Episode 1991 Scott Adams: Lots Of Political Intrigue And Fake News Today, And That Spells Fun
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
San Francisco reparations
Secret Service visitor logs
Tesla Uber driver
WEF intent & purpose?
US politicians attending WEF
DHS censorship outsourcing
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, the finest thing that's ever happened.
And today we have...
Intrigue and fake news and all kinds of good stories.
It's going to be a good one.
And if you'd like to enjoy this with the maximum amount of oxytocin and, oh, all those good chemicals, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or a chalice of stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine here of the day.
There's a thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go!
Ah, yeah, that was good.
That was good.
Dopamine.
I feel the rush.
Good stuff.
Well, there was a feel-good story in Houston.
Do you mind if I start with the feel-good stories?
Like a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling.
You know, get the week going after the holiday.
Warm, fuzzy.
So there was a local taqueria in Houston where a 30-year-old gentleman robbed all the patrons.
So he took out a gun and pointed it at all the patrons and made them hand over their wallets and stuff.
Did I mention this was Houston?
Yeah.
There was somebody who decided that Brandishing a gun in a public area in Houston would turn out okay.
So there was a patron who was armed.
Did I mention it was Houston?
There was a patron who was armed who shot the intruder, which apparently is legal.
It's totally legal because the guy was brandishing a gun.
I like saying brandishing.
He was brandishing all over.
Oh man, he was brandishing.
He was brandishing like crazy.
So the guy shot him.
But the other part of the story is that he shot him like nine times, including when he was down.
And then he dumped his beverage on him before he left.
And then he just left.
Now, there's some suggestion that he actually was guilty of a crime.
Because the thinking is that once he had neutralized the attacker, there was no reason to do any additional shooting.
I would like to present his defense for him, if I may.
Here now, the defense for the person who shot nine times and dumped his beverage on him.
Number one, I'm not a doctor.
I don't know if somebody can get up from a particular kind of injury.
Do you?
So put me on the witness stand.
All right.
After you shot him once and he went down, and the danger was neutralized, why did you keep shooting?
To which I say, well, I'm not a doctor.
I don't know what kind of injuries somebody can take and not be able to fight back.
You say, yes, but they took the gun away from him.
I don't know if that's true.
But let's say the gun maybe fell or something.
Then I'd say, well, I don't know if he has another one.
Do you know if he has another gun?
I didn't know.
How would I know that?
Why would I take that chance?
He's obviously a guy that points guns at people, and I just shot him.
If he had another gun, I'm dead.
So why would I take that chance?
So you're saying that my risk was over when he went down, and I say, that's for me to decide.
That's for me to decide.
You don't get to decide my risk.
If there's a guy who shoots people and uses guns and robs people, just because I saw one of his guns was no longer in action, I don't know what else he could do.
And I don't know how many times have you heard a story about the guy who got shot six times and still attacked somebody?
Lots of times.
Because they're on, I don't know, some kind of weird drug or something.
But that's the thing.
I would say, if you tell me I'm supposed to be an expert on military injuries, How's that reasonable?
Now, I have one job, which is to keep myself safe and the other patrons, and I made sure I got it done.
What's wrong with making sure you're safe?
What is the percentage of safety that you believe is appropriate to me?
How much safety should... Is my safety based on your assessment of my safety?
Or is my assessment of my safety the one that matters in this situation?
Pretty sure it's mine.
Pretty sure it's mine.
So here's the argument.
Nobody can tell you what your risk is when you're in the moment.
Here's the other thing I would say.
If it's true, it might be true.
I didn't even know I shot nine times.
I literally didn't even know it.
Because in the moment, I'm not some kind of trained policeman.
I'm not in the military.
I saw a threat.
I pulled my gun, and honestly, I don't even know what happened in the next 10 seconds, because it was just fog of war.
My brain was on fire.
I was just saying, my brain was on fire.
I barely remember what happened.
Did I fire nine times?
The only reason I know is because when I pulled the trigger the 10th time, there was no bullets or something like that.
I don't see how he could possibly be convicted, do you?
If he had a good attorney.
If he has a bad attorney, I suppose anything's possible.
Or a bad jury.
The last shot was in the head.
Yep.
Doesn't change a thing.
I would say, if you can't be sure, you can't be sure.
And it wasn't his problem to solve.
Well, a reparations panel in San Francisco was tasked with coming up with a suggestion of what reparations should be.
I think there was an earlier report that came up with some number like $200,000 per black person or something in California.
But this group came up with a different number, $5 million per black person.
That's the recommendation.
$5 million per black person.
Now the total budget of the city of San Francisco is $14 billion a year.
And the recommendation is to spend $50 billion on reparations for each San Francisco black person who has been black for at least 10 years.
You have to be black for at least 10 years.
People who have only been black for, say, three to five years, nothing.
So I've only been black for, I don't know, maybe eight years?
So I get nothing.
I get nothing.
I've only been black for like eight years.
So, but this is why, you know, I've been teaching you.
This is why you start early.
Because they put that ten year thing.
I'm only about two years away from qualifying.
Five million dollars, free money, right?
So I've been planning way ahead.
So two years from now, if this comes up, I'm going to say, I got my 10 years in.
But I guess you have to prove it with government documents.
That'd be a little harder.
The committee also proposed wiping out all debts associated with educational, personal credit cards, payday loans for black households.
So the 50-member panel was established by the San Francisco supervisors.
Let me give you a suggestion for how to make bad ideas go away.
You tell them to form a committee and get real specific about what it is they're asking.
Because then it's easy to ignore it because it'll be so ridiculous.
See, this is the same thing that Gavin Newsom did.
Apparently there was at least two panels.
So I think Gavin Newsom had a panel and they came back with that quarter million dollars.
You know, that was impractical too.
I think that was always the play.
And Newsom played it completely right.
He took it seriously in the sense that he formed a committee to make a recommendation and then gave them attention.
That seems perfectly fair.
And then once they got attention and they showed you what their idea was, it was completely impractical.
Problem solved.
So I don't think, you know, the thing you want to watch out for is that Newsom is a, he's a strong player.
Like if you don't like his politics, I get it, blah, blah, blah.
But don't overlook the fact that he has game.
All right?
He could be coming.
All right, let's see, that was fun.
More reports said China has more deaths than births this year.
So there's something like, in very rough numbers, 10 million deaths and 9 million some births.
So President Xi actually wants to boost the population of China.
How many of you had that on your predictions?
How many of you were predicting, you know, I think China's going to really want to increase their population?
That would have been hard to predict, wouldn't it?
But I think Peter Zan is saying that they probably have been decreasing the population for 14 years or so.
They've probably just been lying about their data.
And all the experts say that it's a demographic time bomb and there won't be enough young people to support all the old people fairly soon.
And it's a problem.
So it's going to take a while to convince everybody that population growth isn't the problem.
That prosperity actually solves that.
So you just do prosperity, right?
And your biggest problem is not enough people.
The United States... Give me a fact check on this.
I thought I saw this, but I don't have the source right here.
I thought I saw that last year, the United States population would have decreased, if not for immigration, including illegal.
Is that true?
Was the population of the United States not going to grow, or would it slightly decrease, except for immigration?
Give me a fact check on that.
I think it's true.
But here's what I think I should do before 2024.
I'm thinking of creating a series of maybe like, you know, one-minute videos in which I explain a policy position that would work for everybody.
Because a lot of these things have policy positions that nobody has staked out, that both a Democrat and a Republican would totally agree with.
I think.
Here's how I would do it.
Let's say I'm Trump, and I want to avoid all the border racism questions.
If I'm Trump, I say, let's do this.
Let's form an economic board who decides who to let in under what circumstances that benefits the economy of the United States the most.
And make sure that board is super diverse.
Who says no to that?
Really.
If he creates this super diverse board of actual economists, and the economists say, you know, I think we should let in no people this year.
Then don't.
Or if they say, we should let in 5 million because otherwise we'll have a shrinking population.
And even though it's a burden on our systems, we're still better off, you know, hypothetically.
I'm not saying they would say that, but whatever they say.
Because I think that the decision should be offloaded to economists.
And they should be a diverse group of economists, so you don't worry about the racial stuff.
And they should just say, we think the country is better off with this level, and then just manage to that level.
Who says no to that?
Right?
Who says no?
Now, somebody would find some reason to complain about something.
But it's way better than what the Democrats are doing, which is nothing.
And what Trump will suggest, which will sound too harsh, right?
Why do we want to choose between basically nothing, open borders?
You know, I know it's not technically open borders, but you know what I mean.
Versus somebody who's going to get everybody mad that it sounds racist.
Why are those our choices?
Anybody could just choose the smarter one.
Instead of having Congress decide how many people come in, which is dumb, Do what we do when we do budgets.
You have the, what is it, the OMB?
Sort of, somewhat objectively scores your budgets and says, is this good or bad?
Just do that.
How many people, how many people argue with the OMB lately?
I mean, it happens.
But I feel like that's become a credible, at least credible feelings system.
Led by, no, I don't, Gates?
No, I don't know what his views are on immigration exactly.
All right, well that's my suggestion.
I see more talk about the Biden residence not having guest logs.
I saw Tom Fenton say that if the Secret Service is doing its job, there has to be visitor logs.
To which I ask the question, is that true?
Is it true that the Secret Service has a log of everybody who comes in?
Because didn't we learn that the White House did not keep a guest log during the Trump administration?
They had one and then they got rid of it.
How could it be true that they got rid of the White House log while it would also be true that the Secret Service would keep a log of everybody who visited?
Which sounds reasonable.
Seems reasonable.
And then somebody suggested that they need background checks of everybody who visits the president.
Do you think so?
Do you think they really do background checks of everybody who visits the president?
You do?
I'm not entirely sure.
You might be right.
I mean, it's a bureaucracy, so maybe they just do it.
Could be it's just the rule and they just do it all the time.
So when I visited the White House, I gave them my name and information.
Probably gave them my social security number.
Probably.
Probably.
I think I gave them my driver's license at some point, either before or when I checked in.
I can't remember.
Maybe both.
So they could certainly do a quick digital check.
They could check government records.
But nobody talked to me.
And nobody talked to relatives or nobody talked to my close associates or anything like that.
So how much of a check do they really do?
And then here's the question.
If they see a name on the list that is a public figure, do they really check?
Really?
Like, when Kim Kardashian was invited to the White House, did they do a background check on her?
The most transparent person on the planet Earth?
But probably it was perfunctory, don't you think?
Same with me.
Don't you think it was just perfunctory?
I've never said that word out loud.
I waited my whole life to say perfunctory.
I think I know what it means.
You know, just sort of going through the motions.
Yeah, I don't think that anybody even, like, looked at it.
I think they just probably typed my name into the system, something spit out, and they said, go ahead.
All right.
I guess we have some interesting questions about whether they have a list and how much they actually check.
My suspicion is, unless you're a complete unknown, like a citizen who did something famous, I'm sure they check all the normal citizens.
If that makes sense.
I don't think they check as much if you're a public figure.
Because I think you just, you know.
I mean, there's not any real surprises with public figures.
So McCarthy kept his promise.
To try to pass a bill to cancel the funding of the 87,000 new IRS employees that were trying to be hired.
And it looks like that's popular.
64% of publicans are in favor of canceling it, but even 52% of Democrats and affiliated, non-affiliated voters.
So a solid majority of every type of voter, well, 52% is not that solid, but a majority.
I don't want it.
And McCarthy's falling through.
Now, yeah, I guess it still goes to the Senate, so who knows if that's going to happen.
All right.
Who would like to hear an inspirational story?
Anybody?
It's even better than the Houston shooting.
Better.
All right.
Now, the people on the Locals platform heard this, but I'm going to add a detail that you didn't hear.
And it's a fun detail.
It's worth it.
So don't tune out because you've already heard it.
So, yesterday I was planning to go to Starbucks, do some work, my car's in the shop, because I have a BMW.
It always has some kind of warning light on or another.
So it's in the shop.
And, of course, it always goes in the shop on a three-day weekend.
Of course.
Of course.
I don't bring it in on a Friday, but it got extended into the three-day weekend.
So I called an Uber.
Uber shows up, and it's a Tesla.
And I realized that I'd never opened a Tesla car door.
And the door handle is flat with the door itself.
And so I'm standing outside the Uber, and I'm like a monkey with a coconut trying to open this car.
And the driver sees that I'm struggling, and I'm, boomer.
Yes, you can say boomer.
Totally appropriate under these circumstances.
Now, to be clear, I've been in a few Teslas, I've ridden in them before, but I can't remember ever opening the door.
I think maybe the door was opened or something, I don't know.
But I've never opened one.
So anyway, I finally figured out how to push it and it comes out and I open the door.
So I'm getting in the door and the driver jokes with me, and he jokes this way, he goes, you know, Elon Musk, he doesn't make these cars, he doesn't design these cars for the common people like us.
He goes, I think he just makes these cars for like geniuses or something.
So everybody has trouble with the car door.
We can't figure it out.
So we're laughing about, you know, Elon Musk designing this car that I can't figure out how to get into.
So a young Hispanic driver told me he was 26 years old and I asked him where he lived.
He said Stockton, but he likes to drive.
Now Stockton, if you don't know California, is a higher crime, lower income place.
It's sort of not an ideal place to be an Uber driver.
Yeah, you'd want to go to a better neighborhood.
But one of the reasons he goes to my neighborhood is that we're just, it's a rich neighborhood.
So we're just full of CEOs and tech bros and you know, just successful people of all kinds.
And so he drives in that neighborhood and he explicitly has this strategy.
He's been reading motivational books and stuff and he had a tough childhood.
I guess his mom was a drug addict and high crime and just the worst situation, poverty.
And he was going to be the one who made it out, right?
So he figured out how to become an Uber driver and his strategy was, his system, his system was to drive where he would be exposed to successful people.
And his theory was that that exposure would have a variety of benefits which would help him in his race to the top.
So we're chatting away.
Now, just hold this in your mind.
Here's somebody whose strategy was to try to meet the right people who could help him.
And of all the people in the whole world, 8 billion people in the world, there wasn't anybody better for him to be in that car than me.
Now, I know, I know what you're going to say, oh my God, the ego on this man.
No, I'm just saying that it's exactly my job, my precise exact job, is giving career and success advice to exactly people like him.
You know, my book, How to Fail, is probably the most influential book in that genre at the moment.
Eight billion people on Earth, and I got in his car.
Right?
Now, everybody who's saying Braggart and ego, I do this intentionally to find out who are the weak people to get rid of.
Because you can't even handle the conversation.
But there's no way to tell the story without saying the truth is there's probably nobody better on the planet than me at this very narrow thing.
There's lots of things I'm bad at that you're better than I am.
I'm not saying I'm better than you.
I'm saying at this very narrow thing, it's what I do.
It was like somebody asked... I'm not going to make that comparison.
It'll get me in trouble.
I tell this story on Twitter.
I tell this story about the young man whose system was to meet people, and that he was lucky enough to meet me.
And I left off cryptically, and this is true, as I was leaving the car at Starbucks, I said, you don't know it yet, but this is the luckiest day of your life.
Now by then I'd already told him what my book was, and who I was, and we talked a little bit about The whole genre of self-help, etc.
So you knew where I fit into the ecosystem.
But the story's not over.
I tweet about this, and I tell the story about how this young man came from bad circumstances, and was using his system to meet people, and it worked, that he met me.
Elon Musk sees my tweet, It responds to his strategy of being where the successful people are.
And Elon Musk tweets in reply, he's right.
Just hold this in your head for a moment.
You know, this is the model of the world that I have, that some people are players and some people are NPCs.
The other person who has that model is Elon Musk.
Where it just seems as though we're in a simulation and people like Elon Musk can sort of author the simulation for ridiculous outcomes.
I believe it as well.
And I believe I have also routinely changed reality in ways that just defy all logic.
So if we're not a simulation, I don't have a better explanation of what's going on.
This young Uber driver had a very clear intention.
To move the universe.
He wanted to nudge the universe through his own success.
I got in his car against all odds.
All odds.
He makes a joke about Elon Musk not wanting to deal with us.
Elon Musk tweets a confirmation of this kid's, 26 years old, I call him a kid, of this kid's system and validates it.
He validates his system.
Now, I don't have a way to contact him, because you know, Uber is a first name kind of thing.
He might contact me someday, you know, just to follow up if he reads my book or something.
And I'll let him know that, you know, I'll connect the dots and let him know the story.
But what happens when Elon Musk, who has, I don't know, 125 million followers, et cetera, what happens when he validates a success strategy?
That, you know, being around successful people helps you succeed.
It spreads it.
This kid actually moved the universe.
From his Uber car without knowing it.
Someday, that kid's a player.
He's a player, right?
The only thing I know for sure is he's not an NPC, because he moved the universe.
A little bit, just a nudge, but he did that.
Is that the coolest story you've heard today?
It's early, right?
Yeah, it's cool.
All right, well, I don't know if 126 million people saw it, but... All right, that was your inspirational story for the day.
Speaking of Elon Musk, I also tweeted about the WEF, and I said this, I'm skeptical of anything that can't be explained in a sentence.
What exactly do they do, and why?
You ever thought of that?
Here's a good standard for detecting bullshit.
If somebody can't explain their situation or what they're offering or their product in one sentence, it's a scam.
Now, the first time you hear that, you're going to say, that can't be true.
There must be plenty of legitimate things that are a little hard to explain.
Nope.
No, there are not.
There are no legitimate things that are hard to explain.
Nope.
You'll never find one.
The only things that are hard to explain are sketchy things.
Sketchy things are hard to explain because you don't want to say the truth.
So ask anybody who is pro-World Economic Forum.
What do they do and why?
And then watch what happens.
It's going to be word salad.
Well, we like to bring together the future leaders to coordinate and the communication of the synergies.
Because then the world can be moving in a way that's compatible with the future of both the technology and freedom and equality.
And we'll also have the no racism and save the world because of climate change and all the good things and leaders in your community.
Right?
Now, I'm totally serious.
We need to get them on record saying, what is this thing and why does it exist?
Where do I send my money?
Right?
So after I said I'm skeptical of anything that can't be explained in a sentence, Then Elon Musk was looking at the same video, and he responded, "'Cause Klaus Schwab sounds like a Bond villain." You all know that, right?
Like, I'm not the first person to say that.
Do you know who else says that Klaus Schwab, the head of the World Economic Forum, do you know who else says he sounds like a Bond villain?
Everybody who hears him.
Everybody.
Everybody.
Like, we all thought of it at the same time.
Is that the head of Spectre?
I think that's the head of Spectre.
Like everybody.
Same time.
So that's never a good look, right?
Never a good look.
But, you know, in his defense, Klaus Schwab is a Swiss economist slash engineer.
So Swiss economists slash engineers are not exactly Mr. Charisma.
So he's got that working against him.
But he talked about the WF and the need to, quote, master the future, which Elon Musk said, master the future doesn't sound ominous at all.
And then he says, how is the WF slash Davos even a thing?
Are they trying to be the boss of Earth?
Now, that's my point as well, right?
Elon Musk is a master of the universe.
He's one of the people who's figured it out.
He's invited to the WEF and turned it down because it sounded boring AF, as he said.
He doesn't know what they do.
Like, what's the point of this?
What exactly are you trying to do here?
Now, you tell me.
If Elon Musk, who is invited to it, can't figure out why they exist and what they do, or they're just trying to be the boss of Earth, you should worry about that.
Right?
Now, that's basically another way to say, if you can't explain it in a sentence, it's sketchy.
By any objective, reasonable consideration, are they not trying to inject their influence between the citizens of a country and their government?
That part would be confirmed by both people pro and con, right?
That that is a description.
They're inserting themselves between the leadership of a country and the citizens.
Who in the world would agree to that?
Who in the world would say yes to that?
Well, the fact that it's a non-profit means little.
Yeah.
It just seems like a crazy thing to be in favor of.
So I asked if there's any kind of a master list on Twitter, I asked, of people, at least Americans, who are attending so we can know who all the dumb people are.
Doesn't that feel useful?
Wouldn't you have to, like, have a master list of who is gullible enough to go to this thing?
Well, turns out there are quite a few American politicians, both Republican and Democrat.
So it's totally bipartisan, it looks like.
Yeah.
Four Republican governors.
Kyrsten Sinema.
Somebody said Joe Manchin.
I didn't see his name on the list, but I don't know if that's true.
Yeah, Christopher Wray, our FBI director is at the WEF.
Seriously?
Our FBI director is attending the organization that wants to get between our government and the people?
What could be worse than that?
Like, he should be fired for that.
I think.
I think he should be fired for that.
Like, actually fired for that.
Is that wrong?
I think attending that is such a bad look for the FBI, such a bad look, that that's disqualifying.
I mean, that would be similar to just taking his dick out and, like, pissing on Congress, to me.
I mean, maybe it's not technically illegal, but I think you should get fired for it.
You know, it's probably approved by somebody above him, so that's different, but I don't approve of that whatsoever.
But anyways, nice to have a list.
CodeMonkeyZ, who's back on Twitter.
Remember CodeMonkeyZ?
He's back on Twitter.
He had a good list.
And I think everybody on the list should be asked in public to explain what the WEF is and why they attend.
Oops.
Sorry, I just speared there for a minute.
So I think everybody on the American list of attendees.
Yeah, Ron Watkins is the name behind CodeMonkeyZ.
Some say he was beyond Q. I don't know if that's confirmed or not.
He's the name they most often say.
Anyway, I saw a tweet by Rob Reiner today and I didn't know how to comment on it.
Because it's now indistinguishable from parody.
I looked at it and I swear I couldn't tell if he was joking.
Because he keeps saying that, you know, Biden has been proven as all honest, unlike Trump.
And I think, you couldn't possibly be looking at the news.
Are you looking at the same news I'm looking at?
And even Musk said, he said, talking about somebody else mentioned Somebody tweeted, you're saying I should stay away from trashing Biden because I'll see more Rob Reiner and Keith Olbermann tweets.
The context here was, Musk had tweeted that if you interact with an account you don't like, the Twitter algorithm will give you more accounts you don't like.
And then he laughed because he didn't think that was necessarily a mistake, and I agree.
If you enjoyed interacting with an account you didn't like, Why wouldn't it give you more of those?
You enjoyed it.
You spent time on it.
So it's a weird little kink of the algorithm that'll give you what you don't want.
Because sometimes you want what you don't want.
It's like a confusing little situation.
So Musk called that out.
And he was agreeing with his tweet.
So talking about Rob Reiner and Keith Olbermann's tweets, Musk says, is it even possible to parody their tweets?
I'm just literally wondering right now if it's even possible.
Totally agree.
Like, actually, literally, no joke, no hyperbole.
I don't know if you can do it.
You know, I saw a parody account today that it took me 10 minutes to decipher that it was a parody.
I really couldn't tell.
I had to look pretty deep in the tweet stream.
I'm like, this could be just a Democrat.
And then finally, I saw interacting with Michael Knowles, and that gave away the parody.
But at first, I actually couldn't tell.
It was way over the top, but still, you know, can't tell.
So if you haven't seen this thread, it's just required.
Geez, another glitch.
This is just a required thread.
All right.
Now, I can't require you to do anything.
But I would suggest that if you don't see the... I tweeted a thread by Kanekoa the Great, who has a substack as well.
But his tweet threads are just outrageously good.
Like better than anything you're seeing in the news.
I don't know how, like what his background is, or I don't know anything about him, but the work is, oh my god, it's like better than anything you're seeing in terms of really describing, you know, a situation.
Anyway, he's reporting on I didn't know about any of this, but apparently the DHS, Department of Homeland Security, they outsourced censorship of the internet platforms to the Election Integrity Partnership, which was comprised of four organizations.
Okay, let me stop here.
Kinecoa the Great correctly uses the word comprised.
You almost never see that.
Most people would say it was composed of four organizations, which is actually improper.
He uses the correct word, it was comprised of.
That's actually a tell for somebody who's operating on at least a higher level of writing talent, and probably that spills over into his reasoning ability.
So, four organizations, the Stanford Internet Observatory, the university, Washington's Center for an Informed Public.
What the hell is that?
The Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab and something called Grafica.
All right.
Do you see what's going on?
They're laundering the censorship through, like, organizations.
So it's going to look illegitimate, because they can say these organizations, but it'd also be so complicated that it's hard to figure out what's going on.
All right.
Sort of a perfect cover, the complexity.
And they said that the EIP claimed every, quote, repeat spreader of election misinformation was on the right.
What?
Every one of the repeat spreaders of information, according to the censors, they were all on the right.
Every one of them.
Huh.
There are very few things that are that completely binary.
And this isn't one of them.
Obviously, there are plenty of tweets of Hillary Clinton and Democrats and Stacey Abrams questioning elections.
But all of the referee defenders, all of them were on the right.
Now, here's my question.
Is that telling you that they were simply political?
That they knew what they were doing, they knew they were just being political, and that's all it was.
Because otherwise, how do you explain 100% of all the bad guys being on one side according to them?
Well, I'm going to propose that there's at least one other possibility.
There is one other possibility.
That they believed it.
That they believed it.
Because the left actually believes everything the left says is actually true.
They actually believe it.
So when they look at it, they say, well, it looks like 100% of the lies are on this side.
That isn't necessarily purely political.
It might actually be that they believe it.
And by the way, that wouldn't even be unusual.
That would require no leap of logic, no believing in something non-scientific.
It would be the way normal people act.
You don't think you could get a bunch of Republicans in a room to say that the only people lying are the Democrats?
Of course you could.
Would they be acting only politically?
Nope.
No, they would actually believe it.
Right.
If you put a bunch of Republicans in a room, they would say a whole bunch of conspiracy theories that they believe are just facts.
And they would say those other guys are just doing garbage.
The truth is both sides have a healthy dose of conspiracy theories and bullshit.
But if only one side is doing the fact-checking, you've got a real big problem.
And that's what Kinakoa the Great is calling out in great detail.
So he's got all the receipts and he shows it in a way that I just recommend that you look at the details.
The big picture is that our government was definitely involved in censorship in a big way, in an important way that probably influenced elections.
Probably.
And that they use these cutouts, if you want, that's probably the wrong term, but they use these organizations that are not terribly credible, to me anyway, to, you know, to make this happen and make it confusing and give us some laundered legitimacy.
So 22 million tweets were labeled misinformation.
None of them on the left.
So the left has got a good record.
There are 22 million 22 million to zero.
That's pretty good.
22 million to zero.
All right, this next segment I call Backwards Science.
Backwards Science.
The people who get cause and effect backwards, or might.
So I'm going to give you two situations in which it's entirely possible that the interpretation is accurate.
Maybe the cause and effect is exactly what they say.
But you decide.
Number one.
There's a new study that says going for a walk in the park or along a lake or tree-lined spaces, basically in nature, that doing some exercises in nature may reduce the need for medications for anxiety, asthma, depression, high blood pressure, or insomnia.
That physical activity is thought to be the key mediating factor when you're out in these green spaces.
So it's not just being there, it's being active out there.
And the study found that visiting nature three to four times a week was associated with, wait, associated with?
They didn't even use the word causation.
They don't say it's a cause.
Just associated with.
So, associated with 36% lower odds of using blood pressure pills, 33% lower odds of using mental health medications, and 26% lower odds of using asthma medications.
Now, let me ask you this question.
If you were to divide the world into people who are already healthy and people who are not healthy, which one of those do more hiking?
Do the unhealthy people do as much hiking as the healthy people?
Because I wouldn't have to do any science whatsoever to determine that people who go hiking are healthier than people who don't.
And I don't need any science to tell me that.
Do you know why?
Because unhealthy people don't hike.
Healthy people do.
Is this probably backward science?
Don't you think just healthy people go hiking?
It's not that hiking people makes you healthy?
Now, of course hiking makes you healthier.
Let me be clear.
There's no question whatsoever it works both ways.
Right?
We know it works both ways.
For sure it works both ways.
But don't you think the bigger factor is that healthy people can hike and unhealthy people can't get off the couch?
I'm just going to put it out there.
Possibility.
Let's do another one.
There is a report out of Australia, and you're not going to believe this, but people who are healthy don't go to the doctors and die nearly as often as people who are super unhealthy.
Did you know that?
Yeah.
Well that's what the Australians figured out, that healthy people live longer than unhealthy people.
Now they didn't say it that way, they said it a little differently.
What they said was that the people who had the most vaccinations and boosters were the only ones dying.
Literally the only ones.
It was like a subset of a thousand some people.
So it wasn't the biggest study in the world.
So I think you'd need confirmation.
But they found that zero, in the period that they looked at this recently, zero unvaccinated people died in the hospital from COVID.
Zero.
Not a single unvaccinated person.
Who do you think got vaccinated the most?
Was it the people with no comorbidities who looked perfectly healthy and said to themselves, I'm perfectly healthy and we're already in the age of Omicron.
And if I haven't got vaccinated by now, it would be maybe unwise to do so because Omicron is not going to hurt me.
I just ran a marathon.
Or are you more likely to get vaccinated if you're 400 pounds and you have diabetes?
I don't know.
I think you're more likely to get vaccinated if you're unhealthy.
So, to me, all it proved is that unhealthy people die and healthy people do not.
The other possibility is that the jabs are killing people.
Which one is it?
Would you agree that they're both possible?
Are they both possible?
That the only explanation is the jabs are killing you?
Or maybe the most explanation is that healthy people didn't get vaccinated.
Probably both.
Probably both.
Do you know why I say probably both?
Because we know vaccinations are dangerous to some people.
So if you've got a thousand people, well, probably.
Probably maybe one of them?
I don't know.
Not probably, because I don't think one in a thousand are being Killed by a vaccination, right?
It's not one in a thousand, that'd be too much.
But, you know, you could imagine if you looked at a thousand people, you'd get maybe one or two.
Who knows?
And I could also imagine if it's, you know, I'm reasonably healthy, but I didn't tolerate the first two shots at all.
Like, they kicked my ass.
If the shot itself kicks your ass and you're already near death, I'm not too surprised if it kills some people, too.
Would that surprise you?
If the virus could kill you, and I don't know about you, but I felt just as sick with the shot as I did with the virus.
The shot was before Omicron, but when I got Omicron, it kicked my ass, but about the same as the shot did.
It wasn't that much difference.
So if you can take out an old person with just a little bit of Omicron, which is happening, why wouldn't The vaccination take them out.
I mean, it feels just as aggressive, but in a different way.
Just put that out there.
So I want to be very clear for the clop birds.
I would be worried about this data.
Yeah, this is definitely a flag.
You should look at it.
But, you know, I always see Dr. McCullough.
He's always the one who's on these correlation, causation claims.
He could easily turn out to be right about everything.
It's well within the realm of possibility.
But he consistently treats this kind of study like there's only one explanation.
There's at least two.
At least two.
There might be more, which is, you know, bad data.
Bad data would be the other explanation.
Well, somebody's saying Scott was shilling Provax in my opinion.
What does your opinion have to do with anything?
Why does anybody care about your opinion?
I mean, it's wrong, obviously.
But why do we care?
As long as you say it's your opinion, don't say it's a fact.
Right?
If you say it's a fact, well, then I have to bury you.
But if you say it's your opinion, that's fine.
I mean, it's an uninformed opinion based on sketchy data, probably.
But opinions are fine.
All right.
I saw a Twitter user, Eliza, who is Eliza Blue, who is a notable anti-trafficking advocate.
So does important good work of advocacy for groups that need it.
The trafficked people and pedophiles and stuff.
Victims of pedophilia.
So a very credible person.
Doing good work.
But she asked this question, she said, honest question, what happened where men are buying into these alpha male scams?
Now, she didn't say Andrew Tate, but I feel like she might have been at least thinking of him a little bit.
Yeah.
So, honest question, what happened where men are buying into these alpha male scams and Then she said, what can I do as a woman to let men know that it's not the move?
At least not for me.
It's not attractive energy in the slightest.
And people had a lot of replies, but I noted this one from Jason Andrews, who is a hypnotist, by the way.
And Persuasion Rising is his account, if you like to follow hypnotists.
And he responded, this is pretty savage.
No, I don't endorse this opinion.
I'll tell you my opinion in a moment.
But it was so savage, I just had to read it.
He goes, first of all, she said, honest question, blah, blah, blah.
And he says, no honest person could have lived through the last 20 to 30 years and not be aware of why men do this.
Men, true or false?
You couldn't possibly have lived through the last 20 to 30 years and be confused at all about why this is happening.
Then he goes on, because he's not done, he goes, but you have no standing to tell men if that is or isn't the right move, because you are not one of them.
Ouch!
Ouch!
Yeah, yeah, I will endorse that opinion.
Yes, I endorse that opinion.
Now, but to be clear, Let me defend her as well.
She didn't say what you should do.
She was more about what her preferences would be.
So she was saying, if you act like this, I don't personally like it.
But if you act like this other thing, I would personally like it.
So I'm going to give her a break.
I'm going to defend her a little bit.
It was more about there are people who have personal preferences, and maybe that's not their personal preference.
So that's fair.
But I'm also going to disagree with Jason when he says no honest person could have lived through the last 20 to 30 years and not be aware of it.
You don't think men have just as big blind spots about women?
All I see is a giant blind spot.
I don't really see dishonesty.
But it was a funny comment, so it's a good Twitter exchange.
But I'm going to defend her a little bit.
I feel like the explanation is far more likely to be that men and women have enormous blind spots about the other, and there's almost no way to fix it.
It's just too many of us who are too confused.
So I definitely agree with Jason about maybe men could explain this to you and it wouldn't be that complicated.
But I don't think this exchange should have turned as savage as it did, because she was really just asking a question.
And I do appreciate her.
I appreciate the work she does.
And so I don't want to sound like I'm dumping on her.
But as a representative, of, you know, men versus women and, you know, what blind spots they have.
I think this is just a perfect exchange.
All right, I would like to add one thing to the analysis of Ukraine versus Russia.
I'm sure somebody has already said this, probably lots of people, but I don't, I haven't seen it, so I'll say it.
When the predictors are telling us how Russia and Ukraine are going to turn out, What I hear the most is you don't understand that Russia can be patient and they have more resources and they can just grind on Ukraine until they get what they want or there's nothing left.
So Russia almost can't lose because they'll just grind away and they don't have to worry about public opinion and they'll just keep doing it.
But Ukraine might run out of people.
And maybe the West will get tired of supporting them.
So if you were a smart bettor, say some people, you would bet on the one with the most resources and staying power.
I submit that that's the wrong analysis.
Because I think the critical thing will be collapse points.
In other words, both Ukraine and Russia might be, we don't know, they might both be close to collapse.
Meaning a system collapse, a cascade of things that makes the whole system collapse.
Imagine, for example, it's easier to imagine on the Russian side, but on the Russian side, imagine if there's just too many qualified people get killed to handle logistics, like getting the food and the ammunition.
Let's just say that's the only thing that goes wrong.
That the Russian army is so degraded in talent that they have nothing but literally drunks to deliver the food and ammunition.
And it just stops getting there.
That's the system collapse.
They still have plenty of food, and they still have plenty of guns and weapons, but the system collapsed.
Because there was just one weak point.
You only need one weak point and the whole thing collapses.
I think both should be looked at as system collapse problems, and a little less... No, that's not mind reading.
Where is there mind reading in this?
There's no mind reading in this.
This is literally describing a system, it's not even people.
No people have been discussed yet.
Somebody says that NATO might collapse first.
I can see that.
I can see that the, let's say, the support for Ukraine could collapse.
Imagine if something happened to Zelensky.
Game over.
What happens if we found out that Zelensky, I'm not suggesting this, but what if we found out he did some huge corrupt thing or killed some people?
Suddenly the public opinion would just completely change and there'd be a system collapse on the left.
So you have two entities that are both very, very vulnerable to total system collapse if any one peg gets pulled out of the Jenga thing.
Now, you can't ignore the fact That one of them might run out of resources to the point where it collapses.
That could happen.
But there are way more ways it collapses than just who has the most resources that they're applying to it.
Would you agree with that?
Would you agree that the system collapsing is a little underappreciated?
Because that's the thing you can't see until it happens.
It's invisible until it happens.
But everybody can see.
Everybody can see, oh, they used up their missiles.
A lot of their military is already dead or injured.
So that's stuff we talk about because you can see it.
But a potential system collapse would just be one component.
You wouldn't even notice it until it was gone.
So just keep that in mind.
I think you'll see stories in the future about system collapse.
Center of Gravity Analysis.
Klaus Witz calls it the critical point.
Culminating points.
Surely this is already, you know, military doctrine, right?
I mean, it's too obvious not to be part of the military doctrine.
Is it a prediction?
It's short of a prediction.
It's short of a prediction.
Because we're definitely in an anything-could-happen situation.
And I don't believe data that comes out of that area.
So I think either side could win at this point.
What do you say?
Would you agree either side could win?
It's unpredictable at this point.
And then you also have to decide what winning looks like.
Right?
Because we disagree what winning looks like.
Right.
I see Stephen saying, Russia is winning for certain.
Well, would you say they're winning for certain if their economy is forever shut out of the main economic engine of the world?
Would that be winning?
I don't know.
Well, we'll see.
Alright, ladies and gentlemen of YouTube, I'm going to say goodbye for today.
I'll see you tomorrow.
I'm going to talk to the locals people privately in their secret little platform, which you're not invited to.
Well, actually you are invited, but you'd have to subscribe.
