Episode 1821 Scott Adams: Fox Shuns Trump, Depopulation Rumors And More Fun
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Jon Stewart thinks GOP voted anti-Veteran
We need an "ingredients label" for congressional bills
Murdoch newspapers & Fox turned anti-Trump?
CNN Fake News on NC towns police department quitting
Do Democrats want to depopulate the world?
President Biden's COVID rebound
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Shall we? Now, you will be amazed at the following thing that happens.
Watch me remember the simultaneous sip introduction.
All you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tank or gel, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.
And join me now for the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
Go! Alright, well, that was close.
So let's talk about all the cool things that are happening.
Here's something that makes me happy.
There's an Israeli food tech startup called Savor Eat that's making 3D printed pork patties, turkeys, and burgers.
YouTube just keeps going on and off, so there's no point in continuing with that.
Hey, YouTube. For some reason, YouTube just keeps turning on and off, whereas the Locals platform...
Let's see if I can even say this long enough.
It's so unstable, it gives me like 10 seconds shot.
I'm going to shut down the YouTube in a moment, but I wanted to tell them.
Yeah, it's done.
All right, Scott doesn't get paid today.
That's what that means, by the way.
That means that the monetization for today's show is off.
Not that that matters a lot.
But, yes, you did pay.
That's true. You are now my only audience.
That's right. I still have locals, and that's all I need.
Because if YouTube had good technology, they'd be listening to me now.
It's what you've been waiting for, finally.
Alright. So anyway, this Israeli startup, they can 3D print food.
And they can make meat.
Now, don't you think they can make something that tastes like vegetables?
Probably. Probably.
And apparently it's, you know, who knows how healthy it is and how many chemical additives are involved in it.
I don't know. So I'm not going to tell you it's healthy or unhealthy.
But I feel like this is the solution to our food problems.
And what I mean is food cost.
Could you imagine?
Could you imagine?
A 3D printer in your kitchen, that's your only kitchen.
Maybe you've got a sink and garbage and stuff.
But basically, could you imagine only having a 3D printer?
It'd be like a replicator.
Yeah, basically, it's a redneck replicator.
But the thing I complain about is how many times you have to pack and unpack food.
How many times does it change hands, food, any kind of food, before it gets on the shelf?
It goes through all kinds of processing and people and distributors and wholesalers, farmers.
And then it gets to the grocery store.
And then, you know, somebody puts it on the shelf.
I put it in my cart, my cart on the thing, the thing in the car, the car into the counter, the counter into the...
Yeah, basically, it's like...
Probably 12 to 15 times it changes hands, or it goes from one place to another to stage it.
Wouldn't you say? Don't you think food probably changes states, meaning it's in a place, or it's being shipped, or it's being handled?
Probably 15 times before it gets to you.
But imagine if the only thing you had to receive was the fuel for your 3D printer.
And, you know, once a week somebody comes with a bunch of Basically, you know, ink, except it's for your food, and you just print all your food.
How awesome would that be?
Very awesome. All right.
Jon Stewart apparently fell victim to some fake news.
Are you watching that?
So John Stewart's been promoting the burn bill compensation thing.
So the veterans who apparently were injured by being around these burn pits, John Stewart's trying to get them health care funding and stuff.
And I guess that bill was defeated by the GOP. And John Stewart said, You guys voted for this exact bill before, you guys being the Republicans.
But now you say no.
But the real story is it was a fake bill.
It had poison pills and other spending that had nothing to do with it.
So it was a bill designed to screw Republicans or fail.
It only had two states.
None of the states are the ones that Jon Stewart would want.
Where there was a clean bill...
And people passed it.
Nothing like that happened.
What happened was the Democrats made sure that it couldn't be passed, or if it did, it would be bad for the country by throwing in some things that effectively did not get through a government process because they went through the back door.
So, Jon Stewart falling for fake news.
And you would think he would have noticed that the news is fake.
When I heard that the Republicans turned down the burn bill, or in other words, when I heard that the GOP was acting anti-veteran, what was my first thought?
Let's see. I'm looking at the news, and the news is telling me that Republicans are now supportive of veterans.
What are the possible explanations for why this news is what it is?
One, Republicans have completely changed who they are overnight.
Two, it's yet another example of Democrats playing that trick where they put a poison pill into a legitimate bill so that you can't vote on it.
Like you can't possibly approve it.
It's just so ugly by the time you vote on it.
So I'm going to say that...
Jon Stewart is at least one level of awareness below me.
And probably you.
How many of you have the same experience?
When you saw the news that the Republicans had turned down some kind of thing that was good for veterans, how many of you knew it was fake news as soon as you saw it?
Yeah, raise your hand. All of you, right?
Pretty much everybody who watches this live stream knew that was fake news from the jump.
And it's always fake news in the same way, that they threw a poison pill in there, meaning they added some funding for unrelated things that Republicans don't like.
So do you suppose that Jon Stewart is not operating on a level of awareness where he understands that this is fake news?
You're right, he is. I don't know.
Makes me wonder if Jon Stewart was actually fooled by the news, or if he's pretending to be fooled because, I don't know, to make a point or something.
I'm not sure. Well, let me ask you this.
Would you say, collectively, that Joe Biden has been successful with major legislation?
So here's a test to you to see if you fell for fake news.
Let's see if you fell for fake news.
Is Joe Biden, has he been successful in large, let's say major legislation?
Well, here's what CNN's take was, in one opinion piece anyway.
President Joe Biden has scored successes on issues such as infrastructure and gun safety.
So you don't have to like those bills, but just in terms of are they major and are they big issues, yes.
And did he give some legislation passed that he liked?
Apparently yes. So infrastructure and gun safety.
Now this is the Democrat version, right?
And the CHIPS bill.
The CHIPS bill, I think it moves our chip manufacturing back to the United States or promotes that.
So that's good. So those are three pretty big things.
And then he's got this major climate bill that looks like he's got a good chance of passing in the Senate as well.
Wouldn't that be pretty major?
For one term, that would be four fairly substantial bills.
I don't know. I think they can make a compelling case that he's been successful.
At least successful in terms of the Democratic initiatives.
I'm not sure any of those bills are useful.
I have no idea if it's a waste of money or not.
But at least he got what he said he would get.
Chip is a fail because it doesn't help.
Yeah. Most of these things have a title of the bill that is completely misleading to what the bill is.
So if you look at what the bill says it is, what we really need is some kind of truth in labeling, don't you think?
We need a truth in labeling, don't we?
Because these bills are all labeled the opposite of what they are.
And the Congress makes every other product put its ingredients on the label.
Oh, you see where I'm going?
Congress should be forced to put its ingredients on the label.
In other words, what's in the bill?
Including, you know how if you look at the ingredients on a package, it will tell you the good stuff that's in it, protein, vitamin D and stuff, but it'll also tell you how much sugar and fat, right?
So it tells you what's good, and trans fat, so it also tells you what will be bad for you.
It's right there in the package. Why can't Congress...
Let me ask Thomas Massey or Tom Cotton or somebody who's not worthless.
How many people in Congress...
Matt Gaetz. That's a perfect Matt Gaetz topic, isn't it?
Rand Paul. So those are the ones I think would be capable...
Matt Gaetz could do it because he's got nothing to lose and it would be hilarious.
Am I right? Matt Gaetz could do a truth in labeling proposal because he's got nothing to lose and it would be awesome.
You know, he's the most dangerous politician in the country right now.
You know that, right? Matt Gaetz, by far, is the most dangerous in a good or bad way, depending on your point of view.
He's the most dangerous because he can do anything now.
He's been moved to the category of people who are completely free.
There's no constraints on that guy anymore.
He has nothing to lose.
So, if you want somebody to tell the truth in front of the country, you would hire him.
Because it looks like he's willing to do that, and literally nobody else is doing it.
What happened with Matt Gaetz?
Do you remember all that alleged legal trouble that Matt Gaetz was going to be in?
Where's that? Do you remember that accuser?
Never heard from her, did you?
So where is this witness?
And obviously it would be easy to get digital evidence of some crime, right?
So anything that Matt Gaetz did on email or whatever, they probably have that already.
Do you see any charges?
Do you? Was the Matt Gaetz thing entirely bullshit?
Because it looks like it.
It just disappeared. How do things just disappear?
I mean, it looks to me that that was all fake.
Anyway, I'd like to see maybe a Thomas Massey or Rand Paul or Matt Gaetz or somebody who's got some, you know, gonads.
Say Lauren Boebert.
She has more balls than most of the people in Congress.
And I don't care who it is, but somebody just needs to do a...
Somebody needs to do some kind of a truth and labeling thing for the legislation.
Alright, what is your belief about our supply chain and our ports?
Yeah, those are all good names.
What about our supply chain and our ports?
Do you think they're getting better or worse?
I guess they got better in May and June, and I told you that problem might be solved.
But apparently they're backed up again.
Yeah, the reporting disappeared, but the reports are backed up.
Yeah, it's worse on some ports.
There are some ports that don't seem to be terribly impacted.
Ports owned by China?
That's not true, is it?
Is that true? That doesn't feel true, that the ports that are having trouble have some Chinese ownership.
I don't think that's true, is it?
That doesn't sound right.
All right. Here's what I wonder.
Is it because demand is so high?
Is our economy cooking so hard that we just can't deliver all the goods?
It's incompetence, you think.
Yeah. Oh, parts from China are delayed.
Well, but that wouldn't affect the unloading of the ships.
So I guess we've got some question about the reporting on the shipping supply chain.
Here's the other thing I don't know.
Don't you think that by now, and this is just speculation, and it's part of the Adams Law of slow-moving disasters, if you knew there was going to be a long-term supply chain backlog, what ways would you adjust?
I feel like the ways you would adjust is you would unload the most important ships first.
Am I right? Because normally I would imagine, this is just speculation, I would imagine the ships get unloaded first come, first serve.
Does that make sense? Probably.
If everything's fast, you just do first come, first serve.
But if you've got an emergency and there's a backlog, I feel like the most important ones probably go to the front of the line.
What do you think? You know, like if something has microchips in it, don't you think that goes to the front of the line?
Perishables, microchips. Yeah, so it could be that we're not noticing the impact because if you buy some consumer good, it takes two months instead of a week.
But, you know, it's some little consumer good.
It's a toaster. You know, if you buy a toaster, maybe it takes a month to get it.
But if you buy food, it seems to be there.
Right? So it could be that they're doing the important stuff so we don't really notice there's much difference.
And I don't see any reporting on that, do you?
Why am I the first person who is floating the notion that they may have changed their priorities at the port and completely lessened the impact on the public?
Or they didn't, which would be also a gigantic story, right?
If the ports did nothing different and all they did is suffer the problem, well, I'd want to know about that, wouldn't you?
Wouldn't you want to know that they were doing nothing to help the problem?
So, I don't know, the total lack of reporting on this is kind of interesting.
All right, now here's a really interesting situation brewing with Trump and Murdoch.
So my understanding is that various Murdoch-owned entities, they would include the Wall Street Journal and the, which is it, New York Post or Daily News?
It's the New York Post. Yeah, New York Post.
All right, and Fox News.
So the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal have both, at least reportedly, turned anti-Trump.
Can you confirm that?
That's true, right? And the reporting is, and I don't know how reliable this is, right?
I wouldn't assume this is totally reliable because it requires a little bit of mind reading.
But it sounds like the Murdoch family, father and Lachlan, probably the CEO, He seemed to be anti-Trump, and the latest reporting is that Fox News is shunning Trump.
Now, the opinion people are still talking about him, but the network is not having him on, and I think it didn't cover his last speech, which I don't think is a big deal because he's not in office.
But do you think that's true?
Do you think Fox News is going to shun Trump?
So it Yes or no?
I feel like it's going to be a mix.
You know, one of the interesting things about Murdoch is he does allow dissenting voices on his platforms.
Like, you know, I'm not talking about slightly dissenting.
Murdoch does allow a lot of voices on his network.
Now, you could argue maybe more, maybe he's got his thumb on stuff, but I've always noticed that.
Have you? Yeah.
Now, full disclosure, I've published books under an entity at one point that was Murdoch, and I've sort of been associated with that whole Murdoch world.
And my impression was they never tried to censor me, at least in the publishing wing.
Fentanyl and the distribution.
I don't know what that means. Anyway, what happens if Murdoch decides that Trump will not be president while Trump is deciding he's running and going to be president?
Take a vote. Do you think that Murdoch is strong enough to prevent Trump from being president if, let's say, he had the votes?
Oh, you don't think so.
So most of you are saying, we have some yeses, but it looks like the majority of you, maybe at least 75%, are saying...
That you think Trump would have more power than Murdoch?
Hard to say. I do think that taking Trump off the major platforms would have an impact.
You think he transcends media, but you still have to see him.
He's off of Twitter.
If he's off of Twitter and off of Fox News, or even reduced in Fox News to like 50%, how can he win?
Yeah, because most of the country is not on Twitter.
You know, Twitter is smallish if you look at the whole country.
YouTube? Yeah, YouTube?
I don't know. Well, keep an eye on that.
I do think Murdoch could keep Trump out of office.
So, you know, I don't think it's binary.
I don't think, you know, you could say he definitely would or definitely wouldn't.
But I think I think if Murdoch is absolutely set on Trump not being president, I think he can prevent it.
And what country does Murdoch...
What is he a citizen of?
Oh yeah, Australia.
Australia, right? So, correct me if I'm wrong, but an Australian will decide who's president.
Am I wrong? It looks like that's the case.
Because I don't... It seems to me that a Republican can only win if the Republican machine is strongly behind that candidate.
I would think.
And I don't see that the Republican machine would operate unless Murdoch is fully on board.
Yeah. So I think we have another case where a foreign entity is completely controlling our outcomes.
There you go. Why have we never talked about that?
You never hear anybody talk about an Australian billionaire controlling America.
Because it kind of happened, didn't it?
Well, we'll see.
Here's a typical CNN story.
This is from yesterday. I forgot to do it yesterday.
So here's the headline.
And then I'll tell you what the story is.
So the headline says, An entire North Carolina Police Department resigned after a black woman town manager was hired.
And it gets worse.
All of the people who resigned were white.
So the entire...
There were only eight of them. It was a small town.
But the entire North Carolina Police Department resigned after a black woman town manager was hired to be their boss, basically.
So that's pretty bad.
Totally real news?
Oh, let's dig into the details also on CNN. So I'm not going to any other source.
I'm looking at their title, and now I'll look at the details.
The evidence is that the new boss, who happened to be a black woman, made them do a whole bunch of extra work compared to what they used to do.
And they thought it was more than they could handle, and they all quit.
Now, the reason they quit was explicitly specific things that she was doing, which even you could look at from the outside.
Now, there was a CRT. She was just making them do way more than their normal job, basically, or historically more than their normal job.
So it looked like it was just a normal work-related thing.
But then CNN throws in this.
Studies show people in organizations often think, now let's see if you agree with this, racist opinion.
Studies show people in organizations often think black women are more likely to have angry personalities, with studies also suggesting that this negative perception is a unique occurrence for black women.
So in other words, black men do not have this reputation.
It's black women.
So that's what they studied.
So they studied if people in corporations had a negative impression of the anger level of black women, and they threw that in the story.
Now, so the title suggests there's racism, and then the mention of the study is basically talking about racism, except that the content of the story doesn't involve any racism at all.
It's a story about racism wrapped around a story that doesn't have any racism in it.
It's literally just some people quit because their boss sucked.
That's the only thing we know.
Look at that. Oh, look.
Would you like me to change the sky?
Possibly... Possibly I have superpowers.
Watch this. You see the sun behind me?
Watch this. Expand.
Expand. Yeah, I'm making the sun bigger.
Does it feel warmer where you are?
A lot of people don't think I can do this.
And now...
Sun, back to your normal size.
There we go. There we go.
I can do that again.
Sun, grow. Now, back to your normal size.
Yeah. Let's see Don Lemon do that.
Cannot do it. Alright, so here was the question that the Harvard Business Review didn't ask.
The question they did ask is do corporate people think black women in particular are angry or have angry personalities and people said yes.
You know what they didn't ask?
Is there a question missing?
It seems like they may have been doing a little thinking past the sale.
Is there a missing study?
What would be the missing study that would fill in the blanks?
Would the missing study be maybe studying all the different kinds of people and asking them directly questions that would get to whether they are angry?
I'm just going to throw that out there.
Suppose you just surveyed everybody and you developed some questions to determine if each group was happy or angry based on their own input.
So not based on anybody else's input, because that would be racist.
But based on their own opinion of themselves.
What do you think you would find?
Would you find that any group had more anger or angry personalities?
Well, I don't know. I don't know.
And let me ask you this.
If there were any group in the United States that had a good reason to have some anger, can you think of a group that has more legitimate reasons to be pissed off?
They do. Now, you might argue that everybody should feel the same and be treated the same, but I would imagine if you were a black woman, you have a few things to complain about.
Overall, I mean, not every person.
We're not making any blanket statements about people.
I'm just saying that if you were to study averages, and that's what this Harvard Business Review did, is study the average opinion of the corporation.
So we're always talking about the average, right?
It's not about any individual.
Let me ask you, a bunch of racists.
If you've ever done telephone support calls, where you call in to get tech support or customer service, you've probably had the experience of getting a variety of people answering the phone.
Do you have the racist opinion that black women who do customer service have angry personalities?
Go. How racist are you?
Lots of no's, some yes's.
Mostly no's. Yes is?
No? Now remember, we're not talking about each person.
Obviously each person is unique.
We all agree on that.
But do you see any patterns?
No? Interesting.
So you're all over the place. I don't know.
Here's what I think. I think that...
And I've said this before.
Everybody uses the power that's given to them.
That's a general statement you'd probably agree with, right?
If somebody has a lot of money, that's a form of power, and they'd probably use it in ways that increase their power.
And if people have, let's say, physical power, like they're big intimidating people, usually male, but let's say you're like a big intimidating person like Larry Ellison or Something like that.
I've heard that some large males are just physically intimidating, and so that's sort of a power that they can wield over people.
So generally speaking, when people have power, they use it, wouldn't you say?
Is it fair to say that if you have a power, you use it, on average?
So one power that women have, that men don't have, Is that they can go hard at men without worrying about consequences.
Now, of course, there's exceptions and abusive men and stuff, so certainly there are women who can't complain without getting beaten up.
So we're not talking about that.
But generally, in your average marriage, the woman can be a total bitch and get away with it.
Because men will be like, ugh, I don't want to deal with a divorce and losing my children.
Yes, she's a total bitch.
There's nothing I can do about it.
There's absolutely nothing I can do about it.
Then the woman says, well, I could be a total bitch, and nobody's going to change any of my situation.
I'm mad, so I'll be a total bitch.
So, generally speaking, women have a power that men don't have, which is a certain kind of complaining.
You know, men can complain too, but it's not going to make any difference.
When women complain, it's more likely to have some effect, especially in relationships.
Now, add on top of that, any cultural impact, and it seems to me that some groups would just have more power to complain, and everybody uses their power.
So you could make a case, and again, this is just racist speculation probably, but wouldn't you imagine that black women have the most power to complain?
Let me just put that out there.
Would a black woman have the most power in society to complain?
I would say yes.
Because they would be considered among the most discriminated against group.
You know, you've got your black, you've got your woman, you put them together.
You have a reason to have some maybe attitude.
So if somebody has a really good reason for being the way they are, it shouldn't be a surprise that they're that way.
Everybody uses the power they have.
If I had the power of being able to complain about my victimhood and it got me stuff, I'd probably do it.
If that's just the way I could get stuff.
Now it turns out that it wouldn't work for me.
As a white guy, I can complain all day about racism against me.
Well, it doesn't work.
So let me say that again.
The only reason that I'm not an angry personality, and I'm not complaining and bitching and abusing people every time I have a conversation, is because I can't get away with it.
That's it. If I could get away with being an asshole, I probably would drift in that direction.
Most people would.
You drift in the direction of your own power.
So if you happen to be the group that can complain the most, and other people say, yeah, I can see why you would complain the most, well, you can understand how that situation might evolve.
But again, if you're dealing with anecdotal evidence, there's no evidence that black women are more angry personalities, in my opinion.
There's only evidence that people believe it.
Let me say that again. There's no evidence that black women are angry personalities that I'm aware of.
I haven't seen a study that says that.
This study said that people think it's true, which is completely different.
Alright, here's my favorite story.
There were two big game hunters, Lawrence and Bianca Rudolph, and they've been shooting big animals in Africa for years.
They were both in their 60s, I think.
But... In 2016, they were going to try to get a leopard.
I guess the wife wanted to shoot a leopard.
And she was out hunting all day and did not shoot any leopards.
She shot a number of other animals, but no leopard.
But then when they got back to the cabin, when the husband was in a different room, he says, a shotgun went off and it killed the wife.
So she was found dead. Now the husband, Lawrence Rudolph, he's charged with murder, but he says that the gun went off by accident.
Now, I haven't looked into the details of this story, but here's how I would have handled it.
First of all, the top suspects would be the leopards themselves.
So there were no witnesses, and we know that the leopards had a motive.
So if I were the leopards, I would have tried to send his squad of leopards in to shoot this woman and maybe save the other leopards.
If I were the investigators, once I came upon the crime scene, probably what they did is the way they usually handle it.
You know, they clean it up, take pictures, do what they can.
But I would have waited a week.
Just to see if the husband mounted her head on the wall, because that would be evidence of intent.
That's just me. But, you know, if you found her head on the wall a week later, I'd say, I feel like I know what happened now.
That explains a lot. I would like to add on top of that, normally I do not talk about tragic situations that happen to individuals, but if your hobby is shooting mammals and you get your own head blown off, I don't really care.
I don't really care at all.
Oh yeah, if the shotgun blow was in the head, then we could eliminate the husband because he wouldn't have a trophy.
So that would be evidence, too.
So let me be as clear as possible.
If you shoot large mammals for fun, I don't fucking care what happens to you.
I don't care at all. I don't care if you got shot in the back of the head.
I don't care if you suffered and died.
I don't care if the elephants stomp on you.
I don't care if the leopards eat you.
If that's your hobby, it's your own fucking problem.
Right? I don't care.
I have no sympathy whatsoever for Bianca Rudolph.
Fuck her. She can go to hell and rot.
I don't normally say that about people who have tragic accidents, but especially if they might have been murdered, I usually don't condemn the victim.
But fuck this victim.
Fuck her to hell. She can rot.
Alright, that's just my opinion.
How many of you think that I don't know.
Democrats and liberals want to depopulate the world.
You think the Democrats want to depopulate the world?
Do you think Bill Gates wants to depopulate the world?
Here's what I think everybody gets wrong.
There's nobody smart enough to be playing at that level, at the Bill Gates level.
Let's say, imagine the people who are at that level you think are trying to depopulate the world.
So in your opinion, you might put Bill Gates there, you know, Klaus, whatever his name is, Schwab, right?
So all these people, but these are the well-informed elites, wouldn't you say?
Soros? Yeah.
So you would put them in that category of people that you believe want to depopulate the world.
Correct? Correct. Now how do you explain that those billionaires think that we're better off with less population, but Elon Musk, who's also very smart and a billionaire, says that it's essential to have a growing population.
It's not just optional, it's essential.
You need a growing population or else you're really in trouble.
So how could these other billionaires like Klaus Schwab and Gates, how could they be so wrong if Musk is right or vice versa?
Let me tell you what I'm pretty sure is true.
So without knowing, I'm going to make the following assertion.
That Musk and Gates agree on population.
And here's what I mean by that.
I believe that everybody smart thinks that population has to grow to have a healthy world.
Let me say it again.
I believe that everybody above a certain level of awareness and intelligence, everybody, everybody, 100%, above a certain level of awareness, understands that we need a growing population.
Everybody below that level of awareness could be, you know, any opinion.
But above a certain level of knowledge and education, everybody knows it has to grow.
And Bill Gates is above that level, as is Klaus Schwab, as are all the elites.
There are no elites who think the world needs to have less population.
You can't find any who say that.
None. You will find lots of people who think population growth needs...
Bill Maher is not somebody I would consider well-informed on this topic.
Bill Maher continuously makes economic assumptions that I think are under-informed.
I think that's his weakest spot.
Now, I have a very positive opinion of Bill Maher as a public personality and person who talks about the news.
And in my opinion, with the exception of Trump commentary, he's clearly biased.
That's a little bit personal. But generally speaking...
He's telling you his actual opinion.
It's not bullshit. But I don't think he has enough understanding of economics to be good in that realm.
So when he has an economic opinion, it's generally not one I would look to.
Now, if you put Bill Maher in the room with either Elon Musk or Bill Gates, do you think that Bill Maher is operating at the same level of awareness and understanding of the world?
I don't. I don't think it's even close.
If you did an economics test of Bill Maher versus Bill Gates, let's say it's just a standardized test understanding economic principles, Bill Gates would get every question right.
Like every question.
He would understand everything about economics, at least that would be put on the test.
Bill Maher would get a 75% right.
But that 25% he missed is a big deal.
And that's the part I seem to notice when he's got a gap in his understanding.
So yes, there are some people at a lower level of understanding of the world who think that we might be better off with fewer people.
But the thing that you're conflating that makes you think that the smart people who understand economics are also agreeing with Bill Maher, here's what's confusing you.
They do want to control the population.
They do. So Bill Gates definitely wants individuals to have control over their own reproduction, which might have the effect of lessening it in some places.
So they want people to control it, but there's no way that Bill Gates wants the population of the world to shrink.
Would anybody like to make a bet on that?
Would anybody like to make a bet that you will never see a Bill Gates quote and that none exists, there's no Bill Gates quote, About reducing the population of the whole world.
So you'll take that bet?
Now remember, the bet is that you believe he wants fewer people.
I'm saying he wants the growth rate to be more managed.
So he wants more, but at a more manageable way and, you know, that...
It makes sense for the country, right?
Yeah. All right.
Yes, and Bill Maher doesn't understand how technology will improve resource management, and Musk does.
That is exactly correct.
Exactly. Right.
Yeah, I know it causes a lot of trouble when I defend Bill Gates, but keep in mind that I don't defend Bill Gates for a love of Bill Gates.
Whatever he's done in his personal or professional life, that's up to him to explain.
That's not up to me. What I try to work on is how we think about it.
So I'm not defending Bill Gates.
I'm defending accurate thinking.
And I believe that accurate thinking says there's no evidence that anybody as smart as him would ever be on the side of population reduction.
So let me generalize it.
I'm going to generalize it from the Bill Gates because he just, he confuses the question because you have so many opinions about him.
Nobody who understands economics and technology, let's put it that way, nobody has a good understanding of both economics and technology believes that the population should be reduced.
Find me one example and I'll change my mind.
It's got somebody prominent that you could clearly say, okay, this person does understand economics and does understand business, does understand people, does understand all that.
Hitler. Well, Hitler's not...
If Hitler's the best example you have...
Well, let me correct you.
Hitler did not believe in population reduction.
He believed in reducing some kind of people and increasing the kind of people he is.
So even Hitler isn't a good example.
And China is an example of controlled population.
China was trying to not have runaway population growth, but they didn't want it to be negative too hard.
They wanted to slow it until they could Handle it, which is what they did.
So now they've increased the number of kids you can have.
And by China reducing their growth rate, they may have killed themselves in the long run because they've got this demographic bomb.
Now, do you understand why you have to have more people?
Because you can't have a growing number of old people who don't work and a shrinking number of new people who do.
That leads you to a bad situation.
Yeah, Japan has that problem too.
So we don't want the problem of Japan and of China, but the United States never had an overpopulation problem, so we didn't have to deal with that.
Yeah, I do think more old people will work.
That is part of the solution, definitely.
Alright, do you think China will shoot down Pelosi's plane?
Gordon Chang thinks it's possible where he said that.
It's not possible.
I'm the biggest China hawk probably that you've ever seen.
And even I don't think they'll shoot down Nancy Pelosi's jet.
Taiwan on. Yeah.
Alright. Yeah, I don't think that's happened.
I'm not going to worry about it. Alright, that is the slow news day news.
Do you have any interesting questions?
Does it look like Africa?
Yes, I'm intentionally obscuring my face like a witness protection.
Have I ever talked to Penn Jillette about Trump?
Um...
I didn't get to meet and talk to Penn Jillette.
I don't think we ever talked about Trump.
Jim Encounter?
I did not see your post about a Jim Encounter.
Russell Brand?
Oh, I did give Russell Brand's producer some dates for scheduling, but I haven't heard back.
Or at least I have to check back.
Oh, I forgot about Biden getting COVID a second time.
If you're keeping score, Biden has four vaccinations and two COVID infections.
So the score is vaccinations four, COVID two, but I think COVID can come from behind and maybe soon we'll have more infections than there are vaccinations.
Now, how many of you accept the following logic?
That if the vaccinations...
YouTube, if you're watching, don't cancel me over this.
Wait until I get to the end, and you'll be happy.
How many people think the following logic holds?
And it goes like this. If the vaccinations don't stop you from getting it, and they don't stop you from getting it a second time, and it doesn't stop you from transmitting it, Then it doesn't work.
Yes or no? If it doesn't stop you from getting it, it doesn't stop you from transmitting it.
It doesn't work. Somebody says, not as a vaccine.
Okay, fair enough. Define work.
Okay. You know, really this group is, I think, the most sophisticated audience watching the news, honestly.
Because I thought there would be a few more of you agreeing with that, and it makes no sense, right?
If you know that it's reducing the severity of infection, then you would have to make an argument that the side effects from the vaccination are worse than however much it saves you.
Now, I don't know if that's true. Now, if you said to me, I don't believe the studies, and I don't believe that you're reducing more problem than you're causing with any side effects, I don't know that we could believe that.
Oh, did I ask the question wrong, so it looks like they're agreeing to the wrong thing?
Maybe. Well, the discussion that matters is long COVID, And whether the vaccination anecdotal information is telling you anything.
Alright, here's a question I asked just before I got on.
I did a little poll.
Let's see how I did.
We'll see how you do on this poll.
So I did this just before I got on here, so I didn't see any answers yet.
And the answers are...
So I said this.
What does it mean when there...
What does it mean? So you get to interpret this.
What does it mean when there's a mountain of anecdotal evidence on Twitter that shots, the vaccination shots, allegedly caused dozens of different medical problems?
Now here's the important part.
Not medical problems, but dozens of different ones.
So if you were a doctor, how would you process that?
It's anecdotal, so it's not a study.
But there seem to be a lot of them, on Twitter anyway.
But of course Twitter is everybody, In the world, so there are a lot of people that they could notice.
Do you think they're seeing that there are dozens of different medical problems that people are associating with this shot, whether it's proven or not, people are saying that.
Is it a red flag for danger, that there are so many reports?
Would you say it's near proof of danger?
You've seen so many of them that in your mind it's nearly proof, not just a red flag.
Or do you think it's more evidence of a probable mass hysteria?
Or do you think that it's literally nothing?
The fact that there are lots of anecdotal reports, one of the answers could be that it literally means nothing.
Because anecdotal is just anecdotal.
Which of those would you say?
It's a red flag for danger, it's near proof of danger, probable mass hysteria, or literally nothing?
Go. Danger, noise, red flag, nothing, nothing, nothing.
Only one person said, only a few of you are saying hysteria, okay?
So most of you are saying either nothing or a red flag.
You know, I realize my question sucks, because something could be nothing and a red flag at the same time, can't it?
Right? It can be nothing and also a red flag.
So I'm going to add together the red flag for danger and the literally nothings.
And that would be 78% of the people who answered it.
And I think that would be it's correct to put the red flag and the literally nothing together.
Because you've literally proven nothing, but it can still be a red flag of something to look for.
Right? Only 10% said probable mass hysteria, and that is my vote.
My vote is probable mass hysteria.
Do you know why a mass hysteria works?
Because only 10% of the people recognize it.
This is exactly what it looks like.
Here should have been the tip-off that mass hysteria is the probable explanation.
There are too many medical problems being attributed to the vaccinations.
If you told me there are three medical problems that we're seeing all over the place, and it's the same three, then I'd say, whoa, that's a red flag.
Not proof. Not near proof.
Just a red flag.
Look into it. But if you tell me that there are dozens and dozens of different medical problems after the shots, immediately my mind says, that's more...
That's closer to the arc of a mass hysteria.
But it could be complicated, because it could be a red flag plus a mass hysteria.
It could be both.
Because within the dozens and dozens of medical problems people are reporting, there are some that are dominant, right?
The myocarditis, although the myocarditis usually clears up.
But let's say fertility, you know, some impact on that.
There probably is a top three that you really should worry about in terms of a red flag.
Not in terms of proof.
We don't have that. But to me, this looks like at least half mass hysteria.
So whether or not the vaccinations...
So let me summarize this as cleanly as possible, because it's easy to get mischaracterized when you do this kind of topic.
My opinion is it's probably a mix...
All these anecdotal reports are probably a mix of real red flags, meaning you really ought to take it seriously, but most of it is mass hysteria and easily identifiable as so.
Easily identifiable.
In my opinion, the mass hysteria part is obvious, which does not mean you're wrong.
Can you handle that nuance?
If I tell you that most of what you're seeing in the anecdotal reports are just mass hysteria, can you accept that that could be true?
At the same time, there might be enough of these reports that are true that you need to take it seriously.
But I figure probably there are only a few conditions that look credible, and probably there are a whole bunch of other things that are just coincidence.
And the coincidence part is the mass hysteria part.
How do you identify mass hysteria?
The clue is how many different explanations or problems there are.
Yeah, I'm intentionally keeping the camera in a terrible mode because I've got this injury on my lip that looks like monkeypox but isn't.
No, it's not a herpes sore.
I know you're going to say that. I literally burned myself very badly on my lip.
Is Robert Malone correct?
I doubt it.
If I had to place a bet on Dr.
Malone being correct on, let's say, most of his biggest claims, I'd bet against him and I'd feel pretty confident about that.
If you said bet against everything that Malone says that's different from what the mainstream says, I wouldn't take that bet.
I would agree with you.
It's almost certainly true.
Some of the things Malone is saying are valid.
But I think he goes too far.
Call him rogue to discredit him.
Yeah, I do call the rogue doctors rogue to discredit them.
But what I'm doing is discrediting the category for your benefit.
So if I take a specific doctor and say...
That they're presenting themselves as a rogue doctor.
I do mean, I do mean, intentionally, for you to reduce your belief in them.
That's the point. Doesn't mean they're wrong.
If you take that as, I believe that my medical information is better than theirs and you should treat them as wrong, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that if you're not a doctor and you can't check it yourself, and the only thing you know is that there's a rogue doctor who differs from the mainstream, You probably bet on the mainstream.
The smart money says the mainstream is right, not the rogue doctor.
You only think the rogue doctors are credible because you only hear about the ones that got it right.
Follow the money, Scott.
Doctors have little or nothing to gain.
Really? Really?
You don't think Dr.
Malone got some speaking invitations?
You don't think he monetized that?
The other thing you have to look at is that Malone presents himself as a narcissist.
And I'm not going to say that's bad, because I am one.
And there are two types.
One type of narcissist wants to just destroy everything, destroy their social situation.
The other kind just likes to get credit for doing good stuff.
In my opinion, Malone looks like a narcissist.
Meaning that his payoff is having people believe he was right all along, and that that would be worth any economic degradation that he experienced.
So if he's financially secure, then his payoff would be what they call the fuel.
People say, you're right, Malone, you were right all along.
Now, if it turns out later that he's right, he'll make a fortune.
Do you get that? If you say, well...
He sacrificed so much to be a rogue.
I say, no, he invested so much to be a rogue.
If his investment pays off, and it turns out he's right, he's going to have a speaking career, books.
He will make...
I would say the value of Dr.
Malone being right in the end, if it turns out that way, would probably be $20 million.
If I had to monetize the value of him being right in the end, it would be about $20 million.
Because he'd sell a book, and he'd go in the speaking circuit, and he probably, I don't know if he practices, but if he practices medicine, all the smart people would say, I'm going to go to you, because you've got everything right.
Does that make him wrong?
No, I don't know if he's right or wrong.
How would I know? So I can't give you an opinion of whether he's right or wrong.
I can tell you what it looks like, He's in a category that's usually wrong.
Doesn't mean he's wrong, but he's in a category that's usually wrong.
And he acts like he presents himself as a narcissist.
Again, that's subjective.
But I've seen enough of him.
And it takes one to know one.
Nobody's more narcissistic than I am.
But I'm also transparent.
I'm transparent in the sense that if I don't do something that's worthwhile to you...
I don't want any credit. But if I do, and I do something that helps, yeah, I'd like you to mention it.
Because that would feel good to me, and maybe I'll do some more stuff for you.
It just works. It's just a virtuous cycle.
I give you something, you give me something that I want.
I want different stuff than you want.
That's a perfect situation. If we wanted the same stuff, it might be a problem.
But if I want credit, and you want some benefit that I can help you get, well, we both win.
That's cool. So I don't care that he might, in my opinion, have that personality trait that I have.
That part's fine. How is that not mind reading?
That is statistical assumptions short of mind reading.
Mind reading would say, I know what he's thinking.
I don't say that.
I say, to me, he looks like me.
So if I were to say, well, if he looks like me, he's probably like me, that's my speculation.
So I always put anything that is somebody else's thoughts into the speculative rogue.
Using rogue is persuasion.
Yes, I am intentionally persuading you to think that he's less credible than he presents himself.
I'm not trying not to do that.
I'm doing that very intentionally, very openly.
I'm trying to encourage you To put less credibility on anybody who differs from the mainstream in a way you want to hear.
Maybe that's the thing I should have said.
Alright, here's the better way to say it.
I finally figured out how to say this.
This took me forever.
I finally figured out how to communicate this.
Don't believe people who are a little too close to what you want to be true.
Those are the least credible people.
If they disagree with the mainstream, If you disagree with the mainstream, and it's exactly what you wanted to hear, it's right on the nose, the odds of that being true are low.
Are low. It doesn't mean he's not right, but the odds are low.
Here Scott describes himself.
Yeah, that's exactly true.
So somebody says that I'm describing myself.
Let's see if that's true. I disagree with the mainstream.
And I tell you things often that are exactly what you want to hear.
Yeah, that's true. That's true.
So what I do in public is I make predictions and statements, and then you get to test them.
So you'll get to see if it's true.
Like anything that I tell you, usually you just get to see for yourself, right?
So if I told you that Biden would be problematic as a president, well, you get to see it yourself.
Was I right or was I wrong?
And I keep score.
You know, I literally gave myself a scorecard after the pandemic.
Here's what I said.
Here's how it turned out.
And I included the things I got wrong.
Now, if Malone does that, let's say five years from now, we've got a better idea, everything else.
If Malone does that and says, here's the stuff I said.
I got a couple of things wrong, but here are the things I got right.
Instantly he would go right to the top of my credibility list.
Right? He would go right to the top of my credibility list if he kept track of his own statements and how he got them right or wrong.
And then gave you an honest accounting at the end.
Then I would lift him up a little bit.
Malone is clearly right on myocarditis as the CDC data is showing the trend now.
You might be right in that, but the myocarditis, as I understand it, clears up.
And that...
Yeah, so the myocarditis is not so much a question of whether you get it, because I think we've known that for a long time.
It's a question of whether how bad that is in the long run makes a difference to you compared to any protection you get from the shot.
Cardiac cells can't repair.
I don't think it's a cardiac cell problem.
But COVID also causes myocarditis, somebody says, right?
I'm afraid of lungo, but myocarditis, no biggie.
Isn't myocarditis part of long COVID? I'd put that in the same category, right?
If you get some kind of condition, there are cardiac stem cells.
So I think the doctor is telling us that the heart can repair itself.
What is the definition of long COVID? Yeah, that's a good question.
In my opinion, it's anything that continues to bother you after you had COVID that's related to the COVID. So I would think that if you had myocarditis and it lasted, I don't even know if that could happen.
Can myocarditis just continue?
I don't know. But anything that bothers you after, I would call long COVID, whether it's temporary or permanent.
All right. Do folks in upstate New York hunt deer?
Yes, they do. Yes, they do.
Yeah, my parents were hunters.
They both were deer hunters.
You know, I do have a different opinion of people who eat the meat.
And, you know, in upstate New York, you could make an argument for conservation.
I mean, it's kind of a crazy argument.
You have to shoot the deer to protect the deer.
But there really would be too many deer.
There's no joke. If the deer were not somehow population controlled, and I'm not saying that's the best way to do it, but there would be...
Yeah, either you'd have to introduce wolves and then you're still killing deer.
Yeah, there's no right answer.
There's no right answer.
But at least if you're eating the venison, and we did.
I ate a lot of venison.
But if you eat the venison, it's at least not as ethically disgusting.
