Episode 1990 Scott Adams: It's Time To Destroy The World Economic Forum For Being Non-Transparent
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Rob Reiner compares Biden and Trump
Long COVID and kids
Michael Shellenberger's WEF report
Non-Transparent WEF financing
Seth Abramson's clever conflation trick
TikTok controls America's congress
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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'm sure all of you are celebrating in an appropriate way.
In a moment, we'll be drinking some black coffee.
I think that's how you celebrate.
I don't know.
I'm not up on my traditions.
But that's the way we're going to do it.
Or the way I'm going to do it.
You could add cream and sugar if you want.
But, if you'd like to take it up to a full Martin Luther King extraordinary situation, all you need is a cupper, mugger, a glass of tankard, chalice of stein, a canteen jug of flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now.
For the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine at the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
MLK special version.
Go.
Yep, that was good.
That was some good stuff.
Good stuff there.
Now, I don't know what's going to happen today because something really weird happened to me last night.
I fell asleep.
And I forgot to set my alarm, and I had a full night of sleep.
Full night meaning six hours or so.
I don't know when the last time I slept that much was.
I might be at my all-time peak performance.
So, I mean, I don't like to get you excited, but this might be the best live stream you're ever, ever gonna see.
Well, let's start with a Rasmussen poll.
40% of American adults I think the nation has reached the day, as Martin Luther King hoped, when men and women of all races have equal opportunity.
Wait, 40%?
Only 40% of the country thinks we've achieved equal opportunity?
Now I get that we don't have equal outcomes, but only 40% of the country thinks we have equal opportunities?
That's not a good number, is it?
Feels a little low.
Feels a little low.
But here's the problem.
We're measuring the wrong thing.
How many times have I told you, if you're not measuring, you're not managing anything.
You're just letting it run.
Anything that you don't measure, you're not managing because you can't tell if the things you're doing are changing the outcome you want.
If you're not measuring anything, you're just wildly flailing around and hoping to get lucky.
Here's what we should do.
I think we should change our metric from equal opportunity, because you can never make anything equal, it's sort of an impossible standard, but you could have equivalent strategic options.
Strategic meaning, if you're black, and you're poor, and you're in America, All you have to do is work hard, get good grades, stay out of jail, and you're going to get a scholarship and you're going to be preferred at most of the biggest, best employers in the country.
So that's a perfectly good strategy.
It's completely available.
A hundred percent of kids have that available.
They don't even have to be in a good school.
They just have to stay out of jail and do their homework and they're going to be in good shape.
So I think we should change the The thing we measure from equal opportunity, which made sense when MLK said it, to making sure we have equal strategies.
Equal strategies.
Equivalent strategies.
Not equal.
Not equal.
Because they wouldn't be the same.
But equivalent.
You know, you could find your path and it would be just as good as anybody else's if you exploited it.
Well, I love when things that are serious turn comical.
On their own.
Here's what used to be serious.
People complaining that Donald Trump was a criminal and we should not have a criminal in office as a presidency.
There was a time when there were all these serious allegations and a citizen quite reasonably would say to themselves, my goodness, with all of that smoke, the walls must be closing in.
There must be fire.
Reasonable.
Turns out, basically, nothing important was true.
So, you know, the worst thing... What's the worst thing that Trump has done?
He claimed the Stormy Daniels payments in some way that people didn't like.
That's it, right?
Well, Trump University was settled.
So, I mean, that was done before the election.
So, here's the funny part.
Rob Reiner, famous Rob Reiner, actually tweeted this, I think it was yesterday.
And here's what's hilarious.
I don't think he's joking.
But I also don't think he knows it.
Like, I don't think he knows how this sounds.
I'm just going to read the tweet, and I don't have to add any kind of joke to it.
It's just the context.
Alright?
Here's just what he said.
Rob Reiner's tweet.
What?
The difference between Joe Biden and Donald Trump is Joe Biden is a decent law abiding person and Donald Trump is a pathological lying criminal.
What?
Does he not have access to news?
Even CNN has turned on Biden.
If there's one thing that the news is very clear at at the moment, is that there's nothing illegal that Trump is accused of at the moment, is there?
Is Trump even accused of anything illegal?
I thought every single thing has been cleared at this point.
Am I wrong?
Is there anything left that Trump is even accused of?
I don't think so.
Oh, there's one sexual claim from long ago, right?
Yeah.
Oh, he had some documents, right?
Yeah, like Biden did.
But what could you say about that opinion?
Do you think that's his actual opinion?
And how do you explain it?
Like, who would publicly say, after all the news about the Bidens, who would publicly say, well, at least he's not a criminal.
I don't know.
It just stands as a joke just by itself.
It was such a joke that it became like, you know, it's actually trending right now.
So the phrase meathead, you know, from his TV show is still trending because it was so ridiculous.
And I don't know that he even knew it.
Like, I don't think he knows why that's ridiculous.
But how many times have you seen this happen?
It's backwards reasoning.
Well, assume that everything Trump does is for his own good and, you know, it's some kind of a scheme.
And then you reason backwards to why he must be thinking.
That's what he's doing to Biden.
Assume he's a good and virtuous person.
And let's reason backwards to the fact that he couldn't have committed any crimes.
Logically, how can a good and decent person commit any crimes?
Therefore, he's innocent.
Backwards reasoning.
Artists.
Yeah, artists.
Here's my favorite headline of the day.
So this is a headline from CNN.
Now, if there's anything I've taught you, it's this.
You know the headlines don't match the stories often, right?
It's not an occasional thing.
It's very, very common, maybe, I don't know, maybe a third of the time.
Probably a third.
The headline and the story don't even match.
You know, because the headline is more sensational than the story.
So here's one where I don't want to read the story because I don't want to find out that the headline is wrong.
Can we all agree on that?
I'm going to give you the headline, just as it appears on CNN today, on their website.
Don't read the story.
Don't.
And if you do, please don't tell me it's not true.
I need to know this is true.
Here's the headline.
Study shows how Monty Python's silly walking could be healthy.
Stop.
Stop, everybody.
Don't look into it.
Don't look into it.
We need this to be true.
Agreed?
Everybody on board?
Within our own little viewing community, don't let anybody tell you what the actual story says.
I don't want to know!
I don't want to know!
No, I need to live in a world in which Monty Python's silly walking is the healthiest thing I can do.
Please be true.
Please!
Just let it go.
Let it go.
Well, speaking of headlines that might be true, but they might be propaganda, Would you believe this headline coming from an entity largely funded by a pharmaceutical company?
Here's the headline from today.
Long COVID can be debilitating even for healthy kids.
Maybe.
Maybe.
Yeah, I'm not saying it's not true.
All right, so let me be clear.
I'm not giving you any kind of medical advice.
I don't know what's true.
But isn't it a little bit on the nose that the entity funded by Big Pharma really thinks that the risk is more than you do, a little bit more of the risk than you think there is?
But it might be true.
So what do you do?
What do you do?
It might be true.
I don't know.
It's just a little too convenient, isn't it?
A little too convenient.
All right.
Here's another headline that doesn't match the story from today.
This is on the Fox News website.
So here's the headline.
White House Counsel's Office Drops Bombshell Following Demands of Visitor Logs for Biden's Delaware Home.
Are you kidding me?
Are you telling me That Biden's personal residence, they don't have their visitor logs so that we know who might have been around that classified information in the garage?
Are you kidding me?
My God, this headline has me all outraged!
I'm outraged, people!
Outraged!
Because of the bombshell!
And then I read the article.
Yeah, we don't keep visitor logs for personal residences.
We've never done that.
It's not exactly the bombshell I was hoping for.
A bombshell would be, oh yeah, it's a federal law.
You better keep those visitor logs if you're the president, even if it's your private home.
But there's no law like that.
Never has been.
And nobody would think it's a good law.
It's a bombshell.
It's a bombshell that the Bidens acted like everybody else does all the time for good reasons.
Bombshell.
Literally, there was no reason to expect it existed.
None.
And if it had been a bombshell, do you remember when the White House visitor logs disappeared under the Trump administration?
You know that happened, right?
The White House got rid of their own visitor logs.
So would it be a bombshell that a private residence doesn't have a visitor log?
The White House didn't have one.
Didn't have one under Trump.
I was there for a while and they got rid of it.
There's your bombshell.
Alright, here's another weird little story.
On UC Berkeley campus, they found a skeletal remains.
Aren't you curious where it was?
How could you have a dead person on the UC Berkeley campus that's there so long that nobody notices until it's completely turned into just a skeleton?
Well, apparently there was some room that they don't go in a lot.
And the room has had a dead guy in it for I don't know how long.
There's been some dead person.
I don't know.
I don't know if it's a guy.
Some dead person's been in there for apparently a long, long time.
So here's a little advice if you plan to be a serial killer.
A good place to leave your corpses.
is in a room on the UC Berkeley campus.
Apparently that's just a good place to put them.
A lot of people would try to bury them or make them dissolve in lye and acid and stuff, but no.
You just want to put them in a campus, put a hat on it, nobody will ask any questions.
Here's a fascinating news that I would like to pretend is true.
Now, whenever I tell you that in the news there's a medical breakthrough, What should your brain do as soon as there's a medical breakthrough?
A new trial?
Probably not.
Probably not.
You'll probably never see it.
But maybe.
You know, sometimes it makes you feel good to think there's good stuff coming.
I think the real situation is good stuff does come.
And there are also stories about good stuff coming.
But I feel like the good stuff that actually arrives was never in the stories of the things coming.
Is that my imagination?
Like, whenever they do the story of this amazing thing, you never really see it.
Like, you wait ten years and you think, you know, I think I'd see that by now.
But then there's the thing that nobody ever talked about that suddenly, you know, an approved drug and it's a miracle thing.
So, here's CNN reported they've figured out how to focus sound for brain surgery.
And apparently it's been used successfully, at least in a trial, in a human.
And what they do is they figure out how to get the sound waves to kind of reach exactly the point of the brain, you know, the depth that it can disturb a very specific part of the brain.
And they used it to disturb a part of the brain that was giving people tremors.
You know, they were shaking.
And they actually took somebody's tremors away.
Amazing.
Imagine being able to take somebody's tremors away.
That's a big problem.
I don't know, I'm not sure if Parkinson's is necessarily one of the things they could target.
So this was a different kind of tremors, I think, not non-Parkinson's.
Somebody's calling me a sophist.
The weakest criticism of all time.
Can we have a moment to celebrate the worst trolling you've ever seen in your life?
I'm literally talking about a reported medical breakthrough.
There's a troll calling me a sophist.
All right. - Well, You may have noticed on Twitter that Elon Musk tweeted that the S in ESG stands for satanic.
What are the odds that the best Twitter troll is also the owner of Twitter?
That could not be more perfect.
And even the fact that he calls it a satanic, because he knows people are going to take that literally.
Like he knows some people are going to say, yeah, probably literally.
Satan's all over this thing.
Well, so we know what Elon Musk thinks of ESG, and the biggest promoter of it is the WEF.
Now, I do believe that I accomplished one task, or at least I was one small part of it, that ESG is widely reviled by everybody who's not directly benefiting from it, right?
Wouldn't you say?
I mean, it's very unpopular.
Everybody knows it's garbage.
Somebody's pushing an agenda and it's not necessarily for your benefit.
So the first thing I'd say about ESG is if it's true that the S stands for satanic, it's not true, but let's say it is, Then wouldn't the S be handled by the G?
Anybody?
Anybody?
If the S stands for satanic, wouldn't the G in the SG take care of it?
All right.
You have to complete the joke in your mind.
Well, I saw a long Twitter thread about the WEF from Michael Schellenberger, who, as you know, has high credibility.
With me as well as the public.
But he's one of the, probably the most, I don't know, it'd be hard to say who's the most productive journalist in the country right now, but I think it's him.
I think Shellenberger is the most productive writer, journalist, researcher.
I'm not sure what he would label himself.
I would say the most productive in the country for the entire year.
Most consistently high-level, useful, on target, unbiased, unbiased, non-political reporting I've seen.
Maybe ever.
If you look at the total body of work for the past year, I don't know if anybody's ever matched that.
It might be unmatchable, like historically it might be unmatchable.
Now, Taibbi's doing a great job and a bunch of other people, Glenn Greenwald, I could name ten other people, Miranda, Devine, doing great work, but I think Schellenberger's kind of in his own league at this point.
You know that I have not been on board with those who said the WEF, the World Economic Forum, which I believe is meeting this week.
I think they're meeting.
I have not been on board with the notion that there's some evil organization that has intentions to do bad things to you.
And you've all been shouting at me and shouting at me.
They say they're going to take all your private stuff and they're going to... It's an evil organization and blah, blah, blah.
And I wasn't buying any of it.
Because the specific allegations just seemed ridiculous to me.
Seemed ridiculous.
Schellenberger reports in his long thread and also on his substack, which I recommend, I subscribe to it.
It's probably, it's the only one I subscribe to.
So if you want to, you know, that's a good indication of its value.
It's the only one I subscribe to.
So here's what he reports.
So you've heard the thing about The World Economic Forum quotes that you'll own nothing and be happy, and you'll have no privacy.
I didn't know that was part of the quote, but it is.
Apparently that was one person wrote something once, and it got published by the WEF, they got a lot of pushback for it, so they just took it down.
So, I do believe that that part of the story was overblown.
Overblown.
I think it was one person describing, you know, that if you had Uber in the future, for example, you wouldn't need to own your own car and you'd be happy about it.
I think that was just somebody's opinion.
It wasn't the WEF master plan.
Alright, so, that part should give you some comfort.
That Schellenberger is giving you, you know, accurate sides of the story.
Because he reported that they did say that.
And they did take it down.
So that is on them.
So you're definitely correct that they promoted a view that's a little sketchy from your point of view.
And then they took it down.
But here's the part I was completely unaware of.
And this is where I'm now completely on Team WF must be destroyed.
As of this morning.
So I'm totally on board.
And here's why.
This is also from Schellenberger's reporting.
Apparently, the WEF's 2022 annual report touts a relationship with an unnamed hedge fund and a portfolio of assets that includes Swiss equities, Swiss bonds, global equities, and precious metals that is in part managed by Al Gore's Generation Investment Management.
So what I found out today is that there's a large hedge fund that has some influence over the World Economic Forum, and you don't know their name.
Non-transparency.
I know you're saying BlackRock, but whatever it is, it's non-transparent.
And how much assets does the World Economic Forum have?
Like, why would they even have a lot of assets other than to put on their events?
Where are they getting assets?
How do they even make money?
Now, here's the even better question.
What do we know about Klaus Schwab's personal finances?
I assume he has no obligation to give anybody his personal finances.
Would you agree?
Probably there's no law.
And apparently Swiss law protects the organization from having to report anything.
So they don't have to report anything.
Now, so there's an individual who's organizing all the rich people and trying to influence them in a certain set of directions.
And we don't know anything about how the person who's in charge makes money.
Because it's not necessary to disclose it.
That's all you need to know.
That's all it took to get me in.
The claims against them, I think, are a little sketchy.
But if you tell me they're trying to influence our governments and we don't know who's paying them, that is the end of the story.
I am so down to completely destroy this organization any way we can.
Unless they want to be transparent.
If they decided to be transparent, well then we can take a look and decide if we like it or not.
But have I told you, if there's anything I've told you consistently, if it's a large organization and they're not transparent, guilt is the assumption.
Assumption of guilt, because they're an organization.
If it's an individual, the assumption is innocence.
So Klaus Schwab himself, I would assume no crimes have been committed.
Because he's an individual, right?
He's a human being.
Assumption of innocence, no matter how suspicious you are.
Assumption of innocence.
But what about his organization?
Assumption of guilt.
You can separate those.
The organization is presumed guilty in every way, because they're not transparent about where their financial ties are.
And I would say that Klaus Schwab's financial situation, being not transparent, I assume, by the way, fact check me on that, I'd be very surprised if he's transparent about his finances, but As long as he's not transparent, and as long as he's the leader of the entity, he may not have broken any laws at all.
I have no reason to think he has.
But he's part of an entity that you have to assume guilt for lack of transparency.
Right?
Yeah.
I'm talking about the assumption of guilt, not actual guilt.
Actual guilt is a separate question from the assumption of guilt.
I think that's how you go after them.
And I think that you force them to live by their own standards.
Question number one.
How many LGBTQ members of the WEF are there?
None?
None?
Do they have a good balance of women and men?
I feel like maybe not.
Just guessing.
Do they have a lot of good diversity there?
A lot of good diversity?
Doesn't look like it.
No.
Do you think that corporations are being asked to be transparent about their ESG?
That's right.
Yeah.
The WEF is asking corporations to be transparent about what they're doing.
It's a non-transparent organization asking others to be transparent.
No, no, and no.
That's a hard no.
If they were a transparent organization saying, look at us, look how transparent we are, and now also, you know, we'd like you to be transparent too.
Well, that would be an argument I'd listen to.
But no, a non-transparent organization cannot ask anybody to be transparent.
You know why?
Transparency gives away your power.
You don't want the non-transparent entity to keep their power by lack of transparency, while making you give up your power by being transparent.
No.
No.
Let me give you a related story, and then I'm going to tie it back in.
This will seem totally unrelated, and then I'm going to find a way to tie these back together, all right?
Do you all know Seth Abramson?
Prominent Democrat and attorney type.
And so often he weighs in on the political stuff that has any kind of legal ramifications.
He's a little bit upset at Matt Taibbi for reporting that the stories about Russian bots were oversold to the public.
And Seth Abramson is arguing, no, no.
We always knew, even back in 2018, Politico reported, that it probably wasn't Russian bots that were influencing the... Specifically, the question was the hashtag Release the memo.
So there was a question of a Devin Nunes memo that was classified and people were asking Trump to release it.
And then it did get released.
But apparently there was a lot of social media action behind the release.
And there was a claim that the Russian bots We're behind causing it to be released.
The counterclaim is that apparently Twitter looked at it, and it looked like it was more organic.
It was actually a domestic.
It was just sort of a natural right-leaning amplification.
But probably there were some Russian bots in there, but it wasn't necessarily the whole story.
So Abramson makes a correct an accurate statement that there were probably domestic bots, and even at the time it wasn't as big a story as maybe we remember it.
The bots were sort of, you know, considered some mix of domestic and other.
But here's what the claim made in Politico back in 2018 by Molly McHugh, an expert on information warfare, and So she writes this article, and she talks about the Russian trolls promoting this release the memo hashtag.
And then she concludes that it worked.
She concludes that it worked.
And she said, by the time the memo got to the president, in other words, Devin Nunes' classified memo, its release was a foregone conclusion, even before Trump had read it.
And she says that's a true fact based on the fact that the viral activity was so strong that Trump would basically be influenced into releasing it and that he would not have been had there not been a social media push and had it not been bot related.
Do you believe any of that?
That's the most bullshit claim I've ever heard in my life.
There's no even explanation of how you would know it influenced anything.
What's the mechanism?
What assumption would you make?
Why would you assume that Trump would not have released it?
Since it was in his best interest to release it, why would you assume anybody had any influence on him?
This is the worst reporting I've ever seen.
To just say it's true?
With no explanation of how you connect the dots?
Oh, it's true.
And how do you know that?
That's just true.
Bizarre.
But imagine if it is true.
If it is true, that means that TikTok already runs our country.
Now, I've been telling you that forever, that the social media can change the algorithms.
Now, did it happen in this case?
I think this is the worst example of something that might have been from outside influence, because it looks exactly like something that was going to happen on its own.
A good experiment would be something that wouldn't happen on its own.
But for somebody releasing a memo that's in his best interest to release it?
How could that not be good?
Or predictable?
Anyway, the other thing Seth Abramson said is that what Taibbi doesn't mention, and he says this is a big fault, he doesn't mention that Twitter was actually preferring right-leaning tweets.
Have you ever heard that?
Apparently there's evidence of this.
Wait for the punchline.
There's a punchline at the end.
I'm not leading you into something illegitimate here.
Apparently there is evidence that Twitter actually promotes right-leaning tweets more than left.
Do you believe that?
How many of you believe that's a true statement?
That Twitter, even historically, last several years, has promoted right-leaning tweets, political tweets, over left.
In the headlines and in the trending.
Was there anything maybe I left out?
Let me say it again.
Look for the dog that's not barking.
Twitter Twitter has preferred and highlighted right-leaning political tweets more than left-leaning for the last several years.
What am I leaving out?
You don't see it?
What am I leaving out?
Oh man, none of you see it.
This is why it works.
This is why Abramson's trick, I'm gonna call it a trick, this is why it works.
Not one of you, I don't think any of you see it.
Thank you, one of you.
The country.
He wasn't talking about America.
He was talking about the world.
There are a lot of right-leaning countries.
And if you look at all of the countries, and America is just one of them, Apparently there is some trend that right-leaning tweets in other countries were getting promoted.
And Twitter wasn't aware of it and looked into it and, you know, may have changed something, I don't know.
But Abramson is trying to conflate, you know, how Twitter handled American politics, which clearly is not going to be the same pattern as the rest of the world.
I mean, I think we know that now.
So that was a very good lawyerly attempt to use the fact that people are not going to read the article.
Because you had to read pretty far, like you had to get past the first paragraph or so, I think.
Fact check me, maybe it wasn't.
But if you just read the headline, or his tweet, you would assume it was about America, wouldn't you?
Like all of you did.
See, that's the trick.
It's like the magician's trick.
He made you assume it was America, but he never said that.
He never claimed it was America.
He just allowed you to assume it, because he left out the context.
Very, very weasely.
I'll tell you, if I were going to hire a lawyer, I might hire him.
Because he pulled that rabbit right out of nothing.
So that's some good lawyering.
All right, well, here's the thing.
If we believe that, or at least there's one expert on information warfare, who believes that even if the Russian bots did not influence that one political decision about releasing the Nunes memo, even if they didn't, that it's a thing, that it could happen.
And yet, TikTok is totally allowed in America.
What's happening?
What's happening?
Can you come up with any explanation for why TikTok is completely, you know, as far as I know, every politician thinks it should be banned.
As far as I know.
I've never heard one person on the other side.
And Fentanyl, everybody thinks we need to do more, but we're not.
Both of them come from China.
Right?
Both of them have a China connection.
Is it a coincidence that two things we think are, like, huge policies There's just nothing happening.
It's not that they're even doing the wrong thing.
They're acting like they can't work on it.
It's like something you could mention, but you can't actually work on it.
You can't make any legislation.
You can't recommend anything.
What's going on?
Now, in the context of watching China get away with literally murder, and literally building a user interface to control Congress, let me say that again.
TikTok is a user interface for China to control Congress.
Too strong?
Is that unfair?
Now, it's other things too.
It's, you know, a form of entertainment for some people.
But that's not too far.
It is a user interface developed by China to control the American Congress.
And other stuff too, I suppose.
That's what it is.
It's a user interface to control Congress.
And Congress allows it.
Why?
Why?
And it's not even like it's all the Democrats.
You haven't heard me criticize any Democrats, have you?
Have I criticized any Democrats?
No.
When it comes to fentanyl and it comes to TikTok, there's something going on.
There's absolutely something going on.
And I don't believe it's free from the fact that the Bidens have some China connection.
It might be.
It might have nothing to do with that.
But could you assume that?
No.
If right in front of you, you see Congress not working to do your work, sort of obviously ignoring these two things, just really obviously ignoring them, at the same time that we have a lack of transparency about the Biden connection to China, that's all you need to know.
That's all you need to know.
If you tell me that Trump can't win on that, Like, all he has to do is say, look, I'll do basically what I did before.
You know what I do.
You know I'm going to be tough on borders and stuff.
But on top of that, I'll take care of TikTok, and I'll take care of Fentanyl.
Like, actually take care of them.
Like, actually try to do things.
How do you lose?
How do you lose?
Do you know how easy it would be for Trump to win if he just modified his approach just a little bit?
Like, I doubt he'll do it.
Part of why you like him is that he does it his way.
You know, he doesn't really take that kind of advice.
I kind of like that.
I like that he does it his way.
But it would be so easy.
All he'd have to do is be the reformed Trump.
Still funny.
Still provocative.
But just play it a little bit safer.
The left would be, you know, out of ammo, because he'd be playing it safe, and the right would be, ah, well, that's exactly what we wanted.
The right would say, well, finally, you know, just act a little bit, you know, less provocative, and we like that.
Let me ask you a thing.
What are the odds that the election is really going to come down to DeSantis versus Newsom?
If you had to guess right now, what are the odds that it's both of those two in the final vote?
25%?
Some say higher.
75?
20%?
20?
Yeah, this one's a tough one.
It's a tough one.
And here's why it's tough.
Because if one of them flips, I think the other one will.
So let me game it out here.
Let's say Trump is assuming he's going to run, and the Republicans are assuming he'll probably get the nomination.
And then Newsom emerges as the probable candidate.
Let's say Biden decides not to run.
Don't you think the Republicans would say, oh darn, we don't want Trump running against Newsom.
Because Trump might win that.
I'm sorry, that Trump might lose against Newsom, whereas he could have won against Biden.
So then the Republicans would say, oh shoot, we only have one person we think can beat Newsom, and it's not necessarily Trump.
So, and then imagine it the other way.
Right now the Democrats think they could beat Trump, because they did it once, but what if DeSantis emerges as the probable primary winner?
They would have to change their choice too, right?
Because DeSantis against Biden looks like a layup.
Doesn't it?
It looks like a layup.
It's hard to imagine he could lose.
So I think whichever one goes first, you know, whoever calls the bluff and changes out their candidate first, the other will have to make the matching move.
Like a coach, you know, put in the right line-up.
So that's something to watch.
All right, and then taking this all back to the WEF, if China, let's put it this way, if we think Congress can be influenced by an app, which it probably can, and we think that Congress can be influenced by some Russian bots, maybe in addition to domestic bots,
Why are we okay with the WEF trying to acquire power over our leaders with no transparency?
What would be easier than bribing Klaus Schwab?
Now here, let me be clear.
I'm not asserting he would take a bribe.
But maybe anybody would at some level.
Klaus Schwab will give you a million dollars to destroy America indirectly.
Oh no.
There's no way I'm going to take a million dollars.
I'm no criminal.
They say, Klaus, we'll give you ten million dollars to secretly destroy America.
Sorry.
Sorry.
I'm doing okay.
I got a good job.
Ten million dollars is not going to move me.
Get out of here.
Get out of my office.
How about a hundred million?
A hundred million.
Chances of getting caught?
Pretty high.
No.
Nope.
A hundred million?
I will not take a hundred million.
I will not do it.
Get out of my office.
How about a billion?
Let's talk.
Now again, I'm not making any accusations against Klaus Schwab specifically.
I'm making a general statement that anybody can be bought.
Or threatened.
Because it's not always just a bribe.
Could be a threat and a bribe.
Well, I'll give you a choice, Klaus.
We can either uncover whatever you're doing that would look bad to somebody else, or you could take this bribe and your life goes on and you're the happiest person in the world.
Yeah, everybody has a price.
That's why you need transparency.
Given that we know adversaries would like to influence things that are not in our best interest, we can't put up with the World Economic Forum.
So here's the first thing.
Imagine... Can you do a fact check?
Did Trump attend the World Economic Forum?
Why do I not remember that?
I see yeses.
Once, in 2018.
And then never again?
What if Trump said he wanted to destroy the World Economic Forum?
Would he vote for him?
If he said, I'll destroy the World Economic Forum.
And you know, Trump could do that.
Don't you believe Trump could destroy the World Economic Forum?
Trump could actually talk the men out of business.
Because if they lose the United States, If they lose, you know, Trump could say, I'll make it illegal for the WEF to influence American politics.
So the ESG is now illegal because it came from the WEF.
How about that?
Just say anything that is driven by the WEF is illegal in the United States.
Because we don't have a, our system is not, our constitution doesn't allow them to run our country.
So the moment we see influence coming in, Even branded influence, like ESG is almost like a branded product kind of, you know, conceptually.
Just say no.
No.
No, we can't ever have anything like that because it came from those guys.
That would be fair to me.
Totally fair.
And that has nothing to do with the value of any of those things.
It's just they can't come from there.
Just can't come from outside the country.
I don't know.
It feels like everything's shaping up to just hand things to Trump.
Doesn't it?
Like, why are all the stories Trump-perfect?
If you said there's somebody who's powerful and they need to be taken out by persuasion, you think DeSantis could do that?
You think DeSantis could take out the World Economic Forum just by talking about him?
Nope.
Nope.
Not at all.
No.
There's only one person on the planet who could do that.
And he's not in office at the moment.
Only one person.
If you need an assassin, you got one waiting.
Now, let me be clear.
I've said this before.
I don't want a president who's that old.
Doesn't matter if it's Trump or anybody else.
I don't want that.
But if that turns out to be our only choices, well, I'm going to make whatever choice makes sense.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, today being the special Martin Luther King episode, I'm going to make it a little bit shorter today.
Okay?
Senility as a weapon?
Okay, I don't know what that means.
Give Trump the age reboot thing you talked about yesterday.
Oh, yeah.
So now they have, now science is coming up with a thing to reverse your aging.
Would that be funny if Biden and Trump, this can't happen, but imagine if they were the first recipients of the newly approved, it doesn't exist, but it's in trials, an aging reversal drug.
What if it worked?
Imagine that?
Imagine seeing your leaders younger in office?
That's not impossible.
It's not even, it's not impossible.
Russell Brand has his WEF Royal Rumble on Rumble now.
So they're debating about whether the WF, so here's my Here's my summary of my WF thing.
If you're criticizing individual things that come out of them, you're going to have people pushing back.
We don't like ESG, but we like it.
You know, there's a tie.
Or you say, don't do so much about climate change.
And then the other people say, but we like doing things about climate change.
That's a tie.
So you need to high ground it.
High ground persuasion is, lack of transparency is the end of the story.
Everything you talk about beyond transparency, no impact.
You have to make them submit to their own standards.
I assume that they're pushing ESG, but also pushing that you have to measure it, and report it, and be transparent.
If the WF is pushing you or anything about you to be transparent, while they are not transparent, end of story.
Let me tell you how smart people talk.
Like the smartest people?
If you're in the room with the smartest people, and you're saying, is the WF good or bad?
You just say this.
They're asking for transparency from American and other companies.
While they are not transparent about their own financial connections.
What does the smartest person in the room say?
Oh, we're done with them.
That's game over.
That is completely game over.
No smart person, no smart person says yes to that.
Am I wrong?
Show me one smart person who will disagree with me on that point.
You won't get one.
I could tweet that all day long, And nobody will argue with it.
You know why?
Because it's a high ground.
A high ground can't be argued with.
That's why you get out of the weeds.
You've all been in the weeds.
Like you couldn't even convince me that you'll own nothing and be happy about it.
You couldn't even convince me that was a problem.
And I'm like so primed to be on your side, right?
I'm completely primed.
To agree with my audience, because it's good for me, right?
It's totally in my benefit.
Follow the money.
Like, bigger audience, you know, I get more advertising dollars, blah, blah, blah.
So I'm so ready to believe that, but it's just not persuasive.
It's just not persuasive.
So you have to move up to the high ground, where there's no argument by anybody.
And then you don't need the subsidiary arguments.
And if somebody says to you, hey, but the WF is doing a good thing, I like this thing they're doing, you say, yeah, I'm sure people thought that of every terrible thing.
At some point, you know that serial killer?
You don't think he did some good things too?
Probably.
Until you found out about the serial killing.
He was a pretty good guy, except for all the serial killing, right?
So, I think that's how you have to treat the WEF.
The stuff that they say publicly, eh, maybe it bothers you, maybe it doesn't.
Forget about that.
Just go after the lack of transparency.
And especially, if you don't know, if you don't know where Klaus Schwab gets his money, we're done.
Right?
Now, have you noticed that also in the comments, zero pushback.
Zero.
What's the last time I said anything provocative in front of how many hundreds of people?
Thousands?
Yeah.
In front of 3,000 people right now.
When was the last time I said something political and provocative in front of 3,000 people and I got zero pushback?
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the high ground.
The high ground is when nobody can do anything.
They're just like, well, OK, you got me.
That's it.
End of the story.
Great idea for a Netflix show.
Yeah, even the cloppers are silent.
So yesterday I did an experiment that was a complete failure.
I went on the Spaces, what would you call it, app within the app, On Twitter, where you can do an audio-only group of people, and you can determine who talks.
So I hosted it.
And I asked people to bring their criticisms to me, and I wanted to respond to them.
Because I thought all the people who had incorrect opinions about my pandemic stuff would be coming at me.
And I thought, oh, this is great.
I'll be totally exposed.
Totally exposed.
Whatever they say, Everybody's going to hear it.
No editing.
Real time.
And I said, I'm just going to throw myself in the snake pit.
Because here's my thinking.
My claim is that their claims are completely groundless and stupid.
If I can't throw myself into that snake pit and still walk out of it with no bites, they probably had a point.
That's one way to find out.
So, one way to find out if you're in cognitive dissonance is just throw yourself in the snake pit, see what happens.
So that's what I did.
Like, alright, go complain.
Anything you want.
No limits.
I couldn't get anybody to complain.
Everybody just wanted to tell me they liked my work or, you know, have a comment about something.
No complaints.
And here's what I take from that.
Here's my takeaway.
The trolls are not real.
You don't think I could get one troll to actually speak with a real voice?
Yeah.
Now, they might be real people.
I'm not saying that they're programs.
They might be real people, but they don't have real opinions.
In other words, their opinion is more about bothering me.
It's not that they actually hold those opinions.
Because there was literally nobody willing to say it, like with their actual voice.
Nobody.
So I now dismiss them as not relevant.
All right.
What's that?
Your take on Trump's re-election cannot be sincere.
Are you talking about me?
I'm not sure what part.
What's my take?
My take that I have a single issue?
Because you know I'm a single issue voter.
I will abandon Trump support the moment somebody has a better plan for fentanyl.
Don't be surprised.
Don't be surprised.
That's on the table.
That's what a single-issue voter is.
Single-issue voter means I'm going with the best fentanyl plan and you can do whatever you want and I won't even try to influence you.
Do whatever you want.
I'm just gonna go with one thing.
Now, the reason I'm doing this is partly because Congress isn't doing anything and, you know, anything I can do to shine attention on that would be useful.
The other thing is that you know that when it gets closer to an election, if Trump's in it, I get more attention, right?
So the people who are identified as any kind of voice on one side or the other, they get a lot of attention when the election gets close.
Imagine the mainstream press having to describe me this time.
How would they describe me?
Well, they probably will cheat and say something like, you know, Trump supporter, which I guess is technically true.
But what they will have trouble with is why.
If they report why, then my story gets promoted on top of their story.
I would love them to report that I'm a single-issue voter.
And if they ask me for any comment, My first comment will be, I'm a single-issue voter.
It's not about Trump.
It's just about he has a tougher plan for fentanyl.
Don't ask me to defend anything else he's done.
I won't defend him at all.
Because I only care about one thing.
Now I'll probably talk about whether, you know, he's persuasive or not, but that's not defending.
Because I say the same thing about Biden when he does something persuasive.
All right.
More heck, yeah, there will be more hit pieces.
More headpieces on me for sure.
But the Wednesday, do you know that most of the people who are trying to fact check me on my pandemic stuff, it's about my one tweet where I said that after I got my second booster.
No, the first, I only got two shots, so whatever you call them, the first two.
That I tweeted that if you have your shots, it feels... If you don't have your shots, it's like you're in the pandemic still.
If you do have your shots, it feels like just a Wednesday.
Now, people fact-check that.
How do you fact-check my feeling?
And why?
Why would you fact-check somebody's feeling?
What would be the point of that?
I said I had a feeling, and I believed that it would be common to other people.
My feeling was that my work was done, because I'd done everything that I could do.
There was nothing else I could do, and now I had my rights back.
Because remember, that's when masks had already been, were no longer required in California.
They came back.
But during that period where I tweeted it, I didn't need to wear a mask, for most things, and I had now ability to travel internationally, in which I went to Santorini and Bora Bora, two of the best destinations on the planet, and there were no other guests there.
Basically, two world-class resort experiences, you know, like a world kind of lifetime experience without crowds.
It was insane.
So, to me, the pandemic was over.
In that moment in time, that's how I felt.
But why would anybody feel they had to fact-check my feelings?
Because that's what's happening.
I mean, clearly it was a description of a feeling.
It wasn't a description of a law.
It wasn't a description of a fact.
It was a description of a feeling.
And people were really mad that I felt that way.
And I still feel like that was a valid way to feel with what I knew at the time.
Now, if I'd known that the masks were going to come back, then I wouldn't have said that.
Right?
Because I wouldn't feel like it was over.
I'd feel like, oh, damn it.
It's just one more step, and there are more things I have to do, et cetera.
So sure enough, from that day forward, I became an anti-mask activist, you know, a few months later.
Tried to organize a ban on masks.
I largely stopped wearing them even where they were required.
I won't mention where because I don't want the businesses to get in trouble.
But there were local businesses that did allow me to be mask-less during that second phase and, you know, I didn't get in trouble for it.
So, for me, the pandemic was mostly over.
And it felt really good.
And I felt sorry for people who still needed to do things to get to their personal end of it.
I was at my personal end of it.
I was a little bit wrong, because it came back.
But that's all.
All right.
You had a feeling it was just a feeling.
Yeah, Twitter's the only place that people fact-check your feelings.
And they'll say, they'll say, no, your feeling is wrong.
Well, is it?
If I told you how to think, that would be very inappropriate.
I just told you how I felt.
I felt, I assumed other people felt the same.
And I think they did.
I do think that.
Would you feel the same way with the VAC's paperwork and no shit?
I don't know what that means.
Somebody is making a distinction that I took two shots instead of one.
The two shots were one shot.
It was presented as, you did these two.
So I made one decision, but it was a two shot decision just like everybody else.
Yeah, I hate people too.
And that's just like a dick, sort of a dick comment.
Now I'm being criticized for my weight.
Yeah.
That's a first.
I've got a troll criticizing me for being fat.
OK.
All right.
All right.
Sure.
Here's a little provocation.
So look for a tweet.
I retweeted it by Ian Martuzis.
And you're going to see that there's some I don't believe any data, so the big story here is that all data is not to be believed.
But there is some insurance industry actuarial data, I guess, that shows that it seems to indicate that people who got vaccinated below a certain age had more myocarditis.
We all expect that, right?
Everybody's on board.
Below some age, the data is starting to be pretty strong.
It's turning in the direction that's creating myocarditis.
But the weird thing is that if you believe the data, which you shouldn't, which you should not, if you believed it, it would look like the shot actually protects people my age.
would actually get less myocarditis than you would if you just lived your life without any vaccination at all.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe it's possible?
And by the way, you should not believe this one dataset, because it was small.
But it does show that.
You know, it's one little dataset.
What if that turned out to be true?
I think it's possible.
Seems unlikely, doesn't it?
Seems more likely a data thing.
But here's why.
You could imagine a situation in which young bodies have a key difference.
Several key differences.
One of the key differences would be, at least for the men, and we know that boys are having seemingly more problems with it, could be testosterone levels.
What if it turns out that... And by the way, this would be true for cancer, right?
If you had cancer, you want... Can you give me a fact check on this?
If you had cancer, you would want your testosterone to not be high, right?
Is that true?
Give me a fact check on that.
The more testosterone, the more aggressive your cancer will be.
Or is that not true?
For prostate cancer, somebody says yes.
So yes for prostate.
Depends on the cancer.
Okay.
So there might be a precedent.
I think there's a precedent in which you could imagine older people would have an advantage that a younger person wouldn't.
Now that's, I'm just using the testosterone.
I'm just using the testosterone as one example.
I'm not saying that's what's happening here.
Increases breast cancer risk?
Testosterone does.
True of estrogen also, somebody says.
So you can imagine situations in which a young body is simply more active.
Like everything is faster and more in a young body.
And if everything is faster and more, maybe you could imagine that there's a different operation working there.
I wouldn't bank on it.
I wouldn't make any bets that that will play out.
But it is interesting that we're not getting... Does it seem odd to you?
That we're not seeing reports of older people getting more myocarditis.
Does that seem odd?
Because it seems like the thing you would expect is, oh, it's really bad in the young, but it's also a little bit bad for older people.
Isn't that sort of how your mind would sort of expect?
Oh yeah, it's worse for the young people, but it's also bad for old people, just not as bad.
That's what I'd expect at the most.
But the fact that I've seen no reporting of extra myocarditis over 65, has anybody seen that?
Has anybody seen any data that suggests over 65 there's an increased risk?
Yeah.
Alright, so I guess we still have lots of questions about this.
You'd be less likely to be suspicious about cardiac problems in older people.
True.
But you're more likely to check them, aren't you?
Aren't you more likely to do a heart check on an older person just routinely?
I don't know.
It feels like we would have spotted it by now, to me.
Because you'd be comparing to the baseline.
You wouldn't be comparing, you know, this person.
You wouldn't say this person is weird.
It would only be the cumulative compared to the baseline.
More strokes with 65?
was 65.
Really?
All right.
I'm seeing lots of requests for Aviva and Barnes to be unblocked.
What's your argument for that?
Why should I do that?
Because I don't want to unblock other people.
By the way, sometimes I unblock the local subscribers, because that's a different situation.
Why should I talk to Viva and Barnes?
I like Viva.
Does a good show.
Great show, actually.
I think Viva is one of my role models for... Well, I'm just going to say this.
This is meant to be a compliment.
So if it sounds like it's not a compliment, I don't mean that.
This is a serious compliment to Viva.
I watched him from the beginning to develop what he's developed.
And I thought his early takes We're not good.
No, I don't mean his takes.
His early presentation.
Because he seemed nervous on livestream.
And his nerves came through.
Now here's where I'm going to give him a huge compliment.
He did it anyway.
He did it anyway.
In other words, you could tell that he was uncomfortable and trying to make it work, and he worked through that until now he has one, in my opinion, one of the better shows of its type.
So I think he went from a really kind of an easy to criticize situation, which is very uncomfortable for most people, and he worked through it.
So that's the difference between a winner and a loser.
So like, Viva's a winner.
He's a winner.
Because he took on something hard, and in public, with apparently no problem with being embarrassed, you have to have thick skin, probably got lots of criticism.
Everybody does.
And now he's developed a powerful product, which I recommend.
I recommend you test them.
So yeah, I'm always impressed when somebody works through their fear and does something they're not naturally, I don't know if he's naturally good at it, but it took him a while to get up to the place he is now.
Only Democrats block people, the rest of us just deal.
No, you should, there's a different standard if you're a public figure.
You can't compare what my Twitter feed looks like compared to yours.
If you have a hater, you can just ignore them.
You know, because they're going to get bored and go away.
When I have a hater, it becomes their job.
Like they'll set up camp and like every day they'll sit at the computer.
Let's see what I can say about Scott today.
That's a whole different situation.
I have to block people because it would be nothing but that.
And generally, I block people if they've done something disreputable, in my opinion.
And I think the way Barnes handled his treatment of me, when I'm easy to access, could have asked for a comment.
Didn't ask for a comment.
Basically put some opinions down that didn't map to my actual views.
And that's never cool.
There's no forgiveness for that.
That is an unforgivable error.
Because I'm accessible.
It would have been easy just to ask me.
Hey, does this look like I'm presenting your view?
Yeah, too much.
Actually, not enough coffee.
I can't get over how wrong you were about Ehrlich and the depopulation agenda.
No, I wasn't wrong.
That's not an example of being wrong.
Because I said that nobody important is trying to depopulate the world.
He's not important.
He was influential, but he didn't influence anybody important.
Because there's literally nobody in government who wants fewer people in their country.
Nobody.
If you can find me one elected, or even unelected, leader of a country who agrees with Ehrlich, then you'll have my correction.
You'll have my correction.
Just find me one person who says, yes, the population should decrease from today's level in my own country.
Just one example, and they'll say, oh, shoot, you're right.
That Ehrlich guy had influence.
I say he has no influence on that.
He does have influence, apparently, on how we handle some environmental stuff.
That didn't move the goalpost.
From the very first time, I said, nobody important.
Nobody with actual ability to change something.
There's a lot of minds being read.
Well, let me just say this.
I don't have to read anybody's mind in power.
I'm just looking at what they say and do.
And I'm also saying nobody would have that opinion.
Nobody.
Nobody.
Ehrlich is clearly crazy.
Like, he's just a nut job.
So I believe that, you know, some citizens might have bought into it.
But there's nobody in power who actually votes and makes laws and stuff, who believes there should be fewer people in their own country.
Nobody.
No, not Putin.
Nobody.
Well, Putin thinks there should be fewer people in Ukraine, I guess.
Special case.
Nope, China and India did not decrease their populations.
No, they did not.
Those populations are growing.
They're never going to publicly admit it?
Well, if they don't publicly do anything about it, that's good enough for me.
Yeah, the one-child policy was about slowing growth.
It wasn't about reducing it.
They didn't want fewer people.
They wanted to reduce the growth.
It kept growing.
Yeah, you can... I would like all of you to keep yelling one-child law.
That did not decrease... See, at the moment, you know that the one-child law is not in effect.
Do you know why?
Do you know why the one-child law is not in effect?
Because nobody thinks it's a good idea today.
And China knows it was a big mistake.
So the one-child law is arguing my side, not your side.
Do you understand that?
Everybody who said, Scott, you're forgetting the one-child law.
No, that's my argument.
My argument is they tried it and then it caused a demographic time bomb that is a problem.
So the one-child law is why people know you don't want to do it.
That's proof of my argument, not yours.
Yeah, too many males. .
Great leap forward did.
Right.
But I'm not talking about the past.
Did Barnes apologize?
I don't know.
I didn't ask him for an apology.
He's waiting for me.
Why are some people saying yes?
Some people are saying no and some people are saying yes.
They apologized.
Well, I didn't ask for an apology.
Well, he does have access to...
By the way, do you have any problem opening the link in my Twitter profile where I did a write-up of my pandemic opinions?
Does that open for everybody?
Some issues.
It's supposed to be public, but some people acted like they needed permission.
Alright, so if Barnes wants to know my actual opinions and compare them to how he described me, it's right there for him.
You can just click on it and see.
And if he wants to clarify anything, that's up to him.
He wrote an explanation.
Oh, it opened?
open, thank you.
Oh, he explained himself?
So he just explained his side.
He didn't change his opinion.
That's okay.
Let me read John's comment.
I have to shout it because it's all in caps.
This is from John.
Scott Baddack communicating his position and spend most of his show trying to reitate it.
Oot.
Good comment.
Yeah, I am trying to reitate it.
Oot.
In all caps.
Well, I think I've done enough reitating.
Oot.
So I guess I'm done reitating.
Oot.
But he got me.
He got me.
He caught me reitating ut.
I will never do that again.
It would be funnier, and sorry, on the locals platform you didn't see it, but if you saw how humorously misspelled it was.
Am I a pilot?
Yes.
I pilot here and I pilot there.
The BS that is.
No, I'm not a airline pilot.
That would not be the right job for me.
Do you ever look at a job and you say, you know?
That would be the wrong job for me.
Let me tell you what would be the wrong job for me.
Anything in which you have to be really careful about the details.
Like a brain surgeon?
Not for me.
No, no.
Or a Or an engineer or a scientist?
Eh, probably not.
Airline pilot?
No.
Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.
Nope, that's not me.
How about somebody making something out of clay?
Oh, that's me.
Because I'll be like, how's that?
No, not quite.
How's that?
Now I'm good at that.
If I can iterate through my problems, I'm good at it.
But no, getting it right on the first try, that's not me.
You don't want me for that job.
Just like Ghost, exactly.
Why you struggle with tech?
Do I struggle with tech?
I don't think I struggle with tech any more than anybody else does.
I probably try more things.
There is, you know, I do have a long history of the atom's luck with mechanical objects.
That's another story.
You can sell art?
You know, I've tried.
Nobody wants to buy my art.
Turns out the value of my art is very low.
Surprise?
Alright.
Do you have any idea how complicated my Technology setup is just to live my life.
I have a pretty complicated setup.
Oh, by the way, there's one story I forgot to mention.
There's a product now that can change your voice to anybody else's voice.
You know, when you're talking through the phone, I guess.
That's a little, that's a little dangerous.
All right, I'm going to say goodbye to YouTube and spend a little time with the subscribers over at Locals, which you wish you were.
Do me a favor over on YouTube.
If you don't already subscribe, hit the subscription button.
