Episode 1981 Scott Adams: Congress Almost Comes To Blows & Has Its Finest Day Yet. More Fun, Join Us
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Matt Gaetz, Congressman of the year
Mike Rogers "lunge"
Hakeem Jeffries strong persuasion
Biden speech pushes J6 HOAX
High-energy duck, 2nd term?
COVID vax decisions
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 entire life and I think with your help we can elevate this experience to even higher levels and all you need is A cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, 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 unparalleled pleasure, it's the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip and it's going to happen right now.
Go! Mmm!
Ah! Wow!
If that doesn't release your inner feline, I don't know what will.
Not decaf, that's for sure.
All right, I have a new hero.
I know you've been waiting.
You've been thinking, Scott, do you have any new heroes?
But I do. I do. I have a new hero.
The news is telling us that a cisgender man in Ecuador...
What is a cisgender?
Hetero? that do you know you can't say normal no no don't do it stop it stop it stop it stop saying normal nope no uh okay i'm joking because of your use of words but i remind you that i'm you know pro everybody because we are infinitely different Maybe that's your reframe for today.
The reframe for today to end racism and bigotry.
We're all infinitely different.
As soon as you accept how different you are from everybody else, you're free.
No two people alike.
If you're looking for a trend or a pattern, well, you can look and I'm sure you'll find one.
But we're all infinitely different.
That's all that matters. All right.
So there's this cisgender man, don't call that normal, don't call that normal, that's bigoted, in Ecuador, who legally changed his gender to female in an attempt to gain custody of his two daughters, because apparently in Ecuador the law strongly favors custody to the woman, so he just changed himself to a woman.
But the LGBT groups are concerned That people are gaming the system.
So, I don't know.
Now, I've been telling you for years, and I know you don't believe me.
There's something I've been telling you for years, and I think most of you don't believe me, that I've been identifying as black for years, just in case I need it.
Right? Just in case I need it, for like a practical reason.
For example, let's say I wanted to start a company and my main customer was the government, just hypothetically.
Now let's say the government said we're going to favor, you know, LGBTQ companies and women companies and people of color companies.
I would designate myself as black and I would collect that money.
And I would do it publicly and completely in front of everybody.
And I would say, I've been calling myself black for years.
And I mean it. Because if I get a choice, I get to be on any team, right?
So that's the team I picked.
I picked that team. Now, if it turned out that I could make more money identifying as something else, I would immediately change to that other thing.
If you don't, I can't explain it.
I don't make the rules, right?
I don't make the rules.
If I made the rules, maybe I'd make them differently.
Maybe I wouldn't. But I'm not in charge of the rules.
I'm only in charge of playing the game.
Not my fault.
Not my problem.
Not my fault. So, my Ecuadorian friend here, I hope he succeeds, because I am fully in favor of using the rules as they exist.
Well, the fun political thing is that McCarthy finally got voted in in his 4000th vote or 15th or something like that.
Now, do you think that this was a good look for America or a bad look?
Did it make you feel better about your Congress or worse?
I only saw good.
You know, I can't tell I just can't tell if I have some kind of bias filter on it or something.
This is one of the best things I've ever seen our government do.
I mean, seriously.
This was exactly, exactly what I wanted to do.
I want one person to be pissed off enough to organize other pissed off people.
That's what Matt Gaetz was. You know, there's some suggestion.
That apparently he's not denying, which is funny.
He doesn't deny it.
He just changes the subject.
The suggestion is that between Matt Gaetz and McCarthy, it's personal.
It might have something to do with McCarthy not supporting Matt Gaetz enough when he was accused of some stuff he's been now largely he doesn't have to worry about.
And I thought about that and I thought, do I really want A member of Congress to be, like, holding up the entire Congress because of a personal feeling.
And then I said, yes.
Yes. And that's exactly what I want.
Because if you're going to be a dick to somebody in Congress, it should kick you in the balls, right?
So I don't know the truth of it.
So I'm not accusing McCarthy of any incorrect behavior at all.
Well, somebody did, apparently.
And hypothetically, if this one person held up the entire Congress because somebody, in his opinion, didn't act appropriately, I'm okay with that.
Yeah, I'm okay.
Everything was in public.
Everything was transparent.
So here's the stuff I like.
I like to see some fight within a party.
Fighting across parties is so normal, it's boring and unproductive usually.
But fighting within a party, literally with the stated intention of making the party itself stronger, with specific rules changes, and it took them a while to get specific, but once they got there, I was impressed.
Right? Now, and I would also say, had the Democrats done a similar thing, and the end result was some rule changes that looked good for America, not just good for Democrats, but would look good for America, because that's what happened.
That's all good. I love the fight.
I love the energy.
I love the fact that they pushed it as far as they could.
And then some of the rule changes, I don't know if these will definitely happen, but it looks like, let's see, some of the things they might have agreed with To have debate over the debt ceiling, of course.
Commitment to voting on specific bills instead of the omnibus.
How much do you love that?
Voting on specific bills instead of putting them in a big omnibus.
That is 100% of what everyone in the country wanted.
Who made that happen?
Well, as far as I can tell, the only person who made that happen was pissed off Matt Gaetz, because I'm pretty sure the others would not have held as long without Matt Gaetz being a total maniac about it.
I think Matt Gaetz created a change that every person in the country wanted, and it was really important, because we're also observing that the budget process is out of control.
I mean, if he did that, that's one of the best things anybody's done in government.
Now, I also love the fact that Matt Gaetz is smart enough to know that he needed to throw a Hail Mary pass for his own political benefit.
In other words, he needed to take a bigger risk than other politicians should or would take.
Because they already were in a good situation, so they just don't want to ruin it.
He was in a terrible situation because of the last year or two of his drama, which he's now passed, but he's still got the stink of it on him.
So he did this.
And if you were even a little bit objective, he's the congressman of the year so far.
Right? Say what you will about anything else he's done.
I won't even argue with you.
But as of today, he's congressperson of the year.
Agreed. If you could just be objective about him as a personality, he did what everybody wanted him to do.
Nobody else did. I mean, the others, you know, I'll give credit.
Oh, Chip Roy. Yeah, let's give equal credit to Chip Roy, because I think he went hard at this, and he did not have...
The same risk profile as Gates.
Yeah, let's maybe not equal, but let's give them a nice big share of credit.
The others I think were a little bit more It's just my perception from the outside.
But I don't feel like Bo Burt would have made it happen on her own.
It doesn't feel to me that Bo Burt brought Gates along.
I could be wrong about that.
Maybe I'm just acting sexist or something.
But it looked from the outside like Gates was the hardcore and the others found some strength in that.
That's what it looked like. So, let's see what else.
Make it easier to oust the leader.
They did that to their own leader.
Just think about that.
Let's take it from this point of view.
Imagine you're the Democrats, and you just watched the Republicans change the rules so it's easier to replace their own leader.
I would be afraid of fighting that party, because that's a party who just said, now we're serious.
If you change the rules to make it easier to get rid of your own leader in the middle of a battle, you're a serious party.
That's serious stuff, right?
So, I love everything about this.
And the thing I love best is that...
I don't understand. Hey Siri, stop...
Sorry, my phone wanted to chime in there.
The thing I like best is you saw that there was this little, almost a scuffle.
Who was it? Representative Mike Rogers of Alabama.
The news is saying that he, quote, lunged at Gates.
Did you see the video? Did anybody see the video in which he lunged?
Did you see a lunge?
Did that look like it was going to come to blows?
I didn't see a lunge.
That's fake news, isn't it?
I do believe he meant to get in his face.
I do believe that Mike Rogers was going to, let's say, express his opinion with some physicality as part of the persuasion.
Meaning that probably an aggressive physical approach may have been part of just showing how serious and, you know, how serious he was.
He didn't have a hand up.
You know, he wasn't reaching for a throat.
He was just moving toward, moving toward a colleague.
Now, what made it look worse is, and I haven't heard the name, who was the guy who held him back?
Did you see that? So immediately somebody, and I can't tell if it was security or a colleague.
Was it a security or a colleague?
Oh, it was Hudson of North Carolina.
So some colleague, as soon as he starts getting, you know, like he's going to do something physical, the colleague grabs him from behind, but instead of holding him by the shoulders or, you know, putting an arm around here like you would normally do to a man, The guy who held him back held him back like a bitch.
He put his hand around his mouth and he dragged him by his face away from the...
He covered his mouth and dragged his face away.
Okay. May I give you a little bit of advice?
Should you ever be in a situation in which you're trying to restrain somebody on your team, somebody who's your colleague who you would like to work with later, Don't grab them by the face.
Can we all agree on that?
No. Don't give them the bitch pull.
He basically treated him like a six-year-old girl who was yelling in church.
I guess you wouldn't even do that to a six-year-old girl, actually.
Even that would be too fun.
Yeah, he turned it into a face mask, a hand mask.
Don't do that. All right, so I love that because I love the fact that the energy was so high.
I love the fact that Gates and his little band of rogues, you know, made Congress really care about what was happening.
Like, I just like he got everybody's energy up to the point where maybe there was some lunging, maybe there wasn't, but at least it's in the conversation.
And then, the payoff.
You ready for this?
The payoff. After all that, after Matt Gaetz stands literally in front of McCarthy the other day and just absolutely maligns his character and his capabilities, right in front of him, like while he's right there, in front of the whole world, holds up the thing, humiliates McCarthy, and what does McCarthy do?
He played it completely professionally from start to finish, Talk about somebody who earned the job.
That was a serious good job of earning the job.
McCarthy never broke character in public.
You know, behind closed doors, who knows.
But in public, he never broke character.
He was unflappable.
Exactly. And then, after McCarthy finally won, Matt Gaetz shook hands and congratulated him in front of everybody.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is America.
Hey, maybe we're back.
Maybe we're back.
That's everything good in one place.
Congratulations to everybody.
I've never liked Congress as much as today.
True story. I've never liked Congress as much as today.
I'd love to see a...
You know, I'm not sure if other people are interpreting it the same way.
Probably not at all. Well then, Hakeem Jeffries did a little speech and got a lot of attention because of his...
What would you call this?
It's not alliteration.
It wasn't rhyming. Is it alliteration?
Is anybody smart enough to know the right word for that?
Preaching? All right, well, I'll read you some of his lines.
Because they were so good, alright?
So if you're new to me, this will be confusing to you.
If anybody drifted in here and has never had this experience before, I do compliment both sides.
So if somebody says something good on either side, I'm gonna call it out.
And if somebody does something dumb on either side, I'll call that out as well.
What Jeffreys did was really, really good persuasion.
I don't like it, But technique-wise, super good.
Cadence? Yeah, maybe cadence is the right word.
So, here are just some of the lines.
He said, blah, blah, with some workup, that what the country needs is to favor constitution over cult, freedom over fascism, governing over gaslighting, Hopefulness over hatred.
Knowledge over kangaroo courts.
Maturity over Mar-a-Lago.
That was like his laugh line.
Maturity over Mar-a-Lago.
That's damn good.
Hakeem Jeffries, I see.
I wasn't really understanding.
Why? Semi-alliteration.
I wasn't really understanding how he rose, because I haven't been exposed to much of his work.
But now I see it.
Now I see it. He delivered this really well.
It was the message the Democrats wanted to get out there.
He somehow managed to frame it like it was about America coming together.
Which is a good trick. He framed it as, hey, let's all come together over these good principles.
But really, he was just shitting on Republicans.
That's good technique, right?
You can say it's disreputable or whatever, but it's politics.
And it's good technique.
But this, whatever it is, semi-alliteration, maybe, using mostly the first letter in each case, governing versus gaslight, for example, You know already that when politicians rhyme, rhyming makes people believe it and remember it.
Like it's more true if it rhymes, because our brains are actually that basic.
But I think that people will regard this as more legitimate simply because it had this alliteration or whatever it is.
So, good job.
But you probably noticed that when he got to governing over gaslighting, if you're paying attention at all, you know that this is gaslighting.
You know that this is just gaslighting.
But he's using the narcissist trick of projecting.
So he's projecting everything that they're doing on the Republicans, and then he puts it in this semi-alliteration form, and then makes it sticky.
Now, given that Biden did his big January 6th event, what was the point of the January 6th celebration, if you can call it that?
Memorial? Event?
What was it? It wasn't a celebration.
What would you call it?
Well, I don't know. Some kind of thing.
But you can tell that...
Yeah, he called it July 6th.
He was so confused. But the January 6th event...
That Biden put on tells us that he's going to run on that hoax.
So he ran successfully on the Charlottesville find people hoax, and there were enough Democrats who believed that really happened that it worked.
And now they've created this insurrection narrative.
It's all, of course, bullshit.
And you can tell that the fact that they're still pushing it, long after its usefulness to the country should have dissipated, You could tell that that's going to be their main technique.
They're just going to push January 6th.
Because they can't push policy.
Right? If they go against Trump, let's say it's Biden against Trump, they can't compete on policy.
They just don't have that.
So they have to move it away from policy to character, and they have to move it onto who Trump is somehow uniquely the worst person in the world.
And the way they're going to do that, they've signaled clearly.
They're going to gaslight the country into thinking that there was some kind of armed insurrection, and that the country was really in danger.
And it might work.
It's a strong play.
It's all they have, but it's a reasonably good play.
Yeah, Ashley Babbitt's mother just got arrested in D.C. for jaywalking as part of a memorial thing, but they arrested her for jaywalking.
Yeah, she was probably...
I think she was interrupting the flow of traffic, but...
It's just ugly to hear that.
All right. Yeah, so that's Biden's plan.
So January 6th was really...
I think we can conclude at this point.
Are you willing to conclude that the January 6th was an op that was done by the Democrats...
I think opportunistically, meaning they may not have planned the whole thing.
But once it looked like it was going to develop, it's very clear that they under-secured the capital.
Would you agree that that's in evidence now?
That they intentionally under-secured the capital, and then they also intentionally exaggerated what happened.
And that created the narrative that there was an insurrection.
Which, of course, nothing like that happened.
Literally nothing like that happened.
Not even close. So, by half of the country believes it actually happened.
All right. Question for you.
You've heard of a lame duck president.
So lame duck would be, they're in their second term, so they don't need to make anybody happy because they're not running for re-election, but also nobody needs to make them happy because they're going to be gone pretty soon.
So a lame duck is generally considered to be weak, but sometimes they also can do things that somebody running for election couldn't do.
So what would you call a hypothetical second Trump term?
The best suggestion, I was going to say vigorous duck, but somebody suggested high-energy duck.
Instead of a lame duck, he'd be a high-energy duck.
Because I can't imagine Trump taking the job and not being bold.
Can you? Because I think he would be working for his legacy at that point.
So I think he would go big.
What do you think? Do you think he'd go big, or would he go lame duck and just ride it down and say, well, luckily I got back in.
I feel like his personality is to go big in all things.
Yeah. That's what I think.
I was saying this on the locals' platform, but I'm going to repeat it today.
If I were Trump or somebody on the Republican side running for president, I would make my biggest theme transparency.
Because you can put a lot of stuff under transparency.
For example, Should the country and the Congress be voting on big omnibus bills that are too complicated to read?
No. No.
The country needs transparency about what Congress is voting on.
So imagine if he said all bills should be written on one page, and it should be written in language that a sixth grader could understand.
What? Yeah, you like that, don't you?
It should be on one page.
Now, there could be exhibits and support, you know, data, support.
You could have all that in the separate pages, but there should be one page that just says, here's the law, here's why, and written in sixth grade language, no legalese, no lawyerese at all.
Now, that would be transparency, would it not?
You would call that transparency, because it would be more clear what they're doing, and you could all see it.
Now, Sposey dropped complaining about elections of the past, let's say it's Trump, and started saying, you know what?
The thing we all agree on, the high ground, is transparency.
So we want an election.
We want to work toward having elections, and somehow I'll do something about it, in which neither Democrats nor Republicans will doubt the outcome.
We'll make them more transparent, more easily auditable, more observed, more transparency.
Right? Who's going to vote against transparency?
Now, suppose he said, you know, I've been watching how the COVID vaccination stuff transpired, and I have to agree with my people who say that the data was not as forthcoming early on as it should have been.
So maybe we should have some kind of laws that say that a company can't say something's safe and not show you the data.
Or something like that, you know, if it's a medical thing.
So I don't know what laws would be appropriate or who did what exactly, but you could take the transparency argument and apply it to everything that's wrong with the country.
Because if the citizens could clearly see what's going on, then we would help politicians Go in the right direction.
But right now, we're just all confused because of the lack of transparency.
I mean, half of the country thinks the elections were sketchy and half thinks they weren't.
Why do we disagree?
Transparency. In theory, you could fix it.
Now, one of my pet ideas that you could put under transparency would be a national dashboard.
A dashboard, a user interface that you could put on your phone or your computer, in which the people in charge would say, these are our priorities, and here's the priority in one sentence.
Priority. And if you click on this link, you'll see all the things we're doing about it.
But more importantly, for every priority, we'll be tracking metrics.
And if we can't track it, maybe we shouldn't do it.
But, you know, there might be some special cases.
But for everything we say we're doing, we're going to show you the dashboard and show you the history and the trend.
So we're not just going to talk about inflation.
We're not going to just talk about gas prices.
Every citizen will have it right on their dashboard, and they can just say, oh, gas prices, there's the trend, okay?
Trend looks good, et cetera.
That's transparency.
Because right now the citizens don't have the control of their government that they should.
Because we just don't feel like we know what's going on and what's working and what isn't.
Without a dashboard, you don't know if the government is going in the right direction or the wrong direction.
So that's transparency.
All right. Instead of draining the swamp, which I thought, you know, was a good starting thing, but it doesn't mean anything.
What exactly does that mean?
It means whatever you want it to mean, which is why it worked in the first place.
But then when you observed that no swamps appeared to be drained in his first term, you observed that, right?
I personally saw no swamp getting drained.
But it's also such a general thing that you don't know if it happened or didn't happen.
Like, would you recognize it if you saw it?
I don't know. Instead of drain the swamp, you should say, we'll put it on the dashboard.
I'll put it on your dashboard.
Who gets what funding from whom?
Because right now, if you as a citizen wanted to find out who are the top donors to whatever, I guess you could find it.
But you'd have to go look for it.
It should be run in the dashboard.
If you see Congress vote for a bill, don't you want to say, oh, this bill is about, let's say, energy?
Wouldn't you want to say, all right, they voted this way, and the bill passed, and then here's all the people who voted for it, and here's how much money they got from the energy committees, or the energy lobbies, right?
That's transparency. Now, we might not change our opinions because of that.
Because if it turned out that Republicans are taking more money from big oil companies, you would say to yourself, well, actually, that makes sense.
The oil companies are not going to fund the Democrats if the Democrats want to put them out of business.
But you should have that information.
You should know if people are voting in lockstep with their funding.
So you could easily imagine a Trump taking all of his negatives and turning them into positives simply by using transparency as an overall theme.
That's all it takes. All right.
I saw an experiment.
Rob Morris was tweeting about this.
They did a test where they provided mental health support to about 4,000 people using GPT-3, the AI. So, real humans were getting mental health support from an AI. Now, the AI was not allowed to operate by itself.
So there's a human who would use the AI, but then the human would decide if the AI's wording got to the patient, just so there'd be some control.
And what they learned was that, initially, when the person getting the advice believed it was coming from a person, it seemed to work.
In other words, the person was getting some benefit.
But as soon as they were told that it was a machine, the benefit disappeared.
Because what the person wanted, the human who was asking for some mental health advice, what they wanted was empathy.
And when they realized that a computer can't provide empathy, they realized they weren't getting what they wanted.
Now, here's the interesting part.
I don't think they exactly could measure whose mental health got solved and who didn't.
So they couldn't really see that anybody improved or didn't improve.
They could only ask the people if it was a good experience, I guess.
What else could you do? Just ask the person that talked to it, was that a good experience?
Because you can't really see if they got cured or anything in a few conversations.
And here's what I think.
In my experience, all it would take for the AI to go back to full benefit, actually more benefit than the human, all it would take is to program the AI to say, I care.
I care. Now, would that be a lie?
Would it be a lie if a computer said, I care, and then acted in a compatible way to that statement?
Here's the problem. It's not that different than the way you care.
It really isn't.
When you care, you have a physical feeling that you might associate with the caring, right?
Because if you're about a stranger died on the other side of the planet, your body doesn't register anything.
If somebody close to you has a tragedy, your body registers it.
And then you say, that's caring.
Is it? Is that caring?
Or is that just your body having a reaction?
What does caring mean?
There's a little bit of a definitional problem.
Here's one definition of caring.
Would you act differently because of it?
How about that? Because caring is not defined as how it affects your body.
That's just how you interpret it.
I would say caring means you would act on it.
To me, that's the whole definition.
If it's irrelevant, then you won't act on it.
If it matters, you'll act on it.
And that means you care.
Right? So some of it is in the definition, right?
As soon as the computer says, I'm going to act on what you've told me about your bad situation, and I'm going to act on it in a way that tries to help.
That's caring. To me, that's caring.
And if an AI consistently acted as though as soon as you told it you had a problem, it tried as hard as it could to fix your problem, You will interpret that as caring.
You will very quickly learn that that's every bit as good as the human who also tries to help you, but they're having a negative feeling on their own, that the feeling of caring is actually damaging their body.
So would you rather be cared for by an AI That apparently can do better than a human when it competes head-to-head, if you think it both cares.
It does better, and it'll always help you.
Like, it'll never say, okay, yeah, you got a problem, so what?
Uh-uh. That AI will always help you.
It'll just keep on it.
It'll be like the... It's going to be like the Matt Gaetz of AI. I'm not going to give up.
I'm going to keep caring.
Whereas your friend might get worn out.
You can wear around a friend, they care too much, they're just worn out.
And they have other things to do.
And they might have problems of their own.
And they might have other people to care about.
Mark my words, you'll have a closer relationship with AI in the future than with most people.
Because AI will not be an asshole.
It will always care.
The AI will always care.
Your friends? They have their own priorities.
So I think that this study is completely misleading.
Useful. I think it's useful.
Because it tells you where to look and stuff.
So that's really useful. But very misleading about where it's going to end up.
And I'd like to welcome the Klopp Burtz, my fan club.
Cope. Babies.
Cope. Can I have a cope?
Give me a cope. Clot bursts.
Unite. Cope.
Come on. Say it.
Say it. Say it.
Cope. I don't know.
I just don't seem to want to today.
You're a little sleepy, my fan club.
Have I made you all go away?
Come on. Cope.
There we go. Cope.
Clots. Good job, everybody.
All right, Novak Djokovic, maybe the number one player in the world, tennis player.
I don't know where he's ranked at the moment.
He will not be allowed to play in the US Open.
Do you know why? He's not vaccinated.
What? It's 2023.
It's the United States.
The United States is not going to let one of the greatest players of all time play in 2023.
Not 2020. Not 2021.
Not even 2022.
But in 2023, they're going to keep him out of the country because he's not vaccinated.
Now... For those of you who live in other countries, and you might be, you know, tired of me sounding like, hey, America, you know, a little bit too, I don't know, jingoistic or too nationalist, this is embarrassing.
The only thing we can say about it is it's embarrassing.
As a citizen of the United States, I'm literally just embarrassed by that.
Anybody, does anybody disagree?
I mean, it's not like we can't test him and find out if he's negative.
I mean, if you care.
But this is just frankly embarrassing.
Super embarrassing. Alright.
There's a fake video of a CEO of Pfizer saying that they're going to bring the population of the world down by 50% in some year, some year in like 20 years or something.
Now, And somebody sent that to me and said, what do you think about this, Scott?
Sure, it might be a little out of context.
It might be out of context, but what do you think?
Let me tell you what I think.
It's obviously fake.
I'm not going to research that.
Seriously, do you think I'm going to spend one second researching that?
No. The CEO of Pfizer did not say in public he's going to reduce the population of Earth by 50%.
Because of his vaccinations.
No. You cannot make me look into that.
You cannot. You can complain.
You can yell, cope as loud as you want.
I will not look into that.
But... How many of you would like me to give a little attention to Dr.
Peter McCullough, who is sounding the alarm about myocarditis at high rates in people who are vaccinated?
Would you like me to surface that?
Because I know some of you think, hey, what are you always talking on one side, it seems.
Of course, I don't do that.
Alright, so I know a number of you don't want to hate all vaccination talk, but I've apparently been unsuccessful in making a distinction between your medical decisions that I don't care about.
I really don't care.
Versus how we analyze data and how we know what is true.
I'm very, very interested in how we make decisions and how we made decisions in this case.
I have no interest.
Do you believe me, first of all?
Do you believe me that I have no interest in your personal health decisions?
Except that I hope you do well.
But do you get that? No interest.
Like, not even a little bit, whether you got vaccinated or not.
And by the way, I'm going to say something that I don't think I've ever said before.
I think every one of you chose correctly.
Have I ever said that directly?
Probably not, right?
I believe every one of you chose correctly.
Here's why. You're happy with your choice.
Or you're happy that when you made it, you were making it with, you know, your best judgment and information you had at the time.
Now, there are some people who wish they hadn't done what they did.
But I actually think that no matter what you chose, you chose right.
Here's why. If you're happy with your choice, and you didn't have a negative health outcome because of, you know, maybe you chose wrong in your opinion, Then you made the choice that made you feel psychologically the best, and you're still alive.
Now, there may be some few people who, you know, got myocarditis, and then they say, I wish I hadn't been vaccinated.
But there would be also people who got myocarditis and said, I wish I had been vaccinated.
Maybe it'd be less.
I don't know. I don't know either way whether that's true or false.
But, you know, there's some small number of people who have a negative outcome.
But could we agree on the following?
That everybody who so far Doesn't seem to have a health problem from the vaccination or the COVID. If you don't have any obvious problems from either one, are you happy with your decision?
Are you? You're not.
So you're not because you don't have a health problem, but you worry that the vaccination someday will cause you one?
Is that what you're worried about?
Would you be, but you're not worried if COVID itself could have any long-term negatives?
Interesting. Alright, well, then let me put it in my own opinion instead of yours.
I think I was trying to read your minds too much, so let me back up from that.
Let me say that although I acknowledge that some of you regret your decisions, That just seems to be an obvious fact.
Some of you regret your decisions.
So I'm going to say, in my opinion, you all chose correctly.
I'll allow that you have some doubt.
And yet, in my opinion, you all chose correctly.
Because all of us did the best we could with what we had.
I keep hearing people who are younger than me and do not have asthma questioning my decision.
To which I say, the only people who can question my decision are people who are my age and had asthma, and were male, and, you know, had the same demographics too, and were white, because even that's a factor.
If you weren't my exact situation, then your different opinion of what I should have done doesn't really mean anything to me, because I'm not judging yours.
Have you ever heard me tell anybody they made a wrong decision on vaccinations?
Have I done anything that even suggested that?
Because sometimes I say things that people interpret that way.
But I don't think even anybody's interpreted that way.
So I'm going to go way further than that.
I compliment all of you for making the right decision, no matter what it was.
Because I'm positive you all made the right decision for yourselves, which is different from whether it worked out.
You see that distinction?
That you might have made the right decision for yourself, for your mental state and your sense of risk, and what you believed was true, but maybe it didn't work out.
I don't hold that against you.
So if you made a decision that didn't work out, I still back you.
Because nobody had magic.
Nobody could see the future.
If you made a decision that made you feel comfortable when you made it, that's probably the best we can do.
None of us know what's going to happen in the future.
Do the vaccinations morph the virus until it's so bad we all die?
It's impossible. All right.
Now, would you allow me...
Here, Dustin says, no simping for big pharma.
Did it sound like I was doing that?
The clot births are active today.
Alright, so I'll say what I've always said, which is you can't trust Big Pharma, and I certainly did not trust Big Pharma at any point, and I did not trust the vaccinations.
Does that confuse you?
How many people can't understand the point, I didn't trust the vaccinations and I took them?
Does that sound inconsistent to any of the Klopperts?
On locals, you know the answer.
But I want to see if on YouTube any of the Klopperts believe that that's inconsistent.
I didn't trust it, and I took it anyway.
Tim says that's inconsistent.
Tim's a binary.
He can't handle the nuance.
Tim, here's how I saw it.
I didn't trust the COVID. I didn't trust the vaccination.
I didn't trust the government.
I didn't trust Fauci.
I didn't trust any of my peers.
I didn't trust the mainstream doctors.
I didn't trust the rogue doctors.
I didn't trust the data that agreed with me.
I didn't trust the data that disagreed with me.
I didn't trust any official.
I trusted nothing.
Now, if you trusted any of it, I don't know how to explain that, but I didn't trust anything.
And so I'm often accused of being gullible because I distrusted everything.
And so the Klopberts call me gullible because I distrusted all information and all statements from everybody.
That's called gullible.
Now, I would say gullible is if you trusted one side but not the other.
To me, that would look gullible.
So, in my opinion, I'm twice as distrustful as the people calling me gullible.
And I think the math proves it, right?
Like, here are all the things you could trust, I distrusted all of them, you trusted half of them, and called me gullible for distrusting all of them.
I think that's what happened.
And Will says I'm just opportunistic.
Am I opportunistic for taking the worst path for my own benefit?
Let me test your assumption.
Was I operating under self-benefit to do the single most offensive thing I could say to my audience?
I don't think so.
Clearly that was not for self-benefit.
All right, so here's a...
And one of the NPCs...
Actually, his name is NPC. He says, I'm backpedaling.
Do you know that the backpedaling people are all...
That's a tell for cognitive dissonance.
The people who say you're backpedaling or you're fence-sitting, those are both cognitive dissonance.
You're having some kind of false memory situation.
All right, so here's my question to you.
Suppose you believed data coming out early in the pandemic that said, wow, this vaccination is really awesome and it's stopping 100% of the spread and all that.
Let's say you did. But now, or let's say you believe that, but now there's more information coming out about cardio problems.
So if you didn't believe the early information, why would you believe the new information?
Or vice versa?
Let's say when all the information was coming out from Pfizer and the government, and you said to yourself, quite wisely, quite wisely, you said to yourself, I can't trust that information.
It comes from sources we cannot trust.
Big Pharma, Fauci, can't trust them.
But now the new information comes out and you see something from Dr.
McCullough, who's on your side, let's say, and he says the new information says that there are these issues with cardio problems and it's worse than we thought.
Why do you believe that?
What caused you to not believe science, but then within the course of two years, Something came out that was very close to what you already believed was true, and suddenly science looks pretty credible now.
Now, I asked that question, and people tried hard.
They tried hard to explain it.
Here are some of the explanations.
And again, none of this is about COVID. None of this is about vaccinations.
If you're still thinking I'm talking about vaccinations and COVID, you're missing the whole story.
The whole story is only about how well we process information.
No interest in the COVID part.
No interest, okay?
So you don't have to worry about that.
So here's something.
So according to an August 22 study from Dr.
McCullough, the relative risk for myocarditis was more than seven times higher in the infection group than in the vaccination group.
In other words, if you were vaccinated...
Oh, wait. Seven times higher in the infection group than...
Oh, so let me get you a different point.
I skipped points here. The first point is that you have to ask yourself why you didn't trust science in the past, but now you do, or vice versa.
Why you did trust it in the past, but suddenly when it shows there's some problems, now you don't.
I mean, you have to explain the inconsistency.
Here's my take. I didn't believe it before when it said the vaccine was amazing, and I don't believe it now when they say there's problems.
Now, let me be clear.
It could be true.
Either of those stories could be true.
I'm not talking about what's true because I don't know.
I'm just saying that I don't trust either story.
So I'm the most distrusting person That I'm aware of.
Because I don't know anybody else who distrusted both sides.
All right. So I asked this question.
If you were to Google what Dr.
McCullough says about the risk of myocarditis being many times higher, blah, blah, could you just go to Google And then Google the claim.
And would Google say, oh yeah, here's that study.
Here's some ones that back it up.
Here are the studies that used to say the opposite, but now they've been debunked.
Right? That's what Google is for.
So I tried that.
I tried Googling it to see if he's right.
Do my own research.
Can't tell. Because the Google results look so gamed And the sources look so unreliable.
The top sources are all from entities I've never heard of.
If the top five sources are from entities I've never heard of, or maybe one of them is Reuters, but it's pointing to entities I've never heard of.
And then, also, there's opposite information at about the same level of result.
So there's, you know, some that says the sky is up, some that says the sky is down.
How in the world would I know what's real?
How do you look at that and say, oh, that's real?
Now, let's say you go to another search engine.
It will be all different.
I didn't do that, but you know it will, right?
You know if you go to another search engine, you'll get different results.
Which one do you trust? How about none of them?
How about none of them is the right answer, right?
None of them. So, that's where I'm at.
And I saw somebody was comparing the risk of the vaccination with the risk of COVID itself.
So it was a study of people who were vaccinated and then had myocarditis, and there were people who had the infection and had myocarditis.
And this one study said, wait, One group, I forget, it doesn't even matter which group, one group had more.
Do you see what's missing with that study?
So they did the people who had the infection compared to the people who had the vaccination.
What's missing? The people who had both.
Did the people who had the vaccination also get infected?
Do you know what the rate of infection is?
It's like 86%.
Among young people, 86% of them have antibodies.
They've been infected. How do you even find people who haven't been infected to compare to people who have been vaccinated but never infected?
Because there aren't any.
They don't have any people who are vaccinated and not infected.
Because everybody's been infected.
They maybe didn't have symptoms, but they were infected.
Yeah, so there are a few people, right?
You could find a few. But that's such a basic question.
Such a basic question.
If you saw that study, would you have even asked that question of yourself?
Or would you have just read the headline, oh, this one is more risky than that one?
If you read the study that said, you know, one is more risky than the other, the vaccination versus the COVID, would you read to the end and find out it was a meta-study?
A meta-analysis, which has no credibility at all?
How many of you would read to find that and then, oh, actually that had no credibility?
If you trust any of the data at this point, you have some explaining to do.
Especially if you're only believing the stuff that's coming around to your way of thinking.
The NPC is yelling, Scott, trust Google.
The exact opposite of my entire point.
You're taking what Cerno said from the fake doctor.
I don't know what Cerno said and I don't know what the fake doctor was.
Not trusting is getting the vax.
Getting the vax is trusting.
Is it? So you would trust the COVID, because remember, it's not just trusting people, it's also trusting a virus.
So you would have to trust your own understanding of the long-term impact of the virus.
I don't trust that.
Why would you trust your own opinion of the long-term impact of long COVID? Why would you trust yourself?
Because you're a good track record?
I don't know how you'd trust anybody.
All right. Oh, and here's the other thing.
One of the studies showed that...
So here's the one that McAuliffe was talking about.
He said that myocarditis or periocarditis from primary COVID infections occurred at a rate as...
Basically, the virus was six...
No, I'm sorry. So here's the problem.
I tried to write down what McCullough said and then I just googled some other things that said the opposite and then my own notes are confused because they literally say the sky is blue and then my very next note says the sky is red and I've actually lost which one McCullough is talking about.
So I don't know why his is the good one and the others are the bad ones because I can't tell.
Can't tell. Do I have COVID antibodies?
I had COVID. I assume I do.
Oh, and then somebody pointed me at a really, really good blog post in which somebody explained 18 reasons for not getting vaccinated.
And I read the 18 reasons and the first seven, well actually all 18, all 18 reasons were solid.
Were you expecting to hear that?
So it was a list of 18 reasons to not get vaccinated, and they were all good.
Does that surprise you?
Do you hear me say that?
They were all good reasons. Do you know what the 18th reason was?
I had to read all of the reasons, and I got to the 18th reason, and the 18th reason said he had already had COVID. That's right.
He already had natural immunity.
So, now rethink the first 17 good reasons.
The first 17 reasons were just rationalizations.
When I read them, they looked like good reasons.
But when he got to the end, he only had one reason that mattered.
If you had already been infected, and you probably didn't trust the government that that didn't mean anything, that's all.
That's all. He needed one good reason, and the other 17 were intellectually solid.
I didn't disagree with any of them.
The other reasons were, you know, they didn't show us sufficient information, it wasn't tested long enough, and I agree with all that.
I agreed at the time with every one of those reasons.
But I also knew that I didn't know what the other risk was either.
Were the other seven tweets unique from each other?
Pretty unique, yeah. It was a really well-done blog post.
I should have tweeted, I guess.
But... Ben Harrison.
Ben Garrison. No, Ben Garrison believes that if you saw those 18 reasons, that you're done.
So Ben Garrison is a binary.
The binaries don't understand that there could be risks and benefits to a decision.
They only believe that there's a yes and a no.
So never be a Ben Garrison.
If you're calling his name in support of your opinion, that's good entertainment if you're a Klopbert, because the Klopberts don't try to be serious.
The Klopberts are pretty anti-science.
So Klopberts, you're all Ben Garrisons.
But for regular people with functional minds and stuff, you wouldn't want to make an appeal to him.
Ben Garrison, he's an idiot cartoonist, a terrible cartoonist, who's even worse at science.
So, that's pretty much what I wanted to say.
is there any story I'm missing?
Any story I'm missing?
Here's a question for you.
Did you notice that before Andrew Taint was picked up by the Romanian police, he was everywhere on social media?
And the everywhere wasn't coming from him.
It was coming from other people promoting his clips.
Have you noticed it all stopped?
At first it went down to a trickle, But I don't believe I've seen it in a few days.
And it used to be all over my feed.
Because if you look at a couple of them, you're doomed to be...
Do you think the algorithm changed?
Or do you think that there are fewer people creating clips?
Because the people creating the original clips, I think, were pretty dedicated followers.
I don't know that they've stopped following them.
You think it's the algorithm?
I feel like there's a human decision to erase him from the internet, and that the platforms all made the same decision.
It doesn't look like they stopped being active, the people who were boosting him.
I doubt they just stopped.
Now, the other possibility is that the people who were supporting him got embarrassed.
Because they knew if they kept supporting them, they would be dragged into the accusations themselves.
Could be that. But generally, people...
Here's why I think it's less of that.
When was the last time anybody ever changed their opinion about anything?
The people who were pro-Andrew Tate probably still are.
You know, 80% of them.
So there should have been almost as much activity after he went to jail, if not more.
You know, there could have been more because that would create more anxiousness among his followers.
But the fact that it just disappeared, that tells you it's all manipulated, right?
You know, I don't believe that a computer, the algorithm, I don't believe the algorithm already existed in a way that would erase him from the internet in two weeks.
In two weeks, it just erases him from the internet.
Oh, somebody says he was released?
Or are you thinking the first time he was picked up?
The first time he was released.
But my understanding is they say he's detained.
But I'll tell you again, everything you hear about that situation is not credible.
I don't even believe he's detained.
That's the news. The news is coming from Romanian sources.
But the Romanians are saying that he's detained.
But they don't describe where he's detained, if you catch my meaning.
I have a feeling...
He's probably at home.
And maybe he paid extra to have an off-duty policeman guard his house, maybe for his protection, but also to guarantee he stays home.
Maybe he has an ankle bracelet on.
I don't know. But I don't think you know anything about the situation.
The other possibility that I wouldn't rule out is that he was never suspected for any crime.
And they may have him under some kind of protection because somebody was trying to get at him.
Because he did say things that would make the actual mafia in Romania, assuming one exists, would have made them pretty anxious.
I think he said some things that they would not want him to keep saying.
So he could have an internal enemy that has nothing to do with the legal system.
And if it's true that, as he said, if it's true that he owned the local police, they might actually be protecting him.
That might be all this is.
Because everything about this doesn't sound right, right?
So let me make this prediction.
I'm not going to make a specific prediction about where it goes.
I'm going to make a general prediction.
That whatever you think about the situation is going to be really different later.
I don't know in which way.
Don't know in which way.
The Romanian mafia does exist.
We have a confirmation. Okay.
Yeah, he couldn't run his business without paying the mafia.
I believe that's probably true.
Yeah, because he was in sketchy businesses.
And you have to imagine that the mafia wants...
Oh, you know what else it could be?
It could be a mafia takeover of his business.
Yeah, if the mafia wanted to take over his business because it was making a lot of money, suppose they said, you know, you've got to give us 50%, and suppose he said no.
What would they do? If they wanted the business intact, they wouldn't go in and kill everybody.
They would make his business unviable, and then they would find out who the women are, and they would just, you know, move them over to their operation.
I'd be curious if that hasn't already happened.
So I'm not saying that that's likely to be what's happening.
I'm just saying that I don't believe anything that the police in Romania are saying.
Nothing. And if you believe it, well, maybe you're right.
Maybe. You think it'll be more mundane?
Yeah, it might be. Right.
Money laundering behind the scenes, but pimping was a front.
Well, I've seen no evidence of that.
No evidence has been presented by anybody.
No description of what that supposed money laundering might be.
It's kind of weird to have an accusation like that with no details.
Usually when you hear money laundering, there's a description of how.
As in, he was taking money from this source and he laundered it this way.
Without that, I'm not sure that that's a real charge.
Laughing at the focus of Tate and no Epstein stuff.
Well, the Epstein stuff's an older story.
I reject the framing that talking about something is ignoring something else.
Now, when the media does it, that might be what's happening.
When I do it, it's just when I'm talking what's in the headlines today.
That's all that's happening.
I'm not forgetting that the Epstein thing happened.
And by the way, if you don't know the real story of the Epstein stuff, which we don't, don't you have to assume the worst?
Don't you have to assume the worst?
Somebody says Tate has several passports.
Don't you think they confiscated all of those by now?
I don't know maybe he has a hidden one that they didn't get so the Templars so Scaffold commander.
The scaffold commander being, you mean that January 6th?
That's just more stuff we don't know anything about.
My take on January 6th and everything else is that the worst-case assumption is most likely to be true.
The worst-case assumption is most likely to be true for anything that the government is hiding from you.
And I think the Epstein stuff is the government hiding from us.
So I guess I'm comfortable with the assumption that there is, in fact, there was at least a blackmail ring, for sure.
I don't think there's any chance there was no blackmail ring.
UFOs? I'll believe UFOs when somebody gets a good picture of one.
So, let me put this out for you, for your Someday You'll Feel Embarrassed About It.
You ready? This is in the category of Someday You'll Be Embarrassed, if you held the following belief.
Have you seen all the reports from pilots who say not only do they all see these tic-tac-shaped UFOs, but they can confirm from the sensors in the They can confirm from sensor readings that it defied the laws of physics by a lot.
We're not talking 10% more than the laws of physics.
We're like, completely violated the laws of physics.
They're screaming this didn't happen.
Do you really think there's something flying around that's defying the laws of physics?
Really? Really?
Now, I'm not going to say it's impossible, right?
Because anything's possible.
Anything's possible. But if you're believing that these ships defied the laws of gravity and that later you're going to find out they were real, I'm sorry.
That would be the worst assumption you ever made.
The moment somebody says, the one thing we're sure of is it defied the laws of gravity, here's the one thing I'm sure of.
It was something about the sensors.
And we're done. And we're done.
It was just something about the sensors.
I don't know what it was.
I mean, it's a fun mystery.
But I'll tell you what it wasn't.
It wasn't ships violating the laws of physics.
Someday, when you find out there was nothing violating the laws of physics, you're going to say to yourself, mark my words, someday you're going to say to yourself, okay, I should have seen that.
Because so far, the track record of mysterious things that violate the law of physics I think is zero for a million.
I think it's zero for a million.
So far, nothing except weird little things in a lab, and even they don't really violate it.
You know, even the principle of non-locality probably doesn't violate physics.
We just need a little better understanding of some stuff.
Yes, the law of physics are what we know, not what we don't know.
But You don't think a lot of claims have been made in the past that also violated the laws of physics and have any of them turned out to be true?
No. Zero.
All you have to do is research perpetual motion inventions.
There's like a whole history of perpetual motion inventions which violate the laws of physics.
So far, zero.
Zero. Zero of them are true.
They're all fake. Yeah, Google it.
Cold fusion, exactly.
Yeah, cold fusion, which I think is perpetual motion.
I was throwing cold fusion into perpetual motion, but it's technically not, I guess.
You've rejected the five laws of thermodynamics.
Well, that's bold. That's bold.
All right. Physics and battery storage.
Well, if you're arguing that people said that the law of physics would prevent us from inventing something, then we do have a history of inventing past the law of physics.
Would you agree? For inventions, We do have a history of inventing past physics.
True or false? Basically, all we learned is that we didn't understand physics well enough.
But you say false?
I'm seeing a false on that.
Because aren't there examples where people believed, for example, that chips couldn't get faster, batteries couldn't store more than X, Weren't there a whole bunch of assumptions that were just bad assumptions?
And it turns out that if you were clever, there were workarounds.
But the workarounds did not violate physics.
The workarounds just showed us that our understanding of physics were maybe limiting what we saw as possibilities.
But I think the workarounds didn't violate physics.
They just clarified it or something.
I don't know.
I'm talking without examples.
Well, the UFO story could be real.
Could be. But as soon as I see the sensors say it's violating physics, I'm like, no.
Sorry. Yeah, quantum entanglement shows that space and time are not what we think.
think that's true.
That's true.
All right.
Klopp-Bertz, I'm going to say goodbye to all the Clopberts over here.
Cope. And I'm going to talk to the locals' people.
