Episode 1808 Scott Adams: Apparently, Government Officials Lied To Us About Everything. Surprised?
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Dr. Birx admits in her book that she lied
CNN slanders Ted Cruz today
Why we need permanent wars
CNN J6 propaganda
Synchron's brain neuralink for ALS patients
Trans rights, the final fight for equality?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
You could probably guess why it's called that, and you'd be right.
And that would be yet another victory for your intelligence.
And if you'd like to, take it up a notch.
Who wants to take it up a notch?
Yes, you do. All you do is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice, a canteen jug or glass, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Happens now. Go. Well, I think what we're going to do, I'm starting to settle on a Coffee with Scott Adams mug theme.
But here's the first thing I've decided.
There's going to be two sides.
There's going to be Coffee with Scott Adams on one side and Man Cave with Scott Adams on the other.
Now, it might be the simultaneous sip versus the simultaneous rip, but that might be too insider.
I don't know. It's going to be one of those things.
But we're doing a group designing concept here.
People are sending me ideas.
And so far, I'm kind of liking that one.
Well, let's check in on Scott's big predictions that people said, that's crazy.
And one of them is that people would start reducing the business that they do in China.
Do you know why? What is the phrase that I was saying, oh...
Three years ago? Do you remember a persuasion phrase that I was using about China?
Let's see if anybody uses it.
Too risky. Too risky.
A decouple is something everybody used.
But I said China is too risky for business.
And everybody laughed.
And people said, Scott, people are doing business with China like crazy.
And there's just going to be more of it.
Scott, there's just going to be more of it.
If there's one thing I can tell you, Scott, your prediction is pretty dumb because people are going to be trusting China.
Well, Bloomberg reports today.
And remember, Bloomberg does business in China.
So Bloomberg does have an incentive to say nice things about China.
Am I right? Do you all agree with that?
That Bloomberg does business in China.
And so they're reporting, you would think maybe there's a little influence there to say good things about China.
But apparently they did not hold back on this article, so congratulations for Bloomberg for doing reporting that counters what looks like their own corporate interests are.
Should we call that out?
Right? I'm always criticizing people for being in the tank for one side or not, but let's call that out.
That's worthy of our respect.
What Bloomberg says is that investors are shying away from China because of President Xi's own internal policies, which is a pretty direct criticism, isn't it?
They're actually criticizing Xi by name.
And that's Bloomberg.
So how many of you thought, when I was saying that China is too risky for business, how many of you thought that that...
Did you think that a couple years later it would be common knowledge that China is too risky for business?
How many thought that that was going to happen?
Seriously. Did you really think that the battleship was going to change in two years?
Like somehow it was going to reverse course?
Well, you have much faith.
You have a lot of faith. Now, here's a question you must ask.
Do I coincidentally keep guessing right, or am I causing things to happen?
What do you think?
Because that was a pretty weird guess, wasn't it?
Do you think anybody could have guessed that in two years, I don't know, 50 years of direct line progress would reverse?
That was a pretty gutsy call, wouldn't you say?
Some people think I caused it.
Some people say it just happened.
I mean, probably the pandemic would have happened either way, right?
So maybe it was just the pandemic.
It had nothing to do with me. But isn't that the weirdest guess, though?
Does it seem weird to you that even if I had nothing to do with it, which is a reasonable assumption, it's reasonable to assume I had nothing to do with it, right?
So for those of you who are looking to check my ego, let me say as clearly as possible, I don't see any evidence...
I had anything to do with it.
But what a weird prediction it would be, right?
That's a weird one.
And it's true. It came true.
All right. How many of you remember that when Trump first announced that they were going to do the big push for vaccinations, how many remember that I predicted that the vaccinations would not work?
How many remember that?
Do you remember that? And do you remember the reason I predicted it?
It's because all the people who were knowledgeable about the field said, we've been trying to do this for decades.
Why do you think you're going to do it in a year?
And they were all right.
They were all right. Because that sounded like a pretty good reason to me.
Well, you've been trying for decades.
Wouldn't that be a weird coincidence if this is exactly the time you got it right?
Right? Didn't that seem like a weird coincidence?
We've been trying for decades, but exactly when we need it, that's when we figured it out.
Because that's not really the, you know, the Adam's Law of slow-moving disasters.
This was a fast disaster.
This disaster snuck up on us, sort of.
I mean, Bill Gates warned us.
But... I don't know.
Now, I have to admit...
That when the data came out and it all seemed to indicate that it was preventing people from getting the infection, I actually believed that.
I actually believed it.
Do you know who didn't believe it?
Who did not believe the official stand of the administration and all of our scientists?
Not just our scientists in the United States.
And this is very instructive.
Not just our scientists in the United States, but pretty much, I think, all the scientists in all the industrial countries told us that vaccinations would prevent you from getting reinfected.
It turns out that Dr.
Birx knew that wasn't true all along.
Because she said they knew that people were getting reinfected even when they had natural immunity.
And she said, since the vaccination mimics natural immunity, why would we think that the vaccination would do better than the natural immunity?
To which I say, you fucking cunt.
You didn't tell us that?
You fucking cunt.
I'm sorry, you can demonetize the piss out of me here on YouTube.
We don't have to take that.
You goddamn fucking cunt.
You knew that?
And you didn't say that?
What kind of a public health professional are you?
You piece of shit.
You fuck the country like we've never been fucked.
You ridiculous piece of shit.
Do you know what else Dr.
Birx believed was true?
The drinking bleach hoax.
She actually said she believed that.
She was on the stage when it didn't happen.
She was present when the hoax literally didn't happen and still believed it happened.
What a fucking idiot was in charge of our operation.
Now, her own book admits that she fudged the data because they didn't have good data and that they literally lied to the government and the administration and lied to the public and said that they did it for her own good.
Maybe. Maybe. Maybe.
I don't have any reason to believe that she didn't think it was for her own good.
But I don't know that that forgives it.
Do you? I don't know that that forgives it.
This is a serious crime against the Republic, not necessarily legally.
I don't know about that. But in terms of an offense against the Republic, I don't know if we've seen a bigger one.
I don't think there's any crime involved.
I think it's incompetence and bad judgment, along with bad will, I think.
I mean, but that part would be speculation.
Now, to be fair, Trump let this piece of shit work for him, and that's on him.
Will you accept that?
Trump let her work there.
That's on him. There's no way to shade that.
That's fucking on him.
So now we know that.
And we're coming close to finding out that every bad worry that you had about what was really happening, they were pretty close to what actually was happening.
Your worst suspicions were pretty close.
Amazing. Amazing.
And you have to be a real piece of shit to be in the middle of this and then write a fucking book about it and brag about it.
Am I banned from YouTube yet?
I'm trying to normalize that C word.
I think I can do it.
Let me ask you this. Will I be accused of sexism because I used that word?
I would like to protect myself from charges of sexism for using that word about Dr.
Birx. And I'd like to tell you that Dr.
Fauci, he's a dick.
He's a dick. So we have parity.
Right? Fauci's a dick.
Birx is that other word.
We're equal, right?
Does anybody have a problem with that?
In the comments, do you have a problem with that?
Do you have a problem if I treat the genders equally?
Right? No problem.
Okay. We're both on the same page.
Good. I don't know.
This is pretty offensive, this story.
And if I happen to be offensive in return, it has as much to do with the way she's dealing with it after the fact as it does that what she did was unconscionable, completely immoral and unethical to the deepest level, in my opinion. Now, it's also true.
This is where it gets complicated.
It's also true it might have been the best thing for the country.
And I'm going to say that directly.
I feel like lying to the country, maybe you should have left it to us.
Hold on. Hold on.
Now, what she's accused of doing, among other things, is skewing the data, but also lying about their intentions for a two-week shutdown.
So she actually admits that she never thought two weeks would be enough and that it was a starting bid to get the public a little bit pregnant because if we bought off in the two weeks, then maybe it was easier to extend it than to start off with we're going to close things for six months.
Now, if she believed that closing things for some longer period than two weeks was essential for our survival, or was important anyway, And she believed that was the only way to get it done.
That has to be considered.
That has to be considered.
Because sometimes our public leaders are asked to do things that we're glad we don't have to do.
Sometimes they have to do some ugly things and maybe they're going to take the hit for that if they do it right.
So I'm not going to rule out, I will not rule out that our intentions were correct.
Will you go that far with me?
There's no evidence that she was working for China.
There's no evidence that she was working for Russia.
There's no evidence that she hates America.
If she made a mistake, it was probably well-intentioned.
Can you give me that?
Will we be generous enough to give her that?
I think so. There's no evidence that she didn't have the best interest in the country.
But here's the thing.
If you have my best interest in mind and you lie to me, And you take my right to make a decision away by that lie?
I'm not going to forgive you because it was in my best interest.
Can we agree on that?
Even if it was in my best interest, even if you had good intentions, I'm not going to forgive it.
You took from me my right to decide.
You took from me my right to decide.
Not cool. Not cool even if you did it for my own good.
That's not how it works.
All right. How about my prediction that I got widely mocked for that Republicans would be hunted if Biden got elected?
How's that prediction?
Weirdest prediction, right?
That Republicans would be hunted?
And, you know, it's anecdotal, but it's starting to add up.
There's yet another story in the New York Post about some, I guess, some women who are on a...
Public transit and found out that somebody was a Trump supporter and just attacked her.
Now, maybe they would have attacked her anyway, but the story reports that the Trump supporter part of it was an important part of the story.
Now, have you ever heard of anybody being punched or attacked for being a Biden supporter?
Ever? No.
That's not even a thing.
Zero times that's happened.
Have you ever seen any examples of Republicans who are treated poorly by the public for simply being a Trump supporter?
Yes, you have.
A lot of them. And I would argue that even the January 6th thing is just an ordinary...
It's basically an organized hunt, isn't it?
So of my weirdest predictions that Republicans would be hunted, there's evidence that that's true.
China would be too risky for business, evidence that that's true.
The vaccinations wouldn't work, at least as a vaccination.
They did seem to work as reducing illness.
I got that right, too.
You have to admit that I made some weird, weird predictions that came in, including that Trump would be elected.
The weirdest one I got wrong was that Kamala Harris would be the biggest competitor to Trump.
She did make it to president, which is the weirdest wrong prediction ever.
All right. I can't believe that Dr.
Brooks believed the drinking bleach hoax.
Wouldn't you like to see Republicans have to take the hoax test to be in government?
I mean, actually, literally, if somebody is running for office, they need to take the hoax test.
Because do you want somebody else on a Republican administration who believes one of the hoaxes?
Do you want that person in office?
Anybody who believed one of those hoaxes, especially if they're a Republican, you've got to worry.
You don't have to worry about their judgment.
So here's another...
Oh. Here's a suggestion by Twitter user Angela.
Angela, if you're watching, Angela suggested by Twitter that we have a name for the people who believe in all the hoaxes.
Koi boys. Now, one of the hoaxes was that Trump overfed the koi in Japan.
Correct me if I'm wrong, koi fish is redundant?
Is that right? Because you wouldn't say trout fish.
You just say trout. So koi fish is redundant, yeah.
So just the koi. Now, that was the fake news.
Trump did not overfeed the koi.
But what do you think?
Koi boys? Yeah, the koi boys.
The trouble is the Democrats wouldn't understand the joke.
You know why? Because they don't know it's fake news that they overfed the koi.
I tested that with my Democrat friend.
I said, have you heard of the coy story?
He had not. He had never heard of the coy story.
Okay. Harry Enten on CNN, who's becoming an interesting opinion person, because he's interesting because he's on CNN, but is saying things that are objectively true that are not necessarily good for Democrats.
And so I'm kind of keeping my eye on him.
It seems like he's been freed to speak his actual opinion.
You know, it looks like management is allowing him to say what he thinks is true, as opposed to, it's got to be anti-Trump.
And so today he did an opinion piece in which he was talking about some facts.
The polls showing that the GOP, the Republicans, are picking up support from blacks, Hispanics, Asian, and women.
They've already got everybody else.
That's right. The Republicans are picking up support from the black community, Hispanics, Asian, and women.
And I'm thinking, well, who are we leaving out?
Probably everybody else is going that way, too.
It's basically everybody. How many of you scoffed when I told you that Republicans were going to be, you know, people would eventually figure out that they were Republicans, they just didn't know it?
Sort of the Ronald Reagan thing.
I mean, I probably told you four or five years ago that the black voters in this country would start to move Republican, and everybody laughed at me.
And it's happening.
Black voters are moving Republicans.
For obvious reasons, you know, economics, blah, blah, blah.
Oh, there's a good thank you for that correction.
Somebody made a correction. I should have said they're starting to move conservative, which might include supporting some Republican stuff and people.
So I wouldn't say they're moving Republican so much as they're moving in that direction.
Here's something else that Harry Enten said, that when people were asked about...
Oh, not only are those populations moving toward Republicans, but at the best rate either ever or for decades.
So we're talking about like an all-time best for Republicans picking up black support.
Is that weird?
Imagine what it would be if the entire press were not making hoaxes about racism.
Wouldn't the Republicans just completely be competitive?
It'd be closer to 50-50, wouldn't it?
Because if you were to actually look at the views of black Americans, wouldn't it be closer to 50-50, conservative versus liberal?
On some issues, it's probably completely liberal.
But overall, don't you think it'd be closer to 50-50?
That's just sort of a general impression.
I don't know that that's backed by any data.
Yeah. So I think we'll move toward that, you know, despite the brainwashing.
So according to, also, Harry Unton was saying on the CNN piece, that when asked what the top issue in the country is, fewer than 1% of respondents said coronavirus.
So the government may be looking to, like, re-mask us and put restrictions back on, and the public is so done.
So done. When my county was sort of the last one, I think, in the country, or near the last, to reinstitute masks toward the end of that last cycle in the spring, the mask compliance in stores was just practically ridiculous.
There were no store owners who were enforcing a period of The store owners were just done.
And when the store owners are done, the public's done.
Now, of course, in medical facilities and stuff, people still masked up.
But I think they're still doing that now.
Personally, has anybody else had this experience?
No matter how anti-mask you are, if you go into a medical facility, you just go, oh, hell, you put on your mask.
Anybody have that same experience?
If I go to the grocery store, I might be a rebel.
But if I go to my doctor, I'm going to put on the mask.
Now, why is that? Now, I guess it's because I want my health care.
I don't want to get in a fight, right?
I just don't want to pick a fight.
But, you know, I convince myself it's because they're, you know, immunocompromised people or in greater concentration or something.
Dentists, too, yeah. Well, I guess you've got to take it off the dentist eventually.
But, interesting.
Yeah, I mean, psychologically, I bend to that one when I don't bend to other things as easily.
I'm not sure why. Somebody says it's respect.
Okay, I think that's what it is.
That's exactly what it is. I think that is just respect for the medical profession.
I think you nailed it.
Because I knew there was something that was biasing me toward forgetting the science and just doing what they said in that case.
And I think that's what it is.
I think it's just respect for the medical community.
I'm going to go with that. Anybody else feel that?
That that's the only reason you do it?
It's like, okay, I respect these people.
They're working hard. They sacrificed all the way through the pandemic.
If they want me to put a mask on, I'm putting a fucking mask on.
Just because they want it, right?
So that would be an example of just because they want it, I'm in.
Because they've earned it, right?
There's nobody who worked harder than the medical community.
So if they ask me to put one on, okay.
Because they've earned it. CNN is slandering Ted Cruz today, in my opinion.
So, is slander, in my opinion, when your headline suggests something that's not in the body of the article?
Would you go that far? If the headline is obviously not matching the article, and the headline is making you think something bad happened, and then you read the article, oh, that's not bad.
That's slander, isn't it?
So, here's the headline on CNN. It's an opinion piece, so it says opinion, colon.
I wonder if this is a change.
It's interesting that the CNN labeled it an opinion.
They labeled it an opinion.
Interesting. Like, really boldly, opinion.
Maybe they know that this is not quite...
Not quite on the level here.
So this is Dean Obadiah.
He often does some of the anti-Trump stuff.
And he says that Ted Cruz's stance...
This is just the headline.
Ted Cruz's stance on same-sex marriage raises a huge red flag.
Now, what would you think Ted Cruz's opinion on same-sex marriages is if it, quote, raises a huge red flag?
What would be the way a Democrat would interpret that?
How would a Democrat interpret that Ted Cruz's stance, it's unmentioned what his stance is, but his stance on same-sex marriage raises a huge red flag?
You would assume he's against it.
Same-sex marriage.
What does the article say?
The article doesn't say anything whether he's against it or for it.
It says that he thinks the proper place to have that decided is in the States, maybe.
I think he firmly says it should be in the States.
Now, saying that something should be decided by the States, does that match this headline?
Ted Cruz's stance on same-sex marriage raises a huge red flag.
Well, technically, yes.
Technically, all they're saying is it raises a huge red flag, and I think you could say that's true.
Because it tells you, oh, watch out, the states could change something that you like.
Yeah, okay. But don't you think that it also indicates he's against it?
And I don't see that evidence in the story.
So to me, this looks like slander.
It looks to me like they're clearly trying to indicate something that's not true.
All right. I saw Assange, this is an old quote of his, talking about why we need permanent wars.
And he was talking about Afghanistan.
As a war we didn't want to win and we didn't want to lose, we just wanted to permanently have a war.
He said the reason is to drain money out of the tech elite and put it into more of the military-industrial complex.
Have you ever heard that interpretation?
That the technical elite, you know, the tech company, billionaires and stuff, that they were getting too much money and therefore too much power, and that part of the reasons for a permanent war is that it allows you to raise taxes, tax those people, run it through the military, and make profits for the people who are not getting as rich as the tech people.
I don't know. I feel like that's an over-interpretation of what's happening.
I think the easier interpretation is everybody's doing what looks like their best financial interest.
And this is the way it comes out.
And the people who sell weapons, their best financial interest is to sell more weapons, so of course they're pushing for more wars or permanent wars.
I don't think you have to add that extra incentive that they want to drain the money from some other group.
I mean, that might be what's happening.
But I feel that's over-interpreting it.
It's just people trying to make money any way they can, I think.
So... Alright, let's talk about the January 6th hoax.
This is how CNN is covering it.
Let me give you just how they do the propaganda.
So the current propaganda is that there's a whole bunch of new evidence...
So if you were reading an article on CNN and you didn't have time, you're just skimming it, and you saw there was a whole bunch of new evidence about Trump planning an insurrection, what would you assume?
Wouldn't you assume that there was new evidence?
And then you read the article looking for the new evidence.
And some of the new evidence is that when Trump said...
That he didn't want the metal detectors to be working because he didn't want the crowd to be limited.
He wanted the crowd to be able to go where the crowd could go to protest.
And he said that even if they had weapons, they're not going to hurt him.
Now, how did CNN interpret Trump saying he wants to take down the metal detectors because they're not going to hurt him?
They interpreted it as his secret meaning, his secret mafia talk, is, let him in.
They're going to use those guns to conquer the Capitol.
Now, let me tell you, everything that CNN has been reporting about Trump from the first day he announced was that Trump only cares about what happens to Trump.
Am I right? The single most consistent argument A narrative of Trump is that he only cares about what happens to him.
Do we all accept that?
That he doesn't care about the country, doesn't care about anything.
He only cares about what happens to him.
We are to believe that that's true, right?
And then when CNN reports it and says that when he was talking about the metal detectors, the only thing he cared about the metal detectors was, were they there to hurt him?
In other words, he personalized the metal detectors as being about him.
And then he spoke to it about him.
The most consistent thing that they have told us is the way he thinks.
And then they decided to conclude that even though they've sold us that all he cares about is him, that the one time he clearly said, this is about me, they're not here to hurt me, the one time he explicitly said, this is just about me, how did they interpret it?
It wasn't about him. It was about attacking the Capitol.
The one time, it was absolutely, definitely about him.
He said it exactly in those words.
And they interpreted it as being some other thing.
Now, do you see the pattern yet?
Scott says...
MV here says, Scott is being red-pilled after a lifetime on the left...
Does that sound right?
Does it sound like I'm just now getting red-pilled because of my lifetime on the left?
You are really not paying attention, MV. You should probably never talk in public because you're just embarrassing yourself in front of everybody here.
That is the most ignorant comment you could possibly say about me.
It's like you don't know who I am.
Did you just come here from TikTok?
If you're going to be here, you need to elevate your game a little bit.
Don't just imagine shit and then criticize it.
If you want to find a way to say you're a Democrat without being a Democrat, just say it that way.
I imagined something, and in my imagination it was very disturbing, so therefore you should go to jail because of my imagination.
I imagined bad things, so maybe you should all go to jail.
So the way that the media propagandists play this is Trump will say something.
Let's say I tweeted this earlier.
Trump will say the sky is blue.
And if you're a Trump supporter, you say, well, Trump says the sky is blue.
Yeah, it looks blue. That tracks.
Most people think it's blue.
Trump probably thinks it's blue.
I don't know. Obviously, that's exactly what he means.
Sky is blue. And then CNN will say, when Trump says the sky is blue, what he really means is that he wants to round up all brown people and kill them.
And then you say, that feels like not even close to what he said.
In fact, that is so far from what he said that I don't even know what's happening now.
But the only people who are going to notice they didn't say that are the people who follow the news closely, especially when they see both sides.
What percentage of the country follow the news closely?
Five percent? What would you say?
What percentage of the country follow the news closely, meaning they've at least heard both arguments?
It's less than five.
It's like three tops.
So if CNN gives a headline that says, Trump says the sky is blue, but what he really means is, you know, round up and kill all the people who are brown.
What are people who are low consumers of news going to say?
They're going to believe it. It's on CNN. Oh, it's also on MSNBC. Oh, it's also on NPR. Oh, it's also on ABC. And they're all saying the same thing, that Trump said something horrible, and even if you looked at his actual words, all he said was, the sky is blue.
But everybody's reporting that he literally said different things, or that what he meant in his mind was the worst interpretation of it.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Is not the most obvious interpretation of, they won't hurt me.
Isn't the most obvious interpretation, I'm worried about myself, and even I don't see a problem because Republicans are not here to shoot me.
Did any of that indicate he thought they were going to use their weapons on the Capitol?
To me, it indicates that he doesn't think Republicans bring out weapons unless they have self-defense purposes.
To me, it just sounds like a Republican opinion.
Republicans don't take out their gun unless it's self-defense.
And it didn't look like there was any self-defense going on.
From Trump's point of view, where was the self-defense requirement?
There was no threat.
Why would they take out guns when there was no purpose?
Isn't the most obvious Republican opinion that Republicans use guns when they have a good reason, a legal reason, and they don't use them when they don't?
But Democrats don't know that, so you can just do a headline that suggests the opposite, and that's all they see.
And they're good. Here's what Democrats have to believe at this point to keep their illusion alive.
They have to believe that Trump, the worst manager who ever lived, in their opinion...
So this is for Democrats to keep their opinion consistent.
The worst manager who ever lived...
Who can't keep his mouth shut.
Again, this is Democrat opinion of Trump.
Worst manager ever.
Can't keep his mouth shut.
Spouts off everything.
And yet, managed to plan and execute a failed insurrection without leaving any evidence.
That's what you have to believe if you're a Democrat.
That he did this entire insurrection and they're looking for evidence and they haven't found any.
Can you imagine any scenario in which Trump, in the office of the president, the most watched office there could ever be, that he planned and executed an insurrection and left no evidence?
Now, the evidence they have all suggests another motive.
All of it. It's all consistent with exactly what he said he wanted, which is to delay the certification for an audit.
Because it looked fraudulent.
A lot of the country thought it looked fraudulent.
Wouldn't it be better if the republic knew the election was good?
So if you believe that had they delayed and audited, that Trump would have then said, well, that doesn't count.
I'm overthrowing the country anyway.
That is a big leap.
That is a big leap.
Because there's no evidence that he could have or would have stayed in office.
He had no support. Within his own administration, except for the lawyers who get paid to say whatever you want, he had no support for staying in office if the election said otherwise.
No support. We know that.
That's in evidence now.
So how do you believe...
Somebody says the 2,000 mules thing's made the...
But the trouble is the 2,000 mules thing has not passed the credibility check yet.
It might. It might.
But without video evidence of the same people going over and over to some boxes in some volume that would suggest the larger claim is true, without that, you're right up to a point of having evidence, but you don't quite.
You're almost there.
It's very provocative.
It raises red flags, as everybody says, but it's not there for me.
For me, The Two Thousand Mules goes right up to the line, but does not present evidence.
Now, you could argue what evidence means, because it does present evidence.
Let me modify that.
The movie presents what it interprets as solid evidence.
I look at it and I say, that's evidence, but it's definitely not proof, because you can have evidence of things that turns out not to be true.
So evidence doesn't mean true.
Evidence means you better find out if it's true.
Yes. All right.
So that would be pretty amazing if you did that without leaving any evidence.
So apparently there's a competitor to Neuralink, Elon Musk's company that wants to put a chip in your skull and have it communicate with your brain.
But already, as in this is not the theoretical, this is already happening, or already happened, a company, let's see, so Doctors at Mount Sinai, this is the new company whose name I'll think of in a minute, it's written down here somewhere, Anyway, this new company put some electrodes into blood vessels in the brain of a patient with ALS. So these people were paralyzed, so they couldn't communicate.
And they learned through this device inserted into their brain, I guess.
Yeah, into their brain. They learned to send WhatsApp messages with their mind...
Hello? Successfully.
People who are paralyzed are ordering products on the internet and sending WhatsApp messages with their fucking minds.
Hello? What?
They're sending messages with their minds.
Oh no!
That's amazing.
Now, I don't know what that means.
I don't think it means they think the words and then the words appear, do you?
I think it probably means they're moving a cursor to select letters, probably.
What do you think? I think it's something like that.
But that's just a guess.
I think at some point they'll be able to think words and have them appear.
But I think if you try to think words and have them appear, you have the risk of your naughty thoughts appearing on screen, I suppose.
You wouldn't want my thoughts turned into text.
Can you imagine that?
I'd be like, would you mind picking up some milk?
No, no. Pick up the milk.
Rapid... No, no, no.
You know where that was going.
You don't need any examples.
All right. They'll never tell you what to say, will they?
I wonder if they could also pick up propaganda.
All right, here's something.
How about an app?
Start writing an app today for a technology that doesn't exist yet, which is, it exists, but it's too early.
So I assume that these implants in the brains, whether it's Neuralink or other, would work on apps, right?
Is that a good assumption or no?
That once you have a Neuralink connected to your brain, there's more than one app that will connect to it, am I right?
So you could write an app. Could you not write an app to protect you from propaganda?
I'll bet you could.
I'll bet you could write a Neuralink or whatever company this is.
I should say the name.
Synchron. S-Y-N-C-H-R-O-N. So that's a startup.
Synchron. So...
Already implanted in four patients in Australia.
The side effects are minimal, I guess.
So, could you write an app that would protect the wearer from propaganda?
I say yes.
Do you know how?
You could just have all information on social media tagged by some trusted entity.
Fact checkers are sketchy.
But you could have some entity saying, no, the headline does not match the story.
Suppose you just knew that.
Suppose you're reading a story and you come across a CNN headline, and as you're reading it, your neural link thing is connected to the Internet, it picks up some information that the title of the story doesn't match the content, and it just shows up that way to you.
So you're reading it, and suddenly a tag shows up that says, headline does not match the story.
Wouldn't you love that?
Wouldn't you love that? Now, that would still make you read the story if you wanted to find out what that means.
So you'd still be left to your own devices to determine if it's really propaganda.
But wouldn't you like it flagged?
You know, people say the headline doesn't match the story.
That would be useful. How about you read a story, and then the chip suddenly just gives you this idea.
Wait a minute. I haven't seen the other side.
And that's all it does. You're looking at a story, and it just says, wait a minute, you haven't heard the other argument.
And it just plays that whenever you're looking at a story.
I mean, that would be annoying after a while, but that's what plays in my head.
That's already playing in my head, so I wouldn't even notice.
It's a very slippery slope until the machines control us.
That is correct. I think you can say with some certainty now that the machines will be making our decisions.
I wasn't sure that I could say that with complete certainty, but now I think I can.
So human evolution will get rid of our faulty senses and decision-making.
We will hand off our decision-making to the machines.
That's going to happen.
Now, that doesn't mean that you will be unable to make your own decision.
So I'm not saying you'll be unable.
I'm saying you'll be so persuaded that you won't even really consider it.
In the same way, are CNN users able to see real news?
Well, are they?
Is a CNN viewer able...
To see that they're being propagandized as opposed to informed.
Are they able? You could argue that they have brains and they're educated and that they're able.
But are they? Are they?
Are they really able?
Because the evidence would suggest no.
That the ability to do something is unrelated to whether they actually do it.
Because free will is an illusion.
So it doesn't matter if you're capable of it if you're not going to do it.
So would you be capable of overruling your Apple Watch that tells you to take more steps?
Yes, you're capable.
Are you going to do it?
Are you going to do it?
How many of you have had your, let's say, sport watch or whatever, tell you to take more steps and then you didn't?
That you didn't. I'll bet after a while, every one of you take more steps when your watch tells you to do it.
You might not get enough. You still might be short.
But I'll bet every one of you takes the stairs or does some little thing when your watch tells you you're short.
Could you ignore it?
Now, the people who have ignored it every time have not been hypnotized by it.
But once you become, let's say, acclimated or a habit is formed, you're going to lose the distinction between Is it your choice or the machine's choice?
And I'm here to tell you, absolutely, it's the machine's choice.
In the short run, you won't trust the machine enough.
In the long run, you will. Once you trust the machine to make a better decision than you did, and it usually will, that's it.
That's it. The machine will make the decision and you will accept it.
So yeah, the odds of humans having this free will or this sense of free will, it's really going to come under challenge.
But we're not necessarily going to be worse off.
So what I'm not saying is that this is a dystopian nightmare and we're all going to become soulless machines.
We might just be happier.
We might feel that we have more meaning of life.
We might feel smarter, happier, healthier.
Who knows? I'm not saying any of it's bad.
I'm just saying that there isn't any chance, really there's no chance, that humans will continue to have the agency of making decisions when the machines will be so much better at it.
For us. For our own self-interest.
The machines will do a better job.
So you will use the machine because it will just be so useful.
Let me make an analogy.
Do you remember when smartphones first came out?
How many people said, I'm not going to get a smartphone.
My flip phone does everything I need.
Let me tell you, bud, you get your fancy smartphones, I don't need no fancy smartphones.
Do you know why? Because I've got a thing called free will.
And my free will Says, I'm just going to keep buying a phone that does everything I need it to do.
I don't need your apps.
I don't need your trouble.
Don't bother me with your 4G or 5G. I don't need that.
I just need a flip phone.
Remember, a lot of people said that.
How many people still have a flip phone?
I think you can still buy them, right?
Almost none. It's like 2%, right?
So did the people who thought they were going to use flip phones forever and then, you know, went to the other, is it because they used their willpower and they said, well, actually, there are lots of apps that would be very helpful.
I think I want to use those helpful apps.
Probably not. They just got brainwashed into doing what everybody else was doing.
The technology makes the decisions.
We don't make the decisions.
We're assigned our decisions for most stuff.
Alright. Use a flip phone for Ashley Madison on Tinder.
Good for you. Is there anything that I failed to mention in this amazing live stream the highlight of civilization?
Alright, here's something I wanted to do, and I'm going to do this live without having thought it out.
I'm going to name things that are trending positively, even if only a little bit, meaning the worst may have happened already.
Energy prices.
Trending positively, albeit just a little bit.
Nuclear energy.
Trending positive, quite a bit.
Quite a bit. Decoupling from China?
Moving positively.
Bringing manufacturing back to the US? I think there's a lot happening, actually.
Immigration? This is a tough one.
Because illegal immigration is the highest it's been.
So you'd say, well, that's trending bad.
But remember the context.
We need labour.
We have a labour shortage.
Is unchecked immigration as bad as normal when we need it?
Now, of course, crime and drugs are coming across.
I'm not ignoring it. But it's not what it looks like when you've got an employment problem.
It looks different. Because it's illegal.
I'm not in favor of it.
But we are using it productively.
Otherwise they couldn't come.
Meaning that they would stop coming if they heard that the people coming weren't getting jobs.
Right? This is a cope.
What the fuck would I be coping with?
Somebody says that this is a cope.
That's like the lowest level of political analysis.
That's a cope. That's a cope.
What the hell am I coping with?
I have nothing to cope with.
School choice. School choice is trending positive.
Right? There are a lot of things trending positive, aren't there?
And the things that are not, maybe they don't matter.
How about coronavirus? Is it trending positive?
No, it's not. At the moment, it looks like infections are up.
But the public doesn't care.
So maybe the public is trending positive while the virus is trending up.
Deaths are down, right?
That's trending positive from coronavirus.
Monkeypox, that's more of a wait and see.
How about the economy?
The economy in general?
I think the economy in general...
Is going through a planned slowdown, right?
If you're doing a planned slowdown with a strategic purpose, right?
We're going to lower inflation. If you're doing a planned slowdown, and then you're observing that it's happening, is that trending positively or negatively?
Now, normally you'd say, wait, a slowdown is negative.
But you have to have them.
You can't have a bubble forever.
A bubble forever is, you know, that's just asking for trouble.
So if you're doing a planned slowdown, and it looks like it's happening, that's kind of trending positive.
How about the supply chains?
Shouldn't we have been out of everything by now?
Feels like it, right?
But we're not. I feel like we're not out of everything.
So is that trending positive?
It feels like the number of ships waiting actually has gone down, right?
Give me a fact check.
The number of ships waiting to be unloaded is lower than the peak.
Right? Trending positive.
Technology trending positive.
Our trust of social media is going down.
That's a positive trend. How about Republican popularity?
Or let's say, popularity of non-crazy views.
A year ago, I would say that the crazies were winning.
That the worst ideas were growing in importance.
Today, I would say that the worst ideas are reducing in importance.
Wouldn't you say?
Okay, the trans situation is purely subjective.
In my opinion, it's trending positive.
You would say it's trending negative, right?
That's real subjective.
Here's why I think it's trending positive.
Every time we have another one of these situations where we say, hey, is that group of people...
Whoever it is. Blacks, women.
Hey, that group of people, why can't we still discriminate against them?
How about gays? Can't we still discriminate against them?
Every time we find a new group to say, how about we don't discriminate against them?
Now, the trans is tricky.
Because when you help them, maybe it hurts women.
I get it. I get it. There's a trade-off.
But I feel like civilization arguing over the trans issue, given the small percentage of people involved, That feels like we're at a healthy place.
Because disagreement is not a bad thing.
Am I right? Would you agree with me that disagreement is not a bad thing?
Because that's how everything moves forward.
But this is exactly where we want to be disagreeing.
We want to be so agreed that women should vote.
Remember, these are things that we're not agreed at.
At one point...
Women couldn't vote.
Blacks were slaves and couldn't vote for a long time.
I mean, look where we've gone. And then LGBTQ rights, mostly gay rights, much improved.
If we've gone all the way, all the way through that stuff, and the last thing we're talking about is trans, because it's the hardest one.
It's the hardest one because you can't really balance everybody's interests, you know, just the way you'd want to.
So when I see us arguing about trans, I say, let's give ourselves a pat on the back.
People. People.
If we've gone all the way to, well, of course, everybody's equal gender-wise, and of course everybody's equal color-wise and ethnicity, we've completely dropped those as, you know, of course, gay marriage.
You know, maybe the states should decide, but who's arguing against it, really?
Who's arguing against interracial marriage?
Basically nobody that matters, right?
So you could look at the debate over trans as a negative trend.
Because you say, oh, it's bad for women.
I get your argument. I'm not pushing back about the things you observe.
But just think about the fact that humanity has evolved for, I'm going to say, over 13 billion years, because I include pre-life.
But all of that evolution, and you're alive, you get to be alive, When we go all the way to, let's talk about trans.
Because we've settled everything else.
Everything else is settled.
That's all we have left.
You know what we should be doing?
We should be giving a big fucking party for the trans community.
Do you know why?
Because it's our last fight.
It's our last fight.
We should be smiling over this one.
This is the one where we should be accepting victory, everybody.
Trans should accept victory because we're talking about them, right?
If you're talking about their problem, let's say not problem, if you're talking about the trans situation, you're doing what they want you to do.
So they're feeling some progress.
If you're talking about us, we feel progress.
You know what I feel?
I feel amazing progress.
Because it's our last fight.
And this one's fair.
You know what? This is a fair fight.
Because the discussion about, you know, do you do something that women would consider degrading to women?
Degrading to... Not degrading in terms of humiliation, but degrading in the sense that they're losing something.
That's a discussion to have.
And no matter which way you come down on it, let's agree...
That is a good human discussion.
Human beings should be saying, yeah, we've got these interests, these are people who matter, and then you have these other set of interests, and these people matter too.
So let's talk about it.
Oh my God, we've never been in better shape.
We have never been in better shape than when we're arguing about the trans issue.
That is our pinnacle of best.
I'm not wrong. I'm not wrong.
If you're arguing about trans, pat yourself on the fucking back.
You won. It's the last fight.
It's worth having.
Completely worth having.
And it's special.
It's like the exception finally told us something.
Alright, if that's all you got left, if that's all you got left, you're in good shape.
Somebody else says, no, it's the end of the road for our moral collapse.
Is it? Really?
Let me point to argue against the argument that the trans issue is an indication of our impending moral collapse.
I offer you 100% of everything that's happened up till now.
Every generation believed that they were witnessing the moral collapse of the next generation.
You know that's true.
You know that's true.
Every generation believed they were witnessing the moral collapse.
Yeah, Elvis. Oh, it's all going to collapse now.
You know, my generation was good, but these kids, they got their moral collapse coming.
Now, maybe it's going to be right one of these days.
Somebody said the collapse of Rome.
I don't think Rome had a moral problem.
I don't think that's why it collapsed.
I'm no historian, but I don't think this analogy is telling you anything.
No, I think that we're morally stronger than we've ever been.
Doesn't feel like it, does it?
It's because we're arguing more that the news has us all whipped up.
But morally and ethically, we are at the strongest point in a human civilization, by far.
By far, it's not even close.
Now, we're not close to where we want to be, perhaps, but look where we came from.
My God! Scott still thinks trans kids is fake news.
We'll block you for assigning ridiculous opinions to me.
So when you assign a ridiculous opinion to me, you are hidden from the channel.
Assign an opinion to me that isn't fucking stupid, please.
That would be great.
God can't identify the thing from its opposite.
That's a good comment. So my overall comment is that we can't tell a thing from the opposite of a thing.
So somebody here is saying that the trans is a sign of the end of our moral foundation.
And I'm saying it's a sign that we've done everything right up to that point.
We really, really did get it right up to that point.
And we still got one little thing.
Those are opposites.
That's actually a perfect...
I love that comment. Because think of how many things we're looking at now in the world where we're seeing a thing and its opposite.
Did Trump try to save the republic by, you know, pausing to give an audit of what looked like it could have been a rigged election?
We don't have proof of that.
But... Or was he running an insurrection to take over and he was ignoring democracy?
Those are opposites.
And we can't tell the difference.
Maybe you can. But the public is having trouble distinguishing opposites.
I mean, you couldn't get more opposite than saving the republic versus destroying it.
Those are opposites. And I don't know that we ever were all the way to opposites.
Usually we disagreed on some facts and stuff, but opposites?
This is new.
All right.
After the viral, Bill Murrow said, it's OK to ask questions when children are involved.
I don't know the context of that.
All right, here's another prediction.
Remember at the beginning of the pandemic, I told you that leadership would not show up in the results?
What do you think? I said leadership would not show up in the final results.
Now, New Zealand's got a problem.
China's got a problem. What do you think?
Now, I think you could make an argument that DeSantis' leadership worked.
I'm going to push back against that.
Do you all accept?
This will be fun. There's something that I believe that all Republicans seem to accept that I'm going to call fake.
You believe that DeSantis did a better job protecting the elderly, correct?
You believe that DeSantis did a better job of protecting the elderly, which was the right thing to do, and that Governor Cuomo did a bad job.
Here's what I think.
I think that there were some government officials below the governor level that did a good job in Florida, And there were some people below the governor level in New York that fucked up badly.
And in both cases, the governor gets the blame or the credit.
I don't believe that Governor Cuomo himself ever said, you know what?
Let's put these sick people back in the nursing homes.
Nor do I believe that Governor DeSantis ever had an occasion to look over what was happening and say, wait a minute.
Are you putting these sick people back in nursing homes?
In these homes? Probably they told him.
Probably DeSantis staff said, we're not going to put these people back in those homes.
Here's why. And then DeSantis probably said, I'm getting a fact check on this, so I might be wrong.
DeSantis probably said, I agree with my experts.
Go do what you, you know, go do the right thing.
So here's the question.
Did both of the governors rely on their experts?
Let me boil it down to that question.
And I did a fact check on this because I'm a little murky on some of the details.
Did both governors rely on their experts, their local experts?
If they did, they performed the same.
Right? And do you know that?
Do you know the answer?
If they both believed they were experts and then acted on it, they performed the same, but they got very different outcomes.
Now, I don't know the answer to that, and here's the thing.
You probably don't either, do you?
Do you know if one of them ignored the experts and one of them followed the experts?
I'll bet that didn't happen.
Do you think the experts came to Cuomo and said, look, if you put them back in the nursing homes, it's a disaster?
And then Cuomo said, you know, but I think we should do it anyway.
Why? Why would Cuomo overrule his own experts and say, no, put them in the nursing home?
Why would he do that? I don't know.
But you don't know it either, do you?
Maybe he's a criminal. Somebody says there's a payoff.
I don't know. I don't know.
My guess is that they both had experts and New York had competent people in that area.
They did their thing and it worked out.
New York had somebody incompetent below the governor's level and it didn't work out.
Now, I do agree that the governor gets the credit and the governor gets the blame.
We do have a system where you give credit and blame even if it's not exactly leadership.
So I think the one example that we have...
Where we could say, okay, leadership definitely made a difference in that case.
As soon as you drill down, it disappears.
Because both the leaders acted the same.
They did what their staff told them would work.
Right? So if they did, there's no signal for leadership whatsoever.
So I'm going to maintain that that exception actually proves my point.
That you couldn't see any leadership signal whatsoever.
Right? Now, somebody says you're wrong.
Wrong about what, specifically?
Somebody says, blindly following experts is a lack of leadership.
I will give you that.
Blindly following them is a lack of leadership.
But if it's true that both governors follow them, I mean, that's more of a staff coincidence problem.
One had a good staff, one didn't.
I'm not sure anybody would have known that they were going to get the wrong recommendation, if that's what happened.
Cuomo was clearing hospital beds.
Yeah, I mean, he had a reason for doing what he did.
He had a reason. But what did his experts tell him was the best thing to do?
If he did what his experts told him to do, I don't know.
Now, as Mimi says, you're guessing.
That is correct.
But, Mimi, do you follow my point?
I'm guessing because there's no evidence either way.
I have to guess because I don't know.
If I don't know, then it serves my point that there's no signal for leadership.
You could say there might be If you dug into it, you might find that it was actually the leaders that made the decisions, not the experts.
In which case, I'd say, whoa, okay, surprising.
I would have expected both governors to do whatever their experts told them.
If one of those governors, let's say DeSantis, if he overrode the experts and got it right, well, that's superstar stuff.
But I don't think that happened.
If Cuomo overrode his own experts...
And got it wrong. Well, that's pretty bad.
That's pretty bad. But we don't have that.
That's not an evidence, right?
If it were an evidence, that's different.
So I think that was one of my most unusual predictions, and I've had some unusual ones.
My most unusual one is that evolution would be debunked in scientific terms.
And now we have the simulation theory.
So... Who saw that coming?
I did. Do you remember that I told you at the beginning of the Trump saga in 2015 that he would change more than politics?
I said that Trump would change reality itself.
And then he showed us fake news, and then he changed reality itself.
That's where we are. So...
I'm not going to claim all my predictions have been correct.
There's some notable ones that were wrong.
But would you give me this, that my weirdest predictions, like the ones that just are batshit crazy on the surface, have come true?
The most batshit predictions I've made have actually just come in.
You've got to give me that, because I think that's objectively true.
But a number of, I would say, ordinary predictions.
I predicted who would be the vice president pick for Trump.
I got that wrong. So there are a bunch of things that I got wrong.
But the ones I got wrong were sort of ordinary ones.
You know, the ones that anybody gets wrong.
The weird long-term ones, those are the ones that should tell you something.
Did you predict Michael Schellenberger would win?
No. I predicted that he could do it if anybody could do it.
Predicting a win by anybody but a Democrat in California would be...
That would be a tough prediction.
Yeah, I was optimistic.
I thought things could catch on.
And I thought it was sort of a spark that had a good chance of catching on, but it didn't catch on.
Yeah, and there's just too much inertia for the Democrats.
Yeah, I saw Mike Sernovich's tweet about targeting or the hunting of Republicans.
I always appreciate Mike.
All right. And that, ladies and gentlemen, no, Michelle Obama is not running for president.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I have for today.
I think you would agree.
One of the best podcasts of all time.
If you're listening on Spotify, I've been asked to give a shout-out to you.
So all you other podcast listeners who are not on YouTube, I forget to mention you.
I always forget the podcast because...
That happens after I do this, like it gets turned into a podcast.
I have no idea how many people consume this.
Does anybody know how to figure that out?
Because I don't think podcasts have any real data behind it, right?
There's no way to know how many people watch it.
So I have no idea how many people consume my content.
My guess is 50 to 100,000 per episode.
Closer to 50. You know, 100 would be a special day.