Episode 2157 Scott Adams: Talking About The News. Grab Some Coffee And A Pet
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
-----------
Talking about the news and sipping coffee with you
Politics, President Trump, France Riots, Cultural Assimilation, Scott Galloway, Christiane Amanpour, Elon Musk, Yevgeny Prigozhin, David Sacks, Lindsey Graham, Simultaneous Spaces, Tate Brothers, COVID, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 human civilization.
And as you know, and I'm sure you do know this by now, The rest of the media is going to be boring and repetitive today, but not us.
We've got some stuff to talk about after the simultaneous sip, and maybe, maybe, stay tuned, I'll do a Spaces Live at the same time so you can multitask.
But first...
How would you like to take your experience up to levels that nobody's ever seen before?
Well, all you need is a cupper, a mugger, a glass, a tanker, gels, a stein, a canteen jug, a 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, the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Ah.
Ah.
Now, in case you're new to this live stream, the proper way to consume it, there are two ways, possibly three.
Number one goes excellent with exercise.
If you're running on the beach, for example.
Hey, Joel.
Or if, for example, you were sipping coffee and had a blanket on you in the morning and a dog or a cat on your lap.
If you've got a dog or a cat with you and you're sipping a beverage and listening to this, you're the happiest person in the world.
So keep doing what you're doing.
All right, here's the news.
Let's start with some semi-fake news.
This is Fox.
Fox News has some semi-fake news.
The headline says, White House reports signals, White House, yeah, White House report signals openness to manipulating sunlight to prevent climate change.
Do you think that's a true story?
That the White House has signaled an openness to block the sun.
What does openness mean?
If you read this, wouldn't you assume that they were kind of serious about blocking the sun?
A little bit?
Stop that climate change?
Do you think that the details of the story will support this headline?
Of course not.
No, they're studying it.
The only thing they're open to is studying it.
Being open to look into something is very different than being open to doing it.
You wouldn't study it if you thought it was a good idea.
I mean, if you were sure it was.
So they're just as uncertain as you are, but they're looking at it.
Do you think it's impossible that they could come up with some kind of temporary thing that would, you know, seed the clouds or whatever they need to do and still not be dangerous?
Well, potentially.
You know, obviously you have to worry if they do it wrong it's the end of human civilization.
So there's that.
But no, I wouldn't worry about it.
I think it's just one of those two on the nose.
The White House wants to block out the sun to change climate change.
That's a little too on the nose.
I think maybe they're just studying it because they study everything.
Somebody's got an idea.
Let's go study that.
It doesn't mean anything.
All right.
You know that there is a massive protest in France that are ongoing.
Trump weighed in on that.
He said, I wouldn't go to France.
France is no longer France.
Trump actually said he wouldn't go to France.
Now, of course, you know that the riots are over the shooting of a young man, I think from Northern Africa, Muslim, I think.
I'm not even sure that's the reason people are rioting.
That's the excuse, but of course there are bigger issues.
Now some of the rioters probably want to take over the country and make it an Islamic country.
Reasonable.
You'd expect that they'd want that.
And some of them are probably just having fun and causing trouble and looting and It's probably people have all kinds of different reasons or they're just mad about white people or whatever they're doing.
But here's how many of you would know the percentage of Muslim population in France?
Don't look it up.
Don't look it up.
Don't Google it.
The percentage of their population is Muslim right now.
What do you think?
Some of you know the right answer.
It's not 25, but I can see why you'd be guessing that, but no, it's not 25.
It's about ten.
About ten percent.
What is the percent of Muslim residents of the United States?
Muslim residents of the United States.
What percent?
One percent.
One percent.
So France has ten times the amount of Muslim population.
And that's the population that seems to be the most worked up at the moment.
You know, it was some time ago, I don't remember who said it, there was a percentage of Muslim population that would guarantee you became Muslim.
That the entire country would eventually become Muslim.
Do you remember what that number was?
It was 10%.
I think if you had 10% you'd end up going Muslim.
I think it has something to do with, maybe you can do a fact check on me, the reasoning behind that was, one might be birth rate, there's a higher birth rate, but the other might be that That's just the percentage that they try to take power.
When I say they, I mean if there's any members of the group who think that the country should become an Islamic rule, Sharia law, if you have 10% of your population Islamic, they're probably going to try.
Now, your point of view of whether that's the worst thing in the world or the best thing in the world would probably depend if you're Muslim.
You can't say it would be a terrible idea if they wanted to take over once they got some power, because that's what everybody does.
Everybody who has power tries to use it.
So it looks like they have power.
Tell me I'm wrong.
France is re-electing President Trump.
France is pretty much guaranteeing Trump gets into office, isn't he?
Now, if something happened to Trump or he gets legal problems or he self-implodes, I mean, there are lots of things that could keep him out.
But I don't know how America can watch France if they're paying attention.
Now, the other thing is that people aren't paying attention.
I only just started paying attention.
I think the riots in France, how long have they been going on?
I just today decided to get interested.
Because I never expect riots to last long.
So a riot in another country doesn't interest me?
It's two weeks of rioting and then it goes away.
But maybe not.
Maybe this is bigger.
Belgium's got their issues too.
I think the biggest thing this does is guarantees that Trump or somebody who's a Republican gets elected.
I don't know how you could watch this and say you want to be like it, but let me make a very important distinction.
If we're bringing Christian immigrants across the border, we would have our own different set of challenges, but it won't be this.
The Christians that are coming across from Central America and Mexico are not looking to change the nature of the country.
In fact, their assimilation rate is awesome.
So here's the way I would handle it if I were Trump.
This would be really delicate.
I don't know if you could get away with it.
I think you should get some kind of independent body To determine how many of what kind of immigrants you can let in before it changes the nature of the country.
And it could be different for different groups.
So I would be opposed to ending Muslim immigration.
That seems like way too much.
I wouldn't be opposed to having different limits of rates of people coming in based on how much of a disruption you think it would be.
And the amount of disruption probably has everything to do with assimilation rates and nothing to do with, you know, genetics or anything like that.
It's just there's some cultures that are designed to assimilate and some that are designed to resist assimilation.
In my opinion, The South American, you know, Central American culture is so compatible with American, you know, once you get the language going, it pretty much is a smooth process, right?
Somebody comes from Australia to the United States, smooth process.
New Zealand, smooth process, right?
China, not so bad.
You know, Asian immigrants have done an amazing job.
Assimilation of Asian Americans, Really good.
Really good.
Let's get some more.
How about Indian-Americans assimilation?
Excellent.
Excellent.
Let's have some more.
But the Islamic immigration is a different animal because the Islamic system will kill you if you leave it.
So that's an anti-assimilation philosophy.
So if you bring people in who have an assimilation, or at least they don't mind, you know, they're not opposed to it, you can assume that's going to go smoothly in the long run.
If you bring a group in whose stated philosophy and religion is, no, we don't assimilate, you assimilate to us, what do you expect?
But even then, I would make sure that we were bringing in people from everywhere because it's good in the long run.
You've just got to make sure your rates and your numbers make sense for the philosophy of the people you're bringing in.
So that's what I think.
I think Trump or Ramaswamy could sell the hell out of that.
What do you think is going to happen in France?
Does it look to you like this is just going to get bigger and bigger until it's at an end?
Or do you think there'll be some kind of France first movement?
Will there be a Trump, you know, Marine Le Pen or something?
Will there be a Trump-like character that rises there?
You know what I heard?
I heard that Brexit is unpopular in Great Britain.
Is that true?
Give me a fact check on that.
That there are more people in Britain who wish they had not done Brexit?
Is that true?
Yeah, I don't know if that's true.
I read that.
Yeah, then the Muslim population would be not too compatible with the woke population.
So that's an issue.
All right.
But it does make you like Muslims better, probably.
It's a very pro-Muslim kind of theme that they're against many of the same things that many of you are against.
So at least you have common enemies.
That's something.
All right.
Twitter, of course, is having some issues today, and it is just weird watching people flip out about it.
Does it really matter that much if Twitter has some glitches?
Is that affecting us a lot?
I mean, I don't know.
I mean, I experienced some little irregularities yesterday, but how much did it affect your life?
I mean, not much.
On a weekend?
And it's a weekend.
How much did you really need it?
But anyway, I was looking at some of the takes.
Here's the dumbest take.
I'm not even going to tell you who it was.
It was just somebody on Twitter who decided to say this in public, that Elon Musk, his experience running Twitter, is proof that rich people shouldn't run companies.
How drunk do you have to be to tweet that?
That's right, the problems with Twitter Are more proof that rich people like Elon Musk should not be involved in business.
Somebody actually wrote that.
That was like a real tweet from a real person who thought that, I got a point here.
I've got a good point.
Watch the, watch the retweets rack up on this one.
Wow.
Wow.
All right, but here's one that's more puzzling.
And it's puzzling because the person who's saying it is so smart, which is always kind of messes with my mind.
I'm used to, you know, I'm very accustomed to disagreeing with stupid people.
Aren't we all?
Disagreeing with somebody who's stupid is pretty easy and comfortable, and you're probably glad you did it.
But what happens when you agree with somebody who's really smart?
Doesn't that give you a little pause?
Or do you disagree with him?
Shouldn't you take a step back and say, hmm?
Maybe.
Here's one of those.
So Professor Scott Galloway was retweeting his own tweet from, I think, right around after Musk had purchased Twitter.
And Professor Galloway was saying that recent events, and I think he means the Twitter technical problems that are happening right now, I think that was more evidence that he was right when he said, right after the takeover, That Musk is sort of a cult of personality and his net wealth will be cut in half or could be cut in half because of the Twitter purchase.
Isn't Elon Musk still the richest person in the world?
Am I wrong?
He's still the richest person in the world, isn't he?
I believe he is.
Did his wealth get cut in half?
I don't recall that happening.
No.
So that prediction hasn't come through.
So Professor Galloway said this during a conversation with CNN's Christiane Amanpour.
And Amanpour said that Musk is, quote, unraveling before our eyes.
Now this is two years ago.
So when did you buy it?
Was it a year ago?
I've lost sense of time.
But whatever it was that Musk bought Twitter, do you think Musk is unraveling before our eyes?
When did that happen?
When was this alleged unraveling?
He's had one of the best years any business person has ever had in the history of business.
He's unraveling right between.
So, here's what I tweeted.
When did Musk say he bought Twitter to make money?
Was there ever one time that Elon Musk even hinted that Twitter was a good investment and that's why he bought it?
No, he's always said the opposite.
He directly says the opposite.
You wouldn't buy Twitter to make money.
You just wouldn't do that.
So why is that even a metric?
He bought it for saving free speech.
Did he?
Did he succeed at saving free speech?
I say yes.
I say yes.
I would say that Twitter is the only place you can have free speech right now.
Am I wrong about that?
I don't believe there's a second place.
What's the second place you go to for your free speech?
Name it.
Name your second place.
Oh, Gab, okay.
Yeah, there's some fringe, well not, I won't say fringe.
There's some alternative entities that are Too small to be meaningful at the point.
Yeah, Rumble.
Rumble.
I'll give you Rumble.
Within bounds.
I mean, Rumble's got constraints as well.
Dilber Reborn is one place you can get free speech.
But that only applies to me, apparently.
I'm the only one who has it.
And that's only because it's behind a subscription wall.
Anyway, I was fascinated because I don't understand the attack on Musk from Scott Galloway.
I feel like he's judging him on a standard that doesn't fit the situation.
If he said, I'm going to try to make money with this and then failed, I'd agree with him.
He said the opposite though.
All right.
There's another mass shooting in, I don't know, Baltimore.
28 people were injured.
Two of them died, 20 walked into hospitals.
I don't even know what to say about it anymore.
What do you say about it anymore?
I mean, now it's just business as usual, isn't it?
So, do you think this is a gun problem?
Is it a gun problem?
I would say this is a people living in dangerous places problem.
Because isn't there a higher gun?
Well, let me ask the question.
Isn't there a higher gun ownership rate in the country than in the cities?
You know, per person, aren't there way more guns in the country?
Or did I lose sound?
Looks like I lost sound.
So I'm going to have to find another microphone for my... Hold on.
Hold on.
I think I have another microphone.
That'll be back in a moment.
How about now?
There we go.
Sorry, I forgot to I fixed it the first time?
No, the light didn't come on the first time, so it wouldn't have stayed.
It only stayed on for a second because the battery was dead.
But we're all good now, aren't we?
Alright, thanks for telling me.
So yeah, there's not much to say about the mass shooting except people should move out of those areas if they can.
So if you want to be where you have a low chance of being shot, You should go where there's a low chance of being shot.
Which, ironically, is probably where there are more guns in the country.
All right, let's talk about Ukraine.
So I was reading all the social media about Ukraine, and here's what we know about the counteroffensive.
There's one of three things happening in Ukraine, and I'm pretty sure about this.
It's hard to be certain about things in Ukraine, but finally I have certainty.
There's one of three things happening with the Ukrainian trying to break through.
They're either having no progress whatsoever, or they're breaking through in a small way, or they've made major gains.
So it's one of those three things.
I'm sure of it.
I'm sure of it.
Yeah.
So the reporting on Ukraine is absolutely useless.
So they're either successfully probing for weaknesses in any moment they're going to run through with their entire army, So it's really going well.
Or they've made no progress whatsoever and it's a big old slaughterhouse.
It's one of those two things.
I'm sure of it.
By the way, have you seen Purgosian lately?
Does anybody have a picture of him on his balcony or walking with his dog in Belarus?
He's probably with your dog.
You know your dog that Your kid's thing died but really went to Belarus to live the rest of his life for eternity?
He might have one of those.
Well, here's my theory.
Here's my theory about Prokhorin.
And if you look at the fact that he hasn't been seen at all, I feel like there's only one conclusion.
He's been abducted by the UFOs.
Now, the UFOs we've also not got good pictures of.
So that would be the perfect place for him to hide, because we just can't find the UFOs.
So if he could get on a UFO, that might be the best way to stay away from Putin.
Plus he'd have access to all that advanced technology.
You know what's interesting?
If you want to be mad at your American government, if you're American, here's another thing to be mad at.
We have all of these UFOs, which means by now, of course, we've reversed engineered their technology, and we won't give that technology to Ukraine, who desperately deserves it.
Can you believe it?
We have all this advanced alien technology, and we don't give any of it to Zelensky.
We're like, no, we're only going to give you their earthly stuff.
How would you like some earthling weapons?
And he's like, Earthling weapons?
You're giving me the weak stuff?
No.
I want the stuff from Centauri Prime.
No, no.
No, you can't have the stuff from Centauri Prime.
No, no.
We're saving that for us.
But we've got a lot of Earthly goods that, you know, will get you all killed.
But if you can have that, you can have all of it.
Yeah, that's right.
The UFOs have pregotion.
Yes, they do.
And do you know what the UFOs have as a weapon?
Do you know what their main weapon of the UFOs is?
Because we know that now.
It's a secret sonic weapon that they mostly aim at embassies.
It's sort of an embassy secret sonic Centauri Prime kind of a weapon.
All right.
There's no real news today.
I'm doing the best I can.
I'm doing the best I can with a slow news day.
Give me a break.
I saw David Sachs throwing up a little caution that I guess Lindsey Graham went over to Ukraine and there's some kind of a red line that's being drawn that if that there's a red line being drawn that if Russia blows up a Ukrainian, specifically, there's one in danger, I guess.
If they blow up a Ukrainian nuclear power plant, that, oh, that's a red line.
And, you know, maybe there'd be more escalation if they do that.
Now, David Sachs points out, it looks like a false flag is being created.
So first you create the red line.
Oh, if you do this, then the United States will get more into the war.
And then the United States does this themselves.
In other words, like it's a Gulf of Tonkin.
So the thinking is that maybe America and Ukraine would blow up Ukraine's own power plant that happens to be under the control of the Russians right now as part of a war strategy.
I'm going to say no.
I'm going to say no on that.
Here's what I think.
I think the United States would sink a boat to start a war.
I think they'd do that.
I think we would stage a false flag attack on maybe a building or something.
Maybe.
I think we would do some pretty bad stuff.
But I don't see us bombing a nuclear power plant.
Does that really bring you forward somehow?
You really get ahead if you do that?
How in the world could that be a good idea?
See, Gulf of Tonkin is one ship that goes to the bottom of the ocean.
It's clean.
You've got your deaths, but otherwise it's clean.
But destroying a nuclear power plant?
That would be the very worst idea that anybody ever had for a false flag attack.
I don't know if we'll ever see anybody attack their own nuclear power plant.
That feels like something that just can't happen.
Like nobody's mind would ever go there.
Now, if I'm wrong, well, I guess I'm going to have to say I'm wrong.
And by the way, there's a good chance that that nuclear power plant will have some explody stuff happening, and there's a good chance we won't know who did it.
So I think there's a very high chance Some stuff could go down and we don't know who did it.
But intentionally?
Intentionally?
That's a stretch.
It's something to be concerned about and to look at.
If it turns out that the Russians get blamed for blowing that thing up, you could be very skeptical.
And to me, I don't see why that's a red line at all, actually.
If it's such a big problem that it would be a red line, Would we do it ourselves?
I mean, it just doesn't make sense.
So I'm going to say that it doesn't quite make sense.
I'm going to bet against it.
But keep an eye on it.
So I think David Sachs is right to say keep an eye on that.
I've noticed that when I make predictions, my best predictions are things that don't exist.
So, you know, I just gave you three of them.
I told you that the Secret Sonic Weapon wasn't real the day it came out.
So far, we haven't found it, and it looks like it wasn't real.
Right?
I told you that when the Vegas shooter was called ISIS, I said, nope, it's not ISIS.
It wasn't.
When the UFO thing, you know, when there was a credible sounding person who says the United States has all these UFOs, I said, nope, you're never going to see proof of that.
Nope.
And then when Purgosian allegedly, his plane went to Belarus, I said, nope, that did not happen.
And evolution, evolution as well.
Right about that.
So here's my, Here's my summary of that.
It's way easy to know what isn't true.
So it looks like I'm doing better than I am at predicting.
If you ask me to predict what would happen, that's really hard.
But predicting what is not real, you know, that the news says is real, it's actually somewhat easy.
Yeah, it's just two on the nose.
It's always the same.
It's always the same.
It's just two on the nose.
You can spot it right away.
And by the way, how many of you are happy that you learned the two on the nose trick?
How many of just automatically, you know, you can spot the fake news now just right away?
Wait, oh, that's two on the nose.
Yeah, it's like, isn't it like a magic sense?
It's almost like you got a sixth sense.
As soon as you can see the two-on-the-nose stuff, you spot the fake news like you have magic or something.
It's a really powerful technique.
Scott, predictions are all ego-based to appear smarter than you.
Is there something you do that isn't ego-based?
Because that was a real smart comment.
That the predictions are ego-based.
What would be, I'm just curiosity, what would be something that a human does that's not ego-based?
What would that be?
Yeah, yeah, it's a dumb fucking comment.
It's a dumb fucking comment.
A hundred percent of what you do is for your selfish, or maybe your family or something, but that's selfish too.
It's all for ego.
Every bit of it.
Predictions aren't the one fucking thing I do for ego.
Everything I do is for ego.
Because everything I do has something to do with, you know, making me more effective or useful in the world, because it makes me feel good.
It's all ego.
Getting rid of your ego feels really good, by the way, if you can ever do it.
It gives you a feeling of euphoria, but it doesn't last long.
That's why the psychedelics are good.
They remove your ego temporarily, and the reason it's euphoric is that it's such a relief, because we're walking around just managing our egos all day.
That's hard.
But you're very lost if you think that there are some situations in which ego counts, and then the others don't.
That's not the reality.
All right.
I had offered that I would start up a Spaces on Twitter.
So if somebody wanted to ask me questions, they can.
So I've got it all fired up here.
Does anybody want to go to Spaces?
You can stay here and listen to it, or you can listen to it on Spaces.
But I'm going to hit a start now.
Yeah, we'll see if anybody comes in.
All right, everybody.
I don't know if anybody's here yet, but this will be your opportunity to ask me any question.
So raise your hand if you want to be a person who asks me a question.
Could be any topic.
I don't care what it is.
Oh look, all my friends are signing up there.
All right, is there anybody?
Raise your hand if you want to ask me a question.
Could be on anything.
It's a slow news day, so we're just sort of looking at a reason to talk about something.
Enjoy your coffee.
If you're sitting there with your coffee and your dog on your lap, well, you're doing it right.
Because that's the vibe this weekend.
Dog on lap.
All right, I've got one request here.
As a speaker.
All right, Curious.
In a moment, you will be a speaker.
Hey, Curious, are you there?
Hi there, Scott.
Really nice to speak to you.
Thanks for accepting my speaker request.
Pleasure.
What's your question?
Tay Brothers.
Go ahead.
So what do you think is happening with the case now?
Do you think that he will be released at any time?
Or do you think he's definitely going to prison and it's just kind of over for him?
Well, you know, Romania is sort of a big black box.
I don't think any of us know what that situation is.
So this is the perfect example that I always say, that the news about public figures is never true.
It's just never true.
Now I base that on knowing lots of public figures, and also being in the news, you know, hundreds if not thousands of times myself.
And I can see the stories about myself, and I know if they're true or not, and then often there are people I know, personally, so I can find out the real story behind the scenes, and it never matches.
It just never matches.
And not even close.
Usually there's at least one fact that changes everything.
And the public isn't aware of that fact.
So with the Tate Brothers, I would summarize it this way.
It's Romania, so I'd be amazed if everything that's happening is by the book.
And, you know, non-corrupt.
I just assume there's some corruption.
I don't know how it plays into the story, but one assumes it's part of the story.
Then the other question is, is there somebody outside of Romania who is the puppet master trying to get Romania to clamp down on these guys?
I think the odds of that are good.
I don't have proof of that, but it seems like something that could happen in our world.
But the other wild card is their capabilities.
The reason that you talk about them at all is they're hyper-capable.
They're just really, really capable at a wide range of things.
Social media, making money, maybe some sketchy activities, but they made them all work.
Almost everything they did worked.
So, assuming that they still have access to lots of funds, Do you think they can bribe their way out in time?
And so you might have a situation where you have the most, probably two of the most capable people in terms of persuasion, money, social media, and if they can't get out of this, nobody could.
So there's a little bit of a Houdini show going on, which is two people in a situation that no normal person could get out of, but they're not normal people.
They are the two people who would have the best chance of getting out of a tight spot.
Especially if it's complicated and there are lots of levels to it.
You've got to be a chess player.
But they are.
That's exactly what they are.
They are chess players.
So, I'm fascinated at the competition, if you will.
That the entire legal system of Romania Versus the Tate Brothers is actually a fair fight.
And I don't know which way it'll go.
It honestly could go either way.
They could be completely free and vindicated, possibly.
Or the Romanians will get their licks in.
All right.
Did that answer your question?
I think you're... Yeah, thank you very much.
I just wanted to know your take on it.
But I'll let somebody else ask some questions now.
Thank you, Scott.
All right.
Thanks.
All right.
Let's see.
Javi?
Is it J-A-V-I?
Is that Javi or Javi?
Maybe you'll tell me.
Javi, are you there?
Yes.
It's Javi.
How do you pronounce your name?
It's Javi.
Javi.
OK, Javi, what is your question?
Which is your favorite conspiracy theory that actually turned out to be true?
Well, I guess the one that's closest to me, which is that Twitter was, in fact, had its thumb on the scale in a variety of ways that we still haven't figured out.
So, it always felt like it was true, and then to find out it was true was pretty good.
The idea that the Democrats were behind the Russia collusion, it took me a while to realize that that didn't happen sort of organically.
You know, that there was actually just a plot.
It was exactly what you thought it was.
So, I think Musk accurately said that it seems like all of our conspiracy theories are coming out to be true.
Oh, Anand, you believe everything.
No, my ex-wife did not hook up with Andrew Tate.
I don't know if you know this, but Andrew Tate is not reliable in terms of the truth.
All right.
Did I answer your question?
I think you muted, so I'm going to say yes.
Yes, yes, it does.
Yes, that answers my question.
Thank you.
All right, thanks.
All right, let's try somebody else here.
Robert.
All right, Robert, let's see if you're ready to get on here and ask me a question.
Robert?
Hello, Robert.
Robert, Robert.
There's a little delay with the interface, so it just is trying to connect.
But there he is.
No, not yet.
It's weird.
It's cooking like it can't connect.
So it's not Robert's fault.
His technology is not working.
All right.
Well, that's weird.
It's still not working.
I might have to undo that one and try somebody else.
Oh, Ed is the speaker.
All right, we're having a user interface glitch.
I can't add this speaker and I can't subtract them.
But what happens if I try to add somebody else?
All right, I'm going to try to add somebody else.
Chris, you may have successfully been added.
If you unmute your microphone, Chris, you can ask me a question.
Hey, Chris.
Okay, I will say there's like a five second delay.
In these spaces from the people that are up on the stage are like five seconds ahead of the people that are just listening.
Oh, okay.
So, you know, if you're bringing people up one at a time like you are that you're going to get that.
My question to you is you said something that rang very true with me.
The 2020 election was non-transparent by force.
And, you know, therefore it was illegitimate.
I was wondering if you might expand on that a bit so that other people can understand it, because I think that very simple thing proves quite a bit right there.
Well, by non-transparent by force, I think you're referring to one situation where Republican observers were denied access?
At least one.
There were multiple, but yes.
Well, you know, that allows you to doubt the election.
So I don't care what anybody tells you did or did not happen.
If you have a right to watch and they tell you you can't, you should draw exactly the conclusion from that.
That an informed person should.
That there's something going on.
Because if there wasn't anything going on, well, maybe they'd let you see.
Now the counter to that is that they're just worried that the observers would be troublemakers and they were just trying to make their life easier.
Maybe.
That's entirely possible.
But you can't have that situation and also have confidence.
You can have irregularities and then no confidence, but you can't have irregularities and then confidence.
You've got to pick.
So if you're going to go with the irregularities, don't ask for the confidence in the result.
We can't give you that.
That's logically incompatible.
So I don't have any evidence that the election was rigged.
Zero evidence of that that I'm aware of.
There are lots of claims, but if you were to track all of the claims from the beginning of the election denial claims, they're almost all wrong.
Now, will there be some that, you know, pan out?
I don't know.
Maybe.
Anything's possible.
But like I always say, the big picture is this.
If you have a system that is not fully auditable, and people have a A really big incentive to game the system?
They will.
Maybe not in 2020, but eventually.
There's no way you can avoid it.
So we have a system that attracts and guarantees rigging.
I would say it guarantees it.
It's designed to attract it and guarantee it in the long run.
If it were designed to avoid it, it would be designed very differently, I imagine.
So that's what I think.
All right.
Thanks, Chris.
All right.
Let's bring up Christopher Hill.
So there'll be a little five second delay or so.
All right, Christopher, if you unmute, you can talk.
Thank you, Scott.
In 2016, you accurately, it turns out, but famously noted Trump's skill stack regarding communication persuasion skills.
And that clearly had a lot to do with him rising above the pack and getting into the White House.
So I guess the question is this.
As you look at 2024, how much of an impact will that persuasion skill sack take?
Or do you think that there are other aspects of his skills that may make it different to 2024?
Or is it just a completely different environment?
Well, the big question that's being asked on the right is whether the elections are designed so that a Republican could ever win.
And I don't know the answer to that.
I don't know.
It could be that, you know, between the legal manipulations and the ballot stuffing, that persuasion just doesn't matter anymore.
It could be just who's running the better game on the ground.
So it might be that it doesn't matter.
The thing that was different about Trump is that he was bringing a new weapon into the field that nobody recognized.
But I could see it early.
So that was a very special case.
It's not some kind of thing where I could always guess who the next president is going to be.
That was just a one-off.
I just had a special, sort of a special vision on a specific variable that was gigantic and was invisible to other people.
So I would think that The first thing that's happening is that with the little primary action going on in the Republican side, that the best ideas are starting to be grabbed by all the candidates.
So you saw that I think most of the candidates said they would get tough with the military, with the cartels.
It's because when Trump said it, Everybody said, oh, he got a good reaction to that.
All right, I guess I got to do that too.
So I think you're seeing there's going to be a lot of people joining the best opinion.
Some of those best opinions are going to come from Vivek Ramaswamy, and people will probably have to just adopt them.
So I think, yeah, it's a different landscape.
I don't think just a super persuasive person could come in and tear things up.
Now, RFK Jr.
is super persuasive.
Vivek is super persuasive.
Trump is super persuasive.
And I do think that they're going to move the... I think those are the three that will move the conversation the most.
And already have.
Already have.
Thanks for the question.
All right.
Let's take another one.
All right.
Ronan.
You have a good name, so I'll add you.
Ronan, as soon as you connect, unmute your microphone and you can ask me a question.
Hello, Ronan.
Hi, Scott.
Before you ask me anything, can I ask for your personal take on Bitcoin and do you hold any Bitcoin?
Personal take on Bitcoin?
First of all, yes, I hold Bitcoin.
I believe Bitcoin is 100% unpredictable.
Meaning that you don't know what the government's going to do.
And you probably never will.
So you got that government risk that hangs over it.
However, having said that, I've recommended before that if you have something like a portfolio, then maybe if you want 5% of it to be in Bitcoin, that makes sense.
So I would use Bitcoin as a diversification tool, not as a singular investment tool.
That said, there will be people who do exactly the opposite of my advice and make huge fortunes.
There will be others who do the opposite of my advice and lose huge fortunes, probably, depending on their timing.
So Bitcoin is a diversification play for somebody with a normal portfolio.
If you're young, if you're 25, you've saved up $5,000 and you just want to throw a bet down, maybe.
Maybe, you might get a 50% gain one year and be happy you did.
So if you're young and you can absorb a small loss, get a little more aggressive, I'm giving you basically the most common investment advice there is.
Quick, are you familiar with a gentleman called Michael Saylor?
He's the CEO of a tech company called MicroStrategy.
Are you familiar with that name?
I'm familiar with him, yes.
Oh, awesome, awesome.
So if you weren't familiar, I was going to say he's got some fantastic talks.
One particular talk called the Sailor Breedlove Series.
It's very long-winded.
It's probably a 20-part series.
Each part's two hours.
So it's not an easy watch, but it's absolutely fantastic.
But doesn't it come down to this?
So Bitcoin would do great.
Except for two risks.
One is the government risk, which cannot be predicted.
And the other is a technology risk, which is either somebody can crack it or somebody can come up with a better Bitcoin that everybody says, oh, why would I use Bitcoin when this is so much better?
So I think those two things make Bitcoin not normal investment.
I think I'm probably not eloquent enough to delve in and give the correct answer.
But those two questions, there are definitely very good answers as to why there are reasons that they're not as much of a fundamental risk.
Well, OK.
Without hearing the argument, it's hard to debate it.
But I'll just say this.
I'm not going to believe anybody who says government is predictable.
Or technology is predictable.
There's nothing you could tell me that would change my mind on that.
But anyway, so thanks for the question.
And I'm going to move on.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Let's do another one here.
The Fool would like to come on.
This sounds dangerous.
All right, Fool.
Calls himself a fool.
It looks like we've got a technology problem on that one.
Oh, unmute your microphone, fool, and ask me your question.
Hey, Scott.
Can you hear me?
Yes, I can.
What's your question?
So my question is more of a... I guess it is a question.
So you're a single-issue voter on Sentinel, right?
Yes, this year.
Correct.
So I think in prior YouTubes or podcasts or spaces or whatever, you said you haven't used your entire, I would say, persuasive ability.
Is that still a thing?
On Fentanyl?
Yeah.
Well, the entire Republican primary group wants to militarily attack the cartels, so I think maybe I'm doing OK.
What I'm asking is, are you doing it on purpose?
Are you using your full arsenal?
Yes.
Yes.
Okay.
I would say I'm a single issue voter on the transitioning of children.
Okay.
Which I view as like an objective evil.
Okay.
And a relatively big following, I would say.
I was going to see if you want to join teams, vice versa, basically.
No, I'm going with the numbers.
I don't know how many kids transition.
I would agree with you on, you know, kids maybe waiting until they're adults.
So no argument on the issue, but you can't make your single issue two issues.
And also...
No, I know.
I'm saying I don't want to go from the big team to the small team.
How many kids do you think transition per year?
I think it's a bigger issue.
But how many kids do you think transition per year?
One too many, that's for sure.
Oh, but give me...
There's one, that's one too many.
Is it more than the 70,000 dying from fentanyl every year?
Yeah, but like, that's...
My guess is probably...
I don't see like...
I mean, obviously it's awful, but I don't see that as like an objective evil, where I see the transitioning of children as an objective evil.
Maybe I'm a drunk human side, but they're trying to make money.
Well, I don't believe in objective evil.
I believe in saving as many people and keeping our lives good and keeping us safe and happy and stuff.
So objective evil is sort of a frame.
It's more of a point of view.
That's my persuasion point.
But it doesn't work on me.
I don't believe in evil and free will and stuff like that.
But thanks.
Alright, thanks for the question.
Alright, thanks Rob.
Yeah, I don't believe in evil.
I guess the reason I don't believe it is that it doesn't have a use.
There's no usefulness for that frame.
There are things that you know you want to stop, and there are things you know you want more of.
That's the end of it.
There's stuff you want more of.
There's stuff you want less of.
You don't need to give any extra words on it.
There's stuff, you know, people doing bad things.
People do bad things.
Sure.
All right.
Let's take another one.
Chris.
Chris, as soon as your microphone shows up here.
Hey, Chris.
Unmute your microphone and ask me your question.
The future ecologists.
This is definitely a shift of gears.
The last question asks, I have a five-year-old and a seven-year-old.
What's your take on the future of education and colleges and universities in the future?
Do you think they'll exist or they'll be out of business?
The future of colleges.
Well, I feel like it's going to change.
I mean, everybody can say the obvious.
It's just not going to look the same in 10 years.
The teachers' union still has a solid grip.
So I think it comes down to money.
If there's enough money to build alternative school choice, then it's going to happen like crazy.
Because I think almost everybody wants school choice at this point, if they're really paying attention.
So if money becomes available, it's going to happen like crazy.
Yeah, I feel like there's going to be more of a learning specific skills and putting together a skill stack than universities.
I think that the cost and the benefit of the college education is largely debunked at this point in the sense that, you know, if you could afford, let's say your parents could afford to pay for your college, totally.
It would be a nice four years of meeting people and maybe getting a little more mature and, you know, learning some skills that would be useful.
But I feel like there's going to be tons of people who don't want to spend that money.
You know, don't have the extra money to spend and can just directly learn the things they need for a practical, successful life.
So I think that AI is going to be the teacher for more and more people until it's the only teacher.
You know, I've often said that the problem with remote learning is that all they did is put a camera in front of a regular teacher.
That's like the dumbest thing.
You should start from scratch and say, what does this new technology do that the old one won't?
And one thing it does is you can put together a team of teachers for one course.
So you can say, hey, I've got a graphics expert who's going to really make this come alive visually.
I've got somebody who's really good at engaging a crowd.
Somebody who's just good at talking in front of people and people want to watch that person and maybe they're good looking too.
And then you have somebody to write the plan so it's compatible with what your future needs are and it's just the right lessons.
But you would put a team together, including maybe a director and a producer, almost a Hollywood model, and then you compete.
With the other little clips of AIs teaching other things.
And you just let the market decide which is the right one.
So my general take is that online learning or computer learning is worse than 80% of in-person learning.
But the very best, which has not been created yet, the very best online AI teacher will be 10 times better than the best human experience.
But we're not there yet.
Right.
So the universities will be the exception of the norm of .
I think the universities are just going to become rich people clubs.
Maybe a place to get some networking going, but not necessarily proving that you can code better.
Yeah, Harvard's still being around as a social club, basically, that says you're in the club.
Now, Harvard's on the way to destroying their biggest asset, because if they're enrolling people who are not coming from wealthy families, Which they're trying to do in a big way.
That's a great good in many ways.
Lots of positive hope.
But you're going to be networking with somebody who had a single mom and grew up in a poor city.
So you have access to network with the one person, your classmate, who might be awesome, might become a billionaire.
But you lose the access to that one person's family, which could have also been very connected as well.
So Harvard's networking value should be dropping precipitously.
Good.
Cool.
Thank you.
All right.
Thanks, Wes.
All right, how are we doing?
Are people enjoying this?
You want more of this?
All right, a little more of this.
All right.
Let's see, Adam.
Adam is a good name.
So Adam, you're going to be connected here and unmute your speaker and ask your question.
Unmute your microphone.
Adam, I can't hear you.
Adam might have a microphone problem.
All right, so that didn't work.
Let's try Patrick.
Patrick, you look interesting.
Unmute your microphone.
Patrick.
Hey, here I am.
Hey, what's your question, Patrick?
I have a question, but first I wanted to say I saw a great Gutfeld on here, and I wanted to encourage everybody to read his book, The Plus.
It's basically, you can be a plus or minus in the world with every decision you make, and it's a really, really great book.
My question is, I remember listening to your podcast way back when in early 2020 and you you were talking about how the the media had taken this stance against hydroxychloroquine and you know what kind of a risk they were doing if it worked and now that now that Everything's turned out the way it is.
You know, I feel like them suppressing hydroxychloroquine at the time that they did basically destroyed the world.
And what do you think the accountability should be for that?
So Patrick, in your reality, it seems we're all in our own little realities.
In your reality, has hydroxychloroquine been shown to be effective and safe for COVID?
Do you think that science has proven that hydroxychloroquine worked?
No anecdotes.
Yeah, I guess not.
I feel like it did and that it's a crime against humanity that they are still denying it.
But your opinion is based entirely upon your certainty that it does work.
That's true.
Okay.
Yeah, I mean, I wish I could join you.
I do have...
appreciation for what RFK Jr. and others say that it almost looks like the tests were designed to fail.
Absolutely they were, yeah.
But I suspect that if I were to talk to the people who put those tests together they would change my mind.
I haven't done that.
But the problem is every time you hear one side of anything, it sounds convincing.
So when somebody says, I looked at that study and the amounts are too high and it was obviously designed to fail and it was not matched with zinc and all these things, they sound true.
Or given to people late.
I remember.
Given late, right.
So all of those things, they sound like reasonably good points, but I haven't heard the counterpoint.
I haven't heard the people who ran the test say, yes, I know why you're asking the questions, but there's actually a good reason for it.
Here's why we did it.
Maybe it would be convincing.
I don't know.
So for me, it's a big, I don't know.
But I wouldn't rule it out.
I wouldn't rule it out.
Yeah, I think it's possible.
I think that it being an ionophore for zinc, and zinc stops the replication of the virus, the better question was how did it not work?
And one thing, another thing I heard you say that I wish people pursued on is that is there anybody who used it?
I thought I did hear some of those, but I may have been wrong.
There were so many anecdotal reports that they all run together in my mind.
all over the place, but there never was. - I thought I did hear some of those, but I may have been wrong.
There were so many anecdotal reports that they all run together in my mind.
But one of the things I was watching was to see if there was any location that completely solved their problem with hydroxychloroquine.
I thought there'd be some, you know, city in South America or something, where there'd be somebody who just went, you know, hog wild and just eliminated their problems.
So I expected to see that.
Now, Africa is sometimes used as an example, but what percentage of Africans do you think are actually taking hydroxychloroquine?
It's not a big percentage.
It's just they use it a lot there, but not as a percentage of the people.
No, I know it's a lot as a quantity, but not as a percentage.
So anyway, thanks for the question, Patrick.
Sure.
All right.
All right.
How about let's listen to Dr. Henk, We've got a doctor in here.
He's what kind of doctor?
OBGYN.
All right.
Dr. Hank, as soon as you connect, turn off your microphone and ask your question.
Dr. Hank, are you there?
Oh, sorry.
I was actually just putting in a tweet for you while you brought me up.
Hey, thanks for bringing me up.
This is a great space.
Thank you.
All right.
I just came in, so I don't know what the conversation has been.
I just got in.
You know, I'm a physician who four years ago was a certain kind of physician, and COVID has totally, in my opinion, ripped my blinders off.
And, you know, the topics could take all day to go through.
But, you know, one perfect example, you just mentioned the hydroxychloroquine.
When COVID started, I'm what's called a locum tenum doctor, so I travel all around the country.
And when COVID started, I was... Hold on, hold on, hold on.
You're a traveling gynecologist?
Yes.
Okay.
It's called Locum Tenums.
It's basically, you know, you do assignments to fill in spots all around the country.
I've been doing it full-time for eight years.
My wife and dogs and I just are full-time gypsies.
Now, I've been doing that too, but apparently I need some kind of certification, you're telling me?
No, just kidding.
Just kidding.
Just kidding.
All right, go ahead.
Go ahead with your question.
Well, anyways, again, I'm kind of forcing the topic.
I don't know really what you want to talk about.
Whatever you want, whatever you want.
Go ahead.
Okay, well, whatever, since you brought up hydroxy.
So when I, during COVID, I've worked in six different hospitals in four different states.
I started in Washington, outside of Seattle.
And if you remember the nursing home, Kirkland Nursing Home, north of Seattle was kind of the initial hotspot in the U.S.
And I was in this little hospital across the Puget Sound and we were having meetings about putting up tents in the parking lot with patient beds and cots because, you know, we believed the initial rhetoric that this was going to be a massive undertaking, that there were going to be corpses in the street, and that Seattle would fill up immediately so we wouldn't be able to fly patients to Seattle, which is their normal custom there.
And I had also done missionary work in Africa and had been taking hydroxy for years for malarial prophylaxis.
So I was very familiar with it and I've been on heavy on Twitter for about the last eight or nine years.
And I was immediately connected with intensivists in Seattle and in New York City.
And right away those guys were talking about Fauci's own paper in 2015 talking about hydroxy is a great prophylaxis for SARS-1 and a couple biochemists came on and microbiologists started talking about the mechanism which the other guy mentioned it being an ionophore and zinc etc etc.
And then I very quickly learned about vitamin D3.
To make a long story short, I got on that stuff right away.
You know, I was very attentive to it.
And the day that the music died, so to speak, if you follow my Don McLean reference, Was when Trump mentioned it and immediately it was basically turned into a, you know, pariah.
I mean, I had just filled a prescription at a local pharmacy a couple days before and I called them after that statement and they're like, we're no longer doing it.
And, you know, I'm an old fart.
I'm 63 and so I've been practicing since the mid 90s.
And that's never happened in American medicine before, where pharmacists or politicians tell doctors what they can or can't do with an approved medication.
So, from there on, things just got worse.
Did you have a question for me?
No, I was just telling you is that if you're really sincere about looking into these studies, there are tons of studies.
No, I'm not.
No, I'm not sincere about that at all.
So here's the problem.
I don't believe any studies.
Well, yeah, and you know, that's a true statement to a large degree.
I mean, that is part of the problem.
I mean, you know, one of the things that I was not aware of before, which is kind of a fundamental thing that I'm presuming as an informed person you're aware of, and that is how much of the regulatory agencies are actually paid for by the regulated.
Oh yeah, I'm quite aware of that, yes.
That always starts the discussion for people with me, is that if you start with that financial component, that has to create a pair of glasses to look through, right?
Exactly what we saw.
Yeah, so thanks for the comments, Doctor.
I'm going to make some comments after, but thanks for joining.
Yeah, I would say, you know, the one thing you could say about the whole COVID situation is that follow the money worked again.
Right?
Follow the money explained 100% of what you saw.
Every bit of it.
There wasn't one thing that wasn't explained by follow the money.
So, so there we are.
Let's try Nealey.
Co-founder and CEO of Distil.
Professor?
Okay, you look, and an econ nerd, so you look interesting.
All right, Nealey, as soon as you connect, unmute your microphone.
There you go.
Hi Nealey, do you have a question?
I do, and it's totally different than politics.
It's more personal.
Can I ask you, you said anything.
Anything, go ahead.
When you draw, do you listen to music?
And if you do, what are you listening to?
The answer is no, I don't listen to music.
When I draw, I've already done the thinking.
So the writing has already happened.
So I can't listen to anything when I'm writing.
It has to be quiet.
When I draw, I do like noise.
The ideal noise would be people.
So if I'm sitting in Starbucks, I want to hear people sound or there's somebody in the house, even if they're just working or something, just somebody around.
And then I do like to watch a show or the news or a YouTube or something.
So I do like to have some kind of entertainment on.
Was there a deeper part of that question?
I was just curious.
I've always been a fan, obviously, of your work, as like millions and zillions of people are, and I love listening and learning about how people do their craft, you know, for the people who do...
True excellence.
And I just thought here's an opportunity to ask you.
I will also say thank you.
You retweeted one of my tweets on the economy once and it was the most bonkers day I've ever had on Twitter with the notifications.
So also thank you.
Thanks for answering my question.
You're welcome.
Thanks for the question.
All right.
That was an easy one.
I like talking about myself.
I know all the answers when I'm talking about myself.
All right, Paul.
All right.
Music, art.
He's a mass formation disrespector and a propaganda confronter.
All right.
I'm adding you as a speaker, Paul.
As soon as your microphone is off.
Hey, there you are.
Hi, Paul.
Hi, Scott.
Thanks for taking the call.
Yeah.
What's your question?
My question is, are you familiar with this comedian Owen Benjamin?
Owen Benjamin.
The name is familiar.
I don't know.
Where are you going with this?
I don't know if you're aware of him.
I don't see you guys interact on Twitter.
I didn't know if you were familiar with his work or not.
Why are you asking about him in particular?
What's the connection?
I'm a fan of both of your works.
Just being able to say the Emperor has no clothes and say things that might be unpopular at the time but are true.
Okay.
All right.
I'm not trying to draw any conclusions from that.
That's all I'm... I just was curious.
All right.
All right.
Thanks for the question, Paul.
All right.
Let's hear from... I probably won't pick anybody who doesn't have a profile picture.
So I like this.
Brunella is a rebel, likes wildflowers and cracking concrete.
Perfect.
Brunella Turn off your mute and ask me a question.
Thank you so much.
Hello.
Hi, nice to meet you.
I have a strong question from Europe, from Berlin.
Who is owning Black Rocks?
And why, how can it be possible that the same Riots, fake looting, revolution and all this stuff that is happening in the United States is now in France and they're going to bring it all over Europe?
What's your idea about all this happening?
Thank you.
Did you think that was caused by Black Rock?
Was that the question?
I didn't say that.
As we like to know, who is Black Rock?
Because we know that Vanguard own Black Rock and Black Rock own Vanguard.
The problem is that there is really the hell going on in Europe and I'm sure that is the hell a little bit all over, guys.
At the moment, I cannot tweet.
I don't know why, but I can go in spaces and they're not answering to me why.
We have a different contract of Twitter in Europe with respect to other countries.
And I think they're trying to silence us very badly.
So we're trying to fight to see really what's going on.
So we use the space to have these answers.
And we all know that, I don't know if you never had a chance to see Monopoly, the video.
It's really interesting and show that all behind these things, who is owning really everything is.
Well, I'll take my best shot at that question.
I'd be surprised if Black Rock had anything to do with the riots, per se.
So what's the game, you know, the dirty game?
Well, I'll take my best shot at that question.
Thank you so much.
I'd be surprised if BlackRock had anything to do with the riots, per se.
I don't see the connection there.
But it seems like the riots in Europe are just immigration-related.
There's no mystery there, is there?
That's not true.
You know, that's something that people should know.
And we try to share this message, guys.
If you watch the videos, you don't see... Of course, they show what they want, but it's not about immigrants at all.
It's really the full population that is upset.
They arrest 3,000 people almost.
But about what?
What is the issue?
I thought the people who were actually burning things are the immigrants.
Are they not?
Well, they're using immigrants as a tool, you know, because, of course, they don't want to show that the people are against what they're taking all our rights away one by one, very slowly.
And it starts, of course, with the pension and it starts with the yellow vest.
They're taking the farmland away.
You know what's happening with the energy guys?
We don't have energy in Germany anymore, so the companies are closing down.
People start to fight for their rights, but they want to play the game of giving the fault to the immigration.
That's why they let so many people leave Africa and go all over Europe and create this kind of...
Fake emergency with the immigrants.
The truth is that they want to play this card to cheat, to fake the fact that the people are making a revolt.
From there to the militarization is already happening in France.
In Paris, there are more than 14,000 people and they're beating everyone.
Who's doing all these evil plans?
Is it the government's working with BlackRock or do you think BlackRock's doing it on its own?
Yeah, the problem is that in Europe we don't have anymore a real leader.
All our leaders, Chuck Maloney, Chuck Schultz, Chuck, all the others, they get elected by promising to go against this.
And as soon as they were elected, they turned completely and they keep on following the same orders.
So what do you think is behind it all?
Well, it will be easy to say, you know, very often we say, of course, because we know that we have a lot of people from U.S., you know, we have military bases all over Europe.
So, of course, it's easy for us to say that there is a lot of, you know, infiltration also in every institution and so on.
We know that this happened in Israel.
But the truth is that we see what's happening in America.
So we know that also there is happening the same.
That means that there is a big power with a lot of money.
This is pretty clear.
If you watch, if you have the chance, I will invite the people to see Monopoly.
It's not my product, nothing at all, but I find some answer, really important answer there about the fact that there is these two, only two corporations that own everything in the planet.
But what, but don't you think the corporations want capitalism and prosperity?
Because that's what benefits them?
And that's the risk that we have in our days and this is why I ask you all, Black Rocks, because the question is who is behind this and what do they want from humanity since they even decided to start the depopulation?
My point of view, it's real.
I don't know.
My take is that it's unrelated.
They're either unrelated or barely related events.
It's just a lot of stuff is happening.
Some of it is just excess energy after the pandemic.
I always assumed that there would be some release of energy that had been, you know, tamped down too long, and it would sort of look like this.
So I feel like there's a big upheaval that just had to happen.
But it's just coming out of a lot of different windows and doors and for different reasons.
There's just too much energy.
I don't see that there's any large corporate entity whose well-being depends on a stable world with lots of people buying stuff.
I can't see them wanting to cause instability.
So capitalists almost always want stability over instability.
So if somebody is creating instability, that would only make sense for a specific industry such as defense.
Which I do think happens.
I do think the defense industry creates an instability to sell weapons.
But outside of the defense industry, I can't see BlackRock wanting instability.
That would be outside of every economic understanding in the world.
But thanks for the comments.
Thank you.
All right, how about one more?
One more?
You up for that?
Let's get Kathleen.
She's got a cat for a picture.
Kathleen, you were being selected because your profile picture is a cat.
What's your question, Kathleen?
Hi Scott, let me mute my television so I'm not hearing myself twice.
How are you?
I'm good, thanks.
What's your question for me?
I have a question regarding, one is a statement in that you're such a pillar of light in this crazy world that we're in and you're really on to food being linked to a lot of the problems that we have in our world today.
Yep.
And my question is, have you ever heard of the Weston A. Price Foundation?
No.
My next question will be, will you ever check it out?
I was thinking there might be some kind of follow-up to that.
So the answer so far is no, I'm not going to follow up because you've given me no reason to follow up.
What is it?
Why do I care about it?
Well, they tell you the truth about food and there was a dentist back in the 30s and he self-funded a study.
His name was Weston A. Price.
That's the foundation name.
He self-funded a study where he went into 14 different cultures that were remote from modern day living and found he was a dentist and his patients were
Experiencing all kinds of health problems whether it be cancer or bad dental problems and you know just a lot of health health problems and so he did some research and found over a 10-year period that there were common denominators not all the same but that they had traditional food preparation and fermentation and
You know, I think we're well beyond the point where we need to prove it.
It seemed like 100% of every study ever done shows that our current food source is bad for us and, you know, there's better ways to eat.
So, yeah, I think I'm so sold on that point of view that extra selling isn't necessary in my case, but that might be something that other people are interested in.
So thanks for the call, Kathleen.
Hey, thanks for taking my call.
All right, I appreciate it.
We're going to do for today.
I think we've done it all.
Deep dive on this, you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Michael Schellenberger did a... Is it on video?
Might be interested.
I'm like a parent to you.
How old are you?
I'm old enough to be most of your parents.
All right.
I'm going to turn off spaces.
Thanks for joining.
All right. - You know, it's interesting how many... Well, I'm not going to go there.
Did anybody have the feeling that the last thing you wanted to talk about is COVID?
It just hurts at this point.
It's just painful, isn't it?
Because there's nothing left to say.
There's just nothing left to say.
Tomorrow, somebody's going to say, oh, there's my new study that the shots killed you dead.
And then the day later, there'll be another one that says the opposite.
And we won't know anything.
So can you remind me the name, Eric Dyson?
What's his name?
The scientist, is it Eric?
I have part of his name wrong, right?
Freeman, wait, what's his name?
No, Dyson, Dyson.
Neil deGrasse Dyson, right?
Dyson deGrasse.
Well, okay, why can't we get his name right?
I don't know why this is, why is this happening?
You all know his name and you're telling me like, Michael Eric.
All right.
Somebody, somebody.
Neil deGrasse Tyson.
All right.
Thank you.
So he was on yesterday and he was talking to Erica.
Who's the, who's the podcaster you keep telling me to pay attention to?
Matty or somebody?
What's the name of his?
Erica.
Who do you keep telling?
Hassan.
You know, the podcaster you sent to me.
All right.
Mehdi Hasan, I think that's correct.
So Mehdi Hasan had a podcast with... Degrassi Tyson.
Why can't I remember his name?
There's something weird about his name that makes it impossible to remember for me.
Anyway, so here's...
Here's what's interesting about that.
I was listening to it yesterday as I was floating in my pool, and the conversation was about the pandemic and the vaccinations and stuff, and I thought that Whoever he is, I'm going to say the scientist and the podcaster, OK?
Let me confess, I don't know both of their names correctly, and I'm not going to learn it here.
So one of them is a scientist, the other is a podcaster.
You know who I'm talking about.
But the scientist, I thought, gave the podcaster a good spanking on the benefits of the vaccination.
This is not me speaking.
This is not me.
How many of you think I just gave you my opinion?
Didn't happen.
There were no opinions here.
I'm saying that as a debate, Tyson won hard.
And it was very interesting.
I'll tell you where the holes were that he pushed through.
Number one is, why would you take an experimental vaccination?
And then Tyson would say, experimental?
It was tested.
And then the podcaster would say, it wasn't tested.
And then he would say, it was tested.
It was definitely tested.
And then the podcaster would say, but, you know, how do you know if you tested it for nine months, how do you know that in five years you're not going to get a problem?
And then the scientist says, well, that's actually a risk.
Yes.
But how do you know you wouldn't get long COVID, or how do you know that the virus itself wouldn't give you a problem in five years?
So watching them fill in each other's holes of logic here was actually really interesting.
Now, of course, there's no conclusion.
So when I say that the scientist won the argument, I'm saying that he didn't say anything that's not You know, logical and smart.
So let me give you his argument.
So the podcaster says the vaccinations did not stop the transmission.
Do you know what the answer to that is?
The vaccinations did not stop the transmission, which we all know to be true, but do you know what the response is?
How many of you know what the response to that is?
Just even know what they say in response, they being the scientists.
Do you know?
Here's the response.
That when the original virus was out there, the original vaccination did in fact stop its transmission.
But that lasted, you know, like no time at all, because it mutated.
So when Tyson says, they told you it would stop the transmission, they were right.
For a while.
But that while didn't last long.
Is he wrong?
I don't think he's wrong.
I think it did stop, if you had the exact shot with the exact variant, it would stop it cold.
But that didn't last.
So both of them had trouble accepting the other's point, which is sort of what I see.
I see people having trouble saying, it totally worked for 10 minutes.
People want to say it didn't work, or they want to say it worked.
Tyson's the only one who says it accurately.
It totally worked for 10 minutes.
And it worked a little bit for the next variant, but not much.
And then after that, it was useless.
So, I believe that's the accurate answer.
It worked perfectly for 10 minutes.
But it's also true that everybody knew it would only last 10 minutes.
Yeah, I'm exaggerating with the 10 minutes.
And then the other part that Tyson got right is that you're not just taking an experimental vaccination, you're taking a chance of the vaccination that was designed to help you versus a virus that was actually designed to hurt you.
Who knows which of those is more dangerous?
I don't.
Don't know at all.
Anyway, so I thought he did a real good job of explaining that stuff.
Then the part that he didn't do well on is Tyson was saying, so the podcaster says, "What about this documentary of all these young athletes dropping dead?" Tyson was not aware that that's not true.
That that's been widely debunked, just the data's bad.
But the podcaster got to present that to the public like it was true.
Now here's what Tyson said, even if it is true, which was a mistake, because it was very untrue, he said, even if it is true, let's say 10,000 people dropped dead from the shot, but they think it saved 10 million.
And here's what the podcaster should have said, but didn't.
You already know where this is going, right?
Here's where that should have gone.
The podcaster should have said, but the people under a certain age had basically zero risk.
But the vaccination was a risk.
So he should have bifurcated it and said, whoa, whoa, whoa, the old people, maybe.
Young people, it's a whole different situation.
So, the trouble is everybody's, this is a Greg Gutfeld thing, you know, the prison of two ideas.
If you're sold that the vaccinations work, or you're sold that they didn't work at all, it's just so hard for you to say that the other side is a little bit right.
It's just so hard.
But you should.
It's definitely a little bit right that we don't know the five-year implications of the shots, right?
It's definitely a little bit right, or 100% right.
And it's 100% right that you don't know what the risk of the COVID itself, and you hope that maybe the shot in some cases reduced your chance of long COVID, but you don't know.
There's no way to know, even if it's real, long COVID.