All Episodes
Jan. 24, 2022 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
51:03
Episode 1633 Scott Adams: Let's Follow the Science and Wag the Dog Because We Are Mostly Idiots

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Where are the Olympic sponsors? Our scientists have become PR people CNN complains about rally against mandates Russia, China, Iran doing military exercises together Ukraine and Taiwan heating up at same time? Wag the dog play with Ukraine ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the best thing that's ever going to happen to you.
And some people call it Coffee with Scott Adams.
Other people simply call it Coffee with Scott Adams.
Turns out they all agree.
I don't know. Maybe everything's coming together.
But how would you like to take it up a notch?
I know you're that kind of people.
Would you ever settle for simply being brilliant and unusually sexy?
Would you? No, not this audience.
No. Maybe some other audience.
CNN's audience, for example.
They might settle. Might settle for being dull and unattractive.
But not this group.
No. You started sexy.
You started smarter than average.
And watch what happens when you take a cup or a mug or a glass.
A tank or a gel is assigned a canteen drink a flask.
A vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid.
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 watch it do its thing.
Go! I have to come down from that.
Quite a high. Well, there's another poltergeist sighting.
You've probably heard of the rash of poltergeists.
We had one poltergeist who was apparently operating an SUV, caused the SUV to run into people.
And guns have been firing by themselves.
And here's another one. So the governor of New York just announced, she said, last night, a shot from an illegal gun took the life of a police officer.
Now, that's very tragic. We should not lose sight of that.
But we don't want to ignore the fact that a bullet and a gun apparently colluded with each other In which case, if I'm reading between the lines correctly, the bullet decided sort of on its own to fly out of the gun, the gun being harmless in this case.
It was more like the bullet making a decision.
And the free will of the bullet caused it to fly out of the gun and apparently into the body of a person who tragically died.
So I feel like they buried the lead on this story, if you know what I mean.
They're talking about it like a tragedy, and of course, that is.
But I don't think you can ignore that bullets and guns are colluding.
Can we? I don't think we can, no.
Rasmussen had a poll that just came out.
They were asking, among other things, how fair is the economy to black and Hispanic voters?
How many of you, what percentage would you guess before I tell you, Think that it's somewhat or more than somewhat unfair for black and Hispanics.
What percent said it's unfair for black and Hispanics?
25 percent.
Stop it. Stop it.
The answer is 48 percent.
So 48 percent thought things were not fair in terms of the economy specifically.
Now here's the question.
Why was there no question for white people?
Rasmussen. Why was there no similar question for white people?
How would white people answer that question?
I don't know.
Do you? Because it might be 48%.
I'm not even sure it would be different, would it?
Because if you ask anybody, hey, is whatever group you belong to being discriminated against, what do half of the people say all the time?
Yes. It doesn't even matter what group it is.
All right, all of you left-handed Elbonians, let me ask you, do you think the economy is stacked against you?
48% yes.
Yeah, I think that economy is stacked against the left-handed Elbonians, of which I am one.
So I'm always wary of this kind of question because I don't think we're in a point where you can leave out white people from their own question.
I think this needs to be...
How many white people think that they are disadvantaged?
It might not be 48%, but it would be a lot higher than you think.
There's a new documentary called A Coup in Plain Sight, which is a January 6th kind of thing, trying to turn the, or at least hard in the narrative, not turn it, but hard in the narrative, that it was a coup attempt.
It was in plain sight.
We have all the evidence now that there were...
The Trump administration was trying to put together some counterfeit documents to get fake electors seated to steal the election.
So that's the way they frame it.
Let me tell you one way to know a fake narrative.
Here's how you know.
They assume people's intentions, and they assume them the dumb way.
Now, it is true that you do have to kind of make assumptions about other people's intentions just to operate in life.
But we're not very good at it, right?
And if you make an assumption about somebody's intentions that are, let's say, obvious, there's not much to argue about.
For example, what is your intention for having a job?
Right? Well, I can't read your mind, but it probably has something to do with making money.
Am I right? Did I get that from any of you?
Watch me read your minds.
The reason you have a job is to make money.
Probably, right?
So if you're reading somebody's mind and it's the most obvious explanation, you're unreasonably strong territory, even though you could be wrong.
You could be wrong. But what happens if you read somebody's mind and you choose the least likely explanation?
That's a sign of a fake narrative.
Here's an example.
The narrative for the January 6th is that the Trump administration intended to overthrow a legal election and stage a coup.
Is that possible?
Could that have been their internal thinking?
Because there's no documentation to that effect.
But could it have been their internal thinking that the election was fair, but they wanted to overthrow it?
It's possible, right?
We live in a world where it just seems like everything's possible these days.
So it's possible. Now, compare the possibility of that to the other option.
The other option is that they thought it was actually a fraudulent election, And they thought that they were saving the election.
Which is more likely?
Is it more likely that people who lose an election, they thought they would win?
Remember, I don't think there's any question that Trump thought he would win.
It looked like he was heading in that direction.
And there's no question that he's the kind of person who never believes he lost.
We'd all agree with that.
That doesn't take too much mind reading.
Because those are just normal assumptions about people, right?
Nobody likes to lose.
He probably thought he was going to win.
Pretty reasonable, right?
But isn't it more reasonable to assume that he actually thought he lost and something needs to be checked?
That is a completely ordinary assumption.
Completely ordinary that somebody would suspect something wrong happened because it looked like it.
If it looked like it, I don't know, probably 70 million people thought that something looked fishy, wouldn't you say?
Is that a good number?
70 million people probably thought, you know, I might accept the outcome, but I'm not sure that was exactly fair.
Now, they might be right or they might be wrong.
I'm not giving you an opinion of what happened.
I'm telling you that half the country thought there was a problem or something like that.
30%, perhaps. So if the president was in the 30%, and you would expect he would be, to think there was some problem with the election, that is in every way the opposite of their narrative.
So to make an assumption that feeds the narrative, they have to make the least likely assumption about what they were thinking.
The least likely assumption is that people working for Trump thought they were doing an actual coup.
Because it would be obvious.
Everything that they wrote down, they probably thought would be found eventually.
So who's going to run a coup?
And remember, we're not talking about Che Guevara here.
We're talking about nerds in suits.
If you had revolutionaries...
If Colin Kaepernick was there in the government, you'd say, ooh, possibly a revolutionary.
He might take it a little further.
He would be on the other side, of course.
But just using him as an example of an extremist...
Well, he's not an extremist.
Let me take that back.
Not an extremist at all, but just somebody who would be more, let's say, counter-culturally provocative.
Maybe I can say it that way.
But the people who are allegedly...
In charge of this coup in plain sight are just nerds in suits.
Like the least likely person who would risk their entire life and freedom to forge a document that somebody's going to find out for sure.
Or probably. So yeah, they were LARPing.
That's a good... I feel like they were all trying to be on the team and support the team and do what they could and maybe throw a Hail Mary.
But I would suspect the most likely explanation is they actually thought something was wrong.
And they were trying to find some way to fix it and they couldn't find any way to do it.
They would pass their own internal standards for what's legal and safe enough, I guess.
All right. Apparently, Olympic sponsors are sort of in hiding.
What we normally expect about this time when it's getting close to the Olympics, you expect the big sponsors to start bragging about their sponsorship.
Remember how that always used to be?
When the Olympics were upcoming, all the sponsors would say, proud sponsor of the 2022 Olympics.
Well, it turns out that Visa, Coca-Cola, and others are just going silent on it.
Just maybe not mentioning it.
How would you like to be in charge of advertising and publicity for your Fortune 500 company?
And your CEO calls you in and says, I understand we put $80 million into advertising for the Olympics.
That's right, that's right.
And so far what you're doing is staying really silent.
That's right, because we don't want to associate with the Olympics.
All right, hold on. We put $80 million into the Olympics to associate with the Olympics, but what you're telling me now is that we've spent the $80 million, but our best play is to try to get as much distance as we can from the Olympics.
That's where we are. So, and apparently there are a bunch of Omicron breakouts with people who were going to work at the Olympics.
So China's having a pretty big Omicron problem.
Surprise! But the athletes themselves who are in, quote, the bubble, I guess they create an impenetrable bubble, and once you're on the inside, nobody else can get in.
So the athletes seem to be clear so far.
But if you've got three dozen people with Omicron...
In the general vicinity of the Olympics, how in the world are they going to keep the Omicron from sweeping through the attendees?
How in the world is that going to happen?
I can't imagine that this isn't anything but a disaster.
Why are we not talking about the Olympics as what it is?
A gigantic health crisis.
And a publicity coup for China.
That's all it is at this point.
YouTube cut my stream.
No, they didn't. You're still watching it.
So, that's happening.
Yeah, 72 positive cases of COVID among the people who are going to work on the Olympics.
72. 72 cases of Omicron?
Wake up, Scott. 72 cases?
And there's no way they're going to stop it.
All right, so Fauci did an interview on CNN. So even CNN is on the skeptical side of why are we still...
or at least it looks like they're transitioning to, hey, why aren't we an endemic already out of the pandemic?
And they asked Fauci.
CNN said, I think it was Anderson Cooper, why should people with natural immunity still be forced to take the vaccine?
And Fauci said, quote, I don't have a really firm answer to you on that.
What? What?
Isn't he the guy with the firm answer on that?
But he went on to say that we don't know if the natural immunity will be enduring the way the vaccinations aren't.
Wait, what? So we don't know if the natural immunity will last...
So we don't know if it's as good as the vaccinations that definitely don't last.
I'm trying to understand this again.
We're not confident about the natural immunity because we don't know how long it will last, and that's the important thing, to compare to the vaccinations that we know don't last.
Okay? Now, I get that we would like to have more information, But couldn't we wait for that?
You know, if it turns out that six months from now, the natural immunity wasn't what we hoped it would be, couldn't we just change our minds?
And by the way, if it's six months from now, we're probably, you know, away from the problem pretty far anyway.
So I think Fauci is...
He's on pretty thin ice there.
Now, I was going to come up with a name for this effect, but it goes like this.
In the old days, scientists would manage the science, and then there would be a whole different group of people who would manage public reactions, you know, public relations.
So that would be politicians and PR people and stuff like that.
But what happened during the pandemic?
Inversion. Inversion. During the pandemic, the scientists started managing public opinion.
Am I right? Who managed the science?
When the scientists abandoned science to become public relations people and basically to manipulate us into a certain thing, what happened to the guardians of science when they became PR people?
Do you know who became the scientists?
You did. You did.
You had to do your own...
I don't want to use the F word.
Unnecessarily. You had to become the scientists.
They made the public become scientists because the scientists turned into PR people and brainwashers.
Now, of course, you know, there's no universal statement that's true for all things and all people.
But generally speaking, am I wrong?
Am I wrong that the scientists became PR people and then the public had to become scientists?
Which is not a good look.
Right? And how did the public do?
When the public became the scientists, how do we do?
Not as bad as you would think.
I think the public had tons of wrong ideas.
Tons of wrong ideas.
But weirdly, I think it would have ended up not that far away from where science took us.
The actual practical difference of our different beliefs, many of which were fake.
Even if we had pursued our fake understanding of the world, we would have been about the same place, probably.
I don't know. So it's hard to know because there's no way to compare that.
Maybe we need what I would call untouchable doctors.
Do you remember the movie The Untouchables, what that was about?
The problem was that you couldn't use local, back in early history of the United States, you couldn't use local law enforcement to stop the big organized gangs because the organized gangs had too much money.
So they would bribe enough police officers that the regular police couldn't do anything.
So the government had to send in a special group of people who just didn't have any local connections.
And so they were unbribable.
Yeah, Elliot Ness in particular.
And it wasn't until you had unbribable law enforcement that they could make a dent.
Now we have this situation where we don't trust our doctors.
Because we imagine, I don't know how true this is, but we all imagine that big pharma can influence at least the hospitals, and then the hospitals can influence the doctors because the doctors want to keep their hospital privileges, etc.
So don't we need untouchable doctors?
Don't we need doctors who are not beholden to anyone for whatever reason?
They don't need research money.
They don't need hospital privileges.
They don't even need customers.
They've already made their money. Not rogues.
See, I don't trust the rogues because the rogues have a benefit that they can achieve even if they're wrong.
That's not a good look.
So you don't want people to be able to benefit by being wrong.
And the rogues definitely benefit by being wrong because they get the attention, etc.
Then nobody will remember they were wrong and they'll be famous long after.
So even if they're wrong, their business model still works to be a rogue.
So I don't trust the rogue model.
What you need is some people who are rogues before the problem.
See what I'm saying? You need some people who already were outside the control of the system before you even had a question to give them.
And then you give them the question.
You don't want them signing up to be rogues on their own.
You want to have an established group of untouchables.
Anyway, think about that.
A Wharton professor asked people in the Wharton class...
What did they think was the average income of Americans?
But I don't think average is good because the billionaires skew it.
So I'd rather say median.
So the income at which there are as many people above that line as there are below.
What would you imagine is the median income in America for one person, one job?
Numbers, please. I'll tell you the number in a moment.
I'm seeing guesses on locals from in the 40s and 50s, 35 area, 35, 45.
You're actually very well informed.
I don't know how many of you Googled it.
Yeah, actually, you're all in the right area.
Yeah, you're roughly in the right area.
That's correct. The answer is 34,000.
Now, that's the median.
So if you guessed, you know, 30s to 50s, you're in the right area at least.
But here's the punchline.
25% of the students believe that the average income, not median, but average, was over $100,000.
A quarter of the class in this elite institution, a quarter of them, believe that the average income was over $100,000 per year in America.
Yeah, 25% rule.
Yeah, the 25% rule works.
It works so often, it's hilarious.
Wow. But most of you got the right answer, so you're better than the Wharton kids on that.
So CNN is complaining about the rally yesterday.
So there's a rally against the mandates in D.C., and...
CNN's take on it is that there were too many references to Nazism.
And Robert Kennedy Jr.
apparently compared the vaccine policies in the U.S. to a totalitarian state and made an Anne Frank...
Can I give you a little media advice?
Now, many of you have not taken what's called media training, which I have, which is how not to do things like this in public.
They teach you how not to do this.
I can't give you the whole media training course right now, but I'm going to simplify it to just one pro tip that you can bank on.
One thing that I think you can generally consider that would always be a good idea in terms of public speaking is Don't compare anything to Anne Frank.
Comparing things to the Holocaust is ridiculous enough.
But the moment you throw Anne in the mix, you've gone too far.
Here's you. Here's too far.
And there's Anne. Hello, Anne.
I'm over here. Too far.
Too far. Do you know what is the correct...
Way to make an Anne Frank reference when you're not not talking about the Holocaust itself.
Never. How about never?
How about the right time to invoke Anne Frank is fucking never?
How about never ever?
How about that time you think you found an exception, and this is the one time that maybe Anne Frank is...
No! No!
Don't do it! How about if the story is about somebody named Anne Frank, coincidentally?
And what if this person, who is also coincidentally named Anne Frank, was also hiding in an attic against the vaccine mandates?
What if there was somebody literally named Anne Frank hiding literally in her attic in the United States because she was afraid of the vaccine mandate police?
Can you make an Anne Frank reference then?
No! No!
I just told you!
There's no exceptions! You do not make an Anne Frank reference no matter what!
Ever! Ever!
So that's your media training for today.
Don't do that. All right.
But it's ironic that CNN would be the one complaining about it because they're the ones who use Holocaust references just continually.
So a hypocrisy award goes to CNN. So just as we're saying to ourselves, you know, I think maybe we're on the cusp of our mandates being lifted, the L.A. School District, in its attempt to make their students the stupidest students in the whole world,
have decided that cloth masks are not good enough, and every student will have to wear non-cloth masks that have a nose wire, you know, that little thing that you form fitted around your nose.
Including participating in athletic activities.
So if you're going to go for a run outdoors, you need a really tight-fitting mask.
If you want to go for a run outdoors.
Now, let me guess, what group of people would have been behind this?
Maybe scientists. So, do you think that the scientists were following the science and that the school district is following the scientists who are following the scientists, or is it possible that this has more to do with narrative and PR and manipulation and bullshit?
So, once again, we have this question.
Who are the scientists...
In this case? Well, I would say the scientists, in this case, unfortunately, are the parents of these children who should be basically tearing apart the offices of the L.A. school district.
They should be taking their furniture and throwing it on the lawn.
And they're just leaving.
That would be the perfect protest.
Just go into whatever the student lounge is, You know, the teacher's lounge of every school, and it's probably not locked during the day, just walk in in force, take all the furniture out of the teacher's lounge and just throw it into the fucking lawn.
Just throw it into the parking lot.
And then just leave. And just leave.
You don't even have to make a statement.
By the way, I'm not suggesting this because you would get arrested.
But we're sort of at that point...
Where I don't want to break anything and I don't hurt anybody, right?
No violence, no violence, no violence.
But if we just went into every LA school district and just said, look, we got 400 parents here, so just get out of the way, just go into the teacher's lounge, take every stick of furniture, every item in it, and just put it in the parking lot and then leave.
Don't even say a fucking thing.
Just leave. Do you think that would make national news?
I think you would. I think you would.
Exactly. Somebody just said child abuse.
Once it becomes child abuse, we can go into the school and put all your furniture in the parking lot.
Because that's not even close to child abuse.
Right? That's not even close.
All right, I finally figured out a solution to this whole Russia-Ukraine thing, and it's not negotiating.
I thought yesterday that would be the solution.
But there's a more obvious one.
I think Biden should put Kamala Harris in charge of the Ukraine border.
And I say this because Biden says she's done a good job on the Mexican border with the United States.
And if you can do that good a job on such an intractable problem, I mean, think about it.
How many people have tried to solve the border problem With Mexico.
And Kamala Harris, according to Biden, is doing a great job.
So I don't think you ignore that.
So I think Kamala Harris has proven that she can find the root causes of border problems and solve them.
So she should go find the root cause.
It could be that she needs to build up manufacturing in Russia.
Something like that. But put her on the job.
She can handle this. You know, I've been saying that I think our play is that we need to get Russia on our side and sort of pull them away from China.
But apparently it's too late.
It seems to be too late.
Because, I didn't know this, but can somebody do a fact check?
Is it true that Russia, China, and Iran did joint military, what do you call it, tests?
They did, didn't they? So if they're already doing military drills together, it's kind of too late.
It's too late.
And here's a question that I wonder.
Is Putin already a Chinese puppet?
Because if he's not already a Chinese puppet, he will be.
Am I right? Because their trade has doubled since not that long ago.
So Russian and Chinese trade is like crazy.
They know they need each other because they're both sort of anti-America.
So it makes sense.
And you would think that by now China has figured out some way to put pressure on Putin economically some way.
So it seems to me that over time...
You know, the big Chinese octopus is going to get control of Russia just because it's adjacent, and they have to.
Because China wants to control everything that's adjacent, right?
Everything in their neighborhood.
So they probably want to control Russia more than they want to control us.
Well, that's probably not true.
But is it a coincidence that Ukraine and Taiwan are heating up at the same time?
Do you think that is two independent decisions...
In which both Russia and China said, you know, this would be a good time.
And that just happened to be the same time.
Or do you think that they simply talked and said, you know, if you do this, I'll do this.
And did they talk as peers?
Was it peer-to-peer?
Or did President Xi tell Putin to make some noise in Ukraine?
Because, you know, it looks...
It looks exactly like what it would look like if Putin were already under Xi's control.
Doesn't it? Now, remember you heard the head of the German Navy who got, I don't know, he quit or got fired or whatever, basically got fired, for saying that we should get closer to Russia and pull them away from China.
And... Yeah, it was the Navy chief.
It is definitely looking...
Like China already controls Russia.
And remember, the Navy chief said that what Putin wants is respect.
How much respect will Putin get when he is rebranded as Xi's puppet?
And if we started pointing out that every time Putin acts, it seems to be in China's best interest.
What happens then? Hey Putin, every time you act, it seems to be in China's best interest.
Are you basically Xi's bitch?
Because that's what it looks like.
Yeah, Xi's bitch.
So, I don't know if that would have any impact on Russia wanting to get away from China, but it can't be good for Putin to look like he's working for China, because it does look like it.
I'm not saying that's the case, but it looks like it.
All right, so do you think that there's a wag the dog thing happening here, meaning that the media and the government are working together to come up with a war because it's good for the government and good for the media?
Well, here are some things happening, and you decide.
So I guess the U.S. is pulling some of its staff out of the Ukraine embassy, which is what you would do in anticipation of an invasion.
So, do you think that we really needed to pull our staff out of the embassy?
It's probably just good form.
I imagine it just makes sense.
Weird comments.
Okay. So, and then, of course, the legacy media is a warning of invasion.
Does it look like an invasion to you?
Because I've seen other media say that the build-up is since April and it doesn't really look like an invasion.
And then some people say, oh, total invasion.
Looks like an invasion.
It's going to happen any minute. But it seems to me that all of the signaling to the public is a wag-the-dog stuff, like get ready for war.
There's a good reason for war.
So get ready for the good reasons for war.
But there aren't any good reasons, at least for the United States.
But here's the question which must be asked.
Given the polling of the Democrats, what is the almost guaranteed outcome by 2024?
It looks like, all the smart people are saying, that Republicans will have full control.
Because it looks like they're going to sweep 2024 and get control of Congress.
Say the smart people.
That's not me predicting, but all the smart people say that.
And it looks like whoever runs against a Democrat would probably win.
DeSantis would just destroy Biden.
So what do Democrats do when they see that business as usual will put them out of power?
What would they do?
They would have to do something...
They would change the equation, change the narrative.
And I can only see one thing that they could possibly do to maintain power.
Start a war. Now, I'm not saying that's what they're doing.
I'm saying that when people understand what their best option is, they don't have to consciously make a decision to do it.
Because their brain will do the rest.
Their brain will just talk them into it being a good idea.
So the people who would be wagging the dog wouldn't all of them necessarily know that they're doing a scheme.
They might just get caught up in it and start to believe their own lies.
So I do think that we're in the process of talking ourselves into war for no real benefit beyond Democrats consolidating, let's say, support by being in a war.
I can't think of any other benefit except Democrat power.
So watch your brainwashing levels here, because they're going to go hard at you.
Now, this does open up an opportunity, though, to avoid a kinetic war with actual bullets.
And I had a suggestion.
I'm just going to put this out there.
Another way to avoid war with Russia would be to have our cyber units attack instead of our military.
Well, they're part of the military.
But instead of shooting bullets, we should do a cyber attack, not on Russia, that would be crazy, but rather a cyber attack on our own polling companies, the internal political polling companies.
Because if we can hack into our polling companies, And we can artificially raise the Democrats' polling numbers.
If we can raise the Democrat polling numbers, then we can avoid war, I think.
Because if they think their numbers look good, they won't start a war.
Only if their numbers look bad.
So I think our cyber security people could maybe fix us.
They just have to hack all of our internal polling companies.
You can't tell when I'm kidding, can you?
How many of you have been fooled by something I said that you thought was serious?
Only to find out later.
Not so much.
Parody and reality.
Starting to merge.
Can't tell. You can't tell.
Did any bubbles burst today?
I don't think so. I don't think so.
All right. I zoned out.
Can you repeat it?
That's my favorite comment so far.
I zoned out. Can you repeat that?
All right. How many people think long COVID is real?
Let me give you...
I'm just going to take your temperature here.
How many people think long COVID is real?
Getting a lot of no's on the locals platform.
A lot of no's. I think it's real only in the sense that people recover from things at different rates.
I don't think it's real as impermanent.
Here's my second question.
How good are we at predicting the long-term health impact of vaccinations?
Because remember, you can't test the long-term until the long-term gets here, and it hasn't.
But how good are we at predicting potential problems?
How long ago was the last time we had a long-term problem that we didn't catch in short-term testing?
How often does that happen?
If you look at all meds, Yeah, maybe we just don't know.
That's right. But if you looked at all meds, what do we know?
Thalidomide is the famous one.
And what year was thalidomide?
I won't look it up. Somebody will tell me the year.
Tell me the year of thalidomide.
60s. 50s and 60s?
Okay. Where are we scientifically and medically compared to the 50s and 60s?
It's just world's difference, right?
So in the 50s or 60s, we got caught off guard with this thalidomide stuff.
What are the odds that we would get caught off guard in 2022?
Do we still have...
Are we still blind to the future in the same way?
Or is there something about the nature of vaccinations and the nature of the body where you can kind of know in advance pretty well what the long-term effects are going to be?
So that's a big hole in my...
Somebody says Zantac.
Did Zantac have long-term bad effects?
Was that what you're saying? I don't know the story there.
I don't want to say that because that would be...
I don't want to libel some company just because I'm seeing a comment here.
So I don't know anything about Zantac.
Okay.
So yeah, mRNA is a new tech, and that's sort of why I'm asking the question.
Are we so smart that we could look at a new technology platform, mRNA, and know that that is very unlikely to have long-term effects?
Can we know that?
So my current thinking is I'm devaluing long COVID as a problem.
I think it's real.
But it looks like just some people recovering more slowly, and I imagine I could survive recovering more slowly if I had to.
So... Yeah, there's still a lot of stuff we don't know here.
Now, question.
Is the country moving in the right direction or the wrong direction on opening up?
Because I feel like...
Anecdotally, at least California is not looking like it's going to open up.
If I had to guess, we're going to be last, I think.
Partly because our infection rate is through the roof compared to other places.
Right direction, you think?
Well, I think other places are going to head in the right direction.
I just think California is not going to hit the February 1 date, and I am going to be really, really unhappy about that.
You know what would be a great way to end the mandates?
Take advantage of the fact that people believe anything.
Or let's say you can get 30% of the public to believe just anything.
Would you agree with me, first of all, that that's a thing?
Totally a thing. You can get 30% of the public to believe anything.
Well, 25% at least.
How many people would it take to break the mandates?
You know, if 25% walk into every business without a mask, the business will be overwhelmed.
How hard would it be to start the rumor that February 1st is actually the date the mandates drop?
So that 25% of people show up everywhere, everywhere, as if they thought the mandates were over?
It probably would be doable.
Now, I don't think it would be doable just by me.
But, you know, the things that really...
Get ingrained in people.
Happens somewhat, let's say, organically.
I don't know if you could just make up a thing and then make 30% of the people believe it.
Unless you had the whole legacy media on your side.
Then you could do it easily. But for one person, you could actually...
Maybe. Suppose you started a meme that convinced 25% of the people that it was an official policy that the mandates were over on February 1st.
How many people would believe it and just show up without a mask and not even have one?
Let me give you an anecdote.
So I told you that the county next to me, which I go to about as much as my own county, because it's right next to me, they require vaccine passports.
I heard a story yesterday from a young woman, who shall remain anonymous, and the young woman said that she went with a group of people To this restaurant that required the vaccine passports.
And although she is vaccinated, she did not have her passport because she did not anticipate the difference in the other county.
So the restaurant host said, OK, we need your passports.
So all of the other members of a fairly large party took out their passports and showed it.
And then the one member said, oh, I don't have it.
So what was what was going to happen?
How do you think it worked out?
One didn't have the passport.
And the others did. Did they say, oh, sorry, this one person won't be able to join you?
And also, by the way, didn't have a ride home.
So this one person will just have to take Uber home?
Or sit in the lobby or something?
Do you think that's what happened?
Or do you think everybody in the party said, well, you know, too bad, it's Friday night, I guess you could have an empty table.
And then they all left.
Do you think that happened? What do you think happened?
Let me give you my impression of the hostess.
Okay, you all have your passports except this one person?
Go ahead.
That's what happened.
Right, we're at the point where people are just going to make their own decisions.
Why? Because who are the scientists?
Who are the scientists?
We are. Unfortunately, our actual scientific community abandoned us.
If we had had rapid testing when we knew we would, then I would say, wow, our scientific community, they're working well with the government, they're getting stuff done.
But they didn't.
In fact, there was pushback against rapid tests, which we now know were exactly right.
Pushback against natural immunity.
I mean, how many times do the experts have to be wrong and the public have to be right, sometimes by luck, but still turn out to be right?
Yeah, unfortunately, you're the scientist, so I think a lot of restaurants are going to act that way.
They're just going to say, well, I don't know.
Now, that would be an interesting way to...
Now, first of all, let me say that restaurants are the softest target because even in the restaurant, you know...
If you have to have a mask, you just walk past the hostess.
You know, if I go up to use the restroom in a restaurant where they require masking, technically, I should put on my mask to use the restroom, right?
Because I got up from the table.
A lot of people don't, so it's fairly common that people don't put on their mask to go to the restroom.
But I like to comply and say fuck you at the same time.
Maybe that's just me. Do you ever do that?
Do you comply in the most ridiculous way?
So when I stand up to go to the restroom, I actually just hold the mask up in front of my face, like this, and just walk past the staff and just laugh at them.
Because it's fucking ridiculous.
If somebody says they do the same.
Yeah, I just laugh at them.
Like, got my mask!
And nobody's going to stop you.
I mean, why would they?
There's no difference in risk at all.
So I think mocking it out of existence is maybe...
Have I ever told you the power of mocking?
It's pretty powerful. We're at the point where, you know, I don't think you could...
I didn't think it made total sense to mock somebody from, you know, being afraid of Delta.
But I don't mind mocking somebody for being afraid of Omicron in the age of vaccinations, anyway.
I think mocking could maybe get us over the edge.
So if you see an opportunity for some gentle mocking, somebody says your wife wouldn't let you do that, sure she would.
I've just used my hand over my mouth.
Yeah, just walk into a restaurant like this.
I'm sorry, we need masks.
Well, I have a mask. It's right here.
No, I'm sorry, you need a certain kind of mask.
I don't think so. No, I don't believe that there's a requirement on a certain kind of mask.
I'm pretty sure that this is a mask.
And then they say, no, I'm sure there's a requirement.
Well, can you show me that code?
Because unless there's a code, you know...
Put a sock over your hand.
Put a sock over your hand and cover your mouth.
Yeah, they're universally illegal.
I get that. I've used a paper towel at the grocery store.
Just use a rubber band and a paper towel.
Has anybody done that before? A napkin.
How about take the napkin and just like hold it in your mouth?
So it's just like...
Wait, I'm gonna do this.
I think I can do a demo.
I'm just going to bathroom.
No, I'm just going to bathroom.
I'm going to get my napkin. I'm fine.
I'm fine. No, I comply with all the mandates.
All the mandates.
All the mandates I comply with because I'm a complier.
A lot of people, they would say, you know, I don't want to comply with the mandates, but I comply.
And if you don't comply, I would call you a vaccine denier, for one, possibly a pandemic denier.
But I think that instead of making our masks better and better, We should make them worse and worse as a protest.
Just see if you can get into a business that requires masks by doing this.
Just see what happens.
And have a conversation with the proprietor before you reach in and get your real mask, because you probably want to bring your real one with you, just in case.
Just go into a store looking like this.
And if somebody stops you, you say, oh, I didn't realize that the mask requirements were that specific.
Do you have some written requirements about the mask?
Because I think I am masked.
And then the person would say, you're obviously not masked.
Because look at all that, you know, there's all these holes in the side.
To which I say, well, that's the same with the cloth masks.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the cloth masks also exhaust from all the edges and...
I mean, you're not trying to stop the air, you're just trying to filter it a little bit, right?
So, this will be my new mask technique when I go into places after February 1st.
And I think you could all get behind this.
And scene. I would like to end today's broadcast with a magic trick.
Some of you have seen this.
I think I learned this from the amazing somebody.
But it's just a normal tissue.
And let's see...
And that's all I have for today.
Export Selection