Episode 1641 Scott Adams: The Public Takes Control of Mask Mandates Starting Today. And More Revolutionary Fun #Feb1
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Feb1 we're done
Maskless Governor Newsom at a ballgame
Persuasion move for Mask Karens
The problem with modern families
George Soros opposes President Xi
Larry Elder video on BLM negative effect
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to Hashtag February 1st.
Sort of like July 4th in some countries.
And today will be the beginning of our clawing back our freedom that we have somewhat voluntarily and in many cases involuntarily given to our government.
But we'll talk about that after the simultaneous sip powers us up to maximum levels of awesomeness.
And if I may, I know this is a little off topic, but have you been working out?
You look great. I mean, seriously.
Whatever you're doing, keep doing it.
You look fantastic.
I just had to say that today.
But here's what you need to make today special, even more special than it already is.
You need a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker, a chalice stein, a canteen, a jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind, even a truck.
Fill it with your favorite beverage.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Ah, yeah.
Mmm, yeah.
Tastes like...
Let me...
One moment.
We have to try this again.
I thought I detected a slight note of something that I haven't tasted for a while.
One more try.
Yes. Yes.
It's fucking freedom.
It's freedom. That's what it tastes like.
And today...
My fine audience.
Depending upon where you are, let us declare at least our freedom from mandates.
Now, how do you get your freedom from mandates if you can't fly?
Don't book a flight.
I would ask you that for the following, let's say, week or two, just don't book a flight.
See if you can force the airlines to recognize a 20% decline in revenue and see if they start pressing the government.
How much revenue would the airlines need to lose before they would press their government to drop mandates?
20%? I think we could do 20%.
Just give me two weeks.
Don't book any flights.
You can book them later. Don't change your summer plans.
Just give me two weeks.
Crash their bookings for two weeks.
Mandates go away.
Let's talk about masks.
So the first one, context.
The death rate, unfortunately, did not plunge as quickly as we'd hoped.
So it's still about 2,500 a day in the United States.
And that's sort of high.
Sort of high. But we do expect this is an Omicron peak that should decrease soon.
And here's the context that matters.
Probably only 20% of those deaths are vaccinated at this point, which means you can take 20% of that number and say, that's the real number you're working with, because everyone else chose their path.
Some people chose a different risk profile.
Now, I'm not talking about immunocompromised people.
They've got an issue, and you have to have some empathy for that.
But for all the rest of the people...
If you're not vaccinated, that was the choice you made.
You're happy with your 99-whatever-percent chance of being fine.
And I'm happy with you, too.
I'm not unhappy with anybody un-vaxxed.
Are you? I mean, I suppose some people are.
But at this point, we all chose our adventure, and that makes the real risk for the people who are unwilling to take it so low that it's now baseline.
So we're into baseline risk.
Someone asked me today, sure, if you take off your mask, that's fine for your risk management, but what about mine?
What about the other people that you might expose by taking your mask off?
To which I say, perfectly good question.
Perfectly good question.
And it's in the baseline.
Every time I get in an automobile and drive it, I'm putting at risk people on sidewalks.
We don't even have cars, in many cases.
They don't even get the benefits of driving.
I get the benefits of driving.
They don't get any of those benefits.
But I might, you know, hop over a curb and kill them.
So they do have some costs.
None of the benefits. Or at least not the direct benefits of driving.
So, realize that this world is full of all of us implying or imposing risks on other people.
You can't get away with that.
You know, there's no... There's no way to get around the fact that we're all imposing risks on each other.
You just have to get that risk down to the baseline level, and I would say we're there.
And so, given that our governor in California has already gone maskless at a major event, and because February 1st was a quite reasonable date for the government to either have acted, in California in particular, either have acted, or at least tell us when the deadline is likely to pass...
Which would have been a fine...
I would have accepted that, actually.
If they had just said, well, it's not today, but here's the day, and it's a few weeks, I'd say, ah, that's close enough.
But they didn't do anything like that.
Instead, they just didn't wear their mask where there was a mandate, the governor.
Now, here's the dog that isn't barking, although a few people made some terrible comments.
The picture... The photo of Governor Newsom was with Magic Johnson.
Most of you saw it.
They were both maskless at a football game.
And isn't it amazing that that one photo captured the entire career arc of Fauci?
Did you ever think about that?
Remember, Fauci started with AIDS. I think you'd have to call it a success.
Why? Well, because there's Magic Johnson.
HIV, and I don't think he ever got AIDS, right?
If I have my facts right.
I think that the cocktails and drugs were, by then, sufficient that he squashed his HIV. I mean, I guess you always have it, but...
So there's Magic Johnson.
And here's the most amazing part of that picture.
The most amazing part...
Is that AIDS wasn't the story.
I don't know. Does Fauci give some credit for that?
I don't know all the details of what he did or didn't do.
But it's interesting that it shows his whole career arc.
And his career arc ends...
Because I think this is the end for Fauci.
You know, the end of this pandemic.
We'll probably see his retirement, I would guess.
And you see the governor of California with no mask...
That's the end of the pandemic. Right?
If the governor is in a public place with no mask, with cameras all around, he obviously is ready for stuff to be over.
So in that one picture, I don't know if anybody else had that thought, it just sort of coincidentally captured Fauci's entire career arc, from curing AIDS to, not curing AIDS, but you know what I mean, but making a big dent in the whole AIDS problem, all the way to ending the pandemic.
That's what a maskless governor is.
That's a symbol of the end of the pandemic.
And there's Magic Johnson, the symbol of finally overcoming the worst parts of the AIDS epidemic.
I thought that was really...
I think our first reactions were all about the mandates and stuff, so our attention got pulled aside.
But just think about the weight of that thought...
That those two people connected an entire career that was quite meaningful.
We got our criticisms of Dr.
Fauci, right? Everybody's got some criticisms.
But it's quite remarkable what he was involved in and how much impact that had on the country and the world.
Anyway, back to my original topic.
Yesterday I went into two places that were mask mandatory, where I live, and in neither place did I offer to put on a mask.
So two places with no mask and no apology.
In neither case was I approached.
No. In one case, the manager and the employee were unmasked.
They'd already given up themselves.
So I would say of the local businesses, the mandate's already done for masks, for local businesses.
I can't imagine any locally owned business asking you to put on a mask.
At least around here, it's just not going to happen.
Now, that gives you the chains.
For example, Starbucks.
In Starbucks, they would like you to do this stupid theater where you put on your mask to order, and then you sit down right next to where you were standing and take your mask off because now you're eating.
Take your mask off in Starbucks.
Walk in the door without a mask.
It's February 1st.
Now, I'm not picking Starbucks as a specific place, but if you want to be a rebel but you don't want to go all the way, you just want to contribute, find a soft target.
A soft target is anywhere that they have food service.
Because within that space, there will be masked and unmasked people, and that's absurd.
Right? In a space with masked and unmasked people, that's just absurd.
Don't wear a mask in those situations.
That's an easy target.
So restaurants... Starbucks, any place anybody has a right to take off a mask, don't ever put on a mask again.
Now, what happens if somebody comes over and they're a Karen?
It could be an employee, it could be another customer.
And they ask you, why are you not wearing a mask or could you please put one on?
How do you handle that? Well, let me give you two suggestions.
Number one, travel in groups.
Don't go alone. Bring, you know, four to six friends with you and go out to eat.
Or go to a store.
You know, bring five of your best friends and go to Walmart.
And just don't let any of you wear masks and just walk right in.
Because if they ask you to wear masks, it's going to be sort of a six-to-one situation.
They might. They might.
And then here's how to deal with it if you are challenged.
Rule number one.
Rule number one.
The person challenging you is not your enemy.
They're on your side. They don't like it any more than you do.
In all likelihood, right?
They're just doing their job. Don't make them your enemy.
That is the wrong play.
You need to get them on your side.
Here's the way to do it in a persuasive way.
Here's the persuasion move if somebody challenges you to put on a mask.
And I did it in a tweet so you can find it if you want to reread it.
So let's say somebody says, put on your mask, please.
Here's what you say. Mask mandates are not enforced after February 1.
They're not enforced.
Notice I didn't say there's no mandate.
Because if you say there's no mandate, you're a liar.
And they'll just go to the website and they'll say, well, here's the website.
Mandate. Put on your mask.
So you say, no, no, the mandate is still in place.
I agree with you. The mandate's in place.
But there's no enforcement after February 1st by rule of the people.
Now, what is somebody going to do if you say, no, I agree with you.
I see it. It's right there on the website.
Totally, totally mandatory.
But after February 1st, enforcement has stopped.
What is the evidence of that?
Well, as I told you before, you should bring your photo of the governor showing you that there's no enforcement.
Did the governor get a ticket?
What was his penalty?
It was nothing. Now, you don't need the picture.
You could just say, what is the penalty?
You're not aware of any penalty, are you?
Am I going to get a ticket?
Now, remember, don't be an asshole.
Don't be an asshole.
Your enemy is not the person you're talking to.
Your enemy is the government.
So just leave some doubt in the person who asked, but then move through the store.
They're not going to drag you out of Walmart.
You need to give any reason that sounds reasonable.
Any reason. It's called the fake because.
The fake because, the reason that's not really a reason, that works whenever the person you're trying to persuade is already persuaded.
You're not trying to change the mind of somebody who is on the other side.
When you're trying to change the mind, if you can even call it that, of somebody who's already on your team, you give them any reason.
Any reason, and it works.
Here's the reason. After February 1st, the public has ruled that there's no penalty for not wearing a mask.
There is a mandate.
So here's where you use word thinking in your favor.
I always complain about people using definitions as arguments, because it's just not rational.
You're trying to win by just defining a word a certain way.
But the fact is, it works.
It works in a nonsense way.
It doesn't work logically.
But it works in a nonsense way in terms of dealing with people who need some nonsense once in a while.
Sometimes we need some nonsense.
That's what the fake because is.
So give them some nonsense.
Yeah, mandate? Oh yeah, the mandate is fully in place.
But after February 1st, no penalties.
All right. And if they go to try to research that, good luck.
And then if somebody asks about the risk to others, I think you have to make a judgment call.
If you're standing next to an elderly person in line at the grocery store and, you know, you don't have a lot of space and you can see that the elderly person is panicked, maybe they've got some comorbidity or something, don't be a jerk, right? Use your judgment.
But remember, your fellow citizens are the ones you love.
The citizens are okay.
They're not your enemies.
Just do what makes sense.
As soon as you act irrationally, your argument goes away.
As long as you're careful where it makes sense to be careful, let's say a nursing home, and as long as you're rational where it makes sense to avoid the absurd, being the only masked person at a Starbucks, for example, that'd be pretty absurd, you're fine.
All right. So let's see how far we can push that.
And I would like you all to report back, if that's not too much to ask.
I'm going to, you know, along with...
And by the way, I want to give props to Greg Gottfeld for being the primary platform in which the February 1st has been promoted.
And Greg has been pushing this quite a bit.
And I think his will be the biggest influence on this.
He's got the platform and the influence.
And so big thank you to Greg Gottfeld for his leadership on the February 1st thing.
But I think he would probably say the same.
I can't read his mind. But I think we would all appreciate it.
If you gave us some feedback about your situation.
So if there's a place that requires masks, just tell me what happened.
Just tweet it at me. And don't worry about how many tweets I get today, right?
Just put the hashtag February 1st and describe your situation.
You know, just briefly.
Went into X store without a mask.
It was fine.
Or whatever happened. Just tweet your experience...
We'll fill Twitter with hashtag Feb1, and we will build an example.
You know, people are imitators, right?
Right? So some people want to go first, you know, when the first 5% of people do whatever, because they're just built that way.
Some of you are in that group, so go first.
Others need other people to go first.
So if you get some momentum going, get some exposure with the hashtag, if you can get any major publication to pick it up, some of you have connections to the press.
You know you do, right?
You've got a friend, cousin, brother.
You know somebody in the press.
You probably all do.
Tell them that an interesting story is that the public has decided to revolt, On hashtag February 1, and somebody should cover it.
Now, there won't be anything to cover unless you tweet about it.
So if you could get a picture, even better.
Now, a lazy journalist is going to love a story that they can get by looking at tweets.
Trust me on this.
Somebody who has dealt with the media for a long time, The two things that all journalists want is a packaged idea.
Here's my idea.
Because they're thinking of ideas all day long.
The hardest part of being a journalist is thinking up a new idea.
It's not even the writing.
The writing is easier than coming up with a new idea.
So the way that people manipulate the media...
I don't know if you knew this.
Tell me if this is the first time you've heard this.
But the way people like me manipulate the media...
And I mean literally me, is you come up with a creative story idea and then you present it to somebody who is always hungry for creative story ideas.
They will gobble it up like they haven't eaten in a week.
Because there's no limit to how much a journalist wants a new idea.
They really, really want a new idea.
Because they're all fishing in the same little pond, right?
If you're the only one who says, you know, you all caught a trout today.
Everybody's reading about trout.
Trout, trout, trout, trout, trout, trout, trout.
Your writing doesn't stand out at all.
But I've got to tell you, there's a swordfish in there, and I'm the only one who can see it.
If you take the swordfish story, you're going to be the star.
Every journalist wants that deal.
So if you can package up the idea, hey, February 1st, you can make it easy to research, hey, just look at Twitter.
Find some of those stories.
Maybe tweet at one of the people, get a little extra background.
That's how you manipulate the media.
Laziness. If you appeal to their laziness and ego...
That's what publicists do, by the way.
The entire job of a publicist...
Is to appeal to the laziness of journalists.
Ask a publicist.
Ask a publicist.
That's the whole job. Is taking advantage of the laziness of people in the media.
You just do their job for them and they love it.
Why wouldn't they? Here's a funny little thing that happened in my life that might be useful for you.
Recently someone asked me how I handle all the drama lately.
The drama in my life.
How do you handle all the drama?
And I said, what drama?
Drama? Is there some drama I don't know about?
And I had to dig down a little bit to find out what the hell the drama was.
And apparently it goes something like this.
That if you were to have a conversation about me, like with your friends, you'd find at least one of your friends is really mad at me and may be mad at you for even listening to me.
And that there's some kind of, I don't know, because I insulted somebody on a live stream once or something, something about vaccinations that they probably got wrong.
So, yeah, I'm looking at the comments.
Now, of course, this is not a universal experience.
But apparently there's all this, you know, drama about me.
I literally was unaware.
So what happened when I found out there's all this drama?
How did I feel about it?
Well, I said to myself, there's none of it in my room.
Like, it doesn't even touch me.
There's no...
I mean, I could deal with people I know, new people.
I can deal with strangers.
I run into people all the time who watch my livestream.
You know, locally now, pretty much every time I leave the house, somebody says something about coffee with Scott Adams.
And I don't encounter any drama.
So you might be surprised...
That as provocative or hated as I am in some social media sense, that absolutely none of it, none of it, not even the smallest trace of it, has ever once permeated my actual life.
So much so that when somebody was concerned about all the drama I'm handling, I didn't even know what was happening.
And I'm pretty plugged into feedback, and even I didn't know what was happening.
So... Here's the way I think of it.
I think of all this drama as chemical reactions happening in these skulls of strangers who are not in the room with me.
That's it. But the other reframe is that it brings energy to what I do.
And if people hate me more, it's probably because I'm hitting on something important.
Either good or bad. And generally speaking, you can use energy to your advantage if you know how.
And I'm kind of an energy monster, as I like to say.
So energy is generally a positive thing.
So when I heard that there was drama, I said to myself, oh, that's good.
I wonder how I can use that.
Here's everything that's wrong with modern families.
I'm going to be looking for an amen.
Amen. I'm going to say something so true that you're going to feel God.
And you're going to say, Amen, brother.
Or something like that.
It seems to me that in the old days, the family unit spent more time together, wouldn't you say?
Especially if they had to work on the farm or they couldn't watch TV, etc.
So I think we went from a time, even when I grew up, it was dinner time, all of us had to be there at 5pm, no exceptions.
And wouldn't you say...
That there are two things that have happened recently that make a big difference.
Number one, the electronics and the phones.
And how often does your kid ignore you by having earbuds or headphones on?
So you know now that the percentage of time that you have any interaction with a kid over the age of 12 is decreasing.
Now, they also have...
It's a bigger deal, I think, today to go play with their friends, hang out with their friends.
And so they're either gone, they're behind their bedroom door, they're asleep, they're at school, or they have their headphones on.
Now, here's the thing that's going to...
Well, I haven't even gotten to the amen...
Haven't even gotten to it.
So with that model, which unfortunately pretty much all parents allow...
Now I know some of you are saying, I don't allow my kid to have the headphones on, blah, blah.
So I know some of you maybe are going ballistic on it and maybe even making some difference.
But for most people...
The percentage of time that you spend actually interacting in any meaningful way with a child over the age of, say, 12, is shrinking and shrinking and shrinking for a variety of different reasons until maybe it's five minutes a day.
I don't think that's unusual.
I'll bet there's a ton of people, parents, who have five minutes or less actual time with a kid in a day over the age of 12.
All right? Now, even if you're driving them places, which you spend a lot of time doing, you know, they have their headphones on or they're doing something else or you're paying attention to something else.
So here's the problem.
During the course of a day, do you not build up a number of things which you must say to a child to correct them, to tell them to do something differently?
Am I right? And those things that they're doing wrong are usually dangerous, right?
Or very unproductive, or they're a big problem.
Or there's something you want to stop before it becomes a big problem.
So... Oh, fuck you.
Get out of here. So, now you've got your interaction with your kid down to five minutes, and the only thing that you have time to talk about is what they fucked up.
Am I right? Okay. I got five minutes with you, kid.
I know I'm not even going to see you.
It's going to be hard to see you the rest of the day.
So in this five minutes, the only thing I'm going to talk about is the thing you fucked up.
And does a kid ever fuck up?
Yeah, they're kids. They do stuff wrong continually because they're kids.
Right? It's part of the process.
So what happens when every time you see your kid, all they get is a negative feedback?
That's all they get. Weeks and weeks and weeks, every time you see them, you have to tell them the thing that they need to stop doing, because it's top priority.
But then all your time is gone, and there's no positive anything.
I believe parents are teaching kids to hate them.
No matter how small a reward is or a penalty, if you continually reinforce it, if you're always penalized for a contact, you will avoid that contact and you'll be trained to hate it.
Let me give you an example.
Who do I love more than my dog?
I mean, I love my dog, right?
That's probably true of everybody.
Everybody loves their dog. Okay, wife.
But everybody loves their dog, right?
I've known my dog much longer than I've known most people.
But because I have a busy schedule, the main interaction I have with my dog on some days is her getting in my way to beg to go out or beg for food.
Now, she gets plenty of food and she gets to go out.
I'm not the only one who takes her out.
But there are sometimes a week in a row when the only interaction I have with my dog is her making me anxious because she's unhappy.
And so she's trained me over time to hate her.
Now, let me be careful.
I love her. That's not going to change.
But I hate seeing her.
She actually trained me. The dog trained me to hate seeing the sign of her.
I walk around the corner, and I'm going to get, let's say, a beverage because I'm thirsty.
And the dog literally blocks me, all nervous, because she thinks I'm going to walk out the door without her.
And now, because I'm connected to my dog, I get this, oh, shit, I'm making my dog unhappy, which makes me unhappy.
So I have continual interaction with my dog that makes me hate her.
But I love her. Don't get me wrong.
I love her. But she's trained me to hate her.
Every interaction. Now think about it in your own life.
This is one of those things you probably never think about.
But are you giving somebody a penalty or a treat in each interaction?
If you're giving them a treat, you're training them to like you.
If you're giving them a penalty, no matter how tiny, no matter how small, you're training them to hate you.
Just be aware of it.
Just know that you're accidentally training the people in your life, and they're training you accidentally, and you need to get out of that cycle, unless you want to be there for some reason.
All right, how many of you dislike George Soros?
George Soros, anybody?
Anybody dislike him?
For funding organizations which fund things that you don't like, usually.
However, just to make things interesting, Soros is very anti-China's leadership at the moment.
I just did a video in which he's accusing China's Xi as being the greatest threat to the open society.
And he thinks that they're going to have an economic debacle, largely because of the real estate market collapsing.
And that Omicron variant might be his undoing, President Xi's, during his prestige Olympics.
Now, when Soros starts going hard at something...
Apparently, he's effective.
I mean, that's why so many people dislike him in the United States, because they think he's too effective, and you don't like the things he's doing.
But when he's going after China, China's leadership, not the country, I don't hate him as much.
I didn't know what to think of him, honestly.
I'm a little bit confused about the whole Soros thing, so I guess that's my opinion of him, is that I, like you, I don't like some of the things that he's funding, but I don't know exactly what's going on with him.
It's a little bit confusing to me.
Because I don't get from him bad intentions.
Like, I'm not getting that vibe.
I know some of you are, and I worry about that.
I worry that you have that feeling.
But everything he says and where his money is going doesn't look like a guy with bad intentions.
It does look like some of that money went to places that didn't make things better.
The prosecutors, for example, is the obvious example.
But I don't know. The whole Soros thing is confusing.
Because it doesn't make any sense that he'd be doing it to make money because he's already given away most of his fortune.
A person who's giving away, and already has, most of his billions, the majority of it is already given away.
The majority of it.
Whatever he's doing, he's not in it for the money.
You don't give away three-quarters of your...
It's not for the power.
He's almost dead.
He's like 90-whatever.
The last thing he cares about is acquiring power.
I guarantee it. He would have no interest in that.
So I don't know. I don't know.
He's an enigma.
But as long as he hates China's leadership, I think that's a good sign.
Now, an interesting thing happened in Virginia recently.
The new governor there, Youngkin, he's meeting fire with fire, and he's established a CRT tip line.
So if anybody sees critical race theory being taught in the Virginia school, they can call it the tip line.
Now, what's funny about it is that this is clearly just a, I don't know, it's like a popular response to the fact that there are other tip lines that go the other way.
And so I think the fact that there's a tip line is a little bit of a poke in the eye to the other team, but it's also kind of funny.
Now, I saw Geraldo having a strong opinion about this, basically anti-tip line.
That the whole tip line idea is just too creepy?
And I have some empathy for that opinion.
By the way, I love Geraldo.
I'm probably the biggest Geraldo fan.
Let me take a minute to say something positive about Geraldo.
You might notice that I like to call out people who have talent stacks.
They've assembled different talents that really work well together.
Geraldo has one of the best talent stacks you'll ever see.
He's an attorney, so he's got the legal stuff.
He's done a talk show.
He's done war correspondence.
He does no political commentary.
You know, he's posed without his shirt at the age of 70, whatever, and showed that he's very fit.
So he obviously knows fitness.
So he knows fitness.
There's a whole bunch of stuff he knows.
And he's assembled it all.
And one of his superpowers, the one I like the most, is his inability to be embarrassed.
Have you ever noticed that?
Geraldo has a Herculean ability to not be embarrassed.
And the best example yet was Al Capone's vault.
I love Geraldo because there was nothing in that frickin' vault.
I love that. I thought it was a good idea to make a whole thing about what's in the vault.
And then when it turned out to be basically nothing, it was this big embarrassing thing and everybody would make fun of Geraldo forever for the vault.
But I'm pretty sure he just laughed about it.
Whenever I see him reacting to anything, he just seems to think it's funny.
Then likewise, when he posed within his shirt...
You know, in his 70s, people mocked him mercilessly.
In fact, on locals, that shirtless selfie just went by.
Because, you know, whenever he comes up.
And I don't think he's embarrassed about that at all.
Nor should he be. Nor should he be because he actually is in great shape for his age, which was the point.
So, if you could assemble the talent that he has...
And then you could also add to it the complete freedom from other people shaming him into acting a certain way.
I mean, even in politics, he's not cleanly a Democrat or a Republican, right?
And that takes a lot of balls for what he's doing.
Harold is probably the ballsiest guy in the business.
Yeah, that makes him very likable.
So there's something very honest about About the whole way he does everything.
I mean, it's show business, so, you know, there's always a veneer of show business on it.
But somehow it just comes across as super likable.
I think he's also a real good fit on the five.
He's a big personality, and I like him.
Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson are in the news because, you know, most things have to go through a filter of what did Joe Rogan say about it.
But this is kind of embarrassing because remember yesterday I was telling you there was this fake news by Reuters that there was an ivermectin phase 3 trial that made it look like ivermectin was working in a phase 3 clinical trial, but that wasn't real.
The only thing they know is it works in a test tube against Omicron.
And ivermectin also worked in a test tube Against, I think, Delta and Alpha.
So were you surprised that it also worked in a test tube for Omicron?
Now, that part should be not surprising to anybody who has a little bit of knowledge about the whole thing that's going on with ivermectin.
Now, it turns out that there are a whole bunch of things...
That will be antiviral in a test tube.
But they don't work at all in people.
That's the most common situation.
The most common situation is it works in a test tube, but it doesn't work in people.
So the news was the most common news.
It worked in a test tube.
They're trying it in people, but they don't know yet.
So there was no news at all.
It was basically fake news.
Unfortunately, Joe Rogan retweeted it.
Uncritically. Now, I would say that's fair within his brand, meaning that he's now established himself as, I'm not the guy that's going to tell you what's true and what's not.
I'm going to tell you what's interesting, and I'm going to, you know, as best I can, show you both sides.
So I think he's given himself the freedom that he can retweet that.
And then Jordan Peterson retweeted the Joe Rogan tweet with a big hmm, which unfortunately made it look like he was believing that the fake news was real.
And Jordan Peterson has a little less defense, right?
Because Peterson's, you know, a scientist, basically.
Is that fair? Yeah.
Or would you say an academic who's been involved in science enough that he knows it forward and backwards?
So the only thing I can say is I wish they hadn't retweeted it.
I just wish they hadn't.
Because I want them both to have the highest possible credibility, and I think this worked against their credibility, and also misled the public.
Because a lot of people will see their tweets and say, well, there it is.
There's that proof I was waiting for on ivermectin.
And remember, the entire claim against them, the entire claim is that they're spreading misinformation.
And then as soon as you had this really the best response I've seen to a public outrage was the Joe Rogan video, which a lot of people had good things to say about it, including me.
So they kind of had this bad public relations situation, Joe Rogan mostly.
And then he does this amazing escape, almost like an MMA fighter with a good move.
It's like, oh, it looks like they've got him down for the count now, and Spotify is under pressure, and then suddenly he does this judo move, and then he's on top again.
Well, okay. That was well done, well executed.
The moment he's back on top, he retweets this ivermectin fake story.
Now, just to be clear, I'm not saying that ivermectin works or doesn't.
That has nothing to do with the story.
I'm saying that the news that he reported was definitely fake news, which is unrelated to whether ivermectin works or not.
So, oh, this couldn't have been worse timing.
I guess the only reason I'm even talking about it is because it personally made me...
I don't know.
I guess we all have some investment in both of these people.
I'll speak for myself, I guess.
I guess I have some investment in both Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson because I like what they do and I like to see more of it.
Anyway, that was Suboptimal.
Um... So, Larry Elder has a video which I tweeted out today.
It took me a while to find the time to look at it, but it is really interesting.
And it's about Black Lives Matter and sort of an analysis of whether they helped or hurt.
I guess that would be one way to say it.
And there was a white researcher...
Kind of shortening the story to the point of being inaccurate.
But a guy named Zach Kriegman did a bunch of research and wrote a paper in which he was looking at Black Lives Matter and sort of what the outcome was, positive or negative.
And his outcome was...
And I'll just give you some of the highlights.
This is in the Larry Elder video in which he talks about the Zach Kriegman analysis.
And it's really interesting.
Whatever your opinions are on Black Lives Matter, I think this would give you some context that you would appreciate.
Really interesting. So I recommend it.
It's in my Twitter feed today.
So here's some of the things he says.
First of all, police are more likely to shoot black people is false.
The most basic idea of Black Lives Matter, if you look at the data, according to Zach Kriegman, it's opposite.
That the police are more likely to use deadly force against white people, according to the data.
Now, I just got done talking about a study that was bullshit.
I don't know what data we can believe anymore, so I'll do a Joe Rogan and say, take a look at it.
I don't think that his data disagrees with other people, as far as I know.
But if you have other data that says the opposite, send it to me.
All right. So his analysis was that because of the Ferguson effect or the George Floyd effect, if you prefer, that the pressure on police has caused them to sort of back off their most effective policing techniques.
And the result of it would be thousands of extra deaths of black, mostly men, but black citizens.
Thousands. So the net effect of Black Lives Matter is to kill thousands of black people.
And he goes on to give some context to this.
I guess even the Black Lives Matter, there's some website that claims that black people are targeted for demise by police.
Like literally the statement that police are hunting or targeting black citizens.
None of the data supports that.
So here's some numbers. I think this was a recent year.
I forget which one. 2020, maybe.
There were the people who were killed by police.
There were 457 white people killed by police and 243 black people.
But you say to yourself, wait a minute, wait a minute.
Black people are only like 13% of the population.
Are you saying that 50% of the people killed by police were black?
Well, that sounds racist, doesn't it?
That's way more than their representation in the population.
Whereas, even though there are twice as many white people, there are, what, four times or something, four X times as many white people, so that wouldn't make sense.
But here's how many were unarmed, right?
So you probably have to forget about the ones who had a weapon, because the police have to shoot them, right?
But the ones who were unarmed, only 24 white people were killed that year, who were unarmed by police, and 18 black, which is pretty close.
So there were roughly about a few more, but roughly the same number of white and black people were killed by police.
But of course, there are far fewer black people in the country.
Bear with me. I know you're trying to get ahead of me, but just trust me.
I'll get there. I'll get there.
But, as this paper by Zach Kriegman points out, police have to go where the crime is.
And the crime is overwhelmingly in black neighborhoods, unfortunately.
And so, because there's more police where the crime is, and there are more black people where the police are where the crime is, of course there's more interactions, and that explains basically the whole thing.
So, according to this exact guy, 53% of homicide offenses are created by black citizens.
So over half of all homicide crimes are by black citizens who represent only 13% of the public.
And also 60% of robberies are by black citizens who represent 13% of the public.
So you would expect that the police and the black public would have lots more interaction, which would create lots more opportunities for people to be dead.
And apparently, if you follow the data, according to Zach, it shows a clear anti-white bias.
Not a huge one, but a clear one.
The police are more likely to use deadly force on white people, if you adjust for all these differences.
But more likely to use non-deadly force against black citizens.
Do you know what explains that?
What would explain...
Why there would be more non-deadly force against black people, but more deadly force against white people.
Even on a per capita level.
Now his explanation is, and Larry Elder was backing this up, that there's differences in how people resist arrest.
And that it's very clearly culturally slash racially correlated.
So if people treat the police differently, they're going to get different outcomes, aren't they?
So I've never seen anybody question that, that different cultures slash races, which are highly correlated, that there's just a difference in how they respond to police.
Now, do you think that in a high-crime neighbourhood that people respond to police the same as in a low-crime neighbourhood?
Well, I doubt it, right?
Just the fact that you're in a high-crime area, probably, no matter who's there, white or black, Or anybody else.
If it's a high crime neighborhood, you're probably going to get more resisting arrest, right?
Who would disagree with that?
Nobody. So the fact that, unfortunately, the high crime areas are black would necessarily, logically, mean that you're going to get more resisting arrest, therefore more violence.
But apparently the fact that there's less deadly violence suggests that police are actually trying to resist Using deadly force.
They're trying to get things under control without deadly force.
There are apparently 8,000 roughly black people murdered by other black people in this country every year.
8,000?
That is a huge number.
That is shocking.
And the fact that that's not the headline...
Like, I mean, the fact that we can't even treat that like that should be important.
This is the very opposite of black lives matter, isn't it?
This is literally saying black lives don't matter, because what really matters is punishing those white people.
Black lives matter morphed into punishing white people matters.
That's all it is. Punishing white people matters.
But if you wanted to help black people, you'd do something...
I mean, all of your attention would be where the problem is.
8,000 black murders a year?
It's not the police.
Police are getting 24.
All right. And, of course, you know that people on the left are terribly uninformed.
So in a survey, when liberals, who are very liberal, were asked how many black people are killed by police every year, a lot of them believed it's more than 1,000.
At a time when it was 11.
And a minority of those people, liberals, believe that over 10,000 black people a year are being slain by police.
10,000. The real number was 11.
And the number of white people was more than that.
So, and then I think the...
It might have been either Larry's opinion, or I'm not sure if it was Zach's opinion or Larry's.
I took bad notes.
But part of the explanation of why we're getting such bad information and why the media is essentially aiding and abetting BLM's completely backwards messaging that's killing people is that the people who report it don't have to deal with the consequences.
Now, I don't know if that's the whole story, but you can reasonably say that people who don't have to deal with consequences are not concerned with things.
That's fair to say.
So how many of these elite reporters and CNN reporters and everything else, how many of them go back to the inner-city, dangerous place and have to deal with any of these problems?
None. None. They go back to their nice penthouse or whatever, and they can make up any story they want as long as it gets them clicks.
And so between Black Lives Matter being, as we've learned recently, apparently a fraudulent financial scam to some extent, and the fact that it didn't accomplish anything it was supposed to do, it accomplished exactly the opposite, made black people less safe.
This is the biggest failure of anything I've ever seen, probably.
All right. That, ladies and gentlemen, was all I saw in the news.
You know, there's one thing I realized.
I heard Mark Cuban say this years ago, and at the time he said it, I thought, well, that can't be right.
And what he said was that he uses Twitter instead of going to the news sites.
That if you want to know what the news is, it's just faster to get it on Twitter.
Because Twitter is, you know, immediate.
You might have to wait for a news story.
Twitter has, you know, every side of the story.
The news might not.
And he said this years ago.
It was several years ago he said it.
And I remember thinking, nah, nah.
And then today I did an entire live stream in which I talked about the news the entire time.
And I realized just at the end I didn't look at any news sites.
Literally everything I looked at was just on Twitter and something linked to Twitter.
All reporters use Twitter at this point, it seems like.
All right. What is it that I missed?
Did I miss any big stories?
Can somebody tell me, are the Olympics on right now?
All right. I'm seeing some...
The Olympics start on this week.
Is anybody going to watch it?
I only want to see no's here.
I mean, you're free people.
You can do whatever you want, of course.
But I would hope that you're not going to watch the Omicron Olympics.
China's great embarrassment.
Let's call it the great embarrassment.
The year of shame.
Yeah. China's year of shame.
Xi shame. President Xi shame.
All right. It's the year of the tiger.
Okay. Yes.
Why do we have Olympics?
You know, Olympics are sort of a pre-internet idea, aren't they?
Don't you think? Yeah.
It seems like the whole point of the Olympics is to cross-pollinate your publics so that you don't want to go to war.
I mean, that's sort of like the whole idea, right?
You know, get enough cross-pollinization in a positive way that you don't feel as much like the other is an outsider and you have to kill them.
But now we have the Internet.
That's a total pre-Internet idea is the Olympics.
We just don't need it anymore. Let's just get rid of it.
All right. The NBC, CCP. All right, I got nothing else.
I'm pretty sure this is the most exciting live stream you'll ever see in your life.
And I'll be back tomorrow.
And today, I would like to see your tweets on being maskless.
Can you do that for me?
Maskless tweets, anybody?
And I'll try to finish up the anxiety Michael lesson today.
