Episode 2006 Scott Adams: Lots Of Conspiracy Theories Confirmed This Year. Big Things Coming
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Watergate was a deep state operation
Whiteboard: Odds of War With Cartels
Dan Crenshaw's Declare War on Cartels bill
Do the Mexican cartels own Biden?
Medicare paid rehab scam
A functional drug rehab solution
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the Highlight of Civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and there's never been a finer moment.
Would you like to take it up a level?
Yeah, up a level.
And all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard, chalice of stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure that dopamine at the end of the day thing makes everything better.
It's called Simultaneous Sip.
Go.
And the Fed.
I'm seeing somebody say, End the Fed.
Well, I'd be in favor of that if I knew what it was.
Does anybody know what the Federal Reserve does?
I managed to get a degree in economics and walk away thinking, I'm not entirely sure what they do.
Well, anyway.
Let's talk about some of the things in the news.
I was seeing a tweet from Adam Townsend.
He was sending people to his blog.
Now, Adam Townsend is another strong follow on Twitter.
If you're not following him, you're missing a lot of different stuff.
There are some people on Twitter who tend to be boosters of things you've already seen, and they're good too.
But Adam tends to have completely different takes on stuff.
But in this case, I think this is something some of us saw but forgot.
In 2020, there was a hack on Twitter.
I kind of vaguely remember that.
But here's a detail I did not know until I read Adam Townsend's blog that he tweeted at today.
So apparently the Twitter was hacked by a 17-year-old and some friends.
A 17-year-old.
And if you wondered how did he crack The security for Twitter.
Because you know, Twitter's a major social platform.
Obviously, they've got some pretty strong security going on there.
So here's how the 17-year-old did it.
He called some Twitter employees and said he was Twitter IT support, and he asked them for their passwords.
That's not even the best part.
That's not even the best part.
Some of them actually gave their passwords over the phone.
And that's not the best part.
That's not the best part either.
The best part is the average employees, I think they were just average employees, gave their passwords and that was enough to acquire God mode over the entire network.
Apparently you could have anybody's password if they were in engineering, and they gave you God mode over the entire network.
Now, if you don't believe that's true, apparently there is testimony from somebody who was hired to look into the security.
He testified to Congress.
This guy named Mudge was his nickname.
And apparently anybody who worked in engineering had full access to Twitter's guts.
All of the engineers could change Twitter.
Do you remember long ago when I was speculating that the Dorsey probably didn't know, that Jack Dorsey probably didn't know who was doing what with Twitter?
Do you remember everybody laughed at me?
Do you remember how you laughed?
Oh, how you laughed.
Come on.
Dorsey knows exactly what's going on there.
No.
Nope.
It turns out that every engineer could have changed the guts of Twitter had full access.
And there's no log of changes.
Did you hear that?
All of the engineers could change the guts of Twitter and there was no log of the changes.
Those are confirmed facts from somebody whose job it was to look into that stuff.
Now, did you know any of that?
Did you know any of that?
Somehow I missed all of that.
But it's in the public record.
It's not subject to speculation.
And apparently, you know, Twitter is built in such a way that it's really hard to catch up and fix all the security problems.
So Elon Musk has a big challenge, a technical challenge that's Almost unimaginable in its complexity.
But if anybody could sort it out, at least the right people are working on it.
So that's good.
Texas, Governor Abbott is making a clear call for universal school choice in Texas.
And he wants something with education savings accounts, etc.
The big story here is I don't think anything's going to stop it at this point.
I believe that education will just enter the private sphere and the free market will make it work again.
Now, there will definitely always be people in public schools, I think.
But the public schools are going to have to do something different to show that they can compete with private schools.
But it's happening.
It's happening.
So it takes a while, but there's this positive trend.
All right.
Macro theme?
Every time I read a news story that's really good, like it gives me stuff I didn't know, and it's pointing to actually source material, and it tells a story that really gives me the full, rich context, and I finally understand a thing, where did I see it?
You tell me.
I saw something with great context and really good sources.
Where did I see it?
Twitter threads.
By individuals who are really good at it.
Why do we know the Twitter files?
Because of people like Matt Taibbi, right?
Individual citizens who look into stuff and find out.
Why do we know as much as we do about You know, the real situation with energy and homelessness and stuff like that.
Michael Schellenberger.
Michael Schellenberger is unambiguously, unambiguously the best, I guess you'd call him an individual who's doing journalism.
For the most breadth of, you know, different important topics and the greatest, greatest depth of research.
And there's another, and I'll talk about that in a minute, Kyle Becker.
Do you follow Kyle Becker?
Any of Kyle Becker's threads are better than the news that night.
And it's not just that he's good.
He's very good, by the way.
You should follow him.
But he's one of now, I would say, close to a dozen?
There are maybe a dozen individuals who will do fairly frequent Twitter threads that are just far better than anything in the news.
Now some of it...
Anyway.
Got distracted there by a comment.
So let me read to you some of these, the things which we're finding.
All right.
This is from Kyle Becker's Twitter thread.
And I've seen this before, but Kyle does a good job of putting it in a real clean package here.
So you all know Bob Woodward, right?
So Woodward and Bernstein were the two reporters for the Washington Post who broke the Watergate story.
It was a story that brought down Nixon.
And it was Nixon got some burglars to burglarize a Democrat office in the Watergate Tower and got caught and then that brought down Nixon.
So here's an interesting thing we find out about Bob Woodward.
So Bob Woodward, one of the two important people in this story.
Interesting.
This is from Kyle Becker's Twitter thread.
Soon after leaving the Navy, Woodward was hired by the most powerful news outlet and given the biggest news story in the country.
So he wasn't a seasoned reporter, but he got a job at the most important news outlet, or one of the two.
And immediately was given one of the biggest, most important stories in the country.
How did he get his sources for that?
Well, the source for the Watergate stuff was the Deputy Director of the FBI, Mark Felt, who also was known to run the FBI Co-Intel Pro Program, which was designed to discredit political actors and the federal agencies that they want to destroy.
such as Richard Nixon.
And by the way, there was a lawyer who was working on the staff of the Judiciary Committee during the Nixon inquiry.
Do you know who that was?
There was an attorney working on that.
It was Hillary Clinton.
It was Hillary Clinton.
And then Kyle sums it up this way.
He goes, so if you watch the deep state panic during the Trump years, the Russia hoax orchestrated by Hillary Clinton, two Trump impeachment hoaxes, January 6th charade, FBI Mar-a-Lago raid, and now the Biden classified document scandal, don't be surprised.
They've been doing this for a very long time.
It's all true.
The Watergate was bullshit.
Watergate was just an FBI deep state project to take Nixon out.
Now, Nixon probably, you know, did in fact authorize it, so he committed a crime.
But my current belief, subject to, you know, I suppose I could change my mind later, but I always believed, until maybe a year or so ago, that Watergate was just what it looked like.
Two intrepid reporters, You know, dug into it, got this scoop, took down the president.
Turns out it was actually a deep state operation.
The whole thing was bullshit.
It was a deep state operation.
And Hillary Clinton was right in the middle of it.
And it's apparently what, it's just a pattern that they just do over and over again.
They create hoaxes.
And they have enough power in the media to sell them.
Now, do you remember all the time that Bernstein became just a joke because he would come on CNN and say that anything Trump did was worse than Watergate?
And I thought to myself, how could this guy, who seems so dumb and so biased, have been one of the crack reporters that worked with Woodward?
Because I thought, well, it must have been Woodward who was the smart one.
Because the other guy is obviously an idiot.
Like, when you see him on TV, he's just... It looks like he's just working for a treat or something.
It doesn't even look like there's a functioning brain going on there.
And now when you see that there's, let's say, some interesting history to the other one, you can see that the two of them were just part of some deep state operation, apparently.
Apparently.
Now it turns out that Trump is suing Woodward for $49 million for using Trump's audiotapes out of context.
Apparently Trump says he'd only authorized the audiotapes for the purpose of writing the book, but when the audiotapes are shown on their own...
And out of context, because they always would be out of context, they're misleading and make him look bad.
Now I don't think he can win that case, probably not, but it does show you that Woodward is sketchy.
Because I do believe, without even hearing the audio tapes, I feel a high level of confidence, with no knowledge, that they're misleading and that they're designed to make Trump look bad.
Do you have any doubt about that?
Do you have any doubt about that?
No?
I don't think so.
All right.
Here's my take on the cartels and what's happening with fentanyl and all that stuff.
Going to the whiteboard.
So we're sort of in an interesting race here.
So I would say if you look at the odds of going to war with the cartels, well the more people who die of fentanyl, and the fact that politicians on both sides, bipartisan, are both talking about it, the odds of war are going to go to 100% unless something intervenes.
Would you agree?
That if there's no other outside forces, The odds of war and direct attack of the cartels is 100%.
Now, we're not there.
We're probably down here.
Probably down around, I don't know, 25%.
But that will grow, the more people who die from fentanyl, and the more militaristic the cartels look.
But the trouble is, one assumes that the cartels, with their tens of billions of dollars, are already buying up our politicians.
Because why wouldn't they?
What would stop them?
Seriously, what would stop them?
They know that the United States is going to come for them.
The only way they can stop it, because they can't beat us militarily, is to stop us politically.
So you don't think that they're already building an entire base of bought-off politicians?
Now, they may be starting at the city level, you know, with, like, council people and stuff, and trying to, like, get control of them, and then later they become, you know, higher up in politics.
So it could be what China's doing.
You know, China would find an Eric Swalwell, And then they would say, you know, I think this person might get elected to higher office, so they make friends when he's still at the city level, right?
You don't think the cartels are doing that?
With tens of billions of dollars, their biggest mortal risk is not Mexico, because they already control Mexico.
Their biggest risk is the United States.
Do you think they're just waiting?
Do you think the cartels are just waiting?
Oh, we'll just keep making money, nothing will happen to us.
No, they know we're coming for them.
They know we're coming.
So they've got to buy our politicians as quickly as possible.
My estimate is we have three to five years.
In three to five years, the cartels will effectively control our government.
Because that's their only play.
And there's no level of risk they wouldn't be willing to take to get that done.
Am I right?
There's no level of risk that they would walk away from.
This is a mortal risk.
This ends them completely.
They have to buy their way to control the government.
They have to.
You don't think they know that?
Of course they do.
The mafia knows it.
They already bought the government of Mexico.
Do you think that they bought the entire government of Mexico and it never occurred to them Maybe buy a little bit of the government of the United States with their billions of dollars.
They never thought of it.
Of course they did.
And of course they're doing it.
And they're doing it as fast as they can.
If we don't beat this window and take him out before they have too much control of the government, we'll never be able to do it.
So when you see Dan Crenshaw say we should go in militarily, the one thing I can know for sure, no matter what else you want to criticize Crenshaw for, he's not been bought off.
Would you agree?
Clearly he hasn't been bought off, because he's going after them.
Likewise, there are a number of other people you could say have definitely not been bought off.
Trump has definitely not been bought off.
Yeah, you can call it Crenshaw, whatever you want.
I'm not in that conversation.
I'm just saying there are some people, at least on the Democrat side for sure, or I'm sorry, on the Republican side, and at least one Democrat, who have definitely not been bought off.
Definitely not.
But that's not gonna last.
I don't believe that Biden, I mean, do you think Biden hasn't been bought off?
Look at what Hunter's been doing, collecting money from other countries.
You don't think that Hunter found a way to make some cartel money?
I mean, I don't have any evidence to suggest he did, but wouldn't that be the most obvious place to get your money?
And wouldn't it be the only thing to explain why Biden seems to be doing whatever the cartels want?
Because he's not really taking the border seriously, and he's not taking the cartel seriously.
He's not taking them even a little bit seriously.
The evidence would strongly suggest that Biden's been compromised via Hunter.
Now, here's the world we live in.
I just gave you this whole long list of all the hoaxes, and you've seen my list of over 20 hoaxes, and we know the pattern and how things are done.
Shouldn't you assume, with no evidence whatsoever, Just based on what you can see, that's not in question.
It's not in question that Biden is doing a poor job of border security.
There's no question about that.
Some people think it's a preference, but there's no question about, you know, that a lot of people are coming across the border.
You have to assume at this point that the cartels have some kind of leverage on Biden.
Is that fair or unfair?
Now again, when you talk about a government, The government is guilty until they can prove through some kind of transparency that they're not guilty.
They're not people.
If it were people, they're innocent until proven guilty.
If it's the government, and they have a multi-decade pattern of being corrupt, which is well demonstrated, from Watergate all the way through Google and Twitter ringing the last election.
So there's no question about whether this is a group of people who do corrupt things on a regular basis.
Democrats.
Now, I'm not going to say that no Republican's done anything corrupt, right?
But I'm just looking at this particular pattern.
The Democrats have been running hoaxes and plans and ops against the American public for decades.
And we know it.
We're not guessing.
We know it.
So you have to assume that the only reason that Mexico is not being handled is that it's got to be... And I'm open to be proven wrong.
But my assumption is, since it's obvious, assume the obvious.
Assume the obvious.
And by the way, that would be an amazing thing for Trump to say.
Imagine this.
You know the cartels are trying to bribe American politicians.
Would everybody say that's true?
They would, right?
You know they are, at least at the local level.
So here's something Trump could say.
You know the cartels are trying to bribe people.
You know that there's no explanation for why Biden is doing so poorly on the border and against Fentanyl.
Assume the obvious.
Just imagine Trump saying that.
Assume it's exactly what it looks like.
That's all he has to say.
Just say, assume it's exactly what it looks like.
And he's done.
And walk away.
Just say, here's the setup.
Just assume it's exactly what you see and vote accordingly.
I'll take on the cartels.
He isn't.
And there's only one reason.
There's only one reason.
And his name is Hunter.
Now, I don't have proof of it, but you don't need it.
He's demonstrated that this is how they act.
Just assume it's true.
You don't even need evidence.
This is so obviously, you know, the pattern that they follow.
It's up to them to prove it's not true.
Right?
Can't take on the cartel money.
All right, next story.
In British Columbia, they're going to change the law so that they're not arresting anybody for heroin, cocaine, meth, fentanyl, or ecstasy.
Now, Elon Musk actually responded to that.
He said, all things considered, this is the better approach, in my opinion.
Do you think it's a better approach to decriminalize All of those hard drugs.
And the possession.
So I think dealing is probably still illegal, but ordinary possession would not be.
In fact, they won't even take it off you.
They won't even confiscate it.
So here's the problem with this issue.
The problem with this issue is that we have a binary brain.
We all have binary brains.
And the things we understand are It's illegal!
It's illegal!
Or, it's not illegal!
And then our brain stops.
So since you've seen examples where legalizing things totally didn't work, and you only have two buckets, don't give me any nuance.
There are only two buckets.
So if you know that there definitely are examples where legalization totally failed, well, that's all you need to know.
Only two buckets.
But of course, in the real world, how many different ways would there be to change the drug laws without screwing the pooch?
Probably lots of ways.
Who knows if this is a small part of something bigger, or it's just one thing they're doing.
Now, I do agree that putting these people in jail doesn't make any difference.
I don't think that they go to jail Clean up and then go on to live good lives.
But if that is true, that'd be interesting.
I could be convinced.
I don't believe that's true.
But I also don't believe any data on anything anymore.
So if you had data, I wouldn't believe it anyway.
But it seems to me that if you put somebody in jail who had not otherwise been in jail, now they have a jail record On top of their addicts, even if they stopped.
You know that, right?
Just because you stop using, that doesn't make you not an addict.
You always have that problem forever.
So it seems like you're taking one problem and turning it into two problems.
One is you're a drug addict, and now you've got a criminal record.
So good luck.
Do you know what I would do if I were a drug addict?
I'd cleaned up, and then I tried to get a job with my criminal record and I couldn't?
You know what I'd do?
I would deal drugs.
That's what I'd do.
No, I'm not joking.
Absolutely.
I would go to the criminal side.
I would sell drugs, because that would be my best career move.
And I'm already living this risky life, and I take drugs to make me feel good.
So now I've got money.
I don't care about the ethics of it.
I'll just go sell drugs.
And that's what I would do.
Literally, that's what I would do.
Literally.
There's no hyperbole here.
If I had a criminal record because of drugs, I would become a drug dealer.
I would, wouldn't you?
It's just a rational choice.
So, I can see Elon Musk's point that taking somebody who's got one crushing problem in life and adding a second crushing problem, logically that That doesn't seem to be the right approach.
Now, suppose, suppose you legalized it so you'd at least remove the one crushing problem, but you did more about helping people have treatment or even living, maybe helping them live somewhere where they're away from the rest of the public.
So you don't want to do what San Francisco did to create an actual physical zone where you can all go in and shoot drugs.
Maybe the worst idea ever.
Possibly the worst idea of all time.
And let's put it right in the middle of our beautiful city that depends on, you know, tourism.
Worst idea.
Best idea might be we're going to legalize it, but we're also going to legalize ketamine and mushrooms and other treatments.
You go to a You want to hear something about rehab that I heard the other day?
I heard this from a reliable source.
Apparently the government will pay for your rehab.
Did you know that?
If you're poor.
I'm not sure if it's Medicaid or whatever it is.
But you know the government will pay to put you in Medicare if you don't have money, right?
Now, I didn't know that either, but apparently, and I don't know if it's just California, I don't know the details.
Might be just California.
But, is it Medicare or Medicaid?
It's one of them.
But it's a real medical problem, and we do give medical treatment to people who have medical problems.
Right?
Even if they don't have insurance.
So, here's what's happening, and I'm told this is widespread.
A rehab will, of course, want people to go there, and the government will pay.
So there are body people, people who go out and find addicts, and they talk them into going to rehab.
So far so good, right?
No problem with that.
Go talk the addicts into rehab.
They go into rehab, and then the government pays the bill, and the rehab is happy, right?
And then the person who went in there, presumably they would be happy, wouldn't you say?
Because they got free rehab.
Pretty good deal.
Except, the people that are gathered up are people who do not want to be straight.
They're paid to go to rehab.
Yep.
They pay them to go to rehab.
With no expectation that anybody will try to fix them.
As soon as they're out, if they do their two weeks or whatever it is, do you know what the body person does?
Scores them some drugs right away.
So they can be the person you bring back in again.
If you get them high as soon as they're out, you already have their contact information, you know who they are, you know that they've said yes once to taking a check, to pretending to be in rehab, So they go and they pretend to be in rehab again.
It turns out there's some large part, I don't know the percentage.
Yeah, I'm sure there are also plenty of completely ethical rehab places.
But the whole industry has got a problem.
That it looks like the way the money works, they don't have an incentive to fix anybody.
They have an incentive to pump the same addicts through their system as often as possible.
Now I'm also not aware of any rehab that works.
I realize that's controversial.
I'm not aware of any that work.
And in California anyway, there's a lot of belief that there's some kind of support services for addicts.
There really isn't.
You can look as hard as you want, there won't be any.
There's nothing.
You're pretty much on your own.
Imagine if British Columbia did the following things.
And I'm not saying they will.
I'm just making a larger case that there's a right way and a wrong way to do stuff.
The wrong way was, I think some European countries did free needles and stuff.
Didn't work out as well as they wanted.
San Francisco did the free needle zone, totally disaster.
So there are lots of bad ways to legalize drugs.
But imagine a good way.
Just imagine.
That they said, we're not going to arrest you.
And in addition, for free, we could put you through one of these psychedelic facilities that will give you different drugs and make you not care about taking hard drugs later.
So compare these two things.
Hey, I'm going to take you to rehab.
Put yourself in the mind of an addict for a moment.
And I come to you and say, hey, addict, I've got a deal for you.
We're going to take away the thing that you care about the most, your drugs, but we're going to replace that with a sterile environment in which we take away all of your other forms of entertainment.
And it's really going to hurt.
But on the plus side, we'll talk to you.
We'll do some talking.
And that talking might help, but probably not.
So you're going to go to the worst place in the world, while you'll feel worse than you've ever felt before.
How about that?
Huh?
Huh?
Sign up?
Everybody good?
Come on!
Come on!
It's going to be terrible!
It's going to be hell on earth!
Come on in!
All right, now compare that.
Compare that.
I've got another option.
Instead of taking the fentanyl and the cocaine, How would you like to try this thing called ketamine?
Or this thing called mushrooms?
Oh, you've done mushrooms.
Okay, so you're already comfortable with that.
I'll tell you what we'll do.
We'll take you from the drugs you're on, which are awesome, but we're going to put you on some other awesome drugs.
Pretty awesome.
These might be so awesome that you won't even need those other ones anymore.
Yeah, I've been hearing about this thing called Ibogaine, but I don't know what that is.
I don't know anything about that, but I've heard it a few times.
Now, which one do you take?
You're an addict.
Does the addict take hell on earth?
Or, I got some other good drugs, you're gonna like them a lot.
Seriously.
Have I made my point?
We know that drug intervention is very strong.
We know the drug innovation, using psychedelics, very strong in terms of cure rates and fixing people.
And it sounds like fun, frankly.
If I'm an addict and you tell me I can do these other drugs and it might make me not even care about the ones I was doing, I'm all about that.
I'd be all over that.
Wouldn't you?
Remember, you're already a drug addict.
If you're already a drug addict, you're not saying no to ketamine, or mushrooms, or ayahuasca, or whatever they're going to use, DMT, I don't know.
All I want to make, I'm just going to make one point.
If you're still living in the world of two buckets, this is the Greg Gotfeld point, the prison of two ideas.
If you're in the prison of two ideas, then legalizing looks like the worst thing anybody ever thought of because it never works.
But the very moment you say, well, what would work?
And why don't we add that to the legalizing part?
It starts getting easy.
Am I wrong?
That the solution is sort of easy.
You just have to make it voluntary and offer a drug-related course that we know works.
So I think we might be closer to something, but I'm not in favor of turning drug addicts into criminals For some purposes of our own, I guess.
I don't know why we do that.
All right, here's another great thread about Google.
This is from Kanekawa and from his substack.
I've mentioned him before, if you want to look for him on Twitter.
So he would be one of the long Twitter threads that's as useful, you know, as like Adam Townsend or Michael Schellenberger, Matt Taibbi.
So, you know, it's that level of high quality.
Journalism, I guess, but Twitter journalism.
And I won't read it all, but basically we know for sure that Google manipulated search results and manipulated things to hurt Trump.
So there's a long body of evidence that's, you know, incontrovertible at this point.
So we know for sure that the 2020 election, and presumably others maybe, were a Subject to huge manipulation by both Twitter and Google.
Now does anybody have any doubt that manipulating those two platforms changes an election?
Does anybody think, oh that won't change anything?
There's nobody who believes that, right?
Then there is a professor, I can't remember his name, but we figured out, you know, the ratio of how much A biased search platform would change your outcomes.
It would be a lot.
There are things that have just disappeared.
They just can't find them if you look for them.
So, here's what I think Trump should do.
If you're talking about the platforms, Twitter and Google, and you could extend that to some others, is there any question that the elections recently have been rigged?
If you take out of the mix the ballot counting questions and just say, you could just even forget that.
Do you know why I think there's a good chance that the elections were not rigged in terms of the vote counting and the ballots?
Do you know the best argument for why the election probably wasn't rigged?
Here it comes.
The best argument for why the actual vote counting was straight is they didn't need to.
Because they had already rigged the law fair, right?
They changed the rules.
They had already rigged Google.
They had already rigged Twitter.
And they rigged the entire media.
They probably didn't need to.
Because all of those riggings are apparently legal.
Am I wrong?
Everything we found out about Google, everything we found out about Twitter, nobody's going to jail.
Those are just things we wish hadn't happened.
So I think Trump, his strongest play would be, you know, we should be working hard toward more transparency in the elections.
But you know what?
The question of whether they counted the votes right probably doesn't even matter.
Because Twitter and Google and the media, they largely moved the needle more than some cheating would have.
Because I don't think you can cheat enough.
in an election to, you know, move the needle that much.
I mean, you'd have to perfectly cheat in just the key areas where everybody's looking for the cheating.
It's kind of hard.
It's kind of hard.
But the stuff they did with the social media platforms was easy and legal.
And the stuff that the news lies about every day is easy.
Lying is easy and legal.
The news can lie to you all day long.
It's not even illegal.
So I think Trump should say that the elections have been rigged by the social media and the media.
And then say, you know, we're still looking into whether the election itself was rigged, but we need more transparency there.
All he'd have to do is tone it down, And emphasize the part that everybody can see with their own eyes.
It's definitely in evidence that it was rigged.
If rigging doesn't mean miscounting the votes, and it only means rigging the brainwashing.
So I think you can use the word rigging without any explanation beyond that.
What do you think?
Yeah, and we expect more rigging in the future.
So Google actually had a list of things that they were suppressing.
At the same time that their CEO was saying, oh, we don't do that, they actually had a list of websites and individuals that they suppressed.
Absolutely did the thing they said we absolutely don't do.
And they were doing it really hard while saying they don't do it.
All right.
So.
Rasmussen says that majority of people want to see a lab leak investigation about the virus.
So two-thirds of likely US voters want to want to see some kind of investigation.
And let's say 49% say it's very likely that the virus came from a lab leak.
49%.
What do you think would be Roughly the percentage who don't think it's likely the virus came from the Chinese lamb.
Anybody want to take a guess at that before I tell you?
I'll bet you can get it within 5%.
We'll see if you can do it.
I'll see if you can get it within 5%.
That'll be your test.
Looks like we lost comments here on Locals Platform.
We got a little bug, which will now be corrected, I think.
Nope.
Apparently not.
So it looks like Locals is not working at the moment.
Comments?
All right.
Sorry, Locals.
The Locals app has crapped out.
So the video's here, but I can't see your comments for some fucking reason.
God damn it.
Piece of shit.
All right.
That is so annoying.
It's funny that there's so much live streaming and podcasting, and there's still no platform that can just live stream and just work.
It just doesn't exist yet.
It's amazing.
All right.
I did a deep dive into long COVID to see what the latest is, and here's what I determined.
Because, you know, some people say long COVID isn't real.
Some people say it's not only real, it's huge.
But I did a deep dive and here's what I found.
In one movie, long COVID is totally real and ruining lots of lives.
And many studies support that view.
So that's in one movie.
So if you do a Google search, you'll find that.
Long COVID is real, it's affecting a lot of people, and it's ruining their lives.
You can also find studies that say long COVID is imaginary.
And that when you test people's vitals that say they have long COVID, it kind of looks like the average person.
So it's probably all in their minds.
So these two movies will never be reconciled.
Do you know why?
Do you know why we'll never know If long COVID was devastating a generation of people, we're absolutely imaginary.
Why will we never know that?
Because we don't have to.
Those two movies can live forever.
Because they're both consistent and you can live within them without any problems.
So if you get sick and you believe it's long COVID, it doesn't matter if it is or not.
You'll just go along with your life, you'll tell your friend it was long COVID, but you'll treat it based on the symptoms.
Whether it was long COVID or not long COVID, you'd probably treat it the same way, based on the specific symptoms.
So the people who will believe they have long COVID will go through life, they can interact with you, there's no penalty if they were wrong.
And likewise, the people who say there's no long COVID, They get sick.
They go to the doctor.
Doctor says, I think you have long COVID.
And the other person says, or just a headache.
And then they treat you for the headache or whatever it is.
And then you never need to know if it was long COVID.
Long COVID never needs to be solved because everybody can live in a complete movie where it's devastating or it's a nothing.
And somehow we still can procreate and have babies, which is all evolution ever cared about.
Anyway, so... And this dovetails with one of my critics who was right about everything, Mike Hart.
And he told me that when he looked into the situation of getting vaccinated or not, he said, quote, it was simple.
It was a simple decision.
It was simple.
Because he looked at the government not testing the thing as well as they could, and then the coercion.
If you take those two things, not tested, you know, it's a novel thing, hasn't been tested enough, and they coerce you to take it, it's a simple decision.
What do you think?
Agree?
It's simple.
I mean, those two things tell you everything you need.
And I would agree.
Because long COVID seemed complicated to me, because it was either the biggest factor or no factor at all.
But my car handled that by simply ignoring it.
And that turned out to be the right answer.
So if you simply ignored the biggest variable that mattered to the decision, because I don't think any of us were too worried about dying, The odds of dying were actually pretty low for most of us.
So I wasn't worried about dying.
But the biggest variable, this long COVID, if you just act like it's not even there, it simplifies everything.
Does it?
Wouldn't you agree?
I mean, that's as simple as you can get.
You know, just ignore the biggest variable.
And if you did that for every decision, imagine how easy it would be.
Just ignore the biggest factor in every decision.
And that would simplify everything.
It's a good recommendation.
And importantly, people like Mike Hart need to simplify the following, which is, you look at the VAERS report, and you see there's just way tons of people complaining about VAERS, which would suggest that the vaccination itself is causing damage that's higher than usual.
So it's really simple.
You just look at the VAERS report, but you can simplify it even more by not looking at all the studies about long COVID.
And that simplifies it.
So if you look at the VAERS report and you don't look at the counterbalancing risk of long COVID, just ignore it.
Everything's simpler.
And that gets you the right answer.
So that's not the way I would have necessarily known to go.
I would have looked at all the variables, especially the biggest one.
But ignoring the biggest variable did get you the best answer.
And the right answer.
Very non-obvious, and that's why I got it all wrong.
Herd immunity.
Now this is something I'm hearing for the first time.
Wait, are you saying that a previous infection to a virus could give you some kind of natural immunity?
I'm hearing this for the first time.
Is that true?
Because I need somebody to tell me that every five minutes for the rest of my fucking life.
Because I just can't remember it for five minutes.
Wait, I'm forgetting it again.
Somebody needs to remind me.
Is natural immunity real?
All right.
Yeah, so my bottom line on all this is it does appear that the worst conspiracy theories about Big Pharma were probably true.
Would you agree with that?
Would you agree that your conspiracy theories about Big Pharma, they look like they were completely true?
That there wasn't enough, not enough safety and maybe too much about money.
Totally true.
So pretty much all of our, everything you suspected, except maybe chemtrails, not so sure about chemtrails, but it feels like everything you suspected was true.
Yeah, it's not literally true that everything you suspected, but it feels like it doesn't.
It actually feels the depopulation part.
Sure, sure.
And the WEF is, Trying to, I don't know, track you and control you.
Let's accept it all.
All right.
That is all for now.
And unfortunately, I can't spend time with the locals people because the comments are broken.
I haven't seen any of your comments in a while.
I don't know if you can see them.
Actually, I'm going to sign off on YouTube, and then I'm going to see if I can get my comments back.
