Episode 2000 Scott Adams: Project Veritas, Pfizer, Banning TikTok, Mocking Schiff And More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Josh Hawley's bill to ban TikTok
Adam Schiff's fund raising TikTok video
Project Veritas video, Pfizer mRNA researcher
COVID shots don't prevent transmission?
Bill Barr ignored key fact about Epstein death?
M1 Abrams tanks, escalation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 2000th, 2000th Coffee with Scott Adams.
The best thing that's ever happened to you, obviously.
And could it be even better?
I don't know.
I don't know.
But let's see if we can take a run at it.
If you'd like to make the 2,000th episode extra special, all you need to do is find a cupper, a mugger, a glass, a tanker, gels, a sty, and 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, the other day, the thing that makes everything better, including all the crow I've been eating.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Ah, coffee and crow.
It's the best.
Well, so here's a little update.
This is a story that just personally makes me happy.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., you know, he had some problems with his voice.
And he told me on Twitter the other day that apparently something I said or did inspired him to look for surgical solutions.
And he didn't have the surgery that I had to fix my voice.
It was a different procedure, one that gets him up and running much faster.
And moments before I got on here, I found a recent video to see if his voice was better.
And it is.
It is.
It's not fully up to probably where he wants it, but it's absolutely better.
And apparently he told me it's improving every month.
So, isn't that great?
Now, I could tell he's having the problem that I had when I first got the surgery.
His was a different procedure, so there might be a difference here.
But the first months after the surgery, I had to stop to take a breath, because I'd be exhausted just doing a few sentences.
But eventually you get that back, too.
So I'm quite, quite happy for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., if he's happy, and I think he is.
It looks like a big improvement.
I'd say about a 40% improvement.
30 or 40% and improving.
All right, here's a story I just saw before I went live here.
On Twitter, a user named Jason Stormchaser Nelson.
He's a veteran, and apparently he's run for Congress at least once.
And he did his own research and here's what he found about eggs.
So you probably heard that egg prices are high because of the avian flu and a bunch of chickens had to be killed.
So supply and demand, fewer chickens, etc.
But Jason Nelson talked to 25 families in six states who have egg production.
25 families in six states.
And each of them is finding that their chickens stopped laying eggs at the same time.
25 different families in six states and all of their chickens stopped laying eggs at the same time.
And he asked, and apparently they all changed their feed at about the same time.
And he's concluding it's definitely the feed.
The problem is that there's something in the feed.
This is his claim.
I can't verify it.
But his claim is that the one thing they had in common is they changed their feed and then all the chickens stopped producing eggs.
Do you believe that?
I'm wondering what kind of vaccination those chickens had.
mRNA, do you think?
I think they got into the Pfizer mix.
No, I don't really think that.
I know it's hard to tell when I'm kidding.
But let's keep an eye on that.
Generally speaking, is this the category of things that is likely to check?
Check out?
Let me do a BS test.
If you didn't know anything ever about this story again, and then two weeks from now somebody said, all right, you're going to have to bet your life Whether that was true.
Would you bet your life this was true?
I don't think I would.
I think I would put a pretty big bet that it's not true.
But I'm keeping an eye on it.
I'm keeping an eye on it.
Because, you know, I don't think he's lying.
I think he actually talked to 25 families and probably their egg production is down.
I don't know that it's the feed.
I mean, it would be amazing If he figured it out on the first pass, right?
If he just sort of looked into it and totally figured it out, that would be amazing, and I'd be very impressed.
And it could be.
It could be.
Could be true.
But I'd bet against it.
So that's where I'm at.
I'd bet against it.
By far the most interesting thing happening in politics, by far, There's nothing even close to this, but the mainstream media hasn't figured it out yet.
There's something coming that's really important, and you don't quite see it yet, so let me connect some dots.
So you might know that Josh Hawley introduced a bill that will ban TikTok if it gets passed.
It'll ban TikTok in the United States.
Now, I don't know if it'll pass.
But here's what I do know.
If there's a vote on banning TikTok, given that nobody's in favor of keeping it, nobody in government, nobody.
There's nobody on the side of keeping it.
Nobody thinks it's a good idea.
Nobody.
But there will be people voting to keep it.
Right?
There will be people who vote to keep it.
Once we have that vote, no matter what happens with TikTok, once we have the vote, we will know for sure who the Chinese assets are in our government.
Think about it.
Josh Hawley invented a Chinese asset detector.
Because if the issue had two sides, where you could legitimately argue maybe we should keep it, and that it would be good for the country somehow keeping it, if that were the case, it wouldn't tell you anything.
Because you'd think, well, they're just voting on the issue.
Because there's an argument on both sides.
TikTok is not like any other issue ever.
It's not like any other issue ever, because there's only one side.
There's literally no other argument.
There's no argument that says, yes, we should let China have a user interface for changing the opinions in America.
Nobody says that.
Nobody.
So we have this weird, unique situation where everyone who votes against it can be presumed, quite reasonably, to be working for China.
Just think about that.
There will be no pushback in these comments.
Just watch.
Nobody's going to disagree with what I just said.
There'll be no disagreement.
Josh Hawley actually invented a Chinese asset detector.
And he's about to spring it on Congress.
Senate, anyway.
Is that cool?
I mean, seriously.
This is one of the coolest things I've ever seen.
Certainly one of the most important Things I've ever seen in politics.
But this will get no coverage.
This will get no coverage.
Who knows if they even bring it to a bill?
If I had to bet, I think it's not going to go to a vote.
What do you think?
I think it won't go to a vote because nobody wants to vote on it.
Or there are too many people who don't want to vote on it.
So if he can get it to a vote, you know, yes, no vote, we'll actually know who China controls in our government for the first time.
This will be really, really interesting.
Doesn't even matter if it gets banned.
We're going to find out either way.
But only if there's a vote.
So I'm going to bet there won't be a vote.
Does anybody want to take the other side of that bet?
Let's make it a prediction, not a bet.
It's not a prediction.
My prediction will be no vote.
Because Congress can't out all their Chinese assets.
They'd know it would be too destructive.
That's what I say.
We'll see.
Let us see.
All right.
So at the same time that Hawley is trying to ban TikTok, for all the right reasons, Good work, Josh Hawley.
Adam Schiff, who got kicked off of the Intel Committee for not being a reliable patriot.
The first thing he did, what's the first thing he did when he got kicked off of the Intel Committee for not being a reliable patriot?
He made a TikTok video to ask for funds.
He made a fundraising TikTok video.
Combine that statement with what we know about TikTok's heat button.
They literally have a button that they call the heat button.
If they see a meme that they want to promote, TikTok, meaning the government of China if they choose to do it, they can just push one button and make anybody's post go viral.
Now just connect these dots.
It was a fundraising Post on TikTok.
Schiff is raising funds to presumably run for something, probably Senate, people are saying, in California.
Now, what happens if China pushes the button?
If China pushes the heat button that we know exists, reporting has verified that, then Schiff's post will get, let's say, a thousand times more attention.
What does that do for his fundraising?
If a thousand more people see it than would normally just in the way social media works, don't you think he'd get a thousand times more fundraising?
I mean, that might not be the biggest dollar amount in the world, but you tell me.
If you send a fundraising video, it's not going to raise zero, right?
Do you think he sends out a fundraising video and raises zero?
Probably not.
So do you think that if 10,000 people see it, he makes as much money as if a million see it?
I think if a million sees it, he makes more money.
Which means that China has influenced the election.
All they have to do is push that heat button, and they've influenced the election.
They'll get more Adam Schiff and less whoever else.
Am I wrong?
You tell me.
Was any part of that not demonstrated to be a fact?
They do have a heat button.
He did do a video raising money.
The more people see it, the more money he makes.
So if TikTok pushes that heat button, Adam Schiff has more chance of winning his election.
True or false?
That's just a statement of fact that is demonstrably, obviously, and publicly true.
This relied on no speculation.
No speculation.
The only speculative part is we don't know if they're going to push the button.
But the fact that they could, and that they built a user interface to control American politics, as well as our minds, that's now demonstrated.
That's now in evidence, thanks to Adam Schiff.
Right?
Now, a lot of people say bad things about Adam Schiff, but let me support him for a moment.
You know, I like to take the other side of arguments sometimes.
A lot of people are giving Adam Schiff a lot of trouble, and I think we should take a moment to recognize the great value he provides to the country.
Adam Schiff is the most transparent liar we've ever seen.
When he says something's not true, it is confirmed to be true.
If he says something's not true, or if he says something's true, it's confirmed to be not true.
Now, there's nobody who has a better track record of being completely wrong, well, lying, about everything important.
Other people, maybe they lie, maybe they don't, but you can't tell on the next one.
The beauty of Schiff is that he's so consistent, you can actually predict That the next thing he says will be the opposite.
Right?
And does it matter what the next thing is?
It doesn't.
It doesn't even matter what the next thing is.
As soon as he says X is true, you can say with complete confidence, oh, at least we know X isn't true.
And that is more transparency than we've ever had in our government.
Because before, it's people lying or maybe not.
How did he know?
But he's so consistent.
He's like this clear beacon of what's true and what isn't.
You just reverse what he says.
Now, if this sounds to you like a clever, humorous thing based on things that sort of feel like things but are not true, that's not what's happening.
I'm quite literally, no joke, saying that he is now a reliable indicator of what's true and false.
We've never had one that I can think of, right?
We've never had anything that was that reliable.
You know, you just have to reverse it.
For example, January 6, well, let's take Russia collusion.
Schiff said that Republicans and Trump were colluding with Russia.
Turns out it was the FBI who were looking into it.
We're colluding with Russia, at least one member of it.
And others were talking to Russia in ways that I would call collusion, but you might not.
So, Russia collusion, perfect example where Schiff was an accurate determinant of the opposite of what was true.
How about the January 6th insurrection, which he keeps talking about?
Was the January 6th event an insurrection?
Because he says it was.
No, you know it wasn't.
And in fact, it's obvious it wasn't.
Because Republicans don't go unarmed to an insurrection.
I'll talk about that in a moment.
And did the January 6th insurrection tell you something only about Republicans, that it wasn't a real insurrection?
No, it told you more.
Because he lies by projection.
Every liar has a tell.
And by the way, once you hear this for the first time, once you start watching, you'll see it everywhere.
Alright.
Some people lie only by omission.
You probably know some of those people.
You might be one of those people.
Some people lie, but only by omission.
Oh, who'd you go to lunch with?
Bob.
True.
But also, Raquel was at lunch.
You just didn't mention it.
Right?
People who lie by omission will lie by omission again and again and again.
That will be their pattern for lying.
There are other people who lie by adding detail to stories, actually introducing characters who don't exist.
Oh yeah, I went to lunch with Raquel and Bob and Eric and all the guys.
And then you find out it was only Raquel.
Right?
So a whole bunch of people were added, and a liar of that type would actually tell you a story about what one of them said at dinner.
Like, adding real detail.
Once you learn that, that some people lie by adding characters, then watch for it, because they'll do it again.
People lie a certain way, and then they'll always take that pattern forward.
Shift lies by projection.
So if he's blaming the Republicans of killing a cow, you can be fairly sure that his team killed the cow.
And once you see the pattern, it's unmistakable.
He lies by pattern.
So by claiming that the Republicans were trying to take over the country with that January 6th insurrection, I conclude that's an accurate sign that he believes I'm not saying it's true.
I'm saying that Schiff believes, based on this signal, Schiff believes that the Democrats rigged the election.
Because that would be consistent with his projection method.
If he believed his side committed the crime, if they did or not, I don't know.
I have no evidence one way or the other.
But it shows that he believes that the Democrats rigged the election.
Because he's blaming the other side of trying to do an insurrection.
Now, it's not proof, but his pattern is consistent.
How about, do you think he's ever accused the Republicans of being racist at the same time that Democrats are pushing CRT and equity and other things which are unambiguously racist?
Of course he is.
Right.
Yeah, he's blaming them of racism while he's doing racism.
Of course he is.
If he said that Hunter's laptop is not real, That would suggest that there's some covering up on the side of the... Or it would suggest that the Republicans are just making stuff up.
Back when he said the laptop wasn't real.
I didn't hear him say it, but I'm sure he did.
I'm sure he said it.
Right?
Do I even need to do a fact check?
I have no memory of what Schiff said about the laptop.
Let me guess.
He said it was fake.
Russian disinformation, right?
Can you give me a fact check?
Do I even need a fact check on that?
Right.
Obviously.
So because he said it was fake, you know it was real.
But you have to go faster, or further than that.
If he said it was fake, it means that they fake stuff.
Right.
In other words, accusing the Republicans of faking a laptop suggests that he knows his team fakes evidence.
Don't know which evidence, but it would be projection, so it predicts.
All right.
So look for the next thing he claims, and then you'll know it's the opposite.
Project Veritas.
How many of you saw the latest Project Veritas of a Pfizer... I guess you'd call him executive or team leader or something.
But he seemed to have some authority.
And here's what we saw.
We saw the Pfizer person.
It looked like he was on a date.
So this part is speculation.
I'm gonna guess that the Project Veritas undercover reporter, this is just a guess, is a super good-looking guy who can pretend to be gay if he needs to.
Do you think that's true?
I'm just speculating.
Because the only thing we see in the video is the Pfizer executive, who, again, I don't know.
Like, I don't want to assume his identity.
That would be wrong.
But we'll just say what it looked like.
So I don't know what's true.
I'll just say what it looked like.
What it looked like is a gay man who was very much interested in the man he was talking to.
So interested, he was willing to say whatever that man wanted to hear.
That man wanted to hear about Pfizer's vaccination program, as one does on a date.
So the poor gentleman who was suckered in was trying very hard to impress a man who, I assume, It's probably ridiculously good looking.
Like if you just looked at the face of the guy, this guy was in love.
It looked like they'd just met.
So he was definitely, he was definitely interested in the other man.
That's what it looked like.
All right.
Now, if it turns out later, he says he doesn't identify as gay or bisexual, then I'll take his word for it.
But that's what it looked like.
Now, the thing that The thing that was most provocative is he said that in a meeting, at least, the subject had come up about whether maybe Pfizer should create its own viruses through evolution.
You know, just take the existing viruses and evolve them through animals, and so they're extended to different types of viruses.
Because that would allow them to make better vaccinations, as they might call them.
And the purpose was to sort of anticipate the virus or get ahead of it by seeing what kinds of things it could evolve into to mutate them.
And then, you know, use that knowledge to create defenses.
Now, let me see if I heard it the way you did.
Because this is one of those cases where we're all going to hear our own version of this, aren't we?
Like, I'm gonna have a version, and you're gonna say, that's not what I heard.
That's not what I heard him say.
So, my take was, they're not doing that.
That they're not currently doing that.
It was only something that somebody brought up, but there was nothing like a vote or an executive decision.
Now, I don't know how many times I need to tell you, That if you ever hear, let's say, I'll use my example, if you ever hear that Trump raised a crazy sounding idea in a private meeting, it probably did happen.
It probably did.
Because private meetings are where you should be raising crazy ideas to make sure everything's considered.
You would raise all the good ideas, the normal ones.
But if you're doing your job at all, you're also going to say, well, should we be considering these crazier ideas?
And are they crazy?
Or should we expand our thinking to be a little more inclusive?
So yes, if you're hearing what's happening behind closed doors, it should sound crazy and dangerous.
But the only thing that matters is if they're going to do it.
It doesn't matter how many crazy ideas are rejected.
It only matters which ones they do.
That said, could you pick up from the attitude, if you saw the video, could you pick up from the attitude that it didn't sound like the worst idea to him?
He didn't talk about it in horror.
He talked about it with a smile, but he did very clearly say it would be dangerous, dangerous shit.
Right?
In his own words.
He was very clear about the level of risk that would be, and he didn't seem like he was on board with it.
I didn't get the sense that he would be comfortable with that level of risk.
It looked like he was almost warning against it.
warning against it.
However, here's the thing that is genuinely worthy of fear.
It actually came up.
Like it was actually discussed.
Now, I don't think they're going to do it.
But we're sort of at a place where we don't trust anybody about anything.
So you never know.
Could they do it with a third-party company that's not under their control?
Could they do it with some lab in Ukraine or some other country and then say, well, it wasn't us.
We just paid them to do it.
But it wasn't us.
So I think it's a good insight into maybe the internal thinking.
It might be less of an insight into what's actually going to happen.
But it's certainly worthy of your attention.
I think Project Veritas did good work in this case.
So I'll give him an attaboy.
By the way, remind me to tell you my new idea for ending addiction.
All right.
Because I forgot to make a note to myself.
So don't let me sign off before I tell you my anti-addiction reframe.
As you know, I'm noted for saying that our existence, our reality, is like two movies that run on one screen.
In the past week or so, I wanted to experience the other movie.
So I've lived in a movie for the last few years, which is sort of my own movie.
As we all do, right?
We're all living in our own movie.
But in my movie, there were a set of things that were true and obvious.
But in the other movie, all those things were not true.
And certainly weren't obvious.
Now, it was the same set of facts, but people looked at me and said, You're one type of person, and it's your opinion that this and that is true.
So there's one version of me in which I was anti-mandate, anti-mask, and very, very skeptical of vaccinations, and always said so clearly in public.
But that's just one movie.
In the other movie, I was one of the primary advocates of vaccinations.
Sort of the opposite of the other movie.
And then I was pro-mask, instead of being an anti-mask advocate.
So they're completely different opposite movies.
Now what I tried unsuccessfully to do for weeks, and most of you saw me struggling, is I tried to merge those two movies.
And I tried to tell the people who were not in my movie, hey, you have some facts wrong or that's not what I was ever thinking or saying.
Didn't work at all.
Just made everything worse.
So you may have noticed that I wanted to see what would happen if I simply entered the other movie.
Now, in order to enter the other movie, you can't deny the reality, because it's the reality.
People just don't change their reality, basically.
So I entered the other movie in which I was wrong about everything, and what I really needed to do was apologize.
Now, everything in that movie is consistent, and I'm not telling you that they're wrong, I'm just telling you I've never lived in that movie before.
Like none of that is familiar to my experience.
But I thought if I could enter it and just act like it's all true, I could learn something.
And maybe somebody else would learn something too.
So I've been living in the other movie for a while and just agreeing with everything they say.
And apologizing based on their demands.
It turns out it made them very happy.
I wasn't sure how it would turn out, but the people who saw me enter their movie said, yay, there's somebody watching our movie and agreeing with us.
Not only agreeing, but eating crow and acknowledging he was wrong about everything, which I eagerly confess in the other movie.
Now, I got so deeply in the other movie that I saw that Elon Musk actually kind of crossed over into my second movie a little bit.
And I tweeted, because this is something that only makes sense in one of the movies.
In the movie I came from, now this is not a true statement, right?
Because I'm not claiming one of the movies is true.
I'm only claiming that there are two movies.
And you can live in them just like they're real.
I don't know which one's real.
Maybe neither of them.
Maybe neither.
But in the movie I came from, the old movie, I was one of the most well-informed people on all things pandemic.
Seems weird, doesn't it?
Like, that's such an unfamiliar movie to you.
But in the other movie, the one I've entered for the last week, I was the least informed person on the entire pandemic.
Right?
And you can see both movies playing, right?
One, I was one of the most well-informed people on all things pandemic.
That's what I was living in.
Because I literally talked about it and researched it every day for years.
But in the other movie, I hadn't been paying attention to anything.
And so, as a real test of the other movie, I tweeted that I was just finding out yesterday that the shots did not provide a vaccination effect.
So I actually tweeted that I was just finding out yesterday for the first time That these shots do not prevent transmission, or that they don't prevent transmission.
Now, in the movie I came from, that was just funny.
And everybody who lived in my old movie would have laughed at it.
Because certainly, the one thing everybody knew, everybody, is that the vaccinations did not prevent transmission.
That's the one thing that 100% of the world knows.
Is there anybody who doesn't know that now?
So when I said it, I thought, well, this would be the most obvious thing you could say that will really help me, and the people in the other movie will immediately know that I'm not from their movie.
I'm in their movie, and I'm being compatible with their movie in every way.
But they should identify me as a visitor from another movie.
But instead, and I can't read Elon Musk's mind, but he did respond.
And pointed out that the government didn't tell us as soon as they knew, didn't tell the public as soon as they knew, that it wasn't preventing transmission.
Now, I feel like he might have believed that I really didn't know that.
Did anybody see the tweet?
It got close to 4 million views.
4 million people saw it because Elon Musk responded.
4 million people.
Let me say this again.
4 million people were exposed to believing that I was the only person in the United States who was not aware that the vaccinations don't block transmission.
And apparently four million people probably believe that that was true.
So, anyway, apparently there's nothing you can say in the other movie that will out you as a visitor.
Just think about it.
Now, I've told you this before, but this is the closest you've ever seen to seeing a demonstration of it.
Here's what I've told you before.
A trained hypnotist can become invisible.
I could actually become invisible to other people's opinions and awareness.
And it's the damnedest thing.
Until you've done it, you can't believe it's a thing.
But the way you become invisible is you just are not compatible with what they think is true.
And once people's frame is set, they can only see things that belong in the frame.
So if you don't belong in the frame, you can walk right into it and they won't even see you.
You'll just be invisible.
I've done it a lot of times in a lot of different contexts.
Every time it happens, I just can't believe it.
It's sort of like a magic trick, where you can do a magic trick where somebody's looking right at the trick.
And even as you're doing the trick, because I do some amateur magic tricks, even when they're looking at exactly how the trick is done, it's invisible because you've trained them not to see it.
It's just an amazing phenomenon.
So I managed to actually enter an entire movie that I didn't belong, simply became an actor in the movie, and millions of people took it as truth.
Jimmy Dore did an entire show Which he thought I was in that movie.
Was that interesting or no?
Right, I'm coping and clodding.
Coping and clodding as hard as I can.
Well I did a little, then I saw some argument about when we knew that the vaccinations did not block transmission.
Now this blew my mind.
Are you ready for this?
This is going to blow your mind.
Because this is from the other movie.
This is something I took From the other movie I visited, and now with this audience, I'm back to my original movie.
Here's something I'll bet is gonna blow your mind.
On December 20th, I'm sorry, on December 2020, this would be, correct my timeline, so that's a few months after the vaccinations came out, right?
Or just about when they came out?
December 2020.
When did vaccinations come out?
In the fall or the spring?
Early 2021.
So December 2020 is just before the vaccinations, right?
Okay.
So, December 2020, the government told us vaccinations won't necessarily stop transmission.
Did you know that?
That there was a... I forget which government entity.
The government In December 2020, said don't expect this to stop transmission.
You know, it might save your life, but it won't stop transmission.
I didn't believe it, but I saw the document.
Yeah, I saw the document.
This gets weirder.
You ready for this?
Do you all remember that the head of the CDC said on March 29th, 2021, so that would be a few months into the vaccinations, So a few months into the vaccinations, Walensky said in public that the vaccinated don't carry the virus, which would suggest you can't spread it.
Did you all hear that?
In your movie, did that happen?
Are you all aware that that happened in your movie?
It did, right?
You can find the video.
It says it very clearly.
Now here's the part that I'll bet you didn't know.
I'm going to see how many heads I can explode.
Did you know that the next day the CDC corrected her?
And said, no, that's not true.
It doesn't stop the spread.
Did you know that?
Yeah.
So all the time that we were saying, hey, the government keeps saying that the vaccination will stop the spread, the actual authority was saying it doesn't.
The government.
So when, I think you saw Biden say it would stop the spread when the CDC said it wouldn't.
You saw Bill Gates say it would stop the spread.
I don't know if he said it before or after the CDC said it wouldn't.
You saw Maddow, you know, yeah, Rachel Maddow say it would stop the spread when the CDC said it wouldn't.
Now did you know that?
How many of you knew that the government was sending two clear messages that were opposites at the same time?
The head of the CDC and the CDC itself were sending opposite messages at the same time.
Did you know that?
I somehow missed that.
I thought that they believed it all until they stopped believing it.
I didn't know they were sending both messages at the same time.
Is that wild?
Is anybody's head blowing up?
Because my head blew up when I saw this.
Are you kidding me?
That both messages were there all the time?
I don't remember that at all.
So the news was certainly the wrongest.
And the leaders were very wrong.
But the experts, the scientists were saying from the start, it might cut it down a little bit.
It's not going to stop it.
Now, and of course, there would be a debate over whether it cut it down.
So, some say it was effective against Alpha and a little bit against Delta, and not at all against Omicron.
So maybe there might have been, you know, a month or so where it flattened the curve or something.
It is possible that it kept the healthcare system working.
Well, let me ask you that.
Given that it did seem to be more effective with Alpha and Delta, and sort of useless against Omicron, That's an opinion, not a scientific statement.
Do you think it helped flatten the curve?
Or at least flatten the curve in terms of hospitalization?
Do you think it took some burden off the hospitals?
Alright, I'm seeing a mix.
Just during, only during Alpha and Omicron, when it did seem to have the biggest effect, they told us.
So there are people who think that it didn't keep anybody out of the hospital, right?
I'm seeing more no's than yes's.
So most of my audience is in the movie where the vaccinations didn't ever work, right?
Is that what you're saying?
Like it didn't have any impact at all.
It didn't protect people and it didn't stop the spread.
They lied about that too, somebody says.
So my audience is, this movie, So the movie I'm experiencing right now, you all experienced a pandemic where the vaccination was just a fake.
And it didn't do anything.
And apparently a number of people believe that our leaders took a saline solution.
They didn't take the actual vaccination.
I'm seeing people confirming they believe that the... A lot of people in this movie believe that the vaccination was always fake and that And that the leaders took a saline solution.
Now, you're aware that there are some people, Mike Cernovich would be one, who would think that's batshit crazy, right?
I'm going to say both movies can live and probably will live forever.
So I'm not even going to tell you what's true or false, because I haven't done too well on that.
But, kind of interesting.
Kind of interesting.
You've gone so far that you believe the whole thing was made up.
Now, could there be anything that is easier to prove or disprove than that statement?
What could be easier to prove with science and rational thought than whether people were protected by the vaccination, so-called vaccination, or whether they were harmed by them?
Don't you think that would be the easiest thing in the world to know?
But it doesn't work.
In our world, it wouldn't matter how credible somebody was, or how much research they did, or if it were a randomized controlled trial.
There's nothing that's going to change your mind.
Am I right?
It wouldn't matter what kind of evidence you saw at this point.
You just figure the evidence was faked.
You might be right.
Might be right.
What was it?
Oh, this just made me think of the Epstein situation.
Did you see Tucker Carlson's episode about the Epstein death?
It was really kind of brilliant.
You know, I say this again, I don't agree with Tucker all the time.
I'm maybe, I don't know, 70 or 80% I agree with him.
But his Epstein take, and let me say this, even when I don't agree with him, he's always brilliant.
Like his presentation, the topics he picks, just the skill he puts into it, it's just incredible.
He's just the best, in my opinion, he's the best person working at that, doing the one person opinion thing.
But when he talks about Epstein, and he talks about the things we don't know, and how much Bill Barr knew.
Here's something that I always wondered about, but he's the first person who mentioned it.
Now here's the mind blower.
Nobody's ever told you this before.
You ready?
I remember Bill Barr saying he knew it must be suicide because he watched the entire video of the entrance to the area the general area, not the entrance to the cell, but the entrance to the general area where Epstein was kept.
And therefore, since nobody entered the general area, he had to have done it himself.
And I always said to myself, well, weren't there other people in the general area?
Why are you calling it the general area unless other people were there?
Otherwise, that would be his cell.
And when I heard it, I kept waiting for somebody to describe the cell block or the area in which he was in, so that I would know everybody was definitely locked in their cells, and there were no guards wandering there either.
And then I'd know that it made sense that you saw that video.
But instead, the most likely people who killed Epstein, if he were murdered, the most likely people are the prisoners who were right next to him, who were told, may have had full access to each other.
It's entirely possible that within their cell block, for at least some periods of time, all of their cells are open, and they can hang out with each other in the center areas.
Now, Bill Barr never spoke to the possibility The possibility that somebody who was already there killed him, even though those were the most likely people to do it, because that's where you put people who kill people.
You put them in that area, right?
You put them with the other worst people.
The worst people are all going to be in the same place.
Now, what can you conclude by the fact that Bill Barr didn't even mention the most important thing you'd want to know.
It's the most important thing.
Who was there?
And we know he lied about it.
Now, he didn't lie in the sense that I'm sure he did look at the video and nobody was coming or going.
But it is a lie by what kind?
What kind of lie is it?
Is it a lie where he added characters?
Yes, it's a lie by omission, isn't it?
Now, here's your homework.
Go find any other situation in which Barr is known to have lied by omission.
I'll bet you'll find it.
I'll bet you'll find it.
Because people lie the same way.
Right?
The people who think they're not such a big liar will lie by omission.
It's like, well, I didn't add anything.
I just didn't mention the things you might be interested in.
Yeah.
I'm going to go with Tucker's implication, which is the way it was handled signals clearly that the government knows who killed him and was in on it.
That the Deep State was in on it.
I would say that's confirmed.
It's confirmed by omission.
So when they leave out the most obvious question in the story, the most obvious question, who else was in the cells nearby and were the doors open?
Most obvious question.
If they leave that out, and by the way there were a whole bunch of other things like about the, there are some real irregularities with the autopsy that look obviously like they were hiding something.
If the reporting is correct.
So I'm gonna go fully on the side that Epstein was killed by the government of the United States.
Or with Not by the government, but at least with the collusion of the United States.
Now, I hate to accuse somebody of a crime in public, so let me just put it this way.
The only smart interpretation is that Bill Barr is part of the deep state, and that he's part of the cover-up, and that the United States is either involved in helping it or covering it up.
I would consider that as close to a fact as you could make it.
Nothing's 100%.
If you could all agree that nothing is 100%, this is as close as you can get to 100%.
I would say I have certain knowledge now that Bill Barr was part of a cover-up of the Epstein thing, based on what he didn't tell us.
Now, he could change that tomorrow, right?
Tomorrow he could say, oh, I didn't mention that, but now that you mention it, we do have information about who is in the cells, and we know for sure that they didn't get out.
I'd listen to that.
I would listen to that for sure.
But as long as he's not telling us that, you have every right, in fact, responsibility, I would say.
As a citizen, you have a responsibility to assume that they did it.
Do you know why?
Because your government Is guilty until proven innocent.
And how hard is it for a government to prove it's innocent?
Not really hard.
All they'd have to do is give you some little more information that would not be private about what was going on in the jail.
That's all.
Very easy.
Just tell us more about what you know about the people in the little block.
That's all.
So, you know, at the time, So here's the only thing that's new.
At the time, it was obvious to me that something was left out.
You know, what was happening locally there.
It was obvious.
But I didn't know that we did know, and I guess Tucker Carlson did some research, to find out what it looked like, that there were in fact other cells, and that they might sometimes have the doors open.
That's the new information.
What I didn't know before, somebody said that I'm two years behind Joe Rogan, here's the knowledge that I didn't know before.
I didn't know if seeing the larger entrance would in fact tell you something about what happened in one cell.
Because Bill Barr was letting us believe that looking at this one entrance would in fact tell you all you needed to know.
But as soon as Tucker did the extra work to show what it looked like in there, it's clear that that was a misdirection, yeah.
So, based on that alone, boop, I'm going from, well, and by the way, I've always heard the theory that he was killed and it always sounded, the theory that he was murdered always sounded more reasonable after some initial, initial nonsense.
I don't know if I've ever said it before, have I?
Have I ever said it before directly?
Because I usually argue the weak side of every argument.
And the weak side was that it really was suicide.
Right?
That was the weak side.
So I did argue the weak side.
But I don't think I ever said directly that... And I would have said, until yesterday, I would have said 80% chance of murder or 20% chance of suicide.
Until yesterday.
So Tucker pushed me to 99% murder.
99%.
Who?
I think the answer of who is obvious.
Let's see if you know.
The answer to who is obvious.
Go.
All right, I'm seeing lots of answers.
You have the deep state, prisoners, CIA.
Bill Gates, blah, blah, blah.
All right, here's the obvious answer.
You all have different answers, and now watch me make you all agree with my answer.
Do you think I can do it?
Watch, every one of you is going to agree with my answer.
This is who did it.
Everyone.
Everyone in power.
Everyone.
So you're saying, well, was it You know, this foreign country, was it Great Britain, was it Israel, was it the United States?
The answer is yes.
Yes, it was.
It was all of them.
Because they all had risk.
They all had risk.
So, you know, maybe one of them did more, but they're all in on it.
You know, I think that's clear.
Pretty clear.
All right.
So that was fun.
Trump's back on social media, or at least he's allowed.
He's not back on.
So as you know, he's already allowed back on Twitter, and now Facebook and Instagram are going to allow him as well.
Now, there's no indication he's back, but one assumes that he would be if he ran.
Now, this is part of a larger trend, which goes like this.
Trump's path to the White House is really clean right now.
There's nothing in his way, is there?
Because you're going to say, but Scott, January 6th.
No, he's going to turn that to his advantage.
You don't think he could turn January 6th into a political advantage?
I think he can.
I think he can totally.
Yeah.
All he has to do is convince you that your government is locking people up for political speech, which is exactly what happened, in my opinion.
Yeah, he could totally sell that.
How about, you know, I told you on immigration, if he frames it better, he can own that.
Now he's saying that he could end the war in Ukraine.
He goes, end this crazy war now, so easy to do.
Do you think that Trump could end the war in Ukraine?
I think he could.
I think he could.
Because Putin would actually deal with him.
Am I right?
Yeah.
He's basically only Nixon can go to China.
That's a terrible analogy, because it's almost backwards from this.
But he's the only one that I could even imagine Putin would do a deal with.
I can't imagine him doing it with anybody else.
Do you think Putin's going to do a deal with Biden?
I don't think so.
Yeah.
So, you know, it's a gutsy claim.
And what would it look like?
See, I think if Trump did a deal, he would do exactly what I suggested.
He would bring extra elements into it that are not strictly about the war.
He'd make a more, you know, omnibus deal that just covers all of our complaints.
So that Russia can make money, but nobody will be beholden to their energy.
They'll have options.
And that Putin can go off and, you know, be happy and have some kind of a win.
I think Trump could make that happen.
But everybody would be unhappy about it, I think.
You know, everybody would be unhappy.
But that's how peace works.
Well, Biden now, of course, is up the ante by approving these Abrams tanks, which are offensive vehicles.
Which makes Russia say, OK, now it's just a war with the United States and us.
Because the Abram tanks are like tipping the scales.
Now, Biden is trying to soften that by saying, oh, we're never going to, these tanks will not be used to invade the territory of Russia.
No, no, defensive.
We're not going to use offensive weapons against the territory of Russia.
And then what does Russia say to that?
The whole dispute here is what is part of Russia.
That's the whole point of the dispute, is which part is Russia and which is not.
And then Biden says, oh, I'm not going to use the tanks in Russia.
No, I won't use them in Russia.
Guess what we call Crimea?
Not Russia.
Don't worry.
Just because you think it's part of Russia, we don't.
So when we invade those parts of Russia that we say are not part of Russia, but you say are, don't blame us for invading Russia, because we say that's not Russia.
That's what Biden is actually selling.
Does that feel safe to you?
It doesn't feel safe.
It feels exactly like we're using our tanks to invade Russia, according to Putin.
However, does it mean we shouldn't do it?
I don't think so.
I think we're at a point in the war, you know, maybe we shouldn't have gotten here, but I don't think escalating is worse.
Because it doesn't look like there's any level of escalating that's going to make any difference.
It looks like escalating might make a difference, you know, on the ground, but I don't think it's going to make Russia nuke us.
It looks like that risk is almost nothing.
And it looks like the strategy of the Biden administration is to just forever grind on Russia and use this as an excuse as long as we can.
If the Biden administration didn't have Ukraine as a reason for grinding on Russia, sanctions and everything else, they would invent a different reason.
Because it looks like they just want to degrade Russia, no matter what.
The Democrats have been trying to do that forever.
Am I right?
Ever since Hillary Clinton, The Democrats have been just crazy about trying to suppress Putin.
So I don't believe they want to end the war.
I think the Democrats want a perpetual reason to send money into a money laundering zone.
Surprise.
At the same time, they just want to grind on him and keep him suppressed.
And it might not even be the worst strategy in the world.
I'm not even opposed to it.
I don't know if it'll work.
I'm not sure I would have done it.
But I don't think you could say at this point that it's not going to work.
It might be the cheapest geopolitical rearrangement we've ever funded.
It might be.
Or it could be, you know, World War III.
Two possibilities.
All right.
I would like to offer a reframe for ending drug overdoses.
And I tried this out with just my local subscribers, and they liked it, so they said, yeah, try that out in public.
And it goes like this.
Let's take fentanyl overdose deaths.
So we're trying to fix that with a reframe.
In other words, looking at it in a different way to try to open up some options.
If you look at it as a medical problem, we've tried everything we can try.
If you look at it as a legal problem, Eh, you know, the war on drugs has never worked from a legal perspective.
So the two ways that we look at it, it's medical or it's legal, don't really give us options for doing anything or we would have done it by now, right?
Let's get off the Epstein thing, I'm seeing some Epstein comments.
Yeah, never mind.
It's not worth talking about.
So the idea is this.
If we found another way to frame it, could we have more options?
So he says a supply problem, but we'll never be able to end the supply.
And then also willpower.
Some people say it's a freedom and willpower thing.
You've got to get those people to just use their willpower to stop doing it.
Some say it's a poison problem, or a war problem.
But so far, all of those frames have given us nothing.
So here's the new frame I'm going to suggest.
What if we treat it as an information problem?
And here's what I mean by that.
The reason people die from fentanyl is they don't know what it is they put in their body.
They think it's something else, or they don't know how much they took.
If you could solve for that, just information, the very few fentanyl users would intentionally overdose.
And so if they knew exactly what they were getting, and it was definitely fentanyl, it was definitely a certain amount, and they had learned what they could handle, Would it reduce the overdoses without changing addiction?
Right?
The same level of addiction.
But could you change the information so that when somebody had a pill in their hand, they would know for sure what it was?
Now, here's the thing.
If you knew that, and there might be a variety of ways to do it, wouldn't that open up other options?
It doesn't solve it because it doesn't get to the addiction itself.
But it would solve, maybe immediately, the problem of... Well, here's another information.
You want to know exactly what's in each pill or line.
You want to know what's in it.
And, yeah, you want to know what's in each pill, but you also want to know where the closest Narcan is.
You know, the thing that saves somebody if they're OD.
So you can buy this product, but take my neighborhood for example.
If one of my neighbors, you know, let's say their kids were having a party and something, somebody started OD, would my neighbors know which neighbor has Narcan that they could borrow?
They wouldn't.
They wouldn't.
But suppose they did.
Suppose you solved for where's the closest Narcan that I can get to.
Suppose you knew, and I'll just put this up, suppose you knew that every Starbucks had one.
Well, they're not open at night, so that doesn't work.
Suppose you knew that every Uber driver had one.
They don't.
Some do.
By the way, some Uber drivers do carry Narcan.
I talked to one the other day.
But what if you knew where the closest Narcan was?
You just open up an app, go, shit, shit, shit, somebody's ODing.
Like, oh, OK, the neighbor has one, and also there's an Uber.
So you call the Uber right away, emergency, and Uber drops everything and starts driving over with a Narcan.
But also, you run over to the neighbor, knock, knock, knock, knock, you wake him up, Narcan, can we borrow your Narcan?
Of course.
How many people would you save if you knew exactly where the closest Narcan was, and the people who took the drugs knew exactly what they were taking?
Now, I don't know the way to solve for that information, but doesn't it seem solvable?
Does that not seem solvable?
At the very least, it opens up options.
Let me give you a bad version of solving it.
Now, the bad version is for brainstorming purposes, and it's not very too far from what Pfizer was doing.
So I give you the bad version, and you find all the holes in it.
But it might make you think, oh, wait, wait, your version is bad.
But if you just tweaked it this way, it might work.
Here's the bad version.
The government provides free fentanyl.
Free.
But it's so regulated, you know exactly what this pill is going to do.
Exactly.
And you have to get an app.
You have to have a doctor approve you for this system.
And so it's voluntary.
It wouldn't be mandatory.
And if you got the app, you could use the app to, let's say, unlock one pill per day, or however often you and the doctor decide.
And you could guarantee that you get something safe.
And you can guarantee that, let's say, you've got an arcane nearby.
So let's say the doctor says, we're going to put you on this app.
The app will help you track what you took and how you feel.
Maybe we'll be checking your vitals.
Maybe you have to wear an Apple Watch so that the app can tell you if you're going into OD.
By the way, would this be possible?
Is there anybody who knows, could an Apple Watch, if it had the right app, could it tell if you were ODing?
Could it determine if Couldn't tell if you're ODing?
I'm seeing a yes and a no.
I see another yes.
Do we know?
Low pulse.
So you should see a major change and a degradation in the vitals, right?
Low oxygen.
So you could imagine a system That again, this is an information problem, right?
If the information of what your body is doing was transmitted to somebody who could call for an ARCAN, just imagine it's automated.
Imagine you've got your watch on and you've registered, this is the important part, you've registered as an addict.
So when your app says, uh-oh, your pulse is going way down, if that's how you identify it, then just automatically the Narcan starts coming toward you.
So people just get a boop.
They get a notification.
This address, possible overdose.
And you just run out the door with your Narcan, and you go to the neighbor's house, and you knock.
You say, all right, I got a notice.
Is somebody here nodding out?
And the people at the party go, I don't know, let me check.
And they find somebody in the bedroom who's nodding out.
Now, remember, if you're criticizing the details of the idea, that's fine, because this is brainstorming.
The only thing I'm trying to sell you today is that if you framed it as an information problem, it might open up options.
That's all.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what I needed to accomplish for today.
They would sell the watch to buy drugs.
Yeah, they would have to buy the watch on their own.
I don't think you would provide them with the watch.
They'd have to be motivated.
Now, the second thing I thought, and let me tell you how dumb I am, I thought, well, if the government just provides you one pill a day, couldn't we do this?
Have the government label each of the pills with the percentage of effectiveness.
So on day one, it says 100 on it.
It's like 100% exactly what you think, it's fentanyl.
And it's an amount you think you're getting.
But after a few weeks, you still get free fentanyl, but the next pill says 99 on it.
It's 99% as good as the one you were taking.
You wouldn't even notice the difference.
A few weeks later, 98.
So basically, you would try to wean them down to a fraction of what they were using, and then, once you got the quantity down, maybe talk about detox and rehab.
But you probably need to get them down to some reasonable number.
Do you see what's wrong with that idea?
Does anybody see what's wrong with the idea?
And I missed it until somebody told me.
Have you ever met an addict?
Do you know what the addicts would do?
They would take the free government fentanyl, and they would sell it, or they would just add it to the illegal fentanyl they're taking.
They would just say, wait, free fentanyl?
Of course I'll take it.
I'll add that to the illegal fentanyl I'm also taking.
Now it's cheaper.
So you would never get an addict to voluntarily cut down their fentanyl.
You would get lots of addicts who would pretend to cut down so they could get more fentanyl.
They would just get your free stuff and add it to the stuff they already had.
That's twice as much fentanyl.
Half the price.
By the way, that was completely invisible until an addict described it to me.
It had to come from an addict.
You know, the first thing we do is keep your free pills and then go get some more.
And I was like, I am so frickin' dumb.
If you're thinking like a non-addict, you cannot know what to do.
Right?
You have to be an addict to know what would work.
Period.
So I'm really aware that I have this gigantic blind spot, gigantic blind spot of how an addict would act.
And remember, we all have this blind spot with the homeless.
So many people said, oh, the homeless, if we just get them in homes, that'll be at least a start to getting them back to where they want.
And then you find out that the drug dealers want to live on the street.
It's a choice.
And you go, okay, I didn't know anything about addicts.
I really didn't know anything about this situation.
All right.
That's why an ex-addict is a good drug counselor.
Agreed.
I'm not sure I would want a drug counselor who had not ever been an addict.
That feels like they'd be flying blind.
Now here's another possibility.
Alright, this is just brainstorming.
And I'm going to suggest something that's really unpleasant.
Something you never would want to see happen to any person.
But remember, all the choices are bad.
They're all bad.
So... Never mind.
I think I can back off from that.
Alright.
That is all I have for today.
I'm going to go talk to the locals people, and I will talk to you... I'll say it, because it's not fair to bring it up and then not say it.
One of the possibilities is that instead of jailing addicts, you take away their privacy.
That's the idea.
They don't go to jail.
They don't even have to stop taking drugs.
But you take away all their privacy.
You track them.
You know, you check their blood anytime you want.
And... Yeah.
So it would be one way to sort of have some kind of system control over people without taking away their addiction.
Now remember, this is brainstorming.
It's just brainstorming.
Because we know jail doesn't work, right?
We know rehab barely works.
But we don't know if people would like their freedom so much or their privacy so much that they would want to get off drugs just to get their privacy back.
So I'm just thinking of all the things that you could do that would be pressure or friction.
Now, Michael Schellenberger and I have a, I'm not even sure if it's a disagreement, but a different, let's say, filter on legalization of drugs.
I believe that legalizing drugs in some way is going to be part of the solution.
It's not the solution.
I don't like, as Schellenberger also agrees, I don't like the open air, free needle exchange kind of stuff in the city.
That just attracts all the zombies, just ruins the city.
You don't want to do it that way.
But there may be some way to manage people who are not going to quit without putting them in one place with free needles, which is the bad way to do it.
I'm less of an advocate for discontinuing those tests, because I'm generally in favor of testing things.
But you also have to be willing to unwind it, right?
You don't want to implement that unless you're willing to quickly unwind it if it doesn't work.
And it didn't work in San Francisco, so if they did the same thing, that would be dumb.
But if they thought, oh, the reason it didn't work in San Francisco is because they made XY mistakes, and we won't do that, that's worth testing.
Did you see Bill Gates say he's dead and laugh?
Who's dead?
Oh, about Epstein, yeah.
Yeah, Bill Gates, his answers about Epstein were really uncomfortable.
