Episode 2077 Scott Adams: Masks Prove Science Ineffective, Newsom's Persuasion, CNN Mind Readers
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Masks prove science is ineffective
Government backed propaganda (media)
Fake news from the AP about me
CNN mind readers power up to take out Trump
Biden's EV mandate evaluated
Newsom's game
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
I don't think there's ever been a finer time in your life or in the history of The entire universe.
But if you'd like to take it up a notch, and I know you can, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, whether you're in Pleasanton today or not.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go.
Oh, Joe says, real adults don't play sipping games.
who Who hurt you, Joe?
Was there something in your past that hurt you?
Well, let's talk about all the news, which is delightful and entertaining today.
Number one, you all know left-leaning Cenk Uyghur?
Cenk Uyghur?
Whose name I can never pronounce, but I can spell it.
C-E-N-K.
You all know who he is, right?
He tweeted this today, and I'm going to give him credit for this.
I have to admit, Cenk, even though he's solidly on a team, He does occasionally see the whole field and let you know that he can see it.
So I do have respect for his opinion because I don't respect anybody who can't see the other side's point of view.
He can see it.
But sometimes prefers, you know, the other point of view.
That I respect.
But if you can't even explain the other side, then I don't have much respect for your opinion.
You have to at least understand the other point.
So here's Cenk tweeting this.
He says, there's a 0% chance I would vote Trump.
But look at how the right wing accepts people who agree with them 5%.
Whereas the left wing tries to banish anyone who disagrees with them, 0.05%.
But that's not the real left.
It's a bunch of posers pretending to represent the left.
Now, he sees it, right?
Now, I would say that is a perfect explanation of my audience.
Because I don't think anybody disagrees with their own audience more than I do.
Do you think that I could have a left-wing audience and disagree with them as much as I do with this crowd?
Impossible.
This is mostly people who say, well, I disagree with that, but I like hearing that point of view as long as it's well presented.
And then I can test against my current opinion or maybe change it.
But I don't see that on the left.
But to Cenk's point, I'm going to meet him in the middle.
Which is that I don't think, as he says, the ordinary Democrats are not that.
The ordinary Democrats are also accepting of people being different.
It's just the weird control group of the left that's ruining everything.
There'll be a lot more on that point as we work through the headlines.
Turns out there's a theme.
Don't you love it when I have a theme?
Yes.
The theme is brainwashing and And the history of it, and why we're in trouble now, because we don't have enough of it.
That's the theme.
The problem with the United States is insufficient brainwashing.
And I mean that.
I mean that.
I'll prove it as we go along.
Alright, so I would once again like to use Cenk's tweet.
As my cue to show some appreciation for all of you.
Because I know you disagree with me a lot.
And you're probably going to disagree with me today on at least one topic.
And you still come back.
So that's good on you.
It's a good look.
Rasmussen did a poll on religion, and I guess I just want to check if this matches your observation in the United States.
75% of American adults say religious faith is important to their daily lives.
Does that match your experience?
That 75% of the people that you deal with feel that religious faith is important, not just in general, not just in general, But to their daily life.
That tracks?
I'm seeing a lot of yeses.
A lot of people say, yeah, that looks about right.
On YouTube, there's more nos than yeses.
So that's probably just a difference in the audience.
But there's a mix.
I thought that was higher than I would have expected.
I'm not saying it's wrong.
I wouldn't have expected it to be that high.
44% of adults go to church or synagogue or mosque at least once a month.
Does that sound right?
Based on your experience?
A little less than half of the population goes to church or synagogue or mosque once a month?
That feels like it could be right.
I don't know.
I would guess a little bit high.
But I'll accept that.
That sounds about right.
And, well, that's all I had to say on that.
Apparently, it's not that much changed recently.
All right.
How many of you saw on social media that there was a big old study that looked at all the mask effectiveness studies and declared that masks don't work?
How many saw that story?
Yes or no?
Did you see it?
Yes, yes, yes?
Let me see it.
All right.
So here's the part where you're not going to like it.
A lot of you didn't see that story on social media.
Well, there's quite a difference between the locals.
All right, so all of you who said yes that you saw this story, are you ready for this?
No, you didn't.
That doesn't exist.
It doesn't exist.
Do you think you saw a story that says the studies of masks were looked at and that it found that masks are ineffective?
Do you think you saw that today, right?
Is anybody still going to say they saw that?
That didn't happen.
It's widely believed it happened.
It's all over the internet.
Didn't happen.
Let me tell you what did happen.
There was a study In which masks prove that science is ineffective.
That's actually what happened.
There was not a study where science proved masks were ineffective.
That didn't happen, but that's the way it's being reported.
What did happen is that people did things and they showed that masks proved science doesn't work.
Meaning that they don't know whether masks make any difference or not, because the mask situation proved science doesn't work.
They didn't prove anything about masks.
They only proved science itself doesn't work.
Here's what I mean by that.
There were lots of studies, but none of them met the minimum criteria for credibility.
Now, how many of you didn't know that?
Is there anybody who didn't already know there's no such thing as a mask study, you should believe?
Do you know I have known that for three years?
Because on day one, the people who know what they're talking about said, you cannot do a proper study on masks and coronavirus, because if you did, it would be unethical.
It actually is logically Impossible, if you also want to be ethical, and anybody who does a big study is going to have to be.
There isn't any way to study it.
It is an unstudiable by its nature.
You cannot use science to find out if masks work.
It isn't a thing.
Here's why.
You would have to expose people to actual death, or the risk of death, if you think, if the experts say, well we think masks might work, They might.
Under that condition, and that is what the experts largely said, well they should or might or could or maybe in some situations, under that situation you can't test it.
So here's what they could test.
They could test masks without coronavirus.
They could test it on other stuff.
That doesn't tell you anything.
Does it?
And here's the only thing I would have wanted them to test, but of course it would be completely unethical.
The only thing I would wanted them to test is people in nursing homes who have visitors that always wear masks and keep their visits to, let's say, five minutes.
Versus ones who kept it to five minutes and didn't wear masks.
And then you see how many old people die.
And then you know what the difference is, if it's a really big test and you do everything else right.
There's nothing else that would be useful.
Everything else is just sort of, well, it's in the general area of masks and science, but it doesn't really tell you anything.
So when you're watching the headlines today, and it's going to be all over the news tonight, watch how many people report something like, science just proves that masks don't work.
Now, to be clear, I oppose masks because there is no science that says they work.
Is that fair enough?
Does anybody have a problem with that?
Oh, locals just crashed.
God.
Amazing.
All right, sorry.
Let me see if I can just close it and reopen it again.
I may have to abandon locals if I can't get the live stream to work.
I'm not going to abandon the entire use of it.
But I don't think live streaming makes any sense anymore.
Let's see if I can fire this up.
Oh, this is just, this is beyond annoying.
I can't even express how frustrating that is.
Alright, I think I'm just going to have to tell the locals people I can't use this in the morning anymore.
I guess it's gonna be just YouTube or Rumble.
Rumble doesn't do live stream.
Well, let me take that back.
Rumble doesn't do live stream in a way that would be easy enough to use every day.
Unless you have an engineer or something.
Video's up, the chat was down.
Yeah, it looks like it's all down now.
Let's try it one more time.
Maybe it'll come back, who knows.
I doubt it.
All right, well, I'll just let it run there.
I've never wanted to punch a computer this bad.
I just want to take that iPad and just destroy it on the floor, except I know the iPad is working fine.
All right.
Well, moving on.
Just watch how the news treats this mask study.
They are not going to do what I did, which is tell you that science doesn't work.
We don't know about masks.
But I'm opposed to them because they definitely have a downside, but no verifiable upside.
It looks like the street might be coming back.
I can't tell.
Yeah, let's see.
We'll see what happens.
Alright, Newsom has a new approach against Republicans that's really strong.
And it's so strong it makes me wonder if a professional helped him.
Do you remember in 2016 when I called out the word dark?
And all the, oh there we go.
Locals is back up.
When Newsom, we're talking about Newsom, if you're on Locals, if you just joined us.
So Newsom is starting to call Republicans bullies.
And when I heard him use that, I thought to myself, oh no, that's professional grade.
So here's what's not professional.
Oh, those Republicans are all racists.
That's not really professional work.
It's effective, but that didn't come from any kind of professional.
It's just what everybody does.
But when you hear somebody use a unique word like, Trump's speech is dark, you say, dark?
That's a general word that can suck up anything that Trump does.
You can call anything he does dark.
And then that's good persuasion because it just absorbs everything he does and puts it in the same label.
Dark.
It's dark.
We don't like dark.
Well, this bully thing does the same thing.
Because you could apply it to a whole bunch of different policies and go, well, there they are again.
Look at those bullies.
And bullies are something that we're going to associate with our own experience if you've been bullied.
It's perfect.
Here's why you have to worry about Newsom.
That's not just good in terms of persuasion.
That's not just good.
That's as good as you can get.
And if you don't know the difference, you might find out when he's your president.
Because there's a lot of stuff that... Yeah, Newsom bugs me a little bit.
He's a little... He projects an arrogance that's just hard to get past.
And he seems kind of artificial, but I suppose all politicians do.
But when you see him pull out the bully's persuasion, I just said to myself, uh-oh.
He either has somebody really powerful, you know, some kind of wizard helping him out, Or he did that on his own, which would suggest he's got a lot of game.
But that's not normal, right?
Using the bully framing, that's suggestive of a higher level of persuasion skill.
So I'd watch out for that.
That's a really good attack.
All right.
So apparently both NPR and PBS are both pulling back from Twitter because they're labeled by Musk as government-backed media.
I guess they've used different words to say that the government funds them or the government backs them or they're affiliated.
And Musk just continues dunking on these people.
It is so funny.
He tweets, NPR literally said on their website, quote, federal funding is essential to public radio.
And then they took it down.
So their own website agreed with Musk.
That they are government funded and that it's essential to their operation.
Their own website said that.
And then when Musk essentially agreed with what they say on their own website, they said, you damn liar.
And then they went to the website and they took it down.
Now this is the group that you depend on for your news.
They couldn't even tell you the accurate news of what their own website says.
That really happened.
They could not even give you an accurate description of the headline of their own website.
It's almost impossible to believe that this is real.
Like this doesn't even sound like a sitcom.
It would be too absurd to be on TV as like a joke.
It's that far gone.
It's just crazy shit at this point.
But watching Elon Musk continuously dunk on the media and be right is really fun to watch.
It's the best show in town.
All right, so let's talk about Biden's proposed Mandate that two-thirds of all the cars by 2030 have to be electric cars.
Or electric vehicles, let's say.
What do you think of that?
What do you think of the government telling you that two-thirds of the cars have to be electric?
It's nuts.
It's ridiculous.
It's idiotic.
It's also being forced by the government, right?
We don't like that.
All right, I'm going to go contrarian on this.
And when I say contrarian, I mean I'm going to disagree with most of my audience.
And I'm going to give you the steel man argument.
So I want you to hear the best argument for Biden's point of view.
I'm not sure if it's the argument he would make.
But if I were to defend Biden's government overreach, would you agree it's sort of an overreach for the government to put this much of a boot on free markets?
Feels like it, right?
So let's agree it feels wrong.
I think we could all agree on that.
It feels wrong.
We don't like the government imposing stuff on free market.
But would you also agree that the government routinely Imposes itself on the free market, and not always to bad effect.
Not always to bad effect.
Let me give you an example.
When Kennedy said we're going to go to the moon, that created a bunch of, you know, NASA and government funded activity, but also a lot of free market stuff that would support the government's efforts.
So that was a case of the government putting a big boot on something, but probably produced some benefits.
Can you think of other situations in which the government has put a big boot on things and it worked out okay?
I'll give you one.
I've replaced most of my light bulbs with LEDs.
Now, in the beginning, the first LEDs, you couldn't dim them.
Unless you put in a special base to it.
So you couldn't dim them and you also couldn't get different colors.
So it'd be like this white color instead of a nice warm orange-y color that you might prefer.
So when the government forced everybody to get LEDs, I would say for a long time it was mostly bad.
Because you couldn't get the light bulbs you wanted, the free market was being interfered with, the light bulbs cost too much, and then they weren't as good.
So the government made you spend more to get something that was less good.
Well, as of today, you know, years have gone by, as of today you can dim your, you can dim your LEDs and you can, in fact I've got one right on my desk that can change the color.
So, We got to the place we needed to get, and I think LEDs will be cheaper, right?
In the long run, an LED would be cheaper than a regular incandescent bulb, I would think.
Maybe not yet, but in the long run, and then certainly with the usage.
So, there are a number of situations, which I think you could point to, in which the government created a bunch of friction in the short run, but it did get us to a place faster than maybe the free market would have gotten.
Also, yeah, there are battery breakthroughs and there are other breakthroughs like that.
So here's what I think about this.
I think that, in general, you have to be cautious about the government putting pressure on the free market.
So there should be every red flag in the world that goes off when that happens.
And that part I agree with you.
All the red flags are going, hey, get away from our free markets.
But that doesn't mean that every time they do it, it's going to fail.
It just means you really got to watch that stuff.
I actually think that because there's a strategic homeland security element to this, because I see this more as homeland security.
So one of the things that I do that's maybe less common in terms of looking at politics, is I don't separate national defense from economics.
To me, they're all the same.
Because the best economy almost always wins the war.
Right?
Whoever has the most money.
So, to me, having the strongest defensive economy is just part of homeland security.
So a big part of the EV push is connected with Biden also working on, and I don't think they do a good enough job of selling this, Biden could do a better job of selling this.
Because at the same time they're forcing you to get electric cars, they're apparently putting a lot of effort into bringing battery manufacturing out of China and bringing it domestic.
Now that alone, if the reason that you could bring Domestic manufacturing of batteries to the United States is only because those manufacturers will see that there are going to be a lot of electric cars.
So the government can create the market for the electric cars, which creates the economic conditions where a free market will say, oh, we should make these batteries in the United States.
Because people aren't going to want to buy them in China.
And maybe we could use robots to make them just as cheaply in the United States.
Because you probably can't.
I would imagine it's mostly robots.
And our robots cost the same as China's robots.
So in the long term, Biden may be goosing our battery industry by artificially putting a big pressure on the car manufacturing industry.
And we could actually come out way ahead on this.
So we could come out way ahead not only in reduction of electricity, but this could be the thing that forces nuclear power.
Because I was just reading a thread by Alex Epstein.
Now there are a number of people I respect a lot who are going to say this is a bad idea.
I'm not going to ignore them because they're credible people who are doing the math.
But the part of the math that you can't do is the future.
Nobody can do math in the future.
You can do math of what it would cost today.
And so here's the flags that people are raising, the warning flags.
And Alex Epstein does this well.
Right now, we don't have an electrical grid that can produce enough electricity for massive electric cars.
But I think that that's what forces us to get one.
I think what forces us to do nuclear energy, what forces us to fix our grid, is necessity.
You just have too many cars and you just won't be able to heat your home or cook your food unless you fix all that stuff, which we need to fix.
So, I'm not entirely sure this is a bad idea.
I think that it's unpredictable.
And I think that nobody can do the economics that far in the future to know if the disruption in the present is going to pay for itself in the future.
That's unknowable.
And I used to do that for a living, right?
It was my job to predict the economics in the future when I worked for a bank and for the phone company.
And this is one that I can tell you for sure there's nobody who can predict the economics of this.
So if you're automatically against it because you can't see how It makes sense for the environment yet, or you can't see how it makes any difference with China yet, in terms of their control of our supply chain, or you can't see how we would produce enough clean energy so it's actually cleaner than burning coal to produce electricity yet.
It's a bold move.
It's a bold move, but if you see it in terms of economics, maybe it's a little sketchy.
If you see it in terms of homeland security, as in, it's the best way to bring our supply chain home for the most important stuff.
Batteries.
Then it starts to make a lot more sense.
So that's what Biden is doing wrong.
He needs to connect his battery manufacturing part of his plans to his EV plans, and then it starts making sense.
But as a national security question, not strictly economics.
Not strictly.
All right.
Well, I'll just put that out there.
And let's see what else is going on.
So you know Trump is being investigated for his documents.
And I've been trying to reconcile the following statements.
Statement number one, Trump said he gave the government back all their classified documents that they asked for.
But at the same time, the government says you did not give us all the government-owned documents.
Are those opposites?
Okay.
Trump says, I gave you all the government-owned documents.
The government says, you did not give us all the government-owned documents.
Is one of them lying?
Is one of them lying?
One says, you did give us all the government-owned documents.
The other says, you didn't give us all.
Those are opposites, right?
So somebody's lying.
Those are opposites.
Not necessarily.
Correct.
Not necessarily.
Here's how I predict this is going to go.
Government says, we have proof you didn't give us the documents owned by the government.
Trump says, those were my documents.
That's the case.
Government says, but you didn't give us all the government documents.
Trump says, I gave you all of your documents.
The ones I kept were mine.
That's what it's going to be.
And that is going to be a difference of opinion.
Of whether the actions that Trump took could make them no longer government classified, but maybe they're still government owned.
But I'll bet you he's going to have an argument that he declassified them and that he owns them.
I'll bet he'll make that argument.
And I don't think that you can prove that he meant otherwise.
Now, the argument that I think you should press harder, I've only heard him say it once, and he doesn't say it as directly as I do.
It would go like this.
A president can declassify anything, and there's no rules for how he does it.
Or she.
There are no rules.
It's just they have the power.
So one way they could do it is to say, whenever I snap my fingers over a document, it is declassified.
And then that would be the rule.
Because the president gets to say how it's done.
He could say, whenever I sprinkle salt on a document, it is now declassified.
And then that would actually be legal.
Because there's no rule that says he has to do it a certain way.
The way he says he does it is by taking them out of the secured place.
And I completely agree with that argument.
If the president takes something from a secure place to an unsecure place, or less secure for classified documents, in my view, whether it was Biden or Trump or anybody else, as long as there's no specific rule telling them how to declassify, that is declassified.
In my opinion, that argument is airtight.
To me, I don't see any way he could lose that case.
Because you can't give me 12 people who will disagree with that point.
You can get several, but you're not going to get 12 jurors to say, no, I don't agree that if there are no rules about how to do it, then simply moving it from secure to unsecure is all you need to know.
There'll be a few jurors, maybe most, who will say, yeah, it's an unspecified process.
It would be pretty obvious that he means them to be declassified by his actions.
If that's his argument.
So, all right.
Yeah, I think that government owned is going to be where everything falls apart.
Now, Trump is complaining that this, I guess the guy who's looking into all this stuff, Jack Smith, Apparently he and his family are big anti-Trumpers.
How in the world do we allow somebody who has a known history of being anti- the defendant.
I'm too early to call him a defendant, but you know what I mean.
The subject of the investigation.
Agent Smith.
Oh my God.
It's Agent Smith from The Matrix.
How in the world do we allow that?
Like, that is so un-American that we know the person who's investigating hates the subject.
That's just so wrong.
I'm sure it happens all the time, but when it comes to politics, if you know the person has a problem with the subject... I mean, Trump has a completely good point here.
And then there's all this leaking that seems to be coming out, which is purely To damage Trump.
And now there's new, I guess there's some new lawsuits against Trump.
So they're basically trying to bury him in lawfare, which I feel like there needs to be some kind of legislation that says if you get the nomination, that all your legal actions have to be suspended until you're out of office.
Now you might have to make an exception if it's like a felony, I don't know, there would have to be some exceptions.
But for the little stuff, I don't want anybody to take my candidate out of action by a whole bunch of BS lawsuits.
Yeah, I think that they should not be charged while they're running for office.
Once they got the nomination.
Or while they're in office.
I think that should just be, you just gotta wait.
Sorry, gotta wait four years.
Or eight.
Yeah.
So this abortion pill situation that one court said you couldn't have the pill, and then another court reversed the reversal.
So now you can have it, but only under certain restrictions, so it's more restricted than it would have been.
I'll tell you, I have respect for Republicans for pushing as hard as they do on abortion because they believe it.
Like it's a genuine belief of what's good and bad.
And it's, you know, it's well-intentioned.
So I'm always impressed when people are consistent and well-intentioned.
And you ever notice that people will say they believe something but they don't act like it?
Well, the Republicans really act the way they talk.
The Republicans are completely throwing away their best chance at power to keep abortion as illegal as possible.
Now, I'm not saying I agree with their stand, because I stay out of abortion.
I prefer women to work it out.
Keep the men out of it, as far as I'm concerned.
You other men can do what you want.
It's a free country.
But that's just my stand.
So I'm not making an argument for or against abortion, in case it sounds like that.
I'm simply complimenting Republicans for taking a hard choice, which is really giving up a lot in terms of political power.
A lot.
For that principle.
And I respect that.
It's just, it's hard to see a principle stand anymore.
And when you see one, you gotta respect it.
Alright.
Here's my theme I told you I was going to get to about the brainwashed generation.
So probably most of you watching this know that back 70 years ago Allen Dulles and the CIA launched a mind control program on the population of the United States.
It was called MKUltra and among other things they, and there were lots of components of it, and it It convinced movies and TV shows and probably the news to cover the news in a way that turned Americans into productive good Americans.
And made us, you know, hate the commies and whatever else they wanted us to think.
Now, I grew up in that generation.
So I was the MKUltra brainwashed generation.
And literally brainwashed.
Now you know that when you do the Pledge of Allegiance or sing the National Anthem, the purpose of that is brainwashing.
We just call it patriotism.
But the whole point of it is to take humans who would maybe be more tribal by nature and give them a larger collective purpose called the United States.
And then we have this reason to work together because we're part of the United States.
It's the best brainwashing you could ever do.
Completely useful, positive.
You could do it wrong.
I mean, you could brainwash people into becoming Nazis.
But you can't not do it.
You can't have a country where you're not trying to shape the citizens into a productive form.
You just can't run a country that way.
So, in more modern years, that MKUltra thing was disbanded.
So, here's what I think happened.
When MKUltra and the CIA were running our brains, they did a good job.
Meaning they taught people to be patriotic.
Everybody I know that I grew up with was patriotic.
We were just brainwashed in this very productive way.
Now it wasn't, let's say, honest.
Because America has done a lot of crappy things.
And so, you know, the brainwashing would de-emphasize that.
Because nobody wants you to hate your country.
You're not going to join the military or pay your taxes if you hate your country.
So, even though it's dishonest and evil, you know, if you dig down one layer it's pretty evil, it's also necessary.
There's just no way around it.
So now, what happens if you take away that central mind control and let people's own minds make up their minds, or allow whatever, you know, grifters or media competition makes up our minds?
So, the predictable result is that we've become more tribal.
We call it identity.
But it's just tribal.
It's people saying, I'm a certain kind of person.
I must fight for the rights for the people who are like my certain kind of person.
That's the opposite of MKUltra.
MKUltra would have said, you're an American.
You have equal opportunities.
Go make something of yourself.
So our entire operating system for the United States, which was unethical, which is we were all being brainwashed and lied to, but it worked.
It worked really well.
Now we have a system, which is everybody gets to make up their own mind, and we're looking at grifters and fake news, and we're getting all worked up by social media.
That's what we replaced it with.
Chaos.
And the chaos is doing exactly what you'd expect.
It's making us more tribal.
Like, you're looking at yourself now as your race, or your religion, or your gender preference.
Way more than you used to.
So that's where we're going.
Let me give you some examples of things.
So this will fit under this umbrella.
So I saw a David Boxenhorn tweet, which I'll read to you.
He says, Republicans are stupid for letting Democrats paint their anti-crime, anti-illegal immigration and pro-school choice policies as anti-minority.
Minorities are the primary beneficiaries of these policies.
Can we get Republicans to change the messaging to appeal to minorities?
Now, I can see the problem here, which is the Republican approach is to not say we're doing something special for any group, because that's sort of opposite of being a Republican.
Rather, you might say we're doing things for poor people, but it's because they're poor, not because of the race or anything else.
There's a little bit of a Republican problem in messaging, even though I think the point is true.
But I think there's a way to do it.
I think that there is a way for the Republicans to say, look, we're the ones who are helping you if you're poor, if you're black, if you're a minority.
All of our things help you.
The Democrats' things will not help you.
Because I think it's pretty easy to sell people on the idea that law and order Is good for everybody.
Pandora Papers.
Never heard of Mike Gill or the Pandora Papers.
Somebody's yelling at me in all caps that there's some important story I've missed.
Never heard of them.
So it's not in the regular news.
So I don't know what you're talking about.
So.
All right.
So I agree with that.
The Republicans are doing more than they're saying they're doing.
In other words, they're proposing better benefits for minorities than minorities are aware of, and they should make a better case for that.
I think they should.
All right.
Here's Stephen Collinson on CNN.
He's one of their opinion people who like to trot him out a few times a week to say bad things about Trump.
And Collinson is going through all of Trump's mounting legal problems, even though, in my opinion, none of them are anything but trivial or stupid.
But there are a lot of them.
Can't argue with that.
And here's how Collinson wrote about this.
He said, yet another investigation, this one in Georgia, over Trump's attempt to find just enough voters to try to steal President Joe Biden's victory in the swing state.
What?
This is an opinion piece, it's not a mind-reading piece.
You would literally have to know what the President's inner thoughts were to say this as a fact.
I've not even seen evidence that Trump believed he was stealing an election.
What evidences are of that?
There's no evidence of that.
There's plenty of evidence that he genuinely believed the election was rigged.
Plenty of evidence of that.
Am I right?
With all of the investigations, has there been one shred of evidence that Trump believed the election was fair and he was trying to steal it?
All of these conversations, all of the investigation, not a shred.
Not a shred.
And with no sense of embarrassment whatsoever, Collinson puts this on a new site.
It's an opinion, but it's on a new site.
That he was trying to steal victory.
That is absolutely not in evidence.
It's not impossible.
But it's the least likely explanation, and it's not in evidence in any way.
Not in any way.
So it's amazing.
So I would say that CNN has failed in their quest to be unbalanced.
I mean, this is a pretty bad failure in my mind.
So he's got some mind reading going on there.
All right.
This story from the New York Post.
That America isn't nearly as racist as we thought.
So there was a Florida State professor, who is black, who for years has been faking racism studies to show that racism was worse than it is.
And now it's known that they're fake.
And he actually made up the data.
When I say made up, he left out data that was not going to make his case.
He left it out.
So, how many other studies on racism are also fake?
Most.
Most.
Probably most.
Because everybody who does a study is motivated.
There's nobody who does a study on race who doesn't have an opinion of what they want it to be.
Right?
They're all trying to show something.
Don't you think that they can find data to prove anything they want?
Of course they can.
Just like masks.
You can find any data you want on race.
It's either getting way worse or way better, and you can prove it either way.
And then here's a related story, and I'm going to tie these all together.
So the Wall Street Journal has an editorial by a gentleman who says it might be partly his own fault that corporations are acting so woke.
Now this is interesting.
So this is from Gregory T. Angelo.
And I guess he was a big advocate for gay rights.
And so years ago, when gay rights were much less than they are now, he was part of a group of people who were pressuring corporations to take a public stand where normally they would not.
And he succeeded.
He got corporations to try to speak out and influence the government and to become more friendly to gay marriage, etc.
And he's saying that basically now that went too far.
So he's also saying it probably didn't make a difference.
He's saying that the public's opinion about gay marriage and stuff probably would have gone the way it went anyway.
So the corporations probably didn't make anything happen faster that wasn't going to happen anyway.
But now corporations routinely get involved because other advocates can force them the same way that the gay advocates did.
So he's saying that now there's just too much wokeism because everybody found that same trick.
They had their bullies.
Now, it's easy to get the corporations to get on board, because you just have to say, if you do these things, we'll say good things about you.
If you don't do these things, we'll malign you in public.
Well, it's kind of an easy choice.
Do whatever doesn't get you attacked.
And then here's the story that the AP has about me.
If you Google my name, Google will surface as its top stories where it summarizes stories.
It will summarize the controversy about me, and then one of the top links that Google has chosen you should see is credited to the AP, and this is what it says about me.
None of that happened in the real world.
Nothing even remotely like that happened.
There's nothing about Dilbert or me being misogynist.
darker and his creators' descent into misogyny, anti-immigration and racism alarming.
None of that happened in the real world.
Nothing even remotely like that happened.
There's nothing about Dilbert or me being misogynist.
I'm not even accused of it.
There's not even a fake accusation.
There's nothing.
How about anti-immigration?
That's one of the things my audience doesn't like, is that I'm so pro-immigration.
I do think we should have complete ability to close the border.
It would be stupid not to.
That's not anti-immigration.
That's pro-controlling your country.
But this exists on Google like it's a fact.
Anybody who reads that is going to think that really happened.
That comic creators stopped reading Dilbert because of its descent into the strip's darker tones.
The strip didn't have any darker tones.
That never happened.
Dilbert was completely non-political.
Completely.
It never had any darker tones at all.
And this lives on Google, credited to the AP, as a fact.
Amazing.
Amazing.
Now let me pull it all together.
So you see the AP and Google, you know, boldly putting fake news about me.
You see that the corporation's being pushed to be more woke.
You see fake stories about racism that become part of our texture of what we think is true.
And you see CNN can still just lie that they can read the mind of a president.
When MKUltra stopped and tribalism went crazy, at the same time as clicking a story became the way you could track its popularity, all of these forces created everybody to be at everybody else's necks.
Everybody just joined a team and started fighting.
So, I hate to say it, but what the country needs is a lot more brainwashing.
I hate to say it, because brainwashing is evil, it's immoral, it's unethical, and it's certainly not the freedom that you would want, but complete chaos has got a cost.
Now you're asking if it stopped, and I would say it did stop in the sense of patriotism.
There's definitely no MKUltra going on to make you more patriotic.
I'm sure that's not happening.
There may be other influences, you know, to, let's say, to make Ukraine a popular war.
Have you ever wondered about that?
Do you think that the citizens of the United States independently consumed the news and then decided that supporting Ukraine was in their best interest?
No.
Now, whatever happened there was brainwashing, but we don't know You know, who did it, or exactly how.
But you are brainwashed about Ukraine.
Make no mistake about that.
Maybe not you personally.
But the country is completely brainwashed.
Now, is that bad?
I'm not saying it's bad.
This is where I'm being a little provocative.
Brainwashing is a necessity because the alternative is worse.
It's just not ethical.
It's not ethical And also completely necessary.
It's a bad situation to be in, but it's the only one we have.
So yes, the news is completely non-credible and fake.
Everything you think you know is garbage.
And here we are.
So this is why I keep saying that the importance of what I call the internet dads is such a big deal.
The fact that Elon Musk is calling out the fake news for being fake is really useful because of his position and he's credible.
And I think that when I do it, it's useful.
I think that when anybody else, you know, Cernovich, anybody else does it, it's useful.
So keep trying to be useful.
All right, I ran into a nest of NPCs and I had to back out and cancel my tweet because the NPC action was too big.
And I'm going to see how many NPCs I can surface with the same trick.
Would you like to watch this experiment?
I'm going to read you a story, and then we're going to watch the NPC comments come in.
Here's the story.
The government has figured out how to, not every time, but Certainly they can do it.
Penetrate the privacy of Bitcoin so that they can find out who spent Bitcoin on what illegal things.
So now if you think you can use Bitcoin to get away with a crime, the government has tools, which they've been developing over time, where they can somewhat reliably catch you.
Now, NPCs, please do your thing.
Go ahead.
That's not news, Peter.
Thank you.
First one.
Can't you already do that on the blockchain?
That's not quite NPC, but that's where I'm heading.
Same with money.
OK.
Granted.
It's called the ledger.
Boom.
We got it.
First NPC.
It's called the ledger.
May I do my NPC impersonation?
I'm going to ask Dale to come in and do this.
I removed the tweet so that people would stop explaining this to me.
Scott, did you not know that the entire point of the blockchain is that it's a public record that's permanent of where every penny went?
Scott, did you not know that?
How do you not know that it's a public ledger?
It's a public ledger.
Public.
Public.
Everybody can see it.
Well, Dale, I know that.
And therefore, by its nature, it never really could be completely private.
So that's so obvious that I don't think it needs to be stated.
That if it's a public ledger, even though the keys are secret or whatever, clearly the government will figure out a way to penetrate it.
And if they can't do that, they can put you in jail until you tell them your keys, your passwords.
So, no, there is no way that I ever believe that Bitcoin could be private in the long run, Dale.
So, no, when I say that the government has tools, I'm really trying to tell other people what I've known since the first day I heard about Bitcoin, which is if the ledger is public, clearly there's some way to penetrate it.
There's gonna be a way.
Maybe not on day one, But there's definitely going to be a way.
No, it's not private.
In fact, I believe there's no such thing as any privacy.
At all.
There's none.
I've got devices listening to me, potentially.
The government can look at all my records, if they're interested.
They just have to be interested.
Right?
So Dale, I have always understood that a public ledger could never be Safely private.
but what i don't think you understand is that from the very beginning the ledger has been public see So that's what I was dealing with this morning.
The number of NPCs explaining to me that something in public can never be private.
Didn't really need to hear that.
Did not need to know that.
Alright, so don't do your crimes on Bitcoin.
I guess that's what we need to know.
Can it be penetrated by the BBC?
Excellent question.
Eric, you have your wish.
I am paying attention to you right now.
What were you trying to say?
What?
Am I familiar with...
All the crazy people always use caps.
It's always so funny that they... So Hot Pocket says in all caps, Are you familiar with Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty?
No.
Moving on.
The number of times that somebody shouts at me in caps to ask me if I know about some obscure individual, it's like always caps.
"Have you heard of John K. Smith?" All right.
Should Biden be telling kids that Jesse Helms is the key to success?
I don't think he is.
Why do so many old people think that Elon Musk is so cool and smart?
Huh.
I wonder.
Has he ever done anything cool or smart?
Huh?
He only does something cool and smart every fucking day.
There's nobody who's done more cool or smart things, either category.
Nobody's done more cool things, and nobody's done more smart things.
But definitely nobody's done more cool, smart things every day than that one person. smart things every day than that one person.
I'm just going to ignore all your caps.
All right, here's the new rule.
Everything in all caps gets ignored from now on.
Got that?
Everything in all caps gets ignored.
So I won't read any comments, even if they're super chats.
Well, that lit up locals.
I All right.
What's that say?
Oh, somebody lost all respect for me.
Your MKUltra joke, calling it not regular news.
All right, so that's just crazy talk.
And dismissing the Pandora Papers and Mike Gill, the biggest story of our lifetime.
I didn't dismiss it.
I said I'd never heard of them.
That's the biggest story of our lifetime?
Alright, I'm going to read this comment in all caps.
You're the best, sexiest cartoonist ever.
Alright, but that's just the only exception.
That's the only exception.
Compliments in caps.
Stop it.
Stop it.
It's funny, I get it.
It's the Panama Papers.
All right, well, I'm pretty sure that the Panama Papers I've heard of...
You're not the most based boomer that I know of.
Well, you take that back.
Can you believe it?
Somebody is accusing me of not being the most based boomer?
Oh, come on.
I've got to be in the top three.
All right.
You're looking more in shape.
Damn it!
That worked.
See, now the YouTube people are complimenting me in all caps.
I totally fell for it.
All right.
Well, thank you. .
Alright, well, I'll look up the Panama Papers.
I'm pretty sure that I already know about the Panama Papers, I just forget that they're called the Panama Papers.
It would be unusual if I did not already know that story.
