all want power and control.
There's no exceptions to that.
So when you say that these great reset people are looking for power and control, that's true, but it doesn't say anything.
It doesn't add anything.
Because the Great Reset isn't like one thing.
It's just a whole bunch of people doing things in a condition which is rare, which is we can stop and rethink everything.
I would say that the pandemic is a Great Reset.
We've rethought commuting.
We've rethought healthcare.
We've rethought pandemic stuff.
We've rethought everything.
So it is a great reset in the sense that you can clear the slate and say, all right, all right, if we were going to start today...
How would you build back better, so to speak?
So I don't find anything even slightly alarming about the Great Reset, because it's basically just a push for green technology and maybe some more socialism, but that's already here.
It's just the same stuff we've been looking at.
And I don't think the Great Reset gave them any extra capability or power.
You know, you just saw Manchin build back better.
So, you know, it was close.
It was close, but it doesn't look like the Great Reset is going to reset too much.
Here's some good news that was sort of underplayed on CNN's website, but I hadn't seen it anywhere else.
They said, thanks to multiple atmospheric river events, which sounds very important, atmospheric river events, The average snowpack in California has gone from 18% to 98% in two weeks.
We just went from no snowpack, we're going to have another drought, because that's a big source of our water, comes from that snowpack.
And we're having, yet again, a drought this summer.
And it looks like we just took a big step toward making that big problem go away.
Now, if you don't live in California, this meant nothing to you.
But this is a big problem, not having water, because we're not doing enough to desalinate or anything else.
So we have to rely on nature to save us from bad government.
But it looks like nature stepped in, at least for now.
I mean, it would still take a lot more water to be secure in California, but this is a big deal.
A big deal. Like, on the list of all the good news that I could receive in my life...
This would be right at the top.
Because, you know, you have to leave California if you don't have water.
It's pretty much game over.
It's bad enough we barely have electricity.
All right. In the Twitter highlights, you know, where they'll highlight a story that everybody's talking about, yesterday they said they had this heading to the story on Twitter.
It said, science and public health experts say that vaccines are safe for most people.
What? Most?
Did they downgrade vaccines from, hey, everybody, you know, almost everybody needs to get one.
Did they downgrade it all the way to most?
51%? 51%?
I mean, they're not saying it's 51%, but the word most is a pretty wide space, isn't it?
I don't think we can ignore this change in messaging.
I don't think you can ignore that.
I think this is a pretty clear statement that whoever wrote the headline, anyway, at Twitter, is hedging.
And that is a big deal in our understanding of what's going on.
Apparently, Fauci was talking about we're going to make lots and lots of tests for the COVID available.
He said there are going to be 10,000 centers for free testing.
10,000 centers, and it's going to happen in just a few weeks.
So this is heading in the right direction.
Of course, we must ask the question, why don't we have that already?
What took so long?
And I think the answer is corruption.
I'm going to stick with that statement of what I consider obvious.
I don't think it's incompetence.
I don't think it's money. It just looks like somebody in this mix was corrupt.
And stop something from happening for somebody's benefit.
But we don't know details. All right.
China, amazingly, somehow got their Chinese tennis star, Peng Shui, who disappeared because she claimed a Communist Party leader raped her.
And now she's saying in an interview that that never happened.
She never accused anyone of sexually assaulting her.
Nope. Nope. Nope.
It had been misunderstood. Sorry.
Nope. That never happened.
Now, would you see China disappear a story to take something you know is true and just make it disappear?
Can they do that?
Yeah. Yeah, they could do that.
It works. Yeah.
Because they can do it in the United States.
So certainly you can do it in China.
So certainly the people of China will just now hear that that never happened.
Um... Just like stories disappear in the United States.
Our media disappears stories all the time.
So yeah, they can actually do this and it will work.
It's so bold and so obvious that you say to yourself, well, that's never going to work.
It's so bold and obvious that it's a lie.
Who wants me at this time of day?
Anyway, so anyway, the testing might be good.
I tweeted the other day a reference, I think it came from Wikipedia or something, and it talked about how Ghislaine Maxwell's dad, who was a famous media mogul, had at his funeral a lot of important people, including six former or current heads of Mossad, Israeli intelligence.
For that, I was accused of being adjacent to or too close to being anti-Semitic, By David Hosni.
And he called me out for apparently an old anti-Semitic trope that Israel or the Jews are running some kind of pedo ring.
Which I'd never even heard of.
So my weird life is that I'm getting pilloried by people who are literally hallucinating opinions for me.
I've never even heard of that.
Now I had heard...
That intelligence agencies would be very interested in what Epstein knew and, you know, what kinds of salacious stories about important people he might know.
I mean, that's just obvious, right?
The CIA would want to know, Russian intelligence would want to know, you know, MI6 would want to know, and Israel would want to know.
Why wouldn't they? Who would not want to know that?
If you knew that Epstein had the, like, sexual goods...
And a bunch of famous people.
Every intel agent, she should want to know about that.
I never even heard this. I never even heard that.
Is there some kind of... Has anybody heard this?
Have you heard some kind of anti-Semitic thing that Israel or Jews were somehow behind some kind of a pedo ring?
Is that even a thing?
Is anybody even...
I've never even heard of that.
And now I'm anti-Semitic for something I've never even heard of.
Anyway. I blocked him for being an asshole.
Clay Travis had a good thread today.
I'm going to read you most of it.
He said, Joe Biden passed his entire 2020, or actually, I'm sorry, let me read it again.
Joe Biden based his election basically on trusting the science and beating COVID. And of course, that didn't happen.
And Clay asked us to do this one fun mental exercise.
Imagine that it was Trump in charge.
And that the pandemic went just the way it went.
You know, same outcome.
Let's say Trump did everything that Biden did.
But Trump was in charge.
Clay says, I believe the media would have vigorously covered the COVID vaccine failure.
True. It would have been the Trump vaccine that failed.
That's all it would have been about.
But instead, it's take the vaccine.
It's not as good as we thought, but it's still good.
And Trump would likely have already been impeached over his failures to take COVID seriously.
Could be. Blue states would shut down, blah, blah, blah, all kinds of stuff, bad stuff would happen.
And then Clay says, the reality is almost nothing we have done has had any impact on COVID at all.
Do you believe that? Do you believe that nothing we've done has had any impact on COVID at all?
That's not even close to true.
That's not even the same universe is true.
It's true that we can't stop it, but do you believe that the vaccines don't reduce the risk of serious outcomes?
Is there anybody here who believes that the vaccines don't even do that?
That they don't reduce the risk of serious outcomes?
I'm saying yes. Now, conclusive?
Yes. I've seen lots of yeses on the locals' platform.
How about on YouTube? How many of you believe that the vaccines don't at least reduce your risk?
Now, we're not talking about that they may bring their own risk as well, because that's real.
Interesting. Anyway, I don't think that is a statement that should be accepted on face value.
I think that face masks, we don't know.
Because there's no way to do a controlled trial.
So we don't know if they work or not.
I think that vaccines, the science, or the experts say it, and all the data, I think 100% of the data says it reduces risk, right?
There's no data that says otherwise.
That I'm aware of. So I think Clay goes too far, but he makes a good point that if it had been Trump, it would have been treated completely differently.
Do you agree? All right, here's my updated list to know when I'm dealing with an NPC, somebody who can't do independent thinking.
If I see any of these phrases on the Internet, now some of these are specific to me, but these phrases are my key not to have a debate with this person on Twitter.
If they mention jumping the shark, I'm really the pointy-haired boss.
Ha, ha, ha. The Matrix, Soylent Green, anybody being an apologist about anything.
I saw it with my own eyes, or I heard it with my own ears.
Sheep references, 1984 movie or book.
Hitler references, fascism, soy boy, or Scotty.
Scotty. So if you have any of those...
Probably you're dealing with an NPC. That's my list.
Now, I think you'd agree this is the best show you've ever seen.
Possibly the best thing that's ever happened in the history of the universe.
But we've come to the end of our time here.
And right on time.
Yeah. That's how I play.
Right on time. All right.
And I will talk to you.
Did I hear Kamala...
What's this? Do you hear Kamala Harris said in the LA Times interview, we didn't see Delta coming.
Apparently these viruses mutate.
Well, okay, that's poorly stated.
Here's a comment I don't understand.
The No Agenda podcast was not a private conversation.
Duh. It was meant for public consumption.
Duh. When you subtract their persuasion efforts, how much of what's left is cognitive dissonance?
