Episode 1986 Scott Adams: Joe Biden's Classified Documents, And All Manner Of Government Gaslighting
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Persuasive presentation of 911 events
Biden classified docs, 2nd batch found
Stephan Collinson on Biden classified docs
Gas stove gaslighting
Pfizer post-vax heart inflammation study
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and there's never been a finer moment in the history of moments.
And if you'd like to take it up to a level it's hard to imagine.
Well, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tankard, chalice or styne, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now.
For the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip.
Go.
Now, if you were a member of the local subscription site, you've already seen three of my Robots Read News cartoons that I did These are the ones that are usually a little too rough for the regular public.
But I'll read them to you.
I think I can read them to you.
First one is, you know, they're all, just so you know what it looks like.
All of the robots reading the news are just the same robots sitting at a desk reading the news.
The art never changes.
But anyway, the robot says, a satanic temple heated by dozens of gas ovens was discovered in the basement of Joe Biden's Delaware home.
Biden's spokesweasel reported that Biden was, quote, surprised to learn of it.
50 current and former Intel professionals have labeled it, quote, obvious Russian tradecraft.
Now, also, if you were, if you happen to be on the If you have to be... I'm sorry, I'm going to change my topic here for a moment.
I did the micro lesson in which I talked about choosing the right words.
The word tradecraft is a perfect humor word.
So here's a little lesson on writing.
So this, I did a lesson on the local channel that's a subscription.
A lesson about picking the right words.
And this is just a perfect example.
The word tradecraft is unusual, meaning it's not often used in a sentence, but it has a funny sound.
Ch and chrift.
You know, those are good sounds for humor.
Tradecraft.
It's also a little wonky.
And it's also in the news lately.
So it has a whole bunch of qualities that make it the right word.
Tradecraft.
So that was the first one.
Let's see what else we got here.
The second one was...
A new study indicates Democrat gaslighting causes asthma symptoms in Republican voters.
A science denier in the Biden administration explained it this way, quote, that's not asthma.
They just do a lot of gasping for air when they hear the shit we propose.
All right.
And then finally.
Finally, number three.
Robots Read News.
Representative Eric Swalwell got too close to an open flame and went up in a giant fireball.
First responders said it was the worst case of gaslighting they have ever seen.
Scientists blame climate change and, quote, a universe that consistently favors irony.
So there you go.
Three Robots Read News jokes in one day.
Can I take the rest of the day off?
Are we good?
Have I done enough for today?
I mean, that was all before 5 a.m.
I mean, I don't know what you've done today, but I'm killing it.
I'm killing it today.
Probably still a little bit hypomaniacal.
All right, here's some... Well, I like to call out When any of my followers on Twitter or on livestream, when any of them have, like, a success in their life, I like to call it out.
Don't you agree that's good to do?
You know, if somebody has, like, a big moment in their life, I just like to give them a little attention.
So I'd like to do that today.
I saw a tweet from a user on Twitter.
He's called Den Lesks.
And he announced this today.
I was really happy for him.
He said, the wife and I are very excited.
We just closed escrow on a dozen eggs.
So congratulations to you.
I know it's hard to get a loan like that.
But proud owners of a dozen eggs.
And given the price of eggs, that's quite an accomplishment.
And I respect the effort that you put into that.
Speaking of inflation, apparently it's cooling off.
Were you expecting that?
Let me do a quick informal survey.
Did you expect that inflation would keep going up?
Or did you think it kind of capped and was going to start to drift down?
I expected it to cap and drift down.
Can anybody confirm that I said something like that earlier?
Can you confirm that I said it wouldn't go that much higher?
Yeah.
It was part of the Adams Law of slow-moving disasters.
For some reason, When we can all see the same problem, and we've got enough time to work on it, we're really good at solving stuff.
It's amazing.
So, I don't think inflation is going to come down quickly, but it doesn't really need to.
Because, you know, it's doing two things.
It's eating up the debt, while it's also, you know, strangling the public.
And the public needs both of those things, right?
The public needs the debt to be a little bit strangled, because it's so high.
But they also need to eat, so it's a tough balance.
I think coming down slowly will build some confidence in the economy.
And if you have confidence in your economy, what works out?
What's the predictable outcome of confidence in your economy?
Basically, everything's better.
Just everything.
So you only need to be directionally correct.
And if inflation is drifting down, even slowly, it just has to go in that direction.
Confidence will be up.
People will invest, and we'll make enough money to get out of this, maybe.
So that's the good news.
There's a new study that says sitting causes excess mortality.
So apparently sitting is really deadly.
Which is scary because I've been sitting in this chair now for... Okay, just kidding.
I didn't die.
But wouldn't that be funny if I did?
I think we could all agree that you could laugh at that.
Can I make a deal with you?
I'm gonna make a deal with all of you.
In the unlikely event That my death is hilarious?
Like it's ironic?
Or like it's really weird?
I would like to authorize all of you to enjoy it as much as you can.
Because I'm going to be dead either way.
Can you agree?
I mean, if I'm dead, you might as well enjoy it.
But only if it's interesting.
Right?
If I just die of some ordinary comorbidity, nobody cares about that.
But if I get a blood clot, You are authorized to enjoy the hell out of that.
You have my total approval.
And when somebody calls you on it, you point them to this live cast and say, he said we could.
He's a professional.
It's okay.
Yeah, I'm a professional.
So go nuts.
Well, here's what I say about this sitting thing.
So now we know that sitting can kill you and it can give you cardiac problems.
We also see from a tweet from a Twitter account called The Rabbit Hole, that 15% of men reported having no close friends in 2021.
In 1990, it was only 3%.
So five times more lonely men than there were just in 1990.
So five times more lonely men than there were just in 1990.
10% of women reported having no close friends in 2021.
And that was only 2% in 1990.
So we got sitting in chairs, less exercise.
We've got probably less sun, because people just didn't go outside as much either, probably.
So people are obese, lonely, and sitting in chairs more.
And feeling hopeless.
Yeah, isolated, hopeless.
And probably doing more drugs.
Wouldn't it be surprising if there were not a huge increase in excess mortality?
How could there not be?
Right?
Now, on top of that, you've got any vaccine problems?
Because no matter what you think of vaccinations, you call them shots.
The one time I use the word vaccinations, you'll decide that's what I think they are, so... Klopperts will go crazy.
Klopperts, that's for you.
I'm going to throw the clop birds a little treat.
I'm going to use the word vaccination, but this time I'm not going to correct it, because I want to see them go nuts, okay?
This is just for them.
So the vaccinations might cause some harm, but also might give some people benefits.
So given all of those reasons, it's kind of understandable that there's a big uptick in deaths.
Now the exact timing of the uptick, I'm not sure if we can trust the data, of course.
Because all the data is bad.
Ooh, new study?
Somebody says breaking.
New study, 17% of kids suffering cardiac symptoms after... That can't be true.
Really?
If it's true that 17% of kids were having cardiac symptoms after the shot, 17%.
If that's true, Pfizer would not only, you know, have a legal problem, they would be executed.
Let me just say this.
If it ever turned out, I don't think this will happen, but if it ever turned out that you actually got the name of somebody in big pharma, like an actual person, an executive, let's say, who knew that statistic and hid it, If that's not the death penalty, I don't know what is.
Seriously.
That should be a public execution.
And I'm not even joking.
That's not a joke.
I don't think this will ever be true.
Because I think what's true is I think pharma people convince themselves they're not bad.
What do you think?
Do you think that pharma people are literally just saying, if I lie, Lots of people will die, but I can make a lot of money.
I mean, there are people who exist of that nature.
But I feel it's far more likely that they convince themselves it's not as bad as it looks.
Right?
They tell themselves, well, these numbers look bad, but we'd better double-check them.
I don't want to say anything until they're double-checked, right?
You could easily see executives talking themselves out of their own evil Even while they do things that you and I would say, well, that's pretty evil.
So I kind of suspect that they would have an argument.
Might be a weak one, but they'd probably have some argument.
However, if it turned out that they were exactly as bad as you thought, a public execution, I mean, it's not in our legal code, of course, but a public execution would feel about right.
If somebody intentionally murdered thousands of children, nobody would complain about a public execution.
Except the really prickly people.
Alright, so there's that.
I saw an account on Twitter, a woman who was suggesting that porn be banned online, because it's distorting people's Sexuality and how they act and causing people to be worse people to each other than perhaps they could is, I guess, the argument.
To which I say, what are the people who can't have sex with real people supposed to do?
Why would you take away the only thing they have?
You realize that we're heading to a point where only 10 or 20% of humans are having sex at all.
Like, I don't know what the percentage is in general.
I'm going to do a little survey.
How many of you on... I'm not going to ask on locals because I know too many of you too well.
But on YouTube where you're a little bit more anonymous, how many of you have not had sex in a month?
Go.
Have not had sex in a month.
one month.
I think it's most, I think it would be the majority actually.
Yeah, quite a few people.
Now I don't know what that is as a percentage because there's no way to know.
But if I had to put a number on it, at least half, probably at least half of all adults did not have sex in the last month.
What's your guess?
I've never looked into it but I feel like it's at least half.
Because half of the people would be too unhealthy anyway.
They're aged out, or they're unhealthy, or their marriage isn't working out, or they're too busy.
Something.
Yeah, I think it's common for people to go to a month without sex.
More common than people having sex.
And I think that number is going to go down to like 10 or 20% are actually having sex with other humans.
I think that's where we're heading.
Slowly, but I think that's where it's going to go.
Because the rest will just not have an option.
So where we are at the moment is because everybody has really good information, the beautiful people can find each other and say, wow, you're beautiful, I'm beautiful, let's do this.
And then everybody below a certain level of physical attractiveness just won't have anything.
So, I mean, that's where we're heading already.
So I would say getting rid of porn would be very cruel to those who basically don't have anything else to take care of that particular hormonal need.
All right.
I saw a tweet by Steve Malloy, who often talks about climate change, and he said this.
I think this is NASA reporting it.
That climate shocker, not a single extreme weather record set in the US during 2022 per NOAA, not NASA.
What's NOAA?
National Organization of Atmospheric Association.
Or something.
Something oceanic.
Alright, whatever it is.
Some governmental group has said that there was not a single weather record in the U.S.
I don't believe that, do you?
Do you believe there was no record in the U.S.? ?
That doesn't sound right.
Does it?
Maybe there's something like a national average or something that didn't set a record.
But don't we set records at least in some town, like every month?
Aren't there records set almost every day, at least somewhere?
So I'm not sure what it means to not set a record.
Maybe they have very specific things they're tracking.
Such as hurricanes or extreme high temperatures or something.
But, I don't know.
So it says no record temperatures for rain, snow or wind.
I'm not buying that.
But maybe on average it wasn't any worse.
If it were no worse on average, then that's a good point.
Alright, yesterday I was flipping through Instagram.
And I saw a video that mockingly suggests 9-11 wasn't what you thought, and it was a big conspiracy theory.
They don't say who did it.
Obviously our government, but nothing more specific.
Now, what if I told you about seeing documentaries on one side?
Super persuasive.
Because if you only see one side of an argument, Well, what are you supposed to think?
So this was a brilliant one-side-of-the-argument presentation.
And by that I mean, when it was done, I was convinced that 9-11 was an inside job.
It was very persuasive.
Now, here's the thing you need to know.
Five minutes later, if somebody debunked that, do you know what I would say?
Probably.
Oh, well that's a pretty good debunk.
Okay, nothing there.
So my level of certainty that I got from it is wholly unrelated to reality.
It has only everything to do with the fact that documentaries, in this case a little video that was a one-sided thing, they're super persuasive.
That thing was terribly persuasive.
Then you put that in the context Of not believing anything the government's told you, and watching our government literally run conspiracy theories, I mean, actual schemes that look like conspiracy theories.
Then they get caught.
So, given that we know our government is not above that, they have a history of doing it, the 9-11 situation does look different.
If you pull it forward into today's context, it looks completely different.
And the approach that this video used, which was really good, was they mocked each part of it.
So they'd say stuff like, yes, a guy with just a satellite phone in a cave in Afghanistan pulled off the most complicated operation in the history of the world.
And one of the pilots, who couldn't even pass a Cessna flying test, managed to do one of the most complicated maneuvers a giant jet could ever do to hit the Pentagon at exactly the time.
That they had said they were missing a few trillion dollars, and it coincidentally blew up all the records of the lost trillion dollars.
Now, if you do a fact check on that, I don't believe, I don't believe that the plane hit and destroyed... Yeah, so on September 10th, they were reporting that 2.3 trillion went missing.
And on September 11th, their building blew up.
Now, I'm not laughing at the tragedy.
I'm laughing at the fact that if anything ever looked like a conspiracy theory that was true, it's got all the markings of it now.
But it's funny how if you just looked at it in the context of 2001, the conspiracy theorists just looked nuts.
If you look at it in the context of today, it's a pretty good theory.
It's a solid theory.
No, I'm not saying it's true.
All right.
So this is one of those things that if I tweeted about it... Well, actually, I... No, I didn't tweet about it.
If I tweeted about it, the Klopperts would say, he believes this theory because it would be fun and entertaining.
But the Klopperts only see things out of context.
They only see this.
By the way, question.
I've been asked a number of times if I would do a Spaces event on Twitter.
And I haven't really been too interested because I've got enough going on anyway.
But I did think it might be fun just to have people, let's see, what would you say, accost me with my own past tweets and ask me to explain them.
Say, are you saying this or that?
Because they're all easy to explain.
They just take more than a tweet to explain.
So I feel like letting all the clobbers just wildly pile on me in public would be fun.
What do you think?
Would that be fun?
And I suppose I could live stream my participation.
It just wouldn't be good audio.
Well, you know, you wouldn't have to attend, but my proposition is I would just go right into the snake pit.
I just sort of lower myself into the snake pit and see if I can get out.
I might be a little too cocky, but I'm pretty sure I could get out of that pretty easily.
Meaning that everything I said, I stand by.
People are pulling all of my past tweets to embarrass me, and they keep tweeting them, and I keep looking at my past tweets and saying, no, that's exactly what I thought.
What's the problem?
So, all right, maybe I'll do that.
Maybe I'll do a Spaces.
Well, let's talk about those Biden classified documents.
Now we know that there are at least two places.
Was it Greg Gotfeld who was saying, those Bidens like to leave, leave important things everywhere?
We've got, you know, Hunter Biden's laptops are spread all over the world and Joe Biden apparently is just dropping trade secrets or government secrets wherever he goes.
We got, you know, Ashley Biden's diary.
I feel like the Bidens are not good with secrets.
Not good with secrets.
Here's what CNN's Stephen Collinson says, and I love the effort that the Democrats are putting into this.
They're trying to make a, you know, do the best they can to weaken the criticism.
Alright, listen to this sentence from Stephen Collinson.
Now you should know that he's got a long track record of being a Mostly an anti-Trump opinion person on CNN.
He writes this, while Trump's retention of hundreds of documents and attempts to thwart their transfer to the National Archives as required by law, appears more serious at this stage.
Really?
Really, the Mar-a-Lago documents, which we don't know what the contents were, Seems more serious than the Biden documents that we don't know what the contents are.
What?
Doesn't it matter what the contents are?
How could you say what is more?
That's ridiculous.
That is so patently ridiculous.
How could you take that seriously?
It's ridiculous.
Now, I think the argument has to do with Trump was resisting Yeah, the government's attempts to get him back.
But two things are worth noting.
Trump was claiming they were personal property.
And he was president.
He could declassify anything.
Now, you could argue that he shouldn't have or he didn't.
But that's a pretty weak problem compared to whatever might be in Biden's thing.
Now, I would be equally, equally wrong if I said the Biden stuff looks more damaging than Trump stuff, because they're both complete unknowns.
Complete unknowns.
But nobody is suggesting that Biden's documents were something he thought that he owned because he didn't have any right to declassify anything as vice president.
Yeah. - Yeah.
Well, here's things we know.
The University of Pennsylvania got way more Chinese funding for the school in general when Biden opened his little office there, his think tank, ironically.
And of course, the University of Pennsylvania says, no, no, no.
Biden didn't get any money from China.
That did not happen.
What happened was, when Biden showed up, there was a huge increase in money from China to the university, which then made it the university's money, not China's money.
And then the university took the money that used to be China's money, but is definitely not China's money, because they gave it to the University of Pennsylvania, which changes it from China's money into University of Pennsylvania's money.
And then they give it to Joe Biden, which now changes it into Joe Biden's money, so really, nobody is to blame.
Because once they gave it to Joe Biden, it was his money.
So there's nothing to see here.
All of it is so stupid.
It's like incredibly stupid.
And this is clearly how the Bidens were laundering corruption.
Clearly.
But it's all legal as far as I can tell.
As far as I can tell, if you do it right, it's totally legal.
And I think that's what Hunter Biden was doing for them.
He was doing a bunch of things that were sketchy, but just totally legal.
So here's how you legally take a bribe.
You ready?
I will not take a bribe from you.
Come on, take a bribe.
I will not take a bribe from you.
I will not do it.
All right, darn it, we tried to give you a bribe.
So you got any relatives who need funding?
Any friends or business acquaintances?
Oh yes, I have plenty of friends and business acquaintances who have businesses that are looking for investment.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with me.
Is one of them your brother?
Who shares 10% with you?
Maybe, but that has nothing to do with me.
Well, maybe we'll talk to your brother and make an enormous investment that we wouldn't normally make.
Now would you like to do what we say?
Don't ask again, and don't put that in writing.
It's obvious corruption.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, Trump has never even come close to anything like that, has he?
Is anything in the Trump world even close to what is obviously corruption?
Obviously.
Like, obviously.
You know, if all of the trips with Hunter weren't enough, if all the Burisma stuff wasn't, if that were not enough, I mean, there's no doubt anymore.
The weird thing about these stories is because all the Hunter stories trickled out, and then this story is kind of trickling out, that it's giving us time to get used to it.
We shouldn't get used to this.
It's completely obvious corruption.
Completely obvious.
Now, I don't think you need to know anything, any extra stuff, do you?
With Trump, it was always, if we keep digging, we're going to find something.
Right?
They never said we found it.
They said, if we keep digging, we're going to find, you know, some stuff.
And then they dug and never found anything.
But with Biden, do you need to do any digging?
No.
The public reported stuff tells the whole story.
There's no confusion there, no ambiguity whatsoever.
It's very clearly corruption.
It just doesn't seem to be illegal, because the Chinese know how to do it in a way that is legal.
So I don't think anybody's going to go to jail for that stuff, and probably won't even have any effect on re-election.
That's the weird thing.
Democrats absolutely won't care.
Absolutely won't care.
All right.
Rasmussen is talking about the border situation.
Did a poll and found out that 69% of likely U.S.
voters believe the current situation with migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border is a crisis.
69% believe it's a crisis.
Which is even higher than it was in May.
Now, how do you get re-elected when 69% of the public thinks you blew one of the biggest problems?
I mean, border security should have been a gimme.
In every other country, border security is something that can get done, apparently.
But we can't.
I mean, it's the one thing you should have been able to depend on our government to do.
Like, just build a wall, you know, guard it.
But we didn't.
So now 69% of the people think it's a crisis and we've got a government that clearly is not super interested in fixing it.
So how in the world does he get re-elected?
It's amazing.
Yeah, they blame, I guess they blame Republicans.
Alright, Michael Schellenberger is reporting more on the Twitter files.
Many, he said in a tweet, many think social media companies only censored vaccine misinformation.
Kloppertz, when I said the word vaccine, that's actually a quote from a tweet.
Had I used the word vaccine?
You should start yelling, my God, don't you know it's not a vaccine?
My God, it's not a vaccine.
Why do you keep supporting the vaccines, Scott?
No, it's just a quote.
Settle down.
Settle down.
It's just a quote.
And it's in quotes.
It's a quote about a quote.
So it's like a double quote.
So don't blame me.
Anyway, apparently they were also Trying to censor stuff that was accurate.
And they said so directly.
Because some of the accurate information was damaging to the narrative.
They said it directly.
It's actually in the emails.
I guess Dr. Scott Gottlieb was one of the ones asking.
Now here's the context.
The context is, I think, because they were a little unclear about what the What the true information they wanted to stop was.
I think it's probably the anecdotes.
So I think that the, quote, true information they were trying to block probably was lots of people saying, look at this person, they got the shot, and then they dropped dead.
Because that would actually be somewhat consistent with what the official people were saying, which is that sometimes you're gonna drop dead.
We kind of do that.
Because that's true with medicines and vaccinations in general.
Somebody's going to drop dead, we just didn't know.
No, that's informed consent.
Everybody who got a shot should have known there was a risk of death.
That's pretty basic knowledge.
By the time you got it, you should have known.
But... Yeah, that's pretty basic knowledge.
We just don't know how many.
So what do you think of this?
So here's your ethical question.
I think I know which way you're going to go.
Suppose you were an official in charge of trying to save the country from this coronavirus.
And suppose you knew that every time somebody put out one of these anecdotes of this one person died after getting vaccinated, that the anecdotes are not science.
They're just things people saw.
We already knew that people would have bad outcomes.
And the only point of it was that maybe not having the shots would be even worse.
That was the thinking.
So... Anyway.
So I think that the moral argument for trying to block the true stories is that they would be misleading because people can't tell the difference between an anecdote and a study.
Do you agree?
that individual stories of people could be terribly misleading.
And that if it caused people to make the wrong medical choice, that they would die because of that misleading information.
So do you think that the social media platforms should err on the side of letting everything that's true be on, even if it causes massive people to die?
Should they go with free speech knowing it would kill people?
I mean, it would kill people for sure.
I don't know how many, but it would definitely kill people.
So most of you say with free speech and let them die.
Now, is there any limit to that?
Is there any upper limit?
So let's say I said 100,000 people died so you could have your free speech on social media.
Are you okay with that?
Would you accept 100,000 American deaths for no censorship?
I respect those answers.
So I'm saying a sea of yeses on the locals platform.
Yes, yes, yes.
Yeah.
That's how serious we take free speech.
How seriously.
And I'm OK with that.
I'm OK with that.
Yeah.
I would agree with you, I guess.
Because it's two impossible choices, isn't it?
You can't be... I don't think you can make the moral choice.
You can't make the moral choice, because there's two immoral choices.
That's it.
But here's what you can do.
And I've probably modeled this a number of times, but here's why you would choose free speech.
Because that protects the system.
And that's more important than 100,000 lives.
We've proven it a million times.
If the United States lost free speech, that's going to cost you more than 100,000 lives.
You just have to wait a little while.
Am I right?
100,000 lives, unfortunately, is cheap.
That's the worst thing I'll ever say.
It's the worst thing ever to come out of my mouth, that 100,000 souls dying a horrible death is cheap.
But compared to losing free speech in America specifically, it probably is.
It's probably cheap.
Probably cheap.
So I'd agree with you on that.
All right.
Is it amazing to you that the Democrats are gaslighting us about literally gas stoves?
What were the odds that that would happen?
I mean, that just feels so simulation-y.
It's like we all caused that to happen just by thinking about the puns.
I feel like we caused it to happen.
Like it wasn't going to happen on its own.
But that is just too weird.
Anyway, Andreas Backhaus looked at the little study that seemed to indicate that indoor gas stoves, of course that's where they usually are, was causing asthma.
And this is what Andres says.
He said, the Gas Stoves and Childhood Asthma Research is a three-pager that does one calculation and presents one figure based on a meta-analysis coefficient and aggregate data from nine US states.
And as Andres sums it up, let's hope no policies will be based on this paper despite the overblown attention it is receiving.
Are you still angry at Andres for criticizing all bad studies?
You do see he goes after just all the bad studies.
It has nothing to do with the topic of the study.
He's one of the few people that I've seen go through the entire pandemic and I can't even identify a bias.
And I'm sure he has them because he's human.
But I haven't seen one.
I haven't seen one.
He's just a maniac about bad studies and letting you know when they're bad.
Now, that doesn't mean that this study is wrong.
It just means it's not credible enough to act on.
It might turn out to be right.
Maybe it's the first one, and then they repeat it, or they replicate it.
Maybe.
Could be.
But it gets back to how important ventilation is.
If we had better ventilation, the kids wouldn't have asthma.
If we had better ventilation, COVID would not have been as spready as it is.
Kids going back to school.
So we really need to get serious about ventilation.
I'm going to add to my prediction that the biggest market of the future is people completely getting rid of their classic old All right.
kind of homes, and building homes that are more livable.
And one of the things you could do today that you could get right is making the ventilation way, way better.
So that's just one of the things.
Yeah.
Bad ventilation equals energy efficient.
Yeah, there's that.
All right.
All right.
Are you ready for the greatest moral conundrum you've ever heard?
you're not allowed.
This one's gonna make your head just go rot!
Alright, so, Democrats are in favor of abortion, correct?
Correct.
Democrats are very strong supporters, as am I, of the LGBTQ community.
It would be hard to be more supportive than I am.
Very supportive.
Republicans, maybe a little less so, but I think, you know, in 2023 it's not really even a topic they care about, mostly.
Now, fact check, it is widely understood, there's a consensus view of this in the medical and I think social community in general, that being gay, we'll just pick one part of LGBTQ, that being gay Is something you're born?
Now, I'm sure there's some debate.
Some people probably say no.
But would you agree with the setup here?
The setup for my moral conundrum is that it's widely understood that you're essentially born gay.
Of course, there's an environmental factor.
You know, you could imagine that there's some gray area where the environment flips you one way or the other.
But generally, Generally, most gay people are born without wiring, wouldn't you say?
Now, at the moment, I don't believe science can study a baby's DNA And determine they're gay.
It's not like there's a gay gene.
You know, yes, no.
It's more like a complicated, let's say, web of connections.
And a variety of connections might be able to get you to the same place.
Right?
So it's a little not quite understood what exactly is happening in a person that predisposes them to be gay.
But don't you think we're going to figure that out?
Do you think in 20 years we won't know that a baby will become gay?
I think we will know.
I think we'll just keep honing in on it until we say, oh, OK, if these five factors are here, it's a 95% chance it's going to be gay.
Don't you think?
Oh, some of you are saying no.
You think we'll never get to the point where we could untangle the complexity That predisposes somebody to be gay?
Okay.
Well, some of you are going to disagree with the assumption then.
So I'll let you take a pass, and you don't have to answer this, because you've, you basically, you tested out of this question, by saying you don't, you really think that won't happen?
I'm really surprised that you think that's not an obvious thing that'll happen.
I think it'll obviously happen.
All you have to do is take everything we know about a person, And turn AI loose on it.
Just say, here's everything we know, every blood test, every chromosome, every part of your DNA.
And then they'll just say, hey, AI, look at all the people who have given us all this information and tell us what you can find and see if you can predict.
I would put a very big bet that you'll be able to predict with, let's say, 95% accuracy.
That a baby will grow up to be predisposed to be a gay man.
You don't think so?
Now is it because you think it's not genetic?
You're saying epigenetic, meaning a combo?
Alright, well let me finish my question.
What happens when Republicans start aborting gay fetuses?
Will abortion remain legal?
You say that will not happen?
No, that would happen.
Oh, that would happen.
I wouldn't do it, but it's gonna happen, right?
Yeah, no, I agree with you that mostly it wouldn't happen.
Mostly it wouldn't happen.
But somebody's gonna do it.
You don't think that there'll be... Maybe it's not even Republicans.
Maybe it's not even Republicans.
Maybe it's just anybody who's a bigot.
Anybody who thinks it's going to cause them problems.
Maybe they're selfish or something.
But you don't think that somebody is going to start trying to abort gay fetuses.
You're way more trusting than I am.
I don't know how you got so trusting.
All right.
Well, I thought you were going to agree with my assumptions, but since you disagree with the assumptions, it turns out that wasn't much of a moral dilemma at all.
I guess Republicans will just say, let all babies be born, and Democrats will have a different view.
All right, well, OK, let me take a moment here to compliment My conservative leaning audience, you know, I don't identify as conservative, but I always appreciate people who are consistent with their view.
And I just saw an amazing amount of consistency there.
So, good for you.
It's actually kind of impressive how consistent you are.
Even at the hardest question, you remain consistent.
I do respect that, I gotta say.
I respect that.
So, Turns out that, is the breaking news, I heard that Pfizer missed a deadline for reporting the, what is it, the cardio problems from the shot on young people.
Is that breaking that I just saw, did they just, while I was on the live stream, did Pfizer just announce the results?
Can you confirm that?
Or was somebody just guessing?
They did.
Somebody says yes.
And the results are horrible?
Is anybody looking at it right now?
Breaking?
It's heart-stopping?
So is that the biggest news at the moment?
They're just admitting that it's bad for young males mostly?
Is that now just something that Pfizer says right straight out?
Wow.
Okay.
Well, so the note I made to myself is that if Pfizer is not giving us the results, and we don't know why, you have to assume there's a reason.
I guess that was the reason.
It was exactly what you thought, huh?
Yeah, I got a feeling the good news comes out right away.
When you miss your deadline for something that could be really bad, but not necessarily, I think missing the deadline, you presume guilt.
Remember, a company is not a person, and the government is not a person.
Persons have the assumption of innocence.
Big organizations, you have to start with the assumption of guilt, and if they don't offer you transparency, just keep your assumption.
Just assume guilt and act as though that's just a fact.
That's the only system that works.
You know, trusting big organizations who are not transparent makes no sense at all.
You couldn't have a world that way.
Well, we'll talk more about the Pfizer stuff when I know more about it.
So there's another Russian general shakeup.
I think the fourth one since the military action.
And in Ukraine, so the new guy, so the speculators are all speculating.
So the new general was already the top general of all the generals.
But he was more of an office kind of a general.
And you're already assuming that I'm going to be biased toward one side.
Give me a minute.
Give me a minute, will you?
So, some pundits say that one of them is getting demoted and it's a sign of things going wrong, etc.
The other take is that he's exactly the right guy to have in position for a spring offensive that the Russians are getting ready for.
I lean toward that view.
That it's a positive Russian strategy.
I'm leaning against the interpretation that it shows that Russia is falling apart.
Because the person they're putting in charge was the office person in charge of the generals who were there.
And they just told the office person to get out of the office and get to the front line, or at least get into the war.
And the thinking is that the person who, and he still, he has the same job, so he's still ahead of the other generals.
But if that general can get the various parts of the Russian military to work together better, which was one of the biggest issues they had, then he's exactly the right person.
And if he's the head of the generals and he doesn't have, let's say, the urgency that he should, then putting him in the theatre would certainly give him more urgency.
So, it's way too early to know if this is a good thing or a bad thing and in what way, but I'm leaning toward it's a Russian strong move and they're getting ready for a big offensive in the spring.
Is that what you expected me to say?
Because you expected me to say over and over again that Ukraine is winning everything?
Even when the evidence suggests otherwise?
See, sometimes I follow the evidence.
To me, that doesn't look like a mistake.
It looks like they strengthened their chain of command.
By the way, by the way, I was on YouTube yesterday and YouTube suggested a The story about Stalin.
It was a story about the last days of Stalin.
And, oh my God!
I think we all knew that Stalin was, you know, a Hitler-like bad character.
I had no idea.
I thought I knew how bad it was.
I did not know.
I did not know at all.
He was actually basically just a serial killer who enjoyed killing people.
He actually just liked it.
He killed most of his in-laws.
He was mad at his wife because she committed suicide when she figured out what a monster he is.
So because he was mad at his wife, who killed herself, he sent most of her relatives to the gulags and shot the guys.
One by one, not all at once.
The sister of one of the sisters who went to the gulag just for being a sister and complaining about her sister, the one had a meeting with him and just gave a letter from the sister that was in the gulag asking for mercy.
And so instead of giving her mercy, he transferred her to a much worse gulag and then took the sister who complained and delivered the letter.
Somebody new, like a family member, And put her in the gulag and then executed her later.
And that's not like a rare story.
Apparently that was every day.
Like he had a huge list of people he was executing.
He executed 750,000 people in like one year.
750,000 people in like one year.
750,000.
750,000.
20 million he killed altogether.
You know, as crazy as our other dictators are, I've never seen anything like that Because it did seem like he was enjoying it.
It did not seem like he thought it was necessary, necessarily.
Well, you never know.
I mean, any story about dictators is shaky.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I needed to say today.
Is there any story I missed?
We'll check out that Pfizer stuff.
Oh, I tweeted a long thread from Professor Balu.
I like all of your opinion on it, because he, coincidentally, he represents my exact opinion of where the consensus of experts are on the data.
Now you all understand I didn't say that that means I'm right.
But my current belief, subject to change at any time, is that his description of whether the so-called vaccinations helped or hurt is at least consistent with the data that we can see.
And basically he's saying that of the vulnerable group, the older people primarily, that it was wildly successful, like wildly successful, saving lives, not in terms of infections.
But he said everybody should have known it wouldn't help with infections, you know, spread, because, you know, it should have been obvious.
That's the reason I predicted it wouldn't work, because it never worked before, and again, it didn't work this time.
But his take is that even at the beginning, it was probably a bad idea to give the shots to young people, young healthy people.
And he's saying that's what looks to be the case, that it was a mistake to give it to young people.
But that it was a huge success to give it to the older people.
How many of you think that's true?
And again, I'm just saying that matches my current thinking of what the current thinking is.
My own thinking My own thinking is useless because, you know, how do I know?
I'm just saying my thinking of what the current thinking is matches that.
Until Omicron, and then you think it changed?
Yeah?
I'm not aware of any data that would be counter to his view of what the current view is.
I haven't seen any.
But that doesn't mean it's not true.
Now, I would agree with you on the following statement.
In the context of Omicron, I don't know why anybody would get any additional things put in their body.
I mean, I'm not.
I did the minimum I needed to fly and then I'm out.
But, if you were to stop today, Was the shot wildly successful at protecting old people so far?
Now that doesn't mean they won't fall over tomorrow.
So this is two movies, one screen, right?
Would you agree that it's the single most important thing to know?
Like, if you could know one thing for sure, wouldn't you want to know if the vaccinated had a much better chance of living than the unvaccinated?
And be confident of the numbers?
Yeah, it's the most important thing.
And we don't agree on it.
And we don't agree.
Alright, so I will accept anybody who disagrees with the data, because all of our data has turned out to be unreliable so far.
So if you just take the position all of our data is fake, You're going to be right a lot.
I'm not even going to argue with you on it.
But it's entirely possible that that will end up being the historian's take on it.
I think the historians are going to settle on the vaccination saved lives, but it was a mistake to give it to the young where it probably cost lives.
I think that's where it's going to turn out.
But that doesn't mean it's true, right?
That just means I think that's where the historians are going to settle.
We'll never know what's true.
All right.
No is the default answer until proven yes.
Oh, let me test this logic with you.
Generally speaking, would you agree with the following statement?
Don't do a medical intervention if you don't know you need it.
How many would say that's just basic?
Don't do a medical intervention if you don't know you need it.
Yeah.
Yeah, you're all wrong, by the way.
Every one of you got the wrong answer.
Totally wrong.
Is there anybody who's going to disagree with you?
Am I the only one?
No, that's totally bad thinking.
That's bad analysis.
The fog of war decision is completely different.
The fog of war decision is if you think you have a a weaponized biological weapon.
And that's one of your choices.
You know, it's fog of war.
You don't know what this thing is.
And then on the other hand, people on your side-ish, the pharma people in the government, you know, sort of on your side, are saying, you know, we don't know for sure, but this looks like a better bet than this.
Do you think just automatically don't put anything in your body under any condition?
How about this?
Suppose you get bit by a wild animal and you don't know if you have rabies.
You don't know.
Do you get the rabies shot?
Yes or no?
You don't know if you have rabies.
Oh, you all changed your opinion.
Look at that.
Every one of you just reversed your opinion.
Now suddenly you're putting drugs into your body.
You're putting drugs into your body without knowing.
Without knowing if you have a problem.
Now, are you going to say to me that's a special case?
You should, right?
You should say that's a special case, right?
So is the fog of war.
So was this.
This was the most special case.
Now, it's not exactly... Let me be consistent.
Analogies are not arguments.
So if I were to say, because, you know, because of one kind of shot, they treat it that way, therefore, you know, another shot should be treated, that doesn't make sense.
Analogies don't work that way, right?
So if you're saying bad analogy, yay, you should be saying that.
The analogy is just to bring your mind to something.
It's not an argument.
It's just to bring your mind to another place or to explain something, right?
No argument.
Here's the argument.
In a special case, which would be rare, you can consider both options and you're not crazy.
And if you're trying to avoid maybe a Chinese bioweapon, and your option is a, let's say, a drug made by people who are less likely to want you dead, Do you take the one from people trying to kill you, or the ones from the people trying to save you, but maybe they did it wrong, or they're lying to you?
Right?
Yeah.
So I'll just make one statement.
If the rabies thing didn't convince you, if that didn't convince you, the only thing I want to tell you is there are exceptions.
But as a general rule, I agree with you.
As a general rule, don't put something in your body if you don't know it's going to help you, or has a good chance.
And every day we put alcohol in our bodies and all kinds of stuff.
Somebody needs me to reframe a McDonald's McMuffin addiction in the morning.
What's wrong with a McMuffin?
Of all the things you could eat, isn't that one of the less bad ones?
At least there's an egg in there, right?
Isn't McMuffin bad for you?
Well, you know, the bread, but having a little bit of bread isn't going to kill you.
Yeah?
Okay.
Well, I'm not sure you need that, but if I were looking to reframe it, the way I would do it is that I would call it entertainment.
So if you're eating it because it tastes so darn good, which is probably the case, Because you have options, you know, there are other ways to eat.
So you're probably eating because it tastes good.
If you're eating it because it tastes good, it's entertainment.
So tell yourself, you don't need entertainment, you need food.
So try that one.
So that's entertainment.
Fast food you should think of as entertainment in general.
Right?
Junk food, all junk food is entertainment.
So if you're hungry, do you say, oh, I'm hungry, I need some entertainment?
No.
When you're hungry, go get some food.
Get some protein first, eat clean, and then go from there.
No way it's good for you.
Well, unfortunately, we live in a world where our options are things that are terrible for us and things that are just bad for us.
Or you're going to spend a lot of money and a lot of time growing your own organic food or something.
Yeah, I don't think there's any food that hasn't been called bad for you at one point.
Yeah, I don't know.
Well, don't take my advice on eating at McDonald's.
But I would guess that on the McDonald's menu, I'm gonna guess the Egg McMuffin is the least bad thing for you.
Just a guess.
I have no data to back that up.
Alright.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to say goodbye to YouTube and thanks for joining.
