Episode 2001 Scott Adams: My Potential Senate Run Against Schiff, Excess Deaths, Twitter Shadowbans
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Matt Gaetz: The Pencil Act
President Trump vs. John Bolton
Project Veritas vs. Pfizer Jordan Walker
Should I run for California senator?
Dave Rubin at Twitter headquarters
Whiteboard: Causes of Excess Death
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization and probably your entire life.
I know, I know, the birth of your children, the day you got married, that stuff's cool too, but this is the highlight of your life.
If you want to take it up a notch, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gel 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 hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
Yes, Kevin and the Fed.
Go.
Ah, that's good.
We have so many stories here today.
I don't know where to begin.
So I'll begin with the funny ones.
I've told you before that parody and reality have merged, and nobody can tell the difference between a parody and the actual news.
Well, there's something else that merged, and you've noticed it.
I know you've noticed it.
The idea of some and all.
They've merged.
So, for example, if I say, you know, some Democrats committed crimes, from that point on you can say all Democrats are criminals.
If you say there are some people who were on that January 6th group that were some bad characters, well then you can say they all were.
They all were.
Because some are.
That's our new conflation.
If there's some of a group that do anything, it's all of them.
Now that used to make no sense at all.
But once we merged parody and reality, well, we realized we could merge anything.
So some things and all things are the same.
Also, we also merged the idea of being against pandemic restrictions with the idea of being completely for them.
Now there's no distinction.
I didn't think that would ever happen.
But keep an eye on all those conflations.
Let's talk about Paul Pelosi.
I saw a video that I hadn't seen before of him being arrested for his DUI back in the spring of last year.
And he was really, really drunk.
I kind of, in my mind, I was imagining somebody who had a little bit of trouble, you know, walking a straight line.
And that would be way too drunk to drive.
But he was so drunk that he couldn't really respond in a coherent way.
So that looks like alcoholic drunk.
Doesn't it?
He doesn't look like a tourist.
He looks like he liked to get the real drunk.
Not the, I had three drinks at dinner and I didn't realize I had one too many.
Didn't look like that.
Did not look like that.
It looked like he had some experience, but that's just totally subjective.
However, now it turns out that a judge is going to release the body cam video of his attack by hammer in his home by DePape.
So it looks like we'll get to see that.
I think Jesse Waters sent a producer to go get a copy, so he might have that tonight.
But here's my simulation question.
Why is it That the two stories about Paul Pelosi both involve him getting hammered.
Is that a coincidence?
There's only two things he's in the news for and they both involve getting hammered?
I don't know.
There's nothing funny about violence.
There's nothing funny about violence.
Unless there's a pun involved.
Then, go ahead.
Yesterday I watched Somehow this story had escaped me, because I don't pay too much attention to sports.
And because I don't pay attention to sports, and I don't pay attention to anecdotal stories of somebody who had a problem that we're trying to generalize to all people, I usually ignore those.
But the DeMar Hamlin story, I'd never seen the compilation video of him allegedly visiting the football game.
And let me tell you, when you look at the video, you know, all of the angles, and you can never see his face, and yet he seems like he's perfectly healthy, but doesn't want to be, you know, he's still hospitalized, but seemed perfectly healthy in that video.
Now, I found the videos of Damar Hamlin to be at least as convincing At least as convincing as the fact that Epstein strangled himself to death in his own cell.
I would put those things on roughly the same level of believability.
Now, I can't know for sure.
Can't know for sure what was happening.
But if you watch the videos, you would have a hard time believing that's really him.
It's impossible to believe that's really him.
But the fact that they even attempted that, it looks like, right?
Don't know for sure.
Don't know for sure.
But it certainly looked like they pulled a fast one.
And I think they kind of got away with it, which is kind of amazing.
So I guess the part of the story that impresses me is that it very, very close to almost totally working, but it still worked.
It still worked.
Assuming, allegedly, that's not him.
I think there's a very small, small chance that was really him.
Very small chance.
So that's the state of our news, that that looked real.
All right, the funniest thing is I love the Republicans when they name bills, because they make the bills insulting to somebody.
Completely unnecessary, but it's funny, so I approve of it.
So Representative Matt Gaetz, he introduced the Pencil Act that would bar Adam Schiff specifically from accessing any classified information.
What would you call a piece of legislation that was specifically meant to bar just one person, Adam Schiff, from accessing classified information?
Well, if you were very funny, you might call it the Preventing Extreme Negligence with Classified Information Licenses.
Or the Pencil Resolution.
Now, if you've not connected the dots yet, You know that President Trump referred to Adam Schiff as pencil neck.
So the name of the bill that would prevent him from seeing classified information is called the Pencil Resolution.
I think it was a good idea until they got licenses at the end.
So the L in pencils is licenses.
I think they should have said legislation.
Right?
Isn't it legislation?
I would have gone with preventing extreme negligence with classified information legislation.
But licenses.
It's an L at least.
Alright, did any of you see what Trump said about John Bolton today?
He's back.
You just have to hear this.
I'm going to read it to you.
So John Bolton thinks that Trump is poison to the Republican Party.
So he said that recently.
Trump, being no shrinking violet, decided to respond to that in some detail.
And see if this sounds... Do you think that Trump is lying about this?
Or exaggerating?
Or is it right on the money?
That's the decision you'll make.
Lying, exaggerating, or right on the mark?
So Trump tweeted, or not tweeted, but he truthed today.
I found John Bolton to be one of the dumbest people in government, but I am proud to say I used him well.
A total and unhinged warmonger, in caps, the red-faced boiler ready to explode, was one of those very stupid voices that got us into the Middle East quicksand, seven trillion dollars and millions of deaths later.
Nothing.
The good news is that I won big negotiations with this moron by my side.
When I brought him into a room with hostile foreign leaders, they thought I was going to war.
Conceded all.
Now, does anybody remember what I said when Trump brought John Bolton into the administration?
Does anybody remember how I characterized that?
When he first brought him in, and people were saying, what?
John Bolton is the opposite of you.
Why would you add a warmonger?
And I wasn't the only one who said it, but I said, it looks like he's just going to use him as a useful idiot to scare the shit out of the people he's negotiating with.
Well, that's what he did.
The best part of the story is that he says it directly.
He says it directly.
Yep, he was a moron and a warmonger, so I brought him into the meetings to scare the shit out of the people so they would agree with my reasonable plans.
Well played.
Well played, Mr. President.
Well played.
All right, how many of you have seen the Project Veritas hidden video with the guy who works for Pfizer, who was saying that they were considering some kind of guided evolution, which some people would say would be gain of function, so that they could test their vaccines against variants.
But how many of you saw the follow-up, which I had not seen until this morning, where there was the reveal?
Where the Project Veritat... Why am I forgetting his name?
The head of Project... Yeah, James O'Keefe.
So James O'Keefe reveals himself while the guy on the hidden video is still at the date.
So I think probably the guy he thought he was on a date with, who was a hidden plant, probably excused himself to go to the restroom or something.
So James O'Keefe walks in, you know, just like to catch a predator.
Except this time it's to catch a guy saying things he shouldn't have said.
So you have to see it.
If there's anything that will make you laugh in the worst possible way, you'll feel bad about yourself.
Let me warn you, you won't feel good about yourself because it'll say a little bit too much about you.
It said too much about me, but man, it was funny.
And so it turns into a scuffle.
I mean, they're basically, their people end up on the floor.
He goes crazy because the whole time he suspected it was a hidden camera trick.
Like, when he was on the date, he kept saying, you're not recording me, right?
Because they do that.
And he was, the whole time he was being recorded.
So his defense, the Pfizer employee, was that he was lying on a date.
He goes, I was just on a date.
I was just lying on a date.
That's all I was doing.
I was lying on a date.
Now, I think the more correct defense would have been, it was just something talked about in a meeting.
You know, I didn't think it was going to happen.
I mean, that would have been a better defense.
But oh my God, you have to see it.
It's like just the golden piece of content.
But the funniest comment on this was from SuperChill, a Twitter user, who commented about this video.
He goes, very few dates end up with charges of crimes against humanity.
And I thought to myself, you know, you always hear these stories about the worst date.
Like, what's the worst date you've ever had?
This is the winner.
I don't care how bad is the worst date you've ever been on.
This date ended with this fellow being maybe accessory to crimes against humanity.
Now, I've had bad dates in my life, but not a single time did they end up in a scuffle, which put me to the floor.
And they ended up in videotape across the nation charging me of being associated with crimes against humanity.
That's a bad date.
Bad date.
All right, here's a story that's more of like a sign of the times.
The Milwaukee Bucks, I guess they had a drag show as part of their Pride Night festivities during halftime of their game.
Now, as you know, As you know, I'm very pro-trans, pro-LGBTQ.
But there is a point where you have to ask, should their message be simply, you know, widely understood and appreciated?
I'd like that.
Should we all be more open-minded?
Of course, of course.
But do we need to insert their message everywhere?
Everywhere.
I'm just going to ask that simple question.
Yes, yes, I believe their message is important.
And I think everybody is different and we should respect each of our differences.
But do we have to insert it everywhere?
Does it have to be everywhere?
For example, the other day I stopped at the gas station and I filled up my tank.
Do you know what was missing?
Sort of more of a Pride, trans kind of experience.
I just went in there and I got a whole bunch of heterosexual gas, put it in my car and left.
Learned nothing.
I learned nothing from that experience.
I need more of a trans communication of their feelings.
I like more about that.
Everywhere I go.
I want that everywhere.
Every experience needs to have a little bit more of that.
Because we like it so much.
All right, something very interesting is brewing in the energy, let's say, the energy mysteries of the world.
Here's a mystery that I've been trying to get to the bottom of forever, and maybe I have, or I'm close to it.
It goes like this.
Elon Musk has said a number of times that America could be powered by solar power if they were attached to batteries so that, you know, they worked at night and when it's cloudy.
As long as you had enough of them, and that it's totally practical to get to the point where we're powering the country with a whole bunch of solar powers, solar arrays.
Now, other people, especially the not-as-green people, say, my God, that is not even close to possible.
You're off by a factor of 30.
Alex Epstein, who's been writing quite a bit about climate and energy, He's publicly challenging Elon Musk's math.
Now, just take a pause to realize how much balls you need to have to go on Twitter, of all places, on Twitter, and to challenge Elon Musk's math on solar power.
Well, he did it.
He did it.
And I love this.
I love this.
Because it actually isn't clear.
You know, we have the same problem of whether we're qualified to look at any of their numbers.
But, you know, Alex Epstein makes his argument, and he shows his work.
He shows his work.
Right?
So you can just look at Alex Epstein's argument, and it's just math.
And then you can look at Musk's claim.
And then it's just math.
I'm going to give you a prediction of why they differ.
Because they differ by a factor of, I don't know, 10 or 30 or something.
So they're not even in the same zip code.
One says, wildly impractical economically.
The other says, perfectly practical.
No problem.
The math works perfectly.
They can't both be right.
Here's my guess.
And I don't know this is true, but I suspect that Musk is making assumptions about declining prices.
And that maybe Alex Epstein is making less of a claim about declining prices.
But what would happen if, for example, the country said, all right, we're going to try to make everything solar powered.
And we're taking bids from companies that will be in this space.
It'll probably take us 20 years to build out all this capacity.
So if you get the bid, you've got a 20-year contract.
Imagine how much that would be worth.
That would be like a trillion dollar contract.
Now, of course, they would not give it to one vendor, because that would be crazy.
They'd give it to multiple vendors.
And they'd have them compete.
I think if you did a project that big, the initial prices would immediately drop below cost.
Right?
So I think Alex Epstein is making a reasonable assumption that people would sell these products for a profit, because that's how the world works.
But on this really rare situation, which would happen once in history, Where somebody would say, we're going to spend a trillion dollars to convert everything to electric.
The vendors who are the smartest and the richest would say, my first offer is I will provide it to you at one quarter of my cost.
One quarter of my cost.
Today.
I'm not going to wait.
I will give it to you today for one quarter of my current costs.
Because that would be the smart offer.
Because they know that almost immediately, if the volume was a trillion dollar order, almost immediately competition would go through the roof.
New companies would spin up to sell their own solar panels.
New innovations would pop up because now it really matters if you can make a better battery.
Almost immediately, the battery companies would be fully funded.
Every alternative battery company would be fully funded.
Immediately.
The day the government said we're going to spend a trillion dollars, boom.
The whole industry would just catch on fire.
So, I don't know if this is the case, but if Musk is assuming that the economics would wildly change the moment we decided to do something that big, I think he's right.
I think he's right.
But we don't know how much, and we don't know how quickly.
So I think that this is a calculation that nobody could make.
Because the biggest part of the calculation is what happens, you know, in three to five years when the market tries to adjust to this wildly gigantic thing.
Who knows?
Could be an innovation that changes everything.
So I don't think it can be calculated, but I love the fact that Alex Epstein is challenging the math.
And he's doing it right in public.
Now, I don't know if Musk will respond, but I tweeted it, so he's got a chance of seeing it anyway.
I'd love to know his response to that.
Because here's what I think.
His response is not going to be bad.
It won't be, oops, I did the math wrong.
That's not going to happen.
It's going to be more color on top of what he already said.
So I think that would be really interesting.
All right, as you know, Adam Schiff is running for Senate in California, and I did a Twitter poll to ask people how I would do against him.
Now, this wasn't whether they would vote for me, right, because my audience is, you know, conservative leaning, so if I asked them if they'd vote for me, that would be unfair.
I just said who would win, which is not necessarily that they would vote for me, but just who do you think would win?
And this unscientific Twitter poll, 56% thought I would win.
Now there were some who were uncertain, but I want to test you.
How many do you think, what percentage do you think thought Schiff would win?
Wow, did you see it?
Or are you just guessing right?
I feel like you're all guessing right.
Yeah, 23%.
But just very close to your guess.
Your guesses are so good.
Wow, do you guess well.
So impressive.
Yeah.
So people think I'd get at least a double his vote.
And then a strange thing happened.
Elon Musk noted the poll and tweeted at me, please run.
That would be awesome.
Do you know how many likes and views and retweets you get when Elon Musk comments on your tweet?
It's just crazy.
One the other day has over 5 million views.
I've never had 5 million views on anything.
But as soon as he comments it goes through the roof.
So this made me think That I should start working on my clever slogans.
Don't you think?
I need to work on my clever slogans.
Because I would beat him with memes alone.
Now, I was informed this morning that Adam Schiff married a woman named Eve.
Were you aware that they are Adam and Eve?
Were you aware of that?
That's a real thing that's happening.
They're actually Adam and Eve.
And here's the funny part.
I swear this is true.
Yesterday when I was thinking of my funny memes, I googled snakes, because without even knowing that they were Adam and Eve, when I look at Schiff, he looks like a snake.
Like, everybody looks like an animal to me, but he looks like a snake, like a snake head.
But then I looked at actual snake heads and I couldn't find any that looked like him, and I thought, oh, that's just my bias.
So he doesn't look like a snake at all.
I want to clarify, he does not look like a snake.
You might ask, is there anything he does look like?
And I was doing a little Googling, and I did find something he does look like.
Which is a cat's sphincter.
So, I'll blow it up a little bit.
Now, it might be a little hard to see, but this is the cat's ass.
And it looks exactly like Adam Schiff talking about Russian collusion.
Is that just me?
Yeah.
So, you know, you've heard that Jesus will sometimes appear on like a You know, a grilled cheese sandwich or somebody will see Jesus's face in a, like a tree or something.
But that's not the only place that faces appear.
So this is Adam Schiff in a cat's ass.
So I don't think he's going to get as many people worshiping it, but we'll see.
All right.
So here are some of the, some of the slogans that I've been, you're thinking about.
So I want to get your feedback, please.
Can you give me some feedback of which of these slogans you find the catchiest?
All right.
My first was that the setup would be Schiff, who's not that bright, against me.
And I like to think, you know, on a good day, I'm kind of bright.
So I thought a good framing of this would be Schiff or brains.
That's your decision, Schiff or Brains.
And this is only so that I can get the people on TV to say his slogan is Schiff or Brains.
Schiff or Brains.
That's your first one.
Hold that.
Hold that one.
Here's the next one.
I'm going to put Schiff where he belongs on the San Francisco sidewalk with the rest of it.
The Schiff doesn't belong in the Senate.
It belongs on the sidewalk of San Francisco with all the rest of it.
Too long?
Okay, too long.
I have a lot of Dilber fans.
What will happen when Schiff hits the fans?
No?
No.
That's a little too on the nose.
We won't do that one.
Vote for the one who looks the least like a cat's sphincter.
Now, I wrote it that way because I think I look a little bit like a cat's sphincter, too.
But it's a matter of degree, right?
I'm like, on a scale of 1 to 10, I'm like a... maybe a 6.
You know, in terms of my similarity to a cat's sphincter.
But I think that Schiff is at least a 9.
So that's a big difference.
I think I could capitalize on that.
The difference in who looks more like a cat's sphincter.
Now here's one I think has a lot of potential.
The jokester versus the hoaxter.
The jokester versus the hoaxter.
What do you think?
What do you think?
Yeah, that could work.
That could fly.
All right, how about... I think those are the good ones.
Now here's a question.
If I ran, could I say that I'm going to work from home and only telecommute?
Is that an option?
And if it's not, why not?
It's not an option?
Don't they still have the remote voting thing?
I thought COVID brought them the remote voting thing so that I think they should keep that remote voting and I should work from home.
But the real question is, would I run as a Democrat or a Republican?
What do you think?
If I run as a Democrat, would I get to debate him quicker?
Because if I won as a Democrat, I might be in a runoff against a Republican.
And then I could just throw the race and let the Republican win.
Didn't see that coming, did you?
But I could just run as a Republican and just, you know, beat them fair and square.
I think that I would limit my cam... So here's the proposition I would make.
I'd make the following proposition to the Democrats in California.
Now, first of all, you know that California is super blue.
And yet, they did elect Reagan and they did elect Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Republicans.
Now, what do they have in common?
Well, Reagan was before the demographic shift.
But they're both funny.
Right?
The people who ran as Republicans, who were the funniest, got elected.
I have a theory that the only thing that Californians want is entertainment.
You think that's not true?
But look how often it seems to be true.
You tell me that I wouldn't get elected simply by being the most entertaining person in politics.
That would work.
Yeah, that would totally work.
I would just have to be the most entertaining.
I would have to be entertaining enough that the California media could not ignore me.
Do you think I could pull that off?
Do you think I could be provocative enough that the media just couldn't ignore me?
It would just be impossible?
Yeah.
What would it take for me to take a lead in that race immediately?
Let me tell you what it would take.
A genuine national poll that includes me in the list.
Because I'm not positive, but I might beat them in a legitimate poll too.
I don't know, because I have more name recognition.
I think.
Don't I?
I went to check that to do a Google fight, but I don't know if that site still works.
It just kept churning, but didn't give me anything.
But I'd love to know.
Actually, somebody do that right now.
Do a Google test to find out who has more name recognition.
Adam Schiff or me.
Because I think it's me.
Just because people don't follow politics that much, really.
But I don't know.
It could be him.
I don't know.
So that's the question.
I would also limit, I'd promise to limit my campaign donations to only individual donors, and the maximum donation I would take from any individual.
No corporations, no lobbyists, no PACs.
Just individuals, sort of like Bernie.
But I would limit my maximum donation to $420.
I mean, you gotta pick a number.
Yeah, 400.
How did you know that before I said it?
Don?
You're front-running my jokes here, Don.
Alright, we have a psychic.
This is ruining everything.
Some psychic actually got my punchline before I said it.
Now, that was pretty random.
So... So, apparently psychics are real.
Here's the other thing I promise.
If elected, I will steel man the arguments that I don't agree with.
Have you ever seen anybody do that?
Nope.
Obama did a little bit.
Like he would give a little bit of attention to the other side.
But no politician has ever done this.
I'll tell you what, I promise you, I'll present the strongest argument on your side before I make any decisions.
And I'll even let you look at it and decide whether I succeeded.
If that's not the strongest argument, well then I'll redo it.
When you're satisfied I've shown the public the strongest argument that disagrees with me, even if somebody else writes it, I'll make sure it gets just as much attention as what I want to do, but then I'll make the decision.
But I'll make sure you've seen the strongest argument against my position.
I'll also promise that I won't vote in lockstep with Republicans.
Now that would be dangerous, because then the Republicans might say, we kind of like somebody who'd vote in lockstep.
I'll say, I might, but I'll promise you I'll look at everything individually.
And then, here's also what I would do.
Once I got to the debate, because I think I'd probably make it into the last two with kind of a jungle runoff situation, the first thing I'd do is just before the debate, or maybe the first thing I said as the debate started, I would change my pronouns.
Now the reason I do this is just to give myself a little bit of an advantage in the debate.
Because here's how I want to play it.
Because I can imagine, you know, ladies and gentlemen, I just would like to announce, if you would, I'd like to announce that my pronouns are Senator, she and her.
Senator, she and her.
And then everybody would be like, well, you're joking, right?
And I would say, excuse me?
What did you say?
And they say, You're joking?
And I would look at them and say, my God, my God, this is getting off to a bad start.
I thought I was going to be here with good people.
I'm horrified.
I'm horrified.
And then when the debate starts, I think I could count on Schiff slipping a little bit, and he might say something like this.
My opponent, he has never been in government.
And I'd say, oh, ho, ho, ho.
What did you just say?
He?
And then I'd just go full Karen on him.
Full Karen.
I'd just melt down.
How dare you?
How dare you?
And that would be my whole debate.
Because nobody cares about the issues, really.
So that'd be pretty much my debate.
I noticed yesterday that it appears that Democrats are taking me seriously enough that it appears they've activated the hit squad against me.
So you probably noticed that when Trump was running the first time, That the hit pieces against me come out.
Because I was being a little bit too effective.
And so the Democrats, you know, sent some people to take me down.
If you were to search for me during the first election, the first, I think the top, you know, third-party site that wasn't something for me, was Bloomberg's hit piece.
Do you think that was natural?
Do you think it was natural that the top search for the entire campaign The top search for the entire campaign was the hit piece against me.
That's the one that was the important one.
So yesterday I saw somebody that I hadn't seen since that period who also did hit pieces against me.
And that person surfaced immediately.
So I have a feeling that Adam Schiff actually caught wind that I might run.
And they might actually be worried.
Which they should be, because I would annihilate him.
Let me ask you.
Let me ask you.
My contention is that from a communications and persuasion standpoint, he's not in my league.
He's sort of in an average politician level of quality, communication, and persuasion, which is not really very high.
They basically just lie about stuff and try to get away with it.
There's no technique.
I'm literally a trained hypnotist.
This would not be a fair fight.
I'm funnier than him, I'm smarter than him, and I'm way more persuasive.
All I'd have to do is be more entertaining and I'd blow him away.
And I also don't need any funding whatsoever.
Do I?
You don't think I can get enough free press?
I know how to get free press.
It's something I've done before.
So I suspect they're actually worried.
I saw a really good CNN bit, which I recommend, in which they sent a correspondent into rural China to see how things are going during their pandemic opening up stuff.
And... Don't let California go to Schiff.
Vote for Scott.
I like it, Carpe.
Here's what was fascinating.
So the CNN crew kept showing the minders, who just sort of follow you around.
So there'd be these mostly men, but at least one woman, who were just following her at a distance to make sure that all the townspeople knew not to tell her the truth.
It was fascinating.
Like, you always hear about it, but to actually watch it in action.
And at one point, she's just talking to somebody in an, you know, outdoor public space.
And the minders simply walk over and guide the woman away.
They just take her away without saying anything.
They just put an arm on her and just guide her away from the conversation.
It was the damnedest thing.
And then apparently there's a crew everywhere they travel, a different one.
So they were so coordinated that there'd be like six of them following her around where she was, but when they got in the car to go to another location, a different six would appear.
So that's how coordinated their observation of foreign press is.
It was crazy.
Crazy.
But then, who knows if the crew saw reality or not.
So there might have been some scrubbing before they approached anywhere.
But it made it look as though the rural Chinese don't have any problems at all.
That the COVID they treated as a cold, most of them didn't know they had it, didn't sound like they were worried about anybody dying or being sick, and they're basically over it.
They have almost full herd immunity in the rural areas.
So the cities may be being impacted, but their hospitals weren't even busy.
The hospitals were just, you know, they said, oh, we're always busy, but it wasn't, you know, The hallways were not packed or anything.
So I recommend it.
That's a good job by CNN.
When they do their packages that are outside of the mainstream news, they often are excellent.
Dave Rubin visited the Twitter headquarters and spent two days talking to the engineers and product managers, and Musk was there as well, trying to get to the bottom.
of the shadow banning question.
So here's what we learned from Dave Rubin.
Very excellent report.
I recommend his Twitter thread on this.
The first thing you need to know is that the code that runs Twitter is apparently so convoluted and spaghetti code and evolved over time that if you change anything it breaks all of it.
So, almost anything you touch, don't touch it!
You know, is a problem.
Because of the way it's evolved.
So there's actually some thought about, you have to throw it all out and start over.
But I can't, it's hard to imagine that.
But the complexity is hiding what's going on.
So even the people with the most knowledge and incentive to find out what's really going on here, I don't know if they can.
The complexity might be beyond their control.
But here are some things that Dave found that I had not heard yet.
Apparently there are lots of ways.
I'll say several.
Several would be a lot.
There are several ways that Twitter was and is labeling some tweets.
And so there was a whole, like, shades of shade.
So depending on how it was labeled in the not cool category, there were things that were just fine, which weren't labeled at all.
But anything that was maybe in the gray area that wasn't cool, there was a whole constellation of different ways they could label them to suppress them.
So you could say one of them was just not good for advertisers.
So you suppress them because you're an advertising company.
That doesn't mean it's fake.
Doesn't mean it's violent.
Doesn't mean it's too sexual.
It just means they don't want to pair it with an advertiser.
What are you going to do?
And then there are a bunch of other things for misinformation, etc.
So apparently Dave had at least three of those labels on his account.
He had three of them.
And it's unclear what any of the three do exactly, because it's too complicated.
But they clearly were banning him.
And I think they still are.
I don't even know if the labels were taken off.
But that was new information.
And I saw that Cat Turd, well-known Twitter personality Cat Turd, was interacting with Dave, and Dave said that they specifically looked at Cat Turd's account and didn't find any shadow banning labels on it.
Now, I was just imagining how disappointed I would be if I were to learn that there were no labels on my account.
Because Dave Rubin got labels on his account.
Like, he got shadowbanned the honest way.
But apparently Cat Turd is just having some kind of a psychological problem in which Cat Turd imagines he's being shadowbanned and wasn't.
And I say to myself, how embarrassing.
Because I think that might happen to me as well.
Assuming we ever can find out our own status, I'm expecting there will be no labels on my account.
And then I'm going to be all feeling bad about it.
Like, Jesus, Dave Rubin is so important, he gets shadowbanned, but nobody shadowbans me?
Do you know who I am?
I invented Dilbert, dammit.
Shadowban me.
Show me some respect.
Show me some respect.
I need to be banned.
I'm so competitive.
Oh yeah, Dave Rubin gets shadowbanned, but not me.
Not me.
Apparently not me.
Not me.
No.
But Dave Rubin does.
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
He's important enough to be shadow banned.
All he did is create a competing platform, a social media platform, and has one of the most popular podcasts in the political space.
But me?
Nothing.
Nothing.
Quite disappointed.
I don't know.
Maybe I have some labels.
I'll be happy about it if I do.
Man, there's so much going on today.
What a fun day.
So, as I told you, parody and reality have merged, but I want to give you an update on that.
So, on January 25th, I tweeted this.
I'm just finding out today.
This is just remember, this is two days ago.
I'm just finding out today, thanks to dozens of people informing me that the COVID shots do not stop transmission.
Did the rest of you already know that?
I am so dumb.
5.3 million views because Elon Musk interacted with it.
So, um, Was that parody or non-parody?
Let's see if you can tell the difference.
I'm going to read it again, and then in the comments, I want you to see if it is a parody or not.
I'm just finding out today, thanks to dozens of people informing me, that the COVID shots do not stop transmission.
Did the rest of you already know that?
I'm so dumb.
What was it?
Oh, Sam, we can help you.
We'll just remove you.
There, your problem's solved.
Problem solved.
So I wanted to see if I could push this a little further.
And then I tweeted this.
This is shocking.
Next, I'll learn the vaccinations were not tested as long as vaccines are usually tested.
Parody or real opinion?
Parody or real opinion?
Well, on Twitter, Zana Homan said, Jesus, dude, where were you?
Under the rock?
LOL.
I really like you, but this is too much.
Parody or reality?
And then Nikola Lovig on Twitter said to me, I've been having a hard time lately determining whether each of your tweets and responses is sarcasm or truth.
Some feel one way, while others seem another way.
Now, am I wrong that parody and reality emerged?
You really can't tell, can you?
Now, maybe you think you know on specific tweets, But in general, you really don't know, do you?
You really don't know.
All right, well, here's some things I learned on Twitter today.
This is from a Twitter user named AJ, who tells me I should go back and listen to the Dark Horse podcast.
That's Brett Weinstein and Heather Hayne.
And AJ says, go back and listen to the Dark Horse Podcast.
There are years and hours of listening material to help you understand.
I need the help.
But you don't want to understand.
Ooh, I thought I wanted to understand.
But AJ says, I don't want to understand.
OK, I accept that.
I don't want to understand, AJ.
You want to grandstand.
Well, yeah, I do.
You know me.
Grandstander.
So I want to understand... No, I don't want to understand.
I want to grandstand.
So I learned that today.
Because I was thinking the opposite.
I thought I did want to understand and... Okay, you're right about the second thing.
I do like to grandstand.
So I tweeted, why am I like this?
Everyone else finds the accurate information.
I only find the wrong stuff.
Parody?
Or real opinion?
Can't tell.
Can't tell.
And then Twitter user Minneapolis to Texas said, all good brother.
It happened to a ton of folks.
Just start tuning into Dark Horse Now.
It will help clarify a bunch of stuff for you.
And he says, they got it right.
They weren't lucky.
They reasoned their way there.
Now that's what I need to learn to do.
And they want to help me.
Aw.
Thank you.
They want to help me.
So I should tune in.
So I responded, and you get to decide, is this parody or real opinion?
I responded, wait until you find out all documentaries are persuasive, including the ones that are wrong.
Head exploding icon.
But then I wanted to clarify.
I said, Dark Horse got everything right.
You knew by listening to the podcast.
But I got all caught up in the wrong field of science that says humans can't do what you did.
See, here's my problem.
I was in the wrong field of science.
Had I been in the field of, let's say, biology and stuff like that, I might have immediately known that the Dark Horse podcast was on to everything right.
But I got all bunched up in the wrong part of science.
I went down the psychology, Part of the scientific field.
Now, in the psychology field, it would be well understood that nobody can do what these people say they did.
You can't actually look at somebody talking about somebody else's science and know anything.
So, there's a whole field of science that says this can't be done.
I was in the wrong hole.
Wrong hole.
Had I been in the biology field only, I would have known who was getting it right, and I would have immediately seen that their reasoning was complete and nothing had been left out.
But because I went down the psychology field, where it's very clear that nobody can do that, know who's right, If they don't have the expertise themselves.
And even if they did, sometimes they don't know who's right.
But I do not have any ability to analyze the Dark Horse podcast and know from my own or any mechanism that I know how to gather whether they are right or wrong.
But I will take it on faith that there are people walking among us who can do just that.
They don't believe that field of science that fooled me.
So I'm living in sort of an illusion that the field of psychology is actually real science.
And that's when I got wrong.
Well, Russia got some tanks.
I guess this happened a month ago, but I just saw the news today.
They got 30 T-34 tanks.
So that sounds pretty good.
30 tanks.
They were produced in 1944, which means they were probably designed in the 30s.
And they were brought back to Russia from Laos.
So that's a strong play on the Russian side.
You know, Ukraine was feeling pretty confident until they heard that Russia got 30 tanks that were designed in the 1930s from Laos.
Apparently they're in good working order.
Good working order.
They're horse-drawn.
I don't know if the news had mentioned they're horse-drawn tanks.
I think they'll do well.
They'll do well.
So it looks like Russia's gearing up for a fight with those horse-drawn tanks from Laos.
No, they're not horse-drawn.
They're not horse-drawn.
They were simply designed in the 1930s.
That's not horse-drawn.
That would be crazy.
Well, Nikki Klein, you may remember her name from NXIVM, but she had this question for men on Twitter.
She said, men, do you feel like you can give women honest feedback?
If not, why not?
And I answered, LOL, no.
Women get angry when you tell the truth, and also when you lie.
So those are the two traps to avoid.
So if I could give you any kind of a relationship advice, two things you don't want to do once you're in a relationship.
Never lie.
That's going to really cause trouble.
And never ever tell the truth, because that's just going to be a fight.
So don't lie and don't tell the truth.
If you can avoid those two things, your relationship has a good chance.
I've never figured it out myself.
I'm as useless on this as I am in figuring out whether the Dark Horse podcast was right or wrong.
But I accept now that they were right about everything.
Same as I do in a relationship.
I just assume I'm wrong.
Alright, I'm going to add something to the conversation about excess deaths.
This is where some of you just get mad at me and leave.
Does anybody want to storm off after insulting me for continuing to beat on this topic?
I'll wait for your insults and angry turn in leaving.
Go.
Because you're going to see something that you've not seen before on this argument.
I promise you, I'll give you something that's new, unless you saw me tweet it yesterday.
This will be brand new.
Something you've never heard.
All right?
Go into the whiteboard.
Oh, doubtful?
Oh, hold on.
Hold on.
Skeptic.
Are you doubting that I'm going to make a point that you have not seen and that it's an important one?
Do you doubt that?
Now, unless you saw me tweet this last night, I promise you, you have not seen this point.
And it's a big one.
Ready?
Somebody says it's going to be stupid.
Thank you for the faith.
All right.
There are many potential causes of excess deaths.
Could be vax injury.
Alexa!
Cancel.
I don't know what that's about.
Do we all agree that even the vaccination manufacturers would agree with us that some people are probably dying from the vaccination itself?
We don't know how many, right?
The number of them is question.
But there's no doubt about it, right?
Can you fact check me?
That all vaccinations have negative effects, and if you give a vaccination to 100 million people, somebody dies.
You just don't know if that's a big deal or a small deal, right?
The death of the person is a big deal, of course.
All right, there might be some long COVID.
Now, long COVID doesn't have to be defined as something exotic.
You know, it could be just that you got your ass kicked and you're 80 years old.
If you get your ass kicked by COVID and you're already 80 years old, maybe the next year or so, you'll never really get back to the health you had before.
So one could imagine people being weakened, potentially.
Now, this is just hypothetical.
This is not based on data.
But would you agree that if 100 million people get COVID, some of them have their ass kicked, but they survive?
Don't you think that that would cause you to be weakened for other things for quite some time?
Like you would never get back to your physical fitness, for example.
Yeah, maybe.
So I'm not saying that that's part of the number.
I'm just saying it's one of the unknowns.
All right, what about overdoses?
Young people, huge increase in overdoses, fentanyl and alcohol and everything else.
We've got more suicide we know, more murder we know.
So overdoses, suicide, and murder we know are high.
But on top of that, there seems to be some excess death even more than that.
So some of it is completely explained by these factors.
Now, we know that depression and anxiety through the roof, they pretty much directly, you know, in a big population, they're going to directly translate into deaths.
Obesity, of course, is going to kill people.
Here's the new one.
Those of you who challenged me and said I wouldn't make a new point, Are you aware that it's a pretty well-established fact that if a spouse dies, the odds of the remaining spouse also dying in a year or so is very high, relative to chance.
Now what happens if a whole bunch of seniors, especially, or let's say anybody over 40, but the people who died are mostly seniors.
A whole bunch of seniors lose their partner.
After 60 years of being together.
Right?
That's what happened to my parents.
My mother died.
You know, my parents were together from the time my mother was 18.
She was engaged at the age of 16.
Right?
To the same man.
They were together all those years.
She died.
And what did the family member say?
We gave him like a year.
And he didn't have a special medical problem.
I think he was gone in 18 months?
I think it was around 18 months.
And it was just a straight decline.
He was done.
Now you can see the psychological part of that just so clearly.
I mean, I don't think it was a coincidence.
Now this is actually an effect This is an effect that's well demonstrated.
I think most doctors have seen it, and even the data backs it up.
So what we should see is excess deaths of the partner dying from heartbreak.
So it should be a pretty big effect.
In fact, it might be the biggest effect we've ever seen of this type, just because of the way it all played out.
There's also a post-crisis effect.
So after a big war or after a big upheaval or revolution, doctors know that heart attacks go way up.
Did you know that?
There's heart inflammation and stress.
It's basically the effect of long-term stress.
So after the pandemic, and I guess you could sort of say we're after it now, you should expect to see a whole bunch of excess deaths that are predictable.
Right?
What about distrust of health care?
I stopped taking two meds this year because I don't trust health care.
Do you think anybody else did that?
Do you think anybody else stopped taking their meds because they don't trust health care?
Or they couldn't get them?
Or they couldn't get into the hospital?
Or they don't want to even get near the hospital?
How about the people who would normally go to the hospital, but they're afraid of getting COVID?
And they think, well, the hospital's full of COVID.
I don't want to have the problem I have plus COVID.
So maybe they don't go.
So there's certainly some distrust of healthcare that's got to have an effect.
What about hospital mistakes?
Hospital mistakes are something like the third biggest cause of death, aren't they?
Yeah, it's like the third largest cause of death.
I'm speculating here.
If you take any system that's working, And then you throw a whole new variable into it, like something that shocks the system.
Does it work as well?
No.
Because it's a big, complicated system.
If you throw COVID and the pandemic into the hospital system, it should create more errors, right?
Just because any change to a system will create errors.
Now, I'm not even talking about the ventilators.
I'm talking about the continued effect To today, because we're past the ventilators, I think.
But don't you think that hospital, I'm just guessing, but I'll bet you, hospital errors are through the roof.
Because I think we lost a lot of good healthcare professionals, didn't we?
You know, fatigue, death, but also change of process.
Because you have all the work you were doing, plus you've got to put in COVID protocols.
Your doctor told you it was okay?
Well, is my doctor monitoring me?
Basically, my doctor suggested it, but I'm doing it all myself.
I'm monitoring myself, etc.
But I get your point.
There's also an economic effect.
When the economy is bad, people die.
And they die for a whole variety of reasons that are probably, you know, embedded in some of this other stuff.
And then there's also something called the nocebo effect, sort of a cousin to the placebo effect.
The placebo effect, 30 to 60% of the people who take a drug or a pill that is literally nothing, get better.
30 to 60% get better with a sugar pill, you know, when they're testing against a real pill.
It also works the other way.
If somebody believes something's going to be bad for them, let's say you gave them a pill, you say, you know, this probably is going to be bad for you.
Probably 30% of the people would report something bad happened.
And maybe it would, like if you tested them, you'd actually found something bad.
So the psychology body connection is so strong that what you expect has about a 30% chance of happening, even if there's no physical reason it should.
And it works both in the positive way, but in the negative way too.
So, how many people believed that COVID would kill them?
A lot.
Do you think that if you looked at the people who believed that COVID was no big deal, if you could isolate them, and then they got COVID, and then the group who thought it was deadly and they were going to die, and they also got COVID, do you think the death rates would make sense for their demographics.
I mean, they wouldn't be directly comparable.
You'd have to adjust it for demographics.
I say that the people who were afraid of COVID were more likely to die.
All other things controlled.
What do you say?
Everything I know about psychology, placebos and nocebos, strongly suggests that people were dying who wouldn't have died if they weren't afraid of dying.
Now let's go the other way.
How many people maybe got the vaccination slash shot that isn't a vaccination?
How many people got the shot and then later through social media or their friends or whatever became frightened to death that the shot itself would kill them?
And it's a hundred million people.
If a hundred million people Worry that the shot itself will kill them.
Let's say half of them.
50 million.
How many of them would actually die who wouldn't have died otherwise?
And the answer is it's going to be a big number.
I think.
Based on everything we know about placebos and nocebos and psychology and connection of mind to body, there should be people dying like crazy because they're afraid of the vaccination.
And wouldn't have died otherwise.
Just the fear itself should be killing people like crazy.
Right or wrong?
Disagree?
So, now, let me give the counter-argument, okay?
Here's the counter-argument.
The counter-argument is that the increase in excess deaths maps almost perfectly to the vaccination introduction.
That's a strong argument.
Would you agree?
It's a pretty strong argument.
And it would take a coincidence for that not to be showing you exactly what it looks like.
Because what it looks like is that there's one cause that rises above the others.
It would take a pretty big coincidence for that not to mean exactly what it looks like.
Would you agree?
So you'd have to explain why every demographic started having excess deaths at around the time of the rollout.
Here's the best that you could do if you're trying to explain that away.
These effects affect all demographics.
Different ones affect different demographics differently.
So the widow effect would affect the older people more, but the suicides and overdoses would affect the younger people more, and then all of it would affect everybody a little bit.
Now, when would the excess deaths start kicking in?
Would people be dying from the nocebo effect before they had a vaccination?
They wouldn't.
It would have to be after the vaccination.
Would people be dying of long COVID right after they got actual COVID?
No.
If there is any long-term impact of just being weakened in general, that might have happened a year later.
So there might be people who are infected a year later, and by the time the vaccinations came, that's when the long COVID is kicking in their ass as well.
Just by coincidence.
How many of the widow effects would happen the same day as the original partner dies?
Almost none.
They would lag about a year.
So you'd have all these deaths in 2020, and then you would see the partners start to die a year later.
That's what you would expect.
What about the post-crisis effect?
Well, when the vaccinations roll down, There were a lot of people who said, OK, we're after the crisis now, because now we can vaccinate ourselves and be safe.
Now, I'm not saying that's true.
I'm saying that's how people felt.
So at the time of the vaccinations, the post-crisis effect should have started.
At the same time as the vaccinations.
Because that's when people thought they were done with the, they thought the pandemic might be done.
So the post-crisis is after the crisis, and the vaccinations might be a period where people were feeling post-crisis-y.
Maybe.
Distrust of healthcare, that probably started small and grew, but it was always there.
Hospital mistakes were probably worse.
Don't you think hospital mistakes were very high?
At the same time the vaccinations were coming up.
Should have been.
Everything we know would suggest that's when they were the highest.
Because it was the most variables and overwork and every other bad thing.
Economic effect, you know, is a little more gradual.
We should see more of that now than we saw then.
Although, actually, people were scared to death about their economic situation during the pandemic.
So this might have actually started earlier and maybe even got worse.
And then I guess I spoke about all this.
All right.
Given all of this, did you learn something here that you didn't know?
Go.
Did I tell you something that you had not heard before that was useful?
that was also useful.
It's a mixed bag.
Egg with glasses.
Nope, I'm a biologist.
Oh, so there's a biologist here who knew the widow effect?
How many of you knew the widow effect and knew that it would be part of excess deaths?
Some of you did.
Some of you did.
And you actually knew to connect that to excess deaths.
Well, I'm impressed.
All right, David, we see you.
We see you.
You don't have to say that 100 times.
And by the way, remember I told you you can't determine parody from reality?
So David G. is just shouting in caps, message after message, all the same.
And he says, Scott figured it out again, guys.
He really is the pandemic's best predictor.
Parody or actual opinion?
There's no difference.
There's no difference.
They're just the same now.
You can't even tell.
You knew from working in the cemetery.
Oh, somebody knew about the... Yeah, you would know.
Yeah, if you worked in a cemetery, you would know when you dug the grave for one partner, and you would know when you dug the matching grave for the other partner.
So there's a cemetery worker who knew about the widow effect.
That makes perfect sense.
Oh, here's an interesting comment.
NPC Jester says... No, I'm sorry.
Somebody said that I'm at peak persuasion now.
Peak influence.
Because Elon magnified me.
What do you think?
Am I at peak influence?
Yes, I am.
It's all downhill from here.
Well, peak so far.
Peak so far.
Peak sarcasm.
Go after Schiff?
You got it.
We'll take care of him.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, this brings me to the end of the best live stream you've ever had.
I'm going to make the locals people private, and I'm going to say goodbye to you YouTube people.
