Episode 1748 Scott Adams: Headlines And A Beverage Sip Because We Like Doing That
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Chinese drone mothership
3D printing drones
Amber Heard's sister testifies
Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act
Was Keith Raniere set up?
100 groups advocate lower Fentanyl penalties
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Well, good morning everybody, and welcome to, finally, back on regular time zone.
Coffee with Scott Adams is the best thing that's ever happened to you in a long time.
Yeah. And if you'd like to take it up a notch, and I know you do, because that's the kind of people you are, would you settle for second best?
No, no, you're not that kind of people.
You're the kind of people who want to take it up a level and all you need is...
A cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice, a stein, a canteen, a jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it's the best thing that's ever happened to you.
It happens now. Go! Well, as you might know, I returned from a week in Hawaii.
I was trying to do a little writer's getaway.
Now, many of you enjoy vacations.
How many of you enjoy vacations in the comments?
Do you enjoy vacations?
I don't really know what that's like exactly, but I hear people love them.
Now, for the past 33 years, which is really the only time I've had enough money to take a vacation, I've also been working too hard to take a vacation.
So I don't know if I've ever taken one where I wasn't also working.
So this was a working vacation.
In fact, it was the only reason I did it.
I went away for a week just to get away from just the distractions of being home.
Let me show you what I came back to.
So after my nice, relaxing...
But I worked all week, but it was still relaxing.
My relaxing time in an ideal place...
I come back to my house, and you should know that my home has a feature in the front lawn.
There's this very old and beautiful stone oak.
It's a really interesting, gigantic tree.
It's sort of the main feature of the house.
And by main feature of the house, I mean that it's laying across the lawn right now.
So the main visual feature of my home collapsed yesterday morning.
I was laying across my lawn.
I was just, you know, dead.
So that is the primary visual appeal of my house.
Just went away. But I went into my man cave after being gone a week and missing my man cave, and I said to myself, you know, I really want to relax.
Which is what you do in the man cave.
And so I was relaxing in there until I saw that I wasn't alone in the man cave.
I had a little friend.
Can you see him? That was behind my chair as I was trying to relax.
Do you know... If you're trying to relax and you see a California kingsnake coiling through your garage by your feet, well, maybe five feet away from my feet, it doesn't put you in a relaxed mode.
Let me just say that.
If I could summarize the feeling that I had at that moment, it was, if this were relaxed, it would be somewhere over here.
Different. Kind of a gap between those two concepts.
Now, what some of you know that I did not know at the moment This is a good snake.
It actually is non-venomous, and people are happy to see him because they chase away dangerous snakes.
They eat other snakes. I guess that's why they're called the King California Snake.
So the good news is, totally safe.
I don't have to do anything about it.
I just let him out, and he was fine.
It was kind of beautiful, frankly.
But wow, was that a creepy, scary-looking thing.
Wow! So that's what I came back to.
Yeah, Wi-Fi didn't work.
Oh, it was a mess. But we're back at it.
Let's talk about the news.
China just announced, or I guess gave some publicity too, it's China Drone Mothership.
So they've created a vessel which carries 50 drones.
Now, 50 sounds like either a lot of drones or not many drones, depending on what kind of drones they are.
But something tells me these are the good kind.
Like the really expensive kind that maybe don't come back.
I don't know. Do they come back?
I'm not sure if they come back and land on the ship or how many of these are meant to be suicide attack drones.
But a mother ship with 50 drones, it looks like that's going to be the future of naval warfare.
Actually, the future of all warfare is just going to be drones.
It's just going to be all drones.
I'm thinking about reading...
My book, The Religion War, that I wrote in 2003 or whatever it was.
And it's about a future when basically it's all drones.
I'm thinking of reading that because I never signed away the audio rights for that book.
So I might just read it into the locals' platform if I get a chance.
All right. Here's a question I asked.
Did you know that a 3D printer Can make 90% of the parts for a 3D printer.
That's right. You can get a 3D printer to make most of another 3D printer.
Now, I think it's probably the electronics that's the part you'd have to buy.
But if you didn't have a shortage of the chip part, which we probably do, by the way, but if you didn't, I ask this hypothetical question.
Somebody says it's the print head.
Yeah, so maybe some parts you can't quite do yet.
But 90% of it you can do.
Although I suspect that the 10% you can't do is the important part.
You know, the really vital part.
And the part you can do is probably the case.
But if you could do 90% of that, I ask this question.
How long would it take if you had one printer, one 3D printer, and your goal was to make drones, the small ones?
So apparently you could make almost all of the parts, 90% again, of a drone.
And it's a drone that would be good enough to be part of a military operation.
So it could drop a grenade, for example, or do reconnaissance, that sort of thing.
And so the question I asked is, and of course they could be suicide drones, so I asked how long would it take if you just had one 3D printer, but you had no shortage of the 10% stuff that was coming in, how long would it take for it to make extra printers, And then those extra printers make drones.
If you had lots of space and lots of money, which the U.S. military could certainly have, right?
And it's one of those fascinating situations because on day two, you might not even have a second printer, right?
But on day three, you'd have close to three of them.
And then the three of them would be creating, each of them, a new printer apiece.
So, do you know the famous mental experiment where you take a penny and put it on a checkerboard in the corner?
And then you say, okay, I'll double the penny in each subsequent box, so the second one is two cents.
Then 4 cents, 8 cents, 16.
And your common sense says, well, by the time this keeps doubling all the way around the checkerboard, that one cent could turn into thousands of dollars, right?
That's what your common sense is telling you.
Or maybe hundreds. Maybe your common sense would say, wow, this is going up so fast that by the time we get to the end of the checkerboard, it could be hundreds or thousands of dollars from just that one penny.
And then you find out it's like a gazillion trillion.
You're so far off.
You are so far off guessing what will happen when you double stuff that many times.
You're just not even close, right?
It's not hundreds. It's not thousands.
It's a tri-jillion-gillion or something.
So that's what would happen with the 3D printers.
It would start off slow.
A printer makes another printer, makes another printer.
But by the 30th day, You could probably be producing 500 drones a day.
Now, what could Ukraine do with 500 drones that were suicide drones per day?
Now, of course, there are real-world limitations for everything, so you can't just do this.
But interestingly, you could very quickly scale up, if you could get the other 10% for both the printer and the drones, To massive scale in a month or two.
Fairly massive. So just an interesting thing to think about.
So the reason I bring this up is I have a hypothesis that somewhere in the United States there is a massive drone factory that you haven't heard of and that has spun up in the last six months.
What do you think? Because doesn't it seem as though there should be some super-secret drone factory that we put together in the last six months to just massively create drones for Ukraine?
Probably. But I think the problem is that they can't get the parts.
So even if you had the factory, you'd still be limited with chips and stuff, I think.
I heard somebody say that the US has been trying to compete with China on drones.
Is it DJI? Is that the big drone company out of China?
I think they have a massive market share.
And I saw somebody speculate that the US didn't have the technical skill to make these drones.
To which I said, what?
Of course we do.
Are you serious? I'm sure we have more technical skill to make drones than China does.
If China is dominating the market, it's because of price.
Am I right? That's the only reason they would dominate the market.
They wouldn't have better drones, would they?
I mean, I don't think so.
So I've got a feeling that we'll find out about a giant secret drone-making facility.
Someday. Speaking of stuff like that, so Biden...
I thought I saw a headline that said Biden is using that Wartime Production Act to make baby formula.
To which I say, wasn't that like...
Didn't Joel Pollack suggest that like a week or two ago?
I feel like that's an idea that under the Trump administration would have been a 24-hour turnaround.
Am I wrong? Under the Trump administration, I actually watched this in person.
I watched an idea go from, hey, this is a good idea, to actually an executive order in, like, maybe 48 hours.
I've actually seen it done under Trump.
And how long have we known this baby formula thing was going to be a problem?
I mean, Biden has yet another thing to explain.
I mean, there might be some logical reason or something, but this could not look worse.
I've never seen an administration fail this hard, have you?
In your memory, have you ever seen an administration fail this hard?
I guess the left would have said it was Trump.
But even the left is...
I can tell you that as of yesterday, yesterday I talked to a lifelong Republican.
I won't give you the context, but it was a lifelong...
I'm sorry, a lifelong Democrat who just said he's voting all Republican from now on.
Lifelong Democrat, yep, voting Republican from now on.
And I'm not going to tell you what demographic he was, but it wasn't the one you expect.
I'll just say that. It wasn't the one you expect.
So I don't know what's going to happen in the next elections, but I cannot imagine.
Oh, and right. Did I talk about this?
I think I said yesterday that Elon Musk said he would vote Republican from now on because the Democrats have become the party of division and hate or something.
Oh, my God. That is quite a thing to say.
Which is why he's Elon Musk and you're not.
Is he the best tweeter now?
If Trump were still tweeting, I'd say there are basically only two people in that stratosphere.
But now that Trump is off, I think Musk is the top tweeter by far.
Somebody says, yeah, I think by far.
Now, how many of you remember that Elon Musk came out of the PayPal, that was an original startup, that he was on there with several people?
And I wonder if they were to have a PayPal reunion now?
Yeah, Peter Thiel is there.
I wonder if they were to have a reunion now, that they would have something to talk about politically.
That would be pretty interesting.
All right. Gas prices.
I keep hearing people say, my God, the gas prices are up to over $4 now.
To which I say, can I get some of that $4 gas?
Will somebody sell me some $4 gas?
Because our gas is way over $6 for premium.
So when I fill up, it's over $6 a gallon now.
I mean, not that you're feeling sorry for me, but just as a marker of the times.
And all of this is self-inflicted by Democrats, is it not?
It is completely self-inflicted.
All predictable. All completely known that if you do this, you're going to get this.
And did they not slow walk us right into the situation?
Because it looks like it. It looks like they slow-walked us with intention into shortages.
Now, I hear people say some people want the shortages, and, you know, it's part of their radical agenda.
I've never heard from anybody like that, so I'm a little skeptical anybody really believes that, but who knows?
All right, so it's an all-time new high again, gas.
How do Democrats get elected under these conditions?
I don't know. Here's my provocative thought for the day.
If the founders of this country, the ones who put together the original Constitution, if they knew that 3D printers were coming, would they have given us a constitutional right to own them, like guns?
What do you think?
If the founders knew that 3D printers were coming, Would they have put, like the Second Amendment, would they put an amendment in there to say that citizens can own them and that the government cannot monopolize them?
I feel like they would have.
I mean, there's no way to know.
But think about it.
There's a reason they put that gun one in there.
Right? Now...
You could argue that the gun thing is always going to be special.
That's a special case.
But if you're going to be defending yourself...
I'd rather have a 3D printer than a gun.
If you had a 3D printer...
And I'm saying high-end, so really we're still talking about the future.
In the future, you'll be able to print a proper gun.
You can already do it, but I'm talking about a real proper gun.
You could make a gun...
That would kill somebody.
But I mean like a real weapon.
Like a serious weapon.
Not sort of a toy.
I feel as if the stuff that the 3D printers can make at the moment are more of a novelty than an actual weapon.
They fire, sure.
But it's more like killing somebody in a special case.
It's not really a weapon weapon.
So, I would expect that 3D printers will be illegal for citizens to own if they are above a certain level.
Let me ask you this.
Would it be legal for a citizen to own a printing press capable of making U.S. currency that is indistinguishable from the real thing?
Would that be legal?
I'm assuming no.
Somebody says yes, that would be legal.
Now, is it because the paper is the real trick?
So they can just control how you make the paper or something.
Yeah, you need the right paper, exactly.
But couldn't you also bleach existing currency?
Or did they take that away?
Because it used to be you used to bleach an old, like a dollar bill and then turn it into a 20 or something.
Yeah. All right.
So, yeah, I would expect 3D printers will be illegal at the high end someday.
And you wonder how could they possibly control that?
And I'm thinking they'll probably control it in much of the way that they control copyright.
Which means that they would do it imprecisely.
You could still get away with it, but it might not be worth the risk.
All right. Ex-President George W. Bush was giving a speech, and he said this tragically.
He said, quote, the decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq...
I mean Ukraine. Ukraine.
So, yes, there was a leader once who authorized a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq, but who was that?
Who was that? Oh, yeah.
George W. Bush. Well, there's more...
More drama coming out of the Amber Turd trial that Johnny Depp, according to witnesses, especially Amber Turd's sister, Turd 2.
No, Amber Turd's sister, we don't have any reason to dislike her.
But she was the most direct witness to say that he observed Johnny Depp hitting her sister repeatedly in the face while holding her hair.
Now, do you believe that?
Because do you have any siblings?
Does anybody have a sibling?
Would you witness a sibling being punched in the face by anybody and then say, well, you know, that's your business.
I don't think I want to get involved.
Can you even imagine that?
First of all, if you saw a sibling getting punched in the face, you wouldn't get in the fight?
Seriously? Like, you wouldn't be right there punching the fucking shit out of Johnny Depp if you saw that happening?
Like, who wouldn't do that?
So there's something about the sister's testimony that's not quite striking me as believable.
Now, I hope it's not true, because it sounds horrible.
And if it's true, of course, Johnny Depp needs to be responsible for his actions.
We don't know the context, but I can't imagine any context where that would be appropriate.
Even self-defense, it didn't sound like it was even self-defense, really.
So, I got a question about that.
So then you've got a few other witnesses testifying on her behalf, but some of those were contradicted by other people.
So, what do you think is true?
Based on...
What would you say at this point?
Do you believe that they were violent to each other, or that one of them was primarily the violent one?
What do you think? Because we have to...
Well, we don't have to, but we're judging it from afar, based on evidence that's being presented...
Well, there's no doubt that Johnny Depp had a substance use situation.
I was just reading Eric's comment there on YouTube.
Alright. I don't know.
I think if I had to cast my vote right now, I would say that...
Here's a question I would ask.
Has Johnny Depp ever been accused of hitting anybody else?
Don't you feel that's a valid question under these circumstances?
Now, that would not prove that he did or did not do anything with Amber Heard, but wouldn't you like to know that?
Because if I heard that he had ever done this with another woman...
I would be inclined to think he did it this time, too.
You know, assuming that I believe the original story.
If there were two stories that were weirdly similar, that would be pretty believable.
But I don't know that that's an evidence, nor could it be.
Do we think that would even be legal to bring that in as a context?
I don't know how that works.
Can you do that? So here's a question for you.
If Amber...
If her actions were so outrageous that she was causing an inebriated Johnny Depp to feel that he needed to hit her...
Again, there's no excuse.
So violence cannot be condoned under any circumstance.
So if it sounds like I'm defending an abuser, that's the opposite of what's happening.
So don't take that interpretation.
But at some point...
Poking the bear is wrong too, right?
There is some level of provocation which will cause anybody to do anything.
Let me just put it that way.
You take it out of the context of domestic abuse.
Just take it completely out of that context.
There is some amount of provocation that will make anybody do anything.
And we sort of treat it like that doesn't matter.
I feel like it does.
Maybe that's why you have jury trials, so they can take into consideration stuff like that.
Well, it seems that the so-called Ministry of Truth is being disbanded.
The public ran it out of town.
So what was it called?
The Disinformation Board?
And they were going to tell you what was true and what wasn't?
Well, it got so, so much pushback.
Rightfully so, that they disbanded it, and the woman who was in charge of it resigned, and they're not going to do that anymore.
So no more so-called ministry of truth.
In totally unrelated news, I don't even know why I bring this up at this point, but...
We've got a new thing. So we lost the so-called Ministry of Truth.
That's just what people were calling it.
But we've got this new thing.
The Democrats, maybe.
It passed the House, but not yet the Senate.
It's called the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act.
So that passed the House yesterday.
And it's created to, quote, assess the threat posed by white supremacists and neo-Nazis.
Huh. So it's a good thing they got rid of that...
Ministry of Truth, because we were afraid that they might use it politically to target people on the other side.
Because if one side is in charge of the truth, and what is true and what is not, well, it feels like that could be used politically, which is why people ran that idea out of town.
But now we have this new thing, which is some kind of an upgrade, apparently.
So they'll have a group that's just looking to identify the white supremacists and neo-Nazis among us.
I wonder what could go wrong.
Do you think, oh, maybe it could get a little political?
Do you think maybe that these were two attempts to hunt Republicans, and one of them wasn't aggressive enough because it was just talking about it, but the other one was actually to label some Americans white supremacists and neo-Nazis?
And I wonder, do you think anybody who's not quite one of those things could ever be dragged into that conversation?
And do you think that maybe just being a Republican...
And maybe, let's say maybe you went someplace and had your photo taken and you didn't know exactly the reputation of the person you were with.
Are you a neo-Nazi now?
If you had your photo taken with somebody who has those leanings?
I don't know. So if you were the, let's say it gets passed by the Senate, I have a feeling it won't be, but if it did, who do you think they're going to call white supremacists and neo-Nazis?
They've called pretty much all Republicans, white supremacists and neo-Nazis, have they not?
Do you see any problem with that?
Do you remember my prediction that everybody mocked me for when I said that if Biden is elected, Republicans will be hunted?
And people said, oh God, you've really jumped the shark.
This one, they're not going to hunt Republicans.
Nothing like that's going to happen.
Except the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act might be a little bit, maybe aggressive in who they determine is a neo-Nazi and a white supremacist.
What ideology do you think would get you identified as a white supremacist?
What would be an example?
Let's say somebody was very strong on border security.
And let's say that their reasoning Was that they didn't want the culture of the country to change.
This is not my opinion I'm giving.
I'm talking about some person, right?
So there's some person who's strong on border security, and their reasoning is they don't want the character or culture of the country to change in a, let's say, in an unguided way, in a random way that's determined by other people, basically. What would they be?
They'd be a white supremacist, wouldn't they?
Wouldn't they? Because that would be somebody who is targeting people of color and wanting to disadvantage them relative to what the situation could have been, which is they all get to come in.
So if you're a white Republican and you've got a public stand that is bad for people of color, not Americans, but people of color who would like to get into America, how is that not a white supremacist, according to Democrats?
This is some really sketchy stuff here.
I was on vacation last week, somebody asked me.
But I did my live streams just at the wrong, different times most of the time.
All right. Well, fortunately, we can trust Democrats to do the right thing.
Which brings me to a Rasmussen poll, which asked, how likely is it that the Clinton campaign officials acted illegally during the 2016 presidential election?
And that number is 55% now.
So a majority of Americans believe that the top Democrat powers, the Clinton campaign at the time, acted illegally and basically rigged the election.
But, you know, even though 55% of them think that the Democrats are rotten at the top, I'm really looking forward to this new group that's going to determine which ones of us are neo-Nazis and white supremacists.
I don't see a problem there.
So, do you remember the story of Keith Ranieri and NXIVM and the alleged sex cult that was a subgroup of some of the same people?
And Keith Ranieri got convicted, and he's in prison now, but he's claiming, and there's some expert testimony that backs up the claim with evidence, that he was framed...
Framed by the law enforcement, basically.
I think FBI is being accused.
Now, I don't have an opinion, because how would I know, of whether Keith Ranieri was framed or not.
But, in the context of today's news, and what you've seen lately, who is more credible?
The FBI, Or a person incarcerated and accused of terrible crimes and found guilty by a jury of his peers?
Which one is more credible in 2022?
It's a tie. It's a tie.
He's got a story about being set up to which I say, there was a time I would have said, well, that's ridiculous.
I'll just go with law enforcement on this one.
But not anymore. Not anymore.
Now, I'm not saying he's innocent.
How would I know? Who knows?
But I'll just say the credibility of the accusers and the credibility of the accused are now roughly the same.
Roughly the same. So, good job, government.
Well, in case I'm all being all negative today, the Democrats have done a number of bad things.
But thank goodness they're stopping the fentanyl traffic into this country.
No, they're not.
No, they're not.
It turns out that fentanyl overdoses and other overdoses are an all-time high.
I saw the Wall Street Journal had some opinion piece speculating that the lockdowns were a cause of the greater addictions.
How many of you accept that as true?
Just on its face.
So we don't have a study of that.
Because it did turn out that overdoses spiked at exactly that right time.
How many of you think that the lockdowns caused more overdose deaths?
I'd say...
very likely.
But I'm not quite ready to say yes.
Because here's the variable which is not...
Maybe not in play. How much fentanyl came in?
How many extra things that didn't have fentanyl in them got fentanyl added to them?
Was there any change in the way fentanyl was made or produced to make it more deadly?
So I would be asking lots of questions about whether the product itself changed or evolved or got worse.
I wouldn't necessarily say that the only reason is because there was a lockdown, although the timing is pretty suspicious.
And our common sense tells us it's likely.
I think that the Biden administration, they started with this Ministry of Truth, and now they've got this other Republican hunting organization going on there, hunting and tagging Republicans.
But I think what they really needed was they should create a new ministry.
So I'd like to see the Biden administration create the ministry of not doing a fucking thing about fentanyl because that would be racist.
Because apparently the big pushback is that there are over 100 groups...
Who are advocating for lower fentanyl dealer sentences because sentencing people for fentanyl would be racist because you'd get more people of color presumably arrested.
So if that's their point of view and it seems that the administration is influenced by that then why not just create the ministry of not doing a fucking thing about fentanyl because that would be racist.
Let's just label it what it is.
If that's their argument, if they're not going to do a fucking thing, about 100,000 people dying every year, if they're not going to do a fucking thing, just create a department to not do a fucking thing.
Just own it. Just fucking own it.
That's all I'm asking for. It's okay to do nothing.
Well, it's not okay, but if you're going to do nothing, just own it.
Don't do nothing and tell me you're doing something, because you're not.
Do nothing and then just create a whole worthless fucking piece of bureaucracy to brag to everybody how nothing you're fucking doing.
Some of you might know I have a little bit of an attitude about this fentanyl situation.
Maybe you've heard.
Wow. If I were a single-issue voter, this would be my single issue.
All right. Some of you have asked, why is the Russian ruble doing well and the dollars not as well as the ruble, apparently?
And I saw a great thread by Aslak Berg, who seems to know what he's talking about, and he explains it simply this way.
Russia can support the ruble by just telling people that they have to pay them in rubles.
Say, you can buy our oil, but you're going to have to convert your money to rubles first because we're only going to take rubles.
And as long as people want to buy their oil and energy in general, then the ruble will stay high because there's an artificial demand for it.
But the sanctions against Russia are more about their imports.
So the sanctions about them selling things are not as aggressive at the moment.
It would probably take a long time for people to get alternate sources of energy, etc.
So they can't really close down Russia's exports right away.
But we're apparently trying to cripple them, we meaning the people in charge of sanctions, by limiting what comes in.
Now eventually, if you limited all their imports, you would close down their exports too.
So if you stop their imports, that will eventually get to everything.
Because they won't be able to build a new refinery, they won't be able to repair something that breaks.
Eventually it would shut down the whole country because they don't make chips and stuff enough in Russia.
So does that make sense?
That the reason that Russia's ruble is good is that we're not doing much about what they're selling, but we're doing a lot about what they're buying.
And that doesn't have as much impact on the ruble.
How about that for a simple economic explanation?
Did that clear anything up for you?
Or did that just confuse you?
I'm seeing no plausible...
Well, the plausible part is right.
I mean, I'm pretty sure that the explanation is right.
About the minion plushie at the top shelf?
Somebody's asking about my minion.
Well, it's not a plushie. It's ceramic.
But it was just a gag gift at one point.
I just liked it. All right.
So I think that cleared that up for you.
Glad to help. And I offer this following test so that we might all know once and for all, and again, I don't care because we're past it, but do masks work?
And I have a specific way to test it that I don't know has been tested, but maybe you've seen it.
It goes like this. In my way of thinking, we all know that masks do not stop viruses from spreading.
Would you all agree? Everybody on the same page?
We do know that masks do not stop the spread.
Everybody? Now, we don't know if it slows it down.
Some say yes, some say no.
But we do know it didn't really show up in the high-level numbers, right?
There's nobody who used masks and just masks and got rid of the virus.
So I think you're all on the same page.
Especially the regular masks.
Let's not talk about M95s.
We're talking about the public, regular masks.
We all agree that regular masks allow a virus to spread and you can get it.
Everybody's on the same page on that.
But number two, this is the part that I always talk about that nobody does, which is I thought we knew that the degree or the quantity of virus you initially get makes a difference for your survival.
Am I right? Now, I don't know that that's been debunked, and so my hypothesis is this.
If masks worked, and I'm going to put worked in quotes, because I'm not talking about stopping infection, because I don't think it did, or at least in a significant way.
But, in theory, you would have a high-level infection, just like everybody else, if you wore masks, but your death rate would be noticeably lower.
So if you looked at the ratio of infections to deaths, it should be better where there are masks and less good where the masking compliance is less.
What do you think? Now, again, I'm not telling you that masks worked or didn't work.
I'm suggesting a way to study it that I think would be conclusive.
And I don't know that that's been studied.
Because we keep conflating do they stop infections with do they work, and they're not the same question.
Do you get that? If you say do masks stop infections, no.
But that's not the same as do masks work in some functional way that you wish you had one.
I don't know the answer to that.
Now, to be clear, because I've been misinterpreted a number of times, I absolutely am against mask mandates.
And I can't imagine wearing one again myself.
So I'm completely against it because the social cost is too high.
And we didn't see enough of a difference in the top-level numbers.
So I'm completely against it.
But wouldn't you like to know?
I mean, really? Now, South Korea versus California wouldn't work.
And the reason is that South Korea can't be compared to anybody Who didn't have really good testing.
So South Korea's secret was testing, they say.
You know, they would also say that masks worked, but really it was probably testing, and then obesity was part of the issue as well.
All right.
Did I leave anything out?
Is there any topic that you wish I had mentioned?
And are you glad that as many people got infected as they did?
In a sense. Because I think the United States is done, and other countries are because we had enough natural infection.
But the countries that didn't have the natural infection might be in trouble.
Although they've got Omicron now, so it won't be that big a deal.
Nuclear. Yeah, there's nothing new on nuclear, is there?
Any update on the...
Yes, did you see the Rasmussen tweet?
The Rasmussen Twitter account, and there's some suggestion there might be some suppression going on.
But I retweeted it this morning, so you can see it in either Rasmussen's feed or in my feed.
But there is one individual who allegedly, we know his name and address, and he allegedly Went to multiple drop boxes and left from multiple non-profit agencies.
So he would be an example of the very thing that 2,000 Mules wants to prove, which is that they have the names of somebody who is an actual person who went to multiple boxes.
And apparently the allegation is that nobody wants to talk to him.
Like, the press is completely uninterested.
I don't know. I think I'm going to go with I don't believe anything about anything with this story.
So I don't believe that we know or that we have any way to know if an election is rigged.
Because we don't do complete audits.
It's just not a thing. So if you don't do a complete audit, you can't ever know.
You can only know you didn't find a problem.
But I also don't believe any accusation.
Now, do you remember when there were first accusations about the improprieties in the election?
Do you remember a prediction I made at the very beginning of trying to see if anything sketchy happened in the 2020 election?
At the very beginning, I said at least 95% of everything you hear as an allegation will be false.
Does anybody remember me saying that?
That 95% of everything people say happened in the election will be debunked.
And there we are.
I would say 95% of the claims were debunked.
The Venezuelan general voting machine stuff, there's no evidence of that.
But does it mean anything if 95% of the allegations are debunked?
Well, not if the other 5% turn out to be true.
It doesn't take much, does it?
It only takes one, you know, one actual real thing to change an election.
Yeah, and maybe there was a little bit of everything, as somebody says.
We don't know the degree...
You have to assume that there's always a little bit of chicanery in every election.
You just never know how much.
Yeah, we haven't been talking about droning the Mexican cartels enough.
Now, how many people think that Trump was crazy for talking about droning the laboratories or the cartels' headquarters or whatever they were in Mexico?
How many think that's just crazy?
How many think that that idea came from me?
Because I'm pretty sure I'm the only public figure who said that before you heard that Trump had also heard it.
Does anybody think that came from me?
Because I was the only one saying it, I'm pretty sure.
Now, that doesn't mean he didn't come up with the idea on his own, because it's sort of obvious.
I mean, it's the question you would ask.
And by the way, one of the reasons I could never be president Is because I could never survive the brainstorming conversations taken out of context.
Because I would do exactly what Trump is getting in trouble for all the time.
I would throw ideas that had not yet been on the table.
So I would say, well, can we just kill that person?
And then somebody would say, no, don't do that.
And I'd say, okay. And then I'd say, well, should we just nuke that thing?
And then people would say, no, no, no, you can't use nukes.
Here are all the good reasons. And I'd say, yeah, those are good reasons.
But I would throw out all kinds of crazy shit just to see how people would respond to it.
And that would tell me something.
I would know if they had ruled something out by reflex or if they really thought about it.
So when Trump throws out ideas like, can't we just lob a drone in and take out the cartels?
I say, that's good presidenting.
That is good presidenting.
He asked the question, and he asked it of exactly the right person, and then when that person gave him an answer, which apparently was sufficient, then he didn't do it.
So it's reported as some kind of wild, crazy, reckless thing that Trump did, and I'm listening to it and I'm thinking, well, you just gave an example of perfect presidenting.
That was perfect. He asked the question that should have been asked.
That absolutely should have been asked.
He got the answer from an expert.
He took that into consideration, and that's the way we went.
Perfect president. And it's reported as some kind of flaw.
Of course. Oh, Trump told Oz to claim victory.
Do we have another one of those?
Did Oz...
He did... Didn't he win?
Is that still in question?
The Oz primary?
Oh, it went to a runoff?
Interesting. So he told them to claim victory.
Well, why not? Isn't that just standard procedure?
To claim...
Oh, yes, now there's talk about monkeypox, a variant of the bubonic plague.
Madagascar has got a case of it or something.
So, yeah, monkeypox...
Can't wait for the monkeypox to come.
I feel like there's something else coming, don't you?
Alright, and there was a case in Connecticut, somebody says?
Yeah, who was having sex with the monkey is what I want to know.
And was the monkey attractive?
These are the questions we want to know.
Monkeypox, yeah, okay, I'm not even going to say that out loud.
Uh... Ladies and gentlemen, let me ask you this following provocative question.
It has been over...
How long has it been since people got their first vaccinations?
A year and a half?
Is it a year and a half since the first people got vaccinated?
And it would be maybe two years since the first people in the trials got vaccinated, right?
Something like that. So somebody says 13 months, but closer to 18 months or two years.
So the question is this.
Would we be seeing the effects of the vaccination itself, because all vaccinations have risks, right?
So nobody's saying there's no risk.
But would we be seeing 80% of it?
Now, if you said not necessarily, you're correct, right?
So the correct answer is not necessarily.
Can we all agree on that?
The correct answer is not necessarily.
Maybe much later.
But statistically, and based on what we've seen with every other kind of drug, would you say there's an 80% chance that we have enough information Already.
We don't know, to your point, which I accept, you don't know what the future brings.
You can't say, oh, we're done.
Everything we know now is everything.
Not that. So I'm trying to be fair and balanced here.
But how many years would you have to wait...
Before you would be willing to say, well, it looks like the vaccination itself wasn't a problem.
Suppose we went five years, suppose, and that the initial studies about the risks of the vaccine essentially helped.
That what we believed as we entered the trial was largely what we got five years later.
Somebody says ten years.
Do you think that the difference between five and ten years...
It's statistically important.
Here's my assumption, but I would need somebody who's an expert to back me up on this.
My opinion is that in five years, you would be at something like 99% certainty.
And at 10 years, closer to 100.
You never get to 100.
But that's what it feels like.
It feels like the first one year, you know almost everything you need to know in one year.
But, you know, this vaccine is not like other vaccines, so maybe it's different.
But after five years?
I feel like five years would get you well over a 90% certainty.
But, again, can you use the past to predict what would happen with this mRNA technology?
And the answer is, eh, maybe not.
But, wouldn't that be true for all of the vaccines?
That every one is a one-off.
There's always something different about it.
That's why it's a different vaccine.
So isn't it always true that you don't know for sure if that one year or five years is going to tell you everything you need to know?
You never really know. But I'm going to...
So you all know that I was against vaccine mandates, right?
And I didn't get the additional boosters.
I got the first one because that was part of the first set.
But I didn't get any additional boosters.
Don't plan to. So I determined that the reason that people think that I was pro-mask and pro-vaccine is one tweet.
Because when I challenged people why they think my view was the opposite of what it was, they produced one tweet.
And the tweet was this.
It was after I got vaccinated, I said that if you're not vaccinated, you're in a pandemic, and if you are vaccinated, it's just Tuesday.
And apparently people interpreted that as a pro-vaccination stand.
Was it? Let me say it again.
So the tweet was, if you're unvaccinated, you're in a pandemic, and if you're vaccinated, It's just Tuesday.
Is that pro-vaccine?
What do you think? I'm seeing yeses.
Some noes, but I think I primed you too much for that.
I think yes would be a reasonable answer, but it wasn't what I was thinking.
So, do you enjoy it when I admit I was wrong?
Anybody? Does anybody enjoy it when I confess completely that I was wrong?
You like it. So the tweet didn't communicate what I hoped it would communicate.
And therefore, it was a very bad tweet.
So that's on me. So I'm going to say that the public's interpretation of my opinion was polluted by me.
So I did that myself.
Let me tell you what the tweet was supposed to say.
It was supposed to say how I felt.
That's it. And I assumed other people felt the same.
So what I really meant was the day that I got vaccinated, and remember, this was before things picked up and we went back to some masking.
So the masks were off, and then once I got vaccinated, There wasn't anything else I had to do so I could fly and I didn't have to wear a mask.
So for me, I no longer had to think about the pandemic because I didn't have to put on a mask and I didn't have any restrictions on where I traveled.
So for me, it was over.
But that's not a statement about the vaccination.
That's a statement about I don't have to do anything about the pandemic anymore.
It doesn't need to be part of my mental process.
Now, You can see how I fucked up with the tweet, right?
Does everybody agree that the tweet was a mistake?
You see that, right?
Because we were in such a partisan situation that what I was blind to, and this is completely my mistake, so I'm not trying to hedge this at all.
I'm taking full responsibility.
In the context of people taking sides, That tweet was very poor because it looked like I was taking sides.
Now, I wasn't telling you what to do.
I was just telling you, hey, I'll bet a lot of people feel like I do.
Once you do this, you're done.
Somebody says, stop apologizing.
Fuck you. Fuck you.
Stop apologizing.
Did that sound like an apology?
That was a statement of clarification.
Stop apologizing.
Fuck you. Really.
Just fuck you. All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen...
Consult your physician, somebody says.
Yes. If you were really sorry, you'd look at Peter McCullough.
In all caps, Eddie says.
How many of you think that I need to go read the warnings of...
The rogue doctors.
I'm watching the stats, and those rogue doctors will be proven right or wrong.
And if they're right, I'll definitely be talking about that.
But do you believe that the rogue doctors have been proven right?
Do you think that the current data, at least that's publicly available, do you think that the rogue doctors have been proven right?
I'm saying not yet.
Not yet. Somebody says not yet, not yet.
That's interesting. I thought a lot of you would say yes.
I'm not getting the answers I expected.
So it's funny. There's definitely a difference between the locals platform audience and YouTube.
The locals platform audience are far more likely to be analytically correct.
And it's not an accident, because it's people who largely follow me on that platform, because they like the analytical part, like how to look at it.
You know, not my opinion of what's true or not, but how to look at it.
That's what they tend to like.
Which is a good thing to like.
All right. Somebody says, locals is an echo chamber.
Well, you know...
That has more to do with the business model.
It's meant to be a community of people built around a certain set of ideas.
So, yeah. Calling it an echo chamber is sort of dismissing the fact that it's designed to be that for its benefits.
So you can get the other stuff anywhere else you want.
And it's not like the locals people agree with me all the time.
Let me ask you this.
On the locals' platform, how often do you disagree with me?
Well, it's a lot.
All right. They're not more analytical.
They're more agreeable, somebody says.
No, they're actually more analytical.
They almost always are more likely to see the hidden trap.
So they've been trained to spot the traps.
And the regular public has not, largely.
All the excess deaths above baseline.
I don't believe the numbers.
So you'll see lots of things on Twitter.
Excess baseline deaths.
I have the same opinion of all of it.
It's just not credible.
Some of it might be true, but there's nothing I can believe at this point.
So only time is going to get us a good answer.
Anything you're looking at today...
Let me say this.
If you saw online somebody said baseline deaths were through the roof, and therefore the only explanation has to be the vaccinations themselves, but you're not seeing other entities pick that up, Take something from that.
Sometimes it's because somebody got suppressed.
That's a real thing.
But more often it's because other people looked at it and said, I'm not convinced.
That's what I think. So while I would take it seriously that there are smart people who have found anomalies in the death rates, I take that seriously.
And I would definitely like people to look into it, but I don't know that the story is that everybody's ignoring it.
I feel like the story is other people looked at the data and said, I don't see it.
I feel like that's what's happening.
All right.
Let's not talk about that anymore.
All right.
Did spending $6 trillion for COVID lead to facilitating war in Ukraine?
Did it? What would be the connection there?
Apparently there's a general understanding now that Biden is basically botched the Afghanistan pullout, the baby formula thing.
He didn't act fast enough.
Ukraine is kind of a mess.
He caused inflation. He caused the energy shortages.
He basically caused every problem by his actions, didn't he?
I feel like it. Basically, he literally caused every problem we have, including division.
Right? Everything. Why do people hate Tesla?
Because people hate everything successful.
You know, 40% of the public is going to hate anything that's successful.
By the way, those of you who are saying that the 81 million votes is telling you something, that's not the best argument.
It's not. Because it leaves out the fact that the country is bigger and that people were more interested in voting.
So the whole 81 million votes thing, I don't find that persuasive.
It feels like an analytical mistake.
It just feels like, of course, let me make a prediction.
My prediction is that in 2024, more people will vote than ever before.
Anybody want to take the other side of that bet?
It will be a record number of voters in 2024.
Because people will probably still care, and there will be more people.
That's it. It's a pretty easy prediction.
All right. I guess we'll find out how many Twitter bots there are if Elon Musk gets a hold of the company.
And I think he will.
Yeah, if Trump runs, it will definitely be a record number of votes, both sides.
