Episode 1992 Scott Adams: Let's Talk About The World Economic Forum, And Updates On Joe's Documents
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Hugh Hefner, free will and brainwashing
FAA hacked and ransomed?
Visitor logs, White House and residences
Epstein client list speculation
Rolling Stone's democrat bubble
WEF stories & accomplishments
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
And if you'd like to take it up to a level that no one has ever seen before, I'm talking about stratospheric levels.
All you need is a cupper mug or a glass, a tanker, chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled Pleasure.
The dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
Here it comes.
The simultaneous sip.
Go.
Yeah, that's good.
Yeah, that's good.
Alright, I have to start with this.
You know the World Economic Forum is going on?
And people are worried that, you know, they're gonna Take control of our minds and turn us all into sheep?
I'm not making this up.
This is the actual outfit that Kirsten's cinema was wearing at the World Economic Forum.
She's actually dressed like a sheep.
Now, you could tell me that this doesn't look like a sheep, but you're wrong.
It looks like she dressed like a sheep.
This is the funniest thing I've seen in a year.
That's an early year.
Oh, that is so funny.
Now, this is part of my theme.
That you can't tell who's kidding anymore.
It's impossible to tell the difference between things that are really happening and things that are just a joke.
Let me give you another example.
Rob Reiner.
It wasn't long ago that I imagined that actor-director Rob Reiner was a political person who used to be in entertainment.
I used to think, well, he was in entertainment primarily, but then he crossed over into politics and I thought, oh, well, he doesn't seem to be doing so good in politics.
But then he tweeted this today.
He's had a good week.
He trends on Twitter almost every day.
He says, there is no amount of propaganda you can spew on Twitter that convinces Americans that Joe Biden... What?
Hold on.
Oh, I don't even have his quote here.
This is somebody else making fun of him.
But Rob Reiner is going on Twitter about how honest Joe Biden is compared to this criminal Trump.
And it's gotten to the point where I think he's actually crossed the blood-brain barrier from an entertainer talking about politics to just an entertainer.
He's crossed back.
He is just entertaining at this point.
You cannot convince me that he doesn't know what he's doing at this point.
Now I think in the beginning he was just a, you know, crazy Democrat saying what Democrats say.
But I think he got so much attention for being a little bit, you know, further than maybe the news would allow.
That I think he's just embracing it now.
It looks like, this is my honest opinion, this is not a criticism, this is my honest opinion, I think he knows it's for entertainment now.
I think he crossed back into the entertainment mode.
And now I love it.
Now I love it.
So the last few days I've been reading his tweets, and I'm just fully entertained.
Because of what he's doing to mostly, you know, Trump supporters.
Watching him troll the Trump supporters, It's actually kind of fun.
But, you know, I stopped taking him seriously as a, you know, some kind of a political pundit.
But when he's just solidly in the entertainment domain, he's really good at that.
He's really good at entertainment.
He has a long track record of being excellent at it.
I think he's doing it again.
So I went from being mildly annoyed at his opinions to being totally entertained by the show he's putting on.
There's no way he doesn't know what he's doing at this point.
I mean, you would have to assume he has an IQ of like 90 to not know what he's doing at this point, right?
You know, in the beginning I think it was more organic, but now he's just having fun, I think.
That's my honest opinion.
Well, I don't know if this is a recommendation or not because it's creepy, but Hulu has a series in which they're talking about the dark side of Hugh Hefner and the Playboy empire.
Has anybody seen that?
I just started watching it.
And I'll tell you what I'm really mostly noticing about it.
The first thing is, yes, there are some things maybe you didn't know, but nothing that would surprise you.
In other words, you know, maybe some details.
You know, for example, you didn't know that Heff's valet, one of the jobs of the valet, was they had a bucket that was just for picking up his used dildos off the floor.
Apparently there were always so many of them.
Like they had like a dildo bucket.
They had a whole process where somebody would sterilize the dildos every night and then put them back in the bed stand with his other sex toys.
So there's all these creepy little details that we're hearing.
Now, all of the sex stuff, all of it, even stuff that was a little, not even a little, but pretty eye-raising, It all sounded like exactly within Hef's, you know, philosophy of anything goes if it's legal and nobody gets hurt.
So, you know, I don't judge any of the sex stuff.
That's for you to judge.
But here's what I was taken back, taken by.
The source of the information is mostly the women.
And the women entered a business model in which apparently they were made to compete for the top prize of being Playmate of the Year, and everybody assumed that they had to sleep with Hefner to get there.
So he had created this empire where everybody just assumed they needed to sleep with him to get more money.
And I believe at no time did he ever say that.
There's no evidence that he ever said, you know, the only way you get to be Playmate of the Year, you've got to come up to the bedroom.
But a lot of people, everybody understood it.
It was implied.
Yet, there were examples of people who became Playmates of the Year who never had any personal relationship to him.
So he certainly had an alibi, which is, well, it's not true.
I never asked anybody to, and several people who never were with me were Playmates of the Year.
So the thing that's like the theme I see all the way through it is that the women believe that he hypnotized them and brainwashed them and removed their free will.
And they say because he was smooth and he was rich and he was much older, and they were like 19, 20, and he was 50 at one point.
And so when you put it all together, The poor women who were involved were just victims of this horrible monster, and they called them a monster.
Now, here's my problem.
There's no indication that any of the women were surprised by any of it.
Meaning that, you know, everything that was presented as something that they should do or could do or whatever, it was always presented well before they had to do it.
Like they all had You know, nobody held their arms and said, stay in this room.
And so it's a really interesting question about where free will, which is an illusion, where, let's say, where personal agency matters and where this real brainwashing thing actually is a thing.
And I'm just fascinated because there's a larger theme that's never really spoken, which is that women are not responsible for their own actions, but men are.
And that's through it all.
Nobody says that.
That's just the impression you get.
All of the women involved, and there were lots of them, who were all victims, they were all victims, but they all also knew exactly what they were getting into.
So they voluntarily got into it, but then they became victims.
And yet nobody held them down.
Nobody ever threatened them.
I believe there's no evidence of a threat.
It's just fascinating.
So I'm not even sure I'm taking a side, right?
Because it's not my business.
And who knows what's true.
Half is dead because he can't defend himself.
But I'm not going to defend Hef, right?
So that's not my job.
He had a pretty complicated life and you'd also be judging it by today's lens and, you know, that's weird.
So, yeah, I mean, you can judge him.
That's fine.
But the creepy thing is that women don't seem to have a sense of their own free will or agency the way men seem to.
If you had reversed all of this and just changed the genders, He said, alright, there was a woman who started a women's magazine of naked men and she invited lots of naked men over to her mansion and they thought, those naked men thought that if they had sex with her, which she really encouraged, that they would get promotions and they would get like more money and stuff.
Would that even be a story?
No.
Because we would assume that all the men at any age, even 18 years old, you would assume that the men made their own choices.
Nobody held them down.
Nobody put a gun to their head.
They simply entered a system that had that incentive, you know, to fight for the top spot and usually in a sexual way.
The story has everything in it about human nature and how we treat men and women.
So if you can get past the fact that the details of the story are sort of uncomfortable, because it's sort of uncomfortable all the way through.
I haven't seen it all, but I can tell it's going to be.
It's really interesting.
So I recommend it without necessarily saying you would be entertained by the details.
It's just so interesting how it's framed in the larger sense.
All right, too much of that.
There's a bar owner in New York City, CNN reports, who's opening a sober bar.
Sober bar.
So no drinking, no drink served.
And apparently demand is high.
Does that seem like a great idea?
Kind of does.
Doesn't it?
Well, you know, maybe not a great idea that you would go to it, but do you think in terms of a business model it's a great idea?
I think it is.
I think it is a great idea.
Because the people who don't drink, and apparently there's a really big trend going on toward people stopping drinking.
Did you know that?
That's like a big trend that's happening right now.
A lot of individuals giving up drinking.
I think there's probably more alcoholics, because addiction is a different story.
But the people who are not quite alcoholics but just are drinkers, a whole bunch of people give, I think maybe 20%, you know, non-alcoholic drinks are way up, which is telling you something.
So I think it's a good idea.
The people who don't drink don't really have places to go that they would meet somebody.
Does that make sense to me?
Tucker Carlson has a great conspiracy theory that I don't think is true.
But I love the fact that he put it out there.
Because it's entertaining.
And, you know, I think it's presented in the right spirit.
It's not a claim of truth.
It's a claim of two things that happened about the same time.
And you have to ask yourself, is that a coincidence?
And the two things that happened were, you all know that the flights in the USA were grounded and it took them a while to fix it.
But at the same time, the price of Bitcoin went up substantially.
As if somebody bought a bunch of it, like a government.
Like they had to buy Bitcoin to pay a ransom.
Like the problem with the flight systems might have been a hacker who said, give me X millions of dollars or billions and I'll release the code or something.
Now, I don't think that's what happened.
But I love it as a conspiracy theory.
Very exciting conspiracy theory.
Probably not.
Alright, I got a little bit more information from a good source, who will remain nameless, on White House visitor logs, and also President's residence logs of visitors.
Now, I had told you that the White House, under Trump, had removed the visitor logs.
But I am completely convinced, based on my own experience as well, that at the very least they run your driver's license and social security number and do a background check.
Would everybody agree that at the very, because I'm sure I gave them that information before I went to the White House.
Pretty sure I did.
But there wasn't, in my case, in my case there was no background check that I'm aware of.
You know, I don't think any family members were Interviewed or anything like that.
Now that could be because I'm a public figure.
I'm a pretty well-known entity, I guess.
But somebody on Twitter said that they visited the White House, a non-public figure, and says that their family was contacted.
Which is good work, I guess.
So I guess you'd say, good work, Secret Service.
And if they didn't check my background, But they did check some lesser-known person's background.
That would make sense.
I mean, I would completely understand that.
But here's what I'm starting to believe might be true.
Under the Trump White House, there must have been two lists.
One list that the Secret Service, of course, would check everybody and write down who came in when.
I do believe that they would do that.
Don't you?
Clearly there has to be a list.
I also believe, based on information I just got from somebody who actually knows, that they would do the same thing at the President's residence while he's in office.
And maybe even afterwards if he still has Secret Service protection.
So, I believe that probably the Trump White House always had a list, even when they said we got rid of the visitors list.
They still had a list.
It's just it was the Secret Service list, maybe not where somebody signs a log as they enter, or something like that.
So I'm thinking there was more like a publicly lit public list that the press could ask for, but also a Secret Service list that nobody can see.
Question.
Do you think we should ever have access to the Secret Services list of who visited the President?
I say no.
What do you say?
Nope.
Nope, nope, nope.
Do not want that.
That is not good for the country.
Not good for the country.
You don't want your president being constrained on who he can talk to.
That's pretty important.
Or how often he talks to somebody.
He or she.
Yeah, it's the same thing about when somebody goes and has a private conversation with the president, they generally don't talk about it.
Do you know why?
Because then the President won't be able to talk to anybody.
If every time somebody talks to the President, they go blab about it, then the President will never have an honest conversation with anybody.
So, I have to admit, one of the best standards of behavior that Americans do voluntarily, as far as I can tell, is they really don't talk about what they talked about with the President.
Wouldn't you agree?
I've never even seen it.
Like, I've done it.
I've actually told you what I talked about with Trump, but only the things that make him look good, you know, they're sort of obvious things.
So, you know, I wouldn't talk about anything that I thought was even a little bit, even a little bit, you know, interesting or a gray area or anything like that.
I'll only tell you the obvious stuff.
Like, I told you, for example, that Trump told me in a private conversation that he thought Biden would be his challenge in 2020.
Because it makes Trump look smart, right?
And, you know, there's no harm, right?
So I told you that.
But, you know, it's not like he and I talked about any state secrets or anything.
But if we had, I wouldn't tell you, right?
But I love the fact that nobody does.
It seems as if nobody would do that.
I've never seen it.
Have you?
Am I missing something?
I've never seen anybody say, I talked to the president and he told me this secret and I'm going to tell you.
Omarosa?
I don't know.
Yeah.
Yeah, I mean it would be bad for the person who told the secret, but I still think people do it for a larger sense that you just shouldn't do it.
Oh, Comey?
John Bolton?
Alright, somebody's giving me some examples.
I'll accept your examples without looking into them.
All right, so I do think that there would be a log of Biden's visitors.
And as much as I think it's important, I don't think the public should know.
But maybe some Intel people can look into it.
Question on the Epstein client list, where we keep saying, why don't we know where the Epstein client list is?
Here's my problem with that.
Why do you think there's a list?
But what would be the thinking behind Epstein keeping an actual list of his clients?
Now, let's not... Hold on, hold on.
Blackmail is not an answer to the question.
I'll tell you why in a minute.
Now, hold on, hold on.
Let me set this up better.
I'm going to set this up better.
Stop answering.
Wait for the setup and then give me your answer.
Is my contention Those of you who think Epstein had a list of his clients are not good evil geniuses.
Now, I don't want to brag, but I feel like I can get into the head of an evil genius and figure out what I would have done.
If I were Epstein, do you think I would have kept in one place a list of all the naughty, naughty sex clients?
Do you think I would have kept the list in one place?
Like one list of all my naughty clients?
Let me tell you who Epstein was.
A genius in the area of finances.
He was a genius in the area of finances.
And you think he didn't understand diversification?
Or risk mitigation?
Of course he did.
The last thing in the world he would do is put all that in one place.
You would never put it in one place.
Here's why.
Let's say somebody finds it.
If somebody finds your entire client list, first they kill you, and then they take that and they sell it to the highest bidder, or they use it themselves to blackmail those people and run the world.
If I found Epstein's client list, and it was like a real, you know, sex secret, power broker kind of thing, I would use it to run the world, or sell it.
I mean, assuming I'm a bad person.
Right?
If, let's say the intelligence agencies of the United States got a hold of the list, would they release it?
Only if they're idiots?
No.
Because it would have people from other countries on it.
And they would use that knowledge to control the people in the other countries.
Of course.
Of course.
Now, if you're Epstein, and you want to stay in business with your little blackmailing operation, wouldn't it make more sense to create a situation where if somebody found, let's say, one or two evidences of your blackmail, that that's all they would find.
And they wouldn't know about the other ones, because then you could still be in business.
So all of you who say he had a master list to blackmail, you're not understanding how blackmail works.
Don't you want to not get caught?
I think not getting caught is, like, really central to blackmailing.
If you blackmail and get caught, the whole thing didn't make sense.
So the getting away with it is very important to the blackmail.
And the getting away with it means you don't put all of your assets in one place so somebody can find your master list.
Nobody would do that.
Nobody would do that.
Now what you might do is you and Ghislaine might have the list in your head but you also might have a video.
Here's what I think they have.
I think they have video that in some cases are probably blackmail material.
It might be in different places, and it might be in one place, but it wouldn't be a client list.
There might be a password to a Dropbox, and that's it.
And if Maxwell and Epstein don't give you the password to the Dropbox, or wherever it is, you would never find it.
It would be totally unfindable.
So there's probably somewhere in the world a bunch of video and it's just a password and it's all it would take to get in there.
But you'll never hear it.
Or maybe the FBI already has it and they're using to blackmail other countries.
But I will give you one possibility that would explain everything.
The Epstein list was found by somebody.
Somebody found it.
Or let's say the folder with the videos.
And they sold it to China.
Because why would you sell it to China of all places?
Why China?
Now, I didn't say there's a list of videos.
I said there might be a file somewhere in which they are, which would be different than the list.
They'd be the highest bidder.
China would be the highest bidder.
Of course you'd sell it to them.
Do you think there's any chance they wouldn't want to buy it?
Do you think you could present it to them and they'd say, yeah, no thanks.
Not interested.
No, of course they would buy it.
Of course they would.
And they would pay a lot if it's good stuff.
So if somebody found it, and if they sold it to the highest bidder, and if it were China, would that explain why Congress isn't acting on TikTok and Fentanyl?
Yes, it would.
Yes, it would.
It would explain Everything.
It would explain everything.
Not that I think it happened.
I'm not suggesting it happened.
It's just that the conspiracy theory explains everything, and the current situation does not.
Because it's still a mystery why Congress totally agrees what to do on TikTok, for example, to ban it.
And yet it's not happening.
You can't explain why everybody's in agreement, and it's important, and it's good for China, Bad for us, and nothing's happening.
There's clearly money somewhere that's causing this to be the case.
Somewhere.
We just don't know exactly where.
I dared to enter the Democrat bubble this morning just to see what's over there.
It's a scary freaking thing.
And I know it's got to be just as scary the other way.
When people on the left who have never been exposed to the right-leaning social media, if they wander over, they're going to see things they've never seen before.
And they'll be like, what?
That's crazy.
In some cases, it is.
But sometimes it's true, and they've just never seen it.
So here are some things I learned by reading Rolling Stone, a completely different reality, And it's just mind-boggling, because this is the brainwashing that the left is getting.
I know what brainwashing the right gets, because I see it all the time, but I don't really see it directly until I made a case of it.
So, compare this to what you think is true.
Just hold in your mind what you believe is true, and then I'm going to tell you what Democrats are reading is true.
This is from Rolling Stone.
The so-called, quote, lab leak theory has never been substantiated.
There is no evidence that the virus had been in a laboratory prior to the start of the pandemic, and peer-reviewed scientific papers have put forth overwhelming evidence, with a link, so there's a link to the overwhelming evidence, that the pathogen likely leapt from animals to humans.
Does that match your understanding?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the right believes that the laboratory leak is almost positively guaranteed, but not quite.
Whereas the animal-to-animal theory is debunked, right?
Now, I don't know which one's true.
I'm just saying that the left and right have different movies of what's going on, right?
So, then I was trying to reconcile.
How do you reconcile that it's overwhelming evidence it did not come from a lab, At the same time that the right overwhelmingly thinks it probably did.
And he reconciled that.
Well, I looked at their link, because naturally I thought to myself, overwhelming evidence?
Well, I'm going to click on that and see where all this overwhelming evidence goes.
Now let me ask you this.
Do you think when I clicked on the link that literally says overwhelming evidence, that I saw overwhelming evidence?
Nope.
Do you know what I found?
There's no real evidence of either the lab leak or the animal-to-animal spread.
There's actually no evidence for either one of them.
But that's called overwhelming evidence that it came from animals.
No.
No.
The actual link does not say there's overwhelming evidence.
It just says we don't know.
Completely different than what... So if you were a Democrat, You probably wouldn't click the link.
I would just say, well, overwhelming evidence is pretty clear.
I don't need to see how overwhelming it is.
No need to check it myself.
I'll just go with overwhelming evidence.
So they believe.
But here's the funny part.
And I swear to God, this is true to my theme for today's live stream.
You can't even tell if this is a parody.
You're just going to laugh when I tell you this.
According to Rolling Stone, whether it came from a lab or it came from an animal, no matter which way it came, it's still human's fault.
It's still human fault.
If it came from an animal infecting an animal.
Do you know why that is human's fault?
Just take a guess.
Yeah.
Not exactly climate change, but the impact we've had on the environment.
Yes.
The human impact on the environment caused the pangolins to fuck a bat, and there we are.
So, the important thing, the important thing is, it's humans' fault.
According to Rolling Stone.
That's the important point.
Whichever way it goes.
We don't know which way it goes.
We've got overwhelming evidence, overwhelming evidence that it's because humans did bad things to the environment.
Oh, how convenient that is.
How very convenient.
Now, I see you literally laughing.
Do you remember when I first told you that the reason you don't see TV and movie comedies anymore Or at least not many of them.
Is that it's hard to write comedy because reality is now hilarious.
You can't compete with just the news.
This is hilarious, that no matter what happened, it's a human's fault.
Even if a pangolin banged a bat.
It's like, well, that's a little bit on you, isn't it?
A little bit on you.
Here's another one, also from Rolling Stone.
I just have to read this to you.
All right.
Like I was going to paraphrase it, but you just have to hear the actual words from Rolling Stone about Eric Swalwell and his ties to a Chinese spy.
Now, is it your understanding that he had sex with that Chinese spy?
Is that your understanding?
Allegedly?
Yeah.
All right.
Well, not according to Rolling Stone.
Here's what Rolling Stone says, and watch what's left out.
See if anything's left out of the story, according to your version.
Almost a decade ago, the FBI informed the California Democrat, Swalwell, that one of his campaign volunteers was working for Chinese intelligence.
Swalwell cooperated with the FBI, and you know that's the important thing.
It's the cooperation.
That was the end of it.
That was the end of it.
privately informed then Speaker Boehner and the Intelligence Chair Devin Nunes of his efforts.
That was the end of it.
That was the end of it.
Yeah, there was a spy just working on his campaign, and as soon as he was told about it, he acted promptly and took care of it and got it out of the country.
It's like they left out the alleged affair.
Is the affair bullshit?
Did the people on the right just make that up?
I don't know if you'd say yes.
But is there any evidence that they had an affair?
I mean, that's what everybody on the right says.
I've literally never seen a news report on it.
I just hear people talk about it.
It's unknown?
Well, I would think that that would be a big point, or at least... And now they say that McCarthy is repeating those claims as rationale for moving him from the Intel Committee.
And I'm thinking to myself, no, I think it was the alleged sleeping with her that got him removed.
I don't know that he was removed because as soon as he found out there was a spy in his campaign, he acted quickly to get rid of her.
Now, I guess the only thing I can say about this is, are you blown away at how different the news is on the left and the right?
It's just not even the same world.
And honestly, I don't know which one is true in this case.
Because I've never seen proof that Eric Swalwell slept with a Chinese spy.
Have you?
And I'm going to be consistent.
I'm not a big supporter of Swalwell.
But I'm going to be consistent.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Innocent until proven guilty.
I don't know.
Maybe it never happened.
I'm willing to believe it never happened.
It's the sort of thing people make up.
So I saw a great tweet today that I boosted.
The Twitter account is Joe's Roman HOA and cult.
I don't even know what that means.
It's a funny Twitter handle.
But this account suggested, Joe Rogan should host the next World Economic Forum and make all the rich people do the things they suggest, Fear Factor style.
Make Klaus bike to work in Southeast Asia.
And I thought, that would be the best reality show ever.
Take a bunch of rich people, like literally, and build a Waldorf island, or a place where they're not connected to civilization, and make them live the way they'd like us to live, allegedly.
No privacy, no ownership, eating bugs, don't use oil, and then see what you can do.
See how it goes.
Take all their stuff.
Now, I don't believe all of the rumours about the WEF.
I'm not all the way conspiracy with that in terms of taking away all your material possessions.
I don't think that's real.
But it would be hilarious to see a show in which they show the end point of if they got everything they wanted.
Did you see that Elon Musk, of course, is dumping on the WEF?
And I got pulled into that story because of some tweets on the same topic.
So, once again, the thing I tell you keeps happening.
Why am I in the middle of all these stories?
Like, I get that I talk about them, but everybody talks about them.
Everybody talks about them, but somehow I'm, like, in the middle of the story.
So I guess that's something I'm doing.
But Elon Musk asked this.
He said, why is Davos even a thing?
And he compared the annual meeting of the global elites online to the 4chan forum.
Because he asked, if you made a list, like do a contest, make a list of the things that World Economic Forum says.
And then make a list of things that 4chan says, and see if people could tell the difference if you didn't label who said what.
Now, I think you could, but it's a funny comment.
It's a funny comment.
All right.
But here's my favorite part about the World Economic Forum.
I wanted to see what they've accomplished.
And it turns out they've accomplished quite a bit.
Quite a bit.
And I'd like to share with you all of their accomplishments so far.
Because many of you think they haven't done anything at all.
Right?
Well, what have they done except, you know, get us all scared about the future?
But they've actually accomplished things.
And so there were 10 major accomplishments.
And I thought I'd share them with you.
For example, all right?
These are just examples.
These are some of the things they accomplished.
For example, they watched some Norwegians create a fund, and then they took credit for the work of members, they mobilized some coalitions, they bragged about the work of signatories, they teamed with others, they signed a compact to develop a framework which will allow the measurement of a long-term approach, and they agreed to six principles and endorsed the plan.
So, that's all pretty important.
All that mobilizing of coalitions and signatories and frameworks and measurements and principles and plans.
Does this sound like a Dilbert comic to you?
Or is it just me?
I could take this exactly and turn it into a Sunday Dilbert comic and I wouldn't have to change the words.
This could be Wally's performance report.
Right?
Wally, what did you...
Accomplished?
Well, I watched another organization create a fund.
I took work for some of the other members because I was on a team.
We mobilized some coalitions, and many of the signatories had some accomplishments, which I'm claiming credit for, for also being a signatory.
We teamed.
We teamed.
We signed some compacts.
I created a framework for the measurement of our long-term approach, and we agreed on six principles and endorsed the plan.
You tell me that that's not a deliberate Performance review joke.
All by itself.
I will prove it to you by turning it into a cartoon.
This afternoon I will turn these exact words into a Dilbert comic.
Let's just find out if anybody recognizes it.
Alright.
So literally the things that they claim seem to be there are people who attended who did something awesome And we agree with it, or they announced it here, so we get some credit for it.
But to me it looked like a whole bunch of people doing things they might have wanted to do anyway.
And the WF is taking credit for what members are doing.
Now where is all this stuff about eating bugs and taking away your property?
They've got 10 accomplishments, but none of them seem to go to taking away your stuff and making you eat bugs.
So I guess they keep that on the down low.
Or maybe it's not real.
Maybe none of it's real.
I don't believe any of the stuff you're worried about is real.
But maybe you'd be more comfortable if they worried about it more, I think.
Yeah, there's lots of stuff that they talk about, which I think is just Interesting, and a way things could go, and who knows?
So I'm a pescetarian, an uncomfortable pescetarian, meaning I'll eat fish if it doesn't have a head on it, but I hate it.
Like, I hate eating fish.
But I do it, because I can, and I need the protein.
But if nobody had ever eat animals, and let's say you were born a vegetarian, you'd never heard of anybody eating an animal, And somebody came to you and said, now we're going to eat cows.
You're like, what?
I've only ever eaten vegetables.
What are you talking about?
Yeah, we're going to eat cows now.
And you'd never heard of it.
Like, no human had ever eaten a cow.
It would sound exactly like eating bugs.
It might sound worse, right?
So when people say, we'll never eat bugs, I say, really?
Really?
I think you might.
If they make those bugs taste good, yeah, you might.
You might.
I don't know.
I mean, you can talk people into anything when it comes to food, apparently.
All right.
Let's see.
So we got a new important study that determined that the people who exercise regularly had lower rates of hospitalization and death from COVID.
So the people who are regular exercisers did much better if they got COVID.
Who would have ever seen that coming?
You know, the implications of this are shocking.
Think about this, the implications.
This is suggesting that people who are in good health are less likely to be hospitalized and die.
That is shocking.
Did you know that?
Did you know that healthy people are less likely to die than unhealthy people?
I mean, it's a good thing we read the news.
I thought healthy people were dying first.
I didn't know.
But apparently the healthy people live longer.
What's the first thing I told you when the pandemic happened?
Get your vitamin D and exercise.
Told you every day, for weeks, get your vitamin D and exercise.
Turned out, it was the best thing you could have done.
You're welcome.
Yeah, and lose weight.
You're welcome.
So I guess I nailed that.
Here's an argument.
So I save the stuff you don't want to hear.
So everybody who doesn't want to hear An argument that you haven't heard before.
This is one I don't think you've heard before, but it has to do with vaccinations and COVID.
So if you want to take off now, I won't be mad.
I'm going to go private, by the way.
Keep forgetting to do it.
Going private on locals.
So here's an argument by James Surowiecki.
He's the author of Wisdom of Crowds.
And he wrote the financial page for The New Yorker.
So if he wrote the financial page for The New Yorker and he wrote a best-selling book, he knows economics and knows how to analyze things.
He'd be a rational person.
So he printed a graph on Twitter.
Does anybody believe a COVID-related graph on Twitter?
You should not, right?
So, no.
It doesn't matter what it says, it's not credible.
Because nothing's credible.
But here's an argument you've never seen.
So I'm only presenting this as an argument I don't think you've seen.
Because you're worried about whether the vaccinations or the COVID is killing people, right?
It's a reasonable thing to worry about.
James Surowiecki presents what looks like official U.S.
excess death and COVID deaths graph.
And his claim, which is backed up by the graph, which we don't believe, is that the excess deaths and the COVID moved in lockstep.
Like when COVID was way up, also the excess deaths were way up.
So above the COVID, There were some excess deaths.
And then when COVID went down, there were still more excess deaths, but it followed COVID.
And then when COVID went up in surge, excess deaths.
So excess deaths have stayed above COVID the whole time.
How do you interpret that?
The unexplained deaths were higher than COVID the whole time, but they worked in lockstep.
What's that tell you?
Does that tell you that the vaccinations are probably the cause of the extra deaths?
Stress?
Somebody says stress?
All right.
I only see one interpretation of it.
So it makes me question whether the data is right, of course.
The only interpretation of that is that it wasn't the vaccinations that were killing anybody.
Of course it kills some people, as most serious medicine does.
Somebody's going to die from every medicine, I think.
But it doesn't seem to show up in the data.
What if that's true?
That debunks all of the vaccination fear people.
Now, but I don't believe it.
I don't believe it.
Okay.
Now, even if fentanyl and, let's say, overdoses were the explanation, would that follow the COVID curve?
Do you think, you know, even within, like, say, the summer versus the autumn?
Do you think, like, in the autumn, all the ODs would go down at the same time as the COVID?
Here's the only interpretation that makes sense.
That it's all COVID, and we undercounted COVID.
We undercounted it.
Right?
Because there's also in the news, in the news also, is somebody saying we definitely overcounted it.
So we may have overcounted it in the hospitals, but undercounted it in some other way, or undercounted it and overcounted it.
We could have done both, I suppose.
Actually, we could have done both.
We could have undercounted ones that we should have counted, simultaneous with overcounting people we shouldn't have counted.
That could both happen.
We don't know how it nets out.
But it would probably net out exactly like the graph, if the graph is true.
But anyway, I put that out there as the best argument I've seen to refute the vaccines are killing you.
Now, the VAERS report would be less important than this graph.
If this graph is based on real data, right?
So you could forget the VAERS report if you had actual death and excess deaths.
Because the VAERS report would, you know, end up showing up there.
So if the VAERS report is telling you something real, then you would see the vaccination line You know, match the deaths, but instead it matches the COVID, which doesn't line up exactly with the vaccination schedule, right?
So vaccinations sort of started at nothing and went up.
But the deaths went up and down only according to the waves of COVID, not according to the vaccinations.
According to this data that one person put on Twitter, which you should not rely on.
All right, so I can't give you any sense that this is reliable.
But it's the best argument I've seen on the other side of the debate.
Would you accept that?
And would you agree that all of the clop birds think I just supported vaccinations?
Would you agree with that too?
If you heard this and only this and a context, you'd say, oh my God, he's at it again.
He's at it again.
Even though I told you that you should not rely on the data, And even though I told you that the context is knowing what the argument is on both sides.
But that's not acceptable to Klopperts.
Klopperts, you must take a side.
You cannot show the arguments on both sides.
Never!
Never!
Yeah, it's a graph, so nobody believes it.
All right.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I needed to say today.
And is there still a DNRC?
No.
But you've got a good memory.
You know, I don't think it's the COVID talk that's the problem.
I feel like we need to know what happened to us.
So I'm not going to stop talking about it.
But I will as a As a, let's say, meeting in the middle.
I'll try to save it for the end of the presentation so you can just bail out.
Because I understand a lot of people don't want to hear it.
And I understand that.
But the thing, I'm trying to only talk about things that are new.
Right?
And the new stuff is really important.
Because you really need to know, were we poisoned?
Don't you think that's important?
Wouldn't you like to know if you were poisoned?
I feel like there's almost nothing more important than that going on.
That's like way up there.
That's way up there on the importance scale.
But I get if you're happy with your decision, you're perfectly healthy, I get it.
Societal breakdown is a problem?
Yeah.
Yeah, so I saw a story about the FAA changing their EKG standards for pilots.
I don't believe the story.
And the story is that so many pilots have, I don't know, irregular EKGs suddenly, in other words, being blamed on COVID or the vaccinations, that they had to change the standard or there wouldn't be enough pilots.
So now you got a bunch of pilots with, you know, sketchy tickers flying your plane.
So that's the story.
I don't believe it.
I'm going to call fake news on that story.
Now, it might be true.
It might be true.
But that's too... I don't know.
That just doesn't sound true.
So, I think you need a lot of confirmation on that one.
It doesn't sound true.
All right. - Okay.
Scott is on Team Moderna.
The clopberts are still confused because they don't understand context.
Yeah, follow the money always works.
They changed the standards because of pilot shortages, not the other way around.
Well, that would make sense.
That would explain the story, wouldn't it?
But I can't imagine they would get that many more pilots just by allowing in the ones with weird EKGs.
So I'm not sure that's the full explanation.
Maybe.
Pilot here, total BS.
Oh, okay.
So there's a pilot on the local's platform who's closer to it and says, yeah, total BS.
No, I believe that.
I believe that's BS.
Guilt until proven... Oh, Tucker got a brushback?
Well, All right, so is that inconsistent?
I'm saying organizations are guilty until proven innocent.
But still, there's some conspiracy theories that are just beyond the pale.
Let me put it this way.
If they don't answer the question, then they're guilty.
Is that good enough?
If the FAA won't answer a direct question about it, Then you should assume they're guilty.
Yeah.
It doesn't mean they are.
Doesn't mean they're guilty.
But you should assume it if there's no transparency.
So let's be consistent.
But you can assume that they're being... You can assume they're guilt at the same time you can think, I don't think that's true.
And there's no inconsistency there.
Because one's an assumption.
Rumors of a lawsuit.
Yeah.
Swalwell...
Matt Gaetz says feng feng is fake news on the right.
Swalwell did sleep with her about years before he was in the house as a younger man.
Huh.
Maybe.
Soon you will see flu jab and COVID jab combos.
Will you do it?
Hell no.
I stopped getting regular flu shots a long time ago, because they were obviously scams.
You knew that, right?
The regular flu shot?
They tell you every year, oh, we created it based on last year's virus, so the odds of it will have any impact on this year's virus is really small.
But you should get it anyway.
Yeah, the odds this will help are really small because it's not even the right virus.
We don't even know what virus is going to mutate by then.
It takes us a year to put these together or whatever it is.
So, get them anyway.
It never made sense.
Never made sense.
Yeah.
All right, well, I'm going to say Swalwell's innocent until proven guilty.
All right.
And that's all I got for now.
Frankly, Scott says something reasonable about vaccines.
Stop acting like I'm reasonable.
Nobody's going to believe that.
So this is a quote from somebody.
In one morning, I had to ground three NF3 pilots due to vaccine injury, according to Lieutenant Colonel Theresa Long, Brigade Surgeon for the 1st Aviation Brigade.
Does that sound true?
Do you think that she knew all three of them had vaccine injury?
That doesn't sound true.
It might be true somebody said it, but I don't think it's true.
All right.
So just assume everything you see in the news is not true.
