Episode 1600 Scott Adams: Let's Make Fun of All the Stupid People in Charge Today
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Is Mass Formation Psychosis, a professional diversion?
Dale explains need to panic over Omicron
Why "The News" can't tell the truth about Omicron
Corruption, the biggest story of the pandemic
Biden's clever anti-Trump suppression play
Omicron, safer than the 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
Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the best thing that's ever happened to you in your entire lives.
Yeah, I know, I know.
You think the birth of your children, your wedding day, you think those are special.
But they are nothing compared to the moment you're about to experience.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
It's sweeping the world faster than the Omicron.
But far more powerful.
And all you need to take it up a level is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or gel, a canteen, drink a flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine hit of the day.
You know it's going to be good.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
And it's going to happen now.
Go! I almost spit my coffee on my notes, because I saw a meme go by the locals' platform of...
I don't even know what that meme is about.
It's so damn funny, I can't look at it anymore.
I can't look at it. All right.
I saw a little news item that fossil hunters have found a fossilized human skull.
Or was it human?
Was it human?
That's the question. It might represent an entirely new species of humanoid-like creatures, thus rewriting everything we know about the history of humankind.
But I caught this little note...
Sort of, just sitting in the middle of an article that said that we know that Neanderthals had bigger brains than we do.
Wait, what? Wait, Neanderthals had bigger brains?
That would explain everything.
Do you ever wonder why it is that we don't know how to make a pyramid?
I mean, we could do it with modern equipment, but we wouldn't know how to make a pyramid if we had to do it with, you know, the ancient tools.
And I've always speculated that maybe it was aliens that taught them how to do it.
Maybe. Maybe.
Can't rule it out. But I've also speculated the other more obvious explanation is that people used to be smarter.
And that we're just getting dumber every year.
Why do I say that?
Because I'm not sure intelligence is quite as related to...
I don't think it's related to fitness.
Are humans more fit than, let's say, an oyster?
Well, I don't know. Fit for what?
Depends on what you want to do.
Go to space? Yeah, I would pick the human over the oyster.
But for just living a life and reproducing, which is sort of the goal of life, to reproduce, ah, oyster does fine.
It's doing fine. So...
I think intelligence is overrated and largely unnecessary for evolution.
I don't think that the smartest people necessarily are the ones that are the most successful.
If you were to look at Earth today and you were to divide the people by the smartest...
All the smartest people, and you put them in one bucket, and then take all the people who are less than the smartest people and put them in another bucket, which one has the highest reproduction rate?
Am I right? Yeah.
The low IQ people have a far higher reproduction rate.
Because once you get smart, I don't know, maybe you get selfish or something.
Once you're smart, you're richer.
Especially if you have money, you end up having fewer kids.
So everything that we witness would suggest that we're evolving dumber, and that whatever it was that made us smart at one point in our human evolution, or whatever made Neanderthals have bigger brains.
Now here I'm making a big assumption that the bigger brain makes you smarter.
Am I okay with that assumption?
Does the bigger brain make you smarter pretty much all the time?
I guess it would depend on how many folds you had, right?
But I don't know if...
Is there an example of the opposite?
Is there anything that has a bigger brain than humans?
Can somebody tell me? Fact check me.
What has a bigger brain than a human?
Somebody says dolphins?
Whales? Elephants?
Is that true? No.
Somebody says elephants have bigger brains than humans.
Interesting. Alright, so maybe the Neanderthals were dumber than us, but I think it's funny to think that they might have been smarter and were just getting dumber every year.
So I wouldn't call it a theory on my part.
More of a humorous observation.
Over in Japan, they're going to start not selling large-sized McDonald's french fries because of the shortage.
I don't know if it's a shortage of potatoes or Whatever the hell they make their french fries out of.
If it's potatoes, I hope it is.
But now only small fries.
So if you go into a McDonald's in Japan and you happen to get the Omicron virus while you're there and a small french fry, they now have a branding for that.
That's called an unhappy meal.
Omicron plus small fries, that's an unhappy meal.
TM. Weirdly, CNN did a story today about their own fake news without labeling it as incorrect news.
Somehow they covered their own fake news.
Here's what they did. So you know the story from yesterday.
Jesse Waters was giving a speech the other day and referred to a rhetorical kill shot, meaning saying something that would shut somebody down or end their career.
That, of course, got taken out of context by CNN, who showed the kill shot part as if it were a physical kill shot, like...
You know, do something bad to Dr.
Fauci, which you should not do.
And, of course, CNN reported that like that actually happened.
Now, it didn't take long for people like me and people on social media and then later Fox News itself to debunk CNN and to show the full video that shows that their news coverage was completely fake news.
So now you've got CNN showing obviously fake news, and it's clear how they did it.
They just edited out the beginning part.
And then Fox News completely debunks it by showing the part that was kept out and talking about it.
So what is CNN's move after that?
They've been completely debunked.
So what do you do? Do you ignore it?
Well, it turns out that ignoring it isn't good for clicks.
Because I clicked on it.
It was the first thing I clicked on this morning.
So instead, they cover the story about their own fake news without actually labeling it fake.
So they showed what they said, and then they showed what Fox News did to debunk it.
So now they showed their own fake news...
They showed the debunk, which is completely complete.
Like, there's no ambiguity whatsoever.
It is debunked.
And then, those weaselly fuckers, they bring on a law enforcement expert, and they ask the expert, you know, what he just saw and heard, and the expert is like, oh, I don't know. I'm not so sure that that's safe.
Or words to that effect.
And here's the best part.
They refer to the expert without showing what the expert actually said.
Because the expert didn't say anything except more fake news, probably.
In other words, what the expert really said was probably not the way they characterized it.
They didn't show it. How would I know?
So somehow, this is like so mind-boggling, and I think this is only possible because CNN saw that they got away with the fine people hoax.
If you can convince 50% or more, maybe 60% of the public at one point, if you can convince, I'll bet even higher, I'll bet 75% of the public at one point Believed CNN and their peers that the president of the United States went on live TV. Just think about this.
Imagine if you were thinking about this like 20 years from now and somebody told you the story.
That the fake news convinced the public that an American president went on TV and praised neo-Nazis who were marching with tiki torches and chanting anti-Semitic things.
And that CNN convinced you, like actually convinced, maybe not you, but 75% of the country, I would guess, that that actually happened.
And here's the weird part.
All you had to do was look at the video yourself to see that it didn't happen.
In fact, the opposite had happened.
He had condemned them, not praised them.
Now, once they got away with that...
Do you think there was any limit to what they thought they could get away with?
That was sort of the ultimate test case.
Because if that hadn't worked, suppose the fine people hoax had been debunked by more people than three people working hard at it, basically is what happened.
If it had been debunked, they would do the same thing they did with this Jesse Waters story.
They would just say, ah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, go to the next story.
It wouldn't matter at all.
So they didn't have any downside for trying this fine people hoax.
And then it worked.
Against all common sense, it worked.
How in the world could that work?
You just had to look at the video.
But because there were so many more fake videos, the edited version, than full videos, it actually probably still half of the country thinks it's true.
Now, I do think that we collectively, a lot of you helped, knocked it down from 75 to 75.
I don't know, 30%?
I don't know how many people still believe that.
But man, once that's true, you can just make up stories because you've proven that it won't matter if it's true.
It just didn't matter at all.
So that's just amazing.
It's just mind-boggling to watch them literally make up news and then show the video that shows that it's fake.
And then go on with it like it's still real.
Unbelievable. I mean, I don't even know what to say about that.
It is so extreme that your brain almost can't hold it as a problem.
It's like too big.
All right. You want to hear the best news, or the best idea that I've heard in a long time?
Because you always think to yourself, well, how would you replace the news?
What would be a model...
That would be better than the news.
And my big problem with the news, and it doesn't matter if it's left or right, same problem, is they tend to bring on people who have one point of view, and then somebody who doesn't really understand much about the topic asks a bunch of questions, and then we're done.
And all you get is some misleading one person's view with no sense that there's a counter-argument.
So the model of the news, completely broken.
What would be a good way to fix the news so that people were actually informed and wanted to consume the news?
Because you don't want to make it boring.
If you make the news boring like the old days, nobody's going to watch it.
So it's got to be interesting, and it's got to solve that problem of one expert talking with no counterpoint.
And there is a solution.
So I'm going to describe to you a solution, That once you hear it, you're going to say, I think you're going to have the same reaction I did.
You're going to say to yourself, wait a minute, that would work.
Not only would it work, it would work great.
Now I've built it up, do you think I can deliver?
All right, I just told you that I'm going to give you an idea that would virtually replace...
You know, 60% of what the news does, which is help you understand the topic.
So it wouldn't replace breaking news, right?
So it wouldn't be acquiring the news.
It would be helping you interpret it, which is 80% of what the news does.
All right, are you ready?
That's my challenge to you.
I'm going to give you an idea that would replace the news, is completely practical, Completely practical.
Could be done by the end of the year.
Completely changing the landscape of news.
You ready? All right, this is not my idea.
All right, this is from Paul Collider.
Paul, I know you're watching right now because I saw your comment.
So Paul suggests that someone should start a crowdfund debate platform.
In other words, if you raise enough money, you can say Scott Adams will debate, I don't know, John Dvorak.
Or Sam Harris will debate Joe Rogan.
Whatever. And neither of the participants has to agree to this, right?
They could just be people who exist, and you think, you know, I would love to see a debate between Bjorn Lomborg and Greta, right?
Or Michael Schellenberger and...
Anybody who has dumb ideas, basically, about either climate change or how to fix, you know, the homeless problem and the addiction problem in San Francisco.
He's got a lot of topics.
But I would watch him.
I would pay. I would actually pay.
I would put in serious money to watch a debate of two people that I actually thought would be a good point and counterpoint.
All right? Did I deliver?
So I made a huge promise that I would tell you something that could virtually overtake the entire news industry in a year.
That would work, wouldn't it?
So Paul Collider, you should follow him.
He's at Paul Collider.
So it's Paul, the normal spelling.
C-O-L-L-I-D-E-R. He has lots of good ideas, so you should follow him.
I don't think I can think of anything wrong with that idea, can you?
I literally can't think of one thing wrong with it.
Can anybody? Have you ever seen an idea that had nothing wrong with it?
That's completely practical and you could do it overnight?
In fact, one of you could do it today.
Is there anything that would stop you from...
I don't know if there are existing fundraisers that do that.
And the idea needs to be dumber or people won't accept it, somebody said. - All right. The platform and moderator will skew the direction of the debate.
Maybe, but you can have as many debates as you want.
If you're not happy with the debate that got funded and happened, then make your own debate.
Come up with your own.
I don't know, dollars, too much influence.
Is that the worst we can come up with?
You know, I don't know if the dollars would have too much influence because the crowdfunding is small donations, right?
So there's no donor who would be able to influence things.
I suppose some whale could come in with a big donation.
Yeah, I don't know, it seems like an amazing idea to me.
We should try it. All right, um...
So I guess Jack Dorsey made a big prediction.
He says that Bitcoin will replace the U.S. dollar at some point.
What do you think? How many of you think Bitcoin will replace the U.S. dollar?
Well, the U.S. dollar is almost a digital currency.
Is it not? If you pay somebody today, are you likely to write a check...
Hand them cash or use something like Venmo or Zelle.
Don't you do most of your payments digitally?
Young people do.
So, I mean, some of you aren't there yet.
But what would be the difference between the functional difference between Bitcoin and just a digital version of cash?
Is it just the tracking part?
Is that the only difference? Well, if the U.S. decides to accept Bitcoin in payment for taxes, then that's the point at which I'd say, ooh, we're heading in that direction.
So if you want to see if Jack Dorsey's Prediction comes true.
I don't think it's going to happen this year.
It might take a while. But I would wait to see if the U.S. starts accepting Bitcoin for tax payments.
I'm guessing that's a tough sell, isn't it?
Because Bitcoin could fluctuate so the government wouldn't know if it's getting 30% more than it thought or 30% less.
They might have to feather that in.
Try it a little bit with 5% of the revenue or something.
See what happens. Here's my prediction on Bitcoin.
Bitcoin has now reached a point where money professionals will start recommending it as a small part of your diversified portfolio.
Would you say that's happened yet?
Maybe in some circles it's happening.
How many of you hold Bitcoin already just as a small part of a bigger portfolio?
Lots of yeses.
Plenty of no's, but I'm seeing lots of yes's.
So here's what I think. I think if I had to guess...
This is just a guess. If you're watching me here on this platform, you're probably a little bit more advanced than a lot of the country in terms of technology.
You're a little more comfortable with it because you're watching a live stream.
That puts you in the top 50% of people who are comfortable with technology.
But we'll reach a point fairly quickly where it would simply be irrational not to hold any Bitcoin.
How many think that's true?
How many think it's a fair assumption that sometime pretty quickly, if we're not already there, you're going to have to hold a little bit of Bitcoin.
So if I had to guess what's going to happen with the price of Bitcoin, I would say you're going to have to include this once-ever shift.
So in the life of Bitcoin, there will be one time, and I think we're in the middle of it right now, where it shifts from risky to, wait for it, It's going to shift from a risky asset to one that reduces risk.
The only way it reduces risk is being a small part of a larger portfolio, because then you've got balance about your risks.
Am I right? That Bitcoin is right on the edge of moving from risky asset to an asset which common sense might not get you there right away, but actually will reduce your risk by being a good part of a portfolio that moves in different ways depending on what's happening in the world.
So that's why I own it.
I own it because I think that's a one-time ever gigantic shift coming where just everybody has to have a little bit of Bitcoin.
And of course there's a learning curve, how to open up a wallet, how to manage your crypto, etc.
But I think that will also get solved by the market.
I think you'll get better wallets and you'll get more trusts or some version of a trust where somebody's holding your Bitcoin for you, maybe it's insured against loss.
You get that sort of thing, I think.
I don't think Bitcoin in its native form The way it is now can quite be a replacement for the U.S. dollar.
You need a whole bunch of supporting structure around that, I think.
That's what I think. All right.
I saw the funniest horrible meme today, and it's so horrible I'm going to tell you about it.
But funny. So this is really a bad, bad thing.
And if you laugh at this, well, I think that says something about you.
And what it would say about you if you laugh about this is that you're a lot like me and we could be friends.
Because this is horrible.
Funny, but horrible.
All right, this is from a meme I saw today.
It was about Kyle Rittenhouse.
It says... This man proved you can't even fire into a crowd of Democrats without hitting pedophiles, women beaters, and illegally armed felons.
If you laughed at that, you're a horrible, horrible person.
And we can be friends.
we could be close friends.
And it's funny because it's sort of true-ish.
I mean, it's not true-true, but it's true-ish, which is what makes something funny.
All right, Biden was talking yesterday, talked about the supply chain, and there's some improvement there.
And there's something he claimed that I wondered if it's true, right?
And I'll run it by you.
He said that even though there are, you know, supply chain problems with ports, he said the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach that handle 40% of the nation's containers moved 15% more containers between January and November this year than the previous record in 2018.
I don't know why 2018 was the record, I guess.
What was wrong with 2019?
But in 2018, we had a record and we moved more than that.
So is the real problem just that there's more stuff?
Is that pretty much the whole problem?
There's just more stuff and that's it?
I see Karen saying he's right.
I wonder if that's right.
Yeah, I mean, I imagine it would be a pretty bold thing to say in public if it were not true.
But surprise me.
So that changes my feeling about the bottleneck.
You know, a bottleneck that's based on incompetence alone is really bothersome to me.
Because I'm like, ah, fix that incompetence.
But a bottleneck that's caused by unprecedented greater GDP activity, I'm willing to wait that out a little bit.
You know what I mean? It's the difference between waiting out good news and waiting out bad news.
If it's just a bottleneck because we're all incompetent and we didn't plan, well, I feel bad about that.
But a bottleneck because we're shipping and selling more stuff than any time in the history of the civilization, probably in civilization, but in the United States, that's not as bad, is it?
I mean, I still don't have the shampoo I want.
And I have to search the world to find a protein bar that I used to get easily.
So it's still a big pain in the ass.
And, you know, I bought at least two items that I won't see for months.
Right? And I know that.
I mean, I was told it would be months.
So it is inconvenient, but if I have to suffer an inconvenience, this is the one I want.
I want to suffer the inconvenience where things are going so well we can't handle it.
Okay. Okay. It does change how I feel about it.
Well, here's some potential good news.
After nearly two years, the scientists at Walter Reed have come up with what they think will be the vaccine of all vaccines.
The vaccine that will be the one vaccine you need to ever be protected from COVID and all SARS variants.
The vaccine of all vaccines.
And it looks like they're going to announce that pretty soon.
Would that be amazing?
Because I kind of think it's going to happen.
It would be amazing if what came out of the pandemic was a cure for all of these respiratory problems.
I feel like we're almost there.
I think we're at the verge of curing the common cold.
What would the world be like if your nose didn't run all the time?
Like mine. You know, I have allergies as well.
So, like, what if they just cured all that?
Like, I wouldn't even know what a life would look like without continuous respiratory problems.
Like, to me, that's just part of the, you know, the baseline of living, is respiratory problems.
But maybe it's all going away.
All right. I always ask this story.
How many national stories do I become part of?
It's weird. I got dragged into the whole Jesse Waters linguistic kill shot story.
So there were stories about that story that brought me into the story because of my comments about the story, etc.
And I want to do a little experiment.
Because while many of you know what things I have been involved in, there's a lot of things you don't know about.
Use your imagination.
Just use your imagination.
And, you know, if you've been watching me since my first prediction about Trump, and I talk about persuasion all the time.
Now, what kind of projects do you think that attracts?
Because there's a lot of people who think, you know, I can't predict the future, but maybe this guy can.
Or maybe you know something about persuasion that somebody else doesn't know.
So, trust me when I tell you you'll never hear the whole story.
There are things that have happened in my life that literally no one will ever know about.
And I have to tell you, it's frustrating.
Because I will live and die without anybody knowing who I was in any complete way.
And I'm trying to figure out how to be okay with that, because I don't think I can outlive all the other people in the stories.
If I did, then I could tell you the stories.
But there's a lot of stuff I can't tell you while there are other living people who are younger than me and will outlive me, presumably.
So you're never going to hear them.
And so I want to do a little test.
I want to see... If you can name a story that I'm not involved with.
A national story. So just name some national stories and I'll tell you which ones I'm not involved with.
CNN pedophiles.
Okay, you win. Oh, actually, I actually know something about CNN that isn't public.
So I do sort of know something there.
Now, Assange, I don't have anything to do with...
Okay. We immediately got into territory where I can't answer your questions because I don't want to go too far.
Alright, but let's talk about mass formation psychosis.
I was challenged by somebody who said I hadn't defended why I say that's BS. Okay?
Here's why. So a lot of the stories I simply know about the real story behind them that you don't But I can't tell you which ones those are.
Sorry. So mass formation psychosis.
Here's my complaint with it, in case I had not been good at expressing it.
Mass formation psychosis says that there's conditions that form that would lead to totalitarianism, And the conditions are that there's confusion and, you know, stress in the public.
So if you're confused and you don't know what to do and you're all stressed out, you will sort of accept any explanation that gets you past your mental confusion.
So that's when you can be easily manipulated.
Now, all of that's true.
Right? All of it's true.
Um... All of it's true.
But it's still bullshit.
So things can be true and still be bullshit.
Because here's the bullshit part.
That you don't need all this complication to explain what we experience.
All you need is to know that the news is fake.
And it's aggressively fake.
If you have fake news and everybody's confused and you can sell anybody any story.
But you don't need any...
You don't need a ton of background explanation.
And here are the things I have a problem with, mass formation psychosis.
The first thing is, it misdirects you from the problem.
It makes it seem like it's just sort of in the air.
It's like, oh, just events.
Events happen that make us feel unsettled.
You know, there's the pandemic.
It makes it look like it's nobody's fault.
This is absolutely somebody's fault.
The fake news. It's 100% completely fake news.
If we had real news, the way we're even interacting with science would be completely different.
So everything would be way better.
I imagine we would all either have vaccinations or not, or we wouldn't be talking about it or something.
But everything would be different if the news were real.
And I think this whole mass formation psychosis just diverts your attention from the problem that the news is fake.
And I also say that we're always in hypnosis.
So we did not get tripped into a zombie hypnosis state by this weird collection of activities that formed this mass formation psychosis.
No, we're always there.
That's my other difference with it.
To imagine that we went from one state to another is not how the world works.
We walk around in this dream state of a subjective world all the time.
We're always uncertain and easily hypnotized.
Always. Let me take it a little bit further.
I've told you that I can spot the people who have my skill...
Meaning persuasion.
I spotted Trump early.
That's why I knew he would win.
Because I could simply see something that was invisible to people who didn't have the same experience.
And I told you that when, back in the Clinton-Trump election cycle, I told you that when everybody on the Democrat side kept saying it was a dark vision, everything's dark, everything Trump does is dark, And I said, wait a minute, that's a professional.
And then I said that was Cialdini or somebody maybe influenced by him.
And at the moment, that's still the working theory because he hasn't denied it.
And a friend of his apparently confirmed it for whatever that's worth.
So I would say to you that I can identify professional work compared to amateur work.
And those are two examples that I would use to make my case.
When I look at this mass formation psychosis, I'm not going to say that the author who came up with it or anything was in on any kind of plot.
But the more you see this in the public consciousness, this idea of the mass formation psychosis, the more I am convinced this might have been a professional diversion.
Meaning this may have been introduced into your psychology as the explanation for, or the cover, for the fact that the fake news is really the source of all problems.
So I'm concerned that this is professional because it has that smell to it.
I don't know that this story came up naturally because some journalist sniffed it out and it got popular.
Because, oh yeah, this explains everything.
It doesn't feel like that.
It feels like a professional.
By whom? Well, it would be somebody presumably on the Democrat side.
More likely. So I'll just put that out there.
Here's a tweet from a doctor, Afshin Amrani, who, according to his Twitter name, is an MD, medical doctor.
And this is what he says he's seeing with Omicron.
There are five things he's seen, which he's numbered one through four.
There are two number fours.
So, number one, everyone will be exposed in the next few weeks.
No, he means everyone.
Everyone. Everyone. So this is a medical doctor.
Based on his experience and what he's learning from Omicron, everyone will be exposed in the next few weeks.
Number two, almost everyone gets a mild form of common cold.
It's already over 75% of the infections are Omicron.
And number four, Omicron acts as a natural vaccine, herd immunity.
And then the other number four is it's the end of the pandemic.
All right, that's from a doctor.
Maybe the first time you heard this was from me.
By the way, I'll just ask this.
I'm not the first person to say it.
But am I the first person who said it that you heard that Omicron was going to be like a vaccination?
I know Putin said it, but he said it after I did.
Putin didn't say it first.
I said it first. This was our opinion.
Yeah, lots of people have the opinion.
I'm not going to claim that, like, I was first.
That's not what I'm saying. But I am going to claim that I was first to maybe say it to this crowd.
Sticks said it a while ago.
But I would do a little fact-checking because it's actually possible I was the first person to say it publicly.
It's possible. I doubt it.
I'd like to interview Dale.
Now that we know that there's exactly one person who has died of the Omicron in the United States, a 52-year-old with some heart conditions, so 75% of the infections in the United States are Omicron, and we got that one death.
So I'd like to interview Dale.
If you haven't met Dale, Dale is a Democrat who explains things to me that I don't understand.
So Dale, could you explain to us why we should be panicked about the Omicron?
Absolutely. Happy Dale.
What's your question? Well, if 75% of the infections are Omicron, that would be like a really big number.
And we only have one confirmed death that actually, maybe he died of his heart problem.
We're not even sure it was the Omicron exactly.
So why should I be worried about one death?
I don't think you understand how pandemics work, Scott.
That one death by tomorrow, that could be doubled.
Yeah, yeah, that could be doubled by tomorrow.
But that would be two.
That would be two people.
Oh, you're thinking short-sighted now.
Think about the day after.
That would be four.
That would be four people.
Why should I be worried, in a world of 7.8 billion people, that four of them died in my country?
Well, science, science, science, And infections.
Okay, that didn't even say anything.
Those were just words.
I mean, give me the reason that I should be panicked about the Omicron.
Get your vaccinations.
Get your vaccinations and you'll be safer.
Okay, I get that.
Maybe you would be a little safer.
But I'm asking, why should I be panicked?
I feel like you're not answering the question exactly.
Why should I be panicked about the Omicron virus?
Don't be so anti-science.
Don't be so anti-science.
Have you heard of the Delta?
And scene. We're into a weird, weird world now where the news quite clearly knows the Omicron is not going to hurt us.
But they can't quite say it, can they?
Why is it that the news can't tell us the actual truth about the Omicron?
Because we don't have real news.
We've got fake news who feels it's their job to manipulate us.
And the way they'd like to manipulate us is to keep us doing what we're doing for a little bit longer.
Now, it could be the most generous interpretation is that it's a little bit too soon.
And we'll know more about the Omicron.
In two weeks, we'll know more.
But in two weeks, we'll all have it.
In two weeks, when we know more, it'll be over.
I mean, if it's really spreading...
Now, let me give full agreement with a rogue doctor.
You know, I always make fun of the rogue doctors, the ones who are saying the opposite of what others are saying.
So Dr. Malone, one of the, quote, rogue doctors, said about the Omicron that if it's really as spready as all indications say it is, your masks will be worthless.
And I agree. I've long been on the side that we don't know for sure if the masks are helping, but all common sense says that your plumes would at least be decreased.
That was always my argument.
You might get the same amount in the room, but at least the plume of directly into the face of another person would be dispersed.
Maybe they had some benefit.
Hard to measure, but it looks like it might.
So I was always in the risk management camp, which is, yeah, there must be places where masks make sense and other places where they don't.
But the Omicron just blows that argument to shit, right?
If the Omicron is as spready as everybody says, the experts, as the experts say, then I'm completely in agreement with Dr.
Malone that I don't see how a mask makes a good cost-benefit anymore.
John says, thanks for being a day late, and you are blocked for being that guy.
Does anybody else want to say, finally, You're coming around.
So I block everybody who says I'm coming around when I come around because of new information.
If new information makes me change my opinion, I'm not coming around.
I'm not finally getting it.
I'm a person who has new information.
All right. What else is going on?
So there's two things we know about COVID tests.
One is that we're running out of them, and there are big lines and shortages.
So there are not enough COVID tests at any price.
You couldn't buy them even if you wanted to pay more.
There are just not enough of them.
So that's the first thing we know about COVID tests.
There are not enough of them. Second thing we know is that Biden is going to spend $500 million buying more of the tests that don't exist.
That's right. The tests don't exist, but we're going to buy a lot more of them.
Let me give a little economics lesson to the government.
It goes like this.
If you can't change the number of tests, but you throw a whole bunch of money into the system, those tests are not going to come down in price.
They might go up.
I mean, I don't know how they're going to spend that $500 billion, but the problem is not that we don't have money to buy them.
There's a line around the block to buy the damn things.
The problem is they don't exist.
So getting them to exist would be good.
And they would exist, because the free market would have already had plenty of them, and they would be very cheap, if the FDA had approved them in a, let's say, in a manner that doesn't look like fraud to me.
Or a manner that doesn't look like crime to me.
Now, I can't say for sure...
That somebody in the FDA or somebody in the chain of command was doing something for money that killed hundreds of thousands of people in the United States.
But it does look exactly like it.
So it's my operating assumption that there was corruption somewhere in the government, the FDA, somewhere in the approval process.
There was corruption that probably killed hundreds of thousands of people.
And got us into this situation where rapid tests would be exactly what we need for Christmas, and they don't exist.
Because, probably, there was corruption.
And I'd also like to reiterate that if we ever find such corruption and can confirm in a court of law that it existed, and that it killed 100,000 people or more, then I think the death sentence is warranted.
So I've been watching this special called Dope Sick about OxyContin and Purdue.
Now, I was aware that there were some allegations of bad behavior by Purdue.
I was aware that this had been alleged.
I was not anywhere aware of how bad it was.
If you want to be shocked...
At the corrupt and evil practices of a pharma company, watch Dope Sick.
First of all, it's well-made, so as a form of entertainment, it's quite good.
It's a well-made piece of content.
And it will blow your frickin' mind that that stuff really happened.
And we're talking about current times.
We're not talking about ancient anything.
They literally killed hundreds of thousands of people for money, and they kind of knew they were doing it.
That's right. A drug company killed hundreds of thousands of people, in my opinion, through addiction and overdose.
Hundreds of thousands for money and knew it.
That's sort of what the documentary tells you.
Now, if you know that...
Do you think that there's no chance that the reason we don't have cheap tests is because everybody did their job well, it was just, you know, the bureaucracy takes a while?
Do you think that explains it?
Because I don't. There was way too much money going around to not be able to buy somebody off pretty easily.
So, I think corruption will be the primary story of the pandemic.
When everything's done...
You know, there'll be the medical story, but I think the corruption story will be the biggest story that comes out of this in the long run, I think.
All right. Biden apparently gave Trump credit for getting the vaccines going quickly.
Trump actually asked about that, and he said, quote, I'm very appreciative of that.
I was surprised to hear it, Trump told Fox News.
I think it was a terrific thing, and I think it makes a lot of people happy.
Then he repeated that he was a little surprised.
I think you did something very good, Trump said about Biden.
You know it has to be a process of healing in this country, and that will help a lot.
So that's one way to look at it.
One way to look at it is that Biden tried to close the divide.
And gave Trump credit for getting the vaccines going.
And that this was a move toward reconciliation and a little less divisiveness.
What do you think? Do you think that's what happened?
Is that how you saw it?
Well... Well, here's another interpretation.
What would be worse for Trump's political future...
Than for Biden to make sure everybody who doesn't want to get a vaccination knows that Trump was the one who created this situation.
I feel as if they may have tested this one.
You know what I mean? I feel that this may be part of the suppression technique to keep Trump from running.
By giving him a compliment for something that a large percentage of his base hates with a passion, which is the vaccinations.
So I've got a feeling this was more of a way to torpedo him while appearing to be a peacemaker.
I think it was kind of clever, actually.
Now, I'm trying to use the same standard of looking at Biden's persuasion that I did with Trump, which is, if it looks clever, I'm going to call it down as clever.
And that looked clever to me.
In a political way, it looked clever.
I don't think it was what you think it was.
I think it was clever. And if Trump had done it, I would have said the same thing.
Well, what is going to happen in a very short time if the following scenario comes about?
And I think it might.
So this is hypothetical, but I kind of think we're heading in this direction.
And it goes like this. What happens if science tells us that the Omicron is better than a vaccination?
Because, you know, as of this morning, it did.
Apparently the known death rate from the Omicron virus is less than the number of people killed by vaccinations themselves, which even the official numbers would say.
Some people die from vaccinations.
We know that, right? That's not a surprise.
Every vaccination is going to kill somebody.
But what we know now, and of course this could be revised, easily could be revised, but at the moment, you would be safer to get Omicron than a vaccination if the numbers hold, but I wouldn't necessarily expect them to hold.
We're still in a little bit of fog of war phase.
We could find out tomorrow that Omicron is the biggest killer there ever was.
I'd be surprised, but I've been surprised a lot this year.
Yeah. So, what happens when science tells us that Omicron is better than a vaccination, but the government is working with entities that have trillions of dollars on the line to vaccinate us three times a year forever?
There will be trillions of dollars in private industry...
Which will be directly opposed to what could happen very soon, hasn't happened, but it feels like it's gonna, where science says the Omicron is safer than a vaccine.
What will the people who have trillions, trillions of dollars at risk do then?
Will they say, thank goodness, there's something even better than vaccines.
We'll cancel our vaccine process and you're all infected, we're good, bam!
No, they can't do that.
If you don't believe me, watch the Dope 6 special.
There are other moves, and the other moves would be to tell you that you need the vaccinations anyway, even if you don't.
Do you think that a pharma company would just make up data?
Purdue did. They actually just made up data.
That really happened.
They just made up data.
And they acted like it was a separate company that made up the data.
So they formed a separate entity, then had the separate entity come up with some fake data that was just their data, and then they said, well, look at what this entity says.
This independent entity over here says it's safe, so go take it.
They were actually selling OxyContin as non-addictive.
I don't know if you missed that.
But Purdue actually was selling it to doctors as the first opioid that's not addictive.
There was never any evidence for that.
That was completely made up.
Now that's the world we live in, where a completely made up data, set of data, determined the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and nobody caught it.
FDA didn't catch it.
And I think the FDA was actually bought off, according to the...
documentary.
Literally, there was a specific individual who apparently was bought off, according to the, if you believe, the documentary.
So, anyway, we're going to have quite a battle on our hands if science is on the other side of these trillions of dollars, and I think that's going to happen in a few weeks, if not by tomorrow.
February 1, the public is done.
Now, I told you that it's hard to have any kind of organizing or leadership role in anything, because you just get annihilated.
So anybody who just raises their hand in today's world just gets annihilated.
It doesn't matter if they're helping or hurting.
It doesn't matter what they're doing. So here I tried to do a public good, By setting a target date that we could work with our government, not opposed to it, but work with it, to have some kind of a, you know, work together with the public appreciation that there will always be deaths after we open everything up, but to hold the government harmless so that they're free to make the right decision.
You know, that they're not making a decision and a fear for their own careers, but rather making a decision that considers all the risks and stuff.
So I thought that coming up with a negotiating position of the public is done on February 1, plus it rhymes, would be an additive thing.
How do you think that worked out?
How did that work out for me yesterday?
Do you think that worked out really well for me?
Nope. Nope.
So the first thing that happened is a number of people said, oh yeah, that means that February 1, we're all going to violate government restrictions no matter what.
No, that's not the plan.
It's not no matter what.
It's not no matter what at all.
That's very much not the idea.
The idea is not that no matter what happens, February 1, we drop all the restrictions.
Because between now and then, we could have another variant.
We could find out that the Omicron is worse in some way that we didn't realize.
We could find out lots of stuff.
So if you're saying that you would commit to a February 1 date, no matter what happens, you're not part of the rational conversation.
It's just not part of the rational conversation.
You've got to be able to work with the government, not just ignore it.
So the productive way to do it is to say, based on everything we know, February 1 makes sense today.
Short of any new information, it's still going to make sense.
But you have to be open to the fact that it's not no matter what.
Because that's just dumb.
You don't want to start a movement that's based on dumbness.
You've got to at least be open to the fact that new information would change your opinion.
Then the second thing is, of course, oh, we'll listen to the cartoonist.
The cartoonist says, let's ignore the virus and I'll go die.
So I got a lot of that from the left because they also didn't understand that a fundamental part of the idea is that 75% of the public is on the same side.
And that if 75% of the public is not on the same side, well, maybe the government should make the decision.
I only think this sort of non-constitutional process where people organize and try to influence the government only makes sense if the government can't get it done or is the wrong tool for the job.
If we were 50-50, I'd say let the government do it.
Because we all are going to at least grudgingly go along with what the government comes up with if it's a 50-50.
But if it's 75...
On one side, and the government sides with the 25, well, then we've got a problem, and maybe you need a little extra push.
Here's the quote that I was thinking of with this Feb 1, the public is done.
Not as something that we're fighting our government about.
Rather, JFK asked not what your government can do for you, but what you can do for the government.
This is what we can do for the government.
The government actually worked pretty hard.
There was clearly some corruption going on, but the government in general has worked very hard for our benefit.
In general. Most of them.
And I think that JFK's words, they influenced me as a child, as many of us were influenced by them.
And I think this is a situation where it's, what can we do for our government?
The government just doesn't have quite the tools to tell people to go forth and live their life, but a lot of you are going to die.
They just don't have that.
But we can. We can help them.
We can say, we'll hold you free of that risk.
75% of us want it.
It's just going to happen now.
JFK didn't say that, somebody says.
Oh, give me your country.
Okay, that is correct.
Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.
Thank you for correcting the quote, but it ends up being the same thing.
I see the distinction, but it ends up being the same thing for this conversation.
It's a question of what we can do for the country.
So you're not battling the government, you're helping it.
Okay? Okay. All right.
I saw somebody say something today that we used to say, but I don't think you can say it anymore.
And somebody said in a tweet that the climate is going to do what the climate wants to do, and we can't change that.
That's not true.
That's not even slightly true.
We can totally change the climate.
Humans have that capability.
Now, whether we should do it, whether the risk is worth the reward, that's a whole separate question.
But yes, the human civilization...
It knows how to seed the clouds.
It knows how to put some kind of chemical in the air that would shield the earth.
It probably knows how to start a volcano if it wanted to.
I don't know if we have that ability, but I suppose if we nuked an active volcano, we might be able to start one if we really wanted to.
So my point is, we can do geoengineering.
It might not be wise.
But if you're still saying that the climate is going to do what the climate is going to do and there's nothing humans can do about it, you need to catch up.
Humans can actually change the climate now.
It's just not a good idea yet.
But we have the ability.
We absolutely could change the climate.
So, just keep that in your bag of tricks.
Just know that. Well, yeah, and for a long time we've been able to do it, but it's more obvious now, I think.
So Feb 1, the public is done.
Scott needs to catch up.
No, it's always been true that we could do it.
It's just more obvious today.
It's illegal. Yeah, I mean, there are reasons not to do it.
But it's physically possible.
How do we stop school and airport masking?
I think you do that with the help of the Omicron and the help of FEB1. I think the government needs to get focused on an open date, but probably needs a week or two more to feel comfortable that they're talking about the Omicron accurately.
Scott, we're running low on patience.
Either join our side or become our enemy.
I choose to be your enemy.
I don't even know what your side is, but I choose enemy because you're an asshole.
Hide user on that channel.
State mandates. Yeah, we've got state mandates and we've got federal mandates, and I think Feb 1, the public is done, has to be the time.
