Episode 2026 Scott Adams: Aliens, Ivermectin, Brainwashing, Fake News, Don Lemon, Logic Test & More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Vivek Ramaswamy reads the room well
Wokeness reeducation camp for Don Lemon
Logic test
DeSantis & Gaetz on defunding Ukraine
Powerful brainwashing of Americans
Tucker Carlson has the J6 tapes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Today we have a show, oh my god, it's gonna bend your brain, possibly break it.
If your brain is weak today, I might break it.
But it's gonna be fun all the way.
And aren't you glad you're here for this experience?
That will be called The Simultaneous Sip.
And all you need for that is a cupper, a mugger, a glass, a tanker, chalice, or stein, a canteen jug, or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dope of being here today.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called The Simultaneous Sip.
And don't you feel better already?
Go.
So good.
Well, let's jump into the news, the interesting stuff.
Prosecutors for the Alex Baldwin shooting case, where his prop manager or whoever it was got, cinematographer I guess, was killed.
And the prosecutors are dropping the firearm enhancement part of it.
Firearm enhancement.
Now the purpose of the firearm enhancement law is that if you do a crime without a gun, well that's bad.
But if you bring a gun to a crime, even if you don't shoot it, you would get extra years for sure.
Just sort of guaranteed, tacked on.
And that could have been five years.
Now, and I heard, I saw on Twitter, Jim Tomlinson was saying that he has good lawyers.
And that these good lawyers got this firearm enhancement charge dropped.
To which I say, I never even went to law school and I could have gotten that dropped.
Yeah, we're already private.
Well, we're private now.
Alright.
Wouldn't that be the easiest thing to drop?
Is the firearm enhancement?
The entire purpose of the firearm enhancement thing is to discourage criminals from bringing a gun.
That has nothing to do with making a movie that involves some firearms.
There's just no correlation between that charge and what happened in this very specific weird case.
So, am I wrong that I didn't go to law school.
Well, I know that part is right.
But I could have gotten that dropped.
I would just say, you know, that law has nothing to do with this situation.
You're just going to be embarrassed if you're prosecuted on this.
And then the prosecutors would say, yeah, we were just throwing that in there for negotiating.
All right, we'll get rid of that.
That was the easiest thing to get rid of.
I saw a tweet today which I am skeptical of, specifically because AI is now so good at imitating people's voices.
So if you remember yesterday, I showed an actual video of Anthony Blinken just talking.
And I asked people if they could tell if it was real or is it AI.
And it was real, as far as I know.
Because I got it from the news.
But a lot of people said, oh, that's definitely a fake.
Couldn't tell.
And now here's one that's also making me question what I'm seeing and hearing.
So James Hirsham tweeted a video which purports to show President Biden giving his talk that he gave recently about the weather balloons.
And purportedly, In a hot mic moment after Biden has exited the stage and he's backstage, we hear on the audio what seems to be Biden saying, quote, you think any of these guys bought that bullshit?
Followed by somebody saying, totally.
And then I couldn't make this out myself, but allegedly Biden says, they'll buy anything.
Let's get out of here.
So I couldn't make that out in the audio, but.
Somebody says.
Do you think that really happened?
That doesn't feel real, does it?
I'm going to go... Yeah, that's a little too on the nose.
Too on the nose.
I'm going to go with fake.
Preliminarily.
Now normally I say the government's guilty until proven innocent, but in this world where deep fakes are so easy, and you know, how many... I think I got fooled even today with a fake video.
Like, even today, I got fooled with a video that's from a different situation than the one purported, about the earthquake.
And it's so easy to be fooled by these videos, I just, I look at it and I go, maybe, but I'm not gonna make any decisions based on this being true.
Is that fair?
I think it might be.
It might be true.
But I wouldn't make any decisions based on it, because it's just not credible enough.
All right.
We continue to watch the antics of Vivek Ramaswamy, who is a Republican-leaning Let's see, ex-CEO, entrepreneur, who's saying a lot of things that the people on the right like to hear.
And he gave a tweet today that's almost perfect from a reading the room perspective.
So when I say almost perfect, that doesn't mean it matches my personal views.
It means he's really reading the room well, right?
So listen to this.
This is Vivek's tweet.
See if he's captured What Republicans want to hear.
He says, quote, end affirmative action, abandon climate religion, eight-year sunset clauses for bureaucrats, term limits, make political expression a civil right, ban addictive social media under age 16, declare independence from the CCP, embrace fossil fuels and nuclear, Decimate drug cartels.
Do it without apology.
Good?
What's your visceral reaction to that?
Yeah, I think he's reading the room well.
Okay, you're ahead of me on decimate, but you know I was going to get there, right?
So here was my response.
He says he wants to decimate the drug cartels.
Decimate means reduced by 10%.
That's what the DEC part of decimate means.
It's 10.
Reduced by 10%.
Now in common language, we've come to use it to mean completely obliterate.
But it really means 10%.
I don't mean to be the picky person, but given that there's exactly one candidate for president who said he would militarily annihilate the cartels, and no one else has said that.
And then the one person who looks like he's saying it uses the word decimate, which really means 10%.
Yeah, I'm aware that we're doing some word thinking here.
Totally aware of that.
But I can't get over the fact that it's only the second person who has said something tough about the cartels and used the only word that doesn't mean that.
Not the only word, but uses a word that literally doesn't mean that.
I don't know.
I don't love this.
Because one thing I am sure of is that Vivek knows what the word decimate actually means.
It feels Freudian.
Feels Freudian.
Like maybe he didn't mean completely destroy.
Now, that of course would be mind reading, right?
Would that be mind reading on my part?
Absolutely.
It would be.
So that's why I call this speculation.
If I said I can read his mind and he did this because he really internally thinks, that would be crazy.
I don't know what he thinks.
That would be crazy.
So if you do mind reading and you conclude that you know what's in there, that's just crazy.
And I call people out for that all the time.
If you say, I speculate, there might be two reasons why somebody would say such a thing.
One is they mean it, the other is there's some other reason.
That's just speculating.
Speculating's fine.
I don't mind anybody speculating.
Because if you label it as speculation, you're not being a jerk and saying, I know what somebody's thinking in their private thoughts.
That's just being sort of a jerk, really.
So I'm going to say that we don't know what he means, but I'd love clarity on that.
Because it's my number one issue.
Fentanyl.
Well, here's the funniest story of the day.
And if this doesn't make you laugh, nothing will.
CNN has decided that because Don Lemon said some things which are considered misogynistic on air, you all know those stories, that he's being, according to Chris Licht, or Licht, I don't know how to pronounce his last name, the head of CNN, that Don Lemon is getting, quote, formal training as well as continuing to listen and learn.
If you think anything is funnier this week than CNN sending Don Lemon to re-education camp, There's nothing funnier than that.
That is the funniest thing that is happening this week.
I'm sorry.
I don't care what you think is the other funniest thing.
You're wrong.
That is the funniest thing that's happening.
Don Lemon is being sent to a wokeness re-education camp by CNN.
And this is after CNN's new leader says, you know, you're too lefty biased.
And they're still sending him to wokeness re-education camp.
Oh, my goodness.
Now, at the same time this is happening, which could not be more entertaining to me, because he's going to have to come back and show you that he's... He's going to come back and when he's on air, he's going to have to prove to you that the re-education worked.
So what's he going to say?
How exactly is he going to prove that all the re-education worked?
Well, ladies and gentlemen, I used to have a bad opinion about women.
Older than the age of 45.
But thanks to Re-Education Camp, I believe that women are more awesome than I am their entire lives.
Entire lives.
So I'm glad we cleared that up.
Interestingly, I saw a tweet.
Let's see.
Clay Travis had a tweet.
Some other people as well.
There's a video of Don Lemon giving a little monologue from I don't know how long ago.
So prior to Trump, and prior to whatever happened to Don Lemon, happening.
And is it 2013?
It looks about right.
Based on his age, and it looks about 2013.
So let's say that's right.
I'm getting multiple people saying that, because they've seen the video.
In 2013, Don Lemon gave the best black leadership presentation that I've seen in America, Since I don't know when.
Like, since, you know, since King, basically.
It's the best thing I've seen.
Let me tell you what he focused on.
You should go see it yourself to see how well he did it.
But he talked about, I'd never heard this before, but he was talking about young black men who wear their pants without the belt below the butt.
Did you know that that comes from prison culture?
Because in prisons they're not allowed to have belts?
Well, a lot of you knew that.
That's interesting.
That's a little gap in my knowledge.
And on top of that, now remember, this is Don Lemon explaining it.
Remember, he's gay.
So when he explains this, it comes with some authority that I don't have.
And he says that the ones wearing their pants below their butt are signalling that they're submissive sexually in prison.
And that people outside of prison are adopting that style, and he's thinking maybe that's not the best thing anybody ever did.
Now, I don't know that the way you wear your pants is the top problem anywhere, but I am very sensitive to what I'd call the Jordan Peterson's theory, that if you don't get the little stuff right, you really don't have a chance with the big stuff.
And so where Jordan Peterson says, if you don't know where to start improving your life, clean up your room.
I hope I'm capturing that thought correctly.
Which I totally agree with.
You should start with whatever you can control, and then control the hell out of it.
Just control everything you can control.
Your room, your diet, your fitness.
Those things, who you interact with to a large extent, you can totally control those things.
What you learn, your talent stack.
So control the hell out of stuff you can control.
So I agree with that.
So I think there's something to it.
Sort of the broken windows causes crime, which has been debunked.
But I feel like the psychology of it still has some validity.
Even though you don't see it in actual crime stats.
My understanding is you don't see it.
But the other things that Don Lemon said was a big focus on school.
So he basically said if you want to be successful, here I'm paraphrasing, if you want to be successful and you're young and black, again I'm paraphrasing for him.
Here's how much money you'll make if you drop out.
Here's how much if you finish school.
Here's how much if you get a college education.
And it's, you know, wildly different.
So, there's Don Lemon focusing on, you know, presenting yourself in a way that other people will respect you.
Go to school so you're guaranteed you make money.
And he even talked about littering.
He said that this was amazing.
Just amazing.
Amazingly positive.
So, so, so good.
He talked about how he'd lived in predominantly white neighborhoods and he never saw anybody littering.
Now that's exaggeration, of course.
But then he was saying at the moment he was living in a predominantly black neighborhood and every day he sees people just drop something on the sidewalk.
Just drop it.
And he says, that's no way to succeed.
And I agree.
I totally agree.
That as soon as you let the little stuff be completely unquestioned, you don't have a chance with the big stuff.
That's just how our brains work.
And then he focused on, don't have kids on a wedlock, because it destroys your chances for success, or lowers them quite a bit.
There are plenty of people who made single parenthood work.
I don't want to take away from the people who have made that work, because there are plenty of them.
But as a statistical truth, it's hard to question.
Honestly, Don Lemon's interview there, I thought was one of the most productive and useful things, and probably one of the bravest.
Pieces of black leadership that I've seen in, I don't know, how long?
A long time.
I mean, I had a lot of respect for it.
So I'm sad that we lost that.
And I'm sad for the black community that they lost a voice that was prominent and that right.
He was that right.
He was right about everything.
So I don't know what broke him.
Must have been Trump.
All right, yesterday I was just playing around on YouTube.
And YouTube served up a recommendation of a video, and I don't know how old it is, I'm sure some of you have seen it, but it was Joe Rogan interviewing Bob Lazar, who claims to have been working on a secret government project in which he personally worked on UFOs that had been captured by the government in top secret operations.
He claimed that in his big warehouse, wherever he was working, one day they left the connecting doors open and he could see that there were nine different UFOs that were all different.
They had different models, but they were clearly not from this world.
And he actually touched one.
It had like some strange metal quality.
Not found on Earth.
And then he helped study it and found materials not found on Earth.
And I'll get to the debunking.
Don't worry.
You should know me better.
You should know me better by now.
Do you think I'm going to leave the debunking out?
And I'm just going to tell the story and let it just sit there?
Have you met me?
You know this is a setup.
Come on.
So I'm watching this thing, and I got totally drawn in.
Totally drawn in.
And I stayed up later than I wanted to watch the whole thing.
And let me tell you, it was convincing.
He did not look like he was lying.
He had all kinds of details.
And When it was done, I could barely sleep.
And then I woke up and I thought, you know, I should probably Google this.
It took about 30 seconds to find out he was a total Totally non-believable character.
So I don't know what's true and what isn't true, but let's just say he might be the least credible person on this topic.
So apparently his educational credentials were totally made up.
Now the thing that, the first thing that I caught that was my first red flag is I'm listening to it and he said that, you know, through some interaction that I forget, He was in his 20s and was brought in to work on this top secret UFO thing.
And I remember thinking, because it was one of the first things I saw when I turned it on, because I think it was already running when I turned it on.
And I thought to myself, what are the odds that you would bring in a scientist in his 20s for anything?
For anything?
Yeah, zero.
I would never bring in... If this were true, if we really had captured UFOs, if we really did, you would never bring in a scientist in his 20s, simply because they haven't seen enough.
Now, I'm not saying that your best scientist in the world couldn't be in their 20s.
Einstein, right?
Einstein.
But in the real world, where real people are hiring real employees, They don't know they have any Einsteins.
Yeah, and there are plenty of great scientists who did great things in their 20s.
No argument.
So let's be clear.
I'm not arguing that scientists in their 20s are less capable.
I'm not arguing that.
I'm saying in the real world, nobody would hire one.
It just would be very unusual.
Because you would want somebody who had the sweet spot of experience, which would probably be 30s and 40s.
Maybe 50s and 60s.
I don't want to sound like Don Lemon.
I don't want to say men and women are not in their prime when they're in their 50s.
But a scientist in their 50s has seen a lot of stuff.
Somebody in their fifties has seen a lot of stuff.
Somebody in their twenties might be excellent at science.
Maybe even better than anybody's ever been at science.
But they haven't seen many hoaxes.
That means a lot.
Somebody in their fifties has been fooled and then learned they were fooled a lot of times.
Because that's how science works.
You have a belief and then it gets debunked through your own work.
Anyway, I will just point out what I call the documentary effect.
As long as I was looking at one presentation, which was Joe Rogan letting Bob Lazar talk, it was completely credible looking.
The moment I spent 30 seconds, literally, just 30 seconds, Googling The person on the show and their background and what we do know about them versus what they've claimed, it completely falls apart.
I can't watch a man who finances his waterbed.
What?
And Hot Pocket says, in all caps, maybe you need to do a bit more research.
No, I don't.
No, I don't.
I do not need to do a bit more research.
If somebody says they're a scientist and they're not, I'm kind of done.
You know, you have to make some decisions about what you're going to research for the rest of your life, but you end up using these rules of thumb, you know, these little heuristics.
Here's my heuristic.
If a scientist makes a scientific claim, and then we find out with great deal of certainty that that person is not even a scientist, not even a scientist, I'm not going to do extra research on the claim.
Is that okay with you?
I'm going to use my rule of thumb and say, you know, maybe I'll spend some time researching something else with my limited time on this earth.
All right.
Here's the newest hoax, which I'm having a terrific time making people squirm on Twitter.
I recommend you do this.
All right.
So here's the hoax.
And I believe it's a hoax.
If I get fact-checked on this, I'll change my mind immediately.
It would be easy to fact-check.
You just give me one sentence that can be confirmed, and I'm done.
I'll just say, you're right.
I take back everything I said.
So it's very easy to fact-check me on this.
And what I'm claiming is a hoax is that the internal messages from Fox News that the Dominion lawsuit surfaced, that the internal communication shows that any of the hosts were intentionally lying on the air.
Now the left believes that was proven by the internal communications.
And so I say, could you show me the one example of that?
You say there are lots of examples, but just one.
And what they do is they'll tweet you articles.
And I'll say, OK, there's an article, but could you help me by taking out from that article any one statement that somebody said that you think they don't believe?
And there's evidence of it.
And then they say, ha, ha, ha, I guess you're hypnotized, or I guess you're a liar.
To which I say, no, this is really easy.
You're saying that the text messages themselves, which we've all seen, say that the hosts are lying when they talk in public versus what they say behind the scenes.
Just show me that sentence.
Just copy and paste it.
Here's the sentence, and you saw for yourself that they say something opposite in public.
Where's that sentence?
And so, what do they do?
They tweet another article that talks in generalities.
And then I say, but what's the sentence?
What is any one message that you say backs your claim?
It doesn't exist.
But watch how certain they are that it exists.
It's hilarious.
And then keep pushing them.
Okay?
And the one sentence is, I even got so far into this conversation that I had to give an example of what a sentence would look like.
That just happened.
I said the sentence would look like this, for example, Tucker claims X privately, but in public he said Y. Was that hard?
That's not hard.
The message says he believes this, in public he said this.
Simple.
Nobody can do it.
Do you know why they can't do it?
It doesn't exist.
They've come to believe that there's something there that they've seen, With their own eyes.
And when I asked them to go copy and paste it, the thing they saw with their own eyes, they can't find it.
They can only find other people who believe they saw it with their own eyes.
So all of their evidence is other people who can't produce the evidence either.
It's the damnedest thing, but hilarious.
So have fun with that.
If you can find somebody that will commit to that point of view, that Fox News showed their line, ask them for an example.
I'm pretty sure there is none.
All right.
Here's some fake news from CNN.
So they tweeted today, this is the quote from the CNN's tweet.
They said, quote, people who have had COVID-19 have a higher risk of developing diabetes, and that link seems to have persisted into the Omicron era, a new study finds.
So if I were to read the study that they're linking to, and their article about it, do you think I would find That people who've had COVID have a higher risk of developing diabetes, and that link seems to have persisted into the Omicron era, according to a new study?
No.
No, that's not in the story.
The story says very much not that.
Here's what the story says.
We found a correlation, but it's very likely the data is bad.
That's what the story says.
The expert says, it's very likely that, you know, there's something wrong with the data.
That's in the story!
Like, it says that directly.
The person who's, like, very familiar and working on the topic says, you know, we can't trust the data.
And then CNS says that they have a higher risk.
That is not demonstrated.
There's only a correlation demonstrated.
Now, it's a very bothersome correlation, but I don't really see the mechanism for it, do you?
Do you know?
Yeah.
So anyway, given that even the people involved with it don't think the data is reliable, CNN, acting as if they've shown a correlation, is their... Well, they have shown a correlation, but they haven't shown a causation.
How many times has the news suggested there's a causation when the article they link to does not suggest that?
Only a correlation.
Like all the time.
That's how they turn bullshit into news.
By acting like it's more than it is.
Just like the Fox News internal tweets.
You have to treat them like they're more than they are in your headlines or else nobody clicks on it.
Alright, Turkey had another huge earthquake, 6.4 on the Richter.
It's so bad that something between 40,000 and 80,000 people died in the last week or so.
Between 40,000 and 80,000 people?
Do you think that's true?
I don't even know how they count it.
But I don't have much to say about it, except that this is one of those few cases where you can do something that's unambiguously good for your own country.
And what would be unambiguously good for the United States, and anybody who wanted Turkey on their side, is to help.
Is to help.
And not ask them for anything in return.
Just help.
That goes a long way.
Goes a long way.
And so I'm always in favour of the US stepping up to help in these big global emergencies, because it's just good for us.
There was a time, was it in the 70s?
Help me, must have been the 80s.
Yeah, it had to be the 80s.
When there was some big, correct me if I'm wrong, there was some big earthquake in Russia, wasn't there?
And there were a lot of deaths and they needed some help.
And I believe the US sent, immediately sent, major aid to Russia.
Can somebody confirm that happened?
It was around the 80s.
I remember thinking to myself that if you're sending major, like, help to a country when it's in trouble, you should be friends with that country.
Like, the arc of history is just, like, trying to push you together.
It's trying to tell you to be friends.
Like, take a hint.
We should be friends with Russia.
Now, Putin's a problem.
You know, Putin's a problem.
But the Russian people and the Russian country?
We should be friends.
It's just crazy.
Like, we just don't have a natural reason to be enemies.
None.
No natural reason.
You know, you could imagine that there are some, you know, let's say Islamic countries or even Islamic You know, terrorist groups, who you can't make peace with because there's a fundamental difference that can't be resolved.
But we don't have any problems with Russia, except ones we cause.
Or they cause, right?
You know, because we think we're responding to the other all the time.
But it's just crazy.
Honestly, peace with Russia feels like the easiest thing we could do.
And yet we treat it like it's the hardest.
Feels like it's easiest.
Now, Putin might be the entire problem here, so maybe there's nothing you can do while he's in charge.
But certainly we should be working toward the obvious.
Now, if this were me, and probably Trump would do the same thing, if I were in charge, I'd be saying that all the time.
I'd be saying, in the long run, US and Russia are going to be allies.
It might not be during the time of Putin.
But there's nothing that can stop it from happening, because we don't have a reason to fight, and we have all kinds of reasons to get along.
Right?
The only person who is benefiting, maybe, are the arms industries, and at the moment Putin.
Putin might feel he has some benefits.
But not counting Putin, I'd say we're just natural allies, because we should be talking in those terms.
Because you want to make sure that if Putin gets serious about attacking the United States, you want to think that their public has already been primed to see the United States as an ally.
That would really help us.
And we should be.
We should be.
It's just hard at the moment.
All right, I'm going to give you a logic test.
So, I believe that this is the smartest audience in all of politics, but this logic test will tell me for sure.
All right?
So let's say there's a question of science about whether a pill works or doesn't work.
Let's keep it simple, just a hypothetical.
So there's a pill.
Yeah, this isn't the 25% thing.
I'm going in a different direction, so there's no survey involved here.
No survey involved.
Just a logic question.
All right.
And by the way, this is one you haven't seen.
So you haven't seen this question before.
So it's a question of whether a pill works or doesn't work.
It's binary.
It's a yes or no.
So if you don't know anything, what are the odds?
There's been no study.
What are the odds?
Unknown, right?
When the odds are unknown, and there's absolutely nothing to suggest which way you should go, I call it 50-50.
Now, the real odds are different, but you have to act on what you know.
What you know is you don't know anything.
Might work, might not.
There are two possibilities.
50-50.
Now, if you knew more things about, let's say, who made the pill and, you know, what the situation is, then maybe you could come up with some smarter statistical prediction.
But let's say you didn't know anything, except somebody who makes pills has made one and they say, we think it'll work.
I'd say 50-50.
All right, now, here's where it gets interesting.
There's a randomized controlled trial.
It's a big one.
And everybody looks at it and goes, I don't see any problems with it.
It gets peer-reviewed and published.
Now you've got a peer-reviewed, published paper study that indicates strongly that the pill works.
Double blind, yeah, it's a randomized controlled trial, so it has all the right things in it.
It's double blind, it has the number of people, you know, they set up the test right, it all looks good.
That's why the peer review published it.
Because on the surface, it all looks good.
Now, it's one paper, only one paper, but it's a really good study.
Now, what are the odds that the pill works?
What are your new odds?
Went from 50-50 when you literally knew nothing, Now what is it when there's a randomized controlled trial that says, looks really good?
Still 50%.
Because half of all studies turn out not to be reproducible, meaning they were not valid.
Half.
Half.
So having a randomized controlled trial Your ears are apart, you have to see if you can follow me on this.
We went from knowing nothing whatsoever and saying it's a coin flip, 50-50, because I don't know anything.
Then we knew a lot.
Then we went to know a lot.
A whole randomized controlled trial where they did everything right, on the surface.
It's still a coin flip.
It didn't change anything.
It went from a coin flip to a coin flip.
How many of you got that right?
How many of you knew that it didn't change the odds?
The odds are exactly the same, 50-50.
I'm just letting this sink in for a little while.
Okay?
Yeah, and some of you are squirming a little bit and complaining, but other people are saying, yes, that's right.
I think I did it right.
All right, now let me extend it a little bit.
Now there's a second trial.
It's a randomized control trial, and it's different people, you know, and they also do a good job, and they reproduce the study.
Now you've got two high-quality studies that agree.
What are the odds now that the pill works?
What would you say?
I'm going to go with the locals comment 60-40.
There's no way to know, but definitely it improves the odds.
So if you say it goes to 60-40, I would accept that.
I mean, that's in the reasonable territory, right?
We'd be just guessing at that point.
And then let's say there are 10 more studies and they all point in the same direction.
Well, then you have something.
Then you're up around 80-90% odds that you're in good shape.
So, I think we get that wrong all the time.
We're always thinking that a study tells us something.
Like the first one?
And then suppose there's just one randomized controlled trial, but there are a bunch of meta studies and backward-looking studies, retrospective studies, and all that.
And let's say that's part of it.
I don't give them any weight anymore.
In our current stage of science, I just sort of ignore them all and look at the randomized controlled trial.
All right.
Here's your next logic question.
Let's say, and this is not the case, this is a hypothetical.
Let's say Ivermectin was tested in a randomized controlled trial.
And let's say, and again, this is not based on reality, this is just what-if, right?
We're in what-if land.
What if Ivermectin had been tested in a randomized controlled trial, and what if they did the trial the way you want?
Which is they added the zinc and they did it on time, which we haven't seen.
But let's say they did it right.
Let's say they did it right in a way that even all of us would look at it and say, oh yeah, they administered it at the right amount, in the right time, and with zinc, they did everything right.
And let's say that at the end of the trial, the placebo helped 30% of the people, or at least they said it did, and ivermectin matched that, about 30%.
What's your conclusion?
Does ivermectin work or not work?
The placebo, reliably a placebo will be between 30 and 60%.
So the placebo works for sure at 30% and ivermectin shows about the same, 30%.
Does ivermectin work?
Logic question.
This one's a trick question.
I only saw one right answer so far.
No, don't say about known effects.
I'm talking about the only thing you know is the trial.
All right, here's the correct answer.
The placebo healed 30% of the people who took it.
So even if it's a placebo, it works.
The placebo effect is real.
People really get better.
They actually get better.
So if ivermectin were making 30% of the people better, for any reason, even if it's psychological, even if there's no chemical activity at all, wouldn't you let the people take it?
30% of them are going to get better?
Look how hard a question that was.
Isn't that interesting?
Why was that a hard question?
Just examine your own thinking process and now remember the question.
I told you that 30% of the people who took this pill were healed.
Why wouldn't you let people take a pill that fixed 30% of the people taking it?
There's no question here.
Because we all agree there's no risk of side effects, right?
The ivermectin is too well known.
We would know about the side effects by now.
But is anybody's mind spinning right now that so many of you got that question wrong?
30% of the people were healed and you said, no, that doesn't work.
I just told you it works.
And that in my situation, it was a hypothetical, so you're not really questioning that it worked, and you still wouldn't give it to people.
Even though 30% of the people are healed?
No, I'm not spinning.
What do you mean I'm spinning?
Am I spinning because you think I'm either in favor or not in favor of ivermectin?
This has nothing to do with ivermectin.
I just use it as an example.
You could substitute any pill in this case.
The pill was irrelevant.
It's just, if 30% are getting better, why wouldn't you use it?
Now, here's why I think ivermectin would have a stronger placebo effect than other drugs.
Do you think anybody was in the ivermectin trial who didn't have a strong opinion of ivermectin?
They all have a strong opinion.
It's not like a random pill that you never heard of.
Probably the people in that trial, half of them, were sure it was going to work.
If you take a pill that you know has no side effects or nothing important that we can find, and you were totally sure it was going to work, don't you think it would?
More likely than not?
Yeah.
Because the mental healing, we don't know why, but the thing that people sometimes get wrong is that the placebo effect they imagine is only happening in somebody's head.
That's wrong.
Their body is actually healing.
Did you know that?
The placebo effect you can actually check under a microscope, check their blood pressure, check their blood work, they actually get better.
It's not a case where they imagine they got better.
You can test it.
They actually got better.
And we would, apparently, we would deny people a pill that would make 30% of them totally get better because the placebo did the same thing.
Does that make any sense?
If there were one time when you should allow the placebo to do what it does, it would be ivermectin.
But that apparently has some legal ramifications, right?
The legal ramifications are if the ivermectin works, maybe the emergency authorization can't be valid or something for the vaccinations.
So anyway, everything about ivermectin is messed up.
But there's a new randomized controls trial that seems to indicate it has no effect on COVID.
What do you think the critics said in five seconds?
The test was designed to fail.
I don't know, maybe.
I don't disagree with that.
I just note that there is a study that confirms the other randomized controlled trials.
I think all of the RCTs, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe all of the high quality studies say it doesn't work.
And I will allow your criticism.
That they were all designed incorrectly.
Maybe.
Maybe.
But I think in the real world, people would wait seven days to take it.
But, you know, I don't know.
I do think they should have tested, you know, as prophylactically as possible.
Merck is buying up Ivermectin companies in India.
How could there be an Ivermectin company?
You mean they just make generics, right?
So they're just buying up generic companies.
Which would make sense.
All right.
Alex Berenson is not a believer in ivermectin and believes that the studies have debunked it.
Does that surprise you?
Remember, Alex Berenson is the one who's going to be, you know, he's primed to criticize the government and, you know, Big Pharma and all that.
You would expect that he would be a believer, wouldn't you?
Wouldn't you?
But I respect the fact that he's consistent about this.
I don't know it's true.
I don't know it's true.
But I respect the fact that he can do things which would be pro-mainstream and also things that are anti-mainstream.
Which is very good for his credibility.
Would you agree?
The ones I don't trust are the ones who say everything the government and pharma said is wrong.
I mean, might be, but doesn't sound likely.
Seems like they would get some right just by accident, just by chance.
So when you see somebody who can be on both sides of the mainstream, that's useful.
So I'm going to give him a shout out for, I don't know if he's right, but his credibility has definitely benefited him there.
All right.
I saw a Stephen McIntyre tweet that said Fauci cancelled the various tests for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and stuff when the remdesivir trial came in and looked promising.
I think that was the phrase Fauci used, looked promising.
And then he cancelled the other stuff.
What do you think of that?
Wasn't Remdesivir, wasn't there some suggestion, I don't know if it's proven, that Fauci had some way to benefit from that, or some connection to the company that makes it?
There was some speculation that he wasn't objective there.
He has patents.
Yeah, I don't know the situation, but did Remdesivir change everything?
Isn't there still a question of whether it makes any difference?
I mean, the latest I saw was that it does, but it can't make that much difference.
Yeah, I don't know if it matters or not.
But we can say about Dr. Fauci, if this is true that he cancelled those other tests because of remdesivir, this is either some good sciencing, Maybe.
If it turns out Remdesivir does work, at least a little bit, and it turned out that all of these other things were so obviously BS that they were a waste of time, then Fauci would be a good scientist who made a tough call that the public didn't like, but he got it right and we're glad he did.
Possible.
Here's the other possibility.
If you follow the money, It's possible that Fauci is a mass murderer and killed millions of people who could have benefited from alternative therapies by cancelling them for the one that would make him the most money.
Those are both possible.
I don't know which one's true.
Now, I share your, let's say, conspiratorial thinking on this, that it's all about the money, but I will give you this one Rule of mind.
If you follow the science, you will be misled.
If you follow the money, you will not.
Science has become just another way to bamboozle the public.
Unfortunately.
Because science is so politicized at this point, you can't trust anything on climate change or really anything on COVID.
I wouldn't trust any of it.
I would trust science if it's a topic that the public doesn't care about too much.
You know, a strictly technical topic.
Yeah, I think science is good for that.
But as soon as you enter the political realm, science is just a form of disinformation.
Does anybody disagree?
Which is not to say they don't sometimes get it right, but how would you know?
There would be so much wrong, you wouldn't know which ones were right.
Like the ivermectin trials.
Some of them are right and some of them are wrong.
I don't know which ones.
No way to tell.
So science is largely useless as soon as it intersects with politics.
But money isn't.
Money works every time.
If you follow the money, you always find out what the problem is.
It's just so reliable.
Now, I won't say 100%.
I guess that's too far.
But maybe 95% of the time.
Yeah, trust the science.
Trust the science is something liars say.
That's what liars say.
Question.
You know that Biden went to Ukraine and was hugging it out with Zelensky and he's giving him more money.
I guess Russia has declared that the U.S.
is in a war with Russia because apparently the U.S.
has green-lit attacks on Crimea, which Russia says is part of Russia.
Now, imagine this.
Sorry.
Imagine this.
Imagine that Trump had been president and did anything that Biden is doing with Ukraine.
Anything.
Any of it.
Any part of it.
How in the world would we be okay with that?
We wouldn't be.
Our entire opinion of Ukraine is based on the person who's over there.
It's not based on Ukraine.
It's entirely based on internal politics.
I'd like to slam some people who desperately have it coming.
There is a type of politician that is starting to piss me off more than the typical liars.
DeSantis is one of them.
And Matt Gaetz is another.
And I like both of them.
I like both of them.
But here's what's pissing me off.
So, Matt Gaetz would be one of the most vocal voices for defunding Ukraine.
How many of you would like to defund Ukraine?
The war in Ukraine?
Just like, stop it.
Just stop it cold right now.
A lot of you, right?
Now, I sympathize with that position.
And DeSantis makes some general statements about Ukraine, but nothing useful.
And then people say he's a genius.
He's a genius.
He's not like Biden.
But DeSantis doesn't say he would stop funding.
Does he?
So, here's what I would like.
If Matt Gaetz wants us to stop funding, he needs to describe what happens when we do.
Because this is another one of those vaccination questions, where people just look at one side and say, I don't trust the people who made them, and so I'm done.
That's what we're doing with Ukraine.
I don't like giving them my money, so that's the end of my analysis.
That's like a child's analysis.
Here's what I want to say.
I want to see Matt Gaetz or anybody who wants to stop the funding.
Which, by the way, I'm very sympathetic with stopping the funding.
But I would never say such a thing without adding the rest.
And it looks like this.
I think we should stop the funding.
I'm completely aware that that means that Russia will take over and destroy Ukraine and execute all their leaders that are our allies.
I'm completely aware this will make America look like a paper tiger and NATO look like a waste of money.
I'm completely aware that this could cause the domination of Russia over Europe.
I'm completely aware that Europe is dumb enough to reopen their pipelines and become dependent on Russia again.
I'm okay with all of that.
I just don't want to fund them.
That's what the truth looks like.
Right?
Now, if Matt Gaetz or anybody else has a different opinion, let's hear it.
Because maybe the opinion is Europe will step up and fund it if we leave.
I don't believe that.
I believe that without America they lose.
But it's possible.
It's possible.
I just don't see it.
I think you would need American leadership for this to continue to be a military competition.
I don't think it would be a competition without that.
Is that fair?
Is it fair to say that the Stop the Funding people have a good argument so far, but if they don't add what it looks like without it, I mean, it's mass starvation.
It's a holodomor, too, and I think we would be responsible for it, you know, accidentally.
I mean, if we let Ukraine get into its current situation and then pull funding, am I wrong that it's mass starvation?
It would be the second Holocaust-like thing in Ukraine in a hundred years.
What do you mean, please stop?
Please stop what?
Have I said something that isn't obvious and true?
Please stop what?
Alright, so if we gave them humanitarian aid, that would be a good opinion.
So let's say Matt Gaetz said, let's stop giving them military aid and go to humanitarian aid.
Do you think it would be much less?
It's going to be a lot.
The humanitarian aid could last forever as well.
Putin wants diplomacy?
I don't know, maybe.
He wants things his way, however he gets it.
I didn't see any pushback on my point that the people who want to stop funding, they have a responsibility to describe what happens.
Anybody disagree?
Is there any disagreement?
There is disagreement.
Let me give you the strongest argument for why we could just pull funding and just let them work it out.
The strongest argument is it's just not our country.
But we did break it.
You know, it's sort of the you break it, you bought it theory.
We broke Ukraine.
Because if we had not been there, the Russians would already be in charge and, you know, there would be some kind of form of order.
Just the Ukrainians would be very, very unhappy about it.
Yeah.
Well, all right.
What do you think about defending Taiwan before we have to do that?
So Rasmussen did a poll and it said most voters are willing to commit U.S.
naval and air power to defend Taiwan.
79% of the likeliest voters would support the U.S.
imposing economic sanctions on China if they invaded Taiwan.
And that's a lot, but that's economic.
Let's see.
But there are plenty of people who would be pleased for the U.S.
to get into a military conflict with China over Taiwan.
Now, here's my Taiwan opinion.
Taiwan is going to be part of China.
Sorry.
And I think that geography is just too important.
It's just too important.
Project Gematos.
Now, I don't have a better idea.
If Taiwan lost its It's system to China.
I would feel very bad for Taiwan.
I would feel like the US let down an ally.
We would lose access to their technology and their production and their chips.
It would be terrible for the US.
But it's going to happen anyway.
That's my take.
If something's going to happen anyway, you should just figure out the best way to, you know, get past it.
And I don't know if a war is the best way.
So, All right, let's move on.
I tweeted this.
I don't want to get into the details of this, but it's just amazing.
I tweeted this.
If you ever wondered how powerful brainwashing is, consider that the media convinced half of the country that we once had a president who called neo-Nazis fine people in public, and that he recommended drinking bleach for COVID in public.
Half of the country believes those two things actually happened.
Now, I've spent countless hours debunking those things and other hoaxes, but I would like to call on a better method than going into all the detail.
How about this?
If you really believed that a President of the United States, in public, With plenty of warning, so it didn't like slip out, he knew exactly what he was saying, prepared his comments, and then called neo-Nazis fine people.
There's something wrong with your brain.
You should know without any research whatsoever that that didn't happen.
And then let's say you hear that a president recommended drinking bleach.
You shouldn't have to do research to know that didn't happen.
Right?
I didn't have to do research to know that my government did not shoot down UFOs.
I didn't have to research that.
It's sort of obvious, right on the surface.
Alright, so let's get to another hoax.
The January 6th hoax, which half of the country has been brainwashed into thinking was an insurrection.
Once again, Do you need to do research to know that Republicans don't stage an insurrection without weapons?
Did you really need to research that?
Because if you did, you're really stupid.
You're really stupid if you think that was an insurrection without weapons.
Now, I know when I bring this up, people go, oh, but there were weapons.
Okay, so you believe that they brought them but didn't use them for their insurrection.
It's still stupid.
You can't get to smart with that opinion.
You can't get there.
It's just stupid.
And we shouldn't have to explain it to anybody.
Like, at some point, you just have to shake your heads and say, seriously?
You believe that?
Now, is there a...
Let's say a right-leaning version of that?
Is there anything that Republicans believe that you shouldn't have to even research?
It's just sort of obviously not true.
Anything like that?
Can you think of any?
Well, depopulation... I don't know.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Yes, the depopulation one.
Right.
Yeah, that's a good example.
If you actually believe that the World Economic Forum wants to reduce the population of Earth from its current level, actually to have fewer people in the future, if you believe that, you shouldn't have to research to know that that's not true.
That shouldn't require any research to know that that's not true.
All right.
So I guess Speaker McCarthy is releasing over 40,000 hours of video footage from January 6th from the various security cameras, I guess.
And it's stuff that nobody is, well, nobody on the right is seeing apparently.
But it's released to Tucker Carlson and his producers.
And so they're going to spend the week going through it, I guess, and then next week they'll tell us what.
Tucker teases that they've already seen something that directly contradicts the official narrative.
As others have noted, do we have to wonder what we're going to see?
Do you have to wait to see the video to know what it's going to show you?
You don't have to wonder.
Remember?
Let me tell you exactly what you're going to see.
If it's on Tucker Carlson's show, it will show you that it wasn't the insurrection you thought, and that maybe somebody opened the doors for them and they just walked in.
Am I right?
It will definitely show that.
Even if it didn't happen, it will show that.
Because it's what you want to see.
Now, when the Democrats look at all the same footage, because they'll look at whatever is released, do you think they're going to see what you see?
Or what Tucker says you should see?
No.
They're going to look at exactly the same footage and say, I don't see it.
And then you're going to say, well, it's right there.
And then they're going to say, where?
And you're going to say, right there.
It's right there.
Look at this.
And then they're going to say, I'm looking at it.
I don't see what you see.
Who's going to be right?
Who will be right?
Nobody.
Because whatever you see from Tucker will be out of context and we won't know anything.
I wouldn't trust anything I saw on video on the news.
It's 2023.
If you would trust anything you see on video on the news, I would suggest that that's a gullible position in 2023.
It doesn't matter who produces it.
It doesn't matter if it's Project Veritas or CNN.
It doesn't matter.
Because even when people don't intend to fool you, They're still in their little bubble, and so when they put together what you need to know, it's not going to be unbiased.
It's going to be biased.
So you can guarantee that Republicans will see whatever they expect to see.
You can guarantee that the Democrats will say, we don't see it.
We're looking at the same stuff you are.
Don't see it.
Or it doesn't matter, or it's out of context, or something.
So there's nothing we're going to learn from this.
That's my prediction.
My prediction is you will learn nothing.
What do you think?
I mean, it might strengthen whatever beliefs you already have, but it's not going to change anybody's minds about anything.
All right, I hope I'm wrong.
Here's what Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat, says about all this.
He says, McCarthy giving 40,000 hours of January 6th tape to pro-Putin journalist.
That's Tucker.
He's calling him a pro-Putin.
Journalist.
It is an astounding ethical collapse.
What security precautions were taken to keep this from becoming a roadmap for 2024 insurrection?
Why isn't it available to all media and public?
Smell the MAGA propaganda coming.
Well, Raskin has, first of all, a good point.
If the only place it's released to is Tucker Carlson, I do not trust the reporting on it.
Is that fair?
And not because I don't trust Tucker.
It's because the situation is blatantly ridiculous.
Blatantly ridiculous.
It's ridiculous.
I don't favor this at all.
Either release it to everybody, or just admit it's a propaganda exercise.
So as it is, I wouldn't believe anything that Tucker reports.
And I trust Tucker.
I actually have a good opinion of Tucker.
But the setup, it wouldn't matter if it's Tucker or anybody else.
It wouldn't matter who it is.
The setup is you should not trust it.
So I will feel very disappointed in anybody who trusts anything that comes out of that reporting.
If everybody got to see it, so there was a counterpoint if there is one, maybe.
Maybe.
I did not say Tucker's a liar.
Did I?
Let's be clear.
Did I say Tucker is a liar?
No.
No.
I've not seen any evidence to support that.
Not in any other situation as well.
No.
I'm saying that if people who have a certain worldview are deciding what you can see and what you don't see, don't trust it.
It wouldn't matter who it was.
It's irrelevant to the personality.
My point has nothing to do with Tucker.
As long as it's just one person on one side, I don't trust it.
Neither should you.
But neither do I trust Jamie Raskin for saying that Tucker is pro-Putin.
The evidence for that would be nothing.
So when you say that somebody is pro not being at war with Russia, that's not exactly pro-Putin, is it?
I don't know anybody who's pro-Putin.
Literally nobody in America.
Nobody.
I only know people who don't want to be in a war with Russia.
So to go from, well it's just disgusting when an elected representative goes full McCarthyism, no pun intended, and labels a prominent member of the press and an important one, one of the most important I would say, top ten for sure, Labeling that person a pro-Putin.
I mean, that is an ethical collapse that is just disgusting.
Like, I actually had a feeling of revulsion when I read it.
Like, not just, this is wrong, or something.
Like, revolted.
Like, it makes me sick that I live in a country with somebody like Representative Jamie Raskin.
It's just such a terrible thing for an elected official to say about a citizen.
You know, I get that Tucker's a public figure, right?
He gives as good as he gets, right?
So yeah, he can take a punch.
But still, he wasn't an elected official.
Tucker is somebody trying to give you the news and opinion.
And I'm not okay with that.
I'm just not okay with that.
And it wouldn't matter if Trump said it or a Republican said it, I'm not okay with it.
You can't be calling American citizens pro-Putin, or any words to that effect, unless you've got some receipts.
And I'm pretty sure there's nothing pro-Putin in anything Tucker's ever said.
Pro not being at war with Russia, yes.
You think Tucker's getting paid?
Really?
I don't know.
He seems a little bit unbribable.
I don't know what his income is, but at some income level, you're kind of unbribable, aren't you?
Like, I feel I'm unbribable.
What kind of bribe would I take?
When people accuse me of being on the payroll of something, how would that ever make sense if you're already rich?
Do people who are already rich take bribes?
I don't know why you would.
Now, if somebody offered me, like, a billion dollars, you know, then I'll tell you, well, you know, maybe that would influence me.
But who could offer me, like, enough money that somehow would be under the radar that would make some difference to me?
That I would sell out my soul?
You think I'm going to sell out my soul for a little extra money?
It wouldn't make any sense.
Would you?
You know, if you had enough money to be comfortable, And you just didn't need it anymore.
Would you take a bribe?
You'd sell your soul for a little extra money that you don't need at all.
Like, is your soul worth nothing?
Like, I'd like to think my soul has some value.
And I can't imagine what I would sell it for.
But, you know, less than a billion wouldn't get it done.
I suppose that means I'm unethical because I'd go for a billion.
I don't know if I'd go for a billion.
It would depend on the... I suppose it would depend.
Depend how bad the lie was.
I wouldn't tell a bad lie for a billion dollars.
But I might, like, you can imagine convincing yourself, well, if I had the billion, it's not such a bad lie, and I could use that billion for good, you know, you could talk yourself into it.
But I'd like to think I would resist.
All right.
So, Russia and Ukraine.
I'm following an account I mentioned before and I don't know who to believe.
You know, I think we can all agree you don't believe anything that comes from Ukraine or the pundits or from Russia.
It's all unreliable.
But I'm following a thread that purports to Think that Russia is running out of ammo.
Now the counterclaim is they can't run out of ammo, they make ammo.
They'll just make as much as they need.
But the counter to the counter is that you're thinking of the Soviet Union.
This is the first time I've heard this.
I don't know if it's true.
So consider this something to be fact-checked.
The claim is that the Soviet Union was in fact able to make tons of ammo, because they had the manufacturing to do that.
But that Russia doesn't have the same industry, and that they actually have a smallish ammo making industry, and that they're using more than their industry can make.
So if they don't buy it from other countries, which they're desperately trying to do, they just can't make enough.
They'll just run out, basically.
Does that sound believable?
What does seem to be believable is that Russia is trying to get ammo wherever they can.
And they're trying to get really old ammo that's been in Africa and other countries for a long time.
Do you think they would try so hard to buy ammo from all these sketchy sources if they could make as much as they needed?
It doesn't feel like They would do that.
Now I suppose, you know, if their one place they made ammo got destroyed accidentally, accidentally, you know, maybe they think they need to diversify their source just in case their domestic manufacturer goes down for some reason.
But it feels like desperation.
Can't know for sure.
But they seem to be going so far out of field to get ammo, it suggests there's a problem.
Now the Ukrainians, it is suggested, not by me, but by people who purport to know more than I do, that the Ukrainians will be in better shape with ammo.
Because they have so many backers, and we have manufacturing as well.
So I don't know if to believe that or not.
But I think one of the storylines is that Russia just will run out of assets, because their artillery barrels are melting.
This is something else I didn't know until recently.
Did you know that artillery guns wear out?
You can only shoot them for so long, and you have to change the whole barrel.
And if you're in a hot war, you can't really change barrels.
It's just too hard to get the base back to the factory, refitted, then back to the war zone.
It's just too hard.
So, they may be running out of artillery, because the Ukrainians have more accurate stuff.
They can be cleaned, but apparently there's a melting that happens too.
Alright, I was waiting for the NPC idiots.
Alright, idiot number one.
I'm just going to call out all the idiots.
OMG, Scott has only got one lens to look through.
Now this is after you heard me say that it's all undependable.
And you couldn't understand that concept?
Was that too difficult for you?
Let's just call out the rest of the idiots.
I just want to call out the idiots who think that only looking through one lens, he's only got one eye.
Anybody else?
Because it's the stupidest comment.
I just want to see how many of you want to volunteer to be idiots in public.
Go ahead.
All right.
Anyway, so we don't believe that, but who knows?
All right, so Putin says he's going to suspend participation in the new START treaty, which would be about nukes.
Does that make any difference?
Well, I thought Putin was violating all the nuke agreements anyway.
I don't know.
I thought it made no difference.
Yeah, probably no difference.
Barrel changes are planned.
They're planned, but they're pretty difficult.
Yeah, I'm not saying that they wouldn't Wouldn't be able to change some barrels.
I'm just saying that in the war zone it's gonna be pretty tough.
Keeps it off the market.
Yeah.
All right.
And I'd like to end on something that I know will be a crowd pleaser.
Today I realized I'm an asshole.
I'll give you the specifics.
But do you ever go through life thinking, I'm a pretty good person.
I'm a pretty good person.
I did some good things today.
I helped some people.
I paid my taxes.
I saw some litter on the street.
I picked it up.
Nobody was even watching.
Yeah.
I recycle.
I recycle better than you do.
I recycle more than you do.
I'm better than you.
That was the feeling I had about myself until this morning.
And then I realized, I have a thing called a luxury opinion.
Do you know what a luxury opinion is?
A luxury opinion is something that doesn't make a lot of sense, but it makes you feel good and look good for having that opinion.
Here's my luxury opinion.
We should stop funding the war in Ukraine.
That's an asshole opinion.
That's a total asshole opinion.
Why?
I just told you.
Because I didn't tell you what would happen if we stopped funding them.
Right?
If I leave out what is the downside of doing that, I'm just an asshole who's trying to look good by saying I don't want to fund a war.
That was my realization about myself.
I was like, Jesus.
Seriously.
By the way, this is an honest opinion.
I'm not joking.
I actually had this opinion about myself.
I was like, I'm just an asshole.
I'm a total asshole.
Right?
You agree.
If I want to stop the war because it sounds good, it's sort of like being in favor of climate change without understanding anything about the implications of getting rid of fossil fuel.
That's a luxury opinion.
Oh yeah.
It's just a total asshole opinion.
I don't know.
Every once in a while you have to examine yourself and say, are any of my opinions luxury opinions?
Where they just sort of sound good when you say them in public, but you can't back it up at all.
I can't back that opinion up.
I totally cannot back that opinion up.
But I have it.
I have that opinion.
I just can't back it up.
All right.
I knew that would be a crowd pleaser.
Scotty is a neocon.
No, I'm the opposite of a neocon.
I would definitely press for negotiations.
But anyway, if anybody asks, I'll have that luxury opinion.
Oh yeah, I'm in favor of not funding wars because I'm a good person.
I'm a good person.
That's why.
I'm not just an asshole.
All right.
Oh, there's a long paragraph there.
All right, everybody.
That concludes my prepared remarks.
Was any of this fun?
Did you enjoy today's livestream?
Some say, "No!
I don't like your ivermectin opinions.
I don't like your Ukraine opinions, damn it.
Did you finance your waterbed?
What is this about a waterbed?
Dave Smith owns me.
Dave Smith doesn't even know my opinion.
Ask Dave Smith what my opinion is.
If he can even describe my opinion.
I'll be amazed.
I'd be amazed.
There's still some people who don't know that 4chan played a hoax on all of you about my opinions of the pandemic.
You know that's all a hoax on you, right?
Ben Garrison people.
They were all hoaxed.
All right.
Erica, blah, blah, blah.
Are you hypnotizing your audience?
Not consciously.
What do I think of Peter Zahan?
Every time I hear Peter Zahan talk, it scares me to death.
Because he has some scary opinions about the future.
He's speculating like a lot of us.
I don't know what his track record is.
I like his opinions.
When he shows his opinions, he shows his work.
So I appreciate that.
It doesn't mean he's always right, but he shows his work.
That's as good as you can do.
All right.
Just tell... Zayn has been wrong forever.
Has he ever been right?
His suit's thread.
What's that?
Nunya says, "You have no opinions.
You fence it and work in probabilities of outcomes so you can backtrack.
What do you think of that?
Here's the dumbest opinion of the day.
All right, so none of your business says about me.
You have no opinions.
You fence it and work in probabilities of outcomes so you can backtrack.
If you don't think in probabilities, you don't have a functioning brain. - Thank you.
You know that, right?
Am I telling you this for the first time?
I hate to break it to you, but if you're not thinking exactly the way you're criticizing me for thinking, you need probably to be institutionalized.
Because that sounds like serious mental illness.
If you think that you have certainty about the future, that would be mental illness.
But if you say, well, there's an 80% chance this happens, but then it doesn't happen, you say, well, I said 80% chance, but there was a 20% chance it wouldn't happen.
And you think that that's bad thinking.
You should really get some professional help.
Only Siths deal in absolutes.
Thank you.
Only Siths.
You read about me in your business management course in college?
I hope it was positive.
Make God laugh.
Tell him your plans.
I like that.
Biden is pretending to be senile.
Maybe.
All right.
Try to predict your next words.
I'm better than cats.
Thank you.
All right.
All right, YouTube, that's all for now.
I'm going to go talk to the locals group privately.
