Episode 1989 Scott Adams: The Hypnotist Persuasion Filter Applied To Headlines
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Keenan Anderson's death
Drug rehab program issues
My defense of Sam Harris
Biden classified docs speculation
Pfizer booster stroke spike in elderly?
Bill Gates farmland & fake meat
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
I promise you, today will be one of my best live streams of all time.
Sometimes the headlines are just made for me.
Today's one of those days.
And if you'd like to join me in a peak experience, one of the best things that's ever happened, All you need is a cupper, a mugger, a glass, a tanker, a chalice, a stein, a canteen, a jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now in the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go.
Well, I love you right back, Broker Natalie.
We all love each other.
Well, have I ever told you that I'm proud of my prediction from 20 years ago or so that even a little bit of alcohol isn't good for you?
Well, the New York Times has an article today that I did not bother to read because the headlines agreed with me.
That's a good rule of thumb.
We know now that the headline of articles don't have much correlation to the actual article.
I don't know when that started, but it's definitely a thing that the headline and the article don't match.
So when I see a headline that I agree with, I don't read the article, because I want to buy into the headline.
But if I disagree with the headline, well, I'll read the article to find out the headline is misleading.
That's the way I play it.
How do you play it?
All right, well, here's an example of that.
So we can't trust any scientific study.
I think we've all learned that.
But according to the New York Times, even a little bit of alcohol can harm your health, research shows.
Now, does this mean I'm right because the newer research agrees with what I predicted 20 years ago?
No, unfortunately.
Unfortunately, no.
But I do feel as if the tide is turning.
Even if it's only the tide of what they're reporting, who knows what the truth is.
But it did seem to me that this was an obvious thing that would happen in the future.
Now, sometimes you can just predict the future by saying, what is something that everybody believes to be true?
And just predict the opposite.
And if you wait long enough, somebody's going to have some science that says, you know, everything you believed was true about everything.
It was all wrong.
I think you'd be right about 80% of the time.
You could just pick any topic that science says is definitely true.
Oh, we all agree this is true.
And just say it isn't.
And wait 20 years.
See what happens.
You'll look like a prophet 80% of the time.
20% of the time, maybe smoking is bad for you and that's never going to change.
Everything else, subject to interpretation.
Well, I asked this question On social media, on Twitter, I asked, this was a poll just for the men, just for the men, and I asked if the men had ever, ever met a woman with fewer problems than their own.
60% of the respondents said no, that the women they met, all of them, had more problems than they do.
All of them.
Barely every woman they've ever met.
But how many men, we'll just see how good you are here, how many men do you think responded that they have met women who have fewer problems than they do?
Oh wow, you're really close.
26%.
How do you do it?
Without even seeing the poll, you knew the answer to that.
So good.
So smart.
Smartest audience ever.
Yeah, 26%.
Now, here's my hypothesis behind that.
That the way men find happiness and meaning is giving women what they want.
Which usually is directly or indirectly revolving around procreation and creating the next generation.
Women however, have a slightly different operating system.
And this is based on my observation, that they have to have more problems than the guy they're with, or at least present that they do, because that's how they get the guy to activate.
Because the guy isn't going to activate just on a casual preference, maybe.
But, oh, I'm going to die if I don't turn up the heat.
If I don't eat in 10 minutes, I'll be killing somebody.
So have you ever tried to tell a woman you have a problem?
They can top you pretty quickly.
Maybe I just don't have many problems.
I don't know.
I wondered for a while if it was just me.
I used to think, I must have an unusually small number of problems.
There must be something about me where I've just solved all my problems.
And then it occurred to me, maybe I should ask other men.
Because maybe they're having the same experience.
That's why I did the poll.
Sure enough, Men have the impression, and again it would just be an impression and there's nothing scientific about the poll, but just the impression that the women have more problems.
But I think it has more to do with the fact that the women's operating system is to communicate the problem.
And the man's operating system is to look strong and to maybe hide the problem.
Now it probably gets reversed when you go to the doctor.
I hear.
I hear that men are taken more seriously at the doctor.
I mean, maybe.
That could be true.
But in general, in general, would you agree with the hypothesis?
There's no proof here.
There's no science.
But would you agree that it's a reasonable hypothesis that women need to present themselves as the one with more problems?
And that there's nothing wrong with it.
It's probably the way everything works.
It doesn't necessarily mean it's broken.
It's just the way it is.
All right.
Well, that got you quiet.
You saw this story, it was a few days ago, about the cousin of one of the Black Lives Matter founders was stopped by the police and he seemed to be pretty hopped up on some drug or combination of drugs and he resisted arrest, if you can call it that.
By trying to sneak away, run away, but he was hallucinating and he was in bad shape.
But in the process of resisting arrest, as it has been interpreted by those who watch the body cam photos, that he died.
He got tasered majorly and he was held down and some combination of things killed him.
I read the comments about it, and besides the obvious irony that he's related to a Black Lives Matter founder, most of the people who saw it said, well, what do you expect?
He was involved in something that looked like a traffic accident or something, maybe criminal, they weren't sure.
But he resisted arrest.
What are they supposed to do?
What are the police supposed to do?
Well, I have a suggestion, based on persuasion.
It looked like the police officer was doing everything he could to take this guy who was obviously in a psychotic episode.
Whether any part was natural, we don't know.
But at the very least, he was probably on drugs.
So the police officer was trying to keep this frame of the real world.
What is real?
What is not real?
Well, this guy's in full-out hallucination.
Are you surprised that a police officer who tried to keep things in the realm of what's real didn't get a good outcome with somebody who was fully hallucinating?
That should not be a surprise.
What it looked like to me is a gap in training.
And I'm not going to say under-trained.
I'm not going to say under-trained.
Because they're probably trained up.
But I feel like there's a gap.
And here's the gap from the field of hypnosis.
Right?
How would a hypnotist have handled that same situation?
How would I have handled it?
I'll tell you.
If I had been that police officer, the moment I realized that my frame of what is true and real, according to me, didn't have any impact on the person, what do you do?
When you know that you can't bring the person into your frame, what do you do?
Here's what a hypnotist does.
You join their frame.
You join the frame.
If you can't get them to your frame, you have to join their frame.
Because what you don't want to do is be in different frames.
That's how somebody gets killed.
Here's how I do it.
I'm forgetting some of the crazy stuff he was saying.
But he was saying that people were trying to kill him.
And he was saying that he needed some water.
And he needed things, right?
So the police officer was doing what looked like a really professional job of keeping his cool, being consistent and firm, but he didn't get what he wanted and then things went off the rails.
Here's what he could have done.
He could have entered the frame.
This is what I would have done.
And I have done this in lots of situations, not obviously a dangerous one.
But in lots of situations, you just enter the frame.
Here's how you do it.
Somebody's trying to kill you?
Alright, here's what we're going to do.
I'm going to look like I'm arresting you, and you'll be safe.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I know.
So let's do this as quickly as possible.
Get in the car.
Get in the car.
I think somebody's after you.
I think I saw somebody.
I believe you.
I believe you.
Quick, make it look like you're getting arrested.
We'll get you in the car.
We'll get you to safety as soon as possible.
And then you can talk to us, and we'll help you out.
That's how you enter the illusion.
Now, let's say he said, but I need water.
I need water right now.
You say, oh God, yeah, you look dehydrated.
Let's get you some water as soon as possible.
Yeah, yeah, let's get you some water.
We've got some water coming.
Can you sit down here and wait for it?
The water's coming.
Now, those are just the quick, off the top of my head examples.
But what it looks to me is that the police officer is not trained with that specific technique.
Have you ever heard of a police officer trained to enter an illusion?
I've never seen it in action, but, you know, I haven't seen every police stop in the world.
It feels like a gap in the training.
And the reason I'm not going to say they're under-trained is because I doubt that's ever been offered.
Like, I doubt there's anything in the police curriculum or training that would cover that very specific recommendation.
Anyway.
So, I just put that out there.
I saw on a Mike Cernovich feed you talked about, there's some science.
Apparently this has been well known for a long time.
It's been well known for a long time that if you get a heart transplant, it's common to take on the personality of the person who donated the heart.
What?
Did you know that?
I didn't know that until just recently.
Apparently it's well understood By people who do, you know, organ transplants.
It's just a known thing.
Now, here's what I would like to add to that conversation.
If you think that your body or yourself is a mind, This one thing does all the thinking.
And then a body, that's a separate thing that does the moving.
And of course they work together.
You know, the mind tells the body what to do.
If that's your view of a human, it's very incomplete and misleading.
Here's my view of a human.
All of this is your brain.
It's all your brain.
Because your personality will completely change based on what's happening to your body.
If you're hungry, your brain goes a different way.
If you're angry, not angry, if you're cold, if you're horny, if you're sick, if you're like this poor gentleman who died in the traffic stop, if you're agitated, right?
And I often tell you that I use my body as a sensor to know how to write humor.
And this is the advantage that humans have over AI.
When I'm going through the potential jokes I could write, I'm not mentally deciding if they're good.
Mentally, I'm just deciding if they have the joke form.
But deciding if it's funny, I do with my body.
I actually monitor my body and say, okay, did I guffaw?
Did I laugh out loud?
Did I have a reaction?
Did I have any kind of physical experience?
So for me, the brain and the body are just always working as one to think.
To me, my body is thinking all the time.
So when people talk about, you know, I had a gut feeling, I think that actually comes from some kind of, you know, shadow understanding that your body actually is a brain.
It's part of your brain.
Yeah.
In so many ways, the body is the brain.
And if you think of it that way, and that would be a reframe, if you think of it that way, I think it explains more.
Right?
It'll explain more of your observations of life.
All right.
That was interesting.
Here's another persuasion-related suggestion.
You know, obviously, drug addiction is a huge problem in this country, and we don't have any way to deal with it.
We have lots of rehabs and programs, but they're unfortunately not that successful.
Like, a really good success rate for rehab would be, you tell me, what would any one rehab facility, what percentage of people leave the rehab and then never drink?
It's really low, right?
10, I'm thinking 10, 20%.
Tops, 10, 20%.
Some are saying 75, I don't think so.
I think it's 75 when they walk out the door, but it doesn't take long to fall back into it.
Yeah, I'm feeling it's in the 20% range.
Now, here's what I think they get wrong.
When you try to make a drug addict recover, you take them to a terrible environment, rehab, You take away all their entertainment, their phones or iPads and stuff.
You take away all their access to their friends and their loved ones.
And you give them a boring little room that might be worse than the one they have at home.
So basically, you take away all their sources of pleasure, as well as the drugs.
And then you say, hey, how do you like that?
How do you like it without the drugs, but also, also, without any other form of pleasure?
How did we think that would ever work?
To me, that is how you would design the system to make somebody an addict.
If you wanted to turn somebody into an addict, I would say, all right, here's your life without the drugs.
We take away all your fun.
And here's your life with the drugs.
Not only do you have the drug fun, but all the other fun, if you have any fun.
So here's what I would do instead.
I wouldn't do a rehab building, you know, like a one house.
I think you need to build a town.
A rehab town.
It needs to be walled off and absolutely nothing gets in.
And you would literally have to be watching for drones and people throwing stuff over there.
So you'd have to drug test everybody once a week.
And if you get drugs inside those city walls, you've got to be gone.
That's gotta be no mercy if you don't pass the drug test.
So you have a little town, but you make the town way better than normal people's life.
It's just beautiful.
There's something to do.
There's a place to walk.
There's maybe a nice gym.
You get people organized so that they're doing things with each other.
They're meeting some people, making some connections.
And they get a taste of what it could be If they did everything right and didn't have alcohol.
Now, in theory, it should make you say, you know, the best year of my life was in rehab town.
You know, whatever that's called.
The best year of my life.
I remember Mike Tyson.
He said that the best years of his life were in prison.
Because it cleared his mind for the first time ever.
Now, I don't think he literally meant that, but there's something to it.
There's something to having an environment that's right for the situation.
So, here's my... So Catherine says, unrealistic.
So, I don't disagree with that.
All of the treatments for... Everything you can do about drug addiction is unfeasible.
That's the problem.
We don't have any ideas that we know work.
So what I would do is try everything.
Try everything.
I know Michael Schellenberger and others have said, you really have to force people into treatment.
It's the only thing we know that works.
And what doesn't work is giving them open air, free drugs.
I think there's still stuff to test in the domain of legalization.
I think there's probably a right way and a wrong way to do it.
The wrong way to do it is to have a place where everybody hangs out.
That feels like exactly the wrong way to do it.
Potentially a right way to do it would be to say, alright, you're a drug addict at risk, but you also hold down a job and you have a family.
So we're not going to treat you like everybody else.
We're going to say, for you, let's try this.
For you, it's going to be legal, and we're going to give you a clean source of supply, and also all the resources for breaking the addiction if you want to.
But you're going to have to do it on your own.
You have to do it on your own.
We're not even going to try to get you into rehab.
But we will make sure that you don't get any bad drugs.
We'll just make sure you've got a clean supply.
Just see what happens.
Now, if you say, Scott, Scott, Scott, you don't understand anything about lives or addicts or something, that wouldn't work?
I'm saying you're answering the wrong question.
The question is not yes or no, will it work?
The question is, are we really that smart?
That we know in advance everything that'll work?
It's not about how you implemented it?
It's always about the idea and it's obvious?
No.
You have to test stuff.
You might surprise yourself.
And you might surprise yourself because you're testing one thing, and maybe it doesn't work out, but somebody involved is smart and they try, like, something within the thing.
And then, accidentally, you've discovered something that worked.
That's how life works.
You've got to do something.
You're not going to solve it by not doing anything, because you don't know what to do.
Just try some stuff.
Try legalization in a variety of forms.
The open air thing looks crazy.
I wouldn't try that again.
But I'm glad it was tried.
I'm glad it was tried, and I'm glad that Michael Schellenberger shut it down when it didn't work.
Largely.
It was the biggest part of that.
So I don't mind trying stuff that doesn't work.
Because we don't know what works.
All right.
Here's some more persuasion theme and part of my theme of defending people who can't defend themselves.
Right?
I'm now going to defend yet another person that most of you are really mad at.
And then I'm going to do it again.
At least two of them today.
And I'm going to defend the first one because he does not have Twitter access at the moment.
Sam Harris.
Now I was alerted to a Sam Harris video in which the person tweeting it said, oh my God, there he is saying that he wishes more kids had died from COVID.
So we take COVID more seriously.
And then people would get the vaccinations.
If only, if only children were dying.
Okay.
Now here's the first question.
This is, this is a persuasion filter.
If the only thing you heard, was that Sam Harris said he wishes more children had died.
What should be your first reaction to that?
Horror?
Would horror be your first reaction?
Or would your first reaction be, obviously that never happened.
Like, obviously.
Obviously, that never happened.
But there was the video.
There was the video, and there was the summary of it.
And there were all the comments saying, yeah, there it is.
So he said it, right?
He must have said it, because all those people heard it.
I mean, a lot of people saw it, and it wasn't edited.
It didn't look like.
It looked like he really said it.
So I read it myself.
Nothing like that was in the video.
Absolutely nothing like that.
Not even close.
And so I called it out and said, the video doesn't have anything like that in it.
And then people said, yes, it does.
What, are you crazy?
Yes, it does.
But it doesn't.
It doesn't.
Here's what he said.
Now, I'm going to paraphrase it.
So these are my words.
But this is what I heard.
What I heard, again, this is just me paraphrasing what I think he said.
What I heard was the nature of the virus It makes it especially difficult to manage in a public way.
And here's why.
Because the group that is most targeted, the virus targets old people.
And so you can never be sure, was it the virus or was it not?
And therefore, public discourse gets confused.
Because some people say, well, maybe they're just dying anyway.
Maybe it's not COVID.
You're not really sure.
So it's really hard to create a public policy, because there's some ambiguity about who's at risk, and are they counting the numbers right, and all that.
Now here was his point.
Hypothetically, and it wasn't a preference, for God's sakes, he said hypothetically, if this virus had been preferentially killing children, how would we treat it?
We would say we don't care if the science is right or wrong.
We would not care about the science.
If you saw children dying at the rate that the older people were dying, we would have just done whatever we had to do.
And his argument was that a lot of people who are anti-vax to save grandma, if you said, all right, do you want to take this vaccination that you don't feel is fully trustworthy?
Do you want to take a sketchy thing to save grandma who's 80?
What does a reasonable person say?
A reasonable person says, maybe not.
Some say yes, and that's also reasonable.
But you could certainly be reasonable and say, you know, grandma's only got two more years.
But that's a big thing to put in me and have me worry about it for the rest of my life.
Because here's what people forget.
People forget that your mental state is part of your health.
Because again, they separate brain and body like they're two different things.
It's just one machine.
They're just the same thing.
If you have a serious, serious concern about your own safety from a vaccination, so-called vaccination, that is part of your health.
Right?
Why would I want to give you a mental problem To have you less chance of a, you know, a serious virus.
I'm not even sure that would make sense medically, would it?
And here's what the medical community gets totally wrong about what I'll call the anti-vaxxers.
They're completely ignoring the fact that their mental state, you know, what they feel about the risk, what they feel about being abused, what they feel about having their rights taken away, what they feel about having something put in their arm they don't want, Like that is also their health.
It's not just their body.
So the moment, the moment you say your health is just your body and what happens to grandma, you've ignored a huge, huge part of the medical decision, which is what's it going to do to your brain?
I mean, psychologically, not even, not even spike protein wise, right?
So, I think that Sam Harris made an interesting point that I found was added value in a philosophical way, but has no bearing on what's happening today.
It doesn't tell you to do anything differently.
It's sort of an interesting point.
But nowhere, nowhere did he say he had some preference for children dying from the virus.
If you really had to listen to it, to know he didn't say that, you have to ask yourself, Have you been too hypnotized by the narrative?
Like, to imagine he actually said that in public.
One of the most, let's say, careful speakers and best communicators of our time.
Somebody who's totally tapped into, you know, what things sound like when you say them.
There's no way he said that.
It's crazy.
But people saw it.
Because people see what they're primed to see.
So that's your persuasion lesson.
You know who's having a great week?
Matt Gaetz and, weirdly, Kevin McCarthy at the same time.
I cannot be... I don't think I could tell you how impressed I am that Matt Gaetz turned the ship around for his own political fortunes.
I did not see that coming.
Honestly, I thought he was done.
But not only is he cleared of all the accusations, Yeah, at least in a legal sense, he's cleared of all accusations.
But his move to force McCarthy to give some Republicans what they wanted totally was successful.
And then what do we have now?
Gates was on Tucker talking about how happy he was that Kevin McCarthy had decided to release all of the January 6 footage, which is something Republicans have been asking for for a long time.
And apparently that wasn't even part of what they negotiated.
So Matt Gaetz is on Tucker Carlson saying Kevin McCarthy is doing a great job.
Apparently they're friends now, or at least working colleagues.
So I don't think it gets better than that, if you're a Republican.
Have you ever been happier with your party than to watch the Gaetz group fight McCarthy?
All transparent.
You got to watch it all.
It was a serious fight over serious things.
The net outcome was an improvement, according to Republicans, and then they became friends again, and they started working like colleagues.
Now, I don't know how much they like each other personally, but clearly they can now work together.
They've now shown each other the level of respect that both of them earned.
I think they both earned The respect that each is giving them.
And you're seeing a good outcome at the moment.
So, wow!
Has anybody had a better week than both McCarthy and Gates?
And they had this good week because they fought, but they did it honestly.
Right?
It was an honest fight.
And it was well fought.
It was a hard fight.
It was everything you want.
Now let's talk about everything you don't want.
Mike Pompeo tweeted weak border policies are the root cause of our fentanyl crisis.
No, Mike Pompeo, that is disqualifying.
Assuming he's running for president, that's totally disqualifying.
How could he hold the jobs that he's held and know nothing about fentanyl?
Or, Does he understand fentanyl but doesn't want to deal with it seriously?
It's all disqualifying.
Trump says directly, now of course there's a question of whether he'd do it, but Trump says directly he wants to spend the special forces in to kick the shit out of the cartels.
And Mike Pompeo is saying like, let's make that wall a little stronger.
It's like he doesn't understand the weight of fentanyl.
You could literally just toss it over the wall.
It's like the size of a baseball and it's enough to kill a city.
So, border security is maybe 10% of it.
Maybe 10%.
And it's worth doing.
I'm 100% behind strong borders.
But we can't have a president whose understanding of one of the biggest issues that we have is so thin or that he's misrepresenting his opinion.
Either one of those is disqualifying.
So now do you see the point of being a single issue voter?
It's weirdly powerful.
Because I can direct fire at something specific.
It is now my job to make sure that Mike Pompeo does not get anywhere in the primary.
And it's only this issue, because I actually think he's pretty strong.
He seems like a pretty credible, straight shooter.
Otherwise, I liked him a lot, actually.
There would be plenty of things to criticize with all of them.
But generally speaking, I saw him as a serious candidate.
But now I can't.
I can't take him seriously.
This was a horrible mistake.
Now it's one that he could correct, because you saw that Trump also has evolved on this.
I think Trump has evolved less on his thinking, because I think he probably always wanted to be tough on the cartels.
But I think he's evolved it in terms of what he's willing to say out loud.
So I think he's got a little cover for saying that now.
All right.
So Mike Pompeo, I think, I hope he evolves on that.
You know, let me ask you this question.
When the stories first came out about the documents that Joe Biden had that were classified, sprinkled around, Am I the first person you heard saying it sounded like a Democrat op to get rid of Joe Biden?
Because now a lot of people are saying it.
And I'm not saying that I influence the other people.
That's not my claim.
I didn't influence the people.
The people that I see saying it don't look like they're people who had been exposed to me.
So you saw people say it before I said it.
So I'm just wondering, did people spontaneously have the same feeling?
How about you personally?
Did you spontaneously, even before anybody said it, did you say, oh my god, this looks like an op?
A lot of yeses.
OK.
All right, good.
Good.
Because it seemed to me that this was the sort of thing that a lot of people would have the same reaction, because you've now been primed.
You now know what an op looks like.
You know how complicated they could be.
You know how common they are.
And now you feel like you've seen the pattern, right?
There's a bit of a pattern about it.
Yeah.
But the interesting thing about this is it might be a twofer that I just realized today.
Now tell me if you've heard this before.
So this is a slight spin on that.
Just a slight one.
That it looks like a Democrat op to get rid of Biden before the primaries, but it also looks like it's designed to protect Trump, so he's their preferred bogeyman candidate.
Right?
The twofer is that if Biden is being accused of these document troubles, then there's no way that Trump can get into the maximum trouble himself.
Like, it's going to make it all look like, oh, people do this.
It's just something that happens.
Now, I'm going to stop short of saying that it's a clever plot.
I'll just say it looks like one.
Would you accept that?
We don't really know who's behind what, but it looks like one.
Now, who did I just see?
Who just appeared?
Help me.
Who was just on Smirkonish?
Some prominent Republican was just on Smirconish.
Oh, Gates, right.
Yeah, Gates.
So Gates, just think about this.
Matt Gates just had a very successful appearance on CNN.
He's now the only person who can do CNN and Fox News.
I mean, nobody has ever had a week this good that I can remember, like politically.
If Gates can do a good job on CNN as well as present a good job on Fox News, and he did both.
He did both.
This week.
Who else has ever done that?
Like ever.
I've never seen it.
I've never seen it.
Now, Matt Gates, quite wisely, tweeted the interview and he said that Smirconish was really fair.
And that he thinks, you know, CNN might be actually changing for the better.
I would like to modify that comment, because you remember I've also said this recognizes the most fair interviewer on CNN.
I mean, my experience with Smirkonish was that you did play it down the middle.
I was a little annoyed once when the producer had invited me on and I said yes, and then they also invited on a critic of mine after I said yes.
Not cool.
Because the critic just, you know, uses up the time and you don't have time to respond.
So you basically just get slimed on camera.
But I have a feeling that had more to do with the producers than Smirconish.
Because my feeling about Smirconish is he's actually a good dude who's trying to do the right thing for the country.
And he just happens to be on CNN.
So I'm not sure that Smirconish is a sign that CNN is improving.
It's more of a sign that Samarkand does a good job, I think.
But maybe both.
Maybe CNN's improving.
Because CNN's going pretty hard about this document thing.
Wouldn't you agree?
So it's either part of the plot to get rid of Biden, or they're just playing the news straight.
Might be one of those.
They would look the same.
All right.
I've got an idea.
Well, first of all, I have a theory for why so many classified documents keep being found by Biden.
I believe, this is just speculation, but I believe that Biden, wherever he goes, he likes to leave a trail of classified documents because sometimes that's the only way he can find his way back.
So I think we're going to find, you know, not just documents, but we might find like an ant trail All the way from Delaware to the White House.
I'm just speculating.
I don't know.
Just trying to figure out why there's so many of them.
That's all.
All right.
Now, how did we get this far without knowing what the documents are about?
Right?
Don't you think that somebody should have said, all right, we can't show you the documents, but we've looked at them, and they're either terrible or they're nothing.
So here's what I'd suggest.
I think that Biden's classified documents should be collected up and then put them in a skiff.
The skiff is that really highly secure place where you can't take a picture, you can't bring your phone in, you can't take a copy.
You just have to read it where it is in that little skiff, that building.
And I think that they should put those documents in a skiff and then get somebody like Adam Schiff, for example, have Adam Schiff look at them and then tell us if we should be worried.
Because I feel like he'd look at them and say, oh, there's nothing here at all.
And then everything's fine.
Because if you can't believe Adam Schiff, who can you believe?
All right.
That would be an example of jokes that don't need punchlines.
That's a joke that doesn't need a punchline.
Because... Schiff is the punchline, I guess.
All right.
So here we know now the following things, or maybe we don't.
I still think it's a little early to know if all the facts are right.
So maybe some of these facts are wrong about Biden and the documents.
But here's what we think we know.
That he had some of these documents in his garage.
And here's the part I need a fact check on.
That Hunter Biden was renting the whole home during that period for $49,000 a month.
Is that confirmed?
Or is that just internet BS?
Is that confirmed that he was renting it during the period those documents were there?
I know we've heard it, but is it true?
4chan confirmed it.
Yeah.
I don't know.
So here's what, if it's true, and I have a question on that.
So if it's true, shouldn't the rental payments be shown on Joe Biden's tax returns?
I don't think they are.
I don't think they're there.
So... He goes to jail, right?
Like, what else could it be?
If it's true that Hunter was paying $49,000 a month, and it's also true he didn't put in his tax returns, he goes to jail.
Like, actual jail.
Like, no doubt about it, jail.
Am I wrong?
Somebody do a fact check on me.
If it's not on his tax returns, and he actually did have a lease agreement and actually collected $49,000 a month, he would have known he was cheating on his taxes for sure.
You go to jail.
Yeah.
Now, why would he not put it on his tax returns?
Because at some point you'd probably want to, you know, maybe launder it or something so it's good to get it taxed and keep what you can.
Why wouldn't he?
Well, I have a possible explanation.
And again, just to be clear, none of this is confirmed.
I'm not positive there was ever a rental agreement.
I'm not positive it happened at the same time as the documents.
And I'm not positive it's not on the tax returns.
But those are the facts that, preliminary, we think are true.
To me, it looks like a major crime.
If anybody had put, I got $600,000 a year from renting my house, don't you think that would have been a red flag?
If you had put those real numbers, if they were real numbers, I see somebody's got a document there, but tell me what that says so I don't have to open it.
If you rent it to your child, it's still taxable.
Or if it's not, then it's a gift tax.
If you treat it as a gift, and it's over $10,000 a year, or $15,000 I think now, you would still have to record it on your taxes as a gift.
Yeah.
So here's why.
I think it could not be on the taxes, because we would have already known about it.
Right?
We would already know about it.
So probably not on the taxes.
So, if this is what it looks like, Then the Democrats really did take him down.
They really did.
I mean, I don't know how you could explain it any other way.
But I think we might find... Yeah, imagine being the Biden accountant right now.
That would be awkward.
So I guess my main thing is, if this is true, then we have found how Hunter Biden launders money to his father.
The big guy gets him his 10%.
I think it's all laid down at this point.
It looks like their entire criminal enterprise is now transparent.
And it was accidental because we wouldn't have found out about this if it's true.
I guess I have to keep saying if it's true.
Maybe I should back off.
Oh, you know what I'm going to do?
I have to be consistent.
I have to be a little bit consistent.
I told you I'm going to defend people who can't defend themselves.
Hunter Biden's not on Twitter, right?
True?
Hunter Biden is not on Twitter.
I think that's true.
Or he's not tweeting much, if he is.
I don't like the quality of the information I'm talking about.
So I'm going to give him an innocent until proven guilty.
I think that has to be the standard.
So let's give him that.
Now, if the information that has been reported is true, then I would drop the assumption of innocence.
To me that would look obviously guilty.
But it has to be, these facts have to be true.
There really has to be a lease agreement, there really has to be the transfer of money, and it really has to not be on his taxes.
Like all those things need to be true, and then you can see it all.
But I don't know yet, so let's keep an open mind.
It's hard to, but it's a good standard to try to maintain.
There's more reports of UFOs.
So there were 350 reports of unidentified stuff.
And something like half of them, they figured out they were balloons and plastic bags that somehow got into the atmosphere.
The rest were unexplained.
Now the unexplained ones, over a hundred of them, unexplained, a hundred recent ones unexplained, they have this weird quality where they can, they'll be moving in one direction and then suddenly they'll change directions.
And you know, you know that that would be a violation of physics, right?
Because if you had a, it's moving like, I don't know, a hundred miles an hour or something, and then suddenly it just like goes in the other direction, obviously That we'd be violating physics, right?
I wonder if there's any kind of object that could be in the air, that could be going in one direction within the rules of our existing physics, could be traveling at a high speed in one direction, and then suddenly reverse speed and go in the other way.
Let's see, let's put together what we know.
So the ones they've confirmed are not spacecraft are plastic garbage bags and balloons.
If only we could think of something that could change direction quickly in the air without violating any rules of physics.
Well, I've got nothing.
It's plastic bags, people.
It's plastic bags.
Clearly.
Clearly, it's plastic bags.
We think we're being invaded by an advanced species, or it's just our plastic bags.
It's a blue.
Yeah.
Now, as soon as I saw that most of them are balloons and bags, and that whole thing about the physics being impossible, I thought, the physics are impossible if you make the assumption it's a spacecraft.
If you start with the assumption it's a spacecraft, well, yeah, it can't move that way.
If you start with the assumption it's a plastic bag, it can go any direction really quickly.
Just have to have a different wind.
Why is the military promoting it?
Because they believe they're spacecraft.
I think the people promoting it believe it.
The lights?
All the ones that they show the sensor readings of, I don't know what you'd call it, cameras I guess, they don't have lights.
The tic-tac ones?
No.
The ones that look the most convincing?
They don't have any lights.
The ones that look the least convincing, like their hoaxes or their airplanes or stuff, those have lights.
Now, I would love for UFOs to be real, if they're not here to use us for food.
I don't think so.
I'm going to make a really big bet that in my lifetime, there will be no confirmation of spaceships.
And that would be hard.
Because we've got cameras everywhere.
We can't get one clear picture of a UFO.
And every time we get a clear picture, oh, it's a bag.
It's a balloon.
So let me get this straight.
All of the clear photography is a balloon or a bag.
And all of the vague photography might be an advanced alien armada coming to Earth.
Plastic bag.
Alien armada.
One of those is more likely than the other.
More likely.
I'm being asked, how do I like my crow?
Because I'll be eating some crow.
Allow me to commit to you.
Commit to you the following.
I would be so happy Like if we found out there were space aliens or some kind of aliens who are not dangerous.
I would love that.
I would love that!
And I would eat all the crow you want.
No, not Mike Rowe.
That sounds like my crow.
No, not that.
But yeah, I'd happily eat crow.
And here's why I say that.
One of the things I'll teach you in my new book is that if you commit to who you are too strongly, and then you find out you're wrong about something, that's how you get into cognitive dissonance.
Because you're trying to make some compatibility with who you think you are, and who you've presented yourself to the public, with what is actually happening.
So, if I were to present myself as flawless in my predictions, and then I get one wrong, I would be triggered into cognitive dissonance.
So I don't do that.
I tell you that if I'm wrong about this, I will love it!
And that makes me pretty much immune from cognitive dissonance.
Because I have a good outcome either way.
I would love to find their aliens.
Love it.
And I also like to be right.
Two good things.
I win either way.
So as long as I win either way, I don't have any trigger for cognitive dissonance.
Maybe a little confirmation bias.
Everybody has that.
But not cognitive dissonance.
All right.
Do you remember me saying that winter was going to be tough for the Russian soldiers?
Because it seemed to me that the Ukrainians would just fly drones over their battlefield, and the drones would just wait until the Russians had to go back to their barracks, because they had to be indoors for the winter, or for the night.
And I said, isn't the winter going to be a whole bunch of Russians walking into barracks just before the barracks explode.
And now we're seeing videos of exactly that.
Exactly that.
You actually see the soldiers, the Russian soldiers, like 20 of them, heading toward a building.
One assumes that there are more of them in that building, because that's probably some kind of a barracks or headquarters or something.
So the Ukrainians, instead of killing the 20 where they see them, they just follow them with the drone.
You watch them walk into the building, and then they call in the strike and the building blows up.
Now I've seen two videos of that so far.
Now that's just the videos we've seen, so I'm not sure if we see all of them.
But that does appear to be a strategy.
Would you agree?
Would you agree that that's clearly a strategy at this point?
I don't know how that strategy loses.
Can't they see troop movements really easily in the winter?
There's no leaves.
It looks to me that if you have any kind of aerial advantage, you can see everybody moving everywhere.
Like at night, bad weather, you know.
Like, all you have to wait is for a day your drone can fly, and you know exactly where their barracks are, and then you make it disappear.
I don't know how there are going to be any Russians left by the end of the winter.
Am I wrong?
That that was the obvious tactic, and Ukraine is apparently optimizing it.
Now, I think it might be different on the Ukrainian side, because I'll bet they're distributed better.
And it may be that the Russians have fewer good surveillance tech.
I don't know that for sure.
Yeah.
All right.
Now let me say for the pro-Russia trolls, there is no way to know who will lose or who will win in the long run.
Any amount of temporary Ukrainian victories have to be weighed against the fact that Russia might be willing to take as long as it takes.
So no, you cannot know who will win.
Are you happy?
And you should also not believe anything that comes out of Ukraine.
Are we good?
OK.
I don't see much complaining on that.
All right.
So Russians took this town called Solodar.
And it's a big fight.
And part of the story is that the Wagner group is fighting there.
And I guess somebody claimed that they had conquered it before they had.
So they had to try extra hard to actually conquer it with a lot of losses.
Anyway, so whether or not Russia has conquered it, let's say they do.
Have you seen pictures of Solidar?
There's nothing left.
It's just rubble.
Does it matter if Russia captures rubble?
Because what would Ukraine do?
Let me suggest what they would do.
So Ukraine, let's say Ukraine pulls out of Solidar.
There's nothing left.
There's nothing to protect.
There's nothing left.
What would Russia do?
Well, they have to occupy it or else they didn't really conquer it.
How will they occupy it?
Will all the Russian soldiers, you know, take like one square mile and sleep alone?
Probably not.
They're probably going to bunch up in little groups and march toward their barracks, and their barracks will just be rubble.
And then the Ukrainians will blow up the rubble.
And so Solidar will just turn into a killing field, because there's no place to hide.
And there's nothing the Ukrainians wouldn't be willing to blow up, because there's nothing but rubble.
When I say nothing but rubble, I mean actually literally nothing but rubble.
There's nothing there.
So, what does it mean to control that?
It just means that you're holding on to a piece of land that makes you just easy targets.
Like, there's nothing predictable about any of this stuff.
All right.
Polish-Ukrainians, yeah.
What's that?
Newsflash.
We won?
Yeah, we won the Cold War.
We did.
Yeah, I think so.
All right.
Pfizer is seeing a signal in the data for strokes from the boosters, not the first two, but the boosters, for older people.
And here's what they said.
This is kind of interesting.
I assume this is a confidence building kind of move.
They're saying that only one study showed that there might be a signal for a problem.
And they said that they don't see the signal in other countries.
They don't see it in the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs records, which tend to be pretty good, and they don't see it in the VAERS.
So they're actually reporting a risk of their own product that even the VAERS system hasn't picked up.
Now that's either super, let's say, super reasonable on their part, Or it's just pure manipulation.
It's one of those two things.
Because I have a feeling they're going to say, you know, at the first sign, at the first sign of anything wrong, we did the maximum amount of protecting.
But then we looked into it deeper and found out there was nothing there.
So I think in the end, they're going to magically proclaim they saw nothing.
But they're going to say, look, We follow up on every little thing.
So if you think there's something we haven't followed up on, just look at this.
See, that was something we didn't even need to tell you was so small.
Such a small signal.
Probably not even real.
So I think that's just positioning and persuasion.
That's what it looks like.
Yeah, the PR people told them to admit and apologize so that they would have a small admission And maybe a small apology, and then say, oops, sorry, we were wrong about that being a signal.
Turns out it's perfect.
So I think that's what's going to happen.
Which has nothing to do with whether it's safe or not.
I saw some insurance actuary stuff on perio... no, I'm sorry, carditis.
What's it called?
Carditis.
Why am I forgetting periocarditis?
Anyway, myocarditis, sorry.
Yeah, myocarditis.
And now this was one small insurance company's data.
I'm not going to mention the insurance company or where I got it for now.
But it seemed to indicate, and again, we don't believe data, right?
Any data about the pandemic is sketchy.
But it seemed to show that young people were having more myocarditis, similar to other information.
And it looked like a pretty big deal.
I think the scale of it maybe was misleading.
But there did seem to be a clear spike in younger people.
But here's the interesting part.
At age 65 and older, the spike just disappeared.
Like zero.
Now, why is that interesting?
There's a very small chance, this is very preliminary, that I totally guessed right.
Remember I told you from the beginning, we're all guessing, but some of us imagine that we have knowledge of things we can't know.
We're all guessing.
So if I guess right, I'm not going to take any credit.
Because it was a guess.
Likewise, if I got it wrong and I died of a clot, I still won't say I was wrong, I'll say we were all guessing I guessed wrong.
So I either guessed right or I guessed wrong, but I was definitely guessing.
Now, if you would like to say, and many of you did, Scott, I wasn't guessing, because I wasn't trusting these people, that was right, and here we are.
Okay, so I'll just talk about me.
I was guessing.
But it looks like, I guess, the same as Dr. Robert Malone, one of the co-inventors of the mRNA thing.
And, oh, I also did not choose which vaccination, because my healthcare provider didn't give you a choice.
They were just like, you're getting vaccinated, don't ask us which one, until they put it in your arm, basically.
So I didn't, you know, so I did the same thing Dr. Malone did.
I got the first two vaccinations, Primarily because I wanted to travel internationally.
That's why he did it, that's why I did it, specifically why.
I also waited as long as possible, because most of the bad outcomes happened soon.
So after six months of seeing if there were excess people dropping dead my age, I took the leap.
Now, does that mean that I should get a booster?
No, because everything's changed, right?
It's Omicron now, and we know that it doesn't have any protective value, and blah, blah, blah.
Oh, I'm sorry.
We know that it doesn't stop infections.
But let's talk about protective value.
That's a separate category.
In the news, which is totally believable, we all believe the news, according to CNN, Largely funded by Big Pharma.
More than a quarter of kids who get COVID may develop long-term symptoms.
Hmm.
Let me see if I can connect the dots.
CNN, a news organization that's funded largely by Big Pharma, because all the news is.
They've decided that they somehow magically can know how many kids have long COVID, when long COVID is a totally vague set of symptoms that is hard to identify.
A little sketchy, isn't it?
It feels as if the news narrative, coincidentally, fits exactly what their sponsors would like to hear.
Because you can also find on Google.
So I went to Google.
And yes, we know that the social media platforms are biased on all the medical stuff.
So I went there to see what Google would say about the so-called vaccinations.
And I asked it, does the so-called vaccination, without the so-called part, does it protect you against long COVID?
And do you know what Google says?
Oh, yeah.
Oh yeah, that vaccination will protect you against that long COVID.
And 25% of kids are getting that long COVID.
Ah, it's really bad.
It's really bad.
Don't you wish you had a vaccination so you wouldn't get that long COVID?
Now, how are we supposed to think that's a fucking coincidence?
I do not apologize for swearing.
You needed that.
You needed that.
I'm just gonna do one.
That's all.
And we're done.
How in the world are we supposed to believe that?
How in the world?
Now, I'm not saying it's not true.
I'm not saying that the vaccination doesn't protect you from long COVID.
I'm just saying that's a big ask.
Isn't it?
That's a big ask.
Because first of all, I don't exactly see the mechanism by which that would be true.
I mean, if it doesn't stop infection, If it does keep you from getting the worst of symptoms, which I'm not even sure that's true, yeah, maybe that could make sense.
If your initial COVID was not as bad as it could have been because of the vaccination, again, that would be something I'm not sure is true, but that would at least give you an explanation of why they might protect you, because you don't get it so bad in the first place.
Maybe.
But it does seem like it's presented to us as a fact.
I'm not sure that's a fact.
What do you think?
Do you think that's a fact?
Or do you think it's just pure narrative because it's good for the pharmacist?
And interestingly, they say there's no drug for long COVID.
Now, I'm sure that there's drugs in the pipeline, but that's also basically just trying to get you to get vaccinated, right?
Oh, you better get vaccinated so you don't get that long COVID.
Now, Oh.
I'm just going to throw this in the mix.
I don't believe this is true, right?
So here's a fake news that somebody injected into the conversation, and it made me laugh because it's just the perfect fake news.
Are you ready for this?
It's fake news, as far as I know.
You know all those unexplained deaths that happened about the same time as the vaccinations?
Somebody said it happened about the same time people were taking hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
And they're saying, it's probably the hydroxychloroquine that killed them.
Now, you're right.
The odds of that being true are pretty low, because those are such well-tolerated things.
But I think it's funny that anybody would even try to inject that into the conversation at this point.
And to me, that's just funny.
I can't take that too seriously.
Yeah.
All right, so don't take that seriously at all.
So here is what the news CNN said about the long COVID.
All right, so there was a, I guess, sort of a meta-study, if you could call it that.
They don't call it a meta-analysis.
So maybe it was just a review, which would be different than a meta-analysis.
So seven articles showed an improvement in long COVID symptoms after at least one dose of vaccination.
So there's seven articles.
Articles.
Interesting.
Not seven studies, but seven articles.
What's an article?
Somebody wrote about their opinion?
Don't we need a study?
But there are seven articles showing an improvement in long COVID symptoms from some vaccination, while four studies reported no change or a worsening.
All right, so now let's say you're in charge of the analysis, and you see seven articles.
Article doesn't mean study, but seven articles that say the vaccination helps, Four that say they don't, of which one says it makes things worse.
Do you recommend vaccinations for long COVID?
If that's what you saw.
Seven articles say probably yes.
Four say probably no, and one of them says it might make it worse.
I wouldn't call that much of a science.
All right.
At best, it's like a signal, right?
Something, you know, tell you to look into it deeper or something.
That's all.
That's a long way from confirming that long COVID can be helped by vaccinations.
That's a long ways away.
Seven articles about the same study, possibly.
Possibly seven articles about the same study.
Now, here's what you should have asked about the seven studies versus the four.
What if only one of them was a good study?
That's very possible, right?
What if one of them was a pretty solid study and all the rest of them were weak?
Are you supposed to average them?
Does that make sense?
Or do you throw away all the weak ones and say, well, we only have one good study.
So let's emphasize this one.
The most basic, basic analytical questions are sort of just ignored.
So I would put, I would put zero credibility in any long COVID reporting.
Would you agree?
Which I don't, I think it might be real.
There's a good chance long COVID is real.
I just think the reporting is just garbage.
All right.
Let's talk about Bill Gates.
A number of you asked, I guess Mike Cernovich has gone quite negative on Bill Gates, more so than in the past.
I don't know what his past views were, but he seems to think that Bill Gates is evil in some ways.
So I wanted to look into that, see if there was something new that came out.
And here are some things I found.
One is that you've heard that Bill Gates is buying up all the farmland, he's like the Biggest or second biggest owner of farmland.
Have you heard that?
And you were worried about that, right?
Because he's going to, like, capture the farming industry.
Bill Gates says he owns currently one four-thousandth of the farmland in the United States.
He owns one four-thousandth of it.
Now, if that's true, are you still worried?
You still worried about him?
Because you know, he couldn't control anything with one four-thousandth of the farmland.
To me, it looks like he's using it to experiment.
That's what it looks like to me.
It looks like he's probably going to try, you know, different water, you know, watering techniques, probably different seeds and shit.
You know, just try some stuff.
Because that's sort of his deal.
His deal right now is trying stuff, see if it works.
Oh, somebody says to get the water rights.
Well, if he has 1 4,000th of the farmland, do you think he has more than that of the water rights?
I don't know.
Do you think some of this farmland has, like, massive water rights and the other farmers can't get any?
I don't know.
All right.
He's also said that you'll come to like fake meat.
That it's not so great now, but you'll come to like it.
Is that a problem?
Who has a problem with fake meat probably will continue to improve until people say, you know, this is pretty good.
Now you're answering whether you would think it would be delicious yourself.
But you don't think.
But why is that a problem?
All he's saying is that you'll have some extra eating options.
And that's a problem.
But what is the problem?
People are saying it's a huge problem.
Oh, it's a huge problem.
But what is that problem?
Okay.
Then I saw Cernovich say something about that the amount of money that Bill Gates has actually given away is roughly amount of the interest he would have earned in that period.
So that his main fortune is still intact, so that he is being disingenuous about giving away his fortune.
Do you think that?
Do you think that Gates is not actually giving away his money?
Well, I'm pretty sure he's transferred something like $20 billion from his $100 billion into his charity.
That's a fact, right?
It's a fact that he moved $20 billion in.
Now, my understanding is he's committed to give it away by or in conjunction with his death.
I never heard him say, I want to give it away right away, like all of it.
I never heard that.
I always heard that he was going to keep most of it and allocate it as there were good uses for it.
But that when he died, all of it would go to charity except some small amount to his family.
So I would say the way to judge his promise is on his deathbed.
Or after he dies.
I don't know you could judge it.
Now if he leaves it to his family, and it was all a big scam, well I would complain about that.
But I actually think he's gonna leave it to his foundations.
That's what I think.
Here's a guy who's spending a lot of time trying to make better toilets for Africa.
It's hard for me to believe that his real intention is bad.
Now, here's the context.
I only do defenses of people who can't defend themselves or aren't, for some reason.
Bill Gates doesn't defend himself from all the weird rumors.
So, I'm just sort of being a public defender.
My personal opinion is, I'm sure Bill Gates has done things that would alarm me.
It's hard to know what they are.
You know, his personal life is interesting.
Now, I don't know what he did or did not do with Epstein, so he's, you know my standard, innocent until proven guilty.
Innocent until proven guilty.
He has some explaining to do about the Epstein stuff, but isn't there a really long list of people who have gone to Epstein's Island?
I'm not sure if it was a fake list I saw, but I saw a list once of all the people who went there.
There were a lot of famous people who went there, and a lot of them were female, and it didn't look like all of them were going there for the wrong reason.
If you see the total list, it looks like probably most people went there with no sexual interest.
It looks like most of them were just, you know, taking a trip to a rich person's island.
So, innocent until proven guilty, but if you ask me, has he done anything ever in his life that would alarm me, I would say, probably.
Probably.
I don't know what it is, but probably.
So I'm not defending him of all things.
I'm not telling you he's an angel.
Not telling you he won't do anything to you tomorrow.
But at the moment, it's hard.
The thing I see mostly when people talk about Bill Gates is his intention.
What I see here from Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
He said, anyone who is prepared to allow Bill Gates to dictate world and U.S.
health policy should take a long, hard look.
And he said that perhaps millions of children have died unnecessarily, according to Kennedy Jr., who shared information with a peer-reviewed publication and blah, blah, blah, blah, something about World Health Organization and vaccinations and a bad outcome in Africa that Gates was involved with.
Bill Gates.
And he talks about, so here's what Kennedy says about Bill Gates.
So.
That's funny.
I'm going to remove you, but.
But that was funny.
So Robert Kennedy Jr.
said about Bill Gates, slammed him and his, quote, messianic conviction that he is ordained to save the world with technology.
Is that something Bill Gates has said?
Did Bill Gates ever say, you know, I've got this messianic conviction that I need to save the world with technology?
This is where I keep wanting to back Kennedy Jr., Robert Kennedy Jr.
Because I like a lot of what he does.
But when he does this, then I'm out.
Because the mind readers, the people who see intention, that's just crazy shit.
To me.
To me it seems crazy.
Now if you just stick with what he did, not what his super secret hidden intentions are, I might be willing to say, you know those things he's doing, You know, may not be as good as he wants them to be.
That would be a fair conversation.
Even Gates would probably welcome that.
But as soon as you say, I know his secret motivations and they're evil, I'm out.
I'm so out.
Now, I get that there are evil people.
You know, Hitler and Stalin and stuff.
But that is such a leap without evidence.
If I look at everything that Bill Gates has done, it looks like he's trying to salvage his life.
To me it looks like he's trying to salvage his life.
Because I think that, and this is sort of a rich guy insight, if you're not rich, you haven't experienced this.
Which is the richer you get, the less selfish you get.
So a lot of the things that people assume about Bill Gates' inner thoughts of how he's trying to get richer and control the world and stuff, that's very unlikely for somebody that rich.
It's far more likely that he wants to not be the guy who made a bunch of money and didn't do anything.
Imagine if you will, that you're like the richest guy at one point, Bill Gates, richest guy.
Imagine if you will, that that's what you've done, and you're feeling real good about yourself, and then everybody in the world says, that's all you did?
You just used a monopoly to get super rich?
That's all you did.
You did nothing for us.
You barely paid taxes.
I don't know if that's true, but people will say that.
That's all you did.
You just made a bunch of money and then partied with it.
That's no life.
That's not a life he would enjoy.
Now imagine the alternative.
Now imagine the alternative.
He's the richest guy, but he puts his work and all of his efforts into fixing sanitation in Africa, curing malaria and polio, and doing the hardest, dirtiest, most thankless stuff.
And if he can make that stuff work, And he may have redeemed himself to be, you know, worthy of the money that he's made.
That's how I would feel.
That's how I would feel.
Wouldn't you?
Put yourself in his position.
You make, you know, 100 billion dollars, and you ran out of things to buy for yourself.
There's nothing for you with that money.
You don't want to leave it to your family, it will just make them crazy.
So you don't think that you would try to do good things?
Like, legitimately good things.
So that the world is better off and they'll have a better feeling about you, but more importantly, you'll feel good about yourself.
See, here's what I think people get wrong.
If you view a rich person by their pre-rich personality, you're going to miss the biggest thing.
People who are not yet rich will do a lot of sketchy things to get rich.
Once you are rich and you're going to stay that way, Everything that you want in life changes.
You'd like people to think you are helping.
You'd like people to think you added something.
That's very much how I feel.
That's my arc.
I doubt it feels different for him.
But he does a bad job of not looking like a monster.
I don't think he's completely seeing the whole field in terms of how he looks when he does this thing.
Because he talks like a robot.
He just describes things cold.
I don't know what he would say about the vaccination program that apparently had bad outcomes in Africa.
He's getting blamed for pushing some of that.
I don't know his involvement.
But if I had to guess, if I had to guess, he'd probably say something like, You know, every new advancement kills people.
That's what Elon Musk says, roughly.
Elon Musk says, yeah, we're going to get to Mars, but people will die.
Now, that's transparent.
If Bill Gates had said the same thing, you might feel different.
Suppose he said, you know, I think the vaccinations of all types, not just COVID, but all types, I think they're more good than bad.
But the fact is, they do kill a lot of people.
They do kill a lot of people.
And when we do human trials, the only reason we do human trials is to find out if it kills people, and sometimes it does.
And, you know, don't want to minimize that.
Don't want to minimize that.
That's a big deal.
You're killing people who didn't need to die.
But there's a reason we do it.
It's, you know, the greater good or something.
So I think he could explain it, but he's not doing much of a job, though.
All right.
And then some people think that his philanthropy is a clever way to funnel money in his direction.
So really it's all about getting more power and stuff.
I doubt it.
I doubt it.
But here's something I learned in the process.
So you know TerraPower, which is a new Gen 4 nuclear power plant?
And TerraPower was ready to spin up their first working Generation 4 nuclear power plant.
That's a big deal.
That's like a really big deal.
But it's on hold.
Because they had to work with Russia to get the, whatever the nuclear materials are.
And, of course, the war with Russia.
And Ukraine makes that impossible.
So, terror power, one of the things that could have saved a civilization, is on hold.
Because of the Ukraine war.
Nobody's ever mentioned that.
Who has ever mentioned that?
I feel like that's a big deal.
Because climate change is, no matter what you think about the reality of it, it's one of our biggest topics and one of the most expensive things.
And if there was something that was happening that was really gonna be one of the super important platforms to get us out of the problem, if there is one, and suddenly it's on hold indefinitely, and there's gotta be, yeah, there's gotta be a better way and there's gotta be, yeah, there's gotta be a better way to do All right.
And I will allow you to have whatever opinions I just wanted to give you one alternative view, and then you can make up your own minds.
It was interesting, though, when I watch Sam Harris and Bill Gates and me, by far we get in the most trouble when we're trying to do something useful.
If I'm just dicking around, nobody cares.
If I'm just mocking people or whatever, nobody cares.
It's just jokes.
But as soon as I try to be useful, you know, like, you know, help you through decision making and stuff, all of a sudden, you know, I'm Satan.
All right.
Do you remember my prediction about George Soros?
I'll remind you.
The only way I can understand George Soros is that he doesn't know exactly what he's doing.
That there may be entities that are asking for money, and they're going through a third party, and the third party who helps make the specific decisions, they're lying to the people they're giving the money to, maybe even taking kickbacks, and they're probably lying to Soros.
So I don't think Soros is on the ball enough to know what the people who are downstream from him are actually doing.
I think they're telling him, oh, we gave some money to this great organization.
It's called Black Lives Matter, and they're going to end discrimination in the United States.
And then Soros goes, all right, here's some money.
Tell me how it's going.
And six months later, after there's been riots and shit and everything's bad, they'll come back and say, it looks like it's working.
I think we've really made a dent in the public consciousness.
The conversation is, you know, on the things we want.
It's working.
So we need some more money to keep it working.
And Soros says, that sounds good.
Here's some more money.
That's what I think is happening.
I think that Soros is no longer fully competent and the people that spend his money or allocate his money now control him.
They controlled him by lying about what they're doing, so that they can get a better cut of his money.
So I think he's surrounded by grifters and con artists.
And that the real story is that he's a victim, even though he's the cause of most of the energy and the action, he's the cause.
So he's the original cause, but I think it's coming back and eating him alive.
I think that he tried to do something that he thought was good, That you don't.
And he dealt with too many evil people and they're just robbing him at this point.
I think he's just getting robbed.
He backed out of the Davos meeting.
That could be because of health.
So he's at an age where you have to assume that there's other stuff going on.
Soros has lost the public perception game.
Yeah, he's definitely lost that.
Robert says, "I'd stick up for every rich guy in public too." Do I stand up for every rich guy?
Do you remember me defending Epstein?
That didn't happen.
How about OJ?
Was I on Team OJ?
How about Weinstein?
Was I pro-Weinstein?
Because he was pretty rich.
I'm so not pro-rich people.
Like, nothing like that.
It's crazy.
All right.
Yeah, I never got an invitation to the island, so therefore he must die.
Well, I guess he did.
Maybe.
Yeah, if I did it, from O.J.
All right.
W.E.F.
Wavinio.
How can we make a world government?
You know, one of the problems that the WEF has is that they allow diverse voices to form opinions and, you know, it gets, I guess, published under the WEF banner there.
So I feel like they promote a lot of opinions that are not necessarily some kind of a group opinion.
So I think that's part of it.
You're just seeing some diverse opinions.
Well, allow, yeah, it's an organization.
They have to allow.
You're not worth considering the same conversation as those guys.
