Episode 1963 Scott Adams: Massive Government Corruption And Why Nothing Will Happen About It
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Plunging testosterone levels
J6 HOAX Committee & Jamie Raskin
President Trump's taxes release
COVID shots, two realities
Piers Morgan's illogical argument
Glenn Greenwald on AOC
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
There's never been a finer moment in your life, and it's probably just going to get better.
And if you'd like to take it up to levels that the simulation can only imagine, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine to the day the thing makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go. Well, big news out of California.
There's some proposed legislation to legalize...
Psychedelics. Not all of them, but they're looking to legalize psilocybin, psilocin, so mushrooms basically, DMT, mescaline, including peyote, and one I never heard of, ibogaine.
Has anybody ever heard of that one?
How could there be an awesome drug I haven't heard of?
Ibogaine. Anyway, the politician who's proposing this is a Democrat named Scott Weiner.
Scott Weiner.
Now, just a clarification, Scott Weiner is an entirely, it's a complete other person.
Some people think it's referring to one of my body parts, but no.
He's actually a separate, like a complete human with all of his parts.
His name is Scott Wiener.
I know, it's confusing.
It seems like it's about my Wiener, but it's not.
That's actually his name. He's a real person.
Clarifying. So, I've been laughing about this for two days.
Does anybody follow on Twitter Jake Shields, who's a former UFC MMA fighter, five-time world champion?
Does anybody follow him?
All right, so I don't know the whole backstory.
All I saw was one few tweets and video.
But based on what I can understand, there's somebody named Mike Jackson who must have been calling Jake Shields a Nazi over social media.
I'm intuiting that's the concept here.
Not intuiting, but...
And then the video shows Jake Shields on top of him in a gym.
Totally subduing him while people are trying to pull Jake off him.
Jake just tweets this.
Finally ran into the bitch, Mike Jackson.
And then he says, he quickly discovered the difference between calling people Nazis in person versus on Twitter.
He quickly discovered the difference.
Now, as I said when I retweeted it, I disavow all violence.
I'm not in favor of violence.
But I can't help it when it's funny.
I feel like that has to be called out.
This is funny violence.
Some of the funniest violence you'll see today.
So, totally against violence.
Don't do any violence.
But if you do funny violence, I'm very likely to tweet it.
Alright. I saw a tweet thread by Cabot Phillips.
About male fertility, saying that in the last 50 years, the average male sperm count has dropped 62%, and testosterone rates are down over 30%.
And then he says, we know what's causing the drop, but few leaders seem interested in talking about it.
Do we? Do you think we know what's causing the drop in testosterone?
Well, when he says we, I suppose he means doctors or the medical community, but I feel like they might have left down a few...
I feel like it's a few notes short of a symphony.
So let me tell you which things he mentions.
I see your comments.
I'll tell you which things he mentions as clearly related, alright?
So, male obesity, would you agree?
Male obesity lowers your testosterone.
You all knew that, right? And definitely, obesity's up.
Okay. So we'll accept that.
Let's see, there's also...
What is it?
Oh, forever chemicals.
I've been hearing this phrase, forever chemicals.
Some kinds of plastics and other chemicals apparently just never disintegrate.
And it's getting into our bodies and probably having some suppressive effect on our fertility.
So that's scary.
Alright, so we've got the men are getting fat and there's more anxiety.
That sounds right, doesn't it?
More anxiety. So men with anxiety might produce less sperm and have less testosterone.
So those are three things.
The forever chemicals, and maybe just chemicals in general.
Obesity of the men and anxiety are lowering their testosterone.
Can you think of anything else?
Is there anything left off the list?
For example, I saw somebody mention...
Fauci. Fauci.
That was funny. Fauci.
Let's blame that fucking guy for everything.
Inflation? Fauci.
Alright, some of you are saying soy.
And I don't know if that's scientifically demonstrated.
So I'm not going to say that science supports that.
I think the science says...
Not that it lowers your testosterone, but doesn't it mimic some female hormones is the claim.
I want to make sure I don't get sued.
But the claim is that it mimics female hormones, not that it detracts from your testosterone, or is that necessarily always the same?
I don't know the answer to that question.
But would you agree that it's notably missing, even if only to mention that you would expect it to be mentioned, right?
Even if the mention was, some people think it's this, but the science doesn't quite support it.
You'd think it'd be mentioned.
Vaping. Vaping not mentioned, but that would be another example of chemicals getting into you.
How about pharmaceuticals in general?
I saw your comment earlier.
Pharmaceuticals in general.
Now, the vaccinations are largely...
How do I say this best?
The vaccinations happened well after the trend.
So the trend was really solidly in place way before the vaccinations.
Now, if the vaccinations made it worse, I don't think the data...
Could tell you one way or the other at this point.
But maybe. I mean, who knows?
What else? I want to see how far I can get before the most obvious answer appears to you.
There's a way more obvious answer.
It's just hilarious that nobody thinks of it.
Because there's like a magic trick going on.
The magic trick is diverting you.
And I don't mean to be unkind in the following thing.
I'm going to stick to what I think is just factual.
I'm not trying to make fun of anybody, right?
They mentioned obese men.
So men are getting fatter.
Do you think it makes any fucking difference that the women are getting fatter too?
Because nobody doubts that, right?
It's not just men getting fatter.
The women are getting fatter, too.
And let me ask you this.
I hate to be brutal. Do you think men are going to have as much of a testosterone, let's say, response to a lesser attractive woman?
Well, I don't know. I'm no scientist, but I'm guessing.
Did you know that when a man gets married, his testosterone drops?
How many of you knew that?
When you get married, your testosterone just blew up.
Why? It's because, presumably, your attraction to the woman you married, in just the normal reasons of life, would decrease.
So you get married to the one person who's going to become less attractive over time, not for any fault of their own.
It could be just age and familiarity and all that stuff.
So does anybody believe that men's testosterone is unrelated to female stimulation?
Am I too far into the non-scientific, or am I still scientifically valid?
That's well understood, right?
That if you put a man around attractive women, attractive to him, again, we won't make a judgment call, right?
So we're not doing any fat shaming.
Everybody clear on that?
This is not fat shaming.
This is just talking about science, right?
And weight is a big part.
So, why is that left out?
Like, how can you leave that out?
Now, let me tell you something I noticed.
Since I've recently transitioned, no, not that way, not that way, from being married to not married, I can feel the testosterone difference.
I can feel it.
I said the other day that I haven't had a bad day in two months.
And now I know what it is.
My voice is deeper.
My muscle gain was instant.
My overall feeling of well-being.
Like yesterday, I was just standing there, feeling good.
I was literally just standing there in my kitchen and I thought, my God, I feel good.
Just all over.
And it took me a while to figure out what it was.
Now, I'd been doing everything right, from, you know, exercise to sleep to, you know, diet and everything.
So I'd been getting everything right, health-wise.
But I could actually feel the testosterone...
Being higher. I mean, I don't have any doubt that it's higher.
It just feels higher. Like my whole attitude of life, the way I see everything.
And the other way that you can feel it is, I'm afraid of almost nothing.
Is there any men here who can back me up on this?
Do you ever have the feeling that you can tell your testosterone is high?
That might be just my impression.
Because I feel like I can tell.
It's because when you walk into a room, you either own it or you're part of it.
That's the difference. When your testosterone is high and you walk into a room, you own the room.
You just own it. You know it, you act like it, and everybody else can tell, too.
Now, that part's in my head.
I feel like other people can tell.
But when I walk into a room and my chemistry is right, I just own the room.
And the room is helpless.
Like, that's the way it feels, right?
That's just the impression. And other men saying the same thing, right?
Yeah. And the scariest part is that you lose fear.
Because fear is actually pretty useful, right?
It keeps you out of trouble. And sometimes when my testosterone feels high, I feel that I'm losing too much fear.
And then I start to be concerned, but not afraid, concerned that I'm not afraid enough, that I'm in dangerous territory.
It's a very male thing.
I don't think women could quite relate to it.
Who knows? Some of it's in my head.
All right, how about some other things?
How about just the way men are treated in society?
The value of a man, at least in terms of society's average opinion, is way down.
So, men are losing, like they're losing at life.
When you're losing at life, when you're losing at life, your testosterone goes lower.
And men are losing at life, because there are too many of them, and they're not getting dates, and they're not succeeding in their careers.
Alright, somebody brought it up earlier, how about masturbation?
Without checking, does it lower a man's testosterone?
Masturbation, yes or no?
Seems obvious, right?
The most obvious thing is that masturbation would lower your testosterone.
Except that you're wrong. Google it.
I wasn't sure. I just Googled it a minute ago.
According to Google's top answer, you know, where they sort of summarize the answers, no difference.
No difference at all.
Like there's no statistical difference.
Do you believe that? You know, you can definitely feel that it lowers your energy.
And maybe it feels like it lowers it at some point in the process, but I would say I don't feel that it lowers it overall.
So I would say that orgasms in general don't lower your testosterone, except maybe some short-term thing.
It may be temporary.
So anyway, this is a scientific bunk.
New York Times Magazine is writing a story about TikTok, which suggests that the illegitimate press has finally figured out that they better get on the right side of the TikTok thing, because there's basically nobody on the other side.
Literally nobody, unless they're actually just bought off.
Here's what they say. 47% of likely US voters believe that...
Oh, wait.
Has Biden made the country worse?
I got my titles worse.
So this is Rasmussen.
Rasmussen said 47% of the voters think Biden has made things worse.
That's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about TikTok.
So... Here's how the New York Times Magazine talks about TikTok.
Damn it. They had a really good quote there that I apparently wrote over with another quote.
So you won't hear that, but here's the general point of it.
The general point of it is that the New York Times is trying to find a way To describe TikTok as, you know, not the obvious worst thing in the world and needs to be removed immediately.
So listen to one of the ways that they excuse the Biden administration.
The Biden administration has been negotiating with ByteDance for a year about, you know, how to handle the TikTok situation.
Now, is that the way you would have characterized it?
Would you characterize a year has gone by With fuck nothing happening.
Well, there's a major security concern and no argument on the other side.
See, the no argument on the other side part is really important.
Why would it take a year to negotiate something when there's nothing to negotiate?
There's nothing to negotiate.
You just say, we ban you, and then they're not in the app stores, and it's over.
There's nothing to negotiate.
The fact that the New York Times has to give cover to Biden in saying they're negotiating for a year, there's no negotiating going on.
Who thinks that's real?
Does anybody think they're actually negotiating for a year?
Of course not. That's the most ridiculous lie I've ever seen.
Well, maybe not the most ridiculous.
So yeah, we have some real questions there.
And we have to assume that the government is corrupt, because the TikTok thing, like I say, it doesn't have an argument on the other side.
And when you see them not able to act when there's no argument, that's got to be corruption.
Right? Because even incompetence doesn't explain it, because it's just an executive order.
Like, it would be the easiest thing you could ever do.
Like, you don't even have to do work.
Biden could just say, write an executive order and ban TikTok.
You know, I'm the head of the military, so just go do it.
That would be it. You know, it couldn't be more obviously corruption-related.
Speaking of corruption, the theme for the rest of this is...
That the whole government is corrupt in various ways.
And it occurred to me today that if Trump takes the crooked Hillary concept and just applies it to the entire FBI, Department of Justice, CIA, and if he just says, look, I'm just going to fire the top several layers of management in all of these organizations.
I don't even know which ones are good and which ones are bad, and I can't tell.
But I'm going to get rid of two levels of management from the top down in all of these organizations.
I'm just going to give them all a haircut.
I'm just going to mow the lawn.
And I'm sorry, I don't know which ones are good and which ones are bad.
And this will be bad for the ones who are good and got taken out.
But for the good of the country, these organizations have lost our trust.
We just have to mow the lawn.
Time to do maintenance.
It's just basic maintenance.
It's not personal.
You've just got to shore up the republic.
Now, What have I taught you is the best, most powerful form of persuasion?
Go. Fear.
Correct. Got it on the first try.
Fear. Don't you think that the entire government being corrupt scares people?
Now, I don't know if it scares people on the left yet.
Because they may be getting such fake news that they have no idea what's going on.
But between the concern about the vaccinations, whether that whole thing was handled honestly, the concern about the FBI, which is now going beyond concern, is proof that they were working against the legally elected government.
That's just now in evidence.
And I think Trump could make a case That if he goes with draining the swamp, nobody's going to listen to that because he didn't do any draining the swamp.
It has to be more specific.
I'm going to fire two layers of all of these organizations.
I'm just going to replace all the management that's been there for more than a year or something like that.
Anyway, I think you could do that.
Here are the fellow things that are...
Oh, and I would also call it a tourniquet strategy.
So imagine if Trump went after all the corrupt organizations, but also in every rally he went through the hoaxes that the country has suffered because of the media, right?
Like there's at least 20 of them that he could mention.
He could throw in a new one in every rally, right?
Here's my third rally.
Hoax number three.
And they just speak about the hoax.
And then it becomes like a little news bite.
And he just hit every hoax.
Until the news can summarize them.
Here are all the hoaxes that Trump has debunked.
Anyway, the January 6th Hoax Committee, I call them a hoax because...
I can't take the January 6th Committee seriously.
There are four things they have recommended to the Department of Justice.
Their recommendations have no weight, no standing, and no functional purpose whatsoever, because the Department of Justice is already investigating everything they care about.
They weren't waiting.
The Department of Justice wasn't waiting for this public information to be packaged up.
It's just not part of any justice system process.
It's literally just for the news.
So they have something to talk about and propaganda.
So here are the four things.
The question I want to ask you is, if you know what projection means, where you blame somebody for doing the exact crime that you're doing, See if this sounds like projection.
Because the committee did seem like a bunch of toxic narcissists, and they project.
So just ask yourself if the things that they're saying that Trump did, is there anything in the past few years that you would say would apply to the Democrats?
For example, number one, obstruction of an official proceeding.
Is there anything that any Democrats have done in the past several years that would look like obstruction of an official proceeding?
Yes. Lots.
How about conspiracy to defraud the US? I don't even know what that refers to.
I watched this whole thing and I don't even know what that is.
What exactly would be the conspiracy to defraud something?
The election? By saying the election wasn't fair, according to him?
All right. Have the Democrats ever done a conspiracy to defraud the U.S.? Russia collusion hoax.
Of course they have.
Yeah. The Democrats run one conspiracy after another to defraud the U.S. It's nonstop.
How about making a false statement?
Can you believe that?
They want the Department of Justice to prosecute Trump for making a false statement.
Could you be more specific?
Could you be less specific?
All the Democrats do is make false statements.
That's like Schiff's entire job.
The laptop was disinformation.
It's all false statements. How about inciting an insurrection?
Who do you think incited the insurrection?
Well, I mean, all of these are so subjective at the FBI. So, to me, to me it looks like just projection.
That's all I see. Now, of course, it'll work because the Democrats will embrace it.
Now, I saw a tweet from Greg Price who says, the person who made this announcement, in other words, the four charges against Trump, was Representative Jamie Raskin, who objected to the certification of the 2016 election based on the lie that Russia installed Trump as president.
Now, knowing as you will that Jamie Raskin is the one who read the four charges and knowing that he was personally involved in basically this crime.
So when Jamie Raskin objected to the certification of the 2016 election based on the lie that Russia installed Trump as president, was he obstructing an official proceeding?
Sort of. With a bunch of bullshit.
Was it a conspiracy to defraud the US? That's exactly what it was.
The Russian collusion thing was a conspiracy to defraud the US. Was he making a false statement?
Yes. And was he inciting an insurrection?
He was literally trying to overthrow the government.
Like, overtly.
He said, this government should be overthrown because it's a Russian whatever.
Now, Could this be more obvious?
You know, I'm somewhat infamous for saying that I didn't think projection was necessarily even real.
I didn't think it was, honestly.
But until you see the real examples of it, it's hard to believe.
Like, if you didn't see example after example, you wouldn't believe it on concept.
You know, the concept of it is too ridiculous.
But there it is.
There it is. This could not be a cleaner example than projection.
And the Democrats are buying it.
Alright, so today I guess the House Ways and Means Committee is going to vote on releasing Trump's tax returns.
Has that happened yet?
Has the vote happened?
Probably not. I would have heard about it.
So, what's the dog not barking?
Do you hear the biggest dog in the world not barking?
Like a really, really big dog not barking?
Congress has his tax returns.
They've looked at them.
They have nothing to complain about, apparently.
Apparently, there's no crime there.
Don't you think if there were anything in the taxes, do you think it would have leaked?
That's not a real question.
Of course it would have leaked.
100% chance.
That's one of the things you don't have to wonder about.
Not one leak about his taxes.
Do you know what that means? It could only mean one thing.
There's only one thing that means.
There's nothing there.
But what does it mean that they want to release him?
What is the second thing it means?
It means that they know...
That the press and the public are not sophisticated at looking at tax returns.
And that the press and the public will generate unlimited stories of what bad problems they found that are not real.
They'll just take stuff out of context.
Right? So clearly the only reason they want to release them is to embarrass Trump and make him less electable.
Now, if they're not claiming that there are any crimes in there, and so far they're not, if they're not claiming there are any crimes in there, what should be the response to Congress releasing them?
If there's no claim of impropriety, and they release them, and they take his privacy...
Well, let me give you my opinion.
It should be illegal, and it should be the death penalty.
Now, it's not illegal, so I'm not recommending any violence or anything like that.
I'm saying that if you were to rate the seriousness of it, they are taking down a president right in front of you, or trying to.
They're trying to alter the course of the republic by doing something that apparently doesn't have a legal or country benefit.
And they're doing it right in front of you, and they're not even claiming there's a crime in there.
Right in front of you. They're not doing it to Trump.
They're doing it to you. Because if this standard falls, then anybody's taxes are fair game for anybody.
Why wouldn't they release mine?
They say, hey, this guy keeps saying things we don't like.
Let's release his taxes.
What would stop him? Is it because Trump's president and I'm not?
That's not a law, is it?
Is there some law that says presidents have to release their taxes?
No, it's the opposite. There's no law.
There's no law. So if they do it anyway, he's just a citizen whose taxes got released because they thought it was, what, politically useful?
Of interest to the public?
Is that good enough?
The public would be interested, so I guess they could show the public my tax returns too, right?
Because the public would be interested, wouldn't they?
They'd say, oh, he talks about politics, I'd like to see his taxes.
Where does that stop?
Now, I don't believe in this slippery slope, you know, predicting everything, because it doesn't.
But in terms of how bad this is, you know, again, without any specific claim of illegality, this is a 10 out of 10.
You're watching them, you know, let's say, digitally crucify somebody just so he won't run for president.
That's all it is.
And we're sitting here accepting that, like, well, I guess.
I guess they followed the rules.
Un-fucking-believable.
And what about the whole revelation of the Twitter files?
So Michael Schellenberger did another great Twitter thread yesterday.
And at this point, it's very clear, all the evidence suggests, that Jim Baker is the key figure who went from top legal position at the FBI to Twitter.
And it's obvious that Twitter was trying to control...
Trying to. They did a good job of influencing Twitter.
They were even paying Twitter.
Three million dollars for Twitter answering their questions.
Now that's not like a big profit center.
So I don't think Twitter was influenced by the money.
Like, everybody's influenced by money, but that was actually a small amount.
It kind of just covered their expenses, so I don't think that was the motivation.
It's the truth, they got money, but I don't think that it was too small to motivate them.
Now, we know at this point that the FBI was totally corrupt.
I'm going to use corrupt In an expansive sense, not necessarily legal sense.
Because I don't know if they violated any laws.
But what they did was a form of corruption that, as Jordan Peterson tweeted, I think, yesterday, is way worse than Watergate.
And you hate to say that, right?
Because it's such a punchline.
It's worse than Watergate.
The walls are closing in.
But it would be hard to argue this one.
It would be hard to debate...
What we know for sure, like the things that are not in question at all, just the things we know for sure are way worse than Watergate.
It's not even on the same planet.
Am I wrong? It's way worse.
What will happen from all of it?
Probably nothing. Probably nobody will be punished for anything, is my guess.
All right. So...
So the former FBI general counsel...
I think this was a...
Was this Greenwald or Schellenberg?
Who said this? Now, do you think it's a total lie...
That Baker believed it was still a question about whether the laptop was real or not.
Because Baker was saying, well, you know, we can't tell for sure whether the laptop is real.
So I'm not saying it's not real, but we can't tell for sure.
Is that a lie? Is it?
Is it a lie that he couldn't tell for sure?
How would he know? Because at that point, the FBI had not validated it, only the New York Post had.
So as far as he knew, although it could have been validated, like the assets and the time to do it were there, but they had not been.
Is that a lie? Well, I'd say it's a lawyer lie.
It's a legal lie.
Like if you said, do you really believe that it hasn't been validated?
I think he could get away with it in court and say, yes, the only evidence I am aware of was the New York Post.
I don't consider them credible for whatever reason.
And the FBI said they had not verified it.
So what am I supposed to say?
If the FBI says they don't know, what am I supposed to say?
So he does have a defense.
I'm not sure I would call it a lie, But the odds that he knew exactly what he was doing seem very high.
Can we agree?
Can we agree that the odds that he knew exactly what he was doing are very high?
Very, very high.
But he has a defense.
And now we know that the Department of Justice was reading the emails of Devin Nunes and Kash Patel What?
During the actual period of Devin Nunes trying to get to the bottom of the Russia collusion hoax, the Department of Justice found a clever excuse to read his fucking emails and cash to tell them and maybe some other staffers.
Oh my god.
Am I surprised? No, of course not.
But, oh, my God.
You could take any one of these stories and it was worse than Watergate.
We're at like five times worse than Watergate in five different ways.
It's almost too much to even...
And this is what I worry about.
If there had been one, like, clean little scandal...
Then the Republicans would pounce on it and the media would have to talk about it and maybe something would happen.
Like Watergate. Watergate was pretty much one little story of the break-in and it was like a clean little story.
But there is so much bad going on at the same time that we're finding out about.
So much corruption that I wouldn't know where to even focus.
Like, I'm actually, was it the OODA loop?
What's that called? The OODA loop?
I'm saying it wrong.
OODA loop loop. The OODA loop.
So basically, if you just keep being pushed by the new information, you can never deal with the information that you had before.
In other words, new information is just pushing you forward, and you're like, hey, what about that other thing?
Okay, on to the new thing.
So as long as you just keep getting pushed by the new headlines, you can't really deal with Any of the individual badness is just too big and too spread out and too complicated.
I think they get away with everything.
That's what I think. I think they will get away with everything because they know how to do it.
They know how to just make the environment impossible to come after them.
All right, here's another scandal.
Like, I don't know, forget if I mentioned this, I think I did, that the Biden administration said they created a million jobs right before the election.
It was just a complete lie.
The real number rounds to zero.
The difference between, you know, 10,000, I think, and a million.
Just an obvious, clean lie.
Do you think it would have affected the election to know that the jobs president, as he would like to call himself, created basically no jobs?
Unbelievable. Unbelievable.
And I'm trying to think, what is anything that the Trump administration ever did that would be in this class of badness?
Like, there's plenty of stuff you didn't like, There are things you didn't like that Trump did, but did he do anything like this?
Just like obvious corruption?
Well, you know, we'll never agree on the vaccination thing, but you have to judge Trump by what he knew at the time.
So that's going to be tough because our brains don't work that way.
We're going to judge by what we know now.
We're not going to judge him by what he knew and what everybody knew at the time.
We simply don't have the ability to do it.
I love that we were smart enough and wise enough and mature enough to say, well, he acted on what he knew at the time.
Well, we're not. As you can see at the comments, we're definitely not.
All right. So here's what reality has done.
There are two realities about the COVID shots.
In one reality, they were a huge success, but there's some question about whether they make sense for younger people, especially men.
So that's one movie that maybe, I don't know, half of the country has.
I'm not saying what's true and what's false.
I'm just saying what their reality is.
So the reality is that the shots were a huge success.
They're glad they got them, saved millions of lives.
But maybe because of Omicron, we should rethink younger people and especially younger males.
In the other movie, the shots were simply more harm than good and that that has been so well demonstrated that that's just true.
That we already know, without having to wait any further, we don't have to wait for the future, we already know what the future looks like.
And that we already know that there will be more harm in the future than benefit from the vaccinations.
Now again, I'm not saying what's true or false.
I'm saying that these two realities live completely and they're opposites, right?
They can't both be true. Now, would you agree that's our current situation?
Again, don't tell me what's true or what's false.
Is that our current situation?
That we have two realities.
Here's what I'm going to add to this.
It will never be resolved.
Do you know why? Why will it never be resolved into one reality?
Because that's not how anything works.
Here's why. As long as those two realities can operate, they will.
As long as they can, they will.
And there's nothing that's going to happen that will make them have to merge.
Now you say to yourself, but Scott, what about the new data that will come in later?
To which I say, who's going to believe data?
You don't believe the data you had.
Why would you believe the new data?
So if you can't prove it with science and data, because we just won't believe them, how would it ever be resolved?
Now, one way would be if one side predicts well and the other doesn't.
That's a good sign of who's right, right?
If one worldview predicts and it just keeps getting the predictions right, well, maybe that's the good one.
But what will the two worldviews predict?
One worldview will predict that the vaccinations worked and there won't be much trouble from the vaccinations.
The other one says that there'll be mass problems from the vaccinations.
And then which prediction will be correct?
Whose prediction will be correct?
The mass problems or the, hey, it worked out fine.
In the future, who will be...
You won't know. Both, right?
They will both be completely supported by the data.
They can't both be true.
Can't both be true.
But they will be completely supported by data that the side that wants to believe it accepts.
Now, here's the interesting part.
Is this different than the way it has always been for other topics?
Do we always retreat into two different worlds?
And we just live in them, and it never matters.
We just forever are in them.
Because remember, we've been in the anti-vaccination two worlds for a long time.
Way before COVID, we already had two movies that lived permanently, and they were opposites.
That the childhood vaccinations were bad versus the childhood vaccinations were unambiguously good, and they lived completely as two realities.
All right, here's my take.
Neither of those realities are true.
Do you know why I say that?
Because none of the realities are true.
Everything you see is sort of like a user interface for something you don't understand.
So when you use your computer and you're punching an icon, you see the icon, but that's not what the computer is.
The computer is zeros and ones, organized in ways you don't see and don't understand.
You're at the user interface level.
At the user interface level, you don't know if what's behind it is Unix or Mac OS or some Windows thing, right?
If all you see is a screen, you can make a browser look like anything.
So I don't believe in an objective reality that we have access to.
There might be an objective reality.
But I believe that whether vaccinations work or don't work is not a base reality.
That neither of those are base reality.
The base reality is just something you don't understand.
But as long as you can live a world where internally everything is consistent, if you're in the world where vaccinations are good or the world where they're bad, as long as you can live your life and reproduce, that's all you need.
That's all you need. But neither of you are right.
You're just at the user interface level.
So here's what you're arguing.
You're looking at two buttons on a screen.
You're saying, no, this is the button to do the thing.
And the other person said, no, this is the button to do the thing.
But you're only talking about buttons.
You're not talking about anything in base reality, because we don't have access to it.
Time-lapse charts here.
What's the truth? I want the truth.
You're never going to get it.
Reality has forked.
So I asked on Twitter, I did a poll, and I said, did you fall for the mass hysteria generated by trolls that said I, personally, was pro-vaccine and pro-mask?
And I'm going to give you a little test to see how good you are at predicting.
Roughly what percentage of the public who answered the poll believed the mass hysteria that I was pro-vaccine and pro-mask?
Very good. Very good guesses.
About a quarter. Roughly 25.
About a quarter. Didn't see that coming.
Total surprise. When I ran the poll, I could never have anticipated that result.
If you're new to the livestream, none of this makes sense.
But trust me, it's a very funny inside joke.
All right. Somebody called me a fence-sitter on vaccinations.
A fence-sitter.
Isn't that very similar to somebody who's waiting for enough information to have a good decision?
Is it bad to be a fence-sitter when the information's not in?
What would be the smarter way to go?
We don't really know what the future holds, therefore I'll be positive.
If you're positive that you can determine the future, I don't think the problem's on my end.
I will defend my inability to discern the future.
But you need to defend your ability to discern the future, because I don't have that.
So Carrie Lake's lawsuits, I guess two of her ten claims are going to go forward.
One of them involving the printer's malfunctioning on Election Day, and the other involving the chain of custody for some of the ballots.
But do you have any hope that that will change anything?
I feel like all of these complaints of corruption, they get slathered on the bureaucracy, and then the bureaucracy just squirms around for a while, and then nothing happens.
I feel like the court is where everything goes to die.
Well, if you want nothing to happen, take it to court.
You'll get a nothing there.
So, I don't think anything's going to happen from these.
Like, I'm glad she's pressing the case, because wouldn't you like to know more?
Of course you would. I'd like to know more about this situation.
If a lawsuit's the only way we can get to the next level of understanding, then I'm all for it.
But I wouldn't be optimistic.
Not at all. Alright, ladies and gentlemen, I believe we've covered all the news that's fit to sip.
That should be my new tagline.
All the news that's fit to sip.
And I think that we need another sip.
Because as this 2022 comes to a close, I feel like we're going to have to spend some days on some, let's say, aggressive positivity.
What do you think? I think I'm going to start bending my presentation toward gratitude, just so we can get a little dose of Christmas spirit, and a little bit of appreciating each other, maybe. Maybe a little less of the bad.
And so I will be complimenting people that maybe I've disagreed with, because I think that's good practice.
I will be telling all of you how much I appreciate you.
Well, let me do that now.
I mean, I'm sure I've done it before, but you can't get enough of it, can you?
I think you kept me alive.
I think you just kept me alive.
Because I had some tough medical stuff to go through this year.
You know, on top of personal stuff.
But, oh my God, I can't imagine going through this year without this experience.
So, being connected to you in this way is my fuel.
And it also gives me something to look forward to.
When I wake up in the morning, the first thing I think is, oh boy, I get to do this.
I don't know, I'm not sure how other podcasts feel about what they do.
Does Joe Rogan think it's work?
Or does he just still love it?
I hope he loves it. But I don't think of this as work.
Like, it doesn't feel even a little bit workish.
And I put more energy into this than anything else I do.
And none of it feels like work.
And it's because of the interaction.
It's because it feels like something important.
It feels valuable.
It feels like it's helping.
And that sort of connects me to my most basic, if you want to say evolutionary, my basic biological need is to be useful.
And I wish I could turn it off.
If I could turn it off and not need to be useful, I could have a pretty good life.
Just go spend my money and sit at the beach or something.
I don't know. I hear people like that.
But that's not for me.
Like, I just have to be useful or my day doesn't work.
So that's why I do this.
And it's fun. Yeah, and I do feel like we've formed some kind of mutual responsibility accidentally.
I mean, it's certainly voluntary.
Nobody's making you do anything.
But I feel like, at least based on the comments people say, that I've helped some people this year.
And wow, have you helped me.
You have helped me so much.
I can't even tell you.
And let me tell you what that does.
Let me tell you what that does.
So, as you know, I just finished a book that won't be out until September.
But that book was written primarily for you, meaning that my interaction surfaced, that the reframes where I reframe a topic so you just feel better about it or could be more effective, that that really made a difference.
And so I put a bunch of them in a book and...
Am I dying?
No, I'm not dying. I put a bunch of them in a book and mostly because I thought you would like it.
Like it in the sense that it would be useful.
So... All right.
You know, it's also weird.
I feel myself getting healthier and stronger every day.
And that's not supposed to happen at my age, right?
I don't think it's true necessarily, but I have a great feeling of things improving.
Well, we love you too.
Some of you are praying for me.
I appreciate that. Mike Malice recommends self-publishing.
Yeah, it depends where you are in the publishing world.
If you're an established writer, it probably makes sense to use a publisher.
If you're successful, but maybe not a household name yet, maybe that's different.
Better all the time, that's right.
Well, thank you. You're saying nice things.
Yeah, I'm not taking any blood pressure meds.
You know, I have such basic questions about science now.
I'm not even sure that high blood pressure is bad for me.
Now, please don't take any medical advice from me.
Don't take any medical advice from me.
I just have this open question.
I've always believed that I run hot.
Meaning that when I sleep, when I wake up, I'm like covered with sweat, right?
And I just feel I run hot, like I'm just overclocked.
I'm not sure that high blood pressure, for me specifically, predicts.
Now, that could be the dumbest thing anybody ever said, and I'd be open to correction.
If Dr. Drew tells me tomorrow, Scott, Scott, Scott, the science is unambiguous.
Above some level, you're definitely in trouble.
Now, if I hear that, I will modify my opinion.
But I don't trust any of the data anymore.
Like, none of it. And I feel as if I do everything else right, Like, I'm not drinking, I'm not smoking tobacco, you know, my diet is pretty clean.
If I'm doing everything else right, is running a little high on blood pressure going to give me a stroke?
Like, can anybody know that?
Because I feel like they don't study me.
Am I right? Like, they didn't study me.
Any study they do is going to be like a big group of people, isn't it?
Am I right? Now, I realize this is, you know, it's absurd for somebody like me with no medical training whatsoever to make that kind of a statement.
So again, do not make any medical changes based on anything you hear from me.
You can take your vitamin D, I feel, you know, I feel if I tell you to Lose weight and exercise, I'm on safe ground.
But when it comes to what meds you take, do not listen to me.
I'm just saying, I don't believe the entire structure.
And then when I look at the trade-off, if the only way I could lower my blood pressure, if it makes a difference, if the only way I could do it was with these meds that totally destroyed my quality of life.
Now, I don't know. Maybe there's some other med that doesn't.
Who knows? But I doubt it.
I kind of doubt that lowering my blood pressure, no matter what drug I use, I doubt that's good for me.
I could be wrong.
I'm totally open to being wrong.
Somebody says it's narcissistic.
Is it? Is it narcissistic to say I don't trust medical science within the context of knowing it's been lying to us?
It's not like I'm guessing that sometimes they give us bad information.
And that's the most established fact you could ever establish.
Oh, here's one.
Jillian says, really, Scott?
Regulations would allow houses to be built 150 times faster?
I can't tell if you're joking.
You're not imagining that I think that, right?
All right. - Excellent.
He's joking. Maybe.
Yeah, doctors encouraged smoking at one time, right?
Ashley says, when will I release my full power and save the country?
Does the country need to save it?
I don't know. I think the country's doing okay.
You know, you'd have to be more specific.
What is it I'm saving?
Well, let me ask you this.
What is it that I've been persuading that you don't think is going to go my way?
So you see me persuading on TikTok.
Do you think I'm not going to get my way?
Oh, that's going to get banned.
It's going to take way longer than I want it to, but TikTok's going to get banned.
ESG? Already dead man walking, right?
Fentanyl? You don't think we're going to attack the cartels?
I mean, nothing happens instantly, but you don't think that's going to happen?
Of course we are. Yeah, of course we are.
What is it that you want me to persuade that's not going to happen anyway?
I mean, I can push things...
I think there's a good chance that a Republican president, whoever it is, is just going to fire everybody at the top of all those organizations.
DeSantis would, wouldn't he?
You know, I think it's somewhat unlikely, but if DeSantis became the candidate, I think he could tell you he was going to fire everybody in those jobs, and you'd believe it, and he probably would.
Anti-inflammation.
Oh, pronouns?
So, here's how you should deal with the pronouns part.
Obama gave you the formula.
And because you don't like Obama, you won't take his advice, right?
Obama basically says, it's fine to ask us to use your pronouns, but don't get mad if we don't.
I mean, that's a little bit of an oversimplification.
That's pretty close, right?
He's basically saying it's fine to ask for it, but don't get mad at us if we get that wrong.
That is exactly the right take.
You should say you can ask for anything you want.
And I'll ask you the same.
I'll ask you not to be concerned if I use it wrong.
And they demand, right?
And then you demand, but you should allow their demand.
Because they have a right to demand.
You don't have to do it.
You have a right to demand that they not care.
See, the high ground is what Obama found.
Obama found the high ground in this.
The high ground is, yeah, you can ask for anything you want.
It's a free country. Good.
Go ahead and ask. And then when we get it wrong...
Get over it. Just get over it.
It's not that important.
I think that was exactly the right take.
If you fight it, you just look like you're a bigot.
If you tell them, don't criticize me if I get some words wrong, then you've turned them into the bigot.
You get that? The way you're playing it, you turn yourself into the bigot, because that's just the way they can frame you.
The way Obama suggests you play it is to turn those people into the bigot if they have a problem with you, because you didn't have a problem with them, right?
If they want to ask, go ahead.
I don't have a problem with anybody asking me for anything.
But they should also not have a problem with you.
You're simply asking them not to be bigots.
I'm not a bigot. You can do what you like.
But I would like the same consideration.
That's all. That is the way to go.
That is the way to go.
I saw the following argument from Pierce Morgan, who I believe is an illogical argument.
He was talking with some pro-trans person, I think, and No, it wasn't pro-trans.
It was pro-identification.
So somebody who was arguing that there are lots of genders and people should be able to identify with whatever gender they like.
And then Pierce had apparently tried to identify as a two-souled penguin.
A two-souled penguin.
And then they said, hey, that's no fair.
You can't identify as a penguin.
And then Pierce said, why not?
If everything's in the conversation, why can't I identify as a penguin?
And the answer is, that's not logical.
No. You don't see a difference there?
You don't see a difference.
You're talking about people who actually believe their identification versus someone who doesn't.
Does that seem the same to you?
Now, certainly the rules have to be the same, like the law has to be the same.
So if the rules are you can identify as anything to get benefits, then Pierce is right.
If identifying as a penguin would get you a college degree, absolutely.
I encourage you to identify as penguins if you can get money for doing it.
Of course. I'm on your side.
Be a penguin, if it pays.
But I don't think that's the same situation.
I do believe that you can characterize it as a mental defect if you want.
That's not my position.
But would you disagree that the people with these identifications, it's because they're actually trying to identify themselves in a way they're comfortable with that makes sense.
That's completely different than Piers Morgan being a penguin.
That's such a bad argument from Peirce.
And I'm surprised that he wasn't called out for it.
Because while I think the identifying his stuff probably went too far, but that's not the argument against it.
It's a learned ideology.
Does that change anything?
That doesn't change my point.
So I think the pushback here is that people are not necessarily born feeling these confusions or identifications.
They may be encouraged into it by the way they're socialized.
And that's true.
But that doesn't change my point.
It doesn't matter how you got there.
If you got there because somebody influenced you, or you got there because you're genetically there, you're still there.
That's what you feel. And in a free country, should you be able to feel like somebody else's gender and then ask people to treat you that way?
Sure. Sure.
You can ask.
But again, your asking does not obligate me.
But asking is fine. I'd like to know what you think.
I mean, if nothing else, it tells me what you're thinking.
I like that. So I'll tell you what I'm thinking.
I mean no harm. Sometimes I'll get the pronouns wrong.
Sometimes I just won't accept that that's the right thing to say.
But I'm not going to take any criticism about it.
Because I'm going to let you live your life.
You're going to do the same for me, whether you like it or not.
It's all clownish and embarrassing behavior that makes society look stupid.
Is that important? I see your point.
I can see why you would see it that way.
But is that important?
Is it? Because it's not society.
It's just individuals, isn't it?
Do you think it makes America look bad?
Maybe to some people.
Yeah. But has America looked bad every time it moved toward greater...
Greater acceptance of people.
Did America look bad when it gave women the vote?
Probably to a lot of countries.
Did it look bad when it freed the slaves?
Probably to some countries.
So I'm not sure we should be running things based on what looks bad to countries we wouldn't want to be.
Oh, we'd hate for Saudi Arabia to have a bad opinion of us, so we'd better be Muslims.
Other countries' opinions of us have to be put in a little box.
We make fun of Trudeau all day long.
Does it matter to him? Probably not.
Let's see. LGB acknowledges sex transition.
Don't know what the point is.
Did I see TimCast last night?
I did not. Was there something on TimCast that you wanted to call him?
Watch Bannon on Tim Pool last night.
night it was legendary.
What was legendary about it?
Oh, yeah.
Tucker Carlson is saying a couple things on television that it's like it's amazing that there's not more pushback.
So... He flat out said his nephew to the deep state.
Oh, you mean Bannon does?
Yeah. Okay.
Uh, Bannon wore a penguin suit.
No, he didn't. Uh...
What can we do about no accountability?
How can we accept the government accountability?
Well, you know, the changes at Twitter might be a big part of it, and maybe some of the changes at CNN will be a big part of it.
So I do think that ultimately the public can turn the battleship.
It's just not fast. Turds talk.
So Tucker Carlson was saying that he knows for sure now, from his own source that he doesn't tell us, that the CIA was involved in killing Kennedy.
So basically, Tucker Carlson tells you that as a newly discovered fact, because he's got a source.
But we don't know who the source is, so keep that in mind.
Then the other thing he said, he just, like, dropped it in when he was talking to a guest.
He said that he knows that members of Congress are being blackmailed.
And he said it like he totally convinced me that he knows members of Congress are being blackmailed.
Now, by who?
I don't know. But blackmailed.
The FBI says Tucker is lying.
Of course they do. Jillian says, in all caps, Wish Scott would admit he pushed mandates and vaccines, etc. Now, Jillian, are you a troll who's just here to make trouble?
Or are you actually a stupid cunt?
Because that would be the most stupid cunt thing anybody ever said on this livestream.
Like, are you actually that ignorant and confused?
Well, it doesn't matter.
We'll hide you on this channel.
You're hidden now, Jillian.
Goodbye. Yeah.
Who isn't... Yeah.
Yeah, you're right.
Saying that the CIA was involved...
Is a very generic word.
So it could be that the CIA is involved in everything you don't like, but not necessarily in a way that is illegal or unethical.
Scott critically argues both sides.
Well, I show the costs and the benefits.
It's amazing how many people believe that you should not consider the costs and the benefits of decisions.
actually believe that.
We think everybody's a low-level CIA.
I was watching Glenn Grinwald tweeting this morning, and he brings up AOC for her non-criticizing of the CIA.
And he's wondering why AOC is not criticizing the CIA.
What does that suggest?
Why is he calling around by name?
What does that suggest?
I feel like he's suggesting AOC is a CIA concoction.
What do you think?
Is AOC a CIA asset?
Do you think that they created her?
Like, is she a creation?
Because she's a media creation, right?
And who controls the media?
The CIA. So if somebody is a media creation for the Democrats, like a superstar has been created artificially, who did that?
Do you think CNN talked to MSNBC, then they talked to ABC, they said, hey, let's get together and push this on our own?
Maybe. Do you think they all just thought the same, and that's why it looks like they coordinated?
Maybe. Maybe the public was interested, so they just followed the public's interest.
Maybe. But when was the last time Glenn Greenwald was wrong about who's coordinating with the CIA? So far, not wrong.
So far, not wrong.
Now, he doesn't come out and say it.
But the context doesn't leave much doubt.
Does it seem... Let me ask you this.
Does it seem believable?
Does it seem believable that AOC would be a CIA preferred candidate or they helped her somehow?
Yeah, totally. That would be easily within the ordinary line of business.
There would be nothing even unordinated about that.
That would be just typical business, sure.
And if they're not...
If they're not trying to influence her, why not?
She'd be the obvious one you would try to influence, because she has influence.
You're not going to influence people who have no influence.
So, yeah. Do you think she's ever met with any agents for the CIA? Think they've ever had lunch?
Think anybody associated with the CIA has ever asked her to lunch?
It's Washington.
Of course they have.
Am I the CIA?
Somebody asks.
I don't know.
I don't know. Is that a scary answer?
It's an honest answer.
I don't know. I can tell you for sure that the CIA or people associated with it have tried to influence me, but I'm not aware of anybody on the CIA payroll who has ever tried to influence me.
But don't you think they would?
If they're not trying to influence me, what the hell are they doing?
Because anybody who works for the CIA can see I can move the needle.
It wouldn't take long to figure that out.
So... If they're not trying to influence me directly or indirectly, they're not trying hard enough.
Now, how would they do it?
Do you know? If they were trying to influence me, and let's say it was happening right now, and I was not aware of it, how would it happen?
How would it happen? Bribe me?
No, if I were not aware of it, if they were influencing me without my awareness, how would it happen?
They would send a fake friend.
Fake friend. That's how they do it.
Suddenly you would be befriended by somebody who's a little too anxious to be your friend.
That's how they do it. So has that happened to me?
Has anybody been a little too anxious to be my friend and I couldn't figure out why?
Yes. Yes they have.
Yes they have. But do I know that that's part of an op?
I don't. No way to know.
Yeah. But I assume that the CIA would be trying to influence everybody who is themselves influential.
Wouldn't you say? Don't you think anybody who could move the needle, they're looking at and trying to maybe get a friend inserted there, you know what I mean?
Friend of the agency, get a little close to you, find out what's going on.
Maybe put a little something in your ear.
What's the CIA's aim?
To control the narrative, of course.
Now, not to a specific end, necessarily, but always to control it.
Because it's sort of their job.
Trolls are used.
And the trolls would be doing what?
Trying to discourage me from saying some things?
Did you also see the story about the Twitter files, that the FBI kept looking for all the foreign interference in the elections, and Twitter kept saying, you know, we're not seeing much.
And the FBI was like, no, we're all confused.
We know there's got to be a lot of foreign influence there.
And Twitter kept saying, yeah, you know, we looked.
It doesn't look like there's much.
And they just were not happy with that.
Does the CIA have good or bad goals?
It's probably a mix. Because there are individuals in the CIA, as well as what the CIA itself wants.
And then there are probably departments within the CIA who want different things than other departments.
It's probably never clear.
I mean, it's entirely possible that some people have the CIA helping them, at the same time the CIA, a different person, is trying to destroy them.
Like, that wouldn't surprise me.
It's probably common.
Will America self-correct the corruption?
Yes, but then it always gets replaced with new corruption.
So, I don't know.
Somebody's father was in the CIA and his cover position was in the Department of Agriculture.
Alright, I think that's all I have for now, YouTube.
