All Episodes
Jan. 9, 2022 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:07:26
Episode 1618 Scott Adams: It's Time To Tell You The Real Story About Hypnosis and The News

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Justice Gorsuch and flu deaths Is Mass Formation Psychosis real? Is Harvard's Richard J. McNally hypnotized? Full racist national COVID policy Omicron and Deltacon variants If it's opaque, it's fake ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the best thing that'll ever happen to you in your entire life.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
It's famous around the world.
And if you'd like to enjoy this, what will be, and I promise you this, the most entertaining one of all time.
Because it turns out that the news is serving up delights today.
Sometimes the news serves up crud.
But not today. It's all candy and dessert and delicious beverages.
Speaking of delicious beverages, how would you like to take it up a notch?
Probably you would.
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chelsea, sign the canteen jar of glass, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine hit of the day.
It's the thing that makes everything better.
It's called The Simultaneous Sip.
And it's coming at you now.
Go! Mmm, yes.
Well, I would like to start with a story that I have titled, Worst Husband in the World.
Now, if you've seen this tweet, I have to tell you that I was cry laughing.
To the point where I was choking on my own spittle, and I had about 15 minutes of lost productivity after I saw this tweet.
Now I'm going to show it to you on my phone.
You won't be able to see it well, but I'll walk you through it.
So I'll tell you first the text.
So the tweeter is John Reyes, seems to be a husband, and he tweets this.
He says, Even after a 12-hour night shift at the hospital last night, my wife still has the energy to shovel the driveway.
God bless her and all our frontliners.
Time to make her some breakfast.
And then he shows the picture of his wife shoveling the driveway, Which apparently he has taken from the warmth of his home.
Now, do I need to add any commentary to this story?
Is there anything that I could add to this that could possibly make this better?
Yeah, sure. At least he made her breakfast.
But can I give you a little bit of marital advice?
Anybody? If you see your wife...
Come home from a 12-hour shift during the pandemic.
And then you look out the window and you see her shoveling the driveway.
This thing I have in my hand, the phone, that's not what you should be reaching for.
Don't be reaching for the phone with the camera if you see your wife, after a 12-hour shift, shoveling your driveway.
This should be maybe third or fourth on the list of things to go for.
Number one on the list would be galoshes.
Because if you're not putting on your fucking boots, you've got some explaining to do in a few minutes.
And I'd like to take you to the level further for those of you who have been married for a while.
This is expert level advice.
If you didn't have your shoes on, you were completely barefooted, it was zero degrees outside, and you looked out and you saw your wife start to shovel the driveway after a 12-hour shift at the hospital.
What's the right move?
Anybody? You're barefooted.
What's the right move?
Get the fuck out there in your bare feet, grab the shovel out of her hand, and keep shoveling.
Push her inside. Alright, if you're not out there barefoot, shoveling, and taking it out of your hand, don't expect the rest of the night to go well.
That's all I'm saying. All right.
That story made me laugh so hard.
You have to read the comments, so I tweeted it.
The funny part of the story is the comments, because people are just all over the story.
It's a great one. All right.
We know that our Supreme Court has been saying some dumb things, but the dumb things that we heard of were from Democrats.
Am I right? No, I guess...
What is Breyer?
Is Breyer right or left?
Which way does he lead? Breyer's also left.
And so Sotomayor and Kagan and Breyer, they all had some really bad statements about the pandemic as if they had never been informed correctly about anything.
But apparently Gorsuch has at least a questionable statement that Aaron Rupar pointed out.
And I, being the jerk that I am, because it came from Aaron Rupar, who's famous for out-of-context reporting, I cheekily tweeted, I wonder if any context is missing.
And Aaron Rupar saw that very quickly and pointed me to the rest of the thread, which I had not noticed was a thread.
Big problem I have on social media when I don't notice things are threads.
And you don't know the answer to your questions right there.
And he showed me the...
The transcript, so you can see the context, and also the audio itself.
So, is Aaron Rupar clear of his reputation of showing things out of context, or did he do a good job because he showed you the whole transcript and also the audio?
Well, maybe. I'm going to add some context that Aaron Rupar did not add, and then you can judge whether there was context missing or if I'm adding something that you don't need.
Okay? So here's what Gorsuch said or didn't.
So the question is whether he said hundreds comma thousands, and I'll give you the further context in a minute, or did he say hundreds of thousands?
So something that's in the range of a hundred or a thousand is way different than something that is multiple hundreds of thousands.
And what he asked was about the regular flu.
And he said, how many people are...
I'm paraphrasing, but he said, how many people die of the regular seasonal flu?
And then here's the ambiguous part.
He goes, hundreds, thousands?
You can hear it both ways.
It's sort of a Yanni-Laurel thing.
If you listen to it, you can imagine he says hundreds, thousands.
Now, if he thought that the regular flu was only killing hundreds of people, maybe, or maybe in the low thousands, wouldn't he be as dumb as the other Democrat members of the Supreme Court?
Can we agree on that?
That if he thought the regular flu was killing only hundreds, maybe a few thousand, that that would be deeply, deeply misinformed.
Can we agree? But also, also, if he said it was killing hundreds of thousands, wouldn't that be deeply uninformed?
Because the real number is like 30 to 50,000.
So if he thought it was hundreds of thousands, he would be way off.
And if he thought it was only maybe hundreds of people, he'd be way off, right?
So Aaron Rupar pointed that out.
And whatever it is, he's wrong, right?
How many of you agree with me?
Either way you interpret it, he's way off, right?
Nope. There's some context missing.
Now, we don't know if Gorsuch was thinking this.
Right, because we can't get it in his head.
My guess is that he thought it was hundreds of thousands.
I feel like, but I don't know, because it's ambiguous.
My guess is it was an actual mistake.
But here's some context for you.
Were they talking about the whole world, or were they talking about the workforce?
What was the context?
It was about OSHA, right?
It was about...
Mandatory vaccines in the workplace.
Am I right? Can we agree that was the context?
Right? It was a workplace context.
How many people of workplace age die each year from regular flu?
They're workplace age.
They're not very young, like children, and they're not over 80.
How many people of workplace age die of the flu every year?
I don't know the number, but I'm going to give you a guess.
Hundreds, comma, thousands?
That was exactly the right answer.
It could be that Gorsuch was the smartest person in the room and the smartest person on the Internet.
Because there aren't many people who know what I just told you.
That the regular flu numbers are based on estimates, first of all.
They're based on excess death estimates.
Did you know that? Nobody counts regular flu deaths.
That's never been counted.
What experts do is they look at how many people died in August and they compare it to how many people died in December.
And they say, oh, there's more people who die in the winter.
So those excess deaths, probably a lot of that is flu.
Now, don't you think there are other reasons people die in the winter?
I mean, it seems to me that it would be pretty hard to sort out how much of the excess winter death is based on the flu versus anything else that could kill you in the winter, right?
I mean, even suicide is higher in the winter.
So here's the question. Is Gorsuch as dumb as the Democrats and thought that the regular flu was killing hundreds of thousands of people?
Let me ask you this as a multiple choice, okay?
This will be a multiple choice, and I'm going to give you A, B, or C. So that it'll be easy when you answer just A, B, or C, okay?
So here's your test. Which do you believe, we don't know, but which do you believe Gorsuch was thinking?
Was he thinking that really, this'll be A, hundreds of thousands of people do die of the regular flu, that's A. Did he think B, Only hundreds or maybe a few thousand people die in the whole world, or in the whole country, not the world, in the whole country, not just the workplace.
So B is that he wasn't talking about the workplace specifically, but really thought that only hundreds of people or so were dying of the regular flu, and that he would be totally wrong.
Or C... He's the smartest person in the room.
He knew that workplace was the context, and he knew accurately that very few people of workplace age ever die of a flu, because you have to be pretty weak, either really young or really old, to die of a flu.
If you're so sick that you can't go to work, well, you're not in the workplace, so they're the ones who die of it.
So, A, B, or C? A... A was hundreds of thousands.
B was hundreds, maybe thousands.
And then C was he's the smartest guy in the room.
And he knew that the workplace, almost nobody dies of the flu.
Well, here's the problem.
The context was that there are a lot of people who die of the regular flu.
So if you add the other context, I think the point he was making was that a lot of people die of regular flu.
So that means that he actually was an idiot.
So unfortunately, we cannot save Justice Gorsuch.
He does seem to be as misinformed as the rest of them.
Do you buy that? Because remember, the point of it was lots of people die of the regular flu.
So that means he was not talking about hundreds of people.
He was talking about hundreds of thousands.
Yeah, I think we'll never agree on that.
But you have to at least be open to the possibility that he was the smartest person in the room.
But that wouldn't make sense with the point he was making.
So I think you have to assume he doesn't know how many people die of regular flu.
All right. So I'm going to give Aaron Rupar the win.
I'll bet you never thought you'd hear that.
I think Rupar actually got the story right and showed you the full context.
I don't think he took the context as far as I took it.
But go look yourself, see if you agree.
All right, here's the funnest story of the day.
The AP and Reuters and other fact-checkers are fact-checking Dr.
Malone, and also the rest of you, I guess, on whether there's this concept of a mass formation psychosis.
So the fact checkers are saying there's no such thing as a mass formation psychosis, and none of that is happening, and that Dr.
Malone is just talking about something that's unscientific.
What do you think? The fact checkers are quite unified.
There doesn't seem to be any difference of the fact checkers, which doesn't mean anything, right?
But the fact checkers are quite certain that That the experts say, no, we've never heard of this thing.
It's in one book, but it's not part of the field of psychology.
So it is definitely in one book, so there is an author who came up with it.
But the people in the field say, no, this is not something we recognize as real.
What do you think? Well, part of the problem is definitions of, like, what does hypnosis mean and what does it mean to be in a mass formation, psychosis, and all that stuff.
But who would you trust on this question of whether the public is hypnotized?
Would you trust a clinical psychologist?
A clinical psychologist with lots of experience.
Let's say a Harvard, Harvard clinical psychologist.
Would you trust them to give you the right answer on this compared to, let's say, me?
A practicing hypnotist for 40 years.
So I have 40 years experience with hypnosis and persuasion, but I'm going to be competing, I guess, against a Harvard-trained clinical psychologist.
Well, let's take one little point of disagreement and see who is the smarter one, me or the smart people.
Here's one. Let's see.
The AP reports this.
Stephen J. Lynn, a psychology professor.
Psychology professor at Binghamton University in New York.
So here's somebody you should know about psychology.
Psychology professor. Said Malone's argument that a group can, quote, literally become hypnotized and can be led anywhere is premised on a myth about hypnosis.
So the myth is that you can just make anybody do anything.
So that's what a clinical psychologist says, that it's a myth that hypnosis can make you just do anything.
What do you think? Somebody mentioned that there was a stage show, I guess Darren Brown, hypnotist, hypnotized somebody and handed them a gun.
It wasn't a real gun, but told them to shoot somebody in the head.
And they actually pulled the trigger.
So if you could hypnotize somebody to put a gun to somebody's head and pull the trigger, does that prove that you can make somebody do anything?
Whereas this psychologist says, psychology professor, says that's a myth.
But Darren Brown did it right in front of you.
He did it right in front of you.
Gave somebody a gun. It wasn't a real gun.
Or it didn't have real bullets, one or the other.
I assume it wasn't a real gun.
I hope it wasn't a real gun with no bullets in it.
Let's hope that wasn't the case.
So it's proven, right?
You can hypnotize somebody and they will pull the trigger.
No. No, it's a trick.
Don't learn anything from stage hypnosis.
Because stage hypnosis is part hypnosis and part magic trick.
So just keep in mind that they're putting on a show.
It's not based on reality.
It's supposed to make you go, wow.
It's not supposed to teach you something.
All right? Here's the trick with the gun.
When I was learning hypnosis, that example would come up all the time.
Well before Darren Brown actually did it, the example was a famous example.
And in fact, people had tested it.
There had been clinical tests to see if you could do that, to see if you could get somebody to pull the trigger if they believed it was a real gun.
And the answer is you can.
You can get people to pull the trigger.
Here's the trick. They know it's not real.
That's the trick. If I handed you a gun and said, shoot your family member in the head, would you think that was a real gun?
I mean, it depends on the situation, right?
But if you're on a stage show...
You're on the stage in front of a crowd, and the hypnotist hands you a gun.
Number one, can't you tell it's not a real gun?
Because I assume it's not a real gun without bullets.
It's got to be a fake gun.
You can tell a fake gun, number one.
Number two, you know that nobody's going to have you murder somebody in front of a crowd.
That's not going to happen.
So people know it's not a real gun.
So here's the thing. Nobody has ever tested whether somebody would shoot a real gun.
And when a real weapon is introduced, I don't think you get that outcome, except by complete mistake.
In other words, it wouldn't be the hypnosis that caused somebody to pull the trigger.
It would be the magic trick, which is you put them in a situation where, of course, the gun can't be real.
But then it is. So that would be a magic trick, or really just a trick, that would have nothing to do with being hypnotized.
You get that? So, I just told you that you can't make somebody do something that they wouldn't do in their normal frame of mind.
So now do you believe that?
So which one do you believe?
Do you believe you can make somebody do something they wouldn't do, or do you believe you can't?
Well, it gets more complicated from here.
In the short run, you can't make people do anything that they don't want to do.
Can you agree with that?
In the short run, meaning, like, if I put you under hypnosis right now, and even if you were a good subject, I couldn't get you to shoot somebody.
But give me six months to work on you.
Maybe a year. Could I get you to shoot somebody then?
Yup. Yup.
Have you ever heard of Patty Hearst?
Stockholm Syndrome?
If you work on somebody long enough, you can literally get them to believe anything.
Anything. Patty Hearst was literally kidnapped by armed people, and they held her long enough until she became a member of the group.
She became an armed bank robber, which was not her normal character.
Nothing she would have done in her normal state of mind.
So, when the top psychologists in the world tell you, no, you silly, you can't use hypnosis to make somebody do something they don't want to do.
No, that is not true.
You can totally make people do things they don't want to do.
Have you heard of Hitler's Germany?
Now, I hate to bring that up, because as soon as you bring up anything Hitler, it makes your argument look stupid.
But in this case, it's exactly what we're talking about.
It's not an analogy, right?
It's an actual real thing that happened.
I'm not comparing it to anything.
I'm saying it happened.
So the fact that it happened means it can happen.
It can happen.
Almost anything you can convince people of if you wait long enough, if you do it long enough, if you work on them long enough.
Now here's the other part where the experts are wrong in their use of the word hypnosis.
Because it's used two ways.
Now, I use hypnosis two different ways, and I always have to explain that I've done that because it is confusing.
The first way is an actual hypnotist working with one person in which you're doing the whole, you know, your eyelids are getting heavy and you feel relaxed.
So you're doing the whole, it's called the induction.
You're actually putting them under as the phrase goes.
Now, that's one definition of hypnosis.
But, what would you call it if I walked up to you in a bar and whispered in your ear and made you have an actual physical orgasm?
But I wasn't saying anything about you're getting sleepy or nothing like that.
I just walked up and talked to you like a person talks and I caused you to have a just...
Just a breathtaking orgasm.
What would you call that?
Now, first of all, do you believe that a hypnotist can do that?
Could I walk up to someone in a bar, and without hypnotizing them in any formal way, just using regular words, could I talk in their ear and cause them to have a full orgasm?
Any hypnotist could do that.
I know you don't believe it.
Any hypnotist can do that.
Have I ever done it?
Yes. Yes, a number of times.
A number of times so that I know that I can do it.
So if you're wondering, is it real?
Totally. It's completely real.
I can give you lots of examples.
And I've talked to other people who have experienced it.
And also people who have practiced it.
And it doesn't require any, you know, you're getting sleepy or anything.
It turns out that you can talk people into doing things they want to do pretty easily.
And everybody wants to be happy and feel good.
You know, if there's no downside to it.
So I call that hypnosis.
Would you? Would you call what I just described hypnosis?
Well, I would. I would.
But only if I'm speaking casually, right?
So the first part is when these experts say, you know, this hypnosis can't make you do these things.
They're using the word differently.
It's not hypnosis, hypnosis.
But you can talk people into stuff that they want to do pretty easily.
It's harder to talk people into things they don't want to do, but you can do that too.
It just takes longer. All right, so is mass formation a, quote, an unfounded theory spreading online, suggesting that millions of people have been hypnotized into believing mainstream ideas to combat blah, blah, blah?
And psychology experts say the concept is not supported by evidence.
Really? I don't think you could have more evidence for anything.
Do we not observe, every single one of us, that people are believing things that are clearly not true?
Am I right? Do we not all observe that millions and millions of people believe things that are clearly not true?
I mean clearly not true.
Well, I would say that's true.
So is it an unfounded theory that suggests that people have been, and it's put in quotes, hypnotized into believing mainstream ideas?
Well, if you don't get hung up on the word hypnotized, and you just replace it with persuasion, do you think the mainstream media has persuaded, take away hypnotized, do you think they've persuaded people into believing things that are dangerously wrong?
Of course they have.
Of course they have.
That is the most obvious thing you could ever say.
Because the people who are watching Fox News have been persuaded that that version of the world is correct.
The people watching CNN have been persuaded that that version of the world is correct.
Now, for our purposes, I do not need to tell you which one is more correct.
So it doesn't matter if you believe that one of them is really actually true and the other one isn't.
We have proven beyond a doubt that at least half of the country is hypnotized.
I say 100%.
You're all hypnotized, including me.
So to imagine that somebody is hypnotized and somebody isn't?
No, that doesn't make any sense in our world.
But we all believe that we're the ones who are not hypnotized.
That's how it works. How about this?
Richard McNally is a professor of clinical psychology at Harvard.
Wow. Now, there's some serious credentials.
Imagine being a Harvard professor, first of all.
I mean, that's pretty amazing.
A Harvard professor. So that's somebody pretty credible.
And a professor of clinical psychology.
So that's right on target for this conversation.
So this person, Robert McNally, who's totally qualified, Wrote in an email that people who support COVID-19 vaccines...
Now, he's talking about the word psychosis, so he's arguing about the psychosis part.
He wrote in an email that people who support COVID-19 vaccines and public health guidelines are not delusional.
Rather, they are, quote, fully responsive to the arguments and evidence adduced by the relevant scientific experts.
So there's a person who's a Harvard clinical psychologist who believes that humans are looking at evidence and arguments and making rational decisions.
What? How in the world could you be a professor of clinical psychology and think that people are making rational decisions using arguments and evidence?
Come on!
There could be nothing more obvious than that's not happening.
Now, is it true that some people look at the arguments and the evidence and come to the same conclusion as Richard McNally?
Probably. There are probably people who, like him, look at the evidence and come to the same conclusion.
And so the clinical psychologist has decided that people who agree with him are not deluded.
But the people who don't agree with him Maybe just got the wrong answer.
But they're not delusional.
You could just show them good evidence and they would change their mind.
They'd be responsive to it.
Is that anything you've seen?
Have you seen people changing their mind with all the new data?
In what world do people change their mind when you give them new data?
Can we say that Richard McNally...
I won't call him Dick, because I don't know if that's his nickname or not.
But Richard McNally, could you say that he is clearly hypnotized?
I would say yes.
In my 40 years of experience as a hypnotist and studying persuasion, in my best legitimate opinion...
There's no joke here.
There's no hyperbole here.
I'm going to try to give it to you as straight as I can.
Now, keep in mind, this is my opinion, right?
We're not talking about a fact.
But as best as I can tell, Richard McNally is hypnotized, by my definition.
The expert is hypnotized.
Because he believes that other people are responsive to arguments and evidence.
That's clearly not true.
You don't have to do a...
I don't think you have to do a study, a randomized controlled trial, to find out that people don't respond to new evidence.
In fact, there's an entire branch of psychology which explains exactly why they don't respond to evidence.
Am I wrong? And how would a clinical psychologist not be aware there's an entire branch of his own field, and a big one, like it's not a small thing, it's like a major, major part of the field, is that people believe things that aren't true, and you can't change their mind with evidence.
Now, am I going too far?
Is it not obvious to you that this expert is hypnotized?
Would you agree? And would you say that this is a form of psychosis?
Because in psychosis, you can't really deal with logic and argument.
You're free of any...
You're just operating on your own, and logic and facts are unrelevant.
It seems to me that this professor is operating in a state of psychosis.
Roughly speaking. That's probably the wrong word.
But certainly this is somebody who is not seeing facts and evidence that are clearly in front of all of us.
So, and I would also like to say that psychologists are not experts in hypnosis.
I don't think you could be an expert in hypnosis unless you practice it.
It's really hard to see from the outside.
I don't know what else would be a good example of that.
But, I don't know. Let me say this.
Could you be a military expert who had never been in the military?
It would be hard, right?
I mean, maybe you could come close.
But there's some things you just have to see from the inside.
Like, I've got a feeling that being in the military gives you an insight that you can't get from any other way.
And I would say the same about hypnosis.
So if any of the experts had been hypnotists, I'd probably listen to them.
But they picked a bunch of people who are not hypnotists to judge hypnosis.
And do you know who sold this to you?
Who sold you the idea that someone who's not a hypnotist is an expert on hypnosis?
Could it be the mainstream media?
Reuters, AP, a number of others, they're all coming out with this.
It's a trending story about this.
There's no such thing as mass formation psychosis.
Now, here's the one way in which I agree with the fact there's no such thing as mass formation psychosis.
Do you remember the first thing I said about it?
I'm going to need somebody to fact check me because you're going to think I'm lying in a minute.
If you don't fact check me, somebody will think I'm just lying.
What was my first impression when I heard about mass formation psychology, or psychosis?
It's the default condition, right.
So I said it's bullshit, not because it's not true.
I said it's bullshit because it's new words to describe the ordinary, that we're all being hypnotized by fake news.
Fake news is hypnotizing all of us, as are our social media algorithms.
So you didn't need any new words for that.
You don't need to invoke Hitler.
You don't need to... You just don't need anything.
It's just right in front of us.
The news is fake.
It's intentionally fake.
It's designed to hypnotize you.
It works. There's actually no mystery here at all.
We're seeing it right in front of us.
Fake news is intentional in many cases.
Sometimes it's not. But you can tell a lot of cases like the fine people hoax and the bleach hoax and all that.
Those are all intentional. And it works.
It hypnotizes the people who watch it.
The other problem I had with this mass formation psychosis idea is that there's an assumption of an authoritarian.
So it assumes that an authoritarian is doing this to us or an authoritarian will rise because of this situation.
But I don't see that.
Like, I don't see that authoritarian.
I see a bunch of people acting in unison, but we don't know who that authoritarian is.
So that part didn't work for me as an explanation.
It wasn't predictive, if you know what I mean.
Alright, so I tweeted this just to make people watch this show.
I said, a hypnotist cannot make you do...
These are three facts about hypnosis.
A hypnotist cannot make you do something you would find deeply objectionable in your normal state of mind.
That's the first fact.
The second fact is that the first fact is a lie.
And then the third fact is that the second fact is a lie, too.
Meaning it is true you can't make somebody do something, but only in the short run.
In the long run, you can make them do anything.
All right. Another favorite story.
I swear to God I'm not making this up.
The following story is actually in the news.
There is a social media star named Matto.
And claims she made $200,000 by selling her farts in a mason jar.
Well, in mason jars.
So there was one fart per jar, I assume.
Could have been two farts. So she was actually farting into mason jars, and people were buying this to the point where she made a good living on it.
She's 31 years old.
But then things went bad.
So far, it's a good story, but things went bad.
Apparently, she said she was hospitalized while trying to keep up with the skyrocketing demand.
So, she actually injured herself by over-farting, which I assume she probably had to maybe eat foods that It caused her to be extra gassy to keep her income stream up.
So it was sort of a business model decision.
And she ate so much...
I'm gassing. I'm reading between the lines.
She must have eaten so much gassy food that it hospitalized her.
So if you were thinking it's a good business model...
I know a lot of you are already shopping for mason jars.
And you're thinking, I could do this job.
This is work I'm qualified to do.
But... Keep in mind that you don't want to be drawn into hospitalization because you over farted.
Now, this might have been hard to describe to her health care providers without them laughing themselves into hospitalization themselves.
But I have a few questions about the fart jar.
Number one, how can you verify that you got an actual fart from this woman?
Because if you get the mason jar, if you opened it up, you would lose your fart that you paid so much for.
So you can't really check it directly.
And then how would you know it wasn't like a dog fart or a roommate fart?
Just a friend. Like, how would you know you got the real thing?
And so I thought to myself, this fart jar has become sort of a metaphor for everything else in the news, hasn't it?
If you don't know what's in the fart jar and there's no way to verify it, should you assume it's a genuine fart?
Anybody? If you can't verify it, in other words, audit it, if you can't audit the fart jar, should you assume there's a real fart in there?
Now remember, follow the money.
Follow the money. If you could sell your farts in a jar, do you feel that you would be limited by how many farts you actually could produce?
Well, apparently Ms.
Mato did feel limited, so much so that she farted herself into the hospital by trying to genuinely provide a quality product.
A lot of people will give you, like, low-quality farts, but apparently this woman was...
she really cared about her customers, and so she worked so hard she was hospitalized.
But I have to ask this question.
Suppose you knew you could sell an empty mason jar for $1,000.
I don't know how much her farts were going for, but let's say.
Let's say she knew she could sell a real fart for $1,000 in a mason jar, but she could also sell an empty mason jar that she claimed had a fart in it for $1,000.
Do you think, if this were you, would you be tempted to sell at least, I don't know, One or two empty mason jars with no fart whatsoever.
I think you would.
So if you follow the money, it's hard to trust this model, but I'm going to take the fart jar metaphor into my discussion of the elections.
Because much like the fart jar, we cannot fully audit our elections.
Should we therefore assume that they are...
The fart that we thought we were buying?
Or is it possible that our elections are an empty mason jar with no fart whatsoever?
Well, there's no way to know.
David Boxenhorn extended my analogy and points out that from an engineering perspective, I believe this is his field, whenever you build something, you presume it doesn't work.
In other words, you're just assuming everything's broken until you've tested, tested, tested, tested, tested to know that it isn't.
Which is a good point of view.
Because if you assume it works, well, then you don't check everything and you're in trouble.
And he goes on to extend that about the elections, that the elections are more like an engineering decision where you should assume that they're broken until you really have proof that they're not.
And we don't have a system that can prove it's not.
We can only take some things to court, and then the court says we don't have jurisdiction or standing or you don't have standing or whatever and stuff.
So... I believe that this is going to change how we look at the election.
And when I look at the country, I see that there is no serious effort to make our next or future elections transparent and auditable, fully auditable.
There's no effort to do that.
Not by the Republicans and not by the Democrats.
Which is amazing.
The biggest problem in the country...
Nobody's even working on it.
I'm still coughing because of that snow-shoveling joke.
So let's put the full presumption of fraud on the election, and I think we should always talk about it that way.
So our coming elections are presumed fraudulent because they're designed to not be auditable, fully auditable.
So I think you can say that, and I'm not going to stop saying it.
I guess Putin has decided to meet with NATO, I guess it is.
And that's a big deal because they haven't met in a long time.
And I saw an editorial on CNN that Putin might be in a weak position, and the U.S. is in a...
or NATO is in a strong position because apparently there are a whole bunch of economic things we can do to punish Russia that we have not yet tried.
So I guess the next level of economic punishment should Russia, let's say, move into Ukraine or something, would be devastating.
But we also have Putin being really good at managing opinion.
Apparently the economy of Russia is about the size of New York State.
It's not really a superpower except for the nukes.
But they do punch way above their weight.
So a lot of Putin is a bluff.
He poisons his adversaries and does things that make them look tough, takes over Crimea.
So he has a very tough reputation, but apparently he's in a very weakened condition.
Very weakened condition.
And I would argue, yet again, that the inevitable arc of history is bending toward The US and Russia being allies.
Allies. I don't think it can go any other way.
And I think that everything between now and the time we become allies, military allies, is just wasted time.
Because we're going to get there.
We're not going to have a nuclear confrontation or actually nuclear war with Russia.
Nobody wants that. Exactly zero people want that.
And I don't even think we would accidentally get into one.
I mean, well, anything's possible.
But, I mean, we would have pretty strong safeguards against it because nobody wants it and nobody thinks he wants it.
So we would assume anything would be a mistake.
You know, even if you saw a missile being launched from Russia, your first assumption would be a mistake, right?
So I think we're in a real good position To work something out, especially for space.
And I believe that is how you do it.
If you said to Putin, hey, let's be friends here on Earth, he might say, well, maybe if I say I'll be friends but cheat a little bit, that's good for me.
But if you say to Russia, here's the deal.
If we don't join together now, China is going to own space.
And whoever owns space owns Earth.
And then you're done. Here's the deal, Putin.
We need to start being friends right away, because we have to be allies in space.
You can't let China dominate space.
You know that, right?
Do you think Putin would believe that argument?
I think so.
Because he's strategic, he's smart, he has a national security point of view, of course.
Of course. Yeah.
And I think that argument just changes the frame.
I told you I'm thinking about writing a book on changing frames.
The frame is what we do here on Earth, here and now.
As long as you stay in the frame of what do you do here on Earth right now, probably you can't make peace with Russia.
So you change the frame to, hey, hey, hey, here and now is not a problem.
I mean, you know, obstacles, yes.
But the real problem is space.
And you do know, if we're not friends in space...
Everything's going to be lost.
You've got to be able to match China in space for military power.
I believe you could sell Russia on that by changing the frame.
And none of this is disingenuous, by the way.
This is all absolutely straight down the middle, pure self-interest with nothing hidden.
That's completely transparent.
China is the threat.
We have to be on the same team.
Period. I can sell that.
Well, the country has gone full racist in its COVID treatment policy.
Apparently, guidance that was issued under the Biden administration states that, quote, certain individuals may be considered high risk and more quickly qualify for these limited supplies of monoclonal antibodies and oral antivirals based on their, quote, race or ethnicity.
So the official policy of the United States is racism.
Directly. It's not an interpretation.
I'm reading it.
In the Biden administration's own words, they will use race or ethnicity to decide if you live or die.
This is actually happening.
Now, here's the explanation that they give for it.
Do you think that the explanation is based on the genetic susceptibility of different races?
Because how could the woke people say that there would be a genetic difference in outcome based on your race?
Can woke people say that?
They can't, right?
If you're woke, you can't say that some people are built differently.
So if you can't say that, but I believe that is an actual medical reason, how do you explain it?
Well, here's how it is explained.
Quote, non-white race or Hispanic-Latino ethnicity should be considered a risk factor.
So now here you expect they're going to say...
Because there's a genetic susceptibility, right?
So I'll read it again.
Non-white race or Hispanic Latino ethnicities should be considered a risk factor.
And now here comes the reason.
As long-standing systemic health and social inequities have contributed to an increased risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19, the memo reads.
What the actual fuck?
They're actually saying that the only reason that some ethnic groups will get priority is because of past mistreatment.
So they're actually going to let a white person die to atone for past injustice.
That's actually happening.
Like, this doesn't even feel real, does it?
Does this feel real? Now, do you believe that you can be hypnotized to believe anything?
Not you personally.
But the public has been hypnotized to believe that race-based medicine is completely normal.
This is hypnosis.
Because you would have to be hypnotized into accepting something that you don't believe in your normal state of mind.
Back up 20 years.
Is the normal state of mind that you should discriminate by race?
No. The normal state of mind of, I would say, 100% of the public...
Or something like it.
Would be, wait a minute, no, of course you don't discriminate by race, of all things.
That's the one thing everybody agrees on.
And yet, one of the most central bedrock beliefs of an American, that you should not discriminate by race, we're doing it and people aren't even complaining enough to change it.
So, do you believe that you can make somebody do something under hypnosis that they would not do under their normal state of mind?
Here it is. Concrete example.
Concrete example.
Something like, I don't know, a third of the country has been talked out of their basic belief that we should not have outcomes based on race.
It's right here.
I'm not making up the example.
Look at it yourself. There's nothing hidden.
It doesn't require any research whatsoever.
It's right here. It's written in a memo.
The memo says the very thing that we would have all said absolutely we will not do in our normal state of mind.
In my normal state of mind, there's nothing you could do to me to make me think that race would determine your medical treatment.
Nothing. And yet, here it is.
Here it is. Scott's displaying white rage, somebody says.
Can't I have just rage?
Remember, I identify as black for practical reasons, but also for affinity reasons.
I have lots in common.
Dr. Johnson, my mascot, I'm going to make you go away today because your trolling isn't very good.
So it doesn't matter what you said.
Your trolling was inadequate.
You have to troll better than that just to stay on here.
All right. So here's the thing.
I believe almost certainly that there is a genetic difference in how likely you will be affected by it.
And I think the genetic difference is in the ACE inhibitors.
And that explains also why young people are not affected.
Because they have better or different ACE inhibitors, I guess.
And some ethnicities do.
So are they...
Does it seem to you that they're avoiding science to make it seem like it's a social thing?
That's exactly what's happening, right?
Are they not avoiding the obvious science...
Yeah, and vitamin D absorption, it's obvious.
And the vitamin D absorption is obviously genetic, because if your skin is darker, you don't absorb as much.
Am I right about that? I don't want to be unscientific.
But I don't think it has anything to do with your quality as a human being, obviously.
But sunlight reacts different to darker surfaces than lighter surfaces.
So, I mean, it's just completely objectively true.
So when you see yourself getting gaslighted to this extent, and you doubt that the public is being hypnotized, you can't get a better example than this.
This is pure hypnosis.
Pure hypnosis. In the sense of persuasion being the same as hypnosis in this context.
The most predictable story in the world is that now the Omicron variant has merged with the Delta to form, what do they call it, The Deltacron or something.
And apparently it doesn't have the worst of both of those.
You know, the worst case would be it spreads as fast as Omicron and as deadly as Delta.
But the experts are saying that doesn't seem to be the case.
It does seem to be a mix, but it didn't take the worst part of both of them.
I'm not even sure if that's possible.
But on top of that...
I saw some people who look smart on the internet, but you can't tell, giving good reasons why the Omicron does not look like a natural variant.
Have you seen that? So there's some very smart people who are saying that if you look at the Omicron, there isn't any way that this is a naturally occurring thing.
There's even a hypothesis that it...
It came from a vaccine test, that it might have actually been a vaccine candidate that went wrong or something.
And then there's also speculation, with no evidence of this, no evidence whatsoever, that maybe somebody released it as a vaccine because you can't get the actual vaccines to other people.
I think it's way too big a coincidence that it acts like a vaccine exactly when we needed it.
It could be a coincidence.
But my skeptical part of my brain says, I just don't see that as a coincidence.
And then when you add on top of it, it doesn't look natural.
So it doesn't look natural, and it was released at exactly the right time.
Maybe accidental? Now, if it was released at the right time and only recently came into its own, then where was it hiding?
Because the alternative hypothesis is that it was hiding somewhere and wasn't spreading much.
But it's Omicron, right?
Omicron can't hide in one location by its nature.
It's going to go everywhere fast.
So the alternative explanations that it's just been around a while, but we didn't notice it, doesn't hold up to, I guess, its genetic nature.
So I think you can look at it and you know that it's been around a while.
I think I'm explaining this right, but I could take a fact check on this.
I think when you look at it, you can tell it has evolved enough that it's been around a while.
Okay? So check that.
You can tell by looking at it that it's been around a while.
If that's true, where was it?
Because if it was around a while, anywhere on Earth outside of a lab, we would have known it a lot sooner.
Okay? And apparently it also evolved through mice.
So there might have been some iterations through mice.
Huh, where do you see mice?
In a laboratory. Well, you see it in the world, too, but obviously.
But in a laboratory. If you see something that went through multiple mouse evolutions, maybe.
Even that's not confirmed.
You think lab.
But obviously the world is full of real mice, too.
So it could have been that. So I'm going to say the odds of Omicron being a natural variant are low.
How many would disagree with that?
We don't know where it came from or what the origin story would be.
That would just be speculation.
But I don't believe it.
I just don't believe it at all.
Okay. Okay. There's a group called the Patriot Front.
You've all seen them. They are very healthy-looking adult males all over six feet tall who look exactly like military and or feds, but we have no evidence of that.
We only know that they wear masks, and they showed up in Chicago, and they were yelled at by the actual conservatives there.
I think it was maybe an abortion-related thing.
Is there anybody watching this, if you're familiar with who they are, because they've marched before, is there anybody watching this who thinks that they're actually conservatives?
Anybody? Is there even one person watching this on either platform who thinks that that's a real group?
See, all knows on locals.
100% knows.
About YouTube. I see one yes.
I see one yes. Do they have tiki torches?
Yeah, exactly. So almost all no.
Now, I don't know if it's the Lincoln Project.
We don't know that. But here are some of the hilarious ways in which it's obvious that they're not.
Number one, they wore masks.
Now, how many conservatives can you put in one place and all of them are wearing masks?
Could you even call somebody who is outdoors wearing masks?
Could you even say they're conservatives if they're outdoors wearing masks?
Now, you might say to yourself, well, Scott, that's not why they wear the masks.
The masks are to hide their face.
Okay. Tell me what group of conservatives meets in large numbers and none of them will show their face.
I've never even heard of that.
Now you're going to say the KKK, right?
But we even know who the KKK is, right?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we know the leaders of the KKK? Because they don't hide their face.
At least not all the time.
So, what are the odds that we don't know even one of the people in this group, the Patriot Front?
Okay, pretty low. Then the other thing is they're all marching with flags, right?
American flags. Then there's a scene on video where they're very organized putting these flags back in the bed of a pickup truck.
And they're just loading these flags on like it's garbage.
You know, just throwing them on the back of a pickup truck.
Now, let me ask you this.
Every Fourth of July, I think it's the local realtor who puts these little plastic, very small, little American flags and sticks them next to the driveway in the ground.
And it's just a little plastic flag, probably made in China, I don't know.
And when Fourth of July passes, I have to do something with it.
Because now it's a little faded and it's worth, you know, nothing.
And it's an American flag.
What do you do with it? And I know it's plastic, but I end up throwing it away.
But do you know how much trouble I have putting an American flag in the garbage?
Does anybody have the same problem?
Because it is garbage.
But, like, I stand there in front of the garbage, and I open it, and I'm like...
And, like, my hand won't release it.
It's like, I can't make my hand release it.
Because there's probably nothing more fundamental to our cultural upbringing than you don't put the flag in the garbage, right?
Am I right? And so seeing all these alleged super patriots just toss a bunch of flags in the back of a pickup truck...
I don't know. It just didn't read as genuine to me.
It looked like people who didn't care that much about the American flag.
It just looked like you were too casual about it.
Something about that. Yeah.
Now, Tom is saying if it's plastic, you can throw it away, and if it's cloth, you burn it.
I get that. I get that.
I'm just saying that psychologically, even a plastic flag is hard to throw away.
It just is. The next was, I think Mark Schneider pointed this out, he had military experience.
And you see how organized these Patriot Front people were?
They sure look like they have military training, because they're just a little bit too organized, if you know what I mean.
Now, take any group of conservatives and look at their waistlines.
Does it look like any of these Patriot Front people?
They all look like they're models.
They're all six feet tall and male and white and really healthy and in shape.
I don't know. It doesn't look like a MAGA crowd to me, that's for sure.
And what are the odds that we wouldn't know at least one member of the group?
Can you think of any group...
Where they don't at least have a leader or a spokesperson.
I mean, for God's sakes, the Taliban had a spokesperson.
Am I right? Right?
We even knew the head of Al-Qaeda.
We always know the leader.
So if you don't know the leader, there's something going on, right?
So, much like the fart jar and much like our election systems, which are impossible to audit, you don't know what's in the fart jar, you don't know if your elections are fair because you can't audit the electronic parts, and you absolutely should not trust that the Patriot Front are actually conservatives because it's opaque.
Let me give you the final rule on this.
If it's opaque, it's fake.
If it's opaque, it's fake.
If you can't see on the inside, it's always a fraud.
If it's opaque, it's fake.
The election, we can't see the electronic part.
It's opaque. It's fake.
Now, let me be clear.
It doesn't mean you know it's fake.
It means that a rational person should assume it is.
You should act as though it is.
All of your actions should be based on the assumption that it's fake.
So my assumption about the Patriot Front is I don't know if it's real, but if it's opaque, it's fake.
And how about all of those anonymous sources that tell you what happened behind closed doors?
Should you believe an anonymous source?
Well, if you don't know who they are, that's opaque.
And if it's opaque, it's fake.
If opaque, it's fake.
Again, it doesn't mean it's fake.
It means you have to act like that.
Otherwise, you're just a clueless citizen.
And part of acting it, though it's fake, is to force people to be transparent.
If there's anybody watching who is not a native English speaker, is there anybody who's not a native English speaker who doesn't know what opaque means?
Because it's not that common a word.
Opaque means you can't see on the inside.
Transparent means you can see on the inside.
Opaque means it's just a black box.
All right. If it's opaque, it's fake.
Remember that and apply it to everything.
If it's opaque, it's fake.
And some of you are even repeating that in your minds right now because it sounds so darn clever.
So darn clever. Yeah, same as frosted glass.
There's a reason that you can't have, I guess it depends on your state, but you can't have, what do you call it, when the glass is frosted or darkened.
So the police officer needs to be tinted.
So the police officer needs to be able to see into your vehicle.
Do you know why?
Because if it's opaque, you don't know what's in there.
And you don't trust it.
When a police officer walks up to a vehicle that has tinted glass all around, does the police officer have one hand on his weapon?
Or her weapon?
Or their weapon? I think so.
Would you...
I would, right.
If I were approaching a car with tinted windows that I just pulled over, I would have my hand on my service revolver.
Why? Why?
Because if it's opaque, you don't know what's in there.
Yeah, that would be dangerous, not fake.
But the fake in that case would be that it's just a harmless citizen.
So definitely you're faking being a harmless citizen.
It's already illegal, yeah.
I think it's illegal in most states, if not all.
All right. I'm pretty sure this is the best live stream I've ever done.
I don't know. But I'm going to make a claim.
Here's my claim.
That the people who watch me have a better understanding of mass formation psychosis than the people watching any other platform.
I believe that's true. I don't think anybody can explain this as well as I can.
And again, it's 40 years of experience.
It's not magic. Yeah.
The mass of you agree.
Well, I've hypnotized you into agreeing.
All right. That is all I've got to say today.
One of the best live streams of all time.
No. No, it was the best.
It was the best. And it's not all because of me, as Trump likes to say.
It's not just me. It's us.
Because if you were not so damn smart and sexy, none of this would work.
And so, give yourselves a pat on the back.
And don't buy a fart jar, don't trust your elections, and don't join the Patriot Front.
And that's all I've got for today.
Export Selection